A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
AMIXEDMETHODSSTUDYEVALUATINGSTRATEGIESUSEDINORGANIZATIONALVISIONING
KelseyChurchBrunton
ThesissubmittedtothefacultyofVirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversityin
partialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MASTEROFSCIENCEINLIFESCIENCESin
AgriculturalandExtensionEducation
EricK.Kaufman,ChairCurtisR.Friedel
DonnaM.Westfall‐Rudd
April4,2013Blacksburg,Virginia
Keywords:OrganizationalVisioning,AppreciativeInquiry,SWOTAnalysis,OrganizationalCommitment,VisionClarity
Copyright2013byKelseyC.Brunton
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
AMixedMethodsStudyEvaluatingStrategiesusedinOrganizationalVisioning
KelseyChurchBrunton
ABSTRACT
Thepurposeofthiscasestudyistoevaluatetwomethodsofstrategicplanning
withinorganizationalvisioning:Strengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,Threats(SWOT)
analysisandAppreciativeinquiry(Ai).SWOTanalysisisamethodofstrategicplanning
thatispopularwithincompaniesandorganizationsduetoitssimple,yetthorough,
approach.Aihasrecentlyemergedasanapproachtostrategicvisioningandplanning
withinorganizationaldevelopment.However,littleresearchhasbeenconductedto
evaluateeitherapproachtoorganizationalvisioning,andthereisagrowingneedto
comparethetwotechniques.Inthiscasestudy,participantswithinoneorganizationwere
divided,withhalfofthestaffparticipatinginAiandtheotherhalfparticipatinginSWOT.
Dataforthismixedmethodsstudywasgatheredthroughobservation,focusgroup
interviews,andpre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpostassessmentstests.Throughthe
explanatorysequentialdesign,quantitativedataevaluatedthechangeinorganizational
commitmentandvisionclarityasaresultoftheinterventions;while,qualitativedata
furtherexploredparticipants’perceptionoftheinterventionprocessandresultingeffects.
Thestudyfoundastatisticallysignificantinteractionbetweeninterventiontreatmentsand
thepre‐testandpost‐testscoreswithintheorganizationalcommitmentconstruct.Seven
themesemergedfromthequalitativedata;however,onlytwothemeswerespecifically
associatedwithaninterventiontreatment.ParticipantsintheSWOTintervention
describedthevisioningprocesstobefrustratingandnegative;while,Aiparticipantsfound
thatthevisioningprocessconfirmedmanyoftheirbeliefsandvaluesaboutthe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
iii
department.RecommendationsforfuturepracticesuggesttheuseofStrengths,
Opportunities,Aspiration,Results(SOAR)asanapproachthatcombinesandmaximizesAi
andSWOT.SuggestionsforfutureresearcharetoexploreSWOTasaprecursortodi‐
visioningwithintheVisioningProcessModel.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
iv
DEDICATION
“Ihavenospecialtalents.Iamonlypassionatelycurious.”–AlbertEinstein
Thisworkdedicatedtocuriouspeople.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ioweagreatdealofgratitudetomypatientandencouragingadvisor,Dr.Kaufman.
Thankyouforyourcontinuedsupportandexpertisethroughoutmygraduatework.Dr.
Westfall‐Rudd,thankyouformentoringmethroughoutmyqualitativediscoveries.Iam
indebtedtoyouforyourwillingnesstosupportmeoverthesummermonths.Dr.Friedel,I
amsoappreciativeofyourexpertiseinquantitativeandstatisticalanalysis.Additionally,
youmadeapowerfulimpactonmyunderstandingoforganizationalchangeandsufficiently
piquedmyinterestinleadingsocialchange.Lastly,Dr.Niewolny,youintroducedmeto
appreciativeinquiryinyourclassonCommunityDevelopmentandEducationand,forthis,
Iameternallygrateful.
ThegraduatestudentsinLISA,JonathanStallingsandCalebKing,werealso
instrumentalinmythesiswork.IamverythankfulfortheexcellenthelpIreceivedin
planningmystudy,inrunningstatisticaltests,andintranslatingmathematicaljargoninto
somethingthatIcouldunderstand.IwouldliketothankDonnaRatcliff,forbelievinginmy
studyandme.Itwasanabsolutepleasureworkingwithyouandyourstaff.Iwasinspired
bythestaff’spassionfortheirworkandforthestudents.Iamverythankfulthatthey
sharedtheirtimeandstorieswithme.Additionally,IwouldliketothankJimMcQueenfor
facilitatingbothinterventionsessions.Yougraciouslydonatedyourtime,resources,and
energyandforthatIamsincerelygrateful.
Dr.KerryPriestandDr.MeganSeibelhavebeenamazingmentorsthroughoutmy
journeyofbecomingaresearcher.Youallweresogenerousinsharingyourtime,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
vi
expertise,andresourceswithme.WhetherIneededabookoranidea,achocolateora
hug,youallweretheretosupportmeandIcan’tthankyouenoughforallthosethings,
especiallythelatter.Mydearfriends,DebbieCarrollandMichelleGreaud,Iamsograteful
foreverythingthatyouallhavedoneforme.Thankyouforyourendearingsupportand
kindness.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
vii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................................................IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................................................V
LISTOFTABLES......................................................................................................................................................XI
LISTOFFIGURES...................................................................................................................................................XII
CHAPTERONE:INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
Background............................................................................................................................................................2TheoreticalFramework....................................................................................................................................5ProblemStatement.............................................................................................................................................9PurposeandResearchQuestions..............................................................................................................10SignificanceofStudy.......................................................................................................................................12OverviewofMethodology.............................................................................................................................13LimitationsoftheStudy.................................................................................................................................14DefinitionofTerms..........................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTERTWO:REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE.....................................................................................18
Leadership:ARelationalUnderstanding...............................................................................................18TheLeader:VisionandChange..................................................................................................................20StrategicPlanningandVisioningwithinOrganizationalDevelopment....................................24SWOTAnalysis:ATraditionalApproachtoPlanningandVisioning.........................................28Background....................................................................................................................................................28Characteristics............................................................................................................................................ȢȢȢ30Critiques...........................................................................................................................................................33Applications...................................................................................................................................................35
AppreciativeInquiry:ANewApproachtoPlanningandVisioning............................................37Background....................................................................................................................................................38Characteristics..............................................................................................................................................40Critiques...........................................................................................................................................................44Applications...................................................................................................................................................45
VisionClarityandOrganizationalCommitment:ADesiredOutcome.......................................47
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
viii
CHAPTERTHREE:RESEARCHMETHODS..................................................................................................52
PurposeandObjectives..................................................................................................................................52FramingtheResearch.....................................................................................................................................56ReflexivityStatement......................................................................................................................................57ResearchDesign................................................................................................................................................58ResearchContextandCaseStudyPopulation......................................................................................63SelectingtheFacilitator.................................................................................................................................65InterventionTreatments...............................................................................................................................65SurveyInstrument...........................................................................................................................................66FocusGroupInterviews.................................................................................................................................67DataCollection...................................................................................................................................................68ProceduresUsed...............................................................................................................................................70DataAnalysis......................................................................................................................................................72
ResearchQuestionOne........................................................................................................................72ResearchQuestionTwo.......................................................................................................................72ResearchQuestionThree....................................................................................................................73ResearchQuestionFour.......................................................................................................................73ResearchQuestionFive........................................................................................................................74ResearchQuestionSix...........................................................................................................................74
SummaryoftheMethodology.....................................................................................................................75
CHAPTERFOUR:RESULTS................................................................................................................................76
ResearchQuestionOne..................................................................................................................................76ResearchQuestionTwo.................................................................................................................................78Pre‐testandPost‐testAnalysis..............................................................................................................81Pre‐test,Post‐testandDelayedPost‐testAnalysis.......................................................................83
ResearchQuestionThree..............................................................................................................................84SWOTIntervention.....................................................................................................................................85AiIntervention..............................................................................................................................................87InterventionComparisons.......................................................................................................................90
ResearchQuestionFour................................................................................................................................90Category:EmotionalReactionstotheInterventions...................................................................93Category:ImpactofInterventionsonVisionClarity....................................................................95Category:ImpactofInterventionsonOrganizationalCommitment.....................................98Category:DepartmentCulture.............................................................................................................100
ResearchQuestionFive................................................................................................................................103ResearchQuestionSix..................................................................................................................................104
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
ix
Summary............................................................................................................................................................106
CHAPTERFIVE:DISCUSSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS................................................................107StatementoftheProblem...........................................................................................................................107ResearchQuestions.......................................................................................................................................108ReviewofMethodology...............................................................................................................................108SummaryandDiscussionofResults......................................................................................................109ResearchQuestionOne,ResultsSummary.....................................................................................109ResearchQuestionTwo,ResultsSummary....................................................................................111ResearchQuestionThree,ResultsSummary.................................................................................112ResearchQuestionFour,ResultsSummary...................................................................................113ResearchQuestionFive,ResultsSummary....................................................................................115ResearchQuestionSix,ResultsSummary.......................................................................................116
RelationshipofFindingstoTheoreticalBasisoftheStudy..........................................................121RecommendationsforPractice................................................................................................................124RecommendationsforResearch..............................................................................................................125Researcher’sReflectionsandInsights...................................................................................................126Summary............................................................................................................................................................126
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................128
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................................136
A. Copyofthepre‐testthatwasadministeredonlineviaqualtircs.........................................136B. Copyofthepost‐testadministeredviapaperandpen............................................................137C. Departmentvisionandmission(asstatedontheirwebsite)...............................................140D. Departmentdirectorstudyannouncementandletterofsupport......................................141E. Initialemailinvitingstaffmemberstoparticipateinthestudy...........................................142F. Initialletterandremindertoparticipantsinvitingthemtotakethepre‐test...............143G. Departmentobservationprotocol....................................................................................................145H. ResearcherobservationsofaiinterventionfollowingtheestablishedprotocoL........147I. Researcherobservationsofswotinterventionfollowingtheestablishedprotocol...150J. Delayedpost‐test......................................................................................................................................153K. Emailinvitationtoparticipantsfordelayedpost‐test.............................................................154L. Emailremindertoparticipantsfordelayedpost‐test..............................................................155M. Departmentfocusgroupinterviewprotocol................................................................................156N. aprioripropositions...............................................................................................................................158O. Alignmentofresearchquestions,propositions,interviewquestions,andsupporting
literature......................................................................................................................................................160P. IRBletterofapproval.............................................................................................................................162Q. Theframeworkforthebrainstormingactivity...........................................................................163
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
x
R. Solutionsbrainstormingactivity.......................................................................................................164S. SWOTforone‐on‐onewithfaculty...................................................................................................166T. Aiinterviewguide....................................................................................................................................169U. Photocopiesoftheimagesdrawnduringthedreamphase...................................................172V. Photocopiesoftheainarrativeswrittenbystaff.......................................................................178W. Compilationofthemesandcodes.....................................................................................................180X. Informedconsentforparticipantsinresearchprojectsinvolvinghumansubjects...187
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
xi
LISTOFTABLES4‐1 Variancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrossalltests…....794‐2 Variancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrossalltests…………………………..794‐3 Variancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrosspre‐testand
post‐test…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….804‐4 Variancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrosspre‐testandpost‐test……...804‐5 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitment
constructconsideringpre/posttests…………………………………………………………………..824‐6 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstruct
consideringpre/posttests…………………………………………………………………..………….….834‐7 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitment
constructconsideringallthreetests……………………………………………………………….......844‐8 RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstruct
consideringallthreetests……..………......………………………………………………………………..844‐9 Themesbyinterventiontreatment......……………………………………………………………….1055‐1 Themesbyinterventiontreatmentandchangegroups…………………............................117
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
xii
LISTOFFIGURES 1‐1 Thevisioningprocessmodel(orvisioningpathway)…………………………...........................72‐1 Strategicplanningandmanagementconceptualframework………………………………..272‐2 SWOTanalysismatrix………………………………………………………………………………………...302‐3 The4‐Dcycleofappreciativeinquiry………….…………………………………………………........412‐4 Appreciativeinquiry5‐Dcycle………….………….……………………………………………………..433‐1 Mappingcasestudyobjectivestoresearchdesignandmethods…………………….…….553‐2 Explanatorysequentialresearchdesign……………………………………………………………..624‐1 Meanscoreoftheorganizationalcommitmentconstructforbothintervention
treatments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………774‐2 Meanscoreofthevisionclarityconstructforbothinterventiontreatments………….784‐3 Emergingthemesfortheorganizationalvisioningcasestudy………………………………93
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
1
CHAPTERONE
INTRODUCTION
Awidelyaccepteddefinitionofleadershipisyettobeadoptedasresearchers
continuetodissecttherelationshipbetweenleaders,follower,andcontext(Winston
&Patterson,2006).Despitethemanyexistingdefinitionsofleadership,most
scholarswillagreeonthebasicassumptionthatleadersmustshareavisionthat
resonateswithothersfurtherinspiringthemtojointlytakeaction(e.g,Bass,1985;
Bennis&Nanus,1985;Kouzes&Posner,2007).Thisbeingsaid,acloserelationship
existsbetweenleadersandvisions(Schein,2010a).However,onlyasmallbodyof
researchhasinvestigatedtheunderstandingandpracticeofvisioning(Kantabutra,
2008).Amongstthesharedcharacteristicsofvisionattributes,avisionshouldhave
theabilitytoinspire(Kantabutra).Manyleadershiptheories,oneofthembeing
transformationalleadership,focusonbuildingarelationshipwithfollowers
(Berson,Shamir,Avolio,&Popper,2001).
Practitionersandconsultantsoforganizationaldevelopmentuseavarietyof
techniquestofacilitatestrategicplanning,visioning,andmanagement(Cummings&
Worley,2009;Rothwell,Sullivan,&McLean,2005).Thisthesisisanevaluationof
twoorganizationalvisioningstrategies.ThiscasestudycompareshowAppreciative
inquiry(Ai)andStrengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,Threats(SWOT)analysis
contributetoparticipants’perceptionsofvisionclarityandorganizational
commitment,aswellasthechangeinthesevariablesasaresultoftheinterventions.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
2
Thiscasestudyaimstocontributetothebodyofliteratureandtheprevailing
questionssurroundingorganizationalvisionandstrategicvisioningtechniques.
Thefirstchapterpresentsthebackgroundanddescribesthetheoreticaland
conceptualframeworksguidingthiscasestudy,theproblemstatement,purposeand
researchquestions,andsignificanceofthestudy.Lastly,thechapterconcludeswith
anoverviewofthemethodology,limitationsofthestudy,andadefinitionofterms.
Background
Thestudyofleadershiphasexpandedexponentiallyinthepastthreedecades
(Northouse,2012).Companiesareputtingmoreandmoreemployeesthrough
leadershipdevelopmentworkshops(Day,2000),whilecollegesanduniversitiesare
offeringleadershipstudiesasanacademicfocusandprovidingco‐curricular
programsforleadershipdevelopment(Dugan&Komives,2007).BusinessWeek
estimatedin1993thatcompaniesspentone‐fourthoftheirtotalannualbudget,
16.5billiondollars,onexecutiveeducationandleadershipdevelopmenteachyear
(Fulmer&Goldsmith,2001).Thetimeandmoneyspentonleadershipdevelopment
couldbeinresponsetothe“leadershipcrisis”thatexistswiththeexpectationthat
manytopexecutiveswillbeleavingwithinthenexttenyears(Caudron,1999;
Hammond,Muffs,&Sciascia,2001).UrielRosenthal,ArjenBoin,andComfort
(2001)suggestthecrisisisreoccurringinmodernsociety,affectingallsectorsof
people.Theinvestmentcouldalsobearesultof“wickedproblems;”problemsthat
arecomplexwithinter‐relateddilemmasatmultiplelevelsofsocietythatrequire
leadership(Horn&Weber,2007).Theperceivedneedforleadershiptrainingcould
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
3
alsobearesponsetoadvancesintechnologyandtheglobalmarket(Hickman,
2010).
Adistinctionbetweenmanagersandleadersmustbemade,astheyhave
differentrolesandskillsets.Leaders“developvisionsanddrivechanges”while
managers“monitorprogressandsolveproblems”(Jackson&Parry,2011,p.19).
Furthermore,leadershipscholarsagreethattheleader’sabilitytodevelopashared
visionisanintegralcomponentinthedefinitionofleadership(eg.Awamleh&
Gardner,1999;Bennis&Nanus,1985;Kouzes&Posner,2007;Northouse,2012).
Visionisanimageofanattractive,realistic,andbelievablefuture(Bennis&Nanus,
1985).Leadersmustfindacommonpurposeandenlistotherstobesuccessfulin
reachingtheirvision(Kouzes&Posner,2007).
Visionandthevisioningprocessareessentialtoleadership(Schein,2010b).
Visioningistheprocessbywhichleadersandadditionalmembersofthe
organizationcraftacleardirectionforthefuture.AsdeterminedbyKakabadse,
Kakabadse,andLee‐Davies(2005)throughasynthesisofliteratureonvisioning,
visioningcanbebrokendownintosixguidelines:
1. Frameyourorganization’smissionaroundintrinsicallyappealinggoals;
2. Incorporatepositivevalueswithstories;
3. Highlightkeybeliefcategories;
4. Employmoreanalogies,metaphorsetc.whenspeaking;
5. Whencommunicatingtryvariousrhetoricaltechniques;and
6. Allowemotionstosurface(Kakabadseetal.,p.238).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
4
Importantthemesrelatedtovisioningemergefromtheguidelines:repetitionof
corevalues,levelofpersonalcommitmenttothevision,andcommunicationofthe
vision(Kakabadseetal.).Kakabadse,Kakabadse,andLee‐Daviesalsonotedthe
moralresponsibilityoftheleadertoincludeindividuals’personalvaluesinthe
visioningjourney,“visionwithoutmoralityisnothinglessthanself‐interest”
(Kakabadseetal.,p.238).
SWOTandAiaretwotechniquesusedwithinorganizationaldevelopmentfor
visioning.SWOTanalysisisapopularmethodofstrategicplanningwithin
companiesandorganizationsduetoitssimple,yetthorough,approach.The
approachisusedbymanydifferentsectorsforcommunityvisioning(Singh&Kosi–
Katarmal,2009),corporatevisioning(O'Brien&Meadows,2000),andtodesignand
redesignthevision(Barker,2006).Aihasrecentlyemergedas“apositive
revolution”withinorganizationaldevelopment,andmanypractitionersareusing
thisapproachforstrategicvisioningandplanning(CooperriderandWhitney,2007).
Theapproachhasalsobeenusedtofacilitatewholesystemchangeinpublicand
non‐profitsectors(Finegold,Holland,&Lingham,2002).Cooperrider(1997)
expressestheuseofAiforcorporatevisioning,advocacy,and“buildingconnection
andcommitmentforthefuturedirections”(p.2).
Whileorganizationaldevelopmentprofessionalsareexpertsinthe
conversationoforganizationalvisioning,itshouldbenotedthatleaders,atalllevels
ofanorganization,areoftentheonesfacilitatingthevisioningprocess.Generally
speaking,leadershavetheautonomytodecidehowtheywanttofacilitate
conversationsofchangeandvisioning.SWOTanalysisandAiareinvestigatedas
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
5
twowaysinwhichleaderscouldfacilitatethisdialogue.Thepurposeofthisstudyis
todetermineifeitheroftheorganizationalvisioningtechniqueshasaneffecton
organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity,bothofwhichareconsideredtobe
vitalcomponentsofleadership.
TheoreticalFramework
Vision,akeycomponentofleadership,isinvestigatedthroughtheconceptual
frameworkproposedbyKouzesandPosner(2007).Theauthorsdefineavisionas
“anidealanduniqueimageofthefuture”(Kouzes&Posner,p22).Furtherthey
defineleadershipas“theartofmobilizingotherstowanttostruggleforshared
aspirations”(Kouzes&Posner,p20).Thesecommonlyaccepteddefinitionsand
conceptsareusedasaframeworkindevelopingthiscasestudy.
ThiscasestudyisinfluencedbytheresearchfromKouzesandPosner,which
issharedintheirbook,TheLeadershipChallenge.Basedonsurveyquestionnaires
andcaseanalysiscollectedforover25years,theauthorsidentifiedfivepracticesof
exemplaryleadership:modeltheway,inspireasharedvision,challengetheprocess,
enableotherstoact,andencouragetheheart(Kouzes&Posner,2007).Thiscase
studyisbasedontheirleadershipbehaviormodelwiththeassumptionthatoneof
therolesofaleaderisto“inspireasharedvision”.Inordertoinspireashared
vision,theleadermustenlistothers,findacommonpurpose,reflect,andlisten
deeplytoothers(Kouzes&Posner,2007).Whiletherearemanywaystoinspirea
sharedvision(eg.Kakabadseetal.,2005;Kouzes&Posner,2007),visioningand
articulatingthevisionarechallenging.AiandSWOTaretwoorganizational
visioningtechniquesthatcanhelpleadersfacilitatethisprocess.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
6
Withtheunderstandingthatleadersareresponsibleforinspiringashared
visionandfacilitatingchange,aVisioningProcessModelisusedtoshowcasethe
effectsandimportanceofvisioning.Assuch,thetechniquesbywhichvisioncanbe
createdareexaminedbasedonchangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvision
clarity.Thesevariablesareexaminedasaresultoftheirrelationshiptoleadership
andvisioningassuggestedbyKouzesandPosner.
Theleaders’abilitytoinspireasharedvisioncanbeassessedbyusingthe
VisioningProcessModel(Figure1‐1)composedbyKakabadseetal.(2005).Within
themodel,decisionsmadebytheleaderdeterminethevisioningoutcome.Further,
theleader’sactionsdeterminewhetherthedi‐visioningprocess(ie.failureto
achievegoals)orthevisioningprocesswilltakeplace.Theleader’sactionscanbe
dependentupontheorganizationalculture.Inorderforthevisioningprocessto
takeplace,theleadersmusthaveapersonalconvictionforthecause,commitment
fromtheseniorteam,fastfeedback,involvementfromtheworkforce,andtheymust
beabletoestablishavisioningculture(Kakabadseetal.,2005).Theauthors
suggestthatthepathwaytowardsvisioningadoptsaself‐perpetuatingadhesiveness
tothevision,whichlikelyincreasesorganizationalcommitment.Teambuy‐inis
enhancedthroughavisioningculture,andabondismadeifthecorrectvisioning
courseistaken.Themodelfurtherillustratestheimportanceandsignificanceof
visioning.Thevisioningpathwaychosenbytheleaderisproventohavenegativeor
positiveeffectsontheorganization.Moreover,muchoftheorganization’ssuccess
dependsontheleader’sabilitytoengageinacultureofvisioning,whichcouldbe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
7
facilitatedbyvariousstrategicplanningandvisioningtechniques(Kakabadseetal.,
2005).
Conversely,thepathwaytowardsdi‐visioningresultsinasurvivalistattitude
andinnegativeorganizationalperformanceandattitudes.Di‐visioningisthe
leader’sinabilitytoenactthefourcomponentsofthevisioningprocessandresults
inorganizationaldivision,conflictswithempowermentranks,internalwars
betweenemployees,andashort‐termorientationthatweakensthecompany
(Kakabadseetal.,2005).
Figure1‐1.Thevisioningprocessmodel(orvisioningpathway).From“VisioningthePathway:ALeadershipProcessModel,”byKakabadse,N.,Kakabadse,A.,&Lee‐Davies,L.(2005).EuropeanManagementJournal,23(2),p.244.Copyright2005byElsevier.Reprintwithpermission.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
8
Whileitisunderstoodthatvisionisintegraltoleadership,littleisunderstood
aboutattributesofaneffectivevision.Kantabutra(2008)summarizestheliterature
tohighlightcommonlysharedattributesofvisionstatements,whichincludebrevity,
clarity,futureorientation,stability,challenge,abstractness,anddesirability,or
abilitytoinspire.Theleaders’abilitytoinspireandsharethevisioncanbestudied
usinganumberofvariables.Visioncontent,communication,andattributeshave
beenfoundtocontributetoventuregrowth(Baum,Locke,&Kirkpatrick,1998).
Baumetal.(1998)foundittobeimperativethattheleadercommunicatethevision
tothecompanyandcultivateavision,bywhichthecontentrelatestotheinterests
ofthecompany’semployees.Dvir,Kass,andShamir(2004)notedthatanemotional
bondfromorganizationalcommitmentshouldbeformedduringthevisioning
process.Thisprocessalignsemployee’svalueswiththoseofthecompanyand,in
turn,employee’sorganizationalcommitmentispositivelyaffected.
ThewidelyrecognizedorganizationalcommitmentmodelcomposedbyAllen
andMeyer(1996)isbasedonthreecomponents:affective,cognitive,andnormative
commitment.Particularly,affectivecommitmentrelatestoanindividual’s
involvementandemotionalattachmenttotheorganization(Allen&Meyer).
Further,theliteraturenotesthatleadersareexpectedtogeneratehighlevelsof
organizationalcommitment(Dviretal.,2004).Evenmoreso,transformational
leadersareexpectedtogeneratehighlevelsoforganizationalcommitmentthrough
theirvisions,inspiringacommittedrelationshiptothecompanythatismoraland
personal(Dviretal.).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
9
Insummary,theconceptualmodelproposedbyKouzesandPosner(2007)
explainsthatinspiringasharedvisionisacriticalelementofleadership.As
mentionedbyKakabadseetal.(2005)intheVisioningProcessModel,
organizationalsuccessisdependentuponthevisioningordi‐visioningactionstaken
bytheleader.Thevisioningprocessmustbecommunicatedandfacilitatedinsucha
waythatemployeevaluesalignwithvaluesoftheorganization(Kakabadseetal.,
2005;Kouzes&Posner,2007).Further,leadersareexpectedtogeneratehighlevels
oforganizationalcommitmentthroughtheirvision(Dviretal.,2004).
ProblemStatement
Visionisconsideredtobeanintegralpartofleadership(Bass&Stogdill,
1990;Conger&Kanungo,1987).Avisionstatementdetailsan“imageofan
attractive,realistic,andbelievablefuture”(Bennis&Nanus,1985,p.89)that
providesasenseofdirectionfororganizationalmemberstofollow(eg.Kotter,1997;
Levin,2000;Porras&Collins,1994;Senge,1990).Visionhasalsobeenreportedto
beavitalpartofbusinessstrategyandplanning(eg.Porras&Collins,1994;
Schoemaker,1992;Vandermerwe,1995).Withthisunderstandingofvisionandthe
VisioningProcessModelprovidedbyKakabadseetal.(2005),itiseasytoseehow
essentialitisforaleadertobeabletocultivatesuchastatement.However,Kouzes
andPosner(2007)foundthatmanyleadersstrugglewithcreatingandarticulatinga
vision.Thisisdetrimentalconsideringtheimpactthatleadershaveindetermining
thesuccessofvisioningand,inturn,thesuccessoftheorganization.Wemustbe
abletounderstandandeffectivelyfacilitatevisioningwithinourorganizationsin
ordertosuccessfullymoveintothefuture.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
10
Despitethecommonuseoforganizationaldevelopmenttechniquesby
leaders,practitioners,andconsultantstofacilitatevisioning,thereisstillaneedto
analyzethetechniquesthemselves(Bushe&Kassam,2005;Leigh,2010).
Consideringhowmanycompaniesareinvestinginexecutiveeducationand
leadershipdevelopment,theeffectivenessofthetechniquesbeingusedoughttobe
animportantissue.Theapproachestoorganizationalvisioningandplanningneed
furtheranalysistodeterminetheiroutcomes,clarity,andreturnoninvestment
(Helms&Nixon,2010).Moreover,thereisagrowingneedtocomparethetwo
strategies,SWOTandAi,inordertohelpcompaniesandorganizationsdetermine
whichtechniqueismostappropriateforthem.
PurposeandResearchQuestions
Thepurposeofthisexplanatorysequentialmixedmethods(Creswell&Plano
Clark,2011)casestudyistounderstandtechniquesusedinorganizationalvisioning
byconvergingquantitativenumericaldataandqualitativethematicdata.Asdefined
byFinlay(1994,p.64)organizationalvisioninginvolves“activitieswhichcan
effectivelypushagroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,and
beyond‐the‐presentparadigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization.”
Multiplesourcesofdataareusedtodevelopandinformresearchmethods,in
additiontoelaboratingandclarifyingresultswiththeintenttoincrease
meaningfulnessandvalidityofconstructsandinquiryresults(Greene,Caracelli,&
Graham,1989).Inthisstudy,anorganizationalcommitmentquestionnaire(short
form)(Mowday,Steers,&Porter,1979)andavisionclarityquestionnaire,adapted
fromCole,Harris,andBernerth(2006),wereusedtomeasureorganizational
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
11
commitmentandvisionclarityandtheirrelationshiptointerventiontreatments,
Appreciativeinquiry(Ai)andStrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesandThreats
(SWOT).FollowingtheSWOTandAiinterventions,quantitativedatawascollected
andanalyzed.Organizationalvisioningwasexploredusingintervention
observationsandfocusgroupinterviewswithdepartmentstaff.Quantitativedata
analysisinformedthequalitativeselectionandprotocol;while,mixingofthe
qualitativeandquantitativedataoccurredduringdatacollectionandinterpretation.
Mixingdataprovidedabetterexplanationoforganizationalvisioningand
respondedtothecallformixedmethodsresearchbyStentz,PlanoClark,andMatkin
(2012).
Thethesisaimstoanswerthefollowingquestions:
1. Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybefore
andaftertheinterventions?
2. Whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity
withinandbetweentreatmentgroups?
3. Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?
4. Howdidparticipants’perceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?
5. Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressed
byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup?
6. Aretheresignificantdifferencesinpre‐testandpost‐testresultsbetween
interventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
12
SignificanceofStudy
DespitethepopularityofSWOTanalysisandtheattentiongainedbyAiin
organizationaldevelopment,thecurrentliteraturepossesseslittleresearchonthe
techniquesthemselves(Egan&Lancaster,2005;Helms&Nixon,2010;Wirtenberg,
Abrams,&Ott,2004).PreviousstudieshighlighttheneedforresearchonSWOT
analysis(Leigh,2010;Piercy&Giles,1989;Wirtenbergetal.,2004)andAi(Grant&
Humphries,2006;vanderHaar&Hosking,2004).Manyquestionshavebeenraised
abouttheoutcomes,clarity,returnoninvestment,andexecutionofboththese
methodologies.Moreover,thereisagrowingneedtocomparethetwotechniques.
Bycomparingstrategiesfororganizationalvisioning,companiesandorganizations
canbetterdeterminewhichtechniqueismostappropriateforthem(Rothwelletal.,
2005).
Manyorganizationshaveanannualretreattorecountthepreviousyearand
planforupcomingyears.Howdoorganizationalleadersfacilitateconversations
aboutthefuture?Howdoleadersfindcommonpurposeamongstmembers?How
doleaderscommunicatethevision?Doesthevisionstatementportrayvaluesthat
alignwiththevaluesheldbytheemployees?Doemployeesunderstandtheir
purposewithinanorganization?Thefieldoforganizationalvisioningand
leadershipwillbenefitfromthiscasestudyasitfurtherinvestigatesapproachesto
craftingasharedvision.Thiscasestudyexaminesina“real‐life”settingthe
executionofthestrategicvisioningtechniques:SWOTandAi.Whilethese
techniqueshavebeenwidelyaccepted,thereislittleresearchevaluatingthe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
13
methods.Heretofore,thiscasestudyintendstomakeacontributiontotheexisting
bodyofliteratureonAi,SWOT,andorganizationalvisioningtechniques.
OverviewofMethodology
Inthiscasestudy,participantsaredivided,halfofthestaffparticipatinginAi
andhalfparticipatinginSWOTanalysis.Anorganizationaldevelopmentconsultant
facilitatedbothSWOTandAiinterventiontreatmentsaccordingtoestablished
protocolsbyLeigh(2010)andCooperrider,Whitney,Stavros,andFry(2008),
respectively.Datawasgatheredfromresearcherobservation,focusgroup
interviews,andpre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpostinterventiontests.Testswere
derivedfromaorganizationalcommitmentquestionnaire(shortform)(Mowdayet
al.,1979)andavisionclarityquestionnaireadoptedfromColeetal.(2006).
Datawasexaminedusinganexplanatorysequentialmixedmethods
approach(Creswell,PlanoClark,Gutmann,&Hanson,2003).Throughthedesign,
qualitativedataisusedtoexplainandenhancethequantitativedata(Creswell&
PlanoClark,2011).ArepeatedmeasuresANOVA,withrandomsubjecteffects,
investigatedchangewithinandbetweeninterventiontreatmentgroups.This
analysisinformedthequalitativeselectionandprotocol.Qualitativedatafocusedon
perceptionsofthevisioningprocessandresultingeffects.Qualitativedatawas
analyzedusingtheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).Mixing
ofbothdatastrandsoccurredduringdatacollectionandinterpretation.The
methodsforthiscasestudywerechosentofullydescribethevisioningprocessand
capturemultiplesourcesofevidencerelatedtothephenomenaoforganizational
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
14
visioning.Themethodologyisfullydiscussedinchapterthreeofthethesis;please
referencethissectionforfurtherdetailsonthecasestudy’smixedmethodresearch.
LimitationsoftheStudy
Theresearcheracknowledgesthelimitationsofthethesisbeingthatofacase
study.Thestudyislimitedinitsfocusononedepartmentand,therefore,theresults
arenotgeneralizable.Duetolimitationsintimeandresources,theresearchonly
investigatestheparticipants’perceptionsoftheinterventions,changeinvision
clarity,andchangeinorganizationalcommitment.Theinterventionswerelimited
duetothetimeandresourcesoftheparticipants.DuringAiandSWOT,onlythe
firsttwophasesofAiwerecompleted,discoveryanddream,andonlyoneSWOT
wasfullydevelopedwithineachfourhoursession.Thiscasestudydoesnotattempt
toresearchthelong‐termeffectsofthestrategicplanningorvisioningtechniques
northerateofvisionimplementationasaresultofSWOTandAi,becauseitwould
takeapproximatelythreetofiveyearstostudythegoalachievementsfromstrategic
planning.
DefinitionofTerms
Throughouttheliteratureinorganizationaldevelopmentthetermsstrategic
planning,strategicvisioning,changemanagement,andevenstrategicmanagement
areallusedtodescribesimilaractions.Averycloserelationshipexistsbetween
planningandvisioningwithinanorganization.ThisiswellexplainedbyStavros,
Cooperrider,andKelley(2003,p.2),“changerequiresaction.Actionrequiresa
plan.Aplanrequiresstrategy.Astrategyrequiresgoalsandenablingobjectives.
Goalsandobjectivesrequireamission.Amissionisdefinedbyavision.Avisionis
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
15
setbyone’svalues.”Additionally,organizationalvisioningadoptsthedefinitionfor
strategicvisioningand,forpurposesofthispaper,thetermorganizationalvisioning
referstotheprocessthattakesplacewithinanorganizationtoplanandcultivatea
desirablefuture.
