FACTORS INFLUENCING SUCCESS IN COMMUNITY CHANGE TEAMS:
A THEORETICAL AND OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS
By
David John Ivan

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies – Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
FACTORS INFLUENCING SUCCESS IN COMMUNITY CHANGE TEAMS:
A THEORETICAL AND OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS
By
David John Ivan
This study examines volunteer community change teams and factors that may
contribute to their resilience and ability to accomplish their planned objectives. Little research
has examined community change teams and factors associated with their performance. Using
previous studies within the organizational development and community psychology literature, a
community change team construct is created to improve our understanding of factors that may
enhance a community change team’s effectiveness in contributing to planned change initiatives
in place-based settings. Four construct considerations (i.e., readiness for change, commitment
to action, diverse team composition, and supportive environment for sustained success) are
identified as positive elements for a community change team’s efforts.
A research study involving eight community change teams engaged in a three-year
planned change initiative explores three questions regarding volunteer community change
teams. First, can the facilitative interventions of an external community coach influence the
team leader’s adoption of a consensus leadership model for decision making? Secondly, can
positive team dynamics contribute to greater team performance and enhance the volunteer
team resilience? Thirdly, can new social networks formed through social bridging in a planned
change initiative produce positive spillover effects? A review of previous research on effective
teams, leadership, and social bridging is used to develop frameworks for the analysis.

A content analysis of interviews with team leaders, team members, the community
coach, and the program coordinator, and recorded team meetings, was conducted. The results
of the data analysis reveal that an external community coach had a positive influence on many
of the community change teams’ adoption of a consensus leadership decision-making
approach. Further, the research suggests that elements of positive team dynamics contribute to
a local change team’s ability to remain functioning, i.e., continue to actively work towards the
team’s objectives. The research offers little empirical support of team resilience being
strengthened through social bridging.
Finally, the paper examines the three separate constructs presented in each chapter to
explore similarities when considering team performance and resilience. When viewed
collectively three observations emerge. First, “readiness” extends beyond a community’s
readiness to accept change to include the volunteer team’s readiness to lead and implement
the change process. Devoting adequate time to team building, forging a common vision and
goals, and establishing agreed-upon governance procedures is important. Secondly, a
commitment to action is rooted in open communications and trust among team members.
Teams that exhibited high levels of trust among its members performed better. Lastly, those
teams that took a broader, institutional view of both their team membership and activities
were more successful.

Copyright by
DAVID JOHN IVAN
2013

DEDICATION

Numerous individuals provided significant contributions towards the completion of this
dissertation. The members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Patricia Norris, Scott Loveridge,
Christine Vogt and committee chair Robert Richardson have generously given their time and
expertise to better my work. I am truly grateful for their contributions, patience, and goodnatured support.
I am also grateful for the support I received from my employer, Michigan State University
Extension, and my work colleagues who continually supported my pursuits.
Finally, I dedicate my dissertation work to my family, particularly my wife Barb and our children
Brad and Kate, who tolerated my absence at countless family functions as I toiled away in the
basement. Without your patient and loving support this dissertation would not have been
written.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Data collection for this dissertation was supported by the Agricultural Food Research Initiative
of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA, Grant # 2009-35900-05935.
Additionally, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of Lisa Szymecko and her work in
conducting interviews and supervising the transcription of audio recordings used in this
research.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

x

LIST OF FIGURES

xii

INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 1
A CONSTRUCT FOR PREDICTING COMMUNITY CHANGE TEAM SUCCESS
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Literature Review
1.11 Change Theories
1.12 Teams and Change
1.13 Self-Managed Work Teams
1.14 Community Change Teams
1.15 Volunteer Motivations and Team Membership
1.2 A Proposed Community Change Team Construct
1.3 Limitations and Opportunities for Future Exploration

6
6
8
8
13
15
17
20
23
28

CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY COACHING AND VOLUNTEER TEAM DECISION-MAKING
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Literature Review
2.11 Community Coaching as a Team Intervention
2.12 Leadership and Volunteer Team Resilience
2.121 Leadership Theories
2.122 Leading Change and Self-Directed Teams
2.123 Volunteers Leading Volunteers
2.2 Contextual Basis, Conceptual Framework and Community Participants
2.21 Contextual Basis of Study
2.22 Conceptual Framework
2.23 The Community Participants
Damton
Flat Rock
Metroville
Northwoods
Railford
River Valley
Sunnyvale
Watersedge
2.3 Research Question and Framework

31
31
32
32
36
37
39
42
44
44
47
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
54
54

vii

2.31 Research Question
2.32 Consensus Leadership
2.33 Research Framework
2.4 Research Design
2.41 Data Collection
2.5 Results
2.51 Qualitative Analysis of Audio Recordings and Communications
Coaching Interventions
Consensus seeking
Open and transparent communications
Inspirational motivator
Inclusivity
2.52 Quantitative Analysis Using Key Word Searches
2.521 Individual-focused Pronoun Word Use
2.522 Collective-focused Pronoun Word Use
2.6 Discussion
2.7 Limitations and Opportunities for Future Exploration
CHAPTER 3
TEAM DYNAMICS AND VOLUNTEER TEAM RESILIENCE
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Literature Review
3.11 Team Member Dynamics and Group Success
3.12 Social Capital, Trust and Team Performance
3.2 Conceptual Framework, Research Questions and Community Participants
3.21 Conceptual Framework
3.22 Research Questions
Research Question #1
Research Question #2
3.23 Community Participants
Damton
Flat Rock
Metroville
Northwoods
Railford
Riverview
Sunnyvale
Watersedge
3.24 Data Collection Tools
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Results and Discussion
3.41 Research Question #1: Can positive team dynamics enhance the
ability of the team to accomplish planned objectives and
strengthen team resilience?
viii

54
55
58
61
61
67
67
67
76
77
78
79
83
84
84
88
91

94
94
95
95
99
100
100
104
104
108
109
109
110
110
110
110
111
111
111
111
112
118

118

Open and frequent communications
Trust and mutual respect
Team structure contributes to success
Shared vision and goals
3.42 Research Question # 2: Do new social networks formed through
social bridging in this change initiative produce positive spillover
effects?
3.5 Study Limitations and Opportunities for Future Exploration

119
120
123
125

129
133

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Synthesis of Constructs
1) Readiness
2) Commitment to action
3) Trust and open communications
4) Team structure
4.1 Acknowledgement of Role in Research

135
135
137
138
138
139
140

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Sample Team Leader Interview Protocol
Appendix B: Sample Team Member Interview Protocol
Appendix C: Sample Community Coach Interview Protocol
Appendix D: Sample Program Coordinator Interview Protocol

142
143
147
151
154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

156

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Summary of select key traits for success from different leadership
models and team settings

57

Table 2.2: Source and number of audio recordings used in analysis

65

Table 2.3: Summary of consensus leadership definition elements and team
resilience factors by community

82

Table 2.4: Summary of word frequency by percent coverage of individualfocused and collective-focused pronouns from communities with
multiple team meetings

86

Table 2.5: Results of t-test comparing team member usage of individualfocused pronoun at the beginning of the planned change initiative
versus the end of the planned change initiative

87

Table 2.6: Results of t-test comparing team member usage of collective-focused
pronouns at the beginning of the planned change initiative versus the
end of the planned change initiative
87

Table 3.1: Summary of select positive team dynamics from the literature on
coalitions, high performing work teams, and self-directed teams.

106

Table 3.2: Source and number of audio recordings used in analysis

116

Table 3.3: Summary of positive team dynamics construct by community and
team performance and resilience elements

128

Table 3.4: Community social bridging using Woolcock and Narayan (2000)
typology

131

x

Table 4.1: The three constructs presented in the dissertation aligned horizontally
by similarities
137

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Lewin’s three step model of change

11

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework for examining the coach’s influence and
subsequent outcome of adopting a consensus leadership approach

50

Figure 3.1: Teamwork factors essential for effective teams

97

Figure 3.2: Conceptual model of team functioning and social bridging

xii

103

INTRODUCTION

Change has increasingly become part of society’s lexicon. From climate change to social
change, economic change to political change, the list of changes occurring within society and
among communities is vast. While the literature examining change is exhaustive, a surprising
number of questions about change events, and planned change, remain unanswered. Research
on planned change efforts can provide critical answers to practitioners and scholars seeking
answers about the numerous dynamics associated with successful community change. This
dissertation seeks to strengthen our understanding of one of those dynamics, specifically
volunteer change teams. By furthering our understanding of volunteer change teams, and the
factors that contribute to their success and resilience, both community development
practitioners and scholars can gain valuable insights in the team’s ability to achieve positive
planned community change.
I begin this examination broadly, in Chapter One, by reviewing the change literature to
establish a foundational understanding of the theoretical elements of change within a group
and/or organizational setting. How individuals react to group-led change and the successful
steps in pursuing change provide a scholarly framework to team-led change initiatives.
Considerable study has also been devoted to examining elements of successful teams, in a
variety of settings. Based on these studies I then narrow my review by exploring factors
associated with team success, with a particular emphasis on self-managed work teams whose
unconstrained work approach more closely aligns with the environment of a community change
team.

1

Despite the learning identified in the organizational development literature on team-led
change, most of the prior work addresses team functioning in work-for-pay situations. A
community setting is fundamentally different from a paid employment setting. To further focus
my review I turn to the community psychology literature whose examination of communitybased coalitions and social movements provides a more similar setting (communities) and
contextual (volunteer-led) comparison to community change teams. The volunteer element is a
distinguishing feature of community change teams. Although for some members involvement in
a community team may align with their occupations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce director),
participation is usually neither required nor results in direct additional compensation. Unlike a
paid employment setting, the group’s leadership has little or no direct control over
compensation or continued participation (exit or retention) by team members. Understanding
volunteer motivations, particularly motivations for sustained volunteering, further strengthens
our grasp of community change team dynamics.
Based on the cross-theorizing of the scholarship examining change, change teams,
coalitions/movements, and volunteerism, a community change team construct is provided to
improve our understanding of factors that may enhance a community change team’s
effectiveness in contributing to planned change initiatives in place-based settings. Four
construct considerations (readiness for change, commitment to action, diverse team
composition, and a supportive environment for sustained success) are identified as positive
elements of a community change team’s efforts.
In Chapter Two, community coaching is identified as a positive contributor to a planned
change team’s adoption of a consensus leadership decision-making approach. Through a
2

qualitative research analysis involving eight community teams engaged in a three-year planned
change effort in Michigan, I explore the influence of a community coach, a relatively new but
increasingly popular community development intervention, and the ability of the coach to
influence the leadership approach employed by the local change teams. I posit that a coaching
intervention can move change teams from a leader-follower to a consensus leadership model,
resulting in greater team outcomes. My analysis begins by deepening our understanding of
community coaching as an effective strategy to improve team effectiveness. Some elements of
the change team construct developed in Chapter One surface as contributors to coaching
effectiveness.
To further our understanding of a preferred governance approach, I again turn to the
literature, focusing on leadership and its influence on team effectiveness and resilience. Based
on the collective findings, a consensus leadership construct is developed to guide my analysis of
the leadership model envisioned for the community teams by the coach.
The research presented in this chapter primarily uses a qualitative case study approach
that is supported through a review of the methods literature. Additionally, a quantitative
research analysis of word usage by team members is conducted. Through the analysis of a
variety of data sources, including recorded interviews with participants and the community
coach, recorded team meetings, and a review of training materials and coach communications,
the findings are mapped against the elements of the consensus leadership construct to explore
my research questions. I conclude Chapter Two by identifying limitations to the research and
opportunities for future exploration.

3

The final essay, Chapter Three, completes the review of place-based change teams by
examining two potential elements of team resilience: intra-team dynamics and social bridging.
Specifically, I posit that a positive team dynamics contribute to greater team performance,
enhancing resilience. Secondly, I postulate that new social networks formed through social
bridging results in positive spillover effects. Both predictions are analyzed using the eight
community teams in Michigan studied in the previous chapter.
I begin essay three by again exploring the literature, in this case the effects of the intrateam environment on the group’s success. While some similarities of success factors emerge
from the analysis of teams in Chapter One, the focus is tightened by uncovering the
psychosocial factors between and among individuals operating in a team setting. Additionally,
given that factors such as local ties and attachment are at play when considering community
change teams, the literature review is expanded to also include a discussion on social capital,
trust and team resilience --- elements that are considered in exploring the second premise that
suggests new social networks will result in positive spillover effects.
Similar to Chapter Two, a case-study qualitative research design supported by a
quantitative analysis of word usage is presented in the essay. The data set consists of recorded
interviews of team participants and external team witnesses (i.e., community coach and change
initiative coordinator) coupled with recorded team meetings. To explore my first premise, the
research data are mapped against a set of traits associated with positive team dynamics
identified through the literature. Additionally, using a typology developed by Woolcock and
Narayan (2000) each team’s efforts in social bridging are assessed using the team’s descriptions
of new networking efforts and the potential benefits accrued.
4

Lastly, the conclusions found in Chapter Four integrate the findings of each of the three
essays. As noted earlier, research on planned change efforts can provide critical answers to
practitioners and scholars seeking answers about the numerous dynamics associated with
successful community change. Collectively, this research found that change team readiness,
trust among volunteer change team members, and a supportive community environment for
planned change activities can enhance the prospects for success of a planned community
change effort. Collectively these findings strengthen our understanding of factors influencing
community change team success and resilience.

5

CHAPTER 1
A CONSTRUCT FOR PREDICTING COMMUNITY CHANGE TEAM SUCCESS
1.0

Introduction
An abundance of stories exist about communities, large and small alike, that have

altered their trajectory of their places; communities that have bucked economic realities; places
that defied odds and strengthened their resilience through planned-change initiatives (Emery et
al., 2004; Emery and Flora, 2006; Flora et al., 1997; Grisham, 1999; Hustedde, 2007; Luther and
Wall, 1998). Most of the profiles focus on a particular community and/or economic
development approach with little attention to the local community team that is leading the
planned change initiative. Gaining an understanding of factors associated with a local team’s
ability to achieve its desired outcomes can enhance other planned community change
initiatives. Using scholarship from a variety of disciplines, including the literature exploring
change, teams, and volunteerism, this chapter proposes a community change team construct
that integrate factors associated a team’s ability to achieve desired outcomes. This construct
advances our understanding of proactive community change and voluntary team resilience.
Further, the proposed construct can assist both community development practitioners working
with local change teams and other researchers seeking to understand the dynamics associated
with planned community change initiatives.
To frame the analysis I turn to the literature to guide terminology use. The term
“community” considers a spatial reference. Flora et al. (1992) define community as a locality, a
“place, a location in which a group of people interact with one another” (p. 14). Gusfield (1975)

6

distinguishes between the territorial and geographical notion of community (i.e. neighborhood,
town and city) and the “relational” community focused on the “quality of character of human
relationship, without reference to location” (p. xvi). My focus is on the former, emphasizing the
spatial connectivity of community.
The term resilience also requires greater clarity. Although the literature often links
community resilience with disaster preparedness, or adaptive capacities after a disturbance or
adversity (Norris et al., 2008), in a study examining volunteers working in a local setting to help
their community collectively deal with stresses, Ganor and Ben-Lavy (2003) describes
community resilience as “the ability to find unknown inner strengths and resources in order to
cope effectively with long-term pressures...to stick together and to help itself as a group” (p.
106). The authors further outline elements of community resilience, including communications,
cooperation, cohesion, ability to take action, credibility, and a long-term vision. For the purpose
of this study reference to team resilience uses the definition provided by Ganor and Ben-Lavy
(2003), specifically the ability to stick together, cohesion, ability to take action, credibility and
long-term vision.
Further, this examination considers planned team actions to become different in
response to community challenges within a place-based setting. Throughout history,
communities have faced both endogenous and exogenous forces that have altered their
existence – for better and worse. As the literature review illustrates, individuals, organizations,
and communities respond differently to change factors. Although the literature on change is
rich, this essay focuses on the efforts of teams (in a variety of settings) in facilitating and leading
planned change efforts. Government officials, educational institutions, and local and regional
7

industries all play integral roles in community change. Increasingly, however, citizen-led
volunteer teams are serving as the change agents in improving their communities. Enhancing
our knowledge of factors associated with team resilience, and the dynamics that may impact a
team’s ability to accomplish desired goals, can inform other planned community change
initiatives.

1.1

Literature Review

1.11

Change Theories
The examination of change, particularly organized efforts to alter a particular

environment can largely be traced to the organizational development literature which offers
important insights in our examination of community change teams. Organizations are often
challenged with adapting to exogenous changes, including changing market conditions, new
technologies, and cost competitive rivals. Similarly, communities are challenged with global
market and technological dynamics that can weaken a place’s competitiveness and vitality.
Both organizations and communities also face endogenous challenges, including workforce
education and skills and aging equipment/infrastructure. In both communities and
organizations, a human element is at play in dealing with exogenous and endogenous change
factors. Our effort to inform the development of a community change team construct can
therefore benefit from the scholarship on change within the organizational development
discipline.
th

While many of the late 20 century change theories (Azjen, 1985; Azjen and Fishbein,
1980; Bandura, 1977, 1989; Prochaska and DiClemente, 1991) focus on individual behaviors, it
8

is the earlier theories within the organizational development discipline that examine group
and/or collective change within a structural setting, that provide relevant insights in the
examination of community change teams. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin introduced a
collection of theories and models that provides much of the early foundation for understanding
change processes in social situations. In his action research model, Lewin (1946) suggested that
a necessary ingredient to successful planned change is a “felt need” by organizational
members. Felt-need is “an individual’s inner-realization that change is necessary. If felt-need is
low in the group or organization, introducing change becomes problematic,” (Burnes, 2004a, p.
984). Action research stresses that for change to be effective it must take place at the group
level while being pursued through a participative and collaborative process involving all
stakeholders (Lewin, 1947). However, Lewin was concerned that:
A change towards a higher level of group performance is
frequently short lived; after a ‘shot in the arm,’ group life soon
returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not
suffice to define the objective of a planned change in group
performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency
at the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should
be included in the objective. (p. 228)
It was this concern of permanency, i.e. the long-term adoption of change actions, which
resulted in Lewin’s three-step change model (1947) that is often cited as his key contribution to
the organizational change literature. His change model involves three sequential steps:
Step one: unfreezing the existing situation or status quo. Lewin argued that
equilibrium needs to be destabilized, i.e. unfrozen, before old behaviors can be
discarded and new behaviors adopted. “To break open the shell of complacency
and self-righteousness it is sometimes necessary to bring about an emotional stir
up.” (Lewin, 1947, p. 229)
Step two: movement/action to new behaviors and effectuating required
changes. Lewin recognized that planned change is very difficult because of the
9

complexities of the involved forces. It is this step which integrates Lewin’s Action
Research construct suggesting an iterative approach of research, action and
more research, enabling groups and individuals to move from less acceptable to
more acceptable behaviors.
Step three: refreezing to allow change to be sustained. Lewin viewed successful
change as a group activity, suggesting that unless group norms and routines are
also transformed, changes to individual behaviors will not be sustained.
Refreezing often requires changes to organizational cultures, norms, policies and
practices (Cummings and Huse, 1989).
Figure 1.1 outlines Lewin’s three-step change model. Lewin viewed these elements as
being used and working together rather than being seen as separate theories (Burnes, 2004b).
Although Lewin’s model has guided many of the dominant theories in the practice of change
management for nearly 40 years, the three-step approach in particular attracted criticism for
being relevant only to small-scale changes in stable environments and for ignoring human
dynamics such as internal politics and conflict (Dawson, 1994; Pettigrew et al., 1992).
Additionally, given its group-based consensual and slow-paced nature, Lewin’s model also
attracted criticism regarding its appropriateness in organizations needing to transform
themselves rapidly and brutally, to survive (Burnes, 2004b).

10

Figure 1.1: Lewin’s three step model of change
Unfreeze Stage

Forces are
arranged to
cause
equilibrium

Movement Stage

Refreeze Stage

Introduction of a
force strong enough
to cause
disequilibrium

Despite these criticisms and the realization that nearly 70 years have elapsed since his
seminal work, Lewin’s contributions to understanding change in social groupings provide
valuable lessons to a potential community change team construct. The theoretical foundation
of his action research resides in Gestalt psychology, which stresses that change can only be
successfully achieved by helping individuals gain an understanding of the totality of a situation
versus individual elements. Lewin viewed the understanding and learning gained through the
change process as more important than any resulting changes (Burnes, 2004a; Lewin, 1946).
Considered within a community context, the increased awareness and learning of
planned change by community participants may be more valuable than whether the desired
change is actually realized. This concept of planning for change is further explored later in this
chapter. Achieving positive community change, however, may be possible when sufficient
efforts by a team are directed at altering the collective actions of community actors that are
stifling constructive adjustments. By encouraging citizens to view community challenges from a
11

fresh perspective, work together in a quest for a new future, and integrate the new positive
change behaviors into community values and traditions, planned change is more likely to be
achieved. Secondly, underpinning Lewin’s work was a strong philosophical belief in the
importance of broad-based, democratic participation in the change process. Planned change
can be sustained only if key stakeholders are engaged in the process. Engagement, however,
requires a felt need by concerned parties.
Lacking in Lewin’s writings is attention to the role of change agents whose leadership
can serve as a social lubricant in facilitating change discussions and subsequent action. Lippitt et
al. (1958) recognized the importance of leadership to the change process and expanded Lewin’s
three-step change theory to a seven-step theory focused more on the role and responsibility of
a change agent rather than the evolution of the change itself (Kritsonis, 2004). According to
Lippitt et al. (1958) successful change efforts should include assessing the motivation and
capacity for change, assessing the resources and motivation of the change agent (including
commitment to change) and ongoing communications and feedback to maintain change (Lippitt
et al., 1958). The authors further suggested that changes are more likely to be stable if they
successfully infiltrate neighboring elements of the system immediately affected. The more
widespread a desired action becomes, the more likely the behavior will be regarded as normal.
Lippitt et al.’s (1958) observations offer important insights when considered in a
community team context. First, the vital role of a change agent in championing the change
process underscores the role of a local change team, which may serve as a collection of change
agents, and/or the team leader, who may function as the catalyst in the community change
process. Secondly, the authors’ suggestion to infiltrate elements of a system implies team
12

efforts should include integrating planned change efforts into key elements (e.g. local policy,
planning, education, etc.) of a community’s institutional infrastructure. Doing so may assist in
rooting the desired change while building a supportive environment for sustained change
efforts.
The role of change agents is worthy of further exploration in our examination of change
teams. The identification of individual/group motivations for change, strong communications,
and feedback loops as successful features to the change process provides initial clues of
positive change team elements. Gaining a fuller understanding of the role of a team in
facilitating positive action, however, requires a deeper exploration of the scholarship on team
performance, self-directed teams, and volunteer teams seeking positive change.

1.12

Teams and Change
In addition to enhancing our knowledge of the change process, additional insights from

the organizational development and psychology literature on factors influencing team
performance can further inform our community change team construct. Dainty and Kakabadse
(1992) studied 36 teams in both the public and private sectors, examining both group and
individual expectations, team attributes, and individual and team behaviors. The researchers
developed four categories to define teams: 1) the brittle team which is susceptible to failure
because a poor focus exists on their fundamental purpose; 2) the blocked team which faces
challenges in the way members interact with one another; 3) the blended team whose
members place an emphasis on integration, discipline and expert values; 4) the blind team
where members are misguided in terms of the appropriate external goals and internal issues
13

that need to be addressed. The team purposes and processes were considerably influenced by
the values (such as discipline oriented, expertise oriented, interpersonally oriented, integration
oriented) held by each of the team members. As suspected, the blended team performed best
in Daity and Kakabadse’s (1992) research. The successful integration of team members is
consistent with Lewin’s (1947) research suggesting group change is best achieved through a
participatory and collaborative process.
Even when team members possess many of the individual characteristics important for
team effectiveness, the group must still meld individual contributions into unit synergy.
Anderson and West (1994) went further suggesting that simply a collection of individuals does
not represent a team. Teams, they suggest, operate in a shared climate where individuals
interact, individuals have some common goals that brings them together for collective action,
and enough task interdependence exists to develop shared understandings. This is consistent
with Lewin’s later writings which suggest “the individual accepts the new system of values and
beliefs by accepting belonging to a group” (Lewin and Grabbe, 1973, p. 67).
In his study of groups and change, Lewin (1966) found that when a group as a whole
made a decision to have its members change behavior, it was more effective in producing
actual change than a series of lecturers and informational forums from outsiders promoting the
necessity to change (Coghlan, 1994). Can the same lesson of peer-to-peer initiated change
within a team be applied outside of team membership? Friedlander and Schott (1981) found
that groups can influence organization-wide change if the group remains committed to
communications to external group members at all stages to avoid surprises which often create
negative reactions. Strong communication is achievable if members of the change team serve
14

as formal representatives of various constituencies within the organization. If the team is not
comprised of formal representatives of differing stakeholder interests, but is perceived by these
stakeholders to be cognizant of their views, then informal contact with stakeholder groups
provides the necessary communications channel.
Within a community context, these studies suggest that effective change is best
achieved when the community team itself decides a course of action rather than members
outside of the community developing a change script. Concomitantly, to avoid the exclusion of
marginalized citizens in a planned change process, team membership should be representative
of all members of the community. Further, strong communications are instrumental in the
change process. Communications can be achieved when members of the community change
team represent key constituent groups within the community, and use their connectivity to
communicate group efforts. When direct constituent representation is not feasible, the
reputation of a community change team’s members among various constituencies may provide
an acceptable substitution. Finally, engagement with all segments of the community assists in
safeguarding that underrepresented citizens are not voiceless in the planned community
change process.

1.13

Self-Managed Work Teams
More recent research in the organizational development discipline has examined self-

managed work teams (SMWTs) as a mechanism to improve organizational performance and
employee well-being. Self-managed work teams are described as “groups of interdependent
employees who have the collective authority and responsibility of managing and performing
15

relatively whole tasks” (DeJong et al., 2004, p. 18). The autonomy of SMWTs is more aligned
with the flexibility afforded to community change teams, albeit in a hierarchical structure.
Hughes (1991) found the SMWTs require extensive training in self-awareness, consensus
decision-making, and communications to function effectively as a team. According to the
author, once the internal operating procedures of the team are understood and agreed-upon
among team members, a SMWT can effectively facilitate organizational change.
Manz and Sims (1987) found sound leadership to be critical to a SMWT’s success.
Among the most valued leader behaviors in a SMWT environment were:
1)

Leader encourages work group to be self-reinforcing of high group performance;

2)

Leader encourages work group to set performance goals;

3)

Leader encourages work group to have high expectations of group performance;

4)

Leader encourages work group to review an activity and “think it through”
before actually performing the activity;

In addition to these leadership behaviors, Gibb (1978) found that successful groups
without formal supervisors have developed a level of trust among team members, an openness
of communications between team members, self-realization of individual member roles, and an
interdependence and level of cooperation among team members. Self-managed teams also
require an organizational climate where employees feel a sense of value, respect and inclusion
(Al-Kazemi and Zajac, 1998).
Musselwhite and Moran (1990) found that self-directed teams move through five stages
as they grow and develop into fully functioning groups – a process that may take two to five
years. The stages include start-up (where team members learn of the plan and begin their
16

commitment), state of confusion (team members of unsure of role functions), leader-centered
work teams (to ensure continued commitment, the team leader must be coached/trained to
move towards a consensus problem solving model), tightly-formed work teams (the group is
identifying ways to work together and resolve any intergroup conflicts) and finally self-directed
work team (the team is focused on a plan with specific role assignments and mutual support). A
truly self-managed performing unit is one where the team as a whole has responsibility for not
just doing the necessary work, but also monitoring and managing how that work gets
accomplished (Hackman and Powell, 2004).
The study of self-managed work teams provides additional clues in the development of
a community change team construct. Effective leadership is a key element of the team’s
performance, both establishing team goals and challenging team members to contribute to its
success. Also noteworthy are the findings from Hughes (1991) suggesting that the functionality
of a team requires nurturing and agreed-upon operating procedures.

