DIALOGUE IN THE ORGANIZATION:

The Effects of Direct Communication on Organizational Health

Master’s Thesis Field Project

Presented to

Bastyr University

and

The Leadership Institute of Seattle

In partial fulfillment

Of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Applied Behavioral Science

By

ERIN BOURKE-DUNPHY

June 2005

ABSTRACT

The client for this project was a non-profit organization in Seattle, Washington that

provides educational services to expectant parents. Starting in September of 2003 the

organization began its journey into the 20th Century. It had historically been an

organization that did not embrace change, and as a result had many outdated operations.

The focus of the project was to help the organization manage this change, specifically

with respect to the organization’s upcoming office relocation. As a result of the data

collected during the project, the primary goal of the project was changed. The new goal

became to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the office staff by (a) increasing

the dialogue and difference of opinions raised in the office; and (b) decreasing both the

time needed to raise these differences of opinion and the intensity the individual must

reach before voicing their position. The implementation phase of this project was an

Appreciative Inquiry into the times in the organization when members had engaged in

direct, conversation with another individual, exploring the full nature of their differences

with the purpose of influencing change. The methodology employed was action research.

The office staff was interviewed to collect qualitative data and pre and post surveys were

conducted to gather quantitative data. The quantitative data was analyzed using the Sign

Test. The results of the Sign Test indicate that the project had a significant impact which

matches the qualitative data collected from the client system.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................2

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 1: Introduction..................................................................................................5Client System...................................................................................................................5How I Became Involved..................................................................................................8Initial Project Goals and Process.....................................................................................8Goal Progression............................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review.......................................................................................13Client System.................................................................................................................13Content...........................................................................................................................20Methodology..................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER 3: Intervention................................................................................................40Project Timeline.............................................................................................................40Entry and Contracting....................................................................................................40Data Gathering and Discovery.......................................................................................43Feedback and Decision to Act.......................................................................................49Engagement and Implementation..................................................................................54Project Closure...............................................................................................................63Ongoing Coaching: Its Impact.......................................................................................66

CHAPTER 4: Results........................................................................................................68Project Goals..................................................................................................................68Methodology..................................................................................................................69Statistical Testing of the Data........................................................................................70Analysis of the Results..................................................................................................71

CHAPTER 5: Personal Impact..........................................................................................76

CHAPTER 6: Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................85Project Summary...........................................................................................................85Conclusions....................................................................................................................87My Learning..................................................................................................................89Closing Comments.........................................................................................................93

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................95

APPENDIX A: BIRTH Organizational Chart...................................................................99

APPENDIX B: Organizational Health Survey................................................................100

3

APPENDIX C: Board of Directors Office Relocation Survey........................................102

APPENDIX D: Office Staff Interview Guide.................................................................103

APPENDIX E: Competition and Collaboration Benefits................................................105

APPENDIX F: Integrative Negotiating Procedure..........................................................106

APPENDIX G: Block’s Five Phases of Consulting........................................................107

APPENDIX H: Appreciative Inquiry Intervention Agenda and Hand-out Materials.....108

APPENDIX I: Project Timeline Year..............................................................................112

APPENDIX J: Board of Directors Office Relocation Questionnaire Data Feedback.....113

APPENDIX K: Board of Directors Organizational Health Survey Data Feedback........115

APPENDIX L: Office Staff Individual Interviews Data Feedback.................................118

APPENDIX M: Office Staff Organizational Health Survey Data Feedback..................122

APPENDIX N: Appreciative Inquiry Intervention Flip Chart Notes..............................124

APPENDIX O: Final Office Staff Interview Guide........................................................126

APPENDIX P: Self-Assessment Survey.........................................................................128

APPENDIX Q: Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation............................................................130

APPENDIX R: Self Assessment Survey Results and Analysis.......................................131

APPENDIX S: Organizational Health Survey Before and After Results and Analysis..132

APPENDIX T: Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation Results...............................................133

APPENDIX Q: Estimated Versus Actual Project Time..................................................134

4

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction to my master’s thesis field project. In it I

describe the client system, including both relevant background and client information as

well as how I became involved with this client. I also provide an overview of the project

goals and the basis for how the goals were measured to identify the degree to which the

project was successful.

Client System

The client system was a non-profit organization, BIRTH, based in Seattle,

Washington. Names used in this thesis, including BIRTH, have been changed to ensure

confidentiality. BIRTH is the leading childbirth education organization in Washington

State. Their mission is to help expectant parents prepare for safe and satisfying birth

experiences, as well as to support them in their new roles as parents. BIRTH believes the

vehicle for doing so is to help families become active participants in their health care

decisions and provide them with information about the array of alternatives available.

BIRTH has been in operation for over fifty years during which its core mission statement

has remained the same.

To support this mission statement, BIRTH has three core areas of operation:

1. A variety of educational courses on childbirth and parenting preparation, early

parenting and safety classes are offered.

2. Breastfeeding Counselors (either nurses or lactation consultants) provide help

for nursing mothers via telephone and home visits.

3. BIRTH publishes a guide to pregnancy, childbirth and the newborn.

5

The Client Groups

At the onset of the project there were five distinct groups within BIRTH (see

Appendix A). Given the nature of the groups, not all are part of the target client system.

The rational for exclusion is noted where appropriate below.

The Board of Directors. The Board of Directors was comprised of 10 volunteer

members. Attending the board meetings and occasionally volunteering in the office were

the only two requirements of the position. All 10 members of the board were Caucasian,

American women. 8 of these 10 were in their in their early to mid 30s, have young

children (less than 5 years of age), and took their childbirth classes through BIRTH. The

remaining two members of the board were in their mid 50’s, with adult children, and very

close friends with the previous Executive Director. One of these two worked as the

bookkeeper at BIRTH. Less than half of the 10 board members maintained either a full

or part-time job, although the majority had a professional career before having had

children.

The Executive Director. Joan joined BIRTH as Executive Director (ED) in

September of 2003. She is a young mother, in her early 30s. Like the majority of board

members at the time of the project, she had a professional career (as a lawyer) before

starting a family. She took the position at BIRTH because she became very interested in

the organization after taking here childbirth classes from them, and had a passion for

seeing it succeed.

Office Staff. There were seven part-time employees that comprise the office staff:

(a) Office Manager, (b) Registrar, (c) Assistant Registrar, (d) Director of Education, (e)

Breast Feeding Counselor Coordinator, (f) Book Keeper, and (g) Book Shipper.

6

The women in the first four roles listed above are quite similar and close friends.

They are all approaching 50 years of age or above and have been at BIRTH for between 5

and 20 years. All are Caucasian and American. There is some diversity in the remaining

three roles. The Book Keeper joined BIRTH in the same timeframe as Joan. She is

younger than the aforementioned women, and is the only non-Caucasian person on the

office staff. She is African-American. The Breast Feeding Counselor Coordinator is also

a new position. The Book Shipper is the only male in the organization. These two last

positions work solely from home. As a result, they were not part of the target client

group for this project.

Instructors. There were 35 instructors who teach the BIRTH offered classes.

Classes are held in various locations in the Puget Sound area. The instructors’ schedules

are coordinated by the Educational Director. She is the primary interface between

BIRTH and the instructors. Given that several of the instructors do not use the BIRTH

office, and the remainders are in the office only for the duration of the classes they

instruct, they were not part of the target client group for this project.

Breast Feeding Counselors. There are six Breast Feeding Counselors. They

provide telephone and home visit support to new mothers. The Breast Feeding

Counselors’ schedules are coordinated by the Breast Feeding Counselor Coordinator.

She is the primary interface between BIRTH and the Breast Feeding Counselors. Given

the Breast Feeding Counselors do not use the BIRTH office, as they work solely from

their homes, they were not part of the target client group for this project.

7

Recent History

At the time the project began, BIRTH was facing major changes. These changes

were deemed by the Board of Directors and the ED as necessary to take the organization

into the 20th Century. September of the year 2003 marked the beginning of change for

BIRTH, coinciding with the arrival of Joan. In addition to this being a major change for

the organization, as the previous ED had been in place for 25 years, it was also the

catalyst for the upcoming changes.

How I Became Involved

The ED of BIRTH, Joan, is an acquaintance of mine. Since she assumed her

position at BIRTH, I received information on the organization and requests for donations.

When it came time for this project, I thought volunteering my help with a change project

was a way in which I could contribute to the organizations’ success. As a result, I

contacted Joan and volunteered my consulting expertise as a contribution. Joan was the

sponsor for this project.

Initial Project Goals and Process

In my first meeting with Joan she outlined her perspective on the state of BIRTH.

After joining BIRTH, Joan spent several months trying to understand the state of the

organization and the business. In her evaluation, the organization was not being run

effectively from a financial perspective. The only part of the business not budgeted at a

loss was the publication of its book. Additionally, the state of donations was not healthy.

In the previous year BIRTH only received $3,000 in donations from the community,

which was insignificant given the hundreds of expectant parents who had used BIRTH’s

services. As a result, Joan established an ongoing business goal to achieve financial

8

sustainability for the organization. For Joan, this meant BIRTH must work to: (a) reduce

costs, and (b) increase community donations.

To help achieve these goals Joan decided the organization must relocate. Their

office space did not support the organization. They were over-paying for the space,

based on the current leasing market. This was overhead cost they could not afford.

Additionally, the office layout did not support the office staff. Several office staff shared

offices, the Educational Director’s office was in the classroom and all offices opened out

onto the classroom, which made using the classroom, while the office staff was working,

very disruptive. Finally, the office space did not meet the needs of the clients. Surveys

collected from students of BIRTH classes consistently complained about the facilities.

Joan believed this contributed to their lack of donations.

At the time I was brought into BIRTH, Joan had already introduced the idea of

relocation of the organization. The Board of Directors created a relocation committee

with authority to investigate the office relocation and bring a recommendation back to the

Board of Directors for approval. Although the members of the Board of Directors were

receptive to the move, the office staff were not. This discrepancy had to be addressed, if

BIRTH was to be successful in the relocation process. Thus the original goals for the

project are outlined in Table 1.

9

Table 1

Initial Project Goals and Measures

Goal Measurement1. A decision by the Board

of Directors on the

office relocation.

Target: Board of Directors and ED

Pre and post intervention self-assessment evaluation

Post intervention interviews

2. Establish and implement

a relocation process.

Target: Relocation Committee

Pre and post intervention self-assessment evaluation

Evaluation of the process based upon evaluation of

group process during meetings and the intervention

3. Increase the office

staff’s readiness to move

to the new location.

Target: Office Staff and ED

Pre and post intervention self-assessment evaluation

Post intervention interviews

After the development of the project goals, Joan and I worked together on a data

collection plan. Given that the office relocation affected those working in the office the

most and that the Board of Directors would ultimately be required to make the final

decision, we scoped the target client system to be the office staff and the Board of

Directors. Additionally, Joan and I decided not to limit the data collection to the office

relocation. As BIRTH was in the midst of change we decided it would also be beneficial

to evaluate the health of the organization in general to understand the best course of

action. The final decision was to collect data by conducting: an Organizational Health

Survey targeted to the entire target client system (see Appendix B); an Office Relocation

10

Questionnaire targeted to the board of directors (see Appendix C); and individual

interviews with the office staff (see Appendix D).

Goal Progression

As a result of the data collected from the target client system, the goals changed.

In Chapter 3, I will describe the reasons for the change in detail. At a high level the data

collected indicated the client system understood the reason for the office relocation and

agreed upon it in principle; in fact they believed it would be better for BIRTH in the long

run. The problem was that they simply did not want to move. Both Joan and I agreed

this was not the place to focus my efforts as a Change Agent. In evaluating the responses

from the Organizational Health Survey, an area with an opportunity for greater impact to

the future of BIRTH was identified. There was a strong position in the organization that

there was unresolved conflict. In discussing this, Joan and I decided it would be better to

focus our efforts in this area, as it had the potential to affect all aspects of the

organization. As a result, new project goals and measures were established.

Table 2

Updated Project Goals and Measures

Goal Measurement1. To increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of

the office staff by:

Increasing the amount of dialogue in the office.

Increasing the amount of difference of opinion

that is raised in the office.

Decreasing the time it takes the office staff to

Target: Office Staff and ED

Pre and post intervention

self-assessment evaluation

Post intervention interviews

11

Goal Measurementvoice their difference of opinion.

Decreasing the intensity level the office staff

must reach before they voice their difference of

opinion.

2. Realize the following attitudinal shifts:

Increase the office staff’s belief they can

influence change in the organization.

Increase the office staff’s willingness to raise

differences of opinion.

Increase the office staff’s belief that raising

differences of opinion contributes to a healthy

work environment.

Target: Office Staff and ED

Pre and post intervention

self-assessment evaluation

Post intervention interviews

In this Chapter, I set the stage for my thesis project. I described the client system

and roles along with my involvement in BIRTH and the scope of my work within the

organization. In the following chapters, I discuss the entire project in detail. I will begin

with the theoretical basis for the project events in Chapter 2, followed by the specifics of

the project, measurable results, lessons learned and an overall summary.

12

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

In this chapter, I discuss the theories supporting my project. This chapter has

three sections: (a) Client System, (b) Content, and (c) Methodology. In each section I

discuss the theory which contributed to and influenced my interpretation of the project

and choice in intervention. The theory is discussed at two levels: macro and micro level.

Client System

Macro-Level: Non-profit Sector and Childbirth Educational Services

Non-profit Sector. BIRTH is a non-profit organization. Wolf (1999) said, “it is

not easy to describe nonprofit organizations and this is partly what makes managing them

such a difficult task fraught with challenges and problems” (p. 19). The non-profit

organization is largely defined by what it is not: an organization whose main objective is

to make money. The resulting ambiguity and uncertainty must be pro-actively addressed.

Wolf suggests this can be done by ensuring the non-profit organization (a) articulates its

mission clearly, (b) engages in ongoing planning, paying particular attention to the risks

and benefits of proposed actions and its relation to the mission, (c) identifies and ensures

representation of its constituency in all aspects of operation, and (d) ensures the

organization remains needed and wanted by testing for organization abandonment.

Understanding this non-profit world can be difficult for those with a for-profit

background. “It is critically important that the ablest people in the business world make

the considerable effort necessary to function effectively in what may seem to be a strange

realm – one in which missions are sometimes difficult to define with precision, resources

are almost always scarce, and relevant data and analyses are either unavailable or slippery

13

to the touch” (HBR, 1999, p. 89). Joan made the shift to BIRTH from the for-profit

world. During the project she was adjusting to this transition.

Important to the non-profit’s success are both its employees and work

distribution. “People determine the performance capacity of an organization” (Drucker

1992, p. 145). Assembling the right workforce can be a challenging task and involves

bringing together the right mix of people who can help the organization operate with

maximum productivity and resource efficiency. Drucker stresses the importance of

hiring based upon performance rather than potential. “One can always relax standards,

but one can never raise them” (p 148). Both agree that spending the time to ensure you

have the right employees in place is critical to the success of the non-profit. Once you

have the right workforce, you must ensure the work tasks are appropriately defined and

assigned. Wolf (1999) suggests the act of surveying what needs to get done should be

done at least annually and the appropriate changes made. The majority of the office staff

had worked at BIRTH for over 5 years, performing the same job function. Given the

ongoing changes in BIRTH, both the skill set and work distribution needed evaluation.

Having the right people in the right positions is only the start; from there you need

to build a team. According to Drucker (1992), “non-profit organizations most often

fumble and lose their way … because they fail to build teams” (p. 152). Part of building

teams, is to establish two-way relationships. Two-way relationships move the

organization from making statements to asking questions. This fosters an open

environment in which problems can be surfaced. In this environment, problems are not

irrelevant but the organization functions despite the problems they face. There was a lack

14

of two-way relationships at BIRTH, especially between the board and the office staff; a

relationship critical to its success (Wolf, 1999).

Another key element to ensuring the success of the non-profit is planning.

Despite this, oftentimes a non-profit organization will forgo planning, sighting such

reasons as (a) planning takes too much time and effort, (b) it is too expensive, and (c) it

saps organizational initiative (Wolf, 1999). As a result, non-profits often continue to

operate in the same way they have always done. This was no different at BIRTH, where

their mission of helping and supporting parents remained unchanged over its 50 year

history. Planning was not something the organization made time for.

Lastly, important to the success of the non-profit is the Board of Directors.

Serving on the Board of Directors should not be viewed as simply an honor. As Wolf

(1999) says, “it is an activity that requires knowledge, commitment, and time” (p. 48).

Despite placing importance on this, there will always be some board members who are

not contributing as expected. Wolf refers to these as the “deadwood problem”. BIRTH

was experiencing a deadwood problem; the majority of the board work was completed by

less than half of the board members.

Childbirth Educational Services. Over the last few decades, the focus on

childbirth educational services in the United States has shifted. With the mortality rate

being at an all-time low, “attention has turned to making childbirth a psychologically

rewarding experience as well as physically safe” (Hassid, 1984, p. 1). Hassid believes

there are five objectives of childbirth preparation programs: (a) To provide a supportive

environment; (b) To reduce nervousness and worry; (c) To provide the facts; (d) To

15

provide practical tools for labor; and (e) To be aware of and focus on the current concerns

of the class.

Of these objectives, one of the most important is to provide a supportive

environment. Childbirth education is about helping the couple understand and work

through labor in a cooperative way, focusing on mutual participation. “Helping a couple

toward an active, independent role in the childbearing experience by emphasizing their

ability to resolve difficulties and stressing flexibility enhances their potential for working

together in many other ways” (p. 7). In order to do this, it is key that the atmosphere in

the class is one of total acceptance, providing the expectant parents with an environment

in which they feel comfortable raising their ideas, viewpoints and concerns. Knowledge

of the environment BIRTH was attempting to create ensured my decisions were

supportive of this type of environment. Specifically, the change in project direction to

focus on a more collaborative environment, one where differences were raised and

discussed, was in alignment with their desired direction.

Micro-Level: All Women Organizations and Generational Differences

All Women Organizations. Chodorow (1999), emphasizes the effect a woman’s

maternal role has on their lives. “Because of their child-care responsibilities, women’s

primary social location is domestic” (p. 9). This has a direct influence on both when

women decide to join the workforce and the type of work they choose to perform.

Serving others, despite the cultural taboo in our current-day society, is a basic principle

around which women choose to organize their life (Miller, 1976). “They (women) are

upset if they feel they are not givers” (p. 49). Often it guides their career selection and

many women find themselves in professions related to helping others, such as the

16

childbirth education profession of BIRTH. These theories helped me to understand the

culture in which I was working; why the office staff was motivated to work at BIRTH

and the aspects of their work they seemed to most value.

Many women also experience a series of built-in career changes, as their families

move through each life-stage (e.g. pre-children, once children can care for themselves,

retirement, etc.). Given woman typically join the work force later, “some studies have

suggested that women look forward to retirement with less positive anticipation than men

do” (Lips, 1999, p. 254). Based upon the interviews with the office staff, this is

consistent with the experiences of the women at BIRTH.

