LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT, MISSION AND STRATEGY,
LEADERSHIP. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, AND
PERFORMANCE

presented by

ZACHARY LEE PRATT

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources

 

 

/
‘- ”-7) {z /, 9:/
%LC Algiga‘g?’ <th b: (’\

’ Mbjor Professor’ 3 Signature

“2:52;-631‘1/ L 3<4>¥ / 5/ L9“ (/

Date

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.15

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT, MISSION AND STRATEGY, LEADERSHIP,
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, AND PERFORMANCE
By

Zachary Lee Pratt

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2004

ABSTRACT
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT, MISSION AND STRATEGY, LEADERSHIP,
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, AND PERFORMANCE
By
Zachary Lee Pratt

The Veterans Affairs Health Care System has undertaken a massive
transformation in response to economic, legislative, demographic, industrywide forces,
and world affairs. In transforming an organization, many variables are involved and
Burke and Litwin (1992) have identified five key variables of change in the
transformational model they developed. Burke and Litwin's transformational model was
used as a framework for this study. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between external environment, mission and strategy, leadership,
organizational culture and performance at the White River Junction, Vermont, VA
Medical and Regional Office Center.

The study participants were 248 employees at the White River Junction, VA
Medical and Regional Office. Data collection was conducted by in-house mail. The
relationships between the variables were examined using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ (Sx-short) developed by Bass and Avolio (2000), the Organizational
Description Questionnaire (ODQ) developed by Bass and Avolio (1992), and the Survey
on Performance and Management Issues (PMI) developed by the General Accounting

Office (2000). These instruments were modified and used in combination to form the

questionnaire developed for this study.

Fifteen hypotheses were used to investigation the relationships between external
environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance
variables provides support and a better understanding of Burke and Litwin's (1992)
transformational model. Four of the fifteen hypotheses were supported and results
Showed that laissez-faire leadership style were inversely correlated to performance
measures, and mission and strategy. Additionally, results Show a direct correlation
between employee's mission and strategy, and performance measures. And results also
Showed a direct correlation between a transformational culture typology and performance
measures. Eight of the fifteen hypotheses were partially supported and demonstrated
relationships between the study variables that support Burke and Litwin's
transformational model.

Implications were identified including increasing employees’ involvement in
defining and creating their own work group goals as part of the mission and strategy.

Recommendations for managers and future research are provided for consideration.

Copyright by
ZACHARY LEE PRATT
2004

Dedicated to
Kim Andrea Lyon-Pratt
for the love and support she provided on this journey.
In memory of
my able bodied office assistant

Jo-Jo Pratt-the Wonder Cat.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My journey in pursuit of a doctoral degree has taken me to many exciting places
and given me the opportunity to meet and befriend exceptional people along the trail. It
is all the people and challenges along the way that have made me a better person for
which I am thankful.

I would like to thank all the members of my guidance committee for their
steadfast support as I searched for an organization to conduct my research. I would like
to thank Richard Paulsen for taking over as the lead on my guidance committee and
giving me encouragement all along the way. I would also like to thank James Bristor
who helped me blaze a trail, and was there with editorial comments that improved my
writing. I would like to thank Gaylan Rasmussen for joining in this trek along the way
and for asking hard questions that made this study better. A thanks also goes to James
Oehmke for taking part and keeping me on the straight and narrow path to completion.
And last, but not least, thanks to Kenneth VerBurg for the noontime chats over meals you
bought me, making me laugh, and your friendship.

Thanks, to Gary DeGasta, Director of the White River Junction VA Medical &
Regional Office Center, for seeing the value in this study and providing me with a
location to conduct the study. To the staff and all of those that participated in the study,
who gave of your time, I express my thanks.

Thanks, to my dear friends, the Fugowee, you were my companions on this
journey. Words can't express my gratitude for your encouragement and support all along
the way. Here's to the chiefs and their wives: Fran, Mike, Al, John, Bill, Ed; Teresa,
Kathy, Donna, and Carroll.

Thanks also to Charlotte and Kevin for guidance and support along the way.
Thanks, Rod Zwick, for your help with the statistics and knowing that I could do it.

I express deep and loving gratitude to my family. Each of you was with me every
step of the way on this trek. What I have accomplished is as much yours as it is mine.
Kim you provided me with love, understanding, caring, and support on this trip. I am
forever thankful and proud of your help. Alethea and Ariana thank you for being such
loving and supporting daughters and for your encouragement of dad not to give up along
the way. Bill thanks for the wonderful goodies. Mom thanks for your support and
encouragement. Kathy and Scott a big, big hug goes to you for keeping the faith in me.
Anita and Kelly: thanks bushels for the encouragement along the way. Dad Lyon and Pat
thanks for the laughs and support you gave along the way. Chooch you are missed.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter One

Introduction
Conceptual Framework.
Theoretical Foundation.
Purpose Statement
Hypotheses
Definition of Terms
Assumptions .
Limitations
Delirnitations .

Chapter Two
Review of Literature . .

Organizational Interventions.
Program-Planning-Budgeting System
Management-By-Objectives .

Total Quality Management .
Government Performance and Results Act

Strategic Planning Concepts .

Vision and Mission Statement .
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats Analysis .

Goals and Objectives .
Action Plan
Performance and Program Evaluation

Development of an Organizational Performance
and Change Model

Overview of Organizational Performance and Change Theory
External Environment
Mission and Strategy .

Leadership
Organizational Culture
Organizational Performance .

vii

12
12
14
l7
l8
18

19
19
19
20
21
22
23
23

25
26
27
27

28
30
30
32
33
35
38

 

Chapter Three
Methodology
Population and Sample
Instrumentation
External Environment
Mission and Strategy.
Transformational, Transactional,
and Laissez-faire Leadership Styles .
Organizational Culture .
Performance Measures
Demographics
Pretest and Focus Group
Data Collection
Survey Packets
Distribution and Return
Identification Numbers
F ollow-up
Data Analysis

Chapter Four
Data Analysis. .
Demographic Characteristics.
Descriptive Statistics .
Instrument Reliabilities
Hypotheses Test Results

Additional Analysis

Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations .
Supported Hypotheses .
Partially Supported Hypotheses
Overarching Conclusions
Recommendations for Managers
Implications for Park, Recreation and Tourism
Recommendations for Future Research

APPENDICES .
Letter of Commitment to Study by Director .

