 

agitate 3 1293

y ,. smés '-
“ ”I I I I {[1:51] HI ’/////////7I
II I :r‘ ' ‘ I,
'i/
00793 4999 /

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

USING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY TO STUDY
ACADEMIC NORKSITES: A CASE STUDY OF
HEALTH PROMOTION AS INNOVATION

presented by

Cari Albert Gibson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY degmin RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

 

 

W“ I I?» (L (1354»- I;

/ Major professor

 

Date August 7, 1990

 

MS U i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

LIBRARY

Michigan lute
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thls checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

"mm W
“(10623“!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cm

”3-93

 

. ‘ 1‘ |\ . ' I 'r P'- '.
..- u‘t' A w.
‘ I .1! ii" I "a"

.

     

USING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY TO STUDY
ACADEMIC WORKSITES: A CASE STUDY OF
HEALTH PROMOTION AS INNOVATION

By

Carl Albert Gibson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of ’

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

V Department of Resource Development

1990

' ~.
vi ‘ -
.‘ gulf L)

1".

1

 

l

l
I
I :

   

(945-1 73:.

ABSTRACT
USING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY TO STUDY
ACADEMIC WORKSITES: A CASE STUDY OF
HEALTH PROMOTIONS AS INNOVATIONS
BY

Carl Albert Gibson

The three primary interest groups that are interlocked in the process of
promoting health at the worksite-employers, employees, and providers-are each
expected to beneﬁt from the introduction of health promotion activities into the worksite.
Increasingly. health promotion is being understood as a complex innovation to worksites
that traditionally are not oriented toward its goals.

The worksite organization serves as a natural setting and supportive
environment-cultural "context"- for health promotion services. But, irrespective of how
one approaches the study of organizations and innovation, the variable of culture is not
well understood nor is it utilized with much rigor. As a potential “regularizer” of behavior
and ngatekeeper" for change, there is a need to explicate its functions and processes
in worksite organizations, because a limited understanding of organizational culture can
have a deleterious impact on the introduction of health promotion programs into the
worksite.

The purpose of the study is to: 1) determine the cultural system and potential
Sub—cultures present in worksite environments; and 2) identity cultural factors that

Speciﬁcally inﬂuence the adoption and integration of health promotion as an innovation.

This case study uses an organization ethnography approach to understand a
single academic worksite culture. The research builds on three investigative modes of
inquiry: member interviews, participant observation techniques, and a review of
documents.

The department is found to resemble a "Iocalite" culture in orientation and values.
Other signiﬁcant findings include: 1) the academic unit, rather than having an integrated
identity, must perpetuate its multiple-focused, commodity-based diversity; 2) the
traditional employee groupings of faculty, graduate students, and clerical staff hold sway
over individual ability to participate in health promotion programs; and 3) while health
promotion is accepted as a beneficial role of the department, lack of commitment and
resources preclude its becoming a high priority.

Policy implications for the university include budget re-allocations so that
departments and employees have a personal and ﬁnancial incentive to adopt health

promotion programs.

xj‘l

  
   
   
   
 

Comm by
- CARI. ALBERT GIBSON

1990

1' * Bilberr- (T‘Oﬁ‘ﬁlb‘:l‘yl PHI: iii: waif; __:.__:. .7:'.?f_xvha‘fu
I W marque» Mﬂt' {Vb-€9.- a‘u'.‘ «#591348; if}.

5

' t " a sum. W D W WWW H’wa'

    
 

E 1":“.I> .
f5 >7 ._ .‘v-

.
'I
_ 51
.
,_

a...
..I.

-—.-.\,.A

‘

 

,
O
. 'v ,
' J .T
- ,v.) , .
. Ir"“l ll
1. I i_
‘_ o -‘..
41.‘ I it

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing a dissertation has long been noted as a solitary and personally
demanding endeavor. it requires dedication. copious time, and willingness to forsake
other pleasures in its stead. At the same time, the process requires a supporting cast
of players who wait in the wings while the production draws to its ﬁnale. It is here that
I wish to acknowledge a number of people who have guided. nurtured, and supported
me to the end.

Without a doubt, Frank Fear Ph.D. has had the single most impact on my
'sticking with the program.“ As a mentor, humorist, and personal friend, he has played
the role of guiding spirit and “facilitator" for my program and dissertation. He has
allowed my complete self-expression, sometimes to his utter dismay.

In another term so relished by community developers. the person who served
the role of "technical consultant“ for my program and dissertation is Manfred Thullen
Ph.D. His guiding force has kept my standards in line, my writing style focused, and
the ideas more easily understood.

Another person so important to my completing the program and having a viable
research area to study was Bertram Stoffelmayr Ph.D. His constant faith, enthusiasm,
and ﬁnancial support through research funding have been crucial and appreciated. His
assistant, Brian Mavis Ph.D., and a fellow comrade in health promotion, has been the

one to hear my diatribes, knowing when to speak and when to just listen.

V

My other committee members—Milton Steinmueller. Jack Bain, and Louis
Twardzik—have played various parts that go beyond the call of duty: instruction,
encouragement, and advocacy. I also thank them for allowing me to ofﬁcially graduate
before they ofﬁcially retire.

Among my peers in Resource Development, Eric Fitch and Rudi Altimorano both
listened and encouraged me to completion. A fellow student with whom I worked and
studied, John D'Cruz, was taken away before we could graduate together; may he rest
in peace. There are also a number of unsung heroes in the department to recognize.
Sue Chatterley, Julie Peeler, and Nora Harrison have provided patience, knowledge
about the university bureaucracy, and appropriate doses of good humor.

A signiﬁcant amount of time and personal support came from the department
I studied. Many friends and good times resulted from my interaction with the members.
They are a professional and personable cast of characters.

And a last and very important recognition goes to my family. Mary has stuck
with me to the end, with her encouragment and not letting me give up when times were
tough. And my son, Benjamin, has been understanding and supportive, even when I
have had to be away from home so much.

God speed!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UST OF TABLES

............................................

UST OF FIGURES ...........................................
CHAPTER ONE - ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES IN ORGANIZATIONAL

CHANGE .............................................

Introduction ...........................................

Purpose of the Study ....................................

Statement of the Problem ............................

Importance of the Study ..................................

Contexts for Worksite Culture .........................

Health Promotion as Innovation ........................

Overview of the Study ....................................

CHAPTER TWO - ORGANIZATIONS AS CULTURAL SYSTEMS .............
Overview .............................................
Background to Organizational Theories ........................

Classical Organization Theory .........................
Neoclassical Theory ................................
"Modern" Structural Theory ...........................
Differences In Organization Structures ...............
Systems and Contingency Theory ......................
Power and Politics Theory ............................
Organizational Culture Theory .........................
Culture in Organizations ..................................
Culture Deﬁned ...................................
”Culture“ as Applied to Levels of Social Units ...............
Organizational Culture Deﬁned .........................
Understanding Culture in Organizations ..................
Universities as Cultural Environments ...............

Levels and Content of Culture in Organizations .............

Values ....................................

Basic Assumptions ............................

Culture and Organizational Change ..........................
A Functional thew of Organizational Culture ...............
Organizations and Innovations .........................

vii

The Adoption of Innovations ............................... 45

The Element of Innovation ............................ 46
The Element of Communication ........................ 49
The Element of Time ............................... 50
Characteristics of Innovative Individuals ................... 51
The Social System Element ........................... 54
Characteristics of Innovative Organizations ................ 57

CHAPTER THREE - WORKSITE HEALTH PROMOTION AS AN

ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION ............................ 61
Overview ............................................. 61
History and Practice of Worksite Health Promotion ................ 61
Development of Health Education ....................... 62
Industrial Recreation ................................ 64
Current Views of Health ............................. 65
The Focus of Health Promotion ........................ 66
Recent Growth of Worksite Health Promotion .............. 68
Beneﬁts of Worksite Health Promotion ................... 70
Models for Introducing Worksite Health Promotion ........... 72
General Strategies for Health Promotion .................. 73
Organization Development and Health Promotion ............ 75
Organization Development Applications to Health Promotion . . . . 78
Social Marketing .................................. 79
Social Marketing Applications to Health Promotion ........... 81
Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations .................... 82
Diffusion of Innovation Applications to Health Promotion ....... 84
Change Model as Innovation .......................... 86
CHAPTER FOUR - FIELD RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL SEI'I'INGS ...... 88
Overview ............................................. 88
Research Questions ..................................... 88
The Research Questions ............................. 89
1.) Can academic work environments be understood as cultural
systems? ........................................ 89
2.) Can sub-cultures in work environments be identiﬁed and
understood? ..................................... 89
3.) Does the nature of the worksite culture or its sub-cultures
influence the adoption of innovations? ................... 90
Precedents to Qualitative Research .......................... 91
The Case Study Approach ........................... 91
The Ethnographic Approach .......................... 92
Organizational Ethnography ........................... 94
The Research Methodology ................................ 95
Stage One: Entry Negotiation .............................. 95
Criterion for Case Study Selection ...................... 96
Stage Two: Getting Organized .............................. 97
Stage Three: Data Collection Strategies ....................... 98

viii

Observation ...................................... 99

Interviews ....................................... 101
Selecting Informants ........................... 101
Deciding Upon Questions ....................... 103
The Interview Process .......................... 105
Review of Documents ............................... 107
Recording Data .............................. 107
Stage Four: Data Analysis ................................. 108
Data Processing ................................... 109
Data Analysis ..................................... 110
Data Veriﬁcation ................................... 111
Stage Five: Exiting the Organization .......................... 112
Timeline of Research Activity ............................... 114
Methodological Issues of Concern ........................... 115
Research Time Parameters ........................... 115
Organizational Ojcles .......................... 119
The Research Cycle ........................... 120
Social and Ethical Issues ............................ 120
Conﬁdentiality Issues .......................... 121
Data Reliability and Validity ........................... 12
Deﬁnitions of Terms ..................................... 123
CHAPTER FNE - REPORT OF FINDINGS ........................... 126
Overview ............................................. 126
Can academic work environments be understood as cultural systems? . . 128
Formation ....................................... 128
Transformation .................................... 1 32
Current Themes of the Department ...................... 138
Character of the Department ..................... 138
Themes ................................... 143
Summary ....................................... 155
Functions ....................................... 156
Membership ................................ 156
Socialization ................................ 1 58
Identity Issues ............................... 161
Structure ................................... 166
Interpersonal Relations ......................... 168
Environmental Relations ........................ 168
Structures ....................................... 170
Summary ....................................... 178

Does the nature of the worksite culture or its sub-cultures inﬂuence
the adoption of innovations? .......................... 179
University-wide Initiative .............................. 179
Unit-level Initiative .................................. 180
Departmental Results ............................... 182
Participation ..................................... 183
Sub-Culture Results ................................ 186

Department view of health ....................... 186

Release time ................................ 188
Exercise on work time ......................... 189
Convenience ................................ 190
Compatibility with research issues of the Department . . . . 191
General Status of the Health Promotion Innovation ........... 192
University Health promotion Situation .................... 194
Summary ....................................... 195
Summary of the Health Promotion Innovation .............. 195
CHAPTER SIX - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 197
Summary of the Study ................................... 197
The Problem ..................................... 197
Organizational Culture ............................... 198
Worksite Health Promotion as an Innovation ............... 199
Field Research in Organizational Settings ................. 199
Summary of Findings .................................... 200
Can academic work environments be understood as cultural
systems? ................................... 200
Can sub-cultures in work environments be identified and
understood? ................................ 202
Does the nature of the worksite culture or its sub-cultures
inﬂuence the adoption of innovations? .............. 203
Conclusions .......................................... 205
Was worksite health promotion adopted by the Department? . . . . 205
Was Worksite Health Promotion Adopted by Sub-groups of the
Department? ................................ 207
Was Worksite Health Promotion Adopted by Individuals? ...... 209
Why Was Worksite Health Promotion Generally Not Adopted? . . . 209
A Theoretical Concept to Emerge: Health Promotion as Outside
Inﬂuence ................................... 213
Assumptions of the Researcher ............................. 216

The Department's research and food production
interests should make it health conscious and

organizationally committed to health promotion . . . 216
Physical features of the building are expected to impact

employee health behaviors ................. 217

Implications ........................................... 21 8
Limitations of the Research ................................ 21
Recommendations for Further Research ....................... 22

Final Observations ...................................... 24
APPENDIX A - Interview Selection Matrix: Proposed ................... 26
APPENDIX B - Schedule 01 Interviews For Organizational Culture Formation . . . 27
APPENDIX C - Interview Schedule: FACULTY ......................... 28

APPENDIX D - Interview Schedule: STAFF-TECH ...................... 230

APPENDIX E - Interview Schedule: GRADUATE STUDENT ................ 232
APPENDIX F - Informed Consent Statement .......................... 234
APPENDIX G - General Highlights of the Research Process ............... 235
APPENDIX H - Interview Selection Matrix ............................ 238
REFERENCES .............................................. 239

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:

LIST OF TABLES

Potential Data Sources ................................. 116
Year Department Heads Started ........................... 130
Faculty Numbers by Root Department ....................... 137
Faculty Appointment Distribution for Extension/Research/‘I‘eaching . . . 139
Length of Faculty Employment ............................ 140
Minority Membership by Employee Group .................... 141
Seven Primary Commodity-Based Disciplines .................. 142

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Bureaucratic Structure ................................. 17
Figure 2: Professional Structure ................................. 17
Figure 3: Cultural Strength ..................................... 33
Figure 4: Levels of Culture ..................................... 37
Figure 5: The Strategy-Culture Matrix .............................. 40
Figure 6: Matrix of Organization Systems and Innovativeness ............. 60
Figure 8: Matrix of the Department's Innovativeness According to Categories

Used to Describe Innovativeness ............................ 207
Figure 9: Variety of Observational Situations ......................... 236

xiii

CHAPTER ONE
ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Introduction

The need for change within an organization often conﬂicts with its desire for
stability. “In general, (organizations) constantly seek better ways to maintain continuity
and control because they are established, in the ﬁrst place, to reinforce certain ways
of doing things" (Pascarella & Frohman, 1989, p. 1).

The importance that organizational culture plays in an organization's desire and
ability to change are not well understood. Culture represents its world view and affects
how it identiﬁes and manages the changing conditions within its environment.
Furthermore, an organization's effectiveness is said to depend upon how it relates to
and manages those changing conditions in its environment (French & Bell, 1984). The
conditions, depending upon its view, are seen as opportunities or constraints by the
organization.

One particular change being introduced into many organizations today is health
promotion. While there have been a number of failures and successes, health
promotion is becoming widely accepted as a signiﬁcant means to bring about
improvement in peoples' health status and overall well-being (Ardell, 1985; KIarreich,
1987; Glasgow & Terborg, 1988; O'Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984; Opatz, 1987; Terborg,

1986; Zimmerman & Connor, 1989). More than simply distributing information and

2
providing educational programs, it is a concerted action to bring about change in
individuals (Sean, 1986) and the organization of which they are a part.

Health promotion "involves the transfer of new knowledge, ideas, practices, and
products or services . . (Orlandi, 1987, p. 12) from the program provider (resource
system) to those who beneﬁt (user system). As a change process, health promotion
has become a complex phenomenon that utilizes a number of transformation steps and
requires a set of implementation skills (Orlandi, 1987). This process is further
challenged when health promotion is introduced into worksite settings (Orlandi, 1986).
A host of organizational factors come into play when implementing worksite health
promotion (e.g., leadership, values, and experience with change) which often require
changes in the organization, including what it values and how it operates (Falkenberg,
1987; O'Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984; Shain, Suurvali & Boutilier, 1986; Sloan, 1987;
Wolfe, Ulrich, & Parker, 1987).

An important question being asked is: What unconscious and ill-deﬁned aspects
of the organization are overlooked or assumed, but still play a major and unexpected
consideration in the success or failure of health promotion in a worksite? (Allen & Kraft,
1982). Experience and the literature tell us that there are values and belief systems
(i.e., cultures which are identiﬁed with organizations and the members themselves) that
may not be well understood, but should be considered in terms of the organization's
receptivity to innovations and ability to change (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1985).
Mintzberg (1983b) refers to organizational "ideology,“ but that is less widely used—a term
that has its own cultural connotations (Schein, 1985). Nevertheless, the main point is
that, without a well thought out and fully deﬁned view of the worksite as a culturally-

based system, the proponents of health promotion are limited in knowing whether the

3
organization's culture(s) can and will integrate the innovation. And, further. it seems
that the organization's potential to be a supportive actor in the health promotion
process is restricted.

Other authors have highlighted the importance of organizational cultures that
are strongly people—oriented (Peters & Waterman. 1982; Santa-Barbara, 1987). Santa-
Barbara (1987) goes on to state: “A value system that respects the individual is perhaps
the single most important element of a successful corporate health education program"
(p. 39). Wishko (1986) indicates that a supportive culture is vital to the success of
worksite health promotion efforts.

As a result of the apparent cultural importance to health promotion, it is
important that alternatives be explored or developed to the traditional "pro-innovation"
bias in organizational change programs, include worksite health promotion, that
presume that individuals and organizations will benefit from any Innovation (Cummings

& Morhman, 1987; Orlandi, 1986; Rogers, 1983).

Purpose of the Study

Understanding the role of culture is crucial to identifying organizational factors
that promote or inhibit adoption of any innovation or organizational change. It is
particularly relevant to compare differences between potentially heterogenous sub-
cultures contained within a presumed larger homogenous culture. The purpose of this
study is to gain a better understanding of the role of culture in organizational change.

It Is designed to help gain an understanding of how worksite health promotion, as an

4
organizational change or innovation, is affected by cultural variables in an organizational

setting.

Statement of the Problem

Irrespective of how one approaches the study of organizations and innovation,
the variable of culture is not well understood nor is it utilized yet with much rigor. As
a potential “regularizer” of behavior and "gatekeeper" for change, there is a need to
explicdeitsMncﬁmmdprocessesinwomsitemganizaﬁons,becauseaIimned
understanding of organizational culture can have a deleterious impact on the

introduction of health promotion programs into the worksite.

Importance of the Study

The introduction of new technologies and processes into an organization sends
a signal to its members of the desire to change one or more of its "regularities"
(Sanchez, 1987). It is the gathering of these regularities that deﬁnes what to do and
how to behave in the organization. And it is the relationship of the innovation's goals
and characteristics with the organizational culture(s)—some are congruent and some
conﬂict—that will determine whether it is successfully adopted.

The study of culture is a non-traditional approach to organizations. A better
understanding of organizational culture transfers a measure of strategic control to the
health provider system. For those individuals engaged in introducing health promotion,

the ability to better decipher and understand the cultural nature of the worksite and its

5
viability for innovativeness will lead to more effective implementation and adoption
processes (Orlandi, 1986).

While health related literature has tended to focus on individual health risks and
behavior changes, management literature is just starting to recognize significant
relationships between organizations and specific health problems (Ivancevich &
Matteson, 1980; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Wolfe et al., 1987). From that, it is
critical to understand the differences between and within organizations—their cultural
systems—that integrate the organizational systems and link them to the external
environment.

Through a case study of the introduction of worksite health promotion in a
university setting, it is hoped that a better understanding of organizational culture’s
influence on organizational change can be gained. Results will be valuable for
designing change programs in complex organizations, such as universities, as well as
other such complex decentralized organizations with distinct cultures within their

structures.

Contexts for Worksite Culture

The concepts of organizational culture and cultural environment provide a
framework to analyze organizations and their world views. Organizations operate with
their own deﬁnable culture within larger cultural environments. Furthermore,
organizations, as cultures, may contain sub-cultures or counter-cultures within them
I (Harvey & Brown, 1988; Huse & Cummings, 1985; Schein, 1985; Smirich, 1983).
From the typical view, one can start with top management or any cross-section

of the organization to start digging for “culture"—at least this represents much of the

6

thinking that goes into "corporate culture“ (Louis, 1985). But for this study, which
focuses on a university environment, it becomes critical to understand how
organizational cultures and possible sub-cultures manifest themselves in distinct subsets
of the organization. More than providing useful information to the change agent, it is
imperative to identify the nature of the culture and sub-cultures, and to understand the
loci around which possible sub-cultures form and the boundaries in which they operate.
From that understanding, one can then possibly identify those sub-cultures that may be
more open to health promotion and can serve to "pave the way" for introducing the
innovation to others, as well as make adaptations in the health promotion innovation
so that it better ﬁts the cultures to which it is being introduced.

In contrast to traditional bureaucratic organizations, Baldridge and Deal (1983)
and Bess (1982) have argued that universities are unique in their structure and decision-
making strategies. Bess (1988) indicates that their uniqueness is also a rational
response to the types of organizational decisions they must make. Furthermore, it is
often in respect to their culture and collegiality that the decision processes are enacted.
As an innovation, health promotion may require a dynamic thrust to penetrate the
cultural boundaries that deﬁne university organizations.

Louis (1980) and Schein (1984, 1985) characterize a group's culture as
consisting of shared meanings that are clearly relevant and distinct to the group and
that are passed on to new members. In that deﬁnition, Louis (1985) identiﬁes three
components: 1) content the commonly understood meanings and patterns that are
passed on; 2) a context: the social unit of concern such as organization, community
or group; and 3) relationship between the content and the social unit (i.e., content

characteristic of the organization and differing it from others). Authors, such as Schein

7
(1985) and Martin (1982), have focused more on the content, while Louis addresses the
second and third components. In tandem with his ideas, this section will suggest those
alternative sites at which culture may emerge within organizational settings-what Louis
(1985) calls establishing the perimeter of experiential boundaries.

Louis (1985) indicates that the model often used in anthropological research
for identifying the cultural content is insufficient for organizational research. Because
traditional societies were often in geographical isolation, a study of the content was
usually coterminous with the boundary of the culture. In contrast, to ﬁnd content in
organizational settings does not mean one has a grasp of the cultural boundaries.
The possibility of nested cultures within each other (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg &
Martin, 1985; Louis, 1983), and multiple cultures or sub-cultures (Rose, 1988; Smirich,
1983; Schein, 1985) requires a different method of deﬁning the boundaries.

Some authors (Harvey & Brown, 1988; Huse & Cummings, 1985) indicate that
every organization has a culture. Others (Schein, 1984, 1985; Louis, 1985) suggest
that may not be the case. First, there must be a level of history and continuity,
structured interdependence and shared interests, and common assumptions. The
need, then, is to determine the sites of culture—organizational loci of culture—that may
be at harmony or disharmony in the organization. The framework of Van Maanen and
Barley (1985) is useful for searching organization-wide cultures, and that of Louis (1985)
serves to identify potential sub-cultures. Again, the author's assumption is that each
organization has a culture. Its similarity, to and uniqueness from, the larger environment
will change over time. as it learns to differentiate what is important to it.

In the organizational literature, limited attention has been given to organizational

culture-the least tangible and most misunderstood element. This is not to say that

8
there is a spate of material on organizational culture. Rather, much of it is directed
toward a superﬁcial and misleading view that cultures can be easily diagnosed,
understood, and manipulated (Peterson & Waterman, 1982; Thomas, 1985). There is
consistency, though, in the message that culture: is elusive (Huse & Cummings, 1985;
Thomas, 1985); is learned (Huse & Cummings, 1985; Schein, 1985; Thomas, 1985); may
be out of date (Huse & Cummings, 1985; Thomas, 1985); and can be a key to
understanding resistance to change in the organization (Harvey & Brown, 1988; Huse

& Cummings, 1985; Thomas, 1985).

Health Promotion as Innovation

Health promotion is an increasingly important innovation confronting many
organizations, both in the public and private sectors (Bulow-Huibe & Monsky, 1987;
Terborg, 1986; Shain et al., 1986). It is partly a result of Changing lifestyles and
expectations about the workplace by employees. It also Includes a legitimate concern
of employers wanting to manage costs and improve the capability of their human
resources. And, in some cases, it may be a management “gimmick“ to stimulate
productivity and cut health-care costs (Kizer, 1987; Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1985). As a
recent innovation, health promotion is alternatively seen as something new and exciting,
as well as potentially threatening (Orlandi, 1986; Steckler & Goodman, 1989).

It is most noted that, in the private sector, business and industry are capitalizing
upon the increasing awareness by health professionals of the relationship of diet and
lifestyles to health (Cataldo & Coates. 1986; Sean, 1986; Terborg, 1986). The health
promotion focus is upon better and expanded methodologies of education for greater

impact—prevention by teaching, modeling, and supporting new health habits. At a basic

9
level, health promotion is generally thought of as a set of educational interventions to
promote health and behavior changes. It has been characterized by O'Donnell and
Ainsworth (1984) as a range of programs intended to impact the long-term health status
of participants by changing their long-term life-style practices. O'Donnell (1987) deﬁnes
health promotion as "the science and art of helping people change their lifestyle to
move toward a state of optimal health" (p. 1).

The health promotion "banner“ is also being taken up as a major new thrust
by traditional medically-based organizations, and it is often used to broaden the
services of illness-based health-care settings (Bernton, 1987; Riedel, 1987). One author
contends that medical settings are the most appropriate setting for such prevention
efforts because it allows the primary control of the activity to remain with the health
practitioners (Orlandi, 1987). As an outgrth of this interest by health professionals,
the list of providers has grown to include “hospitals, health maintenance organizations,
insurance companies, non-proﬁt agencies and commercial vendors [that] are now
offering programs“ (Mullen, 1988, p. 309). Social workers are also trying to capture it
as one tool to create change in workplace settings (Gould & Smith, 1988; Jenkins,
1988).

But what is most interesting and challenging is the strong move by health
providers to introduce health promotion into worksite organizations. While the
organizational impacts tend to be of secondary consequence to the health providers
(at least from their professional and cultural perspective), health promotion serves as
a preventive approach that utilizes the worksite setting to promote employee health-
related behavior changes (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1988). At the same time, it is of

primary consequence to worksite managers; health promotion encapsulates a major

10
intervention into workplaces whose primary objectives are not related to health
(Glasgow 8. Terborg, 1988; Orlandi, 1986).

As an Innovation, health promotion must compete for the attention, resources,
and commitment of managers whose primary focus is directed elsewhere (Naisbitt &
Aburdene, 1985). In order to survive, health promotion must prove itself credible and
must be compatible with the organization (Steckler & Goodman, 1989); and its beneﬁts
must also outweigh its perceived costs (O'Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984). As an
innovation, each health promotion intervention must design and build its own degree-
of-ﬁt within the organizational setting (Orlandi, 1986).

The bulk of organization research on innovation and change has been directed
at corporate and industrial settings (Sanchez, 1987). This is also true for health
promotion in organizations (T erborg, 1986; Wolfe et al., 1987). There is much less
known about health promotion and other innovations in professional bureaucratic
organizations and, particularly, in university organizations. By their very nature,
universities are expected to be conceptual leaders in technological development and
innovation; however, they tend to operate with the same ongoing structures, processes,
and patterns as in the past (Baldridge & Deal, 1983). It will be important, for one facet
of the study, to understand the cultural facilitators and blocks to health promotion
innovation within university systems.

From this discussion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the cultural environment
housed within unique academic disciplines (I.e., academic departments) presents a
gﬁmytohealhpramﬁmmnwaﬁonanddiangewiﬂﬁnindividualacademicunits.
It becomes critical to identify and understand the cultural-based systems of a worksite

organization. Huse and Cummings (1985) and Mitroff and IGImann (1984) are explicit

11

in noting that, although an existing organization culture may have served as a source
of strength through the years, it can also become a major liability in successfully
implementing new innovations. As they Indicate, this is more true if the innovation
violates employee basic values and beliefs about their roles in the organization and the
traditions underlying the organization's culture.

The organizational culture has been described as an actor in the adoption
process (Rogers, 1983), yet it does not stand alone. How it perceives the innovation

is also important and needs to be reviewed in this study.

Overview of the Study

Chapter Two describes the concept of organizational culture as it developed
recently out of general organization theory. Organizations are described as cultural-
based social units that originate and change at critical periods in their life. The process
of adoption of innovations by individuals and its relationship to organizational change
is reviewed. Organizational culture is introduced as a variable that affects the
introduction of innovations, such as health promotion.

Chapter Three introduces health promotion as a recent and major activity in
many worksite organizations. The organization is a critical factor in the long-term
success of health promotion interventions, but in many cases the short-term focus is
upon individual health behavior changes. A variety of intervention models are
introduced that can facilitate the adoption of health promotion activities within worksites.

Their relationship to the adoption of health promotion innovations are presented.

12

Chapter Four details the research questions and the methodology for answering
them. Ethnography, and its reliance on participant observation techniques, provides the
basis for studying a university worksite culture, and sub-cultures, and their impact on
implementing health promotion innovations. The chapter describes the data analysis
procedures, outlines the parameters of the research, and provides the deﬁnition of terms
used throughout the study.

Research ﬁndings are presented in Chapter Five. The ﬁndings are discussed
in three parts as they relate to the speciﬁc research questions. The purpose is to
deﬁne and understand the primary culture and sub-cultures of the academic department
and further identify how it affects the adoption of health promotion innovations.

Chapter Six, the final chapter, begins with a summary of the study and the
ﬁndings. Conclusions regarding the extent which one needs to understand
organizational cultures before introducing health promotion is discussed. Implications
for health promotion providers and University administrators are introduced here. The
last section describes the limitations of the study and provides recommendation for

future research.

CHAPTER TWO
ORGANIZATIONS AS CULTURAL SYSTEMS

Overview

Over time, organizations have taken on new roles and meanings and they are
described in different ways. For this study, there is a need to understand
"organizations" and organizational "culture" as a prerequisite for dealing with how culture
affects the introduction of innovations (simple or complex) into organizations. As
stated In the previous chapter, this research effort is directed at identifying cultural
factors that affect the adoption and diffusion of innovations, such as health promotion
in academic worksites.

This chapter will focus on "culture" as a way of thinking about organizations,
with emphasis on one particular manifestation—worksite culture. The ﬁrst section will
review the background of organizational theories as they progress to the development
of organizational culture theory. The next section focuses on the development and
study of culture, which leads to understanding organizations as cultures. Next, how
culture affects the organization’s ability to change is discussed. The last major section
outlines the study of the diffusion of innovations at both the individual and
organizational level. It is this dimension that needs clariﬁcation to better implement the

adoption and diffusion of health promotion innovations.

I3

14

Background to Organizational Theories

The study of organizations. as cultural-based systems, follows upon ﬁve major
sets of organizational theories: Classical, Neoclassical, "Modern" Structural, Systems
and Contingency, and Power and Politics (Shafritz & Ott, 1987).

Each one of these major traditions has had its “day in the sun". They are
reviewed chronologically as to their rise, maturation, and replacement by theories
introduced by other proponents. The historical framework provided by Shafritz and
Ott (1987) is used to review their major elements. These authors remark that
consensus in organization theory is a small commodity. Bolman and Deal (1984)
comment that, as a number of major schools of organizational thought have evolved,
each constructs its own view of organizations, concepts and aSSumptions, and ideas

about how managers can best manage organizations.

Classical Organization Theog

The ﬁrst theory, classical organization theory, is the base upon which other
traditions are built. There is no real beginning point to it, but it is rooted in the
industrial revolution of the 1700s, and it was dominant into the 1930s. Its basic tenets,
according to Shafritz and on (1987), emphasize that: 1) organizations exist to meet
production and economic goals; 2) scientiﬁc inquiry is the means to ﬁnd the best way
to organize for production; 3) specialization and division of labor lead to production
efﬁciency; and 4) people and organizations are rational beings guided by economic
principles. Frederick W. Taylor and his The Principles of Scientiﬁc Management (1911)

were most clearly identiﬁed with propounding the one best way to operate, manage,

15
and reach production efﬁciency. This period represented the beginning of using

scientiﬁc principles to plan and operate industrial organizations.

Neoclassical Theory

The neoclassical period built upon existing theory and did not fully replace it.
If anything, it was more of a modification based upon new findings in the behavioral
sciences. Strongest in the 19403 and 19503, it challenged the over simplistic and
mechanistic principles current at the time. A major theme was to understand
organizations not as isolated systems, but as connected to their larger environments
(Shafritz & Ott, 1987). This tradition, heavily inﬂuenced by sociology, was pioneered
by prominent writers, such as Talcott Parsons (1956), who described organizations as
social systems focused on goal attainment. March and Simon (1958) are noted for a

thorough critique of this tradition.

"Modern“ Structural Theory

The neoclassical school broke the hold of the classical school and opened the
way for others that followed, such as the “modern“ structural tradition. As Shafritz and
Ott (1987) denote, "modem" is used to distinguish this from classical theories, which
also focused on organizational structures.

This theory set uses structural differentiation—vertical hierarchy and horizontal
coordination—as the basis for understanding organizations. Organizational efﬁciency
reigns supreme, but it is inﬂuenced by neoclassic behavioral and systems thinking.
Its primary tenets, as outlined by Bolman and Deal (1984), are that: 1) organizations

are rational Institutions guided by control and coordination systems; 2) there is a best

 

16

or most appropriate structure for any organization; 3) production efﬁciency is promoted
by specialization and the division of labor; and 4) most organizational problems can be
solved by changing structural ﬂaws. Again, this theory does not promote a one-best-
structure for all organizations, but posits that needs for specialization, span of control,
divisionalization, and coordination are inﬂuenced by economic and environmental
conditions surrounding the organization. Etzloni (1961), Lawrence and Lorsch (1969),
and Mintzberg (1979) were noted writers during the period that came after World War
II and stretched into the 1970s.

Differences In Organization Structures. Mintzberg (1983a) has described the
structural components that serve as coordinating mechanisms within organizations:

Five coordinating mechanisms seem to explain the fundamental ways in which

organizations coordinate their work: mutual adjustment, direct supervision,

standardization of work processes, standardization of work outputs, and

standardization of worker skills. These should be considered the most basic

elements of structure, the glue that holds organizations together (p. 4).
It is in the subsequent combination and emphasis of these components that a variety
of organizational designs become apparent. Mintzberg (1979, 1983a) outlined ﬁve major
structural conﬁgurations that result: 1) simple structure; 2) machine bureaucracy; 3)
professional bureaucracy; 4) divisionalized form; and 5) adhocracy.

The machine bureaucracy type, “based on standardization of work processes,
in which the technostructure is the key part“ (Mintzberg, 1983a, p. 23), represents a
traditional bureaucratic organization structure—the hierarchical model of organization
charts (see Figure 1). In contrast, the professional bureaucracy, “based on
standardization of skills, in which the operating core is the key part“ (Mintzberg, 1983a,

p. 23), represents the typical university organization structure characterized In this study

(see Figure 2).

 

   

loud-tow

       
  

halt-II
I «an». Ionian
C~Iﬂ lint

Technostructure

Middle Line -----

Operating
Core

 

(Example of Machine Bureaucracy)

Figure 1: Bureaucratic Structure

(Mintzberg, 1983a, p. 18)

 

0c!

 

(Example of Professional Bureaucracy with
Elongated Operating Core)

Figure 2: Professional Structure

(Mintzberg, 1983a, p. 198)

 

18

The important feature to note here is that the professional bureaucracy design
is typiﬁed by hospitals, legal organizations, and universities. This type of organization
tends to set its own standards. The professionals control their own work, seek
collective control of decisions that affect them, and rely on the power of expertise.

Mintzberg (1983a) indicates that the professional bureaucracy type of
organization has inherent problems with innovation. First of all, the organization is
primarily a place to practice skills; loyalty is toward the profession and less to the
organization. And, secondly, that type of structure is "well suited to producing standard
outputs but not well suited to adapting to the production of new ones" (p. 209). What
comes with it is a reluctance to work cooperatively, which leads to problems of
innovation. The implications for health promotion innovation are dramatic for those
aspects that require cooperative effort, group support, and organizational change. And
it is change at this aggregate level of the organization, according to Hersey and
Blanchard (1982), that involves change in its customs, mores, and traditions (i.e., its

culture).

Systems and Contingeng Theogy

The greatest amount of change in organizational theory came after World War
II, and theories became more interwoven as they approached current times. The
systems and contingency school—developed out of mathematical and statistical
modeling techniques in the 19505-peaked at the end of the 19605, but still has major
proponents to this day. It is Katz and Kahn (1966) and Thompson (1967) who are
credited with putting this theory into the mainstream—introducing the “open systems"

concept.

19

The systems school reinforces thinking of organizations as interconnected
elements, each imposing on the others when change is introduced at any point. The
organization is viewed as a "complex set of dynamically intertwined and interconnected
elements, including its inputs, processes, outputs, feedback loops, and the environment
in which it operates" (Shafritz & Ott, 1987, p. 234). Enamored of finding "optimal
solutions" through scientiﬁc analysis, the systems school relies on computers and
simulation models for its analytical tools. It grew in perspective as it included the
“social systems" and the earlier "management systems“ aspects.

Contingency theory (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972) is an addendum to the systems
perspective, and emphasizes that the effectiveness of an organizational action is
dependent upon its relationship to all other aspects of the system. Surety of action is
contingent upon the stability of the environment and the amount of information available
for decision making (Shafritz & Off, 1987).

The “open systems" view holds that organizations exist in a dynamic
interrelationship within their environments and their subsystems (Albrecht, 1983):
“interdependence or interaction of components or parts and an identiﬁable whole or
gestalt“ (French and Bell, 1984, p. 54).

The systems of the organization that are most noted (Dyer & Dyer, 1986)
include: the social—people in different positions interacting with each other; the
technical—its methods for getting work done; and the adminisliative-formalized
procedures (rules and regulations) that inﬂuence what happens in the other two
systems. Dyer and Dyer (1986), note that some authors include culture as another

organizational system.

20
Kilmann (1984, 1989) urges an integrative approach in reviewing organizational
situations. He uses a foundation of "ﬁve tracks“-—culture, management skills, team-
building, strategy-structure, and reward systems-to systematically view them and

provide a coherent change effort that is supported by all aspects of the organization.

Power and Politics Theogy

The last major set of organization theories that needs describing, before delving
into organizational culture, is the power and politics school. In contrast to the "modern“
structural and the systems schools, which submit that organizations are rational entities
intent on achieving their goals, the power and politics school views goals as resulting
from bargaining and exchange among individuals and from shifting power balances.
These individuals and coalitions are motivated by their self-interests, beliefs, values, and
perspectives. The wielding of inﬂuence, and the inevitable conflicts, is key to acquiring
scarce organizational resources. In this respect, formal authority is just one of many
sources of power in the organization. Some of these other sources of power include
control over resources such as space, funds, information, and access to those people
who can get things done. The deﬁnition of power used by Shafritz and Off (1987) use
“the ability to get things done the way one wants them done...the latent ability to
inﬂuence people,“ (p. 306)-is blended from others (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977; Allen &
Porter, 1983).

The power and politics school of theory, from the 1960s and 1970s, had
prominent writers (Kanter, 1979; Mintzberg, 1983b). It was Mintzberg (1983b) who
outlined two major inﬂuence coalitions-extemal and internal sets of stakeholders—that

need brief mention. The aidemal sources of inﬂuence are the: 1) owners; 2) suppliers

21

and competitors; 3) employee associations, exempliﬁed by labor unions and
professional associations; 4) the public at large; and 5) board of directors. The internal
coalition is made up of the: 1) chief executive ofﬁcer; 2) organization producers or
operators; 3) line managers; 4) staff analysts; 5) support staff; and 6) organizational
ideology.

It is the ideology of the organization, “the set of beliefs shared by its internal
inﬂuences that distinguish it from other organizations“ (Mintzberg, 1983b), that overlaps

into organizational culture theory (Shafritz & Ott, 1987)-—our next focus.

Organizational Culture Theog

Organizations, in this recent and most controversial perspective, are part of and
reﬂect the society and cultural environment in which they exist. Shafritz and on (1987)
indicate that the culture school does not believe that quantitative, experimental type
“scientiﬁc" research is appropriate for studying organizations. Van Maanen, Dabbs, and
Faulkner (1982) state that these traditional approaches have produced little useful
knowledge. Culture is the search for the intangibles-values, beliefs, assumptions,
perceptions, patterns of behavioral norms, and artifacts—as a source of social energy
that moves people to act in ways appropriate to their setting. Culture provides meaning
to the seemingly irrational and unknown aspects to behaviors in organizations (Mitroff
8: IGImann, 1984; Schein, 1985). Culture is the unseen and unobservable force behind
what is seen and observed (Harvey & Brown, 1988; Mitroff & Kilmann, 1984; Shafritz &
Ott, 1987). IGImann et al. (1985) note that:

The organization itself has an invisible quality—a certain style, a character, a

way of doing things—that may be more powerful than the dictates of any one
person or any formal system. To understand the soul of the organization

22

requires that we travel below the charts, rule books, machines, and buildings
into the underground world of [organizational] cultures (p. 63).

It is useful to draw out the tenets of other schools of organization theory in
order to better understand organizational culture. According to Shafritz and on (1987),
the "modern“ structural and systems schools view organizations as: 1) purposive in
meeting established goals; 2) focusing on how to best design and manage to achieve
their goals efﬁciently and effective; and 3) restraining individual actions by formal rules,
hierarchical authority, and norms of rational behavior. It is thought that understanding
the structure, information systems, strategic planning process, markets, and goals gives
a necessary but not sufﬁcient description of clues about the organizational culture.

In a contrasting vein, the organizational culture school posits that: 1)
organizational behavior and decisions are established by the patterns and basic
assumptions of the organization; 2) the patterns and basic assumptions drop out of
consciousness with repeated use, but continue their inﬂuence as truths no one
remembers; 3) culture represents the underlying basis for the way things are done in
the organization, even when it is no longer useful to the situation; and 4) personal
interactions are inﬂuenced by cultural norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions (Shafritz
& on, 1987).

Every organizational culture is deemed unique for a number of reasons: 1) the
basic assumptions that work repeatedly for one organization do not work for others; 2)
cultures are only partially shaped by other forces: societal culture, technologies,
markets, competitions, and the founder(s) or dominant leadership personality; and 3)
some are more distinctive than others due to strength, homogeneity, and pervasiveness
(Louis, 1985; Shafritz & Ott, 1987). This last set of reasons will be discussed in later

sections.

23

Culture in Organizations

The concept of culture arose as much from the development of methods to
study it as it did from a conceptual understanding by itself. Both anthropology and
sociology have devised methods for studying and understanding cultural-based systems
that will be discussed in Chapter Four.

Anthropology has had its primary focus on rather isolated communities separate
and distinct from the social system of the researcher. The emphasis of ﬁeld research
is directed at understanding the cultural codes or rules that specify whatever one has
to know to publicly operate successfully in that civilization (Emerson, 1983). Sociology,
on the other hand, attaches culture as one manifestation of a social unit—as one of
many ways to view and understand a community or organization. As a discipline,
sociology’s main focus has remained primarily on social units that are indigenous to the
lnvestigator's own culture system. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Manning, 1979; Whyte,

1 984.)

Culture Deﬁned
There is no single deﬁnition of culture that satisﬁes all perspectives. Kroeber
and Kluckhohn (1952) are noted for their array of 164 deﬁnitions of culture. In a well
known introduction to anthropology, Clyde Kluckhon's Mirrors of Man synthesizes these
deﬁnitions of culture:
(1) the “total way of life of a people“; (2) "the social legacy the individual
acquires from his group"; (3) ”a way of thinking, feeling, and believing“; (4) "an
abstraction from behavior“; (5) a theory on the part of the anthropologist about
the way in which a group of people in fact behave; (6) a “storehouse of pooled

knowledge“; (7) “a set of standardized orientations to recurrent problems“; (8)
“learned behavior“; (9) a mechanism for the normative regulation of behavior";

24

(10) “a set of techniques for adjusting both to the external environment and to

other men"; (11) “a precipitate of history“; [and (12) similes, such as a map, a

slave, and a matrix] (Geertz, 1983, p. 38).

