|
Design Organizational Change
OLB 7006, Assignment 2 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Marie Bakari 23 September 2018 Introduction A common colloquial expression explains the concept of change well: the only thing that stays the same is change. Scholars are discovering this to be true and applicable for organizations of all sizes across all industries. Researchers have described change as the “new normal” for organizations and employees (Jorgensen, Owen, and Neus, 2008). This “new normal” is true not only of organizations but of employees as well. Huevel et al. (2013) noted that the increasing demand for organizational change correlates to an increasing demand for adaptable, flexible employees. A demand for modern organizational leaders, then, is to design organizational change. This paper will explore different models for designing organizational change and examine Columbus Christian Academy to determine which model is most applicable and effective in their context. Change design models While organizational change has been recognized as an imperative, many various models exist for designing how change can be effectively implemented in organizations (Gobble, 2015). However, certain elements undergird all change models which must be considered during seasons of change. For example, Gobble (2015) noted that all change should be designed so that the energy poured into change efforts matches the strategic output and creates value for the organization. Therefore, organizations must consider which design best aligns with their desired output and creates desired value. In most change design models, existing organizational charts – which map structure, processes, relationships – must be examined and considered as possible barriers to desired change. Gobble (2015) highlights the shortfalls of organizational charts in relation to change initiatives. Organizational charts do not assume change; in fact, they imply an unchanging system which is designed to repeat the same process and produce the same outcome. Change initiatives will likely require a re-structuring or re-aligning of the organizational chart to the new strategy or vision. In fact, Gobble (2015) recommends the adoption of a structural diagram map in place of the traditional organizational chart. She highlighted that structural diagram maps are inherently more likely to inhibit innovation as they are built upon what functions must be performed and not on who or what is responsible for different functions (Gobble, 2015). With these elements and assumptions understood, several different change design models exist which address these organizational issues. Two different approaches to designing change exist in current models: a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach (Senior, 1997). Within both systems, however, research has highlighted the importance of certain elements being present: organizational values and culture. Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) conducted a study in which they discovered that successful change often began with identifying values and extended these values into organizational culture. This conclusion is corroborated by McAleese and Hargie (2004) who noted that organizational leaders must genuinely share and embody the cultural values they are encouraging employees to inject into organizational culture if they are to see change initiatives succeed. These findings are applicable to both top-down and bottom-up approaches to designing change and must be embraced by leadership across all organizational levels. One model for designing organizational change is the Star Model (Gobble, 2015). This model maps organizational interactions between five factors: strategy, policies, organizational processes, and human resource functions. This Star Model for change is generally a top-down approach to designing organizational change. Another model for designing organizational change discussed by Gobble (2015) is provided by the Bridgespan Group. This model considers organizational change from four elements and their interaction with organizational culture. These four elements are: leadership, decision-making processes, people, and systems. Like the Star model, this model for designing change by the Bridgespan Group is generally a top-down approach to designing organizational change. A different approach to designing organizational change is what Gobble (2015) refers to as a Participatory Design. Participatory design is a bottom-up approach to designing organizational change. Within the framework of a participatory design to change, members of the organization across all levels are invited and encouraged to help shape and structure their own work environment and organizational structure. This more relational approach to organizational change is elsewhere referred to as a soft systems model approach to designing organizational change (Senior, 1997). In their study, Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) discovered that this soft systems model approach to change is often highly successful due to the soft systems model approach to and use of communication, relationships, and participation across all levels of the organization. Participatory design/soft systems model For Columbus Christian Academy, the “bottom-up” approach to designing organizational change is recommended and will be explored further. In describing the participatory design approach to organizational change, Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) noted that a listening, information-gathering phase at the outset of change enhances chances of success for organizations. This finding was supported by Erving (2006) who noted that a low level of support for change is a strong predictor for change success or failure. Gauging this level of support is often made possible by organizational leaders initiating a listening phase. Furthermore, Stroh (2007) noted that successful change depends greatly on employee involvement in the change process. Inviting and encouraging participation by all employees can be accomplished during this listening phase. A distinction is made between hard systems models and soft systems models to organizational change. The difference is that a hard systems model is a top-down approach, where communication coming from the “top” does not require a listening phase on the part of organizational leadership (Senior, 1997). A soft systems model approach, however, encourages a listening phase as it offers a more relational approach to change than does a hard systems model (Senior, 1997). In their study, Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) discovered that this soft systems model approach to change is often highly successful due to the soft systems model approach to and use of communication, relationships, and participation across all levels of the organization. Columbus Christian Academy For Columbus Christian Academy to successfully