1

Developing Leadership Developing Leadership Capacity to Influence the Capacity to Influence the

Self-Evaluating Self-Evaluating OrganizationOrganization

Jeffrey Sheldon, Ph.D.Jeffrey Sheldon, Ph.D.School of Social Science, Policy, and EvaluationSchool of Social Science, Policy, and Evaluation

Claremont Graduate University – The Claremont Graduate University – The Claremont CollegesClaremont Colleges

November 2016November 2016

2

Proposed InterventionProposed Intervention Type:Type: Human Process. Human Process. LevelLevel: Individual.: Individual. Target PopulationTarget Population: Organizational Leaders.: Organizational Leaders. MethodsMethods: Coaching, Advising, Teaching, Training, and : Coaching, Advising, Teaching, Training, and

Consulting.Consulting. PractitionerPractitioner: Internal Evaluator/OD Consultant.: Internal Evaluator/OD Consultant. ObjectiveObjective: Individual, transformational learning.: Individual, transformational learning. GoalGoal: Engender facilitative leadership.: Engender facilitative leadership. Desired BehaviorsDesired Behaviors: Advocating and promoting organizational : Advocating and promoting organizational

self-evaluation as a precondition of organizational learning and self-evaluation as a precondition of organizational learning and success. success.

Overarching RubricsOverarching Rubrics: Adult Learning; “Coaching;” Evaluation : Adult Learning; “Coaching;” Evaluation Capacity Building; this approach blends organizational Capacity Building; this approach blends organizational development with evaluation, and evaluation ultimately with development with evaluation, and evaluation ultimately with program work… program work…

3

The Self-Evaluating OrganizationThe Self-Evaluating Organization One that One that continually analyzes its own processes and policiescontinually analyzes its own processes and policies so as so as

to determine whether it is meeting its goals or whether these to determine whether it is meeting its goals or whether these goals should continue to prevail (Wildavsky, 1972).goals should continue to prevail (Wildavsky, 1972).

Self-evaluating organizations are Self-evaluating organizations are peopled by reflective individuals peopled by reflective individuals who have no particular expertise in program evaluationwho have no particular expertise in program evaluation, but , but characteristically are interested in self – monitoring and self-characteristically are interested in self – monitoring and self-improvement (Mathison, 1991).improvement (Mathison, 1991).

……evaluation is internalized as a value throughout the organizationevaluation is internalized as a value throughout the organization and on an infrastructure that supports and maintains evaluation and on an infrastructure that supports and maintains evaluation (Sanders, 2002).(Sanders, 2002).

Self-evaluation Self-evaluation occurs in an environment where programmatic occurs in an environment where programmatic change is associated with improvementchange is associated with improvement and is a product of a and is a product of a professional environment that values change and to the degree professional environment that values change and to the degree that self-evaluation is institutionalized, that self-evaluation is institutionalized, is also a cause of changeis also a cause of change (Glasman, Cibulka, & Ashby, 2002).(Glasman, Cibulka, & Ashby, 2002).

4

Self-Evaluation & Organizational Self-Evaluation & Organizational LeadershipLeadership

Leaders must internalize the principles of evaluationLeaders must internalize the principles of evaluation and believe and believe that improvement is always possible and change for the better is that improvement is always possible and change for the better is always in view though not necessarily yet attained (Wildavsky, always in view though not necessarily yet attained (Wildavsky, 1972).1972).

Leaders need to persuade workers that evaluation is an Leaders need to persuade workers that evaluation is an essential part of organizational lifeessential part of organizational life (e.g., Smith, 1998; Harari, (e.g., Smith, 1998; Harari, 1999; Berman & Wang, 2000).1999; Berman & Wang, 2000).

Facilitative leadership and modeling influence the integration of Facilitative leadership and modeling influence the integration of evaluation into the organizational cultureevaluation into the organizational culture (Cousins, et al., 2004) (Cousins, et al., 2004)

Endorsement and modeling of learning from self-evaluation by Endorsement and modeling of learning from self-evaluation by organizational leadersorganizational leaders and senior-level managers is necessary to and senior-level managers is necessary to set the tone that learning from evaluation is valued (Taut, 2007).set the tone that learning from evaluation is valued (Taut, 2007).

Evaluators provide maximum leverage if they work directly with Evaluators provide maximum leverage if they work directly with the leadershipthe leadership to promote review and change (Owen & Lambert, to promote review and change (Owen & Lambert, 1998).1998).

5

Internal Evaluator/OD ConsultantInternal Evaluator/OD Consultant The distinction between organizational development The distinction between organizational development

consultants and evaluators is becoming blurredconsultants and evaluators is becoming blurred. (Owen & . (Owen & Lambert, 1998). Lambert, 1998).