Geertz (1983), in paraphrasing Weber's "webs of signiﬁcance" and by shying
away from trying to tie all the facets of culture into a meta-concept, views culture as
those webs of signiﬁcance that man has spun for himself. For the purposes of this
study, the deﬁnition by Goodenough (1971) will be used: culture "consists of whatever
it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its
members" (p. 14). Both the cultural anthropologist, in "going to the field," and the
sociologist, in analyzing his/her own community, try to capture the cultural doings and
sayings of people as methods of grasping what is acceptable (Frake, 1983).

It is the intent to build on Kroeber and Kluckhohn's (1952) composite expression
of culture that is pertinent to this study. To them, culture is seen as value-laden
patterns drawn from tradition that are transmitted to others, and which “may on the one
hand be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of
further action" (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 181). Their same view, conﬁrmed by
Pettigrew (1979) and Schein (1985), is held here that cultures are m from humans
ﬁneracﬁngovuﬁmmddevebpingdisﬁnapanemsofbehavbrmmeninﬂuawe

Boon (1973) outlines a synthesis of the culture concepts through the years.
First, he indicates that “culture“ assumes some orderly signiﬁcance in all human
phenomena. This includes the trivial actions, as well as the most obtuse and grandiose
phenomena. The second point is that the idea of “culture" has had a history that can
be traced back to E. B. Tylor in 1871. Next, Boon indicates that the concept is tied to

diverse “philosophical and scientiﬁc schools and tendencies". For example, these

25
include French intellectualism, British empiricism, German idealism, and American
pragmatism. And the fourth point Boon makes is that the culture concept has
developed along two major lines: 1) culture as but one of many analytical tools to use,
and 2) culture as the totality. In the ﬁrst domain, Boon highlights Talcott Parson's view
that culture is a part of the analytic framework: "biology" for the organism-requisite
pattern, "psychology“ as the individual-needs pattern, "society" as the institutional-needs
pattern, and "culture“ as the values pattern. Complete analysis includes all of these
spectrums. The other viewpoint is that exemplified by Claude Levi-Strauss, which posits
that culture is that peculiar, orderly pattern endemic to all human phenomena (Boon,
1973). Therefore, culture can be both one of many constructs by which to look at
facets of the system, and it can also be a framework to look at the totality of the
system (Dyer & Dyer, 1986). The latter (framework) often uses the former (constructs)
as a means to express its values throughout. This dichotomous and, yet, conﬂuent
view tends to hold throughout the literature dealing with organizational culture, and it

will be dealt with further.

"Culture“ as Applied to Levels of Social Units

According to Schein (1985), culture--as a word—can be applied to any size of
social unit “that has had the opportunity to learn and stabilize its view of itself and the
environment around it-its basic assumptions" (p. 8). It is at the broadest level that
civilizations are expressed as cultures, such as Western or Eastern cultures. Countries,
with a homogenous ethnic commonality, are a next level of cultural unit (Hall, 1976;
Schein, 1985). For example, we speak of the Mexican, French, and Italian cultures. A

level not cited by Schein—regional cultures-is one that can overlap the two above. It

26

can refer to regions of large countries, such as the US, or one extending across
smaller countries; it is used by some authors to denote economic and managerial
behaviors indigenous to certain industries or professions (Weiss, 1988; Weiss 8.
Delbeck, 1988). Within countries, cultures tied to ethnic or minority groups may be
found, such as Hispanic and Oriental populations. A further step is to recognize
cultures that are associated with certain occupations and professions (Schein, 1985;
Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). For example, medical doctors, lawyers, and university
professors have their “professional“ cultures that distinguish them from other employees
(Bees, 1988; Feldman, 1987).

It is the last major level, cited by Schein, the organization, that is the primary
level of cultural focus for this study. The basic criterion for cultural formation at any
level, according to Schein (1984, 1985), is stability with a shared history--time to develop
a unique way of operating and communicating.

Of course, with this criterion in mind, groups or other subunits of organizations
can have identiﬁable cultures or sub-cultures. Schein recognizes this possibility, but
then neglects the implication by directing much of his discussion toward organizations
as having homogenous cultures by virtue of their origin and development from a single
individual, or group leader-founder. In this vein, organizations provide regularly
convened settings in which culture(s) may develop. They are said to be culture-
bearing milieux (Louis, 1984, 1985). As such, their continued development and
elaboration may grow into the "high-context“ cultures, such as the Japanese or Latin
American that are mentioned by Hall (1976).

Louis (1983) and Frost et al. (1985) suggest that these broader levels serve as

universal sets of meaning that are subdivided into more locally relevant codes as the

27
social units decrease in size. The lower-level codes represent elaborations of the
broader universal sets. A weakness in organizational literature, according to Louis, is
that organizations have been studied with assumptions of universal culture without the

localized cultures having a bearing.

Organizational Culture Deﬁned

In our earlier definition, culture was described as whatever members have to
know in order to behavior in an acceptable manner to each other (Goodenough, 1971).
Schein (1984) indicates that notions of cultures-as sets of shared meanings that
facilitate group members being able to interpret and act upon their environment—do not
go far enough in explaining how the culture arose, how it formed, or how it could be
changed if viability were in question.

Elsewhere, Schein (1985) indicates that many precursor meanings of culture
are reﬂections of culture but are not the essence of culture. Some of these earlier
meanings that he cites describe culture as: 1) observed behavioral regularities in human
interaction (Goffman, 1967; Van Maanen, 1979a); 2) norms that evolve in work groups
(Homans, 1950; lGlmann & Saxton, 1982); 3) dominant values espoused by an
organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982); 4) philosophy that guide an organization‘s policy
toward its employees (Ouchi, 1981); 5) rules of the game for getting along in the
organization (Schein, 1978; Van Maanen, 1979b); and 6) feeling or climate conveyed
in an organization by its physical layout and employee interaction (Moos, 1979).

It is from Schein that our deﬁnition of organizational culture is drawn:

a pattern of basic assumptions-invented, discovered, or developed by a given

group as it teams to cope with its problem of external adaptation and internal
integration—that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore,

28

to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to these problems ((1984, p. 3; 1985, p. 9)

As Schein (1985) indicates, this deﬁnition does not include behavior patterns, since he
believes those are derived from the cultural setting and from situational contingencies

in the environment.

Understandipg Culture in Organizations

Organization theory, particularly in its most recent thrust as the organizational
ctiltixe school, is useful to explain how groups or individuals behave in varying
organizational structures and circumstances (Shafritz & Ott, 1987). In essence, all
organizations: 1) have objectives, 2) attract members, 3) acquire and allocate resources
to accomplish goals, 4) use some form of structure to coordinate activities, and 5) rely
on certain members to manage others and the resources (Etzloni, 1964). While these
elements remain fairly constant, the organizational purposes, structures, ways of doing
things and methods for coordinating activity vary widely. From the “open systems" view,
organizations have inﬂuence and are inﬂuenced by the larger environment around them
(French & Bell, 1984; Huse & Cummings, 1985; Shafritz & Ott, 1987). As such, the
variations reﬂect the adaptations that each organization makes in relation to its
environment.

Culture and cultural environments serve as one window or perspective to study
and understand organizations. Cultures, indigenous to varying levels of social systems
(9.9., countries, communities, and organizations), serve as linking mechanisms between
systems and provide integration to the members within them (Schein, 1985).

Culture, from an anthropological and sociological view, is normative to the

people that it serves and provides them with a sense of coherence, order, and meaning

29
(Weick, 1985). Field research often requires that the researcher becomes a part of the
system under study (Schatzman 8: Strauss, 1973; Spradley, 1980). Then, through
comparison with other cultures, one can make conjectures about how some aspect of
a particular cultural system is useful to its members and functional to the organization
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) From this view, culture is long-standing, it provides meaning,
and study and observation of it leads to understanding.

In contrast, culture from a management perspective (e.g., corporate culture) is
directed toward other ends. Models of "effective“ cultures are often used to compare
weaker cultures of organizations that are struggling for survival (Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Peters & Waterman, 1982). In this perspective, the concept of culture is ephemeral; the
organizational culture is manipulable; and its diagnosis leads to change. A distinct
problem arises when the change agent stands outside it and, too often, relies only on
secondary levels of quantitative data to understand and analyze it (Shafritz & Ott, 1987;
Smirich, 1985).

Smirich (1983) identiﬁed two themes in organization management research that
characterizes culture as an organizational variable: 1) cross-cultural or comparative
management, and 2) corporate culture studies.

”Cross-cultural and Comparative Management ﬁeld attempts to understand
variation in management and employees attitudes and practices across countries and
major cultural groups. The relationship is between the larger cultural environment, as
an independent variable, and to organizational structure and practices within it. Much
of the research Interem here has been with multinational organizations and recognition

of global interdependence (Adler, 1983; Kelley & Worthley, 1981; Smirich, 1983).

30

”Corporate Culture Studies“ have provided evidence that organizations are
presumed to be “culture-producing phenomena” (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Louis, 1983,
1985; Siehl & Martin, 1988; Tichy, 1982). As social instruments that produce goods
and services, organizations also produce by-products of cultural artifacts, such as
rituals, myths, and ceremonies. While not ignoring their embeddedness in wider cultural
environments, this manifestation from an open systems perspective puts the emphasis
on the socio-cultural qualities that develop. A cultural balance of interacting systems
Is thought to lead to effectiveness and strength (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters &
Waterman, 1982). Culture also represents a systemic lever for bringing about change
and balance (Smirich, 1983).

As Smirich (1983) states, in the ﬁrst case, the larger cultural environment is
imprinting upon the organization, and, in the second case, organizational culture results
from human enactment. Organizational comparisons are often made to physical
objects, such as machines and organisms.

Van Maanen and Barley (1985) provide three domains for analysis when
searching for worksite cultures: 1) ecologicd context refers to ways in which worksite
activities are structured (i.e., who does what, when and where); 2) differential “erosion
among members reﬂects physical proximity, sharing common tasks, and
interdependence of workﬂow; and 3) collective understand'ng is what forms to support
concerted actions and understanding of the organization and the individual’s place in
it-making sense of ongoing organizational activity. A unitary organizational culture,
according to these authors, usually is a result of speciﬁc circumstances 'when all
members of the organization face roughly the same problems, when everyone

communicates with almost everyone else, and when each member adopts a common

31

set of understandings for enacting proper and consensually approved behavior"
(VanMaanen & Barley (1985, p. 37).

On a different level, Louis (1983, 1985) proposes two major categories of loci
of subculture-lntraorganizational sites and tramorganizationd sites. A few examples
for these and other potential loci will be proposed that directly relate to university
environments and health promotion issues.

lntraorganizational loci of sub-culture can be found in various parts of the
organization, such as: 1) the top of the orgaiization, of which two notable forms are
the "for-public consumption" culture, designed at the top and meant to be handed
down through the organization; and the “corporate culture" that represents the more
visible aspects; 2) vertical slice of the organization, such as cultures formed along
divisional lines of the organization (e.g., maintenance-custodial apart from the academic,
or the natural sciences apart from social sciences); 3) horizontal slice of the
organization, which may form along particular job types or hierarchical levels, such as
faculty, clerical-technical, and students, or the custodial apart from the building
managers; 4) particular mile or depatments, such as individual academic departments,
which may develop unique cultures exclusive of each other (e.g., biological scientists
separate from the soil scientists); and 5) any group that regularly meets, which may
form a separate culture even if it is not in the same department or level. Positive health
cultures may form from groups that run, workout, or play on department athletic teams
together. Also, negative sub-cultures, such as smokers or sedentary employees who
always eat and sit together, may form on the basis of exclusion from others.

Transorganizational loci of sub-culture represent cultural inﬂuences whose cores

emanate from outside the organization: 1) ethnic goups may be pocketed within an

32
organization or may actually cross many division and organization boundaries; 2)
industry level, such as] academic cultures that cross many departments or across a
community, particularly with multiple colleges (e.g., all scientists or all organic chemists
may have a common culture); and 3) occupation or profession, such as lab technicians,
non-tenured faculty within a department, or clerical staff.

As Louis (1985) indicates, the existence of a non-culture is hard to find. The
issue becomes one of deﬁning the relevant boundaries for the many potential cultures
that may be in existence. It is through determining the cultural boundary sets that
cultural penetration in the organization is identiﬁable from three aspects: sociological,
psychological and historical. Sociological penetration looks at pervasMnes, how far
into the organization the culture goes. Psychological penetration is the homogeneity
of interpretation of shared meanings among the group members. The last aspect,
historical penetration, looks at stability over time of the shared understandings. Louis
states that looking for entrenched or embeddedness of beliefs and assumptions here
is an indicator of inertia and potential mm change. Harvey and Brown (1988)
propose a matrix to exemplify the relationship between pervasiveness and homogeneity
that leads to cultural strength (p. 387; see Figure 3). In this case, the ability to adapt
to the environment and integrate change may lead to a strong culture in the short term.
As shown in Figure 3, a strong culture can be a combination. With repeated success,
however, the organizational culture more formally structures itself and may become rigid
and inﬂexible over the long term: larger numbers showing similar values and high

commitment to those values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strong
Moderate Strong
Culture Culture
(intense)
Member
Commitment 3 1
to Values
(homogeneity) 4 2
Weak Moderate
Culture Culture
(stable)
Weak
Low < > High
Number of Members Sharing
(pervggivenegg)

 

 

Figure 3: Cultural Strength

Another aspect of penetration proposed by Louis (1985) is to look at the
direction or orientation of the sub-cultures. These may develop toward, away from, or
against other groups and cultures—the enhancing, orthogonal, and countercdture types
proposed by Martin and Siehl (1983). One needs to look at whether the orientation is
focused in support of the dominant organizational culture or toward some external
orientation. One example would be the cosmopolitan-localite orientation developed by
Gouldner (1957, 1958). He proposed that “research professionals,“ with a cosmopolite
orientation, would cut across the department and connect externally to the "profession“,
while localites would emphasize internal support of organization activity that enhances
the profession. In a diverse organization type, such as a university, there may be
'neutral“ cultures hanging in the balance (e.g., support staff and administrators who
have a local focus but not necessarily oriented toward the research profession). There
may also be evidence of non-tenured 'young lurks“ that contrast with the tenured “old

guard“ professors. Another example, similar to that used before, is related to health

34

behaviors: negative cultures reinforce negative health behaviors, while a positive work
culture is expected to be supportive of employee health achievement.

Universities as Cultura_l_E_nvironments. As all organizations tend to be different,
each one can be differentiated by the culture that supports it, and that which it supports
(Harvey & Brown, 1988). It is further noted that cultural environments (whether larger
social systems, communities, or organizations) can contain a variety of sub-cultures
within them (Martin 8. Siehl, 1983; Rose, 1988; Schein, 1984, 1985), and each member
may operate within and be a part of multiple cultures (Rose, 1988; Thomas, 1985).
Experience tells us that, while a large complex organization, such as a university, may
present an image of a homogenous culture to the outside, it can actually contain sub-
cultures of smaller professional units (Bess, 1982, 1988). These are often delineated
by a variety of indicators, for example, academic/non-academic, faculty/student,
teaching/research, and “hard sciences'f‘soft sciences“. It is through this cultural
phenomena of values, beliefs, and artifacts (Schein, 1985), that divisions or sub-units
can be deﬁned, identiﬁed, and bonded together, sometimes at cross purposes.

At a macrolevel Bess (1982), refers to a university/research culture “with its set
of norms and symbols, methods for recruiting members, and patterns of exchanging
knowledge through publications and consulting“ (p. 29). In contrasting research that
evaluated management in higher education, Fetterman (1987) highlights the importance
of academic departments as the cultural unit of study. This contrasts with studies, such
as Levine (1980), that focus on the wider university organization as the decision unit.
The most noticeable gap in the literature on change in higher education Is the aknost
wtalabsmceddiauashgumcogniziigmatmymsltymanbusomerm

facdty,researctnrsmdacademics,areiwolvedinchangeprocasses. lncontrast,the

35
key to health promotion's success is to also include those other members (e.g., clerical

staff, technicians, and students) into its domain.

pmls and Content of Culture in Organizations

It is useful to distinguish among levels of culture in order to separate the core
essence from the manifestations. Schein (1984, 1985) and Dyer and Dyer (1986) posit
artifacts at the surface, with values directly below, and basic assumptions at the core.

m. These are the most visible and tangible aspects and are represented
by the organization’s constructed physical and social environment that includes: 1)
physical artifacts, such as design of physical space and ofﬁce layout, technological
output of the group, company logo, and employee dress; 2) behavioral artifacts, such
as artistic production, rituals, and ceremonies, and 3) verbal artifacts, like the written
and spoken language and the stories, sagas, and myths shared by organization
members.

Every aspect of an organizational life produces artifacts (Schein, 1985). These
are often easily identiﬁed but the meanings attached to them are not readily understood
by outsiders. For example, anthropologists have spent great a deal of time in other
civilizations and devised techniques such as “semiotics“ (Manning, 1977; Spradley,
1979) to learn their language systems and gain the perspective of the insider.

Egg. These reﬂect the sense of what “ought” to be in contrast to what “is“.
Dyer and Dyer (1986) state that values include the general ideals, standards, and sins
of the organization-many of which become formally espoused in writing as part of the
management philosophy. According to Schein (1985), values are usually initial beliefs

that may pop up when confronted by some new circumstance or change. They may

36

become accepted by the total group after they have been proven true-thereby
becoming part of the larger belief system.

It is through a process of cognitive transformation that these values, which are
proven correct, may evolve into beliefs and possibly further into assumptions. Those
that are socially validated by group experience, and serve to reduce anxiety and
uncertainty, may become transformed. Those values that remain conscious often serve
a moral function as nonns for guiding accepted behavior among members (Schein,
1985). In a similar vein, when these values are not based on prior learning and group
experience, they remain the “espoused values," not in line with the basic assumptions
(Argyris 8: Schon, 1978). It is the alignment of these values with the core assumptions
that give the group identity and meaning (Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982).

Basic Assumptions. Some of these values that consistently lead to appropriate
solutions for new problems become taken for granted. This accepted reality soon falls
out of conscious reckoning. Schein (1985) states that basic assumptions are different
from the “dominant value orientation" of anthropologists, such as Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck (1961). This latter type reﬂects preferred solutions available from an array
of options still open for choosing. In contrast, basic assumptions have become so
taken for granted that little culture variation is found within the organization. For
example, an organization, whose basic assumptions include the "organization as family”,
would be protective of its members, forgiving toward their aberrant behaviors, and
intolerant of outsiders.

Schein (1985) indicates that some assumptions are more superﬁcial—easy to
read-than others, but may not be any less important. One example he uses is that

assumptions of ‘the right way to do things“ are more superﬁcial than those of 'the

37

right things to do“. It Is at the deeper levels that are found the more general and

ultimate issues. But, of great importance at these greater depths, are typologies for

their analysis. Schein integrates some of his own concepts with those of Kluckhohn

and Strodtbeck (1961) to build the underlying assumptions around which cultural

paradigms form. There are ﬁve major components contained within it: 1) humanity's

relationship to nature, 2) nature of reality and truth, 3) nature of human nature, 4)

nature of human activity, and 5) nature of human relationships. Figure 4 provides an

outline of these cultural levels as designed by Schein (1985, p. 27).

 

visible

 

 

not always
decipherable

 

greater level
of awareness

invisible

 

taken—for-granted

 

Artifacts/Creation

 

 

 

 

Values

 

 

 

 

Basic Assumptions

 

 

Technology. Art,
Visible & Audible
Patterns

Testable in physical
environment;testab1e
only by social
consensus

l) relations to
environment

2) reality, time a
space

3) human nature

4) human activity

5) human relations

 

Figure 4: Levels of Culture

Basic assumptions are the taken-for-granted beliefs that group members hold

about themselves and the world (Dyer 8 Dyer, 1986). These are similar to the “theories-

38

in-use' oi Argyris and Schon (1978) that guide member behavior and tell them how to
think and feel about things. The process of “double-loop-learning" espoused by Argyris
and Schon is not easy to institute, because basic assumptions by their very nature are
not controntable or debatable (Schein, 1985). It is when dealing with cross—cultural
transfer of ideas that these underlying assumptions need to be exposed-a major tenet
of cross-cultural communication studies (Rogers & Agarwala-Fiogers, 1976). Otherwise,
mistrust results from miscommunication and barriers to understanding are raised (Ulrich,

1988).

Culture and Organizational Change

This section provides background to understanding how cultures provide stability
and ﬂexibility to organizations, how organizations change or adopt innovations, and the

variables involved in that process.

A Functional View of Organizational Culture

At a broad level, culture provides a sense of continuity, control, identity, and
Negation of its members (Louis, 1983). Schein (1985) cites Parsons (1951) and
Marion (1957) in saying that culture solves the organization's most basic problem of:
1) suvival it, and adaptation to its external environment, and 2) ittegralion of its
internal process to ensure its capacity to survive and adapt. The major elements of
each of these functional cycles will be reviewed brieﬂy.

The external adaptation process is a series of steps, related to their task

orientation, on which organizations must work as they grow and mature. In that

39
process, they: 1) develop a mission and strategy to guide its primary and secondary
functions; 2) develop goal consensus; 3) develop consensus for reaching the goals; 4)
reach consensus on criteria for measuring achievement; and 5) develop consensus on
strategy maintenance or change if the goals are not met (Schein, 1985). In a broader
sense, this helps determine what new ideas and innovations are even tried in the first
place.

The internal integration process determines what changes and innovations will
be incorporated into the organization's domain. This internal process, according to
Schein (1985), creates the togetherness-the building and maintaining—that enables
groups to accomplish more than individuals alone. In order to integrate and become
stable, the organization must: 1) develop a common language and conceptual
categories so group members can communicate with each other; 2) develop consensus
on group boundaries so members will know who is in and who is not; 3) reach
consensus on hierarchy, power, and status and the means to alter them; 4) work out
its rules for peer relationships, intimacy, and friendship as they affect task management;
5) develop accepted behaviors and understanding of how they are rewarded or
punished; and 6) exercise its ideology and “religion“ to explain the unexplicable and
uncontrollable events in every organization's life.

it is through the general linkage of these two major cycles (external adaptation
and internal integration) that the organization remains viable. The environment provides
the initial set of parameters and inﬂuences the formation of culture. But as Schein
(1985) observes: “once present in the sense of shared assumptions, those assumptions,
in turn, inﬂuence what will be perceived and defined as the environment“ (p. 51). To

go a step further, Schein also indicates that organizational culture serves to reduce the

4O
anxiety that people experience when faced with cognitive anxiety or overload. it is
similarly thought of as a set of filters to eliminate extraneous overload and keep focus
on the relevant parts of the environment.

And, in a more direct sense, organizational culture(s) can block or inhibit contact
with innovations, or they can serve to integrate them into their system (Harvey & Brown,
1988; Huse & Cummings, 1985; Mitroff & Kilmann, 1984). The need to understand the
relationship between organization culture and strategy for change is illustrated in Figure

5 (Harvey & Brown, 1988, p. 389).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High
Manage around Manage the
the Culture Change
Need for 3 1
Strategic
Change 4 2
Change the Reinforce the
Strategy Culture
Low
Low < > High

Potential Compatibility of Change
with Existing Culture

 

Figure 5: The Strategy-Culture Matrix

A brief explanation of these constructs is provided by Harvey & Brown (1988):
1) Manage the change (manageable risks). An organization in quadrant 1 is bringing
about a change that is important to the organization and ﬁ_t_§ with its existing culture.

Therefore, major changes are still acceptable, as long the cultural and reward systems

41

support them. 2) Reinforce the cum (negligible risk). An organization in quadrant
g needs little change in the innovation, and they are compatible with the existing
culture. Emphasis on the compatible parts is helpful to adopt it. 3) Manage around
the culture (manageable risk). In quadrant 3, changes in the innovation are called for,
but they are still potentially incompatible with the culture. Success may mean to
manage around the culture without confronting it directly. 4) Change the strategy
(unacceptable risk). Problems arise here because the change is important to the
organization, but incompatible to the culture. If no chance of success is foreseen, the
innovation must be changed to ﬁt the culture.

Another function of culture, only to be brieﬂy mentioned, is its use as a control
mechanism-an extension of power operating within organizational settings. Culture, in
this case, or some form of it, such as “ideology“, is used to overtly direct the values
and norms acceptable to the organization (Beyer, Dunbar, & Meyer, 1988; Scott, 1987).
Schein (1985) views ideology as a conscious component of the total set of assumptions
in a culture. They are an overarching set of values that serve as prescription for action,
particularly in respect to other groups.

From their review of the literature, Shafritz and Orr (1987) highlight the few areas
of consensus that appear to exist: 1) organizational culture exists; 2) each
organizational culture is relatively - unique; 3) it is a socially constructed reality; 4)
organizational culture provides the members with ways of understanding and making
sense of events and symbols; and 5) it is a powerful level for guiding and instructing
organizational behavior-an organizational control mechanism.

it is reasonable to ask whether organizational culture should be changed

(Shafritz 8: Ott, 1987). Some authors (Allen and Linde, 1981; Allen and Kraft, 1982)

42
are oriented toward changing behavioral norms, particularly as a mechanism to create
support for positive health behaviors. Moos (1979, 1986) has performed a number of
studies that accentuate a positive work climate as critical to a healthy environment.
Davis (1984) argues for CEO (chief executive ofﬁcer) imposed top-down change. At the
same time, Sathe (1985) and Martin and Siehl (1983) predict failure for single-strategy
culture change. It should be attempted only if certain conditions are right, otherwise

efforts to change the culture may be harmful (Schein, 1985).

Organizations and Innovations

Organizations are actors and reactors in a complex environment that is
constantly changing (Pascarella and Frohman, 1989). Correspondingly, organizations,
including universities, are continually undergoing change (Baldridge 8: Deal, 1983).
They are continually mobilizing for new innovations that will help them control and make
sense of their turbulent environment. Hall (1977) states that changes in organizations
are not as random as they might appear. From a review of Zaltrnan, Duncan and
Holbek (1973), Hall suggests three forms of innovations that take place in organizations.
The first is innovations that are Messed when they are foistered upon the organization
from the external environment (e.g., regulatory policies). Other choices that are based
on perceived needs, product development, and resource priorities are said to be
programmed innovations. And the last form, nomrogammed innovations, is those that
may occur when there are “slack“ resources available to the organization. it is how the
organization perceives its relationship to health promotion, for example as being forced
upon it, consciously chosen, or just a good thing to do-that affects the organizational

commitment to the innovation.

43

Terborg (1986) reminds us that organizations can be very demanding 'when
evaluating business decisions, but often seem to display unusually high gullibility when
it comes to adopting new management techniques“ (p. 284). Management-by-
objectives, matrix-type organizations, quality-of-work life, strategic management, and
“searching for excellence“ have all come "galloping in on white horses and many have
as quickly ridden off into the night“. Terborg credits this aura of faddishness to their
adoption as a mixture of “one part timeliness, two parts effective consulting, and one
part demonstrated value“ (p. 238).

It is not a digression to state that, in many cases, the components of most
organizational innovations are not new, but how they are packaged and refonnulated
represents the change (Edington, 1987). ft is also no secret that what is commonplace
in one setting can be totally new when applied or introduced into another (Brown, 1981 ;
Rogers, 1983; Zaltman et al., 1973). This is indeed true in transferring health promotion
from traditional health-care facilities into worksites (Orlandi, 1986).

There are certain characteristics of innovations that inﬂuence whether or not
they are adopted. These include: costs, complexity, magnitude, perceived quality,
perceived threat to members, point of origin, and compatibility (Hall, 1977; Sanchez,
1987). Each of these characteristics represents a hurdle as the organization decides
to continue, or not continue, with its adoption and implementation.

Earlier, it was indicated that the innovation-adoption perspective treated most
innovations as clearly-defined entities that simply required an organizational decision
to adopt them. What Cummings and Morhman (1987) and Rogers (1983) call the “pro-
innovation bias“ is evident with most health promotion efforts: health promotion is

presented as a concept worthy of adoption by itself, not as a complex phenomena with

44
many characteristics. From this perspective, the health promotion providers (or other
change agents) may not recognize or deal with the organization's need to resist or
modify the health promotion innovation to suit its culture.

What is missing is the understanding of most innovations as clusters of
innovation-what Rogers (1983) calls "technology clusters“. Incorporated within any
major change is a series of smaller innovations, each requiring a decision to accept
or reject. These decisions come hardest when they actually require a potential change
in the management strategy and cultural systems of the organization-requiring one or
the other to change in order to support the innovation. Some typical decision
segments that must be dealt with include: 1) resources avaiable, such as time,
employee involvement, and incentives; 2) decision making styles; 3) management
commilrmnt and role modeling; and 4) oommmicetion and promotion effort (Sloan &
Allegrante, 1985; Rosen, 1985). Each innovation calls upon the full spectrum of an
organization-its culture (values, norms, and behavior), power relationships, management
strategy, and reward systems—in order to fully integrate and support any changes.

in contrast, linearity in thinking of the innovation-adoption process, as outlined
by Cummings and Morhman (1987), concludes that the set of decision steps will follow
one after another as the organization decides to adopt. To the contrary, experience
indicates that each segment requires an individual decision by the organization. The
complement of decision steps with each other and their compatibility with organizational
experience are keys to aid the process. But if the decision steps, as well as the actual
innovation, are new to the organization, then the chances of adoption decrease. This
leads to a need to understand the nature of the intervention strategies in use, which will

be discussed in the next chapter.

45

The Adoption of innovations

According to Rogers (1983) and Brown (1981), research on the diffusion and
adoption of innovations has consistently been a multi-disciplinary effort, starting from
the diverse perspectives that include: anthropology, rural sociology, education, public
health, communications, marketing, geography, general sociology and economics.

Everett Rogers is recognized as the foremost synthesizer of diffusion of
innovation literature (Taylor 8. Miller, 1979). His book, Diffusion of innovations (1983),
will be used as a sourcebook for the remainder of this chapter—including others as
necessary.

In his book, Rogers (1983) states that the complete innovation-development
process consists of:

all of the decision activities, and their impacts that occur from recognition of a

need or problem, through research, development, and commercialization of an

innovation, through diffusion and adoption of the innovation by users, to its

consequences (p. 135).

Before the terms “changes" and "innovations“ are used synonymously, they
need to be defined. It is reasonable to ask whether the popular connotations of them
are semantically different. Are "changes“ seen as more random or reactive acts of an
organization, while innovation is a positive act? Rogers and Aganrvala-Rogers (1976)
note that a distinction between them can be made: Whereas innovation implies
adoption of an idea perceived as new, change may also involve the replacement of an
already existing idea by another” (p. 153). But because the authors indicate the terms
are used so interchangeably, both will be used here, with innovation the prevailing term.

it remains useful to note that the idea being adopted may be new or it may be familiar.

46

Likewise, some changes are innovations, but not necessarily all of them (Rogers &
Agarwala-Rogers, 1976).

An innovation, then, is “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by
an individual or other unit of adoption“ (Rogers, 1983, p. 11). The importance is the
newness to the individual and not as a measure of time since creation of the
innovation. As Brown (1981) adds, the innovation may be intrinsically new or only new
to the setting in which it is found. Earlier definitions (Rogers with Shoemaker, 1971)
had accorded innovation as “an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an
individual“ (p. 19). But Zaltman et al. (1973, p. 10) and Rogers and Agarwala—Rogers
(1976, p. 150) recognized adopters to include organizations as well as individuals.

The innovation, as has been outlined, is the first of four elements that Rogers
(1983) includes in his definition of diffusion: "the process by which (1) an innovation
(2) is “communicated“ through certain channels (3) over time (4) among members of
the social system" (p. 10). Diffusion occurs among individuals at the social system
level. It encompasses adoption (i.e. the innovation-decision process) which occurs at
the individual level (Lambur, 1983). We shall take a closer look at each element of

the definition.

The Element of lnnogticm

Further clarification of innovation will be made here, to go beyond our
understanding of it as being a new technology, idea or information as perceived by
the potential adoption unit. These concepts of the innovation that are illustrated by
Rogers (1983) include: 1) information segment, 2) characteristics of innovations, 3)

technology clusters, and 4) re—invention. Zaltman et al. (1973) includes the type of

47

imovalions as another facet to be considered. The first of these focuses on the
illonnation segment needed to reduce uncertainty of the innovation. Rogers (1983)
uses innovation, technology, or technological innovation as synonymous terms. They
are made up by a hardware oonponent and a software compomnt. The hardware
component consists of the “tool that embodies the technology as material or physical
objects“; the software component refers to "the information base for the tool“ (Rogers,
1983, p. 12). Technology is likened to the hardware as the tool (for example with
health promotion: computers, treadmill exercise tests, blood analyses, tangible
incentives, and exercise bikes—the dominance of physical objects or machinery, and
software as the way it is used (such as behavior modification, social support and
empowerment, stress management-relaxation techniques, and creating commitment for
change)

Rogers (1983) describes the innovation-decision process as: ”essentially an
information-seeking and information-processing activity in which the individual is
motivated to reduce uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of the
innovation“ (p. 13). Thus, software information is provided to reduce uncertainty about
the innovation's ability to solve the perceived need or problem: what it is, how it works,
and why it works. Once the individual reaches this stage, the importance of innovation-
evaluation information takes over to reduce apprehension about the innovation’s
consequences and relative advantages to the situation.

The second major delineation is in the diaracteristics of innovations. Rogers
(1983) indicates that it is the perception of these characteristics that helps explain the
different rates of adoption. What separates one innovation from another is its: 1)

relalive advantage (the degree one innovation is seen as better than an existing one);

48

2) oompatibﬁty (the relative consistency of the innovation with current values, practices,
and experiences of potential adopters); 3) complexin (the perceived difﬁcuny of using
the innovation); 4) triabiily (the ability to use the innovation on a limited basis before
a final commitment is made); and 5) observability (the degree one can observe the
results of an innovation beforehand). While these are not the only factors that affect
adoption, Rogers notes that greater relative advantage, comparability, triability,
observability, and less complexity are the most important.

Two other concepts that clarify innovations will also be addressed: technology
clusters and re-‘nvention. in looking at the boundaries of innovations, it becomes hard
to tell when one begins and another leaves off. In some instances, adoption of one
innovation makes it easier to adopt another, or it may be requisite to adoption of the
other (Brown, 1981). Technology clusters refers to “one or more distinguishable
elements of technology that are perceived as being closely related“ (Rogers, 1983, p.
14). An example he cites is one of some families that recycle papers also tend to
recycle cans and bottles, while others just recycle paper. Therefore, understanding this
becomes critical to facilitating multiple and reinforcing behaviors rather than a single—
item health innovation. The second concept, re-invention, refers to “the degree to which
an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of its adoption and
implementation“ (Rogers, 1983, pp. 16, 17). Here, one must look at the predilection to
assume innovations are adopted in toto, and balance it by understanding the adopter’s
need to “re-invent“ or modify the innovation to the specific situation (Brown, 1981).
Further, because individuals may adopt the same innovation for different reasons, the
differences are only seen in how the actual innovation is adopted (Lambur, 1983). For

example, an organization that is singly focused on reducing health-care costs may try

49

to shift co-payment fees to employees. This can be seen as co-opting individual
decision making by instituting rules and procedures to enforce certain health-oriented
behaviors, such as smoking policies, seat belt use, and mandatory fitness programs at
work.

As indicated by Rogers (1983), once the existence of the innovation is
recognized, its communication to the potential adopter is the next major element of

diffusion.

mgglement of Communication

While communication is a process of sharing information among participants,
diffusion is a particular communication type that is primarily concerned with information
about new ideas (Rogers, 1983). In its most simple form, the process involves: 1) an
innovation, 2) an individual with information or experience of an innovation, 3) an
individual or other unit without knowledge or exposure to the innovation, and 4) a
communication channel—means for message transfer—between the two units. The
communication channel can vary between mass media (e.g., radio, newspaper, and
television) and interpersonal channels that involve face-to-face contact.

As Rogers (1983) notes, it is the relative homophily (likeness) of the two
units—adopter and promoter—that positively affects communication. But the experience
in most innovation communications is that the participants are quite heterophilous
(different in certain attributes). What the optimum level of heterophily is, at least in the

levels of information possessed, may vary with respect to each innovation.

The _E_l_e_ment of Time

Next, in our review of diffusion elements, is one that is often ignored, time.
While not a discrete element of its own, it is an indicator of change on three levels
that pertain to: 1) how an individual moves from ﬁrst awareness to adoption or rejection
(innovation-decision process); 2) how quickly an individual adopts in relation to others
(innovativeness); and 3) by the level to which the system adopts the innovation (rate
of adoption). The first level, known as the innovation-decision process, is defined by
Rogers (1983) as:

the process through which an individual (or decision-making unit) passes from

first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation,

to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to

confirmation of this decision (p. 163).

As delineated by Rogers (1983), and further elaborated by Lambur (1983), there
are ﬁve primary steps in this process: 1) knowledge of the information and how it
functions; 2) permission when the adopter unit gains a favorable or unfavorable attitude
toward the innovation; 3) decision when the decision-making unit engages in activities
that will lead to a choice to adopt or reject; 4) inplementation when the innovation is
put into use; and 5) confirmation as the reinforcement behaviors that validate the
decision made.

The next level in the time element is innovativeness: “the degree to which an
individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the
other members of the system“ (Rogers, 1983, p. 22). A major significance in this
element is that all members of the social system will not adopt or reject the innovation

at the same time. The innovation-decision period is the amount of time it takes for an

individual to move through the process. Individuals categorized as being more

51
innovative would be those found to travel through this innovation-decision period very
quickly.

Based on the criterion of innovativeness, members of the social system can be
classiﬁed into adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority
and laggards. Lambur (1983) summarizes Rogers' portrayal of these categories into a
normal distribution, representing “ideal types“:

By demonstrating that adopter distributions approach normalcy, the

normal curve is divided into ﬁve segments representing standard

deviations from the mean, or the average time of the innovation-decision
period. Each of these segments represents a standardized percentage

of adopters with similar degrees of innovativeness. Accordingly then, the

ﬁrst 2.5% to adopt are called innovators; the next 13.5% are early

adopters; the next 34% are the early majority; the next 34% are the late
majority; and the ﬁnal 16% are called laggards (p. 85).

Characteristics of Innovative Individuals

The following characteristics of each adopter category are those outlined by
Rogers (1983). innovators are described as venturesome. Their eagerness to try out
new ideas draws them away from their local peer groups and into a more cosmopolite
social network. Communication among innovators will take place but may occur over
greater geographical distance. The innovator must be able to deal with high degrees
of uncertainty about an innovation and have enough resources to absorb potential
losses. While not always highly respected members of a group, they serve an
important function of introducing new ideas from external environments.

Early adopters, on the other hand, are more respectable members of their
community, found to have more opinion leadership in the system. In contrast to
innovators as cosmopolites, the early adopters are more localite-oriented to the local

community. While not far ahead of average in innovativeness, they still represent the

52

one ‘to check with" before starting a new venture. As the role model, their opinion
represents subjective opinions for others to follow.

The early majority represent the link between very early and very late adopters.
Their innovation-decision period is relatively long. They are deliberate in their
willingness to follow but not in leading. The late majority, are the skeptical group.
Their adoption decision may result from peer pressure and economic necessity. Group
norms are more crucial for adopting than the rational decision making.

The last group to adopt, the laggards, are the most isolated and localite in their
social networks. The past and precedent become the guide for decisions. Their
awareness-knowledge of innovation lags far behind others; innovators will be a number
of innovations ahead of this group at all times. Their slowness to adopt may represent
the rational inability to take chance when no slack resources are available.

Three categories of individual variables—socioeconomic, personality, and
communication behavior—have been found in Rogers’ (1983) research to be associated

with innovativeness. These characteristics are summarized by Lambur (1983, p. 86):

1. Socioeconomic variables: Earlier adopters are no different in age; have
more years of education; are more likely to be literate; have higher social
status; have a greater degree of upward social mobility; have larger sized
units (farms, companies, and so on); are more likely to have a
commercial (rather than a subsistence) economic orientation; have a
more favorable attitude toward credit (borrowing monev): and have more

specialized operations than later adopters.

53

2. Personality variables: Earlier adopters have greater empathy; may be
less dogmatic; have a greater ability to deal with abstractions; have
greater intelligence; have a more favorable attitude toward change,
education and science; are more able to cope with risk and uncertainty;
are less fatalistic; have higher levels of achievement motivation; and have
higher aspirations (for education, occupations, and so on) than later

adopters.

3. Communicatigi behavior variables: Earlier adopters have more social
parn'cipation; are more highly interconnected in the social system; are
more cosmopolite; have more change agent contact; have greater
exposure to mass media; have greater exposure to interpersonal
communication channels; seek information about innovations more
actively; have greater knowledge of innovations; have a higher degree
of opinion leadership; and more likely to belong to highly interconnected

systems than later adopters.

The last time element, rate of adoption, refers to: ‘the relative speed with which
an innovation is adopted by members of a social system“ (Rogers, 1983, p. 23). It is
usually measured by the length of time it takes for a certain percentage of a system’s
members to adopt the innovation. So this measure is unique to an innovation within

a specific social system and not constant across all units.

The Social System Element

The social system comprises the fourth and last element of the innovation-
diffusion process. The member or units of a social system can consist of individuals,
informal groups, organizations, or sub-systems. Our discussion, in general, is limited
to the individual and organizations. The social system, as used by Rogers (1983), is
the relevant boundary within which the innovation spreads. Five social systems
variables that he introduces are critical in this regard. The first of these, the social
structure depicts the patterned arrangement of the units. One example of structural
differences, given in Chapter One, was between traditional bureaucratic and university
structures, with the latter noted for its general lack of innovativeness. One facet of this
is the communication channels that exist (Rogers, 1983), both formal and informal
(Rogers 8r Agarwala-Rogers, 1976).

Another variable within the social system, according to Rogers (1983), is the
system nonns (i.e., the established patterns for the system members). A more
encompassing concept is the culture of the systarn—its values, norms, and assumptions
(Schein, 1985). Other than suggesting them, Rogers does not spend much time
discussing cultural variables, but they are critical elements in this study.

A third social system variable is the strength and viability of opinion leadership
within the system and the change agents trying to inﬂuence positive adoption decisions.
Change agents are often outsiders, with some level of training or expertise, who work
with opinion leaders-as integral members of the system-to exert inﬂuence to bring
about some change with the system. It is the homophilous—heterophilous spread of the
opinion leadership and the change agents that affects the effectiveness of

communication to other members (Zaltman 8: Duncan, 1977).

55

The next-to-last variable in the social system element is the type of imovation—
decisions that can be made, either by the individual member or the entire social
system. Rogers (1983) speciﬁes the first of these as the decisions that can be made
by the individual, quite independent of others, but still inﬂuenced by the norms and
values of the system. In fact, it is at this level that the first studies of diffusion took
place. Only recently has the scope of understanding expanded to include the
decisions at different levels, viz., collective and authority innovation-decisions. Collective
“motive-decisions are choices that are made subject to consensus among the system
members. Examples of these that Rogers (1983) cites are building construction codes
that affect all new housing units, and new services allowed into a city, such as cable
television, that still require an individual decision to implement the service. The freedom
of choice reﬂects the nature of the innovation-decision.