Listedbelowarekeytermsofthethesis.
AffectiveCommitment:Theaffectivecomponentoforganizationalcommitment
refersto“employees'emotionalattachmentto,identificationwith,and
involvementin,theorganization”(Allen&Meyer,1990,p.1).
Appreciativeinquiry(Ai):Apractitioner‐orienteddefinition,“isthecooperative
co‐evolutionarysearchforthebestinpeople,theirorganizations,andtheworld
aroundthem.Itinvolvesthediscoveryofwhatgives‘life’toalivingsystem
whenitismosteffective,alive,andconstructivelycapableineconomic,
ecological,andhumanterms.Aiinvolvestheartandscienceofaskingquestions
thatstrengthenasystem’scapacitytoapprehend,anticipate,andheighten
positivepotential”(Cooperrideretal.,2008,p.3).
Intervention:“Anyactiononthepartofachangeagent.Interventioncarriesthe
implicationthattheactionisplannedanddeliberateandpresumablyfunctional.
Manysuggestthatanorganizationaldevelopmentinterventionrequiresvalid
information,freechoice,andahighdegreeofownershipbytheclientsystemof
thecourseofaction”(Cummings&Worley,2009,p.750).
Leadership:"(1)Arelationshipbasedoninfluence,(2)leadersandfollowers
developthatrelationship,(3)theyintendrealchanges,and(4)theyhavemutual
purposes"(Rost,1993,p.127).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
16
OrganizationalCommitment:“Therelativestrengthofanindividual’s
identificationwithandinvolvementinaparticularorganization”(Mowdayetal.,
1979,p.226).
OrganizationalDevelopment(OD):“First,forresearchandpracticeactivitytobe
consideredorganizationaldevelopment,itmustinvolvechangeinan
organization,oneormoreofitssystems,oritsmembersasawhole….Second,
researchandpracticecanbecalledorganizationaldevelopmentifitisintended
totransferachangecapabilitytotheclientsystem…Third,researchandpractice
canbecalledorganizationaldevelopmentiftheactivitiesinvolveadeliberate
andconsciousefforttoimprovetheperformanceoreffectivenessoftheclient
system”(Cummings&Worley,2009,pp.111‐112).
OrganizationalVisioning/StrategicVisioning:“Activitieswhichcaneffectively
pushagroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,andbeyond‐the‐
presentparadigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization”(Finlay,1994,
p.64).
Practitioner:“Agenerictermforpeoplepracticingorganizationaldevelopment.
Theseindividualsmayincludemanagersresponsiblefordevelopingtheir
organizationsordepartments,peoplespecializinginorganizationdevelopment
asaprofession,andpeoplespecializinginafieldcurrentlybeingintegratedwith
organizationaldevelopmentwhohavegainedsomefamiliaritywithand
competenceinorganizationaldevelopment”(Cummings&Worley,2009,p.
752).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
17
StrategicPlanning:“Adisciplinedefforttoproducefundamentaldecisionsand
actionsthatshapeandguidewhatanorganization(orotherentity)iswhatit
does,andwhyitdoesit”(Gupta&Govindarajan,2002,p.6).
StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreatsAnalysis(SWOT):“Anapproachto
consideringtheinhibitorsandenhancerstoperformancethatanorganization
encountersinbothitsinternalandexternalenvironments”(Boyd,Moore,
Williams,&Elbert,2011,p.1089).
Vision:“Animageofanattractive,realistic,andbelievablefuture”(Bennis&
Nanus,1985,p.89).The“mostdesirableoridealstatewhichwewouldlikeour
organizationtoachieveatsometimeinthefuture”(Finlay,1994,p.64).
VisionClarity:Theabilityto“translatethevisionfromwordstopictureswitha
vividdescriptionofwhatitwillbeliketoachieveyourgoal”(Collins&Porras,
1996,p.74).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
18
CHAPTERTWO
REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE
Theliteratureisreviewedtoevaluateresearchthatcontributestoarguments
madeinthestudy.Therelationalparadigmofleadershipisconsideredbecauseof
itsfocusonthemeaning‐makingprocessandtheconnectionithastovarious
techniquesoforganizationalvisioning.Theroleoftheleadertodevelopvisionand
createchangeisreviewedasanintegralpartofleadership.Thecomponentsand
techniquesofstrategicvisioningandplanningwithinorganizationaldevelopment
areanalyzedasaresultoftheirdistinctrelationshipwithinstrategicvisioning.
SWOTanalysis,apopularplanningtechnique,isexaminedtofurtherunderstandthe
background,characteristics,criticisms,andapplications.Arecentapproachinthe
literaturetostrategicplanningandvisioning,Ai,isevaluated,andthesamefactors
areinvestigated.Lastly,visionclarityandorganizationalcommitmentaredescribed
asadesiredoutcomebecauseoftheirtiestoleadership,theirimpactonthe
organization,andtheirrelevanceinthevisioningprocess.
Leadership:ARelationalUnderstanding
Rost(1993)suggestsaparadigmshiftinthestudyofleadershipfroman
industrialtoapost‐industrialunderstandingcenteredonthebeliefthatleadership
isrelational.Leadershipisnowunderstoodtobetransformative,learned,change,
andprocessoriented(Dugan&Komives,2007).Somescholarshavefurtherdefined
leadershipasasocialconstruction.Toexpand,leadershipisameaningmaking
processofwhichourunderstandingofleadershipissociallyconstructedthrough
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
19
ourownexperiences(Drath&Palus,1994).Individualscarrytheirownmental
modelofleadershipthathasbeendevelopedbasedoninteractionswithoneanother
(Gardner,1995).
Withinthepost‐industrialparadigm,leadershipisconsideredtobe"(1)a
relationshipbasedoninfluence,(2)leadersandfollowersdevelopthatrelationship,
(3)theyintendrealchanges,and(4)theyhavemutualpurposes"(Rost,1993,p.
127).Rostalsohighlightstheleader'sresponsibilitytofacilitatechange.The
definitionispowerfulbecauseoftheemphasisheputsonintendedchange.
Rost(1993)reviewsthemanyperspectivesonleadership,allofwhich
emphasizetheimportanceofaleader’sabilitytobevisionary.Thesebeliefshave
beenechoedbyNorthouse(2012)inhiswidelyreadleadershiptextbooks.Visionis
consideredtobeanattractiveimageofthefuturethatisbelievableandrealistic
(Bennis&Nanus,1985).Manydescribevisionastheleader’sabilitytoenvisionthe
futureandforecaststrategiesforthelongterm.Morden(1997)definesvision,“as
anorganizedperceptionorphenomenon.Itisanimaginedorperceivedpatternof
communalpossibilitiestowhichotherscanbedrawn,giventhenecessary
enthusiasmandmomentumonthepartoftheleaderwhoispromulgatingthat
vision”(p.668).WithinMorden’sdefinitionofvision,therelationalelementsofthe
paradigmshiftarepresentaswellastheideathatleadershipisasocial
construction.Mordennotestheleader’sresponsibilitytoinspireandenlistothers
inthevisioningprocess,aswellastheleader’sresponsibilitytoputthevisioninto
action.Thesecomponentsareidentifiedasthemesofimportanceinthevisioning
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
20
process.Manyscholarsdetailthenecessityfortheleadertocultivateashared
vision.
Theintegralrolevisioningplaysinvariousleadershipstyles,specifically
transformationalandcharismaticleadership,hasdrawntheattentionofmany
scholars.Transformationalleadershipdescribestheleader’sabilitytocreatea
visionandmotivateothersforacommonpurpose.Further,visionisanessential
componenttotransformationalleadership(Rost,1993).Leadersofthisstylemake
theirfollowersfeellikestakeholdersofthevisionandhighlightthecontributionsof
eachindividual,whichultimatelyleadstohigherperformancelevels(Bass,1985).
Thisvariesgreatlyfromtheindustrialdefinitionofatransactionalleader,who
focusesontheneedsofthefollowersinexchangeforresults(Bass).Bersonetal.
(2001)examinedtheinspirationalcontentof"strong"visionsandsuggestthat
"inspirationally'strong'visionstatements[generatedbytransformationalleaders]
willcontainthetypeofcontent[optimismandconfidence]thatwouldfoster
motivationalprocesses"(p.56).However,KouzesandPosner(2007)havefound
thatcreatingavisionandarticulatingthevisioncontinuestobeachallengefor
manyleaders.
TheLeader:VisionandChange
KouzesandPosner(2007)discovered,through25yearsofsurveysandcase
analysis,fivebestpracticesofleadership.Thepractices:modeltheway,inspirea
sharedvision,challengetheprocess,enableotherstoact,andencouragetheheart,
wereconcludedbasedonsharedpersonal‐bestleadershipexperiences(Kouzes&
Posner).Theauthorsadoptedthesefivepracticesascomponentstotheir
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
21
leadershipbehaviormodel.Oneofthesepractices,inspiringasharedvision,canbe
achievedbyimaginingthepossibilities,findingacommonpurpose,andreflecting
andactingontheenvisionedfuture(Kouzes&Posner).Insupportofthis,many
leadershipscholarshavefoundthatexemplaryleadersaredescribedbytheir
followersasvisionaryandinspirational(eg.Bass,1985;Baumetal.,1998;Bennis&
Nanus,1985;Bersonetal.,2001;Kouzes&Posner,2007;Northouse,2012;Shamir
&Eilam,2005).
KouzesandPosner(2007)arguefortheimportanceofreflectioninthe
visioningprocess,astheysharethatthemoretimealeaderspendsreflecting,the
greatertheirfuturetimeorientation.Further,reflectionallowsforadeeperfocus
onrichexperiencesthatcontributetoourconstructionofthefuture(Kouzes&
Posner).Theneedforleaderstolistendeeplytotheiremployeeswasexplainedas
animperativetactictounderstandingtheformulationofthecommonpurpose.
Additionally,commonpurposemustbesomethingthateveryoneintheorganization
believesinandcanrelatetoo;itmustreflectthecorevaluesoftheorganizationand
itsmembers.Visionattributes,content,andcommunicationareextremely
importantforleaderstobeeffectiveandforanorganizationtobesuccessful(Baum
etal.,1998).
KouzesandPosner(2007)drawattentiontothefactthatvisioningisthe
responsibilityoftheleader,andparticipationfrommembersinthisprocessis
stronglyencouraged.Throughoutthestrategicmanagementliterature,theroleof
strategicvisioningandplanningvariesgreatly,andsomedisagreementexistsasto
whetheritshouldbeatop‐downorbottom‐upexercise(Poister,Pitts,&Hamilton,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
22
2010).Manystudiessupporttheparticipationoftheworkforceincreatingavision
andbeingapartoftheplanningprocesswhichhasresultedingreaterperceived
impactsfortheorganization(e.g,Ludema&Barrett,2009;Poister&Streib,2005).
Dvir,Kass,andShamir(2004)alsofoundthatahighlevelofshared‐nessinvision
assimilationprocessesmadeforanaffectiveorganization.
Visionhasbeendiscussedwidelyasanecessarycomponenttoleadership
andasuccessfulorganization.Withoutaclearandspecificvision,manycompanies
failtoachievetheirgoals(Kakabadse&Kakabadse,1999).Kakabadseetal.(2005,
p.239)explainedthat,"visioningcombinesmanyaspectsofthestrategicleadership
processwithorganizationalfocusatalllevels."TheauthorsdevelopedaVisioning
ProcessModelasaframeworkthatdetailsapositiveandnegativetrajectoryof
organizationalsuccess.Theprinciplesunderlyingthepositivevisioningstepsagree
withthebestpracticesofaleaderfromtheperspectivesofKouzesandPosner
(2007).Theleader’sconvictionandneedforcommitmentbytheteamcorrelates
withtheneedforleaderstoinspireandenlistothersinthevision.Thelattertwo
steps,gettingfeedbackandcreatingavisionculture,correspondwithreflection,
dialogue,anddeeplisteningwithintheorganization.
AsRost(1993)stated,leadershipresultsinrealintendedchange.Kouzes
andPosner(2007)alsosuggestthatchangerequiresleadership.Theauthorsnoted
theworkofRosabethKanter:"leadershipisinextricablyconnectedwiththeprocess
ofinnovation"(Kouzes&Posner,p.165).Leadershelptobringaboutnewideas
andsolutionsinwhichtheyadvocateforimplementationthroughstrategic
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
23
decisions(Kanter,1983).Therearevarioustoolsandtechniquestoaidleadersin
theanalysisandfacilitationofchangewithinanorganization.
Thephenomenonofchangewithinorganizationshasbeenstudiedand
developedwithinthefieldoforganizationaldevelopment.Organizationalchangeis
extremelycomplex(Burke,2002;Svyantek&Brown,2000),andnewmodelswere
createdinanattempttoconceptualizethephenomenon.Somemodelsthat
conceptualizechangeinclude:Lewin'sChangeModel,theActionResearchModel,
andthePositiveModel.KurtLewinwasthefirsttoconceptualizeorganizational
changethroughathree‐stepchangemodelthatemphasizedfreezing,movement,
andunfreezing(Cummings&Worley,2009).Themodelhasbeenusedwidelybut,
inthelast20years,ithasreceivedgreatercriticismfromscholars.Burnes(2004)is
criticalofthemodel'stop‐downandmanagementdrivenapproachtochange,the
limitedfocusonsmallbusinessandprojectchanges,andthemodel'sexclusionof
therolepowerandpoliticsplayinorganizationalchange.
TheActionResearchModelrepresentsashiftinconceptualizing
organizationalchangefromalinear,industrial,andpositivistapproachtoanon‐
linearcomplex‐systemsapproach(Susman&Evered,1978).Theshiftfrom
“normal”sciencetocomplex‐systemsunderstandingoforganizationalchangewas
inresponsetotheworkofSvyantekandBrown(2000).Themodelisbasedupon
foursteps:plan,act,observe,reflect(Cummings&Worley,2009).Sincethe
inceptionofthemodelinthe1940s,manydivergentformshaveemergedtomeet
thecontemporarycomplexissuesfacingorganizations(Elden&Chisholm,1993).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
24
ThePositiveModelrepresentsanothershiftinorganizationalchangemodels
andorganizationaldevelopment.Thepreviousmodelsaredeficitbased;meaning
that,themodelsfocusonfixingorganizationalproblems.SWOTanalysisisanother
exampleofatechniquethatexistsintheproblem‐solvingparadigmof
organizationaldevelopment;whereas,thePositiveModelisfocusedonwhatthe
organizationisdoingright(Cummings&Worley,2009).Themodelreflectsthe
movementinthesocialsciencestowardspositiveorganizationalscholarshipand
positivepsychology;moreover,thesestudiesfocusonpositivedynamicswithin
organizationsthatgiverisetoextraordinaryoutcomes(Cameron,Dutton,&Quinn,
2003).ThePositiveModeldepictedinCummingsandWorley(2009)consistsoffive
phaseswhicharelargelybasedonAppreciativeinquiry(Ai).Aiwasdevelopedby
CooperriderandSrivastva(1987)asadeparturefromtraditionalwaysofthinking
aboutorganizationaldevelopment.TheliteratureonSWOTandAiisfurther
developedinthelatterportionoftheliteraturereview.
StrategicPlanningandVisioningwithinOrganizationalDevelopment
OrganizationaldevelopmentisdefinedbyCummingsandWorley(2009,p.1)
asa“professionalfieldofsocialactionandanareaofscientificinquiry.”Whilemany
definitionsoforganizationaldevelopmentexist,thefieldisbroadlyunderstoodin
thisway.CummingsandWorleysuggestthattherearethreecomponentsto
organizationaldevelopmentthatmustbemetinorderfortheprocesstobetermed
assuch.First,theorganizationaldevelopmentprocessmustresultinachangeto
someaspectoftheorganizationalsystem.Second,theremustbeatransferof
knowledgeorlearnedskilltotheclientsystem.Lastly,theremustbeevidenceof
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
25
improvementoranintentiontoimproveeffectivenesswithinanorganization
(Cummings&Worley).Withinthefieldoforganizationaldevelopment,
practitionersandconsultantsworktoimproveorganizationaleffectivenessthrough
avarietyofskills,tools,techniques,andanalyses.
Thefieldoforganizationaldevelopmenthasresearchedstrategicplanning,
strategicvisioning,andstrategicmanagement.Nag,Hambrick,andChen(2007)
synthesizedthemanyfragmenteddefinitionsofstrategicmanagementasdealing
“withthemajorintendedandemergentinitiativestakenbygeneralmanagerson
behalfofowners,involvingutilizationofresources,toenhancetheperformanceof
firmsintheirexternalenvironments”(p.944).Conceptually,strategicmanagement
focusesonorganizationalresourcesandperformance,whereasstrategicplanningis
relatedtothe“bigpicture”informulatingstrategytoaddressthefundamental
issuesfacinganorganization(Poisteretal.,2010).Likestrategicmanagement,
strategicplanningisanattempttosustainorganizationalsuccessandeffectiveness,
whichispromotedthroughanorganizationaldevelopmenttechniquethatmatches
thecompany’scultureandenvironment(Poister&Streib,2005).
Asvisioninterventionswithlargegroupsbecamepopularinthe1980sand
1990s(Bass&Stogdill,1990),agreateremphasiswasplacedonthevisioning
process,andstrategicvisioningbecameacommonlyusedphraseinthefieldof
organizationaldevelopment.Levin(2000)definesstrategicvisionasclearguidance
thatsetsthecontextfordevelopmentbaseduponaclearvisionofthefuture.Finlay
(2004,p.46)contendsthatthestrategicvisioningprocessis“aseriesofactivities
whichcaneffectivelypushagroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
26
andbeyond‐the‐presentparadigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization.”
Astrategicvisionthatissupportedbyandcreatedwithhelpoftheorganization’s
stakeholdersprovidesasharedresponsibilityforitsimplementation(Levin,2000).
Creationandexecutionofastrategicvisioncanbefacilitatedthroughthetechniques
practicedinorganizationaldevelopmentandcanbeabeneficialprocessto
strengthencompanyperformance.Kantabutra(2008)explainedtheneedforfuture
researchtoexaminetheconnectionsbetweenvisionsanddesirableperformance
outcomes.
Furthermore,strategicplanningplaysanintegralroleinorganizational
visioning.Withinthelifecycleofanorganization,visionisarticulatedatthree
salienttimes:“atfounding,whenfacingperiodsofdisruption,andwhen
purposefullyplanningforthefuture”(O'Connell,Hickerson,&Pillutla,2011,p.106).
HillandJones(2009)assertedthatdevelopmentofaclearvisionbytopleadersis
essentialtostrategicplanning.Planningoccurswhenleadersneedtoreexamine
organizationalcultureandoperationsorwhenorganizationaltransformationis
required.AsdescribedbyLangley(1988,p.44),“theplanningprocessservesan
importantroleingeneratinginformationforstrategicvisions.”Strategicplanningis
centeredonthemission,vision,andvaluesofanorganizationwhile,atthesame
time,visioningisnothingmorethananideauntilitisputintoaction.Planningand
visioningmustbebuiltoffoneanotherinorderforanorganizationtobesuccessful.
Inreviewoftheliteratureonstrategicmanagementandplanninginthe
publicsector,Poisteretal.(2010)synthesizedfindingsfrom34researcharticles
andcomposedamodeldiagramingtheresults(Figure2‐1).Theframeworkfirst
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
27
linkstheoperatingenvironmentofanorganizationasadeterminatetoapproaches
forstrategicplanning.Linktworepresentsthemajorimpactofinstitutionalcontext
onstrategicplanningandmanagement.Theorganization’sculture,leadership,
valuesystem,size,competitors,andmandatesaresomeofthedeterminatesof
institutionalcontextcitedintheliterature(Poisteretal.).
Figure2‐1.Strategicplanningandmanagementconceptualframework.From“Strategicmanagementresearchinthepublicsector:Areview,synthesis,andfuturedirections,”byPoister,T.H.,Pitts,D.W.,&HamiltonEdwards,L.(2010).TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,40(5),p.522.Copyright2010bySagePublications.Reprintedwithpermission.
Withinthisconceptualframework,anorganizationdevelopstheirstrategic
plan,whichistheninfluencedbyitsstrategycontentandapproachto
implementation.Theseinfluencesarerepresentedbylinksthreeandfouronthe
diagram,whilelinksfiveandsixrepresenttheiterativeprocessofstrategic
management.Linksevenrepresentsthethoughtthat,withthegenerationofanew
solution,anewproblemiscreated,andthereforeanotherplanisneeded.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
28
Intheirreviewoftheliterature,Poister,Pitts,andEdwards(2010)draw
attentiontothelackofresearchonlinkagesbetweentheprocessesofstrategic
planningandorganizationaloutcomes.Linkseight,nine,andtenrepresentthe
intentionsofstrategicmanagementtobringaboutdesiredoutcomes.Thelinks
relatetoenhancedorganizationalcapacitysuchasstrongerpartnership,improved
organizationalviability,andamorepositivepublicimage,aswellas,longterm
changesinperformance.Thereisanindirectrelationship,representedbylink
eleven,betweenorganizationalcapacityandperformanceimprovement,as
strengtheningofanorganization’scapacitycanresultinimprovedperformance.
Lastly,linktwelvefeaturesthefeedbackloopfromoutcomesthatinformthe
strategicmanagementprocess.Theframeworkishelpfulinsynthesizingthe
currentliteratureofstrategicplanningandmanagementtofurtherunderstandthe
fieldanddevelopfutureresearch.
SWOTAnalysis:ATraditionalApproachtoPlanningandVisioning
Background
Amongthestrategicplanningtechniquesinorganizationaldevelopment,
SWOTanalysisisanextremelypopulartechniquethatissimple,yetthorough.The
commonlyusedterm“SWOT”,alsoreferredtoasTOWSinsomemanagement
textbooks,isanacronymfororganizationalanalysisofstrengths,weaknesses,
opportunities,andthreats(Balamuralikrishna&Dugger,1995).SWOTis"an
approachtoconsideringtheinhibitorsandenhancerstoperformancethatan
organizationencountersinbothinternalandexternalenvironments”(Leigh,2010,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
29
p.1089).Strengthsareviewedasenhancersandweaknessesasinhibitorsto
desiredcompanyperformance.Strengthsandweaknessesareconsideredtobe
factorswithincontrolofthecompany,whileopportunitiesandthreatsarefactors
outsidethecontrolofthecompany.Further,opportunitiesarealsoviewedas
enhancersandthreatsasinhibitorstodesiredcompanyperformance(Leigh).
SWOTanalysisisintendedforidentificationofaspectsofcompanyperformancethat
canserveasabasisforstrategicplanning(Ghazinoory,Abdi,&Azadegan‐Mehr,
2011).
TheactualoriginatorofthetermSWOTisunknown,andmanyscholarshave
attemptedtoidentifyanauthoroftheproposedanalysis(Helms&Nixon,2010).
Despitethisfact,thetermSWOThasbeenusedanddocumentedintheliteraturefor
halfacentury.KurtLewin'sworkin1951isattributedforsettingupthe
groundworkforSWOTanalysis(Leigh,2010).Hebelievedthatorganizational
resultswereinfluencedbyvariousdrivingforcesandlimitingforces,whicharenow
termedasenhancersandinhibitors(Leigh).HelmsandNixon(2010)havealso
identifiedsourceswhocreditaStanfordprofessor,AlbertHumphrey,forbeingthe
originatorofSWOT.TwoHarvardprofessors,GeorgeAlbertSmithJr.andRonald
Christensen,werealsointerestedinasimilarconceptinthe1950s.They
investigatedtheextenttowhichacompanymatchedtheirstrategytotheir
competitiveenvironment(Leigh,2010).Later,Harvardhostedaconference
introducingSWOTanalysistobusinessmenandtheacademiccommunity.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
30
Characteristics
SWOTanalysisistypicallycompletedwithinafocusgroupinfoursequential
steps:“identifyingstakeholders,generatingSWOTs,categorizingSWOTswithina
2x2matrix,anddeliberatinghowbesttoaddressthoseSWOTs"(Leigh,2010,p.
1093).Individualsareinvitedtothefocusgroupbasedonthecontextof
organizationaldecisions.Ifthedecisionsmadewillaffectvariousgroupsofpeople,
thenitisadvisedthatthegroupberepresentedintheprocess.Itisalsoimportant
toconsiderwhohaspoweroverthefindingsandinterestintheissue.Focusgroups
areausefulwayofgainingperspectivefrommemberswithinanorganization.
Figure2‐2.SWOTanalysismatrix.From“SWOTanalysis,”byLeigh,D.(2010).HandbookofImprovingPerformanceintheWorkplace:Volumes1‐3,115‐140.Copyright2010bytheInternationalSocietyforPerformanceImprovement.Reprintedwithpermission.
AftertheSWOTprocesshasbeenexplained,membersofthegroupareasked
toidentifystrengthsandweaknessesofagivenstrategyaswellasopportunities
andthreatsforexternalfactors.SWOTsarethencategorized,usingaSWOTmatrix,
bytheperceivedinfluenceeachfactorhasonorganizationalperformance(Leigh,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
31
2010).Thelaststep,deliberation,involvesdiscussionofappropriateactionsbased
ontheSWOTfactors.Thedeliberationcouldhappenintheanalysissession,follow
upfocusgroups,orbywork‐groupstaskedwithformalinquiryofSWOTfactors
(Leigh).ChermackandKasshanna(2007)suggestedthat,“strategicdialoguemay
bethepartoftheSWOTanalysiswiththemostpotentialforcreatingchangein
participantviewpoints”(p.390).
HillandWestbrook(1997)detailedtheopinionofmanyproponentsof
SWOTwhosupportitsuseasarigorousanalyticaltool.Thetechniquehasthe
abilitytoanalyzewholesystemsaswellascriticallyevaluatespecificstrategies.
SWOTanalysisisclassifiedasaproblemsolvingtechniquethatprovidesa
frameworkfortheinvestigationoforganizationalstrategiesandperformance.
Strategiesareexaminedwiththeintenttofixandaddressissuesinternalorexternal
totheorganization.Furthermoretheanalysisofweaknessesandthreatswithinan
organizationshowcasesthemodelsexistenceinthedeficitparadigmof
organizationaldevelopmentasopposedtothesolutionsbasedparadigm.The
contemporaryapplicationsofSWOTanalysisinmarketresearchcontextsuse“hard”
datato“provideanobjectiveandimpartialviewoftheorganization’sinternaland
externalenvironment”(Leigh,2010,p.118).However,inbusinessstrategy
developmentcontexts“soft”dataisderivedfromtheopinionsofemployeesand
staffbasedontheholisticevaluationofinternalandexternalinfluencesofthe
organization(Leigh).
Manyscholars(eg.Balamuralikrishna&Dugger,1995;Glaister&Falshaw,
1999;Pickton&Wright,1998;Piercy&Giles,1989)havenotedSWOTanalysistobe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
32
oneofthemostcommonlyusedtoolsandtechniquesforstrategicplanningand
visioning.SWOTwasacorecomponenttomanyofthestrategicplanningprocesses
ofthe1970sand1980s.Thisapproachwasalsousedtohelpcompaniescreate
holisticplansandimprovementsinsteadoffocusingonindividualdepartments.The
strategicplanningprocessfoundinmanymodernbooksonbusinessstillincludesa
discussionofSWOTanalysis.ThisissupportedbyAllio(2006)ashenotesthat
therearefewconceptsanchoredtostrategicthinkinginthebusinessworldSWOT
analysisisoneofthem.Whilesomeimprovementshavebeenmadetostrategic
planningovertheyears,SWOTanalysisremainsatthecoreofthisprocess.
Thesimplicityandpracticalityoftheanalysisisamajorstrengthandserves
asacontributortoitspopularityintheworkplace(Pickton&Wright,1998).The
greatestadvantage,especiallyforsmalltomediumsizedenterprises,isthatitallows
managementtosurveyvariousareas,gaininsightintosignificantissuesandtake
actionaccordingly(Houben,Lenie,&Vanhoof,1999).SWOTanalysishasbeen
identifiedbymanyasanimportanttechniqueofstrategicplanningforleaders,
changeagents,andconsultantstohaveintheirtoolkit(Singh&Kosi–Katarmal,
2009).Thetechniqueisperceivedtobeespeciallyusefulinbusinessinresponding
tomarketforcesandplanningacompetitivestrategybasedontheexternal
environment(Helms&Nixon,2010).Mintzberg(1994)believesthatSWOTanalysis
isanunderlyingcomponentofallattemptstoformalizethestrategymaking
process.Manyscholars(eg.Ghazinooryetal.,2011;Helms&Nixon,2010;Pickton&
Wright,1998;Piercy&Giles,1989)notethatSWOTanalysisishighlyrecommended
withadditionalapproaches.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
33
Leigh(2010)recommendsasix‐stepSWOTanalysisinwhichadditional
synthesisandactionareintegratedintotheexperience.Hedetailsthestepsas1)
recruitingstakeholders,2)conveningthefocusgroup,3)identifyingand
categorizingSWOTs,4)analyzingSWOTs,5)synthesizingSWOTs,and6)
interpretingfindingsanddeliberatingaction.Inlattersteps,thedataisreduced
throughanalysis;while,patternsandrelationshipsareexposedbetweeninternal
andexternalfactorsinsynthesis.Lastly,strategiesandactionplansarecreatedin
responsetothepatternsthatemergedfromtheSWOTanalysissession.His
recommendationsareinresponsetothecritiquesofSWOTandstrategicplanning.
Critiques
DespiteSWOT'smanyproponentsandpopularitywithinorganizations,the
criticsofSWOTaremany.SWOThassufferedfromitspopularityinthatthe
techniqueisnormallypoorlyexecutedwithlittleeffect(Piercy&Giles,1989).
CriticismsconcerningSWOT’svalue,intent,effect,andreturnoninvestmentare
common;further,littleanalysisonthetoolitselfhasbeenconducted(Helms&
Nixon,2010).OneoftheconcernsisthatthereisaninabilitytoprioritizeSWOTsin
relationtooneanotherwhichresultsininsufficientdatatoaidindecisionmaking
(Leigh,2010).LeighnotedthatweightingfactorswithintheSWOTcouldenhance
itsuseasananalytictool.Somepractitionersinthefieldoforganizational
developmentarguethatasatechniqueSWOTlackedperceivedvalueoftheanalysis
(Wirtenbergetal.,2004).
SWOTanalysishasalsobeendiscreditedforthelackoftheorybackingthe
techniqueandbecauseofthismanyscholarshavesuggestedalternativesor
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
34
improvementstothetraditionalanalysis.Somescholarshavesuggestedtheory
buildingtostrengthenthestrategicplanningtechnique(Helms&Nixon,2010).
Valentin(2001)proposesaresource‐basedapproachtoSWOTanalysisthatis
derivedfromacontemporarystrategicmanagementtheory.Ghazinooryetal.
(2011)suggestthatintegrativestrategiesbedevelopedinadditiontosingular
strategiesrelatedtostrengths,weaknesses,opportunities,andthreats.The
Strengths,Opportunities,Aspirations,Resultsmodel(SOAR)isaproposedasan
integrativeframeworkforstrategicplanning(Stavrosetal.,2003).Stavrosand
Hinrichs(2007)suggestSOARasaframeworkthat“buildsonthebestoftheclassic
SWOTanalysisbyintegratingAppreciativeinquirywithastrategicplanning
frameworkandcreatingatransformationalprocess”(p.4).Inresponsetothe
evolutionofSWOT,theuseofthistoolbypractitioners,andthetrendsseenin
publications,Ghazinooryetal.proposethataresearchagendabecreatedto
strengthentheanalysis.
AstudybyHillandWestbrook(1997)lookedathowcompaniesand
consultantsusedSWOTanalysisasatechniqueforcorporatestrategyreview.The
mostalarmingconclusionwasthatnoneofthecompaniesintheirstudyusedthe
SWOToutputsinthelaterstagesofthestrategyprocess.Areasofconcernincluded
thelackoffactoranalysisorverification,thevaguedescriptionoffactors,andthe
consultantsmadeverydifferentlistsfromtheSWOTsgeneratedinthefocusgroup
(Hill&Westbrook).TheresearchersfoundSWOTtobeanineffectivemeansof
analysisorstrategyreview.SWOTanalysisleadtopoorresultsandwasconsidered
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
35
a“badpractice,”potentiallyinhibitingcompaniesfromusingbetterapproachesto
strategicplanning(Hill&Westbrook).
Inresponsetomanyofthesecritiques,ChangandHuang(2006)createda
quantifiedSWOTanalyticalmethodtoassesscontainerportperformanceinEast
Asia.ThismethodadoptstheconceptofMultiple‐AttributeDecisionMaking
(MADM)andusestheGrandStrategyMatrix.Theadditionoftheseconcepts
strengthenstheSWOTmodelandaddressessomeissuespreviouslyexperienced
whencombiningmodels.Thedecision‐makingiscomprisedoffourfactors,
alternatives,criteria,performance,andweight,whilethequantifiedanalytical
methodconsistoffollowingsevendetailedsteps(Chang&Huang).Withthis
enhancedversionofSWOTanalysis,anassessmentofportstrengthcanbe
determinedinadditiontosuggestingalternativestrategiesforcompetingports
(Chang&Huang).
Applications
SWOTanalysishasbeencommonlyusedasatechniqueforstrategicplanning
intheprivatesector.Thetechniquehasbeendocumentedforitsuseinsmalland
mediumsizedenterprises(Houbenetal.,1999).TheresearchconductedbyGlaister
andFalshaw(1999)foundthatSWOTwasthehighestrankedtechniqueforanalysis
amongstthecompaniessurveyedintheUnitedKingdom.PiercyandGiles(1989)
statedthatSWOTisthemostcommonlyusedandrecognizedtoolforstrategic
marketingaudits.SWOToriginatedasastrategyusedintheprivatesectorandhas
sincebeenappliedtothepublicsector(Bryson&Roering,1987).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
36
Inbothpublicandprivatesectors,thetechniquehasbeenappliedto
organizationalvisioning.O'BrienandMeadows(2000)describedSWOTasa
corporatevisioningtool.SWOThasbeendocumentedas"ausefultoolfor
communityvisioning"tohelpstructureconversationsandfocustheireffortsin
urbanplanningandcommunitydevelopment(Singh&Kosi–Katarmal,2009,p.25).
Additionally,KeaneKearns(1992,p.6)arguesforthenonprofitapplicationof
SWOTinthatit
“requiresdecisionmakerstoenvisiontheirorganizationinteractingwith
factorsinthedynamicexternalenvironmentthatcanfacilitateorimpede
progresstowardthemissionoftheenterprise.”
ASWOTanalysisisausefulstrategyindeterminingthecurrentstateofaffairs,
which,inturn,isanessentialstepinthevisioningprocess.
