Va.

.

$725.35.): I
3:93.131»)...
3.. f B! r.

it.
:1 I. ‘11:? it:
.‘33 ¥ _'—x.,f’~p$..¢m
9.... k 1.1.5:??? 1
.5: .

V 3‘51...

aIIoox..l-. !

.1

. . ‘
.0?»- . . n... 1.
5.3.24“ nr-rzzxi
52...; 2...:
£323.75:

5::
Ev.
sifi: 2!

. Yigal: In:

v3.15} .-

3. $1....
71.3.3.7!

In“...

:1 .5!
I!31.8..¥I I I
.53.... .

:r

p}.

.15.. P

.1 ESESII: £3.51
,2... 3.1.5.~ 1....
3;. I (1 I37

 

a... :.. a 3

 

 

 

 

 

lax ..\
Lt;

1:.

‘ ENC
11:5
.‘13

9: 5217.4
«huflfifian
I. ‘y .
$ . .7 .29.. hi:
. :Ef.
I *7

3‘. ,
. t..|u|s..b

. . I‘ a.

I... .

.
3.2.;
. 125.9..ti. .
A .)\I. i!!!
it 1.3.1: ‘

THESIS

300i

 

', LIBRARY
lmschigan u
University

w“

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

GETTING TO "GO":
HON ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERS APPROACH PLANNING FOR
SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS IN STATE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SYSTEMS

presented by
William Scott Rizzo

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. ‘ degreein Resource Development

¥mf

Major professor

5/13/01

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

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

gm 2 5 2004

 

0502”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClFlC/DateDua.p65-p.15

 

 

GETTING TO “GO”:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERS APPROACH PLANNING FOR
SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS IN STATE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SYSTEMS

By

William Scott Rizzo

AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Resource Development
2001

Professor Frank A. Fear

ABSTRACT

GETTING TO “GO”:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERS APPROACH PLANNING FOR
SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS IN STATE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SYSTEMS
By
William Scott Rizzo
Public education institutions are under increasing pressure to operate
more efficiently, effectively, and with impact. State Cooperative Extension
Systems, which include campus- and field-based operations, are experimenting
with administrative innovations. An innovation receiving contemporary attention
in Extension systems, the self-directed work team (SDWT), holds promise for
better connecting campus and field, and making it possible to provide end-users
with better quality information and educational programs.

The purpose of this research, which was undertaken in the
constructivist tradition, is to explore organizational dynamics associated with
getting to the decision point of adopting SDWTs in three statewide Extension
organizations. Data were collected through personal interviews conducted with
administrators (and others) who were involved actively in the decision to adopt
SDWTs in their respective statewide organization.

Findings suggest that administrators were attracted to SDWTs for

common reasons (e.g., serving clientele). Change managers considered SDWTs

to be an effective venue through which collegiality among Extension

professionals could be improved, and through which better Extension education
programs could be produced. Change managers also believed that SDWI's
represented a good ‘fit’ with the values they associated with their organizations.

Each organization’s adoption process reflected unique and
sometimes multiple theoretical models of organizational change. However,
administrators’ theories-in-use about change, leadership, organizations and
Extension, which differed across study sites, tended to be more useful in
explaining change processes and outcomes than did change models gleaned
from the literature. A participatory approach to the change process was
observed across all organizations studied. However, each organization differed
markedly in how that approach was operationalized.

The processes used to introduce teams reflected the unique
cultural attributes of each Extension organization. For one organization, the
adoption of self-directed teams reflected a preference for organization-wide
dialogue and reflection as the primary means through which change might
emerge. For another, the adoption process reflected strong organizational
values around shared leadership. And for another organization, the adoption of
teams unfolded as planned change. In each case, change managers
understood the difficulty of making changes to their organization’s culture and
chose to concentrate change strategy on changing systems rather than culture.
In each case, the decision entertained was how to adopt teams rather than

whether or not to adopt teams.

Copyright by
WILLIAM SCOTT RIZZO
2001

Dedicated With Love
To

My Parents

Barth and Jean Rizzo

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

Several individuals have been instrumental in helping me to
complete my Ph.D. program.

Frank Fear, my advisor, believed in me when, at times, I did not
believe in myself. He taughtme many things, the most lasting of which is the
importance of living according to one’s convictions. His courage in doing so
himself continues to inspire me as a scholar and as a practitioner. His friendship
has been genuine, his counsel wise, and his curiosity contagious.

Arlen Leholm helped to open doors to the world of Extension for
me that I would not have been able to open alone. His support of my research,
my academic pursuits, and my career has been unwavering.

Mary Andrews and Murari Suvedi, through their support and
advice, have helped me to strengthen this research by adding significantly to my
understanding of the Extension culture.

I am grateful to Dean Carl O’Connor of the University of Wisconsin-
Extension/COOP Extension who provided me with sorely needed time with which
to conduct this research.

I am deeply grateful to my wife, Kirsten Norslien, without whose
love and support this dissertation could not have been completed.

Finally, I am grateful to my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose
love and guidance brought me to, and sustained me through, my entire degree

program.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE - ADOPTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

AND INNOVATION ........................... 1
Background ........................................... 1
Cooperative Extension ................................... 3
Self Directed Work Teams ................................ 4
Purpose of the Study .................................... 8
Research Approach and Context ........................... 8

The Research Approach ............................ 8

A Multiple-Case Design ............................. 9

Research Context ................................ 9
Change vs. Innovation ............................. .11
Research Questions ............................. 13
Definitions ........................................... 14
Significance of the Study ................................. 14
Use of the Literature .................................... 15
Phases of the Research ................................. 16
Study Delimitations ..................................... 17
Organization of the Study ................................. 18
CHAPTER TWO - ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND INNOVATION . . . 19
Change Models ....................................... 19
Strategies for Managing Organizational Change ............... 24
Models of Innovation .................................... 32
Innovation Strategy ..................................... 33
Managing Innovation .................................... 35
Readiness to Innovate ................................... 39
Characteristics of Organizational Leaders and Managers ........ 42
Resistance to Change .................................... 43
Innovation and Organizational Characteristics ................ 44
Innovation and Extra-Organizational Characteristic ............. 46
Conclusions ............................................ 46
Change Models .................................. 46
Change Management Strategy ....................... 47
Innovation Strategy ................................ 47
Characteristics of Organizational Leaders .............. 48
CHAPTER THREE - SELF DIRECTED WORK TEAMS ............... 50
Introduction ............................................ 50
Origins of the Self Directed Work Team ..................... 50
Why Teams? .......................................... 51
Organizational Issues Associated With the Adoption of SDWTs. . . 52
Fundamental Concepts of Self Directed Work Teams ........... 55
Empowerment ................................... 55

vii

Leadership ...................................... 58

Learning ........................................ 61

Becoming a Team ...................................... 64
Implementing Self Directed Work Teams .................... 66
Summary ............................................. 70
CHAPTER FOUR - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................. 72
A Case Study Approach ................................ 72
Selection of Study Sites ................................. 72
Selection of Participants ................................ 72

The Researcher’s Role in the Study Organizations
at Michigan State University and at the University

of Wisconsin ................................... 74
Contacting the Study Participants at All Three Sites ....... 75
Phases of the Research ................................ 76
The Interviews ........................................ 77
Data Collection and Interpretation ........................... 78
Analysis ............................................. 80
Reliability and Validity .................................. 83
CHAPTER FIVE - MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ...... 88
Changing Environmental Conditions ........................ 88
Self Directed Work Team Strategy Development & Implementation. 93
Early responses to Self Directed Work teams ................. 95
Summary ............................................. 99
Findings .............................................. 99
Conditions That Led to the Adoption of Self Directed Teams ...... 99
Theoretical Underpinnings of Change
at MSU Extension ................................. 99
Theories-In-Use ....................................... 105
Theories-In-Use About Extension ..................... 106
Theories-In-Use About Organization .................. 110
Organizational Factors Antecedent to the Adoption of SDWTs . . . . 113
Overcoming Resistance to Self-Directed Teams .......... 115
Resistance to Change .............................. 1 19
Other Factors Associated with the Adoption of SDWTs .......... 120
CHAPTER SIX - OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY ....................... 128
Changing Environmental Conditions ........................ 128
Strategy Development and Implementation .................. 132
Early Responses to Self-directed Work Teams ............... 134
Summary ............................................ 136
Findings .............................................. 1 37
Conditions That Led to the Adoption of SDWTs ............... 138
Theoretical Underpinnings of Change at OSU Extension ........ 139
Theories-In-Use About Extension ..................... 140

viii

Theories-In-Use About Organization ................... 142

Paradigmatic Alignment .................................. 144
Self-organizing Around Constituent Needs ................... 145
Organizational Culture ................................... 145
Participatory Change and Member Resistance ................ 147
Other Factors Associated with the Adoption of SDWTs ......... 149
Familiarity With Self-directed Work Team Literature ...... 150
The Role of Leadership ............................ 150
Change Strategy .................................. 151
Systems ........................................ 151
Summary ............................................ 152
CHAPTER SEVEN - THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EXTENISON . 154
Organizational Configuration .............................. 154
Early Experiences with Team-based Structures ................ 155
Something Is Wrong .................................... 156
Paradigmatic Shifts ..................................... 157
Benefits Sought From Self-directed Teams ................... 159
Significant Internal Environmental Conditions ................. 161
Strategy Development and Implementation ................... 163
Summary ............................................. 167
Findings ............................................. 168
Conditions That Led to the Adoption of SDWTs ............... 168
Change Models at UW-Extension .......................... 170
Theories-In-Use About UWEX/Cooperative Extension .......... 174
Theories-ln-Use About Organization ....................... 176
Organizational Factors Antecedent to the Adoption of SDWTs . . . . 178
Organizational Culture ................................... 181
Other Factors Associated with the Adoption of SDWTs ......... 184
Familiarity with the Literature ........................ 184
The Role of Leadership ............................ 184
Summary ............................................ 186
CHAPTER EIGHT - CROSS CASE ANALYSIS .................... 188
Why Teams? ......................................... 188
The Adoption Process .................................. 189
Change Managers’ Theories-In-Use ....................... 192
Theories-In-Use About Extension .................... 192
Theories-In-Use About Organizations ................. 192
Congruence ........................................... 194
Congruence between Strategy and
Critical Tasks and Work Flows ....................... 194
Congruence between Strategy and
Formal Organizational Relationships .................. 197
Congruence Between Strategy and People ............. 198

ix

Congruence between Strategy and Culture ............. 202
Congruence and Other Elements of

Organizational Culture ............................. 203

Summary ............................................ 204
CHAPTER NINE - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS. 206
Summary ............................................ 206
Conclusions................................... ....... 208
Recommendations ...................... , ............... 21 3
APPENDIX A .............................................. 220
APPENDIX B .............................................. 221
APPENDIX C .............................................. 223
APPENDIX D .............................................. 224
APPENDIX E .............................................. 226
APPENDIX F .............................................. 227
REFERENCES ............................................ 229

CHAPTER ONE
ADOPTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND INNOVATION
BACKGROUND

This research focuses on the readiness of public organizations to adopt
an administrative innovation. The growing trend toward smaller government has
public organizations at all levels facing an external environment characterized by
shrinking public funding and rising performance expectations (Bryson, 1995).
For example, Federal dollars--traditionally available to states as base budget
appropriations--are increasingly taking the form of competitive grants made
available to state executive departments on a competitive basis.

In response to the challenge of being expected to do more with less,
public organizations are searching for innovative strategies to enhance
effectiveness and efficiency (Bryson, 1995). Many public organizations have
responded by employing a range of administrative innovations including strategic
planning, reengineering, various forms of teams, total quality management,
organizational flattening, Visioning, and functional audits.

Introducing organizational innovations is invariably accompanied by
structural, cognitive and cultural barriers that inhibit innovation or significantly
reduce impact (Light, 1998). The term readiness is used to describe the degree
to which barriers to organizational innovation have been anticipated and

addressed (Harrison, 1987).

The adoption of organizational change and innovation may be problematic
if organizations aren’t ‘ready’ for the changes and innovation they plan to
employ. Dimensions of readiness include:
Knowing what is required to adopt change and innovation successfully
Understanding the consequences associated with introducing organizational
change and innovation in multiple environment

0 Being consistent in the introduction and deployment of change and
innovafion

o Fitting change and innovation with existing ways of doing business
Determining how change and innovation can be sustained

o Gaining commitment to change and innovation at all levels of an organization,
and

0 Determining if an organization is entrenched in a certain way of doing
business, and deciding what might be required to enable the organization to
think and act ‘outside the box.’

All organizations have an interest in change and innovation when doing so
results in significant operational improvements. However, while private sector
organizations are rewarded with increased profitability, public organizations are
often rewarded with only the opportunity to operate through the next budget
cycle or, in fewer and fewer cases, the opportunity to grow. Yet, organizational
effectiveness and efficiency within the public sector are of significant interest to
the general public. The reality is that public organizations are under increasing
scrutiny. They are expected to operate more efficiently; to produce programs of
higher relevance and quality; to demonstrate significant and measurable
outcomes and impacts; to respond more quickly to emerging issues and needs;
and to do a better job of connecting knowledge to public issues, needs and
concerns. (Bryson, 1995)

Constantly changing political forces, public priorities and social needs

combine to create a public/governmental operating environment requiring

increasing organizational dexterity to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. In
cases where the output (products or services) of a public organization are widely
recognized and understood, successful innovation may result in observable
improvements in operating efficiency and/or product or service quality.
Improvements may have positive budget implications during the next funding
cycle. An example of this might be a state or county highway department in
which the effectiveness and efficiency of an administrative or technological
innovation (expressed as the cost per mile of highway built) may increase the
quality of an output (e.g., shorter construction periods and better road quality).
But when the output of a public organization is less observable, known or
understood, successful innovation may constrain the ability to demonstrate
fundamental organizational relevance or to justify continuing public investment.
Should public investment decrease, innovation is often required to increase
output quality in the face of constant or rising expectations.

When the work of a public organization serves an unusually broad set of
interests or its work is done in cooperation with other public and private
institutions, the task of demonstrating a quality return on a public investment
becomes both challenging and mercurial. This is particularly true of one public

organization, the state Cooperative Extension organization.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The output of state Cooperative Extension organizations includes a

diverse mix of educational programs. It includes initiatives and projects designed

and delivered through a diverse set of institutions including universities; federal,
state, and/or local governments; citizen volunteers; not-for-profit organizations;
and private sector organizations. These outputs are designed to address a
correspondingly broad mix of citizen, community, government, private and not-
for-profit needs, issues and concerns. The goals, and often the missions, of
partner institutions and those whom they serve may differ. Consequently, it is no
surprise that there can be differing perceptions about the quality, relevance or
effectiveness of services offered.

Given this mix of interests and evaluative criteria, state Cooperative
Extension organizations are particularly sensitive to how elected officials and
voters value and evaluate Cooperative Extension programming. Many Extension
administrators understand that easily understood and evaluated government
services, such as highways maintenance, may be viewed as more worthy of
scarce public dollars than are government-sponsored educational programs. In
response to these conditions, some Cooperative Extension organizations are
pursuing new organizational tools intended to improve output quality,
organizational efficiency, and organizational effectiveness. Extension
organizations in a number of US. states have begun to employ an organizational

innovation called the self-directed work team (SDWT).

SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS
SDWTs are a form of work group characterized by high levels of

autonomy and self-direction (Wellins, Byham and Wilson, 1991; Fisher, 1993).

Their function is to address and, in some cases to identify, specific tasks,
problems, issues, and/or concerns associated with an organization's work.
SDWTs are a form of administrative innovation that has taken hold primarily in
the private sector. They are now found in the public sector with increasing
frequency.

A relatively small number of state Cooperative Extension organizations
have employed, or are in the process of employing, SDWTs as a means of
improving the design and delivery of educational programs specifically, and
improving organizational performance, generally. This innovation offers
organizations a number of benefits when employed successfully.

SDWI's are heralded as for the valued outcomes they can produce.
Wellins, Byham and Wilson (1991) identify “improved quality, productivity and
service; greater (organizational) flexibility; reduced operating costs; faster
response to technological change; fewer, simpler job classifications; better
response to worker values; and the ability to attract and retain the best people”
as operational advantages of SDWTs. Orsborn et al. (1990) assert that
“productivity, streamlining flexibility, quality, commitment and customer
satisfaction” as advantages of SDWTs. Quick (1992) identifies collaboration
between team members as the main benefit of organizing work around teams.
Marshall (1995, pp. 7-8), in writing on team-based organizations, assumes
collaboration to be the primary concept around which organizations most

effectively accomplish work. He lists a number of benefits of the “collaborative

workplace”

NP’ 9959!”?

8.

9.

Organizations collaborate internally to compete externally;
Decisions are faster, of higher quality, and customer driven ;
Decisions are made on the basis of principle rather than power;

or personality, resulting in greater buy-in and impact ;

The energy of the workforce is focused on the customer rather than on
internal conflicts;

The productivity of the workforce increases;

Strategic alliances that might have failed not only succeed, but build
trust and produce extraordinary results;

Return on investment increases dramatically;

Span of control increases substantially (for the employee);

10. The workforce takes on full responsibility and accountability for the

success of the enterprise, to the point where some teams have
downsized themselves;

11. Conflict is reduced as work relationships open up and build trust;
12. Collaborative mergers and alliances result in all members pulling in

the same direction;

13. Fear is gone--change is seen as a positive opportunity, and;
14. The organization is self-sufficient in sustaining the ongoing

development of the company.

Clearly, SDWTs have much to offer. They can be instruments for

accomplishing high-performance goals, such as offering service and product

quality, enhancing internal efficiency, harnessing the talents of employees, and

offering flexibility in dealing with changing business environments. SDWTs are

also associated frequently with enhancing organizational performance. Words

and terms such as quality, productivity, efficiency, cost reduction, innovation,

harnessing the talents of employees, and organizational responsiveness to

change are found throughout the literature. When seen in this light, we can begin

to understand the contributions made by SDWTs to organizational performance.

Interestingly, though, this organizational innovation is not automatically

compatible with the way many Extension organizations traditionally do business.

The literature provides some guidance as to what organizational

conditions are necessary for SDWTs to succeed or be successfully introduced.

In his book, Transforming the Way We Work: The Power of the Collaborative
Workplace, Marshall calls collaborative teams the “basic unit of the Collaborative
Workplace - a structure that can fulfill the promise of empowerment with
accountability.” (p. 112). He offers highly relevant perspectives on organizational
readiness for collaborative teams. First, his cluster of “seven core values of the
collaborative work ethic” provides a guide for organizations interested in cultural
transformation. These include respect for people; honor and integrity; ownership
and alignment; consensus; trust-based relationships; full responsibility and
accountability; and recognition and growth (pp. 29-36). Second, he offers four
imperatives for creating an environment in which collaboration can thrive (pp. 38-
41). The imperatives are: 1) a commitment to make principle-based agreements
rather than power-based agreements; 2) an agreement to adopt ‘an explicit
governance process’ that contains no unwritten rules and no surprises; 3) an
agreement that all organizational members give up avoidance, accommodation,
competition and compromise behaviors in favor of behaviors based upon the
‘seven core values’; and 4) operating agreements that reflect members’ values
and beliefs.

Wellins et al. (1991) believe that empowerment is central to the
development and operation of SDWTs. They assert that clarifying organizational
values and developing a vision around them is a prerequisite for the emergence
of an “empowered culture.” (p. 89) Shaffer and Anundsen (1993zpp. 272-273)
note that, in order to thrive, teams require an organizational environment

characterized by “trust and respect.” Fisher (1993) warns that a lack of

managerial support for a transition to SDWTs may surface as a reluctance to
provide necessary levels of fiscal and human resources (p. 22).

Despite the apparent benefits associated with employing innovations such
as SDWTs, many organizations fail to innovate or, if they do, do so
unsuccessfully. Consequently, an important issue for advancing SDVVT
effectiveness is understanding the role that readiness plays in the success

or failure of an organization’s attempt to change and innovate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this research is to explore—in context—
organizational thought and action associated with readiness to adopt
change and innovation within three state Extension organizations. The
adoption of a specific form of administrative innovation, the SDWl', is examined
as the basis for considering how these three organizations framed and
approached organizational change and innovation. In the context of this study,
readiness is defined as a set of internal organizational conditions, norms,
capacities, patterns of thought and action, and their degree of fit with the

operational requirements of a SDWT.

RESEARCH APPROACH AND CONTEXT
The Research Approach
This is a qualitative/inductive study conducted within the constructivist

paradigm. In addressing the ontological question of the nature of reality, this

researcher agrees with Creswell (1994:4) when he states that "...the only reality

is that constructed by the individuals involved in the research situation."

A MultkLle Case pesigg

Employing a multiple-case design, the researcher examined three state
Cooperative Extension organizations that have recently adopted SDWTs. Yin
(1994; p.44) observes that the multiple case study is an appropriate design for
exploring independent innovations that occur at different sites. The
organizations include Michigan State University Extension, Ohio State
University Extension, and the University of Wisconsin-Extension,
Cooperative Extension.
The Research Context

Ohio State University Extension has been employing SDWTs for
approximately twelve years. The administrative/Ieadership structure and
programming functions are organized around teams. Michigan State University
Extension has been employing SDWTs for approximately seven years in the
domains of program design and delivery. The University of Wisconsin-
Extension, Cooperative Extension has been employing SDWTs for
approximately three years, primarily in the Agriculture and Natural Resources
Program area.

These three state Cooperative Extension organizations are similar in three

fundamental ways. All three Extension organizations decided to innovate through

SDWTs. The states share compatible organizational missions, and program
priorities are expressed in these areas--community and economic development,
families and youth development, and agriculture and natural resources. This
balance suggests similarities in the sets of issues and corresponding stakeholder
interests associated with each state Extension organization. Finally, each state
Extension organization's decision to employ SDWTs is linked to a desire to
increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency in the face of internal and
external environmental stimuli.

The similarities across the three organizations enabled the researcher to
anticipate similar results across the three cases. Yin (1994) describes this as
literal replication, and identifies it as an important decision criterion is selecting a
multiple-case study approach. This study utilizes a comparative design to
explore the innovation experiences of the three study sites. Comparing the
innovation experience across three study sites facilitates data categorization and
the subsequent emergence of theory (Merriam, SB, 1988).

Because each study site is at a different time point relative to the adoption
process, the potential for each site's experience to address all of the research
questions varies. For example, because Ohio State University Extension has
been employing SDWTs for twelve years, their experience may be more helpful
than the other two sites' in understanding organizational change and innovation
in cases where certain outcomes emerge only after a considerable period of
time. Conversely, the experiences of all three sites are useful in increasing our

understanding of the connection between the adoption of organizational change

10

and innovation, as well as for understanding internal conditions associated with
the change organization’s culture. Finally, the multiple experiences are useful in
helping us understand how organizational change and innovation bring about
specific internal changes.

To provide a consistent basis for comparing and analyzing across study
sites, the researcher has chosen to describe and analyze the adoption process
within two separate units of each of the three study sites selected. These
include the Extension administrative and agriculture program area units of the
three sites. The administrative units represent the source of the adoption of
innovation process at each site. The agriculture program areas represent, by far,
the adoption process in its most mature and observable form at each study site.

The process of adoption necessarily involves decisions, thoughts and
actions by people throughout each Extension organization. This study focuses
primarily on the early stages of adoption during which many individuals
contributed to the momentum that resulted in a decision to adopt SDWTs. While
these individuals represent multiple divisions within each Extension organization,
their contributions will not be based on their place within each organization but,

rather, as individual contributions to an organizational decision to adopt SDWTs.

Change vs. Innovation
As originally proposed, this study was designed to focus on the readiness
of Extension organizations to innovate through the adoption of a specific

administrative innovation, the self-directed work team. What emerged from the

11

research experience was an understanding that a broader process of
organizational change was taking place at all three study sites, both by design
and through evolution. To be able to accurately assign meaning to the findings,
the researcher decided to focus on organizational readiness to adopt change as
well as to innovate. Rather than address a more narrow focus only--
organizational readiness to innovate-- this study examines organizational change
AND innovation as phenomena that occur simultaneously and together.

An extensive review of the literature on organizational change and
innovation suggests that administrative innovations, such as the adoption of
SDWTs, occur within a larger context of organizational change. At numerous
points during data collection, and again during data analysis, the question of
whether the organizations under study were changing or innovating was
essentially unanswerable. As a practical matter, any attempt to analyze each
study site by separating the process of innovation from the process of
organizational change missed the mark of what was actually happening. The
organizations recognized and responded to a number of environmental signals
through the adoption of a new organizational form, the SDWT. SDWTs are
innovative because they are new. But, as experienced, they required a series of
structural, cultural and systems changes. Although these changes were viewed
frequently by informants as “innovative,” the researcher considers these changes

to be vastly more encompassing organizationally.

12

Research Questions
Called 'grand tour' questions by Creswell (1984), the research questions
in this study were intended to help the researcherexplore how process, culture
and environment shape organizational reality and give it meaning. The questions
are:
Why did each site decide to adopt self-directed work teams?
How was the decision to adopt self-directed work teams made?

Who was involved (and how) in making the decision to adopt self-
directed work teams?

9’9)?"

As the research progressed, it became clear that answers emerging from
the study pointed to a single grand tour question, not three. In addition, the study
data suggested a variety of themes within and across study sites, prompting the
researcher to create three sub-questions for analyzing the data, assigning

meaning, and inducing theory.

Grand Tour Question

What conditions, strategies and processes characterized the adoption of self-
directed work teams at each study site?

Subguestion #1
What conditions led to the adoption of self-directed teams at each study site?

Sub-Question #2
What organizational factors were antecedent to the adoption of self-directed

teams at each study site?

Sub-Question #3
What other factors surfaced at each study site that played a significant role in

either facilitating or impeding the adoption self-directed teams?

13

The researcher used these sub-questions as a framework within which to

posit a number of theoretical propositions that emerged from the data.

Definitions

The following definitions of key terms will be used throughout this study:
Readiness to Innovate: A set of internal organizational conditions, norms,
capacities, patterns of thought and action, and their degree of fit with the
operational requirements of an administrative innovation.

Innovation: A process, system, practice, or strategy that is new to an

organization.

Organizational Culture: An organization’s predominating set of operating

norms including values, behaviors and other patterns of thought and/or

action.

State Cooperative Extension Organization: The state-level government

partner organization of the United States Department of Agriculture's

Cooperative Extension System. Federal, state and local (county)

governments provide funding for State Cooperative Extension

organizations.

Significance of the Study

A study of organizational readiness to adopt organizational change and

innovation is relevant in two significant arenas.

14

For Practice: The study sheds light on the internal organizational
conditions that enhance and impede the adoption of administrative innovations.
This knowledge can be used by state extension organizations specifically, and
government organizations generally, to organize and operate in ways that
increase program and service quality, and enhance operational efficiency.

For Scholarly Research and Literature: A modest (but growing)
literature focuses on self-directed work teams. However, this literature focuses
almost exclusively on private sector experiences. The researcher was unable to
locate any literature focusing on either the adoption of administrative innovation
within state extension organizations. In addition, he was able to locate only a
very modest amount of literature on organizational readiness to adopt self-
directed work teams. This study, therefore, represents an opportunity to conduct
pioneering research on the topic of organizational readiness to adopt
administrative change and innovation within a public organization, the state

extension organization.

Use of the Literature
Literature will be used in three ways during the research. First, literature
focusing on the primary research focus, namely, organizational readiness to
change and innovate, will be reviewed to acquaint the readers with the current
theory and practice. Second, literature of self-directed work teams will be
reviewed for the purpose of framing the problem within this study. Finally, to

'make sense‘ of the data collected, literature will be used in the data collection

15

and analysis chapters to connect findings with current theory and knowledge.
Creswell (1994:23) observes that presenting literature at the end of the study in
this manner "...does not guide and direct the study, but rather becomes an aide

once patterns or categories have been identified."

Phases of the Research

This research was conducted in three phases with each phase dedicated
to a specific research objective. The first phase serves a descriptive function--to
reconstruct the decision making process used in each organization to
understand and assess the organizational problem, consider options for
responding to the problem, and acting to resolve the problem. ln-depth
interviews were conducted as the principle means of collecting data during
Phase I of the study. Subjects were sought who, individually and collectively,
represent the spectrum of experience and perspective relating to each study
site’s innovation experience. This phase also involved an analytic dimension as
participants and the researcher engaged in ongoing, iterative interpretation of
events as they were described as a means of constructing a descriptive story of
the adoption process at each study site.

Phase II of the study serves an analytic functionufeeding back the
reconstruction of the innovation experience to key informants. Feedback from,
and subsequent discussions with, key informants helped the researcher discover
multiple meanings attached to the actions of innovators and the organization as

a whole. Phase III involves a comparative analysis of the three study sites.

16

Literature was used throughout this phase of the study to interpret the site
findings.
Study Delimitations

The sites were selected because they are among the first Extension
organizations to adopt SDWTs. In contemplating the approach to this study, the
researcher decided against focusing on the criterion of “successful innovation”
because of the perceived difficulties associated with collecting data when a study
is framed in terms of “success.”

The focus of this research is not on self-directed work teams but on the
dynamics and processes associated with how organizations and their leaders get
to the point of deciding how and/or whether to adopt administrative innovation.
Self-directed work teams were selected as the administrative innovation because
they were being adopted at all three study sites.

Further, because the experience each Extension organization has had
with SDWTs has been relatively brief, and because benchmarks for success
have not been established by any of these Extension organizations, the
researcher concluded that studying the success of SDWTs was also not an
appropriate focus for the study.

This study was an exploratory study undertaken to tell and learn from the
‘stories' of how three Extension organizations approached change and
innovation. It was not, however, undertaken to make judgments about the

effectiveness of the approaches taken by any of these organizations.

17

Finally, this study was not undertaken to examine or report on
performance challenges associated with the functioning or administration of self-
directed work teams. However, the final chapter of the study does contain some
comments pertaining to key challenges associated with the process of adopting

self-directed work teams.

Organization of the Study

This dissertation includes nine chapters. The study is introduced in this
chapter, Chapter 1. Chapter 2 focuses on readiness and other relevant issues
associated with the adoption of organizational change and innovation. Self-
directed work teams are the topic of attention in Chapter 3. The research design
is presented in Chapter 4. Case findings and analysis are presented in Chapters
5-7. Chapter 5 centers on the adoption of self-directed work teams at Michigan
State University Extension, and includes an analysis of the adoption process
there. The same approach is taken in Chapter 6, with attention shifting to Ohio
State University Extension; and in Chapter 7, where the spotlight shines on the
University of Wisconsin-Extension/Cooperative Extension. An analysis of the
adoption process across all three sites is presented in Chapter 8. Conclusions

and recommendations for practice and research are shared in Chapter 9.

18

CHAPTER TWO
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND INNOVATION

Change Models
A number of theoretical frameworks have been developed to describe the

organizational change process. Cummings and Worley (1993) describe four
different change models. These include Kurt Lewin's (1951) change model; the
action research model (Collier, 1945; Whyte and Hamilton, 1964; Marrow,
Bowers, and Seashore, 1967; Coch and French, 1948); a collection of more
recent change models, which they term ‘contemporary action research,’ and, the

author’s model of planned change.

Lewin’s change model theorized that organizations exist in a mobile state
of equilibrium between two forces, one that focuses on maintaining the status
quo and the other that focuses on producing change. Change occurs when
change forces increase and the status quo forces decrease, thereby establishing
a new level of equilibrium. Of course, the reverse is true when the forces
supporting equilibrium increases while the force supporting change decreases.
Lewin goes on to argue that resistance to change is lowest, and an environment
for change better, when forces supporting the status quo are highest.

Lewin identifies three steps in the change process--unfreezing, moving,
and refreezing. The unfreezing process involves the reduction of forces that
maintain status quo behavior. This reduction may be accomplished by

illuminating gaps between desired and actual behaviors. When this occurs,
Organizational members may become open to changing their behaviors to more

closely resemble desired behaviors. The moving process "involves developing

19

new behaviors, values, and attitudes through changes in organizational
structures and processes" (Cummings and Worley, 1993, p. 27). Refreezing
involves the introduction of desired organizational values, rules, behaviors,
expectations, and policies. A number of authors have used Lewin's model as the
basis for introducing other change process steps. His unfreeze, move, refreeze
model is widely viewed as foundational in describing the basic process through
which organizational change occurs.

The action research model (Cummings and Worley (1993, p. 28-30)
consists of eight steps: problem identification; consultation with a behavioral
science expert; data gathering and preliminary diagnosis; feedback to client or
group; joint diagnosis of problem; joint action planning; action; and, finally, data
gathering after action. The premise of the action research model is that
information learned about an organization may be used to both guide and inform
change efforts.

More recent approaches to planned organizational change fall into a
single category termed "contemporary action research" (Cummings and Worley,
1993 p. 28, Fig. 2-1). These approaches to change are characterized by an
emphasis on stakeholder involvement and participation vs. change designed and
implemented by experts. Within the contemporary action research approach is a
specific approach called “appreciative inquiry.” This approach holds that
organizations all display a certain degree of effectiveness, and that positive
change occurs through continual support of, and building upon, behaviors and

activities that organizations and their members do best.

20

Cummings and Worley incorporate Lewin's model, the action research
model, and contemporary action research model into a model they call the
"general model of planned change" (1993, pp. 32-34). This model includes four
steps that are performed collaboratively by professional change agents and
organizational members. The first activity, entering and contracting, includes the
collection of data that describe the need for change, as well as the organizational
opportunities and challenges that must be addressed during the change effort.
The resulting analysis and discussion provides a basis for deciding whether or
not a change effort will be pursued and, if it will, what plan it will follow. Next,
diagnostic activities are performed to reveal deeper issues, problems, and
opportunities facing an organization. Change agents and organizational
members jointly undertake the third stage of the modeluplanning and
implementing change. As a prelude to selecting an intervention strategy, an
assessment of an organization's readiness to undergo change is conducted, as
are a number of other organizational characteristics including organizational
culture, internal power flows, and the capacity of internal change agents to
successfully implement a change effort. The actual implementation of the
change effort is a management process that "...includes motivating change,
creating a desired future vision of the organization, developing political support,
managing transition towards the vision, and sustaining momentum for change"
(p. 33-34). The evaluation of a change effort includes assessing how well

changes have been implemented and institutionalized.

21

For Robert Quinn (1996) deep change is organizational change “that is
major in scope, discontinuous with the past and generally irreversible (p. 3). ” In
contrast to the view that organizations are synonymous with routine, formal
structures and processes and predictability, deep change involves the creation of
new organizational systems in response to misalignments that emerge when an
organization’s internal realities are out of alignment with changes in its external
environment. Deep change requires that organizations possess the capacity to
learn and adapt as a means of achieving realignment with external realities.
Deep change occurs in individuals through a personal commitment to continuous
change and development. Deep change may also occur at the organizational
level through the adoption of transformational approaches of leadership, in
combination with a thorough self-examination of organizational cultural and
paradigmatic phenomena that serve as barriers to change.

