Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wasw21
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership
& Governance
ISSN: 2330-3131 (Print) 2330-314X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wasw21
Leadership Rebooted: Cultivating Trust with the
Brain in Mind
Angela Pittman
To cite this article: Angela Pittman (2020) Leadership Rebooted: Cultivating Trust with the Brain in
Mind, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 44:2, 127-143, DOI:
10.1080/23303131.2019.1696910
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2019.1696910
Published online: 06 Dec 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 761
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Leadership Rebooted: Cultivating Trust with the Brain in Mind
Angela Pittman
Department of Social Work, University of Saint Thomas, Asheville, North Carolina, USA
ABSTRACT
Today’s human service organizations demand innovative leadership to
effectively manage outcomes, turnover, and respond to the environment.
Through neuroscience-informed approaches, leaders align their leadership
style with social work values. Doing so furthers the leader’s ability to
cultivate a positive environment within the organization. This conceptual
article profiles a cross-sectoral neuroleadership model supported by culture
and climate theory research to improve human services. Leading in this way
encourages empowerment of social workers and builds a resilient, thriving
human service organization. Implications for leadership and the social work
profession suggest that neuroleadership leads to enriched practice,
improved retention, and better outcomes.
KEYWORDS
Leadership; retention;
organizational climate;
culture; neuroleadership
Leading public human services organizations in today’s diverse environment necessitates leadership
ingenuity to meet competing demands. Leaders must be data-savvy, interact through multi-media,
communicate effectively, and navigate polarized political conditions all while delivering quality
services. Application of new knowledge to current leadership strategies can help to excel in managing organizations successfully. One key to success is the leader’s recognition that relationships are
the currency with which human services do business, whether within the workforce or with clients.
Focusing on the workforce, through implementing neuro-science-informed leadership – or neuroleadership – empowers social workers and tends a healthy, resilient culture and climate.
Neuroleadership combines brain science and psychology to better inform effective leadership skills,
including: Decision making and problem-solving, emotional regulation, collaboration, and influencing others and facilitating change (Ringleb & Rock, 2008). Leaders who utilize neuroleadership
traits and strategies have tools to transform the multifaceted challenges facing human services
organizations.
In this conceptual paper, the author examines the implementation of neuroleadership in public
human service organizations, with an emphasis on child welfare examples, within the context of the
organizational trust model and culture and climate theory. Application of neuroleadership provides
implications for social workers in direct practice and leadership roles in human service organizations. The integrated concept is a call to action for leaders and social workers, veteran and new, to
self-assess and begin to use neuroscience to lead differently. The implementation of eight essential
behaviors of the framework, based in neuroscience, cultivate a healthy, resilient organizational
climate and culture. The retention factors identified within culture and climate theory guide the
trajectory of the conceptual framework. Leaders then have a map to retool themselves, their thinking,
and the organization for improved retention and enhanced achievement of client and organizational
outcomes. Insightful, strategically implemented change positions the organization, clients, and the
workforce to succeed.

Department of Social Work, University of Saint Thomas, Asheville,
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE
2020, VOL. 44, NO. 2, 127–143
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2019.1696910
Background
Three fundamental challenges drive the need for change in human services: The impact of toxic
leadership, the consequences of turnover, and a negative culture and climate within an organization.
The three interconnected challenges reflect the philosophy of the leader, engagement of the workforce, and the level of organizational trust (Liu, Fuller, Hester, Bennett, & Dickerson, 2018). The
rationale for implementing a cross-sectoral neuroleadership model for change within public human
service organizations is examined within the background and the literature review. First, there is
discussion related to the current challenges of human services organizations. More in-depth exploration of toxic leadership, along with its impact on climate and culture, emphasizes the need for
change. Secondly, an examination of the effects of turnover from a variety of climate and culture
factors lay out an argument for transformation. Finally, analysis of the impact of climate and culture
linked to workforce retention forwards a call to action among leaders.
The value of implementing neuroleadership through the eight building blocks coupled with the
alignment of research findings from culture and climate theory provides the framework for operationalizing the model. The implications for public human services organizations, leaders, and the
workforce help set a blueprint for change for social work practice and leadership on micro, mezzo,
and macro levels. The literature review also includes recommendations about future research to
inform implementation neuroleadership to evolve leadership practices within human services.
Finally, outcomes from organizations implementing neuroleadership convey the success associated
with neuroleadership.
Why leadership change?
Understanding current research contained in the literature related to leadership in public human
services organizations helps lay the foundation for improving systems, retention, and outcomes.
Leadership is not just a position but is a grounded set of behaviors that rely on the depth of
relationships between the leader and the workforce (Bennis, 2007). A successful leadership formula
exists only if three essential elements are in place: a committed leader, consensus of the followers,
and a shared vision to which all parties aspire (Bennis, 2007). Three fundamental challenges drive
the need for leadership evolution with human service organizations: the need to replace toxic
leadership, the impact of turnover, and the influence of climate and culture within an organization.
Toxic leadership drain
Toxic leadership is a directive, traditional, and autocratic style found in many bureaucracies,
especially in the high-pressure setting of child welfare (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). Toxic leadership is
the anthesis of social work values and ethics. The most significant impact of toxic leadership is the
creation and perpetuation of negative culture and climate in day-to-day operations, practice philosophy, and during crisis. Not only does this leadership style create a “culture of fear” within the
workforce, but families and children who experience the punitive nature of the practice suffer as
a result. Glisson, Green, and Williams (2012) found that workers who experience a culture of
engagement, support, and responsiveness will demonstrate those same traits when working with
clients and the reverse is also true. Toxic leadership is particularly detrimental within the child
welfare workforce because it contributes to an already stressful job, adding to the workforce’s
secondary traumatic stress. Toxic leadership also leads to adverse outcomes, poor morale, and
emotional exhaustion of the workforce resulting in turnover (Lipman-Blumen, 2006).
Historically, public human services organizations have been reactionary in times of crisis which
results in arbitrary day-to-day practices. As leaders strive to find a balance in managing administrative
complexities, it is essential that they do not lose sight of the organizational mission and purpose. Due to
the involuntary nature of the work within public human services, specifically child welfare, traditional
leadership within human services has been one of an autocratic style. Autocratic leadership closely
128 A. PITTMAN
monitors and controls, dictates work processes, and rarely demonstrates trust in the workforce with
decisions. This leadership style has historically resulted in high turnover, low morale, and inconsistent
outcome achievement. When experiencing those challenges, direct practitioners are not empowered to
practice social work – instead they “check the box” (Lopez & Ensari, 2014). This leadership style is
counter to the values and ethics the social work profession is built upon and can exacerbate the effects of
the already difficult work. To avoid this type of culture and climate and turnover, leaders must modify
traditional styles and embrace a more authentic, humble, and neurologically intentional approach.