Zhang(2006)notedthatSWOTwasusedinhighereducationinstitutionsto
aidadministrationinmakingdecisionsfortheschoolandinitiatingnewprograms
(Balamuralikrishna&Dugger,1995).Managersofhealthcareorganizationsare
alsousingSWOTanalysisasastrategyformarketcompetition(vanWijngaarden,
Scholten,&vanWijk,2010).WhilemanyinthepublicsectorhaveusedSWOT
analysis,itisnotedthatspecialconsiderationmustbemadeforthe"uniquecycles
ofleadershipchanges,complexinternalandexternaldynamics,andthevarietyof
stakeholderswhohavediversedefinitionsofsuccessandfailure"(Rose&Cray,
2010,p.453).Inresponsetothepublicsectorenvironment,(vanWijngaarden,
Scholten,&vanWijk)developedanalternativemodeltoSWOTanalysisthat
reflectedtheissuesfacedbyorganizationsinthepublicsector.Therevisedmodel
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
37
integratessomeofthedesignprinciplesofSWOTbutisfoundedprimarilyon
stakeholderexpectations,resources,andcontextualdevelopments(van
Wijngaardenetal.,2010).
Leigh(2010)expandedonapplicationsoftheanalyticaltechniqueto
strategicplanning,needsassessments,andevaluationofchangeinitiatives.The
relationshipbetweenSWOTandstrategicplanninghasbeendiscussedearlierinthe
chapter.ASWOTanalysisisacommonapproachtoevaluationandcanbeseenin
manycontexts.Forexample,anevaluationofprivatesectorbanksinIndiawas
conductedusingtheCAMELmodelandaSWOTanalysistoassessspecificqualities
ofbanks(Singh&Kohli,2006).Inanothercase,aSWOTanalysiswasconductedto
evaluatethedeliveryofextensionserviceswithinthepublicsectorinAsianand
West‐Africancountries(Oladele&Sakagami,2004).
AppreciativeInquiry:ANewApproachtoPlanningandVisioning
BothSWOTandAiprovideanapproachtostrategicplanningandvisioning.
However,thetwotechniquesarequitedifferentintheirstyleandapproach.SWOT
analysisisrepresentativeofproblem‐basedmodelsoforganizationaldevelopment.
Thepositivemodel,inwhichAiissituated,representsarecentshifttosolution‐
basedmodelsoforganizationaldevelopment.Companies,organizations,and
communitiesshouldevaluateeachapproachbeforedetermininganappropriate
method.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
38
Background
Appreciativeinquiry(Ai)isrootedinradicalsocialconstructionismand
actionresearch.Socialconstructionismisaphilosophyofsciencethatbelieves
individualshaveaconsiderableinfluenceovertherealitythattheyperceiveand
experience;moreover,individualsgenerallycreatetheirownrealitythrough
collectivesymbolicandmentalprocesses(Cooperrideretal.,2008).Actionresearch
istheunderlyingbasisforcurrentorganizationaldevelopmentapproachesandthe
studyofchangingsocialsystems(Cummings&Worley,2009).Inthe1980sDavid
CooperriderandSureshSrivastvapresentedAiasacomplimenttotraditionalaction
researchapproaches(Fitzgerald,Murrell,&Newman,2001).Aiemergedfroma
theorybuildingprocessthatencouragedcollaborationwithinorganizations
(Cooperrider,1997).Previousmodelsofplannedchangeservedasthebasisfor
buildingapositivemodelfororganizationaldevelopment.
Appreciativeinquiryisanapproachtoorganizationaldevelopmentthatis
centeredonthepracticeofaskingpositivequestionsaboutsystempotential
(Cooperrider,1997).Apractice‐orienteddefinitionofAiisdescribedasa
"co‐evolutionarysearchforthebestinpeople,theirorganizations,
andtherelevantworldaroundthem.Initsbroadestfocus,itinvolves
systematicdiscoveryofwhatgives'life'toalivingsystemwhenitis
mostalive,mosteffective,andmostconstructivelycapablein
economic,ecological,andhumanterms.Aiinvolves,inacentralway,
theartandpracticeofaskingquestionsthatstrengthenasystem's
capacitytoapprehend,anticipate,andheightenpositivepotential.It
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
39
centrallyinvolvesthemobilizationofinquirythroughthecraftingof
the"unconditionalpositivequestion"often‐involvinghundredsor
sometimesthousandsofpeople"(Cooperrider&Srivastva,p.131).
Aiisanorganizationalinterventionthatallowsforcollaboration,inclusion,
imagination,andinnovation.
Aiis"morethanamethodortechnique"fororganizationaldevelopment,itis
"awayoflife"groundedintheorybasedonfiveunderlyingprinciples:
constructionist,simultaneity,poetic,anticipatory,andpositive(Cooperrider&
Srivastva,1987,p.131).Theconstructionistprincipleemphasizestheconnection
betweensociallyconstructedknowledgeandorganizationaldestiny(Cooperrider&
Srivastva,1987).Theleadermustovercomehabitualwaysofthinkinginorderto
"unleashtheimagination"ofindividualstoconstructthefuture(Cooperrideretal.,
p.8).Theprincipleofsimultaneityrecognizesthatinquiryandchangearenot
separatebutsimultaneousquestionsthatevokechange(Cooperrideretal.,2008).
Theleader,orchangeagent,mustarticulateprovocativequestionsfordiscoveryso
thatthefuturecanbeconceivedfromthestoriessharedthroughinquiry.Thepoetic
principleprovidesanunderstandingofhumanorganizations.Thisprinciplelooksat
organizationslikeanopenbookwiththeirstoriescontinuallybeingco‐authored,
providinganunlimitedsourcetofocusinquiry(Cooperrideretal.,2008).The
anticipatoryprinciplesuggeststhatthebehaviorofacompanycanbeinfluenced
andchangedbytheorganization'simageofthefuture.Thecollectiveimaginationof
anorganizationisacrucialresourceingeneratingconstructiveorganizational
change(Cooperrider&Whitney,2005).Lastly,thepositiveprincipleholdsthat
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
40
humanorganizationsareaffirmativesystems.Withinthissystemitisbelievedthat
humansrespondbesttopositivethoughtandknowledgethereforethe
organizationalsystemshouldalsooperate‐inthisfashion.Themomentumfroman
affirmativesystemfosterslastingandeffectivechangewhilepromotingteam
buildingandorganizationalcommitment(Cooperrideretal.).Theseprinciples
provideafoundationfromwhichAiisgrounded.
Characteristics
TheprinciplesofAiarerepresentedinthepracticeoftheAiapproach.The
Aicyclewasoriginallyorganizedintofourphasesofdiscovery,dream,design,and
destiny,ofwhichisknownasthe'4‐Dcycle'(Figure2‐3)(Cooperrideretal.,2008).
Thediscoveryphaseisatimefordiversemembersoftheorganizationor
communitytosharepositiveexperiences.Moreover,participantsdiscussindepth
theorganization’spositivecore(Cooperrideretal.,2008).Facilitationofthisphase
oftenincludesone‐on‐oneinterviewswithstaffbyconsultantsorthestaff
themselves.Duringtheinterview,staffmembersareaskedtosharepositiveand
meaningfulexperiencesfromworkingwithintheirorganizations.Interviewsvary
inlength,20minutestoanhour,dependingonthecircumstancesofthe
interventionorsummit.Highlightsfromtheinterviewsarethensharedinlarger
groups.Progressionintothenextphasecantakeplacethroughacontinuitysearch
thatfocusesonwhattheorganizationdoesbest.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
41
Figure2‐3.The4‐Dcycleofappreciativeinquiry.FromAppreciativeinquiryhandbook:Forleadersofchange,byCooperrider,D.L.,Whitney,D.,Stavros,J.M.,&Fry,R.(2008).Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.Copyright2008byCrownCustomPublishing.Reprintedwithpermission.
Thedreamphaseallowsparticipantstoenvisiontheirorganizationwitha
foundationbuiltontheexceptionalandpositiveexperiencesdiscussedinthe
previousphase.“Dreaming”usesparticipantstoriestoco‐constructavisionofthe
organization’spositiveinfluenceandimpact.Duringthisphaseparticipantsare
encouragedtobecreativeandshareimagesofhope.Acommonpromptusedby
practitionersisto“imagineyouhaveawakenedfromalong,deepsleep.Yougetup
torealizethateverythingisasyoualwaysdreameditwouldbe.Youridealstatehas
becomethereality”(Cooperrider,Whitney,&Stavros,2003,p.24).Thedream
phaseisgenerallyconductedinsmallgroupsworkingtoenvisiontheir
organization’spotential.
Thedesignphasearticulatesthesystemsandstructuresnecessarytosupport
positiveexperiencesandco‐createddreams.Participantshavetheopportunityto
co‐createdesignstatementsthathighlightthepositivequalitiesandrealities
discussedintheprevioustwophases(Cooperrideretal.,2003,p.24).These
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
42
statementscanalsodetailenvironmentsandrelationshipsthatmusttakeplacein
orderforthevisiontobecomeareality.Akeyactivityinthisphaseisthecreationof
anorganization’sarchitecture(D.L.Cooperrider&D.Whitney).Withinthedesign
phase,basicprojectplansbegintoformandparticipantsfeelempoweredtotake
action.
Thedestinyordeliveryphaseinvolveslanguagethatrelatestopractical
implementationofthosesystems.Participantsinthisphasecreatealistofinspired
action‐orientedtasksthatreflecttheworkofthepreviousphases(Cooperrider&
Whitney,2005).Akeyactivitywithinthedestinyphaseistheselectionofpossible
actiontasksandtheformationoftaskforcesthatdiscussandestablishprinciplesfor
futurework.
SincethefirstpublicationandconceptualizationofAiby(Cooperrider&
Whitney,2005)afifthphasehasbeenaddedtotheAicycle.Inthe5‐Dmodel
(Figure2‐4),“define”wasaddedasaprecursortothediscoveryphasetofocusthe
appreciativeinterventionaroundaspecificareaofinquiry.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
43
Figure2‐4.Appreciativeinquiry5‐Dcycle.FromAppreciativeinquiry:AnapproachforlearningandchangebasedonourownbestpracticesbyAcosta,A.&Douthwaite,B.2008.CopyrightattainedunderFairUse.Thisphasereflectsaffirmativetopicchoice,whichisatthecoreoftheAicycle
CooperriderandSrivastva(1987).Affirmativetopicsreflectareasthatareof
strategicimportancetoanorganizationandtheseareasmayexistattheindividual,
group,ororganizationallevel.
TwoofthemostcommonlyusedandsuccessfulwaystoapplyAiarewhole
systeminquiryandanAisummit(Cooperrideretal.,2008).AnAiSummit“isa
large‐scalemeetingprocessthatfocusesondiscoveringanddevelopingthe
organization’spositivechangecoreanddesigningitintoanorganization’sstrategic
businessprocesses,systems,andculture”(Cooperrider&Whitney,p.117).AnAi
Summitinviteseveryoneinanorganizationtoparticipate.Cooperriderand
Whitneynotedthatasuccessfulsummittakestime,generallythreetofourdays,and
attention.WhileAiisnotedforit’sapplicationtowholesystems,asWhitneyand
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
44
Trosten‐Bloom(2010)havepointedoutthetechniquecanbeusedinavarietyof
ways:coregroupinquiry,Ailearningteams,andmass‐mobilizedinquiry.
Aihasbeenwelcomedintothefieldoforganizationaldevelopmentwhile
subsequentlystarting“apositiverevolution”(Cooperrider&Whitney,2005).The
newfrontierofAihasbeendescribedasaprovocativeandgroundbreaking
paradigmofconsciousevolution(Hubbard,1998),andapartofthepositive
phenomenon(Cameronetal.,2003).BusheandCoetzer(1995)consideredthe
approachtobethegreatestadvancementinactionresearchinthepastdecade.The
approachisdistinguishedfromotherorganizationaldevelopmentapproaches
becauseoftheaffirmativevaluechoice(Fitzgeraldetal.,2001).Unlikeother
methodsortechniquesinorganizationaldevelopment,Aiisdescribedasa
worldviewthatshapesorganizationalinquiry.Inquiryisconsideredtobethemost
powerfultooloftheAiapproach.Continuousinquiryrequiresachangeintheway
individualsthink(Cooperrideretal.,2008).
Critiques
ThroughthedevelopmentofAi,CooperriderandSrivastva(1987)believed
thatinterviewsshouldbeconductedwithallemployeesworkingfromthebottom
uptolearnaboutpositiveexperiencesandsuperiorperformance,allthewhile
inspiringpositive,changeatthegrassrootslevel.However,thisapproachwas
ineffective,daunting,andlackedfocus."Themostimportantnextstepsfor
appreciativeinquirywillbeintheoreticalbreakthroughsinunderstanding
leadership,facilitationandchangeprocessesinsocialsystems”(Bushe,1999,p.14).
Additionally,thereisaneedforanalysisonAiandbetterdatacollectionontheAi
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
45
approachandrelatedoutcomes(eg.Bushe&Kassam,2005;Grant&Humphries,
2006;Messerschmidt,2008;vanderHaar&Hosking,2004).
Appreciativeinquiryhasnotreceivedasmanythreatsfora“productrecall”
asSWOT,whichcouldbeduetoitsrecentpopularity(Bushe&Kassam,2005)and
usebyconsultants(Rothwelletal.,2005).However,Aihasbeenavictimtomany
mythsandassumptionsrelatedtothepositiveandradicalchangemethod.As
describedbyFitzgeraldetal.(2001),Aiisverycommonlyassociatedwiththe
misconceptionthattheapproachfacilitateswarmandfuzzyexperienceswithgroup
hugs.Aiisperceivedtohavenobasisin“harddata.”AnotherassumptionisthatAi
cannotbeusedtoaddresscomplexorganizationalchangesbecausetheapproach
hidesbehindablanketofpositivethinking(Fitzgeraldetal.,2001).Lastly,many
believethatAiisaveryunbalancedapproachtoorganizationaldevelopmentand
otherapproachesthatuseproblem‐solvingtechniquesaremorebalanced
(Fitzgeraldetal.).
Applications
LikeSWOT,Aicanbeusedinadditiontootherapproachesforenhanced
outcomes(vanderHaar&Hosking,2004)anddataanalysis(Messerschmidt,2008).
AsdescribedbyvanderHaarandHosking(2004)arelationalconstructionist
approachtoAicouldderiveenormousbenefits.Aialsocomplimentsaction
researchapproachesaswellasinterventionapproacheswhichareusedamongst
practitionersoforganizationaldevelopment(Bushe&Coetzer,1995;Egan&
Lancaster,2005).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
46
Aihasbeenusedinmanyorganizationstofacilitatetransitionsinto
leadership(eg.Havens,Wood,&Leeman,2006;Keefe&Pesut,2004).
TransformationalchangehasalsobeenassociatedwithAi(Messerschmidt,2008),
howevernotallcasesintheirstudyresultedinachangeofthiscaliber.Busheand
Kassam(2005)determinedthatinorderfortransformationalchangetooccurasa
resultofAitheremustbeafocusonchanginghowpeoplethinkaswellasafocuson
supportingself‐organizingchangeprocessesthatflowfromnewideas.
Aiispracticedincommunitydevelopmentandisoftenincludedin
communitydevelopmenttextbooks(Haines&Green,2011)toshowcasethepower
ofdialogueforcommunitychange(Finegoldetal.,2002).ThefirstphaseofAi,
discover,isanexcellententrypointtolearnfromandconnectwithcommunity
memberswheninitiatingasset‐basedcommunitydevelopment(Mathie&
Cunningham,2003).Finegoldetal.foundmanysuccessfulapplicationsofAifor
wholesystemchangeinthepublicandnon‐profitsectorsaswellasinextension
work(Peutz&Kroth,2009).Aihasalsobeenusedforprogramevaluation(Norum,
Wells,Hoadley,&Geary,2002;Preskill&Catsambas,2006).
Withinhighereducation,studentaffairsstaffandfacultyuseappreciative
advisingasanapproachevolvedfromtheAiprinciples(Bloometal.,2009).
Appreciativeadvisingundertheseprinciplesencouragesastrengths‐based
mentoringapproach.Facultyprofessionaldevelopmentwassuccessfullyfacilitated
withtheapplicationofAi(Davis,2005).Cockell,McArthur‐Blair,andSchiller
(2012)suggestthatuniversitiesadoptAiinordertotransformmanyoftheexisting
systems,furtherimpactingthenextgenerationofpositivechangemakers.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
47
Aiisnotascommonlypublishedforitsuseintheprivatesectorin
comparisontothelongrangingandextensivereportsoncompany'suseofSWOT
analysis.Arecentbook,ThePowerofAppreciativeInquiry:Apracticalguideto
positivechange,byWhitneyandTrosten‐Bloom(2010)detailstheapplicationofAi
forbusinessandcommunityplanning.LudemaandBarrett(2009)discussedAi
summitsconductedbyvariousbusinessesthatyieldedhigherquarterlyprofitsand
lowercompanycosts.Berrisford(2005)conductedacasestudyonBBCtodiscover
howAiaffectedorganizationalchangeanddialogue.
VisionClarityandOrganizationalCommitment:ADesiredOutcome
Visionhasbeenestablishedasintegraltothedefinitionofleadership.In
additiontovision,transformationalleadershipfocusesontheemotionalbondand
relationshipsbetweenleadersandfollowers.Moreover,transformational
leadershipiswidelydiscussedasahighlysoughtafterapproachtoleadership,
furthersuggestingthatvisionandrelationshipsareadesiredoutcome.
Additionally,visionandorganizationalcommitmenthaverelationshipstodesired
organizationaloutcomessuchasperformanceandsuitability;therefore,thesetwo
variablesareexaminedfortheirrelationshiptoleadershipandorganizations.
Denison(1990)suggestedthattherearethreecomponentsofaneffective
organizationalvision:1)visionclarity,2)visionsupport,and3)stability.
Kantabutra(2008)summarizedthesharedcharacteristicsofvisionattributesby
otherscholarstoincludebrevity,clarity,futureorientation,stability,challenge,
abstractness,anddesirabilityorabilitytoinspire.Visionclarityisreferredtoas,
“havingawell‐articulated,easy‐to‐understandtarget,averyspecificgoalthat
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
48
providesdirectiontoothersintheorganization”(Denison,1990,p.375).
Communicationofthevisionisneededforemployeesofacompanytoclearly
understandtheirrolewithinanorganization.Theleaderalsoneedstoclearly
articulateandreinforcethevisionduringtimesofchangeandcrisis(Kotter,2007).
Visioncommunicationhasbeenfoundtobeanintegralcomponenttosuccessful
visioning(Kantabutra&Avery,2002).InTheLeadershipChallenge,byKouzesand
Posner(2007),theyincludetipsforarticulatingthevisionsuchthatthevisionis
motivational,inspiring,andcomesacrossasconversationalinsteadofstiffand
formal.
Visionsupport“impliessecuringthecommitmentfrompeoplethroughoutan
organizationforwhatthecompanyistryingtodo”(Denison,1990,p.375).As
mentioned,Kakabadseetal.(2005)believesthatseniorexecutivesupportis
essentialtothevisioningprocess;whileotherscholarsstresstheimportanceof
company‐wideinvolvement.VisionsupportrelatestoKouzesandPosner’s(2007)
model,“inspiringasharedvision,”inthattheemployeesmustfeelcommittedtothe
visionandinvestedinworkingtowardssuchaspirations.Andlastly,visionstability
referstothesustainedconsistencyofthevisionstatementovertime.Lynnaand
Akgünb(2001)assertthatastablevisionreducesconfusionandfrustrationfrom
employeesabouttheirroleintheorganizationandtheorganizationitself.
Visionhasbeenresearchedtoshowsignificantcontributionsto
organizationaleffectiveness(Zaccaro,2001).Ontheflipside,researchhasalso
shownthatthelackofvisionwithinorganizationhasresultedinfailedchange
management(Kakabadseetal.,2005;Porras&Collins,1994).Avery(2005)found
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
49
thatvisionwasimportanttoconsideringlong‐termperspectiveinEuropean
sustainableenterprises.Theauthorexplainedthatvisionprovidesacognitivemap
forthedistributionofresourceswithanorganization,whichcanbeespecially
helpfulforsustainability(Avery,2004).Instudyofhigh‐techemployees,Dviretal.
(2004)suggestedthatvisionformulationandcontentofsocial‐orientedvalueswere
positivelyrelatedtoaffectivecommitmenttotheorganization.
AllenandMeyer(1990)createdamodelwiththreecomponentsto
conceptualizeorganizationalcommitment.Theaffectivecomponentof
organizationalcommitmentrefersto“employees'emotionalattachmentto,
identificationwith,andinvolvementin,theorganization.”Thesecondcomponent,
continuancecommitment,refersto“commitmentbasedonthecoststhatemployees
associatewithleavingtheorganization.”Finally,thethirdcomponent,normative
commitment,“referstoemployees'feelingsofobligationtoremainwiththe
organization”(Allen&Meyer,p.1).Thestudyofthecomplexitieswithin
organizationalcommitmentisimportanttoleadershipandorganizationalsuccess
(Ash,Clayton,&Atkinson,2005).
Aparticularemphasishasbeenplacedonaffectivecommitmentinrelationto
variousleadershipstylesaswellasitsimpactonemployeeperformance,
satisfaction,andwell‐being.Affectiveorattitudinalcommitmentisoftenafocus
withinthefieldofleadership.Leaderscancultivateandenhanceaffective
commitmentastheybuildrelationshipswithfollowers.Morgan(1997)foundthat
transformationalleadershaveagreaterimpactonfollowers’affectivecommitment
thanontheirnormativecommitment.Leadermemberexchangealsocontributesto
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
50
therelationshipbetweentransformationalleadersandaffectivecommitment(Lee,
2005).WhitneyandTrosten‐Bloom(2010)suggested,alongwithmanyother
scholars,thatparticipativeleadershipstylesfosterafollowershipwithagreat
commitmenttotheirwork,higherlevelsofperformance,andgreatjobsatisfaction.
InastudybyPodsakoff,MacKenzie,andBommer(1996),transformational
leaderbehaviorisexaminedasadeterminantofemployeesatisfaction,commitment,
trust,andorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviors.Theauthorsfoundthat“onlyoneof
theleaderbehaviors(visionarticulation)hadasignificantmaineffecton
organizationalcommitment”(Podsakoffetal.,p.277).Thestudyalsoindicates
someenhancersoftheleadershipbehaviorcorrelationssuchthatintrinsically
satisfyingtasksaffectedthepositiverelationshipbetweenvisionarticulationand
generaljobsatisfaction.Theyfoundthatgroupcohesivenessenhancedthepositive
relationshipbetweenvisionarticulationandorganizationalcommitment.
Additionally,thepositiverelationshipbetweenvisionarticulationandroleclarity
wasinfluencedbytheemployee’sexperience,training,andknowledge.Thestudy
illustratestheconnectionbetweentheleaders’abilitytoarticulatethevisionand
employees’organizationalcommitment.
AnotherstudybyPodsakoffetal.(1996)featurestheconnectionbetween
articulationofthevisionandorganizationalcommitmentastheyrelatetothe
executionoforganizationalchange.Executionoforganizationalchangereferstothe
perceptionsofemployeeswithregardtotheintroductionofchangeandthe
processesthatunfoldasaresultofchange.Although,theresultssuggestedthat
executionoforganizationalchangeisthestrongestpredictoroforganizational
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
51
commitment;while,visionclarityplayedasupportingrolePodsakoffetal.(1996).
TheirresearchalsoagreeswiththeworkofColeetal.(2006)inthatvisionclarity
waspositivelycorrelatedwithorganizationalcommitment.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
52
CHAPTERTHREE
RESEARCHMETHODS
Withthemanycomplexitiessurroundingthevisioningprocess,amixed
methodsresearchapproachhasbecomeincreasinglyrelevantforthestudyofthis
leadershipphenomenon(Klenke,2008).Asamixedmethodscasestudy,this
researchsharesboththequalitativeandquantitativeperspectivesgeneratedfrom
multiplesourcesofevidence.Datatriangulationwaspurposefullyexecuted
accordingtothecasestudyguidelinessetbyYin(2009).Further,theresearch
designfollowsamixedmodelexplanatorysequentialdesignasdetailedbyCreswell
etal.(2003).Inthiscasestudy,quantitativedataisanalyzedtoinformthe
qualitativedatacollection.Theexplanatorysequentialdesignhasbeenreferredto
asaqualitativefollow‐upapproachinthatthequalitativedataelaboratesonthe
quantitativefindings(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Thedesignallowsforfurther
investigationoflearnedandspecificresults.Mixingofthedataoccursatdata
collectionandinterpretation.Quantitativedatawasanalyzedusingarepeated
measuresANOVAwithrandomsubjecteffectsandthequalitativedatawasanalyzed
usingtheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).
PurposeandObjectives
Thepurposeofthisexplanatorysequentialmixedmethodscasestudyisto
betterunderstandtechniquesusedinorganizationalvisioningbyconverging
quantitativenumericaldataandqualitativethematicdata.AsdefinedbyFinlay
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
53
(1994,p.64),organizationalvisioninginvolves“activitieswhichcaneffectivelypush
agroupofleadersofanorganizationtoaninspiring,rich,andbeyond‐the‐present
paradigmviewofapositivefuturefortheirorganization.”Multiplesourcesofdata
areusedtodevelopandinformresearchmethods,inadditiontoelaboratingand
clarifyingresultswiththeintenttoincreasemeaningfulnessandvalidityof
constructsandinquiryresults (Greeneetal.,1989).Inthisstudy,theorganizational
commitmentquestionnaire(shortform)(Mowdayetal.,1979)andavisionclarity
questionnaireadaptedfromColeetal.(2006)wasusedtomeasureorganizational
commitmentandvisionclarityandtheirrelationshiptointerventiontreatments:
Appreciativeinquiry(Ai)andStrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesandThreats
(SWOT).Followingquantitativedatacollectionandanalysis,organizational
visioningwasexploredusingfocusgroupinterviewswithstaffatVirginiaTech.
Quantitativedataanalysisinformedthequalitativeselectionandprotocol,while
mixingofthequalitativeandquantitativedataoccurredduringdatacollectionand
interpretationtoprovideamorethoroughexplanationoforganizationalvisioning.
Thethesisaimstoanswerthefollowingquestions:
1. Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybefore
andaftertheinterventions?
2. Whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity
withinandbetweentreatmentgroups?
3. Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?
4. Howdidparticipants’perceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
54
5. Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressed
byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup?
6. Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre/posttestresultsbetweenintervention
groupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?
Thefollowingfigureconnectstheresearchquestionstotheresearchdesignand
methods(Figure3.1).
Figure3‐1.Mappingcasestudyobjectivestoresearchdesignandmethods.Outlinesthedesignphase,methodsandprocedures,products,andobjectivesofthecasestudytotheexplanatorysequentialdesign.Adaptedfrom“Students’persistenceinadistributeddoctoralprogramineducationalleadershipinhighereducation:Amixedmethodsstudy,”byIvankova,N.V.,&Stick,S.L.(2007).ResearchinHigherEducation,48(1),93‐135.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
55
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
56
FramingtheResearch Itisnecessarytoconsiderthephilosophicalassumptionsassociatedwith
eachresearcherinordertobetterunderstandtheframeworkfromwhichthe
researchisderived.Theoriesrelatedtohowoneviewstheworldareepistemology,
ontology,axiology,rhetoric,andmethodology.Greene(2007)notedthe
evolutionaryhistoryofmixedmethodsresearchasafieldlargelydominatedby
positivismandthenpost‐positivism,bothofwhichcontrastwiththeworldviewof
constructivism.Unlikeconstructivism,positivismrejectstheuseofintuitive
knowledgeandbelievessocietyoperatesaccordingtogenerallaws.Researchers
whosubscribetothisparadigmfindtruthonlyinscientificknowledgederivedfrom
asensoryexperience.Conversely,individualssituatedinconstructivismbelieve
thatrealityissubjectiveandexperiential,meaningthathumansconstructtheirown
socialrealitiesinrelationtooneanother(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2008).
Manyresearchersagreethatthe“best”worldviewformixedmethods
researchispragmatism,aparadigmnotcommittedtoanyonesystemofrealityor
philosophy(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Pragmatismvaluesbothobjectiveand
subjectiveknowledgeandbelievesinthecollectionofbothqualitativeand
quantitativedatatoaddresstheresearchquestion(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2008).
Theresearchdesignchosenforthisstudyexistswithinthepost‐positivistand
constructivistparadigmsasonephaseoftheresearchconnectsandinformsthe
latterphase(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Asamixedmethodsresearcher,Iadopt
thepragmaticparadigmanditisfromthisworldviewthatthestudyhasbeen
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
57
conducted.Thepragmaticparadigmappropriatelyanswerstheresearchquestion
underinvestigationandfostersamixedmethodswayofthinking.
ReflexivityStatement
Iama25year‐old,single,white,heterosexualfemale.Iwasborninrural
Virginia,andIaminthelowermiddleclass.Iamamasters’studentinthe
departmentofAgriculturalandExtensionEducationatVirginiaTech.Asagraduate
student,Iparticipatedinourdepartmentretreat,whichwasfacilitatedusing
Appreciativeinquiry.Ayearlater,ourdepartmenthadanotherretreatthatwas
structuredaccordingtoSWOTanalysis.Withinthistime,manyofmybeliefsabout
organizationalvisioningwereformed.DuringthedepartmentretreatIfoundthat
thetimespentwitheveryonefromthedepartmentwasvaluable.Ibelieveinan
inclusiveandbottom‐upapproachtostrategicplanningandvisioning,becauseI
valuetheopinionsandcontributionsofothers.
Throughthedepartment’sretreat,Igainedamuchdeeperandbroader
understandingofmydepartment.Idevelopedperspectiveonthecontextinwhich
thedepartmentexistsandhowthatimpactsthedecisionswehavemadeandwill
make.Ifeltassenseaunityandenergysurroundingourwork.Ialsofoundthatthe
workwedidattheretreathelpedtoguideoureffortsthroughouttheyear.
Thevisioningandplanningrequiredduringthedepartmentretreatwasa
challengingprocessforothersandmyself.Iwaschallengedtoconsiderthecurrent
stateofaffairswhiletryingtoconceivewhatthefutureshouldlooklike.Envisioning
thefuturewasfrustratingandtimeconsuming.Itwasalsochallengingtoenvision
howourdepartmentwassituatedwithinotherstrategicplansandresearch
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
58
agendas.Ifoundtheactofvisioningtobesomethingthatwasoutofmycomfort
zoneandunlikemynormalthoughtprocess.Fromthisexperience,Ifoundthe
facilitationofavisioningprocessand/ordepartmentretreattobeextremely
important.Thestructureoftheretreathelpedtoinformandfacilitatethevisioning
processforeachindividual.Ibelievethatfacilitatingapositivevisioningexperience
duringanannualretreatsetsthetonefortherestoftheyear.
ResearchDesign
Acasestudywasusedforthisresearchasanexplanatorystrategytoanswer
howandwhyquestionsofthiscontemporaryphenomena.Casestudiesoffer
explanationsofpresumedcausallinksinreal‐lifeinterventionsthataretoocomplex
forasinglesurveytoexplain(Yin,2009).Yinstatesthatcasestudyinquiry:
1. Copeswiththetechnicallydistinctivesituationinwhichtherewillbemany
morevariablesofinterestthandatapoints,andasoneresult
2. Reliesonmultiplesourcesofevidence,withdataneedingtoconvergeina
triangulationfashion,andasanotherresult
3. Benefitsfromthepriordevelopmentoftheoreticalpropositionstoguidedata
collectionandanalysis.(p.18)
Researchofthiskindisespeciallyrelevantforstudieswithsmallpopulationsizes
thatcancollectmultiplesourcesofdata.Theabilitytoconvergeavarietyofdata
pointssuchasresearcherobservation,interviews,pre‐testsandpost‐tests,for
purposesofcorroborationisuniquetocasestudies.Havingmultiplesourcesofdata
increasesconstructvalidityandinquirywithinagivenstudy(Greeneetal.,1989).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
59
Moreover,thetriangulationofdataisaclassicexampleofmixedmethodsresearch
andevaluation(Greeneetal.).Theculminationofevidenceprovidesaricherand
moredescriptivecasestudyaswellasmixedmethodsstudy.
Asmentionedpreviously,mixedmethodsresearchiscommonlybeingused
tostudythemanycomplexitiesofleadership,visioningbeingoneofthem.Given
thatthismethodologyhasemergedwithgreatcontroversyoverparadigmsand
terminology,theresearchperformedinthisstudyadoptsCreswellandPlanoClark
(2007)definitionofmixedmethods.Theseauthorsbelievethat:
Mixedmethodsresearchisaresearchdesignwithphilosophicalassumptions
aswellasmethodsofinquiry.Asamethodology,itinvolvesphilosophical
assumptionsthatguidethedirectionofthecollectionandtheanalysisofdata
andthemixtureofqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesinmanyphasesin
theresearchprocess.Asamethod,itfocusesoncollecting,analyzing,and
mixingbothqualitativeandquantitativedatainasinglestudyorseriesof
studies.(p.5)
Theygoontosaythatadeeperunderstandingoftheresearchphenomenoncanbe
fosteredthroughtheuseofmixedmethodsresearch,asopposedtoasinglemethod
(Creswell&PlanoClark).
Withinmixedmethods,thereareavarietyofwaystodesignandconduct
research.Thereasonsformixingdatainthisthesisareforthepurposesof
corroborationandelaboration(Greeneetal.,1989)thatareevidentinthe
triangulationfoundationsofacasestudyaswellastheexplanatoryresearchdesign.
Theresearcherhaschosentoadoptanexplanatorysequentialdesignforthestudy
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
60
basedonitsframeworkandrelevancytotheresearchquestions.Tashakkoriand
Teddlie(2003)definethemodelas,“amulti‐strandmixeddesigninwhichthe
conclusionsthataremadeonthebasisoftheresultsofthefirststrandleadto
formulationofquestions,datacollectionanddataanalysisforthenextstrand”(p.
715).Further,thepurposeofthisdesignistoexplainthequantitativeresultswith
qualitativedata.Theimplementationofquantitativeandqualitativemethodsinthe
explanatorysequentialdesignissharedbelow.
Everyparticipantwasaskedtotakeapre‐testtwoweeksbeforethe
interventions(AppendixF).Thismeasurementoftimewaschosentoavoidtest‐
retestbiasandcomplementtheavailabilityoftheparticipants(Dillman,Smyth,&
Christian,2008).Thepre‐testincludedquestionsfromorganizationalcommitment
andvisionclarityconstructs(AppendixA).Thequestionnairewasdesignedbased
onaportionofasurveyinastudybyColeetal.(2006)todeterminethe
implicationsoforganizationalchange.Anexpertpanelwasusedtoensurevalidity
ofthepre‐testquestionnaire.Theresultsofthepre‐testdeterminedwhich
participantswereininterventiontreatmentone(SWOTanalysis)ortreatmenttwo
(Ai).Aneffortwasmadetoestablishequalconstructaveragesacrosstreatment
groupswhileaccommodatingparticipantschedules.
