Journal of Social Work Practice

Psychotherapeutic Approaches in Health, Welfare and the Community

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjsw20

How do social work leaders understand and

ideally practice leadership? A synthesis of core
leadership practices

Rosemary Vito

To cite this article: Rosemary Vito (2020) How do social work leaders understand and ideally
practice leadership? A synthesis of core leadership practices, Journal of Social Work Practice,
34:3, 263-279, DOI: 10.1080/02650533.2019.1665002

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2019.1665002

Published online: 17 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5792

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjsw20
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
2020, VOL. 34, NO. 3, 263–279
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2019.1665002

How do social work leaders understand and ideally practice

leadership? A synthesis of core leadership practices
Rosemary Vito

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Core social work leadership practices have been identified on Social work; leadership
a conceptual level. This article extends this knowledge by synthe- practice; leadership
sising and demonstrating how these core leadership areas are conceptualisation;
ideally practiced. Common themes arising from a qualitative, mul- relationship-based
perspective
tiple case study in three children’s services agencies in Ontario,
Canada, will be provided. Themes include: the centrality of leader-
ship influence; building trusting relationships; creating shared and
achievable visions; role modelling and living values; motivating,
coaching, and mentoring staff; fostering teamwork and collabora-
tion; and promoting staff recognition. Challenges to enacting
these ideal practices will be analysed from a psychosocial and
relationship-based perspective. Practice implications for current
and aspiring social work leaders will be highlighted.

Introduction
Understanding how leadership is practiced in social work is a challenging undertaking,
as the social work profession lacks leadership development in educational and profes-
sional settings, resulting in a lack of social workers in senior management positions
(Peters, 2018). Leadership has been studied extensively in the business sector, and there
is a vast array of leadership models and theories to choose from (Hardina, Middleton,
Montana, & Simpson, 2007). However, these business management models and the-
ories, from a competitive for-profit context, may not be suitable for leaders in the
human services who are focused on social justice (Peters, 2018). Similarly, core leader-
ship practices have been well defined and researched in the business sector (Kouzes &
Posner, 2012). However, core leadership practices in the social work sector remain
largely at a conceptual level and further research examples of their use and practice
application are recommended (Holosko, 2009). Moreover, further exploration of social
work leadership principles, recently identified by Peters (2018), are recommended in
practice.
Leadership practices consistent with social work’s primary values, such as building
trusting relationships and empowering others (CASW, 2005), are particularly important
to explore given the relational context of human service organisations (HSO’s). In one
study in Canada, while participatory leadership approaches are often valued, directive
approaches are becoming more common due to government constraints (Vito, 2018).

CONTACT Rosemary Vito rvito4@uwo.ca

Research conducted as PhD student at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada
© 2019 GAPS
264 R. VITO

In the UK, there is a government focus on financial austerity and managerialism,

regulation, privatisation and fragmentation, which reduces relationship-based social
work practices (Elliot, 2017; Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016). The failure of managerialism
to recognise the importance of relationship undermines social work practice quality and
effectiveness (Trevithick, 2014). Being able to demonstrate ideal leadership practices is
therefore imperative given the current government context of increasing efficiency and
accountability that most HSO’s face (Hopkins, Meyer, Shera, & Peters, 2014).
This article aims to extend previous conceptual work on core leadership practices in
social work (Holosko, 2009), by reporting on selected findings on how leadership was
understood and ideally practiced by directors (deemed ‘senior managers’) and super-
visors (deemed ‘middle managers’) within three children’s mental health and child
welfare organisations in Ontario, Canada. These findings will include challenges senior
and middle managers faced due to increasing government expectations for account-
ability. These findings are extracted from a broader qualitative, multiple case study that
focused on leadership practice, organisational culture, leadership development and
adaptation to the external environment during a period of rapid government-imposed
system changes (for details, see Vito, 2016, 2017). The specific research question
reported on for this article is, how do leaders understand and describe their practice
of leadership? This article will begin with a literature review of leadership definitions
and conceptualisation, selected models and theories, and core practices and attributes.
Following a brief methodology section, a synthesis of findings on how leadership was
understood and ideally practiced across the three agencies will be presented. The
discussion and conclusion will elaborate on these findings, integrating them with
relevant literature, and analysing challenges to enacting these practices from
a psychosocial and relationship-based perspective. Practice implications for current
and aspiring social work leaders will be highlighted.

Literature review
Leadership definition and conceptualisation
Leadership is a contested concept, and there is no comprehensive, commonly accepted
definition (Lawler & Bilson, 2010). Despite the challenge of defining leadership, there is
general agreement that leadership is a process of influencing others to achieve
a common goal (Northouse, 2013) and it involves being able to inspire others to create
a shared vision (Hardina et al., 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Recently, Peters (2018)
has developed a definition of social work leadership, which encompasses leadership
principles on organisational, relational and individual levels. The current study provides
an opportunity to examine some relational and organisational principles in social work
practice and contributes towards validating this definition.
Although dated, there is some previous research on how social workers conceptua-
lised leadership. For example, deans and senior managers in the U.S. identified five core
social work leadership elements: pro-action, values and ethics, empowerment, vision,
and communication (Rank & Hutchison, 2000). Similarly, social service managers in
Australia emphasised relationships, trust, respect, empowerment, and a strength-based
approach in leadership (Healy, 2002). Research conducted in the business and non-
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 265

profit sectors highlights leadership as an evolving process that occurs in relationship

with others, with four primary characteristics: honesty and integrity, future orientation,
inspiration, and competence (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
This focus on leadership as a relationship, with credibility as the foundation (Kouzes
& Posner, 2012), aligns well with the nature of social work practice. For example, the
Canadian Association of Social Workers has established similar ethical guidelines, such
as maintaining integrity and competence in professional practice, and respectful and
professional relationships (CASW, 2005). The UK standards of proficiency include
building and sustaining professional relationships with colleagues (HCPC, 2016). The
Network for Social Work Management (NSWM) in the U.S. recently developed similar
executive leadership competencies, such as interpersonal skills and professional beha-
viour (Hassan & Wimpfheimer, 2015). The current study provides updated findings on
how social work leaders conceptualise and practice leadership in this regard.