Nadler and Tusman (in Nadler, Shaw and Walton and Associates, 1995)
describe four basic types of organizational change--incremental, discontinuous,
anticipatory and reactive. Incremental and discontinuous change are concerned
with the scope of change within an organization; anticipatory and reactive
change occur when organizational changes take place in anticipation of, or in
response to, environmental changes.

Bacharach, Bamberger and Sonnenstuhl's (1996) logic of action model
holds that organizations and their members share an interest in establishing and
maintaining a sense of organizational stability. They suggest that the technical,

managerial and institutional levels within hierarchical organizations engage in a

22

series of exchange processes intended to establish alignment between
organizational ends and means. Where higher levels of means-ends alignment
exist between and among organizational levels, higher levels of organizational
stability also tend to exist. Conversely, increasing levels of inconsistency
between means and ends across organizational levels create within
organizational members cognitive dissonance (Kahle, 1984; in Bacharach,
Bamberger and Sonnenstuhl's, 1996), followed by attempts to restore an
acceptable level of cognitive realignment through behavioral and/or cognitive
changes and adjustments. Transformation occurs when changes and
adjustments reflect 'transformed' or realigned means-ends exchange
mechanisms between the technical, managerial and institutional levels of an
organization.

Raymon and Wyman (1998) view change as a management-driven
process, on one hand, or as a fully participatory process involving non-
managerial employees, on the other. The former is characterized by managerial
control of the change strategy and the diagnostic activities preceding it. In
participatory change, managerial and non-managerial employees collaborate
through a combination of action research, organizational development, and what
the authors term “action training and research” (p. 11)--activities to co-diagnose
the organization through selected change strategies and processes. The
primary question distinguishing the two approaches revolves around whose

values dominate the process.

23

Strategies for Managing Organizational Change

Scholars focus on beliefs held by organizational members. These include
beliefs about: 1) one’s ability to successfully accomplish what is expected during
and following a change process; 2) whether or not incentives to change will, in
fact, be offered; and 3) whether or not incentives, once offered, will actually be
sufficient to produce individual motivation to change.

Green and Butkus (1999) approach the topic by suggesting that managing
organizational change is synonymous with managing the emotional responses of
organizational members to change. They suggest that, in managing motivation
and performance problems associated with change efforts, managers need to
concern themselves with the emotional responses organizational members have
to change, and to the belief system associated with these responses. Three
beliefs are proposed to predominate among organizational members in the
context of organizational change. These include beliefs about ability to
successfully do what is asked of them in the change effort; beliefs about whether
or not members will get the incentives offered to them; and beliefs about whether
or not the incentives offered, if provided, will ultimately be satisfying. These
beliefs, in turn, provide a context for the emergence of a number of emotions
within organizational members including anger, anxiety, confusion,
disappointment, discomfort, excitement, fear, hope, insecurity, sadness, self-
doubt, and skepticism. These emotions may then give rise to any one of four

basic reactions to change, including disengagement, disidentification,

24

disorientation and disenchantment. These emotions often adversely affect
performance and the acceptance of change efforts. The fundamental strategy of
the change manager is to identify the underlying beliefs of organizational
members and to reassure members. This strategy is designed to disarm
members’ negative emotional responses to change. Green and Butkus (1999)
suggest that this is effective in managing change within teams and entire
organizations, in addition to individuals.

Marks and Shaw (in Nadler, Shaw & Walton and Associates, 1995)
address the emotional fallout that accompanies organizational change. To help
organizational members deal with the emotional upheaval of change, they
suggest that change managers help employees view change as a set of
opportunities that includes new influence and support networks, extrinsic and
intrinsic awards, and fewer constraints on experimentation and risk. The
creation of new communication and learning systems is suggested as a means
of helping members understand and adapt to planned changes.

Schneider and Rentsch (in Hage, 1988) differentiate between
organizational climate and culture while describing their roles and importance in
the organizational change process. Climate refers to the network of routines,
rewards and behaviors that, when taken together, represent what is important
within an organization. Culture refers to the values and norms that underlie
these routines, rewards, and behaviors (Schein, 1985). Schneider and Rentsch
maintain that successful change management must address five issues linked to

both climate and culture. These include: 1) issues relating to organizational

25

membership attraction, selection, and retention; 2) socialization of members
once selected; 3) identity issues that relate to how members learn to adopt and
identify with organizational norms; 4) authority issues that determine members’
roles in achieving management’s goals; 5) interpersonal issues relating to how
members communicate; and 6) environmental issues relating to how managers
respond to the effects of environmental realities and changes.

Bowman and Deal (1984) consolidated the major theoretical perspectives
on organizational forms into four “frames” (p. 4). The first frame, the structural
frame, “emphasizes the importance of formal roles and relationships (p. 5).” The
layers depicting organizational subdivisions on organizational charts symbolize
the distribution of labor, roles and responsibilities that define the structural frame.
The second frame, the human resource frame, emphasizes the role of people as
the central feature of organizational form and function. Their third frame, the
political frame, holds that organizational life is a constant process of the exercise
of power and control for the purpose of allocating scarce resources among
organizational actors. Their fourth and final frame, the symbolic frame, portrays
organizational reality as a play where actors act out a variety of roles.

Observing that organizational change invariably produces conflict and a
sense of loss among organizational members, Bowman and Deal (1991, p. 377)
offer four change strategies which address the specific contextual requirements

of their organizational frames.

26

These include:
Human Reso:urce Frame Strategy
Change causes people to feel incompetent, needy, and powerless.
Developing new skills, creating opportunities for involvement, and providing
psychological support are essential.
Structural Frame Change Strategy:
Change alters the clarity and stability of roles and relationships, creating
confusion and chaos. This requires giving attention to realigning and
renegotiating formal patterns and policies.
Political Frame Change—Strategy:
Change generates conflict and creates winners and losers. Avoiding or
smoothing over those issues drives conflict underground. Managing change
effectively requires the creation of arenas where issues can be negotiated.
Symbolic flame Change Strat:egy:
Change creates loss of meaning and purpose. People form attachments to
symbols and symbolic activity. When the attachments are severed, they
experience difficulty in letting go. Existential wounds require symbolic
healing.
Morris and Raben (in Nadler, Shaw & Walton and Associates, 1995) offer
a four-stage approach to managing change. The stages include overcoming
member resistance to change, providing incentives to motivate change among

members, managing the highly uncertain transition period when changes are

27

being introduced, and managing the dynamics of power and politics that
accompany structural realignments.

Walton (in Nadler, Shaw & Walton and Associates, 1995) differentiates
between organizational hardware (“strategy, structure, work processes, roles,
and accountabilities”) and organizational software (“values, culture, climate,
informal operating style, rituals, communication patterns”) (p. 151). She observes
that organizational culture presents the most difficult challenge to the
organizational change manager. She describes a comprehensive strategy
designed to change organizational culture as a precondition for larger
organizational change. Walton outlines three sets of decision points facing
change managers. These include the content of change, which represents the
vision of the new, preferred culture; leverage points for change, which refers to
what and how to change; and a set of tactical choices, which address when and
where to change (p. 156).

Schein (1992, pp. 305-319) posits that the change mechanism is a
function of the evolutionary stages of an organization’s culture. Change
mechanisms used during one stage remain operational during subsequent
stages. The first stage, founding and early growth, includes three strategies.
The first - incremental change through general and specific evolution--occurs
through assimilating what seems to work best, over time. General evolution,
characterized by increasing levels operational of diversification and complexity,
provides a basis for generating new, more creative organizational processes.

Specific evolution occurs when changes occurring in one organizational

28

environment impact the culture or activities of the entire organization. The
second strategy, change through insight from organizational therapy,
characterizes organizational culture as a learned defense mechanism generated
to minimize uncertainty and anxiety produced by change efforts. The third
strategy, change through promotion of hybrids within the culture, involves the
"promotion of organizational insiders whose own assumptions are better adapted
to the new external realities (p. 308-309)." This strategy holds that insiders have
better credibility than externals, suggesting that organizational members are
more open to their ideas about change. It also requires organizational insight
into “what is broken,” in the first place.

The second stage, mid-life, includes three strategies. The first strategy,
change through systematic promotion from selected subcultures, assumes that
organizational strength is a function of the diversity among subcultures. This
strategy works by assessing strengths and weaknesses of subcultures and then
“biasing” the total culture toward a successful subculture (p. 315). This strategy
also often involves promoting organizational insiders and positioning them as
change agents to leverage their inherent credibility. The second strategy,
planned change through organization development projects and the creation of
parallel learning structures (p. 317), begins at the top of the organizational
hierarchy. It involves pursuing organizational development projects using
internal or external consultants and the development of a new, temporary
learning system to learn and test new assumptions. A major goal of this strategy

is to move incongruent sub-cultures toward accepting an integrated agenda in

29

organization-wide change. This strategy presumes a significant degree of
managerial insight into the organization’s own culture. The third strategy,
unfreezing and change through technological seduction, reflects Lewin's change
model by recognizing the need to unfreeze as an antecedent to change. It is
based upon the notion that the introduction of new technology will serve as the
trigger to bring about a larger cultural change. In this strategy, new technology is
introduced to “seduce” members into new behaviors that, in turn, “require them
to reexamine their present assumptions and possibly adapt new values, beliefs,
and assumptions (p. 318)."

The final stage, maturity and decline, includes five strategies. The first,
change through infusion of outsiders, works through changing the mix of people
within an organization to change the mix of shared assumptions that shape
organizational culture and behavior. This strategy requires a crisis, the purpose
of which is to create doubts about existing culture and assumptions. Outsiders
are then ushered in, accompanied by new ideas and assumptions that, at first,
threaten the existing culture. If these new assumptions solve the crisis, they are
adopted. If they are not, the change effort generally fails. The second strategy,
unfreezing through scandal and myth expulsion, is predicated on the idea that
myths are a traditional aspect of organizational life. Argyris and Schon (1974,
1978) call these myths "espoused theories." These often differ from what
Argyris and Schon call “theories-in-use,” which reflect how people and
organizations actually behave. When a scandal or some other situation arises

that illuminates a significant difference between an espoused theory and a

30

theory-in-use, the myth is exploded with the intent of closing the gap between
preferred and actual behavior. The third strategy, change through turnarounds,
utilizes all other change mechanisms, but begins with unfreezing. A "turnaround
manager or team" (p. 329), equipped with a clear change objective/destination, a
change strategy, and the power to implement the strategy takes over after
unfreezing occurs. In the absence of a change destination or plan, or the power
to implement the intended change, the change effort will usually fail. The fourth
strategy, change through coercive persuasion, involves the use of prolonged
punishment or negative feedback for espoused beliefs. This is intended to
produce a redefinition of beliefs to better fit the preferred context, thereby
eliminating the motivation behind the punishment or negative feedback. The fifth
and final strategy, destruction and rebirth, involves the dissolution of the
organization or its culture through mergers, acquisitions, wholesale personnel
changes, or some other vehicle. Once 'destroyed' the opportunity/change
strategy is to rebuild a new. Objectives of this strategy often include true
transformational change.

Kriegel & Brandt (1996, pp. 278-284) identify seven traits of “change
readiness.” They include resourcefulness, optimism, adventurousness, drive,
adaptability, confidence, and tolerance for ambiguity. The pace at which change
is introduced has been identified as an important factor in the degree to which
resistance to change develops. Bastien (in Van de Ven, Angle and Poole,
1989), warns against introducing a change prior to the resolution of previous

change attempts. He suggests that the introduction of too many changes, that

31

are too close together, can create conflict and uncertainty because organizations
learn more slowly than individuals. Making a similar point, Argyris & Schon
(1974) argue that learning occurs naturally but, in the absence of reflection, it is
low quality.

Ring and Rands (in Van de Ven, Angle and Poole, 1989) offer a model,
which they call Emergent Interpersonal Transaction Processes (EITP)” (p. 342-
343). According to the authors, individual commitment to change is preceded by
the development of cognitive maps, called sense making, which is followed by
understanding, during which time shared cognitive maps are developed.
Commitment then follows with “...individuals, seeking inclusion as agents or

principles, bind themselves and/or their organizations to act (p. 342).”

Models of Innovation

King (in West and Farr, 1990) describe a number of models pertaining to
the stages of innovation. These include Wilson’s (1966) three-stage model in
which an innovation starts with the conception of an Innovation or change, is
followed by the innovation or change being proposed, and then is finally adopted
and implemented. Harvey and Mill’s (1970) model starts with a perception of an
issue, followed by goal formation, a search for solutions, the choice of a solution,
and the redefinition of the issue given the solution. Hage and Aiken’s (1970)
four-stage model starts with evaluation, and moves through initiation,

implementation, and routinization

32

Zaltman et al. (1973) propose a two-stage model in which the first stage—
initiation-- begins with the development of knowledge or awareness, is followed
by the formation of attitudes about a proposed innovation, and concludes with a
decision to adopt an innovation. The second stage, implementation, moves
through two sub-stages, the first being an initial implementation effort followed by
a longer-term effort intended to sustain the implementation process. Kimberly’s
(1981) three-stage ‘Innovation Life Cycle’ model follows an adoption, utilization,
innovation process in which the final stage refers to a return to the adoption
stage. Rogers (1983) developed a two-stage model incorporating initiation and
implementation. These steps or stages in these models usually begin with some
type of combination of initiation and implementation activity, followed by the
generation of an innovation idea that often proceeds from the recognition of a
performance gap, followed by an ending process that attempts to routinize the

innovafion.

Innovation Strategy
The definition of innovation is a function of how it is being analyzed.
Nicholson (1984) approaches the concept in the context of roles, and
characterizes role innovation as the introduction of new roles, methods, materials
and relationships in the accomplishment of a new task. Myers and Marquis
(1969, in West and Farr, 1990) consider innovation to be a continuum of
activities that begin with the conceptualization of a new idea, proceed through

problem solution, and end with the realization of some economic or social value.

33

Zaltman et al. (1973, in West and Farr, 1990) define innovation as “...and idea,
practice, or material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption
(P. 10).” To Kanter (1983, in West and Farr, 1990), innovation is “...the process
of bringing any new problem-solving idea into use (p. 20).” Senge (1990),
suggests that innovation is a new idea that “...can be replicated reliably on a
meaningful scale at practical costs.

West and Farr (in West and Farr, 1990), in outlining a typology of
innovation, differentiate between technical and administrative innovation. The
former relates to what an organization produces, while the latter is concerned
with relationships between people, and between people and their work.
Examples include rules, policies, procedures and structures concerned with
communication between people, and between work environments and people.
(Damanpour & Evan, 1984 in West and Farr, 1990). West and Farr note that
administrative innovation tends to trigger technical innovation, but not the
reverse (Evans, 1984; Damanpour & Evan, 1984, in West and Farr, 1990).

Zaltman (1973, in West and Farr, 1990) describes three dimensions of
innovation. The first, programmed vs. non-programmed innovations, holds that
programmed innovations are scheduled in advance while non-programmed
innovations are not. The second, instrumental innovations are introduced to
facilitate the subsequent introduction of ultimate innovations. The third
dimension, radicalness, represents a combination of an innovation’s novelty and

risk.

34

Bouwen, De Visch and Steyaert (in Hosking and Anderson, eds., 1992),
describe organizational innovation as “...any organizational or business change
where disruption is experienced by those involved between the existing and the
desired situation (p. 124)." Objects of organizational innovation diversification,
management in which an innovation “...is experienced as jumping from familiar
ground into unknown, sometimes challenging domains (p. 124).” Other types of
innovation are also described in the literature including managerial innovation
(Kimberly, 1981), educational innovation (Carlson, 1968), medical innovation,
Coleman et al., 1966), corporate innovation (Ackerrnann and Harrop, 1985), and
product innovation (Normann, 1971; Cooper, 1984). On this note, Watkins and
Marsick (1993) suggest that product innovation can trigger organizational

learning.

Managing Innovation

Lindquist and Muriel (in Van de Ven, Angle and Poole, 1989) differentiate
between depth and breadth with regard to innovation adoption strategies.
Breadth refers to the number of horizontal lines crossed within the organization
during process of adopting an adoption. Measures of breadth include the number
of affected organizational units, the amount of communication across lines, and
whether it is a priority for top administration. Breadth emphasizes cross-
divisional communication and the development of better organization-wide

communication capacity. The depth strategy focuses on a specific

35

organizational unit, emphasizing the involvement of external stakeholders and its
intra-divisional communication.

Staging the adoption of innovation is an important consideration in
determining when and whether to employ a breadth or a depth strategy. In the
initiation phase of innovation a “...more open, decentralized, and organic
organizational approach is required. A more centralized, bureaucratic, and
routinized process is typically used (and needed more) at the implementation
phase (p. 563). This suggests that moving from a breadth strategy to a depth
strategy will tend to “...facilitate innovation adoption (p. 564).”

Lindquist and Muriel’s research on the adoption of a school-based
management approach in two Minnesota public school systems lends support to
four propositions (p. 577).

0 Assuming that a breadth approach has top management’s support, it will
be more sustainable because barriers to its implementation are more
easily overcome. Conversely, depth-based innovation, following the
original pronouncement, is often quickly overlooked when other priorities
surface.

0 The more independent the adopting units are, the less important the need
is for the support of top management support, which reduces the need for

a breadth approach.

36

Depth approaches, because they are constrained by more rules and
regulations, start more slowly. Breadth approaches start faster because
they are not as constrained.

0 Time required to implement an innovation varies with depth and breadth
approach. Depth-based innovation takes more time during improvisation
but less during expansion or disappearance. Breadth-based innovation
requires less time during improvisation but more time during

disappearance.

In related research, Munson and Pelz (1982) define depth as the extent of
organization change required by those directly affected by the innovation.
Breadth measures the percentage of people within the organization affected by
the innovation. Pelz and Andrews (1976), in examining depth versus breadth in
their study of lab groups of scientists and engineers, observed that depth
referred to a high degree of similarity in technical approach and to the preference
for a broad interest in new problem areas versus narrow specialization. On the
other hands, breadth referred to more diversity in technical approach and a
preference for addressing new problems and issues.

Van de Ven (1980) and Van de Ven and Poole (1986) compared broad
program planning models with narrow planning approaches. Findings suggest
that breadth, when applied in a planning model that crosses more organizational

and agency lines, leads to more successful adoptions of innovations.

37

Damanpour (citing Ross, 1974, in West & Farr, 1990, pp. 136-137)
identified three mechanisms necessary for the successful adoption of innovation
in organizations. These include an initiating mechanism to bring new ideas to
the organization, a sustaining mechanism to create a favorable internal climate
for adoption, and a feedback mechanism to evaluate outcomes and provide
information for retention, modification, or abandonment of the innovation.

Much has been written referring to the need for some type of catalyzing
occurrence to unfreeze organizations, thus enabling them to innovate and
change. Van de Ven (1986) suggests that ‘jolts’ are overcome inertia in
organizations. Wilson (1963) believes that organizations are not likely to innovate
in the absence of some kind of crisis. Additional support is found in the work of
Marcus and Weber (1989) and by Cyert and March (1963), who note that
organizations continue to do what they have always done until changing events
compel them to change. lntervening influences include a large gap between
expectations and aspirations, continuing failure to meet objectives, and
externally-induced demands. Finally, Schon (1971) notes that events that
threaten an organization’s social system are often required to stimulate the
organization to introduce new ways of doing business.

A number of authors have focused on the role policy makers play in
facilitating innovation and change. Roberts and King (in Van de Ven, Angle and
Poole, 1989, pp. 326-27) observe that some sort of provocation is needed to
help move an organizational system past status quo and open it to change.

They describe policy entrepreneurs as catalytic agents when they challenge the

38

conventional system, and suggest that crises often emerge when policy changes
are not made at critical times. In similar research, Kingdom (1984, cited by
Roberts and King, in Van de Ven, Angle and Poole, 1989) suggests that policy
entrepreneurs link problems to solution, and that problems, solutions and
alternatives exists in a state of chaos with the policy entrepreneur playing the
role of connector. Reflecting a different view, Roberts and King (in Van de Ven,
Angle and Poole, 1989) suggest that policy entrepreneurs act more strategically,
deliberately, and consciously than Kingdom suggests in pursuit of self-interest.
They argue that policy entrepreneurs give others permission to “to probe,

question, and challenge the existing order” (p. 330).

Readiness to Innovate

Tushman and O'Reilly (1997) maintain that, in order for organizations to
be able to consistently generate and sustain innovation, they must exhibit both
“ambidexterity and congruence.’ Ambidextrous organizations are those that
possess the ability to host “...multiple, internally inconsistent architectures,
competencies, and cultures, with built-in capabilities for efficiency, consistency,
and reliability on the one hand and experimentation, improvisation, and luck on
the other" (p. 167).

Ambidextrous organizations also possess the ability to undergo different
types of innovations simultaneously. Three types of innovation, or “innovation
streams” (p. 14), are described. They include incremental innovation,

architectural innovation, and discontinuous innovation. Incremental innovation is

39

characterized by continual product or service improvements that build on
previous improvements through modest extensions of existing technologies and
processes. Architectural innovation involves the reconfiguration of existing
technologies and processes in which relationships and linkages across
organizational sub-units are encouraged and rewarded. Discontinuous
innovation involves the development of completely new technologies and
processes through learning and experimentation where breakthrough thinking is
a primary objective.

Managing for multiple innovation streams requires that change
managers/leaders develop “highly differentiated and highly integrated
organizations” (p. 171) through the articulation of a clear vision, a diverse change
management team, and effective team processes. Knowing when and how to
move from one innovation stream to another is the primary challenge facing
change managers in an ambidextrous organization. Understanding that
incremental innovation is limiting in a rapidly changing, competitive environment
is one thing. Knowing when and how to overcome the inertia that prevents the
emergence of discontinuous innovation in the same environment is quite
another.

The second innovation antecedent described by Tushman and O’Reilly
has to do with how organizations solve problems associated with performance or
opportunity shortfalls. The authors suggest that the alignment, or congruence,
between strategy and four organizational building blocks - critical tasks and work

flows, formal organizational relationships, people, and culture - drives today’s

4o

successes (p. 58).” Harrison (1996) also mentions this concept. He suggests
that “...fit, congruence, or alignment refer to the extent to which the behavioral or
organizational requirements and the constraints in one part of a system are
compatible with those in other parts (p. 75).

Strebel (1992) offers approaches to managing innovation. These include
organizational spin-offs, intrapreneurship, task forces for innovation, and
restructuring for team competition. Parallel organizations, which are tied to but
are allowed to operate independent of the central organization, are called “spin-
offs” (p. 127). They are recommended when a central organization exhibits
strong resistance to change or when other factors inhibit the emergence of
innovation. The role of an innovation spin-off is to concentrate on the creation of
new products, technologies, or processes. Intrapreneurship focuses on “the
spontaneous emergence of self-motivated project champions and teams” (p.
128). Autonomy and encouragement are used as tools to foster innovation.
Opportunities for process innovations developed by teams to spread to the larger
organization suggest that this approach is appropriate for organizations
exhibiting a low resistance to change. Unlike intrapreneurship teams, which
emerge spontaneously, task forces for innovation are created by management
around the need to bring innovation to the accomplishment of some critical task.
Innovation task forces are intended to be autonomous, and they are often
employed to stimulate incremental innovation within the larger organization.
Restructuring for team competition refers to the desegregation of an organization

into separate units, each pursuing a separate product or service. Another

41

iteration of a team-based structure, restructured teams, require entrepreneurial
managers who excel in a competitive environment and see potential and

opportunity in this approach to change.

Characteristics of Organizational Leaders and Managers

Mohr’s (1969) classic study of innovation in American and Canadian
health organizations found a significant, positive relationship between leader
motivation (as ideology-activism) and frequency of innovation. It was found that
a more liberal ideology, combined with a more interactive role, produced higher
levels of innovation. Kimberly & Evaisko (1981), in examining leader
characteristics and innovation in United States health organizations, found
individual leader characteristics to be a poorer predictor of technological
innovation than organizational factors. Pierce & Delbecq (1977) & Patti (1974)
suggest that organizational innovation is facilitated by “strategic decision makers”
(p. 29) when those individuals possess pro-change values.

Van de Ven (1986) suggests that leaders and managers must stress three
principles if organizations are to develop an innovation-friendly infrastructure.
These include the definition of limits for innovation through the establishment of
values and standards; the development of double loop learning capacity, which
refers to the capacity to detect and correct deviations from organizational
standards, as well as the standards themselves; and the preservation of

uncertainty and diversity. Rogers (1983), in examining the role of change

42

agents who are frequently from outside an organization, observed that success
is positively related to seven factors: 1) a client orientation rather than a change-
agency orientation; 2) the degree to which the diffusion program is compatible
with clients’ needs; 3) the change agents’ empathy with clients; 4) his or her
homophily with clients; 5) credibility in the clients’ eyes; 6) the extent to which he
or she works through opinion leaders; and 7) increasing clients’ ability to

evaluate innovations, (p. 343).

Resistance to Change

Watson (1973) and Zaltman & Duncan (1977) discuss how selective
perception explains why people, after they form an attitude, tend to respond to
change suggestions within the confines of that attitude. Bedeian (1980, in West
and Farr, 1990, p. 31) identify five factors associated with resistance to
innovation. These include: 1) vested interests of organizational members; 2)
rejection of outsiders when an innovation is introduced by an external change
agent; 3) misunderstandings due to lack of clarity especially between higher
management and those on whom an innovation is imposed; 4) an organizational
structure incompatible with the innovation; and 5) lack of top-level support and
commitment. It should be noted that the last three factors played a major role in
the failure of a new teaching system in Gross et al.’s (1971) study of innovation
in an educational setting. West & Farr (1990) note that resistance to change can
be positive in the face of negative, unanticipated consequences associated with

aninnovafion.

43

Innovation and Organizational Characteristics

An organizational characteristic of interest to a number of authors is
organizational size. A number of researchers (Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981;
Kaluzny et al., 1974; Mohr, 1969, Mytinger, 1968) found that larger health care
facilities adopted more technological and administrative innovations, although
dissimilar results were observed by Rogers (1983). However, Kimberly (1976)
notes the difficulty in relying on organizational size to predict innovation
performance. Rogers ( 1983) asserts that organizational size may serve as an
intervening variable in determining innovativeness.

The relationship between innovativeness and four dimensions of
organizational structure have also been examined, including centralization,
formalization, complexity, and stratification. Zaltman et al. (1973) observed that
low centralization and formalization in combination facilitates initiation of
innovation with high complexity. High centralization and formalization, and low
complexity, facilitates the implementation of innovation. Hage & Aiken (1967),
Burns & Stalker (1961), and Shepard (1967) found that high centralization
inhibits innovation because it restricts channels of communication and reduces
information. West & Farr (1990) posit that decentralized structures increase
participation because it folds in more viewpoints and produces greater diversity
of ideas.

Zaltman et al. (1973) suggest that formalization inhibits the initiation of
innovation because strict rules may keep decision makers away from new

sources of information. Neal and Radnor (1971) suggest that formalization

44

(through the deployment of rules and procedures) supports innovation. Zaltman
et al. (1973) note that complexity supports the initiation of innovation through the
introduction of new information and knowledge. However, conflicts that develop
around new knowledge and information tend to make innovation more difficult to
implement when a consensus model is used. In organizations where a
hierarchical structure dominates, Kanter (1983) observes that stratification
serves as a barrier to innovation and the creativity that gives rise to it.

A number of authors believe that an abundance of resources are
positively associated with innovation, particularly when resources are sufficient to
produce ‘slack that is needed to give organizations room to innovate (Mohr,
1969; Rogers & AgarwaIa-Rogers, 1976; Rogers, 1983). However, too much
slack may generate negative consequences when it insulates an organization
against environmental jolts (Meyer, 1982). When investment in an innovation is
high, an organization can become reluctant to abandon it even though it needs
to or should (Teger (1980; Kimberly, 1981).

Other organizational characteristics that have been examined in relation
to innovation include organizational knowledge of innovation (West & Farr, 1990;
Rodgers and Agarwala-Rogers, 1976; Kimberly, 1978; Tushman, 1977; Kimberly
& Evanisko (1981); organizational age (Aiken and Aldord, 1970; Pierce &
Delbecq, 1977); and organization strategy, climate and culture (Meyer, 1982;
Brooks-Rooney et al., 1987: Morgan, 1986; Bower, 1965; Duncan, 1972; and

Handy, 1985).

45

Innovation and Extra-Organizational Characteristics

Retaining or securing a competitive advantage is a major reason why
organizations decide to innovate (Walton, 1987; Foster, 1986). Kimberly (1981)
and Caplow (1964) note that the status and prestige generally associated with
competitive advantage also serve as reasons why organizations innovate.
However, pointing to the development of the ‘new’ Coca-Cola beverage, West
and Farr (1990) suggest that innovation is not always the best response to
competition.

Aiken & Alford (1970) posit that instability and unpredictability stimulate
innovation by making an organization more aware of ‘oues’ to innovate.
Additionally, evidence strongly supports the notion that complexity stimulates

innovation (Baldridge & Burnham, 1975; Kimberly, 1981)

Conclusions
Change Models
Several models describe kinds of change (Quinn, 1996; Nadler and
Tusman, in Nadler, Shaw and Walton and Associates, 1995) or the transactions
that occur within organizations during the change process (Bacharach,
Bamberger and Sonnenstuhl's (1996). In some way, most if not all of these

models build upon or incorporate Lewin’s (1951) unfreeze-move-refreeze model.

46

Change Management Strategy

Some authors on change strategy focus on the emotional dimensions of
individuals (Green and Butkus, 1999; Marks and Shaw, in Nadler, Shaw &
Walton and Associates, 1995). Others address the larger organizational cultural
environments In which change unfolds (Schein, 1985; Schneider and Rentsch, in
Hage, 1988). Bowman and Deal’s unique approach describes the organizational
contexts that frame the change process (Bowman and Deal, 1984). Some
authors focus on specific change management steps or stages (Morris and
Raben, in Nadler, Shaw & Walton and Associates, 1995; Ring and Rands, in
Van de Ven, Angle and Poole, 1989). Kriegel & Brandt (1996) focus on variables
associated with organizational readiness to under change.

What this literature suggests is that organizational change is a very
complex process that unfolds differently within different organizations based
upon unique and changing conditions. While certain dimensions of change may
be managed, many more are difficult to predict or control. Organizations
anticipating change are wise to reflect on their readiness to change, the degree
to which culture impacts readiness, and what strategies make sense given

organizational realities.

Innovation Strategy
On this topic, authors have defined (Zaltman et al., 1973, in West and
Farr, 1990; Nicholson, 1984) and described innovation (Bouwen, De Visch and

Steyaert, in Hosking and Anderson, eds, 1992); West and Farr, 1990; Myers

47

and Marquis, 1969 in West and Farr, 1990;). Some authors have constructed
typologies of innovation (West and Farr, 1990), while others have outlined how
innovation occurs within an organization (Lindquist and Muriel, in Van de Ven,
Angle and Poole, 1989) or have addressed issues associated with readiness to
innovate (Damanpour (citing Ross, 1974, in West & Farr, 1990). Van de Ven
(1986) and Wilson (1963), tying together Lewin’s (1951) change model to
innovation, address organizational conditions they consider to be antecedent to
innovation. Tushman and O’Reilly (1997) describe organizational conditions that
must be in place before organizations can sustain innovation.

This literature helps to clarify that innovation is a type of change--the
introduction of something new to an organization. Whether the innovation is a
new administrative process, a new organizational structure, or a new technology,
it represents organizational change. Because innovation often requires
organizational changes that vary greatly in size and scope, differences in

strategy often reflect differences of degree rather than kind.

(Lharacteristics of Orgnizational Leaders

This section addresses the roles and influence of organizational leaders
and managers relative to organizational change and innovation (Van de Ven,
1986; Bedeian, 1980, in West and Farr, 1990; Zaltman & Duncan, 1977;
Watson, 1973; Mohr, 1969).

The roles available to organizational leaders in the adoption and

management of change and innovation are numerous, and the impact they can

48

have strategy and implementation profound. Change management typically
requires managers to be skilled at many roles, including decision maker, coach,

facilitator, scholar, and diagnostician.

49

CHAPTER THREE

SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS

Introduction

Self-Directed Work Teams (SDWTs), like most other innovations, evolved
out of a need to improve something. In this case, the problem involves the way
that organizations function. Conventional ways of doing business, particularly in
the United States, involve vertical organizational structures in which
organizational goals begin at the top and flow progressively downward through
and to lower organizational levels. This structural model assumes that creativity
and, to a great degree, general organizational and leadership competency, rises
to and “lives” at the top of organizations. The lower levels are reserved for the
‘doers,’ the middle is for the ‘practiced,’ and the top is reserved for the leaders—

the directors and executives.

Origins of the Self Directed Work Team
Deeprose (1995) recognizes the importance of research undertaken in the
19505 by Trist and Bamforth of the Tavistock Institute on teams in British coal
mines and in and other organizations. Trist (1951) found that “...workers who
were more involved in the operation were better equipped to respond to
changing market and political conditions--something that large and rigid
organizations found difficult” (reported by Wellins et al., 1991; p. 8). Harrington-

Mackin (1994) reports that SDWT experiments were conducted during the 1950s

50

by General Foods, Inc. Other early applications of SDWTs surfaced in
companies such as Proctor & Gamble (Wellins et al., 1991; Fisher, 1993;
Deeprose, 1995) and the Gaines Dog Food Company (Wellins et al., 1991).
Over time, many companies embraced SDWTs, including Xerox, Best Foods,
General Electric, IBM, Corning, Digital Equipment Corporation, Colgate-

Palmolive Company (Wellins et al., 1991; Orsborn et al., 1990).

Why Teams?

Vertical/hierarchical organizational structures have been successful over
time. This organizational form has helped make the US. economy the largest
the world has ever known. So why, then, is there a need to do something
different? The answer lies embedded in the concern that hierarchical
organizational structures are slow in responding to increasing competition and do
not adequately harness an organization’s creative energy (Wellins et al., 1991;
Orsborn et al., 1990; Fisher, 1993; Deeprose, 1995).

Wellins, Byham and Wilson (1991) identify “improved quality, productivity
and service; greater (organizational) flexibility; reduced operating costs; faster
response to technological change; fewer, simpler job classifications; better
response to worker values; and the ability to attract and retain the best people”
as operational advantages of teams. Orsborn et al. (1990) identify “productivity,
streamlining flexibility, quality, commitment and customer satisfaction” as the
advantages of SDWTs. Quick (1992) identifies collaboration between team

members as the main benefit of organizing work around teams. Quick (1992)

51

discovered collaboration, communication, resources, simultaneously-made
decisions and solutions, commitment, and quality as the benefits of team-based
organization. Clearly, as a means of accomplishing high performance goals
associated with product and service and product quality, internal efficiency,
harnessing the talents of employees and flexibility in dealing with changing

business environments, teams and SDWTs offer a great deal.