Permission to use Survey on Performance

and Management Issues

Permission to use Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Permission to use Organizational Description Questionnaire
Letter from Director to Pretest and Focus Group Participants
Letter of Introduction from Director to Survey Participants .
Letter to AP GE Local 2604 President .

News Release to AF GE Local 2604 from President.

EQ'UU'IUO 03>

viii

39
39
40
41
41

42
44
46
47
47
48
48
49
50
50
51

53
53
58
64
79
91

96
96
98
99
101
102
104

110
111

113
115
117
119
121
123
125

1 Cover Letter Sent with Initial Mailing of Survey Packet

J Postcard Thank You/Reminder .

K F ollow-up Mailing of Cover Letter

L

M Participants Comments

N Questions Q5 through Q16 From Questionnaire
REFERENCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Telephone Script and Question Follow-up of Non-reSpondents

ix

127
129
131
133
138
146

151

160

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5-x short — Transformational

Leadership Style Items . . . . . 43
Table 2. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Form 5-x short — Transactional Leadership Style Items . 44
Table 3. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Form 5-x Short - Laissez-faire Leadership Style Items . 44
Table 4. Organizational Description Questionnaire

Culture Types . . . . . . 46
Table 5. Demographic Characteristics . . . . . 55

Table 6. Supervisors/Managers Self-reported Perceived
Mean Leadership Scores . . . . 60

Table 7. Supervisors/Managers Mean Leadership Scores
as Perceived by Their Immediate Subordinates . 62

Table 8. Organizational Culture Typology Mean Scores
as Perceived by Employees . . . . . 63

Table 9. Organizational Culture Typology Mean Scores as Perceived by
Supervisors/Managers and Their Subordinates. . . 64

Table 10. Supervisors/Managers Perceived Mean Scores
on Mission and Strategy Scale Q5. . . . . 65

Table 11. Employees Perceived Mean Scores

on Performance Measures Scale Q6 . 66
Table 12. Employees Perceived Mean Scores Use

of Performance Information Scale Q7 66
Table 13. Employees Perceived Mean Scores

on Strategic Goals Scale Q8 . 67
Table 14. Employees Perceived Mean Scores 68

on External Environment Scale Q10 .

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Employees Perceived Mean Scores on Strategies
for an External Environment Change Scale Q11

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients Among Leadership

Styles for Employees as Measured by the MLQ (Sx-short) .

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients
Mission and Strategy Scale Q5

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients
Performance Measures Scale Q6

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients
Performance Information Scale Q7

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients
Strategic Goals Scale Q8

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients
External Environment Scale Q10

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coefficients
External Environmental Change Scale Q11

Frequencies Setting Performance Measures Scale Q9

Performance and External Environment Scales
Pearson Correlation Coefficients H1 .

Supervisors/Managers Transformational Leadership Style and
External Environment Scales Pearson Correlation
Coefficients H2

Supervisors/Managers Transactional Leadership Style and
External Environment Scales Pearson Correlation
Coefficients H3

Supervisors/Managers Leadership Style and Subordinates.
Perceptions of Their Supervisors/Managers Leadershrp
Style Scales Pearson Correlation Coefficients H5

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transformational Leadership
Style and Performance Scales Pearson Correlation
Coefficients H6

xi

68

69

71

72

73

74

75

77

78

79

80

81

82

84

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

Table 35.

Table 36.

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transactional Leadership Style
and Performance Scales Pearson Correlation Coefficients H7

Supervisors/Managers Laissez-faire Leadership Style
and Performance Scales Pearson Correlation Coefficients 118

Employees Mission and Strategy and Performance Scales
Pearson Correlation Coefficients H9 .

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transformational Leadership Style
and Mission and Strategy Scales Pearson
Correlation Coefficients H10 .

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transformational Leadership
Style and Mission and Strategy Scales Pearson
Correlation Coefficients H11 .

Supervisors/Managers Perceived laissez-faire Leadership Style
and Mission and Strategy Scales Pearson
Correlation Coefficients H12 .

Predictability of Organizational Culture Typologies and
Performance Scales Pearson Correlation Coefficients H14 .

Organizational Culture Typologies and External Environment
Scales H15

xii

85

86

86

87

88

89

90

91

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Transformational Model .

xiii

 

Chapter One
Introduction

The Veterans Affairs Health Care System has undertaken a massive
transformation in response to economic, legislative, demographic, industrywide forces,
and world affairs. The focus of the US. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
reorganization as Vestal, Fralicx and Spreier (1997) state is "to transform itself into a
more efficient, patient-focused healthcare system" (p. 339). Headed by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, the department has responsibility for providing benefits to 26 million
veterans and their dependents. As the largest healthcare provider in the US, and the
second largest federal department, the VA operates 162 hospitals nationwide within 21
Veterans Integrated Service Networks (V ISN) under the Veterans Health Administration
(V HA) (Veterans Health Administration, 2003). In 1994, the VHA leadership began a
process to reinvent itself by implementing dramatic changes throughout the system
(Kizer, 1996).

Transforming the VHA, the second largest bureaucracy in the federal government,
to perform as a more efficient and patient-centered health care system required a new
organizational culture to grow from a decades-old culture. The change would not be easy
or painless (Kizer, 1995). It also required a new vision, mission statement, and strategy
to be developed for the VHA as a requirement of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. Realizing that the Veterans Healthcare System is
influenced by societal and industry dynamics, VHA acting Under Secretary for Health
Kizer (1996) states, "these 'environmental' factors will influence the manner in which the

VHA accomplishes its mission, and they provide the context in which it must operate" (p.

7). The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between external
environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance at
a VA Medical & Regional Office Center (V AM & ROC) a decade after the
transformation began.

The Government Performance and Results Act is an effort to improve government
performance in its operations and programs. The act requires all federal agencies to
develop and submit a five-year strategic plan covering their major functions and actions
in consultation with Congress, and with input from external stakeholders, and other
concerned citizens. The purposes of GPRA is to: improve the confidence the American
peOple have in the performance of the federal government; improve federal program
effectiveness and public accountability; help federal managers improve service delivery;
improve Congressional decisionmaking; and, improve internal management of the
Federal Government (GPRA, 1993).

For the VHA, it was the beginning of a process to reorganize itself with goals that
were to be accomplished through the establishment of a strategic planning and
performance measurement system. This, as Kizer (1995) stated it, is "being done to
improve access to quality and efficiency of care to the nation's veterans. This
reorganization will also strengthen VHA's ability to accomplish its other missions of
education and training, research and contingency support during war or national
emergency" (p. 11). The strategic planning and performance management system
developed for reorganization is to bring about efficiency with a patient-centered focus

through the improved use of resources and improved service delivery (Kizer).

 

In addition to a five-year strategic plan, which guides the overall operation of the
VHA, the GPRA requires development of an annual performance plan and an annual
performance report. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the annual performance plan must
identify measurable organizational goals and performance objectives, and describes the
methods to achieve them. Performance is then measured against the stated goals and
objectives developed by the VHA. The annual performance report indicates how well the
VHA accomplished its goals and objectives as put forth in the annual performance plan.

Conceptual Framework

The environmental factors influencing the VA required that the VA undergo a
transformation not merely to change. Political scientist and Harvard graduate James
MacGregor Burns (2003) developed the initial idea of transactional and transformational
leadership describes "change" in the context of transactional leadership is "to substitute
one thing for another, to give and to take, to exchange places, to pass from one place to
another" (p. 24). Transformation, however, is much more profound - "it is to cause a
metamorphosis in form or structure, a change in the very condition or nature of a thing, a
change into another substance, a radical change in outward form or inner character . . .
(Burns, p. 24). It is change of this breath and depth that is fostered by transforming
leadership."

To meet successfully the goals and objectives set forth in its new mission and
vision statements and to conform to the standards of the GPRA, the VA had to transform
from a bureaucratic organization focused on inpatient hospital care. For the VA, as VHA
acting Under Secretary for Health Garthwaite (2001) stated, where the "VHA is

becoming a more population-focused, community-based, and prevention-oriented system,

 

ensuring that veterans receive timely, accessible, and appropriate care" (p. 1). The
"VHA continues to closely monitor changes in enrollment, access, outcomes, utilization,
expenditure, system capacity, quality, and veterans satisfaction" (Garthwaite, p. 1).
Transformation is assisted by key variables that Operate in an organization and that are
responsible for bringing about a transformation. W. Warner Burke, Professor at
Columbia University Teachers College, and George H. Litwin of the Graduate Center,
and members of W. Warner Burke Associates, (1992) developed an organizational
performance and change model in which they identified twelve dynamic variables
thought to be operating within an organization. Their model of organizational variables
include: the external environment; mission & strategy; leadership; organizational culture;
structure; management practices; systems; work unit climate; task and individual skills;
motivation; individual needs and values; and individual and organizational performance.
They separate this model into two parts, and label them as transformational and
transactional. Burke and Litwin's transformational model is composed of these five
variables: external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture,
and organizational performance. The variables in the transformational model are thought
to have significant influence in bringing about organizational transformation caused by a
direct interaction with the external environment and as a consequence will require a
Significantly new behavior from organizational members (Burke, 2002). The variables
and their relationships in the transformational model developed by Burke and Litwin will

be used as a framework for this study (see Figure l).

 

 

Figure I. The Transformational Model.

 

External Environment

Leadership
Mission Organizational l
& Culture

Strategy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizational
Performance

 

Note. "A causal model of organizational performance and change," by W. W. Burke and G.
Litwin. 1992, Journal of Management, 18(3), p. 530.

The GPRA, with the weight of a congressional mandate behind it, is one of the
most influential external factors for the VA. The critical components of the GPRA are:
leadership, mission statements, strategic and performance plans, goals and objectives,
performance indicators, output and outcome measures, and program evaluations. These
variables are closely aligned with the transformational variables identified by Burke &
Litwin (1992), see Figure l, as the key variables responsible for organizational
transformation to occur. It is within this framework of the influence of the GPRA'S
performance requirements on the VA that this study will focus its examination of the
VA'S transformational efforts. The transfonnational variables of the model developed by
Burke and Litwin of external environment, mission & strategy, leadership, organizational

culture and organizational performance along with the Government Performance and

Results Act will be used to provide the theoretical foundation and framework for this
study.
Theoretical Foundation

"Healthcare is a rapidly evolving industry where firms face constantly changing
conditions and an ever-increasing demand for services" (Forehand, 2000, p. 1). Many
healthcare organizations in the public and private sectors are facing the challenges of a
rapidly evolving and constantly changing conditions through transformation with some
having disappointing results and others great successes that can provide valuable lessons
for future transformational efforts (Young, 2000).

For the VHA and other organizations "there are internal and external forces that
influence change" (Tomey, 2000, p. 271). Some of the external forces as stated by
Tomey include "health care economics, technology, restructuring, diversity, and changing
demographics . . ." (p. 271). Burke & Litwin (1992) state that an "external environment
is any outside condition or situation that influences the performance of the organization
(e.g., marketplaces, world financial conditions, political/ governmental circumstances)"
(p. 531). As a requirement of the GPRA, the VHA has to identify, in its annual
performance plan, the key factors extemal to the agency that are beyond its control and
that could affect them in achieving their strategic goals (Office of Management and
Budgeting (OMB), 1997).

Emery and Trist (1965) first posited external factors as influences on an
organization. They theorized that an organization was an open system that created
organizational interdependency between the inputs and the outputs of an organization and

its environment. As an organization is changing so is the environmental context in which

 

the organization exists changing at an increasing rate and complexity (Emery & Trist;
Burke, 2002). Isaac-Henry, Painter, and Barnes (1997) stated "the context of change
refers to those environmental factors influencing, restraining and driving change in
organizations. They include economic, political, social, and technological factors" which
provide inputs to the organization (p. 3). At the VHA, for example, suppliers, federal
legislators, veterans groups, and/or other healthcare providers are some of the external
forces that could greatly affect the VHA's ability to meet its selected goals and objectives,
and thus succeed or fail in meeting its strategic performance measures.

The "mission and strategy is what the organization's (a) top management believes,
and has declared, is the organization's mission and strategy and (b) what employees
believe is the central purpose of the organization" (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 532).
Drucker (1995) stated that government agencies should be posited the question "What is
your mission? Is it still the right mission? Is it still worth doing? If we were not already
doing this, would we now go into it? One of the first requirements of GPRA is that
agencies have mission statements and develop strategies to complete their mission.