implement desired changes, the participatory design, or soft system model, is recommended. Several organizational factors exist which support this recommendation. Firstly, the existing organizational structure and employee base are resistant to “top-down” initiatives. Due to the combination of poor leadership and management in the past, and a general sense of not feeling communicated with or trusted by leadership, existing employees have formed an organizational culture which is resistant to top-down initiatives. There exists a general divide between “us” (the employees” and “them” (management and leadership). Secondly, and equally important, is that existing organizational structure is designed to resist top-down initiatives. Several levels of bureaucracy and management exist which only provide more opportunities for resistance to top-down initiatives. Recent change initiatives have failed because one board of advisors was allowed to “overrule” the efforts and initiatives of another board seeking to facilitate organizational change. Thirdly, certain upper-level leadership needs to be removed, and a top-down approach to designing change would fail so long as these individuals are included in the conversation and plans for designing needed changes. In this participatory design to organizational change, a three-tiered listening phase is recommended to encourage participation and engagements at different organizational levels. Initially, an Academy-wide forum should be initiated by organizational leaders. This would address all employees and other members of the organization and encourage their feedback and input on the proposed changes. Secondly, a subsequent listening phase should be held with each department. Middle and high school teachers should have their own forum, as should elementary staff and administrative and support staff. This will allow organizational leaders to learn and absorb how proposed changes will impact departments differently and how resistant various groups are to organizational change. Thirdly, each individual within the organization should be afforded the opportunity to engage with organizational leaders. This will allow individual opinions and perspectives to be expressed directly to the change agents in a way which may not surface in group-level conversations. This initial three-tiered listening phase will provide organizational leaders with a well-rounded assessment of organizational values and culture. Following this listening phase, organizational leaders can begin the process of design change initiatives and planning for implementation. This crucial first step of listening, inviting and encouraging employee engagement will communicate with organizational members that these change initiatives are designed with their best interests in mind. It will address the underlying divide between “us” and “them” and will also allow toxic organizational leaders to hear from those whom they lead. This phase also affords organizational leaders the opportunity to gauge support for change initiatives amongst existing employees, which has proven to be a strong predictor for change success or failure (Erving, 2006). This approach to designing organizational change will provide Columbus Christian Academy with the highest degree of success in facilitating the desired organizational changes and bringing about the desired end states. References Elving, W. (2006). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2). Doi:10.1108/13563280510596943 Gobble, M.M. (2015). Designing for change. Research-Technology Management, 58(3), 64-66. doi:10.5437/08956308X5803005 Heuvel, M. V., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: The value of change information and meaning-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004 Jorgensen, H. H., Owen, L. and Neus, A. (2008). Making change work. IBM Corporation. Accessed at http://www.ibm.com/gbs/makingchangework on September 23, 2018. Mazzei, A., & Quaratino, L. (2013). Designing organizational change: Learning from a grounded research project. Journal of Management and Change, 30(1), 166-179. Accessed at http://emeraldinsight.com/journal/jocm on September 23, 2018. McAleese, D., and Hargie, O. (2004). Five guiding principles of culture management: A synthesis of best practice. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 155-170. doi:10.1108/13632540510621399 Senior, B. (1997). Organizational Change. London: Pittman Publishing. Stroh, U. (2007). Relationships and participation: A complexity science approach to change communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(2), 123-137. doi:10.1080/15531180701298916
0 Comments
Adapt to Organizational Change
OLB 7006, Assignment 1 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Marie Bakari 16 September 2018 Introduction A common colloquial expression explains the concept of change well: the only thing that stays the same is change. Scholars are discovering this to be true and applicable for organizations of all sizes across all industries. Researchers have described change as the “new normal” for organizations and employees (Jorgensen, Owen, and Neus, 2008). This “new normal” is true not only of organizations but of employees as well. Huevel et al. (2013) noted that the increasing demand for organizational change correlates to an increasing demand for adaptable, flexible employees. This paper will explore the concept of organizational change and provide an assessment of how Columbus Christian Academy implemented changes that resulted in improvements. Columbus Christian Academy Columbus Christian Academy is a private, Christian educational institution which serves approximately 175 students from grades pre-k through 12th grade with a full-time staff of approximately 15. The current operating budget of the organization is approximately $500,000 which is managed by an appointed school board of 6 individuals. The campus encompasses 30 acres of land which includes an education building, a gymnasium, and several athletic ballfields. Our staff-to-student ratio is 1:12 and our current campus allows us plenty of room to grow. The past five years have been times of constant organizational change which have brought about positive improvements. Awareness of changes which resulted in improvements will hopefully allow these changes to continue so that Columbus Christian Academy continues a path of improvement. Identifying Internal Threats The first step in implementing organizational changes that will result in improvement is recognizing the existing threats to change. This can be both internal and external, but internal threats can often be both the hardest to identify and the most difficult to overcome. Existing organizational culture, control mechanisms, and infrastructure can all sabotage change and limit change capacity (Edmondson, 2008). Edmondson (2008) called these obstacles “self-sabotaging traps” (p. 63). Lerner (2014) noted that John