Understanding the SCARF Model: How Local Government Can Lead Change More Humanely

Change in local government is rarely small. It is rarely neat, linear, or contained. It ripples. Whether it’s a restructure, a new operating model, a digital transformation programme, or a shift in political priorities after an election, the impact lands on real people with real physiological responses. These aren’t abstract “change curves” on a slide deck, they are cortisol spikes, disrupted sleep, tightened shoulders, and the quiet sense of being overwhelmed that many officers carry long before they say a word. As Kevan Collier, Strategic Learning and Development Lead at North West Employers, put it in our recent conversation:

“We forget that change isn’t just organisational, it’s biological. People feel it in their bodies before they can articulate it in their heads.” 

That line stayed with me because it captures something we often overlook in the public sector: staff are not resisting change because they are awkward, cynical, or “not on the bus”. They are responding exactly as human beings are wired to respond when their environment shifts faster than their nervous system can process.

This is where the SCARF model, developed by Dr David Rock, becomes a powerful lens. Rock’s work in neuroleadership argues that the brain responds to social threats and rewards in the same way it responds to physical ones. A change to someone’s job title, reporting line, or team structure can activate the same neural circuitry as stepping into a cold, dark alley. As Rock writes,

“Understanding the true drivers of human social behaviour is becoming ever more urgent in this environment.” That urgency is felt acutely in local government, where the pace and volume of change have accelerated while resources have diminished.

For public sector leaders navigating complex, politically sensitive, and resource‑constrained change, SCARF offers more than a theoretical model, it offers a practical framework for understanding why staff react the way they do, and how to support them through it. It helps leaders see that behind every behaviour, the colleague who withdraws, the team that becomes defensive, the manager who suddenly micromanages, there is a neurological story unfolding. And when leaders understand that story, they can design change that is not only operationally sound but psychologically humane.

The Neuroscience Behind Change Fatigue

Change fatigue isn’t a character flaw. It’s chemistry. Research cited by the CIPD shows that even confident, high‑performing employees experience a threat response when confronted with change. This isn’t metaphorical, it’s neurological. When routines shift, the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning, decision‑making, and problem‑solving, becomes overloaded. It’s the brain’s “executive office”, and as Dr David Rock notes, it is “one of the most energy‑demanding, easily tired and easily overwhelmed parts of the brain.” In practice, this means that even small changes can feel disproportionately difficult, because the brain is burning through cognitive fuel simply trying to make sense of what’s happening.

This is amplified in local government, where the operating environment is already cognitively and emotionally demanding. Officers and frontline practitioners are rarely working with a full tank. They are navigating:

• Constant change, budget cycles, restructures, new statutory duties, shifting political priorities.

• High cognitive load, complex caseloads, safeguarding decisions, regulatory frameworks, and public scrutiny.

• Emotional labour, supporting vulnerable residents, managing conflict, absorbing distress, and maintaining professionalism under pressure.

When you layer organisational change on top of this, the brain’s threat response is almost inevitable. The nervous system interprets uncertainty, ambiguity, or loss of control as potential danger. That danger doesn’t have to be physical, a change to a process, a new line manager, or a reconfigured team can be enough to trigger the same circuitry.

So when staff show signs of resistance, withdrawal, anxiety, or even irritability, it’s not a sign of poor attitude or lack of commitment.

It’s a sign of human neurology doing exactly what it was designed to do: protect us from the unknown.

Understanding this shifts the narrative. Instead of asking, “Why are people being difficult?” leaders can ask, “What threat response might this change be activating, and how can we reduce it?” That’s where the SCARF model becomes not just relevant, but essential.

The SCARF Model: Five Social Domains That Shape Reactions to Change

Dr David Rock’s SCARF model identifies five social domains that trigger either a threat or reward response in the brain: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. These domains shape how people interpret change, how they behave under pressure, and how safe they feel in their working environment. For public sector organisations, where change is often rapid, politically driven, and resource‑constrained, understanding these domains is not optional. It’s essential. Below, each domain is explored through a local‑government lens, with practical implications for leaders and frontline practitioners.

1. Status, “Who am I in this new world?”

Status is about our sense of importance, identity, and place in the hierarchy. It’s not vanity, it’s biology. Humans are wired to monitor their social standing because, historically, status was linked to safety and survival. In the workplace, even subtle shifts can feel like existential threats.

In local government, status threats often arise when:

• Job titles change during restructures.

• Professional expertise is questioned or deprioritised.

• Long‑standing ways of working are replaced with new systems or methodologies.

• Teams are merged, split, or redistributed without clear rationale.

• Officers feel their contribution is being overshadowed by political or corporate priorities.

For many officers, their professional identity is deeply tied to public service. A change that appears to diminish that identity, even unintentionally, can trigger a strong threat response. Rock notes that a perceived threat to status,

“activates similar brain networks as those experienced when there is a threat to one’s physical wellbeing.” 

That’s why a seemingly small organisational tweak can feel disproportionately personal.

What leaders should do

• Frame change in a way that protects professional identity. Emphasise continuity of purpose: “Your expertise is central to how we deliver this new model.”