Allparticipantswereaskedtomeetbeforethestudycommencedtoprovide
overallinstructionandframingfortheorganizationalvisioningsessions.The
interventionswereconductedintwoconsecutivedaysbythesamefacilitatorand
eachinterventionlastedapproximatelyfourhours.Thefacilitatorwasa
professionalconsultantinthefieldoforganizationaldevelopmentwithexperience
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
61
infacilitatingbothtechniquesusedinstrategicplanningandvisioning.Treatment
onewasconductedintheafternoon,whiletreatmenttwowasconductedinthe
morning.Carefulplanningandpreparationbythefacilitatorensuredthatboth
treatmentslastedthesameamountoftime(fourhours)inordertokeepthelength
oftimeaconstantvariableinthestudy.Onceeachinterventionwasfinished,the
participantswereaskedtocompleteapost‐testtodetermineanychangesin
organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity(Figure3.2.).Thepost‐testconsisted
ofthesamequestionsaskedinthepre‐testaswellasafreeresponsesectionin
whichparticipantswereabletosharecommentsorfeedbackabouttheintervention
(AppendixB).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
62
Figure3‐2.Explanatorysequentialresearchdesign.Theresearchdesignforthiscasestudybasedonthemixedmodelexplanatorysequentialdesign.Adaptedfrom“MixedModelExplanatorySequentialDesign”byTashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2003).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Post Test - Quantitative Data Collection - Immediately after intervention
- Determine changes in Organizational Commitment and Vision Clarity
Focus Groups – Qualitative Data Collection - Questions are determined based on the quantitative analysis - Participants are selected based on the quantitative analysis
SWOT Analysis Strengths & Weaknesses Opportunities & Threats
Appreciative Inquiry Discovery Phase
Dream Phase
Pre Test - Quantitative Data Collection - Administer 2 weeks before intervention
- Determine levels of Organizational Commitment and Vision Clarity - Assign ID number
-Establish equal levels of Organizational Commitment and Vision Clarity within groups + random assignment
Delayed Post Test – Quantitative Data Collection - Follow up 4 -6 weeks later
Complete Quantitative Data Analysis
Complete Qualitative Data Analysis
Integration of the Quantitative and Qualitative Results
Combined Session - Participants come together to discuss the intervention experience
- Not observed by the researcher
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
63
Thefacilitatorconductedadiscussionsessionondaythreewiththestaffand
directortosharetheexperiencesandideasgeneratedfrombothtreatments.The
activitiesthattookplaceinphasetwowerenotdocumentedorresearcheddirectly
asapartofthiscasestudy.Thegoalsgeneratedfromstrategicvisioningand
planningsessionscantakemanyyearstocomplete,whichcouldnotbestudieddue
tolimitedtimeandresources.Adelayedpost‐testwasadministeredsixweeksafter
theintervention(AppendixK&L).
Participantswereinvitedtoparticipateinfocusgroupinterviewstocollect
follow‐upqualitativedatadrawnfromtheinformationcollectedfromphaseoneof
thestudy:pre‐test,post‐test,andobservationaldata.Thefocusgroupinterviews
wereintendedtofurtherexplaintheparticipants’perceptionsoftheintervention,
theirorganizationalcommitment,andtheirunderstandingofthevision.The
interviewstookplaceoveramonthaftertheinterventions.
ResearchContextandCaseStudyPopulation
VirginiaPolytechnicStateUniversityisalargelandgrantuniversityinthe
SoutheasternareaoftheUnitedStates.Theresearchcoveredathree‐monthperiod
fromJulytoSeptember,2012.
ThestudentaffairsdepartmentatVirginiaTechconsistsofapproximately40
employees,includinginternsandstudentworkers.Withinthelast18monthsthe
departmenthiredsixnewfulltimestaffmembers.Additionally,thedirectorhad
beenabsentforthepast18monthsandrecentlyreturnedtoherpostwithinthe
department.Thedepartmentwillbeupfortheirfive‐yearreviewandeffortswillbe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
64
madetocompletetheirreviewwithintheyear.Thevisionandmissionstatements
haverecentlybeenrevisitedbytheleadershipteam,comprisedofagroupofsenior
professionalswithinthedepartment.Thevisionstatementwassharedwiththe
entirestaff,andfeedbackwasrequestedviaemailfromthedepartment.The
directorsharedthatlittlefeedbackfromthestaffwasreceived.Thisinformation
wassharedwiththeintervieweratapre‐studymeetingwiththedirector.The
visionstatementstatesthatthedepartment:
“willberecognizedbytheuniversitycommunityasthepremierresourcefor
activelyengagingstudentsinexploringandpursuingtheircareeraspirations
leadingtomeaningfulandpurposefulcontributionstoourglobalsociety.”
Thedepartment’smissionandcorevaluesreflecttheirefforts,asstatedinthevision
statement(AppendixC).
Thedirectorofthedepartmentfeltthatthestudywouldbenefitherandher
staff.Shehopedthatthevisioningprocesswouldfocusonstrategiesforbecoming
thepremierresourcefortheirservicesatVirginiaTech.Moreover,greatfocushad
beenplacedonthecreationofthevisionstatement,butlittlediscussionhad
revolvedaroundtheexecutionoftheirvision.Duetoherabsencefromthe
department,shehopedtogainanunderstandingofwherethecurrentstaffwasin
understandingthevisionstatement.Additionally,thedirectorwasinterestedin
learningmoreaboutthetwointerventiontreatments.Forthesereasons,staff
participationinthevisioninginterventionswasencouraged;however,no
participantwasforcedtocompletethestudy.Theresearcherandthedepartment
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
65
directorcommunicatedviaemailtoinviteparticipantstothestudy(AppendixD&
E).Thestudyhadatotalof22participants.
SelectingtheFacilitator
Becausetheparticipantsforthisstudyworkwithinauniversity,university
resourcesandstaffwereusedtoselectafacilitator.Thefacilitatorworkedatthe
universityintheorganizationalandprofessionaldevelopmentdepartmentasa
consultant.Thefacilitatorhadover20yearsofexperienceworkinginthefieldof
organizationaldevelopment.Furthermore,theconsultanthadexperienceworking
withmanydepartmentsacrosscampususingbothSWOTanalysisandAi.
InterventionTreatments
Theresearchermetwiththeconsultanttodiscussthegoals,timing,details,
andintendedoutcomesofeachtreatment.Bothtreatmentswerefacilitatedand
structuredaccordingtotheir“true”form.TheSWOTanalysissessionwasbasedon
theworkpublishedbyLeigh(2010)onSWOTanalysis,inachapterofthehandbook
onImprovingPerformanceintheWorkplace.Additionally,theAisessionwas
derivedfromtheformatprovidedbyCooperrideretal.(2008)inAppreciative
InquiryHandbook:ForLeadersofChange.Bothtreatmentswerepresentedwiththe
samegoalstatementforthesessionaswellassamequestiontoframetheirwork.
Thegoalandquestionforthesessionswerederivedfromconversationswiththe
department’sdirector,theresearcher,andtheconsultant.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
66
SurveyInstrument
Theinstrumentadoptedforthepre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpost‐testwas
basedonthestudybyColeetal.(2006)regardingtheimplicationsofvision,
appropriateness,andexecutionoforganizationalchange.Twocomponentsofthe
study’ssurveywereadoptedforthiscasestudy,specificallythequestionsrelatedto
organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.ThestudyusedtheOrganizational
CommitmentQuestionnaire(shortform)developedbyMowdayetal.(1979)to
assessorganizationalcommitment.Theassessmentofaffectiveorattitudinal
commitmentofemployeestotheirorganizationiscommonlymeasuredusingthe
instrumentdevelopedbyMowday,Steers,andPorter(Mathieu&Zajac,1990).
Eightpositivelywordedquestionsfromtheshortformquestionnairewereusedin
theteststoavoidanyconfusionormisunderstanding.Theinstrumentwas
comparedtootherinstrumentsmeasuringorganizationalcommitmentinastudyby
FerrisandAranya(1983)whichfoundtheOrganizationalCommitment
Questionnairetohavehighinternalreliabilityandhighpredictivevalidity.The
promptwaschangedtoappropriatelyreflectthepositionsoftheparticipantsinthe
department.Atotalofeightquestionswereaskedusingaseven‐pointscale(1=
“stronglydisagree”,4=“neitheragreenordisagree”,and7=“stronglyagree”)to
measureorganizationalcommitment.Mowdayetal.(1979)reportahighinternal
consistencyreliabilityscoreof.90andinthecasestudyitwasfoundtobe0.844.
Forpartoftheanalysistwoquestionswereremovedfromtheconstructthat
resultedinareliabilityof0.80.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
67
ThreeofthevisionclarityquestionswereadoptedfromColeetal.(2006)as
theyrelatedtoclarityandexecution:“Thevisionguiding[department]hasbeen
clear,”“Thepurposeof[department]hasbeenwellcommunicated,”and“Thevision
of[department]hasbeenwellexecuted.”Theauthorspublishedinternal
consistencyreliabilityscalesof0.86,0.67,and0.73respectivelythatmetaccepted
researchstandards.AfourthvisionclarityquestionwasadoptedfromFerrisand
Aranya(1983):“Theteamhadaclearunderstandingofthetargetcustomers’needs,
andwants.”Thisquestionwasalteredtoreflectthepopulationofthecasestudy:
“The[department]hasaclearunderstandingoftheUniversitycommunity'sneeds
andwants.”Atotaloffourquestionswithafive‐pointresponseformat(1=
“stronglydisagree”;5=“stronglyagree”)wereadoptedtoinvestigatevisionclarity.
Theinternalconsistencyforthevisionclarityconstructwasdeterminedtobe.794.
Bothorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityconstructscoreswerecalculated
byaveragingtheresponsesforeachindividualmeasure.
Thepre‐testyieldeda100%responseratefromthe22participants.The
post‐testyieldeda95%responserate.Lastly,thedelayedpost‐testyieldeda86%
responserate.Analysisofthequantitativedataisfurtherdiscussedinchapterfour.
FocusGroupInterviews
Semi‐structuredinterviewsallowtheresearchertousebothclose‐endedand
open‐endedquestions.Whilethecontentoftheinterviewisfocusedontheresearch
question,thisformatallowsforgreaterflexibilityanddiscussion(Klenke,2008).At
eachfocusgroup,fivestructuredopen‐endedinterviewquestionswereaskedwitha
numberofprobesdesignedtohelpparticipantselaborateontheresearchissues
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
68
(AppendixM).Qualitativeinquirythroughtrulyopen‐endedquestionsallows
participanttorespondintheirownwordstofullyexplaintheirexperiences,
reactions,andopinions(Patton,2002).
Thefivestructuredquestionsaskedparticipantstoexpandontheir
experience,values,andknowledgerelatedtotheissuesthatarecentraltothe
researchquestions(Patton,2002).Inthecasestudy,questionswereaskedto
furtherinvestigatetheparticipants’experience,theirunderstandingofthevision,
andtheirorganizationalcommitment.Thequestionsweredevelopedbasedonthe
literature,asexplainedintheaprioripropositionstable(AppendixN&O).The
focusgroupquestionswerealsodevelopedinlieuofthequantitativedataanalysis
performedontheorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityconstructs.The
probeswerewrittentoensurecompletenessintheparticipants’responsessothat
richdatacouldbederived(Rossman&Rallis,2003).Asidefromthefivestructured
questions,theresearcherwasabletofreelyaddfurtherinquiryasthediscussion
evolved,whichisinkeepingwiththeguidelinesofsemi‐structuredfocusgroups
(Klenke,2008).
DataCollection
Thepre‐testwasadministeredtwoweeksbeforetheinterventions,usingan
onlinesurveysystemcalledQualtrics.Thesurveywasdeliveredtotheparticipants’
workemail,andallparticipantshadaccesstoacomputer.Onereminderemailwas
senttoparticipantswhohadnotcompletedthequestionnaireafterthreedays.
Duringbothtreatments,theresearcherobservedtheinterventiontogain
additionalinsightintosocialpatterns,participantreactions,andintervention
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
69
activities.Researcherobservationsareawrittenrecordoftheresearcher’s
perceptions.Inthisstudy,theresearcherwasabletomonitoractionsduringthe
interventionsandinferparticipants’meaningbehindtheiractions(Rossman&
Rallis,2003).Anobservationprotocolbasedontheorganizationalcommitmentand
visionclarityliteraturewascreatedtoensurethattheresearcherlookedforspecific
interactionsinbothtreatments(AppendixG)(Lofland,Snow,Anderson,&Lofland,
2006).RossmanandRallis(2003)notethat“observationisfundamentaltoall
qualitativeinquiry”(p.194).Aholisticdescriptionoftheeventsandbehaviorswas
usedtodocumentbothtreatments.Aftertheinterventions,rawdatafromthefield
observation,includingrunningrecordsandobservercomments,weretranscribed
intothecomputer.
Apost‐testwasadministeredimmediatelyaftereachinterventionviapen
andpaper.Participantsweregiventheoptiontotakethesurveywiththemand
completelaterintheday.Thesequestionswereidenticaltothepre‐test,inaddition
toanopenedquestionforcommentsorfeedbackrelatedtotheintervention.A
delayedpost‐testwasadministeredviaQualtricsfourtosixweeksafterthe
intervention,totestforsustainedchangeinorganizationalcommitmentandvision
clarity(AppendixJ).Thesequestionswereidenticaltothepre‐testquestionnaire.
Participantsweregivenatwo‐weekwindowtorespondtothesurveyandwere
remindedoncetotakethedelayedpost‐test.
Theexplanatorysequentialdesignstatesthatdatacollectionistheprimary
pointformixing(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Duringphaseoneofdata
collection,thequantitativedataanalysisisconnectedtothequalitativedata
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
70
collection.Thesemi‐structuredinterviewquestionswerecomposedbasedonthe
analysisthatemergedfromthefirstphaseofquantitativeresearch.Thesequential
designofthecasestudyreducessomeofthedisadvantagesofstructuredinterviews
inthatadeeperanddirectedunderstandingoftheissueisdevelopedbeforethe
questionsarecomposed(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2003).
Focusgroupswithselectedparticipantswereconductedsixweeksafterthe
intervention:14staffmembersjoinedinthediscussion.Participantselectionwas
basedonthequantitativeanalysis.Participantswereplacedintothreedifferent
focusgroups:positivechange,nochange,ornegativechange,basedontheirpre‐test
andpost‐testscoresfororganizationalcommitment.Thefocusgroups’comments
wereaudiorecordedandtranscribedintowrittenformandusedforthedata
analysis.
ProceduresUsed
Thecasestudywasconductedincongruencewiththemixedmethods
standardssetbyCreswellandPlanoClark(2011).Withintheseguidelines,they
detailtheneedforqualitativeandquantitativedatastrandstorespondspecifically
tothephenomenonaddressedintheresearchquestion.Second,aqualitystudy
shouldhaveamethodssectionthatconveysrigorandpersuasiveness(Creswell&
PlanoClark,2011).Athirdcriterionofamixedmethodsstudyisthatitexplains
whenandhowthemixingtookplace.Lastly,theauthorsassertthatmixedmethods
terminologyandproceduresmustbesoughtandappliedtotheresearch.
Qualitativeinquiryprocedureswerefollowedtoensuretrustworthinessand
authenticitywithintheresearch.Bothofwhichareessentialtoensuringtherigorof
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
71
qualitativeinquiryanditsuseinmainstreamscience(Morse,Barrett,Mayan,Olson,
&Spiers,2008).Trustworthinessinvolvescredibility,dependability,transferability,
andconformability;moreover,thesecriteriaareintegraltoqualitativeresearch,just
asinternalandexternalvalidity,reliability,andobjectivityareintegralto
quantitativeresearch(Lincoln&Guba,1985).Strategiesforincreasedqualityin
qualitativeresearchhavebeenderivedtoenhancecredibilityandauthenticitysuch
as:prolongedengagement,peerdebriefing,memberchecking,negativecase
sampling,reflexivity,andtriangulation(Klenke,2008).
Credibilityforthisstudywasestablishedthroughpeerdebriefinginwhich
regularmeetingswereheldtodiscussthequalitativedatawithprofessorswhowere
notdirectlyinvolvedintheresearch.Thesecolleagueswerequalitativeresearch
expertsandraisedquestionstofacilitatemeaningfulinterpretation(Klenke,2008).
Prolongedengagementwasestablishedwithsomeoftheparticipantsinthestudy,
andtheyhelpedtoconfirmtheemergingthemes.Issuesofinternalvaliditywere
alsoaddressedthroughtheuseoftriangulationasresearcherobservationsofSWOT
andAiinterventionsweresynthesizedwiththefocusgroupdata.Credibilityand
trustworthinessareaddressedwiththeinclusionofareflexivitystatement.The
reflexivitystatement,“involvesselfawarenessand‘criticalself‐reflections’bythe
researcheronhisorherpotentialbiasesandpredispositionsasthesemayaffectthe
researchprocessandconclusions”(Johnson,1999,p.283).
Dependabilitywasaddressedinthisstudythroughrigorousanddetailed
documentationofdatacollectionprotocolsandanalysisprocedures.Beingthatthis
isacasestudy,thereisnoattempttogeneralizetheresults.However,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
72
transferabilitycanbeachievedonacase‐by‐casebasis,ifresearchersfindthe
themesapplicabletoothercontexts.Confirmabilityforthisstudywasderivedfrom
thickdescriptionsandexcerptsofrawdatainsupportofthethematicdiscoveries
andconclusions.
TheresearchercompletedInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)trainingand
certificationbeforetheconceptionofthecasestudy.TheVirginiaTechIRB
approvedthecasestudy(AppendixP),whichgrantedtheresearcheraccessand
permissiontotestandinterviewparticipants.Allparticipantsinthecasestudy
signedaconsentformcondoningtheirparticipationinthestudy(AppendixX).
DataAnalysis
ResearchQuestionOne.Thepre‐testdatawascollectedandanalyzedto
determineparticipants’leveloforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.With
thisdata,participantswererandomlyselectedfortreatmentwhilemaintainingan
equalleveloforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityamonggroups.Post‐
testanddelayedpost‐testdatawerecollectedtodetermineanychangefromthe
pre‐testaftertheinterventions.Descriptivestatisticalanalysiswasconductedusing
JMP,statisticalsoftwarecomparabletoSPSS,toexpressthedatafromthe
organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityinstrument.
ResearchQuestionTwo.ArepeatedmeasuresANOVA,withrandom
subjecteffects,examinedthedifferenceintreatmentsbasedonparticipants’pre‐
test,post‐test,anddelayedpost‐testresults.Theanalysiswasusedtoinvestigate
thevariablesbetweenandwithinsubjectvariables(Ott&Longnecker,2010).The
statisticalanalysisallowsfortwofactorstobeexaminedbetweensubjectsand
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
73
singlefactorstobeexaminedwithinsubjects,representingthechangein
participant’sorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity(Agresti&Finlay,1997).
Eachfactorwasthenanalyzedforstatisticalsignificance.
ResearchQuestionThree.Researchobservationsweremadeduringboth
AiandSWOTinterventions.Observationprotocolswereusedandcodedusingthe
constantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).Researcherobservationsof
thevisioningprocessandresultingproductswereusedtosupplementthe
participant’sperceptionsoftheinterventions.
ResearchQuestionFour.Analysisofthequalitativedataderivedfromthe
focusgroupinterviewsfollowedtheconstantcomparativemethodsoutlinedin
GlaserandStrauss(2009).Theresearcherreadthroughthefocusgrouptranscripts
multipletimes“togetasenseofthewhole”andtofurtherunderstandthemeaning
behindeachstatementfromwhichcodeswerederived(Patton,2002,p.440).Inthe
firstreadinga“feel”forthedatawasnoted.Thetranscriptwasreadasecondtime
toallowtheresearchertofocusonmaterialthatpertainedtothephenomenon.
Usingaline‐by‐lineapproach,excerptsofrelevantmaterialrelatedtothe
phenomenonweredrawnfromthetranscript.Anexcerptisapassageorunittaken
fromasentencetobeusedforanalysis.
Inductiveanalysiswasusedtointerpretthedata,andcodeswerederived
basedonmeaning.Codeswerewrittenandpresentedinthemarginsofthe
transcript.Thecodingprocessrequirestheresearchertoslowdownandengagein
extendedreflection(Corbin&Strauss,2008).Codesweredevelopedbasedon
“clues”abouttheparticipant’smeaning,ofwhichispertinenttocodingfordeep
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
74
structuralmeaning.Duringtheprocess,itwasrelevanttocodeeachexcerptprior
tothenextstageofthedataanalysis.
Themesandcategorieswereproducedbasedonpatternsthatemergedfrom
thecodes.Codescouldhavebeeninmorethanonecategory,iftheyhadmultiple
meanings.Thelabelswererevisedandmergedwithotherclusterstoform
categories.Acategoryisagroupofcodeswithsimilarmeaningthatrepresenta
higherlevelofdataabstraction(Corbin&Strauss,2008).Thethemeswerethen
usedtoreducetherawdataandtoorganizethecodesthroughsense‐making
(Corbin&Strauss).Richdescriptionsweredrawnfromthetranscripttosupport
thethemesthatemergedfromthequalitativedata.
ResearchQuestionFive.Codeswerere‐examinedtodetermineifany
similaritiesordifferencesexistedbetweenperceptionsexpressedbyeach
interventiontreatmentgroup.Thecomparisonofcodesbetweenintervention
groupsfollowstheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,1967),in
makingpurposefulcomparisonswithingroupswithlowerlevelsofcomplexityand
thencomparingbetweengroupswithhigherlevelsofcomplexity(Boeije,2002).
Boeije,referstocomparisoncomplexityinreferencetotheamountofinterviews,
diversitybetweenparticipantexperiences,andlevelofanalysis.
ResearchQuestionSix.Thelastquestionisamixingquestionthatrequires
anintegrationofthequantitativeandqualitativedata.Thequestionisaddressedin
thestudyaschangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityareexplained
bythethemesgeneratedfromSWOTandAiparticipantexperiences.Thechange
groupsarerepresentativeofparticipantchangesfrompre‐testtopost‐test,as
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
75
derivedfromarepeatedmeasuresANOVA.Thequalitativedataarethematically
representedascolumnsinthemixingtable.Withinthisanalysis,thequalitative
findingsfurtherexplainedthequantitativelyderivedconstructsofvisionclarityand
organizationalcommitment.
SummaryoftheMethodology
Thischapterhasexplainedthemethodsusedinthemixed‐methodscase
study.Thestudyevaluateschangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity
asaresultoftwodifferentorganizationalvisioningtechniques:SWOTandAi.An
explanatorysequentialdesignwasusedtoinvestigatethephenomenonwithin
whichqualitativedatafurtherexplainsquantitativedata.Participantsinthestudy
completedapre‐test,post‐test,anddelayedpost‐testthatwasexaminedusinga
repeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomsubjecteffects.Selectedparticipantswere
involvedinfocusgroupinterviews,andsemi‐structuredinterviewquestionswere
discussed.Thequalitativedatawasinvestigatedusingsense‐making,inductive
analysis,andcasecomparisons.Chapterfourpresentstheresultsobtainedbythese
methods.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
76
CHAPTERFOUR
RESULTS
Asstatedinchaptersoneandthree,thecasestudyreportedhereexamined
twomethodologiesusedinorganizationalvisioning.Morespecifically,SWOTandAi
techniqueswereimplemented,measured,andcomparedtoanalyzechangesin
organizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.Thischapterisorganizedintermsof
thesixresearchquestionsposedinchapteronewhicharerestatedhere:
1. Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybefore
andaftertheinterventions?
2. Whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity
withinandbetweentreatmentgroups?
3. Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?
4. Howdidparticipants’perceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?
5. Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressed
byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup?
6. Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre/posttestresultsbetweenintervention
groupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?
Accompanyingeachresearchquestionisadescriptionoftheassociatedresults.
ResearchQuestionOne
Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybefore
andaftertheinterventions?Bothtreatmentgroupsweretestedwiththesame
questionnairebeforeandaftertheintervention.AsseeninFigure4‐1,the
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
77
participantsintheAitreatmentshowed,onaverage,aslightincreasein
organizationalcommitmentscoresatthepost‐test.TheparticipantsintheSWOT
treatmentshowedaslightdecreaseinscoresfrompre‐testtopost‐test.Onaverage,
bothtreatmentgroupsshowedadecreaseinorganizationalcommitmentscores
fromtheinitialpre‐testtothedelayedpost‐test.Further,bothtreatmentgroups
exhibitedaverysimilarorganizationalcommitmentscoreforthedelayedpost‐test.
Themean/standarddeviationoforganizationalcommitmentfortheAitreatment
wascalculatedtobe6.016/0.94(pre‐test),6.156/0.84(post‐test),and5.859/0.81
(delayedpost‐test)andthemean/standarddeviationfortheSWOTtreatmentwas
foundtobe6.100/0.81,5.978/0.86,and5.807/0.90,respectively.
Figure4‐1.Meanscoreoftheorganizationalcommitmentconstructforbothinterventiontreatments.ScoresfromAiparticipantsaredisplayedwithadiamondshapeandSWOTscoresaredisplayedwithasquareshape.NotethattheLikertscalewasfromonetosevenwhilethefigureonlydisplaysfivethroughsevenforreportingpurposes.
Asforvisionclarity,Figure4‐2depictsverysimilarscoresthroughoutthe
testingperiodforbothtreatmentgroups.Itcanbeobservedthatthegroupof
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
PreTest PostTest DelayedPostTest
LikertScale1‐7
Ai
SWOT
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
78
participantsinAistartedwithandmaintainedahigheraveragevisionclarityscore
thantheSWOTtreatment.Therearefewdifferencesbetweentestscoreswith
relationtointerventiontreatment.Themean/standarddeviationofvisionclarity
fortheAitreatmentwascalculatedtobe4.28/0.23(pre‐test),4.16/0.16(post‐test),
and4.06/0.25(delayedpost‐test)andthemean/standarddeviationfortheSWOT
treatmentwasfoundtobe3.66/0.45,3.63/0.38,and3.73/0.47,respectively.
Figure4‐2.Meanscoreofthevisionclarityconstructforbothinterventiontreatments.ScoresfromAiparticipantsaredisplayedwithadiamondshapeandSWOTscoresaredisplayedwithasquareshape.NotethattheLikertscalewasfromonetofivewhilethefigureonlydisplaysthreethroughfiveforreportingpurposes.
ResearchQuestionTwo
Atwo‐wayanalysisofvariance(AONVA),withrandomsubjecteffects,was
conductedtoevaluatechangesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity
withinandbetweentreatmentgroups.Themaineffecttermsaretime(pre‐test,
post‐test,delayed‐posttest)andinterventiontreatmentgroup(SWOTvs.Ai).
Specifically,themainquantityofinterestistheinteraction,whichdetermines
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
PreTest PostTest DelayedPostTest
LikertScale1‐5
Ai
SWOT
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
79
whetherthereisasignificantdifferenceinthetreatmentsgroupsbetweenthetests.
Subjectsaretreatedasnestedrandomeffectsbecausetheyrepresentarandom
sampleofindividualsandnosubjectisinbothtreatmentsgroups.
Theanalysisfororganizationalcommitmentacrossalltestsreportsa0.515
valueforrandomeffects(Table4‐1),whilevisionclarityreports0.086(Table4‐2).
Therandomeffectofsubjectswasconsideredtoaccountfornaturalorinherent
variabilitybetweensubjects.Thiseffectaccountsforsomecharacteristicsthatwe
cannotmeasureforeachindividual.Subjecteffectisremovedbecausethe
differencesintestsareusedforanalysis,asopposedtoafixedeffectwithsubjects.
Table4‐1.
VariancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrossalltestsComponent VarCompEst PercentofTotal
subject[Treatment]&Random 0.515 82.54Residual 0.109 17.46Total 0.624 100.00
Table4‐2.
VariancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrossalltestsComponent VarCompEst PercentofTotalsubject[Treatment]&Random 0.086 53.86Residual 0.074 46.15Total 0.160 100.00
TherepeatedmeasuresANOVAfororganizationalcommitmentacrossall
threetestsreportsthat82%oftheexperimentalerrorisbeingaccountedforas
differencesbetweensubjectsareaccountedforintheanalysis(Table4‐1),
additionallythevisionclarityreports53%(Table4‐2).Thisvalueexplainsthe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
80
differencesfromonepersontothenext.Thedifferencesbetweensubjectsaretobe
expectedandthisisreasonforinclusionofthiseffectintheanalysis.Withoutthe
considerationofdifferencesbetweensubjectstheeffectwouldhavebeenassociated
withoverallexperimentalerror.
ArepeatedmeasuresANOVAfororganizationalcommitmentacrosspre‐test
andpost‐testreportsmuchmoreofthevariationthantheprevioustestwithallthe
data.Thevariabilitybetweensubjectsincreasesandtheresidualvariance
decreaseswhicheliminatednoisefromthedata.Variationacrossthepre‐testand
post‐testdataisbeingexplainedby93%ofthedifferencesbetweensubjectsfor
organizationalcommitment(Table4‐3),additionally,thevisionclarityreports86%
(Table4‐4).
Table4‐3.
Variancecomponentestimatesfororganizationalcommitmentacrosspre‐testandpost‐testComponent VarCompEst Percentof
Totalsubject[Treatment]&Random 0.494 93.30Residual 0.036 6.70Total 0.529 100.00
Table4‐4.
Variancecomponentestimatesforvisionclarityacrosspre‐testandpost‐test
Component VarCompEst PercentofTotalsubject[Treatment]&Random 0.127 86.282Residual 0.020 13.718Total 0.147 100.000
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
81
Pre‐testandPost‐testAnalysis
TherepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomsubjecteffectsconsideredthe
pre‐testandpost‐testresultsfromtheorganizationalcommitmentconstruct,which
showedaninteractionbetweentimeandtreatment.TherepeatedmeasuresANOVA
reportsap‐valueof0.048.Whiletheinteractionbetweentimeandtreatmentis
statisticallysignificant,itisnotsignificantlydifferentthanzero.Thereforedespite
thesignificance,thepossibilityofobservingtheinteractionisstillquitesmall.
Throughfurtheranalysisofthedataandtheconstruct,itwasobservedthat
twoquestionswithintheorganizationalcommitmentconstructaveraged6.5or
higherinthepre‐testscores.Asaresultofthehighaveragesfromquestionsixand
sevenwithintheconstruct,bothquestionswereexcludedfromtheanalysisandthe
repeatedmeasuresANOVAfororganizationalcommitmentbetweenthepre‐test
andpost‐testwasrerun.Theexclusionofthesequestionsfromtheanalysisisa
resultoftheceilingeffectthatcanbeseenwhenusingaLikertscale.Aceilingeffect
existswhenthevarianceaboveanindependentvariablecannolongerbemeasured.
Becauseaceilingeffectexistswithinthedata,theanalysisshouldbeconsidered
cautiously.AsseeninTable4‐5,theanalysisyieldedap‐valueof0.028meaning
thattherewasastatisticallysignificantinteractionbetweentreatmentgroupsand
tests.Withinthisanalysis,aninteractionsignifiesthedifferenceinthelevelsofone
effectchangeoverthelevelsoftheother,rememberingthatmaineffecttermsare
time(prevs.post)andtreatmentgroup(SWOTvs.Ai).TheeffectsizeforAipre‐test
topost‐testwasreportedtobe.208withap‐valueof.065.TheeffectsizeforSWOT
pre‐testtopost‐testwasreportedtobe‐0.133withap‐valueof.176.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
82
Table4‐5.RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitmentconstructconsideringpre/posttestsSource Sumsof
SquaresMeanSquare
DF FRatio Significance
Test 0.013 0.013 1 0.282 0.603Treatment 0.002 0.002 1 0.002 0.964Treatment*Test 0.259 0.259 1 5.848 0.028*subject[Treatment]&Random20.217 1.189 17 26.810 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.
Inconsideringthepre‐testandpost‐testresultsfromthevisionclarityconstruct,
arepeatedmeasuresANOVA,withrandomsubjecteffects,reportedaninsignificant
interactionbetweentreatmentgroupandtest.TheseresultsarereportedinTable
4‐6.Becausethereisnointeractionbetweentreatmentandtest,theinfluenceof
treatmentgroupandtestcanbeconsideredindependentlyofeachother.The
analysisshowsastatisticalsignificanceinthetreatmentasseeninthetablebelow.
Thisisaresultoftheunequalvisionclarityscoresbetweentreatmentgroupsatthe
pre‐test.Further,thevisionclarityscoresindicatedlittlevariationbetweenallthree
testsdespitethedifferencesbetweentreatmentgroups.TheeffectsizeforAipre‐
testtopost‐testwasreportedtobe‐0.125withap‐valueof.096.Theeffectsizefor
SWOTpre‐testtopost‐testwasreportedtobe‐0.03withap‐valueof.623.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
83
Table4‐6.RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstructconsideringpre/posttestsSource Sumsof
SquaresMean
SquareDF FRatio Significance
Test 0.056 0.056 1 2.775 0.114Treatment 3.061 3.061 1 11.198 0.004*Treatment*Test 0.021 0.021 1 1.032 0.324Subject[Treatment]&Random 4.647 0.273 17 13.580 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.
Pre‐test,Post‐testandDelayedPost‐testAnalysis
Afteraddingthedelayedpost‐testdata,arepeatedmeasuresANOVA,with
randomsubjecteffects,wasrerun.Withintheorganizationalcommitmentconstruct
itcanbeobservedthattheinteractionbetweentreatmentandtestisnotsignificant
(Table4‐7).Lookingindependentlyatthetestandtreatmentgroup,theanalysis
doesnotyieldsignificantvaluesforeithervariable.Theanalysisforvisionclarity
testedsimilarly,withaninsignificantinteractionbetweentreatmentgroupandtest
(Table4‐8).Asseeninthepreviousanalysis,thetreatmentisagainconsideredto
beasignificantfactorinthedifferencesinvisionclarityscoreswithap‐valueof
0.005.Thestatisticalsignificanceisaresultoftheinitialvariationinscoresatthe
pre‐test.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
84
Table4‐7
RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsfortheorganizationalcommitmentconstructconsideringallthreetestsSource Sumsof
SquaresMeanSquare
DF FRatio Significance
Test 0.504 0.252 2 2.088 0.140Treatment 0.015 0.015 1 0.008 0.930Treatment*Test 0.237 0.118 2 0.981 0.386Subject[Treatment]&Random 31.518 1.854 17 15.352 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.Table4‐8RepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandomeffectsforthevisionclarityconstructconsideringallthreetestsSource Sumsof
SquaresMeanSquare
DF FRatio Significance
Test 0.061 0.031 2 0.414 0.664Treatment 3.549 3.549 1 10.67 0.0045*Treatment*Test 0.155 0.077 2 1.048 0.362Subject[Treatment]&Random 5.652 0.332 17 4.501 <.0001*Note:Asingleasterisk(*)denotessignificance,p<.05.