Another type of change decisions exempliﬁes those that are made by a relevant
deoision-makhg autl'lorily—power, status, or expertise-within an organization (Rogers,
1983). In this instance, the individual has little or no inﬂuence on the decision
process—administrative ﬁat. Another innovation-decision proposed by Rogers is
oonthgent 'lnovalion-deoidons (combinations of previous types) that can be made only
after a prior innovation-decision by a larger social system unit. A current example of
this is that of an individual wanting to have airbags in his/her automobile. In most
cases, the individual must wait until there is a governmental policy decision requiring
automobile manufacturers to install them in some or all of their vehicles. As
experienced at a university, many employees of departments not part of the health

promotion activity would like to be participants. However, they cannot gain the full

56

beneﬁts until their units become involved and request introduction of the health
promotion project.

Not to be forgotten, the last variable to the social system element is the
consequences of innovations (Rogers, 1983). These occur to an individual or unit as
a result of adoption or rejection of an innovation. Consequences are viewed as
desirable or undesirable, which may vary between individuals. Also, the consequences
may be direct or secondary and some as anticipated or unanticipated. Therefore, in
spite of a general pro-innovation bias, innovations can have positive and detrimental
impacts, and this perspective differs among adopting units. (See Brown, 1981; Rogers,
1983; and Spicer, 1952, for further review of this topic.) For example, release time
from work is one element that may facilitate employee participation in health promotion
activity. Unit supervisors that respond differentially to this can create tension and
dissatisfaction among the employees towards their unit.

It is at this point that a planned change process is completed: innovation
creation based upon known needs, a strategy for diffusing the innovation, and
assessing the impacts. The history of innovation-diffusion has been built on the
assumption of technological development and change as a positive good (Brown,
1981; Rogers, 1983; Spicer, 1952). The key was to bring about the desired changes.
In many cases, and particularly in the early years, the outcomes—often found to be
disruptive to the social and culture fabric-were not measured by the original
protagonists of the innovation (Brown, 1981; Rogers, 1983). That was left to others
(Spicer, 1952).

As stated earlier, much of the literature on diffusion of innovations has focused

almom solely on the individual adopter. There is less understanding and a dearth of

57
quality research that studies the organization as a social unit that adopts innovations
(Brown, 1981; Rogers, 1983). And, in most cases, the research focuses on the
adoption of hardware technology (what it does and what it uses), and less on the

software of social issues (how it operates and what it means).

Qi_a_r_§cteristics of Innovative Organizations

Earlier, innovation was defined as something perceived as new by an individual
or other unit of adoption. The innovation needs only be new to the organization and
not to the larger society. In order to build upon the differentiation of organizations from
a single individual, though, an additional deﬁnition of organizational innovation will be
used:

Any proposed idea, or set of ideas, about how the organizational

behavior of members should be changed in order to resolve problems

of the organization to improve its performance (Gross, Giaquinta, &

Bernstein, 1971, p.16).

Rogers (1983) points out that the model of innovativeness in individuals does
not readily apply to organizations. The shift in the research focus has been away from
reviewing a cross-section of studies to understanding the process of innovations in
organizations. The purpose is to understand ‘the time-ordered sequence of a set of
events" (Rogers, 1983, p. 356). From a process-orientation, several independent
variables are identiﬁed by Rogers (1983) that relate to innovativeness in organizations.
These are grouped as: 1) individual (leader) characteristics, and 2) internal
characteristics of organizational structure.

Leader chuacterislics are represented by the general attitude toward change-as
a positive relationship toward innovation. htemd characteristics are those tied to its

structure and ability to maintain itself: size, oentraﬂzation, compleidty, formaizalion,

58

ﬁlteroonnectedness, and organizational slack Greater size, as a variable, is positively
related to innovativeness. It also, as Rogers points out, may be a surrogate for other
indicators, such as total resources, slack resources, and organizational structure. High
centralization—degree of power and control in the hands of a few—is negatively
associated with the initiation of innovations but may be positively associated with their
implementation. Next, complexity, “the degree to which an organization's members
possess a relatively high level of knowledge and expertise“ (Rogers, 1983, p. 360), is
found to have strong relationship to the initiation of change. It is often measured by
the range of occupational specialties and the degree of professionalism (formal training
required). High formalization, in rules and regulations, is found to inhibit innovativeness.
Interconnectedness, the linking by personal networks within the organization, favors
innovativeness. And organizational slack, the extent to which uncommitted resources
are available, is also positively related to organizational openness to change (Cyert 8:
March, 1963).

Even though these characteristics can be selected from innovation studies,
another problem results in that their association, while positive for initiation of
innovation, tends to run negative during implementation (Rogers, 1983; Zaltman et al.,
1973). The example cited by Rogers is that of low centralization, high complexity, and
low formalization; these are helpful for innovation, yet make implementation more
difﬁcult.

A model of the innovation process in organizations has been proposed by
Rogers (1983) than includes ﬁve sequential stages: agenda-setting; problem matching
with the innovation; redeﬁning the innovation and in restructuring the organization;

clarifying the innovation ﬁt; and routinizing the innovation into the regular activities. As

59

Rogers points out, though, there have not been enough good studies to be more
precise about organizational innovativeness.

One can look back and make conjectures about organizational innovativeness.
Knight (1967) and Knight and Wind (1968) note than innovations may appear in or are
relevant to four aspects of the organization: 1) products or services of the organization;
2) production-process oriented (e.g., task systems or physical production processes);
3) organizational-structural innovations (e.g., decision making, incentive systems, Quality
of Work Life, and matrix-type organizational structures); and 4) people innovations (e.g.,
creative decision making, use of behavioral rules for management practices, and health
promotion at the worksite).

Zaltman et al. (1973) include policy innovation in this classiﬁcation scheme:
“major changes in the organization's strategies for achieving its major objectives“ (p.
16). One example of an adopter incentive in the health ﬁeld would be the use of
ﬁnancial incentives to increase behavior change, such as bonuses for ex-smokers to
remain abstinent.

It may be possible to develop a schema that still uses the individual adopter
categores and overlay it with the organizational aspects discussed above. See Figure

6 as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLICY 5 B A
PEOPLE B A
STRUCTURAL B A
PROCESS A y B
PRODUCT A B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INN E-AD E-MAJ L-MAJ LAG

 

Figure 6: Matrix of Organization Systems and Innovativeness

It is projected that organizations can and will be innovative to differing degrees
within each of these aspects. For example, a university scientiﬁc department (Example
A in Figure 6) may be very innovative in those aspects related to task-orientation and
production process but a laggard in introducing change with their administrative
management, organizational structure and human resource development. At the same
time, another department (Example Bin Figure 6) may be innovative in people—oriented
innovations and initiate the policies to support them, but it may also be further behind

in task accomplishment.

CHAPTER THREE
WORKSITE HEALTH PROMOTION AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION

Overview

Health promotion in the workplace is a complex set of innovations, of increasing
importance, that is being introduced into organizations. A problem arises when the
organization resists adopting the innovations or simply introduces them with little
forethought. Subsequently, there has been an interest in finding out how they can be
better introduced and adopted.

This chapter addresses health promotion as an avenue for innovation and
change. The ﬁrst section reviews the historical development of health promotion and
its current practice in worksite organizations. In the second section, four models used
to introduce health promotion are discussed: general strategies, organization

development, social marketing, and diffusion and adoption of innovation.

History and Practice of Worksite Health Promotion

Glasgow and Terborg (1988) state that there has been: "a virtual explosion of
interest in occupational health promotion programs...“ (p. 365) in the last decade. The
general importance of worksite health promotion is remarkable because it represents

an innovation that is a 'win/win' situation for both employer and the employees. It is

61

62

a major concern for organization managers wanting to: 1) cut their health care costs
(Edington, 1987; Glasgow 8r Terborg, 1988; Naisbitt 8r Aburdene, 1985; Terborg, 1986),
and 2) invest in their human resource capacity (Edington, 1987; Sloan et al., 1987).
Health promotion also is a critical issue for employees, as they change their lifestyles
and place more expectations upon the workplace for services such as childcare, ﬁtness
facilities and insurance beneﬁts (Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1985).

Worksite health promotion is a relatively recent social phenomenon (Klarreich,
1987). According to Conrad (1988), it is a particularly American phenomenon (a
reaction to high costs of employer—paid health and medical beneﬁts) in contrast to the
European tradition of government providing more universal health care services. It grew
from two roots: 1) the concept of general health promotion, which stems from the
breakthroughs of biology and medicine in the late 1800s (Sloan et al., 1987), and 2)

industrial recreation which reﬂect the paternalistic roles of some corporations.

Development of Health Education

Manoff (1985), in his review of health education eras outlined by Starr (1982),
suggests three historical periods that deﬁned concepts of health. The ﬁrst, during the
latter half of the 19th Century, focused on environmental sanitation and improvements
in water supply, sewerage, and general sanitation. A second brief period of 20 years,
ending in 1910, focused on germ sources of diseases. It utilized fumigations and
quarantines as an environmental sanitation method without harnessing a disease-
speciﬁc remedy. What Manoff calls "primitive efforts at disease prevention" (the third

era) included routine medical exams and personal hygiene education around 1910.

63

Out of this simple beginning came the “single etiology theory“ of disease (Sloan
at al., 1987). Speciﬁc diseases were thought to be caused by a single germ or
microorganisms. The best way to avoid catching a disease was to avoid contact with
the source or carrier. Early efforts of the medical profession involved identifying the
disease-causing organism and, then, later developing a vaccine for protection. On a
broad scale, public health was quite effective for almost eradicating speciﬁc
diseases—pneumonia, inﬂuenza and tuberculosis, for example—the three leading causes
of death in 1900. Concurrently, the social and medical deﬁnition of health was equated
with the absence of disease or illness (Klarreich, 1987; Sloan et al., 1987). Being
healthy or ill became a clear indication of the presence of the germs or not. Medical
and clinical treatment directed its primary effort at the suspected disease agents.

As long as health and disease were dichotomous states, only affected by
contact with disease microorganisms, individual volitional behavior could only be
directed at avoiding contacts (Sloan et al., 1987). This reinforced a lack of concern
about health until one was sick. In fact, a persistent background attitude was in vogue,
namely, that to be concerned about health issues (in the absence of disease) was to
be narcissistic and self-indulgent (Sloan et al., 1987).

In 1946, the World Health Organization pushed the growing understanding of
the relationship of the mind, body and environment a major step ahead. Health was
deﬁned as not just the absence of disease, but as ”a state of complete physical, mental,
and social well-being“ (Sloan at al., 1987, p. 19). It became an ideal to strive for, but
one that law could easily achieve.

Currently, health is better thought of as a continuum-a variable state of well-

being-that will be at different degrees for each individual (Everly, 1985; Klarreich, 1987;

64
O‘Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984; O’Donnell, 1987; Sloan et al., 1987). As this recent

understanding of health was popularized, there was also greater understanding of the
health affects of personal behavior and the environment. This also leads to more
responsibility for health risks being directed at the individual for control.

It is in the current fourth era, as deﬁned by Manoff (1985), that the emphasis
has: “shifted to the preventive role of education as a behavior change strategy to
modify diet and life-style (sic)" (p. 11) In this regard, the challenge not only involves
providing education, but also establishing better methodologies to strengthen the

spread and impact of healthier lifestyles.

Industrial Recreation

Parallel to the social welfare movement was the growth of industrial recreation,
the term used to describe the leisure activities available to employees of business and
industrial corporations (Neer, 1957). In one major sense, it provided one base from
which business took the ﬁrst major health promotion initiative. It had a history of
providing recreation and ﬁtness facilities prior to the ‘fitness boom.‘

One individual, William Tolman, claims to have brought the idea of “social
secretary“ (someone responsible for taking personal interest in the welfare of the
workers) back from Europe in 1900 (Wilson, Wanzel, Gillespie, & Robers, 1979). The
Young Men's Christian Association is one of the oldest wellness organizations when
it became interested in providing recreation for industrial workers (Klarreich, 1987; Near,
1957). A few forerunners were Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in 1894, and
National Cash Register’s building for employee recreation in 1891. More recent

examples (in the 1960s) include: Texas Instruments, Timken Redler Bearing, Kaiser

65

Industries, Goodyear Tire, McDonnel Aircraft, and General Dynamics (Recreation

Management, 1962, 1964).

Current Views of Health

It was noted that the major health improvements of the early twentieth century
were directed at public health and sanitation conditions, which brought great returns
in reducing disease and increasing lifespans. Currently, however, there are few
remaining improvements in public health standards that would bring about any
signiﬁcant increase in lifespans.

Sloan et al. (1987) point out that the views of the basic sciences of this current
era affect the contemporary views of health, just as much as the basic sciences did in
the early years of this century. It is the relative presence of multiple and interacting
factors—“risk factors'—that are now associated with varying potentials for illness
(Sorenson, 1987). These major factors are known to include “biology, environment,
lifestyles, and health promoting and restoring systems (medical and health care)“ (Sloan
et al., 1987, p. 20). Their interaction is best described as overlapping sets of factors,
with interplay between the systems.

Understanding risk factors involves differentiating between controllable and
uncontrollable risks. Sloan et al. (1987) state that this latter group includes those risk
factors (e.g., age, sex, race, and heredity) that are not affected by any focused
intervention. Yet, they and other authors (Matarazzo, 1984; Terborg, 1986) point out
that the current ten leading causes of death in the U.S.-heart disease, cancer, stroke,
accidents, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia and influenza, diabetes mellitus,

suicide, cirrhosis, and atherosclerosis-consist of a highly disproportionate level of

66
controllable risk factors (e.g., weight, level of exercise, smoking behavior, and nutrition).
These illnesses have been referred to as “chronic diseases of lifestyle“—affected by
behaviors under control of the individual (Ardell, 1985; Sloan et al., 1987). The solution
for increased health is said to be increasing individual responsibility, bringing about
environmental change, and understanding the social and economic factors that,

together, encourage and maintain the behaviors at risk (Rosen 8- Solomon, 1985).

The Focus of Health Promotion

Health promotion focuses on those risks that can be modiﬁed by individual risk
factor behaviors and associated environmental conditions. It is a directed shift toward
a greater state of health, by improving or eliminating controllable factors, and trying to
offset the uncontrollable ones (Sloan et al., 1987; Terborg, 1986; Walker, Sechrist, &
Ponder, 1987).

As might be suspected, there have been two major approaches to health
promotion: 1) focus on the risks external to the individual, and 2) focus on the
individual level as target for change (Sloan et al., 1987). Since the late 1800s, public
health measures have primarily focused on environmental conditions that are not under
the control of any one individual. More recently, regulatory agencies at all levels of
government have provided minimum standards for environmental health and safety
(Feldman, 1985; Stellman & Snow, 1986). The most common of these include food and
drug standards, standards pertaining to health and safety in the workplace, and
standards for highways and public transportation. It is noted that these measures,

being tied to external conditions, do not require any signiﬁcant behavior change on the

67
individual’s part. Also, the standards are fairly objective, measurable in most situations,
and are widely accepted.

On the other hand, Sloan et al. (1987) note that changes introduced at the
individual level are directed toward a fairly well deﬁned set of controllable risk factors
(e.g., obesity, smoking, hypertension, stress management, physical ﬁtness, diet and
nutrition, and cholesterol levels). It is at this level that health promotion is trying to
break “the chain of negative habits,“ instill change, and support new behaviors. What
becomes problematic is that, while these factors have related behavioral measures,
there is less common acceptance about how to introduce them to individuals operating
in complex and changing environments.

Sloan et al. (1987) outline four different levels of strategies used to promote
health. The ﬁrst and most basic is simple awarertess—trying to create awareness of
the linkage between behaviors and increased risk for disease. Some examples of
these are warning labels on cigarette packages, public service announcements, and
safety labeling on food and drug items. The second strategy level extends beyond
the awareness messages and includes simple, slnlclured opportmilies to support and
reinforce those changes. Examples of this are the “Great American Smokeout,’
sponsored by the American Cancer Society each November, and the immunization
clinics provided by county health departments. Level three has greater emphasis on
motivati'lg aid supporting behavior change by more highly structured interventions.
It is thought, at this level, that the threat of illness and the subsequent opportunities
are not enough motivation to induce change. Accordingly, there is greater use of

rewards, incentives, and support mechanisms. Examples include reduced insurance

66

rates for health-related behaviors, such as wearing seat belts or not smoking, and
community weight loss programs that become continuing support groups.

The last strategy level involves reinforcing behavioral changes that become
mmdated through policy and laws (Sloan et al., 1987). These are usually directed at
only those behaviors where there is clear linkages of the behaviors and increased
health risks. Recent examples include mandatory helmet wear for motorcyclists, seat
belt use in passenger vehicles, and restrictions on smoking in public areas and

government buildings.

Recent Growth of Worksite Health Promotion

As spelled out by Sloan et al. (1987), worksite health promotion is the integration
of the concepts of general health promotion applied to the workplace setting. Often,
it can extend beyond the employees and include the organizational and managerial
parameters of work, as well as their families (Parkinson, 1982; Sloan et al., 1987; Weiss,
1985). The implications of this-the ways that organizations manage and motivate their
employees (a traditional prerogative of individual supervisors)-is as important to
consider as the individual employee's commitment to healthy behaviors.

There are a variety of terms that are in vogue, all fairly synonymous, and used
interchangeably in describing health promotion in the workplace: “worksite health
promotion,“ 'wellness in the workplace," ”health enhancement programs,‘ “employee
wellness programs," “employee health management programs,“ and “occupational health
programs“ (Everly & Feldman, 1985; Klarreich, 1987;1'erborg, 1986; Wolfe et al., 1987).
Their commonality ties the individuals (i.e., their health behaviors) to the workplace

environment—both as potential targets for change. Everly (1985) sums this best with

69
his deﬁnition of occupational health promotion: “striving to improve personal health from
the individual’s perspective, while striving to improve the human resource from the
organization's perspective“ (p. 12).

In most instances, the major attention is given toward individual behavior
changes that reduce risk factors for disease. The four basic strategies of general
health promotion have similar applications in the worksite (Sloan et al., 1987). Worksite
organizations have the advantage of being able to leverage their forces in a line with
those strategies: 1) Promote awareness and provide irformation. Worksites utilize a
variety of means to disseminate information, including workshops and lunch-time
seminars on a variety of health-related topics, newsletters, booklets, and envelope
stuffers in order to reach most of their employees (Sloan et al., 1987). 2) Provide
information mid opportmity. The worksites can provide opportunity by tapping into an
externally developed, ongoing activity (such as the Great American Smokeout) or, for
example, they can bring nurse clinicians into the worksite for blood pressure and
cholesterol screenings (Sloan et al., 1987). 3) Stpport behavior change. Increased
attention may be given to motivating employees and stabilizing the changes made
(Parkinson, 1982). This includes, among others, comprehensive programs (a variety of
health program topics), ﬁnancial incentives (a system of cash and nontangible rewards
to recognize positive changes), and ﬂex-time (ﬂexible work schedules) (Sloan et al.,
1987). 4) Adm'nistraliwly support the change. A clear advantage of the worksite is
brought forth when addressing this last strategy level-reducing health risks through
policy and regulation changes. It is well within their domain for worksites (i.e., their
managers) to prescribe and enforce limits to certain behaviors that reduce health risks.

Some examples found to be used include mandatory seat-belt use in company vehicles,

7O
hiring only non-smokers, and improving cafeteria and vending machine choices. The
next major step beyond administrative support—one not experienced much-includes
changes in values, work environment, and managerial behaviors (Sloan, 1987). In many
authors views (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1979, 1987; O'Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984;
Orlandi, 1986; Sloan et al., 1987; Terborg, 1986), it is this last unheralded step that is

crucial to the true long-term payoffs of health promotion. it will be referred to, by this

author, organizationd learning for health.

genius of Worksite Health Promotion

As Terborg (1986) and Sloan at al. (1987) elaborate, worksite health promotion
programs are based on three basic assumptions: 1) levels of health ﬁtness are affected
by people’s attitudes, beliefs, and habits toward diet, exercise and smoking; 2) health
promotion in the worksite settings are more effective in improving lifestyles and health
than those undertaken in clinical or community settings; and 3) those who participate
in organization ﬁtness/wellness programs and are physically and psychologically healthy
will use less medical care resources and will perform better at their jobs.

As indicated, the relationship of lifestyles and behaviors to health, ﬁtness, and
wellness is well recognized (Glasgow & Terborg, 1988; lverson, 1986; Matarazzo, 1984;
O'Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984; Terborg, 1986). Evidence is also being reported that
worksite programs are at least as effective, if not more effective, than those held in
clinical or community settings (Fielding, 1984). Terborg (1986) indicates that ‘the jury
is still out on this one“; more evidence is needed before it can be unequivocally stated
that worksites are effective delivery locations. More recently, a review of research

suggests that, for some health risks (e.g., hypertension), worksites are more effective,

71
while they are quite comparable in other areas, such as for smoking control (Klegas at
al., 1988; Mullen, 1988; Shipley, Orleans, Wilbur, Piserchia, & McFadden, 1988).

It is with the third assumption-program participants that lead healthy lifestyles
will utilize health care services less and will be more productive-that the research is
weakest, often anecdotal (T erborg, 1986). Yet, a most touted aspect of worksite health
promotion is that the worksite organization will accrue the beneﬁts of having a healthier
workforce through greater productivity, better morale, higher satisfaction, and better
commitment to the organization (Falkenberg, 1987). As Terborg and others (Everly &
Feldman, 1985; Fielding, 1984; Greenawald, 1987; Sloan & Gruman, 1988) report,
however, there is little empirical evidence to substantiate the beneﬁts because: 1) many
organizations do not take the time for record keeping and systematic evaluation; 2) a
"pro-innovation“ bias is held by implementers; 3) a commitment to health promotion is
often simply measured by participation rates; and 4) there is the need for a number of
years to pass before long-term outcomes can be observed (e.g., relationship of health
care costs to lifestyle and health changes).

Other authors (Higgins, 1988; Sloan & Gruman, 1988; Warner, 1987) report that
health (i.e., a concern for human resources) is the principal beneﬁt of health promotion
programming. They encourage a focus on measuring cost-effectiveness of programs
over a short-term reliance on reducing health care costs. Maybe this is the best that
can be said at this point in time. Still, all in all, a survey of Fortune 500 companies
found that two-thirds of the respondents provide worksite health promotion programs

and most of those are planning on future expansion (Hollander & Lengermann, 1988).

72

Models for Introducing Worksite Health Promotion

While many authors propose general methods to introduce health promotion
into worksites (Parkinson, 1982; Sloan at al., 1987), two authorsuEdington (1987) and
Orlandi (1986, 1987)-primarily conceptualize it in terms of being an innovation.
According to Cummings and Morhman (1987), most authors tend to follow a general
pattern of innovation-adoption: stimulate interest for change, select appropriate
interventions, and instill the change within the adopting organization. This viewpoint,
according to the authors, ..tends to treat innovations as clearly-deﬁned entities that
simply can be adopted by organizations" (Cummings 8r Morhman, 1987, p. 277) Three
weaknesses-not understanding health promotion as a unique innovation, following the
general innovation-adoption assumption, and not fully understanding the organization
as a key actor in that process—may impede the adoption of health promotion
innovations.

This innovation-adoption relationship is thought to be affected by three primary
factors: 1) the characteristics of the organization; 2) the characteristics of the innovation;
and 3) the intervention strategy used to integrate the innovation with the organization
(Cummings & Morhman, 1987; Orlandi, 1986; Rogers, 1983; Sloan at al., 1987).

Most of the research has focused on the ﬁrst two of these main
factors-characteristics of the organization and characteristics of the innovation
(Cummings and Morhman, 1987) both of which were discussed in chapter two. The
intervention strategy is interjected as a third factor because it represents the linkage
mechanism (process) that molds the other two (Cummings & Morhman, 1987;

Frederiksen, Solomon, & Brehony, 1984). This third factor will be reviewed next.

73
A variety of models have been used for introducing health promotion into
worksites. Most fall into four categories-each with very different perspectives. They
will be reviewed as: 1) general strategies for health promotion; 2) organization

development; 3) social marketing; and 4) diffusion of innovation.

General Strategies for Health Promotion

O’Donnell (1987) and Parkinson (1982) outline ﬁve elements to a health
promotion program design: 1) assessment of needs; 2) setting priorities and objectives;
3) organizational location; 4) implementation strategies; and 5) identiﬁcation and
allocation of resources. Evaluation is included as an equivalent design consideration
to measure long-term and short-term effects. Needs assessment is often ﬁrst done with
a questionnaire survey, known as a health risk appraisal (Parkinson, 1982; Schoenbach,
1987; Wagner, Beery, Schoenbach, & Graham, 1982; Walker et al., 1987). These are
simple predictors of risk based upon the individual's sociodemographic characteristics
and lifestyle habits.

The organization and program providers set their priorities based upon current
needs (prevalent risks in the employee population) and their own objectives (from
increasing awareness to changing behaviors). Priorities can include: 1) the perceived
need for the programs by employees (what they want); 2) the prevalence of risk among
certain employee populations (e.g., back-care programs for blue collar workers); 3)
current health habits (such as smoking cessation for identiﬁed smokers); 4)
sociodemogaphic characteristics (e.g., preventive breast cancer and testicular cancer

programs for female and male workers, respectively); and 5) physiolodcd hdicmrs of

74
risk (e.g., hypertension programs for employees with high blood pressure) (Cataldo &
Coates. 1986; Parkinson, 1982).

Organizational location is concerned with the internal unit that will house and
administer the programs. In industry and universities, these often are included in the
medical, beneﬁts, or personnel departments. The method of inplementation, according
to Parkinson (1982) and O’Donnell (1987), must consider the previous decision of
location within the organization, the type of educational approach, and further, it must
consider the availability of resources.

Allocation of resources is the last major design element speciﬁed by Parkinson
(1982). Questions are raised as to the availability of staff-medical professionals, health
educators, behavioral psychologists, and exercise physiologists—from inside the
organization. It becomes a major cost consideration to either contract with outside
consultants or redeﬁne job orientations of internal staff. Another consideration is the
availability of meeting space and exercise facilities-whether these are provided within
the organization or at another location.

What may be apparent is that the discussion, so far, has been biased from the
view of the large industrial corporation. Many of these may, and often do, have an in-
house medical staff, may have built a ﬁtness facility, and can arbitrarily decide to
introduce health promotion without other elements of the organization being involved
(T erborg, 1986). This perspective represents the core experience with worksite health
promotion up to this time. Examples include: Johnson and Johnson, Kimberly Clark,
Control Data, AT&T, Tenneco, IBM, Franklin International, Metropolitan Life, and Pepsico
(Conrad, 1988; Parkinson, 1982; Tampson, 1988). In order to institute health promotion

programming, smaller organizations must rely on outside services, such as the American

75
Red Cross and the American Cancer Society (T erborg, 1986). For any size
organization, the question is often left vague regarding to whom and how health
promotion is to be actually introduced, implemented, and integrated into a worksite.
There is a multitude of descriptions of how to design and evaluate programs for
effectiveness (Cataldo & Coates. 1986; Everly & Feldman, 1985; Hendrix, Leap & Steel,
1986; O'Donnell 8. Ainsworth, 1984; Parkinson, 1982; Windsor at al., 1984). The missing

elementistheliriragemntheideaandtheuser.

Maﬁongevelopment and Health Promotion

Organization development has its roots in three different backgrounds. The
ﬁrst of these is from “sensitivity training“ (T -groups) in the late 1940s and 1950s.
Originally developed by Kurt Lewin for a laboratory setting, it became widely used as
a group problem-solving and individual behavior feedback mechanism (Huse &
Cummings, 1985; Bolman & Deal, 1984). The second movement also included Lewin
in 1946, and promulgated the use of “survey research feedback“ (Huse & Cummings,
1985; Bolman & Deal, 1984). The third development started in Europe in 1950 as the
“quality of work life“ movement-promoting the use of self-regulating work groups to
design and monitor their own task performance (French & Bell, 1984; Huse &
Cummings, 1985).

Organization development interventions are classiﬁed by the nature of the change
targets: 1) humm process iitervenlions include communication, problem solving,
leadership and social dynamics of the organization; 2) technostructurd imervantions
include work flow, design and methodology, and formal roles; 3) human resource

mmagement hterventions are related to personnel functions of reward systems and

76
career planning; and 4) strategy 'rrtervenlions are used to gain resource advantages in
a competitive environment (Huse & Cummings, 1985). It is not proven which
organization development intervention works best under what conditions (Bolman &
Deal, 1984; Huse & Cummings, 1985; Organ & Hamner, 1982). Bolman and Deal
(1984) even say that OD may not be the best solution to human resource problems,
but it is about the only solution.

Willi its roots in T-groups and group feedback sessions, OD has been most
closely identified with interpersonal processes and human relations (French & Bell,
1984). Change agents, from a variety of social science disciplines, are criticized for
using it as a fallback to a single solution for all organizations. Bolman and Deal (1984)
say that the human resources approach may be too optimistic in assessing human
nature. It may not be possible to gain the congruence between the individual and the
system. Hersey and Blanchard (1982), as well as Bolman and Deal, indicate that any
organization development effort has about a 50% chance of success. This is
particularly due to the strong reliance on the primary interpersonal collaborative
approach, particularly when the problem may be of a technological or political nature.

According to situational leadership theory, most organizations operate at a level
of low maturity—unable to direct change and unwilling to try it. The problem of the
organization development change agent is then structural and directive-to shift the
organization to a more mature state (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). In fact, some authors
state that the organization must be at a 'state-of-readiness' before OD should even be
implemented (Huse & Cummings, 1985; Pfeiffer & Jones, 1978). Organization

development is more amenable to those organizations that perceive a need to change

77
or, at least, have had positive experience with change processes (Bullock & Svyantek,
1987; Pfeiffer & Jones, 1978).

Organization development is most closely associated with the action research
methodological model. Action research, according to Huse and Cummings (1985) and
Hellriegel, Slocum, and Woodman (1986), involves collaboration between the change
agents and organization. It relies on organizational diagnostic skills, data gathering,
feedback to members, and action steps. Thus, it is important for members to become
participants in the change process, often through internal leadership task forces that
will continue the change processes after the external change agent has left the
organization (French & Bell, 1984; Tomatzky, Fergus, Avellar, Fairweather, 8r Fleischer,
1980). Once involvement is maintained the members often create their own internal
pressures for change. Burke's (1982) seven-phase model of OD practice, an extension
of action research, is a commonly used intervention model: 1) entry as the initial
contact between the consultant and client-to explore a working relationship and assess
client readiness for change; 2) contracting as the statement of agreement of what each
party intends to do—ground rules for operation; 3) dagrtosis as gathering and analyzing
information—through initial observations, intuition, and systematic methods and
interviews; 4) feedback as holding meetings with the client system, managers, and
employee groups-for discussion and interpretations; 5) plaming change to generate
alternative steps-to respond to problems and determine action steps to take; 6)
invention as the action steps to take-individual, group, and organizational levels; and
7) avduation as the objective and systematic review of actions taken and analysis of

future steps-renewal or withdrawal of relationship.

78

As a summary, the primary thrust of CD is guided by a change agent, either
an external consultant or an internal member, trained in OD processes. It builds
capacity for change, by offering alternatives for internal decision makers, not by issuing
directives (T omatzky et al. (1980). French a Bell (1984) and Hellriegel at al. (1986)
state that it is not meant to be a single technique. Rather, it is a series of techniques:
1) it is self-directed change focused on problems identiﬁed by members; 2) it is a
system-wide effort; 3) it solves immediate problems and prepares members to solve the
future ones; 4) it is based on action research, with its emphasis on collaborative efforts;

and 5) it often leads to new patterns of organizational structure and communication.

Organization Development Mlications to Health Promotion

Up to this time, the reported use of CD as an intervention strategy does not
have a strong research base. Sloan et al. (1987) suggest it as a strategy to create
“healthy organizations“. Others (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Matteson & Ivancevich,
1987; Kryder, 1988) are strong proponents of the necessity to integrate worksite health
promotion with human resource management and OD as a means to improve the health
of workers and the work environment. Robert Allen, either singly or in combination with
others, had proliﬁc experience and writings on assessing community and organization
norms and factors that support health behavior change (Allen, 1980; Allen & Allen, 1986,
1987; Allen 8: Kraft, 1982; Allen 8 Linda, 1981). Allen’s primary focus is on those
organizational norms that support negative health behaviors and develop a positive
“organizational health culture“—supportive of individual health behaviors. While providing

a variety of assessment instruments for measuring health norms in organization settings,

79

there is little evidence in the literature on the reliability and validity of these normative-
based systems instruments and techniques.

Currently, worksite managers have been receptive to applying health promotion
concepts to stress, most of all-trying to understand the linkage of organizationally
imposed stressors and health outcomes (Adams, 1978; Adams, Fischer-Ouigley, &
Schmithorst, 1985; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). The carry-over of this new learning,
hopefully, will manifest itself into other aspects of health promotion in the worksite.

Shain et al. (1986) and Wallerstein and Bernstein (1988) keep us aware, though,
of the importance of understanding the power that the OD approach can have on
empowering employees to expect and work for other changes. This becomes the
ultimate strength—and threat—of integrating OD and health promotion. Even by itself
health promotion activity is thought to empower people to be more in control of their

health habits (T arborg, 1986).

Social Marketm Health Promotion

Social marketing is a recent phenomenon in the ﬁeld of marketing. The name
can be traced back to two articles, both co-authored by Philip Kotler, a leading writer
on management principles. The ﬁrst, with Levy (19%) and entitled: 'Broadening the
Concept of Marketing,“ built a case for applying traditional (business) marketing
principles to nonbusiness issues. In extracting Weibe's (1972) question-ﬁrst asked in
1952-whether 'brotherhood can be sold like soap“, Kotler and Levy were pushing
marketing professionals to apply their skills to a broader range of social activity. It was
their tenet that marketing can be applied to all organizations, because they have

customers and have some type of products.

80

The other breakthrough article was entitled “Social marketing: An approach to
planned social change“ by Kotler and Zaltman (1971). It expanded the horizon for
thinking of social marketing as a distinct area in general marketing theory (Bloom &
Novelli, 1981; Fox 81 Kotler, 1980; Manoff, 1985). It is here that the commonly used
deﬁnition of social marketing was ﬁrst introduced by Kotler and Zaltman (1971): “Social
marketing is the design, implementation, and control of programs calculated to influence
the acceptability of social ideas and involving consideration of product planning, pricing,
communication, distribution and marketing research“ (p. 5).

Some early detractors of social marketing did not want to break away from the
traditional view of marketing represented by “exchange of money for goods and
services“ (Luck, 1969 and 1974). But Fox and Kotler (1980) reemphasize that social
marketing is marketing applied to socially beneﬁcial ideas and causes, instead of
products and services. They further indicate that it is often synonymous with “social
cause marketing“, "public issue marketing”, and “social idea marketing“.

Fox and Kotler (1980), in their review of the accomplishments of the ﬁrst 10
years of social marketing, state that the results are too few to create a good database,
and that many previous efforts cannot be distinguished from social advertising and
social communication. Two successful efforts they discuss were involved with family
planning and motivating healthier life styles. The family planning programs described
were all in other cultures and included a combination of channels, such as literature,
mass media with newspapers, television, radio and ﬁlms (Fox & Kotler, 1980; Rice &
Paisley, 1981).

For the purposes of this study, marketing will not be limited to the deﬁnition of

social marketing, but it will more closely follow a services marketing orientation. This

81

will include all the nontangible products identiﬁed by Fine (1981) and those of Kotler
and Levy (1969).

In summary, marketing utilizes a multi-step research process and a set of
activities directed at satisfying customer needs and wants. It is more than selling or

promotion; it involves a complete orientation to the customer.

Social MarketingApplications to Health Promotion

Health care facilities (e.g., hospitals, insurance companies, and health
maintenance organizations) have used marketing research to increase their market-
share of the health services purchased by the public (Scott & Stravic, 1986). But there
are few models of successful marketing for health promotion in the United States
(Manoff, 1985). At the same time, marketing of services is said to be a necessary
component to a successful health promotion program (Chenowith, 1986; Sloan et al.,
1987).

Shain et al. (1986) state that the Johnson and Johnson “Live for Life“ Program
resides in the context of social marketing theory. It draws its strength in using
marketing research to: 1) introduce the health promotion idea to individual managers;
and 2) assess employee needs as the basis for programming (Wilbur, 1983; Wilbur,
Hartwell, & Piserchia, 1986). In a recent study of one aspect of that same program
(smoking), Shipley et al. (1988) report a major improvement in stop smoking behavior
due to the Live for Life Program. It Is not known what importance marketing played in
this intervention.

Two other reports of marketing interventions to implement health promotion in

this country are with the “Stanford Heart Disease Prevention" Program (Manoff, 1985;

82
Solomon, 1984), and the I'National High Blood Pressure Education" Program (Ward,

1984). In most cases, the most noted and publishable results lie not so much in
measurable outcomes as in determining that the health behavior changes can be put
into marketing terms (For a review of the subject, see: (Dunn, 1987; Rosenstock, 1982;
Solomon, 1984; Ward, 1984). See Fredericksen at al. (1984), Manoff (1985), and

Quelch (1980)).

Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations

As stated earlier, one major purpose in this chapter is to discuss health
promotion as an organizational innovation.

Innovation in organizations usually requires types of innovation-decisions to be
made that are beyond the realm of the individual. Collective and authority innovation-
decisions are the types that entail the organization as the social system in which the
innovation occurs. As Rogers (1983) indicates, the study of organizational innovation
shows that the decision to adopt an innovation does not imply that it is implemented.
The innovation process in organizations is much more complicated, due to a greater
number of decision-makers.

Aside from these problems, a model of the organizational innovation process
has been proposed by Rogers (1983) and Zaltman et al. (1973) as consisting of two
principal steps: 1) iitiation, and 2) implemenulion. Within initiation, agenda-sett’ng is
included as the ﬁrst stage, even though it is not unique to innovation. It is a constant
process that organizations undertake to scan their environment for new technologies
and processes to meet some need-a performance gap-and to resolve it The

innovation process can be either started by the presence of a discrepancy (problem-

83
initiated) or by induced awareness (innovation-initiated). Matching, as the second stage,
combines the innovation with the problem for a degree of ﬁt. Together, agenda-setting
and matching comprise initiation—all the steps leading up to a decision to adopt
(Rogers, 1983).

Implementation, according to Rogers (1983), incorporates “all of the events,
actions, and decisions involved in pufﬁng an innovation into use“ (p. 364), and it
consists of three stages: redaﬁning-restructuing, clarifying, and routiniz'ng. In the
ﬁrst instance, redeﬁning-restructuring (re—invention) recognizes the need to ﬁt the
innovation into the organization. Sometimes, some aspect of the organization is
modiﬁed to utilize or manage the innovation (e.g., a new data processing unit becomes
responsible for computer utilization and information technologies). Clarifying, as the
next stage, represents the foaming that individuals undergo and the institutional
anangements made to incorporate the innovation. And, ﬁnally, routinizing occurs when
the organization incorporates the change into its regular activities, and it loses its
separate identity—into the organizational subconscious (Allen 8. Kraft, 1982).

It has been proposed in these sections that organizations, as collective and
authority innovation-decision makers, go through an innovation process (initiation and
implementation) that is affected by characteristics of the organization. In many
situations, this process must be instituted before individuals have the opportunity to
adopt and implement the innovations. This is most applicable to health promotion

innovations in the workplace, the next topic of discussion.

84
D_iff_usion of lnnovatiron Aleications to Health Promotion

Health promotion has been described as a recent invention that underscores
a preventive approach to personal health and well-being (O'Donnell & Ainsworth, 1984).
It arose from the convergence of four changes in themselves: 1) medical science
identifying health risk behaviors that are related to lifestyle diseases; 2) a desire to
reduce health care costs by employer organizations; 3) a concern for employee health
and the organizational imposed health risks; and 4) socio-cultural readiness for
individuals to become involved with managing their health status and lifestyles. Health
promotion denotes a sense of active participation in the process and greater control
over one‘s behaviors and lifestyle-s salutogenic approach (Antonovsky, 1984).

The idea of preventive health is not a new phenomenon, but it has not had
many proponents from the health-care establishment. Principally, it has represented
a threat to a profession built on healing isolated diseases (Orlandi, 1987). It is often
presented as a wellness continuum-away from sickness or one evil, neutral stages of
non-sickness in the middle, and transforming into positive states of well-being on the
other end. As will be discussed, health promotion is relatively new to the primary
stakeholders identiﬁed in Chapter One: the employing organization, the employees, and
the provider (Orlandi, 1986).

Health promotion has, in many cases, been. offered as a set of free-standing
behavioral change packages that are ready made for all audiences. Yet, positive
outcomes have been associated with those that adapt themselves to the needs of the
individual and the organization. One example, suess management, has often been
showcased as a short (one hour to one weekend) management training workshop

(Adams et al., 1985). The recognition now is that better management of the

85

organization as a stressor (how it manages and treats people) needs to be factored into
the stress management programs as much as simply providing coping skills for
accepting greater levels of stress. Also, health promotion programs, that have
traditionally been designed for a white-collar, middle class audience, must be re-
directed toward audiences with differing lifestyles, implementation skills, and needs
(e.g., blue-collar workers, minorities, and shift workers). (lGng, Carl, Birkel, & Haskell,
1988; Tampson, 1988).

Health promotion, in all its manifestations, represents an interrelated but
recognizable set of components. While often thought of as buying into a singular
concept or idea, the behaviors it require of both individuals and organizations are
complex. It can be assumed that both levels have varying: 1) interests in the
phenomenon; 2) knowledge of the innovation; 3) skill levels and abilities to implement
it; and 4) desires to commit themselves (i.e., resources of time and money) to change.

And, at the individual level, health promotion requires: 1) behavior changes
speciﬁc to different risk factors; 2) a supportive environment both at work and at home;
3) ability to maintain the change once initiated; and 4) self motivation in lieu of a
supportive environment.

In contrast, the organizational level calls upon a range of skills and resources
to ﬁrst initiate and implement the innovation. As Orlandi (1986) ﬁrst stated, health
promotion is not a normal agenda item for organizations. And it is "agenda item“ that
is the ﬁrst stage for organizational innovation (Rogers, 1983; Zaltman et al., 1973). The
organizational readiness to accept and commit to the new idea is affected by its
reasons for initiating health promotion, either cost-containment or human resource

enhancement.

86

From this ﬂows a set of steps, or decision-clusters, that the organization must

face in order to implement it:

1.

At what level is the health promotion directed (e.g., executives, staff, all
workers)?

ls health promotion a fringe beneﬁt or an important aspect for improving
the general health of employees?

Does the commitment require providing time-off from work or the
employee's own time?

Are employees to be involved in the decision-making for program start-
up?

Is the organization willing to provide incentives (extrinsic and intrinsic)
to recognize personal changes and for improving their attendance and

productivity?

Possibly the greatest change the organization must make is whether it will change

itself to be more supportive and less deleterious to employee health status.

In all cases, the institutionalization of a preventive-innovation (a long-term

innovation without knowledge of certainty of consequences if not done) is a major step

at both levels (Quelch, 1980; Rogers, 1983).

Change Model as Innovation

Probably a last item to consider is that the models used to introduce the

changes, such as health promotion, may be innovations in themselves. The general

introduction of health promotion has relied upon experience and anecdotal evidence.

Manoff (1985), Kotler and Levy (1969), Kotler and Zaltman (1971), and Quelch (1980)

87

all recognize that marketing-particularly social marketing—when applied to non-tangibles
and value-laden issues, represents an innovation to users of the technique and to non-
business organizations.

It is expected that organizational users of CD techniques will have some
familiarity with change processes (French & Bell, 1984; Pfeiffer & Jones, 1978), but
that is not true in all cases. Tornatzky et al. (1980) use the opportunity to create a
more OD amenable activity by initiating participative and leader directed change steps.
Deﬁning health promotion as an innovation represents a new idea, in itself—one worth

studying and understanding from a diffusion of innovation perspective.

