a mixed methods study evaluating …vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/23254/brunt...a...

A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING

AMIXEDMETHODSSTUDYEVALUATINGSTRATEGIESUSEDINORGANIZATIONALVISIONING

KelseyChurchBrunton

ThesissubmittedtothefacultyofVirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversityin

partialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

MASTEROFSCIENCEINLIFESCIENCESin

AgriculturalandExtensionEducation

EricK.Kaufman,ChairCurtisR.Friedel

DonnaM.Westfall‐Rudd

April4,2013Blacksburg,Virginia

Keywords:OrganizationalVisioning,AppreciativeInquiry,SWOTAnalysis,OrganizationalCommitment,VisionClarity

Copyright2013byKelseyC.Brunton


AMixedMethodsStudyEvaluatingStrategiesusedinOrganizationalVisioning

KelseyChurchBrunton

ABSTRACT

Thepurposeofthiscasestudyistoevaluatetwomethodsofstrategicplanning

withinorganizationalvisioning:Strengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,Threats(SWOT)

analysisandAppreciativeinquiry(Ai).SWOTanalysisisamethodofstrategicplanning

thatispopularwithincompaniesandorganizationsduetoitssimple,yetthorough,

approach.Aihasrecentlyemergedasanapproachtostrategicvisioningandplanning

withinorganizationaldevelopment.However,littleresearchhasbeenconductedto

evaluateeitherapproachtoorganizationalvisioning,andthereisagrowingneedto

comparethetwotechniques.Inthiscasestudy,participantswithinoneorganizationwere

divided,withhalfofthestaffparticipatinginAiandtheotherhalfparticipatinginSWOT.

Dataforthismixedmethodsstudywasgatheredthroughobservation,focusgroup

interviews,andpre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpostassessmentstests.Throughthe

explanatorysequentialdesign,quantitativedataevaluatedthechangeinorganizational

commitmentandvisionclarityasaresultoftheinterventions;while,qualitativedata

furtherexploredparticipants’perceptionoftheinterventionprocessandresultingeffects.

Thestudyfoundastatisticallysignificantinteractionbetweeninterventiontreatmentsand

thepre‐testandpost‐testscoreswithintheorganizationalcommitmentconstruct.Seven

themesemergedfromthequalitativedata;however,onlytwothemeswerespecifically

associatedwithaninterventiontreatment.ParticipantsintheSWOTintervention

describedthevisioningprocesstobefrustratingandnegative;while,Aiparticipantsfound

thatthevisioningprocessconfirmedmanyoftheirbeliefsandvaluesaboutthe


iii

department.RecommendationsforfuturepracticesuggesttheuseofStrengths,

Opportunities,Aspiration,Results(SOAR)asanapproachthatcombinesandmaximizesAi

andSWOT.SuggestionsforfutureresearcharetoexploreSWOTasaprecursortodi‐

visioningwithintheVisioningProcessModel.


iv

DEDICATION

“Ihavenospecialtalents.Iamonlypassionatelycurious.”–AlbertEinstein

Thisworkdedicatedtocuriouspeople.


v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ioweagreatdealofgratitudetomypatientandencouragingadvisor,Dr.Kaufman.

Thankyouforyourcontinuedsupportandexpertisethroughoutmygraduatework.Dr.

Westfall‐Rudd,thankyouformentoringmethroughoutmyqualitativediscoveries.Iam

indebtedtoyouforyourwillingnesstosupportmeoverthesummermonths.Dr.Friedel,I

amsoappreciativeofyourexpertiseinquantitativeandstatisticalanalysis.Additionally,

youmadeapowerfulimpactonmyunderstandingoforganizationalchangeandsufficiently

piquedmyinterestinleadingsocialchange.Lastly,Dr.Niewolny,youintroducedmeto

appreciativeinquiryinyourclassonCommunityDevelopmentandEducationand,forthis,

Iameternallygrateful.

ThegraduatestudentsinLISA,JonathanStallingsandCalebKing,werealso

instrumentalinmythesiswork.IamverythankfulfortheexcellenthelpIreceivedin

planningmystudy,inrunningstatisticaltests,andintranslatingmathematicaljargoninto

somethingthatIcouldunderstand.IwouldliketothankDonnaRatcliff,forbelievinginmy

studyandme.Itwasanabsolutepleasureworkingwithyouandyourstaff.Iwasinspired

bythestaff’spassionfortheirworkandforthestudents.Iamverythankfulthatthey

sharedtheirtimeandstorieswithme.Additionally,IwouldliketothankJimMcQueenfor

facilitatingbothinterventionsessions.Yougraciouslydonatedyourtime,resources,and

energyandforthatIamsincerelygrateful.

Dr.KerryPriestandDr.MeganSeibelhavebeenamazingmentorsthroughoutmy

journeyofbecomingaresearcher.Youallweresogenerousinsharingyourtime,


vi

expertise,andresourceswithme.WhetherIneededabookoranidea,achocolateora

hug,youallweretheretosupportmeandIcan’tthankyouenoughforallthosethings,

especiallythelatter.Mydearfriends,DebbieCarrollandMichelleGreaud,Iamsograteful

foreverythingthatyouallhavedoneforme.Thankyouforyourendearingsupportand

kindness.


vii

TABLEOFCONTENTS

DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................................................IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................................................V

LISTOFTABLES......................................................................................................................................................XI

LISTOFFIGURES...................................................................................................................................................XII

CHAPTERONE:INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1

Background............................................................................................................................................................2TheoreticalFramework....................................................................................................................................5ProblemStatement.............................................................................................................................................9PurposeandResearchQuestions..............................................................................................................10SignificanceofStudy.......................................................................................................................................12OverviewofMethodology.............................................................................................................................13LimitationsoftheStudy.................................................................................................................................14DefinitionofTerms..........................................................................................................................................14

CHAPTERTWO:REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE.....................................................................................18

Leadership:ARelationalUnderstanding...............................................................................................18TheLeader:VisionandChange..................................................................................................................20StrategicPlanningandVisioningwithinOrganizationalDevelopment....................................24SWOTAnalysis:ATraditionalApproachtoPlanningandVisioning.........................................28Background....................................................................................................................................................28Characteristics............................................................................................................................................ȢȢȢ30Critiques...........................................................................................................................................................33Applications...................................................................................................................................................35

AppreciativeInquiry:ANewApproachtoPlanningandVisioning............................................37Background....................................................................................................................................................38Characteristics..............................................................................................................................................40Critiques...........................................................................................................................................................44Applications...................................................................................................................................................45

VisionClarityandOrganizationalCommitment:ADesiredOutcome.......................................47


viii

CHAPTERTHREE:RESEARCHMETHODS..................................................................................................52

PurposeandObjectives..................................................................................................................................52FramingtheResearch.....................................................................................................................................56ReflexivityStatement......................................................................................................................................57ResearchDesign................................................................................................................................................58ResearchContextandCaseStudyPopulation......................................................................................63SelectingtheFacilitator.................................................................................................................................65InterventionTreatments...............................................................................................................................65SurveyInstrument...........................................................................................................................................66FocusGroupInterviews.................................................................................................................................67DataCollection...................................................................................................................................................68ProceduresUsed...............................................................................................................................................70DataAnalysis......................................................................................................................................................72

ResearchQuestionOne........................................................................................................................72ResearchQuestionTwo.......................................................................................................................72ResearchQuestionThree....................................................................................................................73ResearchQuestionFour.......................................................................................................................73ResearchQuestionFive........................................................................................................................74ResearchQuestionSix...........................................................................................................................74

SummaryoftheMethodology.....................................................................................................................75

CHAPTERFOUR:RESULTS................................................................................................................................76

ResearchQuestionOne..................................................................................................................................76ResearchQuestionTwo.................................................................................................................................78Pre‐testandPost‐testAnalysis..............................................................................................................81Pre‐test,Post‐testandDelayedPost‐testAnalysis.......................................................................83

ResearchQuestionThree..............................................................................................................................84SWOTIntervention.....................................................................................................................................85AiIntervention..............................................................................................................................................87InterventionComparisons.......................................................................................................................90

ResearchQuestionFour................................................................................................................................90Category:EmotionalReactionstotheInterventions...................................................................93Category:ImpactofInterventionsonVisionClarity....................................................................95Category:ImpactofInterventionsonOrganizationalCommitment.....................................98Category:DepartmentCulture.............................................................................................................100

ResearchQuestionFive................................................................................................................................103ResearchQuestionSix..................................................................................................................................104


ix

Summary............................................................................................................................................................106

CHAPTERFIVE:DISCUSSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS................................................................107StatementoftheProblem...........................................................................................................................107ResearchQuestions.......................................................................................................................................108ReviewofMethodology...............................................................................................................................108SummaryandDiscussionofResults......................................................................................................109ResearchQuestionOne,ResultsSummary.....................................................................................109ResearchQuestionTwo,ResultsSummary....................................................................................111ResearchQuestionThree,ResultsSummary.................................................................................112ResearchQuestionFour,ResultsSummary...................................................................................113ResearchQuestionFive,ResultsSummary....................................................................................115ResearchQuestionSix,ResultsSummary.......................................................................................116

RelationshipofFindingstoTheoreticalBasisoftheStudy..........................................................121RecommendationsforPractice................................................................................................................124RecommendationsforResearch..............................................................................................................125Researcher’sReflectionsandInsights...................................................................................................126Summary............................................................................................................................................................126

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................128

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................................136

A. Copyofthepre‐testthatwasadministeredonlineviaqualtircs.........................................136B. Copyofthepost‐testadministeredviapaperandpen............................................................137C. Departmentvisionandmission(asstatedontheirwebsite)...............................................140D. Departmentdirectorstudyannouncementandletterofsupport......................................141E. Initialemailinvitingstaffmemberstoparticipateinthestudy...........................................142F. Initialletterandremindertoparticipantsinvitingthemtotakethepre‐test...............143G. Departmentobservationprotocol....................................................................................................145H. ResearcherobservationsofaiinterventionfollowingtheestablishedprotocoL........147I. Researcherobservationsofswotinterventionfollowingtheestablishedprotocol...150J. Delayedpost‐test......................................................................................................................................153K. Emailinvitationtoparticipantsfordelayedpost‐test.............................................................154L. Emailremindertoparticipantsfordelayedpost‐test..............................................................155M. Departmentfocusgroupinterviewprotocol................................................................................156N. aprioripropositions...............................................................................................................................158O. Alignmentofresearchquestions,propositions,interviewquestions,andsupporting

literature......................................................................................................................................................160P. IRBletterofapproval.............................................................................................................................162Q. Theframeworkforthebrainstormingactivity...........................................................................163


x

R. Solutionsbrainstormingactivity.......................................................................................................164S. SWOTforone‐on‐onewithfaculty...................................................................................................166T. Aiinterviewguide....................................................................................................................................169U. Photocopiesoftheimagesdrawnduringthedreamphase...................................................172V. Photocopiesoftheainarrativeswrittenbystaff.......................................................................178W. Compilationofthemesandcodes.....................................................................................................180X. Informedconsentforparticipantsinresearchprojectsinvolvinghumansubjects...187


xi

LISTOFTABLES4‐1 Variancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrossalltests…....794‐2 Variancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrossalltests…………………………..794‐3 Variancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrosspre‐testand

post‐test…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….804‐4 Variancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrosspre‐testandpost‐test……...804‐5 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitment

constructconsideringpre/posttests…………………………………………………………………..824‐6 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstruct

consideringpre/posttests…………………………………………………………………..………….….834‐7 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitment

constructconsideringallthreetests……………………………………………………………….......844‐8 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstruct

consideringallthreetests……..………......………………………………………………………………..844‐9 Themesbyinterventiontreatment......……………………………………………………………….1055‐1 Themesbyinterventiontreatmentandchangegroups…………………............................117


xii

LISTOFFIGURES 1‐1 Thevisioningprocessmodel(orvisioningpathway)…………………………...........................72‐1 Strategicplanningandmanagementconceptualframework………………………………..272‐2 SWOTanalysismatrix………………………………………………………………………………………...302‐3 The4‐Dcycleofappreciativeinquiry………….…………………………………………………........412‐4 Appreciativeinquiry5‐Dcycle………….………….……………………………………………………..433‐1 Mappingcasestudyobjectivestoresearchdesignandmethods…………………….…….553‐2 Explanatorysequentialresearchdesign……………………………………………………………..624‐1 Meanscoreoftheorganizationalcommitmentconstructforbothintervention

treatments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………774‐2 Meanscoreofthevisionclarityconstructforbothinterventiontreatments………….784‐3 Emergingthemesfortheorganizationalvisioningcasestudy………………………………93


1

CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION

Awidelyaccepteddefinitionofleadershipisyettobeadoptedasresearchers

continuetodissecttherelationshipbetweenleaders,follower,andcontext(Winston

&Patterson,2006).Despitethemanyexistingdefinitionsofleadership,most

scholarswillagreeonthebasicassumptionthatleadersmustshareavisionthat

resonateswithothersfurtherinspiringthemtojointlytakeaction(e.g,Bass,1985;

Bennis&Nanus,1985;Kouzes&Posner,2007).Thisbeingsaid,acloserelationship

existsbetweenleadersandvisions(Schein,2010a).However,onlyasmallbodyof

researchhasinvestigatedtheunderstandingandpracticeofvisioning(Kantabutra,

2008).Amongstthesharedcharacteristicsofvisionattributes,avisionshouldhave

theabilitytoinspire(Kantabutra).Manyleadershiptheories,oneofthembeing

transformationalleadership,focusonbuildingarelationshipwithfollowers

(Berson,Shamir,Avolio,&Popper,2001).

Practitionersandconsultantsoforganizationaldevelopmentuseavarietyof

techniquestofacilitatestrategicplanning,visioning,andmanagement(Cummings&

Worley,2009;Rothwell,Sullivan,&McLean,2005).Thisthesisisanevaluationof

twoorganizationalvisioningstrategies.ThiscasestudycompareshowAppreciative

inquiry(Ai)andStrengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,Threats(SWOT)analysis

contributetoparticipants’perceptionsofvisionclarityandorganizational

commitment,aswellasthechangeinthesevariablesasaresultoftheinterventions.


2

Thiscasestudyaimstocontributetothebodyofliteratureandtheprevailing

questionssurroundingorganizationalvisionandstrategicvisioningtechniques.

Thefirstchapterpresentsthebackgroundanddescribesthetheoreticaland

conceptualframeworksguidingthiscasestudy,theproblemstatement,purposeand

researchquestions,andsignificanceofthestudy.Lastly,thechapterconcludeswith

anoverviewofthemethodology,limitationsofthestudy,andadefinitionofterms.

Background

Thestudyofleadershiphasexpandedexponentiallyinthepastthreedecades

(Northouse,2012).Companiesareputtingmoreandmoreemployeesthrough

leadershipdevelopmentworkshops(Day,2000),whilecollegesanduniversitiesare

offeringleadershipstudiesasanacademicfocusandprovidingco‐curricular

programsforleadershipdevelopment(Dugan&Komives,2007).BusinessWeek

estimatedin1993thatcompaniesspentone‐fourthoftheirtotalannualbudget,

16.5billiondollars,onexecutiveeducationandleadershipdevelopmenteachyear

(Fulmer&Goldsmith,2001).Thetimeandmoneyspentonleadershipdevelopment

couldbeinresponsetothe“leadershipcrisis”thatexistswiththeexpectationthat

manytopexecutiveswillbeleavingwithinthenexttenyears(Caudron,1999;

Hammond,Muffs,&Sciascia,2001).UrielRosenthal,ArjenBoin,andComfort

(2001)suggestthecrisisisreoccurringinmodernsociety,affectingallsectorsof

people.Theinvestmentcouldalsobearesultof“wickedproblems;”problemsthat

arecomplexwithinter‐relateddilemmasatmultiplelevelsofsocietythatrequire

leadership(Horn&Weber,2007).Theperceivedneedforleadershiptrainingcould


3

alsobearesponsetoadvancesintechnologyandtheglobalmarket(Hickman,

2010).

Adistinctionbetweenmanagersandleadersmustbemade,astheyhave

differentrolesandskillsets.Leaders“developvisionsanddrivechanges”while

managers“monitorprogressandsolveproblems”(Jackson&Parry,2011,p.19).

Furthermore,leadershipscholarsagreethattheleader’sabilitytodevelopashared

visionisanintegralcomponentinthedefinitionofleadership(eg.Awamleh&

Gardner,1999;Bennis&Nanus,1985;Kouzes&Posner,2007;Northouse,2012).

Visionisanimageofanattractive,realistic,andbelievablefuture(Bennis&Nanus,

1985).Leadersmustfindacommonpurposeandenlistotherstobesuccessfulin

reachingtheirvision(Kouzes&Posner,2007).

Visionandthevisioningprocessareessentialtoleadership(Schein,2010b).

Visioningistheprocessbywhichleadersandadditionalmembersofthe

organizationcraftacleardirectionforthefuture.AsdeterminedbyKakabadse,

Kakabadse,andLee‐Davies(2005)throughasynthesisofliteratureonvisioning,

visioningcanbebrokendownintosixguidelines:

1. Frameyourorganization’smissionaroundintrinsicallyappealinggoals;

2. Incorporatepositivevalueswithstories;

3. Highlightkeybeliefcategories;

4. Employmoreanalogies,metaphorsetc.whenspeaking;

5. Whencommunicatingtryvariousrhetoricaltechniques;and

6. Allowemotionstosurface(Kakabadseetal.,p.238).


4

Importantthemesrelatedtovisioningemergefromtheguidelines:repetitionof

corevalues,levelofpersonalcommitmenttothevision,andcommunicationofthe

vision(Kakabadseetal.).Kakabadse,Kakabadse,andLee‐Daviesalsonotedthe

moralresponsibilityoftheleadertoincludeindividuals’personalvaluesinthe

visioningjourney,“visionwithoutmoralityisnothinglessthanself‐interest”

(Kakabadseetal.,p.238).

SWOTandAiaretwotechniquesusedwithinorganizationaldevelopmentfor

visioning.SWOTanalysisisapopularmethodofstrategicplanningwithin

companiesandorganizationsduetoitssimple,yetthorough,approach.The

approachisusedbymanydifferentsectorsforcommunityvisioning(Singh&Kosi–

Katarmal,2009),corporatevisioning(O'Brien&Meadows,2000),andtodesignand

redesignthevision(Barker,2006).Aihasrecentlyemergedas“apositive

revolution”withinorganizationaldevelopment,andmanypractitionersareusing

thisapproachforstrategicvisioningandplanning(CooperriderandWhitney,2007).

Theapproachhasalsobeenusedtofacilitatewholesystemchangeinpublicand

non‐profitsectors(Finegold,Holland,&Lingham,2002).Cooperrider(1997)

expressestheuseofAiforcorporatevisioning,advocacy,and“buildingconnection

andcommitmentforthefuturedirections”(p.2).

Whileorganizationaldevelopmentprofessionalsareexpertsinthe

conversationoforganizationalvisioning,itshouldbenotedthatleaders,atalllevels

ofanorganization,areoftentheonesfacilitatingthevisioningprocess.Generally

speaking,leadershavetheautonomytodecidehowtheywanttofacilitate

conversationsofchangeandvisioning.SWOTanalysisandAiareinvestigatedas


5

twowaysinwhichleaderscouldfacilitatethisdialogue.Thepurposeofthisstudyis

todetermineifeitheroftheorganizationalvisioningtechniqueshasaneffecton

organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity,bothofwhichareconsideredtobe

vitalcomponentsofleadership.

TheoreticalFramework

Vision,akeycomponentofleadership,isinvestigatedthroughtheconceptual

frameworkproposedbyKouzesandPosner(2007).Theauthorsdefineavisionas

“anidealanduniqueimageofthefuture”(Kouzes&Posner,p22).Furtherthey

defineleadershipas“theartofmobilizingotherstowanttostruggleforshared

aspirations”(Kouzes&Posner,p20).Thesecommonlyaccepteddefinitionsand

conceptsareusedasaframeworkindevelopingthiscasestudy.

ThiscasestudyisinfluencedbytheresearchfromKouzesandPosner,which

issharedintheirbook,TheLeadershipChallenge.Basedonsurveyquestionnaires

andcaseanalysiscollectedforover25years,theauthorsidentifiedfivepracticesof

exemplaryleadership:modeltheway,inspireasharedvision,challengetheprocess,

enableotherstoact,andencouragetheheart(Kouzes&Posner,2007).Thiscase

studyisbasedontheirleadershipbehaviormodelwiththeassumptionthatoneof

therolesofaleaderisto“inspireasharedvision”.Inordertoinspireashared

vision,theleadermustenlistothers,findacommonpurpose,reflect,andlisten

deeplytoothers(Kouzes&Posner,2007).Whiletherearemanywaystoinspirea

sharedvision(eg.Kakabadseetal.,2005;Kouzes&Posner,2007),visioningand

articulatingthevisionarechallenging.AiandSWOTaretwoorganizational

visioningtechniquesthatcanhelpleadersfacilitatethisprocess.


6

Withtheunderstandingthatleadersareresponsibleforinspiringashared

visionandfacilitatingchange,aVisioningProcessModelisusedtoshowcasethe

effectsandimportanceofvisioning.Assuch,thetechniquesbywhichvisioncanbe

createdareexaminedbasedonchangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvision

clarity.Thesevariablesareexaminedasaresultoftheirrelationshiptoleadership

andvisioningassuggestedbyKouzesandPosner.

Theleaders’abilitytoinspireasharedvisioncanbeassessedbyusingthe

VisioningProcessModel(Figure1‐1)composedbyKakabadseetal.(2005).Within

themodel,decisionsmadebytheleaderdeterminethevisioningoutcome.Further,

theleader’sactionsdeterminewhetherthedi‐visioningprocess(ie.failureto

achievegoals)orthevisioningprocesswilltakeplace.Theleader’sactionscanbe

dependentupontheorganizationalculture.Inorderforthevisioningprocessto

takeplace,theleadersmusthaveapersonalconvictionforthecause,commitment

fromtheseniorteam,fastfeedback,involvementfromtheworkforce,andtheymust

beabletoestablishavisioningculture(Kakabadseetal.,2005).Theauthors

suggestthatthepathwaytowardsvisioningadoptsaself‐perpetuatingadhesiveness

tothevision,whichlikelyincreasesorganizationalcommitment.Teambuy‐inis

enhancedthroughavisioningculture,andabondismadeifthecorrectvisioning

courseistaken.Themodelfurtherillustratestheimportanceandsignificanceof

visioning.Thevisioningpathwaychosenbytheleaderisproventohavenegativeor

positiveeffectsontheorganization.Moreover,muchoftheorganization’ssuccess

dependsontheleader’sabilitytoengageinacultureofvisioning,whichcouldbe


7

facilitatedbyvariousstrategicplanningandvisioningtechniques(Kakabadseetal.,

2005).

Conversely,thepathwaytowardsdi‐visioningresultsinasurvivalistattitude

andinnegativeorganizationalperformanceandattitudes.Di‐visioningisthe

leader’sinabilitytoenactthefourcomponentsofthevisioningprocessandresults

inorganizationaldivision,conflictswithempowermentranks,internalwars

betweenemployees,andashort‐termorientationthatweakensthecompany

(Kakabadseetal.,2005).

Figure1‐1.Thevisioningprocessmodel(orvisioningpathway).From“VisioningthePathway:ALeadershipProcessModel,”byKakabadse,N.,Kakabadse,A.,&Lee‐Davies,L.(2005).EuropeanManagementJournal,23(2),p.244.Copyright2005byElsevier.Reprintwithpermission.


8

Whileitisunderstoodthatvisionisintegraltoleadership,littleisunderstood

aboutattributesofaneffectivevision.Kantabutra(2008)summarizestheliterature

tohighlightcommonlysharedattributesofvisionstatements,whichincludebrevity,

clarity,futureorientation,stability,challenge,abstractness,anddesirability,or

abilitytoinspire.Theleaders’abilitytoinspireandsharethevisioncanbestudied

usinganumberofvariables.Visioncontent,communication,andattributeshave

beenfoundtocontributetoventuregrowth(Baum,Locke,&Kirkpatrick,1998).

Baumetal.(1998)foundittobeimperativethattheleadercommunicatethevision

tothecompanyandcultivateavision,bywhichthecontentrelatestotheinterests

ofthecompany’semployees.Dvir,Kass,andShamir(2004)notedthatanemotional

bondfromorganizationalcommitmentshouldbeformedduringthevisioning

process.Thisprocessalignsemployee’svalueswiththoseofthecompanyand,in

turn,employee’sorganizationalcommitmentispositivelyaffected.

ThewidelyrecognizedorganizationalcommitmentmodelcomposedbyAllen

andMeyer(1996)isbasedonthreecomponents:affective,cognitive,andnormative

commitment.Particularly,affectivecommitmentrelatestoanindividual’s

involvementandemotionalattachmenttotheorganization(Allen&Meyer).

Further,theliteraturenotesthatleadersareexpectedtogeneratehighlevelsof

organizationalcommitment(Dviretal.,2004).Evenmoreso,transformational

leadersareexpectedtogeneratehighlevelsoforganizationalcommitmentthrough

theirvisions,inspiringacommittedrelationshiptothecompanythatismoraland

personal(Dviretal.).


9

Insummary,theconceptualmodelproposedbyKouzesandPosner(2007)

explainsthatinspiringasharedvisionisacriticalelementofleadership.As

mentionedbyKakabadseetal.(2005)intheVisioningProcessModel,

organizationalsuccessisdependentuponthevisioningordi‐visioningactionstaken

bytheleader.Thevisioningprocessmustbecommunicatedandfacilitatedinsucha

waythatemployeevaluesalignwithvaluesoftheorganization(Kakabadseetal.,

2005;Kouzes&Posner,2007).Further,leadersareexpectedtogeneratehighlevels

oforganizationalcommitmentthroughtheirvision(Dviretal.,2004).

ProblemStatement

Visionisconsideredtobeanintegralpartofleadership(Bass&Stogdill,

1990;Conger&Kanungo,1987).Avisionstatementdetailsan“imageofan

attractive,realistic,andbelievablefuture”(Bennis&Nanus,1985,p.89)that

providesasenseofdirectionfororganizationalmemberstofollow(eg.Kotter,1997;

Levin,2000;Porras&Collins,1994;Senge,1990).Visionhasalsobeenreportedto

beavitalpartofbusinessstrategyandplanning(eg.Porras&Collins,1994;

Schoemaker,1992;Vandermerwe,1995).Withthisunderstandingofvisionandthe

VisioningProcessModelprovidedbyKakabadseetal.(2005),itiseasytoseehow

essentialitisforaleadertobeabletocultivatesuchastatement.However,Kouzes

andPosner(2007)foundthatmanyleadersstrugglewithcreatingandarticulatinga

vision.Thisisdetrimentalconsideringtheimpactthatleadershaveindetermining

thesuccessofvisioningand,inturn,thesuccessoftheorganization.Wemustbe

abletounderstandandeffectivelyfacilitatevisioningwithinourorganizationsin

ordertosuccessfullymoveintothefuture.


10

Despitethecommonuseoforganizationaldevelopmenttechniquesby

leaders,practitioners,andconsultantstofacilitatevisioning,thereisstillaneedto

analyzethetechniquesthemselves(Bushe&Kassam,2005;Leigh,2010).

Consideringhowmanycompaniesareinvestinginexecutiveeducationand

leadershipdevelopment,theeffectivenessofthetechniquesbeingusedoughttobe

animportantissue.Theapproachestoorganizationalvisioningandplanningneed

furtheranalysistodeterminetheiroutcomes,clarity,andreturnoninvestment

(Helms&Nixon,2010).Moreover,thereisagrowingneedtocomparethetwo

strategies,SWOTandAi,inordertohelpcompaniesandorganizationsdetermine

whichtechniqueismostappropriateforthem.

PurposeandResearchQuestions

Thepurposeofthisexplanatorysequentialmixedmethods(Creswell&Plano

Clark,2011)casestudyistounderstandtechniquesusedinorganizationalvisioning

byconvergingquantitativenumericaldataandqualitativethematicdata.Asdefined

byFinlay(1994,p.64)organizationalvisioninginvolves“activitieswhichcan

effectivelypushagroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,and

beyond‐the‐presentparadigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization.”

Multiplesourcesofdataareusedtodevelopandinformresearchmethods,in

additiontoelaboratingandclarifyingresultswiththeintenttoincrease

meaningfulnessandvalidityofconstructsandinquiryresults(Greene,Caracelli,&

Graham,1989).Inthisstudy,anorganizationalcommitmentquestionnaire(short

form)(Mowday,Steers,&Porter,1979)andavisionclarityquestionnaire,adapted

fromCole,Harris,andBernerth(2006),wereusedtomeasureorganizational


11

commitmentandvisionclarityandtheirrelationshiptointerventiontreatments,

Appreciativeinquiry(Ai)andStrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesandThreats

(SWOT).FollowingtheSWOTandAiinterventions,quantitativedatawascollected

andanalyzed.Organizationalvisioningwasexploredusingintervention

observationsandfocusgroupinterviewswithdepartmentstaff.Quantitativedata

analysisinformedthequalitativeselectionandprotocol;while,mixingofthe

qualitativeandquantitativedataoccurredduringdatacollectionandinterpretation.

Mixingdataprovidedabetterexplanationoforganizationalvisioningand

respondedtothecallformixedmethodsresearchbyStentz,PlanoClark,andMatkin

(2012).

Thethesisaimstoanswerthefollowingquestions:

1. Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybefore

andaftertheinterventions?

2. Whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity

withinandbetweentreatmentgroups?

3. Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?

4. Howdidparticipants’perceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?

5. Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressed

byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup?

6. Aretheresignificantdifferencesinpre‐testandpost‐testresultsbetween

interventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?


12

SignificanceofStudy

DespitethepopularityofSWOTanalysisandtheattentiongainedbyAiin

organizationaldevelopment,thecurrentliteraturepossesseslittleresearchonthe

techniquesthemselves(Egan&Lancaster,2005;Helms&Nixon,2010;Wirtenberg,

Abrams,&Ott,2004).PreviousstudieshighlighttheneedforresearchonSWOT

analysis(Leigh,2010;Piercy&Giles,1989;Wirtenbergetal.,2004)andAi(Grant&

Humphries,2006;vanderHaar&Hosking,2004).Manyquestionshavebeenraised

abouttheoutcomes,clarity,returnoninvestment,andexecutionofboththese

methodologies.Moreover,thereisagrowingneedtocomparethetwotechniques.

Bycomparingstrategiesfororganizationalvisioning,companiesandorganizations

canbetterdeterminewhichtechniqueismostappropriateforthem(Rothwelletal.,

2005).

Manyorganizationshaveanannualretreattorecountthepreviousyearand

planforupcomingyears.Howdoorganizationalleadersfacilitateconversations

aboutthefuture?Howdoleadersfindcommonpurposeamongstmembers?How

doleaderscommunicatethevision?Doesthevisionstatementportrayvaluesthat

alignwiththevaluesheldbytheemployees?Doemployeesunderstandtheir

purposewithinanorganization?Thefieldoforganizationalvisioningand

leadershipwillbenefitfromthiscasestudyasitfurtherinvestigatesapproachesto

craftingasharedvision.Thiscasestudyexaminesina“real‐life”settingthe

executionofthestrategicvisioningtechniques:SWOTandAi.Whilethese

techniqueshavebeenwidelyaccepted,thereislittleresearchevaluatingthe


13

methods.Heretofore,thiscasestudyintendstomakeacontributiontotheexisting

bodyofliteratureonAi,SWOT,andorganizationalvisioningtechniques.

OverviewofMethodology

Inthiscasestudy,participantsaredivided,halfofthestaffparticipatinginAi

andhalfparticipatinginSWOTanalysis.Anorganizationaldevelopmentconsultant

facilitatedbothSWOTandAiinterventiontreatmentsaccordingtoestablished

protocolsbyLeigh(2010)andCooperrider,Whitney,Stavros,andFry(2008),

respectively.Datawasgatheredfromresearcherobservation,focusgroup

interviews,andpre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpostinterventiontests.Testswere

derivedfromaorganizationalcommitmentquestionnaire(shortform)(Mowdayet

al.,1979)andavisionclarityquestionnaireadoptedfromColeetal.(2006).

Datawasexaminedusinganexplanatorysequentialmixedmethods

approach(Creswell,PlanoClark,Gutmann,&Hanson,2003).Throughthedesign,

qualitativedataisusedtoexplainandenhancethequantitativedata(Creswell&

PlanoClark,2011).ArepeatedmeasuresANOVA,withrandomsubjecteffects,

investigatedchangewithinandbetweeninterventiontreatmentgroups.This

analysisinformedthequalitativeselectionandprotocol.Qualitativedatafocusedon

perceptionsofthevisioningprocessandresultingeffects.Qualitativedatawas

analyzedusingtheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).Mixing

ofbothdatastrandsoccurredduringdatacollectionandinterpretation.The

methodsforthiscasestudywerechosentofullydescribethevisioningprocessand

capturemultiplesourcesofevidencerelatedtothephenomenaoforganizational


14

visioning.Themethodologyisfullydiscussedinchapterthreeofthethesis;please

referencethissectionforfurtherdetailsonthecasestudy’smixedmethodresearch.

LimitationsoftheStudy

Theresearcheracknowledgesthelimitationsofthethesisbeingthatofacase

study.Thestudyislimitedinitsfocusononedepartmentand,therefore,theresults

arenotgeneralizable.Duetolimitationsintimeandresources,theresearchonly

investigatestheparticipants’perceptionsoftheinterventions,changeinvision

clarity,andchangeinorganizationalcommitment.Theinterventionswerelimited

duetothetimeandresourcesoftheparticipants.DuringAiandSWOT,onlythe

firsttwophasesofAiwerecompleted,discoveryanddream,andonlyoneSWOT

wasfullydevelopedwithineachfourhoursession.Thiscasestudydoesnotattempt

toresearchthelong‐termeffectsofthestrategicplanningorvisioningtechniques

northerateofvisionimplementationasaresultofSWOTandAi,becauseitwould

takeapproximatelythreetofiveyearstostudythegoalachievementsfromstrategic

planning.

DefinitionofTerms

Throughouttheliteratureinorganizationaldevelopmentthetermsstrategic

planning,strategicvisioning,changemanagement,andevenstrategicmanagement

areallusedtodescribesimilaractions.Averycloserelationshipexistsbetween

planningandvisioningwithinanorganization.ThisiswellexplainedbyStavros,

Cooperrider,andKelley(2003,p.2),“changerequiresaction.Actionrequiresa

plan.Aplanrequiresstrategy.Astrategyrequiresgoalsandenablingobjectives.

