An initiative that stalls may indicate that the problem has been framed at the wrong level, that important resources are lacking, or that someone else controls what needs to be changed.
In the previous chapter, we worked in cycles: formulate, prioritize, test, observe, evaluate, and reformulate. But a work cycle cannot make every change possible. An employee may document an unreasonable workload without gaining the support of more colleagues. A family member may clearly express a need without the other person taking responsibility. A patient may prepare thoroughly but still encounter a system with long wait times. A lack of results then says more than just how the attempt was carried out. It can say something about resources, power, rules, and the decisions of other stakeholders.
This chapter will help you distinguish between issues that can be reframed for a new attempt and those that require support, negotiation, organizational change, or professional help. The distinction is crucial. If a structural barrier is treated as a personal habit, the most vulnerable person ends up shouldering even more of the burden. If, on the other hand, every difficulty is explained as purely structural, the real scope for action can be lost sight of. A sociological assessment needs to keep both possibilities open and examine where the decisive condition is actually created.
This chapter is not a guide to law, medicine, or emergency situations. In cases of violence, threats, serious mental or physical illness, suicidal thoughts, or other immediate danger, safety and qualified assistance must take precedence over the exercises. Call 112 in case of immediate danger. Call 1177 for medical advice or contact healthcare services by other means when a condition needs to be assessed. A sociological analysis can help allocate responsibility and formulate questions, but it does not replace medical care, legal advice, union support, or other professional services.
When the Same Problem Appears Different at Different Levels
C. Wright Mills’ sociological imagination connects biography with history. What a person encounters in their everyday life may be intimate and personal, yet at the same time shaped by the labor market, the housing system, family norms, welfare institutions , or economic conditions. The World Health Organization’s work on social determinants of health highlights the same fundamental point: people’s lives and health are influenced by the conditions in which they are born, grow up, live, work, and age. This does not make the individual experience any less real. It shows why the explanation cannot always be limited to the individual.
For practical work, it is useful to distinguish between three levels of analysis. At the individual level, for example, there are knowledge, energy, habits, and current needs. At the relational and organizational levels, there are the distribution of responsibility, norms, working methods, interdependencies, and decisions. At the societal level, there are laws, economic conditions, institutions, and historically established inequalities. These levels influence one another, but they are not interchangeable. A new routine can be helpful within a certain scope of action; it cannot, on its own, create housing, change a staffing model, or get another person to respect a boundary.
Moving an issue to another level does not mean passively waiting for society to change. It means that the next action is directed more appropriately. If the issue concerns an organization’s staffing levels, the action might be to document the workload and contact a manager, safety representative, or union representative. If the obstacle is a government regulation, the action might be to request a written decision, inquire about how the decision can be reconsidered, or seek advice. If the problem arises in a close relationship, the next step might be a mutual agreement, outside support, or distancing oneself—depending on power dynamics, safety, and the other person’s willingness to cooperate.
Direct the next question to the right recipient
Purpose: To translate a level analysis into a specific question for the person or department with relevant responsibility.
Here’s how:
Start with a condition that you have identified at the relational, organizational, or societal level.
Identify who can actually make a decision, change a procedure, allocate a resource, or provide expert support. Distinguish between the listener and the person with the authority to act.
Formulate your request in observable terms: what decision, what adjustment, what information, or what support is needed.
Choose a contact method that is as documented and secure as possible. Bring a support person if your dependency or the situation makes it reasonable to do so.
Decide what you’ll do if the recipient lacks the authority, doesn’t respond, or says no: ask for the person in charge, request a written response, or seek other advice.
Reflection: Had you previously directed the responsibility toward someone who could listen but could not change the decisive condition?
Limitation: Choosing the right recipient does not guarantee a positive decision. Assess the risk of reprisals and seek union, legal, or other support when needed.
Demands become problematic when resources do not match them
The Job Demands–Resources Model distinguishes between demands that require effort and resources that make the work possible, understandable, and manageable. Demands are not automatically harmful. The problem arises when high or prolonged demands are not matched by, for example, time, staffing, oversight, feedback, competence, material conditions, or social support. Research is used here as a means of examining conditions, not as a diagnosis of an individual or a workplace.