• Recognise and celebrate expertise, especially during transitions. Public acknowledgement reduces the sense of loss and reinforces value.

• Avoid language that implies deficiency. Phrases like “we need to fix how teams work” can unintentionally signal that people have failed. Instead, focus on evolution, not correction.

• Be explicit about what isn’t changing. Stability anchors status.

• Involve practitioners early. Being consulted signals respect and reinforces professional standing.

When leaders protect status, they reduce defensiveness, build trust, and create the psychological space people need to engage with change constructively.

2. Certainty, “Tell me what’s happening next.”

Certainty is one of the brain’s most fundamental needs. Humans are wired to seek patterns, predict outcomes, and reduce ambiguity. When certainty disappears, the brain shifts into a heightened state of alertness, diverting energy away from problem‑solving and towards scanning for threat. This is why people often describe organisational change as “exhausting”, their cognitive load has quietly doubled.

In the public sector, uncertainty is not an occasional inconvenience; it is a structural feature of the landscape. Political cycles, funding announcements, policy shifts, inspection regimes, and external scrutiny all create a level of ambiguity that officers must absorb as part of daily life. Add organisational change on top of that, and the nervous system can quickly become overwhelmed.

For many staff, the hardest part of change is not the change itself, it’s the not knowing. Not knowing what the new structure means for their role. Not knowing whether a pilot will become permanent. Not knowing whether a budget proposal will be approved. Not knowing how long the “transition period” will last. This uncertainty can erode trust, reduce engagement, and trigger defensive behaviours.

What leaders should do

• Share what you know and what you don’t know. Transparency reduces speculation. Silence amplifies threat.

• Provide timelines, even if provisional. People can cope with “we’ll know more in four weeks” far better than “we’ll update you when we can.”

• Avoid creating “uncertainty about the uncertainty.” Vague phrases like “things are still being worked through” leave staff filling in the gaps with worst‑case scenarios.

• Use small anchors to create stability. Even simple commitments, “We will update you every Thursday”, give the brain something predictable to hold onto.

• Explain the process, not just the outcome. Understanding how decisions will be made reduces the fear of hidden agendas.

When leaders reduce uncertainty, they reduce the neurological threat response, and create the psychological space staff need to engage with change constructively.

3. Autonomy, “Do I still have control?”

Autonomy is the sense of having choice, influence, or agency. It is one of the strongest predictors of motivation and wellbeing. When people feel they have no control over what is happening to them, the brain interprets this as a threat, triggering stress responses and reducing cognitive flexibility. In local government, autonomy is often constrained by design. Statutory duties, governance frameworks, political oversight, and regulatory requirements limit the degree of freedom officers have. But even within these constraints, leaders can create micro‑autonomy, small but meaningful opportunities for staff to shape how change unfolds.

Loss of autonomy is one of the most common triggers of resistance during change. It’s not that people object to the change itself; they object to feeling done to. When staff feel they have no voice, no influence, and no choice, they disengage, not because they don’t care, but because their sense of agency has been compromised.

What leaders should do

• Involve staff in shaping how change is implemented. Co‑design workshops, working groups, and feedback loops all reinforce agency.

• Offer choices where possible. Even small decisions, sequencing, methods, pilot sites, training formats, restore a sense of control.

• Explain the rationale behind decisions. When people understand why something is happening, they feel less like passengers and more like partners.

• Avoid unnecessary micromanagement. Trusting practitioners to adapt change to their context signals respect and competence.

• Create space for experimentation. Pilots, prototypes, and test‑and‑learn approaches give teams ownership over how change lands.

When leaders protect autonomy, they reduce defensiveness, increase engagement, and tap into the creativity and problem‑solving capacity of their workforce, something the public sector desperately needs during periods of transformation.

4. Relatedness, “Do I still belong here?”

Relatedness is the domain of trust, connection, and belonging, the sense that these are my people and this is my place. When change arrives, that sense can be shaken. Teams that once felt cohesive can suddenly feel fragmented. Informal networks shift. Familiar faces move on. New structures create new alliances. Without careful leadership, change can unintentionally create “in‑groups” and “out‑groups”, leaving some staff feeling disconnected or even displaced.

This is especially relevant in:

• Multi‑agency partnerships, where different organisational cultures collide and staff can feel unsure about where they fit.

• Hybrid working environments, where physical distance can quickly become emotional distance if not actively managed.

• Teams undergoing restructure, where uncertainty about roles and relationships can erode trust and psychological safety.

In local government, where purpose and connection are often the glue that holds teams together through difficult work, a threat to relatedness can be particularly destabilising. When people feel they no longer belong, engagement drops, collaboration weakens, and the emotional resilience needed for public service becomes harder to sustain.

What leaders should do

• Create deliberate spaces for connection. Regular team check‑ins, cross‑team forums, and informal touchpoints help rebuild the social fabric that change can fray.

• Avoid siloed communication. When some groups receive information earlier or differently, it reinforces the sense of “us and them”.

• Reinforce shared purpose, the “why” behind public service. Purpose is a powerful unifier. Reminding teams of the collective mission helps re‑anchor belonging.

