IGSTEANTA lllllllllllllllll Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1293 01572 8680 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Importance of Planning for Conference Success: A Field Study Involving the Cancer Information Service presented by Susan M. Pobocik has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ma stars—degree in Mai—ca t i on fié/Ac ajor {tofessor Date 7’25,- Cilé 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE ll RETURN BOX to roman this chockout from your record. TO AVOID FINES mum on or Moro date duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU loAn Affirmative Action/Emu Opportunity Institution ' WI. THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING FOR CONFERENCE SUCCESS: A FIELD STUDY INVOLVING THE CANCER INFORMATION SERVICE By Susan M. Pobocik A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1 996 ABSTRACT THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING FOR CONFERENCE SUCCESS: A FIELD STUDY INVOLVING THE CANCER INFORMATION SERVICE By Susan M. Pobocik Conferences can be made more effective if the evaluation, planning, and implementation are systematically linked. This study compares two annual conferences held by a government health information organization, the Cancer Information Service (CIS). The network is dispersed throughout the country and uses the conference as a primary forum for face-to-face discussion within the organization. Changes were made to the Denver conference based on feedback given to the conference planners by the participants of the Atlanta conference. In a questionnaire distributed at both conferences, participants (n=41) were asked a number of questions relating to their communication at the conference and their perceptions of the conference. Two months later, follow- up questionnaires were sent to the respondents. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the two conferences. Dissimilarity measures were used to compare the communication across the different functional roles In general, the Denver conference was evaluated more favorably. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the Office of Cancer Communications as well as the following CIS offices which participated in the data collections: Region 1: (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) Region 2: (NYC, Long Island, Westchester County, NY) Region 3: (NY State, WestPA) Region 4: (DE, NJ, EastPA) Region 5: (DC, MD, NorthVA) Region 6: (GA, NC, SC) Region 7: (FL, PR) Region 8: (AL, LA, MS) Region 9: (AR, KY, TN) Region 10: (OH, WV, SouthVA) Region 11: (WI, IA, MN, ND, SD) Region 12: (Ml, IN) Region 13: (IL, KS, MO, NE) Region 14: (OK, TX) Region 15: (AK, NorthID, MT, OR, WA) Region 16: (AZ, CO, SouthID, NM, UT, WY) Region 17: (NorthCA, NV) Region 18: (SouthCA) Region 19: (HI) CIS at Yale Cancer Center CIS at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center CIS at Roswell Park Cancer Institute CIS at Fox Chase Cancer Center CIS at Johns Hopkins University Oncology Center CIS at Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center CIS at Sylvester Cancer Center CIS at University of Alabama at Birmingham CI S at Markey Cancer Center CIS at Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center CIS at University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center CIS at Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute CIS at University of Kansas Medical Center CIS at MD. Anderson Cancer Center CIS at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center ‘ CIS at Penrose St. Francis Healthcare System CIS at Northern California Cancer Center CIS at Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center/UCLA CIS at Cancer Research Center of Hawaii WW Subcontract No. 73 7-4241 from the AMC Cancer Research Center for P01 CA57586-01A1 grant from the National Cancer Institute. The conclusions reached in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Cancer Institute, the CISRC, or the AMC Cancer Research Center. Speflallhanks: I would like to thank Deb Tigner for her help in preparing and mailing the questionnaires. I would like to extend thanks to the members of the Network Analysis Advisory Board for their help throughout the many phases of the research process: Sherri Darrow, Chris Thomsen, Donna Cox, Jo Beth Speyer, William Stengle, Marsha Woodworth, Maureen McClatchey, and Diane Ruesch. I would also like to thank the other members of the Network Analysis Research team: J. David Johnson, Caroline Ethington, Marcy Meyer, Hui-Jung Chang, and Betty LaFrance. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF CIS .......................................................................................... 5 Atlanta Conference ................................................................................. 9 Planning Process ................................................................................... 10 Denver Conference ................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER 2 HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................. 14 Necessary Prior Conditions .................................................................... 14 Process Variables ................................................................................... 17 Outcome Variables ................................................................................. 18 Organizational Consequences ................................................................ 20 Communication Across Different Functional Roles ................................. 22 CHAPTER 3 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 25 Participants .............................................................................................. 26 Conference Evaluation Questionnaire ..................................................... 28 Follow-up Questionnaire ......................................................................... 30 lndicants .................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 44 APPENDIX A Atlanta Conference Evaluation Questionnaire ........................................ 56 APPENDIX B Atlanta Conference Follow-up Questionnaire ......................................... 59 APPENDIX C Denver Conference Evaluation Questionnaire ........................................ 60 APPENDIX D Denver Conference Follow-up Questionnaire ......................................... 63 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 64 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Geographical Areas of the 19 Regional CIS Offices - 1992 ..................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 - Work-Related Contacts by Functional Roles - Atlanta Conference ......................................................................................................... 24 Table 3 - Intervention Strategy Contacts by Functional Roles - Atlanta Conference ......................................................................................................... 24 Table 4 - Demographics for the Cancer Information Service .............................. 29 Table 5 - Scale Items and Reliabilities for the Individual Variables ..................... 34 Table 6 - T-tests of the Hypotheses for the Atlanta and Denver Conference .......................................................................................................... 38 Table 7 - Work-Related Contacts by Functional Roles - Denver Conference .......................................................................................................... 40 Table 8 - Intervention Strategy Contacts by Functional Roles - Denver Conference .......................................................................................................... 40 Table 9 - Phi-square values for Work-Related Issues ........................................ 42 Table 10 - Phi-square values for Intervention Strategies ................................... 42 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Overview of the Cancer lnfonnation Service ..................................... 27 viii INTRODUCTION The need to bring individuals together to communicate face-to-face in the "conference" format has increased dramatically in recent years (Chon & Huo, 1993). This is because complex organizations and new organizational forms are increasing. Within these types of organizations face-to-face communication can be difficult because the organizations are widely dispersed. Therefore, the conference can be used as an integrating mechanism for many of these complex organizations and/or new organizational forms. Conferences can be effective if the planning and implementation are well organized. Effective planning includes utilizing the feedback received by participants of previous conferences to help achieve future conference success. This paper focuses on a field study involving the Cancer Information Service (CIS). The CIS is considered to be a new organizational form and represents a government health communication organization. Beginning in the 19703, the organization has held national conferences for members of their network to attend. The traditional importance of the conference is not only to discuss business matters but also to communicate about major issues faced by the CIS network (Morra et al., 1993b). The annual meetings allow the discussion of problems and provide a structure for forging solutions that the network shares in (Morra et al., 1993b). The conferences are 1 2 very participative in nature. Because of this traditional nature, the organization has achieved major success in the past on resolving issues faced by the network. In this study, two CIS national conferences will be evaluated. First, I will discuss the conference as an integrating mechanism and provide general information on conferences as well as specific information on the CIS conferences held in Atlanta and Denver. Then I will provide a short background of the CIS national network and present my hypotheses. Lastly, I will discuss my results in terms of future conference success. According to Romanelli (1991) the concept of organizational form refers to those characteristics of an organization that identify it as a distinct entity and, at the same time, classify it as a member of a group of similar organizations. Within a new organizational form the structure of the organization changes to include various subsystems. Therefore, complex organizational systems constitute a network composed of various subsystems geared to meeting the needs of its members (Julius et al., 1980). A host of environmental factors contribute to the development of new organizational forms (Johnson et al., 1996). Some of the environmental factors are: concerns about personnel costs, external pressures to keep the number of members on their permanent staff low, uncertainty reduction, and needs to pool knowledge and information. The need for new organizational forms and the pressure to create them is great, however, success is difficult to achieve, particularly in the health area (Arnold & Hink, 1968; Farace et al., 1982). There is also a proliferation of new types of quasi- forrns associated with more complex interorganizational relationships (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Schopler, 1987). Some examples of the differing types of 3 interorganizational relationships are: trade associations, agency federations, joint ventures, social service joint programs, corporate-financial interlocks, agency-sponsor linkages (Oliver, 1990), hybrid arrangements (Borys & Jemison, 1989), franchises, strategic alliances, research consortia, network organization (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994), and quasi-firms (Luke, Begun, & Pointer, 1989). These types of organizational combinations are necessary for the survival and success of the organization. An essential part of this success is effective integration, which is achieved through communication (Sandwith, 1992). The integrating mechanisms employed by traditional organizations to achieve integration have included line management structure, cross organizational teams and committees, individual coordinators, coordinating departments, and plans and procedures, all of which communicatively link organizational groupings together for the purposes of achieving coordination toward common organizational goals (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967a,b,c; Moynihan, 1982). All of these integrating mechanisms are used by the CIS in one form or another (Morra et al., 1993). However, with the development of more complex organizations and new organizational forms, more complex integrating mechanisms are needed. The conference can be seen as a key