The Swedish Work Environment Authority describes an unhealthy workload as a situation where demands exceed available resources for more than just a short time and recovery is insufficient. It is therefore insufficient to simply ask how a person can become more efficient. A serious analysis asks what tasks need to be performed, to what standard, within what timeframe, and with what authority. It also asks what should be eliminated if resources cannot be increased. The same reasoning can be applied with caution outside of the workplace: caregiving, studies, and interactions with government agencies can also require time, knowledge, support, and the actual ability to influence outcomes.
Compare Demands with Resources
Purpose: To identify whether a recurring obstacle is primarily due to how demands and resources are organized.
Here’s how:
Choose a situation and list the three most important demands. Describe what needs to be done, within what timeframe, and to what standard of quality.
List the resources available in five areas: time, control, support, information or feedback, and material conditions.
Identify the requirement that most clearly lacks a corresponding resource. Note whether the imbalance is temporary, recurring, or long-term.
Propose a change to the conditions: reduce or reprioritize requirements, increase a resource, clarify responsibilities, or allow for recovery.
Address the proposal to the person who can influence the condition and request a follow-up date.
Reflection: Which problem had previously been described as a lack of discipline even though a specific resource was missing?
Limitation: This exercise is not a medical or occupational health and safety assessment. If there are signs of ill health or a harmful work environment, care and/or support from occupational health and safety officials is needed.
A similar problem arises when the formal job description and the social work culture convey conflicting messages. A workplace may formally emphasize recovery but at the same time reward those who respond late at night. A training program may talk about independence but treat asking for help as a sign of weakness. A family may say that responsibility is shared but still let one person handle most of the discovery, planning, and follow-up. The unspoken norm is evident in which actions are appreciated, which face silent resistance, and who bears the consequences.
Distinguish between the formal rule and the social norm
Purpose: To determine whether a barrier is maintained by the difference between stated rules and what is actually rewarded or punished in practice.
Here’s how to do it:
Choose a recurring situation in which it is difficult to act in accordance with what is officially considered desirable.
Write down the formal rule or stated value as literally as possible.
Then describe what is actually rewarded, tolerated, or met with resistance. Use specific examples rather than general judgments.
Identify who benefits, who ends up with more work, and who can change the practical norm.
Formulate a low-risk question that makes the difference visible, such as which task should be prioritized when time is short.
Reflection: What unwritten rule needs to be made visible before the situation can change?
Limitation: Challenging a norm can entail social or workplace risks. Document the situation objectively and seek support before taking action if the dependency is strong.
When Other Actors Can Block Change
The main script emphasizes that attempts at balance can be blocked by other actors, structures, or a lack of understanding of the situation. This is an important correction to the notion that a better method always leads to success. Social change occurs among people who have their own interests, obligations, and scope for action. Someone else may lack resources, assess the matter differently, wish to preserve their position, or actively oppose the change. A “no” can therefore mean several different things and does not necessarily have to be resolved through better communication.
Resistance needs to be described without quickly turning a person into an enemy. The question is: Which action is blocking what, what power does the other party have, and what interests or rules are at play? Sometimes it’s possible to negotiate the form. Sometimes a third party or a different decision-making process is needed. Sometimes the resistance indicates that the attempt should be abandoned. Especially in close relationships and situations of dependency, it is dangerous to make perseverance a moral requirement.
Describe the resistance without simplifying the person
Purpose: To distinguish a blocking action from assumptions about the other person’s entire personality.
Here’s how:
Describe the specific change you were trying to bring about and what the other person did or did not do.
Write down what that person or role controls: information, time, money, access, decisions, or social support.
Formulate two possible explanations for the resistance, such as a lack of resources, conflicting goals, norms, misunderstandings, or the defense of a privilege.
Determine what can be verified with a definitive question or documentation and what remains uncertain.
Choose from four responses: clarify, negotiate, involve a third party, or end the attempt.
Reflection: What becomes easier to assess when you analyze power and action rather than judging the other person’s character?
Limitation: Do not seek to improve dialogue with someone who threatens, controls, or subjects you to violence. Prioritize distance, safety planning, and professional help.
