5340: U4 D1 -Keys to Successful Engagement

Please see attached.

Keys to Successful Engagement

Review Situation 3 on page 59 of your Responsive Leadership in Social
Services textbook, which discusses an empowerment project done in a child
welfare agency. The project provided participants with unexpected insights.
This project took place within a specific agency.

In your initial post, discuss how the same insights about engagement,
motivation, and understanding the story of participants would be beneficial
to successful outcomes in a multi-organizational collaborative project.
Describe what you see as the three key take-away points from this situation.
Explain why you believe these are the three key points.

Response Guidelines

Read the posts of the other learners and respond to the initial posts of two.
In each response, ask clarifying questions or comment on the applicability of
engagement, motivation, and understanding the story of participants in
relation to a multi-organizational collaborative project. Do you agree with
what the learner has posted? Why or why not?

Learning Components

This activity will help you achieve the following learning components:

● Define the role of cultural competency in fostering collaboration among
human services organizations.

● Discuss how governance practices influence collaboration among
human services organizations.

NOTE: Minimum of 350 words and 1 scholarly journal

3
Perception Is Everything

We do not see the world as the world is, we see the world as we are.

— Stephen Covey

� PERCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION
AND QUALITY LEADERSHIP

The last chapter provided research and many accounts on the impor-
tance of and significant role individual perceptions play in shaping our
experiences with leaders and work environments. We know for certain
that it is the workers’ perceptions of leaders’ behavior and character
that will determine whether a worker will trust, respect, and subse-
quently “follow” or be inspired by that particular leader. There is a
direct connection between workers’ perceptions of the quality of lead-
ership and their experience of competence, personal accomplishment,
organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Therefore, whether or
not leadership is determined to be of quality and/or effective is depen-
dent upon the workers’ perception of that experience.

Individual perceptions and the impact on a workers’ experience of
work and of themselves within the work extends beyond the immediate
leader–member relationship. We also know that workers who perceive
their immediate work environment as positive experience greater job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. When workers perceive

de, Groot, Stephen. Responsive Leadership in Social Services : A Practical Approach for Optimizing Engagement and
Performance, SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=5165207.
Created from capella on 2023-01-30 10:38:30.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

53Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

their work climate to be positive, meaningful, and supportive, out-
comes will be better for both the worker and the clients they serve.
Worker perceptions of the leader, leadership, and the work environment
therefore directly impact their experience, their attitudes, their behav-
iors, and, most importantly, how they perform at work.

I have witnessed firsthand the significant role worker perceptions
play in shaping and determining the worker experience of leadership
and of the work overall. Among many of my important learning expe-
riences as a supervisor and trainer of supervisors and managers over
the years, there are three situations in particular that stand out as
“lightning-bolt moments.” It was these specific instances that contrib-
uted to and solidified my understanding of the importance of employee
perceptions, a quality leadership experience, and subsequent impacts
on employee engagement, motivation, and performance. I will share a
brief overview of each situation, including insights, themes, and
important lessons learned that have influenced and continue to influ-
ence the primary importance I place on employee perceptions and the
employee’s story—their lived experience.

Situation 1: We may not know what we think we know.

Like most supervisors in the social services, I began supervising clini-
cal therapists and residential group care workers long before I had any
formal training as a supervisor, other than a field-placement training
course, which I taught! I had a great deal of supervision experience but
lacked formal training or any type of feedback on the quality and effec-
tiveness of my supervisory efforts. At one point in my career, I was
responsible for supervising the staff in a large residential youth care
program: seven clinical therapists, 22 program managers, and approxi-
mately 125 frontline child and youth care workers. Without a direct
supervisor or manager myself, it was not long before I realized that
providing quality and effective supervision for everyone might be
absolutely impossible! It was desperation and necessity that led me to
enlist my clinical therapists to help with supervision of staff. Also,
because the program did not have time or money to provide formal
supervision training, I planned to train my team to supervise as an
aspect of their professional development through their individual
supervision sessions with me.

Now I think it is important to note that up until this particular
time, I would state confidently that I was a great supervisor. It was my
perception that I was doing everything well; for years, my teams

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE54

seemed happy and productive, and I had never heard otherwise. So
confidently I began to prepare my clinical team members to be supervi-
sors and encouraged them to consider their preferred supervision
approach. It wasn’t until I asked them to do this that I realized I had
never considered mine. In addition to this, it was not until this point
that I had ever stopped to think, “How do I prefer to be supervised?”
and, “How do I prefer to supervise?” These were not easy explorations.
It took me some time to connect with what, why, and how I preferred
to supervise. I had never ever stopped to consider this before. Wow!

Through exploration and various reflections, I discovered that I
supervised the individuals on my team the way that I preferred to be
supervised, which was directly linked to my own needs, values, and
goals. In addition to this, I supervised everyone on my various teams
the same way—same structure, same process, same format, same ques-
tions, and so on. I learned that I just pieced together what I had learned
from my own past supervisors over the years and combined it with
what I “liked” from the supervision courses I was teaching at the uni-
versity. Like most supervisors, I was doing what I liked and what made
the most sense for me.

This represented a very important yet challenging and meaningful
eye-opening journey. It seemed as though I had to start from the begin-
ning again, which was a little embarrassing because I had been super-
vising some of my team members for years. I asked each of them these
questions:

• Tell me when supervision was the best or most helpful for you
at any time in your career?

• What made it so meaningful or valuable?

• How would you prefer supervision?

• What would be the most helpful for you?

Interestingly, just as I struggled to figure out what, why, and how
I liked to be supervised, it was difficult for my team members also. It
was as though we were all on autopilot. In sharing perspectives, we
were able to figure out specific individual preferences for what we each
defined as a quality supervision experience.