Goalsandobjectivesrequireamission.Amissionisdefinedbyavision.Avisionis


15

setbyone’svalues.”Additionally,organizationalvisioningadoptsthedefinitionfor

strategicvisioningand,forpurposesofthispaper,thetermorganizationalvisioning

referstotheprocessthattakesplacewithinanorganizationtoplanandcultivatea

desirablefuture.

Listedbelowarekeytermsofthethesis.

AffectiveCommitment:Theaffectivecomponentoforganizationalcommitment

refersto“employees'emotionalattachmentto,identificationwith,and

involvementin,theorganization”(Allen&Meyer,1990,p.1).

Appreciativeinquiry(Ai):Apractitioner‐orienteddefinition,“isthecooperative

co‐evolutionarysearchforthebestinpeople,theirorganizations,andtheworld

aroundthem.Itinvolvesthediscoveryofwhatgives‘life’toalivingsystem

whenitismosteffective,alive,andconstructivelycapableineconomic,

ecological,andhumanterms.Aiinvolvestheartandscienceofaskingquestions

thatstrengthenasystem’scapacitytoapprehend,anticipate,andheighten

positivepotential”(Cooperrideretal.,2008,p.3).

Intervention:“Anyactiononthepartofachangeagent.Interventioncarriesthe

implicationthattheactionisplannedanddeliberateandpresumablyfunctional.

Manysuggestthatanorganizationaldevelopmentinterventionrequiresvalid

information,freechoice,andahighdegreeofownershipbytheclientsystemof

thecourseofaction”(Cummings&Worley,2009,p.750).

Leadership:"(1)Arelationshipbasedoninfluence,(2)leadersandfollowers

developthatrelationship,(3)theyintendrealchanges,and(4)theyhavemutual

purposes"(Rost,1993,p.127).


16

OrganizationalCommitment:“Therelativestrengthofanindividual’s

identificationwithandinvolvementinaparticularorganization”(Mowdayetal.,

1979,p.226).

OrganizationalDevelopment(OD):“First,forresearchandpracticeactivitytobe

consideredorganizationaldevelopment,itmustinvolvechangeinan

organization,oneormoreofitssystems,oritsmembersasawhole….Second,

researchandpracticecanbecalledorganizationaldevelopmentifitisintended

totransferachangecapabilitytotheclientsystem…Third,researchandpractice

canbecalledorganizationaldevelopmentiftheactivitiesinvolveadeliberate

andconsciousefforttoimprovetheperformanceoreffectivenessoftheclient

system”(Cummings&Worley,2009,pp.111‐112).

OrganizationalVisioning/StrategicVisioning:“Activitieswhichcaneffectively

pushagroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,andbeyond‐the‐

presentparadigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization”(Finlay,1994,

p.64).

Practitioner:“Agenerictermforpeoplepracticingorganizationaldevelopment.

Theseindividualsmayincludemanagersresponsiblefordevelopingtheir

organizationsordepartments,peoplespecializinginorganizationdevelopment

asaprofession,andpeoplespecializinginafieldcurrentlybeingintegratedwith

organizationaldevelopmentwhohavegainedsomefamiliaritywithand

competenceinorganizationaldevelopment”(Cummings&Worley,2009,p.

752).


17

StrategicPlanning:“Adisciplinedefforttoproducefundamentaldecisionsand

actionsthatshapeandguidewhatanorganization(orotherentity)iswhatit

does,andwhyitdoesit”(Gupta&Govindarajan,2002,p.6).

StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreatsAnalysis(SWOT):“Anapproachto

consideringtheinhibitorsandenhancerstoperformancethatanorganization

encountersinbothitsinternalandexternalenvironments”(Boyd,Moore,

Williams,&Elbert,2011,p.1089).

Vision:“Animageofanattractive,realistic,andbelievablefuture”(Bennis&

Nanus,1985,p.89).The“mostdesirableoridealstatewhichwewouldlikeour

organizationtoachieveatsometimeinthefuture”(Finlay,1994,p.64).

VisionClarity:Theabilityto“translatethevisionfromwordstopictureswitha

vividdescriptionofwhatitwillbeliketoachieveyourgoal”(Collins&Porras,

1996,p.74).


18

CHAPTERTWO

REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE

Theliteratureisreviewedtoevaluateresearchthatcontributestoarguments

madeinthestudy.Therelationalparadigmofleadershipisconsideredbecauseof

itsfocusonthemeaning‐makingprocessandtheconnectionithastovarious

techniquesoforganizationalvisioning.Theroleoftheleadertodevelopvisionand

createchangeisreviewedasanintegralpartofleadership.Thecomponentsand

techniquesofstrategicvisioningandplanningwithinorganizationaldevelopment

areanalyzedasaresultoftheirdistinctrelationshipwithinstrategicvisioning.

SWOTanalysis,apopularplanningtechnique,isexaminedtofurtherunderstandthe

background,characteristics,criticisms,andapplications.Arecentapproachinthe

literaturetostrategicplanningandvisioning,Ai,isevaluated,andthesamefactors

areinvestigated.Lastly,visionclarityandorganizationalcommitmentaredescribed

asadesiredoutcomebecauseoftheirtiestoleadership,theirimpactonthe

organization,andtheirrelevanceinthevisioningprocess.

Leadership:ARelationalUnderstanding

Rost(1993)suggestsaparadigmshiftinthestudyofleadershipfroman

industrialtoapost‐industrialunderstandingcenteredonthebeliefthatleadership

isrelational.Leadershipisnowunderstoodtobetransformative,learned,change,

andprocessoriented(Dugan&Komives,2007).Somescholarshavefurtherdefined

leadershipasasocialconstruction.Toexpand,leadershipisameaningmaking

processofwhichourunderstandingofleadershipissociallyconstructedthrough


19

ourownexperiences(Drath&Palus,1994).Individualscarrytheirownmental

modelofleadershipthathasbeendevelopedbasedoninteractionswithoneanother

(Gardner,1995).

Withinthepost‐industrialparadigm,leadershipisconsideredtobe"(1)a

relationshipbasedoninfluence,(2)leadersandfollowersdevelopthatrelationship,

(3)theyintendrealchanges,and(4)theyhavemutualpurposes"(Rost,1993,p.

127).Rostalsohighlightstheleader'sresponsibilitytofacilitatechange.The

definitionispowerfulbecauseoftheemphasisheputsonintendedchange.

Rost(1993)reviewsthemanyperspectivesonleadership,allofwhich

emphasizetheimportanceofaleader’sabilitytobevisionary.Thesebeliefshave

beenechoedbyNorthouse(2012)inhiswidelyreadleadershiptextbooks.Visionis

consideredtobeanattractiveimageofthefuturethatisbelievableandrealistic

(Bennis&Nanus,1985).Manydescribevisionastheleader’sabilitytoenvisionthe

futureandforecaststrategiesforthelongterm.Morden(1997)definesvision,“as

anorganizedperceptionorphenomenon.Itisanimaginedorperceivedpatternof

communalpossibilitiestowhichotherscanbedrawn,giventhenecessary

enthusiasmandmomentumonthepartoftheleaderwhoispromulgatingthat

vision”(p.668).WithinMorden’sdefinitionofvision,therelationalelementsofthe

paradigmshiftarepresentaswellastheideathatleadershipisasocial

construction.Mordennotestheleader’sresponsibilitytoinspireandenlistothers

inthevisioningprocess,aswellastheleader’sresponsibilitytoputthevisioninto

action.Thesecomponentsareidentifiedasthemesofimportanceinthevisioning


20

process.Manyscholarsdetailthenecessityfortheleadertocultivateashared

vision.

Theintegralrolevisioningplaysinvariousleadershipstyles,specifically

transformationalandcharismaticleadership,hasdrawntheattentionofmany

scholars.Transformationalleadershipdescribestheleader’sabilitytocreatea

visionandmotivateothersforacommonpurpose.Further,visionisanessential

componenttotransformationalleadership(Rost,1993).Leadersofthisstylemake

theirfollowersfeellikestakeholdersofthevisionandhighlightthecontributionsof

eachindividual,whichultimatelyleadstohigherperformancelevels(Bass,1985).

Thisvariesgreatlyfromtheindustrialdefinitionofatransactionalleader,who

focusesontheneedsofthefollowersinexchangeforresults(Bass).Bersonetal.

(2001)examinedtheinspirationalcontentof"strong"visionsandsuggestthat

"inspirationally'strong'visionstatements[generatedbytransformationalleaders]

willcontainthetypeofcontent[optimismandconfidence]thatwouldfoster

motivationalprocesses"(p.56).However,KouzesandPosner(2007)havefound

thatcreatingavisionandarticulatingthevisioncontinuestobeachallengefor

manyleaders.

TheLeader:VisionandChange

KouzesandPosner(2007)discovered,through25yearsofsurveysandcase

analysis,fivebestpracticesofleadership.Thepractices:modeltheway,inspirea

sharedvision,challengetheprocess,enableotherstoact,andencouragetheheart,

wereconcludedbasedonsharedpersonal‐bestleadershipexperiences(Kouzes&

Posner).Theauthorsadoptedthesefivepracticesascomponentstotheir


21

leadershipbehaviormodel.Oneofthesepractices,inspiringasharedvision,canbe

achievedbyimaginingthepossibilities,findingacommonpurpose,andreflecting

andactingontheenvisionedfuture(Kouzes&Posner).Insupportofthis,many

leadershipscholarshavefoundthatexemplaryleadersaredescribedbytheir

followersasvisionaryandinspirational(eg.Bass,1985;Baumetal.,1998;Bennis&

Nanus,1985;Bersonetal.,2001;Kouzes&Posner,2007;Northouse,2012;Shamir

&Eilam,2005).

KouzesandPosner(2007)arguefortheimportanceofreflectioninthe

visioningprocess,astheysharethatthemoretimealeaderspendsreflecting,the

greatertheirfuturetimeorientation.Further,reflectionallowsforadeeperfocus

onrichexperiencesthatcontributetoourconstructionofthefuture(Kouzes&

Posner).Theneedforleaderstolistendeeplytotheiremployeeswasexplainedas

animperativetactictounderstandingtheformulationofthecommonpurpose.

Additionally,commonpurposemustbesomethingthateveryoneintheorganization

believesinandcanrelatetoo;itmustreflectthecorevaluesoftheorganizationand

itsmembers.Visionattributes,content,andcommunicationareextremely

importantforleaderstobeeffectiveandforanorganizationtobesuccessful(Baum

etal.,1998).

KouzesandPosner(2007)drawattentiontothefactthatvisioningisthe

responsibilityoftheleader,andparticipationfrommembersinthisprocessis

stronglyencouraged.Throughoutthestrategicmanagementliterature,theroleof

strategicvisioningandplanningvariesgreatly,andsomedisagreementexistsasto

whetheritshouldbeatop‐downorbottom‐upexercise(Poister,Pitts,&Hamilton,


22

2010).Manystudiessupporttheparticipationoftheworkforceincreatingavision

andbeingapartoftheplanningprocesswhichhasresultedingreaterperceived

impactsfortheorganization(e.g,Ludema&Barrett,2009;Poister&Streib,2005).

Dvir,Kass,andShamir(2004)alsofoundthatahighlevelofshared‐nessinvision

assimilationprocessesmadeforanaffectiveorganization.

Visionhasbeendiscussedwidelyasanecessarycomponenttoleadership

andasuccessfulorganization.Withoutaclearandspecificvision,manycompanies

failtoachievetheirgoals(Kakabadse&Kakabadse,1999).Kakabadseetal.(2005,

p.239)explainedthat,"visioningcombinesmanyaspectsofthestrategicleadership

processwithorganizationalfocusatalllevels."TheauthorsdevelopedaVisioning

ProcessModelasaframeworkthatdetailsapositiveandnegativetrajectoryof

organizationalsuccess.Theprinciplesunderlyingthepositivevisioningstepsagree

withthebestpracticesofaleaderfromtheperspectivesofKouzesandPosner

(2007).Theleader’sconvictionandneedforcommitmentbytheteamcorrelates

withtheneedforleaderstoinspireandenlistothersinthevision.Thelattertwo

steps,gettingfeedbackandcreatingavisionculture,correspondwithreflection,

dialogue,anddeeplisteningwithintheorganization.

AsRost(1993)stated,leadershipresultsinrealintendedchange.Kouzes

andPosner(2007)alsosuggestthatchangerequiresleadership.Theauthorsnoted

theworkofRosabethKanter:"leadershipisinextricablyconnectedwiththeprocess

ofinnovation"(Kouzes&Posner,p.165).Leadershelptobringaboutnewideas

andsolutionsinwhichtheyadvocateforimplementationthroughstrategic


23

decisions(Kanter,1983).Therearevarioustoolsandtechniquestoaidleadersin

theanalysisandfacilitationofchangewithinanorganization.

Thephenomenonofchangewithinorganizationshasbeenstudiedand

developedwithinthefieldoforganizationaldevelopment.Organizationalchangeis

extremelycomplex(Burke,2002;Svyantek&Brown,2000),andnewmodelswere

createdinanattempttoconceptualizethephenomenon.Somemodelsthat

conceptualizechangeinclude:Lewin'sChangeModel,theActionResearchModel,

andthePositiveModel.KurtLewinwasthefirsttoconceptualizeorganizational

changethroughathree‐stepchangemodelthatemphasizedfreezing,movement,

andunfreezing(Cummings&Worley,2009).Themodelhasbeenusedwidelybut,

inthelast20years,ithasreceivedgreatercriticismfromscholars.Burnes(2004)is

criticalofthemodel'stop‐downandmanagementdrivenapproachtochange,the

limitedfocusonsmallbusinessandprojectchanges,andthemodel'sexclusionof

therolepowerandpoliticsplayinorganizationalchange.

TheActionResearchModelrepresentsashiftinconceptualizing

organizationalchangefromalinear,industrial,andpositivistapproachtoanon‐

linearcomplex‐systemsapproach(Susman&Evered,1978).Theshiftfrom

“normal”sciencetocomplex‐systemsunderstandingoforganizationalchangewas

inresponsetotheworkofSvyantekandBrown(2000).Themodelisbasedupon

foursteps:plan,act,observe,reflect(Cummings&Worley,2009).Sincethe

inceptionofthemodelinthe1940s,manydivergentformshaveemergedtomeet

thecontemporarycomplexissuesfacingorganizations(Elden&Chisholm,1993).


24

ThePositiveModelrepresentsanothershiftinorganizationalchangemodels

andorganizationaldevelopment.Thepreviousmodelsaredeficitbased;meaning

that,themodelsfocusonfixingorganizationalproblems.SWOTanalysisisanother

exampleofatechniquethatexistsintheproblem‐solvingparadigmof

organizationaldevelopment;whereas,thePositiveModelisfocusedonwhatthe

organizationisdoingright(Cummings&Worley,2009).Themodelreflectsthe

movementinthesocialsciencestowardspositiveorganizationalscholarshipand

positivepsychology;moreover,thesestudiesfocusonpositivedynamicswithin

organizationsthatgiverisetoextraordinaryoutcomes(Cameron,Dutton,&Quinn,

2003).ThePositiveModeldepictedinCummingsandWorley(2009)consistsoffive

phaseswhicharelargelybasedonAppreciativeinquiry(Ai).Aiwasdevelopedby

CooperriderandSrivastva(1987)asadeparturefromtraditionalwaysofthinking

aboutorganizationaldevelopment.TheliteratureonSWOTandAiisfurther

developedinthelatterportionoftheliteraturereview.

StrategicPlanningandVisioningwithinOrganizationalDevelopment

OrganizationaldevelopmentisdefinedbyCummingsandWorley(2009,p.1)

asa“professionalfieldofsocialactionandanareaofscientificinquiry.”Whilemany

definitionsoforganizationaldevelopmentexist,thefieldisbroadlyunderstoodin

thisway.CummingsandWorleysuggestthattherearethreecomponentsto

organizationaldevelopmentthatmustbemetinorderfortheprocesstobetermed

assuch.First,theorganizationaldevelopmentprocessmustresultinachangeto

someaspectoftheorganizationalsystem.Second,theremustbeatransferof

knowledgeorlearnedskilltotheclientsystem.Lastly,theremustbeevidenceof


25

improvementoranintentiontoimproveeffectivenesswithinanorganization

(Cummings&Worley).Withinthefieldoforganizationaldevelopment,

practitionersandconsultantsworktoimproveorganizationaleffectivenessthrough

avarietyofskills,tools,techniques,andanalyses.

Thefieldoforganizationaldevelopmenthasresearchedstrategicplanning,

strategicvisioning,andstrategicmanagement.Nag,Hambrick,andChen(2007)

synthesizedthemanyfragmenteddefinitionsofstrategicmanagementasdealing

“withthemajorintendedandemergentinitiativestakenbygeneralmanagerson

behalfofowners,involvingutilizationofresources,toenhancetheperformanceof

firmsintheirexternalenvironments”(p.944).Conceptually,strategicmanagement

focusesonorganizationalresourcesandperformance,whereasstrategicplanningis

relatedtothe“bigpicture”informulatingstrategytoaddressthefundamental

issuesfacinganorganization(Poisteretal.,2010).Likestrategicmanagement,

strategicplanningisanattempttosustainorganizationalsuccessandeffectiveness,

whichispromotedthroughanorganizationaldevelopmenttechniquethatmatches

thecompany’scultureandenvironment(Poister&Streib,2005).

Asvisioninterventionswithlargegroupsbecamepopularinthe1980sand

1990s(Bass&Stogdill,1990),agreateremphasiswasplacedonthevisioning

process,andstrategicvisioningbecameacommonlyusedphraseinthefieldof

organizationaldevelopment.Levin(2000)definesstrategicvisionasclearguidance

thatsetsthecontextfordevelopmentbaseduponaclearvisionofthefuture.Finlay

(2004,p.46)contendsthatthestrategicvisioningprocessis“aseriesofactivities

whichcaneffectivelypushagroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,


26

andbeyond‐the‐presentparadigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization.”

Astrategicvisionthatissupportedbyandcreatedwithhelpoftheorganization’s

stakeholdersprovidesasharedresponsibilityforitsimplementation(Levin,2000).

Creationandexecutionofastrategicvisioncanbefacilitatedthroughthetechniques

practicedinorganizationaldevelopmentandcanbeabeneficialprocessto

strengthencompanyperformance.Kantabutra(2008)explainedtheneedforfuture

researchtoexaminetheconnectionsbetweenvisionsanddesirableperformance

outcomes.

Furthermore,strategicplanningplaysanintegralroleinorganizational

visioning.Withinthelifecycleofanorganization,visionisarticulatedatthree

salienttimes:“atfounding,whenfacingperiodsofdisruption,andwhen

purposefullyplanningforthefuture”(O'Connell,Hickerson,&Pillutla,2011,p.106).

HillandJones(2009)assertedthatdevelopmentofaclearvisionbytopleadersis

essentialtostrategicplanning.Planningoccurswhenleadersneedtoreexamine

organizationalcultureandoperationsorwhenorganizationaltransformationis

required.AsdescribedbyLangley(1988,p.44),“theplanningprocessservesan

importantroleingeneratinginformationforstrategicvisions.”Strategicplanningis

centeredonthemission,vision,andvaluesofanorganizationwhile,atthesame

time,visioningisnothingmorethananideauntilitisputintoaction.Planningand

visioningmustbebuiltoffoneanotherinorderforanorganizationtobesuccessful.

Inreviewoftheliteratureonstrategicmanagementandplanninginthe

publicsector,Poisteretal.(2010)synthesizedfindingsfrom34researcharticles

andcomposedamodeldiagramingtheresults(Figure2‐1).Theframeworkfirst


27

linkstheoperatingenvironmentofanorganizationasadeterminatetoapproaches

forstrategicplanning.Linktworepresentsthemajorimpactofinstitutionalcontext

onstrategicplanningandmanagement.Theorganization’sculture,leadership,

valuesystem,size,competitors,andmandatesaresomeofthedeterminatesof

institutionalcontextcitedintheliterature(Poisteretal.).

Figure2‐1.Strategicplanningandmanagementconceptualframework.From“Strategicmanagementresearchinthepublicsector:Areview,synthesis,andfuturedirections,”byPoister,T.H.,Pitts,D.W.,&HamiltonEdwards,L.(2010).TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,40(5),p.522.Copyright2010bySagePublications.Reprintedwithpermission.

Withinthisconceptualframework,anorganizationdevelopstheirstrategic

plan,whichistheninfluencedbyitsstrategycontentandapproachto

implementation.Theseinfluencesarerepresentedbylinksthreeandfouronthe

diagram,whilelinksfiveandsixrepresenttheiterativeprocessofstrategic

management.Linksevenrepresentsthethoughtthat,withthegenerationofanew

solution,anewproblemiscreated,andthereforeanotherplanisneeded.


28

Intheirreviewoftheliterature,Poister,Pitts,andEdwards(2010)draw

attentiontothelackofresearchonlinkagesbetweentheprocessesofstrategic

planningandorganizationaloutcomes.Linkseight,nine,andtenrepresentthe

intentionsofstrategicmanagementtobringaboutdesiredoutcomes.Thelinks

relatetoenhancedorganizationalcapacitysuchasstrongerpartnership,improved

organizationalviability,andamorepositivepublicimage,aswellas,longterm

changesinperformance.Thereisanindirectrelationship,representedbylink

eleven,betweenorganizationalcapacityandperformanceimprovement,as

strengtheningofanorganization’scapacitycanresultinimprovedperformance.

Lastly,linktwelvefeaturesthefeedbackloopfromoutcomesthatinformthe

strategicmanagementprocess.Theframeworkishelpfulinsynthesizingthe

currentliteratureofstrategicplanningandmanagementtofurtherunderstandthe

fieldanddevelopfutureresearch.

SWOTAnalysis:ATraditionalApproachtoPlanningandVisioning

Background

Amongthestrategicplanningtechniquesinorganizationaldevelopment,

SWOTanalysisisanextremelypopulartechniquethatissimple,yetthorough.The

commonlyusedterm“SWOT”,alsoreferredtoasTOWSinsomemanagement

textbooks,isanacronymfororganizationalanalysisofstrengths,weaknesses,

opportunities,andthreats(Balamuralikrishna&Dugger,1995).SWOTis"an

approachtoconsideringtheinhibitorsandenhancerstoperformancethatan

organizationencountersinbothinternalandexternalenvironments”(Leigh,2010,


29

p.1089).Strengthsareviewedasenhancersandweaknessesasinhibitorsto

desiredcompanyperformance.Strengthsandweaknessesareconsideredtobe

factorswithincontrolofthecompany,whileopportunitiesandthreatsarefactors

outsidethecontrolofthecompany.Further,opportunitiesarealsoviewedas

enhancersandthreatsasinhibitorstodesiredcompanyperformance(Leigh).

SWOTanalysisisintendedforidentificationofaspectsofcompanyperformancethat

canserveasabasisforstrategicplanning(Ghazinoory,Abdi,&Azadegan‐Mehr,

2011).

TheactualoriginatorofthetermSWOTisunknown,andmanyscholarshave

attemptedtoidentifyanauthoroftheproposedanalysis(Helms&Nixon,2010).

Despitethisfact,thetermSWOThasbeenusedanddocumentedintheliteraturefor

halfacentury.KurtLewin'sworkin1951isattributedforsettingupthe

groundworkforSWOTanalysis(Leigh,2010).Hebelievedthatorganizational

resultswereinfluencedbyvariousdrivingforcesandlimitingforces,whicharenow

termedasenhancersandinhibitors(Leigh).HelmsandNixon(2010)havealso

identifiedsourceswhocreditaStanfordprofessor,AlbertHumphrey,forbeingthe

originatorofSWOT.TwoHarvardprofessors,GeorgeAlbertSmithJr.andRonald

Christensen,werealsointerestedinasimilarconceptinthe1950s.They

investigatedtheextenttowhichacompanymatchedtheirstrategytotheir

competitiveenvironment(Leigh,2010).Later,Harvardhostedaconference

introducingSWOTanalysistobusinessmenandtheacademiccommunity.


30

Characteristics

SWOTanalysisistypicallycompletedwithinafocusgroupinfoursequential

steps:“identifyingstakeholders,generatingSWOTs,categorizingSWOTswithina

2x2matrix,anddeliberatinghowbesttoaddressthoseSWOTs"(Leigh,2010,p.

1093).Individualsareinvitedtothefocusgroupbasedonthecontextof

organizationaldecisions.Ifthedecisionsmadewillaffectvariousgroupsofpeople,

thenitisadvisedthatthegroupberepresentedintheprocess.Itisalsoimportant

toconsiderwhohaspoweroverthefindingsandinterestintheissue.Focusgroups

areausefulwayofgainingperspectivefrommemberswithinanorganization.

Figure2‐2.SWOTanalysismatrix.From“SWOTanalysis,”byLeigh,D.(2010).HandbookofImprovingPerformanceintheWorkplace:Volumes1‐3,115‐140.Copyright2010bytheInternationalSocietyforPerformanceImprovement.Reprintedwithpermission.

AftertheSWOTprocesshasbeenexplained,membersofthegroupareasked

toidentifystrengthsandweaknessesofagivenstrategyaswellasopportunities

andthreatsforexternalfactors.SWOTsarethencategorized,usingaSWOTmatrix,

bytheperceivedinfluenceeachfactorhasonorganizationalperformance(Leigh,


31

2010).Thelaststep,deliberation,involvesdiscussionofappropriateactionsbased

ontheSWOTfactors.Thedeliberationcouldhappenintheanalysissession,follow

upfocusgroups,orbywork‐groupstaskedwithformalinquiryofSWOTfactors

(Leigh).ChermackandKasshanna(2007)suggestedthat,“strategicdialoguemay

bethepartoftheSWOTanalysiswiththemostpotentialforcreatingchangein

participantviewpoints”(p.390).

HillandWestbrook(1997)detailedtheopinionofmanyproponentsof

SWOTwhosupportitsuseasarigorousanalyticaltool.Thetechniquehasthe

abilitytoanalyzewholesystemsaswellascriticallyevaluatespecificstrategies.

SWOTanalysisisclassifiedasaproblemsolvingtechniquethatprovidesa

frameworkfortheinvestigationoforganizationalstrategiesandperformance.

Strategiesareexaminedwiththeintenttofixandaddressissuesinternalorexternal

totheorganization.Furthermoretheanalysisofweaknessesandthreatswithinan

organizationshowcasesthemodelsexistenceinthedeficitparadigmof

organizationaldevelopmentasopposedtothesolutionsbasedparadigm.The

contemporaryapplicationsofSWOTanalysisinmarketresearchcontextsuse“hard”

datato“provideanobjectiveandimpartialviewoftheorganization’sinternaland

externalenvironment”(Leigh,2010,p.118).However,inbusinessstrategy

developmentcontexts“soft”dataisderivedfromtheopinionsofemployeesand

staffbasedontheholisticevaluationofinternalandexternalinfluencesofthe

organization(Leigh).

Manyscholars(eg.Balamuralikrishna&Dugger,1995;Glaister&Falshaw,

1999;Pickton&Wright,1998;Piercy&Giles,1989)havenotedSWOTanalysistobe


32

oneofthemostcommonlyusedtoolsandtechniquesforstrategicplanningand

visioning.SWOTwasacorecomponenttomanyofthestrategicplanningprocesses

ofthe1970sand1980s.Thisapproachwasalsousedtohelpcompaniescreate

holisticplansandimprovementsinsteadoffocusingonindividualdepartments.The

strategicplanningprocessfoundinmanymodernbooksonbusinessstillincludesa

discussionofSWOTanalysis.ThisissupportedbyAllio(2006)ashenotesthat

therearefewconceptsanchoredtostrategicthinkinginthebusinessworldSWOT

analysisisoneofthem.Whilesomeimprovementshavebeenmadetostrategic

planningovertheyears,SWOTanalysisremainsatthecoreofthisprocess.

Thesimplicityandpracticalityoftheanalysisisamajorstrengthandserves

asacontributortoitspopularityintheworkplace(Pickton&Wright,1998).The

greatestadvantage,especiallyforsmalltomediumsizedenterprises,isthatitallows

managementtosurveyvariousareas,gaininsightintosignificantissuesandtake

actionaccordingly(Houben,Lenie,&Vanhoof,1999).SWOTanalysishasbeen

identifiedbymanyasanimportanttechniqueofstrategicplanningforleaders,

changeagents,andconsultantstohaveintheirtoolkit(Singh&Kosi–Katarmal,

2009).Thetechniqueisperceivedtobeespeciallyusefulinbusinessinresponding

tomarketforcesandplanningacompetitivestrategybasedontheexternal

environment(Helms&Nixon,2010).Mintzberg(1994)believesthatSWOTanalysis

isanunderlyingcomponentofallattemptstoformalizethestrategymaking

process.Manyscholars(eg.Ghazinooryetal.,2011;Helms&Nixon,2010;Pickton&

Wright,1998;Piercy&Giles,1989)notethatSWOTanalysisishighlyrecommended

withadditionalapproaches.


33

Leigh(2010)recommendsasix‐stepSWOTanalysisinwhichadditional

synthesisandactionareintegratedintotheexperience.Hedetailsthestepsas1)

recruitingstakeholders,2)conveningthefocusgroup,3)identifyingand

categorizingSWOTs,4)analyzingSWOTs,5)synthesizingSWOTs,and6)

interpretingfindingsanddeliberatingaction.Inlattersteps,thedataisreduced

throughanalysis;while,patternsandrelationshipsareexposedbetweeninternal

andexternalfactorsinsynthesis.Lastly,strategiesandactionplansarecreatedin

responsetothepatternsthatemergedfromtheSWOTanalysissession.His

recommendationsareinresponsetothecritiquesofSWOTandstrategicplanning.

Critiques

DespiteSWOT'smanyproponentsandpopularitywithinorganizations,the

criticsofSWOTaremany.SWOThassufferedfromitspopularityinthatthe

techniqueisnormallypoorlyexecutedwithlittleeffect(Piercy&Giles,1989).

CriticismsconcerningSWOT’svalue,intent,effect,andreturnoninvestmentare

common;further,littleanalysisonthetoolitselfhasbeenconducted(Helms&

Nixon,2010).OneoftheconcernsisthatthereisaninabilitytoprioritizeSWOTsin

relationtooneanotherwhichresultsininsufficientdatatoaidindecisionmaking

(Leigh,2010).LeighnotedthatweightingfactorswithintheSWOTcouldenhance

itsuseasananalytictool.Somepractitionersinthefieldoforganizational

developmentarguethatasatechniqueSWOTlackedperceivedvalueoftheanalysis

(Wirtenbergetal.,2004).

SWOTanalysishasalsobeendiscreditedforthelackoftheorybackingthe

techniqueandbecauseofthismanyscholarshavesuggestedalternativesor


34

improvementstothetraditionalanalysis.Somescholarshavesuggestedtheory

buildingtostrengthenthestrategicplanningtechnique(Helms&Nixon,2010).

Valentin(2001)proposesaresource‐basedapproachtoSWOTanalysisthatis

derivedfromacontemporarystrategicmanagementtheory.Ghazinooryetal.

(2011)suggestthatintegrativestrategiesbedevelopedinadditiontosingular

strategiesrelatedtostrengths,weaknesses,opportunities,andthreats.The

Strengths,Opportunities,Aspirations,Resultsmodel(SOAR)isaproposedasan

integrativeframeworkforstrategicplanning(Stavrosetal.,2003).Stavrosand

Hinrichs(2007)suggestSOARasaframeworkthat“buildsonthebestoftheclassic

SWOTanalysisbyintegratingAppreciativeinquirywithastrategicplanning

frameworkandcreatingatransformationalprocess”(p.4).Inresponsetothe

evolutionofSWOT,theuseofthistoolbypractitioners,andthetrendsseenin

publications,Ghazinooryetal.proposethataresearchagendabecreatedto

strengthentheanalysis.

AstudybyHillandWestbrook(1997)lookedathowcompaniesand

consultantsusedSWOTanalysisasatechniqueforcorporatestrategyreview.The

mostalarmingconclusionwasthatnoneofthecompaniesintheirstudyusedthe

SWOToutputsinthelaterstagesofthestrategyprocess.Areasofconcernincluded

thelackoffactoranalysisorverification,thevaguedescriptionoffactors,andthe

consultantsmadeverydifferentlistsfromtheSWOTsgeneratedinthefocusgroup

(Hill&Westbrook).TheresearchersfoundSWOTtobeanineffectivemeansof

analysisorstrategyreview.SWOTanalysisleadtopoorresultsandwasconsidered


35

a“badpractice,”potentiallyinhibitingcompaniesfromusingbetterapproachesto

strategicplanning(Hill&Westbrook).

Inresponsetomanyofthesecritiques,ChangandHuang(2006)createda

quantifiedSWOTanalyticalmethodtoassesscontainerportperformanceinEast

Asia.ThismethodadoptstheconceptofMultiple‐AttributeDecisionMaking

(MADM)andusestheGrandStrategyMatrix.Theadditionoftheseconcepts

strengthenstheSWOTmodelandaddressessomeissuespreviouslyexperienced

whencombiningmodels.Thedecision‐makingiscomprisedoffourfactors,

alternatives,criteria,performance,andweight,whilethequantifiedanalytical

methodconsistoffollowingsevendetailedsteps(Chang&Huang).Withthis

enhancedversionofSWOTanalysis,anassessmentofportstrengthcanbe

determinedinadditiontosuggestingalternativestrategiesforcompetingports

(Chang&Huang).

Applications

SWOTanalysishasbeencommonlyusedasatechniqueforstrategicplanning

intheprivatesector.Thetechniquehasbeendocumentedforitsuseinsmalland

mediumsizedenterprises(Houbenetal.,1999).TheresearchconductedbyGlaister

andFalshaw(1999)foundthatSWOTwasthehighestrankedtechniqueforanalysis

amongstthecompaniessurveyedintheUnitedKingdom.PiercyandGiles(1989)

statedthatSWOTisthemostcommonlyusedandrecognizedtoolforstrategic

marketingaudits.SWOToriginatedasastrategyusedintheprivatesectorandhas

sincebeenappliedtothepublicsector(Bryson&Roering,1987).