Lack of transfer in learning and lack of sustained Lack of transfer in learning and lack of sustained behavioral change points toward the behavioral change points toward the need for more need for more individualized, more engaged, more context-specific individualized, more engaged, more context-specific learninglearning (Bacon & Spear, 2003). (Bacon & Spear, 2003).

Consultant, teacher, mentor, coach, advocate, problem Consultant, teacher, mentor, coach, advocate, problem solver, evaluator, performance monitor, planner, solver, evaluator, performance monitor, planner, facilitator, and management analystfacilitator, and management analyst combine to form a combine to form a composite characterization of the modern, professional composite characterization of the modern, professional internal evaluator (Jarvis et al., 1998; Sonnichsen, 2000).internal evaluator (Jarvis et al., 1998; Sonnichsen, 2000).

6

Action Model: (Adapted from Cousins et al., 2004 & Porteous et al., 1999)

Positive attitudes about evaluation process and use for organizational self-evaluation, learning and development

Education

Internal Evaluator Characteristics:Formal training, education, integrity, confidence, experience, development level, ability to teach adult learners

Leader Characteristics: motivation, learning level, transfer of learning, experience, self-actualization, determination

Basic evaluation skills through development of usable products

Gathering and analyzing data

Focusing an evaluation through logic identification

Selecting methods

Developing tools

Using evaluation findings for decision making

Knowledge about evaluation process and use for organizational self-evaluation, learning and development

Skill Building

Attitude Development

Approach: coaching, consulting, advising, training, teaching

Learning Environment

7

Leader knowledge about, basic skills in, positive attitudes of, and support of self evaluation

Extent of self -

evaluation

Persuasive ability

Belief improvement is always possible

Internalize principles of evaluation

Availability and quantity of performance information

Publication of performance information

Employee involvement in evaluative activities

Dedication of sufficient financial resources

Reduce Worker Resistan

ce

Ability to promote evaluation

Worker interest and experience in evaluation

Worker evaluation skills

Number of organizational elements attempting evaluationConceptual

Model: (Adapted from Boyne et al, 2004 & Wildavsky, 1972)

Social skills

Ability to Motivate

Employees

8

ReferencesReferences Bacon, T. R., & Spear, K. I. (2003). Bacon, T. R., & Spear, K. I. (2003). Adaptive coaching: The art and Adaptive coaching: The art and

practice of a client-centered approach to performance improvementpractice of a client-centered approach to performance improvement. Palo . Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.Alto, CA: Davis-Black.

Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in U. S. Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in U. S. counties: Capacity for reform. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration ReviewPublic Administration Review, 60(5), 409 – , 60(5), 409 – 420. 420.

Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Toward the self-evaluating organization? An empirical test of the Toward the self-evaluating organization? An empirical test of the Wildavsky Model. Wildavsky Model. Public Administration Review, Public Administration Review, 64(4), 463 – 473.64(4), 463 – 473.

Folkman, D. V., & Rai, K. (1997). Reflections on facilitating a Folkman, D. V., & Rai, K. (1997). Reflections on facilitating a participatory community self-evaluation. participatory community self-evaluation. Evaluation and Program Evaluation and Program Planning, Planning, 20(4), 455 - 465.20(4), 455 - 465.

Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Clark, S., & Lee, L. E. (2004). Integrating Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Clark, S., & Lee, L. E. (2004). Integrating evaluative inquiry into the organizational culture: A review and synthesis evaluative inquiry into the organizational culture: A review and synthesis of the knowledge base. of the knowledge base. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 19(2), 99 – 141.19(2), 99 – 141.

Devos, G., & Verhoeven, J. C. (2003). School self-evaluation—conditions Devos, G., & Verhoeven, J. C. (2003). School self-evaluation—conditions and caveats: The case of secondary schools.and caveats: The case of secondary schools. Educational Management Educational Management Administration Leadership, Administration Leadership, 31, 403 – 420.31, 403 – 420.

9

ReferencesReferences Glasman, N., Cibulka, J., & Ashby, D. (2002). Program self-Glasman, N., Cibulka, J., & Ashby, D. (2002). Program self-

evaluation for continuous improvement. evaluation for continuous improvement. Educational Educational Administration QuarterlyAdministration Quarterly, 38(2), 257 – 288., 38(2), 257 – 288.

Gray, D. E. (2006). Executive Coaching: Towards a Dynamic Gray, D. E. (2006). Executive Coaching: Towards a Dynamic Alliance of Psychotherapy and Transformative Learning Processes. Alliance of Psychotherapy and Transformative Learning Processes. Management Learning, Management Learning, 37, 475 – 497.37, 475 – 497.

