Disruptive Leadership

The concept of disruptive leadership comes from business, technology, and management disciplines. Disruptive leadership starts with a disruptive mindset, characterized by “strong self-esteem, intellectual horsepower, fortitude, motivation, and resilience” (Henman, Reference Henman2021, p. 181). Disruptive leaders “challenge the status quo and take bold, innovative actions, emphasizing a continuous quality improvement mindset of always searching for better solutions” (Disruptive Leadership, n.d.). Disruptive leadership is a strategy for a growth mindset – a core tenet of neuroscience-informed leadership practices that impact the leader and everyone in the organization. Disrupting the status quo gives the organization’s workforce the permission and freedom to seek growth, creativity, and innovative solutions and approaches (Disruptive Leadership, n.d.).

Disruptive leadership intentionally challenges the “because we have always done it this way” stance that can come from a bureaucratic system. By challenging the status quo, leaders can restructure systems and integrate innovation to achieve new outcomes (Christensen et al., Reference 66Christensen, Raynor and McDonald2015). Leaders who disrupt hierarchical communication and structures enhance workforce voice and role clarity, which are linked to organizational health, workforce engagement, and retention (Deloitte, 2025). Deloitte (2025) notes that finding a balance of workforce support, performance, and human outcomes requires leaders to navigate the tensions that exist in doing so. For example, balancing unique individual gifts and talents with the need to standardize, being agile yet providing stability within the organization, and exploring innovation and potential, while ensuring some predictability – all of these factors interact to create organizational balance and health – “it’s a both/and proposition” (Deloitte, 2025, p. 3).

Leaders who prioritize human performance by balancing business needs with workforce well-being are better positioned to build sustainable organizations that thrive. Disruptive leadership, when guided by ethical intentions, neuroscience, and a growth mindset, stabilizes chaotic systems by focusing on what matters most – enhancing workforce capacity. As a result, organizations are 1.8 times more likely to achieve stronger financial outcomes and 1.6 times more likely to offer meaningful work to their employees (Deloitte, 2025). Implementing disruptive leadership in human service organizations allows leaders to address social justice issues, dismantle outdated processes that do not benefit children and families, deliver high-quality services, and improve workforce retention and organizational performance (Bass & Riggio, Reference Bass and Riggio2006). This approach is especially relevant for fostering belonging, leadership development, and policy discussions, providing a model for tackling systemic inequities while promoting inclusive, sustainable organizational change. In social work, effective leadership requires bold advocacy on issues impacting child welfare, reflecting the profession’s core values of social justice, service, dignity and worth of individuals, and self-determination (NASW, 2021). Through these efforts, leaders develop greater self-awareness through critical consciousness.

Leadership Self-Awareness: Critical Consciousness Theory

Paulo Freire’s (Reference Freire2000) critical consciousness theory serves as a powerful framework for leaders to engage in self-reflection and analyze organizational systems through three components: critical awareness (an analysis of inequities), political efficacy (the belief in the ability to affect social and political changes for collective impact), and necessary action (a commitment to both individual and collective efforts toward advancing social justice) (Freire, Reference Freire2000; Lash & Sanchez, Reference Lash and Sanchez2021). This theory fosters an organizational growth mindset, enhances workforce resilience and wellness, improves client engagement, and transforms bureaucratic systems that fail to serve the workforce, clients, or the community effectively. Born from education and social justice, this theory has cross-disciplinary relevance and urges leaders to reflect deeply, engage in honest dialogue, and take intentional action toward meaningful and sustainable change. This approach confronts the limitations of bureaucratic systems that often do not meet the needs of the workforce, clients, and communities.

The role of critical consciousness in leadership involves a progressive journey through stages of awareness, reflection, dialogue, and systemic change, building on Paulo Freire’s foundational work. Ginwright (Reference 68Ginwright2015) expands on this foundation by emphasizing the significance of healing-centered engagement in how workers facilitate child welfare practices with children and families and how leaders support the workforce. His approach merges personal well-being with equity-focused leadership practices, encouraging organizations to lead through empathy and caring relationships. Kezar and Holcombe (Reference Kezar and Holcombe2022) also discuss the concept of a shared leadership model as a tool to create more inclusive spaces for decision-making, accountability, and challenge bureaucratic hierarchies.

Leaders who reflect on critical consciousness begin to lead differently, adopting more collaborative and inclusive approaches that make space for marginalized voices, address systemic social justice issues, and strengthen a culture of accountability. These leaders do not merely adhere to the usual rules; they pose tough questions and raise provocative topics for discussion. They reflect on their biases, investigate how power plays out within their systems, and establish space for honest, ongoing dialogue (Diem & Carpenter, Reference Diem and Carpenter2013). Rather than reinforcing hierarchical control, critically conscious leaders promote shared leadership, valuing the expertise and lived experiences of both workers and supervisors to inform policy and practice. Furthermore, critical consciousness fosters psychological safety to encourage open dialogue about system barriers and innovation (Eubanks et al., Reference Eubanks, Antes, Friedrich, Caughron, Blackwell, Bedell-Avers and Mumford2016).

Workforce Empowerment through Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory aligns with social work values and is rooted in our shared human experience. Self-determination theory identifies a person’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation related to psychological needs, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Lumpkin & Achen, Reference Lumpkin and Achen2018). These three psychological needs culminate in the inclusive concept of belonging. Belonging is a universal basic human need, where team members can show up as they are, with their authentic gifts, and are welcomed, valued, and accepted for their contributions (Deci et al., Reference Deci, Olafsen and Ryan2017; Gonzales, Reference Gonzales2022; Kennedy & Jain-Link, Reference Kennedy and Jain-Link2021; Premuzic-Chamorrow & Berg, Reference Chamorro-Premuzic and Berg2021). Self-determination theory asks the questions: Am I trusted? (autonomy), Are my gifts valued (relatedness), Does my work make a difference? (competence), and. ultimately, Do I belong (belonging)? (Deci et al., Reference Deci, Olafsen and Ryan2017). Team members who feel included contribute to innovation through creativity, have higher psychological safety and trust, improve team cohesion, have higher retention rates, and perform better (Gonzales, Reference Gonzales2022; Kennedy & Jain-Link, Reference Kennedy and Jain-Link2021; Premuzic-Chamorrow & Berg, Reference Chamorro-Premuzic and Berg2021). Belonging is also part of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and applies to both our personal and professional lives. It drives the workforce to commit to the overall mission, vision, and actions of child welfare practice.

The quality of child welfare practice and service delivery is closely linked with a strong sense of belonging and how connected the workforce feels to the organizational vision, philosophy, and leadership (Brimhall, Lizano, & Barak, Reference Brimhall, Lizano and Mor Barak2014). The workforce, especially millennials, Gen Z, and now Gen Alpha, articulates their desire for their work to positively advance a shared mission and have a positive impact on society. This creates a deliberate pathway for aligning their self-determination needs with the broader framework of corporate social responsibility, reinforcing their intrinsic motivation by demonstrating how their time and effort directly contribute to client outcomes, community well-being, and the more significant impact on social determinants of health (Li et al., Reference Li, Fan, Álvarez-Otero, Sial, Comite, Cherian and Vasa2021). Combining self-determination and a sense of social responsibility creates an environment that fosters innovation and a growth mindset, leading to an open learning environment where neuroscience-informed leadership practices thrive.

