A multidimensional model of management competence in social services: validation of the Social Services Management Scale

1 Introduction

Management has been consistently identified as one of the strongest determinants of organizational performance across multiple sectors (Yukl, 2012). Classical theories, most prominently articulated by Fayol (1949), conceptualized managerial functions as comprising planning, organizing, leading and controlling. These areas were further expanded by Mintzberg (1973), who emphasized the diverse roles managers perform.

Although these models were largely developed in business and industrial contexts, their relevance extends to the public and social sectors, where managerial practices also determine organizational capacity (Blom et al., 2018). In this study, managerial functions are defined as Fayol's model 1949, as the practices of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling, complemented by relational and ethical responsibilities specific to social service organizations (Fayol, 1949). Contemporary organizational psychology further suggests that effective management cannot be reduced solely to technical or administrative competencies. Ethical Leadership theory emphasizes integrity, fairness, and value-based decision-making in organizational contexts (Brown et al., 2005), while Servant Leadership highlights empathy, employee support, and commitment to the wellbeing and development of others (Greenleaf, 1977). However, Gutterman (2023) argues that Fayol originally identified five functions planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling which he considered universal across organizational settings. These ideas were further expanded by scholars such as Mintzberg (1973), who described the various roles managers perform in practice. His model highlighted the behavioral and relational aspects of management, acknowledging that managers operate in complex environments where communication, negotiation, and representation are as important as formal planning or control. Subsequent work has further elaborated on these perspectives by integrating behavioral dimensions of managerial practice. The taxonomy of managerial behaviors reinforces the central role of leadership, planning, and communication as essential components of effective management (Yukl, 2012).

In social services, managerial effectiveness carries implications that extend far beyond efficiency or productivity. It directly influences the quality of care, staff wellbeing and clients' outcomes (Lynch and McMillan, 2025). Reinecke et al. (2024) argue that advancing management theory requires combining insights across disciplines to achieve theoretical depth and practical relevance. This resonates with the social service context, where managerial practices cannot be understood solely through a functionalist or behavioral lens but must also incorporate ethical, relational and institutional perspectives. The paradigmatic shift was confirmed by Lynch and McMillan (2025), who noted that managerial practices in human services cannot be reduced to efficiency metrics solely; they must also safeguard staff wellbeing, promote client-centered care, and uphold social justice values. Social service organizations must navigate complex challenges including limited budgets, high staff turnover, and demanding regulatory frameworks while maintaining ethical standards and client-centered practices. These pressures became even more visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, when managers were required to balance compliance, staff support, and service continuity under extraordinary conditions (Banks et al., 2020). In such a context, managerial functions such as planning, organizing, leadership, and communication are not abstract concepts but daily practices that determine the capacity of organizations to fulfill their social missions.

Despite their importance, managerial functions in social services are rarely measured in a systematic and context-sensitive way. Most available tools for assessing management have been borrowed from the corporate sector, where financial performance and efficiency dominate. For example, Knies et al. (2020) focus on HRM implementation effectiveness, (Ávila Paz and Odelius 2021) assess managerial competencies in the non-profit sector. In the human services field, Osteen et al. (2022) developed a scale to assess supervision quality. However, social service management differs from conventional managerial settings because it requires the integration of administrative responsibilities with ethical decision-making, interdisciplinary collaboration, advocacy, and client-centered practice. Managers in social services must simultaneously ensure regulatory compliance, coordinate complex service systems, support frontline professionals, and uphold principles of social justice and human dignity. These demands suggest that managerial competence in social services constitutes a theoretically distinct construct that cannot be fully captured by business-oriented frameworks alone. To the best of our knowledge, no validated quantitative instrument currently exists that systematically measures managerial functions as a multidimensional construct integrating classical managerial activities (planning, organizing, leading, and controlling) with the relational, ethical, and institutional dimensions specific to social services. Existing managerial competency instruments are largely derived from business, public administration, or general non-profit settings and therefore do not fully capture the unique realities of leadership in human service organizations. Such a scale is needed to confront the dominance of business-oriented managerial models and to provide a context-sensitive tool that reflects the distinctive mission and values of social services.