Thankfully, I found out that I was doing a lot of things right,
such as being trustworthy, respectful, a good listener, and a role
model; however, there were things I could have been doing differ-
ently that would have made a significant differences for each of my

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

55Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

team members. For instance, Lindsay preferred more supervision,
not less, and preferred it early in the day, when she was alert and
energized. She preferred a more structured, organized, supervisor-
led supervision session with a clear agenda and concrete objectives
and activities focused primarily around cases and clinical interven-
tion. Small talk and getting off topic was not a favorable occurrence
for Lindsay as she wanted to use the time most efficiently. However,
personal check-ins were very important as was Lindsay’s preference
for having her strengths identified and feelings affirmed and vali-
dated. These were just some of the many insights I gained around
Lindsay’s preferences for the most meaningful and valuable supervi-
sion. Raegan on the other hand wasn’t as concerned with formality,
structure, or format and preferred a collaborative back-and-forth
dialogue that was led mostly by her. She valued supervisor input
that was relevant and concrete. Rather than following a set agenda,
Raegan preferred a quick review of cases so that there was more time
to discuss pressing matters as they related to clients, the team, the
organization, or her own professional development. Raegan believed
that less supervision was better for her at that particular juncture in
her career and within the present work environment.

I began to learn that despite my team members’ common purpose
for being in this field, they maintained unique needs, values, and goals
for supervision and the work overall that if and when accommodated
made a significant difference for them and their work. This knowledge
enhanced my work in a number of ways. I found individual supervi-
sion sessions became more focused, effective, and meaningful.
Furthermore, because effectiveness and quality were enhanced, indi-
vidual supervision sessions were shorter in length and were required
less frequently. From a practical standpoint, we were saving valuable
time and energy, which are what I refer to as nonrenewable resources
in the social service industry.

This particular situation surfaced important themes that were
positively impactful then, and the insights gained continue to influence
my understanding of the importance of perception on effective super-
vision and overall leadership quality. Some of these themes are

• many supervisors don’t know what they think they know,

• supervisor perspectives often differ from their workers,

• often supervisors don’t know what they are doing that works
well with staff and/or what needs to be changed,

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE56

• worker perceptions and experiences hold the key to worker
preferences for effective supervision and quality leadership,

• supervisors and workers may not know their own preferences
for supervision,

• worker perceptions on effective supervision may be different
than their supervisors’ perceptions, and

• perceptions of trust, respect, and empathy are important to
most workers.

Situation 2: All is not as it seems.

Early on in my career as a provincial trainer of supervisors and man-
agers in child welfare, I began to learn of a gap in perceptions that
existed between those of the supervisors and of their individual
members. The advantage of training in a small province as a trainer
of frontline workers and managers is that there are times when one
week I would have frontline workers as attendees, and later that
month, I would have their direct supervisors in training on supervi-
sion. This proved to be an interesting situation because often frontline
staff would talk about experiences with their supervisors. Also, man-
agers would be encouraged, as part of their training curriculum, to
talk about specific staff concerns, especially in the three-day program
designed to assist supervisors on how to effectively manage “diffi-
cult” employees.

One day, a supervisor who I will refer to as Barb showed up early
for the “how to manage difficult employees” training. She informed
me that she had been waiting for this training for months because she
really wanted to learn how to “fire a problem staff member.” I
reminded her that the curriculum was designed to assist with under-
standing and managing challenging behaviors. She boldly stated,
“Nothing will help this guy I inherited. He has got to go!” Despite my
efforts to encourage her to use the curriculum strategies to gain an
understanding of the presenting issues, she was adamant that nothing
was going to change her mind. On more than several occasions over
the three days, I had to interrupt the group work at her table because
she capitalized on the working time to enlist five other participants to
sympathize with her plight. She continually focused on the negative
aspects of her situation and built her case with colleagues at the table
to fire this particular staff member.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

57Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

Barb consistently listed all of the behaviors that bothered her. She
stated that her staff person was lazy and avoidant. According to her,
he was spending less time at work, and when he was at work, he
would leave unit meetings and group supervisions early. He was
withdrawn and passive in individual supervision sessions. According
to her, she didn’t know if he was even listening as he consistently
“did not take direction well.” She stated that she had reprimanded
him on several occasions and indicated that he must attend all unit
meetings and individual and group supervision sessions. In describ-
ing her staff member and his behavior, Barb used words like lazy,
uncommitted, uncooperative, insubordinate, passive-aggressive, and
poor team player. Throughout the training sessions, I did my best to
assist Barb on working to understand the employee’s behavior. She
was adamant that she had done all that she could. Her staff action
plan stated, “Fire Brandon!” in bold letters across the entire staff
development document.

Flash forward one month. I am training 70 frontline workers in a
relationship-based strengths approach to child welfare intervention. In
the back of the room is a participant that catches my attention. He is
active and engaged, asking great questions, and responding to the
material in an operationally consistent manner that was well in line
with the curriculum values and preferred practice. Not only did he
know this approach, it was obvious that he was a skilled practitioner
also. He stood out so much that I became curious to know where he
had trained, and I was also interested as to whether he had or would
consider training workers in this approach. I had lunch with him.

What I learned blew my mind! As I listened to his story, I heard that
training was one of the few contexts in the field where he still felt good
and confident in his abilities anymore. He went on to say that he loved
his job as a community support worker but was feeling very unsatis-
fied at work over the past year. He claimed that he did not have a good
relationship with his supervisor, stating that he had little respect for her
as a leader. He mentioned that he entered the field to work with people,
not to spend his time in meetings and group supervisions. He stated
that he appreciated team functions but not too many; nor did he like
meetings that went on too long or were irrelevant to his work or his
professional development. He noted that although he didn’t feel good
about it, he had been avoiding team functions in order to make more
time for the clients on his caseload. He indicated that this had caused a
great deal of tension between him and his supervisor. In his words he
stated, “I don’t trust her. I think she is lining me up to be fired.” His

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE58

name was Brandon! Oh my goodness, it hit me: This was Barb’s prob-
lem staff member! I was in a bind because I could not breach confiden-
tiality; however, I offered to help. He declined as he was feeling hopeless
and felt as though he had tried everything. He considered putting in for
a transfer to another department. I heard from my professional contacts
that Brandon was terminated six weeks later.

