Coaching for Success in Human Service Agencies

More than half of U.S. workers — 61% — are considering leaving their jobs in 2023, a new report from LinkedIn has found.


Gallup State of the Global Workplace: 2023 reports 47% of the US & Canada employed workforce are actively watching for or seeking a new job.


40% of employees stated that they are at least somewhat likely to leave their current job in the next 3–6 months. The top three factors employees cited as reasons for quitting were they didn’t feel valued by their organizations (54 percent) or their managers/supervisor (52 percent) or because they didn’t feel a sense of belonging at work (51 percent). McKinley Quarterly September 2021

79% of employees who quit their jobs say a lack of appreciation is a key reason they left. Based on a 10-year study of 200,000 employees and managers. The Carrot Principle, Adrianne Gostick


HR Magazine found that 95% of exiting employees blamed an ineffective manager (supervisor).


The results for human service agencies are even more dramatic.


Worker turnover in U.S. human services has an average overall turnover rate for workers of 36% annually and a rate of resignations alone of 24% annually. (http://www.qic-wd.org January 24, 2022)


The same issue is occurring in every human service sector, public and nonprofit; every human service domain - child welfare, education, juvenile justice, mental health, developmental disabilities, senior services.


The common thread is lack of a competent consistent direct service delivery staff.


An agency can lose a supervisor or manager or senior staff and successfully continue to delivery its services, but, when you don’t have the trained direct service staff to meet client/student needs daily there is a problem.


Assuming your agency has the funding for the direct service staff you need, then the challenge is both recruiting and retaining that staff.


The data is clear. We are not successfully recruiting, training and retaining the direct service staff we need.


I hear from agencies, the folks they need are just not “out there”. Or “they don’t want to do the work we require” or “they don’t want to work with our population”.



Blaming folks for not wanting to work for you is not their problem – it is your problem.


And if it is your problem, then you as the leaders have the responsibility to fix it.


Our front-line (younger) work force has been telling us for decades what we need to do differently and few of us have listened to their input.


  1. Be success focused not punitive (progressive discipline)
  2. Tell me what I need to do always to be successful in my job (clear job descriptions without “other duties as assigned”)
  3. Teach me to do my job successfully
  4. Coach me – help me learn the rules, teach me how to win (aka succeed)
  5. Ask for my input and feedback and listen to me rather than tell/direct me
  6. Do not threaten me with write-ups or corrective action plans or punish me
  7. Be my advocate and cheerleader – tell me when I am doing well and help me/ teach me not direct me to do better
  8. Help me learn to solve my own problems rather than you fix them for me or direct me how to fix it
  9. Seek to help me be empowered in my job not cower in my job
  10. Be fair with me and everyone else
  11. Reward success not longevity
  12. Above all, model for me the behavior you want me to learn


What this all means is you as the agency’s leaders must start by implementing a program of training and accountability for everyone in your agency that supervises from CEO/President to first line supervisor how to coach the staff under their supervision to be successful in their job.


When an employee is not being successful in their job, you must first ask, “ Did we hire the person for this job believing they had or could gain the knowledge, skills and tools they need to be successful in this job?”


If we hire a person who is capable of being successful, then it is the responsibility of their supervisor to help them become and remain successful. When that person is not being successful, we have to ask the supervisor what they have done and need to do to help that employee succeed.


Said differently, employees fail because their supervisor failed.


Research found that one of the top reasons people quit their jobs is because they don’t feel valued by their supervisor. had twice as much impact on employee wellbeing than manager recognition. LinkedIn 3.30.2023



Gallup found a few results that are disappointingly low:

  • Only 22% of employees strongly agree the leadership of their organization has a clear direction for the organization.
  • Only 15% of employees strongly agree the leadership of their organization makes them enthusiastic about the future.
  • Only 13% of employees strongly agree the leadership of their organization communicates effectively with the rest of the organization.


Success in human service agencies begins with senior leadership committing the time and money to training and then holding every supervisor at every level, regardless of how long they have been with the agency or how high their position is, accountable for coaching themselves and every supervisor how to help staff under their supervision succeed at work.


Coaching for Success in Human Service Agencies is a proven model for training and accountability of supervisors. The training only requires 3 days. The implementation and accountability is a multi-year process.

LEADING FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX is a monthly newsletter for human services leaders.

