USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Leading learning through imposition of leadership learning standards

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Leading learning through imposition of leadership learning standards
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Jorgensen, Raymond D
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
commitment
top down
learning community
change
goal
Dissertations, Academic -- Interdisciplinary Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This study explored the impact of an imposed standards movement on attitudes and behaviors of a team of line leaders. A case method was employed to describe, to explain, and to draw conclusions about results of standards imposition. Standards were designed and implemented by an executive leadership team frustrated with lack of effective leadership practices of a line leaders team under their supervision. The investigation took an historical perspective, chronicling the story of the company, emerging leadership challenges, and executive leadership responses leading up to the research. The line or team leaders of an educational software company served as participants. Data were archival, gathered through consultation via focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and fieldwork journal notes. Verbatim responses to protocols were used as evidence of leadership practices. The structure of leading in professional communities espoused by Senge, Greenleaf, Bennis, Kouzes, Posner, and others informed data analysis of team leaders' responses to imposed standards. Results revealed six themes: Positive Attitude toward Learning; Positive Attitude toward Peer Learning Groups; Increased Skill, Performance, Satisfaction, and Confidence resulting from imposed standards; Shift from Negative Attitude toward Change; team leaders' Commitment to Imposed Goals as a work requirement; and Loss of Advantages Gained from Standards Imposition over time due to removal of the learning requirement. This research adds to the literature available for leaders in relation to designing responses to emergent resistance toward accomplishing imposed standards. Team leaders identified the learner ethic as a leadership attribute crystallized by the standards imposition movement. Although leaders believed in learning, they developed heightened awareness regarding the importance of learning as a survival tactic for themselves and the company.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Raymond D. Jorgensen.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 185 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001432581
oclc - 53244345
notis - AJL6129
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000121
usfldc handle - e14.121
System ID:
SFS0024817:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Leading Learning Through Imposition of Leadership Learning Standards by Raymond D. Jorgensen A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Interdisciplinary Studies College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Ellen Kimmel, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Kathy Borman, Ph.D. Wiliam Katzenmeyer, Ph.D. Howard Johnston, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 25, 2003 Keywords: goal, commitment, top dow n, learning community, change Copyright 2003, Raymond D. Jorgensen

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements The achievement of a successful dissertation defense and associated tasks leading to commencement would never have taken place without the support of many. I acknow ledge the support of my di ssertation committee, with deep appreciation to Professor Ellen Kimme l. Without her support and guidance, completion would have been only a fond wis h. Further, many thanks to my patient dissertation editor, Shannon McLeish. Many colleagues in the field provided ongoing encour agement and have my gratitude, especially my true fri end, Rich Hawkins, who has undertaken a journey of personal discovery, present ing courageous leadership on behalf of young people. Few will be able to survive these tumultuous times in education; Richs personal qualities and intellectual genius will enable him to thrive. Thanks for your belief in the work and in me. To Elizabeth Combs, one of a handful of people on the planet who bothered to know me, thanks for your insight, compassion, and clarity. My family was most supportive, es pecially in those times of potential despair, and share in this achievement. Each of you has a special place in my heart as this set of tasks comes to a cl ose. Always remember how important your smallest words of encouragement were to me. Brian, the essay is completed, thanks for your ongoing candid feedback and for not helping when appropriate. Ray, I appreciate the compassionate ear you gave on those long rides away from home. Justin, many thanks for appearing at the close of the defense, a balloon

PAGE 3

never to be forgotten. Mom, Doug, W endy, Tabatha, Caryn, Felicia, and Mike were all part of the energy leading to this commencement. I wish my Dad could have shared in this celebration. In all my endeavors, I have sought and found spiritual guidance and support; this effort was no exception. I o ffer thanks for that infinite source of strength and hope, and pray for the ability to deepen my capacity for practicing humility and gratitude. Finally, in every way, my partner in living was my partner in finishing this work. Without you Rubi, I would never have completed the program. You have my deepest appreciation and love always. If I had the power and authority to confer a degree, you would be first in line. Weve each been invited to this pres ent moment by design. Our lives are joined together like the tiles of a mosaic, none of us contributes the whole of the picture, but each of us is necessary for its completion. More important, the depth, the richness of the picture is enhanced by our fulfilled dreams. Karen Casey & Martha Vanceburg The Promise of a New Day

PAGE 4

Table of Contents List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Change 2 Shared Goals 4 Purpose and Significance of the Study 5 Method 6 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 8 Impact of Leaders' Goal Setting on Followers 8 Change as a Process for Social Interaction 12 The Case Method 18 Chapter Three: The Case 21 Initial Meeting 21 History of EDU Software 22 Organizational Structure of EDU Software 24 The Workshop 25 Establishing Standards to Resolve a Business Issue 26 The Problem 27 Modified Account Manager Model 27 Business Results 28 Changing Technology 29 State Standards and High-Stakes Testing 29 Leadership Response to Training 30 The Vision 30 Leaders as Self Starters 30 Evidence of the Transfer of Training 31 The Standards Imposition Program 31 Chapter Four: Method 33 Design 33 Researcher 34 Participants 36 Instruments 37 Procedure 38 i

PAGE 5

Data Analysis 40 Thematic Analysis 43 Chapter Five: Results 45 Contexts of the Reported Experiences 45 Themes 45 Positive Attitude toward Learning 46 Positive Attitude toward Peer Learning Groups 49 Increased Skill, Performance, Satisfaction, and Confidence 51 Shift from Negative Attitude toward Change 53 Commitment to Imposed Goals 54 Loss of Advantages Gained from Standards Imposition 56 Summary of Interview and Focus Group Data Sets 57 Questionnaire Results 58 Concluding Comments on the Questionnaire Protocols 65 Chapter Six: Discussion 66 Thematic Structure 66 Achievement of the Standards 67 External Threat 67 Peer Learning Groups 70 Goal Commitment 73 Little Perceived Transfer of Training 76 Limitations 79 Trustworthiness 81 Recommendations for Further Research 83 References 85 Appendices 90 Appendix A: Qualitative Research Support 91 Appendix B: Characteristics of Qualitative Research 92 Appendix C: Genres of Qualitative Research 93 Appendix D: Team Leader Focus Group Structure 94 Appendix E: Focus Group Participant Agenda 97 Appendix F: Consent Form 98 Appendix G: Interview Structure 99 Appendix H: Team Leader Questionnaire Structure 105 Appendix I: Team Leader Learning Standards 116 Appendix J: Executive Memorandum 118 Appendix K: Interviews NUD*IST Report on Change in Attitudes 119 Appendix L: Interviews NUD*IST Report on Change in Behavior 132 Appendix M: Focus Groups NUD*IST Report on Change in Attitudes 141 Appendix N: Focus Groups ii

PAGE 6

NUD*IST Report on Change in Behaviors 163 About the Author End Page iii

PAGE 7

List of Figures Figure 1 Perceived Time Spent on Learning During the Workday 59 Figure 2 Perceived Time Spent on Learning After the Workday 60 Figure 3 Perceived Commitment to Learning 61 Figure 4 Perceived Confidence in Technological Skills 61 Figure 5 Perceived Confidence in Understanding Educational Issues 62 Figure 6 Perceived Confidence in Personal Leadership Capacity 62 Figure 7 Perceived Confidence in Total Quality and Organizational Learning 63 Figure 8 Perceived Daily Use of the Leadership Practices 63 Figure 9 Perceived Daily Use of Adult Learning Processes 64 Figure 10 Perceived Effectiveness at Services and Product Delivery 64 Figure 11 Perceived Effectiveness of Learning Communities Processes 65 iv

PAGE 8

Leading Learning Through Imposition of Leadership Learning Standards Raymond D. Jorgensen ABSTRACT This study explored the impact of an imposed standards movement on attitudes and behaviors of a team of line leaders. A case method was employed to describe, to explain, and to draw conclusions about results of standards imposition. Standards were designed and implemented by an executive leadership team frustrated with lack of effective leadership practices of a line leaders team under their supervision. The investigation took an historical perspective, chronicling the story of the company, emerging leadership challenges, and executive leadership responses leading up to the research. The line or team leaders of an educational software company served as participants. Data were archival, gathered through consultation via focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and fieldwork journal notes. Verbatim responses to protocols were used as evidence of leadership practices. The structure of leading in professional communities espoused by Senge, Greenleaf, Bennis, Kouzes, Posner, and others informed data analysis of team leaders responses to imposed standards. Results revealed six themes: Positive Attitude toward Learning; Positive Attitude toward Peer Learning Groups; Increased Skill, Performance, v

PAGE 9

Satisfaction, and Confidence resulting from imposed standards; Shift from Negative Attitude toward Change; team leaders Commitment to Imposed Goals as a work requirement; and Loss of Advantages Gained from Standards Imposition over time due to removal of the learning requirement. This research adds to the literature available for leaders in relation to designing responses to emergent resistance toward accomplishing imposed standards. Team leaders identified the learner ethic as a leadership attribute crystallized by the standards imposition movement. Although leaders believed in learning, they developed heightened awareness regarding the importance of learning as a survival tactic for themselves and the company. vi

PAGE 10

Chapter One Introduction Leadership has entered a period of organizational crisis where learning quickly is a survival requirement. There is a wide discrepancy between the learning methods taught in schools to leaders and those supported by research as effective. Leaders tend to adopt and use methods for learning that feel comfortable, remembered from their formal education (Senge, 1990). Along with divided learning methods, a second dramatic condition has emerged: When we look into organizations, we find that most have elaborate systems that preclude feedback. This stems from an unwillingness to confront areas of threat, incompetence or lack of human understanding (Thompson, 1995, p. 94). Thus, in addition to the possibility that the theories, methods, and tools established by traditional educational institutions were ineffective, feedback that could lead to change often is limited by the organizational structures themselves, making it almost impossible to establish the fast and flexible organizations necessary to learn and adjust according to demand. Currently at issue is the need to determine how best to institute organizational change. The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of mandated reform on the attitudes of middle managers and their ability to implement effectively the action of demanded change. The CEO and President (the 1

PAGE 11

executive leadership team) of an education software company, referred to as EDU Software to protect participant confidentiality, were both students of Organizational Learning (Senge, 1990) and Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990). Training in these areas was provided to company employees in an attempt to develop system-wide guided theory and commensurate practice that would enable the companys team leaders, or middle management, to respond effectively to the challenges of daily leadership. Frustrated by lack of evidence that the team leaders were employing the leadership knowledge and practical application methods from these domains, the executive team designed a set of leadership learning standards. Each team leader in the organization was required to learn and to implement these standards over a 6-month period of time. This study determined how the imposition of leadership learning standards affected the team leaders behavior and attitudes. Change Leadership as an influencing factor became the focus of research during the 1940s through the 1970s. A number of researchers, Calder (1977), Hunt (1984), McElroy and Hunger (1988), and Pfeffer (1977), presented evidence to support their argument that certain individuals are called leaders because people want to believe that leaders cause things to happen rather than have to explain causality by understanding complex social forces or analyzing the dynamic interaction among people, events, and environment (Rost, 1993, p. 30). The definition of leadership primarily focused on the charismatic nature of leaders although other forces were also acknowledged. 2

PAGE 12

Assumptions about the ability of leaders to change the behavior of individuals working in an organization are typical. As Drucker puts it, the job of a CEO is not to produce economic value but to grow the capacity of the corporation to produce economic value (Thompson, 1993, p. 90). Thompson explained Druckers statement as a subtle but fundamental and crucial distinction. Focusing on short term profits forces the CEO to compete with available human assets rather than systemically investing in development of human assets as a long-term competitive strategy (p. 90). Although the CEO in this study completely agreed with the idea of developing long-term solutions and human capital, resource expenditure was a significant factor as the companys profit-to-revenue ratio was small. In considering the allocation of resources as a method for change, Havelock and Havelock (1973) presented the development of human resources as a system-wide integrating function critical to the development of the change initiative. Past reports of reform indicated that leaders believed mandated reforms could be successful. Many changes have been introduced into organizations, often via in-service training, and it has been assumed that people would be able to go back to their work sites and make the necessary changes. The evolving knowledge base on change led to a questioning of the effectiveness top-down solutions, asserting that strategies implemented from the bottom-up empowered employees at every level (Kanter, 1990). Koffman and Senges (1994) research confirmed, reforms now extended beyond simply demanding high expectations and goals from employees. Processes of change have shifted from mandated 3

PAGE 13

reform packages to more collaborative, cooperative, protracted endeavors, enabling the establishment of communities of commitment (p. 16). Thus the question for leaders to ask themselves became, What best practices were available to an individual leader to support the development of employees? Further thought about developing commonly understood and shared goals and visions moved this study forward. Shared Goals Researchers Cartwright and Zander characterized the leadership of followers in a typical behavioral attribute or characteristic-driven formula in 1953. More specifically, leadership consists of such actions by group members as those which aid in setting group goals, moving the group toward its goals, improving the quality of interactions among the members, building the cohesiveness of the group, or making resources available to the group. In principle, leadership may be performed by one or many members of the group. (Rost, 1993, p. 51) Shared goals surfaced from other researchers investigations as a critical leadership element. At the close of the 1950s, Bellows articulated leadership as: the process of arranging a situation so that various members of a group, including the leader, can achieve common goals with maximum economy and a minimum of time and work (p. 51). Through the 1960s, researchers continued to examine the variable of shared goals. For example, Long, as cited in Rost (1993), noted: Leadership is concerned with the transformation of doubts into psychological grounds of cooperative common action (p. 54). 4

PAGE 14

Many researchers recognized that the ability to establish common goals, expectations, or standards represented a leadership capacity. This ability provided a method of engaging others in the ideas or goals held by a leadership team. In the present case study, the executive leadership team understood and practiced Senges (1990) discipline of shared vision, but failed to use this method and rather dictated the standards to the line leaders. Although personally committed to the work of leading authors on the development of common understanding and shared visions, the executive team employed a top-down, centrally controlled, set of leadership standards to the middle level line leaders. Purpose and Significance of the Study Recognizing the challenging learning conditions for organizations in todays business environment, this investigation examined the attitudes and behaviors of line leaders resulting from an executive leadership teams decision to formulate, impose, and verify accomplishment of a set of standards. This standards imposition movement represented the executive teams best thinking for changing the current leadership practices of a group of leaders under their supervision into leadership practices that represented current best practices. Fullans (1982) reminder to reformers was found to be applicable: "neglect of the phenomenology of change, that is, how people actually experience change as distinct from how it might have been intended, is at the heart of the spectacular lack of success of most social reforms" (p. 4). Acquiring an understanding of the processes by which executive and line leaders learned new methods to develop personal capacity can empower them 5

PAGE 15

and professional developers to meet the challenge of skill acquisition and maintenance to support change or reform. Consultants and professional developers would need to learn new methods for effectively closing the gap between research and practice. Senge (1994) argued that the development of learning communities designed to enhance practical know-how would enable the reduction of this research and practice gap. This project endeavored to add to the knowledge base on change, leadership, and mandated professional development by focusing specifically on line leaders and the change process as they experienced it. It was unique in several respects. First, the study used case analysis to examine the effects of an imposed set of leadership initiatives. This approach is well suited to study the context and process of a particular situation. Second, the study occurred in an educationally focused software company. Third, it involved a rather critical area of leadership practice in directing learning and the methods for skill acquisition, asking the question, How did the implementation of required leadership learning standards affect the behaviors and attitudes of the team leaders? Method The research paradigm chosen for this investigation was the case method. At each team leader meeting from the point where the standards were designed, proffered, imposed, and subsequently discussed over time, the researcher served in the capacity of a consultant who operated as a learning facilitator. This afforded the opportunity to gather field notes at every meeting, along with notes and comments generated in the debriefing sessions that were held following 6

PAGE 16

each segment of these meetings. These field notes provided a learning history, a running account of participants stated feelings and attitudes during their attempts to address each standard. One year following the standards imposition program, each consenting team leader was interviewed about the impact of the standards on his or her personal and professional life, the effects of the change process, and the motivation to continue the expected learning. Similar questions in a focus group setting allowed for a generative look at how the imposition and accomplishment of the standards affected the line leaders attitudes and behaviors. Questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups were used with a subset of the original group of team leaders. 7

PAGE 17

Chapter Two Review of the Literature Leadership, or the ability to influence followers, is one of the most discussed and debated concepts in management and organizational theory and practice and continues to be a high priority organizational issue. Hundreds, and even thousands, of books and articles have been published on the subject of leadership. However, this review focuses on the impact of leaders setting goals or standards on followers attitudes and behaviors. Literature on change as a process of social interaction among followers and the case as a methodological approach to studying the effects of leaders behavior also will be addressed. Impact of Leaders Goal Setting on Followers Generally, goal setting, participation, collaboration in decision-making, along with the development of candid and clear performance feedback, have been credited for stimulating changes in the behavior of individuals in an organization (Kanter, 1983). An important argument in the strategic management field has been that the consistency of firm goals and their management can significantly affect personal performance. However, Sapienza et al. (1999) stated, only a moderate amount of empirical work has tested this concept explicitly (p. 7). The research focus on mandated objectives or standards has been on the extent of agreement or consensus among top managers concerning the appropriate goals or strategies for the organization. 8

PAGE 18

Investigating changes in the behavior of employees due to mandated goals, Rogers (1991) employed a meta-analytic procedure on data from 70 investigations focused on Management By Objectives (MBO) initiatives. These initiatives centered on the responses of workers to objectives designed and delivered by management. Whenever goal setting by mangers was combined with clear performance feedback, increased productivity was observed in results reported in all but two studies. That is, increased productivity characterized the positive way employees behaviors changed as a result of having established objectives and formative guidance toward those objectives. Unfortunately, the meta-analysis did not include studies that measured the attitudes generated by the imposition of the MBO program, which this investigation addresses. Employee attitudinal response to an imposed goal may provide a better predictive indicator of the long-term success of any MBO initiative. In another meta-analytic study, Donovan (1998) sought to identify what moderated the development of goal commitment and whether goal commitment could be considered the primary variable responsible for the alignment of attitudes with the actions necessary for goal accomplishment. He found that goal commitment and perceived goal difficulty combined were responsible for less than 5% of the variance in task behaviors. Donovan (1998) further asserted that, for a top-down mandate to be effective, employee must recognize whether or not a goal is significant personally. Donovan (1998) argued that employees changed behavior toward goal attainment, but their personal attitude toward the significance of the goal did not appear important in accomplishing the goal. The present study 9

PAGE 19

connected the simple statement of a goal, standard, or objective to attitudes of commitment and significance by collecting responses from the line-leaders that represent how their attitudes toward top-down goals changed during the standards imposition program. In a telephone conversation with Donovan of the University of Virginia (personal communication, May 30, 2003), he stated that, in considering the research to date, he remains convinced that goal commitment is a significant mediating variable between establishment of a goal and its accomplishment. This study investigated the line-leaders attitudes toward goal commitment and the connection to goal accomplishment as a result of the standards imposition program. Deepening the understanding of goals and resultant behavior and attitudes requires a further word concerning personal attitudes toward a goal, goal accomplishment, and motivation. Klein (1999) supported Donovans (1998) work and proffered goal commitment as an integrating principle for connecting task congruence with the establishment of goals. He conducted a meta-analytic review of 83 investigations, which studied the connection between motivation and task congruence. Each of the investigations focused on the effects of using goal setting as the primary motivational intervention on employees. He determined that goals by themselves failed to align the actions of the workers to the established goals. He concluded that participants who shifted their behavior to align with goal accomplishment found a way to be committed to the goal. Simply establishing goals failed to change employee behavior until they found a way to be committed to goal accomplishment. This study determined which attitudes 10

PAGE 20

were displayed as the line-leaders struggled with goal commitment in an effort to determine which of those attitudes enhanced goal commitment. Klein (2001) also argued that when individuals developed commitment toward the accomplishment of goals, a resulting change in behavior occurred. To confirm the assertion, he conducted a study of 3000 participants. Researchers attempted to determine that goal commitment led to a change in behavior. In these studies, the method to accomplish goal commitment was varied, but in each of the cases once commitment was reported the individuals actions aligned, at least temporarily, with the accomplishment of the defined goals. The review methods did not target explanations of how the goal commitment occurred nor describe the related attitudes surrounding these changes in behavior. Generally, leaders employ top-down, collaborative, and other shared goal development methods to engage their employees in a change effort. According to the literature reviewed for this study, these methods are employed in an attempt to enable change through aligning employee performance with goal setting. The purpose of this study was to examine, once the standards were imposed, what attitudes led to goal commitment and how this commitment altered the behaviors of the line-leaders of EDU Software. Whenever goals, motivation, attitudes, and employee changes in behavior are noted, interest in the social aspects of a change program rises. Change as a Process for Social Interaction Fundamentally, the motive for leading through top-down goal and standard setting, or the development of goal commitment, or some combination 11

PAGE 21

of these methods is to enable a change in the managed system. Through the 1960s, a number of social science studies and reports focused on various aspects of change. Havelock and Havelock (1973) published a meta-analytic review of almost 4000 studies from the 1960s and 1970s and constructed a model for change still described as significant (Rost, 1993). During the next two decades, this model represented state of the art thinking concerning change efforts. The studies represented several disciplines and employed primarily quantitative-theoretical analyses; less than 10% of the research used the case study method. Havelock and Havelock (1973) grouped findings about change from three different standpoints. The first perspective was "change as a problem-solving process" (p. 8). This orientation focused on the participant, employee, or learner response to five variables: felt need, problem diagnosis, inquiry used to determine the appropriate innovation, practical use and adaptation of the innovations, and finally, effectiveness assessment. Shifting the focus from the user or participant in a change effort to the innovation method used characterized the second change structure as Havelock and Havelock explored "change as a research-development-and-diffusion process" (p. 12). This orientation was based on the following assumptions: 1. The steps in the process represented a rational sequence in the evolution of an innovation. 2. Consumers of the products or services were passive recipients of the innovation. This orientation was similar to the current proponents of theory into 12

PAGE 22

practice where it is assumed that effectively researched innovations, with clear rationales, easily find their way onto the shop floors, factory cubicles, offices, boardrooms, classrooms, and the like. 3. Participants (or employees) who needed to learn, understand, and use the innovation were not the focus of this structure. The final structure explained "change as a process of social interaction" (p. 18). This structure highlighted the social network of the user, learner, or employee, assuming an innovation diffused through the social system slowly at first. The aforementioned three models were based on the assumption that change would take place if a problem was defined and solutions discovered, if research showed positive results, and if ideas were diffused through the system by awareness. Havelock and Havelock (1973) described the persons responsible for transmitting that awareness through the system as linkers or human interface agents playing follower and leader roles alike. The primary focus of these human interface agents was to connect the new innovation to the practice of those engaged in the area identified for improvement or change. A key ingredient in facilitating diffusion of any innovation is the presence of a credible change agent. The most significant role of the change agent is to act as an interface between the adopters of the innovation and those with a vested interest in seeing the change occur: the stakeholders. (Dalton, 1989, p. 24) 13