Kotter, who serves as the director of research for Kotter International, concurred with Edmondson’s findings. Kotter noted that potential hurdles to organizational change include the compensation structure, appraisal process, and even existing management (Lerner, 2014). These can all be used to “reinforce the status quo” (Lerner, 2014, p. 70). In the case of Columbus Christian Academy, it took a two-to-three year process to identify, address, and remove these internal threats. The existing “self-sabotaging traps” included the personnel in positions of leadership and a toxic organizational culture. This undesirable culture was consistently reinforced by a lack of a stable coalition of organizational leaders working together to bring about positive and desired change. The toxic culture, and those who reinforced the status quo, constantly sabotaged change efforts initiated by leadership. Neutralizing these internal threats provided the first step to increasing the change capacity of the organization. Increasing Change Capacity Identifying and addressing internal threats is one of the first steps in bringing about positive change and increasing the ability of an organization to change effectively. Researchers have coined the term “change capacity” in identifying the ability of organizations to change effectively (Buono and Kerber, 2010). Lerner (2014) noted that while change is essential for organizations, changing effectively and adapting to change is the battleground for organizational leaders. Change capacity has been defined as “the ability of an organization to change not just once, but as a normal course of events in response to and in anticipation of internal and external shifts, constantly adapting to and anticipating changes in its environment” (Buono and Kerber, 2010, p. 10). In my experience with Columbus Christian Academy, I discovered that the organization and its employees were incredibly inflexible. Coupled with the internal self-sabotage, this lack of flexibility made adapting to change even more difficult. This experience is consistent with the current research which is uncovering the importance of flexibility in increasing change capacity. Meyer and Stensaker (2006) discovered that change environments demand “experimentation, improvisation, and the ability to cope with unanticipated occurrences and unintended repercussions” (p. 220). Columbus Christian Academy did not possess the ability to cope with the attributes of a change environment. To increase flexibility, the leadership team and I communicated early and often about the changes we sought to make and how we planned to bring them about. This communication included speaking as well as listening to others speak who would be impacted by these changes. Communication Buono and Kerber (2010) suggested that communication during times of organizational change should be honest and transparent. This allows for all voices and viewpoints to be expressed, increases organizational learning, and creates opportunities to express a shared purpose and common change language. In addition to these benefits, communication initiates the process of “meaning-making” for employees effected by change (Huevel et al., 2013, p. 15). The process of meaning-making facilitates “integrating challenging/ambiguous events into a framework of personal meaning using value-based reflection” (Park, 2010, p. 265). This allows meaning-making to increase an individual’s willingness to adapt to change (Huevel et al., 2013). Huevel et al. (2013) concluded that the process of meaning-making also translates to successful adaptation for employees when it allows them to reflect on organizational changes and link or align their own personal values to the changes. During and following the period of addressing and removing internal threats and increasing change capacity by creating more flexible employees and an adaptive culture, the leadership team saturated Columbus Christian Academy with communication throughout all levels of the organization. We accomplished this in the form of individual conversations, group question/answer forums, and increasing lines of communication from organizational leadership to employees. This translated not only to increasing trust and credibility throughout the period of change, but also to creating a more adaptive workforce and fluid organization. As the employees grew more adaptable and flexible, so did the structure of the organization. As we hired new employees, we placed a value on flexibility. Similarly, we incentivized existing employees based upon their ability to adapt in a changing environment. This was a key turning point for our organization and one which is consistent with recommendations from scholars. Buono and Kerber (2010) suggest that one of the most effective ways for organizations to increase change capacity is to make the ability to change one of the criteria for employee selection, hiring, evaluation, reward, and promotion. They also suggest that a fluid organizational structure is helpful as it allows for groups to be assembled or disassembled as necessary with minimal turmoil. Conclusions & Recommendations Columbus Christian Academy has endured a period of significant change over the past five years. Consequently, the organization has seen growth and experienced success in a potentially turbulent time. When this season of change began in 2013, there were eighty-five students enrolled in the school. Presently, that number has more than doubled in a period of just five years. Similarly, we have experienced positive growth in the morale of the employees and the overall culture of the organization. By identifying and addressing internal threats and taking active steps to remove those obstacles to change, an expected wave of resistance and hostility initially arose from employees. This resistance was not only welcomed by organizational leadership, but its expression was encouraged and facilitated by constant opportunities for communication. This communication re-built trust, increased flexibility, and, most importantly, started the process of meaning-making for our employees. This development allowed them to process the changes impacting them, connect these changes to their own values and goals, and integrate the challenges of change into their own personal framework using reflection and self-assessment. Based upon personal experience at Columbus Christian Academy and synthesizing current literature regarding organizational change and its challenges, the following recommendations are provided. Firstly, internal threats must be identified and decisively dissolved. Until this step occurs, every change initiative is virtually guaranteed to fail due to the infertile and hostile environment into which change ideas are planted. Secondly, the change capacity of an organization must be increased by increasing the flexibility of the organization and its employees. The longer an organization