There are several differences between women and men which influence the

characteristics of all-women organization. These differences helped me to understand

why the culture and communication at BIRTH was as I experienced it. Three core

characteristics are (a) communication style, (b) focus on affiliation, and (c) conflict

suppression. Women typically use communication as a means to an end: to build

connection with others (Lips, 1999). As a result, their communication style is inclusive,

supportive, cooperative and responsive. Women tend not to interrupt or use the more

direct style of communication typically found in male dominant organizations. This was

new to me, as I had been more familiar with the direct ways of communicating

Talking is also core to women’s friendships. A way to build relationship is

through communication. Given women’s focus on affiliation (relationships) this is

significant. “Indeed, women’s sense of self becomes very much organized around being

able to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships” (Miller, 1976, p. 83).

When faced with the loss of relationship, a woman may view this closer to a loss of self

17

thereby impacting her response to the situation. Given the friendships between the

women at BIRTH this theory helped explain a reason for some of the apprehension

towards the office relocation; moving might bring with it a decision for friends to leave

BIRTH. The information I learned about all women organizations informed my work in

critical ways by helping me to communicate with and relate more effectively.

The possibility of losing a relationship has further implications for women in the

workplace, in terms of influencing what issues a woman decides to raise or confront.

Add to this the common belief women hold that conflict is something frightening and

uncomfortable and it becomes clear why women avoid this aspect of communication.

“Conflict has been a taboo area for women and for key reasons. (Because) women were

supposed to be the quintessential accommodators, mediators, the adapters, and soothers”

(p. 125), conflict has typically been suppressed or avoided in all-women organizations.

BIRTH did all of the above, therefore updating the project goals and focusing on dealing

with the unaddressed conflict was a logical decision about where to focus the work.

Generational Differences. Each generation is shaped by the period in which they

grew up. The events and conditions during one’s early years uniquely shape the values

and behaviors of the generation. These differences can have significant effects on

workplace relations, especially if there is a large generational gap between employees.

Lancaster & Stillman (2002) define the four generations in the workplace today as (a)

Traditionalists (born 1900 – 1945), (b) Baby Boomers (born 1946 – 1964), (c) Generation

XERS (born 1965 – 1980), and (d) the Millennial Generation (born 1981 – 1999).

The generational personality of the Traditionalists is best described as loyal

(Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). All of the office staff except Joan were Traditionalists,

18

who were shaped by seeing numerous accomplishments rise out of people, putting aside

the needs and wants of the individual and working collaboratively towards a greater

common goal. A high percentage of military service taught the Traditionalists a top-

down approach to management was the most efficient, modeling the military chain of

command (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). The Traditionalist personality explained the

office staff’s comfort with the previous Executive Director’s patriarchal style and the

challenges they had adapting to Joan’s new style which was more empowering. Most

Traditionalists are expected to build a lifetime career with a single employer, or in a

single field of expertise. Loyalty drives the Traditionalist to build a legacy (Lancaster &

Stillman, 2002), creating a deep sense of personal responsibility towards the workplace.

Knowing this helped me to understand the office staff’s response to and anxiety over the

office relocation; leaving BIRTH was not something they had ever planned to do.

In contrast the Generation Xers personality is best categorized as skeptical

(Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Joan was a Generation Xer and she brought that style to

her leadership of BIRTH. Generation Xers grew up seeing the American institution

under constant scrutiny. Not only has the divorce rate tripled during this generation, but

in almost every prominent institution there is some type of scandal or crime. As a result,

this generation is very resourceful and independent, shaping their view of management as

self-command (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Also shaped by these events is their

viewpoint on career development. Rather than focusing on loyalty to a single

organization, the Generation Xer is about building a portable career (Lancaster &

Stillman, 2002). They cannot stand the thought of reaching a dead-end, and are

constantly looking for new skills or experiences and thinking of what the next change

19

might be. Understanding these basic differences in Joan and the others helped to explain

why the gap existed between Joan and the office staff’s viewpoint on (a) the office

relocation, (b) change, and (c) management style.

Content

The final project goals focused on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of

the office staff by increasing the amount of dialogue and difference of opinion raised in

the office. Additionally, the project aimed to change the office’s staff’s attitude towards

conflict; increasing their belief and willingness to engage in conversations around

differences of opinion. The following sections describe the theory which supported the

update from the original office relocation goals to these new goals.

Macro-Level: Conflict Management, Confrontational Communication, Dialogue and

Organizational Health

Conflict Management. When the results of the Organizational Health Survey

came back indicating unresolved conflict existed at BIRTH, I researched the nature of

conflict in organizations. This research informed the update of the project goals.

Depending on how conflict is managed, it can play either a negative or positive

role in the organization. As a result, it is important to understand and establish an

effective way of managing conflict in the organization. At BIRTH conflict was

suppressed. The organization was in need of a strategy for managing conflict. Osland,

Kolb and Rubin (2001) stress the importance of functional conflict and the role it plays in

organizational effectiveness. Functional conflict (a) forces the articulation of views and

positions, which usually results in greater clarification and understanding; (b) makes the

values and belief system of the organization more visible; (c) makes it easier to see

20

organizational priorities; (d) increases group cohesiveness; and (e) generates creativity.

These organizational elements matched the type of environment Joan desired for BIRTH

and which she believed necessary to deal with the changes underway.

Johnson and Johnson (2000) emphasize the role of controversy in effective

decision making. “By definition, all decision-making situations involve some conflict as

to which one or several alternatives should be chosen. Within decision-making groups,

that conflict takes the form of controversy” (p. 361). Engaging in controversy, with the

express purpose of making the best possible decision, not only acknowledges the

inevitability of conflict in the decision-making process but also has the potential to

heighten the creativity in the organization. “Clashes between parties are the crucibles in

which creative solutions are developed and wise trade-offs among competing objectives

are made” (Weiss & Hughes, 2005, p. 93). This forms the basis of two of the seven

guidelines for effective groups, highlighting the importance of the role of conflict:

Structured controversy in which members advocate their views and challenge

each other’s information and reasoning is seen as the key to high quality and

creative decision making and problem solving.

Conflicts of interests are resolved through integrative negotiations and mediation

so agreements are reached that maximize joint outcomes and leave all members

satisfied. (Johnson & Johnson, 2000, p. 14)

It is important to realize that a lack of conflict in the organization can have

disastrous implications. Janis (1972), coined the term groupthink to describe one such

specific pattern. “Groupthink refers to the tendency for members of a highly cohesive

group to seek consensus so strongly that they fail to do a realistic appraisal of other

21

alternatives, which may be correct” (p. 335, Osland, Kolb & Rubin, 2001). In these

situations, members of the group tend to go along with a consensus-based decision that

should have been questioned rather than engage in constructive conflict. “As a result,

groupthink is often manifest in poorer or even catastrophic decisions. Examples include

the failure to foresee the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs, escalation of

the Vietnam War, and Watergate” (Kim, 2001, 170).

The Abilene Paradox (AP) (Harvey, 1974) is similar to groupthink in that it

relates to defective decision-making. AP however, focuses more on an individual’s

tendency to publicly agree with something, while privately disagreeing. “This situation

almost inevitably leads to people going along for the ride even when they know better.

The result: trouble” (Kanter, 1984, p. 37). The AP leads organizations to taking actions

in contradiction to what they really want to do. At BIRTH, the behavior of the office

staff was more representative of AP than groupthink. An example of this is the office

staffs’ choice to go along with leadership decisions even when they knew the results to be

non-favorable. The focus of AP on the individual is an important distinction between it

and groupthink in that it influences the intervention methodology (Taras, 1991).

“Abilene suggests interventions at the individual level – stressing disclosure, feedback,

and owning up of privately-held views. For example, Harvey proposes an owning up

process in which an individual is to own up to his position first and is to be open to the

feedback he or she gets” (Kim, 2001, 174). In contrast, interventions focused on group

structures and processes are more appropriate for groupthink.

In order to effectively manage conflict, it is also important to understand the

various ways in which people respond to conflict. Thomas and Kilman (1974) describe

22

five “conflict-handling modes”: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and

accommodating. These modes are a result of assessing an individual’s behavior in

conflict situations along two basic dimensions, (a) assertiveness, the degree to which one

attempts to satisfy their own concerns, and (b) cooperativeness, the degree to which one

attempts to satisfy the other’s concerns. Evaluating the behavior of the office staff at

BIRTH it was clear they were low in the assertiveness dimension, thereby falling in

either the accommodating or avoiding mode. Both the competing and collaboration

conflict-handling styles were absent. According to Pareek (2003), both are equally

important and can be thought of as complementary qualities. Each style should be

present (in a functional form) in the organization to develop an environment which is

overall collaborative. (The specific qualities each style builds are illustrated in Appendix

E.) This further emphasized the need for BIRTH to address their conflict suppression to

achieve Joan’s desire for a collaborative environment.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a conflict positive group (Johnson &Johnson,

2000). A conflict positive group is one in which the group (a) sees conflict as part of the

solution, (b) seeks out and encourages conflicts, (c) believes conflict has the potential to

be constructive, (d) sees many values to conflict. Conflict thereby creates excitement,

interest and focus, which in turn inspires and helps the group to solve problems. BIRTH

was experiencing the opposite of the above; a conflict negative group. The above factors

of a conflict positive group became the basis for final project goals.

One last important aspect of conflict management concerns who in the

organization must have the skills to manage conflict. Weiss & Hughes (2005) believe

“conflict management works best when the parties involved in a disagreement are

23

equipped to manage it themselves. The aim is to get people to resolve issues on their

own through a process that improves – or at least does not damage – their relationships”

(p. 94). This also influenced the intervention selection, as it was important that the end

result of the intervention was that the office staff were equipped to deal with conflict

themselves. Giving the office staff both the confidence and the tools to do so, was

important.

Confrontational Communication. There are two models, with respect to handling

conflict or confrontational issues, which influenced my coaching at BIRTH. The first is

Sherwood and Glidewell’s (1972) Pinch Model (PM) which “provides a framework for

the continuous management of the psychological contract in the day-to-day work setting.

(Osland, Kolb & Rubin, 2001, p. 8). It provided a framework for evaluating what was

happening at BIRTH and has the following stages:

1. Sharing of information and negotiating expectations. If expectations are

accepted parties move to the next stage, else a planned termination occurs.

2. Role clarity and joint commitment. Both parties understand and accept the

role the other expects of them and are motivated to meet those expectations.

3. Stability. Both parties focus on performing. Despite the best intentions,

changes occur over time, leading to a pinch. If pinches are addressed by both

parties as an early indicator of potential problems they can remain the stability

phase. If pinches are not addressed and grow, they move to the next stage.

4. Disruption of shared expectations. The rules have been upset and if emotions

heighten a crunch could occur. If this happens, the parties must renegotiate,

returning them to either stage 1 or 2, else resentful termination can occur.

24

The second model I turned to was the Integrative Negotiating Procedure (Johnson

& Johnson, 2000) as a means for intervention. This is a negotiating procedure (see

Appendix F) which strives to reach a win-win outcome. During the Appreciative Inquiry

intervention, I evaluated the stories shared by the office staff in terms of their use of the

Integrative Negotiating Procedure. To encourage their continued use of this procedure, I

emphasized the elements of their story where they were already successfully applying the

procedure and highlighted the positive results from doing so.

Dialogue. In addition to conflict suppression, I observed that there was not a lot

of dialogue occurring at BIRTH. It was my assessment that focusing on increasing the

dialogue would support the conflict management goals as well as support the

organization through the change process.

Buber (1988) used the term dialogue to describe a mode of communication among

human beings in which there is a both a true turning to one another and a full

appreciation of the other person as a genuine human being. An effective dialogue session

creates “a setting in which people can allow a free flow of meaning and vigorous

exploration of the collective background of their thought, their personal predispositions,

the nature of their shared attention, and the rigid features of their individual and

collective assumptions” (Isaacs, 1993, p 25). When people are in this setting, they can

develop an increased capacity for both working and developing things together.

Dialogue is also at the root of organizational learning. “Dialogue … is a basic

process for building common understanding” (Schein, 1993, p. 34). Through the

dialogue process, shared mental models are either established or evolved within the

organization. “Dialogue thus becomes a central element of any model of organizational

25

transformation” (Schein, 1993, p. 27). It is through the dialogue process that an

individual’s personal meaning is developed, and collectively the organization constructs

its social reality; the basic principle of social construction (Berger and Luckmann, 1967).

The link between dialogue and organizational transformation not only supported

the need for an increase in dialogue at BIRTH but also influenced the selection of

Appreciative Inquiry as the intervention methodology. “A central premise of AI is that

the appreciative process of knowing is socially constructed” (Cooperrider, Whitney &

Stavros, 2003, p. 13). AI takes the theoretical framework of social constructionalism and

places it in a positive context. By envisioning what the organization wants and

developing actions to move towards it, the organization controls their own destiny.

This is further supported by McWhinney’s (1984) research, explicitly linking social

construction, story and organizations in the following ways:

Stories are useful for new member socialization and generating commitment.

Familiarity with dominant organizations stories can be an indicator or

adaptation.

Story can be a vehicle for social control. (Boyce, 1996, p. 7)

In summary, dialogue promotes collective thinking and communication, making it

a central factor in the organization’s ability to learn. This in turn allows new possibilities

to emerge.

Organizational Health. The model of organizational health adopted for this

project was based upon Wiesbord’s (1976) Six-Box Model for Organizational Diagnosis

(OD). “The model reflects a systemic approach for analyzing the relationships between

26

the variables that influence how an organization is managed” (Preziosi, 1980, p 119).

The elements effecting organizational health, according to Wiesbord’s model are:

1. Purpose - the mission and goals of the organization.

2. Structure - the distribution of tasks, responsibilities, and functions among all

levels of the organization.

3. Relationships - how staff members interact with each other as they carry out

their tasks, including how decisions are made and communicated.

4. Leadership - the way the organization is supported by management.

5. Rewards - the way people are compensated for their work as well as the non-

financial benefits they receive.

6. Helpful Mechanisms - the way people support each other.

Insight into the areas of the organization, which would benefit from development

activities can be found by measuring the perceptions of the organization in these elements

effecting organization health. This “is the first step in determining appropriate

interventions for organizational change efforts” (Preziosi, 1980, p 120). The

Organizational Health Survey used was based upon Weisbord’s model. The results from

that survey informed the change in project direction from the office relocation to conflict

management.

Micro-Level: Feminist Values in Organization, Stages of Group Development,

Organizational Roles and Critical Incidents

Feminist Values in Organizations. Schor, Buskrik and McGrath (1994) advocate

the adoption of feminist values in organizations. An environment which adopts feminist

values will more effectively empower its members to learn the skills needed for

27

organizations to survive, such as organizational learning, teamwork, and participative

management. They suggest focusing on the following core values:

1. Caring - everyone is included, responded to and treated as having equal worth.

2. Voice - the right to express all voices, even dissenting ones is honored.

3. Self-reflection - belief that one’s own position is never the “last word”.

As part of their research, Schor, Buskrik and McGrath explored how embodying

the above core values in organizational practices, structures and changes effected the

organization. The organization they studied was the Community Women’s Education

Project (CWEP) in Philadelphia. CWEP is a community based organization providing

education for low-income women; an organization run by women, for women. I found

their findings relevant because of the similarity to BIRTH, and the link their findings

made between feminist values and change management. Specifically, their findings:

Illustrate how feminist values can enhance the process of organizational change.

The personal support experiences within an ethic of caring helps to reduce the

threatening feelings usually associated with traditional change efforts. The value

of voice allows all concerns to be heard and honored, which helps to maintain

active involvement by everyone in the change process. Self-reflection as

generated from voice, enriches the decision making. Therefore, when Feminist

values are applied to organizational change, resistance, commonly characteristic

of traditional change efforts, is minimal; participation, which is desired buy rarely

experienced, is exceptionally high. (p. 47)

Given the amount of change at BIRTH and that the organization is predominantly

women, I thought focusing on the three feminist values would be an effective and

28

appropriate way to support and grow the office staff. Through evaluating the

environment at BIRTH, it was clear that, although the environment exhibited the value of

caring, there was a lack of voice and self-reflection within the organization and for

individuals in the office staff. Applying the lens of the three feminist values supported

focusing on introducing theses values to BIRTH.

This decision was further re-enforced by the work of Sullivan, Sullivan & Buffton

(2001.) “Values drive all behavior. They can be thought of as the principles by which

both individuals and organizations live” (p. 248). To be successful, the values of the

office staff and of BIRTH must be aligned to support self-reflection and voice. Changing

the office staff values would however require an attitudinal shift (Robinson & Robinson,

1989) on their part.

Stages of Group Development. Tuckman (1965) described a five stage

development process undergone by all groups. The cycle includes the following states

(a) forming, (b) storming, (c) norming, (d) performing, and (e) transforming. This is not

a linear process; there are various events that can cause a group to re-cycle to a previous

stage. Two such events are individuals leaving or entering the group and leadership

changes. If these events continuously occur, a group may never fully develop into a

functional, cohesive group. BIRTH was experiencing just these events, the impending

departure of Sally and Monica’s departure mid-way through the project and Joan’s

arrival. As a result, its group development was stalled.

Of specific interest to this project were the forming and storming stages. During

the forming stage, members are initially polite and superficial. Each member is searching

for similarities or common needs and the reason for being a part of the group. Anxiety

29

develops as different styles and needs become evident. Ultimately, the member’s goal is

to establish safety within the group and the group as a whole is seeking to establish the

basic criteria for membership. Given the recent arrival of Joan and the turnover in the

staff throughout the project, BIRTH constantly returned to the forming stage.

The storming stage is one of the most crucial to the development of the group as it

deals with power and decision making. Typically during this phase bids for power and

influence may take the form of direct attacks at the leader and others within the group, or

covert nonsupport. As the group perseveres and handles the conflict in the system they

will lead themselves into the next stage. With the inability to both surface and deal with

conflict at BIRTH, the organization was unable to move through the storming phase.

Organization Roles. Oshry (1992) described an organizational model in which

there are (a) Tops who have overall responsibility for the organization, (b) Middles who

have management or supervisory responsibility for the work of others, and (c) Bottoms

who do the work of the organization. Each of these roles exists in a different world, often

out of touch with the perspectives of the other roles. The world of the Top is very

complicated, stressful and demanding. In order to cope, “Tops may create buffers

between themselves and others as a way of protecting themselves against complexity.

And as a consequence, Tops become isolated, out of touch” (p. 43). Middles are caught

up between the world of the Tops and the Bottoms; pushed, pulled and torn in different

directions. As a result, “Middles tend to feel isolated and lonely in the system. They are

accepted by neither the Tops nor Bottoms ...” (Oshry, 1994, p. 10). The Bottoms world is

one of vulnerability, often resulting in their taking the position of victim. “They

experience the system – other people, procedures – as preventing them from producing

30

the way they would like to produce. They complain about the system and how disruptive

and non-supportive it is” (Oshry, 1992, p. 57). Oshry’s work provided a useful lens for

examining the interactions between the Board of Directors (Tops), the Executive Director

(Middle) and the office staff (Bottoms).