Leaders’ philosophy and behavior both directly and indirectly build culture and climate within an
organization.
Leadership change is complicated, as it requires the person leading the organization to be
vulnerable as well as an agent of change – for themselves and the organization. Self-evaluation is
central to the leader’s ability to create a healthy culture that supports, empowers, and celebrates the
workforce’s ability to do challenging work (Westbrook, Ellis, & Ellett, 2006). Aligning leadership
philosophy with social work values and ethics grounds culture, practice, and also promotes greater
workforce well-being. Culture and climate research finds that as a leader’s investment in a healthy,
resilient organizational climate and culture grows, retention improves (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey,
2013; Westbrook, Ellett, & Asberg, 2012; Zak, 2017). Rewiring leadership addresses these three
challenges.
Impact of turnover
Turnover is a significant concern across all disciplines in public human services, especially child
welfare (Ellett, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews, 2007). While 10–12% turnover is considered healthy, for
the past 15 years, child welfare has exceeded that rate at 20–40% (Casey, 2017; USGAO, 2003). The
fiscal costs of turnover and loss of expertise when a social worker leaves, combined with decreased
morale of those carrying higher caseloads, plummet culture and perpetuates a cycle of instability.
Two years is the average number of years’ experience for the workforce. Ellett et al. (2007) found that
most social workers leave child welfare within one to three years, impacting not only organizational
costs but human cost as well. For example, Barak, Nissly, and Levin (2001) found that high turnover
in child welfare has negative implications for the quality, consistency, and expertise needed to
address child safety.
The literature cites multiple examples of the impact of turnover on outcomes of public human
services. Social worker turnover delays the timeliness of investigations in child protection, as well as
limits the frequency of worker visits with children, resulting in diminished child safety (The United
States General Accounting Office [USGAO], 2003). The National Center on Crime and Delinquency
(2006) determined that there was a direct correlation between high turnover rates and higher rates of
maltreatment reoccurrence after three, six, and twelve months. Ryan, Garnier, Zyphur, and Zhai
(2005) found that children who have multiple social workers experience outcomes that are more
negative.
There is an adverse impact on both length of stay in foster care and achieving timely reunification
if multiple practitioners are involved with the family (Ryan et al., 2005). In their study, Flower,
McDonald, and Sumski (2005) discovered when a child had one social worker, they achieved
permanency 74.5% of the time. However, if a child had two or more social workers, the reality of
permanence dropped drastically to 17.5% (Flower et al., 2005). High turnover rates disrupt the
continuity of services, particularly when newly assigned caseworkers must conduct or reevaluate
educational, health, and safety assessments (USGAO, 2003). Additionally, turnover directly links to
both the characteristics of the climate and culture of the organization and leadership. The research
concludes that workforce turnover negatively impacts outcomes, furthering the argument for a new
leadership approach. Leaders who identify the link between high turnover and poor outcomes seek
solutions to job stressors and desire to create a healthy culture.
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 129
Organizational culture and climate
Two decades of empirical research studying human services organizational culture and climate
theory which offer substantial data for consideration. The roots of the theory conceptualize climate
and culture as the way people observe, experience, and describe human services organizational
environments (Schneider et al., 2013). Culture and climate theory originate from multiple disciplines. Understanding climate and culture is fundamental for helping leaders comprehend organizational phenomena and how certain leadership traits impact human services. Culture and climate
theory build upon the assumption of understood, shared meanings by social workers within the
organizational context.
Culture and climate are two distinct concepts yet integrated to create an organizational environment. Glisson, Green & Williams (2012) characterizes organizational culture as expectations,
whether implicit or explicit, that influence the accomplishment of work. Williams and Glisson
(2014) further explain that culture describes the shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that
characterize an organization. Westbrook, Ellett, and Asberg’s (2012) definition of culture encompasses the notion that the organization-wide shared perception of assumptions informs meaning and
focus for the workforce.
Culture has a significant influence on how the workforce performs tasks and interprets events.
Both of these impact an individual’s psychological and personal well-being. Culture also directly
influences service delivery to clients. For example, when leadership shows a strengths-based,
engaged, inclusive, partnership with the workforce, it becomes the model and the culture, for how
the workforce interacts with clients. Schneider et al. (2013) add that culture includes shared values,
beliefs, myths, and suppositions that shape the perspective of how the organization functions.
Experiences and perceptions that the workforce has about leadership drive the culture.
Organizational climate refers to the perceptions of the workforce regarding the “impact of their
work environment on their own personal and psychological well-being and functioning” (Glisson,
2012, p. 622). Schneider et al. (2013) add that climate incorporates individual and collective meaning
connected to either rewards or correction in implementation of policies, practices, and procedures.
Individual perceptions of the workforce regarding personal safety and well-being are known as the
psychological climate. When aggregate psychological climate perceptions, either positive or negative,
are shared among the workforce, it impacts both work units and the overall organizational climate
(James et al., 2008). Organizational climate is linked directly to employee motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment. All of these are associated with the performance of job duties contributing to
overall organizational outcomes (James et al., 2008).
Themes noted in the culture and climate research as stay factors lend insight to leaders on
strategies they can intentionally incorporate. Quality supervision, authentic engagement of employees in organizational and practice matters, client-focused philosophy, and addressing secondary
trauma are essential retention factors across research studies. Furthermore, autonomy in practice,
colleague support, transparent promotional opportunities, salary, and benefits were essential to
retention (Glisson, 2012; Westbrook et al., 2012). Finally, a healthy organizational climate and
culture directly impact the social worker’s intention to stay within public human services work,
particularly in child welfare (Westbrook et al., 2012). The integration of eight neuroleadership
building blocks fit well to cultivate stay factors, leading to improvements in human services.
Conceptual approach for leadership in public human services
Implementation of neuroleadership cultivates a healthy culture and climate, resulting in improved
retention, outcomes, and multiple other benefits including productivity, efficiency, increased energy,
and fewer sick days (Zak, 2017). The model for implementing leadership change rests upon the
conceptual framework of the eight behaviors within the neuroscience-informed organizational trust
model (Zak, 2017). The combination of the conceptual framework leads to the hypothesis that
neuroleadership supports social work ethics and values and is a fit with public human service
130 A. PITTMAN
organizations. While neuroleadership is beneficial for organizations, implementing it a significant
time, professional, and personal investment. It requires leaders to be vulnerable, show humility, and
demonstrate integrity. Additionally, neuroleadership promotes optimism, presence, and engagement
with the workforce. These behaviors all contribute to a resilient culture (Helwig, 2013). Examination
of the conceptual framework through the neuroleadership lens coupled with the culture and climate
theory set the foundation for understanding an integrated leadership strategy.