Seeing the Signs: Why Change in Practice, Leadership, and Culture Matters

The need to change practice, leadership, and organizational culture is sometimes evident to the leader, whether prompted by workforce turnover, client feedback, declining public trust, or concerns raised by the supervising state agency due to underperformance in key outcomes. Exit interviews, surveys, and conversations with the workforce may reveal early indicators of low organizational health, alerting leaders to act. However, leaders may not always recognize the need for organizational change themselves until an objective party points it out. A crisis or an externally imposed situation can arise that forces leaders to confront the reality that change is necessary to get back on course. There is a nuanced difference between leaders who initiate change and those who implement or execute changes initiated by others (Heyden et al., Reference 69Heyden, Fourné, Koene, Werkman and Ansari2017; Oreg & Berson, Reference Oreg and Berson2019). When change is driven by external pressures beyond a leader’s control, they often must first manage their own resistance to the imposed shift, while simultaneously working to foster workforce buy-in within a context-dependent environment (Heyden et al., Reference 69Heyden, Fourné, Koene, Werkman and Ansari2017; Oreg & Berson, Reference Oreg and Berson2019).

Leaders who are invested in authentic organizational change engage with multiple stakeholder groups to ensure that the lived experience voices of children, families, community partners, and the workforce are not only heard but meaningfully considered and integrated into decisions that shape practice and organizational health (Capacity Building Center for States, 2019; Paul Reference Paul2021). This inclusive approach aligns with trauma-informed and equity-centered approaches that emphasize shared power and collaboration with those most impacted by the organization. Furthermore, leaders who acknowledge the need for systemic changes in their organizations also recognize that changing practices, supervision, and leadership habits takes time to shift (ICF, 2021; Rock, Reference Rock2018). Outlining desired changes (priorities), teaching people new habits (habits), and implementing and embedding the organizational systems to support and sustain new habits (systems) are aligned with implementation science and crucial to any sustainable capacity-building effort (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; Rock, Reference Rock2018). To support the workforce in making changes, leaders must adopt a growth mindset, which includes understanding the time required for change and what capacity-building entails.

Change Takes Time: Neuroscience-Based Best Practices for Lasting Habits

Capacity-building is more than learning a new practice. Research indicates that the desire to change isn’t enough to change leadership habits; therefore, it requires a significant time investment to cultivate a new way of leading. Authentic change and capacity-building occur when new habits form in an embedded, structured, and supportive way. Rock (Reference Rock2018) emphasizes that change efforts must intentionally focus on shifting habits of leaders, resulting in more sustainable systemic, leadership, and practice shifts. Rock’s (Reference Rock2018) neuroscience-informed change framework integrates priorities, habits, and systems to translate to real, sustainable change.

First, leaders must clearly communicate the desired change and the behaviors associated with it, to signal what is a priority. Capacity-building then comes into play, helping leaders and the workforce develop new habits through learning, relearning, repetition, reflective feedback (both written and verbal), rewards, and celebrating successes, thereby starting the cycle over again. Finally, ongoing positive reinforcement, embedded structural supports, and continuous strategies to enhance the change trajectory (Rock, Reference Rock2018). Rowland (Reference Rowland2016) also notes that neuroscience is at work when our emotional circuits are activated by doing something experiential or “trying it out,” as is the case in capacity-building. While trying new leadership practices, leaders begin to “be” different in their everyday leadership practices, intentionally emotionally regulate, and mindfully find time, space, and stillness for intentional self-reflection (Rowland, Reference Rowland2016). Placing leadership development within the broader context of organizational health, workforce engagement, and public trust helps to put the leadership shifts into a systemic change (Rowland, Reference Rowland2016). Finally, Rowland (Reference Rowland2016) notes one of the core components of capacity-building is to pair one-on-one coaches with leaders to help support them through change by being “less as experts, more as sherpas (Rowland, Reference Rowland2016, para. 10). This sustainable, neuroscience-informed change framework aligns with implementation science and supports the literature related to systemic change “sticking.”

Research indicates that achieving strategic alignment with evidence-based benchmarks for change, from initiation to application and sustained implementation, typically takes between eight and eighteen months (ICF, 2021; CCL, n.d.). Research in leadership capacity-building and organizational transformation consistently emphasizes that sustainable change, particularly changes that involve values, behaviors, and mindsets, requires both time and intentional, iterative engagement (Anderson & Adams, Reference Anderson and Adams2016). Following national best practice standards in leadership coaching, such as those defined by the International Coaching Federation (ICF) and the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), this iterative capacity-building supports leaders through a phased process that includes relationship-building, cocreation of goals, skill development, and system-level application (ICF, 2021; CCL, n.d.). This timeline allows for a comprehensive cycle of assessment, coaching, implementation, reflection, and adaptation.

Changing an entire organizational system takes even longer than individual change, due to the complexities of both implicit (values, beliefs, unwritten rules) and explicit (policies, procedures, communication) culture and climate norms within the organization. Because lasting behavior and cultural change are neurological processes, systems change requires strong communication, addressing cultural issues, and reinforcement between individual changes and the desired future state of the system (Rock, Reference Rock2018; CCL, n.d.). System-wide transformation depends not only on individual habit shifts but also on a deliberate examination of underlying cultural dynamics and the interplay between leadership behavior, team interactions, and systemic structures. By embedding leadership coaching into the organizational ecosystem over a sustained period, leaders are more likely to internalize new practices and drive cultural change from within, impacting practice, organizations, and community systems. The coaching process is structured to provide continuous feedback, reinforce accountability, and deepen leaders’ self-awareness and systemic thinking, all critical elements in achieving culture change (Boyatzis et al., Reference Boyatzis, Smith and Van Oosten2013).

The Optimal Fit: Neuroscience-Informed Leadership

Neuroscience-informed leadership practices are an ideal fit for human services and child welfare organizations due to their alignment with social work values and ability to cultivate a resilient and engaged workforce (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020). Traditional leadership approaches in child welfare are often autocratic and directive, contributing to toxic workplace cultures, high turnover, and workforce burnout. However, neuroscience-informed leadership integrates brain science with leadership strategies to foster trust, emotional regulation, collaboration, and decision-making skills (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; Zak, Reference Zak2017b). By leading through neuroscience-informed practices, human service leaders create psychologically safe learning environments that enhance job satisfaction, reduce stress, and improve client outcomes (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; Zak, Reference Zak2017b). Research finds that organizations adopting trust-based leadership models experience greater workforce retention, increased engagement, and enhanced service delivery effectiveness (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020).

Neuroleadership practices directly address the critical challenges facing child welfare and human services agencies, such as staff burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and declining workforce morale (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020). By implementing eight neuroleadership building blocks – ovation, expectation, yield, transfer, openness, caring, investing, and natural – leaders can establish a culture prioritizing psychological safety and professional development (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; Zak, Reference Zak2017a). The neuroscience-informed leadership approach fits naturally with the core values and ethics of the social work profession while also strengthening organizational culture and climate. Studies show that when human services agencies apply neuroleadership principles, there is higher workforce commitment, reduced turnover, and focus on quality in service delivery, all critical factors for improving outcomes in child welfare (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; Zak, Reference Zak2017a). Child welfare agencies can create a sustainable and effective model that prioritizes worker well-being and high-quality client service by shifting toward neuroscience-informed leadership.

Finally, Rock’s (Reference Rock2018) neuroscience theory on change provides leaders with a roadmap to operationalize leadership shifts, revolutionizing organizations and facilitating changes in how service delivery is experienced. While new knowledge and learning are needed for system change, “mere intention to change is insufficient to reshape behavior” (Rock, Reference Rock2018, p. 77). Authentic shifts in behavior must be accompanied by the application of neuroscience in communicating the understanding that the new leadership or practice change is a priority. After identifying the priority, leaders must utilize repetition and reward, making the new practices automatic behaviors through the formation of new neuropathways in the brain. Ultimately, establishing a supportive framework around new practices and reinforcing them through repetition helps transform them into lasting habits that sustain leadership and promote growth in practice, service delivery, and outcomes (Rock, Reference Rock2018). Enter the immersive capacity-building model, which provides intensive support that gradually tapers off over time as the participant embeds new habits in their brain and begins to perform differently (Rock, Reference Rock2018). This model supports sustained leadership, organizational culture change, and practice shifts for service delivery.

