facilitating the design of a campus leadership team
Post on 04-Mar-2017
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 29 October 2014, At: 12:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20
Facilitating the Design of a CampusLeadership TeamRenee A. Meyers & John R. JohnsonPublished online: 02 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Renee A. Meyers & John R. Johnson (2008) Facilitating the Design of a CampusLeadership Team, Communication Education, 57:4, 472-481, DOI: 10.1080/03634520801993515
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520801993515
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Facilitating the Design of a CampusLeadership TeamRenee A. Meyers & John R. Johnson
This essay describes how we facilitated the design of a campus leadership team. What is
particularly interesting about this consultative project is that both authors participated*one as facilitator and the other as participant. The facilitation included a needs
assessment prior to the event, the use of structured controversy techniques, decision-
making strategies, and a focus on dialogue rather than information dissemination
throughout the event. We detail the challenges and opportunities we encountered, the
facilitation procedures utilized, and the outcomes achieved. Finally, we address how
instructional communication theory and strategies framed and informed this facilitative
work.
Keywords: Instructional Communication; Facilitation; Decision-Making; Structured
Controversy; Teamwork
This case study tells the story of a facilitation project that resulted in the creation of a
senior leadership team at a large university. The client (a prominent leader in this
context) wanted the participants in this retreat to explore the idea of building a
leadership team that would help sustain his current agenda for the university. He had
no idea whether that goal could be accomplished, nor how the participants at the
retreat should go about achieving this goal. Thus, he sought a facilitator who could
shepherd that process.
Setting the Context
So it was in early July 2007 that Meyers received a phone call from this client
requesting a meeting. Unbeknownst to Meyers, Johnson had suggested to the client
that he contact Meyers as a potential facilitator for an upcoming leadership retreat. As
Renee A. Meyers (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1987) and John R. Johnson (Ph. D., University of Denver, 1978)
are both professors in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. They
would like to thank the client and the participants of this retreat for making this facilitation experience possible.
Renee A. Meyers can be contacted at meyers@uwm.edu.
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2008 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/03634520801993515
Communication Education
Vol. 57, No. 4, October 2008, pp. 472�481
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
is often the case with consulting opportunities, they are acquired through word-of-
mouth recommendations. Moreover, unbeknownst to Johnson at the time, he would
end up being invited to participate in the retreat. Johnson’s primary disciplinary
expertise is instructional communication and organizational change management so
this invitation allowed him to serve as an informed participant-observer.
In telling the story of this facilitation project, we draw upon both of these
perspectives*that of facilitator and participant. In the narrative that follows, we
weave together these two sets of observations to more fully describe and explain the
facilitation process that took place during a Leadership retreat, and the instructional
communication theory and strategies that framed and informed that process (Plax,
2006).
Needs Analysis, Objectives, and Process
Although the final facilitation process appeared organized and structured, getting to
that point involved working closely with the client to define the desired outcomes and
processes to be used in the intervention. At the first meeting, the client indicated that
he wanted to hold the retreat off campus, over a one and one-half day period, with a
defined set of participants. Moreover, he wanted the members of this retreat to
explore the idea of building a leadership team that would help sustain his current
agenda for the university. He had no idea whether that goal could be accomplished,
nor how the retreat participants should go about achieving this goal. He also
indicated at this first meeting that he would compensate the facilitator (Meyers) for
her contributions by paying her overload fees.
At this initial meeting, the client suggested to Meyers that she attend an upcoming
cabinet session to meet some of the participants who would attend the retreat. The
cabinet consisted of current campus leaders closely aligned with the client (e.g., vice-
chancellors and provost). In addition, the client and Meyers agreed that she would
conduct a participant needs analysis prior to the retreat by interviewing each of the
eight members of the cabinet. Three questions structured the interviews: (1) What do
you see as the two or three most important leadership challenges that the university
will face in the next 5�10 years? (2) Can we build a committed and collaborative
senior leadership team to move forward on these issues, and if so, how? (3) What
would you like to see accomplished at this retreat?
All of the interviewees were informed of the questions prior to the actual interview
sessions. Individual interviews ranged from 45�90 minutes. The necessity of this
needs analysis step cannot be underestimated. Knowing the key participants in the
planned intervention and their learning and task needs serve a foundational step
when creating any instructional or organizational change intervention (DeWine,
2001; Nadler, 1980; Rothwell & Kazanas, 1998). The failure of organizational
interventions can often be traced to the failure to perform this step (Connor, Lake,
& Stackman, 2003; Rothwell & Kazanas, 1998).