1.14

Community Change Teams
Although the organizational development literature provides important insights on team

performance and organization change, a community setting is fundamentally different as
change team membership is often voluntary, existing within a non-hierarchical setting.
Surprisingly, very few clues exist in the literature on success factors of community-based teams.
Some previous work involving locally based health coalitions in the community psychology
literature does provide initial insights. For example, Johnson et al. (2003) found that local
partnerships may be highly dependent on the presence of stable local champions with
17

considerable political capital. Additionally, successful local partnerships were shown to be
influenced by community contextual factors, such as attitudes, social and financial capital, and
prior collaborative history (Feinberg et al., 2005; Gomez et al., 2005; Greenberg et al., 2007).
Similar to the organizational development literature suggesting that a work team’s
ability to accomplish its stated goals is influenced by the support of management of team
activities (Coghlan, 1994; Kulisch and Banner, 1993), the support of formal community
leadership can also play an integral role in a voluntary team’s success. In community, however,
there are many sources of power and leadership. Successfully navigating both formal and
informal community power structures, tapping differing resources, and facilitating
collaborations that result in positive community change require effective team leaders to
shepherd change efforts. Johnson et al. (2003) found that successful community-based
partnerships are often highly dependent on the presence of stable, local political champions.
Volunteer members of a community change team should represent a broad based group
of constituents, strengthening social bridging benefits (Blau, 1977). In their examination of selforganized volunteer groups seeking community change in Canada, Newman and Dale (2007)
found that many initiatives face difficulties in populating local teams given limited human
resources stretched over numerous (and sometimes overlapping) issues. A consequence is a
migration towards homophily, i.e. “the tendency of groups to form from similar actors and then
become more similar over time,” (p. 79). Volunteer organizations often demonstrate strong
homogeneity (Popielarz and McPherson, 1995), unfortunately becoming more homogenous
over time. McPherson et al. (2001) found that individuals tend to drop non-homogenous ties
and atypical members tend to stay in the organization a shorter time than typical members.
18

This phenomenon is in contrast to findings (Dainty and Kakabadse, 1992) suggesting that the
membership of effective teams is comprised of individuals with differing skills and backgrounds.
A community change team’s long term success may therefore be strengthened by capturing the
sense of solidarity and esprit de corps which often exists in volunteer organizations while
maintaining a team whose membership represents diverse stakeholders within the community.
Although not a “team” in the same framework that is examined here, community
coalitions that often function through the efforts of volunteers may offer additional
perspectives on the long-term success of community teams. The balance between the costs and
benefits of participating in a coalition is a major concern in sustaining collaborative efforts
(Butterfoss and Kegler, 2002). Achieving both greater accountability and the necessary
sustainability to achieve long-term outcomes were accomplished by 1) identifying personal,
organizational and community benefits of membership and attainable goals/objectives; 2)
promoting open, frequent communications and network development among partners; 3)
fostering respect, understanding and trust, and 4) promoting shared decision-making and
ownership (Lasker et al., 2001; Mattessich et al., 2004). These lessons mirror many of the
elements of successful teams previously discussed. It is important to note that many of the
studies examining coalition success from a sociological and/or psychological perspective
(excluding political science) focus on studies examining health-related coalitions.
Voluntary teams, by their nature, are subject to the whims of their uncompensated
members’ whose commitment to team goals and activities may vary. Understanding volunteer
motivations provides a final element to our community change team construct.

19

1.15

Volunteer Motivations and Team Membership
In a community setting a plethora of volunteer opportunities often exist for individuals

seeking to donate time and/or resources. Although the time commitments can vary, in most
instances the personal obligation investment is minimal. Participation in a community change
team, however, may offer higher exposure, greater scrutiny, and a sustained commitment level
in multi-year initiatives. Understanding the dynamics of volunteerism, and factors of sustained
volunteering, are vital to a community change team construct.
Although scholars have proposed various theories in their examination of voluntary
arrangements, a common principle draws from neoclassical rational choice theory as applied to
collective action by Olson (1965) (Klandermans, 1997; Teske, 1997). Social movement theorists
apply a rational choice explanation in portraying resident volunteers as rational actors who
make choices about becoming involved or staying committed to an organization (Rich, 1980)
Residents choose between involvement, no involvement, or a certain level of involvement
according to the perceived effect that their efforts generate within their internal value system.
Ryan et al. (2005) challenge this theoretical explanation, believing that the primary motives of
rational individuals (according to neo-classical theorists) are self-serving. Volunteers would be
considered irrational when, as members of a collective, they could have obtained benefits
without volunteering. Rich (1980) explained, however, that the collective goods element to this
theory is based on the notion that the pooling of resident efforts reduces the costs of individual
actions and secures greater benefits that are shared by all. For residents to volunteer and
remain committed to a place-based organization, the experience must provide material,

20

solidarity, and suprapersonal benefits to its members (Clark and Wilson, 1961; Renauer, 2001),
reducing the incentive to “free-ride” (Klandermans, 1997; Prestby et al., 1990; Teske, 1997).
An alternative consideration of volunteerism as rational behavior focuses on the social
relations developed through the volunteer effort. Ryan et al. (2005) uses the term “social
embeddedness” to describe the dual relations developed through volunteering which represent
both direct social ties and indirect ties. Gould (1993) suggests that higher levels of social
embeddedness generally lead to higher rates of volunteering on behalf of the collective. Social
embeddedness can be viewed as an opportunity to acquire access to other individuals serving
as volunteers (Granovetter, 1982). A cumulative effect of volunteering (Tomeh, 1973) occurs as
individuals recruit and are recruited through personal relationships. A second form of social
embeddedness considers the impact of relational networks beyond the volunteer’s
connections. Solidarity is strengthened to the extent that network members are willing to make
commitments to other members solely on the basis of their membership (Ryan et al., 2005;
Tomeh, 1973). As such, the willingness to do community volunteer work may be motivated by
one’s shared identity with other members of the community. Or, as Wilson (2000) puts it,
“anything that promotes social solidarity among members … increases the rate of volunteering”
(p.215).
The psychological terms sense of community may offer a third framework to account for
the collective influence of interests and sentiments on voluntary participation. McMillan and
Chavis (1986) defined sense of community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a
feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that
members' needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 9).
21

Numerous studies have concluded that a stronger sense of community leads to greater
commitment to place (Ahlbrant and Cunningham, 1979), greater participation in community
activities (Florin and Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman and Giamartino, 1980), and a greater
sense of purpose and perceived control in dealing with an external threat (Bachrach and Zautra,
1985). Hughey et al. (1999) suggested that an individual’s sense of purpose represents a
psychological process by which the individual attaches to something larger than any specific
organization. This attachment is rooted in the belief that he or she can influence events beyond
the limitations of the organization. The perceived influence referenced in Bachrach and Zautra
(1985) was based on findings in a rural community in which residents felt in control in dealing
with the proposed siting of a hazardous waste facility.
Similarly, Ryan et al. (2005) found that contributing to the common good, particularly in
more homogeneous rural communities where residents are more likely to have similar values
and beliefs enhanced volunteer intentions (while potentially increasing homophily as previously
described). Shye (2010) approached volunteer intentions differently. Rather than asking what
motivates the volunteer, Shye explored the extent to which volunteering rewards the
individual. The researcher found that, for the general population, the opportunity to develop
friendships and gain a sense of belonging to a community were among the most important
benefits derived from the volunteer experience. From a community team perspective, the
cohesion that emerges from shared efforts can contribute to a volunteer’s commitment,
strengthening team resilience.

22

1.2

A Proposed Community Change Team Construct
“We learn from the study of practice but our learning is based on prior ideas or theories
and used to construct new theories that can be used to test future observations”
(Richmond et al., 1998, p.6).
I began our exploration of community change teams in search of guiding theories to

advance our knowledge of how teams can effectively facilitate action leading to planned
community change. But as noted by Stickland (1998), “the problem with studying change is that
it parades across many subject domains under numerous guises, such as transformation,
development, metamorphosis, transmutation, evolution, regeneration, innovation, revolution
and transition to name but a few” (p. 14). Additionally, the review of the existing literature
uncovered limitations that complicate our ability to identify a guiding theory of factors that
influence a community team’s ability to accomplish its desired change goals.
Although early change theories (Lewin, 1943, 1947; Lippitt et al., 1958) explored
group/team initiated efforts in facilitating change, the research occurred within organizational
settings. The more modern change theories focus on individual behavior and the role of
empowerment as drivers for change (Fawcett et al., 1995; Foster-Fisherman et al., 2001;
Lebonte, 1994; Omoto and Snyder, 1995; Prochaska and DiClemente, 1991; Zimmerman et al.,
1992). These studies also used organizations as the principal setting. The research with placebased settings (Hughey et al., 1999; Pretsby et al., 1990; Rich, 1980) focused on individual
volunteer dynamics within neighborhood block associations and not on planned change team
outcomes within either the neighborhood or community at large. Although planned change has
been viewed from a variety of conceptual perspectives (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991 Huy, 2001),

23

few studies examining the phenomenon have used empirical research designs. Further, the
studies that do exist have been case study based and relied on differing conceptual lenses.
Also included in our review of the organizational development literature were findings
from research exploring team performance. A number of factors surfaced that contribute to
team success, including membership considerations (e.g., multiple team member perspectives),
elements of team dynamics (e.g. trust) and the leadership approach employed by the team
leader (e.g., consensus decision-making). Although intuitively many of the identified success
factors apply to teams operating in both organizational and community settings, what remains
unclear is whether certain elements are more valued by volunteers, where team participation is
optional and more unpredictable. Although the value-laden nature of sustained volunteering
would suggest that some experiences and needs are more important than others (McMillin and
Chavis, 1986), the research to date has not provided greater clarity.
Although these gaps within the literature complicate our ability to develop a definitive
theoretical script for strengthening a change team’s resilience and ability to accomplish its
goals, the findings do allow us to fashion a construct based on a collection of disciplinary
perspectives. We recognize that there is no recipe that guarantees success of a volunteer
change team, nor an instruction manual providing step-by-step instructions. By their very
natures, human and social dynamics are unpredictable, making it difficult to forecast a
community team’s success chances. Despite these caveats, we can benefit from decades of
research, in differing settings and through a multitude of ideological positions, on how teams,
organizations, social movements and communities have pursued change. The community
change team construct presented is composed of four characteristic themes informed by my
24

review of the literature: readiness for change, commitment to action, diverse team
composition, and a supportive environment for sustained success.
Although team readiness factors have not explicitly been identified in prior research as a
factor of greater team performance, readiness for change of both the community team and the
intended community audience serves as a prerequisite to attaining team outcomes. While
differing explanations may exist as to what constitutes a state of readiness, my focus is rooted
specifically within findings of the organizational development and community psychology
literature. An essential condition in moving towards community change is recognition of the
need to change. Lewin (1946) spoke of a felt need in motivating the desire to change. Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980) suggested that an intention must exist, a willingness to change based on a
belief that the team effort will lead to a greater outcome, and a vision for a more ideal future
(Prochaska and DiClimente, 1991). In essence, the team must believe in itself and its ability to
facilitate change within the community. Additionally, a felt-need is cultivated within the
community by the team helping fellow residents understand the totality of their community’s
situation requiring a change effort. The understanding and learning gained in mobilizing
community members is a key element in creating a psychological readiness for change.
The second element of my change team construct is a commitment to action– a deeper,
more widespread allegiance among team members to the change process and agreed-upon
outcomes than is manifested in the readiness stage. Action-oriented teams possess trust among
members, have agreed-upon operating procedures, foster open communications, and have
created an interdependence and level of cooperation among team members, allowing teams to
focus on outcomes (Gibb, 1978; Hughes, 1991). As suggested by Anderson and West (1998), a
25

collection of individuals do not make a team. High performing (and action-oriented) teams
operate in a shared climate where individuals interact, members share common goals, and
enough task dispersion exists to develop shared understandings. Similarly, high performing
teams act as a single unit whereby the team as a whole has responsibility for not just doing the
necessary work, but also monitoring and managing how that work gets accomplished (Hackman
and Powell, 2004).
Team commitment to action is nurtured through numerous avenues, including the
empowerment of individuals who have volunteered to work for change (Chavis, 1983; Glaser et
al., 1997). Greater empowerment among team members creates a sense of control, fostering
an internal belief in their ability to provide meaningful contributions (Rappaport, 1997) and
moving the team from “what we ought to do” to “what we are doing.”
Team leaders play a critical role in action-oriented teams. Team leaders heighten the
empowerment of team members through engagement and task dispersion. Team leaders also
build consensus on desired team outcomes, encourage teams to “think through” activities
before pursuing action, and aid in the development of external collaborations to smooth the
community change process (Chilenski et al., 2007; Lehman et al., 2002; Manz and Sims, 1987).
Finally, Chavis (2012) identified the team change leader, or keeper of the local vision, as key in
providing the fortitude necessary for community-based initiatives to work through setbacks.
A diverse team composition is the third element of our community change team
construct. Successful planned community change often requires a time commitment that can
span several years while overcoming stressors that can exert a hefty toll, wearing on volunteer
change team members. For a community change team, stresses may originate from a variety of
26

sources: internal team dynamics, individual community residents questioning team activities,
differing networks within the community, and the political infrastructure. To mitigate potential
objections within the community of team activities, the team membership should include
various networks within the community. Diversifying team membership can strengthen social
bridging, enhance collective identity, and reinforce transparent communications to differing
stakeholder interests (Blau, 1977; Lasker et al., 2001; Mattessich et al., 2004; McCarthy and
Zald, 1977). When representation of different constituencies within a community is not
feasible, a positive reputation/standing of the community change team’s members within the
community can mitigate distrust and suspicion among residents.
Increased capacity, as demonstrated through multi-network engagement of the team
and collective commitment, can also provide a level of robustness (Kimhi and Shmai, 2004) that
buffers the psychological strain team members may face. Robustness, which in this context
refers to increased vigor among volunteer team members, can also be aided through a positive
self-concept (i.e., how volunteer team members see themselves in relation to the change team
effort) and a sense of optimism that becomes embedded in the team’s belief system and
values, creating a narrative that further strengthens sense of place and connectedness (Alkon,
2004; Matton, 2000; 2005; Scarr, 1992; Sonn and Fisher, 1998; Werner, 2005).
Further, diverse team composition provides expanded expertise to better address
differing challenges the team may encounter. Consistent with Dainty and Kakabadse’s (1992)
findings, membership on blended/diverse teams places an emphasis on integration, discipline
and expert values. Mancini and Bowen (2009) identified a level of team competence, leading to
a proactive versus reactionary stance that can be fostered through greater capacity.
27

The final element of our change team construct is a supportive environment for
sustained success. Although the previous construct elements focused largely on team
characteristics, change can only be achieved if the team is operating in an environment that is
supportive of its activities (Al-Kazemi and Zajac, 1998; Burnes, 2004a; Hughes, 1991; Lewin,
1947). In a hierarchical environment, self-managed teams require an organizational climate
where team members feel valued, respected, and part of the organization. In a community
setting, change teams gain credibility when elected leadership recognizes the team’s role in
facilitating community change. A supportive environment may also be demonstrated through
positive attitudes within the community towards team efforts, the awarding of resources
necessary for team success, and the development of new collaborative arrangements (Feinburg
et al., 2005; Gomez et al., 2005; Greenberg et al., 2007).

1.3

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Exploration
The intent of this chapter was not to prove or disprove a research hypothesis, but rather

to integrate different scholarly findings on teams and change into a construct to inform teamled community change initiatives. The proposed construct offers heuristic value by both
suggesting promising enabling activities and identifying elements of successful volunteer teams.
The utility of this construct is untested, however, as its elements have not been empirically
examined. Future research on place-based voluntary teams that directly explores the
applicability of the construct elements (i.e., readiness for change, a commitment to action,
diverse team composition, and a supportive environment for sustained change) can contribute

28

to increasing our knowledge of community change dynamics and the role of local change teams
in providing solutions.
There are a variety of challenges in using a construct, as proposed, to improve science
and practice. First, the ultimate outcomes of most team-led initiatives are long-term in nature,
complicating the existence of a causal contribution by the construct. A central question is
whether, and under what conditions specific construct elements affect longer-term outcomes.
The same concerns exist for shorter-term outcomes, and their causal relationship to the
construct elements. Secondly, both readiness for change and the assemblage of long-term
community capacity are difficult to assess since they often vary across levels, domains and time
(Fawcett et al., 1995). Also, team-led community-based initiatives can display unequal degrees
of readiness, capacity, and community-based outcomes at different levels of analysis. A change
team may gain significantly in its own capacity (through increased social capital), but the overall
change initiative is less successful, with limited effect on longer-term community level
indicators. For instance, a team-led initiative to reduce youth out-migration may be successful
in retaining more recent high school graduates but reduce the educational achievement of
young adults in the community. On-going monitoring of team actions and community
responses permit a fuller analysis of the change process and intermediate outcomes across
levels and domains and over time.
Third, in some communities, broader economic, environmental and/or social factors
may challenge team efforts and change outcomes despite strong leadership and team
competence. For example, a team’s effort to lessen a remote community’s youth out-migration
may be undermined by an absence of well-paying local jobs, technological limitations within the
29

community, and the absence of post-secondary education/training. Additional research may
clarify the aspects of place context and provide further insights into our proposed community
team construct.
Despite these challenges, our community team construct can contribute to the
understanding and improvement of planned community change efforts. Further, the
community change team construct offers greater clarity to factors that may strengthen a
team’s resilience and potential ability to accomplish its desired outcomes. Chopra (2011)
suggested that “all great changes are preceded by chaos” (p. 779). While this team construct
will not eliminate chaotic occurrences, its value may lie in providing a compass for assisting
community teams in navigating planned change efforts.

30

CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY COACHING AND VOLUNTEER TEAM DECISION-MAKING
2.0

Introduction
In the previous chapter I proposed a construct that identifies factors that may influence

a community change team’s ability to accomplish planned objectives. This chapter moves
beyond that construct to explore the influence of an outside community coach working with
volunteer teams engaged in a planned community change initiative. Volunteer community
change teams can be challenged with unclear decision-making processes and poor
communications between team members, undermining member motivations and threatening
the team’s effectiveness in accomplishing desired outcomes. Although a consensus leadership
model for decision-making may address many of these challenges, volunteer teams often fail to
embrace this shared leadership approach. Through a grant-funded initiative involving an
external community coach working with eight volunteer community change teams in Michigan,
the role of a community coach in moving the teams from a leader-follower to a consensus
leadership model for decision-making was explored. This essay examines that initiative.
The examination includes a review of the literature on community coaching and its role in
influencing volunteer change teams. The literature provides important insights on the
appropriateness of a community coach in addressing volunteer team leadership approaches.
Additionally, the literature on self-directed work teams, both in work for pay and volunteer
settings, provides insights into how different leadership approaches affect team effectiveness.
Key findings within the literature are identified to define consensus-leadership. The elements of
this consensus leadership definition are used in the research study. I use a qualitative analysis
31

to gain an assessment of the coach’s influence on the voluntary team’s adoption of elements of
the consensus leadership definition. A quantitative analysis of key pronoun usage among team
members adds to the examination of the team’s adoption of the consensus leadership model
for decision-making. The results provide important insights to both community development
practitioners providing coaching services and local volunteer teams seeking to guide long-term
community change.

2.1

Literature Review

2.11

Community Coaching as a Team Intervention
The terms “coach” and “coaching” are prominent within the organizational behavior,

leadership development and psychology literature. Case and Kleiner (1993) suggested that
coaching represents a variety of tactics used to guide employees towards maximizing their
potential. Others suggest that coaching can assist in reviewing and challenging old values and
attitudes (Ford, 1992), improve executive behavior (Hall et al., 1999; Levenson, 2009), and
improve overall organizational performance (McDermott et al., 2007). Among the performance
and developmental outcomes of coaching identified by Kampa and White (2002) were
improvements in relationships, the ability to manage people more effectively, improved goal
setting, greater adaptability, understanding the perspectives of others, improved mentoring
and delegating skills, greater self-awareness and enhanced leadership effectiveness.
Although coaching, by definition, is a process to facilitate positive change, its emergence
as a tool for generating desired community change is relatively new within community
development practice. In fact, only one peer-reviewed article has appeared in the Community
32

Development Society Journal on the topic. The article (Cohen et al., 2008) defines community
coaching as “an adaptive practice tailored to unique community contexts to guide systemic
change via participant empowerment” (p. 71). As community change teams have emerged,
particularly in rural settings, success stories of outside intervention approaches such as
community coaches have appeared. A national community coaching roundtable of community
development scholars and practitioners suggested that community coaching assists in keeping
community groups focused on longer-term goals while assisting in helping communities be
purposeful and strategic in sustaining planned change initiatives, i.e., a proactive effort
designed to address a challenge facing a community (Emery et al., 2005). While the limited
literature on community coaching suggests a product of the coaching intervention is often
greater community capacity, little explanation is provided on what constitutes capacity. The
authors further suggested that community coaches can assist in the “co-creation of new
leadership structures that are more fluid, adaptable and engaging” (p. 5), but offered no
empirical evidence to support the assertion. Despite the lack of evidence-based studies that
document the impact of community coaching, the approach continues to grow as a positive
community development intervention. Numerous foundations, including the Ford Foundation,
W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Northwest Area Foundation, Foundation for the Mid South, Pew
Charitable Trust, and the Lilly Endowment have integrated community coaching as a program
delivery strategy (Emery et al., 2005). Although the examples of successful change efforts
involving coaching have captured the interest of the funding community, some questions
remain unanswered. Is there a tipping point beyond which the coach-community arrangement
leads to greater success? Some clues may be found in the local change team itself: its structure,
33

its connection to institutions both inside and outside of the community, and the skills of the
community coach in facilitating (and perhaps mitigating) volunteer leadership and group
dynamics.
Within community development practice, the community-coaching client is often a
place-based volunteer work team (composed of both positional leaders and motivated citizens)
that is pursuing community change actions and initiatives resulting in community benefits.
Emery et al. (2005) suggest that coaching to strengthen teams and relationships, i.e., helping
communities create and support new and sustainable relationships, is frequently at the core of
the community coaching approach. Tamarack, a Canadian-based institute for community
engagement, suggests that community coaches and the coaching process provide local leaders
with a “sounding board and guiding hand as they journey through the day-to-day work of
broad-based collaborations to work on community issues” (Tamarack, 2013, p. 1). Issues and
needs vary from community to community, so the coaching intervention should represent the
desires of the community.
Hubbell and Emery (2009) suggest that community coaching occurs at three levels. At
level one, the simplest intervention, the coach may assist a community in identifying its
itinerary for shaping the community change agenda and identifying support resources.
Oftentimes a local Cooperative Extension professional who may not be viewed as a community
coach, per se, but assists the community team in strategic planning and resource identification
assumes this role. At a second stage, or level two, the coach may assist a community in
identifying alternative paths, strategies to avoid challenges, and ways to add to the initiative’s
value. The final stage, level three, represents transformational coaching where the community,
34

with its coach, discovers new destinations that better fit its vision. “Transformational coaching
helps communities address the elephants in their community living rooms, see above the ruts
that confine the vision and conversations and create the ‘aha’ moments when new possibilities
appear” (Hubbell and Emery, 2009, p. 2). For transformational coaching to develop, the
community and the coach must have a shared understanding of their respective roles. Shared
expectations of the coach’s role allow the coach to effectively intervene in the change process.
The genesis for community coaching may have been in social movements in the 1960s
that promoted wider social consensus in decision-making settings (Selman, 2001). Dissimilar to
elements of community organizing, community coaching-based initiatives promote mutual and
collaborative versus oppositional approaches (Cohen et al., 2008). The development of societal
consensus required a facilitation style that “…. draws on skills related to communications,
relationships, group processes, networking and leadership” (Selman, 2001, p. 14). Selman
suggests that this facilitative approach in pursuing community-based initiatives evolved into a
standardized style for conducting community planning and development initiatives.
It is the engagement of a broader group of actors at the community level by the coach
that distinguishes community coaching from personal and/or organizational coaching within
the literature (Ayers et al., 2006; Luther and Emery, 2003). Engaged participants become more
committed to the process, enhancing capacity. Building community capacity is a very important
part of the coaching role (Murray and Dunn, 1995). While developing a sustainable community
change team can be a challenge, particularly in less populated communities where the pool of
potential volunteers is more limited, coaching may play a critical role in identifying key
stakeholders and expanding the group’s network. Jackson et al. (1995) suggested that the
35

development and expansion of networks and the subsequent cohesion of diverse group
members are important element in effective decision-making teams. This may be a key function
of successful community coaching and is core to this study. Effective decision-making teams
also require a leadership model that strengthens team member commitment, a factor that may
be even more critical in volunteer team settings where participation is at will. The next section
further explores leadership and voluntary team resilience.

2.12

Leadership and Volunteer Team Resilience
Numerous examples exist of well-intentioned volunteer groups that coordinate and

implement positive actions within their local communities. Some assist in planning and/or
coordinating a community event (e.g., local festival) that often requires a small outlay of time.
Given the relatively limited time investment and high exposure within the community, these
volunteers routinely return to provide multiple years of service. Other volunteer groups pursue
specific projects (e.g., construction of a community pool, passage of a school millage) that may
require a larger investment of time. These volunteer groups often disband and return to their
day jobs when the project is completed. In some communities, volunteer groups are seeking
transformational change, tackling longer-term community issues (e.g., poverty reduction, youth
migration, job creation). Multiyear change commitments require a level of team resilience, i.e.,
the ability to stick together, cohesion, ability to take action, credibility and long-term vision
(Ganor and Ben-Lavy, 2003) that contributes to the sustained functionality of the team over
time. Volunteer planned change teams must overcome potential tensions among members,
team member exhaustion, and the possible lack of substantive progress necessary to maintain
36

team member motivations. The team leader is in a unique position to address the challenges
facing volunteer work groups through her leadership approach and engagement of team
members. Understanding this unique leadership dynamic is crucial to enhancing our knowledge
of community change team dynamics.
Although the literature provides some clues to leadership and team success through the
examination of self-directed work groups in work-for-pay settings, less is known about
leadership factors that contribute to the sustainability of place-based volunteer work teams. By
stitching together the scholarly findings on effective leadership, particularly in change settings,
with the literature on self-directed work teams and volunteer motivation, we can gain a holistic
understanding of factors that may help leaders strengthen volunteer team performance and
resilience.

2.121 Leadership Theories
While numerous theories of effective leadership have been proposed, perhaps most
prominent in the literature is the transformational leadership model. Transformational
leadership theories grew from Burns’ (1978) work in political leadership where he described the
transforming leader as one who is able to lift followers up from their petty preoccupations so
they rally around a common cause to achieve things never thought possible. Bass (1985)
expanded on the model through his seminal work in developing a typology of leadership
behaviors fitting into the broad categories of transactional and transformational leadership.
The typology captures many of the strength-based elements of effective leadership, such as a

37

shared/consensus leadership approach, but provides a more comprehensive set of traits that
enhance team performance (Barbuto, 2005).
According to Bass (1985, 1990), the characteristics of a transformational leader include
charisma (which is actualized through providing vision and a sense of mission and by instilling
pride in team members, gaining respect and trust from the team), inspiration (demonstrated
through strong communication that assists in focusing efforts while encouraging other voices),
intellectual stimulation (the team leader promotes intelligence, rationality and careful problem
solving) and individualized consideration (personal attention and respect are shown to each
team member, including mentoring suggestions). This is in contrast to transactional leadership
which is characterized by contingent rewards, management by exception (either actively where
the leader searches for deviations for standards or passively where the leader only intervenes
when standards are not met) and laissez-faire (a leader who abdicates responsibility and avoids
making decisions) (Bass, 1990).
Similarly, Cangemi et al. (2008) identified eight roles of effective leaders that align with
many of the transformational leader characteristics. They include collaborative developer (of
vision/mission/core values), developer of trust, developer of people (building on individual
capabilities), initiator of communications, emotional intelligence, utilization of strategic data,
consensus seeker willing to take risks, and a change agent. The latter element, a change agent,
is unique from Bass’s typology as Cangemi (2005) suggests that leaders need to understand that
associates do not fear change as often as is perceived; they fear leaving the known for the
unknown.