Organizational Issues Associated With the Adoption of SDWTs

There is more than sufficient evidence to suggest that SDWTs offer
performance-based advantages over the conventional “command and control”
model. However, if an organization’s operating mode is firmly rooted in a
command and control paradigm, attempts to get it to move toward or adopt
SDWTs will likely prove difficult. Marshall (1995) terms this conflict “culture war.”
This war is a conflict of values and it may permeate the entire organization, not
just upper. He continues:

“Just as management is in conflict, so too are members of the

workforce, some of whom want to be told what to do, while others

insist on significant participation in real decisions. No one is wrong
or right; the question is, what process will work in the new realities?”

“(Phefiflerature provides some guidance as to what organizational
conditions are necessary for SDWTs to succeed. Wellins et al. (1991), asserting
that empowerment is central to the development and operation of SDWTs, note
that clarifying organizational values and developing a vision around them is a

prerequisite for the emergence of an “empowered culture (p. 89).” Shaffer and

Anundsen (1993:pp. 272-273) note that teams, in order to thrive, require an

52

organizational environment characterized by “trust and respect.” Fisher (1993)
warns that a lack of managerial support for a transition to SDWTs may surface
as a reluctance to provide necessary levels of fiscal and human resources (p.
22).

Given the importance of ‘SDWT-friendly’ conditions, how can
organizations assess their readiness to incorporate SDWTs? The literature
contains a number of useful guides for organizations wishing to undertake such
as self-assessment. Orsborn et al. (1990, pp. 40) identify six domains for
analyzing organizational readiness for SDWTs: 1) compatibility of work
processes; 2) employee willingness and ability to accomplish self-directed work;
3) the ability of managers to adapt to hands-off leadership; 4) whether or not the
market is robust enough to support increased productivity without workforce
reductions; 5) whether or not the organization’s policies and culture (in both
corporate and field locations) will support the transition to SDWTs; and 6)
whether or not broader stakeholders will support an organization’s transition to
SDWTs. This cluster of ‘readiness criteria’ suggests the importance of
organization-wide acceptance of, and ‘buy-in’ to, the SDWT concept.

Wellins et al. (1991) also offer an assessment tool for determining
organizational readiness for SDWTs. Their fifteen-question instrument
measures employee attitudes about
0 Management’s belief in the appropriateness and ability to make decisions

that affect their work

53

The ability of employees to recommend and implement workplace
improvements without several levels of managerial approval

The degree to which the nature of work performed is consistent with either a
team or an individual approach

The capacity of availability technology to accommodate team functioning
Whether work can be organized so that teams can take responsibility for their
work; employee willingness to work in teams

Whether employees believe the organizational culture supports teams and
empowerment

The history of the organization in following through on other organizational
development activities

Employee confidence in management’s ability to adopt team and
empowerment-based roles and behaviors

The availability of technical, support and other resources necessary to
support SDWTs

The degree to which management understands and is willing to commit to the
lengthy team development process

The organization’s capacity to communicate with front-line employees

The degree to which employees possess sufficient skills to accept greater
control over their work, and

The degree to which supervisors are willing to train their employees in team-

based work concepts and methods (pp. 95-99).

54

Taken together, successful introduction of SDWTs requires organizational
cultures that encourage, support, and live empowerment. There must be an
authentic willingness to: share power and control; operate based on honesty,
openness, mutual trust and respect; encourage risk-taking and employee growth;
embrace participative leadership at all levels; have the organizational support
systems necessary to launch and sustain SDWTs; and, most importantly,
possess a firm conceptual understanding of, and demonstrable commitment to,

SDWT principles and processes.

Fundamental Concepts of Self Directed Work Teams
The literature on SDWTs is young but growing. Five concepts emerge
from the theory and research associated with this emerging field: empowerment,

leadership, learning and team, and collaboration.

EmLowerment

Empowerment has come to be used almost to the point of overuse, which
lends to confusion over its meaning. Virtually all of the available literature on
SDWTs holds empowerment to be the central quality of what ‘self-directed’ really
means. Wellins et al. (1991) sees empowerment as increasing levels of
employee participation in workplace decisions and process. He offers a useful
definition that reflects the role played by empowerment in SDWTs:

....empowerment occurs when power goes to employees who then

experience a sense of ownership and control over their jobs.

Empowered individuals know that their jobs belong to them. Given
“a say” in how things are done, employees feel more responsible.

55

When they feel responsible, they show more initiative in their work,
get more done, and enjoy the work more.” (p. 22)

Bucholz (19872p. 31) adds that the process of empowering employees
“suggests that you give responsibility, communicate the importance of each team
member, provide the opportunity for value, and allow each participant to become
an equal member of the team.” Fisher (1993: pp. 13-15) offers a formula for
empowerment as a way to define it. This formula holds that empowerment is a
function of four variables: authority, resources, information and accountability,
expressed as: Empowerment = f (Authority, Resources, Information,
Accountability). He holds that if any of these is equal to equal zero,
empowerment ceases to exist. Fisher goes on to offer his “Empowerment
Continuum” (adaptation of “The Involvement Continuum” from Belgard, Fisher,
Rayner, 1989), which links empowerment to levels of employee involvement In
various dimensions of their work/jobs (Fisher, 1993:p. 14). He found that
employee suggestions are at the low end of this continuum; in the middle are
task forces and quality circles; and at the high end are SDWTs (p. 15). Fisher’s
treatment of empowerment is particularly useful because he uses it to link
SDWTs with employee participation in, and control of, their work.

Marshall (1995), speaking to empowered teams, links empowerment to
team-based accountability in the process of defining his “collaborative team-
based-organization.” He provides a useful matrix that, like Fisher, links high
levels of empowerment with higher levels of team autonomy, and low levels of
empowerment with higher levels of managerial control over operations. Orsborrn

et al. (p. 34) outline eight levels of employee involvement/participation and link

56

each to a “primary outcome.” They include: information sharing (conformance);
dialogue (acceptance); special problem solving (contribution); intra-group
problem solving (commitment); inter-group problem solving (cooperation);
focused problem solving (concentration); limited self-direction (accountability);
and total self-direction (ownership).

It is important, though, to distinguish between empowering a team for self-
direction, on one hand, and cutting it adrift, on the other. Deeprose (1995zp. 59),
speaking to the role of team coaches, speaks to this issue. She states:

Team coaches use all the skills discussed to develop empowered
teams. But coaches also need another capability that may seem out of
line with those we have discussed. They need to be able to intervene.

They also need to be able to determine when an intervention is
appropriate and what kind of intervention will support the goals of the
organization and the team, while bolstering the team’s ability to handle a
similar situation on its own next time. In some cases, avoiding intervention
isn’t empowerment; it’s abdication. It’s giving the team enough rope to
hang itself.” (p. 59)

Empowerment, as an end, provides teams the power they need to
function and the motivation they need to have significant control over, and
commitment to, their work. As a means it fosters the development of mutual
accountability (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993) and provides a seedbed for the

emergence of team confidence to be productively self-directed.

57

Leadershia

Perhaps Stewart and Manz (1995) have conducted the most useful
research connecting leadership to SDWTs. Their work produced a model that
establishes two leadership continuums. The first is concerned with the degree of
involvement a leader may have within a team setting, moving from passive to
active involvement; the second involves the amount of power a leader wields
within a team setting, moving between autocratic and democratic leadership.
Based upon this model, the researchers identify four types of leader behavior:
overpowering leadership, powerless leadership, power building leadership and
empowered leadership.

Their research succeeded in illustrating how different leadership styles
produce different team behaviors. For example, overpowering leadership tends
to be associated with autocratic organizational structures led by autocratic
managers; and with leaders possessing limited leadership experience and a
“high need for power” combined with a ”low need for affiliation.” Empowered
leadership, on the other hand, is likely to be reflected in organizations primarily
concerned with long-term performance goals, which are led by experienced
managers with low power needs and high affiliation needs. These leaders permit
autonomy to develop at lower organizational levels, enabling teams to “develop
and mature.”

These conclusions suggest that empowering leadership is more

conducive to team-based organization. The literature is rife with examples of

styles or types of leadership and how some tend to be more closely associated

58

with the success of SDWTs than others. For many, leadership for SDWTs
embodies a new and emerging leadership paradigm. Transactional leadership
are generally regarded as the “old leadership paradigm” in that leaders and
followers enter into an exchange transaction. Leaders provide direction,
resources and rewards in exchange for followers’ work, or services. In newer
leadership approaches, such as transformational leadership, “followers” are
encouraged to develop into leaders. Newer leadership approaches reflect these
values: increased employee/member participation, democratic approaches to
work, an emphasis on relationship building, and increased consideration of the
needs of followers (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Bucholz & Roth (1987) write of the difference between authoritative and
participative leadership. They make the point that the ability of employees to
work more independently rises with increasing levels of participative leadership,
where employees have more influence over their work, the rules that govern it,
and their own progress. They view the development of independent employees
as essential to the development of high performance teams. Advocates the new
leadership paradigm (e.g., Deeprose,1995; Fisher, 1993) call for a departure
from traditional views of leadership as supervision to viewing leadership as a
developmental process designed to build follower leadership capacity,
independence, and technical competence. Deeprose (1995: p. 52) identifies
listening, communicating, advocating, team building, facilitating decision making,
training, educating and mentoring as key leadership-as-coach skills. Fisher

(1993) identifies a number of competencies he considers essential for leaders of

59

teams, including modeling, facilitating change, providing vision and coaching.
Fisher’s “new leader” leads by example, striving to empower team members,
encouraging collaborative behavior, and serving as a team resource through
her/his facilitative, analytical and managerial skills. Orsburn et al (1990zp. 21)
include “leader-centered teams” as one of the stages teams go through on the
way to becoming fully self-directed. They note the importance of followers
developing into leaders, leaders behaving as coaches, and the necessary
blurring of the lines between those who manage and those who are managed.

Marshall (1995:p. 78), advocating a collaborative approach to leadership,
offers a menu of team leader roles including facilitation, coach, change
agent/catalyst, healer, member and manager/administrator. Wellins (1991)
distinguishes between the leader of a group and the leader of a team,
suggesting that group leaders exist outside the team while “team leaders” exist
as part of the team. This distinction is useful through the guidance it provides
supervisors and managers who are transitioning to a SDWT model by providing
them with role definitions (as group leaders) when they are not part of a working
team. Finally, Covey (1992) connects four levels of leadership to four key
principles: organizational leadership to the principle of alignment; managerial
leadership to the principle of empowerment; interpersonal leadership to the
principle of trust; and personal leadership to the principle of trustworthiness. He
holds trust supreme, stating that “trust-or the lack of it” is at the root of success
or failure in relationships and in the bottom-line results of business, industry,

education, and government (p. 31), and identifies a number of leadership

60

qualities he associates with his concept of “principle-centered leadership."
Understanding why Covey believes certain leadership principles to be essential
for the basic operation of organizational activity (trust), we can better understand
the value of the characteristics he assigns to principle-centered leaders. He
maintains (pp. 33-39) that principle-centered leaders are constantly learning, are
service-oriented, radiate positive energy, believe in other people, lead balanced
lives, see life as an adventure, are synergistic and exercise for self-renewal.
While the connection between some of these characteristics SDWTs
might be somewhat unclear, it is important to consider that leadership attitude
and behavior is a function of the psyche, and that one’s leadership flows from

who one is at! how one relates to the world.

Learning

Individuals, teams and organizations all have the opportunity to learn from
experience. Wellins et al. (1991) suggest that the opportunity to learn is not
always matched with either an expectation to learn or the knowledge of how to
learn. They state that:

Learning is acquired early in life from accredited experts and that,

when formal schooling ends, learning gives way to work. As a

result, our capacity and ability to learn atrophies (p. 185).”

The importance of team/organizational learning cannot be understated if
organizations are to be conducive to collaborative team processes. Marshall

(1995: pp. 35-36) underscores the value of learning as a part of the development

of teams. Emphasizing that recognition of team and team member

61

accomplishments and their professional growth is essential to the development
of a collaborative team dynamic, he states:
As part of the project cycle, for example, there should be a
debriefing on every aspect of a project for lessons leamed--both
positive and negativeuand any suggested improvements should be
integrated and institutionalized in the next project cycle. But this
approach to continuous improvement also applies to group and
individual learning. The focus must be on process skills and cultural
adjustments as well as on the bottom-line systems or structural
changes (pp. 35-36).”
The level of interest and energy invested in learning processes and systems--the
degree to which we choose to consciously learn from our experience--is critical in

team and organizational learning.

Schon (1983) maintains that conscious reflection about experience is the
essential process through which we learn, as organizations, teams and
individuals. Schon maintains that, when managers consciously self-question
themselves about their experiences (a concept he calls reflection-in-action), they
accumulate knowledge for use in subsequent organizational. The degree to
which an organization promotes or encourages reflection-in-action determines
the degree to which a “learning system” exists or does not exist within it (pp. 241-
242). His point is that managers may or may not reflect, or be encouraged to
reflect, upon their experiences as a way of consciously connecting with
knowledge generated through those experiences, and then pass it on to the
organization at large. He also raises the question as to whether or not an
organization has a systematic way of either capturing and using that knowledge.

Morgan (1986) also focuses on the process of self-questioning, labeling it

double-loop learning (p. 87). In his view, self-questioning is directed at the

62

assumptions and predominant operating norms that undergird organizational
paradigms. He posits three blocks to double-loop learning: thought that is
constrained by organizational paradigms; employee reluctance to consider
complex problems for fear of not being viewed as capable of solving them; and
“group think” (and other self-serving thought patterns) that arise from an interest
in appearing, to themselves or others, as more competent than they may actually
be. In terms of how to learn how to learn, Schon suggests that “...the whole
process of learning to learn hinges on an ability to remain open to changes
occurring in the environment, and on an ability to challenge operating
assumptions in a most fundamental way (p. 91).”

Chapter 12 of Peter Senge’s 1990 book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization is entitled “Team Learning.” In this
chapter, Senge offers a number of concepts he considers fundamental to the
process of team learning. One these concepts is alignment (p. 234), a
phenomenon where “a group of people functions as a whole.” Senge maintains
that “alignment is the necessary condition before empowering the individual will
empower the whole team” (p. 234). He believes synergy between and among
members and a shared vision of mission and goals as fundamental to the
emergence of alignment. According to Senge, team learning requires that team
members give thoughtful attention to complex issues as a basis for designing

innovative, coordinated actions.

63

Becoming a Team

Definitions of “team” abound in the literature. Senge’s (19902p. 234)

concept of alignment is useful in characterizing team as “when a group of people

function as a whole.” Marshall (1995) holds that teams are, above all else,

collaborative by nature and function. Quick’s (1992) definition is particularly

appealing because it captures the basic characteristics of team found throughout

the literature. He states:

The most distinguishing characteristic of a team is that its members
have, as their highest priority, the accomplishment of team goals.
They may be strong personalities, possess highly developed
specialized skills, and commit themselves to a variety of personal
objectives they hope to achieve through their activity; but, to them,
the most important business at hand is the success of the group in
reaching the goal that its members, collectively and with one voice,
have set. The members support one another, collaborate freely, and
communicate openly and clearly with one another.

Most non-team groups, on the other hand, tend to be collections of
personalities with their own agendas, which may be more valuable
to those personalities than the agenda that the majority of the
group members seek to fulfill. Discussions and relationships in
such groups are often characterized by shifting agendas, power
subgroups, a going along with decisions rather than a
wholehearted commitment, and even a win-lose orientation: One
person or subgroup gains its wishes over another (p. 3).

Quick’s definition contains or refers to a number of widely accepted team-

based characteristics including commitment, collaboration, shared team

goals/vision, accomplishment/success and mutual support. Others include

SYnergy (Senge, 1990; Bucholz 1987), shared responsibility (Senge, 1990);

Bucholz, 1987); shared vision (Bucholz, 1987) and an ‘other’ or ‘team’ orientation

(Katzenbach, & Smith, 1993; Quick, 1992; Fisher, 1993; Orsburn et al., 1990;

Covey, 1991). Joining Quick in highlighting the difference between team and

64

group is Katzenbach & Smith (1993). They state that “...real teams -- not just
groups that management calls “teams” -- should be the basic unit of performance
for most organizations, regardless of size, and that teams “are more productive
than groups that have no clear performance objectives because their members
are committed to deliver tangible performance results (p. 15).”

The literature reveals a number of consistent processes teams employ or
in pursuit of their goals. These processes include team building (Quick, 1990),
developing trust (Quick 1992; Bucholz, 1987; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Covey,
1991; Deeprose, 1995); dealing with conflict (Deeprose, 1995; Shaffer &
Anundsen, 1993; Quick, 1992; Senge, 1990; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993;
Harrington-Mackin, 1994; Marshall, 1995); group decision making (Deeprose,
1995; Quick, 1992; Buchholz & Roth, 1987; Fisher, 1993; Orsburn et al, 1990);
group problem solving (Deeprose, 1995; Senge, 1990; Harrington-Mackin, 1994;
Buchholz & Roth, 1987; Wellins, et al., 1991; Orsburn et al, 1990); dealing with
change (Covey, 1991; Senge, 1990; Marshall, 1995; Wellins, et al., 1991;
communication (Wellins, et al., 1991; Marshall, 1995; Covey, 1991; Harrington-
Mackin, 1994; Fisher, 1993; Orsburn et al, 1990; Buchholz & Roth, 1987; Quick,
1992; Deeprose, 1995); maturation (Deeprose, 1995; Orsburn et al, 1990;
FISher, 1993); developing team member commitment (Wellins, et al., 1991;
Marshall, 1995; Senge, 1990; Senge, 1990; Fisher, 1993; Orsburn et al, 1990);
team/peer appraisal (Quick, 1992; Deeprose, 1995; Orsburn et al, 1990; Fisher,
1993; Harrington-Mackin, 1994; Marshall, 1995; Wellins, et al., 1991); and team

member rewards/recognition (Wellins, et al., 1991; ; Marshall, 1995; Katzenbach

65

& Smith, 1993; Harrington-Mackin, 1994; Fisher, 1993; Orsburn et al, 1990;

Deeprose, 1995; Quick, 1992).

Implementing Self Directed Work Teams

The way in which an organization makes the transition to SDWTs
represents a critical factor associated with the eventual success of teams. The
process includes the implementation plan; conceptual framework; re-orienting
supervisors and managers; understanding and bypassing barriers; and an
ongoing “care and feeding program”.

It seems common sense enough to suggest that implementing SDWTs
requires a well conceived and thoughtfully considered plan. This is particularly
true given the cultural conversion many organizations will have to undergo in
order to successfully transition to SDWTs. The literature abounds with examples
of what considerations should be included in such a plan. Wellins et al. (1991 :p.
102) offer an approach design that includes four planning principles:

0 Vision--developing consensus as to the need for change and how the
organization wants change to unfold

° Design--a plan of action that includes an analysis of where the organization
is, where it needs to go, and a step-by-step strategy for getting there

° lmplementation-—unfolding of the plan, and

° Monitoring—a double-loop evaluation and re-design process.

66

This approach requires a number of self-questioning exercises designed

to assess whether and how SDWTs fit into an organization’s culture and goals.

Orsburn et al, (1990:p. 220) offer an implementation menu that includes

Employee involvement (alternatives to self-direction)

The steering committee

The feasibility study

The development of a mission statement

The design team, team member and manager’ supervisor training
Employee training

Awareness training

Workplace analysis

The peer discipline and performance review processes
Recognition and reward techniques

“Mature team-new team” coaching, and

Diffusion strategies.

For each item, they ask a “what” question (concerning the step’s importance), a

“when” question (when to use the technique), a “who” question (person or

persons primarily responsible for implementing the technique), a “how” question

(how to implement the technique), a “what’s next” question (what can be

expected as a result of implementing the technique and the next steps

associated with it), and a “case in point” question (how something actually

worked).

67

Fisher (1993:pp.164-171) proposes a five-stage model for SDWT
implementation. It includes investigation (exploring and understanding the
organizational investments necessary to implement SDWTs); preparation
(developing organizational support for the transition to SDWTs and developing
new operating procedures and policies); implementation (the operational
unfolding of the plan in which teams are formed and work through the
uncertainty, confusion and unfamiliarity of a new way of working); transition
(often through trial and error, the development of team skills that enable
teamwork and self-direction to surface and improve); and maturation (the
process of team learning and continual improvement of team skills as a function
of experience with SDWTs).

All the approaches described here recognize the need to adequately
assess the organization for its cultural and operational readiness for SDWTs.
They also see the need for organization-wide orientation concerning the need
and value of SDWTs, and training including how and why SDWTs work. Also
necessary are the development of plans for redesigning organizational activities
based on SDWT concepts, and a process for organizational learning so that

lessons learned can be captured and folded into ongoing implementation.

Pitfalls of Implementation
Several authors remind us that certain barriers impede the successful
implementation of SDWTs. Pitfalls that are most common to the introduction of

SDWTs involve resistance to change.

68

fer

ea

We have all heard the adage that ‘it all starts at the top.’ This means that
the management needs to be genuinely committed to the concept of SDWTs.
Harrington-Mackin (1994zpp. 1-2) begins her book by stating the importance of
managerial commitment by stating that management “at all levels must support
team efforts openly and without reservation if it expects teams to succeed (p.
1).” She goes on to link this support to team productivity: “If the team members
feel support and commitment from management, they will exhibit high
productivity. If team members are angry because of a lack of organizational
support, they will limit their efforts (p. 2).” Wellins et al. (1991) and Marshall
(1995) express similar views. Fisher (1993:p. 22) identifies “lack of managerial
commitment...as the single biggest reason” SDWTs fail to produce expected

organizational improvements.

Wellins et al. (1991) mention a number of other pitfalls to the successful
implementation of SDWTs. On the subject of managerial/supervisory
participation in the design process, they suggest that gaining the support and
ownership of managers and supervisors is absolutely essential. A critical step is
involving them in the early design stages. They also contend that selecting the
wrong people to lead SDWT transition or design teams can be problematic:
Many teams have discovered that good selection is a critical and often
irreversible part of the process. If the team is inadvertently stacked with
dysfunctional members, it will be difficult to change their behavior or
remove them from the team without disrupting the cohesiveness of the

team (p. 144).

69

Transitioning the roles of supervisors and managers from
supervision/management to new leadership forms based on a more facilitative,
support role can also be a challenge. Wellins et al. (1991zpp. 127-128) state that
this change in leadership roles “often elicits fear, anger, ambiguity, and
resistance” in supervisors and managers in response to the disappearance of an
vertical organizational ladder to climb. They ask the question: “If teams begin to
manage themselves, what is left for the leader to do (p. 128)?" In response to
this fear, they suggest that ..it is important to provide leaders with new

responsibilities to replace those that have been shifted to the team (p. 134).”

Summary

The contribution that SDWTs can make to organizational performance
and effectiveness is well documented. When properly designed and introduced
into an organization that is truly ready for them, we can expect to see higher
levels of employee performance in such areas as employee/member creativity,
commitment, initiative, trust, openness and communication, and collaboration.
This can translate into higher product and service quality, lower operating costs,
more effective long-range planning and market positioning, and a more
enjoyable workplace.

In spite of these benefits, SDWTs do not represent a panacea.
Organizations lacking the administrative will to bring their cultural norms and
operating procedures in line with a conceptual framework based upon
empowerment and collaboration should seriously consider not implementing

them. A willingness to go through an exhaustive self-analysis for readiness will

70

 

accomplish two goals. First, it will give an organization an accurate picture of
itself, in terms of its values, strengths, and weaknesses. It will also act as a
yardstick for measuring itself in relation to potential gaps between where it is and
where it wants to go. The best advice is to do it honestly, carefully, and
completely. Even if an organization chooses not to adopt SDWTs, it will know

itself more fully by having undertaken a readiness analysis.

71

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A Case Study Approach
This study examined variables associated with organizational readiness to
adopt change and innovation. A collective case study approach was selected for
this research due to this method’s ability to illustrate emergent issues across
multiple organizational contexts (Creswell, 1998). A particular strength of the
case study approach is its ability to examine the relationships between complex

social variables and organizational phenomena (Merriam, 1998).

Selection of Study Sites

The researcher also established a number of decision criteria as the basis
for determining whether, in fact, each prospective study site was adopting self-
directed work teams as opposed to some other team-based work form.

Based upon the literature reviewed in Chapter Three, these minimal
criteria include a moderate to high degree of freedom in determining what work
will be produced; the creation of joint work products; mutual accountability
among team members; team-based generation and implementation of operating
processes, guidelines, and other rules; and an expectation that the team will take
an entrepreneurial approach to resource development to include the ability to
identify and pursue funding outside the formal Extension organization. The

researcher’s first hand knowledge of how SDWTs were conceived and

72

operationalized at both Michigan State University Extension and the University of
Wisconsin-Extension/Cooperative Extension was sufficient for him to establish
that self-directed work teams were being adopted at both institutions. The
researcher conducted a preliminary round of telephone interviews with change
managers at Ohio State University to establish that SDWTs were, in fact, being

adopted there, which they were.

Selection of Participants

The focus of this research is organizational readiness to adopt self-
directed work teams (SDWTs) in Extension organizations. An assumption of this
study is that concepts associated with organizational readiness to adopt SDWTs
teams represent a set of considerations made by individuals who contribute to,
or influence: 1) institutional decisions concerning whether SDWTs are adopted
or not; and 2) how SDWTs are conceptualized, introduced and/or implemented.

The researcher chose respondents at each study site who had early and
significant participation in the decision-making processes to adopt and/or frame
the adoption of SDWTs. Individuals were invited to participate in this study who:
1) participated directly in the earliest stages of adoption, or 2) were repeatedly
identified to possess first-hand knowledge of the earliest stages of the adoption
process.

The procedures used by the researcher to invite participation varied with
the study site. The final interview question during each interview asked

participants to identify other individuals (beside themselves) who met the

73

selection criteria. When names were mentioned repeatedly, those individuals
were added to the list of potential study participants, and were subsequently
invited to participate in the study. The only exception was when a potential
participant’s involvement in, or contribution to, the adoption process was
consistently associated with, and fully described in, a specific document or other
source of data that could be secured and thoroughly examined by the

researcher.

The Researcher’s Role in the §_t_u_dLO;qanizations at Michigan State University
ar_IQI_at the_l_Jniversltv of Wisconsin

The researcher’s knowledge of the adoption process varied considerably
across the cases. As a graduate assistant with MSU Extension from 1992
through 1996, the researcher had an opportunity to observe how SDWTs were
being adopted there, as well as to know who was leading and participating in the
adoption process. As a county-based Extension Faculty member with UW-
Extension from 1997 through the conclusion of this study, the researcher was
asked to participate in (and even help design) SDWT strategy and adoption
activities. These experiences familiarized the researcher with the people and
processes associated with the SDWT innovation effort at UWEXICOOP
Extension. Consequently, at both MSU and UWEXICOOP Extension, the
researcher had a reasonable knowledge level of SDWT innovation processes

(through observation at MSU and via active participation at UWEX).

74

Contagtingthe StugLParticipants at All Three Sites

To solicit study participants at both MSU Extension and UWEXICOOP
Extension, the researcher sent e-mail letter communications to individuals whom
he sought to include as study participants (see e-mail communication in
Appendix A). As participants agreed to participate in the study, they were sent an
lnfon'ned Consent Form letter (see Appendix B) for signature.

In the case of Ohio State University Extension, the researcher was
unfamiliar with the process used to adopt SDWTs and the people involved in the
adoption process. OSU was recommended for this study by the Directors of
Extension at both MSU and UWEXICOOP, each of whom had made
independent assertions to this researcher that SDWTs had been adopted by
OSU Extension. Before including OSU Extension in this study, the researcher
confirmed this assertion. First, the researcher sent an e-mail communication to
the Director of OSU Extension (see Appendix C) explaining the purpose of the
study and requesting a list of potential study participants (using the criteria
previously stated and applied in the MSU and UW cases). The OSU Extension
Director responded positively to both requests. Then, the researcher sent e-mail
messages to each of the potential study participants identified by the Director of
Extension, inviting their participation in the study. Upon receipt of a positive
response, the researcher sent each participant an Informed Consent Form letter
(See Appendix D) for signature. Finally, the researcher conducted a preliminary
round of telephone interviews with OSU Extension participants to establish the

validity of OSU Extension as a study site. The results of these preliminary

75

interviews confirmed that OSU Extension had, in fact, engaged in a process
designed to adopt SDWTs. At that point, OSU Extension was selected as the

third study site.

Phases of the Research

This study began as a three-phase design. lnforrnants were first asked to
describe how SDWTs were adopted in the respective Extension organizations.
In the second phase, the researcher was to aggregate these descriptions into a
single adoption ‘story.’ This was to be followed by a second round of interviews
to provide informants with an opportunity to examine the researcher’s stories for
accuracy and credibility, and to offer additional interpretations and meaning
concerning these descriptions. Finally, a third phase was to involve a cross-case
analysis as the basis for identifying and explaining themes and shared meanings
across cases.

As the first phase unfolded, the researcher discovered that the initial data
collection process produced rich discussions between the researcher and the
informants. As informants reconstructed the events and conditions that
preceded and accompanied the adoption of SDWTs, they began naturally to
offer potential explanations for the events they described, based on their
interpretations of circumstances and context. Because of that, rather than
conducting a second round of interviews to examine phase one results for
themes and meaning, the researcher felt that the data collected in round one

appeared rich enough for preliminary thematic analysis. Unexpectedly, data

76

collection and analysis occurred simultaneously during the first round of
interviews. Probes and open discussion made it possible for informants to
describe events and reflect on what had taken place and, from their perspective,
why. This outcome mitigated the need to conduct a second round of interviews.
Because of that, the “stories” were prepared and forwarded to informants, and
they were asked to examine them for accuracy and credibility. Because each
participant was invited to assign new meaning, as well as to check the
researcher’s stories for accuracy, participants were given the opportunity to add
new Information and perspectives to the data set, as if they had been interviewed

a second time.

The Interviews

The in-person, one-on-one interview was selected as the primary data
gathering method. This method is particularly appropriate when the purpose of a
study Is to create or verify reconstruction of events and circumstances. This
method was selected because it fit with the researcher’s purpose of
understanding events, the sequence of events, and the assignment of meaning
to these events. Through interviews, participants were able to describe
environmental conditions (as they understood them), and then reconstruct
events and place them in the context of the conditions in which they occurred.
This approach also permitted the researcher to use probes and follow-up
questions to verify, identify and/or explore themes and multiple meanings

(Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

77

ln-person interviews were conducted at all three study sites between
February and April 2000. All interviews were conducted in participants’ offices
with the exception of one interview at Michigan State University, which was
conducted at the participant’s home. A focused interview format was used (Yin,
1994; Merton et al., 1990). This approach was selected for three reasons. First,
it enabled the researcher to ask the same questions of all participants. Second,
it permitted a conversational style and the inclusion of open-ended questions,
which gave participants an opportunity to elaborate and offer richer responses.
Third, it gave the researcher an opportunity to use probes and to pursue issues
across interviews.

A list of interview questions was e-mailed to each participant
approximately two weeks prior to an interview. This was done to give
respondents time to examine questions and reconstruct events. At the beginning
of each interview, the researcher explained that the interview questions would
serve as a basic guide, but that a dynamic, interactive approach was sought
during the interview. Participants were encouraged to speak freely and address
issues they considered relevant even when a response might not have been

directly related to a specific interview question.

Data Collection and Interpretation
The researcher used both handwritten notes and a tape recorder to record
all interview sessions. Guba and Lincoln (1985) note that hand-written notes

provide the researcher with an opportunity to capture nonverbal communications,

78

and to make other observations without interfering with the interview flow. They
also note that taking handwritten notes forces the interviewer to pay closer
attention to what is being said. Despite their observation that taking handwritten
notes usually prevents the interviewer from gathering everything the participant is
saying, they recommend this method over tape recording. Merriam (1998)
developed the interview log technique as a compromise to tape recorded and
verbatim transcriptions, observing that verbatim transcription is often cost
prohibitive. This technique involves tape recording an interview, from which
notes are taken to capture main points and themes.

As a way to combine the best elements of the techniques used, the
researcher combined handwritten notes, tape recording, and semi-verbatim
transcription. First, a tape recorder was used to tape each interview in its
entirety. Handwritten notes were taken throughout each interview. Notations
were made to record emphasis in spoken words, observations of non-verbal
communication, and ongoing analytical observations that might point to emerging
themes, areas of emphasis, and new meanings.

Immediately following each interview, the researcher prepared quasi-literal
transcriptions of the interview tape and compared the transcriptions with his
handwritten notes. This technique proved to be extremely helpful in capturing
subtleties and contextual “fine points” that, otherwise, would have been
impossible to capture had literal transcriptions been used. After all of interviews
at a study site were completed and the interview outcomes prepared, the

researcher put together a detailed narrative describing the events and

79

conditions, in sequence, characterizing the presumed SDWT adoption process.
The researcher understood that he would need to establish the accuracy and
credibility of the recreation he prepared for each study site.

A number of authors (Ely, et al., 1991; Erlandson et al., 1993; Glesne and
Perskin, 1992; Guba and Lincoln, 1985; Merriam, 1988; Creswell, 1998) describe
the importance of feeding back to participants data and interpretations for
establishing the accuracy and credibility of the researcher’s account of an
interview. The researcher provided participants at each study site an electronic
draft of his account of the adoption process at that site. An accompanying e-mail
communication asked each respondent to thoroughly review the draft for
accuracy and to suggest changes to improve the validity of the story line. All
participants responded to the researcher with comments concerning the
accuracy and credibility of the researcher’s account. With one exception (across
the sites) participants responded that the researcher’s interpretations of the
adoption process was both accurate and credible. The single respondent
expressing a concern declined to recommend changes to the researcher’s draft
rendition. Some respondents corrected minor items, such as dates of events.
Most respondents were affirming. Typical comments received were: “Nice job

capturing things here.” That tells the story pretty well.”

Analysis

The analytical strategy used was one of iterative explanation building (Yin,

1994). This strategy calls for the development of several plausible or rival

8O

explanations that represent causal links to, and emerge from, the data. Yin
observes that such explanations gain strength when they “...have reflected some
theoretically significant propositions” (pp. 1 10-11 1). Yin (p. 1 10) suggests that,
when such explanations are applied to multiple case studies, “...the result of the
explanation-building process is also the creation of a cross-case analysis, not
simply an analysis of each individual case.”

In this research, individual case descriptions were first developed through
interviews with study participants. Second, themes emerged from these
descriptions. Third, the researcher began building explanations for the themes in
relationship to a set of theoretical propositions and in connection with the
literature of organizational change and innovation. Marshall and Rossman (1989,
in Creswell, 1994) describe this process as one in which data is, first, reduced
into categories and then analyzed through the use of an analytic framework. In
this research, data were first aggregated into themes. Then, a theoretical
framework was used as to make sense of the themes. To accomplish this, a
number of categories emerged from the interviews that were subsequently used
to code the data. These categories are described in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

81

Categories Emerging from the Interviews Conducted at the Study Sites

 

 

 

 

MSU Extension OSU Extension UWEXICOOP
Signs that Something is Changing Environmental
Wrong Conditions Something Is Wrong
Early Experiences with Early Experiences with Significant Internal
Self-Directed Teams Self-Directed Teams Environmental
Conditions
Paradigmatic Shifts Strategy Development Paradigmatic Shifts
Among Change Agents and Implementation

 

Benefits Sought Through Early Responses to Self- Benefits Sought Through

 

 

 

 

the Deployment of Self— Directed Teams the Deployment of Self

Directed Teams Directed Work Teams

Changing Environmental Strategy Development
Conditions and Implementation

 

The theoretical propositions associated with this study are:

Theoretical Prcmosition 1A
Some conditions (or combination of conditions) serve to precipitate change
within organizations.

Theoretical Proposition 18
Organizational change unfolds within one or more theoretical change models.

Theoretical Proposition 10
An organization’s change strategy unfolds within a theoretical framework
comprised of the members’ and change manages’ theories-in-use.

Theoretical Proposition A
A shared leadership paradigm among change managers and leaders facilitates
organizational change.

Theoretical Proposition E
A participatory approach to change management facilitates member acceptance
and support of change efforts.

Theoretical Proposition 29

The degree of fit between organizational change, culture and organizational
systems has an impact upon resistance to change.

82

 

Theoretical Proposition 3A
Change strategy reflects a number of variables associated with change
managers that include:

o Familiarity with the theory and practice of change management;

0 Skill in developing and implementing change strategy (experience,
skill, leadership);

. Interpretation of environmental conditions
The four-stage explanation building process used by the researcher is described
below:
Stage #1: A Story Emerges (Descriptive)
Stage #2: Themes Emerge from the Stories (Analytical)
Stage #3: Theoretical Propositions Emerge from the Themes and the Literature
Stage #4: Cross-Case Themes Emerge as the Basis for Cross-Case Analysis

1. The Adoption Process
a. The approach used to make the adoption decision
b. Adoption strategies

2. Change Managers’ Theories-in-Use
a. Theories-in use about Extension:
b. Theories-in use about the organization

3. Congruence between:

Strategy and critical tasks and work flows
Strategy and formal organizational relationships
Strategy and people

Strategy and culture

Other elements of organizational culture

fleeces

Reliability and Internal Validity
Internal Valigig
A significant challenge for the researcher pertained to the matter of
internal validity—the extent to which study conclusions are accurate and

represent reality. Creswell (1994) identifies several methods for ensuring that a

83

study is internally valid. These include the use of multiple sources of
information, feedback from informants on the validity of themes and conclusions
asserted by the researcher, and involving participants in the research.

In this research, sources of data included one-on-one interviews, internal
documents, and public documents secured from the worldwide web. The
researcher carefully examined these documents and compared them to the data
following the descriptive stage, and during each phase of data analysis. He
looked for contradictions between his analysis and the way each Extension
organization communicated its intentions through written organizational policies,
plans, and pronouncements. In reality, the adoption of SDWTs proceeded at
each study site with a modest amount of written documentation. Still, the written
documentation extant reflected the “paradigmatic leanings” of change managers.
Some documents included statements pertaining to organizational values, vision,
and a rationale for adopting SDWTs. These documents were helpful to the
researcher in corroborating the “mental models” of Extension administrators and
organizational members.

Guba and Lincoln (1988) note the importance of staying “as close as
possible” to the study participants. The researcher was able to do this more
easily at the University of Wisconsin-Extension due to his employment there
during the study cycle. His knowledge of the adoption process helped him
considerably in making decisions concerning whom to invite to participate in the

study.

84

The researcher was farthest from the research in the case of OSU
Extension. However, conducting two separate sets of interviews with
participants there--one on the telephone and one in person--helped the
participants understand more clearly what kind of data the researcher sought. In
fact, the second round of interviews there provided a considerable amount of
data and participant-supplied analysis that had not come fonNard from the first
round of interviews.

The researcher’s prior experience as a graduate assistant with MSU
Extension brought him in contact with many of the individuals who served as
study participants. His relationships with these individuals ranged from
unfamiliarity, in one case, to a close personal friendship in another. Overall, he
knew all but one participant, and had a reasonably good knowledge of the range
of their roles during the process of SDWTs. This familiarity was of considerable
value for making decisions concerning whom to select as study participants.

Finally, the researcher involved all study participants in both constructing and
reviewing descriptive and analytical phases of the research. Interviews were
conducted using an iterative, conversational approach that engaged both the
participant and the researcher in a process of simultaneously describing and
analyzing events. Consequently, each interview sought to produce a shared
understanding of what happened and why. The researcher believes that this
reflective approach to description was largely responsible for the almost
unanimous agreement among participants concerning the accuracy of the

adoption stories at all three study sites.

85

[External validity

External validity refers to the generalizability of findings (Creswell, 1994;
Guba & Lincoln, 1988). Creswell (1994) notes that generalizability is not an
objective of qualitative research, but that the interpretation of results is. Despite
these disparate research goals, study results suggest the presence of a
relationship between the organizational readiness to change and innovate, and a
number of variables across all three cases. These variables include the
paradigmatic orientations of change managers, organizational culture, change
managers’ theories-in-use, and congruence. A basis for generalizability did
surface with regard to the relationship between some of these variables and
resistance to change. A positive relationship was observed between resistance
to change and each of these variables.

Reliabilig

Reliability refers to the replicability of a study. Crewsell (1994) suggests
that multi-case studies provide a sound basis for evaluating reliability through
their potential to produce patterns or themes across cases. This was certainly
the case with the present research.

One factor strengthening the reliability of this study emanates from the
fact that all three organizations are part of a national organization that shares
cultural similarities and a long history. This point is important in reflecting upon
contextual differences and similarities between each organization. While each
organization exists within considerably different university and state/county

cultures, they also share a number of cultural and functional similarities. They:

86

1) share an educational mission that emphasizes local needs; 2) offer
educational programs in similar learning domains and to similar learners; 3)
connect to the overarching outreach function of their respective universities; and

4) have compatible administrative architectures.

87

CHAPTER FIVE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

Changing Environmental Conditions

The concept of self-directed teams at MSU Extension is consistent with
the ethos of executive leaders—the director and associate director of Extension,
and the Vice Provost for University Outreach (VPUO), in particular. They came
to MSU during the late 19805 through mid-1990s from positions at other
universities, and introduced a package of changes, including SDWTs. The
overarching objective was to energized the University’s capacity to connect its
knowledge resources, through various forms of scholarship and service, with
priority issues as identified by Michigan citizens and other stakeholder groups.
SDWTs, introduced in 1994, were one of the tools introduced to achieve that
vision.

Consistent with the Provost’s vision of Extension as an institutional
instrument for supporting a significantly enhanced University outreach function,
the Director of Extension began to report to both the Vice Provost and Dean,
Agriculture and Natural Resources (VP&D, ANR) and the VPUO. Prior to this
realignment, the Extension Director reported only to the VP&D, ANR. With
Extension now reporting to both administrators, Extension’s focus broadened—
from limited and focused (ANR-related) to span the breadth of the institution.
Functionally, this change meant that Extension would now work collaboratively

across many colleges and academic departments on issues of importance to

88

Michigan’s citizens and communities. This restructuring, itself a “new way of
doing business” at MSU, prompted new thinking within Extension and ANR about
how to work in an inclusive, integrated manner with traditional and non-traditional
stakeholders outside the University. This paradigmatic evolution and shift,
spawned by the Provost’s vision, culminated in selecting an Assistant Provost for
Lifelong Education (title later became VPUO) in 1989. A new Director of
Extension was hired in 1991, and a new Associate Extension Director of
Extension was hired in 1992.

Both the new Director and Associate Director of Extension exhibited a
strong predisposition for and commitment to: shared leadership, strategic forms
of planning, and interdisciplinary, team-based approaches to Extension
programming. They also shared an appreciation for “flatter” organizational
structures, responsive processes that encouraged teamwork and collaboration,
and approaches that engaged customers in identifying issues (associated with
Extension programming) of importance to them. Reflecting the view that
customers can and should be full partners in the development of Extension’s
research and programmatic priorities and even programs, this approach required
that state specialists, county-based Extension staff, and customers to work
together, in an integrated fashion, to identify issues and co-generate educational
responses to them. During this period, patterns of thought and action began to
emerge that gave rise to operating principles and strategies for operationalizing

this new vision for MSU Extension and the organizational norms it represented.

89

Something Is Wrong
During the late 19805, MSU Extension administrators and faculty began

hearing from stakeholder groups about concerns that Extension agents were
unprepared to address many complex problems that were emerging around
structural and institutional changes in agriculture. In response to these
expressions of concern, Extension administrators began to consider how
Extension might organize itself in ways to enable campus specialists and county
staff to work more effectively together to address these external concerns.
Specific objectives underlying this effort included: 1) a desire for more integration
and collaboration between campus specialists and county staff; 2) more
integrated, interdisciplinary work across agriculture-related academic
departments; 3) expanded opportunities for county-based Extension agents to
specialize; 4) more relevant Extension programs; 5) quicker responses to
constituent issues and concerns, and 6) more direct involvement of constituents
in the development of Extension research and education programs.

As these objectives were identified in 1994, the Associate Dean of
Extension searched for organizational innovations to address MSU Extension‘s
challenges. This search revealed that SDWTs had proven to be successful in
accomplishing similar objectives within the private sector. Encouraged by this
evidence, and supported by considerable agreement within and between MSU
Extension administration and the University Outreach Office over organizational

form and function, discussion began to build within MSU Extension's

90

administrative leadership team concerning how SDWTs might be employed to

address MSU Extension's objectives.

Economic and Related Congitions

Occurring simultaneously, but unrelated to levels of stakeholder
satisfaction with MSU Extension, was the reality that the organization faced a
$3.5 Million budget shortfall in FY 1992-93. MSU Extension, College, and
University-level administrators believed that SDWTs represented a new
approach to Extension work that could generate support and funding for a new
legislative initiative associated with animal agriculture.

In response to these budget conditions, MSU Extension began to develop
and adopt a number of strategies designed to provide an acceptable level of
service to its traditional agricultural constituencies, in the face of dramatically
reduced resources. In addition to a dramatic downsizing effort with MSU
Extension, which will be described later, these strategies included not filling a
number of vacant state-level Extension specialist positions spread among a
number of agricultural disciplines. This decision began to heighten concern on-
and off-campus about the capacity of Extension to respond adequately to
constituent needs at a time of increasing scrutiny and growing dissatisfaction
around Extension’s responsiveness and relevance.

Reductions in Extension state specialist faculty alarmed leaders
associated with a number of agricultural commodity groups. Due to changes in

and the diversity of Michigan’s agriculture, complex technical issues and

91

questions were facing farm operators, agri-businesses and commodity groups.
This situation generated a desire for more specialized Extension faculty. Issues
to be addressed ranged from how the apple industry would respond to public
concerns over food safety...to implications of the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996. . .to concerns over the impact of environmental regulations in the fruit and
vegetable industries. . .to swine industry concerns over vertical market integration.
When a number of agriculture state specialist positions went unfilled, a number
of commodity and agriculture-based interest groups began expressing concern
that many of the county-based Extension agents lacked the specialized
knowledge necessary to adequately and promptly help them. These groups
insisted that there were too few state specialists to compensate for the perceived
“expertise gap” among agents. A major internal response to this criticism was for

field-based agents to express an interest in becoming more specialized.

Agent Specialization

As early as the late 19803, county-based Extension staff began examining
their relationships with external constituent groups, and to consider ways to
improve their responsiveness to these groups. In 1990-1991, a survey
conducted by the Michigan Council of Extension Associations (a group internal to
MSU Extension, comprised of county-based staff) revealed concerns among
agents regarding the quality of their relationship with, and responsiveness to,
their constituents. As a follow-up to this survey, an Extension-wide working

group (called the Empowerment Committee) was formed to discuss this issue in

92

more depth, and to recommend strategies that would enable agents to respond
in faster, more meaningful ways to customer needs. A major theme was a desire

by agriculture agents to offer clientele more specialized knowledge and support.

Self-directed Work Team
Strategy Development and Implementation

An early attempt was made to experiment with various team-based
initiatives. In January 1994, the Associate Director of Extension created three
self-directed teams called Area of Expertise Teams (AoEs). This first group of
SDWTs included a Dairy Team, a Livestock Team, and a Field Crops Team.

A significant factor in determining the success of these earliest teams was
the quality of the relationships that existed between members and associated
constituencies. For example, campus specialists, county agents, and associated
external stakeholder who made up the Field Crops AoE Team had a history of
cooperation prior to the formation of the team. The quality of these relationships
extended to the Team experience, permitting team process and activities to
develop with reasonable speed and stability. However, counterparts on the Dairy
AoE Team lacked a history of solid working relationships. This challenged the
development of unity among members, and had an affect on the team’s ability to
establish a shared sense of purpose and direction.

To help the Dairy AoE Team, the Associate Director of Extension
introduced in 1994 a process called Developing a Curriculum (DACUM). Based

on the idea that process was at least as important as product, DACUM was

93

employed to help the Dairy Team develop a list of individual competencies that
agents would need to be optimally effective in assisting external stakeholders.
DACUM, in combination with highly valuable administrative coaching support,
helped the Dairy AoE Team move forward. One indication of the Dairy Team's
formative progress was their ability to generate a set of rules, called 'boundary
conditions,’ that put forward performance and operational expectations for use in
guiding their relationships and responsiveness to external constituencies and to
each other. Later, boundary conditions were adopted by other teams to
determine why they were working together, what they would do together, and
how they would work together.

When the dramatic $3.5 Million budget shortfall hit Extension in 1994-95,
painful organizational downsizing ensued. The budget crisis was not viewed as
a major consideration in MSU Extension's decision to adopt SDWTs. The
budget shortfall did, however, make the move to SDWTs harder by dramatically
reducing the availability of resources with which to fund early teams and provide
coaching support during the formative stages of team development.

Perhaps the most significant feature of MSU Extension’s restructuring was
eliminating traditional program area administrative units that had directed and
supported Extension programming, along with the associated Program Director
positions. Of particular significance was the reality that Program Directors would
not be present to provide administrative and coaching support to new and

emerging AoE Teams.

94

As a response to the eliminating program areas, MSU Extension began
creating more AoE teams—in effect, replacing an administrative-based structure
with a team-based structure. By 2000, 33 teams span MSU Extension, 22 of

them focusing primarily on agriculture-related subject matter.

Early Responses to Self Directed Work Teams

Responses from Countv-basedjgents

In response to external feedback suggesting that they needed more
specialized skills, some agents concluded that specialization was “a fad” that
would pass with time. Others concluded that they did, in fact, need to develop
more specialized skills. And some concluded that they needed to connect more
quickly with campus specialists. Despite the attractiveness of increasing one's
individual skills and knowledge through expanded training and team resources,
some agents were concerned that they not lose their traditionally close
connections with local constituents as they spent time working as a member of a
state-wide team.

As time passed, some of the slower-to-change agents began to associate
a number of personal and professional benefits with the SDWT approach (such
as increased professional development and specialization opportunities) and
began to warm to the team concept. The State of Michigan's funding of MSU’s
Animal Initiative—an Extension and Agriculture Experiment Station program
designed to focus specialized research and education activities on the State’s

production animal agriculture sector—provided additional dollars to team

95

members interested in building their expertise. In addition, agents soon realized
that they now had greater access to team members who possessed specialized
skills and knowledge. The effect—increasing 'buy-in’ to SDWTs by county

agents.

Responses from County Government and Other External Stakeholders

Some agents were concerned that local County officials might resist the
idea of "their agent" spending significant time out of the county to work on teams
with a statewide focus. However, as it became clearer that team members
would be able to leverage new and more extensive knowledge resources, these
concerns began to dissipate. In fact, the team concept quickly became popular
with county officials anxious to bring more expertise into their counties. Dramatic
rises in county funding of county agents (from $12 million in 1997 to $22 million
in 1999) were viewed as evidence that some county government officials
supported teams and the value they had for county-based programming.

An additional feature of Extension's move toward greater connections
between campus and county was the involvement of local, non-governmental
stakeholders in the process of hiring County Extension staff. One notable effect
of this approach was to strengthen local stakeholder identification with county
agents and their work, thereby broadening the support of agents locally. Often,
those who had been most critical of agents now became ardent supporters,
particularly when they learned how much expertise "their" agent would be able to

bring home as a member of a state SDWT.

96

To further strengthen local and state support for teams, MSU Extension
began forming Advisory Councils for AoEs. The addition of these councils
provided external constituents with another venue for interacting with Extension.
Already in place were County Extension Councils (in 76 of 83 counties), the
State Extension and Experiment Station Council, and less common structures
called “Extension Coalitions,” which formed around specific programming
priorities. Constituents serving on both County Extension Councils and AoE
Advisory Councils stakeholders were able to observe and understand the links
between AoE-based programming across county lines. The affect of this
increased understanding was to educate many external stakeholders about the
benefits of AoE Teams while maintaining support for county-based Extension
education programs. When AoEs experience successes, those successes were
more readily noticed across wider expanses of people, organizations and
influence, thereby building the political capital of Extension at both the state and

local levels.

Bamnses from Campus Facglty

Early responses to SDWTs among department Chairpersons and faculty
specialists in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources were mixed.
Some faculty simply did not want to work within a team structure, particularly if
doing so meant that they had to share credit for their work. This was a particular
concern among some non-tenured faculty who saw the need to share credit for

team-based work as a threat to their ability to get tenure, with its traditional

97

dependence upon the demonstration of scholarship by individual faculty
members. Some well-established faculty members had negative opinions about
teams, feeling that they would sap resources and dilute the quality of their work.
Others were aware of and concerned about “the disconnects” between the
University and its traditional clientele groups, and between themselves and
county-based Extension agents. They were anxious to bridge these gaps
through a team-oriented approach.

Early interest among department chairpersons in SDWTs emerged largely
as a function of a legislative initiative (called “Revitalization of Michigan Animal
Agriculture”), which was intended to address the many complex issues facing
dairy and livestock operators. Called the “Animal lnitiative” within the University,
this $4.03 million program brought $1.58 million to MSU Extension. The five
participating campus departments included Large Animal Sciences Clinical
Sciences, Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Food Science and
Human Nutrition, and Animal Science. These funds served as a powerful
incentive to department chairpersons and faculty to find ways for integrating
knowledge and resources through team-based forms of planning and program
development.

While the idea of teams working across disciplines was appealing to
(perhaps) a majority of campus-based specialists, some faculty and department
chairpersons lacked knowledge and experience in operating in a team-based
environment. Acceptance of teams was easier in units where administrators and

faculty members already valued team-based research and publication efforts.

98

Summary
The adoption of SDWTs within MSU Extension grew from a paradigmatic
shift and from synergies associated with that shift. The development of an
implementation strategy grew out of a shared understanding of and appreciation
for what teams are, and how they might serve MSU Extension. Compelling
environmental signals suggested that change was required in the way Extension
related to its stakeholders. A severe budget crisis provided the rationale to move

as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

FINDINGS

Subguestion #1
What conditions led to the adoption of self-directed teams at each study

site?

Theoretical Proposition 1A
Some condition or combination of conditions serve to precipitate change within
organizations.
Theoretical Proposition 18
Organizational change unfolds within one or more theoretical change models.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Change at MSU Extension

The data collected in this study suggest that the adoption of SDWTs at
MSU was both intentional and evolutionary. On one hand, there was a clear
intention among decision-makers to adopt self-directed teams. On the other

hand, there was a willingness to “learn as we go along.” Consequently, the

adoption strategy was deliberate and emergent.

99

In the beginning, considerable effort was expended to understand the
potential for the success of self-directed teams, but this effort was tempered by a
general understanding among decision makers that they were exploring
uncharted waters as organizational change agents and as an organization. This
approach relies much less on decision makers deliberating about theoretical
perspectives associated with organizational change and much more on their
personal theories-in-use (Argyris), peer understanding (knowledge of
experiences at other institutions), understanding of the literature associated with
self-directed teams. The study data also suggest that organizational change
occurred through an intentional effort to respond to a combination of observed
environmental signals and internal conditions with the specific innovation of self-
directed teams.

While no single model stands alone in its ability to explain the adoption of
self-directed teams at MSU Extension, elements of several models were
observed and, in combination, may provide a theoretical basis for understanding
how organizational change and innovation occurred in MSU Extension. A
number of authors have observed that innovation is often a reaction to external
factors (Zaltman and Duncan; 1977; Terreberry; Downs, 1967; Cummings and
Worley, 1993; Nadler, Shaw & Walton and Associates, 1995). The study data
suggest that both internal and external factors contributed to the decision to
adopt self-directed teams at MSU Extension.

Cummings and Worley (1993) describe an eight step action research

model of change that includes problem identification; consultation with a

100

behavioral science expert; data gathering and preliminary diagnosis; feedback to
client or group; joint diagnosis of the problem; joint action planning; and data
gathering following action. During the late 1980s, a number of commodity
agriculture groups in Michigan began to express their displeasure with
Extension’s level of preparedness to help farm operators and agri-businesses
deal successfully with diverse and complex agriculture issues. Subsequent
developments resemble a string of organizational thought and action that
approximate Cummings and Worley’s change model. As University and
Extension administrators became aware of these concerns, they began talking
with Extension officials, agricultural commodity representatives, and others within
and outside the University to determine the nature of the problem and its causes.
They then conducted a preliminary search for solutions (i.e., problem
identification, data gathering and analysis, problem diagnosis, and action
planning).

The preliminary “diagnosis”--the problem was related to disconnects that
had occurred between Extension campus specialists and county agents, and
between Extension and its constituent groups in the agricultural community.
Placed in a university-wide frame, this problem was examined in the context of a
larger concern with the extent to which the University’s outreach mission was
being achieved. Extension’s role in achieving that mission was examined, as
was its connectivity to the University at large. The decision to have the Director
of Extension report to both the VP&D, ANR and the VPUO signaled a basic

philosophical change in what was going to be expected from Extension, on-

101

campus and off. Specifically, Extension was going to connect the knowledge
resources of the entire University in relationship to a reconceived state-wide
outreach mandate. This would require Extension to be more connective and
expansive though the development of new, cross-college collaborations.

Nadler and Tusman’s (1995) four-part model of organizational change
may be useful for understanding both the changes that were occurring within the
University and the changes that would eventually take place withinIMSU
Extension. Nadler and Tushman identify four basic types of change: incremental
change, discontinuous change, reactive change, and anticipatory change. The
last two types of change are important for understanding change prompted by
forces associated with an organization’s operating environment. The University's
top leaders believed that the University’s future lay in its ability to be relevant in
the lives of Michigan’s citizens and communities. The decision to reinforce the
University’s outreach activities by enhancing Extension’s outreach role may be
seen as a reactive change made in response to an environmental signal from
Michigan citizens. This type of change is also incremental, as it did not involve
organization-wide system change but, rather, evolved through inter-
organizational adjustments in the form of re-routed reporting lines.

Once a new Extension Director was hired, a paradigmatic ‘critical mass’
was reached, which provided a sufficiently supportive administrative environment
for the emergence of self-directed work teams. This internal environment would
soon look much different from previous Extension organizations at Michigan

State University. The prior "’look” involved fixed program area structures that

102

provided administrative direction, resources, and support for county-based
agents. Consistent with Lewin’s (1951) model of change in which forces
supporting both the status quo and change within organizations exist in
equilibrium until one force gains the upper hand, the new Extension
administrative regime made a clear departure from how Extension had operated
at MSU. It is also consistent with Schein’s (1992) view that, in response to some
crisis or problem, change may be ushered in by outsiders whose ideas form the
basis of new organization-wide assumptions and behaviors. Change is adopted if
the outsider’s ideas and assumptions defuse the crisis or solve the problem. If
the outsider’s ideas are unsuccessful in solving the problem, the change effort
will likely fail. The new Extension Director (hired in 1991) and the new Associate
Director (hired in 1992) worked together to establish an approach in which
decisions affecting program direction would: 1) involve a wider array of
organizational members, external stakeholders and administrators; and 2) be
made in a more decentralized and pluralistic fashion.

Lewin’s (1951) change model is also helpful in explaining the conditions
associated with the adoption of SDWTs at MSU Extension. The first of Lewin’s
steps, unfreezing, involves reducing forces that maintain status quo behavior.
The traditional technology transfer model of Extension predominated Extension
education at MSU prior to the adoption of SDWTs. The predominant role of
campus specialists was to conduct research and generate knowledge. The role
of county-agents was to disseminate this knowledge to constituents through a

variety of educational venues including workshops, newsletters, presentations,

103

and one-on-one consultations. The role of constituents was to “consume this
knowledge.” However, it soon became apparent that a number of disconnects
had occurred that, when taken together, suggested that this approach had
become ineffective as a means of addressing the needs of a broad array of
agricultural constituents across the state. Specifically, the complexity of
Michigan agriculture with its numerous commodities, on combination with a
plethora of new federal environmental regulations, generated educational needs
among many farm operators and organizations that Extension was ill equipped to
address. The traditional research approach, often driven by researcher interests,
sometimes differed considerably from constituents’ needs. Consequently,
Extension’s expertise was found by many agricultural constituents to be of
questionable relevance. Additionally, the questions being asked of many county-
based agents required specialized knowledge that many agents, who had
traditionally focused on a broad array of agriculture issues, did not possess.
Soon, concerns began to surface among Extension’s traditional agricultural
constituencies that Extension researchers and agents were increasingly unable
to provide the specialized knowledge needed to address an emerging set of
complex issues and concerns. Traditionally, these constituencies (agricultural
commodity groups) were among Extension’s most ardent supporters. Their
political influence represented a formidable force in Michigan. Once these
constituent groups became dissatisfied with Extension’s capacity to respond to
their most pressing issues, they stood in opposition to the status quo model.

Their voice became a force for change.

104

Quinn’s (1996) “deep change” model also speaks to MSU Extension’s
problems with its agricultural constituents. According to this model, new
organizational systems are created in response to misalignments that emerge
when an organization’s internal realities (in this case the traditional Extension
education delivery model described above) and changes in its external
environment (represented in this study by changing constituent needs). The
kinds of organizational changes Quinn addresses include the adoption of
transformational approaches to leadership and an organizational self-
examination to explore internal cultural barriers to change. Both of these
functions were features of MSU Extension’s adoption of self-directed teams.

Finally, Bacharach, Bamberger and Sonnenstuhl’s (1996) action model of
organizational change holds that organizations and their members share an
interest in establishing and maintaining a sense of organizational stability. That
model is useful for understanding how MSU Extension’s stakeholder-based
concerns connected to the organization’s change theory. MSU Extension has
traditionally based its educational program, perceived or assessed, on the needs
of constituents. This premise has been fundamental to MSU Extension’s
organizational mission since its earliest days, and provides a stable conceptual
foundation for the work of Extension and its many employees. When stakeholder
dissatisfaction with agent responsiveness and skill began to surface in the early
19905, Extension administrators began considering how organizational
effectiveness and efficiency might be improved in ways that would result in

increased agent effectiveness at the local level. Self-directed teams were viewed

105

by Extension administrators as a way to substantially improve Extension program
design and delivery. Specifically, self-directed teams were a structural means to
enhance agent capacity, as well as to improve connectivity and programmatic
synergy between campus specialists and county-based agents.
Theoretical Proposition 10
An organization’s change strategy unfolds within a theoretical framework
comprised of the members’ and change manager’s Theories-in-use.
Theories-ln-Use

Argyris (1976) and Argyris and Schon (1974) suggest that organizational
members operate based on implicit assumptions that guide behavior and
influence how they perceive, think, and feel about things. They describe these
assumptions as “theories-in-use.” Applying this theory to Extension helps to
explain how a need for change was perceived within MSU Extension, and how a
response to that need was framed. The following sections describe what the
data revealed to be several theories-in-use that surfaced during data collection,
accompanied by a brief explanation as to how each may have influenced the

adoption of self directed teams at MSU Extension.

Theories-ln-Use AboLLExtension

Theom #1
Extension programs would be better if delivered through SDWTs.

Following an overview of some of the literature describing these benefits,
decision makers concluded that Extension educators would be able to produce

and deliver more innovative programs to their constituencies through self-

106

directed teams. They also concluded that teams would permit county agents a
venue through which to specialize. Besides addressing the interests of county
agents directly, specialization was viewed by Extension administrators as a
means by which county agents and state specialists could forge stronger

relationship and pursue more applied research and education initiatives.

Theogy #2
Extension employees generally possess a team-based work orientation.

Committees have been a common work form within MSU Extension for
many years. Committees have been used to perform a wide variety of
organizational activities, including the development and delivery of educational
programs, services and projects; the allocation of resources; and the
identification of issues. Consequently, MSU Extension employees have
considerable experience working as members of committees and in other forms
of groups.

This sustained, organization-wide experience with group-based work
served to influence two organizational assumptions that supported the transition
to the adoption of a more extensive, expansive, and transformative team
approach—SDWTs. The first is that MSU Extension employees are, as a group,
comfortable with group-based work and familiar with the concepts upon which it
is based. The second assumption is that teams and committees are basically
the same thing, and that differences between the two concepts are related
primarily to the quality of relationships, and the synergy generated between and

among members.

107

Taken together, these assumptions appear to have at least encouraged
the emergence of a general belief among decision makers that the comfort of
working on self-directed work teams would engender the same depth of
understanding as working in traditional forms, such as committees and task
forces. Another way of stating this: working as members of self-directed teams
would not be viewed by employees as fundamentally different from working as
members of committees, task forces and other work groups. As one respondent
put it, "We believed that self directed work teams wouldn‘t be much of a stretch

for our employees.”

Theou #3
SDWTs ‘fit’ Extension’s organizational culture.

Examples of consistency between decision makers’ values surrounding
SDWTs emerged frequently during the data collection process. All individuals
who were significantly involved in the decision to adopt SDWTs at MSU
Extension had worked for MSU Extension for several years, had worked for
Extension organizations in other states, or both. In addition, all decision makers
expressed support for a fundamental Extension organizational value: Extension’s
basics purposes is to empower people as a means of building individual,
organizational, and community capacity. Additionally, many decision makers
expressed the belief that Extension employees would share their enthusiasm for
SDWTs.

Decision makers believed strongly that MSU Extension employees shared

a number of values that were consistent with the values required to work

108

successfully as members and leaders of self-directed work teams. A frequently-
cited example: MSU Extension’s long history of working with and through
collaborative work structures, such as committees and task forces, which often
included campus and county-based employees from multiple administrative
levels and program areas, and which generally employed consensus-based
decision making procedures. Common responses given to explain Extension’s
widespread practice of working with and through committees and task forces

included:

Groups represent a participatory approach, a core value in MSU Extension.
Groups bring multiple perspectives to bear on issues, projects, etc. which, in
turn, lead to broader and more creative solutions and ideas.

. Many employees value and enjoy the collegiality associated with working with
their colleagues, often more than working alone or with one or two other
people.

0 County office staffs are encouraged to incorporate team-based values,
including mutual support and collaboration, into program planning, design
and delivery.

Respondents believed, virtually without exception, that these values were an

integral part of MSU Extension's organizational culture, particularly among

county-based employees and administrators.
An equally strong belief existed among respondents that the dimension of

MSU Extension’s culture represented by these values represented an

exceptionally high degree of fit with the values required by self-directed work

teams. This belief absolutely dominated the thinking of decision makers. In fact,

the researcher failed to uncover any evidence to suggest that any other

interventions (other than self-directed work teams) were explored or considered

109

in response to the issues and concerns that had surfaced from within and

outside Extension. No reason for this surfaced during data collection.

Theories-In-Use Apout Organization

Theogy #1
Shared leadership is more effective than concentrated leadership.

Change managers, most specifically the Director and Associate Extension
Director, shared the view that leadership was most effective when it was shared
with organizational members. They also believed that a fundamental role of

leaders was to develop leadership capacity in others.

Theog #2
Team-based work is more effective than individual-based work.

Change managers believed that collaboration and team-based work
forms, which foster multiple perspectives on issues and solutions, foster the

development of more relevant and responsive Extension education programs.

Theom #3
Decentralized authority is more effective than centralized authority.

Change managers believed that decisions pertaining to program design
and delivery were best made by those with the most contact and closest
proximity to constituents. It was generally believed that, because county-based
staff members work directly with constituents, they have a better sense of

constituents’ needs and concerns.

110

Theory #4
SDWTs fit well with MSU Extension’s culture.

Based upon their understanding of self-directed work teams, in
combination with their belief that MSU Extension’s long history of conducting
business using committees and collaborative work forms, a general belief
emerged among change managers that MSU Extension’s culture was highly

conducive to self-directed work teams.

Theom #5
SDWTs would be successful in Extension as permanent structures.

Despite the many differences in organizational culture and operations
between private sector organizations and large public bureaucratic organizations,
change managers were unconcerned that virtually all of the literature on self-
directed work teams reflected the private sector experience. They were also
unconcerned that self-directed work teams were generally employed as
temporary organizational tools rather than as permanent organizational

structures.

Theom #6
Extension would be more effective with SDWTs than without them.

Based upon their knowledge of the organizational efficiencies and other
advantages associated with self-directed teams as described in the literature, as
well as their concerns with a number of disconnects that were being reported
between state specialists and campus-based Extension staff, change managers

believed that self-directed work teams offered an obvious solution to an

111

emerging problem. Specifically, change managers believed self-directed work
teams represented a venue for producing enhanced interaction and collaboration
between state specialists and county-base staff that would result in more

relevant, innovative research initiatives and educational programs.

Theom #7
Member resistance to change was Inevitable and Extension could adjust its

systems to accommodate SDWTs.