When the needs assessment was completed, Meyers developed an initial outline for
the retreat addressing the primary concerns voiced in the interviews. Development of
Facilitating Design of Leadership Team 473
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
the outline involved establishing goals (outlined below) and identifying facilitative
strategies to accomplish these goals. Literature on facilitation strategies (Rees, 2005;
Schwarz, 2002) as well as research on instructional and organizational change theory
(Connor et al., 2003; Nadler, 1980; Ostroff & Ford, 1989) provided a foundation for
selection of facilitation methods.
A problem-solving framework was deemed most relevant. Once the initial outline
was constructed, Meyers met again with the client to review the proposed plan.
Because some of the interviewees had expressed concern about whether participants
would talk candidly if the senior most leaders (president/chancellor and provost)
were present, discussion at this meeting centered on whether they should be present
at the retreat. In the end, the client decided it was necessary for senior leaders to be
present.
Additionally, at this meeting, Meyers and the client assigned the 27 retreat
participants into three groups that remained together throughout the retreat. Three
equal-size groups were used because that configuration fit space availability,
communication needs, and the desire to have in each group a heterogeneous
assortment of vice-chancellors, academic deans, faculty/academic staff, governance
representatives, and support personnel. Given the time-consuming process of
creating such heterogeneous groups and the desire to develop a safe and supportive
communicative climate within each group, it was decided not to change members of
groups during the retreat. When the planning phase was complete, the client sent an
official invitation that included a general outline of the issues that would be discussed
at the retreat.
Facilitation Methods and Strategies
The goals for the retreat influenced the selection of the facilitation methods. Based on
the results of the participant needs analysis and the client’s objectives for the retreat,
the following goals were identified: (1) develop new, and/or renewed, relationships
among participants, (2) explore initial skepticism around the idea of a senior
leadership team, (3) identify key challenges associated with working as a senior
leadership team, (4) delineate opportunities for overcoming these challenges, and (5)
determine key action steps for building and developing a senior leadership team. The
facilitation strategies used to accomplish each goal are detailed next.
Develop New or Renewed Relationships
A basic goal of this retreat was to develop, or to renew, relationships among the
participants. In the needs assessment, participants indicated that employees at this
university, like many employees in large organizations, worked in silos with little
communication across departments/divisions. In addition, there were several new
employees who did not feel connected to others in the leadership structure. From a
facilitation standpoint, developing relationships was essential for creating a climate
474 R. A. Meyers and J. R. Johnson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
where participants would feel comfortable talking openly and honestly. Moreover, if
the final goal of creating a leadership team was to be achieved, it was vital that
participants felt connected.
With these objectives in mind, the retreat began with a welcome and introduction
by the client that stressed the importance of collaborative leadership and its necessity
for this university. Moreover, he identified ways in which the current leadership
structure was not working, and why some upcoming challenges would require more
complex solutions. This brief welcome and introduction set the tone for the retreat
and reminded the participants that the client was looking to this group for innovative
models. In addition, it was clear that the client would not be the focus of this
retreat*but instead would be a participant in the problem solving process.
This brief introduction was followed by an icebreaker where participants were
randomly placed into triads and asked to find a set of three commonalities between
them (beyond their affiliation and job descriptions). This resulted in a set of lively
conversations. When each group reported out, everyone learned a bit more about
their fellow participants. It became clear at that point that this group possessed a
collective sense of humor. This characteristic proved vital for the group’s work over
the course of the rest of the retreat.
Following this icebreaker and an overview of housekeeping details, members were
asked to identify their goals for this retreat. The identification of both individual and
group goals is a critical step in fostering organizational change. Without this step,
both the individual and group are left with no tangible means to assess the effects of
their participation (Cascio, 1989; Mager & Pipe, 1997; Patton, 1997). Each member
listed their goals individually and shared those with their team members, and then
each of the three teams reported out. These goals were posted by the facilitator on
flipchart paper and were hung on the walls as reminders throughout the retreat.
Next, the group was asked to set the ground rules which would govern their
communication and behavior throughout the retreat. It is critical, in zero or limited
history interactions, that participants have a formal means to establish and increase
trust. The use and posting of interactional ground rules can serve that purpose.
Members identified rules individually and shared those with team members, and each
team reported out their results. These ground rules were also put on flipchart pages
that were displayed during the entire retreat. Members sometimes referred to these
ground rules (in a light humored way) to identify communicative violations.