38

Building on the transformational leader characteristics discussed above, Goleman (2004)
suggests that a consensus leadership style is most appropriate in some situations. In its basic
form, the process of including others in the decision-making process – what to do and how to
do it – is viewed as consensus leadership. Goleman believes that this approach works well in
situations where the leader has some information but other team members have additional
insights and perspectives that can add value to the final decision-making process. Organizations
that are structured in a matrix environment and incidents where the accountability and control
rests with the function or geography of the group are well suited for consensus-leadership. In
the case of the research study explored in this essay, control largely rests geographically with
the volunteer change team.

2.122 Leading Change and Self-Directed Teams
Successful leadership within a change environment requires additional skills and
approaches. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) found that successful managers in continuously
changing organizations provide clear responsibilities and priorities with communications and
the freedom to improvise. Additionally, these managers link current projects to the future,
allowing team members to know where they are headed, and why. Eisenbach et al. (1999)
submits that transformational, charismatic and visionary leaders can successfully change the
status quo in their organizations by displaying the appropriate behaviors at the appropriate
stage in the change process. When there is a realization that the old ways no longer work, such
leaders undertake the tasks of developing an appealing vision of the future that provides both a
strategic and motivational focus. Most of the research on leadership paradigms focuses on their
39

contributions to individual and organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and
performance (both subjective and objective). To place the leadership literature in context of
this essay, it is important to consider the dynamics of self-directed work teams which are
fundamentally different from those in a hierarchically structured organization. Although the
literature largely examines self-directed teams in for-profit, corporate settings (as opposed to a
volunteer-driven effort in a community setting) important lessons can be gleaned from the
leadership approaches of these teams.
It is mistakenly assumed that once a group is convened as a team its members will
automatically function as a team. Kulisch and Banner (1993) found that newly formed selfdirected teams must allocate time (and perhaps training) to develop a level of self-awareness,
consensus decision-making approaches and communication norms. This is consistent with
Gibb’s (1978) findings on the development of supervisor-less work groups. Gibb’s TORI, or trust
level theory, suggests that four processes are necessary for team development. First, trust,
where a sense of security and inclusion exists, must be developed. Secondly the team must
demonstrate openness, where clear, direct and honest communications exist. Thirdly, team
members must reach a level of self-actualization/realization whereby they are encouraged and
motivated to become more personally involved in their work. Finally, a level of
interdependence is reached, and the team moves away from its reliance on traditional
managerial hierarchies, focusing on informality, cooperation and consensus decision-making.
Trust is the core of the theory and is viewed as a “primary determiner of the effectiveness and
productivity of groups” (Gibb, 1977, p. 73).

40

Effective leaders understand group dynamics and capitalize on the advantages of work
groups and teams. Hackman and Powell (2004) find that shared leadership increases the
chances that a self-directed group will be effective in monitoring its environment, assessing
how it is doing internally, and determining if and/or when corrections need to be made.
Similarly, Spreitzer et al. (1999) suggest that leaders of self-directed teams can enhance
performance by making sure that the work tasks are designed for the teams. Team members
will feel ownership and be motivated to perform well if they have responsibility for providing a
whole service, or, at the very least, an identifiable part of that service. Leaders can also ensure
that team members have collective goals for which they are mutually accountable.
The literature on managing self-directed work teams is consistent with conclusions
about managing volunteers in coalition settings. Knoke (1990) found that shared leadership
facilitated member participation in community coalitions by increasing member commitment
and opportunities to affect collective goals. This is consistent with previous evidence suggesting
that opportunities to influence decisions encouraged member participation (Wandersman et
al., 1987). Butterfoss et al. (1996) found that participation in the decision-making process was
positively associated with the number of hours individual members reported devoting to
coalition activities outside meetings. Intuition would suggest that people do more when they
believe they can personally influence events and when they feel appreciated for doing so. From
a leadership perspective, volunteer leaders can foster higher participation by showing an
appreciation for team member contributions and by leaders asking individually for assistance
(Wells et al., 2008). Additionally, the perceived team leader’s (Butterfoss et al., 1996)
competence and “order and organization” (Moos, 1986) are positively associated with the
41

number of hours volunteers reported spending outside of meetings on community coalition
activities.
The geographical dispersion of a self-directed work team provides a final dynamic to
consider when managing and leading team activities. Similar to globalization factors that have
resulted in firms assembling self-directed teams from differing states and even countries, a
movement towards regionalism has resulted in an expanded definition of community. Two of
the communities participating in this research study represent multi-county efforts, resulting in
mostly virtual team meetings to discuss their change activities. Avolio and Kahai (2003) assert
that relationship development is a primary concern for virtual team leadership. They suggest
that virtual team leaders must build trust rapidly, communicate often and clearly, and foster
group identity by using technology. Balthazard et al. (2004) note that team cohesion, which can
foster the development of trust and group identity, must be a priority for virtual teams.
Increased team cohesion of virtual teams minimizes perceived distances between the
distributed team members, according to the authors.

2.123 Volunteers Leading Volunteers
The literature is shallow when searching for evidence of factors affecting success when
volunteer leaders are leading volunteer teams. In a study examining leadership and
participation in an all-volunteer fire department, Perkins and Poole (1996) suggest that an
oligarchical leadership structure (i.e., a core group of volunteers serve as the leadership team)
can function as an agent of both stability and change. The authors noted, however, that often
embedded in the culture of volunteer fire departments is a tiered leadership structure akin to
42

an oligarchy. Different volunteer groups, however, have a differing norms and cultures. For
example, Craig-Lees et al. (2008) examined service organization volunteers (e.g., Rotary,
Kiwanis) and their opinions towards leadership. The authors found that members were less
likely to participate when management was highly efficient, i.e., assigning tasks versus a shared
leadership approach. This is consistent with Schneider and George (2010) who also examined
service organizations. They conclude that the empowerment of members is effective in the
management of volunteer organizations. Volunteer leaders who provide volunteers with
positive, meaningful experiences may be able to sustain their volunteer interest. In addition to
individual empowerment, Pearce (1993) showed that volunteers working on behalf of
extremely committed volunteer leaders, referred to as “martyred leaders” (p. 162)
demonstrate higher levels of organizational commitment. Volunteers want their leaders to walk
the talk.
According to Chandler (2008), the most important principle of motivation is that leaders
often achieve success in situations in which rewards are offered. While a community change
initiative may not include tangible rewards per se, involvement in the change process should
represent a rewarding experience. As such, volunteer leaders must acknowledge the
contributions of their voluntary team members to build trust and motivate more idle volunteers
to grow. Leaders must be fair with all volunteers, paying attention to how special treatment is
allocated and perceived by all team members (Northouse, 2007). Leaders must recognize that
each volunteer is unique and possesses a special skill set or knowledge to offer. The key to
maximizing this relationship is to respect each member’s unique potentials and contributions to
construct a shared trust (Camplin, 2009).
43

While the literature outlines similarities of effective leadership among both self-directed
work teams in a corporate setting and volunteer teams in a civic and/or non-profit setting,
team membership is fundamentally different. With entry and exit being primarily at-will in
volunteer teams, motivations may differ from those of paid employee teams where incentive
structures, career advancement and even employment status may be in play. What remains
unclear is whether the leadership approaches employed by volunteer leaders have an impact
on their local teams’ commitment to community change initiatives? Further, can a community
coach, through group and team counseling, affect the leadership approach used by a volunteer
leader to strengthen team commitment? These questions are unanswered within the literature
and they serve as the basis for this inquiry.

2.2

Contextual Basis, Conceptual Framework, and Community Participants

2.21

Contextual Basis of Study
Through funding obtained through a USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

grant, this study explores the influence of a community coach as an outside intervention in
assisting local volunteer community change teams. Specifically, this research seeks to examine
the influence of an external community coach on volunteer leaders, and their volunteer change
teams, in adopting a consensus leadership decision-making model.
Following a one-year pilot program conducted three years earlier, eight geographically
dispersed and primarily rural Michigan communities were selected to participate in a threeyear community change initiative designed to enhance local entrepreneurial activity. Creating a
local entrepreneur-friendly environment can take several years. Despite the long-term nature

44

of the desired change, the planned initiative included yearly benchmarks that contribute to
entrepreneurial development. Each community’s progress towards achieving the initiative’s
desired three-year outcomes is outlined later in the essay. The initiative’s activities and
trainings were coordinated by a unit of the state’s land grant university.
Each community was required to submit an application providing background
information on the community, an identified team champion (i.e., team leader), a narrative
describing the local team, the team’s purpose and vision, and a list of local endorsements
(which may include elected officials, banking representatives, chamber of commerce, and
economic development organizations).
Team members generally included business representatives, leaders with official
positions (township or city officials), local institutions (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Downtown
Development Authority (DDA), community foundation, Cooperative Extension) and local
concerned citizens. Although in some instances the local planned change efforts were
considered part of a team member’s job (e.g., Chamber or DDA representative), none of the
team members in the eight communities received compensation for their efforts. Each team
was required to commit $15,000, payable in three $5,000 yearly installments, to support team
trainings and communications activities. Communities were notified of their acceptance into
the program in May, 2010, and the first program training was held in September, 2010.
Although the program was a three-year initiative, the external coaching largely ended after two
years, in September, 2012, when the initiative transitioned into a maintenance phase with the
community participants.

45

Based on the evaluation of the pilot program and a curriculum model entitled Energizing
1

Entrepreneurs , the planned change initiative of this research was designed to support existing
entrepreneurs and encourage new entrepreneurial activity by removing barriers and increasing
assets through activities in four programmatic benchmark/outcome areas: 1) Resources for
entrepreneurs; 2) Social networks for entrepreneurs; 3) Development of a local entrepreneurial
culture; and 4) Public policies supporting entrepreneurship. The Energizing Entrepreneurs (e2)
approach was shown to be successful in assisting communities to build on business and
community assets (Emery et al., 2004).
The yearly benchmarks/outcomes were designed to build on one another, beginning
with the establishment of a strong local team and an educational retreat called the boot camp.
Subsequent benchmarks were provided in the form of objectives that were to be accomplished
at various intervals during the three-year process. The eight communities were viewed as a
cohort, and as such, were encouraged to share their experiences and challenges with one
another. To facilitate a cohort network the program included quarterly virtual meetings that
used technology and annual face-to-face retreat events.
To assist communities through the initiative, a community coach was identified to serve
all eight communities. The coach served as a local team leader for the pilot program and was
familiar with the initiative. The coach would occasionally participate in team meetings (either
face-to-face or through technology), attend local program events, publish a monthly newsletter
and make connections and referrals across the cohort network. Among the identified roles of
1

Energizing Entrepreneurs, or e2, is a structured community entrepreneurship curriculum
developed by the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Lincoln, Nebraska. The curriculum has
been used by numerous communities throughout the United States and Canada.
46

the community coach was encouragement of diverse, collaborative and inclusive participation
within the local change teams. Funding for the community coach’s salary was provided through
the grant supporting the initiative, not the community program participation fee. The program
participation fee was dedicated to travel, meeting expenses, and other program delivery costs.
Although I served as the program coordinator/head coach for the pilot program that
preceded this planned change initiative, I was not involved in the program design or the
subsequent daily coordination of this studied planned change initiative. While I participated in
the development of the research questionnaires, a different research associate coordinated
and collected all of the data used in this analysis. I conducted all of the coding and subsequent
analysis of the data used in this research.

2.22

Conceptual Framework
Figure 2.1 provides a conceptual framework for this research study that examines the

coach’s influence on the decisions of a voluntary community team engaged in a planned change
initiative to adopt a consensus leadership model for decision-making. A planned community
change initiative is defined as a proactive effort by citizens to address a challenge facing a
community of place. In this model, volunteers and a local champion/leader come together to
form a local change team to engage in a planned change initiative. As part of the coaching role,
the community coach suggests a consensus leadership model for decision-making to improve
team functioning.
The conceptual model suggests that if the team adopts a consensus leadership model
for decision-making (which according to the literature includes elements such as open
47

communications, consensus decision-making and team member trust) the team will be more
successful in achieving planned outcomes and become more resilient. As defined by Ganor and
Ben-Lavy (2003), team resilience refers to the ability of the team to stick together, exhibit
cohesion and demonstrate an ability to take action. If the team fails to adopt the coaching
suggestions, and instead relies on a leader-follower leadership approach (which may be
characterized by top-down decision-making and non-inclusiveness of team members in group
actions) the team is at risk of experiencing undesirable team functioning, resulting in the
inability to achieve planned outcomes and less team resilience. Within this conceptual
framework, this study examines the relationship among the factors enclosed by thick black
borders in Figure 2.1 – the coach, team leaders, team members, team functioning, and team
outcomes and resilience.
My conceptual framework differs from existing studies within the literature that have
mostly examined volunteers in place-based change initiatives focusing on neighborhood
organizations (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Klandermans, 1997; Prestby et al., 1990; Rich,
1980). While these studies primarily examine the intensity of involvement of volunteers, none
of these studies nor any of those cited earlier in this chapter explored the leadership approach
exercised by the voluntary team leader and its impact on the performance of the team.
Additionally, community coaching is a relatively new community development approach. The
one peer-reviewed article identified uses a case-study approach to explore the impact of
community coaching in three rural Idaho communities over an 18- month period (Cohen et al.,
2008). The study relied primarily on field notes from the coach and not actual recordings of
coach interactions with the team. Also, the community coaching role can vary considerably
48

community-to-community and by the specifics and intensity of the change initiative. I have
chosen to focus on one element of coaching: the effectiveness of the coach in encouraging a
consensus leadership model for decision-making for achieving team outcomes and
strengthening team resilience. Factors outlined in thick borders in Figure 2.1 are examined in
this study.

49

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework for examining the coach’s influence and subsequent outcome of adopting a consensus leadership
approach

Volunteers

Leader -Follower
Leadership
Approach

Local Champion/Leader

Local
Change
Team

Top-down decision-making

Coach
Consensus Leadership
Approach

Consensus-seeking
Inclusivity

Team Decision Making
Non-inclusive

Less Team Resilience
(Team does not meet and fails
to produce outcomes)

Motivator

Open communications

Greater Team Success and Resilience
(Team sticks together, accomplishes programmatic

outcomes, exhibits cohesion and long-term vision)

50

Community Change

2.23

The Community Participants
A profile of each participating community team is provided below. Each description

includes information taken from applications to the planned change initiative as well as team
descriptions gleaned from team meeting recordings and program coordinator and coach
interviews. A pseudonym has been given to each town/city in the text below to protect the
identities of the study participants.
Damton: With a population of nearly 11,000 residents, Damton is the largest city in its
county. The mayor and city manager feel that great opportunities may exist in the
establishment of a business incubator. Their enrollment in this entrepreneurial development
initiative represents an opportunity to move that dream to reality. The seven-member
volunteer team brings representatives from both the business community and government to
the table. Team membership includes the mayor, city manager, a contracted economic
development professional (who serves as the co-leader), a retired business consultant (who
serves as the other co-leader), the Chamber of Commerce director, an entrepreneur, and a
locally-based federal employee. The team is the largest volunteer team in this planned change
initiative.
Flat Rock: Flat Rock was a late applicant to the planned change initiative’s selection
process, choosing to quickly assemble an application in hopes of furthering their existing youth
entrepreneurship activities. Flat Rock had an existing community change team in place prior to
their enrollment in the project, with the primary goal of encouraging youth entrepreneurship.
Team membership in this county-wide volunteer team includes two representatives from the
local workforce development agency, a representative from the local Cooperative Extension
51

office, a representative from the local economic development agency, a representative from
the local tribal community, and a downtown development authority staff member from the
county’s largest city. Only two members of the Flat Rock team attended the boot camp training.
After four months into the program, the team decided to drop-out and invest their program
fees locally to forward their existing youth entrepreneurship efforts.
Metroville: Three adjacent townships came together to form a team focused on
enhancing local food system opportunities, potentially through the development of a new
regional community kitchen. Despite the fact that the program application was completed by
paid staff within local government, the team recognized the need to ensure that this change
effort was not government-driven. Team membership varied throughout the initiative, but
representatives include a banker, a retired lobbyist, a retired economic development
professional, three township managers, a township planning director and a city administer.
Northwoods: The narrative describing the efforts of Northwoods, a three-county effort,
underscores the challenges of change initiatives within a larger geographical area. The
community itself has experienced both economic trials and successes. Some of the economic
difficulties are likely attributable to a large tourism industry and the seasonal employment
swings. The president of the economic development organization serves as the team leader for
Northwoods. She invited the local DDA director, a marketing professor at the local community
college, the local Cooperative Extension professional, a local financial advisor, and the Chamber
of Commerce director from one of the counties to be members of her core team. Only two
members attended the initial boot camp training, and the team struggled to gain traction as

52

team meetings were rarely scheduled and/or poorly attended. The team dropped out of the
initiative approximately one year after it began.
Railford: Situated in a strong agricultural area within 60 miles of large metro areas,
Railford’s population is approximately 4,000. The team leader is the Downtown Development
Authority director. Railford’s team consists primarily of individuals representing institutions
within the community, including the relatively new city manager (an individual who has worked
in a number of community settings), the Chamber of Commerce director (a native of Railford),
and the library director. Other team members include a banker and a local entrepreneur. The
team hopes to cultivate entrepreneurial activity in the food (value-added agriculture) and retail
sectors.
River Valley: Representing approximately 60,000 citizens across a four-county region,
River Valley represents a rural region with numerous economic challenges. The team leader,
who has not been involved in traditional economic development institutions within the greater
community, works as a regional health professional. Team members include a business owner,
an administrative assistant at a local church, and a member of a regional planning agency (who
doesn’t live or work directly in the River Valley community). This team chose not to complete
the project, dropping out after approximately 15 months. The team leader cited the inability to
raise the $5,000 yearly fee and a lack of support from traditional economic development groups
in the River Valley as the primary reasons to discontinue involvement.
Sunnyvale: Sunnyvale, representing nearly 57,000 residents countywide, is widely
viewed as a progressive community, and has received national recognition. The countywide
coalition coordinating this change initiative has a history of working together on a number of
53

efforts to improve their community. Fueled by a strong local community foundation, the core
committee felt that this entrepreneurial change initiative represented a natural link with an
existing comprehensive change project with entrepreneurial development as one of its four
pillars. In its program application the team expressed hope that this initiative could help them
get “unstuck” and reach the next level. The team leader works for the community foundation.
Team members include both institution representatives (Chamber of Commerce director,
Cooperative Extension professional, and Arts Council) and entrepreneurs (an artist and retail
store operator). Arts and tourism are primary interests of the team.
Watersedge: With the local economy driven by tourism activities, the Watersedge
unemployment rate fluctuates greatly. The team includes the leaders of the two local chambers
and tourists associations (one of which serves as the team co-leader), a representative from
Cooperative Extension, a local minister, a local banker (credit union), and a county
commissioner/local entrepreneur (who serves as the other co-leader). Many of the team
members have experience working together on previous community projects, but none on a
comprehensive multi-year planned change effort.

2.3

Research Question and Framework

2.31

Research Question
Can a community coach, through team/team leader counseling, affect the leadership

approach used by a volunteer leader to strengthen team commitment? This question, which
was presented in the grant supporting this research, serves as the basis for this chapter’s
inquiry. Specifically, I posit that through the facilitative interventions of a community coach,
54

voluntary leaders and their teams adopt a consensus leadership model for decision-making.

2.32

Consensus Leadership
The examination of the above proposition requires a more distinct definition of a

consensus leadership model for decision-making. A table summarizing elements of four
separate, but complementary leadership traits is presented using the organizational
development literature. The previously cited literature on leadership, transformational
leadership, leadership in self-directed teams, and virtual team leadership all contribute to the
definition of consensus leadership used in this research study. Many of the traits cited by
leading authors, coupled with elements identified by the Consensus Leadership Learning Center
(n.d.) are outlined in Table 2.1. Although various researchers use different words,
commonalities can be identified. The four most common traits are used to provide a definition
to guide the research and are summarized below:
Inclusivity: A sense of belonging is felt among team members. The leader
demonstrates inclusivity through the active encouragement of team member
participation, in both providing suggestions and distributing task roles to those who
express an interest. Mutual respect exists among team members. As a result there is
feeling of ownership among team members, a sense of pride that fortifies the group’s
identity. Further, others in the community are encouraged to participate, and their
views are considered when they are not at the table.
Consensus-seeking: The team recognizes that decisions are made at the group
level. As such, the leader actively seeks team member agreement in shaping decisions.
55

Team members may reframe issues to strengthen buy-in. In areas where disagreement
persists, the majority prevails but those in the minority know that adequate
opportunities to express their views were provided.
Open and transparent communications: As a matter of practice the team
members, including the leader, share all available information with their colleagues. As
a result individual members feel empowered. The community change process
undertaken by the team is also transparent: both the way in which decisions are made
and the resulting decision. The transparent communications extend to the entire
community.
Inspirational motivator: Leaders and members behave in ways that motivate the
team. Strong trust exists among all of the team members, intensifying the cohesion
among members. Team members are trusted to complete their assignments and feel
free to improvise if necessary. Any risks are shared by the entire team.

56

Table 2.1: Summary of select key traits for success from different leadership models and team settings

Transformational leadership
Consensus
DecisionMaking
Learning
Center
(nd)
Inclusive

Cangemi et al.
(2008)

Bass
(1990)

Leadership
in change
organizations
Brown and
Eisenhardt
(1997)

Self-directed
work teams

Spreitzer et
al.
(1999)

Virtual
teams

Avolio and Kahai
(2003)
Common traits
identified

N/A

Agreementseeking
Processoriented

Consensusseeking
Initiator of
communications

Relationship
building

Developer of
trust

Inspiration
(via inclusion of
other voices)
Shared
Leadership
Inspiration
thru strong
communications
Charisma and
Trusted

N/A

Participatory
climate

Development of
group identity

Limited formal
structures
Clear
communications

Shared
Responsibility
N/A

N/A

Freedom to
improvise

Trusted to
perform tasks

Reference: N/A = Author did not identify this trait

57

Inclusivity

Consensusseeking
Communications
Open and
transparent
communications
Trust
Inspirational
motivator

Using these consensus leadership elements, this study proposes that an external
community coach can move a volunteer leader and team towards a more shared leadership
decision-making approach characterized by inclusion, consensus decision-making, open and
transparent communications and trust. An a priori expectation of team change is explored, and
narrative patterns related to the role of the coach and the leadership approach that is
employed by the team leaders are documented through a variety of data sources.

2.33

Research Framework
A case-study approach involving eight community sites previously described is used in

this research study. Through interviews with team leaders and team members, I explored
attitudes towards a consensus leadership model and their influence on individual desires to
continue to volunteer. Through recordings of team meetings I gained insights to the actual
leadership approaches employed by the leaders and compared them to the elements of our
consensus leadership definition in the style of gap analysis. Through recordings of coach
interactions with the team, coupled with interviews with the coach, team leaders, team
members, and program coordinator, I gained insights on the role of the coach in encouraging a
consensus leadership model. Through a quantitative analysis of word usage I examined whether
the leadership approach employed by voluntary change team was evident through the words
used in meetings by team leaders and team members.
A qualitative case study approach is appropriate as the primary form of inquiry. A
qualitative case study facilitates the exploration of a phenomenon within its context by using a
variety of data sources. Miles and Huberman (1994) describe a case as “a phenomenon of some
58

sort occurring in a bounded context” (p.25). Both Yin (2003) and Stake (1995) contend that
placing boundaries on a case prevent too many objectives for one study. A case study can be
bounded by time and place (Creswell, 2003), time and activity (Stake, 1995) and definition and
context (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This multi-case study is bounded by time (three year
initiative,) place (eight communities) and activity (create an entrepreneurial environment
through four programmatic benchmarks focusing on resources, social networks, culture, and
local policies). The specific examination of the influence of an external coach on the leadership
approach utilized by local leaders with their voluntary teams provides further tightening, or
binding, of the research.
The use of case studies for research has been criticized. Some suggest that the case
study is most useful for generating hypotheses while other methods are more suitable for
hypothesis testing and theory building (Eckstein, 1975). Others argue, however, that case study
methods can test theories and hypotheses (Bates et al., 1998; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Flyvbjerg, 2011).
Yin (2003) suggested that case studies allow the researcher to build, extend or challenge a
theoretical perspective. The research prediction in this study is grounded in previous literature
supporting the positive role of coaching. What is unknown is the efficacy of coaching among
volunteers in a place-based setting. Using multi-site case studies where some variables are
controlled (e.g., timeline, training, program intentions) is an appropriate approach with which
to test my expectation.
Additionally, some have criticized the case study approach as containing a bias towards
verification, suggesting that there is a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived
notions. Diamond (1996) argued that case studies suffer from a “crippling drawback” because
59

they do not apply “scientific methods” necessary for “curbing one’s tendencies to stamp one’s
preexisting interpretations on data as they accumulate” (p.6). Diamond’s scientific concerns
about the case study, and perhaps other qualitative methods, is that they ostensibly allow more
room for the researcher’s subjective and arbitrary judgment than other methods. Similarly,
Diefenbach (2009) argued that investigative case studies using qualitative analysis often do not
state the theory on which they are based, thus raising questions about scientific validity. To
lessen these concerns a quantitative analysis examining word usage among team members is
included in this study.
Nevertheless, qualitative researchers often use theory to guide their work and examine
important issues (Creswell, 2003). Campbell (1975) contends that the case- study approach
contains its own rigor, acknowledging, however, that it differs from traditional quantitative
approaches. Case studies allow the researcher to close in on real-life situations and test views
directly related to phenomena as they unfold in practice (Flyvbjerg, 2011).
A qualitative analysis using a variety of data sources is often fundamental to case study
research (Baxter and Jack, 2008). Qualitative research methods are also well established for
examining issues related to community change and community practice (Hinsdale et al., 1995;
Rubin, 1997, Yin, 1993). Qualitative research is largely process focused; the research is often
descriptive rather than predictive; and studies often focus on the particular rather than the
general (Creswell, 1994; Patton, 2002).

60

2.4

Research Design

2.41

Data Collection
Understanding the influence of a community coach in this setting requires the use of a

variety of data sources. This research involved gaining the perspectives of a variety of actors,
including team leaders, team members, the community coach and the overall program
coordinator. Additionally, recordings of team meetings, observations from trainings of the
participating communities and an analysis of communication materials provided to the teams
by the coach added to the data set. As is the case with any research, despite repeated efforts
by the research assistant to schedule interviews, not all team members/team leaders
responded. Although data collection did not cover all communities evenly, considerable data
was gathered. Morse (1994) recommends that data directed toward discerning the essence of
experiences include about six participants and data directed toward building theory about 30 to
50 interviews and/or observations. My analysis is well within the phenomenology
recommended by Morse. In total, more than 1,500 pages (transcriptions, observations, and
printed materials were reviewed.
Beginning in fall 2010, when this planned change initiative began, phone interviews
were conducted with the team leader and/or a team member. Since the initial set of interviews
occurred during the beginning stages of the program (shortly after the statewide boot camp
training), the questions focused largely on team development. Additional interviews were
conducted in approximately six-month intervals, allowing the questions to expand to the
specific influence of the community coach. The last set of interviews was conducted in spring,
2012, approximately 20 months after the initial interviews were conducted. Additionally, a
61

written survey was administered to program participants attending a final training in April,
2013 to assess team progress in accomplishing programmatic outcomes. All interviews were
conducted in a semi-structured format (i.e., a set of questions was created for the scheduled
interviews but the interviewer was free to explore new concepts as they emerged from the
interview process) (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990; Patton, 2002). The interviews
lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and consisted of open-ended questions to stimulate
discussions on motivations, leadership approach, roles, etc. All of the interviews were
conducted over the phone, and the conversations were taped. Sample interview protocols are
included in the appendices.
To gain a deeper understanding of team leadership in action, 29 meetings of the local
volunteer teams were recorded. Due to travel distances, approximately two-thirds of the
meeting recordings (18 or 29) were captured by the community coach calling into the meeting.
The majority of the team meeting recordings (24 of 29) occurred in 2011, following the program
kick-off in September 2010. No recordings of team meetings occurred in 2012. There is nothing
in the literature to guide researchers to a theoretically proper study period from which to draw
conclusions on leadership effectiveness. Most of the studies reviewed for this project examined
teams over a six-month to two-year period. Zwikael and Unger-Aviram (2010) found that the
effectiveness of team development increases in longer projects. Their research was based on a
three-year analysis.
Although no team meetings were recorded in 2012, the data set includes team meeting
recordings gathered over 15 months. Three communities dropped out of the program prior to
its three-year completion, limiting the number of team meeting recordings. One of the teams
62

that exited early had an existing volunteer team in place and they continue to meet, albeit with
a different set of program outcomes. They shared that they benefitted from the early-stage
program information on community-based approaches to entrepreneurship but, because of
due an existing well-performing team, did not need coaching services. The other early-exiting
teams faced numerous challenges that are discussed further in the study results. Although
written transcriptions were developed from recorded team meetings, I chose to listen to each
recording to gain a fuller appreciation of the meeting dynamics through observation of pauses
and voice tones. While the audio improved my understanding of the interaction among team
members, presence at the meetings might have expanded my sense of the group’s cohesion
and decision-making process by allowing observations of facial expressions, body language and
meeting arrangements. Some may suggest, however, that the presence of an outside
researcher could bias behaviors as individuals may be on their best behavior.
An additional 17 interviews were conducted with the community coach and program
coordinator between 2010 and 2012. The majority of these interviews (11 of 17) were
conducted with the community coach, often face-to-face. Interviews with the program
coordinator were conducted over the phone. These semi-structured interviews provided an
external view of how the teams were developing and coaching challenges experienced when
interacting with the teams. Examples of the interview protocols from the coach and program
coordinator interviews are included in the appendices.
A matrix outlining the source of audio recordings is summarized in Table 2.2. The audio
recordings were supplemented with an analysis of 55 newsletters and other mailings and notes

63

from three training sessions. The data from the interviews, recorded team meetings, program
communications and written observations were used in the analysis.

64

Table 2.2: Source and number of audio recordings used in analysis
2010
2011
2012
Team
Team
Individual
Team Team
Team
Individual Team
Team
Individual
Conf
Leader
Interviews Meetings Conf
Leader Interviews Conf
Leaders Interviews
Calls Interviews
calls Interviews
Calls Interviews
Community
River Valley*
Metroville
Sunnyvale
Flat Rock*
Watersedge
Railford
Damton
Northwoods*
Coach
Program
Coordinator
Total

2
1
1

1

1
1
1

1

1
2
1
1
1
1

7

1
1

4
4

2

2
1
1
1
1

4
1
1
1

3
2
5

4

12

1

1

1
1
1

14

*Left planned change initiative before program completion

65

8

6

78

1
1
1

1
1

1
7
3

10

13
9
9
6
9
4
8
3
11
6

1
1
1
1

15

Total

4

Accepted qualitative data analysis procedures were used for this study. According to
Marshall and Rossman (1995), qualitative data analysis consists of five steps: “organizing the
data; generating categories, themes and patterns; testing the emergent hypothesis against the
data; searching for alternative explanations of the data; and writing the report” (p. 113). Using
computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) allows for a number of types of
analyses. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) found that CAQDAS can increase the rigor of a
qualitative study, particularly those with large data sets. CAQDAS programs assist the
researcher in recording, storing, indexing, sorting and coding qualitative data (Morse and
Richards, 2002), while efficiently comparing categories and codes (Bazeley, 2006).
I used NVivo9 (QSR International, September, 2011) as the computer assisted qualitative
data analysis software for this project. NVivo allows various types of analysis, including
Keywords in Context (identifying specific words of interest: I, me, us, we, our), Word Count
(which identifies patterns more easily), Classical Content Analysis (themes or codes are counted
both a priori and posteriori) and Componential Analysis (finding and presenting similarities and
differences among participants’ understandings) (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2011). The CAQDAS
analysis is consistent with Miles and Huberman’s (1994) basic processes of qualitative data
analysis.
Data for each community was reviewed and coded separately. This approach allowed
for a fuller perspective on how each community evolved. Upon completing the data review for
each community, a memo was written that describes that community’s story within the
framework of this research project. The community memos contributed to the analysis as a

66

secondary verification of the findings as the individual narratives provided a context for the
coded consensus leadership themes.
To triangulate the qualitative analysis, a quantitative examination (t-test) of word use
by team members was conducted to examine whether word choices (e.g., singular focused
pronouns such as “I” and “you” compared to group focused pronouns such as “us” and “we”)
changed as teams advanced through the planned change initiative. A potential change in team
member word use over the course of the initiative provides an additional analysis of the
influence of the community coach in moving the volunteer change team towards a consensus
leadership model for decision-making.

2.5

Results

2.51

Qualitative Analysis of Audio Recordings and Communications
Understanding the effects of community coaching on moving a volunteer team to a

consensus leadership model for decision-making requires examining coaching actions,
team/team leader attitudes and the subsequent adoption or avoidance of our consensus
leadership decision-making definition elements. Each element of the consensus leadership
model for decision-making definition is examined separately.
Coaching Interventions:
The primary function of the community coach in this three-year change initiative was to
assist the communities, through suggestions, resource identification, and motivation, with
successfully navigating through an entrepreneurial development program framework that
included yearly benchmarks. The first task of each community was the development of a core
67

team to lead the change initiative. Although, as noted previously, some communities
(Sunnyvale and Flat Rock) entered the change initiative with existing volunteer teams in place,
most assembled their teams as part of the application process and had not formally met prior
to boot camp training. Approximately three hours of the two-day boot camp training was
devoted to a discussion on team development. The program coordinator, not the community
coach, facilitated the discussions. During the training, the community coach and program
coordinator met with each team to discuss team member composition and member roles. The
emphasis on building a core team was intended to help teams enhance capacity. Neither team
dynamics, nor a suggested leadership approach, were directly discussed as part of the core
team building activities at the boot camp. In some instances the coach would talk through team
composition considerations with team leaders to avoid potential future issues.

[The coach} sat down with [us] when we were having that uncomfortable conversation
of who we were going to remove from our core team and trying to find out who would
be the best replacements of the best part of the core team, and I really think that having
that logical voice that allowed us to take the emotion out of it was actually really helpful
in making that decision because for us that probably would have set us back if we
avoided that obstacle, but she helped us kind of hurdle over it --- team leader.
In the initial stages of the program, the primary communications between the coach and
the teams were weekly (later semi-monthly) newsletters. Thirty-one newsletters from the
community coach were sent to the local teams from October 2010 to January 2012.
Approximately one-third (10 of 31) included some content on team development, mostly
focusing on reminding the team that one of the initial programmatic requirements was to
develop a core team. The reminder was prominent in the newsletter and reminded team

68

leaders and members to establish the core team structure and identify core team member
roles.
The newsletter was also a vehicle for the coach to arrange either face-to-face or
conference call meetings with each team, offering different available time-slots and the use of a
free conference line. Conference call meetings often served as the primary vehicle for coach
interactions with the entire local change team, particularly for those teams located a greater
distance from the university. Additionally, a “tip of the week” frequently provided commentary
related to human and/or team development. The coach, however, was often passive in her
newsletter communications with teams, frequently inviting them to call her rather than
initiating communications herself.
While waiting for communities to invite her to attend team meetings, the coach used
the newsletter to offer team development tips (many of which are consistent with the
consensus leadership construct) suggesting:

Establish a team structure for long- term sustainability by setting “terms of service”.
How long is a team member expected to serve on this team? What is the time
commitment? These are important considerations as you ask new community members
to come on board. Think beyond the [planned change] commitment to put a system in
place for your team to endure long term.
Coach’s Tip of the Week…
As you begin building a strategic plan, begin with your Vision and Mission Statement.
Align your goals and objectives to your team’s overall mission.
Jot down your ideas (both short term and long term) for your team’s consideration.
Consider your role on the team. Jot down your expectations about your role and level of
participation. Share them at your next core team meeting.
Let the planning begin!
Coach’s Tip of the Week…
69

“The second skill essential for helping groups think and interact better is Reflecting on
Mental Models. What is a mental model? It is internal pictures or critical hidden
assumptions about the way the world works. These mental models, though largely
transparent, shape the way people think and interaction. Why is it important? People
often assume that what they believe about colleagues or customers or their approach is
true, even though these assumptions are untested. Creating a more insightful and
accurate view of reality is essential to producing desired results. Creating a shared
mental model is essential to building and implementing a shared vision.” Robert
Hargrove, author of Masterful Coaching.
As your teams are growing and the relationships among team members are forming, it is
critical that you establish a team culture wherein everyone’s viewpoint is thoughtfully
considered, respected and valued. Expand your mental models to be inclusive of new
ideas and perspectives.
Coach’s Tip of the Week…
The third skill for effectively helping groups think and interact better is having a shared
vision. “Building a shared vision involves people in a group asking ‘What do we want to
create together?’ Answering this question requires constructing a shared mental model
of the desired future and how it will be realized. Why is it important? Shared vision is
really an opportunity to create a new future that gives everyone in the organization the
chance to be a part of something larger than themselves, as well as to experience being
the authors of their own destiny. Unless the vision is shared and means something to the
individuals, it will never be implemented.” Robert Hargrove, author of Masterful
Coaching
Does your team have a shared vision for your [planned change initiative] community?
Coach’s Tip of the Week…
As individual team members, reflect on the progress of your team to date.
By emphasizing the importance of establishing a structure in building a strong core team
the community coach hoped to strengthen the team in overcoming differing levels of
commitment among volunteer team members. Some teams, particularly those representing
larger geographical areas, were slower in assembling their local teams. Despite their
participation in the initial boot camp training, their representation at the training did not
include their full team. The coach’s efforts to engage with these teams (River Valley and
Northwoods) represented a ‘chicken and the egg’ scenario. The community didn’t want to
invite the coach’s interaction until their team was assembled. The coach was hoping to provide
70

suggestions for teams slow to organize. The coach’s inability to connect early on with these
communities limited her ability to influence the team’s leadership approach:

I guess my challenge is what we were talking about before. I have two communities
that… I send out that weekly newsletter and in a different way each week I say, “If you
haven’t already scheduled a time and here are my times…” And I still have two hold outs.
… if they’re struggling that’s when they should call me and I help them, it’s not call me
when you have good news to tell me. It’s call me if “we’ve asked 100 people and we
can’t get a solid core team together. What should we do?”--- Community coach.
And I really think it goes again to the two main communities who have not scheduled
something because I’m struggling with I don’t want to be a nag but it’s important that I
meet with them. The teams that I have met with them, I don’t always necessarily say
anything. I’m just kind of in the room and they have their meetings and they may say…
and I might say, “Have you thought of…” It’s not like a report card type of meeting --Community coach.
What can a coach do when there isn’t a body working together for her to interact with?
And this first part of the program, the primary focus has been on building a team locally
and perhaps it’s unfortunate that in some of these cases, the teams have been slow to
develop and that set them back in time a little bit. It’s really you’re just coaching a
champion [team leader]. The champion doesn’t have a team yet. … What’s the coach’s
job? The coach is not a boss. The coach is not the leader of the group. The coach can
prod, can offer, can suggest, can nag a little bit, but it’s a voluntary group --- Program
coordinator.
While some teams expressed an appreciation of the planned change initiative’s
structure in providing a road map, with a timeline, others felt the framework limited their
ability to organically move forward based on their team’s goals and vision. The program
structure may have also affected how the teams perceived the coach. Despite the coach’s
intentions that the community not view her participation as a report card observer, the
quarterly benchmark expectations positioned her more as program monitor than community
problem solver:

71

I think the coach has not been utilized to the extent that she could be. I think the coach
has had to almost invite herself into the fold. [Our community] is a very entrepreneurial
based community. Very bootstraps. We do it ourselves. We grow our own. We don’t
need anything from anyone else kind of mentality, and they’ve had a lot of success and a
lot of ways because of that, but I also think it makes them resistant to trying to do things
other ways, and I think there has been maybe some push pull dynamic there. The
community now that they’re involved in this, would really rather kind of do it their own
way, and go on their own, and not have to be responsible to answering questions to
anyone else, and being on someone else’s timetable and that sort of thing. I think there’s
some startup dynamics going on when there hasn’t been a really strong project manager
to kind of guide that process --- Team leader.
I think our team would behave differently in another opportunity because we truly did
not feel empowered, and that could be from within us, but we didn’t feel empowered to
identify problems or challenges, or call our coach with problems. We weren’t refined
enough yet. I think we would probably use coaching differently based on our experience
and learning with this effort. --- Team leader shortly after the community’s decision to
exit from the program early.
It’s almost in my perspective that [the coach] is a supervisor that we have to report what
we’ve been doing and I don’t know if I’ve really gotten a sense of coaching or assistance.
More of a gatekeeper “Did you do this? Did you do this? Did you do this?” type of thing.
--- Team member.
Despite challenges in connecting the coach with the teams, stronger relationships
between the coach and the teams eventually developed approximately six months after the
boot camp training. By spring of the second year (2011), some communities began experiencing
team challenges and the coach became directly involved in their team development by
mitigating team leader and/or member issues. In one instance the team members were
reluctant to seek a change in leadership given the long-standing relationships within the small
community. The coach intervened by suggesting to the team leader that new leadership may be
necessary to reinvigorate the team. This coaching role is consistent with Hubbell and Emery’s
(2009) suggestion that coaches can help a community address the “elephants in the room.”

72

…we just find that [our team leader] is not that inspirational and she’s sometimes
overwhelming and sometimes she is just downright mean when you have an idea or you
bring something up and you start to go on a little bit long…but none of us have the balls
to replace her and none of us have the time to do what she does so I know this is just life
--- Team member commenting on their team leader.
You know, they have this laundry list and every time I think that they’ve set some sort of
priority for it and this is the focus, they go in 80 different directions again. So I basically
just said, “you guys need to figure out what you want to do.” And then it’s a challenge
because none of them really do anything in between the meetings but yet they say
there’s value to the project --- Former team leader.
Not that I told them that that was what they needed to do, but when it was apparent
that they needed to do it, then there were pre-conversations about what would be the
best way to do it, how do we do it, that it is not disruptive to the team, or that the team
will accept the new leader, or that certainly, no one wanted the person that was
stepping away from the leader role to think they were being pushed out --- Community
coach’s comments on assisting with a leadership transition.
In one community the coach also assisted in facilitating a leadership transition after the initial
team leader recognized the group was stuck and needed new leadership:

I guess I’m looking at it from what we went through and she tried. I don’t really know
what other tactic she could have used. It’s almost like you’re dealing with an alcoholic.
Until they admit they’re an alcoholic the rest of it is all show. I really don’t know
anything else she could have done for us until we were ready to admit what we were
doing wasn’t working --- Team leader.
The coach has certainly been instrumental in keeping us organized to the degree we
have been. Pushing us where she can push us and she’s been invaluable to me from the
standpoint of what I should do next after. After that coming to Jesus meeting she called
me and gave me her reflections on where she thought we were at and what we needed
to do next and helped me focus… she’s also instrumental in getting in my mind more
important getting someone to take over as the champion of the group. She was the
leader of that so that helped me immensely --- Former team leader.
In addition to assisting in facilitating a leadership transition, the coach maintained a physical
presence at subsequent meetings in both communities to assist the team in moving towards a
consensus-leadership model for decision making.
73

I think [the coach] really helped her figure out how to deal with the team dynamic
situation…I definitely think things are better and meetings are better, and things are
more fruitful maybe under [the coach’s] guidance when she is there, even if though she
is not leading the meetings, per se, it seems better, like we have more of a connection to
the project. And unfortunately it sounds like we need our hands held, but we don’t know
what we’re doing, and so it’s very helpful to have somebody who knows the process lead
us --- Community team member.
Ok, so [newly identified team leader] I think the next step would be to go through the
team member agreement which is the meeting times and start assigning some roles.
There does seem to be a lot of synergy commonalities around the table and I think it was
very helpful not only for the new people to kind of have that introduction but I think it’s
helpful for those of us that have been in it for a while to say it out loud again or to
maybe as we said sometimes it’s like you come at it with a different perspective so I
think that was time well spent --- Coach’s comments during leadership transition
meeting.
Although the coach played an important role in intervening in some community settings,
as described above, resulting in positive movement towards some of the consensus leadership
definition elements (and strengthening the team’s resilience), gauging the community coach’s
impact in moving volunteer teams towards a consensus leadership approach is difficult. This
study did not include a pre/post assessment of leadership approaches among team leaders
(some of whom changed). Nor were enough team meeting transcripts provided to document
potential shifts in leadership style. Evidence is provided, however, from a number of team
leaders who spoke of their leadership approach, including using non-prompted consensus
language.
I would say it is a consensus model. I think that we all talk it out, and put our input in,
and say “do we all feel good about that or do we all feel bad about that?” Generally,
we’re all on a similar to same page. We just kind of bring up the points that are points of
concern, throw them out there, dialogue, and come to a solution --- Team leader when
discussing how team decisions are made.
We’ve had differences of opinions and usually what happens is by the end of the meeting
there is a consensus. We just sit and talk it through, and a lot of times when there is a
difference of opinion once you actually hear everyone’s point of view in the end we all
74

end up agreeing or agree to disagree and decide what is best for the community to move
forward --- Team leader.
We do everything as a team. I don’t say, “these are the things we’re going to do,” and
then they just say, “Oh, ok, that sounds great.” And then we’ll talk about it as a team
and sometimes we switch and do something else. So it’s not always me driving the train.
It’s me kind of organizing and pushing people to make a decision and go a certain
direction. But, I never say, “Okay, this is what we’re doing” --- Team leader.
…I have worked in collaborative strategies before and I understand where to find that
medium ground and develop goals --- Team leader.
Everyone feels heard. Everyone has a voice. This is joint decision-making --- Team leader.
Although the above quotes may support teams employing a consensus leadership
approach, what team leaders say about the team’s decision-making leadership may differ from
team actions. Psychologists use terms such as “illusory superiority” and “better than average
effect” to describe a cognitive bias that causes some individuals to overestimate their positive
qualities and abilities and to underestimate their negative qualities, relative to others (Suls et
al., 2002). This parallels other work in the psychology, sociology, political science and
communications disciplines whereby attitudes (e.g., belief that exercising is important) do not
always match behavior (Rokeach and Kliejunas, 1972).
Since our consensus leadership definition is constructed of four elements (consensusseeking, open and transparent communications, inspirational motivator, and inclusivity)
suggested in the literature of effective leadership, the components of the definition are
inspected separately to search for examples in team meetings, affirmations of leadership
approach by team members, and inconsistencies among team leaders. Below, examples are
provided to illustrate how particular elements of our consensus leadership definition may
appear within the data. Examples are not provided for every community. Additionally,
75

examples representing the coach’s efforts in moving the team toward a consensus leadership
decision-making approach are provided.
Consensus seeking: A team recognizes that decisions are made at a group level. As such, the
leader actively seeks team member agreement in shaping decisions. Team members may
reframe issues to strengthen buy-in. Examples:
Then are we done with the event? Are there questions? Anybody feeling we all covered
anything we need to cover for next Thursday? We’re meeting again and having our work
session in the morning and then we’ve got team members… we’re cool? --- Team leader
during meeting.
… the type of people in our group are all very naturally out-spoken and honest people,
they all tend to be leaders on their own, and so there is just a kind of undertone
appreciation that if somebody has a different view it is respected. And I don’t feel that
there is going to be backlash as a result of that. And I think part of that is because also
the type of people in that room are willing to take that risk --- Team leader.
It would seem like it’s a group of leaders, so we’re building consensus, I feel like everyone
has an equal voice in the meeting, and we get our best, and I think that this why
everyone enjoys it because when we meet we brainstorm stuff and we come up with
satisfying action items that are going to move the whole thing forward --- Team
member.
Coaching influence:
…some of the coaching…is the one on one conversations of one team leader or one team
member that, ‘this is how I see things going, and I don’t, not so much I don’t like it, but I
don’t see how I fit in, or what do you?’ You know, that type of thing. So, I’m helping
someone individually with maybe how they fit in or how they could maybe participate in
the meeting in a way that they get heard, that is not going to show up on any recording,
but it may have an impact on that meeting if that person alters or has a different
outlook, maybe if I tell them, don’t doubt yourself, or you do have a role, affirmation,
that you’re doing fine and we need everybody --- Community coach commenting on oneon-one conversations with team members.
Non consensus-seeking approach (Leader-Follower Example):
…Where if I need some manpower or I need some expertise from the rest of the team
members, I can send out an email that says, “hey this is where I’m at, this is where I’m
stuck. Can someone help me?” That’s kind of like how I would like to see the planning
76

process go, which kind of takes us out of the arena of having debate… --- Team leader
comments during meeting.

Only one community leader openly acknowledged a more leader-follower versus
consensus decision-making approach (as shown above). In Northwoods the team leader
routinely assigned tasks to team members without group discussion on the merits of the
activities. Given that a majority of communities used a consensus-seeking approach, the
community coach’s influence on this specific trait may be noteworthy, or it could be that there
is a self-selection of individuals in the program who prefer that approach.
Open and transparent communications: As a matter of practice the team members, including
the leader, share all available information with their colleagues. As a result individual members
feel empowered. The community change process undertaken by the team is also transparent
with the way in which decisions are made being as important as the resulting decision. The
transparent communications extend to other community actors not formally engaged with the
team. Examples:
You’re talking about keeping each other abreast of what our separate organizations are
doing?
Yes.
So we’re not overlapping and stepping on toes.
Yes.
--- Dialogue at a team meeting.
I would say even before having a meeting, do presentations. Presentations to existing
groups and after you’ve done three or four different presentations depending on how
many groups there are then have the meeting. At each presentation you have a sign-up
sheet for people who are interested. They have links, and websites, and Facebook, and
know where to find us… --- Team member during team meeting. In the end the team did
very few presentations and existing economic development actors became suspicious of
the team’s motives.

77

We’re giving it the old college try, and nobody can say that we’re not trying. And those
people who want to throw stones at us, well, how come you don’t come and have a seat
at our table? How come you’re not coming to our entrepreneur meetings? Outside of our
[planned change] meetings we’ve had our Rotary club meetings, our town hall meetings
at city hall where we’ve invited everyone to come see what we’re doing. --- Team
member commenting on efforts to engage the entire community.
Coaching influence:
…where you’re kind of structuring in a consistent way so it doesn’t matter who is
organizing they would know what to pick up and do --- Community coach to team.
Non-open/transparent communicator examples:
Our biggest problem believe it or not is communications. A lot of the times our champion
has thoughts and thinks that she’s told us what those thoughts were but we didn’t quite
understand what she meant. We thought she meant something else --- Community team
member.
Last year we were talking about having speakers at our meet ups and next thing you
know, she had developed a schedule, and she had most of the speakers lined up for the
next four months --- Team member talking about former team leader.

Inspirational motivator: Leaders and members behave in ways that motivates the team. Strong
trust exists among all of the team members, intensifying the cohesion among the members.
Team members are trusted to complete their assignments and feel free to improvise if
necessary. All team members share the risks. Examples:
She’s pretty much the spark that keeps everything going. There’s days when I don’t even
want to think about the project or entrepreneurship or any of that anymore but [the
team leader] has always got the little spark to get you excited about it again --- Team
member describing the team leader.
… back to when you facilitated the team, we eat and meet. Breaking bread just really
seems to promote trust. We’ve built strong relationships where we can agree to disagree
and be different and value the differences with each member. Because we have that
culture, we can take on discussions about risky topics, and in doing that, we can modify
it to fit the culture of the community --- Team leader.

78

We had this event this last couple of weeks ago and it was our planning session and we
just went through things really quickly and part of that was we have a lot of faith in each
other and we say, “what do we need to do here?, How does this plan fit” “Does it work
still for everybody?” Let’s move on. So the group is really of same mind and really
focused and we’re able to accomplish things quickly as opposed to getting drudged
down in issues --- Team leader.
Coaching influence:
I had a conversation with [former team leader] where she said “I can’t be there, but you
can tell them if someone else wants to be the leader I will step down.” So I confirmed
that I could say that for her, and she said “yes.” So I told them and [new leader] stepped
in… --- Community coach describing her mediation of transitioning to a new team leader
in a community after the former leader was not viewed as an inspirational leader by the
team.
Example of non-inspirational leader:
…she’s not inspirational and in a time when things are really crappy and we’re
sometimes sitting around questioning what we’re doing, and why, and how are we going
to get it done? We need inspiration --- Team member describing former team leader.

Inclusivity: A sense of belonging is felt among team members. The leader demonstrates
inclusivity through the active encouragement of team member participation, both in providing
suggestions and distributing task roles to those who express an interest. Mutual respect exists
among team members. As a result there is feeling of ownership among team members, a sense
of pride that fortifies the group’s identity. Further, others in the community are encouraged to
participate, and their views are considered when they are not at the table. Examples:

This last time we made our priorities, and what our objectives were and everybody
grabbed one thing that they were going to be responsible for and said “that’s what I’ll
do.” And so they have ownership for that. Now its not my job to be going “are you doing
what you’re supposed to be doing? No. They are going to have ownership over that and
I, 100 percent believe that they will come back with what needs to be done --- Team
leader.

79

We had an entrepreneur there the other day. It is really awkward because we finally got
a guy who is in small business say something and they kept ignoring him. And I kept
coming to it say, “He is saying something to you.” Like a simple thing. “Don’t meet
during the day. I work. Other entrepreneurs work. The best time for us is after hours.” So
when they go to schedule a meeting they’re all scheduling it during the work hours. And I
kept saying, “You’re not listening” --- Team member.
In community organizations you start where people are and if they ask you to do
something you do it because you earn trust if you do it and respect, and then they can
move on but if you don’t do what they ask you to do and you keep talking about
nebulous stuff, this academic stuff, you lose them --- Team leader.
Coaching influence:
…so that’s why I’m saying you want people on your team that you know, a diverse team.
Someone that knows about, say the policy or wants to work in that area; someone who
you know, your SBTDC people, your Michigan Works people, these people that know
about resources; librarians are wonderful people to have on a core team, some from, you
know, the high school, there’s the youth component; someone from a community college
that can tap into education --- Community coach to team.
…And it’s a collaborative. I think you, think of this group as a collaborative of all the
other [stakeholders in Sunnyvale] the chamber, the EDA, the foundation, the arts council.
Those are the partners within the collaboration --- Community coach to team.
Examples of non-inclusive team approach:
Someone came up with an idea at one of our meetings and they’re less assertive and
they came up with this idea and they were talking and [team leader] just kind of shut
them down. And this doesn’t happen all the time. I’m kind of making it a bigger deal that
it is but I have this paternal concern about these little members leaving and getting their
feelings hurt and stuff and I probably should worry about that but sometimes she can be
overbearing, so at one of our meetings, and I think it was actually the spring meet-up,
someone was saying something and she just kind of barked out.. it was something that
wouldn’t have offended me but it obviously offended this person and they shut up right
away and she kind of talked over them until they stopped talking --- Team member
discussing meeting dynamics before leadership change.
But when I get the emails and stuff and I look through it and I read some of the things,
which I do, and then I think I don’t have anything really to contribute to what we’re
talking about and I don’t really know that I actually know where I would fit in all that
either --- Team member.