This was another lightning-bolt moment. How could the person
described by Barb as the worst social worker ever be experienced by
me and/or other supervisors as the social worker we would love to
have on our team? We need workers like Brandon in the field. He was
a great worker—motivated, engaged, and wired to make a positive dif-
ference. Regardless of the details, there was a serious problem with
perceptions. What is astounding is that the more I listened to Barbs and
Brandon’s stories, the more I learned that they actually wanted the
same thing: to work in a manner that was best for clients and the team.
They both wanted to get the job done and to do their best by the clients
they served.

This experience hit me hard and deeply as a person committed to
developing the best capacities of both frontline workers and their lead-
ers. I also share the desire to do the best for the children, families, and
communities we serve. Quality client service and support is dependent
upon workers and their leaders. Remember, there exists a set of inextri-
cable links between quality leadership and positive worker experience
of self and the work, between positive employee experiences and qual-
ity practice decisions, and between good practice decisions and pre-
ferred outcomes for clients. We need workers like Brandon to feel
better and to perform better. We need supervisors like Barb to be less
frustrated, angry, and exhausted. While I will discuss similar leader–
member dilemmas in Chapters 4 and 7 in the context of understanding
and approaching resistance and oppositional behavior, it is important
to note that the gap in different perceptions/experiences between
supervisors and employees is very common, and the space can range
from minor and insignificant to absolutely massive. I sometimes refer
to the big ones as the “Grand Canyon gaps” in perceptions, issues that
can lead to increased stress and conflict and all sorts of problems for
leaders, their staff, and eventually for their clients.

This particular situation, like many other similar situations that
followed in my career, surfaced important themes that were positively
impactful then, and the insights gained continue to influence my
understanding of the importance of perception on effective supervision
and overall leadership quality. Some of these themes are as follows:

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

59Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

• Often supervisors and workers, despite differences, want the
same things: better working relationships and preferred client
outcomes.

• Supervisors and workers can have very different perceptions of
the same situation.

• Large differences in supervisor and worker perceptions can
cause stress and conflict.

• Conflict caused by differences in supervisor and worker percep-
tions can negatively impact trust, respect, the leader–member
relationship, and overall performance.

Situation 3: One small difference can make BIG differences.

I have had the privilege of working on some amazing projects that
were geared toward enhancing social work team capacity. One project
in particular, the Empowering Social Workers (ESW) Project (de Groot,
2006), was directed at empowering child welfare workers through a
strengths-based approach to embrace and alter challenging workplace
realities in a manner that would result in increased optimism, morale,
empowerment, and team cohesion. A significant point to mention is
that the ESW Project was initiated at the same time as what people refer
to as the “worst time in child welfare in our province’s history.” The
project was launched days prior to the discovery of an atrocious child
death and the subsequent negative and tumultuous child death review
that followed. This is important not because many project participants
stated that it was the worst time to be working in child welfare in their
entire careers but because the project demonstrated that we can effect
positive change even at a time when workers in a system are feeling the
most devalued, unsupported, and demoralized.

There were a number of purposeful and unintentional insights
gleaned from the project. The hypothesis that we could effect positive
changes in worker experience and overall workplace climate was
confirmed in our work. This was exciting as it affirmed and validated
the idea that we could positively affect workplace climate even if
political, bureaucratic, fiscal, organizational, and workplace chal-
lenges continued to persist. However, despite the intentional deduc-
tions gathered, there were two significant surprises that occurred,
one during the project and the other during project follow-up. The
first surprise that occurred within the project was the importance the
supervisor played in the experiences of workers and of the workplace

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE60

climate overall. Many project participants reported being dissatisfied
with supervisory support and/or supervision due to a variety of fac-
tors. Some of these factors included a new supervisor being placed
with the team, the team not knowing the supervisor, the supervisor
not knowing all of the team members, diverse and differential staff
support and supervision needs, trust and safety requiring more effort
and work, little acknowledgment or validation by the supervisor, and
workplace challenges making it hard on the supervisor (de Groot,
2006, p. 121).

It is important to note that when the project supervisor learned
of this information following the project report, he was surprised
and his feelings were hurt. However, like many great leaders, he
agreed to team building in order facilitate a better understanding
and accommodation of individual team members’ needs and prefer-
ences for supervisory support and supervision. He wanted to do the
best for his members and staff. I was asked to facilitate the initiative.
I referred to the exercise as “Preferred Supervision: Identifying
Needs to Succeed.” This process was very successful and initiated
steps the supervisor could take to enhance overall leadership qual-
ity for individual team members. At the time, I did not know that it
was this process that stimulated the early development of the
Preferred Leadership Profile (PLP), which I will discuss further in
this chapter.

The second and most surprising revelation occurred during project
follow-up and debriefing. Because the ESW Project was measuring
changes in key areas such as worker feelings of optimism, empower-
ment, morale, and team cohesion, the evaluation design required two
groups: the project group and the control group. The two groups were
as identical as possible in size, location, number of team members,
types of clients, number of cases, years of experience, and so on. What
I found to be fascinating were the differences in overall worker satisfac-
tion and workplace climate between the two teams. The control group
reported a significantly higher level of morale, optimism, and team
cohesion. What did most of them attribute it to? It was in large part due
to the perceived supportiveness and supervision quality of the super-
visor! This was exciting: an insight that confirmed the importance
employee perceptions have on worker experiences and workplace cli-
mate. More importantly, the greatest insight was that these two teams
operated in similar environments with similar and persisting organiza-
tional and workplace challenges, yet due to positive worker percep-
tions of leadership quality, things were much better overall for the
control team and its members.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

61Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

This particular situation surfaced important themes that were posi-
tively impactful then, and the insights gained continue to influence my
understanding of the importance of perception on effective supervision
and overall leadership quality. Some of these themes are as follows:

• Worker perceptions and experiences of supervision have a sig-
nificant impact on optimism, morale, job satisfaction, and work-
place climate.