ResearchQuestionThree
Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?Thisdatawas
collectedandreportedfromresearcherobservationstakenduringtheinterventions
(AppendixH&I).Dataanalysisoftheseobservationsfollowedtheconstant
comparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,2009).Theinformationandthemesshared
herearederivedfromtheresearcherprotocols.Theorganizationaldevelopment
practitionerstrategicallycreatedsimilaragendaswhilehonoringthetechnique
assignedtoeachtreatmentgroup.Inbothsessionsthepractitionerwascarefulto
explainthepurposeandexpectedoutcomesofthevisioningprocess.The
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
85
practitionerexplainedthataplanforvisionexecutionwouldnotbeaproductofthe
sessionbutinsteadgroundworkwouldbelaidforfuturedevelopmentofvision
execution.Bothinterventiontreatmentgroupshadthesamegoal:tocreate
groundworkforachievingtheCareersServicesvision.Thevisionstatementwas
postedinbothroomsforparticipantstoviewthroughouttheinterventions.Both
groupsalsodiscussedthevisionstatementandwereaskedthesamequestionabout
thevision:howdowemakeourvisionareality?Thepractitionerusedthesame
check‐inactivitytoopenandclosebothgroupsbysimplyaskingeachparticipantto
shareastatementabouthowtheyfeel/feltabouttheprocess.
SWOTintervention.TheagendafortheSWOTtreatmentincluded:goals
andagenda,check‐inactivityandintroductions,visionandquestion,theproblemto
solve,generategoals,generatesolutions,SWOTanalysis,andclosewithcheckin
activity.Inthevisionandquestionphaseofthesessionaparticipantwasaskedto
readthevisionstatementandallparticipantswereaskedtosharetheir
interpretationofthevision.Someparticipantswereunsureoftheunderlying
purposeofavisionstatementandsomehadahardtimeunderstandingthe
statement.Theparticipantsfocusedprimarilyonthefirsthalfofthevision
statementthatrelatedtobeingapremierresource.
Inthenextactivity,“theproblemtosolve”,thepractitionerasked,“whatis
theproblemwearetryingtosolve?What’sholdingusbackfromachievingthis
vision?”Withthisprompt,theparticipantsdiscussedvarioushurdlesinhavingthe
departmentrecognizedasthepremierresourcefortheirservices.Thepractitioner
consolidatedthesestatementsintoone,“theydon’tgetit,”whichbecamethefocus
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
86
ofthenextbrainstormingactivity.Theframeworkforthebrainstormingactivity
canbefoundinAppendixQ,andSWOTparticipantsbrainstormedwaysinwhich
theycouldaddressthisproblem.Duringthe15minutesthatwereallocatedtothis
exercise,theygeneratedmanyideasthataredetailedin(AppendixR).The
participantsweregivendotstoplacebytheideastheyliked.Theideawiththe
mostdotswasdeterminedtobe:“one‐on‐oneswithfaculty.”Thisactivityprovedto
beenjoyableandenergizingforthestaff.
Thepractitionerthenused“havingone‐on‐oneswithfaculty”astheprompt
togenerateaSWOT.Theparticipantsdiscussedthestrengthstheybringasa
departmenttothisidea.Oneexample,amongmanyothers,wasthatthedepartment
couldserveasexpertstothefacultyincareerdecisionsandservices.Weaknesses,
somethingthatthedepartmentmighthavetoovercome,werealsodiscussed.An
exampleofthiswasthatthedepartmentwasnotregardedasanacademicpeerto
faculty.ThelistofstrengthsandweaknessesgeneratedcanbefoundinAppendixS.
Opportunitiestoleveragewerediscussedamongparticipants,suchascollaborating
withotherdepartmentsinstudentaffairs.Lastly,threatswereinterpretedas
somethingthatmightunderminethedepartment’sefforts.Theparticipantslisted
thelackoftimeandinterestoffacultyassomethingthatcouldunderminetheiridea.
ThelistofopportunitiesandthreatscanbefoundinAppendixS.
Throughouttheclosingcheck‐inactivity,manyparticipantssharedthatthe
brainstormingactivitywasvaluable.Oneparticipantsharedthatshewasunsureif
shewouldcontinuewiththeideanowthattheanalysishadbeencompleted.The
participantsviewedthisasabenefittotheprocess,whichaddedvaluetothe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
87
analysis.OneparticipantnotedthattheirSWOThadmorestrengthsand
opportunitiesthanweaknessesandthreats.Anotherparticipantspokespecifically
tothe“negative”languagethatwasusedduringtheintervention.Theresearcher
alsoobservedadifferenceinthetoneandmoodofthegroupwhentheywere
discussingthestrengthsandopportunitiesversustheweaknessesandthreats.
Participantsweremuchmorehesitanttoshareweaknessesandthreats,andthey
weremuchmorequiet.Fewerparticipantscontributedtothediscussionof
weaknessesandthreatscomparedtothediscussionaboutstrengthsand
opportunities.Manyparticipantswereexcitedaboutdiscussingstrengthsand
opportunitiesandtheoverallmoodofthegroupwasmorepositive.
AiIntervention.TheagendafortheAitreatmentincluded:goalsand
agenda,check‐inactivityandintroductions,visionandquestion,discoveryphase,
dreamphase,andclosewithcheck‐inactivity.Manymembersoftheleadership
teamwhocomposedthevisionstatementwerepresentintheAiintervention.Asa
resultofthis,manyparticipantshadaclearunderstandingofthevisionandengaged
inadeepdialogueaboutthemeaningofthevision.Thegroupcloselyevaluatedthe
detailsandthewordingofthevisionstatement.Muchofthediscussionfocusedon
thefirsthalfofthestatementstatingthatthedepartmentwillbe“thepremier
resource.”Aparticipantsharedthatitwasveryhelpfultodiscussthebigpicture
becausemuchofherworkisoftenveryfocusedontheday‐to‐daydetails.
TohighlighttheuniquephasesofAi,thediscoveryphaseconsistedofpaired
interviewsthatwerestructuredaccordingtoTheAppreciativeInquiryHandbookby
Cooperrideretal.(2003).Theparticipantswereaskedtofollowtheinterviewguide
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
88
(AppendixT)andtospendapproximately20minutesoneachinterview.The
interviewquestionsaskedtheparticipantstotellastoryaboutatimetheyfeltmost
aliveatwork.Theparticipantswereaskedtopartnerwithacolleaguethattheydid
notworkwithclosely.Duringthistimestaffmemberswereconnectingwithone
anotherabouttheirexperiencesinthedepartment.Oncetheinterviewswere
completed,theparticipantsdiscussedtheirinterviewexperienceandshared
informationtheylearnedaboutthecolleaguetheyinterviewed.Allparticipants
expressedthattheylearnedsomethingnewabouttheirinterviewee.Duringthese
conversationsmanysharedvaluesamongemployeeswererealizedanddiscussed.
Commonthemesfromtheseexperienceswerewrittendownonalargepaperforall
ofthestafftosee.Suchthemesincludedteamwork,willingnessandopennessofthe
staff,collaboration,caringandtrustingcolleagues,andgoodcommunication.
Inthedreamphase,participantswereaskedtodrawanimageofwhatthe
departmentmightbewithmarkersandaposterboard.Inaccordancewitha
promptpublishedbyDavidCooperrider,thepractitionerexplainedthedrawing
assignmentwiththepromptthattheentirestaffhasfallenasleepformanyyears
andwhentheywakeupthedepartmenthasachievedthevision.Thepractitioner
askedeachparticipanttodrawanimageofwhatthedepartment,theuniversity,the
staff,and/orthestudentslooklikenowthatthedepartmenthasachieveditsvision.
Allbutoneparticipantdrewanimageontheposter(AppendixU).
Oncetheimageswerecompleted,theywerepostedaroundtheroomasa
galleryfortheparticipantstoview.Duringthegallerywalkactivity,participants
couldaskquestionsaboutthepictures.Eachparticipantreceivedtwodotsandthey
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
89
wereaskedtoplaceadotnexttoanyimageofthefuturetheyidentifiedwith.The
threeimageswiththemostdotswerethenexplainedandusedforasecondactivity.
Participantswerebrokenupintogroupsofthreeandaskedtocreateanarrativeor
storyaboutwhatthedrawingmeantandhowthedepartmentgotthere,(Appendix
V).Thiswasobservedtobeanenjoyableactivitythatbroughttolightmany
underlyingstrengthsthedepartment.
Towardsthelatterhalfoftheintervention,thepractitionerdiscussedhow
theorganization’sstrengths,detailedonthedisplaypaper,canbedevelopedto
fulfillthedepartment’svision.Thepractitionerused“relationshipswithfaculty,”
chosenfromalistdevelopedbytheparticipants,asanexampletocorrelate
strengthsoftheorganizationwithsuccessfulactionstakentodeveloprelationships
withfaculty.Theparticipantssharedexperiencesinwhichtheyhavesuccessfully
engagedwithfaculty.Thepractitionerhelpedtheparticipantstoseehowthe
departmentcanusetheseexperiencesandstrengthstobuildononeanotherto
developaplanforvisionexecution.
Attheendoftheintervention,participantswereaskedtoshareastatement
abouttheprocessina“safespace”thatwasfreefromdiscussion.Thecheck‐in
activitywasareflectivetimeforparticipants.Manyparticipantsfeltfulfilledafter
identifyingthedepartment’sstrengths;however,someparticipantsvoicedthelack
tangibleoutcomesasaresultoftheAiintervention.Oneparticipantnotedthatthe
interviewexperiencewasvaluableandrewarding,whileanothernotedthatthis
experiencehelpedthemtoseethatthedepartmentisactivelyworkingtowards
theirvision.Theseresponseshelptoshowcasetheoutcomesoftheintervention.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
90
InterventionComparisons.Basedonthevaryingdescriptionsofthe
interventiontreatmentsabove,itcanbedeterminedthatthevisioningprocesses
hadmanydifferencesdespitetheirsharedgoal.Thetwotreatmentsuseddifferent
perspectivesinwhichthevisioningprocesswasframedandexecuted.TheAi
treatmentaskedparticipantstoenvisionthefutureofthedepartmentfroma
strengths‐basedfoundation.Ontheotherhand,theSWOTtreatmentrequired
participantstoidentifyhurdlesfacingthedepartment’sexecutionofthevision.
Withtheproblemidentified,SWOTparticipantsanalyticallyinvestigatedand
analyzedapossiblesolution.Bothinterventiongroupsdiscussedthedepartment’s
strengths;however,theSWOTparticipantsdiscussedthestrengthsofthe
departmentthatwouldcontributetoimplementingtheirvisioningstrategy:one‐on‐
oneswithfaculty.ThediscussionofstrengthsintheSWOTinterventionwaslimited
bythenarrowfocusofthetopic.Additionally,theaccomplishmentsandsuccesses
ofthedepartmentwerenotdiscussed.Alternatively,theAiinterventionfostereda
comprehensivediscussionofthedepartment’sstrengthsandrecent
accomplishments.Aiparticipantswereaskedtothinkholisticallyaboutthe
departmentasopposedtorespondingtoaspecificstrategy.Bothtreatmentgroups
focusedonthedepartment’srelationshipwithfacultyasastrategytohelpthe
departmentexecuteitsvision.
ResearchQuestionFour
Howdidparticipantsperceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?A
qualitativeanalysiswasperformedonfocusgroupinterviewsrelatedtostrategic
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
91
planninginterventionsusingtheconstantcomparativemethod(Glaser&Strauss,
2009).Staffexperiencesrelatedtotheinterventionsgeneratedfourcategoriesthat
arediscussedinseventhemes(Figure4‐3).Thethemesareusedasaframeworkto
guidethediscussionofstaffexperiencesrelatedtothephenomenon;moreover,it
shouldbeunderstoodthatthesecategoriesdonotexistindependentlyorin
isolationofoneanother,butinsteadthecategoriesareinterrelated.Please
referenceAppendixWforalistofcodes,themes,andcategories.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
92
Figure4‐3.Emergingthemesfortheorganizationalvisioningcasestudy.Interventionsgeneratedfourcategoriesthatarediscussedineightthemes.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
93
Category:EmotionalReactionstotheInterventions
Thevisioningprocessledtopositivereactions.Many ofthestaff
membershadpositivereactionstotheinterventionsfromwhichtheyfoundthe
visioningprocesstobeenjoyable,beneficial,andenergizing.ABenjoyedthe
brainstormingactivityandlikedthe,“ideaofgettingalloftheideasdown,Ithought
thatwasactuallygreat,Ifeltthatoncewegotonarolewiththat,therewasalotof
energyaroundtheideas”(C146).IntheSWOTintervention,HJnotedthatthestaff
generatedoverthreepagesofideasinthebrainstormingactivity.Manyenjoyed
thisactivityandCFfoundittobebeneficialforfurtherdevelopmentofideasinthe
future.Additionally,theSWOTinterventionwasvaluableinbuildingconsensusas
explainedbyST:
Thegroupofpeoplethatwewerewithdidareallygoodjobinidentifyingour
strengths,weaknesses,opportunitiesandthreats.ThethingIlikethemost
aboutitwastheideagenerationofthethingsthatwecouldorcouldn’tdo,and
itwasreallygoodtoseewhattheconsensuswasofourgroup.(ST,A8)
FPandmanyothersfeltthattheAiinterventionwasapositiveprocessand
experience.Theopportunitytointerviewfellowcolleagueswasrewardingand
affirmingforthestaffasstorieswereshared.Thevisioningprocesswasfacilitated
withadrawingactivitythatrequiredthestafftoenvisionthefutureofthe
department.Asreflectedinthefollowingdescription,thisexperienceenergizedKL:
Ithinkitdidkindaofre‐energizeme,itwasjustareal,itwasaverypositive
dayanditwas,yaknow,backtothatpicturething,Imeanthinkingaboutwhat
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
94
couldbe,thatwasjustagreatexperiencethinkingaboutwhatcouldbesoI.
(KL,C203)
Throughthisexcerpt,KLalsodiscussesapositivevisioningexperienceinAi.
Insomewaystheinterventionwasafrustratingandnegative
experience.Ontheotherhand,amajorityofSWOTparticipantshadfrustrating
experiencesandnegativereactionstothevisioningprocess.ABandGWexpressed
adesiretohavemoretimetobecreativeduringtheSWOTinterventionandwere
frustratedbythebriefbrainstormingactivity.
Thereweresomefrustratingtimes:Ifeltlikewedidn’tspendasmuchtimeof
thepartsthatIwantedtospendtimeon.…Andoutoffourhours,wehad10
minutestobesupercreativeandthen,uhIwouldhavelikedmoreofthat.(GW,
B38)
GWalsothoughtthattherewasagreatdealoftimethatwasdedicatedtoexplaining
theprocessanddifferentiatingterminology.Thisresultedinafeelingofexhaustion
forQUwhofeltdrainedaftercertainpartsoftheintervention.SWOTparticipants
expressedfrustrationbythelackoftangibleoutcomesandactionsteps.Even
further,RSexplained:
Ifeltfrustratedbecausewedidn’tactuallygetthere,yaknow,andpartofit’s
mypersonality:okayactionstepsnowletsdoit,yaknow;wejustdidn’tgetto
thatandsothatwasalittlefrustrating.(RS,B75)
StaffmembersfromtheSWOTinterventionmentionedthenegativetonethat
wasunderlyingthevisioningprocess.Asreflectedinthefollowingdescription,HJ
feltfrustratedbythefocusonthe“negative”aspectsofthedepartment:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
95
UhmIthinktheonefrustrationwasthatwekindofhadthisnaturalinclination
tofocusontheweaknessesorthethreatssoIthinkoursessionwasalittlebit
morenegativethantheappreciativeinquiry,afterhearingfromtheir
experiences.(HJ,C120)
TheframingoftheSWOTinterventionalsofrustratedQUbecausethevisioning
processdidnotbuildoffofthestrengthsorsuccessesofthedepartment.This
processforcedthestafftothinkofnewideasinordertoachievethevisioninstead
offocusingonwhatthedepartmentiscurrentlydoing:
ButIthinkitsdifficultbecauseitsalmostasif,there’safeelingthatwerejust
notdoinganythingwhereas,WEAREdoingthings,andsothere’sjustthis
feeling,atleastinthatparticulargroup,Imeanyouwouldthinkthatwewere
lazy(QU,B298).
ThisperspectiveusedintheSWOTvisioningprocessmadeQUfeelasifthevision
statementandfuturegoalswereinsurmountable.Despitethisfeeling,shebelieves
thatthedepartmentisactivelypursuingthevision.
Category:ImpactofInterventionsonVisionClarity
Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff.Whilestaffmembers,fromboth
interventions,discussedthevisionstatementexplicitlyandimplicitlyduringthe
visioningprocess.Manyexpressedthattheyhadaclearunderstandingofthe
statementpriortotheintervention.Specifically,staffmemberswhowereonthe
leadershipteamandtookpartincreatingthevisionstatementwereclearonthe
meaningandcontentofthestatement:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
96
Ithinkthereweresomeareaswhere,likeIsaid,wecouldprobablytweekit;I
knowthatyourvisionisnotsomethingthatyourplanningonmeeting;its
somethingthatyouworkon,andit’sagoalthat’ssetoutandyoustrivetoget
that.(VO,C319)
Throughdiscussion,mostofthestaffacknowledgedthatsomeofthewordsinthe
visionstatementcouldbereconsideredorrevised.However,thegeneralconsensus
wasthatthestaffwashappywiththestatementandtherewasnoneedtoexhaust
furtherdiscussionsrelatedtowording.Thisdiscussiondidnotmakethevision
statementunclear.
Inadditiontotheleadershipteam,thestaffmemberswhowerenotinvolved
intheoriginationofthestatementalsofeltthatthevisionwasclear.AsRSsaid,“I
thinkit’saveryclearvisionstatement…thisisunderstandable;Iunderstandthis”
(RS,B235).AndABsaid,“well,Imean,Ialreadyknewwhatthevisionwas,soI
don’tknowthatthevisionwasanyclearertomewhenwefinishedthatdiscussion”
(AB,C370).
Positiveimpactonvisionclarity.Staffmemberscommentedongaininga
deeperandbroaderunderstandingofthevisionstatementasaresultofthe
interventions.ABsaid,“Ithinkforme,yaknow,I’vebeenhere[number]years,and
it’sthefirsttimewehaveeverhadadiscussion[aboutthevisionstatement]with
thewholestaff”(C335).Theinterventionprovidedanopportunityforallstaff
memberstoengageinadiscussionaboutthevisionthatwasespeciallybeneficialto
FPwhodoesnotnormallyparticipateinsuchdialoguebecauseofhis/hercurrent
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
97
role.Asaresultofthediscussionandactivitiesthattookplaceduringthe
interventionsFPfeltthat:
Theideasthatweregenerated,thefunandinterestingwaysthatthingswere
done,justhelpedbroadenthesenseof‘okaythisiswhatweredoing,thisisthe
directionwe’regoing.’(FP,A40).
Anotherstaffmembercommentedthatthevisioningprocesshelpedtoprovide
clarityinvisionexecutionanddeeplyrootedbarriersinmovingforwardwithvision
fulfillment.Newemployeesremarkedthatthediscussionsthattookplaceduring
theinterventionswereespeciallyhelpfulindevelopingaricheducationand
understandingofthevision.HJgainedvaluableinsightandperspectivethrough
discussionswithcolleagues:
IthoughtthatitwasREALLYgoodformeasaknewstaffmemberjusttokind
ofgoalittlebitmoreindepthaboutwhatthevisionmeantfromsomeofmy
colleaguesandwhattheythoughtitmeant,indepth(HJ,C113).
Themeaningbehindthestatementwasmadeclearforrecentandtenured
staffasdifferentperspectiveswereshared.CFsaid,“Wecanevengetsiloedin
[department],soitwasinterestingtoheareachperson’stake…ofwhat’sgoingon–
intermsofthevision”(B58).Thediscussionsleadtoanunderstandingthatadded
meaningtothewords,asdescribedbyXD:
Ithinkwehavehadsomeconversationsaboutreally,ifwesaythatourvisionis
tobethebest[department],whatdoesthatREALLYmean.Whenyoupinpoint
it,andifyourtryingtoputitdownonpaper,whatdoesthatreallymean.(XD,
A153)
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
98
Thepersonalinterpretationsandvariedperspectivesfromthestaffoffereda
deeperfocusonmeaningandvalueofthedepartment.MRdescribedanalignment
ofdailytaskstothevisionstatementthroughthevisioningprocess,furtheradding
clarityandmeaning.
Throughoutbothinterventions,therewereopportunitiesforcritical
reflectionbythestaffofthevisionstatement.Discussionofthevisionsparked
questionsthathadnotbeenpreviouslyposedorconsideredbysomeofthestaff.KL
said,“soIwasinthegroupthatcameupwiththeinitialvision,andI–it[theAi
intervention]mademekindofquestionit[thevisionstatement]”(KL,C360).The
visioningprocessalsoclarifiedquestionssurroundingvisionfulfillmentand
executionasdetailedinthefollowingdescription:
Doyouthinkthatitkindahelpedusclarify…whyarewenotthereyet,whoare
wenotreachingorwhyarewenotreachingthatrecognitionasbeingthe
premierresources,soIthinkthatwasgood.(RS,B266)
Category:ImpactofInterventionsonOrganizationalCommitment
Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance.Both
interventiongroupscommentedonthehighlycommittedstaffandthehighlevelof
departmentperformance.Moreover,theinterventionhadlittletonoaffectonthe
staff’scommitmenttothedepartment,becausecommitmentlevelsarealreadyvery
high.AsexpoundedbyCF,“Idon’tthinkitreallyimpactedmycommitmentto
[department],uhm.Obviously,Iamcommittedto[department]already,Ihave
workedherefor[number]yearsandIdon’tgetpaidenough”(CF,B357).“Ifeellike
Iamalreadyataprettyhighlevelofcommitment”(CF,B367).Testamenttohigh
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
99
levelsofcommitmentwerereiteratedbyFP:“Formyself…Ijustlovemyjob,doing
whatIdo...soIdon’treallyseemoreofanimpactof,yaknow;Ireallywannagoout
anddobetterandstuff,butIamalwayslikethatanyways”(FP,A66).Manywithin
thedepartmentexhibitasustainedlevelofcommitmenttotheirjobsandtothe
department.
Thedepartment’shighlevelofperformancetranspiredfromgroup
discussionaboutvisionexecutionandfulfillment.QUsaid,“Andwedoitwell,andI
thinkthat’sthetheme…wellweactuallydoaprettygoodjob”(B448).Thispointis
echoedbyXD:“AndIdon’tknowthatitaffectedmyperformance,becauseIthink
thisdepartmentalreadyhasalotofgroundworklaidforoursuccess…It’san
overallgoalofsuccessforus,already”(XD,A76).Thedepartmentandthestaff
instinctivelygoaboveandbeyondwhenworkingwithothers.ABsaid,“Ithinkwhat
ittakesto,uhm,tosatisfypeople,herebothinthisenvironment,specificallyour
department,butatTech,isit’salreadyin‐grainedinustodothisextrastufffor
people”(AB,C570).
Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment.A
majorityofstaffmembersfromtheAiinterventiongroupexplainedthatthe
visioningprocessconfirmedmanyoftheirpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesabout
thedepartment.KLexplainedthatthevisioningprocesshelpedreinforceher
previouslyestablishedcommitmenttothedepartment.MRnotedthat:
ItconfirmedthingsaboutwhatIalreadybelievedaboutthisoffice…Ithinkif
anythingthisactivitygotmeevenmoreexcitedabout[department]andthe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
100
groupofindividuals,thewonderfulgroupofindividualsthatworkwithinside
thewalls.(MR,C59)
Feelingsofre‐affirmationandconfirmationwereathemeforparticipantsoftheAi
intervention.RHfeltthattheAiinterventionwasanaffirmativeprocess.
Additionally,VOmentionedthatsomeoftheAiactivitieswereusedinastaffretreat
aftertheintervention.
StaffmemberswhoparticipatedinAialsomentionedthattheyfeltconnected
toothersthroughtheinterviewingprocess.Activitiesduringthevisioningprocess
allowedstaffmemberstodiscussvaluesthatweresharedamongthedepartment.
KLnotedthatthevisioningprocesswas,“justconfirmingthingsthatIalreadyfelt
aboutouroffice,butitwasfuntoseeotherpeoplefeelthatway”(C84).Inresponse
totheinterviewsthattookplace,KLfelt,“thatwasjustareallyniceexercise,tofind
outthatwebothfeltthesamewayaboutourjobsandwedoverydifferentthings,
whichwasreallyneat”(C92).Asevidentinthepreviousexcerpt,discussionwith
co‐workersresultedinadiscoveryofmutualfeelings.Andthroughoutthese
discussions,MRnoticedcommonthemesamongthestaff:
Sothatwasmostenjoyableandtohearthecommonthemesaboutwhatfolks
feltaboutworkingintheoffice,andwhatwelearnedabouteachother
individually,butalsohowthattranscendedtothegroupofwhatwethought
aboutworkinginthisparticularoffice.(MR,C55)
Category:DepartmentCulture
Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture.Manymembersofthe
Staffdiscussedthestrongcultureofthedepartment,andthroughthisdiscussion
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
101
corevaluesemerged.RHdescribedthedepartmentwhilesaying,“It’slikewedon’t
knowhowelsetobe,likethisishowweare,…weallhavethesamecoreinalotof
ways;that’swhywedowhatwedo;wewouldn’tbehereifwedidn’t”(B443).A
largenumberofthestaffhaveworkedinthedepartmentforanextendedamountof
time.Theselastingrelationshipshavefosteredastrongorganizationalcultureas
explainedbyST:
Therearealotofpeoplewhohavebeenherelikelongterm,soyou’vegotthis
longrichhistory,you’vegrowntogether,you’ve‐Imeanyou’vehadsimilarlife
experiencesandstufflikethat;Ithinkallthatjustkindahelpsustobecohesive.
(ST,A458).
Andwhenthedepartmentdoeshaveanopportunitytohirenewemployees,they
arecarefultoselectemployeeswhosevaluesalignthedepartments.Thisisfurther
explainedbyMRinthefollowingdescription:
Andthethingiswiththisoffice,wedon’thaveveryoftentheneedtohirefolks,
becausepeopledon’twanttoleave;wellwhenthetimecomestodothat,thenI
thinkweallknowhowimportantitistotryandfindthesefolksthatwill
continuetofitwellwithinourcultureandbringinnewideasbecausewedon’t
wanttostaystagnantorhaveayesculture,thatwouldbealittlescary.(MR,
C486)
TheStaffdiscussedtheimportanceofnewideasandorganizationallearning
withinthedepartment.Itwasmentionedbymanythattheyvaluedthe
opportunitiestheyhadforprofessionaldevelopment.Thedepartmentalso
encouragesstafftoexpandtheirskillsandknowledge,asdescribedbyAB:“Ithink
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
102
theotherthingislearningandsupportingthelearninghere….Ilikelearningabout
mycraftofworkingwithstudentsinadvising,andcoaching,andcounseling,that’s
whatIliketodo”(C282).Personaldevelopmentisencouragedbythedepartment
inanefforttobuildself‐awarenessandconnectednesswithoneanother.Thestaff
valuestheopportunitiestheyhavereceivedforpersonalgrowth,asexpressedby
XD:
WellIthinkithasbeenalltheopportunitiesthatwe’vehadtogrowand
developourselves.…Ihavelearnedsomuchaboutmyself;it’shelpedmeto
understandmyselfandhowIcancontributetoateamandmystrengthsand
weaknesses.(XD,A363)
Suchinvestmentsinthestaffandfeelingsofempowermenthaveplayedalargerrole
inbuildingthedepartmentculture.
AstaffmembernotedthattheDirectorplaysaninfluentialrolein
establishingvalues,buildingacommunity,andcommunicatingthevision.ST
exemplifiestheDirector’sroleinthefollowingstatement:
Butitdefinitelyislikeourdirector.It’slikehervision…it’salwaysbeen
instilledinuscustomerserviceisfirst,yaknow:thefamilyandthenstudents
arefirst,yaknowthatkindathing;sowealljustkindahavethatinstilledinus.
(ST,A461)
Staffmembersrepeatedlymentionedthesupporttheyreceivefromfellow
colleaguesinthedepartment:
OnewordthatIthinkofis‘support’:whetheritissupportforprofessional
development,supporttotryoutsomethingnew,uhmjustallkindsofdifferent
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
103
support.Yougetthathere,wheremaybeotherplacesyoumightnotgetthat.
(KL,C617)
Tobuildontheseremarks,VOexplainedthat“everybody’salwayswillingtosupport
oneanother;evenifit’snotintherearea,they’rewillingtostepupandhelpout
where,yaknow,whereneeded”(C470).Astrongorganizationalculturehasbeen
builtonthestrongsupportofothersinthedepartment.
TheStaff’sdesireforservingstudentshasalsoaddedtothecultureofthe
department.AsdescribedbyMR,“Ithinkagain,ifyouaskanybodyhereinthe
office,theyareherebecausetheyloveworkingwithstudentsandtheyhavethat
passiontodothat”(C497).Staffmembersfrombothinterventionsspoketothe
valuetheyseeineducatinganddevelopingstudents.KLnotedtheservicethatthe
departmentstrivestogivestudents,“that’sjusthowthingsarehere,student
centered,verycustomerservicefocused”(C616).Manyofthestafffeltthatthe
departmenttreatedstudentswithrespect,furtherreiteratingthistheme.ABsaid,
“everyoneiscommittedtotheeducationandservicetoeachandeverystudentwho
walksthroughthosedoorsandthattakesdifferentformsatdifferentpointsintime”
(C506).
ResearchQuestionFive
Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressed
byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup?BothAiandSWOTparticipantsexpress
manyofthethemeslistedabove.AmajorityofSWOTparticipantsspokespecifically
tothevisioningprocessbeingfrustratingandnegative.AmajorityofAiparticipants
expressedthattheinterventionservedtoconfirmmanypreexistingvaluesand
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
104
beliefs.Staffmemberswereabletoconnectduringtheinterviewstoexposeshared
values.Withthisbeingsaid,fiveoutoftheseventhemesthatemergedwerefound
inbothAiandSWOTinterventions.SWOThadonethemethatwasidentifiedtobe
specifictotheinterventiontreatment.Additionally,Aiparticipantsspokedirectlyto
valuesconfirmationasaresultoftheintervention.
ResearchQuestionSix
Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre‐testandpost‐testresultsbetween
interventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?Qualitativedataabout
participants’interventionexperiencewasusedtoexplainconnectionsand
relationshipsamongthequantitativedata.Inareviewofthequalitativedata,itwas
foundthatthequalitativethemesrelatedmostcloselytotheirvisioningprocessas
opposedtotheirchangescores,whichweredeterminedduringquantitative
analysis.Moreover,thequalitativethemesrelatedtothetreatmentintervention
(Table4‐9).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
105
Table4‐9ThemesbyinterventiontreatmentThemes Ai SWOT Enjoyable,beneficial,andenergizingprocess X X
Negativeandfrustratingprocess X Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff X X
Positiveimpactonvisionclarity X X Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance X X
Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment
X
Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture X X
*(X)representsthepresenceofthatthemeintheinterventionThemeswerederivedfromparticipantsintheSWOTandAiintervention.Themeswerediscussedacrossallchangelevels.Differencesinthemesarerelatedtointerventiontreatment.Interestingly,theparticipantsdidnotexplicitlyacknowledgeachangeintheir
organizationalcommitmentorvisionclarityscores.Thatbeingsaid,the
quantitativeanalysisandqualitativeanalysisarenotconvergent.However,the
significanceassociatedwithAiisexplainedbythequalitativethemes,specifically
thethemeexclusivelyrelatedtoAi.Theslightdeclineinorganizationalcommitment
scorescanbeexplainedbythequalitativethemesrelatedtotheSWOTintervention.
TashakkoriandTeddlie(2008)suggestmeta‐inferenceswhenthequantitativeand
qualitativedataareanalyzedseparatelytocreateinferencesandthenthese
inferencesarecombinedtocreatemeta‐inferences.Quantitativeinferencesare
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
106
combinedwithqualitativeinferencestoproducemeta‐inferencesasdiscussedin
chapterfive.
Summary
Thefindingsofthisstudy,organizedbyresearchquestion,arepresentedin
thischapter.Resultsofthedataanalysisfromthestudywerereportednext.
QuantitativedataanalysisincludedarepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithrandom
subjecteffects.Adescriptionofthevisioningprocessandrelatedoutcomeswere
discussed.Findingsfromtheanalysisofthequalitativedatawerethenreported.In
keepingwiththemixedmethodsstudy,thequantitativeandqualitativedatawere
analyzedtoattempttofurtherexplaintheresultsandthephenomenon.Further,
chapterfivewillprovidescholarlyreflectionsonthefindingspresentedinthis
chapter.Conclusions,recommendationsforpractices,andimplicationsforfuture
researchwillalsobepresentedinthefollowingchapter.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
107
CHAPTERFIVE
DISCUSSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS
Inanefforttoprovideabriefoverviewofthestudy,thischapterrestatesthe
problemstatement,researchquestions,andmethodsusedinthestudy.Themajorsections
ofthechaptersummarizetheresults,relatefindingstothetheoreticalbasisofthestudy,
anddiscussimplicationsforfuturepracticeandresearch.
StatementoftheProblem
Scholarsinthefieldagreethatvisionisconsideredtobeanintegralpartof
leadership.Avisionstatementprovidesasenseofdirectionfororganizationalmembers
whileexplainingapositiveimageofthefuture.Visionisavitalpartofbusinessstrategy
andplanning(eg.Porras&Collins,1994;Schoemaker,1992;Vandermerwe,1995).With
thisunderstandingofvisionandtheVisioningProcessModel(Kakabadseetal.,2005),itis
easytoseehowessentialitisforaleadertobeabletocultivatesuchastatement.
However,manyleadersstrugglewithcreatingandarticulatingavision(Kouzes&Posner,
2007).Thisisdetrimentalconsideringtheimpactthatleadershaveindeterminingthe
successofvisioningand,inturn,thesuccessoftheorganization.Wemustbeableto
understandandeffectivelyfacilitatevisioningwithinourorganizationsinorderto
successfullymoveintothefuture.
Despitethecommonuseoforganizationaldevelopmenttechniquesbyleaders,
practitioners,andconsultantstofacilitatevisioning;thereisstillaneedtoanalyzethe
techniquesthemselves(Bushe&Kassam,2005;Leigh,2010).Consideringhowmany
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
108
companiesareinvestinginexecutiveeducationandleadershipdevelopment,the
effectivenessofthetechniquesbeingusedoughttobeanimportantissue.Theapproaches
toorganizationalvisioningandplanningneedfurtheranalysistodeterminetheir
outcomes,clarity,andreturnoninvestment(Helms&Nixon,2010).Moreover,thereisa
growingneedtocomparestrategies(SWOTandAi),inordertohelpcompaniesand
organizationsdeterminewhichtechniqueismostappropriateforthem.