• Model inclusive behaviour. Leaders who show curiosity, empathy, and openness signal that everyone has a place in the new landscape.

• Support relationship‑building across boundaries. Joint workshops, shadowing, and cross‑functional projects help rebuild trust and connection.

When leaders nurture relatedness, they create environments where people feel safe enough to adapt, collaborate, and stay committed through uncertainty.

5. Fairness, “Is this being done justly?”

Fairness is one of the most potent drivers of human motivation. Rock’s research shows that when people perceive fairness, the brain activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a monetary reward. Conversely, perceived unfairness triggers a strong threat response, often stronger than the response to uncertainty or loss of autonomy.

In local government, perceptions of unfairness often arise when:

• Consultation feels tokenistic, with decisions appearing predetermined.

• Workloads increase unevenly, leaving some teams feeling overburdened while others appear protected.

• Decisions seem politically influenced, even when leaders are acting in good faith.

• Opportunities for progression or development feel unevenly distributed.

• Communication is inconsistent, creating the impression that some groups are “in the know” while others are left behind.

Fairness is not just about the decision itself, it’s about the process. People can accept difficult outcomes if they believe the process was transparent, consistent, and respectful. When fairness is absent, trust erodes quickly, and resistance to change hardens.

What leaders should do

• Be transparent about decision‑making criteria. Explain the “why”, not just the “what”. Clarity reduces suspicion.

• Show how feedback has shaped the final approach. Even small changes demonstrate that consultation was meaningful.

• Apply policies consistently across teams. Inconsistency is one of the fastest ways to trigger a fairness threat.

• Acknowledge when decisions are difficult. Honesty builds credibility and reduces the emotional load on staff.

• Create visible mechanisms for challenge and appeal. When people feel they have recourse, fairness increases, even if the outcome doesn’t change.

When leaders prioritise fairness, they strengthen trust, reduce defensiveness, and create the conditions for change to land with integrity rather than resentment.

Why SCARF Matters More in the Public Sector

Local government is uniquely human‑centred. People don’t join the sector for glamour or financial reward, they join because they care. They are motivated by purpose, community impact, and a deep sense of professional identity. But that same sense of purpose makes them more exposed to the emotional toll of change.

Public sector staff face:

• Higher emotional labour than many sectors, supporting residents through crisis, conflict, and vulnerability.

• Frequent organisational change, often driven by external forces rather than internal strategy.

• Public scrutiny and political pressure, where decisions are questioned not just internally but by the media, elected members, and the community.

• Chronic resource constraints, meaning change often arrives on top of already stretched workloads.

This combination means the SCARF domains are activated more often, and more intensely, than in many other sectors. A restructure doesn’t just shift reporting lines; it can threaten identity, belonging, fairness, and autonomy all at once. A new policy doesn’t just change a process; it can destabilise certainty and increase cognitive load.

Understanding these triggers helps leaders design change that is not only operationally sound but psychologically safe. When leaders recognise the human brain’s response to change, they can anticipate reactions, reduce unnecessary threat, and create conditions where staff feel supported rather than overwhelmed.

In a sector built on relationships, trust, and service, this isn’t a “nice to have”. It’s foundational.

Practical Actions for Leaders and Frontline Practitioners

1. Diagnose the SCARF impact before announcing change

Before any communication goes out, take time to map which SCARF domains are most likely to be triggered for different groups of staff. A restructure may threaten status and certainty; a new digital system may challenge autonomy and fairness; a shift in political priorities may unsettle relatedness and shared purpose. Anticipating these impacts allows leaders to design change that lands with care rather than shock.

2. Communicate with SCARF in mind

Every message, whether a formal briefing, a team update, or a corridor conversation, has the potential to either calm or activate the threat response. Before communicating, ask:

• Does this protect status?

• Does this increase certainty?

• Does this offer autonomy?

• Does this build relatedness?

• Does this demonstrate fairness?

If the answer is “no” to any of these, refine the message before it lands. The difference between reassurance and anxiety often lies in a single sentence.

3. Train managers in the neuroscience of change

Managers are the interpreters of organisational change. They are the people staff turn to when uncertainty hits, and their confidence (or lack of it) shapes how change is received. Equip them with the language, tools, and understanding to support colleagues through the neurological and emotional realities of change. When managers feel prepared, teams feel safer.

4. Slow down the pace where possible

The brain needs time to adapt. Even small pauses, a phased rollout, a pilot, a transition period, or simply spacing out communications, reduce the threat response and increase engagement. Change lands better when people have space to breathe, reflect, and adjust.

5. Recognise that resistance is data, not defiance

When people push back, it is rarely about the change itself. It is usually a signal that one of the SCARF domains has been threatened. Resistance is information: a clue about where fear, uncertainty, or loss of control may be sitting. Treat it as insight, not insubordination. When leaders respond with curiosity rather than judgement, trust grows, and change becomes easier to shape together.

Final Thought

As Kevan Collier reminded me, “Change isn’t just a process map, it’s a human experience.” When leaders understand the neurological and social dimensions of change, they create environments where staff feel safe, valued, and able to adapt.

In a sector built on service, that’s not a luxury, it’s essential.