• Supervisors, by tuning into worker needs and preferences, can
enhance the quality of supervision and support for workers.

• Effective supervision and quality supervisory support can
buffer workers against the stress and challenges of a trying and
difficult work environment.

Each of the three scenarios, in unique ways, demonstrates the role
worker perceptions play in their experience of supervision and perceived
supervisory support. While all of the lessons learned, including themes
that emerged from the situations presented above, are valuable, it is the
final bullet of the third scenario (Effective supervision and quality supervisory
support can buffer workers against the stress and challenges of a particular work
environment) that I find the most fascinating and profound. Situation 3
continues to confirm for me the power that quality leadership can have
on workers’ perceptions and experiences of the work and the work cli-
mate. I have been referring to supervision as a mechanism of leadership
and have made reference to the context of supervision as representing an
environment within an environment. Situation 3 clearly speaks to these
ideas. Supervision as a mechanism can operate as a safe-haven for work-
ers, especially during extremely difficult and challenging times. It rein-
forces the idea that while we may not be able to change or alter many of
the bureaucratic, political, fiscal, and/or organizational impediments to
good practice, as mentioned in Chapter 1, quality supervision and super-
visory support can positively enhance workers’ experience of themselves,
the work, and the organization overall.

It is in the context of these scenarios that we may have a partial yet
profound solution to the question posed by Patti (2009). That is, how
do we create organizational conditions that will lead to positive worker
perceptions, attitudes, and behavior in order to bring about the highest
quality and the most effective service? It is through a quality leadership
experience wherein the leader places primacy on the importance of the
workers’ perceptions of themselves and the work but above all their
perceptions of the quality of supervision and supervisory support.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE62

� THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYEE’S STORY

Up to this point in the discussion, I have referred to the terms perception
and worker experience to indicate how social service employees come to
interpret and understand leader behaviors and their work environ-
ments overall. Perceptions are the key to experience. When making
reference to the perceptions and experiences of workers, I often refer to
the terms employee story or worker story.

I like to use the narrative concept of story to refer to the lived
experience of individuals and/or groups. In the simplest manner, a
person’s story is his or her subjective experience of everything—of
self, people, and situations. Our stories are made up of how we think
and feel about ourselves and everything in the world around us. Our
stories are shaped by our needs, beliefs, values, attitudes, and goals,
and they are informed by our past, present, and future. How we
make sense of our stories and the meaning that the stories maintain
in large part determines the attitudes we hold and the behaviors we
choose in our interactions with different people and/or in a variety
of situations.

I mentioned in Chapter 1 that if asked for advice on how to be a
better leader, my standard response is, “Get to know your employee!”
I also highlighted an important and consistent theme which has sur-
faced from both practice wisdom and research: When employees and
managers refer to their experiences of effective and quality leader-
ship, it is not uncommon for them to attribute those experiences to
the fact that their leader really knew them and had an understanding
of their perceptions and experiences. Effective leaders are those lead-
ers who are in tune with what workers need, what is important to
them, and what they want for themselves, their team members, and
the clients they serve. Getting to know the employee and the
employee experience is absolutely essential if leaders are going to
provide effective leadership and a quality leadership experience for
the members that they lead.

In order to stress the absolute necessity of getting to know the
employee and the employee’s story for enhancing a quality leadership
experience and motivating workers to perform optimally, it is impor-
tant to place this discussion in the context of the definition of leader-
ship offered in Chapter 2. Leadership was defined earlier as a process
by which an individual or individuals inspire the attitudes and behav-
iors of others to engage in value-based and purpose-critical efforts in
order to accomplish a set of shared objectives. An emphasis is placed

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

63Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

on the leader’s ability to inspire, motivate, stimulate, or bring to action
certain attitudes and behaviors that result in the optimization of
worker performance and enhanced quality service. That’s great, but
the question becomes how do you inspire workers to be motivated and
engaged as they carry out their work, especially when they are operat-
ing in challenging work environments that present serious barriers to
preferred practice?

The answer to this question is at the heart of a Responsive
Leadership Approach. Leaders can inspire their employees when
they cultivate and connect with the experiences and perceptions of
workers—perceptions of their work, their work environment, and their
experiences of themselves within that particular context. The
Responsive Leadership Approach places primary emphasis on estab-
lishing a respectful, trusting, and safe relationship that is, in and of
itself, engaging, satisfying, and motivating. More importantly, how-
ever, such a relationship is critical as it creates what I refer to as a path-
way to the employee’s story—their lived experience. Why is the
employee story so important? Because it is within the employee’s per-
ceptions and lived experiences that important needs, values, goals, and
strengths lay. These are the key sources of individual motivation,
engagement, commitment, and overall performance. This concept is
built on the idea that the only way a leader can inspire is if he knows
what it is that inspires each individual employee.

Consider the three scenarios above. While very different stories,
there is a common consistency that holds them together: To varying
degrees there existed barriers to the access of the employee’s experi-
ence. We the supervisors were all missing important information. I was
missing important information regarding the needs, values, and goals
of my team members. Barb was missing large chunks of important
information and meaning around her “challenging” employee. The proj-
ect supervisor was also missing information as it pertained to the per-
ceptions of his team members regarding work, supervision, and the
relationship with him as the supervisor. As I stated earlier, it is this
missing information and meaning that can lead to a variety of experi-
ences and situations that can range from relatively minor to annoying,
all the way to serious stress and conflict between the supervisor and
employees. An important note worth restating is that in each situation,
other than Barb’s because it was probably too late, it was accessing
employees’ perceptions and experiences that led to a better experience
of quality supervision, a better leadership experience, and enhanced
work overall.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE64

What Motivates Social Service Workers?