A change may also appear successful simply because the cost has been shifted. More uninterrupted work time for one person may mean more interruptions for a colleague. A clearer personal boundary may mean that a family member ends up shouldering the caregiving burden alone. The main text describes this as a zero-sum situation or externalization: one’s own improvement is achieved by shifting time, risk, or burden onto someone else. Not all conflicts of interest can be avoided, but they should not be concealed under terms like “balance” or “self-care.”
Check whether the cost has been shifted
Purpose: To determine whether an improvement for one person or group is based on someone else having to bear more work, risk, or limitations.
Here’s how:
Choose a change that has made something easier for you or the group you belong to.
List the people who are affected directly and indirectly, including those who did not participate in the decision.
Compare the situation before and after in four areas: time, workload, risk, and opportunity to influence.
Ask an affected person about their experience, if possible, without putting them under pressure. Don’t assume silence means consent.
Determine whether the change can be adjusted, whether additional resources are needed, or whether it should be discontinued.
Reflection: Whose costs were not factored into the initial evaluation?
Limitation: Not all costs are comparable, and a conflict may persist. Do not use this exercise to demand that a vulnerable person negotiate basic safety or rights.
Capacity and Mandate Before More Effort
When a problem feels important, it’s easy to assume that the person who sees it must also solve it. But importance does not automatically create capacity or mandate. Capacity here refers to safety, time, energy, knowledge, resources, and support. Mandate refers to the right or legitimate ability to make decisions and act on behalf of others. A person may have sound analysis but lack access to a budget, records, facilities, decision-making forums, or protection against reprisals. In such cases, greater motivation is not the missing resource.
Assessing Capacity and Mandate
Purpose: To determine whether the next step can be taken by you, needs to be shared, or should be delegated to someone with different expertise and authority.
Here’s how:
Write down the action you’re considering and the outcome it’s intended to contribute to.
Check five conditions: safety, energy, time, knowledge or resources, and social support.
Write down what your mandate is. Can you decide on your own, do others need to agree, or does the decision lie with a responsible department?
Identify what is missing. Distinguish between something you can reasonably handle yourself and something that requires another party or professional.
Choose the next course of action: carry it out yourself, do it together, delegate, request support, or refrain until the conditions have changed.
Reflection: What responsibilities have you shouldered even though the necessary capacity or authority lay elsewhere?
Limitation: This exercise is intended to reduce uncertain over-responsibility. It is not a reason to refrain from raising the alarm or seeking help when someone is in danger.
It is also important to distinguish between the value and the method. A method may need to be abandoned without abandoning the value. If a particular workplace cannot offer sustainable conditions, the value of professional competence may seek another organizational form. If a group does not have genuine influence, concern for the issue at hand can be expressed in a different context. Erik Olin Wright’s work on “real utopias” is based on existing institutions that organize certain aspects of social life differently. These institutions should not be idealized, but they can demonstrate the conditions that actually make an alternative possible.
Examine an alternative that is already in operation
Purpose: To compare a stalled context with an existing initiative that handles a relevant aspect in a different way.
Here's how:
Identify the function or value that is being blocked—for example, influence, recovery, accessibility, or shared responsibility.
Find a real-world organization, group, or institution that appears to handle that particular aspect differently.
Examine the conditions that account for the difference: resources, rules, ownership, participation, expertise, or distribution of power.
Identify at least one cost, limitation, or exclusion in the alternative. A good example is not a complete solution.
Choose a specific principle that can be tested or implemented in your context without copying the entire model.
Reflection: What specific condition—rather than what good intention—made the alternative possible?
Limitation: Don’t romanticize an initiative based solely on its own presentation. Check who is allowed to participate, who bears the burden of the work, and whether the conditions can be replicated.
When the Next Step Is Different Kinds of Help
“Other help” does not mean a single system. The right support depends on what is standing in the way. Medical symptoms require medical care. Threats, violence, and control require safety-focused support. Workplace issues may require a manager, a safety representative, or a labor union. Suspected discrimination may require union or legal advice; the Discrimination Ombudsman also provides information on filing complaints and other avenues for support. Government agency decisions may have specific procedures for reconsideration or appeal. In a conflict, mediation may be appropriate, but not when safety and power are so unevenly distributed that a joint discussion becomes dangerous.