80

I definitely work in a collaborative team approach. I usually try to engage everyone and
delegate --- Team leader. Delegating is generally not viewed as an inclusive leadership
strategy where tasks are assigned to individuals.

Evidence from each of the components of the consensus decision-making definition is
mapped by community in Table 2.3. Additionally, to understand the potential influence of
consensus decision-making on team performance and resilience, Table 2.3 includes three
elements (cohesion, ability to stick together, ability to take action) of the resilience definition
described by Ganor and Ben-Lavy (2003). In addition to reviewing team meeting dynamics from
the audio recordings, team cohesion was evident in the way team members and team leaders
spoke about one another in individual interviews. The ability to stick together is assessed by
examining if teams continue to actively meet and work towards accomplishing programmatic
objectives. In this planned change initiative, achieving programmatic outcomes was measured
against the yearly benchmarks established as part of the planned change initiative.

81

Table 2.3: Summary of consensus leadership definition elements and team resilience factors by community

Community
Damton
Flat Rock
Metroville
Northwoods
Railford
River Valley
Sunnyvale
Watersedge
Reference:

Consensus Decision-making Elements
Consensus
Open
Inspirational
Seeking Communicator Motivator
Inclusive
F
P
I
P
P
F
P
I
P
P
I
F
F
I
I
F
P
P
I
F
P
F
F
F
P
P
P
F
I
F
I
F

Team Resilience Factors
Team sticks Completed
Exhibits
together 2+ Outcomes Cohesion
P
P
P
P**
I
P
F*
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
F
F
F
P
P
F
P*
F
I

P = passed evidence test, i.e., the element/factor was evident in qualitative analysis
I = insufficient evidence existed to evaluate construct element
F = failed to demonstrate construct element
* = teams that changed leadership during research period
** = team that exited change initiative but continued to function as a team with their own local plan
Highlighted teams demonstrated two or more consensus decision-making and team resilience elements

82

As noted in the above table, sufficient evidence did not exist to draw a conclusion for all
eight communities on each of the four elements of the consensus-leadership definition. The
highlighted communities represent teams that remain active (as of April, 2013), have
accomplished at least two of the four programmatic benchmarks/outcomes, and have
demonstrated at least two elements of the consensus leadership definition.

2.52

Quantitative Analysis Using Key Word Searches
Can the words used by team members provide additional clues on a team’s adoption of

a consensus leadership model for decision-making? Using the computer assisted qualitative
data analysis software QSR NVivo9, a text search was conducted of the transcriptions of team
meetings to see if team member references were more self-focused (usage of pronoun words I,
I’m, me, mine, and my) or collectively-focused (usage of pronoun words we, our, and us).
Intuitively, as a team moves towards a consensus leadership model for decision-making,
perhaps through the influence of a community coach, group-focused word usage should
increase over time.
Table 2.4 provides a summary of the word frequency (measured by the percentage of
total words) for key words used in our analysis. Each community, and their respective team
meetings, is listed separately. Those communities in which data is available for only one team
meeting (Flatrock, Northwoods, and Railford) are not included in the table. Presenting the team
meetings in chronological order allows for an initial untested view of changes in word usage
during the course of the planned-change initiative. What remains unknown, however, is
whether a statistical difference exists from the beginning of the initiative to the end of the
83

initiative in both self-focused and collective-focused pronoun word usage among communities.
Simply examining the averages and standard deviations reveal that the averages, plus or minus
the standard deviations, overlap.
To test if a statistical difference exists in team member pronoun use from the beginning
to the end of the initiative I conducted two-tailed t-tests (I cannot conclude that our two data
sets will differ by moving the mean from one data set in only one direction, hence a two-tailed
test) comparing two samples of unequal variance. The two samples selected represent the first
two and last two meetings for each community in Table 2.4 for both singular-focused and
group-focused pronouns.
2.521: Individual-focused Pronoun Word Use
Using a null hypothesis that no statistical difference exists in individual-focused pronoun
use by team members at community team meetings from the beginning (first two meetings) to
the end (last two meetings) of the planned community change initiative, the t-test was
conducted in an Excel spreadsheet with the data generated through a NVivo analysis of the
team meeting transcriptions. As noted in Table 2.5, the p value from the t-test is .475, implying
a failure to reject the null-hypothesis that no statistical difference exists between individualfocused pronoun words used by team members at the beginning and at the of this planned
change initiative.
2.522: Collective-focused Pronoun Word Use
Similarly, Table 2.6 provides the results of a t-test comparing collective-focused word
usage (we, us, and our) at the beginning of the planned change initiative (first two meetings)
against collective-focused word usage at the end of the planned change initiative (last two
84

meetings). Using the same null hypothesis that no statistical difference exists between the two
data sets, the t-test reveal a p-value of .96, strongly implying a failure to reject the null
hypothesis that no statistically-significant difference exists in collective-focused word usage by
team members as the initiative progressed.
Although consideration was given to statistically testing the use of individual-focused
pronoun use against collective-focused pronoun use by team members, the word “I” is among
the most commonly used words in the English language. Drawing conclusions when comparing
words whose everyday usage in conversation significantly differs is a limitation to additional
analysis comparing individual and collective-focused pronouns. Even with widely used words,
such as “I”, it is worth noting that the numbers presented in Table 2.4 represent fractions of a
percentage. Finally, word count percentages consider only the appearance of the word, not the
context in which it is used. A sentence such as “I believe our team should work together on this
project” has one individual-focused word (I) and one collective-focused word (our) yet the
intention of the sentence is clearly collective focused.
Although in some instances the words teams use may provide clues to the leadership
approach employed by the team leader and members, results from this quantitative analysis of
word usage does not enable drawing additional conclusions.

85

Table 2.4:

Summary of word frequency by percent coverage of individual-focused and
collective-focused pronouns from communities with multiple team meetings

Individual-focused
pronouns
Community/Meeting Date (I, I’m, me, my, mine)
Damton
November, 2010
0.88%
March, 2011
1.18%
May, 2011
1.27%
October, 2011
1.39%
Metroville
October, 2010
1.12%
March, 2011
1.44%
May, 2011
1.26%
July, 2011
0.91%
August, 2011
1.12%
River Valley
October, 2010
1.05%
October, 2011
1.18%
January, 2011
0.52%
January, 2011
1.16%
February, 2011
1.05%
February, 2011
0.85%
March, 2011
0.93%
March, 2011
0.80%
Sunnyvale
November, 2010
0.95%
January, 2011
1.04%
February, 2011
0.98%
May, 2011
0.78%
September, 2011
1.06%
Watersedge
March, 2011
0.78%
September, 2011
1.32%
October, 2011
2.18%

Table note:

In some instances the team met twice per month.

86

Collective-focused
pronouns
(we, us, our)
0.81%
0.78%
0.71%
0.72%
0.78%
0.51%
0.71%
0.69%
0.77%
0.72%
0.67%
0.85%
1.00%
1.01%
1.12%
0.87%
0.71%
1.28%
1.11%
1.24%
1.22%
1.24%
0.88%
0.59%
0.91%

Table 2.5:

Results of t-test comparing team member usage of individual-focused pronouns
at the beginning of the planned change initiative versus the end of the planned
change initiative

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
First 2
Meetings
Mean
1.07
Variance
0.04
Observations
9.00
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
0.00
df
13.00
t Stat
-0.74
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.47
t Critical two-tail
2.16

Table 2.6:

Last 2
Meetings
1.18
0.17
10.00

Results of t-test comparing team member usage of collective-focused pronouns
at the beginning of the planned change initiative versus the end of the planned
change initiative

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
First 2
meetings
Mean
0.84
Variance
0.05
Observations
9.00
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0.00
df
17.00
t Stat
-0.05
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.96
t Critical two-tail
2.11

Last 2
meetings
0.84
0.05
10.00

87

2.6

Discussion
I began this research by positing that through the facilitative interventions of a

community coach, voluntary leaders and their teams adopt a consensus leadership model for
decision-making. Based on the evidence presented in Table 2.3, community coaching was found
to have had a positive influence on the team’s leadership approach and ability to accomplish
planned outcomes. As of April, 2013 four of the eight teams continue to meet and are actively
engaged in a community change initiative. Of the three teams in which the coach actively
mitigated a team leadership dynamic, two teams continue to meet and remain active in the
planned change initiative. Additionally, the teams that continue to meet exhibited at least two
of the four elements of the consensus leadership definition suggested in this research (with the
exception of Watersedge, where a relatively recent team leadership change made it difficult to
evaluate the new leadership approach). As noted previously, the planned change initiative
included four programmatic outcomes: 1) Resources for entrepreneurs; 2) Social networks for
entrepreneurs; 3) Development of a local entrepreneurial culture; and 4) Public policies
supporting entrepreneurship. It was not an expectation that new entrepreneurs would emerge
from the change initiative’s activities within the examined period, rather communities would
create an environment that supports entrepreneurial development. Specific community
outcomes included monthly entrepreneur meet-ups (social networks for entrepreneurs),
establishment of microloan funds, online business trainings and the establishment of business
reference sections at local libraries (resources for entrepreneurs), scholarships for
entrepreneurial training and a business idea competition (local entrepreneurial culture).

88

Of the two teams that disbanded, one team (Northwoods) exhibited characteristics that
do not represent the consensus definition or insufficient data existed to sufficiently judge
existence of elements of the consensus definition. The other disbanded team, River Valley,
faced challenges in developing a level of team cohesion. Lacking an inspirational leader and a
commitment to inclusion may have particularly challenged River Valley’s ability to remain
functional given their large geographical area. Although Metroville has not officially disbanded,
the team has been inactive for several months.
It is unclear whether any of the specific elements of the consensus leadership definition
used for this research were more important than others in strengthening team resilience. Only
one of the eight teams demonstrated all of the definition’s elements, and this team was not
without its challenges. Each team is unique, and an important lesson in community
development is that every place has a distinctive set of characteristics. The Damton team
leader, for example, uses more of a leader-follower approach by delegating assignments or
taking charge on specific initiatives and involving the team when she “gets stuck.” Despite the
lack of involvement from the entire team in shaping every decision, the leader and team are
successfully moving their agenda forward. The Damton leader, however, communicates to the
team often and is very inclusive in inviting other voices from the community to participate in
the initiative.
Are all four leadership constructs necessary for team success? This research suggests
not, however the approaches employed should represent the culture and expectations of the
team members and community at large. The findings uncovered evidence of only one of the
eight teams demonstrating all four elements of the consensus leadership definition, yet five of
89

eight of the teams continue to work towards accomplishing their program outcomes. It is
unclear if certain pieces of the consensus definition are more valued than others by team
members. Additionally, for longer term team success (3-5 years) some consensus leadership
definition elements (e.g., inspirational leader, open communications) may become more valued
to maintain team member motivations and contributions.
One factor that may have affected the coach’s effectiveness was travel distances to
many of the communities. The change initiative was designed to use technology to efficiently
communicate with the eight geographically dispersed communities. Quarterly virtual webinar
meetings, electronic newsletters, and conference calls often served to connect the coach and
the communities. Although the coach was willing to travel, some communities were reluctant
to impose on the coach. Consistent with the findings of Hollenbeck (2002) that emphasized the
relationship between a coach and client, the lack of a face-to-face presence compromised the
ability of the coach to establish a trusting relationship with the team and potentially hampered
her ability to influence the local team’s leadership approach.
Despite challenges, most of the teams (5 of 8) spoke highly of the coach’s intervention.
Among those that were less complimentary, Flat Rock exited the program early and
experienced limited interactions with the coach. The Flat Rock team continues to experience
success partly through their strict focus on youth entrepreneurship activities. Among those
teams expressing frustration with the community coach, a common concern expressed was the
inability of the team to establish their own programmatic agenda.
The structure and corresponding programmatic benchmarks of the planned change
initiative became, in essence, a handicap for the coach as it limited her ability to improvise
90

given each community’s needs. It is important to note that at the beginning of the change
initiative the communities welcomed a more structured approach. The desire to “write our own
script” (as described by River Valley) became more apparent as the change initiative evolved.
This is consistent with Prochaska and Norcross’s work (2001) that suggests readiness for change
can influence the success of an intervention. As discussed in Chapter One, readiness is a key
element to successful change initiatives. However, readiness has differing levels. A community
change initiative that is template driven assumes that every community is at the same place
relative to its capacity, knowledge and motivation to facilitate change. This research suggests
that is not the case. In communities lacking organizational readiness (i.e., team formation,
structure) it might be prudent to delay implementation of a comprehensive change initiative
and allocate the necessary time to further developing the team’s membership capacity,
organizational resources and networks, and local leadership attitudes.

2.7

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Exploration
Though the research results suggest that community coaching contributed to a local

voluntary team’s movement towards a consensus-leadership model, the conclusion is
constrained by several limitations. Traditionally, assessments of community efforts have
focused more on long-term goal achievement and less on the team development process.
Evaluation methods often rely on evidence-based research, such as randomized controlled
trials, to measure the impact of designed interventions. This approach can be difficult to pursue
in community change initiatives as identifying control and/or comparison community change
initiatives can be problematic. Researchers in the community psychology discipline have
91

identified the need to evaluate community partnership efforts that measure the effectiveness
of group functioning and the community change process rather than focusing on longer-term
impact goals (Butterfoss and Kegler, 2002; Kegler et al., 2000; Krueter and Lezin, 2002).
Additionally, this research did not include a pre-assessment of team leaders and
members to determine views towards consensus leadership prior to the coaching intervention.
Some team leaders, for example, may have embraced consensus leadership principles before
the coaching intervention. The inclusion of a pre/post survey of consensus leadership attitudes
would have added a second quantitative dimension to the analysis by measuring changes in
behavior. Although some quantitative analysis was conducted, other mixed method approaches
can enrich the explanation of the findings and discussion. Also, while some team members
were interviewed as part of the project, the data are insufficient among many communities in
determining if team members viewed the team leader as an inspirational motivator. This
research also represents an examination of coaching from October 2010 to April 2012 –an 18month snapshot. Transformational community change often takes several years. I can only
speculate about whether the team’s described in this project will be resilient enough to
overcome the challenges that often plague voluntary work teams.
Despite these limitations, this research can provide meaningful contributions to the
limited research currently published on community coaching. Our examination focused on one
element of coaching – its potential influence on team leadership. Additional studies examining
the coach’s influence on guiding communities to adopt long-term goals, address wicked
problems, procure outside resources, and enhance community vitality are needed. Moreover,
longitudinal studies that examine the engagement of a coach with a community over several
92

years could contribute greatly to enhancing our knowledge of factors associated with team
success in addressing the community change puzzle. Finally, regionalism has increasingly been
identified as a strategy to add vitality, particularly in more rural areas. Although this project
included two communities that represented multi-county regions (in both cases the teams
dissolved), the spatial challenges for a team engaged in a regional change initiative are
substantial. Gaining insights from a regional coaching model would add greatly to the
community and economic development practice.

93

CHAPTER 3:
TEAM DYNAMICS AND VOLUNTEER TEAM RESILIENCE
3.0

Introduction
At the forefront of numerous community-initiated improvement efforts are local

volunteer teams – citizens who have banded together to address important, sometimes critical,
issues facing their place. Despite the importance of their work, little is known of factors that
contribute to higher volunteer team performance, greater volunteer commitment to team
efforts, and potential beneficial spillover effects that emerge through greater team connectivity
to different local and regional community networks.
For years the organizational development discipline has examined the effectiveness of
work teams in for-profit settings. Although this literature has explored the value of different
leadership structures, teams in change environments, self-directed work teams, and more
recently virtual teams, volunteer teams have not been addressed. Additionally, community
psychologists have studied volunteer motivations in joining community coalitions, but missing
within their literature is consideration of the efficacy of place-based volunteer teams. Even the
research in the community development practice is shallow when considering local volunteer
community change teams.
This essay explores two different, but interrelated, elements of effective volunteer
teams. First I explore the role of team dynamics in volunteer team resilience. Specifically, I posit
that positive team dynamics enhance the ability of the team to stick together, accomplish
planned objectives, and strengthen team cohesion. Additionally, since volunteer teams often
represent individuals who share similar interests, values and experiences (Newman and Dale,
94

2007), tapping into new networks offers opportunities to enhance programmatic outcomes.
Secondly, I posit that the new social networks formed through social bridging in this change
initiative produce positive spillover effects.
My analysis begins by examining the organizational development literature with a
specific focus on the interplay among team members. I seek to understand how team dynamics,
group members’ dispositions and temperaments towards one another affect performance of
for-profit work teams. How does the interplay between team members contribute to their
commitment to team goals? I then turn to the community psychology literature to examine
volunteer-driven community coalitions. My analysis considers social capital and the role of
social bonding and bridging in strengthening a team’s performance and longevity.
Finally, using the same eight place-based community volunteer work teams from
Chapter Two, I examine the above propositions using primarily a qualitative research approach
with a quantitative analysis of word usage. My findings are presented for each proposition. A
discussion of the relevance of this study, the limitations of the analysis and future research
opportunities is provided.

3.1

Literature Review

3.11

Team Member Dynamics and Group Success
Teams exist in a variety of settings: sports teams, military teams, work teams, and

community teams. Although teamwork is generally viewed as a vehicle to accomplishing some
goal, a collection of individuals working together as a team is not immune to challenges. Teams
involve a human dynamic as members bring to the table a wide variety of personalities,
95

expectations, experiences and knowledge. Understanding the dynamics of a team, particularly a
self-directed team, may assist in strengthening the resilience (as defined by Ganor and Ben-Lavy
(2003)) to include the ability to stick together, take action and exhibit cohesion) of volunteerdriven community-based change teams.
In an extensive study involving more than 6,000 team members and leaders, LaFasto
and Larson (2001) identified individual team member characteristics and intra-team dynamics,
highlighted in Figure 3.1, that are essential for effective teamwork. Most frequently cited by
individuals is “openness”, described as a willingness to deal with problems, surface issues that
need to be discussed while contributing to an environment where others feel free to express
their opinions. In addition to a transparent environment, team members also cited
“supportiveness” as an important element for team functioning. In a supportive environment
team members express a desire and willingness for their colleagues to succeed. In some cases
this may be demonstrated by defending someone who is being attacked. In all cases, according
to the authors, it represents placing the team’s goals above an individual agenda. The third
teamwork factor identified by the authors is an action orientation. Beyond possessing a
tendency to act, this orientation may be demonstrated through a willingness to suggest
different courses and experiment even when risk may exist. Finally, a positive personal style, as
shown by team member optimism, engagement, confidence, and a friendly persona well-liked
by team members contributes to the functioning of the team.

96

Figure 3.1: Teamwork factors essential for effective teams
Teamwork
Factors

Personal Style

Openness

Supportiveness

Action Orientation

Figure 3.1 source: Lafasto and Larson, 2001
Similarly, Caudron (1994) found that successful teams possess characteristics that
include team member cohesion, strong communications, clear goals, articulated role
assignments, established procedures, and positive relationships among team members. The
author’s elements of a successful team align with the typology developed by Wilber (1996) that
include 1) Respect, transparency and learning; team members are willing to surface and
challenge their assumptions; 2) Communications among team members characterized by
individuals genuinely listening to one another and giving helpful feedback to others; 3) A
common vision and shared values among the team members so that team members provide
open and frequent communications to each other while searching for synergy and a long-term
view; and 4) Team structure and systems with concrete common goals and priorities,
behavioral ground rules, agreed upon measures of impact, shared benefits and rewards, clear
accountability, and shared responsibility for the whole. The findings from Caudron (1994)
support earlier work by Dainty and Kakabadse (1992) who studied 36 public and private sector
teams, finding frequent communications, identified goals, and expert values common among
higher performing teams.
97

Implicit among the many factors contributing to team success is the importance of trust
as a necessary condition for cooperating behavior. Trust is defined in different ways in the
literature, but according to Newell and Swan (2000) two points are apparent. First, trust occurs
in situations of risk and/or uncertainty, and secondly, trust is about accepting vulnerability.
Luhmann (1988) sees trust as a mechanism that allows individuals to subjectively determine
where they wish to expose themselves to situations where the potential damage may outweigh
the advantage. In collaborative arrangements this may represent a person’s reputation,
financial resources, or self-esteem.
Sako (1992) suggests three different reasons for being able to develop trust or, framed
in the context of teams, different reasons for expecting team members will behave in a
“mutually acceptable manner.” First, a pledged agreement binds the parties in the relationship.
A situation must exist that establishes a commitment, creating an environment in which
members rely upon one another. Secondly, there is a belief in the competencies of those
involved. In a team atmosphere, the skills and expertise of the other team members for
contributing to group functions are relied upon. Lastly, there is a belief that good will emerge
among those involved. Beyond amity, trust creates an atmosphere within teams where
serendipitous benefits may emerge.
Although not traditionally treated as a team level construct, some psychologists believe
that team optimism and positivity may lead to greater resilience. West et al. (2009) found that
at a team’s initial formation team optimism is most strongly related to cohesion. After teams
have interacted over time, their capacity for resilience when faced with challenges is more
strongly associated with the extent to which they feel tightly knit as a team.
98

Finally, community coalitions that often function through the efforts of volunteers offer
additional insights in a group’s ability to accomplish desired outcomes. In examining coalition
challenges, researchers have identified the lack of and/or competition for limited resources,
conflicting/competing partner interests and resources, unclear goals and expectations, lack of
communications among members, unrealistic time expectations, and difficulties in recruiting
and retaining community participants as problems that inhibit a coalition’s success (Kegler et
al., 2000; Lasker and Weiss, 2003; Orr-Brawer, 2007). For many of these place-based
challenges, social capital is at play, which is examined further in the next section.

3.12

Social Capital, Trust and Team Performance
When considering local ties, attachments and voluntary actions, social capital needs to

be included in the discussion. Generally defined as resources that individuals may access
through social ties (Bordieu 1986; Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998; Woolcock, 1998), social capital
captures the inherent value of personal connections that extend beyond any single transaction
(Ryan et al., 2005). Social capital is created when trust is generated between two or more
individuals (Sztomka, 1999). Social capital is also created when emerging obligations and norms
of reciprocity are extended to others who were not part of the original transaction (Coleman,
1988; Ryan et al., 2005). Social capital scholars have also distinguished between bonding social
capital, which is characterized by strong ties that exist among relatively homogenous groups
such as families and friends (Putnam, 2000), and bridging social capital, which is characterized
by the weaker ties that link diverse individuals/organizations. Bridging ties cut across race,
class, and ethnicity and are depicted by the creation of new relationships between the group
99

and organizations/people outside the community (Kegler et al., 2000; Putnam, 2000). More
recently, scholars have identified linking social capital, whereby networks of trusting
relationships exist between people and institutions or authority gradients in society (Blakely,
2006).
For the community teams examined in this research, bonding, bridging and linking
capital are considered. Many teams are composed of individuals with past experiences in
collaborative community development activities. Some are friends (strong ties); others are
business associates (weak ties). Given the association of social capital with a community’s
potential for effective problem solving, the social capital (and all of the sociological and
psychological constructs contained within, such as trust, reciprocity, etc.,) developed within the
team may strengthen cohesion. From a community development perspective, promoting
linkages/networks to resources external to the community (bridging and linking social capital)
provides an opportunity to generate spillover benefits from the change initiative. Kreuter and
Lezin (2002) found that communities/coalitions with high bridging social capital experienced
greater community engagement and supportiveness resulting in organized and timely strategies
that achieved positive outcomes.

3.2

Conceptual Framework, Research Questions and Community Participants

3.21

Conceptual Framework
As noted in the first two sections of this chapter, extensive studies have been conducted

on team dynamics and elements that enhance team performance. Additionally, significant
research has been conducted on volunteer intentions. Documented is an understanding of the
100

motives behind an individual’s decision to give time towards a specific cause. In reviewing the
literature, no studies were identified that specifically explored volunteer team dynamics and
their potential impact on performance. Yet, volunteer teams are performing critical functions
for a variety of organizations and communities. This research seeks to provide insights on the
role of volunteer team dynamics.
To examine both the impact of dynamics (both positive and negative) among volunteer
team members on the group’s performance and resilience and the effect of social bridging in
producing positive spillover effects, I use a case-study approach involving eight place-based
communities geographically distributed in Michigan. Below, Figure 3.2 provides a conceptual
model of team functioning and social bridging explored in this chapter.
In this model, individuals within a community have voluntarily agreed to serve on a
team that will coordinate a comprehensive change initiative. Newly formed teams bring
together different personalities, leadership expectations and norms and values. Through
meetings and interactions, the dynamics among the team members influence the team’s
functionality. Some teams develop positive team dynamics, characterized by trust,
communications, shared values and a common vision. A successful functioning team builds
social capital, tapping into new networks and resulting in positive spillover benefits. As a result,
the team’s performance and resilience is strengthened. Conversely, negative team dynamics,
characterized by distrust, conflict among team members, and differing values and goals, result
in a struggling volunteer team. In some instances the team may recognize its internal issues and
adjust accordingly. In other instances the team may dissolve. Within this conceptual

101

framework, I examine the relationships among the team members and their influence on team
functionality, the ability of the team to tap into new social networks, and the results achieved.

102

Figure 3.2

Conceptual model of team functioning and social bridging

Team
Struggles

Individuals

Team Functionality

Newly Formed Team
(Differing norms,
personalities, leadership
expectations and
operational views)

Negative Team
Dynamics
=
(e.g., distrust,
conflict

Positive Team
Dynamics
(e.g., trust, shared
values)

Ability to accomplish desired
goals/outcomes

Greater Resilience
(Team sticks together, exhibits
cohesion among team members
and possesses an ability to take
action)

New team
members and
networks

Spillover
benefits

Increased social
bridging

103

This conceptual framework differs from existing studies within the organizational
development literature that explores dynamics of corporate self-directed work teams (AlKazemi and Zajac, 1998; Cangemi, 2005; Caudron, 1994; Dainty and Kakabadse, 1992; Gibb,
1978; Ilgen et al., 1979; Jackson et al., 1995; Kim and Murnighan, 1997; Kulisch and Banner,
1993; LaFasta and Larson, 2001; Loo and Loewen, 2003) and the community psychology
literature that has examined community coalitions and communities of interest (Butterfoss et
al., 1996; Butterfoss and Kegler, 2002; Byles, 1985; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; FosterFishman et al., 2001; Gomez et al., 2005; Greenberg et al., 2007; Lasker et al., 2001; Lasker and
Weiss, 2003). None of these studies examined place-based change teams populated by
volunteer team members. As volunteers increasingly take charge of their communities’
economic paths, understanding the dynamics among the team actors may offer valuable
lessons to others seeking positive change. I begin by offering the following research question:

3.22

Research Questions

Research Question # 1:
Can positive team dynamics enhance the ability of the team to stick together, accomplish
planned objectives, thereby strengthening resilience?
To explore this research question, the phrases/terms “positive team dynamics” and
“resilience” require greater clarity. Ganor and Ben-Lavy (2003) describes community resilience
as “the ability to find unknown inner strengths and resources in order to cope effectively with
long-term pressures...to stick together and to help itself as a group” (p. 106). The authors
further outline elements of community resilience, including communications, cooperation,
104

cohesion, ability to take action, credibility, and a long-term vision. For the purpose of this study
the phrase “team resilience” includes elements of the definition provided by Ganor and BenLavy (2003), specifically the ability to stick together, cohesion, and the ability to take action.
Secondly, using key characteristics and/or traits cited within the literature review on
coalitions, high-performing work teams, and self-directed teams, specific elements of positive
team dynamics are identified. Table 3.1 summarizes the key team features. Although the
researchers use differing terminology, similar terms are mapped together horizontally to
provide a construct of positive team dynamics.

105

Table 3.1:

Summary of select positive team dynamics from the literature on coalitions, high performing work teams, and
self-directed teams.