PAGE 23

Using Havelock and Havelocks (1973) ideas about a human interface enabling change in a system, this investigation targeted how the line-leaders played this role among peers. Further, early 20th century thinking pointed to an event or a person marshalling people to acceptance or adoption of an innovation effort. Current thinking on change states that, typically, innovations occurred under specific circumstances; one specific condition that enabled an innovation usually involved many people. Although single leaders or single occurrences appear to be the cause of change, there were usually many actors and many events (Kanter, 1983, p. 289). Although the literature on change from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and success of innovations provided parameters and potential consequences of the implementation of new programs or methods, information on the effects on the attitudes of individuals and teams who carried out the change program is lacking. Resistance to change was highlighted as a psychological aspect of an individual engaged in a voluntary or top-down change effort (Kanter, 1983), but studies of change ignored the impact of having to learn new capabilities in the process. The present study addressed this area by examining how requiring the accomplishment of the standards imposition affected the participants response toward learning and other related attitudes. Many people respond hesitatingly to a new initiative since it usually requires them to develop a previously unknown or unused capacity (Kanter, 1983). Havelock and Havelocks (1973) models for change, along with Daltons 14

PAGE 24

(1989) work on change agents and Kanters (1983, 1994) conditions for an innovation to occur, suggested methods for diffusing innovations through an organization. Each of these methods had much to do with directing an individual toward the belief that the innovation was valuable and would enable positive personal and system results, thus, hopefully, mitigating against the fear of learning new capabilities. Learning in an organization, popularized by Senge (1990), is a concept supported by many theorists and practitioners. Empirical evidence supporting the theory and practical knowledge developed under the domain of organizational learning is lacking, however, major international companies practice the theories methods and tools associated with this area. The list of companies such as Ford, IBM, Royal Dutch Shell Company, and an assortment of other notable companies using these practices is long and growing since Senges (1990) first book on Organizational Learning. The next paragraphs characterize the beliefs of the theorists developing this area of learning in an organization, but do not describe investigations in the usual rigorous way. Personal positive results, along with external social networking, enabled continued enthusiasm for an innovation. Vygotsky (1974) argued that all learning was social-dialogic and that any structure that presented this opportunity for learners constituted a learning environment. Learning in organizations means the continuous testing of experience, and the transformation of that experience into knowledge accessible to the whole organization, and relevant to its core purpose (Senge et al., 1994, p. 49). 15

PAGE 25

A key assumption of learning organization theories, theorists, and practitioners is that there are many ways for organizations to survive and thrive but learning for individuals and the organization is critical to success. Kofman and Senge (1993) wrote, It was common in Native American cultures to set aside sacred space for learning. So, too, in our organizations today, learning is too important to leave to chance. It will not be adequate to offer training and hope that people will be able to apply new insights and methods. It will be necessary for leadership to redesign work. (p. 18) Thus sacred spaces to nurture learning must exist as part of the normal day-to-day culture (Senge, 1993). The main challenge confronting todays organization, whether it is a hospital or a business enterprise, is that of responding to changing conditions and adapting to external stress (Bennis, 2002, p. 4). Peter Drucker stated, the only business for the 21st century is education, education, education. Building upon work by Argyris, Sterman, Deming, and other systems theorists, Senge (1990) became the leading proponent for the efficacy of learning organizations. He defined learning organizations as those where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together (p. 3). With the notion of learning organizations came a totally different perspective on organizations and on the leadership needed to guide these organizations. 16

PAGE 26

Through adoption of Havelock and Havelocks (1973) human interface of change role, leadership in the learning organization is viewed as enabling others. A leader in this role must be able to shift power continually in the group, offering leadership roles to many people. Leadership through enabling learning as the precursor for change presents a potential structural consideration for innovation design. Pawlowsky (2001) argued that individual learning must be distinguished from group learning. Team learning was described as the gateway to Organizational Learning (p. 75). Team Learning is vital because teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations unless teams cannot learn, the organization cannot learn (Senge, 1990, p. 10). The research supporting Teams Learning as a major change component for todays organizations is embedded in the research on group dynamics. The early work on group dynamics (e.g., Bales, 1950; Bion, 1968, Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Lewin, 1947; Likert & Likert, 1976; Weick, 1969) provides much knowledge that can be revitalized for questions of Organizational Learning. (Pawlowsky, 2001, pp. 76-77) Further, as groups develop, the phases they undergo can be considered learning development phases and represent new opportunities to tie together the ideas of group development with individual learner development. Recognition of the forces that enable successful interventions or innovations to move through a system can provide the materials necessary to 17

PAGE 27

design the structures that would enable learning and innovation promulgation. Using the ideas of Organizational Learning, the design and subsequent implementation of structures supporting the innovation represented one of the three characteristics of leadership: to design, to teach, to steward (Senge, 1990). A clear explanation or description of systemic infrastructures designed solely to enhance learning was not available in the literature. Lists of practices and social psychological descriptions of leadership and its impact on employees failed to articulate learning practices that could be implemented to enable learning in support of the change. This investigation attempts to determine where the socially constructed learning environments offered an opportunity to design similar community gatherings that were part of the weekly environment. The Case Method The decision to use case study as the organizing research paradigm evolved from an inquiry into the three most prevalent genres for qualitative research. Ethnographies or participant ethnographies, case studies, and phenomenological studies each attempt to develop understanding. Ethnographies focus on understanding the culture of people or places, case studies enable understanding of the impact of an event on the larger system, and phenomenological studies facilitate understanding of the lived experience of a small set or group of people. (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, p. 68) Although an argument could be made for using a participant ethnographic design, the desire to discover the impact resulting from the imposition of 18

PAGE 28

standards, an event, on a specific group of leaders indicated that case method was the best option for this effort. Merriam (2001) concluded that the single most defining factor for use of the case method was the capacity of the researcher to bound the study (p. 27). The case method allowed for an investigation into the nature of a phenomenon represented by the imposition of the standards as a system-wide event within a bounded context (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 25). A qualitative case study is an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon, or social unit (Merriam, 1988, p. 21). Case studies are differentiated from other types of qualitative research in that they are intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit within a bounded system (Smith, 1978) such as an individual, program, event, group, intervention, or community (Merriam, 2001, p. 19). Cases attempt to capture unique differences and variations as perceived by people affected by a phenomenon or event (Patton, 1990). In the present study the team leaders represent the unit inside a bounded system experiencing a significant event, the imposition of the standards. The investigators role in the case method format is to describe in detail and understand the responses of individuals affected by the event or phenomenon. These responses form the data for investigation throughout a study interested in deeply understanding how people make meaning of the event in question (Patton, 1990; Merriam, 2001; Rossman & Rallis, 1998). In this instance, developing an understanding of a larger phenomenon through intensive study of one particular instance (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, p. 68) 19

PAGE 29

characterizes how a case method furthers deeper understanding. In this case line-leaders describe their responses to the standards imposition program where officials in the company decided that specific standards must be met over a 6-month period of time. They were each threatened that failure to meet these standards might result in a change of job status or even termination. The data used in the study were collected 1 year after the standards deadline occurred through a series of interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. The variation in the team leaders perceptions of their behaviors and attitudes that occurred as a response to the standards program were collected and recorded. Regardless of the structure or type of protocols used in data collection, the practice of analyzing the results from three data sources would generally lead to a more complete understanding of any event. The use of triangulation was based on the assumption that each single method reveals different aspects of reality, multiple methods of observations must be employed (Denzin, 1978, p. 28). Denzin further declared, multiple methods should be used in every investigation (p. 28). 20

PAGE 30

Chapter Three The Case There are two executive leaders and a software company referred to in the case. The names of the executive leaders and the company are fictitious. The CEO will be referred to as Herb Jones and the President will be called Norma Allen. The fictitious name of the company will be EDU Software. This section describes the episodes leading up to the standards imposition program, the focal point of this investigation. The episodes explain the initial meeting of the researcher with the CEO of EDU Software, company history, organizational structure, and the systems problem leading up to the standards imposition event. The style of this section reflects the relationship of the author to the company best through an alteration of the writing perspective in this section to first person. Initial Meeting I first met the CEO of a technology company, EDU Software, after a visioning seminar I facilitated in the Northeast. The CEO, Mr. Herb Jones, was a member of the audience participating in this seminar on visioning. During this seminar, I used theories, methods, and tools of Demings (1986, 1990) Total Quality and Senges (1990) Organizational Learning. At the conclusion of the visioning seminar, Mr. Jones stayed after to speak with me about the process that he participated in and the associated tools. Mr. 21

PAGE 31

Jones asked about engaging me with his company to bring the principles of Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990) to his employees. I suggested that we discuss the issue further so we could determine if my abilities would match his needs and if our collective ideas on leadership were compatible. After discussing at length the CEOs strong desire to transfer Dr. Demings work to his organization, I explained my commitment to Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990) and to the continuous practice of Peter Senges (1990) Organizational Learning. I felt strongly that, in order to be effective with his companys employees, a practical understanding of both frameworks was required. He agreed and we made plans for an initial workshop at EDU Software. History of EDU Software Mr. Jones described the history of his company and his reasons for wishing to adopt Demings (1986, 1990) Total Quality as the framework for managing and guiding EDU Software. The company had begun 11 years prior to our meeting. For the 1st year, Jones was the only employee. His chief activities comprised writing software tailored to primarily small businesses in an area where he grew up. This activity proved to be highly lucrative, and, in its 2nd year, his venture doubled its gross revenue. For the next 11 years, the company continued approximately to double its gross revenue each year. Naturally, as EDU Software grew, more employees were hired and Jones realized that he had a need to effectively manage and lead these new employees. He determined that Dr. W. Edwards Demings (1986, 1990) work on Total Quality best suited his 22

PAGE 32

interests, however, he struggled to make the theories, methods, and tools available to his employees in a practical way. Four years prior to my first meeting with Mr. Jones, IBM offered him a business partnership. Since one of Demings (1990) recommendations to mangers and leaders was to develop lasting relationships with single vendors, Jones agreed to the partnership. This decision to partner with IBM had a number of ramifications for EDU Software. Given that those at IBM offering the partnership were focused on the education market, one impact was to shift the focus of the company from varied types of public and private clients to primarily school districts and schools. Additionally, partnership with IBM accelerated the growth of EDU Software. As part of the partnership, IBM personnel provided leads to EDU of potential school or school district customers. These leads, along with company follow-up, caused more and more schools and school districts to be added to the client list monthly. The market conditions were productive because schools were extremely interested in providing technology in the form of computers and associated software; the school communities routinely supported budget increases and bonds to purchase the materials and services. Mr. Jones recognized this desire to bring technology to classrooms and attempted to establish long-term relationships with each of the school customers. School districts that purchased technology and staff development expected that EDU Software would install, maintain, and teach the requisite skills necessary to use the newly acquired technology effectively. Typically, the 23

PAGE 33

hardware and software were installed in offices and classrooms, and then staff development was delivered to support staff and teachers. As the teachers and support staff became more comfortable with the newly acquired technology, the depth of the training increased. Many teachers began to recognize the potential classroom applications afforded by the technology while support staff delved into the nuances of the office applications they were using. Virtually, each school or school district customer regularly asked for additional in-service education to meet these growing learning needs. Fundamentally, the professional development for almost every new and old customer became ongoing, and the need for updated or refreshed hardware and software increased. Over time, Jones and school superintendents were developing technology plans collaboratively that included updating or refreshing the current technology, training the varied school district user groups, while acquiring still more technology for those under-served. Organizational Structure of EDU Software Once the CEO established himself as a technology provider with a few school districts, superintendents and school district principles regularly told members of EDU Software that the primary reason for their loyalty was the quality of the customer service as defined and practiced by Mr. Jones. As the organization grew, Jones realized that, although his quality-focused personal touch was a company trademark, his involvement in every sale, service-call, and professional development program would be impossible. With this in mind, Jones designed an account manager model adapted from IBM to mange the business. 24

PAGE 34

The account manager model matched an employee of EDU Software with a few customers that he or she would manage. The role of the account manager was to maintain and enhance a relationship with the customer and thereby increase revenue through associated sales, service, and professional development. This was the history of EDU Software prior to my first meeting with Jones leadership team at a 3-day workshop. The Workshop Jones determined that his leaders would best be served during a multiple-day workshop; the venue, number of days, participants, and location still needed to be determined. Mr. Jones decided that this would be fine opportunity for EDU Software to develop a razor sharp focus that would enable the leaders to make decisions and align activities around a common vision. Jones decided that the workshop would be held for 3 consecutive days with his account managers and any others holding operational or support leadership positions; finally, every effort would be made to secure an off-site location. The venue was a nearby hotel with a vast conference room and many varied breakout or small seminar rooms. Before launching into the initial activity, I explained that each of the learning activities adhered to the tenets of adult learning theory. The workshop activities enabled me to identify the discipline of listening and develop the capacity in the group to suspend the need to take center stage in the ensuing conversations. During the 3-day workshop, account managers and other central office leaders established a common set of values and a core purpose through a series 25

PAGE 35

of consensus building activities. The core purpose and values represented the ideological part of the vision statement for EDU Software. The description of the future and associated goals represented the action part of the vision; both the ideology and action steps became regular parts of every ensuing leadership meeting. All of the account managers and central leadership personnel decided upon the following statement as the mission of the company: EDU Softwares mission is to enhance the meaningful use of technology in schools. Fundamentally, the leaders in the company were already supporting this mission. They saw themselves as extensions of the CEO who regularly insisted that the entire company focus on the Total Quality concepts as defined by W. Edwards Deming (1986, 1990). As a result of this workshop, I was invited to develop a long-term relationship with EDU Software, an invitation I readily accepted. Establishing Standards to Resolve a Business Issue During the workshop and additional leadership meetings, a few issues arose for consideration regularly. The leaders unanimously agreed that the major issue affecting the company was the personal mastery of the technical team. This team installed the technology that customers purchased or serviced technology already installed. Constant callbacks and reinstallation or repeat servicing were required, causing rapidly escalating customer dissatisfaction issues as well as scheduling problems. The leaders were attempting to solve the problem by optimizing the scheduling of the higher quality members of the technical team. 26

PAGE 36

Of the technical employees, fewer than 10% were deemed as competent and, as mentioned above, this competent group was regularly sent out in response to customer complaints when their colleagues had failed to install or service technology adequately. The CEO of EDU Software was and is an outstanding technologist, widely recognized within the field as an expert. His response to the technical competence deficiency raised by the leaders of his company was to meet with the technical employees, collaboratively establishing standards for the technical team. Once established, Jones offered incentives for rapid accomplishment of these standards and explained that failure to achieve the standards would result in a negative change in the technicians status within the company. Within 6 months of this intervention, repeat-work and callbacks were reduced by 50%; by the end of the year these callbacks were outliers, and the technical skill level of the company had risen dramatically. This success was a precursor to the method employed almost 2 years later by the CEO, in response to perceived system-wide lack of leadership. The Problem Modified account manager model. Because of increasing customer dissatisfaction issues, CEO Jones came to a decision about the current account manager model. Although the school districts were pleased with the relationship established and maintained with their assigned account manager, the account managers had difficulty dealing with delivery problems, service issues, and complaints. Often, sales, acquisitions, deliveries, installations, professional 27

PAGE 37

development, trouble-shooting, and routine maintenance promises made by the account managers were unfulfilled. Recognizing that the quality of relationships between the customers and the account managers was the perceived benchmark for EDU Softwares success, Jones collaborated with the account managers and central services leaders to resolve the customer dissatisfaction problems. After lengthy deliberation, Jones and the EDU leaders agreed on a modified account manager model. The major change for this group was to increase their managerial and leadership responsibilities. Instead of continuing with a centrally located set of services, each account manager would be assigned a team of technicians and professional educators to provide services directly to their assigned customers, the number to be determined by the amount of business generated. Account managers would now be called team leaders. Eventually, some of the teams with larger customer bases also included administrative support to manage the accounts. Essentially, all customer service responsibilities would be distributed to the teams with the exception of purchasing and personnel services such as payroll, new employee orientation, and the like. Team leader roles and responsibilities expanded from simply maintaining quality relationships with customers to include leading and managing a group of individuals previously led and managed centrally. With change in leadership structure, each team leader began a personal learning journey defined by the necessity to maintain customer relationships and deal with others. 28

PAGE 38

Business results. Team leaders struggled to manage, lead, and maintain the previously defined customer relationships. Revenue continued to grow but profitable revenue fluctuated as the problems of leading and managing were distracting them from maintaining their quality customer relationships. A collective fear about losing customers grew among the leaders. To this point, profitability was simply a by-product of maintaining and expanding customer relationships. As sales margins continued to shrink and local competition grew, the company expanded its notion of quality customer service to including being profitable. Changing technology. Each year, the market and technology shifted. Hardware and software quickly became outdated, and schools were demanding regularly the newest, fastest, and most up-to-date solutions. Employees who were providing satisfactory customer service on-site were increasingly challenged to enhance their technical skills and capabilities to meet the rapid changes. These changes and commensurate customer demands caused the CEO to design and implement a flexible and responsive internal learning initiative. State standards and high-stakes testing. As the technological and professional development demands increased, the company received a further challenge. The states serviced by the company all passed legislation demanding increased student success on state achievement tests. Naturally, schools and school districts expected that the technology installed in the schools would assist the teachers in responding to these mandated tests. Jones, in collaboration with 29

PAGE 39

the team leaders, decided to intensify their leadership development, using their monthly team leader meetings focused on agreed-upon skills. Leadership response to training. The groups studied the learning disciplines from Organizational Learning (Senge, 1990) and the theory and practices of Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990). Team leaders were encouraged to meet on their own to practice. During this process, Jones decided to name a Norma Allen as President of the company to officially assist him in managing the day-to-day operations of EDU. Ms. Allen played numerous leadership roles in the company and, for the past 18 months, had unofficially been responsible for overseeing the daily operations of EDU Software. Both Jones and the newly appointed President attended and participated in all of the team leader development meetings. Enthusiasm appeared high during these training sessions, and internal conversations there gave the impression that the team leaders were transferring these skills to their daily work. However, after a number of months, CEO Jones and President Allen began to question the effectiveness of the training. For the most part, although the team leaders appeared positive and optimistic during the training sessions; little change in their behavior was observed by Jones and Allen. The Vision Leaders as self-starters. Although the ideas of empowerment and personal accountability were discussed, the vision of self-starting interdependent decision making touted at the team leader meetings failed to materialize. 30

PAGE 40

Competition for resources was openly displayed: team leaders refused to share successful practices, and, whenever a team leader faced a sensitive decision, she or he attempted to enlist the CEO or President as the final decision maker. The vision of self-starting interdependent decision making failed to materialize uniformly among the team leaders. Additionally, the CEO strongly felt that the team leaders did not uniformly concern themselves about EDU Software viability leaving that to Jones and Allen. Evidence of the transfer of training. The evidence suggesting that the team leaders were not using the theories, methods, and tools being taught during the leadership meetings was anecdotal. The CEO would evaluate a team leaders problem solving behavior and decide whether or it incorporated one or more of the desired leadership behaviors. His, and often President Allens, conclusion was no, it was not. The Standards Imposition Program Jones and Allen felt that the only way to ensure the adoption of the leadership training was by establishing accountability structures. They decided to impose learning standards for the team leaders and gave them 6 months to accomplish these standards. Failure to comply with this directive would trigger a review of a team leaders commitment and future with the company as a leader. The structure had three major components: (a) Four to six team leaders were assigned to small learning communities and expected to meet regularly; (b) facilitated monthly meetings presented content as needed, along with examples of application by the leaders of the expected theories, methods, and tools; and 31

PAGE 41

(c) clearly defined standards with explicit products (see Appendix I). A copy of the executive leadership memorandum that alerted the leaders to the requirements is found in Appendix J. After the imposition of standards, the President and CEO participated in the monthly team leader meetings and provided coaching and support only when requested. Little interaction beyond those meetings was evidenced in the data sets. The standards imposition program began in August 1998 asking that the standards be completed by January 1999. During the previous two years, August 1996 through August 1998, the researcher met at least monthly with the Team Leaders. One of the stated purposes of those meetings was to develop leadership capacity among the team leaders. The standards accomplishment deadline came and all practicing team leaders met the standards and continued in their leadership positions. Two of the original group left during the 6-month period where the team leaders were working on accomplishing the standards. Ten months after the standards completion deadline, the President decided that learning about the standards imposition program would aid her in responding to system-wide leadership concerns. After consultation, a decision was made to try and understand the impact of the standards imposition program from as many former and current team leaders as could be found and agreeable. The President asked the researcher to develop general ideas about the process and procedure for determining how the standards imposition program affected the attitudes and behaviors of the team leaders. 32

PAGE 42

Chapter Four Method Design The purpose of this study was to surface attitudes and behaviors of line leaders resulting from an executive leadership teams decision to formulate, impose, and verify accomplishment of a set of standards, asking the question, How did the implementation of required leadership learning standards affect the behaviors and attitudes of the team leaders? This qualitative study employed a case method format intended to collect and analyze line-leader responses to a unique systems event: the standards imposition program. Rossman and Rallis (1998) suggested that case formats seek to understand a larger phenomenon through close examination of a specific case and therefore focus on the particular (p.70). This study is designed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of a small number of line or team leaders after the imposed standards initiative in an effort to understand how imposing goals or standards may affect the attitudes and behaviors of those working in a larger system. Case studies typically rely on a variety of techniques for data gathering and are conducted over a period of time (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, p. 71). Each participants attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions toward the event were collected over a 6-month period using multiple data collection protocols: focus groups, 33

PAGE 43

questionnaires, and interviews. These data collection protocols were designed by the researcher in collaboration with the President of the EDU Software. Once these data from the focus group and interview protocols were assembled, a systematic and focused method to categorize the data into useful and usable classes or domains was employed. A computer assisted protocol, called NUD*IST, enabled this effort and is described in detail later in this chapter. This program assisted the researcher in sifting through the data sets many times and unearthing the themes and ideas common to the participants. After a time of coding and recoding, no new themes appeared; this occurrence signaled the end of the categorization and coding process and the opportunity to develop the common threads and themes that led to some conclusions and recommendations. Once the themes were identified, the results from the questionnaire protocol and researcher journal entries were reviewed to determine congruence and dissonance with the themes. Researcher The researcher is a Caucasian male, 56 years old, enrolled as doctoral candidate in a south Florida university interdisciplinary studies program, previously employed for almost 20 years as a secondary public school principal, and currently self-employed for 10 years as a Systems Thinking consultant and learning facilitator. He earned his undergraduate degree in mathematics from St. Francis College in Brooklyn, N.Y. and his master of science in mathematics education from Fordham University. 34