Critical Incidents. Cohen and Smith (1976) refer to a critical incident as an event

within a group that demands some kind of response. The response in turn, from either a

group member, consultant, or leader, directly influences the direction of that group. The

critical incident model is a useful way to evaluate a situation and determine when an

intervention is necessary. There were several critical incidents throughout the project,

which provided a framework to evaluate its development and are discussed in chapter 3.

Methodology

Macro-Level: Action Research, Roles in Leadership of Change Efforts, Readiness for

Change and Resistance

Action Research. Greenwood and Levin (1998) define Action Research (AR) as

“social research carried out by a team encompassing a professional action researcher and

members of an organization or community seeking to improve their situation. AR

promotes broad participation in the research process and supports action leading to a

more just or satisfying situation for the stakeholders” (p. 4). The term AR was first

coined by Kurt Lewin in the mid-1940’s, and Lewin’s work was a fundamental building

block of AR. According to Greenwood and Levin (1998), Lewin set the stage for

knowledge production based on solving real-life problems and redefined the role of the

researcher from being an outside observer to direct involvement in the actual problem

solving process. Specifically, Block (1999) used an AR approach to consulting.

31

I conducted my work using Block’s five phases of consulting (see Appendix G).

In Block’s approach it is important to highlight the AR approach by cycling between (a) a

deeper understanding of the problem situation, and (b) research informed experiments,

was a core concept of Lewin’s action research. Phase 1 is the first cycle of understanding

the problem. The identification of the presenting problem leads to the research in Phase

2. The resulting data is then analyzed, leading to a deeper understanding of the problem,

which is used in Phase 3 to determine the next steps for the project. The implementation

in Phase 4 generates more data on the situation, which is finally leveraged in Phase 5 to

determine the next steps with respect to the client and consultant relationship.

Roles in Leadership of Change Efforts. Conner’s (1992) Sponsor, Agent, Target,

and Advocate, Change Model, (S-A-T-A), dictates that in a change effort, there must be

clear role definition and the relationship between each of the four roles must be managed

appropriately. In my project, Joan was the sponsor, the person with the authority to both

authorize change and resource the project. Both Joan and I played the role of the agent,

the person who holds responsibility for carrying out the change. Lastly, the office staff

was the target, the group who must undergo the change. There was not an advocate.

According to Conner, commitment on the part of the sponsor is the most

important success factor in any change. This commitment must manifest itself in a

visible manner to the targets, by way of such things as (a) the time the sponsor dedicates

to the change, (b) the resources the sponsor dedicates to the change, and (c) the rewards

the sponsor gives to those involved in making the change happen. A committed sponsor

demonstrates a vested interest in the progress of the change effort and is willing to make

sacrifices to achieve the change. “If a sponsor believes the change is a business

32

imperative, he or she will probably be highly committed” (p. 113). It is my assessment

that Joan was an effective sponsor, demonstrating the above qualities.

Readiness for Change. Before one even clarifies the roles in a project, it is

critical to determine if the people are ready for a change. According to Freda, Arn and

Gatlin-Watts (1999), the first step in any venture is often the most important. “But before

there can be a first step, a sense of urgency is required. It is the sense of urgency that

motivates people and organizations to sustain major change” (p. 32) Beckhard (1975)

described a formula (originally developed by Gleicher of Arthur D. Little) that evaluated

a client’s readiness for change. “The formula is C = (abd) > x, where C = change, a =

level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, b = clear or understood desired state, d =

practical first steps toward a desired state, and x = “cost” of changing” (p. 45). I applied

this formula to Joan, and determined that her level of dissatisfaction with the status quo

was sufficiently high to create the urgency needed to initiate and sustain the change

effort. One challenge however, was that in applying the formula to the office staff they

were not sufficiently ready for the office relocation because the “cost” of changing was

too great, thereby explaining the source of many of the challenges I faced during the

project.

It is also important to examine how change itself has changed in the past decades.

“The volume, momentum, and complexity of change is accelerating at an increasing rate”

(Conner, 1992, p. 38). This places increased pressure on organizations; they can no

longer manage change in the same way and their capacity to change must be increased.

In order to be successful in this new climate, the organization’s resiliency (Conner, 1992)

must be increased. “Resilient people are: positive, focused, flexible, organized, and

33

proactive” (p. 238). It was my assessment that the level of resiliency at BIRTH was low

and the speed of change in the organization was fast.

Resistance. Every change process creates the potential for resistance. “It does

not matter whether a change is originally seen as positive or negative; when people’s

expectations are significantly disrupted, the end result is resistance” (Conner, 1992, p.

131). At BIRTH this was clearly the case. The organization had been run in a similar

manner for fifty years, and with the arrival of Joan expectations started changing. In

order to effectively manage the resulting resistance it is important to understand the

nature of the resistance and what is necessary to the support the organization through the

change process.

“People can only change when they have the capacity to do so” (Conner, 1992, p.

127). In my evaluation of BIRTH there were several areas where the office staff believed

they did not have the ability to perform what the change required of them. However, “it

is possible to suggest that a person will tend to perform a certain behavior to the extent

that he or she has both the capacity and the willingness to engage in such behavior”

(Blumberg & Pringle, 1982, p. 563). In BIRTH’s case, there was definitely a lack of

willingness on the part of the office staff to engage in conflict. As a result is it was

important to ensure the office staff at BIRTH not only had the skills to engage in conflict

and dialogue but also had the willingness to do so. This was a primary factor in the

intervention selection of AI as it had the power to affect both required aspects.

While resistance may be rooted in unwillingness to change, or an inability to

change Kegan and Lahey (2001) have another theory. They believe, “even as (people)

hold a sincere commitment to change, many people are unwittingly applying productive

34

energy toward a hidden competing commitment” (p. 85). The resulting behavior looks

like resistance, but is more of a personal immunity to change. This can often be even

more challenging to deal than pure resistance as frequently the person is unaware of their

competing commitment. Additionally, “although competing commitments and big

assumptions tend to be deeply personal, groups are just as susceptible as individuals to

the dynamics of immunity to change” (Kegan & Lahey, 2001, p. 92). In the example

Kegan and Lahey reference, the competing commitment of the group in question was a

worry that pursuing the change would “drive them apart functionally and emotionally”

(p. 92). It is not hard to imagine that given the closeness of the office staff at BIRTH a

similar competing commitment may have been present. For the change to be successful,

uncovering the competing commitments through a process of inquiry is essential.

Another clue into resistance can be found in Bridges (2001) work on transitions.

“Transition is the state that change puts people into. The change is external (the different

policy, practice, or structure that the leader is trying to bring about), while transition is

internal (a psychological reorientation that people have to go through before the change

can work)” (p. 31). Transitions take longer than change because they require the person

to go through three phases (a) saying goodbye, (b) shifting into neutral and (c) moving

forward. It is important to recognize where a person is in these three phases and to

support moving them through the transition. Specifically at BIRTH two aspects of the

above transition process were important. First, it was essential to acknowledge the

endings that were happening. “We usually fail to discover (the) need for an ending until

we have made most of our necessary external changes” (Bridges, 1980, p. 12). At

BIRTH several endings were happening. The endings must be named and the office staff

35

allowed to say goodbye in order to move forward. Secondly, the organization was in the

neutral-zone for the major part of the project. This is an in-between state full of

uncertainty and confusion. Coping in this state takes a great deal of energy. As a result,

communication was key to help people manage the ambiguity at BIRTH.

Micro-Level: Appreciative Inquiry and Coaching

Appreciative Inquiry. Polak (1973) describes how humans simultaneously live in

the present and the Other time, or the future. Not only do we explain the present by our

images of the mythical Other time, but this future also influences our current behavior.

His position is that “bold visionary thinking is in itself the prerequisite for effective social

change … It is time that the image of the future be introduced into the social sciences as a

conceptual tool, adding to their diagnostic powers” (p. 22). Polak’s thinking is an

extension of the principles of social constructionism; the idea that a social system

generates its own reality. Specifically, Polak focuses on a shared image the future

influencing society’s current reality and guiding its development. The magic is in the

following: “hope springs to life when people understand that the future is fundamentally

undetermined and open to human influence. Polak (1973) calls this understanding

“influence-optimism” (Cooperrider & Sorenson & Yaeger & Whitney, 2001, Chapter

29).

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a process developed by David Cooperrider which

weaves together the principle of social constructionism and influence-optimism, allowing

organizations to project or construct their future. AI is based on a simple assumption;

every organization has a strength(s) which can be used as a catalyst for positive change.

By engaging the organization in dialogue around stories of the organization at its peak

36

effectiveness insights into future possibilities emerge. Linking these future possibilities

to any change agenda creates energy and excitement and a desire to move towards a

shared dream.

The following five principles (Cooperrider & Sorenson & Yaeger & Whitney,

2001) are at the core of AI:

1. Constructionist - an organization’s destiny is bound up in people’s

understanding of it. The first task in changing an organization is to discover

what its people think about it.

2. Simultaneity - the process of inquiry itself influences the direction of change.

3. Anticipatory - the most powerful vehicle for improving an organization is the

collective imagination about its future, about what it is becoming.

4. Poetic - an organization’s “story” is constantly being rewritten by everyone

within the organization and everyone who interacts with it. The organization,

like a poem, is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted.

5. Positive - an inquiry based upon the positive – achievement, joy, hope, and

inspiration – works better than an analysis of what is wrong and how it can be

cured.

The associated process of AI involves a disciplined inquiry into the organization,

centered around the “4-D” cycle (Cooperrider & Sorenson & Yaeger & Whitney, 2001).

To begin the process, an affirmative topic is selected. For each phase of the cycle, a

specific inquiry is performed to build the vision of the future and supporting change plan:

1. Discovery – what gives life? Exploring the best of what is.

2. Dream – what might be? Imagining what the world is calling for.

37

3. Design – how can it be? Determining the ideal.

4. Destiny – what will it be? Exploring how to empower, learn and adjust.

For a more detailed definition of the phases of appreciative inquiry, and the

business of each phase see Appendix H.

AI shifts from the traditional break-fix model of problem solving to one which

accentuates the positive in the organization. The creativity within the organization is

leveraged to create more of this positive in the future. “AI is an approach that is uniquely

suited to organizations that seek to be collaborative, inclusive, and genuinely caring for

both the people within the organization and those they serve” (Johnson & Leavitt, 2001,

p. 129). Because this described BIRTH to a tee, it seemed the perfect approach to take

with them.

Coaching. An important coaching skill I used in this project with Joan, was

described by O’Neill. (2000) It is to use one’s own immediacy (Carkhuff, 1969) in the

moment in the coaching relationship.

Immediacy means that you notice a relationship between what the leader talks

about “out there” and what actually happens in the moment between the two of

you. When you notice this parallel occurrence, you can report your experience of

her directly to her in the here and now. Rather than see yourself as outside of

what the leader describes, you put yourself radically within it. (O’Neill, 2000, p.

33)

By naming what happens between the consultant and the client as a specific behavior

example, it helps the client to become aware of their own behaviors and the potential

impact on the system.

38

In this chapter, I described the theory informing my work. In Chapter 3, I will tell

the story of the project.

39

CHAPTER 3

Intervention

This chapter tells the story of the consulting project I did at BIRTH. This

information is provided in chronological order and is mapped to the action research

phases (French & Bell, 1999). Throughout this chapter, I call out major themes that

appeared as part of the project.

Project Timeline

The project spanned a six-month period from January to July 2004 (see Appendix

I for a timeline of the project’s main events).

Entry and Contracting

When I first approached Joan about the possibility of completing a project at

BIRTH, her response was overwhelmingly positive. She was in the midst of much

change at BIRTH and needed help managing the various projects underway. Given that

this was my first formal experience at contracting, Joan’s interest and my prior friendship

with her helped to reduce my anxiety about that first meeting.

First Meeting

I provided an overview of what my needs for a project were to Joan. She then

explained the organization, its goals, her involvement, and major challenges. Joan was

clearly passionate about the organization. In fact, she even decided not to return to the

legal profession after the birth of her first child so she could focus her attention on

educating families to be better prepared to manage their child birthing experience.

Joan outlined the challenges facing BIRTH as a result of recent and ongoing

changes. She joined BIRTH in September 2003, taking over from the previous Executive

40

Director (ED) who had been there for 25 years. Over that time, the organization had

become stagnant. The technology they were using was vastly outdated and Joan was

looking at re-branding the organization. Talks of a merger with another non-profit in the

same field of education were ongoing.

Joan’s vision for the organization involved making it more sustainable. BIRTH’s

only source of revenue was the book they published; all other programs were budgeted at

a loss. Donations were also low. In fact, they received only $3,000 from the community

in the prior year. Joan believed this was largely due to the fact that BIRTH did not

maintain contact with the parents who completed their classes. Until BIRTH received

more funding, saving money was a top priority for the organization.

In summary, Joan believed they needed to (a) update their look, (b) engage with

the community, and (c) think about their budgeting process. We discussed several

options for how I could engage with BIRTH to help them achieve these goals, and we

agreed to meet again the following week. From this initial contact, I was encouraged and

confident that Joan would be a committed sponsor.

A week later Joan told me that she had talked with the Board of Directors

President and they were interested in working with me on some change aspect at BIRTH.

Second Meeting

Joan described the challenges she was experiencing. This gave me insight into

the difficult position Joan was in; she was a Middle (Oshry, 1994). From an

organizational perspective, Joan was caught between the Board of Directors and the

office staff. She did not have anyone to talk with about her challenges. My role was one

41

of listening and coaching her to move from the details of the problems into creating a

plan to resolve those problems.

The biggest issue facing BIRTH, in Joan’s opinion, was office relocation. The

current lease was set to expire in August 2004 and Joan believed they should move. Not

only did she believe the office space they were in was not conducive to the work BIRTH

did, but they were also significantly overpaying for the office space.

Joan wanted my help in getting the Board of Directors to reach a decision

regarding the office relocation. This involved establishing and implementing a relocation

plan. In her initial discussions with the office staff about the possibility of relocating, the

office staff made it clear that they preferred not to move. Although the office staff agreed

that the current office was not ideal, they reasoned that it was close to their homes, which

was very important to them.

Joan wanted to work with me to get a better understanding of the issues the office

staff had with moving and what they would like in a new office space. She wanted to

increase the office staff’s readiness and willingness to move. This became the scope of

my project. Through a series of follow-on meetings and e-mail exchanges, we clarified

the goals and measures associated with this scope (see Table 1 on page 10 in Chapter 1).

Sponsor and Consultant Team

My relationship with Joan was highly collaborative. We left each meeting with a

clear understanding of what each would do and the timeframe. This ensured follow-

through and kept the project moving. The passion we shared for the project and the

similarity in our working styles and personalities created a fluid working relationship. I

felt we were a team from the beginning. While this had several advantages, it was also

42

the source of challenges with the client system. In particular, I questioned the level of

groupthink (Janis, 1972) between Joan and myself. I will elaborate on this throughout the

remainder of the chapter and in my learning in Chapter 6.

Data Gathering and Discovery

Once Joan and I agreed on the scope, goals, and measures of the project, we

worked on a plan to introduce it to the client system. Because the Board of Directors and

the office staff were distinctly different groups, we introduced the project to them

separately.

First Meeting with the Board of Directors

Joan anticipated a positive response from the board members to the project. She

explained the project and I outlined how the project would proceed. I then facilitated a

discussion about the office relocation. Happily, by the end of the meeting, we found that

the board members were interested in the project and willing to participate.

Joan was a strong sponsor. She worked with Betty, the Board President, in

advance of the meeting. Both gave sponsoring statements in support of the project. It

was important to have the sponsorship of Betty to demonstrate the importance of this

project to the rest of the board members.

Toward the end of the meeting, a board member raised her concern about the

perceived office staff resistance to the relocation. She wanted to be sure all of the office

staff would be retained and was concerned that this resistance might result in office staff

leaving the organization. The Board President quickly tabled her point of view, which

did not seem appropriate and caused me to feel anxious; it pointed to a possible problem

43

in the relationship between the Board of Directors and the office staff and how the board

members dealt with conflicting opinions.

First Meeting with the Office Staff

Joan and I decided to follow a similar agenda with the office staff. Joan delivered

her opening sponsorship statement and I provided the overview of the project. The office

staff did not immediately disclose their opinions about the office space requirements and

relocation. They asked questions about the move and focused heavily on its logistics. By

the nature of their questions, I inferred they were not happy with a possible move.

However, they did express excitement over my presence and the upcoming opportunity to

provide their viewpoint; they liked the fact that their opinions were going to be solicited.

Generational Differences in the Client System Sub-Groups

The make-up of the office staff was notably different than the Board of Directors.

The board members were, on average, young women in the early stages of their family

life. All but two of the board members had young children. The office staff, in contrast,

were in later stages of their lives and from a different generation: Traditionalists

(Lacaster & Stillman, 2002). This influenced the style of the staff meeting and the degree

to which the office staff felt comfortable and confident voicing their opinions. In the

Traditionalist generation, the feedback motto is “No news is good news,” (p. 255) which

was definitely evident in interactions at this office. Something needed to be very wrong

in order for the office staff to raise a personal concern.

Data Collection Planning

Concurrent with these introductory meetings, Joan and I worked on the data

collection plan. Given the office staffs’ questions on the office relocation, we decided to

44

collect qualitative data in this area. Based on Joan’s prior experience, she thought

individual interviews with the office staff would be a good way to put them at ease and

solicit frank and open information. Joan reasoned that the individual interviews she had

performed when joining BIRTH yielded a lot of valuable information.

In contrast, given the Board of Directors’ openness to providing feedback at the

first meeting, we believed a questionnaire would sufficiently and appropriately capture

the necessary information from the board members about the office relocation.

The potential for contact with each member of the client system made it a perfect

opportunity to gather information about the overall health of the organization in addition

to information on the office relocation. Joan requested that I collect the organizational

health information via an anonymous survey. She hoped this would provide a frank

assessment of BIRTH’s health at that time.

Joan and I worked together to finalize the Organizational Health Survey (see

Appendix B), Office Relocation Questionnaire (see Appendix C) and Office Staff

Interview Guide (see Appendix D).

Data Collection and Analysis: Board of Directors

The Office Relocation Questionnaire was distributed to board members and they

were given two weeks to return it. At the end of the two weeks, only three of the nine

board members had returned the questionnaire. Despite several reminders and a one-

week extension, I received information from only six respondents. Three people had not

bothered to respond. This level of engagement was typical of the board members, Joan

reflected. It represented a challenge for the organization with this set of board members.

45

There was a high level of consistency among the responses we did get from the

Board of Directors (see Appendix J). Five of the six respondents indicated that they

believed the office relocation was a good move for BIRTH. In general, their concerns

were the cost associated with the move and the resistance to the move from the office

staff.

The most important requirements of the new office space were that it be (a) more

user-friendly or comfortable to expectant parents, and (b) more accessible and visible

from the street. To address their concerns and ensure the move met their requirements,

the Board of Directors wanted to see a cost analysis of the move decision, location and

lease information, and the new office space layout before making a final decision to

support a move. This data was consistent with the feedback we received during our

initial discussion with the Board of Directors.

The more interesting aspect of the data analysis, in my opinion, was the board

members’ responses to the Organizational Health Survey (see Appendix K). First, there

was a notable difference between the set of responses from the board members who met

the original survey deadline and those who responded to the survey only after the original

deadline was extended. The responses for each question from the “on-time” board

members were more similar; they shared the same belief about each question.

By contrast, when the responses of all board members were examined (regardless

of when they submitted their responses), there was a lot of variability in the responses to

each question. As a whole, the Board of Directors did not share the same belief about

each question. Second, their responses indicated a lot of neutrality; the board members

neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements in the survey. This raised several

46

questions in my mind, most importantly: (a) Is there a high degree of ambivalence on the

board, and (b) are there two different sub-groups within the board –those doing the work

and others along for the ride (the deadwood problem)? (Wolf, 1999)

Data Collection and Analysis: Office Staff

All five office staff completed the Organizational Health Survey and mailed the

completed forms to me in advance of the scheduled interviews. I then interviewed each

person for an hour. Although many of the office staff members commented before the

interview that they did not think they had an hour’s worth of things to talk about, all of

them either filled the hour or ran over time.

There was a lot of consistency in the office staff’s responses to the individual

interview questions. The first question asked them to name their core values. Their

responses indicated they shared the same set of core values (see Appendix L). The

second question asked them to discuss what they enjoyed about working at BIRTH. All

of the office staff made the choice to work at BIRTH and were there largely because of

the nurturing nature of the work and the organization’s values. Working at BIRTH

provided staff the opportunity to give back to the community. BIRTH was a family; the

office staff viewed their colleagues more like sisters than as fellow employees.

Everyone also commented on the positive change in the atmosphere at BIRTH

since Joan’s arrival. They were excited about the possibilities for the organization and

understood that it was indeed time for change. Despite this, the office staff was anxious

about the potential magnitude of the changes and the new software they would have to

learn to use. They asked for specific support to manage these changes: (a) To be kept

informed of the changes and the reasoning behind the changes, and (b) for Joan to

47

highlight the value the office staff play in the organization by linking the impact of their

work on each change.

All of the office staff said they understood why BIRTH was evaluating relocation

and believed it was the right long-term decision. They were concerned, however, about

the move’s impact on them. They all needed to work and they had each decided to work

at BIRTH in part due to its proximity to their homes. They did not believe they were

compensated enough to commute any further and preferred not to. In spite of these

reservations, all office staff members committed to try out the new location and make a

decision about staying with BIRTH based upon their experience at the new office space.

With respect to the Organizational Health Survey results, there was variance in

the responses to each question (see Appendix M). For approximately two-thirds of the

questions, the office staff’s responses spanned more than half the scale. Given the

consistency of the responses in the individual interviews, I had not anticipated this.

Second, the only statements that the office staff as a whole disagreed about concerned

compensation and conflict. With respect to their compensation, they did not believe their

salary was commensurate with the job they performed nor did they believe all tasks were

associated with incentives. Additionally, they all believed there was evidence of

unresolved conflict in BIRTH. This raised my curiosity because I did not notice an

indication of unresolved conflict at BIRTH from the individual interviews. I wondered

why the office staff believed there was so much unresolved conflict at BIRTH and what

the root cause of this was.

The difference between the lack of consistency in the Organizational Health

Survey and the consistency in the individual interviews was perplexing. Additionally, I

48

wondered why no one had mentioned the unresolved conflict in the individual interviews.

So, while I felt good about establishing rapport with the client system and generating

useful data, I wondered if this was a false sense of confidence. Given the Organizational

Health Survey results, were the office staff really telling me the truth in the individual

interviews? Rather than let this feeling consume me, I maintained a stance of curiosity. I

asked myself, “Could I use this experience to gain insight into the system and help get

clarity on what was happening at BIRTH?”.

Feedback and Decision to Act

Joan and I met to go over the results from the data collection and prepare for the

data feedback meeting so there would be no surprises. I summarized the results,

highlighted the key themes to Joan (see Appendix L).

Overall, Joan was not surprised by the data. In fact, she was relieved by the

consistency of the responses in some areas. Specifically everyone shared a common

understanding of why BIRTH needed to move and what features the new space should

provide. A new insight Joan gained from the data was the link the office staff made

between the commute and their compensation. They did not believe they were

compensated enough to make the longer commute, which they feared would be necessary

with the office relocation. The proximity of BIRTH’s current location to their homes

made up for the lack of compensation they received. Joan could understand this and, as

she was already working on the compensation issues of the office staff separately, she

believed this would be resolved by her ongoing efforts.

49

Change in Project Direction

Joan and I concluded that it would not be an effective use of my time to continue

focusing on the office relocation. As there were no surprises in the data with respect to

the office relocation and there was a consistent set of requirements for the new office

space, Joan believed she had this issue under control. Therefore, we decided to change

the focus of my project.

To determine the new focus for the project, we turned to the results of the

Organizational Health Survey. There were two surprising results, (a) the variance in the

responses and (b) the belief that there was unresolved conflict at BIRTH. Because Joan

had observed conflict avoidance in the office, she was not surprised by the responses.

She also knew that this behavior was not healthy for an organization. Although we did

not discuss the specifics of the new project goals and measures, Joan and I agreed the

direction of the project should change to focus on how the office staff manages conflict.

After the data feedback meeting, Joan and I would meet to update the project goals and

measures to ensure there was clarity on the future direction of the project.

Critical Incident Number One

The decision Joan and I made to change the project direction without input from

the client system and before the data feedback meeting marked the first critical incident.

The analysis of the data and decision to move forward with some aspect of this data

should have come from the client system as a whole, not the consultant-sponsor team.

Data Feedback Meeting with the Board of Directors

The data feedback meeting with the Board of Directors was a transition point. In

this meeting we discussed: (a) The Office Relocation Questionnaire results (see

50

Appendix J), (b) the Organizational Health Survey results (see Appendix K), and (c)

action planning by the board members on next steps (to be performed without my

involvement). Given the consistency of the office relocation questionnaire results, there

was not a lot of discussion. The board members were relieved to see the consistency.

The office relocation committee agreed to provide the requested information to aid the

Board of Directors in making the relocation decision.

With respect to the Organizational Health Survey, I highlighted the difference

between the on-time respondents and the group as a whole, as well as the high level of

neutrality in the group. I asked the group to respond to the following questions:

1. What about the data makes you feel good about serving on the board?

2. What about the data do you find interesting or makes you wonder about

something in the organization?

3. How do you think you can use this data as an organization?

A lengthy dialogue ensued. Specifically, one board member who had not

responded to the survey voiced her feelings of inadequacy concerning her position on the

Board of Directors. This frank and open conversation created an atmosphere which

paved the way for all members to feel comfortable discussing their opinions. As the

conversation dwindled, one of the board members asked me, “What do we do next?” At

that moment I felt put on the spot. I did not have an answer, nor did I believe I should

respond given that the Board of Directors needed to decide on their next steps. I sat in

silence, managing my anxiety and thinking of a response. This created space for the

Board President, Betty, to voice her proposal, to work through the questions where there

was a high degree of neutrality and then discuss them in a subsequent board meeting to

51

understand the nature of the neutrality and determine follow-up actions. The board

members agreed.

I felt fantastic! I had maintained a strong sense of purpose. I was not there to

solve their problems; my role was to guide them by highlighting possibilities and asking

questions. The board members were grateful for the information and the chance to have

an open dialogue.

Data Feedback Meeting with the Office Staff

In the office staff data feedback meeting, I told them the general themes generated

from the individual interviews (see Appendix L) and discussed the Organizational Health

Survey results (see Appendix M), highlighting the key themes.

There were two predominant themes from the individual interviews, (a) The

consistent agreement of the office space requirements and (b) acknowledgement that

people understood the necessity to relocate. I then communicated the decision Joan and I

had made to re-focus my efforts from the office relocation to the results of the

Organizational Health Survey.

The discussion of the Organizational Health Survey results, which followed,

focused on which responses to the survey excited the office staff about working at

BIRTH and which responses they found interesting and would like to know more about.

The response that drew the most discussion was the statement: “There is no source of

unresolved conflict at BIRTH.” From the ensuing discussion, two things became

apparent. In the past they felt there was no point in bringing up conflict because

problems were never fixed. (The attitude expressed by the office staff was that they

might as well “suck it up and just deal with it” because nothing is going to change).

52

Second, the office staff had never been asked what they thought by the previous ED or

Board of Directors. Therefore, to avoid appearing negative or complaining, they kept

quiet, even when they knew from past experience that the projects being proposed by the

ED or Board of Directors were going to be a waste of time. In fact, they reported that

several of these projects either failed or wasted resources despite the knowledge of the

office staff which might have avoided the poor results.

Additionally, because the office staff did not discuss issues until they grew very

complex and the staff grew very frustrated, they often were not able to communicate

about the issues in a way the ED or Board of Directors could understand. As a result, no

constructive changes were made and the office staff would remain quiet and not

forthcoming about issues in the organization.

There was a good deal of energy in the discussion on the unresolved conflict at

BIRTH. The office staff agreed they could be more effective if they could communicate

their knowledge and opinions to the ED and Board of Directors in a timely manner and

before reaching a high level of frustration. We then discussed what would be appropriate

next steps. They agreed that learning how to manage the unresolved conflict was the

most interesting aspect of the survey and they would like to do some work in this area.

Critical Incident Number Two

The decision I made to move on to the Organizational Health Survey results,

without explicit agreement from the office staff, marked the second critical incident.

After conveying the results of the interviews and the decision by Joan to refocus the

project, I opened the floor to the office staff for discussion. The room was quiet.

Scanning the room, I observed the typical pose of the office staff; all were sitting with

53

crossed arms. One could have inferred they were not in agreement with our decision to

change the project direction or the decision of BIRTH to relocate. Either way, they were

not saying anything. I waited for a brief time and then moved on. Moving on without the

confirmation that this was the direction the office staff wanted to move in, did not honor

their role in informing the project direction.

Engagement and Implementation

Joan’s and my confidence in the project direction increased with the new data

collected from the office staff at the data feedback meeting and their interest in learning

to manage the unresolved conflict. We decided that helping the office staff develop skills

to effectively deal with conflict, especially given the ongoing changes at BIRTH, was

indeed a more important goal than the office relocation.

Project Goal and Measurement Revision

Joan and I met several times to explore the idea of the organization learning to

deal with conflict more effectively and the more collaborative environment she wanted to

create. She cited that the office staff too often waited for her to tell them what to do

(something left over from the previous ED’s style) and they were not being forthright

with their opinions. As a result, Joan was nervous to share information with the office

staff or ask them to do new things. Typically when she made a request, the office staff

accepted the request without question and then much later, after the issue had reached the

boiling point, would respond in a heated way. This frustrated Joan because the office

staff had years of experience to share with the new members of BIRTH which could

54

inform decisions and create better outcomes if shared. By leveraging their experience,

Joan believed they could increase the efficiency of the organization.

It seemed important that the office staff learn to deal with their differences in an

open and collaborative way and engage in a dialogue with the various members of the

organization. As a result, Joan and I updated the project goals. The new goals centered

on what behavioral changes Joan would like to see from the office staff to increase the

effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. Given the nature of the women in the

organization and their past experiences at BIRTH, achieving these goals would also

require an attitudinal shift (Robinson & Robinson, 1989). As a result, we added several

goals aimed specifically at achieving this shift. The updated project goals and measures

established are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3

Updated Project Goals and Measures

Goal & Intervention to Accomplish Goal Measurement1. To increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of

the office staff by:

Increasing the amount of dialogue in the office.

Increasing the amount of difference of opinion

that is raised in the office.

Decreasing the time it takes the office staff to

voice their difference of opinion.

Decreasing the intensity level the office staff

must reach before they voice their difference of

Target: Office Staff and ED

Pre and post intervention

self-assessment evaluation

Post intervention interviews

55

Goal & Intervention to Accomplish Goal Measurementopinion.

2. Realize the following attitudinal shifts:

Increase the office staff’s belief they can

influence change in the organization.

Increase the office staff’s willingness to raise

differences of opinion.

Increase the office staff’s belief that raising

differences of opinion contributes to a healthy

work environment.

Target: Office Staff and ED

Pre and post intervention

self-assessment evaluation

Post intervention interviews

Critical Incident Number Three

Several weeks after setting the new goals, Joan expressed her decreasing

confidence in the office move. She explained that since the data feedback meetings, the

office staff was grumbling amongst themselves about the office move. Although they

were talking openly about their opinions with each other, they were not talking to Joan

about their concerns. At the same time, the Educational Director, Monica, had decided to

leave BIRTH, which she told Joan was unrelated to the office relocation. Because

Monica was leaving BIRTH soon, she seemed more prone to regularly raise issues in an

open manner, thereby increasing the stress in the office. Despite the hint of unresolved

conflict around the office relocation, I moved forward with the change in project focus.

Intervention Selection

At this point in the process, I evaluated the options for action. Given that the

problem involved an adaptive element (Heifetz, 1994) and an increase in the willingness

56

(Blumberg & Pringle, 1982) of the office staff to engage in conflict, I believed something

outside of training must be done. While it was true the office staff needed skills to deal

with differences in opinions, their hope also needed to increase. I decided to perform an

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) with the office staff since its focus on the positive in an

organization, and how existing experiences can be used to create more of what is desired

within the organization, matched the needed understanding of influence-optimism (Polak,

1973). Joan was excited by the approach and felt it fit with BIRTH’s values.

Critical Incident Number Four

On the morning of the AI, Joan called and asked to reschedule the AI. BIRTH

was merging with another non-profit and the office was in the midst of a mass mailing.

Additionally, one of the office staff, Vera, was about to go on vacation and was

concerned about spending her limited time on the AI. Tensions were high. In addition,

Joan was hearing grumblings about the office move second-hand. In fact, another staff

member, Sally, had told Joan she was planning on leaving BIRTH as a result of the office

relocation, but requested to keep this private from the other office staff.

My initial reaction was that conditions among office staff at BIRTH had

deteriorated. I was sensing resistance (Block, 1981) in the organization. I weighed the

options and saw two choices, continue with the AI to a non-receptive audience (in my

opinion) or postpone the AI. I knew that if we postponed the AI, there was no guarantee

the situation would be any better later; however, this option would give me time to

prepare for the state of the audience. I decided this was my best alternative. Joan was

very appreciative of my flexibility and requested I send her alternative dates to

57

reschedule the AI. I felt more confident after hearing this; from the state of affairs among

the office staff, I had begun to wonder if we would do the AI at all.

All of this set the stage for the fourth critical incident: a crunch (Sherwood &

Glidewell, 1972) in the office. As reported by the women in the initial interviews, the

front office staff is a tightly knit group who share the same office and often talk while

working. Kathy shares the adjacent office and had overheard these conversations since

joining BIRTH. On several occasions she was troubled by what she overheard but had

chosen not to directly address this with the front office staff until now. On this particular

day, Kathy overheard Sally say something she interpreted as undermining Joan’s

authority and criticizing Joan’s personality. Kathy stormed into the front office and

directly confronted Sally. In addition to addressing the immediate issue, Kathy gave vent

to frustrations that had been mounting over several months. Kathy was tired of the gossip

and wanted people to be direct with their opinions.

When Joan returned to the office, Kathy told her what had happened. After

listening to the front office staff’s side of the story, Joan called a staff meeting so the

entire office staff could talk about the incident and issues associated with gossiping. She

was prepared to do this meeting because of coaching I had done with her at a prior time

about conflict management. During the meeting, each member had a chance to voice

their understanding of what had happened in the recent incident and the intention of their

behavior.

Joan reported that the meeting helped to clear the air a great deal. Joan and Kathy

were able to understand how the front office staff communicates. The front office staff

was able to understand the impact one’s conversations can have on someone else. Joan

58

and Kathy said that discussing differences of opinion is healthy for the organization. The

front office staff agreed to try to express their differences more often. And finally, Sally

offered to let Kathy check in with her about things she overheard, to avoid

miscommunication in the future.

I was encouraged by this incident because it marked a major turning point at

BIRTH. The issue of conflict avoidance was directly named, with a specific example

from their day-to-day work life and office staff was given the opportunity to have a direct

conversation about it. This conversation also created a positive experience of dealing

with conflict, prior to the AI intervention, which set the way for the group’s readiness to

participate in the AI.

The Intervention: Appreciative Inquiry

Kathy was not present at the AI. This was unfortunate. Despite my coaching to

include Kathy, Joan decided not to include her for financial reasons (Kathy is paid by the

hour). I expressed my concern multiple times. Not only did I believe it important to

work with the entire client system, but I also believed Kathy’s inclusion would be a good

investment in the BIRTH organization because she was the catalyst for the crunch. Joan

took this into consideration, but when finally contacted, Kathy had already committed to

other obligations during the time when we had scheduled the AI.

The AI was scheduled for an afternoon when all other staff was present. I started

with an introduction of what the AI is and the phases we would complete: (a) Discovery,

(b) Dreaming, (c) Design, and (d) Destiny.

In the Discovery phase, I asked the office staff to think back over their entire time

at BIRTH and recall an experience where:

59

1. They successfully raised a difficult issue with a fellow employee and

engaged in a dialogue about their difference of opinion, deeply inquiring

into their viewpoint to truly understand and appreciate their point of view.

2. By engaging in a dialogue with a fellow employee over a difference of

opinion they were able to influence the other’s position and work together to

solve the issue in the best possible way.

3. They were able to influence a decision or change at BIRTH that was

important to them in a positive way.

When I opened up the floor for office staff to share an experience, Vera

volunteered. As I had not seen her immediately speak up before, I was encouraged. I

wondered if the recent events in the office had influenced her perspective on raising

differences of opinion. As we progressed through their examples, I captured the stories

on a flip-chart and highlighted the theoretical aspects of what was happening, and what

they should strive for.

Critical Incident Number Five

It was at this point when the fifth and final critical incident happened; Vera

directly confronted me on the office relocation. This was important as it marked the first

time an office staff member directly addressed their concerns about the office relocation.

The specifics leading to the incident are blurry to me because it seemed to come

out of the blue (although in retrospect I should have seen it coming!). Vera turned to me

and said something like: “One thing I do not understand is what happened with the office

move. From my perspective, I thought we clearly told you moving would be a big issue

from a commuting perspective, and it seems that was ignored.”

60

My anxiety level shot up. I was not sure what to do. At that point I was fighting

feelings of “Oh no. I screwed up,” and “Do I have the skills to handle this?” I took a

deep breath and thought about what to do next. At this point Joan jumped in to say

something. Although I thought Vera was using me to triangulate (Kerr & Bowen, 1988)

the issue with Joan because she had directly addressed me, I chose to resolve the issue

between the two of us first. I asked Joan for a moment and said that I wanted to address

Vera’s concerns first, and then we would hear Joan’s thoughts.

First, I paraphrased what I heard Vera say. I then acknowledged how this must

have impacted her and thanked her for bringing this issue to my attention so we could

discuss what happened. I reassured her that I had heard her concerns about the office

move, specifically the commuting issue. But since this issue was not something I could

directly address, I explained how I left this to Joan and we decided to change direction of

my work. I then acknowledged how I could have done a better job explaining why my

original project had changed. Vera was very receptive to what I said. Immediately she

changed her tone from accusatory to relaxed, stating how that made sense from her

perspective. She said she felt much better and did not hold ill feelings towards me.

I then turned to Joan and handed the floor over to her. What ensued was a very

frank and open dialogue between Joan and the office staff. They had the conversation

about the office relocation that should have happened at the data feedback meeting.

But as important as this conversation was, at this point I was torn. I believed the

conversation needed to happen for the health of the organization; however, it was quickly

eating away at the time I had for the AI. A choice point was in front of me; to let the

conversation continue or to cut it off. I waited until all staff members had voiced their

61

opinions and were acknowledged by those with opposing opinions and then I interrupted.

I was transparent about my choice point and said I would like to close out this dialogue

and move forward with the AI. Before returning to the agenda however, I did take the

time to debrief what just happened from a theoretical perspective, again calling out all the

positive things the office staff did.

I was a little flustered by the experience and did not know what to make of it; did

it have a positive or negative effect on the session? As I reflected, however, I was proud

of this experience. My ability to stay focused in the heat of the moment, slow things

down, and use the immediacy of the situation further highlighted the relevance of the

content I was trying to convey.

Completing the Intervention

We completed the AI agenda with the group creating provocative propositions; a

statement which embodies the desired qualities of the organization. The groups’

provocative propositions were essentially all the same! They concurred that the most

attractive provocative proposition was:

Our office values every person’s individual contributions and personal strengths.

We recognize that everyone has a unique gift to share. We will regularly affirm

each person’s value. We seek to listen and communicate directly, honestly and

with respect.

Finally, the group considered the support needed to realize their chosen

provocative proposition. (see Appendix N)

62

Appreciative Inquiry: Feedback

Several weeks following the AI, Joan and I discussed how she believed the AI

had gone. Joan felt quite positive. While she did not believe all issues were solved, she

was encouraged by the issue of the office relocation finally being discussed in a direct

manner with the staff. Additionally, Sally had announced to the office her plans to leave

and this released some of the anxiety Joan felt in keeping her secret. In general, Joan

believed the office staff was more direct with her and with each other, and she personally

felt less hesitation in being direct with them. Because Sally and Monica had announced

their plans to leave, Joan was also encouraged by the prospect of filling the vacant

positions with new people who would bring fresh ideas to BIRTH. The intervention was

a success to her.

Project Closure

To close the project, I performed a set of final interviews with the office staff (see

Appendix O) and presented this information back to the office staff during a wrap-up

meeting.

Final Interviews

The final interviews with the office staff were remarkably different than the initial

interviews. The change in office staff’s speech and confidence was noticeable. The

women were no longer speaking about the needs of others but, rather, stated their

concerns and their individual needs and wants. They quickly got into conversation about

what issues still needed to be addressed and the key challenges they faced in the

organization. Everyone was more ready to speak her mind.

63

Three themes emerged from the final interview data: (a) Transitions, (b)

ambiguity, and (c) complexity at all levels.

Transitions. The entire office was in a state of transition. With the merger,

BIRTH was experiencing a re-birthing. Individuals in the organization were in transition.

One of the staff commented that the whole organization was changing, which provided

her with an opportunity to re-evaluate whether to stay or leave as both posed the same

hurdle in terms of learning a new job.

Ambiguity. Not only was the office in a state of transition, but at this point there

was a great deal of ambiguity. They did not even know what their new name was to be!

This was causing anxiety in the organization. Who they would be after they merged was

an unknown.

Complexity at all levels. Not only was the office in a state of transition and the

climate very ambiguous, but it was happening at all levels of the organization, adding to

the complexity of the situation. At the intrapersonal level, people were in transition and

questioning what was next for them. At the group level, personnel was changing and

new working relationships were being established and at the organizational level, a re-

birthing was happening.

Final Project Meeting

Once the final interviews were complete, the entire office staff met, including

Kathy and the new Educational Director. I provided an overview of where the project

started, the process we followed, and where the project was at that point in time. It was

quite interesting to me to reflect that when I originally came to BIRTH, the client system

believed they were undergoing a great deal of change. In my assessment at the end of the

64

project, and based on feedback from the office staff, it was clear that the amount of

change had actually increased during the course of my project. As I was finishing my

time at BIRTH, there was one new employee and another on the way; the office move

was being planned; there was a merger going on and the new technology was in place.

Given all of this, the challenges facing the organization had increased.

I articulated each of the three themes, which emerged from the final interview

(transitions, ambiguity, and complexity at all levels) and coached the organization on

strategies for managing these challenges.

Transitions. With respect to the office relocation, the office staff change-over and

the recent merger, I encouraged the office staff to be mindful of their transitions; to create

a space for the old to end before the new begins. For example, when they leave the old

office location, they may want to have a celebration. The office staff really liked this

suggestion. Additionally, I cautioned them to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

While they were going through all this change, it was important to realize what has

worked well and to hold on to the traditions that work. They must work with the

competing values of adaptability and stability (Quinn, 1988).

Ambiguity. To help handle the unknowns in the organization I encouraged them

to be clear about what was changing and what was not. I also relayed the request from

the office staff to Joan to make sure they were informed about what was going on and

how each stage of change affected them. They wanted Joan to connect the dots between

their role and what was happening in the organization. Joan was very responsive to this.

Complexity at all levels. Finally, I encouraged the office staff to acknowledge the

challenges existing at the intrapersonal, group and organizational level. I stress the need

65

for them to be compassionate with each other through this time, and realize this was a

difficult time and their support of one another would help face the challenges ahead.

What I said resonated with the office staff and generated discussion as to what

things they could do moving forward. I felt proud. The difference in the amount and

quality of dialogue between the initial meeting and this project closure meeting was

significant. Staff members did not just sit in silence with their arms crossed, and they

expressed a much wider variety of opinions. I believe the work I had done was

foundational work that will help them through the changes and challenges ahead.

Ongoing Coaching: Its Impact

Before closing, I want to comment on the role of coaching throughout the project.

Although not initially part of the formal contract with Joan, as our relationship developed

I negotiated to add a coaching element to the project.

Given the isolation of her role (the only middle, between the Board of Directors

and the office staff), Joan was in a lonely position. She was new to the organization and

trying to change it. In the process, Joan was challenged to maintain her differentiation

(Bowen, 1978) from the organization as it existed before her arrival. The office staff was

constantly trying to recruit her to play the role of the old ED and it was fundamentally

challenging who she was. Additionally, she was the first ED to come to BIRTH from a

business background, which added a new element to day-to-day operations.

Joan expressed being able to talk through her challenges with me helped her to

focus on next steps. Our meetings opened with a short conversation where she would

talk through what was going well and what was causing her to lose sleep. I asked

questions to help clarify the problem and challenge her views on the issue. In several

66

instances, as a result of my questions, Joan identified her specific feelings, the root issue

at play, and how she wanted to proceed. This part of our relationship was not only

beneficial to Joan, but also established a sense of trust between us.

In this chapter I told the story of the project. In Chapter 4, I will describe the

measurement process and results.

67

CHAPTER 4

Results

This chapter outlines the project goals and the qualitative and quantitative

measurements I used to determine the success of the project.

Project Goals

At the outset of the project, the primary goals of the project were to: (a) reach a

decision on the office location, (b) create and implement an office relocation process and

(c) increase the readiness of the office staff to move. As a result of the data collection

phase, the project goals were changed. Table 4 lists the final project goals and measures,

the ways in which the client would know that the goal had been accomplished.

Table 4

Final Project Goals and Measures reformat

Goal MeasureTo increase both the

efficiency and effectiveness of

the office staff.

1. Increased amount of dialogue in the office.

2. Increased amount of difference of opinion raised in

the office.

3. Decreased time for the office staff to voice their

difference of opinion.

4. Decreased intensity level the office staff must reach

before they voice their difference of opinion.

To realize an attitudinal shift

by the office staff with respect

to their beliefs around raising

5. Increased belief of the office staff that they can

influence change in the organization.

6. Increased willingness by the office staff to raise

68

Goal Measuredifferences of opinion and

willingness to do so.

differences of opinion.

7. Increased belief of the office staff that raising

differences of opinion contributes to a healthy work

environment.

Methodology

A variety of instruments were used to collect data in order to determine if the

project goals were achieved. The specific instruments used, and when they were

implemented is as follows:

1. The Organizational Health Survey (see Appendix B) was administered

during the opening and closing phases of the project such that the results

could be statistically compared. The questions asked concerned the

overall health of the organization.

2. Individual interviews were conducted during the opening (see Appendix

D) and closing phases (see Appendix O) of the project. They provided

qualitative data to support both the Organizational Health Survey (opening

phase) and the Self Assessment Survey (closing phase), as the office

staff’s behaviors could be observed and anecdotes heard.

3. The Self Assessment Survey (see Appendix P) was administered before

and after the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) intervention such that the results

could be statistically compared. The questions asked the office staff about

their current level on each of the project goal measures listed in Table 4

above.

69

4. The Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation (see Appendix Q) was administered

after the AI intervention. Questions asked the office staff to evaluate if the

AI intervention had an impact on their behavior.

Statistical Testing of the Data

Both the results from the Self Assessment Survey and the Organizational Health

Survey were analyzed using the sign test. The other statistical methodology option, the

Wilcoxson Signed-Ranks Test, requires a minimum of six respondents ruling. The

increased benefit of the Wilcoxson Signed-Ranks Test is that, in addition to the direction

of change (positive or negative) it also measures the quantity of the change (large or

small). The sign test only measures the former (Sharp, 1979). As there were only four

participants in the self-assessment process and five in the organizational health survey the

sign test was used.

The sign test measures the significance of the difference between the before and

after results of the survey instrument. The results of the sign test show the corresponding

direction of the change.

The null hypothesis tested in this project was that there would be no change in the

results due to the project. The research hypothesis was that there would be a positive

change as a result of the project.

A level of significance of 0.05 or 5% was selected. This is a typical level of

significance for statistics in the social sciences (Sharp, 1979; Swanson, 2001). The

detailed calculations for this test are shown in Appendix R (Self Assessment Survey) and

Appendix S (Organizational Health Survey).

70

Analysis of the Results

Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation: Early Indicator of Project Success

The Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation was not meant to measure whether the

project goals were achieved or not, but to provide an early indicator as to the

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) intervention’s impact on the project goal measures. In this

written evaluation, participants were asked to self assess if they believed their working

relationships, abilities and beliefs around differences of opinion increased as a result of

the AI session. On all but one question the responses were favorable (see Appendix T).

Specifically, the office staff believed that as a result of the AI (a) their working

relationships will improve, (b) they have more confidence in BIRTH’s ability to openly

discuss difference of opinion, (c) they plan to more openly discuss differences of opinion,

and (d) their belief that raising differences of opinion contributes to a health work

environment had increased. This was supported in the verbatim feedback. Several

participants commented that the thing they liked most about the AI was the ability to air

differences during the session and clear the air.

Self Assessment Survey and Interviews: Achievement of Project Goals

The paired questions on the self assessment were directly mapped to the measures

for each project goal to determine if the goal was achieved. The Sign Test was calculated

in the following manner. First, on a question by question basis the results from all the

participants were added together and the total pre and post results compared to determine

the sign of change (see Appendix R). As one participant did not answer question 7 in the

pre assessment, her responses were omitted from this question. In the Sign Test, if the

probability from the table is less than the level of significance selected (0.05), the null

71

hypothesis is rejected. If the probability is greater than or equal to the level of

significance, the null hypothesis is accepted.

A result of 0.0352 was calculated. As this value is less than the level of

significance (0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore the research hypothesis

which states there would be a positive change as a result of the intervention is accepted.

During the Project Closing Interviews participants were asked if they believed

anything had changed at BIRTH as a result of the AI. The answers were mixed. Two of

the four participants agreed and cited changes in their behavior to support the goals of the

intervention. Although the other two participants did not personally cite changes in their

behavior, my observation of their behavior indicated otherwise. Both participants

demonstrated a notable change in the language they used and the issues they talked about.

Both were apprehensive, in the initial interviews, to talk about issues in the organization

and spent the majority of the interview talking about things other staff members were

worried about. During the closing interviews, however, the majority of the time they

spent talking about their personal opinions of what was going on at BIRTH and what they

were going to do about it. They were speaking from an “I” position with such statements

as, “It is so different, why not do something different myself?” and “I should just tell

Joan to her face that we need them.” They were no longer avoiding issues! Thus their

actual behavior demonstrated a change in line with the project goals.

In summary, both the quantitative and qualitative measurements support the

conclusion that a positive change occurred as a result of the intervention.

Organizational Health Survey: Project Impact on Overall Health

72

Similarly to the intervention measurement, the Sign Test was calculated on the

before and after results of the Organizational Health survey in the following manner.

First, on a question by question basis the results from all the participants were added

together and the total pre and post results compared to determine the sign of change (see

Appendix S). In the Sign Test, if the probability from the table is less than the level of

significance selected (0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. If the probability is greater

than or equal to the level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted.

A result of 1.14 was calculated. As this value is clearly greater than the level of

significance (0.05), the null hypothesis is accepted.

Based upon the comments in the project closing interviews it was apparent

BIRTH was in a very different place than when the project started. In fact, there was

actually even more change in the air than at the onset of the project. Not only was the

office relocation still in process, but there were several personnel changes and the

organization was in the midst of a merger with another local non-profit. As a result, the

organization, its people and the corresponding culture were all in flux. In essence,

BIRTH was going through a re-birth!

In addition to the statistical results, I believe there is value in examining the

nature of the changes in the survey. By looking at the items which have decreased,

increased and increased significantly, insight into not only the impact of the intervention

but also the new challenges facing the organization is gained.

Examining the items which indicated a decrease in health, there are two groups of

questions which stand out. The first group were (a) the goals of BIRTH are clearly

stated; (b) I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of BIRTH; and (c) the

73

division of labor in BIRTH is intended to help it reach its goals. I was not surprised by

the decrease on these particular items. Given the impending merger, and the lack of

clarity as to what BIRTH was to become contrasted to where BIRTH was at the onset of

the project this decrease seemed reasonable.

The second group of questions which showed decreased responses was (a) I can

always talk with someone at work if I have a work-related problem; (b) I have the

information that I need to do a good job; and (c) the Executive Director has ideas that are

helpful to me and BIRTH. The decrease in these particular items was surprising to me.

During the Project Opening Interviews, comments from the office staff stressed how

much they liked the fresh outlook Joan brought to BIRTH, how she was empowering the

staff and the relationships they had with the other office staff members. I wondered what

happened during the course of the project to change this.

In looking at all of the above items, the most alive question for me is whether or

not the results of the post-survey are more accurate because of an increase in the

participants’ willingness to state their own opinion? Both the variance on the responses

as well as the level of disagreement in the responses increased from the initial survey. I

attribute that to a positive impact from the intervention.

The positive impact from the intervention is further demonstrated by those items

which significantly increased (where significantly is defined as an increase over 1 point

on the Likert scale): (a) There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH; (b) All

tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives; (c) The salary that I receive is

commensurate with the job that I perform and; (d) The opportunity for promotion exists

74

in BIRTH. In this grouping there are two categories of items, the one the intervention

was directly aimed at and those related to salary and compensation.

During the time of the intervention, Joan used the data from the Organizational

Health Survey, administered at the opening of the project, to address issues of

compensation directly with the staff at BIRTH. As a result, it was not surprising to see

these values increase. The most notable result is the 1 point change for the item, “There

is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH”. This supports the positive results in the

previous section.

Overall, I believe that the work done in this project will not only help with the

goals of the intervention, but also help the organization as it works through the upcoming

challenges of the office relocation, the merger and the various personal changes people

are experiencing. The staff members are now in a better position to both raise their issues

and have a dialogue on their impact.

In this chapter, I discussed the quantitative and qualitative project results. In

Chapter 5, I will discuss personal impact and the impact I had as a consultant on the

project.

75

CHAPTER 5

Personal Impact

In this chapter, I will describe how my own history, skills, and predisposition

influenced the outcome of the project. I explore my family or origin, my work and

educational experience, and my relationship with personal authority. These aspects are

examined through the lens of the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-

Behavior (FIRO-B) instrument and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.

Lastly, I present the feedback received from the client system.

Family of Origin

I am an only child. As the only child, I was very independent and a self-starter.

The simple fact of the matter was there was not anyone else around to tag along with! If

I wanted to do something, I needed to find something to do myself and do it. As a result,

I am very comfortable identifying things to do (or what needs to be done) and stepping in

to perform. In fact, this is almost an unconscious behavior for me. As a result, I am

prone to “over functioning.” As described by Kerr and Bowen (1988) functioning

positions operate in reciprocal relationship to one another. Someone who "over

functions" takes greater responsibility in the system and relates to another who "under

functions" taking less responsibility. Although each person shapes the attitudes, feelings

and behavior of the other, the over functioning person feels responsible for the emotional

well-being of the other and works to make up for perceived (real or imagined) deficiency

in the other's functioning. In the system, Joan was also an overfunctioner. My

inclination was to support this behavior in her. The result was that Joan and I together

over functioned for the office staff. This was reflected in how we made the decision to

76

change the direction of the project before the data feedback meeting and without the input

of the office staff.

Without siblings, I often found myself solely in the presence of adults. At an

early age I learned to relate to them and to be comfortable among those who are older.

This positively impacted my project and role as a consultant in that I was not intimidated,

or out of my comfort zone with the office staff who were significantly older. I needed to

establish a sense of credibility with the client system and was able to do this effectively,

despite the challenges my age might have presented.

The other impact of spending a lot of time with adults as a child was that I was

typically surrounded by what I considered to be competent people. As a result, I

gravitate towards working with and being around people I judge to be competent.

Additionally, I have a low tolerance for incompetence. This contributed to my support of

Joan. I viewed her competence to be high and that of the office staff with respect to the

project goals to be low. As a result, I tended to support Joan’s position. Although, when

I was in direct contact with the office staff, such as during the initial interviews and the

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) intervention, I was able to suspend my judgments. During my

one to one interactions with Joan however, I was not as effective in managing my

judgment of the office staff. This resulted in Joan and I making decisions for the office

staff, such as the change in project direction before the data feedback meeting. This was

not effective as it excluded the office staff from the process and as a result they felt

ignored.

77

Work and Education Experience

For as long as I remember, I have always been one of the only women in my

educational or work environment. During my high-school years I became interested in

Mathematics and Sciences and decided to pursue a degree in Electrical Engineering. At

the time, very few women had the same pursuit. As a result, I was one of seven women

in my Electrical Engineering class of approximately 75 students. When I graduated

University, I took a job in a Software Engineering company. Again, I was in the minority

from a gender perspective. As I have increased my scope and position within my current

place of employment, the number of women at comparable positions or with whom I

work on a regular basis has continued to decrease. As a result, my default working style

is heavily influenced by men and what it takes to be successful in an environment

dominated by men. I am not hesitant in voicing my opinion. In order to have my voice

heard in a male dominated environment, being hesitant is not something I can afford!

Additionally, my communication style is direct and focused on driving for results or to a

decision. The business goal is always the most important aspect in the environments I

have been in and superfluous information or actions are not accepted.

Given BIRTH was an all-women organization, this was a new experience for me!

Their default working style was focused on relationships versus the end-result. The very

qualities that I as a woman try to bring into my workplace were the norm at BIRTH and

the challenges BIRTH faced were to bring the default qualities of my workplace into their

organization. This reversal of environment was an unfamiliar place for me to operate in.

Although I could relate to BIRTH’s default working style, my default working style was

very much the opposite. This was advantageous as I could use myself to demonstrate the

78

type of behavior that needed to be increased, such as direct communication. However I

had to pay particular attention to my behavior to ensure I was not negatively impacting

the system by overdoing these aspects. Striking the right balance was challenging.

The other noticeable difference between my past experience and the office staff

was that I have a formal education and joined the workforce directly out of University.

The office staff did not have the same level of higher education and for them paid work

happened only after they had children. Given my tendency to judge people as

incompetent, I needed to carefully watch my judgments of the office staff. Based upon

the feedback from the office staff as to my approachability and the positive effect I had

on giving them voice at BIRTH, I believe I did this effectively. This was in part because

of my self-awareness of the above difference and the attention I personally gave to

managing any judgments I might have as a result.

Personal Authority

Williamson (1991) described personal authority as the ability to voluntarily claim

both authorship and responsibility for all of one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. In this

state an individual takes responsibility for their own well being and has the capacity to

self-validate, rather than depend on someone else to validate one's worth. My

experiences as an only child, contributed to a strong sense of personal authority. As

stated earlier, if I wanted to be or do something, given that I was an only child, I needed

to find it and do it myself. This gave me a sense of ownership of my ideas and behavior.

As a result of this belief and the behavior choices I made growing up, I found myself in

leadership positions throughout school and in my workplace.

79

The role of consultant was a new experience for me. It was challenging to find a

sense of achievement in this role compared to being in the leadership position. I think

this factor impacted my ability as a consultant in that I tended to view the project from

the leader’s perspective instead of an impartial observer. The end result was that I was

less objective than I could have been had I maintained a broader perspective.

The other key concept of Williamson’s personal authority is that the individual

exhibits the above abilities while demonstrating the ability to consciously choose to be

both in connection and relationship with other people. Being in relationship with others

is something I wrestle with when the other person is someone I have judged to be

incompetent. Once I judge a person to be incompetent, I cease to pay attention to them,

rather than remaining in connection with the person and working to help them through

the situation at hand.

An example of when my judgment played out was during the AI intervention.

Vera challenged me about how I had handled the office relocation. She believed I

glossed over the input from the office staff in which they stated that they did not want to

move. Even though the staff were asked for their opinion, she continued, it did not

matter. Despite my judgment of Vera to be incompetent with respect to raising

differences of opinion, I was able to remain in connection and relationship with Vera,

while owning my own thoughts and actions. I acknowledged her feelings and explained

the decision making process I had followed surrounding the change in project goals. She

felt heard and understood why the decision was made. Being aware of my inclination for

judging and closing off to others helped me to act otherwise in this instance.

80

Interpersonal Relations Orientation

The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B)

instrument (Will Schutz, 1990) measures three interpersonal needs of human beings on a

scale of 0 low to 9 high in terms of both expressed behavior and wanted behavior: (a)

Inclusion: recognition, belonging and participation; (b) Control: influence, leading and

responsibility; and (c) Affection: closeness, warmth and sensitivity.

My Total Inclusion and Total Affection scores are in the high-range. This

indicates I generally like to be recognized and invited into a group. I also like a lot of

warmth and closeness in my individual relationships. I found this to be a mixed blessing

with respect to consulting! On one hand, it had a positive impact in terms of the rapport I

was able to build with the client and helped me establish a sense of comfort and trust with

them. During the initial interviews my interest in each person and listening to their

opinions and stories helped develop the rapport. However, I got drawn into their system,

perhaps too much. The challenge is that as a consultant, I need to also remain separate

from the client system. My job is not to become a part of it, but rather to increase its

capacity around a particular item and then leave. Throughout the project I became

dangerously close to crossing the group membership line, at some times feeling a

personal responsibility to fix the issue at hand as if I was a member of the system.

My Total Control score is in the mid-range, indicating that as relates to authority,

I generally like a moderate amount of structure and clarity in order to accomplish tasks.

This served me well in the project. I was able to add the structure necessary to get the

project done, while being flexible enough to allow for the business of the client. An

example of this is the rescheduling of the AI intervention. Joan called me the day of the

81

AI intervention and requested to reschedule due to various events in the office.

Observing BIRTH was not in a position for the AI intervention to be effective I

rescheduled, but held firm to the need for the time to perform the AI intervention.

Conflict Style

The Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument (Thomas and Kilmann, 1974)

assesses an individual’s behavior in conflict situations along two basic dimensions, (a)

assertiveness, the degree to which one attempts to satisfy their own concerns, and (b)

cooperativeness, the degree to which one attempts to satisfy the other’s concerns. One

chooses from five “conflict-handling modes” competing, collaborating, compromising,

avoiding, and accommodating. My preferred style is collaborating. The value I place on

this type of conflict-handling and my experience with it were critical to the success of the

project. I was able to draw on this element of my personality throughout the project to

reinforce and model the behavior I was attempting to increase in the system. The earlier

example I gave, where Vera challenged me in the AI intervention is an example of this.

During this interaction, rather than become defensive, or avoid her challenge I was able

to collaborate with her to reach an understanding on both sides.

Feedback From Client System

During the Project Closing Interviews I asked the office staff their opinion on the

most and least effective things I did. Overall, they had a positive experience.

Specifically, they commented that asking questions to draw out their opinions, stories,

ideas and overall to get clarity on the issues was the most effective technique I used.

Additionally, they felt I was able to establish a sense of trust, creating a comfortable

environment where they could openly talk and express their beliefs. This affirms what I

82

observed and experienced. Lastly, they believed I brought a sense of structure. In each

interaction (introduction meeting, interviews, data feedback meeting, intervention and

closing interviews and meeting) I clearly stated the purpose of the meeting and next steps

out of the interaction. This helped the staff to get clear on what was happening.

In terms of the things I could have done differently, one question the office staff

raised was why a small company would work with someone like me? They understood

how large organizations face challenges which require a consultant’s help but did not

initially believe the problems of a small company warranted such help. Explaining to the

office staff how the work I did specifically applied to them would have answered this

question. This would have helped the office staff initially engage with the project.

Other feedback from the staff was that they were interested in seeing the Board of

Director’s data on the office relocation. I believe this supports the direct feedback Vera

provided in the AI intervention mentioned above, that I did not effectively transition

between the office relocation and the focus on dialogue and differences of opinion.

Taking more time to close out the discussion on the office relocation and share all of the

data would have helped with this transition.

I asked Joan for feedback at each meeting. Her comments echoed the feedback

from the office staff. She regularly commented on what good questions I asked and the

value of having structure added to the process. Additionally, Joan valued the support role

I played for her. Checking in with her provided a forum for her to discuss her current

challenges. The direct feedback I gave her added a different perspective which aided in

determining what to do next. Lastly she commented on the positive feedback from the

83

office staff. They conveyed to Joan that they felt especially good about being involved in

the process and this was important to Joan.

In this chapter, I discussed the personal impact I had as a consultant on the

project. In chapter 6, I will provide a summary of the project, my conclusions about the

project as a whole, and my learning.

84

CHAPTER 6

Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter, I provide a summary of project, conclusions concerning the factors

that moved the project toward success (or hindered it), and a summary of my learning.

Project Summary

The client system is a non-profit organization, BIRTH, based in Seattle,

Washington. BIRTH is the leading childbirth education organization in Washington

State. They provide several services (educational courses, Breastfeeding Counselors, and

a parenting guide) to support their mission of helping expectant parents prepare for safe

and satisfying birth experiences and supporting them in their new roles as parents.

BIRTH has been in operation for over fifty years during which its core mission statement

has remained the same. My project sponsor was Joan, the Executive Director of BIRTH.

Based upon the initial evaluation of BIRTH Joan performed upon joining the

organization she believed BIRTH was financially not being run effectively. It was her

assessment relocation was key to increasing organizational efficiency. My project

involved using an action research (AR) approach to assist with the relocation. Joan and I

established both goals for the project and specific measures to indicate goal achievement.

The first stage of the project involved collecting data from the two target groups,

the Board of Directors and the office staff. Baseline data about the organization was

collected using an Organization Health Survey. Ideas and concerns about the office

relocation were gathered using an Office Relocation Questionnaire with the Board of

Directors and individual interviews with the office staff. All of the data was analyzed,

summarized and the key questions and themes presented back to the target groups.

85

This marked a shift in the project. It was decided the office relocation was not the

area to focus my efforts. The client system understood the reason for the office

relocation and agreed upon it in principle; in fact they believed it would be better for

BIRTH in the long run. The challenge was they simply did not want to move.

The project focus turned to an issue uncovered in the data from the office staff’s

Organizational Health Survey; a strong position of unresolved conflict within BIRTH.

Table 5 lists the updated project goals and measures. Given the nature of the problem,

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) was chosen as the intervention.

Table 5

Updated Project Goals and Measures

Goal MeasureTo increase both the

efficiency and

effectiveness of the

office staff.

1. Increased amount of dialogue in the office.

2. Increased amount of difference of opinion raised in the office.

3. Decreased time for the office staff to voice their difference of

opinion.

4. Decreased intensity level the office staff must reach before

they voice their difference of opinion.

86

Goal MeasureTo realize an attitudinal

shift by the office staff

with respect to their

beliefs around raising

differences of opinion

and willingness to do so.

5. Increased belief of the office staff that they can influence

change in the organization.

6. Increased willingness by the office staff to raise differences of

opinion.

7. Increased belief of the office staff that raising differences of

opinion contributes to a healthy work environment.

To achieve these goals I conducted the AI intervention with the office staff. The

focus was on a time when the office staff had successfully dealt with difficult issues,

engaging in dialogue with one another to effect change. Through discovery of these

experiences, the office staff generated the following provocative proposition.

Our office values every person’s individual contributions and personal strengths.

We recognize that everyone has a unique gift to share. We will regularly affirm

each person’s value. We seek to listen and communicate directly, honestly and

with respect.

As a result of this project, the organization increased both the value they place on

raising differences of opinion and the capacity to do so with each other. This was

foundational work which would help them through the changes and challenges ahead.

Conclusions

I believe that there were four success factors, which moved the project to a

successful conclusion and two which hindered goal achievement. The first of four

success factors that moved this project to a successful conclusion was the common values

the office staff held and their genuine desire to help. All of the office staff cared about

87

the organization. In the original interviews some of the common values the office staff

shared were family and friendship, learning and growth and helping others. As a result,

they were both willing to and motivated to participate in project. Given the challenging

nature of the work we were doing, had this agreement not existed, I fear the resistance

that might have taken its place could have hindered the goal achievement.

The second success factor was the identification of a core issue to work on versus

the presenting problem. The office relocation certainly had everyone’s attention and

there was a lot of passion given its personal impact. However, it was something that

would eventually come to closure. The issue of conflict in the organization and how to

deal with it in a productive way was one that was there to stay. It was also an issue that

permeated through many aspects of the organization. The office staff could relate to this

issue and had experiences they could draw on which illustrated both the impact it had in

the organization and on their own effectiveness. Choosing to focus on an issue

personally relevant helped to engage the office staff.

The third success factor was the intervention choice. The nature of AI was

appropriately suited to the organization. AI focuses on accenting the positive and using

real experiences of success in the organization to build an image of the future. This made

the subject of conflict much more approachable. The energy in the room during the AI

was high, as was the engagement of the office staff. As a result, the office staff made

contact with the ideas around conflict management and had a positive experience talking

about something they fundamentally did not believe was necessary or a good thing.

The fourth success factor was the critical incident that occurred during the AI

intervention. Vera confronted me about the change in project direction and how she

88

believed the office staff’s original viewpoint on the office relocation was ignored. This

brought light to a lingering issue that, if unaddressed, would have hindered the goal

progression. The confrontation by Vera provided the opportunity to correct this and

affirm that the office staff’s voice did matter. It provided a positive example of how to

handle conflict, modeling the key skills, and supporting the project goals. I feel fortunate

this occurred, closing the loop with the office staff on the change in project direction.

The first of two hindering factors, was the way in which I handled the data

feedback meeting. Deciding to change the project direction before presenting the data to

the office created the seed for the above critical incident. I failed to follow the model of

AR, getting ahead of myself in the project which had a definitive impact on the office

staff. The impact was a residual question in the minds of the office staff, do my opinions

and thoughts effect the decisions being made?

The second hindering factor was the closeness of my relationship with Joan and

the similarity in working style between us. This set up a very collaborative relationship

between the two of us, which had two effects on the project. First, I question what the

office staff’s perception of our relationship was. Did they view me as an advocate for

both their viewpoint and Joan’s? Or did they view my allegiance to be with Joan?

Second, I question the effectiveness of the decisions Joan and I made. A prime example

of this was the decision to change the project direction before presenting the data to the

office staff. I think the nature of our relationship made us prone to groupthink. There

was not enough constructive conflict between the two of us, which is ironic given this is

what we where trying to increase in the client system!

89

My Learning

The Client Organization

In the last few years, I formed the belief that in order to be happy, productive, and

healthy at work one’s personal values must be aligned with the organization in which

they work. This has been my personal experience. In this project, this belief was further

reinforced. I was able to see the power of value alignment in the organization and

understand the challenges an organization faces when a shift in these values is needed.

The office staff’s common values and their alignment with BIRTH’s mission and vision

were a driving factor in the success of the organization. The office staff drew on their

common values to engage with the project and it was not until the value around raising

differences increased, that raising differences had the potential to appear itself at BIRTH.

The Intervention Design

Presenting Problem versus the Core Issue. The most significant learning I had

during this project was the importance of working on the “right” problem. This project

reinforced the concept that the presenting problem is often only an indicator of what the

real issues are for the organization. In the case of BIRTH, the office relocation and the

way in which the office staff were managing (or in their case not managing!)

demonstrated a symptom of their larger problem of lacking conflict management. The

decision could have been to simply focus on the office relocation. While working on the

office relocation problem could have contributed to the health of the organization, it

would have only exposed the office staff to one experience of conflict management.

Rather, by focusing on the root issue, the capacity of the organization to deal with

differences of opinion, people were able to face and deal with their conflicting opinions

90

for the first time in BIRTH’s history. The landscape at BIRTH was so radically different

at the completion of the project, the work done to identify the core issue contributing to

organizational health was key to building both capacity and resiliency for future changes

(Block, 1999; Conner, 1992).

Action Research. The above learning focuses on the “what” of the project.

Equally important to the project’s success is the “how” of the project. I gained a deep

respect for the AR process and the importance of each AR step. This directly ties back to

the critical incident in the project where Joan and I made the decision to change the

project direction before the data feedback meeting with the office staff. In this decision

the step of feeding back the data to the system as both an action and a further source of

data before determining implementation was missed. In the future I would pay more

attention to the business of each step. This also reinforces the cyclical nature of AR. It is

not a “race” to get to the end and complete each step but rather a process of action and

research which further informs the next action.

Power of Appreciative Inquiry. Also related to the importance of the “how” of

the project, was the choice of AI as the intervention. My experience with AI before the

project was limited. Given the office staff’s belief that conflict was negative and should

be avoided, and my limited experience with AI, I was nervous going into the

intervention. Not knowing what to expect, the results were surprising. The level of

engagement and energy in the room was unanticipated. Talking about positive

experience the office staff had immediately increased their confidence in talking about

the subject. I gained an appreciation for AI, and for selecting an intervention method

suited for both the organization and the project goals.

91

Effect of Coaching. Coaching played an important role between me and Joan.

My belief, as a result, is that irrespective of whether the nature of the relationship

between consultant and sponsor is purely coaching based, coaching is an important aspect

of any consultant-sponsor relationship. Providing an outlet for the sponsor to talk

through their challenges and determine their next steps helps focus the sponsor which

ultimately helps achieve the project goals. Additionally, coaching can be an effective

tool to establish a sense of trust between the sponsor and the consultant.

The Client Must be Ready for Change. During the project, I internalized the

importance of the client in the change equation. If the motivation on the part of the client

is not present, the likelihood of the change happening is almost non-existent. This was

demonstrated by the office staff at BIRTH. Before the crunch in the office, the office

staff’s motivation and willingness to perform the AI intervention was low. There were

grumblings in the office and Joan rescheduled the AI intervention. After the crunch the

office staff’s attitude was different. The personal experience they had gone through

helped to illustrate the impact of not effectively dealing with conflict and increased their

motivation and willingness. Without this experience the outcome of the AI intervention

would have been different. Motivation must be taken into account when planning the

timeline for the project, I now know.

Appendix Q contrasts the estimated and actual timeline for the project. The

number of hours estimated for each phase of the project was accurate. It took much

longer however from the beginning to the end of the project than anticipated. The

completion dates for each phase of the project were updated to allow more time for the

client and adjust to their schedule. This was a necessity given the client’s motivation and

92

willingness however, and is something I will take into account when planning future

projects.

The Power of Reflection. The thing I learned most in writing this thesis was the

power of reflection. In this day and age with so much needing to be done, oftentimes the

time is not made to reflect on what has been done. Writing this thesis taught me about

the effective and ineffective aspects of my behavior. In the future I plan to build in the

time during a project to do this reflection, rather than leaving it all to hindsight.

My Future

Although I enjoyed my project experience and had a sense of both

accomplishment and reward by helping BIRTH, for me there was something missing. In

reflecting on both this experience and others in my past it is clearer to me that I draw my

energy by doing the leadership work rather than helping the leader do their work. This is

in part tied to the values I hold as an individual. I value personal achievement. In order

to be a truly effective consultant, I believe I need to achieve the personal goals I have for

myself in the role of leader first. I am excited by this realization, as I truly believe doing

this work now will make me a great consultant in the future.

In this chapter, I provided a summary of project, conclusions concerning the

factors that helped and hindered the project’s success, and a summary of my learning.

Closing Comments

My journey through the LIOS program has been fraught with learning! I started

my journey in pursuit of the core applied behavioral science skills to increase my

capacity as a leader within my organization. Along the way, I had the opportunity to

experience the challenges and rewards of being a consultant. Although this may be my

93

path someday in the future, this experience has reaffirmed my desire work as a leader

within my organization. Despite this return to my original goal, the journey has been a

transformational one, leaving me much more equipped to achieve my goals and to

accomplish great things. I will forever by thankful to those who have guided and

accompanied me on my journey: the LIOS faculty, my adjunct faculty, my fellow

students, BIRTH, and my friends and family.

94

REFERENCES

Beckhard, R. (1975). Strategies for large system change. Sloan Management Review, 16 (Winter), 43-55.