strategic tool to be used in linking a diverse array of participants, through communicative processes, to achieve the level of integration required by new organizational forms, such as a contractual network (Johnson et al., 1996). Conferences can be used to integrate many different subsystems of the organization to communicate face-to-face with each other. For this study, the conference will be defined as a formal meeting of 4 individuals, from various organizational groupings, temporarily called together, away from the organizational setting, for the purposes of increasing understanding, agreement, and interaction related to common organizational goals (Johnson, et al., 1996). One goal of the conference is to bring together as much diversity of opinion and perspective as possible (Bailey & Dupre, 1992). Because of this, it is important to get everyone to participate. Participant involvement can lead to effective integration within the organization. When an employee participates, helshe is more likely to take action because part of the ideas discussed is his/her own (Nathan, 1969). This participation is important because it can lead to future action taken by the employee toward the goals discussed during the conference. Conferences also tend to create a process of collective sharing (Julius, 1980). Members feel like they are an important part of the organization because they are participating in the conference and are able to share their opinions with other members of the organization. Participation can also be achieved by involving members in conference planning. Chapter 1 OVERVIEW OF THE CIS The Cancer lnfonnation Service (CIS) was established in 1975 by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to disseminate accurate, up-to-date information about cancer to cancer patients, the relatives and friends of cancer patients, health care professionals, and to the general public. NCI is the federal government's lead agency for cancer research and part of its mandate is dissemination of research findings to the public. This is done through the CIS. Over the past 20 years the CIS has compiled a remarkable record of achievement in fulfilling this critically important function for the NCI (Morra, et al. 1993a). The public health mandate of the CIS is grounded in the National Cancer Act of 1971 and the amendments to that act made over the past 20 years (Morra, et al. 1993b). The core element of the 1971 National Cancer Act that led to the formation of the CIS stipulates that the NCI "Provide a program to disseminate and interpret... for practitioners and other health professionals, scientists, and the general public, scientific and other information regarding the causes, prevention, detection and treatment of cancer“ (Morra, et al. 1993b). In response to this mandate, the CIS currently maintains a network of 19 regional offices that are typically linked to NCI-funded cancer centers. The activities of the CIS network are coordinated and supervised by the Office of Cancer Communications (000) at the NCI. These activities fall into two broad categories: (1) responding to requests for information over the telephone (the CIS operates a toll-free telephone service, 1-800-4-CANCER, in which callers are automatically triaged to their regional office for response from a professional cancer information specialist), and (2) conducting community outreach activities. The community outreach programs of the CIS can be further subdivided into mass media campaigns that promote use to the CIS toll-free telephone number and/or encourage specific cancer prevention and control behaviors (e.g., smoking cessation or screening mammography), and more interpersonal community outreach efforts that typically involve working with community intermediaries. Table 1 presents the geographical areas of the 19 regional CIS offices. Although the specific configuration of the regional offices has changed with each CIS contract renewal, most of the CIS offices have been in existence for a decade or longer. Each CIS office has a Principal Investigator, a Project Director, a Telephone Service Manager, an Outreach Coordinator, and between 2.0 to 10.5 full-time equivalent Cancer Information Specialists (depending on call volume to the regional office). Although the Principal Investigators are ultimately responsible for administrative oversight of their CIS office, the day-to-day management of the office resides with the Project Directors. Telephone Service Managers have direct supervisory responsibility for the lnforrnation Specialists, while the Outreach Coordinators are responsible for implementing the community outreach program of the CIS. The CIS is generally recognized as one of the premiere telephone-based 7 Table 1 Geographical Areas of the 19 Regional CIS Offices - 1992“ """" " Population """"""""""""""""""" (in .- ' :‘:*3:2:‘»:I:;:5:—::5 :3-1-3:2.22523:32~5:;:1::::::.s:i~3::.::;.2-:::.~':1::: ¢.'-‘:?SE~ZI{I’:'-‘f.5'9i1???"i‘:-511?“:'f~'5~:1iii“?”it?Tr:5‘iii-fili'iifili‘*.Z‘Erj13:3'3::9:*}‘:.411.15:411541155’4"?xiii -:: mflfiom) 1 Connecticut, Marne, Massachusetts, New 13.1 Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 2 New York City, Long Island, Westchester County 10.0 New York state (excluding New York City, Long 3 Island, Westchester County), Western 14.1 Pennsylvania (area codes 412, 814) 4 Delaware, New Jersey, Eastern Pennsylvania (area 14.5 codes 215, 717) 5 District of Columbia, Maryland, Northern Virginia 6.3 (counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford) 6 Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina 16.9 7 Florida, Puerto Rico 16.1 8 Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi 11.6 9 Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee 11.2 10 Ohio, Southern Virginia (all Virginia counties except 17.8 those in Rgfln 5), West Virginia 11 Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, 13.3 Wisconsin 12 Indiana, Michigan 14.8 13 Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska 20.9 14 Oklahoma, Texas 21.0 Alaska, Northern Idaho (counties of Benewah, 15 Bonner, Boundary, Clearwater, Kootenai, Latah, 9.5 Lewis, Nezperce, Shoshone), Montana, Oregon, Washimton state 16 Arizona, Colorado, Southern Idaho (all Idaho 1 1.6 counties except those in Region 15), New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming 17 Northern California (all California counties except 15.0 those in Region 16), Nevada Southern California (counties of Imperial, Inyo, 18 Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 15.0 Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura) 8 public health information systems in the country. In addition to the extensive community outreach activities of the CIS, call volume to the CIS network exceeds 500,000 calls per year. All activities conducted by the CIS are governed by a strict code of policies and procedures formulated by OCC in collaboration with the CIS network. All CIS staff are highly trained professionals who undergo an extensive training program that is also mandated by OCC (Morra, et al. 1993b). Since 1983, CIS policy has required that each call to the CIS be recorded on a standardized Call Record Form completed by the Information Specialist. Recorded on this form is such information as the topic(s) of inquiry, the information/suggestion(s) provided to the caller, and how the caller found out about the CIS. Quality control monitoring of CIS staff occurs on a regular basis both at the regional and national levels, including a nationwide test- call program operated by OCC (Kessler, et al. 1993; Morra, et al. 1993b). In 1995, the CIS received the prestigious Award of Excellence from the National Association of Government Communicators for "Its continuing flow of important information to the public and the creative solutions it has found in presenting complicated issues in a clear and useful manner" (JNCI, 1995). The CIS holds a national conference once a year for members of the CIS network to attend. These conferences solidify the feeling of a network because individuals around the country come together and communicate about major issues faced by the network, discuss problems within the network, and plan for the future (Morra et al., 1993a). The conferences are designed so that they focus on specific themes that are of major concern to the organization. The focus on a specific theme and/or issues (Bailey & Dupre, 1992). For this type of 9 organization, the conference acts as an integrating mechanism and is an conferences are therefore similar to a search conference, where large numbers of people from the organization gather to essential part of the communication process within the CIS. Atlantaficnierence In December of 1993, the CIS national conference was held in Atlanta, Georgia. Over 90 members from the Cancer Information Service Network attended the conference. The functional roles in attendance were: Office of Cancer Communications staff (OCC), Outreach Coordinators (OC), Project Directors (PD), Principal Investigators (PI), and Telephone Service Managers (T SM). The Office of Cancer Communications staff communicate with regional office members. Outreach Coordinators are responsible for getting health messages out to the public through networking with other organizations such as local American Cancer Societies, state health departments, and so on. Project Directors are the day-to-day managers of the regional CIS offices. Principal Investigators are responsible for the overall strategic direction of the projects that take place within the CIS. Telephone Services Managers are in charge of managing the telephone service and the referral resources. The duration of the conference was three days. The main theme was an informational meeting that provided an overview of the progress of the CIS for the year. Throughout the conference topics were broken down into different sessions and four primary issues were focused on. The first issue dealt with minority cancer awareness where all of the participants were involved. The second issue dealt with individual functional roles (i.e., defining the role of the 10 Telephone Service Managers, Outreach Coordinators, etc.). The third issue dealt with management issues and how to manage different programs of the CIS (i.e., managing the Outreach Program). The final issue dealt with current and future information that the members needed to know (i.e., how new technology would affect the CIS, health promotion outreach, etc). The conference ended with a dinner for all of the participants that focused on the Native American population research and outreach. Overall, conference participants felt that the conference was worthwhile. They left the conference with a better understanding of the goals of the CIS and with a commitment to continue interacting with others in the network about what was discussed at the conference (Johnson et al., 1994a). Iheflanningfirccess Before the Denver conference took place, conference planners received written and verbal feedback about the Atlanta conference. Written feedback was obtained from surveys the participants were asked to fill out at the Atlanta conference and also from a report prepared by the Network Analysis research team that included an evaluation of that conference (Johnson et al., 1994a). Verbal feedback was given to the conference planners by some of the participants who attended the Atlanta conference. The conference planners also received open comments from NCI. Because of the feedback received, three major changes took place for the Denver conference. The first change involved the planning process. The planning began earlier than it did for the Atlanta conference and members from all levels of the CIS were asked to participate. The planning process began in 1 1 1994 where three committees involving different functional roles (Project Directors, Telephone Services Managers, and Outreach Coordinators) were formed to create an agenda for the Denver conference. The committees formed included people from 13 of the 19 regions within the CIS (regions not included were 6, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 19; see Table 1 for a listing of the 19 regions). The committees consisted of six people total, with one chairperson for each committee and one overall chairperson for the entire project. Each committee member sought out input from network members, within their specific region, in terms of how the conference agenda should look. The goal was to make sure the needs of the members were met at the conference. The committee members communicated through monthly conference calls and had a final face- to-face meeting in January of 1995 in Washington. The second change involved the scheduling