goes without being forced to be flexible, the greater will be the difficulty in injecting flexibility by the leadership. As employees become more flexible, so will the structure and processes of the organization itself. This process may be facilitated by rewarding existing employees based on their adaptation to and encouragement of new cultural standards as well as hiring employees who value flexibility and already possess a more flexible nature. Finally, communication must be intentional and ever-present throughout the season of change. Without pro-active communication on the part of the leadership, resistance to change will persist and grow, ambiguity will turn to distrust and, ultimately, hostility will develop toward the leader. Communication will not only positively impact the employees, but other stakeholders (students, families, surrounding community, etc.) who can also contribute to healthy growth through change. References Buono, A. F., & Kerber, K. W. (2010). Intervention and organizational change: Building organizational change capacity. EBS Review, (27), 9-21. Accessed at http://ebsjournal.com/ on September 15, 2018. Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review 86(4), 60-67. Heuvel, M. V., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: The value of change information and meaning-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004 Jorgensen, H. H., Owen, L. and Neus, A. (2008). Making change work. IBM Corporation. Accessed at http://www.ibm.com/gbs/makingchangework on September 15, 2018. Lerner, M. (2014). Successfully adapting to change. Independent Banker, 64(3), 68-72. Accessed at http://independentbanker.org/ on September 15, 2018. Meyer, C. B. and Stensaker, I. G. (2006). Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change Management, 6(2), 217-231. Accessed at http://independentbanker.org/ on September 15, 2018. Park, C. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257-301. Create a Research Plan
BTM 8108, Assignment 8 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Craig Martin 9 September 2018 Abstract This paper details a qualitative case study designed to research the impact of e-leadership on virtual team leaders. This case study examines a Christian denomination in the midwestern United States of America and the perceived impact of e-leadership of the District Superintendent on five virtual team leaders. These virtual teams are dispersed over a 400,000 mile geographic area and have limited interaction with the e-leader. Three types of interactions are observed and then thirty-nine virtual team members, and their five virtual team leaders, are interviewed to determine the impact these meetings have on team member perception of professional competence, solidarity with the e-leader, and uniformity with the denomination. This study was conducted over a three-month period with the goal of better understanding the perceived impact of various types of interactions between e-leader and virtual team members to increase e-leader effectiveness. Introduction E-leadership is a growing academic field which receives increasing amount of scholarly attention and continues to grow (Savolainen, 2014). While there are many aspects and dimensions within the field of e-leadership, one specific area involves e-leadership of virtual teams (Lilian, 2014). This qualitative study researches thirty-nine pastors broken into five virtual teams. These teams are geographically distributed over a 400,000 square mile area in the midwestern United States and overseen by a District Superintendent. Due to the geographic constraints present, the District Superintendent utilizes technology to communicate and lead, thus serving as an e-leader (Avolio, 2014). This study examines three types of personal and virtual interactions between e-leader and virtual team leaders and members to determine their perceived effectiveness by team leaders and members on team cohesion and confidence. This was accomplished through a series of interviews over a three-month period of observation and data collection. Literature Review E-leadership is an academic field of study that has emerged since the turn of the millennium (Savolainen, 2014) which involves organizational leadership of highly technological structures stretched over different cultures and geographic regions (Avolio, 2014). These widely dispersed organizational structures led to the advent and implementation of virtual teams (Lilian, 2014). With this growing organizational structure of dispersed virtual team members comes new, unique, and difficult leadership challenges which are addressed by the e-leader (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2016). Liao (2017) defined virtual teams as “a collection of individuals who work on tasks that share varying degrees of interdependence and mutual accountability to accomplish a common goal.” While virtual teams are dynamic and take many forms, research has highlighted several commons factors which impact how these teams should be led. For example, Cheshin et al. (2013) found that most teams are partially, rather than exclusively, virtual. In studying the nature of dispersion amongst virtual teams, Krumm et al. (2013) identified cultural dispersion as the most common dimension of virtual teams. The organizational e-leader, then, is likely to lead a culturally diverse, partially virtual team. In their study of virtual teams, Gilson et al. (2015) identified leadership as one of the most pressing themes in research on virtual teams and considered e-leadership of virtual teams an opportunity for future research. Hill & Bartol (2016) found that effective e-leadership of virtual teams empowers team members by providing collaboration between e-leader and team member as well as collaboration between fellow team members. Hill & Bartol (2016) also found that virtual collaboration contributes to team performance, and that team performance is also enhanced when e-leaders interact with individual team members. Writing about collaboration between e-leader and virtual team members, Liao (2017) notes that current literature does not address the process by which the e-leader interacts with individual virtual team members in a way that builds and maintains relationships. Problem Statement The research problem addressed in this research study is: given the cultural (Krumm et al., 2013) and geographic (Avolio, 2014) dispersion of virtual teams and the accompanying technological and organizational leadership challenges (Lilian, 2014), what are the effects of periodic personal interaction by the e-leader with individual virtual team members on individual and team perception of cohesion and confidence? This problem examines three types of personal interaction between e-leader and virtual team members – face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions – and their perceived impact on team cohesion and confidence. This study builds upon and