Adoption decision makers generally believed that resistance to self-
directed teams would surface. And while respondents generally believed that
resistance would be stronger among state specialists and academic
departments, no clear consensus emerged from the data concerning where such
resistance would surface, how strong it might be, or what form or forms it would
take. However, a number of respondents did indicate that they expected to
encounter resistance to teams where University faculty specialists and
departments placed higher value upon independent, individual contributions and
work while placing less value on team-based work activities. Another common
assumption among decision makers was that organizational resistance to self-
directed teams could and would be overcome with the successful adoption of
self-directed teams in MSU Extension being the result. Much of this optimism
emanated out of two additional assumptions. The first was that, as an
organization, Extension would be able to adapt its systems, policies and culture
sufficiently to accommodate the requirements of self-directed teams. The

second assumption was that, through a combination of administrative authority,

112

peer pressure, persuasion and demonstrable success, resistance in all its forms
could and would be eliminated or reduced enough for self-directed teams to be

successful.

Subguestion #2
What organizational factors were antecedent to the adoption of self-

directed teams at each study site?

Theoretical Prqmsition 2A
A shared leadership paradigm among change managers and leaders facilitates
organizational change.
Mgmatic Consistency Among Decision Makers

As was previously described, the executive leaders in MSUE and at MSU
at the time shared the view that organizations work best when employees
participate in making decisions that influence organizational directions. They
also shared the view that organizations were most effective when groups of

employees were empowered with the authority to make decisions affecting their

immediate work and environment.

Theoretical Proposition 2_B
A participatory approach to change management facilitates member acceptance
and support of change efforts.
Employee Partigipation in Adopting Self-directed Work Teams

MSU Extension’s change strategy reflected a participatory approach that
utilized the perspectives of Extension administrators, Extension employees, and

external stakeholders. This approach is consistent with the administrative

paradigm shared by Extension and relevant University administrators at the time.

113

This type of approach to change is driven, simultaneously, by the values and
goals of organizational managers, employees and external stakeholders.
Management-driven change, on the other hand, is driven solely by the values
and goals of management (Raymon and Wyman, 1998).

The change process at MSU Extension included committees, dialogues,
needs assessments, and other forms of participation that included or attempted
to identify the values, needs and issues held by organizational members and
external constituents. While the basic idea of adopting SDWTs originated within
administration, administrative decision makers assumed that whatever chances
teams might or might not have would ultimately depend upon the degree to
which Extension employees and constituents accepted and supported SDWTs.
Bruce and Wyman (p. 12) also point out that in participant-driven change, control
of the change process is not necessarily shared and may shift toward
management-led groups that are dominated by management’s agenda. At MSU
Extension, much of the change process design and subsequent strategy
development was, in fact, performed by committees and task forces that had as
members representatives from all of Extension’s organizational levels. But
individuals who supported management’s view about the value and relevance of
SDWTs influenced these groups. Nevertheless, change initiators and designers
understood the fundamental importance of organization-wide acceptance of and

support for SDWTs as a basic condition for success.

114

Theoretical Proposition 2C
The degree of congruence between pre- and post-change organizational culture
and systems has an impact upon resistance to change. .

OvercomingResistance to Self-directed Teams at MSU Extension

While addressing the question of how to manage change, a number of
authors have addressed the question of how change may be into
institutionalized. Cummings and Worley (1993, pp. 187-199) describe five
processes concerning institutionalization of organizational change. The first,
socialization, involves “...the transmission of information about beliefs,
preferences, norms, and values with respect to the intervention. Because
implementation of OD interventions generally involves considerable learning and
experimentation, a continual process of socialization is necessary to promote
persistence of the change program (p. 187).” While Extension administrators’
visits with faculty members and department chairs were intended to inform them
of the purpose, value and norms associated with AoE teams, their opportunities
to do so were limited. Consequently, Extension was not able to lead an ongoing
dialogue about how AoE Teams might or might not fit within CANR departments.
This proved to be an inhibitor to widespread understanding of SDWT concepts,
and may have contributed to the reluctance of some faculty to more fully
consider and reflect upon their own relationships to SDWT concepts generally,
and AoE Teams, specifically.

The second institutionalization process, commitment, binds organizational
members to the behaviors associated with a particular change. Perhaps

recognizing that giving CANR faculty an opportunity to work as a member of an

115

AoE Team might generate support for the AoE concept among interested or
curious faculty, CANR faculty members were invited to join and/or co-Iead early
AoE Teams. Some faculty who expressed an early interest in teams joined and,
in some cases, accepted co-leadership for some of these early teams. The
study data suggest that the success experienced by a few of the early teams
was related directly to the commitment of some of these faculty.

The third process, reward allocation, holds that linking both intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards to the behaviors required by a particular change is an important
factor in institutionalizing change efforts. Desired behaviors, when properly
rewarded, become the preferred behaviors of organizational members, thereby
leading to the institutionalizing of both the reward system and the behaviors they
were intended to encourage. This process is particularly relevant to the adoption
of SDWTs at MSU Extension. The reward system at MSU Extension was initially
incongruent with two of the most fundamental concepts associated with MSU
Extension’s approach to self-directed teams, namely, collaboration and a multi-
disciplinary approach. The fact that the reward systems in ANR departments
treat the matter of team-based work differently may help explain why there was
not universal and enthusiastic acceptance of AoE across the departments.

Extension administrators anticipated at least some of the resistance points
to self-directed teams at MSU. Much of their anticipation was based on an
understanding that self-directed teams require an organizational culture with
systems in place that put considerable value on and reward team-based work.

They clearly understood that “demonstrating scholarship” was predominantly

116

viewed as an individual accomplishment, and that university evaluation and
reward systems had historically reflected that view. Consequently, it was
assumed that team-based research would not be valued as highly as individually
based research, and that non-tenured faculty might be hesitant to make
significant investments of time or energy in team-based activities.

To get a better sense of where and how much resistance to SDWTs
would emerge from within the University, and to solicit early support for the team
concept, Extension administrators began discussing their interest in SDWTs with
department chairpersons and faculty. These discussions ranged from informal
conversations, to presentations at faculty meetings, to special Extension- and
college-wide, meetings to explain SDWT concepts and gain formal feedback to
Extension’s plans to adopt them.

Through this ‘Iitmus test’ process, Extension administrators learned a
great deal about the nature and location of faculty resistance to SDWT concepts,
and used this knowledge to alter some implementation strategies, as well as to
develop new strategies. The degree of resistance was varied and ranged from
agent reluctance to join teams to attempts by some faculty to subvert Extension’s
attempts to implement teams. The single most predominant resistance theme
among county-based agents was the concern that team-based work would only
add to an already overburdened workload.

Despite that, Extension administrators were confident that MSU

Extension’s organizational experience and subsequent familiarity with

117

committee-based work would translate into an acceptable level of acceptance of
team-based principles among county-based agents.

On campus, resistance to self-directed teams took a number of forms,
emanating largely from two sources--individual faculty members and some
departmental chairpersons. Not surprisingly, some faculty who had built their
careers and reputations around individual effort and research were not interested
in research collaboration and team-based outreach. Additionally, some
department chairs believed that AoEs compromised their ability to influence the
allocation of dollars within the CANR. And, some believed that team-based
Extension work, with its multidisciplinary and often participatory-based approach
to defining research problems and conducting research programs, did not
represent “true scholarship.” These views, particularly when they influenced
and/or were reflected in annual review and promotion-tenure decisions,

represented a significant disincentive to the adoption of SDWTs.

Resistance to Changa

The range of emotions felt by those affected negatively by a change to
teams included fear, anger, insecurity, confusion, loss, disenfranchisement, and
loss of control. Green and Butkus (1999), noted that managing change is
synonymous with managing the emotional responses of people to change,
advise change managers to pursue a strategy of anticipating and then disarming
individuals’ emotional responses to a specific change. In fact, considerable,

sustained effort was expended by a number of Extension administrators and

118

others to address individual emotional responses as they developed. For
example, support was solicited from some departmental promotion and tenure
review committees for valuing the contributions made by untenured faculty to
team-based approaches. Agents, who may have felt ovenIvhelmed by the need
to pick up new skills to work more effectively with state specialists and ultimately
to meet the changing needs of their constituents, were challenged to view teams
as a new and exciting opportunity. To specifically address this issue, the
Associate Extension Director introduced “Developing A Curriculum” (DACUM)
(Nelson, 1988) as a means of identifying core competencies agents would need
to be optimally effective in a changing environment. Funds were provided to
teams to pay for training programs based upon the core competencies they
idenfified.

Extension administrators understood that there was little they could do to
change faculty attitudes about the validity of collaborative, multidisciplinary
scholarship. They did believe, however, that if they were able to make the
faculty promotion and tenure system more “team-friendly,” they would be able to
address a major barrier to faculty support for self-directed teams. In this quest
they received strong support from the recently appointed (also from the outside)
VP&D, ANR, who valued team-based work a legitimate form of scholarship. He
supported the inclusion of team-based work products on faculty vitae during the
promotion and tenure process, and was able to generate increased support for

team-based work among some departmental tenure review committees.

119

Some departments continued to place little value on team-based work
during tenure review. However, the effect of the Dean’s support for team-based
work and Extension administrators’ attempts to convince faculty and department
chairs of the value of team-based work to individual departments, helped to
diminish resistance to and the rejection of AoEs. In addition, some department
chairs and faculty were drawn to the AoE concept. Supportive chairs
encouraged faculty to join and/or provide leadership for early teams. Some
faculty considered a participatory approach to research as a valid and valuable
form of scholarship, and considered it appropriate, given Extension’s outreach

mission.

Subguestion #3
What other factors surfaced at each study site that played a significant role

in either facilitating or impeding the adoption self-directed teams?
Theoretical Proposition 3A
Change strategy reflects a number of variables associated with change
managers that include:
a. familiarity with the theory and practice of change management
b. skill in developing and implementing change Strategy (experience, skill,
leadership)

c. interpretation of environmental conditions.
Informed bv the Literature of SDWTs

The study data suggest that once administrative decision makers were
confident of their assessment of internal and external environmental conditions
(including the issues and problems embedded therein), their attention quickly
focused on the specific innovation of self-directed teams and its potential within

MSU Extension. The data did not suggest that a broad set of intervention

alternatives was considered, one of which being self-directed work teams. In

120

 

fact, MSU Extension's decision to move toward SDWTs was informed primarily
by the literature on self-directed work teams. Literature in areas such as
organizational change, the adoption of innovation, and organizational diagnosis,
was not mentioned as having guided or informed either the decision to adopt

teams or the strategies with which to do so.

Proplem Framing and Solutiormentification

The selection of a solution to a set of perceived organizational problems
occurred quickly. The data suggest that a conscious identification and analysis
of a set of alternative interventions was not a major feature of the decision
making process. Instead, decision makers, following an exhaustive examination
of internal and external conditions and issues, became aware of a specific
intervention, were strongly drawn to it, and proceeded to consider how it might
be adopted within MSU Extension.

The researcher did not uncover any evidence to suggest that
administrative innovations (other than self directed work teams) were considered
in response to the issues and opportunities that surfaced within MSU Extension.
Rather, strategies focused on structural and other changes that would make the
organization more “team friendly.” So attractive was the idea that organization-
wide gains in efficiency and program quality could be realized through the
employment of teams, that the decision about whether or not to introduce teams

was a matter of how and when, rather than if.

121

The researcher discovered that, despite the depth and breadth of
literature available concerning how to understand, prepare for and orchestrate
organizational change, administrators were willing to adopt structural, cultural
and systems change based upon a deeply held belief that the organization would
“find a way” to make teams work. Of course, this belief was grounded in
administrators’ theories-in-use.

An examination into the environmental scanning by one or more
organizational leaders, followed by discussion and then by decision, was the
predominant means of readiness assessment. A number of authors have
emphasized the importance of organizational culture in determining whether and
how innovation takes place within organizations. The movement of MSU
Extension toward self-directed teams began as a vision generated by Extension
administrators. Although the benefits sought through the adoption of teams were
generally well understood among Extension administrative decision makers prior
to the introduction of the earliest teams, there was a general sense that a “good
fit” existed between Extension ‘s culture and that thought to be required for

teams to succeed.

flatecw Development

During 1993, an MSU Extension administrative team consisting of the
Director and Associate Director of Extension, along with the three Program Area
Leaders from each of MSU Extension’s program areas, began to discuss the

appropriateness of SDWTs as a means for addressing a number of

122

 

organizational concerns. These discussions led, in 1993, to the formation of the
Area of Expertise (AoE) Committee, which was MSU Extension’s first formal
attempt to develop an organization-wide strategy with which to adopt SDWTs.
This Committee’s final report, issued in April of 1994, contained the following
sections: a statement of values upon which Extension’s mission statement was
based; a “premise” statement describing how AoE teams relate to Extension
structure; a statement of long-term goals to be achieved through participation on
an AoE team; a set of principles for use in guiding AoE team formation; a
description of a process for use in forming AoE teams; and a list of suggested
AoE teams.

A December 6, 1994 memorandum (Appendix F) from the MSU-E
administrative team was circulated to all county Extension Directors containing
the following enclosures: the AoE Committee final report; suggested steps for
use in implementing AoE Teams; a description of the roles of both the Area of
Expertise and Core Competency Coordination Committee and the Program Area
Coordination Committee; potential strategies with which to generate
understanding of and support for the AoE team concept among external
constituencies; and a number of other documents describing the AoE structure
within the Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Area. This document
fulfilled a number of purposes, including sensitizing all to the need for change
and explaining why AoE teams were an appropriate change tool. It also included
operating guidelines for AoE teams and clarified expectations relating team

participation.

123

Unlike Recardo’s (1999) approach, in which an organization conducts a
proactive readiness assessment intended to determine whether or not teams
should be employed and what changes might be implemented before they are
introduced, an action research model engages change managers and
organizational members as collaborators in discovering how best to conceive
and implement change. Moving forward and reflecting on progress proceeds
iteratively, as learning how to change and changing how to learn about change
go hand in hand.

Cummings and Worley describe two adaptations of the action research
model. The first, participatory action research, provides a high level of
stakeholder involvement in the change process to include “...diagnosing the
organization, designing changes, and implementing and assessing them (p. 30-
31).” The second adaptation is called appreciative inquiry. This approach
involves building upon the positive actions taken within organizations to effect
change, and is guided by the assumption that all organizations are, to one
degree or another, effective at bringing about planned change. This approach
assumes further that, when organizational members are personally invested in
the change process and help generate a vision of a preferred organizational
state, they will demonstrate a high level of commitment to realizing that vision.

In the case of MSU Extension, the Associate Director was aware of the
desire of many agents to specialize more, and of the general recognition that
agents and specialists needed to work more effectively together. At the same

time, he was also exploring the organizational development and management

124

literature to see what interventions were working in the private sector. He then
merged what he was learning—from the field and from the literature—into a
general vision of how self-directed teams might produce synergy and generate
innovation across Extension. That vision formed the basis of an ongoing
discussion throughout the organization on the potential of self-directed teams for
the organization.

These discussions were subsequently given over to a task force that was
asked to recommend suggestions for introducing self-directed teams in
Extension. As the first teams were formed, lessons were learned about the
nature of resistance to teams. As these issues were discovered by team-
leaders, team members and Extension administrators, process and policy
adaptations were introduced. For example, one of the early teams, the Dairy
Team, established their own operating procedures which they termed ‘boundary
conditions’ which articulated a set of principles for use in guiding team form,
function and process.

Discussions occurred throughout Extension concerning the need for
agents to improve their level of skill and responsiveness in order to be able to
satisfy the expectations of a number of commodity interests. Another discussion
concerned the need for county-based agents and campus specialists to work
more effectively together to link field-based problems with appropriate campus
knowledge resources. Still another discussion concerned the need to be more
responsive in delivering relevant programs in what had become a very

competitive external environment.

125

The adoption of self-directed teams at MSU Extension was more of an
iterative process than a management decision imposed upon the organization.
The decision to introduce teams, which was framed for organizational members
as an invitation to move toward a team-based, entrepreneurial approach to work,
was clearly supported and encouraged by Extension administration. Still, the
study data did not reveal a specific adoption strategy with which to introduce self-
directed teams. Neither was there evidence of a systematic diagnosis of the
organization as the basis for determining whether or not teams would be the best
intervention strategy to address organizational change needs.

Together, these findings suggest the existence of a distinct approach to
organizational change and innovation that was introduced and discussed widely
within Extension. This approach formed the basis of an invitation to Extension
specialists and county-based agents to participate in the shared emergence of a
new way to design and deliver Extension education programs. Administrative
decision makers understood MSU Extension and its environment well, and were
confident that self-directed teams held considerable promise as a means of

achieving the benefits they believed would quiet external criticism of Extension.

Coming to an Adoption Dfiecision Quickly

Recardo (1999) observes that organizations often “rush” to introduce
teams with the assumption that they are easy to understand and deploy. He
counters by arguing that team-based work forms are often misunderstood, are

difficult to employ, and may not improve an organization’s position in a

126

competitive environment. As a means of addressing the question of
organizational readiness to adopt teams, Recardo suggests that managers
consider questions about their organizations. These include:

Are teams appropriate for as given location/environment?

If appropriate, what type (task force, cross-functional team, work, team, etc.)
of team is the best fit?

What variables in the organization support and impede team formation?
What are the high-level design recommendations to ensure the success of
teams?

N-s

:5.“

The approach suggested by Recardo, separate from the merits of conducting
such as organizational assessment, reflects the concerned expressed by
Cummins and Worley. The researcher discovered that, in the case of MSU
Extension, organizational leaders were not guided so much by a strategy as
much as they were by the belief that self-directed teams represented, at least on
a conceptual level, a solution to a set of unique organizational problems.
Reflecting an openness to experiment with teams as a means of discovering and
attempting to resolve issues associated with readiness and fit as they emerged,
this approach reflects the basic conceptual framework of what Cummings and
Worley (1997) describe as the action research model of planned change:

The action research model focuses on planned change as a

cyclical process in which initial research about the organization

provides information to guide subsequent action. Then the results

of the action are assessed to provide further information to guide

further action, and so on. This iterative cycle of research and

action involves considerable collaboration between organization

members and OD practitioners. It places heavy emphasis on data

gathering and diagnosis prior to action planning and

implementation, as well as careful evaluation of results after action
is taken. (p. 27-28)

127

CHAPTER SIX

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
Changing Environmental Conditions

Mgmatic Conditions

When this study was undertaken, the Dean of the College of Food,
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) had been in that position for
over 7 years. Prior to that, he served as Director of OSU Extension. In both
capacities, he has remained highly supportive of collaborative work forms and
approaches, a philosophy that has been. fairly representative of the culture of
OSU Extension since at least 1990. The new Extension Director, appointed in
1992, also possesses a predisposition toward collaboration, teamwork, shared
leadership, and an interdisciplinary approach to Extension education. The
cumulative effect of having a College Dean and Extension Director who shared
similar organizational paradigms was to create a fertile environment for the
emergence of formal, team-based work structures.

Because no administrative, philosophical barriers to the emergence of
self-directed work teams existed at this point in time, discussion about the value
of team-based work tended to develop naturally throughout Extension and the
College. Faculty and staff with an interest in exploring team-based approaches
and structures were encouraged to do so. The actual formation of the first self-

directed teams within OSU Extension (in 1991 and 1992) emerged from several,

128

linked environmental phenomena in combination with the paradigmatic

congruence described above.

Economic and Related Conditions

The Ohio legislature’s decision in 1987 to dramatically reduce state
budget support for Higher Education (including OSU Extension) prompted the
University (and Extension) to offer an “early buyout” option for faculty nearing
retirement age. This buyout option produced a significant reduction in state
Extension specialist resources available to address an increasingly complex set
of issues and concerns in the dairy, horticulture, nursery, turf and others
industries. In response to the shortage of specialists, a number of county agents
and district specialists began discussing the formation of ‘clusters’ of district
specialists and county-based agents. These first discussions focused on the
needs of the dairy industry in northeast Ohio, and eventually resulted in the
formation of OSU Extension’s first self-directed team, the Dairy Excel Team, in

1990.

Constituent Concerns

Some state agricultural commodity group concerns emerged around the
ability of OSU Extension to serve their needs following budget-related reductions
in specialists resources. This did not appear to be a statewide issue, however.
Extension faculty, county agents and administrators understood the value of

maintaining credibility with constituent groups and did not want a budget cut to

129

erode that credibility. The challenge to Extension was to become more
responsive and innovative in program development and delivery. The budget
crisis, in combination with the emergence of “new ways of doing business”

internally, provided the sparked organization-wide interest and effort.

Agent Specialiaation

This fiscally-constrained environment prompted agents to consider how
they might meet clientele needs with significantly fewer state specialist
resources. One strategy that emerged was for agents to increase their individual
knowledge and skills within their areas of interest and specialization. These
discussions soon expanded to include Extension administrators, who began
considering how agent specialization might link with team concepts that were
beginning to emerge at the College level.

As a way to move team-based concepts through the organization,
Extension administration began encouraging agents in 1993 to devote up to 25%
of their time working in a preferred area of specialization. They also encouraged
agents and specialists to work together, across county lines, and to experiment
with new partnerships inside and outside Extension. To support this approach,
Extension Administration made a number of incentives and support systems
available to agents and specialists. These included: 1) making per-
agentlspecialist budget allocations to support travel; 2) funding professional
development in support of specialization interests; 3) purchasing equipment and

resource materials for team-based projects; 4) providing release time from

130

county responsibilities to attend team meetings and professional development
programs; and 5) extending invitations to present the results of team-based
efforts to peers at conferences. Somewhat later, teams were encouraged to
apply for special Extension funds made available to encourage the development
of new, innovative Extension programs. Because opportunities for agent
specialization and team formation were voluntary, they tended to attract agents
and specialists with an interest in collaborating with other Extension faculty and
staff on specific projects. These personnel saw potential in teams for producing
high-quality Extension programs in an environment of severely limited financial

and human resources.

Structural Reorganization
In 1994, The WK. Kellogg Foundation awarded The Ohio State University

$133,000 to fund a visioning process to explore what a land grant university
should look like in the 21S" Century. Emphasis was placed on how OSU might
meet the needs of students and constituents from food-related businesses and
industries. Called Project Reinvent, the broad visioning process included a
number of partners within and outside the University. A major objective of the
visioning process was to create a plan to sustain the agreed-upon changes over
time.

In 1996, the Kellogg Foundation provided $1.5 million to the College of
Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences to implement a more connected,

pluralistic and team-based culture within the College. These objectives included

131

exploring alternative faculty and staff reward systems that encourage team-
based work among faculty and between departments; enacting organizational
realignments intended to generate synergies between departments; putting in
place more stakeholder-centered decision making process; and creating new
resource allocation strategies to support these objectives.

A significant result of Project Reinvent was the merger of the departments
of Agronomy, Horticulture, and Crop Science. Other changes included:
combining the Animal, Dairy and Poultry Departments into the Animal Sciences
Department; moving Rural Sociology from Agricultural Economics into
Agriculture Education, which then became the Department of Human,
Community, and Resource Development; and transitioning faculty from the Soils
Department to the School of Natural Resources.

Together, these initiatives signaled a cultural transformation within the
College and OSU Extension and established a foundation for the subsequent

proliferation of team-centered thought and action within OSU Extension.

Strategy Development and Implementation
An Organizational Stratagy
A specific, sequenced plan to introduce and adopt self-directed teams
was not developed within either OSU Extension or the College. However, there
was virtual unanimity among Extension and College administrators that teams

should be encouraged to develop where sufficient need and interest existed.

132

Specific and deliberate strategies were developed, focusing on internal changes

to support the emergence and development of self-directed teams.

Conceptualization

As previously reported, all executive administrators in Extension and the
College embraced organizational philosophies consistent with, and supportive of,
self-directed teams. However, little exploration of the literature of self-directed
work teams had been undertaken to guide, inform, or support the adoption of
self-directed teams. A major reason for this was that little had been written at
the time on this subject.

As teams began emerging, team coordinators and members began taking
a more active interest in the scholarly foundations of teams and team-based
forms of leadership. There was general agreement that, if a scholarly approach
had been taken in the design stage, more teams may have formed earlier and
those that had formed might have experienced less confusion about how to work

effectively.

Early Self-Directed Teams

The complex stew of environmental conditions that marked the late 19803
and early 1990s sparked discussions concerning how to serve constituents in an
environment characterized by reduced resources and heightened expectations.
Much of this discussion focused on strategies that involved collaborating across

disciplines and county lines. There was corresponding interest in bringing about

133

organizational changes that would be lasting, and that would require increasing
dependence on teams as an organizing form.

During 1987, some county agents formed multi-county clusters to address
traditional and emerging issues. Then, in 1990, a Dairy Excel Team formed to
address questions associated with how to do a better of job of working together
to address the needs of the dairy industry in northeast Ohio. The Extension
Nursery and Landscape (ENLT) Team formed in 1992 to address specific
concerns in the turf and nursery industries. As the notion of teaming began to
generate interest across the state, new teams began to form around a number of
other agricultural commodities and contemporary Issues.

The early teams published fact sheets and developed curricula. They
tended to be self-regulating, making decisions about what professional
development opportunities they would pursue, what performance standards they
would adopt, where they might look for additional sources of funds, and which
members they would invite to join. As interest grew within and outside Extension,
teams began forming around agricultural commodities and interest areas
including swine, beef, small fruit, tree fruit, waste, forage/grazing systems,

floriculture, and agronomic crops.

Early Responses to Self-directed Work Teams
Internal Stakeholder Response
Buoyed by strong administrative, philosophical, and logistical support,

self-directed teams at OSU Extension developed naturally. They sprang from

134

the interests and desires of faculty, staff, and constituents. While the process of
development was slow, early teams reflected shared enthusiasm for team
concepts. Teams were viewed as a symbol of both faculty/staff collaboration,
and as evidence of administrative capacity to “walk its talk.”

As has been reported, many county agents wanted to do a better job of
focusing increasingly scarce specialist resources on the needs of local farm
operators and agricultural commodity groups. Teams represented a new venue
for doing this. Active involvement with a state team provided agents interested in
acquiring more specialized knowledge and skills with new opportunities for
professional development. Teams also permitted agents to work in closer
proximity with state and district specialists.

Faculty began viewing a united team as a powerful lever through which to
garner administrative support for program-related issues and hiring needs.
Because the College was highly sensitive to the need to incorporate faculty
members’ team-based contributions during promotion and tenure decisions, little
resistance emerged from junior faculty to working on state teams. And, because
the adoption of self-directed teams at OSU Extension was a process of
emergent and collaborative change—not an administrative mandate—resistance

from faculty and staff was low.

External Stakeholder Response

Some agricultural interest groups were aware of a certain level of agent

frustration with not being able to connect more specialists to local needs and

135

issues. They also understood the budget constraints underlying these
frustrations. Consequently, most agricultural and horticulture interest groups
were anxious to identify a solution that would permit Extension agents to be
more effective locally. They were supportive of Extension’s efforts to try new
strategies, including SDWTs, if doing so would create a more responsive
Extension education delivery system. As teams began to develop, agricultural
interest groups began to take notice of some of the innovative projects and
products being developed by teams. Their response to these early successes
was supportive and enthusiastic.

As evidence of team success mounted, some agricultural interest groups
not represented by teams expressed a desire in getting ‘their own’ Extension
team. One compelling example of the level of support is the decision made by
the Ohio Nursery and Landscape Association to provide launch funding to the
Extension Nursery & Landscape Team (ENLT). That support has grown to an

annual contribution of $35,000 to support team programming and operations.

Summary
Self-directed teams emerged within OSU Extension due to a combination
of a “team-friendly” culture, a College-wide change process, and the need and
interest to become more efficient locally. Teams were not forced upon
Extension; they emerged naturally. Consequently, little or no resistance
developed to frustrate their development. The adoption of self-directed work

teams at OSU Extension is an example of how a serendipitous event, such as

136

OSU Extension’s budget crises, can transform a pattern of thought into a

congruent pattern of action.

FINDINGS

Subguestion #1
What conditions led to the adoption of self-directed teams at each study

site?
Theoretical Proposition 1A
Some condition or combination of conditions serve to precipitate change within
organizations.
Economic Conditions and Changing Roles of Agents and Specialists

A dramatic reduction of state funds for Extension in 1987 set in motion a
number of changes in how Extension agents and specialists worked. The
budget reduction prompted a reduction of state specialist resources through an
early retirement program offered to conserve base dollars. Consequently, fewer
state specialists were available to respond to the needs of an increasingly
complex and diverse agricultural community.

The demands upon producers were growing rapidly to respond to
mandates such as environmental protection rules. At the same time, some
specialists were becoming concerned that their traditional technology transfer
model was losing effectiveness as a means of responding to constituent needs.
It quickly became apparent to some agents, specialists and administrators that
Extension faculty and staff needed to work together to focus research and

education on relevant and current issues. It also reflected a growing recognition

among some specialists that an action research model might be more effective

137

 

in meeting constituent needs than the traditional combination of pure research
and technology transfer.

A broader organizational issue emerged simultaneously around a concern
held by many agents, specialists and administrators that Extension’s credibility
as an effective and responsive partner to agriculture was eroding because of a
budget shortfall and its fallout. In response to these concerns, agents and
district specialists began experimenting with a particular type of work group,
locally called a cluster, enabling the pooling of intellectual and financial
resources. The clusters and early self-directed teams that emerged in northeast
Ohio were a direct response to these economic and constituent-driven
conditions. A second response to the reduction in specialist resources was an
increased desire among many agents to pursue specialized training and
educafion.

County agents were increasingly being asked by constituent groups and
individuals for help in identifying problems and developing solutions to them.
Their traditional approach would be to bring in state or regional specialists.
However, with fewer specialist resources available to them, many agents found
themselves unable to respond adequately. In response, many county agents
began expressing a desire to specialize in subject areas. They also expressed a
desire to expand their teaching and research roles while scaling back their
facilitative and information dissemination roles. This training, supported
financially and logistically by Extension Administration, was intended to help

them specialize in areas of local need and/or professional interest.

138

Theoretical Proposition 1B
Organizational change unfolds within one or more theoretical change models.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Change at OSU Extension

A number of theoretical perspectives are useful in explaining change at
OSU Extension. From a macro perspective, the appreciative inquiry approach to
organizational change embedded within the action research change model is
particularly useful in explaining how self-directed work teams emerged within
OSU Extension. This approach assumes that all organizations do some things
well, and that positive change occurs by building upon what that which works
well within an organization.

Using Nadler and Tushman’s (1995) typology, change within OSU Extension
has been both incremental and reactive. In this model, the clusters that agents
and district specialists formed to pool resources and skills represented individual
innovations at the sub-unit level of Extension that emerged as a reaction to
resource reductions. Because these changes did not emerge throughout the
entire organization, and because they did not represent fundamental strategic or
service/product changes for Extension, they cannot be considered
discontinuous. Because they did not emerge in anticipation of resource
constraints, they cannot be considered anticipatory.

The logic model of planned change developed by Bacharach, Bamberger
and Sonnenstuhl (1996) holds that organizations seek stability by maintaining an
acceptable level of fit or congruence between an organization’s ends and the

means it has available to achieve those ends. The purpose of change within this

139

model is to restore or improve the degree of congruence between organizational
ends and means. In the context of this study, OSU Extension’s end seems to be
that of maintaining an acceptable level of service to clients in a rapidly changing
agricultural environment. The traditional means by which to accomplish this end
was not working as well as it once had. The reduction in state specialist
resources following the 1987 budget significantly created an imbalance in the
means-ends congruence relationship. To re-establish proper balance in the
means-ends relationship, agent/district clusters emerged as a new means of
serving constituents. The net effect of this change was to re-establish
organizational stability through the introduction of a new means.

Theoretical Proposition 1C

An organization’s change strategy unfolds within a theoretical framework
comprised of the members’ and change manager’s Theories-in-use.

Theories-ln-Use Apgut Extension

Theogy #1
Self-directed work teams represented a good “fit” with Extension’s culture.

OSU Extension administrators understood the organizational culture quite
well. Once they came to understand self-directed team concepts, they
understood that these concepts were highly congruent with OSU Extension’s
culture. Value-based similarities between OSU Extension culture and self-
directed work team concepts include:

Valuing employee empowerment

Encouraging employees to take risks on behalf of the organization
Promoting the entrepreneurial approach to resource acquisition
Assigning a high value to multiple perspectives and solutions based upon
diverse perspectives

o Valuing team membership

140

 

- Valuing the involvement of customers/clients in problem identification, and

o Believing that empowerment and self-direction nurtures creativity and, in turn,
promotes innovation.

Theom #2
Encouraging self-directed teams to form voluntarily is consistent with

organizational values.

This theory-in-action highlights a fundamentally important characteristic of
OSU Extension’s culture, which is an administrative commitment to behave in
ways that are consistent with espoused organizational values and shared
assumptions. Argyris and Schon (1978) describe espoused values as values
that are spoken, but not necessarily acted upon. Through a process Schein
(1992) calls “cognitivetransformation,” an espoused value may become a shared
assumption or belief among organizational members if adherence to it produces
a consistently positive outcome for members. While OSU administrators hoped
self-directed teams would become a part of OSU Extension’s organizational
culture, they also believed that the institutionalization of team-based vales would
not occur until a sufficient number of employees were having positive team

expefiences.

Theom #3
The empowerment and self-direction endemic to self-directed work teams

enables team members to self-actualize. This enables them to become more
creative, innovative and entrepreneurial.
A central tenant of the OSU Extension culture is that constraining

individual autonomy puts limits on employee self-actualization.

141

Ipaories-ln-Use About Organization

Theogr #1
Sharing leadership and decision making authority is more effective than

centralized leadership and decision making authority.

OSU Extension administrative leaders assume that, when they empower
employees by sharing leadership and the authority for making management
decisions, they also develop leadership and confidence among employees. They
believe that empowered employees are more likely to express ideas, take
reasonable risks, exhibit leadership behaviors, be creative and innovative, and
act quickly on behalf of OSU Extension and its interests.

As concern rose over how budget reductions were beginning to affect
OSU Extension’s ability to remain responsive to agricultural constituencies, a
number of agents and state specialists needed little if any encouragement to act
in search of solutions. Because it was understood that employees were
encouraged to take initiative in acting on behalf of Extension’s interests, these
individuals engaged the Director of Extension in a discussion concerning the
merits of experimenting with team-based work forms to provide specialized
support to Ohio’s turfgrass industry. These discussions evolved quickly into a

consensus decision to form what would later be understood as OSU Extension’s

first self—directed work teams.

Theogy #2
Self-direction encourages self-actualization among employees. This, in turn,

stimulates creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors
among individuals and within groups.
County agents’ desires to specialize were viewed by OSU administrators

as a desire to deepen skills and become more competent employees. Extension

142

administrators viewed self-direction as a higher order of empowerment, one that
could free agents to respond to individual desires for professional and personal
growth and development. Members of elf-directed teams were encouraged to
design and pursue their own professional development plans, and were

supported with Extension dollars in doing so.

Theom #3
Team-based synergy produces outputs, outcomes, and impacts that are more

relevant to stakeholder interests than those that result from individual effort
alone.