There are similarities between neuroleadership, and other leadership models utilized within
human service organizations. The transformational leadership model taps into the personal values
of the workforce to help cultivate a positive culture and direct work performance toward meeting
goals (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). Like neuroleadership transformational leadership utilizes
influence and authentic engagement to develop relationships. Likewise, servant leadership focuses
specifically on the leader as a support or “servant” of the workforce. The focus is on relationships
and engaging the workforce through appreciation, engagement, and integrity (Stone et al., 2004).
Many models tout some of the same leadership behaviors as neuroleadership. However, none of the
other models is based on neuroscience or biological testing, making neuroleadership a more
advanced, scientifically studied approach that is linked to multiple positive outcomes.
Methodology: neuroleadership
Neuroleadership applies brain science knowledge to leadership in the areas of motivating and
influence, change management, and engaging the workforce to better understand human response
(Ghadiri, Habermacher, & Peters, 2013). There are many disciplines within the broad topic of
neuroscience, all of which apply knowledge about how the brain reacts in specific situations
including marketing, economics, and leadership (Rock, 2010). Through the integration of psychology and neuroscience, emerging research aims to identify unconscious factors affecting behavior to
improve leadership practices (Rock & Schwartz, 2007). Boosting organizational performance through
biological knowledge about the workforce provides valuable information for leaders to further the
mission. While this is a relatively new field, with many questions still to be answered it provides
substantial insight into the inner workings of organizational culture and climate. It is through the
same neuroleadership lens that Dr. Paul Zak studied the implications of the eight leadership traits
and strategies – or building blocks – that generate trust.
Organizational trust model
The conceptual hypothesis is that through using neuroleadership, linked to eight leadership strategies, culture and climate, retention, and outcomes improve. Although human services are about
serving people, generally the high-pressure nature of the work has not been conducive for promoting
a positively viewed leadership model. This notion is counter-intuitive to social work which is
grounded in the National Association of Social Work’s (NASW) values and ethics guiding the
profession. The proposed conceptual model grounds neuroleadership into the existing research for
human services culture and climate theory, resulting in the premise that neuroleadership is effective
in public human services organizations. Neuroleadership is a natural complement to social work
values and ethics, given the workforce centric, whole-person approach. The most recent neuroleadership field study and research from Dr. Paul Zak (2017) seems most relevant to public human
services. Zak found eight fundamental building blocks promote organizational trust: Ovation,
expectation, yield, transfer, openness, caring, invest, and natural. The eight building blocks correlate
with NASW values and ethics, as well as culture and climate research findings (see Table 1).
The neuroleadership model provides a scientific foundation, through the study of the brain’s
oxytocin production, about how leadership behaviors promote trust. Oxytocin is a chemical (peptide) that is released by the pituitary gland that informs bonding and trust, not only with our
intimate or familial relationships, but within our social context of business interactions, politics, and
in society. Study of oxytocin related to specific leadership traits helps leaders apply biology to
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 131
understand how cultivating trust within climate and culture affects social workers’ performance in
organizations (Zak, 2017).
Zak measured outcomes related to oxytocin in two ways. Zak began his research in 1998 as a coeconomist in the World Bank’s Development Research Group attempting to find out why trust varies in
different countries (Zak, 2008). They found that the higher the poverty level, the lower the trust, resulting in
people who do not invest which has a negative impact on the economy. In addition, Zak applied a body of
animal research related to cooperation, to develop the theory that oxytocin might be the link to people
developing trust. He used a test where strangers would decide whether to send another stranger money
believing that the receiving stranger would return more money to them. He theorized that if this exchange
happened, their oxytocin production would increase and therefore, indicate trust. The study was done in
two large for-profit corporations. He measured this by taking blood samples immediately after the money
exchange occurred (Zak, 2017). People on the receiving end of the exchange first had greater oxytocin
production and appeared to have a positive signal about being trustworthy (Zak, 2008). However, both
feelings of trust and trustworthiness increased oxytocin in participants.
Zak also began to work with these organizations and developed a survey – Ofactor – that measures
the eight neuroleadership behaviors that promote trust (Zak, 2017). Zak confirmed the validity of
Ofactor to “capture the neurophysiologic markers of trust” in studies both in his laboratory and
organizations, through studies that included blood oxytocin levels, measured in electrocardiograms,
and skin conductance responses (Zak, 2017, p. 192). After validity was established, he offered the
Ofactor survey to organizations who wanted to measure, then improve their culture.
The outcomes espoused in Zak’s work came from comparing surveys of high trust and other
organizations and industries (business, nonprofits, state/local government) across the world. The
outcomes are significant and vary depending on the industry with additional variances across
disciplines. For instance, Zak found, not surprisingly, that nonprofits are stronger in building
a culture of trust than business, despite their lower salaries. The business sector outcomes
(discussed later in the article) had greater depth and breadth of study, with thousands of
participants from multiple corporations, including high trust organizations. The survey sample
of state and local government was extremely small and Zak purports that while low in trust, the
sample size is too small to extrapolate helpful outcomes. Neuroleadership within public human
services is not included in the studies. However, the outcomes achieved from other sectors
investing in high trust cultures make a solid argument of applicability of neuroleadership within
public human services organizations. Given Zak’s findings, leaders who implement the neuroleadership building blocks will improve employee engagement, well-being, performance, innovation,
and retention, through the stimulation of oxytocin (Zak, 2017). By doing so, healthy organizational
culture and climate evolve.
Table 1. Zak organizational trust model – factors and leadership behaviors.
Trust factor Leadership traits and strategies NASW values and ethics
Ovation success Recognize excellence and celebrate relationships Importance of human
Expectation and stimulate achievable
challenges “eustress”
Set reasonable performance expectations Competence
Yield work, train, and delegate Discretion in performing job tasks Service; social justice
Transfer strengths with job duties Encourage “job crafting” and align Dignity and worth of
person
Openness Information broadly,
often, and consistently
Communicate, listen, and share Integrity; social justice
Caring Intentionally build authentic relationships Importance of human
Invest and professional Facilitate whole person growth – personal Relationships
Natural Lead with authenticity, integrity, humbleness, and
vulnerability
Integrity; social justice
Adapted from Zak, P. J. (2017, Jan–Feb). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard Business Review, 84–90. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
2017/01/the-neuroscience-of-trust
132 A. PITTMAN
Organizational climate and culture theory
Organizational climate and culture theory (OCC) research align with and supports the implementation of this conceptual framework. The first step to creating a positive tone throughout the
organization requires an examination of current leadership behaviors, strategies, and organizational
supports, associated with the values and ethics grounding social work practice. By fostering an
ethical organizational identity through values and ethics, a foundation for quality service delivery is
established (Verbos, Gerard, Forshey, Harding, & Miller, 2007). Cultivating a values-based, ethical
organizational identity requires behaviors similar to those neuroleadership advocates. This intentional action shapes the foundational culture and climate.