All of this initial activity took about 90 minutes. In some contexts, 90 minutes is
too much time for these procedures, but in this case, participants seemed to need this
time to lay the groundwork for a cohesive and trusting communication climate. In
short, these activities set the stage for a retreat that would clearly not be filled with
information-giving, but would instead be participative and active (Dallimore,
Hertenstein, & Platt, 2004). In addition, members would drive the agenda, and
high-level administrators would not be privileged in these discussions. All of these
activities served to create a context for open and direct dialogue among team
Facilitating Design of Leadership Team 475
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
members. This proved to be critical for launching the second goal of the retreat*exploring initial skepticism.
Explore Initial Skepticism
With a basic communication climate established, the second goal of the retreat*exploring initial skepticism around the idea of a senior leadership team*was
addressed. The prior interviews had identified a level of skepticism among retreat
participants as to what a senior leadership team was, whether a leadership team could
and/or would work, and whether it was an idea worth pursuing. In addition, there
was clear skepticism among many of the interviewees as to whether one could
disagree with this idea or could take a stand against it. In an effort to address both of
these forms of skepticism early in the retreat, the participants were asked to address
two questions: (1) Why would we want to work as a senior leadership team? (2) What
does it mean to work together as a senior leadership team?
To get all viewpoints on the table, to create a safe environment for dissenting or
unpopular viewpoints, and to encourage constructive argument, Meyers employed an
instructional communication technique called ‘‘structured controversy’’ (Holubec,
Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1997; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,
1996). This technique requires group members to argue both sides of the issue. The
resolution that was given to the group was, ‘‘Senior leadership teamwork is the answer
to moving the university agenda forward.’’ Half of the group was told to develop
arguments, and argue for, this resolution (e.g., why is it essential, important, and why
now?). The other half of the group was asked to develop arguments, and argue
against, this resolution (e.g., why is it unnecessary, why is it doomed to failure, and
why should we abandon this idea?).
The teams were given time to discuss their assigned task. When they had developed
a list of arguments and posted them to a flipchart, each team was asked to report out.
Both teams took the task very seriously, and in doing so, both the advantages and
disadvantages of this idea were exhaustively identified. There was much laughter
when the team who was assigned to argue against the idea reported out, and luckily,
even the client, who had originated the leadership team idea, laughed.
The application of the structured controversy method underscored the absolute
need for participants to present multiple and contrary perspectives. Creating and
sustaining organizational cultures where dialogue rather than monologue or
information dissemination is paramount requires that opinions be openly shared,
even when they are contrary to those held by organizational superiors (Argyris, 1990;
Bohm, 1996; Senge, 1990; Stanfield, 2000; Yankelovich, 1999). The discussion that
followed this exercise centered on how argument could be used throughout the
retreat for fashioning a better outcome, and how getting all viewpoints out on the
table allowed for a more thorough evaluation of the issue under discussion. After this
discussion there seemed to be less skepticism and more buy-in from all participants
for exploring the idea of a senior leadership team.
476 R. A. Meyers and J. R. Johnson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
Identify Key Challenges
To address the question, ‘‘What are the key challenges to working as a senior
leadership team,’’ an adaptation of Nominal Group Technique was applied (see Rees,
2005 for a more thorough explanation). Members were asked to each list five to 10
challenges. To increase the potential for lower-status members to speak openly, the
members were told to pass their lists to a facilitator who recorded all of the ideas
anonymously on a flip chart for everyone in the group to view. Team members asked
clarification questions and removed any duplicate items. They then each individually
ranked their top five ideas, and these rankings were again anonymously posted on the
flipchart. Each group then removed any item that was not ranked, and discussed the
final items. The three teams each reported out on their top three challenges and those
were posted to a flipchart for everyone’s perusal. There was some free-flowing
discussion among the group regarding clarification of the challenges displayed, and
whether they felt that the list was exhaustive. Once the group came to general
consensus on a set of the most important challenges, these were listed on a separate
flip chart and posted where everyone could see them.
Delineate Opportunities for Overcoming Challenges
By this point in time (the end of first day), it appeared that participants were feeling
quite comfortable with each other, and communication was flowing quite effortlessly.