Applying Emotional Regulation to Pursue Emotional Capital

Emotional regulation is the capacity to recognize, understand, express, and manage one’s emotions while influencing relationships through understanding others’ emotions (Ballarotto et al., Reference Ballarotto, Abate, Baiocco and Velotti2025; Goleman, Reference Goleman2008). Empathy, a universally recognized human need, is crucial to emotional regulation and enables leaders to communicate effectively, navigate conflict, uphold accountability, and manage competing demands on a daily basis. Emotional regulation enhances belonging and psychological safety within teams, fostering cohesion both within the team and across the broader organizational culture. Emotional regulation has four domains and twelve core elements (Goleman & Boyatzis, Reference Goleman and Boyatzis2017):

1. 1. Emotional Self-Awareness

2. 2. Self-Management: emotional self-control, adaptability, achievement orientation, positive outlook

3. 3. Social Awareness: empathy and organizational awareness

4. 4. Relationship Management: influence, coaching and mentoring, conflict management, teamwork, and inspirational leadership.

Through intentionally focusing on regulating themselves and empathizing and coregulating with others, leaders can better lead during crises, help themselves and their teams reregulate, and attend to team emotions to improve psychological safety (Goleman & Boyatzis, Reference Goleman and Boyatzis2017).

Emotional capital levels up emotional regulation through a collective set of skills that help leaders connect even more fully to the organization and workforce. According to Khazaei et al. (Reference Khazaei, Holder, Sirois, Oades and Gendron2021), emotional capital is a collective set of leadership resources that supports personal, professional, and organizational developments while fostering social cohesion and economic success. Emotional capital is a collection of internal resources that enhance personal, professional, and organizational developments, as well as relationships within the workforce (Gendron, Reference Gendron2004; Whitener, Reference Whitener2019). By fostering resilience, trust, and social cohesion, emotional capital drives positive outcomes across individuals, teams, and broader systems (Gendron, Reference Gendron2004; Whitener, Reference Whitener2019).

Khazaei et al. (Reference Khazaei, Holder, Sirois, Oades and Gendron2021) outlines the ten components of emotional capital extracted from individual conceptualization research on emotional capital from Dr. Bénédicte Gendron and Dr. Martyn Newman. Dr. Newman further developed his research and aligned it with Goleman’s (Reference Goleman2014) research on emotional intelligence, as presented in Emotional Capitalists, where he delves deeper into the components of emotional capital in three focus areas: inner, outer, and other (see Table 1).

Whitener’s (Reference Whitener2019) insights, featured in Forbes, highlight that leaders who cultivate emotional capital build greater resilience and foster deeper trust and engagement within their organizations. In human services and leadership roles, emotional capital is a vital resource that enables individuals to show up fully and work effectively together (Whitener, Reference Whitener2019). These elements highlight how emotional capital fosters stronger teams, promotes accountability and integrity, and supports ongoing professional growth.

As leaders focus on emotional regulation in their daily leadership, managing their own emotions and supporting their teams and colleagues to do the same, they begin to create an environment that cultivates learning and teams that remain calm in chaotic times. When leaders model behaviors that encourage others to bring their unique talents to the team and the mission, other leaders within the organization will follow suit. This introduces the second core skill in the immersive leadership capacity-building model: a growth mindset.

Growth Mindset for a Learning Environment

A leader with a growth mindset is purposeful in shaping vision and willing to challenge the status quo. In 2006, Carol Dweck first outlined her conceptualization of a growth mindset. A growth mindset is grounded in the belief that people can grow, learn, and change through their motivations and efforts (Dweck, Reference Dweck2006; Kouzes & Posner, Reference Kouzes and Posner2019; Murphy & Dweck, Reference Murphy and Dweck2016). The growth mindset philosophy can be applied to leadership and organizational health, cultivating a genuine, continuous quality improvement approach or learning environment for the workforce (Kouzes & Posner, Reference Kouzes and Posner2019). A growth mindset is the belief that capacities can develop through dedication, learning, and persistence (Dweck & Yeager, Reference 67Dweck and Yeager2021). When leaders treat mistakes as part of the learning process, approach challenges with curiosity, and push themselves toward meaningful goals, they show others what a growth mindset looks like inside their organization and in their external partnerships (Kouzes & Posner, Reference Kouzes and Posner2019; Westover, Reference Westover2024). This mindset fosters adaptability, resilience, and openness to feedback, enabling individuals and organizations to thrive in the face of challenges.

Research has shown that organizations fostering a growth mindset culture experience greater trust, engagement, and innovation. In workplaces where a growth mindset is modeled and encouraged, employees demonstrate higher resilience, a greater willingness to take on challenges, and a stronger commitment to continuous learning (Dweck, Murphy, Chatman, & Kray, Reference Dweck, Murphy, Chatman and Krayn.d.). Harvard Business Review (2014) found that organizations with a growth mindset philosophy have a workforce that is 47% more likely to trust their colleagues, 34% more likely to feel a strong sense of ownership or the mission and commitment to the organization, and 49% more likely to believe that their organization fosters innovation, meeting outcomes more consistently. The emphasis on learning and continuous growth creates a culture where the workforce feels valued, leading to higher retention and quality of service delivery.

Neuroscience-informed leadership practices build on a growth mindset philosophy, culminating in higher trust, psychological safety, and overall performance. Psychological safety fosters an environment where individuals feel secure enough to take interpersonal risks. Interpersonal risks might be speaking up with ideas, questions, and concerns or sharing mistakes without fear of punishment or humiliation (Edmondson, Reference Edmondson2018). Tim Clark (Reference Clark2020) built upon Edmondson’s research and further analyzed psychological safety into four stages:

1. 1. Inclusion safety – individuals feel valued and accepted as members of the team

2. 2. Learner safety – individuals feel safe to engage in the learning process through questions, feedback, and making mistakes without judgment

3. 3. Contributor safety – individuals feel empowered to apply their skills and knowledge and contribute meaningfully

4. 4. Challenger safety – team members feel secure to challenge the status quo without fear of negative consequences

By integrating the research of Edmondson and Clark, leaders gain the insights and strategies needed to foster psychological safety, drive team performance, and cultivate a culture of trust and innovation.

Leaders cultivate a growth mindset by establishing a culture of learning, resilience, and continuous improvement. Research has shown that psychological safety enhances culture, trust, and outcomes (Clark, Reference Clark2020; Edmondson, Reference Edmondson2018). A study published in The Open Psychology Journal found that psychological safety has a significant impact on team dynamics, enhancing team learning, effectiveness, and productivity (Patil et al., Reference Akşahin, Dagli, Altinays, Altinay, Altinay, Soykurt, Bahcelerli and Adedoyin2023). This study concluded that psychological safety has a positive correlation with high-trust, high-performing team effectiveness. Furthermore, Wang & Ning (Reference Wang and Ning2024) noted that the workforce is more likely to perceive psychological safety through mutual trust, authentic relationships, and a learning environment that encourages open communication and collaboration. Finally, Zak (Reference Zak2017a) highlights that high-trust organizations that align with growth mindset principles have 50% higher productivity, 74% lower stress, and a 41% greater sense of achievement than organizations with traditional leadership.