develops current literature, specifically Hill & Bartol (2016) and their conclusion that team performance is enhanced further when e-leaders interact with individual team members. This study also addresses gaps in the existing literature regarding leadership of virtual teams (Gilson et al., 2015) and how e-leaders can positively develop and maintain relationship with individual virtual team members (Liao, 2017). Purpose Statement The purpose of this study is to examine three types of e-leader/individual virtual team member interaction and their perceived effect on virtual team cohesion and confidence. By studying the interactions of face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions between the e-leader and individual virtual team members, this study will provide e-leaders with research to positively improve their sense of virtual team confidence and cohesion between leader and member as well as amongst team members. Research Questions To adequately address the research problem and fulfill the research purpose, the following research questions are posed and answered throughout this study: 1. What is the perceived impact of face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members? Do these meetings instill confidence in the individual virtual team leader in conducting their own team member interactions? 2. How do individual virtual team leaders internalize the effects of professional development sessions between e-leader and individual virtual team members? How do these meetings impact virtual team leader perception of team cohesion? 3. In what ways do individual coaching sessions between e-leader and individual team members cause team members to feel more valued as a team member? Expected Conclusions In formulating expected conclusions for these research questions, existing literature provided some clues as to what this study may conclude. Hill & Bartol (2016) concluded that team performance is enhanced further when e-leaders interact with individual team members and empower them to grow and succeed. Liao (2017) likewise concluded that e-leadership is complex and requires additional effort from leaders to achieve results from team members. Based on those conclusions and results, the research hypotheses are as follows: H1: Firstly, research is expected to conclude that each of these three efforts by the e-leader (face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions) will positively contribute to a sense and perception of team cohesion and confidence. H2: Secondly, research is expected to conclude that both individual coaching sessions and professional development will yield greater results in team cohesion and confidence than face-to-face meetings. This hypothesis is based in part on the work of Hoch & Kozlowski (2016) who concluded that direct relationships between leader and team member positively contribute to team cohesion and performance. H3: Thirdly, research is expected to conclude that these direct interactions, which have a specific goal of empowering team members with coaching and professional development from the e-leader, will demonstrate the greatest perception of team member value and confidence than the more ambiguous agenda of face-to-face meetings. Research Method Participants in this experimental study are Christian pastors of an evangelical denomination within a geographic district of the United States of America. The population sample for this study are thirty-nine members of a regionally distributed virtual team working under one District Superintendent. For the purposes of this study, this District Superintendent will be identified and referred to as the e-leader. These virtual team members are dispersed over a four-state area in the midwestern United States and their regular interaction includes a weekly video-conference virtual meeting and a monthly physical meeting with the e-leader. The weekly virtual meetings last approximately two hours and the monthly physical meetings last two business days. The purpose of these meetings is to provide guidance from the e-leader and build team cohesion and confidence. Prior to this research study, there were no regular individual interactions between e-leader and individual virtual team members. The only individual interactions that occurred resulted from either disciplinary action needing to be taken or merit-based awards being received, or work anniversaries being celebrated by team members. The introduction of a new variable of individual meetings between e-leader and team members into routine denominational life will provide the basis for this experimental case study on the qualitative impact of e-leadership. Research Design This study separated team members into five groups based upon geographic location with each team having members distributed over a large geographical area and being composed of eight team members. These groups were labeled accordingly with corresponding roman numerals of I, II, III, IV, and V. During the three-month period of this study, the e-leader met bi-weekly with members of each group for face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions. The District Superintendent employed an administrative assistant to serve as the liaison between the e-leader and individual virtual team members to arrange which type of interaction they preferred. These interactions were labeled accordingly as f (face-to-face), d (professional development), and c (coaching). The researcher conducted a series of interviews to record the type and frequency of individual interaction between the e-leader and individual team members of each of the five virtual teams. These individual interactions between e-leader and individual team members continued for the duration of the three-month study. Justification of Research Methodology & Design Mertens (2015) noted that qualitative research utilizes the researcher as the primary means of data collection, whereas quantitative methodology utilizes other means (survey, interview, questionnaire) for data collection. In this qualitative study, the researcher will observe virtual interactions between the e-leader and virtual team leaders under his supervision and serve as the primary means of data collection. This qualitative study is an examination of e-leader/individual virtual team leader interaction and the perceived effect on virtual team cohesion, individual team member sense of value, and virtual team leader confidence. Throughout this study, the researcher will observe virtual interactions between the e-leader and virtual team leaders under his supervision. These virtual meetings consist of regularly scheduled video conferences between e-leader and virtual team leaders. Observations will be made by the researcher during virtual meetings between the e-leader and virtual team leaders. Furthermore, individual face-to-face interviews will be established between the researcher and virtual team leaders as a follow-up to these meetings. These meetings will be digitally recorded with audio-visual equipment and accompanied by copious written notes and observations on the part of the researcher. This is all accomplished in an effort to understand the perceived impact of virtual meetings between the e-leader and virtual team leaders. By studying these virtual professional development and coaching sessions between the e-leader and individual virtual team leaders, this study will provide e-leaders with research to positively improve their e-leader/individual virtual team leader interaction and the perceived effect on virtual team cohesion, individual team member sense of value, and virtual team leader confidence. The end result is an increase in the effectiveness of the District Superintendent in his organizational role as the e-leader of these virtual teams. Data Collection & Analysis Data collection for this study was accomplished through interviews with individual team members and individual virtual team leaders. This method of data collection by conducting interviews is the most common data collection methodology employed in current literature on e-leadership (Cheong, 2016) ; (Chua, 2017) ; (Kiesenbauer, 2015) ; (Sarros, 2014) ; (Savolainen, 2014). The interviews for this study take the longitudinal approach which will tracks responses of virtual team members over a three-month period (Mertens, 2015). The initial interviews were conducted at the outset of the study with two subsequent interviews being conducted once per month for a total of three interviews during a three-month period. Each interview consisted of ten questions, and respondents answered the same questions for each of the three questionnaires they complete. Each interview begins by asking the respondent to identify which virtual team they are on, either I, II, III, IV, or V. They were then asked to specify the type of individual interaction between team member and e-leader (f, d, or c) and the frequency with which they met. Team members then responded to closed questions on a 1-10 scale (with 10 the highest possible number and 1 being the lowest possible number) regarding their sense of confidence and value as team members in various categories (perception of professional effectiveness, sense of solidarity with the e-leader, and sense of uniformity with the denomination) and open-ended questions regarding their own perception of how individual interaction with the e-leader impacted those various categories. Did those individual interactions instill confidence? In what ways were those interactions helpful? Name one specific interaction that took place during or after those interactions which benefitted you as a member of this team. Which type of interaction was the most helpful. Why? Both the closed and open-ended questions in this section of the interview are designed to measure individual interactions between e-leader and team members and their impact on team cohesion and confidence. A subsequent set of questions was then asked to team members regarding team member interactions following the same format. In this section, team members responded to closed questions regarding interaction and cohesion with other team members (number of daily interactions, length of interaction, virtual or personal interaction) and open-ended questions regarding their own perception of how individual interaction with the e-leader impacted cohesion and team interaction. Did your individual interactions with the e-leader help resolve team member conflict? In what ways were those interactions helpful? Name one specific interaction that took place during or after those interactions which positively contributed to team cohesion. Which type of interaction was the most helpful. Why? At the end of the three-month period when all interviews were completed by the researcher, data was collected from the three interviews for synthesis and analysis by the researcher. Three charts, one for each interview, were constructed. Data was inserted onto the x-axis of each chart by virtual team (I, II, III, IV, or V) and onto the y-axis by type of individual interaction (f, d, or c). Data received from the administrative assistant regarding the frequency and type of individual interaction by team members was then inserted into the table for analysis. At this point, our tables are constructed as laid out below, with numbers of virtual team members on each team being aligned with the type of interaction. Each table represents a one-month period of time based on data reported by the respondents to each of the three questionnaires. Interview 1 I II III IV V F 3 5 2 4 4 D 2 4 1 3 4 C 4 4 2 3 1 Interview 2 I II III IV V F 4 2 1 3 3 D 2 4 4 5 2 C 3 4 4 2 3 Interview 3 I II III IV V F 2 3 1 4 2 D 5 3 1 4 3 C 4 4 4 1 3 Once this step is complete, an additional step of analysis was to construct a second and third table with data from the closed and open-ended questions from the interviews regarding both team cohesion as well as team interactions. The numbers in this second table are the responses of virtual team leaders to the closed questions regarding how they felt following interactions with the e-leader in reference to their perception of professional effectiveness, their sense of solidarity with the e-leader, and their sense of uniformity with the denomination. Likewise, the frequency of team interaction is the cumulative team numbers for interactions with other team members for the observation period and the average length of each interaction as reported by team members for interaction standards. An example of these two tables is recorded below. Interview 1 Category I II III IV V Perception of professional effectiveness 10 8 10 9 8 Sense of solidarity with e-leader 4 10 7 6 4 Sense of uniformity with denomination 6 5 7 6 5 Interview 1 Interaction I II III IV V Frequency 10 7 14 12 18 Length (min) 4 6 12 18 6 Type V V P V P The data from these two tables was synthesized to answer the research questions. What does the data lead us to conclude about how face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members correlate to an increase in team member interactions? What does the data lead us to conclude the perceived impact of face-to-face meetings between e-leader and virtual team members? Do these meetings instill confidence in the individual virtual team leader in conducting their own team member interactions? What does the data lead us to conclude about how individual virtual team leaders internalize the effects of professional development sessions between e-leader and individual virtual team members? How do these meetings impact virtual team leader perception of team cohesion? What does the data lead us to conclude about the ways in which individual coaching sessions between e-leader and individual team members cause team members to feel more valued as a team member? These questions were answered by this third and final set of tables which would show either an increase in perception, no change in perception, or a decrease in perception from month-to-month over a three-month period. The same sequence of analysis took place for team interaction and cohesion with closed questions providing the data for interactions and the open-ended questions providing the data for cohesion. This final step in data analysis takes the cumulative numbers for perception of professional effectiveness (e) for the observation period and divides it by the number of individual team members who interacted with the e-leader in either face-to-face meetings (Fe), professional development (De), or individual coaching (Ce). Individual Perception (IP) is then calculated by dividing the team numbers for a given data set (perception of professional effectiveness, sense of solidarity with the e-leader, and sense of uniformity with the denomination) by the number of team members who experienced individual interaction with the e-leader during that observation period. Team Perception (TP) numbers are categorized by the type of individual interaction – TP(F), TP(D), or TP(C) – to isolate team performance by the type of individual interaction between team member and e-leader to determine if and to what degree various interactions have on team perception. This data set is calculated by adding the numbers in each category of meeting type. An example of this third and final set of tables are below, with data from interview 1 (IV1) and 2 (IV2) followed by a third table which shows the change in data (Δ) from IV1 to IV2. Data for team interaction and cohesion follow the same format, but are not included here due to space limitations. IV1 Team I Perception perception of professional effectiveness (10) sense of solidarity with e-leader (4) sense of uniformity with denomination (6) Team Perception F (3) Fe = 30 Fs = 12 Fu = 18 TP(F) = 60 D (2) De = 20 Ds = 8 Du = 12 TP(D) = 40 C (4) Ce = 40 Cs = 16 Cu = 24 TP(C) = 80 Individual Perception IP(e) = 90 IP(s) = 36 IP(u) = 54 IV 2 Team I Perception perception of professional effectiveness (10) sense of solidarity with e-leader (6) sense of uniformity with denomination (9) Team Perception F (4) Fe = 40 Fs = 24 Fu = 36 TP(F) = 100 D (2) De = 20 Ds = 12 Du = 18 TP(D) = 50 C (3) Ce = 30 Cs = 18 Cu = 27 TP(C) = 75 Individual Perception IP(e) = 90 IP(s) = 54 IP(u) = 81 Data Change (IV1-IV2) Team I Perception perception of professional effectiveness sense of solidarity with e-leader sense of uniformity with denomination Team Perception F ΔFe = 10 ΔFs = 12 ΔFu = 18 ΔTP(F) = 40 D ΔDe = 0 ΔDs = 4 ΔDu = 6 ΔTP(D) = 10 C ΔCe = -10 ΔCs = 2 ΔCu = 3 ΔTP(C) = -5 Individual Perception ΔIP(e) = 0 ΔIP(s) = 18 ΔIP(u) = 27 This hypothetical data set led the researcher to conclude that perceived uniformity with the denomination saw the greatest increase followed by an increase in solidarity with the e-leader. No change was noted for the perceived effectiveness of professional performance as a result of the interactions.. Overall team perception noted the greatest increase in face-to-face meetings, and noted a lesser increase in professional development interactions. However, a slight decrease was noted in the team perceptions of individual coaching sessions and their impact on team cohesion. Consequently, the data leads us to reject our original expected conclusion of every area – number of daily interactions, length of interaction, virtual or personal interaction – being noticeably improved by individual interactions. However, the data leads us to fail to reject our original expected conclusion that individual professional development and coaching sessions would yield greater improvement than face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members. References Avolio, B., Sosik, J., Kahai, S., Baker, B. (2013). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-131. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003 Cheshin, A., Kim, Y., Nathan, D. B., Ning, N., & Olson, J. S. (2013). Emergence of differing electronic communication norms within partially distributed teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 7–21. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000076 Chua, Y.P., & Chua, Y.P. (2017). How are e-leadership practices in implementing a school virtual learning environment enhanced? Computers & Education, 109, 109 –121. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.012 Cozby, P. C. (2014). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Dane, F.C. (2011). Evaluating research: Methodology for people who need to read research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. doi: 10.1177/0149206314559946 Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69, 159–198. doi: 10.1111/peps.12108 Hoch, J. & Kozlowski, S. (2014). Leading Virtual Teams: Hierarchical Leadership Structural Supports, and Shared Team Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. doi: 10.1037/a0030264 Kiesenbauer, J. & Zerfass, A. (2015). Today's and tomorrow's challenges in public relations: Comparing the views of chief communication officers and next generation leaders. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 422-434. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.013 Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 33–44. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000077 Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review 27, 648–659. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010 Lilian, S.C. (2014). Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Education, 110, 1251 - 1261. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.972 Mertens, D.M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pannucci, C.J. & Wilkins, E.G. (2010). Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 126(2), 619-625. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc Sarros, J. C., Luca, E., Densten, I., & Santora, J. (2014). Leaders and their use of motivating language. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 35(3), 226-240. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-06-2012-0073 Savolainen, T. (2014). Trust-building in e-leadership: A case study of leaders' challenges and skills in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Global Business Issues, 8(2), 45-56. Retrieved from www.globip.com/globalinternational.htm Create a Qualitative Study Design Chart