Overview of leadership models and theories

Various models and theories focus on the different elements of leadership, based on the
person, position, process or results, resulting in confusion (Holosko, 2009; Lawler &
Bilson, 2010). As well, there has been a proliferation of leadership theories and
literature in the social sciences, and both traditional behavioural models and emerging
relational models abound (Peters, 2018). The challenge is to find a leadership model
that fits well with the professional nature of social work practice. Traditional
approaches are known to be incongruent and lead to poor outcomes, including reduced
staff motivation and morale and increased burnout and turnover (Hardina et al., 2007).
For example, transactional leadership, a traditional model, is focused on tasks and an
exchange (work for payment) between leaders and followers (Lewis, Packard, & Lewis,
2012); whereas, transformational leadership, an emerging model, is focused on relation-
ships and influencing followers through motivation, commitment and shared goals
(Lawler & Bilson, 2010).
While an extensive review of leadership theories and models is beyond the scope of
this article, a brief overview of the transformational leadership model will be provided,
as the principles are consistent with social work values and empowerment (Hardina
et al., 2007). The transformational model views leadership as creating significant change
based on four dimensions: idealised influence (charisma, modelling), inspirational
motivation (vision, building confidence to act), intellectual stimulation (innovative
problem-solving), and individual consideration (respect and coaching) (Diaz-Saenz,
2011). Research on this model is extensive, and in human services correlates with
positive leadership outcomes (effectiveness, extra effort, satisfaction) (Mary, 2005) and
increased social worker commitment and role clarity (Tafvelin, Hyvonen, &
Westerberg, 2014). This model also fits well with the leadership practices and attributes
described below.

Leadership practices and attributes

Similar leadership practices and attributes have been identified within the business and
social work sectors. Drawing from extensive research in business and the nonprofit
266 R. VITO

sectors, Kouzes and Posner (2012) have identified five leadership practices: model the
way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage
the heart (p. 15). Based on a content analysis of social work literature, Holosko (2009)
conceptualised similar core leadership attributes: influencing others to act, implement-
ing a vision, problem-solving capacity, teamwork and collaboration, and creating
positive change. These leadership practices and attributes correspond to the four
dimensions of the transformational model reviewed above. A summary of these com-
mon practices is provided below (see Table 1).
For simplicity, these practices, attributes, and dimensions will be combined in this
article and referred to as ‘core leadership practices.’ Several of these leadership practices
correspond to CASW (2005) ethical guidelines, such as respect, collaboration and
consultation, teamwork and communication; UK standards of conduct, performance
and ethics, such as communication, delegation, being honest and trustworthy (HCPC,
2016); and NSWM leadership competencies, including promoting organisational vision
and values, inspiring others and being a team player, and supporting an organisational
culture of recognition and reward (Hassan & Wimpfheimer, 2015).
There has been some research conducted on Kouzes and Posner (2012) leadership
practices in the social work and non-profit sectors. For example, social work leaders
endorsed these practices in New Zealand mental health services (McNabb & Webster,
2010). However, another study found that leaders’ expected practices were higher than
actual practices, with greater differences contributing to workers’ job dissatisfaction, as
rated by social workers in a national U.S. study (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008). The
leadership attributes conceptualised by Holosko (2009) have only been explored in
a limited way in the social work sector and this study provided an opportunity to
examine them further in practice.

Methodology
The methodology for this study emanates from a larger study and contains some
information from an earlier article with permission (see Vito, 2016, 2017). This article
reports specifically on how social work managers understood and practiced leadership.
This study employed a qualitative research approach, which is recommended to study
leadership relational processes in context and provide more in-depth understanding
(Parry, 2011). A multiple case study design was used, which allowed leadership practice
to be studied as a complex issue within, and compared across, three different organisa-
tional contexts, to identify common patterns (Campbell, 2010; Yin, 2009).
Convenience and purposive sampling methods were used to choose agencies (Rubin
& Babbie, 2011). Two provincial associations, Children’s Mental Health Ontario
(CMHO), and Practice and Research Together (PART), agreed to distribute emails
about the research study, including an invitation for agency participation. A screening
for inclusion of potential agencies resulted in three agencies being selected (2 children’s
mental health and one child welfare). Screening criteria included: interest in leadership
practices; ability to meet data collection timeline; agreement with research methods;
senior and middle management participation; and knowledge mobilisation through
presentations, publications, and teaching. Table 2 (below) provides a brief overview
of agencies and participants involved.
Table 1. Common leadership practices.
Transformational
Leadership Model Dimensions Exemplary Leadership Practices Core Leadership Attributes
(Diaz-Saenz, 2011) (Kouzes & Posner, 2012) (Holosko, 2009)
Idealised influence (charisma, modelling) Model the way (clarify values, set the example) Influencing others to act
Inspirational motivation (vision, build confidence to act) Inspire a shared vision (envision the future, enlist others) Implementing a vision
Intellectual stimulation (innovative problem-solving) Challenge the process (opportunity to experiment, take risks) Problem-solving capacity
Individual consideration (respect and coaching) Enable others to act (foster collaboration, strengthen others) Teamwork and collaboration
Encourage the heart (recognise contributions, celebrate victories) Creating positive change
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
267
 268
R. VITO

Table 2. Agency and participant demographics.

Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3
Type Child welfare services Children’s mental health services Children’s mental health services
Mandate Legal mandate, protect children 0–16 years Outpatient, residential services children Day treatment, residential services, youth 12–18 years
0–14 years
Funding/ MCYS, 19.1 million (CAN) annually MCYS, OPR, 9 million (CAN) annually MCYS, OPR, 7.3 million (CAN) annually
Budget
Governance/ Board of Directors, unionised Board of Directors, unionised Board of Directors, unionised
union
Management Senior management team (Executive Director, two Directors Senior management team (Executive Senior management team (Executive Director, 2 Programme
Structure of Service, Director of Human Resources, Director of Director, two Directors of Service, Directors, Manager of Human Resources, Manager of Finance)
Finance, Manager of IT) Director of Finance) Supervisor team (6)
Supervisor team (13) Supervisor team (15)
Staff 125 staff, mostly female social workers (BSW/MSW) 130 staff, mostly (CYW), therapists (MSW) 120 staff, mostly CYW, some MSW
Clients served 700 families, 200 children annually 1200 children and families annually 700-800 youth annually
Participants (overall): 41 total: 14 directors, 27 supervisors. Gender: 2:1 ratio females to males. Race/ethnicity: mostly white, 7 culturally diverse. Age: Directors most (8) 50–60 years,
supervisors most (14) 40–50 years. Education: most bachelor (BA/BSW) and/or master’s level (MA/MSW). Years in position: Split between new to position (7 directors, 9 supervisors,
1–5 years), and long-term (2 directors, 6 supervisors, 6–10 years; 3 directors, 9 supervisors, 11–20 years). Previous experience: directors’ management experience, most (7) 11–20 years),
supervisors’ direct service experience, most (8) 6–10 years, (11) 11–20 years.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 269

Data was collected using multiple research methods: 14 semi-structured, audiotaped,

individual interviews with directors; 5 semi-structured, audiotaped focus groups with
supervisors; 26 supervisor questionnaires (a summary of focus group questions); 7
observations of management meetings; and extensive agency document review. These
methods provided rich information for data analysis (Creswell, 2007; McCracken, 1988)
and ensured information was triangulated (Yin, 2009). For each method written guides
were used, with pre-prepared questions and probes stemming from the research ques-
tions and literature review (McCracken, 1988).
The data arising from audiotaped interviews and focus groups were transcribed with
a computer program (Dragon Speaking) and reviewed to produce edited transcripts.
Thematic analysis of these transcripts was undertaken, following several phases to
organise the data by emerging themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Lapadat, 2010). Each
agency’s data was analysed separately, and then compared across agencies to develop
broader themes (Campbell, 2010). Member checking was employed, by sending each
agency’s emerging key themes to each director and supervisor group for initial review
and feedback (Rubin & Babbie, 2011). Continuity in reporting was maintained by
developing a coding system (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006). The coding system specified
each agency and participant by numerical sequence (e.g. Agency 1, Director 1 = A1D1;
Agency 1, Focus Group 1 = A1FG1). The information from all data sources was
integrated into detailed agency reports, which were sent for review. Participant feedback
was also gathered during follow-up presentations with two agencies (one declined).
The Research Ethics Board (REB) approved this study, conditional on full disclosure
with one agency of a potential conflict of interest. Participants were provided a written
informed consent statement and were assured their identity would remain anonymous
and their information confidential (Wallace, 2010). Methodological rigour was ensured
by following standards common to qualitative research, including credibility, transfer-
ability of findings, and confirmability through an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Data limitations included: mostly self-report information with some direct observations
of leadership practice during meetings, short-term timeframe (3 months), focused on
upper levels (senior/middle management), and limited feedback (one agency).
However, a strength of the multiple case study design was noting common patterns
in leadership practice across the three agencies (Campbell, 2010; Yin, 2009).

Findings
Overall, senior managers and middle managers were knowledgeable about leadership
and they endorsed several core leadership practices. Emerging themes included: the
centrality of leadership influence; building trusting relationships; creating shared and
achievable visions; role modelling and living values; motivating, coaching, and mentor-
ing staff; fostering teamwork and collaboration; and promoting staff recognition. These
practices will be presented in an integrated way, highlighting the common and con-
trasting themes that arose in all three agencies.
270 R. VITO

Centrality of leadership influence

Senior managers conceptualised leadership as influencing and motivating others towards
common goals. For example, ‘motivating others to move along a path’ (A2D4), and
‘bring people to a sense of common understanding’ (A2D2). This included accomplish-
ing tasks and continuous improvement, ‘keeping people motivated to do the job’
(A3D5), and ‘making things better’ (A3D2). Middle managers added supporting others
and improving processes, ‘allowing for sufficient process for everyone to feel included in
the final decision’ (A2FG1), and ‘get work done differently and easier sometimes’
(A1FG1).
Senior managers recognised their central leadership influence on others. For example,
‘influencing and persuading is your best friend if it’s done for good and not for evil’
(A2D1). They emphasised positive influence for change, ‘A leader needs to be positive
and have strength and dedication and endurance . . . to make change accepted and
a positive thing’ (A2D4). They also stressed being aware of their positional power and
striving to limit their influence, ‘it’s very powerful, you have to be WELL aware of it’
(A2D2), and ‘be very aware of the issues of power and authority’ (A2D3). Some senior
managers distinguished between their positional and personal influence, ‘some influence
is given because of your position’ (A1D1), and ‘you influence people through your
personality, your ideas, relationships’ (A1D1). This influence develops over time, ‘when
you build up the visibility, consistency, clarity, people know what you stand for and
then you become ABLE to influence’ (A1D4).