Coalitions

High performing work teams

Butterfoss
Dainty and
and Kegler
Kakabadse
(2002)
(1992)
Open
Frequent
communications communications

Mutual respect
and trust

Lafasta and
Larson
(2001)
Openness

Self-directed teams

Gauthier
Caudron
(2006)
(1994)
Strong
Team
communications Communications

Common Traits
Identified
Open and
frequent team
communications

Supportiveness

Trust and
respect

Team cohesion

Trust and
mutual respect

Problemsolving
orientation

Structured for
success

Team structure
established

Team structure
contributes to
success

Common goals
and vision

Clear team goals

Shared vision
and goals

N/A

Shared
decisionmaking

N/A
Identified goals

N/A

N/A

Reference: N/A = Author did not identify this trait. The common traits from different citations are aligned horizontally.

106

The four most common traits identified in Table 3.1 provide a construct for my
definition of positive team dynamics. A description of the four elements of a positive team
dynamics construct follows:
Open and frequent team communications: The team environment is characterized by
open and frequent communications among the team members. Potential issues are
surfaced for discussion. Additionally, deliberate efforts are undertaken to update
members who may have missed meetings. Discussion items may be restated to ensure
all members have a clear and common understanding. Frequent dialogue allows the
entire team to be aware of individual or subcommittee activities, avoiding
misunderstandings.
Trust and mutual respect: Team members genuinely listen and give helpful feedback to
one another, ‘walk their talk’, honor their commitments and trust others to complete
their assignments. The strong cohesion among the team members allows for candor
while strengthening solidarity.
Team structure contributes to success: The team’s structures and systems include
common priorities, behavioral ground rules, agreed-upon measures of impact, and
identified roles and responsibilities. A sufficient team infrastructure ensures a problemsolving orientation by allowing team members to address/clarify tasks and focus on
issues without the burden of administrative chores (which are addressed through
sufficient institutional capacity). Decision-making is shared among team members.
Shared vision and goals: The team members share a clear common vision which
provides a common understanding of the direction in which the team is moving. While
107

goals for accomplishing the vision are thoroughly discussed (and perhaps challenged), in
the end there is ownership of the goals by the entire team, inspiring passion and
commitment.
A successful place-based change team can create positive social capital within the
community. Greater trust and cohesion creates an environment for reciprocity, strengthening
social capital (Sztomka, 1999; Woolcock, 1998). While I posit that the above positive team
dynamic will enhance the ability of the team to accomplish planned objectives, strengthening
the team’s resilience, Florin et al. (2000) identified social capital, particularly bridging capital, as
a contributing factor to greater resiliency. That research examined volunteer block
organizations that remained active over time and found better linkages to external
organizations among the longer-lasting organizations. Feinberg et al. (2005) found that linkage
with outside entities is important, particularly when the coalition is dependent on local
institutions for resources. External linkages were also identified as a means for securing political
support and legitimacy (Manger et al., 1992). Each of the volunteer teams engaged in this study
was encouraged to expand its team membership, tapping into new social webs. A second
analysis of the data in this chapter explores the extended benefits of new networks formed
through the change initiative.

Research Question #2:
Do the new social networks formed through social bridging in this change initiative produce
positive spillover effects?

108

Woolcock and Narayan (2000) provide an outline of key actors and policy prescriptions
common within a social bridging network that will assist in this analysis. Specifically, the authors
provide four views of social capital: 1) communitarian view (local associations involving local
community groups and volunteers); 2) networks view (intra-bonding and inter-bridging
community ties involving entrepreneurs, business groups, and information brokers); 3)
institutional view (involving the private and public sector); and 4) synergy view (community
networks and statewide relations, involving community groups, civil society, firms, and state
agencies). Each of the typologies outlined by Woolcock and Narayan are examined among the
studied change teams.
For this study spillover benefits may include new resources (e.g., human, financial, built)
that serendipitously emerge through new networks and/or partnerships. Examples may include
new team members, external grants, and access to a new business incubator.

3.23

Community Participants
To examine volunteer team dynamics and the potential effects of social bridging, this

research uses a case study of eight geographically-distributed communities in Michigan
engaged in a three-year community change initiative designed to enhance local entrepreneurial
development. Each team has been assigned a pseudonym name to protect the volunteer
identities. A description of community team members is provided below:
Damton: The seven-member Damton volunteer team brings representatives from both
the business community and government to the table. Team membership includes the mayor,
city manager, a contracted economic development professional, a retired business consultant,
109

the Chamber of Commerce director, an entrepreneur, and a locally-based federal employee.
The team is one of the larger volunteer teams in this change initiative.
Flat Rock: Representing a countywide effort, Flat Rock entered this change initiative
with an existing volunteer team in place. Team members include two representatives from the
local workforce development agency, a representative from the local Cooperative Extension
office, a representative from the local economic development agency, a representative from
the local tribal community, and a representative from the city’s downtown development
authority.
Metroville: This community team spans three adjacent townships. Although additional
non-governmental representatives are recruited to the team, membership is heavily populated
with paid staff of local government units, including three township managers, a city
administrator, and a township planning director. The team also includes a retired lobbyist, a
local banker, and a retired economic development professional.
Northwoods: Representing a three-county regional community, this team includes the
executive director of the local economic development agency, a marketing/management
faculty member at a local community college, a representative from the downtown
development authority, a local financial advisor, and a Cooperative Extension professional.
Railford: The team of this city dismissed some of the individuals who initially
volunteered to serve on the team, citing concerns that the individuals were joining for the
wrong reasons. The remaining six team members represent both business and government and
include the city manager, the downtown development authority director, the Chamber of
Commerce director, the library director, a banker, and a local entrepreneur.
110

River Valley: Spanning four counties, the team for this community includes a regional
health official, an employee of a church in the community, a local entrepreneur, and a
representative of a regional planning agency.
Sunnyvale: Similar to Flat Rock, Sunnyvale brings an existing volunteer team to the
change initiative. Team members include the executive director of the Chamber of
Commerce/economic development agency, an employee of the local library, an employee of
the local community foundation, a local retail store operator, a representative of the local arts
council, a local Cooperative Extension professional, and the manager of a local manufacturing
firm.
Watersedge: Although many of the members of the Watersedge team have worked
together on other community projects, this county-wide change initiative represented the first
time the members are collectively involved in a longer-term initiative. Team members include a
representative of the local credit union, a local pastor, a realtor/elected county official, two
local community Chamber of Commerce directors, a representative from a local museum, and a
local Cooperative Extension professional.

3.24

Data Collection Tools
Using the aforementioned positive team dynamics construct and the social bridging

typology to examine the influence of the team environment and new team networks in
strengthening team performance and resilience, the following data collection methods were
used in this project:

111

1) Interviewing volunteer team leaders and members engaged in an active community
change initiative for perspectives on team cohesion, communications, vision/goals,
and structure used to advance agenda;
2) Interviewing volunteer team leaders and members engaged in an active community
change initiative for perspectives on volunteer team’s engagement with new
networks within the community and the potential to advance program agenda.
3) Interviewing the community coach and change initiative coordinator for a thirdparty assessment of team dynamics, social bridging and team resilience;
4) Examining recordings of team meetings (some face to face; some conference call)
for insights on dynamics between team members and team membership.

3.3

Research Design
My research questions are explored with data collected from eight primarily rural

communities geographically dispersed across Michigan. Each of the communities committed to
a three-year community change initiative to enhance their local entrepreneurial environment.
Although the exact composition varied among the voluntary teams, generally speaking, each
community’s entrepreneurial development effort was led by a local group consisting of
business representatives, positional leaders (township or city officials) and local concerned
citizens.
To examine both research questions, I primarily used a qualitative case study approach.
The approach is consistent with Miles and Huberman (1994), who described case studies as “a
phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (p. 25). The literature suggests that
112

case studies can be bounded by time and place (Creswell, 2003), time and activity (Stake, 1995)
and definition and context (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The analysis discussed in the chapter
is bound by time (three year change initiative), place (eight communities) and activity (create
an entrepreneurial environment using a template-driven curriculum). The specific examination
of the volunteer team dynamics and the cultivation of new social networks in strengthening
team resilience provide a further boundary for the research.
A qualitative research method was used to examine the data set that included an
analysis of teleconference meetings of the participating communities (29 recordings over 15
months), an observation (1 observation from team training) and semi-structured interviews (49
taped interviews from 2010 to 2012) of team leaders, team members, and the external
community coach and program coordinator. As is the case in most research projects, despite
repeated efforts by a research assistant to schedule interviews, not all team members/team
leaders responded. Consequently, data from the participating communities are not evenly
distributed. An additional quantitative analysis was conducted to test statistical differences of
the most frequently used words of team members during team meetings.
The data collection for this research project began in 2010, coinciding with the planned
change initiative, with a written observation of team dynamics at an initial two-day boot camp.
Shortly after the training, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with the team
leader and/or a team member. This initial set of questions focused on how the team was
developing. Additional interviews were conducted in approximately six-month intervals,
allowing for periodic discussion of the team’s development, including additions to and
subtractions from the team’s membership. The last set of interviews was conducted in spring
113

2012, approximately 20 months after conducting initial interviews. A written survey was
provided to team members attending the final program training in April 2013 to assess team
progress in accomplishing programmatic outcomes. Most interviews lasted between 30 and 60
minutes and included open-ended questions to stimulate discussions on team dynamics. All of
the interviews were conducted over the phone and the conversations were taped. A research
assistant conducted all interviews. The raw recordings from the interviews were transcribed. A
sample of the interview protocols and questions are included in the appendices.
To gain an understanding of the dynamics at team meetings, an external community
coach recorded 29 meetings of the local volunteer teams. Due to travel distances,
approximately two-thirds (18 of 29) of the meetings were conducted as team conference calls
to allow the coach’s participation. At least one of the larger (geographically) communities
frequently used conference calls to conduct most of its business as team membership was
dispersed among four counties. Other communities with greater geographical dispersion of
team members would occasionally use conference calls to connect their team. The majority of
the team meeting recordings (24 of 29) occurred in 2011, following the program kick-off in
September 2010. No recordings of team meetings occurred in 2012.
Zwikael and Unger-Aviram (2010) found that the effectiveness of team development
increases in longer projects. It takes a sufficient amount of time for team cohesion to develop
and trust to be established among team members, particularly if they are working together for
the first time. Although no team meetings were recorded in 2012, the project includes team
meeting data gathered over 15 months in 2010 and 2011. As previously mentioned, two of the
eight teams entered the program with existing volunteer teams in place.
114

Three teams exited this change initiative prior to its three-year completion, limiting the
number of team meeting recordings. One of the teams that dropped out had an existing
volunteer team in place and chose to focus on different outcomes. They continue to meet as a
team. The other early-exiting teams faced numerous challenges that are discussed further
within the study results. Although written transcriptions were available from the recorded team
meetings, I chose to listen to each recording to gain a fuller appreciation of the team dynamics
prior to coding. Although the audio improved my understanding of the interaction among team
members, a visual presence at the meetings would have further enhanced my sense of the
group dynamics.
An additional 17 interviews were conducted with the community coach and program
coordinator between 2010 and 2012. These semi-structured interviews provided an external
view of the team development and environment. Similar to the interviews with team members
and team leaders, the interviews were conducted by the PhD research assistant. Samples of the
interview protocols are included in the appendices. A matrix summarizing the source of the
study data by community and timeline is provided in Table 3.2. The audio data was
supplemented by a written summary of team dynamics observed at the initial boot camp
training.

115

Table 3.2:

Source and number of audio recordings used in analysis

2010

2011

Team
Conf
calls
Community
River Valley
Metroville
Sunnyvale
Flat Rock
Watersedge
Railford
Damton
Northwoods
Coach
Program
Coordinator

Team
Individual Team
Leader Interviews Meetings
Interviews

Team
Conf
calls

2

1
2
1
1
1

7

1
1

1

1
1
1

1

1

4
4

2

4
1
1
1

3
2

116

2012

Team
Individual Team
Team
Individual Total
Leader Interviews Conf
Leader Interviews
Interviews
Calls Interviews
61
1
1
1
13
1
1
9
1
1
9
2
1
6
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
4
1
1
8
1
1
3
7
1
11
3
1
6

A qualitative analysis using a variety of data sources is fundamental to sound case study
research (Baxter and Jack, 2008). Qualitative research methods are also well established for
examining issues related to community practice and change (Hinsdale et al., 1995; Rubin, 1997;
Yin, 1994). Qualitative research mostly is largely process focused. The research is often
descriptive versus predictive, and studies often focus on the particular rather than the general
(Creswell, 1994; Patton, 2002). Both of the research questions presented in this chapter are
predictive while the data provides a descriptive account of team process.
Creswell (2003) describes qualitative research as an interpretive process involving a
sustained experience with the participants. Although a framework was provided to guide the
analysis of the data in this study, qualitative research contains a subjective element as the
researcher must interpret data and draw conclusions about the meanings of the information.
Creswell (2003) cautioned that this analytical approach can introduce ethical issues, personal
issues, and research bias into the qualitative process.
Accepted qualitative data analysis procedures were used for this research study, as
recommended by Marshall and Rossman (1995). Each transcript (and the corresponding audio
for team meetings) was coded against the positive team dynamics construct (i.e., open and
frequent communications, trust and mutual respect, team structure contributes to success, and
shared vision and goals) and the social bridging typology (i.e., communitarian view, network
view, institutional view, and synergy view) previously discussed. Interviews with the community
coach, team leader, and program coordinator allowed for the assessment of the team’s
resilience, as previously described. Qualitative data analysis software, NVivo9 (QSR
International, 2011), was used for the storing, indexing, sorting and coding of the data set.
117

Accepted procedures, as outlined by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2011), were used in the software
analysis. In addition to the manual coding conducted, a second software-generated coding of
the data was conducted for key words (such as “trust”, “respect” and “communications”) to
ensure phrases were not missed. Each community was coded separately and sequentially by
date to provide a fuller perspective on how the team evolved. Memos describing each
community team’s story were written after analyzing each community dataset to serve as a
secondary verification of the individual narratives.
Although the positive team dynamics construct and the social bridging typology
provided an initial framework for coding the data, the identification of themes was not limited
to the construct or typology. As noted in the first two sections of this chapter, a variety of
concepts are introduced from the literature that underpin the positive team dynamics
construct used in the analysis. These concepts relate to important theoretical explanations of
successful volunteer teams, self-directed teams, and coalitions. The data analysis allowed for
the identification of different theoretical variables that may have surfaced outside of the
positive team dynamics construct. A quantitative analysis of word usage within team meetings
provided further exploration of the climate and focus of the team’s discussions.

3.4

Results and Discussion

3.41

Research Question #1: Can positive team dynamics enhance the ability of the team to
accomplish planned objectives and strengthen resilience?
Understanding the influence of positive team dynamics on the team’s ability to

accomplish planned objectives and remain resilient (i.e., stick together, exhibit cohesion, and
118

demonstrate an ability to take action) requires examining team meetings as well as listening to
team leaders, members and the program coordinator describe their team dynamics and
programmatic outcomes. Using their words, each team’s operating environment was weighed
against the four elements of the positive team dynamic construct: open and frequent
communications, trust and mutual respect, team structure, and shared vision and goals. The
results are presented for each element of the construct:
Open and frequent team communications: The team environment is characterized by open and
frequent communications among the team members. Potential issues are surfaced for
discussion. Additionally, deliberate efforts are undertaken to catch-up members who may have
missed meetings. Discussion items may be restated to ensure all members have a clear and
common understanding. Frequent dialogue allows the entire team to be aware of individual or
subcommittee activities, avoiding misunderstandings. Examples include the following:
…the type of people in our group are all very naturally out-spoken and honest people.
They all tend to be leaders on their own, and so there is just a kind of undertone
appreciation that if somebody has a differing view, it is respected --- Team leader
discussing the open communications style of the group.
I’m just personally hesitating with bringing her to the table if I don’t think she’s going to
contribute to the group. The way the group is structured currently, everyone is really
bringing something to the table and taking a piece of the pie on their own too to make
sure the greater good is being worked towards here --- Team leader surfacing a potential
issue with a new team member joining the group.
Examples of negative team communications include the following:
I will say in general I get zero responses to probably 70% of my emails. I will also say in
the last three months, I sent out very few emails because it’s gotten to the bottom. I
don’t know if you guys even read it --- Team member expressing frustration at lack of
team communications.

119

Our biggest problem, believe it or not, is communications. A lot of times our leader has
thoughts and thinks that she’s told us what those thoughts were but we didn’t quite
understand what she meant --- Team member.
A lack of opportunity to give input or use creativity was identified as one of the factors
contributing to volunteer dropout by Morrison (1994). Open communications, therefore,
become a critical component in both the team environment and retention of volunteer
members. Overall those teams representing larger geographical areas struggled with
communications among team members. Although early in a change team’s formation a
discussion among team members relative to communication norms and expectations is
important for all teams, those teams where more common casual interaction among team
members is more challenging may require additional communication efforts.
Trust and mutual respect: Team members genuinely listen and give helpful feedback to one
another, walk their talk, honor their commitments and trust others to complete their
assignments. The strong cohesion among the team members allows for candor while
strengthening solidarity. Examples include the following:
Yes, and you did a great job and I think that was great that you sent that out and you
teased them with that already. You did a great follow-up to the meeting. I liked how you
included the nuggets that [other team members] were talking about. We’re right on. If
there are any ideas or thoughts about how that can flow… --- Team Leader
complimenting work of a team member at a meeting.
If I had to describe our team, our team is really strong, our trust levels are really, really
high. We agree to disagree and we open disagree often and that’s great. Our team sees
it as a strength --- Team leader.
We do break tasks down. We don’t police each other, but at the meeting the agenda
kind of drives it so we are held somewhat accountable when we report back to our team
--- Team leader discussing trust among team to complete assigned tasks.
I genuinely like the people on the team. I think we all gel well, everybody’s really
dynamic. It’s a great group, everybody is interesting and it’s kinda got to the point where
120

we understand each other and appreciate each other’s point of view so it really is a,
uhm, safe environment to be really honest and open with our opinions and our ideas. I
think that is wonderful and rare in a committee --- Team member describing her team.
There’s no politics here. We won’t let that interfere with it. That’s bullshit. That’s why
the mayor is not on here. And nobody likes her anyway --- Team member discussing
cohesion among team members.
[Team leader]: We talked about YouTube, we talked about PowerPoint, we talked about
the visual. Did I forget something?
{Team member 1]: [team member 2 name] has a great idea.
[Team member 2]: I think that it should be structured around the four elements of
entrepreneurialism that we got from MSU. We can build it off from each element.
[Team member 3]: Social network?
[Team member 4]: That’s a really good idea because you bring in people and realize this
is a community project and not just onesies and twosies, it’s a committee. That’s a good
one.
[Team member 5]: That’s very good.
[Team leader]: That’s very good
Example of dialogue and complimentary support among five team members and team
leaders in a team meeting. The team meetings frequently include active comments from
virtually all of the team members, indicating solidarity and openness within the group.
Examples of negative team cohesion, trust, and mutual respect include the following:
The negative concern I had was there’s some back-talking in our evening conversation.
There was some dissing of their other team members. That’s a bad sign. The one in
particular they felt was kind of an outlier in their group was [name withheld]. They were
describing [him] as their curmudgeon --- Program Coordinator sharing concerns with
team cohesion of a team.
…this relationship has kind of deteriorated over the course of the last few months and it
literally got to the point where they wouldn’t even sit in the same room with each other
so it makes it kind of hard to hold a meeting when they aren’t speaking to each other...
--- Team leader describing conflict between team members.
Well I laugh because for the life of me, I can work with anybody except for him
apparently. I take it back. I can work with him. He can’t work with me --- Team member
describing a fellow team colleague.
I believe the biggest problem was that you had a couple of men, very business- like, that
were SO (emphasis) concerned about putting this formal governance, this formal board
together. It was kind of like building this roof without this foundation. And the girls,
because you know we’re so intuitive and we think we know it all, we’re trying to tell
121

them, “no, we just need to keep this momentum going” We’re bringing businesses, and
entrepreneurial type people, people that in the new way of thinking and mindset and we
just want to sit and talk and we’ll figure out where that goes. We just got to go with the
flow. Of course that masculine opinion is “no, we have to have a structure, gruff, gruff,
gruff” Kinda where that has got us is nowhere --- Former team leader discussing team
dynamics.
The definition of ‘trust and mutual respect’ used in the construct considered a variety of
related elements that contribute to cohesion among the team members. In some instances,
evidence supported a positive team leader who deliberately complimented other team
members, yet underneath the compliments the team lacked true camaraderie. This is
consistent with the challenges of virtual teams discussed earlier by Avolio and Kahai (2003) who
suggested that virtual teams must build trust rapidly, communicate often and early, and foster
group identity.
One might suggest that populating a team with existing friends could solve the trust and
mutual respect conundrum. While strong friendships within a team may provide a positive
social feeling within the group, they can also exclude others who are not part of the friendship
clique, and limit information flow across the entire group (Team Technology, n.d.). Allen (2005)
found (when examining effective community coalitions) that conflict resolution was not related
to perceived effectiveness in the presence of other elements of the collaborative climate (e.g.,
inclusiveness). This is inconsistent with the common assertion that conflict and the ability of
individuals to transform conflict productively are central to the success of collaborative work
(Byles, 1985; Reilly, 1998). One possible explanation for Allen’s finding is that conflict was less in
the studied teams than anticipated, reducing the need for conflict resolution. The meetings in
this research were generally characterized as professional interactions where heated

122

disagreements were not the norm. As noted by Shye (2010), the opportunity to develop
friendships plays an important role in a volunteer’s decision to devote time to an effort. In this
case study some of the teams that failed to cultivate a sense of cohesion among the team
members disbanded.
Team structure contributes to success: The team’s structures and systems include common
priorities, behavioral ground rules, agreed-upon measures of impact, and identified roles and
responsibilities. A sufficient team infrastructure ensures a problem-solving orientation by
allowing team members to address/clarify tasks and focus on issues without the burden of
administrative chores. Decision-making is shared among team members. Examples include the
following:
Every single one of them [show leadership]. Every single one of them brings ideas to the
table; every single one of them talk about their passions; every single one of them take
on responsibilities. The last time we made our priorities, and what our objectives were,
everybody grabbed one thing that they were going to be responsible for and said ‘that’s
what I’ll do.’ And so they have ownership for that. Now it’s not my job to be going “are
you doing what you’re supposed to be doing?” No. They are going to have ownership
over that and I, 100 percent believe, that they will come back with what needs to be
done --- Team leader discussing the known roles and responsibilities of team members.
I come to the meetings prepared, with an idea or something that I would like to see
accomplished and the reasons why. When you just prepare, and come with some
reasons, people are willing to follow along. And if you are willing to put some skin in the
game some time in your idea, then I think that is another way to get things accomplished
--- Team member.
Back to our roles and responsibilities. Is this something we want to put monthly on our
agendas? If you have something to comment on your area? Don’t feel like it has to be a
monthly report but I’d like to dedicate a space so it’s, you know, top line for all of us. Is
that agreed? --- Team leader comments during team meeting.
We have some really detail-oriented team members and then we have visionary team
members and with the dynamics we’ve had disagreements but they’ve only led us to a
better decision --- Team member.
123

We do get along. There has never been any conflict between anybody in our group, so
that makes things much easier. Everybody is eager to help, they don’t really expect
anything out of it in the end, so that’s nice; they don’t come into it with any hidden
agendas, this is partly due because we selected the right people to be on the team
because of that…Whenever we ask someone new to come on our team, we really think
about it a lot, and we discuss it, and there have been some suggestions, and then after
we discuss it a bit more, we say, you know, we don’t think they really would be a good
fit, and we don’t ask them --- Team leader discussing how the team’s structure
contributed to their success. During the formation stage some individuals who had
volunteered to be a part of the team were not selected because of concerns by others
relative to “hidden agendas.”

Examples of inadequate team structure, roles and responsibilities include the following:
I think more than anything it’s a temperament thing, It’s the follow through. She was
weak in the follow-through --- Team member discussing inability of team leader to
complete needed tasks.
I got a little heated and finally said, “then why don’t you do it [name]. You keep bringing
this idea up. Run with it. Do something. Don’t just tell us about it, do something” --Team member describing frustration with team leader.
We were meeting once a week and that kind of petered out because it was too much.
Lately I don’t know that we’ve had a meeting… we’re going to have a meeting tomorrow
which is cool and that will be the first one we’ve had for probably 45 days. We’re having
a lot of trouble, again. These people have other lives and I recognize that myself. I see in
2 ½ -3 years the same people were on the same committees --- Team leader discussing
challenges with team capacity.
It’s another one of those things that she routinely calls me or sends something “oh it
would be great if you could do this,” meaning if I could do it or [my employer] could do it,
and not the community. And I just –we have-I mean we do have some real workers, I
mean [team member one] works, [team member two] works, [team member three]
works, I mean they work their butts off in their jobs. But when it comes to this, it’s like an
add-on and it’s the last thing on the list for everybody and I understand it’s like
everybody feels this is important, and it is, but if we really want to see something
important, we need to figure out how it’s not the last thing on everybody’s list --- Team
member.
Perhaps most prominent among the more successful teams examined in this research
were clear roles and responsibilities among the team members. The division of tasks assists in

124

overcoming fatigue that plagues many volunteer-driven organizations. I also discovered that
teams with the necessary organizational infrastructure (e.g., community foundation, Chamber
of Commerce, Cooperative Extension) that assumed administrative burdens allowed for team
meetings to be more productive by focusing on solving their challenges and not worrying about
simple administrative tasks, such as note taking.
Shared vision and goals: The team members share a common vision, rooted in clarity, which
provides a common understanding of the direction in which the team is moving. While goals for
accomplishing the vision are thoroughly discussed (and perhaps challenged), in the end there is
ownership of the goals by the entire team, inspiring passion and commitment. An example
follows:
We had this event this last couple of weeks ago, and it was our planning session and we
just went through things really quickly and part of that was we have a lot of faith in each
other, and we say, ‘what do we need to do here?’ ‘How does this plan fit?’ ‘Does it work
still for everybody?’ ‘Let’s move on.’ So the group is really of the same mind and really
focused and we’re able to accomplish things quickly as opposed to getting drudged
down in issues --- Team leader.
Examples where the team members do not share in a common vision include the following:
I think that we have the opportunity to be really good at designing a program that will
actually be workable and useable and a benefit. But we’re not there yet. There is still
some pulling people back in and saying let’s get on the same page… and me, I just get
bitchy and say ‘you know what? We have to go somewhere or I’ll have to leave, I don’t
have time for this’ --- Team member sharing frustration over lack of common team
vision.
I feel like a shepherd, like I’m trying to get all of my sheep to come to me but then when I
get them, I’m not sure what pasture to take them to get fed --- Team member sharing
frustration with the lack of a common team vision.
It’s herding cats. I don’t believe the work has been done that puts everyone on the same
page. I think right now everyone who is participating has their own personal reasons for
doing so. It may or may not dovetail with the needs of the greater good and I think that
in order for the team to be successful, there is some uncomfortable work that needs to
125

be done, and once that is done I think we’ll have a much clearer path of the strength of
the team --- Team leader describing the team’s dynamics.
Everybody was excited…all the younger folks were excited about opening up an
incubator, going into the landlord business, and I kept saying, ‘Don’t you think we ought
to have some entrepreneurs first? Can you image that? --- Team member.
We met yesterday because he was unable to attend the conference call this morning and
the take home message first of all was ‘where are we going with the self-sustaining
community idea?’ and ‘where are we headed with our entrepreneurs?’ And I couldn’t
really answer that --- Team leader.