What if supervisors could access that information—the employee
story and the meaning embedded in it—earlier? What if managers
can discover important information before gaps in perception cause
any difficulties in the leader–member relationship? What if supervi-
sors could learn about employee needs, values, goals, and strengths
right from the beginning of the leader–member working relationship?
If so, wouldn’t we be able to minimize the potential for stress and/or
conflict with employees and the subsequent challenges that may arise
in work and service as a result? Wouldn’t access to this important
information and meaning enhance the quality of the employee expe-
rience with their leader and the work overall? Wouldn’t the cultiva-
tion and engagement with important aspects of the employees’ story
enhance their experiences of the work thereby lead to better practice
decisions and preferred client outcomes? These are the questions that
I pursued over the last 15 years in my work with supervisors, manag-
ers, and leaders. The answer to all of these questions is a resounding
YES! Absolutely!

It was this inquiry that provided impetus for seeking out, through
research and interviews with thousands of employees and supervisors,
what information from the employee’s story is the most essential to
access. What information is necessary to enhance a leader’s capacity to
inspire greater motivation, engagement, commitment, and overall per-
formance from all employees? My findings helped shape my under-
standing of specific domains that are key sources of motivation for
social service employees. In addition to this, the plethora of informa-
tion from workers was used to develop a tool: the Preferred Leadership
Profile. It was constructed to assist workers and their leaders in the
discovery and documentation of important employee needs, values,
goals, and strengths as they relate to preferences for leadership and the
work overall.

Different People, Different Motivators

As stated in Chapter 1, social service workers are an exceptionally
motivated group of people who value and desire making the lives of
those less fortunate better. However, the plethora of organizational
and workplace realities presented earlier challenge many workers’
connection to and engagement with the things that motivate them the
most. It is critical for leaders to understand and connect with the vari-
ous elements and dynamics that contribute to fostering and sustaining

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

65Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

employee motivation and engagement. Over the years, I have come to
learn that social service employees are motivated by a variety of dif-
ferent things as they relate to the work and the employees’ experiences
of themselves within the work. These “things” are very much tied to
employees’ needs, values, goals, and strengths. The following items,
which will be revisited in Chapter 6, represent worker preferences that
are key sources of motivation and quality engagement for most
employees. They are

• quality relationships characterized by trust, respect, integrity,
and empathy;

• to work in step with their personal and/or professional values;

• to have and hold a shared vision and mission with others;

• to engage in tasks and objectives that are important to them, or
that they at least see the value in;

• to have some aspect of themselves or their work acknowledged,
appreciated, and/or admired;

• an environment that supports personal and professional growth;

• to see results;

• to have positive and constructive feedback;

• to have a sense of personal power or control over some aspect of
the work; and

• to have strengths identified and built on in the pursuit of important
objectives.

This list, which will be the main focus of Chapter 6, represents an
array of motivation sources for many employees; however, the
degree to which each item is motivating and engaging has to deal
with the unique preferences and experiences of each individual
employee. For some employees, like myself for instance, working in
step with my values is very important for me. I also like to see
results. My colleagues may not hold the same preferences. My office-
mate years ago was not concerned as much with values but focused
most of his energy on opportunities that supported his personal and
professional growth.

It is very important to note that if at anytime workers lose connection
to important and preferred factors that keep them motivated and/or

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE66

engaged, there is a likelihood that they will begin to lose motivation,
focus, and engagement with the work. The longer a disconnection
from such preferences persists, the more apt employees are to experi-
ence a disconcerting feeling; the longer a disconnect persists, the more
likely that disconcerting feeling may shift to disillusionment and pos-
sibly demoralization. The more a leader knows about employee pref-
erences and sources of motivation, the better able he will be to respond
and accommodate, to the extent possible, the various needs, values,
goals, and strengths embedded within the unique employee percep-
tions and experiences of those preferences. In addition to this, the
longer and more fully a leader assists employees with a connection to
their needs, values, goals, and strengths, the longer employees will
stay motivated and engaged with the work.

The Key Performance Motivators Scale

Understanding key sources of motivation preferences for employees
has been very helpful for myself and other managers for learning,
understanding, and responding to the various needs, values, and goals
embedded within the meaning of those preferences. Prior to develop-
ing the Preferred Leadership Profile, I created a simple tool I refer to as
the Key Performance Motivators Scale (KPMS), which can be found as
Appendix A. It was developed to help workers and supervisors alike
to identify and connect with their own and others’ preferences for
the things that motivate and engage them as they carry out their work.
The KPMS is short, straightforward, and simple to use. It can be com-
pleted and discussed between supervisor and employee, and it can
also be used in groups as a team-building exercise for surfacing and
discussing important individual and team discoveries. While the
KPMS offers supervisors an avenue for getting to know their employees
better, I often suggest that the supervisors I work with use the Preferred
Leadership Profile to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the
employee and their story—their needs, values, goals, strengths, and
preferences for support.

� THE PREFERRED LEADERSHIP PROFILE: PURPOSE

While the next chapter will detail a variety of barriers and challenges
that exist to accessing and engaging the employee experience and
offer tools and strategies for mitigating such impediments, I feel it is

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

67Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

important to introduce the Preferred Leadership Profile tool at this
juncture of the discussion. It is my intention that the PLP overview
provided here will enhance your understanding of and reference to
the tool, including such things as employee preferences as they relate
to leadership and various aspects of the work. The PLP tool can be
found in Appendix B.

In the most practical sense, the PLP enhances the leader’s ability to
get to know, understand, and respond to the unique needs, values,
goals, and strengths of employees in a manner that leads to the greatest
development of employees and essentially the greatest delivery of pre-
ferred staff and client outcomes. The main role of any leader is to deliver
on service and client outcomes by inspiring the attitudes and behaviors
of others to carry out effective and quality work. In order to deliver, a
leader must develop the capacities of the employee and the team overall.
And because delivery of outcomes is dependent upon development, the
most effective employee development is dependent upon thorough and
accurate discovery. I refer to discovery, development, and delivery as the
three Ds of responsive leadership. When a leader discovers the unique
needs, values, goals, strengths, and overall preferences of employees,
optimal development, motivation, and engagement is possible and
delivery of preferred staff and client outcomes much more likely.