PAGE 44

His experience with qualitative and quantitative research began during doctoral studies and while being employed as a member of a center for the advancement of teaching and learning. First, he served as an interviewer in multiple focus groups on the effective application of leadership using Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990) interventions. Later, he was asked to categorize principal responses to a Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990) survey and identify commonalities in what were perceived as effective responses. Continued investigations of variables correlating to quality environments enabled the researcher to participate in reliability and validity studies of an instrument designed to measure attitudes of teachers about their school culture. Using these data, he assisted in presenting themes from the data sets at numerous workshops. As a student of facilitation, the researcher spends almost all of his professional time organizing and leading work-related conversations. He has conducted numerous site-analyses for both public and private organizations and presented findings to the appropriate principles. His professional duties as a consultant to EDU software provided an opportunity to study all aspects of the decisions that led to the standards imposition program. Further, once the decision was made to investigate the reactions of the line-leaders to the imposed standards, he collaborated with the President of EDU Software about the scope of the investigation, participants, data-collection devices, and time frame for the collection process. 35

PAGE 45

Participants The investigation used data collected from a consistent panel of informants, namely, the available team or line leaders of EDU Software. Initially, the company invited all of the 12 original team leaders to participate in the study. Three of the 12 potential participants had left EDU Software under trying circumstances and would not agree to participate. From the remaining nine, three others were unable to participate. One potential respondent had a medical emergency and the other two were no longer with the company and indicated that, although interested in the project, time constraints precluded their involvement. Of the six line or team leader participants, two were males and four females. All of the female respondents were EDU Software team leaders and had a history of playing significant leadership roles in the company, ranging from account manager to director of staff development and vice-President of the company. One of the females, in her early 30s was a co-founder of the company functioning as co-owner and vice-President. Each of the women was in their early to late 30s and had held leadership positions in other technology companies prior to joining EDU Software in account management positions. Each of these professional women was promoted to team leader positions when the company re-organized in a team model of operations. Both male participants held team leader positions within the company. One of the males, in his early 50s, had 15 years tenure with the company in a variety of leadership roles. The other male participant, in his early 30s, was 36

PAGE 46

employed as an account manager prior to becoming a team leader and held assorted ad-hoc leadership roles during his term with the company. Instruments Three instruments were proposed for this study: focus groups, interviews, (see Appendices D and E) and a questionnaire (see Appendix G). Each of the instruments focused on securing information that the President of EDU Software believed would be useful in designing future company interventions. All three instruments asked in different ways how the team leaders felt about themselves, EDU Software, the standards imposition program, and their perceived personal and systems impact from the standards imposition program. The focus group and interview instruments used prompts to establish context and elicit responses from the team leaders in predetermined domains and areas. The focus group protocol targeted the following domains: forces affecting EDU Softwares environment, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the company, behavioral changes in the team leaders as a result of the standards imposition program, and the current assumptions about the effectiveness of the standards imposition program. The prompts in the interviews specifically asked for attitudes and behaviors in six areas, namely: time spent in accomplishing the standards, commitment to the standards, personal satisfaction at accomplishing the standards, impact on the system, effectiveness of the peer learning groups, and the supporting and impeding forces surrounding the standards imposition program. Each focus group and interview prompt used natural occurrences for 37

PAGE 47

probes and invited each team leader to add any thoughts about the standards imposition program not covered, or not covered adequately, in the data collection process. Finally, the team leaders were asked to respond to a series of questionnaire prompts using a modified Likert scale: N/A (not applicable), 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree), 5 (strongly agree). Each questionnaire prompt or item represented an ideal state in the following areas: time, commitment, personal leadership, and system. The questionnaire asked about the team leaders reaction to the item before, during, and after the standards imposition program. Katzenmeyers survey instrument on quality environments was the model used to develop the questionnaire items. Procedure Information was collected from each of the available team leaders using the aforementioned instruments beginning 1 year after the standards were to have been accomplished. All of the interviews, focus groups, and questionnaire sessions were organized and conducted by the researcher. Telephone and e-mail provided the initial method for contacting the team leaders and inviting them to participate in the study. Once a team leader agreed to participate, a date was set to describe the overall process by telephone and the length of the time commitment required. Each team leader was told that the process had three phases: focus group, interview, and questionnaire response. Additionally, they were informed that the focus groups were designed for 90 minutes, interviews for 1 hour and responding to the questionnaire for 30 minutes. 38

PAGE 48

The agreeable and available team leaders were divided into two groups of three and scheduled for two afternoon focus group sessions 2 weeks apart. The focus groups were scheduled and held in a restaurants private dining room near EDU Softwares main office. A court stenographer was employed to record and transcribe each focus group and interview session. The stenographer was directed by the researcher to call the participants Team Leader 1 through Team Leader 6 and identify gender only in the transcription. This method for identifying the participants was shared during opening remarks at both the focus and interview sessions in an effort to ensure anonymity and reduce anxiety. During the focus group session opening remarks, the researcher asked participants to read, reflect, and where amenable to sign the consent forms for all three phases of the study. Focus Group consent forms were provided to all of the participating team leaders and once the slips were signed, the researcher collected them and began the focus group. The focus groups and interview instruments used prompts for each of the segments reflecting the domains or areas. During the focus group and interview sessions, the researcher initiated each segment by stating the purpose of the segment, the context, and the prompt itself and invited any one of the team leaders to begin. The researcher intervened only if participants lost focus or interfered with the hearing of someone elses remarks. At the end of each segment, the researcher inquired to determine if any additional information was forthcoming. The court reporter intervened only to ask clarifying questions. Once 39

PAGE 49

the researcher was satisfied that the team leaders had no additional information to offer, he moved on to the next segment until all prompts were completed. Once the focus groups were completed, telephone scheduling of the interviews began. All of the interviews were scheduled and held at EDU Softwares headquarters 1 month after the second focus group session was completed. All of the interviews were conducted in a single day. After the interview was conducted, each team leader was given a questionnaire to complete, a private place to work, and a box to drop off the completed document. This procedure guaranteed privacy, anonymity, and the best possible opportunity for all of the team leaders to complete the questionnaire. The data sets from the focus groups and interviews were delivered to the researcher by the court stenographers company ensuring further anonymity of the participants. Data Analysis The process used to sort through qualitative case study data has been well detailed by Patton (1990), I begin by reading through all of my field notes or interviews and making comments in the margins or even attaching pieces of paper with staples or paper clips that contain my notions about what I can do with the different parts of the data. This is the beginning of organizing the data into topics and files. Coming up with topics is like constructing an index for a book or labels for a file system; look at what is there and give it a name, label. The copy on which these labels are written becomes the indexed copy of the field notes or interviews. (p. 381) 40

PAGE 50

Each interview, focus group, comment, and questionnaire response received consistent scrutiny using Pattons ideas for beginning the analysis as described above. Use of the NUD*IST program supported thematic development through analysis of textual documents and facilitation of the indexing of components into these documents while retrieving indexed text segments, related answers from questionnaires, and other related textual units. Interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires were transcribed into plain text documents using segments of text as the basis for creating common data sets. The scope of the textual units was defined in the following manner: for the interview sessions, each question and related answer was chosen as a text segment; for the focus group data set, the comments made by the researcher and each of the team leaders were treated as individual text segments. Once the text segments were identified and presented to NUD*IST, each document was scrutinized separately using a common set of headings. Headings for both the interview and focus group data sets came from the research question focusing this study: How did the imposition of the standards impact the attitude and behavior of the team leaders? Each data set was coded to identify text units that spoke to attitudinal and behavioral impact of the standards movement. Finally, the interview protocols enabled the team leaders to talk about the condition of the company and their professional experiences with the standards movement from three time interval perspectives: before the standards were imposed, during the interval where the team leaders studied and developed the 41

PAGE 51

required products to demonstrate mastery of the standards, and after the completion deadline passed. NUD*IST then organized the data into headings and sub-headings as nodes and sub-nodes. These structures formed a set of major headings and associated sub-headings in the form of a tree with major branches and connected sub-branches. In this study, each major node was defined within the NUD*IST structure using the question headings. Two major areas of interest made up the emerging tree structure and, with some sub-node variance, remained consistent through the data analysis. The first area in the tree major headings was the impact of the standards imposition program on the behavior and attitudes of the team leaders. Respecting the idea that researchers bring with them their own lenses and conceptual frameworks, the tree structure enabled a more rigorous approach to the data as presented. Regardless of the previous theoretical preconceptions, revisions of these ideas were enabled through the computer-assisted structure as the data were immersed (Kelle, 1997, p. 4). Once the first version of the structure was in place, the focus group and interview data sets were introduced. As these data sets were scanned and categorized according to the nodes, clustering in one or more nodes led to further understanding and refinement of the tree structure. Finally, every phrase or text segment related to the impact of the standards movement on a leaders behavior or attitude, fit in one category or another and often in more than one node. 42

PAGE 52

Initially, it was unclear how the participants responses would connect to these different major headings or nodes but, as the data appeared and adhered to the nodes, patterns emerged. Additional nodes and sub-nodes were created as the text segments clustered around the varying node-categories; however these became repetitive and offered no additional understanding. As the nodes were created, a numbering process enabled the determination of which nodes were connected and interconnected. These patterns provided the major concepts that enabled the final tree construction. The concluding tree structure and emerging patterns became the basis for the final report. Thematic Analysis The focus group data came weeks before the interview data sets so the researcher began with the focus group transcripts. Each of the two focus group data sets were read three times before recording any apparent commonality. When the data sets from the interviews arrived, the same procedure was utilized. Although a number of themes emerged, there were no thematic discrepancies between these sets. As the comments were almost impossible to categorize by focus group or interview, all of the team leaders comments were integrated and conceptually used as one data set. Each interview and focus group text unit received consistent scrutiny for behavioral or attitudinal impact as a result of the standards imposition program. NUD*IST enabled the researcher to sort the text units multiple times to determine common themes. The data collected from the focus groups, interviews and questionnaires held common threads, or themes, which became the significant findings in this 43

PAGE 53

qualitative study. These findings were illuminated using NUD*IST, then compared with the questionnaire results and journal notes of the researcher. Only dramatic inconsistencies with the questionnaire results or journal notes are described in the results section. The questionnaire responses were displayed in figures demonstrating the attitudes toward each question before, during, and after the imposition of the standards program for the team leaders. Themes and common threads were developed from the team leaders responses to the impact of the learning standards on their attitudes and behavior as leaders. Use of the literature on the impact of goals or standards setting and change served as the backdrop for the study and enhanced generalizability. Although few studies were exactly like this one, the results parallel expected findings using a common set of learning structures. Rossman (1998) further advised researchers to provide as much information about the context of the study as possible. Chapter 1 described the context at length to ensure the usefulness of this investigation and chapter 3 was dedicated to a detailed description of the case. Additionally, the population studied and the organizational structure of the company was consistent with many organizations. The issues facing this company paralleled many other private and public sector institutions in the world. Although this study refrained from generalizing in a probabilistic manner, it does generalize when findings appear to apply to other populations. 44

PAGE 54

Chapter Five Results The thematic results garnered from an analysis of the responses of six team leaders to focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires are presented in this section. The data for this study, collected 1 year after the event deadline, enabled the researcher to understand how this phenomenon of standards imposition and accountability affected the team leaders attitudes and actions. Contexts of the Reported Experiences The responses of the team leaders to the study protocols constitute the data used to develop the thematic analysis used in this investigation. Application of the protocols represents the entire data collection process conducted over a 6-month period. The researcher organized and conducted all of the data collection events. The two 90-minute focus groups were conducted over a 2-week interval at a private dining area in a restaurant close to EDU Softwares headquarters. The interviews were approximately 1 hour in length and were conducted at EDUs headquarters. The questionnaires were completed by the team leaders directly following their interview sessions. Themes The thematic analysis of the responses from the six team leaders yielded five shared themes: Positive Attitude toward Learning; Positive Attitude toward Peer Learning Groups; Increased Skill, Performance, Satisfaction, and 45

PAGE 55

Confidence as a result of imposed standards; and Shift from Negative Attitude toward Change. Positive attitude toward learning. All of the team leaders spoke of a change in their view toward learning. Although learning was recognized as a necessity for some of their co-workers, the imposition of the standards drove home the point that learning was ongoing and mandatory for them and for their survival. Five directly stated that ownership of the learning shifted from the executive leadership team to them. The remaining team leader stated that she already held a well-developed sense of the need for learning and that the exercise of the standards accomplishment simply reinforced this belief. Learners ethic due to the imposition of standards was a sub-theme revealed by several of the leaders. Team leaders also spoke repeatedly of their new-found excitement about continued learning opportunities. One participant said, Once the foundation was there, my desire to learn was there, so I still continue to pursue and build on it, primarily using the Internet. Another, in reflecting upon learning opportunities, reported, I dont ever wait, I look for new things to learn every day. I dont wait for someone to decide what my learning should be. According to another participant, I think I tried to apply the standards not only to office work, per se, but to my personal life, and some of the things I did do to meet the standards, certain textbooks and books to read, binders, and activities to do with your 46

PAGE 56

support learning group, so its kind of the same on a personal level, when I was not in the office, when an opportunity came up, I would apply. One team leader spoke of the excitement of learning in this way, [It] gave us the opportunity to go beyond, it kind of opened our eyes to many things, how much there was to learn, how exciting it could be to learn new things, how demanding the role of leader is, and how it made you kind of aware you had to be prepared for that role. For another, the opportunity to be a learner was a favorite result of the standards imposition, Really, the time we could be learners. In leadership, you are expected to be the experts, and you have to know everything. It was the first time you could say, I have no clue what Im doing, Im going to take the time, we can learn it together or Ill study on my own. That was cool. The sixth leader spoke of diving into learning, The only other opportunity was to be in the role of learner, which in our other parts of our job responsibilities, we have not had to do, and its learning how to learn, but it gave you the opportunity to see. Its been so long for a lot of us where we had to learn things. It was another opportunity to dive back in and be a learner. A number of team leaders spoke of the ongoing nature of learning and how it was brought to the forefront of their workday through the standards imposition: I think, for me, its ongoing, its an ongoing process. It doesnt come to an end where you say, Im here. I think, on a personal level, my change 47

PAGE 57

would be just continuing to reinforce my commitment to my ongoing learning, which enhanced the standards so that its an ongoing process. The amount of learning that took place surprised me. That still continues, I think, to this day, and the commitment to ongoing learning, but I thought that was a tremendous strength of implementing our standards. A fourth leader stated, I think, if you look at the organization today as opposed to a year ago, you can see the changes, and thats about creating focus groups, learning, ongoing learning, and thats not necessarily (when) we are going to have a learning day here and there, its ongoing. Its not just at work, its personal, its communicating, creating that collective wisdom as a team, as a group, sharing information throughout the company. A fifth spoke of finding a more relaxed approach to learning as the leader became aware that it would be a continuing process, In any case, I loosened up. That was a result of having gone through the standards thing, because there wasnt enough time to learn anything in a total kind of way when we were doing the standards, but there was enough time to get to a point where you could perform in that area, and that was enough because then you continued to learn as you performed. The team leaders described a change in personal learning time during the interviews and in the first prompts of the questionnaire (Appendix H). Half commented that they became nervous about spending so much of the workweek in learning. One clearly worried that business productivity would suffer when the team leaders were distracted by the required time for learning. The others simply 48

PAGE 58

stated that they had to add time for learning both during and after working hours. All but one team leader reported that the amount of study time declined sharply after the accomplishment of the standards, however, one team leader raised the idea that another set of learning standards would have maintained the focus after the deadline passed for the first standards accomplishment. Positive attitude toward peer learning groups. All but one of the team leaders spoke highly of their experiences with the peer group learning model. This exception felt that the construction of the peer learning group impacted her learning ability but would undoubtedly have been more effective with a different group composition. Those satisfied with their peer learning groups noted not only positive outcomes in terms of learning the standards, but greater satisfaction with the quality of the relationships that developed among the learning group members. The leaders cited fellowship, community, shared wisdom, and support. They said such things as: Team leaders appreciation of one another was raised. I think that the dynamics of the peer learning groups were different. In my observation, some were very strong and there was this energy. I think the peer learning group offered a great opportunity to bring collective wisdom together and share that and bring it to the rest of the organization, because I know, for me, for example, I work better in small groups. I think peer learning groups can be very effective. I think the four people I met would have been happy to meet regularly forever. In my peer group, we all learned how to learn together, which was a neat thing. It took a while, but after about the third meeting, we knew how to work together to learn stuff. 49

PAGE 59

Team leaders commented that interaction within the peer groups brought home the importance of the standards for them, The work we did in the peer learning groups made the standards seem more important to me, the standards themselves, because we actually had a great experience in our peer learning group and got deeper under the surface of things. It wasnt just about doing the standards, it was about things we all were experiencing in working in the company, and that was good. They spoke of the wisdom garnered from working closely with others, I dont think I would have wanted to do the standards without the peer learning group, because it was nice to have different people from different backgrounds and expertise, which I was afforded in my peer group. One person was an educator; Im not an educator, and someone else was more technical. I think that was a wonderful experience and that helped when I was trying to accomplish the standards. Team leaders talked about the unifying nature of their work with peers, I think it was the first time where, as an outgrowth of this exercise, it pulled people together. The team leaders were very disjointed. You had your own geography, and you did your own thing, and the interaction only took place when you needed to beg, borrow, or steal another resource from another geography. I think the comradery and the development of peer learning groups. Although we dont meet as peers for specific peer learning group days, Ill be in touch with people. I have developed 50

PAGE 60

relationships to bounce ideas off of, which I hadnt done typically before, so I think that was a outgrowth. In another, similarly reflective comment, a team leader stated, I think, for me, the peer learning group offered a forum to have a conversation with other leaders in the organization to go over issues, things going on in the organization, to have actually a conversation to bring our thoughts and ideas together. Group behavior and the resultant team leader behaviors from participating in the peer learning groups were mentioned by each interviewee. Two line-leaders explained how the peer learning groups provided time and place for more than studying standards. These gatherings afforded these leaders the opportunity to discuss business issues and concerns and to seek help from other members of the learning team in the form of ideas and suggestions. Increased skill, performance, satisfaction, and confidence. Team leaders talked about the benefits that accrued from the imposition of the standards. They spoke of feeling greater personal self-confidence: I think my confidence level about my feelings and about what I believe, I think comes out. In the team leader meetings, I was very quiet. I felt that, if I was going to say anything, I would be judged. Now I feel confident. If I want to say something, I say it. Im very much more aware, and I trust my instincts. When I feel as if Im being judged, I dont really care what the lip service says to me anymore. I know it. 51

PAGE 61

Its more an internal feeling with myself, how I feel about myself and look at myself. I think that has changed where I feel comfortable with what I think and feel and what I say, and I feel that what I have to say offers value to a conversation, where, before, I might have just not said anything. Team leaders spoke of their increased competency as managers, greater ability to delegate and to lead, and increased awareness of the need to accept responsibility. Level of competency among team leaders for the specific area we are working in. That was raised quite a bit. It made me a better manager. I always expected myself to be the expert, as a leader thats the role I keep putting myself in. As a result of the standards, I looked at the value and the importance of being a facilitator as opposed to being an expert. When I was going crazy because I would not delegate, if something needed to get done and I wanted it to be done right, I would think I better do it myself or its not going to happen. The whole facilitator piece as opposed to being the expert. It gave me a lot more compassion for the people on my team who had standards also, but not only standards, but just to keep up with their job, the technician in particular. That compassion, I think, was a huge piece. You cant just earn the money and have the title and come and show up for work every day, but you have to take responsibility for your area, your domains, the money part of that, the people part of that, da-da-da-da-da, on and on, and, essentially, youre the guy where the buck stops if you 52

PAGE 62

want to be a leader. I knew that intellectually, but I never internalized it until that time period in my life. The leaders also talked about a stronger feeling of community and support from their fellow leaders, [learning of the standards] gave the company a greater sense of community, including the employees, on the vision of the company and letting them know that their voice is important, so I believe it created a sense of community. One leader described the results as follows: I thought work morale was at an all-time high, productivity and learning was extremely high, and there was, the best way I can describe it is, there was a sort of buzz and a high enthusiasm for the work we did. Other benefits listed were customer advocacy, stronger understanding of company needs, more focus on continued improvement, and greater employee empathy. Shift from negative to positive attitude toward change. Both focus groups developed consensus that, for themselves and for those that they led, change was seen as a problem prior to the standards program. As the standards were imposed and peer learning groups established, change became an expected occurrence for themselves and their teams. I know, in the beginning, for me personally, it was difficult, because it was a change in the way I looked at things and a change in the way I actually operated, and in my old way, I felt comfortable with the way I did things. This was something new and different. So as time progressed, I think I changed with that as the standards were being used, and, again, as I said before, its a process. 53

PAGE 63

Half of the respondents used the words, scary, fear, fearful while others recognized that the standards represented the CEO and Presidents desire for the line-leaders to behave in different ways toward customers and the employees that they led. Although fear existed during the 6-month period of the standards program, the team leaders stated that morale and collaboration seemed to be at an all time high. It was something I didnt think I would be able to do, and I was very happy when I did it. It made me think about things a lot differently now, and when I pick up a new book or something more on the same level as some of the other reading we have done together, I think about things differently. Which is cool. Its an on-going process for me. Prior to taking the test, I was apprehensive, fearful of failing, but that went away when I didnt fail. In the beginning, I would say my commitment (to the standards) was kind of lax. It was, like, I have 6 months, and, as we moved along, two things happened. One, I had less time, so I had to focus more, but, two, the harder you work at those things, the more exciting it got. Commitment to imposed goals. Team leaders saw the standards as a work requirement by the CEO and President and for that reason developed a matter-of-fact attitude toward them. Although, the level of commitment toward the expected standards was delivered, a commitment to what the standards represented was stronger among the team leaders. 54

PAGE 64

I think my commitment to the spirit of the standards was very high. I think I didnt particularly care that much whether or not I actually did the standards. It was a work requirement, so I did them, but the actual worked involved in this is what you must do to complete this standard, my commitment to that was basically work driven. My commitment was anything to accomplish the standards. It was enough to reach the standards. I was totally committed and, probably, because of that carrot at the end of the string. You had to or risk losing that position. I think that helped commit me to do that, as well as there being a specific drop-dead date. It made me focus. Let me get this done during the summer. I planned it out more according to those drop-dead times. As reflected by the previous comment, team leaders discovered benefits in the standards imposition and remarked upon their commitment to them repeatedly: I personally learned some things I would not have selected, but it did help me. So there is some benefit having them imposed on you. The personal learning plan only goes so far. When something is imposed on you, you can learn things you would not have selected to learn but [that] still can be beneficial. Their comments reflected an overall prior outlook on and acceptance of the standards: I think a lot of it really depends on constant reinforcement of the importance of that from the leadership in the organization. I think, when 55