Perhaps most surprising in our analysis of the teams was the lack of a common vision
and action goals among the team members – particularly in a template-driven change initiative.
Clearly the most focused group, as evident by their singular programmatic objective, was Flat
Rock, who exited the program because they felt this change initiative distracted them from
their youth entrepreneurship work. The team continues to meet and has achieved success.
Other teams (e.g. Damton and Watersedge) have improved the clarity of vision among team
members. Those teams that struggled with a common vision (River Valley and Northwoods)
also were not successful in recruiting new team members, diminishing their resilience.
Each of the positive team dynamics construct elements, and performance and resilience
factors are mapped against the participating teams in Table 3.3. While only one team
(Sunnyvale) exhibited evidence of all four elements, most teams demonstrated at least two of
the four construct considerations, suggesting that positive team dynamics do contribute to the
team’s ability to accomplish planned objectives and strengthen resilience. What remains
unclear, however, is the specific influence. Other factors, such as the consensus-leadership
model for decision-making (which contains similar team development dynamics, such as open
communications) discussed in Chapter Two, also contribute to team performance and
126

resilience. This research also suggests that improvements within the teams can be pursued, as
is being demonstrated by Metroville and Watersedge. These teams recognized their
shortcomings and have taken specific steps for improvement. Additionally, Metroville (despite
improvement efforts) has lost momentum as the team has not met in several months.

127

Table 3.3: Summary of positive team dynamics construct by community and team performance and resilience elements

Positive Team Dynamics Construct Elements
Community
Damton
Flat Rock**
Metroville*
Northwoods
Railford
River Valley
Sunnyvale
Watersedge*
Reference:

Open
Respect
Communication & Trust
P
P
F
P
P
F
I
I
P
P
F
F
P
P
F
I

Team
Shared
Structure Vision/Goals
P
F
P
P
F
P
F
F
P
I
F
F
P
F
F
F

Team Performance & Resilience
Completed 2+
planned outcomes
P
I
F
F
P
F
P
F

P = passed evidence test, i.e., the element/factor was evident in qualitative analysis
I = insufficient evidence existed to evaluate construct element
F = failed to demonstrate construct element
* = team changed leadership during research period
** = team exited this change initiative early but continues to meet with own plan

128

Team still
meets
P
P**
F*
F
P
F
P
P*

Exhibits
Cohesion
P
P
F
F
P
F
F
I

3.42

Research Question #2: Do new social networks formed through social bridging in this
change initiative produce positive spillover effects?
This question, which was presented in the grant supporting this research, requires

examining the potential and success of cultivating new social networks by the participating
change teams. Social bridging among different social groups within a community and between
different communities facilitates new ideas (Putnam, 2000). Woolcock and Narayan (2000)
suggest that bridging capital consists of contacts that link otherwise disparate groups of people.
Bradshaw (2000) suggested that community development initiatives that are more fluid,
involving participation from differing organizations, are more robust. Similarly, Heath (2007)
posited that collaborative partnerships are changing the landscape of community organizing.
They have a powerful and lasting effect on communities by fostering new leaders (Chrislip and
Larson, 1994), generating multiple collaborations as new heuristics for solving community
problems (Zoller, 2000) and shaping new civic cultures.
Specifically, I posit that the new social networks formed through social bridging in this
change initiative produce positive spillover effects. Spillover effects may include new team
members, additional financial resources, or access to new assets.
As noted earlier, Woolcock and Narayan (2000) provided a typology that aids in our
analysis. Each team was categorized based on the team composition gathered from their initial
program application, and updated to reflect current team composition (as of April, 2013). Level
one, the communitarian view, represents teams whose membership is primarily local
community groups. Level two, the networks view, represents teams that possess both intrabonding and inter-bridging community ties involving entrepreneurs, business groups, and
129

information brokers. Level three, the institutional view, consists of teams whose membership
includes both the private and public sectors. Level four, the synergy view, represents teams
whose community networks have bridged with statewide actors. Table 3.4 provides a summary
of each team’s social capital view. Although no team within this study is classified at level four,
the synergy view, it is important to recognize that all of the teams are relatively young in their
existence. Opportunities exist for all of the remaining teams to engage statewide networks as
their programming matures. Three teams (Flat Rock, Metroville, and Watersedge) made
deliberate efforts (with some success in both Flat Rock and Watersedge) to expand their teams’
composition to represent a blended public/private composition. Those teams that remained in
a communitarian view have disbanded. In comparison, two-thirds of the communities in the
network view still actively meet and all of the communities achieving an institutional view
continue to actively meet.
Perhaps most impressive is Damton, whose already large team has nearly doubled, from
7 members to 13, representing industry, government, business, and youth. Damton’s increase
in team membership is the result of targeted recruiting efforts rather than a spillover effect of
new members requesting to join the team. The increased capacity is noteworthy as Damton has
the most robust set of programmatic outcomes in the initiative.
In some cases, efforts by other communities to expand networks were met with
resistance:
So I’ll tell you we have a little problem going on with someone, who again, is the head of
an economic development alliance, and I think honestly has been threatened with this
whole … from the moment we even mentioned [program name], even though he wasn’t
part of the initial app, he wanted nothing to do with it. I think between us it’s an ego
thing, it’s a threat --- Team leader.
130

Table 3.4: Community social bridging using Woolcock and Narayan (2000) typology
Communitarian Network Institutional
Community
View
View
View
Damton
X
Flat Rock
X
Metroville
X
Northwoods
X
Railford
X
River Valley
X
Sunnyvale
X
Watersedge
X
Reference:
Table note:

Synergy
View

Team still
Meets
X
X

X
X
X

= team has pursued steps to expand networks to next level
According to Woolcock and Narayan (2000) the communitarian view involves
primarily local community groups and volunteers; the networks view (intrabonding and inter-bridging community ties) involves entrepreneurs, business
groups, and information brokers); the institutional view involves both the private
and public sector); the synergy view extends involvement to regional firms and
state agencies.

Although the most significant spillover benefits may occur when a team adopts a
synergy view and can fully tap new potential resources, some more limited positive spillover
benefits have emerged. One team’s expansion into the business community through the DDA,
resulted in a potential new business incubator:
[Team member], it was his first meeting with us and as a DDA coach/director, he talked
about wanting to develop a business incubator and develop an entrepreneurship center.
And we’re like ‘well that’s been our strategic plan, is it something that we can partner up
together on?’ and he was enthusiastic about it --- Team leader sharing with the other
team members.
This team also shared their plans with the community coach of expanding their team with other
partners:
Yup, and again we recognize we were really heavy in the doing but not really heavy in
the community organization and community leadership pieces and what you need to
know for our core team is that we’ve added another partnering organization. The
[county name] Intermediate school district and [school superintendent] have agreed to
131

participate in our entrepreneurial alliance meetings and partner in our activities --- Team
leader sharing with the community coach.
Two months later, the team leader reported to the community coach:
And then a new project that we are really under now is that [team member] and I and
our team has been invited into the intermediate school district to support a youth
business project. The youth had wanted to start a non-profit organization so that they
can raise funds and donate them out to families who are having emergency situations,
or other social efforts and we’re meeting with the kids today to get them to think more
entrepreneurially --- Team leader sharing with the community coach.
A common theme among the participating communities was the benefit of social bridging with
the other communities in Michigan engaged in the same planned community change initiative.
The meet ups that we have with the other communities are probably the most valuable,
just because you can talk to other people in the communities, find out what they’re
doing, what’s working and what’s not, and to me that’s probably the most valuable --Team leader.
Is team resilience strengthened through social bridging? This research offers little
empirical evidence to support the research question at the time of our analysis. This may
change, however, as additional time elapses. Intuitively, additional networks should enhance
team membership and produce additional benefits. Flat Rock provides the sole example of
spillover benefits in our review as their expansion into a business network resulted in the
development of a business incubator (spillover is a new asset) for youth-operated businesses in
their downtown district. Similarly, network expansion with a regional youth education
institution may result in new programmatic offerings in the future.
Greenberg et al. (2007) found community coalitions attempting to address poverty in
primarily rural communities in Iowa and Pennsylvania were less resilient (together after 6
months) in environments with higher poverty. This is somewhat consistent with theories for

132

the impact of social disorganization on individual level outcomes. The most economically
challenged communities in our study struggled in their efforts to tap into new networks.

3.5

Study Limitations and Opportunities for Future Exploration
This research suggested that elements of positive team dynamics contribute to a local

change team’s ability to accomplish planned objectives and strengthen resilience. The
conclusion, however, is constrained by numerous limitations. The research would have
benefited from a pre/post survey of team members to learn of their attitudes towards the
positive team dynamics construct. A mixed methods research approach could enrich the
explanations of the findings and discussion. Additionally, the data are insufficient in some
communities to fully explore all of the team environment constructs. Caution should be
exercised in interpreting the potential causality of positive team dynamics and greater team
resilience as it is difficult to ascertain individual team member contributions towards team
longevity. It may be the work undertaken by one or two competent, dedicated and effective
volunteers that lead to an initiative’s success (and continued team meetings) and not the
smooth operations of the team as an integrated, consensus-driven, cohesive body of
community leaders.
Additionally, measuring indicators of social capital can be problematic because
terminology varies at the operational level across the multiple disciplines interested in
measuring these concepts. This highlights the need for uniformity in definitions of this work’s
typology. The short timeframe of the study (approximately 18 months) may not have been long

133

enough to measure spillover effects related to bridging social capital. Provan et al. (2003) also
cite this as a limitation in their network analysis research.
Despite these limitations, this research can provide meaningful contributions to the
community development practice. A greater understanding of volunteer team dynamics is
crucial to both longer-term change initiatives and shorter-term volunteer-driven events. My
examination focused on two elements: positive team dynamics and spill-over benefits from
social bridging into new community and regional networks. Additional studies that probe
deeper into the functionality of a team when new actors outside of routine networks become
engaged in a change process will further our knowledge of volunteer team performance and
resilience. Moreover, longitudinal studies examining team dynamics may provide important
insights into guiding efforts that may require a commitment beyond three years. Finally, I
explored spillover effects that accrued to our change team through social bridging. What about
the opposite effect? Does a community development change initiative make a difference to the
level of social capital in a community? A holistic view of local change teams may provide
additional answers in our understanding of the community change process.

134

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
4.0

Synthesis of Constructs
This dissertation sought to improve our understanding of factors associated with

volunteer change team success and resilience. Using eight geographically dispersed community
change teams engaged in a three-year planned change initiative as case studies, I tested
whether the literature on coaching, team governance, team dynamics, and social capital were
descriptive of desired behaviors and outcomes exhibited among these community teams and if
so, at what level. After listening to more than 100 hours of taped recordings, and reviewing
more than 1,500 pages of transcribed interviews, team meetings, and program materials, I
concluded the coaching can be effective, team dynamics matter, and social bridging, while
recognized as important, is more easily envisioned than actually executed.
In addition to the above research, this dissertation also explored existing theories on
change which, when coupled with the scholarly findings on teams leading change and
volunteering for change, helped to inform the development of Chapter One’s community
change team construct. As a result, I proposed four factors as key to a team’s success: readiness
for change, a commitment to action; diverse team composition, and a supportive environment
for sustained success.
In Chapter Two I returned to the literature for guidance in constructing a comprehensive
definition of consensus leadership. Using the findings from the literature on transformational
leadership (Bass, 1990; Cangemi et al., 2008), leadership in change organizations (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1997), self-directed work teams (Spreitzer et al., 1999), and virtual teams (Avolio
135

and Kahai, 2003), four common elements emerged to inform my consensus leadership
definition: commitment to inclusion, consensus decision-making, open and transparent
communications, and trust. Similarly, in Chapter Three I used the literature to provide a
construct to inform the definition of positive team dynamics used in my analysis of the change
teams participating in this study. Both the community psychology and organizational
development scholarship provided important insights on positive team dynamics, including the
examination of coalitions (Butterfoss and Kegler, 2002), high performing work teams (Dainty
and Kakabadse, 1992; Gauthier, 2006; Lafasta and Larson, 2001) and self-directed work teams
(Caudron, 1994). Four common traits emerged that were used in my positive team dynamics
construct: open and frequent communications, trust and mutual respect, a team structure that
contributes to success, and a shared vision and common goals among team members.
Although I presented three separate constructs based on differing considerations of
team performance and resilience (volunteer team success, consensus leadership model for
decision-making, and positive team dynamics), many similarities exist. Table 4.1 maps the three
constructs discussed in each chapter. Those construct elements that are similar are aligned
horizontally.

136

Table 4.1: The three constructs presented in the dissertation aligned horizontally by similarities
Chapter One
Volunteer team success

Chapter Two
Consensus leadership

Readiness for change

Chapter Three
Positive team dynamics

Shared vision and goals
Trust

Commitment to action

Trust and mutual respect

Open and transparent
communications
Inclusion

Open and frequent
communications
Team structure contributes to
success

Diverse team composition
Consensus decision-making
Supportive external
environment

When the constructs in Table 4.1 are viewed collectively with the research findings from
this dissertation, key observations emerge:
1) Readiness: Readiness extends beyond a community’s readiness to accept change to
include the volunteer team’s readiness to lead and implement the planned change process.
Volunteers leading volunteers can be challenging as community teams lack the binding
arrangements of teams in work for pay settings. Despite this research showing that consensusleadership (and all that it encompasses) and team dynamics impact performance, many
community change teams fail to devote adequate time to team building, forging a common
vision and goals, and establishing agreed-upon governance procedures. Multi-year change
initiatives can wear on volunteers, lessoning team resilience. Devoting adequate
time/resources to readying the team may be as important as the actual change activity.

137

2) Commitment to action: In addition to aiding development of a level of readiness, a
commitment to action rooted in open communications and trust among team members is
significant to success. Throughout our extensive review of the literature exploring different
concepts, trust was the most commonly cited trait underpinning successful change, team
performance and even volunteering. Trust, however, can exist at different levels and mean
different things to different individuals. In the extensive recordings and transcriptions in this
research project it became easy to identify where the presence of trust was strongest among
team members. Succinctly put, those teams performed better. Stronger trust and transparent
communications allows team members to concentrate their efforts on intended actions,
avoiding the personality disagreements that can result in a team losing focus.
3) Trust and open communications: Beyond a ‘felt need’ that contributes to team
readiness and the existence of a level of trust and open communications among/between team
members, attention to the structural composition of a team also impacts team performance
and resilience. Volunteer change team efforts can be strengthened through the inclusion of
differing community stakeholders and enhanced team capacity through the engagement of
multiple community networks in team activities. In both instances team capacity is bolstered,
mitigating the hefty toll a multi-year change initiative can inflict on volunteer team members.
Community change teams, however, are often myopic in both their composition and their
outreach efforts to gain external support. Teams frequently focus their attention on gaining
local government support, for example, without extending outreach efforts to neighboring
jurisdictions or state-level organizations. Consequently, the ability to tap into new networks
(and resources) may be limited.
138

4) Team structure: Finally, a team’s structure is further improved through the adoption
of behavioral ground rules, identified roles and responsibilities, and shared decision-making.
With the inclusion of differing networks (and perhaps differing expectations and norms),
consensus decision-making, with agreed-upon operating procedures, allows a team to capitalize
on an expanded pool of viewpoints. Those teams that took a broader, institutional view of their
team membership and activities, while maintaining a shared understanding of team
procedures, remained functional.
Community change teams operate in a system that is intrinsically social. As such the
dynamics affecting their performance and resilience are complex and unpredictable. My
findings were based on the experiences of eight teams in one state pursuing a planned change
initiative that was largely non-contentious. While we can learn from the experiences of others,
we must also exercise caution in making assumptions based on one set of data. Would the
results from this study differ if the planned change initiative was more divisive, or less defined,
within a community? Perhaps, but I contend the combined identified elements of team success
discussed above would better position a community change team to tackle contentious issues
through increased inclusion, transparent communications, and consensus-seeking. Despite the
acknowledgement that the findings presented in this dissertation were based on one set of
case studies, I believe this research can add to the knowledge base used by both practitioners
and scholars seeking to further community efforts for planned change.

139

4.1

Acknowledgement of Role in Research
Creswell (2003) describes qualitative research as interpretive involving a sustained

experience with the participants. The researcher must interpret data and draw conclusions
about the meanings of the information through a personal lens. This can introduce ethical
issues, personal issues, and research bias into the qualitative process (Creswell, 2003). For this
reason it is important that the researcher acknowledges experiences in the study (Merriam and
Associates, 2002). Despite the research interviews with the community participants being
conducted by a different PhD graduate student serving as a research assistant on this project, I
provide the following acknowledgement of my experiences and interests to this study.
I previously was involved in an earlier version of a similar planned change initiative,
serving as the head coach, and co-director for the pilot program involving seven communities in
2006-2007. Through this pilot program I worked with both the current program coordinator
and the community coach (who was a then a member of a local team in the pilot program) of
the planned change initiative studied in this research project. Additionally, I serve as a work
colleague, through Cooperative Extension, with some of the community team members and
leaders participating in this research. I have also worked with some of the community team
members and leaders in facilitating community strategic planning sessions.
Given my personal relationships with some of the research subjects, my role as a
researcher was restricted to analyzing and interpreting the collected data. Additionally, with
the exception of the final training I did not attend activities/events of this planned change
initiative during the examined period. This separation allowed me to minimize potential bias
when reviewing and analyzing the research data. This separation may have also limited some
140

interpretations of the data as follow-up communications to clarify any questions in the data
were not pursued.

141

APPENDICES

142

Appendix A
Sample Team Leader Interview Protocol
Introduction
Just as a reminder, we are interested in how to improve Michigan’s economy through programs
that provide a coach to help community’s foster stronger entrepreneurs. We are interested in
learning the strengths and weaknesses of the coaching model from the community’s
perspective as well as gain insights on your team’s development. To more fully understand
these elements I’d like to ask about you and your team. As stated in the consent form, your
responses are confidential and voluntary. You can skip any question. The interview is tape
recorded.
Background Information
First, I would like to ask a little bit about you and your background
1. Where were you born?
Where did you grow up?
2. How long have you lived in (town)?
3. What brought you to this community?
4. What is your occupational background?
5. Do you plan to stay in this community for the next 10 years or so?
b. [IF YES] What about this community makes you think you will have long-term plans
here?
Initial Experience with Team
Now I would like to talk with you about your first experiences on your community’s Creating
Entrepreneurial Communities team.
6. How did you join your team
a. Were you the person who initiated the formation of the team?
b. How did you feel about joining the team? Did you like the idea immediately or
did it take some persuasion?
7. When did you join the team?
8. Did you help determine who else would be on the team?
143

a. Did you choose others to be on the team? Which team members did you
choose?
b. Did you invite people to join the team who did not become part of the team?
Why did they not join the team?
9. What assets would these individuals have brought to the team should they have joined?
10. What assets do the members who joined the team possess?
a. Is this why they were invited to serve on the team?
11. How well did you know the other team members before forming the team?
a. For how much time did you know each member?
b. In what capacity did you know each member?
12. What assets do you feel you have that will benefit your team?
13. How often do you meet as a team?
14. Do you enjoy meetings with your team? Why?
15. Do you feel being part of the team provides you with any career benefits?
16. Is helping your community become more entrepreneurial a benefit to your employer? If
yes, how?
Team and Team/Coach Dynamics
Next I would like to ask you about your perception of how well your team works together and
with the coach.
17. What strengths do you think your team has? In other words, what does your team do really
well?
a. Do you have a concrete example?
18. What problems has your team had so far, and how have they dealt with those problems?
a. Can you give me a concrete example of when your team exhibited that problem?
b. Has anyone left your team? If yes, do you have any idea why they left?.
144

19. How would you describe the interactions your team has had with the coach?
a. How frequently does your team interact with the coach?
b. Do individual members interact with the coach outside of team interactions? Which
individual members are interacting with the coach?
20. How would you describe the coach’s intervention in helping your team:
a. set goals?
b. identify resources?
c. overcome obstacles?
d. other areas?
21. Do you think overall that the coach has been helpful or unhelpful in your team’s efforts to
achieve its goals?
Why is that?
22. Do you expect that the coach will be helpful to your team and community in the future?
a. [IF YES] What makes you optimistic that the coach will help your team?
23. Do you anticipate that your team will be able to achieve the goals it has set out to
accomplish?
a. [IF YES] What makes you optimistic that your team will achieve its goals?
24. Which of the following best describes your personal style:
a. Prefer to focus on determining overall strategy and let others worry about the
details.
b. Prefer to make things happen after the group has decided its strategy.
25. One a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being almost none, and 10 being a lot, do you feel you have
influence when your team is setting its goals and planning tasks? [INTERVIEWER: IF LESS
THAN 4 OR MORE THAN 6, ASK WHY]
Why is that?

145

Demographics
Thank you so much for granting me this interview. I just have a few demographic questions that
I need to ask.
26. [INTERVIEWER: NOTE GENDER WITHOUT ASKING] __ M ___ F
27. What is your current occupation? Who is your current employer (if you have one)?
28. How old are you?
29. What is your highest level of education earned? Where did you attend school?

[Willing to be interviewed in 4-6 month]

146

Appendix B
Sample Team Member Interview Protocol

Introduction
Just as a reminder, we are interested in how to improve Michigan’s economy through programs
that provide a coach to help communities foster stronger entrepreneurship. We are interested
in learning the strengths and weaknesses of the coaching model from the community’s
perspective. To more fully understand how the coaching process works I’d like to ask about you
and your team. As stated in the consent form, your responses are confidential and voluntary.
You can skip any question. The interview is tape recorded. Any questions before we get
started?
Background Information
First, I would like to ask a little bit about you and your background
1. Where were you born?
Where did you grow up?
2. How long have you lived in (town)?
3. What brought you to this community?
4. What is your occupational background?
5. Do you plan to stay in this community for the next 10 years or so?
b. [IF YES] What about this community makes you think you will have long-term plans
here?
Initial Experience with Team
Now I would like to talk with you about your first experiences on your community’s Creating
Entrepreneurial Communities team.
6. How did you join your team
a. Were you the person who initiated the formation of the team?
b. How did you feel about joining the team? Did you like the idea immediately or
did it take some persuasion?
7. When did you join the team?

147

8. Did you help determine who else would be on the team?
a. Did you help choose others to be on the team?
b. Which team members did you choose and why them?
c. What assets did these individuals bring to the team?
d. Did you invite people to join the team who did not become part of the team?
i. Why did they not join the team?
9. How well did you know the other team members before forming the team?
a. For how much time did you know each member?
b. In what capacity did you know each member?
10. What assets do you feel you have that will benefit your team?
11. How often does your team meet?

12. Do you enjoy meeting with your team? (Why or Why not?)

13. Do you feel being a part of your team provides any career benefits to you?
a. Is helping your community become more entrepreneurial a benefit to your
employer? If yes, how?

Team and Team/Coach Dynamics
Next I would like to ask you about your perception of how well your team works together and
with the coach.
14. What strengths do you think your team has? In other words, what does your team do
really well?
a. Do you have a concrete example?
148

15. What problems has your team had so far, and how have they dealt with those
problems?
a. Can you give me a concrete example of when your team exhibited that problem?
b. Has anyone left your team? If yes, do you have any idea why they left?
16. How would you describe the interactions your team has had with the coach?
a. How frequently does your team interact with the coach?
b. Do individual members interact with the coach outside of team interactions?

17. How would you describe the coach’s intervention in helping your team:
a. Set goals?
b. Identify resources?
c. Overcome obstacles?
d. Work with your team on establishing a leadership and decision-making process?
i. How would you describe your team’s decision-making process?
e. Other areas?
18. Do you think overall that the coach has been helpful or unhelpful in your team’s efforts
to achieve its goals?
a. Why is that?

149

19. Do you expect that the coach will be helpful to your team and community in the future?
a. [IF YES] What makes you optimistic that the coach will help your team?
20. Do you anticipate that your team will be able to achieve the goals it has set out to
accomplish?
21. Which of the following best describes your personal style:
a. Prefer to focus on determining overall strategy and let others worry about the
details.
b. Prefer to make things happen after the group has decided its strategy.
22. One a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being almost none, and 10 being a lot, do you feel you
have influence when your team is setting its goals and planning tasks? [INTERVIEWER:
IF LESS THAN 4 OR MORE THAN 6, ASK WHY]

23. Has the community coach, in any way, affected the influence you have with your team?
a. If yes, in what way?
Demographics
Thank you so much for granting me this interview. I just have a few demographic questions that
I need to ask.
14. [INTERVIEWER: NOTE GENDER WITHOUT ASKING] __ M ___ F
15. What is your current occupation? Who is your current employer (if you have one)?
16. How old are you?
17. What is your highest level of education earned? Where did you attend school?

150

Appendix C
Sample Community Coach Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for your time today to discuss the CEC program, the community change teams, and your role
as a community coach. Our interview should last approximately 60 minutes. I will be recording the
interview, is that okay? Finally, if there are any questions that you do not feel comfortable answering
you can simply say pass. Any questions before we get started?

Team Development
1. Let’s begin by getting your observations on each team (ask for summary of each
individual team)

2. How has the team developed? (ask for elaborations on each team)

3. How would you describe their leadership approach?
a. Has this changed since the team formed?
b. If so, in which way?

4. What interface have you had with the teams on their leadership approach?
a. What interface with the team leader?

5. Has their team membership changed?
a. Why do you believe their membership changed?

Coaching role
Let’s transition into your coaching role with the CEC Program.

151

6. What has your interaction been with each team (ask for interaction with each individual
community team)?

7. What expectations do you believe the team has regarding your coaching role?

8. Do you believe you have met those expectations?
a. If so, in which way?

9. Did you have any particular experiences, as a coach, which contributed to the team’s
development/expectations?

10. How often do you interact with the team?

11. What challenges have you encountered in these interactions?

12. Have you had to mitigate any issues with the team?
a.If so, what were they?
b.

What was the result of your actions?

13. Who has been your primary contact with each team?
a.Team leader?
b.

Other?

14. Which team do you believe is performing well?
a.Why?
b.
What has been your role, as a coach, with this team?

15. Does your interaction and/or approach differ between communities?
152

a.In which way?
b.

Why?

16. Which team do you believe is struggling?
a.Why?
b.

What has been your role, as a coach, with this team?

17. What role do you believe that coaching has played to the overall program?

18. Can you describe an experience when you have felt effective in your coaching role?

19. Can you describe an experience when you have felt ineffective as a coach?
a.Did you feel resistance to your coaching efforts?
b.

How did you deal with the community’s reaction?

20. Has your coaching role, and your community interactions, evolved?

21. At this stage of the program, how would you describe/rate the community coaching
intervention?
a.Why?
22. What other comments do you wish to share?
Thank you for your time.
Schedule next interview.

153

Appendix D
Sample Program Coordinator Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for your time today to discuss the CEC program, the community change teams, and
your observations as the program coordinator. Our interview should last approximately 60
minutes. I will be recording the interview, is that okay? Finally, if there are any questions that
you do not feel comfortable answering you can simply say pass. Any questions before we get
started?
Program and Team Development

1. How is the program progressing since the boot camp training?

2. What communities have you visited with since boot camp, and what are your
observations in these communities?
3. From your perspective, how are the community change teams progressing in their
development? (Review each team individually)
a. How long as the team been together?
4. Are the teams reaching out to other individuals in the community to diversity the team’s
membership?
5. How are the team leader’s doing in guiding the teams?

6. What challenges have you noticed in this early stage?
a. How is the team dealing with these challenges?
7. At this stage which team do you believe has been most successful? (why?)

8. What is your observation of the coaching role at this stage?

9. How would you describe the relationship between the coach and the community change
teams (ask for a description of each team individually)
154

a)

What factors are influencing this relationship?

10. What type of assistance is the coach providing?
a)

How has the assistance varied among teams?

b)
What do you believe contributes to the type of assistance being
requested?
11. What do you believe the communities seek/value most from the coach?

12. What type of resources do you believe it is important for the coach to offer the
community teams?

13. Have you sensed any resistance from a community team towards the coaching role?

14. What community experience with the coach do you feel has been ineffective? (why?)
a)

Do you anticipate any changes to address this issue?

15. What interaction do you have with the coach in her coaching role?
a)

Do you offer advice on the coaching role?

16. Have you had to mitigate any issues between the coach and the community team?

17. What positive developments have you observed with the community teams?
a)

Negative developments?