We moved to the question, ‘‘What are some options or opportunities for overcoming
these challenges?’’ Participants were again asked to do a modified Nominal Group
Technique whereby they first individually listed five to 10 solutions to overcome the
set of challenges identified in the previous discussion. They were advised, at this
point, to list any solutions regardless of their feasibility. After a few minutes of
individual writing, team participants were asked to go around and state the solutions
they had listed, and these were put up on a flipchart by a team member. At this point,
it did not seem necessary to protect anonymity because participants willingly voiced
their opinions. When all of the solutions were posted, participants were asked to
discuss the pros and cons of each solution, and to come to some kind of conclusion
on the best solutions. Groups then reported out on their top three choices.
Now an interesting and unexpected turn-of-events occurred. The last group to
report out identified their top solution as a unique leadership structure that included
all of the members at this retreat (and maybe more), that met regularly throughout
the year, that was participatory in nature, that was advisory to the senior most leaders
(i.e., president/chancellor and provost), that worked on consequential decisions
advanced by the senior most leader, and that was continuously kept abreast of
important issues facing the university. From the perspective of communication and
instructional theory, the participants were suggesting an organizational change that
transformed communication from merely information dissemination to organiza-
tional dialogue.
Facilitating Design of Leadership Team 477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
This team did not have the mechanics of the structure decided, but they did have
the beginnings of a vision for a different way to lead. This group’s vision generated a
great deal of interest among the participants, and was followed by an unplanned
discussion session. It was clear that the retreat participants were coalescing around
this solution, and in checking for agreement, members openly supported an
organizational change that would result in a more dialogic leadership structure.
This group coalescence was unexpected. In planning the retreat, it was assumed
that the participants would take part of the next day to further discuss the solutions
suggested by each group, would be provided consensus building steps, and only then
would be asked to make a final decision and develop an action plan. However, that
plan was now scrapped, and a new plan was developed for the next day. At this point
in time, however, the first day’s work was completed, and the participants enjoyed
dinner and conversation. The talk at dinner was both task- and socially oriented.
Members felt that they had moved the retreat agenda forward and talked at length
about the transformational nature of moving to a dialogic form of communication
(Daniel et al., 2005).
Determine Key Action Steps
The next day, the change in climate was immediately obvious, and it was hard to get
people to quit talking with each other so that the work of the retreat could continue.
In this final section of the retreat, the facilitator asked the three groups to envision
this new leadership structure, and to answer the following five questions: (1) Who
should be a part of this leadership structure? (2) What should it do? (3) When, and
how often, should it meet? (4) Where should it meet? (5) How should it go about its
task?
Each team worked on these five questions, and then reported out to the larger
group. The client made it clear at this point that consensus on the answers to these
questions was not necessary. Instead he would take all of the ideas and fashion a
structure that was feasible and compatible with the groups’ ideas. As each group
reported out, there was discussion and argument. Some teams thought that one or
more students should be part of this structure; others felt this was unnecessary. Some
teams thought the seniormost leaders (i.e., president/chancellor and provost) should
be involved; others felt they should only shape the agenda. Many felt that the
meetings should be held off-campus; others indicated that on-campus meetings
would be more convenient. By the time the conversation had quieted, there was a
clear action plan in place that the client agreed to pursue.
Deliverables and Evaluation
There are many outcomes that accrued from this retreat, but two seem especially
paramount*increased and empowered communication, and a commitment to
establishing a new leadership team. In terms of the first outcome, the retreat provided
members of this university a chance to interact with each other outside the work
478 R. A. Meyers and J. R. Johnson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
structure (Waldeck, 2006). It allowed new members to get to know long-time
members. It allowed long-time members who had not previously interacted with each
other, to do so. It allowed deans to interact with the Chief Information Officer and
the Director of Libraries. It brought together, face to face, university employees whose
work overlaps every day, but who had never had a conversation prior to this retreat.
This small gesture has incrementally large effects. Members of this group indicated
that they now felt they could go to anyone in the room if they needed advice or help
solving a problem. This step alone is particularly facilitative in terms of future
leadership efforts.
Additionally, members felt empowered by this retreat. For the first time, many felt
that their opinions counted, that their decision-making had resulted in a good
solution, and that this decision would be implemented. They had established a
climate of trust where they were willing to communicate openly across status and
rank. They recognized the power of participation, and they were fully invested in a
leadership structure that allowed them to continue doing that in the future
(Dallimore et al., 2004; Waldeck, 2006).
The second deliverable was a commitment by the client to move this structure
forward. He indicated at the end of the retreat that he would assign a champion to
this project, and that there would be funding to get it started. His promise was that
the initial meeting would take place in the next few months. To date, the first follow-
up meeting has taken place with additional meetings planned. Sustaining organiza-
tional change is no small task, and diligence and continuous follow-up are of
paramount importance (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Bunker & Alban, 1997; Conger, 1992;
Heifetz, 1994).