PAGE 65

we were being told this is what you must do, we did it and actually found more in it than we expected to and would be happy to continue. Loss of advantages gained from standards imposition. All of the leaders noted that the heightened learning, communication, and other benefits that were in place during the standards imposition period tapered off or disintegrated entirely after the standards were met. Definitely, communication is one of our weaknesses. Here is an interesting thing, I would say that it was very bad before, it was better during, and its back to being bad again. After we met the standards, there was no sense and meaning. There wasnt a lot of sense to the meetings, we werent going anywhere. I think communications, generally, have gone downhill. We are totally nowhere near as good at it as we were getting and dont even try. I think the focus on systems and the systems dynamicsI cant think of the words, but the archetype and things like that, I think some of that took hold so that we tend to think a little more strategically these days, but in a much less formal way than we were trying to do. Currently, I would not say our internal communication is very good. Compared to the way it was following the completion of the standards by the team leaders. Thats deteriorated. Once we understood how to use the peer learning group for our mutual benefit, we were really into it. But when the organization no longer was pushing us to do that, obviously, we didnt do it on our own. Even though 56

PAGE 66

we liked it and got stuff out of it, for whatever reason, we just didnt continue. Im not sure why. I think, right afterwards, I was still pretty excited in pursuing new information on things, and I think that rapidly decreased over time, because there wasnt a lot of reinforcement to keep that going. I recall there was not as much effective leadership as you would hope afterwards. I think people were more knowledgeable, but I still dont think it made us that much more effective as leaders. My statement is really based on, I think, meetings we had where we would still talk about why we werent effective as leaders afterwards. Its what I sort of remember. I cant really say whether our mutual benefit, we were really into it, but when the organization no longer was pushing us to do that, obviously, we didnt do it on our own. Even though we liked it and got stuff out of it, for whatever reason, we just didnt continue. Im not sure what that is. Summary of Interview and Focus Group Data Sets Once the themes were identified from text segments that reflected an effect on the impact on attitude or behavior, the data were reviewed three additional times looking for additional supportive or contradictory statements on attitudes or behaviors of the team leaders as related to the standards movement. These additional reviews provided no additional data to the categories above. Subsequently, journal entries were compared with the findings to ascertain their fit or seek contradictions. Generally, each theme was corroborated in the journal 57

PAGE 67

entries. However, there were some contradictions or lack of supportive documentation. These are as follows: During the monthly leadership meetings, no team leader raised the idea that the standards movement would divert the attention from the business at hand; Although the team leaders suggested that business opportunities increased as a result of the standards movement, no journal entries were found to corroborate that statement; Any comments about the standards during the imposition period reflected the idea of imposition and not the neutral to positive idea of a work-related commitment in the data sets; No journal entries corroborated the idea that as time moved on past the imposition of the standards, the need for structure reduced among the team leaders. Questionnaire Results Each team leader who participated in the focus groups and interviews was asked to fill out a questionnaire on the impact of the standards movement. Its use in this study was to clarify, corroborate, or possibly contradict the findings reported above from the interviews and focus groups. Each of the 11 questions or protocols will be displayed with an associated bar graph. The graph depicts the team leaders responses to the protocol in the three time periods of the standards movement: before, during, and after. Comments attached to the individual protocols and associated graphs reflect the 58

PAGE 68

connection of that item to the previous findings from the interviews and focus groups. The questions utilized a modified Likert scale ranging from 0 to 5. As explained in detail in Appendix H, N/A received a score of 0, strongly disagree a score of 1, disagree a score of 2, neither agree or disagree received a score of 3, agree a score of 4, and strongly disagree a score of 5. Each question or protocol was scored 0-5 with the commensurate response indicators for the three-time interval of before, during, and after the standards movement. A mean was calculated for each of the time intervals and displayed below for each question or protocol. The first question invited the team leaders to develop a picture of their workday learning time. As displayed, the amount of workday time spent in learning grew dramatically after the imposition of the standards and continued after the standards accomplishment deadline passed. 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 1. Perceived time spent on learning during the workday mean scores 59

PAGE 69

The second question called for the team leaders to describe their after work-day learning time. As displayed, the amount of after workday time spent in learning outside the work-day grew dramatically after the imposition of the standards and then decreased almost to the point prior to the standards imposition. 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 2. Perceived time spent on learning after the workday mean scores The third question asked the team leaders to describe their personal commitment to learning. As can be seen in Figure 3, commitment grew even after the program ceased. 60

PAGE 70

5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 3. Perceived commitment to learning mean scores For the fourth question, team leaders were asked to rate their technological skills. According to their responses, confidence increased even after the standards were no longer imposed. 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 4. Perceived confidence in technological skills mean scores The fifth question asked team leaders to rate confidence in the area of education. Confidence in this area also grew throughout each interval. 61

PAGE 71

5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before Durin g A fte r Figure 5. Perceived confidence in understanding educational issues mean scores In the sixth question, team leaders were asked to describe their leadership skills. Again confidence levels increased. 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 6. Perceived confidence in personal leadership capacity mean scores The seventh question called for team leaders to describe their commitment to Total Quality (Deming, 1986, 1990) and Learning Organizations. Commitment again increased, as reflected by the graph below. 62

PAGE 72

5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before Durin g A fte r Figure 7. Perceived confidence in T.Q. and Organizational Learning mean scores Team leaders were asked to describe their daily use of the Leadership Disciplines in the eighth question. Daily use of the disciplines increased from baseline and stayed stable past the standards program. 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 8. Perceived daily use of leadership practices mean scores The ninth question also asked about daily use of adult learning theories, methods, and tools. There was a drastic change during that slightly decreased past. 63

PAGE 73

5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 9. Perceived daily use of adult learning processes mean scores The 10th question requested that team leaders describe their effectiveness at delivering services and products to customers. As displayed, their perceived effectiveness grew during and after the standards movement. 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 10. Perceived effectiveness at service and product delivery processes mean scores The 11th question asked the team leaders to describe their perception of how they functioned as a learning community. They responded that they believed 64

PAGE 74

they functioned well while learning the standards, but failed to maintain the quality of the learning community after standards were met (see Figure 11). 5 4 Low to High 3 2 Before During After Figure 11. Perceived effectiveness of learning communities processes mean scores Concluding Comments on the Questionnaire Protocols Once the question results were analyzed, they were compared to the themes derived from the interview and focus groups. These comparisons provided support for the findings. They did not present contradictory information. Journal entries were also compared with the findings above seeking possible contradictions. Generally, each protocol and the associated graph of the mean responses were corroborated by the journal entries. 65

PAGE 75

Chapter Six Discussion The purpose of this study was to surface attitudes and behaviors of line leaders resulting from an executive leadership teams decision to formulate, impose, and verify accomplishment of a set of standards, asking the question, How did the implementation of required leadership learning standards affect the behaviors and attitudes of the team leaders? This chapter will discuss the overarching themes and their structural thematic counterparts first. Next, each of the four major findings will be considered in light of the applicable research. Limitations of the study and future directions for research will complete this section. Thematic Structure Every one of the original 12 team leaders was still with EDU Software at the end of the standards imposition interval; each made a decision to accomplish the mandated standards, and did so. In this investigation, each of them was asked to reflect on how that decision was perceived by themselves, others and, to what degree that decision to commit to the program affected their daily leadership actions. Concern about learning as a survival strategy, relationships among peers in the learning groups, personal efficacy, and mediating variables 66

PAGE 76

for change were structural themes that characterized the Team leaders perceptions of their resultant attitudes and behaviors. Achievement of the Standards External threat. After 18 months of leadership training for the team leaders, executive leadership imposed a set of standards because they perceived little change in their behavior. Every team leader remaining with the company overcame initial resistance and successfully responded to the top-down mandate and met the standards. This successful outcome of a top-down mandate defies the research literature. Small and large scale studies ranging from voluntary to mandatory top-down strategies have consistently demonstrated that local implementation fails in the vast majority of cases (Fullan, 1994, p. 1). Top-down strategies were problematic because as it was difficult to change complex processes from the top. Senge (1990) referred to it as "the illusion of being in control" (p. 290). The perception that someone up there is in control is based on an illusion the illusion that anyone could master the dynamics and complexity of an organization from the top (p. 290). Kanter (1983) argues that top-down change limits the response of those working in the system and the resulting impact on others and the system itself can be negative. Extrinsic motivation with a strong negative consequence, in this case potential loss of employment, worked for a short period of time; the organizational issue was lack of sustainability (Kanter, 1983; Kotter, 1996; Deming, 1990; Senge, 1990). Fundamentally, this mandate for change orchestrated by the executive team should have met with some degree of failure 67

PAGE 77

or at least it might have been expected that a few of the team leaders should have needed more time or additional assistance after the deadline to complete the standards. Considering that each team leader met the standards by the deadline required thought about the possibility that the group may have developed a parallel bottom-up response to the mandate-driven program. Although not explicitly studied here, it is significant to note that bottom-up approaches to change as well as top-down initiatives taken on their own virtues have some serious flaws. Beer et al. (1990) review the merits. The top-down approach possesses some allure. It holds the promise of producing rapid change toward an elegantly conceived end state that is symmetrical and complete. Thus, managers can lead their employees in the desired direction. But the unilaterally directive approach also has traps into which renewal can fall. Employee commitment to the newly aligned organization may be low, and employee knowledge of how things get done in the organization may not be considered in the solution. A bottom-up approach that allows, even demands, participation by employees seems to address many of the failings of unilateral top management direction. But it can suffer from a different set of problems. A participative approach to change may be too slow and ill defined to respond effectively to short-term business demands. It presents top managers with the problem of how to incorporate their perspective and knowledge into new solutions. It raises questions about the motivation and skill of employees to develop an ambitious 68

PAGE 78

solution that will "force" them, the employees to change their ways. Even worse, participative approaches to change can be derailed by resistant managers, unions, and workers. Our examination of revitalization efforts in 26 plants and business units across the six companies reveals that effective renewal occurs not when managers choose one alternative or the other. Instead, effective revitalization occurs when mangers follow a critical path that obtains the benefits of top-down as well as bottom-up change efforts while minimizing their disadvantages. (p. 68-69) The reason that simultaneous top-down/bottom-up strategies are essential is that dynamically complex societies are always full of surprises (Senge, 1990; Stacey, 1992). The result of the top-down initiative 100% completion rate at EDU Software may support the need for a combination of efforts to enable change in a system a combination of efforts that enable those working in the system to make personal meaning of the mandates. The required, professionally facilitated, monthly learning meetings; small peer learning groups; and individual coaching were efforts that enabled EDU leaders to develop quality professional relationships where meaningful conversation ensued (Senge, 1990; Fullan, 2001). Each of the team leaders explained during the interviews and focus groups why the standards were not only reasonable, but also necessary for the company to survive. One team leader stated that the mandated program, gave us the opportunity to go beyond, it kind of opened our eyes to many things, how much there was to learn, how exciting it could be to learn new 69

PAGE 79

things, how demanding the role of leader is, and how it made you kind of aware you had to be prepared for that role. Another experienced team leader agreed: You can't just earn the money and have the title and come and show up for work every day, but you have to take responsibility for your area, your domains, the money part of that, the people part of that, da-da-da-da-da, on and on, and, essentially, you're the guy where the buck stops if you want to be a leader. I knew that intellectually, but I never internalized it until that time period in my life. The finding that, in this case, a top-down mandate led to 100% achievement may support the need for investigation of other successful top-down implementations. It is possible that the top-down standards initiative was merely the catalyst for action. The group at EDU certainly found a way to make bottom-up meaning for themselves out of the standards imposition program. Peer learning groups. Much time went by, approximately 18 months, in which the team leaders were engaged in leadership training programs. Although public display of the team leader expectations and exhortations to commit to the new leadership practices occurred, very little change, if any, in the daily leadership practices were observed by the CEO and President. When the standards were imposed with a deadline 6 months away, the team leaders began to behave very differently in their learning sessions but also in the field. Once committed to the goal, the team leaders used the peer learning groups as an 70

PAGE 80

enabling structure leading to goal accomplishment and some perceived change in practice. In this investigation, goal commitment was not enough to ensure change will occur in any team leader. People needed a method to develop the capacities required to make the desired change a reality. Havelock and Havelock (1973) asserted that change occurs when individuals take on the responsibility to teach and coach one another. Team leaders played a social change and leadership role simultaneously in the organization. The peer learning groups afforded the team leaders the opportunity to display change leadership, but once again a caution should be noted. Fullan (2001) argued that just because people are talking with one another and even practice learning disciplines does not guarantee desired change in practice nor in results. Often, people reinforce behaviors with each other that mire them in the current reality (Senge, 1990). To enable people to move to a new awareness and action, opportunity to discuss radically new approaches must be discussed and accepted. Prochaska et al. (1992) determined that efficient self-change depends on doing the right things (processes) at the right time (stages) (p.1110). They emphasized an individuals need for change readiness. During those months of study and executive team encouragement, the team leaders failed to change their leadership practices but may have been developing their readiness for change. Exhorting changes in leadership behavior without providing time for awareness and reflection will at best develop temporary compliance and, as in this case, failed to develop the required commitment and supportive actions. 71

PAGE 81

Only when the team leaders had the opportunity and allotted time to discuss the standards program did they perceive a change in their attitudes. Supporting the theme of positive attitude toward peer learning groups, one team leader stated, The work we did in the peer learning groups made the standards seem more important to me, the standards themselves, because we actually had a great experience in our peer learning group and got deeper under the surface of things, it wasn't just about doing the standards, it was about things we all were experiencing in working in the company, and that was good. Continuing with this theme, another leader stated that, I don't think I would have wanted to do the standards without the peer learning group, because it was nice to have different people from different backgrounds and expertise, which I was afforded in my peer group. One person was an educator, I'm not an educator, and someone else who was more technical. I think that was a wonderful experience and that helped when I was trying to accomplish the standards. Although the literature enables a potential understanding of why these leaders committed and accomplished the standards, the resulting changes in practice require additional investigation. The study uncovered attitudes of commitment toward the standards and toward ongoing practice, but the internal dialogue held among the team leaders would probably provide more insight into 72

PAGE 82

the attitudes that caused them to align their practice with the models displayed in the standards. Goal Commitment During the focus groups and interviews, each team leader articulated personal goal commitment toward the standards enabling them to control their personal destinies. Locke and Latham (1990) determined that when someone sets specific and challenging goals, they are more likely to be achieved. Committing to the mandates may be akin to setting specific and challenging goals for self. Each of the team leaders found their commitment at different times during the imposition interval and stated that commitment and feedback were closely related. Study participants articulated their belief in this connection in the goal commitment theme. I think a lot of it really depends on constant reinforcement of the importance of that from the leadership in the organization. I think, when we were being told this is what you must do, we did it and actually found more in it than we expected to and would be happy to continue. The team leaders eventually saw the standards as a work requirement and for that reason developed a matter-of-fact attitude toward them. Another team leaders supporting both shifting from negative to positive attitudes toward change and goal commitment themes remarked that, In the beginning, I would say my commitment (to the standards) was kind of lax. It was, like, I have 6 months, and, as we moved along, two things 73

PAGE 83

happened. One, I had less time, so I had to focus more, but, two, the harder you work at those things, the more exciting it got. A different leader supporting the theme of shifting from negative to positive attitude toward change stated, I felt comfortable with the way I did things. This was something new and different. So as time progressed, I think I changed with that as the standards were being used, and, again, as I said before, its a process Each team leader offered a comment similar to this one, my commitment was anything to accomplish the standards. It was enough (just) to reach the standards. Typically, the team leaders developed personal commitments through the themes of goal commitment and increased skill, performance, satisfaction, and confidence by explaining how the standards would affect positively their situation and how they intended to be in control of their professional and personal life. Wollman (1999) listed research supported principles and suggestions that enable the accomplishment of personal and political agendas which typically include goals and objectives. One of his recommendations suggested that people consistently required to accomplish a public goal or an objective eventually accepted that imposed requirement as their own. The standards were certainly public and regularly reinforced, likely causing these team leaders to accept the imposed standards for themselves eventually. Rogers (1991) supported this finding by arguing that establishing goals and providing ongoing performance feedback enables goal commitment. The team leaders met monthly as a total 74

PAGE 84

group where part of the agenda was dedicated to reporting their current status on standards accomplishment and in those gatherings were afforded the opportunity to seek coaching and/or support from peers or the researcher as consultant. As noted in Hollenbach et al. (1989), the public nature of the goal, previously supported by Wollman (1999) and internal locus of control accounted for a great deal of the variance surrounding goal commitment. In this investigation, the public-ness of the goal was uniform, and each team leader seemed to design a way to be in control of the accomplishment process. For whatever reasons, the team leaders developed goal commitment and presented a connection to the expected standards accomplishment. This personal connection to the goal, whether determined by the constancy of the executive teams urging toward accomplishment, the social dynamic established among the peers, or by the individuals deciding to be in charge of their life still represented the same the same variable: personal control of a situation. In sum, the study now supported the experts that goal commitment is required to develop a resulting change in behavior. However, the road to goal commitment seemed to be comprised of, at least in this investigation, public display of the standards, clear feedback methods, and personal control of the outcomes. As seen in the previous section on peer learning groups, goal commitment is apparently necessary but, from this study, not a sufficient condition to goal accomplishment and the resultant long-term change in behavior. 75

PAGE 85

Little Perceived Transfer of Training This final finding is interesting from a number of vantage points. Generally, for the aforementioned reasons surrounding goal and change theory, the team leaders accomplished the imposed standards and found the experience satisfying personally and professionally. However, there was little perceived transfer to practice and the team leaders waited, and may still be waiting, for someone to provide leadership in establishing new standards rather than doing that for themselves. The leadership-training program and the standards imposition initiative both caused changes in the system but failed to ensure transfer to practice. In the loss of advantages gained from standards imposition theme, one team leader stated, I recall there was not as much effective leadership as you would hope afterwards. I think people were more knowledgeable, but I still don't think it made us that much more effective as leaders. My statement is really based on, I think, meetings we had where we would still talk about why we weren't effective as leaders afterwards. It's what I sort of remember. I can't really say whether our mutual benefit, we were really into it, but when the organization no longer was pushing us to do that, obviously, we didn't do it on our own. Even though we liked it and got stuff out of it, for whatever reason, we just didn't continue. I'm not sure what that is. When the focus group was queried as to the veracity of this quote, all agreed that little shifts in overall leadership practice were noted. However, the team leaders 76

PAGE 86

generally supported the outcomes of the peer learning groups as to accomplishing the standards and to increasing the quality of relationships among them. I think, if you look at the organization today as opposed to a year ago, you can see the changes, and that's about creating focus groups, learning, ongoing learning, and that's not necessarily we are going to have a learning day here and there, it's ongoing. It's not just at work, it's personal, it's communicating, creating that collective wisdom as a team, as a group, sharing information throughout the company. A few of the team leaders commented about the peer learning groups themselves: I think the peer learning group offered a great opportunity to bring collective wisdom together and share that and bring it to the rest of the organization, because I know, for me, for example, I work better in small groups. I think peer learning groups can be very effective. I think the four people I met would have been happy to meet regularly forever. In my peer group, we all learned how to learn together, which was a neat thing. It took a while, but after about the third meeting, we knew how to work together to learn stuff. This finding presents and interesting paradox in organizational change; people enjoyed the change program, accomplished the standards, developed long-lasting relationships but failed to change leadership practices. Kotter (1996) asserted that most change efforts missed the mark. In a later publication he studied 100 companies boasting an 85% failure rate in the 77

PAGE 87

development of successful change efforts. One of the reasons he gave for this condition was as follows, The perception that large organizations are filled with recalcitrant middle managers who resist all change is not only unfair but untrue. In professional service organizations, and in most organizations with an educated workforce, people at every level are engaged in change processes. Often it's the middle level that brings issues to the attention of senior executives. In fact, I have found that the biggest obstacles to change are not middle managers but, more often, those who work just a level or two below the CEO -vice presidents, directors, general managers, and others who haven't yet made it to "the top" and may have the most to lose in a change. That's why it is crucial to build a guiding coalition that represents all levels of the organization. People often hear the president or CEO cheerleading a change and promising exciting new opportunities. Most people in the middle want to believe that; too often their managers give them reasons not to. (Kotter, 1998, pp. 28-29) EDU Software focused on changing the middle managers, the team leaders; this may have been the wrong group to target. The expected changes in the team leaders may have occurred if the executive team focused and more explicitly modeled their own changes in leadership practices. Finally, there is a difference between accomplishing goals or standards and actually changing personal daily practice that may be embedded in the goal. Little research is available to discuss this subtle but, according to the study 78

PAGE 88

findings, significant difference. All of the team leaders accomplished the standards, all enjoyed the process in retrospect, all recognized little growth in practice, and all were waiting for someone in power to set the next standards. Limitations The first limiting factor is that all the respondents were self-reporting and reporting directly to the researcher. The participants were known to the researcher and therefore could reasonably infer that comments made during the focus groups and interviews might be shared with the executive team. Additionally, as a consultant to the organization, the majority of the researchers time was spent with the executive team. All of the team leaders were fully aware of this relationship and might have felt uncomfortable sharing dangerous personal insights with the researcher. However, each of the participants had a history with the researcher and each had shared confidential items over the years. No breach in confidentiality was cited and the group described the relationship between the team leaders and the researcher as warm and open. The use of a legal stenographer and the method of identifying the participants as Team Leader 1, Team Leader 2, on to Team Leader 6 assisted in their feeling comfortable with anonymity. Second, the questionnaire had no psychological metric power and was an admittedly a primitive instrument. The protocol provided suggestive data and, with associated small number of respondents, would not add any strength to the findings. It did provide a supplemental data source useful in determining if any of 79

PAGE 89

the findings varied dramatically from the perceptions of team leaders captured from the questionnaire. Third, by definition, case studies can make no claims to be typical. There is no way of knowing, empirically, to what extent EDU Software is similar or different from other such businesses in like fields. Furthermore, because the sample is small and idiosyncratic, and because these data are predominantly non-numerical, there is no way to establish the probability that the data are representative of some larger population (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rossman & Rallis, 1998). A fourth limitation is the quality of the inferences. A key determinant of the quality of case study research is the quality of the insights and thinking brought to bear by the researcher (Merriam, 2001). Readers are accessing the researchers construction of the data around issues he judged to be important. No matter how rigorous the researcher strives to be, the research is not, and cannot be, completely objective. Although respecting the issue of objectivity, the researchers expertise, knowledge of the case and participants, and intuition is a vital part of the case study approach (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). Because of this subjectivity, the researcher was able to choose probing questions to ask, and how to ask them, what to observe and, what to record. The researcher must draw out issues of interest from the data sets, and construct themes about those issues and the team leaders. In this case, the researcher decided how to present individual themes, what data and issues to include and focus on, and what to exclude. In this way, this case study researcher is constantly making judgments 80