The absence of such an instrument has important consequences for research and practice. From a research perspective, scholars lack a validated tool to empirically examine how managerial practices shape organizational outcomes in social services. From a practice perspective, organizations and policymakers have limited capacity to systematically assess managerial strengths and weaknesses, design evidence-based training programs, or evaluate the impact of leadership on service quality and employee wellbeing. This gap is particularly pronounced in Central and Eastern Europe, where social services operate within an institutional framework shaped by post socialist transformation and specific regulatory regimes (Levická and Levická, 2016). However, the challenges faced in this region are not unique. Social service organizations globally increasingly confront staff shortages, burnout, budgetary pressures, workforce instability, and growing administrative demands. In this sense, the Central and Eastern European context may serve as a valuable pilot environment for examining broader structural tensions affecting contemporary social service management systems worldwide. Despite these shared challenges, empirical tools capable of systematically capturing managerial competencies in social services remain limited regionally and internationally. Yet, despite these unique contextual challenges, empirical tools to capture managerial practice in the region remain scarce. Although existing scholars have significantly advanced our understanding of managerialism, leadership, and managerial competencies in social services, these contributions remain fragmented and largely qualitative. Classical frameworks such as Fayol's functions and Mintzberg's roles provide a conceptual baseline, while more recent studies highlight the impact of managerialism and the ethical dimensions of management. Existing scales, operationalize the influence of business logics, whereas empirical studies in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Mašát et al., 2021) or Scandinavia (Taghizadeh Larsson et al., 2024) describe managerial roles and ethics qualitatively. However, they do not provide psychometric tools for systematic measurement. This lack of validated instruments limits research, by preventing empirical testing of how managerial functions shape outcomes, and practice by hindering evidence-based assessment, training, and policy development in social service organizations.

Based on this gap, this study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the underlying dimensions of managerial functions in social service organizations?

RQ2: To what extent does the newly developed Social Services Management Scale (SSMS) demonstrate reliability and validity?

RQ3: Does the structure of the SSMS reflect classical managerial models (planning, organizing, leading, controlling) and the relational, ethical, and institutional demands specific to social services?

2 Methodology

This study employed a multi-phase design consistent with established guidelines for scale development and validation (DeVellis, 2016; Boateng et al., 2018). The research process comprised four main stages. First, item generation was conducted through a review of classical management theory, social service management literature, and qualitative insights from prior empirical studies to ensure theoretical grounding and sector-specific relevance. Second, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the latent structure underlying the initial item pool. Third, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on an independent subsample to test the dimensionality of the scale and evaluate model fit. Finally, reliability and validity testing (including internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity) were carried out to establish the psychometric robustness of the new instrument.

2.1 Research design

The study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional design aimed at the development and validation of a new measurement instrument: the SSMS. Following established recommendations for scale construction (DeVellis, 2016; Boateng et al., 2018), the research process was organized into two sequential studies. Study 1 focused on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify the underlying factor structure of the initial item pool. Study 2 employed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the stability of the factor solution obtained in Study 1 and to evaluate the model fit against theoretical expectations. Reliability and validity of the SSMS were assessed using multiple indicators, internal consistency was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined using average variance extracted (AVE) and inter-factor correlations.

2.2 Sample and data collection

Data were collected from professionals employed in Slovak social service organizations. The target population included staff without managerial responsibilities and individuals in formal leadership positions. Participants were recruited through professional networks, institutional contacts, and social service organizations operating in non-governmental organizations as well as those operating in governmental settings, furthermore, another part of organization were recruited from private social service providers and while the last group of respondents was recruited from church-affiliated social service providers supported by local religious institutions. The survey was distributed via an online platform, Google Forms.

For Study 1, which focused on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), data was obtained from N = 148 participants. For Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), an independent sample of 306 professionals employed in Slovak social service organizations was used. Sample sizes were deemed adequate based on recommended guidelines for factor analysis, which suggest a minimum ratio of 5-10 respondents per item (Mundfrom et al., 2005). The data was collected from 1st of October to 1st of November for Study 1. The next phase of data collection for Study 2 started from 1st of March to 1st of April 2025.