Safety Culture for Psychological Safety and Practice Improvement

Safety culture promotes learning and balances individual and system accountability by examining system factors and the team’s culture (Casey, n.d.; Edmondson, Reference Edmondson2018). Within child welfare, safety culture refers to the alignment of an organization’s and its members’ values, attitudes, and behaviors, focusing their attention and effort on safety and pursuing reliable, harm-free operations (Vogus et al., Reference Vogus, Sutcliffe and Weick2010). Safety culture models emerged from other high-risk, high-consequence professions and organizations functioning in hazardous, fast-paced, and highly complex systems. A psychologically safe culture is driven by a leadership commitment to safety, prioritizing teamwork and open communication based on trust. This commitment involves developing and enforcing a nonpunitive approach to event reporting and analysis, as well as a commitment to becoming a learning organization (Casey, n.d.; Edmondson, Reference Edmondson2018; Vogus et al., Reference Vogus, Sutcliffe and Weick2010). Safety culture in child welfare focuses on how teams and organizations engage in work, not only policies and procedures. However, safety science tools can help inform critical thinking, decision-making, and reasoning, helping to decrease bias and build a stronger safety culture (Munro, Reference 71Munro1999).

Safety culture is directly connected to psychological safety and is a system-wide philosophy first studied by Amy Edmondson (Reference Edmondson1999, Reference Edmondson2018) in healthcare teams. Edmondson’s research demonstrated that teams who were encouraged to report and learn from mistakes in their practice and voice their ideas, questions, or concerns without fear had better outcomes than healthcare systems that did not (Reference Edmondson1999, Reference Edmondson2018). In a strong safety culture, engaged teams practice six habits to promote child safety (Casey, n.d.; Cull & Lyons, Reference Cull and Lyons2019, p. 4).

1. 1. Make candor and respect a precondition to teamwork.

2. 2. Spend time identifying potential issues that could arise.

3. 3. Talk about mistakes and ways to learn from them.

4. 4. Test change in everyday work activities.

5. 5. Develop an understanding of “who knows what” and communicate clearly.

6. 6. Appreciate colleagues and their unique skills.

The research of Eileen Munro (Reference 71Munro1999, Reference Munro2005, Reference Munro2010, Reference Munro2019) and Andrew Turnell et al. (Reference Turnell, Munro and Murphy2013) has made significant contributions to developing a safety culture in child welfare and organizational settings, particularly in risk assessment, decision-making, and collaborative practice. Their approaches align in promoting learning, transparency, and a shift from compliance-driven models to relationship-based and safety-focused practices (Munro, Reference Munro2010, Reference Munro2019; Turnell et al., Reference Turnell, Munro and Murphy2013). Munro (Reference Munro2010) furthers the initial research through a focus on moving away from a compliance-driven culture, replaced by a learning organization that engages all levels of the workforce through “feedback loops in the system where lower-level workers are not afraid to communicate honestly about their experiences, both good and bad, and senior managers treat their feedback as a valuable source of learning” (Munro, Reference Munro2010, p. 1135).

In her ongoing research in 2019, Munro identifies three cultural approaches to assessing child safety evidence and making decisions: pathological culture, bureaucratic culture, and generative culture (learning environment). See definitions in Table 2.

To help shift to a learning organization or adopt a growth mindset, leaders must embody and live leadership practices that foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making, while also helping to identify biases and prioritizing family engagement and safety networks. Finally, Turnell, Munro, and Murphy (Reference Turnell, Munro and Murphy2013) argue that an authentic learning organization is stronger than organizations with a compliance-driven philosophy, particularly when facing crises. This is particularly true in the aftermath of serious incidents like child fatalities. Leaders willing to be courageous and take a systemic view of child welfare help shift the conversation from blame to learning, creating space for growth, accountability, and meaningful change (Turnell et al., Reference Turnell, Munro and Murphy2013).

Neuroscience-Informed Leadership Practices

In the article “Leadership Rebooted: Cultivating Trust with the Brain in Mind,” eight neuroleadership practices are tied to improving trust, psychological safety, and workforce retention (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020). This author integrated the empirical research of Dr. Paul Zak (Reference Zak2017a) and the neuroleadership research of Dr. David Rock (Reference Rock2008, Reference Rock2009a, Reference Rock2010, Reference Rock2018) to align leadership practices with the human services vision and values, resulting in a leadership approach that resonated with organizational needs. The capacity-building model draws on the concepts from Zak and Rock’s research to help leaders embrace a more human-centered, emotionally intelligent approach to leadership.

The approach evolved into the immersive leadership capacity-building model, which includes Zak’s eight leadership practices. The language was revised based on experience implementing these practices in human services and child welfare. Four additional practices were extracted and identified as core to integrate with Zak’s (Reference Zak2017a) eight highlighted practices (see Table 3). These twelve practices create a synergy that creates a learning environment, safety culture, and strategic and forward-thinking leadership that serves the workforce well (see Figure 2).

Table 3Neuroscience-Informed Leadership Practices for Capacity-Building Model

Table 3 long description.

Table 3 Long description

It highlights key practices:

Leaders recognize and celebrate success, publicly acknowledging effort, progress, and individual strengths. They codesign clear, challenging, and achievable goals aligned with the organization’s mission and provide ongoing feedback.

The framework emphasizes empowerment and autonomy, encouraging independent decision-making, innovation, and learning from mistakes. Leaders promote self-management by leveraging team members’ strengths, skills, and lived experience.

It calls for transparent, multidirectional communication, modeling honesty, shared decision-making, and valuing input from staff, partners, and clients.

Leaders are encouraged to build authentic, caring relationships that foster trust, empathy, belonging, and psychological safety. They invest in growth through coaching, succession planning, and continuous learning.

The model also highlights vulnerability and integrity, emotional regulation, and grounding leadership in emotional awareness.

Additional components include challenging the status quo through innovation, intentionally cultivating trust and psychological safety within teams, and integrating mindfulness, resilience, and workforce wellness into daily practice.

Overall, the framework presents leadership as relational, transparent, growth-oriented, and mission-driven.

^a Original Zak (Reference Zak2017a) neuroleadership practice term in parentheses.

Figure 2

Neuroscience-Informed Leadership Practices

Figure 2 Long description

The image displays a 3 by 4 grid of 12 neuroscience-informed leadership practices under the heading Improve Trust, Psychological Safety, Belonging, and Innovation ‘Growth Mindset’. Each practice appears in a colored box with an icon. The practices listed are: Disrupt and Transform Status Quo; Build Trust and Psychological Safety (High-Performing Teams); Recognize and Celebrate Team Success; Co-Design Achievable Challenges; Encourage Autonomy and Trust Decisions; Recognize Gifts and Encourage Self-Management; Multi-Directional Transparent and Frequent Communication; Build Collaborative and Authentic Relationships; Talent and Development Coaching; Communicate Gifts, Vulnerabilities and Mistakes; Emotional Regulation; and Integrate Mindfulness and Promote Belonging.

Source: Adapted from Pittman (2020) and Zak (2017a).

The immersive leadership capacity-building model, grounded in neuroscience, is part of the biological and economic system: the brain. Zak notes that our brains “seek to deploy efficiently to help us survive and thrive” (Reference Zak2017a, p. 19). In his studies and book, The Trust Factor, Zak measured the levels of oxytocin produced by the brain in various environments, including the boardroom, office, and during meetings, when individuals experienced specific interactions with their leaders or colleagues. He found that the more people experience neuroscience-informed behaviors, the stronger their trust, cooperation, and forgiveness become (Zak, Reference Zak2017a). While some leadership models incorporate neuroscience ideas, they often fail to assess the actual biological impact on individuals. What sets the neuroscience-informed leadership capacity-building model apart is that it draws from research with measurable outcomes. It is a more evidence-informed approach tied to real-world, positive changes in leadership and organizations.