PAGE 90

about the significance of the data, which provides a richness and depth not easily determined in the objective qualitative environment (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Merriam, 2001). Finally, the data were collected 1 year after the conclusion of the standards imposition program. Team leaders constructed responses sincerely to the research questions although memories fade and people often include comments heard in side conversations that may take precedence over their own thoughts. Fading memories aside, collecting data so long after the deadline provided a window to the overall impact of the program: transferability, sustainability, transferability to other careers, continued attitudes toward change processes, and the opportunity to decide what aspect of the program had a strong impact. Trustworthiness Since the probability was low of finding highly generalizable conclusions in this case method, this study was also concerned with trustworthiness issues. Any research design must have provisions built into the design that ensure research credibility. Readers must be able to have confidence that findings are believable. This study responded to the issues of accuracy, appropriate methods, and usefulness by responding to the literature focusing on truth, value, rigor, and generalizability. To establish standards of practice for the study, the following questions, as outlined in Rossman (1998), were answered: What was the truth value of the work? How rigorously was the study conducted? 81

PAGE 91

How was the study useful to others? Assuming that reality is an interpretive phenomenon, several strategies used in collecting the post-hoc data enabled the trustworthiness of the study. First, the data were collected over a long period of time, which gave participants the opportunity to change their responses during any of the subsequent sessions. Second, the design of the research replicated an action research model or participatory methodology. Participants in the focus groups and interview sessions were encouraged to add, change, expand, or discuss ideas not presented in the protocols. Finally, triangulation was used to collect the data where the participants were asked to respond in three different settings using three different protocols. The means by which the data were collected should be replicable. Each interview session used a common set of protocols where each protocols purpose was explained prior to asking each question. During the focus groups, identical protocols, statements of purpose, and expected outcomes were used. Interactions that occurred among the focus group members were, of course, not replicable. The questionnaires were filled out under the supervision of a test monitor and the same amount of time provided for each participant. The text units that comprised the data sets appeared to be replicable with little exception. Use of the literature on the impact of goals or standards setting and change served as the backdrop for the study and enhanced generalizability. Although few studies were exactly like this one, the results parallel expected findings using a common set of learning structures. Rossman (1998) further 82

PAGE 92

advised researchers to provide as much information about the context of the study as possible. Chapter 1 described the context at length to ensure the usefulness of this investigation and chapter 3 was dedicated to a detailed description of the case. Additionally, the population studied and the organizational structure of the company was consistent with many organizations. The issues facing this company paralleled many other private and public sector institutions in the world. Although this study refrained from generalizing in a probabilistic manner, it could generalize when findings appear to apply to other similar situations and populations. Recommendations for Further Research 1. Consideration of the study as it unfolded rather than waiting until the standards imposition program was completed many of the interactions among the team leaders and the executive team would provide expanded understanding of the relationship between these two groups and the levels of change necessary for an initiative to take root (Prochaska, 1992). 2. Extend the study over a longer time frame. Line leaders in this study were all at approximately the same point in implementing the standards. More time was needed to determine if the line leaders sustained the attitudinal and behavioral changes made during standards imposition. A longitudinal study over several years would provide answers to these questions. 3. Study the interactions of the peer learning group members for dialogic formats to determine what impact these conversations had on each individual regarding their attitudes of safety and trust, personal capacity, and their 83

PAGE 93

willingness and ability to change. Schein (1993) stated, real change does not happen until people feel psychologically safe, and the implicit or explicit norms that are articulated in a dialogue session provide that safety by giving people both a sense of direction and a sense that the dangerous aspects of interaction will be contained (p. 48). 4. Finally, although each team leader accomplished the standards, deep sustained transfer did not present itself in the data sets. Continued study on the sustainability of standards transfer is recommended. 84

PAGE 94

References Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management application. NY: Free Press. Beer, M., Eisenstat, A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Bennis, W. G. & Thomas, R. (2002.) Geeks and geezers: Leading and learning for a lifetime. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Calder, B.J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. Shaw & G. Salanick (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press. Dalton, D. W. (1989). Computers in the schools: A diffusion/adoption perspective. Educational Technology, 29 (11), 20-27. Denzin, N. K. (1978) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Donovan, J. J. & Radosevich, D. J. (1998). The moderating role of goal commitment on the goal difficulty-performance relationship: A meta-analytic review and a critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83 (2), 308-315. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. NY: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (September 1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on 85

PAGE 95

Personalizing Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/fullan1.html Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Havelock, R. G., & Havelock, M. C. (1973). Training for change agents: A guide to the design of training programs in education and other fields. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan. Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 18-23. Hunt, J.G. (1984). Leadership and managerial behavior. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kanter, R. M. (1995). Mastering change. In S. Chawla & J. Renesch, (Eds.), Learning Organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrows workplace (pp. 71-84). Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Kelle, U. (1997). Theory-building in qualitative research and computer programs for the management of textual data. Sociological Research Online 2(2), http:socre sononline.org.uk/socresonline/1/4/1f.html Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbach, J., & Alge, B. (1999). Commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 84(6), 885-896. 86

PAGE 96

Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbach, J., Wright, P., & DeShon, R. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 85(1), 32-55. Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of Commitment: The Heart of the Learning Organization. Organizational Dynamics, Fall. Kotter, J. (1996) Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press Kotter, J. (Fall 1998). Winning at change. Leader to Leader, 10, 27-33. McElroy, J. C., & Hunger, J. D. (1988). Leadership theory as causal attributions of performance. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baligna, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 169-182). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pascale, R., Millemann, M., & Gioja, L. (2000). Surfing the edge of chaos. New York: Crown Business Publishing. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 87

PAGE 97

Pawlowsky, P. (2001). In M. Dierkes. Et al (eds.). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp.61-88). Oxford: University Press. Prochaska, J., DiClemente, C., & Norcross, J. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behavior. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102-1114. Rogers, R. & Hunter, J.E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 322-336. Rossman, G. & Rallis, S. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Rost, J.C, (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Sapienza, H ., Almeida, J., Hay, M., & Levie, J. (1998). Managing goal tradeoffs: Implications for the entrepreneur. Study retrieved from http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers98/IX/IX_C/IX_C_text.htm Schein, Edgar. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(15), 40-51. Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., Kleiner, A. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1990). The leaders new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review. (Fall) (32) (1), pp. 7-23. 88

PAGE 98

Smith, L.M. (1978) An evolving logic of participant observation, participant ethnography, and other case studies. In L. Schulman (Ed.), Review of research in education. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the unknowable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thompson, J. W. (1995). Renaissance of learning and business. In S. Chawla & J. Renesch, (Eds.), Learning Organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrows workplace (pp.85-100). Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Wollman, N. (1999). Influencing attitudes and behaviors for social change. Radical Psychology Network. Retrieved from http://www.radpsynet.org/docs/wollman-attitude.html 89

PAGE 99

Appendices 90

PAGE 100

Appendix A: Qualitative Research Support During the investigation of Qualitative Analysis, there were a myriad of opinions and self-analyses about the qualitative processes used by students and professional researchers. Lacking were clear recommendations about procedures, rather great emphasis was consistently placed on guiding ideas and the evolution of a study. A few works served to provide recommendations on organizing the paper. Over time, the researcher settled on the following: Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. (1986). (eds). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. London: University of California Press. Davis, G. & Parker, C. (1997). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Hauppague, New York: Barrons Educational Services. Bolker, J. (1998). Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day. New York: Henry Holt. Meloy, J. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ogden, E. (1993). Completing your doctoral dissertation or masters thesis. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomic. Rossman, G. & Rallis, S. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Weis, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The Free Press. 91

PAGE 101

Appendix B: Characteristics of Qualitative Research Researching qualitatively requires adherence to a set of domains or characteristics that enable a rigorous analysis. For the purposes of this study, a set of characteristics emerged from the works of Meloy and Rossman identified in Appendix A. These characteristics are: 1. Natural world orientation (Rossman, p. 7, Weis, p.9). 2. Tolerance for ambiguity (Meloy, p.1) 3. Multiple methodologies interactive and humanistic (Rossman, p.8) 4. Focus on context (Meloy, p.53, Rossman, p.8) 5. Systematic reflection (Rossman, p.9) 6. Ownership / sensitivity to personal biography (Meloy, p.57, Rossman, p.8) 7. Emergent / evolutionary nature (Meloy, p.56, Rossman, p.10) 8. Holistic descriptions (Weis, p.10, Meloy, p.53, Rossman, p.10) 9. Multiple perspectives integration (Rossman, pp.10-11, Weis, p. 9) 10. Understanding / usefulness by concluding (Meloy, pp. 79-84, Rossman, p. 12, Weis, pp. 8-11.) 92

PAGE 102

Appendix C: Genres of Qualitative Research The following table is an adaptation of Rossman and Rallis Genres of Qualitative Research (p. 68). Each of these descriptions of Goal, Mode and Methods enabled the decision to consider this investigation a Case Study. Genre Goal Mode and Methods Ethnographies Seek to understand the culture of people or places Long-term, sustained engagement; multiple, flexible techniques Case studies Seek to understand a larger phenomenon through intensive study of one specific instance Descriptive, heuristic, and inductive; multiple techniques Phenomenological studies Seek to understand the lived experience of a small number of people In-depth, exploratory, and prolonged engagement; iterative interviews 93

PAGE 103

Appendix D: Team Leader Focus Group Structure Purposes: At the conclusion of the Focus Group sessions, the researcher will be able to: 1. Determine the impeding and supporting forces of the environment in which the company exists; 2. Surface the collective set of strengths and weaknesses of the Company before the imposition of the standards, during and after the completion of the standards; 3. Identify how the behaviors of the Team Leader changes as a result of the imposition and accomplishment of the Team Leader Learning Standards; 4. Determine the current perception of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the Team Leader Leadership standards; 5. Surface the past and current assumptions about the imposed Team Leader Leadership standards. Outcomes: The Team Leaders will: Identify the supporting and inhibiting forces of the environment in which their company conducts its business; 94

PAGE 104

Clarify their collective perception of the companys overall strengths and weaknesses prior to the imposition of the standards, during and after completion of the standards; Use a SWOT to analyze their current perceptions of the imposition of the Team Leader Leadership standards; Use a BOT analysis to determine how the leadership behaviors of the Team Leaders has changed; Surface their Mental Models about the Team Leader Leadership standards. Focus Group Agenda What How Who How Long A. Determine the impeding and supporting forces of the environment in which the company exists. Describe the purpose of this section. Invite pairs to surface two supporting and impeding forces. Collect all forces. Ask the group to add others. Researcher Dyads Researcher Group 2 3 5 5 B. Surface the collective set of strengths and weaknesses of the Company before the imposition of the standards, during and after the completion of the standards; Explain the purpose of this section. Invite individuals to write Company Strengths and Weaknesses prior to the imposition of the standards. Invite pairs to confirm and refine the Strengths and Weaknesses of the company. Collect and post all of these Strengths and Weaknesses. Ask each dyad to determine how these perceived Strengths and Weaknesses changed after the imposition of the Team Leader Standards and a g ain after the Researcher Individuals Dyads Group Dyads 5 5 5 5 5 95

PAGE 105

accomplishment of the Team Leader Standards. Collect the responses from the team. Group 5 C. Determine the current perception of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the Team Leader Leadership standards; Review SWOT and time intervals. Invite each member to write 1-3 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the Team Leader Leadership Standards. Have dyads refine the thinking. Collect these from the participants. Researcher Individuals Dyads Group 5 5 5 D. Determine how the leadership behaviors of the Team Leaders changed over time. Ask the group to consider their behaviors as leaders. Given these leadership behaviors, how has your actions, interactions or thinking changed as a result of accomplishing these Team Leader Leadership Standards. Ask the participants to reflect and state their responses. Researcher Individuals Group 5 2 5 E. Surface the past and current assumptions about the imposed Team Leader Leadership standards. Review the Ladder of Inference. Ask each participant to develop a set of assumptions that she/he held at the time that the CEO imposed standards and after accomplishment of the standards. Collect these two sets of assumptions Researcher 5 5 F. Concluding Remarks Researcher 5 96

PAGE 106

Appendix E: Focus Group Participant Agenda Purpose Develop a common understanding about the impact of the Team Leader Leadership Standards on company leaders and the system. Outcomes To capture the perceptions of the Team Leaders about their company, the Team Leadership Learning Standards and the impact of the Standards on themselves and the system. Agenda A. Welcome and Overview B. Identify Company Strengths and Weaknesses C. SWOT Current Perception of Team Leader Standards D. Personal Mastery Reflection E. Surfacing Mental Models F. Closing and Next Steps 97

PAGE 107

Appendix F: Consent Form Consent Form 1. Aim of the study The study intends to determine what impact the imposition of the Leadership Standards had on the company and the Team Leaders. 2. Method for choosing the participant (Why me?) You were a Team Leader at the time of the Standards Imposition and your viewpoint is valuable. 3. Involvement parameters (What do I have to do?) Participate in a Focus Group, answer questions in a 10-15 minute interview and fill out a questionnaire. 4. Confidentiality Your name will not be public knowledge. You will be described by your position (Team Leader) in the study. 5. Risks and benefits of participation Your Focus Group comments will be heard by others and someone could share with others what he/she remembers you saying. 6. Personal rights as a respondent Answer only questions you are comfortable answering. You can withdraw at any time. You may choose to pass on any questions. 7. Publications (What will be written?) This study will be published and available for review when the final dissertation defense is made. At this time, there are no plans for further publication. 1. Follow-up (If I want the entire study how do I ?) Any dissertation is available from the University of South Floridas Library system. You could acquire the entire document by paying a copying fee and surcharge. Given the information contained in items 1-9 above, I agree to participate in this study. Please Print Your Name Signature 98

PAGE 108

Appendix G: Interview Structure Team Leader Interview Structure Purposes: At the conclusion of the Interview sessions, the researcher will be able to: 1. Determine the amount of time that the team Leaders spent studying the Technology, Educational and Systems information during and after work hours prior to the imposition of the standards, during the six month study interval and after the accomplishment of the Team Leaders Learning Standards; 2. Understand the Team Leaders commitment to accomplishing the standards; 3. Determine the Team Leaders satisfaction at completing the standards; 4. Determine the Team Leaders perception of the impact on the system of the Team Leader Learning Standards; 5. Understand how the Team Leaders viewed the effectiveness of the peer learning groups; 6. Identify the impeding and supporting forces of the environment in which the company exists prior to, during and after the imposition of the Team Leader Learning Standards; 7. Determine how the Team Leaders see congruence between the Team Leader Learning Standards and the companys organizational and communication structure; 99

PAGE 109

Protocols Each interview purpose as stated in this appendix will be accomplished by soliciting a response from each of the interview candidates. The interview candidates are the Team Leaders who participated in the focus groups sessions, the company President and CEO. Each of the seven purposes will be explained prior to the posing of each interview protocol. As each interviewee responds, clarifying comments or prompts for additional information will be used where appropriate. The following are the purposes restated with the commensurate interview protocols. Each protocol will contain a context statement connected to the purpose along with an interview prompt or prompts. Purpose 1 Determine the amount of time that the team Leaders spent studying the Technology, Educational and Systems information during and after work hours prior to the imposition of the standards, during the six month study interval and after the accomplishment of the Team Leaders Learning Standards. Context 1 Take a moment and recall the six-month period of time where you and your fellow team leaders were studying to accomplish the Team Leader Learning Standards. Recall the time that gave toward individual study, your peer learning group study time and the times you met not only with them but also with others to study and learn. 100

PAGE 110

Interview Prompt(s) 1 How much time did you spend studying alone or with someone during the normal workweek to accomplish the standards? How much time did you spend outside of the normal workweek to accomplish the standards? After the standards were accomplished describe how and how often you continued to study and learn during the workweek and after the workweek. Purpose 2 Understand the Team Leaders commitment to accomplishing the standards. Context 2 Every task that we attempt during a workday has with an associated level of importance. Most people accomplish those things that seem most important to them. Consider your personal attitude toward the Team Leader Learning Standards. Interview Prompt(s) 2 How would you describe your personal commitment to the accomplishment of the standards during that six-month period of time? At any time during that six-month interval, did your commitment waver or change? If so, how would you describe this change? Purpose 3 Determine the Team Leaders satisfaction at completing the standards. 101

PAGE 111

Context 3 Typically, people become satisfied whenever a difficult task or challenge is completed or accomplished. Unquestionably, the accomplishment of the Team Leader Learning Standards was a challenging task for all parties. Interview Prompt(s) 3 How would you describe your feelings when you completed the final tasks that marked your completion of the Team Leader Learning Standards? Purpose 4 Determine the Team Leaders perception of the impact on the system of the Team Leader Learning Standards. Context 4 The Team Leader Learning Standards were imposed on the Team Leaders with the stated hope that by accomplishing these standards, the leadership would become more effective and that the system would become more responsive to change. Interview Prompt(s) 4 How would you describe the impact on the system as the Team Leaders completed their assignments and accomplished the standards? Purpose 5 Understand how the Team Leaders viewed the effectiveness of the peer learning groups. 102

PAGE 112

Context 5 As the Team Leader Learning Standards were developed and imposed on the Team Leaders, each Team Leader was also assigned to a peer learning group. Some of these groups met very often and some sporadically. Interview Prompt(s) 5 From your vantage point as a participant in a peer learning group and also as a leader in the company, how would you describe the effectiveness of the peer learning groups? Purpose 6 Identify the impeding and supporting forces of the environment in which the company exists prior to, during and after the imposition of the Team Leader Learning Standards. Context 6 The company does not exist in a vacuum. Prior to the imposition of the standards there were many forces affecting the organization. Some of these forces continued to affect the company during the next six months when the Team Leaders were working to accomplish the standards and some still impact the organization. Interview Prompt(s) 6 103

PAGE 113

From your vantage point as a participant and also as a leader in the company, what were the strongest forces that impeded the company and supported the company? Of those you identified, which forces were still affecting the system during the learning interval? Of those you identified, which forces continue to impact the company as a whole? Purpose 7 Determine how the Team Leaders see congruence between the Team Leader Learning Standards and the companys organizational and communication structure. Context 7 Consider the current organizational structure and the communication structure of the company. Further, recall the rationale for learning about systems, education and technology through the Team Leader Learning Standards. Finally, consider the company organizational and communications structures in light of the Team Leader Learning Standards. Interview Prompt(s) 7 How does the companys internal organization and communication structures match the Team Leader Learning Standards? What changes would be necessary to make the internal structures more effectively match the Team Leader Learning Standards? 104

PAGE 114

Appendix H: Team Leader Questionnaire Structure Purposes: Every questionnaire prompt will ask the Team Leader respondent to consider each answer from three time perspectives: the interval before the imposition of the standards, the time period during the study interval and the time following the completion dead-line. After compiling the results from the Team Leader Questionnaire, the researcher will be able to examine the Team Leader perspectives through the lens of the three time intervals as these relate to the domains of Time, Commitment, Satisfaction, Personal Leadership, System and Learning Community, Time: Each Team Leader will Estimate the amount of time he/she spent working on the standards. Commitment: Each Team Leaders commitment to the effort will be assessed prior to the imposition of the Standards, during the study interval and after the completion of the Standards. Regularity: Each Team Leader will be asked to determine how regularly he/she participated in personal study or peer learning activities. Satisfaction: 105

PAGE 115

Team Leaders will surface their individual feelings of satisfaction upon completion of the standards Each Team Leader will be asked to determine how this accomplishment of the standards affected his/her self-concept in the Standards Areas of Technology, Education, Leadership and Learning Organization. Personal Leadership: Each Team Leader will be asked to describe the impact that learning the Team Leader Standards had on his/her daily leadership behaviors. These behaviors will be examined prior to the imposition of the standards, during and after the accomplishment of the Standards. System: Each Team Leader will be asked to surface his/her perception of the impact these Standards had on the effectiveness of the overall system. Learning Community: Each Team Leader will characterize the existence of an effective Learning Community prior to the imposition of the Standards, during the study interval and after the deadline passed. 106

PAGE 116

Protocols The Team Leaders will be asked to respond to each question or prompt using a modified Likert scale: N/A,1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Applicant responses will be scored according to the following scale: N/A Not applicable 1 Strongly Disagrees 2 Disagrees 3 Neither Agrees nor Disagrees 4 Agrees 5 Strongly Agrees. Each question or prompt in the Team Leader Questionnaire will be grouped according to the previous six domains. The following section states the domains and commensurate questions or prompts with the associated scales. Domain Prompt(s) Time Each day, I spent personal time in learning during the workday. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 107

PAGE 117

Each day, I spent personal time in learning after the workday. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Commitment My personal commitment to learning work-related information is very high. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Satisfaction I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Technology. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards 108

PAGE 118

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Education Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Leadership Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Learning Organizations. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval 109

PAGE 119

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Personal Leadership My daily leadership behaviors utilize the Learning Organization Disciplines. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 My daily leadership behaviors utilize the Adult Learning Theories, Tools and Methods. Before the Imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 System Our company is an effective system at delivering products and services to our customers. Before the Imposition of the Standards 110

PAGE 120

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 During the six month study interval N/A 1 2 3 4 5 After the imposition of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Team Leader Questionnaire Directions As you consider each question in this questionnaire, decide which of the following categories best fits your response to the question. NA=Not applicable, 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree/nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree Example: The weather in New York was pleasing. N/A 1 2 3 4 5 NA or not applicable would indicate that you have no knowledge about the weather in New York. A response would indicate that you strongly disagree that the weather in New York is pleasing, a response that you disagree that the weather in New York is pleasing, a response indicates that you neither agree nor disagree about the pleasing nature of the weather in New York, a response that you agree that the weather in New York is pleasing and a response indicates that you strongly agree that the weather in New York is pleasing. 111

PAGE 121

Additionally, as you respond to the question, please consider your responses during three time intervals: prior to the imposition of the Team Leader Learning Standards, during the time period when you and the other Team Leaders were attempting to accomplish the Standards and after the established deadline for completion of the Standards. Example: The weather in New York is pleasing. Prior During After N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Please take your time and answer the following questions to the best of your ability. 1. Each day, I spend personal time in learning during the workday. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 2. Each day, I spend personal time in learning after the workday. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards 112

PAGE 122

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 3. My personal commitment to learning work-related information is very high. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Technology. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 5. I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Education Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 113

PAGE 123

6. I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Leadership Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am highly confident of my personal capacity in the work-related area of Total Quality and Learning Organizations Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 8. My daily leadership behaviors utilize the Learning Organization Disciplines. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 114

PAGE 124

9. My daily leadership behaviors utilize the Adult Learning Theories, Tools and Methods. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 10. Our company is highly effective at delivering products and services to our customers. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 11. The Team Leaders, including myself regularly behave as a Learning Community. Before the Imposition of the Standards During the six month study interval After the established deadline for completion of the Standards N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 115

