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