36

Inbothpublicandprivatesectors,thetechniquehasbeenappliedto

organizationalvisioning.O'BrienandMeadows(2000)describedSWOTasa

corporatevisioningtool.SWOThasbeendocumentedas"ausefultoolfor

communityvisioning"tohelpstructureconversationsandfocustheireffortsin

urbanplanningandcommunitydevelopment(Singh&Kosi–Katarmal,2009,p.25).

Additionally,KeaneKearns(1992,p.6)arguesforthenonprofitapplicationof

SWOTinthatit

“requiresdecisionmakerstoenvisiontheirorganizationinteractingwith

factorsinthedynamicexternalenvironmentthatcanfacilitateorimpede

progresstowardthemissionoftheenterprise.”

ASWOTanalysisisausefulstrategyindeterminingthecurrentstateofaffairs,

which,inturn,isanessentialstepinthevisioningprocess.

Zhang(2006)notedthatSWOTwasusedinhighereducationinstitutionsto

aidadministrationinmakingdecisionsfortheschoolandinitiatingnewprograms

(Balamuralikrishna&Dugger,1995).Managersofhealthcareorganizationsare

alsousingSWOTanalysisasastrategyformarketcompetition(vanWijngaarden,

Scholten,&vanWijk,2010).WhilemanyinthepublicsectorhaveusedSWOT

analysis,itisnotedthatspecialconsiderationmustbemadeforthe"uniquecycles

ofleadershipchanges,complexinternalandexternaldynamics,andthevarietyof

stakeholderswhohavediversedefinitionsofsuccessandfailure"(Rose&Cray,

2010,p.453).Inresponsetothepublicsectorenvironment,(vanWijngaarden,

Scholten,&vanWijk)developedanalternativemodeltoSWOTanalysisthat

reflectedtheissuesfacedbyorganizationsinthepublicsector.Therevisedmodel


37

integratessomeofthedesignprinciplesofSWOTbutisfoundedprimarilyon

stakeholderexpectations,resources,andcontextualdevelopments(van

Wijngaardenetal.,2010).

Leigh(2010)expandedonapplicationsoftheanalyticaltechniqueto

strategicplanning,needsassessments,andevaluationofchangeinitiatives.The

relationshipbetweenSWOTandstrategicplanninghasbeendiscussedearlierinthe

chapter.ASWOTanalysisisacommonapproachtoevaluationandcanbeseenin

manycontexts.Forexample,anevaluationofprivatesectorbanksinIndiawas

conductedusingtheCAMELmodelandaSWOTanalysistoassessspecificqualities

ofbanks(Singh&Kohli,2006).Inanothercase,aSWOTanalysiswasconductedto

evaluatethedeliveryofextensionserviceswithinthepublicsectorinAsianand

West‐Africancountries(Oladele&Sakagami,2004).

AppreciativeInquiry:ANewApproachtoPlanningandVisioning

BothSWOTandAiprovideanapproachtostrategicplanningandvisioning.

However,thetwotechniquesarequitedifferentintheirstyleandapproach.SWOT

analysisisrepresentativeofproblem‐basedmodelsoforganizationaldevelopment.

Thepositivemodel,inwhichAiissituated,representsarecentshifttosolution‐

basedmodelsoforganizationaldevelopment.Companies,organizations,and

communitiesshouldevaluateeachapproachbeforedetermininganappropriate

method.


38

Background

Appreciativeinquiry(Ai)isrootedinradicalsocialconstructionismand

actionresearch.Socialconstructionismisaphilosophyofsciencethatbelieves

individualshaveaconsiderableinfluenceovertherealitythattheyperceiveand

experience;moreover,individualsgenerallycreatetheirownrealitythrough

collectivesymbolicandmentalprocesses(Cooperrideretal.,2008).Actionresearch

istheunderlyingbasisforcurrentorganizationaldevelopmentapproachesandthe

studyofchangingsocialsystems(Cummings&Worley,2009).Inthe1980sDavid

CooperriderandSureshSrivastvapresentedAiasacomplimenttotraditionalaction

researchapproaches(Fitzgerald,Murrell,&Newman,2001).Aiemergedfroma

theorybuildingprocessthatencouragedcollaborationwithinorganizations

(Cooperrider,1997).Previousmodelsofplannedchangeservedasthebasisfor

buildingapositivemodelfororganizationaldevelopment.

Appreciativeinquiryisanapproachtoorganizationaldevelopmentthatis

centeredonthepracticeofaskingpositivequestionsaboutsystempotential

(Cooperrider,1997).Apractice‐orienteddefinitionofAiisdescribedasa

"co‐evolutionarysearchforthebestinpeople,theirorganizations,

andtherelevantworldaroundthem.Initsbroadestfocus,itinvolves

systematicdiscoveryofwhatgives'life'toalivingsystemwhenitis

mostalive,mosteffective,andmostconstructivelycapablein

economic,ecological,andhumanterms.Aiinvolves,inacentralway,

theartandpracticeofaskingquestionsthatstrengthenasystem's

capacitytoapprehend,anticipate,andheightenpositivepotential.It


39

centrallyinvolvesthemobilizationofinquirythroughthecraftingof

the"unconditionalpositivequestion"often‐involvinghundredsor

sometimesthousandsofpeople"(Cooperrider&Srivastva,p.131).

Aiisanorganizationalinterventionthatallowsforcollaboration,inclusion,

imagination,andinnovation.

Aiis"morethanamethodortechnique"fororganizationaldevelopment,itis

"awayoflife"groundedintheorybasedonfiveunderlyingprinciples:

constructionist,simultaneity,poetic,anticipatory,andpositive(Cooperrider&

Srivastva,1987,p.131).Theconstructionistprincipleemphasizestheconnection

betweensociallyconstructedknowledgeandorganizationaldestiny(Cooperrider&

Srivastva,1987).Theleadermustovercomehabitualwaysofthinkinginorderto

"unleashtheimagination"ofindividualstoconstructthefuture(Cooperrideretal.,

p.8).Theprincipleofsimultaneityrecognizesthatinquiryandchangearenot

separatebutsimultaneousquestionsthatevokechange(Cooperrideretal.,2008).

Theleader,orchangeagent,mustarticulateprovocativequestionsfordiscoveryso

thatthefuturecanbeconceivedfromthestoriessharedthroughinquiry.Thepoetic

principleprovidesanunderstandingofhumanorganizations.Thisprinciplelooksat

organizationslikeanopenbookwiththeirstoriescontinuallybeingco‐authored,

providinganunlimitedsourcetofocusinquiry(Cooperrideretal.,2008).The

anticipatoryprinciplesuggeststhatthebehaviorofacompanycanbeinfluenced

andchangedbytheorganization'simageofthefuture.Thecollectiveimaginationof

anorganizationisacrucialresourceingeneratingconstructiveorganizational

change(Cooperrider&Whitney,2005).Lastly,thepositiveprincipleholdsthat


40

humanorganizationsareaffirmativesystems.Withinthissystemitisbelievedthat

humansrespondbesttopositivethoughtandknowledgethereforethe

organizationalsystemshouldalsooperate‐inthisfashion.Themomentumfroman

affirmativesystemfosterslastingandeffectivechangewhilepromotingteam

buildingandorganizationalcommitment(Cooperrideretal.).Theseprinciples

provideafoundationfromwhichAiisgrounded.

Characteristics

TheprinciplesofAiarerepresentedinthepracticeoftheAiapproach.The

Aicyclewasoriginallyorganizedintofourphasesofdiscovery,dream,design,and

destiny,ofwhichisknownasthe'4‐Dcycle'(Figure2‐3)(Cooperrideretal.,2008).

Thediscoveryphaseisatimefordiversemembersoftheorganizationor

communitytosharepositiveexperiences.Moreover,participantsdiscussindepth

theorganization’spositivecore(Cooperrideretal.,2008).Facilitationofthisphase

oftenincludesone‐on‐oneinterviewswithstaffbyconsultantsorthestaff

themselves.Duringtheinterview,staffmembersareaskedtosharepositiveand

meaningfulexperiencesfromworkingwithintheirorganizations.Interviewsvary

inlength,20minutestoanhour,dependingonthecircumstancesofthe

interventionorsummit.Highlightsfromtheinterviewsarethensharedinlarger

groups.Progressionintothenextphasecantakeplacethroughacontinuitysearch

thatfocusesonwhattheorganizationdoesbest.


41

Figure2‐3.The4‐Dcycleofappreciativeinquiry.FromAppreciativeinquiryhandbook:Forleadersofchange,byCooperrider,D.L.,Whitney,D.,Stavros,J.M.,&Fry,R.(2008).Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.Copyright2008byCrownCustomPublishing.Reprintedwithpermission.

Thedreamphaseallowsparticipantstoenvisiontheirorganizationwitha

foundationbuiltontheexceptionalandpositiveexperiencesdiscussedinthe

previousphase.“Dreaming”usesparticipantstoriestoco‐constructavisionofthe

organization’spositiveinfluenceandimpact.Duringthisphaseparticipantsare

encouragedtobecreativeandshareimagesofhope.Acommonpromptusedby

practitionersisto“imagineyouhaveawakenedfromalong,deepsleep.Yougetup

torealizethateverythingisasyoualwaysdreameditwouldbe.Youridealstatehas

becomethereality”(Cooperrider,Whitney,&Stavros,2003,p.24).Thedream

phaseisgenerallyconductedinsmallgroupsworkingtoenvisiontheir

organization’spotential.

Thedesignphasearticulatesthesystemsandstructuresnecessarytosupport

positiveexperiencesandco‐createddreams.Participantshavetheopportunityto

co‐createdesignstatementsthathighlightthepositivequalitiesandrealities

discussedintheprevioustwophases(Cooperrideretal.,2003,p.24).These


42

statementscanalsodetailenvironmentsandrelationshipsthatmusttakeplacein

orderforthevisiontobecomeareality.Akeyactivityinthisphaseisthecreationof

anorganization’sarchitecture(D.L.Cooperrider&D.Whitney).Withinthedesign

phase,basicprojectplansbegintoformandparticipantsfeelempoweredtotake

action.

Thedestinyordeliveryphaseinvolveslanguagethatrelatestopractical

implementationofthosesystems.Participantsinthisphasecreatealistofinspired

action‐orientedtasksthatreflecttheworkofthepreviousphases(Cooperrider&

Whitney,2005).Akeyactivitywithinthedestinyphaseistheselectionofpossible

actiontasksandtheformationoftaskforcesthatdiscussandestablishprinciplesfor

futurework.

SincethefirstpublicationandconceptualizationofAiby(Cooperrider&

Whitney,2005)afifthphasehasbeenaddedtotheAicycle.Inthe5‐Dmodel

(Figure2‐4),“define”wasaddedasaprecursortothediscoveryphasetofocusthe

appreciativeinterventionaroundaspecificareaofinquiry.


43

Figure2‐4.Appreciativeinquiry5‐Dcycle.FromAppreciativeinquiry:AnapproachforlearningandchangebasedonourownbestpracticesbyAcosta,A.&Douthwaite,B.2008.CopyrightattainedunderFairUse.Thisphasereflectsaffirmativetopicchoice,whichisatthecoreoftheAicycle

CooperriderandSrivastva(1987).Affirmativetopicsreflectareasthatareof

strategicimportancetoanorganizationandtheseareasmayexistattheindividual,

group,ororganizationallevel.

TwoofthemostcommonlyusedandsuccessfulwaystoapplyAiarewhole

systeminquiryandanAisummit(Cooperrideretal.,2008).AnAiSummit“isa

large‐scalemeetingprocessthatfocusesondiscoveringanddevelopingthe

organization’spositivechangecoreanddesigningitintoanorganization’sstrategic

businessprocesses,systems,andculture”(Cooperrider&Whitney,p.117).AnAi

Summitinviteseveryoneinanorganizationtoparticipate.Cooperriderand

Whitneynotedthatasuccessfulsummittakestime,generallythreetofourdays,and

attention.WhileAiisnotedforit’sapplicationtowholesystems,asWhitneyand


44

Trosten‐Bloom(2010)havepointedoutthetechniquecanbeusedinavarietyof

ways:coregroupinquiry,Ailearningteams,andmass‐mobilizedinquiry.

Aihasbeenwelcomedintothefieldoforganizationaldevelopmentwhile

subsequentlystarting“apositiverevolution”(Cooperrider&Whitney,2005).The

newfrontierofAihasbeendescribedasaprovocativeandgroundbreaking

paradigmofconsciousevolution(Hubbard,1998),andapartofthepositive

phenomenon(Cameronetal.,2003).BusheandCoetzer(1995)consideredthe

approachtobethegreatestadvancementinactionresearchinthepastdecade.The

approachisdistinguishedfromotherorganizationaldevelopmentapproaches

becauseoftheaffirmativevaluechoice(Fitzgeraldetal.,2001).Unlikeother

methodsortechniquesinorganizationaldevelopment,Aiisdescribedasa

worldviewthatshapesorganizationalinquiry.Inquiryisconsideredtobethemost

powerfultooloftheAiapproach.Continuousinquiryrequiresachangeintheway

individualsthink(Cooperrideretal.,2008).

Critiques

ThroughthedevelopmentofAi,CooperriderandSrivastva(1987)believed

thatinterviewsshouldbeconductedwithallemployeesworkingfromthebottom

uptolearnaboutpositiveexperiencesandsuperiorperformance,allthewhile

inspiringpositive,changeatthegrassrootslevel.However,thisapproachwas

ineffective,daunting,andlackedfocus."Themostimportantnextstepsfor

appreciativeinquirywillbeintheoreticalbreakthroughsinunderstanding

leadership,facilitationandchangeprocessesinsocialsystems”(Bushe,1999,p.14).

Additionally,thereisaneedforanalysisonAiandbetterdatacollectionontheAi


45

approachandrelatedoutcomes(eg.Bushe&Kassam,2005;Grant&Humphries,

2006;Messerschmidt,2008;vanderHaar&Hosking,2004).

Appreciativeinquiryhasnotreceivedasmanythreatsfora“productrecall”

asSWOT,whichcouldbeduetoitsrecentpopularity(Bushe&Kassam,2005)and

usebyconsultants(Rothwelletal.,2005).However,Aihasbeenavictimtomany

mythsandassumptionsrelatedtothepositiveandradicalchangemethod.As

describedbyFitzgeraldetal.(2001),Aiisverycommonlyassociatedwiththe

misconceptionthattheapproachfacilitateswarmandfuzzyexperienceswithgroup

hugs.Aiisperceivedtohavenobasisin“harddata.”AnotherassumptionisthatAi

cannotbeusedtoaddresscomplexorganizationalchangesbecausetheapproach

hidesbehindablanketofpositivethinking(Fitzgeraldetal.,2001).Lastly,many

believethatAiisaveryunbalancedapproachtoorganizationaldevelopmentand

otherapproachesthatuseproblem‐solvingtechniquesaremorebalanced

(Fitzgeraldetal.).

Applications

LikeSWOT,Aicanbeusedinadditiontootherapproachesforenhanced

outcomes(vanderHaar&Hosking,2004)anddataanalysis(Messerschmidt,2008).

AsdescribedbyvanderHaarandHosking(2004)arelationalconstructionist

approachtoAicouldderiveenormousbenefits.Aialsocomplimentsaction

researchapproachesaswellasinterventionapproacheswhichareusedamongst

practitionersoforganizationaldevelopment(Bushe&Coetzer,1995;Egan&

Lancaster,2005).


46

Aihasbeenusedinmanyorganizationstofacilitatetransitionsinto

leadership(eg.Havens,Wood,&Leeman,2006;Keefe&Pesut,2004).

TransformationalchangehasalsobeenassociatedwithAi(Messerschmidt,2008),

howevernotallcasesintheirstudyresultedinachangeofthiscaliber.Busheand

Kassam(2005)determinedthatinorderfortransformationalchangetooccurasa

resultofAitheremustbeafocusonchanginghowpeoplethinkaswellasafocuson

supportingself‐organizingchangeprocessesthatflowfromnewideas.

Aiispracticedincommunitydevelopmentandisoftenincludedin

communitydevelopmenttextbooks(Haines&Green,2011)toshowcasethepower

ofdialogueforcommunitychange(Finegoldetal.,2002).ThefirstphaseofAi,

discover,isanexcellententrypointtolearnfromandconnectwithcommunity

memberswheninitiatingasset‐basedcommunitydevelopment(Mathie&

Cunningham,2003).Finegoldetal.foundmanysuccessfulapplicationsofAifor

wholesystemchangeinthepublicandnon‐profitsectorsaswellasinextension

work(Peutz&Kroth,2009).Aihasalsobeenusedforprogramevaluation(Norum,

Wells,Hoadley,&Geary,2002;Preskill&Catsambas,2006).

Withinhighereducation,studentaffairsstaffandfacultyuseappreciative

advisingasanapproachevolvedfromtheAiprinciples(Bloometal.,2009).

Appreciativeadvisingundertheseprinciplesencouragesastrengths‐based

mentoringapproach.Facultyprofessionaldevelopmentwassuccessfullyfacilitated

withtheapplicationofAi(Davis,2005).Cockell,McArthur‐Blair,andSchiller

(2012)suggestthatuniversitiesadoptAiinordertotransformmanyoftheexisting

systems,furtherimpactingthenextgenerationofpositivechangemakers.


47

Aiisnotascommonlypublishedforitsuseintheprivatesectorin

comparisontothelongrangingandextensivereportsoncompany'suseofSWOT

analysis.Arecentbook,ThePowerofAppreciativeInquiry:Apracticalguideto

positivechange,byWhitneyandTrosten‐Bloom(2010)detailstheapplicationofAi

forbusinessandcommunityplanning.LudemaandBarrett(2009)discussedAi

summitsconductedbyvariousbusinessesthatyieldedhigherquarterlyprofitsand

lowercompanycosts.Berrisford(2005)conductedacasestudyonBBCtodiscover

howAiaffectedorganizationalchangeanddialogue.

VisionClarityandOrganizationalCommitment:ADesiredOutcome

Visionhasbeenestablishedasintegraltothedefinitionofleadership.In

additiontovision,transformationalleadershipfocusesontheemotionalbondand

relationshipsbetweenleadersandfollowers.Moreover,transformational

leadershipiswidelydiscussedasahighlysoughtafterapproachtoleadership,

furthersuggestingthatvisionandrelationshipsareadesiredoutcome.

Additionally,visionandorganizationalcommitmenthaverelationshipstodesired

organizationaloutcomessuchasperformanceandsuitability;therefore,thesetwo

variablesareexaminedfortheirrelationshiptoleadershipandorganizations.

Denison(1990)suggestedthattherearethreecomponentsofaneffective

organizationalvision:1)visionclarity,2)visionsupport,and3)stability.

Kantabutra(2008)summarizedthesharedcharacteristicsofvisionattributesby

otherscholarstoincludebrevity,clarity,futureorientation,stability,challenge,

abstractness,anddesirabilityorabilitytoinspire.Visionclarityisreferredtoas,

“havingawell‐articulated,easy‐to‐understandtarget,averyspecificgoalthat


48

providesdirectiontoothersintheorganization”(Denison,1990,p.375).

Communicationofthevisionisneededforemployeesofacompanytoclearly

understandtheirrolewithinanorganization.Theleaderalsoneedstoclearly

articulateandreinforcethevisionduringtimesofchangeandcrisis(Kotter,2007).

Visioncommunicationhasbeenfoundtobeanintegralcomponenttosuccessful

visioning(Kantabutra&Avery,2002).InTheLeadershipChallenge,byKouzesand

Posner(2007),theyincludetipsforarticulatingthevisionsuchthatthevisionis

motivational,inspiring,andcomesacrossasconversationalinsteadofstiffand

formal.

Visionsupport“impliessecuringthecommitmentfrompeoplethroughoutan

organizationforwhatthecompanyistryingtodo”(Denison,1990,p.375).As

mentioned,Kakabadseetal.(2005)believesthatseniorexecutivesupportis

essentialtothevisioningprocess;whileotherscholarsstresstheimportanceof

company‐wideinvolvement.VisionsupportrelatestoKouzesandPosner’s(2007)

model,“inspiringasharedvision,”inthattheemployeesmustfeelcommittedtothe

visionandinvestedinworkingtowardssuchaspirations.Andlastly,visionstability

referstothesustainedconsistencyofthevisionstatementovertime.Lynnaand

Akgünb(2001)assertthatastablevisionreducesconfusionandfrustrationfrom

employeesabouttheirroleintheorganizationandtheorganizationitself.

Visionhasbeenresearchedtoshowsignificantcontributionsto

organizationaleffectiveness(Zaccaro,2001).Ontheflipside,researchhasalso

shownthatthelackofvisionwithinorganizationhasresultedinfailedchange

management(Kakabadseetal.,2005;Porras&Collins,1994).Avery(2005)found


49

thatvisionwasimportanttoconsideringlong‐termperspectiveinEuropean

sustainableenterprises.Theauthorexplainedthatvisionprovidesacognitivemap

forthedistributionofresourceswithanorganization,whichcanbeespecially

helpfulforsustainability(Avery,2004).Instudyofhigh‐techemployees,Dviretal.

(2004)suggestedthatvisionformulationandcontentofsocial‐orientedvalueswere

positivelyrelatedtoaffectivecommitmenttotheorganization.

AllenandMeyer(1990)createdamodelwiththreecomponentsto

conceptualizeorganizationalcommitment.Theaffectivecomponentof

organizationalcommitmentrefersto“employees'emotionalattachmentto,

identificationwith,andinvolvementin,theorganization.”Thesecondcomponent,

continuancecommitment,refersto“commitmentbasedonthecoststhatemployees

associatewithleavingtheorganization.”Finally,thethirdcomponent,normative

commitment,“referstoemployees'feelingsofobligationtoremainwiththe

organization”(Allen&Meyer,p.1).Thestudyofthecomplexitieswithin

organizationalcommitmentisimportanttoleadershipandorganizationalsuccess

(Ash,Clayton,&Atkinson,2005).

Aparticularemphasishasbeenplacedonaffectivecommitmentinrelationto

variousleadershipstylesaswellasitsimpactonemployeeperformance,

satisfaction,andwell‐being.Affectiveorattitudinalcommitmentisoftenafocus

withinthefieldofleadership.Leaderscancultivateandenhanceaffective

commitmentastheybuildrelationshipswithfollowers.Morgan(1997)foundthat

transformationalleadershaveagreaterimpactonfollowers’affectivecommitment

thanontheirnormativecommitment.Leadermemberexchangealsocontributesto


50

therelationshipbetweentransformationalleadersandaffectivecommitment(Lee,

2005).WhitneyandTrosten‐Bloom(2010)suggested,alongwithmanyother

scholars,thatparticipativeleadershipstylesfosterafollowershipwithagreat

commitmenttotheirwork,higherlevelsofperformance,andgreatjobsatisfaction.

InastudybyPodsakoff,MacKenzie,andBommer(1996),transformational

leaderbehaviorisexaminedasadeterminantofemployeesatisfaction,commitment,

trust,andorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviors.Theauthorsfoundthat“onlyoneof

theleaderbehaviors(visionarticulation)hadasignificantmaineffecton

organizationalcommitment”(Podsakoffetal.,p.277).Thestudyalsoindicates

someenhancersoftheleadershipbehaviorcorrelationssuchthatintrinsically

satisfyingtasksaffectedthepositiverelationshipbetweenvisionarticulationand

generaljobsatisfaction.Theyfoundthatgroupcohesivenessenhancedthepositive

relationshipbetweenvisionarticulationandorganizationalcommitment.

Additionally,thepositiverelationshipbetweenvisionarticulationandroleclarity

wasinfluencedbytheemployee’sexperience,training,andknowledge.Thestudy

illustratestheconnectionbetweentheleaders’abilitytoarticulatethevisionand

employees’organizationalcommitment.

AnotherstudybyPodsakoffetal.(1996)featurestheconnectionbetween

articulationofthevisionandorganizationalcommitmentastheyrelatetothe

executionoforganizationalchange.Executionoforganizationalchangereferstothe

perceptionsofemployeeswithregardtotheintroductionofchangeandthe

processesthatunfoldasaresultofchange.Although,theresultssuggestedthat

executionoforganizationalchangeisthestrongestpredictoroforganizational


51

commitment;while,visionclarityplayedasupportingrolePodsakoffetal.(1996).

TheirresearchalsoagreeswiththeworkofColeetal.(2006)inthatvisionclarity

waspositivelycorrelatedwithorganizationalcommitment.


52

CHAPTERTHREE

RESEARCHMETHODS

Withthemanycomplexitiessurroundingthevisioningprocess,amixed

methodsresearchapproachhasbecomeincreasinglyrelevantforthestudyofthis

leadershipphenomenon(Klenke,2008).Asamixedmethodscasestudy,this

researchsharesboththequalitativeandquantitativeperspectivesgeneratedfrom

multiplesourcesofevidence.Datatriangulationwaspurposefullyexecuted

accordingtothecasestudyguidelinessetbyYin(2009).Further,theresearch

designfollowsamixedmodelexplanatorysequentialdesignasdetailedbyCreswell

etal.(2003).Inthiscasestudy,quantitativedataisanalyzedtoinformthe

qualitativedatacollection.Theexplanatorysequentialdesignhasbeenreferredto

asaqualitativefollow‐upapproachinthatthequalitativedataelaboratesonthe

quantitativefindings(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Thedesignallowsforfurther

investigationoflearnedandspecificresults.Mixingofthedataoccursatdata

collectionandinterpretation.Quantitativedatawasanalyzedusingarepeated

measuresANOVAwithrandomsubjecteffectsandthequalitativedatawasanalyzed

usingtheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).

PurposeandObjectives

Thepurposeofthisexplanatorysequentialmixedmethodscasestudyisto

betterunderstandtechniquesusedinorganizationalvisioningbyconverging

quantitativenumericaldataandqualitativethematicdata.AsdefinedbyFinlay


53

(1994,p.64),organizationalvisioninginvolves“activitieswhichcaneffectivelypush

agroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,andbeyond‐the‐present

paradigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization.”Multiplesourcesofdata

areusedtodevelopandinformresearchmethods,inadditiontoelaboratingand

clarifyingresultswiththeintenttoincreasemeaningfulnessandvalidityof

constructsandinquiryresults (Greeneetal.,1989).Inthisstudy,theorganizational

commitmentquestionnaire(shortform)(Mowdayetal.,1979)andavisionclarity

questionnaireadaptedfromColeetal.(2006)wasusedtomeasureorganizational

commitmentandvisionclarityandtheirrelationshiptointerventiontreatments:

Appreciativeinquiry(Ai)andStrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesandThreats

(SWOT).Followingquantitativedatacollectionandanalysis,organizational

visioningwasexploredusingfocusgroupinterviewswithstaffatVirginiaTech.

Quantitativedataanalysisinformedthequalitativeselectionandprotocol,while

mixingofthequalitativeandquantitativedataoccurredduringdatacollectionand

interpretationtoprovideamorethoroughexplanationoforganizationalvisioning.

Thethesisaimstoanswerthefollowingquestions:








54



6. Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre/posttestresultsbetweenintervention

groupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?

Thefollowingfigureconnectstheresearchquestionstotheresearchdesignand

methods(Figure3.1).

Figure3‐1.Mappingcasestudyobjectivestoresearchdesignandmethods.Outlinesthedesignphase,methodsandprocedures,products,andobjectivesofthecasestudytotheexplanatorysequentialdesign.Adaptedfrom“Students’persistenceinadistributeddoctoralprogramineducationalleadershipinhighereducation:Amixedmethodsstudy,”byIvankova,N.V.,&Stick,S.L.(2007).ResearchinHigherEducation,48(1),93‐135.


55


56

FramingtheResearch Itisnecessarytoconsiderthephilosophicalassumptionsassociatedwith

eachresearcherinordertobetterunderstandtheframeworkfromwhichthe

researchisderived.Theoriesrelatedtohowoneviewstheworldareepistemology,

ontology,axiology,rhetoric,andmethodology.Greene(2007)notedthe

evolutionaryhistoryofmixedmethodsresearchasafieldlargelydominatedby

positivismandthenpost‐positivism,bothofwhichcontrastwiththeworldviewof

constructivism.Unlikeconstructivism,positivismrejectstheuseofintuitive

knowledgeandbelievessocietyoperatesaccordingtogenerallaws.Researchers

whosubscribetothisparadigmfindtruthonlyinscientificknowledgederivedfrom

asensoryexperience.Conversely,individualssituatedinconstructivismbelieve

thatrealityissubjectiveandexperiential,meaningthathumansconstructtheirown

socialrealitiesinrelationtooneanother(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2008).

Manyresearchersagreethatthe“best”worldviewformixedmethods

researchispragmatism,aparadigmnotcommittedtoanyonesystemofrealityor

philosophy(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Pragmatismvaluesbothobjectiveand

subjectiveknowledgeandbelievesinthecollectionofbothqualitativeand

quantitativedatatoaddresstheresearchquestion(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2008).

Theresearchdesignchosenforthisstudyexistswithinthepost‐positivistand

constructivistparadigmsasonephaseoftheresearchconnectsandinformsthe

latterphase(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Asamixedmethodsresearcher,Iadopt

thepragmaticparadigmanditisfromthisworldviewthatthestudyhasbeen


57

conducted.Thepragmaticparadigmappropriatelyanswerstheresearchquestion

underinvestigationandfostersamixedmethodswayofthinking.

ReflexivityStatement

Iama25year‐old,single,white,heterosexualfemale.Iwasborninrural

Virginia,andIaminthelowermiddleclass.Iamamasters’studentinthe

departmentofAgriculturalandExtensionEducationatVirginiaTech.Asagraduate

student,Iparticipatedinourdepartmentretreat,whichwasfacilitatedusing

Appreciativeinquiry.Ayearlater,ourdepartmenthadanotherretreatthatwas

structuredaccordingtoSWOTanalysis.Withinthistime,manyofmybeliefsabout

organizationalvisioningwereformed.DuringthedepartmentretreatIfoundthat

thetimespentwitheveryonefromthedepartmentwasvaluable.Ibelieveinan

inclusiveandbottom‐upapproachtostrategicplanningandvisioning,becauseI

valuetheopinionsandcontributionsofothers.

Throughthedepartment’sretreat,Igainedamuchdeeperandbroader

understandingofmydepartment.Idevelopedperspectiveonthecontextinwhich

thedepartmentexistsandhowthatimpactsthedecisionswehavemadeandwill

make.Ifeltassenseaunityandenergysurroundingourwork.Ialsofoundthatthe

workwedidattheretreathelpedtoguideoureffortsthroughouttheyear.

Thevisioningandplanningrequiredduringthedepartmentretreatwasa

challengingprocessforothersandmyself.Iwaschallengedtoconsiderthecurrent

stateofaffairswhiletryingtoconceivewhatthefutureshouldlooklike.Envisioning

thefuturewasfrustratingandtimeconsuming.Itwasalsochallengingtoenvision

howourdepartmentwassituatedwithinotherstrategicplansandresearch


58

agendas.Ifoundtheactofvisioningtobesomethingthatwasoutofmycomfort

zoneandunlikemynormalthoughtprocess.Fromthisexperience,Ifoundthe

facilitationofavisioningprocessand/ordepartmentretreattobeextremely

important.Thestructureoftheretreathelpedtoinformandfacilitatethevisioning

processforeachindividual.Ibelievethatfacilitatingapositivevisioningexperience

duringanannualretreatsetsthetonefortherestoftheyear.

ResearchDesign

Acasestudywasusedforthisresearchasanexplanatorystrategytoanswer

howandwhyquestionsofthiscontemporaryphenomena.Casestudiesoffer

explanationsofpresumedcausallinksinreal‐lifeinterventionsthataretoocomplex

forasinglesurveytoexplain(Yin,2009).Yinstatesthatcasestudyinquiry:

1. Copeswiththetechnicallydistinctivesituationinwhichtherewillbemany

morevariablesofinterestthandatapoints,andasoneresult

2. Reliesonmultiplesourcesofevidence,withdataneedingtoconvergeina

triangulationfashion,andasanotherresult

3. Benefitsfromthepriordevelopmentoftheoreticalpropositionstoguidedata

collectionandanalysis.(p.18)

Researchofthiskindisespeciallyrelevantforstudieswithsmallpopulationsizes

thatcancollectmultiplesourcesofdata.Theabilitytoconvergeavarietyofdata

pointssuchasresearcherobservation,interviews,pre‐testsandpost‐tests,for

purposesofcorroborationisuniquetocasestudies.Havingmultiplesourcesofdata

increasesconstructvalidityandinquirywithinagivenstudy(Greeneetal.,1989).


59

Moreover,thetriangulationofdataisaclassicexampleofmixedmethodsresearch

andevaluation(Greeneetal.).Theculminationofevidenceprovidesaricherand

moredescriptivecasestudyaswellasmixedmethodsstudy.

Asmentionedpreviously,mixedmethodsresearchiscommonlybeingused

tostudythemanycomplexitiesofleadership,visioningbeingoneofthem.Given

thatthismethodologyhasemergedwithgreatcontroversyoverparadigmsand

terminology,theresearchperformedinthisstudyadoptsCreswellandPlanoClark

(2007)definitionofmixedmethods.Theseauthorsbelievethat:

Mixedmethodsresearchisaresearchdesignwithphilosophicalassumptions

aswellasmethodsofinquiry.Asamethodology,itinvolvesphilosophical

assumptionsthatguidethedirectionofthecollectionandtheanalysisofdata

andthemixtureofqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesinmanyphasesin

theresearchprocess.Asamethod,itfocusesoncollecting,analyzing,and

mixingbothqualitativeandquantitativedatainasinglestudyorseriesof

studies.(p.5)

Theygoontosaythatadeeperunderstandingoftheresearchphenomenoncanbe

fosteredthroughtheuseofmixedmethodsresearch,asopposedtoasinglemethod

(Creswell&PlanoClark).

Withinmixedmethods,thereareavarietyofwaystodesignandconduct

research.Thereasonsformixingdatainthisthesisareforthepurposesof

corroborationandelaboration(Greeneetal.,1989)thatareevidentinthe

triangulationfoundationsofacasestudyaswellastheexplanatoryresearchdesign.

Theresearcherhaschosentoadoptanexplanatorysequentialdesignforthestudy


60

basedonitsframeworkandrelevancytotheresearchquestions.Tashakkoriand

Teddlie(2003)definethemodelas,“amulti‐strandmixeddesigninwhichthe

conclusionsthataremadeonthebasisoftheresultsofthefirststrandleadto

formulationofquestions,datacollectionanddataanalysisforthenextstrand”(p.