PAGE 125

Appendix I: Team Leader Learning Standards Team Leader Standards Educational Standards Adult Learning & Educational Technology Each Team Leader will develop an in-service activity for their team, on a current educational issue, using the concepts outlined in the Imperial professional development paper entitled Learning and Leading Learning: A Model for Professional Development. Products: A designed activity including What/How /Who/How Long Team notes of the debrief using PMI, SWOT, etc. Team Leader presents to their peer learning group a compelling reason to utilize Imperial's Professional Development model. Teaching & Learning Each Team Leader will conduct a jigsaw activity, with their team members, using Smart Schools by David Perkins. Products: Chapter outlines Each team member will locate/search/find your chapter in operation in the geography the Team Leader serves and report back in outline form. Facilitate a learning conversation with team members to identify the current practices in the districts/schools that they serve. Technology Standards Internet Each team will create a web-page design reflecting the team's geographical customers. Team Leaders should enlist the services of a predetermined graphic designer for graphic support and to ensure consistency of Imperial's web site. Product: A web-page which minimully includes: customer testimonials/examples of meaningful use services and products provided educational success stories & reference sites Integration of IBM partnership Lookouts include: avoid using Imperial team members names or pictures include purchases from our partner suppliers only Networking Essentials Each Team Leader will take the Microsoft Networking Essentials exam Product: Documentation indicating a passing score on the exam. Leadership Standards 116

PAGE 126

Total Quality and Systems Thinking Each Team Leader will apply the concepts of Total Quality and Systems Thinking to their own geography's. Products: a systems diagram depicting all of the components of the Team Leader's current system within his/her geography. a description connecting a current condition in the Team Leader's geography to each of the systems archetypes. The archetypes are: Shifting the Burden Fixes that Fail Tragedy of the Commons Balancing Process with Delay Eroding Goals Growth and Underinvestment Limits to Growth Escalation We invite your feedback regarding any of these operating principles or standards. We look forward to learning with you over the next few months. CEO and President 117

PAGE 127

Appendix J: Executive Memorandum To: Team Leaders cc: CEO, Consultant From: President Subject: Standards for Team Leaders In order to enhance the viability of Imperial's system, maintain our level of professional response, enhance our ability to advocate our customers needs and maintain a competitive edge in the marketplace, the following operating principles are offered. 1. The role of Account Manager is introduced into the salary schedule. Account Managers will manage individual customers. Account Managers will serve on a geographic Team Leader's team. An Account Manager, in some cases, may have a small team reporting to him or her and could lead to a Team Leader position when a geographic opportunity becomes available. 2. Standards have been developed for Team Leaders in the areas of education, technology, and leadership. These standards will change from year to year as the needs of the marketplace and our customers change. 3. Adjustments in the standards for Team Leaders will be made by those Team Leaders who accomplish the offered standards and maintain the status of Team Leader. 4. Each Team Leader is expected to accomplish the initially offered standards by January 1, 1999 in order to continue in his/her leadership capacity. 5. Team Leader's who fail to accomplish the standards by the stated date (1/1/99) will be re-classified as an Account Manager and salary will be adjusted. 6. During January 1999, all Team Leaders will determine the standards for the next learning interval during a facilitated conversation with Leadership. 7. Any new position that comes available will always be first made available to current employees. 8. Each Team Leader will develop their personal plan for accomplishing the standards and the accompanying assessment rubrics in collaboration with Elizabeth, facilitated by Ray. (Please schedule these meetings to take place in early July) The following outlines the Team Leader Standards which must be met by January 1, 1999.* See Appendix I 118

PAGE 128

Appendix K Interviews NUD*IST Report on Change in Attitudes QSR N6 Full version, revision 6.0. PROJECT: Interviews, User Ray Jorgensen, 9:59 am, Dec 24, 2002. REPORT ON NODE (200) '/Change in Attitude' Restriction to document: NONE *********************************************************************** (200) /Change in Attitude +++ Retrieval for this document: 404 units out of 2936, = 14% ++ Text units 40-42: *A Once the foundation was there, my 40 desire to learn was there, so I still continue to 41 pursue and build on it primarily using the internet. 42 ++ Text units 51-53: *A Prior to taking the test, I was 51 apprehensive, fearful of failing, but that went away 52 when I didn't fail. 53 ++ Text units 70-73: *A Team Leaders' appreciation of one 70 another was raised. I'm not sure that team members 71 felt the same admiration or respect for the team 72 leaders as a result of completing those standards. 73 ++ Text units 81-97: *A I think that the dynamics of the peer 81 learning groups were different. In my observation, 82 some were very strong and there was this energy. My 83 particular peer learning group did not want to be 84 there, so that was difficult that there was more of 85 an interest in getting the answers from someone than 86 119

PAGE 129

building, so my particular group did not -87 *Q Didn't work very well from your vantage point? *A Didn't work very well. 97 ++ Text units 241-243: *A My commitment was anything to 241 accomplish the standards. It was enough to reach 242 the standards. 243 ++ Text units 255-257: *Q At any time during that six-month 255 interval, did your commitment waiver or change? 256 *A No. It stayed about the same. 257 ++ Text units 282-290: *Q How would you describe the impact on 282 the system as the Team Leaders completed their 283 assignments and accomplished the standards? 284 *A I thought it was very positive on the 285 system. I thought work morale was at an all-time 286 high, productivity and learning was extremely high, 287 and there was, the best way I can describe it is, 288 there was a sort of buzz and a high enthusiasm for 289 the work we did. 290 ++ Text units 452-454: it. It was something I didn't think I would be able 452 to do, and I was very happy when I did it. It made 453 me a better manager. 454 ++ Text units 513-532: *A I think it changed the way I actually 513 thought about things. I think about things a lot 514 differently now, and when I pick up a new book or 515 something more on the same level as some of the 516 120

PAGE 130

other reading we have done together, I think about 517 things differently. Which is cool. It's an 518 on-going process for me. I don't feel I reached the 519 standards, I'm there, I'm comfortable with myself. 520 I think it's an on-going process, and it's cool 521 because I think of things totally different, both in 522 my work and personal life, so I would act 530 differently now than I would have maybe nine months 531 ago. I still have mental models. 532 ++ Text units 544-561: *A I know, in the beginning, for me 544 personally, it was difficult, because it was a 545 change in the way I looked at things and a change in 546 the way I actually operated, and in my old way, I 547 felt comfortable with the way I did things. This 548 was something new and different, so as time 549 progressed, I think I changed with that as the 550 standards were being used, and, again, as I said 551 before, it's a process. I'm not there. I don't 552 ever plan on being there. I changed my lifestyle 553 and thinking. 561 ++ Text units 565-568: *A I think I always had my foot in the 565 safe part, what I always call "the safe part," where 566 I felt comfortable, and my foot dangling on the 567 other side, if that makes sense. 568 ++ Text units 570-581: *A It was hard for me at times. I always 570 121

PAGE 131

wanted to go back to the safe part where I knew what 571 was comfortable for me, but over the last five 572 months in particular, I found myself more 573 comfortable almost on the other side. Still scary 574 and wanting to go back. It's a whole different way 575 of thinking. It's very cool. On a different note, 576 did you read that book "Who Stole My Cheese?" I 577 loved it, and, actually, because of going through 578 the standards, I actually read that book, and I 579 thought differently when I read that book than I 580 would have a year ago. 581 ++ Text units 583-595: standards help see that book differently. What I 583 thought I heard you say was that, because of learning the standards and accomplishing the 592 standards, the way you see all of the tasks 593 personally and professionally you were asked to do, 594 you see them differently; am I getting that? 595 ++ Text units 604-614: *A I guess it was a cool feeling on one 604 level, because the company said, okay, once you 605 complete these standards, you're complete, but on 606 the other side it wasn't that satisfying, because I 607 know I wasn't there and I never will be there. Does 608 that make sense? It was cool to complete it, I went 609 through it with my team, my group, my peers, and to 610 some level, the people in my personal life, but it's 611 continuing, so if you ask me today, are you 612 122

PAGE 132

satisfied with the last two months? I can answer 613 that question probably in the same way. 614 ++ Text units 625-635: question. I think, rather than actually celebrate 625 and doing something on a tangible or material basis, 626 it's more an internal feeling with myself, how I 627 feel about myself and look at myself. I think that 628 has changed where I feel comfortable with what I 629 think and feel and what I say, and I feel that what 630 I have to say offers value to a conversation, where, 631 before, I might have just not said anything. I 632 think that really needs a big celebration. I still 633 am quiet and that whole piece about me, it's a 634 process. 635 ++ Text units 658-672: *A I think, my perception, in the 658 beginning, of course, when you change, things are 659 confusing and scary, so I think the system, in the 660 beginning, was operating a little bit like that, but 661 I think, as time progressed, with the standards and 662 the leadership in the company and so forth, it 663 became apparent to me that this organization was 664 very different than other organizations, and it was 665 a really cool place to be, and it didn't only 666 reflect on our leaders in the organization or the 667 peers working in the organization or customers as 668 well, but I think there was some internal system 669 confusion and so forth, but I think we are here 670 123

PAGE 133

today, and it's a process, of course, it's an 671 on-going process. 672 ++ Text units 675-692: *A I really feel that the system, the 675 standards and leadership in the organization, it really impacted our customer relations in a positive way, because to quote a customer, actually, about a 685 week ago, (the President), was working with a customer and said, I just spoke to your assistant. She said, No, Ms. ___ is a vice-president and partner 688 in the company. Your company is so strange, and 689 that's what we are about. It's what is cool about 690 the company. We are different, and I think that had 691 a big part to do with it. 692 ++ Text units 750-758: want to make the travel. I think, in reality, once 750 it becomes something that you value, I believe 751 something you really, really put effort into, you 752 can do anything, and you can really do anything, but 753 I think the peer learning group offered a great 754 opportunity to bring collective wisdom together and 755 share that and bring it to the rest of the 756 organization, because I know, for me, for example, I 757 work better in small groups. 758 ++ Text units 790-796: *A I think it goes, again, back to when we 790 were first introducing the standards, the change, 791 going through a change in the organization and what 792 that looked like and what that felt like, and 793 because it was a little uncomfortable at times, 794 124

PAGE 134

there might be some internal friction with the 795 standards. 796 ++ Text units 951-976: *A I'm trying to think. It's going to be 951 a kind of involved answer, I guess. I think my 952 commitment to the spirit of the standards was very 953 high. I think I didn't particularly care that much 954 whether or not I actually did the standards. It was 955 a work requirement, so I did them, but the actual 956 worked involved in this is what you must do to 964 complete this standard, my commitment to that was 965 basically work driven. My commitment to the 966 underlying spirit why we were doing what we were 967 trying to learn was very high. I want to add one 968 thing to that. The work we did in the peer learning 969 groups made the standards seem more important to me, 970 the standards themselves, because we actually had a 971 great experience in our peer learning group and got 972 deeper under the surface of things, it wasn't just 973 about doing the standards, it was about things we 974 all were experiencing in working in the company, and 975 that was good. 976 ++ Text units 999-1009: *A Well, I was sort of reluctant, because 999 some of the time it took to do my standard I had to 1000 assign them work, and I thought, God, they are not 1001 going to like this, because I'm asking them to do 1002 work outside of their normal scope so I can achieve 1003 125

PAGE 135

something that I need to achieve in the company. I 1004 was really surprised to find that nobody minded at 1005 all. In fact, they were pleased to be able to help 1006 me and got into the subject matter and really 1007 enjoyed doing the extra work, so that was very 1008 motivating. 1009 ++ Text units 1015-1018: *A It was akin to a minor graduation, like 1015 a sixth grade graduation, not like college or high 1016 school. It felt pleasant, and there was a sense of 1017 accomplishment. 1018 ++ Text units 1060-1067: part, responsiveness to change, I think the 1060 organization became more, especially at the top, 1061 embraced change in a bigger way. I don't know 1062 everybody inside the organization necessarily -I 1063 would go so far as to say that was a major shake up 1064 over the next year or so as the leadership embraced 1065 change and other people couldn't deal with it and 1066 left or whatever. 1067 ++ Text units 1076-1101: *A I think peer learning groups can be 1076 very effective. It somewhat depends on the people 1077 who are in them. I think you can have good peer 1078 learning groups and bad depending on the mixture of 1079 the people's commitment to learning. I think a lot 1080 of it really depends on constant reinforcement of 1088 the importance of that from the leadership in the 1089 organization. I think, when we were being told this 1090 126

PAGE 136

is what you must do, we did it and actually found 1091 more in it than we expected to and would be happy to 1092 continue. I think the four people I met would have 1093 been happy to meet regularly forever. It took a 1094 while to understand how to use it. Once we 1095 understood how to use the peer learning group for 1096 our mutual benefit, we were really into it, but when 1097 the organization no longer was pushing us to do 1098 that, obviously, we didn't do it on our own. Even 1099 though we liked it and got stuff out of it, for 1100 whatever reason, we just didn't continue. 1101 I'm not sure why. ++ Text units 1216-1250: *A I think that some of the standards are 1216 now so well embedded in the company that we take 1217 them for granted, and that would be, to my mind, 1218 things like the improved focus on business 1219 efficiency or accountability, and our methods of 1220 understanding, keeping track. I think that we have 1221 reorganized out of the geographical teams and more 1222 into what I call "knowledge-based teams," functional 1223 areas. We have the technical people and we have the 1224 educational people and we have the business people. 1225 I think that actually fits very well with what we 1226 were doing, because it sort of focuses more on, 1227 within those groups, people focus on learning what 1228 they need to know fairly intensely. That may not be 1229 exactly in line with the standards, but I think that 1230 it works. The focus on learning is good within the 1231 127

PAGE 137

group, within those limited knowledge areas. We 1232 don't do as broad as we used to, we are focused on 1233 learning within our own areas intensely. I think 1234 that's a plus. In other areas, I think 1235 1242 communications, generally, have gone downhill. We 1243 are totally nowhere near as good at it as we were 1244 getting and don't even try. I think the focus on 1245 systems and the systems dynamics -I can't think of 1246 the words, but the archetype and things like that, I 1247 think some of that took hold so that we tend to 1248 think a little more strategically these days, but in 1249 a much less formal way than we were trying to do. 1250 ++ Text units 1262-1275: I think we need to think about it. In retrospect, 1262 our total immersion in that process hurt us a little 1263 on a business level, because it gave us the feeling 1264 that we were focusing on our business when, 1265 actually, we weren't. In many ways, we were letting 1266 1 some things slide at that point. We were a little 1274 overboard on learning stuff and, at this point, we 1275 ++ Text units 1374-1380: *A I was totally committed and probably, 1374 because of that carrot at the end of the string, you 1375 had to or risk losing that position, I think that 1376 helped commit me to do that, as well as there being 1377 a specific drop-dead date, it made me focus, let me 1378 get this done during the summer, I planned it out 1379 128

PAGE 138

more according to those drop-dead times. 1380 ++ Text units 1404-1415: *A Complete relief. Seriously. I know, 1404 not even at the end of the standards, but when I 1405 pressed the button on the computer when I took the 1406 test, that was probably one of happiest moments I 1407 experienced. It was definitely a sense of relief, 1408 and I think also knowing that I had finished the 1409 standards and I did learn some things that I didn't 1410 know at the time, I did feel better about 1411 understanding some of our other employees and what 1412 they are going through and what they are working on, 1413 which I didn't necessarily know before I took the 1414 standards. 1415 ++ Text units 1445-1462: *A I think one of the greatest benefits 1445 is, since the employees who worked for us at the 1446 time needed to maintain standards and certification, 1447 it was really my first experience with going through 1448 that, so I think, from a leadership standpoint, I 1449 understood what my employees were going through, 1450 what type of support they needed, which I don't know 1451 if I necessarily understood that beforehand, and 1459 knowing they needed to be able to do some of this 1460 during work and the rest of it, there is a 1461 commitment to on-going learning after the work day, 1462 ++ Text units 1467-1477: *A I think the fact the standards that 1467 were picked were not necessarily things that I as an 1468 129

PAGE 139

employee was faced with on a day-to-day basis, but 1469 it was still important, and I think this conveyed it 1470 was still important for those different domains to 1471 have on-going learning within them, because of the 1472 nature of our business, it changes, the things we 1473 need to know and learn change. Even though some of 1474 it was, why do I need to know this? It did give me 1475 a deeper understanding of some of the direction the 1476 company was going in and the ability to change. 1477 ++ Text units 1512-1527: *A I don't think I would have wanted to do 1512 the standards without the peer learning group, 1513 because it was nice to have different people from 1514 different backgrounds and expertise, which I was 1522 afforded in my peer group. One person was an 1523 educator, I'm not an educator, and someone else who 1524 was more technical. I think that was a wonderful 1525 experience and that helped when I was trying to 1526 accomplish the standards. 1527 ++ Text units 1592-1602: was an outgrowth of the standards. Prior to the 1592 standards, people weren't hired to be Team Leaders 1593 in this company. It was a process that evolved as 1594 we saw during the time of the standards. I don't 1595 mean this negatively. It weeded out some people who 1596 had no desire or were not cut out to be in a 1597 leadership position, so I think going through the 1598 standards, although it didn't necessarily directly 1599 130

PAGE 140

effect the partnerships right away, I think it 1600 elevated the component of obligation of people in 1601 that group to become leaders and managers. 1602 ++ Text units 2644-2647: *A I guess my opinion about that is that 2644 it heightened the awareness of the need to do that. 2645 It wasn't anymore a case of I don't know that; it 2646 was a case, I have to find out and learn that. 2647 ++ Text units 2688-2700: *A You know, actually, I think it was sort 2688 of a dichotomy within the group. I think there were 2689 some people who felt it really was too much to ask 2690 and it didn't do them any good, and others who felt 2691 as I did that it was monumental. I don't think 2692 there was a collective thing in the group. 2700 ++ Text units 2706-2710: *A I guess, in terms of the group, I guess 2706 I would say, for those who felt it was helpful and 2707 really got something out of it, they tended to take 2708 more ownership of their own responsibility toward 2709 learning what they needed to know. 2710 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ Total number of text units retrieved = 404 +++ Retrievals in 1 out of 2 documents, = 50%. +++ The documents with retrievals have a total of 2936 text units, so text units retrieved in these documents = 14%. +++ All documents have a total of 5738 text units, so text units found in these documents = 7.0%. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 131

PAGE 141

Appendix L Interviews NUD*IST Report on Change in Behavior QSR N6 Full version, revision 6.0. PROJECT: Interviews, User Ray Jorgensen, 9:59 am, Dec 24, 2002. REPORT ON NODE (100) '/Change in Behavior' Restriction to document: NONE *********************************************************************** +++ ON-LINE DOCUMENT: Teamle1 +++ Retrieval for this document: 269 units out of 2936, = 9.2% ++ Text units 40-42: *A Once the foundation was there, my 40 desire to learn was there, so I still continue to 41 pursue and build on it primarily using the internet. 42 ++ Text units 81-87: *A I think that the dynamics of the peer 81 learning groups were different. In my observation, 82 some were very strong and there was this energy. My 83 particular peer learning group did not want to be 84 there, so that was difficult that there was more of 85 an interest in getting the answers from someone than 86 building, so my particular group did not -87 ++ Text units 170-173: *A Team Leaders should have been able to 170 carry forth and facilitate a meeting and day-to-day 171 work the same way you would have a meeting 172 facilitated during our study group or study team. 173 ++ Text units 222-229: *Q After the standards were accomplished, 222 how often did you continue to study and how much 223 132

PAGE 142

time did you put into it? 224 *A Not as much as during accomplishing the 225 standards. 226 *Q So there was a real reduction after 227 they were done? 228 *A Yes. 229 ++ Text units 293-313: *A It takes a lot of time, so it did take 293 time to achieve that, but there was no negative 294 remarks that I was aware of that the time was not 295 being spent well, just the fact that we were all so 296 conditioned or at least I was conditioned with the 297 thought that, when you are in work, you should be 298 working and doing something to make money rather 299 than meeting, and a lot of the time it felt like you 300 couldn't see an immediate return while you met with 301 a group, it took weeks, sometimes months, to see 302 what we were doing, so sometimes I questioned the 303 amount we were meeting. I didn't realize until 304 later the impact those meetings would have on the 305 employees. 313 ++ Text units 390-393: *A Yes, I believe they were there. I felt 390 that our business partners wanted to have a little 391 more control over our day-to-day operation, and it 392 scared them when they started to lose that. 393 ++ Text units 398-410: *A I think other forces, not the 405 standards, have caused those business partner 406 133

PAGE 143

relationships to deteriorate in the last eight, nine 407 months, more market conditions, I think, that have 408 led to a lesser of a relationship with the business 409 partners. 410 ++ Text units 420-423: *A Currently, I would not say our internal 420 communication is very good right now compared to the 421 way it was following the completion of the standards 422 by the Team Leaders. That's deteriorated. 423 ++ Text units 426-428: *A The communication among management now, 426 internal communication is far less than it was upon 427 completion of the standards. 428 ++ Text units 500-509: *A I think I tried to apply the standards 500 not only to office work, per se, but to my personal 501 life, and some of the things I did do to meet the 502 standards, certain textbooks and books to read, 503 binders, and activities to do with your support 504 learning group, so it's kind of the same on a 505 personal level, when I was not in the office, when 506 an opportunity came up, I would apply. I would not 507 go home at night and say, I have to dedicate two 508 hours to the standards. 509 ++ Text units 544-561: *A I know, in the beginning, for me 544 personally, it was difficult, because it was a 545 change in the way I looked at things and a change in 546 the way I actually operated, and in my old way, I 547 134

PAGE 144

felt comfortable with the way I did things. This 548 was something new and different, so as time 549 progressed, I think I changed with that as the 550 standards were being used, and, again, as I said 551 before, it's a process. I'm not there. I don't 552 ever plan on being there. I changed my lifestyle and thinking. 561 ++ Text units 694-695: *A I think that's key. Customer advocacy 694 is very high. 695 ++ Text units 705-723: *A I think, for me, the peer learning 705 group offered a forum to have a conversation with 706 other leaders in the organization to go over issues, 707 things going on in the organization, to have 715 actually a conversation to bring our thoughts and 716 ideas together, so it was a cool place to debate 717 things, knock ideas off of each other. Anything 718 that came up, we could rely on each other to have 719 those conversations. It was a great forum for that, 720 and, of course, to work on the standards together 721 and rely on each other for feedback and so forth, 722 and those are on-going, those relationships. 723 ++ Text units 828-853: Team Leader learning standards currently? 828 *A I think, actually, in many, many, many 829 ways. I know we went through a time where we worked 830 hard on completing the standards, but at the same 831 time, we were changing the way we operated on a 839 135