In describing "The Mission of the 'New VA'", Kizer (1996) in relation to its
environment finds that "in coming years, the veterans healthcare system will be buffeted
by powerful societal and industrywide dynamics. These 'environmental' factors will
influence the manner in which VHA accomplishes its mission, and they provide the
context in which it must operate" (p. 7). The mission of the "New VA" is as follows"

The mission of the veterans healthcare system is to serve the needs of American's

veterans. It does this by providing specialized care for service-connected

veterans, primary care and related medical and social support services. To
accomplish this mission, VHA needs to be a comprehensive, integrated healthcare

system that provides excellence in healthcare value, excellence in service as
defined by its customers, and excellence in education and research, and needs to

 

be an organization characterized by exceptional accountability and by being an
employer of choice. (Kizer, 1996, p. 8)

To help guide the mission a new vision statement was adopted that states:
Healthcare VAlue begins with VA . . . The new veterans healthcare system
supports innovation, empowerment, productivity, accountability and continuous

improvement. Working together, we provide a continuum of high quality

healthcare in a convenient, responsive, caring manner -- and at a reasonable cost.
(Kizer, p. 9)

Based on the new vision and mission, a set of five mission goals, with key guiding
principles and strategic objectives, were identified to direct the VHA in accomplishing its
transformation according to the new mission. The VHA, in accordance with the new
mission and vision began the task of restructuring and reorganization. It was not just "a
re-shuffling of bureaucratic [sic] on a central office organizational chart" Kizer (1995)
stated, "rather, it is a fundamental change in the way responsibility is spread across many
decision points in order to imbue the organization with a common sense of purpose" (p.
73), and it will require leaders that can articulate its new direction.

Leadership, another critical component of meeting the GPRA standards, required
the VHA to adopt a transformational style in order to meet successfully the obligations of
the new mission. In the literature are many definitions of leadership, Burke & Litwin
(1992) define leadership as "executives that provide overall organizational direction and
serve as behavioral role models for employees" (p. 532). Burns (1978) defines
leadership based upon purpose: " leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that
represent the values and the motivations--the wants and needs, the aspirations and
expectations--ofboth leaders and followers" (p. 19). According to Burns, leadership
takes on two fundamentally different forms in the leader-follower relation. Burns labels

one form of leadership as transactional, which is based on the purpose of exchange of

valued things. A clear example of this can be found in the statement that "you do this for
me and I will provide you with that," is an exchange of money for work. Transforming is
the second form of leadership Burns identifies. Transformational leadership "occurs
when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers
raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (Burns, 1978, p. 20).

Based on ans' definition of transactional and transformational leadership, Bass
(1998) further defined "transactional leadership as contingent reinforcement.
Reinforcement is in the form of a leader's promises and rewards or threats and
disciplinary actions; reinforcing behavior is contingent on the follower’s performance"
(p. 3). This is in contrast to the transformational leader that Bass states "moves the
follower beyond self-interests and is charismatic, inspirational, intellectually stimulating,
and/or individually considerate" (p. 3). Leaders may at times display both forms of
leadership, but to move the organization to a new level or in a new direction, it is the
transformational leader qualities that are needed (Bass). As part of the VA health care
delivery system restructuring plan authority and responsibility to meet defined levels of
patient satisfaction, access, quality and efficiency will fall on field leadership (Kizer,
1995)

"It is important to note, however, is that in and of itself, planned organizational
structure merely provides a template upon which new attitudes and behavior will be
encouraged and rewarded, and around which a new organizational culture can grow"
(Kizer, p. 7). A key factor in determining the VHA'S successful transformation is the
extent to which the leadership has influenced the organizational culture to transform.

According to Bass "an organizational culture affects its leadership as much as its

 

leadership affects the culture" (p. 63). Schein (2004) stated "these dynamic processes of
culture creation and management are the essence of leadership and make one realize that
leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin" (p. 1).

Burke & Litwin (1992) stated that culture is a "collection of overt and covert
rules, values, and principles that are enduring and guide organizational behavior" (p.

532). Organizational culture is a dynamic phenomenon that is in constant flux, being
created by employee interactions with each other, shaped by leadership behavior within a
structured set of norms that direct and constrain behavior (Schein, 2004). According to
Bass (1998), "leaders need to be attentive to the rites, beliefs, values, and assumptions
embedded in the organizational culture" (p. 63).

According to Bass (1998), "the extent to which organizations maintain
transactional or transformational cultures can be described by their members and reliably
measured. Within this framework, organizations are likely to have cultures that vary
from each other in both modes" (p. 65). In the transactional mode, the culture focuses on
contractual relationships where job assignments are written out along with the rules,
regulations, and disciplinary standards (Bass). The transformational mode has a sense of
purpose and belonging. There is interdependence between leaders and followers
committed to the long-term with a shared sense destiny and common interests (Bass).
This is not to say that transactional and transformational organizational cultures are
mutually exclusive. For as Bass stated, "as with leadership, transformational culture can
build upon the transactional culture of the organization. The inclusion of assumptions,
norms, and values that are transformationally based does not preclude individuals from

pursuing their own goals and rewards" (p. 66) in achieving organizational performance.

10

Lawrence (2000) stated "the healthcare environment, replete with extreme
uncertainty, intense competition, dramatic change, and active governmental and public
scrutiny, is experiencing a demand for effective leadership and improved organizational
performance. " (p. 5). It is within these contradictory pressures that the VHA is
challenged to meet both its patient focused objectives and the fiscal accountability
objectives imposed by the GPRA. Burke & Litwin (1992) define organizational
performance as "the outcome or result as well as the indicator of effort and achievement
(e.g., productivity, customer satisfaction, profit, and quality)" (p. 533). Reinhart (2000)
stated that performance, "essentially, it's what people actually do to make an organization
wor " (p. 1). It is the thousand of actions and the combinations of those actions that
employees take every day that become outcomes that make organizations competitive or
not.

"Over the long run, only those organizations survive that serve the need of their
societies effectively and efficiently; that is, they provide the benefits demanded by
society at prices sufficient to cover the costs incurred in providing them" (Hofer &
Schendal, 1978, p. 1). In an effort to improve management and accountability, the
GPRA shifts the focus away from activities that are undertaken, to results of the
activities, as reflected in citizens' lives (GAO, 1997). The GPRA stated GAO "is
intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing
a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results" (p. 3).

In a foreword by Thomas Garthwaite (2001), Under Secretary for Health, in
Journey of Change : Corporate Report and Strategic Forecast - Discovering Six for

2006, states "the VA health care system has undergone a dramatic transformation" (p. i).

ll

Garthwaite finds that since the Journey of Change started in 1995, and through 2001,

that, "we have made measurable and significant progress in improving the performance

of our system. Our performance data demonstrate improved access, quality, safety,

patient satisfaction, efficiency and accountability" (p. i). Transforming an organization

like the VHA, to achieve successful organizational performance objectives, is the result

of a combination of relationships between variables in and of the organization. The

variables of external environment (Emery & Trist, 1965, Edginton & Neal, 1983;

Prescott, 1986; Burke & Litwin, 1992), leadership (Burns, 1978; Burke & Litwin, 1992;

Northouse, 1997; Bass, 1998), mission and strategy (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Prescott,

1986), and organizational culture (Bass, 1998: Cooke & Rosseau, 1988; Klein et al.,

1995; Burke & Litwin, 1992) working in relationship with each other, bring about an
organization’s targeted transformation.

Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between the external

environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance at
the White River Junction, VA Medical & Regional Office Center.

Hypotheses

H1: Among employees, a direct relationship exists between external environment

and performance measures.

H2: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between external

environment and their transformational leadership style.

H3: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between external

environment and their transactional leadership style.

12

H4: Among supervisors/managers, an inverse relationship exists between the

external environment, and their laissez-faire leadership style.

H5: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between leadership

style, and their subordinates' perception of their supervisors/managers leadership

style.

H6: Among supervisors/managers a direct relationship exists between their

transformational leadership style, and performance measures.

H7: Among supervisors/managers a direct relationship exists between their

transactional leadership style, and performance measures.

H8: Among supervisors/managers an inverse relationship exists between their
laissez-faire leadership style, and performance measures.

H9: A direct relationship exists between employees' mission and strategy, and

performance measures.

H10: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between their

transformational leadership style, and mission and strategy.

H11: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between their

transactional leadership style, and mission and strategy.

H 12: Among supervisors/managers, an inverse relationship exists between their

laissez-faire leadership style, and mission and strategy.

H13: A direct relationship exists between the transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors/managers, and their subordinates'

perception of organizational culture typology.

13

H14: One of the organizational culture typologies will be more predictive of
performance measures than the other organizational culture typologies.

H 15: No difference exists among employees organizational culture typologies on

external environment.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions were used in this investigation.

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical & Regional Oflice Center. A federally

funded healthcare facility providing acute inpatient and outpatient services to veterans.

Supervisor or Manager. Title assigned to the executive staff of the WRJ VAM &

ROC and includes the following positions: Senior management, mid-level managers, and

first-line supervisors.

Subordinate. Reports directly to their immediate supervisor in the facility. All of

the employees are immediately subordinate to a supervisor or manager at the WRJ VAM

& ROC.
External Environment. External phenomena that potentially or actually influence

the population under study (Hall, 1996). ". . . many factors influence an organization,
and management must be responsive to them. Every organization must respond to the
needs of its customers or clients, to legal and political constraints, and to economic and

technological changes" (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2003, p. 9).

Mssion and Strategy. ". . . what the organization's (a) top management believes
is and has declared to be the organization's mission and strategy and (b) what employees

believe is the central purpose of the organization" (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 531).

"Strategy" as Chandler (1963) states "can be defined as the determination of the basic

l4

 

long-tenn goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and

the allocation of resources necessary to carrying out these goals" (p. 13).

Transformational Leadership. ". . . occurs when one or more persons engage with

others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of

motivation and morality" (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Transformational leadership is more than
simple exchanges or agreements with colleagues and followers. Bass (1998) finds "they

behave in ways to achieve superior results by employing one or more of four components

of transformational leadership" (p. 50) as follows:
Idealized Influence (attributed). "Attributed charisma is the impact of the leader's

ability to arouse enthusiasm, strong emotions, faith, loyalty, respect, pride, and self-trust .

. ."(Opei1, 1998, p. 34).
Idealized Influence (behavior). "Behaviorally-based charisma, is the charismatic

behavior of the leader to focus on people, develop a vision, transmit the vision, and
implement the vision to arouse followers . . ." (Opeil, 1998, p. 34).

Inspirational motivation.

Leaders behave in ways that motivate those around them by providing
meaning and challenge to their followers' work. Individual and team spirit is
aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. The leader encourages
followers to envision attractive future states, which they can ultimately envision

for themselves. (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003, p. 208)

Intellectual stimulation.

Leaders stimulate their followers’ effort to be innovative and creative by
questioning assumptions, refraining problems, and approaching old situations in
new ways. There is no ridicule or public criticism of individual members'

mistakes. New ideas and creative solutions to problems are solicited from
followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding

solutions. (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003, p. 208)

15

 

 

Individualized consideration.

Leaders pay attention to each individual's need for achievement and
growth by acting as a coach and mentor. Followers are developed to successfully
higher levels of potential. New learning opportunities are created along with a
supportive climate in which to grow. Individual differences in terms of needs and
desires are recognized. (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003, p. 208)

Transactional Leadership. ". . . occurs when one person takes the initiative in

making contact with others for the purpose of exchange of valued things" (Burns, 1978,

p. 19). Depending upon the adequacy of the follower's performance the leader will
reward or discipline the follower (Bass, 1998). Bass finds that "transactional leadership
depends on contingent reinforcement, either positive contingent reward (CR) or the more

negative active or passive forms of management-by-exception (MBE-A or MBE-P)"

(Bass, 1998, p. 6) as follows:

Contingent Rewar . ". . . the leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to

be done and promises rewards or actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily

carrying out the assignment" (Bass, 1998, p. 6)
Management-by Exception (active). ". . . the leader arranges to actively monitor
deviances from standards, mistakes, and errors in the follower's assignments and to take
corrective action as necessary" (Bass, 1998, p. 7).
Management-by-Exception @assive). ". . . waiting passively for deviances,
mistakes, and errors to occur and then taking corrective action" (Bass, 1978, p. 7).

Laissez—Faire Leadership. "Is described as the least leadership as evidenced

through the absence of action taken by the leader, and the missing provision of

motivation and satisfaction for the needs of the follower by the leader. . ." (Lawrence,

2000, p. 13).

16

 

Organizational Culture.

A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new
members as the way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
(Schein, 2004, p. 17)

Organizational Culture Typology. ". . . describes the type of organizational
culture by the values and behaviors associated with the leadership style" (Lawrence,
2000, p. 13).

Assumptions

Because, Burke and Litwin's transformational model has no instrument developed
to test the relationships between the model's variables. Three instruments were used to
test the relationships as identified by Burke and Litwin. This study is conducted based on
the following assumptions: (a) The investigator assumed that the transfonnational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles of Bass and Avolio (1995) is applicable
to the healthcare supervisors' leadership style and practice. (b) The healthcare
supervisors would be able to identify their own behaviors. (c) It is possible for the
subordinates to observe and identify the leadership behaviors of their immediate
supervisors. In addition, (d) transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
styles would be represented in the population studied to varying degrees.

The study used the perceptions of the employees. (c) It is assumed that the
employees in the study could respond to questions about the external environment,

leadership behaviors, mission and strategy, organizational culture, and performance. (f)

It is also assumed that employees would answer the questions truthfully.

l7

 

Limitations
This study may be limited because it focused on the perceptions of employees in a
VA healthcare setting. Hence, it may not be generalizable to other pOpulations. Because
of the complexity and ambiguity of the variables involved, there is a risk of hidden
tautologies in the hypotheses being tested leading to meaningless correlations. This was
not a longitudinal study, so it is not possible to formulate firm conclusions regarding the
stability of empirical relationships.
Delirnitations
This study focused on the perceptions of employees in a single VA healthcare
organization. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5x-Short) (Bass &
Avolio, 2000), the Organization Description Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1992) and
the Survey on Performance and Management Issues (GAO, 2000) was used as the basis
for describing the external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational
culture, and performance. This study will confine itself to examining the relationships
between employees' perceptions of external environment, mission and strategy,

leadership, organizational culture and performance in a VA healthcare facility.

18

 

 

 

 

Chapter Two
Review of Literature

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between external
environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance.
The transformational factors of an organization performance and change model (see
Figure 1) developed by Burke and Litwin (1992, 2002) will be used as the conceptual
framework for this study. Literature regarding organizational interventions, strategic
planning concepts, and the development of an organizational performance and change
model are presented in this chapter.

Organizational Interventions

Organizations are interested in obtaining results that could not be obtained by
individuals acting alone. A variety of interventions have been used by public and private
organizations, starting after World War 11 through the present, for obtaining desired
results from organizations. These organizational interventions include the Program-
Planning-Budgeting System, Management-By-Objectives, Total Quality Management,
and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Each intervention supplanted
its predecessor as legislators determined that the outcomes of the interventions were
either effective or no in accomplishing their objectives.
Program-planning-budgeting system

The program-planning-budgeting system (PPBS) was developed by the US.
Department of Defense in the early 19605 (Kraus & Curtis, 2000), as a way to plan,
control, and coordinate activities and financial resources in an organization with special

emphasis on budgeting. For businesses as well as government, the PPBS was a "dramatic

l9

shift from the previous method of line-item budgeting. In planning, managers were
forced to address outputs of programs and services, as opposed to strictly inputs" (Rabin,
Hildreth, & Miller, 1989, p. 263).

Strategic planning, management controls, budgeting, and operational controls are
functions of the PPBS. Critics of PPBS felt that it was best used by large-scale
businesses and government organizations (Kraus & Curtis, 1990) that had quantifiable
outcome. They also thought that programs or services with a strong value orientation
would have difficulty under PPBS. Although discarded at the federal level, PPBS with
its elements of control, management and planning has been adapted for used by some
businesses, as well as state and local government agencies (Kraus & Curtis, 1990; Rabin
et al., 1989).

Management-By-Objectives

Management-by-obj ectives (MBO) as defined by McShane and von Glinow
(2003) is "a participative goal-setting process in which organizational objectives are
cascaded down to work units and individual employees" (p. 599). One of the main
differences between PPBS and MBO is that MBO has more flexibility allowing managers
to focus their "attention on getting better performance from groups and individuals as part
of the organization" (Cohen & Brand, 1993, p. 55).

MBO gives managers variety in their planning and more control of activities.
Therefore, managers are better able to direct their organizations on clearly defined
headings with their programs and services (Rabin et al., 1989). "Objectives are
developed for every level of management in the hierarchy and each unit in the

organization. The manager checks objectives for compatibility with other units and

20

contribution to the objectives at the next level of the hierarchy" (Tomey, 2000, p. 156).
Because MBO requires involvement by a supervisor and subordinates in establishing
agency objectives, "performance and success in meeting these objectives are regularly
and carefully evaluated and lower-level employees are given much more responsibility
and Opportunity for initiative than in traditional job settings" (Kraus & Curtis, 1990, p.
116)

Total Quality Management

Total quality management (TQM) as Munoz (1999) stated "is a philosophy of
improving quality by ceaselessly improving the processes that support the mission of the
organization" (p. 3). Not only does TQM espouse the belief that continual improvement
is possible and necessary, but changes should be made to meet the modifications required
by customers' demands (Munoz, 1999). TQM as described by Jarnieson and Wolter
(1999) "is built on four features: meeting customer specifications, conforming to legal
requirements, meeting or exceeding customers' expectations, and providing service that is
better than the competitor's service" (p. 14).

Cohen and Brand (1993) find that "continuous quality improvement requires a
new way of managing work, in which employees are not simply ordered around but are
asked to think and participate in the process of organizing work" (p. 6). Cohen & Brand
(1993) stated that:

In many respects, TQM represents a synthesis of a variety of trends in the world

of management: (1) renewed emphasis on the production line as a focus of

management attention; (2) the use of increasingly sophisticated statistical
techniques to help understand production processes; (3) reduction in levels of
hierarchy in organizations; (4) increased use of production workers in analysis of

work; (5) greater worker involvement with management in decision making; and
increased use of groups and teams to solve problems. (p. 55)

21

In order to overcome and surpass customer needs and maintain the highest
possible level of quality, managers demanded honest feedback regarding the way the
organization was being rim and the way customers were being served. A feedback
process is used to continually diagnose and improve performance (Kraus & Curtis, 2000).
In the health care setting customers want involvement in decision making and
information about quality and costs (Tomey, 2000), and quality improvement by health
care providers became the key to their survival (Tomey).

Government Performance and Results Act

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, is the first
federal budgetary intervention of its kind to gain bipartisan congressional support and be
passed into law. The purpose of GPRA is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
federal programs by establishing a standardized system of goal setting for program
performance and by measuring results. The purposes of federal agencies implementing
GPRA (1993) are as follows:

1. Improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of the federal
government, by systematically holding federal agencies accountable for
achieving program results;

2. Initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot projects in
setting program goals, measuring program performance against those
goals, and reporting publicly on their progress;

3. Improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by
promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer
satisfaction;

4. Help federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that they
plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with
information about program results and service quality;

5. Improve congressional decision making by providing more objective
information on achieving statutory objectives, and on the relative
effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending; and

6. Improve internal management of the federal government. (p. 2)

22

As with the previous interventions PPBS, MBO, and TQM, the implementation
and adoption of GPRA by some federal agency leaders have lagged behind others. Some
federal agencies are less than enthusiastic of their charge to implement GPRA. Their
unwillingness, in part, is because of the history of short-lived government budget
initiatives, and a lack of understanding of the elements involved in complying with
GPRA. The Government Performance and Results Act, Total Quality Management,
Management-By-Objectives, and Program Planning Budgeting Systems were developed
with the intent to help an organization become more effective and efficient in the use of
its resources, and involvement of and accountability to its customers. However, the lack
of longevity prescribed with each new organizational intervention contributed to
unfulfilled intents until the GPRA.

Strategic Planning Concepts

Every organization plans what has to be accomplished (Wegner & Jarvi, 1999)
and every organization determines the methods of accomplishing its future goals. It is
strategic planning as Wegner & Jarvi stated that "develops an organization's vision and
mission, and then its goals and objectives, with and action plan. It builds upon an
environmental scan and evaluation of the organization's strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats (SWOT)" (p. 100). It is the combination of vision and mission
statements, a SWOT analysis, goals and objectives, and a plan of action that gives
direction to an organization during implementation and evaluation (Tomey, 2000).
Vision and Mission Statement

A vision statement "is a narrative that describes an image of the organization 's

prefirredfirture. It provides a contrast between where the organization currently is and

23

 

 

where the organization wants to go" (Wegner & Jarvi, 1999, p. 107). It is a statement of
the fundamental values and direction of the organization. Tomey (2000) states "when
doing strategic planning, the vision should be the preferred future" (p. 178).

A mission statement is a fimction of the organizations internal and external
constituents, leaders and stakeholders. It is a declaration of what the organization should
be doing and why it is doing it (Bryson, 1990; Oster, 1995); it is a "blueprint for success"
(Abrahams, 1999), and the purpose for its existence (Tomey, 2000). The mission
statement is an articulation of the organization's vision and it provides a sense of identity
for employees, customers/clients, and stakeholders. In an organization, through its vision
and mission statement, managers and leaders attempt to define clearly their long-term
intentions (Tomey). From the stated intentions or purposes goals and objectives are
created that serve as a basis for shared organizational expectations, for strategic planning,
and for performance evaluations (Graham & Havlick, 1994; Wegner & Jarvi, 1999).

Bolrnan and Deal (1997) state that organizations "are filled with people who have
different interpretations of what is happening and what should be happening" (p. 13). A
mission statement can serve to unify people with a different skills and education levels
working in a variety of jobs and in dispersed locations throughout the organization
(Abrahams, 1999). In changing a mission statement it is important for leaders to
remember the vision, values and beliefs of its founders, employees, and stakeholders
(Bryson, 1990; Oster, 1995; Wegner & Jarvi, 1999) because the values and the behavior
of the organization are a reflection of the mission statement. Based on the vision and
mission statements organizations develop Specific strategies, goals and objectives, and

action plans. The organization's strategies are developed after an analysis of the internal

24

c'J—..n

gw
1.
'_._'-'_.i._—_._

 

. 4*»!5 in .}

.1.

 

strengths and weaknesses, and an analysis of the external opportunities and threats has
been performed.
Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat Analysis

Strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) analysis is an assessment of
the internal environment (strengths and weaknesses), as well as an assessment of the
external environment (threats and opportunities) (Bryson, 1990; Tomey, 2000; Wegner &
Jarvi, 1999). Organizations are not operating in isolation from their environments and
they must be cognizant of changes that are taking place inside and outside of the
organization (Emery & Trist, 1965). According to Wegner and J arvi "the strengths and
weaknesses of the organization are the forces inside the organization. Resources,
personnel, salaries, supplies, land, and facilities would be among the things evaluated" (p.
107). External forces of the organization are "opportunities and threats" as Wegner and
J arvi stated "include the needs of participants/customers and stakeholders; competitors
and allies; social, economic, political, and technological forces in the community" (p.
107). Identifying the environmental conditions Should be accomplished as part of the
strategic planning process, based on the organization-identified strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. Strategic planning is a dynamic open-system process that will
change as the internal and external environment and stakeholders' (publics) interests and
expectations of the organization change (Wegner & Jarvi). Stakeholder participation
when developing strategic plans helps to clarify the issues and cultivates a common
understanding (Halachmi, 1992) of citizens' concerns and organizational mandates. After

performing a SWOT analysis, the next Step is to develop strategies which focus on

25

F- ._. .1 a A
..
..
____.

 

-599 ‘9""5

 

 

linking the organization's mission, to goals and objectives, then to program evaluations
and performance measures (Bryson, 1990).
Goals and Objectives
Businesses first used "goals and objectives" as a way for management to articulate
an organization's direction and to produce measurable results. Goals and objectives as
Drucker (1954) described are:
An objective, a goal, a target serves to determine what action to take today to
obtain results tomorrow. It is based on anticipating the firture. It requires action

to mold the future. It always balances present means and future results, results in
the immediate future and results in the more distant future. (p. 88)

#—

Goals are statements that help explain how the organization will accomplish its
mission. The Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB) (1997) states "the goal may

be of a programmatic, policy, or management nature, and is expressed in a manner which

 

allows a future assessment to be made of whether the goal was or is being achieved" (p.
271). Goals involve organizational intents and measurable outcomes or results. Goals
and objectives become the standard by which the collective action of the organization is
judged. Goals and objectives are dynamic and will change aS they are accomplished, and
from environmental pressures placed on the organization (Hall, 1996).

Strategic planning requires that managers do more than just describe their goals
and objectives. They describe how they are going to accomplish them as part of their
action plan by determining the resources (capital, human, and natural) that are needed as
inputs to the organization. The objectives are expressed as quantifiable standards, values,
or rates against which the actual achievement can be compared (OMB, 1997). They
should be achievable, Specific, measurable, and "each objective Should be about a single

result with a target date" (Tomey, 2000, p. 181).

26

Action Plan

An action plan establishes a timeline with levels of achievement for each of the
goals and objectives. As Wegner and Jarvi (1999) state, "an action plan is a pattern of
purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions, or resource allocations that defines what
an organization is, what it does, and why it does it" (p. 111). In the action plan the goals
are expressed in objective quantifiable and measurable form. The action plan describes
the means, i.e., inputs (Skills, technology, human, natural, and capital resources) required

to accomplish the ends, i.e. outputs/outcomes.

w“: A.