Building trusting relationships

Senior managers recognised that investing in relationships was foundational to their
leadership practice, and this was a common theme in all three agencies. For example, ‘if
you don’t have a relationship with people, you’re going to die on the vine here’ (A2D1).
This included fostering connections and investment, ‘I make strong connections to the
people that report to me’ (A3D3), and ‘I’m grounded in developing good supportive
relationships’ (A3D2). Trust was also considered foundational, ‘people have to think of
you as a trustworthy kind of person . . . before you can have influence’ (A3D1).
Senior managers also described how they built trusting relationships with staff. For
example, by demonstrating interest and caring about staff’s personal lives, ‘I make
a point of saying hi to people . . . take interest in them’ (A1D3). Being genuine was
key, ‘the most important part of my leadership practice is to be genuine’ (A1D4). In
agency 2, these efforts were quite pronounced. For example, during informal observa-
tion, one senior manager sat alongside staff in the lunchroom, expressing genuine
interest in their work and personal lives, while another director took time to establish
personal connections with staff. Middle managers also highlighted genuine caring
towards staff, ‘we get to know about their lives and their families and they get to
know us as people’ (A2FG1).
Several senior managers also made efforts to be visible and accessible. For example, ‘I
still go around every day and say hi to people, the message being that I’m accessible’
(A1D1). This included being present in their conversations with staff, connecting
through shared work, and supporting them: ‘find some common ground with people’
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 271

(A3D4), and ‘we do get to know one another by doing the WORK’ (A2D4), and ‘people
need to know the leader is in their corner . . . we are in this together’ (A3D2). Some
emphasised balancing the professional nature of their relationships, ‘some of these
people I’ve known for over 25 years . . . so you need to recognise and honour those
connections too’ (A2D1).

Creating shared and achievable visions

Senior managers viewed visioning as central to senior leadership. For example, ‘vision is
terribly important . . . to position the organisation in the broader world is a critical part
of leadership’ (A3D1). This included recognising the relevance of vision, ‘sometimes
a vision is time limited . . . what you do related to the bigger picture, it’s not just about
(agency) anymore’ (A2D2). Other senior managers stressed clarity of vision and being
purposeful, ‘having a real clear and focused vision, and being able to communicate that’
(A1D5), and ‘follow a vision, have strong commitment to relationships, outcomes and
purpose’ (A1D1).
Several senior managers recognised the importance of creating a shared vision, ‘there
needs to be a common vision . . . owned by everybody in the organisation’ (A2D2). This
included everyone contributing and being committed to the vision, ‘engaging people’s
skills . . . people’s hearts, they feel this is a worthy thing to be doing’ (A3D2), and
‘people have to buy into your vision . . . if you really want to lead people, you need to
know where you’re heading’ (A1D1). Middle managers also agreed a shared vision was
necessary, ‘leaders have a vision but they have room for other people’s visions as well’
(A2FG1). Senior managers also highlighted that vision needs to be achievable in
practice. For example, ‘you’ve got to be able to orchestrate that (vision) into achievable
steps’ (A2D3), and ‘carry out that vision with others through demonstrated action’
(A1D2). This included operationalising the vision: ‘what’s my role, how can I make that
happen’ (A2D4), and ‘help the staff . . . put into practice things that help us fulfil the
vision’ (A1FG1).

Role modelling and living values

Senior managers emphasised the importance of role modelling through their presence
and their actions. For example, ‘being a good role model . . . it’s their persona’ (A1D5),
and ‘I really do try to BE what a good leader should be . . . it’s your behaviour, how you
hold yourself’ (A2D2). This role modelling included their attitudes, communication,
and interactions: ‘I bring a positive attitude every day to work . . . model a good work
ethic’ (A3D3), and ‘I try to demonstrate humility, be a good listener’ (A1D3), and
‘simple courteous, positive interactions’ (A3D2). Similarly, middle managers high-
lighted role modelling through consistent behaviour and respectful communication:
‘walking the walk, somebody who has great integrity and they do what they say they’re
going to do’ (A2FG1), and ‘a good leader also has to be really respectful, both to their
colleagues and the clients they are working with’ (A1FG2).
Several senior managers reflected on being clear about their own values. For
example, ‘I need to know what my values are . . . WHY those are important’
(A2D3), and ‘people know what my values are and I think that influences’ (A1D2).
272 R. VITO

This included encouraging those values in others, ‘leadership is really building

a community of people who want to value the same things, and also challenging
values when they don’t fit’ (A2D1). Some senior managers also role modelled values
of honesty, transparency, and humility: ‘I always try and lead in a way that I’m proud
of . . . something I can stand behind that is ethical and honest’ (A3D4), and ‘telling
people when I don’t know things, not just role modelling from a position of strength
all the time’ (A2D1). Middle managers also upheld these values, ‘I try to stay true to
what I believe in, I try to be transparent’ (A2FG1), and ‘having integrity is important
to stay true to what you believe’ (A1FG2).
Senior managers also stressed the importance of living agency values. This included
being responsive and consistent. For example, ‘responsivity . . . believing strongly in the
value and actually walking the talk’ (A3D1), and ‘the values that we set as an organisa-
tion help you to maintain that consistency’ (A1D4). Some senior managers focused on
broader social justice values, ‘I want to influence people to CARE . . . understand the
context poverty, racism’ (A1D2), and ‘living out your values . . . not being silent when
there’s an injustice’ (A2D1).