Extension administrators and others attracted to SDWT concepts believe
that self-directed teams would be comprised of agents and specialists from
several disciplines. They believed further that the multiple perspectives inherent
in this type of arrangement would permit a team to define and analyze
constituent issues and concerns from a multitude of perspectives, thereby
expanding the definition of problems and broadening the menu of alternatives by
which to address them. This belief was a fundamentally important consideration
in deciding to experiment with self-directed teams at OSU Extension. The feeling

was that teams would have the potential to generate creative, relevant programs

within an organizational culture that was highly customer-sensitive.

Theom #4
Self-directed teams will be most successful when comprised of people who

prefer team-based work.

OSU Extension administrators and change agents believe that individuals
are most productive when their work aligns with individual interests and
temperament. Consequently, at OSU the approach to self-directed teams was,

from the beginning, framed as a voluntary experiment. Change managers

143

assumed that teams would enjoy the most success if they were composed of
people who preferred a team-based work environment, enjoyed working with
others, and viewed co-producing and sharing recognition for quality work
products as a positive dimension of the team experience.
Theoretical Propositiorygg
A shared leadership paradigm among change managers and leaders facilitates
organizational change.
Paradigmatic Alignment

Administrative leaders within OSU Extension and the College of Food,
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) after 1992 shared similar
value and belief systems regarding how organizations and people should and do
work. Both the Director of OSU Extension and the Dean of CFAES were highly
supportive of collaborative work forms. In addition, the Director of Extension
valued shared leadership, collaboration, teamwork, and an interdisciplinary
approach to Extension education. These paradigmatic conditions enabled
SDWTs to emerge once administrative awareness of them surfaced for a
number of reasons. Overall, SDWTs represented an organizational form that

mirrored administrative values and beliefs:

Multiple perspectives strengthen decisions.
A fundamental role of leaders is to develop the leadership capacity in others.
Employee creativity and commitment are positively associated with employee
empowerment.

. When comprised of team-inclined individuals, team-based work is often more
creative and innovative than individual-based work.

Theoretical Pmosition @
A participatory approach to change management facilitates member acceptance
and support of change efforts.

144

Self-organizing Around Constituent Needs

The multi-county clusters that formed during 1987 did so with the full
knowledge and support of the Extension Director. His encouragement and
support of their formation was consistent with his view that employees can and
should participate in designing and implementing change systems on behalf of
organizational interests. The Dairy Excel Team, which formed during 1990 to
address dairy industry needs in northeast Ohio, was an example of this belief in
self-organizing in response to emerging needs. The Nursery/Landscape/Turf
Team, formed during 1991 and 1992 to get science-based information to these
industries, was another. As knowledge of these early teams began to filter
through the Agriculture program area, new teams began to self-organize around
constituent needs. This dynamic represents a self-organizing, participant-driven
approach.
Theoretical Proposition 20

The degree of fit between organizational change, culture and organizational
systems has an impact upon resistance to change.

Organizational Culture
Reflecting the orientation of the Director of Extension prior to 1992, the
culture of OSU Extension had historically been friendly to collaborative, team-
based work forms. Study respondents often indicated that most if not all OSU
Extension administrative leaders, as well as many employees at all levels of the

organization, felt that team-based work was endemic to OSU Extension’s

145

organizational culture. The Extension Director hired during 1992 fit well with the
culture of Extension. His decisions and judgments, as well as the expectations
he had of Extension employees generally, reinforced an organizational culture
that was decidedly “team-friendly.”

As economic conditions reduced Extension’s financial resources, the
essential elements upon which OSU Extension’s culture had been built (which
emphasized empowerment, teamwork and collaboration) set in motion a series
of iterative, organic changes. What emerged was ‘discovered’ as self-directed
work teams.

The manner in which the Director of Extension approached his job was
fundamentally consistent with the values and beliefs he espoused publicly.
Embracing a facilitative approach to leadership and management, he
encouraged team formation, while supporting interest in teams wherever it
surfaced, both personally and financially. A recurring theme among study
participants was that whatever success self-directed teams may have had within
OSU Extension was directly related to the ability of the Director of Extension to
create a supportive environment for teams to emerge and to grow. Furthermore,
Extension employees were encouraged to explore and consider their individual
fit within teams without administrative edicts or pressure that might otherwise
force them into ways of organizing and working that would be counterproductive
for them and/or for Extension.

One respondent also suggested that many OSU Extension employees

saw themselves individually, and OSU Extension generally, as fundamentally

146

innovative. Another respondent identified innovation as a cultural element of
OSU Extension. Some early adopters within OSU Extension began to explore
some of the new organizational development themes and concepts that surfaced
within the literature during the late 19805 and early 19905. This exploration of
administrative innovations and ideas led many of them directly to the early
literature on self-directed teams. Consequently, self-directed teams were viewed
positively by some simply because they were consistent with an organizational
culture that valued innovation. A common response among study participants
was that, in self-directed teams, OSU Extension discovered a work form that fit
its culture exceptionally well. Once self-directed teams were reasonably well
understood conceptually and, after they were accepted culturally, their

successful emergence was all but assured.

Participatory Change and Member Resistance

OSU Extension’s approach to facilitating the emergence of self-directed
teams reflected a commitment to permit employees to make significant
workplace choices and associated changes for themselves. The belief underlying
this approach was that change designed by employees would result,
simultaneously, in changes that were optimally responsive to constituent needs,
and would experience minimal employee resistance. Finally, it was believed that
acceptance of self-directed teams would emerge far more slowly in the presence
of strong organizational resistance to them, which administrators believed would

occur if teams were forced upon unwilling or resistant employees.

147

This approach is supported by Green and Butkus (1999). They suggest
that organizational change is most effective when it focuses on the needs of
employees rather than the needs of management. At OSU Extension, the
motivation to change was essentially the same for both administrators and
agents—find ways to be more effective in identifying and responding to
constituent needs. What is most significant about OSU Extension, however, is
that change was driven by employees not by the administration. On this point,
Green and Butkus (p. 179) observe that employee-driven change “...relieves
managers of the burden of solving these problems on their own. It recognizes
that employees know more about their motivation and performance than anyone
else, and it involves them as partners in solving their problems at work.”

There is considerable evidence within the literature that resistance to
change is minimized when employees participate in the design and
implementation of change efforts (French and Bell, 1995; Cummings and
Worley, 1993; Redding and Catalanello, 1994). Social cognitive theory,
described by Porras (1987), assumes that people take clues from the
environments in which they work to identify changes they need to make based
upon their interests and abilities. This theoretical perspective is particularly
useful in explaining the formation of clusters and early teams within OSU
Extension.

The agents and specialists who formed clusters and early teams
understood that their reputations, and quite possibly their future employment with

Extension, depended upon how they performed. They considered status quo

148

and change options with this in mind. In doing so, they observed that
collaboration, team-work and self-organization were firmly established as cultural
norms within OSU Extension. They also considered whether or not teams were a
workable approach for them, individually, given other available for working with
each other. Ultimately, many decided that clusters, and later teams, represented
the best marriage between responsiveness to external environmental
imperatives, internal cultural norms, and their own individual interests and
strengths.

The study data revealed no evidence of significant resistance to teams
within OSU Extension. The resistance that did surface seems to relate more
directly to broader cultural differences between OSU Extension and campus
academic departments. This resistance usually involved the reluctance of
departmental tenure and promotion committees to recognize team-based
contributions by tenure-track faculty members vis-a-vis more traditional forms of
scholarship. These findings suggest to the researcher that the decision by OSUE
administrators to introduce self-directed teams as a purely voluntary innovation
was highly effective in avoiding the emergence of significant employee

resistance to teams.

Subguestion #3
What other factors surfaced at each study site that played a significant role

in either facilitating or impeding the adoption self-directed teams?

Theoretical Proposition 3A
Change strategy reflects a number of variables associated with change
managers that include:
A. Familiarity with the theory and practice of change management
B. Skill in developing and implementing change strategy (experience, skill,
leadership), and

149

C. Interpretation of environmental conditions.

Familiarity With Self-girected Work Team Literature

Self-directed teams at OSU Extension emerged naturally, without a clear
connection to the theory of self-directed teams or change management. Rather,
self-directed teams emerged out of an organizational culture that, for several
years prior to this researcher’s investigation, had placed considerable value on
team-based, collaborative approaches to work. The first clusters and teams that
formed did so largely uninformed by the literature of either self-directed teams or
change management. Only after these early teams were formed did the
literature become a managerial tool. It was used to provide additional meaning

and direction to the formation of subsequent teams.

The Role of Leadership

The study data suggest that the leadership literature was more useful
during the emergent stages of team development at OSU. That literature seems
to have assisted or enabled self-directed teams to emerge. A number of
administrators and change managers were reasonably familiar with the literature
of transformational leadership. During data collection, some references were
made by at least two respondents to the concepts of transformational leadership
developed by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). The work of Stewart and Manz
(1995) demonstrates that facilitative leadership is positively associated with
effective self-directed teams while directive approaches to leadership is

negatively associated with effectiveness of self-directed teams. Their research

150

supports the notion that the facilitative leadership model that characterized OSU
Extension had a positive effect in the formation of early self-directed teams
regardless of whether or not administrators actually identified these early teams

as self-directed teams as described in the literature.

Change Strategy

The change strategy at OSU Extension was not characterized by a
conscious, purposeful string of actions designed to bring about the emergence of
self-directed teams. Rather, the strategy was one of enabling and supporting
individuals who recognized a need to change. Even after Extension
administrators and change managers became familiar with self-directed work
teams concepts, the change strategy continued to foster emergence and
evolution. Reflecting again on Cummings and Worley’s (1993) description of
appreciative inquiry as a change model, it is apparent to the researcher that OSU
Extension “leveraged its culture” in ways that permitted teams to emerge
naturally. This approach is particularly elegant when viewed against the
backdrop of the budgetary problems and constituent concerns that faced

Extension during the late 19805 and early 19905.

Systems
Study data did shed light on how the University reward system dealt with

team-based work. It was learned that promotion and tenure committees in some

departments did not value or recognize team-based research as much as pure

151

research. Others did. Because the Dean of the College of Food, Agriculture and
Environmental Sciences was highly and vocally supportive of team-based work
generally, and self-directed teams specifically, this problem was not as
significant as it might have been in the absence of such support. Overall, there
was evidence that some junior faculty were reluctant to join teams for fear their
work might not be fully considered during the tenure review process.

Some concerns over self-directed teams emerged at the county level—
that county officials might not want “their” county agents working across county
lines. These concerns were rarely if ever substantiated by actual complaints by
county officials, however. Instead, Extension administrators received a number
of unsolicited, positive comments from county officials indicating that the team-

based approach actually brought more expertise to their counties.

Summary

The emergence of teams within OSU Extension was not a function of
administrative design. Neither was it informed, in any significant way, by theory
or by the experience of other Extension or other organizations. Rather, self-
directed teams emerged naturally, out of a combination of internal and external
environmental conditions and a conducive, organizational culture.

As such, the emergence of self-directed teams at OSU Extension is a
particularly useful example of how a number of theories associated with
organizational change and innovation work in practice. These theories include

the relationship between facilitative leadership and effective self-directed teams;

152

the effectiveness of appreciative inquiry as a change model; and the

effectiveness of participative approaches to organizational change.

153

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EXTENSION

Organizational Configuration

The University of Wisconsin system includes thirteen 4-year campuses,
thirteen freshman-sophomore campuses, and the University of Wisconsin-
Extension. The University of Wisconsin-Extension is a statewide campus with
offices in every county and faculty on every campus. UWEX is comprised of
four separate units: Continuing Education Extension, Extension
Communications, Business and Manufacturing Extension, and Cooperative
Extension.

Continuing Education Extension (CEE) programs include continuing
education, credit outreach, and distance education at all 26 UW-System
campuses; the Learning Innovations unit, which provides print, web and
consultant-based educational programs and services; and the School for Labor,
which provides educational programs for organized labor organizations. The
Division of Extension Communications includes Wisconsin Public Radio,
Wisconsin Public Television, and Instructional Communications, which provides
electronic and distance education services in support of system-wide distance
education efforts. In cooperation with county government, COOP Extension
provides county-based educational programs in all 72 Wisconsin counties.
Educational programs are offered in Agriculture and Natural Resources;

Community, Natural Resources and Economic Development; Family Living; and

154

4-H Youth Development. Self-directed work teams are being formally adopted in

Cooperative Extension.

Early Experiences with Team-Based Work Structures

Team-based work and work structures are not new to the culture of UW-
Extension/Cooperative Extension. In fact, they have existed for decades.
During the early 19705, Family Living Programs (FLP) formed Agent/Specialist
work groups (or teams) to examine county-based issue data as the basis for
program planning. In recognition of the connections between programming
issues, F LP began consolidating these work groups into larger teams. For
example, separate clothing and textiles groups were consolidated into the
Clothing and Textiles group, and the food and nutrition work groups joined to
become the Food and Nutrition group. Similarly, the Agriculture and Ag
Business program area (now named Agriculture and Natural Resources) had its
own version of teams, called “Enterprise Committees,” which were formed in the
19705 to identify issues and assess program needs. Among the issues identified
were soil and water conservation, farm transfers, and marketing.

Team-based in structure, these early committees fell under the
administrative control of respective program areas and sprung largely from
priorities identified by program area administrators. Early Ag/Ag Business
Committees received funds and direction from program area administrators.
Decisions as to choice of work activity and scope were made centrally, and new

work activities and direction were subject to approval of the Program Area Office.

155

Something Is Wrong

Beginning in the mid 19905, concerns were being raised by Extension
administrators about working relationships between state and campus-based
faculty and staff in terms of employee satisfaction and the quality of work being
produced. In response to these concerns, some administrators toured the state
interviewing both state specialists and agents. These interviews revealed a
number of “disconnects” between agents, between state specialists and agents,
and even between Cooperative Extension and its clientele groups. Of primary
interest was the disconnection between specialists and agents due to the
fundamental importance they play in developing and delivering Extension
programs statewide.

Disconnects between specialists and agents were widely viewed as the
result of how each group traditionally worked. Generally, specialists did not
make many presentations at the local level due to travel budget constraints and
the specialization of some agents, who saw themselves as the primary deliverer
of local education programs. Some agents complained that they were not
getting the support they needed from specialists, while some specialists did not
always see a link between the research they were doing and what agents were
doing at the county level.

Some felt that these disconnects were having a negative effect on COOP,
from limiting the effectiveness of program development efforts to damaging the
credibility of Cooperative Extension with state and federal legislators. As

administrative acceptance of these problems grew, a predominant view emerged

156

among administrators that Extension’s organizational structure, in combination
with the way specialists and agents worked alone and together, was causing
problems.

Other concerns regarding the effectiveness of certain organizational
practices and approaches began to surface, as well. Administrators reported that
COOP Extension’s Planning and Reporting system was viewed as ineffective at
capturing program outcome and impact data. Furthermore, the historical division
of COOP Extension into four separate program areas—each with its own
academic department within the University of Wisconsin-Extension, with its own
way of developing programs, with its own approach to how specialists and
agents worked together, and with its own culture—tended to further fragment
how agents and specialists thought and worked. These multiple cultures made it

difficult to introduce new ideas across program areas.

Paradigmatic Shifts

During the mid to late 1990’s, when administrative understanding and
acceptance of the organizational disconnects was beginning to develop, several
key position changes occurred within the UW-Madison College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences (CALS) and Cooperative Extension. Of primary importance was
the appointment of a new Dean of Cooperative Extension and, a short time later,
of a new Associate Dean of Cooperative Extension. The hiring of an Interim
Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (described later) was

a critical event in the paradigmatic shifts within Extension. Additional

157

administrative changes described later in this chapter would occur within a few
years. These changes would have a significant impact on the evolution of self-
directed work teams in Cooperative Extension.

In Cooperative Extension, individuals who favored a team-based
approach to Extension and possessed an interest in ‘flattening’ the Cooperative
Extension organization filled the Dean and Associate Dean positions. Emerging
from the new administrative team was considerable and consistent interest in
moving Extension toward a structure where program design and delivery
decisions could be made as close as possible to the point of program delivery.

UWEX’s historical approach to programming involved state specialist’s
designing programs that were then delivered locally by county-based faculty.
However, a shift in thinking began to emerge that program innovation, quality,
and impact could be enhanced if specialists, agents and stakeholders co-
identified issues and co-developed programs. This thinking also held that faculty
working at the county level often, if not always, possessed superior knowledge of
local issues—issues that could form the basis for improved research and
program development at the local level and across the state. Along with this
emerging belief was the sense that more equitable relationships between
campus and county faculty could be established more easily through new
structures such as the self-directed work team. In these teams, members would
share authority and responsibility for assessing program need and making
decisions concerning how to respond to issues of local relevance. Local needs

assessments were seen as an important way of getting University specialists’

158

research agendas to better reflect local needs. This approach was also viewed
as being consistent with the ‘engaged university’ concept that Extension
administrators now embrace strongly.

In response to a growing perception that various parts of Extension were
not working in harmony with each other, ideas were sought from Extension
organizations in states with SDWT experience. These state Extension
organizations included Michigan State University Extension, The Ohio State
University Extension, and Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Through a series of
personal visits, interviews, and exchanges, the administrative team at UW-
Extension/Cooperative Extension began developing a conceptual and practical
understanding of SDWTs. This understanding would serve as the basis for
considering how SDWTs might be deployed in Wisconsin.

In addition to leveraging the lessons learned from other state Extension
organizations, the emerging organizational paradigm around SDWTs at UWEX
was being fueled “from within.” Even as there was growing knowledge of internal
organizational dysfunction, some administrators were reviewing the SDWT
literature, specifically, and the organizational development literature, generally.
This helped to familiarize Extension administrators with the potential benefits of

SDWTs and other alternatives to hierarchical organizational structures.

Benefits Sought from Self Directed Work Teams

UWEX administrators were able to identify specific benefits that accrued

from SDWTs to other state Extension organizations. This information, in

159

combination with their own review of the SDWT literature, led them to conclude
that SDWTs held considerable potential to address their organization's unique

issues and challenges. Specific benefits sought included:

Increased Collegialiy

Teams comprised of state specialists and agents would promote mutual
appreciation and understanding concerning each others’ roles, skills, and
interests.

Agents would have increased access to specialists and other agents
around the state, thereby feeling less isolated and better able to access their

expertise.

Increased Promarrgualim Synergy

A wider range of perspectives would result in a more complete definition
of issues and educational responses to them.

Teams would enable better and more consistent communication between
agents, between specialists and agents, between issues of local relevance
and campus-based research efforts, and between field and campus-based
research objectives and initiatives.

Teams would bring more knowledge resources to bear on specific issues.

Multidisciplinary teams would bring complimentary knowledge to bear on

issues requiring a multidisciplinary response.

160

Multidisciplinary teams would produce a more synergistic working
environment.
Teams would shape the research agendas of state specialists so that they

would focus more on local needs.

Increased Program Impact Documentation

It was believed that team-based reporting would improve federal and state
reports by showing greater impact than the traditional “single success story”
approach. Team-based reporting could show broader impact by incorporating
individual statistics, impact indicators, impact statements, and success

stories, in addition to team-based impacts.

Significant Internal Environmental Conditions

Throughout Cooperative Extension administration, an approach consistent
with traditional levels of autonomy at the program area level was favored for use
in introducing Cooperative Extension to SDWTs. State Program (Area) Leaders
were encouraged to consider how they might employ SDWTs, given the
uniqueness of their individual cultures and ways of doing business. In some
cases, this was successful. In other cases, particularly where there was little
interest in SDWTs as a means to address issues of specialist/agent
disconnection or where SDWTs were viewed as nothing new in relation to earlier
forms of team-based work structures, SDWTs caught on either more slowly, less

enthusiastically, or not at all.

161

 

The Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension (ANRE) Program area
represents Coop Extension's most complete experience with SDWTs.
Administrative support for SDWTs within the ANRE program area has been
enthusiastic despite a series of administrative personnel changes within the
program area following the appointment of a new Dean and a new Associate
Dean.

Prior to 1990, the UW-Extension/Cooperative Extension and the UW-
Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) shared a joint position
of Associate Dean. In July 1990, the individual holding this joint position retired.
At that time, Cooperative Extension—wanting to make its administrative structure
consistent across all program areas—decided to create a Program Leader
position in the Ag/Ag Business program area, ending the joint Associate Dean
position it shared with CALS. In continuing recognition of the close functional
relationship between CALS and ANRE, during Spring 1990, CALS filled their
open position with an interim Associate Dean for Extension/Outreach, making
that appointment permanent in October 1992.

In January 1997, the Extension Program Leader for Ag and Ag Business
(AAB) resigned. This resignation prompted a reconsideration of the
administrative relationship between CALS and Cooperative Extension, resulting
in the decision to re-establish a joint CALS/AAB Associate Dean position that
included AAB program leader responsibilities. The search to fill this new joint
position was interrupted by the resignation of the Dean of CALS in June 1997.

The joint Associate Dean position was then filled through an interim appointment

162

 

in July 1997 and a permanent appointment in January 2000. Through this series
of events, an Assistant Program Leader position has been maintained in AAB.
During Summer 1998, the name of the COOP Extension Ag & Ag Business
program area was changed to “Agriculture and Natural Resources,” reflecting the
importance of natural resource issues within the agriculture sector.

The key to these administrative changes is that the individuals who were
selected to serve in both interim and permanent capacities brought to the

respective jobs a willingness to explore the idea that SDWTs could benefit

 

Extension. A critical mass of support existed from the Dean of Extension
through the ANRE program area to proceed with the development of a strategy
for implementing SDWTs in COOP/ANRE. These conditions proved to be

essential for successfully adopting SDWTs within COOP/ANRE.

Strategy Development and Implementation

The absence of a permanent administrative team slowed the development
of a cohesive strategy with which to implement SDWTs in COOP/ANRE. Six
months prior to the appointment of an interim Associate Dean for CALS/ANRE,
and with leadership from Cooperative Extension Administration and the ANRE
Program Office, a series of loosely configured, informal discussions occurred
throughout the state. The purpose was to assess state and county faculty
thinking about the idea of SDWTs as a primary approach to program design and
delivery. Generally, these discussions were met with skepticism and lack of

enthusiasm. During a six-month period following the appointment of an Interim

163

Associate Dean, these discussions became more formal, leading eventually to
an attempt to create an 'administrative panel' whose purpose was to envision,
design, and maintain a SDWT-based structure in COOP/ANRE. That attempt
was largely unsuccessful. Many of those involved believed SDWTs represented
an unnecessary bureaucratic layer within COOP/ANRE. Despite these feelings,
considerable administrative support for moving ahead existed throughout the
administrative levels of CALS, COOP Extension and COOP/ANRE.

A committee was formed in January 1997 to plan a two-day conference

 

for ANRE faculty and staff on the changing nature of agriculture. During the next
six months, the Committee chair conducted a number of interviews with state
and county-based faculty and staff. The purpose was to identify issues related
to the conference topic, and to evaluate reports of disconnection between state
specialists and county agents. During these interviews, many state specialists
and county agents expressed frustration regarding the quality of their mutual
relationships and with the level of collegiality. The interview results had a
solidifying effect in galvanizing administrative interest in SDWTs, both at the
Dean's and Program Office levels. Administrators were convinced that a team-
based structure could promote more natural connections between state
specialists and county-based faculty and staff.

An agent rose to his feed during a conference planning meeting in June
1997, imploring colleagues to change how they work together or run the risk of
failing to meet the challenges of a changing agriculture. This event, and the

discussion that followed, had a considerable influence on committee members.

164

They made the decision to use the 1997 Annual Conference as a venue for
introducing SDWTs to ANRE faculty and staff. This ’critical moment' marked a
clear commitment to implement SDWTs within ANRE. Pilot teams were formed
after the 1997 conference to test the team concept.

Following the decision to proceed, the author was invited to join the
Conference Planning Committee to share his knowledge about SDWTs. The
author’s work with the conference planning committee focused on familiarizing
committee members with SDWT theory and practice; conveying the importance
of permitting faculty and staff to play a significant role in team development; and
describing the potential administrative implications and issues associated with a
transition to SDWTs. The author’s activities were also intended to prepare
ANRE administrators for an expanded role in providing support and
encouragement to SDWTs following their formation at the 1998 ANRE
Conference. Specifically, the author provided committee members with scholarly
articles on SDWTs. Some, but not all, of these articles were included in the
conference participant packet as a means to enhance understanding of SDWTs
among ANRE state and county-based faculty and staff. As a direct contribution
to the conference program, the author was asked to prepare and deliver a
presentation on the topic of team-based leadership at the conference, which he
subsequently did.

The conference planning committee planned to use the 1998 ANRE
Annual Conference as a venue for creating a number of SDWTs around issues

that had been identified at district meetings. Input had been by county agents

165

 

and state specialists using focus groups and through other needs assessment
processes. To prepare participants for this activity, early conference
presentations focused on identifying issues and introducing the concept of
SDWTs, and describing how specialists and agents would co-plan, co-generate
and co-report report on educational programs. Presentations by ANRE
administrators described administrative and financial support structures and tools
that had been developed by the ANRE administration. Additionally, state
specialists with Michigan State University Extension presented a session on the
lessons learned to date on the implementation of SDWTs there.

The second half of the first day was dedicated to giving faculty and staff
members an opportunity to identify which issue-based team or teams they would
like to join. At the conclusion of the first day, it became apparent that ANRE
faculty and staff did not support the wholesale organization of SDWTs around
issues. In response to this “crisis,” two primary leaders of the conference
planning committee met long into the night considering an “alternative approach.”
The alternative offered by the conference planners during the first session of the
conference’s second day was to permit teams to organize around both traditional
agricultural commodities (such as dairy, swine, (field crops, and beef) and around
agricultural issues. Faculty and staff response to this comprise was very positive
due, in part, to the fact that much of the history, programming, political
considerations and organization of ANRE had developed around commodities.
The conference planning committee, ANRE administrators, and the Cooperative

Extension administrators concluded that this compromise prevented the outright

166

 

rejection of SDWTs. Conference participants proceeded to form several teams,
some around issues and some around traditional agricultural commodities. The
remainder of the conference was dedicated to permitting teams to meet to
discuss how they would organize, select leadership, and plan their meeting

schedule.

Summary

The process by which self-directed work teams were established at UW-
Extension and within the COOP/ANRE program area continues to unfold through
a series of unplanned critical events, conscious decisions, formal and informal
environmental assessments, and learning experiences. The author views this
implementation process as more of an evolution than as an unfolding of a
strategic plan. The fact is that administrative curiosity with and affinity for a set
of concepts caught the attention of many faculty and staff who also sensed that
something new needed to be introduced. The adoption of SDWTs at UW-
Extension/Cooperative Extension has been, and continues to be, an iterative,
learn-by—doing experience. As institutional experience with SDWTs grows, new
issues arise and become visible, new lessons are learned, and more informed

strategy and thinking is employed for moving forward.

167

 

FINDINGS

Subguestion #1
What conditions led to the adoption of self-directed teams at each study

site?

Theoreticafl Proposition 1A
Some condition or combination of conditions serve to precipitate change within
organizations.
The Impetus for ChangWithin UWEX/Cooperative Extension

The adoption of self-directed teams within UWEX/Cooperative Extension
was largely a matter of an organization being asked to adopt structural changes
in response to an emergent set of relational and structural concerns within
Cooperative Extension. These weaknesses were viewed by many Extension
employees within and outside COOP administrative ranks as actual or potential
threats to both program quality and to COOP’s reputation among key elected
officials at the state level. These concerns originated within Extension

administration and were subsequently verified through numerous discussions

with county-based faculty and academic staff across the state.

Agent/Specialist Disconnects

During the early 19905, some administrators became concerned that state
specialists and county faculty/staff were not working well together. Administrators
heard reports that some agents felt they were not getting the support they
needed from specialists. Agents and specialists agreed that some specialists did
not always see a link between their research programs and the work agents were

doing at the county level. Some specialists cited expectations placed upon them

168

by their non-Extension departments, which emphasized more traditional

research and less applied research. This was a concern to COOP Extension
administration. Considerable investments were being made in specialists at UW-
Madison and other system campuses. The net results of this disconnect were
twofold. First, it produced a deepening feeling among some ANRE county-based
faculty and staff of being increasingly isolated from specialist resources.

Second, it created administrative concern that the research of some specialists
was out of touch with the needs of local constituents. This had the potential of
eroding Cooperative Extension’s relationship with, and support by, local

constituencies.

An Administrative Desire for a ‘Flatter’ Organiiational Structure

The UWEX/COOP Dean and Associate Dean were interested in creating
organizational systems and other arrangements that enabled program and
research decisions to be made closer to constituents. Self-directed work teams
were viewed as a means of doing so. This belief was based upon the
assumption that teams would rely heavily on constituent input to drive education
program design and research direction, and might even include external

stakeholders as members.

Lessons LeaLrned from Other Extension Organizations

UWEX/COOP Extension administrators consulted with representatives

from both Michigan State University Extension and The Ohio State University

169

Extension prior to moving toward self-directed teams. These Extension
organizations expressed varying levels of concern regarding agent-specialist
disconnects and the potential to weaken constituent support. Consequently,
when examining their own organization and environments, UWEX/COOP
Extension administrators were particularly sensitive to the possibility that agent-
specialist disconnects held at least the potential to negatively impact constituent
support. Both MSU Extension and OSU Extension expressed the view that,
based upon their respective experiences, self-directed teams were an effective
means of reversing specialist-agent disconnects, building constituent support,
and designing and delivering Extension innovative and responsive education and

research programs.

TheoreticiProposition 1B
Organizational change unfolds within one or more theoretical change models.
Change Models at UW-Extension

The adoption of SDWTs within UW-Extension was change driven by
administrative interest in addressing organizational concerns and issues
previously described. Raymon and Wyman’s (1998) depiction of change as
being either management-driven or more broadly participative is relevant for
identifying the impetus for change within UW-Extension. Particularly useful in
explaining the change process within COOP is the involvement of non-
managerial employees. The study data provide considerable evidence that

change within COOP began as a management-driven process, including the

170

surfacing of organizational concerns and associated diagnostic activities
intended to confirm both their existence and significance. As the adoption
process proceeded, non-administrative employee participation increased
noticeably, particularly during the diagnosis stage when county faculty/staff were
queried about their concerns relative to specialists. Nevertheless, the adoption of
self-directed teams within COOP was a predominantly administrative intervention
that was driven by administrative interests and actors.

Cummings and Worley’s (1993, p. 32) general model of planned change
includes four basic phases. These include entering and contracting, diagnosing,
planning and implementing change, and evaluating and institutionalizing change.
They also identify five tasks that change managers perform to plan and
implement change. These include motivating change, creating a vision of the
post-change organization, developing political support for change, managing the
transition from its pr-change state to its post-change state, and sustaining
momentum for change. While their change model and progression of change
steps is good for describing how change should occur, the prescriptive nature of
their approach is not particularly useful for explaining change as it actually
occurs in context. However, they do point out that differences in the degree of
organization, within an organization, that is helpful for explaining why
organizations vary in how they change.

Cummings and Worley (1993, p. 37) describe under-organized
organizations as those in which “...there is too little constraint or regulation for

effective task performance. Leadership, structure, job design, and policy are ill

171

defined and fail to control task behaviors effectively.” UW-
Extension/Cooperative Extension is such an organization, largely because of the
way it is organized. Within Cooperative Extension, four departments serve as
academic homes to faculty while the Academic Staff Council serves as the
organizing unit for academic staff. Each faculty department has rules and
policies for governing the activities of its members in matters of promotion and
tenure. The Academic Staff Council serves the same purpose for its members
except that academic staff do not receive tenure. Additionally, Extension
Administration, through a system of administrative districts, has its own set of
policies and guidelines pertaining to additional performance evaluation, salary
and benefits. Finally, county-based faculty and staff are subject to additional
county govemment-based personnel policies and rules through COOP’s formal
arrangements with county governments.

The net effect of this organizing scheme is that county-based faculty and
staff must respond to many bosses and job performance expectations. There is
no single set of policies or rules guiding the performance of county-based faculty
and staff. The administration of Cooperative Extension, generally, and the
planning and implementation of change within COOP, specifically, is not a
coordinated effort involving faculty governance, academic staff governance,
district-level administration, and county government. Consequently, change
efforts driven by administrative interests unfold and are interpreted through a

number of institutional filters, communication networks, and leaders.

172

Cummings and Worley (p.38) suggest that the phases of planned change
may be altered for under-organized organizations by “...clarifying leadership
roles, structuring communication between managers and employees, and
specifying job and departmental responsibilities.” Their model of planned
change, modified for under-organized organizations, includes four steps. These
include identification, which includes the identification of individuals or groups
that need to be involved in the change effort; convention, which involves bringing
together relevant change agents for the purpose of organizing the change effort;
organization, which involves the creation of mechanisms with which to structure
communication and relationships between people and departments involved with
the change effort; and evaluation, which involves assessing the outcomes of the
change effort. This modified model is very useful in explaining the adoption of

self-directed teams within COOP Extension.

ldenfificafion

COOP/ANRE understood that change efforts within ANRE needed to be
led by individuals who were broadly respected by organizational members
and stakeholders. Consequently, individuals who met this criterion were

selected to introduce and lead the change effort.

Convention

Change leaders then formed a team and began to meet regularly to

design a change strategy. This team also identified a number of

173

opportunities for use in disseminating information about SDWT concepts, for
developing political support, and for involving agents and specialists, in

various ways, in the design of the adoption strategy.

Organization
The strategy team identified the Fall1998 Annual ANRE Conference as

the mechanism for forming the first self-directed teams. Teams were
subsequently formed, including the appointment or volunteering of interim
team leaders and co-Ieaders. Permanent team leaders and co-Ieaders would

be elected from within the teams following an organizing phase.

Evaluation
This phase had not yet occurred during the period this research was being
conducted.

Cummings and Worley’s modified change model succeeds as a means of

explaining the change process within COOP/ANRE precisely because it fits the

organizational idiosyncrasies of COOP Extension. And, its breadth permits it to

be sufficiently descriptive without being prescriptive.

Theoretical Proposition 1C
An organization’s change strategy unfolds within a theoretical framework
comprised of the members’ and change manager’s Theories-in-use.

Theories-In-Use About UWEX/Cooperative Extension

Theogy #1
The benefits of self-directed work teams will accrue to UWEX if they are

adopted.

174

This theory was adopted by some Extension administrators following their
discussions with other state Extension organizations and in combination with
their exploration of the literature on SDWTs. The underlying assumption was
that the adoption of SDWTs was the fundamental barrier standing in the way of
increased collaboration between agents and specialists, more effective reporting
of program impacts, and more innovative programming.

Theom #2
Cooperative Extension’s organizational structure and culture are consistent with

the adoption of self-directed teams.