2.3 Item development

The initial item pool was generated on the basis of classical managerial functions theory, with four core functions (planning, organization, leading and control) as Fayol (1949) proposed. Each domain was operationalized through statements reflecting the competencies expected of managers in social services organizations as described in literature (Mátel et al., 2023; Repková, 2017) and practice-based insights obtained from expert consultations. In line with existing foundations, we expect that the resulting scale would consist of four factors corresponding to Fayol's functions.

The initial pool of 47 items was drafted to comprehensively capture the domains of interest. All items were worded as statements to be rated on a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree - 5 = strongly agree). The items were subsequently reviewed for clarity, relevance, and redundancy.

In addition to the scale items, respondents were asked to provide demographic and background information, including sex, age, and current job position. Furthermore, respondents reported their managerial responsibilities, distinguishing between professional and practical management tasks, providing descriptive contextual information regarding leadership experience within the sample as well as providing criterion validity test.

Criterion validity was assessed by examining the relationship between respondents' managerial position and SSMS scores. Because managerial position represents an ordinal variable reflecting hierarchical responsibility within the organization, Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficients were calculated between managerial position and the overall SSMS score as well as its dimensions. Significant positive correlations were interpreted as evidence supporting criterion validity.

2.4 Data analysis

Data was analyzed using two stages corresponding to the EFA and CFA analysis of scale validation. For data analysis, SPSS v 27.0 and R software version 4.3.1 using lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) and semTools (Jorgensen et al., 2025) packages, and IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0 were used.

Study 1 (EFA) was used to identify the latent structure of the scale. EFA was conducted on the first sample (N = 148) using principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblimin rotation as correlations between factors were expected (Grieder and Steiner, 2022).

Sample adequacy was assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, and the suitability of data for factor analysis was confirmed by Barlett's test of sphericity. Factor retention was guided by multiple criteria, including eigenvalues greater than 1, scree plot inspection and parallel analysis. Items with factor loadings below 0.40 or with problematic cross-loadings > 0.30 were removed.

Study 2 (CFA). The factor structure derived from the EFA was then tested in the sample using CFA in R (lavaan package) with WLSMV (Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted) estimator, which is used for ordinal indicators (Li, 2016). Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices: χ²/df , Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Conventional thresholds for acceptable model fit followed conventional criteria (CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.08; Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Thresholds of ≥ 0.70 are considered satisfactory, indicating adequate internal consistency. Convergent validity was examined through Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with values ≥ 0.50 considered evidence of adequate convergent validity.

2.5 Ethical considerations

The study complied with ethical standards for research with human participants, including the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation in the study was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained electronically, and respondents were reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time without providing a reason. To protect confidentiality, no personally identifying information was collected, and all data were stored securely in anonymized form. Participants did not receive any financial incentives, and no coercion was used at any stage of recruitment or participation. The study posed no foreseeable risks to participants.

3 Results

Table 1 summarizes the demographic and professional characteristics of participants across Study 1 and Study 2.

Table 1. Demographic and professional differences between Study 1 and Study 2.

3.1 Study 1

The first stage of analysis employed EFA to investigate the latent structure of the proposed instrument. Sampling adequacy of the initial (N = 148) pool was supported by Kaise-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) = 0.74 with Barrett's χ(1081)2 = 12,014, p < 0.001 in the initial item pool. After removing problematic items, sampling adequacy improved to KMO = 0.83 with χ(820)2 = 9,760, p < 0.001, confirming the suitability of the reduced item set for factor analysis.

Principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation was employed, given the expected correlation among factors. Several criteria were used to determine the optimal number of factors, including the scree plot, eigenvalues greater than one, and parallel analysis. All procedures converged on a three-factor solution. The scree plot (Figure 1) showed a distinct break after the third factor, and the first three eigenvalues exceeded those obtained from parallel random data.

Items with low primary loadings (<0.40) or cross-loadings above 0.30 on multiple factors were systematically removed, resulting in the elimination of six items. The remaining items demonstrated strong and clean loadings on their respective factors. The final three-factor solution accounted for 68.99% of the total variance, suggesting that the extracted factors explained a substantial proportion of the construct's underlying structure. The pattern matrix with standardized loadings for all retained items is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. EFA pattern matrix of standardized factor loadings (study 1).

Bolded text indicates deletions. Variable names are provided in parentheses.