CHAPTER FOUR
FIELD RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS

Overview

This chapter provides structure and reasoning for the methodology used in this
study. First, there is a review of the research questions that need answering in this
study. The second section provides an overview of qualitative research methods.
Following that, in the third section, is a description of the research methodology,
including the data collection steps, interview protocols, and analytical procedures. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of methodological issues that may be of concern

and the deﬁnition of terms used in the study..

Research Questions

The research was guided by major inquiries that have practical signiﬁcance for
health promotion advocates. It may provide a new “handle“ for grappling with the
organizational situation. Viewing it as a cultural issue puts some deﬁnition and
boundary around It, even though "culture“ can be an elusive concept.

At the beginning of this study, it was stated that exploratory research was
needed to: 1) understand the cultural system(s) present in complex organizations, such

as academic work environments; and 2) identify cultural factors in organizations that

89

influence the adoption of complex innovations, health promotion in particular. These

foci become the basis for the research questions that guide this study.

The Research Questions
There were three general, interrelated research questions that guided the inquiry

into the culture of this academic organization. Each is described below.

1.) Can academic work environments be understood as cultural systems?

To assume that each organizational unit has a unique culture means there are
features that vary among them. How to identify those features becomes a central
concern at this stage. In many respects, to be an outsider, to gain entry, and to focus
on those aspects of an organization that provide clues to its culture is to be an
"intruder”. The very act of being there will help assess the organization's response to
intrusion from the outside. This will involve steps in learning how the academic unit

manifests its culture internally to its members and externally to its publics (stakeholders).

2.) Can sub-cultures in work environments be identiﬁed and understood?

In contrast to traditional bureaucratic structures, academic units have a unique
style with fairly distinct lines between the primary groups: faculty, staff and students.
As a result, sub-cultures may exist along these lines, or they may develop around a
host of other indices that can be drawn (e.g., professional-scientiﬁc distinctions, natural

work groups, academic disciplines, administrative functions, or gender).

90
Sub—cultures that serve divisive or negative purposes can be found as stimulating
or problematic. On one hand, multiple cultures can improve “esprit de corps“ among
groups and promote identity. Cultures can serve stabilizing and self-maintaining
functions or, on the other hand, they can be dysfunctional and “out of touch“. This will
involve looking at the processes by which the organization attempts to remove
ambiguity when changes are introduced. Tighter management control is often one of

0
those mechanisms.

3.) Does the nature of the worksite culture or its sub-cultures

inﬂuence the adoption of innovations?

Health promotion activity that is perceived as not relevant to the primary purpose
of the organization can experience varying levels of receptivity. It is critical to
understand these differences when the innovations are distressed, programmed, or
nonprogrammed. Programmed innovations are those that are expected or can be
planned in advance. One example might be a university’s medical staff performing the
functions otherwise performed by outside health promotion consultants. Non-
programmed innovations are those non-routine changes introduced under stress
conditions in order to survive, or with slack resources when options are greater
(Zaltman et al., 1973). Each organization is going to respond differently to unknown
intrusions, such as health promotion, particularly when the external environment is
sending mixed signals as to its value. Also, employees in an organizational unit that
normally encourages employee participation in decision making may have greater

resistance to health promotion changes that are perceived as being forced upon them.

91

Also, there are variations between each organization and each health promotion
program that need to be understood, particularly in those situations where the
complexity may be more in perception than reality. Compatibility reﬂects a level of
"ﬁt‘—at least in the early stages of adoption-between the innovation and the
organizational culture that must be assessed. It is the issue of compatibility that

provides the core of the concern for goodness-of-ﬁt.
Precedents to Qualitative Research

This section includes a review of the background of qualitative research. The

rationales for the case study and using an ethnographic approach are discussed.

The Case Study Approach

Under the aegis of a case study of a single worksite organization, the primary
data collection techniques utilized in this study are ethnographic in character. As noted
by Dickinson (1988), case studies are especially useful for exploratory research
“because they allow in-depth penetration of the realities of the particular case, and
thereby reveal important insights pertinent to subsequent theory—building research" (p.
229). While less concerned with the generalizability of its ﬁndings, the case study
approach can reveal important hypotheses and issues that might otherwise remain
dormant (Babble, 1983; Glaser 8r Strauss, 1967; Patton, 1978). The case study can be
most relevant for understanding organizational cultures that serve multiple functions and

operate on oft-hidden assumptions.

k {HESL};

92
Yin (1984) suggests that the case study has distinct advantages when: “A 'how’

or 'why’ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the
investigator has little or no control” (p. 20). The “what“ questions are: 1) concerned with
the incidence and prevalence of a phenomenon, 2) more favorable to survey and
archival strategies, and 3) suitable for descriptive and exploratory purposes.

This study looks at one university academic department—as a primary
worksite-that was among a number of recipients of a comprehensive worksite health
promotion program. The academic unit for this study was selected on the following
criteria: 1) accessbiﬁty (interaction with its members indicated it would be more open
to study than others involved with the health promotion project; 2) unit complexity (the
academic department was formed through a series of mergers and was expected to
provide internal comparisons; and 3) researcher experience (the researcher's
background similarity was expected to provide greater understanding of the member's

background.

The Ethnggrgphic Approach
Ethnography Is a fundamental manifestation of anthropology as a way to study

and understand culture: “the science-and art—of cultural description“ (Frake, 1983). In
fact, that is the principal aim of ethnographic research: “to discover and describe the
culture of a people or an organization" (Dobbert, 1982, p. 39). Ethnography is a
“culture-studying culture“ that incorporates research techniques, ethnographic theory,
and a body of descriptions (Agar, 1980). Dobbert describes culture as being found in
the patterns of the setting. Frake (1983) says it is found in the doings (and sayings)

of people. As an inductive mode for understanding cultural meanings, the search is for

93

structure from the member's perspective. It searches for “thick description“ (Geertz,
1973, Frake, 1983). This inquisitive mode is in contrast to a “structure imposing“
framework-a more objective approach. This latter type is often used for cross-cultural
comparison in which the research ﬁts the description of cultural “pattems' and “doings“
into “categories preconstructed by investigators who, in their scientiﬁc sophistication,
know better than the natives what the natives are doing“ (Frake, 1983, p. 61).

The ethnographic approach is rooted in the anthropological paradigms that
provide its strengths: 1) it is ﬁeld-based (researcher dwells among the people being
studies); 2) the entire person is used as the primary instrument of research (data are
ﬁltered through the researcher's ﬁve senses and personality, cognitive models, and
data collection instruments); 3) a natural history approach is used (careful observation,
guided by informed questions and followed by generalizations based upon grouping of
observed facts, and then testing through observation); 4) a cross-cultural frame of
reference is used (insights can be drawn from other experiences); and 5) the concept
of culture is central (Dobbert, 1982). This approach emphasizes that culture “resides
in the thinking of natives“ (Frake, 1983).

If there seems to be any problem with qualitative methods, it often manifests
as collecting too much information (Dobbert, 1982), or at least collecting more than
can be used (Patton, 1980). As Dobbert (1982) indicates, however, it is better to err
on the side of breadth man not know enough about the cultural context, both internally
and externally. The primary way to deal with the problem beforehand, then, is
“bounding the problem“-to narrow the focus and study only the relevant aspects of the
culture and context (Agar, 1980; Dobbert, 1982). Otherwise, one would be wrapped up

in a never-ending holistic description of an ever-changing phenomenon. The outcome

94
of a good altv'iogiaphic study is a written report of the attempt to integrate data

recording techniques, methods of analysis, and theory (Agar, 1980). The omcome of
a good ethnographic statement is an assertion about the nature of the culture being
studied (Frake, 1983). The two broad puposes of ethnography, according to Spradley
(1980), are to: 1) narrow one’s focus in order to examine cultural details, and, at the

same time, 2) maintain a sense of the whole in its broader contexts.

gganizationmjthnogm

Participant observation and naturalistic study in organizational settings are a
relatively recent application of ethnographic concepts. Some examples of these are
Bogdan (1972), Dobbert (1982), Feldman (1986), Miles (1987), Sanchez (1987), and
Schein (1985). It is to the credit of Jones, Moore, and Snyder, (1988) that the newly
developing ﬁeld of organizational ethnography receives its name. Being focused on
“organizational symbolism“ and “organizational culture,“ it “crosses disciplinary
boundaries of organization development and management studies, folklore speech,
speech communication studies, cultural anthropology, and qualitative sociology, among
other specialties“ (Jones et al, 1988, p. 18). To this researcher, it comprises the
traditional ethnographic approach applied to the study of a non-traditional object of
qualitative study-the organizational worksite culture. It is operationalizing Spradley's

(1979) idea for making “cultural inferences“ from the organizational member's

perspective.

95
The Research Methodology

The researcher used a case study with an organizational ethnographic approach
for this study. This section describes how it was applied to the academic unit. The
ethnographic approach can be looked at from two perspectives. One is to understand
the design process steps or stages an observer goes through when studying a cultural
system. The other is to delineate the data collection and analysis strategies used in
those steps.

There is no single set of stages that is widely accepted as the only way to
study a cultural unit. Schatzman and Strauss (1973) were one of the ﬁrst to fully
describe the set of steps commonly gone through in ﬁeld research, without trying to
become a “how to“ book. Since then, Agar (1980), Loﬂand and Loﬂand (1984), Pelto
and Pelto (1978), Schein (1985), and Spradley (1979, 1980) have written widely used
books, the latter serving as a type of reference manual. The following primary stages
of ethnography, similar to Agar (1980), Jorgensen (1989), and that of Schatzman and
Strauss (1973), were utilized in this study: entry negotiation, getting organized,
strategiesiordaiaooiiooilon, dataanalysis,ande)dtingtheorganization.

Stage One: Entry Negotiation

This initial stage is concerned with gaining entry to the cultural setting (i.e., the
Department). The ethnographic researcher-as a “professional stranger“ (Agar,
1980)-contracts for certain types of behaviors with those individuals who hold the keys

to entering the cultural setting. The process involves: 1) “casing“ the organization for

96
its suitability and feasibility for study; 2) entering a negotiated relationship through a
formal meeting with the Department Chair and any other designated administrators; 3)
presenting one’s self and the purpose of the study; and 4) deﬁning any sense of
reciprocity, such as reporting results to the organization (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973).

Reporting back to the department is not a formal requirement for this study.

Criterion for ggse Study Selection

A variety of reasons went into the decision to study health promotion as an
innovation brought into the university culture(s). Foremost of these were the
researcher’s familiarity with the overall health promotion effort at the university, and his
employment with the worksite health promotion sub-project. And, since the majority of
worksite health promotion studies have been conducted in the private business sector,
a demonstration effort that focuses on the viability of health promotion in a public
university work environment was deemed especially useful.

The pool of potential worksites for the worksite health promotion intervention
was systematically selected based on the following requirements: 1) minimum size of
the building (i.e., number of departmental employees); 2) similar ratios of faculty, staff,
and graduate students; 3) discrete (non-administrative) buildings with maximum of two
academic governing units in each; and 4) faculty members not representing medical,
social science, or educational disciplines that might, in turn, study the researchers.

The speciﬁc worksite department was chosen for study on the basis of its
selection to receive an OD—type intervention to introduce health promotion activity.
The selection was based on a focus group discussion with a four-member employee

committee from the Department that represented faculty, clerical staff, technical staff,

97
and graduate students. A number of criteria were used to assess “OD-readiness.“
The initial perception, by the researcher and colleagues, was that this site would be
receptive and could commit itself to health promotion activity.

After an initial introductory meeting with project staff, the Department Chairperson
and the Department’s Advisory Committee ostensibly agreed to the initial health
promotion interventions and to participate in the on-going evaluations. But, alas, an
“invisible agent“ (thought to be the organizational culture) stood in the way of
progressing very far. Depending upon the particular technique used in eliciting
information, this and the other departments in this phase of the project each varied, by
employee sub-groups, as to their interest, response, and participation in health
promotion activities, such as health fairs, questionnaire surveys, and health behavior
programs. For example, this Department exempliﬁed a higher percentage of faculty
participation and a much lower graduate student involvement in each of the activities
than did the other sites. Overall, how this translates into a strong or weak compatibility

to health promotion was looked at as part of this study.

Stage Two: Getting Organized

At this stage, the groundwork was laid for quickly understanding the total
Departmental environment before narrowing the focus further. For an early holistic
view, Dobbert (1982) suggests that most ﬁeldwork projects begin with the use of three
basic components—pattem seeking, census taking, and culture scheduling-to help set
the cultural context before any more speciﬁc techniques are used. This is “mapping“

the spatial, social, and temporal aspects of the culture (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973).

98

The ﬁrst of these, recording physical patterns in the setting, takes place
immediately from the point of entry and continues throughout the whole project. The
primary technique for this component is the use of observation (to be discussed). The
intent is to capture the ﬁrst impressions and also to make one’s presence known in the
organization. Recording of physical patterns applies to physical layouts and signiﬁcant
objects (Dobbert, 1982). These provide clues to social relations (separation of activity,
ownership, or authority) and social status (e.g., hierarchy in an organization).

The second basic component for eliciting cultural context is census faring.
Besides denoting people by age, sex, and occupation, this Includes ﬁnding out how
the people being studied view themselves and their environment. This and the next
component rely primarily on observation and documents review (to be discussed).
The third component, according to Dobbert (1982), is to record a schedule of the
organizational cilttire. One can look at the natural rhythms created by schedules and
regularities in the department, such as those found In organizational calendars,

individual appointment calendars, and department memos.

Stage Three: Data Collection Strategies

As outlined earlier, the primary data collection techniques used in this study fall
into the categories of: observation (watching); interviews (listening); and documents
(records). These elements parallel Spradley (1979) when he says that ethnography
makes cultural inferences from three sources: 1) from me way people act; 2) from what
people say; and 3) from the artifacts they use.

Observation

As a basis for data collection, Schatzman and Strauss (1973) call this the
strategy for “watching.“ The researcher is purposefully trying to maintain a sense of
cultural naivete, long after the initial culture shock wears off. It incorporates
understanding one's own experience as it interprets new settings, and also to recognize
and appreciate one’s own ignorance of the meanings of the natives.

As suggested by Schatzman and Strauss (1973), watching serves many
purposes in this study by creating: 1) context and perspectives to the organizational
environment; 2) theoretical leads to further observation; 3) conﬁrmatory behavioral
information to interview statements; and 4) a new source of revelation about the
organizational culture.

Particularly in this last aspect, a key point to remember is that
'Watching“-observation—is an obtrusion into the organizational culture. But,
encouragingly, it can reveal how the culture responds to outsiders and comes to accept
them as a “nonnal“ part of it, albeit temporarily (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). The
researcher, as an observer, is also being observed.

Besides the level of involvement in the cultural setting, observations also vary
in their duration and focus (Patton, 1980). Duration of observations for short periods
(usually one or two hours) will be repeatedly used in this study. And rather than
providing a holistic view of the Department, focus will be attuned to speciﬁc events
that might highlight cultural innovativeness and compatibility with health promotion.

The observational strategy used both unfocused and focused observations in
a variety of settings. It is important to note that the researcher's experience in the

setting and participation in formal and social events became the key to what was

100
recorded in the ﬁeld notes. As Ulrich (1988) notes, the ethnographic process ﬁrst
entails examination of the general cultural scene and then tunnels in the observations
to a smaller number of cultural domains. The researcher starts with unfocused
observations and then proceeds to more focused observations (Jorgensen, 1989).

Unfocused observations are those inquiries discussed in Stage Two: pattern
seeking, census taking, and culture scheduling. One looks for the main features of
the physical use of space (e.g., is it somehow unusual or typical; how is it organized;
and what kinds of things are in this space?); characteristics of the Department members
(e.g., what are their ages, genders, and backgrounds; how many are there; what is their
role in the Department?); and features of time and regularity (e.g., when are meetings
held; when are reports due; and what are the budgeting cycles?)

More focused observations come with greater familiarity with the setting and
when it is appropriate to narrow the attention to matters of speciﬁc interest (Jorgensen,
1989). It is also recognized that more focused observation should lead to greater
involvement and more informal contacts with people in the setting. This is expected to
create more opportunity and the necessity to carry on both informal conversations and
questions for interviews as a natural part of the interaction. These might include formal
and informal faculty meetings, clerical-technical meetings, and graduate student
meetings and social activities.

It was expected, prior to the implementation of the study, that the researcher
could detail what the speciﬁc events and settings would include. This is a
developmental process that unfolds as a part of the natural setting and deepening of

the relationship with Departmental members. At the same time, the issues of concern

101

were those that tell some story of the organizational culture and those that predicate

the relationship of health promotion to the worksite.

Interviews

These represent the largest segment of “listening.“ They have been classiﬁed
as either fonnal or informal (Jorgensen, 1989; Schatzman & Strauss, 1973; Schwartz
& Jacobs, 1979). The formal interview relies on a structured interview schedule that
consistently asks the same set of questions to each informant. The assumption here,
according to Schwartz and Jacobs, is that the researcher already knows the very
elements the interview is intended to uncover. The informal interview is more open-
ended and is responsive to natural turns of the interview conversation. In fact, say
Schatzman and Strauss, ﬁeld researchers regard the “interview“ as a lengthy
conversation. They suggest not using a “speciﬁc, ordered list of questions, or topics
because this amount of formality would destroy the conversational style“ (Schatzman
& Strauss, 1973, p. 73). It is for the interviewer to set the stage for conversation by
use of general statements that let the informant know the general themes that follow.
The basic assumption here is that “appropriate or relevant questions are seen to
emerge from the process of interaction that occurs between the interviewer and
interviewees“ (Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979, p. 40).

The elements outlined for this part of the study include: 1) whom to ask
(selecting informants); 2) whu to ak (deciding upon questions); and 3) how to ask
(the interview process).

Selecting lnfonnants. A preliminary element is that key (strategic) Infonnants

are sought who represent a “judgmental sample“-—members who are specialists in the

102

area to be understood (Agar, 1980). This includes two steps of determining the
potential informant population and the informant selection.

In its most broad sense, all faculty, clerical-technicians, and graduate students
were potential informants for the study. This group comprises the total universe for
which the health promotion programs were made available in the primary worksite
building. This also potentially includes ancillary research ofﬁces that were housed in
the same building but not administered by the primary Department. At the same time,
there are certain Department members that are excluded—primarily due to their being
physically located at multiple outlying research centers on campus. Because of their
relative isolation, infrequentness in the primary building, and non-participation in most
all health promotion activity, they were excluded from this phase of the study.

Recommendations of potential informants were asked of members of the health
task committee with which the author worked in the building. In addition to their
recommendations, a number of criteria were used to draw an initial pool of potential
informants.

1. Historical context: length of time in the department

2. Structural differentiation: role position of faculty, clerical-technical, and

graduate student.

3. Cultural roots: Alignment to three original department interest areas.

4. Contrast positions: formal positions, such as chairs or leaders of certain

standing committees; unique roles or activities.

5. Special interest: ones with known speciﬁc information.

103

A matrix was prepared for which names of individual's were inserted, both for
targeting as informants and for indicating when the intenriews were completed. (See
Appendix A.)

The first step was ﬁnd out the organizational context-the formation of the
department through its primary roots. Separate interviews were scheduled with the
current chairperson and the ex-chairman (retired for a few years) and three
faculty-those with a long-term perspective in the root departments. Therefore, ﬁve
informants were identiﬁed for the formative and contextual information.

In the second step, ﬁve informants were additionally identiﬁed in each sub-
group—faculty, clerical-technical, graduate student-based upon the size of the original
root department.

The research study looked for representativeness overall and was less
concerned with ﬁlling each box of the matrix. The researcher, even at this length, was
testing for informants that can provide special insight for follow-up discussion in step
three. (See Data Veriﬁcation section in Stage Four).

Deciding Upon Questions. In looking at what to ask, there were two criteria to
outline for this study: 1) the structure of the interview questions, and 2) development
of the interview schedule.

Schwartz and Jacobs (1979) describe the range of question structure that can
be utilized as those questions: I) decided upon in advance with ﬁxed choices for
answers (structured and formal); 2) decided upon in advance and which are “open
ended“ with respect to answers-leading to further probes (semi-structured and less
formal); and 3) not decided upon in advance but are asked spontaneously as they

appear relevant (less structured and informal). The main difference among these

104

questions is “to what extent Is what has already been asked in a given interview being
used to determine or deﬁne the next question to be asked?“ (Schwartz 8r Jacobs, 1979,
p. 45).

This study ofthe Department used amnberof'nformal'ntarviewsthatvaryii
their htansity and structure. The purpose of less structure is to enhance the ability for
depth in the conversation and also allow for the natural turns that the interview may
take. In the same instance, a number of topical or thematic questions were developed
in order to provide continuity and a base level of objectivity between interviews.

The interview schedule followed a development procedure to hew down from
the original contextual interviews a set of questions applicable to each of the sub-
groups (faculty, clerical-technicians, and graduate students). Shown in Appendix B,
this initial questionnaire was used as a background framework for the informants
interviewed in Step One. Allowing for additional questions that might be added as a
result of the background interviews, a second open-ended interview schedule was
developed and used ﬁrst with faculty informants. Due to the length of the schedule
for faculty (see Appendix C) which took approximately one hour, the schedules are
modiﬁed and shortened for both the clerical-technical informants and the graduate
students (see Appendices D and E, respectively).

Spradley (1979), in describing his “developmental research sequence,“ illustrates
three levels of questions that can be used. Each one of these levels—descriptive,
structural, and contrast-leads to deeper levels of analysis that will be discussed later.
Descriptive questions are used to encourage an informant to talk about a particular
cultural setting in ways that describe and exemplify types of ongoing activity in the

Department. Questions are also asked to determine that they are appropriately

105

couched in the terms of the informants. Another major level of question—structural—
asks the informant to be discriminative between and, yet, inclusive of information
needed to explain a situation or objects. The last level of questions that Spradley
discusses, the contrast question, is used to determine the meaning of a symbol by
ﬁnding out how it is different from other symbols. Whether a descriptive, structural, or
contrast question, Spradley suggests that these are asked concurrently as needed in
the conversation, and they are not meant to force different types of interviews (Spradley,
1979).

As recommended by Schatzman and Strauss (1973) and Schwartz and Jacobs
(1979), the interviews did not stand alone as data sources. They were used in
conjunction with observations so that what is seen as being practiced either conﬁrms
or disconﬁrms what is stated in the interviews. In fact, Schatzman and Strauss make
two key points about interviews: 1) they are to be done systematically rather than for
exploratory purposes; and 2) they serve best to checkup on propositions developed
during the research. Other forms of “listening“ that are used, besides interviews, include
eavesdropping and situational conversations. Both tend to be serendipitous and can
be timely.

The Interview Process. The interview process included two primary issues to
outline: 1) the interview scheduling steps, and 2) the speciﬁc interview protocol.

Initial interviews of informants identiﬁed in Step One were open-ended. A few
orienting questions about the founders and their assumptions were ﬁrst used to provide
a contextual base for understanding the background of the department.

Interviews with informants identiﬁed in Step Two were semi-structured with open-

ended responses. All interviews were scheduled in advance by personal contact with

106

the individual or through scheduling with their secretary. The potential informants were
informed, at the time of the scheduling, of the general purpose of the interview and the
length of time needed-1/2 to one hour.

During the interviews with informants, primary data collection was accomplished
through note taking. Tape recording was used as much as possible in order to have
a secondary record and provide more free interaction without concentrating on the note
taking. Tape recording will not be done with anyone that had any objections—in this
study no one objected. Also, approximately oncfourth of the interviews did not use a
tape recorder in order to check for variability and openness in the conversations.

During each interview, the researcher summarized the purpose of the study,
reviewed the informed consent and conﬁdentiality procedures, and presented the
general direction for the interview. (See Appendix F for a sample of the Informed
Consent Statement). Each informant, scheduled for tape recording (approximately
75%), was asked if they felt comfortable with having the tape recorder present, and
was informed that it primarily serves as back-up for the researcher to authenticate ﬁeld
notes.

Even though an interview schedule had been prepared, the intent was to allow
freedom for the conversation to direct itself elsewhere at times-leading to further
probes. And, due to expected time constraints on the part of some informants, the
researcher freely chose which questions needed attention, rather than consistently
getting only part way through. the same series of questions. And, mm the
understanding that the researcher might ask sensitive questions or the informant may
provide sensitive responses, the actual interviews were held in any location most

acceptable to the infonnant-whether in their ofﬁce or moved to an adjoining room.

107

Review oLLJowments

Review of records and documents are a commonly used form of data collecting.
In themselves, they are a basic source of information about Departmental activity and
processes, and, at the same time, they provide important questions to pursue through
more direct observations and interviewing (Patton, 1980). Historical records are good
for sensing what can not be observed: what was important to early founders and
recorders of events. Information from them can be excellent sources for stimulating the
memories of individuals concerning remembrances of early events.

Current records, as made available from the Department, included: committee
maelhgminutes, newsletters,ofﬁcememos, notices, By-laws,anrlualreporls, budgets,
and staff directories. These records, then, served a conﬁrmatory purpose and source
of questions for interviews, as suggested by Schatzman and Strauss (1973).

Recording Data. An important element of data gathering is the process for
recording data. The use of ﬁeld notes was consistently relied upon the most. At one
level, these are condensed, written records taken during observations and interviews
to capture the highlights and key points. Expanded ﬁeld notes are written after these
activities in order to ﬁll in detail and add depth to the key points. Systematic note-
taking serves as a journal (diary) of activity. It is crucial to grasping the “here and now“
of what appears to be happening: observations, meetings, conversations, and related
events (Agar, 1980; Spradley, 1980). The journal provided perspective and
chronological detail to the study. It allows the researcher to express feelings and
reactions to the ongoing activity (Spradley, 1979). In certain situations, such as formal
meetings, note taking was done as unobtrusively as possible-quickly jotting concepts

that can be further elaborated after the activity or at least by the end of the same day.

108

Besides focusing on the organizational culture context at the beginning of the study,
it was important to record the atmosphere and setting for each observation and
interview; they affect what happened and the meanings attached to the events.

While some researchers disavow the use of tape recording equipment (Ulrich,
1988), they were used as much as the informants felt comfortable. Even though the
use of voice recording equipment can lead to apprehension and less spontaneity by
informants (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973), the researcher was successful in allaying their
hesitations and assured conﬁdentiality of information. Limited note-taking will be done
during interviews if tape recording was not used and also as a backup to possible

equipment failure.

Stage Four: Data Analysis

As a stage of any research effort, data analysis with ﬁeld research methods
does not just begin after all data are collected but, rather, it is a continuous process
throughout the whole study (Sanday, 1979; Schatzman 8r Strauss, 1973; Spradley,
1979). As one of the strengths of ﬁeld research methods, the intent is to use the
nanowing down of ideas, concepts, and propositions as a simultaneous and continuous
activity with other aspects of the data collection.

In the early stages, data handling involves data processing and data analysis
procedures (Babble, 1983). This reﬂects the not-so-obvious fact that most of the

collected ﬁeld notes are not reﬂected in this, or in any, research report.

109
Data Processing

The initial processing of raw data included: 1) rewriting the ﬁeld notes, and 2)
creating and organizing ﬁles (Babble, 1983). Even though much of the worksite
department runs on an “8-to-5“ schedule, the researcher’s tasks do not stop there.
Rewriting ﬁeld notes from both observations and interviews was accomplished as soon
as possible after each activity. Rather than rely on memory, the researcher rewrote and
then typed each set of notes within the same day as the data collection. This was the
time to add elaboration and depth that are potentially relevant to the primary issues.
Hastily scribbled notes and interviews are transcribed Ionghand and at least two typed
copies were prepared for each set. One set is used as a back-up while the other is
used for marking, editing, and cut-and-paste. (All these tasks are made much easier
by the use of word processing equipment.)

Creating ﬁles starts with simple tasks of recording the date and setting on each
page of the transcribed ﬁeld notes. Initially, this creates a chronological ordering of
events that correlates to the ﬁeld journal. Babble (1983) calls these the “analytical
ﬁles“-those that are used for categorizing what the researcher sees in the situation as
more is learned about It. A continuous process results from maintaining a ﬂexible ﬁle
system that allows shifting notes between different categories as new aspects arose.
Notes can be continually cross-referenced with note cards between ﬁles to indicate, for
example, how certain cultural symbols are manifested among sub-cultures.

In addition to the primary analytical ﬁles, background and biographical ﬁles
were also used to integrate people and events. The backgomd ﬁes incorporated
the history of the Department: signiﬁcant events, how it got started, when It began,

and what the building and surrounding areas looked like over time. Biogrmlical flee

110

served to illustrate key ﬁgures in the past and present. Sources of Information are the

individuals themselves, the Department ofﬁce, and university archives.

Data Analﬁis
As a general guide, Babbie (1983) says to especially look for sinierities and

dissimiarfties. One thing searched for was the universals, such as nonns of behavior.
Dobbert (1982) looks for patterns in events, speech, and setting. Schatzman and
Strauss (1973) emphasize the most fundamental operation is to discover signiﬁcant
classes of things, persons and events, and the properties which characterize them.
They indicate that research propositions are statements that express linkages between
the classes. The propositions, hopefully, will fall into sets of ever dense linkages.
Spradley (1980) calls these the domains for analysis.

From the start of recording ﬁeld notes and writing-up the interviews, the data
were systematically analyzed for linkages with other sets of data. According to
Schatzman and Strauss (1973), the researcher looks for “key Iinkages“-metaphors,
models, general schemes, overriding patterns, etc—that tie together the classes of
things identiﬁed earlier. The range of classes that can be selected include: 1) common
classes of the culture are generally available to anyone in a given society to distinguish
among the types of things, persons, and events; 2) special classes are those only
known to the unit of study (i.e., Department culture); and 3) theoretical classes that are
discovered by the researcher and that are his own terminology and constructs.

The researcher moves back and forth between gathering and analyzing the
data-almost simultaneously (Schatzman 8 Strauss, 1973). The analytic processes are

“grounded“ in the data-by interpretation and gathering more data for veriﬁcation.

111
In addition to looking for similarities and patterns, it is crucial to identify the
differences-dissimilarities—as deviations from the norm. Why and in what ways these
differences are manifested can help determine their pervasiveness or, perhaps,
randomness. As suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967), further observation and
interviews are conducted to ﬁnd out whether the initial propositions are correct or
possibly need modiﬁcation. Kidder (1981) calls this process “negative case analysis,“

and suggests that it takes the place of statistical analysis in participant observation.

mtg Veriﬁcation

In ethnographic research, the veriﬁcation of data is usually done by the
researcher throughout the process. The most commonly used technique is conﬁrmatory
information from multiple methods and interpretation by strategic informants as a data
check when the researcher ﬁnds new questions. Then the conceptual schemes are
again reshaped and conﬁrmed or disconﬁnned in the ﬁeld setting. A parallel veriﬁcation
process—survey feedback-will be used for providing confirmation or reinterpretation of
the researcher’s initial written ﬁndings.

Once a formal, but not conclusive, written description of the ﬁndings was
prepared by the researcher, they were be validated by the internal stakeholders-stop
three. It is in the tradition of survey feedback (Bowditch 8 Buonos, 1982; Moos, 1979),
in which the ﬁndings are presented to a group of individuals (approximately ﬁve)
selected from the previous informants. Criteria for selecting these “interested insiders“
(Schein, 1985) was representativeness of department membership candidness as

lnfonnants. and compatibility wim other members of the group.

1 12

The group discussion will be ﬁrst preceded by a presentation on the general
concept of organizational culture as underlying the interplay of norms, values, and
assumptions. It was the purpose here for the group to provide fuller meaning and
correctional insight to the initial ﬁndings as perceived by the researcher. Otherwise,
the speciﬁc study results were not required to be presented to the total department,
something that was not agreed to prior to initiating the study.

Schein (1985) uses a similar process of group interviews to “elicit positions on
speciﬁc dimensions.“ He uses it in situations when time pressures are pervasive or
there are few opportunities to make unobtrusive observations.

Some authors (Bowditch 8 Buono, 1982; Moos, 1979) link survey feedback to
survey questionnaires: data generated for questionnaires is summarized, fed back to
involved workers through reports and meeﬁngs, and ﬁnally used by work groups and
managers to confront organizational problems. Nadler (1977) is well known for
implementing survey feedback, and guided change; he includes interview and
observational data in his initial survey assessments. In this study, however, the process
to be used is focused on explanation, identiﬁcation, and understanding of the cultural
situation. Of secondary interest is the organizational change that might result as an

outcome, but that becomes important to the health promotion project.

Stage Five: Exiting the Organization

Even though some authors do not discuss this stage, Kimball and Partridge

(1979) indicate the importance of properly exiting the cultural setting. The researcher

never knows when further data may need to be collected, and a hasty exit precludes

113

effective communication in the future. First of all, it is noted that entry is the beginning
of exiting. As long as proper relations are maintained and the boundaries of the study
are understood, an ending point becomes a natural part of the relationship. The other
thing to keep in mind is to understand that exiting may be ritualistic in that cultural unit,
and not something to be taken lightly.

Initially, studies may be bounded by speciﬁc time limits, on one end, and the
desire to gather everything possible to know about a setting, on the outer (Jorgensen,
1989). The length of the study and the degree of involvement may affect the naturally
emotional experience. Withdrawal was negotiated over a period of time, which is
expected to happen naturally as the researcher's attention is focused on the data and
analysis and less on the gathering process.

For this study, exiting from the organizational setting was not a uniquely
separate event because the long-term relationship occurred as part of the
comprehensive health promotion project-long after this research phase is completed.
However, the researcher did not neglect the issue either and, in one sense, still exits
from the research role. He made sure, verbally, that the informants and key
administrators knew when the data collection phases were over-meaning that the
researcher’s role remained as a change agent for health promotion. The role of
recorder of behaviors and conversations stopped on a systematic basis. Whether this
brought about a greater sense of ease and less discomfort on the members“ part is a

matter for conjecture.

114

Timeline of Research Activity

Greater than expected, the primary interview data collection process—Stage
Three—took eight weeks. 'The other stages were not discrete linear activities but,
instead, molded into the ongoing consultant relationship this researcher had with the
worksite health promotion project. Stage Four, Data Analysis, was ongoing throughout
the data collection process. It took another eight weeks for initial ﬁndings and
presentation to the worksite feedback group, and eight more weeks for interpretations
and ﬁnal analysis.

The principal steps in the process of identifying the formative and transforming

steps in the development of the Department culture(s) were as follows:

1) Identify the beginnings of culture (formation)
A) Identify the people to interview.
B) Develop a “natural“ history of the department.
2) Identify shapers and modiﬁers (transformation)
A) Identify people to interview: older and newer; levels of staff;
current values and content.
B) Identify enhancing and counter-cultures.

C) Determine the differing functions the culture(s) serve.

The principal steps in the process of understanding the relationship between

the organizational culture and health promotion are indicated here:

115

1) Determine value perceptions of health promotion
A) Identify department people to interview.
8) Observe the roles health promotion play in the Department.

2) Determine compatibility of health promotion innovation to the culture(s).

The principal research questions, while discrete and separable, can be answered
asacontirurmofdatacoledionsourcesandactivitiestl'iat are outlined above. Table
1. provides a format for this integral part of the study as the techniques of observation,
interviews, and document reviews are integrated. The table outlines a focused
approach to potential data sources in the Department: the Dimensions, their Indicators,

and multiple Data Sources.

Methodological Issues of Concern

There are a number of methodological concerns that pertain to qualitative

methodology of any type. A few of these are discussed here.

Research Time ﬁremeters

In spite of any well-laid plans, particularly when dealing with a multiplicity of
organizations and people, there are adjustments and alterations that must be made
during the research process. In fact, that is one of the strengths of ﬁeld research—the
ability to incorporate and take into consideration those temporal adjustments that are
a part of the natural environment. That does not negate the quality of the study, but

it can add ﬂavor—a telling of the “real world“ occurrences that affect any activity.

116
Table 1: Potential Data Sources

 

DIMENSIONS INDICATORS

DATA SOURCES

 

Organizational EDITION!

Physical Patterns Building layout 8 design
Public space
Private space
Group space
Personal space
Power 8 Status

Census Patterns Employee demography
Student demography
Social status
Group membership

Time Patterns Calendar of activity
Research schedules
Annual reports
Professional activity
Organization mainten.

activity
Personal/work time
Culture Creation
Formation 8 Identiﬁable founders
Convergence Critical events
Myths 8 stories

Historical records
Ofﬁcial documents

Transformation 8 Leadership changes
Convergence Critical events
Myths 8 stories
Ofﬁcial documents
Membership changes

Evolution 8 Leadership changes
Convergence Critical events
Myths 8 stories

Ofﬁcial documents
Membership change
Clientele groups

observations
architect plans
interviews

dept. records
dept. directory
interviews

observations
research documents
review mtg. minutes
informal conversation

interviews: retired 8
older faculty

review documents
review history books
review bldg. plans

interview older members
interview colleagues
meeting minutes

interviews

review mtg. minutes

ofﬁcial records

review proposed bldg. plans
committee memberships

Table 1: (continued)

117

 

 

DIMENSIONS INDICATORS DATA SOURCES

Functions

Identity Membership symbols interviews
Partic. in decisions physical observation
Ofﬁcial statements review documents
Formal/Informal groups observe seminars
Colleagues outside univ. newspaper
Publicity

Membership Recruitment/selection interviews
Turnover records review
Promotion/tenure

Socialization Formal training training records
Informal communication interviews
Orientations count activity types
Social activity observe meetings
Rewards/sanctions
Myths 8 stories

Administrative Meetings observation

Processes Planning interviews

Evaluation reviews reports

Power Distribution

Formal leadership
Informal leadership
Decision making

org. structure
interviews
commit. membership

 

Mateness of Health Promdjgg

Appropriate Role
of Department

Innovativeness

Ofﬁcial documents
Member afﬁnnation
University colleagues
Professional develop.
Membership develop.

Budget resources
Faculty turnover
Critical events

Types of innovations
Leaders of change
Sources of innovation

records review
interviews

dept. policies
conference attend.
professional awards

department records
interviews

observe technologies
recent technology

118

Table 1: (continued)

 

 

DIMENSIONS INDICATORS DATA SOURCES
Strength Amount goal agreement interviews
Goal clarity records review
Budget growth annual reports

Reaction to change

Colleagues outside dept.

Perceptions of Health Promotion

Appropriateness of Ofﬁcial HP documents
Worksites Ofﬁcial dept. records
Health staff afﬁrm.
Member afﬁrm.

 

Organizational Health staff afﬁrm.
Commitment Member afﬁrm.
Member Health staff afﬁrm.
Commitment Member afﬁrm.
Health Culture
Health Norms Behaviors
Values
Health Activity Participation: groups
Individual activity

records comparison

interview comparisons

interview comparisons

interview comparisons

observations
survey data
interviews

observations
survey data

participant observer
interviews

 

119

Ulrich (1988), in citing Fortes (1963) and Hicks (1984), indicates that researchers
doing ﬁeld-based observations in agrarian societies can expect a twelve- to ﬁfteen-
month length of time to reasonably adjust to new surroundings and then observe a
regularity of events over a one year cycle. In other situations, the period of time spent
may be somewhat arbitrary, depending upon the object of study and the amount of
resources (including time) available for the study. This was tempered by knowing that
the longer one spends in another cultural setting, the more one can learn and
understand—meaning becomes more apparent and basic assumptions are revealed.

Organizational Cycles. University environments, as is most commonly known,
operate on an academic calendar year that may have a quarterly-term basis or a tri-
semester basis. The beginning of the academic year varies for each type and
university. The university in this study operates on a term basis with the start and
ending of each quarter encapsulated by a national holiday. For example, it starts the
academic year soon after Labor Day; Christmas and New Year’s Day separate the Fall
and Winter terms; Easter often comes between Winter and Spring; and Memorial Day
is close to the end of Spring term.

One signiﬁcant event is the return of students to the campus at the beginning
of the academic year. This brings both new and returning students, orientations,
renewal of relationships, and re-patterning of the norms of the organization. Also, there
is an on mass exodus at the end of Spring quarter. The leaving of students during the
school year (e.g., by graduation, employment, or personal reasons) is done more
individually and takes less notice. Entry and tumover of faculty will tend to follow the
academic calendar, while that for technicians and clerical staff is scattered throughout

the year.

120

Another major shaper of organizational cycles is the ﬁscal years for the university
as a whole, broken into quarters for student employment. This study was incorporated
into part of Summer and Fall Terms. This period of time was long enough to observe
a cycle of new graduate students starting, some leaving, and the turnover of a few
faculty and staff.

The Research Cycle. In most circumstances, the study would ordinarily occur
over a longer period. However, several steps of the typical ﬁeld research process,
perchance, took place prior to this speciﬁc data collection period. For example, the
initial phases ofnegoﬁaﬁngermyendiiﬁalaritmits,aswellaserdﬁngﬂiesenhg,
occurred as part of a larger effort in which the researcher also played a role. This
study, in some respects, represents an evaluation phase in the larger, on-going
demonstration project that was occurring simultaneously in both this and other

academic worksites on campus.

Social grid Ethical Issues

A level of objectivity is aspired to in any research effort. Yet, it must be
understood, complete objectivity is hardly ever achieved in any situation. Patton (1978)
suggests that it is much better to, at the very least, make your biases known
beforehand, so they can be Incorporated into the broader understanding. In the case
of ﬁeld research and observations, it behooves the researcher to be closer to the data
sources. As Ulrich (1988) notes in his citing of VidiCI'l (1955), it serves the purpose of
eliciting meaning better when one is closer to the situation at hand, rather than sitting
on the side in some position of “social marginality.“ Putting oneself on the line as a

participant observer—being in a learner role, building rapport, and developing trust-is

121
part of becoming an “empathetic ethnographer“ (Smirich, 1983; Van Maanen, 1979).
Within certain limits, the object is to “sift the situation“ and “cull-out“ the rich signiﬁcance
of meaning.

In conducting this study, the researcher believes there was no contradiction
between his active involvement and the role of researcher. As a change agent for the
larger health promotion demonstration project, the researcher was able to draw upon
a broader and deeper understanding of the health promotion project and level of prior
knowledge of the worksites and certain individuals that facilitated this study. This
relationship had been nurturing for ﬁfteen months in each department prior to this
phase of the evaluation study. Trust levels has been established with a few key
individuals before this data gathering period, although, some of the key informants in
this study were different. The researcher’s being involved in a change process does
not, in an a priori manner, negate the validity of the data collected.

Conﬁdentiality Issues. The three aspects of conﬁdentiality, outlined by Dobbert
(1982) and Schatzman and Strauss (1973), were a guide for this study. First of all,
conﬁdentiality of informants and the groups to which they belong is a foremost precept.
This is predicated by a change in informant and organizational identity to hypothetical
names and identiﬁers that were not otherwise found at the university. Secondly, all
information is held conﬁdential; information from one source is not meant to be alluded
to or discussed with others, this includes safeguarding of ﬁeld notes, tape recordings,
and diaries. The third aspect is to publish nothing that could injure the informants or
the groups of which they are members. The informants themselves are a guide as to

what should be withheld from others“ purview.

122
This involves openness of the researcher’s relationship with the unit of study
and not disguise the intent of the study. When It came to writing ﬁndings, the
researcher made a conscious attempt to not betray the trust and conﬁdence some
informants had placed in him. As VanMaanen (1983) indicates, it needs to be
understood that the researcher, of necessity, often reports on matters that some unit

members would prefer be kept quiet.