Culture and climate then develops around the established organizational ethical identity. Williams
and Glisson (2014) found in several research studies that three dimensions of culture (proficiency,
resistance, and rigidity) shape three elements of climate (engagement, functionality, and stress).
Organizations with more proficient, less rigid environments encourage more engagement and less
stress, bolstering retention (Williams & Glisson, 2014). Hemmelgarn and Williams (2018) outline
specific strategies related to client availability, responsiveness, and continuity (ARC) in service
delivery that when implemented promote proficient organizational social contexts, retention and
improved outcomes. The strategies of ARC intersect with neuroleadership, furthering the hypothesis
of the effectiveness of neuroleadership within public human services.
Neuroleadership embraces the notion that through positive stress – or “eustress” – and implementation of other neuroleadership behaviors, the culture and climate, and the workforce begin to
shift to a “growth mindset”. Social workers operating within a growth mind-set perceive the
environment as non-threatening, solution-focused, innovative, and open. When the workforce
embraces a growth mind-set, the focus is on creativity and continuous quality improvement without
fear of failure, which occurs when innovating practice. Dweck, Murphy, Chatman, and Kray (n.d.)
found that organizations with a growth mind-set had 47% great trust and 34% more buy-in than
organizations with a “fixed mindset.” A growth mind-set is influential in building a positive culture
and climate and resilient organization.
Integrated neuroleadership approach
There are numerous studies related to the effectiveness of neuroleadership within business settings
and nonprofits, yet none specific to public human service organizations. While neuroleadership is
studied within nonprofits, public organizations are unique in the services they deliver and the culture
and climate with which they grapple due to the involuntary, crisis-driven nature of public human
services work. Although leaders in public organizations may model some of the neuroleadership
attributes, the intention, and entirety of the model is lacking. However, the strategies to promote
trust are generalizable, which makes neuroleadership applicable within human services (Zak, 2017).
Trust is the common denominator that provides the basis for leadership change, improved culture
and climate, and retention. Zak, Kurzban, and Matzner (2005) define trust as one person permitting
another person to make a decision that impacts them. Boyas, Wind, and Ruiz (2013) found that trust
is the expectation that leaders will be fair and collaborative. Both of these traits are critical to healthy
organizations. Trust within an organization is an “economic lubricant” and fundamentally
a relational emotion that is based on neurobiology – down to the specific neurotransmitter oxytocin
(Zak, 2017). Oxytocin tells us who and when to trust, as well as when to remain guarded. Prompting
access to oxytocin through neuroleadership strategies benefits both the workforce and the organization leading to a win-win situation.
The implications of this neuroscience-informed approach require the leader to intentionally build
opportunities throughout the day for the workforce to experience oxytocin production (Zak, 2017).
Through implementing systematic leadership traits, policies, and an organizational philosophy
aligned with trust factors, leaders create conditions in which people desire to perform well and
want to stay in organizations. Leaders’ vulnerability and engagement to exhibit their integrity,
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 133
transparent communication, and failures also further the development of trust. In his studies, Zak
(2017) was able to identify precise ways to stimulate oxytocin, enhance the work environment, and
improve performance through eight leadership building blocks.
Neuroleadership building blocks
To develop a high trust organization, the leader must be specific about how the organization works
to serve others through the public human services mission. Grounding the mission are social work
values and ethics, further connecting social workers to the purpose of the organization. The entire
purpose of human services is to provide quality services to promote self-sufficiency, safety, permanence, and well-being of individuals, families, and children. This clarity in mission gives organizations a sturdy foundation on which to build a high trust culture and climate. Reconstruction of the
culture and climate evolves by intentionally building opportunities during the day for the workforce
to stimulate oxytocin. Examination of the eight leadership buildings blocks informs operationalization of neuroleadership within public human service organizations.
Ovation
Ovation is the act of recognizing high performers within the organization. Recognition that is
spontaneous and public promotes the production of more oxytocin, which results in improved
performance (Zak, 2017). The brain makes a note of the feelings connected to appreciation and
strives to do more of what solicited the praise. Ovation consists of unexpected, specific, personal
praise and appreciation from leaders and peers, in public settings. Zak (2017) found that ovation
prompts significant brain activity linked to enhancing performance. Multiple studies find that praise,
reward, and recognition are motivating factors for the human services workforce (Boyas et al., 2013;
Fernandes, 2016; Selden & Sowa, 2011; Westbrook et al., 2012). Ovation is at the core of honoring
human relationships, social work practice, and is a dominant retention factor finding.
Expectation
Setting individual and team expectations for difficult yet obtainable challenges help promote
professional development and a growth mind-set (Zak, 2017). Fernandes (2016) notes that accepting
challenges creates a greater predictor of commitment for the workforce. Goals should be timelimited, and feedback on performance given at least weekly for building high trust. Once social
workers reach goals, leaders should return to ovation and praise the team members for their specific
contributions. Glisson, Green & Williams (2012) note that expectations set the tone of rigidity or
flexibility and innovation in service delivery.
Yield
Yield allows the workforce to have control and autonomy in how to perform tasks (Zak, 2017). Allowing
the workforce yield promotes creativity and learning from mistakes, which advances a growth mind-set.
As social workers use their creativity to further service delivery through their professional discernment,
the values of service and social justice are nurtured through yield. Further, yield improves teamwork
and innovation, resulting in buy-in from the workforce. Autonomy in human services is somewhat
bound by law, policy, and mandate. However, there are many opportunities to innovate practice
without going outside of those boundaries. Organizational culture and climate research findings identify
autonomy and innovation as stay factors for the workforce (Fernandes, 2016; Westbrook et al., 2012).
Through setting clear objectives that give the workforce discernment in meeting goals, companies
decreased turnover by 90% and increased productivity by 41% (Zak, 2017).
Transfer
Transfer encourages the workforce to utilize their strengths on projects or in areas where they have
expertise (Zak, 2017). Transfer reduces chronic stress through promoting autonomy and empowering
134 A. PITTMAN
the workforce to choose the teams with which they work. Through transfer, the leader increases job
satisfaction, commitment, and customer service (Zak, 2017). Examples include leaders’ flexibility in
allowing social workers moving to different program areas or job sharing. Both of these decrease burnout
and improve practice.
Openness
Honest, transparent, broad, and frequent communication is necessary for creating high trust
organizations. Candid communication increases trust and reduces the fear the workforce may
have about strategies or decisions made within the organization. Communication must flow in all
directions for true exchange and trust to develop between leadership and the workforce. Leaders
who engage the workforce in solutions related to practice and organizational issues organically
convey openness, trust, and vulnerability. Organizational culture and climate research identify
clear, frequent, and multiple methods of communication throughout the organization as a key to
retention. Further, openness is a common thread that supports NASW values and ethics. Leaders
who use multiple modes of communication – e-mail, video messages, social media, blogs and vlogs,
face-to-face in groups and one-on-one – are most effective (Johnco, Salloum, Olson, & Edwards,
2014).