A thread running throughout the twelve leadership practices is a neuroscience-informed communication model, the SCARF model (Rock, Reference Rock2008), that helps leaders intentionally think through all communication, stimulating the workforce reward response in the brain versus the threat response. SCARF – or status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness – of the workforce and how engagement, respect, security, control, and the sense of connectedness and belonging they feel in the organization (Manjaly et al., Reference Manjaly, Francis and Francis2024; Rock, Reference Rock2008; see Figure 3). Tailoring system changes and other communications through the SCARF model, whether written or verbal, helps inform the workforce of shifts in a way that fosters further buy-in. Leaders who structure the message specifically using the following questions, influence, motivation, and trust are furthered, even in times of crisis.

Figure 3

Communication to Reward Response (SCARF)

Figure 3 Long description

A vertical diagram titled Five Elements of Reward Response. On the left side are five labeled sections arranged downward: Feeling Respected (status), Future (certainty), Autonomy, Belonging (relatedness), and Equity (fairness). Each section includes guiding leadership reflection questions in adjacent blue boxes. Feeling Respected includes questions about being seen, valued, recognized, how contributions are used, and impact on title, role, or team. Future focuses on what will happen next, uncertainty, timelines, intended outcomes, next decisions, and communication methods. Autonomy asks about control over choices, level of autonomy, and whether roles or responsibilities change. Belonging addresses connection, inclusion in decisions, leadership impact, and whether ideas and feedback will be heard. Equity considers whether processes and decisions are transparent, consistent, fair, and whether all perspectives have been considered.

Source: Adapted from Rock (2008, 2009a, 2009b).

By using the SCARF framework to guide communication, leaders create a work environment where team members feel recognized, valued, and essential to the organization’s success. A workforce that feels important and respected, understands what will happen next, has choices and a sense of control over changes and events, and experiences a sense of being valued for their unique talents, trust, and psychological safety, along with fairness and consistent expectations, tends to stay longer, is more committed, and performs better (Rock, Reference Rock2008, Reference Rock2009a, Reference Rock2009b). By applying the SCARF model within the twelve leadership practices, leaders address the brain’s response of the workforce, engage in multilevel and multidirectional communication, and aim for more precise, clear, and transparent communication.

Impact of Living Neuroscience-Informed Leadership

As leaders implement neuroscience-informed practices, they become more effective at regulating their emotions, building trust and emotional credibility, leading with a growth mindset, and partnering with their teams to foster a culture of safety. This shift has a ripple effect, improving organizational health, strengthening service delivery, and driving better outcomes for children and families. Research and data indicate that organizations that invest in building leaders through neuroscience-informed leadership practices have healthier cultures, teams, and performance and are better able to lead through crisis (Casey, n.d.; Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; Turnell et al., Reference Turnell, Munro and Murphy2013; Zak, Reference Zak2017b). Trust and psychological safety are two of the most impactful areas that drive a learning organization. According to Google’s Project Aristotle (Google, 2015), improved psychological safety led to increased productivity by 19%, innovation by 31%, reduced turnover by 27%, and enhanced engagement by 3.6 times. Boston Consulting Group (2024) found that psychological safety significantly increases by more than four times for women and for employees who identify as Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC), by five times for people with disabilities, and by six times for LGBTQ+ employees.

Zak (Reference Zak2017a) found that organizations with high trust have a workforce with 74% less stress, 50% higher productivity, 13% fewer sick days, 76% more engagement, and 40% less burnout. Finally, Aksahin et al. (Reference Akşahin, Dagli, Altinays, Altinay, Altinay, Soykurt, Bahcelerli and Adedoyin2023) noted that leaders who apply neuroscience-informed practices help create a culture that aligns with the brain’s natural inclinations toward trust, reward, and collaboration. Research supports that organizations are better positioned to thrive by implementing intentional, neuroscience-informed leadership practices that enhance the workforce experience and activate the brain’s reward response.

Fused with Technical and Managerial Practices

Neuroscience-informed leadership practices must be integrated with technical and managerial practices for leaders to move fluidly between advancing a vision, empowering practices, and balancing support for workflow and day-to-day operations. Management is the technical knowledge process of planning, organizing, and coordinating resources to achieve specific objectives (Azad et al., Reference Azad, Anderson, Brooks, Garza, O’Neil, Stutz and Sobotka2017). Management, often characterized as the science of running an organization, is rooted in systematic approaches that transition decision-making from opinions to fact-based actions. The Children’s Bureau (n.d.) penned three briefs on successful organizational capacity directly related to leaders and their leadership practices. The model’s technical and managerial leadership practices mirror the broad structure the Children’s Bureau outlines in their second brief entitled How Can Child Welfare Organizational Capacity Be Measured? The five focus areas include resources, infrastructure, knowledge and skills, organizational culture and climate, and engagement and partnership (Children’s Bureau, n.d.; see Table 4). The immersive leadership capacity-building model anchors this side of leadership and these five areas in the realities of day-to-day operations, focused on the three broad areas of (1) operational roles, knowledge, and mission alignment, (2) strategic policy to practice decision-making, and (3) operational and fiscal excellence (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Technical/Managerial Leadership Practices

Figure 4 Long description

A grid titled Technical/Managerial Leadership Practices: Analytical, Logical, and Day-to-Day Operations ‘Executing tasks for day-to-day results.’ It displays ten practice areas in two rows of five boxes with icons. The first row includes: Clarify Values, Mission, and Role Expectations; Manage Timeliness and Prioritizations; Develop Standard Operating Procedures, Apply Law and Policy; Invest in Structured Supervision and Coaching; and Continuous Quality Improvement, Utilize Feedback. The second row includes: Federal and State Statutes, Policy, and National Best Practices; Evaluate and Develop Programs, Conduct Needs Assessments; Prioritize Budget, Use Performance Based Contracting; Provide Feedback on Performance, Establish Regular Check-Ins; and Foster Client and Community Partner Experience, Incorporate Lived Experience.

Source: Adapted from Azad et al. (2017) and Children’s Bureau (n.d.).

The Immersive Capacity-Building Framework: Where Science Meets Practice

The immersive leadership capacity-building model is rooted in implementation science and integrates neuroscience-informed leadership and technical/managerial practices. The model has been utilized for practice, supervision, and leadership capacity-building in human services organizations. It employs a multitiered framework that links learning to practical application in leadership, decision-making, and policy-driven practices. While this article primarily focuses on leadership capacity-building, the practice capacity-building model is tailored for workers and supervisors in child welfare organizations, focusing on practice in the field and supervisory oversight and decision-making. Both practice and leadership capacity-building models are nested in the learning cycle surrounding leaders with a “learning ecosystem” where they can grow, excel, and thrive. The model focuses on leaders at all levels of the organization and has implications for cross-disciplinary success (Zak, Reference Zak2017a). Every leadership level in the organization, from supervisors, managers, administrators, deputy directors, directors, and commissioners, benefits from the learning sessions and one-on-one modeling, coaching, and support they experience together.

The dynamic learning ecosystem ensures that practice skills or leadership practices are actively lived, continuously refined, and enriched through one-on-one coaching embedded in daily environments, providing real-time support and feedback. This enables leaders to apply and operationalize their learning, yielding practical, tangible, and actionable outcomes across five key areas: (1) learning and relearning sessions; (2) observational learning through one-on-one modeling, coaching, accountability, and reflective feedback loops; (3) experiential learning through day-to-day leadership practice; (4) action learning through real-time coproblem-solving and decision-making; and (5) learning through observations and a peer learning communities.