715).Further,thepurposeofthisdesignistoexplainthequantitativeresultswith

qualitativedata.Theimplementationofquantitativeandqualitativemethodsinthe

explanatorysequentialdesignissharedbelow.

Everyparticipantwasaskedtotakeapre‐testtwoweeksbeforethe

interventions(AppendixF).Thismeasurementoftimewaschosentoavoidtest‐

retestbiasandcomplementtheavailabilityoftheparticipants(Dillman,Smyth,&

Christian,2008).Thepre‐testincludedquestionsfromorganizationalcommitment

andvisionclarityconstructs(AppendixA).Thequestionnairewasdesignedbased

onaportionofasurveyinastudybyColeetal.(2006)todeterminethe

implicationsoforganizationalchange.Anexpertpanelwasusedtoensurevalidity

ofthepre‐testquestionnaire.Theresultsofthepre‐testdeterminedwhich

participantswereininterventiontreatmentone(SWOTanalysis)ortreatmenttwo

(Ai).Aneffortwasmadetoestablishequalconstructaveragesacrosstreatment

groupswhileaccommodatingparticipantschedules.

Allparticipantswereaskedtomeetbeforethestudycommencedtoprovide

overallinstructionandframingfortheorganizationalvisioningsessions.The

interventionswereconductedintwoconsecutivedaysbythesamefacilitatorand

eachinterventionlastedapproximatelyfourhours.Thefacilitatorwasa

professionalconsultantinthefieldoforganizationaldevelopmentwithexperience


61

infacilitatingbothtechniquesusedinstrategicplanningandvisioning.Treatment

onewasconductedintheafternoon,whiletreatmenttwowasconductedinthe

morning.Carefulplanningandpreparationbythefacilitatorensuredthatboth

treatmentslastedthesameamountoftime(fourhours)inordertokeepthelength

oftimeaconstantvariableinthestudy.Onceeachinterventionwasfinished,the

participantswereaskedtocompleteapost‐testtodetermineanychangesin

organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity(Figure3.2.).Thepost‐testconsisted

ofthesamequestionsaskedinthepre‐testaswellasafreeresponsesectionin

whichparticipantswereabletosharecommentsorfeedbackabouttheintervention

(AppendixB).


62

Figure3‐2.Explanatorysequentialresearchdesign.Theresearchdesignforthiscasestudybasedonthemixedmodelexplanatorysequentialdesign.Adaptedfrom“MixedModelExplanatorySequentialDesign”byTashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2003).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Post Test - Quantitative Data Collection - Immediately after intervention

- Determine changes in Organizational Commitment and Vision Clarity

Focus Groups – Qualitative Data Collection - Questions are determined based on the quantitative analysis - Participants are selected based on the quantitative analysis

SWOT Analysis Strengths & Weaknesses Opportunities & Threats

Appreciative Inquiry Discovery Phase

Dream Phase

Pre Test - Quantitative Data Collection - Administer 2 weeks before intervention

- Determine levels of Organizational Commitment and Vision Clarity - Assign ID number

-Establish equal levels of Organizational Commitment and Vision Clarity within groups + random assignment

Delayed Post Test – Quantitative Data Collection - Follow up 4 -6 weeks later

Complete Quantitative Data Analysis

Complete Qualitative Data Analysis

Integration of the Quantitative and Qualitative Results

Combined Session - Participants come together to discuss the intervention experience

- Not observed by the researcher


63

Thefacilitatorconductedadiscussionsessionondaythreewiththestaffand

directortosharetheexperiencesandideasgeneratedfrombothtreatments.The

activitiesthattookplaceinphasetwowerenotdocumentedorresearcheddirectly

asapartofthiscasestudy.Thegoalsgeneratedfromstrategicvisioningand

planningsessionscantakemanyyearstocomplete,whichcouldnotbestudieddue

tolimitedtimeandresources.Adelayedpost‐testwasadministeredsixweeksafter

theintervention(AppendixK&L).

Participantswereinvitedtoparticipateinfocusgroupinterviewstocollect

follow‐upqualitativedatadrawnfromtheinformationcollectedfromphaseoneof

thestudy:pre‐test,post‐test,andobservationaldata.Thefocusgroupinterviews

wereintendedtofurtherexplaintheparticipants’perceptionsoftheintervention,

theirorganizationalcommitment,andtheirunderstandingofthevision.The

interviewstookplaceoveramonthaftertheinterventions.

ResearchContextandCaseStudyPopulation

VirginiaPolytechnicStateUniversityisalargelandgrantuniversityinthe

SoutheasternareaoftheUnitedStates.Theresearchcoveredathree‐monthperiod

fromJulytoSeptember,2012.

ThestudentaffairsdepartmentatVirginiaTechconsistsofapproximately40

employees,includinginternsandstudentworkers.Withinthelast18monthsthe

departmenthiredsixnewfulltimestaffmembers.Additionally,thedirectorhad

beenabsentforthepast18monthsandrecentlyreturnedtoherpostwithinthe

department.Thedepartmentwillbeupfortheirfive‐yearreviewandeffortswillbe


64

madetocompletetheirreviewwithintheyear.Thevisionandmissionstatements

haverecentlybeenrevisitedbytheleadershipteam,comprisedofagroupofsenior

professionalswithinthedepartment.Thevisionstatementwassharedwiththe

entirestaff,andfeedbackwasrequestedviaemailfromthedepartment.The

directorsharedthatlittlefeedbackfromthestaffwasreceived.Thisinformation

wassharedwiththeintervieweratapre‐studymeetingwiththedirector.The

visionstatementstatesthatthedepartment:

“willberecognizedbytheuniversitycommunityasthepremierresourcefor

activelyengagingstudentsinexploringandpursuingtheircareeraspirations

leadingtomeaningfulandpurposefulcontributionstoourglobalsociety.”

Thedepartment’smissionandcorevaluesreflecttheirefforts,asstatedinthevision

statement(AppendixC).

Thedirectorofthedepartmentfeltthatthestudywouldbenefitherandher

staff.Shehopedthatthevisioningprocesswouldfocusonstrategiesforbecoming

thepremierresourcefortheirservicesatVirginiaTech.Moreover,greatfocushad

beenplacedonthecreationofthevisionstatement,butlittlediscussionhad

revolvedaroundtheexecutionoftheirvision.Duetoherabsencefromthe

department,shehopedtogainanunderstandingofwherethecurrentstaffwasin

understandingthevisionstatement.Additionally,thedirectorwasinterestedin

learningmoreaboutthetwointerventiontreatments.Forthesereasons,staff

participationinthevisioninginterventionswasencouraged;however,no

participantwasforcedtocompletethestudy.Theresearcherandthedepartment


65

directorcommunicatedviaemailtoinviteparticipantstothestudy(AppendixD&

E).Thestudyhadatotalof22participants.

SelectingtheFacilitator

Becausetheparticipantsforthisstudyworkwithinauniversity,university

resourcesandstaffwereusedtoselectafacilitator.Thefacilitatorworkedatthe

universityintheorganizationalandprofessionaldevelopmentdepartmentasa

consultant.Thefacilitatorhadover20yearsofexperienceworkinginthefieldof

organizationaldevelopment.Furthermore,theconsultanthadexperienceworking

withmanydepartmentsacrosscampususingbothSWOTanalysisandAi.

InterventionTreatments

Theresearchermetwiththeconsultanttodiscussthegoals,timing,details,

andintendedoutcomesofeachtreatment.Bothtreatmentswerefacilitatedand

structuredaccordingtotheir“true”form.TheSWOTanalysissessionwasbasedon

theworkpublishedbyLeigh(2010)onSWOTanalysis,inachapterofthehandbook

onImprovingPerformanceintheWorkplace.Additionally,theAisessionwas

derivedfromtheformatprovidedbyCooperrideretal.(2008)inAppreciative

InquiryHandbook:ForLeadersofChange.Bothtreatmentswerepresentedwiththe

samegoalstatementforthesessionaswellassamequestiontoframetheirwork.

Thegoalandquestionforthesessionswerederivedfromconversationswiththe

department’sdirector,theresearcher,andtheconsultant.


66

SurveyInstrument

Theinstrumentadoptedforthepre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpost‐testwas

basedonthestudybyColeetal.(2006)regardingtheimplicationsofvision,

appropriateness,andexecutionoforganizationalchange.Twocomponentsofthe

study’ssurveywereadoptedforthiscasestudy,specificallythequestionsrelatedto

organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.ThestudyusedtheOrganizational

CommitmentQuestionnaire(shortform)developedbyMowdayetal.(1979)to

assessorganizationalcommitment.Theassessmentofaffectiveorattitudinal

commitmentofemployeestotheirorganizationiscommonlymeasuredusingthe

instrumentdevelopedbyMowday,Steers,andPorter(Mathieu&Zajac,1990).

Eightpositivelywordedquestionsfromtheshortformquestionnairewereusedin

theteststoavoidanyconfusionormisunderstanding.Theinstrumentwas

comparedtootherinstrumentsmeasuringorganizationalcommitmentinastudyby

FerrisandAranya(1983)whichfoundtheOrganizationalCommitment

Questionnairetohavehighinternalreliabilityandhighpredictivevalidity.The

promptwaschangedtoappropriatelyreflectthepositionsoftheparticipantsinthe

department.Atotalofeightquestionswereaskedusingaseven‐pointscale(1=

“stronglydisagree”,4=“neitheragreenordisagree”,and7=“stronglyagree”)to

measureorganizationalcommitment.Mowdayetal.(1979)reportahighinternal

consistencyreliabilityscoreof.90andinthecasestudyitwasfoundtobe0.844.

Forpartoftheanalysistwoquestionswereremovedfromtheconstructthat

resultedinareliabilityof0.80.


67

ThreeofthevisionclarityquestionswereadoptedfromColeetal.(2006)as

theyrelatedtoclarityandexecution:“Thevisionguiding[department]hasbeen

clear,”“Thepurposeof[department]hasbeenwellcommunicated,”and“Thevision

of[department]hasbeenwellexecuted.”Theauthorspublishedinternal

consistencyreliabilityscalesof0.86,0.67,and0.73respectivelythatmetaccepted

researchstandards.AfourthvisionclarityquestionwasadoptedfromFerrisand

Aranya(1983):“Theteamhadaclearunderstandingofthetargetcustomers’needs,

andwants.”Thisquestionwasalteredtoreflectthepopulationofthecasestudy:

“The[department]hasaclearunderstandingoftheUniversitycommunity'sneeds

andwants.”Atotaloffourquestionswithafive‐pointresponseformat(1=

“stronglydisagree”;5=“stronglyagree”)wereadoptedtoinvestigatevisionclarity.

Theinternalconsistencyforthevisionclarityconstructwasdeterminedtobe.794.

Bothorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityconstructscoreswerecalculated

byaveragingtheresponsesforeachindividualmeasure.

Thepre‐testyieldeda100%responseratefromthe22participants.The

post‐testyieldeda95%responserate.Lastly,thedelayedpost‐testyieldeda86%

responserate.Analysisofthequantitativedataisfurtherdiscussedinchapterfour.

FocusGroupInterviews

Semi‐structuredinterviewsallowtheresearchertousebothclose‐endedand

open‐endedquestions.Whilethecontentoftheinterviewisfocusedontheresearch

question,thisformatallowsforgreaterflexibilityanddiscussion(Klenke,2008).At

eachfocusgroup,fivestructuredopen‐endedinterviewquestionswereaskedwitha

numberofprobesdesignedtohelpparticipantselaborateontheresearchissues


68

(AppendixM).Qualitativeinquirythroughtrulyopen‐endedquestionsallows

participanttorespondintheirownwordstofullyexplaintheirexperiences,

reactions,andopinions(Patton,2002).

Thefivestructuredquestionsaskedparticipantstoexpandontheir

experience,values,andknowledgerelatedtotheissuesthatarecentraltothe

researchquestions(Patton,2002).Inthecasestudy,questionswereaskedto

furtherinvestigatetheparticipants’experience,theirunderstandingofthevision,

andtheirorganizationalcommitment.Thequestionsweredevelopedbasedonthe

literature,asexplainedintheaprioripropositionstable(AppendixN&O).The

focusgroupquestionswerealsodevelopedinlieuofthequantitativedataanalysis

performedontheorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityconstructs.The

probeswerewrittentoensurecompletenessintheparticipants’responsessothat

richdatacouldbederived(Rossman&Rallis,2003).Asidefromthefivestructured

questions,theresearcherwasabletofreelyaddfurtherinquiryasthediscussion

evolved,whichisinkeepingwiththeguidelinesofsemi‐structuredfocusgroups

(Klenke,2008).

DataCollection

Thepre‐testwasadministeredtwoweeksbeforetheinterventions,usingan

onlinesurveysystemcalledQualtrics.Thesurveywasdeliveredtotheparticipants’

workemail,andallparticipantshadaccesstoacomputer.Onereminderemailwas

senttoparticipantswhohadnotcompletedthequestionnaireafterthreedays.

Duringbothtreatments,theresearcherobservedtheinterventiontogain

additionalinsightintosocialpatterns,participantreactions,andintervention


69

activities.Researcherobservationsareawrittenrecordoftheresearcher’s

perceptions.Inthisstudy,theresearcherwasabletomonitoractionsduringthe

interventionsandinferparticipants’meaningbehindtheiractions(Rossman&

Rallis,2003).Anobservationprotocolbasedontheorganizationalcommitmentand

visionclarityliteraturewascreatedtoensurethattheresearcherlookedforspecific

interactionsinbothtreatments(AppendixG)(Lofland,Snow,Anderson,&Lofland,

2006).RossmanandRallis(2003)notethat“observationisfundamentaltoall

qualitativeinquiry”(p.194).Aholisticdescriptionoftheeventsandbehaviorswas

usedtodocumentbothtreatments.Aftertheinterventions,rawdatafromthefield

observation,includingrunningrecordsandobservercomments,weretranscribed

intothecomputer.

Apost‐testwasadministeredimmediatelyaftereachinterventionviapen

andpaper.Participantsweregiventheoptiontotakethesurveywiththemand

completelaterintheday.Thesequestionswereidenticaltothepre‐test,inaddition

toanopenedquestionforcommentsorfeedbackrelatedtotheintervention.A

delayedpost‐testwasadministeredviaQualtricsfourtosixweeksafterthe

intervention,totestforsustainedchangeinorganizationalcommitmentandvision

clarity(AppendixJ).Thesequestionswereidenticaltothepre‐testquestionnaire.

Participantsweregivenatwo‐weekwindowtorespondtothesurveyandwere

remindedoncetotakethedelayedpost‐test.

Theexplanatorysequentialdesignstatesthatdatacollectionistheprimary

pointformixing(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Duringphaseoneofdata

collection,thequantitativedataanalysisisconnectedtothequalitativedata


70

collection.Thesemi‐structuredinterviewquestionswerecomposedbasedonthe

analysisthatemergedfromthefirstphaseofquantitativeresearch.Thesequential

designofthecasestudyreducessomeofthedisadvantagesofstructuredinterviews

inthatadeeperanddirectedunderstandingoftheissueisdevelopedbeforethe

questionsarecomposed(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2003).

Focusgroupswithselectedparticipantswereconductedsixweeksafterthe

intervention:14staffmembersjoinedinthediscussion.Participantselectionwas

basedonthequantitativeanalysis.Participantswereplacedintothreedifferent

focusgroups:positivechange,nochange,ornegativechange,basedontheirpre‐test

andpost‐testscoresfororganizationalcommitment.Thefocusgroups’comments

wereaudiorecordedandtranscribedintowrittenformandusedforthedata

analysis.

ProceduresUsed

Thecasestudywasconductedincongruencewiththemixedmethods

standardssetbyCreswellandPlanoClark(2011).Withintheseguidelines,they

detailtheneedforqualitativeandquantitativedatastrandstorespondspecifically

tothephenomenonaddressedintheresearchquestion.Second,aqualitystudy

shouldhaveamethodssectionthatconveysrigorandpersuasiveness(Creswell&

PlanoClark,2011).Athirdcriterionofamixedmethodsstudyisthatitexplains

whenandhowthemixingtookplace.Lastly,theauthorsassertthatmixedmethods

terminologyandproceduresmustbesoughtandappliedtotheresearch.

Qualitativeinquiryprocedureswerefollowedtoensuretrustworthinessand

authenticitywithintheresearch.Bothofwhichareessentialtoensuringtherigorof


71

qualitativeinquiryanditsuseinmainstreamscience(Morse,Barrett,Mayan,Olson,

&Spiers,2008).Trustworthinessinvolvescredibility,dependability,transferability,

andconformability;moreover,thesecriteriaareintegraltoqualitativeresearch,just

asinternalandexternalvalidity,reliability,andobjectivityareintegralto

quantitativeresearch(Lincoln&Guba,1985).Strategiesforincreasedqualityin

qualitativeresearchhavebeenderivedtoenhancecredibilityandauthenticitysuch

as:prolongedengagement,peerdebriefing,memberchecking,negativecase

sampling,reflexivity,andtriangulation(Klenke,2008).

Credibilityforthisstudywasestablishedthroughpeerdebriefinginwhich

regularmeetingswereheldtodiscussthequalitativedatawithprofessorswhowere

notdirectlyinvolvedintheresearch.Thesecolleagueswerequalitativeresearch

expertsandraisedquestionstofacilitatemeaningfulinterpretation(Klenke,2008).

Prolongedengagementwasestablishedwithsomeoftheparticipantsinthestudy,

andtheyhelpedtoconfirmtheemergingthemes.Issuesofinternalvaliditywere

alsoaddressedthroughtheuseoftriangulationasresearcherobservationsofSWOT

andAiinterventionsweresynthesizedwiththefocusgroupdata.Credibilityand

trustworthinessareaddressedwiththeinclusionofareflexivitystatement.The

reflexivitystatement,“involvesselfawarenessand‘criticalself‐reflections’bythe

researcheronhisorherpotentialbiasesandpredispositionsasthesemayaffectthe

researchprocessandconclusions”(Johnson,1999,p.283).

Dependabilitywasaddressedinthisstudythroughrigorousanddetailed

documentationofdatacollectionprotocolsandanalysisprocedures.Beingthatthis

isacasestudy,thereisnoattempttogeneralizetheresults.However,


72

transferabilitycanbeachievedonacase‐by‐casebasis,ifresearchersfindthe

themesapplicabletoothercontexts.Confirmabilityforthisstudywasderivedfrom

thickdescriptionsandexcerptsofrawdatainsupportofthethematicdiscoveries

andconclusions.

TheresearchercompletedInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)trainingand

certificationbeforetheconceptionofthecasestudy.TheVirginiaTechIRB

approvedthecasestudy(AppendixP),whichgrantedtheresearcheraccessand

permissiontotestandinterviewparticipants.Allparticipantsinthecasestudy

signedaconsentformcondoningtheirparticipationinthestudy(AppendixX).

DataAnalysis

ResearchQuestionOne.Thepre‐testdatawascollectedandanalyzedto

determineparticipants’leveloforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.With

thisdata,participantswererandomlyselectedfortreatmentwhilemaintainingan

equalleveloforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityamonggroups.Post‐

testanddelayedpost‐testdatawerecollectedtodetermineanychangefromthe

pre‐testaftertheinterventions.Descriptivestatisticalanalysiswasconductedusing

JMP,statisticalsoftwarecomparabletoSPSS,toexpressthedatafromthe

organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityinstrument.

ResearchQuestionTwo.ArepeatedmeasuresANOVA,withrandom

subjecteffects,examinedthedifferenceintreatmentsbasedonparticipants’pre‐

test,post‐test,anddelayedpost‐testresults.Theanalysiswasusedtoinvestigate

thevariablesbetweenandwithinsubjectvariables(Ott&Longnecker,2010).The

statisticalanalysisallowsfortwofactorstobeexaminedbetweensubjectsand


73

singlefactorstobeexaminedwithinsubjects,representingthechangein

participant’sorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity(Agresti&Finlay,1997).

Eachfactorwasthenanalyzedforstatisticalsignificance.

ResearchQuestionThree.Researchobservationsweremadeduringboth

AiandSWOTinterventions.Observationprotocolswereusedandcodedusingthe

constantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).Researcherobservationsof

thevisioningprocessandresultingproductswereusedtosupplementthe

participant’sperceptionsoftheinterventions.

ResearchQuestionFour.Analysisofthequalitativedataderivedfromthe

focusgroupinterviewsfollowedtheconstantcomparativemethodsoutlinedin

GlaserandStrauss(2009).Theresearcherreadthroughthefocusgrouptranscripts

multipletimes“togetasenseofthewhole”andtofurtherunderstandthemeaning

behindeachstatementfromwhichcodeswerederived(Patton,2002,p.440).Inthe

firstreadinga“feel”forthedatawasnoted.Thetranscriptwasreadasecondtime

toallowtheresearchertofocusonmaterialthatpertainedtothephenomenon.

Usingaline‐by‐lineapproach,excerptsofrelevantmaterialrelatedtothe

phenomenonweredrawnfromthetranscript.Anexcerptisapassageorunittaken

fromasentencetobeusedforanalysis.

Inductiveanalysiswasusedtointerpretthedata,andcodeswerederived

basedonmeaning.Codeswerewrittenandpresentedinthemarginsofthe

transcript.Thecodingprocessrequirestheresearchertoslowdownandengagein

extendedreflection(Corbin&Strauss,2008).Codesweredevelopedbasedon

“clues”abouttheparticipant’smeaning,ofwhichispertinenttocodingfordeep


74

structuralmeaning.Duringtheprocess,itwasrelevanttocodeeachexcerptprior

tothenextstageofthedataanalysis.

Themesandcategorieswereproducedbasedonpatternsthatemergedfrom

thecodes.Codescouldhavebeeninmorethanonecategory,iftheyhadmultiple

meanings.Thelabelswererevisedandmergedwithotherclusterstoform

categories.Acategoryisagroupofcodeswithsimilarmeaningthatrepresenta

higherlevelofdataabstraction(Corbin&Strauss,2008).Thethemeswerethen

usedtoreducetherawdataandtoorganizethecodesthroughsense‐making

(Corbin&Strauss).Richdescriptionsweredrawnfromthetranscripttosupport

thethemesthatemergedfromthequalitativedata.

ResearchQuestionFive.Codeswerere‐examinedtodetermineifany

similaritiesordifferencesexistedbetweenperceptionsexpressedbyeach

interventiontreatmentgroup.Thecomparisonofcodesbetweenintervention

groupsfollowstheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,1967),in

makingpurposefulcomparisonswithingroupswithlowerlevelsofcomplexityand

thencomparingbetweengroupswithhigherlevelsofcomplexity(Boeije,2002).

Boeije,referstocomparisoncomplexityinreferencetotheamountofinterviews,

diversitybetweenparticipantexperiences,andlevelofanalysis.

ResearchQuestionSix.Thelastquestionisamixingquestionthatrequires

anintegrationofthequantitativeandqualitativedata.Thequestionisaddressedin

thestudyaschangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityareexplained

bythethemesgeneratedfromSWOTandAiparticipantexperiences.Thechange

groupsarerepresentativeofparticipantchangesfrompre‐testtopost‐test,as


75

derivedfromarepeatedmeasuresANOVA.Thequalitativedataarethematically

representedascolumnsinthemixingtable.Withinthisanalysis,thequalitative

findingsfurtherexplainedthequantitativelyderivedconstructsofvisionclarityand

organizationalcommitment.

SummaryoftheMethodology

Thischapterhasexplainedthemethodsusedinthemixed‐methodscase

study.Thestudyevaluateschangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity

asaresultoftwodifferentorganizationalvisioningtechniques:SWOTandAi.An

explanatorysequentialdesignwasusedtoinvestigatethephenomenonwithin

whichqualitativedatafurtherexplainsquantitativedata.Participantsinthestudy

completedapre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpost‐testthatwasexaminedusinga

repeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomsubjecteffects.Selectedparticipantswere

involvedinfocusgroupinterviews,andsemi‐structuredinterviewquestionswere

discussed.Thequalitativedatawasinvestigatedusingsense‐making,inductive

analysis,andcasecomparisons.Chapterfourpresentstheresultsobtainedbythese

methods.


76

CHAPTERFOUR

RESULTS

Asstatedinchaptersoneandthree,thecasestudyreportedhereexamined

twomethodologiesusedinorganizationalvisioning.Morespecifically,SWOTandAi

techniqueswereimplemented,measured,andcomparedtoanalyzechangesin

organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.Thischapterisorganizedintermsof

thesixresearchquestionsposedinchapteronewhicharerestatedhere:









6. Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre/posttestresultsbetweenintervention

groupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?

Accompanyingeachresearchquestionisadescriptionoftheassociatedresults.

ResearchQuestionOne

Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybefore

andaftertheinterventions?Bothtreatmentgroupsweretestedwiththesame

questionnairebeforeandaftertheintervention.AsseeninFigure4‐1,the


77

participantsintheAitreatmentshowed,onaverage,aslightincreasein

organizationalcommitmentscoresatthepost‐test.TheparticipantsintheSWOT

treatmentshowedaslightdecreaseinscoresfrompre‐testtopost‐test.Onaverage,

bothtreatmentgroupsshowedadecreaseinorganizationalcommitmentscores

fromtheinitialpre‐testtothedelayedpost‐test.Further,bothtreatmentgroups

exhibitedaverysimilarorganizationalcommitmentscoreforthedelayedpost‐test.

Themean/standarddeviationoforganizationalcommitmentfortheAitreatment

wascalculatedtobe6.016/0.94(pre‐test),6.156/0.84(post‐test),and5.859/0.81

(delayedpost‐test)andthemean/standarddeviationfortheSWOTtreatmentwas

foundtobe6.100/0.81,5.978/0.86,and5.807/0.90,respectively.

Figure4‐1.Meanscoreoftheorganizationalcommitmentconstructforbothinterventiontreatments.ScoresfromAiparticipantsaredisplayedwithadiamondshapeandSWOTscoresaredisplayedwithasquareshape.NotethattheLikertscalewasfromonetosevenwhilethefigureonlydisplaysfivethroughsevenforreportingpurposes.

Asforvisionclarity,Figure4‐2depictsverysimilarscoresthroughoutthe

testingperiodforbothtreatmentgroups.Itcanbeobservedthatthegroupof

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

PreTest PostTest DelayedPostTest

LikertScale1‐7

Ai

SWOT


78

participantsinAistartedwithandmaintainedahigheraveragevisionclarityscore

thantheSWOTtreatment.Therearefewdifferencesbetweentestscoreswith

relationtointerventiontreatment.Themean/standarddeviationofvisionclarity

fortheAitreatmentwascalculatedtobe4.28/0.23(pre‐test),4.16/0.16(post‐test),

and4.06/0.25(delayedpost‐test)andthemean/standarddeviationfortheSWOT

treatmentwasfoundtobe3.66/0.45,3.63/0.38,and3.73/0.47,respectively.

Figure4‐2.Meanscoreofthevisionclarityconstructforbothinterventiontreatments.ScoresfromAiparticipantsaredisplayedwithadiamondshapeandSWOTscoresaredisplayedwithasquareshape.NotethattheLikertscalewasfromonetofivewhilethefigureonlydisplaysthreethroughfiveforreportingpurposes.

ResearchQuestionTwo

Atwo‐wayanalysisofvariance(AONVA),withrandomsubjecteffects,was

conductedtoevaluatechangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity

withinandbetweentreatmentgroups.Themaineffecttermsaretime(pre‐test,

post‐test,delayed‐posttest)andinterventiontreatmentgroup(SWOTvs.Ai).

Specifically,themainquantityofinterestistheinteraction,whichdetermines

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

PreTest PostTest DelayedPostTest

LikertScale1‐5

Ai

SWOT


79

whetherthereisasignificantdifferenceinthetreatmentsgroupsbetweenthetests.

Subjectsaretreatedasnestedrandomeffectsbecausetheyrepresentarandom

sampleofindividualsandnosubjectisinbothtreatmentsgroups.

Theanalysisfororganizationalcommitmentacrossalltestsreportsa0.515

valueforrandomeffects(Table4‐1),whilevisionclarityreports0.086(Table4‐2).

Therandomeffectofsubjectswasconsideredtoaccountfornaturalorinherent

variabilitybetweensubjects.Thiseffectaccountsforsomecharacteristicsthatwe

cannotmeasureforeachindividual.Subjecteffectisremovedbecausethe

differencesintestsareusedforanalysis,asopposedtoafixedeffectwithsubjects.

Table4‐1.

VariancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrossalltestsComponent VarCompEst PercentofTotal

subject[Treatment]&Random 0.515 82.54Residual 0.109 17.46Total 0.624 100.00

Table4‐2.

VariancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrossalltestsComponent VarCompEst PercentofTotalsubject[Treatment]&Random 0.086 53.86Residual 0.074 46.15Total 0.160 100.00

TherepeatedmeasuresANOVAfororganizationalcommitmentacrossall

threetestsreportsthat82%oftheexperimentalerrorisbeingaccountedforas

differencesbetweensubjectsareaccountedforintheanalysis(Table4‐1),

additionallythevisionclarityreports53%(Table4‐2).Thisvalueexplainsthe


80

differencesfromonepersontothenext.Thedifferencesbetweensubjectsaretobe

expectedandthisisreasonforinclusionofthiseffectintheanalysis.Withoutthe

considerationofdifferencesbetweensubjectstheeffectwouldhavebeenassociated

withoverallexperimentalerror.

ArepeatedmeasuresANOVAfororganizationalcommitmentacrosspre‐test

andpost‐testreportsmuchmoreofthevariationthantheprevioustestwithallthe

data.Thevariabilitybetweensubjectsincreasesandtheresidualvariance

decreaseswhicheliminatednoisefromthedata.Variationacrossthepre‐testand

post‐testdataisbeingexplainedby93%ofthedifferencesbetweensubjectsfor

organizationalcommitment(Table4‐3),additionally,thevisionclarityreports86%

(Table4‐4).

Table4‐3.

Variancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrosspre‐testandpost‐testComponent VarCompEst Percentof

Totalsubject[Treatment]&Random 0.494 93.30Residual 0.036 6.70Total 0.529 100.00

Table4‐4.

Variancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrosspre‐testandpost‐test

Component VarCompEst PercentofTotalsubject[Treatment]&Random 0.127 86.282Residual 0.020 13.718Total 0.147 100.000


81

Pre‐testandPost‐testAnalysis

TherepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomsubjecteffectsconsideredthe

pre‐testandpost‐testresultsfromtheorganizationalcommitmentconstruct,which

showedaninteractionbetweentimeandtreatment.TherepeatedmeasuresANOVA

reportsap‐valueof0.048.Whiletheinteractionbetweentimeandtreatmentis

statisticallysignificant,itisnotsignificantlydifferentthanzero.Thereforedespite

thesignificance,thepossibilityofobservingtheinteractionisstillquitesmall.

Throughfurtheranalysisofthedataandtheconstruct,itwasobservedthat

twoquestionswithintheorganizationalcommitmentconstructaveraged6.5or

higherinthepre‐testscores.Asaresultofthehighaveragesfromquestionsixand

sevenwithintheconstruct,bothquestionswereexcludedfromtheanalysisandthe

repeatedmeasuresANOVAfororganizationalcommitmentbetweenthepre‐test

andpost‐testwasrerun.Theexclusionofthesequestionsfromtheanalysisisa

resultoftheceilingeffectthatcanbeseenwhenusingaLikertscale.Aceilingeffect

existswhenthevarianceaboveanindependentvariablecannolongerbemeasured.

Becauseaceilingeffectexistswithinthedata,theanalysisshouldbeconsidered

cautiously.AsseeninTable4‐5,theanalysisyieldedap‐valueof0.028meaning

thattherewasastatisticallysignificantinteractionbetweentreatmentgroupsand

tests.Withinthisanalysis,aninteractionsignifiesthedifferenceinthelevelsofone

effectchangeoverthelevelsoftheother,rememberingthatmaineffecttermsare

time(prevs.post)andtreatmentgroup(SWOTvs.Ai).TheeffectsizeforAipre‐test

topost‐testwasreportedtobe.208withap‐valueof.065.TheeffectsizeforSWOT

pre‐testtopost‐testwasreportedtobe‐0.133withap‐valueof.176.


82

Table4‐5.RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitmentconstructconsideringpre/posttestsSource Sumsof

SquaresMeanSquare

DF FRatio Significance

Test 0.013 0.013 1 0.282 0.603Treatment 0.002 0.002 1 0.002 0.964Treatment*Test 0.259 0.259 1 5.848 0.028*subject[Treatment]&Random20.217 1.189 17 26.810 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.

Inconsideringthepre‐testandpost‐testresultsfromthevisionclarityconstruct,

arepeatedmeasuresANOVA,withrandomsubjecteffects,reportedaninsignificant

interactionbetweentreatmentgroupandtest.TheseresultsarereportedinTable

4‐6.Becausethereisnointeractionbetweentreatmentandtest,theinfluenceof

treatmentgroupandtestcanbeconsideredindependentlyofeachother.The

analysisshowsastatisticalsignificanceinthetreatmentasseeninthetablebelow.

Thisisaresultoftheunequalvisionclarityscoresbetweentreatmentgroupsatthe

pre‐test.Further,thevisionclarityscoresindicatedlittlevariationbetweenallthree

testsdespitethedifferencesbetweentreatmentgroups.TheeffectsizeforAipre‐

testtopost‐testwasreportedtobe‐0.125withap‐valueof.096.Theeffectsizefor

SWOTpre‐testtopost‐testwasreportedtobe‐0.03withap‐valueof.623.


83

Table4‐6.RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstructconsideringpre/posttestsSource Sumsof

SquaresMean

SquareDF FRatio Significance

Test 0.056 0.056 1 2.775 0.114Treatment 3.061 3.061 1 11.198 0.004*Treatment*Test 0.021 0.021 1 1.032 0.324Subject[Treatment]&Random 4.647 0.273 17 13.580 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.