18. How would you describe the progression of the overall program to date?

19. What comments or observations would you like to add?
155

BIBLIOGRAPHY

156

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlbrant, R.S., and J.V. Cunningham, 1979. A New Public Policy for Neighborhood Preservation,
New York, NY, Praeger Publishing.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein, 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall Publishing.
Ajzen, I., 1985. “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior,” in J. Kuhl and J.
Beckman (Eds.) Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior, Heidelberg, Germany,
Springer Publishing.
Al-Kazemi, A., and G. Zajac, 1998. “The self-managed team and TORI theory,” International
Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 70-87.
Alkon, A., 2004. “Place, stories and consequence: Heritage narratives and the control of
erosion on Lake County, California, vineyards,” Organization and Environment, Vol. 17,
pp. 145-169.
Allen, N., 2005. “A multi-level analysis of community coordinating councils,” American Journal
of Community Psychology, Vol. 35, Nos. 1/2, pp. 49 -63.
Anderson, N.R., and M.A. West, 1994. “The Team Climate Inventory Manual and Users’ Guide,”
UK Assessment Services for Employment, Windsor, Canada, NFER-Nelson Publishing.
Avolio, B.J., and S.S. Kahai, 2003. “Adding the ‘E’ to E-Leadership: How it may impact your
leadership,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 325-338.
Ayers, J., K. Martin, D. Oedekoven, D. Kahl, P. Schoenhulz and D.R. Scheffert, 2006.
“Foundations of Practice: Community development core competencies for Extension
professionals,” North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Retrieved June
12, 2012, from www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/nrcrd/NCRCRD2008Annual Report.pdf
Bachrach, K.M., and A.J. Zautra, 1985. “Coping with a community stressor: The threat of a
hazardous waste facility,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 177-181.
Back, K.W., 1992. “This business of topology,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 51-66.
Balthazard, P., D. Waldman, H. Howell, and L. Atwater, 2004. “Shared leadership and group
interaction styles in problem solving virtual teams,” in Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Sciences, Retrieved June 20, 2012, from
www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108
157

Bandura, A., 1977. “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,”
Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A., 1989. “Social cognitive theory,” in R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development,
Vol. 6, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press.
Barbuto, J., 2005. “Transactional, charismatic and transformational leadership: A test of
antecedents,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 26-40.
Bass, B.M., 1985. “Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations,” New York, NY, Free Press
Publishing.
Bass, B.M., 1990. “From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 19-31.
Bates, R., A. Greif, M. Levi, J.L. Rosenthal and B. Weingast, 1998. Analytic Narratives,
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Baxter, P. and S. Jack, 2008. “Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers,” The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13, No. 4,
pp. 544-559.
Bazeley, P., 2006. “Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo,” Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing.
Blakely, T., 2006. “Commentary: Bonding, bridging and linking – but still not much going on,”
International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 614-615.
Blau, P.M., 1977. “A macrosociological theory of social structure,” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 441-459.
Bradshaw, T., 2000. “Complex community development projects: collaboration, comprehensive
programs and community coalitions in a complex society,” Community Development,
Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 133-145.
Brown, S.L., and K.M. Eisenhardt, 1997. “The art of continuous change: linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Burnes, B., 2004a. “Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A reappraisal,” Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 977-1002.
Burnes, B., 2004b. “Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24,
No. 9/10, pp. 886-902.
158

Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership, New York, NY, Harper & Row Publishing.
Butterfoss, F.D., R.M Goodman, and A. Wandersman, 1996. “Community coalitions for
prevention and health promotion: Factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and
planning,” Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Butterfoss, K., and M. Kegler, 2002. “Toward a comprehensive understanding of community
coalitions: Moving from practice to theory,” in R.J. DiClemente, R.A. Crosby, and M.C.
Kegler, (Eds.), Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research, New York,
NY, Jossey-Bass Publishing, pp. 157-193.
Byles, J.A., 1985. “Problems in interagency collaboration: Lessons from a project that failed,”
Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 9, pp. 549-554.
Campbell, D. T., 1975. “Degrees of freedom and the case study,” Comparative Political Studies,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 178-191.
Camplin, J., 2009. “Volunteers leading volunteers,” Professional Safety, May, pp. 36-42.
Cangemi, J., 2005. “Creating a positive climate for the development of creativity in the
workplace,” invited presentation for the Russian Academy of Sciences Conference on
Creativity, Moscow, Russia, September, 2005. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1610204
Cangemi, J., B. Burga, H. Lazarus, R. Miller and J. Fitzgerald, 2008. “The real work of the leader:
a focus on the human side of the equation,” Journal of Management Development, Vol.
27, No. 10, pp. 1026-1036.
Case, T.J., and B. Kleiner, 1993. “Effective coaching of organizational employees,” International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 7-10.
Caudron, S., 1994. “Teamwork takes work,” Personnel Journal, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 40-46.
Chandler, S., 2008. 100 Ways to Motivate Others, Franklin Lakes, NJ, Career Press.
Chavis, D.M, 1983. “Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: Benefits for Human and
Neighborhood Development,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody
College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Chavis, D.M, 2012. “Scope, scale and sustainability: What it takes to create lasting community
change,” Exploring capacity building for community change workshop, Community
Development Society pre-conference workshop, Cincinnati, OH.

159

Chavis, D.M., and A. Wandersman, 1990. “Sense of community in the urban environment: A
catalyst for participation and community development,” American Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 55-81.
Chilenski, S.E., M. Feinberg, and M. Greenberg, 2007. “Community readiness as a multidimensional construct,” Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 351-369.
Chopra, D., 2011. “Most inspiring quotes of all time,” in C. Chua (Ed.) Personal Excellence Book,
Vol. 1, Bloomington, IN, Life Rich Publishing.
Chrislip, D., and C. Larson, 1994. “Filling a hole – Collaborative leadership: How citizens and
civic leaders can make a difference,” National Civic Review, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 502.
Clark, P.B., and J.Q. Wilson, 1961. “Inventive systems: A theory of organizations,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 129-166.
Coghlan, D., 1994. “Managing organizational change through teams and groups,” Leadership
and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, Pgs. 18-23.
Cohen, K., L. Higgins, N. Sanyal, and C. Harris, 2008. “Community coaching: Answering the call
for innovative approaches to community-based development initiatives,” Community
Development, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 71-82.
Coleman, J., 1988. “Social capital in the creation of human capital,” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94, pp. 95-120.
Consensus Decision-Making Learning Center, n.d. “What is consensus decision-making,”
retrieved 6/19/12 from www.consensusdecisionmaking.org.
Craig-Lees, M., J. Harris and W. Lau, 2008. “The role of dispositional, organizational and
situational variables in volunteering,” Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing,
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 1-24.
Creswell, J., 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage Publishing.
Creswell, J., 2003. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing.
Cummings, T.G., and E.F. Huse, 1989. Organizational Development and Change, 4th Edition,
Saint Paul, MN, West Publishing.

160

Dainty, P. and A. Kakabadse, 1992. “Brittle, blocked, blended and blind: Top team
characteristics that lead to business success or failure,” Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 4-18.
Dawson, P., 1994. Organizational Change: A Processual Approach, London, UK, Paul Chapman
Publishing.
De Dreu, C., and L.R. Weingart, 2003. “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88,
No. 4, pp. 741-749.
De Jong, A., J.C. De Ruyter, and G.A.M. Lemmink, 2004. "Antecedents and consequences of the
service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 18-35.
Diamond, J., 1996. “The roots of radicalism,” The New York Review of Books, pp. 4-6.
Diefenbach, T., 2009. “Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling: Methodological
problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews,”
Qual Quant Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 875-894.
Emery, M., and C.B. Flora, 2006. “Spiraling up: Mapping community transformation with
community capitals framework,” Community Development, Vol. 37, No. 1, Pgs. 19-35.
Emery, M., K. Hubbell, and K. Salant, 2005. “Coaching for community and organizational
change,” Working paper presented at the Coaching Roundtable, Boise, ID.
Emery, M., M. Wall and D. Macke, 2004. “Energizing entrepreneurship: strategies to help
communities grow their own,” Lincoln, NE, Heartland Center for Leadership
Development.
Eckstein, H., 1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science,” in F.I. Greenstein, and N.W.
Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Eisenbach, R., K. Watson and R. Pillai, 1999. “Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp. 80-88.
Fawcett, S., A. Paine-Andrews, V. T. Francisco, J. A. Schultz, K. P. Richter, R. K. Lewis, E. L.
Williams, K. J. Harris, J.Y. Berkley, J. L Fisher and C.M. Lopez, 1995. “Using empowerment
theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development,” American
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 677 – 697.

161

Feinberg, M., N. Riggs, and M.T. Greenberg, 2005. “A network analysis of leaders in community
prevention,” Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 36, pp. 279-298.
Flora, C.D., J.L. Flora, J.D. Spears and L.E. Swanson, 1992. Rural Communities: Legacy and
Change, Boulder, CO, Westview Press.
Flora, J.L., S.J. Sharp, C. B. Flora and B. Newlon, 1997. “Entrepreneurial social infrastructure and
locally- initiated economic development,” Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4,
Pgs. 623-645.
Florin, P., and A. Wandersman, 1984. “Cognitive social learning and participation in community
development,” American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 689-708.
Florin, P., R. Mitchell, and J. Stevenson, 2000. “Predicting intermediate outcomes for prevention
coalitions: A development perspective,” Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 2,
pp. 341-346.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. “A perestroikan straw man answers back: David Laitin and phronetic-polical
science,” in S.F. Schram and B. Caterino (Eds.), Making Political Science Matter:
Debating Knowledge, Research and Methods, New York and London, New York
University Press, pp. 56-85.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2011. “Case Study,” in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research,” 4th Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing, pp. 301-316.
Ford, R., 1992. “Professional Coaching in Leadership Development,” Executive Development,
Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 21-24.
Foster-Fishman, P.G., S.L. Berkowitz, D.W. Lounsbury, S. Jacobson and N.A. Allen, 2001.
“Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative
framework,” American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 241-261.
Friedlander, F., and B. Schott, 1981. “The Use of Task Groups and Task Forces in Organizational
Change,” in R. Payne and C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Groups at Work, Chichester, UK, Wiley
Publishing.
Ganor, M., and Y. Ben-Lavy, 2003. “Community resilience: Lessons derived from Gilo under
fire,” Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Winter/Spring, pp. 105-108.
Gauthier, A., 2006. “Developing collective leadership: Partnering in multi-stakeholder
contexts”, in Leadership is Global, Bridging Sectors and Communities, retrieved 6/12/12
from: www.leadershplearning.org/leadership-resources/resources-andpublications/developing-collective-leadership-partnering-multi-st
162

Gibb, J.R., 1977. “TORI group self-diagnosis scale” in The 1977 Annual Handbook for Group
Facilitators, retrieved June 9, 2012 from
www.oocities.org/toritrust/tori_group_self_diagnosis_scale.htm.
Gibb, J.R., 1978. Trust: A New View of Personal and Organizational Development, Los Angeles,
CA, The Guild of Tutors Press.
Gioia, D.A., and Chittipeddi, K., 1991. “Sensemaking and sense-giving in strategic change
initiation,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 433-448.
Glaser, M.A., K.G. Denhardt and J.W. Grubbs, 1997. “Local government-sponsored community
development: Exploring relationships between perceptions of empowerment and
community impact,” American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 27, No. 1,
pp. 76-94.
Goleman, D., 2004, Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence, with
R. Boyatzis and A McKee (Eds), Boston, MA, Harvard Business Publishing.
Gomez, B.J., M.T. Greenberg and M.T. Feinberg, 2005. “Sustainability of community coalitions:
An evaluation of communities that care,” Prevention Science, Vol. 6, pp. 199-202.
Gould, R., 1993. “Collective action and network structure,” American Sociological Review,
Vol. 58, pp. 182-196.
Granovetter, M., 1982. “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited,” in Social
Structure and Network Analysis, P.V. Marsden and N. Lin (Eds.), Beverly Hills, CA, Sage
Publishing.
Greenberg, M., M. Feinberg, S. Meyer-Chilsenski, R. Spoth, and C. Redmond, 2007. “Community
and team member factors that influence the early phase functioning of community
prevention teams: The PROSPER project,” Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 28,
pp. 485-504.
Grisham, V., 1999. Tupelo: The Evolution of a Community, Dayton, OH, Kettering Foundation
Press.
Gusfield, J.R., 1975. The Community: A Critical Response, New York, NY, Harper Colophon
Publishing.
Hackman, J.R., and S. Powell, 2004. “Viewpoint: Leading teams,” Team Performance
Management, Vol. 10, No. 3/4, pp. 84-88.
Hall, D.T., K. Otazo, and G. Hollenbeck, 1999. “What really happens in executive coaching,”
Organizational Dynamics, pp. 39-53.
163

Heath, R.G., 2007. “Rethinking community collaboration through a dialogic lens,”
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 145-169.
Hinsdale, M.A., H, Lewis, and M. Waller, 1995. It Comes for the People: Community
Development and Local Theology, Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press.
Hollenbeck, G., 2002. “Coaching executives: Individual leader development,” in R. Silzer (Ed.),
The 21stCentury Executive: Innovative Practices for Building Leadership at the Top, San
Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishing, pp. 137-167.
Hubbell, K., and M. Emery, 2009. “Engaging in sustainable community change. A community
guide to working with a coach,” W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Anne E. Casey Foundation,
and Northwest Area Foundation. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from
www.communitycoaching.com.
Hughes, E., 1991. “25 stepping stones for self-directed work teams,” Training, Vol. 28,
pp. 44-46.
Hughey, J., P. Speer and A. Peterson, 1999. “Sense of community in community organizations:
Structure and evidence of validity,” Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 1,
pp. 97-113.
Hustedde, R., 2007. “What’s culture got to do with it? Strategies for strengthening an
entrepreneurial culture,” in N. Walzer (Ed.) Entrepreneurship and Local Economic
Development, Lexington, KY, Lexington Books.
Huy, Q.N., 2001. “Time, temporal capability and change,” Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 601-623.
Ilgen, D.R., C.D. Fisher, and M.S. Taylor, 1979. “Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 349-371.
Jackson, S., K. May, and K. Whitney, 1995. “Understanding the dynamics in decision-making
teams,” Chapter 7 in R. Guzzo, E, Salas and Associates (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and
Decision Making in Organizations, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Johnson, K., C. Hays, H. Center, and C. Daley, 2003. “Building capacity and sustainable
preventive interventions: A sustainability planning model,” Evaluation and Program
Planning, Vol. 27, pp. 135-149.
Kampa, S., and R.P. White, 2002. “The effectiveness of executive coaching: What we know and
what we still need to know,” in R.L. Lowman (Ed.) Handbook of Organizational
Consulting Psychology: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory, Skills, and Techniques. San
Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishing, pp. 139-158.
164

Kegler, M., J. Twiss and V. Look, 2000. “Assessing community change at multiple levels: The
genesis of and evaluation framework for the California Healthy Cities project,” Health
Education and Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 760-779.
Kim, J.W., and J. K. Murnighan, 1997. “The effects of connectedness and self interest in the
organizational volunteer dilemma,” The International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 32-51.
Kimhi, S., and M. Shamai, 2004. “Community resilience and the impact of stress: Adult response
to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon,” Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 32,
pp. 439-451
Klandermans, B., 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest, Oxford, UK, Cambridge, MA,
Blackwell Publishers.
Knoke, D., 1990. Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economics of Associations, New
York, NY, Aldine de Gruyter Publishing.
Kreuter, M., and N. Lezin, 2002. “Social capital theory: Implications of community-based health
promotion,” in R.J. DiClemente, R.A. Crosby and M.C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging Theories in
Health Promotion Practice and Research, New York, NY, Jossey-Bass Publishing, pp. 228254.
Kritsonis, A., 2004. “Comparison of change theories,” International Journal of Scholarly
Academic Diversity, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Kulisch, T., and D. Banner, 1993. “Self-managed work teams: An update,” Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 25-29.
LaFasta, F., and C. Larson, 2001. When Teams Work Best: 6000 Team Members and Leaders Tell
What It Takes To Succeed, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Lasker, R.D., E.S. Weiss and R. Miller, 2001. “Partnership synergy: A practical framework for
studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage,” The Millbank Quarterly,
Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 179-205.
Lasker, R.D. and E.S. Weiss, 2003. “Broadening participation on community problem solving: A
multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research,” Journal of
Urban Health, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pgs. 14-59.
Lebonte, R., 1994. “Health promotion and empowerment: Reflections on professional practice,”
Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 253-268.

165

Leech, N., and A. Onwuegbuzie, 2011. “Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis:
Using NVivo,” School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 70-84.
Lehman, W.E.K, J. Greener, and D. Simpson, 2002. “Assessing organizational readiness for
change,” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 22, pp. 197-209.
Levenson, A., 2009. “Measuring and Maximizing the Business Impact of Executive Coaching,”
Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 103-121.
Lewin, K., 1943. “Frontiers in group dynamics,” in D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field Theory of Social
Science, 1st Edition, New York, NY, Harper-Collings Publishing
Lewin, K., 1946. “Action research and minority problems,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 2,
No. 4, pp. 34-46.
Lewin, K., 1947. “Frontiers in group dynamics,” in D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field Theory of Social
Science, 2nd Edition, New York, NY, Harper-Collings Publishing.
Lewin, K., 1966. “Group decision and social change,” in E. Maccoby, E. Newcomb, and
E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, London, UK, Metheun Publishing.
Lewin, K., and P. Grabbe, 1973. “Conduct knowledge and the acceptance of new values,” in
K. Lewin (Ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, London,
UK, Souvenir Press.
Lippitt, R., J. Watson, and B. Westley, 1958. The Dynamics of Planned Change, Orlando, FL,
Harcourt Brace & World Publishing.
Loo, R., and P. Loewen, 2003. “The typology of self-managed teams based upon team climate:
Examining stability and change in typologies,” Team Performance Management, Vol. 9,
No. 3-4, pp. 59-68.
Luhmann, N., 1988. “Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives,” in D. Gambetta
(Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, New York, NY, Basil Blackwell
Publishing.
Luther, V., and M. Emery, 2003. Your Field Guide To Community Building, Lincoln, NE,
The Heartland Center for Leadership Development.
Luther, V., and M. Wall, 1998. Clues for Rural Community Survival, 2nd Edition, Lincoln, NE.
Heartland Center for Leadership Development.

166

Mancini, J., and G. Bowen, 2009. “Community resilience: A social organization theory of action
and change,” in J.A. Mancini and K.A. Roberto (Eds.), Pathways of Human Development:
Exploration of Change, Baltimore, MD, Lexington Books.
Manger, T. H., J.D. Hawkins, K.P. Haggerty, and R.F. Catalano, 1992. “Mobilizing communities to
Reduce risk for drug abuse: Lessons on using research to guide prevention practice,” The
Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 13, pp. 3-22.
Manz, C. and H. Sims, 1987. “Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
self-managing work teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-128.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman, 1995. Designing Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publishing.
Mattessich, P.W., B.R. Monsey, and M. Murray, 2004. “Collaboration: What makes is work – a
review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration,” Wilder
Research Center, Retrieved 6/22/12 from
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED390758
Matton, K.I., 2000. “Making a difference: The social ecology of social transformation,”
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 25-57.
Matton, K.I., 2005. “Social transformations of environments,” in R. D. Peters, B. Leadbeater and
R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Resilience in Children, Families and Communities: Linking Context
To Practice and Policy, New York, NY, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
McCarthy, J.D., and M.N. Zald, 1977. “Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial
theory,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, pp. 1212-1241.
McDermott, M., A. Levenson and S. Newton, 2007. “What coaching can and cannot do for your
organization,” Human Resource Planning, Vol. 30, pp. 30-37.
McMillan, D.W., and D. M. Chavis, 1986. “Sense of community: A definition and theory,”
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 6-23.
McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J. Cook, 2001. “Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp. 415-444.
Merriam, S., and Associates, 2002. Qualitative Research in Practice – Examples for Discussion
and Analysis, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Miles, M., and A. Huberman, 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing.
167

Moos, R.H., 1986. Group Environmental Scale Manual, Pala Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Morrison, E.K., 1994. Leadership Skills: Developing Volunteers for Organizational Success, 3rd
Edition, New York, NY, Fisher Perseus Books, LLC.
Morse, J., 1994. “Designing funded qualitative research” in N.K. Denzin and Y.K. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 220-235, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing.
Morse, J., and L. Richards, 2002. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd
Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing.
Murray, M., and L. Dunn, 1995. “Capacity building for rural development in the United States,”
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 89-97.
Musselwhite, E., and L. Moran, 1990. “On the road to self-direction,” The Journal of Quality
and Participation, pp. 58-62.
Newell, S., and J. Swan, 2000. “Trust and inter-organization networking,” Human Relations,
Vol. 53, No. 10, pp. 1287-1328.
Newman, L., and A. Dale, 2007. “Homophily and agency: Creating effective sustainable
development networks,” Environmental Development and Sustainability, Vol. 9,
pp. 79-90.
Norris, F.H., S. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K Wyche, and R.L. Pfefferbaum, 2008. “Community
resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness,
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 127-150.
Northouse, P., 2007. Leadership: Theory and practice, 4th Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage Publishing.
Olson, M., 1965. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Omoto, A.M., and M. Synder, 1995. “Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation,
longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 671-686.
Onwuegbuzie, A., and N. Leech, 2007. “Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?,”
Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Vol. 41, pp. 233-249.
Orr-Brawer, C., 2007. “Replication of the Value Template Process in a Community Coalition:
Implications for Social Capital and Sustainability,” unpublished dissertation, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA.
168

Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publishing.
Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods,” 3rd Edition, Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage Publishing.
Pearce, J., 1993. The Organizational Behavior of Unpaid Workers, New York, NY, Routledge,
Chapman and Hall Publishing.
Perkins, K., and D. Poole, 1996. “Oligarchy and adaptation to mass society in an all-volunteer
organization: Implications for understanding leadership, participation, and change,”
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 73, pp.73-88.
Pettigrew, A.M., E. Ferlie and L. McKee, 1992. Shaping Strategic Change, London, UK, Sage
Publishing.
Popielarz, P., and J. McPherson, 1995. “On the edge or in between: niche position, niche
overlap, and the duration of voluntary association memberships,” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 698-720.
Portes, A., 1998. “Social Capital” Its origins and applications in modern society,” American
Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 1-24.
Prestby, J., A. Wandersman, P. Florin, R. Rich, and D. Chavis, 1990. “Benefits, costs, inventive
management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding
and promoting empowerment,” American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 117-149.
Prochaska, J.O, and C.C. DiClemente, 1991. “In search of how people change: Applications to
addictive behaviors,” American Psychologists, Vol. 47, No. 9, pp. 1102-1114.
Prochaska, J.O. and J.C. Norcross, 2001. “Stages of change,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,
Practice, and Training, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 443-448.
Provan, K.G., L. Nakama, M.A. Veazie, N.I. Teufel-Shone and C. Huddlesston, 2003. “Building
community capacity around chronic disease services through a collaborative
interorganizational network,” Health Education and Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 646-662.
Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New
York, NY, Simon and Schuster Publishing.
Rappaport, J., 1987. “Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology,” American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 15,
pp. 121-148.
169

Reilly, T., 1998. “Communities in conflict: Resolving differences through collaborative efforts in
environmental planning and human service delivery,” Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 115-141.
Renauer, B., 2001. “Why Get Involved? Examining the Motivation, Identity, and Ideological
Aspects of Resident Involvement in Place-Based Organizations,” unpublished
dissertation, University of New York Albany.
Rich, R.C., 1980. “The dynamics of leadership in neighborhood organizations,” Social Science
Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 570-587.
Richmond, J.E., B. Sanyal, L. Rodwin, R. Fischler, and N. Verma., 1998. “A life of reflection:
Remarks in memory of Donald Schon,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp. 3-10.
Rokeach, M., and P. Kliejunas, 1972. “Behavior as a function of attitude-toward-object and
attitude-toward-situation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 2,
pp. 194-201.
Rubin, H., 1997. “Being a conscience and a carpenter: Interpretations of the community-based
development model,” Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 57-90.
Ryan, V., K. Agnitsch, L. Zhoa, and R. Mullick, 2005. “Making sense of voluntary participation: A
theoretical synthesis,” Rural Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 287-313.
Sako, M., 1992. Prices, Quality and Trust: How Japanese and British Companies Manage
Buyer-Supplier Relations, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Scarr, S., 1992. “Development theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences,”
Child Development, Vol. 63, pp. 1-19.
Schneider, S.K., and W.M. George, 2010. “Servant leadership versus transformational
leadership in voluntary service organizations, “ Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Development, Vol. 30, No. 1, p. 60-77.
Selman, P., 2001. “Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning,” Planning Theory
and Practice, Vol. 2. No. 3, pp. 13-30.
Shye, S., 2010. “The motivation to volunteer: A systemic quality of life theory,” Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 98, pp. 183-200.
Sonn, C., and A. Fisher, 1998. “Sense of community: Community resilient responses to
oppression and change,” Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 457-472.

170

Spreitzer, G., S. Cohen and G. Ledford, 1999. “Developing effective self-managing work teams
in service organizations,” Group & Organizational Management, Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp. 340-366.
Stake, R.E., 1995. The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing.
Stickland, F., 1998. The Dynamics of Change: Insights Into Organizational Transition from the
Natural World, London, UK, Routledge Publishing.
Suls, J., K. Lemos, H.L. Stewart, 2002. “Self-esteem, construal, and comparisons with the self,
friends, and peers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 2,
pp. 252-261.
Sztomka, P., 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory, New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.
Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement, 2013. “Coaching matters,” Vibrant
Communities, Retrieved May 26, 2013 from
www.tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/vc/coaching_matters.pdf.
Team Technology, n.d. “Team Dynamics: How they affect performance,” Retrieved July 7,
2012 from www.teamtechnology.co.uk/team-dynamics.html.
Teske, N., 1997. Political Activists in America: The Identity Construction Model of Political
Participation, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.
Tomeh, A.K., 1973. “Formal voluntary organizations: Participation, correlates, and
interrelationships,” Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 43, pp. 89-122.
Wandersman, A., and G.A. Giamartino, 1980. “Community and individual difference
characteristics as influences of an initial participation,” American Journal of Community
Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 217-228.
Wandersman, A., P. Florin, R. Friedmann, and R. Meier, 1987. “Who participates, who does not,
and why? An analysis of voluntary neighborhood organizations in the United States and
Israel,” Sociological Forum, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 534-555.
Wells, R., A. Ward, M. Feinberg and J. Alexander, 2008. “What motivates people to participate
more in community-based coalitions,” American Journal of Community Psychology,
Vol. 42, pp. 94-104.
Werner, E., 2005. “Resilience research: Past, present and future,” in R. D. Peters, B. Leadbeater
and R. J. McMahon (Eds.) Resilience in Children, Families and Communities: Linking
Context to Practice and Policy, New York, NY, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
171

West, B.J., J.L. Patera and M.K. Carsten, 2009. “Team level positivity: Investigating positive
psychological capacities and team level outcomes,” Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 249-267.
Wilber, K., 1996. A Brief History of Everything, Boston, MA, Shambhala Publications.
Wilson, J., 2000. “Volunteering,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 215-240.
Woolcock, M., 1998. “Social capital and economic development: Towards a theoretical
synthesis and policy framework,” Theory and Society, Vol. 27, pp. 151-208.
Woolcock, M., and D. Narayan, 2000. “Social Capital: Implications for development theory,
research, and policy,” World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 224-249.
Yin, R. 1994. Applications of Case Study Research, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publishing.
Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and methods. 3rd Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage Publishing.
Zimmerman, M.A., B.A. Israel, A. Schultz, and B. Checkoway, 1992. “Further explorations in
empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment,” American
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 707-727.
Zoller, H., 2000. “A place you haven’t visited before: Creating the conditions for community
dialogue,” The Southern Communications Journal, Vol. 65, No. 2/3, pp. 191-207.
Zwikael, O., and E. Unger-Aviram, 2010. “HRM in project groups: the effect of project duration
on team development effectiveness,” International Journal of Project Management,
Vol.28, No. 5, pp.413-421

172