UWEX/Cooperative Extension, like most Extension and other government
bureaucracies, is organized vertically. A faculty governance committee, which
administers the promotion and tenure process for county-based faculty structure,
exists alongside COOP’s administrative structure. Similarly, the Council of
Academic Staff handles promotions for county and campus-based academic
staff. Finally, COOP is divided into four separate program areas, each with its
own set of program priorities, rules and priorities, and influence over the
evaluation of faculty and academic staff. COOP’s organizational structure
contains a number of organizational cultures—administrative, academic, and
programmatic—that reflect a varied and often conflicted set of rules, values,
expectations and standards for faculty and staff. Despite the complexity of this
culture, there was an overriding belief among most COOP administrators that

self-directed teams could be successfully introduced across the entire

175

organization through a combination of administrative control, education, and
persuasion.

An additional assumption driving this belief was that COOP’s
organizational culture was self-directed and team-ready. Because COOP
Extension had traditionally utilized administrative, faculty, and program-related
committees to accomplish its work, administrators assumed that self-directed
teams did not represent a significant cultural or operational change. In fact, it
was believed that SDWTs had existed in some program areas for years, but that

they were not thought of or called “self-directed teams.”

Theogr #3
Program Leaders would support the introduction of SDWTs within their

administrative units.

COOP administrators assumed that Program Area leaders would support
the adoption of self-directed teams. The underlying assumption was that the
benefits of SDWTs to program areas would be self-evident, and that interest in
adopting them throughout all four of COOPs program areas would be reasonable

high.

Theories-In-Use About Organization

Theogj #1
Determining the need for organizational change and providing leadership for that

change are primarily administrative responsibilities.
COOP Administrators tended to view the initiation of organizational

change and innovation as their responsibility, as opposed to looking to

176

organizational members to identify the need for broad organizational change.
The earliest interest in teams was administrative, and the energy for and
direction of the adoption process was downward through Cooperative Extension.
Feedback from county-based staff and state specialists was solicited to verify the
existence or prevalence of a number of organizational issues and concerns. But
this feedback was sought in the context of administrative interest in determining
whether teams would produce the same results in Wisconsin as they had in

Michigan and elsewhere.

Theom #2
Self-direction encourages creativity, innovation, synergy and entrepreneurial

attitudes and behaviors among individuals and within groups

COOP Extension administrators were impressed with the positive benefits
of self-directed teams at MSU Extension. The message coming from Michigan
was that self-directed teams had led to increased collaboration between
specialists and county-based agents, more innovative programs, increased
entrepreneurial behavior among staff, and more satisfied constituent groups.
These reports led directly to the assumption that self-directed teams could and

would produce similar results if adopted within Wisconsin.

Theogy #3
Organizations are most effective when decisions are made as closely as

possible to where an organization serves its constituents.
Self-directed teams were viewed as a venue for moving program design

and delivery decisions closer to the point where Extension interfaced with its

177

cons
all“,
nun
Ideni

delej

 

pre

wl

ad

constituents. By involving constituents directly as team members and/or
advisors, SDWTs were thought to be an ideal means for accomplishing a
number of objectives. These included involving constituents directly in

identifying local needs upon which educational programs are based, and

determining what types and formats of programs would be most relevant locally.

Theom #4
Self-directed teams promote collegiality and synergy among team members.

COOP Administrators and ANRE change managers who were familiar
with some of the literature on self-directed teams understood some of the
advantages of teams. Individuals from MSU Extension and the researcher made

presentations to the 1998 conference describing these benefits.

Subguestion #2
What organizational factors were antecedent to the adoption of self-

directed teams at each study site?

Theoretical Proposition 2A
A shared leadership paradigm among change managers and leaders facilitates
organizational change.
Mmatic Alignment

Both the Dean and Associate Dean of Cooperative Extension believed
that initiating broad organizational leading change was a critical component of
their administrative responsibilities. They also believed that the use
administrative authority to initiate change was appropriate and even necessary

when support for proposed changes was not universal across COOP’s

administrative team. Both individuals believed strongly in the potential benefits

178

of self-directed teams and considered their adoption to be a major priority within
COOP Extension. Finally, both individuals believed that program design and
delivery decisions ought to be made in concert with local constituents to ensure
program relevance and as a means for building political support at the local level.
In the case of the adoption of self-directed teams in COP Extension, the
importance of these areas of agreement cannot be understated as they

represent agreement on both the ends and the means of organizational change.

Theoretical Proposition 28
A participatory approach to change management facilitates member acceptance
and support of change efforts.
Organizing Around Faculty/Staff Interests

The adoption approach taken by the Dean was to permit program areas to
determine for themselves how best to adopt SDWTs in their respective program
areas. The adoption approach taken by the College of ANRE was to put
together a well-respected adoption team to gauge organizational interest in, and
resistance to, self directed teams and to develop an adoption strategy based
upon their findings. While there was significant resistance to teams among
campus specialists, the county-based faculty and staff were generally open to
SDWT concepts. The major issue to address was how teams would work in
reality.

The members of the adoption team believed that for faculty and staff to

support teams they should have some level of involvement in determining how

SDWTs work. Consequently, the adoption team decided to dedicate the 1998

179

annual conference to the task of working with ANRE faculty and staff to adopt a
team structure and approach. During that conference, the adoption team
proposed a team structure in which teams would be organized around
agricultural issues. However, it quickly became apparent that faculty and staff
preferred to be given a choice to organize around either issues or agricultural
commodities. Historically, agents and many specialists had built relationships
with commodity groups and were comfortable working with and on behalf of
these groups. Following the expression of concern with the adoption team’s
proposed structure, the afternoon of the first day of the conference was
dedicated to a conference-wide discussion concerning the value of being given a
choice of how to affiliate with teams. The adoption team’s decision that night to
permit teams to organize around either issues or commodities was
fundamentally important because it averted significant resistance among faculty
and staff over how teams should be organized. This decision served as a
dramatic demonstration of the proposition that employee resistance to change
can be mitigated by involving employees in the process of designing and
implementing change (Bowman and Deal,1984; Green and Butkus, 1999; Morris
and Raben, in Nadler, Shaw & Walton and Associates, 1995; Schein, 1992;
Senge,1995)

Resistance to self-directed teams surfaced in two different areas. First,
when ANR change managers presented the ideas of self-directed teams to a
group of campus specialists and academic department chairs, some expressed

the view that this was an attempt by COOP Administration to force a structural

180

change that did not respect the way campus faculty traditionally worked.
Specifically, some believed that this was change in response to a concern that

did not exist.

Theoretical Proposition 2_C_
The degree of fit between organizational change, culture and organizational
systems has an impact upon resistance to change.

Organizational Culture

The assumption that the COOP Extension’s organization culture fit well
with self-directed teams is, in large part, accurate. UW-Extension’s faculty and
Academic Staff structures, in particular, have historically worked through, and
placed considerable value upon, collegiality and collaboration. Faculty and
Academic Staff committee structures have served as the primary venue through
which scholarship and performance are recognized. These are historically
democratic organizations that have established and maintained their own
standards for scholarship and performance. In this sense, they are self-directed
organizations. While COOP Extension’s academic structures demonstrate some
elements of congruence with the central concepts that define self-directed
teams, they contain incongruent elements.

The tenure provisions embedded within the faculty system represent a
stronger measure of protection for tenured faculty than is available for academic
staff, whose employment is contractual. The institution of tenure has historically
defined scholarship as a matter of individual performance rather than as team-

based performance. Consequently, some non-tenured county-base faculty were

181

reluctant to invest significantly in teams for fear that their team-based
contributions would not be adequately valued during the tenure review process.
Having said that, at the same time early teams were being formed within ANRE,
a new tenure review document—the portfolio—was approved by the Faculty
Senate. This new option was designed to reflect a broader array of scholarly
work by tying a faculty member’s performance to supporting documents, such as
annual plans of work and annual performance evaluations. The vita, in contrast,
relied more on the design and delivery of educational programs and the
demonstration of measurable outcomes and impacts of those programs.
Consequently, the portfolio was seen by some as providing a slightly better
opportunity for non-tenured faculty to include team-based work on their tenure
documents, provided such work was included on their annual plans of work and
was seen as a positive element of their overall performance profile. However,
the focus of the tenure process remains a process designed to highlight and
reward individual performance. As such, it remains an institution that
discourages, to varying degrees, uninhibited investment in self-directed teams by
non-tenured faculty.

The cultures of non-Extension UW-System universities reflect many of the
same acceptance and resistance points as UWEX county-based faculty. The
independence of campus-based faculty in relation to associated administrative
structures has traditionally been stronger than that within UW-Extension.
Academic freedom to construct research programs and teach stands is a core

value of institutions of higher education throughout the United States, and this is

182

no different in UW-System universities. The notion that stakeholders should
significantly influence the research activities of University faculty with Extension
appointments faces considerable resistance among many state specialists.
Many campus faculty members have built their professional reputations on their
research programs. This view holds that research brings in more outside money,
is more congruent with the expectations of their campus departments, and is a
more legitimate form of scholarship than team-based, applied research.
Additionally, a number of non-tenured campus faculty members expressed
concern over the issue of whether campus department promotion and tenure
committees would adequately value and recognize team-based work on their vita
documents.

Despite the concerns associated with tenure, resistance to self-directed
teams was far lower among county-based faculty than among campus-based
faculty. Because academic staff members were not granted tenure, study
participants reported that tenure was not viewed as a significant concern among
ANRE county-based academic staff in supporting the introduction of self-directed
teams. The most active resistance to teams came from two groups. First, some
campus-based faculty, both tenured and non-tenured, saw teams as a threat to
their academic freedom to choose and/or fully invest in their own research
interests. Second, teams were viewed as a liability during tenure review by
some non-tenured faculty. Overall, faculty resistance to self-directed teams

revealed cultural incongruencies concerning how scholarship was defined and

183

demonstrated, and how academic freedom was supposed to work for faculty

members.

Subguestion #3
What other factors surfaced at each study site that played a significant role

in either facilitating or impeding the adoption self-directed teams?
Theoretical Proposition 3A
Change strategy reflects a number of variables associated with change
managers that include:
A. familiarity with the theory and practice of change management
B. skill in developing and implementing change strategy (experience, skill,
leadership)
C. interpretation of environmental conditions
Familiarity with Self-directed Work Team Literature
COOP administrators familiarized themselves with some of the literature
on self-directed work teams. There was much less evidence, however,
concerning the literature of organizational change and innovation. The adoption
process was driven by the SDWT literature. The lessons learned reflected

evidence that attention to the change and innovation literature may have

changed the approach to, and pace of, adoption.

The Role of Leadership

The literature on organizational change and innovation, and the literature
on self-directed work teams, is peppered with attention to the role of leadership
in the management of organizational change and in the adoption and
management of self-directed teams. COOP administrators and others involved

with the adoption of self-directed teams in COOP Extension/ANRE demonstrated

184

wit‘r

adn

 

undI
bas
mm
The
Lee

the

Pro.

to b
Uni
bas
eno
lea.

res;

 

a number of leadership philosophies and approaches, some of which were more
effective than others.

The Dean and Associate Dean of Cooperative Extension provided primary
leadership for the adoption of self-directed teams across all of COOP Extension,
and were the ones who made the administrative decision to adopt teams. Their
approach was to permit Program Leaders to decide how best to introduce teams
within their respective program areas. This approach permitted ANRE
administrators to manage the adoption process based upon their own
understanding of organizational culture and systems, and to develop strategies
based upon that understanding. By permitting program leaders to proceed
independently, the Dean and Associate Dean employed a participative approach.
They shared a significant portion of how to adopt SDWTs with the Program
Leaders. However, the choice of whether or not to adopt teams was made by
the Dean and Associate Dean of COOP.

The flexibility given to ANRE administrators permitted the adoption
process to be led by individuals whose own credibility within ANRE was reported
to be a an important factor in determining the degree of resistance to teams by
University faculty and staff. Study data suggest that many campus and county-
based faculty were open to the team concept because individuals who enjoyed
enormous respect among colleagues led the adoption process. As a result, the
team concept inherited a degree of the credibility of those who had primary

responsibility for leading the adoption process.

185

The fact that several self-directed teams formed during the 1998 annual
ANRE conference, and that they continue to function and improve, suggests that
the decision made by COOP’s Dean and Associate Dean to permit ANRE to
decide how to adopt has met with some degree of success. Study data also
suggest that, whatever success the adoption process met with in ANRE, that
success is due (in part) to the ANRE program leader, the adoption team
members, and the approach and strategies they designed and implemented

within ANRE.

Summary

The initial interest within Cooperative Extension/ANR in self-directed work
teams, and their potential to improve Extension education programs, was
connected primarily to issues internal to Cooperative Extension. Exposure to the
experiences of other state Extension organizations that had adopted self-
directed teams, in combination with a modest exploration of the literature on self-
directed teams, were also powerful motivations for COOP Administrators in their
consideration of whether or not to adopt self-directed teams. Ultimately, the
decision to adopt self-directed teams was made by the Dean and Associate
Dean of Cooperative Extension. The basis for this decision was a belief that
self-directed teams would ultimately be an effective means of addressing the
internal issues that prompted their consideration, in the first place. An ANR
adoption team led and selected by the ANR Program Leader then designed the

adoption process.

186

cull

Cooperative Extension and ANR administrators believed that the adoption
process needed to be inherently participative, and their respective approaches
reflected that belief. The participatory adoption approach taken by ANR
administrators was, to a large degree, effective in mitigating the impact of some

culture-based resistance to self-directed teams.

187

CHAPTER EIGHT

CROSS CASE ANALYSIS

Why Teams?

Four organizational phenomena emerged from the research that
prompted innovative change in the form of self-directed work teams. These
phenomena are:

0 Economic crisis

0 External stakeholder dissatisfaction

o Concern about the quality and depth of connectedness between county- and
campus-based specialists, and

0 Administrative interest in stimulating ongoing innovativeness in Extension

education programs.

Study data suggest that the phenomena are interrelated and dynamic. In
the case of MSU Extension, the most compelling reason for change was external
stakeholder satisfaction. Specific improvements sought included organizing
programs around relevant issues. “Better” Extension education programs, as
perceived locally, were seen as the “currency” of more satisfied constituents.
Change at OSU Extension was prompted by an economic crisis, which translated
into constrained resources for specialists. As with MSU Extension, self-directed
teams were thought to produce more relevant Extension research and education

programs by involving constituents more meaningfully in determining program

188

purpose and design. At UW-Extension/Cooperative Extension, the decision to
adopt self-directed teams was primarily a proactive measure to avoid constituent
dissatisfaction.

All three Extension organizations saw SDWTs as having potential for
increasing the level and quality of collaboration between specialists and agents.
However, this benefit was seen as either secondary to the satisfaction of

constituent needs and/or as a means to it.

The Adoption Process

The Approach Used to Make the Adoption Decision

At both UWEX/Cooperative Extension and MSU Extension, the decision
to adopt teams was an administrative decision made by an administrative group
within the offices of the Dean or Director of Extension. At OSU Extension, on the
other hand, the decision was put fundamentally in the hands of agents and
specialists. This approach stands out for two reasons. First, the decision to allow
faculty and staff the freedom to decide is consistent with espoused
administrative values. It reflects a commitment to employee participation in, and
ownership of, decisions that affect them directly. It also aligns with a belief that
empowered employees are “free to be excellent” through the power to self-
express. This self-expression is perceived to stimulate individual and group
creativity and entrepreneurial behavior.

Employees were involved in the dialogue about teams at both MSU

Extension and UWEX/Cooperative Extension. These interactions were

189

predicated on an administrative-level decision that teams were going to be
adopted. Organizational members at those institutions were involved primarily in
decisions as how to make the transition to SDWTs. This approach was
especially evident in the approach taken by UWEX/COOP when the
administration backed away from a “one size fits all approach,” affirming optional

paths—teams could form around issues or commodities.

Adoption Strategies
UWEX/COOP decided that strategies by which to introduce and adopt

SDWTs would be determined and implemented by the Program Leaders of each
of four program areas. This meant that the decision to adopt was made at the
highest levels of the organization, but the determination of strategy was left in the
hands of administrative unit leaders. At MSUE, administrative leaders (change
managers) made adoption and strategy decisions as a group, and actively
engaged district and county-based unit managers in the implementation process.
At OSUE, all decisions pertaining to adoption and strategy were left to non-
administrative staff.

At OSU Extension, there were no “change managers,” per se, because
there was no grand vision or strategy for SDWTs. However, administrative
leaders sanctioned the idea of teams and lent encouragement and support for
team development and proliferation. Agents and specialists determined how
best to form and work through teams. As institutional knowledge about self-

directed teams grew, the administration took an increasingly active role in

190

supporting teams that formed but, in doing so, did not exercise more or less
control around the decision to form teams or promulgating how they should
function.

At MSU Extension, the administrative team incorporated a number of
concepts and strategies drawn from the SDWT literature. The MSUE strategy
reflected an understanding that team members and leaders were likely to
respond better to coaching and facilitative leadership than to management-
driven, directive leadership. Consequently, the leaders of early teams were
selected primarily for their capacity and skills as facilitative leaders. Additionally,
the Director of Extension devoted considerable time and energy to coaching
team leaders. The MSUE strategy also reflected the understanding that teams,
to succeed over time, would need adequate resources and other forms of
administrative support. At UWEX/COOP and, to a lesser extent, at OSU
Extension, coaching was seen as important as well. At UWEX/COOP, a team of
coaches was formed. Each coach, in addition to other responsibilities within in
the organization, coached up to three teams. Like MSUE, UWEX/COOP
provided seed dollars to the early teams. OSUE Teams were more
entrepreneurial than the early teams at either MSUE or UWEX/COOP. But they
also received financial support, largely in the form of funding professional

development opportunities for team members.

191

Change Managers’ Theories-in-Use

One of the most important findings of this study is that the decision to

adopt SDWTs at the three institutions reflected administrators’ theories-in-use

about change, organizations, leadership, and employees. There are differences

and similarities in the uncovered theories-in-use. Organized into themes, these

are summarized below.

Theories-In-Use About Extension

SDWTs Degree of Fit to the Extension Culture

MSUE: Extension employees generally possess a team-based work
orientation.

MSUE and OSU: SDWTs represent a good ‘fit’ with MSU Extension’s culture.
UWEX: Cooperative Extension’s organizational structure and culture are
consistent with what is required to adopt SDWTs.

SDWTs Benefit to Extension

MSUE: Extension programs would be better if developed and delivered
through SDWTs.

UWEX: Benefits will accrue to UWEX if SDWTs are adopted.

MSUE: Extension would be more effective with SDWTs than without them.
OSUE: The empowerment and self-direction endemic to self-directed work
teams enables team members to self-actualize which, in turn, enables them
to become more creative, innovative and entrepreneurial.

Successfully Adppted SDWTs

OSUE: Permitting SDWTs to form (rather than mandating their creation) is
consistent with organizational values. Resistance to SDWT formation is
reduced when employees make the turnkey decision.

UWEX: Program Leaders would lead the introduction of SDWTs within their
administrative units.

MSUE: Extension could adjust its systems enough to accommodate SDWTs.
MSUE: SDWTs would be successful in Extension as permanent structures.

Theories-In-Use Apout Organization

Shared LeadershjLis an Effective Organizational Approach

MSUE: Shared leadership is more effective than concentrated leadership,

192

 

and decentralized authority is more effective than centralized authority.
OSUE: Sharing leadership and decision making authority is more effective
than centralized leadership and decision making authority.

UWEX: Organizations are most effective when decisions are made as closely
as possible to where an organization serves its constituents.

Self Directed Work Forms Are Associated with Several Organizational Benefits

MSUE: Team-based work is more effective than individually- based work.
OSUE: Team-based synergy produces outputs, outcomes and impacts that
are more relevant to stakeholder interests than those that result from
individual effort alone.

UWEX: Self-directed teams promote collegiality and synergy among team
members.

OSUE: Self-direction encourages employee self-actualization, which in turn
stimulates creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors
among individuals and within groups.

UWEX: Self-direction encourages creativity, innovation, synergy and
entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors among individuals and within groups.

Miscellaneous

MSUE: Resistance to change is inevitable.

OSUE: Self-directed teams will be most successful if comprised of people
who prefer team-based work.

UWEX: Determining the need for organizational change, and providing
leadership for that change, are primarily administrative responsibilities.

Framed as a set of adoption decision points, these theories-in-use

suggest to the researcher that change managers across all three Extension

organizations considered four primary variables in arriving at a “go / no go”

decision about SDWTs. These include beliefs that:

1.
2.

SDWTs offer a number of organizational benefits.
These benefits are more likely to be achieved via SDWTs than through
alternative structures and approaches.

3. SDWTs fit well with the organizational culture.
4.

SDWTs can be successfully adopted in the respective organizations.

In assessing the potential to successfully adopt teams at all three study

sites, consideration was given to a number of systems congruence variables, but

these considerations were relatively minor compared to the consideration

193

change managers gave to cultural congruence. Study findings support the
conclusion that change managers assumed that systems variables could be
successfully addressed through operational adjustments. Cultural congruence,
however, was seen as far important than systems congruence, perhaps because
change managers understood from the literature and from prior experiences that

organizational culture is a difficult thing to change.

Congruence

Tushman and O’Reilly (1997) describe a congruence or alignment
relationship between strategy and four variables that they associate with how
organizations solve problems associated with performance or opportunity
shortfalls. These include critical tasks and work flows; formal organizational
relationships; people; and culture. The following sections describe the major

findings concerning these relationships at each study site.

Congruence between Strateg and Critical Tasks and Work Flows
Resogrce allocation

Overall, change managers understood the importance of supplying teams
with a base level of operating funds, particularly when they were first formed. It
was also true that financial constraints in all three Extension organizations made
it impossible for change managers to provide what they considered to be
adequate start-up funding. Consequently, each Extension organization

established a priority system for distributing resources based on a perception of

194

 

need. At OSU Extension, largely because agent specialization and self-direction
were high priorities among agents, teams and team member were given the
opportunity to identify their own professional development needs and
opportunities, and were subsequently given funds to support those activities. At
UWEX/COOP Extension, an early team priority was team planning.
Consequently, early funds were earmarked to support face-to-face team
planning meetings.

Change managers at all three sites reported limited ability to provide what
they considered to be “critical coaching resources.” Change managers
performed many of these coaching activities by working directly with team
leaders. They believed teams needed dedicated coaches to work with multiple
teams, to serve as liaisons with administration, to help resolve conflicts that
invariably surfaced with teams, to serve as a communication link between teams,
and to assist with a number of administrative activities. Overall, the data suggest
that the level of congruence between the allocation of resources and the team
structures was a concern among change managers at all three study sites. There
is clear evidence that most change managers believed their team structures to
be under-funded. There was also evidence that change managers at OSU
Extension and UWEX/COOP Extension had insufficient understanding of the
need to plan for, and provide adequate funding of, a team structure. At MSU
Extension, there was a clear plan for funding team activities when teams were
first being considered. However, the budget shortfall dramatically reduced the

availability of start-up funds, thereby making the overall adoption process more

195

difficult.

Igmaas opportunities for beIaILovenII/orked

A recurring theme at each study site was a concern among county agents
about team-based work as an addition to their regular programming
responsibilities. In all three cases, county agents believed initially that team-
based work was an “extra responsibility” that often looked more like an “invitation
to burnout” than as an opportunity to produce better programs. This concern
represents the primary point of resistance to teams among county agents at all
three study sites. At OSU Extension, this concern was less critical to agents
because participation on a team was not mandatory. The significance of this
concern lies with the degree to which agents believed work overload could result
from participating on a team. The degree to which this belief affected agent
enthusiasm for the team idea does address the larger issue of how agents
viewed the relationship between the assignment of work responsibilities and the
institution of internal changes as it pertained to their own reality. The researcher
speculates that a cultural feature is critical—discouraging agents from removing
from their plates some work responsibilities. The data did not reveal the
existence of any systematic means, process or specific invitation to agents to
realign work responsibilities to accommodate team-based responsibilities while
adjusting non-team responsibilities accompanied when team concepts were
introduced to county agents. What was broadly communicated, however, was

that benefits associated with participating on teams. The implication was that you

196

can “eat you cake and have it too” by participating in teams. The data suggest

that many agents were skeptical about the “magical” power of teams.

Communication

A concern that spanned each site was how team members would
communicate. The cost of supporting face-to-face meetings was a concern to
administrators. A second concern was the quality of electronic communication.
Each study site had its own slate of face-to-face meeting opportunities, as well
as its own mix of electronic communication options. Despite the general
abundance of these options, there was generally a feeling among change
managers that agents were not enthusiastic about the adding meetings
associated with team-based activities. Often, the most desirable compromise
was regular conference calls and email-based communications. Due to the
statewide distribution of team members at each study site, this concern remains

unresolved.

Congruence between StrategLand Formal Organizational Relationships

1:11.68 of Accountability/Reportiqu

Change managers reported that the notion of member accountability to
the team rather than to an administrator was new and attractive to county agents
and specialists alike. At OSU and MSU Extension agents’ feelings of

accountability to teams was particularly high. It is important to point out that, at

197

all three sites, traditional reporting lines of agents and specialists did not
disappear when teams were introduced. Rather, a new accountability system
was introduced. There was no evidence that agents or specialists viewed the
introduction of this new system as a liability. In fact, change managers reported
across all three Extension organizations that team members felt quite

comfortable with accountability relationships to fellow team members.

Congr_uence between Strategy and Perfla

Concerns of campus-based faculty

A common theme reported by change managers across all three study
sites was the view, among some campus-based faculty, that teams were a threat
to either their preference for independent work or to their previously established
research collaborations with other colleagues. Study data suggest that campus-
based faculty felt this way for a variety of reasons. Some reported an overriding
desire to work alone versus as a member of a team. Others were disinclined to
join teams IF, in doing so, it meant that they would have less time and/or
resources available to invest in individually defined research programs. Still
others seemed to value less the applied research and service activities
associated with team-based work vis-a-vis “pure” research activities associated
with traditional faculty roles. Finally, some campus department chairs were
reported to believe that teams siphoned off dollars, and negatively influenced

department prestige.

198

These findings suggest issues surrounding the level of congruence
between the introduction of SDWTs and the preferred way of operating for some
on-campus faculty and department chairs. This finding is consistent with valuing
a traditional academic environment in which faculty are expected to produce
individual scholarship first, demonstrate teaching competence second, and
engage in outreach and service, third. On the other hand, change managers
reported that many faculty placed considerable value on applied research and

outreach, and viewed teams as an effective venue for conducting such activities.

Leagership SMBS of leaders and Chang managags

In all three cases, change managers performed multiple leadership roles
relative to the adoption of self-directed teams within their respective Extension
organizations. These roles included originating the idea of introducing SDWTs,
being an active proponent, leading the design of an adoption strategy, helping to
implement the adoption strategy, and serving as “coach.” Often, these
leadership roles were performed simultaneously by one or more people. In the
final analysis, a predominant leadership style guided the performance of these
roles and/or influenced the people who were selected for them. The data
suggest that a facilitative, transformational leadership paradigm was present in
all three Extension organizations, and the degree to which this style influenced
the adoption process varied across the cases.

Several SDWT authors (Fisher, 1993; Orsborn et al., 1990; Wellins et al.,

1991) have asserted that managers’ capacity and commitment to behave in

199

ways that are consistent with self-directed teams are antecedent to the
successful adoption of teams. In this study, managers in OSU Extension
reflected a high level of congruence with SDWT principles. Specifically, the
leadership styles of both the Director of Extension and the Dean of the College
of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences reflected a commitment to, and
the capacity to practice, participative management and facilitative leadership.
They were willing to share authority about fundamental decisions—whether
teams would and should be introduced, and how.

At MSU Extension, the Director of Extension was also committed to
facilitative leadership. The Director believed that successful adoption depended
on the acceptability of teams to Extension agents, campus department chairs,
and specialists. The administrator invested considerable time and energy in
educating them about what SDWTs were and could do, and involved them in the
process of deciding whether and how teams should be introduced. In doing so,
the Director demonstrated a willingness to share responsibility for change-based
decisions and was a vocal and enthusiastic proponent of self-directed teams.
Others viewed this as highly influential during the adoption process. Still, the final
decision to adopt teams within MSU Extension was made by an administrative
team. That team was informed and influenced by a variety of perspectives,
inside and outside Extension and the University.

Where UWEX differs in leadership approach is that, at UWEX, the
decision to adopt was primarily an administrative one. The development and

implementation of an adoption strategy was left to the program areas. Within

200

ANR, adoption—once underway—proceed with facilitative, consensus-based
leadership. Similar to MSU Extension, a design team was formed to develop an
adoption strategy. Like Directors at both OSU Extension and MSU Extension,
the Associate Dean of CANR at UWEX believed in and modeled participative,
consensus-based decision making. The design team he formed to develop an
adoption strategy practiced this approach throughout the adoption process.
Common to all three Extension organizations was an understanding of the
value of participative leadership in introducing organizational change. This
understanding was operationalized in different ways, and in varying degrees,

across each Extension organization.

Knowledge of Change Leaders about Self-flrected Teams and Organizational
Change

Change managers’ depth and breadth of knowledge about self-directed
work teams varied greatly within and across each of the three Extension
organizations. Prior to adoption, Extension administrators in each case explored
a relatively narrow body of literature. There is little evidence they any of them
explored the literature of organizational change in any depth.

Because OSU Extension began adopting teams before most of the
literature on SDWTs was available, the adoption process was least informed by
a knowledge base. The Director of MSU Extension had perhaps the most
knowledge of the literature on SDWTs, and reported reading other literature
associated with organization development and change. He also had the

advantage of being able to examine OSU Extension’s experience with self-

201

directed teams prior to introducing teams in MSU Extension. UWEX/COOP
Extension administrators had the best opportunity to learn from other Extension
organizations prior to adopting teams. They had extensive discussions with
MSU Extension, among others, prior to making any decision to adopt teams at
UWEX. However, there was little evidence that they explored the literature on
self-directed teams or organizational change prior to their decision to adopt
teams. This researcher did provide Extension administrators and ANR change
managers with a number of readings, as well as literature review on the topic of
self-directed teams. However, this occurred after the decision to adopt teams

was made.

CongruenceLetween Strategy and Culture

Rewarg system

Evidence suggests that county-based agents at all three study sites
generally valued, and had significant experience with, collaborative work forms
such as committees, task forces, and teams. The evidence suggests that such
work forms were a common feature of organizational life at each study site—so
much so, that were commonly referred to as part of the organizational culture.
Extension agents in all organizations considered self-directed teams to be akin to
commonly used group-based work forms. In fact, at UWEX/COOP, a number of
respondents suggested that self-directed work teams had been operating within
the organization for years even though they were not called self-directed teams

perse.

202

Respondents reported considerable consistency in their view that
campus-based faculty in all sites tended to work within a traditional academic
culture that placed more value on individual effort than on team effort. However,
some campus-based faculty at each site perceived their research collaborations
to be SDWTs. Because of this (and other reasons), a number of campus-based
faculty across the sites—both tenured and untenured in status—were
enthusiastic members in and supporters of self-directed teams. Still, tenure and
promotion processes reflected a bias in favor of individual scholarship as
opposed to team-based scholarship. Consequently, the level of congruence
between the culture of campus-based academic departments (home to most
Extension specialists) and the cultural requirements of self-directed teams was

generally low across all three study sites.

Congruence ana Other Elements of Omnizational Culture

E_mpowerment ang adaptation to chaaga

The process used to consider and arrive at an institutional decision about
whether and how to adopt self-directed teams was most empowering within OSU
Extension. Because adoption was optional, the decision to adopt, and how, did
not represent a change that anyone was required to make. Consequently, the
change to teams was made willingly and with little resistance. The study data
suggest that the adoption approach taken by OSU Extension was quite
consistent with how decisions were made in other dimensions of life within that

organization. Likewise, there was no evidence to suggest that the adoption of

203

self-directed teams proceeded in ways inconsistent with “how business was
done” at MSU Extension or at UWEX, either. Consequently, the degree of
congruence between the adoption approach taken, on one hand, and historical

organizational culture, on the other, was high at all three study sites.

Summary

All three Extension organizations approached the adoption of change and
innovation associated with SDWTs from different administrative perspectives.
The predominant difference revolved around how Extension administrators
defined their own and others’ roles and responsibilities relative to the change
process.

At UWEX/Cooperative Extension, administrators considered the decision
of whether to adopt self-directed teams to be an inherently administrative
decision. After the decision to adopt self-directed teams was made,
administrative attention turned to how change managers throughout Extension
would work on the adoption process in the program areas. At MSU Extension,
administrative roles focused, first, on raising the level of institutional
understanding of, and enthusiasm for, self-directed teams. While these
approaches were representative of different administrative perspectives, in each
case, change was led rather than managed.

Across all three organizations, change was based largely in the
assumptions administrators had about organizations, leadership, and

organizational change. In none of the cases was there a systematic diagnosis of

204

organizational readiness to change. There was, in all cases, considerable
willingness to explore, adjust, and generally “embark on a journey” of discovery
and learning associated with the adoption of SDWTs. This emergent and
incremental approach mimic change process associated with appreciative inquiry

and action research.

205

CHAPTER NINE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

A summary of the study and its findings are presented in this chapter.
The researcher also offers conclusions drawn from the research and

recommendations for practice and further research.

Summary

Purpose

This study focused on organizational processes used to consider and then
to adopt self-directed work teams in three Extension organizations—in the states
of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The research purpose was to describe,
analyze, and explain how three state Extension organizations framed and
approached the challenges associated with organizational change and
innovation. This was accomplished by addressing a single grand tour question

and three related sub-questions:

Grandlaur Question
What conditions, strategies and processes characterized the adoption of

SDWTs at each study site?

Sub-Question #1

What conditions led to the adoption of self-directed teams at each study

site?

206

Sub-guestion #2
What organizational factors were antecedent to the adoption of self-

directed teams at each study site?

Sub-gpestion #3
What other factors surfaced at each study site that played a significant

role in either facilitating or impeding the adoption self-directed teams?

Methodology

This study is associated with the constructivist research tradition. How
and why self-directed work teams were adopted at each study site is seen as a
construction that emerged from the perspectives and experiences of participants
in a social context.

Open-ended interviews were held with five to seven informants from each
study site. E-mail and telephone conversations were used to invite change
managers and informants to participate in the study. The researcher’s personal
familiarity with a number of the study participants established an atmosphere of
trust between the researcher and respondents. These interviews, conducted in a
relaxed and conversational manner, were used to explore and interpret change
managers’ perspectives concerning adoption conditions, events, processes, and
their relationships to each other.