Pre‐test,Post‐testandDelayedPost‐testAnalysis

Afteraddingthedelayedpost‐testdata,arepeatedmeasuresANOVA,with

randomsubjecteffects,wasrerun.Withintheorganizationalcommitmentconstruct

itcanbeobservedthattheinteractionbetweentreatmentandtestisnotsignificant

(Table4‐7).Lookingindependentlyatthetestandtreatmentgroup,theanalysis

doesnotyieldsignificantvaluesforeithervariable.Theanalysisforvisionclarity

testedsimilarly,withaninsignificantinteractionbetweentreatmentgroupandtest

(Table4‐8).Asseeninthepreviousanalysis,thetreatmentisagainconsideredto

beasignificantfactorinthedifferencesinvisionclarityscoreswithap‐valueof

0.005.Thestatisticalsignificanceisaresultoftheinitialvariationinscoresatthe

pre‐test.


84

Table4‐7

RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitmentconstructconsideringallthreetestsSource Sumsof

SquaresMeanSquare


Test 0.504 0.252 2 2.088 0.140Treatment 0.015 0.015 1 0.008 0.930Treatment*Test 0.237 0.118 2 0.981 0.386Subject[Treatment]&Random 31.518 1.854 17 15.352 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.Table4‐8RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstructconsideringallthreetestsSource Sumsof

SquaresMeanSquare


Test 0.061 0.031 2 0.414 0.664Treatment 3.549 3.549 1 10.67 0.0045*Treatment*Test 0.155 0.077 2 1.048 0.362Subject[Treatment]&Random 5.652 0.332 17 4.501 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.

ResearchQuestionThree

Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?Thisdatawas

collectedandreportedfromresearcherobservationstakenduringtheinterventions

(AppendixH&I).Dataanalysisoftheseobservationsfollowedtheconstant

comparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).Theinformationandthemesshared

herearederivedfromtheresearcherprotocols.Theorganizationaldevelopment

practitionerstrategicallycreatedsimilaragendaswhilehonoringthetechnique

assignedtoeachtreatmentgroup.Inbothsessionsthepractitionerwascarefulto

explainthepurposeandexpectedoutcomesofthevisioningprocess.The


85

practitionerexplainedthataplanforvisionexecutionwouldnotbeaproductofthe

sessionbutinsteadgroundworkwouldbelaidforfuturedevelopmentofvision

execution.Bothinterventiontreatmentgroupshadthesamegoal:tocreate

groundworkforachievingtheCareersServicesvision.Thevisionstatementwas

postedinbothroomsforparticipantstoviewthroughouttheinterventions.Both

groupsalsodiscussedthevisionstatementandwereaskedthesamequestionabout

thevision:howdowemakeourvisionareality?Thepractitionerusedthesame

check‐inactivitytoopenandclosebothgroupsbysimplyaskingeachparticipantto

shareastatementabouthowtheyfeel/feltabouttheprocess.

SWOTintervention.TheagendafortheSWOTtreatmentincluded:goals

andagenda,check‐inactivityandintroductions,visionandquestion,theproblemto

solve,generategoals,generatesolutions,SWOTanalysis,andclosewithcheckin

activity.Inthevisionandquestionphaseofthesessionaparticipantwasaskedto

readthevisionstatementandallparticipantswereaskedtosharetheir

interpretationofthevision.Someparticipantswereunsureoftheunderlying

purposeofavisionstatementandsomehadahardtimeunderstandingthe

statement.Theparticipantsfocusedprimarilyonthefirsthalfofthevision

statementthatrelatedtobeingapremierresource.

Inthenextactivity,“theproblemtosolve”,thepractitionerasked,“whatis

theproblemwearetryingtosolve?What’sholdingusbackfromachievingthis

vision?”Withthisprompt,theparticipantsdiscussedvarioushurdlesinhavingthe

departmentrecognizedasthepremierresourcefortheirservices.Thepractitioner

consolidatedthesestatementsintoone,“theydon’tgetit,”whichbecamethefocus


86

ofthenextbrainstormingactivity.Theframeworkforthebrainstormingactivity

canbefoundinAppendixQ,andSWOTparticipantsbrainstormedwaysinwhich

theycouldaddressthisproblem.Duringthe15minutesthatwereallocatedtothis

exercise,theygeneratedmanyideasthataredetailedin(AppendixR).The

participantsweregivendotstoplacebytheideastheyliked.Theideawiththe

mostdotswasdeterminedtobe:“one‐on‐oneswithfaculty.”Thisactivityprovedto

beenjoyableandenergizingforthestaff.

Thepractitionerthenused“havingone‐on‐oneswithfaculty”astheprompt

togenerateaSWOT.Theparticipantsdiscussedthestrengthstheybringasa

departmenttothisidea.Oneexample,amongmanyothers,wasthatthedepartment

couldserveasexpertstothefacultyincareerdecisionsandservices.Weaknesses,

somethingthatthedepartmentmighthavetoovercome,werealsodiscussed.An

exampleofthiswasthatthedepartmentwasnotregardedasanacademicpeerto

faculty.ThelistofstrengthsandweaknessesgeneratedcanbefoundinAppendixS.

Opportunitiestoleveragewerediscussedamongparticipants,suchascollaborating

withotherdepartmentsinstudentaffairs.Lastly,threatswereinterpretedas

somethingthatmightunderminethedepartment’sefforts.Theparticipantslisted

thelackoftimeandinterestoffacultyassomethingthatcouldunderminetheiridea.

ThelistofopportunitiesandthreatscanbefoundinAppendixS.

Throughouttheclosingcheck‐inactivity,manyparticipantssharedthatthe

brainstormingactivitywasvaluable.Oneparticipantsharedthatshewasunsureif

shewouldcontinuewiththeideanowthattheanalysishadbeencompleted.The

participantsviewedthisasabenefittotheprocess,whichaddedvaluetothe


87

analysis.OneparticipantnotedthattheirSWOThadmorestrengthsand

opportunitiesthanweaknessesandthreats.Anotherparticipantspokespecifically

tothe“negative”languagethatwasusedduringtheintervention.Theresearcher

alsoobservedadifferenceinthetoneandmoodofthegroupwhentheywere

discussingthestrengthsandopportunitiesversustheweaknessesandthreats.

Participantsweremuchmorehesitanttoshareweaknessesandthreats,andthey

weremuchmorequiet.Fewerparticipantscontributedtothediscussionof

weaknessesandthreatscomparedtothediscussionaboutstrengthsand

opportunities.Manyparticipantswereexcitedaboutdiscussingstrengthsand

opportunitiesandtheoverallmoodofthegroupwasmorepositive.

AiIntervention.TheagendafortheAitreatmentincluded:goalsand

agenda,check‐inactivityandintroductions,visionandquestion,discoveryphase,

dreamphase,andclosewithcheck‐inactivity.Manymembersoftheleadership

teamwhocomposedthevisionstatementwerepresentintheAiintervention.Asa

resultofthis,manyparticipantshadaclearunderstandingofthevisionandengaged

inadeepdialogueaboutthemeaningofthevision.Thegroupcloselyevaluatedthe

detailsandthewordingofthevisionstatement.Muchofthediscussionfocusedon

thefirsthalfofthestatementstatingthatthedepartmentwillbe“thepremier

resource.”Aparticipantsharedthatitwasveryhelpfultodiscussthebigpicture

becausemuchofherworkisoftenveryfocusedontheday‐to‐daydetails.

TohighlighttheuniquephasesofAi,thediscoveryphaseconsistedofpaired

interviewsthatwerestructuredaccordingtoTheAppreciativeInquiryHandbookby

Cooperrideretal.(2003).Theparticipantswereaskedtofollowtheinterviewguide


88

(AppendixT)andtospendapproximately20minutesoneachinterview.The

interviewquestionsaskedtheparticipantstotellastoryaboutatimetheyfeltmost

aliveatwork.Theparticipantswereaskedtopartnerwithacolleaguethattheydid

notworkwithclosely.Duringthistimestaffmemberswereconnectingwithone

anotherabouttheirexperiencesinthedepartment.Oncetheinterviewswere

completed,theparticipantsdiscussedtheirinterviewexperienceandshared

informationtheylearnedaboutthecolleaguetheyinterviewed.Allparticipants

expressedthattheylearnedsomethingnewabouttheirinterviewee.Duringthese

conversationsmanysharedvaluesamongemployeeswererealizedanddiscussed.

Commonthemesfromtheseexperienceswerewrittendownonalargepaperforall

ofthestafftosee.Suchthemesincludedteamwork,willingnessandopennessofthe

staff,collaboration,caringandtrustingcolleagues,andgoodcommunication.

Inthedreamphase,participantswereaskedtodrawanimageofwhatthe

departmentmightbewithmarkersandaposterboard.Inaccordancewitha

promptpublishedbyDavidCooperrider,thepractitionerexplainedthedrawing

assignmentwiththepromptthattheentirestaffhasfallenasleepformanyyears

andwhentheywakeupthedepartmenthasachievedthevision.Thepractitioner

askedeachparticipanttodrawanimageofwhatthedepartment,theuniversity,the

staff,and/orthestudentslooklikenowthatthedepartmenthasachieveditsvision.

Allbutoneparticipantdrewanimageontheposter(AppendixU).

Oncetheimageswerecompleted,theywerepostedaroundtheroomasa

galleryfortheparticipantstoview.Duringthegallerywalkactivity,participants

couldaskquestionsaboutthepictures.Eachparticipantreceivedtwodotsandthey


89

wereaskedtoplaceadotnexttoanyimageofthefuturetheyidentifiedwith.The

threeimageswiththemostdotswerethenexplainedandusedforasecondactivity.

Participantswerebrokenupintogroupsofthreeandaskedtocreateanarrativeor

storyaboutwhatthedrawingmeantandhowthedepartmentgotthere,(Appendix

V).Thiswasobservedtobeanenjoyableactivitythatbroughttolightmany

underlyingstrengthsthedepartment.

Towardsthelatterhalfoftheintervention,thepractitionerdiscussedhow

theorganization’sstrengths,detailedonthedisplaypaper,canbedevelopedto

fulfillthedepartment’svision.Thepractitionerused“relationshipswithfaculty,”

chosenfromalistdevelopedbytheparticipants,asanexampletocorrelate

strengthsoftheorganizationwithsuccessfulactionstakentodeveloprelationships

withfaculty.Theparticipantssharedexperiencesinwhichtheyhavesuccessfully

engagedwithfaculty.Thepractitionerhelpedtheparticipantstoseehowthe

departmentcanusetheseexperiencesandstrengthstobuildononeanotherto

developaplanforvisionexecution.

Attheendoftheintervention,participantswereaskedtoshareastatement

abouttheprocessina“safespace”thatwasfreefromdiscussion.Thecheck‐in

activitywasareflectivetimeforparticipants.Manyparticipantsfeltfulfilledafter

identifyingthedepartment’sstrengths;however,someparticipantsvoicedthelack

tangibleoutcomesasaresultoftheAiintervention.Oneparticipantnotedthatthe

interviewexperiencewasvaluableandrewarding,whileanothernotedthatthis

experiencehelpedthemtoseethatthedepartmentisactivelyworkingtowards

theirvision.Theseresponseshelptoshowcasetheoutcomesoftheintervention.


90

InterventionComparisons.Basedonthevaryingdescriptionsofthe

interventiontreatmentsabove,itcanbedeterminedthatthevisioningprocesses

hadmanydifferencesdespitetheirsharedgoal.Thetwotreatmentsuseddifferent

perspectivesinwhichthevisioningprocesswasframedandexecuted.TheAi

treatmentaskedparticipantstoenvisionthefutureofthedepartmentfroma

strengths‐basedfoundation.Ontheotherhand,theSWOTtreatmentrequired

participantstoidentifyhurdlesfacingthedepartment’sexecutionofthevision.

Withtheproblemidentified,SWOTparticipantsanalyticallyinvestigatedand

analyzedapossiblesolution.Bothinterventiongroupsdiscussedthedepartment’s

strengths;however,theSWOTparticipantsdiscussedthestrengthsofthe

departmentthatwouldcontributetoimplementingtheirvisioningstrategy:one‐on‐

oneswithfaculty.ThediscussionofstrengthsintheSWOTinterventionwaslimited

bythenarrowfocusofthetopic.Additionally,theaccomplishmentsandsuccesses

ofthedepartmentwerenotdiscussed.Alternatively,theAiinterventionfostereda

comprehensivediscussionofthedepartment’sstrengthsandrecent

accomplishments.Aiparticipantswereaskedtothinkholisticallyaboutthe

departmentasopposedtorespondingtoaspecificstrategy.Bothtreatmentgroups

focusedonthedepartment’srelationshipwithfacultyasastrategytohelpthe

departmentexecuteitsvision.

ResearchQuestionFour

Howdidparticipantsperceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?A

qualitativeanalysiswasperformedonfocusgroupinterviewsrelatedtostrategic


91

planninginterventionsusingtheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,

2009).Staffexperiencesrelatedtotheinterventionsgeneratedfourcategoriesthat

arediscussedinseventhemes(Figure4‐3).Thethemesareusedasaframeworkto

guidethediscussionofstaffexperiencesrelatedtothephenomenon;moreover,it

shouldbeunderstoodthatthesecategoriesdonotexistindependentlyorin

isolationofoneanother,butinsteadthecategoriesareinterrelated.Please

referenceAppendixWforalistofcodes,themes,andcategories.


92

Figure4‐3.Emergingthemesfortheorganizationalvisioningcasestudy.Interventionsgeneratedfourcategoriesthatarediscussedineightthemes.


93

Category:EmotionalReactionstotheInterventions

Thevisioningprocessledtopositivereactions.Many ofthestaff

membershadpositivereactionstotheinterventionsfromwhichtheyfoundthe

visioningprocesstobeenjoyable,beneficial,andenergizing.ABenjoyedthe

brainstormingactivityandlikedthe,“ideaofgettingalloftheideasdown,Ithought

thatwasactuallygreat,Ifeltthatoncewegotonarolewiththat,therewasalotof

energyaroundtheideas”(C146).IntheSWOTintervention,HJnotedthatthestaff

generatedoverthreepagesofideasinthebrainstormingactivity.Manyenjoyed

thisactivityandCFfoundittobebeneficialforfurtherdevelopmentofideasinthe

future.Additionally,theSWOTinterventionwasvaluableinbuildingconsensusas

explainedbyST:

Thegroupofpeoplethatwewerewithdidareallygoodjobinidentifyingour

strengths,weaknesses,opportunitiesandthreats.ThethingIlikethemost

aboutitwastheideagenerationofthethingsthatwecouldorcouldn’tdo,and

itwasreallygoodtoseewhattheconsensuswasofourgroup.(ST,A8)

FPandmanyothersfeltthattheAiinterventionwasapositiveprocessand

experience.Theopportunitytointerviewfellowcolleagueswasrewardingand

affirmingforthestaffasstorieswereshared.Thevisioningprocesswasfacilitated

withadrawingactivitythatrequiredthestafftoenvisionthefutureofthe

department.Asreflectedinthefollowingdescription,thisexperienceenergizedKL:

Ithinkitdidkindaofre‐energizeme,itwasjustareal,itwasaverypositive

dayanditwas,yaknow,backtothatpicturething,Imeanthinkingaboutwhat


94

couldbe,thatwasjustagreatexperiencethinkingaboutwhatcouldbesoI.

(KL,C203)

Throughthisexcerpt,KLalsodiscussesapositivevisioningexperienceinAi.

Insomewaystheinterventionwasafrustratingandnegative

experience.Ontheotherhand,amajorityofSWOTparticipantshadfrustrating

experiencesandnegativereactionstothevisioningprocess.ABandGWexpressed

adesiretohavemoretimetobecreativeduringtheSWOTinterventionandwere

frustratedbythebriefbrainstormingactivity.

Thereweresomefrustratingtimes:Ifeltlikewedidn’tspendasmuchtimeof

thepartsthatIwantedtospendtimeon.…Andoutoffourhours,wehad10

minutestobesupercreativeandthen,uhIwouldhavelikedmoreofthat.(GW,

B38)

GWalsothoughtthattherewasagreatdealoftimethatwasdedicatedtoexplaining

theprocessanddifferentiatingterminology.Thisresultedinafeelingofexhaustion

forQUwhofeltdrainedaftercertainpartsoftheintervention.SWOTparticipants

expressedfrustrationbythelackoftangibleoutcomesandactionsteps.Even

further,RSexplained:

Ifeltfrustratedbecausewedidn’tactuallygetthere,yaknow,andpartofit’s

mypersonality:okayactionstepsnowletsdoit,yaknow;wejustdidn’tgetto

thatandsothatwasalittlefrustrating.(RS,B75)

StaffmembersfromtheSWOTinterventionmentionedthenegativetonethat

wasunderlyingthevisioningprocess.Asreflectedinthefollowingdescription,HJ

feltfrustratedbythefocusonthe“negative”aspectsofthedepartment:


95

UhmIthinktheonefrustrationwasthatwekindofhadthisnaturalinclination

tofocusontheweaknessesorthethreatssoIthinkoursessionwasalittlebit

morenegativethantheappreciativeinquiry,afterhearingfromtheir

experiences.(HJ,C120)

TheframingoftheSWOTinterventionalsofrustratedQUbecausethevisioning

processdidnotbuildoffofthestrengthsorsuccessesofthedepartment.This

processforcedthestafftothinkofnewideasinordertoachievethevisioninstead

offocusingonwhatthedepartmentiscurrentlydoing:

ButIthinkitsdifficultbecauseitsalmostasif,there’safeelingthatwerejust

notdoinganythingwhereas,WEAREdoingthings,andsothere’sjustthis

feeling,atleastinthatparticulargroup,Imeanyouwouldthinkthatwewere

lazy(QU,B298).

ThisperspectiveusedintheSWOTvisioningprocessmadeQUfeelasifthevision

statementandfuturegoalswereinsurmountable.Despitethisfeeling,shebelieves

thatthedepartmentisactivelypursuingthevision.

Category:ImpactofInterventionsonVisionClarity

Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff.Whilestaffmembers,fromboth

interventions,discussedthevisionstatementexplicitlyandimplicitlyduringthe

visioningprocess.Manyexpressedthattheyhadaclearunderstandingofthe

statementpriortotheintervention.Specifically,staffmemberswhowereonthe

leadershipteamandtookpartincreatingthevisionstatementwereclearonthe

meaningandcontentofthestatement:


96

Ithinkthereweresomeareaswhere,likeIsaid,wecouldprobablytweekit;I

knowthatyourvisionisnotsomethingthatyourplanningonmeeting;its

somethingthatyouworkon,andit’sagoalthat’ssetoutandyoustrivetoget

that.(VO,C319)

Throughdiscussion,mostofthestaffacknowledgedthatsomeofthewordsinthe

visionstatementcouldbereconsideredorrevised.However,thegeneralconsensus

wasthatthestaffwashappywiththestatementandtherewasnoneedtoexhaust

furtherdiscussionsrelatedtowording.Thisdiscussiondidnotmakethevision

statementunclear.

Inadditiontotheleadershipteam,thestaffmemberswhowerenotinvolved

intheoriginationofthestatementalsofeltthatthevisionwasclear.AsRSsaid,“I

thinkit’saveryclearvisionstatement…thisisunderstandable;Iunderstandthis”

(RS,B235).AndABsaid,“well,Imean,Ialreadyknewwhatthevisionwas,soI

don’tknowthatthevisionwasanyclearertomewhenwefinishedthatdiscussion”

(AB,C370).

Positiveimpactonvisionclarity.Staffmemberscommentedongaininga

deeperandbroaderunderstandingofthevisionstatementasaresultofthe

interventions.ABsaid,“Ithinkforme,yaknow,I’vebeenhere[number]years,and

it’sthefirsttimewehaveeverhadadiscussion[aboutthevisionstatement]with

thewholestaff”(C335).Theinterventionprovidedanopportunityforallstaff

memberstoengageinadiscussionaboutthevisionthatwasespeciallybeneficialto

FPwhodoesnotnormallyparticipateinsuchdialoguebecauseofhis/hercurrent


97

role.Asaresultofthediscussionandactivitiesthattookplaceduringthe

interventionsFPfeltthat:

Theideasthatweregenerated,thefunandinterestingwaysthatthingswere

done,justhelpedbroadenthesenseof‘okaythisiswhatweredoing,thisisthe

directionwe’regoing.’(FP,A40).

Anotherstaffmembercommentedthatthevisioningprocesshelpedtoprovide

clarityinvisionexecutionanddeeplyrootedbarriersinmovingforwardwithvision

fulfillment.Newemployeesremarkedthatthediscussionsthattookplaceduring

theinterventionswereespeciallyhelpfulindevelopingaricheducationand

understandingofthevision.HJgainedvaluableinsightandperspectivethrough

discussionswithcolleagues:

IthoughtthatitwasREALLYgoodformeasaknewstaffmemberjusttokind

ofgoalittlebitmoreindepthaboutwhatthevisionmeantfromsomeofmy

colleaguesandwhattheythoughtitmeant,indepth(HJ,C113).

Themeaningbehindthestatementwasmadeclearforrecentandtenured

staffasdifferentperspectiveswereshared.CFsaid,“Wecanevengetsiloedin

[department],soitwasinterestingtoheareachperson’stake…ofwhat’sgoingon–

intermsofthevision”(B58).Thediscussionsleadtoanunderstandingthatadded

meaningtothewords,asdescribedbyXD:

Ithinkwehavehadsomeconversationsaboutreally,ifwesaythatourvisionis

tobethebest[department],whatdoesthatREALLYmean.Whenyoupinpoint

it,andifyourtryingtoputitdownonpaper,whatdoesthatreallymean.(XD,

A153)


98

Thepersonalinterpretationsandvariedperspectivesfromthestaffoffereda

deeperfocusonmeaningandvalueofthedepartment.MRdescribedanalignment

ofdailytaskstothevisionstatementthroughthevisioningprocess,furtheradding

clarityandmeaning.

Throughoutbothinterventions,therewereopportunitiesforcritical

reflectionbythestaffofthevisionstatement.Discussionofthevisionsparked

questionsthathadnotbeenpreviouslyposedorconsideredbysomeofthestaff.KL

said,“soIwasinthegroupthatcameupwiththeinitialvision,andI–it[theAi

intervention]mademekindofquestionit[thevisionstatement]”(KL,C360).The

visioningprocessalsoclarifiedquestionssurroundingvisionfulfillmentand

executionasdetailedinthefollowingdescription:

Doyouthinkthatitkindahelpedusclarify…whyarewenotthereyet,whoare

wenotreachingorwhyarewenotreachingthatrecognitionasbeingthe

premierresources,soIthinkthatwasgood.(RS,B266)

Category:ImpactofInterventionsonOrganizationalCommitment

Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance.Both

interventiongroupscommentedonthehighlycommittedstaffandthehighlevelof

departmentperformance.Moreover,theinterventionhadlittletonoaffectonthe

staff’scommitmenttothedepartment,becausecommitmentlevelsarealreadyvery

high.AsexpoundedbyCF,“Idon’tthinkitreallyimpactedmycommitmentto

[department],uhm.Obviously,Iamcommittedto[department]already,Ihave

workedherefor[number]yearsandIdon’tgetpaidenough”(CF,B357).“Ifeellike

Iamalreadyataprettyhighlevelofcommitment”(CF,B367).Testamenttohigh


99

levelsofcommitmentwerereiteratedbyFP:“Formyself…Ijustlovemyjob,doing

whatIdo...soIdon’treallyseemoreofanimpactof,yaknow;Ireallywannagoout

anddobetterandstuff,butIamalwayslikethatanyways”(FP,A66).Manywithin

thedepartmentexhibitasustainedlevelofcommitmenttotheirjobsandtothe

department.

Thedepartment’shighlevelofperformancetranspiredfromgroup

discussionaboutvisionexecutionandfulfillment.QUsaid,“Andwedoitwell,andI

thinkthat’sthetheme…wellweactuallydoaprettygoodjob”(B448).Thispointis

echoedbyXD:“AndIdon’tknowthatitaffectedmyperformance,becauseIthink

thisdepartmentalreadyhasalotofgroundworklaidforoursuccess…It’san

overallgoalofsuccessforus,already”(XD,A76).Thedepartmentandthestaff

instinctivelygoaboveandbeyondwhenworkingwithothers.ABsaid,“Ithinkwhat

ittakesto,uhm,tosatisfypeople,herebothinthisenvironment,specificallyour

department,butatTech,isit’salreadyin‐grainedinustodothisextrastufffor

people”(AB,C570).

Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment.A

majorityofstaffmembersfromtheAiinterventiongroupexplainedthatthe

visioningprocessconfirmedmanyoftheirpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesabout

thedepartment.KLexplainedthatthevisioningprocesshelpedreinforceher

previouslyestablishedcommitmenttothedepartment.MRnotedthat:

ItconfirmedthingsaboutwhatIalreadybelievedaboutthisoffice…Ithinkif

anythingthisactivitygotmeevenmoreexcitedabout[department]andthe


100

groupofindividuals,thewonderfulgroupofindividualsthatworkwithinside

thewalls.(MR,C59)

Feelingsofre‐affirmationandconfirmationwereathemeforparticipantsoftheAi

intervention.RHfeltthattheAiinterventionwasanaffirmativeprocess.

Additionally,VOmentionedthatsomeoftheAiactivitieswereusedinastaffretreat

aftertheintervention.

StaffmemberswhoparticipatedinAialsomentionedthattheyfeltconnected

toothersthroughtheinterviewingprocess.Activitiesduringthevisioningprocess

allowedstaffmemberstodiscussvaluesthatweresharedamongthedepartment.

KLnotedthatthevisioningprocesswas,“justconfirmingthingsthatIalreadyfelt

aboutouroffice,butitwasfuntoseeotherpeoplefeelthatway”(C84).Inresponse

totheinterviewsthattookplace,KLfelt,“thatwasjustareallyniceexercise,tofind

outthatwebothfeltthesamewayaboutourjobsandwedoverydifferentthings,

whichwasreallyneat”(C92).Asevidentinthepreviousexcerpt,discussionwith

co‐workersresultedinadiscoveryofmutualfeelings.Andthroughoutthese

discussions,MRnoticedcommonthemesamongthestaff:

Sothatwasmostenjoyableandtohearthecommonthemesaboutwhatfolks

feltaboutworkingintheoffice,andwhatwelearnedabouteachother

individually,butalsohowthattranscendedtothegroupofwhatwethought

aboutworkinginthisparticularoffice.(MR,C55)

Category:DepartmentCulture

Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture.Manymembersofthe

Staffdiscussedthestrongcultureofthedepartment,andthroughthisdiscussion


101

corevaluesemerged.RHdescribedthedepartmentwhilesaying,“It’slikewedon’t

knowhowelsetobe,likethisishowweare,…weallhavethesamecoreinalotof

ways;that’swhywedowhatwedo;wewouldn’tbehereifwedidn’t”(B443).A

largenumberofthestaffhaveworkedinthedepartmentforanextendedamountof

time.Theselastingrelationshipshavefosteredastrongorganizationalcultureas

explainedbyST:

Therearealotofpeoplewhohavebeenherelikelongterm,soyou’vegotthis

longrichhistory,you’vegrowntogether,you’ve‐Imeanyou’vehadsimilarlife

experiencesandstufflikethat;Ithinkallthatjustkindahelpsustobecohesive.

(ST,A458).

Andwhenthedepartmentdoeshaveanopportunitytohirenewemployees,they

arecarefultoselectemployeeswhosevaluesalignthedepartments.Thisisfurther

explainedbyMRinthefollowingdescription:

Andthethingiswiththisoffice,wedon’thaveveryoftentheneedtohirefolks,

becausepeopledon’twanttoleave;wellwhenthetimecomestodothat,thenI

thinkweallknowhowimportantitistotryandfindthesefolksthatwill

continuetofitwellwithinourcultureandbringinnewideasbecausewedon’t

wanttostaystagnantorhaveayesculture,thatwouldbealittlescary.(MR,

C486)

TheStaffdiscussedtheimportanceofnewideasandorganizationallearning

withinthedepartment.Itwasmentionedbymanythattheyvaluedthe

opportunitiestheyhadforprofessionaldevelopment.Thedepartmentalso

encouragesstafftoexpandtheirskillsandknowledge,asdescribedbyAB:“Ithink


102

theotherthingislearningandsupportingthelearninghere….Ilikelearningabout

mycraftofworkingwithstudentsinadvising,andcoaching,andcounseling,that’s

whatIliketodo”(C282).Personaldevelopmentisencouragedbythedepartment

inanefforttobuildself‐awarenessandconnectednesswithoneanother.Thestaff

valuestheopportunitiestheyhavereceivedforpersonalgrowth,asexpressedby

XD:

WellIthinkithasbeenalltheopportunitiesthatwe’vehadtogrowand

developourselves.…Ihavelearnedsomuchaboutmyself;it’shelpedmeto

understandmyselfandhowIcancontributetoateamandmystrengthsand

weaknesses.(XD,A363)

Suchinvestmentsinthestaffandfeelingsofempowermenthaveplayedalargerrole

inbuildingthedepartmentculture.

AstaffmembernotedthattheDirectorplaysaninfluentialrolein

establishingvalues,buildingacommunity,andcommunicatingthevision.ST

exemplifiestheDirector’sroleinthefollowingstatement:

Butitdefinitelyislikeourdirector.It’slikehervision…it’salwaysbeen

instilledinuscustomerserviceisfirst,yaknow:thefamilyandthenstudents

arefirst,yaknowthatkindathing;sowealljustkindahavethatinstilledinus.

(ST,A461)

Staffmembersrepeatedlymentionedthesupporttheyreceivefromfellow

colleaguesinthedepartment:

OnewordthatIthinkofis‘support’:whetheritissupportforprofessional

development,supporttotryoutsomethingnew,uhmjustallkindsofdifferent


103

support.Yougetthathere,wheremaybeotherplacesyoumightnotgetthat.

(KL,C617)

Tobuildontheseremarks,VOexplainedthat“everybody’salwayswillingtosupport

oneanother;evenifit’snotintherearea,they’rewillingtostepupandhelpout

where,yaknow,whereneeded”(C470).Astrongorganizationalculturehasbeen

builtonthestrongsupportofothersinthedepartment.

TheStaff’sdesireforservingstudentshasalsoaddedtothecultureofthe

department.AsdescribedbyMR,“Ithinkagain,ifyouaskanybodyhereinthe

office,theyareherebecausetheyloveworkingwithstudentsandtheyhavethat

passiontodothat”(C497).Staffmembersfrombothinterventionsspoketothe

valuetheyseeineducatinganddevelopingstudents.KLnotedtheservicethatthe

departmentstrivestogivestudents,“that’sjusthowthingsarehere,student

centered,verycustomerservicefocused”(C616).Manyofthestafffeltthatthe

departmenttreatedstudentswithrespect,furtherreiteratingthistheme.ABsaid,

“everyoneiscommittedtotheeducationandservicetoeachandeverystudentwho

walksthroughthosedoorsandthattakesdifferentformsatdifferentpointsintime”

(C506).

ResearchQuestionFive

Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressed

byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup?BothAiandSWOTparticipantsexpress

manyofthethemeslistedabove.AmajorityofSWOTparticipantsspokespecifically

tothevisioningprocessbeingfrustratingandnegative.AmajorityofAiparticipants

expressedthattheinterventionservedtoconfirmmanypreexistingvaluesand


104

beliefs.Staffmemberswereabletoconnectduringtheinterviewstoexposeshared

values.Withthisbeingsaid,fiveoutoftheseventhemesthatemergedwerefound

inbothAiandSWOTinterventions.SWOThadonethemethatwasidentifiedtobe

specifictotheinterventiontreatment.Additionally,Aiparticipantsspokedirectlyto

valuesconfirmationasaresultoftheintervention.

ResearchQuestionSix

Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre‐testandpost‐testresultsbetween

interventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?Qualitativedataabout

participants’interventionexperiencewasusedtoexplainconnectionsand

relationshipsamongthequantitativedata.Inareviewofthequalitativedata,itwas

foundthatthequalitativethemesrelatedmostcloselytotheirvisioningprocessas

opposedtotheirchangescores,whichweredeterminedduringquantitative

analysis.Moreover,thequalitativethemesrelatedtothetreatmentintervention

(Table4‐9).


105

Table4‐9ThemesbyinterventiontreatmentThemes Ai SWOT Enjoyable,beneficial,andenergizingprocess X X

Negativeandfrustratingprocess X Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff X X

Positiveimpactonvisionclarity X X Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance X X

Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment

X

Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture X X

*(X)representsthepresenceofthatthemeintheinterventionThemeswerederivedfromparticipantsintheSWOTandAiintervention.Themeswerediscussedacrossallchangelevels.Differencesinthemesarerelatedtointerventiontreatment.Interestingly,theparticipantsdidnotexplicitlyacknowledgeachangeintheir

organizationalcommitmentorvisionclarityscores.Thatbeingsaid,the

quantitativeanalysisandqualitativeanalysisarenotconvergent.However,the

significanceassociatedwithAiisexplainedbythequalitativethemes,specifically

thethemeexclusivelyrelatedtoAi.Theslightdeclineinorganizationalcommitment

scorescanbeexplainedbythequalitativethemesrelatedtotheSWOTintervention.

TashakkoriandTeddlie(2008)suggestmeta‐inferenceswhenthequantitativeand

qualitativedataareanalyzedseparatelytocreateinferencesandthenthese

inferencesarecombinedtocreatemeta‐inferences.Quantitativeinferencesare


106

combinedwithqualitativeinferencestoproducemeta‐inferencesasdiscussedin

chapterfive.

Summary

Thefindingsofthisstudy,organizedbyresearchquestion,arepresentedin

thischapter.Resultsofthedataanalysisfromthestudywerereportednext.

QuantitativedataanalysisincludedarepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandom

subjecteffects.Adescriptionofthevisioningprocessandrelatedoutcomeswere

discussed.Findingsfromtheanalysisofthequalitativedatawerethenreported.In

keepingwiththemixedmethodsstudy,thequantitativeandqualitativedatawere

analyzedtoattempttofurtherexplaintheresultsandthephenomenon.Further,

chapterfivewillprovidescholarlyreflectionsonthefindingspresentedinthis

chapter.Conclusions,recommendationsforpractices,andimplicationsforfuture

researchwillalsobepresentedinthefollowingchapter.


107

CHAPTERFIVE

DISCUSSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Inanefforttoprovideabriefoverviewofthestudy,thischapterrestatesthe

problemstatement,researchquestions,andmethodsusedinthestudy.Themajorsections

ofthechaptersummarizetheresults,relatefindingstothetheoreticalbasisofthestudy,

anddiscussimplicationsforfuturepracticeandresearch.