Motivating, coaching and mentoring

Senior managers and middle managers discussed motivating, empowering and mentor-
ing staff by being strength-based and supportive. For example, ‘pulling out strengths in
others and coaching the best from people’ (A2D1), and ‘creating an environment that
each person can utilise their greatest strengths’ (A3D2). Middle managers added
a personal approach, ‘everyone has different strengths . . . you allow them to do what
they’re good at’ (A3FG1), and ‘getting to know them as a person, not just as a worker’
(A1FG1). Being strength-based and positive was reinforced on middle managers’ ques-
tionnaires. Senior and middle managers also emphasised creating a supportive environ-
ment. For example, ‘where people are feeling, I contributed, I did a good job’ (A3D2),
and ‘supporting the staff to do their jobs . . . all the structures are in place’ (A2FG2).
This included empowering staff and acting as a resource, ‘giving them the ability to make
the decisions’ (A2D2), and ‘collaborative, consultative, supportive and directive . . .
a resource for them’ (A2D4). Being supportive, collaborative and encouraging was
reinforced on middle managers’ questionnaires.
Other senior and middle managers focused more on work achievement and provid-
ing meaningful activities to engage staff, ‘I motivate through mutual energising around
tasks or developments’ (A3D3), and ‘(projects) also help to keep wellness up because it
keeps people engaged’ (A2FG1). This included challenging others, ‘I ask a lot of
questions to stimulate discussion’ (A3D1). Some highlighted mentoring staff towards
personal and professional development, ‘I see it as my role to support them in their
personal development’ (A1D3); and ‘developing their knowledge and skills . . . gives
them added motivation and they see they can be a change agent’ (A1FG2). As one
senior manager stated, ‘good leaders really try and know the people that they’re with . . .
and how they may best contribute’ (A3D2). Helping staff to develop, be their best, and
promote their thinking, was reinforced on middle managers’ questionnaires.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 273

Fostering teamwork and collaboration

Teamwork was considered foundational in all three agencies. For example, ‘Teamwork
is EVERYTHING! Everybody on the team brings certain skills and strengths to the
table’ (A2D2). They considered it critical to effective leadership, ‘there is no such thing
as good leadership without good followership . . . so teamwork for me is terribly
important’ (A3D1), and ‘if you want to have any real meaningful change in an
organisation you need people to work together’ (A1D2). Middle managers mentioned
building mutual support in teams, ‘being able to support them so they can support one
another’ (A1FG2). Problem-solving, supporting and trusting staff, and dealing with
issues together, was reinforced on middle managers’ questionnaires.
There were contrasting themes among the different levels of management teams.
Senior managers in one agency highlighted the benefits of their new team, ‘we’ve worked
really hard . . . to cultivate the individual working relationships we have with one
another’ (A1D4), and ‘it feels like there is a real opportunity now for us to work
together as a team and it feels respectful’ (A1D3). Similarly, in another agency, senior
managers described a strong team, with a respectful team process, ‘we bring a lot of
experience . . . hopefully a lot of wisdom’ (A3D3), and ‘we have open communication,
so we’re able to challenge each other, we certainly have disagreements respectfully’
(A3D4). These respectful relationships were evident during an observed senior manage-
ment meeting, as they appeared comfortable, used humour, listened to each other, and
honestly shared their views and frustrations on issues. In contrast, senior managers in
this agency indicated their biggest challenge was the middle management team, with
different levels of supervisory knowledge and skills and the need for clear expectations.
Interestingly, middle managers across the three agencies described their team quite
positively. They perceived challenges relating to a middle management position, ‘I call it
the baloney position, sometimes you have mustard on one side and salt on the other,
because you have to hold your ground’ (A2FG1). They noted conflicting demands,
‘we’re on two teams, so we’re part of the supervisor team . . . our own team, so
sometimes those 2 collide’ (A1FG1). The challenge for middle managers was achieving
balance and consistency, ‘learning how to balance what your team needs are along with
the larger agency’ (A2FG1), and ‘our teams are required to work together to make sure
the whole machine is moving forward’ (A1FG2).