Its purpose is to challenge your thinking and help you improve organizational and outcome performance.


To receive your copy free, simply email Jeff Bormaster and ask to be added to the mailing list. Feel free to share these newsletters with other human services leaders, simply include the contact information. 

You can read previous issues of Leading Outside the Box at www.jeffbormasterconsulting.com/topics



Are you a non-profit struggling to recruit and retain a workforce
By Jeff Bormaster 26 Feb, 2024
Is your primary audience for hiring Gen Y and Gen Z, folks under the age of 41?
By Jeff Bormaster 22 Sep, 2023
Its Time To Teach Supervisors How to Supervise Gen Y & Z
By Jeff Bormaster 17 Aug, 2023
Why Can’t We Keep Front-line Workers?
By Jeff Bormaster 15 Jul, 2023
Why Can’t We Retain Line Staff?
By Jeff Bormaster 11 Jun, 2023
Help – We Need Help! The Forever Labor Shortage
By Jeff Bormaster 11 Jun, 2023
Why Can’t We Recruit & Retain Foster Parents
By Jeff Bormaster 11 Jun, 2023
Our systems are all interconnected and interactive, each one nested within the other. In this image we only have four layers of these nested systems but remember that the layer labeled “government, funders, and the public” is itself nested within larger social and global systems. Therefore everything that happens to one system is likely to be reflected in all of the others. The concept of parallel process taken out of the individual context and applied to organizations is a useful way of offering a coherent framework that can enable organizational leaders and staff to develop a way of thinking “outside the box” about what has happened and is happening to their service delivery systems, based on an understanding of the ways in which trauma and chronic adversity affect human function. Parallel process has been defined as what happens when two or more systems – whether these consist of individuals, groups, or organizations – have significant relationships with one another, they tend to develop similar affects, cognition, and behaviors, which are defined as parallel processes …. Parallel processes can be set in motion in many ways, and once initiated leave no one immune from their influence. Clients bring their past history of traumatic experience into the social service sectors, consciously aware of certain specific goals but unconsciously struggling to recover from the pain and losses of the past. They are greeted by individual service providers, subject to their own personal life experiences, who are more-or-less deeply embedded in entire systems that are under significant stress. Given what we know about exposure to childhood adversity and other forms of traumatic experience, the majority of service providers have experiences in their background that may be quite similar to the life histories of their clients, and that similarity may be more-or-less recognized and worked through [2]. The result of these complex interactions between traumatized clients, stressed staff, pressured organizations, and a social and economic environment that is frequently hostile to the aims of recovery is often the opposite of what was intended. Staff in many treatment programs suffer physical and psychological injuries at alarming rates and thus become demoralized and hostile. Their counter-aggressive responses to the aggression in their clients helps to create punitive environments. Leaders become variously perplexed, overwhelmed, ineffective, authoritarian, or avoidant as they struggle to satisfy the demands of their superiors, to control their subordinates, and to protect their clients. When professional staff and nonprofessionally trained staff gather together in an attempt to formulate an approach to complex problems they are not on the same page. They share no common theoretical framework that informs problem-solving. Without a shared way of understanding the problem, what passes as treatment may be little more than labeling, the prescription of medication, and behavioral “management”. When troubled clients fail to respond to these measures, they are labeled again, given more diagnoses and termed “resistant to treatment”. In this way, our systems inadvertently but frequently recapitulate the very experiences that have proven to be so toxic for the people we are supposed to help. Just as the lives of people exposed to repetitive and chronic trauma, abuse, and maltreatment become organized around the traumatic experience, so too can entire systems become organized around the recurrent and severe stress of trying to cope with a flawed mental model based on individual pathology, that is the present underpinning of our helping systems. When this happens, it sets up an interactive dynamic that creates what are sometimes uncannily parallel processes. The result can be seen in the chart below. Bloom and Farragher, Destroying Sanctuary: The Crisis in Human Service Delivery Systems
By Jeff Bormaster 07 May, 2023
Understanding the Role of Residential in Child Welfare
By Jeff Bormaster 09 Apr, 2023
If You Can’t Bribe Them to Stay How Can You Keep Employees?
By Jeff Bormaster 09 Apr, 2023
Public Child Welfare’s Challenge of Lack of Staff
More Posts

Share by: