W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks

Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects

1987

The relationship of teamwork factors to perceived success of The relationship of teamwork factors to perceived success of

inter agency collaboration inter agency collaboration

Leslie William Jones College of William & Mary - School of Education

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Special Education

and Teaching Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Jones, Leslie William, "The relationship of teamwork factors to perceived success of inter agency collaboration" (1987). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539618858. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25774/w4-s5s2-za21

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu.

INFORMATION TO USERS

While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example:

• Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

• Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages.

• Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print.

Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.

8715403

J o n e s , L eslie W illiam

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEAMWORK FACTORS TO PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

The College of William an d Mary Ed.D. 1987

University Microfilms

International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1987

by

Jones, Leslie William

All Rights Reserved

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEAMWORK FACTORS TO PERCEIVED SUCCESS OFINTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

A Dissertation Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Education The College of William and Mary in Virginia

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

byLeslie W. Jones December 1986

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEAMWORK FACTORS TO PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

by

Leslie W. Jones

Approved December, 1986 by

Virginia K. Laycock,/^d.D.

Robert Maidment, Ed.D.

F.~Douglafe Prillaman, Ed.D. Chairperson, Doctoral Committee

©1987

LESLIE WILLIAM JONES

All R igh ts R ese rv ed

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The achievement of this goal has involved the assis­tance and support of several people without whom it could not have been realized.

Special appreciation is extended to Dr. F. Douglas Prillaman, whose guidance and quiet support throughout these past several years made the difference that counts. To Dr. Robert Maidment, thank you for knowing that I could do it.And to Dr. Virginia Laycock, special appreciation for the assurance that what we do does make a difference.

Thanks are given to Dr. Robert Hanny for his support and to Dr. John A. McLaughlin for his expert advice and direction in the area of interagency collaboration.

Thanks are expressed to all my cohorts across the eight agencies who took the time and cared enough to respond to the survey. Without them, nothing could have emerged of signifi­cance from this effort.

Appreciation is expressed to my children, Mike and Mary, for your patience and support. Most especially, though, to Dot, a very special thanks to you for your love, support and encouragement.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... 3LIST OF TABLES............................................. 7CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION......................................... 9Justification for the Study....................... 11Statement of the Problem.................... 15Theoretical Rationale.............................. 16Definition of Terms................................ 20General Hypotheses ....... 21Limitations of the Study.......................... 22

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................ 24Summary of Rationale and Relationship to Problem. 24Theoretical Concepts............................... 24Relevant Research.................................. 27

Barriers to Effective InterorganizationalCooperation................................. 28

Factors which Improve Coordination amongOrganizations............................... 30

Teamwork........................................ 32Summary of Research and Relationship to Problem.. 37

3. METHODOLOGY.......................................... 38Sample.............................................. 38Design.............................................. 40Instrumentation.................................... 43

4

PageProcedures.......................................... 43Statistical Hypotheses............................. 47Statistical Analysis............................... 48Summary............................................. 49

4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS................................. 51Hypothesis 1 ........................................ 53Hypothesis 2 ........................................ 58Hypothesis 3 ........................................ 58Hypothesis 4 ........................................ 62Hypothesis 5 ........................................ 63Summary............................................. 69

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................ 72Summary............................................. 72

Review of the Literature...................... 72Research Methodology........................... 73Major Findings................................. 74

Conclusions......................................... 76Discussion.......................................... 78Recommendations for Future Research.............. 82

APPENDICESA. Survey Instrument and Letter....................... 84B. Validation of Instrument and Letter............... 90C. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and

Discriminant Functions and Correlations.......... 97

5

PageREFERENCES.................................................. 109VITA......................................................... 128ABSTRACT.................................................... 130

6

LIST OF TABLESTable Page3.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RETURNS......... 413.2 CORRESPONDENCE OF THE FACTORS WITH THE

DIMENSIONS MEASURED................................ 444.1 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND RANGE OF EACH

SURVEY ITEM (n=375)............................... 524.2 HYPOTHESIS 1 - CHI-SQUARE AND PEARSON

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERCEIVED LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION (B) AND PERCEIVED EXISTENCE OF TEAMWORK FACTORS (C.l TO C.10)..... 55

4.3 HYPOTHESIS 1 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-STATISTIC) AND UNIVARIATE F-RATIO ON PERCEIVED SUCCESS IN INTER­AGENCY COLLABORATION AND PERCEIVED EXISTENCEOF TEAMWORK FACTORS................................ 56

4.4 HYPOTHESIS 1 - SUMMARY TABLE OF DISCRIMINANTANALYSIS (STEPWISE SELECTION) FOR DETERMINING PREDICTOR VARIABLES................................ 57

4.5 HYPOTHESIS 2 - CROSSTABULATIONS OF PERCEIVED LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATIONWITH TOP LEVEL AND MID LEVEL AGENCY PERSONNEL 60

4.6 HYPOTHESIS 3 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-STATISTIC) AND UNIVARIATE F-RATIO ON PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION OF EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR BY TOP LEVEL AND MIDLEVEL AGENCY PERSONNEL............................. 61

4.7 HYPOTHESIS 4 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-STATISTIC) AND UNIVARIATE F-RATIO ON PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION OFEACH TEAMWORK FACTOR BY AGENCY.................... 64

4.8 HYPOTHESIS 4 - SUMMARY TABLE OF DISCRIMINANTANALYSIS (STEPWISE SELECTION) FOR DETERMINING PREDICTOR VARIABLES............................ 65

4.9 HYPOTHESIS 4 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-STATISTIC) AND UNIVARIATE F-RATIO ON PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTIONOF EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR BY AGENCY................. 67

4.10 HYPOTHESIS 5 - SUMMARY TABLE OF DISCRIMINANTANALYSIS (STEPWISE SELECTION) FOR DETERMINING PREDICTOR VARIABLES................................ 68

7

Table PageC.l GROUP MEANS ON PERCEIVED SUCCESS IN INTER­

AGENCY COLLABORATION <B) WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF EXISTENCE OF TEAMWORK FACTORS (C.l TO C.10)... 98

C.2 GROUP STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON PERCEIVED SUCCESS IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION (B) WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF EXISTENCE OF TEAMWORK FACTORS‘(C.l TO C.10 )........................... ................ 99

C.3 CORRESPONDENCE OF THE FACTORS WITH THEDIMENSIONS MEASURED................................ 100

C.4 HYPOTHESIS 1 - DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS FORPERCEIVED SUCCESS IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION WITH PERCEIVED EXISTENCE OF TEAMWORK FACTORS 101

C.5 HYPOTHESIS 1 - POOLED WITHIN-GROUPS CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DISCRIMINANT VARIABLES AND CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS............................. 102

C.6 HYPOTHESIS 3 - GROUP MEANS AND STANDARDDEVIATIONS FOR AGENCY LEVEL GROUPS (TOP & MID)WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION EACHTEAMWORK FACTOR MAKES TOWARD SUCCESSFUL INTER­AGENCY COLLABORATION............................... 103

C.l HYPOTHESIS 4 - GROUP MEANS AND STANDARDDEVIATIONS FOR EACH AGENCY WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OFCONTRIBUTION EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR MAKES TOWARD SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION............. 104

C.8 HYPOTHESIS 3 - GROUP MEANS AND STANDARDDEVIATIONS FOR GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL GROUPS (TOP & MID) WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR MAKES TOWARD SUCCESSFUL INTER­AGENCY COLLABORATION............................... 105

C.9 HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA AND EQUIVALENT FAT STEP 1 ........................................... 106

C.10 HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA AND SIGNIFICANCE OF F AFTER STEP I IN DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS - STEPWISE.......................................... 107

C.ll HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA AND EQUIVALENT FAT STEP II.......................................... 108

8

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Interagency collaboration is a concept with both admin­istrative and theoretical significance (Whetten, 1982). It has been the bane of political leaders, the nemesis of agency administrators and the ferment of interorganizational re­search and theory for several decades. United States presi­dents as well as state governors have endeavored to curtail and streamline governmental agencies and their functions (Ringers, 19 77; Rogers & Mulford, 19 82b). Agency administra­tors, while striving to build upon an ever expanding service delivery system and number of agency personnel to deliver the services, have attempted to work cooperatively with other agency administrators. This has been achieved with widely varied levels of success (Rogers & Mulford, 1982a; Rubin & Beckhard, 1972). Research on interorganizational coordina­tion, according to Whetten (19 82), began to appear in the 19 50s and early 19 60s and has continued to be published under varied topics such as interorganizational cooperation (Aiken, Dewar, DiTonaso, Hage & Zietz, 1975; Warren, 1975), interor­ganizational coordination (Hall & Clark, 1975), interagency cooperation (White & Vlasak, 1974), organizational interde­pendence (Thompson, 1967), interagency collaboration (Elder, 1982).

Over the past two decades, the number of distinct pub­lic service programs has increased and, at the same time, segmented the service delivery systems into specialized pro­grams. Each of these specialized programs is assigned to dif-

10

ferent agencies based on each agency's mission and purpose (Whetten, 1982). Specialization results in fragmentation. All too frequently, clients are forced to go from agency to agen­cy in order to benefit from such a complex service delivery system (Benson, 1975; Elder, 1982; Whetton, 1982).

According to Rogers & Mulford (1982b), political and economic leaders, agency administrators and researchers have assumed that concerted decision making and cooperative pro­gram implementation will lead to more successful results than will independent actions by agencies. However, efforts to improve interorganizational coordination have met with limit­ed success (Kamerman & Kahn, 1976). Lehman (1975) has sugges­ted that clients would receive better services if the primary public service agencies - health, education, social services - were forced to compete for the resources and the clients. Yet, as Koenig (1981) has pointed out, societal values and beliefs (e.g., legitimacy, authority, social services, plu­ralism) sanction the existing network of governmental agen­cies. Rogers & Mulford (1982b) discussed this issue further while recognizing the importance of decision making and con­flict in the process of interorganizational coordination:

Although there are factors intrinsic to the pluralist philosophy that inhibit interor­ganizational coordination, there is at the same time a major advantage that could be emphasized but instead is largely unrecognized. Pluralism is based on multiple interests. When planners recognize the presence of groups with different interests, both unique and common values of these groups could be brought into the open and

11

experts could be assigned to work with these groups in an advocacy role. Competitive plural­ism may counter bureaucratic influence by fos­tering alternative programs and ideas (Cloward and Priven, 19 72). The result of these efforts could lead to compromises among competing inter­ests, which in turn might lead to changes in allocative decisions and to conflict resolution (Wenocur, 1976).

In summary, researchers and experts in the area of interorganizational theory have suggested that the approach to the study and expansion of theory in this area should include an analysis of the social system between and among organizations with specific emphasis on the individuals in this social system, their personalities as well as the situa­tional variables; e.g., leadership, decision making (Koenig, 19 81; Rogers and Mulford, 19 82b; Warren, 19 67b).Justification for the Study

Litigation, legislation and administrative actions in recent years have contributed significantly to an increased need for interagency collaboration in the delivery of servi­ces for handicapped children and youth. Most prominent among these actions was the passage and subsequent implementation of Public Law 94-142 (Rogers & Mulford, 1982a). This law, as passed by the United States Congress in 19 75, requires state and local governments to provide comprehensive educational services to all handicapped students ages three through twen­ty-one. Under the law, comprehensive educational services are to be provided free (at no cost to parents) and must include the provision of appropriate special education and related

12

services (Federal Register, 1977).Related services are defined as those needed in order

for the handicapped student to benefit from the educationalprogram, general as well as special, being provided. Theserelated services cover a broad array of programs which fallwithin the general mission and goals of most of the humanservices agencies. For example:

Agency having primary mission

Department of Health Department of Health Department of Health Department of Mental Health

and Mental Retardation Department of Mental Health

and Mental Retardation Department of Mental Health

and Mental RetardationTherefore, the full-service goal of providing comprehen­

sive educational.opportunities to handicapped students has major implications for interagency collaboration (Rogers & Mulford, 1982b). Yet, the implementation of this aspect of P.L. 94-142 is impeded by state and local governance struc­tures, federal regulations which complicate the collaborative process and a broad array of services for which these human services agencies are responsible (McLaughlin & Christensen, ND) .

Gore & Nelson (19 79) have suggested that the develop­ment of specialized services has led to three forms of isola­tion: 1) separation and isolation of agencies from each

Related servicemedical evaluations audiological services occupational therapy psychiatric treatmentstudent and parent

counseling prevention services

13

other, 2) separation and isolation of agencies from the com­munity and 3) estrangement of agencies from both the people they serve and those they might potentially serve. In the case of services for handicapped students, actions at state and federal levels have resulted in an increase of demands upon human services agencies (e.g., education, social serv­ices, health, rehabilitative services) in order to meet the educational and related needs of this population (Rogers & Mulford, 19 82b). The result has been an ever increasing awareness on the part of agency administrators, clients (parents of handicapped children) and legislators that the existing multiple agency service system lacks the necessary coordination and efficiency (Code of Virginia, Section 2.1-700). Isolationism (Gore & Nelson, 19 79), fragmentation of services through specialization and the absence of an overarching authority structure between agencies (Rogers & Mulford, 19 82a) requires the deliberate broadening of the interaction between the agencies (Warren, 1975).

However, Kamerman and Kahn, (1976) conducted a review of the literature as well as numerous case studies and con­cluded that interagency collaborative models have not been perceived as successful by agency administrators or clients. Even before Kamerman and Kahn's report was published, and most definitely after, much of the literature and research results indicate that a new perspective to the study and development of interagency collaboration is needed (Benson,

14

19 73; Hall, Clark, Girondano, Johnson & Van Roekel, 19 77; Rogers & Mulford, 19 82b; Rubin & Beckhard, 19 72).

Koenig (1981) has pointed out that the study of inter­agency collaboration and interagency relationships should not be a measure of transactions among a network of three or more organizations, but rather there should be more emphasis on the processes and activities that lead to cooperative and harmonious interactions. He suggested such variables as awareness, communications and domain consensus. Further, he preferred to examine the social system between agencies that can be defined in terms of interactions and interdependencies among members rather than among agencies. Warren (1967a) sug­gested that the analysis of organizations should include and account for the impact of personality of individuals as well as situational variables such as style of leadership, method of decision making and dealing with uncertainty (Thompson, 1967 ).

Kane (19 75) identified eight interrelated topics deemed necessary to ensure competent, coherent, unfragmented and comprehensive services to people who need assistance. The topics he identified were: 1) the individual in the group; 2) team size; 3) group norms; 4) democracy; 5) decision making; 6) communication and structure; 7) leadership; and 8) produc­tivity. All of these topics or factors are descriptors of teamwork. The effectiveness of any group in any setting is related to both its capability to do the work and its ability

15

to manage itself as an interdependent group of people {Rubin & Beckhard, 19 72).

Interagency collaboration in Virginia has been recog­nized as an important component of program planning and ser­vice delivery systems for handicapped children and youth. The reference to collaboration among agencies first appeared in Virginia School Laws (Section 22.1-214, Code of Virginia) in 1974. Legislation was passed that required school divisions as part of their local planning efforts to develop inter­agency agreements to assure the delivery of related services for handicapped children.

Almost a decade later, in 1984, the Interagency Coor­dinating Council was established by mandate of the General Assembly. This legislation stipulates that thirteen state agencies will formulate a plan to coordinate the delivery of related services for handicapped children and youth in Virginia. This coordination of services includes the esta­blishment of local interagency efforts as well. The success of the state and local teams depends greatly on the capabi­lity and willingness of the members to work together to iden­tify systemic issues and find reasonable solutions to these issues.

Statement of the ProblemThe purpose of this study was to determine whether

teamwork factors are perceived as enhancing the level of suc­cess of interagency collaborative. As part of this research,

16

consideration was given to such dimensions of the population as the perceptions of top and mid-level administrators, administrators across agencies as well as state- and local- level administrators.Theoretical Rationale

The theoretical rationale for this study was drawn from two areas of theory and research: 1) Interorganizational Coordination and 2) Group Behavior. Each of these theory fields, over the past three decades, has generated numerous semantic references and terminology which, generically speak­ing, attempt to explain similar concepts and theoretical models. For example, in the area of interorganizational co­ordination, the literature refers to such terms and concepts as interorganizational cooperation (Schermerhorn, 1975), interorganizational exchange (Adamack & Lavin, 1975), organi­zational interdependence (Aiken & Hage, 1968), interagency cooperation (Aram & Stratton, 1974), interorganizational relationships (Baker & Clark, 19 81), interagency relation­ships (Cook, 1979), interorganizational analysis (Litwak & Hylton, 19 70) and interagency collaboration (McLaughlin & Covert, 1982). In the field of group behavior, terms such as team development (Woodman & Sherwood, 1980), intergroup co­operation (Rabbie, 19 71), group dynamics (Odhner, 19 70), group problem-solving behavior (Hendrick, 1979) and teamwork (Boss, 1983; Fennell & Sandefur, 1983) have been defined and used.

17

Interorganizational Theory. An attempt to understand In­terorganizational Coordination as a phenomena is not of recent concentration for researchers. It has been researched and reported in the literature for at least three decades.

The most reported model in research is the systems ap­proach to analysis and understanding of interorganizational coordination. This perspective is reflected in this quote by Koenig (1981), "Generically, social systems can be defined as interactions and interdependencies among members - in this case organizations. As goal oriented, or controlled systems, these lORs (interorganizational relations) are oriented toward one or more objectives that serve as a basis for inte­grating and governing activities among organizations." Warren (1967a) refers to the interaction of organizations as the interorganizational field while Negandhi (19 75) stressed that interorganizational theory is founded in systems theory - open systems, input-output, system boundaries - and involves the study of multivariate models to examine patterns of relationships between organizations.

Most recently, Rogers & Mulford (1982a), after review­ing the literature on interorganizational theory and re­search , concluded that

...different philosophies and strategies of co­ordination are closely associated with general environmental'conditions present at a particular time. Miller and Form (19 64) posit a relation­ship between managerial strategies and the more general social structure, including technology and values, and Stinchcomb (19 65) posits that

18

the formation and type of organization are af­fected by the social structure of the environ­ment. As with the management of single organiza­tions, philosophies of management and approaches to the coordination of multiple organizations also reflect important forces in the social, political, and economic environment which organ­izations operate (p. 32).

Several key constructs have been identified in the lit­erature attempting to explain interorganizational coordina­tion. Researchers have discussed these constructs under two broad categories: a) Barriers to effective interorganization­al cooperation and b) Factors which improve coordination among organizations.

Barriers to effective interorganizational cooperation have been identified by researchers as follows: a) competi­tion and conflict for limited resources (Levine & White,19 61; Molnar & Rogers, 19 79; Mott, 19 68; Schermerhorn, 1975; Rothwell, 19 83); b) lack of trust (Hall, 19 75); c) lack of adequate decision-making structure (DeWitt, 1977; Kane, 1975; White & Vlasack, 1974); d) lack of communication (Hall, 1975; White & Vlasack, 1974) and e) lack of insightful leadership (Levine & White, 1961; Wright, 1977).

The fact that organizations must or should coordinate has been well established (Negandhi, 1975; Rogers & Mulford, 1982a). A review of the literature regarding barriers to co­ordination reveals conflict as indicative of interorganiza­tional coordination. Therefore, according to Hall et al. (1977), to enhance coordination among organizations, minimiz-

19

ing conflict is crucial.What are those factors which enhance coordination?

Investigations by researchers reveal these elements: a) quest for survival by organizations (Halpert, 1982), b) building trust (Hall et al., 1977; Woodard, Copper & Trohanis, 1982),c) improved communication (Hall et al., 1977; Kane, 19 75;),d) procedures for decision making (Hall et al., 1977; Kane, 1975) and effective leadership (Kane, 19 75).

Since interorganizational analysis involves the system­atic examination of relationships and interactions between individuals representing organizations, the theoretical con­structs of small group behavior are useful to an understand­ing of interorganizational coordination. A review of the literature in the area of small group behavior indicates that conflict and its effect on a group in problem solving, deci­sion making and communication is the predominant theme and the primary focus of small group theory and research (Back, 1979; Hare, 1962; Koenig, 1981; Lippitt, 1982; Zander, 1979). Leadership, whether it is,provided by an individual or as part of the group dynamics, is also a necessary ingredient to the process of problem solving, communication and decision making for a group (Boss, 1978; Stasser, Norbert & Davis, 1980). Also, trust among group members is a critical variable to productive and harmonious relationships (McClintock &Keil, 1.9 81; Zander, 19 79 ).

Based on the above findings in the literature, and for

20

the purpose of this study, this researcher identified the following factors as the key variables: trust, decision­making, problem-solving process, communication and leader­ship. These variables are the salient features of: 1) the barriers to interagency collaboration, 2) those factors which improve interagency collaboration and 3) those factors which critically define teamwork in the group process.Definition of Terms

Mulford and Rogers (19 82) posited a definition of co­ordination that is "consistent with the literature, useful to practitioners who would be guided by its meaning, and capable of being evaluated as to its outcomes" (p.9). Based on their review of the literature, they recognized a consistent use of decision making by specialists and practitioners. For the purposes of this research, Mulford and Rogers1 definition of interorganizational coordination was adopted as the defini­tion for interagency collaboration. This definition is as follows: "the process whereby two or more organizations create and/or use existing decision rules that have been established to deal collectively with their shared task environment" (p.12).

Teamwork - the effectiveness of a group's work proce­dures and interpersonal relationships. An important facet of teamwork is deciding how the team handles conflict (Maynard, 1982).

Communication - intercourse by words, letters, or mes-

21

sages; interchange of thoughts or opinions (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 19 74).

Leadership - the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achieve­ment in a given situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).

Decision making - the act of achieving closure wherein the group membership adheres to a set of predetermined rules (e.g., consensus of the group, majority vote).

Problem solving - a process wherein a question or issue is raised, possible solutions are generated and the most reasonable solution is selected (Hoffman, 1979).

Trust - to place confidence in or to depend upon another or others; an expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, or statement of another is reliable (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1974).

General hypothesesIt was the purpose of this study to determine whether

teamwork factors are perceived as enhancing the level of success of interagency collaborative. The research hypotheses investigated were:

1. There is a significant positive relationship between the perceived level of success in inter­agency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors.2. There is a significant positive relationship

22

between the perceptions of top-level agency per­sonnel and the mid-level agency personnel re­garding the perceived level of success in inter­agency collaboration.3. There is a significant positive relationship between the perceptions of top-level agency per­sonnel and mid-level agency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward suc­cessful interagency collaboration.4. There is a significant positive relationship between agencies as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful interagency colla­boration.5. There is a significant positive relationship between the perceptions of state interagency personnel and local interagency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward suc­cessful interagency collaboration.

Limitations of the StudyThe design and conduct of this study was differentiated

description using time-ordered association to see how the different subgroups in the sample are distributed (Glock,19 67). As such, one of the major limitations of this study was that the results cannot be used to explain a causal relationship between success in interagency collaboration and teamwork factors. One can, however, with supporting theory,

23

check on certain images (Glock, 1967) related to teamwork factors and perceived success in interagency collaboration. This approach, differentiated description, allows for the generation of plausible explanations of individuals' behavior in interagency coordinating committees with the subsequent refinement and testing of explanatory hypotheses in later research.

Another factor that was considered in reviewing and analyzing the data from these study was that the respondees, while making decisions in response to each survey item, may be influenced by certain expectations or preconceived notions (McDaniel, 1974; Ysseldyke, Algozzine & Richey, 1982).Dealing with such concepts as customs, norms, attitudes and values can be problematic. Human responses are influenced by the presence and variability of these concepts. Therefore, there was need to be cautious in the analysis of the data (McDaniel, 1974).

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Summary of Rationale and Relationship to ProblemThe number of public services programs serving handi­

capped children has increased over the past two decades. Ac­cording to Benson (1975), Whetten (1982) and Elder (1982) this growth and subsequent specialization of services has resulted in a fragmented delivery system. Agency administra­tors have attempted to work cooperatively with other agency administrators to resolve the myriad of issues that confront them. Yet, Kamerman and Kahn (1976), Rogers and Mulford (1982a) and Rubin and Beckhard (1972) suggest that agency administrators have met only with limited success.

Conflict has been identified by several researchers as pervasive to interagency activity (Hall, 1975; Levine, White and Paul, 1963). To enhance coordination among organi­zations, conflict must be reduced (Hall, 19 75). It was the intent of this study to investigate whether the presence of teamwork elements was perceived as enhancing the level of success of interagency collaborative efforts being conducted by service agency personnel working with handicapped children and youth in Virginia.Theoretical Concepts

Two theoretical bases served to establish the concep­tual framework of this study: Interorganizational Theory and Small Group Theory. Each of these theories is reviewed as follows:

Interorganizational Theory. Interorganizational coor-

25

dination has been researched and reported in the literature for at least three decades. It has been examined by both scholars and practitioners. Succinctly stated, the basic pre­mise of Interorganizational Theory is that concerted deci­sion making and cooperative program planning and implementa­tion will lead to more successful outcomes than will indepen­dent actions of organizations {Rogers & Mulford, 1982b).

Mulford and Rogers (1982) presented a definition of interorganizational coordination that, they suggested, is "consistent with the literature, useful to practitioners who would be guided by its meaning, and capable of being evalu­ated as to its outcomes" (p.9). Based on their review of the literature, they recognized a consistent use of decision­making by specialists and practitioners. Therefore, they defined interorganizational coordination as "the process whereby two or more organizations create and/or use existing decision rules that have been established to deal collective­ly with their shared task environment" (p.12).

Another major, as well as useful, perspective to under­standing interorganizational theory is the systems approach to the analysis of interorganizational coordination. Koenig (1981) observes, "Generically, social systems can be defined as interactions and interdependencies among members - in this case organizations. As goal oriented, or controlled systems, these interorganizational relations are oriented toward one or more objectives that serve as a basis for integrating

26

and governing activities among organizations." Warren (1967a) refers to the interaction of organizations as the interorqa- nizational field while Negandhi (1975) stressed that interor­ganizational theory is founded in systems theory - open systems, input-output, system boundaries - and involves the study of multivariate models to examine patterns of rela­tionships between organizations. Rogers and Mulford (1982b), after reviewing the literature on interorganizational theory and research, concluded that, as is the case with management of single organizations, philosophies of management and approaches to the coordination of multiple organizations also reflect important forces in the social, political, and econo­mic environment which organizations operate.

Small Group Theory. The theoretical premise of the research conducted regarding small groups is that when a group of individuals meet to accomplish specific tasks, their success is affected by how well individual personalities in the group mesh and by the dynamics of the group interactions and processes (Boss, 1983; Golembiewski, 1962; Hare, 1983). According to Hare (1962), the study of small group behavior can be broken down into two categories of interaction: 1)Form of interaction - which consists of: a) the communication network; that is, the channels of communication between group members and b) interaction rate; that is, the frequency of interaction represented by the number and duration of contri­butions and 2) Content of interaction - which includes: a)

27

task behavior, that is, interaction directed toward the com­pletion of group or individual tasks; and b) social-emotional behavior, that is, interactions directed toward the relation­ships between group members that form the basis for problem solving. He went on to suggest that human behavior in groups and the inherent problems of group dynamics can be viewed from four perspectives: the group, the individual, the task and the social-emotional dimension of human interaction.

Teamwork is deemed necessary to ensure competent, coher­ent, unfragmented and comprehensive services to people who need help. The interprofessional team is a small face-to-face group and is subject to the same laws and tendencies as any group (Kane, 1975). Based on the above findings in the liter­ature, and for the purposes of this study, this researcher has identified the following factors as key variables: trust, decision making, problem-solving process, communication and leadership. These variables are the salient features of 1) the barriers to interagency collaboration (the lack therein),2) those factors which improve interagency collaboration and3) those factors which critically define teamwork in the group process.Relevant Research

In the area of Interorganizational Theory, research re­lated to this study is found under a) studies which examined the barriers to effective interorganizational cooperation and b) factors which improve coordination among organizations.

28

These areas are reviewed as follows:Barriers to effective interorganizational cooperation

Coordination may be defined as "the process of adjust­ment, where by two or more organizations use decision rules of their own choosing, or decision rules that have been man­dated to deal collectively with their shared task environ­ment." (Mulford and Rogers, 1982, p. 12). This definition assumes that 1) organizations coordinate in order to survive and 2) coordination cannot occur without some level of inter­nal adjustment to the structure of the organization (Halpert, 1982). The first assumption implies competition and conflict (Levine et al, 19 63; Molnar & Robers, 19 79; Mott, 19 68; Rothwell, 1983; Schermerhorn, 1975). The second assumption includes, as the most relevant variable, the individuals who work with and within organizations. Both of these assumptions play a key role in understanding the barriers to interagency cooperation as reflected in the literature.

Organizations compete for the limited financial and human resources available in state and local governments.This factor serves as the impetus to organizational strife and conflict and serves to maintain or increase interpersonal conflict between the staffs of the respective organizations (Benson, 1975). Aiken et al. (1975) found in a study of human service agencies that conflict grows out of confusion over who has the authority over certain goals and out of competi­tion for clients. Viewed from another perspective, Aiken and

29

Hage (1967) found evidence from their research to support the premise that loss of autonomy, funds, personnel and power were factors which increased the probability of conflict between organizational leaders.

Interprofessional and interpersonal factors are impor­tant when considering barriers to interorganizational coordi­nation (Gardner and Snipe, 1970). Specialization of training as well as leadership and professional socialization can be inhibiting factors (Wright, 1977). Research by Hall et al. (1977) indicated that lack of trust and diminishing the human factor which erodes the level of trust were prime contribu­tors of conflict in interorganizational coordination. Decline of trust accompanied by a proliferation of case management and the provision of services are factors which contribute to conflict and counterproductive behavior (Woodard et al.,1982 ).

White and Vlasak (1974) reported from their research that decision making with respect to control and allocation of resources in an interorganizational environment is a com­mon dimension in the findings of researchers. They described the relationship between organizations as an interdependent one wherein organizational decision makers attempt to control scarce resources and to acquire resources controlled by other organizations. The lack of decision-making strategies as a function of a group was identified by Kane (1975) and DeWitt (1977) as inhibiting the collaborative process. They found

30

that there is a significant relationship between decision­making strategies and conflict resolution in group problem solving.

Lack of communication was identified by several re­searchers as presenting systematic barriers to cooperation. White and Vlasak (1974) called for mechanisms to encourage communication between organizations which, again, would re­duce conflict and improve relationships. Hall (1975) posited that the growth of bureaucracies is the most commonly ex­pressed barrier to open exchange of information across organ­izations. Based on perceptions of individuals working in bureaucratic systems, his research findings indicated that increasingly rigid rules and procedures and rigid leadership styles increased frustration and reduced communication among service providers.

Lack of insightful leadership is sighted often in the literature as increasing the level of conflict between indivi­duals across organizations. This increased level of conflict is perceived as reducing cooperation among these individuals (Wright, 1977). Levine et al (1963) reported that as leader­ship interests are threatened, organizational administrators will disguise subverting actions by exaggerating structural differences between organizations and exaggerating the possi­bility of the organization losing its identity.Factors which improve coordination among organizations.

A review of the literature by Halpert (19 82) showed

31

that the quest for survival by organizations is the primereason giving impetus to interorganizational coordination.Halpert (1982) writes:

...the volatility within the political economy generates environmental uncertainty and turbu­lence (Terreberry 1968) for public agencies, motivating them toward initiating coordination activities. A retrenching economy and the highly fluctuating sociopolitical predispositions of Congress and state legislatures sow the seeds of environmental unpredictability for public organ­izations, making them all the more aware of their tenuous existence. Survival through co­operation or coordination becomes viewed as desirable (p. 60).

The fact that organizations must or should coordinate appears to be well established (Negandhi, 1975). Yet, what are those factors which enhance coordination? This has been the subject of extensive study for at least two decades. A review of the literature regarding barriers to coordination revealed conflict as characteristic of interorganizational coordination. The greater the level of conflict, the less productive the coordinated effort. An examination of the literature for enhancement factors centers, as well, on the reduction of conflict as the most important factor to improved coordination (Hall, 1975).

How is conflict to be reduced? The research results of Woodard et al. (1976) would suggest that a positive attitude among those coordinating is crucial. A positive attitude should build trust and effective communication. Miklich (1974) examined the perceived conflict and cooperation exist­

32

ing among four recreation agencies. He concluded that better communication was needed between agencies to effect better planning and a greater degree of cooperation.

Kane (19 75) purported that communication, in all its forms, is the vehicle by which individuals interact and work gets done. He also identified decision making, trust and leadership as key ingredients to improved coordination.

Hall et al. (19 77) conducted research in which data collected from trained observers, record reviews and a sur­vey, were analyzed showing that increased decision making, trust, communication and competence of personnel are funda­mental to effective interorganizational coordination. Trust and mutual support are gradually developed as a result of open, direct communication they predicted.Teamwork

A review of the literature in this area reveals that conflict and its effect on the group in problem solving, decision making and communication is the predominant theme and the primary focus of small group theory and research (Back, 19 79; Hare, 19 62, 1976, 19 83; Kane, 19 75; Koenig,1981; Lippitt, 1982; Shaw, 1971; Zander, 1979). Leadership, whether it is provided by an individual or as part of the group dynamics, is also a necessary ingredient to the pro­cess of problem solving, communication and decision making for a group (Boss, 1978; Kane, 1975; Stasser et al., 1980). Finally, trust among the group members is a critical variable

33

to productivity and harmonious relationships (McClintock & Keil, 19 81; Zander, 1979). Each of these factors, i.e., trust, decision making, leadership, problem solving and com­munication, will be reviewed as follows:

Trust - This dimension of teamwork is reflected in such concepts as: 1) willingness of group members to share infor­mation, 2) freedom to express oneself, 3) openness in discus­sions, 4) willingness to work with other members of the group (Klimoski and Karol, 1976). The relationship of interpersonal trust to increased group creativity was reported in the study conducted by Klimoski and Karol. They found that groups with high levels of trust were able to consistently out-perform groups with low levels of trust. Meeker (1983) conducted a study wherein she hypothesized that two related processes mediate the effect of cooperation on individual's behavior in a conflict situation. These two processes, development of trust and development of positive reciprocity (a tendency to respond to help with help), were found to have a significant main effect <p<.05). She concluded that trust and a willing­ness to help contribute significantly to cooperative behav­ior .

Decision making - Decision-making groups are a central element of human societies. Democratic societies delegate the responsibility for many decisions to specific groups. The difficulty in reaching a group decision depends on the ini­tial disparity of opinion within the group and the degree of

34

consensus required by a decision rule (Stasser et al., 1980). Rubin and Beckhard (1972) stated that a group is a problem­solving, decision-making mechanism. They suggested that the choices a group makes, as to the style of decision making, significantly influences group functioning.

Woodman and Sherwood (19 80) reported in their study that a significant correlation existed between perceived effectiveness by members of a group having received training in decision making and their perception of improved decision­making ability. The expression of affect by a group involved in making decisions was examined by Guzzo and Waters (1982). The results of their study show that groups which delayed the expression of affect until after they had generated a list of possible solutions produced better decisions than did the control groups which expressed affective reactions early in meetings. They concluded that the delayed expression of affective reactions by group members is a better strategy to follow when groups are making decisions about emotionally arousing problems.

Leadership - The concept of leadership permeates the structures of theory and practice of organizations and, hence, shapes one's understanding of the nature of organized action and its possibilities. The actions and words of leaders serve to guide the attention of those involved in a situation in ways that shape the meaning of a situation (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). Research results suggest that

35

there is a significant relationship between group success and the presence of leadership in the group. In a study reported by Boss in 1978, evidence was presented which showed that leader absence has a significant impact upon the success of a confrontation teamwork activity.

Using Fiedler's Contingency Model of Leadership Effec­tiveness, Konar-Goldband, Rice and Mondarsh (1979) obtained results in a study which indicated a significant correlation between group atmosphere, group performance and the leader's style. A flexible, situational leadership style improved group performance and working atmosphere.

Berkowitz (1974) studied the effects of leadership on identification of conflict as well as the resolution of con­flict in groups. His findings indicated that leadership is important to a group as they work to solve problems in pur­suit of goals.

Problem solving - Several studies were reported in the literature regarding the relationship of problem-solving skills and a group's effectiveness and productivity. One such study conducted by Boss (1983) showed a significant relation­ship (p<.05) between group effectiveness and such factors as:1) reduction in the level of conflict in groups and 2) increased demonstration of problem-solving skills in groups. In several studies, Hendrick (19 79) has shown that the greater the direct participation of group members in solving problems the better will be the quality of the solutions and

36

the decisions. As well,- his findings support previous re­search which has shown a significant increase in motivation of the members to carry-out the decisions made by the group.

Sutton and Ford (1982), in a study exploring the rela­tionships among problem-solving adequacy, the appropriateness of organizational structures, and effectiveness of several subunits of a large, general hospital, found a significant, positive correlation between problem-solving adequacy and effectiveness of the hospital subunits (p<.05).

Communication - Voissem (19 72) reported that his re­search consistently supported the hypothesis that the level of cooperation increased in groups as the level of communica­tion increased. Snyder and Morris (1984) conducted research to examine four communication characteristics and the influence these characteristics might have on overall organi­zational performance. The four characteristics he examined were: 1) adequacy of information about organizational poli­cies and procedures, 2) information exchange within the group, 3) supervisor as communicator, and 4) feedback about individual performance. His data supported the assumption that improved communication resulted in improved organiza­tional performance.

In a study that pursued the question of interpersonal communication as a mediating variable between group struc­ture and perceptions of group effectiveness, O ’Reilly and Roberts (1977) found results which indicated that group

37

structure enhanced the group's ability to transmit informa­tion. This ability to transmit information more accurately was perceived as improving coordination and assisting groups to make effective decisions.

Summary of Research and Relationship to ProblemInterorganizational theory would suggest that the

approach to research in this area should include an analysis of the social system between and among organizations. This analysis should include specific emphasis on the individuals in this social system as well as their personalities and other situational variables such as leadership, decision­making, communication, the element of trust and problem­solving. The theory base found in small group research sug­gests that those situational variables referenced above are significant factors to be considered in understanding and enhancing teamwork in small groups.

Interagency collaboration is an interorganizational function and, in order to fulfill its purpose, personnel from several agencies form an interactive working group. This study focused on whether teamwork factors were perceived as enhancing the level of success in interagency collaboration. Interorganizational theory and theory regarding the function­ing of small groups served as the theoretical foundation.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

PopulationThe population for this study was administrators of

state and local level agencies serving handicapped children, ages birth through twenty-one (21), in Virginia. At the state level of government, the network of agencies defined as hav­ing primary or secondary responsibility for providing ser­vices to handicapped children in Virginia includes: the De­partment of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, the Depart­ment of Health, the Department for Rights of the Disabled, the Department of Correctional Education, the Department of Visually Handicapped, the Department of Rehabilitative Ser­vices and the Department of Education. At the local level, each state agency has several counterparts. As well, for pur­poses of this study, administrators were placed into one of two groups based on job title or relative position within the organization.

Therefore, the population was stratified into two levels in the following manner:

1. at the state level of government, Level I was upper-level personnel of grade seventeen (17) or higher (e.g., state superintendent, commis­sioner, deputy commissioner, deputy superinten­dent ) and Level II was middle-level personnel of grade sixteen (16) or lower (e.g., director, supervisor); and2. at the local level of government, Level I was

39

upper-level personnel (e.g., local superinten­dent of public education, executive director of Community Mental Health Services Center) and Level II was middle-level personnel (e.g., director/supervisor of special education, county health supervisor).

The population was stratified into these two levels in order to determine if any relationships existed between the groups regarding the perceived level of success in inter­agency collaboration or the perceived existence of teamwork factors. Aiken and Hage (1967), Hall et al. (1977) and Rogers & Mulford (1982a) reported differences between high- and middle-level administrative personnel as to the types of barriers to collaboration they reported and their perceptions of success in these collaborative efforts. Generally, higher- level personnel reported more political barriers to collabo­ration and reported less interagency activity than their sub­ordinates (middle-level personnel).

In the case of state and local agency personnel, no research has been reported in the literature which treated information on these two groups. However, for the researcher, there is a great-deal-of activity which occurs on an inter­agency level wherein conflict between state- and local-level agency personnel is evident. Much of this evidence is in the form of mandates and policy which state agencies impose on localities. As an example, recent legislation by the General

40

Assembly (Section 22.1-214) requires state agencies to develop and implement a plan of cooperation to be carried out at the local level.

The total population consisted of four hundred-sixty state and local agency personnel across the eight agencies. A frequency distribution of the surveys returned by level of government (i.e., state or local) and by level of position within an organization (i.e., top or middle) is provided in Table 3.1.

The return rate on the survey exceeded the criterion level of 80 percent for the overall return (81.5%) as well asfor each stratum (State level - 82.9%; Local level - 81.3%;High position - 82.1%; Low position - 81.1%). Internal valid­ity was, therefore, protected with adequate representationfrom the respective strata in the population (Cook andCampbell, 19 79).

DesignThe design of this study was an ex post facto paradigm.

It was a systematic inquiry wherein no direct control of the independent variables occurred. Inferences about the rela­tions among the variables were made, without direct interven­tion, from the concomitant variation of the independent and dependent variables (Kerlinger, 1973). The identification of

41

LevelofGovernment

TABLE 3.1FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RETURNS

Position in AgencyTop Low Total

State 15 43 58Local 141 176 317

Total 156 219 375

42

independent and dependent variables was based on the specific hypothesis being tested. For example, the first general hypo­thesis states: "There will be a significant positive rela­tionship between the perceived level of success i'it inter­agency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors." In this case the dependent variable was the per­ceived level of success in interagency collaboration with the independent variable being perceived existence of teamwork factors.

In ex post facto research, direct control of the inde­pendent variable(s) is not possible. Neither is it possible to randomly assign subjects to groups or to assign treatment to groups at random (Kirlinger, 1973). Rather, treatment is implemented before the researcher can prepare for it (Cook and Campbell, 1982). For this study, the treatment was the existence (in degrees) of teamwork factors in the conduct of interagency collaborative efforts. Interaction predictions were made based on certain teamwork factors and perceived success in interagency collaboration with intact groups (e.g., middle-level vs. higher-level administrators; state vs. local administrators; Health Department vs. Department of Education administrators). This approach provided informa­tion which allowed the researcher to make relatively strong inferences (Cook and Campbell, 1979) about the relationship between the perceived presence or absence of each teamwork factor and the perceived success of interagency collabora-

43

tion.Instrumentation

A survey instrument was used to gather information from the defined population. The guidelines established by the American Statistical Association (ASA) (Perber et al., 1980) for the development and conduct of reliable surveys were used by the researcher in the design and implementation of the survey instrument.

The survey instrument (Appendix A) contained four sec­tions important to the design of this research. The first section was designed to collect the necessary demographic information, e.g., position, agency affiliation, state or local level of government. The second section (Item B of PartII) was used to obtain from the population the perceived level of success of interagency collaboration. Section three (Section C of Part II) served to elicit responses regarding the functioning of interagency teams on each of the five teamwork factors identified, i.e., communication, decision making, problem solving, leadership, trust. There were 10 items in this section. Therefore, each factor was measured on two separate dimensions as shown in Table 3.2.

The fourth section was designed to obtain individuals' perception of the relative importance of each of the five teamwork factors.Procedures.

Development and Validation of Instrument The survey

44

TABLE 3.2CORRESPONDENCE OF THE FACTORS WITH THE DIMENSIONS MEASURED

DimensionFactorMeasured

C.l Knowledge about other agencies CommunicationC. 2 Decisions made by the team Decision makingC. 3 Problems being diagnosed Problem solvingC. 4 Feelings being expressed TrustC.5 Direction for task achievement LeadershipC. 6 Leadership manages conflict LeadershipC. 7 Communication between members Commun i ca t i o nC. 8 Trust between members TrustC. 9 Procedures to guide group

in making decisions Decision makingC.10 Uncertainty & resolution

of issues Problem solving

45

instrument was developed and, subsequently, field tested for content validity with twenty (20) doctoral level students in educational administration at the College of William and Mary, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, and Virginia Commonwealth University. The first draft of the instrument contained fifteen items in Part II - Section C (Appendix B). This first draft allowed for 3 items (dimen­sions) to measure each of the 5 factors. The doctoral stu­dents, after having filled out the survey, were asked to identify what construct (i.e.: communication, leadership, decision making, problem solving and trust) each of the 15 items in the survey was investigating (Appendix B). In addi­tion, the survey was distributed to four nationally recog­nized experts in the field of interagency collaboration. They were asked to respond in the same fashion as the doctoral students. In particular, they were asked about the match be­tween the intent of the study and the ability of the survey to collect the information needed.

Based on the comments and recommendations, as well as the analysis of the data from the twenty-four individuals, the instrument was revised. The primary revision of the instrument was the reduction of the 15 items in Part C to 10 items. The criteria for selecting the 10 items was: 1) the item needed an interrater agreement of 80% or better and 2) two items (dimensions) were retained to measure each of the 5 factors. Semantic as well as pragmatic changes were made to'

46

the instrument as a result of the feedback received from the twenty graduate students and the four national experts.

Data Collection The data were gathered via a mail questionnaire which was sent to four hundred-sixty agency personnel in the Commonwealth of Virginia described earlier. For those surveys not returned to the researcher on or before the set deadline, two follow-up requests with replacement copies of the survey and an extended deadline were sent.

The confidentiality of responses made by those who chose to return a completed survey was the one ethical safe­guard provided for in this study. Confidentiality was assured by informing the respondees that the data would be treated as an aggregate with the survey results being presented in the form of summaries. In addition they were assured that there would be no effort, as part of the data analysis, to make comparisons between localities and that all returned surveys would be properly destroyed as soon as the data had been entered on the computer (Ferber, Sheatsley, Turner &Waksberg, 19 80).

Test for Reliability of the Instrument To test for the reliability of the instrument, twenty of the randomly selected respondees were contacted by telephone and were asked one third of the survey items. A Spearman Correlation Coefficient of .9307 (p<.05) between the responses on the telephone survey items and the responses on the mailed survey for the same items was obtained, thereby satisfying the relia-

47

bility requirement for this instrument.Statistical Hypothesis

It was the intent with this study to determine whether teamwork factors were perceived as enhancing the level of success of interagency collaborative efforts being conducted by service agency personnel working with handicapped children and youth in Virginia. The research hypotheses investigated were:

Hq 1 There is a significant positive rela­tionship between the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors.

2Hq There is a significant positive rela­tionship between the perceptions of top-level agency personnel and the low-level agency per­sonnel regarding the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration.

3Hq There is a significant positive rela­tionship between the perceptions of top-level agency personnel and low-level agency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful interagency collaboration.

48

4Hq There is a significant positive rela­tionship between agencies as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful inter­agency collaboration.

Hq 5 There is a significant positive rela­tionship between the perceptions of state inter­agency personnel and local interagency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful interagency collaboration.

Statistical analysisThe means and standard deviations of the response items

on the survey were generated for purposes of examining the distribution of each variable. Contingency tables {crosstab­ulation) were generated of all possible variable combina­tions having potential relationships of significance to the researcher. Chi-square and Lambda statistics were sought to determine the significance level (p < .05) of the respective associations being examined.

Multiple correlation and regression (Discriminant Analy­sis) were used to produce a linear combination of independent variables (perceived existence of teamwork factors) which correlated (p<.05) with the dependent variable (perceived level of success in interagency collaboration).

Multiple correlation and regression (Discriminant Analy-

49

sis) were used to calculate the effects between the two groups (upper- and middle-level personnel) as to which of the five (5) teamwork factors were perceived to contribute signi­ficantly toward successful interagency collaboration (p<.05; Wilks' Lambda coefficient approaching 1).

Discriminant Analysis was used to calculate the effects between the agencies as to which of the five (5) team-work factors were perceived to contribute significantly toward suc­cessful interagency collaboration (Wilks' Lambda coefficient approaching 1).

Discriminant Analysis was used to calculate the effects between the state and local personnel as to which of the five (5) teamwork factors were perceived to contribute significant­ly toward successful interagency collaboration (Wilks' Lambda coefficient approaching 1).

SummaryAdministrators (n=375) of eight governmental service

agencies, state and local, serving handicapped children, ages birth through twenty-one (21), in Virginia responded to the researcher's mailed survey. In addition to the demographic data, information on the perceptions of agency personnel regarding successful interagency collaboration and the per­ceived existence of teamwork factors was collected.

The design of the study was an ex post facto paradigm wherein the following general hypothesis was tested: There would be a significant positive relationship between the per­

50

ceived level of success in interagency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors. Multiple corre­lation and regression were used to produce a linear combina­tion of independent variables (perceived existence of team­work factors) which correlated (p<.05) with the dependent variable (perceived level of success in interagency colla­boration ).

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine whether teamwork factors were perceived as enhancing the level of success of interagency collaboration. In addition, the re­searcher examined these related questions: 1) Was there a relationship between top-level and mid-level agency personnel regarding perceived level of success in interagency collabo­ration as well as teamwork factors which contribute toward successful interagency collaboration?; 2) Was there a rela­tionship between agencies as to which teamwork factors con­tribute toward successful interagency collaboration?; and 3) Was there a relationship between state and local agency per­sonnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward suc­cessful interagency collaboration? The following analyses were performed to provide an aggregate of each survey item and to test each hypothesis using the data received from three hundred seventy-five subjects (n=375).

The responses of each subject on each of the survey items were tabulated using the SPSSX package, CONDESCRIPTIVE, to produce the mean, standard deviation and range for these items. The results are illustrated in Table 4.1.

A review of this data analysis reveals that administra­tors perceived teamwork factors as making a significant con­tribution toward success in interagency collaboration <D.l to D.5), yet, at the same time, it is their perception that these teamwork factors were not as evident in their current interagency contacts (C.l to C.10).

52

TABLE 4.1MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND RANGE OF EACH

SURVEY ITEM (n=375)

Item MeanStandardDeviation Range

Years in position 6.34 5.33 0 26Years with agency 11. 65 7.86 0 - 39Years working collabo-

ratively 13.00 7.52 0 40Telephone contacts

(av.) per month 16.15 26.18 0 300Meetings (av.) per month 3.92 5.41 0 - 70Level of experience in

interagency collabo­ration 3.86 1.01 0 5

Level of success in inter agency collaboration 3 .09 .80 0 . 5

C.l 3.07 .89 0 - 5C.2 2.75 1.02 0 - 5C. 3 3.32 .92 0 - 5C. 4 3.45 1.06 0 - 5C.5 3.00 .97 0 - 5C.6 3.00 .95 0 - 5C.7 3.30 .92 0 - 5C.8 3.12 .97 0 - 5C.9 2.88 1.10 0 - 5CIO 2.93 .98 0 - 5D.l 4.68 .74 0 - 5D. 2 4.20 .86 0 - 5D. 3 4.10 .89 0 - 5D.4 4.25 .82 0 - 5D. 5 4.42 .85 0 5

53

Hypothesis H "This hypothesis states that there is a significant,

positive relationship between the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors.

The responses of each subject as to the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration (Item B of Part II on the survey instrument) as well as to the perceived existence of teamwork factors (Items C.l to C.10 of Part II of the sur­vey instrument) were analyzed using the SPSSX statistical packages, CROSSTABULATIONS AND DISCRIMINANT. Group means and standard deviations of the responses (on a Likert scale of 1 to 5) were tabulated. The results are illustrated in Appendix C, Tables C.l and C.2.

The Chi-square and Pearson correlation coefficient sta- tistics were generated using the SPSS statistical package, CROSSTABULATIONS, to determine if a relationship or associa­tion existed between perceived level of success in inter­agency collaboration (B) and the perceived existence of team­work factors (C.l to C.10). The results of these analyses showed that a significant relationship did exist between sub­jects' (n=375) perception of the level of success in inter­agency collaboration and their corresponding perception as to the level of existence of teamwork factors (Table 4.2).

Other Findings Descriptive statistics and univar­iate tests of significance were next used to obtain informa-

54

tion about the distribution of the variables (C.l to C.10) in the groups (B1 to B5; based on their respective responses to the perceived level of interagency collaboration, each sub­ject was assigned to a group). The variables were considered simultaneously in order to incorporate information about their relationships. The SPSSX statistical package, DISCRIMI­NANT, was used to determine: 1) the level of association that existed within the group means (Wilks' Lambda) and 2) the level of significance for the equality of group means for each variable (F-ratio and significance level) (Table 4.3).

Small values of lambda are associated with functions that have much variability between groups and little varia­bility within groups. Conversely, large values of lambda occur when the mean of the discriminant scores is the same in all groups and there is little between-groups variability. As well, the observed significance level of F for each teamwork factor (p < .05) indicated that the group means were not equal. The results of this analysis indicate that, while there was a significant difference between the groups (Bl to B5) on each of the teamwork factors, certain teamwork factors had greater predictability strength, that is, a lower Wilks' Lambda with, conversely, a higher F-ratio.

Table 4.4 contains the results of the stepwise method of the SPSSX DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS. This method resulted in the identification of those teamwork factors which contribut­ed substantially to group differences. Based on this

55

TABLE 4.2HYPOTHESIS 1 - CHI-SQUARE AND PEARSON CORRELATION BETWEEN

PERCEIVED LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION (B) AND PERCEIVED EXISTENCE OF TEAMWORK FACTORS (C.l TO C.10)

B with:Chi-square d.f.

Signi­ficance

Pearson's correlation

Signi­ficance

C.l 123.536 16 .000* .500 .000*C. 2 28.394 16 .028* .155 .001*C. 3 146.367 16 .000* .506 .000*C. 4 90.005 16 .000* .435 .000*C. 5 107 .881 16 .000* .472 .000*C . 6 46.950 16 .000* .167 .000*C.7 142.824 16 .000* .471 .000*C.8 62.224 16 .000* .225 .000*C. 9 41.626 16 .000* .238 .000*C.10 161.674 16 .000* .554 .000*

* Significant at p < 0.05.

56

TABLE 4.3HYPOTHESIS 1 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-Statistic) AND UNIVARIATE F-RATIO ON PERCEIVED SUCCESS IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

AND PERCEIVED EXISTENCE OF TEAMWORK FACTORS

Wilks' Lambda F Significance

C.l 0.759 29 .33 0.000*C.2 0.969 2.924 0.021*C. 3 0.726 34 .87 0.000*C . 4 0.787 24 .98 0.000*C . 5 0.821 20.22 0.000*C.6 0.966 3 .281 0.012*C . 7 0.768 27 .93 0.000*C.8 0.933 6.654 0.000*C .9 0.940 5.89 8 0.000*C.10 0.686 42 .43 0.000*

Significant at p < .05.

57

TABLE 4.4

HYPOTHESIS 1 -SUMMARY TABLE OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS (Stepwise selection) FOR DETERMINING PREDICTOR VARIABLES

StepVariableEntered

Wilks 1 Lambda Sig. Label

1 C.10 0 .686 0.000* Problem Solving2 C. 3 0.614 0.000* Problem Solving3 C.l 0.573 0.000* Communi cation4 C. 7 0.546 o.ooo* Communication

Significant at p < .05

58

analysis, two teamwork factors, problem solving and communi­cation, provided optimal strength for predicting the level of success in interagency collaboration as perceived by the respondees.

2Hypothesis HqThis hypothesis states that there is a significant

positive relationship between the perceptions of top-level agency personnel and the mid-level agency personnel regarding the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration.

The frequency of responses as to the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration (Item B of Part II on the survey instrument) with reference to either the top or mid-level agency group was tabulated using the SPSS statis­tical package, CROSSTABULATIONS. The results of the cross­tabulations are presented in Table 4.5. A Lambda statistic of0.99899 was generated indicating a high index of association between the two groups on perceived level of success in interagency collaboration.

3Hypothesis HqThis hypothesis states that there is a significant

positive relationship between the perceptions of top-level agency personnel and mid-level agency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful interagency collaboration.

The frequency of responses as to the perceived contri­

59

bution each teamwork factor makes toward interagency collabo­ration (Item D of Part II on the survey instrument) was cal­culated with respect to group membership, i.e., top-level or mid-level in their respective agency. These data were comput­ed using the SPSSX statistical packages, CROSSTABULATIONS AND DISCRIMINANT. Group means and standard deviations of the responses (on a Likert scale of 1 to 5) were tabulated. The results are illustrated in Appendix C (Table C.6).

The results of the DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS are presented in Table 4.6. All Lambda statistics for each of the teamwork factors indicated a high index of association between the two groups on the perceived level of contribution of each factor toward successful interagency collaboration.

Large values of lambda occur when the mean of the dis­criminant scores is the same in all groups and there is lit­tle between-groups variability. As well, the observed lack of significance of F for each teamwork factor indicated that the group means were equal. The results of this analysis indi­cated that, while there was no significant difference between the groups (top- and mid-level) on the contribution each of the teamwork factors makes toward successful interagency col­laboration, there was a high degree of agreement by both groups that each teamwork factor was perceived as making a contribution toward successful interagency collaboration. An examination of the Group Means and Group Standard Deviations

60

TABLE 4.5HYPOTHESIS 2 - CROSSTABULATIONS OF PERCEIVED LEVEL OF SUCCESS

IN INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION WITH TOP-LEVEL AND MID-LEVELAGENCY PERSONNEL

Perceived Level of Success in Interagency Collaboration{Likert scale of 1 to 5)

Row1 2 3 4 5 Total

Age

Le

n v c ey i

Top

Mid

*

***

1.6

3421.8

7447.4

4025.6

74.5

2.9

4821.9

110 50 . 2

5223.7

73.2

15641.6

21958.4

Column* 3 82 184 92 14 375Total** .8 21.9 49.10 24.5 3.7 100.0

♦Frequency of response. **Row percentages.

61

TABLE 4.6HYPOTHESIS 3 - WILKS* LAMBDA (U-Statistic) AND UNIVARIATEF-RATIO ON PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION OF EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR

BY TOP-LEVEL AND MID-LEVEL AGENCY PERSONNEL

Wilks' Lambda F Significance

D.l 0.99213 2.958 0.0863

D.2 0.99649 1.312 0.2527

D . 3 0.99570 1.611 0.2051

D . 4 0.99353 2.430 0.1199

D. 5 0.99757 0.9097 0.3408

62

(Table C.6) illustrated the consistency and high level ofresponses between groups and across teamwork factors.

4Hypothesis HqThis hypothesis states that there is a significant

positive relationship between agencies as to which teamwork factors are perceived as contributing toward successful interagency collaboration.

The frequency of responses as to the perceived contri­bution each teamwork factor makes toward interagency collabo­ration (Item D of Part II on the survey instrument) was cal­culated with respect to group membership, i.e., agency mem- bership. These data were computed using the SPSS statistical packages, CROSSTABULATIONS AND DISCRIMINANT. Group means and standard deviations of the responses (on a Likert scale of 1 to 5) were tabulated. The results are illustrated in Appendix C (Table C.7).

The results of the DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS are presented in Table 4.7. All Lambda statistics for each of the teamwork factors indicated a high index of association between the agencies on the perceived level of contribution of each factor toward successful interagency collaboration.

Large values of lambda occur when the mean of the dis­criminant scores is the same in all groups and there is lit­tle between-groups variability. As well, the observed lack of significance of F for each teamwork factor indicated that the group means were equal with the exception of D.5 (trust). The

63

results of this analysis indicated that, while there was no significant difference between the agencies on four of the five of the teamwork factors, there was a high degree of agreement by these groups that each teamwork factor was per­ceived as making a contribution toward successful interagency collaboration. An examination of the Group Means and Group Standard Deviations (Table C.7) illustrated the consistency and high level of responses between groups and across team­work factors.

Other Findings Table 4.8 contains the results ofthe stepwise method of the SPSSX DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS. This method resulted in the identification of that teamwork factor which contributed substantially to group differences. Based o'n this analysis, one teamwork factor, trust, provided opti­mal strength for differentiating between agencies and forpredicting agency membership.

5Hypothesis H qThis hypothesis states that there is a significant

positive relationship between the perceptions of state inter- agency personnel and local interagency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful interagency collaboration.

The frequency of responses as to the perceived contri­bution each teamwork factor makes toward interagency collabo­ration (Item D of Part II on the survey instrument) was cal-

64

TABLE 4.7

HYPOTHESIS 4 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-Statistic) AND UNIVARIATEF-RATIO ON PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION OF EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR

BY AGENCY

Wilks' Lambda Significance

D.l 0.97185 1.518 0.1595

D.2 0.98535 0.779 7 0.6047

D . 3 0.99048 0.5039 0.8316

D.4 0.97466 1.363 0.2199

D. 5 0.94644 2.967 0.0049*

* Significant at p < .05.

65

TABLE 4.8HYPOTHESIS 4 -SUMMARY TABLE OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

(Stepwise selection) FOR DETERMINING PREDICTOR VARIABLES

Variable Wilks'Step Entered Lambda Sig. Label

1 D.5 0.946 0.005* Trust

Significant at p < .05

66

culated with respect to group membership, i.e., state versus local membership. These data were computed using the SPSSX statistical packages, CROSSTABULATIONS AND DISCRIMINANT.Group means and standard deviations of the responses (on a Likert scale of 1 to 5) were tabulated. The results are illustrated in Appendix C (Table C.8).

The results of the DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS are presented in Table 4.9. All Lambda statistics for each of the teamwork factors indicated a high index of association between each level of government (state vs. local) and the perceived level of contribution of each factor toward successful interagency collaboration. An examination of the Group Means and Group Standard Deviations (Table C.8) illustrated the consistency and high level of responses between groups and across team­work factors.

Other Findings Table 4.9 contains the results of the stepwise method of the SPSSX DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS. This method resulted in the identification of those teamwork fac­tors which contributed substantially to group differences. From Table 4.9, it should be noted that only one variable, leadership, had a significant F-ratio in order to enter the analysis. After D.2 (leadership) was entered into the analy­sis (Table C.9), the interaction of the remaining factors resulted in one additional factor becoming eligible for entry into the analysis, D.5 (trust) (Table C.10). Based on this analysis, two teamwork factors, leadership and trust, provid

67

TABLE 4.9

HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA (U-Statistic) AND UNIVARIATEF-RATIO ON PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION OF EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR

BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

Wilks' Lambda F Significance

D.l 0.99881 0.443 0.5062

D.2 0.98168 6.960 0.0087*

D. 3 0.99933 0.2490 0.6181

D. 4 0.99902 0.3672 0.5449

D.5 0.99911 0.3339 0.5637

Significant at p < .05.

68

TABLE 4.10HYPOTHESIS 5 - SUMMARY TABLE OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

(Stepwise selection) FOR DETERMINING PREDICTOR VARIABLES

Variable Wilks'Step Entered Lambda Sig. Label

1 D.2 0.982 0.009* Leadership2 D.5 0.971 0.004* Trust

* Significant at p < .05

69

ed optimal strength for differentiating between agencies and for predicting the membership in an agency at the state or local level (Table 4-10).

SummaryThe results of the study follow in summary form. Admin­

istrators perceived that teamwork factors made a significant contribution toward success in interagency collaboration. However, it was their perception that these teamwork factors were not as evident in their current interagency contacts. Analyses resulting from the Chi-square and Pearson correla­tion coefficient statistics showed that a significant rela­tionship (p < .05) did exist between subjects' perception of the level of success in interagency collaboration and their corresponding perception as to the level of existence of teamwork factors. Further analysis using univariate tests of significance to obtain information about the distribution of the variables indicated that there was a significant dif­ference (p < .05) between the groups (group membership deter­mined by perceived level of success in interagency collabora­tion) on each of the teamwork factors. As well, a stepwise method of DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS demonstrated that two team­work factors, problem solving and communication, contributed optimal strength for predicting the level of success in interagency collaboration as perceived by local and state agency personnel.

70

There was a high index of association (Lambda =0.99899) between the two groups (top- and mid-level agency personnel) on the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration.

The two groups, top-level and mid-level agency per­sonnel, had a high index of association (Lambda values approximating 1) on the perceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collabo­ration. No significant difference between the groups (top- and mid-level) on the contribution each teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collaboration occurred. This was evidenced by the high level of consistency and responses (means and standard deviations) at the upper end of the scale (i.e., 4 to 5).

There was a high degree of association between the agencies on the perceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collaboration. In other words, there was a high degree of agreement among the respective agency personnel that it was their perception that each teamwork factor makes a significant contribution toward successful interagency collaboration. In addition, a step­wise method of DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS demonstrated that one teamwork factor, trust, contributed substantially to differ­entiating between agencies and predicting the level of per­ceived success in interagency collaboration.

Finally, the results of the data analysis indicated a

71

high index of association between agencies as to the per­ceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes to­ward successful interagency collaboration. Again, this was evidenced in the consistency of high indicators on the scale (4 - 5 on a scale of 1 to 5) between groups and across team­work factors. Based on the results of the DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS, two teamwork factors, leadership and trust, pro­vided optimal strength for differentiating between agencies and for predicting the membership in an agency at the state or local level.

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SummaryThe purpose of this study was to determine the rela­

tionship of teamwork factors to perceived success of inter­agency collaborative. The researcher addressed such questions as: (1) Was there a relationship between the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors? (2) Was there a difference between top-level agency personnel and mid-level agency per­sonnel regarding the perceived level of interagency collabo­ration as well as the teamwork factors which contribute to­ward successful interagency collaboration? (3) Was there a difference among agencies as to which teamwork factors con­tribute toward successful interagency collaboration? and (4) Was there a difference between state level agency personnel and local level agency personnel as to which teamwork factors contribute toward successful interagency collaboration?

Review of the Literature The theoretical rationalefor this study drew from two areas of theory and research: 1) Interorganizational Coordination (Aiken & Hage, 1968; Litwak & Hylton, 19 70; Negandhi, 1975; Schermerhorn, 19 75; Koenig, 1981) and 2) Group Behavior (Back, 1979; Hare, 1962; Koenig, 1981; Lippitt, 1982; Zander, 1979). Interagency collaboration is a planned effort involving personnel from two or more agencies (Stafford, Camp & Meer, 1984) who form an interac­tive working group (teamwork; group behavior) (Hare, 1962). Since interorganizational analysis involves the systematic

73

examination of relationships and interactions between indivi­duals, the theoretical constructs of small group behavior were applied to identify the teamwork factors investigated in this study.

Based on previous findings, the following factors were identified as the key variables for this study: (a) trust,(b) decision making, (c) problem solving, (d) communication and (e) leadership. These variables are the salient features of: (1) the barriers to interagency collaboration, (2) thosefactors which improve interagency collaboration and (3) those factors which critically define teamwork in the group pro­cess .

Research Methodology Administrators (n=375) of eight governmental service agencies, state and local, serving handicapped children, ages birth through twenty-one (21), in Virginia responded to the researcher's mailed survey. The survey instrument was validated with 20 graduate students and 4 national experts in interagency collaboration. A telephone follow-up on certain items in the survey with 26 randomly selected respondees resulted in a significant reliability coefficient {Spearman Correlation Coefficient of .9307).

The survey allowed the researcher to collect, in addi­tion to certain demographic data, information on the percep­tions of agency personnel regarding successful interagency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors.

74

The design of the study was an ex post facto paradigm wherein the following general hypothesis was tested: There would be a significant, positive relationship between the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration and the perceived presence of teamwork factors. Multiple corre­lation and regression analysis were used to produce a linear combination of independent variables (perceived existence of teamwork factors) which correlated (p<.05) with the dependent variable (perceived level of success in interagency collabo­ration ).Major Findings

Data were collected from three hundred seventy-five administrative personnel across eight service agencies in Virginia. These data demonstrated a significant and consist­ent relationship between perceived level of success in in­teragency collaboration and perceived existence, as well as the perceived contribution of teamwork factors in the en­hancement of interagency collaborative efforts. Specific findings from these analyses were as follows:

1. Administrators across the eight agencies perceived that teamwork factors made a significant contribution toward success in interagency collaboration. However, it was their perception that these teamwork factors were not as evident in their interagency contacts.

2. The Chi-square and Pearson correlation coefficient statistics showed that a significant relationship (p < .05)

75

did exist between subjects' perception of the level of suc­cess in interagency collaboration and their corresponding perception as to the level of existence of teamwork factors. Further analyses using univariate tests of significance to obtain information about the distribution of the variables supports this relationship. These analyses indicated that there was a significant difference (p < .05) between the groups (group membership determined by perceived level of success in interagency collaboration) on each of the teamwork factors.

3. There was a high index of association (Lambda = 0,99899) between the top- and mid-level agency personnel on the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration. As well, the two groups had a high index of association (Lambda values approximating 1) on the perceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collaboration. This was evidenced by the consist­ency of responses (means and standard deviations) at the upper end of the scale (i.e., 4 to 5).

4. There was a high degree of association between the agencies on the perceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collaboration. In other words, there was a high degree of agreement among the respective agency personnel that it was their perception that each teamwork factor makes a significant contribution toward successful interagency collaboration. Again, this was evi­

76

denced in the consistency of high indicators on the scale (4 - 5 on a scale of 1 to 5) between groups and across teamwork factors.

5. As well, a stepwise method of DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS was applied to the data in an effort to obtain information about the distribution of certain variables with respect to different groups {e.g., agencies, top- and mid-level agency personnel). The variables were considered simultaneously in order to incorporate information on their relationships. This approach resulted in the identification of those variables which contributed substantially toward group differences thereby providing optimal predictability for group member­ship. The results of this analysis for certain groups are as follows:

a. That two teamwork factors, problem solving and communication, contributed optimal strength for predicting the level of success in inter­agency collaboration.b.That one teamwork factor, trust, contributed to differentiating between agencies as to the contribution this teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collaboration. Generally, personnel from three of the eight agencies per­ceived trust as contributing less to successful interagency collaboration.c. That two teamwork factors (as to the contri-

77

bution made toward successful interagency colla­boration), leadership and trust, provided op­timal strength for predicting the membership for an agency administrator as being at either the state or the local level of government. General­ly, local agency personnel perceived these two teamwork factors as contributing less toward successful interagency collaboration.

ConclusionsRelative to this study and its major findings, the fol­

lowing conclusions can be made:1. Administrators perceived that teamwork factors made

a significant contribution toward success in interagency col­laboration. However, it was their perception that these team­work factors are not as evident in their interagency col­laborative efforts.

2. A relationship did exist between the perceptions of agency personnel as to the level of success in interagency collaboration and their corresponding perception as to the level of existence of teamwork factors.

3. Top- and mid-level personnel within agencies did agree on the perceived level of success in interagency colla­boration.

4. There was agreement between the agencies on the per­ceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes to­ward successful interagency collaboration. Further, they

78

agreed that the contribution by each teamwork factor was a substantial one.

5. Problem solving ability and communication appear to be the two teamwork factors which best predicted the level of perceived success of interagency collaboration.

6. Trust appeared as a factor which differentiated be­tween certain agencies as well as between state and local agency personnel. Local agency personnel did not identify trust as being as important as the other four factors, while three agencies did not view it as important. Even though this differentiation was significant, the over-all perception of the contribution trust makes to successful interagency colla­boration was substantially high.

7. Local level agency personnel did not identify leadership as being as important as the other four factors. Discussion

The effectiveness of any group in any setting is relat­ed to both its capability (i.e., skills) to do the work and its ability to manage itself as an interdependent group of people (Rubin & Beckhard, 1972). Based on a preponderance of findings in the literature regarding interorganizational analysis as well as group dynamics, the following elements of teamwork were identified as key factors to interagency colla­boration: 1) trust, 2) decision making, 3) problem solving,4) communication and 5) leadership.

The data in this study suggested that a) there was a

79

relationship between the perceived level of success in inter­agency collaboration and the perceived existence of these teamwork factors and b) these five teamwork factors were per­ceived as making a significant contribution toward inter­agency collaboration. Based on the indices of association that were generated in this study, it would appear that the higher the level of perceived success in interagency collabo­ration the higher the level of perceived existence of the five teamwork factors.

As anticipated by the researcher, more than 50% of the respondees perceived that the level of success in interagency collaboration was average or less (71.8% responded with a "3" or less on the 5 point scale). Given the relationship between this measure and the perceived level of existence of the respective teamwork factors, it would seem that the per­ceived existence of these factors was average or less than average. At the same time, these same individuals felt that these teamwork factors were necessary to the success of interagency collaboration. Therefore, those involved in interagency collaboration felt that teamwork was necessary to cooperation among agency personnel and that the perceived existence, or the lack thereof, played an important role in their perception of the level of success of interagency col­laboration .

While the researcher recognized the limitations of this study, namely, that the results cannot be used to explain a

80

causal relationship between success in interagency collabora­tion and teamwork factors, these data do seem to support "plausible" explanations of individuals' behavior in inter­agency collaboration {Glock, 1967). This appears partic­ularly relevant regarding the five teamwork factors examined in this study.

The theoretical premise of small group research is that the success of groups is affected by how well individual per­sonalities in the group integrate and by the dynamics of the group interactions as well the processes of the group (Boss, 19 83; Golembiewski, 19 62; Hare, 19 83). In the case of Inter- organizational Theory, the basic premise is that concerted decision making and cooperative planning and program imple­mentation leads to more successful outcomes (Rogers &Mulford, 1982b).

The results of this study showed that administrators, across the eight agencies, perceived teamwork factors as enhancing interagency collaboration. As well, the significant relationship between perceived level of success in inter­agency collaborative efforts and perceived existence of team­work factors is expected based on the theoretical foundations and research findings of small group theory and interorgani- zational theory.

Earlier, the researcher suggested that the respondees may have been influenced by certain expectations and precon­ceived notions (McDaniel, 1974; Ysseldyke, Algozzine &

81

Richey, 1982) in making decisions in response to each survey item. While this may have been the case with this survey, the researcher is reminded that little change occurs in any social system (Koenig, 1981) or in the level of conflict (Hall et al., 1977) without a change in the perceptions of the individuals involved or in the political realities of the multi-agency environment (Rogers & Mulford, 1982a).

The appearance of certain teamwork factors (i.e., problem solving and communication; trust; leadership) as pre­dictors of group membership (i.e., level of success in inter­agency collaboration; state and local level; across agency) was an interesting finding. Based on the analysis, the per­ceptions of teamwork factors existing at a low level resulted in a significant probability that the perceived level of suc­cess in interagency collaboration would be low. In addition, the findings indicate that trust served to distinguish be­tween certain agencies and, in conjunction with leadership, between local and state level personnel. Certain agencies as well as local level personnel perceived trust as contributing less toward successful interagency collaboration than the other four factors.

However, there were no research findings in the litera­ture that would support or help explain this phenomenon. The researcher did not identify any studies which examined all five teamwork factors at once for comparison purposes, partic­ularly as these factors relate to interagency collaboration.

82

Therefore, the results of this study regarding the distin­guishing power of these factors needs to be more carefully researched.Recommendations for Future Research

Several recommendations can be made for further research which would improve on the design and outcomes of this study. Also, there are certain limitations to this study which the researcher believes should be overcome in an effort to improve the over-all results of a study of this kind.These recommendations are as follows:

1. In addition to a survey approach, an ethnographic approach should be used. This would include forms of data collection such as observation of interagency collaboration in process, and analyses of reports and other records.

2. Conflict is indicative of interorganizational coor­dination. To enhance collaboration, it should be minimized (Hall et al., 1977). Therefore, future research should include the collection and analysis of data on the level of conflict as it relates to success in interagency collabora­tion. It may be that the predictive quality of certain team­work factors (i.e., leadership, trust, problem solving, com­munication) is associated with the level of conflict in inter­agency collaboration; that is, the higher the level of con­flict the more discrepant the responses on the trust factor.

3. A study of the effects of training on teamwork factors as enhancing interagency collaboration would be use-

83

ful in determining whether a causal effect does exist.

APPENDIX A Survey Instrument

85

SURVEYINTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

PART I - DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATIONThe information in this section of the survey is neces­

sary in order that the information in the second section (PART II) may be properly treated statistically. This infor­mation will be treated with the utmost confidence and will be reported only in aggregate and statistical form.Name:__________________ Location (county/city):_________________Agency:_________________________ Check one: ___ State LocalPosition (title):_________________ Telephoned____) -_________Years in this position:_____ Years with this agency:_______Years working collaboratively with other agencies:________On the average, how often each month do you have contact with other agency personnel in the following two dimensions:

telephone meetings* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PART II - INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION & TEAMWORKFor each of the questions or statements, please record

(by circling the number of your choice) on a scale of one to five (1 to 5) your perceptions of interagency collaborative efforts in the provision of services for handicapped children and youth.A. Over the past year, your experience with interagency activ­ities can be best described as: (circle a number)

1. no cooperation existed2. very little cooperation existed3. cooperation existed only on a client-by-client basis4. cooperation existed among members of a recognized

group but no formal planning took place5. cooperation existed among members of a recognized

group based on a formalized plan

-over-

86page 2Interagency survey (cont.)

B. How successful would you rate interagency team efforts in identifying and providing services for handicapped children across agencies? (circle a number)

1. very poor2. poor3. good4. very good5. excellent

C. Please circle the number ( 1 - 5 ) which most nearly des­cribes (relative to your experience) how interagency teams function on each of the following dimensions.1. knowledge about 1 2 3

other agencies islow

2. decisions are made 1 2 3 by consensus ofthe team

3. problems are not 1 2 3diagnosed well

4. feelings are not 1 2 3freely expressedby the team members

5. direction lacking 1 2 3which hampers task achievement

6. group leadership 1 2 3facilitates manage­ment of conflict

7. communication 1 2 3between membersis infrequent

8. trust between mem- 1 2 3 bers is high

4 5 knowledge about otheragencies is high

4 5 decisions are made• by part of the team

4 5 problems are clearlydefined by the team

4 5 feelings are freelyexpressed by the team members

4 5 direction clearwhich enhances task achievement

4 5 group leadership doesnot facilitate manage­ment of conflict

4 5 communication betweenmembers is frequent

4 5 trust between membersis low

-next page-

87

page 3Interagency survey (cont.)

procedures do not exist in guiding the group to reaching decisions

9. procedures exist 1 2 3 4 5in guiding the group to reaching deci sions

10. uncertainty is high due to the lack of solutions of issues

uncertainty is reduced through logical resolution of issues

D. On a scale of 1 to 5, please circle the number (1 being not important and 5 being very important) which most nearly describes the relative importance you would place on each of the following team factors as enhancing interagency collaborative efforts.

1. Communication 1 2 3 4 52. Leadership 1 2 3 4 53. Decision-making procedures 1 2 3 4 54. Problem-solving skills 1 2 3 4 55. Trust among the members 1 2 3 4 5

Your cooperation and contribution of time in completing this sur­vey is deeply appreciated. If you are interested in a summary of the findings of this study, please check the following statement:

I am interested in receiving a summary of thefindings.

Please forward the completed survey in the enclosed envelope.

88SAMPLE LETTER

May 27, 1986

Dear Colleague,I am asking for your assistance in collecting information about interagency collaboration by completing the enclosed survey.Interagency collaboration, whether at the state or local level of government, implies the existence of a group of per­sonnel from the various human service agencies working to­gether to plan and provide services. The effectiveness of these groups is related to both their capability to do the work and their ability to manage themselves as an interdepen­dent group of people.Does teamwork improve the work of interagency teams? What are the teamwork factors which improve the functioning of inter­agency teams? Tb se questions serve as the foundation for a research probL. being investigated as part of my doctoral dissertation. l\ an effort to seek answers to these ques­tions, the attached questionnaire has been developed which focuses on interagency collaboration and on several dimen­sions of teamwork.This endeavor has the support and endorsement of Mr. William L. Lukhard, Commissioner, Department of Social Services, as well as the State Interagency Coordinating Council. Please take about fifteen minutes to complete the attached survey. I realize you have a busy schedule but the results of this sur­vey will provide a wealth of information to assist agency administrators and the Interagency Coordinating Council in the coordination of service delivery to handicapped children in this Commonwealth.Again, I appreciate the time and effort you are giving to respond to this survey. Should you have any questions about the activity or the survey, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 225-2873 (335-2873 on SCATS).

Sincerely,

EnclosuresLeslie W. Jones

89SAMPLE FOLLOW-UP LETTER

July 26, 1986

Dear Colleague,Several weeks ago, I asked for your assistance in collecting information about interagency collaboration. As of this date, I nave not received a return of the survey that was sent to you.Your input into this interagency study is important. If you have not responded to the previous mailing, please take a moment of your time to fill out the duplicate of the survey which is enclosed with this letter. Should you have forwarded the survey to me already, please ignore this second request.Thank you for your time and effort in assisting me in this project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 225-2873 (335-2873 on SCATS).

Sincerely,

EnclosureLeslie W. Jones

APPENDIX BSurvey Instrument Draft and Validation Form

91SURVEY

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

PART I - DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATIONThe information in this section of the survey is neces­

sary in order that the information in the second section (PART II) may be properly treated statistically. This infor­mation will be treated with the utmost confidence and will be reported only in aggregate and statistical form.Name:_____________________Location (county/city):_______________Agency:_________________________ Check one: ___State LocalPosition (title):__________________ Telephone:^___ ) _______Years in this position:_____ Years with this agency:_______Years working collaboratively with other agencies:________On the average, how often each month do you have contact with other agency personnel in the following two dimensions:

telephone meetings* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PART II - INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION & TEAMWORKFor each of the questions or statements, please record

(by circling the number of your choice) on a scale of one to five (1 to 5) your perceptions of interagency collaborative efforts in the provision of services for handicapped children and youth.A. Over the past year, your experience with interagency activ­ities can be best described as: (circle a number)

1. no cooperation existed2. very little cooperation existed3. cooperation existed only on a client-by-client basis4. cooperation existed among members of a recognized

group but no formal planning took place5. cooperation existed among members of a recognized

group based on a formalized plan

-over-

92page 2Interagency survey (cont.)

B. How successful would you rate interagency team efforts m identifying and providing services for handicapped children across agencies? (circle a number)

1. very poor2. poor3. good4. very good5. excellent

C. Please circle the number ( 1 - 5 ) which most nearly des­cribes (relative to your experience) how interagency teams function on each of following dimensions.1. knowledge about 1 2 3

other agencies islow

2. achievement of 1 2 3goals supportedby planning

3. assignment of 1 2 3tasks is frag­mented

4. decisions are made 1 2 3 by part of theteam

5. problems are not 1 2 3diagnosed well

6. feelings are not 1 2 3freely expressedby the team members

7. direction lacking 1 2 3 which hampers task achievement

8. the team is open; 1 2 3new members areoriented quickly into group activities

4 5 knowledge about otheragencies is high

4 5 achievement ofgoals not supported by planning

4 5 assignment oftasks is well coordinated

4 5 decisions are madeby consensus

4 5 problems are clearlydefined by the team

4 5 feelings are freelyexpressed by the team members

4 5 direction clearwhich enhances task achievement

4 5 the team is closed;new members are ig­nored by the team

-next page-

93

page 3Interagency survey (cont.)

9. group leadership 1 facilitates manage­ment of conflict

group leadership does not facilitate manage­ment of conflict

10. communication between members is low and is confused

communication between members is high and is understood

11. trust between members is low

3 4 trust between members is high

12. group meetings usually accom­plish what is necessary

13. ideas and infor­mation are sel­dom exchanged be­tween members

3 4

3 4

group meetings usually do not accomplish what is necessary

ideas and information are often exchanged between team members

14. procedures exist in guiding the group to reaching consensus

3 4 procedures do not exist in guiding the group to reaching consensus

15. uncertainty is high due to the lack of solutions of issues

uncertainty is reduced through logical resolution of issues

-over-

94page 4Interagency survey (cont.)

D. On a scale of 1 to 5, please circle the number (1 being not important and 5 being very important) which most nearly describes the relative importance you would place on each of the following team factors as enhancing interagency collaborative efforts.

1. Communi cation 1 2 3 4 52. Leadership 1 2 3 4 53. Decision-making procedures 1 2 3 4 54. Problem-solving skills 1 2 3 4 55. Trust among the members 1 2 3 4 5

Your cooperation and contribution of time in completing this sur­vey is deeply appreciated. If you are interested in a summary of the findings of this study, please check the following statement:

I am interested in receiving a summary of the findings.

Please send the completed survey in the enclosed envelope to Mr. Leslie W. Jones.

95

Validation of Survey InstrumentINTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

Your assistance in validating the attached survey instrument titled "Interagency Collaboration" is greatly appreciated. Please respond candidly to each of the questions that follow:1. Take the survey and fill out PART I - Demographic Information. In doing so, did any of the directions or re­quests for information appear to be unclear as to intent. If so, indicate here or on the survey form what elements were unclear.Comments:

2. Please respond to items "A" and "B" of PART II - Interagency Collaboration and Teamwork. Again, in doing so, did any of the directions or requests for information appear unclear as to intent. If so, indicate here or on the survey form what elements were unclear.Comments:

3. Item "C" of PART II (containing 15 items) has a different format. Please fill out items 1 through 15 in section C as per the directions. Do the directions appear to be clear? If not, please comment:

Next step - you will note that page 2 of this set of direc­tions is a matrix. Please take this matrix and, for each of the items (1 - 15) of section C, mark (X) the box which cor­responds to the teamwork factor (communication, leadership, decision-making, problem-solving and trust) that you perceive this item to be measuring. For example, item 1 deals with "knowledge about other agencies..."; decide which of the 5 teamwork factors you feel this item is measuring and place an X in the corresponding box of the matrix. Item 0 serves as an example.Please proceed to fill out the matrix using the items 1 through 15 of section C.

-over-

Place

an "X

u in

the

box

which

corr

espo

nds

to the

factor

you

feel

is

being

measured

by eac

h item.

Item

0 serves

as an

example

only

96

©in

iH

i—I

CN

rH I—I

01

CO

ID

in

r o

csl

1—

-

” "

r-

P

3a • » »•3 01 Cnp «• 3 3•H 3 ■H ■rHS. 0 M >*H M 3 rH

P Oi a 03 *H i 3O si 3 13 *»H 01 O BP 3 p *H 3 **0 3 3 3 r“l pP g >3 •H p COO g 3 o 0 33 O 3 3 p PP U 31 Q Oi EH

*•kHe■KHeHe*HeHeHeHe**HeHeHe•K**■k■k•k•k•k•kHeHeHe

30 0 5) >iP M CCIin q) ap >3 3 0o xi p

oua 3 o oO Sp 3 &>, U) CO 3 3o•H+1

COa> _0n3 Cn 3 3 0)

(D CO 3 T3 _ !p 3 3 O 3 >1

It)

sOrH3n

3pOa

•h >O pPP r 0 4H

C • It)

P P 0) nj Oi

EH OJ 03

HHOS<

O iO IPd) o d) pS 0)

D 0) CO Si c a m o o

>H 'H Q) P P P o o id 3 o p

p

*po

CO cdo*ocoid

d)cor>

P 'C 3O d)Si rH P rH

•H P P 3 .3 dl P • 3 3 fP n) S 1) 4IS>rHOiP

3 - Oo x> o 3J 3 ,3

rH CD O > C 3 O si

p3 •3 3

Pa 3OU

OEh

3 >OP P

>i Pi 3 3 g OB -H >1

33 P3 3 33O O rH3 >i 33 Otp > Si -3 *o *d p to r*3 •H m3 •P-S3 3 3 00•H >i P CN3 3 3 13 3 > 3 inO H p s cn3 3 g mH 001 to oo toP 3 EHt-H P Si p <3 p 3 O•O o cnP IP >io rH p> 3 33 o3 > •• 33 3 ■—1333•H 3 m3 si ■rH x r-3 o P ■H 003 3 P CN01 P P 1•H O 3 3 insi P a a cnp

01 CO3CN

3 P •rH P ■=3'•H p si P oo P 003 PI 01S P 3 3 p3 P •H 3Co 3 33 P p P 33•H 3 3 3 3P o P O si01 >1 • o o*H & O 33 3 0 p si 33 3 o P3 3 •rHh. Dip 3P p 3 0 S S3o 3 a p—HP P 3 3 33 P > o 3rrj rH 3 3 •H 03 rH 3 P3 P u HO 3 33 33 Ol 3 36 u 3 Oi 3•rH o 3 g 3 3P 3 rH 53•rH 0Oi P si •rHP h. 01 P P3 3 3O O 01 33 3tP >i 3 3 CN 3

■H 01 tfP O 33 O 33O P 3 rH 3 ipP P CJ 3 3

3 3 3 33 U 3 3O 3 3 3 3>i 3 P 3 3 >

P 3 X) 3 3M 3 3 P o S3 •rH 33 Oi3 3 3 3 3 3si COP 3 3 0Eh 3 01 D P >i

APPENDIX CGroup Means, Group Standard Deviations,

and Discriminant Functions and Correlationson:

Perceived Success in Interagency Collaboration, Perceived Level of Existence of Teamwork Factors, and Perceived Level

of Contribution Each Teamwork Factor Gives toward InteragencyCollaboration

Group

Means

on Perceived

Success

in In

teragency

Coll

abor

atio

n (B)

with

Perceived

Level

of Existence

of Teamwork

Factors

(C.l

to C.10)

11 r-~ t" 00

O 1 in cn OrH 1 00 co r^

• j ■ • • •1 rH CM CM COuiii r - CM rH cr>i VO rH CM cn

O'. 1 VO in 00 CM* 1 • * • •

O 11■

CM CM CM cn

111 r - cn CN CM1 VO 00 in o

00 t VO VO rH• 1 * • • •

a ii■

CM CM cn ro

1ii O O CM oi o rH in

r - i o VO cn r-*• 1 t • • •

IU 1

i

CM CM cn cn

ii O O in CMi O 00 CTV in

VO 1 O C" <Ti rH• 1 t • * *

U 1 1

CM CM CM cn

111 O CO in o1 © t - o 00

in i o co o cn• j • • • ■

U 1 1

cn CM cn cn

111 cn CM VO1 cn cn CMI cn VO in O'.

» f • « » *O t

r■CM CM cn cn

1ii t" o\ a> CMi VO •n* in r -

m | VO in cn i ' '* j * » * *

1O 1

1

CM CM cn cn

11 r~- cn r - 001 vo C ' rH e'­

CM 1 VO in en• j • * * •

U 1 1

rH CM CM CM

111 cn 00 CO cn1 cn r - CJV cn

i—! j cn cn O in• 1 • * • *

O 1 1 1 1

CM CM cn cn

»111 rH CM m ■*r

CQ

98r - rovo in cnVO <n •

• • » UCN

m WXI

O 00r-* in 4J <in r - Ehro 00 rH

• • 0)ro CN m 03

0 cn

<13ro r* rH C

o id or—t i—i 0 ■r|

* • 01 -Pro ro id

X> PP Oaj XI

ro rH -x id •O •H <—! —>

rH ro rH S9 o airo O H-l

co > i

*H U XJ<Tt in XI C o(N cr\ id ai <d

a \ p tT> 03• o id

ro CN Si p >iid a) xjrH -PrH a ra

ro ro 0 •H <Do u p

rH o a 3• ■ >1 •h cn

cn O idc cn 03a) p etn o

ro in id h-> cn"S’ P o p

H a) id o• -u vp x>cn c o

*rl x i idP MH

c or* ■r| 5 XJ

CN i—f 6 xjcn UJ Id -rl

• • 01 <U Scn <13 XJ

U cnO mh e3 O 03

O CM CO XJo in 03 -Ho r - MH CJ• 0 a oro CM Q) rH

rH X)0) cn mh> *H O

O'! CM <13 XCN P~ rH <13 t7>

O C• * H3 -H

ro cn <13 <13 XJ> > in

•»H ■H -rHi—t 03 <13 rHid O CJ+J P P P0 0) <13 O

in EH & (X MH

IE II

m O

99

ao v—l«4-1 ©(0 rHu •o o

XIid o

rH PrH0 rH

U •a

Sh -—**0c 0)<u P01 o(0 PP o0) id

4J IPgH M

PG O

"H 101 (0<n QJ

CM a> H• o

o o MH3 o

w COa ojta uc dl c

> a)■H pqj 01o *rlp Xai w

CM4H

g oo

rH01 (1)c >o <u

•H t JPid 03

•H 0)> >o> •HQ oj

o*a Pp a>id P j

• aG X3Id Pp «Hco

a3sU

i ro CM CO H’ ©O 1 © O 03 ■H i"~ I " ©rH | CO 00 © 00 © © •

• 1 • • ■ • • • » u1 o © o o o o

U 1 © W1 t-31 0 m1 N CO CO © iH © ■P g1 CO r o 1—1 r-> 00 © Eh

C l 1 © i—1 o o © o i—1• | • • * • • • dJ

a i 03 i—1 rH rH iH i—H MH dJi 0 COj +m0*i d)i r - r - i n O VO © rH Gi r - © ro ■H O id O

00 1 in © © rH a i o •H• 1 » * * ■ * ■ cn p

U 1 o o o >H iH © <d1 p p1 P ot 0} XI1 o CD OV © id •1 © CD Ol i—l -H rH n

r - i o t " © © © ^3 rH S• j • • • » • • '— o QJ

U 1 rH O o o o o O -P1 G -H1 0 >i1 •H o x :1 O o LO © cn © P a u1 O ro © © in © id ai id

CO I © a i ro o © P CJi dJ• 1 • » « « • • o id

U 1 iH o o rH rH © X) pI cd aj J31 *—i + j1 ■H C T31 O CD CM CO CM 0 •H d)1 O OI © VO r~ o p

in i O r~ © Ol VO © G 3t 1 » • • • • • >1 •h cn

U 1 iH o O o o o CJ id1 c 01 d)1 QJ p S1 tJi o1 r - © in Ol o © id ■P 011 r - VO © © r - © P O P

-ST 1 in © Ol © r - © OJ G O* I • • • * • • p MH P

O 1 © i—1 o o o rH g o1 ■H M G1 P MH1 g O1 r - i—1 © © © CO ■rl S X!1 r - © © CM rH § P

ro 1 in 00 r - r~ © © 01 Id *H• t • « ■ * ■ ■ 0) dl $

U 1 o o o o © © QJ P1 u 01I o p er 3 o qji in © Ol © rH cn pi m <y\ r^ © © 04 di "H

CM I iH <Ti Ol © o O mh o• 1 * • • • * « o G ©

CJ 1 rH o o !—1 rH iH dj i—ii rH pi CD 01 MHi > -H 0i CO o © o CO QJ Xi CN © Ol H 1 © CO rH OJ ©

rH 1 in r- r' r- r- CO C• 1 • • • ■ « • T3 rG rrH

U 1 iH o o © o o 0) (1) p1 > > 0}1 •H • H -H1 rH QJ QJ H1 nJ O O1 4-1 p P P1 o qj QJ 01 rH 04 © © EH Ai Ai Mm

II II03 m O

100

TABLE C.3 CORRESPONDENCE OF THE FACTORS WITH THE DIMENSIONS MEASURED

DimensionFactorMeasured

C.l Knowledge about other agencies Communi cation(D .1)C. 2 Decisions made by the team Decision-making(D.3)C. 3 Problems being diagnosed Problem-solving(D.4)C. 4 Feelings being expressed Trust(D.5)C . 5 Direction for task achievement Leadership(D.2)C. 6 Leadership manages conflict Leaderships. 2)C.7 Communication between members Communication(D.1)C. 8 Trust between members Trust(D.5 )C . 9 Procedures to guide group

in making decisions Decision-making(D.3)C.10 Uncertainty & resolution

of issues Problem-solving(D.4)

TABL

E

101

*1'U

c•H 03 Hcn O 01 fa QJ O CJ 03 U fa d CO uT3QJ>•HQJ 0) CJ Eh U0) MH fa O0) CJaQJ

co + j

ofa03 •Hxgf HUz

tz> qj fa >

•rHEH QJ Z CJ< U Z QJ H faaH fa fa fa O *w CO 3 HQ C

Oi d * Hfa CJ 03 H i-t Z O O XJ Z 03< iH U H

O I o

coH>iCJG<Uco tn

fa 03CCEh QJO fa fa cltH HDC

1 o o cn rH1 o ro in rH• 1 o C" a \ IDtJV 1 • ■ • •

•H 1 o o o O03 11|1k 1

f a 1 VO* | H CO rH

t3 1 111 ro CO ro 001 >H CTv co in •1 in O ID CN 011 1 • • • » •H-H • 1 ro VO o o 03X! tT t CN >1CJ CO I CN rH

rri11 c1 nS11 QJ- 03 1 VO 00 a> fa01 T l 1 *3* 00 ay a\ faM XI 1 in CO ayrH e 1 • • • « G•H 03 1 o o o o ■H£ d 11 031 cM 1 0OJ 1 •Hfa C 1 fafa a i a rH CN cn CJ03 fa t cd

rH 1 fam iCJ 1 fa

•H 1 D" i—1 vo Gg • 1 vo CN m CN «SO H 1 VO rH o o GC 3h 1 ■ • • • ■H03 O 1 o O o o eO C) 1 •H1 n1 r- r- rH o CJ■ 1 <31 r- ay o 03g fa I • • • • •Hd o t [■" ay ay oCJ Q, t CTi ay ay o1 rH 1—11 Qjfa 1 CJO 1 r- rH N* CTV •H• 1 CO 00 rH o gfa 3-1 1 • • • • oCJ 03 1 r- H o o C!fa > 1 1 a\ nJcj11 1 ■srG QJ 1 rH in !—1 1—1qj d i O rH o o QJD lrH 1 CO O o o fa

■H 03 1 • • » * faW > 1 o o o o

| 031|| ccl

Z 1 aO 1 •K He * ■Kfa I rH CN ro *

102

TABLE C.5HYPOTHESIS 1 - POOLED WITHIN-GROUPS CORRELATIONS BETWEEN

DISCRIMINATING VARIABLES AND CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS

FUNC 1 FUNC 2 FUNC 3 FUNCC.10 0.754* -0.482 -0.006 -0.446C. 3 0.682* 0.562 -0.380 -0.274C . 4 0.517* 0.112 0.135 -0.073C. 5 0.379* 0.084 -0.054 -0.053

. C.8 0.280* -0.014 -0.019 0.011C. 6 0.234* -0.10 2 -0.04 7 0.066C. 2 0.191* -0.039 -0.09 6 -0.007C.9 0.124* -0.078 -0.006 -0.023C.l 0. 627 0.214 0.726* 0.180

|It"•:Ui1Ii 0 .613 -1.22 6 -0.312 0.69 0'* Variables have been grouped within functions based on the largest size of the coefficient across functions.

103

TABLE C.6HYPOTHESIS 3 - GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR AGENCY LEVEL GROUPS (TOP & LOW) WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION

EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR MAKES TOWARD SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCYCOLLABORATION

MeansAgencyLevel

TopLowTotal

D.l D.2 D . 3 D . 4 D.54.6034.7354.680

4.135 4 .2374.19 5

4.032 4 .1514.101

4.1734.3064 .250

4.372 4 .4574 .421

Standard DeviationTop 0 .832 0.888 0.905 0.859 0.882Low 0.659 0.834 0.883 0.815 0.825Total 0.737 0.857 0.89 3 0 .815 0.849

D.l to D.5 = respectively, Communication, Leadership,Decision-making, Problem-solving, Trust.

104

TABLE C.7HYPOTHESIS 4 - GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH AGENCY WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR MAKES TOWARD SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

MeansAgency

D.l D.2 D . 3 D . 4 D.51 4.455 4.060 4.000 4.061 3.8792 4.763 4.316 4.000 4 .263 4.5533 4 .69 2 4.210 4.168 4 .280 4.5044 4.770 4 .462 4.077 4 .462 4 .4625 4.69 8 4.038 4.151 4.170 4.3776 4 .871 4 .087 4.174 4.522 4 .5227 4.786 4 .262 4.09 5 4.357 4 .59 58 4 .400 4.2667 3.900 4 .000 4 .200

TOTAL 4.680 4 .19 5 4.101 4.251 4.421Standard Deviations

1 1.003 1.088 1.061 1.059 1.2192 0.751 0.873 0.959 0.978 0.8283 0.704 0.871 0.831 0.745 0.79 54 0.599 0.776 1.038 0. 660 0.7765 0.668 0.854 0.794 0.753 0.7406 0.344 0.848 0.717 0.665 0.59 37 0. 682 0.767 0.878 0.759 0.7358 0.932 0.640 1.155 0.910 0.961

Total 0.738 0.857 0.89 3 0.815 0.849D.l to D.5 = respectively, Communication, Leadership, Decision-making, Problem-solving, Trust.

10 5

TABLE C.8HYPOTHESIS 5 - GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR

GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL GROUPS {STATE & LOCAL) WITH PERCEIVED LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION EACH TEAMWORK FACTOR MAKES TOWARD

SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

Means

11 1 I 1 I t 1 1 1 1a

i•

fH

1 1 i1

II

Factors D.2 D .3 D.4

i ii I I

a i

■ J

U1

. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1

StateLocal

4.6214.691

4.466 4 .145

4 .155 4.091

4.310 4 .240

4 .362 4.432

Total 4.680 4.19 5 4.101 4.250 4.421Standard Deviation

StateLocal

0.6160.758

0 .754 0 .867

0.914 0.89 0

0.7310.830

0 .788 0 .860

Total 0.738 0.857 0.89 3 0.815 0.849D.l to D.5 = respectively, Communication, Leadership,Decision-making, Problem-solving, Trust.

106

TABLE C.9HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA AND EQUIVALENT F AT STEP I

At step 1, D.2 was included in the analysis.Degrees of Freedom Significance

Wilks' Lambda 0.98168 1 1 373Equivalent F 6.95981 1 373 0.0087

107

TABLE C.10HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA AND SIGNIFICANCE OF F AFTER STEP I IN DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS - STEPWISE

VariableSignif. of F to enter

Wilks 1 Lambda

D.l 0.0442 0.97104D.3 0.3438 0.97932D. 4 0.4779 0.98035D.5 0.0428 0.97090

108

TABLE C. 11HYPOTHESIS 5 - WILKS' LAMBDA AND EQUIVALENT F AT STEP II

At step 2, D.5 was included in the analysis.Degrees of Freedom Significance

Wilks' Lambda Equivalent F

0.97090 2 1 373 5.57560 2 372 0.0041

References

110

ReferencesAdamack, R. J. & Lavin, B. F. (1975). Interorganizational

exchange: a note on the scarcity hypothesis. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganizational Theory. Kent,Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Aiken, M. & Hage, J. (1967). Program change and organiza­tional properties: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 503-519.

Aiken, J. & Hage, J. (1968). Organizational interdependenceand intraorganizational structure. American Sociologi­cal Review, 22, 912-930.

Aiken, M., Dewar, R., DiTonaso, N., Hage, J. & Zeitz, G.(1975). Coordinating Human Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Aldrich, H. E. (19 79). Organizations and environments Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : Prentice-Hall.

Aldrich, H. E. (1975). An organization-environment perspec­tive on cooperation and conflict between organizations in the manpower training system. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganizational Theory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Althauser, R. P. & Heberlein, T. A. (1970). Validity and the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In E. F. Borgatta & G. W. Bohrnstedt (eds.), Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ill

Aram,

Back,

Baker,

Bales,

Bartee

Bass,

Becker

Benson

I. D. & Stratton, W. E. (1974). The development of interagency cooperation. Social Science Review, 48, 412-421.(. W. (1979 ). The small group-tight rope between socio­logy and personality. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, (2), 283-294.L. E. & Clark, D. L. (eds.). (1981). Perspectives on interorganizational relationships, alternative per­spectives on organizations: a synthesis for educators. San Fransisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.R. (1977). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press.E. M. & Cheyunski, F. (19 77). A methodology for pro­

cess oriented organizational diagnosis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13, (3), 53-61.U (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper & Row.M. H. (1970). Factors affecting diffusion of innova­

tions among professionals. American Journal of Public Health, 60, 294-304.J. K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a

political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229-249.

112

Benson, K. J. (1982). A framework for policy analysis. In Rogers, D. L., Whetten, D. A. & Associates. Inter- organizational coordination: theory, research, and implementation. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Berkowitz, B. (19 74). Stages of group development in a mental health team. Psychiatric Quarterly, 48, (3), 309-319.

Boss, R. W. (1978). The effects of leader absence on a con­frontation team-building design. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, (4), 469-478.

Boss, R. W. (1983). Team building and the problem of regres- ion: the personal management interview as an interven- tion. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, (1), 67-83.

Cafferty, T. & Streufert, S. (1974). Conflict and attitudestoward the opponent: an application of the Collins and Hoyt change theory to groups in interorganizational conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, (1), 48-53.

Casey, J. T., Gettys, C. P., Pliske, R. M. & Mehle, T.(1984). A partition of small group predecision perfor­mance into informational and social components. Organ­izational behavior and human performance, 34, 112-139.

Conyne, R. (19 82). Group work and organizational development. Editorial Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 1_,

(1 ), 2.

113

Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cook, N. C. (1979). Interagency relationships. Charlottes­ville, VA: Mid-Atlantic Center for Community Educa­tion, University of Virginia.

Dahrendorf, R. (19 59). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

DeWitt, J. (1977). Managing the human service system: whathave we learned from services integration? Human Ser­vices (Monograph series), _4, 1-105.

Eichhorn, S. (1973). Becoming: the actualization of indivi­dual differences in five student health teams. The Bronx, N. Y.: Institute for Health Team Development.

Elder, J. 0. (1982). Interagency coordination for young han­dicapped children. In Woodard, M., Cooper, J. H. & Trohanis, P. L. (eds.). Interagency case book. Chapel Hill, N. C.: University of North Carolina Printing & Duplicating.

Emery, S. E. & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21-32.

Federal Register. (1977). U.S. Department of Health, Educa­tion and Welfare. "Part II: Education of Handicapped Children: Implementation of Part B of the Education of Handicapped Act," 42 , August 23.

114

Fennell, M. L. & Sandefur, G. D. (1983). Structural clarity of interdisciplinary teams: a research note. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, (2), 193-202.

Ferber, R., Sheatsley, P., Turner, A. & Waksberg, J.(1980). .What is a survey?. Washington, D. C.: American Statis­tical Association.

Frye, N. & Yaney, J. P. (1977). Organizational change through feedback and research (DD) efforts. Group and Organi­zation Studies, 2, (3), 296-309.

Galaskiewicz, J. & Shatin, D. (1981). Leadership and net­working among neighborhood human service organiza­tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 454-448.

Gardner, E. A. & Snipe, J. N. (1970). Toward the coordination and integration of personal health service. American Journal of Public Health, 60, 2068-2078.

Glock, C. Y. (ed.) (1967). Survey research in the social sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Golembiewski, R. (1962). The small group. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gore, J. S. & Nelson, H. Y. (19 79). Interagency cooperation - an investigation of human service agencies' collabora­tion in the delivery of services. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society: Burlington, VT.

115

Guzzo, R. A. & Waters, J. A. (1982). The expression of affect and the performance of decision-making groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, (1), 67-74.

Hage, G. (1975). A strategy for creating interdependent deli­very systems to meet complex needs. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganizational Theory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Hall, H. (1975). The intangible human factor: the most cru­cial variable. In J. Elder & P. Magrab (eds.), Inter­organizational theory, Kent, Ohio: Kent State Univer­sity Press.

Hall, R. & Clark, J. (1975). Problems in the study of inter­organizational relationships. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganizational Theory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Hall, R., Clark, J. P., Girodano, P. C., Johnson, P. V. &Van Roekel, M. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 457-474.

Halpert, B. P. (1982). Antecedents. In Rogers, D. p.,Whetten, D. A. & Associates. Interorganizational co­ordination: theory, research, and implementation.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Hare, A. P. (1975). Handbook of small group research. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

116

Hare, A. P. (1976). Small groups and social interaction. New York, N. Y.: The Free Press.

Hare, A. P. (1983). A functional interpretation of interac­tion. In J. Blumer, A. P. Hare, V. Kent & M. Davies (eds.). Small groups and social interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Harrison, W. & McCallum, J. R. (1983). Interdependencetheory. In J. Blumer, A. P. Hare, V. Kent & M. Davies (eds.). Small groups and social interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hendrick, H. W. (1979). Differences in group problem-solving behavior and effectiveness as a function of abstract­ness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, (5), 518-525.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organi­zational behavior: utilizing human resources. Engle­wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hoffman, L. R. (1979). Applying experimental research on group problem solving to organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, (3), 375-388.

Kabanoff, B. & O'Brien, G. E. (1979). Cooperation structure and the relationship of leader and member ability to group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, (5), 526-532.

Kamerman, S. B. & Kahn, L. J. (1976). Social services in the United States: policies and programs. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

117

Kane, R. A. (1975). The interprofessional team as a small group. Social Work in Health Care, _1, (1), 19-32.

Katz, D. (1967). The practice and potential of survey methods in psychological research. In C. Y. Glock (ed.), Sur­vey research in the social sciences. New York, N. Y.: Russel Sage Foundation.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

Klimoski, R. & Karol, B. L. (1976). The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, (5), 630-633.

Koenig, R., Jr. (1981). The interorganizational network as a system: toward a conceptual framework. In G. W. Eng­land, A. Negandhi & B. Wilpert (eds.), The functioning of complex organizations. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, Inc.

Konar-Goldband, E. Rice, R. W. & Mondarsh, W. (19 79). Time- phased interrelationships of group atmosphere, group performance, and leader style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, (4), 401-409.

Koslowsky, M., Pratt, G. L. & Wintrob, R. M. (1976). Theapplication of Guttman Scale Analysis to physicians' attitudes regarding abortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, (3), 301-304.

118

Kovar, E. (19 71). Discussion of Roland L. Warren's paper,"Alternative strategies of inter-agency planning." In Paul W. White & George J. Vlasak (eds.), Interorqani- zational research in health. Conference proceedings.

Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Organizations and environments. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin.

Lehman, E. W. (19 75). Coordinating health care. Explorations in interorganizational relations. Beverly Hills: Sage Publi cations.

Levine, S. & White, P. E. (19 61). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational rela­tionships. Administrative Science Quarterly, J5, (4), 583-601.

Levine, L., White, P. E. & Paul, B. D. (1963). Communityinterorganizational problems in providing medical care and social services. American Journal of Public Health, 53, 1183-1195.

Lippitt, R. (1982). Perspective on development: from PG to GD to OD to HRD to TRU. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, l_r (1)/ 8-11.

Litwak, E. & Meyer, H. F. (1966). A balance theory of coordi­nation between bureaucratic organizations and commu­nity primary groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 31-58.

119

Litwak, E. & Hylton, L. (1970). Interorganizational analysis: a hypothesis on co-ordinating agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68, 137-186.

Litwak, E. & Rothman, J. (1970). Towards the theory and prac­tice of coordination between formal organizations. In William R. Rosengren & Mark Lefton. (eds.), Organiza­tions and clients. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

Litwak, E. (1970). Toward a multifactor theory and practice of linkages between formal organizations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Magrab, P., Elder, J., Kazuk, E. Pelosi, J. & Wiegerink, R.(19 82). Developing a community team. American Associa­tion of University Affiliated Programs: U.S. Govern­ment Printing Office.

Maynard, p. E. (1982). Group work and organization develop­ment: an overview. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 2r 3-7.

McClintock, C. & Keil, L. J. (1981). Social values: their definition, their development, and their impact on human decision making. In G. W. England, A. Negandhi & B. Wilpert (eds.), The functioning of complex organi­zations. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, Inc.

120

McDaniel, C. 0. (19 74), Research methodology: some issues in social science research. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

McLaughlin, J. A. & Christensen, M. (nd.). A study of inter­agency collaborative agreements to discover training needs for special education administrators. Executive summary prepared for Bureau of Education for the Han­dicapped. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, nd.

McLaughlin, J. A. & Elder, J. 0. (1982). Notes on evaluatinginteragency collaborative efforts. Blacksburg, VA: Mimeo, Virginia Tech.

Meeker, B. F. (1983). Cooperative orientation, trust, and reciprocity. Human Relations, 37, (3), 225-243.

Miklich, J. (1974). A study of the need for agency coopera­tion in planning and coordination of recreational pro­grams among four recreational agencies in Flint, Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer­sity of Michigan.

Mills, T. M. (1979). Changing paradigms for studying human groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, (3), 407-422.

Molnar, J. & Rogers, D. L. (1979). A comparative model ofinterorganizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, (3), 405-425.

121

Mott, B. J. (19 68). Anatomy of a coordinating council: imp­lications for planning. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). An intraorganizational analysis of the Roberts and O'Reilly organizational communication questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, (2), 183-188.

Mulford, C. L. & Rogers, D. L. (1982). Definitions andmodels. In Rogers, D. L., Whetten, D. A. & Associates. Interorganizational coordination; theory, research, and implementation. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Nadler, D. A., Courtlandt, C. & Mirvis, P. H. (1980). Deve­loping a feedback system for work units: a field experiment in structural change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, (1), 41-59.

Negandhi, A. (1975). Interorganizational theory: a step be­yond the present. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganiza- tional Theory. Kent, Ohio:Kent State University Press.

Nicholas, J. M. (1979). Evaluation research in organizational change interventions: considerations and some sugges­tions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, (1), 23-38 .

Odhner, F. (1970). Group dynamics of the interdisciplinary team. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 24, 484-487.

122

O'Reilly, C. A. & Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task group struc­ture, communication, and effectiveness in three organ­izations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62,(2), 128-132.

Porras, J. I. & Wilkins, A. (19 80). Organization development in a large system: an empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, (4), 506-533.

Provan, K. G., Beyer, J. M. & Kruytbosch, C. (1980). Envi­ronment linkages and power in resource-dependence relations between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 200-225.

Rabbie, J. H. (1971). The anticipation of intergroup coopera­tion and competition under private and public condi­tions. International Journal of Group Tensions, 1,(3), 230-251.

Ringers, J. (1977). Creating interagency projects: school and community agencies. Charlottesville, VA: Community Collaborators.

Rogers, D. L. & Molnar, J. (1976). Organizational anticedents of role conflict and ambiguity in top-level adminis­trators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, (4), 598-610 .

Rogers, D. L. & Mulford, C. L. (1982a). The historical deve­lopment. In Rogers, D.L., Whetten, D.A. & Associates. Interorganizational coordination: theory, research andimplementation. Ames, Iowa:Iowa State University Press.

123

Rogers, D. L. & Mulford, C. L. (1982b). Consequences. In Rogers, D. L., Whetten, D. A. & Associates. Inter- organizational coordination; theory, research, and implementation. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Rogers, D. L. (19 82). Reflections and synthesis: new direc­tions. In Rogers, D. L., Whetten, D. A. & Associates. Interorganizational coordination: theory, research, and implementation. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Rothwell, W. J. (1983). Establishing and HRD program in anHRD consulting firm. Training and Development Journal, 37, (1), 81-85.

Rubin, I. & Beckhard, R. (1972). Factors influencing theeffectiveness of health teams. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 50, 317-335.

Rubin, I., Fry, R. & Plovnick, M. (1975). Improving the coordination of care: a program for health team development. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr. (1975). Determinants of inter­organizational cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 846-856.

Schmidt, S. M. & Kockan, T. A. (1977). Interorganizational relationships: patterns and motivations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 220-234.

124

Section 2.1-700, (1984). Code of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.

Section 22.1-214, (1984). Code of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.

Shaw, M. E. (1971). Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smircich, L. & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: the management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, (3), 257-273.

Smith, K. H. (1972). The effect of varying reward systems on cooperative game behavior. Journal of Psychology, 80, (1), 29 35.

Snyder, R. A. & Morris, J. H. (1984). Organizational communi­cation and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, (3), 461-465.

Stafford, B. G., Camp, J. C. & Meer, P. V. (1984). Final evaluation report of the care (children, agencies, resources, etc.) linkages project. Nashville, TN:TCSC.

Stasser, G., Norbert, L. K. & Davis, J. H. (1980). Influence processes in decision-making groups: a modeling approach. In P. B. Paulus (ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

125

Stebbins, M. & Snow, C. C. (1982). Processes and payoffs of programmatic action research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, (1), 69-86.

Stern, L. W. & Sternthal, B. (1975). Strategies for managing interorganizational conflict: a laboratory paradigm. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, (4), 472-482.

Sutton, R. I. & Ford, L. H. (1982). Problem-solving adequacy in hospital subunits. Human Relations, 35, (8), 675-701.

Thompson, J. D. (19 67). Organizations is action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Van De Ven, A., Emmett, D. C. & Koenig, R., Jr. (1975).Frameworks for interorganizational analysis. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganizational Theory. Kent,Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Voissem, N. H. (1972). Communication schedule and cooperative game behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 19, (2) 160-167.

Warren, R. L. (19 67a). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 396419.

Warren, R. L. (1967b). The interaction of community decision organizations: some basic concepts and needed research. Social Service Review, 41, 261-270.

126

Warren, R. L. (1975). The interaction of community decision organizations: some conceptual considerations and empirical findings. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorgani­zational Theory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Whetten, D. A. (1982). Issues in conducting research. In Rogers, D. L., Whetten, D. A. & Associates. Inter- organizational coordination: theory, research, and implementation. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

White, P. E. & Vlasak, G. J. (1974). Intra- and inter­organizational studies: do they require separate con­ceptualizations. Administration and Society,107-151.

White, P. E., Levine, S. & Vlasak, G. J. (1975). Exchange as a conceptual framework for understanding interorgani­zational relationships: applications to non-profit organizations. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganiza­tional Theory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Woodard, M., Cooper, J. H. & Trohanis, P. L. (eds.), (1982). Interagency casebook. Chapel Hill, N. C.: TADS.

Woodman, R., Sherwood, J. J. (1980). Effects of team develop­ment intervention: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, (2), 211-225.

127

Woolfr H. B. (1974). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.

Wright, K. N. (1977). An exchange strategy for the interface of community-based corrections into the service system. Human Relations, 30, 879-897.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B. & Richey, L. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: how many children are handicapped? Exceptional Children, 48, (6), 531-534.

Zander, A. (1979). The study of group behavior during four decades. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15,(3), 272-294.

Zietz, G. (1975). Interorganizational relationships andsocial structure: a critique of some aspects of the literature. In A. Negandhi (ed.), Interorganizational Theory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

VITA

VITA

Birthdate:

Birthplace:

Education:

Professional

Leslie W. Jones

December 23, 1941

Mankato, Minnesota

1986

1970

1965

College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia Doctor of EducationUniversity of KansasLawrence, KansasMaster of Science in EducationMarquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bachelor of Arts

Experience: 1985

1978

1975

1967

Acting Director, Special Education Programs

Virginia Department of Education Richmond, VirginiaAssociate Director, Special

Education Programs Virginia Department of Education Richmond, VirginiaProgram Supervisor - Hearing

Impaired Programs Virginia Department of Education Richmond, VirginiaTeacher of the Hearing Impaired N. Kansas City School District Kansas City, Missouri

ABSTRACTTHE RELATIONSHIP OF TEAMWORK FACTORS TO PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATIONLeslie W. Jones, Ed.D.The College of William and Mary in Virginia, December 1986 Chairman: Dr. F. Douglas Prillaman

The purpose of this study was to determine the rela­tionship of teamwork factors to perceived success of inter­agency collaborative.

Administrators (n=37 5) of eight governmental service agencies, state and local, serving handicapped children, ages birth through twenty-one (21), in Virginia responded to the researcher's mailed survey. The survey instrument was vali­dated with 20 graduate students and 4 national experts in interagency collaboration. A telephone follow-up on certain items in the survey with 26 randomly selected respondees resulted in a significant reliability coefficient (Spearman Correlation Coefficient of .9307). The survey collected, in addition to certain demographic data, information on the per­ceptions of agency personnel regarding successful interagency collaboration and the perceived existence of teamwork factors. Multiple correlation and regression was used to pro­duce a linear combination of independent variables (perceived existence of teamwork factors) which correlated (p<.05) with the dependent variable (perceived level of success in inter­agency collaboration).

The major findings of this study were: 1) administra­tors perceived that teamwork factors make a significant con­tribution toward success in interagency collaboration, yet, it is their perception that these teamwork factors are not as evident in their interagency contacts with other agency per­sonnel. 2) A relationship did exist between the perceptions of agency personnel as to the level of success in interagency collaboration and their corresponding perception as to the level of existence of teamwork factors; 3) Top and low level personnel within agencies did agree on the perceived level of success in interagency collaboration; 4) There was substan­tial agreement between the agencies on the perceived level of contribution each teamwork factor makes toward successful interagency collaboration; 5. Problem-solving ability and communication appear to be the two teamwork factors which best predicted the level of perceived success of interagency collaboration; 6) Trust appeared as a factor which differen­tiated between certain agencies as well as between state and local agency personnel. Local agency personnel did not iden­tify trust as being as important as the other four factors, while three agencies did not view it as important; 7) Local level agency personnel did not identify leadership as being as important as the other four factors.