The three extracted factors did not fully align with the theoretically assumed structure of the instrument. Instead, the empirical solution suggested a reorganization of item clusters. Factor 1 (Leadership and Strategic Management) grouped items reflecting responsibility, ethics, motivation, and strategic orientation. Factor 2 (Planning and Organizing) encompassed goal setting, task allocation, and resource optimisation. Factor 3 (Communication and Interpersonal Skills) captured items related to communication clarity, conflict management, empathy and interpersonal relationships. While the dimensions differed from the hypothesized model, the extracted factors were conceptually coherent and explained 68.99% of the total variance.

3.2 Study 2

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the factor structure obtained in Study 1. An initial model (Model 0) estimated using maximum likelihood (ML) showed poor fit (CFI = 0.62, RMSEA = 0.176), which was expected given that ML is inappropriate for ordinal data. When the same model was re-estimated with diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS), model fit improved substantially (CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.057), supporting the plausibility of the three-factor structure.

The refined three-factor model (Model 2) was then estimated using the WLSMV estimator, which is recommended for ordinal indicators, on a larger sample (N = 306). Fit indices indicated a good model fit: χ(737)2 = 1,458.35, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.986; TLI = 0.985; RMSEA = 0.057, 90% CI [0.052, 0.061]; SRMR = 0.087. Robust corrections yielded comparable values (robust CFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.077, 90% CI [0.073, 0.081]).

Inspection of standardized loadings identified one weak item (FA1_20 [I monitor legislative changes that may affect my work.], loading <0.40) and one item with substantial cross-loading (FA3_1) [In conflict resolution, I maintain a neutral and objective approach.]. Although both items were conceptually relevant, their psychometric behavior suggested weaker alignment with the latent constructs represented in the final model. Item FA1_20 reflected a technical and regulatory aspect of managerial activity that may not be uniformly applicable across all professional roles represented in the sample, whereas FA3_1 showed conceptual overlap with broader interpersonal and communication competencies. After removing these two items, the re-estimated three-factor model demonstrated excellent fit: χ(662)2 = 1,720.13, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.990; TLI = 0.989; RMSEA = 0.049, 90% CI [0.045, 0.054]; SRMR = 0.077. Robust corrections again yielded similar results (robust CFI = 0.978, TLI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.072, 90% CI [0.067, 0.076]).

A comparison of Models 0, Model 1 and Model 2 is presented in Table 3, highlighting the improvement achieved through the use of an appropriate estimator and item refinement.

Table 3. Fit Indices for the final CFA model of SSMS (N = 306).

Model 0 = initial three-factor model estimate with maximum likelihood; Model 1 = three-factor model estimated with diagonally weighted least squares; Model 2 = refined three-factor model estimated with WLSMV after removal of two misfitting items. CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CI, confidence interval; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual. Values of CFI and TLI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, and SRMR ≤ 0.08 are typically considered indicators of good fit.

Standardized factor loadings were high and statistically significant for all three latent dimensions. For Leadership and Strategic Management (F1), loadings ranged from 0.68 to 0.93; for Planning and Organizing (F2), from 0.72 to 0.92; and for Communication and Interpersonal Skills (F3), from 0.71 to 0.97. The complete set of standardized loadings for the final three-factor model is presented in Table 4. The exceptionally high loadings observed for items FA1_13 and FA3_8 may reflect the centrality of staff development, supportive leadership, and client-oriented practice within social service management rather than simple item redundancy.

Table 4. Standardized factor loadings for the final three-factor model of the SSMS (N = 306).

All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001. Loadings <0.40 are not displayed.

Inter-factor correlations were moderate to strong (F1–F2 r = 0.55; F1–F3 r = 0.71; F2–F3 r = 0.28), indicating that the three factors are related but represent empirically distinct constructs. Evidence of reliability and validity for the final model is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Reliability and convergent validity of the SSMS factor.

AVE, average variance extracted. Thresholds for acceptable reliability and convergent validity are >0.70 and >0.50.

All three factors demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω values exceeding 0.90. Convergent validity was also established, as the average variance extracted (AVE) was above the recommended threshold of 0.50 for each factor.

Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics for the SSMS dimensions and the overall scale. The overall SSMS score ranged from 40 to 194, with a mean score of 147.40 (SD = 32.28), indicating generally high levels of perceived managerial competence among respondents. Among the individual dimensions, Factor 1 achieved the highest mean score (M = 96.05, SD = 22.56), followed by Factor 3 (M = 28.50, SD = 5.18) and Factor 2 (M = 22.86, SD = 9.40).

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of SSMS.

To assess criterion validity, Spearman rank-order correlations were calculated between managerial position and the SSMS dimensions as well as the overall SSMS score (see Table 7). Managerial position was positively correlated with Leadership and Strategic Management (r = 0.261, p < 0.01), Planning and Organizing (r = 0.506, p < 0.01), and the overall SSMS score (r = 0.368, p < 0.01). No statistically significant association was observed between managerial position and Communication and Interpersonal Skills (r = 0.044, p > 0.05).

Table 7. Spearman correlation between managerial position and SSMS scores.

^*p < 0.05.

^**p < 0.01.

^***p < 0.001.

4 Discussion

The present study developed and validated the SSMS through a two-phase design combining exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Results from Study 1 indicated a three-factor solution that, although not fully consistent with the initial theoretical assumptions, was conceptually coherent and explained a substantial proportion of variance. Study 2 confirmed this structure in an independent sample, with excellent model fit indices and high standardized loadings across all items. Reliability indices (Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω) were consistently above recommended thresholds, and convergent validity was supported through average variance extracted (AVE). Inter-factor correlations were moderate to strong, and discriminant validity was demonstrated, suggesting that the SSMS captures distinct yet related dimensions of managerial competence in social services.

The three-factor structures: Leadership and Strategic Management, Planning and Organizing, and Communication and Interpersonal Skills differ from the original theoretical model but offers important insights into how managerial functions are empirically structured in the context of social services.

Previous frameworks usually emphasize functional divisions such as planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (Fayol, 1949). Although traditional leadership frameworks, such as trait-based or behavioral approaches, often emphasize generic dimensions like decision-making, planning, and control (Fanelli et al., 2020). However, the factor structure that emerged from the final EFA reorganized items in ways that diverged from the theoretically assumed model. Items emphasizing responsibility, ethical decision-making, innovation, and strategic orientation (e.g., “In decision-making, I adhere to professionalism and ethical standards”, “I support new and innovative approaches to problem-solving”, “I create an environment where employees feel part of the team”) were clustered together forming the dimension we labeled Leadership and Strategic Management. This aligns with recent calls in leadership studies for more value-driven models, where leaders must integrate moral integrity with long-term vision to navigate growing complexity and uncertainty (Liden et al., 2025). The management aligning with ethical leadership is furthermore positively associated with employee performance, work attitudes, and altruistic behavior (Kuenzi et al., 2020). By empirically clustering ethics with strategic foresight, our study extends prior frameworks by demonstrating that in social services, strategic competence is perceived as inseparable from ethical orientation. This finding supports contemporary perspectives that conceptualize managers in social services as moral stewards who must continuously balance organizational effectiveness with professional integrity, staff wellbeing, advocacy, and client-centered values. Unlike traditional managerial environments, decision-making in social services directly affects vulnerable individuals and communities, meaning that strategic choices are simultaneously ethical choices. Consequently, effective leadership in social services requires not only administrative and strategic capacities, but also moral responsibility, relational sensitivity, and commitment to social justice principles (Liden et al., 2025). A second group of items centered on goal-setting, time management, resource allocation, and task delegation (e.g. “I set clear and achievable short-term organizational goals”, “I minimize time losses caused by poor planning or unforeseen events”, “I distribute tasks effectively according to employees' competences”), which was defined as the Planning and Organizing factor. The contribution of Fayol's (1949) theory aligns with our second factor. Our findings affirm that these functions remain salient in social services, yet they are adapted to a context marked by resource scarcity, regulatory complexity, and client-centered obligations (Lynch and McMillan, 2025). While originally developed in business and industrial contexts, classical models of management have proven their relevance in public and non-profit domains, where managerial practices determine organizational capacity and resilience (Terzieva et al., 2025). A study by Barasa et al. (2018) has shown that strong planning capacity enhances organizational resilience and the ability to respond to crises, such as financial pressures or public health emergencies. Strategic planning in the public sector is not merely a rational–comprehensive exercise but rather a deliberative and disciplined effort to guide fundamental decisions about what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it (Bryson et al., 2018). Our results resonate with this duality, planning and organizing are viewed as necessary to maintain efficiency and accountability, but they must also be flexible enough to uphold values of care and social justice (Berglund-Snodgrass et al., 2021) This aligns with our empirical findings, which show that social service managers perceive effective planning and organizing as central to achieving organizational missions despite external pressures such as limited budgets and high staff turnover. Finally, items focused on communication clarity, empathy and conflict management (e.g., “I can find compromise solutions in conflict situations”, “I actively listen to colleagues and subordinates”, “I express understanding and support to clients in difficult situations”) loaded on the last factor. This dimension resonates with Mintzberg's (1973) emphasis on the relational and behavioral aspects of management, which extend beyond planning and control to include communication, negotiation, and representation. Similarly, Yukl (2012) identifies communication and coordination as indispensable managerial behaviors. The emergence of this factor in our analysis underscores that in social service organizations, relational competences are perceived as a distinct and indispensable domain of managerial practice. Our findings reflect this reality, items capturing empathy, constructive conflict resolution, and interpersonal sensitivity clustered together, suggesting that communication is not merely a supporting skill but a central function that enables managers to balance institutional demands with the relational core of social services (Reith-Hall and Montgomery, 2023). This aligns with recent evidence from Central and Eastern Europe showing that managerial competencies in social services extend beyond technical or administrative tasks to include empathy, ethical responsibility, and democratic leadership styles (Mašát et al., 2021). Communication and interpersonal skills are also essential for staff wellbeing, as supportive managerial relationships help mitigate emotional labor and prevent burnout in demanding care environments (Turner and Gill, 2019). Additional evidence supporting the validity of the SSMS was provided through criterion validity testing. As expected, respondents occupying higher managerial positions reported significantly higher levels of leadership, strategic management, planning, and organizing competencies, as well as higher overall SSMS scores. Interestingly, no significant relationship was found between managerial position and Communication and Interpersonal Skills. Given the collaborative and client-oriented nature of social service organizations, interpersonal skills may represent a core competency required of both frontline and senior managers.