The PLP tool was developed to provide both leader and members
with opportunities to discover and connect with preferences and key
motivation sources so that work may be a more meaningful and valu-
able experience for everyone involved. In addition to this, the PLP
structure and process offer both leader and member opportunities
to strengthen the leader–member relationship, to assist in a quality
leadership experience and enhanced satisfaction with overall supervi-
sion and supervisory support. We know from previous chapters that
enhanced supervision and quality leader–member relationships as per-
ceived by the employee are foundational for enhancing the meaning
and value of the employee work experience. In addition, the more a
leader knows and understands what employees need, what is impor-
tant to them, what they want, and what their strengths are, the better
able the leader is to create the best fit between workers’ preferences and
capacities and the work overall. We know that such experiences enhance
not only the worker’s perception of leadership and supervision but also
the perception of work and a work environment as positive, meaning-
ful, and valuable. Therefore, the PLP tool can be instrumental in enhanc-
ing worker motivation, engagement, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE68

� THE PREFERRED LEADERSHIP PROFILE:
STRUCTURE AND PROCESS

What the PLP Contains

The PLP is a 10-page document housing four main categories with a
variety of informative sections pertaining to key work preferences and
motivators common to many social service employees. The four main
categories of the PLP are Values and Purpose, Preferred Outcomes,
Strengths, and Preferred Performance Supports.

Values and Purpose is the first category of the PLP. This section
encourages workers to connect with and identify aspects of the orga-
nization or program’s vision, mission, and values that are important
to them and their work. This PLP area also guides employees to make
connections between organizational objectives and their own per-
sonal purposes. An important aspect for understanding worker moti-
vation is to know an employee’s individual reasons behind taking
and remaining in a particular job. In addition to this, the Values and
Purpose section solicits from the worker information pertaining to
their own WIIFM, an acronym which means “What’s in It for Me?”
The WIIFM can provide the supervisor with insight into one or more
particular payoffs related to a worker’s purpose in carrying out his or
her role of helping.

Desired Outcomes is the second major category in the PLP. This
realm of the PLP brings purpose and objectives together as it encour-
ages employees to consider specific goals—what they want for their
clients, for themselves, and for the team overall. For most workers,
these areas are key sources of motivation, focus, and engagement.

The third major category is the Strengths category. This section
encourages employees to consider their own strengths as they per-
tain to both professional and personal domains. The strengths sec-
tion is great for workers and supervisors alike. For employees,
claiming strengths can be a positive, affirming, and hope-instilling
process. In addition to this, it can assist employees in their own
development as strengths are key to uncovering resources from past
and present successes and are great for focusing on future successes
also. For the supervisor, knowing employee strengths can help with
professional development and motivation as strengths can be built
on and leveraged in the pursuit of important goals and profes-
sional development. A strengths focus will be elaborated on further
in Chapter 5.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

69Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

The fourth and final category of the PLP is Preferred Performance
Supports. It is the largest of the four profile categories as it contains a
host of employee preferences geared toward enhancing professional
development, learning, quality supervision, and communication.
Employees are to consider and identify preferred goals for their own
professional development. Additionally, employees are offered an
opportunity to consider whether they have strengths that they would
like to develop further. Employees are asked to reflect on their specific
preferences for learning and to consider what qualities and/or ingredi-
ents would lead to quality supervision and support. This section of the
PLP also offers employees the opportunity to outline preferences for
structure and process within the context of supervision. Finally, the
Preferred Performance Supports category of the PLP offers workers a
place to outline and specify their own preferences for the most effective
communication and feedback.

Introducing the PLP and Ensuring Buy-In

One of the greatest impediments to preferred practice echoed by social
service workers is that there is too much paperwork. This is one of the
most common challenges and sources of resistance that surface when
trying to introduce the PLP tool to individual employees and teams.
Prior to introducing the PLP, it is critical that employees see the value
in the tool. How do you get staff to see the value in the PLP tool? You
consider their needs, values, and goals as a means to connecting the
PLP to what they want for themselves, for their work, and, above all,
for the clients they serve. Helping employees answer the questions,
“What’s the point?” and, “Why should I take the time to fill this out?”
is critical for buy-in and engagement with the tool. If the answers to
these questions illuminate that the PLP tool can indeed accommodate
one or more of the employee’s needs, values, and/or goals, he or she
will be more likely to complete the PLP tool.

Another suggestion I make for supervisors and managers is to
inform employees that the PLP tool will assist in greater quality super-
vision and better leadership overall. I suggest that leaders convey
to their team members the following message: “I really want to be a
better supervisor/manager. This PLP tool can help me with this.”
I have yet to hear employees argue with wanting to have better super-
vision or an enhanced leadership experience at work. This is another
great way to introduce the PLP and increase the likelihood of buy-in
by team members.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE70

The PLP can be introduced to individual members in the context
of a meeting or supervision session, or it can be introduced to the
whole team at a unit meeting. Either way, time should be provided for
a discussion of the PLP, the value of it, and the intended positive
implications of its use.

The following chapter on communication and accessing the
employee story will provide insights, tools, and strategies that will
assist with introducing and discussing the PLP tool with members.

Completing the PLP

On average, the PLP takes approximately two hours to fill out in its
entirety. However, when and how a PLP is completed can be decided
upon by both the supervisor and the employee. Because it is not
mandated or legislated, the PLP tool can be completed and used in
a manner that accommodates the realities of a particular work
environment. Most employees that have completed the tool have
preferred to take it home to fill it out.

Some, however, have completed the PLP if and when time permit-
ted at work, within work hours. While most people have preferred to
fill out the tool in its entirety, others have chosen to complete the tool
in parts and pieces. Some supervisors have used various sections of the
PLP for team-building exercises, by utilizing specific sections for group
discussions and processes. Regardless of how the PLP is completed, it
is important that the employee submit a copy to their direct supervisor
or manger. It is up to the supervisor or manager to follow-up—to have
a discussion with the worker regarding the PLP, including that worker’s
experience of his or her own discovery process within the context of
completing the form.