ResearchQuestions
Thespecificresearchquestionsforthethesiswere:
1. Whatwerethelevelsoforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritybeforeand
aftertheinterventions?
2. Whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclaritywithin
andbetweentreatmentgroups?
3. Whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?
4. Howdidparticipants’perceivethevisioningprocessandresultingeffects?
5. Whatsimilaritiesanddifferencesaretherebetweenperceptionsexpressedbyeach
interventiontreatmentgroup?
6. Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre‐testandpost‐testresultsbetween
interventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?
ReviewofMethodology
Abriefreviewofthemethodologyusedinthestudyispresentedhere.Theresearch
wasconductedusinganmixedmethodsexplanatorysequentialdesign.Inthefirstphaseof
theresearch,quantitativedatawascollectedusingsurveyquestionnairestakenbeforeand
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
109
afterinterventions.Thisstrandofdatawasanalyzedandconnectedtothesecondphaseof
thestudy,asitinformedparticipantselectionandthecompositionofinterviewquestions.
Inthesecondphaseofthestudy,qualitativedatawascollectedduringthreefocusgroup
sessionsandresearcherobservationsweremadeduringeachintervention.Focusgroup
transcriptsandobservationprotocolswerethematicallyanalyzedusingtheconstant
comparativemethod.Bothstrandsofdataweremixedandintegratedinsuchawaythat
thequalitativeanalysisfurtherexplainedthequantitativefindings.
SummaryandDiscussionofResults
Inthissection,asummaryanddiscussionoftheresultsforeachresearchquestion
areshared.Abriefsummaryoftheresultspresentedinchapterfourisfollowedbya
discussionrelatingtheresearchinthiscasestudytoexistingresearch.Moreover,the
discussionprovidesexplanationsofunanticipatedfindingsandtheoreticalimplicationsof
thestudy.Lastly,implicationsforpracticeandrecommendationsforresearchwillbe
discussed.
ResearchQuestionOne,ResultsSummary
Thefirstresearchquestionasked:whatwerethelevelsoforganizational
commitmentandvisionclaritybeforeandaftertheinterventions?Theresultsshowedthat
Aiparticipantshadslightlyhigherorganizationalcommitmentscoresaftertheir
intervention.SWOTparticipantshadslightlylowerorganizationalcommitmentscores
aftertheintervention.BothAiandSWOThaddelayedpost‐testscoresthatwerelower
thanthepre‐testorganizationalcommitmentscores.Theresultsalsoshowedthat
participantsintheAiinterventionhadhighervisionclarityscoresatthepre‐testthanthe
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
110
participantsintheSWOTintervention.BothAiandSWOThadverylittlechangebetween
visionclarityacrossalltestscores.Itshouldbenotedthatthesedifferencesareallwithin
thereportedstandarderror,meaningthattheseslightdifferencesarenotsignificant.
Explanationofunanticipatedfindings.Whiletheresearcheranticipatedpositive
differencesinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityscoresatthepre‐testandpost‐
test,itisimportanttoacknowledgethelimitedtimeforeachintervention.Timeallotted
foreachinterventionwasbasedondepartmentavailability.Cooperrideretal.(2008)
suggestedthatanAisummitcouldlastuptothreeorfourdaysandtheinterventiontime
allottedforthiscasestudywasonlyfourhours.Therefore,thelimitedtimefor
organizationalvisioningcouldaccountforthesefindings.However,thecasestudyis
intendedtoaddinsightintothefutureinvestmentofeitherstrategicvisioningtechnique
basedonlimitedamountsoftime.
Positivechangesinorganizationalcommitmentwerenotsustained,asevidentin
thedelayed‐posttestresults.Thedatashowsthattherewasaslightdecreasein
organizationalcommitmentscoresforSWOTparticipantsatthepostanddelayedpost
intervals.OrganizationalcommitmentscoresalsodecreasedforAifrompost‐testto
delayedpost‐test.BothAiandSWOTshoweddecreasedlevelsofvisionclaritybetweenthe
pre‐testandpost‐test.Additionally,participantsfromthefocusgroupsdiscussedthelack
ofactiontakenaftertheinterventionstocontinuethevisioningdialogue.Thisinformation
helpstofurtherexplainthedecreasedscoresreportedduringthedelayedpost‐test.The
delayedpost‐testwasalsoadministeredduringthesemester,whereastheprevioustests
weretakenoverthesummer.Theincreasedworkloadoverthesemestermayhaveplayed
aroleintheresultsfromthedelayedpost‐test.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
111
Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Mowdayetal.(1979)surveyednine
samplesandfoundthemeanscorestobeslightlyabovethemidpointona7‐pointLikert
scale.Acrosstheninesamples,thelevelofcommitmentrangedfromalowof4.0toahigh
of6.1.Oneoftheninesamplessurveyed569publicemployeeswhowerefoundtohavean
averagecommitmentscoreof4.5withastandarddeviationof0.90.Additionally,asurvey
of243classifieduniversityemployeeswasfoundtohaveanaveragecommitmentscoreof
4.6withastandarddeviationof1.3.Thesecommitmentlevelsgiveperspectivetothe
organizationalcommitmentscoresofthedepartment.Comparedtotherangesreportedby
Mowdayetal.(1979),itappearsthatthestaffreportshighlevelsoforganizational
commitmentgiventhattheaveragepre‐testscoreswereabovea6.0onasevenpoint
Likertscale.
ResearchQuestionTwo,ResultsSummary
Thisquestionasked:whatwerethedifferencesinorganizationalcommitmentand
visionclaritywithinandbetweentreatmentgroups?Afterperformingarepeated
measuresANOVA,withrandomsubjecteffects,itwasdeterminedthatastatistically
significantdifferenceexistedbetweenAiandSWOTorganizationalcommitmentscores
frompre‐testtopost‐test.TheAitreatmentpositivelyimpactedorganizational
commitmentscores.Withinthisanalysis,theinteractionisstatisticallydifferentthanzero,
andthechangeinAifrompre‐testtopost‐testisdifferentthanthechangeinSWOTfrom
pre‐testtopost‐test.Thetestsbeingperformedareusedtodeterminewhetherthe
differencesamongtheinterventiontreatmentlevelsarelargerthanthedifferencesamong
theindividualobservationswithineachlevel.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
112
Withinthevisionclarityconstruct,therelationshipbetweeninterventiontreatments
andtesttimeprovedtobeinsignificant,whilethetreatmentprovedtobestatistically
significant.Thisisattributedtothedifferenceinvisionclarityscoresseenthroughoutthe
groupsattheonsetofthetesting.Asdeterminedfromthequalitativeanalysis,thevision
clarityscoresfoundinAiarehigherthantheSWOTscoresbecausemanyoftheAi
participantswereontheleadershipteamthatcomposedthevisionstatement.The
researcherattemptedtocontrolforequalvisionclarityscoresamongsttreatmentgroups,
butparticipantavailabilityandschedulingtookhigherpriorityinassigninggroups.An
importantobservationofthisanalysisisthattheleadershipteamhasagreater
understandingofthevisionand,accordingtooneparticipant,theinterventionwasthefirst
timethedepartmentvisionwasdiscussedasawhole.
ResearchQuestionThree,ResultsSummary
Researchquestionthreeanalyzesacomponentofthequalitativedatainasking:
whatweretheprocessandproductsofeachintervention?Observationprotocolswere
usedtoanalyzeandbetterunderstandtheinterventions.Bothinterventionswere
designedtohavethesamegoalandoverarchingquestionguidingtheactivities.However,
thetwoapproachestostrategicvisioningresultedinverydifferentoutcomes.Participants
ofSWOTanalysisdiscussedbarrierstocompletingthevisionandthentheycarefully
analyzedapossiblesolutiontotheidentifiedproblem.TheresultingeffectsoftheSWOT
interventionwereaspecificandfocusedlistoforganizationalattributesrelatedtoone
theme:one‐on‐oneswithfaculty.ParticipantsofAifocusedonthebestexperiencesofthe
departmenttobuildastrengths‐basedfoundationfromwhichtheyenvisioned
opportunitiesforthefuture.Aiinterventionoutcomesresultedinabroadunderstanding
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
113
ofthedepartment’sfuture.Thestrengths‐basedfoundationwasbrieflyrelatedtoworking
withfacultytoadvancethedepartment’svision.
Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Thesefindingsagreewiththe
existingresearchonSWOTandAi.SWOTisnotedasarigorousanalyticaltoolthathasthe
abilitytocriticallyevaluatespecificstrategies(Hill&Westbrook,1997).Further,SWOT
investigatesaspecificstrategyusingalimitedandnarrowfocus,whileAifocusesbroadly
andholisticallyondepartmentalsuccessesandaccomplishments.Cooperriderand
Whitney(2005)emphasizethewholesystemthinkingwithinAi.Additionally,thefirsttwo
phasesofthe4‐Dcycleareintendedtobedivergent,whilethelattertwophasesare
intendedtobeconvergent.Thesefindings,fromtheresearcherobservations,coincidewith
theliterature.
ResearchQuestionFour,ResultsSummary
Focusgroupinterviewswereconductedtolearnhowparticipants’perceivethe
visioningprocessandresultingeffects?Basedonthequantitativeanalysis,participants
wereplacedintothreedifferentfocusgroups:positivechange,nochange,ornegative
changebasedontheirchangeinscoresfrompre‐testtopost‐test.Organizational
commitmentwaschosenastheconstructforanalysisbecauseofit’sstatisticalsignificance.
Themesthatemergedfromdiscussionswiththestaffwere:
Enjoyable,beneficial,andenergizingprocess
Negativeandfrustratingprocess
Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff
Positiveimpactonvisionclarity
Highlevelsofcommitmentandperformanceamongststaffwerepre‐existing
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
114
Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment
Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture
Manyofthestaffdiscussionsrelatedtothecultureoftheorganization.Additionally,
themesaboutpre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandvisionclaritygaveinsightinto
thehighperformingorganization.FewthemesemergedthatwerespecifictoAiorSWOT
techniques.
Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Whileorganizationalandemployee
performancewerenotsurveyedinthisstudy,staffmembersmentionedthehighlevelsof
performanceandexcellenceexhibitedbythedepartment.Mowdayetal.(1979)suggested
thatarelationshipexistsbetweenorganizationalcommitmentand
employee/organizationalperformance,whileacknowledgingthatperformanceisalso
influencedbymanyotherfactors.However,ameta‐analysisofadecadeworthofresearch
yieldedaweakcorrelationbetweenaffectiveorganizationalcommitmentandjob
performance(Riketta,2002).Abodyofliteraturehasbeendevelopedtofurther
investigatethisrelationship.Whiletheliteratureisnotexpandedonhere,theresultsof
thisstudysuggestaneedforfutureresearchontherelationshipbetweenhighperforming
organizationsandstafflevelsofaffectiveorganizationalcommitment.
Withinthetheme“corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture,”asubtheme
emergedfocusingoforganizationallearningandprofessionaldevelopment.Thistheme
relatestomanystudiesfocusingontheimportanceoforganizationallearningwithin
organizations.KeeandNewcomer(2008)arguethatorganizationallearningisimportant
andbeneficialtopublicinstitutions.Denison(1990)includedorganizationallearningas
oneofthetwelveculturaltraitsinhisframeworkforunderstandingcorporatecultureand
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
115
organizationaleffectiveness.Additionally,Schein(2010a)suggestedtheneedforleaders
toenactorganizationallearningtobetterunderstandandcompetewiththeenvironment
withinwhichorganizationsoperate.
ResearchQuestionFive,ResultsSummary
Thisresearchquestionservesasanotherlevelofanalysisinlookingatthefocus
groupdata.Indeterminingthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenperceptionsexpressed
byeachinterventiontreatmentgroup,itwasdiscoveredthattherewereonlytwothemes
specifictotheinterventiontreatment.Aiparticipantsspokespecificallytothe
confirmationofbeliefsandthediscoveryofsharedvaluesamongststaffduringthe
intervention.WhileafewoftheAiparticipantsexpressedsomefrustrationwith
interventionactivities,anoverwhelmingmajorityofSWOTparticipantsmentionedfeeling
frustratedduringtheintervention.Additionally,thephrase”negative”wasspecificand
uniquetothelanguageusedbySWOTparticipantstodescribethevisioningprocess.
MixingofData.TashakkoriandTeddlie(2003)brieflydefinemixedmethods
researchas“atypeofresearchdesigninwhichqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesare
usedintypesofquestions,researchmethods,datacollectionandanalysisprocedures,
and/orinferences”(p.11).Thisstudyadoptedtheexplanatorysequentialdesign(Creswell
etal.,2003)asaframeworkformixedmethodsresearch.Specifictothismodel,the
quantitativedatawascollectedandanalyzedtoguidethequalitativedatacollectionand
analysis(Creswell&PlanoClark,2011).Themodelconnectsbothresearchapproaches
duringdatacollectionandinterpretation.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
116
ResearchQuestionSix,ResultsSummary
Researchquestionsix:Isthereasignificantdifferenceinpre‐testandpost‐testresults
betweeninterventiongroupsbasedontheirvisioningprocess?Thisisamixingquestion
addressedthroughinterpretationsofboththequalitativeandquantitativeinferences.
Positive,negative,andnochangeinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarityare
explainedbythethemesgeneratedfromSWOTandAiparticipantexperiences(Table5‐1).
Relationshipsbetweenthequantitativeandqualitativedataanalysisaremadebasedon
meta‐inferencesandtheliterature.Thetableconnectschangegroups(presentedin
columns)tofocusgroupthemes(presentedinrows).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
117
Table5‐1ThemesbyinterventiontreatmentandchangegroupsThemes PositiveChange No/Negative
Change Ai SWOT Ai SWOT Enjoyable,beneficial,andenergizingprocess
X X
Negativeandfrustratingprocess X Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff X X
Positiveimpactonvisionclarity X X Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance
X X
Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment
X
Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture
X X
*(X)representsthepresenceofthatthemeintheinterventionEachthemeisassociatedwithaninterventiontreatment.Thethemesarerelatedtopositive,negative,andnochangeinorganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.Theconnectionswithinthetablearemadebasedonthefindingsofthestudyandtheliterature.
Theparticipantsexplainedthattheinterventionwasan“enjoyable,beneficial,and
energizingprocess.”Thisthemehelpstoexplainpositivechangesasaresultofthe
intervention.Additionally,the“pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance”
thatwereexpressedbytheparticipantshelptomakesenseofalackofchangeasaresultof
theintervention.Asdetermined,thedepartmentexhibitedahighleveloforganizational
commitmentinthepre‐testscoresandaceilingeffectwasfoundduringanalysis.With
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
118
performanceandcommitmentlevelsstartingwithahighscore,itisdifficulttomeasureor
affectchangeduringanintervention.
AmajorityofthestaffmemberscommunicatedthattheSWOTorAiinterventions
didnotenhancetheirunderstandingofthevisionnortheircommitmenttothe
organization.Evenmoreintriguing,mostofthestaffmembers,excludingnewhires,spoke
tothefactthattheyalreadyhadanunderstandingofthevisionandthattheywerevery
committedtothedepartment.Drawingonthis,participantsyieldedlittlevariationin
visionclarityscoresacrossalltests,whichcanbeexplainedbythethemerelatedtoa
previousunderstandingofthevision.Theparticipantsattributedtheseattitudestothe
supportiveculture,sharedvalues,andhighlevelsofcommitmentandperformancewithin
thedepartmentthatexistedbeforetheinterventionstookplace.Thediscussionofastrong
organizationculturethroughtheinterviewshelpstomakesenseofthehighorganizational
commitmentscoresacrossalltests.
Thetheme,“positiveimpactonvisionclarity,”representedadeeperunderstanding
andbroaderperspectiveofthevisionasaresultoftheinterventions.However,thistheme
surfacedinadditiontostaffalreadyhavingaclearunderstandingofthevision.The
significanceofthesecounteractingthemescanbeexplainedaschangesinvisionclarity,
frompre‐testtopost‐test,werefoundtobeinsignificant.Ontheotherhand,newhires
foundthattheinterventionwasagreatwaytolearnmoreabouttheunderlyingmeaningof
thevisionwhilegainingadeeperunderstandingofthestaff.
Despitethedifferencesinfocusgroupcomposition(positivechange,nochange,and
negativechange),themesthatemergedwerecommonlydiscussedthroughoutall
interviews.Thethemesaidedinexplainingthechanges,orlackthereof,fororganizational
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
119
commitmentandvisionclarity.Twothemesthatemergedwerespecificallyrelatedtoa
visioningprocess.SWOTparticipantsspokespecificallytotheinterventionprocessbeing
negativeandfrustrating.Aiparticipantsspoketothevalueaddedcomponentofthe
visioningprocessinthatmanyoftheirbeliefswereconfirmedduringtheintervention.The
themes,relatingtotheconfirmationofvaluesandtheexposureofsharedvalues,arein
responsetothepositiveimpactoforganizationalcommitmentandAiactivities.These
findingsbuildonthesignificantinteractionbetweentimeandtreatmentastheAi
interventionpositivelyimpactedorganizationalcommitmentscores.
AmajorityofthestaffmemberswhoparticipatedintheAiinterventionmentioned,
manytimes,thatthevisioningprocesshelpedtoconfirmtheirpreexistingbeliefsand
values.Theyalsomentionedthatsharedvaluesamongststaffmemberswereexposed
duringtheAiprocess.Theresearchernotedintheobservationsthatstaffmemberswere
makingconnectionsduringtheinterviewandvisioningactivities.Thesefindingsare
supportedbytheANOVAthatreportsasignificantinteractionbetweenintervention
treatmentandtimeandtheincreaseinorganizationalcommitmentlevels.
Akeyfindingofthestudywasdiscoveredduringmixing.Decreasedlevelsof
organizationalcommitmentforSWOTparticipantscanbeexplainedbythe“negativeand
frustrating”SWOTspecifictheme.Itshouldbenotedthatthecasestudydoesnotattempt
toprovecausation;however,thetablehelpstoelaborateonbothquantitativeand
qualitativefindings.Thisrelationshipwillbediscussedfurther.
Relationshipofthestudytopriorresearch.Thisstudybringstolightthe
connectionbetweenorganizationalvisioning,leadership,andorganizationalculture.
Throughtheanalysisofthequalitativeandquantitativedata,organizationalculturehas
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
120
emergedtobeaninfluentialfactorwhenstudyingorganizationalvisioningtechniquesand
leadership.DenisonandSpreitzer(1991,p.18)notedthe“constrainingandconstrained
natureoftheinteractionbetweenorganizationalcultureandhumanresourcepractices.
Understandingtheserelationshipsisimportantforeffectivediagnosisandinterventionin
organizationalproblems.”Tobuildoffofthis,Schein(2010a)explainedthatunderstanding
organizationalculturewillprovideknowledgeoftheinherentassumptionsandnormsofa
particularorganization.Whenchoosingorganizationalvisioningtechniques,itis
importanttoconsiderthepre‐existingassumptionsoftheorganization.Additionally,
Mathieu(1991)notedtheimportanceofknowingtheleveloforganizationalcommitment
amongststaffmembersinorderforpractitionerstoconsidertherelativeutilityofdifferent
organizationalinterventions.Organizationalcommitmentshouldbeconsideredwhen
choosinganorganizationalintervention.
Thisresearchreportsthesignificantinteractionbetweentreatment,AiandSWOT,
andtime.ThisrelationshipcouldbearesultoftheagreeablenessofAi’stheoretical
assumptionswiththepositivecultureoforganizationalsupportandlearningthatexistsin
thedepartment.Thehighscoresinorganizationalcommitmentwerealsoanindicatorthat
Aicouldhavebeenabettervisioningapproachforthishighperformingandhighly
committeddepartment.Asexplainedinthefocusgroupinterviews,manyofthestaff
membersreaffirmedtheircommitmenttothedepartmentduringtheintervention.The
staffalsoexplainedthattheyarewellontheirwaytoachievingtheirvision.Thisstatement
furtheremphasizestheirpositiveoutlook.
Asnotedintheresearcherobservationsandfocusgroupinterviews,componentsof
theSWOTinterventionwerenotwellreceivedbythestaff.Specifically,thenegative
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
121
languageassociatedwiththediscussionofweaknessesandthreatswasdeterminedtobe
frustrating.AsexplainedbyaSWOTparticipant,agreatdealoftimeandenergywasspent
onaddressingtheseattributesandlittlerecognitionwasgiventotheworkthatwas
currentlybeingdonetoaddresstheproblemsidentified.However,thetableshowsthat
SWOThasmanyofthesamethemesasAisuggestingthattherearepositivecomponentsto
thisapproach.ThesefindingssupporttheunderlyingpurposeoftheSOARmodel:
Strengths,Opportunities,Aspirations,Results.
TheSOARmodeloffersanalternativetoSWOTthroughthecombinationofstrategic
inquiryandappreciativeintent(Stavros,Cooperrider,&Kelley,2003).SOARismorethan
anapproachtoorganizationalvisioningandstrategicplanning,itprovidesaframework
thatallowsan“organization’sstakeholderstoseewheretheyaretodayandestablisha
visionofwheretheywanttogo”(Starvos,Cooperrider,Kelley,p.6).Whilemuchofthe
modelisgroundedintheprinciplesofAi,itprovestobeoneofthefirstmodelstocombine
traditionalstrategicplanningmodelswithacontemporaryvision‐basedapproach.
Furthermore,Stavrosetal.(2003,p.7)arguethattheexclusionofweaknessesandthreats
fromthemodelisinresponsetothetendencyofpeopleandorganizationsto“amplifythe
negative.”
RelationshipofFindingstoTheoreticalBasisoftheStudy
ThisstudyisbasedontheconceptualframeworkproposedKouzesandPosner
(2007)inthataleaderistaskedwithresponsibilityofinspiringasharedvision.Thereare
manytechniquesleaderscanusetofacilitateorganizationalvisioning;SWOTandAiwere
twoexaminedinthiscasestudytodeterminetheireffectonorganizationalcommitment
andvisionclarity.Bothtechniquesinvolvedstakeholdersinorganizationalvisioningand
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
122
decision‐making,whichencouragedownershipandcommitment.Visionclarityisdirectly
relatedtohowwellthevisionisunderstoodoracceptedwithinanorganization
(Kantabutra,2008).Further,asharedvisionmustdescribeadesirablefuturethat
followerswillcommitthemselvestoo(Kantabutra;Kouzes&Posner,2007).
Thevisionclarityresultswerenotsignificantlyimpactedbyeitherintervention.
Theanalysisdidshowthattheleadershipteamhadabetterunderstandingofthevision
thanotherstaffmembers.However,thefocusgroupinterviewsdescribedameaningful
dialoguebetweenstaffmembersthatdeepenedtheirunderstandingofthevisionasmany
perspectiveswereshared.Thesethemesandinterventionactivitiesresonatewithmanyof
thepracticesproposedbyKouzesandPosner(2007)toinspireasharedvision.Such
practicesinclude“imaginingexcitingandennoblingpossibilities”ofthefutureandenlisting
“othersinacommonvisionbyappealingtosharedaspirations”(Kouzes&Posner,p.26).
Additionally,theinterventionsaddedmeaningandperspectivetothevisionstatement
furthercontributingtovisionclarity.
TheVisioningProcessModel(VPM)byKakabadseetal.(2005)wasalsodetermined
tobeinstrumentaltotheinterpretationoffindingsofthestudy.Themodelshowcasesthe
resultingoutcomesassociatedwithdi‐visioningandvisioning.Thethemestiedspecifically
toAirelatecloselytosomeoftheproposedstrategiesforvisioningwithinthemodel.
Specifically,theauthorsnotethattheleadermusthaveapersonalconvictiontothecause.
Thestaffmustalsohavesimilarconvictionandalignedbeliefsinthevision.Thisis
exemplifiedinthecommentsfromAiparticipantsinsayingthattheinterventionhelpedto
confirmpreexistingbeliefsandvaluesaboutthedepartment,furthersuggestingthattheir
initialconvictionswerereaffirmed.Theauthorsalsodetailanotheressentialstrategyto
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
123
visioning,inthattheleadermustgaincommitmentfromtheseniorteam.Gainingbuy‐in
andcommitmentfromthestaffisneededbeforethevisioncanbeputintoaction.
Similarly,commitmentwasgainedasAiparticipantsdiscoveredmanysharedvalues
amongcolleagues.IncreasedlevelsoforganizationalcommitmentfromAiparticipantscan
alsobeseenintheanalyses.
Ontheotherhand,someofthefindingssurroundingtheSWOTinterventionhave
potentialconnectionstodi‐visioning.Aftertheintervention,SWOTparticipantsreporteda
lowerorganizationalcommitmentscoreonthepost‐testanddelayedpost‐test.The
qualitativedatafromresearchobservationsandfocusgroupssuggestedafrustratingand
negativedescriptionoftheSWOTvisioningprocess.Theemergenceofthistheme,specific
totheSWOTintervention,suggeststhepossibilityofdi‐visioning.
VPMidentifiesfourreasonsattributedtodi‐visioning,oneofwhichisin‐fighting.
Kakabadseetal.(2005)describedin‐fightingasaprocessbywhichcorporateenergyturns
negativelyontoitself,allowinganinternalwartostealawayfromthecompany’s
competitiveadvantage.Evenfurther,“mismanagementoftheinternalnegotiatingprocess
couldseriouslydamagethefabricofthecompany”(N.Kakabadseetal.,p.241).Di‐
visioningfostersanenvironmentinwhichstaffaredisputingaswellasfocusingoninternal
competitioninsteadofexternalcompetition.OnecaneasilyseehowaSWOTintervention
“gonewrong”couldleadtoin‐fightingandquicklyresultindi‐visioning.Itseemsthat
negativeandfrustratingdescriptionsofvisioncommunicationarenotsupportivevisioning
themesandcouldlikelyleadtodi‐visioning.Thiscasestudydoesnotattempttoprovidea
statisticalcorrelation;however,thefindingsthestudyprovidereasontoassociateSWOT
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
124
analysiswithdi‐visioning.Moreover,leadersshouldconsiderthesefindingsastheyuse
visioningstrategieswithintheirownorganizations.
Inconclusion,thesalientpointofthiscasestudyistheconnectionmadebetween
SOARandVPMinresponsetothequalitativeandquantitativefindings.TheSOARmodelis
proposedasacombinedapproachthatbuildsoffthestrengthsofbothstrategiesto
organizationalvisioning(Stavrosetal.,2003).SOARhighlightsthesharedpositive
outcomesexperiencedbybothinterventionparticipants.Thestatisticaldatasuggeststhat
Aihadasignificantaffectonparticipant’sorganizationalcommitmentthatisfurther
explainedbyAispecificthemedevelopment.Thesefindingsalignwithsomeofthe
strategiesproposedintheVPMforvisioning.Alternatively,thefindingsassociatedwith
theSWOTinterventionsuggestthattheycouldbeassociatedwithsomeelementsofdi‐
visioning.
RecommendationsforPractice
Whileasinglecasestudycannotprovidegeneralizableevidenceforthepracticeof
organizationalvisioning,thisstudysuggeststhat:
1. Adoptionofanorganizationalvisioningtechniqueshouldbeinkeepingwiththe
organizationalcultureanddesiredoutcomes.
2. Supportfromtheorganizationofinterestisessentialtoresearchingthevisioning
process.
3. OrganizationalvisioningusingAiisareaffirmingprocessthatcanresultin
increasedlevelsoforganizationalcommitment.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
125
4. Discussionofthevisionamongststaffmembersaddsmeaningandpurposetothe
statement.Thisactivityisespeciallybeneficialtonewemployeeswhoarelearning
abouttheorganizationanditsculture.
5. TheSOARmodel,Strengths,Opportunities,Aspirations,andResults,issuggestedas
anorganizationalvisioningstrategythatcombineselementsofSWOTandAi.
RecommendationsforResearch
1. Researchisnecessarytodeterminetheimpactoforganizationalvisioning
interventionsonorganizationalcommitmentoveranextendedperiodoftime.
2. Theimpactorganizationalvisioninghasonvisionclarityremainsunclear.
AdditionalresearchisnecessarytofurtherexploretheeffectofAiandSWOT
interventionsonvisionclarity,specificallyinthecontextofhighperforming
organizations.
3. Sincethefindingsofthecasestudyarenotgeneralizable,anevaluationofAiand
SWOTwithindiversecontextsshouldbeconductedinordertobetterunderstand
thevisioningprocessandresultingeffects.
4. AdditionalresearchshouldinvestigatetheSOARmodeltodetermineifthereare
benefitstothiscombinedapproachtoSWOTandAi,whilelookingspecificallyatthe
impactofthemodeloforganizationalcommitmentandvisionclarity.
5. Explorationofdi‐visioningwithintheVisioningProcessModelshouldberesearched
inordertobetterunderstandthesymptomsandconsequenceswithspecialinterest
itsrelationshiptoSWOTanalysis.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
126
Researcher’sReflectionsandInsights Thefacilitatoroperatedinaparticipatoryactionresearchparadigmthroughwhich
thestaffmemberswereinvitedtocollaborativelyandreflectivelyserveasco‐researchers
ineachintervention.Bothgroupswereawareoftheorganizationalvisioningtechniques
beingassignedtotheirinterventionaftertheytookthepre‐test.Whilethenotiontokeep
theparticipantsinformedandengagedintheresearchisappropriate,therearealsosome
potentialproblems.Thesimplecomparisonoftitles,Appreciativeinquiryvs.Strengths,
Weaknesses,Opportunities,ThreatsAnalysis,leadsthemostnaïveandunbiasedindividual
tobegintodifferentiatebetweenthetwotechniqueswithweightedjudgments.Inthe
orientationmeetingwithparticipants,itwasmentionedthattherewasgoingtobea
“negative”and“positive”session.Withthisbeingsaid,ifthecasestudyweretobe
replicatedwithanotherpopulation,itwouldbeadvisedthattheparticipantsremain
uninformedoftheorganizationalvisioningtechniquetheyareparticipatinginuntilthe
beginningofthatintervention.
Summary
Theinferencesofthisstudy,organizedbyresearchquestion,arepresentedinthis
chapter.Thediscussionsectionincludedanexplanationofunanticipatedfindingsin
additiontomakingconnectionsfromthestudytopriorresearch.Atableshowcasesthe
meta‐inferencesthatwerederivedfromquantitativeandqualitativeinferenceswith
connectionstotheliterature.Thefindingswerethenrelatedtothetheoreticalbasisofthe
study,thevisioningprocessmodel(VPM).TheSOARmodel:Strengths,Opportunities,
Aspirations,Results,andVPMweredeterminedtobeintegraltothefindingsand
conclusionsofthestudy.Recommendationsforpracticeandfutureresearchwere
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
127
explained.Researchinsightswerealsoprovidedasasummaryoflearnedexperiencesasa
resultofthestudy.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
128
REFERENCES
Agresti,A.,&Finlay,B.(1997).Statisticalmethodsforthesocialsciences(3rded.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Allen,N.J.,&Meyer,J.P.(1990).Themeasurementandantecedentsofaffective,continuanceandnormativecommitmenttotheorganization.JournalofOccupationalPsychology,63(1),1‐18.
Allen,N.J.,&Meyer,J.P.(1996).Affective,continuance,andnormativecommitmenttotheorganization:Anexaminationofconstructvalidity.JournalofVocationalBehavior,49(3),252‐276.
Allio,R.J.(2006).Strategicthinking:Thetenbigideas.Strategy&Leadership,34(4),4‐13.Ash,S.L.,Clayton,P.H.,&Atkinson,M.P.(2005).Integratingreflectionandassessmentto
captureandimprovestudentlearning.MichiganJournalofCommunityServiceLearning,11(2),49‐60.
Avery,G.C.(2004).Understandingleadership:Paradigmsandcases.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Avery,G.C.(2005).Leadershipforsustainablefutures:Achievingsuccessinacompetitiveworldmacquarieuniversityresearchonline.Cheltenham,U.K:EdwardElgarPublishing.
Awamleh,R.,&Gardner,W.L.(1999).Perceptionsofleadercharismaandeffectiveness:Theeffectsofvisioncontent,delivery,andorganizationalperformance.TheLeadershipQuarterly,10(3),345‐373.
Balamuralikrishna,R.,&Dugger,J.C.(1995).SWOTanalysis:Amanagementtoolforinitiatingnewprogramsinvocationalschools.JournalofVocationalandTechnicalEducation,12(1),36‐41.
Barker,A.(2006).Visioningandstrategicplanning.Boston,MA:JonesandBartlettPublishers.
Bass,B.M.(1985).Leadershipandperformancebeyondexpectations.NewYork,NY:FreePress.
Bass,B.M.,&Stogdill,R.M.(1990).Handbookofleadership:Theory,research&managerialapplications(3rded.).NewYork,NY:FreePress.
Baum,J.R.,Locke,E.A.,&Kirkpatrick,S.A.(1998).Alongitudinalstudyoftherelationofvisionandvisioncommunicationtoventuregrowthinentrepreneurialfirms.JournalofAppliedPsychology,83(1),43‐54.
Bennis,W.,&Nanus,B.(1985).Visionaryleadership:Creatingacompellingsenseofdirectionforyourorganization.SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.
Berrisford,S.(2005).Usingappreciativeinquirytodrivechangeatthebbc.StrategicCommunicationManagement,9(3),22‐25.
Berson,Y.,Shamir,B.,Avolio,B.J.,&Popper,M.(2001).Therelationshipbetweenvisionstrength,leadershipstyle,andcontext.TheLeadershipQuarterly,12(1),53‐73.
Bloom,J.,Hutson,B.,He,Y.,Amundsen,S.,Buyarski,C.,Christman,P.,...Robinson,C.(2009).Howeightinstitutionshaveincorporatedappreciativeadvising.TheMentor:AnAcademicAdvisingJournal,11(2).
Boeije,H.(2002).Apurposefulapproachtotheconstantcomparativemethodintheanalysisofqualitativeinterviews.Quality&Quantity,36(4),391‐409.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
129
Boyd,B.L.,Moore,L.L.,Williams,J.,&Elbert,C.D.(2011).Entry‐levelcompetenciesneededforgloballeaders.InternationalLeadershipJournal,3(1),20‐39.
Bryson,J.M.,&Roering,W.D.(1987).Applyingprivate‐sectorstrategicplanninginthepublicsector.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,53(1),9‐22.