Data Reliability and Validﬂy‘

While traditional concerns for reliability and validity of quantitative data are
appropriate, their applicability changes with respect to qualitative data collection (Miles,
1979). Validity refers to “the degree to which scientiﬁc observations actually measure
or record what they purport“ (Pelto 8 Pelto, 1978, p. 33). In a “real world“ application,
for example, an observer's ability to gain an in-depth understanding of a social situation
sometimes requires asking unique questions of different informants; validity is thus
enhanced but at the expense of reliability (Ulrich, 1988). Field researchers strive for
greater validity by a longer stay in the setting, because it aids differentiation of what is
valid from what is not, combined with varying measures of contextual information (Pelto
8 Pelto, 1978). Reliability, at times, suffers due to differences in interviewer tone and
style plus differences in the context in which interviews take place.

From one perspective (Guba, 1979), making qualitative research “auditable,“
“conﬁrmable,“ and “credible“ is perhaps more relevant than making it reliable and valid
in the usual sense. Veriﬁcation of ﬁeld data, according to Sanday (1979), must take
place concurrently with data collection. She also states that data analysis done in the

ﬁeld must be used to alter the research design in order to verify data as much as

123

possible. The eclectic use of data collection tools (e.g., cross-checking results obtained
from observations and ﬁeld notes, plus mixing of non-structured with structured
procedures) is essential to establishing ﬁeld accuracy (Pelto 8 Patio, 1978; Sanday,
1979).

It is a limitation of this study to not go a step further and use a multiple-case
design, referred to as a “comparative-case study“ (Glaser 8 Strauss, 1967; Yin, 1984).
While the single-case study is exemplary for studying the unique and critical case,
comparative-case studies lend to more compelling and robust evidence. In that sense,
they can lead to speculation, depending upon the outcome, about the similarity or
differences between cases. The logic, then, is for replication of design in the settings
so that it either: 1) predicts similar results (a literal replication) or 2) produces contrary
results but for predictable reasons (a theoretical replication) (Yin, 1984). It is also
understood that multiple-case studies are far more time-consuming than a single-case
study (Yin, 1984). From a practical standpoint (due to restriction on time and money),
this research effort is limited to the study of a single university department.

It is Kirk and Miller’s (1986) argument that “qualitative research can be performed
as social science and can be evaluated in terms of objectivity. . . the problem of validity
is handled by ﬁeld research and the problem of reliability is handled by documented

ethnographic decision making“ (p; 73).

Deﬁnitions of Terms

To provide a common basis for understanding in this project, the following

terms are used in this study and dissertation as they are deﬁned below:

124

Academic W are formally speciﬁed work units within the university,
normally delineated by academic discipline, and they are recognized as having
signiﬁcant decision-making responsibilities.

Culture is the added dimension that accounts for the large differences in
behavior between peoples and that distinguishes man from all other animals—learned
patterns of social behavior (Pelto, 1965); or whatever it is one has to know or believe
in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members (Goodenough, 1971).

Ethnography is the study of individual cultures-primarily a descriptive and
noninterpretive study (Dictionary of Anthropology, 1956); “the science-and art-of cultural
description“ (Frake, 1983).

Fieldnotes are “the record of an ethnographer’s observation, conversation,
interpretation, and suggestion for further information to be gathered“ (Agar, 1980; Ulrich,
1988).

I-ledlh Promotion is an attempt “to inﬂuence knowledge and beliefs, and to
identify alternatives so that individuals can make informed choices about their behaviors
in order to enhance levels of both physical and mental health (T erborg, 1986, p. 226).

hnovation is “the implementation of an ideal—whether it pertains to a device,
system, process, policy, program, or service-that is new to the organization at the time
of adoption“ (Damonpour 8 Evan, 1984; Damonpour, 1987, p. 676); an idea or practice
that is perceived as new by an individual or organization (Rogers, 1983).

Organizﬂiond Cultue is “the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group
has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problem of external

adaptation and internal integration, and that worked well enough to be considered valid,

125

and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and
feel in relation to those problems“ (Schein, 1984, p. 3).

Organizational Ethnography is the application of ethnographic methods to
organizations and their environments (Jones at al., 1988).

Participant Observation is “the process in which an investigator establishes and
sustains a many-sided and relatively long-term relationship with a human association
in its natural setting for the purpose of developing a scientiﬁc understanding of that
association“ (Loﬂand 8 Loﬂand, 1984; Ulrich, 1988).

Qualitative Research refers to “research that produces descriptive data: people’s
own written or spoken words and observable behaviors“ (Taylor 8 Bogdon, 1984, p.5).
It is inductive and humanistic.

Worksite Health Promotion is “the striving to improve personal health from the
individual’s perspective, while striving to improve the human resource from the

organization's perspective“ (Everly, 1985, p. 12).

CHAPTER FIVE
REPORT OF FINDINGS

Overview

The research ﬁndings are organized according to the three major research
questions discussed in the previous chapter. Theoretical constructs that emerge from
the ﬁndings will be presented in Chapter Six as part of the Conclusions. Appendix G
describes how the methodology was operationalized in the Department.

The presentation of ﬁndings is based upon the aggregation of three sets of
data: 1) twenty-four semi-structured open-ended interviews that varied in length from
one-half hour to three hours each; 2) observations of and participation in a wide variety
of informal and formal settings; and 3) the review of Department documents, records,
and publications.

In order to protect the anonymity of the university department and its members,
pseudonyms are frequently used. The mid-western university shall be referred to as
“University.“ References to informant gender will be masculine for faculty and graduate
students, and feminine for clerical staff. The department shall be referred to as
“Department.“ Other departments that created its legacy and became its roots are given
names that are letters of the Greek alphabet, i.e., Alpha, Beta, and Chi. All informants
are referred to by their employee classiﬁcation as the major identiﬁer (e.g., Faculty,

Clerical Staff, and Graduate Student).

126

127

Historically, the Department has been an integral part of the change and growth
of the University itself. That means it is subject to the ﬁnancial standing, values, and
growth of the state and general economy. It also reﬂects the general public's attitude
towards its products and services. From the early “heyday“ of the University’s
development and growth, this Department has “waxed and waned“ in tandem with
it—being “tight“ with the University administrators as they personally prodded and chided
its growth. Faculty could and did speak their minds openly with administrators. It was
not uncommon for the Dean of the College to invite a young faculty member home for
dinner in order to continue a frank discussion. Department heads could make many
more unilateral decisions based on the “rightness' of the actions (Field notes: 12/21 I89).
But, in recent years, the Department ﬁnds its previous centrality being further and further
redeﬁned as the University reconsiders its own mission and purpose.

As one manifestation of the University's history as a land-grant institution, the
Department channels its energy through extension (EXT), research (RES), and teaching
(1' CH) programs related to food technology production. As such, there are great health
implications to users of its knowledge and consumers of food products as well. The
Department is an amalgam of the traditional land-grant missions and international
outreach. Again, its history is parallel to the history of the University and is best

understood in that context.

128

Can academic work environments be understood as cultural systems?

The ﬁrst and most fundamental research question asked whether academic
work environments can be understood as cultural systems. If this question could not
be answered afﬁrmatively, then the other two main questions would not apply.

In trying to view or understand the present day Department as a cultural unit,
an attempt was made to develop a historical context for it—to understand its
background and decipher whether and how its roots are still feeding the system today.

Early into this study, it was determined that no written history of the Department
or its antecedents was available or had ever been produced. It is recognized by prior
and current Department administrators that a written history would be useful, but there
is no current administrative agenda to develop such a document in the near future. At
present, the organization's memory resides in a diminishing number of current or retired
faculty members-particularly a select few with over 35—years of experience in the
Department.

The report of ﬁndings for this ﬁrst question will be reviewed in three phases:
formation (how it got started), transformation (how it changed), and cunerrt themes of

the Department (how it currently deﬁnes itself).

Formation

There were three academic units, originating around the ﬁrst decade of the
1900s, which played integral roles in the formation of the current Department. They
shall be referred to as Alpha, Beta, and Chi. There are two others that had supporting

roles in the early years, but they will not be reviewed here.

129

The unique feature of the formative time period, from the early 1900s to right
after the end of World War II, was the stability and the importance of personal
relationships. Alpha for the ﬁrst 50 years of its existence, was located in the same
building as the Dean's ofﬁces. Chi department was housed in an old Army barracks
on one edge of the main campus, and Beta operated from its own small building
adjacent to the administrative ofﬁces of the Dean.

Fundamentally, the three root departments-Alpha, Beta, and Chi—have their
own unique history in the University, and did not grow out of each other. They were
physically separate from each other, and there were very limited linkages among them.
Until the mid-part of me century, basic research support to each unit was provided by
another research department, with one researcher assigned to each of the three units.

Each root department had key actors of note, and each was more noticeable
when the University size was approximately 1/3 of its current enrollment. Alpha has
had the most stable administrative leadership. In its over 75 years existence as an
autonomous department, it had only two department heads, the ﬁrst not retiring until
1950. During that same 70+ year time period, Beta had seven department heads and
Chi had ﬁve. It is in Table 2 that the general relationship of department head tenure
between the three department’s outlined. All are noteworthy for the long, tenure of their

administrators. Administration, for some, was to be a nearly career-spanning job.

130
Table 2: Year Department Heads Started

 

_LA| ha Esta Q11
- - 1898
1909 - -
- 1910 1910
- 1229 -
- - 1930
- 1937 -
1950 - -
- - 1952
- 1954 1954
- 1957 -
- 1%3 -
- 1977 -

 

 

Mergers 1980-81

 

Besides the stability in leadership, there was stability in the University and the
departments. Prior to the and of World War II, particularly through the Depression
years, there was no enrollment or faculty increase in the University or in the
departments. Their budgets remained constant and inﬂationary salary increases were
a thing of the future. “Frugality“ was noted as a mark of excellence, and departments
purposefully turned money back to the University at the end of each year. The
commonly accepted rationale was that it was “the taxpayer's money being spent and
saved.“

It was during this period—during the middle of the century-that personal
relationships played an integral part. It was not unusual for the University President
to interview individual faculty for positions or make recommendations for selection.
The general tenor that pervaded the University was that superiors selected, hired, and

were invested in the support of those positions immediately below them. The Dean

131

operated according to “standard operating procedures“: “You’d always know where you
stood with him. People who could not make their positions clear rather quickly did not
get along with him.“ Department heads were almost inviolate in their individual authority
for hiring, promotion, and tenure (Field note: 12/21 I89).

Besides getting by on the least amount of money possible, other themes of the
early years included: longer hours of work; external control of individual work time; and
leisure and exercise breaks not valued in themselves (Interview: Faculty 7).

Until after WWII, it was the standard at the University for classes to be held on
Saturdays and, therefore, for clerical staff and faculty to work on Saturday mornings.
Also there were fewer vacation holidays to observe. Individuals, particularly faculty,
were controlled by external norms of the University administrators and the community
as to when they were to be at work. There was no sense of trusting personal
commitment to fulﬁll a variety of job assignments. Instead, faculty, as much as support
staff, were expected to be ﬁlling time slots at their desks.

The expectations were that the faculty would be at their desks at 8:00 each
morning, including Saturday. Having a late night Extension program far away from
campus and arriving home at midnight was not considered justiﬁcation for taking
compensatory time off and coming later to work the next morning. The Dean was
noted for calling departments at 8:00 AM. each day to check on faculty and the
department head's presence. The department head and the Dean would also take
note of the number of cars in the parking lot, particularly on Saturday mornings, as a
sign of rigor.

It was not the norm for faculty employees to simply do their job and, then, be

able to control the rest of their time in personal leisureorecreational pursuits. This set

132
of departments may have been among the last in the University to accept the idea that
faculty might take their noon hour-let alone an afternoon period-for exercise or
recreational activity if their work was done.

The formative period, through the depression years and encapsulated between
the World Wars, can be summarized as stability and foundation setting. Power and
authority were rested in a small number of University administrators. Performing was
measured by attendance to schedules and physical presence rather than recognizing

the uniqueness of different job requirements.

Transformgtion

It was the post World War II crush that, more than anything, brought the
University and the three departments into new value systems and expectations. The
period from the late 1940s to 1980 were days of transformation-rapid growth, changing
expectations, and a subsequent economic decline.

Newly freed from the War effort and fortiﬁed by veteran's educational assistance,
an avalanche of students entered the US. educational system in the late 40’s and early
50's.

The University capitalized on the expected surge by planning for expanded
enrollments and investing in “bricks and mortar“ for building new structures.

In preparation for increasing student enrollments, and expanding departmental
budgets, a push to expand the numbers of Ph.D. facuﬁy prevailed across the University.
One example from the Alpha Department was that a recently minted Ph.D. living on a
farm in another midwestem state could, through personal contacts, ﬁnd out about a job

opening in his specialty and be hired at the University. Within one year, this new

133

Assistant Professor would be appointed Associate Professor, followed by a full
Professorship two years later, and then become Department Head one year after that.
This individual would be personally interviewed by the University President early into the
hiring process. As the ﬁrst Ph.D. in the Department, and as Assistant Professor, he
would have its ﬁrst doctoral students which was viewed as an honor of the time. Quite
uniquely, the ﬁrst two of his Ph.D. students were Associate Professors who had been
with the Alpha Department for a number of years (Interview: Faculty 7).

This was one early sign that academic credentials would support older and
more experienced individuals in many upcoming job positions.

At the same time that Ph.D.“s were being expected of new faculty, there were
expectations that more current positions would require Ph.D. degrees in order for those
occupants to be promoted. Many Extension faculty positions would only receive
promotions if they were ﬁlled by a Ph.D. graduate; otherwise, the position title would
likely be downgraded to Specialist. There was some resistance to this way of thinking
from the Alpha department chair. He most wanted to avoid those instances whereby
someone with a Ph.D., but without ﬁeld experience, might be promoted over someone
with a lesser academic credential but considerably more experience.

This was to happen many times during the University’s growth. This was most
lamented in Extension positions which depended greatly on developing clientele
relationships as much as being certiﬁed researchers.

As the university grew rapidly, so did the resources available to academic
departments. One outcome from the rapidly expanding budgets and enrollments was
a decreasing interest in returning unspent funds. Department budgets lost their identity

as being the “taxpayer's money.“ Departments came to maximize their own interests,

134
faculty came to expect annual salary increases irrespective of productivity, and grant
monies were readily available through a variety of sources.

Partly as a result of the rapid growth, the heads of the three departments felt
they could best become more established and combine some of their space needs
by making a cooperative move into a new building. This move took place in the mid
19505. The head of Alpha, at least, believed that administrative support for the building
was a subtle mandate from the University President-to introduce a level of cooperation,
heretofore, unestablished among the three departments. From the perception of the
Alpha department head’s understanding of the President’s intent, personal overtures
were made to the other two heads suggesting that certain sections of the building
might be designed with collaboration in mind—thereby eliminating duplication in some
of the departments“ laboratory space. The head of Alpha soon received a phone call
from the Dean to come to his ofﬁce on short notice. Upon arrival, he found the other
two department heads present and was summarily advised to keep these building
sections separate. He was perceived as a “throat“ with the ascribed intention of
“wanting to take over the other two departments“ (Interview: Faculty 7).

While the Alpha department had no intention of taking over the other units, the
incident reinforced the idea of departmental autonomy and weakened interdepartmental
cooperation, at least at the administrative level.

According to informants, each of the three root departments had a different
personality. Some lnfonnants. however, were more able (or less hesitant), to describe
those features. The following is a thumb nail sketch of each of the three departments.

The Ahha Department had great stability of leadership with only two department

heads in its over 70—year existence as a separate unit. “People knew where they stood

135

in the department.“ Communication was open between people. “If problems arose, one
could meet with the head to discuss an issue and get a decision within two to three
minutes.“ The head served as a catalyst to other“s work. His leadership style was
viewed as a benevolent dictatorship—ﬁrmness and fairness. People were held
accountable for their work, and the head knew what faculty were doing. The head was
outspoken, knew his way around the University, and acted on the basis of principle.
His outspoken nature did not always endear him to University administrators, but it
made him respected by peers and department faculty alike (Interview; Faculty 5; Field
Notes: 12/21/89). This department was viewed as a family, sometimes with “family
obligations“ to attend social events. The head took pride in being able to recite the
names of all the children of faculty and staff in the department-something he often did
at Christmas parties. This department head would go on to chair the merged
department for the ﬁrst four years of its existence—until his retirement.

In its 70-year history, the Beta department had seven different department
heads-the last one resigned in order to take a position with private industry. During
the middle third of the century, it was perceived as a family unit by its members
(Interviews: Faculty 5,6). Initially, collaborative research efforts were repeatedly one of
its goals. But it grew to become identiﬁed as a “combative“ unit—primarily within itself
and sometimes with outsiders. At one point, some of its members were viewed by the
Dean as a bunch of “bellyachers' and contentious on many issues. One informant
stated that early collaborative efforts were agreed to by faculty, and then violations of
research protocols would happen, driven by outside pressures from research funding
sources. Self-interests of researchers reportedly took over. There would be another

round of cooperative agreements, again followed by violations of protocols, resulting

136
in mistrust. Faculty self-interests and career development were said to often prevail
over focused efforts that would generally beneﬁt the department or other members.

The Chi department had always been the smallest of the three in terms of faculty
and student enrollments, and the weakest in terms of political “clout.“ Yet, it was a
strong, dynamic department with its own brand of family orientation. In its
approximately 80-year history at the University, this department had ﬁve department
heads. Administrative and discipline-based leadership was often composed of strong
personalities-many nationally known leaders in their ﬁeld. The last department head,
who died after 25 years in ofﬁce, was a forceful leader with a long military background
as an Army ofﬁcer-described as “large, loud, loving, and compassionate.“ Uniquely,
even though his graduate training (management and education) was in a discipline
different from the department’s, he built a very strong, nationally competitive department.
Viewed as an autocratic dictator, this head “had his ﬁngers in control of every research
cent ever spent.“ Democratic decision making was not prevalent. This same style was
emulated by the department’s head secretary who overly controlled the clerical staff.
At the same time, there were other supportive faculty who “could charm the sox off
someone“-crucial to preserving some harmony and dignity of others (Interview: Faculty
10).

The individual fates of the three departments rose and fall with the economy of
the State, possibly more than most other departments at the University. As a group,
each of the departments had nationally known researchers in their various disciplines.
Alpha was composed of four commodity-based disciplines, Beta consisted of one, and

Chi was made up of two disciplines.

137

The building that collectively housed the three root departments in the mid
1950s was crucial to their successful merger at a later data. Even though there have
been a number of shifts and recombination of faculty and staff ofﬁces after the merger,
essentially the core of each of the original three departments remains where it was ﬁrst
physically located in the building.

In the past decade there have been reductions in the numbers of faculty (12
between 1979 and 1984), clerical staff, and graduate students due to budget cuts and
shifts in commodity-based priorities. The numbers in Table 3 (taken from University staff
directories) show the rise and fall of numbers of faculty in the root departments. The
ﬁrst peak period (1957/58) reﬂects the ﬁrst year the building was fully occupied and new
faculty positions were ﬁlled. The second peak (1979/80) was over a year prior to the
administrative mergers. Figures for the current year are 28% below those from 10 years
ago, but are just below those of 20 years ago. The Beta group, obviously, has taken
the most serious decline. This is reﬂected in the general weakening of the role of that

commodity-group in the state and the level of research funds ﬂowing into the

Department.

Table 3: Faculty Numbers by Root Department

 

Alpha Beta Df_i_i Totals

1957/58 22 25 9 56
1967/68 20 17 11 48
1970/71 17 20 12 49
1979/80 28 23 13 64
1989/90 20 16 10 46
96 Change

1957-1990 9% 36% +10% -1 8%

 

138
The transformation period of three decades following WWII is characterized by
tremendous growth in student populations and physical structures. As is typical in
ﬁnancial declines, the early expanding budgets also kept academic units protective of
their own “turf“ rather than developing opportunity for collaborative effort. Then when
real ﬁnancial crises arose, there was no history of interdepartmental linkage—every

department was for itself.

Cunent Themes of the Department

The Department continues in transformation but prepares to strengthen its ties
with its commodity-based clientele. The general characteristics of the Department in this
last period will be described, and then followed by a discussion of current themes.

Character of the Department. The widely espoused rationale for combining the
three departments in 1980/81 was the general decline in the State's economy and the
resulting need for administrative cost reductions at the University level. First, a general
weakening of the State economy reduced general fund money available to University
departments. Secondly, the Department’s constituent groups were in poor ﬁnancial
shape. And thirdly, an administrative “shufﬂe“ without relocation costs could save the
University two department head salaries plus cuts in support staff (Interviews: Faculty
7, 8).

The timing of the mergers was quick and unexpected. The Chair of Alpha was
out of the country when he received a call from the Dean indicating that Chi department
had been merged with Alpha department. This took place without notice to the faculty
of either department. Chi faculty were even in the process of interviewing new

candidates to replace the chair who had recenﬂy died. Six months later, the Beta

139

department was merged with the others soon after the Chair of Beta left University
employment (Interviews: Faculty 5, 7, 8, 10).

On a national level, there were precedents in other universities for merging
these departments. There is some variation nationally about which root department
plays the lead role and, in some situations, only two of the three departments are
merged for some political or ﬁnancial reason. While the merger of these three
departments was not entirely unexpected, it was a situation in which, if the faculty had
a chance to vote, they would have voted “no“ (Interviews: Faculty 7, 8).

As can be seen in Table 4, the breakdown of full-time-equivalent (FTE) faculty
positions between extension, research, and teaching in the Department (the totals reﬂect

faculty associated with the Department and not just those in the building).

Table 4: Faculty Appointment Distribution for Extension/Research/Teaching

 

EXT RES TCH

Department FTE 13.5 20.2 14.3
96 Distribution 27.9% 41.9% 29.7%
Alpha 33.3% 27.5% 38.2%
Beta 25.2% 42.7% 32.1%
Chi 27.0% 58.0% 15.1%

 

At ﬁrst glance, It appears that the Chi-group is much more research-oriented
than the others, with 58% of its manpower committed to it. These ﬁgures are based
on Department directories and not all positions ﬁt into neat categories. For example,
one full—time researcher is counted by the Chi-group because he does research on

their commodities. But, otherwise, his background and interests lie closer to Beta's

140

and Is often counted by them. The numbers also reﬂect the attractiveness of the
commodity-groups for students. Chi attracts the least and therefore commits less
instructors. Alpha has the highest student populations and instructors, but this includes
one highly attractive commodity with no research committed to it.

Stability of faculty also characterizes the Department. As can be seen in Table
5, 4196 of active faculty (both inside and out of the building) have been with the
Department longer than 20 years. This varies by root department, though. 01 Chl’s 10
members, one-half have been present 20 years or more. The same applies to Alpha’s
22 members. Of Beta's 16 members, just 2596 have been present 20 years or more.
Additionally, fully one-third of the total faculty completed their Ph.D.s in the Department

in which they are now employed.

Table 5: Length of Faculty Employment

 

N = 48 Alpha Beta Chi
No. Faculty 2 16 10
96 Employed Prior to
1960 2096 1296 1096
1970 5096 2596 5096
1980 7596 6396 9096

 

The Chi-group is the oldest in time of length of faculty tenure, with the greatest
number of faculty eligible for retirement in the near future. There is fear that these
positions will not be replaced, and that the Chi-group will lose all identity within the
Department (Interview: Faculty 10). At the same time, the Beta-group is the youngest,
representing a commodity-based “push“ to revitalize that focus in the Department.

Informants indicated that there was small turnover because few openings were available

141
elsewhere; plus, the breadth of the Department’s disciplinary study was an attraction
for staying (Interviews: Faculty 8, 11).

Table 6 provides an array of membership distribution by employee groups in
the Department, highlighting the distribution of minorities and females. The most
notable features are that 60.696 of the undergraduate students are female; graduate
students are 38.796 female; 10096 of the clerical staff are female; but just 796 of the
faculty are female. The background of the Department and its members has
traditionally been male-dominated. However, it is aware of the discrepancy and is
making a concerted effort, with the Dean's ﬁnancial support, to recruit more female

and minority members.

Table 6: Minority Membership by Employee Group

 

[54] Faculty: (5 out-of building)
(43) active in building; (6) retired

 

Minority:

Non-Caucasian (4/43) 9.396

Female (3/43) 7.096
[35] Support staff: (5 out-of building)

Clerical 14 (in bldg) Techs 16 (in bldg)

Minority:

Non-Caucasian (2/14) 14.396 (2/16) 12.596

Female (14/14) 10096 (9/16) 56.296
[72] Grad Students: (10 out-of building)

Minority:

Non-Caucasian (20/62) 32.296

Female (2362) 37.196

International Students: 16 countries represented

(24/62) 30.7%

[160]Undergraduate Students
Female (97/160) 60.696

 

142

The membership distribution by commodity-based disciplines within each of the
root departments is shown in Table 7. Alpha-group has 4996 of the faculty, 4196 of the
graduate students, and 4396 of the undergraduates. It is interesting to note that, in
Commodity A4 within the Alpha-group, 9296 of the undergraduates are females, while
there are no undergraduate females committed to the Chi commodities. The commodity
represented by A4, also with the greatest proportion of undergraduate students, has the
fewest number of graduate students. This is the commodity which is in constant state
of ﬁnancial distress: faculty sometimes do not know much before the start of the
academic year whether funding will be received to merit continuation of its teaching,
research and Extension programs. Its support from the Department administrators is
not thought to be high, but some feel that it is potentially a powerful force if its

membership in the State were harnessed appropriately.

Table 7: Seven Primary Commodity-Based Disciplines

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former Depts Chi Beta Alpha

Sub-Disciplines (C1) (C2) (BI) (A1) (A2) (A3) (A4) Other
FACULTY 2396 2896 4996

(796Fem) (0%) (896) (9%)

GRADS 2596 396 34% 1896 2196 196 196

(72) 2896 3196 4196

(3896Fem) (3596) (3296) (4396)

UNDERGRADS 096 _22_96 1096 396 096 3096 3596
(160) 096 2296 4396 3596

(6196 Fem) (096) (5096) (4296) (5096) (096) (9296) (4896)

 

143

m. There are currently a number of issues or themes that pervade this
new, merged, academic unit. They have to do with the ﬁnancial stress the Department
is currently undergoing, its communication patterns, and the basic values held by its
members.

The Department, not unlike others at the University or similar ones nationally,
is undergoing severe ﬁnancial stress. Cutbacks have been made annually, for the past
three years, from the University general fund and are expected to continue for at least
one more year. Also, the federal and State appropriations for Extension outreach
services have failed to keep pace with salary and fringe beneﬁt increases. Coupled
with this are dramatically increased billing rates for University mainframe computer
support.

This ﬁnancial situation causes anxiety and insecurity at all levels of the
Department. The Department was two and one-half months into the cunent ﬁscal year
before knowing where it stood ﬁnancially from the Dean's ofﬁce. And when the
information came, the immediate need was to reduce expenditures. Of the dollars not
committed by research grants, the Department's only options in this “budget crunch“
were to reduce clerical staff, cut back purchase of supplies and equipment, and
eliminate programs (Field notes: 9/18/89).

Certain faculty were not even sure until three to four weeks before classes
started, whether their undergraduate programs would continue or be eliminated
(Interview: Faculty 9). The clerical staff positions were the most vulnerable. Department
administrators attempted to resolve some of the crises by not reﬁlling clerical staff

vacancies (Meeting 12/19/89).

144

Convnunication channels in the new Department are another issue. They tend
to be one-way, and are more informal the farther the physical distance from the
Department Ofﬁce. There are a number of formal mechanisms for transmitting
information that were found to be most commonly used: faculty meetings; Department
newsletters; suite supenrisors; and internal memos.

Faculty meetings, held monthly during the normal academic year, typically last
one and one-half to two hours. The majority of the time is spent by the Chair
communicating a large number of informational items to the faculty present. Out of
the 30 faculty that regularly attend, only six to eight will consistently make
comments-points of clariﬁcation, arguments, or humorous anecdotes (Meetings 6/12/89;
9/1 8189; 10/9/89). Most of the faculty contributors tend to sit immediately at the inner
grouping of tables, while the majority of non-talkers will sit around the perimiter of the
room. When asked “who would have to be committed to health promotion before it
would be accepted,“ one informant indicated that If he spoke up at a faculty meeting,
others would not pay much attention (Interview: Faculty 9). Only a limited number of
faculty, who regularly speak up, are thought to be credible on major issues.

In the current academic year, the Department Chair introduced an “issues“
discussion session into the faculty meetings, with outside faculty presenting topics of
interest. But, In general, the faculty meetings are not used to general discussion and
feedback. It is usually a time when the Department Chair goes around the room and
asks each individual present (including this researcher) whether they have any remarks
for the group. In most instances, points brought up reinforced points made by

committee chairpersons.

145

A Department newsletter, which is distributed to Department members at the
beginning of each month, is almost solely written by the Department Chair, even though
information of a general nature is requested from others. It is a plain looking, two-to-
four page document, recently re-initiated after a oncyear respite. One of its intended
purposes is to reduce the amount of paper used for ﬂyers, by providing a common
source for information (Meeting: 9/18/89). The newsletter typically announces upcoming
events, such as professional conferences, social events, and Departmental retreats.

Suite supervisors are the senior faculty members of the suite of ofﬁces that
contain faculty and a clerical employee. Suite supervisors are expected, along with
other faculty, to communicate relevant information to clerical staff and graduate
students. There were wide differences among clerical informants as to the effectiveness
of this communication channel. Some say their supervisors and faculty convey
information very quickly and help them plan ahead for workloads. Others indicate their
faculty supervisors do not directly provide information to them and, instead, they have
to seek other more personal sources (Interviews: Clerical 1, 2, 3, 6).

Memos come primarily from the Department ofﬁce. They serve as information
devices and directives. It is the most common way to communicate from the
Department Ofﬁce to clerical staff members, because ﬂiers are no regular meetings
among staff or beMen staff and the Department administrator. In some instances,
the information conveyed comes as a “jolt,“ because the clerical staff may not have
had any forewarning from their faculty supervisors (e.g., communication of staff and
ofﬁce relocations, telephone system changeovers, and position openings).

An example of the communications patterns in the department was a recent

decision that involved a shift of personnel in the building. A memo came from the

146

Chair to faculty and staff announcing the relocation of two ofﬁce suites (faculty and
two support staff), a shift of three support staff away from previous faculty (suites),
and a shift of two faculty independently of previous suite-mates. The criteria for the
moves included: avoid laying off clerical staff, match certain personalities that could
better handle each other, and tie the overall move into the simultaneous installation of
a new telephone system. Some of those involved in the move were caught “off guard“
and felt they had little prior warning of the impending shifts.

Informal channels serve a two- way communication ﬂow for Department
members. The Chair periodically walks around the building, steps into ofﬁces, and
chats with faculty and support staff. It is also this one-to-one informal communication
channel that most readily identiﬁes the faculty's linkages to the clientele groups. The
telephone and direct contacts with them are used continuously for the contacts outside
the University.

Graduate students must rely on their faculty advisors for most pertinent
information, some of which is communicated at the weekly research seminar sessions
in their disciplinary specialty. Otherwise, most of their communication is contained
within their four-to-six member graduate ofﬁces.

The “grapevine,“ as an informal communication network, is used most frequently
by clerical employees. For those who ﬁnd out information from the faculty, they
channel it to those “in the dark.“ There is one group of clerical staff who regularly meet
at the “break room“ during designated morning and afternoon periods. The other half
ﬁnds out the information In a more “hit or miss“ basis. And, a small group of faculty
and clerical staff regularly meets during the noon hour for relaxation, talking, eating, and

playing cards (Field notes and Interviews: Faculty 2, Clerical 2, 3, 5, 6).

147

When asked who were the “key people to know“ in the Department for
information sources, informants indicated the Chair, certain faculty identiﬁed as close
to the Chair, a few socially-active clerical staff, and graduate student ofﬁcers.

There are certain basic values that new individuals are expected to bring into
the Department with them. These pertain to the experiential roots of the current
members and their major clientele groups. A major issue in the Department for a
number of years, and with comparable departments in the United States, is that the
undergraduate and graduate students typically come from backgrounds dissimilar from
those of the past and from the faculty in the Department. In the past, the majority of
students in the Department came from communities and from families involved with
some aspect of the food technology industry-in short rural, farm communities. The
traditions, values, and expectations would be in place long before entering a university
environment. In fact, it is one of the roles of the Extension faculty to nurture and
perpetuate this value system in youth, throughout the State, before they attend the
University. But, now, many students are being attracted to the Department without the
fundamental understanding needed to talk with clientele and to be successful in the
ﬁeld. Some of the values expressed to be important by informants include: family and
religion; role of work; independence; responding to crises; and clientele-centered
orientation.

The furiyorierrted value, is expressed at two levels by various members. The
ﬁrst reﬂects the importance of immediate family members. The younger faculty
members more often expressed the importance of re-establishing family bonds,
particularly right after the stress of graduate school. Also, for some younger faculty,

the physical closeness of the extended family played a role in job location decisions.

148

These younger members did not portray the Department or their peers as a family unit
and they were not found to attend any Department social functions after work. Their
family identity was found and nurtured at home. At the same time, some of the older
informants regularly attended Department social activities. In some cases, the
Department members were extensions of their family. Older faculty were observed to
bring their sons or daughters and their children to retirement parties and Department
Christmas parties-the sons and daughters who had grown up as youth, and had come
to these gatherings for a number of years.

The other dimension of family has to do with each of the three root departments
prior to the merger. According to informants, both Alpha and Chi were noted for their
strong family orientation within each unit-their members were supportive, caring, and
socially active. Beta was noted for having had a “family feel“ years earlier, but it is a
quality now lost for many years (Interviews: Faculty 3, 5, 6, 10; Clerical 5).

The term, “family,“ was never used by anyone in denoting the nature of the
current academic unit. The remarks were not deprecating, but stated more with a
sense of “something good“ that was lost. There was a small set of older informants
who were vocal in describing the sense of family that was lost. But these same
individuals did not attend social events now. Without a “commanding“ department head
in charge, they took little initiative to remain together on their own.

The vdue of reﬁgion goes along with family tradition for some of the same
younger faculty in the Department. Persons who had referenced the importance of
family ties would frequently make supporting comments about the role of religion to
the families. This would come out with respect to expressing their community service

orientations and searching for speciﬁc denominational churches with which they felt

149

mom comfortable that were often found close to land-grant institutions (Interviews:
Faculty 3, 9). Again, this reconﬁrms the search for family that is not found at the job.

The role of work varies by employee group in the Department. The idea of the
job as an evocation was repeated in faculty remarks-some “thoroughly in love with what
they do.“ (interview: Faculty 1): When asked what a typical work schedule was for
faculty, informants indicated they had different expectations of others than they had of
themselves. It was permissible for others to work an 8:00-5:00 schedule if they got their
work done. Yet, these same faculty routinely took their work home with them or came
back to the Department in the evenings or weekend. Department researchers were
often at the research centers seven days a week, or at work during many “odd hours
of the night“ to take test samples. Three faculty informants remarked that they are
trying to slow down and not maintain a “workaholic“ behavior. For one of them,
though, this meant taking the work home and staying there instead of coming back into
the ofﬁce (Interview: Faculty 2, 4, 5).

The Chair, at the graduate student orientation, expressed that their future in
food technology will be better if It can become an evocation but not all controlling of
their life: “If they can’t enjoy what they do, better to do something else.“ The Chair
also reminded them to be protective of their purpose, i.e., to get their degree and be
gone-“faculty will always have one more [experiment] that they want done.“ All too
often graduate students, by their Ieaming role and mentor relationship with faculty, get
caught into the work patterns and odd cycles of faculty and prolong their graduation
(Meeting 9/22/89).

Clerical staff were more structured in their work by the 8:00 AM. - 5:00 PM.

work-day schedule. This varied, at times, based upon their dependence upon getting

150

rides to work and the ﬂexibility of certain ofﬁce suites. Clerical informants expressed,
and were observed, that they often work through their breaks. or lunch hours and
sometimes beyond 5:00 pm. in order to meet impending deadlines.

The value of 'Iidependance seems to be a characteristic of the food technology
people in the Department. They were not anti-teamwork, but working independently
was more revered (Field notes: 12/21 I89). An indication of this value was that team-
teaching at the undergraduate level was felt to be a weakness by one older
administrator (Interview: Faculty 7). The close social and professional relationships that
some faculty would build with their clientele groups also perpetuated a
commodity—based independence from each other in the Department.

In another way team playing, “getting along,“ is important particularly as it affects
recommendations for promotion. How much this happens varies among the original
three department groups. Alpha members are still the most regular team players, the
Beta group is rather independent, and the Chi group is very supportive when help is
needed (Interviews: Faculty 5, 10). There are different types of “loners“ in the depart-
ment. The ﬁrst very small group is the “mavericks.“ They are quite independent in their
thinking and expressing opinions. They are in control of their schedule and in ofﬁce
suites without clerical staff. Often, no one in the building knows where they are
working, yet, they are viewed as very productive workers. Another group-the
“maintainers“-are often self-selected “Ioners' in not joining in the activities of the
Department. Also isolated in suites without clerical staff, they appear to be biding their
time until retirement: productive workers but with little enthusiasm for Department
activities. The last group, again very small and self-selected, is the “deviants.“ These

individuals have been noted as aggressive in building emotional barriers between

151

themselves and others. While highly motivated to their own interests, their behaviors
are not directed toward ﬁtting in or playing a low proﬁle (Interviews: Faculty 5, 10, 11;
Clerical 1, 2, 5).

Another aspect to the strong independent streak is the resistance to unionized
activities, whether by faculty or clerical staff. There was a university-wide, Clerical-
Technical employee strike a year earlier that brought the inbred values to light (not just
in this academic unit). The wide diversity of faculty responses to that walkout is still
a tense issue for discussion by some staff. In a few suites, the faculty were supportive
of the strike In word and deed (e.g., food brought to the picket lines and ﬂowers
presented upon return). In others, the faculty cannot talk about the issue without
responding negatively; strikes run counter to their background. (Interviews: Clerical
1-7, Faculty 8, 9).

At the same time, responding to crises was also endemic to this group. People
worked independently of each other, but when “the bell was rung,“ people would come
running to offer help (Field notes 12l21/89). One of the more noticeable examples was
when this researcher found a group of 25 faculty preparing for a 6:15 AM. breakfast
for a group of clientele exhibitors. It was an annual event in which members willingly
participated without prodding. In times of support staff illness or other family problems,
the faculty were found very supportive, and encouraging-even when it meant phones
would not be regularly answered for a few days.

Graduate students, in order to get needed assistance for taking test samples,
could put a sign-up list in the staff lounge requesting help from other students and

faculty, and get consistent response. But, assistance is frequently limited to other

152
persons within their small disciplinary groups and not from other groups (Interviews:
Graduate 1, 3, 4).

This “good neighbors“ policy was also noted among the clerical staff who, while
not being closeknit on a day-to-day basis, would offer help when other“s workloads
were stressed or when they had personal slack. But people had to make their needs
known; otherwise, they normally kept “their noses out of other people's business.“

The clientele-centered value meant that the faculty and Department developed
professional and social closeness with their commodity-based clientele groups. Certain
faculty expressed as much personal closeness to the families of clientele groups as to
others within the Department-eating and socializing together (Interview: Faculty 10).
This was particularly true for the Extension faculty, whose job requires responding
quickly to clientele emergencies and problems in the state, and also had ongoing close
working relationships with their clientele. This went as far as always having changes
of clothing available so that faculty could leave quickly and dress appropriately to meet
clientele at their places of work.

There appeared to be a value of opemess in the Department. Because of the
conﬁdential nature of the questions asked and responses given, this researcher
expected many “closed door talks.“ But, in only three of twenty-four interviews was
the door closed to other listeners. Two were in a place with a door that automatically
closed; the researcher initiated the other because it was in a classroom, subject to
outside echoes. All intenriews with faculty, except one, were held in their individual
ofﬁces with doors completely open-with never any attempt made to close them for
privacy or to block disruptive noises or conversations. Additionally, all faculty meetings,

except one where hall trafﬁc noise was evident, were held with the entry door open.

153
Doors were usually closed for seminars or smaller meetings held in conference rooms
only if there was hallway activity. All intenriews with clerical staff were held away from
their desks, because there was no personal space or sense of privacy in these areas.
Because graduate students were usually grouped in ofﬁces, most of those intenriews
were held in adjacent locations.

Because of the open doors, it was difﬁcult for this researcher to know whether
to seemingly intrude upon faculty or ﬁrst locate a secretary-receptionist and be
introduced. In most cases, the secretary would just indicate to go directly to their open
doorway. One younger faculty member later expressed that this pattern of openness
that this researcher observed was initially disturbing because it represented a cultural
difference from his previous university experience. He was accustomed to thinking it
was disrespequ on the student’s part to “walk right in and start talking“ (Field notes:
12/21 I89).

The clientele-centered, external environment focus of the Department creates a
relaxed atmosphere. Faculty often dressed casually, not reﬂecting whether they intend
to spend the day at the ofﬁce or in the ﬁeld. Contacts with clients and at the research
centers actually required “dressing-up“ by “dressing down“-—coveralls, boots, and
removing the necktie. Secretaries with Extension faculty would remark that they
recognized people on the phone by their voice and not as much by their name. In
at least three social occasions in the Department ofﬁces, clientele group representatives,
high-level University administrators, magazine editors, faculty, staff, and laborers would
all be together discussing Departmental issues while enjoying food and refreshments.

At another time, a clientele representative was heard outside an infonnant“s ofﬁce door

154
using the secretary's phone without even asking. The faculty informant recognized his
voice and started chatting with him (Interview: Faculty 10).

The Department cultivated much of the openness for its own sake and that of
the University. Its research centers are known in the surrounding community and draw
thousands of people to them year-round for regular tours, public exhibitions, product
technology displays, and youth and adult education activity. Even in the Department's
ofﬁce building, there are seasonal displays, exhibits, workshops, educational and
research sessions that bring people of all ages, disciplines, and backgrounds to the
Department many times of the year. The Department's building was built with public
displays in mind. On three ﬂoors it contains over one dozen, large, glass-enclosed
display cases. These require large amounts of attention to keep them stimulating and
updated. Half of them are used to display photos of faculty, graduate students,
undergraduate student clubs, and professional association award winners.

The last period since the early 19805 is characterized by a consolidation of
three departments into one administratively stronger one. But the economy of the
University and the major commodity groups have caused retrenchment and reinforced
an “every person for themself attitude.“ The Department enjoys a relationship with its
clientele throughout in a much more open stance than most other academic units. So,
communication with the outside environment is often more open and personal than the
more structured and formal process in the Department. The Department members
reﬂect their rural valucbase of family orientation, strong work orientation, independence,

and responding to crises.

155

Summagy

The ﬁrst question, in asking whether this academic work environment can be
understood as a cultural system, must be answered: yes. The review of the three
departments formative years indicated a period of stability, foundation setting, and
closer ties to higher level administrators. The transformation period was one of
University growth, increasing enrollments, and a convergence of three departments into
one administrative unit. In the last decade fraught with ﬁnancial distress. the
Department has been required to strengthen its ties to the external commodity-based
groups. In order to do that, it must reinforce the rural roots its members came from,
those that particularly identify this cultural unit.

The Department, as a unit, maintains the same basic values that often
characterizes a rural community. There is a strong family orientation but one that gets
buffeted as society changes. The younger members look to their home for the sense
of family, while many older members have transposed the Department into their
extended family unit, with all its parallel expectations and tensions.

Besides the open communication to its publics—students, peers, commodity-
based groups, a relaxed working atmosphere is endemic to this academic unit. Its
members are noted for the independence of their work tasks but drawing upon
cooperation for administrative functions, speciﬁc research tasks, collegial support, and

help in times of crises.

156

Can sub-cultures in work environments be identiﬁed and understood?