BTM 8108, Assignment 7 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Craig Martin 2 September 2018 Introduction This paper will present a chart of three different types of qualitative studies. The first type of qualitative study is a grounded theory research study. The second type of qualitative study is a case study, and the third type of qualitative study is a narrative study. With each study, data collection method will be included along with the type of qualitative research study being conducted. Each case study works within the same research scenario. This scenario examines e-leadership of virtual teams in the context of a regional district of a Christian denomination within the United States. This district is led by a District Superintendent and is comprised of thirty-nine churches spread out over a four-state area in the midwestern United States. The leadership challenge presented here is direct responsibility and oversight for thirty-nine individual churches distributed over an area of more than 400,000 square miles. These thirty-nine churches are grouped into six “teams”, each of which has a virtual team leader. This scenario undertakes an examination of e-leader/individual virtual team leader interaction and the perceived effect on virtual team cohesion and performance. In this scenario, the researcher will observe virtual interactions between the e-leader and virtual team leaders under his supervision. These virtual meetings consist of regularly scheduled video conferences between e-leader and virtual team leaders. Observations will be made by the researcher during virtual meetings between the e-leader and virtual team leaders. Furthermore, individual face-to-face interviews will be established between the researcher and virtual team leaders as a follow-up to these meetings. These meetings will be digitally recorded with audio-visual equipment and accompanied by copious written notes and observations on the part of the researcher. This is all accomplished in an effort to understand the perceived impact of virtual meetings between the e-leader and virtual team leaders. By studying these virtual professional development and coaching sessions between the e-leader and individual virtual team leaders, this study will provide e-leaders with research to positively improve their virtual team performance and effective e-leadership of virtual teams. Type of Study Data Collection Method Explanation Grounded Theory Research Survey This qualitative study will utilize grounded theory research to discover virtual team member perception of truth by means observation and interviews with virtual team leaders throughout the district. These observation and interviews will subsequently be translated into categorized statements about causal relationships between actors (Suddaby, 2006). These categorized statements about causal relationships will then form the basis of theory-generation which contribute to the field of study (Hussein et al, 2014). As befits grounded theory research, the study will conclude with an action agenda for reform for the e-leader, who, in this case, is the District Superintendent. This action agenda will be rooted in the generated theory of e-leadership which surfaces following a close examination of the categorized statements. This action agenda is to better inform the e-leader of his perceived effectiveness by virtual team leaders and to improve team effectiveness and performance. Case Study Interview This qualitative case study is undertaken to discover virtual team member perception of truth by means observation and interviews with virtual team leaders throughout this single district. This case study will serve as one unique example of e-leadership which will be shared with other District Superintendents of this denomination across the country. This research purpose is consistent with Gomm, Hammersley, & Foster (2009) and others who note that the primary goal of case study research is to discover causal relationships in one case, not to determine whether they exist elsewhere. These observation and interviews will subsequently be translated into categorized statements about causal relationships between actors (Suddaby, 2006). These categorized statements about causal relationships will then form the basis of theory-generation which contribute to the field of study (Yin, 1981). Narrative Study Interview This narrative qualitative study is conducted to give the virtual team leaders in this district a voice by means observation and interviews with the researcher. This narrative study will serve as one unique example of e-leadership which will be shared with other District Superintendents of this denomination across the country. Like all narrative studies, several key elements will be included in communicating the results of this study. One major distinguishing factor of narrative research is clear organization and craftsmanship. Lincoln & Cuba (2002) noted that good narrative writing in case study research possesses four common characteristics: unity, overall organization, clarity, and craftsmanship. There is, therefore, a creative element present is the presentation of data discoveries by the narrative researcher. The findings of the researcher will be better received by recipients if research categories and concise, clearly defined, and crafted in a well-organized manner. In this narrative study, then, an extra emphasis will be placed upon communicating the voice of the research subjects. Interviews will be video recorded so as to provide the researcher an opportunity to not only listen multiple times to the words of the virtual team leaders, but also to the non-verbal language used during the interview process. In analyzing and categorizing data, the researcher will utilize constant comparison analysis. Constant comparison analysis is frequently utilized in narrative qualitative research. In constant comparison analysis, text from speeches and interviews with research participants are entered into the coding software. The software then takes words and phrases used by the participants and compares these words and phrases to the rest of the data. From this coding of data, themes begin to emerge and are categorized into larger groups (Davis & Meyer, 2009). References Davis, N. W., & Meyer, B. B. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: A procedural comparison. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(1), 116-125. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2009). Case study method London, : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9780857024367 Hussein, M. E., Hirst, S., Salyers, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using Grounded Theory as a Method of Inquiry: Advantages and Disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19(27), 1-15. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss27/3 Lincoln, Y. & Cuba, E. (2002). Judging the quality of case study reports. In Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 204-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412986274 Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642. Retrieved from http://amj.aom.org Yin, R.K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58-65. Retrieved from https://www.johnson.cornell.edu/Administrative-Science-Quarterly |
NG, LR, & NCUMy collection of personal papers written over the years Archives
March 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Justin DuBose | 2013-2022
All Rights Reserved
All Rights Reserved