Engagement as Organizational Culture: A Framework for System-Wide Adoption

Authors

Frederick Shack, LMSW^1,4
Mardoche Sidor, MD^1,2,3
Jose Cotto, LCSW^1,5
Karen Dubin, PhD, LCSW^2,4
Lesmore Willis Jr, MPA, MHA¹
Gary Jenkins, MPA¹

Affiliations

¹Urban Pathways, New York, NY
²SWEET Institute, New York, NY
³Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Study and Research, New York, NY
⁴Columbia University, School of Social Work, New York, NY
⁵New York University, School of Social Work, New York, NY

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mardoche Sidor, MD, Urban Pathways, at msidor@urbanpathways.org

Abstract

Engagement is often viewed as the responsibility of individual staff members. However, lasting transformation requires that engagement become embedded in organizational culture. This article presents a framework for system-wide adoption of the Four-Stage Engagement Model—Sitting, Listening, Empathizing, Collaborating—at Urban Pathways. Drawing on implementation science, organizational psychology, and trauma-informed care, we demonstrate how leadership, supervision, and staff training can institutionalize engagement practices. Composite case examples illustrate how organizational alignment has the potential to reduce resident crises, improve staff morale, and enhance housing stability. Implications for policy, sustainability, and cross-system replication are discussed.

Keywords

Engagement, Organizational Culture, Implementation Science, Trauma-Informed Care, Leadership, Supervision, Supportive Housing, Systems Change

Introduction

Individual commitment to engagement is necessary but insufficient for lasting change. Without systemic support, staff revert to compliance-driven practices under pressure. Research on implementation and organizational change emphasizes that new practices take root only when embedded in culture through leadership, training, and reinforcement structures (Fixsen et al., 2005; Schein, 2010). At Urban Pathways, adoption of the Four-Stage Engagement Model required reframing engagement from an individual technique to a collective organizational value.

Theoretical Framework

This organizational approach to engagement draws on:

1. Implementation Science: Effective adoption requires leadership commitment, training, coaching, and data feedback loops (Fixsen et al., 2005; Proctor et al., 2011).
2. Organizational Psychology: Culture is shaped by shared values, assumptions, and practices reinforced by leadership (Schein, 2010).
3. Trauma-Informed Systems: Trauma-informed care requires organization-wide alignment, not just clinician practices (Harris & Fallot, 2001; SAMHSA, 2014).
4. Learning Organizations: Systems that foster reflection, adaptation, and feedback loops sustain innovation (Senge, 2006).

Application/Analysis

Urban Pathways operationalized engagement as culture by:

• Leadership Modeling: Senior leaders are consistently framing engagement as core to mission and reinforcing presence, listening, and empathy in communications.
• Supervision Structures: Supervisors are learning to integrate the Engagement Self-Assessment Checklist into reflective supervision, shifting focus from resident deficits to staff practices.
• Training & Coaching: Staff across all levels (housing, security, case management) have received training on Motivational Interviewing, and have started to receive training on the Four-Stage Model, with ongoing coaching to reinforce fidelity.
• Organizational Metrics: Beyond housing retention, Urban Pathways is in the process of measuring resident-reported trust and experiences of being listened to, making relational outcomes organizational priorities.
• Composite Case Example: A supportive housing site previously experiencing high conflict reframed engagement as a collective responsibility. We hypothesize that staff will report less burnout and residents will report increased trust within six months.

Implications

• Practice: Embedding engagement across roles ensures consistency, even outside clinical staff.
• Supervision: Reflective practice and fidelity tools sustain engagement behaviors under stress.
• Policy: Funders need to incentivize relational metrics, not only compliance measures.
• Research: Organizational adoption of engagement models need to be studied for impact on staff turnover, resident stability, and system costs.
• Systems Change: Replication requires partnerships between agencies, training institutes, and policymakers.

Conclusion

Engagement ought to transcend individual staff practices to become an organizational value. The Urban Pathways experience is demonstrating that when leadership, supervision, and training align, engagement becomes culture, transforming both resident outcomes and staff well-being.

References

• Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida.
• Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. Jossey-Bass.
• Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76.
• (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

This article is part of a collaboration between SWEET Institute and Urban Pathways.

Read the full scientific version HERE