The search for sub-cultures was initiated along the lines of 1) the functions they
serve, and 2) on the formal organization structure. That is, the ﬁrst is a primary search
across the functions that cultural units can serve, and the second approach searches

the traditional academic organizational structure.

Functions

Organizational cultures serve a variety of functions to fulﬁll both integrative and
adaptive needs. Some of these, proposed by Schein (1985), and others speciﬁed by
Schneider (1986), are elicited here as a way to describe the Department’s culture. For
this study, they are an imposed framework used to sift through the information in order
to deﬁne the sub-cultures. The speciﬁc functions to be described here include:
membership; socialization; identity; structural issues; interpersonal issues; and external
relations.

Membership. In an academic environment, membership in certain groupings
clarify boundaries of “who is in,“ “who is out,“ and what is required to be a member.
Also, the concern is with the kinds of members these groupings attract, select, and
retain.

For faculty, general membership comes with being hired into the Department.
According to the departmental by-laws, the Chair makes the appointment with the
Dean's concurrence. The authority of department heads were restricted in the late
1960s when their positions became identiﬁed as department chairs. Department heads

traditionally had authority to adjust salaries, promote faculty, and recommend tenure.

157

This required an understanding on the part of the department head of what each
member was doing, which could readily be done in small independent departments
(Interview: Faculty 7). Staying a member (i.e., being promoted to tenure) now requires
peer review and chair recommendation to the Dean. For faculty, retirement is not a
point of being excluded but more an entry into a more relaxed pace of life. The
Department continues to provide ofﬁce space and limited clerical support for six retired
faculty—some of whom maintain very active roles as consultants to commodity groups.

When asked what it takes to make tenure in the department, the most general
response was: “do a good job,“ “get along,“ and “do good research.“ The Department
does not have a history of “publish or parish“ as a key to survival. From older
members and those recently receiving tenure, the most important element was “to do
a good job“ at what ever they are assigned (Interview: Faculty 1, 4, 8). Other
departments at the University are known to espouse those values but still hold a lack
of journal publishing against those who are seeking tenure, even Extension personnel.
This Department will only use a lack of research publishing as a discredit for those who
are deﬁcient in other critical areas. While‘the Chair has the ﬁnal “say-so“ to the Dean
for promotion, a committee of peers is utilized extensively to make recommendations
to the Chair.

Faculty, by the very nature of their being a part of a university, join an academic
culture that transcends any speciﬁc college or university. In the Department, they are
hired to ﬁll positions that have varying appointment ratios for extension, research, and/or
teaching requirements.

One way to decipher Graduate Student membership is to use simple criteria

such as “who is listed in the phone book.“ From the standpoint of phone access, the

158

University staff directory for this Department is rather inclusive of faculty, clerical staff,
research technicians, graduate assistants, research center managers, and professor
emeriti. Graduate assistants are often not listed individually in many University
departments. In this Department, a large majority of graduate students are on at least
half-time assistantships (year-round) that are directly connected to their respective major
professor’s research funding and interests. The speciﬁc research dollars go with the
professor and do not go with the student if he/she switches professors. Consequently,
students join a research-oriented disciplinary group. Also, the student will most always
have ofﬁce space co-Iocated with three to ﬁve other students in the same disciplinary
study. This leads to a stable environment and a greater sense of identity within the
disciplines but not between them.

The Clerical Staff is a small group of 15 (two are half-time) members. Their
most common trait is gender-being exclusively female. These individuals are not a
cohesive group of peers, but were independently hired by each suite of faculty to
provide staff support for that group. They are often self-selected by their background,
experience, familiarity with the Department interests, or a genuine desire to be employed
in a department that is “known to treat its staff well.“ Interpersonal relations are a key
to success here. “Patience“ and the “ability to work with a wide range of personalities“
are the oft-noted response to, “What does it take to be successful?“

Socialization. A crucial activity of any worksite organization is its efforts to
orient and make new members welcome. Through the questions asked, the search
was to discern whether the Department, formed from three historically strong
departments, was socializing new members on a regular basis and might even have

a formal process to let them know about the Department. Questions were asked to

159

ﬁnd out “how new members found their way around,“ learned how it operates,
determined “where to go for information,“ and whether someone takes newcomers
around to meet others and “show them the ropes.“

Findings indicate that there is no formal system in place for Departmental
employees. Newer faculty indicated that information on "where and to whom to go
for speciﬁc information,“ and “how to initiate the research grant process here“ would
be most useful. Two new faculty members were observed being quickly introduced
to the group at faculty meetings. But then it was incumbent upon the individual to
seek out information on his/her own-often, ﬁrst communicating with other newcomers
in their ofﬁce and than within their discipline. The farther their ofﬁce was from the
central Department hub of activity, the more likely they would be isolated in their
ofﬁce/laboratory (Interviews: Faculty 2, 3). Their other option, as observed, was to
initiate conversations at social events, and then ﬁnding themselves meeting the same
few members who regularly attend. On the other hand, two older informants were
amazed that a formal process was even being discussed. They indicated that the
Department does not have a role or need to do that (lntenriews: Faculty 8, Clerical 4).

With the graduate students, however, there was an annual Fall Term student
orientation. The one hour formal session consisted of introductory statements by
Department faculty about key administrative roles, the sharing of information about the
graduate student organization, and the communication of other general academic
information. Approximately one-half of the 72 graduate students, both old and new,
attended the most recent orientation. Afterwards, there was an informal session that
was held at one of the research centers and attended by approximately two-thirds of

the graduate students, one—half of the faculty, and one-quarter of the clerical and

160

technical staff. It was here that introductions were given by each member-their interest
or work area, name of their major professor, or research focus. Food and refreshments
were available and some members stayed to play volleyball, while another small group
of faculty, staff, and students went on to a longer session at a local eating-drinking
establishment (Field notes 9/22/89).

The graduate student organization has traditionally held one formal meeting at
the beginning of each academic session—just three per year. Attendance is small, and
the meetings have tended to be business-oriented. Only recently is the graduate
organization, through a new social committee, initiating separate and regular social
activities in order to bring students together-with moderate success, primarily tied to
athletic sports teams. It was noted as a problem by graduate students that, because
there were so many students, they rarely knew or ever met more than the few in their
speciﬁc research projects or ofﬁce (Interview: Graduate 4, 5).

For clerical staff, the situation is more unique because they are the ones to
whom other faculty or graduate students come for information on procedures in the
Department or at the University. Older informants indicated that, while there was no
formal orientation process for newcomers, someone would usually take them around
and introduce them to others (Interviews: clerical 3, 4). But, to the contrary, most new
members indicated they were not formally shown around by anyone else. The newer
informants indicated a desire for some basic type of information on the Department
(e.g., procedures and policies). When they desired information, they would have to go
to another secretary, the Department ofﬁce, or ask their suite faculty (Interviews: Clerical

1,2,6).

161

The primary administrative reporting system for the clerical staff is to the faculty
for whom they work in their suite of ofﬁces. This is where clerical staff are to formally
Ieam about the Department and expectations of them. There is great variation between
suites on how much orientation the suite supervisors will do with new clerical staff—from
none to a lot of support, information, and encouragement. The onus is upon the
clerical staff to visit the outlying research centers on their own and really ﬁnd out about
the “phantom [test specimens]“—-to really know what their faculty and students are
doing. One clerical staff reported that, several years earlier, the Department had a
scheduled clerical staff visit to the research centers to meet the research center
managers and ﬁnd out what went on was indicated to be a positive activity which
brought many unknown members together for a day. This, however, has not been
repeated.

Identihr Issues. This reﬂects how people identify with the Department's goals
and values and thus feel as being a part of it. There are a series of activities and
events that provide identity to members in the Department. While some of these are
Department-wide, the bulk of these are disciplinary and commodity-based, and reﬂect
the professional development orientation of the Department in directing student
education.

The most noticed action on the part of the Department to make newcomers
welcome is with students. On the way in, formal and informal orientation sessions are
held with each new group of graduate and undergraduate students. Faculty are
reminded at the faculty meetings of the importance of these events, as well as of the

need to recognize students by attending graduation ceremonies (Field notes: 9/18/89).

 

162

On a Department-wide basis, social events have had a tense history in the
Department. Summer picnics, as observed and reported by others, attract only 15-
2096 of the potential attendees. In past years, Christmas parties were seen as a regular
sore spot, depending on who organized it, where it was held, whom the target audience
was (adults-only or families), what type of food was served, and the cost. The most
recent Christmas party, held at the end of student exam week was a widely acclaimed
success. Its cost was low, families attended, and potluck snacks and beverages were
served. It was held off-campus and there was dancing. The success was credited by
the Chair and others to its not being planned by facuﬂy but by clerical staff and
graduate students (Meeting: 12/19/89). Less than onchalf of the Departmental faculty
were in attendance. Approximately 5096 (10) of the Alpha-based faculty, 3196 (5) of the
Beta’s, and 1096 (1) of the Chi-based faculty attended. This ratio is typical of many
informal events observed.

It is mere speculation to think that a higher percentage of the Alpha faculty
attend because they grew from a more-positive family orientation. Conversely, Chi
faculty grew out of a autocratically enforced family consciousness—now resisted.

Another identity item in the building is the use of signs for directions and room
identiﬁers. Those signs present are still a mix from the days of three separate
departments. There are different types of materials and styles used: wood and plastic,
different colors and lettering style, some overhang into the hallway and others are wall-
mounted. There is one Department building directory, but it is not at the mom widely
used entry point. As one person quipped: “You must know your way around in order
to ﬁnd your way around.“ In some instances, when there are no clerical staff located

at some ofﬁce suites, one must “hunt around“ for someone who can take messages for

163
the faculty. One faculty only recognized this as an issue when this researcher inquired
about it.

For internal recognition on a commodity group basis, the building is noticeably
lined with bladdwhite photos and award plaques. The photos cluster into three major
groups:

I) Beta-based photos of clientele “producer award winners of the year“ (32

photos), and past Beta department chairs (7 photos) recently moved from
a renovated conference room to the corridor.

2) Alpha-department groupings of pictures (16 framed clusters with up to
6 photos each) of student members of commodity-based evaluation
teams-some dating back to the early part of the century.

3) An Alpha-based ofﬁce suite with its faculty members“ photos in the
hallway and, inside the suite, an overhead row of photos of recent
graduates of the same faculty.

The plaques (8 awards-2 with multiple plaques) recognize Alpha and Beta
commodity-based faculty, students and clientele groups and some serve to recognize
donors to the University. A recent one recognizes individual and commodity-group
donors for establishing an endowed professorship in the Department. Another one is
expected to be mounted to recognize faculty members and commodity groups that
have made personal contributions toward the recent renovation of a Department
conference room.

The most noticeable aspect to these awards is that there are none for Chi-
based activities. When asked about this, one informant indicated that his commodity-

ﬁeld had gotten away from those “trappings“ over 50 years ago. He stated that the ﬁeld

164

was ahead of the others in the rigor of its research base and venturing away from “the
frills.“ The Chi group does have a few older photos mounted in its Extension-based
ofﬁce suite. There was concurrence by others that the photos and awards are, in one
sense, a “cover for young disciplines“ not sure of their stature-the greater number of
awards and “showy“ display correlated with less solidity (Field notes: 12l21/89).

One interesting aside is that two photos in the set of seven former Beta heads
(relocated from the renovated conference room) were installed in the wrong
chronological order. They have remained that way for six months, even after the
researcher mentioned it to two members of the Beta-group. Their responses were of
a lack of concern, almost amusement. One faculty informant was more surprised that
the cluster was recently moved to the hallway near his ofﬁce from the renovated
conference room. There was little concern for any meaning in the photos themselves.

Graduate students, when applying for admission, either apply “to“ and “for“ a
speciﬁc professor and research interest or are assigned to one. Once aboard, the
whole of their professional identity is primarily wrapped around the research discipline
and not through the Department. In order to survive the system, the students must
attach themselves to strong mentoring professors; their research support is attached
to the professor and does not transfer if the student does. During each week, the
disciplinary groups holds its own seminar series, either during the noon hour or
afternoon. It is here that students are expected to report on the development of
research programs and, later, the reporting of their research results. Technicians,
faculty, and students attend these to support each other and to develop their ability to

make professional presentations. Generally, these individuals stick to their own groups

165
and do not attend seminar sessions of other disciplinary groups within the Department
(Interviews: Graduate 2, 4, 5).

From beginning to end of the graduate student’s stay in the Department, their
primary focus is to the discipline, and then to a commodity group. [For undergraduate
students, the primary identity is to the commodity-based line of study.] Graduate
students in social settings were observed to have limited familiarity with each other.
This separateness is accentuated because students are assigned to certain ofﬁces by
research focus. There is very little ongoing social activity to gel them together, and
there is just one graduate student association meeting per term, which few attend.

The Department encourages recogiition by encouraging nominations for faculty
and student awards each year. Students are recognized in the Spring at the
Department banquet. Some of them, along with faculty, also receive awards from their
professional associations or commodity-based groups. With respect to clerical staff,
because a faculty committee could not agree on award and recognition criteria, no
regular awards are made (Department Records).

When informants were asked with whom they most identiﬁed in the Department,
the responses varied but were consistent by groups. Younger/newer faculty ﬁrst identify
with their peers in their ofﬁce-research suite. Older, more established, faculty identify
with their disciplines ﬁrst, peers at the University with a similar focus and, then,
members of other universities in the same research area. Clerical staff either split
between other secretaries, ﬁrst, or with their ofﬁce suite. There is a core group of six
or seven clerical staff that regularly takes breaks together, plans social activities, and

serves as support for each other. The others are quite independent and are

166
infrequently seen at non-work events and they identify primarily with their “bosses“-“their
guys.“

Structure. Being a university department, the organizational structure is, by its
very nature, relatively ﬂat-horizontal (see Figure 2). Faculty members are autonomous
individuals with little or no control direct over their activities by the Department Chair.
The structure in the Department reﬂects the decentralized nature of decision making for
staff activity and is administratively centralized to facilitate communications with the
Dean.

The faculty (43 active members in the building) are physically disbursed in
twelve clusters of ofﬁces on two ﬂoors of the building. Two of these ofﬁce clusters
do not have clerical staff in them, while three others have more than one clerical
person.

There is a set of six group leaders in the department who serve to coalesce
thinking in their interest areas (e.g., Extension, Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching
Coordinators, and commodity interest groups) and who periodically submit policy
papers to the Department administration. They serve as a “staff-on-call“ to prepare
position papers on subjects of interest to external advisory groups. This is not a
decision-making body.

According to Its By-Laws, the Department organizational structure consists of
ﬁve major components: the Chairperson; Advisory Committee; Undergraduate Student
Affairs Curriculum Committee; Graduate Student Affairs and Curriculum Committee; and
Safety Committee.

The current Chairman was selected from within the Department membership

approximately ﬁve years ago. He stepped into a tradition-bound position because he

167

replaced the individual who had remained as Chair from the Alpha department after the
mergers in the early 19805. He is noted for introducing more committee-based advisory
input, in contrast to a tradition of unilateral decision making by the Chair.

The Advisory Committee membership consists of ﬁve faculty members and a
graduate and an undergraduate representative. The committee’s purpose is: to serve
as an open channel of communication between the Department faculty, students, and
chairperson; advise the Chair on promotions, tenure, and grievances; and prepare the
agenda for faculty meetings. The Undergraduate Student Affairs and Curriculum
Committee serves primarily to review and evaluate courses, curricula, and degree
requirements; handle teaching grievances; and monitor advising and job opportunities.
This committee consists of four faculty, one graduate student, and two undergraduates.
The Graduate Student Affairs and Curriculum Committee serves to develop, advise, and
carry out policies on graduate student curriculum, and advise the Chair on the
allocation of assistantships. This committee consists of three faculty members and one
graduate student. The Safety Committee is composed of two faculty members, one
graduate student, and one technician. It provides guidance with respect to safety
practices, trains new personnel on safety regulations, and maintains reports on training.

All faculty positions on the standing committees were ﬁlled by elections
supervised by the Advisory Committee. Terms of ofﬁce were for three years and the
terms are staggered to provide continuity.

Clerical workers, as implied above, do not have formal input to the Department
administration on a regular basis, particularly not for decision making. Individually, they
report to their cluster of faculty bosses, and there is no other supervisory position over

them from the main Department ofﬁce. Without any formal mechanisms to provide

168

feedback to Department administrators, Clerical Staff are quite divergent in their feelings
toward the Department. Those that have a good day-to-day relationships with their
suite supervisors are more satisﬁed with the Department and their jobs. In those
instances where the suite faculty are less communicative and more controlling of work
tasks, there is more dissatisfaction expressed. In addition, clerical employees must
initiate any formal meetings with the Chair—primarily to resolve or discuss issues or
grievances. There have not been any meetings in over a year, since the end of the
University-wide Clerical-Technical strike.

From a rules and procedures standpoint, the Department's policy is “to have
as few policies as possible.“ (Interview: Clerical 8). The existing written policies pertain
to safety training protocols, test sample procedures, and a smoking policy that was
found posted at the computer room door.

Interpersonal Relations. On the whole, interpersonal relations are a strong
feature of the department. Yet, they tend to cluster differently for each employee group
of the Department. For faculty, the clustering of relationships is ﬁrst by ofﬁce suite,
discipline, commodity groups, professional association, other faculty and, then,
Department. For graduate students, the primary relationship cluster is by graduate
ofﬁce, research professor, research discipline, other graduate students, and the
Department. For clerical employees, the hierarchy begins at the suite level ﬁrst, other
clerical next, and, then Department.

Environmental Reigns. The Department is not able to create its external
environment or its clientele. It does, however, try to develop and nurture those
relationships. To do that, it must simultaneously adjust to the economic, physical,

and social environment which affects the enrollment of students, the degree to which

169

the commodities are valued by students and the public, and job opportunities for
graduates. Traditionally, the Department has had to channel the energy, political power,
and economic power of a variety of commodity groups, which are often at odds with
each other. In the past year, the Department has taken on an initiative—now under the
Dean's leadership-to channel the commodity groups' collective energies into a force
for political and economic power that can improve the Department’s ability to teach, do
research, and cany out public service programs. The Department's survival in the past,
now, and into the future strongly hinges on the ability of its faculty members to work
well with their single-interest clientele groups.

The purpose of reviewing the function of culture was to create a basis for
determining possible subocultures. For example, membership deﬁnes the boundaries
of the sub-cultures. Faculty join a collegial setting that pervades universities in general;
graduate students are joining a smaller set deﬁned by a disciplinary study; and clerical
staff are almost independently joining and attaching themselves to an ofﬁce suite of 3-6
faculty plus their respective graduate students. Socialization issues are also found to
vary within the Department. Clerical staff who are often expected to be socializers of
others, particularly students and faculty, are themselves not introduced to others or
taught administrative procedures in a consistent manner.

Implications for these groups are that when major items like health promotion
are introduced into the Department, individual members are not sure how to respond.
There are multiple channels and mixed messages as to how and whether the

Department administrator support participation.

170

Structures

Besides the imposition of a functional review as one basis to sift sub-cultures,
one can use other assumptions that are structural. The structural basis is used next
to test for sub-cultures along the hierarchy of employee groups: faculty, clerical staff,
and graduate students. It is expected that, after this next search, a hierarchical ordering
of sub-cultures can be made from their relationships to the dominant culture.

The most overriding, but not surprising, ﬁnding is that the clustering of employee
groups—faculty,support staff, and graduate students—represent the most pervasive
groupings within the Department. This is true whether one looks simply across the
Department or within each of the three root departments. In most respects, the factu
are imbued with the manifestations of culture that are evident in any other sub-
groupings. In looking at the history, tradition, and symbols of the culture, the search
is most always within the faculty ranks-how they differentiate themselves causes the
support staff and graduate students to differentiate as well.

It is male faculty members who have built and shaped each of the three root
departments. Faculty, by their very nature, have had much longer tenures within the
Department and the University. Graduate students are typically in the Department for
two to three years in the MS. program or ﬁve to six years In the Ph.D. program. Most
support staff, even while having University experience prior to the Department, have not
been in the Department much longer than ten to twelve years.

Each one of these strata will be reviewed based upon four constructs: security,
peer relations, power, and personal control.

Socially refers to job security, both with the University and the Department.

Faculty have the most security of any group in the University. But this is predicated

171

upon peer review, the recommendation for promotion by the Department Chair, and
approval by the Dean. Faculty, when interviewed, responded that tenure decisions
were based upon: doing a good job in their primary job duties; ﬁtting in with
supporting group effort; publishing articles, if it was appropriate to their job; and
obtaining the support of co—workers. From those just recently tenured, and for those
for whom it looms, the “publish or parish“ mentality of some departments is not a
fearsome thing in the Department. It was readily admitted, though, that lack of research
publishing may be held against individuals if their other work performance was not
deemed acceptable.

For the graduate students, security meant: doing good research, being involved
with outside projects, assisting and being involved with other graduates, and “hanging
on“ to the appropriate research advisor. These informants did not convey any
insecurity. Getting accepted into the Department was rigorous enough for the faculty
to feel conﬁdent of their abilities.

Clerical staff were almost unanimous in indicating that security is a function of:
doing a good job; being patient with personality differences; and ability to get along
with a variety of job interests. Due to University and Department budget cutbacks, they
recuningly have the least job security. Yet, they expressed conﬁdence in their ability
to perform under stressful conditions.

Peer remons for faculty are of a collegial nature. As a professional-type
organization, the Department functions with one-quarter of its membership operating
as “chiefs“—equal members in charge of the tribe.

The graduate students, more so at the Ph.D. level, are training to be “chiefs.“

Because of their short duration in the Department and strong mentoring relationships

1 72
received here, they align most within their research discipline and with those faculty
members.

For support staff, peer relations are strengthened most by their defenses against
the faculty. Relationships are strained at times between faculty and clerical staff and
sometimes amongst clerical staff. One issue that causes the clerical staff to be most
aggravated is faculty not following agreed upon hiring and interview protocols. Clerical
staff serve as the tribal “indians.“

Power reﬂects the ability for decision making within the department-participation
and control of others' activities. The faculty (the chiefs) are, in most senses, co-equal
in decision making authority. It is their agreed-upon organizational structure that gives
some members greater roles than others. Faculty represent the majority members on
all standing committees reported earlier. Department By-Laws give them certain
authority for peer reviews and personnel matters not available to others. Faculty, by
seniority rank, are designated suite supervisors, responsible for coordinating and
supervising activity within each ofﬁce suite. And most directly, they are responsible for
hiring, evaluating, and supervising the daily work activity of the suite support staff.

Graduate students are quite structured in their educational program, as far as
being research-oriented, narrowly discipline-focused, having maximum time limits for
which ﬁnancial assistantship support is granted, and following other mandated program
schedules for committee formation and annual reporting of program progress. Graduate
students, via their student association ofﬁcers, have minority membership on almost all
Department standing committees. But their own power and ability to professionally
succeed hinges upon working with the “right“ professor who could enhance their

research skills.

173

Clerical staff, as reported, are not represented on any standing committee in
the Department. Out-of-suite activities are limited to short-term committees, primarily
of a social nature like retirements and Christmas parties. Their authority to make
decisions, set own schedules and work priorities varies by ofﬁce suite and among the
many unique personalities within each suite. One clerical information was asked why
the faculty in her suite were not using wordprocessing equipment, which forced her to
spend many personal hours typing their letters and manuscripts. Half seriously she
indicated that it was in her best interest to not have the faculty members learn to use
computer wordprocessors: “Then they would not need her anymore.“ Her personal
powers mean they had to be dependent upon her for formed documents leaving the
ofﬁce.

The last construct, personal control, represents independence of work effort
and the ability to control one’s own work activity.

Faculty members are very independent and in control of their own time, both
at the worksite and away from work. Most indicate that they do not have much
freedom in these things because of many conﬂicts in external demands on their time.
But it is how they respond that sets them apart from other groups. Most consciously
choose to be overloaded by work and time pressure (Interviews: Faculty 1, 2, 3, 10).
When asked about their normal work hours, the “before 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM“ schedule
was most common. The majority stated they work four to twelve hours at home each
week in addition to their ofﬁce schedule, plus additional weekend activity at the
research centers. Older faculty acknowledged that they are trying to reduce their work
' away from the ofﬁce-breaking their own habits. In addition, a majority of faculty stated

they only expect a minimum of an 8 AM - 5 PM work schedule from other Department

174
faculty. But, in possibly only one case was that minimum close-the norm was for :t
60 hours of work per week. Their independence was accentuated by their ability to set
aside extra time during the lunch hour or regular work hours to exercise or otherwise
be away from their ofﬁce.

Graduate students were “locked into“ the demands of their class work and
research time tables. Individual research projects were the biggest factor In bringing
about great ﬂuctuation in time spent either in the Department's labs or at the research
centers—sometimes demanding a commitment of seven days a week and at odd hours
of the night. But this was not out of line with the background and experience of many
of them—the food technology production ﬁeld simply expected it.

Clerical staff had the least independence because their job assignments, work
priorities and break times were established by their faculty bosses, Department
administrators, and the University contract with employee labor unions. Their ability
to take extended lunch hours, compensation time, or adjust their break times were not
under their control—at least not until they had come to a mutual understanding with their
suite supervisor. Their ﬂexibility was dampened for a while by a Department memo,
after the Clerical-Technical strike, that restated their work and break times. The memo,
while simply a restatement of Department policy, was seen as out-of-character from the
Department administration. In all cases if there was any ﬂexibility, it was a “quid pro
quo“ agreement based upon compensating for any non-regular time oﬂ.

Another approach used for the structural search for sub-cultures is with
mmmmwmmmmmm. From
a historical perspective, the department still represents three separate groupings aligned

along the commodity-based roots as established earlier. Prior to the merger, graduate

175
students identiﬁed their focus by commodity grouping and then disciplinary specialty
within that. After the merger, the Department integrated the few overlapping disciplinary-
based activities. Graduate students now specialize within a disciplinary base and
secondarily focus on a commodity area. But undergraduate students still identify their
study areas by commodity group. These alignments were discussed earlier.

The Department’s and individual faculty relationship with clientele groups affects
the perpetuation of the original root-based department focus. The Alpha group still
represents multiple commodity areas, each with its own trade association protecting and
perpetuating their own interests. The Beta group is a single commodity group that is
very powerful—economically and politically-in the State. Its clientele are not pleased
with the integration of its interests with other food technology interests. In most mid-
westem states, it maintains more of an independent status in land-grant universities.
The Chi group has changed with respect to a shrinking clientele group-representing
fewer numbers but each more powerful. Members from this root indicate that this facet
of the Department is becoming subservient in the Department. For the ability to
maintain critical mass of expertise, it must regionally link up with other states to
maintain viability (Interviews: Faculty 10; Field notes: 12l21/89). This most always
happens when Chi-based commodities are merged with other larger commodity groups.

There are two levels of decision making found in the Department, each with
differing sets of markings. The ﬁrst involves the formal structure for managing the
Department. The second, entails the informal decision making aspects.

It is at the first level that integrative decisions are concerned with the
maintenance of the Department system-“running the shop.“ This level is controlled by

the faculty in general. Because of the de-centralized nature of the Department—physical

176

separation and by research disciplines-routine activities of individual ofﬁce suites are
handled by those members. Hiring, promotion, and evaluation of support staff are
handled there. How and whether the telephones are answered is decided there. The
type of wall decoration, pictures, and displays about their activities are decided there.
Scheduling of individual time-offs, vacation, and leaves are decided there.

All standing committees in the Department are advisory to the full faculty and
to the Chair. The formal Advisory Committee functions as a the ﬁrst line of faculty
representation. Its formal record indicates numerous information items, making
recommendations to the faculty, and setting the faculty meeting agenda. The full faculty
meeting is not a direct decision-making body, but it serves as a primary information
dissemination channel to the Department. Consequently, input from the Advisory
Committee becomes the recommendation back to the full faculty. It was reported by
some informants, that a number of sensitive discussions were brought up within
Advisory Committee meetings that were not discussed by the Department as a whole.
Some of these involved student-faculty relations and dissatisfaction with decision making
procedures.

One of these was the comment by informants that the committee system in the
Department was not used effectively. The perception was that, while many important
issues were referred to committee, the process was not respected and sometimes used
to avoid open discussion. In some cases, decisions were still made irrespective of the
committee recommendation (Interviews: Faculty 5, 10; Graduate 5). Because the
Department members were historically used to more unilateral decision making by the
Chairs, current discontent is directed at loss of “respect for the process“ rather than

discontent with the actual decision outcomes.

177

As other individuals commented, there appears to be a second level closely
aligned with the previous Alpha department afﬁliation that makes the critical decisions.
It was stated by a number of informants from Beta and Chi that Department members
aligned with the Alpha-group interests are thought to receive computer equipment and
information before other groups in the Department. Because the current chair was
appointed from within the Alpha root of the Department, a built-in bias is attached to
those with whom he works closely. The informants do admit, though, that no matter
what root the current Chair might have come from the same perception would get
tagged to the position. With that in mind, they suggest that hiring the ﬁrst combined
Chair from outside the Department would have portrayed greater sensitivity to
impartiality. (Interviews: Faculty 5, 10, clerical 3, 5).

One member indicated that the Chair “brings together a bunch of people after
work on about once a month“ to release tensions and have a few drinks (Interview:
Faculty 5, 10; Clerical 3). There was found to be a small group (six to ten faculty,
three to four other employees) that would meet to celebrate holidays after the normal
work day, with snacks and drinks. After other events, such as the student orientations,
this same bunch would also go to a local restaurant for food and drinks in the evening.
It was not an exclusive bunch, however, some members felt excluded. No faculty
members from Chi root department were found present, and only one or two from Beta
group would sometimes be present. One support staff from Chi would regularly attend
as a close peer to the others, but none would be present from Beta Graduate
students were almost always from Alpha. Although this might be a natural association

of the Chair with faculty In his professional area, this is found to be the “supporting

178
players“ for the big decisions of the Department. Faculty outside this group supported
this ﬁnding.

While receiving an invitation to attend these sessions from a Department
member, this researcher always felt welcome at these occasions. Faculty discussion
tended to run on Department issues but in a more relaxed manner. These same faculty
were noted to be the ones who, if anyone did, spoke out on discussion items at faculty
meetings.

The organizational structure, split between faculty, graduate students, and
support staff was used, to review issues of security, peer relation, personal power, and
personal control. Again, the faculty have the most pervasive control over their day-
to-day activities, the graduate students“ ﬂexibility within a narrower range, and the

clerical staff had the most control when working with faculty that afforded that to them.

Summgry

The second question, in asking whether sub-cultures in work environments can
be identiﬁed and understood, is answered: yes, there are identiﬁable sub-cultures.
There were two approaches used to decipher the Department: a review of the functions
of culture and analysis of hierarchial employee structures.

The strongest identiﬁable sub-culture is according to employee gems. This
characterization is most typical of most academic institutions. The faculty have the
greatest latitude, both professionally and personally, to control their work lives and job
performance. This extends to the graduate students but is least true for support staff.
The next strongest sub-culture is formed by my youps and ofﬁce sates. At

this level, each grouping forms its identity based on the strengths of the commodity-

179

based disciplines, each of which varies over time. The ofﬁce suites are arranged
according to disciplinary Interests and, within each, the faculty and accorded the most
independence and control. Even though the support staff gain more power at this level,
however, the graduate students receive more support and attention of the faculty. The
next strongest sub-cultures are the older members that still remember and identify with
the three root depatrmnts. It is from these units that the disciplinary groups were
formed and strengthened. It is within one of these root-based sub-cultures that a
smaller sub-cultural group was found that is closest to the key Department

administrators and provides a “sounding board“ for decision making.

Does the nature of the worksite culture or its sub-cultures inﬂuence

the adoption of innov4a_tions?

Before describing how the health promotion innovation was received in the
Department, there will be a brief discussion of its introduction at the University level
and how it was diffused to different departments. Then, health promotion’s impact at

sub-culture levels will be reviewed and an assessment of its current status.

Universihr-wige In_i_t_l_ati_1§

In the latter half of the 19805, the University received a renewable grant from
a national foundation to test the interest and need for health promotion activity. After
one year, the University received a three-year, two and on-half million dollar continuation

grant to demonstrate health promotions“ feasibility at a major university institution.

180

A small number of full and part-time staff directs the health promotion services
to the wider university level population. It is their purpose to stimulate and promote
the activities of over two-dozen sub-projects, each with its own leadership, staff, and
interests.

Part of this original initiative was to transfer sustainability of the general health
promotion activity to the University after the three year period. From the beginning,
however, it was never understood what sustainability meant, and whether it was a
primary activity of the central ofﬁce or the responsibility of each sub-project. They
developed divergent interests and were directed at different clientele at the University
(e.g., students, university employees including grad-students, international students,
summer day camps for children in university housing, health promotion curriculum
development, and occupational health and safety). While the central ofﬁce has been
trying to develop a University-wide identify, each of the sub-projects has struggled to
create its own identity and footing within the academic structure in case the university-
wide venture does not succeed. Individual sub-project success is partly predicated
on how much they became embedded within existing academic and service units.

Those that remained separate had a greater struggle to remain viable.

Unit-level Initla_ti;vp

The speciﬁc sub-project, in which this research is housed, specializes in health
promotion services at the organizational worksite level. Faculty consultation is provided
for administrative expertise and health behavior content while primary contact with

departmental employees is by Graduate Assistant leadership.

181

During the Fall of the ﬁrst year and under the ageis of the University health
promotion effort, the project director, another faculty consultant, and this researcher
met with the Department Chair. The meeting“s purpose was to lay out the quasi-
experimental evaluation design for the health promotion project that would assess
change across multiple work environments.

The Department's role was to be a control site over a one year period. The
Chair appointed a faculty contact person who had familiarity with the University health
initiative. The project manager and this researcher met to ﬁnd out how to distribute
notices and ﬂyers to encourage participation in planned activities. This researchers also
met with the full faculty to discuss the project and timeline of activities for a two year
period. Few questions were raised at that time.

In the Fall of 1987, a health fair was introduced into the building for a two day
period. Among the health measures provided were total cholesterol, heart rate and
blood pressure, cardiovascular risks, and computerized health and lifestyle feedback.
There were 78 individuals associated with the Department who went through the one-
hour screening: 5596 of the faculty, 2996 of the graduate students and 7196 of the
support staff. (Undergraduate students were not considered Department employees;
they were eligible for services in other sub-projects.)

Concurrently to that, a questionnaire survey packet was given to each health
fair participant and one was sent to each non-participant of the Building. The return
rates for the questionnaires were 5596 of the faculty, 3196 of the graduate students, and
4696 of the support staff. A higher rate for faculty and lower rates for graduate students

health fair participation and survey returns characterized this site from others to follow.

182

On the other hand, a signiﬁcantly lower response rate by the support staff, particularly
the clerical, raised questions of possible tension in their work environment.

During the end of the same year, two other campus buildings were
systematically selected for health fairs as a pro-test and introduction of health promotion
programs. They were scheduled for post-test evaluation the following year, along with
a fourth building that had no speciﬁc intervention.

Beyond the ﬁrst health fair and the survey returns, there were no formal contacts
with the Department until the beginning of Fall, one year later. At a scheduled meeting
the health project director and the researcher met with the Department Chair to restate
project goals and reafﬁrm the intent to initiate a post-test health fair and soon,
thereafter, introduce health programs.

The Chair agreed to appoint an employee committee to guide the interaction
and communication in the building. This researcher again met with the full faculty to
review the project activities of the health fair, and surveys that would precede the health
programs. He also met with the clerical staff on a scheduled day during one of their

regular break times to discuss the project and elicit their support.

Demental Results
At the organizational level, the introduction of health promotion was at ﬁrst a

Chair decision and, than, a consensus agreement by the faculty to passively allow
entry (gatekeeping). From the Department’s standpoint, that was all it needed to
do-allow a service to come in and be provided to the employees. This was the
collective innovation-decision discussed in Chapter Two. Before members could join

programs in the Department, health promotion had to be allowed to enter (sponsored).

183

It then became a factor of promoting the same health promotion service to all the
employees as individual decision makers. But these individuals did not have speciﬁc
measures of direct support or encouragement from Departmental administrators. The
Department Chair decided to not make a formal statement to encourage employee
attendance at the health fair. The decision of whether clerical staff could attend health
program meetings during normal work hours, with or without compensation time, was
left up to individual suite supervisors. Department administrators decided to not make
recommendations to other faculty in support of release time for health programs.
Because clerical staff are under the pressure of three to six faculty bosses, their desire

or intent to attend was restricted by work pressures.

Participation

Just prior to the health fair, a Department-wide introductory and information
session was held for employees. Individual discussions were scheduled for each health
program offered; exercise and ﬁtness, smoking cessation, weight management, and
stress management. Being offered at a relaxed time between academic terms, a large
turnout was expected, particularly for the health oriented refreshments available. Just
1096 of the Department membership came for the orientation, but they were enthusiastic
and showed strong interest in the stress management program.

It was found that onchalf of the 18 members who initially participated in the
health programs were clustered in two of the twelve ofﬁce suites-faculty, staff and their
corresponding graduate students. The other half were primarily in pairs of employees
from other non-Departmental ofﬁces in the Department or from other ofﬁces in the

building. No members from the Chi group were participants, even thought they

184

expressed initial interest in the stress programs. In fact, the only two health programs
that were able to gain enough participants to continue were weight management and
exercise-ﬁtness. What did distinguish this Department from other units where the health
project had worked was the higher proportion of faculty program participants. 01 the
ten percent of building members participating in the ﬁrst round of health programs, over
one third of them were faculty members-in contrast to other University departments that
went as low as three percent.

Faculty, as a whole, have much personal control and ﬂexibility in scheduling
their time. It was acceptable for individual faculty to take time out of their work day
to exercise. Some exclusively did it during their lunch period, but taking time beyond
the 60 minutes was routine. For others the last hour and a half of the day were regular
times to be away from the ofﬁce.

In general, graduate students did not participate except for a small cluster that
came from one strongly supportive disciplinary—based suite in which the faculty
supenrisor participated. For the clerical staff, there were different issues at hand. All
but one indicated their suites would allow them time to participate in a program during
normal work hours as long as they made up the work time. But they also indicated
that there were other suites where that would not be true—it was an individual suite
decision.

When asked if the Department is a supportive, health-related environment,
informants generally responded that it was-as long as it was stimulated from the
outside. Allowing the project to enter was the primary supportive feature;

counterproductive aspects were that it was not made a Department priority.

185

In an environment where the Department is ﬁghting to survive intact and faced
with severe budget cuts, the question was asked whether the unit would fund a one-
quarter graduate assistant to manage health promotion activity. The unanimous
response was NC. This was after a nearly unanimous declaration that health promotion
was beneﬁcial to employees for increased health status, productivity, energy levels, and
satisfaction. The faculty reacted as though someone would lose the one-quarter time
assistantship from their personal research projects. No one was going to forsake his
own professional well-being for the good of the Department (and that was not even the
question). The money, as agreed by many, would have to come from an outside
source, such as the Dean. This was viewed as a “zero-sum“ game for those in the
Department. Furthermore, asked how others would react if, “at the next meeting of their
co-workers, they were to state that the Department should make a long-term
commitment of resources to health promotion,“ the common response was that most
would support the concept, but not the implementation if it were to draw resources
away from the Department.

The complexity and compatibility of the health promotion innovation was drought
to assimilation affect the cultural innovation equally throughout the Department.
Compatibility was found to have more variability by major sub-cultural groups.

Complexity refers to “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difﬁcult
to understand and use“ (Rogers, 1983, p. 15). It reﬂects clarity of meaning and
simplicity of use to potential adopters. In the case of the Department, there were a
number of procedural hurdles to get started: participating in an introductory/ informative
meeting, then a health fair, an initial start-up meeting for each speciﬁc health program,

and ﬁnally, agree on a mutually acceptable program meeting time. Each participant was

186

also asked to engage in an incentive system, commit six months to participate in a one-
hour, weekly program, and investing $40 as a refundable deposit based upon success
in the program. Attendance and adherence were perceived hurdles for individuals who
were often gone or required to leave on short notice, particularly Extension faculty.

Worksite health promotion was not found to be an organizational priority in the
Department. The Chair, when asked whether the Department members would have
asked for a health promotion program on their own initiative, indicated that it would not
have been a priority. Because of the decentralized decision making on matters directly
affecting staff and faculty time, the issue simply became an innovation transferred to the

individual level and not one at the organizational level.

Sub-Culture Results

Cornpatitiﬁty is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters“
(Rogers, 1983, p. 15). Compatibility can be with values and beliefs, previously
introduced innovations, or with member needs for innovation.

Examples include: 1) how the organization views health; 2) release time; 3)
exercising on work time; 4) convenience: location, showers, time; and 5) compatibility
with ongoing research issues in the Department.

Went view of hegﬂp. In general, health promotion was stated to be an
appropriate activity of the Department. One faculty member indicated that it portrayed
the University's commitment to its employees. It is useful for employees who don't

regularly see a physician. There was almost unanimous agreement, othemise, that

187
health promotion was an appropriate role of the University, even more so than the
Department, to provide.

The commitment of Department resources to it was not accepted. In this
situation, member and organizational gains were offset by the idea that research dollars
would have to come from someone“s research project, not the Department as a whole.
Another faculty member, who successfully completed one program, believed he was
helped personally, but did not think the Department would gain-it did not enhance his
research career.

Most informants believe the Department—suite supervisors and faculty-would
support attendance at programs. Almost unanimously, the informants agreed that
health promotion is an important activity of the Department-to create healthier and
more productive employees. And for faculty, at least, it is acceptable to exercise during
normal work hours-many of them already do.

There was no perceived need that health promotion was designed to meet.
For those faculty who believed that health is an individual matter, they are already
exercising. At least some of the older faculty have either been exercising all of their
life or stated that they got started in the mid-19505 in response to a strong “push“ from
the University intramural programs. Some could see the beneﬁts for others, but did not
perceive the need for role-modeling.

Early indications, prior to the survey, were that this Department could
successfully adopt an activity that would bring about change in how it Operated. But,
now, there was little evidence that persons from a different employee groups could
come together and work on toward the betterment of the Department and its members.

Decision making, while often channeled through committees for recommendation,

188

primarily rested with the Chair. All groups, except clerical staff, were represented on
some standing committee and all but the clerical staff had regular meetings together
for mutual interests.

A problem arose when working with the employee committee: there was no
mandate to the committee to look at how the Department affected employee health.
Work climate issues, such as supervisor support relation, leadership styles, employee
commitment, control of work tasks, and physical environment, can affect employee
health status. Yet, once the health fair was over and the health programs were started,
the employee committee members lost interest and motivation. It was found that some
of them were being asked to participate even longer than they expected. They thought
they were originally being asked to attend three or four meetings and not commit to an
on-going series.

A commonly accepted fact of university life is that many employee have spouses
employed elsewhere on campus. There are at least six faculty and clerical staff with
spouses working in the Department or elsewhere at the University. This has created
tensions among a few employees who were not comfortable working around married
couples in close proximity. In one instance, a clerical informant indicated she had to
take all the personal leave to deal with family—related illnesses because her husband’s
job in another department was not as ﬂexible or supportive.

Release time. All faculty indicated that release time from work should not
present an insurmountable problem—as long as the primary work got done. They did
indicate that a few others might not agree. Two faculty saw enough “slack“ in the
clerical staff’s time during the week that the staff's attending the programs would be a

positive move for them and the Department.

189

Release time was not a similar obstacle to graduate students. They only
attended if their time was not scheduled for classes or research projects in the ﬁrst
place. Clerical staff, at the beginning of the health program session, indicated that
they were unsure of how the Chair felt about release time. Because that period
immediately followed a clerical strike, relations were tense between faculty and staff-with
great variation between ofﬁce suites.