The PLP Discussion Is Critical

It has been emphasized and will continue to be that it is absolutely
essential that the supervisor and/or manager have a good discus-
sion with the team member as soon as possible, following the com-
pletion of the PLP. This discussion offers the leader an opportunity
to learn more about the employee and the employee’s needs, values,
goals, strengths, and preferences for support. In addition to this, the
leader is able to gain some insight into the members’ experiences of
filling out the PLP tool. Some important points for discussion are
as follows:

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

71Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

• What was filling out the tool like for the member (their experience)?

• Were there areas of the tool that were familiar and/or comfortable
to complete?

• Were there areas of the tool that were more difficult and/or
challenging to complete?

• Were there areas of the tool that were most meaningful and/or
valuable?

• Was anything new learned and/or confirmed in the process of
filling out the tool?

The above questions are suggested as provisional guides for super-
visors and managers and have been helpful in facilitating a deeper and
more meaningful understanding of the employee and the employee’s
experience as it relates to his or her needs, values, and goals. It is also
a suggested that supervisors who utilize the PLP tool and engage in a
PLP follow-up discussion with their workers utilize the communica-
tion process for meaning making offered in the next chapter.

The PLP is a living document and can be revisited by the employee
from time to time in order to add, enhance, or even modify the infor-
mation as it pertains to the employee’s experience and the various sec-
tions of the tool. I encourage supervisors and employees, as key
information is revealed, to make changes immediately as the discovery
process is ongoing and continuously unfolding.

� ENSURING SUCCESS:
THE DOS AND DON’TS OF THE PLP

In order to approximate successful use of the PLP in a manner that is
consistent with the intent and preferred outcomes of the tool, there are
some important dos and don’ts that require attention.

Preferred Leadership Profile Dos

Do complete your own PLP first.

This is absolutely essential for many reasons—the biggest being
integrity. Great leaders do not ask or expect their members to do
something that they haven’t done or are not prepared to do them-
selves. In addition to this, one of the first questions many employees

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE72

ask their supervisors is, “Have you completed it?” If the answer is no,
employee buy-in of the PLP will likely be seriously compromised, if
not altogether negated. More importantly, completing your own PLP
will enhance your understanding of the PLP structure and process,
including your own discovery process. By completing the PLP, you
will also be able to answer many questions employees may have
about the structure or process involved with the PLP tool.

Do encourage your members to see the value in the PLP.

This was discussed earlier and is critical for buy-in and subsequent
success with the PLP. Engagement, cooperation, and motivation to
complete the PLP are tied to whether or not the employee sees the
value in the tool. Does it have meaning? Does it hold value? Remember
that it is critical, prior to expecting the staff to complete the PLP, that
they be able to answer the questions, “Why am I filling this thing out?”
and “What’s the point?” If there is no point, then there is no point. It
would be ridiculous to expect an employee to connect and meaning-
fully engage with more paperwork when there is no point. However,
when employees can connect the PLP to the accommodation of their
needs, values, and/or goals, they will be much more motivated and
engaged to complete the tool. Ensure that employees understand the
value and see meaning in the PLP prior to your expectation that they
complete the tool.

Do provide members with generous and
flexible opportunities to complete the PLP.

Given the fast pace and heavy workloads characteristic of most
social service environments, additional paperwork is often not a pri-
ority for most workers. However, if employees see the value in it,
they are more likely to do what is necessary to get it done. It is
important that supervisors provide a variety of generous and flexible
opportunities to complete the PLP tool. Generous and flexible mean
that workers are given realistic and achievable opportunities that
consider the realities of their particular work and workplace
demands. Opportunities to complete the PLP can be collaboratively
discussed between the supervisor and employee. As discussed ear-
lier, opportunities can be found at work, on shift, at breaks, in
between shifts, at home, or during allocated time off designated
specifically to support the completion of the PLP tool.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

73Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

Do negotiate a completion date for the PLP.

While it is important to offer generous and flexible opportunities, a
completion date is also important. This is so because, amidst the com-
peting work and caseload priorities, the PLP can be set aside or lost in
the multifarious demands of the social service work environment. And
because the PLP represents more paperwork in a sea of documentation
requirements, it may be less than appealing for some workers even if
they see the value in it. Therefore, be sure to set a specific check-in date
and/or completion date to have the PLP tool completed and submit-
ted. If more time is required, be sure to renegotiate this with the worker
and clarify an alternate date for completion.

Do have follow-up discussions with employees regarding the PLP.

Following up on the PLP is an essential do! It is not uncommon for
many workers to roll their eyes or sigh when having to engage in a
new work-related practice, standard, or tool. For many workers in
social services who live and work in environments that are con-
stantly shifting and changing in terms of standards, protocols, pro-
cedures, and mandates, there are many times when new tools are
introduced and not followed up or through on. This can add to a
type of learned apathy around the perceived integrity and the orga-
nization’s commitment to new tools. Many workers who take the
PLP tool seriously are often looking forward to the follow-up part of
the process. They can also be looking for a return on their own invest-
ment of the time, energy, and commitment that went into completing
the PLP.

I have heard workers in situations where the PLP has been com-
pleted but not followed up or through on state, “I wish I would have
never filled it out.” Keep in mind that the PLP tool can create hopeful
and optimistic expectations about enhancing work and the work envi-
ronment overall. Due to the personal nature of the PLP tool, a worker’s
commitment to fill it out goes beyond time and includes a personal
investment and a risk to trust the leader and the process—that it will
be an endeavor that will be favorable to the employee.

Follow-up on a tool that has been promoted by you as meaningful
and valuable is essential if for nothing at all for your integrity. Keep in
mind that integrity is a key to quality leadership. Effective leaders “do
what they say they will do.” Not following through on the PLP tool
will undoubtedly be a breach to your leadership integrity.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE74

Do expect some resistance to the PLP tool.

I have introduced the PLP tool to approximately 1,000 supervisors
and managers. Many of them have gone on to introduce and utilize
the tool with more than 7,000 social service employees in a variety
of sectors. To some degree, all of the leaders experienced resistance
with one or more of their employees. This is common, and it is OK!
While resistance and opposition will be elaborated on more thor-
oughly in Chapter 7, it is important to highlight some of the com-
mon reasons for resistance and or opposition to the PLP tool and the
process overall.

The most common reason contributing to PLP reluctance has to do
with issues regarding trust. Sometimes it can be difficult for workers to
trust that the PLP tool will be used within the context of the spirit and
intent with which it was developed, introduced, and explained.
Unfortunately, in the past, workers have been asked to fill out tools,
assessments, questionnaires, and/or surveys with the intent to enhance
quality and/or efficiency of individual performance, team functioning,
organizational development, or client outcomes, and their experience
following completion or engagement was less than positive. In some
instances, little to nothing was made of their efforts, meaning there was
no follow-up or follow-through.

For some employees, their experiences may have ranged from
neutral to negative after the completion of a document that held per-
sonal information, including their perspectives and opinions. I have
heard many stories of workers who stated that they were reprimanded
following the sharing of their opinions. Others social service employ-
ees have shared stories of confidentiality breaches and/or negative
repercussions from supervisors after sharing personal opinions and
perspectives regarding various aspects of the work.

Another major reason that contributes to reluctance with PLP
completion and engagement in the process has to do with whether or
not workers see the value in the tool. As stated above, it is critical that
workers can answer the two questions, “Why am I doing this?” and,
“What is the point of this PLP?”

Preferred Leadership Profile Don’ts

Don’t forget to follow up or follow through on the PLP tool.

Although this is covered in the do section above, it is critical to
mention again. Forgetting to follow up on the tool may seriously

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

75Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

compromise your leadership integrity and the level of buy-in and
commitment of employees on the team. In addition, not following
up or through on the PLP may also jeopardize the leader–member
relationship and be perceived by employees as “more of the same”
social service rhetoric, further perpetuating and impacting a nega-
tive view of you the leader and the work environment overall. Not
following up or through on the PLP actually has the opposite effect
for which it was intended.

Don’t use the PLP as an evaluation or performance tool.

The PLP tool contains a wealth of personal and professional employee
information all in one place. It can be tempting for some supervisors to
want to use the PLP as a means of performance evaluation or perfor-
mance management. The PLP was not intended or developed to be
used as such. The PLP is a tool for discovery of important needs, val-
ues, goals, strengths, and other key sources of motivation. Information
pertaining to goals and strengths from the PLP can indeed be used and
integrated into performance evaluation processes and frameworks.
However, when the PLP is used as a performance evaluation tool, it
does not fit, and it can be confusing and awkward for both the supervi-
sor and the employee. In addition to this, most performance appraisal
and evaluation processes are often less than inspiring for most work-
ers, and utilizing the PLP in this manner may result in a worker’s
experience of the PLP and the process around it to be less than positive
and engaging.

Don’t use the PLP as a means to discipline employees.

The reluctance that many workers have in engaging with and complet-
ing a tool like the PLP is often tied to a not-so-good experience with a
similar tool or process from the past. Unfortunately, for some workers,
the professional or personal information has been held against them in
some manner; sometimes information is judged, criticized, or even
delegitimized in the context of a verbal and/or behavioral response
from their direct supervisor. I have heard terrible stories wherein work-
ers have been reprimanded, faced consequences, and/or experienced
repercussions as a response to the information they have shared in the
PLP tool. In some instances, when employees have been involved in a
disciplinary situation, information from the PLP has been brought into
the meeting to be used to support the disciplinary action and/or to
help build a case for disciplinary action. This is not what the PLP is

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

PART II FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE76

intended for, and if utilized in this manner, it will undoubtedly result
in implications that are diametrically opposed to the spirit and intent
for which the PLP tool was developed.

� SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT POINTS

•• Leadership is determined to be effective and high quality by the
individual perceptions and experiences of each worker.

•• Workers who perceive their work environment as positive, mean-
ingful, and supportive experience greater levels of job satisfaction
and organizational commitment than their coworkers that don’t.

•• Worker perceptions and experiences hold the key to worker prefer-
ences for effective supervision and quality leadership.

•• Supervisors and workers can have very different experiences of the
same situation.

•• Worker perceptions and experiences of supervision have significant
impact on optimism, morale, job satisfaction, and workplace climate.

•• Effective supervision and quality supervisory support can buffer work-
ers against stress and challenges of a particular work environment.

•• All workers have a variety of diverse and unique Key Performance
Motivators.

•• When supervisors and managers get to know the needs, values,
goals, strengths, and preferences for support, they are better able
to enhance and sustain motivation, engagement, and optimal
performance.

� PERSONAL LEADER REFLECTIONS
AND CONSIDERATIONS

•• Consider your own preferences for effective supervision and quality
leadership. What do you need? What do you value most? What do
you hope for?

•• Consider asking your team members to share their preferences for
effective supervision and quality leadership. What are you doing
well? What might you need to work on?

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

77Chapter 3 Perception Is Everything

•• Review the Key Performance Motivators list. What stands out as
important and/or meaningful for you?

•• Consider sharing and reviewing the Key Performance Motivators
Scale with one or more team members.

•• Review the Preferred Leadership Profile. Consider what areas stood
out for you as most meaningful.

•• Consider introducing (in parts or as a whole) the Preferred
Leadership Profile to team members, individually or as a group.

� REFERENCES

de Groot, S. (2006). Empowering social workers in the workplace: A strengths based
strategy for child welfare. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Association of Social
Workers.

Patti, R. J. (2009). The handbook of human services management (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
, I

nc
or

po
ra

te
d.

A
ll

rig
ht

s
re

se
rv

ed
.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ 5340: U4 D1 -Keys to Successful Engagement ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order