PAGE 145

daily basis, and I think, if you look at the 840 organization today as opposed to a year ago, you can 841 see the changes, and that's about creating focus 842 groups, learning, on-going learning, and that's not 843 necessarily we are going to have a learning day here 844 and there, it's on-going. It's not just at work, 845 it's personal, it's communicating, creating that 846 collective wisdom as a team, as a group, sharing 847 information throughout the company. Again, that 848 goes back to customer advocacy. I know Tom asked a 849 question, we were having lunch, he said what does 850 customer satisfaction look like now, and it was 851 great, so I think that has a tremendous effect on 852 customer advocacy. 853 ++ Text units 858-861: *A I think, on a personal level, my change 858 would be just continuing to reinforce my commitment 859 to my on-going learning, which enhanced the 860 standards so that it's an on-going process. I don't 861 ++ Text units 920-924: *A During the work week, the only effort I 920 put in was when it was an organized event if I met 921 with the peer learning group or my team, that was 922 the effort during the work week. All the rest, or 923 90 percent, was outside. 924 ++ Text units 935-941: *A There was a decreasing line. I think, 935 right afterwards, I was still pretty excited in 936 pursuing new information on things, and I think that 937 136

PAGE 146

rapidly decreased over time, because there wasn't a 938 lot of reinforcement to keep that going. Now, my 939 studying is very focused on things I need to know 940 specifically to do my job. 941 ++ Text units 980-996: *A Well, it has a lot to do with who I am 980 and how I work. In the beginning, I would say my 981 commitment was kind of lax, it was, like, I have six 982 months, and as we moved along, two things happened, 983 one, I had less time, so I had to focus more, but, 984 two, the harder you work at those things, the more 985 exciting it got. I remember some moments when I did 986 stuff with my team that I had to do just to get 994 through my standards and they were kind of rooting 995 me on. That was kind of exciting. 996 ++ Text units 1044-1058: this one, I recall there was not as much effective 1044 leadership as you would hope afterwards. I think 1045 people were more knowledgeable, but I still don't 1046 think it made us that much more effective as 1047 leaders. My statement is really based on, I think, 1048 meetings we had where we would still talk about why 1056 we weren't effective as leaders afterwards. It's 1057 what I sort of remember. I can't really say whether 1058 ++ Text units 1097-1118: our mutual benefit, we were really into it, but when 1097 the organization no longer was pushing us to do 1098 that, obviously, we didn't do it on our own. Even 1099 though we liked it and got stuff out of it, for 1100 137

PAGE 147

whatever reason, we just didn't continue. I'm not 1101 sure what that is. I guess learning still, that 1102 kind of learning, still hadn't taken root as 1103 fundamental to doing our job effectively, even 1104 though we were getting a lot out of it and enjoying 1105 it, we hadn't made the tie to how this was impacting 1106 us positively in your jobs. Had we been able to do 1107 that longer, I think we would have made that 1108 connection, and then it would have become more 1109 intrinsic. At the point where we were, without 1110 pressure from the top, we weren't going to continue. 1118 ++ Text units 1313-1340: Education, so, for the most part, a lot of my 1313 studying, most of studying was in the technical area 1314 for the networking exam, and I had spent numerous 1315 hours writing out notes from the books. I would 1316 say, for the first three weeks, I probably spent a 1317 good two hours a day writing the information out, 1318 and I recorded it at that time on cassette tapes, 1319 because of a lot of it was memorizing of terms, et 1320 cetera, so while I was stuck in traffic during the 1321 work day on the Belt Parkway or other roadways, I'd 1322 listen to the tapes, so I was able to convert a lot 1323 of it to doing it during the work day when I had 1324 some down time. We also did meet with the other 1325 Team Leaders, I guess, we had met over the course of 1326 that six months on three or four occasions from my 1327 memory where we spent most of the day, I would say 1335 138

PAGE 148

about six hours, going over the standards, and it's 1336 tough, because, even though we were there at that 1337 time to go over the standards, we ended up getting 1338 into more practical needs. Some of them were more 1339 related to the standards. 1340 ++ Text units 1344-1346: *A I tried to be good with not working on 1344 weekends, but, probably, for the test, I probably 1345 spent in total maybe 16 hours on weekends. 1346 ++ Text units 1353-1358: *A I probably would say with the reading 1353 and research that I do, probably two to three hours 1354 outside of work, although, for job specific stuff, I 1355 feel as though I'm doing a lot of learning on the 1356 job on a daily basis, probably an hour or so a day. 1357 I know a lot about health insurance right now. 1358 ++ Text units 1482-1501: *A I think it was the first time where, as 1482 an outgrowth of this exercise, it pulled people 1490 together. The Team Leaders were very disjointed. 1491 You had your own geography and you did your own 1492 thing and the interaction only took place when you 1493 needed to beg, borrow, or steal another resource 1494 from another geography. I think the comradery and 1495 the development of peer learning groups, although we 1496 don't meet as peers for specific peer learning group 1497 days, I'll be in touch with people. I have 1498 developed relationships to bounce ideas off of, 1499 which I hadn't done typically before, so I think 1500 139

PAGE 149

that was a outgrowth. 1501 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ Total number of text units retrieved = 269 +++ Retrievals in 1 out of 2 documents, = 50%. +++ The documents with retrievals have a total of 2936 text units, so text units retrieved in these documents = 9.2%. +++ All documents have a total of 5738 text units, so text units found in these documents = 4.7%. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 140

PAGE 150

Appendix M Focus Groups NUD*IST Report on Change in Attitudes QSR N6 Full version, revision 6.0. PROJECT: Focus Groups, User Ray Jorgensen, 4:25 pm, Dec 26, 2002. REPORT ON NODE (200) '/Change in Attitude' Restriction to document: NONE *********************************************************************** (200) /Change in Attitude *** No Description ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ ON-LINE DOCUMENT: Focusg1 +++ Retrieval for this document: 604 units out of 2802, = 22% ++ Text units 170-172: us were very new to that leadership, and 170 continual improvement I think probably got 171 stronger during and after. Weaknesses -172 ++ Text units 195-199: was always the case, and we are -how to put 195 this -both good at and committed to 196 learning, and I would say that started with 197 the leadership standards and continues 198 afterwards. 199 ++ Text units 240-250: think the respect for the employees is really 240 bad, and I think another weakness that we 241 have and, actually, I think you put this down 242 as a strength, was that our direction and 243 purpose doesn't seem to be terribly concrete, 244 and yet you put it down that we change 245 quickly well, but I have a little problem 246 141

PAGE 151

with that. I also put down our leadership 247 cohesiveness is a weakness, and I would say 248 that was before, not during, and, after, yes. 249 *RESEARCHER: Thank you. 250 ++ Text units 339-342: now. They used to freak, I need six planning days to learn ICLAS or School Vista, and they 341 don't anymore. 342 ++ Text units 367-372: *TEAM LEADER 2: I'll start. The main 367 strength I felt was that it made us focus on 368 improvement. 369 *TEAM LEADER 3: I thought that the 370 standards allowed the peer groups which we 371 created, it gave us focus, but it also helped 372 ++ Text units 393-395: *TEAM LEADER 1: It focused us on 393 particular areas of knowledge that we needed 394 to learn more about. 395 ++ Text units 399-408: *TEAM LEADER 3: The only other one I 399 had was that it helped develop and 400 understanding of what our employees were 401 facing. Since we had put to them standards, 402 we were able to look through what it was like 403 to have to complete the standards. 404 *TEAM LEADER 1: My only other one was 405 the same as that, that we got to find out 406 what was going on in other areas of the 407 company. 408 142

PAGE 152

++ Text units 411-425: thought was that the standards weren't 411 necessarily connected to areas I wanted to 412 focus on, they weren't connected to a 413 personal learning plan. When I look at some 414 of the standards, like, develop a web page 415 from my geography, the networking essentials, 416 those weren't necessary, there were other 417 areas I, as a leader, should have been 418 focusing on. If there was a standard on 419 human resources and working with employees 420 and rules and laws and regulations, that 421 would have been helpful, financial accounting 422 and understanding P and L and profit, those 423 are domains I think would have helped more as 424 a leader than some of the standards we had. 425 ++ Text units 497-508: *TEAM LEADER 1: I had one more which 497 was, gave us the opportunity to go beyond, it 498 kind of opened our eyes to many things, how 499 much there was to learn, how exciting it 500 could be to learn new things, how demanding 502 the role of leader is, and how it made you 503 kind of aware you had to be prepared for that 504 role. The standards were a beginning, but if 505 you weren't prepared to go beyond that, you 506 weren't going to succeed. You could see that 507 right away. 508 ++ Text units 511-524: 143

PAGE 153

*TEAM LEADER 2: The only other 511 opportunity was to be in the role of learner, 512 which in our other parts of our job 513 responsibilities, we have not had to do, and 514 it's learning how to learn, but it gave you 515 the opportunity to see, it's been so long for 516 a lot of us where we had to learn things. It 517 was another opportunity to dive back in and 518 be a learner. It gave me a lot more 519 compassion for the people on my team who had 520 standards also, but not only standards, but 521 just to keep up with their job, the 522 technician in particular, that compassion, I 523 think, was a huge piece. 524 ++ Text units 526-532: think of that. Really, the time we could be 526 learners. In leadership, you are expected to 527 be the experts and you have to know 528 everything. It was the first time you could 529 say, I have no clue what I'm doing, I'm going 530 to take the time, we can learn it together or 531 I'll study on my own. That was cool. 532 ++ Text units 548-565: *TEAM LEADER 3: The only thing that 548 came up as a threat was the whole 549 conversation we went through with that carrot 550 at the end that, if you didn't do the 551 standards, you weren't a team leader in 552 144

PAGE 154

January, and I don't know, we are all still 553 here and we are all still leaders in the 554 company, but I think to some people that 555 threat was big and it was one of those things 556 they didn't feel comfortable with and either 557 they chose to leave the system or, in some 558 instances, because someone hadn't taken the 559 test or passed it, they were no longer deemed 560 a team leader. It's tough when a standard is 561 not necessarily correlated to what you do, 562 working essentials. Your job is actually on 563 the line because you don't pass a test. I 564 think that was a threat out there. 565 ++ Text units 680-691: for paying for it. I think the company has a 680 responsibility if it says, if you came here 681 with this set of skills and we want you to do 682 this, that we will at least offset the cost 683 of it, not necessarily monetarily, but time, 684 opportunity to go to conferences, that sort 685 of thing. I think that goes back to respect 686 for the employees. If there is a conference 687 room, a place where a willing employee can go 688 and learn, it's the company's responsibility 689 to allow them to have that opportunity. 690 That's my diatribe. 691 ++ Text units 698-710: to write down, the idea of a learner's ethic. 698 145

PAGE 155

It's a neat point in a way, and I like the 699 idea of learning as a survival technique, 700 that's true, although it never occurred to 701 me. It's sort of like one of these light 702 bulb ideas, and I think it actually is 703 something I thought of independently, but not 704 today, while I was doing the standards, this 705 is going to be great for me whatever happens 706 in the future, knowing all this stuff that I 707 didn't know before is going to help me in my 708 career. I just wanted to second those 709 things. 710 ++ Text units 717-739: leadership behavior changes, I always 717 expected myself to be the expert, as a leader 718 that's the role I keep putting myself in. As 719 a result of the standards, I looked at the 720 value and the importance of being a 721 facilitator as opposed to being an expert. 722 When I was going crazy because I would not 723 delegate, if something needed to get done and 724 I wanted it to be done right, I would think I 725 better do it myself or it's not going to 726 happen. The whole facilitator piece as 727 opposed to being the expert. 728 *TEAM LEADER 2: Can I interrupt? That 729 really is interconnected with the idea of, 730 when we had peer learning groups and you had 731 146

PAGE 156

a chance to network with other people in the 732 company, during those sessions, I found I got 733 a deeper respect for the knowledge and skills 734 that existed in the company, which you would 735 not have known and you were afraid to 736 delegate. After meeting with them, you say, 737 that person can do it a lot better than I 738 can. 739 ++ Text units 760-777: *TEAM LEADER 3: I'm trying to think of 760 how to word this, but I don't know if it's 761 just leadership in this company or what, I 762 guess after working with the peer groups and 763 the standards, I find that I don't need as 764 much structure as I had in the past. I would 765 always want everything clear cut, what is my 766 job and what is this person's job, and now I 767 laugh, when I go home, my husband says, What 768 do you do now or what is your title today? 769 It's kind of that survival thing. Someone 770 will say, Do you know how to do that? I'll 771 say, No, I need to learn how to do that, but 772 I'm not worried about the fact I don't know 773 how to do it right now because I can tap into 774 those resources. The firm structure, we 775 change on a dime where we need to, and we 776 needed to learn how to deal with that. 777 ++ Text units 780-805: 147

PAGE 157

true, I have loosened up about learning. I 780 used to have a rigid idea how you go about 781 learning and how you know when you have 782 learned something. Since the standards, we 783 had this aborted kind of project manager's 784 group, me and a couple of other people, and I 785 had taken this class about project 786 management, which was superficial, but I came 787 out of it and was suddenly the expert on 788 project management. The other people in the 789 project manager's group kept going, Team 790 Leader 1 knows how to do that, but we don't, 791 and I kept trying to say to them, you know 792 how to do it, it's stuff we do all the time. 793 My whole idea about what it meant to be the 794 expert on project management had changed. I 795 didn't feel like it was a sacred thing I had 796 to know this body of knowledge. In any case, 797 I loosened up. That was a result of having 798 gone through the standards thing, because 799 there wasn't enough time to learn anything in 800 a total kind of way when we were doing the 801 standards but there was enough time to get to 802 a point where you could perform in that area, 803 and that was enough because then you 804 continued to learn as you performed. 805 ++ Text units 826-835: leaders, you can't just earn the money and 826 148

PAGE 158

have the title and come and show up for work 827 every day, but you have to take 828 responsibility for your area, your domains, 829 the money part of that, the people part of 830 that, da-da-da-da-da, on and on, and, 831 essentially, you're the guy where the buck 832 stops if you want to be a leader. I knew 833 that intellectually, but I never internalized 834 it until that time period in my life. 835 ++ Text units 843-853: that point. I think, with the standards, 843 besides the CEO or President saying you need to 844 do this if you want to be a leader in this 845 company, it was more about that commitment to 846 continual learning and professional growth. 847 It didn't matter, you could have been a 848 manager for the last 20 years and had 849 leadership ability, that didn't matter. In 850 this company, there were standards and it was 851 more about going forward than about what you 852 had done in years past. 853 ++ Text units 856-878: *TEAM LEADER 1: Definitely doing the 856 standards made me more empathetic to other 857 learners. It helped me to help them when I 858 had people on my team who were doing their 859 own standards. Once I started mine, I was 860 able to help them with theirs and help them 861 149

PAGE 159

understand how to accomplish what they had to 862 accomplish and feel bad they had so much more 863 to do than I did. I'm sorry. 864 *TEAM LEADER 2: It's true. I had 865 somebody on my team who I absolutely failed 866 with in terms of couldn't get him to begin to 867 understand the standards because the mountain 868 was so high for him, and I tried everything I 869 knew to break it down into pieces. I feel 870 badly I was never able to get through to him 871 to begin it, and, yet, as I look back on it, 872 I have every empathy in the world, I don't 873 know what I could have done differently, I'm 874 sure it was an issue at this point on his 875 part, but I think had we not done this, had I 876 not had that empathy, I couldn't have done 877 what I did do, which would have been worse. 878 ++ Text units 893-920: *TEAM LEADER 1: My last one was: I 893 have more respect for learning and learners 894 than I used to have, especially people who 895 just keep plugging away with sheer 896 determination to learn something even if they 897 are not the smartest or the brightest person 898 in the group. The value of that, I 899 understand that so much better now than I 900 used to, because I know how hard it is to 901 learn some things. 902 150

PAGE 160

*TEAM LEADER 2: I would say, because 903 I'm in a unique position in the company and 904 my group is a group of people who helps 905 others learn, it has really formed a bedrock, 906 a foundation of everything we do and all the 907 things we learned about learning, like 908 purpose and meaning, we just never commit 909 anything from a didactic standpoint anymore. 910 I think a lot of that would have been missed 911 on me and our group if we hadn't done this, 912 and I think it makes us so much better, and 913 it is value-add from my standpoint from any 914 other competition we had. We talked about 915 competition being a bad thing. I do think it 916 helped us differentiate ourselves from the 917 competition to be better, and those were all 918 direct learnings from learning how to learn 919 or how not to learn. 920 ++ Text units 940-952: *TEAM LEADER 2: I think of one right 940 off the bat. Just the fact that learning is 941 a part of what we do. It seemed like such a 942 stupid thing to say. That is not what I'm 943 here for. This is beyond the periphery of 944 what I'm here to do. I'm willing to do it, 945 but it's really not what I'm here for. I 946 never integrated it in with the job itself, 947 which I think is huge. I thought it was a 948 151

PAGE 161

imposition from someone who clearly didn't 949 have as much to do as I did and needed to 950 keep themselves busy, and that's a huge 951 mental model for me which was shifted. 952 ++ Text units 955-982: *TEAM LEADER 3: I kind of jotted the 955 same thing. Trying to remember back to that 956 time frame, it was in the summer and it was 957 really busy and chaotic to get together and 958 look at what the standards were going to be, 959 looking at some of them, this is a 960 complete 961 waste of time. It's going to get 962 worse. 963 It's going to get busier. Why do I need to 964 sit here and memorize the OSI levels? I 965 don't know what they are anymore. Why do I 966 need to know that right now to pass a test? 967 I'm studying to pass a test. This is a waste 968 of time. When I look at some of the 977 strengths we said on the exercise, I think I 978 was too focused on the task at hand, and 979 going back to list the strengths which you 980 recorded, I couldn't see the forest for the 981 trees. 982 ++ Text units 990-999: *TEAM LEADER 2: I actually, I do think 990 I had a mental model that people just weren't 991 152

PAGE 162

trying hard enough who couldn't fit this into 992 their day, they must be wasting a lot of 993 time. We all got more empathy for people 994 trying to pass tests and get their job done 996 at the same time, but maybe they are working 998 pretty hard. 999 ++ Text units 1060-1083: about. We were in the same peer group. The 1060 panic wore off. We stopped talking about 1061 standards at the meetings. We set up this 1062 communication group and we started dealing 1063 with everyday type of issues, and so many of 1064 us were going through the same thing, as 1066 leaders, there are a lot of similarities, but 1068 what your day-to-day is probably much 1069 different from what mine and Team Leader 1's 1070 is, even though we are leaders in the 1071 company, we are not trying to be everything 1072 to everyone in the geography base, so I would 1073 not know how it would work today if the same things were imposed on us. 1083 ++ Text units 1635-1639: gave the company a greater sense of 1635 community, including the employees, on the 1636 vision of the company and letting them know 1637 that their voice is important, so I believe 1638 it created a sense of community. ++ Text units 1657-1668: *RESEARCHER: After they were finished 1665 153

PAGE 163

and we moved on from there? 1666 *TEAM LEADER 6: Less of a sense of 1667 community. 1668 ++ Text units 1733-1744: 1733 or focus that we had. We were all going in 1734 the same direction. I think we were all 1735 happy to be elevating the status of the 1736 company, to challenge ourselves. We accepted 1737 that willingly, and it felt good to get 1738 there, and, after, it felt like we were 1739 acting as if we were done, and there were a 1741 lot of things that felt undone. We needed to 1743 have a consensus to decide what that was. 1744 ++ Text units 1747-1760: *TEAM LEADER 5: I would say going back 1747 to that focus, we didn't develop a full 1748 enough compliment of standards to address or 1749 support the role of team leader; for 1750 instance, team leader, in order to make 1751 decisions we were charged with making, I 1753 believe we needed to have more of an 1754 understanding of business planning. We 1755 needed, if that was a standard, if that was a 1756 follow-on, I believe we would have been 1757 successful, but because there was no focus on 1758 that, that didn't come as a follow-on or part 1759 of the original standards, that hurt us, 1760 ++ Text units 1769-1771: 154

PAGE 164

because we had a common understanding of 1769 where we wanted to go and not a clue how we 1770 were going to get there. 1771 ++ Text units 1776-1785: *TEAM LEADER 5: I would have included 1776 as part of the learning an understanding of 1777 what it takes, what are the things you need 1778 to have in place, what you should consider in 1779 order to come up with a good business plan. 1780 The financial status of the company alone 1781 would have frightened us without that 1782 learning. When it did come, we still hadn't 1783 developed an understanding of what was 1784 available. 1785 ++ Text units 1803-1814: *TEAM LEADER 6: I have a strength here. 1803 The education level before the standards were 1804 in place, if I could go back two years, were 1805 low, and, I believe, within about a year and 1806 a half after that, was, I thought, incredible 1808 for the entire company, the amount of 1809 learning that took place surprised me. That 1810 still continues, I think, to this day, and 1811 the commitment to on-going learning, but I 1812 thought that was a tremendous strength of 1813 implementing our standards. 1814 ++ Text units 1836-1848: *TEAM LEADER 4: Before the standards, 1836 people didn't feel empowered, and I don't 1837 155

PAGE 165

know, I'm making this assumption, the 1838 empowerment to make decisions on their own, 1839 it was always, let me go ask somebody, but 1840 with theevolution of the standards, it was 1842 where the team leader could make those kinds 1844 of decisions for their team around training, 1845 focus, customer relations, financial 1846 decisions, hiring people, letting people go, 1847 things like that. 1848 ++ Text units 1911-1914: *TEAM LEADER 5: After we met the 1911 standards, there was no sense and meaning, 1912 there wasn't a lot of sense to the meetings, 1913 we weren't going anywhere. 1914 ++ Text units 1916-1926: *TEAM LEADER 5: Back to the focus. In 1916 the end, the meetings didn't have the same, 1917 we didn't feel satisfied at the end, because 1918 many people were trying to contribute, just 1920 trying to contribute and trying with the 1922 information you had to make the best decision 1923 for the company, but without the focus on how 1924 we were going to move forward, we just 1925 didn't. 1926 ++ Text units 2008-2009: *TEAM LEADER 5: To reiterate that the 2008 strength, biggest strength, was the focus. 2009 ++ Text units 2022-2027: *TEAM LEADER 4: When I thought about 2022 156

PAGE 166

strengths of the standards, I thought of 2024 learning organizations' sense of community as 2026 a whole, which might encompass many things. 2027 ++ Text units 2043-2047: *TEAM LEADER 5: My perception was that 2043 the sense of community came from the shared 2044 focusing on the same, we had the same value 2045 structure, we had more to talk about that was 2046 common. ++ Text units 2051-2056: *TEAM LEADER 6: I have just one here, 2051 empowerment, there were parts of it that were 2052 weaknesses that we were no longer one company 2053 run top down, we were eight individual 2054 companies, and that empowerment also 2055 separated that sense of community at times. 2056 ++ Text units 2077-2079: management structure, although I think it had 2077 a focus, but it changed, and I think it 2078 confused the organization. ++ Text units 2092-2095: *TEAM LEADER 5: I had an opportunity to 2092 build a common understanding and to build 2093 upon that to develop the next step together. 2094 We had that opportunity. 2095 ++ Text units 2106-2110: *TEAM LEADER 5: I wonder if that had 2106 more to do with the competitive structure, 2107 because, simultaneously, the team structure 2108 was evolving, a sense of competition was also 2109 evolving. 2110 157