Burke,W.W.(2002).Organizationchange.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Burnes,B.(2004).Kurtlewinandtheplannedapproachtochange:Are‐appraisal.Journal
ofManagementStudies,41(6),977‐1002.Bushe,G.R.(1999).Advancesinappreciativeinquiryasanorganizationdevelopment
intervention.OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,16(2),61‐68.Bushe,G.R.,&Coetzer,G.(1995).Appreciativeinquiryasateam‐development
intervention:Acontrolledexperiment.TheJournalofappliedbehavioralscience,31(1),13‐30.
Bushe,G.R.,&Kassam,A.F.(2005).Whenisappreciativeinquirytransformational?TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,41(2),161‐181.
Cameron,K.S.,Dutton,J.E.,&Quinn,R.E.(2003).Positiveorganizationalscholarship:Foundationsofanewdiscipline.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.
Caudron,S.(1999).Theloomingleadershipcrisis.Workforce,78(9),72‐79.Chang,H.,&Huang,W.(2006).ApplicationofaquantificationSWOTanalyticalmethod.
MathematicalandComputerModelling,43(1),158‐169.Chermack,T.J.,&Kasshanna,B.K.(2007).TheuseandmisuseofSWOTanalysisand
implicationsforhrdprofessionals.HumanResourceDevelopmentInternational,10(4),383‐399.
Cockell,J.,Mcarthur‐Blair,J.,&Schiller,M.(2012).Appreciativeinquiryinhighereducation:Atransformativeforce.SanFrancisco,CA:JohnWiley&Son.
Cole,M.S.,Harris,S.G.,&Bernerth,J.B.(2006).Exploringtheimplicationsofvision,appropriateness,andexecutionoforganizationalchange.Leadership&OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,27(5),352‐367.
Collins,J.C.,&Porras,J.I.(1996).Buildingyourcompany'svision.HarvardBusinessReview,74(5),65‐78.
Conger,J.A.,&Kanungo,R.N.(1987).Towardabehavioraltheoryofcharismaticleadershipinorganizationalsettings.AcademyofManagementReview,12(4),637‐647.
Cooperrider,D.L.(1997).Resourcesforgettingappreciativeinquirystarted.ODPractitioner,28(1),28‐33.
Cooperrider,D.L.,&Srivastva,S.(1987).Appreciativeinquiryinorganizationallife.ResearchinOrganizationalChangeandDevelopment,1(1),129‐169.
Cooperrider,D.L.,&Whitney,D.(2005).Appreciativeinquiry:Apositiverevolutioninchange.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlersPublishers
Cooperrider,D.L.,Whitney,D.,Stavros,J.M.,&Fry,R.(2008).Appreciativeinquiryhandbook:Forleadersofchange(2nded.).SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.
Cooperrider,D.L.,Whitney,D.K.,&Stavros,J.M.(2003).Appreciativeinquiryhandbook(Vol.1).SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.
Corbin,J.,&Strauss,A.(2008).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Techniquesandproceduresfordevelopinggroundedtheory(3rded.ed.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
130
Creswell,J.W.,&PlanoClark,V.L.(2007).Designingandconductingmixedmethodsresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Creswell,J.W.,&PlanoClark,V.L.(2011).Designingandconductingmixedmethodsresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Creswell,J.W.,PlanoClark,V.L.,Gutmann,M.L.,&Hanson,W.E.(2003).Advancedmixedmethodsresearchdesigns.InA.Tashakkori&C.Teddlie(Eds.),Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch(pp.209‐240).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage
Cummings,T.G.,&Worley,C.G.(2009).Organisationdevelopment&change(9thed.).Mason,OH:CengageLearning.
Davis,C.M.(2005).Appreciativeinquiryasatoolforfacultyandorganizationaldevelopment.
Day,D.V.(2000).Leadershipdevelopment:Areviewincontext.TheLeadershipQuarterly,11(4),581‐613.
Denison,D.R.(1990).Corporatecultureandorganizationaleffectiveness.NewYork,NY:JohnWiley&Sons.
Denison,D.R.,&Spreitzer,G.M.(1991).Organizationalcultureandorganizationaldevelopment:Acompetingvaluesapproach.Researchinorganizationalchangeanddevelopment,5(1),1‐21.
Dillman,D.A.,Smyth,J.D.,&Christian,L.M.(2008).Internet,mail,andmixed‐modesurveys:Thetailoreddesignmethod(3rded.).Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.
Drath,W.H.,&Palus,C.J.(1994).Makingcommonsense:Leadershipasmeaning‐makinginacommunityofpractice(3rded.).Greensboro,NCCenterforCreativeLeadership.
Dugan,J.P.,&Komives,S.R.(2007).Developingleadershipcapacityincollegestudents:Findingsfromanaitonalstudy.CollegePark,MD:NationalClearinghouseforLeadershipPrograms.
Dvir,T.,Kass,N.,&Shamir,B.(2004).Theemotionalbond:Visionandorganizationalcommitmentamonghigh‐techemployees.JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement,17(2),126‐143.
Egan,T.M.,&Lancaster,C.M.(2005).Comparingappreciativeinquirytoactionresearch:Odpractitionerperspectives.OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,23(2),29‐49.
Elden,M.,&Chisholm,R.F.(1993).Emergingvarietiesofactionresearch:Introductiontothespecialissue.HumanRelations,46(2),121‐142.
Ferris,K.R.,&Aranya,N.(1983).Acomparisonoftwoorganizationalcommitmentscales.PersonnelPsychology,36(1),87‐98.
Finegold,M.A.,Holland,B.M.,&Lingham,T.(2002).Appreciativeinquiryandpublicdialogue:Anapproachtocommunitychange.PublicOrganizationReview,2(3),235‐252.
Finlay,J.S.(1994).Thestrategicvisioningprocess.PublicAdministrationQuarterly,18(1),64‐74.
Fitzgerald,S.P.,Murrell,K.L.,&Newman,H.L.(2001).Appreciativeinquiry:Thenewfrontier.InJ.Waclawski&A.H.Church(Eds.),Organizationdevelopment:Datadrivenmethodsforchange(1sted.,pp.203‐221).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐BassPublishers.
Fulmer,R.M.,&Goldsmith,M.(2001).Theleadershipinvestment:Howtheworld'sbestorganizationsgainstrategicadvantagethroughleadershipdevelopment.NewYork,NY:AMACOM.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
131
Gardner,H.(1995).Leadingminds:Ananatomyofleadership.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.Ghazinoory,S.,Abdi,M.,&Azadegan‐Mehr,M.(2011).SWOTmethodology:Astate‐of‐the‐
artreviewforthepast,aframeworkforthefuture.JournalofBusinessEconomicsandManagement,12(1),24‐48.
Glaister,K.W.,&Falshaw,J.R.(1999).Strategicplanning:Stillgoingstrong?LongRangePlanning,32(1),107‐116.
Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.L.(1967).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.Chicago,IL:AldinePublishingCompany.
Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.L.(2009).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.Piscataway,NJ:AldineTransaction.
Grant,S.,&Humphries,M.(2006).Criticalevaluationofappreciativeinquiry:Bridginganapparentparadox.ActionResearch,4(4),401‐418.
Greene,J.C.(2007).Mixedmethodsinsocialinquiry.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.Greene,J.C.,Caracelli,V.J.,&Graham,W.F.(1989).Towardaconceptualframeworkfor
mixed‐methodevaluationdesigns.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,11(3),255‐274.
Gupta,A.K.,&Govindarajan,V.(2002).Cultivatingaglobalmindset.TheAcademyofManagementExecutive,16(1),116‐126.
Haines,A.,&Green,G.P.(2011).Assetbuilding&communitydevelopment.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Hammond,J.,Muffs,M.,&Sciascia,S.(2001).Theleadershipcrisis:Isitforreal?Principal,81(2),28‐29,31‐32.
Havens,D.S.,Wood,S.O.,&Leeman,J.(2006).Improvingnursingpracticeandpatientcare:Buildingcapacitywithappreciativeinquiry.JournalofNursingAdministration,36(10),463.
Helms,M.M.,&Nixon,J.(2010).ExploringSWOTanalysis–wherearewenow?:Areviewofacademicresearchfromthelastdecade.JournalofStrategyandManagement,3(3),215‐251.
Hickman,G.R.(2010).Leadingorganizations:Perspectivesforanewera(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Hill,C.W.L.,&Jones,G.R.(2009).Strategicmanagement:Anintegratedapproach(9thed.).Mason,OH:CengageLearning.
Hill,T.,&Westbrook,R.(1997).SWOTanalysis:It'stimeforaproductrecall.LongRangePlanning,30(1),46‐52.
Horn,R.E.,&Weber,R.P.(2007).Newtoolsforresolvingwickedproblems:Messmappingandresolutionmappingprocesses.Watertown,MA:StrategyKineticsLLC.
Houben,G.,Lenie,K.,&Vanhoof,K.(1999).Aknowledge‐basedSWOT‐analysissystemasaninstrumentforstrategicplanninginsmallandmediumsizedenterprises.DecisionSupportSystems,26(2),125‐135.
Hubbard,B.M.(1998).Consciousevolution:Awakeningthepowerofoursocialpotential.Novato,CA:NewWorldLibrary.
Jackson,B.,&Parry,K.(2011).Averyshortfairlyinterestingandreasonablycheapbookaboutstudyingleadership(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Johnson,B.(1999).Examiningthequalitystructureofqualitativeresearch.Education,18(2),282‐292.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
132
Kakabadse,A.,&Kakabadse,N.(1999).Essenceofleadership.London,England:InternationalThomsonBusinessPress.
Kakabadse,N.,Kakabadse,A.,&Lee‐Davies,L.(2005).Visioningthepathway:Aleadershipprocessmodel.EuropeanManagementJournal,23(2),237‐246.
Kantabutra,S.(2008).Whatdoweknowaboutvision?InG.R.Hickman(Ed.),Leadingorganizations:Prespectivesforanewera(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Kantabutra,S.,&Avery,G.C.(2002).Proposedmodelforinvestigatingrelationshipsbetweenvisioncomponentsandbusinessunitperformance.JournalofManagement&Organization,8(2),22‐39.
Kanter,R.M.(1983).Thechangemasters:Innovationandentrepreneurshipintheamericancorporation.NewYork,NY:SimonandSchuster.
Kearns,K.P.(1992).Fromcomparativeadvantagetodamagecontrol:ClarifyingstrategicissuesusingSWOTanalysis.NonprofitManagementandLeadership,3(1),3‐22.
Kee,J.E.,&Newcomer,K.E.(2008).Transformingpublicandnonprofitorganizations:Stewardshipforleadingchange.Vienna,VA:ManagementConceptsInc.
Keefe,M.R.,&Pesut,D.(2004).Appreciativeinquiryandleadershiptransitions.JournalofProfessionalNursing,20(2),103‐109.
Klenke,K.(2008).Qualitativeresearchinthestudyofleadership.Bingley,UK:EmeraldGroupPublishing.
Kotter,J.P.(1997).Leadingbyvisionandstrategy:Visionreferstoapictureofthefuture.ExecutiveExcellence,14,15‐15.
Kotter,J.P.(2007).Leadingchange.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessPress.Kouzes,J.M.,&Posner,B.Z.(2007).Theleadershipchallenge.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐
Bass.Langley,A.(1988).Therolesofformalstrategicplanning.LongRangePlanning,21(3),40‐
50.Lee,J.(2005).Effectsofleadershipandleader‐memberexchangeoncommitment.
Leadership&OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,26(8),655‐672.Leigh,D.(2010).SWOTanalysis.InJ.A.Pershing(Ed.),Handbookofimprovingperformance
intheworkplace:Principles,practices,andpotential(3rded.).SanFrancisco,CA:Pfeiffer.
Levin,I.M.(2000).Visionrevisited.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,36(1),91‐107.
Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(1985).Naturalisticinquiry(Vol.Sagefocuseditions).NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.
Lofland,J.,Snow,D.,Anderson,L.,&Lofland,L.H.(2006).Analyzingsocialsettings:Aguidetoqualitativeobservationandanalysis.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth/ThomsonLearning.
Ludema,J.D.,&Barrett,F.J.(2009).Appreciativeinquirysummit.InP.Holtman,T.Devane&S.Cady(Eds.),Thechangehandbook:Thedefinitiveresourceontoday'sbestmethodsforengagingwholesystem(2nded.).SanFancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.
Lynna,G.S.,&Akgünb,A.E.(2001).Projectvisioning:Itscomponentsandimpactonnewproductsuccess.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,18(6),374‐387.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
133
Mathie,A.,&Cunningham,G.(2003).Fromclientstocitizens:Asset‐basedcommunitydevelopmentasastrategyforcommunity‐drivendevelopment.DevelopmentinPractice,13(5),474‐486.
Mathieu,J.E.(1991).Across‐levelnonrecursivemodeloftheantecedentsoforganizationalcommitmentandsatisfaction.JournalofAppliedPsychology,76(5),607.
Mathieu,J.E.,&Zajac,D.M.(1990).Areviewandmeta‐analysisoftheantecedents,correlates,andconsequencesoforganizationalcommitment.PsychologicalBulletin,108(2),171‐194.
Messerschmidt,D.(2008).Evaluatingappreciativeinquiryasanorganizationaltransformationtool:Anassessmentfromnepal.HumanOrganization,67(4),454‐468.
Mintzberg,H.(1994).Theriseandfallofstrategicplanning:Reconceivingrolesforplanning,plans,planners.NewYork,NY:FreePress.
Morden,T.(1997).Leadershipasvision.ManagementDecision,35(9),668‐676.Morgan,D.L.(1997).Focusgroupsasqualitativeresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:
Sage.Morse,J.M.,Barrett,M.,Mayan,M.,Olson,K.,&Spiers,J.(2008).Verificationstrategiesfor
establishingreliabilityandvalidityinqualitativeresearch.Internationaljournalofqualitativemethods,1(2),13‐22.
Mowday,R.T.,Steers,R.M.,&Porter,L.W.(1979).Themeasurementoforganizationalcommitment.JournalofVocationalBehavior,14(2),224‐247.
Nag,R.,Hambrick,D.C.,&Chen,M.J.(2007).Whatisstrategicmanagement,really?Inductivederivationofaconsensusdefinitionofthefield.StrategicManagementJournal,28(9),935‐955.
Northouse,P.G.(2012).Leadership:Theoryandpractice(6thed.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Norum,K.E.,Wells,M.,Hoadley,M.R.,&Geary,C.A.(2002).Appreciativeprogram
evaluation:Aqualitativeactionresearchproject.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,NewOrleans,LA.
O'brien,F.,&Meadows,M.(2000).Corporatevisioning:Asurveyofukpractice.JournaloftheOperationalResearchSociety,51(1),36‐44.
O'connell,D.,Hickerson,K.,&Pillutla,A.(2011).Organizationalvisioning:Anintegrativereview.Group&OrganizationManagement,36(1),103‐125.
Oladele,O.,&Sakagami,J.(2004).SWOTanalysisofextensionsystemsinasianandwestafricancountries.JournalofFoodAgricultureandEnvironment,2(2),232‐236.
Ott,L.,&Longnecker,M.(2010).Anintroductiontostatisticalmethodsanddataanalysis(6thed.).Belmont,CA:CengageLearning.
Patton,M.Q.(2002).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Peutz,J.,&Kroth,M.(2009).Usingappreciativeinquirytoadvanceextension.JournalofExtension,47(4),1‐3.
Pickton,D.W.,&Wright,S.(1998).What'sswotinstrategicanalysis?StrategicChange,7(2),101‐109.
Piercy,N.,&Giles,W.(1989).MakingSWOTanalysiswork.MarketingIntelligence&Planning,7(5/6),5‐7.
Podsakoff,P.M.,Mackenzie,S.B.,&Bommer,W.H.(1996).Transformationalleaderbehaviorsandsubstitutesforleadershipasdeterminantsofemployeesatisfaction,
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
134
commitment,trust,andorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviors.JournalofManagement,22(2),259‐298.
Poister,T.H.,Pitts,D.W.,&Hamilton,L.H.(2010).Strategicmanagementresearchinthepublicsector:Areview,synthesis,andfuturedirections.TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,40(5),522.
Poister,T.H.,&Streib,G.(2005).Elementsofstrategicplanningandmanagementinmunicipalgovernment:Statusaftertwodecades.PublicAdministrationReview,65(1),45‐56.
Porras,J.I.,&Collins,J.C.(1994).Builttolast:Successfulhabitsofvisionarycompanies.NewYork,NY:HarperBusiness.
Preskill,H.S.,&Catsambas,T.T.(2006).Reframingevaluationthroughappreciativeinquiry.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Riketta,M.(2002).Attitudinalorganizationalcommitmentandjobperformance:Ameta‐analysis.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,23(3),257‐266.
Rose,W.R.,&Cray,D.(2010).Public‐sectorstrategyformulation.CanadianPublicAdministration,53(4),453‐466.
Rossman,G.B.,&Rallis,S.F.(2003).Learninginthefield:Anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Rost,J.C.(1993).Leadershipforthetwenty‐firstcentury.Westport,CT:PraegerPublishers.Rothwell,W.J.,Sullivan,R.L.,&Mclean,G.N.(2005).Practicingorganizationdevelopment:
Aguideforconsultants(2nded.).Hoboken,NJ:Pfeiffer.Schein,E.H.(2010a).Organizationalcultureandleadership(4thed.).SanFrancisco,CA:
Jossey‐Bass.Schein,E.H.(2010b).Threeculturesofmanagement:Thekeytoorganizationallearning.In
BarbaraBertagni,MicheleLaRosa&F.Salvetti(Eds.),Glocalworking.Livingandworkingacrosstheworldwithculturalintelligence(pp.37‐58).Milano,Italy:FrancoAngeli.
Schoemaker,P.J.(1992).Howtolinkstrategicvisiontocorecapabilities.SloanManagementReview,34(1),67‐81.
Senge,P.(1990).Thefifthdiscipline:Theartandpracticeoforganizationallearning(reviseded.).MilsonsPoint,Australia:RandomHouse.
Shamir,B.,&Eilam,G.(2005).“What'syourstory?”alife‐storiesapproachtoauthenticleadershipdevelopment.TheLeadershipQuarterly,16(3),395‐417.
Singh,D.,&Kohli,G.(2006).Evaluationofprivatesectorbanksinindia:ASWOTanalysis.JournalofManagementResearch,6(2),84‐101.
Singh,N.,&Kosi–Katarmal,A.(2009).SWOTanalysis–ausefultoolforcommunityvision.Researcher,1(3),25‐27.
Stavros,J.,Cooperrider,D.,&Kelley,D.L.(2003).Strategicinquiryappreciativeintent:Inspirationtosoar,anewframeworkforstrategicplanning.AIPractitioner,November,10‐17.
Stavros,J.M.,&Hinrichs,G.(2007).Soaringtonewheightsofstrategicplanningtoexecution.AIPractitioner,3,4‐9.
Stentz,J.E.,PlanoClark,V.L.,&Matkin,G.S.(2012).Applyingmixedmethodstoleadershipresearch:Areviewofcurrentpractices.TheLeadershipQuarterly,23(6),1173–1183.
Susman,G.I.,&Evered,R.D.(1978).Anassessmentofthescientificmeritsofactionresearch.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,23(4),582‐603.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
135
Svyantek,D.J.,&Brown,L.L.(2000).Acomplex‐systemsapproachtoorganizations.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,9(2),69‐74.
Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2003).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2008).Foundationsofmixedmethodsresearch:Integratingquantitativeandqualitativeapproachesinthesocialandbehavioralsciences.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
UrielRosenthal,ArjenBoin,&Comfort,L.K.(2001).Managingcrises:Threats,dilemmas,opportunities.Springfield,IL:CharlesCThomasPublisher.
Valentin,E.K.(2001).SWOTanalysisfromaresource‐basedview.JournalofMarketingTheoryandPractice,9(2),54‐69.
VanDerHaar,D.,&Hosking,D.M.(2004).Evaluatingappreciativeinquiry:Arelationalconstructionistperspective.HumanRelations,57(8),1017‐1036.
VanWijngaarden,J.D.H.,Scholten,G.R.M.,&VanWijk,K.P.(2010).Strategicanalysisforhealthcareorganizations:ThesuitabilityoftheSWOT‐analysis.TheInternationalJournalofHealthPlanningandManagement,27(1),34‐49.
Vandermerwe,S.(1995).Theprocessofmarket‐driventransformation.LongRangePlanning,28(2),79‐91.
Whitney,D.,&Trosten‐Bloom,A.(2010).Thepowerofappreciativeinquiry:Apracticalguidetopositivechange.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐Koehler.
Winston,B.E.,&Patterson,K.(2006).Anintegrativedefinitionofleadership.InternationalJournalofLeadershipStudies,1(2),6‐66.
Wirtenberg,J.,Abrams,L.,&Ott,C.(2004).Assessingthefieldoforganizationdevelopment.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,40(4),465‐479.
Yin,R.K.(2009).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(4thed.Vol.5).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Zaccaro,S.J.(2001).Thenatureofexecutiveleadership:Aconceptualandempiricalanalysisofsuccess(1sted.).WashingtonD.C.:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Zhang,A.(2006).ApplicationofSWOTanalysisonthemanagementofinstitutionsofhighereducation.JournalofShenyangInstituteofEngineering(SocialSciences),4.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
136
APPENDIXA
CopyofthePre‐testthatwasAdministeredOnlineviaQualtircs
6/28/12 Qualtrics Survey Software
1/2https://new.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/PopUp.php?PopType=SurveyPrintPreview&WID=_blank
Opening Prompt
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, which investigates the effects of differentstrategies for organizational development. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary
and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. Thissurvey is expected to take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Please be honest and truthful in
your responses.
If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study,
please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540-231-4991 [email protected].
If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the projectinvestigators:
· Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]· Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected]
· Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected]· Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]
Part 1 Organizational Commitment
Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have
about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about
Career Services at Virginia Tech for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your
agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives besideeach statement.
StronglyDisagree Disagree
SomewhatDisagree
NeitherAgree
norDisagree
SomewhatAgree Agree
StronglyAgree
I am willing to put in a great deal of effortbeyond that normally expected in order to helpthis organization be successful.
I would accept almost any type of jobassignment in order to keep work ing for thisorganization.
I find that my values and the organization’svalues are very similar.
I am proud to tell others that I am part of thisorganization.
This organization really inspires the very best inme in the way of job performance.
I am extremely glad that I chose thisorganization to work for over others I wasconsidering at the time I joined.
I really care about the fate of this organization.
For me this is the best of all possibleorganizations for which to work .
Part 2 Vision Clarity
Listed below are a series of statements related to the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech.
Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking oneof the descriptors beside each statement.
StronglyDisagree Disagree
NeitherAgree norDisagree Agree
StronglyAgree
The vision guiding VT Career Services has beenclear.
The purpose of VT Career Services has been well
6/28/12 Qualtrics Survey Software
2/2https://new.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/PopUp.php?PopType=SurveyPrintPreview&WID=_blank
Monday afternoon, July 16
Tuesday morning, July 17
Either Monday or Tuesday
The purpose of VT Career Services has been wellcommunicated.
The VT Career Services team has a clearunderstanding of the University community's needsand wants.
The vision of VT Career Services has been wellexecuted.
Please share any additional comments related to this study here.
Pretest Questions for Grouping
On July 16th and 17th, the Career Services staff will work in small groups to discuss strategies forfulfilling the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech. We plan to assign groups in advance, so we
need to know your availability. What days are you available to participate in a break out group?
When we break into groups we want to have diverse representation in each group. To achieve this, it
will be helpful to know a little about everyone's tenure with Career Services. How many years haveyou worked in Career Services at Virginia Tech?
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
137
APPENDIXB
CopyofthePost‐testAdministeredviaPaperandPen
Vision Fulfillment Survey Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, which investigates the effects of different strategies for organizational development. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. This survey is expected to take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Please be honest and truthful in your responses. If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study, please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540-231-4991 or [email protected]. If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the project investigators:
Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]
Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected]
Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected]
Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]
So that we may connect your responses to those you submitted in the online survey, please enter your email address here: Email Address: ______________________________
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
138
Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about Your department at Virginia Tech for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives beside each statement.
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree Agree
Strongly Agree
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.
I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar.
I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.
I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined.
I really care about the fate of this organization.
For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
139
Listed below are a series of statements related to the vision for Your department at Virginia Tech. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the descriptors beside each statement.
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree
The vision guiding VT [department] has been clear.
The purpose of VT [department] has been well communicated.
The VT [department] team has a clear understanding of the University community's needs and wants.
The vision of VT [department] has been well executed.
Please share any additional comments related to this study here.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
140
APPENDIXC
DepartmentVisionandMission(asstatedontheirwebsite)
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
141
APPENDIXD
DepartmentDirectorStudyAnnouncementandLetterofSupport Dear Staff, We are about to begin some focused discussions about how to fulfill our vision: “be recognized by the university community as the premier resource for actively engaging students in exploring and pursuing their career aspirations leading to meaningful and purposeful contributions to our global society.” As we go through this process, there is an opportunity to participate in some related research that is investigating the effects of different strategies for organizational development. My desired outcome for this study and this staff experience is that we will move closer to accomplishing our office vision. Within the next day or two, you will receive an email from Kelsey Church Brunton, inviting you to complete an online survey about organizational commitment and vision clarity. The data collected in the survey is important, because it will help us determine the effects of the focused conversations over the next few weeks. This mixed methods study will be conducted by 1) utilizing an online and paper questionnaire format, 2) facilitating staff discussions on July 16 and 17, and 3) a follow up questionnaire and focus group interviews. Data collection is planned for July and August 2012. On July 18 the staff will come together to debrief the results of our work and the processes used. I believe that this study will directly benefit the department at Virginia Tech, and I encourage your full participation. If you have any questions or concerns about the discussions we are about to have or this research, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for all of your contributions to the success of [department]! Sincerely, Donna Cassell Ratcliffe Director Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-8077 [email protected]
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
142
APPENDIXE
InitialEmailInvitingStaffMemberstoParticipateintheStudy Subject: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: I am writing to ask your help in a study to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. This is the same study that Donna Ratcliff recently contacted you about. All employees are being encouraged to participate; though your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is available at [survey link] This study is important because organizations invest countless hours and resources in strategic planning efforts, and we need to know more about which strategies actually achieve the desired effects. By understanding your organizational commitment and vision clarity now and in the future, we will be able to assess the impact of the focused discussions that will be occurring in the coming weeks. As a result, we hope to make future organizational development efforts more efficient and effective. The full study is going to involve the survey now, another survey in mid-July, and a third survey in August. In addition, I will be observing the staff meetings scheduled for July 16th, 17th, and 18th and will invite some participations to join a focus group session in late August or early September. The surveys are short and will likely take less than five minutes. I plan to share details of other aspects of the study during a meeting on July 16th. Staff members who do not wish to participate in the study can still be involved in the meetings however their dialogue will not be noted in the field observations and their individual work will not be collected for document analysis. Audio recordings for the sessions will not be transcribed, further protecting the staff members who chose not to participate in the study. In the meantime, though, if you have any questions or concerns about the study, I would be glad to talk with you. You may reply to this email or call me at (540) 820-2571. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Eric Kaufman, at [email protected] or (540) 231-6258. Thank you for your time and consideration with this important study. I look forward to receiving your responses to the survey, available at [survey link] Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected]
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
143
APPENDIXF
InitialLettertoParticipantsInvitingthemtotakethePre‐test Please send to [department] Employees: [Dear First_Name:] You have been selected for participation in a survey of [department] employees. As a masters student, I am asking for your assistance with my current research on the analysis of methodologies used in organizational development. The survey is available at [survey link]. My research focuses on how two techniques of strategic planning affect organizational commitment and vision clarity. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. By completing the survey your consent to participate is implied. The study will take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts with this important study. Please let me know if you have any additional questions regarding my research at [email protected] or (540) 820-2571. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Eric Kaufman, at [email protected] or (540) 231-6258. I look forward to receiving your responses to the survey, available at [survey link]. Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton Eric Kaufman Masters Student Asst. Professor & Extension Specialist Agricultural and Extension Education Agricultural and Extension Education
Virginia Tech Virginia Tech
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
144
ReminderEmailtoParticipantsInvitingthemtotakethePre‐test
Subject: RE: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: A few days ago, I invited you to participate in a study to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. All [department] employees are being encouraged to participate, and many have already completed the online survey. However, we are still waiting on your response. We think the findings are going to be very useful, but we need to know your perceptions to maximize the value of the study. The survey is available at [survey link] In order to connect the data and monitor changes over time, we are keeping track of who completes each survey. However, protecting confidentiality of people’s answers is very important to us. All participants have been assigned a code and the findings will be shared only in summary form. It is only by protecting the individual participants that we can be confident in the findings of our study. The online survey is short and will likely take less than five minutes. I hope you will complete the study. If you have any questions or concerns about the study, I would be glad to talk with you. You may reply to this email or call me at (540) 820-2571. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Eric Kaufman, at [email protected] or (540) 231-6258. Thank you for your time and consideration with this important study. I look forward to receiving your responses to the survey, available at [survey link] Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected] (540) 820-2571
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
145
APPENDIXG
ObservationProtocol The purpose of observing the strategic planning interventions is to learn how participants’ vision clarity and organizational commitment is affected by group dialogs regarding implementation of [department]’ vision statement. Through observation, the researcher will also learn about each intervention (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats and Appreciative Inquiry) process as well as the resulting product. During the meetings the following constructs will be used to guide/focus the research observer(s).
I. How are employees discussing the vision? a. Do all employees have an understanding of Career Service’s vision? (Cole,
Harris,& Bernerth, 2006).
b. How does the dialogue affect employee's understanding of the vision and it’s execution?
c. How does the dialogue about the vision affect the support of the vision? (Foster & Akdere, 2007).
d. What tone of voice, word choice, or body language is used as an individual participates in the discussion about the vision?
II. How is the organizational commitment of the participants being affected by the intervention? a. How are employees discussing individual commitments they have made or plan
on making that align with the vision? (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). b. Does the dialogue of employees discuss personal values that relate to the values
expressed in the vision? (Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). c. How are employees embracing the ideas generated? (Allen & Meyer, 1996). d. How does the dialogue and ideas generated for the intervention reflect the “best”
of the organization? (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). III. What are the areas employees address during the intervention?
a. How does the group identify these issues? b. What are the products and outcomes of the intervention?
IV. What are the employees’ responses to the intervention? a. What is the overall feel of the group? What is the overall tone and body language
of employees? How are participants engaging in the intervention? V. Draw a diagram of the meeting room and label the location of each person
during the meeting. References: Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational behavior.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
146
Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 352-367. Foster, R. D., & Akdere, M. (2007). Effective organizational vision: implications for human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(2), 100-111. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247. Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293-309.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
147
APPENDIXH
ResearcherObservationsofAiInterventionFollowingtheEstablishedProtocol 1a. Many staff members had a clear understanding of the vision. It was noted that many of the staff members who helped craft the vision statement were in the room. These participants seemed to have a much deeper understanding of the vision. One participant posed a question in the wording of the vision statement, which was echoed by another participant. This was understood to be a good and critical reflection of the vision. The details and the wording were closely evaluated by the group. The group focused on the recognition piece of the vision statement. Many shared that they wanted to be viewed as the best by others as a premier resource for [department]. They discussed the need for [department] to be kept in the loop about career related discussions. It was also shared that the [department] would provide leadership around the career field and be a resource that was on the leading edge within this community. *The director noted a deeper dialogue and engagement by this group than the previous group 1b. It seemed that many of the participants had a full understanding of the vision. A support staff participant shared that it was very helpful to discuss the big picture because much of her work is often very focused on the details. Through the dialogue about the meaning of the vision the participant had a greater understanding of the vision. Execution – through the interviews many of the “best experiences” shared related to the ways in which [department] staff and living out the vision. This was not discussed directly but noted by the observer. 1c. The AI session in its entirety used many activities to generate support for the vision –that was a key underlying element of the session. Especially in the picture exercise, the dot exercise, and the narrative exercise, much of the support for the vision was generated through these exercises specifically. And through these exercises participants were able to develop a much deeper understanding of the vision, how they can live that out, and an understanding of what the vision looks like to them. 1d. Overall the tone was very upbeat, futuristic, and positive. Much of the dialogue was very forward looking and abstract –they discussed the big picture and big ideas. A large percentage of the dialogue was devoted to the strengths of the organization and the themes that resonated. Positive and best experiences were shared which resulted in a very open and energized dialogue. Participants were very engaged with one another in the interview
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
148
process. Staff members were able to be very reflective in their thoughts and statements about their work. Many hand gestures were being used in the interview session to tell their stories. Participants were facing each other showing full engagement. The staff was intently listening and taking notes on the meaning and strengths of the other. Positive, complimentary, and appreciative vocabulary were used throughout the session by the participants and the facilitator. 2a. Through the interview process and sharing of storied many of the day to day activities and experiences were shared that aligned with the vision of CS –this was an observation by the researcher (the facilitator did not make a direct connection to this). The staff discussed the experiences that made them come alive. The group spoke abstractly about what [department] would be doing if they were living out the vision. 2b. A very deep and meaningful dialogue took place during the interview which allowed employees to discuss values and experiences of personal gratification. Their best experiences also showcased the best of the organization. 2c. Employees worked together in groups to discuss what the vision would look like in a narrative form. Employees embraced the vision in this way and in this exercise. 2d. “What works” was a huge focus of this session. Participants spent half of the session discussing personal bests as well as the best of [department]. The themes that arose were communication, freedom, trust, individuality, teamwork, collaboration, etc. SEE POST IT Poster. 3a. The issues were identified through the grounding in staff member’s personal best experiences in the department. Themes were then generated from the sharing of strengths and commonalities of all participants. Participants also focused on envisioning the future and the vision statement through narrative and pictures. 3b. The facilitator shared that with these strengths in mind and with the new found understanding and deeper knowledge of the vision – the staff will be able to use this as a basis to execute the vision. 4a. (Mainly drawn from the reflection process) participants found the process to be reassuring of their excellent experiences and were able to have an understanding for how they WERE living out the vision
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
149
Another participant noted the connection that was made in connecting CS strengths to what the constituents need in order to achieve our vision. They were appreciative of the reflection piece and felt fulfilled in the strengths identified. One participant noted the strength in listening to others and hearing their story before we tell them. The process of inquiry proved to be a very valuable framework, which would be applicable to their work. Another noted that CS is executing the vision, and doing it well Proud of the wall of accomplishments FLIP Participants were curious about the outcome of this process Some participants asked, “what have we accomplished?” *Participants seemed to need some practical and more grounded discuss about how to get to the vision and move down from the abstract thinking. Discovery Phase – Interviewing participants to surface your ideas and feelings about the organization Dream Phase – What you would like the organization to be
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
150
APPENDIXI
ResearcherObservationsofSWOTInterventionFollowingtheEstablishedProtocol 1a. While many staff members responded to the question prompted by Jim, “what does the vision mean?” many of them had a hard time understanding all of the statement. Many staff members needed help in understanding that the vision was an aspirational statement. The vision was not something that could be shared with parents or students on a day-to-day basis. Many staff members also focused on the first half of the vision statement that related to being a premier resource –that seemed to resonate with them the most. 1b. Through dialogue about the vision statement staff members seemed to have a better idea of the difference between the mission and vision statement. The new hires learned a lot about CS from participating in this process, they learned a lot about the organization. As the questions about what the vision was/meant persisted, many staff members continued to chime in their understanding of the vision. More and more responses were shared as time went on. It seemed that the staff was more willing to share and perhaps this was based on the fact that a greater understanding of the vision was being produced as dialogue continued. Execution of the vision was discussed by asking “how do we make our vision a reality”, and “what is the problem we are trying to solve?” what’s holding us back from achieving this vision. The ways in which CS is already executing this vision were not explicitly discussed. The efforts they are currently making were mentioned throughout the session as examples were shared to support the SWOT activities. Many hurtles were identified in the execution process. 1c. Support for the vision statement seemed to be generated as the meaning of the vision statement was discussed. Support was also generated as the staff shared their many ideas in how they could execute the vision through the brainstorming process. Support for the vision was also generated as the staff discussed their strengths and opportunities as well as their passion for their job and their expertise in the field. One participant, through reflection shared that this process helped them to connect the vision to every day work. 1d. The staff had great energy throughout the session. They were very willing to dialogue and share ideas. Many staff members sat with open and engaging body language. Word choice – it was mentioned that a lot of negative language was used in this session as far is framing things as a “problem” and focusing on the weaknesses and threats of the idea. While the
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
151
responses were generally very positive and thoughtful. The responses given to address any weaknesses or threats were very thoughtful and were not spoken with any negative emotion. 2a. Many employees discussed previous relationships and experiences that support the ideas being generated and in turn that supported the vision. Through the brainstorming process many staff members discussed ideas/thoughts that would contribute to the vision. These ideas were discussed but not put into plan or execution in this session. 2b. One specific statement was made in the first exercise about “what the vision meant” in which someone shared that the vision really speaks to who we are, as a group and individually. A lot of times work is just work and I don’t think we view it this way. –this statement speaks to the values and commitment of the individual as well as the group to the vision. I believe this statement also address the values of the individual and group. Another statement was made about the staff being very passionate about their work and that they had enough enthusiasm and energy to not be burnt out. This statement indirectly relates to their values. 2c. Many participants showed enthusiasm for many of the ideas shared. Many participants stated that, “that was a great idea” or that they hadn’t thought of that idea before. The participants we asking about what’s next –showing their interest in seeing these ideas through. Participants would continue to dialogue about these ideas even after a particular exercise was over –showing their continued interest in the ideas. 2d. Participants had the opportunity to discuss their strengths as an organization and the opportunities that surrounded a particular idea. Throughout the session many participants spoke to the strengths of CS and the expertise of CS. Many of the ideas generated were in response to filling a deficit and addressing a problem and through this strengths and best practices were discussed. However, strengths and best practiced were not a direct focus nor the root of this session. It was shared by a participant that it seemed like the WT outweighed the SO. The participant wanted an opportunity (or maybe more of an opportunity) to talk about what the organization did well. 3a. Ideas were often shared and grounded in their day to day experiences. The ideas were identified through the creation of solutions to the problem “they just don’t get it”. 3b. See documents. Through reflection of the session and in asking “what feels valuable?” many participants shared that the brainstorming was helpful, that they learned about the other staff members, individual staff members expertise was shared, they enjoyed the structured process in an otherwise overwhelming process, it was good to connect the vision to every day work, an observation was made that CS had many more strengths and opportunities than they had WT, this process helped
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
152
to plant seeds of ideas for the future, many ideas were generated that the group was proud of, many felt accomplished, this process helped to reaffirm strengths and opportunities. One participant shared that this SWOT generated made her feel overwhelmed and unsure if she would continue with the idea now that the analysis had been completed. –this was viewed as a benefit to the process and the added value of the analysis. The weight and value of the idea itself could then be evaluated later. 4. One participant spoke specifically to the “negative” language that was used. However, overall the group was grateful for the intervention and felt the process was helpful. Many participants shared statements of excitement and enthusiasm as well as accomplishment. There was a noticeable difference in the tone and mood of the group when they were discussing the SO versus the TW. Participants were much more hesitant to share TWs and they were much more quite. Far less participants contributed to the discussion of TWs than they did to the discussion about SOs. Many participants were excited about discussing the SOs and the overall mood of the group was better and more positive.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
153
APPENDIXJ
Copy of the Delayed post test
6/28/12 Qualtrics Survey Software
1/2https://new.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/PopUp.php?PopType=SurveyPrintPreview&WID=_blank
Opening Prompt
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, which investigates the effects of differentstrategies for organizational development. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary
and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. Thissurvey is expected to take less than 5 minutes from start to finish. Please be honest and truthful in
your responses.