of sessions. The schedules were arranged to permit more interactive sessions so that more informal communication could take place. The previous conference essentially had formal meetings from seven in the morning to well into the evening. The third change involved increasing the sessions so that they overlapped with the different functional roles within the CIS network. Participants were assigned to specific discussion groups made up of members from each of the different functional roles. This gave participants more of an opportunity to interact with individuals who had roles different from themselves. W In March of 1995, the CIS national conference was held in Denver, Colorado. Over 90 members from the Cancer lnfonnation Service Network attended this conference. The functional roles in attendance were: Office of 12 Cancer Communications staff (OCC), Outreach Coordinators (OC), Project Directors (PD), Principal Investigators (PI), and Telephone Service Managers (TSM). The duration of the conference was five days. The main issues of concern were the future of the CIS and computerization. With a focus on the next five years, the primary theme of the conference was CIS in the year 2000. Since the Atlanta conference, changes had also taken place within the CIS itself. A reorganization was pending and downsizing scenarios had been drafted for people to react to within the CIS. An emphasis on downsizing as a strategy for organizational and corporate survival has become increasingly important to hospitals and health care organizations in the last decade (Kilpatrick, Johnson, & Jones, 1991). These organizations have to deal with changes in funding and reimbursement, workforce shortages, demographic changes, restructuring, competition from alternative providers, and massive technological growth (Kilpatrick, Johnson, & Jones, 1991). In doing so they often add information sources that directly compete with the CIS. The decision to downsize is a strategic one, undertaken to improve business development and reposition for future growth and survival (Isabella, 1989; Kilpatrick, Johnson, & Jones, 1991). The impact of downsizing affects everyone within the organization. Positions are eliminated, people are let go, and the future of the organization is in question. When an organization downsizes, that action calls into question the fundamental and long-standing assumption about work (Isabella, 1989). People accept jobs with the assumption that there will be security for them there. They will work in exchange for job security. However, this assumption is proven wrong when an organization 13 eliminates jobs, even for the survivors of downsizing. Members who survive the reorganization are still not secure in their positions. This insecurity can affect the person's job and also affect the way the person views the organization. Brockner, Davy, and Carter (1985) found that layoffs can cause survivors to experience increased feelings of remorse and also cause them to develop more negative attitudes toward their co-workers. There are Iong-tenn costs associated with downsizing and the human factor is often not considered. Individuals are expected to work harder, assume greater responsibility, and perform many tasks previously completed by other staff members (Aplin, 1985). Chapter 2 HYPOTHESES Johnson et al. (1996) developed a model of the role of the conference as an integrating mechanism for health service organizations. In this model four areas were identified as being important for the success of a conference. The variables are: Necessary prior conditions for conference success, conference process variables, conference outcomes, and the long-term consequences of effective integration for an organization. The following 12 hypotheses are based on the testing that was conducted on the conference model (Johnson, et al. 1996). Hypotheses 13 and 14 are concerned with communication across the different functional roles at both of the conferences. There are four necessary conditions that must be considered in conference planning. They are: homophily, interest, participative climate, and clear conference goals. Homophily refers to the degree to which individuals are similar to one another in beliefs, attitudes, values, and the extent to which they share a common symbol system related to organizational goals (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Individuals tend to interact with similar individuals in situations of choice, (i.e., demographics) (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). At conferences participants tend to interact 14 1 5 with people that are like themselves because they feel more comfortable (especially in unfamiliar surroundings). However, if the conference is planned so that participants are encouraged to interact with people unlike themselves, this will not be the case. At the Denver conference more informal sessions were developed so members could interact with others in different organizationally defined functional roles. Therefore, I:L1_; Participants will evaluate homophily lower in the Denver conference than they will in the Atlanta conference. The second necessary condition is interest. This reflects an individual‘s intent to participate. It can encompass curiosity, fascination, and concern. A participant with no or little interest would bring few insights, a lack of enthusiasm, and little participation to the conference. Participants with little interest might also express their negative attitude toward the conference to interested participants. The negative attitude could interfere with the interested participants’ enjoyment of the conference. The issues covered at the conference could also have an affect on whether participant interest is present. For example, in the Denver conference the focus was on the future of the CIS. The people who attended this conference may have found this of great interest because it could affect them personally. Therefore, H2; Participants will evaluate their interest higher in the Denver conference than they will in the Atlanta conference. A third necessary condition is a participative climate. In general, climate can be used to express the overall gestalt of an organization, characterizing the internal environment of the organization as experienced by an insider (T agiuri, 16 1968). For this study, participative climate will reflect an individual's perception of how receptive the organization is to employee involvement in formal and informal interactions within his/her normal work environment (Johnson et al., 1996). Perceived high receptivity to employee participation should increase willingness and motivation to become involved and interact during the conference (Gibb, 1976). The planners for the CIS conferences consisted of a variety of different functional roles (i.e., Project Directors, Telephone Service Managers). Members from all levels of the organization were included in the planning process. Therefore, H3; Participants will evaluate the participative climate higher in the Denver conference than they will in the Atlanta conference. The fourth and final necessary condition is clear conference goals. Clear goals reflect whether the purposes and anticipated outcomes of the conference were understood by participants from the beginning. The goals of the conference must be developed before the conference takes place. This can help participants prepare for their interaction and participation in activities throughout the conference. Participants who have already been to a conference know what to expect from future conferences they attend. This familiarity with conferences can help them prepare for future conferences and make the goals seem clearer. Because of the delicate issues covered in the Denver conference, conference planners made preparations well in advance. Scenario discussions on downsizing were conducted at the regional offices before the conference took place. The agenda was set and the focus of the conference was made clear to the CIS members months before the conference. Therefore, 17 H4; Participants will evaluate clear goals higher for the Denver conference than the Atlanta conference. Emcessxariables Once the conference is undenivay, two process variables can determine the success of the conference. The two variables are: Effective communication and involvement. Effective communication is considered to be the degree to which a receiver's response is consonant with the overall objectives of the sender (Farace et al., 1978). For a conference, effective communication becomes associated with the goals established by the conference planners and becomes the degree to which the outcomes of a communication event reflect the original intent of the planned activities and sessions at the conference. Both conferences focused on specific theme(s) and issues relating to the organization. Therefore, 115; There will be no difference in the participants' evaluation of effective communication between both conferences. The second process variable is involvement. This consists of two types of involvement, formal and informal. Formal involvement reflects participation in the planned formal activities and sessions at the conference. An example of a formal session would be a formal presentation where a presenter is brought in to address a large group of people. There is little chance for informal discussion. On the other hand, informal involvement reflects informal activities with other participants (i.e., a roundtable session where participants are free to discuss with each other the topic at hand). The Denver conference was planned so that more involvement could take place both formally and informally. Therefore, 18 H6; Participants will evaluate involvement higher in the Denver conference than in the Atlanta conference. Quiccmexarjables Conference success serves as a moderator, or antecedent, to the effectiveness of a conference as an integrating mechanism (Johnson, et al., 1996). There are three outcome variables that are crucial to conference effectiveness: Understanding, agreement, and continued interaction. Understanding reflects an individual's comprehension of the central issues focused on at the conference. Increased understanding is a crucial outcome of a conference that can affect the maintenance of organizational cultures, the effective flow of information, and successful control and coordination of day-to- day organizational activities (Johnson, et al., 1996). Increased understanding can start before the conference even takes place by making the focus of the conference clear to the members of the organization. The members of the organization will be familiar with the topics of discussion and will attend the conference with the purpose of gaining more information and insight. Understanding may also be influenced by the clarity of goals and outcomes expected. Before the second conference, members of the CIS were given a conference agenda a few months ahead of time. Therefore, H1; Participants will evaluate understanding higher in the Denver conference than in the Atlanta conference. The second outcome variable is agreement. This reflects the degree of consensus among the conference participants. Understanding lays the groundwork for agreement between the conferees (Johnson, et al., 1996). 