Caring
Intentionally engaging in and developing relationships with the workforce is an asset to leaders.
Leaders who inquire about something personal to the employee improve the culture through this
simple act. Relationships between colleagues are also important to social workers’ commitment to
stay in organizations (Zak, 2017). People who had a significant relationship with someone at work
were more productive, innovative, and “present” when working (Zak, 2017). A culture of caring not
only taps into the release of oxytocin but stimulates empathy which is linked to ethical behavior.
Caring, authentic relationships are a stay factor consistently noted within culture and climate theory
research and is a professional social work value (Fernandes, 2016; Glisson et al., 2012; Westbrook
et al., 2012).
Invest
Facilitating whole person growth results in caring relationships, and openness through respectful, bidirectional communication. Understanding that the personal life of the social worker impacts their
professional lives helps leaders focus holistically on development, coaching, and support. Leaders
investing in this way improve trust, creativity, and productivity (Zak, 2017). Examples include
professional development opportunities, leave time, and team retreats.
Natural
The leadership traits of honesty, authenticity, and vulnerability are integral to cultivating a high trust
organization. Natural leaders are less authoritative; rather they ask questions, solicit feedback and
opinions, and demonstrate humility through admitting and learning from failures (Zak, 2017). By
doing so, they lead through a growth mind-set philosophy which indirectly permits the workforce to
try innovative, creative ideas without repercussions. This leadership style allows leaders to make
decisions in a more informed, intentional, genuine way. Leaders who engage authentically stimulate
oxytocin and improve trust. In human services, engaging with social workers is a core value and
essential to improving processes, practice, and outcomes (Fernandes, 2016; Glisson et al., 2012;
Westbrook et al., 2012). Leading by example is a strategy for administrators to consider. Leaders who
demonstrate a willingness to address their own secondary trauma, partner with others, focus on their
work–life balance and seek professional development, give the workforce permission to do so as well.
To better understand the dynamics and application of the conceptual framework, the discussion
and implication for human services organizations further outlines the body of research.
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 135
Discussion
The neuroscience-informed framework outlined in this conceptual paper includes a cross-sectoral
organizational trust model developed by Dr. Paul Zak (2017). While neuroleadership is primarily
studied in the business sector, there are also small studies in nonprofits, and a very small study
sample within state and local government. However, neuroleadership has not been fully implemented or primarily studied in public human services organizations. This conceptual paper asserts
neuroleadership has significant applicability in human services, as the overall results are the outcomes public organizations seek to achieve.
The neuroleadership model also supports the stay factors found in the culture and climate
research. Further, through application of neuroleadership, desired outcomes are achieved.
Through leaders’ demonstration of the eight neuroleadership behaviors, toxic leadership dissolves,
workforce retention is increased, and the culture and climate evolves into one of resilience.
Understanding the psychological and physiological responses of the workforce within the work
environment aid leaders to adjust their approach, improve trust and motivation, and increase
performance (Ghadiri et al., 2013). Both the organizational trust model and culture and climate
theory focus on building healthy, resilient organizations that excel in performance and thrive during
adversity.
Workforce stay factors
While salary and benefits are important, the culture and climate in which the workforce functions
must be healthy to retain quality staff (Westbrook et al., 2006). Human services are mission-driven
work, and the workforce delivering services need reminders about how much their investment of
“self” matters to the work. “Stay” factors, those elements of a positive organizational climate and
culture found to decrease turnover, are noted throughout the literature. One foundational stay factor
is the depth of the relationship between the leader and the social worker. Engaging social workers in
dialogue to enhance practice, improve the work environment, and address workforce well-being
forwards that relationship. This behavior alone improves one of the significant challenges of human
service organization culture and climate.
Neuroleadership focuses on engagement and authentic leadership as behaviors that promote trust,
therefore aligning the model with climate and culture findings. Additionally, leaders investing in
authentic discourse such as celebrate successes (ovation), and sharing of self (natural), help to
cultivate strong relationships. Further, autonomy in practice, colleague support, transparent promotional opportunities, salary, and benefits were crucial to retention (Glisson et al., 2012; Westbrook
et al., 2012). Other stay factors identified in the research include educational degree, supervisory
supports, relationships, and style of leadership. All of these stay factors directly impact the three
challenges in human services: leadership, workforce retention, and culture and climate.
Educational degree
Both Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) through leaders’ demonstration of the eight neuroleadership
behaviors, toxic leadership dissolves, workforce retention is increased, and the culture and climate
evolves into one of resilience. Master of Social Work (MSW) workers stay longer in public
organizations than those who do not have social work degrees. Findings from studies note that
only 39.5% of the workforce have a BSW or MSW, and less than 15% of agencies require BSW or
MSWs (Barth, Lloyd, Christ, Chapman & Dickinson, 2008; Children’s Defense Fund & Children’s
Rights, 2006). The dynamics related to the educational degree for recruitment and retention of the
workforce warrant attention. Education links to quality service delivery, supervision, and leadership
succession. Other stay factor themes linked to education include quality supervision, authentic
engagement of employees in organizational and practice matters, client-focused philosophy, and
addressing secondary trauma.
136 A. PITTMAN
Supervisory supports
Within child welfare and across other program areas in human services, experienced and new social
workers need different and specific supervisory and organizational supports. Boyas et al. (2013)
found that experienced workers desire organizational fairness, autonomy, and influence in practice
and organizational decisions. Newer workers require more supervisory availability and depth in
quality of supervision to guide them. Those who did not receive supervisory support left the
organization. Findings from previous studies suggest that there is a direct supervisory link to
cultivating an environment which allows social workers to innovate practice without fear of
repercussions (O’Mara, 2018; Rock, 2018). The eight building blocks within neuroleadership are
directly related to cultivating a learning organization. Finally, supervisors who engage social workers’ expertise in solutions related to practice or organizational matters improve buy-in and retention. The multi-leadership level implementation of neuro-informed approach deepens supervisory
supports.
Relationships
The quality of relationships between social workers and leadership helps retain a fully qualified,
diverse, and inclusive workforce (Brimhall, Lizano, & Barak, 2014). Engagement in relationships
offers opportunities for leaders to exhibit integrity, transparent communication, and vulnerabilities –
all key to the development of trust. Through demonstrating the behaviors associated in the “natural”
building block of neuroleadership, leaders are able to establish depth of relationships, therefore
tapping into oxytocin experiences for the workforce. This leads to a demonstration of whole person
investment (invest) through the development of a trauma-informed system, furthering resiliency.