Berger, H.S., & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor.

Block, P. (1999). Flawless consulting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blumberg, M. & Pringle, C. (1982) The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for Work Performance. Academy of Management Review 1982, 7(4), 560-569.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.

Bridges, W., & Mitchell, S. (2000) Leading Transition: A New Model for Change. Leader to Leader. Volume 16, 30-36.

Schein, E.H. (1993) On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning. Reflections, 1993, 4(4), 27-38.

Buber, M. (1988). The Knowledge of Man. Atlantic Height, N.J. Humanities Press International, Inc.

Carkhuff, R. (1969). Helping and Human Relations. New York: Holt.

Chodorow, N. J. (1999). The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Cohen, A. and Smith, D. (1976). The critical incident in growth groups. San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard.

Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003) Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore Communications, Inc.

Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, Jr., P. F., Yaeger, T.F., & Whitney, D. (2001) Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organization Development. Champaign, IL:  Stipes Publishing L.L.C.. (http://www.stipes.com/aichap29.htm)

Drucker, P. (1990). Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

95

Freda, G.G., Arn, J.V., & Gatlin-Watts, R.W. (1999) Adapting to the Speed of Change. Industrial Management, November-December 1999, 31-33.

French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. (1999). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Greenwood, D.J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Harvard Business Review (1999). Harvard Business Service on Nonprofits. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Harvey, J. B. (1998) The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 17(1), 17 - 43.

Hassid, P. (1984). Harvard Business Service on Nonprofits. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Isaacs, W. N. (1993) Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.

Janis, I. L., (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P., (2000). Joining Together. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, G., & Leavitt, W. (2001) Builing on Success: Transforming Organizations Through an Appreciative Inquiry. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 129-136.

Kanter, R. M. (1998) An Abilene Defense: Commentary One. Organizational Dynamics, 17(1), 37 - 40.

Kegan, R. & Lahey, L.L. (2001) The Real Reason People Won't Change. Harvard Business Review, 79(10), 84 - 92.

Kerr, M., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: W.W. Norton.

Kim, Y. (2001) A Comparative Study of the "Abilene Paradox" and "Groupthink". Public Administration Quarterly 25(2), 168 - 190.

Lancaster, L.C., & Stillman, D. (2002) When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Lips, H. M. (1999). A New Psychology of Women: Gender, Culture, and Ethnicity. Montain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

96

Miller, J.B. (1976). Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press.

O'Neill, M. B. (2000). Executive coaching with backbone and heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oshry, B. (1992). The Possibilities of Organization.. Boston: Power & Systems, Inc.

Oshry, B. (1994). In the Middle. Boston: Power & Systems, Inc.

Osland, J. S., Kolb, D. A., & Rubin, I. M. (2001) Organizational Behaviour: An Experiential Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Preziosi, R.C. (1980). Organization Diagnosis Questionnaire. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), 1980 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Pareek, U. (1981). Developing Collaboration in Organizations. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), 1981 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Polak, F. (19973). Image of the Future. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Quinn, R. E. (1990). Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Robinson, J.C., & Robinson, D.G. (1989) Training for Impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schor, S.M., Van Buskirk, W., & McGrath, D. (1994) Caring, Voice and Self-reflection: Feminist Values and Organizational Change. Journal, of Organizational Changes Management, 7(6), 34-48.

Sharp, V. F. (1979). Statistics for the social sciences. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Sherwood, J.J., & Glidewell, J.C.. (1972) Planned Renegotiation: A Norm Setting OD In W.W. Burke (Ed), Contemporary Organizational Development: Orientations and Interventions, Washington, DC: NTL Institute.

Schutz, W. (1990) FIRO-B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Sullivan, W., Sullivan, R. & Buffton, B. (2001) Aligning individual and organizational values to support change. Journal of Change Management, 2(3), 247 - 254.

Swanson, G. C. (2001). Statistics: A user friendly guide. Edmonds, WA: Diligentdog Press.

97

Taras, D. G. (1991) Breaking the silence: Differentiating Crisis of Agreement. Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 14, 401 - 418.

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict model instrument. Palo Alto, CA: Xicom.

Tuckman, J. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63.

Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group and Organization Studies 1(4), 430–447.

Weiss, J., & Hughes, J. (2005) Want Collaboration? Harvard Business Review 83(3), 93 – 102.

Williamson, D. S. (1991). The intimacy paradox: Personal authority in the family system. New York: The Guilford Press.

Wolf, T. (1999). Managing a Nonprofit Organization in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

98

APPENDIX A

BIRTH Organizational Chart

99

APPENDIX B

Organizational Health Survey

Agre

e St

rong

ly

Agre

e

Agre

e Sl

ight

ly

Neut

ral

Disa

gree

Sl

ight

ly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

St

rong

ly

1. The goals of BIRTH are clearly stated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. The division of labor of BIRTH is flexible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. The Executive Director is supportive of my efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. My relationship with the Executive Director is a harmonious one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. My job offers me the opportunity to grow as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. The Executive Director has ideas that are helpful to me and BIRTH. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. BIRTH is not resistant to change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of BIRTH. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. The division of labor in BIRTH is intended to help it reach its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. The leadership norms of BIRTH help its progress. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I can always talk with someone at work if I have a work-related problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. The pay scale and benefits of BIRTH treat each employee equitably. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I have the information that I need to do a good job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. BIRTH introduces enough new policies and procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. I understand the purpose of BIRTH. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. BIRTH’s leadership efforts result in BIRTH’s fulfillment of its purposes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. My relationships with members of BIRTH are friendly as well as professional.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. The opportunity for promotion exists in BIRTH. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. BIRTH had adequate mechanisms for binding itself together. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. BIRTH favors change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. The priorities of BIRTH are understood by its employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. The structure of BIRTH is well designed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. It is clear to me whenever the Executive Director is attempting to guide my work efforts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

100

Agre

e St

rong

ly

Agre

e

Agre

e Sl

ight

ly

Neut

ral

Disa

gree

Sl

ight

ly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

St

rong

ly

25. I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. The salary that I receive is commensurate with the job that I perform. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. Other employees are helpful whenever assistance is requested. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. Occasionally I like to change things about my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. I have enough input in deciding BIRTH goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. The division of labor in BIRTH actually helps it to reach its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. I understand the Executive Director’s efforts to influence me and the other members of BIRTH.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. BIRTH’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. BIRTH has the ability to change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The above survey was adapted from the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire by

Robert C. Preziosi as published in the 1980 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators.

101

APPENDIX C

Board of Directors Office Relocation Survey

1. What is your current opinion about the office relocation? Please include whether you think the office relocation is a positive move for BIRTH.

2. What are your concerns, if any, surrounding the office relocation? Please include where you think there are risks associated with the relocation.

3. What information do you need to have in order to make a decision on the office relocation?

4. What do you believe the most important business goals of the office relocation are?

5. The following is the list of the office space requirements as discussed at the last Board of Directors meeting.

a) Please order the list below from 1 to 10 with 1 being the most important requirement, 2 being the second most important requirement and so on. If a requirement you believe is important is missing from the list, please add it in so that the list contains the most important requirements of the office space.

Rank Office Space Requirement____________ Central location.____________ Strategic location.____________ Access to free daytime parking.____________ Access to free evening parking.____________ Is comfortable for expectant and new parents.____________ Has room for the organization to grow.____________ Is functional for the office staff.____________ Is functional for the volunteers.____________ Is functional for evening and weekend childbirth classes.____________ Is functional for daytime classes.____________ Other: ___________________ ____________ Other: ___________________

b) Please indicate where would you draw the line as to the set of requirements the office space must have?

If you have any additional comments you would like to make, please type them below.

________________________________________________________________

102

APPENDIX D

Office Staff Interview Guide

Total Interview – 60 Minutes

Introduction – 5 Minutes

Interests – 10 Minutes

What things do you most value in life?

What are the core principles you live by?

What things are most important to you in your job?

Issues – 15 Minutes

What is your opinion about changing the office space?

Are you happy about this? Why or why not?

Overall do you think this is a positive thing for BIRTH?

When you think of changing office spaces what specific concerns do you

have?

What is personally at risk to you with this change?

Are you willing to make this change?

Proposals – 25 Minutes

Office space

What are the things you like most about the current office space?

What are the things you like least about the current office space?

What improvements do you think could be made to the office

space to better support you? The community?

103

Are there things that excite you about moving office locations? If

so, what are they?

In your opinion, what are the most important requirements of the

office space?

Support

What things would help you prepare for changing office spaces?

What things would support you in changing office spaces?

What would make you feel confident that changing office spaces is

the right thing to do?

What things would increase your willingness to make this change?

Wrap-up – 5 Minutes

Is there anything that you think is important I know that we have not

talked about?

104

APPENDIX E

Competition and Collaboration Benefits

Competition Benefits Collaboration Benefits Develops a sense of responsibility.

Develops a sense of identity.

Sets internal standards.

Builds excellence.

Inspires individual creativity.

Inspires individual autonomy.

Develops mutuality.

Generates alternative ideas and solutions.

Build mutual support and reinforcement.

Builds synergy.

Inspires collective action.

Increases supplementary expertise.

Adapted from:Pareek, U. (1981). Developing Collaboration in Organizations. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E.

Jones (Eds.), 1981 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

105

APPENDIX F

Integrative Negotiating Procedure

Step Business1. Describe what you

want (your

interests).

Describe what you want using personal statements, in

specific terms, focusing on long-term relationship.

Listen to the other person’s wants and paraphrase them.

Describe the other person’s actions.

Define the conflict as a mutual problem.

2. Describe your

feelings.

Be aware of your feelings, accept them and express

them constructively.

3. Exchange reasons

for positions.

Express cooperative intentions.

Present your reasons and listen to the other’s reasons.

Focus on wants and interests, not positions.

Understand your differences.

4. Understand the

other.

See the conflict from the other’s view of the world.

5. Invent options for

mutual gain.

Identify several possible agreements.

6. Reach a wise

agreement.

Manage the combination of shared and opposed

interests to reach an agreement fair to all, based upon

principles and which strengthens both the relationship

and ability to constructively deal with future conflict.

Adapted from:Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P., (2000). Joining Together. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

106

APPENDIX G

Block’s Five Phases of Consulting

Phase Business1. Entry and contracting. Problem exploration

Project timing

Expectation setting

2. Discovery and dialogue Data collection

3. Feedback and the decision to act Data analysis

Report out of the data (and analysis)

Determination of project next steps

4. Engagement and implementation Execution of project next steps

5. Extension, recycle or termination Decision to: extend project, leverage

in another situation or terminate.

Adapted from:Block, P. (1999). Flawless consulting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

107

APPENDIX H

Appreciative Inquiry Intervention Agenda and Hand-out Materials

Agenda

TIME ACTIVITY12:00 What is Appreciative Inquiry?12:15 Discovery1:15 Dreaming2:15 Break2:30 Designing3:00 Delivery3:45 Closing4:00 END

What is Appreciative Inquiry?

Definitions1:

Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. to value: recognize the best in people or the world around us; affirm past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to perceive those things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems. 2. to increase in value, e.g. the economy has appreciated in value. Synonyms: value, prize, esteem, and honor.

In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. to explore and discover. 2. to ask questions: to be open to seeing new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: discover, search, systematically explore, and study.

Appreciative Inquiry is the discovery for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. It involves the art and practice of asking the unconditional positive questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. AI focuses on the speed of imagination and innovation – instead of the negative, critical, and spiraling diagnoses commonly used in organizations. The discovery, dream, design, and destiny model links the energy of the positive core to changes never thought possible.

Whereas Problem Solving looks at the organization as a problem to be solved, AI thinks of the organization as a mystery to be embraced.

1 See page 1, Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003) Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore Communications, Inc.

108

“4-D” Cycle2:

AI Principles3:

Constructionist: An organization’s destiny is bound up in people’s understanding of it. The first task in changing an organization is to discover what its people think about it.

Simultaneity: The process of inquiry itself influences the direction of change. Anticipatory: The most powerful vehicle for improving an organization is the

collective imagination about its future, about what it is becoming. Poetic: An organization’s “story” is constantly being rewritten by everyone

within the organization and everyone who interacts with it. The organization, like a poem, is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted.

Positive: An inquiry based upon the positive – achievement, joy, hope, and inspiration – works better than an analysis of what is wrong and how it can be cured.

Dreaming

Now … it is the year 2010, and you have just awakened from a long sleep. As you look around, you see the world just as you always wished and dreamed it would be.

What would you want BIRTH to look like? What is happening? How does it happen? What are the things that make it happen? What makes this dream exciting?

2 Ibid., page 5.3 Ibid., page 8 - 9.

DiscoveryAppreciate“What is”

DreamImagine

“What might be”

DesignDetermine

“What should be”

DeliveryCreate

“What will be”

109

Capture the dream in a narrative statement.

Use vivid language Be positive and uplifting

Think about these questions, and then we will share your wishes and dreams with the group.

Provocative Propositions

Provocative propositions provide a clear, shared vision for the organization’s destiny. The following are samples of provocative propositions.

Theme: Authenticity4

“Authenticity in human relationships is a key foundation for true organizational transformation and excellence. When we are authentic, we recognize and share our thoughts, feelings, and experiences with others in the spirit of deepening relationships and in service of collaborative achievement. This dialogue allows us to:

Unleash the best of who we are Become energized and unite around our heartfelt focus Meet the goals of the business Contribute to the greater good”

Theme: Performance Appraisal5

“Our organization acts on its value of high-level trust in the belief that people are committed to personal accountability by using appreciative performance appraisals. It focuses on employee competence and exemplary service to our stakeholders. Our employees are valued.”

In creating provocative propositions that begin to build positive images of the ideal organization, ask yourself if the provocative proposition meets the following criteria:

Is it provocative … does it stretch, challenge or interrupt? Is it grounded … are there examples that illustrate the ideal as real possibilities? Is it desired … if it could be fully actualized would the organization want it? Do

you want it as a preferred future? Is it stated in affirmative and bold terms? Is it a high involvement process?

Destiny

4 Ibid., page 149.5 Ibid., page 149.

110

Now is the time to begin to translate our provocative proposition into goals, strategies and/or action items that will help us achieve it.

Questions to think about: What are some targets, goals, strategies and/or action items that can achieve the

desired provocative proposition? What specific things can occur now, or in the near future to realize the dream? What would the staff need to do? The ED? The Board?

111

APPENDIX I

Project Timeline 2004

Month ActivitiesEntry and ContractingJanuary Introductory meeting with JoanFebruary Contracting meeting with Joan

Goals and measures finalizedData Gathering & Collecting, Data AnalysisFebruary Introductory meetings with client system (board of directors and office staff)

Quantitative surveys developed jointly with Joan Qualitative interview guide developed jointly with Joan

March Quantitative surveys conducted with client system Qualitative interviews conducted with office staff Data presented to Joan and discussion of possible interventions

Data Feedback, Problem Solving & Action PlanningApril Data feedback to client system (board of directors and office staff)

Intervention agreement with JoanImplementationMay Pre-intervention baseline quantitative survey conducted with office staff

Intervention with client system (office staff)Evaluation and ClosureJune Meeting with Joan to debrief intervention and determine how to close the

projectJuly Qualitative interviews conducted with office staff

Post-intervention quantitative survey conducted with office staff Conclusion of the project

112

APPENDIX J

Board of Directors Office Relocation Questionnaire Data Feedback

1. What is your current opinion about the office relocation? Please include whether you think the office relocation is a positive move for BIRTH.

5 of 6 responses indicated they believed the move to be positive for BIRTH. Comments include:

“has the potential to increase visibility and image of BIRTH.” “the current office space … does not foster a pleasant atmosphere for

couples taking childbirth classes there.” “the current office space is universally criticized by those who come in

contact with it.” “an office space that is more visible, professional and more accessible.”

1 response commented that the new office “will probably be a farther away location, and that will be annoying and time-consuming, but it will be good for the organization.”

1 response highlighted the concern over the amount of change BIRTH has undertaken in the last 1 years and the result of “feeling a bit maxed out on change … All these changes have helped us take steps forward, but it seems as if it has been a lot of work and a lot of transition.”

2. What are your concerns, if any, surrounding the office relocation? Please include where you think there are risks associated with the relocation.

Concerns:

Cost associated with the move. (4 of 6 respondents) Resistance from the staff. (4 of 6 respondents) Disruption to the business. (2 of 6 respondents) Impact on volunteers. Making the right long-term decision.

3. What information do you need to have in order to make a decision on the office relocation?

Information requested:

Cost analysis Location information (accessibility, parking situation) Lease information Office space layout (functionality for staff/classes/volunteers)

4. What do you believe the most important business goals of the office relocation are?

113

Business goals:

Better conducive to staff and classes. (5 of 6 respondents) More user-friendly – comfortable to expectant parents. (4 of 6

respondents) More accessible and visible. (2 of 6 respondents)

The space must be easily accessible, functional and comfortable for office staff and classes.

5. The following is the list of the office space requirements as discussed at the last Board of Directors meeting.

c) Please order the list below from 1 to 10 with 1 being the most important requirement, 2 being the second most important requirement and so on. If a requirement you believe is important is missing from the list, please add it in so that the list contains the most important requirements of the office space.

Average Score Office Space Requirement1.8 Is functional for the office staff.3.4 Is functional for evening and weekend childbirth classes.4.6 Is functional for daytime classes.5.4 Is comfortable for expectant and new parents.5.8 Has room for the organization to grow.5.8 Is functional for the volunteers.6.2 Central location.6.6 Strategic location.7 Access to free evening parking.8.4 Access to free daytime parking.

Additional requirements:i. Is functional for daytime meetings. (ranked 8)ii. Visible from road. (ranked 11)iii. High traffic area – easy to access. (ranked 12)

d) Please indicate where would you draw the line as to the set of requirements the office space must have?

The space must be easily accessible, functional and comfortable for office staff and classes.