In general, though, the theme in the Department was that clerical staff would
still work a traditional shift: 8:00 AM. to noon and 1:00 PM. to 5:00 PM. Breaks
were to be taken at 10:00 AM. and 3:00 FM. only. There was rigid adherence in
some suites and ﬂexible arrangements in others, though.

Also, due to the clientele-group orientation of the Department to its constituents,
there was an almost sacred allegiance to the telephone—that it must be answered by
a secretary. Partly due to an antiquated system based on the original three department
separations, the phone system did not allow much freedom to transfer cells. It was
found from observation and intenriews that if a secretary was away from the desk the
telephone would frequently ring unanswered; however, this response varied among the
suites. Some faculty would not answer in place of the secretary, while others would
religiously ﬁll the void.

Exercise on work time. The historical tradition of the Department did not allow
for faculty to break from the work day and exercise; “allowance for personal time would
most always lead to its misuse.“ Against this long-standing norm, at least six faculty
members regularly and independently exercise during noon hours. Two others would

regularly play a competitive sport at the last hour of the day. For some, even their time

190

away from the ofﬁce was so scheduled that, if they did not schedule the exercise during
the day, it would not occur.

The majority of those faculty that regularly take time to exercise at work are
.. seen as a unique bunch. One is a “loner“ who regularly misses Department seminars;
the others are part of the “decision group” or clustered in one ofﬁce of the Beta group.
Just about every faculty member interviewed was found to have some regular exercise
in his schedule.

The graduate students, as is common across most academic units, are expected
to complete their assigned tasks, irrespective of the number of hours or time of day.
As a result, their work time was somewhat under their control, but it was not a
commodity tradable to the Department for time spent in health-related activity.

Clerical staff were not found to use their noon hours for any health-related
activity. The use of noon hours ranged from playing cards in the break room, to
leaving the building entirely to eat-most always independently of each other. Two
faculty were vocally advocating that clerical staff should or could take work time to
exercise, as long as their time was made up; the expectation was that only their
personal time could be used.

Faculty, while being good role-models for exercise and generally concerned
about their health, are very controlling of their secretaries“ time away from the desk.
They express the importance of staff health and support their exercising during the
noon hours but, when It comes to encouraging clerical staff to take off time or shifting
.the work schedule, there is much more reserve.

Convenience. One of the key reasons faculty indicated they could exercise at

the work place was that lockers and shower facilities were available. The building was

191
built with these in mind to aid faculty coming in from the research centers, that could
shower before having to teach classes. Because the showers are regularly used, they
are regularly cleaned—at least for the males. Two female graduate students indicated
that they used the ladies shower rooms but the facilities were not maintained well.

Two clerical members indicated that they heard bad stories about the showers
and never checked them out. They indicated they would like to be doing some
exercise activity at work, but “if they could not do them at work, the wouldn't have time
when they got home.“ The clerical staff had the most need with their secretary jobs but
were the least likely to take time for personal health activity.

One faculty and one clerical staff indicated that the proposed building renovation
might be a good time to put in a weight room and “ﬁx“ the ladies showers. When the
researcher broached the subject with others, there was hesitation to follow-up on it.
As one clerical indicated, “it would be nice for them to do something for the clerical
staff,“ mom of them do not have access to windows or direct fresh air, as do most of
the faculty and technicians in the building.

Comgtibility wit_h resea_rch issues of the Degrtment. Much of the food
technology research of the Department has had tremendous beneﬁts for consumers,
food producers, and other researchers. Because of their training the faculty and
graduate students know a tremendous amount of health principles but do not generally
apply that knowledge to themselves. In spite of their extensive education and health-
related research, they do make limited application of the health principles to their own
lives. Also, there was found to be subtle, and not so subtle, competition among the
commodity groups. Public perception of food products and health risks raises the

estimable value of some of the commodity-group products and lowers that of others.

1 92
Two faculty ofﬁces had cartoons and bumper stickers on their walls that “played up“ the
value of their commodity product by down-grading the worth of a competing one. Even
at this level, health issues were not “win/win“ but “win/lose“.
For clerical staff, no connections between the health-related research of the

Department and their personal commitment to healthy lifestyles could be drawn.

General Status of the Health Promotion Inntmp

In Chapter Two, the issue was raised about what situations may require change
in the strategy versus the need to change the culture itself. In those instances where
there is a perceived need by the Department for the innovation and high compatibility
with the culture, then the energy is directed toward managing the change. In this
situation, health promotion is not a change deemed important to the Department. There
is little opportunity to modify the health promotion content, but some chance to modify
how it is delivered. Success may be best met by managing “around“ the culture,
without confronting it directly.

In this Department, there was a search to determine whether a speciﬁc health-
related sub-culture could be identiﬁed. Questions were asked to four members about
'workaholism“ and “health nuts.“ An ofﬁce suite the Beta group was thought of by
others as a workaholic bunch, and one faculty informant from that ofﬁce said his suite
might be thought of as workaholics. But, instead, these members from Beta generally
viewed others as not working hard enough (Interview: Faculty 4; Graduate 4, 5).

A “health nut“ was deﬁned by one faculty as someone who was totally obsessed
with health aspects. He laughed as he stated that the Department had a small number

of vegetarians amongst the traditional meat eaters, so that being vegetarian was no

193
longer deemed odd in the Department. One vegetarian student had to weigh her food
interests against other commodity groups in the Department who took a more
Iaissez-faire attitude toward the ethics and purity of food production techniques
(Intenriew: Faculty 4; Graduate 2).

A critical ﬁnding was formed around the issue of smoking behavior in the
Department. From a previous health habit survey in the Department, 13.4 percent of
the respondents replied yes to “use of tobacco“—not signiﬁcantly different from other
academic worksites at the university.

Surprisingly, a small number of faculty were observed smoking in social settings
not readily apparent to others. Two informants indicated that more faculty smoked than
most others knew about; they just “snuck around“ more. There were seven faculty and
administrators observed or who admitted to smoking. All were part of the Alpha-based
decision making group, as were most of the graduate students and clerical staff who
were observed to be smokers. Smoking policies in the Department allow smoking in
private ofﬁces, restrooms, and the break room. This is the one health-related behavior
that parallels an identiﬁable sub-culture. In this case, it represents a negative health
behavior-one admitted by two faculty as being reinforced by the relaxed social setting.

The clerical staff were pointed to by many members as being resistant to health
promotion because they had a high percentage of smokers who were perceived very
resistant to change. Almost one-half of the clerical staff are smokers, and most of them
are in the core group of clericals who regularly meet in the break room together. Their
heavy smoking has kept some other clerical staff from associating with them in the

break room. Some stayed away because of their beliefs about health; others take

194
general exception to the smell; and one, who recently stopped smoking, did not want
the stimulus reminder.

On another vein, one faculty informant expressed that many faculty who are'
over-achievers are often called upon to do more than is good for their health. He
believes that talent is recognized and given its due reward, but sometimes there are
too many tasks asked of those who perform well. In a Department that has members
work seven days a week, the Department culture reinforces work-related behavior

instead of relaxation.

University Heaﬂpromotion Situation

In spite of the work of the central ofﬁce for health promotion, the larger
University environment has not fully embraced the health promotion philosophy.
University-level administrators send inconsistent signals of health promotion’s shifting
priority to unit administrators and employees. Divisions for Personnel and Staff Beneﬁts
have not adopted the idea in any meaninng way. At the individual department level,
some of the university-wide health promotion activities, such as evaluation surveys and
special events, get confused with sub—project activities—to each other“s determinant.

A major roadblock to some of the expected adoption remains to be the
University's publicly stated ﬁnancial situation. While It is implementing a multi-million
dollar campaign for expanding buildings and “histech“ services, it is also going through
a multi~year process of systematic cUtbacks in general fund appropriations to existing
departments. Across the University, this is leading to lay offs of support staff, non-
ﬁlling of some vacated faculty positions, and severely reduced physical maintenance of

buildings and ofﬁces. Even in a large organization, this leads to the perception of a

195

dearth of slack resources which are thought crucial to adopting many non-routine

innovation.

Summag

This third question looked at how the nature of worksite cultures or sub-cultures
inﬂuences the adoption of health promotion innovations. There is a relationship found
between the adopting unit and the innovations. After a review of its development within
the University and across academic units, the issues of complexity and compatibility
were reviewed. Complexity entailed the number of activities that members had to pass
through and a diverse package of personal commitments they made to be in a health
promotion program. Compatibility, on the other hand, was a search for the normative
goodness of ﬁt between the health promotion service and the Department. In general,
members believed the University was the appropriate unit for being concerned about
employee health. The Department best served as a convenient location and support
for the health promotion service but not necessarily the appropriate level for expecting
labor resources or a ﬁnancial commitment. The faculty most, graduate students next,
and the clerical staff were found to be in least personal control of health-related activity

at the worksite, particularly with respect to using work time for personal health activity.

Summary of t_he Healt_h Promotion Innovatjpp

it becomes apparent when looking at the Department that health promotion
impacts on more than the individual“s health status. At the broader level, it ﬁrst
becomes an innovation to the worksite organization in calling for its entry, support, and

commitment to the effort.

196

In looking for patterns of adoption by sub-cultures, the strongest adoptive group
was found by ofﬁce suite-those that paralleled disciplinary groups. There were two
ofﬁce suites from which the majority of health promotion program participants were
drawn. This emanated from the faculty and to their graduate students. In one other
ofﬁce suite, there was initial strong interest in participating but when the lead faculty
member was not able to participate the support staff also had to refrain.

From another perspective, the incidence of participation was by employee
groups. The highest percentage of employee group participation came from the
support staff, next from the faculty, and marginal from the graduate students.

A continuing problem area comes from the wider University culture, which
continues to send mixed messages to the academic units and employees about the
value of health promotion and the level of University commitment to it. The Department
confounds the issue by transferring the innovation directly to the individual and playing
a passive role.

Worksites typically ignore or default on their potential role as facilitator of the
health promotion adoption. Almost in conﬂict, the health promotion providers are
staking claim to introduce health promotion services to the worksite organization as one
alternative solution to the employee's health concerns. But until the University and

Department administrators begin to adopt it, they become part of the problem.

CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of the Study

The Problem

The worksite has become an optimum setting for health promotion. The
worksite is being utilized because: 1) it provides a neural setting (e.g., convenience,
captive audience, and effective delivery location); 2) it offers an 'lltervention opportmity
(e.g., supportive environment, means to intervene in the work environment and the
social system); and 3) it suggests an economic hoantive (e.g., a fringe beneﬁt to the
employee, and reduced use of medical care resources to the employer).

Not limited to simple distribution of information and provision of educational
programs, health promotion is a concerted action to bring about behavioral changes
in individuals that will have a direct impact on their health. It represents an intended
action by the health promotion provider, in collaboration with the worksite organization,
that targets the employee as user.

A component less understood is that speciﬁc organizational contexts come into
play when implementing worksite health promotion. This often requires changes in
the worksite organization and its culture-how it operates and what it values.

The purpose of this ethnographic case study was to- better understand work

environments as cultural systems, including their sub-cultures, and identify cultural

197

198
factors that might inﬂuence the adoption and integration of health promotion as an
innovation in a speciﬁc worksite. The case studied was an academic department in a

large mid-westem land-grant university.

D_rgpn_izational Culture

Organizational culture, as examined through the literature, was found to be a
pattern of basic assumptions—created to serve adaptation and integration functions-
that worksite members reinforce and pass on to others. From this view, it was
suggested that culture tends to: 1) become manifest in artifacts, values, and basic
assumptions; 2) serve a wide variety of functions; and 3) be potentially found at multiple
loci within an organization.

It is important to be able to identify organizational cultures or sub-cultures at
three levels, those that: inﬂuence the decision to adopt the health promotion innovations
into the site; inﬂuence the adoption of health promotion at the individual level; and
encourage resistance (e.g., negative counter-cultures) to those changes.

Health promotion was ﬁrst described as an innovation to individuals. It's
complexity and compatibility are thought to inﬂuence individual levels of innovativeness.
Organizations also affect the introduction of innovations by tempering or expanding their
supportive role. It is proposed that organizations can display innovativeness among
their ﬁve major aspects-products/services, production-process, organizational structures,
people innovations, and policy innovations-as discussed at the end of Chapter Five.
Innovations in organizations are inﬂuenced by leadership characteristics and internal
characteristics of the organization, such as size, centralization, complexity, formalization,

interactions, and organizational slack.

199

Worksite Health Promotion as an Innovgp‘th

While health promotion remains the content of change, the worksite provides the
context for the change. It is the socio-cultural environment that rewards and
encourages certain employee behaviors that are purportedly meaningful to the
organization. Historically, certain health-related risk factors (e.g., weight, ﬁtness level,
stress, and smoking) have not been deemed a direct concern of some organizations.
In these contexts, the individual was held responsible for any problems that may occur,
such as sickness, absenteeism, or low performance.

More recently, worksites have become part of the “health promotion solution“ by
demonstrating increasingly higher support and commitment for employee health.
Marketing and organization development are strategies that have been used to enhance
the role and level of involvement that the organization may take in facilitating health
promotion activity.

Increasingly, health promotion is described as an innovation; It Is a set of ideas
and practices that is perceived as new by the individual and the worksite. Thus,
principles of the process of adoption of innovation by individuals and groups will

probably also apply to health promotion at a worksite in an organization.

Field Research in Organizational Settings

Ethnographic analysis is the primary means for studying cultural settings.
Organizational ethnography comprises the traditional ethnographic approach applied to
the study of a non-traditional object of qualitative study-the organizational worksite
culture(s). The speciﬁc participant observation methods that were used in this case

study of an academic unit included: observation techniques, from unobtrusive to

200

participant observer; interview protocols, both formal and Informal; and document
analysis, of current and recent worksite records.

Speciﬁc steps of the methodology included: developing a relationship with the
unit members; informant selection; data collection (i.e., developing interview schedules,
interview protocol, and data handling); data analysis and veriﬁcation; and presentation

of ﬁndings.

Summary of ﬁnding

The ﬁndings from this study were organized according to the three major

research questions.

_C_an academjc work environpiﬂs be understood as cultural gstems?

The initial search focused on the origins, or roots, that formed ﬂie Department.
A viable cultural system was identiﬁed, based on the traditions of the three root
departments and their convergence in recent years.

Each of the three units-Alpha, Beta, and Chi—was formed at the beginning of
the 19005 and they grew in tandem with the University and its land-grant mission.
While the members of each came from similar backgrounds, they maintained separate
identities and had regulated professional relationships between the units. Individual
faculty were found to collaborate among departments but inter-departmental activities

were not supported.

201

The history of the University was integral to the development of the units. In
their formative (early) years, characterized by stability, members worked longer at the
ofﬁce, had less control over their work time, and less personal freedom for self-care.

In the transformation (middle) years, when the three departments were physically
joined in one building housing them all, each was held “at bay“ from each other by
fears of takeovers and external identiﬁcation with speciﬁc and separate commodity-
based groups. The departments, along with the State and University, went through a
ﬁnancial crisis and budget cuts at the beginning of the last decade. This precipitated
the formation of the present department through the administrative merger of the three
units.

Many of the older faculty members remember their original departments as
“family units.“ They expressed a sense of loss now that the Department is too large to
maintain the individual identities of its members. Physical isolation from each other and
divergent professional interests detract from the earlier bondedness members sometimes
felt.

The Department struggles to maintain and reinforce those commonalities found
in people with traditional rural backgrounds. It has experimented with different teaching
methods and environments to instill a ﬂavor of rural community values into a student
population that is increasingly coming from urban backgrounds and contains an
increasing proportion of women, who traditionally had not been active in the ﬁelds

represented by the Department.

202

As a whole it was found that this academic cultural unit was characterized by:

1) its relaxed atmosphere and openness of communication between
members and to its commodity-based clientele (driven by information ﬂow
emanating from the Department ofﬁce, and much more informal within

certain employee groups);

2) its continuing ﬁnancial stress that parallels the University and State’s
economic situation leading to an “everyone for themselves“ attitude in
some groups, perpetuated by the strong identity to extemal commodity

groups; and

3) its value base highlighted by support for family and gender roles, strong
work orientation, independence of work routines, collegial atmosphere,

and personal support in times of crises.

ﬁn sub-cultures in work environments; be identiﬁed and understood?

The second major question went in search of sub-cultures that might be found
in the academic work environment. The strategy used was to ﬁrst sift through the
functions that cultures are found to serve, and than ﬁlter it through the organizational
employee structure.

The Department is still male-dominated at the faculty level, all female within the
clerical ranks, one-third female among the graduate students, and three-ﬁfths female

at the undergraduate level. There is no overt gender bias in faculty hires. Gender

203
composition appears to be the result of low turnover of members within the Department.
An issue raised by many is that there is almost no formal socialization of new members,
other than students. New hires are left to themselves and are sometimes rebuffed in
learning the system, because they are joining the ranks of many “old-timers.“

As might be expected in the traditional academic environment, the strongest sub-
culture was based on employee groups. The strongest sub-culture was composed of
faculty, the next strongest was the graduate students, and the support staff had the
least strength.

Faculty maintained the strongest relationship vertically within their ofﬁce suites,
horizontally with their peers in the Department, and externally to similar units at other
universities.

The next strongest set of sub-cultures was determined by disciplinary groups
and ofﬁce suites. Identities in these groups were more external and driven by
relationships with commodity-based groups across the State. Within each sub-culture,
the facility play dominant roles while the support staff are almost evenly matched with
the graduate students. The least obtrusive, but still pervasive sub-cultures, are based
upon the alignments within each of the three original root departments. This is true

more for older faculty and support staff and for some graduate students.

Does the nature of the work_site culture or its sub-cultures inﬂuence the adoption of
innovations?

It is this question that asks whether the academic culture affect the adoption of
health promotion innovations. Decision making for health promotion activity proceeded

at different levels than other activities in the Department. The Chair did not believe the

204

Department, as a whole, would be committed to health promotion on its own volition.
Members did not believe that the Department could be committed without the Chair's
leadership. Once it slipped away from being a Department agenda, it remained simply
an innovation for individuals to consider as single decision making entities. Here the
clerical staff had to rely on non-direction by Department administrators and the control
of suite supervisors. Graduate students responded more in line with their research
faculty groups.

The complexity and compatibility of the health promotion innovation affected its
assimilation. Once the Department backed away from a commitment, there was an
increase in the complexity of health promotion innovation to the individual. Decisions
that could be broadly answered at the administrative level in the Department (e.g.,
release time, transfer of phone answering, support for attendance) became additional
hurdles to the individual.

Compatibility was considered with respect to organizational views of health, the
appropriate role of health promotion to the Department, the experience of employees
working together, release time, exercising on work time, convenience, the Departmental
research focus, and “who does it now“ (i.e., rolcmodeling). Generally, the Department
is committed to health promotion as an opportunity for employees-as long as the unit
does not have to commit its ﬁnancial resources. Phone answering was a control item
the faculty used in not allowing clerical freedom away from the desk. Faculty had the
personal freedom to exercise at the workplace because showers were available and
they could adjust their schedules to accommodate the workload. The Department’s

substantive focus promoted a keen awareness among faculty and graduate students

205
regarding health risks. But that awareness did not seem to generally translate into
personal health behavior modiﬁcations.

One can ask whether there is a need for culture change in order for health
promotion to be assimilated into the Department. No strongly health-oriented sub-
cultures were found, nor was the seven-day a week research activity viewed as out-
of-Iine with the traditions of the primary culture. One surprising ﬁnding was “that the
primary group of smokers in the Department for faculty, clerical, and graduate students,
were closely aligned within the “decision making“ sub-culture identiﬁed earlier.“ Also,
over-achievers (both faculty and clerical) were those most likely to be called upon to

give more, with potential negative health implications.
Conclusions

This section focuses primarily on the results associated with the third research
question. There are a number of key questions answered below that will further
delineate what was the inﬂuence of culture-Department-wide or sub-groups-on the

adoption of the worksite health promotion innovation.

Was worksite health gomotion adopted py the Degrtment?

There was no effective adoption of health promotion by the Department as a
whole. The administrators were pleased with the health promotion activity as it was
made available to the unit. There was even a positive note by most informants that
making the activity available was a “good thing“ for the Department to be doing. But

there was no commitment on the Department's part for it to provide long-term

206

resources, leadership, make staff time available, or formally encourage member
participation. In looking at the strength of the adoption, it was not pervasive across the
Department or at any depth anywhere.

One major indicator was that, after the initial set of six-month health promotion
programs were completed, they were again made available within the Department’s
building. Only six individuals ever expressed interest by attending either of two
information sessions. The Department's early level of involvement stopped after the
health fair. The health fair was a good thing to be doing for the employees. It
appeared that after the initial efforts, the health promotion programs became intrusive.

The Department as a whole remains an innovative and national leader in many
of its research activities and in maintaining close ties with its external clientele. But it
appears to have less ability to change how it operates and lags behind in people-
oriented innovations affecting its own faculty, staff, and students. Figure 7 (see the
boxes marked by “X“) is proposed as a matrix of the Department's innovativeness within
its organizational systems aspects—discussed at the end of Chapter Two. This is not
presented as an objective evaluation, nor is it thought to be much different than other
academic departments where the worksite health promotion project has attempted to

introduce change.

207

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLICY X
PEOPLE X
STRUCTURAL X
PROCESS X

PRODUCT X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INN E-AD E-MAJ L-MAJ LAG

Figure 8: Matrix of the Department's Innovativeness According to
Categories Used to Describe Innovativeness.

 

It is proposed that this Department, typical of other academic units at the
University, will be more innovative in its professional orientations and research goals
(e.g., the products and services of the organization, and its production-process
orientations) and less innovative in thoa features directly applying to its human

aspects (e.g., people innovations and the policy innovations to support them).

W_as Worksite Health Promotion Adopted by Sub-groups of the Degrtment’lI
The health promotion innovation was adopted by members in certain parts of

the Department, but the far larger proportion of it did not adopt at all. It can not be

208

said that speciﬁc sub-groups as whole units became involved, but most all activity
emanated from a limited number of sub-groups.

To say that ten percent of the Department members participated in health
promotion programs is not a signiﬁcant amount, nor is that much different from
participation found in other units at the University. Even when looking within speciﬁc
groups (i.e., faculty, graduate students, and support staff) there are no speciﬁcs that
stand out, except to say that the graduate students—as in so many activities of the
Department—participated at the most marginal level.

It is when looking at speciﬁc ofﬁce suites that one ﬁnds any pattern of
improvement. There were two ofﬁce suites in which a signiﬁcant proportion of the
faculty and staff participated in health promotion activities. It appeared that faculty
role-modeling, change of behavior, and their encouragement of their students or
clerical staff do make a difference. One of these faculty was a recognized opinion
leader within his discipline and the Department. From another research laboratory,
secondarily related to the Department's mission, came a small group of technical staff
that participated. In two others, however, it was clear that a faculty’s member non-
ability to participate inﬂuenced the staff to not participate. And all of those who did
participate were allied with the Alpha and Beta commodity-based groups.

An important conclusion to be drawn is that opinion leaders do court.
Especially in cohesive units and small work groups, their role-modeling and

encouragement can be a vehicle for‘initiating group change.

209
Was Worksite Hga_lth Promotion Adopted by lndividua_l§_?

Again, there was a disproportionate number of individuals who did not adopt
health promotion. For those 10 percent who did join the programs, however, over 90
percent adhered and were able to meet their individual health program goals, whether
exercising regularly or consistently losing weight.

Of the faculty member program participants (one-third), not two of them
regularly worked together or shared ofﬁce suites and only two of them were known to
exercise together away from work. The small number of graduate students who
participated were linked to the ofﬁce suite with the faculty opinion leader. The support
staff made up almost fully one-half of the participants, but just one-third of this group
were clerical. The other two-thirds of the support staff were technical employees
coming from three different research laboratories linked to the faculty.

More than any other group, faculty participated as individuals, while most of the

others participated through the encouragement of faculty, peers, or other co-workers.

Why Was Worksite Health PronLotion Generally Not Adopted?

First of all, we can ask what aspects of the Department’s culture could have
been a factor?

There seemed to be three- major factors at play here: need, complexity, and
compatibility.

Due to the nature of how health promotion was introduced-as a demonstration
project to the University and as a service to the Department-the worksite health
promotion project was not fulﬁlling a recognized need on the part of the worksite. The

Department's culture was strongly oriented to survival within the University as an

210
administrative unit and was buffeted by shifting demands of the commodity-based
groups in the State. The culture was being threatened by lack of resources and also
by a shifting student population far different to the gender and background experience
of the faculty and past students. Thus, most were preoccupied with “survival“ and
worksite health promotion did not emerge with a high enough priority.

The complexity of the innovation remained a barrier to its adoption. More than
putting the Department into a new role as a context and setting for health promotion
activity, it asked for other changes on the Department's part. The Department’s de—
centralized structure was not conducive to adopting a unit-wide innovation. Plus, it
was against standard procedure for administrators to formally encourage suite
supervisors to support such an activity. Issues like employee work release time were
decisions solely left up to ofﬁce suite supervisors. At the same time, the clerical staff
were not clamoring for that release time either.

Each introductory and information meeting became another hurdle of getting
started. Besides the health fair, there were two unit-wide informational meetings, a
battery of health habit questionnaires, and then there were two introductory meetings
for each health program in order to allow new members to join. In addition, the
exercise-ﬁtness program required additional time away from work to be tested for
ﬁtness level.

Compatibility with cultural values appeared to have played an important part.
This was a unit with a strong work orientation-often seven days a week and at odd
hours of the day. For many of the members, if they were not able to do their health-
related activity during the work day, they would not be able to do it at home, which

would detract from being with their family.

211

The values of health promotion providers are assumedly pro health promotion,
which does not necessarily agree with the Department's values. The value of
independence of Department members ﬁts with the American value toward health.
Health is a personal and individual endeavor for decision making. People take as
much pride in their independence to do wrong as to do right.

Second, we could ask what aspects of the subgroup cultures could have been
at work in limiting the adoption of health promoﬁon?

At the most broad level of sub-cultures, we could identify the sub-cultures of
faculty, graduate student, and support staff. On the whole, the faculty were the group
that was already doing something for their health. They enjoyed the greatest control
and ﬂexibility of their work schedule tasks. Control of time did not directly translate
into being able to attend regularly schedule health program meetings. However, it did
mean they could better ﬁt exercise and health habits into an already crowded
schedule. There was also known to be a small number of faculty members who did
not join programs but were still conscious of their health and who exercised regularly.

A surprising element is that a number of these health conscious faculty that
regularly exercised also continued to smoke on an irregular basis. This habit was
augmented more by social occasions not readily open to many members. It was an
open statement that on the one hand they could be health conscious, and on the
other hand still smoke.

For graduate students, there was not a group consciousness evident in the
Department. Other than classes, they did not regularly come together for social or
academic reasons, except for research meetings within their disciplines. Their greatest

identity was to mentoring research professors and to their research discipline. This

212

was the key to gaining their participation, because their academic careers as students
were rather intense and structured.

Even though the support staff had the highest level of participation in the health
promotion programs, they were the most ambiguous group. Some of the technical
staff that worked in laboratories had more freedom to participate in regular programs.
As discussed earlier, this segment of the support staff participated at a higher rate than
the clerical staff.

It is the clerical staff, most tied to their desks and ofﬁces, that had the least
ﬂexibility in their work schedules. This may reﬂect greater stress levels and account for
the higher levels of negative health behaviors observed among them. What was found
was that almost half of the clerical staff were smokers and only a very small group
were health conscious in their eating and exercise habits. When other informants
discussed the smoking behaviors and when talking directly with the clerical staff, they
appeared self-conscious and defensive about smoking. This may have inhibited their
voluntary participation in health programs. Smoking was a negative health behavior
that often caused friction with their peers in the Department.

In summary, there were few obvious clues that arose from this cultural overview.
One hint or overtone that does come forth, though, is the Department’s community-
mindedness. Its openness draws outsiders into its fold, but the new members, unless
they have a similar background, do not easily ﬁnd there way around in the Department.
There is a sense of insider-outsider that must bridged. This is also true with the

introduction of innovations from the outside.

213

A TheoreticalkConcept to Emprge: Heaﬂr Promotion ars Outside Inﬂuence

It is from Merton (1957) that the terms “cosmopolitan“ and “localite“ were ﬁrst
used in reference to leaders in a community under study. The primary criterion he
used to distinguish the two is their orientation to the community. The “Iocalite“ devotes
his interest to his community and is almost exclusively preoccupied by local problem.
In contrast, the “cosmopolite“ has some limited interest in the local community, but
helshe has more interest and exerts more inﬂuence to the larger environment outside
the local community.

Gouldner (1957, 1958) applies the same concepts to organizational analysis.
He comments on the tension between an organization’s bureaucratic needs for
expertise and its needs for loyalty. There appears to be a relationship between an
organization's need for loyalty and the amount of threat or lack of conﬁdence it feels.
An organization that is conﬁdent and not faced with strong antagonists can shifts its
resources and rewards to professional expertise and scientiﬁc knowledge.

“Cosmopolitans“ (e.g., outsiders, resource acquirers) are the experts or
professionals that may feel less loyalty or commitment to their organization, but instead
are devoted to their professional career that transcends all organizational boundaries.
In contrast, “localites“ (e.g., bureaucrats and elders) are those more devoted to an
organizational career.

These two types are ﬁrst presented as rather dichotomous orientations. Glaser
(1964) indicates, however, that in some situations the cosmopolitan and localite
orientation can also be seen as two orientations within the same scientist-activation is

determined by the worksite organizational structure.

214

In another vein, Rogers (1983) utilizes those terms with respect to the diffusion
of innovations. The cosmopolitan is one who is the vanguard of the changing external
environment (interactions), and links the organization to new ideas and innovations. It
is the localite who preserves stability and maintenance.

To link these ideas, it may be hypothesized that, in a university setting,
scientists (i.e., research faculty) will have an orientation most heavily weighted toward
the cosmopolitan end. And, further, they will serve as innovators (primarily linking to
the external professional environment) in only those professional and organizational
aspects that enhance the profession.

From the other perspective, those individuals viewed more as localites (i.e.,
administrators, teachers, and clerical staff) will be on the same continuum but weighted
at the and away from the professionals. They will serve less as innovators, rather
focusing on maintaining those aspects that enhance the organization functions, with
less concern about their professionals enhancement.

From this perspective, cosmopolitans and localites can be projected as two
dimensions of the same Department member, each activated at the appropriate time
and place as determined by the organizational culture. In the Department that was the
subject of this study, some of the research-oriented and younger faculty and their
graduate students will posit more characteristics of cosmopolitans, and the other
faculty and administrators and clerical staff will exemplify the localites. Furthermore,
those innovations that become part of the manifest mission (however deﬁned) of the
organization will be subsumed by individuals who are localites; only those innovations
that are perceived and directed at maintaining the profession will be incorporated by

cosmopolites.

215

In a study by Cornwall and Grimes (1987), it was found that the professional
role orientation of faculty tended to vary by time and not be strictly tied to one's
professional orientation. Younger and newer members were required to focus on
gaining tenure and building their careers, while older and tenured faculty were freer to
focus on the organizational maintenance aspects. But in some instances the members
could aptly focus on both aspects.

As found in this study, the Department's culture most closely resembles a “rural
culture.“ It exempliﬁes the strong role of work, family-orientations, independence, and
togetherness in crises that are commonly associated with rural communities. This
parallel would place it in the “Iocalite“ end of the continuum. The membership tends
to be conservative and has a natural resistance to outside interventions that upset the
balance of personal relationships worked out over time. It behooves some of the
faculty, as oosmopolites in their professional roles, to bring in the innovations, such as
health promotion, that will undergird the Department's people-oriented innovativeness.

The signiﬁcance to health promotion is whether it is viewed as enhancing the
research professional because a “healthy organizational environment“ enhances the
profession. If not, it will run the resistance of localites less concerned with outside
innovations that draw away resources and detract the organizational stabilizing

functions to ward off change.

216

Assumptions of the Researcher

Early into the study, this researcher developed some assumptions to review at

the end. They originated from interactions and observations that arose from the study.

The Dement’s resegrch grip food Mcﬁon interest_§ shou_ld mpke it heaﬂ
conscious and organizationaly committed to health promotion. As a member of the
exercise-ﬁtness health program held in the Department, it was apparent to the
researcher that faculty and graduate student members had training and experience in
many areas being taught by the program staff leader. In fact, at times, there would be
slight tensions as participants tried to "prove their knowledge“ in certain areas. But,
when two faculty members of the same group were interviewed, this knowledge did not
carry over into applying the Department into a more forceful and committed unit. One,
in fact, did not believe his freedom of schedule should apply to his secretary. In other
instances, those that were regular exercisers or had lost weight understood their health
changes would reduce their health risks but understood less about how the
organization might beneﬁt.

This is in contrast to another department from which one clerical staff had
recently transferred. She indicated the norms of that unit were for everyone to be
health conscious and healthy acting. This meant that she could use exercise
equipment that was readily available at that worksite during break periods. One other
clerical staff noted that, in sharp contrast to the co-workers in her previous department,
some of the clerical staff here were much less supportive to her having stopped

smoking and wanting to stay free of smoke-ﬁlled environments.

217

Physical features of thp bﬂfjpg are ﬂed to imgct emplgyee health
behaviors. Physical features that affect employee health are related to the sedentary
nature of most positions: the physical distance between linked work functions and the
features that encourage being physically active. Faculty and graduate students, by the
very nature of their work tasks, are more physically active than clerical staff.
Laboratory researchers and teachers were more prone to have very focused and
localized activity that was housed in close proximity to their ofﬁces-not much distance
for walking required. Applied researchers who were required to visit the research
centers, were much more apt to walk longer distances and do some related physical
work as part of the research effort. Extension personnel were almost always “on the
go“-in an out of the building, but, also driving a lot. Clerical staff, on the other hand,
were very sedentary and only left their ofﬁces for breaks, to get away for lunch, or to
go the mail room in the center of the building.

Features that support or impede healthy physical activity are the availability of
stairs and locker facilities. Because the building was built in the mid-19505, buildings
were designed with more stair access and less people-oriented elevators. Also, with
only two ﬂoors above ground, there is little need for (or observed use of) the one small
elevator at one and distant from the center of the building. Another major item found
supportive of health interests was the lockers and showers as discussed earlier.
Faculty and male graduate students regularly used them. Faculty who exercised
during the noon hour often took more than a one hour period. A problem for females,
though, was the lack of clean and comfortable shower facilities. As a result, two
females did not believe they could adequately work-out, return from their activity areas

across campus, and shower within the one hour noon.

218

Implications

This ethnographic study attempted to contribute to the understanding of
university department worksites as multiple cultural settings, each with its own values
and norms for behaviors. The implications derived from the study should provide
relevance to a variety of stakeholders: researchers, university administrators,
department worksites, and health promotion service providers.

One does have to look at culture as an important variable in the adoption of
health promotion innovations. If an organizational culture is found to be all “localite“,
it may have problems in adopting complex innovations originating from the external
environment. If a culture is found to be “cosmopolite“, it might be easier to adopt
innovations such as health promotion, particularly if it is thought to enhance the
profession in any way. In this Department, the faculty were found to be split between
localite and cosmopolite in orientation and behaviors.

The “localites“ need consistent reinforcement from personal networks and
administrative structures (especially at the departmental level), in order to acquire the
new values and behaviors. Cosmopolites, on the other hand, may learn more about
innovations but do not directly apply them all. For instance, one cosmopolite faculty
member was found to believe that his being healthier would not improve his ability to
do good research. He would have to receive compatible messages from professionals
outside the Department in order to translate the value to himself.

Identifying the professional culture in a university setting is not new. Its
implications for health promotion, however, are quite important. Various authors have

used a variety of labels for this academic community: “academic tribes“ (Adams, 1976);

219
“academic culture“ (Bess, 1982, 1988); “collegial organization“ (Millett, 1962); “political
organization“ (Baldridge, 1971); and “professional bureaucracy“ (Mintzberg, 1979,
1983a,).

One way to describe a typical professional culture is to use the descriptors of
“occupational communities“ deﬁned by Van Maanen and Barley (1984, p. 295):

a group of people who consider themselves to be engaged in the same sort of

work; who identify (more or less positively) with their work; who share a set of

values, norms, and perspectives that apply to, but extend beyond, work related
matters; and whose social relationships meld the realms of work and leisure.

In that sense, the description ﬁts the Department in this study, but most
exclusively with the faculty employee group and next with the small support network
sub-culture found close to the Chair.

Adams (1976), in his discussion of academic politics, alludes to the same ideas:
1) no one has the complete power to do anything; 2) the fundamental allegiance of the
faculty member will be to the smallest unit to which he belongs; 3) eccentricity is not
only tolerated, it is often a positive virtue; and 4) faculty demand the proper
maintenance of the symbols of the institution and the vestiges of their power.

A major implication for health promotion as an institutional innovation is that the
access point for intervention must be kept in mind. The Department members kept
alluding to the Dean's ofﬁce as a source of outside funds for continuing internal
leadership for the health programs. Individually the members responded as though a
couple of thousand dollars per academic quarter would be a great threat to its ﬁnancial
stability. Yet, it did not express the strong desire adopt health promotion; the will was
missing.

The most direct and acknowledged access point in this Department appeared

to be through the multiple ofﬁce suites. This also represents the most resource taxing

220

for the health promotion provider to ﬁrst ﬁnd this out and then to implement action to
meet and work closely with each one.

Another implication for the University is that clerical staff-as targets for health
promotion—have the least personal ﬂexibility or freedom to participate and, across the
University, have the least amount of control over those decisions that affect their work
and health. In some cases, Department clerical members are penalized because of
gender. Those members often have to compensate doubly for their supportive role at
home.

Furthermore, worksite organizations do not have an incentive to monitor the
health status or medical care resource utilization of their members. Due to the
University’s highly bureaucratic structure outside the academic units, the beneﬁts that
may accrue to employers are dispersed throughout the University and not concentrated
at the individual unit. Aside from improvements in absenteeism and productivity, any
cost reduction in health and medical resource use accrues to the University personnel
system. This is also true for the enhanced image in the community, and the sense of
the “University's commitment to its employees,“ both somewhat lacking.

A direct policy implication for the University is that it might create internal
budget shifts to each department that reﬂects the medical care usage and costs of
each department's members. It might issue credits to each department that took a
more active role in reducing health care costs by introducing health promotion

programs and supporting healthy lifestyles for employees and families.

21
Limitations of the Research

While the researcher's experience, training, and ability to probe deeper and
synthesize information is deemed crucial to qualitative research, they can also provide
blinders. One criteria, among others, for selecting this particular department for study
was the researcher’s background similarity to that of many of the Department
members. This could have provided ﬁlters for sensing some activity or behaviors that
would otherwise appear out of the ordinary and cause for further probing. Plus, the
researcher's role as change agent for health promotion may have provided role conﬂict
to him and Department members. Thus, the author had to often ask himself—in what
frame or perspective were they really responding?

It was expected that studying this broad-based Department would provide
internal contrasts or comparison not found in others. For various reasons, the
alienation selection pool may still have been too nanow. First of all, the informant
population base was kept small in order to keep some limits to the study. Potential
informants not studied were Department members housed or working elsewhere.
There was little emphasis given to certain transitory populations, such as post-doctoral
students and visiting faculty. The informant pool did not include members that recently
left the Department and went elsewhere in the University, individuals who might have
shown the “down side“ of the unit. Also, knowledgeables in other academic units were
not queried, nor were the college and University administrators.

Due to the qualtatfve nature of the study, each entry into the setting brought
forth new insights. After the interviews are completed, along with the primary

observations, it became rather arbitrary to say when one is “through“ collecting data.

 

222

Additional observations, interviews, and analysis could have provided a richer and more
complete understanding. At the same time, the organizational environment is
continually changing, however slowly it may appear. Any intervention is a “snapshot“
of a unit at one point in time.

This study was exploratory-in search of new meanings-that could lead to better
understanding of the academic worksite. There was a certain irnpraciserress to the
research questions that needed further reﬁnement. The original intent was to formulate
grounded theory from the study and lay the groundwork for further research. Due to
time and ﬁnancial resource limitations, there was an early shift toward studying speciﬁc
questions that would lead to a better understanding of the health promotion innovation

as it was affected by the worksite“s culture.

Recommendations for Further Research

The study leads into further research needed in at least three areas: 1) health
promotion's relationship to the employer; 2) health promotion’s relationship to the
provider; and 3) the need for a comparative study.

This study was based on the deﬁnition of health promotion as an innovation to
the organization—a goodness-of-ﬁt with the organizational culture. A useful measure
would be to develop a scale or measure of types of innovations that have been
adopted within the past. This could serve to determine an organization’s past
experience with change and, particularly, experience with innovations of a similar type.
A scale could be developed along one axis of “hardware“ innovations-that serve a

more professional function-on one end and “software“ innovations—that are more

223
organizational/human service oriented—on the other. The other axis could be a
measure of that innovation’s perceived ability to readily solve a known problem versus,
on the other end of the scale, its “preventive“ nature.

Health promotion is an extension of the provider’s value system that prizes
health consciousness and the ability to do something about it. Development of a
health value scale could be an important contribution. Rokeach (1979) and others
developed value scales for a number of different items, including health, but none that
are directly applicable to a worksite setting—just to the individual. A provider, then,
needs to understand their own values toward health in comparison to their worksite
target population.

Further research is needed in qualitative methodology (i.e., organization
ethnography) to develop what elements of an organization should be studied under
differing circumstances. How can ﬁeld study be used in a worksite to ﬁrst raise
concepts, and then be followed with a questionnaire survey to measure the
pervasiveness and strength of those items. University systems are problematic in that
they are quite innovative in what they do, but not as much in how they do it Power
relationships between faculty and clerical staff do not change much. In fact, it may
worsen as the faculty-staff ratio increases due to staff cutbacks from budget cuts and
new ofﬁce technology. Clerical staff are more in charge of the printing and less in
control of document preparation. Faculty are more directly responsible for document
generation and not just the content.

One useful methodology change for doing the study in another way would be
to use the model developed by Ragin (1987). It provides for comparisons of internal

cultural units embedded within larger cultural units, rather than strict comparisons with

24

equivalent external units. An example of this would have to been to compare this
Department’s culture to the college or University culture as a whole. And another more
obvious comparison would have been to compare this academic unit's culture with

other ones at which worksite health promotion was also introduced.
Final Observations

Once one works in the ﬁeld for a number of years, the advent of health
promotion and its introduction into worksites becomes, at least to the researcher, the
obvious thing to do. It is all too easy to project one's biases and values for healthy
living onto other people. At the same time, it must be remembered that people trying
to make changes are going against the tide; against all the “hype“ and advertising for
products and behaviors we are all trying to “conquer.“

From a personal standpoint, the researcher makes two recommendations. The
ﬁrst, for those members of the health professions who are concerned about
“empowering“ people for making healthy choices, “do not give up the ﬁght.“ This
means understanding the environment and cultural values of the employer and
employee systems. Individuals only have so much control over their behaviors. The
same is true for individual work environments; departments are embedded in the larger
University cultural environment. At the same time, the University and its administrators
are still part of the web of ever increasing cultural systems. One cannot relegate all
responsibility for being healthy and productive on the individual.

This brings me to the second recommendation. Worksite units, can enhance

their effectiveness and support by developing their “organizational learning“ for health.