StatementoftheProblem

Scholarsinthefieldagreethatvisionisconsideredtobeanintegralpartof

leadership.Avisionstatementprovidesasenseofdirectionfororganizationalmembers

whileexplainingapositiveimageofthefuture.Visionisavitalpartofbusinessstrategy

andplanning(eg.Porras&Collins,1994;Schoemaker,1992;Vandermerwe,1995).With

thisunderstandingofvisionandtheVisioningProcessModel(Kakabadseetal.,2005),itis

easytoseehowessentialitisforaleadertobeabletocultivatesuchastatement.

However,manyleadersstrugglewithcreatingandarticulatingavision(Kouzes&Posner,

2007).Thisisdetrimentalconsideringtheimpactthatleadershaveindeterminingthe

successofvisioningand,inturn,thesuccessoftheorganization.Wemustbeableto

understandandeffectivelyfacilitatevisioningwithinourorganizationsinorderto

successfullymoveintothefuture.

Despitethecommonuseoforganizationaldevelopmenttechniquesbyleaders,

practitioners,andconsultantstofacilitatevisioning;thereisstillaneedtoanalyzethe

techniquesthemselves(Bushe&Kassam,2005;Leigh,2010).Consideringhowmany


108

companiesareinvestinginexecutiveeducationandleadershipdevelopment,the

effectivenessofthetechniquesbeingusedoughttobeanimportantissue.Theapproaches

toorganizationalvisioningandplanningneedfurtheranalysistodeterminetheir

outcomes,clarity,andreturnoninvestment(Helms&Nixon,2010).Moreover,thereisa

growingneedtocomparestrategies(SWOTandAi),inordertohelpcompaniesand

organizationsdeterminewhichtechniqueismostappropriateforthem.

ResearchQuestions

Thespecificresearchquestionsforthethesiswere:

1. Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybeforeand

aftertheinterventions?

2. Whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritywithin

andbetweentreatmentgroups?



5. Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressedbyeach

interventiontreatmentgroup?

6. Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre‐testandpost‐testresultsbetween

interventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?

ReviewofMethodology

Abriefreviewofthemethodologyusedinthestudyispresentedhere.Theresearch

wasconductedusinganmixedmethodsexplanatorysequentialdesign.Inthefirstphaseof

theresearch,quantitativedatawascollectedusingsurveyquestionnairestakenbeforeand


109

afterinterventions.Thisstrandofdatawasanalyzedandconnectedtothesecondphaseof

thestudy,asitinformedparticipantselectionandthecompositionofinterviewquestions.

Inthesecondphaseofthestudy,qualitativedatawascollectedduringthreefocusgroup

sessionsandresearcherobservationsweremadeduringeachintervention.Focusgroup

transcriptsandobservationprotocolswerethematicallyanalyzedusingtheconstant

comparativemethod.Bothstrandsofdataweremixedandintegratedinsuchawaythat

thequalitativeanalysisfurtherexplainedthequantitativefindings.

SummaryandDiscussionofResults

Inthissection,asummaryanddiscussionoftheresultsforeachresearchquestion

areshared.Abriefsummaryoftheresultspresentedinchapterfourisfollowedbya

discussionrelatingtheresearchinthiscasestudytoexistingresearch.Moreover,the

discussionprovidesexplanationsofunanticipatedfindingsandtheoreticalimplicationsof

thestudy.Lastly,implicationsforpracticeandrecommendationsforresearchwillbe

discussed.

ResearchQuestionOne,ResultsSummary

Thefirstresearchquestionasked:whatwerethelevelsoforganizational

commitmentandvisionclaritybeforeandaftertheinterventions?Theresultsshowedthat

Aiparticipantshadslightlyhigherorganizationalcommitmentscoresaftertheir

intervention.SWOTparticipantshadslightlylowerorganizationalcommitmentscores

aftertheintervention.BothAiandSWOThaddelayedpost‐testscoresthatwerelower

thanthepre‐testorganizationalcommitmentscores.Theresultsalsoshowedthat

participantsintheAiinterventionhadhighervisionclarityscoresatthepre‐testthanthe


110

participantsintheSWOTintervention.BothAiandSWOThadverylittlechangebetween

visionclarityacrossalltestscores.Itshouldbenotedthatthesedifferencesareallwithin

thereportedstandarderror,meaningthattheseslightdifferencesarenotsignificant.

Explanationofunanticipatedfindings.Whiletheresearcheranticipatedpositive

differencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityscoresatthepre‐testandpost‐

test,itisimportanttoacknowledgethelimitedtimeforeachintervention.Timeallotted

foreachinterventionwasbasedondepartmentavailability.Cooperrideretal.(2008)

suggestedthatanAisummitcouldlastuptothreeorfourdaysandtheinterventiontime

allottedforthiscasestudywasonlyfourhours.Therefore,thelimitedtimefor

organizationalvisioningcouldaccountforthesefindings.However,thecasestudyis

intendedtoaddinsightintothefutureinvestmentofeitherstrategicvisioningtechnique

basedonlimitedamountsoftime.

Positivechangesinorganizationalcommitmentwerenotsustained,asevidentin

thedelayed‐posttestresults.Thedatashowsthattherewasaslightdecreasein

organizationalcommitmentscoresforSWOTparticipantsatthepostanddelayedpost

intervals.OrganizationalcommitmentscoresalsodecreasedforAifrompost‐testto

delayedpost‐test.BothAiandSWOTshoweddecreasedlevelsofvisionclaritybetweenthe

pre‐testandpost‐test.Additionally,participantsfromthefocusgroupsdiscussedthelack

ofactiontakenaftertheinterventionstocontinuethevisioningdialogue.Thisinformation

helpstofurtherexplainthedecreasedscoresreportedduringthedelayedpost‐test.The

delayedpost‐testwasalsoadministeredduringthesemester,whereastheprevioustests

weretakenoverthesummer.Theincreasedworkloadoverthesemestermayhaveplayed

aroleintheresultsfromthedelayedpost‐test.


111

Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Mowdayetal.(1979)surveyednine

samplesandfoundthemeanscorestobeslightlyabovethemidpointona7‐pointLikert

scale.Acrosstheninesamples,thelevelofcommitmentrangedfromalowof4.0toahigh

of6.1.Oneoftheninesamplessurveyed569publicemployeeswhowerefoundtohavean

averagecommitmentscoreof4.5withastandarddeviationof0.90.Additionally,asurvey

of243classifieduniversityemployeeswasfoundtohaveanaveragecommitmentscoreof

4.6withastandarddeviationof1.3.Thesecommitmentlevelsgiveperspectivetothe

organizationalcommitmentscoresofthedepartment.Comparedtotherangesreportedby

Mowdayetal.(1979),itappearsthatthestaffreportshighlevelsoforganizational

commitmentgiventhattheaveragepre‐testscoreswereabovea6.0onasevenpoint

Likertscale.

ResearchQuestionTwo,ResultsSummary

Thisquestionasked:whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentand

visionclaritywithinandbetweentreatmentgroups?Afterperformingarepeated

measuresANOVA,withrandomsubjecteffects,itwasdeterminedthatastatistically

significantdifferenceexistedbetweenAiandSWOTorganizationalcommitmentscores

frompre‐testtopost‐test.TheAitreatmentpositivelyimpactedorganizational

commitmentscores.Withinthisanalysis,theinteractionisstatisticallydifferentthanzero,

andthechangeinAifrompre‐testtopost‐testisdifferentthanthechangeinSWOTfrom

pre‐testtopost‐test.Thetestsbeingperformedareusedtodeterminewhetherthe

differencesamongtheinterventiontreatmentlevelsarelargerthanthedifferencesamong

theindividualobservationswithineachlevel.


112

Withinthevisionclarityconstruct,therelationshipbetweeninterventiontreatments

andtesttimeprovedtobeinsignificant,whilethetreatmentprovedtobestatistically

significant.Thisisattributedtothedifferenceinvisionclarityscoresseenthroughoutthe

groupsattheonsetofthetesting.Asdeterminedfromthequalitativeanalysis,thevision

clarityscoresfoundinAiarehigherthantheSWOTscoresbecausemanyoftheAi

participantswereontheleadershipteamthatcomposedthevisionstatement.The

researcherattemptedtocontrolforequalvisionclarityscoresamongsttreatmentgroups,

butparticipantavailabilityandschedulingtookhigherpriorityinassigninggroups.An

importantobservationofthisanalysisisthattheleadershipteamhasagreater

understandingofthevisionand,accordingtooneparticipant,theinterventionwasthefirst

timethedepartmentvisionwasdiscussedasawhole.

ResearchQuestionThree,ResultsSummary

Researchquestionthreeanalyzesacomponentofthequalitativedatainasking:

whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?Observationprotocolswere

usedtoanalyzeandbetterunderstandtheinterventions.Bothinterventionswere

designedtohavethesamegoalandoverarchingquestionguidingtheactivities.However,

thetwoapproachestostrategicvisioningresultedinverydifferentoutcomes.Participants

ofSWOTanalysisdiscussedbarrierstocompletingthevisionandthentheycarefully

analyzedapossiblesolutiontotheidentifiedproblem.TheresultingeffectsoftheSWOT

interventionwereaspecificandfocusedlistoforganizationalattributesrelatedtoone

theme:one‐on‐oneswithfaculty.ParticipantsofAifocusedonthebestexperiencesofthe

departmenttobuildastrengths‐basedfoundationfromwhichtheyenvisioned

opportunitiesforthefuture.Aiinterventionoutcomesresultedinabroadunderstanding


113

ofthedepartment’sfuture.Thestrengths‐basedfoundationwasbrieflyrelatedtoworking

withfacultytoadvancethedepartment’svision.

Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Thesefindingsagreewiththe

existingresearchonSWOTandAi.SWOTisnotedasarigorousanalyticaltoolthathasthe

abilitytocriticallyevaluatespecificstrategies(Hill&Westbrook,1997).Further,SWOT

investigatesaspecificstrategyusingalimitedandnarrowfocus,whileAifocusesbroadly

andholisticallyondepartmentalsuccessesandaccomplishments.Cooperriderand

Whitney(2005)emphasizethewholesystemthinkingwithinAi.Additionally,thefirsttwo

phasesofthe4‐Dcycleareintendedtobedivergent,whilethelattertwophasesare

intendedtobeconvergent.Thesefindings,fromtheresearcherobservations,coincidewith

theliterature.

ResearchQuestionFour,ResultsSummary

Focusgroupinterviewswereconductedtolearnhowparticipants’perceivethe

visioningprocessandresultingeffects?Basedonthequantitativeanalysis,participants

wereplacedintothreedifferentfocusgroups:positivechange,nochange,ornegative

changebasedontheirchangeinscoresfrompre‐testtopost‐test.Organizational

commitmentwaschosenastheconstructforanalysisbecauseofit’sstatisticalsignificance.

Themesthatemergedfromdiscussionswiththestaffwere:

Enjoyable,beneficial,andenergizingprocess

Negativeandfrustratingprocess

Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff

Positiveimpactonvisionclarity

Highlevelsofcommitmentandperformanceamongststaffwerepre‐existing


114


Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture

Manyofthestaffdiscussionsrelatedtothecultureoftheorganization.Additionally,

themesaboutpre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandvisionclaritygaveinsightinto

thehighperformingorganization.FewthemesemergedthatwerespecifictoAiorSWOT

techniques.

Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Whileorganizationalandemployee

performancewerenotsurveyedinthisstudy,staffmembersmentionedthehighlevelsof

performanceandexcellenceexhibitedbythedepartment.Mowdayetal.(1979)suggested

thatarelationshipexistsbetweenorganizationalcommitmentand

employee/organizationalperformance,whileacknowledgingthatperformanceisalso

influencedbymanyotherfactors.However,ameta‐analysisofadecadeworthofresearch

yieldedaweakcorrelationbetweenaffectiveorganizationalcommitmentandjob

performance(Riketta,2002).Abodyofliteraturehasbeendevelopedtofurther

investigatethisrelationship.Whiletheliteratureisnotexpandedonhere,theresultsof

thisstudysuggestaneedforfutureresearchontherelationshipbetweenhighperforming

organizationsandstafflevelsofaffectiveorganizationalcommitment.

Withinthetheme“corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture,”asubtheme

emergedfocusingoforganizationallearningandprofessionaldevelopment.Thistheme

relatestomanystudiesfocusingontheimportanceoforganizationallearningwithin

organizations.KeeandNewcomer(2008)arguethatorganizationallearningisimportant

andbeneficialtopublicinstitutions.Denison(1990)includedorganizationallearningas

oneofthetwelveculturaltraitsinhisframeworkforunderstandingcorporatecultureand


115

organizationaleffectiveness.Additionally,Schein(2010a)suggestedtheneedforleaders

toenactorganizationallearningtobetterunderstandandcompetewiththeenvironment

withinwhichorganizationsoperate.

ResearchQuestionFive,ResultsSummary

Thisresearchquestionservesasanotherlevelofanalysisinlookingatthefocus

groupdata.Indeterminingthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenperceptionsexpressed

byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup,itwasdiscoveredthattherewereonlytwothemes

specifictotheinterventiontreatment.Aiparticipantsspokespecificallytothe

confirmationofbeliefsandthediscoveryofsharedvaluesamongststaffduringthe

intervention.WhileafewoftheAiparticipantsexpressedsomefrustrationwith

interventionactivities,anoverwhelmingmajorityofSWOTparticipantsmentionedfeeling

frustratedduringtheintervention.Additionally,thephrase”negative”wasspecificand

uniquetothelanguageusedbySWOTparticipantstodescribethevisioningprocess.

MixingofData.TashakkoriandTeddlie(2003)brieflydefinemixedmethods

researchas“atypeofresearchdesigninwhichqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesare

usedintypesofquestions,researchmethods,datacollectionandanalysisprocedures,

and/orinferences”(p.11).Thisstudyadoptedtheexplanatorysequentialdesign(Creswell

etal.,2003)asaframeworkformixedmethodsresearch.Specifictothismodel,the

quantitativedatawascollectedandanalyzedtoguidethequalitativedatacollectionand

analysis(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Themodelconnectsbothresearchapproaches

duringdatacollectionandinterpretation.


116

ResearchQuestionSix,ResultsSummary

Researchquestionsix:Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre‐testandpost‐testresults

betweeninterventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?Thisisamixingquestion

addressedthroughinterpretationsofboththequalitativeandquantitativeinferences.

Positive,negative,andnochangeinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityare

explainedbythethemesgeneratedfromSWOTandAiparticipantexperiences(Table5‐1).

Relationshipsbetweenthequantitativeandqualitativedataanalysisaremadebasedon

meta‐inferencesandtheliterature.Thetableconnectschangegroups(presentedin

columns)tofocusgroupthemes(presentedinrows).


117

Table5‐1ThemesbyinterventiontreatmentandchangegroupsThemes PositiveChange No/Negative

Change Ai SWOT Ai SWOT Enjoyable,beneficial,andenergizingprocess

X X

Negativeandfrustratingprocess X Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff X X

Positiveimpactonvisionclarity X X Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance

X X


X


X X

*(X)representsthepresenceofthatthemeintheinterventionEachthemeisassociatedwithaninterventiontreatment.Thethemesarerelatedtopositive,negative,andnochangeinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.Theconnectionswithinthetablearemadebasedonthefindingsofthestudyandtheliterature.

Theparticipantsexplainedthattheinterventionwasan“enjoyable,beneficial,and

energizingprocess.”Thisthemehelpstoexplainpositivechangesasaresultofthe

intervention.Additionally,the“pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance”

thatwereexpressedbytheparticipantshelptomakesenseofalackofchangeasaresultof

theintervention.Asdetermined,thedepartmentexhibitedahighleveloforganizational

commitmentinthepre‐testscoresandaceilingeffectwasfoundduringanalysis.With


118

performanceandcommitmentlevelsstartingwithahighscore,itisdifficulttomeasureor

affectchangeduringanintervention.

AmajorityofthestaffmemberscommunicatedthattheSWOTorAiinterventions

didnotenhancetheirunderstandingofthevisionnortheircommitmenttothe

organization.Evenmoreintriguing,mostofthestaffmembers,excludingnewhires,spoke

tothefactthattheyalreadyhadanunderstandingofthevisionandthattheywerevery

committedtothedepartment.Drawingonthis,participantsyieldedlittlevariationin

visionclarityscoresacrossalltests,whichcanbeexplainedbythethemerelatedtoa

previousunderstandingofthevision.Theparticipantsattributedtheseattitudestothe

supportiveculture,sharedvalues,andhighlevelsofcommitmentandperformancewithin

thedepartmentthatexistedbeforetheinterventionstookplace.Thediscussionofastrong

organizationculturethroughtheinterviewshelpstomakesenseofthehighorganizational

commitmentscoresacrossalltests.

Thetheme,“positiveimpactonvisionclarity,”representedadeeperunderstanding

andbroaderperspectiveofthevisionasaresultoftheinterventions.However,thistheme

surfacedinadditiontostaffalreadyhavingaclearunderstandingofthevision.The

significanceofthesecounteractingthemescanbeexplainedaschangesinvisionclarity,

frompre‐testtopost‐test,werefoundtobeinsignificant.Ontheotherhand,newhires

foundthattheinterventionwasagreatwaytolearnmoreabouttheunderlyingmeaningof

thevisionwhilegainingadeeperunderstandingofthestaff.

Despitethedifferencesinfocusgroupcomposition(positivechange,nochange,and

negativechange),themesthatemergedwerecommonlydiscussedthroughoutall

interviews.Thethemesaidedinexplainingthechanges,orlackthereof,fororganizational


119

commitmentandvisionclarity.Twothemesthatemergedwerespecificallyrelatedtoa

visioningprocess.SWOTparticipantsspokespecificallytotheinterventionprocessbeing

negativeandfrustrating.Aiparticipantsspoketothevalueaddedcomponentofthe

visioningprocessinthatmanyoftheirbeliefswereconfirmedduringtheintervention.The

themes,relatingtotheconfirmationofvaluesandtheexposureofsharedvalues,arein

responsetothepositiveimpactoforganizationalcommitmentandAiactivities.These

findingsbuildonthesignificantinteractionbetweentimeandtreatmentastheAi

interventionpositivelyimpactedorganizationalcommitmentscores.

AmajorityofthestaffmemberswhoparticipatedintheAiinterventionmentioned,

manytimes,thatthevisioningprocesshelpedtoconfirmtheirpreexistingbeliefsand

values.Theyalsomentionedthatsharedvaluesamongststaffmemberswereexposed

duringtheAiprocess.Theresearchernotedintheobservationsthatstaffmemberswere

makingconnectionsduringtheinterviewandvisioningactivities.Thesefindingsare

supportedbytheANOVAthatreportsasignificantinteractionbetweenintervention

treatmentandtimeandtheincreaseinorganizationalcommitmentlevels.

Akeyfindingofthestudywasdiscoveredduringmixing.Decreasedlevelsof

organizationalcommitmentforSWOTparticipantscanbeexplainedbythe“negativeand

frustrating”SWOTspecifictheme.Itshouldbenotedthatthecasestudydoesnotattempt

toprovecausation;however,thetablehelpstoelaborateonbothquantitativeand

qualitativefindings.Thisrelationshipwillbediscussedfurther.

Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Thisstudybringstolightthe

connectionbetweenorganizationalvisioning,leadership,andorganizationalculture.

Throughtheanalysisofthequalitativeandquantitativedata,organizationalculturehas


120

emergedtobeaninfluentialfactorwhenstudyingorganizationalvisioningtechniquesand

leadership.DenisonandSpreitzer(1991,p.18)notedthe“constrainingandconstrained

natureoftheinteractionbetweenorganizationalcultureandhumanresourcepractices.

Understandingtheserelationshipsisimportantforeffectivediagnosisandinterventionin

organizationalproblems.”Tobuildoffofthis,Schein(2010a)explainedthatunderstanding

organizationalculturewillprovideknowledgeoftheinherentassumptionsandnormsofa

particularorganization.Whenchoosingorganizationalvisioningtechniques,itis

importanttoconsiderthepre‐existingassumptionsoftheorganization.Additionally,

Mathieu(1991)notedtheimportanceofknowingtheleveloforganizationalcommitment

amongststaffmembersinorderforpractitionerstoconsidertherelativeutilityofdifferent

organizationalinterventions.Organizationalcommitmentshouldbeconsideredwhen

choosinganorganizationalintervention.

Thisresearchreportsthesignificantinteractionbetweentreatment,AiandSWOT,

andtime.ThisrelationshipcouldbearesultoftheagreeablenessofAi’stheoretical

assumptionswiththepositivecultureoforganizationalsupportandlearningthatexistsin

thedepartment.Thehighscoresinorganizationalcommitmentwerealsoanindicatorthat

Aicouldhavebeenabettervisioningapproachforthishighperformingandhighly

committeddepartment.Asexplainedinthefocusgroupinterviews,manyofthestaff

membersreaffirmedtheircommitmenttothedepartmentduringtheintervention.The

staffalsoexplainedthattheyarewellontheirwaytoachievingtheirvision.Thisstatement

furtheremphasizestheirpositiveoutlook.

Asnotedintheresearcherobservationsandfocusgroupinterviews,componentsof

theSWOTinterventionwerenotwellreceivedbythestaff.Specifically,thenegative


121

languageassociatedwiththediscussionofweaknessesandthreatswasdeterminedtobe

frustrating.AsexplainedbyaSWOTparticipant,agreatdealoftimeandenergywasspent

onaddressingtheseattributesandlittlerecognitionwasgiventotheworkthatwas

currentlybeingdonetoaddresstheproblemsidentified.However,thetableshowsthat

SWOThasmanyofthesamethemesasAisuggestingthattherearepositivecomponentsto

thisapproach.ThesefindingssupporttheunderlyingpurposeoftheSOARmodel:

Strengths,Opportunities,Aspirations,Results.

TheSOARmodeloffersanalternativetoSWOTthroughthecombinationofstrategic

inquiryandappreciativeintent(Stavros,Cooperrider,&Kelley,2003).SOARismorethan

anapproachtoorganizationalvisioningandstrategicplanning,itprovidesaframework

thatallowsan“organization’sstakeholderstoseewheretheyaretodayandestablisha

visionofwheretheywanttogo”(Starvos,Cooperrider,Kelley,p.6).Whilemuchofthe

modelisgroundedintheprinciplesofAi,itprovestobeoneofthefirstmodelstocombine

traditionalstrategicplanningmodelswithacontemporaryvision‐basedapproach.

Furthermore,Stavrosetal.(2003,p.7)arguethattheexclusionofweaknessesandthreats

fromthemodelisinresponsetothetendencyofpeopleandorganizationsto“amplifythe

negative.”

RelationshipofFindingstoTheoreticalBasisoftheStudy

ThisstudyisbasedontheconceptualframeworkproposedKouzesandPosner

(2007)inthataleaderistaskedwithresponsibilityofinspiringasharedvision.Thereare

manytechniquesleaderscanusetofacilitateorganizationalvisioning;SWOTandAiwere

twoexaminedinthiscasestudytodeterminetheireffectonorganizationalcommitment

andvisionclarity.Bothtechniquesinvolvedstakeholdersinorganizationalvisioningand


122

decision‐making,whichencouragedownershipandcommitment.Visionclarityisdirectly

relatedtohowwellthevisionisunderstoodoracceptedwithinanorganization

(Kantabutra,2008).Further,asharedvisionmustdescribeadesirablefuturethat

followerswillcommitthemselvestoo(Kantabutra;Kouzes&Posner,2007).

Thevisionclarityresultswerenotsignificantlyimpactedbyeitherintervention.

Theanalysisdidshowthattheleadershipteamhadabetterunderstandingofthevision

thanotherstaffmembers.However,thefocusgroupinterviewsdescribedameaningful

dialoguebetweenstaffmembersthatdeepenedtheirunderstandingofthevisionasmany

perspectiveswereshared.Thesethemesandinterventionactivitiesresonatewithmanyof

thepracticesproposedbyKouzesandPosner(2007)toinspireasharedvision.Such

practicesinclude“imaginingexcitingandennoblingpossibilities”ofthefutureandenlisting

“othersinacommonvisionbyappealingtosharedaspirations”(Kouzes&Posner,p.26).

Additionally,theinterventionsaddedmeaningandperspectivetothevisionstatement

furthercontributingtovisionclarity.

TheVisioningProcessModel(VPM)byKakabadseetal.(2005)wasalsodetermined

tobeinstrumentaltotheinterpretationoffindingsofthestudy.Themodelshowcasesthe

resultingoutcomesassociatedwithdi‐visioningandvisioning.Thethemestiedspecifically

toAirelatecloselytosomeoftheproposedstrategiesforvisioningwithinthemodel.

Specifically,theauthorsnotethattheleadermusthaveapersonalconvictiontothecause.

Thestaffmustalsohavesimilarconvictionandalignedbeliefsinthevision.Thisis

exemplifiedinthecommentsfromAiparticipantsinsayingthattheinterventionhelpedto

confirmpreexistingbeliefsandvaluesaboutthedepartment,furthersuggestingthattheir

initialconvictionswerereaffirmed.Theauthorsalsodetailanotheressentialstrategyto


123

visioning,inthattheleadermustgaincommitmentfromtheseniorteam.Gainingbuy‐in

andcommitmentfromthestaffisneededbeforethevisioncanbeputintoaction.

Similarly,commitmentwasgainedasAiparticipantsdiscoveredmanysharedvalues

amongcolleagues.IncreasedlevelsoforganizationalcommitmentfromAiparticipantscan

alsobeseenintheanalyses.

Ontheotherhand,someofthefindingssurroundingtheSWOTinterventionhave

potentialconnectionstodi‐visioning.Aftertheintervention,SWOTparticipantsreporteda

lowerorganizationalcommitmentscoreonthepost‐testanddelayedpost‐test.The

qualitativedatafromresearchobservationsandfocusgroupssuggestedafrustratingand

negativedescriptionoftheSWOTvisioningprocess.Theemergenceofthistheme,specific

totheSWOTintervention,suggeststhepossibilityofdi‐visioning.

VPMidentifiesfourreasonsattributedtodi‐visioning,oneofwhichisin‐fighting.

Kakabadseetal.(2005)describedin‐fightingasaprocessbywhichcorporateenergyturns

negativelyontoitself,allowinganinternalwartostealawayfromthecompany’s

competitiveadvantage.Evenfurther,“mismanagementoftheinternalnegotiatingprocess

couldseriouslydamagethefabricofthecompany”(N.Kakabadseetal.,p.241).Di‐

visioningfostersanenvironmentinwhichstaffaredisputingaswellasfocusingoninternal

competitioninsteadofexternalcompetition.OnecaneasilyseehowaSWOTintervention

“gonewrong”couldleadtoin‐fightingandquicklyresultindi‐visioning.Itseemsthat

negativeandfrustratingdescriptionsofvisioncommunicationarenotsupportivevisioning

themesandcouldlikelyleadtodi‐visioning.Thiscasestudydoesnotattempttoprovidea

statisticalcorrelation;however,thefindingsthestudyprovidereasontoassociateSWOT


124

analysiswithdi‐visioning.Moreover,leadersshouldconsiderthesefindingsastheyuse

visioningstrategieswithintheirownorganizations.

Inconclusion,thesalientpointofthiscasestudyistheconnectionmadebetween

SOARandVPMinresponsetothequalitativeandquantitativefindings.TheSOARmodelis

proposedasacombinedapproachthatbuildsoffthestrengthsofbothstrategiesto

organizationalvisioning(Stavrosetal.,2003).SOARhighlightsthesharedpositive

outcomesexperiencedbybothinterventionparticipants.Thestatisticaldatasuggeststhat

Aihadasignificantaffectonparticipant’sorganizationalcommitmentthatisfurther

explainedbyAispecificthemedevelopment.Thesefindingsalignwithsomeofthe

strategiesproposedintheVPMforvisioning.Alternatively,thefindingsassociatedwith

theSWOTinterventionsuggestthattheycouldbeassociatedwithsomeelementsofdi‐

visioning.

RecommendationsforPractice

Whileasinglecasestudycannotprovidegeneralizableevidenceforthepracticeof

organizationalvisioning,thisstudysuggeststhat:

1. Adoptionofanorganizationalvisioningtechniqueshouldbeinkeepingwiththe

organizationalcultureanddesiredoutcomes.

2. Supportfromtheorganizationofinterestisessentialtoresearchingthevisioning

process.

3. OrganizationalvisioningusingAiisareaffirmingprocessthatcanresultin

increasedlevelsoforganizationalcommitment.


125

4. Discussionofthevisionamongststaffmembersaddsmeaningandpurposetothe

statement.Thisactivityisespeciallybeneficialtonewemployeeswhoarelearning

abouttheorganizationanditsculture.

5. TheSOARmodel,Strengths,Opportunities,Aspirations,andResults,issuggestedas

anorganizationalvisioningstrategythatcombineselementsofSWOTandAi.

RecommendationsforResearch

1. Researchisnecessarytodeterminetheimpactoforganizationalvisioning

interventionsonorganizationalcommitmentoveranextendedperiodoftime.

2. Theimpactorganizationalvisioninghasonvisionclarityremainsunclear.

AdditionalresearchisnecessarytofurtherexploretheeffectofAiandSWOT

interventionsonvisionclarity,specificallyinthecontextofhighperforming

organizations.

3. Sincethefindingsofthecasestudyarenotgeneralizable,anevaluationofAiand

SWOTwithindiversecontextsshouldbeconductedinordertobetterunderstand

thevisioningprocessandresultingeffects.

4. AdditionalresearchshouldinvestigatetheSOARmodeltodetermineifthereare

benefitstothiscombinedapproachtoSWOTandAi,whilelookingspecificallyatthe

impactofthemodeloforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.

5. Explorationofdi‐visioningwithintheVisioningProcessModelshouldberesearched

inordertobetterunderstandthesymptomsandconsequenceswithspecialinterest

itsrelationshiptoSWOTanalysis.


126

Researcher’sReflectionsandInsights Thefacilitatoroperatedinaparticipatoryactionresearchparadigmthroughwhich

thestaffmemberswereinvitedtocollaborativelyandreflectivelyserveasco‐researchers

ineachintervention.Bothgroupswereawareoftheorganizationalvisioningtechniques

beingassignedtotheirinterventionaftertheytookthepre‐test.Whilethenotiontokeep

theparticipantsinformedandengagedintheresearchisappropriate,therearealsosome

potentialproblems.Thesimplecomparisonoftitles,Appreciativeinquiryvs.Strengths,

Weaknesses,Opportunities,ThreatsAnalysis,leadsthemostnaïveandunbiasedindividual

tobegintodifferentiatebetweenthetwotechniqueswithweightedjudgments.Inthe

orientationmeetingwithparticipants,itwasmentionedthattherewasgoingtobea

“negative”and“positive”session.Withthisbeingsaid,ifthecasestudyweretobe

replicatedwithanotherpopulation,itwouldbeadvisedthattheparticipantsremain

uninformedoftheorganizationalvisioningtechniquetheyareparticipatinginuntilthe

beginningofthatintervention.

Summary

Theinferencesofthisstudy,organizedbyresearchquestion,arepresentedinthis

chapter.Thediscussionsectionincludedanexplanationofunanticipatedfindingsin

additiontomakingconnectionsfromthestudytopriorresearch.Atableshowcasesthe

meta‐inferencesthatwerederivedfromquantitativeandqualitativeinferenceswith

connectionstotheliterature.Thefindingswerethenrelatedtothetheoreticalbasisofthe

study,thevisioningprocessmodel(VPM).TheSOARmodel:Strengths,Opportunities,

Aspirations,Results,andVPMweredeterminedtobeintegraltothefindingsand

conclusionsofthestudy.Recommendationsforpracticeandfutureresearchwere


127

explained.Researchinsightswerealsoprovidedasasummaryoflearnedexperiencesasa

resultofthestudy.


128

REFERENCES

Agresti,A.,&Finlay,B.(1997).Statisticalmethodsforthesocialsciences(3rded.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Allen,N.J.,&Meyer,J.P.(1990).Themeasurementandantecedentsofaffective,continuanceandnormativecommitmenttotheorganization.JournalofOccupationalPsychology,63(1),1‐18.

Allen,N.J.,&Meyer,J.P.(1996).Affective,continuance,andnormativecommitmenttotheorganization:Anexaminationofconstructvalidity.JournalofVocationalBehavior,49(3),252‐276.

Allio,R.J.(2006).Strategicthinking:Thetenbigideas.Strategy&Leadership,34(4),4‐13.Ash,S.L.,Clayton,P.H.,&Atkinson,M.P.(2005).Integratingreflectionandassessmentto

captureandimprovestudentlearning.MichiganJournalofCommunityServiceLearning,11(2),49‐60.

Avery,G.C.(2004).Understandingleadership:Paradigmsandcases.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Avery,G.C.(2005).Leadershipforsustainablefutures:Achievingsuccessinacompetitiveworldmacquarieuniversityresearchonline.Cheltenham,U.K:EdwardElgarPublishing.

Awamleh,R.,&Gardner,W.L.(1999).Perceptionsofleadercharismaandeffectiveness:Theeffectsofvisioncontent,delivery,andorganizationalperformance.TheLeadershipQuarterly,10(3),345‐373.

Balamuralikrishna,R.,&Dugger,J.C.(1995).SWOTanalysis:Amanagementtoolforinitiatingnewprogramsinvocationalschools.JournalofVocationalandTechnicalEducation,12(1),36‐41.

Barker,A.(2006).Visioningandstrategicplanning.Boston,MA:JonesandBartlettPublishers.

Bass,B.M.(1985).Leadershipandperformancebeyondexpectations.NewYork,NY:FreePress.

Bass,B.M.,&Stogdill,R.M.(1990).Handbookofleadership:Theory,research&managerialapplications(3rded.).NewYork,NY:FreePress.

Baum,J.R.,Locke,E.A.,&Kirkpatrick,S.A.(1998).Alongitudinalstudyoftherelationofvisionandvisioncommunicationtoventuregrowthinentrepreneurialfirms.JournalofAppliedPsychology,83(1),43‐54.

Bennis,W.,&Nanus,B.(1985).Visionaryleadership:Creatingacompellingsenseofdirectionforyourorganization.SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.

Berrisford,S.(2005).Usingappreciativeinquirytodrivechangeatthebbc.StrategicCommunicationManagement,9(3),22‐25.

Berson,Y.,Shamir,B.,Avolio,B.J.,&Popper,M.(2001).Therelationshipbetweenvisionstrength,leadershipstyle,andcontext.TheLeadershipQuarterly,12(1),53‐73.