If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study,
please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540-231-4991 [email protected].
If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the projectinvestigators:
· Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]· Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected]
· Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected]· Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]
Part 1 Organizational Commitment
Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have
about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about
Career Services at Virginia Tech for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your
agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives besideeach statement.
StronglyDisagree Disagree
SomewhatDisagree
NeitherAgree
norDisagree
SomewhatAgree Agree
StronglyAgree
I am willing to put in a great deal of effortbeyond that normally expected in order to helpthis organization be successful.
I would accept almost any type of jobassignment in order to keep work ing for thisorganization.
I find that my values and the organization’svalues are very similar.
I am proud to tell others that I am part of thisorganization.
This organization really inspires the very best inme in the way of job performance.
I am extremely glad that I chose thisorganization to work for over others I wasconsidering at the time I joined.
I really care about the fate of this organization.
For me this is the best of all possibleorganizations for which to work .
Part 2 Vision Clarity
Listed below are a series of statements related to the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech.
Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking oneof the descriptors beside each statement.
StronglyDisagree Disagree
NeitherAgree norDisagree Agree
StronglyAgree
The vision guiding VT Career Services has beenclear.
The purpose of VT Career Services has been well
6/28/12 Qualtrics Survey Software
2/2https://new.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/PopUp.php?PopType=SurveyPrintPreview&WID=_blank
The purpose of VT Career Services has been wellcommunicated.
The VT Career Services team has a clearunderstanding of the University community's needsand wants.
The vision of VT Career Services has been wellexecuted.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
154
APPENDIXK
EmailInvitationtoParticipantsforDelayedPost‐test
Subject: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: I am writing to ask for your continued support in this survey to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. All [department] employees are being encouraged to participate; though your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is available at [survey link] Thank you in advance for your time and your participation is valued. Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected] (540) 820-2571
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
155
APPENDIXL
EmailRemindertoParticipantsforDelayedPost‐test
Subject: Vision Fulfillment Survey Dear [First_Name]: A few days ago, I invited you to participate in a survey to evaluate the effects of organizational development strategies on organizational commitment and vision clarity. You are being contacted again because the opinion of every staff member is important. All [department] employees are being encouraged to participate; though your participation in this study is completely voluntary and does not impact your position in any form. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is available at [survey link] Thank you in advance for your time and your participation is valued. Sincerely, Kelsey Brunton, Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Virginia Tech [email protected] (540) 820-2571
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
156
APPENDIXM
FocusGroupInterviewProtocol
Type of group: ________________________________________________________ Location: ____________________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________________________________ Participants (in code): ___________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The interview questions have been tentatively constructed and could be changed to reflect the findings of the pre and post-tests as is reflective of a mixed methods explanatory sequential design. Pre-Session Activities
Before recording and beginning the session, all participants must sign and return the consent form if they haven’t already. All copies of the signed consent will be present at the interview.
Introduction:
The leader summarizes the purpose of the group, confidentiality, length of the interview, the fact that there are no right answers, and that it is ok to disagree.
Experience with Interventions:
Describe your experience in the “break out groups” with the organizational development consultant.
o What did you like best about the experience? o What was most frustrating or disappointing?
Describe your experience in the combined session with the consultant and the director? o What was the focus of these efforts? o What were the outcomes?
Experience since Interventions and Combined Session:
Please describe your experience since the combined session, as it relates to the information discussed during that time.
o Has further action been taken? o What are the anticipated outcomes?
Vision Clarity:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
157
How did this experience affect your understanding of the ways in which Career Services “lives out” its vision statement?
o Are the steps you are taking to achieve the vision more or less clear? Why? What specifically has been made clearer? Has this experience added confusion in any way to your role or to your
understanding of the vision? Organizational Commitment:
How has your involvement in the strategic planning affected your commitment to the vision for Career Services at Virginia Tech?
o Do you feel more or less committed to Career Services at Virginia Tech because of this experience? Why?
o How has this experience affected your willingness to work towards the vision of Career Services?
Summary and Closing Questions:
Now I would like to summarize the main points you presented. First, you mentioned… (present summary of main points here)
o Does this capture what we have discussed? Is there anything we haven’t talked about that you believe is important to add?
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
158
APPENDIXN
aprioriPropositionsProposition Supporting Literature Research Question SWOT and Ai interventions are used for similar purposes and to achieve similar goals.
SWOT analysis is a very useful tool for organizational visioning, (O'Brien & Meadows, 2000) community visioning (Singh & Kosi–Katarmal, 2009), and strategic planning (Leigh, 2010) Ai serves as a method of facilitating organizational visioning (Levin, 2000), community visioning (Haines & Green, 2011), and strategic planning (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2007).
What were the process and products of each intervention?
Ai and SWOT use different methods and techniques in an intervention.
SWOT is used as a rigorous analytical tool (Hill & Westbrook, 1997). SWOTs are generated using a two by two matrix (Leigh, 2010). Ai upholds the positive principle, that humans respond best to positive thought and knowledge, therefore the organizational system should also operate-in this fashion Kakabadse et al. (2005). Ai focuses on the “big picture” and systems thinking while using a 4-D model (Ludema et al., 2003).
What were the process and products of each intervention?
A structured strategic visioning process influences organizational commitment and vision clarity.
(Cooperrider et al., 2008) suggested that there are three components of an effective organizational vision: 1) vision clarity, 2) vision support, and 3) stability; moreover, vision is essential to organizational success.
What are the levels of organizational commitment and vision clarity before and after interventions among staff? What were the differences in organizational commitment and vision clarity within and between treatment groups?
Stakeholders actively contribute to the visioning process in both intervention treatments.
Participants generate SWOTs for a specific strategy, which are then categorized and deliberated (Leigh, 2010). The constructionist principle of Ai emphasizes the connection between socially constructed knowledge and organizational destiny Denison (1990).
How did participants’ perceive the visioning process and resulting effects? What similarities and differences
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
159
The four phase cycle is completed through interviews, focus groups, artwork, and group dialogue (Cooperrider et al., 2008).
are there between perceptions expressed by each intervention treatment group?
Quantitative and qualitative data mixing provides a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.
Multiple sources of data are used to develop and inform research methods; in addition to, elaborating and clarifying results with the intent to increase meaningfulness and validity of constructs and inquiry results (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).
Are there significant differences in pre/post test results between intervention groups based on their visioning process?
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
160
APPENDIXO
AlignmentofResearchQuestions,Propositions,InterviewQuestions,andSupportingLiterature
Research Question
Proposition Interview Question Supporting Literature
What were the process and products of each intervention?
SWOT and Ai interventions are used for similar purposes and to achieve similar goals.
Describe your experience in meeting with the organizational development consultant. Since meeting with the consultant, please describe any activity related to the organization’s vision.
SWOT analysis is a very useful tool for organizational visioning, (O'Brien & Meadows, 2000) community visioning (Singh & Kosi–Katarmal, 2009), and strategic planning (Leigh, 2010) Ai serves as a method of facilitating organizational visioning (Levin, 2000), community visioning (Haines & Green, 2011), and strategic planning (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2007).
What were the process and products of each intervention?
Ai and SWOT use different methods and techniques in an intervention.
Since meeting with the consultant, please describe any activity related to the organization’s vision. Describe your experience in meeting with the organizational development consultant.
SWOT is used as a rigorous analytical tool (Hill & Westbrook, 1997). SWOTs are generated using a two by two matrix (Leigh, 2010). Ai upholds the positive principle, that humans respond best to positive thought and knowledge, therefore the organizational system should also operate-in this fashion (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Ai focuses on the “big picture” and systems thinking while using a 4-D model (Ludema et al., 2003).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
161
Alignment of Research Questions, Propositions, Interview Questions, and Supporting Literature Research Question
Proposition Interview Question Supporting Literature
What are the level of organizational commitment and vision clarity before and after interventions among staff? What were the differences in organizational commitment and vision clarity within and between treatment groups?
Organizational commitment and vision clarity are key measures in the health of an organization OR A structured strategic visioning process influences organizational commitment and vision clarity.
How has your work with the consultant affected your commitment to Career Services at Virginia Tech? How did this experience affect your perception of the Career Services vision statement? Did this experience have any affect on your motivation to perform at your best? Please explain.
(Cooperrider et al., 2008) suggested that there are three components of an effective organizational vision: 1) vision clarity, 2) vision support, and 3) stability; moreover, vision is essential to organizational success.
How did participants’ perceive the visioning process and resulting effects? What similarities and differences are there between perceptions expressed by each intervention treatment group?
Stakeholders actively contribute to the visioning process in both intervention treatments.
Describe your experience in meeting with the organizational development consultant. Since meeting with the consultant, please describe any activity related to the organization’s vision.
Participants generate SWOTs for a specific strategy, which are then categorized and deliberated (Leigh, 2010). The constructionist principle of Ai emphasizes the connection between socially constructed knowledge and organizational destiny Denison (1990). The four phase cycle is completed through interviews, focus groups, artwork, and group dialogue (Cooperrider et al., 2008).
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
162
APPENDIXP
IRB approval
Office of Research ComplianceInstitutational Review Board2000 Kraft Drive, Suite 2000 (0497)Blacksburg, VA 24060540/231-4606 Fax 540/231-0959email [email protected] http://www.irb.vt.edu
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2012
TO: Eric K Kaufman, Kelsey Church Brunton, Donna Westfall-Rudd, Curtis RobertFriedel
FROM: Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires May 31, 2014)
PROTOCOL TITLE: SWOT & AI Thesis Research
IRB NUMBER: 12-316
Effective July 2, 2012, the Virginia Tech Institution Review Board (IRB) Chair, David M Moore,approved the New Application request for the above-mentioned research protocol. This approval provides permission to begin the human subject activities outlined in the IRB-approvedprotocol and supporting documents. Plans to deviate from the approved protocol and/or supporting documents must be submitted to theIRB as an amendment request and approved by the IRB prior to the implementation of any changes,regardless of how minor, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to thesubjects. Report within 5 business days to the IRB any injuries or other unanticipated or adverseevents involving risks or harms to human research subjects or others. All investigators (listed above) are required to comply with the researcher requirements outlined at:
http://www.irb.vt.edu/pages/responsibilities.htm
(Please review responsibilities before the commencement of your research.)
PROTOCOL INFORMATION:
Approved As: Expedited, under 45 CFR 46.110 category(ies) 6,7 Protocol Approval Date: July 2, 2012Protocol Expiration Date: July 1, 2013Continuing Review Due Date*: June 17, 2013*Date a Continuing Review application is due to the IRB office if human subject activities coveredunder this protocol, including data analysis, are to continue beyond the Protocol Expiration Date.
FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS:
Per federal regulations, 45 CFR 46.103(f), the IRB is required to compare all federally funded grantproposals/work statements to the IRB protocol(s) which cover the human research activities includedin the proposal / work statement before funds are released. Note that this requirement does not applyto Exempt and Interim IRB protocols, or grants for which VT is not the primary awardee. The table on the following page indicates whether grant proposals are related to this IRB protocol, andwhich of the listed proposals, if any, have been compared to this IRB protocol, if required.
IRB Number 12-316 page 2 of 2 Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board
Date* OSP Number Sponsor Grant Comparison Conducted?
* Date this proposal number was compared, assessed as not requiring comparison, or comparisoninformation was revised.
If this IRB protocol is to cover any other grant proposals, please contact the IRB office([email protected]) immediately.
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
163
APPENDIXQ
TheFrameworkfortheBrainstormingActivity
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
164
APPENDIXR
SolutionsBrainstormingActivity
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
165
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
166
APPENDIXS
SWOTforOne‐on‐OnewithFaculty
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
167
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
168
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
169
APPENDIXT
AiInterviewGuide
INTERVIEW GUIDE
CAREER SERVICES VISIONING/PLANNING
July 17, 2012
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
170
Questions Tell me about one or more “peak experiences” or a “high points” in Career Services during which you felt really alive. What was going on? What was your role? What were you feeling at these times? Why? What do these experiences tell you about the organization? (For example, what are its strengths? What makes it special?)
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
171
Making Meaning of the Interview What was the most compelling/exciting/interesting thing you heard in the interview? What strengths of the organization were identified in the interview? What positive themes can you identify from the interview
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
172
APPENDIXU
PhotocopiesoftheImagesDrawnDuringtheDreamPhase
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
173
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
174
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
175
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
176
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
177
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
178
APPENDIXV
PhotocopiesoftheAinarrativesWrittenbyStaff
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
179
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
180
APPENDIXW
CompilationofThemesandCodesThevisioningprocessleadtopositivereactions
ThecreativityandenvisioninginvolvedinAiwasfunandinsightful Enlighteningexperiencetolistentoothers Enjoyedinterviewprocessbecauseitallowedhertolearnmoreaboutfellow
colleagues Interventionmadeherfeelexcitedaboutupcomingwork Aihelpedtore‐energize Thedrawingactivitywasuniqueandinteresting Initiallythedrawingactivitywaschallenginganduncomfortable.Intheend,seeing
allthepicturesprovedtobeanenjoyableactivity. OvercomingourperceivedWandTwasabeneficialactivity Thebrainstormingactivitywasexcitingandcreative Greatopportunitytolearnmoreaboutfellowcolleaguesasanewstaffmember Thebrainstormingactivitywasenjoyable Shefoundthebrainstormingactivitytobeenergizing Thedotactivitywasenjoyableandhelpfulinnarrowingideasafterbrainstorming EnvisioningthefutureofCSwasapositiveandre‐energizingprocess Aihelpedhertoreflectandappreciateherworkenvironment Theinterventionwasre‐energizingandprovidedanappreciationofCS Staffcouldbuildonwhatwasdiscussedatinterventionatalaterdata–discussions
werebeneficial ItwasagoodexperiencetohavethewholestaffexperienceAi ProcesswasviewedasbeneficialtoCS Likethepositiveprocess Goodfocusandenjoyableexperiencetobetogether OverallAiwasapositiveprocess Positiveandenergizingtostarttheprocesswithstrengths Benefitstounderstandinglimitationsandboundarieswhenconsideringanidea–
missinginAi ShewouldliketocontinuewithsomeoftheideasgeneratedintheSWOTdiscussion TakeawayfromAisessionwastobuildonenjoyableeventsandlearnfromthose
experiences SWOTwasagoodexperiencethatbuiltconsensus Aiwasapositiveexperience Greatopportunitytofocusonideasandbrainstorming SWOTwasanenergizingexperience
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
181
Insomewaystheinterventionwasafrustratingandnegativeexperience
Mishapsintimingandstructureofinterventionwasfrustrating Initiallythedrawingactivitywaschallenginganduncomfortable.Intheend,seeing
allthepicturesprovedtobeanenjoyableactivity. ThefocusonTandWcreatedanegativeenvironmentthantheperceivedAI
environment Frustratedthattherewasn’tenoughtimetoexpandorelaborateonideasduring
brainstormingactivity ThepurposeoftheSWOTinterventionseemedunclear Interventionwasunclearandfrustrating ConfusedaboutforwardprogressrelatedtothediscussionsduringSWOT
intervention Confusingprocess DidnotenjoytheSWOTprocess Frustratingprocessbecausehewantedmoretimetobecreative Detailsoftheprocessweretimeconsumingandtherewasn’tasubstantialoutcome Frustratingthattherewaslittleoutcomebecausetherewasnotenoughtimeto
developideas Frustratedbecauseshehopedformoretangibleoutcomesandactionsteps DrainedbythedetailedSWOTprocess Challenginganduncomfortabledrawingactivity Benefitstounderstandinglimitationsandboundarieswhenconsideringanidea–
missinginAi FrustratedbySWOTprocessbecauseitdidnotbuildoffofstrengthsorestablished
successes FrustratedwithAiprocessbecausetheoutcomedidnotyieldactionsteps SWOThadanegativeundertonetotheprocess Frustratedbyslowforwardprogress Confusionastowhetherornotthevisioncouldbediscussedindividuallybecauseof
study SWOTwasafrustratingprocessforanintuitivepersonalitytype
Visionpreviouslyunderstoodbystaff
AsamemberoftheleadershipteamshehelpedcrafttheVS–familiarwiththeVS Overall,sheiscontentwiththecurrentstatusoftheVS PreviousexperienceincraftingthevisionresultedincontinuedclarityoftheVS Didnotneedfeedbackonvisionbecauseitisclearthattheyareservingthestudents
well–visionattainment SEunderstoodthemeaningofaVS Priortotheintervention,shehadaclearunderstandingofthevision. Perceivedthestafftohaveunderstoodthevisionaswell ContentwithcurrentVSwhichrepresented
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
182
EmployeesAgreethatthewordingdoesn’thavetobeperfect StaffhadaclearunderstandingoftheVS VSisclearandeasytounderstand StaffhasasimilarinterpretationoftheVS Thestaffisworkingtowardsfulfillingthevisionandacceptingthattobeajourney‐
generalstatementaboutCSculture ConfusedaboutthepurposeoftheVS SessionreiteratedthepurposeofCS ThepurposeofCSisinnatelyunderstoodbystaff
Positiveimpactonvisionclarity
DevelopingaDeeperandBroaderUnderstandingoftheVisionStatement AlignmentofDailyTaskswiththeVisionStatement MeaningBehindtheVisionStatementwasMadeClear OpportunitiesforCriticalReflectionoftheVisionStatement Theinterventionmadethevisionandgoalsslightlymoreclear Asanewemployeeitwasagreatopportunitytolearnaboutthevisiononadeeper
level InterventionhelpedhertobetterunderstandthegoalsofCSandfellowcolleagues
perceptions’ofthevision Thevisionwasdiscussedatstaffmeetingsandretreat previously,therehadnotbeenastaffwidediscussionabouttheVS Processservedasawayfornewemployeestobewelleducatedaboutthevisionof
CS(beyondreadingtheVS) Sessionprovidedinsightintohowtopromotethevisionandareastofocus TheSWOTprocesshelpedtoclarifydeeplyrootedbarrierstotheVision Broadenedsenseofvision Aisessionaidedinvisionclarity TheprocesshelpedtoprovideconsensusontheVS Inhiscurrentrolehedoesnotactivelydialogueaboutthevision,soitwashelpfulto
attendthesessionandlearnwhatothersthoughtaboutthe Visionclarity Invokedadesiretoparticipatefurtherinsimilardiscussionsaboutthevision Discoveredthatmanycoworkershadasimilarunderstandingofthevision LearnedtheindividualmeaningsbehindtheVS‐Enjoyabletohearperspectiveof
co‐workerswhodidnotcrafttheVS DialogueabouttheVSstatementrevealedvariedinterpretationsofmeaning VShasbeencommunicatedhowevertheunderlyingmeaningoftheVSwasnot
communicatedpreviously Enjoyabletohearthemanyemployeeperspectivesaboutthevision TheAIprocesshelpedtoaddmeaningtotheVSasopposedtoitbeingjustwords SWOTallowedthenewemployeetolearnaboutindividualpurposeofeachstaff
member
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
183
InterventiongenerateddiscussionaboutthedeepermeaningbehindtheVSinhopesofprovidingclarity
SessionhelpedtofocusonthemeaningoftheVSandnotbedistractedbythewords TheSWOTsessionhelpedtounderstandthemeaningofthewordsintheVS ThedialogueabouttheVSmadeherre‐thinkorthinkmorecriticallyabouttheVS AftertheinterventionsherealizedthatsomecomponentsoftheVScouldberevised ShedoesnotbelievethattheVSneedstobecompletelyrecraftedafterthe
intervention;however,revisingcertainwordsintheVSwouldallowforenhancement
QuestionsthelargescopeoftheVSandhowthatimpactsherworkwithstudentsatVT
UsestheVStoguideherdaytodaydecisions SWOThelpedhertoalignideasandactionstotheVS Shesubconsciouslytakesactioninfulfillingthevision–thisisinnatelyapartofher
work Formalalignmentofdailytaskswiththevisionisnottakingplace.Visionalignment
happensnaturallyasemployeesworkhard. Theinterventionprovidedinsightintothedelineationbetweenmissionandvision Alignedtaskswithvision Processhelpedhertoalignideasandtaskswithvisionfulfillment AlignpersonalstrengthswithVision DespitethedifferingopinionsaboutVSwording,LLbelievesthattheunderlying
purposeofthevisionisclearwhichcanbeseenthroughtheactionsofthestaff Processmadeherquestionthevisionstatement AiprocesshelpedherclarifyhowCScouldbetterreachtheirvision Thestaffisworkingtowardsfulfillingthevisionandacceptingthattobeajourney‐
generalstatementaboutCSculture Believesthatactionsteps,asaresultofintervention,werenotneededbecause
actionsarealreadybeingtakentoachievethevision Realizedtheimportanceofteamworkandcommitmenttootherstosucceed
Pre‐existinghighlevelsofcommitmentandperformance.
Becausejobmotivationisalreadyveryhigh,theInterventiondidnotsparknewmotivations
Dedicatedtohighperformancesomotivationwasnotphasedbyintervention Interventionhadnotaffectonmotivationtoperform Theinterventiondidnothaveapositiveornegativeaffect(=noaffect)onpersonal
commitmenttojoborCS NochangeincommitmentbutshedidfeelveryproudtoworkatCSasaresultofAi Thegeneralconsensusisthatthestaffasawholeisverycommittedtotheirwork NoaffectofOC NoaffectOC–excitedtodoanythingthatpursuesthevision NoaffectofOC–showninyearsofemployment
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
184
HighregardforCS BelievesthattheentireCSstaffiscommittedtoservingstudents Affirmedmanyofthegreataspectsoftheoffice AcknowledgesthatCSisdoingwellinfulfillingtheirvision AdmittedherestablishedhighlevelofOC CSisalreadyworkingtowardsVS–didnotneedextratimetodiscussit.Highly
committedgroup “Wedoitwell” CSstaffenjoytheirjobs Wearedoingit!Wearecurrentlyestablishedinworkingtowardsthevision
througheverydayactions Alreadyatahighlevelofcommitmentandmotivationtosucceed HighperformanceisanormatCS Affirmedmanyofthegreataspectsoftheoffice Theinterviewreinforcedmypre‐establishedcommitmenttoCS CSvaluesteamworkandorganizationalperformanceoverindividualperformance AtCSthereisanestablishedcultureofcustomerservice AtVTandCSthereisanestablishedandexpectedcultureofexcellence Goingtheextramiletohelpothers(students,staff,employers)isanormatCSand
VT.Excellenceisengrainedintheculture. Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment
Confirmedpreviouslyheldbeliefsandvaluesofthedepartment
TheAiprocessconfirmedpre‐existingorganizationalbeliefsandvalues ItwasreaffirmingtovisualizeorganizationalvaluesandtheAiprocesshelpedto
confirmestablishedbeliefs ConfirmedmanyofherinitialthoughtsaboutCSestablishedwhileinterviewingfor
thejob Theinterviewreinforcedmypre‐establishedcommitmenttoCS Attheretreatthestaffparticipatedinacoworkeraffirmationactivity Personalcommitmentandpurposeinworkwasconfirmed ItwasnotedthatPersonalvaluesalignedwithworkvalues‐confirming Affirmedmanyofthegreataspectsoftheoffice Affirmingtohearaboutco‐workersvaluesandconnectednesstoCS Reaffirmingtohearfromstaffthattheywerecommittedandexcitedabouttheir
jobs. GratefultobeincludedinprocesswhichsolidifiedhercommitmenttoCS NochangeincommitmentbutshedidfeelveryproudtoworkatCSasaresultofAi Theoneononeinterviewsuncoveredsharedvaluesbetweenunfamiliarcoworkers CShiresindividualswithsimilarvaluesandworkethicascurrentemployees AcknowledgesthathervaluesalignwithCS Commonthemeswereobservedbetweenindividualandorganizationalvalues
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
185
ItwasreaffirmingtovisualizeorganizationalvaluesandtheAiprocesshelpedtoconfirmestablishedbeliefs
Corevaluescreatestrongorganizationalculture
BalancedpowerdynamicbetweenleadershipandstaffcontributestothecultureatCS
Notestheimportanceofhiringincreatingandmaintainingculture Inthehiringprocessorganizationalfitisimportant CShiresindividualswithsimilarvaluesandworkethicascurrentemployees Importanttohirenewemployeeswithvaluesthatarealignedthevision/culture Thereisanotabledifferenceofvaluesandstandardsinotheroffices ValuesofCSwerehighlightedwithinAisession Engrainedvaluesestablishanacceptedculture HighperformanceisanormatCS Cultureofpassionfortheirwork GratefultobeincludedinprocesswhichsolidifiedhercommitmenttoCS Thestafffeelsvaluedandempowered Establishedcultureofbuildingsuccess Cultureofopennessandhonesty StaffhasanunderstandingofCSvision CSsupportsorganizationallearningandpersonaldevelopment Professionaldevelopmenthelpsthestafftoworktogether Directorisresponsibleforinstillingvalues Focusofpersonalstrengthstobuildtowardsvisionfulfillment Thestaffisworkingtowardsfulfillingthevisionandacceptingthattobeajourney‐
generalstatementaboutCSculture CSencourageslearningandprofessionaldevelopment,whichcontributestothe
positiveandrewardingworkenvironment. Enjoysherworkbecauseofthevarietyofresponsibilities. Longworkingrelationshiphasleadtosharedvaluesandlikeexperiences ManylongtimestaffmembersatCSbecauseoftheculture WorkedatCSformanyyearsbecauseshereallyenjoysthepeoplesheworkswith.
Goodpeople=goodculture Supportiveofnewemployees Retreatexerciseshowcasedtheimportanceofvaluingagreatworkforce SpiritteamexemplifiedCSsupportivenature SupportivecultureatCS Inclusiveandsupportiveculture Establishedcultureandstandards Contentcode–cultureofCSisbuiltoncommunicationandsupportofstaff Supportive/familyculture CSvaluesteamworkandorganizationalperformanceoverindividualperformance AnnualEventshowcasesCSValuesforteamworkandcolleagues
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
186
Realizedtheimportanceofteamworkandcommitmenttootherstosucceed TeamworkisrequiredoftheCSstafftoservestudents Staffenjoysworkingtogetherasateamonevents Valueteamworkandstaffsupport SpecialCulture‐feelingsoftogethernessandsupport(family) ThestaffatCSvaluesstudentdevelopment BelievesthattheentireCSstaffiscommittedtoservingstudents StaffmembersatCSarepersonallyresponsibletotheircustomers GreatvalueisplacedonservicetostudentsatCS CSstafftreatsstudentsprofessionally CSstaffisalsosupportiveofstudentsthroughstudentdevelopment AtCSthereisanestablishedcultureofcustomerservice
Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board Project No. 12-316 Approved July 2, 2012 to July 1, 2013
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
187
AppendixV
VIRGINIAPOLYTECHNICINSTITUTEANDSTATEUNIVERSITY
InformedConsentforParticipantsinResearchProjectsInvolvingHumanSubjects
Title of Project:Analysis of Methodologies Used in Organizational Development: SWOT Analysis and Appreciative Inquiry
Investigators: Ms. Kelsey C. Brunton, Dr. Eric K. Kaufman, Dr. Curtis R. Friedel, Dr. Donna Westfall‐Rudd
I. Purpose of this Research/Project Researchers from Virginia Tech want to know how two techniques of strategic planning, Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and Appreciative Inquiry (AI), affect participant’s organizational commitment and vision clarity. We would appreciate your help in this study by agreeing to participate in a focus group and assessment where you share your opinions and thought processes. II. Procedures If you agree to participate, you will be included in the researcher’s observations of the processes that take place during each session. The documents generated from your participation will be incorporated into the analysis and findings of the study. Each session will be audio‐recorded. Your name will not be recorded or attached to any use of the recording, and only the research team will have access to the audio files. You may be selected to participate in a focus group interview along with six to eight other Career Services employees. The focus group should take about 60 minutes and will be audio‐recorder; however, your name will not be recorded or attached to any report of the findings. Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to participate and/or stop participating at any time. III. Risks The risks associated with participation in the study are no more than minimal. IV. Benefits No promise or guarantee of benefits has been made to encourage you to participate. However, you may have the satisfaction of knowing that you have contributed important information to a study of how to improve community involvement in environmental improvement efforts. Participants may contact the researcher for a summary of the research results. V. Extent of Anonymity and Confidentiality The information concerning your participation in the study will be kept entirely confidential by using codes for each person instead of names (i.e. 1:1= focus group 1:participant 1). Social
Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board Project No. 12-316 Approved July 2, 2012 to July 1, 2013
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
188
security numbers or other personal information will NOT be used. At no time will the researchers release the data from the study to anyone other than individuals working on the project without your written consent. Your focus group participation and responses will not affect your participation in any future Virginia Tech program. Each session and focus group will be audio recorded to accurately record your statements. The audio files will be kept on a password‐protected computer. Only the researchers will have access to the files. The audio files will be erased at the conclusion of this research project. It is possible that the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB) may view this study’s collected data for auditing purposes. The IRB is responsible for the oversight of the protection of human subjects involved in research. VI. Compensation You will receive no compensation for your participation in this study. VII. Freedom to Withdraw Participants are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. You are free to not answer any questions or to participate beyond a level that is comfortable for you. VIII. Subject's Responsibilities I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I have the following responsibilities:
Participate in a session facilitated by a Virginia Tech consultant;
Complete a post‐test immediately after the first session and a delayed post‐test 4 weeks after the session;
Potentially participate in a 60 minute focus group with other career services employees; and
Ask questions of the researcher about the study at any time. IX. Subject's Permission I have read the Consent Form and conditions of this project. I have had all my questions answered. I am not a minor and give my voluntary consent to participate in this study: _______________________________________________ Date__________ Subject signature If questions arise about research subjects' rights or any concerns about the conduct of this study, please contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. David Moore, at 540‐231‐4991 or [email protected]. If the questions relate to content and findings of this particular study, please contact one of the project investigators:
Masters student Kelsey C. Brunton: 540-820-2571, [email protected]
Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board Project No. 12-316 Approved July 2, 2012 to July 1, 2013
A MIXED METHODS STUDY EVALUATING STRATEGIES USED IN ORGANIZATIONAL VISIONING
189
Dr. Eric K. Kaufman: 540-231-6258, [email protected] Dr. Curtis R. Friedel: 540-231-8177, [email protected] Dr. Donna Westfall-Rudd: 540-231-5717, [email protected]