Promoting staff recognition

Staff recognition was variable across the three agencies. In one agency, senior and
middle managers emphasised positive, meaningful, and personal staff recognition. For
example, ‘recognising people’s strengths even when you have to really dig around for
one’ (A2D1), and ‘showing that you understand what they went through to get that job
done’ (A2D4). Positive staff recognition was also observed during the all-staff meeting
and reinforced in agency values.
However, staff recognition was limited in the other two agencies. Some senior
managers practiced recognition on an informal level, through email, verbal praise and
informal gestures. For example, ‘I’ll send an email . . . it’s those moments of good work
it’s important to notice’ (A1D3), and ‘I’m very free with my praise for people . . . when
274 R. VITO

there’s excellent work going on’ (A3D3), and ‘supervisors will do little things for
different staff for exceptional work’ (A3D4). Other senior managers admitted they
struggled to provide positive staff recognition, ‘I’ve fallen down over again in accepting
and recognising that people are different from me and need external reinforcement’
(A3D1), and ‘I don’t need recognition to feel good about my work . . . but I do recognise
it’s important for most people’ (A1D2). Some stressed providing balanced feedback,
continuous improvement, and public accountability. For example, ‘I’m really bad at
giving positive feedback and really good at giving constructive feedback’ (A1D5), and
‘although it’s good to celebrate successes we should . . . always be examining what we’re
doing and trying to improve upon it’ (A1D3), and ‘we’re accountable to our clients and
we can do better’ (A1D1).
Still, some senior and middle managers recognised the value of staff recognition for
engagement, ‘you’re never going to have continued buy-in from your staff, your team or
your agency if you’re not showing that you value their contribution’ (A1D5), and ‘you
have to give recognition for what people do . . . people feel more ownership for the
process and the services that we provide’ (A1FG2). Middle managers also recognised
the importance for wellness, ‘it’s important for well-being and worker satisfaction . . . if
you don’t point out the positives, you could have high burnout rates’ (A1FG2). They
emphasised being mindful and genuine, ‘we just have to work it in and have our minds
attuned to the positive’ (A1FG2), and ‘being authentic or legitimate when you’re giving
the recognition . . . that you REALLY appreciate (them)’ (A3FG1).

Discussion and practice implications

Overall, the findings provide updated evidence that social work leaders endorse the core
leadership practices detailed earlier as ideal. This is important as the core social work
leadership attributes developed by Holosko (2009) were on a conceptual level only and
needed to be demonstrated in social work practice. The findings also support social
work relational and some organisational leadership principles, which are core compo-
nents of an emerging social work leadership definition that needed to be validated in
practice (Peters, 2018). The following discussion will focus on the themes identified
above, relating them to relevant literature. Themes will be analysed from a psychosocial
and relationship-based perspective, which considers the intersection between an indi-
vidual’s internal psychological state and subjective feelings, and their external social
state and objective status (Megele, 2015, in Elliot, 2017). They may serve as a guide for
current and aspiring social work leaders looking for specific ways to enhance their
leadership practice.
Consistent with the common definition of leadership, senior managers conceptua-
lised leadership as influencing and motivating others towards common goals
(Northouse, 2013), and they recognised their central influence on others (Lewis et al.,
2012). They also described various ways of living this influence in practice, which reflect
the different perspectives of leadership, focusing on the person or formal position
(Holosko, 2009; Lawler & Bilson, 2010). From a psychosocial perspective, trying to
enact their influence may be challenging and emotionally provoking for managers, as
tension may build between their formal positional and informal personal boundaries.
The emotional labour of practice requires not only the maintenance of professional
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 275

boundaries but also an internal reflective capacity (Megele, 2015 in Elliot, 2017). This
theme also supports the relational leadership principle of power sharing (Peters, 2018).
Managers can balance this power by focusing on both rational and emotional aspects of
practice with staff (Ingram, 2013; Ruch, 2012). For current and aspiring social work
leaders, this theme reinforces the need to be aware of their formal positional power and
informal personal influence on staff. Used wisely, their influence can be a powerful way
to move the organisation’s agenda forward.
Senior managers recognised that investing in relationships was foundational to their
leadership practice and leadership is upheld fundamentally as a relationship (Kouzes &
Posner, 2012). They described how they built trusting relationships with staff, which is
part of an empowering leadership approach (Hardina et al., 2007) and some emphasise
that leaders’ credibility, or trustworthiness, is foundational (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
For example, leaders who are trustworthy have been found to have more influence over
workers’ job satisfaction (Yıldız & Şimşek, 2016). These findings also support the
relational leadership principle of mutual support and acceptance (Peters, 2018). Social
work leaders in human services may want to pay attention to these findings, as their
efforts to influence staff will be more successful if they first invest in developing
trustworthy relationships and establishing their credibility. From a psychosocial per-
spective, this requires leaders’ emotional intelligence; the ability for self-awareness and
self-regulation of emotions, and empathy or emotional attunement towards others,
which are considered foundational to trusting relationships (Ingram, 2013). However,
developing trusting relationships may be challenging for leaders in the context of
managerialism that prioritises efficiency over social workers’ reflective practice and
sharing of emotions, despite the positive benefits on learning (Trevithick, 2014). Ruch
(2012) proposes a reflective management model that blends managers’ self-reflection
and relationship-based practices with positive aspects of managerialism. These founda-
tional practices are especially important currently, given the rapid pace of organisa-
tional change that may shortchange such investments (Hopkins et al., 2014).
Senior and middle managers endorsed and expanded on the leadership practices that
have been identified within the social work and broader leadership literature. The first
practice was developing clear, shared and achievable visions, which supports the rela-
tional leadership principle of vision (Peters, 2018). Having a vision or ‘future orienta-
tion’ is considered a primary leadership characteristic (Holosko, 2009; Kouzes &
Posner, 2012) and the senior managers in this study offered valuable insights regarding
engaging staff meaningfully in the vision to ensure commitment. These insights may be
helpful for social work leaders who are striving to develop and implement a shared
vision for their organisations to guide them during turbulent times. Leadership that is
adaptive and shared across all organisational levels is key to innovative change in
human services (Hopkins et al., 2014). From a relationship-based perspective, this
includes leaders being aware of the uncertainty, complexity and risk in practice, and
using their emotional intelligence to guide them (Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016).
The second practice was role modelling through their presence, behaviour, positive
attitude, and communication, and clarifying and living their own values such as integrity
and humility, which supports relational leadership principles of honesty, listening and learn-
ing from each other (Peters, 2018). Being honest and having integrity is considered a primary
leadership characteristic central to modelling and influencing others (Kouzes & Posner, 2012),
276 R. VITO