Bloom,J.,Hutson,B.,He,Y.,Amundsen,S.,Buyarski,C.,Christman,P.,...Robinson,C.(2009).Howeightinstitutionshaveincorporatedappreciativeadvising.TheMentor:AnAcademicAdvisingJournal,11(2).

Boeije,H.(2002).Apurposefulapproachtotheconstantcomparativemethodintheanalysisofqualitativeinterviews.Quality&Quantity,36(4),391‐409.


129

Boyd,B.L.,Moore,L.L.,Williams,J.,&Elbert,C.D.(2011).Entry‐levelcompetenciesneededforgloballeaders.InternationalLeadershipJournal,3(1),20‐39.

Bryson,J.M.,&Roering,W.D.(1987).Applyingprivate‐sectorstrategicplanninginthepublicsector.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,53(1),9‐22.

Burke,W.W.(2002).Organizationchange.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Burnes,B.(2004).Kurtlewinandtheplannedapproachtochange:Are‐appraisal.Journal

ofManagementStudies,41(6),977‐1002.Bushe,G.R.(1999).Advancesinappreciativeinquiryasanorganizationdevelopment

intervention.OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,16(2),61‐68.Bushe,G.R.,&Coetzer,G.(1995).Appreciativeinquiryasateam‐development

intervention:Acontrolledexperiment.TheJournalofappliedbehavioralscience,31(1),13‐30.

Bushe,G.R.,&Kassam,A.F.(2005).Whenisappreciativeinquirytransformational?TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,41(2),161‐181.

Cameron,K.S.,Dutton,J.E.,&Quinn,R.E.(2003).Positiveorganizationalscholarship:Foundationsofanewdiscipline.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.

Caudron,S.(1999).Theloomingleadershipcrisis.Workforce,78(9),72‐79.Chang,H.,&Huang,W.(2006).ApplicationofaquantificationSWOTanalyticalmethod.

MathematicalandComputerModelling,43(1),158‐169.Chermack,T.J.,&Kasshanna,B.K.(2007).TheuseandmisuseofSWOTanalysisand

implicationsforhrdprofessionals.HumanResourceDevelopmentInternational,10(4),383‐399.

Cockell,J.,Mcarthur‐Blair,J.,&Schiller,M.(2012).Appreciativeinquiryinhighereducation:Atransformativeforce.SanFrancisco,CA:JohnWiley&Son.

Cole,M.S.,Harris,S.G.,&Bernerth,J.B.(2006).Exploringtheimplicationsofvision,appropriateness,andexecutionoforganizationalchange.Leadership&OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,27(5),352‐367.

Collins,J.C.,&Porras,J.I.(1996).Buildingyourcompany'svision.HarvardBusinessReview,74(5),65‐78.

Conger,J.A.,&Kanungo,R.N.(1987).Towardabehavioraltheoryofcharismaticleadershipinorganizationalsettings.AcademyofManagementReview,12(4),637‐647.

Cooperrider,D.L.(1997).Resourcesforgettingappreciativeinquirystarted.ODPractitioner,28(1),28‐33.

Cooperrider,D.L.,&Srivastva,S.(1987).Appreciativeinquiryinorganizationallife.ResearchinOrganizationalChangeandDevelopment,1(1),129‐169.

Cooperrider,D.L.,&Whitney,D.(2005).Appreciativeinquiry:Apositiverevolutioninchange.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlersPublishers

Cooperrider,D.L.,Whitney,D.,Stavros,J.M.,&Fry,R.(2008).Appreciativeinquiryhandbook:Forleadersofchange(2nded.).SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.

Cooperrider,D.L.,Whitney,D.K.,&Stavros,J.M.(2003).Appreciativeinquiryhandbook(Vol.1).SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.

Corbin,J.,&Strauss,A.(2008).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Techniquesandproceduresfordevelopinggroundedtheory(3rded.ed.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.


130

Creswell,J.W.,&PlanoClark,V.L.(2007).Designingandconductingmixedmethodsresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Creswell,J.W.,&PlanoClark,V.L.(2011).Designingandconductingmixedmethodsresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Creswell,J.W.,PlanoClark,V.L.,Gutmann,M.L.,&Hanson,W.E.(2003).Advancedmixedmethodsresearchdesigns.InA.Tashakkori&C.Teddlie(Eds.),Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch(pp.209‐240).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage

Cummings,T.G.,&Worley,C.G.(2009).Organisationdevelopment&change(9thed.).Mason,OH:CengageLearning.

Davis,C.M.(2005).Appreciativeinquiryasatoolforfacultyandorganizationaldevelopment.

Day,D.V.(2000).Leadershipdevelopment:Areviewincontext.TheLeadershipQuarterly,11(4),581‐613.

Denison,D.R.(1990).Corporatecultureandorganizationaleffectiveness.NewYork,NY:JohnWiley&Sons.

Denison,D.R.,&Spreitzer,G.M.(1991).Organizationalcultureandorganizationaldevelopment:Acompetingvaluesapproach.Researchinorganizationalchangeanddevelopment,5(1),1‐21.

Dillman,D.A.,Smyth,J.D.,&Christian,L.M.(2008).Internet,mail,andmixed‐modesurveys:Thetailoreddesignmethod(3rded.).Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Drath,W.H.,&Palus,C.J.(1994).Makingcommonsense:Leadershipasmeaning‐makinginacommunityofpractice(3rded.).Greensboro,NCCenterforCreativeLeadership.

Dugan,J.P.,&Komives,S.R.(2007).Developingleadershipcapacityincollegestudents:Findingsfromanaitonalstudy.CollegePark,MD:NationalClearinghouseforLeadershipPrograms.

Dvir,T.,Kass,N.,&Shamir,B.(2004).Theemotionalbond:Visionandorganizationalcommitmentamonghigh‐techemployees.JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement,17(2),126‐143.

Egan,T.M.,&Lancaster,C.M.(2005).Comparingappreciativeinquirytoactionresearch:Odpractitionerperspectives.OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,23(2),29‐49.

Elden,M.,&Chisholm,R.F.(1993).Emergingvarietiesofactionresearch:Introductiontothespecialissue.HumanRelations,46(2),121‐142.

Ferris,K.R.,&Aranya,N.(1983).Acomparisonoftwoorganizationalcommitmentscales.PersonnelPsychology,36(1),87‐98.

Finegold,M.A.,Holland,B.M.,&Lingham,T.(2002).Appreciativeinquiryandpublicdialogue:Anapproachtocommunitychange.PublicOrganizationReview,2(3),235‐252.

Finlay,J.S.(1994).Thestrategicvisioningprocess.PublicAdministrationQuarterly,18(1),64‐74.

Fitzgerald,S.P.,Murrell,K.L.,&Newman,H.L.(2001).Appreciativeinquiry:Thenewfrontier.InJ.Waclawski&A.H.Church(Eds.),Organizationdevelopment:Datadrivenmethodsforchange(1sted.,pp.203‐221).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐BassPublishers.

Fulmer,R.M.,&Goldsmith,M.(2001).Theleadershipinvestment:Howtheworld'sbestorganizationsgainstrategicadvantagethroughleadershipdevelopment.NewYork,NY:AMACOM.


131

Gardner,H.(1995).Leadingminds:Ananatomyofleadership.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.Ghazinoory,S.,Abdi,M.,&Azadegan‐Mehr,M.(2011).SWOTmethodology:Astate‐of‐the‐

artreviewforthepast,aframeworkforthefuture.JournalofBusinessEconomicsandManagement,12(1),24‐48.

Glaister,K.W.,&Falshaw,J.R.(1999).Strategicplanning:Stillgoingstrong?LongRangePlanning,32(1),107‐116.

Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.L.(1967).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.Chicago,IL:AldinePublishingCompany.

Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.L.(2009).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.Piscataway,NJ:AldineTransaction.

Grant,S.,&Humphries,M.(2006).Criticalevaluationofappreciativeinquiry:Bridginganapparentparadox.ActionResearch,4(4),401‐418.

Greene,J.C.(2007).Mixedmethodsinsocialinquiry.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.Greene,J.C.,Caracelli,V.J.,&Graham,W.F.(1989).Towardaconceptualframeworkfor

mixed‐methodevaluationdesigns.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,11(3),255‐274.

Gupta,A.K.,&Govindarajan,V.(2002).Cultivatingaglobalmindset.TheAcademyofManagementExecutive,16(1),116‐126.

Haines,A.,&Green,G.P.(2011).Assetbuilding&communitydevelopment.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Hammond,J.,Muffs,M.,&Sciascia,S.(2001).Theleadershipcrisis:Isitforreal?Principal,81(2),28‐29,31‐32.

Havens,D.S.,Wood,S.O.,&Leeman,J.(2006).Improvingnursingpracticeandpatientcare:Buildingcapacitywithappreciativeinquiry.JournalofNursingAdministration,36(10),463.

Helms,M.M.,&Nixon,J.(2010).ExploringSWOTanalysis–wherearewenow?:Areviewofacademicresearchfromthelastdecade.JournalofStrategyandManagement,3(3),215‐251.

Hickman,G.R.(2010).Leadingorganizations:Perspectivesforanewera(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Hill,C.W.L.,&Jones,G.R.(2009).Strategicmanagement:Anintegratedapproach(9thed.).Mason,OH:CengageLearning.

Hill,T.,&Westbrook,R.(1997).SWOTanalysis:It'stimeforaproductrecall.LongRangePlanning,30(1),46‐52.

Horn,R.E.,&Weber,R.P.(2007).Newtoolsforresolvingwickedproblems:Messmappingandresolutionmappingprocesses.Watertown,MA:StrategyKineticsLLC.

Houben,G.,Lenie,K.,&Vanhoof,K.(1999).Aknowledge‐basedSWOT‐analysissystemasaninstrumentforstrategicplanninginsmallandmediumsizedenterprises.DecisionSupportSystems,26(2),125‐135.

Hubbard,B.M.(1998).Consciousevolution:Awakeningthepowerofoursocialpotential.Novato,CA:NewWorldLibrary.

Jackson,B.,&Parry,K.(2011).Averyshortfairlyinterestingandreasonablycheapbookaboutstudyingleadership(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Johnson,B.(1999).Examiningthequalitystructureofqualitativeresearch.Education,18(2),282‐292.


132

Kakabadse,A.,&Kakabadse,N.(1999).Essenceofleadership.London,England:InternationalThomsonBusinessPress.

Kakabadse,N.,Kakabadse,A.,&Lee‐Davies,L.(2005).Visioningthepathway:Aleadershipprocessmodel.EuropeanManagementJournal,23(2),237‐246.

Kantabutra,S.(2008).Whatdoweknowaboutvision?InG.R.Hickman(Ed.),Leadingorganizations:Prespectivesforanewera(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Kantabutra,S.,&Avery,G.C.(2002).Proposedmodelforinvestigatingrelationshipsbetweenvisioncomponentsandbusinessunitperformance.JournalofManagement&Organization,8(2),22‐39.

Kanter,R.M.(1983).Thechangemasters:Innovationandentrepreneurshipintheamericancorporation.NewYork,NY:SimonandSchuster.

Kearns,K.P.(1992).Fromcomparativeadvantagetodamagecontrol:ClarifyingstrategicissuesusingSWOTanalysis.NonprofitManagementandLeadership,3(1),3‐22.

Kee,J.E.,&Newcomer,K.E.(2008).Transformingpublicandnonprofitorganizations:Stewardshipforleadingchange.Vienna,VA:ManagementConceptsInc.

Keefe,M.R.,&Pesut,D.(2004).Appreciativeinquiryandleadershiptransitions.JournalofProfessionalNursing,20(2),103‐109.

Klenke,K.(2008).Qualitativeresearchinthestudyofleadership.Bingley,UK:EmeraldGroupPublishing.

Kotter,J.P.(1997).Leadingbyvisionandstrategy:Visionreferstoapictureofthefuture.ExecutiveExcellence,14,15‐15.

Kotter,J.P.(2007).Leadingchange.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessPress.Kouzes,J.M.,&Posner,B.Z.(2007).Theleadershipchallenge.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐

Bass.Langley,A.(1988).Therolesofformalstrategicplanning.LongRangePlanning,21(3),40‐

50.Lee,J.(2005).Effectsofleadershipandleader‐memberexchangeoncommitment.

Leadership&OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,26(8),655‐672.Leigh,D.(2010).SWOTanalysis.InJ.A.Pershing(Ed.),Handbookofimprovingperformance

intheworkplace:Principles,practices,andpotential(3rded.).SanFrancisco,CA:Pfeiffer.

Levin,I.M.(2000).Visionrevisited.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,36(1),91‐107.

Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(1985).Naturalisticinquiry(Vol.Sagefocuseditions).NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.

Lofland,J.,Snow,D.,Anderson,L.,&Lofland,L.H.(2006).Analyzingsocialsettings:Aguidetoqualitativeobservationandanalysis.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth/ThomsonLearning.

Ludema,J.D.,&Barrett,F.J.(2009).Appreciativeinquirysummit.InP.Holtman,T.Devane&S.Cady(Eds.),Thechangehandbook:Thedefinitiveresourceontoday'sbestmethodsforengagingwholesystem(2nded.).SanFancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.

Lynna,G.S.,&Akgünb,A.E.(2001).Projectvisioning:Itscomponentsandimpactonnewproductsuccess.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,18(6),374‐387.


133

Mathie,A.,&Cunningham,G.(2003).Fromclientstocitizens:Asset‐basedcommunitydevelopmentasastrategyforcommunity‐drivendevelopment.DevelopmentinPractice,13(5),474‐486.

Mathieu,J.E.(1991).Across‐levelnonrecursivemodeloftheantecedentsoforganizationalcommitmentandsatisfaction.JournalofAppliedPsychology,76(5),607.

Mathieu,J.E.,&Zajac,D.M.(1990).Areviewandmeta‐analysisoftheantecedents,correlates,andconsequencesoforganizationalcommitment.PsychologicalBulletin,108(2),171‐194.

Messerschmidt,D.(2008).Evaluatingappreciativeinquiryasanorganizationaltransformationtool:Anassessmentfromnepal.HumanOrganization,67(4),454‐468.

Mintzberg,H.(1994).Theriseandfallofstrategicplanning:Reconceivingrolesforplanning,plans,planners.NewYork,NY:FreePress.

Morden,T.(1997).Leadershipasvision.ManagementDecision,35(9),668‐676.Morgan,D.L.(1997).Focusgroupsasqualitativeresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:

Sage.Morse,J.M.,Barrett,M.,Mayan,M.,Olson,K.,&Spiers,J.(2008).Verificationstrategiesfor

establishingreliabilityandvalidityinqualitativeresearch.Internationaljournalofqualitativemethods,1(2),13‐22.

Mowday,R.T.,Steers,R.M.,&Porter,L.W.(1979).Themeasurementoforganizationalcommitment.JournalofVocationalBehavior,14(2),224‐247.

Nag,R.,Hambrick,D.C.,&Chen,M.J.(2007).Whatisstrategicmanagement,really?Inductivederivationofaconsensusdefinitionofthefield.StrategicManagementJournal,28(9),935‐955.

Northouse,P.G.(2012).Leadership:Theoryandpractice(6thed.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Norum,K.E.,Wells,M.,Hoadley,M.R.,&Geary,C.A.(2002).Appreciativeprogram

evaluation:Aqualitativeactionresearchproject.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,NewOrleans,LA.

O'brien,F.,&Meadows,M.(2000).Corporatevisioning:Asurveyofukpractice.JournaloftheOperationalResearchSociety,51(1),36‐44.

O'connell,D.,Hickerson,K.,&Pillutla,A.(2011).Organizationalvisioning:Anintegrativereview.Group&OrganizationManagement,36(1),103‐125.

Oladele,O.,&Sakagami,J.(2004).SWOTanalysisofextensionsystemsinasianandwestafricancountries.JournalofFoodAgricultureandEnvironment,2(2),232‐236.

Ott,L.,&Longnecker,M.(2010).Anintroductiontostatisticalmethodsanddataanalysis(6thed.).Belmont,CA:CengageLearning.

Patton,M.Q.(2002).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Peutz,J.,&Kroth,M.(2009).Usingappreciativeinquirytoadvanceextension.JournalofExtension,47(4),1‐3.

Pickton,D.W.,&Wright,S.(1998).What'sswotinstrategicanalysis?StrategicChange,7(2),101‐109.

Piercy,N.,&Giles,W.(1989).MakingSWOTanalysiswork.MarketingIntelligence&Planning,7(5/6),5‐7.

Podsakoff,P.M.,Mackenzie,S.B.,&Bommer,W.H.(1996).Transformationalleaderbehaviorsandsubstitutesforleadershipasdeterminantsofemployeesatisfaction,


134

commitment,trust,andorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviors.JournalofManagement,22(2),259‐298.

Poister,T.H.,Pitts,D.W.,&Hamilton,L.H.(2010).Strategicmanagementresearchinthepublicsector:Areview,synthesis,andfuturedirections.TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,40(5),522.

Poister,T.H.,&Streib,G.(2005).Elementsofstrategicplanningandmanagementinmunicipalgovernment:Statusaftertwodecades.PublicAdministrationReview,65(1),45‐56.

Porras,J.I.,&Collins,J.C.(1994).Builttolast:Successfulhabitsofvisionarycompanies.NewYork,NY:HarperBusiness.

Preskill,H.S.,&Catsambas,T.T.(2006).Reframingevaluationthroughappreciativeinquiry.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Riketta,M.(2002).Attitudinalorganizationalcommitmentandjobperformance:Ameta‐analysis.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,23(3),257‐266.

Rose,W.R.,&Cray,D.(2010).Public‐sectorstrategyformulation.CanadianPublicAdministration,53(4),453‐466.

Rossman,G.B.,&Rallis,S.F.(2003).Learninginthefield:Anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Rost,J.C.(1993).Leadershipforthetwenty‐firstcentury.Westport,CT:PraegerPublishers.Rothwell,W.J.,Sullivan,R.L.,&Mclean,G.N.(2005).Practicingorganizationdevelopment:

Aguideforconsultants(2nded.).Hoboken,NJ:Pfeiffer.Schein,E.H.(2010a).Organizationalcultureandleadership(4thed.).SanFrancisco,CA:

Jossey‐Bass.Schein,E.H.(2010b).Threeculturesofmanagement:Thekeytoorganizationallearning.In

BarbaraBertagni,MicheleLaRosa&F.Salvetti(Eds.),Glocalworking.Livingandworkingacrosstheworldwithculturalintelligence(pp.37‐58).Milano,Italy:FrancoAngeli.

Schoemaker,P.J.(1992).Howtolinkstrategicvisiontocorecapabilities.SloanManagementReview,34(1),67‐81.

Senge,P.(1990).Thefifthdiscipline:Theartandpracticeoforganizationallearning(reviseded.).MilsonsPoint,Australia:RandomHouse.

Shamir,B.,&Eilam,G.(2005).“What'syourstory?”alife‐storiesapproachtoauthenticleadershipdevelopment.TheLeadershipQuarterly,16(3),395‐417.

Singh,D.,&Kohli,G.(2006).Evaluationofprivatesectorbanksinindia:ASWOTanalysis.JournalofManagementResearch,6(2),84‐101.

Singh,N.,&Kosi–Katarmal,A.(2009).SWOTanalysis–ausefultoolforcommunityvision.Researcher,1(3),25‐27.

Stavros,J.,Cooperrider,D.,&Kelley,D.L.(2003).Strategicinquiryappreciativeintent:Inspirationtosoar,anewframeworkforstrategicplanning.AIPractitioner,November,10‐17.

Stavros,J.M.,&Hinrichs,G.(2007).Soaringtonewheightsofstrategicplanningtoexecution.AIPractitioner,3,4‐9.

Stentz,J.E.,PlanoClark,V.L.,&Matkin,G.S.(2012).Applyingmixedmethodstoleadershipresearch:Areviewofcurrentpractices.TheLeadershipQuarterly,23(6),1173–1183.

Susman,G.I.,&Evered,R.D.(1978).Anassessmentofthescientificmeritsofactionresearch.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,23(4),582‐603.


135

Svyantek,D.J.,&Brown,L.L.(2000).Acomplex‐systemsapproachtoorganizations.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,9(2),69‐74.

Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2003).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2008).Foundationsofmixedmethodsresearch:Integratingquantitativeandqualitativeapproachesinthesocialandbehavioralsciences.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

UrielRosenthal,ArjenBoin,&Comfort,L.K.(2001).Managingcrises:Threats,dilemmas,opportunities.Springfield,IL:CharlesCThomasPublisher.

Valentin,E.K.(2001).SWOTanalysisfromaresource‐basedview.JournalofMarketingTheoryandPractice,9(2),54‐69.

VanDerHaar,D.,&Hosking,D.M.(2004).Evaluatingappreciativeinquiry:Arelationalconstructionistperspective.HumanRelations,57(8),1017‐1036.

VanWijngaarden,J.D.H.,Scholten,G.R.M.,&VanWijk,K.P.(2010).Strategicanalysisforhealthcareorganizations:ThesuitabilityoftheSWOT‐analysis.TheInternationalJournalofHealthPlanningandManagement,27(1),34‐49.

Vandermerwe,S.(1995).Theprocessofmarket‐driventransformation.LongRangePlanning,28(2),79‐91.

Whitney,D.,&Trosten‐Bloom,A.(2010).Thepowerofappreciativeinquiry:Apracticalguidetopositivechange.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐Koehler.

Winston,B.E.,&Patterson,K.(2006).Anintegrativedefinitionofleadership.InternationalJournalofLeadershipStudies,1(2),6‐66.

Wirtenberg,J.,Abrams,L.,&Ott,C.(2004).Assessingthefieldoforganizationdevelopment.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,40(4),465‐479.

Yin,R.K.(2009).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(4thed.Vol.5).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Zaccaro,S.J.(2001).Thenatureofexecutiveleadership:Aconceptualandempiricalanalysisofsuccess(1sted.).WashingtonD.C.:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Zhang,A.(2006).ApplicationofSWOTanalysisonthemanagementofinstitutionsofhighereducation.JournalofShenyangInstituteofEngineering(SocialSciences),4.


136

APPENDIXA

CopyofthePre‐testthatwasAdministeredOnlineviaQualtircs

6/28/12 Qualtrics Survey Software

1/2https://new.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/PopUp.php?PopType=SurveyPrintPreview&WID=_blank

Opening Prompt

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, which investigates the effects of differentstrategies for organizational development. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary

and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. Thissurvey is expected to take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Please be honest and truthful in

your responses.

If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study,

please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540-231-4991 [email protected].

If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the projectinvestigators:

· Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]· Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected]

· Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected]· Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]

Part 1 Organizational Commitment

Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have

about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about

Career Services at Virginia Tech for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your

agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives besideeach statement.

StronglyDisagree Disagree

SomewhatDisagree

NeitherAgree

norDisagree

SomewhatAgree Agree

StronglyAgree

I am willing to put in a great deal of effortbeyond that normally expected in order to helpthis organization be successful.

I would accept almost any type of jobassignment in order to keep work ing for thisorganization.

I find that my values and the organization’svalues are very similar.

I am proud to tell others that I am part of thisorganization.

This organization really inspires the very best inme in the way of job performance.

I am extremely glad that I chose thisorganization to work for over others I wasconsidering at the time I joined.

I really care about the fate of this organization.

For me this is the best of all possibleorganizations for which to work .

Part 2 Vision Clarity

Listed below are a series of statements related to the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech.

Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking oneof the descriptors beside each statement.


NeitherAgree norDisagree Agree

StronglyAgree

The vision guiding VT Career Services has beenclear.

The purpose of VT Career Services has been well



Monday afternoon, July 16

Tuesday morning, July 17

Either Monday or Tuesday

The purpose of VT Career Services has been wellcommunicated.

The VT Career Services team has a clearunderstanding of the University community's needsand wants.

The vision of VT Career Services has been wellexecuted.

Please share any additional comments related to this study here.

Pretest Questions for Grouping

On July 16th and 17th, the Career Services staff will work in small groups to discuss strategies forfulfilling the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech. We plan to assign groups in advance, so we

need to know your availability. What days are you available to participate in a break out group?

When we break into groups we want to have diverse representation in each group. To achieve this, it

will be helpful to know a little about everyone's tenure with Career Services. How many years haveyou worked in Career Services at Virginia Tech?


137

APPENDIXB

CopyofthePost‐testAdministeredviaPaperandPen

Vision Fulfillment Survey Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, which investigates the effects of different strategies for organizational development. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. This survey is expected to take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Please be honest and truthful in your responses. If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study, please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540-231-4991 or [email protected]. If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the project investigators:

Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]

Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected]

Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected]

Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]

So that we may connect your responses to those you submitted in the online survey, please enter your email address here: Email Address: ______________________________


138

Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about Your department at Virginia Tech for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives beside each statement.

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree Agree

Strongly Agree

I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.

I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.

I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar.

I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.

This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.

I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined.


For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.


139

Listed below are a series of statements related to the vision for Your department at Virginia Tech. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the descriptors beside each statement.

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

The vision guiding VT [department] has been clear.

The purpose of VT [department] has been well communicated.

The VT [department] team has a clear understanding of the University community's needs and wants.

The vision of VT [department] has been well executed.

Please share any additional comments related to this study here.


140

APPENDIXC

DepartmentVisionandMission(asstatedontheirwebsite)


141

APPENDIXD

DepartmentDirectorStudyAnnouncementandLetterofSupport Dear Staff, We are about to begin some focused discussions about how to fulfill our vision: “be recognized by the university community as the premier resource for actively engaging students in exploring and pursuing their career aspirations leading to meaningful and purposeful contributions to our global society.” As we go through this process, there is an opportunity to participate in some related research that is investigating the effects of different strategies for organizational development. My desired outcome for this study and this staff experience is that we will move closer to accomplishing our office vision. Within the next day or two, you will receive an email from Kelsey Church Brunton, inviting you to complete an online survey about organizational commitment and vision clarity. The data collected in the survey is important, because it will help us determine the effects of the focused conversations over the next few weeks. This mixed methods study will be conducted by 1) utilizing an online and paper questionnaire format, 2) facilitating staff discussions on July 16 and 17, and 3) a follow up questionnaire and focus group interviews. Data collection is planned for July and August 2012. On July 18 the staff will come together to debrief the results of our work and the processes used. I believe that this study will directly benefit the department at Virginia Tech, and I encourage your full participation. If you have any questions or concerns about the discussions we are about to have or this research, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for all of your contributions to the success of [department]! Sincerely, Donna Cassell Ratcliffe Director Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-8077 [email protected]


142

APPENDIXE

InitialEmailInvitingStaffMemberstoParticipateintheStudy Subject: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: I am writing to ask your help in a study to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. This is the same study that Donna Ratcliff recently contacted you about. All employees are being encouraged to participate; though your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is available at [survey link] This study is important because organizations invest countless hours and resources in strategic planning efforts, and we need to know more about which strategies actually achieve the desired effects. By understanding your organizational commitment and vision clarity now and in the future, we will be able to assess the impact of the focused discussions that will be occurring in the coming weeks. As a result, we hope to make future organizational development efforts more efficient and effective. The full study is going to involve the survey now, another survey in mid-July, and a third survey in August. In addition, I will be observing the staff meetings scheduled for July 16th, 17th, and 18th and will invite some participations to join a focus group session in late August or early September. The surveys are short and will likely take less than five minutes. I plan to share details of other aspects of the study during a meeting on July 16th. Staff members who do not wish to participate in the study can still be involved in the meetings however their dialogue will not be noted in the field observations and their individual work will not be collected for document analysis. Audio recordings for the sessions will not be transcribed, further protecting the staff members who chose not to participate in the study. In the meantime, though, if you have any questions or concerns about the study, I would be glad to talk with you. You may reply to this email or call me at (540) 820-2571. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Eric Kaufman, at [email protected] or (540) 231-6258. Thank you for your time and consideration with this important study. I look forward to receiving your responses to the survey, available at [survey link] Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected]


143

APPENDIXF

InitialLettertoParticipantsInvitingthemtotakethePre‐test Please send to [department] Employees: [Dear First_Name:] You have been selected for participation in a survey of [department] employees. As a masters student, I am asking for your assistance with my current research on the analysis of methodologies used in organizational development. The survey is available at [survey link]. My research focuses on how two techniques of strategic planning affect organizational commitment and vision clarity. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. By completing the survey your consent to participate is implied. The study will take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts with this important study. Please let me know if you have any additional questions regarding my research at [email protected] or (540) 820-2571. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Eric Kaufman, at [email protected] or (540) 231-6258. I look forward to receiving your responses to the survey, available at [survey link]. Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton Eric Kaufman Masters Student Asst. Professor & Extension Specialist Agricultural and Extension Education Agricultural and Extension Education

Virginia Tech Virginia Tech


144

ReminderEmailtoParticipantsInvitingthemtotakethePre‐test

Subject: RE: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: A few days ago, I invited you to participate in a study to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. All [department] employees are being encouraged to participate, and many have already completed the online survey. However, we are still waiting on your response. We think the findings are going to be very useful, but we need to know your perceptions to maximize the value of the study. The survey is available at [survey link] In order to connect the data and monitor changes over time, we are keeping track of who completes each survey. However, protecting confidentiality of people’s answers is very important to us. All participants have been assigned a code and the findings will be shared only in summary form. It is only by protecting the individual participants that we can be confident in the findings of our study. The online survey is short and will likely take less than five minutes. I hope you will complete the study. If you have any questions or concerns about the study, I would be glad to talk with you. You may reply to this email or call me at (540) 820-2571. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Eric Kaufman, at [email protected] or (540) 231-6258. Thank you for your time and consideration with this important study. I look forward to receiving your responses to the survey, available at [survey link] Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected] (540) 820-2571


145

APPENDIXG

ObservationProtocol The purpose of observing the strategic planning interventions is to learn how participants’ vision clarity and organizational commitment is affected by group dialogs regarding implementation of [department]’ vision statement. Through observation, the researcher will also learn about each intervention (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats and Appreciative Inquiry) process as well as the resulting product. During the meetings the following constructs will be used to guide/focus the research observer(s).

I. How are employees discussing the vision? a. Do all employees have an understanding of Career Service’s vision? (Cole,

Harris,& Bernerth, 2006).

b. How does the dialogue affect employee's understanding of the vision and it’s execution?

c. How does the dialogue about the vision affect the support of the vision? (Foster & Akdere, 2007).

d. What tone of voice, word choice, or body language is used as an individual participates in the discussion about the vision?

II. How is the organizational commitment of the participants being affected by the intervention? a. How are employees discussing individual commitments they have made or plan

on making that align with the vision? (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). b. Does the dialogue of employees discuss personal values that relate to the values

expressed in the vision? (Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). c. How are employees embracing the ideas generated? (Allen & Meyer, 1996). d. How does the dialogue and ideas generated for the intervention reflect the “best”

of the organization? (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). III. What are the areas employees address during the intervention?

a. How does the group identify these issues? b. What are the products and outcomes of the intervention?

IV. What are the employees’ responses to the intervention? a. What is the overall feel of the group? What is the overall tone and body language

of employees? How are participants engaging in the intervention? V. Draw a diagram of the meeting room and label the location of each person

during the meeting. References: Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational behavior.


146

Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 352-367. Foster, R. D., & Akdere, M. (2007). Effective organizational vision: implications for human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(2), 100-111. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247. Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293-309.