1 9 Participants can develop a more empathic understanding of others through the exchange of views inherent in conference activities (Johnson, et al., 1996). A decrease in agreement can occur when the topics covered at the conference are controversial, such as; organizational change and downsizing. Some participants could leave the conference without having achieved consensus with the other conference participants. This occurs because members of an organization do not always agree with what the organization is planning to do, especially when their jobs could be jeopardized, in the case of downsizing. In the Denver conference, the future of the CIS was an important topic discussed. Because this is a controversial topic some participants may have left the conference without agreement to the changes that would take place within the CIS. Therefore, H8; Participants will evaluate agreement higher in the Atlanta conference than in the Denver conference. The final outcome variable is continued interaction. This reflects the extent to which participants intend to communicate, in the future with each other, about issues discussed at the conference. To maintain understanding and agreement once the conference is over, a continual pattern of interaction between the conferees must be an additional outcome of the conference (Johnson, et al., 1996). One of the purposes of holding a conference is to give the members the opportunity to be a part of the organization as collective members. Organizational members feel that they can make a difference within the organization by continuing to interact with each other and trying toachieve the goals set forth at the conference. Conferences are also used to introduce new 20 innovations the organization plans on implementing. Continued interaction can play an important role in the potential success of the new innovation. At the Denver conference, computerization was introduced to the members of the CIS and individual sessions were devoted to the topic. The CIS in the year 2000 was also a topic of continued discussion. Therefore, H_9_; Participants will evaluate continued interaction higher in the Denver conference than in the Atlanta conference. E . I' I There are three long-term consequences of effective integration for an organization gained from a conference. The three consequences are: systemic effects, climate effects, and enhanced information flow. Systemic effects refers to the enhanced coordination and control within the organization as a result of the conference. According to Johnson et al. (1996), if an increase in coordination is going to be obtained within the organization, there must first be an increased understanding of the goal itself, increased agreement as to its feasibility and worthiness as a goal, and increased interaction among organizational members toward that goal. If there is increased interaction among the members of the organization, then more favorable attitudes toward the organization should occur. Both of the conferences were set up so enhanced coordination and control would be achieved. Therefore, H195, There will be no difference in the participants' evaluation of systemic effects between the conferences. The second organizational consequence is climate effects. This reflects the level of satisfaction and identification of conference participants with the 21 organization. As mentioned before, climate can be used to express the overall gestalt of an organization, characterizing the internal environment of the organization as experienced by an insider (Tagiuri, 1968). The way the members of the organization view the climate could change after they have attended a conference. They may feel like they are more a part of the organization because they participated in the conference and were able to express some of their opinions. This could lead to a more positive attitude toward the organization and toward individual members of the organization. Topics covered at the conference could also have an affect on this. If the topics are important to the future of the organization (i.e., downsizing), participants may feel that the organization cares about them because they are willing to discuss the issues with them. The Denver conference was set up so that there was more informal involvement for the participants. Even though delicate issues were discussed, the participants were able to express their opinions. This could lead to a more positive climate because the participants were involved. Therefore, H11; Participants will evaluate climate effects more favorably in the Denver conference than in the Atlanta conference. The third organizational consequence is enhanced information flow within the organization as a result of the conference. This reflects the sharing of information by conference participants after the conference. At the conference, participants can form contacts with people from different areas of the organization which will allow them to obtain information they might need to complete their tasks within the organization. This is especially important for organizations in which different areas of the organization are widely disperse 22 (i.e., the CIS has 19 regions throughout the United States). In general, conferences are events where individuals can go and meet different people within their organization (whether they hold the same position or a different position than that person). It was important for continued interaction to take place about CIS in the year 2000 and computerization after the Denver conference because these topics affect the future of the organization. Therefore, H12; Participants will evaluate flow of communication higher for the Denver conference than for the Atlanta conference. 5 . I' III I i l' | I Communication across different functional roles refers to the number of contacts a person has with other functional roles within the CIS network. Participants who attended the conferences were asked to estimate the number of Office of Cancer Communications Staff, Outreach Coordinators, Project Directors, and Telephone Service Managers with whom they had an informal communication contacts. The type of contacts of interest were the informal communication contacts which focused primarily on network-wide issues that dealt with work-related issues or interventions strategies. As a result of the lack of such interaction noted at the Atlanta conference (see Tables 2 and 3 for contacts by functional roles), the overall tendency was for people to communicate with others who held similar roles. The third change made to the Denver conference involved increasing the sessions so that they overlapped with different functional roles within the CIS network. This gave participants the opportunity to interact more with people who had different functional roles than 23 their own. Therefore, H13; Participants at the Denver conference will communicate more across different functional roles, about work-related issues, than they did for the Atlanta conference. H14; Participants at the Denver conference will communicate more across different functional roles, about interventions strategies, than they did for the Atlanta conference. 24 Table 2 Other Work-related Contacts by Functional Roles - Atlanta Conference Functional Roles Statistics OCC OC PD TSIII OCC Staff (OCC) mean 4.80 2.70 3.10 2.70 standard deviation 5.10 2.30 2.80 1.90 Outreach mean 3.80 10.20 3.80 2.10 Coordinators (OC) standard deviation 3.30 6.40 3.30 2.60 Project Directors mean 7.50 3.60 11.60 2.60 (PD) standard deviation 8.10 3.40 5.90 1.70 Telephone Service mean 7.30 1.70 4.80 11.50 Managers (LSM) standard deviation 9.00 1.80 4.50 6.60 Table 3 Intervention Strategy Contacts by Functional Roles - Atlanta Conference Functional Roles . Statistics OCC OC PD TSM OCC Staff (OCC) mean .80 2.00 1.10 .40 standard deviation 1.00 2.30 1.10 .80 Outreach mean 1 .00 8.20 2.40 .50 Coordinators (OC) standard deviation 1.40 5.80 2.60 1.30 Project Directors mean 1.30 2.50 6.10 .10 (PD) standard deviation 1.50 3.30 4.30 .60 Telephone Service mean .80 .80 1.00 1.30 Managers (TSM) standard deviation 1.50 1.20 2.10 2.70 Chapter 3 METHODS This research was conducted within a confederation of organizations composed of contractors who provided services to a federal government agency. It was part of a much larger project designed to evaluate the impact of three planned innovations over a four year period (see Johnson et al., 1994a for a more complete discussion of methods and design issues). An evaluation was conducted to assess the appropriateness of the conference changes that took place after the Atlanta conference in 1993 for the Denver conference in 1995. It was important to look at both conferences in their natural social settings. Because of the nature of the research design, full experimental control was not possible. When full experimental control is lacking there are certain things that can effect the internal validity of the study such as; history, maturation, instrumentation, regression effects, mortality, and selection (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). These were all taken into consideration when conducting the research. To avoid possible history effects, plausible competing hypotheses that could offer likely alternate explanations were considered in the study and are cited in the implications section of this paper. Participants who attended both conferences were used for the study so maturation could have been present. 25 26 The participants of the Atlanta conference probably knew more. If the person was a newcomer to the Atlanta conference their attitude may have changed just ' from being in the CIS for two years prior to attending the Denver conferencepeople and were more familiar with the conference format. To eliminate an instrumentation problem to some degree, the same items were used for all of the conference questionnaires (initial and follow-up). However, there could have been a possible reactivity effect to the evaluation. Participants were aware that there would be a CIS evaluation of the conference. Just by knowing this the participants may have changed the way they answered the questions. In the Atlanta conference there was a very positive evaluation of the conference. However, in the Denver conference there seemed to be a regression toward the mean, thus indicating a possible ceiling effect. Mortality can be ruled out because the data from the group was collected in terms of individual group members (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Only respondents who participated in both data collections were included in the analysis (n=41), thus ruling out selection as a possible problem. Emittinants The conference participants had different functional roles within the CIS. Those roles were: Office of Cancer Communications staff (OCC), Outreach Coordinators (OC), Project Directors (PD), Principal Investigators (PI), and Telephone Service Managers (T SM). These functional roles differed in their position requirements as well as in their organizational status level (see Figure 1 for an organizational chart). The Office of Cancer Communications staff communicate with regional 27 National Cancer Institute, Office of Cancer Communications l Cancer lnfonnation Service 1-800-4-CANCER l -Te|ephone Information response to callers/mailouts to callers -Physician Data Query -Resource materials -Subject-matter specialists/consultants -Referral files (for local referrals) -Booklets, pamphlets, flyers, etc, for mailouts -Community outreach coordinators -Mass-media campaigns l Major strategies for reaching selected target populations l l Telephone service/ Community outreach] Information specialists/ Community intennediaries/ Publication distribution Mass-media campaigns Marcus et al. (1993a) Figure 1 Overview of the Cancer lnforrnation Service 28 office members. The staff serves a variety of functions and is made up of a range of participants from branch chiefs to project officers, most possess master degrees. Outreach Coordinators are responsible for getting health messages public through networking with other organizations such as local American Cancer Societies, state health departments, and so on. Almost all of them possess a bachelor's degree and some have a master's degree in public health education, social work, or communication (Morra etaL,1993a) Project Directors are the day-to-day managers of the regional CIS offices. Most of them possess a master's degree in public health, social work, education, or the arts. A portion of their time is spent coordinating work with OCC, other regional offices, or their local cancer centers (Johnson et al., 1994a). Principal Investigators are responsible for the overall strategic direction of the projects-that take place within the CIS. About five percent of their time is spent working with different projects. Almost all of them possess medical degrees (Morra et al., 1993a). Telephone Services Managers are in charge of managing the telephone service and the referral resources. They supervise Information Specialists who directly serve callers. All of them possess a nursing degree or a bachelor's degree (Morra et al., 1993a). They are responsible for the day-to-day management of the telephone service, including quality assurance. Table 4 reports the demographic characteristics of the participants in this overall research project. CE EII'QI" Participants were asked a number of questions relating to their 29 Table 4 Demographics for the Cancer Information Service Demographic Percentage Education High School Graduates/some 4 College 15 College Graduate 21 Some Post Graduate 58 Graduate Degree 1 Other Lengthbisemice Less than 1 year 23 1-2 years 24 3-4 years 17 5—6 years 16 7-8 years 7 9+ years 11 missing 8 Gender Male 1 9 Female 81 Was 3880. illesl 30 communication at the conference and their perceptions of the conference. Conference evaluation questionnaires were distributed by placing them on the tables, along with other official agenda items for the conference, during the opening session. At this session the importance of the questionnaire was emphasized by the OCC Project Officer. While this distribution procedure reached the vast majority of attendees, other procedures were used as well. For example, late arrivers to the conferences received a copy of the questionnaire when they registered. During the closing session of the conference, the Project Officer mentioned the importance of returning the questionnaire. A handful of attendees returned the questionnaire by means of the stamped envelope that was attached to it. A handful of individuals faxed the questionnaires. One week after the conference was completed a reminder to return the questionnaire was faxed to the Project Directors at the regional offices. For those individuals who had still not returned the questionnaire after a week, telephone follow-up was selectively employed to encourage response. Ninety-four members of the CIS network attended the Atlanta conference, 81 returned the questionnaire, for a response rate of 78 percent. Ninety-six members of the CIS network attended the Denver conference, 80 returned the questionnaire, for a response rate of 77 percent. E || _ I' . Two months after the National CIS conferences a follow-up questionnaire was sent to respondents as part of the recurring quarterly data collection associated with the larger project. To ensure completion, the self-report questionnaires were mailed to the respondents approximately ten days prior to 31 the sample time period. A personalized letter, that was included in that packet, explained the issues that would be examined and urged participation. At the same time, an e-mail was sent to all participants to notify them that they would be receiving the questionnaires in the mail shortly. A second e-mail was sent the day before the sample time period, reminding participants that they should begin recording their communication contacts for the next three days. A third e—mail was sent the day after the sample time period was concluded, reminding participants to return their questionnaires in the stamped, self-addressed envelope provided. Many follow-up steps (e.g., letters, faxes, e-mails) recommended in the literature (Dillman, 1978, 1991) were taken for this recurring data collection (see Johnson et al. 1994a for more details). Through these extensive follow-up efforts, a very satisfactory overall respdnse rate was achieved (Atlanta conference 95% response rate, and Denver conference 94% response rate). lndicants All psychometric scales were based on eleven point Likert type items. The procedure by which self-report questionnaires were developed followed the stages suggested by Devellis (1991). (For more details see Johnson et al., 1994a). Questions for each of the scales were developed based on items derived from the academic literature, from the initial exploratory, qualitative interviews, and from formal agency documents (see Table 5 for scale items and reliabilities). The measurement model for the‘first order scales was analyzed by means of the confirmatory factor analysis subroutine of the PACKAGE computer 32 program (Hunter & Lim, 1987). confirmatory factor analysis is a superior technique when the a priori specification of items expected to cluster together is possible (Fink & Monge, 1985; Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Three criteria proposed by Hunter (Hunter, 1980; Hunter & Gerbing, 1982), homogeneity of item content (face validity), internal consistency (i.e., Spearrnan product rule), and parallelism (i.e., 'flat' correlation matrix), were used to determine unidimensionality. In addition, the scree test was also used to determine the unidimensionality of factor structures (Van de Geer, 1971). Tests of unidimensionality are essential to scale development since it has been demonstrated that alpha provides an unbiased estimate of reliability only if scale items are unidimensional (Hunter, 1980; Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). The results for the psychometric scales were based on the scales developed for the Atlanta conference. The same scales were also used for the Denver conference. The results for the Prior Conditions were as follows: Homophily scale (3 items, alpha = .85), interest (4 items, alpha = .81), participative climate (3 items, alpha = .83), and clear goals (2 items, alpha = .59). The results of the scales for Process variables were as follows: Effective communication (4 items, alpha = .84) and involvement (3 items, alpha = .76). The results of the scales for Conference Outcomes were as follows: Understanding (3 items, alpha = .70), agreement (3 items, alpha = .78), and continued interaction (3 items, alpha = .60). The results of the scales for Organizational Consequence variables were as follows: Systemic effects (2 items, alpha = .70), climate effects (3 items, alpha = .87), and flow of information (3 items, alpha = .70). 33 Given the importance of the issues relating to the future of the CIS at the second conference, a special set of items were included in the follow-up questionnaire to gauge the reaction of the CIS members. The results of the scale for CIS in the year 2000 was: (7 items, alpha = .74). 34 Table 5 Scale Items and Reliabilities for the Individual Variables NECESSARY PRIOR CONDITIONS: Homephllx (alpha = -85) I think the same way as other people in the CIS. I have a great deal in common with the other conference participants. I share a common set of values with other conference participants. Interest (alpha = 31) I looked forward to attending this conference. I felt that this conference was going to be productive. The topics listed in the agenda were important. I was stimulated by the agenda items for this conference. Banicipatileflimate (alpha = 33) My colleagues and I actively participated in developing the agenda for the conference. I felt my opinion and ideas counted in the planning of this conference. I contributed a great deal to the formal sessions at this conference. Clearficals (alpha = -59) The purpose of this conference was clear to me. I felt that we could accomplish the goals we set for this conference. PROCESS VARIABLES: Ettectiveficmmunicatm (alpha = 34) I felt that the presenters were well organized. I felt that the presenters were effective communicators. The presenters clearly understood the audience's perspective. It was easy to participate in formal sessions. lnmlxement (alpha =16) My conversations with others outside of scheduled sessions were useful. I learned as much from talking with others informally as I did from listening to formal presentations. Outside of the formal sessions I learned a lot that will help me in my work. 35 Table 5 (cont'd) CONFERENCE OUTCOMES: understanding (alpha = -70) I have a better understanding of CIS goals as a result of attending this conference. I have a clearer picture of how different parts of the CIS work together after attending this conference. I have a better understanding of my role in the CIS as a result of attending this conference. Agreement (alpha = 18) I feel that my colleagues at the conference share my views about CIS goals. I feel that conference participants reached consensus on many issues. I agree with the decisions made at the conference. CentlntiedJnteraetien (alpha = $0) I plan to continue to network with the people I met at the conference. I would like to communicate more with my colleagues about what was discussed at the conference. I plan to continue my discussion with others I met at this conference. We should have conferences more often. ORGANIZATIONAL CONSEQUENCES: Sisternlefitteete (alpha =10) As a result of attending the conference, I have a better understanding of what others in the CIS are doing. I have a better understanding of CIS goals. ClimateEfl‘ects (alpha = .87) After participating in the conference, I feel better about working for the CIS. I am more satisfied with what it means to be a part of the CIS. I identify more with the goals of the CIS. EIanQQmmunicatien (alpha =10) lnforrnation is shared more widely about important events at CIS. - l have been working more closely with others in the CIS. There is an increased opportunity to brainstorm about new solutions to job- related problems. 36 Table 5 (Cont'd) CIS 2000: (alpha = .74) I feel confident about the future of the CIS. The CIS is confronting problems that face it. I followed up on the ideas discussed in the national meeting. I understand the planning process for the future of the CIS. I think the CIS will have to make significant changes in the near future. I am comfortable with my personal future in the CIS. I have input on the future of the CIS. Chapter 4 RESULTS Paired T-tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the Atlanta conference and the Denver conference for each of the factors identified in Johnson et al's model (1996). As state before, the subjects used in the study were the participants who attended both conferences, however, an additional analysis was also conducted using all of the respondents. The analysis showed that there was not any differences within the pattern of results when all of the respondents were included. For necessary prior conditions the results indicated that Hypotheses 1 and 4 were supported (see Table 6 for t-test results). Participants perceived homophily to be lower and participative climate higher for the second conference than they did for the first one. Hypothesis 2 was rejected which predicted that participants would have a higher interest for the second conference. Hypothesis 3 was also rejected, although it was significant in the opposite direction. For process variables, the results showed that participants evaluated effective communication higher for the second conference than they did for the first conference. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was rejected, although it was significant in the opposite direction. Hypothesis 6 was supported. It predicted that participants would evaluate involvement higher for the second conference than they did for the first conference. 37 38 Table 6 T-tests of the Hypotheses for the Atlanta and Denver Conference Atlanta Denver Hypotheses Means Std dev Means Std dev t-value df H1, Homophily 8.76 .98 7.17 1.36 6.79" 39 H2, Interest 8.20 .84 8.18 1.10 .10 36 H3, Participative 7.91 1.70 7.15 1.81 222* 39 Climate H4, Clear Goals 6.01 1.27 8.11 1.00 -8.19* 39 H5, Effective 6.82 1.07 8.12 .98 -5.28* 36 Communication H6, Involvement 7.51 1.30 8.33 1.27 -3.09* 39 H7, Understanding 7.00 1.91 7.28 1.34 -.85 38 H8, Agreement 5.96 .89 7.04 1.05 -5.11* 34 H9, Continued 7.87 1.42 7.87 1.55 -.02 36 Interaction H10, Systemic Effects 7.48 1.61 7.54 1.14 -.19 33 H11, Climate Effects 7.21 1.27 7.06 1.43 .48 33 H12, Flow of 6.66 1.62 7.60 1.10 -2.81* 34 Communication *lp < M). (n=41) Note: Results supported hypotheses concerning: Homphily (H1), Clear Goals (H4), Involvement (H6), Understanding (H7), and Flow of Communication (H12). Results were statistically significant but contrary to prediction for hypotheses concerning: Participative Climate (H3), Effective Communication (H5), and Agreement (H8). Hypotheses which were rejected: Interest (H2), Continued Interaction (H9), Systemic Effects (H10), and Climate Effects (H11). 39 For the outcome variables, participants evaluated understanding the same for both conferences. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was rejected. Hypotheses 8 was rejected, although it was significant in the opposite direction. It predicted that participants would evaluate agreement lower in the second conference than they would in the first conference. Hypothesis 9 was rejected. lt predicted that participants would evaluate continued interaction higher in the second conference than they would for the first conference. For organizational consequences, Hypothesis 10 was supported, which predicted that there would be no differences for the systemic effects across the two conferences. Hypothesis 11 was rejected. It predicted that participants would evaluate climate effects more favorably in the second conference than in the first conference. Hypothesis 12 was supported, which predicted that participants would evaluate flow of communication higher for the second conference. As mentioned in the methods section, a set of items about the future of the CIS were included in the follOw-up questionnaire after the Denver conference (see Table 5 for scale items). Overall, the participants felt that the CIS was confronting the problems that faced it and that it would be likely that the CIS would face Significant changes in the future. They also were not too confident about the future of the CIS (mean = 5.5) or about their personal future within the CIS (mean = 6.0). For Hypotheses 13 and 14 distance measures were employed to evaluate the communication across the different functional roles (see Tables 2 and 3 for the Atlanta conference, and Tables 7 and 8 for the Denver conference). This is a fairly new type of analysis that can be used to estimate the amount of distance between two objects. By using the means, dissimilarity measures were 40 Table 7 Other Work—related Contacts by Functional Roles - Denver Conference Functional Roles Statistics OCC OC PD TSM OCC Staff (OCC) mean 5.80 11.80 8.30 9.60 standard deviation 5.10 11.20 5.90 7.30 Outreach mean 2.80 10.50 3.50 2.60 Coordinators (OC) standard deviation 2.60 6.70 3.50 2.70 Project Directors mean 3.30 4.30 11.20 5.50 (PD) standard deviation 2.70 4.20 5.50 4.60 Telephone Service mean 2.00 1.80 3.50 12.00 Managgrs (TSM) standard deviation 1.60 1.20 2.30 4.60 Table 8 Intervention Strategy Contacts by Functional Roles - Denver Conference Functional Roles Statistics OCC OC PD TSM OCC Staff (OCC) mean .50 5.60 2.40 1.60 standard deviation 1.10 10.00 2.60 2.10 Outreach mean 1.60 8.60 1.90 1.10 Coordinators (OC) standard deviation 1.90 6.60 1.80 1.30 Project Directors mean .90 3.30 7.20 1.80 (PD) standard deviation 1.40 3.37 6.40 2.70 Telephone Service mean .43 .81 .76 3.20 Managers (TSM) standard deviation .81 1.10 1.00 4.90 41 employed to estimate the distance or unlikeliness Of the same functional roles at the two conferences having the same amount of communication across the different functional roles. Measures for frequency data were used and phi- square values were calculated on the means and standard deviations. When frequency procedures are used, the measures of dissimilarity based on chi- square statistics can be computed. Because the chi-square statistics depends on sample size, there is a variant of this measure that can be employed. This variant is the phi-square measure, which considers sample size where the values of the measures are independent of the actual observed frequencies. The phi- square measure is used to normalize the chi-square dissimilarity measure by dividing the square root of the sum of the frequencies (see Tables 9 and 10 for results). When large dissimilarity values are present the two objects being measured can be said to be far apart. To conduct this analysis individual cases of each functional role of the Atlanta conference was compared to each functional role of the Denver conference. For example, under work-related issues, the OCC staff at both conferences were asked to record which functional roles they had communication contact with and the number of times this occurred. The OCC staff at the Atlanta conference were considered to be one case and the OCC staff at the Denver conference another case. These two cases were then compared to each other, across the different functional roles (OCC, OC, PD, and TSM). Principal Investigators were not used for this analysis because there were not enough of them to get accurate results. To ensure comparability, the cases were standardized by transforming each functional role into a standardized 42 Table 9 Phi-square Values for Work-related Issues Means Standard Deviations Office of Cancer Communications staff (OCC) .24 .30 Outreach Coordinators (OC) .08 .06 Project Directors (PD) .24 .33 Telephone Service Managers (TSM) .26 .23 Note: Large values indicate that the two cases being measured are more dissimilar than similar. Table 10 Phi-square Values for Intervention Strategies Means Standard Deviations Office of Cancer Communications staff (OCC) .26 .20 Outreach Coordinators (OC) .13 .12 Project Directors (PD) .24 .20 Telephone Service Managers (TSM) .30 .29 Note: Large values indicate that the two cases being measured are more dissimilar than similar. 43 variable with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Standardization is used in dissimilarity measures so that large means will not ovenivhelm the smaller means. Overall, both Hypotheses 13 and 14 were rejected. They predicted that participants at the Denver conference would communicate more across different functional roles, about work-related issues and intervention strategies. This was not found to be the case. By looking at the means and standard deviations one can see that they are very close to begin with (see Tables 3, 4, 7, and 8). However, after calculating the phi-square values there was one functional role that seemed to be most distant regarding the intervention strategies. That functional role was the Telephone Service Managers (T SM) with a mean phi- square value of .30 and a standard deviation phi-square value of .29. Regarding intervention strategies, when comparing the means of the Telephone Service Managers across the different functional roles for both conferences (see Tables 3 and 8) it appears that they actually increased their communication with each other. This ran counter to what the hypothesis actually predicted. Chapter 5 IMPLICATIONS In general, the Denver conference was evaluated more favorably than the Atlanta conference. The overall results were encouraging for the general approach taken in this paper. The suCcess of a conference can be influenced by the initial planning of the conference and also on feedback received by conference planners, from members of the organization. For the necessary prior conditions, homophily was found to be higher in the Atlanta conference and clear goals was found to be higher in the Denver conference. These findings were consistent with the predicted hypotheses. By increasing the sessions so that they overlapped with different functional roles, participants interacted more across different functional roles in the Denver conference than they did in the Atlanta conference. This change suggests that it could have been an effective one made by the conference planners. Another effective change made by the conference planners was to start the planning process earlier for the Denver conference and also to include members from all levels of the organization in the process. By doing this members of the CIS knew clearly what to expeCt at the conference. Participants evaluated interest the same for both conferences. This was found to be inconsistent with the predicted hypothesis. This may have occurred because of the traditional nature of the conference within the CIS. Members look forward to attending the 44 45 conference because it brings them together as a network and allows them to interact with different members of the organization about issues facing the CIS. Therefore, there may have been a ceiling effect for this variable. Participants evaluated participative climate higher in the Atlanta conference than they did in the Denver conference. This was found to be inconsistent with the predicted hypothesis, and significant in the opposite direction. This was an interesting finding because different strategies were implemented to encourage participant involvement in the Denver conference (i.e. asking for feedback from CIS members about what they would like to see at the Denver conference). Perhaps given the importance of the topics there was a desire for even more involvement on the part of the participants. For the process variables, participants evaluated effective communication higher for the Denver conference than they did for the Atlanta conference. It was predicted that this would be the same for both conferences because of the speCific format of the conferences. However, this was not the case. Because planning of the Denver conference started earlier than the Atlanta conference and more members of the organization were included in the planning, it may be the case that the outcomes of the conference reflected more the original intent of the planned activities and sessions. Involvement at the conferences was found to be consistent with the predicted hypotheses. Participants evaluated involvement higher in the Denver conference than they did in the Atlanta conference. For the outcome variables, participants evaluated understanding the same for both conferences. This was inconsistent with the predicted hypothesis. 46 This finding was surprising because the CIS members received a completed agenda a few months ahead of time. They also received detailed planning documents relating to the topics to be discussed at the conference. It may have been the case that the participants who attended the Atlanta conference were clear about the focus of the conference because the topics discussed were not as intense as the ones discussed in the Denver conference (i.e. minority cancer awareness vs. the future Of the CIS). Therefore, preparation ahead of time may not have been necessary for the participant's understanding at the Atlanta conference. Participants evaluated agreement higher in the Denver conference than they did in the Atlanta conference. This finding was the exact opposite of the predicted hypothesis. Agreement may not have been a necessary outcome in the Atlanta conference; but may have been more important in the Denver conference. AS mentioned before, the conference planners of the Denver conference included members from all levels of the CIS in the planning process. Even though the issues covered in the Denver conference were delicate issues, participants may have felt that they had reached consensus with other participants due to the fact that they were involved in the planning process. Agreement could have also been influenced by the participants perception of the need for agreement. Participants evaluated continued interaction the same for both conferences. This finding was inconsistent with the predicted hypothesis. This result could be due to the traditional nature of the conferences within the CIS. The conference is planned so that the content of the discussions are directly related to the focus of the CIS and what they want to implement after the conferences are over. Therefore, continued interaction is essential for 47 implementation after every conference. For the organizational consequence variables, participants evaluated systemic effects the same for both conferences and they evaluated the flow of communication higher for the Denver conference than the Atlanta conference. Both of these findings were consistent with the predicted hypothesis. In general, conferences are a way to enhance coordination and control within the organization by bringing together members of the organization to discuss organizational goals. Because of the nature of the Denver conference and the topics discussed, continuous flow of communication was essential. The CIS in the year 2000 and computerization topics are affecting the organization now and will play an important role in the future of the CIS. The primary goal of the CIS in the year 2000 is to continue to offer high quality CIS services in the face of scarce resources, both human and financial. To do this the CIS network has began to evaluate the current program to determine the degree to which the CIS is currently meeting its goal. They are also evaluating other cancer and/or health information telephone services and assessing their overall strengths and weaknesses. This will be an ongoing process that will lead to change within the CIS network. In future evaluations of the CIS conferences, it might be interesting to see how individuals evaluate the ability or willingness to accept and act upon suggestions at conferences. Participants evaluated climate effects more favorably in the Atlanta conference than they did in the Denver conference. This finding was inconsistent with the predicted hypothesis. This was an interesting finding because even though the members of the CIS were included in the planning of .rw “W.