Through building a comprehensive trauma-informed system that addresses physical safety, psychological safety, secondary trauma, and the overall well-being of the workforce, leaders exhibit caring.
(Esaki et al., 2013). Depth of relationships is a core driver of neuroleadership, therefore honoring the
importance of human relationships, which is also at the center of NASW values and ethics.
Leadership
Evaluating effective leadership is a risky endeavor as it requires vulnerability, introspection, and
change from the leader. Leaders who balance their leadership style with being grounded in social
work values and ethics improve buy-in and engagement from the workforce. When this investment
occurs, organizations move toward a positive, workforce-oriented, healthy work environment. The
intentionality of the neuroleadership thwarts toxic leadership, moving organizations to evolve. To
that end, the implementation of neuroscience-informed leadership can be an instrument of building
trust, which is the foundation for change. Leaders who intentionally build their day, interactions, and
meetings around the neuroleadership behaviors will steadily improve trust, which supports the
cultivation of a healthy, resilient climate and culture.
Outcomes of an integrated neuroleadership model
Neuroleadership research suggests that organizations that embrace an integrated neuro-leadership
model significantly improve in several areas of performance, all impacting leadership, retention, and
culture and climate. Zak studied neuroleadership in three industries, with the most significant
findings coming out of the business sector. Zak (2017) compared high trust to low trust organizations implementing the neuroleadership model and found that high trust organizations have: (a)
employees that are 70% more engaged; (b) 50% more productive; (c) half the turnover of low trust
organizations; (d) 40% less burnout; (e) 70% more connection with the organizational purpose; (f)
13% fewer sick days; (g) 74% less stress; (h) 56% more satisfaction with their jobs; (i) 60% closer
relationship with colleagues; (j) 41% greater sense of accomplishment, and; (k) 29% more satisfaction
with life outside of work. The outcomes are similar to the ones public human services organizations
seek and directly address the factors associated with the culture and climate research findings.
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 137
The Ofactor survey findings from the studies given additional insight about leadership and organizations. For instance, Zak found that in for-profits the average Ofactor organizational trust is 73.17 (out of
100) (Zak, 2017). The highest ranking building block for business is natural, with invest and ovation
being the lowest. Within the nonprofit sector, a smaller sample size, organization trust was at an average
of 68.79. The highest ranked trust factor is transfer – encouraging the workforce to use their strengths,
which is expected in lower budget organizations. The lowest ranking trust factor is again, ovation. Even
though trust was lower than in the for-profit sector, joy was high and associated with purpose of the
organization (Zak, 2017). Finally, in the small sample of state and local government, the Ofactor results
found that organization trust was low, at an average of 67, with the lowest ranking factor being – again –
ovation. It is clear from the studies that recognition and celebrating successes is highly under-utilized in
organizations as a whole. See Table 2.
Conclusion
Human services are at a crucial point in how leadership shapes organizational culture and climate,
workforce retention, and client outcomes. While bureaucratic public agency structures and types of
leadership practiced are somewhat the same, the workforce and political environment are not.
Therefore, leaders must pay attention to how they lead. Is leadership aligned with social work values
and ethics? Or does it promote a climate and culture of blame and stagnation? Are leaders a part of
the challenge or part of the solution? Leaders who self-evaluate and seek different strategies will
attract the new workforce, deliver quality services, and forward the mission of their organizations
and the profession.
Leadership within human services organization is not typically based on a scientifically informed
model. Neuroleadership forwards the eight specific behaviors documented to improve organizations,
while building a healthy, resilient workforce – the essential tool within human services. Additionally,
neuroleadership offers a solution that is equipped to help social workers and leaders re-align with
professional values and ethics, adjust leadership trajectory, and gain momentum to contend with
tomorrow’s complex human challenges. To meet this challenge, a leader’s ability to connect with the
workforce, and ultimately the back to the practice of social work, reinvigorates the public human
services organization, which is driven by mission and values. While leaders must still manage the
business side of the organization, reconnection to the core tenants of social work hone the focus
Table 2. Neuroleadership traits, outcomes, and culture and climate findings.
Neuroleadership trait or strategya Culture and climate research stay factorsb

Ovation; expectation; yield; transfer; open;
caring; invest; natural
Effective, engaged, authentic leadership; quality supervision; inspiring and visionary
aAdapted from Zak, P. J. (2017). The neuroscience of high-trust organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
70(1), 45–58. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000076
bAdapted from Glisson, C., Green, P. & Williams, M.J. (2012). Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of child welfare
systems: Implications for research and practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(9), 621–632. doi.10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.002 and
Westbrook, T. M., Ellett, A.J. & Asberg, K. (2012). Predicting public child welfare employees’ intentions to remain employed with
the child welfare organizational culture inventory. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1214–1221. doi: 10.1016/j.
childyouth.2012.02.010
138 A. PITTMAN
toward workforce retention and client outcomes. There are multiple cross-discipline implications
when leaders implement neuroleadership successfully.
Implications for public human service organizations
Through implementing an integrated neuroleadership approach, there are multiple implications for
social work practice, client outcomes, supervision, fiscal benefits, and public trust. All of these
elements contribute to a thriving human services organization focused on trust, the mission, and
alignment with social work values and ethics. By implementing neuroleadership, unhealthy leadership fades, workforce retention thrives, and a healthy, resilient culture and climate embeds into the
organization. Values and ethics drive the social work profession and the reasons that many
considered the profession in the beginning. Along the way, organizations with poor leadership
and a negative culture and climate pull away from the very tenants that built the profession.
Organizations that implement neuroleadership strategies notice a shift in the response of clients,
the workforce, and the community. This results in a thriving social work profession, focused on the
core tenants of social work.
Social work practice
As social work retention improves, so does the positive culture and climate, strengths-based
philosophy, authentic partnership, and increased engagement with clients. Hemmelgarn and
Glisson (2018) found that a healthy culture and climate promote quality in service delivery and
decisions, openness to adopt evidence-based practices, and investment in enhancing practice.
Williams and Glisson (2014) note that youth receiving services from social workers with engaged
culture and climate demonstrated significant improvements over seven years. Further, they found
that organizations with a positive work environment better supported “positive relationships,
tenacity, availability, responsiveness, and continuity” in service delivery to achieve outcomes
(Williams & Glisson, 2014, p. 764). Implementation of neuroleadership traits directly impacts the
quality of service delivery to clients.
