Why Every System Leader Needs a Builder Mindset

site-QYE1ag • July 10, 2025

In systems work—whether in juvenile justice, education, or child welfare—it’s common to hear people say, "the system is broken." But what if it isn’t? What if it’s operating exactly as designed? If that’s the case, we don’t just need reform; we need to redesign. And redesign starts with a different kind of leadership—one rooted in what I call the builder mindset.


A builder mindset is not about fixing what’s broken. It’s about co-creating something new. Builders ask bold questions: What would this system look like if it truly served children, families, and communities? What can we design that doesn’t yet exist? Instead of tweaking around the edges, builders work alongside community partners to imagine and construct entirely new pathways, practices, and policies.


This mindset demands humility. Builders don’t show up with all the answers. They show up ready to listen, learn, and support others in leading. It also demands action. Too often, leadership becomes performative—measured by how many meetings we attend or strategies we draft. Builders stay focused on what actually changes as a result of their leadership.


In my work with Results Count leadership programs, Santa Barbara Unified School District, and the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission, I’ve seen firsthand the power of this shift. Leaders who adopt a builder mindset remove barriers, align resources, and co-create solutions with communities rather than imposing solutions on them. They become catalysts for transformation.


The question isn’t whether you have power. It’s how you use it. Are you fixing? Or are you building?

From Opponents to Allies: How Conflict Can Drive Systems Change

By site-QYE1ag • July 10, 2025
Opposition is inevitable in systems work. Whether you’re leading a juvenile justice reform effort, redesigning child welfare response, or launching a community-based initiative, someone will disagree with you. And that’s not a problem to avoid—it’s a reality to embrace. Too often, resistance is seen as a barrier. But when we treat it as a signal—a clue that values are misaligned, history is unacknowledged, or relationships are frayed—we gain the opportunity to shift the dynamic. That’s where the "Name It, Frame It, Game It" framework comes in. Name It: Be honest about the conflict or tension. Is it fear of change? Lack of trust? Competing priorities? Naming it takes the power out of avoidance. Frame It: Recast the conflict as an opportunity. What shared values exist underneath the disagreement? How can we center the goal rather than the turf? Game It: Strategize your next move. How will you engage the opposition in a productive way? What do you need to shift in your stance, language, or assumptions? In our workshops and technical assistance projects, we've seen system leaders move from defensiveness to curiosity. We’ve seen community members once labeled as "opponents" become essential partners. We’ve seen conflict lead to creativity and alignment. The work of systems change is not about eliminating conflict—it’s about learning to navigate it. And often, your strongest allies begin as your fiercest critics. Who are you avoiding? What could be possible if you leaned in?

A Tale of Two Data: Measuring What’s Broken—and What’s Possible

By site-QYE1ag • July 10, 2025
We often hear that "data drives decisions." But what kind of data? And what does it reveal—or obscure—about the communities we serve? Most systems rely heavily on deficit-based data: numbers that reflect risk, failure, and system involvement. We track arrests, removals, referrals, and recidivism. These data points are real and important. They shine a light on inequities and harm. But if that’s all we measure, we risk reinforcing a narrative that communities are problems to solve, not places of possibility. Enter the Tale of Two Data. Alongside traditional metrics, we must elevate data that reveals strength, connection, resilience, and readiness. Where are the assets in a community? Who are the trusted leaders and informal supports? What programs are already working? What does healing look like, and how can we measure progress toward it? Through the Roots & Routes asset mapping toolkit and our work in Syracuse’s 13204 and 13207 ZIP codes, we’ve helped communities gather and lift up the data they know to be true—not just what systems count, but what people value. This includes lived expertise, community-developed programs, and places of safety and joy. When we measure both harm and hope, we can design more balanced interventions. We can resource what works, not just respond to what’s wrong. And we can shift the narrative from what a community lacks to what it has the power to build. What are you measuring? And what stories are your data telling?