One of the most significant theoretical contributions of this study lies in the finding that the factor structure of the Social Services Management Scale does not fully replicate the classical four functions of management proposed by Henri Fayol. Rather than simply representing an empirical deviation, this result suggests that managerial work in social service organizations is characterized by a distinct configuration of competencies shaped by the relational, ethical, and interdisciplinary nature of human service practice. Social service managers operate in environments where decision-making extends beyond administrative coordination to include advocacy, emotional support, interprofessional collaboration, and the balancing of organizational demands with client-centered values. These findings challenge the assumption embedded in many traditional management frameworks that managerial competencies are universally structured across organizational contexts. The identified structure therefore extends management theory by demonstrating that classical administrative models are insufficient to fully capture the ethical, relational, and interdisciplinary realities of management in human service settings. In practical terms, the SSMS provides a context-sensitive instrument that may support evidence-based managerial training, leadership development, recruitment, and organizational evaluation in social service organizations.

The findings of this study have several practical implications for social service organizations, policymakers, and professional development providers. First, the SSMS offers a validated instrument for systematically assessing managerial competencies in social services. Unlike business-oriented tools, the scale captures the multidimensional nature of management by integrating classical functions (planning, organizing, leading, controlling) with ethical and relational dimensions specific to welfare organizations. This makes it a context-sensitive diagnostic tool that organizations can use to identify managerial strengths and areas for development. Second, the three-factor structure highlights the competences most critical for managerial effectiveness in social services. Leadership and Strategic Management underscores the need for managers who can combine ethical integrity with long-term strategic vision. Planning and Organizing confirms the importance of operational competences for resource allocation, delegation, and goal-setting, which are indispensable in contexts of budgetary constraint and regulatory complexity. Communication and Interpersonal Skills demonstrate that relational competencies are not secondary but central to staff motivation, conflict resolution, and client wellbeing. Training programs and professional development initiatives should therefore adopt a balanced approach, strengthening technical/strategic and relational/ethical skills. Third, at the organizational and policy level, the SSMS can inform evidence-based human resource strategies. Social service organizations can use the scale to design targeted managerial training, guide recruitment and promotion decisions, and evaluate the effectiveness of leadership interventions. Policymakers can draw on the instrument to develop competency frameworks that align managerial standards with the distinctive values of social services, thus avoiding the uncritical import of corporate models that prioritize efficiency at the expense of care and social justice. Finally, in the Central and Eastern European context, where social service organizations operate within institutional frameworks shaped by post socialist transformation, the SSMS provides a much-needed empirical tool to capture the specific challenges of the region. By offering a validated measure, the scale creates opportunities for cross-national comparison and for building capacity in settings where systematic assessment of managerial practices has been lacking.

13g12gThis study is not without limitations. A notable limitation concerns that, the study was conducted exclusively within the Slovak social service system, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultural, institutional, and regulatory contexts. Social service organizations differ substantially across countries in terms of governance structures, welfare policies, and professional traditions, which may influence how managerial competencies are perceived and enacted. Cross-national validation is therefore an important next step. Second, the study applied cross-sectional data, which restricts the ability to assess the stability of managerial competencies over time. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine whether the SSMS can capture developmental changes in managerial practice, for example, through training interventions or career progression. Furthermore, the scale currently focuses on three broad competence domains. While this structure reflects classical functions and relational/ethical dimensions, future research could explore whether additional factors emerge in different contexts, such as digital competence, advocacy, or community engagement, which are increasingly relevant to social services. Another limitation of the present study is the reliance on self-report data. Participants evaluated their own managerial competencies, which may have introduced response biases such as social desirability, self-enhancement, or inaccurate self-perceptions. Managers may have tended to overestimate their abilities or provide responses they perceived as professionally desirable. Consequently, the obtained scores may not fully reflect actual managerial behavior in practice. Future research could complement self-assessments with alternative sources of information, such as supervisor evaluations, peer ratings, or objective indicators of managerial performance, in order to strengthen the validity of the SSMS. Additionally, two items (FA1_13 and FA3_8) demonstrated exceptionally high standardized factor loadings. Although both items were retained because of their theoretical relevance and conceptual importance within their respective dimensions, future research should further examine potential item redundancy and evaluate whether a more parsimonious version of the SSMS can be developed without compromising its psychometric properties.

As we discussed above, this scale was developed only in Slovak social services environment. Future research should therefore examine the cross-cultural applicability and measurement invariance of the SSMS in different national settings. Second, the study relied on self-report measures, which may be affected by social desirability bias, self-enhancement tendencies, and subjective perceptions of managerial competence. Participants may have evaluated their managerial behaviors more positively than would be reflected through external assessments. Future studies could strengthen the validity of the instrument by incorporating multi-source evaluations, such as peer, subordinate, or supervisor ratings, as well as organizational outcome indicators. Longitudinal studies could explore the predictive validity of SSMS scores in relation to organizational outcomes (e.g., staff wellbeing, service quality and client satisfaction. Further investigation may also test whether the identified competence domains mediate the relationship between managerial practices and organizational performance, thereby advancing theoretical models of welfare governance. Furthermore, future research should examine the predictive validity and practical utility of the SSMS by investigating whether higher SSMS scores are associated with important organizational outcomes. In particular, studies could explore relationships between managerial competencies and indicators such as employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, staff retention, service quality, client satisfaction, and overall organizational effectiveness. Demonstrating such associations would provide further evidence that the scale not only measures theoretically relevant competencies but also captures managerial capacities that have meaningful implications for the functioning and performance of social service organizations. Furthermore, future research should investigate whether managerial competencies measured by the SSMS predict meaningful organizational outcomes and professional practices across different social service settings.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. ChatGPT v.5.0 was used for manuscript language polishing. The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) v. 5.0 exclusively for language refinement and grammatical editing during manuscript preparation. All scientific content, study design, data analysis, interpretation of findings, and final manuscript revisions were performed and verified by the authors.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Hamid Mattiello, Swiss School of Business and Management, Switzerland

Reviewed by: Tomi Ensio Mäki-Opas, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Hüseyin Doğan, Agri Ibrahim Cecen University, Türkiye

Karno Karno, Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri (IPDN), Indonesia