Client outcomes
Organizations with strong leadership and culture and climate perform better in achieving client
outcomes. Retention of expertise of a qualified, trained workforce improves client engagement &
relationship building, improves the continuity of service delivery, better decision-making, and
timelessness of outcome achievement (Casey, 2017; Strolin, McCarthy, & Caringi, 2006; USGAO,
2003). Within child welfare, experience also directly informs the perspective of the social worker in
balancing family preservation and child safety, preventing unnecessary out of home placements, and
substantiations (Fluke, Corwin, Hollinshead, & Maher, 2016). In their research related to culture and
climate, Hemmelgarn and Glisson (2018) found that positive organizational cultures improve social
workers’ attitude regarding evidence-based practices, quality service delivery, and better client outcomes. Additionally, multiple studies within the culture and climate research reiterate that retaining
expertise of a qualified workforce leads to enhanced client outcomes in all program areas across
human services. Further, an integral factor in both quality service delivery and retention is the
quality of supervision.
Supervision
Neuroleadership and attention to the culture and climate also improves supervision. As leaders both
demonstrate and set expectations regarding the eight neuroleadership building blocks, supervisors
and managers begin to shift their approach with social workers. Public human services work is
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 139
intrinsically difficult, yet high morale can be cultivated even in this high-stress environment. Glisson
et al. (2012) found that collaboration, flexibility, inviting input into decision-making, and reducing
unneeded processes can mitigate the organic, environmental effects of practice. Supervisors have
a key role in the day-to-day operations within organizations and effect all of the above concerns.
Supervisors can also have an impact on workforce well-being. Quality supervision practices to
identify, address, and build organizational supports to mitigate secondary traumatic stress to bolster
retention. Johnco et al. (2014) found that supervisory support is a stay factor and can increase
retention by 46%. Supervisors are essential to retention and often buffer the adverse impact of
caseloads, workloads, and role conflicts on burnout. Through a neuroleadership model, supervisory
practices for collaborative partnerships create new opportunities for support between social workers
and supervisors.
Fiscal benefits
The implementation of leadership strategies to reduce turnover can have a significant positive
financial impact. Fiscal costs of turnover range from 30% to 70% of the social worker’s salary
when they leave an organization (AFCME, 2016; Casey, 2017; Dorch, Mccarthy, & Denofrio, 2008;
USGAO, 2003). In addition, the cost grows if federal funding has supported the social workers’
education through Title IV-E. On average, it takes a new practitioner six months from hire to
carrying a full caseload, increasing the fiscal impact. Turnover is a direct cost to taxpayers and
negatively impacts already constrained of an organizational budget. Costs include direct expenses
such as human recourse time, leave payouts, unemployment, recruitment, hiring, training, and
overtime for the current workforce. Indirect costs are broader and consider the human cost as
well. Loss of productivity, less expertise in decision-making, and longer investigations and length of
stay in foster care result in increases to the budget on each line item. By investing upfront in
strategies such as a neuroleadership approach, retention costs decline impacting financial health
positively.
Public trust
Generally, public trust in public human services organizations results in a high level of scrutiny and
negative public perceptions (Legood, McGrath, Searle, & Lee, 2016). However, public trust increases
through enhanced social work practice, improved outcomes, and fiscal stewardship. The service
delivery experiences of clients and their supports impact the public’s view of human service
organizations (Legood et al., 2016). When clients have a positive encounter, whether with one
worker or with multiple people, they share it with others. Outcomes are enhanced as engagement
and relationships with clients build. Stakeholders, including taxpayers, other funders, and partner
agencies gain confidence in organizations that improve and achieve their outcomes. Doing so
demonstrates the effectiveness of both leadership and the practice within the organization. Finally,
fiscal stewardship of public and private dollars offers opportunities to reallocate funds to invest in
traditionally underfunded systems. Cost savings related to retention can be reinvested in other
program areas or can be returned to the general budget fund, garnering trust from county and
state fiscal managers, as well as legislators. These three successes help restore public trust in human
service organizations.
Future research
Future research of neuroleadership in public human service organizations is needed in order to fully
understand and validate the conceptual model. A comparison of mixed methods study of mid-tolarge human service organizations will help to better inform this approach. This author is partnering
with other researchers to find organizations that are open to implementing a neuroleadership
140 A. PITTMAN
approach, being a part of a three-year study, and demonstrating successes authentic growth
organizations can have. Comparing organizations that use traditional leadership methodologies
with the neuroleadership model will offer a deeper understanding of the impact of neuroleadership
within public human services. Within the research, an organizational health assessment through the
organizational social context scale, developed by Glisson, will be used to collect pre-and-post
implementation data. Also, workforce data consisting of educational degree, years of experience,
demographics of workers, and retention rates will inform the research. Through doing so, neuroleadership research in human services will begin to take shape and forward the vision and future of
public human service organizations.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Practice Points
● The eight neuroleadership behaviors are tools for leaders to amplify influence and motivate the
workforce, therefore improving trust
● Improved trust enhances social work practice, leading to better client and organizational
outcomes
● Healthy, resilient culture and climate, core elements of a successful organization, are magnified
through reflective and intentional leadership
References
AFSCME. (2016). Cost savings from reasonable child welfare workloads. Retrieved from https://ncwwi.org/files/Job_
Analysis__Position_Requirements/Cost_Savings_from_Reasonable_Child_Welfare_Workloads.pdf
Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work,
and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and meta-analysis. Social
Service Review, 75(4), 625–662. doi:10.1086/323166
Barth, R. P., Lloyd, E. C., Christ, S. L., Chapman, M. V., & Dickinson, N. S. (2008). Child welfare worker characteristics
and job satisfaction: A national study. Social Work, 53(3), 199–209. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.
stthomas.edu/stable/23721719?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist, 62(1), 2–5. Retrieved
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.554.9259&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Boyas, J. F., Wind, L. H., & Ruiz, E. (2013). Organizational tenure among child welfare workers, burnout, stress, and
intent to leave: Does employment-based social capital make a difference? Children and Youth Services Review, 35
(10), 1657–1669. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.008
Brimhall, K. C., Lizano, E. L., & Barak, M. E. M. (2014). The mediating role of inclusion: A longitudinal study of the
effects of leader-member exchange and diversity climate on job satisfaction and intention to leave among child
welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 40, 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.003
Caringi, J. C., Lawson, H. A., & Devlin, M. (2012). Planning for emotional labor and secondary traumatic stress in
child welfare organizations. Journal of Family Strengths, 12(1), 1–31. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.library.
tmc.edu/jfs/vol12/iss1/11
Casey Family Programs. (2017, October). Healthy organizations. Retrieved from https://caseyfamilypro-wpengine.
netdna-ssl.com/media/HO_Turnover-Costs_and_Retention_Strategies.pdf
Children’s Defense Fund & Children’s Rights, Inc. (2006). Components of an effective child welfare workforce to
improve outcomes for children and families: What does research tell us? Retrieved from https://www.childrensrights.
org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/components_of_effective_child_welfare_workforce_august_2006.pdf
Dorch, E., Mccarthy, M., & Denofrio, D. (2008). Calculating child welfare separation, replacement, and training costs.