Harari, O. (1999). The spirit of leadership. Harari, O. (1999). The spirit of leadership. Management ReviewManagement Review, , 88(4), 33 – 36.88(4), 33 – 36.

Jarvis, P., Holford, J. and Griffin, C. (1998) Jarvis, P., Holford, J. and Griffin, C. (1998) The Theory and The Theory and Practice of LearningPractice of Learning. London: Kogan Page.. London: Kogan Page.

Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice and research. an integrative review of practice and research. Human Resource Human Resource Development Review.Development Review. 4(4), 462 – 488. 4(4), 462 – 488.

Mathison, S. (1991). What do we know about internal evaluation? Mathison, S. (1991). What do we know about internal evaluation? Evaluation and Program PlanningEvaluation and Program Planning, 14, 159 - 165., 14, 159 - 165.

McDonald, B., Rogers, P., & Kefford, B. (2003). Teaching people to McDonald, B., Rogers, P., & Kefford, B. (2003). Teaching people to fish? Building the evaluation capability of public sector fish? Building the evaluation capability of public sector organizations. organizations. EvaluationEvaluation, 9(1), 9 – 29. , 9(1), 9 – 29.

10

ReferencesReferences Minnett, A. M. (1999).Minnett, A. M. (1999). Internal evaluation in a self-reflective Internal evaluation in a self-reflective

organization: one nonprofitorganization: one nonprofit agency's model. agency's model. Evaluation and Program Evaluation and Program PlanningPlanning 22, 353 – 362. 22, 353 – 362.

Nu’Man, J., King, W., Bhalakia, A., & Shaniece Criss, S. (2007). A Nu’Man, J., King, W., Bhalakia, A., & Shaniece Criss, S. (2007). A framework for building organizational capacity integrating planning, framework for building organizational capacity integrating planning, monitoring, and evaluation. monitoring, and evaluation. Journal of Public Health Management Journal of Public Health Management PracticePractice, January (Suppl), S 24 – S32., January (Suppl), S 24 – S32.

Owen, J. M., & Lambert, F. C. (1998). Evaluation and the information Owen, J. M., & Lambert, F. C. (1998). Evaluation and the information needs of organizational leaders. needs of organizational leaders. American Journal of EvaluationAmerican Journal of Evaluation, , 19(3), 19(3), 355 - 365.355 - 365.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation: the new century Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation: the new century text, (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.text, (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Plantz, M. C., Greenway, M. T., & Hendricks, M. (1997). Outcome Plantz, M. C., Greenway, M. T., & Hendricks, M. (1997). Outcome measurement: showing results in the nonprofit sector. measurement: showing results in the nonprofit sector. Outcome Outcome Measurement Resource NetworkMeasurement Resource Network. Retrieved April 6, 2007 from: . Retrieved April 6, 2007 from: http://www.unitedway.org/outcome/ndpaper.htm..

Porteous, N.L., Sheldrick, B.J., & Stewart, P.J. (1999). Enhancing Porteous, N.L., Sheldrick, B.J., & Stewart, P.J. (1999). Enhancing managers’ evaluation capacity: A case study from Ontario public health. managers’ evaluation capacity: A case study from Ontario public health. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 14Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 14(2), 137–154.(2), 137–154.

11

ReferencesReferences Preskill, H. (2000). Coming around again: Renewing our Preskill, H. (2000). Coming around again: Renewing our

commitment to teaching evaluation. commitment to teaching evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 103 – 104.21, 103 – 104.

Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and tools for building a learning fifth discipline field book: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. organization. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey PublishingLondon, UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited.Limited.

Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000). Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000). High impact internal evaluation: A High impact internal evaluation: A practitioner’s guide to evaluating and consulting inside practitioner’s guide to evaluating and consulting inside organizationsorganizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, D. (1998). Invigorating change initiatives. Smith, D. (1998). Invigorating change initiatives. Management Management ReviewReview, 87(5), 45 – 48., 87(5), 45 – 48.

Taut, S. (2007). Studying self-evaluation capacity building in a large Taut, S. (2007). Studying self-evaluation capacity building in a large international development organization. international development organization. American Journal of American Journal of EvaluationEvaluation, 28(1), 45 – 59., 28(1), 45 – 59.

Wildavsky, A. (1972). The self-evaluating organization. Wildavsky, A. (1972). The self-evaluating organization. Public Public Administration ReviewAdministration Review, 32(5), 509 – 520. , 32(5), 509 – 520.