PAGE 167

++ Text units 2113-2120: *TEAM LEADER 6: I think, if you add up 2113 our strengths and areas we improved, as a 2114 result of that, we had better business 2115 opportunities as a whole offered to us from 2116 business partners and in the workplace, there 2117 were more lucrative contracts that came our 2118 way as a result of the strengths we just 2119 discussed. 2120 ++ Text units 2146-2151: *TEAM LEADER 4: Right. I think my 2146 opportunity, I think there is tremendous 2147 opportunity for the employees, business 2148 partners, and families. Just for some of the 2149 things that were just said around business 2150 partners, employees. 2151 ++ Text units 2249-2254: we expected to be equal, because we went 2249 through these exercises, we now expected 2250 certain behaviors that we may have been able 2251 to ignore in the past if we weren't building 2252 a structure that was supposed to be comprised 2253 of certain behaviors. 2254 ++ Text units 2276-2287: *TEAM LEADER 6: I'll agree. More near 2276 the end when we started going through this 2277 all together, it felt more of sense of 2278 shared, recreated the shared vision, and we 2280 sort of peaked there, and, afterwards, it 2282 158

PAGE 168

sort of felt a little predetermined and we 2283 were just going through the motions of 2284 meeting and the outcome didn't feel, I didn't 2285 feel like it was from the group, it was more 2286 a predetermined nature. 2287 ++ Text units 2316-2330: *TEAM LEADER 4: I'm thinking, even for 2316 myself, that there was a fear of change, that 2317 we are not going to be operating the way we 2318 were operating and that the organization is 2319 going to be changed, we are going to be 2320 empowered to make our decisions and some of 2321 the things we talked about, and that's 2322 sometimes scary, and I know we talked about 2323 that many times in our meetings, change, but 2325 I think there are so many things that come 2327 into play, so many forces over the years, but 2328 not to say that it didn't work out. Does 2329 that make sense? 2330 ++ Text units 2354-2357: *RESEARCHER: Where top down itself 2354 feels more comfortable than flat? 2355 *TEAM LEADER 4: Safe. Where somebody 2356 is telling me what to do. 2357 ++ Text units 2442-2446: 2442 the judgment piece, both ways, feeling I was 2443 judging people and people were judging me, 2444 probably more so the fact people were judging 2445 159

PAGE 169

me. 2446 ++ Text units 2453-2457: *TEAM LEADER 5: I'm very much more 2453 aware, and I trust my instincts. When I feel 2454 as if I'm being judged, I don't really care 2455 what the lip service says to me anymore. I 2456 know it. 2457 ++ Text units 2487-2489: *TEAM LEADER 6: I have a better 2487 understanding of learning, and it's also made 2488 me a better learner, dash, listener. 2489 ++ Text units 2492-2508: *TEAM LEADER 4: Along those lines, I 2492 have accepted the fact that people learn 2493 differently, and that was tough. I would 2494 learn to pick something up differently, and 2495 that's a whole piece on education, students 2496 learn differently, and comparing those is 2497 sometimes helpful. People learn things at 2506 different paces and take different things out 2507 of, for example, the standards. 2508 ++ Text units 2550-2558: *TEAM LEADER 4: I think my confidence 2550 level about my feelings and about what I 2551 believe, I think comes out. In the team 2552 leader meetings, I was very quiet. I felt 2553 that, if I was going to say anything, I would 2554 be judged. Now I feel confident. If I want 2555 to say something, I say it. I'm still 2556 160

PAGE 170

working on it, but I think confidence, as 2557 Team Leader 5 said, is very true. 2558 ++ Text units 2560-2563: *TEAM LEADER 6: No. Coming out of the 2560 standards I feel I like what Team Leader 5 2561 said about not having to apologize for a 2562 feeling she has, I agree with that. 2563 ++ Text units 2668-2690: *TEAM LEADER 4: I think a mental model 2676 I held with the standards was that I was 2677 going to be judged really significantly on 2678 what my outcome was, and that really was 2679 something I was constantly thinking of, 2680 sometimes to the point where I said, Here's 2681 the standard. What is the right way to 2682 answer and what might be the real way Team 2684 Leader 4 might answer it? Today, if those 2686 standards were put in front of me, I would 2687 respond quite differently, which is 2688 interesting, because that's a learning piece for me. 2690 ++ Text units 2724-2736: *TEAM LEADER 6: I agree with Team 2724 Leader 5 that, before, we all had something 2725 to say in helping create the standards, I 2726 thought they would help, and they did, and, 2727 afterwards, we didn't continue in adding to 2728 them, and that was, I think it's very similar 2729 to Team Leader 5's shift there. 2730 161

PAGE 171

*RESEARCHER: Anything left? First 2731 thing that comes to mind then, greatest 2733 impact of the standards on the system was? 2734 *TEAM LEADER 4: Sense of community. 2735 *TEAM LEADER 6: Competency. 162

PAGE 172

Appendix N Focus Groups NUD*IST Report on Change in Behaviors QSR N6 Full version, revision 6.0. PROJECT: Focus Groups, User Ray Jorgensen, 4:26 pm, Dec 26, 2002. REPORT ON NODE (100) '/Change in Behavior' Restriction to document: NONE *********************************************************************** (100) /Change in Behavior *** No Description ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ ON-LINE DOCUMENT: Focusg1 +++ Retrieval for this document: 407 units out of 2802, = 15% ++ Text units 189-192: appreciate, and that's always been there. We 189 are practiced at changing direction, and I 190 would say that's only after the leadership 191 standards were completed did that come about. 192 ++ Text units 231-247: definitely, communication is one of our 231 weaknesses. Here is an interesting thing, I 232 would say that it was very bad before, it was 233 better during, and it's back to being bad 234 again. 235 *RESEARCHER: You guys concur with that. 236 *TEAM LEADER 1: Absolutely. I have it 237 written down exactly the same way. 238 *TEAM LEADER 2: I hate to say this, I 239 think the respect for the employees is really 240 bad, and I think another weakness that we 241 163 have and, actually, I think you put this down 242

PAGE 173

as a strength, was that our direction and 243 purpose doesn't seem to be terribly concrete, 244 and yet you put it down that we change 245 quickly well, but I have a little problem 246 with that. I also put down our leadership 247 ++ Text units 260-267: I have communications exactly the way Team 260 Leader 2 wrote it. It was bad before, got 261 better, and now it's back to bad. I think 262 skill level in general in our company is 263 lower than it should be, although it improved 264 as a result of standards that everybody had, 265 not just leadership standards, it's still not 266 where it should be. I think our pay 267 ++ Text units 276-282: *TEAM LEADER 2: Skill level. From my 276 perspective, in my group, the skill level has 277 risen dramatically. I think it's nearing the 278 place where it's quite reputable. 279 Definitely, it was not that way before, not 280 that way during, and, after, it's definitely 281 improved. 282 ++ Text units 295-307: *TEAM LEADER 1: You could have been, 295 but you weren't. The reason you have a 296 higher skill level now is you trimmed the 297 people at the lower level. I think that 298 happened in technical as well. There are 299 certain people in the technical group whose 300 164

PAGE 174

skill level has shot way up. The people left 301 in the leadership group have higher 302 leadership skills than they used to. We 303 agree we are at a higher skill level. I 304 don't think, maybe with the exception of Team 305 Leader 2's group, we are at the level we need 306 to be at. 307 ++ Text units 339-342: now. They used to freak, I need six planning 340 days to learn ICLAS or School Vista, and they 341 don't anymore. 342 ++ Text units 372-381: created, it gave us focus, but it also helped 372 with communication. I think that the best 373 relationship I had with other team leaders 374 was when we actually spent that one day a 375 month or whatever we were able to get 376 together to meet, building on that, that was 377 the person you went to when you had other 378 issues that were coming up and it created 379 that network of peers that I don't think had 380 been there previously. 381 ++ Text units 385-390: opportunity to second that and to say that 385 also in the peer groups, in my peer group, we 386 all learned how to learn together, which was 387 a neat thing. It took a while, but after 388 about the third meeting, we knew how to work 389 together to learn stuff. 390 165

PAGE 175

++ Text units 457-472: gave us an opportunity to become a leader, 457 which is sort of strange to say that, but, 458 for instance, in the personal learning group, 459 when I said before that I think we actually 460 learned how to learn together, it was a 461 result of some of the people in that group 462 taking steps to pull the group together, and 463 it really did give us an opportunity to be a 464 leader. 465 *RESEARCHER: Inquiry: Even among your 466 own peers? 467 *TEAM LEADER 1: Right. 468 *RESEARCHER: So someone took a 469 leadership responsibility from time to time 470 among the group of leaders? 471 *TEAM LEADER 1: That's right. 472 ++ Text units 475-489: *TEAM LEADER 2: This is interesting, 475 because the opportunity I came up with was 476 actually, on a different spin, could have 477 been a weakness, it gave us an opportunity to 478 expand our expertise to a broader spectrum of 479 skills, so it might have been a skill you 480 would not have selected to be in your 481 personal learning plan. I personally learned 482 some things I would not have selected, but it 483 did help me, so there is some benefit having 484 166

PAGE 176

them imposed on you. The personal learning 485 plan only goes so far. When something is 486 imposed on you, you can learn things you 487 would not have selected to learn but still 488 can be beneficial. 489 ++ Text units 494-496: *TEAM LEADER 3: The only thing I had 494 was the opportunity to develop the 495 relationship among the peers. 496 ++ Text units 529-532: everything. It was the first time you could 529 say, I have no clue what I'm doing, I'm going 530 to take the time, we can learn it together or 531 I'll study on my own. That was cool. 532 ++ Text units 567-607: *TEAM LEADER 1: It diverted us from 567 business at hand. I think we were so 568 involved at that point in paying attention to 569 the process of what we were trying to do in 570 that leadership development and standards and 571 learning organization that we weren't paying 572 attention to running the company as well as 573 we should have been. 574 *TEAM LEADER 2: I didn't get that. I 575 understand where that is coming from, but, 576 being in a remote geography, I didn't feel 577 that. The only thing I will say, and I don't 578 know which one of these it falls into, my 579 understanding of the standards was these were 580 167

PAGE 177

supposed to be done, this was part of your 581 job, it was supposed to be done on company 582 time. I found I could not do that. That's 583 probably a true statement. I looked at the 584 beginning, if I did this while I was supposed 585 to be working, the work would not get done, 586 so the reality was that it was not able to be 587 done on company time and you had to do it on 588 your personal time. Had I done it the other 589 way, then it would have definitely -I'm 590 sure there were a lot of people whose lives 591 were in a different place who said I have to 592 do it on company time or lose my job, and, 593 therefore, the business at hand is going to 594 suffer. 595 *TEAM LEADER 1: I don't disagree with 596 what you said, but even more to the point for 597 me, I compare, sort of, how we ran the 598 company and how efficient and profitable the 599 company was during that period and how we run 600 it now and how efficient and profitable it is 601 now. I don't think, while we were doing 602 that, we could do what we do now. That's why 603 I think it was a diversion. I think we are 604 much better now, obviously, I think that goes 605 without saying, better in terms of how we run 606 the company and efficiency and profitability. 607 ++ Text units 636-679: 168

PAGE 178

*TEAM LEADER 2: I would. I would just 636 say that it profoundly impacted the way I act 637 as a team leader or as a leader in the 638 company. I have bullets which we can go into 639 in more depth if you want to, but, basically, 640 I think it was instrumental in developing a 641 learner's ethic for me, which I think I 642 probably at some point had but in my work 643 life never or not recently have exercised. 644 Importance of always learning was heightened. 645 The realization that, in our particular 646 industry, as well as the world in general at 647 this point in time, it's a survival 648 technique. It rose to a ten on the list of 649 important things in life in general, ten 650 being the greatest characteristic. In other 651 words, when I was hiring someone, that was 652 one of the things I always inquired about: 653 What professional journals are you reading? 654 What kinds of things do you do when you need 655 to learn a new skill? What things have you 656 learned in the past three or six months? 657 What skills have you been looking to get 658 involved in? Certainly, reiterating what you 659 said before, it sort of cemented the idea 660 it's okay to be a leader and it's not an 661 expectation that you know everything. As a 662 169

PAGE 179

person who is responsible for other people in 663 the company, it gave me a model to use to 664 include as part of their job. I would not do 665 it exactly the same way, but, to me, it was 666 something I know I would not have thought of 667 as including it as part of their job. If 668 someone is hired, what is part of your job? 669 Part of your job is to learn. Here are some 670 things you are going to do. The biggest 671 piece I would include in that, which I think 672 to some extent was not included in ours, is 673 here is how we are going to do it. We will 674 help you do it. I still have a fundamental 675 philosophical difference with somebody in 676 this company who says that you learn more 677 when you can't go to a place and get the 678 information, the company is not responsible 679 ++ Text units 741-759: *TEAM LEADER 3: It became more team or 741 peer oriented, that you are not in this 742 alone, that you should be tapping into the 743 other expertise in the company and it's not 744 going to look bad on you if you had to go to 745 Team Leader 1 or Team Leader 2 or one of the 746 other team leaders to ask, What would you do 747 if you were facing this? It was much more 748 team oriented. 749 *TEAM LEADER 1: I would like to second 750 170

PAGE 180

that. That was another one I didn't think 751 of, but it surely occurred to me during the 752 process and has actually changed my behavior 753 in the time since just to understand that 754 some people do other things better, and when 755 you know that, let them do it, go to them and 756 say, I need your help with this. You do that 757 so well, please do that piece, and I'll do 758 what I do best. 759 ++ Text units 808-817: one. Another one, we learned to focus on 808 more leverage behaviors. That's sort of the 809 same thing when you think about it. There 810 wasn't enough time to learn anything 811 thoroughly but you learned the pieces that 812 gave you the most leverage that really stands 813 you in good stead. We learned to accept the 814 responsibility of leadership, which is 815 somehow, unbelievable as it may seem, a 816 concept that evaded me prior to that. 817 ++ Text units 819-835: *TEAM LEADER 1: I don't know if it was 819 necessarily anything directly to do with the 820 standards, but it happened during that time 821 period, which was, essentially, the message 822 throughout that the CEO and everyone was trying 823 to tell us was, we will be happy to have you 824 be leaders, but that means you have to act as 825 171

PAGE 181

leaders, you can't just earn the money and 826 have the title and come and show up for work 827 every day, but you have to take 828 responsibility for your area, your domains, 829 the money part of that, the people part of 830 that, da-da-da-da-da, on and on, and, 831 essentially, you're the guy where the buck 832 stops if you want to be a leader. I knew 833 that intellectually, but I never internalized 834 it until that time period in my life. 835 ++ Text units 879-892: *TEAM LEADER 1: Just to keep going with 879 that for a minute, I think one of the things 880 I learned to use to help people during that 881 time period was the idea of cooperative 882 learning, when people are having trouble, you 883 buddy them up with somebody who is moving at 884 a faster clip. I don't know where that came 885 from, but I learned that in my time here 886 since we started this process. 887 *TEAM LEADER 2: It came from peer 888 learning groups, because I used that too. It 889 didn't work in this particular case. It was 890 another technique we used, and I think it 891 somewhat came from the company groups. 892 ++ Text units 1642-1648: *TEAM LEADER 6: Right when they were 1642 imposed, I personally made an effort to meet 1643 172

PAGE 182

more with the team, update them on 1644 information, let them know their voice was 1645 important and exactly what each part of the 1646 company does, so I thought that was a 1647 strength. 1648 ++ Text units 1809-1814: for the entire company, the amount of learning that took place surprised me. That 1810 still continues, I think, to this day, and 1811 the commitment to on-going learning, but I 1812 thought that was a tremendous strength of 1813 implementing our standards. 1814 ++ Text units 1817-1824: *TEAM LEADER 4: A strength I came up 1817 with was the ability for people to be empowered to maketheir own decisions and 1820 really come up with their own plans and way 1821 of thinking with their team and focuses while 1822 not just working within their own group but 1823 working within the entire company. 1824 ++ Text units 1879-1889: for meetings, I think was something that was, 1879 before, we never invested in employees or 1880 time to train, we then invested a lot, and I 1881 don't know the internal structure of the 1882 overall finances of the company, but I know 1883 it took a lot of money that could have been 1884 put in other areas to have people take days 1886 off and learn and meet, so it took a lot of 1888 money, I'm sure, to do that. 1889 173

PAGE 183

++ Text units 1938-1951: employees. I think, before the standards, we 1938 had a lot of employees that maybe weren't 1939 meeting the customers' needs or the company's 1940 needs, customer satisfaction level. When the 1941 standards kicked in, they actually weeded out 1942 employees that didn't want to be part of the 1944 organization, and now we are here, and I 1946 think it's still the case, because I think 1947 Team Leader 6 made the point we are still 1948 continuing with the learning and so forth, 1949 and with the change in technology, the 1950 standards are changing as well. 1951 ++ Text units 2017-2019: *TEAM LEADER 6: Level of competency 2017 among team leaders for the specific area we 2018 are working in. That was raised quite a bit. 2019 ++ Text units 2113-2120: *TEAM LEADER 6: I think, if you add up 2113 our strengths and areas we improved, as a 2114 result of that, we had better business 2115 opportunities as a whole offered to us from 2116 business partners and in the workplace, there 2117 were more lucrative contracts that came our 2118 way as a result of the strengths we just 2119 discussed. 2120 ++ Text units 2126-2139: inquire: We are learning, we are working on 2126 these standards, and it seemed, concurrently, 2127 174

PAGE 184

more business opportunities seemed to be 2136 showing up. We don't know the direct 2137 correlation, but there was causality going 2138 on. 2139 ++ Text units 2141-2145: *TEAM LEADER 5: We learned how to 2141 behave to get that initial invite. We may 2142 not have known what to do with it when the opportunity came. ++ Text units 2432-2446: *TEAM LEADER 4: Mine is the whole piece 2432 around judgment. I really had issues with 2433 that, and I probably still do, but, really, 2434 the judgment piece, both ways, feeling I was 2443 judging people and people were judging me, 2444 probably more so the fact people were judging 2445 me. 2446 ++ Text units 2511-2519: *TEAM LEADER 5: I learn to listen and 2511 accept, don't try to change people's behavior 2512 or their perception, enjoy the conversation. 2514 I enjoy the difference. I will not allow 2516 myself to try to change people to a point 2517 where they feel uncomfortable with what they 2518 are being asked to do. 2519 ++ Text units 2525-2531: *TEAM LEADER 5: My new employer gets 2525 the wrathof Team Leader 5. I don't take 2527 anything at the first word. I need to be 2528 convinced. I'm relentless, and I'm not doing 2529 175

PAGE 185

it unless I'm convinced, whatever "it" may 2530 be. 2531 ++ Text units 2595-2620: *TEAM LEADER 4: I think both personally 2595 and business at the end of each day look at 2596 what are some of the things I did and what 2597 could I do differently the next day. 2598 *TEAM LEADER 5: I don't ever wait, I 2607 look for new things to learn every day. I 2608 don't wait for someone to decide what my 2609 learning should be. 2610 *TEAM LEADER 6: I'll put one more: 2611 I'll look to my peers for support or help to 2612 evaluate my decisions as well after I do 2613 something. I'll have no problem following 2615 through doing something, but I'll ask at the 2617 end, I'll say, How did that work out? and 2618 I'm surprised everything I did wasn't right. 2619 I kind of believe that. 2620 ++ Text units 2626-2647: *TEAM LEADER 4: I think, for me, it's 2626 on-going, it's an on-going process. It doesn't come to an end where you say, I'm 2629 here. 2630 *TEAM LEADER 5: I always consider the 2631 perspective of the company. It's always part 2632 of something I'm thinking of, the feeling of 2633 being entitled to a position, that the 2642 176

PAGE 186

company should take care of me. I don't 2643 think I really ever had that. I don't even 2644 have that a little bit. I feel the 2645 responsibility to look at the impact of 2646 decisions, the effect on people. 2647 177

PAGE 187

About the Author Ray Jorgensen is the director of the Jorgensen Learning Center and has spent 30 years in private and public schools as a teacher, coach, department head, faculty member at USF and school administrator. He received a Bachelor of Science from St. Francis College in Brooklyn and a National Science Foundation fellowship culminating in a Master of Science in Teaching from Fordham University. After moving to Florida, he continued his studies at Nova University and USF, receiving certification in Administration, Supervision, and Leadership. He earned his doctoral degree from the USF with a focus on Learning Organizations and Total Quality. Currently, Ray is a professional consultant in the area of program definition of systemic efforts toward development of the leadership capabilities needed for any organization to thrive working with public and private school systems, city and county governments, hospitals, banks, physicians offices, and a variety of private businesses.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001432581
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 031010s2003 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000121
035
(OCoLC)53244345
9
AJL6129
b SE
SFE0000121
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHME
090
LB1555
1 100
Jorgensen, Raymond D.
0 245
Leading learning through imposition of leadership learning standards
h [electronic resource] /
by Raymond D. Jorgensen.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2003.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 185 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: This study explored the impact of an imposed standards movement on attitudes and behaviors of a team of line leaders. A case method was employed to describe, to explain, and to draw conclusions about results of standards imposition. Standards were designed and implemented by an executive leadership team frustrated with lack of effective leadership practices of a line leaders team under their supervision. The investigation took an historical perspective, chronicling the story of the company, emerging leadership challenges, and executive leadership responses leading up to the research. The line or team leaders of an educational software company served as participants. Data were archival, gathered through consultation via focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and fieldwork journal notes. Verbatim responses to protocols were used as evidence of leadership practices. The structure of leading in professional communities espoused by Senge, Greenleaf, Bennis, Kouzes, Posner, and others informed data analysis of team leaders' responses to imposed standards. Results revealed six themes: Positive Attitude toward Learning; Positive Attitude toward Peer Learning Groups; Increased Skill, Performance, Satisfaction, and Confidence resulting from imposed standards; Shift from Negative Attitude toward Change; team leaders' Commitment to Imposed Goals as a work requirement; and Loss of Advantages Gained from Standards Imposition over time due to removal of the learning requirement. This research adds to the literature available for leaders in relation to designing responses to emergent resistance toward accomplishing imposed standards. Team leaders identified the learner ethic as a leadership attribute crystallized by the standards imposition movement. Although leaders believed in learning, they developed heightened awareness regarding the importance of learning as a survival tactic for themselves and the company.
590
Co-adviser: Borman, Kathy
Co-adviser: Kimmel, Ellen
653
commitment.
top down.
learning community.
change.
goal.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Interdisciplinary Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.121