which social work leaders acting as role models for others may want to emulate. From
a relationship-based perspective, this may be challenging as it requires leaders to have
a high level of self-awareness and self-reflexivity. Workers depend on their managers to
model reflective ways of being in practice and managers can develop spaces for reflective
and relationship-based practices (Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016) but this may require purpose-
ful and collective action to create these within their agencies (Elliot, 2017). HSO’s can support
this by creating a supportive organisational climate that values reflective spaces for managers
to develop their relationship-based skills (Ruch, 2012). The senior and middle managers also
affirmed upholding agency values such as responsivity and consistency, and broader social
justice values. Leading from a place of core values, known as ‘values-based leadership’ is
significant because it influences others’ practice and fosters a caring organisational culture
(Faith, 2013). However, this may be challenging for managers to enact given the competing
tensions between professional social work values and ethics and government expectations for
meeting targeted outcomes and accountability (Elliot, 2017).
The third practice involved motivating, empowering and mentoring staff, which
corresponds to enabling and considering others, challenging process and problem-
solving (Diaz-Saenz, 2011; Holosko, 2009; Kouzes & Posner, 2012). This finding also
supports the organisational leadership principles of distributing expertise and promot-
ing employee/organisational growth (Peters, 2018). The senior and middle managers
provided valuable insights around getting to know staff personally to best develop their
strengths and future potential, trusting and empowering staff to take initiative, and
providing stimulating assignments to challenge their growth. From a relationship-based
perspective, this may be challenging, as managers’ empathy may need to be combined
with respectful challenge to encourage staff reflection about their actions, emotions, and
impact on others (Megele, 2015, in Elliot, 2017). These suggestions may be helpful to
social work leaders who are striving towards developing their staff and enriching their
organisations. Inspirational leadership is known to build trust and empower workers,
increase their motivation, satisfaction and performance, and improve client service and
organisational outcomes (Hardina et al., 2007).
The fourth practice focused on teamwork and collaboration as central to effective
leadership and organisational functioning (Holosko, 2009; Kouzes & Posner, 2012),
which supports the relational leadership principle of interdependent teamwork (Peters,
2018). The senior managers provided valuable examples around developing respectful
relationships and team process regarding conflicts, which may be instrumental for
social work leaders. From a relationship-based perspective, these processes may be
emotionally provoking for both managers and staff, and some suggest creating discus-
sion groups that are safe and secure for staff to reflect and act on their practice
(Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016). There were some challenges noted with middle manage-
ment teams; senior managers perceived a lack of knowledge and skills, while middle
managers experienced challenges due to competing demands. This finding serves as
a caution for senior leaders to invest sufficiently in supporting their middle manage-
ment teams, as leadership support is a critical factor for team empowerment and
effective functioning (Hardina et al., 2007).
Finally, the fifth practice involved promoting staff recognition, which corresponds to
encouraging the heart and creating positive change (Holosko, 2009; Kouzes & Posner,
2012) and organisational principles of prioritising employee well-being and success
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 277

(Peters, 2018). Positive, meaningful and genuine staff recognition was practiced in one
agency and this is significant as leaders showing appreciation for excellent work
improves staff morale, job satisfaction and work climate (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008;
Kouzes & Posner, 2012). However, staff recognition was limited in two agencies and
this was partly due to the increasing government expectations for accountability in
human services (Hopkins et al., 2014). Such managerialism needs to be ‘humanised‘ and
relational practice that is emotionally responsive needs to be the ‘heart’ of social work
practice (Trevithick, 2014), which is a worthwhile lesson for social work leaders who are
striving to balance relationship-based work with encroaching managerialism.

Conclusions and further research

Overall, the findings from this study extend previous conceptual work on social work
leadership practices (Holosko, 2009), relational and some organisational leadership
principles (Peters, 2018) in two types of human service organisation. The findings
were mostly positive; senior and middle managers endorsed many ideal core leadership
practices. Current and aspiring social work leaders may want to heed these findings, as
they can have significant influence and achieve many benefits by embracing these ideal
practices in their organisations. From a psychosocial and relationship-based perspec-
tive, there may be challenges to living these ideal practices, and leaders will have to
balance these with the realities of increasing managerialism. Advocating for reflective
spaces within HSO’s to support leaders’ development of relationship-based manage-
ment practices would be a good start. This is especially important due to the limited
leadership development and presence of social workers in senior management posi-
tions, as noted earlier. Given the limited research of these leadership practices in social
work, further research on their application in both professional and educational settings
would be worthwhile. As well, extending this research to the impact of leadership
practices on staff and client levels would be helpful, as they were not included in this
study. As the small sample size limits the generalisability of findings, this research could
be replicated with a larger more representative sample.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Eli Teram, Dr. Wes Shera, Dr. Lamine Diallo, and Dr. Nancy Freymond
for their support and guidance during the dissertation research study. I would also like to thank
the two blind reviewers for their helpful feedback and suggested revisions to the draft manu-
script. Lastly, I would like to thank the senior and middle managers who participated in this
study, for sharing their considerable knowledge and experience with us.