Data gathering and interpretation occurred simultaneously during

interviews. The researcher encouraged participants to describe events as they

207

understood them and to offer their own perspectives as to why events occurred
how and when they did. Through this process, a ‘story’ emerged from each
study site that was subsequently validated by the respective study participants.
Next, the researcher analyzed each Extension’s organization’s adoption story in
relationship to concepts and perspectives associated with the literature on

change, innovation, and teams.

Conclusions
The conclusions shared here address how changes managers
approached self-directed work teams specifically, and organizational change and

innovation generally.

fl)WTs as a Way to Address Mulmle and lnterrelated Dilemmas

Change managers saw SDWTs as an effective venue through which they
might successfully address a number of critical, interrelated organizational
issues. These issues related directly to their desire to improve the capacity of
their respective Extension organizations to respond with increased speed and
effectiveness to increasingly rigorous constituent demands.

First, they believed that the level and quality of collegiality between state
specialists and county-based educators influenced the amount of importance
local issues received on campus and, consequently, how prominent these issues
were on the research agendas of state specialists. They also understood that

some county-based constituencies wanted faster, more expert responses to their

208

issues, and that teams comprised of both specialists and agents could respond
faster and more effectively than either could alone. Teams comprised of state
specialists and county educators were seen as a way to improve the quality and
quantity of interaction and relationships between these two sets of Extension
employees.

Change managers understood that the diversity of team members’
perspectives was needed to more effectively frame and respond to field-based
issues, and that the inherently diverse membership envisioned for SDWTs
ensured that multiple broader perspectives would be brought to bear on applied
problems. They believed that the highly relational, empowered environment of
SDWTs could facilitate the development of creative and innovative capacity of
individuals, and the development of synergy among teams that would be needed

to provide highly innovative Extension research and education programs.

A Particiwry Approach Generally Valued anfidJ-Emresseg inQifferent Ways
Extension change managers believed in, valued and practiced, a
participatory approach to leadership and management but they did so in different
ways. The approach taken by each Extension organization reflected the larger
organizational culture and associated leadership paradigm associated with it.
OSU Extension leaders preferred to involve the entire organization is an
ongoing dialogue in what was a highly deliberative approach to shared
leadership. MSU Extension leaders gave birth to the vision of SDWTs but

involved a much larger group of people in the framing of the change approach

209

and the development of strategy. What emerged was a shared vision and
strategy for the adoption of self-directed work teams. UW-Extension/COOP
administrative leaders developed the vision for SDWTs but delegated the
crafting of an implementation strategy to program areas. At the program area
level, a much larger group of stakeholders, including county-based educators
and state specialists, were deeply involved in determining how teams would form

and work.

Mm Relied: on _Qifferentlv and for Different Reasons

There was considerable variation in the depth and breadth of literature
read by change managers across and within the three study Extension
organizations. The author attributes this to the different change-based roles
played by change managers. Generally, how and how deeply the literature was
used tended to reflect the predominant approach to change and innovation at
each study site.

In one case, the literature was used to gain knowledge about self-directed
teams as a means of understanding how to make organizational systems more
team-friendly. In this case, some of the literature on leadership, and on
organizational change and development was also accessed as a means of
understanding how to make the organization more change-friendly so that
teams, as a form of change, would meet less resistance once introduced. In
another case, knowledge was sought to better understand changes that had

emerged. And, in another case, the literature on self-directed teams was used to

210

both familiarize change managers with the basic concepts of self-directed teams,

as well as to help them develop basic implementation strategies.

“Readiness” for SDWTs Was Not Analyzed Svstematicallv

In examining readiness to adopt self-directed teams, change managers
relied heavily on their personal knowledge of, and ‘feel’ for, their respective
organizations rather than adopt any systematic approach to readiness
assessment. The author believes that this approach was driven by both a basic
level of unfamiliarity among change managers with systematic approaches to
determining readiness, as well as by their compelling intuitive attraction to teams.
In effect, organizational readiness to adopt teams unfolded as a set of questions
used to formulate strategy rather than as questions used to determine whether or
not teams should be adopted at all. Without exception, change managers
considered teams to be the right innovation at the right time to address their
most troubling organizational problems. Consequently, any decision to pursue a
systematic approach to determining whether or not teams were an appropriate
change to introduce would have been counterintuitive given change manager's
theories-in-use about how organizations work best. In effect, these theories-in-
use were the driving force in determining change managers’ views about the
relative appropriateness of teams, and effectively replaced any systematic

approach that might otherwise have been employed.

211

Focus of Action On Systems Change With Regqnition of Culture CW
Change managers took the view that a full spectrum of unique
organizational conditions, ranging from the nature of the issues they were facing
and how teams seemed to fit these issues, to the paradigmatic alignment that
characterized their operating environments, compelled them to introduce teams.
They also considered cultural change to be a far more difficult and lengthy
challenge than systems change in preparing their organizations for self-directed
teams. Consequently, they tended to concentrate on systems changes, such as
reward systems and various mechanisms to support teams, that they could more

easily control.

Theories-ln-Use of Change Managers Was a Critical Varia_b_l;

Change managers’ theories-in-use influenced their thinking and action far
more than did any other variable in their planning to adopt self-directed teams.
These theories were very broad, addressing virtually every dimension of change
strategy. Change managers’ views concerning organizational readiness for
teams, fit, congruence, benefits associated with teams and how they would
unfold within their respective organizations, the challenges that adopting teams
would present, and which literature they would examine, and why, were all
functions of their theories-in-use.

Change managers generally related to their organizations and defined
their roles and approaches to them through the lens of their theories-in-use. Yet,

they did not appear to relate to these theories in a conscious way. There was no

212

evidence that change managers reflected upon their theories-in-use, challenged
them, discussed them with others, or were even aware of them and how they

were guiding their own thoughts and actions.

Perhaps the most significant conclusion of this research is that reflecting
upon and working with one’s theories-in—use should be the beginning point of any
change effort. By reflecting upon, articulating and remaining aware of their
theories-in-use, change managers could identify and consider a wider range of
frames, problems, solutions, constraints and opportunities. Both the problem
space and the solution space could be greatly expanded by understanding that
the approach taken to an organizational issue reflects a constrained view of
reality. Acknowledging that constraint represents a significant step in a more

holistic approach to thought and action.

Recommendations
Practice RecommendLations
Successfully adopting SDWTs depends upon the willingness of
organizational members to support team concepts. A number of helpful

strategies with which to proceed include:

1. Change managers should explore the literature on organizational change,
innovation, and self-directed work teams. Doing so will provide change
managers with a sound theoretical foundation upon which to consider and

evaluate alternative adoption strategies.

213

2. Change managers should perform a deliberate and comprehensive diagnosis
of organizational culture to determine the degree of fit between values
associated with self-directed work teams and those that predominate in an
organization. The degree of fit between the two can inform a decision on
whether self-directed work teams are appropriate, and/or what cultural

changes must be employed to prepare an organization for teams.

3. Change managers should carefully consider the experiences of other
organizations when considering self-directed work teams as an option.
Embedded within these experiences are valuable lessons. But, when doing
so, managers must resist the temptation to move too quickly. The
assumption, sometimes false, is that what works in one Extension

organization will automatically work in another.

4. Self-directed work teams require an organizational culture and structure that
empowers employees. Change managers need to think and act in ways
consistent with an empowerment model if they expect employees to do the

same.

5. A self-directed work team is an organizational tool that has been linked in the

private sector to projects with finite life spans. There is no evidence to

suggest that they will succeed as a framework around which to structure an

214

entire organization, private or public, over time. Because of that, change

managers are encouraged to use caution before committing broadly.

. Self-directed work teams as they have been deployed in Extension
organizations require dedicated coaching from colleagues who embrace and

are skilled at practicing a facilitative leadership style.

. Leaders of self-directed teams should employ a facilitative approach to
leadership. This approach to leadership encourages team members to hold

themselves accountable to the team rather than to one or two team leaders.

. Used as organizational tools, and deployed in ways that are consistent with
an organization’s culture and systems, self-directed work teams can produce
tremendous organizational benefits. When they are overlaid upon an
organization possessing a team-unfriendly culture or introduced when an
organization is not ready for the cultural changes teams require, the potential

to improve employee performance may be lost.

. Change managers need to consider whether or not teams make sense given
a number of fundamental challenges associated with the successful
introduction of teams. These challenges fall into one of two basic categories -
organizational support and team authenticity or quality. Hitchcock and

Willard (1995) address the former by challenging change managers to

215

consider six questions in what they call a “red flag assessment (p. 7) when

considering whether or not teams are an appropriate innovation to introduce.

These include:

1.

 

Support from the Top - ls top management committed to involving
employees?
Change in Leadership - Will top management be around long enough

 

to see the implementation through?

Interdependence - Are the employees interdependent? Do they need
to work together to complete a process, product, or project or to
provide a service?

m- Are selfodirected teams a high enough priority that they will
get the time and resources necessary to make them successful?
_Ti_mg - Does the work or work schedule allow employees time to think,
meet, and discuss ideas?

Technical Assistance - Are the employees technically competent in

their work?

Katzenbach and Smith (1993) address the latter by challenging

change managers to ensure that the teams they introduce are what they refer

to as “real teams” (p. 44), which consistently demonstrate high performance.

They posit that “real teams”:

1. are small in number;

216

2. have members that, together, possess adequate levels of
complimentary skills’

3. adopt a genuinely meaningful purpose;

4. adopt a specific goal or goals;

5. demonstrate a clear approach to accomplishing work together;

6. Demonstrate a sense of mutual accountability among team
members.

A non-team approach should be considered if an organization can not
meet Hitchcock and Willard’s red flag assessment or Katzenbach's six key
team basic questions. Finally, the choice between a real team or a non-team
approach, such as a single leader working group, is not a one time decision

and should be made on the basis of each performance challenge.

Recommergations For Research

1. Explicating Change Managers’ Theories-ln-Use - This study revealed that the
unexplicated nature of theories-in-use serves as an inhibitor to a more
reflective, deliberate approach to organizational change. Research focusing
on strategies and approaches that organizations might take to illuminate and
respond to their change managers’ theories-in-use would increase our

understanding of organizational change processes.

2. Undertaking a Stangard OD Studv of Organizational Readiness - The

researcher found the literature focusing on organizational readiness to lack

217

both depth and breadth. Research focusing on the identification of variables
associated with organizational readiness to change and innovate would
generate valuable knowledge concerning the relationship between where an
organization is and where it needs to be to successfully engage in change

efforts.

3. Ad_dressinLMore Intentionally the girders in the Broader Cultural Context
Culture exists as a formidable force in determining the direction, pace and
potential for success of change. Research that examines the relationships
between organizational culture and change readiness, for example, would
generate knowledge that would be useful to change managers in determining

pre-change organizational development strategies.

4. Being Strategic andAgggtive & Knowing When to Be One Versgs the Other
Some successful organizations seem to be able to weave an adaptive quality
into the development and execution of strategy. What enables them to do
so? Research focusing on the processes and dynamics associated with this
question would help us to better understand how and why this capacity is

demonstrated by some organizations and not well or at all others.

5. Building on the ‘Naturalness’ of the Innovation - Some of the essential

qualities inherent in self-directed work teams including empowerment,

creativity, self-expression, collegiality and others seem to resonate with some

218

people more than others. Is it because these qualities represent a set of
natural ‘leverage points’ that permit the freeing of human potential?
Research focusing on this question would add to our understand of the
relationships between the essential qualities of self-direction elements of

SDWTs and human productivity.

219

APPENDIX A

E-MAIL LETTER COMMUNICATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS WHOM HE SOUGHT
TO INCLUDE AS STUDY PARTICIPANTS

The purpose of this correspondence is to request your participation in my
doctoral study on a topic concerning the adoption of self-directed work teams
within Extension organizations. As I believe you know, I’m in the process of
writing my dissertation in the MSU Department of Resource

Development. My study is entitled: "Readiness for Adopting Self-directed Work
Teams in the Public Sector: A Comparative Analysis of Three State Cooperative
Extension Systems." My study will cover MSU Extension, Ohio State University
Extension and the University of Wisconsin-Extension/Cooperative Extension.
During the week of XXX, I will be in XXX to conduct in-person interviews with
individuals who have been identified as having significant, personal involvement
in the early developmental stages of self-directed work teams at MSU Extension.
You have been identified as one of these individuals. Your participation would be
limited to a 1.5 to 2-hour interview which I will conduct, and possibly a shorter
follow-up interview which could be conducted over the telephone.

Please respond to this email with any available time slots you have next week.
Please feel free to include early mornings and evenings as I want to be as
flexible and accommodating in scheduling an interview as possible.

You may also feel free to contact me by telephone at (608) 236-9241. In addition
to this email, I will continue to try to reach you by telephone.

I certainly hope you will be able to participate in this study. When completed later
this spring, it should hold considerable value for Extension faculty, staff,
administrators and organizations interested or involved

in self-directed work teams specifically, and in public sector innovation, generally.

Best regards, Bill Rizzo

220

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM
FOR DISSERTATION RESEARCH BY WILLIAM S. RIZZO
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ENTITLED:

"READINESS FOR ADOPTING SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR:
a Comparative analysis of state cooperative extension systems”

Dear Extension Leader:

I would like to invite your participation in a study to expand our understanding of
how state Extension systems innovate. I am conducting this study as
dissertation level research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D.
degree at Michigan State University, in the Department of Resource
Development.

The goal of my study is to expand our knowledge about how state Extension
systems approach the adoption of administrative innovation, generally, and the
adoption of one kind of administrative innovation, the self-directed work team,
specifically. You have been identified as an individual possessing broad insight
and experience concerning the adoption of self-directed work teams at Ohio
State University Extension. Your role in this study will consist of participating in
up to two interviews for which I will serve as the sole interviewer. During the
interviews, you will be encouraged to be broad and expansive in your responses,
and to raise and respond to questions and issues not necessarily asked by the
interviewer so that the full breadth and range of your experience with the
adoption of self-directed work teams at Ohio State University Extension is
captured.

Prior to conducting an interview, I would like to emphasize that, as a participant

in this study, you have specific rights as follows:

1. Your role as a participant consists of up to two separate interview session
lasting no more than 1.5 hours each.

2. Your participation in this study is purely voluntary. You may refuse to
participate in the study, to answer specific questions, and to end your
participation at any time.

3. All interviews in which you participate will be tape recorded by myself. Any
transcripts produced from these interviews will he completely confidential.
The only individual possessing access to them will be me. As an additional
measure of protection, any transcripts of these interviews will be identified by
a code number. Any other characteristics that could potentially be used to
identify you as a focus group participant will be deleted.

221

4. Portions of these interviews may be included in the final research report, and
in publications stemming from it . However, in no cases, will your name or
any other identifying characteristics be associated with excerpts from these
interviews, or included in any report or other publication stemming from this
research.

If you agree to participate in this study, please print and sign your name,
and date below.

Thank you very much for your willingness to participate in this very important
study. The knowledge gained through this research will advance our knowledge
of how Extension systems innovate. As such, it should be of interest to a broad
and growing audience.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have relating to this
study. I may be reached at the address, telephone number and email address
listed below.

William S. Rizzo
510 Togstad Glen
Madison, WI 53711
(608) 236-9241
Email: wsrizzo@facstaff.wisc.edu

I understand the research described above and the procedures and conditions
under which I will participate, and agree to participate in this study.

 

PRINT NAME

 

SIGNATURE DATE

222

APPENDIX C

E-MAIL COMMUNICATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF OSU EXTENSION
EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND REQUESTING A LIST OF
POTENTIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Dear xxx;

Earlier this month, I met with my dissertation committee at Michigan State to
discuss my research proposal. One of the major decisions made during that
meeting was that I would proceed to conduct a focus group meeting at each
study site prior to a full-scale data collection visit, the purpose of which would be
to better understand each site and how it approaches teams. To this end, I am
in need of your help in two critical areas:

1) I need to identify a group of from 8 to 10 participants for the focus group
who, together and alone, can describe the historical development of self-
directed work teams at Ohio State University Extension. It is important that
one or two of these participants be external to OSU Extension/OSU assuming
that non-University/non-Extension individuals serve(d) on or have, in some
capacity, participated in the development of SDWTs at OSU Extension. I
would also need your help in scheduling one 2-hour focus group session with
these individuals during the first half of January 2000, including a facility for
doing so.

2) I'll also need your assistance in identifying a group of from eight to ten
individuals who would be willing to be participate in the primary data
collection portion of my study - individual key informant interviews that I
anticipate would take about two hours each with a potential need for some
follow-up interviewing. This group would need to have broad knowledge,
over time, about why SDWTs were employed, how. I would like to conduct
these interviews during the third week of January, but no later than the end of
January.

Please drop me an email to let me know how 'do-able’ you think this schedule is
and whether you’ll be able to help in identifying individuals for the focus group
and the individual interviews. It would be helpful for us to have a telephone
conversation about both groups of participants. Please let me know when I
might call you, as well as a telephone number for doing so IF it is different than
your office phone. Feel free also to call me at (608) 236-9241.

I look forward to your reply as soon as you can provide it. Please accept my
best wishes for a happy Holiday season.

Sincerely, Bill Rizzo

223

3a.

3b.

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Please describe the internal organizational environmental conditions that,
in your view, contributed to or may have prompted, in some way or
combination, the introduction of self- directed work teams here. These
may include the internal finances, internal politics, predominant patterns
of thought and action (dominant paradigms), strategic plans and
priorities, general or specific organizational behaviors, and/or any other
external conditions or circumstances (to Extension) you consider to be
significant in relation to the introduction of self-directed work teams.

Please describe the external organizational environmental conditions that,
in your view, contributed to or may have prompted, in some way or
combination, the introduction of self-directed work teams here. These
may include external funding conditions, external political pressures and
realities, external stakeholder, program needs and/or any other external
conditions or circumstances (to Extension) you consider to be significant
in relation to the introduction of self-directed work teams.

Please identify and describe the degree to which various organizational
systems and processes within Extension did or did not fit, or were or were
not congruent with SDWTs at the time SDWTs were introduced. Please
describe if and how Extension organizational systems may have changed
to increase their ’fit’ with SDWTs as they developed. Examples of
organizational systems and process would include those relating to:
employee evaluation, compensation and rewards; reporting; resource
allocation; professional development; planning; research; organizational
learning; etc.

What internal organizational conditions were, in your view, tended to
support the employment of self-directed work teams?

What external (to Extension) condition, in your view, tended to support the
employment of self-directed work teams?

Why do you believe self-directed work teams were introduced at the time
they were instead of at some previous or future time?

How would you describe the various internal reactions to the
organization’s decision to introduce self-directed work teams?

How would you describe the various external (to Extension) reactions to
the organization's decision to introduce self-directed work teams?

224

10.

11.

What, in your view, have been the successes or advantages associated
with self-directed work teams since their introduction?

What, in your view, have been the failures or difficulties associated with
self-directed work teams since their introduction?

If time could be rolled back, what do you believe should be done
differently in considering and employing self-directed work teams?

Please describe the range of employee and other stakeholder responses

to the deployment of SDWTs. Please consider and include booth positive
and negative responses.

225

 

APPENDIX E

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR OSU EXTENSION

. In general terms, how would you describe how self-directed teams work at
OSU Extension?
. Why was the decision made to adopt self directed work teams here?

. How was the decision to adopt self directed work teams made?

. Who was involved in making the decision to adopt self directed work teams,
and how were they involved?

226

APPENDIX F

SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES OF DATA

Michigan State University Extension

1.

December 6,1994 Memo from MSUE Administrative Team to All County
Extension Directors containing the following enclosures:

Key points to consider in the AoE Team design

The final AoE Committee report

Suggested Implementation Steps for new AoE Agents

Potential Strategies: Presentations to Advisory Groups and Officials
Area of Expertise maps

599-9975”

Developing a Curriculum (DACUM) document
Mode of Operation for MSU Extension Dairy Extension Programming Team

A paper entitled “Area Of Expertise Teams: The Michigan Approach to
Applied Research and Extension.” This paper was authored by:

~ Arlen Leholm, Associate Vice Provost and MSUE Director

Larry Hamm, Chairperson and Professor, Dept. of Agriculture Economics
Murari Suvedi, Associate Professor, Program Evaluation

Ian Gray, Associate Vice Provost and MAES Direct or

Fred Poston, Vice Provost and Dean, College of Agriculture & Nat.
Resources

1111

A Paper Entitled “How to Serve as an AoE Team Coach” by Dr. Ray
Vlasin, Professor, MSU Dept. of Resource Development and Coordinator
of Extension Community and Economic Development Programs

Team Approach

(httpzllwww.msue.msu.edu/aoe/)

a. Explanation of Area of Expertise (AoE) teams

b. Institutional definition of Self Directed Work Teams (SDWTs)
0. Membership Criteria for SDWTs

Employee Development System Awards
(httpzllwww.msue.msu.edu/msue/docs/empdevsysaward.pdf

History - Aligning MSUE for the 21" Century"
(http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/docs/b_p.html)

227

._‘

-13

OSU Extension! College of Food, Agricultural. anc_l_§nvironmental Sciences

1.

LI
1.

Cultural Change” statement from the Vice President
(http:l/cfaes.ohio-state.edu/reinvent/culture.html)

“Steps to Positive Change”
(http:l/cfaes.ohio-state.edu/reinvent/culture/steps.html)

"Vision Challenge Teams” statements describing:
a. Programmatic Focus

b. Organizational Structure and Processes

c. Reward System

d. Communication and Marketing

College Vision Statement
(http:l/cfaes.ohio-stateedu/reinvent/vision.html)

niversity of Wisconsin-QttensionICoogerative Extension

Self-Directed Teams and Their Missions (Systems Teams and Issue
Teams)
(http:l/www.uwex.ed ulces/ag/‘l’eams/index.html)

UWEX Trends analysis (1999)
(http:l/bluto.uwex.edu/ceslluag/trends.html)

ANR Guide for Writing Plans and Reports
(http:l/bluto.uwex.edu/ces/admin/aabplan.pdf)

Press Release (12/1998) Entitled: “Extension Ag Teams to Focus on State
Issues and Production”
(http:l/bluto.uwex.edu/ces/news/releases/a99812ff.htm)

Statewide Committee on Program Planning Meeting Minutes (7/1/1999)
(http:l/bluto.uwex.edu:80/ces/plan/july1 .htm)

On-Iine Brochure - “Cooperative Extension in Wisconsin”
(http:l/extremist.uwex.edu/ces/about/partners.pdf)

228

REFERENCES

Ackerrnan, C. and J. Harrop. “The management of technological innovation in
the machine tool industry: a cross-national regional survey of Britain and
Switzerland.” R&D Management 15 (1985) 207-218.

Aiken, M. and R. Alford. "Community structure and innovation: the case of urban
renewal.” American Sociological Review 35 (1970) 650-665.

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. Theory in pmtioe: increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. Organizational learning : a theory of action
perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1978.

Bass, Bernard M. and Bruce J. Avolio. Improving organizational effectiveness
throthtransformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
1994.

Bacharach, Samuel 8., Peter Bamberger and William J. Sonnenstuhl. Member
assistance programs in the workplace: the role of Iapor in the prevention
and treatment of su_batance apuse. Ithaca: ILR Press, 1994.

Baldridge, J.V. “Organizational Change: Institutional Sagas, External Challenges,
and Internal Politics." In J.V. Baldridge and TE. Deal, Managing Change
in Educational Organizations. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1975.

Bass, Bernard M. Leadership and_performance Bavofl Expectations. New York:
The Free Press, 1985.

Bass, Bernard M. Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leagership. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.

Bedian, A.G. Organizations: Theory ang Analysis. Illinois: Dryden Press, 1980.

Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Modern Approaches to Ungerstanding
and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.

Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Reframirlg Organizations: Artistry.
Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Bouwen, René, Jan De Visch and Chris Steyaert. Innovation projects in

organizations: complementing the dominant logic by organizational
learning. In Dian Marie Hosking and Neil Anderson (Eds), Organizational

229

Change and Innovation: Psychological perspectives and practices in Eurog.
London: Routledge, 1992.

Bower, M. Nurturing innovation in an organization. In G.A. Steiner (Ed), The
Creative Organization. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1965.

Bruce, Raymon and Sherman Wyman. Changing Organizations: Practicipg_
Action Training ang Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.

Burns, James MacGregor. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Burns, Tom and G. M. Stalker. The management of innovation. London:
Tavistock, 1961.

Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Pu_b|ic and Nonprofit Organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Buchholz, Steve and Thomas Roth. Creatim the High-Perfomiance Team. New
York: Wiley 8 Sons, 1987.

Caplow, Theodore. Principles of organization. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, 1964.

Carlson, R.O. “Summary and critique of educational diffusion research.
Research Implications for Educational Diffusion,” Michigan Department of
Education, 1968.

Coch, L. and J. R. P French. “Overcoming Resistance to Change.” Human
Relations, 1948, 1, 512-533.

Coleman, J. Medical Innovation: A diffusion Study. New York: Bobbs-Merril,
1966.

Covey, Stephen R. PrinripIe-Centered Leaderslm. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1990.

Covey, Stephen R. Primle-centereg leadership. New York: Simon 8. Schuster,
1 992.

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative and Qflntitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.

Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley. Organization Dpvelflment &
Change. 6"1 ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 1997.

230

Cyert, Richard Michael and James G. March. A behavioral theory of tha firm.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Daft, R.L. “A dual-core model of organizational innovation.” Acaclpmv of
Management Journal 21 (1978): 193-210.

Damanpour, F. and WM. Evan. “Organizational innovation and performance: the

problem of ‘organizational lag . Administrative ScienceJQuarterlv 29
(1984): 392-409.

Deeprose, Donna. The Team Coach: Vital New Skills for Sppervisors &
Managers in a Teamgnvironment. New York: American Management
Association, 1995.

Duncan, Robert B. “Characteristics of Organizational Environments and
Perceived Environmental Uncertainty.” Administrative Science Quarterly
17 (1972):313-27.

Fisher, Kimbal. Leading Self-Directed Work Teams: A Guide to Developing New
Team Leadership Skills. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

Foster, R. Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. New York: Mcamillan, 1986.

French, Wendell L. and Cecil H. Bell, Jr. Organization Development: Behavioral
Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1995.

Green, Thad B. and Raymond T. Butkus. Motivation, Beliestand Organizational
Transformation. Westport: Quorum Books, 1999.

Gross, N., J.B. Giacquinta and M. Bernstein. Implementing Organizational
Innovations: A Sociological Analysis of Planned Educational Changa. New
York: Basic Books, 1971.

 

Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon Guba. Natpralistic Inquifl. Newbury Park: Sage,
1985.

Hage J. and Aiken, M. “Program change and organizational properties: a
comparative analysis.” American Joprnal of Sociology 72 (1967):, 503-
519.

Hage, Jerald and Michael Aiken. Social change in complex organizations. New
York: Random House, 1970.

231

Hage, Jerald, ed. Futures of Organizations: Innovating to Adapt Strategy and
Humap Resources to Rapid Technological Change. New York: Lexington
Books, 1988.

Handy, C. Understanding Organizations. Harrnondsworth: Penguin, 1985.

Harrison, Michael I. DiagnosingOrganizations: Methods; Models. and
Processes. Newbury Park: Sage, 1987.

Harrington-Mackin, Deborah, The Team Builmg Tool Kit: Tips. Tactics. and
Bales for Efiective Workplace Teams. New York: American management
Association, 1994.

Harrison, Michael I. Diagnosing Organizations: Methods. Models. @109
W. Newbury Park: Sage, 1987.

Harvey, E. and R. Mills. Patterns of organizational adaptation: a political
perspective. In M.N. Zald (Ed), Powpr in Organizations. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1970.

Hosking, Dian Marie and Neil Anderson, eds. OrganizatiorEl Change and
Innovation: Psychological perspectives and_practices in Europe. London:
Routledge, 1992.

Kaluzny, A., J. Veney and J. Gentry. “Innovation of health services: a
comparative study of hospitals and health departments.” Health and
Socieg 1 5 (1974): 22-33.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. The change masters : innovations for prod_uctivity in the
American corppration. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

 

Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teapns: Creating the
ngh-Perforgance Organization. New York: Harper Business, 1993.

Kimberly, J.R. “Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review,
critique, and proposal.” Administrative Science Quarterly 2 (1978): 571-
597.

Kimberly, J.R. Managerial innovation. In P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck (Eds),
Handpook of Organizational Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1981.

Kimberly, JR. and Evanisko, M.J. “Organizational innovation: the influence of
individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of
technological and administrative innovations.” Academy of Management
Journal 24 (1981): 689-713.

232

King, Nigel. Innovation at work: the research literature. In Michael A. West and
James L. Farr (Eds), Innovation and Cgtivity a: Work. Chichester: John
Wiiley & Sons, 1990.

Kriegel, Robert and David Brandt. Sacred Cows Make the Best Bupgers;
flaradigm-BgstinlStrategjes for DevelopinLChanfiReadyPeople and
Organizations. New York: Warner Books, 1996.

Lewin, K. Field theoryin social sciences: Selected theoretical papers. New York:
Harper, 1951.

Light, Paul C. Sustaininglnnovation: CreatinNonprofit afl Government
_Qgganizations Thaflnnovate Naturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1998.

Marks, Mitchell Lee, and Robert B. Shaw. “Sustaining Change: Creating the

Resilient Organization.” Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational
Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Marrow, Alfred J., David G. Bowers, and Stanley E. Seashore. Management py
participation; creatinga climate for personal and organizational
dLevelopment. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

Marshall, Edward M. Transformingthe Way We Work: The Power of t_t_i_e_
Collabprative Workplace. New York: American Management Association,
1995.

Merriam, 8.3. Case Stu_dy Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.

Meyer, A.D. “Adapting to environmental jolts.” Administrative Science Quarterly
27n (1982): 515-537.

Mohr, L.B. “Determinants of innovation in organizations.” American Political
Science Review 63 (1969): 111-126.

Morgan, Gareth. Images of Opganization. Newbury park: Sage, 1986.

Morris, Kathleen F. and Charles S. Raben. “The Fundamentals of Change
Management.” Discontinuous Cha_nge: Leadingprganizational
Ipansformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Myers, 8. and D.G. Marquis. “Successful Industrial Innovations.” National
Science Foundation, NSF, 69-17.

233

Mytinger, R.D. “Innovation in Local Health Services.” Arlington, Virginia: Public
Health Service, Division of Medical Care Administration, US Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, 1968.

Nadler, David et al. Discontinuous Change: Leadipg Organizational
Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Nadler, David A. and Michael L. Tushman. “The Challenge of Discontinuous
Change.” Discontinuous Change: LeadirgOrgaanationarl Transformation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Neal, R. and M. Radnor. “The relationship between formal procedures for
pursuing OR/MS activities and OR/OM group success.” paper presented
at b40th National Conference of the Operations Research Society of
America, at Anaheim, California, October, 1971.

Nicholson, N. Organizational culture, ideology, and management. In J.G. Hunt,
D.M. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim and R. Stewart (Eds), Leaders and
Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior ang
Leadership. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1984.

Nomiann, R. “Organizational innovativeness: product variation and
reorientation.” Mministrative Science Q_uarterly 16 (1971): 203-215.

Orsburn, Jack D. et al. Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American
Challenge. Burr Ridge: lnivin Professional Publishing, 1990.

Patti, R.J. “Organizational resistance and change: the view from below.” Social
Science Review 49 (1974): 367-383.

Pelz, Donald Campbell and Frank M. Andrews. “Scientists in organizations :
productive climates for research and development.” Ann Arbor: Institute
for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1976.

Pelz, DC. and PC. Munson. “Originality level and the innovating process in
organizations.” Human Systems Manament 3 (1982): 173-187.

Pierce, J.L. and A. Delbecq. “Organizational structure, individual attitude and
innovation.” Academy of Marggement Review 1977, pp. 27-33.

Porras, Jerry l. _S_t_ream Analysis: A Powerful Way to Diagnose and Manage
Organizational Changa. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 1987.

Quick, Thomas L. S_uccessful Team Building. New York: American Management
Association, 1992.

234

Quinn, Robert E. Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Recardo, Ronald. “Conducting a Readiness Assessment: A Foundation for Solid
Teamwork.” National Productivity Review Spring (1999): 29-34.

Redding, John C. and Ralph F. Catalanello. Stratagic Reaginess: The Making of
the Learning Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press, 1983.

Rogers, EM. and R. AgarwaIa-Rogers. (Eds) Commgnications in Organizations.
New York: Free Press, 1976.

Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1992.

Schdn, D.A. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Random House, 1971.

Schdn, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.
New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Senge, Pater M. The Fifth Dismline: The Art and Practice of The Learning
Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990.

Shaffer, Carolyn R. and Kristin Anundsen. Creating CommunigLAnywhere:
Finding Support and Connection in a ngmented World. New York:
Jeremy P. Tarcher/Perigee, 1993.

Shephard, H.A. “Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing organizations.”
Journal of Business 40 (1967): 470-477.

Strebel, Paul. _Bpreajkpoints: How Managers Exploit Radical Business Change.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992.

Trist, EL. and KL. Bamforth “Some Social and Psychological Consequences of
the Long-Wall Method of Goal-Setting." Human Relations, 1951, 4, 3-38.

Tushman, Michael L. and Charles A. O’Reilly III. Winniggthropgh Innovation: A
Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change ang Renewal. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

Tushman, Michael and Charles A. O’ReiIIy. Winning through innovation: a

practical glide to leading organizational chapqe and renewal. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

235

Van de Ven, A. “Central problems in the management of innovation.”
Management Science 32 (1986): 590-607.

Van de Ven, Andrew H., Harold L. Angles and Marshall Scott Poole (Eds).
Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studifi. New
York: Harper & Row, 1989.

Walton, R.E. Innovatingto competeszessons for Diffusing and Managing
Change in the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1987.

 

Walton, A. Elise. “Transformative Culture: Shaping the Informal Organization.”
Discontinuous Change: Leadipg Org¢_nizational Transformation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Watkins, Karen E. and Victoria J. Marsick. Sculpting the learning organization:
lessons in the art and science of systemic changa. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1993

Watson, G. Resistance to change. In G. Zaltman (Ed), Processes and
Phenomena of Social Changa. New York: Wiley, 1973.

Wellins, Richard 8., William C. Byham, and Jeanne M. Wilson. Empowered
Teams: Creating Self-Directed Work Grows That Improve anlity.
Prodgctivityi and Participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

West, Michael A. and James L. Farr, eds. Innovation and Creativity at Work:
Psychological ang Organizational Strategie_s. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons, 1990.

Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Desimnd Methods. (2"d ed.) Thousand Oaks:
Sage,1994.

Zaltman, Gerald and Robert Duncan. Stratagies for planned change. New York:
Wiley, 1977.

Zaltman, Gerald et al. Processes and phenomena of social changa. New York:
Wiley, 1973.

236

 

llll