— 48 the Denver conference they did not feel like they were more a part Of the organization. The issues of organizational change and downsizing might have mediated the reactions of the participants to the overall organizational climate after the Denver conference. Because it was made clear to the members of the CIS that their futures were uncertain, a great deal of tension could have built up during the conference. This tension may have carried over into the work environment as demonstrated by the responses to the CIS in the year 2000 questions. In general, the communication across different functional roles within the CIS was not found to be significantly different between the Atlanta and the Denver conference. This finding was very surprising because the third change made to the Denver conference involved increasing the sessions so that they overlapped with the different functional roles within the CIS network. Because of this, it was predicted that participants would communicate more across different funCtional roles in regards to both work-related issues and intervention strategies. Even though participants were encouraged to communicate more across different functional roles they may have not felt comfortable doing so. Once the sessions were over they may have went back to communicating with the same functional roles. Another reason this result may have occurred is because the participants may not have known which functional roles they were communicating with. There were eight to 10 people in each discussion group which could have made it more difficult to keep track of everyone. On the surface, by comparing the means between the two conferences (see Tables 2,3, 7, and 8 for the means and standard deviations), the OCC staff 49 seemed to be communicating more across the different functional roles about work-related issues. This could have been because there was a change in leadership that took place before the Denver conference. At the Denver conference the OCC staff needed to communicate more across the different functional roles to find out what was going on. Also, more of them were involved in the planning process so communicating across the different functional roles was essential. Conference planning is important for achieving conference success and effective integration within the organization. The planning phase cannot be regarded as a separate process from the actual conference. Any intervention into a system begins the moment you begin to plan (Bailey & Dupre, 1992). Before the planning begins a planning committee needs to be selected. This committee should be made up of a diverse array of people from the organization. The differing attitudes of separate divisions can bring a perspective to the planning process not easily achieved by one division (Dittman & Chickering, 1983). Once the committee has been selected the planning begins. Conferences can be effective if the planning and implementation are well organized. Organization implies planning, carrying out the plan, measuring the results, and redesigning the plan (Dittman & Chickering, 1983). Feedback from previous conference participants and organizational members is an important part of this planning process. Planners should assess the needs of organizational members and learn what motivates their co-workers and supervisors. Conferences do not improve by themselves; they improve only when past participants indicate how they can be improved (Draves, 1985). 50 Another important part of the planning process is to observe previous conferences. Livingood et al. (1992) conducted a study on two separate conferences, both dealing with organizational change skills in implementing health promotion programs. To ensure that success was achieved at the second conference efforts were made by the conference planners to observe the unique qualities (culture) of a successful conference. By replicating some of the ideas the conference planners were able to plan and implement a successful conference. The planning process also involves the decision as to where the conference should be held. There are many issues involved in deciding where to hold the conference. Three of the most important issues deal with the conference location, physical arrangements, and the interaction between the conference planners and the hospitality operations employees. According to Kindler (1960), when deciding on a conference location conference planners should consider a centrally located recreational area that is readily accessible to airline, train, and highway. Historically, meetings and conventions have been serviced primarily by hotels and convention centers (Chon & Huo, 1993). Now there seems to be an increasing trend toward the use of resort hotels and self- standing conference centers for business meetings. It is important for the conference planners to have knowledge about the conference sites that are available. For example, a conference center is a specialized hospitality operation dedicated to facilitating and supporting conferences of small to medium size, 20 to 50 (Chon & Huo, 1993). Hotels and convention centers usually can accommodate more than 50 people. The 51 number Of participants that will be attending the conference will play an important role in the site that is chosen. Kindler (1960) suggests that conference planners check the site out personally and consider six different points when trying to decide on a conference location. The first one is to look for a place where there is a quiet atmosphere and disturbances by non-conference participants are going to be kept at a minimal. Secondly, if the participants are going to be staying over night, room accommodations Should be considered and whether they are within a reasonable price range. Thirdly, the planners should check the meeting rooms and whether they are included without cost. The fourth point to be concerned with is whether there will be duplicating facilities near by for any type of copying that is needed. The fifth point to be concerned with is the dining facilities and whether or not they are adequate enough to accommodate the entire conference group. The final point Kindler (1960) suggested, was to check and see if the location has recreational facilities and lounges available for social actiiIity. Another factor conference planners need to consider when trying to decide on a location site is the physical arrangements that they prefer. There are certain issues conference planners should be concerned with when deciding on the physical arrangements. The social climate of a learning environment starts long before the first participant arrives (Knowles, 1970). The climate can be greatly affected by items such as; preparatory materials and activities, the setting, etc. According to Knowles (1970) the catalogs, fliers, letters and other announcements that are sent out in advance to recruit participants constitute the first conscious climate-setting opportunity. Their appearance and spirit can 52 establish an image and set expectations. The setting includes the physical setting of the building in which the conference will take place. There are many things conference planners need to take into consideration in regards to the physical setting such as; finding out the size and number of meeting rooms available, whether they have good ventilation, is there a blackboard or easel for writing, how are the seating arrangements, etc. The seating arrangements can hinder communication if they are not set up in a way to allow for interaction between the participants. Having resource persons and participants on the same floor level will lessen status differences and increase identification (This, 1972). Interaction between the conference planners and the hospitality operations employees is one of the most important issues that could determine whether a hotel or conference center gets repeat business. In today's competitive meetings market, hotels will succeed only if they meet or exceed expectations and positively manage the clients' interactions with hotel staff members (Rutherford & Umbreit, 1993). The process of negotiating between the conference planners and hospitality operations employees can last many months and involve many contacts with various staff members. According to Rutherford and Umbreit (1993), hotels that spend months building trust with meeting planners can quickly lose that confidence as the result of poor service, broken promises, and inappropriate behavior on the part of the employees. The hotel could acquire a reputation among planners as being difficult to work with, and there could be a Significant negative impact on the hotel's business for years to come. 53 According to Rutherford and Umbreit (1993), communication, organization, execution, developing relationships, initiative, and crisis management are the key components in the successful delivery of services to the meetings industry. Specifically, communication has been found to be one of the most important factors affecting the relationship between the conference planners and hotel staff (Rutherford & Umbreit, 1993). Availability of the hospitality operations employees and keeping in touch with the conference planners are important in building a working relationship. This should begin at the initial stages of the planning process where pre-conference meetings take place between the conference planners and the hospitality operations employees. Planners can learn to judge a hotel's capacity for successfully hosting events through their pre-conference experiences (Rutherford & Umbreit, 1993). It is important for the hospitality operations employees to understand the interaction process with the conference planners. They should try to improve on their relationships with the conference planners so they can achieve repeat business by helping the conference planners conduct a successful conference. An area that has not been explored in regards to conference planning is the idea of having a hospitality operations take care of the conference from the beginning to the end. Hotels and the like could provide a complete conference service where they hire a professional staff to conduct the planning and evaluation of the conference. According to Draves (1985), competition will increase for hospitality operations. Conference planners will have more places to choose from when planning where to hold their conferences. Hospitality operations need to appeal to the organization's conference planners. They will 54 have to provide a service that is unique from the competition. In order to plan a successful conference the hospitality operations will need to look into five different areas; purpose, physical setting, subject, format, and presentation techniques (Draves, 1985). One conference can not be everything to everybody (Draves, 1985). It is important to find out the purpose of the conference. Once the purpose has been determined the physical setting should be considered. The physical setting that is selected can greatly enhance the atmosphere that helps to determine whether that purpose is achieved (Draves, 1985). The subject, format, and presentation techniques of the conference will also be important in the planning process. New technology (teleconferencing) can affect the format of the conference, as well as, presentation techniques. In order to keep up with these five areas, research will need to be conducted on conference trends. This study has provided a comparison of two annual conferences held within a government health information organization, the Cancer lnfonnation Service. It is important for three specific reasons. The first reason is the fact that it provides an evaluation of an important communication event for a widely dispersed organization. The conference is an important part of the communication process for the CIS and has been an important part of the CIS for many years. Without the conference the 19 regions throughout the United States would not be able to come together as one network and share their experiences. Therefore, It is important to continually evaluate the conferences and make changes accordingly. The second reason this study is an important one is the fact that it can be used as a valuable tool in evaluating the progress of 55 the organization toward the future of the CIS in the year 2000. The third reason this study is important is because it discusses ways in which conference success can be achieved through planning and implementation. It is important to get organizational members involved in the planning process and to encourage their feedback to ensure a continued pattern of conference success. This study also discusses the importance of the relationship between conference planners and the hospitality operations employees. Studies similar to this one can be replicated in various organizational settings. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX C Denver Conference Evaluation Questionnaire Part A Directions: The following statements ask you to evaluate different aspects of the Denver conference held between March 27 and March 30. We would like you to respond by indicating how much you agree or disagree with each statement on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "total disagreement" and 10 indicates "total agreement". Please respond to each item as it relates to the Denver conference only. Scale: Total 012345678910Total Disaargeement Agreement Exaluatien I looked forward to attending this conference. I felt my opinion and ideas counted in the planning of this conference. I think the same way as other people in the CIS. I felt that this conference was going to be productive. The people putting together the conference were very receptive to my ideas. The purpose of this conference was clear to me. The other people at the conference were just like me. I knew what to expect at this conference. I contributed a great deal to the formal sessions at this conference. My colleagues and l actively participated in developing the agenda for the conference. I felt that we could accomplish the goals we had set for this conference. Everyone at the conference had very similar views. We had set clear goals for this conference. I knew how to prepare for this conference. The topics we listed in the agenda were important ones. I share a common set of values with other conference participants. I was stimulate by the agenda items for this conference. The goals of this conference directly related to the overall goals of the CIS. l have a great deal in common with other conference participants. I felt that the presenters were well organized. It was easy to participate in formal sessions. My conversations with others outside of scheduled sessions were useful. I felt that the presenters were effective communicators. I Ieamed as much form talking with others informally as I did from listening to formal presentations. The presenters clearly understood the audience's perspective. To me, the chance to informally talk to others within the CIS is one of the most important parts of a conference. 60 61 APPENDIXC Scale: Total 012345678910Total Disagreement Aggement Evaluatien Outside of the formal sessions I Ieamed a lot that will help me in my work. I have a better idea of the future directions of the CIS. l have a better understanding of my role in the CIS as a result of attending this conference. We should have conferences more than once a year. I agree with the future directions of the CIS. I agree with the decisions made at the conference. I have a better understanding of CIS goals as a result of attending this conference. I feel that my colleagues at the conference share my views about CIS goals. I plan to continue to network with the people I met at the conference. I have a clearer picture of how different parts of the CIS work together after attending this conference. I feel that conference participants reached consensus on many issues. I would like to communicate more with my colleagues about what was discussed at the conference. I plan to continue my discussion with others I met at this conference. I Ieamed a lot form the formal presentations. The information you have provided us is extremely helpful. We are also interested in knowing which of the two previous conferences, if any, you attended. CQNEEBENCE DAIE LOCAIIQN AILENDANQE CIS Network Dec. 1-3, 1993 Atlanta, GA Yes Conference No Outreach Coordinators' June 21-24, 1994 Washington, DC. Yes Meeting No Please estimate how many other CIS national conferences you have attended? __ 62 APPENCIX C CIS Conference Participation Questionnaire (Part B) This questionnaire asks you to make separate estimates for the number of Principal Investigators, Project Directors, Outreach Coordinators, Telephone Services Managers, Program Project Staff, and Office of Cancer Communication Staff attending the conference in Denver with whom you had an informal work-related or intervention strategy communication contact. You need only provide an estimate of the number of different individuals with whom you interacted with. Within each category, do not count the same person twice. If you talked with someone about both work-related and intervention strategies, count once under each category, no matter how often you spoke with the individual about these topics. For the following categories, please estimate separately the number of people you talked with about: mm, including, for example, coordinating work with other regional offices, using uniform procedures to respond to calls, implementing national procedures, methods of handling calls, etc.. OR: MW, including for example, counseling protocols for special target populations, targeted outreach activities using the telephone, responses to calls associate with communication campaigns. We are interested in informal communication contacts you have which focus primarily on network-wide issues. Do NOT record interaction with people who are not attending the conference (e.g., a telephone call to a Principal Investigator not attending the conference). Number of Number of Number of Principal Project Outreach Investjggtors Directors Coordinators Work-related Intervention Strategies Number of Number of Number of Office Telephone Service Program Project of Managers Staff Cancer Communication Staff Work-related Intervention Stratggies APPENDIX B APPENDIX D Denver Conference Follow-up Questionnaire Directions: The following statements ask you to evaluate different aspects of the Denver conference held between March 27 and March 30. We would like you to respond by indicating how much you agree or disagree with each statement on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "total disagreement" and 10 indicates "total agreement". Please respond to each item as it relates to your experience as a result of the Atlanta conference only. Scale: Total 012345678910 Total Disagreement Agreement Evaluaflen As a result of attending the Denver conference, I have a better understanding of what others in the CIS are doing. After participating in the Denver conference, I feel better about working for the CIS. I feel confident about the future of the CIS. Information is shared more widely about important events at the CIS. The CIS is confronting the problems that face it. I have able to work more effectively with others in the CIS as a result of the Denver conference. I followed up on ideas discussed in the national meeting. I have a better understanding of CIS goals. I am more satisfied with what it means to be a part of the CIS. I understand the planning process for the future of the CIS. I have been working more closely with others in the CIS. I identify more with the goals of the CIS. I know more of what is expected of me as a result of the Denver Conference. I think the CIS will have to make significant changes in the near future. There was an increased Opportunity to brainstorm about new solutions to job- related problems. I am comfortable with my personal future in the CIS. l have input on the future of the CIS. 63 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Aplin, J. (1985). Business realities and organizationalconsultation. Ihe Connseflmflsyshclogist 1.3, 396-402 Arnold, M. F., Hink, D. L. (1968). Agency problems in planning for community health needs. W, B, 454-466. Bailey, 0., and Dupre, S. (1992). The future search conference as a vehicle for educational change: A shared vision for will rogers middle school, sacramento. california W. 25. 510-519. Borys, B., 8. Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academm W. 14. 234-249. Brockner, J. Davy, J, and Carter, C. (1985). Layoffs, self-esteem, and survivor guilt. Motivational, affective, and attitudinal consequences. W 35. 229-244. Chon, K-S., Huo, Y. H. (1993). EnVIronment for future conference centers: Perceptions of managers. W, 11, 25-30. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). W W Rand McNally & Company. Chicago Devellis. R. (1991). W. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. method. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE publications. Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. AnnuaLBsxiemoLSQciologv. 11, 225-249. Dittman, N. A., & Chickering, J. (1983). How to hold successful career- planning conference for women. W, 29, 26-33. Draves, W. A. (1985). Analyzing trends in confemece design. In P. J. 64 65 llsley (ed). Imorovinooonferenoeoeeighandomcomee (pp. 77-86) CAI Jossey-Bass Inc. Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R. Bettinghaus, E. P. Eisenberg, E. M. White, L., Kurchner-Hawkins, R. ,&Wlliams, K. I. (1982). Communjgationand coordination -ll'l'.l I -_ 0 I: Olll II 00- II 0' W. E. Lansing, MI: Department of Communication, Michigan State University. Farace, R. V., Taylor, J. A., 8. Stewart, J. P. (1978). Criteria for evaluating organizational communication effectiveness: Review and Synthesis. In B. D. Ruben (eds), qumynjcationleamookz (pp. 271-292). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Fink, E. & Monge, P. (1985). An exploration of confirmatory factor analysis. In B. Dervin & M. VOIght (Eds) W (Vol. 6, pp. 167- -.197) Norwood, N.:J. Ablex. Gibb, J. R. (1974). Dynamics of leadershIp and communication. an. R. Lassey& R. R. Fernandez (eds) Leadershjundmiamhangemp. 107- 121. La Jolla, CA: University Associates. Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analySIs In P. R. Monge&J. N. Cappella (EdS) MultivariaIeJeethouesnhumammmuhieaflohieeearchmp. 229-258) New York: Academic Press. Hunter, J. E., &Gerbing, D. (1982). UnIdImensIonal measurement second order factor analysis, and causal models. BeseaLQDJnQLganjzaflonal Behavior. 4. 267- 320 Hunter, J. E., 8. Lim, T. S. (1987). LIMSIAI. Unpublished manuscript. E. Lansing, MI: Department of Communication. Isabella, L. (1989). Downsizing: Survivors' assessments. Business Horizons. 35-41. Johnson, J. D., Berkowitz, J, Ethington, C. & Meyer, M. (1994a). ‘I‘-, .00 I0. ‘ 0 I I II-.-.I ‘ II .c. "'I ..ELansing,MI. Department of Communication, Michigan State University. Johnson, J. D. Meyer, M. Berkowitz, J., Ethington, C. (1996). The role of a conference In integrating a contractual network of health services organizations. .LoumaLQLBusinesLQommonioation. 3.3. 231-256 Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). News section: CIS 66 receives award. JNQI, 87:1514, 1995. Julius, S. Lipton, H. ,Pettifor, J. L. Smith, S. (1980). Problems In making organIzatIonaI systems work for children. Canadiahfisvohologv, 21, 116-120. Kessler, L., Fintor, L., Muha, C., Wun, L. M. Annett, D., &Mazan, K. D. (1993). The Cancer lnforrnation Service Telephone and Reporting Systems (CISTERS): A new tool for assessing quality assurance. JoumaLoflheflaflgnal Qanceflnsflmte, Monograph 14. 61-66. Kilpatrick, A. 0., Johnson, J. A., and Jones, J. K. (1991). Organisational downsizing in hospitals: Considerations for management development. Jouma] oLMahaoementflevelooment. 19. 1991. Kindler. H. S. (1960) organizinojheJechnieaLconference New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation. Knolwes, M. (1970). In S. B. Walker (Eds) QQDIeLengeBanning. (pp .4- 5). Washington: National Training and Development Service (1974). Livingood, w. 0., 8. Woodhouse, L. o. (1992). Keystone: Modeling for training to implement school health promotion programs. fleanhialues, 16, 10- 16. Lawrence, P. R, 8. Lorsch, J. W. (1967a). Differentiation and integration complex organizations. MW, 12, 147. Lawrence, P. R., 8. Lorsch, J. W. (1967b, Nov-Dec). New management job: The Integrator Wm, 143-151. Lawrence, P. R., 8. Lorsch, J. W. (1967c). QrganjzationaLand environmehtzjifleremiationahdjmeoration. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Luke, R. D., Begun, J. W., Pointer, D. D. (1989). Quasi-firms: Strategic interorganizational forms in the health care industry. AcademygLManagemem Review. .14. 9-19. Marcus, A. C, Bettinghaus, E. P., Mazan, K. D., Morra, M. E., Nealon, E., &Thomsen C (1993) Introduction. .LQurhaLoflheNationaLCanoerlhsmute. Monograph 14). Morra M., Bettinghaus E. P. Marcus A. (1993a). The first 15-years: What has been learned about the cancer inforamtion service and the implications for the future. WM. 14, 177-185. Morra, M., Van Nevel, J. P., Nealon, E., Mazan, K. D., Thomsen, C. 67 (1993b). History of the cancer information service. JoumaLQLtheNational Cahoemaitute. 1.4.. 7-34. Moynihan, T. (1982). Information systems as aids to achieving organizational integration. lntonnatlonjnohdanagomont, 5, 225-229. Nathan. E11969). Luehtvouestionsooeohfereneeleadership Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. AeademvoLMahagemenLBeview, 15, 241- 265. Ring, P. S., &Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. AoaoomvoLManagomonLBoviaw, 19, 90- 118. Rogers, E. M., &Bhowmik, D. K. (1971). Homphily-heterophily: Relational concepts for communication research. EuolioQoinionQoanonv, 54, 523- 538. Rogers, E. M., 8. Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Qommonjoationof innovations. New York: The Free Press. Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual W. 11. 79-103. Rutherford, D. G. 8. Umbreit, W. T. (1993). Improving interactions between meeting planners and hotel employees. WM, 68-80. Sandwith, P. (1992). Effective communication. Irajninoand Beveloomeht. 29-36. Schopler, J. H. (1987). Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure, and outcomes. AcademvoLManagemenLBeview. 12. 702-713. Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizationalclimate. In R. Tagiuri 8. G H Litwin(ed8) WWW