Social Work in Public Health, 23(6), 39–54. doi:10.1080/19371910802059585
Dweck, C., Murphy, M., Chatman, J., & Kray, L. (n.d.). Why fostering a growth mindset in organizations matters. Senn
Delaney. Retrieved from http://knowledge.senndelaney.com/docs/thought_papers/pdf/stanford_agilitystudy_hart.
pdf
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 141
Ellett, A. J., Ellis, J. I., Westbrook, T. M., & Dews, D. (2007). A qualitative study of 369 child welfare professionals’
perspectives about factors contributing to employee retention and turnover. Children and Youth Services Review, 29
(2), 264–281. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.07.005
Esaki, N., Benamati, J., Yanosy, S., Middleton, J., Hopson, L., Hummer, V., & Bloom, S. (2013). The sanctuary model:
Theoretical framework. Families in Society: the Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 94(2), 87–95. doi:10.1606/
1044-3894.4287
Fernandes, G. (2016). Organizational climate and child welfare workers’ degree of intent to leave the job: Evidence
from new york. Children and Youth Services Review, 60, 80–87. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.010
Flower, C., McDonald, J., & Sumski, M. (2005). Review of turnover in Milwaukee county private agency child welfare
ongoing case management staff. Retrieved from http://www.uh.edu/socialwork/_docs/cwep/national-iv-e/turnover
study.pdf
Fluke, J. D., Corwin, T. W., Hollinshead, D. M., & Maher, E. J. (2016). Family preservation or child safety?
Associations between child welfare workers’ experience, position, and perspectives. Children and Youth Services
Review, 69, 210–218. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.08.012
Ghadiri, A., Habermacher, A., & Peters, T. (2013). Neuroleadership: A journey through the brain for business leaders.
Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-
30165-0
Glisson, C., Green, P., & Williams, M. J. (2012). Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of child welfare
systems: Implications for research and practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(9), 621–632. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2012.06.002
Helwig, K. R. (2013). Resilience: A responsibility that can’t be delegated. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 30
(2), 31–35. doi:10.1097/01974520-201310000-00005
Hemmelgarn, A. L., & Glisson, C. (2018). Building cultures and climates for effective human services. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190455286.001.0001
Hemmelgarn, A. L., & Williams, C. (2018). Building cultures and climates for effective human services: Understanding
and improving organizational social contexts with the arc mode. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K. (2008). Organizational and
psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
17, 5–32. doi:10.1080/13594320701662550
Johnco, C., Salloum, A., Olson, K. R., & Edwards, L. M. (2014). Child welfare workers’ perspectives on contributing
factors to retention and turnover: Recommendations for improvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 47(3),
397–407. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.10.016
Legood, A., McGrath, M., Searle, R., & Lee, A. (2016). Exploring how social workers experience and cope with public
perception of their profession. British Journal of Social Work, 46(7), 1872–1889. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv139
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians – And
how we can survive them. Retrieved from https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-allure-of-toxic-leaderswhy-followers-rarely-escape-their-clutches/
Liu, Y., Fuller, B., Hester, K., Bennett, R., & Dickerson, M. (2018). Linking authentic leadership to subordinate
behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 218–233. doi:10.1108/LODJ-12-2016-0327
Lopez, E. S., & Ensari, N. (2014). The effects of leadership style, organizational outcomes, and gender on attributional
bias towards leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 19–37. doi:10.1002/jls.21326
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2006). Relationship between staff turnover, child welfare system
functioning and recurrent child abuse. Retrieved from http://www.cpshr.us/workforceplanning/documents/06.02_
Relation_Staff.pdf
O’Mara, S. (2018). A Brain for business – A brain for life (The neuroscience of business). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. doi: 10.1007%2F978-3-319-49154-7
Ringleb, A., & Rock, D. (2008). The emerging field of neuroleadership. Neuroleadership Journal, 1, 3–19. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292710947_The_emerging_field_of_neuroleadership
Rock, D. (2010). Impacting leadership with neuroscience. People and Strategy, 33(4), 6–7. Retrieved from http://go.
galegroup.com.pearl.stkate.edu/ps/i.do?ty=as&v=2.1&u=clic_stkate&it=DIourl&s=RELEVANCE&p=EAIM&qt=
SN~1946-4606~~TI~%22Impacting%20Leadership%20with%20Neuroscience%22~~VO~33~~SP~6~~IU~4&lm=
DA~120100000&sw=w
Rock, D. (2018). A neuroscience-based approach to changing organizational behavior. Healthcare Management Forum,
31(3), 77–80. doi:10.1177/0840470417753968
Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2007). The neuroscience of leadership. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The Journal of
Strength-based Interventions. 16(3), 10–17.
Ryan, J. P., Garnier, P., Zyphur, M., & Zhai, F. (2005). Investigating the effects of caseworker characteristics in child
welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(9), 993–1006. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.10.013
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
142 A. PITTMAN
Selden, S., & Sowa, J. E. (2011). Performance management and appraisal in human service organizations: Management
and staff perspectives. (Survey). Public Personnel Management, 40(3), 251–264. doi:10.1177/009102601104000305
Stone, G. A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leaders
focus. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361. doi:10.1108/01437730410538671
Strolin, J. S., McCarthy, M., & Caringi, J. (2006). Causes and effects of child welfare workforce turnover. Journal of
Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 29–52. doi:10.1300/J479v01n02_03
The United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Child welfare: HHS could play a greater role in helping child
welfare agencies recruit and retain staff (GAO-03-357). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/240/237373.pdf
Verbos, A., Gerard, K., Forshey, J., Harding, A., & Miller, P. (2007). The positive ethical organization: Enacting a living
code of ethics and ethical organizational identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 17–33. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-
9275-2
Westbrook, T. M., Ellett, A. J., & Asberg, K. (2012). Predicting public child welfare employees’ intentions to remain
employed with the child welfare organizational culture inventory. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7),
1214–1221. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.02.010
Westbrook, T. M., Ellis, J., & Ellett, A. J. (2006). Improving retention among public child welfare workers: What can
we learn from the insights and experiences of committed survivors? Administration in Social Work, 40(4), 37–62.
doi:10.1300/J147v30n04_04
Williams, N., & Glisson, C. (2014). Testing a theory of organizational culture, climate and youth outcomes in child
welfare systems: A United States national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 757–767. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2013.09.003
Williams, N., & Glisson, C. (2014). The role of organizational culture and climate in innovation and effectiveness.
human service organizations. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39, 245–250.
doi:10.1080/23303131.2015.1087770
Zak, P. (2008). The neurobiology of trust. Scientific American, 298(6), 88–95. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0608-88
Zak, P., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and
Behavior, 48(5), 522–527. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.07.009
Zak, P. J. (2017). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard Business Review, 84–90. https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-neu
roscience-of-trust
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 143