Learning (and Relearning) Sessions

Growth is ongoing for leaders (and workers/supervisors) as they learn new leadership practices or best practices for service delivery and revisit existing ones to improve areas that are not serving themselves or others well. Learning and relearning sessions help leaders focus on core practices of neuroscience-informed leadership as well as technical and managerial skills, providing opportunities to practice these skills during the session and immediately afterward. Leaders participate in various forms of self-assessment, including self-reflection and peer feedback, across key leadership domains. These include assessing emotional regulation, practicing strategies to reregulate and coregulate, and applying insights from peer evaluations to deepen their understanding. Monthly learning sessions, supported by one-on-one coaching and interaction, help leaders apply what they have learned. Creating space for practicing concrete leadership skills ensures leaders not only gain knowledge but also implement it in real-world situations, reinforcing learning through practical application. The relearning component helps leaders revisit what they already know or need to revisit to evolve their practice, while integrating new, relevant practices aligned with real-world challenges, thus gradually building confidence and muscle memory.

Each session is purposefully designed and tailored to meet the needs of that leader or team, building capacity by connecting theory and science with practical applications. Whether through neuroscience-informed strategies that enhance self-regulation and decision-making or technical and managerial tools for workload and streamlined, more efficient processes, participants leave with two to three actionable leadership practices they can apply immediately. This ensures demonstrating tangible skills with lasting impact and measurable growth in leadership effectiveness. Topic examples include:

• Organizational Values, Emotional Regulation, and Emotional Capital for Leading

• Leadership Practices to Move the Mission: Support, Accountability, and Trust

• The Culture of “We”: Shared Organizational Decision-Making

• Cultivating a Resilient, Healthy Culture and Climate

• Communication for Organizational Health, including SCARF model (Rock, Reference Rock2008)

• Focus on Timeliness: Recognizing and Managing Priorities in Leadership

• Continuous Quality Improvement – Growth Mindset for a Learning Environment, includes Data Deep Dives

• Integration of Managing and Leading – Doing What You Say You Will (Compassionate Accountability)

• Communication × Infinity: Multidirectional Feedback Loops, Utilizing the SCARF Model, and Engaging the Workforce in Practice Feedback

• Outcome-Focused Leadership: Setting Goals, with Accountability

• Workforce Wellness – Building a Change Agile, Resilient Workforce

• Cultivating a Psychologically Safe, High-Performance Team

• Executive Team: High-Performing Team Culture Deep Dive (a series of meetings)

• Deep Dive Session: Delineation of Roles, Expectations, and Clarity on Leading

• Networking, Collaboration, and Building Stakeholder Relationships

Observational Learning: One-on-One Modeling, Coaching, and Accountability

There are several elements in the observational learning component of the capacity-building model, all of which culminate in a learning ecosystem for the worker, supervisor, or leader. Through a series of one-on-one observations, modeling, coaching, and accountability for results lens, leaders can learn by watching an experienced capacity-building coach who has “been in their shoes,” doing (trying the skill), and being the leader they aspire to be. Their openness to learning and vulnerability are key in this part of the learning process, as they must acknowledge that they have room for growth as a leader. The relationship between the executive capacity-building coach and the leader is key for this to occur. That openness leads to opportunities for honest feedback, self-reflection, and new ways of leading.

Experiential Learning: Practice and Apply

Experiential learning is achieved through the leader’s “immersive” experience in learning (Training Industry, n.d.). Kolb introduced experiential adult learning theory in 1984, built on a simple but powerful idea that people learn best through experience. Kolb’s (Reference Kolb2015) four-stage learning cycle includes concrete experience or reinterpretation of existing experience and assimilating that information, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization – or connecting experience to skills or theories – and, finally, active experimentation, which involves applying what was learned through experiential “hands-on” learning. Experiential learning brings together all the leaders who have learned prior to the capacity-building learning sessions, integrates new knowledge and insights from one-on-one observational learning and coaching, and allows them to apply and practice the skills independently. Samuel and Durning (Reference Samuel and Durning2022) found that the experiential learning model accelerated leaders’ knowledge and understanding of how it is translated in the real world, noting that the ongoing feedback from coaches fostered the most critical growth.

The feedback and the leader’s reflection on the feedback help translate learning into new behaviors, attitudes, and skills (Training Industry, n.d.). Waller et al. (Reference Waller, Reitz, Poole, Riddell and Muir2017) found that experiential learning with a coach enhanced the emotional regulation and confidence of leaders in trying new leadership practices and ideas. For leaders to be in a “reward response” in their brain during experiential learning, it is critical that they have support, feel they are in a safe psychological environment, and are focused on learning rather than “doing it right” (Waller et al., Reference Waller, Reitz, Poole, Riddell and Muir2017). The internalization of that learning occurs authentically after experiencing it firsthand, in reflection, and through feedback (Training Industry, n.d.).

The benefits of experiential learning are vast, including the fact that coaching a leader in this area can be done virtually or in person, helping bridge the gap between knowing, being, and doing (Bosworth, Reference Bosworth2023; Global Partnership, 2020). In-person connection is essential when first establishing a relationship, and building trust is imperative to the success of capacity-building. Many virtual apps and techniques allow the coach to have multiple check-ins with the leader throughout the day and be “with” their leader via video in meetings, conferences, and other settings. Neuroscience research also supports that we learn best experientially, retain knowledge, and change our behavior when “the emotional circuits within our brain are activated. Visceral, lived experience best activates these circuits; they prompt us to notice both things in the environment and what’s going on inside ourselves” (Gurdjian et al., Reference Gurdjian, Halbeisen and Lane2016, p. 2). Building upon their experiences of trying out new leadership practices, leaders’ experiential learning is complemented by action learning.

Action Learning: Real-time Coproblem-Solving and Decision-Making

Within the learning ecosystem are opportunities for leaders to ask for support and utilize modeling and coaching for immediate or crisis-oriented situations and highly complex issues. Action learning is an agile methodology that allows leaders to learn while leading, managing, and facilitating their day-to-day activities to lead organizations (Volz-Peacock et al., Reference Volz-Peacock, Carson and Marquardt2016). Action learning is a “timely, innovative, effective, and adaptive methodology for developing leaders wherever they may be” (Volz-Peacock et al., Reference Volz-Peacock, Carson and Marquardt2016, p. 319).

Action learning is a problem-solving approach and leadership learning process where leaders tackle real-world challenges and co-problem-solve with their executive coach. The leader addresses the challenge either alone or with their coach, based on the coproblem-solving idea or strategy, and then reflects with their coach on the solution’s effectiveness and what they learned (Marquardt, Reference Marquardt2011; Volz-Peacock et al., Reference Volz-Peacock, Carson and Marquardt2016). Action learning is effective face-to-face and remote/virtual, much like experiential learning. It integrates critical thinking, collaboration, and continuous improvement, making it a powerful and highly adaptive tool for leadership capacity-building. Action learning also allows the executive coach to see the leader in action in multiple venues and can contribute to their leadership practice observation opportunities.

Community of Practice and Learning

A peer-colleague Community of Learning and Practice (CoLP) supports the immersive leadership capacity-building model elements. The term was coined by cognitive anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, who observed that learning is stronger in a “community,” is a social activity, and that people grow and learn more readily in a community learning environment. A CoLP is based on the notion that learning occurs socially and contextually (Lave & Wenger, Reference Lave and Wenger1991; Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, Reference Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner2020). CoLP is a group of people passionate about a common topic or goal. They learn together to improve their skills and deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting continuously (Lave & Wenger, Reference Lave and Wenger1991; Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, Reference Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Traynern.d., Reference Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner2020). In Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner’s (Reference Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner2020) most recent research, they take Lave and Wenger’s thirty-year-old social theory to the next level, finding that while the intentional learning space of communities of learning and practice is important, even more learning takes place in other social learning spaces such as conferences, in team discussions, in peer interactions, and online spaces. This offers even more opportunities for leaders to apply their new knowledge, test it out, discuss it, and apply it in various situations.