Seeking help often requires some effort on your part: describing events, gathering evidence, scheduling an appointment, and following up. That’s why the advice to “seek help” is sometimes too vague. A useful referral needs to link the type of problem to the appropriate service, specify a first feasible step, and make room for support during the initial contact itself. It must also be possible to say that you don’t have the energy to handle everything at once. Getting some relief, resting, and letting someone else help with the contact can be a relevant step.
Choose the Right Kind of Help
Purpose: To link a stuck problem to a function that has relevant expertise, responsibility, or protection.
Here’s how:
Write down what needs to be assessed or changed: health, safety, work environment, rights, decisions, finances, relationships, or practical daily life.
Choose the function that best corresponds to the issue, such as healthcare, social services, a union, a safety representative, legal counsel, a government agency, or a trusted support person.
Write down what you need help with during your first contact: assessment, information, documentation, representation, protection, or relief.
Gather only the documentation necessary for the first step. Ask for help organizing the rest if the task is too overwhelming.
Decide on a backup plan in case you don’t receive a response or end up in the wrong place. In case of immediate danger, use emergency medical or rescue services right away.
Reflection: Which part of the problem requires expertise or authority that you shouldn’t reasonably be expected to have yourself?
Limitation: Information about support routes may change and must be verified with the responsible agency. In case of immediate danger: call 112. If you need medical advice: call 1177.
Allowing an obstacle to alter the conclusion
A blocked attempt can lead to several legitimate conclusions. The problem may need to be reformulated. A resource may need to be requested or negotiated. Several stakeholders may need to act together. Someone with a different mandate may need to take over. A method may need to be discontinued. In some cases, the goal must be put on hold because safety, health, or livelihood demand it. These conclusions are no less action-oriented than yet another individual attempt. They are a way of allowing reality to influence the analysis.
The chapter’s most important principle is therefore simple: a person should not be held solely responsible for eliminating the conditions that hold her back. Sociological therapy should increase precision in the distribution of responsibility. It should help you see what can be done now, what requires others, and what should not be addressed with further personal effort.
Concept Overview
This overview reiterates the concepts that underpin the chapter’s reasoning and exercises.
Level of Analysis. The level at which a condition is examined: individual, relationship, or organization, as well as society or institution.
Structural barrier. A recurring condition created by, for example, rules, resource allocation, institutions, or established power relations.
Social determinant. A life condition—such as work, housing, finances, or social status—that affects health and opportunities for action.
Demand. A physical, cognitive, emotional, or organizational strain that requires sustained effort.
Resource. A condition that enables action or reduces its cost, such as time, control, support, information, or material conditions.
Social norm. An expressed or unspoken expectation that rewards certain actions and makes others costly.
Resistance from stakeholders. When a person, group, or function, through action or inaction, hinders a particular change.
Externalized cost. When time, burden, risk, or other consequences of an improvement are shifted to someone else.
Capacity. The confidence, energy, time, knowledge, resources, and support required to take action.
Mandate. The right or legitimate authority to make a decision or act on behalf of others.
Real utopia. An existing institution or practice that demonstrates a feasible but incomplete alternative to the prevailing order.
Professional support. Assistance from a role with specialized expertise, authority, or protection that the individual cannot reasonably be expected to replace.
References
Swedish Work Environment Authority. (n.d.). Prevent Unhealthy Workloads. Retrieved September 5, 2026, from https://www.av.se/halsa-och-sakerhet/organisatorisk-och-social-arbetsmiljo/forebygg-ohalsosam-arbetsbelastning/
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933
Berglund, A. (2026). Sociological Therapy and Diagnostics. Unpublished manuscript.
Discrimination Ombudsman. (n.d.). Report discrimination. Retrieved September 5, 2026, from https://www.do.se/diskriminerad/anmal-diskriminering
Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Health Guide 1177. (n.d.). Seeking Support and Help. Retrieved September 5, 2026, from https://www.1177.se/liv--halsa/psykisk-halsa/att-soka-stod-och-hjalp/
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Social determinants of health. Retrieved September 5, 2026, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health
Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso.