Research Objective and Theoretical Framework Social work organizations face uncertainties around available resources, intervention effectiveness, and the individual and social value of investing in care resources and work. In Germany, the "New Public Management" reforms over the last two decades aimed to cut welfare state costs by reducing resources for care work with uncertain outcomes. These reforms also forced organizations to reduce outcome uncertainty through quality management. However, expressing the individual and social value of care within a quantitative paradigm remains highly controversial. Method and Methodology As the problem complexity arises mainly from an economic theorization of care value, the objective of this paper is to propose a novel approach to quality logic in care work that is more closely aligned with the actual socio-cultural structure of care. The aim is to increase the justifiability of care investments before decision-makers who primarily focus on economic concerns. To achieve this, the study analyzes the gaps between the management rationality of the German adaptation of New Public Management and the field logic of care work, using literature from the sociology of economics, social management, and social work from the German discourse on social state economization. The study employs discourse analytical tools to demonstrate the dispositif, in which uncertainty poses a particular challenge for care work organization and justification. Conclusions and Expected Outcomes A field- and subject-related quality logic suggests a phenomenologically reflected social management that integrates the addressees' lifeworld (Lebenswelt), the (social) environment, and society at large as essential points of reference. By readjusting the theory and methodology of care work management, the unquantifiable or difficult-to-quantify value of care work can become part of its state organization and open up ways for organizational learning to reduce and appropriately deal with uncertainty in institutionalized care.

Literature Foucault, Michel (1995). Archäologie des Wissens. 7. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Fricker, Miranda (2023). Epistemische Ungerechtigkeit. Macht und die Ethik des Wissens. München, C.H. Beck. Keller, Reiner (2013). Wissenssoziologische Diskursforschung. Hg. von Ekkehard Felder. Augsburg/Berlin u.a., Universität Augsburg; de Gruyter. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (2009). Wissenskulturen. Ein Vergleich naturwissenschaftlicher Wissensformen. Konstanz, Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz. Laclau, Ernesto/Mouffe, Chantal (2000). Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie. Zur Dekonstruktion des Marxismus. Wien, Passagen Verlag. Merchel, Joachim (2017). Management ist nur dann gut, wenn es mit dem Gegenstand "Soziale Arbeit" verknüpft ist - Das Spezifische an Organisationen der Sozialen Arbeit und seine Bedeutung für das Management. In: Sozialmanagement - eine Zwischenbilanz. Wiesbaden, Springer VS, 2017. Schellberg, K. (2017). Ökonomisierung – was sonst?. In: Wöhrle, A., Fritze, A., Prinz, T., Schwarz, G. (eds) Sozialmanagement – Eine Zwischenbilanz. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. S. 263-277. Winker, G. (2015): Care Revolution. Schritte in eine solidarische Gesellschaft. P.l.: transcript Verlag (X-Texte zu Kultur und Gesellschaft). Winker, G. (2020). Aufbau einer solidarischen und nachhaltigen Care Ökonomie. Ein Plädoyer in Zeiten von Corona. In M. Volkmer & K. Werner (Eds.) Die CoronaGesellschaft, Analysen zur Lage und Perspektiven für die Zukunft. Bielefeld transcript Wöhrle, Armin et al. (Hrsg.) (2017). Sozialmanagement - Eine Zwischenbilanz. Springer.