147

APPENDIXH

ResearcherObservationsofAiInterventionFollowingtheEstablishedProtocol 1a. Many staff members had a clear understanding of the vision. It was noted that many of the staff members who helped craft the vision statement were in the room. These participants seemed to have a much deeper understanding of the vision. One participant posed a question in the wording of the vision statement, which was echoed by another participant. This was understood to be a good and critical reflection of the vision. The details and the wording were closely evaluated by the group. The group focused on the recognition piece of the vision statement. Many shared that they wanted to be viewed as the best by others as a premier resource for [department]. They discussed the need for [department] to be kept in the loop about career related discussions. It was also shared that the [department] would provide leadership around the career field and be a resource that was on the leading edge within this community. *The director noted a deeper dialogue and engagement by this group than the previous group 1b. It seemed that many of the participants had a full understanding of the vision. A support staff participant shared that it was very helpful to discuss the big picture because much of her work is often very focused on the details. Through the dialogue about the meaning of the vision the participant had a greater understanding of the vision. Execution – through the interviews many of the “best experiences” shared related to the ways in which [department] staff and living out the vision. This was not discussed directly but noted by the observer. 1c. The AI session in its entirety used many activities to generate support for the vision –that was a key underlying element of the session. Especially in the picture exercise, the dot exercise, and the narrative exercise, much of the support for the vision was generated through these exercises specifically. And through these exercises participants were able to develop a much deeper understanding of the vision, how they can live that out, and an understanding of what the vision looks like to them. 1d. Overall the tone was very upbeat, futuristic, and positive. Much of the dialogue was very forward looking and abstract –they discussed the big picture and big ideas. A large percentage of the dialogue was devoted to the strengths of the organization and the themes that resonated. Positive and best experiences were shared which resulted in a very open and energized dialogue. Participants were very engaged with one another in the interview


148

process. Staff members were able to be very reflective in their thoughts and statements about their work. Many hand gestures were being used in the interview session to tell their stories. Participants were facing each other showing full engagement. The staff was intently listening and taking notes on the meaning and strengths of the other. Positive, complimentary, and appreciative vocabulary were used throughout the session by the participants and the facilitator. 2a. Through the interview process and sharing of storied many of the day to day activities and experiences were shared that aligned with the vision of CS –this was an observation by the researcher (the facilitator did not make a direct connection to this). The staff discussed the experiences that made them come alive. The group spoke abstractly about what [department] would be doing if they were living out the vision. 2b. A very deep and meaningful dialogue took place during the interview which allowed employees to discuss values and experiences of personal gratification. Their best experiences also showcased the best of the organization. 2c. Employees worked together in groups to discuss what the vision would look like in a narrative form. Employees embraced the vision in this way and in this exercise. 2d. “What works” was a huge focus of this session. Participants spent half of the session discussing personal bests as well as the best of [department]. The themes that arose were communication, freedom, trust, individuality, teamwork, collaboration, etc. SEE POST IT Poster. 3a. The issues were identified through the grounding in staff member’s personal best experiences in the department. Themes were then generated from the sharing of strengths and commonalities of all participants. Participants also focused on envisioning the future and the vision statement through narrative and pictures. 3b. The facilitator shared that with these strengths in mind and with the new found understanding and deeper knowledge of the vision – the staff will be able to use this as a basis to execute the vision. 4a. (Mainly drawn from the reflection process) participants found the process to be reassuring of their excellent experiences and were able to have an understanding for how they WERE living out the vision


149

Another participant noted the connection that was made in connecting CS strengths to what the constituents need in order to achieve our vision. They were appreciative of the reflection piece and felt fulfilled in the strengths identified. One participant noted the strength in listening to others and hearing their story before we tell them. The process of inquiry proved to be a very valuable framework, which would be applicable to their work. Another noted that CS is executing the vision, and doing it well Proud of the wall of accomplishments FLIP Participants were curious about the outcome of this process Some participants asked, “what have we accomplished?” *Participants seemed to need some practical and more grounded discuss about how to get to the vision and move down from the abstract thinking. Discovery Phase – Interviewing participants to surface your ideas and feelings about the organization Dream Phase – What you would like the organization to be


150

APPENDIXI

ResearcherObservationsofSWOTInterventionFollowingtheEstablishedProtocol 1a. While many staff members responded to the question prompted by Jim, “what does the vision mean?” many of them had a hard time understanding all of the statement. Many staff members needed help in understanding that the vision was an aspirational statement. The vision was not something that could be shared with parents or students on a day-to-day basis. Many staff members also focused on the first half of the vision statement that related to being a premier resource –that seemed to resonate with them the most. 1b. Through dialogue about the vision statement staff members seemed to have a better idea of the difference between the mission and vision statement. The new hires learned a lot about CS from participating in this process, they learned a lot about the organization. As the questions about what the vision was/meant persisted, many staff members continued to chime in their understanding of the vision. More and more responses were shared as time went on. It seemed that the staff was more willing to share and perhaps this was based on the fact that a greater understanding of the vision was being produced as dialogue continued. Execution of the vision was discussed by asking “how do we make our vision a reality”, and “what is the problem we are trying to solve?” what’s holding us back from achieving this vision. The ways in which CS is already executing this vision were not explicitly discussed. The efforts they are currently making were mentioned throughout the session as examples were shared to support the SWOT activities. Many hurtles were identified in the execution process. 1c. Support for the vision statement seemed to be generated as the meaning of the vision statement was discussed. Support was also generated as the staff shared their many ideas in how they could execute the vision through the brainstorming process. Support for the vision was also generated as the staff discussed their strengths and opportunities as well as their passion for their job and their expertise in the field. One participant, through reflection shared that this process helped them to connect the vision to every day work. 1d. The staff had great energy throughout the session. They were very willing to dialogue and share ideas. Many staff members sat with open and engaging body language. Word choice – it was mentioned that a lot of negative language was used in this session as far is framing things as a “problem” and focusing on the weaknesses and threats of the idea. While the


151

responses were generally very positive and thoughtful. The responses given to address any weaknesses or threats were very thoughtful and were not spoken with any negative emotion. 2a. Many employees discussed previous relationships and experiences that support the ideas being generated and in turn that supported the vision. Through the brainstorming process many staff members discussed ideas/thoughts that would contribute to the vision. These ideas were discussed but not put into plan or execution in this session. 2b. One specific statement was made in the first exercise about “what the vision meant” in which someone shared that the vision really speaks to who we are, as a group and individually. A lot of times work is just work and I don’t think we view it this way. –this statement speaks to the values and commitment of the individual as well as the group to the vision. I believe this statement also address the values of the individual and group. Another statement was made about the staff being very passionate about their work and that they had enough enthusiasm and energy to not be burnt out. This statement indirectly relates to their values. 2c. Many participants showed enthusiasm for many of the ideas shared. Many participants stated that, “that was a great idea” or that they hadn’t thought of that idea before. The participants we asking about what’s next –showing their interest in seeing these ideas through. Participants would continue to dialogue about these ideas even after a particular exercise was over –showing their continued interest in the ideas. 2d. Participants had the opportunity to discuss their strengths as an organization and the opportunities that surrounded a particular idea. Throughout the session many participants spoke to the strengths of CS and the expertise of CS. Many of the ideas generated were in response to filling a deficit and addressing a problem and through this strengths and best practices were discussed. However, strengths and best practiced were not a direct focus nor the root of this session. It was shared by a participant that it seemed like the WT outweighed the SO. The participant wanted an opportunity (or maybe more of an opportunity) to talk about what the organization did well. 3a. Ideas were often shared and grounded in their day to day experiences. The ideas were identified through the creation of solutions to the problem “they just don’t get it”. 3b. See documents. Through reflection of the session and in asking “what feels valuable?” many participants shared that the brainstorming was helpful, that they learned about the other staff members, individual staff members expertise was shared, they enjoyed the structured process in an otherwise overwhelming process, it was good to connect the vision to every day work, an observation was made that CS had many more strengths and opportunities than they had WT, this process helped


152

to plant seeds of ideas for the future, many ideas were generated that the group was proud of, many felt accomplished, this process helped to reaffirm strengths and opportunities. One participant shared that this SWOT generated made her feel overwhelmed and unsure if she would continue with the idea now that the analysis had been completed. –this was viewed as a benefit to the process and the added value of the analysis. The weight and value of the idea itself could then be evaluated later. 4. One participant spoke specifically to the “negative” language that was used. However, overall the group was grateful for the intervention and felt the process was helpful. Many participants shared statements of excitement and enthusiasm as well as accomplishment. There was a noticeable difference in the tone and mood of the group when they were discussing the SO versus the TW. Participants were much more hesitant to share TWs and they were much more quite. Far less participants contributed to the discussion of TWs than they did to the discussion about SOs. Many participants were excited about discussing the SOs and the overall mood of the group was better and more positive.


153

APPENDIXJ

Copy of the Delayed post test



Opening Prompt

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, which investigates the effects of differentstrategies for organizational development. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary

and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. Thissurvey is expected to take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Please be honest and truthful in

your responses.

If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study,

please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540-231-4991 [email protected].

If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the projectinvestigators:

· Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]· Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected]

· Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected]· Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]

Part 1 Organizational Commitment

Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have

about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about

Career Services at Virginia Tech for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your

agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives besideeach statement.


SomewhatDisagree

NeitherAgree

norDisagree

SomewhatAgree Agree

StronglyAgree

I am willing to put in a great deal of effortbeyond that normally expected in order to helpthis organization be successful.

I would accept almost any type of jobassignment in order to keep work ing for thisorganization.

I find that my values and the organization’svalues are very similar.

I am proud to tell others that I am part of thisorganization.

This organization really inspires the very best inme in the way of job performance.

I am extremely glad that I chose thisorganization to work for over others I wasconsidering at the time I joined.


For me this is the best of all possibleorganizations for which to work .

Part 2 Vision Clarity

Listed below are a series of statements related to the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech.

Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking oneof the descriptors beside each statement.


NeitherAgree norDisagree Agree

StronglyAgree

The vision guiding VT Career Services has beenclear.

The purpose of VT Career Services has been well



The purpose of VT Career Services has been wellcommunicated.

The VT Career Services team has a clearunderstanding of the University community's needsand wants.

The vision of VT Career Services has been wellexecuted.


154

APPENDIXK

EmailInvitationtoParticipantsforDelayedPost‐test

Subject: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: I am writing to ask for your continued support in this survey to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. All [department] employees are being encouraged to participate; though your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is available at [survey link] Thank you in advance for your time and your participation is valued. Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected] (540) 820-2571


155

APPENDIXL

EmailRemindertoParticipantsforDelayedPost‐test

Subject: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: A few days ago, I invited you to participate in a survey to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. You are being contacted again because the opinion of every staff member is important. All [department] employees are being encouraged to participate; though your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is available at [survey link] Thank you in advance for your time and your participation is valued. Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected] (540) 820-2571


156

APPENDIXM

FocusGroupInterviewProtocol

Type of group: ________________________________________________________ Location: ____________________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________________________________ Participants (in code): ___________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The interview questions have been tentatively constructed and could be changed to reflect the findings of the pre and post-tests as is reflective of a mixed methods explanatory sequential design. Pre-Session Activities

Before recording and beginning the session, all participants must sign and return the consent form if they haven’t already. All copies of the signed consent will be present at the interview.

Introduction:

The leader summarizes the purpose of the group, confidentiality, length of the interview, the fact that there are no right answers, and that it is ok to disagree.

Experience with Interventions:

Describe your experience in the “break out groups” with the organizational development consultant.

o What did you like best about the experience? o What was most frustrating or disappointing?

Describe your experience in the combined session with the consultant and the director? o What was the focus of these efforts? o What were the outcomes?

Experience since Interventions and Combined Session:

Please describe your experience since the combined session, as it relates to the information discussed during that time.

o Has further action been taken? o What are the anticipated outcomes?

Vision Clarity:


157

How did this experience affect your understanding of the ways in which Career Services “lives out” its vision statement?

o Are the steps you are taking to achieve the vision more or less clear? Why? What specifically has been made clearer? Has this experience added confusion in any way to your role or to your

understanding of the vision? Organizational Commitment:

How has your involvement in the strategic planning affected your commitment to the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech?

o Do you feel more or less committed to Career Services at Virginia Tech because of this experience? Why?

o How has this experience affected your willingness to work towards the vision of Career Services?

Summary and Closing Questions:

Now I would like to summarize the main points you presented. First, you mentioned… (present summary of main points here)

o Does this capture what we have discussed? Is there anything we haven’t talked about that you believe is important to add?


158

APPENDIXN

aprioriPropositionsProposition Supporting Literature Research Question SWOT and Ai interventions are used for similar purposes and to achieve similar goals.

SWOT analysis is a very useful tool for organizational visioning, (O'Brien & Meadows, 2000) community visioning (Singh & Kosi–Katarmal, 2009), and strategic planning (Leigh, 2010) Ai serves as a method of facilitating organizational visioning (Levin, 2000), community visioning (Haines & Green, 2011), and strategic planning (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2007).

What were the process and products of each intervention?

Ai and SWOT use different methods and techniques in an intervention.

SWOT is used as a rigorous analytical tool (Hill & Westbrook, 1997). SWOTs are generated using a two by two matrix (Leigh, 2010). Ai upholds the positive principle, that humans respond best to positive thought and knowledge, therefore the organizational system should also operate-in this fashion Kakabadse et al. (2005). Ai focuses on the “big picture” and systems thinking while using a 4-D model (Ludema et al., 2003).


A structured strategic visioning process influences organizational commitment and vision clarity.

(Cooperrider et al., 2008) suggested that there are three components of an effective organizational vision: 1) vision clarity, 2) vision support, and 3) stability; moreover, vision is essential to organizational success.

What are the levels of organizational commitment and vision clarity before and after interventions among staff? What were the differences in organizational commitment and vision clarity within and between treatment groups?

Stakeholders actively contribute to the visioning process in both intervention treatments.

Participants generate SWOTs for a specific strategy, which are then categorized and deliberated (Leigh, 2010). The constructionist principle of Ai emphasizes the connection between socially constructed knowledge and organizational destiny Denison (1990).

How did participants’ perceive the visioning process and resulting effects? What similarities and differences


159

The four phase cycle is completed through interviews, focus groups, artwork, and group dialogue (Cooperrider et al., 2008).

are there between perceptions expressed by each intervention treatment group?

Quantitative and qualitative data mixing provides a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.

Multiple sources of data are used to develop and inform research methods; in addition to, elaborating and clarifying results with the intent to increase meaningfulness and validity of constructs and inquiry results (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).

Are there significant differences in pre/post test results between intervention groups based on their visioning process?


160

APPENDIXO

AlignmentofResearchQuestions,Propositions,InterviewQuestions,andSupportingLiterature

Research Question

Proposition Interview Question Supporting Literature


SWOT and Ai interventions are used for similar purposes and to achieve similar goals.

Describe your experience in meeting with the organizational development consultant. Since meeting with the consultant, please describe any activity related to the organization’s vision.

SWOT analysis is a very useful tool for organizational visioning, (O'Brien & Meadows, 2000) community visioning (Singh & Kosi–Katarmal, 2009), and strategic planning (Leigh, 2010) Ai serves as a method of facilitating organizational visioning (Levin, 2000), community visioning (Haines & Green, 2011), and strategic planning (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2007).


Ai and SWOT use different methods and techniques in an intervention.

Since meeting with the consultant, please describe any activity related to the organization’s vision. Describe your experience in meeting with the organizational development consultant.

SWOT is used as a rigorous analytical tool (Hill & Westbrook, 1997). SWOTs are generated using a two by two matrix (Leigh, 2010). Ai upholds the positive principle, that humans respond best to positive thought and knowledge, therefore the organizational system should also operate-in this fashion (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Ai focuses on the “big picture” and systems thinking while using a 4-D model (Ludema et al., 2003).


161

Alignment of Research Questions, Propositions, Interview Questions, and Supporting Literature Research Question

Proposition Interview Question Supporting Literature

What are the level of organizational commitment and vision clarity before and after interventions among staff? What were the differences in organizational commitment and vision clarity within and between treatment groups?

Organizational commitment and vision clarity are key measures in the health of an organization OR A structured strategic visioning process influences organizational commitment and vision clarity.

How has your work with the consultant affected your commitment to Career Services at Virginia Tech? How did this experience affect your perception of the Career Services vision statement? Did this experience have any affect on your motivation to perform at your best? Please explain.

(Cooperrider et al., 2008) suggested that there are three components of an effective organizational vision: 1) vision clarity, 2) vision support, and 3) stability; moreover, vision is essential to organizational success.

How did participants’ perceive the visioning process and resulting effects? What similarities and differences are there between perceptions expressed by each intervention treatment group?

Stakeholders actively contribute to the visioning process in both intervention treatments.

Describe your experience in meeting with the organizational development consultant. Since meeting with the consultant, please describe any activity related to the organization’s vision.

Participants generate SWOTs for a specific strategy, which are then categorized and deliberated (Leigh, 2010). The constructionist principle of Ai emphasizes the connection between socially constructed knowledge and organizational destiny Denison (1990). The four phase cycle is completed through interviews, focus groups, artwork, and group dialogue (Cooperrider et al., 2008).


162

APPENDIXP

IRB approval

Office of Research ComplianceInstitutational Review Board2000 Kraft Drive, Suite 2000 (0497)Blacksburg, VA 24060540/231-4606 Fax 540/231-0959email [email protected] http://www.irb.vt.edu

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 2, 2012

TO: Eric K Kaufman, Kelsey Church Brunton, Donna Westfall-Rudd, Curtis RobertFriedel

FROM: Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires May 31, 2014)

PROTOCOL TITLE: SWOT & AI Thesis Research

IRB NUMBER: 12-316

Effective July 2, 2012, the Virginia Tech Institution Review Board (IRB) Chair, David M Moore,approved the New Application request for the above-mentioned research protocol. This approval provides permission to begin the human subject activities outlined in the IRB-approvedprotocol and supporting documents. Plans to deviate from the approved protocol and/or supporting documents must be submitted to theIRB as an amendment request and approved by the IRB prior to the implementation of any changes,regardless of how minor, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to thesubjects. Report within 5 business days to the IRB any injuries or other unanticipated or adverseevents involving risks or harms to human research subjects or others. All investigators (listed above) are required to comply with the researcher requirements outlined at:

http://www.irb.vt.edu/pages/responsibilities.htm

(Please review responsibilities before the commencement of your research.)

PROTOCOL INFORMATION:

Approved As: Expedited, under 45 CFR 46.110 category(ies) 6,7 Protocol Approval Date: July 2, 2012Protocol Expiration Date: July 1, 2013Continuing Review Due Date*: June 17, 2013*Date a Continuing Review application is due to the IRB office if human subject activities coveredunder this protocol, including data analysis, are to continue beyond the Protocol Expiration Date.

FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS:

Per federal regulations, 45 CFR 46.103(f), the IRB is required to compare all federally funded grantproposals/work statements to the IRB protocol(s) which cover the human research activities includedin the proposal / work statement before funds are released. Note that this requirement does not applyto Exempt and Interim IRB protocols, or grants for which VT is not the primary awardee. The table on the following page indicates whether grant proposals are related to this IRB protocol, andwhich of the listed proposals, if any, have been compared to this IRB protocol, if required.

IRB Number 12-316 page 2 of 2 Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board

Date* OSP Number Sponsor Grant Comparison Conducted?

* Date this proposal number was compared, assessed as not requiring comparison, or comparisoninformation was revised.

If this IRB protocol is to cover any other grant proposals, please contact the IRB office([email protected]) immediately.


163

APPENDIXQ

TheFrameworkfortheBrainstormingActivity


164

APPENDIXR

SolutionsBrainstormingActivity


165


166

APPENDIXS

SWOTforOne‐on‐OnewithFaculty


167


168


169

APPENDIXT

AiInterviewGuide

INTERVIEW GUIDE

CAREER SERVICES VISIONING/PLANNING

July 17, 2012


170

Questions Tell me about one or more “peak experiences” or a “high points” in Career Services during which you felt really alive. What was going on? What was your role? What were you feeling at these times? Why? What do these experiences tell you about the organization? (For example, what are its strengths? What makes it special?)


171

Making Meaning of the Interview What was the most compelling/exciting/interesting thing you heard in the interview? What strengths of the organization were identified in the interview? What positive themes can you identify from the interview


172

APPENDIXU

PhotocopiesoftheImagesDrawnDuringtheDreamPhase


173


174


175


176


177


178

APPENDIXV

PhotocopiesoftheAinarrativesWrittenbyStaff


179


180

APPENDIXW

CompilationofThemesandCodesThevisioningprocessleadtopositivereactions

ThecreativityandenvisioninginvolvedinAiwasfunandinsightful Enlighteningexperiencetolistentoothers Enjoyedinterviewprocessbecauseitallowedhertolearnmoreaboutfellow

colleagues Interventionmadeherfeelexcitedaboutupcomingwork Aihelpedtore‐energize Thedrawingactivitywasuniqueandinteresting Initiallythedrawingactivitywaschallenginganduncomfortable.Intheend,seeing

allthepicturesprovedtobeanenjoyableactivity. OvercomingourperceivedWandTwasabeneficialactivity Thebrainstormingactivitywasexcitingandcreative Greatopportunitytolearnmoreaboutfellowcolleaguesasanewstaffmember Thebrainstormingactivitywasenjoyable Shefoundthebrainstormingactivitytobeenergizing Thedotactivitywasenjoyableandhelpfulinnarrowingideasafterbrainstorming EnvisioningthefutureofCSwasapositiveandre‐energizingprocess Aihelpedhertoreflectandappreciateherworkenvironment Theinterventionwasre‐energizingandprovidedanappreciationofCS Staffcouldbuildonwhatwasdiscussedatinterventionatalaterdata–discussions

werebeneficial ItwasagoodexperiencetohavethewholestaffexperienceAi ProcesswasviewedasbeneficialtoCS Likethepositiveprocess Goodfocusandenjoyableexperiencetobetogether OverallAiwasapositiveprocess Positiveandenergizingtostarttheprocesswithstrengths Benefitstounderstandinglimitationsandboundarieswhenconsideringanidea–

missinginAi ShewouldliketocontinuewithsomeoftheideasgeneratedintheSWOTdiscussion TakeawayfromAisessionwastobuildonenjoyableeventsandlearnfromthose

experiences SWOTwasagoodexperiencethatbuiltconsensus Aiwasapositiveexperience Greatopportunitytofocusonideasandbrainstorming SWOTwasanenergizingexperience


181

Insomewaystheinterventionwasafrustratingandnegativeexperience

Mishapsintimingandstructureofinterventionwasfrustrating Initiallythedrawingactivitywaschallenginganduncomfortable.Intheend,seeing

allthepicturesprovedtobeanenjoyableactivity. ThefocusonTandWcreatedanegativeenvironmentthantheperceivedAI

environment Frustratedthattherewasn’tenoughtimetoexpandorelaborateonideasduring

brainstormingactivity ThepurposeoftheSWOTinterventionseemedunclear Interventionwasunclearandfrustrating ConfusedaboutforwardprogressrelatedtothediscussionsduringSWOT

intervention Confusingprocess DidnotenjoytheSWOTprocess Frustratingprocessbecausehewantedmoretimetobecreative Detailsoftheprocessweretimeconsumingandtherewasn’tasubstantialoutcome Frustratingthattherewaslittleoutcomebecausetherewasnotenoughtimeto

developideas Frustratedbecauseshehopedformoretangibleoutcomesandactionsteps DrainedbythedetailedSWOTprocess Challenginganduncomfortabledrawingactivity Benefitstounderstandinglimitationsandboundarieswhenconsideringanidea–

missinginAi FrustratedbySWOTprocessbecauseitdidnotbuildoffofstrengthsorestablished

successes FrustratedwithAiprocessbecausetheoutcomedidnotyieldactionsteps SWOThadanegativeundertonetotheprocess Frustratedbyslowforwardprogress Confusionastowhetherornotthevisioncouldbediscussedindividuallybecauseof

study SWOTwasafrustratingprocessforanintuitivepersonalitytype

Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff

AsamemberoftheleadershipteamshehelpedcrafttheVS–familiarwiththeVS Overall,sheiscontentwiththecurrentstatusoftheVS PreviousexperienceincraftingthevisionresultedincontinuedclarityoftheVS Didnotneedfeedbackonvisionbecauseitisclearthattheyareservingthestudents

well–visionattainment SEunderstoodthemeaningofaVS Priortotheintervention,shehadaclearunderstandingofthevision. Perceivedthestafftohaveunderstoodthevisionaswell ContentwithcurrentVSwhichrepresented


182

EmployeesAgreethatthewordingdoesn’thavetobeperfect StaffhadaclearunderstandingoftheVS VSisclearandeasytounderstand StaffhasasimilarinterpretationoftheVS Thestaffisworkingtowardsfulfillingthevisionandacceptingthattobeajourney‐

generalstatementaboutCSculture ConfusedaboutthepurposeoftheVS SessionreiteratedthepurposeofCS ThepurposeofCSisinnatelyunderstoodbystaff

Positiveimpactonvisionclarity

DevelopingaDeeperandBroaderUnderstandingoftheVisionStatement AlignmentofDailyTaskswiththeVisionStatement MeaningBehindtheVisionStatementwasMadeClear OpportunitiesforCriticalReflectionoftheVisionStatement Theinterventionmadethevisionandgoalsslightlymoreclear Asanewemployeeitwasagreatopportunitytolearnaboutthevisiononadeeper

level InterventionhelpedhertobetterunderstandthegoalsofCSandfellowcolleagues

perceptions’ofthevision Thevisionwasdiscussedatstaffmeetingsandretreat previously,therehadnotbeenastaffwidediscussionabouttheVS Processservedasawayfornewemployeestobewelleducatedaboutthevisionof

CS(beyondreadingtheVS) Sessionprovidedinsightintohowtopromotethevisionandareastofocus TheSWOTprocesshelpedtoclarifydeeplyrootedbarrierstotheVision Broadenedsenseofvision Aisessionaidedinvisionclarity TheprocesshelpedtoprovideconsensusontheVS Inhiscurrentrolehedoesnotactivelydialogueaboutthevision,soitwashelpfulto

attendthesessionandlearnwhatothersthoughtaboutthe Visionclarity Invokedadesiretoparticipatefurtherinsimilardiscussionsaboutthevision Discoveredthatmanycoworkershadasimilarunderstandingofthevision LearnedtheindividualmeaningsbehindtheVS‐Enjoyabletohearperspectiveof

co‐workerswhodidnotcrafttheVS DialogueabouttheVSstatementrevealedvariedinterpretationsofmeaning VShasbeencommunicatedhowevertheunderlyingmeaningoftheVSwasnot

communicatedpreviously Enjoyabletohearthemanyemployeeperspectivesaboutthevision TheAIprocesshelpedtoaddmeaningtotheVSasopposedtoitbeingjustwords SWOTallowedthenewemployeetolearnaboutindividualpurposeofeachstaff

member


183

InterventiongenerateddiscussionaboutthedeepermeaningbehindtheVSinhopesofprovidingclarity

SessionhelpedtofocusonthemeaningoftheVSandnotbedistractedbythewords TheSWOTsessionhelpedtounderstandthemeaningofthewordsintheVS ThedialogueabouttheVSmadeherre‐thinkorthinkmorecriticallyabouttheVS AftertheinterventionsherealizedthatsomecomponentsoftheVScouldberevised ShedoesnotbelievethattheVSneedstobecompletelyrecraftedafterthe

intervention;however,revisingcertainwordsintheVSwouldallowforenhancement

QuestionsthelargescopeoftheVSandhowthatimpactsherworkwithstudentsatVT

UsestheVStoguideherdaytodaydecisions SWOThelpedhertoalignideasandactionstotheVS Shesubconsciouslytakesactioninfulfillingthevision–thisisinnatelyapartofher

work Formalalignmentofdailytaskswiththevisionisnottakingplace.Visionalignment

happensnaturallyasemployeesworkhard. Theinterventionprovidedinsightintothedelineationbetweenmissionandvision Alignedtaskswithvision Processhelpedhertoalignideasandtaskswithvisionfulfillment AlignpersonalstrengthswithVision DespitethedifferingopinionsaboutVSwording,LLbelievesthattheunderlying

purposeofthevisionisclearwhichcanbeseenthroughtheactionsofthestaff Processmadeherquestionthevisionstatement AiprocesshelpedherclarifyhowCScouldbetterreachtheirvision Thestaffisworkingtowardsfulfillingthevisionandacceptingthattobeajourney‐

generalstatementaboutCSculture Believesthatactionsteps,asaresultofintervention,werenotneededbecause

actionsarealreadybeingtakentoachievethevision Realizedtheimportanceofteamworkandcommitmenttootherstosucceed

Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance.

Becausejobmotivationisalreadyveryhigh,theInterventiondidnotsparknewmotivations

Dedicatedtohighperformancesomotivationwasnotphasedbyintervention Interventionhadnotaffectonmotivationtoperform Theinterventiondidnothaveapositiveornegativeaffect(=noaffect)onpersonal

commitmenttojoborCS NochangeincommitmentbutshedidfeelveryproudtoworkatCSasaresultofAi Thegeneralconsensusisthatthestaffasawholeisverycommittedtotheirwork NoaffectofOC NoaffectOC–excitedtodoanythingthatpursuesthevision NoaffectofOC–showninyearsofemployment


184

HighregardforCS BelievesthattheentireCSstaffiscommittedtoservingstudents Affirmedmanyofthegreataspectsoftheoffice AcknowledgesthatCSisdoingwellinfulfillingtheirvision AdmittedherestablishedhighlevelofOC CSisalreadyworkingtowardsVS–didnotneedextratimetodiscussit.Highly

committedgroup “Wedoitwell” CSstaffenjoytheirjobs Wearedoingit!Wearecurrentlyestablishedinworkingtowardsthevision

througheverydayactions Alreadyatahighlevelofcommitmentandmotivationtosucceed HighperformanceisanormatCS Affirmedmanyofthegreataspectsoftheoffice Theinterviewreinforcedmypre‐establishedcommitmenttoCS CSvaluesteamworkandorganizationalperformanceoverindividualperformance AtCSthereisanestablishedcultureofcustomerservice AtVTandCSthereisanestablishedandexpectedcultureofexcellence Goingtheextramiletohelpothers(students,staff,employers)isanormatCSand

VT.Excellenceisengrainedintheculture. Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment


TheAiprocessconfirmedpre‐existingorganizationalbeliefsandvalues ItwasreaffirmingtovisualizeorganizationalvaluesandtheAiprocesshelpedto

confirmestablishedbeliefs ConfirmedmanyofherinitialthoughtsaboutCSestablishedwhileinterviewingfor

thejob Theinterviewreinforcedmypre‐establishedcommitmenttoCS Attheretreatthestaffparticipatedinacoworkeraffirmationactivity Personalcommitmentandpurposeinworkwasconfirmed ItwasnotedthatPersonalvaluesalignedwithworkvalues‐confirming Affirmedmanyofthegreataspectsoftheoffice Affirmingtohearaboutco‐workersvaluesandconnectednesstoCS Reaffirmingtohearfromstaffthattheywerecommittedandexcitedabouttheir

jobs. GratefultobeincludedinprocesswhichsolidifiedhercommitmenttoCS NochangeincommitmentbutshedidfeelveryproudtoworkatCSasaresultofAi Theoneononeinterviewsuncoveredsharedvaluesbetweenunfamiliarcoworkers CShiresindividualswithsimilarvaluesandworkethicascurrentemployees AcknowledgesthathervaluesalignwithCS Commonthemeswereobservedbetweenindividualandorganizationalvalues


185

ItwasreaffirmingtovisualizeorganizationalvaluesandtheAiprocesshelpedtoconfirmestablishedbeliefs


BalancedpowerdynamicbetweenleadershipandstaffcontributestothecultureatCS

Notestheimportanceofhiringincreatingandmaintainingculture Inthehiringprocessorganizationalfitisimportant CShiresindividualswithsimilarvaluesandworkethicascurrentemployees Importanttohirenewemployeeswithvaluesthatarealignedthevision/culture Thereisanotabledifferenceofvaluesandstandardsinotheroffices ValuesofCSwerehighlightedwithinAisession Engrainedvaluesestablishanacceptedculture HighperformanceisanormatCS Cultureofpassionfortheirwork GratefultobeincludedinprocesswhichsolidifiedhercommitmenttoCS Thestafffeelsvaluedandempowered Establishedcultureofbuildingsuccess Cultureofopennessandhonesty StaffhasanunderstandingofCSvision CSsupportsorganizationallearningandpersonaldevelopment Professionaldevelopmenthelpsthestafftoworktogether Directorisresponsibleforinstillingvalues Focusofpersonalstrengthstobuildtowardsvisionfulfillment Thestaffisworkingtowardsfulfillingthevisionandacceptingthattobeajourney‐

generalstatementaboutCSculture CSencourageslearningandprofessionaldevelopment,whichcontributestothe

positiveandrewardingworkenvironment. Enjoysherworkbecauseofthevarietyofresponsibilities. Longworkingrelationshiphasleadtosharedvaluesandlikeexperiences ManylongtimestaffmembersatCSbecauseoftheculture WorkedatCSformanyyearsbecauseshereallyenjoysthepeoplesheworkswith.

Goodpeople=goodculture Supportiveofnewemployees Retreatexerciseshowcasedtheimportanceofvaluingagreatworkforce SpiritteamexemplifiedCSsupportivenature SupportivecultureatCS Inclusiveandsupportiveculture Establishedcultureandstandards Contentcode–cultureofCSisbuiltoncommunicationandsupportofstaff Supportive/familyculture CSvaluesteamworkandorganizationalperformanceoverindividualperformance AnnualEventshowcasesCSValuesforteamworkandcolleagues


186

Realizedtheimportanceofteamworkandcommitmenttootherstosucceed TeamworkisrequiredoftheCSstafftoservestudents Staffenjoysworkingtogetherasateamonevents Valueteamworkandstaffsupport SpecialCulture‐feelingsoftogethernessandsupport(family) ThestaffatCSvaluesstudentdevelopment BelievesthattheentireCSstaffiscommittedtoservingstudents StaffmembersatCSarepersonallyresponsibletotheircustomers GreatvalueisplacedonservicetostudentsatCS CSstafftreatsstudentsprofessionally CSstaffisalsosupportiveofstudentsthroughstudentdevelopment AtCSthereisanestablishedcultureofcustomerservice

Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board Project No. 12-316 Approved July 2, 2012 to July 1, 2013


187

AppendixV

VIRGINIAPOLYTECHNICINSTITUTEANDSTATEUNIVERSITY

InformedConsentforParticipantsinResearchProjectsInvolvingHumanSubjects

Title of Project:Analysis of Methodologies Used in Organizational Development: SWOT Analysis and Appreciative Inquiry

Investigators: Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton, Dr. Eric K. Kaufman, Dr. Curtis R. Friedel, Dr. Donna Westfall‐Rudd

I. Purpose of this Research/Project Researchers from Virginia Tech want to know how two techniques of strategic planning, Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and Appreciative Inquiry (AI), affect participant’s organizational commitment and vision clarity. We would appreciate your help in this study by agreeing to participate in a focus group and assessment where you share your opinions and thought processes. II. Procedures If you agree to participate, you will be included in the researcher’s observations of the processes that take place during each session. The documents generated from your participation will be incorporated into the analysis and findings of the study. Each session will be audio‐recorded. Your name will not be recorded or attached to any use of the recording, and only the research team will have access to the audio files. You may be selected to participate in a focus group interview along with six to eight other Career Services employees. The focus group should take about 60 minutes and will be audio‐recorder; however, your name will not be recorded or attached to any report of the findings. Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to participate and/or stop participating at any time. III. Risks The risks associated with participation in the study are no more than minimal. IV. Benefits No promise or guarantee of benefits has been made to encourage you to participate. However, you may have the satisfaction of knowing that you have contributed important information to a study of how to improve community involvement in environmental improvement efforts. Participants may contact the researcher for a summary of the research results. V. Extent of Anonymity and Confidentiality The information concerning your participation in the study will be kept entirely confidential by using codes for each person instead of names (i.e. 1:1= focus group 1:participant 1). Social



188

security numbers or other personal information will NOT be used. At no time will the researchers release the data from the study to anyone other than individuals working on the project without your written consent. Your focus group participation and responses will not affect your participation in any future Virginia Tech program. Each session and focus group will be audio recorded to accurately record your statements. The audio files will be kept on a password‐protected computer. Only the researchers will have access to the files. The audio files will be erased at the conclusion of this research project. It is possible that the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB) may view this study’s collected data for auditing purposes. The IRB is responsible for the oversight of the protection of human subjects involved in research. VI. Compensation You will receive no compensation for your participation in this study. VII. Freedom to Withdraw Participants are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. You are free to not answer any questions or to participate beyond a level that is comfortable for you. VIII. Subject's Responsibilities I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I have the following responsibilities:

Participate in a session facilitated by a Virginia Tech consultant;

Complete a post‐test immediately after the first session and a delayed post‐test 4 weeks after the session;

Potentially participate in a 60 minute focus group with other career services employees; and

Ask questions of the researcher about the study at any time. IX. Subject's Permission I have read the Consent Form and conditions of this project. I have had all my questions answered. I am not a minor and give my voluntary consent to participate in this study: _______________________________________________ Date__________ Subject signature If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study, please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540‐231‐4991 or [email protected]. If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the project investigators:

Masters student Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]



189

Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected] Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected] Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]

a mixed methods study evaluating …vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/23254/brunt...a...

Documents