Disclosure statement
In accordance with Taylor & Francis policy and my ethical obligation as a researcher, I am
reporting that there was a potential conflict of interest with one agency, as one of the participants
was known to me in a personal capacity. I have disclosed this conflict fully to Taylor & Francis
and I had an approved plan to manage this potential conflict.
278 R. VITO

Notes on contributor
Dr. Rosemary Vito, PhD, MSW, RSW is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work,
King’s University College, at the University of Western, London, Ontario, Canada. Her teaching
and research interests includes social work leadership, organisational culture and change,
reflective supervision, and mental health policy and practice. She has over 20 years of direct
practice experience as a clinical supervisor and social worker in children’s mental health service
organisations. [email: rvito4@uwo.ca].

ORCID
Rosemary Vito http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9021-1973

References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Campbell, S. (2010). Comparative case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 175–177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CASW. (2005). Guidelines for ethical practice. The Canadian Association of Social Workers
Retrieved from http://www.casw-acts.ca
Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative social
research: Researcher’s views. The University of York. York, UK: Social Policy Research Unit.
Retrieved from https://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diaz-Saenz, H. (2011). Transformational leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint,
B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The sage handbook of leadership (pp. 299–310). London,
England: Sage.
Elliot, N. (2017). Psychosocial and relationship-based practice. Journal of Social Work Practice.
doi:10.1080/02650533.2017.1373083
Elpers, K., & Westhuis, D. J. (2008). Organizational leadership and its impact on social workers’
job satisfaction: A national study. Administration in Social Work, 32(3), 26–43.
Faith, K. E. (2013). The role of values-based leadership in sustaining a culture of caring.
Healthcare Management Forum, 26(6), 6–10.
Hardina, D., Middleton, J., Montana, S., & Simpson, R. A. (2007). An empowering approach to
managing social service organizations. New York, NY: Springer.
Hassan, A., & Wimpfheimer, R. S. (2015). Human service management competencies. Retrieved
from https://socialworkmanager.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Competency-Brochure
-4-19-15-With-Forms.pdf
HCPC. (2016). Standards. The Health & Care Professions Council Retrieved from https://www.
hcpc-uk.org/standards/
Healy, K. (2002). Managing human services in a market environment: What role for social
workers? British Journal of Social Work, 32, 527–540.
Hingley-Jones, H., & Ruch, G. (2016). ‘Stumbling through’? Relationship-based social work
practice in austere times. Journal of Social Work Practice, 30, 235–248.
Holosko, M. J. (2009). Social work leadership: Identifying core attributes. Journal of Human
Behaviour in the Social Environment, 19, 448–459.
Hopkins, K., Meyer, M., Shera, W., & Peters, S. C. (2014). Leadership challenges facing nonprofit
human service organizations in a post-recession era. Human Service Organizations:
Management, Leadership & Governance, 38, 419–422.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 279

Ingram, R. (2013). Emotions, social work practice and supervision: An uneasy alliance? Journal of
Social Work Practice, 27(1), 5–19.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lapadat, J. C. (2010). Thematic analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 926–928). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawler, J., & Bilson, A. (2010). Social work management and leadership: Managing complexity
with creativity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2012). Management of human service programs.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mary, N. L. (2005). Transformational leadership in human service organizations. Administration
in Social Work, 29(2), 105–118.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McNabb, D., & Webster, M. (2010). Qualities and practices of professional social work leadership
in an interdisciplinary mental health service: An action learning. Action Learning: Research
and Practice, 7(1), 41–57.
Megele, C. (2015). Psychosocial and relationship-based practice. Northwich, UK: Critical
Publishing.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parry, K. (2011). Leadership an organization theory. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint,
B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The sage handbook of leadership (pp. 53–70). London, EN:
Sage.
Peters, S. C. (2018). Defining social work leadership: A theoretical and conceptual review and
analysis. Journal of Social Work Practice, 32(1), 31–44.
Rank, M., & Hutchison, W. (2000). An analysis of leadership within the social work profession.
Journal of Social Work Education, 36(3), 487–502.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2011). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ruch, G. (2012). Where have all the feelings gone? Developing reflective and relationship-based
management in child-care social work. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 1315–1332.
Tafvelin, S., Hyvonen, U., & Westerberg, K. (2014). Transformational leadership in the social
work context: The importance of leader continuity and co-worker support. British Journal of
Social Work, 44, 886–904.
Trevithick, P. (2014). Humanising managerialism: Reclaiming emotional reasoning, intuition, the
relationship, and knowledge and skills in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(3),
287–311.
Vito, R. (2016). Leadership practice, organizational culture and new managerialism: Strengths,
challenges, variations and contradictions in three children’s service agencies. Retrieved from
http://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1843
Vito, R. (2017). The impact of service system transformation on human service agencies:
Competing ministry directives and strategic innovative leadership adaptations. Human
Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(5), 477–491.
Vito, R. (2018). Social work leadership revisited: Participatory versus directive approaches during
service system transformation. Journal of Social Work Practice. doi:10.1080/02650533.2018.1529026
Wallace, P. (2010). Anonymity and confidentiality. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 23–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yıldız, I. G., & Şimşek, Ö. F. (2016). Different pathways from transformational leadership to job
satisfaction: The competing mediator roles of trust and self-efficacy. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 27(1), 59–77.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.