In the CoLP and other learning spaces, significant learning occurs with peers and colleagues about their application and success and barriers in using neuroscience-informed leadership practices and technical/managerial practices, including their wins, missteps, and skill areas they may need to adjust. Some examples include:

The Community of Learning and Practice formally connects each month, either virtually or in person, to discuss learning (relearning) from the monthly group session, apply that knowledge in their day-to-day leadership, and share lessons learned. These sessions help supervisors, managers, and administrators foster collaborative problem-solving, enabling team members to brainstorm solutions when “real-time” challenges arise. Anyone in the group can bring a leadership, supervisory, practical, or technical/managerial issue they are currently grappling with to the group session, and the group will help refine leadership practices, critically problem-solve, and help team members come up with ideas to try for solutions. This continuous quality learning environment encourages growth, adaptability, and shared knowledge, ensuring that leadership remains proactive and prepared to face evolving demands and complexities of human services organizations.

The Neuroscience of Change: Understanding the Adapted Kübler-Ross Change Curve

The Kübler-Ross change curve, an organizational change framework, was initially developed to describe the stages of grief from an emotional and therapeutic perspective. However, the model has been adapted to apply to systemic change, especially in workplace and leadership contexts (Reed, n.d.). By applying the Kübler-Ross change curve framework, leaders can intentionally enhance relationships, communication, belonging, and overall organizational health, enabling the organization to move more effectively through the change process (Elisabeth Kübler-Ross Foundation, n.d.; see Table 5).

Table 5Kübler-Ross Change Curve, Neuroscience, and Organizational Connections

Table 5 long description.

Table 5 Long description

Shock: An immediate emotional reaction of disbelief or numbness. The amygdala activates, triggering a stress response and shutting down a growth mindset. The workforce appears confused, stunned, and less productive.

Denial: Refusal to accept the change. The brain protects the status quo and rejects new information. Employees minimize the change and behave as though nothing is different.

Frustration: Growing awareness leads to anger, blame, or resistance. Loss of perceived control causes emotional dysregulation. Resistance becomes more visible and emotional reactions increase.

Depression: Feelings of loss or helplessness emerge. Emotional regulation is difficult and growth stalls. Morale drops, withdrawal increases, and disengagement is evident.

Experiment: Individuals begin cautiously trying new approaches. The brain’s threat response decreases and new neural pathways form. Curiosity returns and performance begins to recover.

Decision: Commitment develops as benefits become clearer. The brain re-engages in planning and reframes the change positively. Employees take initiative and pursue new learning.

Integration: Change becomes the new normal. New neural pathways are reinforced and a growth mindset is sustained. Confidence, engagement, cohesion, and performance strengthen across the team.

The image connects emotional responses to change with neuroscience and observable organizational behavior.

Source: Adapted from Charokar (Reference Charokar2024), Edmondson (Reference Edmondson2018), Elisabeth Kübler-Ross Foundation (n.d.), and Rock (Reference Rock2009a), Zak (Reference Zak2017a).

The Kübler-Ross change curve has seven stages instead of the original five, reflecting the complex and nonlinear nature of change adaptation (The Kübler-Ross Foundation, n.d.). Navigating organizational change is inherently complex, involving a dynamic interplay between the change curve stages, neuroscience-informed responses embedded in the leadership capacity-building model, and the workforce’s emotional and behavioral reactions, all of which converge into a natural trajectory of adaptation and growth (Pittman, Reference Pittman2020; The Kübler-Ross Foundation, n.d.). Keeping the change curve in mind, while evolving leadership practices and tending to culture, helps set organizations up for success.

Team Working Agreement

The dialogue, discussion, self-reflection, and outcome from the sessions result in a team that has furthered trust, psychological safety, and belonging, and helps build a high-performing team. Team working agreements are a foundational tool when cultivating high-performing teams, because they level-set by providing agreed-upon definitions by which the team will function (Niubó, Reference 72Niubó2023; Rossingol, Reference Rossingol2024; Somanathan, Reference Somanathan2024). Based on the literature, specific areas of leadership and team behavior must be considered for a meaningful working agreement. The working agreement must be codesigned, clear, and outline specific behaviors in each domain from which the team will function. The domains include:

• Continuing to work within brave space, assuming positive intent

• Trust, psychological safety, and belonging (what specifically do team members need to continue to build this)

• Communication – leaving the meeting with a message of “we,” the executive team, ongoing engagement efforts with the workforce to inform practice, and specifically, how they will manage the organizational changes through the specific Kübler-Ross change curve stages

• Inviting dialogue, differing opinions, and ideas

• Naming, celebrating, and valuing the individual gifts of each team member and how the team will utilize them

• Every voice matters: Informed decision-making, with feedback loops

• Conflict: How the team members will handle conflicts when they arise, doing so early and directly, with respect and curiosity

• Strategic task allocation, progress reports, and accountability for driving forward tasks and systemic change

• Inviting participation, offering opportunities to process information, and revisiting discussions after reflection

• Mistakes are seen as growth: Respect, nonjudgment, and inclusion

• Reflective feedback, engaging in self-reflection, and opportunities to grow

• Working environment, including virtual and face-to-face (i.e., engaged culture to indicate presence virtually to have the camera on)

• Collaboration and working on common goals, together

• Accountability, or psychological ownership, and doing what you say you will do

Once the team finalizes its working agreement, it must then put the theory into practice by bringing it to life and utilizing it consistently, encouraging one another to uphold it, and honing the leadership skills needed to improve and sustain it over time. As team members and leaders grow, they should revisit this fluid, living document to allow space for the ongoing evolution of the team. This is the foundation of a high-performing team that will continue to lead toward organizational health.

Tandem Executive Leader Capacity-Building

When teams have deeply rooted barriers, such as historical, embedded cultural, trust, or psychological safety challenges, traditional one-on-one coaching may not create the breakthrough needed to move the team forward. In such situations, tandem capacity-building, where two coaches work alongside different executive leaders, has proven to be highly effective. This dual approach sheds light on the genuine dynamics of day-to-day interactions, including how team members navigate conflict, make decisions, and influence one another. In addition, each coach gains insight from different vantage points, hearing and observing both sides of the relationship’s dynamics.

By creating space for real-time feedback and joint reflection, this dual approach accelerates a shift in leadership practices and team culture that might take much longer through individual coaching. It requires a higher level of vulnerability, openness, and willingness to change for each team member. The results can be significant and help move other team members forward as the relationships shift, which in turn helps advance the team’s performance.

Culture Catalysts

In organizations where leaders, executive teams, and the workforce have engaged in the immersive capacity-building model, in both leadership and practice, several key areas have emerged as the strongest drivers of trust: communication, role clarity, psychological safety, organizational health, high-trust high-performing teams, a sense of belonging, and a shared vision with accountability. As leaders practice their new learning, form new habits, and address cultural barriers with their teams, incremental shifts turn into significant changes that positively impact organizational health, beginning to happen. In redefining and exploring four discrete areas – communication, role clarity, culture and climate, and high-performing, high-trust teams – leaders gain leverage to strengthen their leadership practices, relationships, and organizations.

Practice and Workforce Retention

A variation of this capacity-building model has been implemented with newly trained and veteran child welfare workers following preservice training. Jurisdictions that have adopted this approach report overwhelmingly positive feedback, especially about how accompanying workers in the field, such as joining workers on their first home visits or supporting them as they hone their initial skills, has significantly improved worker confidence. These supports help bridge the gap between training (learning) and practice (doing), reinforcing how to apply preservice content, interpret the policy in real time, and make safety decisions while engaging with children and families.