APPENDIX K

Board of Directors Organizational Health Survey Data Feedback

Organizational Health Survey: All Responses

Number Statement Average Range

114

Agree    8 I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of BIRTH.5 My position on the board offers me the opportunity to grow as a person. 1.7 118 My relationships with board members of BIRTH are friendly as well as professional. 1.7 135 BIRTH has the ability to change. 1.7 24 My relationship with the board members is a harmonious one. 1.8 16 The board has ideas that are helpful to me and BIRTH. 2.0 215 I understand the purpose of BIRTH. 2.0 23 The board is supportive of my efforts. 2.2 329 I have enough input in deciding BIRTH goals. 2.2 3Agree Slightly    9 The division of labor in BIRTH is intended to help it reach its goals. 2.7 317 BIRTH’s leadership efforts result in BIRTH’s fulfillment of its purposes. 2.7 328 Occasionally I like to change things about my role on the board. 2.7 32 The division of labor of BIRTH is flexible. 2.8 626 The rewards I receive from serving on the board are commensurate with the effort I put

into the position. 2.8 41 The goals of BIRTH are clearly stated. 3.0 310 The leadership norms of BIRTH help its progress. 3.0 411 I can always talk with someone on the board if I have a board-related problem. 3.0 325 I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly. 3.2 334 BIRTH’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development. 3.2 512 The pay scale and benefits of BIRTH treat each employee equitably. 3.3 313 I have the information that I need to do a good job. 3.3 4Neutral    7 BIRTH is not resistant to change. 3.5 521 BIRTH favors change. 3.5 531 I understand the boards efforts to influence me and the other board members of BIRTH. 3.5 314 BIRTH introduces enough new policies and procedures. 3.7 324 It is clear to me whenever the board is attempting to guide my work efforts. 3.7 416 The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one. 3.8 420 BIRTH had adequate mechanisms for binding itself together. 3.8 427 Other board members are helpful whenever assistance is requested. 3.8 630 The division of labor in BIRTH actually helps it to reach its goals. 4.0 432 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH. 4.0 622 The priorities of BIRTH are understood by its employees. 4.2 623 The structure of BIRTH is well designed. 4.2 4Disagree Slightly    19 The opportunity for promotion exists in BIRTH. 4.5 533 All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives. 4.5 4

Average Range = 3.5

Organizational Health Survey: On-Time Responses

Number Statement Average RangeStrongly Agree    NONEAgree    5 My position on the board offers me the opportunity to grow as a person. 1.7 18 I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of BIRTH. 1.7 1

115

18 My relationships with board members of BIRTH are friendly as well as professional. 1.7 128 Occasionally I like to change things about my role on the board. 1.7 13 The board is supportive of my efforts. 2.0 24 My relationship with the board members is a harmonious one. 2.0 015 I understand the purpose of BIRTH. 2.0 235 BIRTH has the ability to change. 2.0 26 The board has ideas that are helpful to me and BIRTH. 2.3 129 I have enough input in deciding BIRTH goals. 2.3 3Agree Slightly    9 The division of labor in BIRTH is intended to help it reach its goals. 3.3 111 I can always talk with someone on the board if I have a board-related problem. 3.3 117 BIRTH’s leadership efforts result in BIRTH’s fulfillment of its purposes. 3.3 3Neutral    1 The goals of BIRTH are clearly stated. 3.7 22 The division of labor of BIRTH is flexible. 3.7 513 I have the information that I need to do a good job. 3.7 414 BIRTH introduces enough new policies and procedures. 3.7 325 I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly. 3.7 126 The rewards that I receive from serving on the board are commensurate with the effort I

put into the position. 3.7 212 The pay scale and benefits of BIRTH treat each employee equitably. 4.0 231 I understand the boards efforts to influence me and the other board members of BIRTH. 4.0 27 BIRTH is not resistant to change. 4.3 316 The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one. 4.3 424 It is clear to me whenever the board is attempting to guide my work efforts. 4.3 134 BIRTH’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development. 4.3 3Disagree Slightly    23 The structure of BIRTH is well designed. 4.7 230 The division of labor in BIRTH actually helps it to reach its goals. 4.7 410 The leadership norms of BIRTH help its progress. 5.0 019 The opportunity for promotion exists in BIRTH. 5.0 220 BIRTH had adequate mechanisms for binding itself together. 5.0 221 BIRTH favors change. 5.0 222 The priorities of BIRTH are understood by its employees. 5.0 433 All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives. 5.0 332 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH. 5.3 3Disagree    27 Other board members are helpful whenever assistance is requested. 5.7 2Disagree Strongly    NONE

Average Range = 2.1

Interesting observations:

Difference between the “on-time” results and the “all” results:o Difference in range values and average range – there is more range in the

“all” resultso “on-time” results more heavily weighted on disagree slightly/disagree

Large amount of neutrality (especially around change) Responses to categories are spread out – e.g. one part respondents agree with,

another they are neutral, etc.

116

Questions for the group:

1. What about the data makes you feel good about serving on the board?2. What about the data do you find interesting? (Makes you wonder about

something in the organization.)3. How do you think you can use this data as an organization?

117

APPENDIX L

Office Staff Individual Interviews Data Feedback

Core Values• Family and Friendship• Time – Living a Balance Life• Learning and Growth• Helping Others• Making and Informed Choice – Seeing women being

fulfilled

Non-interests:• Competition – e.g. climbing the corporate ladder • Money – happiness on job is more important that $$

118

119

Thoughts on Change• Know need to change or won’t survive as an

organization• Don’t see a big downside to the change• General attitude is “bring it on, let’s see what happens”

but this doesn’t make it less stressful– In addition, the change is coming very fast and touches just

about everything!• Some anxiety around new things that need to be learned• Supporting change:

– Want to be kept in the loop – participation in and communication of the organizational plan

– Opening talking about the issues and asking the staff what they think

– Linking what the staff does to the bigger picture – showing them the value they play in the organization

Office Space Requirements• Access to light (windows) and fresh air (door or

windows)• Needs to be:

– Comfortable for staff (reduce fatigue/increase productivity) andclients

– Accessible to staff and clients– Quiet when answering phones – stressful when you can’t hear

• Credit card machine is VERY noisy– Supportive of the work-processes. For example: access to one

another, separation of classroom• Need for a classroom – mixed feelings

– Maximize usage of the space – for staff and clients– Have room to organize things

120

Thoughts on Relocation• Know it has to be done• General thinking is that everyone would move it was

reasonable• Don’t believe they are “paid enough” to travel:

– Currently the accessibility of the office space is a factor in compensation

– If compensation increased it may help with the change – to return balance between convenience and compensation

• Willing to try it out – then make decision based upon if it’s working or not

• Want to see the move:– For the “right” reasons– Take into account that it will be disruptive and plan to minimize

121

APPENDIX M

Office Staff Organizational Health Survey Data Feedback

Number Statement  Average RangeStrongly Agree    1 My relationships with members of BIRTH are friendly as well as professional. 1.29 12 The Executive Director has ideas that are helpful to me and BIRTH. 1.43 13 BIRTH has the ability to change. 1.43 1Agree    4 My relationship with the Executive Director is a harmonious one. 1.67 25 I can always talk with someone at work if I have a work-related problem. 1.83 26 The Executive Director is supportive of my efforts. 1.86 27 Other employees are helpful whenever assistance is requested. 2.00 28 Occasionally I like to change things about my job. 2.00 29 I understand the purpose of BIRTH. 2.29 410 I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly. 2.29 411 I understand the ED’s effort to influence me and the other members of BIRTH. 2.29 1Agree Slightly    12 I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of BIRTH. 2.57 413 My job offers me the opportunity to grow as a person. 2.71 414 I have the information that I need to do a good job. 2.71 615 The goals of BIRTH are clearly stated. 2.86 416 It is clear to me whenever the ED is attempting to guide my work efforts. 3.00 417 The division of labor in BIRTH is intended to help it reach its goals. 3.14 418 BIRTH had adequate mechanisms for binding itself together. 3.14 419 BIRTH’s leadership efforts result in BIRTH’s fulfillment of its purposes. 3.17 220 The leadership norms of BIRTH help its progress. 3.29 321 BIRTH’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development. 3.43 4Neutral    22 The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one. 3.57 323 BIRTH introduces enough new policies and procedures. 3.67 624 BIRTH is not resistant to change. 3.86 425 BIRTH favors change. 4.00 426 The division of labor in BIRTH actually helps it to reach its goals. 4.00 527 The priorities of BIRTH are understood by its employees. 4.14 428 I have enough input in deciding BIRTH goals. 4.29 529 The division of labor of BIRTH is flexible. 4.43 4Disagree Slightly    30 The structure of BIRTH is well designed. 4.57 531 The pay scale and benefits of BIRTH treat each employee equitably. 4.86 532 All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives. 5.00 333 The opportunity for promotion exists in BIRTH. 5.14 5Disagree    34 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH. 5.83 335 The salary that I receive is commensurate with the job that I perform. 6.00 4

Average Range = 3.46

122

Questions for the group:

1. What about the data makes you feel good about working at BIRTH?2. What about the data do you find interesting? (Makes you wonder about

something in the organization.)3. How do you think you can use this data to improve things at BIRTH?

123

APPENDIX N

Appreciative Inquiry Intervention Flip Chart Notes

Themes from stories (common elements that helped with addressing the conflict in

positive manner):

Communication – being able to safely express opinions and concerns

Listening to each other

Flexibility – being open to change

Inquiry into other – what do you mean by that?

Explaining point of view

Dealing with the issue immediately

Focus on working for the common good (BIRTH)

Speaking for self – my opinion, my want, etc.

Owning own contribution

Directness – having the conversation between those involved

Provocative Propositions (ordered based upon votes):

1. Our office values every person’s individual contributions and personal strengths.

We recognize that everyone has a unique gift to share. We will regularly affirm

each person’s value. We seek to listen and communicate directly, honestly and

with respect.

2. Different sub-groups of the organization regularly communicate with each other,

listening to, and responding to each others needs.

124

3. All members of the organization are values and heard, no matter what position

they hold.

4. Individual skills are always used and appreciated in our organization.

What Office Staff is going to do to support Provocative Proposition:

Deal with the issue when it comes up – avoid accumulating baggage.

Deal directly with the target of the issue.

Check-in with others.

Learn about others.

What Office Staff needs from others support Provocative Proposition:

Role clarification for all positions (Joan)

Open communication of issues (All)

To be compensated fairly for work (Joan)

To factor workload into decisions – realize the impact on the target group (All,

primarily Joan and Board of Directors)

To trust in good of others (All)

Tools needed to help support Provocative Propositions:

Common lists to track issues covered at monthly staff meetings:

i. Office Staff (owned by Joan)

ii. Instructor questions (owned by Educational Director)

iii. Facility issues

Sub-group socialization

125

APPENDIX O

Final Office Staff Interview Guide

1. Looking back over the last few months …

Do you believe the health of the organization has increased?  If so, what one

thing do you believe has contributed to an increase in the health of the

organization?

What one thing do you think still remains which is compromising the health

of the organization? Do you have any suggestions for what could be done to

address this?

2. Looking back to the Appreciate Inquiry conducted …

Do you believe anything has changed in BIRTH as a result of this activity?  If

so, what?  If not, why not?

Has any of the following increased as a result of

i. Your willingness to raise differences of opinions?  As they happen? 

Before the issue intensifies?

ii. The amount of dialogue within BIRTH?  (open, direct discussion and

listening to different points of view)

iii. Your belief that raising differences of opinion contributes to a health

work environment?

iv. Your belief that you can influence change at BIRTH?

126

3. Looking forward at the overall health of BIRTH:

What would help improve communication both in the office and between the

various groups in BIRTH?

What would support you in having your opinions heard? In feeling they were

valued by the organization?

Are there items that would support you in performing your job more

effectively?

4. In terms of my involvement with BIRTH, and the work that I did:

What thing do you believe I did that was the most effective in working with

you/the organization?  In other words, what would you encourage me to do

more of?

What thing do you believe I did that was the least effective in working with

you/the organization?  In other words, what would you encourage me to

do less of?

127

APPENDIX P

Self-Assessment Survey

1. If I have a difference of opinion with another employee of BIRTH, or with a BIRTH decision I always raise it – no matter how big or small the difference.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

2. If I have a difference of opinion at BIRTH, I do not wait on the issue – I raise the difference as soon as I am clear on my position.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

3. If I have a difference of opinion at BIRTH, I do not let the issue intensify – I raise the difference before it becomes critical to me.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

4. I am willing to raise differences of opinion with my fellow employees at BIRTH.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

5. I engage in dialogue with other employees of BIRTH, discussing differences of opinion in a direct and open manner and listening to the other’s point of view.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

6. Employees of BIRTH engage in dialogue with one another, discussing differences of opinion in a direct and open manner and listening to the other’s point of view.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

7. I believe raising differences of opinion contributes to a healthy work environment.

128

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

8. I believe I can influence change at BIRTH.Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

Additional Comments:

129

APPENDIX Q

Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation

1. I believe my working relationships at BIRTH will improve as a result of today’s Appreciative Inquiry.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

2. I have more confidence in BIRTH’s ability to openly discuss differences of opinion as an organization as a result of today’s Appreciative Inquiry.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

3. I plan to more openly discuss differences of opinion as a result of today’s Appreciative Inquiry.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

4. I have more confidence in my ability to influence change within BIRTH as a result of today’s Appreciative Inquiry.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

5. My belief that raising differences of opinion contributes to a healthy work environment has increased as a result of today’s Appreciative Inquiry.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Disagree Slightly

Neutral Agree Slightly

Agree Strongly Agree

6. The thing I liked most about today was …

7. The thing I liked least about today was …

Overall Comments:

130

APPENDIX R

Self Assessment Survey Results and Analysis

Participant

Question Pre-1 Pre-2 Pre-3 Pre-4 Pre-TotalPre-Mean

Post-1

Post-2

Post-3

Post-4

Post-Total

Post-Mean Sign

1 2 3 3 2 10 2.50 1 6 5 3 15 3.75 +2 2 2 6 2 12 3.00 1 5 6 5 17 4.25 +3 2 5 6 2 15 3.75 1 6 6 5 18 4.5 +4 2 7 6 6 21 5.25 1 7 6 5 19 4.75 -5 5 7 5 6 23 5.75 7 6 6 5 24 6 +6 5 2 3 6 16 4.00 5 5 5 5 20 5 +7   7 6 3 16 5.33 * 7 6 4 17 5.67 +8 4 7 4 2 17 4.25 7 7 2 2 18 4.5 +

Sign Test Information

Number of +: 7 * Value (5) discounted due to pre-survey blank entryNumber of - : 1Sample Size (n): 8Smallest number of success/failures (x): 1Binomial Probability: 0.0352 (Swanson, 2001, p. 135)Level of Significance (α): 0.05

Pre-Survey Comments:1. I am sorry I can’t indicate I am “disagreeing” with my coworkers. It has been

“delicate” here.2. Often my obstacles to raising issues are: 1) time, 2) timing and 3) lack of energy to

tackle another issue.3. The front office communicates with each other very well. Communications with

“new positions” is still in process of what to say and when. Conflict, frustrations and work overload is a problem.

4. Front office not listened to. Actions do not show we are listened to. We are simply told what to do and are not asked our opinions or our opinions are not acted upon.

Post-Survey Comments:1. I am sorry I remain very hesitant to raise differences of opinion. I can’t do this in my

work environment hardly at all. I think there is anger under the “sort of” sweet exteriors, and if I “spark it” it could be very unpleasant for me for a long time.

2. The biggest obstacle for me with communication is now time. I feel like we have paved the way for communication in the office but there is not enough time to communicate as effectively as I think I could. Too much to do. Second biggest obstacle is that I don’t expect my news/feedback/input to have a difference with some people and therefore I am a bit lazy sometimes. I have had to force myself to communicate even when I don’t expect results.

131

APPENDIX S

Organizational Health Survey Before and After Results and Analysis

Pre-Mean

Post-Mean Sign

1 The goals of BIRTH are clearly stated. 3.2 4.6 -2 The division of labor of BIRTH is flexible. 4.7 5.8 -3 The Executive Director is supportive of my efforts. 1.8 1.6 +4 My relationship with the Executive Director is a harmonious one. 1.8 1.6 +5 My job offers me the opportunity to grow as a person. 2.8 3.2 -6 The Executive Director has ideas that are helpful to me and BIRTH. 1.3 2.4 -7 BIRTH is not resistant to change. 3.7 4 -8 I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of BIRTH. 2.8 3.8 -9 The division of labor in BIRTH is intended to help it reach its goals. 3.3 4.4 -10 The leadership norms of BIRTH help its progress. 3.0 3.8 -11 I can always talk with someone at work if I have a work-related problem. 1.8 2.8 -12 The pay scale and benefits of BIRTH treat each employee equitably. 5.0 4.4 +13 I have the information that I need to do a good job. 3.0 4 -14 BIRTH introduces enough new policies and procedures. 3.7 3 +15 I understand the purpose of BIRTH. 2.5 2.8 -16 The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one. 3.8 4.6 -17 BIRTH’s leadership efforts result in BIRTH’s fulfillment of its purposes. 3.2 3.2 No change18 My relationships with members of BIRTH are friendly as well as professional. 1.3 1.6 -19 The opportunity for promotion exists in BIRTH. 5.2 4.2 +20 BIRTH had adequate mechanisms for binding itself together. 3.3 2.6 +21 BIRTH favors change. 3.8 3 +22 The priorities of BIRTH are understood by its employees. 4.2 3.8 +23 The structure of BIRTH is well designed. 4.8 4.4 +24 It is clear to me whenever the ED is attempting to guide my work efforts. 2.8 2 +25 I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly. 2.5 3 -26 The salary that I receive is commensurate with the job that I perform. 5.8 4.8 +27 Other employees are helpful whenever assistance is requested. 2.0 2.6 -28 Occasionally I like to change things about my job. 2.0 2.2 -29 I have enough input in deciding BIRTH goals. 4.5 3.8 +30 The division of labor in BIRTH actually helps it to reach its goals. 4.3 3.8 +31 I understand the ED’s efforts to influence me and the other members of BIRTH. 2.2 2 +32 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in BIRTH. 6.2 5.2 +33 All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives. 5.0 4 +34 BIRTH’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development. 3.3 3.2 +35 BIRTH has the ability to change. 1.3 2.2 -

Sign Test InformationNumber of +: 17Number of - : 17Sample Size (n): 34Smallest number of success/failures (x): 17Binomial Probability: (from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/Service/Statistics/Sign_Test.html) 1.14Level of Significance (α): 0.05

132

APPENDIX T

Appreciative Inquiry Evaluation Results

ParticipantQuestion 1 2 3 4 Mean Likert Scale Equivalent

1 5 6 6 7 6 Agree2 5 6 5 6 5.5 Agree3 6 6 5 6 5.75 Agree4 4 5 4 6 4.75 Agree Slightly5 5 5 5 5 5 Agree Slightly

The thing I liked most about today was …

1. Hearing things left unsaid finally “said”.2. The things my coworkers were able to talk about as a result of this session

DURING the session.3. Well prepared, good examples and good at point us toward the office space issue.4. Ability to air differences, needs, suggestions and to hear those of others.

The thing I liked least about today was …

1. Not having a member of the “sub-group” with whom communications has been most difficult at the Appreciative Inquiry. As a contract worker – she was not required to attend, or chose not to – whichever, it is too bad she was not included.

2. Picking out themes from the encounters (that were told). It didn’t make a lot of sense. BUT I did like the THEMES.

3. That some members did not participate more.4. Wish we had more time!

Overall comments …

Thank you Erin for your efforts. You do make a difference, the process has value and promotes progress.

133

APPENDIX Q

Estimated Versus Actual Project Time

ACTION RESEARCH PHASES

ESTIMATED TIMELINE

ESTIMATED # OF HOURS

ACTUAL TIMELINE

ACTUAL # OF HOURS

Entry and Contracting January - February 4 January - February 6Data Gathering & Collecting

February 15 March 15

Data Analysis March 3 March 3Data Feedback March 5 April 5Problem Solving & Action Planning

March 3 April 4

Implementation April 10 May 7Evaluation and Closure April 5 July 5Total Hours 45 45

134