25
Besides knowing what they can do to support individual efforts to become healthier,

worksite managers should reassess the organization, itself,-its own mission, goals,
rewards, and values that impedes or discourages healthy behaviors. A “healthy
organization“ builds on healthy employees; it does not build healthy employees in
order to become effective. As Levine and Sorenson (1984) ask, why does our cultural
system reward the “workaholic“ that may overtax medical services and, instead,

degrade the “health nut?“

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Interview Selection Matrix: Proposed

Chairperson(s)

 

ROOT(S)

 

Faculty
(Retired)

 

(Current)
Older

 

Mid

 

Newer

 

Clerical-Teghs
Older

 

Newer

Grad Student
Older

 

 

Newer

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

Schedule 01 Interviews For Organizational Culture Formation

(The following questions serve as the framework for the structured interviews of the
retired and older faculty to elicit formative information.)

Founders
Was there a signiﬁcant person or persons who set the tone for the Departments at
the university? In what way?

How did you ﬁrst learn about that person? What about the Department at present do
you identify or relate back to that person?

What kind of role did helshe/they play in the Department?
at the university?
outside the university?

Are there any critical incidents remembered as being associated with these individuals?
What are they?

Mission
Why is there a (food technology) Department here at this university?

Did the Department have a special mission or purpose identiﬁed with the founder?
What was that? Is it still important today?

What made the Department(s) unique in their day at the university?

Were the Department(s) modeled after any other department here or at another
university?

How did the Department(s) ﬁt into the university structure at their formation? Where
were they physically located, and how long were they there?

APPENDIX C

Interview Schedule: FACUIiY °

When did you join this Dept, this U?
What are your primary activities here (e.g., faculty: research, extension, teaching)

Why did you join this Dept?
this University?

What is this Dept. most noted for? (e.g., speciﬁc innovations)

Who do you have most contact with in the Dept, for your primary work activity?
at the U? outside the U?

How do you Ieam what is important to know in this Dept?

What group or section in this Dept. do you most identify with?

What is considered prime space in this building? for Labs, 8 Ofﬁces?
What does it take to make tenure in this Dept?

How are communications given: formal channels, informal channels? (i.e., how do you
ﬁnd out what is going on?)

How did the department react when the C-Ts were on strike last fall?

What is a typical workday, workweek for yourself?
What is considered acceptable in this Dept?

Do you ﬁnd this a supportive environment for health-related activity?
Is it acceptable to exercise during normal work hours?

Is health promotion an appropriate activity for this Dept?
in what way?

Who, in this Dept, would have to be committed to this activity and pushing it in order

for it to become an accepted and ongoing activity?
Who, or what group, would be most resistant? why?

28

229

APPENDIX C (continued)

Are there sections of this Dept. known to be “workaholics” more than others? Who
are they?

Does your professional association promote health-related concerns?

What does this Dept. do that is supportive of individual health interests?
What does this Dept. do that is counterproductive of individual health interests?

Would this Dept, or section, be supportive to secretaries and technicians that want

to join a program, even if held during normal work hours? Why/why not?

What kinds of issues does this Dept. easily rally around? (e.g., get most excited about?)
What kinds of issues cause most dissension or bickering?

If, at the next meeting (e.g., faculty, tech, staff, or grad) you indicated you thought

health promotion should be better supported and that the Dept. should make a long-

term commitment of resources to it, how would other people respond?

If you were to leave tomorrow, what significant event, since you have been in the Dept,
will you most remember?

APPENDIX D

Interview Schedule: STAFF-TECH

When did you join this Dept?
this University? (where did you previously work?)

What are your primary activities here (who do you work for?)

Compared to other departments at this university, how is this Dept. noted for treating
its staff?

Who do you have most contact with in the Dept?
at the U?

What group or section in this Dept. do you most identify with?

What are considered the crucial factors to being a successful staff-support person in
your suite? in this Dept?

When a new person start work in this Dept, what kinds of things do they need to
know in order to "learn the ropes“? How do they get the information?

How are communications given: formal channels, informal channels? (i.e., how do you
find out what is going on?)

How did the department react when the C-Ts were on strike last fall? Why is that?

What is a typical workday, workweek for yourself?
What is considered acceptable in this Dept?

Do you find this a supportive environment for health-related activity?
In this Dept, is it acceptable to exercise during normal work hours?

Does your job allow the flexibility for you to be able to exercise during normal work
hours? How is that?

Is health promotion an appropriate activity for this Dept?
in what way?

Who, in this Dept, would have to be committed to health promotion activity and

pushing it in order for it to become an accepted and ongoing activity?
Who, or what group. would be most resistant? why?

230

231

APPENDIX D (continued)

What does this department do that is supportive of individual health interests?
What does this department do that is counterproductive of individual health interests?

Would this Dept, or your section, be supportive to secretaries and technicians that

want to join a health program, even if held during normal work hours? Why/why
not?

What kinds of issues does this Dept easily rally around? (e.g., most easily agree on?)

What kinds of issues cause most dissension or bickering, irrespective of their
importance?

If, at the next meeting (e.g., faculty, tech, staff, or grad) you indicated you thought
health promotion should be better supported and that the Dept. should make a long-
term commitment of resources to it, how would other people respond?

if you were to leave tomorrow, what significant event, since you have been in the Dept,
will you most remember?

APPENDIX E

Interview Schedule: GRADUATE STUDENT

When did you join this Dept, this U?
What are your primary activities here (research interests, T.A., etc?)

Why did you join this Dept?
this University?

Who do you have most contact with in the Dept?
What group or section in this Dept. do you most identify with?

What are considered the crucial factors to being a successful graduate student in this
Dept?

When a new graduate student starts in this Department, what kinds of things do they
need to know in order to “learn the ropes?
How do they get the information?

How are communications given: formal channels, informal channels? (i.e., how do you
ﬁnd out what is going on?)

How did the department react when the GT3 were on strike last fall?
Why is that?

Are the graduate students in the Dept. strong support for each other? In what way?

What is a typical workweek for yourself?
What is considered acceptable in this Dept?

Do you ﬁnd this a supportive environment for health-related activity?

Is it acceptable to exercise during normal work hours? Does your work here allow
the ﬂexibility for you to able to exercise during normal work hours?

Is health promotion an appropriate activity for this Dept?
in what way?

Who, or what group, would be most resistant? why?

What does this department do that is supportive of individual health interests?

232

233
APPENDIX E (Continued)

What does this department do that is counterproductive of individual health interests?

Would this Dept, or your section, be supportive to secretaries and technicians that
want to join a program, even if held during normal work hours? Why/why not?

What kinds of issues does this Dept easily rally around? (e.g., most easily agree on?)

What kinds of issues cause most dissension or bickering?

If, at the next meeting (e.g., faculty, tech, staff, or grad) you indicated you thought
health promotion should be better supported and that the Dept. should make a long-
term commitment of resources to it, how would other people respond?

If you were to leave tomorrow, what significant event, since you have been in the Dept,
will you most remember?

APPENDIX F

Informed Consent Statement

STUDY EXPLANATION

The Study is focused on the background and “culture“ of your department (i.e., the
history, norms, and values) that affect the introduction of new programs such as health
promotion. In an interview that may last one-half to one hour, you will be asked a
series of questions to find out about your experiences and understanding of your work
environment. A tape recording, if you agree, may be used as a secondary backup to
note taking by the researcher.

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

1. I have freely consented to take part in a scientiﬁc study being conducted by
(the researcher) under the supervision of (research supervisor) Department
at (mid-western university)

2. The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has
been given and what my participation will Involve.

3. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any
time without penalty.

4. I understand that the results of the study will be treated ln strict conﬁdence and
that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will
be made available to me at my request.

5. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneﬁcial
results to me.
6. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the

study after my participation is completed.

Signed

 

Date

 

234

APPENDIX G

General Highlights of the Research Process

The purpose here is to describe how the intended methodology became
operationalized in the speciﬁc field setting and differed from that outlined in Chapter
FouL

Entry Nematiation

Gaining entry into the Department entailed a more step-wise process than
originally expected. Initial contact was with the Department Chairperson at a scheduled
meeting with the purpose of elicit approval to do the study. There was concurrence to
the intent and purpose. However, the researcher was asked to come back and make
a presentation to an advisory committee scheduled for a few days later. Again, the
researcher was requested to come back and present the same outline to a full faculty
meeting scheduled for the following month—to let them know that their participation was
completely voluntary. Tacit approval was given for the research study at the faculty
meeting as no opposition or major doubts were expressed.

Observer Role

The primary interaction level used by the researcher in this study was that of
the observer as participant. In this, the researcher attempts to be immersed in the
setting of the organizational culture (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973; Wax, 1983). And
fortuitously for this study, the observer's activities were more or less publicly sponsored
by the Department in the situation studied. It works well when the researcher wants or
needs to combine the professional role with a sociable one. The researcher may
achieve maximum freedom to gather information at the price of accepting constraints
upon reporting (Patton, 1980). As experienced, this level of participation is very time
consuming, and it was sometimes hard to adequately separate the researcher and
member roles (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973).

As an example, this researcher became a full member of the exercise-ﬁtness
health program that was led by other health project staff in the Department. Also,
there were other short-term task activities of a voluntary nature in which the researcher
participated, e.g., over time, there was some carryover into other social activity outside
the Department.

Data Collection

The purpose of observations in a variety of settings was to: 1) determine which
settings individuals might question outsider presence (sanctity of the event), 2)
determine what boundaries might surface with different occasions, and 3) determine
what type events attract different people.

As portrayed in Figure 9, there were a variety of occasions used for
observational data collection that varied on one axis as to the level of formality and,
on the other axis, to the nature of its being routine. More formal and routinized

235

236
APPENDIX G (continued)

meetings were the ﬁrst occasions for “setting in,“ such as monthly faculty meetings
and weekly seminars (see examples in quadrant 1). In the ﬁrst few occasions,
permission to attend was requested-usually to the Department Chair. Other events
such as weekly seminars were openly advertised within the Department and sometimes
in campus-wide news bulletins.

 

ygn-routnine Routine
Scheduled: Anual,
Monthly, Weekly, Daily

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Formal Interviews Faculty Meetings

(Work Related) Youth Displays Seminars
Chair Meetings Open Houses
Retirement Party Grad Orientation
Grad Orals 3 1
Office Party 4 2 Graduate Informal
Bar Crowd Coffee/Lunch
Graduation Party Production Display
Picnics Xmas Party
Conversations

Informal

(Social)

(Non-Work)

( Peer )

 

Figure 9: Variety of Observational Situations

Quickly, as the researcher's presence and purpose became accepted, there
were other observations in less formal and non-routinized settings. Figure 5.1 (quadrant
3) provides examples of these: graduate student graduation and celebrations, private
ofﬁce parties, Department picnics, and one-on-one conversations.

Interviewing: Final Informant Selection

In addition to the criteria outlined in Chapter Four for selecting informants, the
other primary one was availability. A number of potential informants were on
sabbaticals, vacations, or other extended professional leaves at random times. Also,
in order to conﬁne the scope of the study, interviews were not scheduled with
Department members whose primary work location was outside the immediate building.
Even then, the total number of interviews was increased to include recommendations

237
APPENDIX G (continued)

by knowledgeable from outside the Department and to follow-up on “leads.“ Appendix
H is a matrix that outlines the breadth of the informants based on their orientation to
the three original root departments and length of time in the Department-lending further
to validity.

Therefore, 24 scheduled interviews were held over a period of just over two
months. Primary emphasis was directed toward interviewing a range of
faculty-presumed to be culture carriers, because they usually have the greatest
longevity in any department. Clerical staff were next in priority because they are a
primary target group for health promotion services. And graduate students were
interviewed less frequently because their average tenure was the least in the
Department.

Data Analysis

The key to checking validity, besides multiple sources of conﬁrming data, was
the group interview. Three faculty informants were brought together on the basis of
their depth of interview response, interest in the research, and ability to speak openly
in other's presence. They made a point of acknowledging that “if the wrong people
were selected, inappropriate information might leak back to the Chair's ofﬁce.“

The main purpose of this session was for the researcher to present his quick
synopsis of the Department situation and propose a few themes that rose out of the
analysis. The outcome was that they confirmed the researcher's perceptions and
brought other issues into clarity. As Whyte (1984) says typically happens when
informants are interviewed again after the initial session, these individuals strove to
ensure the researcher did not draw spurious conclusions. The initial interview tends
to vent steam, but the following sessions bring the real opinions into focus.

One other faculty member, who had not been interviewed, agreed to attend as
a neutral participant. However, he was called away from the Department unexpectedly.
Other individuals—graduate students, clerical and technical staff, and faculty-were
frequently asked conﬁrming questions in other casual conversations throughout the
analysis and writing process.

Exiting the organization

The researcher met with the Chair when the ﬁndings were being written to
explain that the research was drawing to a close. The Chair expressed interest in
having the ﬁndings presented to the Department at a seminar. The researcher again
restated that the research was not to critique or evaluate the Department, per se, but
was designed to understand it as an example of university departments faced with
unique innovations. Being asked to present ﬁndings is indicative of the trust level
obtained by the researcher as participant observer. In this case, exiting the research
phase did not mean terminating the relationship, but clarifying the change in roles back
to the consultant for health promotion activity.

Faculty
(Retired)

(Current)
Older

Mid

Newer

Clerical-Techs

Older

Newer

Turnover

Grad Stgdgnt

Older

Newer

APPENDIX H

Interview Selection Matrix

Chairperson(s)

 

 

ROOT A

 

ROOT B

ROOT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

288

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adams, H. (1976). The academic tribes. NY: Liveright.

Adams, J. D. (1978). Improving stress management: An action-research-based OD
intervention. In W. W. Burke (Ed), The cutting edge: Current theory and practice
in organization development (pp. 245-261). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Adams, J. D., Fischer-Quigley, E., & Schmithorst, J. (1985). Improving the health and
stress management of federal workers. In D. D. Warrick (Ed.), Contemporary
o_rganization development: Current thinkigq and application (pp. 289—307).
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Adler, N. (1983, Fall). A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of
International Business Studies, 29-47.

Agar, M. H. (1 980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnogpaLhy.
New York: Academic.

Albrecht, K (1983). g): A total systems approach to positive change in a business
organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allen, J., & Allen, R. F. (1986, Fall). From short term compliance to long term freedom:
Culture-based health promotion by health professionals. American Joumal_o_f
Health Promotion, (394?.

Allen, R. F. (1980, Spring). The corporate health-buying spree: Boon or boondoggle?
SAM. Advanced Managment Journal, 422.

Allen, R. F., 8: Kraft, C. (1982). The organizational unconscious. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Allen, R. F., & Linda, S. (1981). Lifggain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1981.

Allen, R. F., & Porter, L W. (1983). Organizational inﬁuence process. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.

239

 

240

Antonovsky, A. (1984). The sense of coherence as a determinant of health. In J. D.
Matarazzo et al. (Eds). Behavioraﬂejalth: A handbook of ham enhancement
and disease prevention (pp. 113-129). New York: Wiley.

Ardell, D. B. (1985). Histonr and future of wellness. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learrmg: A theory of action
ﬁrspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Babble, E. (1983). The practice of social resea_r_ch_ (3rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baldridge, V.J. (1971). Power and conﬂict in the university. New York: Wiley.

Baldridge, V. J., 8. Deal, T. (Eds). (1983). The dyname of organizational change in
education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchin Publications.

Bemton, C. T. (1987, Spring). What is the future for health promotion in hmo’s?
American Journal of Health, 24-27.

Bess, J. L (1982). University organizations: A matrix analysis of the pudemic
professions. New York: Human Sciences.

Bess, J. L. (1988). Collegial'py and bureaucracy in the modern universiy: The inﬁpence
of informatiton and power on decision- aking structures. New York: Teachers
College.

Beyer, Dunbar, & Meyer (1988). Comment: The concept of ideology in organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 483-489.

Bloom, P. N., 8: Novelli, W. D. (1981, Spring). Problems and challenges in social
marketing. Journal of Marketipg. i5, 79-88.

Bogdan, R. (1972). Participant obsega_t_ion in organizational settings. Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press.

Bolman, L G. & Deal, T. D. (1984). Modern ppproaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boon, J. A. (1973). Further operations of culture. In L Schneider & C. M. Bonjean

(Eds). The «kg of culture in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Bowditch, J.L & Buono, AF. (1982). Quality of work life pssessment: A survey-bgsed
ppproach. Boston: Auburn House.

Brown, L A (1981). Innovation diffusion: A new M. New York: Metheun.

241

Bullock, R. J. & Svyantek. (1987). The impossibility of using random strategies to study
the organization development process. JournJal of Applied Behavioral Science.
_2_3(2), 255-262.

Bulow-Hube, 8., & Morisky, DE. (1987). The innovation-decision model and workplace
health promotion programs. Health Educptpn Research, _2_(1), 15-25.

Burke, W. W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices. Boston: Little,
Brown.

Cataldo, M. F., & Coates. T. J. (Eds). (1986). Health and industry: A behaviora_l
medicine gnawe. New York: Wiley.

Chenowith, D. (1986, October). To set the stage for employee health, change the
environment, cultural norms. Occupational Hpglth and Safety, 95.

Conrad, P. (1988). Worksite health promotion: The social context. Social Science 8
Medicine. gs), 485-489.

Cornwall, JR, 8 Grimes. (1987). Cosmopolitan-local: A cross-lagged correlation
analysis of the relationship between professional role orientation and behavior
in an academic organization. Human Relgions. 4_0, 281 -298.

Cummings, T. G., & Mohrrnan, S. G. (1987). Self-designing organizations: Toward
implementing quality-of-work-life innovations. Resegch in Organizational Chapgp
and Develgment. 1. 275-310.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the ﬁrm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary
innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 1_4, 675-
688.

Damanpour, F., 8 Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational Innovation and performance: The
problem of organizational lag. AdministrativLScience Quarterly, g, 392-409.

Davis, SM. (1964). Managing comrate culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A (1982). Corporate cgltures: The rites and rituals of
comrate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dickinson, J. A (1988). Experiential social learning and management for social
transformation: A case study of a community development project in Lima, Peru
(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University).

Dictionary of Anthromlpgy (C. Winick, Ed). (1956). New York: Philosophical Library.

242

Dobbert, M. L (1982). Ethnpgraphic resea_gh: Theory and application for modern
schools and societies. New York: Praeger.

Dunn, E. F. (1987). Marketing for health educators. In P. M. Lazas, L. H. Kaplan., & K
A. Gordon (Eds), The handbook of hea_lth education (pp. 75-86). Rockville, MD:
Aspen.

Dyer, W. G. 8: Dyer, W. 6., Jr. (1966, February). Organization development: system
change or culture change. Personnel, 1422

Edington, D. W. (1987). Health promotion: Health care cost containment or human
resource development? In S. Klarreich (Ed), Health and ﬁtness in t_he workplace
(pp. 319-324). New York: Praeger.

Etzloni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Everly, G. S. (1985). An introduction to health and occupational health promotion. In
G. S. Everly, & R. H. H. Feldman (Eds), Occupational health iromotion: Health
behavior in the workplpce (pp. 3—16). New York: Wiley.

Everly, G. S., Feldman, R. H. L. (Eds). (1985). Occupational health promotion: Heaﬁp
behavior In the wormlace. New York: Wiley.

Falkenberg, L E. (1987). Employee ﬁtness programs: Their impact on the employee
and the organization. Academy of Manggement Journal, g, 511-522.

Feldman, R. H. L (1965). The assessment and enhancement of health compliance in
the workplace. In G. S. Everly, & R. H. H. Feldman, (Eds), Occupational health
promotion: Healt_h behpvior in the workplace (pp. 33-46). New York: Wiley.

Feldman, S. P. (1986, November). Management in context: An essay on the relevance
of culture to the understanding of organizational change. Journal of Management
Studies, 1. 587-607.

Feldman, S. P. (1987). The crossroads of Interpretation: Administration in professional
organization. Human Organization, 16(2), 95—102.

Feldman, S. P. (1988). How organizational culture can affect innovation. Organizational
_Qynamics, 11(1), 57-68.

Fetterman, D. (1967). Ethnographic auditing: A new approach to evaluating management
in higher education. (Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, Wash., D. c. April 20-24, 1967), E0263839.

Fielding, J. E. (1984). Health promotion and disease prevention at the worksite. Annual
Review of Public Heg_lth_, p, 236-265.

Fine, S. H. (1981). The marketing of ideas and swig isspe_s. New York: Praeger.

 

243
Fortes, M. (1963). Graduate study and research. In D. G. Mendelbaum, G. W. Lasker,

8 E. M. Albert (Eds), The teach of anthropplpgy. Berkeley, CA: University of
Californial Press.

Fox, K F. A., 8 Kotler, P. (1980, Fall). The marketing of social causes: the ﬁrst 10
years. Journal of Marketing. g, 24-33.

Frake, C. O. (1983). Ethnography. In R. M. Emerson (Ed), Contemporary ﬁeld research:
A collection of readings (pp. 60-67). Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland.

Frederiksen, L W., Solomon, L J., 8 Brehony, K A. (Eds). (1984). Marketing health
behavior. NY: Plenum.

French, W. L 8 Bell, C. H. (1984). Organization development: Behavioral science
interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Frost, P. J., Moore, L F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., 8 Martin, J. (1985).
OrganizationJal culture. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Geertz, C. (1973). The intemretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (1963). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In R. M.
Emerson (Ed), Contemporary field research: A collection of readipgg (pp. 37-
59). Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland.

Glaser 3.6. (1964). Organizational Scientists. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Glaser, B. G., 8 Strauss, A L (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:
Aldine. .

Glasgow, R. E. 8 Terborg, J. R. (1988). Occupational health programs to reduce
cardiovascular risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, _5_6, 365-373.

Goflrnan, E. (1967). Interaction rituals: Essays on farce-to-fgce behavior. New York:
Doubleday.

Goodenough, W. H. (1971). Culture, language, and socie_ty. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Modular Publications.

Gould, G. M., 8 Smith, M. L (Eds). (1968). Social work in the workplace. New York:
Springer.

Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social
roles - l. Administrative Science Ouarter_ly, 2, 281-306.

Gouldner, A. W. (1958). Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social
roles -— ll. Administrative Science Ouarter_ly, g, 444—480.

.-J

 

244

Greenwald, H. P. (1987, September). Getting the most out of health promotion. Business
and Health, 40-42.

Gross, E., 8 Etzloni, A. (1985). Organizations in society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Gross, N., Giacquinta, J.B., 8 Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational
innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational chapgg. New York:
Basic Books.

Guba, E. G. (1979). Investigative journalism as a metaphor for educational evaluation.
Paper written for Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR.

Hall, ET. (1976). _Beyond culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

Hall, R. (1977). Organizations: Structure and processes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Harvey, D. F., 8 Brown, D. R. (1988). An ewiential approach to organization
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., 8 Woodman, R. W. (1986). Organizational behavior. St.
Paul: West.

Hendrix, W. H., Leap, T. L, 8 Steel, R. L (1986). A health promotion model for
organizations: The effect of health promotion on organizational effectiveness and
absenteeism. In D. Brown, 8 H. W. Hendrick (Eds), Human factors in
organizational design and management (pp. ***). New York: North-Holland.

Hersey, P. 8 Blanchard, K H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hicks, D. (1984). Duration of study. In R. F. Ellen (Ed), Ethnpgrpphic research: A guide
to general conduct. New York: Academic.

Higgins, C. W. (1988). The economics of health promotion. Health Values, _1_2(5), 39-
45.

Hollander, R.B., 8 Lengermann, J.J. (1988). Corporate characteristics and worksite
health promotion programs: Survey ﬁndings from fortune 500 companies.
Sociﬂ Science 8 Medium, g6), 491-501.

Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich.

Huse, E., 8 Cummings, T. (1985). Organization development apd changg (pp. 350-
360). St Paul: West.

_A-n'

 

245

Ivancevich, J. M., 8 Matteson, M. T. (1980, Autumn). Optimizing human resources: A
case for preventive health and stress management. Organizational Bynamcics,
5—25.

lverson, D. C. (1966). Forum: The health promotion sciences in chronic disease
prevention. Preventive Medicine, 1_5, 439-441.

Jenkins, J. L (1988). Health enhancement programs: Balanced lifestyles, physical
ﬁtness, smoking cessation, stress management and weight control. In G. M.
Gould, 8 M. L Smith (Eds), Social work in the workplace. New York: Springer.

Jones, M. O., (1988). In search of meaning. Using qualitative methods in research
and application. In M. D. Jones, M. D. Moore, 8 R. C. Sny der. _I___nside
- 2. . . . 2 2.. 2.. - - .(pp 31 ~48) Newburg Park,

 

Jones, M. 0., Moore, M. D., 8 Snyder, R. C. (Eds). (1988). Inside organizations:
Understanding the human dimensions. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Jorgensen, D.L (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies.
Newburg Park, CA: Sage.

Kanter, R. M. (1979, July-August). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard
Business Review, B1, 65-75.

Katz, 0., 8 Kahn, R. L (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kelley, L, 8 Worthley, R. (1981. The role of culture in comparative management: A
cross-cultural perspective. Academy of Management Journal, an), 164-173.

loader, L H. (1981). Research met_hods in social ralations. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8
Winston.

Kilmann, R. H. (1984). Beyond the guick ﬁx: Managing ﬁve t_racks to organ izational
s_u___ccess. San Francisco: Jossey- -Bass.

IGImann, RH. (1989). Managing beyond the guick ﬁx; A completely intagrated prpgram
for creating and maintain organizational suceess, San Fransciso: Jossey-Bass.

Kilmann, R. H., 8 Sexton, M. J. (1982). Organization cultures: their assessment and
change. (Unpublished).

Kimball, S. T., 8 Partridge, W. L (1979). The craft of community study. Gainesville:
University Presses of Florida.

King, AC., Carl, F. Birkel, L, 8 Haskell, W.L (1968). Increasing exercise among blue-
collar employee: The tailoring of worksite programs to meet speciﬁc needs.
Preventive Medicine, 1_7, 357-365.

 

246

Kirk, J., 8 Miller, M. L (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly
Hills: SAGE.

Iﬁzer, W. M. (1987). The healthy woLkplace: A blueprint for corporate action. New York:
Wiley.

Klarreich, 8. (Ed). (1987). Health and ﬁtness in the workplace. New York: Praeger.

Kluckhohn, C. (1949). Mirror for man: The relation of anthropology to modern life.
NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kluckhohn, F. R., 8 Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.

Knight, K (1967). A descriptive model of the infra-ﬁrm innovation process. Journal of
Business, _4_0, 478-496.

Knight, K 8 Wind, Y. (1968). Innovation in marketing. An organizational behavior
perspective. California Managament Review, B (1).

Kotler, P., 8 Levy, S. J. (1969, January). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal
of Marketing, g, 10-15.

Kotler, P., 8 Zaltman, G. (1971, July). Social marketing: an approach to planned social
change. Journal of Marketing, _3_5, 3-12.

Kroeber, A. F., 8 Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Bulture: A criti_cal review of concepts gig
deﬁnitions. New York: Vintage.

Kryder, S. (1988, August). Organization development in worksite health promotion
programming. Fitness In Business. 3-9.

Lambur, M. T. (1963). An evaluation of project pest's ﬁst management manual as a
means for transferring integrated pest management information to urban
homeowners (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University).

Lawrence, P. R., 8 Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Developing organizations. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Levine, A. (1980). Why i_nnovat_ion fails. Albany: State University of New York.

Levine, S. 8 Sorenson, JR (1984). Social and cultural factors in health promotion. In
J.D. Matarazzo et al. (eds). Behaviorﬂealth: A handbook of healtg
enhancement and disease ﬁevenpgp. NY: Wiley.

Loﬂand, J., 8 Lofland, L H. (1984). AnaIyg'ng social settings: A guide to mialitative
observation and agalysls. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

247

Louis, M. R. (1960). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2_5,
226-251.

Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. In L R. Pondy, P. J. Frost,
G. Morgan, 8 T. C. Dandridge (Eds), giganizational symbolism. (pp. 39-54).
Greenwich, CT: JAl Press.

Louis, M. R. (1985). An investigator’s guide to workplace culture. In Frost, et al (Eds),
Organizational culture (pp. 73-94). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Luck, D. J. (1969, July). Broadening the concept of marketing-too far. Journal of
Marketing, 53-63.

Luck, D. J. (1974, October). Social marketing: confusion compounded. Journal of
Marketing, 70-72.

Manning, PK (1977). Police Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

Manning, P. K (1979). Metaphors of the ﬁeld: Varieties of organizational discourse.
Administrative Science Quarterly, a, 660-671.

Manoff, R. K (1985). Social marketinLNew imperatives for public health. New York:
Praeger.

March, J. G., 8 Simon, H. A (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Martin, J. (1982). Can organizational culture be managed? (Presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, New York).

Martin, J., 8 Siehl, C. (1983, Autumn). Organizational culture and counterculture: an
uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Qynamics, 52-64.

Matarauo, J. D. (1984). Behavioral health: A 1990 challenge for the human science
professions. In J. D. Matarazzo, S. M. Weiss, J. A. Hard, N. E. Miller, 8 S. M.
Weiss (Eds), Behavioral health: A handbook of health enhancement and diseﬂ
prevention (pp. 340). New York: Wiley.

Matteson, M. T., 8 Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). Organizational stressors and heart disease:
A research model. Academy of Management Review, _4, 347-357.

Matteson, M. T. 8 Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlﬁgg work saess: effective huma_n
resource and management stratagies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Matteson, M. T. 8 Ivancevich, J. M. (1988). Worksite health promotion: Some important
questions. Health Values, 1gp), 23-29.

Merton, R. K (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.

248

Miles, MB. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, a, 590-601.

Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: Mrounded theog.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Millett, JD. (1962). The academic community. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1983a). Structure in ﬁves: Designing effective organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1983b). Power in an around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Mitroff, l. l., 8 Kilmann, R. H. (1984). CorQrate tragedies: Product tampering, sabotaga,
and other catastrghes. New York: Praeger.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Improving social setting by social climate measurment and
feedback. In R. Munoz, et al (Eds), Social and psychologipi research In
community settinga (pp. 145-182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moos, R. H. (1986). Work environment scale nanual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Mullen, P. D. (1968). Health promotion and patient education beneﬁts for employees.
Annual Review of Public Health, B, 305-332.

Nadler, D. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based
methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wedey.

Naisbitt, J. 8 Aburdene, P. (1985). Re-inventing the Comration. New York: Warner.

Neer, D.L (1957, September). Industry. Annals of the American Academy of Politﬂ
8 Social Science, 79-82.

Novelli, W. D. (1984). Developing marking programs. In L W. Frederiksen, L J.
Solomon, 8 K A Brehony (Eds). Marketing heaph behavior (pp. 5992). NY:
Plenum.

O'Donnell, M. P., 8 Ainsworth, T. H. (Eds). (1984). Health promotion in the workplace.
New York: Wiley.

O'Donnell, M. P. (1987). Design of workplace health promotion prpgrams. Birmingham,
MI: American Journal of Health Promotion.

249

Opatz, J. P. (1987). A_primer of health promotion: Creating healthy organizational
cultures. Washington, DC: Oryn.

Orlandi, M. A. (1986). The diffusion and adoption of worksite health promotion
innovations: An analysis of barriers. Preventive Medicine, 1_5, 522-536.

Orlandi, M. A. (1987). Promoting health and preventing disease in health care settings:
An analysis of barriers. Preventive Medicine, 1B, 119-130.

Ouchi, W. G. (1961). Theorﬂ: How American business can meet the Japanese
challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Parkinson, R. S. (1982). Managing health Emotion in the workplace. Palo Alto, CA:
Mayﬁeld.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1956, June). Suggestions for a sociological approch to the theory of
organizations. Administrative Science Quartery, 1, 63-85.

Pascarella, P., 8 Frohman, MA. (1989). The purpose-driven organization: Unleashing
the MB! of direction and commitment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. O. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). anlitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Pelto, P. J., 8 Pelto, G. H. (1978). Anthmolpgical research: The structure of inquiry.
New York: Cambridge University

Pelto, P.J. (1965). The nature of anthropolgy. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books.

Peters, T. J., 8 Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: l_.essons from America’s
best run companies. New York: Harper 8 Row.

Pettigrew, AM. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science
Ouarter_ly, g5, 570-581. -

Pfeiffer, J. W., 8 Jones, J. E. (1978). CD readiness. In W. W. Burke (Ed), The cutting
e_d_ge: Current theory and practice in organization develomient (pp. 179-186). La
Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Ouelch, J. A (1980). Marketing principles and the future of preventive health care.
OLuarterIle-Ieith and Society. 5_8. 310-345.

Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moyipg beyond qualitative and quantiative
stratgies. Berkeley: University of Callfomia Press.

 

250

Recreation Management. (1962, October). Industrial recreation teams up with physical
ﬁtness. pp. 12, 13, 18.

Recreation Management. (1964, September). Burgeoning Texas Instruments program
scores impressive participation gains. pp. 20, 21.

Rice, R., 8 Paisley, W. (Eds). (1981). Public communication campaigns. Beverly Hills:
SAGE,

Riedel, J. E. (1987, Spring). Employee health promotion: blue cross and blue shield
plan activities. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28-32.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., 8 Agarwala-Rogers, R. (1976). Communication in organizations. New
York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., 8 Shoemaker, F. M. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross—
cultural papproach. New York: Free Press.

Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York:
MacMillan.

Rose, R. A. (1968). Organizations as multiple cultures: a rules theory analysis. Human
Relations, 11(2), 139-170.

Rosen, J. C., 8 Solomon, L J. (Eds). (1985). Prevention in health psychology. Hanover,
VT: University Press of New England.

Rosen, RH. (1985, December). What Really Ails Employees? Training and Development
Journal, 54-56.

Rosenstock, I. M. (1982). The health belief model and nutrition education. Journal of
Canadian Qetetic Association, 1_4(3), 184-192.

San, H. (1986). Health promotion and health education: Living with a dominant
concept. Health Promotion, 1, 253-255.

Salancik, G. R., 8 Pfefier, J. (1977). Who gets power-and how they hold on to It: A
strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Bynamics, §- 2-21.

Sanchez, R. D. (1987). An analysis of the relationship between a major change effort
and the organizational culture of a public two year college. (Doctoral dissertation,
Georgia State University-Atlanta).

Sanday, P. R. (1979). The ethnographic paradigm. Administrative Science Quarterly,
a, 527-538.

251

Santa-Barbara, J. (1987). Corporate health and corporate culture. In S. H. Klarreich
(Ed), Health and ﬁtness in the workplace. New York: Praeger.

Sathe, V. (1965). How to decipher and change corporate culture. In R. Kilmann et al.
(Eds), Gainipg control of the corporate culture (pp. 230-261). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Schatzman, L, 8 Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schein, EH. (1978). Career dynamics: Matchingindividuals and organizational needs.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schein, E. H. (1960). Organizational psycholpgy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schein, EH. (1984, Winter). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture.
Sloan Management Review, 316.

Schein, EH. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1986). Notes on climate and culture. In M. Venkatesan, D.M.
Schmalensee, 8 C. Marshall (Eds). Creativity in services marketing: W_hat's new,
what works, what's develomg, (pp. 6367). Chicago: American Marketing.

Schoenbach, V.J. (1987). Appraising health risk appraisal. American Journal of Public
Health, ﬂ (4), 409-411.

Schwartz, H., 8 Jacobs, J. (1979). Qualitative sociology: A method to the madness.
New York: Free Press.

Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shafritz, J.M., 8 Off, J. Steven. (Eds). (1987). Classics of organization theoty. Chicago:
Dorsey Press.

Shain, M., Suurvali, H., 8 Boutilier, M. (1986). Healthier workers: Health promotion and
emplpyee assistance prpgrams. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Shipley, R. H., Orleans, C. T., Wilbur, C. S., Piserchia, P. V., 8 McFadden, D. W. (1988).
Effect of the Johnson 8 Johnson live for life program on employee smoking.
Prevethive Medicine, 17, 25-34.

Siehl, C., 8 Martin, J., (1988). In search of meaning: Using qualitative methods in
research and application. In M.O. Jones, M.D. Moore, 8 RC. Snyder (Eds).
Inside Organization: Underatandipgthe herein dimension. (pp. 31 -48). Newburg
Park, CA, Sage.

252

Sloan, R. P. (1987). Workplace health promotion: A commentary on the evolution of a
paradigm. Health Educayn Quarterly, 1_4, 181-194.

Sloan, R. P., 8 Allegrante, J. P. (1985, December). Corporate health is more than a
robust balance sheet. Trainirtg anL Development Journal, 57-59.

Sloan, R. P. 8 Gruman, J. C. (1988, July). Does wellness in the workplace work?
Personnel Administrator, 42-48.

Sloan, R. P., Gruman, J. C, 8 Allegrante, J. P. (1967). Investing in employee health: A
glide to effective health promotion in the wogplace. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Smirich, L (1983, September). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis.
Administrative Science Quarterly, BB, 339-358.

Smirich, L. (1985). Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding organizations
and ourselves? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, 8 J.
Martin (Eds). Organizational Culture (pp. 55-72). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Solomon, D.W. (1984). Social marketing and community health promotion: The
Stanford heart disease program. In LW. Frederiksen et al. (EDS). Marketing
health behavior. (pp. 115-136). NY: Plenum.

Sorenson, AW. (1987). Health objectives for the nation: moving toward the 1990’s.
Journal of the American Bietetic Assoc, gm, 920-925.

Spicer, E. H. (1952). Human problems in technological change. New York: Wiley.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnpgraphic tnterview. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston.

Starr, P. (1982). The social_transofmration of American medicine. New York: Harper
8 Row.

Steckler, A., 8 Goodman, R.A. - (1969). How to Institutionalize health promotion
programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, B(4), 34-144.

Stellman, 8 Snow. (1986). Occupational safety and health hazards and the
psychological health and well-being of workers. In M.F. Cataldo, 8 T.J. Coates
(Eds). Health and industry: A behaviorapl medicine parspective, (pp. 270-284).
New York: Wiley.

Tampson, P. (1988, Winter). Franklin International: A facility based wellness program
adopted to serve a small white and blue-collar population. American Joumal_of
Health Promotion, 39-46.

253

Taylor, D. L, 8 Miller, W. L. (1979). The adoption process and environmental
innovations: A case study of a government project. Rural Sociology, 4_3, 634-
648.

Taylor, S.J., 8 Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New
York: Wiley.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The princtples of scientiﬁc managment New York: W. W. Norton.

Terborg, J. R. (1966). Health promotion at the worksite: A research challenge for
personnel and human resources management. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 3, 225-267.

Thomas, M. (1985, September). In search of culture: Holy grail or gravy train? Personnel
Management, 24-27.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). O_rganizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tichy, NM. (1982, August). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and
cultural keys. _O_rganizational @mamics, 59-80.

Tornatzky, L G., Fergus, E. O., Avellar, J. W., Fairweather, G. W., 8 Fleischer, M. (1980).
Innovation and social process: A national eaperiment in implementing social
polig. New York: Pergamon.

Ulrich, J. F., Jr. (1988). Communication and management dysfunction in intercultural
development assistance: A case study of the organizational culture of the nakuru
(Kenya) laymen association. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University).

VanMaanen, J. (Ed). (1979, December). Reclaiming qualitative methods for
organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 221, 520-
526.

VanMaanen, J. (1979, December). The fact of ﬁction in organizational ethnography.
Administrative Science Quarterly, at, 539-550.

VanMaanen, J. (1983). The moral fix: On the ethics of ﬁeldwork. In R. M. Emerson
(Ed), Contemporary ﬁeld research: A collection of readiaga (pp. 255-268).
Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland.

VanMaanen, J., 8 Barley, S. R. (1964). Occupational communities: Culture and control
in organizations. In B. M. Stew 8 L L Cummings (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, B, Greenwich, CT: JAl Press, (pp. 287-365).

VanMaanen, J., 8 Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organizational: fragments of a theory.
In P. J. Frost, L F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, 8 J. Martin (Eds).
Organizational culture (pp. 31 -53). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

254

VanMaanen, J., 8 Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

Vidich, A. J. (1955). Participant observation and the collection and interpereation of
data. American Journal of Sociology, B9, 356-358.

Wagner, E.H., Beery, W.L, Schoenbach, F.J., 8 Graham, RM. (1982). An assessment
of health hazard/health risk appraisal. American Journal of Public Health, 7_2(4),
347-352.

Walker, S.N., Sechrist, KR., 8 Pender, NJ. (1987). The health promoting lifestyle
proﬁle: Development and psychometric characteristics. Nursianesearch, 16(2),
76-81.

Wallerstein, N., to Bernstein, E. (1968). Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas
adopted to health education. Health Education Quarter_ly, QM). 379-394.

Ward, G.W. (1984). The national high blood pressure education program: An example
of social marketing in action. In. LW. Fredericksen, et al. (Eds). Marketing
health behavior (pp. 93-114). NY: Plenum.

Warner, K (1981). Selling health promotion to corporate America: Uses and abuses
of the economic argument. Health Education Quarterly, EU), 39-55.

Wax, R. H. (1983). The ambiguities of ﬁeld research. In R. M. Emerson (Ed),
Contemﬂary ﬁeld research: A collection of readirtga (pp. 191-202). Prospects
Heights, IL: Waveland.

Weibe, G. D. (1972). Merchandising commodities and citizenship on televison. In G.
Zaltman et al. (Eds). Planning Social Chapga (pp. 166-193). New York: Holt,
Rinehart 8 Winston.

Weick, K E. (1985). The signiﬁcance of corporate culture. In P. J. Frost, L F. Moore,
M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, 8 J. Martin (Eds). Organizational culture (pp. 381-
390). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Weiss, J. W. (Ed). (1968). Ragional cultures, managerial behavior, and entrepreneurship:
An lntemational mrsﬂ‘ e. New York: Quorum.

Weiss, J. W. 8 Delbeck, A. (1988). Regional cultures and high-technology management:
route 128 and silicon valley. In J. W. Weiss (Ed), Bagional cultures. managerial
behaviouand entrepreneurshjp: An international mrsgctive (pp. 9-21). New
York: Quorum.

Weiss, SM. (1985). Foreward: The case for worksite health promotion. In 6.8. Everly
and H.L Feldman (Eds). Occupational Health Promotion: Health behavior in
the workplpce. (pp ix-xv). New York: Wiley.

255

Whyte, W. F. (1984). Beaming from the ﬁeld: A guide from gperience. Beverly Hills:
SAGE.

Wilbur, C. S. (1983). The Johnson 8 Johnson program. Preventive Medicine, 3, 672-
681.

Wilbur, C. S., Hartwell, T. D., 8 Piserchia, P. V. (1986). The Johnson 8 Johnson live
for life program: Its organization and evaluation plan. In M. F. Cataldo, 8 T. J.
Coates (Eds), Health and industry: A behavioral medicine ﬁrspective (pp. 338-
350). New York: Wiley.

Wilson, T.B., Wanzel, R., Gillespie, V., 8 Roberts, C.J. (1979). An inmuction to
industrial recreation. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Windsor, R., Baranowski, T., Clark, N., 8 Cutter, G. (1984). Evaluation of health
promotion and education programs. Palo Alto, Ca: Mayﬁeld.

Wishko, C. S. (1986). Supportive culture vital to success of worksite health promotion.
Business and Health, §(4), 58,59.

Wolfe, R. A., Ulrich, D. O., 8 Parker, D. F. (1987). Employee health management
programs: Review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 1:},
603-615.

Yin, R. K (1984). Case study research: Desjgn and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Zaltman, G., 8 Duncan, R. (1977). Stratgies for planned change. New York: Wiley.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., 8 Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York:
Wiley.

Zimmerman, R.W. 8 Connor, C. (1989). Health promotion in context: The effects of
signiﬁcant others on health behavior change. Health glucation Qparterly, 1_§(1),
57-75.