Modeling child welfare practice skills for new workers has emerged as a critical learning component, and modeling coupled with coaching is even more so, especially when going into the field. It furthers essential skills such as interpreting policy through the lens of child safety, completing accurate safety assessments using structured decision-making tools, engaging in critical thinking through inquiry, and asking reflective questions to deepen connection and insight with families. Notably, several workers who were initially uncertain about remaining in child welfare reported that the capacity-building support gave them the real-world, tangible validation they needed during field visits, child and family team meetings, and case staffing with supervisors. This ultimately helps workers and supervisors make more informed decisions about their fit and future in the child welfare profession. Workers, supervisors, and leaders alike have identified the combination of learning sessions and the concrete skills they can apply with individualized modeling and coaching as a significant stay factor influencing workforce stability.

Some of the observed outcomes from capacity-building with workers include: updating documentation, in some cases that were pending for over a year; staying current in quality documentation through system tools; the codesign and successful adoption of standard operating procedures; improved application and use of structured decision-making tools; more specific, honed safety assessments and planning; increased engagement and use of safety networks; improved permanency plans realized; and timelier assessments. This also resulted in several jurisdictions completing their program improvement plans more quickly and sustaining those efforts over time. In several jurisdictions, these practice improvements were accompanied by notable workforce retention increases following capacity-building.

Supervision

Although no formal study has been conducted, informal qualitative evidence gathered over five years of facilitating the capacity-building model with supervisors suggests that new and experienced supervisors have improved their individual team’s trust, case decision-making, and programmatic oversight through one-on-one modeling and coaching. Supervisors consistently report greater skill retention when real-time coaching is embedded within their day-to-day responsibilities, such as during case staffing with workers, pre-staffing before responding to child protective services reports, and various decision-making contexts. Additionally, supervisors have noted that codesigning tools to improve documentation patterns, embedding workload management tools, and case conferencing tools focused on the inquiry have enhanced their ability to engage in deeper conversations about child safety. These tools, combined with coproblem-solving in real time and supportive coaching that normalizes asking for help, have contributed to their increased confidence in their leadership roles.

Early outcomes from implementing capacity-building with supervisors include advances in safety decision-making, increased referencing of policy during case consultations, and more consistent use of structured case conferencing tools. Supervisors demonstrated greater diligence in reviewing worker documentation in a timely manner, giving suggestions for quality improvements, and better-balanced operations and workload management across their teams. Additionally, supervisors used more reflective supervision, inquiry, and coaching to guide worker growth rather than directive approaches. Many supervisors also began mentoring their new peers, contributing to developing a collaborative learning culture within the organization. This shift helps normalize continuous learning, peer support, and shared responsibility for practice excellence. Managers noted that supervisors had increased confidence in navigating and making decisions on complex cases, clarity in expectations with their teams, and advocating more effectively for resources for team support. Overall, supervision growth contributed to greater alignment between policy, supervision, and practice with children and families while reinforcing a culture of accountability and shared learning.

Stakeholder Collaboration

Executive leaders shared that their relationships with the workforce and community partners have improved after participating in the immersive leadership capacity-building model. By attending to relationships, focusing on building trust, and navigating difficult conversations, leaders set the stage for better psychological safety in high-stakes environments with partners. Leaders reported that these practices led to stronger collaboration with community partners, more transparent communication with staff, and more aligned, shared goals and values-driven engagement across systems.

In addition, the author’s role in facilitating leadership capacity-building involved neutral facilitation with directors and community stakeholders around specific conflictual issues, giving them opportunities to see leadership practices through modeling. For example, in a serious injury child protective services case involving several organizations, leaders could better regulate their emotions, focus on strengths and commonalities, and problem-solve while disrupting the status quo of what had “always been done.” This system shift with community partners helped heal past relationships and move forward to collaborate more closely.

Leadership Growth and Organizational Performance

Leaders experiencing the immersive leadership capacity-building reported feeling more confident and had increased assurance that leadership succession could be developed with their direct reports. They reported a better understanding of their emotional regulation, building emotional capital with their teams and the workforce, and how to reregulate themselves and help others reregulate when dysregulated. This resulted in more effective team meetings and redirecting discussions to get them back on track and focused on outcomes. They also reported that attention to psychological safety and belonging on their teams helped them work through some significant team trust barriers, resulting in a team working agreement that improved accountability, team commitment, collaboration toward common outcomes, and communication. They shifted their organizational culture and health toward a more resilient one by implementing workforce wellness supports, paying attention to resiliency efforts, and creating open opportunities and diverse spaces for communication. Leaders emphasize that neuroscience-informed communication models and a growth mindset were challenging for them at first but helped them make some of the most significant shifts in how they are experienced as leaders. Additionally, the modeling of a growth mindset supported their organizations in implementing a truly embedded continuous quality improvement philosophy across their organizations.

Leaders concurrently experiencing immersive leadership capacity-building and engaged in a child welfare program improvement plan with their supervising state agency reported that integrating neuroscience-informed leadership skills significantly enhanced their ability to navigate complex change efforts. These leaders described becoming more collaborative partners with the supervising agency, fostering a shared approach to improvement rather than a compliance-driven dynamic, and the ability to better regulate during emotionally charged discussions. They also noted that the learned leadership practices helped them set a positive tone for new practice implementation, creating space for clarity around expectations, roles, and shared accountability. This clarity helped shift the organizational philosophy toward program improvement as a sustainable, continuous quality improvement practice, versus something to be checked off during the formal program improvement plan. Leaders were better equipped to balance the dual demands of meeting policy and performance benchmarks while also supporting the workforce through the realities of daily practice.

Additional benefits included increased confidence in leading through uncertainty, more substantial alignment across program leadership teams, and improved communication with staff around the “why” behind changes. Several leaders reported that their ability to model vulnerability, curiosity, and clarity under pressure built credibility with staff and stakeholders, supporting momentum for sustained change. Some observed outcomes include leaders who shifted their leadership practices, leading their organizations out of program improvement more quickly, better retaining their workforce, and incrementally improving child welfare performance metrics. Leaders also began to engage the workforce more often, applying their feedback to policy and practice, and clients who received services to help inform internal practices.

Finally, specific organizational performance and processes showed noticeable improvement across multiple program areas. These improvements included increased assessment timeliness, assessment backlog case completion, enhanced documentation quality, and more frequent and purposeful supervision. Supervisory conversations demonstrated greater depth of questions, alignment with policy, and focus on critical thinking, as evidenced through conference notes. Organizations also experienced culture shifts toward broader continuous quality improvement efforts, strengthened policy application to day-to-day decision-making, and more consistent use of practice tools. Additionally, improvements were noted in accountability across teams and more intentional use of data to guide decisions and monitor progress. Because leaders were modeling with the workforce what they expected workers to model with children and families, there was better alignment between leadership expectations and frontline practice with families, leading to greater coherence across all levels of the organization. Teams reported improved communication, precise role definition, and transparent planning with families.

Many jurisdictions also observed increased staff engagement and morale, particularly as supervisors and workers experienced coaching and support that validated their experiences and reinforced their strengths. As confidence and competence grew, so did collaboration within teams, across departments, and with external partners. Overall, all jurisdictions reported improvements in leadership across multiple levels and organizational culture and climate.

Limitations

This article is written from the experience, observations, and qualitative insights from various sources and methods across multiple jurisdictions. While the informal findings offer valuable real-world applications, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, no formal study or evaluation has been conducted to assess the model’s reliability or validity. The outcomes described are not derived from systematically collected or analyzed quantitative data. Instead, they reflect anecdotal and practice-based observations and informal qualitative data collected through facilitator notes, participant feedback, and leader, supervisor, and direct practitioner reflections. Because of that, these findings should be seen as early indicators rather than broad conclusions. The goal is to better understand how leadership practices impact outcomes for children and families, how the immersive capacity-building model improves program outcomes, particularly in child welfare, and assess whether the model can sustain and grow over time in various settings. A rigorous research evaluation is needed to collect empirical data to analyze short- and longitudinal outcomes.