Interestingly, the client did not want to do an evaluation of this retreat, nor have a
written report. As is characteristic of any large organization, there are competing
political agendas, and the client wanted much of this change in leadership to occur, in
the early stages at least, under the radar. So the only evaluation or assessment
available is the word-of-mouth comments of the participants, the fact that the
facilitator was recently asked to facilitate another retreat on this same campus, and a
detailed letter from the client to Meyers stating that:
I cannot thank you enough for the direction and focus you provided to the campusleadership team at last week’s retreat. Oftentimes we have skeptics who haveparticipated in retreats of this nature and feel that their time could have been usedin a more productive way. . . .However, your preparation allowed the participants
to feel that their opinions would be valued and welcomed. You took the step ofproviding the attendees with a set of questions to consider in advance of yourindividual meetings and the retreat itself. That was important to frame an agendathat progressed in a logical, civil, and respectful manner. . . . I will (now) engage theleadership team to move forward as a group to help align delivery of services with
our mission.
These less-than-ideal forms of evaluation illustrate how facilitators must some-
times be willing to forego what they consider the perfect plan of action, and work
within the constraints of the institution or client.
Facilitating Design of Leadership Team 479
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
Instructional Communication Theory as Framework
The planning, execution, and interpretation of the results of this team facilitation
project were and are greatly informed by both organizational intervention/change
and instructional communication theory and research. Perhaps the most salient result
of the intervention was the realization by participants of the necessity and usefulness
of moving an organization’s communication from merely information dissemination
to dialogic conversations wherein participants are focused on creating mutual
understanding. The application of instructional communication theory and practice
whereby participants were challenged and permitted to utilize active, rather than
passive, communication behaviors, was essential to that transformation (Silberman &
Auerbach, 1998). The participants, by modeling dialogic communication behaviors
during the retreat, were able to see first hand the importance of changing their
communication behaviors and expectations. Retreat participants became aware of a
new model of leadership communication and decision-making that hopefully will
guide their future actions. By wedding organizational change research and
instructional communication theory, it was possible to facilitate a retreat that
encouraged and fostered learning, discussion, and action. Clearly, dialogical
communication is paramount for participatory decision-making and leadership in
these types of organizational interventions.
References
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Well-
esley, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, K. J. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 63�105.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.
Bunker, B. B., & Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cascio, W. (1989). Using utility analysis to assess training outcomes. In I. Goldstein and Associates
(Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 63�88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Connor, P. E., Lake, L. K., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Managing organizational change (3rd ed.).
Westport, CN: Praeger.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion
effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53, 103�115.
Daniel, M. F., Lafortune, L., Pallascio, R., Splitter, L., Slade, C., & de la Garza, T. (2005). Modeling
the development process of dialogical critical thinking in pupils aged 10 to 12 years.
Communication Education, 54, 334�354.
DeWine, S. (2001). The consultant’s craft: Improving organizational communication (2nd ed.). New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Holubec, E., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Impact of cooperative learning on naval air
traffic controller training. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 337�346.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
480 R. A. Meyers and J. R. Johnson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1996). Academic controversy: Enriching college
instruction through intellectual conflict. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol. 24, No. 3.
Washington, DC: The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and
Human Development.
Mager, R., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Nadler, D. (1980). Using organizational assessment data for planned organizational change. In E.
Lawler, D. Nadler, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the
measurement of organizational behavior and the quality of work life (pp. 72�90). New York:
Wiley.
Ostroff, J., & Ford, J. (1989). Assessing training needs: Critical levels of analysis. In I. Goldstein &
Associates, (Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 25�62). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Plax, T. G. (2006). How much are we worth? Estimating fee for services. Communication Education,
55, 242�246.
Rees, F. (2005). The facilitator excellence handbook (2nd ed). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (1998). Mastering the instructional design process (2nd ed). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Silberman, M., & Auerbach, C. (1998). Active training (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Stanfield, R. B. (2000). The art of focused conversation. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
Waldeck, J. H. (2006). What does ‘‘personalized education’’ mean for faculty, and how should it
serve our students? Communication Education, 55, 345�352.
Yankelovich, D. (1999). The magic of dialogue: Transforming conflict into cooperation. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Received December 10, 2007
Accepted February 16, 2008
Facilitating Design of Leadership Team 481
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
2:11
29
Oct
ober
201
4
top related