Performance evaluations are developed to measure and evaluate the relevant 1
outputs/outcomes and service levels of the organization. Performance indicators are used

to verify and validate whether the actual program results reach the established goals as

 

stated in the action plan (OMB, 1993) in support of the mission (Wegner & Jarvi).
Wegner and Jarvi state "each strategy needs to have Specific actions assigned to it, and
the responsibility for what lies with the manager and the management team" (p. 112).
The action plan is important in answering the question of who will do what, when, where,
and why in an organization (Wegner & J arvi). The assignment of specific actions and
updating of the action plan should occur annually by management based on the previous
year's performance and program evaluation.
Performance and Program Evaluation

The OMB (1997) describes program evaluation as "an assessment, through
objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner and extent to which
federal programs achieve intended objectives" (p. 271). Wegner and Jarvi (1999) state

"annual and regularly scheduled evaluations should take place to see that progress on

27

accomplishing the goals and objectives is being made and that the action plan is moving
forwar " (p. 112). In organizations program evaluations are used by management to
revise or establish future strategic goals and indicate how well they are doing in
achieving their stated objectives. Evaluations as Holzer and Callahan (1998) found:
Can provide feedback that influences decisions to allocate or reallocate public
sector resources, to set or change priorities. Such decisions are made "internally"
by public managers, chief executives and legislatures. They are substantially
influenced "externally" by feedback from citizens, public interest-advocate |
groups, private businesses, and their elected or media surrogates. Each of these '

actors-internal or external--holds opinion as to service priorities. (p. 118)

Performance evaluation reports are used to ensure that the organization's chief

flfl'-‘
.A-I'I

administrator is informed on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and/or

annual basis of the progress toward achieving goals and objectives (Wegner & Jarvi,

 

1999). The performance evaluation can also assess the outcomes or results of programs
developed as part of the strategic planning process. Because, the strategic planning
process is iterative changes and modifications are inevitable, it is very important for
organizations to have clearly stated and measurable goals and objectives that can be used
by management to evaluate their progress and success (Wegner & Jarvi) as they
implement their strategic plan.

The strategic planning process is an important part of management. The strategic
planning concepts of a vision and mission statement, SWOT analysis, goals and
objectives, an action plan, and performance and program evaluation are all results of
planning.

Development of an Organizational Performance and Change Model

Organizations, big and small, public and private, find themselves in an era of

change. In public organizations such as the VA, change as Stanglin (1997) states is

28

causing a budgetary reality that is "forcing both the administration and congress to find
ways to do more with less" (p. 37).

In a conceptual model of organizational performance and change developed by
Burke and Litwin (1992, 2002), twelve dynamic variables are identified that are thought
to be Operating within an organization. Burke and Litwin describe these variables as the
external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, structure,
management practices, systems - policies and procedures, work unit climate, task and
individual Skills, motivation, individual needs and values, and individual and
organizational performance. Burke and Litwin's performance and change model is
considered a dynamic open-system model because change can happen to any of the
variables in the model. From Open-systems theory, the external environment can be
thought of as the source of inputs and the organization's performance as the outputs back
into the external environment. A feedback loop consisting of outputs links the
organization's performance to the external environment with products and services, these
outputs are thought to have an effect on the external environment (Burke & Litwin). In
this open-system model described by Burke & Litwin, some theorize that a change in one
variable will eventually have an impact on the other variables in the model.

Burke and Litwin (1992) divided their organizational performance and change
model into two parts. The first part is categorized as transformational and it is composed
of the variables: external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational
culture, and individual and organizational performance. These five variables are

theorized to be transformational because of the influence they have on an organization's

29

 

ability to change, which requires "a completely new behavior set from organizational
members" (Burke & Litwin, p. 529).

The second part of the organization performance and change model, developed by
Burke and Litwin (1992), is defined as transactional and is composed of the variables:
structure, management practices, systems (policies and procedures), work unit climate,
task and individual Skills, motivation, individual needs and values, and individual and
organizational performance. Burke and Litwin describe this model as transactional
because it is based on "relatively short term reciprocity among people and groups" (p.
530) within the organization.

Elements of the transformational and transactional model combine to form what
Burke and Litwin posit as an "organizational performance and change model." The
transformational model (see figure 1) with its variables of external environment, mission
and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and organizational performance will be
used to provide the foundation and theoretical framework for this study. These variables
will be examined in the following overview of organizational performance and change
theory.

Overview of Organizational Performance and Change Theory

This section is a chronological review of the theories and empirical research of
the variables examined in this study. They are the external environment, mission and
Strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and organizational performance.
External Environment

Emery and Trist (1965) provide a basis for use of an open-system theory approach

to studying the causal relationship between an organization and its environment. They

30

 

 

 

state that, "a main problem in the study of organizational change is that the environmental
contexts in which the organizations exist are themselves changing, at an increasing rate,
and towards increasing complexity" (p. 21). One of the key components for the
transformation Of an organization, is the identification of factors external to the
organization, and beyond its control that could significantly affect achievement of its
strategic goals. For example, a change in funding, local, or national politics, technologies
and scientific discovery, human and natural resources, market place and/or a natural
disaster may affect an organization's goal achievement.

Edginton and Neal (1983) studied perceptions of organizational goals of park and
recreation directors. Responses were received from park and recreation directors in 382
agencies in the United States (34 percent of the sample) on an 85-goal statement
questionnaire. The connection between an organization's goals and the environment is a
universal element that all types of organizations must confront. Findings from their study
that are relevant to this study Show: a) A need by an organization's leaders to focus on
the outcomes or the benefits that can be derived from their organizations' services rather
than on the means, b) a need to manage resources more efficiently and effectively, and c)
securing a favorable appraisal by political bodies and recognizing political and economic
variables. Edginton and Neal concluded that goal setting Should be ongoing and
systematic, and the process should involve administrators and staff members, and
external policy-makers and members of the community as well as other interested
publics.

Prescott's (1986) study of 1,638 business units in the Profit Impact of Market

Studies database from 1978, through 1981, investigated whether environments moderate

31

 

 

the relationship between strategic variables and performance. In this study, Prescott uses
moderated regression analysis and subgroup analysis to determine the relationship
between eight environmental variables and nine strategic variables. Prescott concludes
that the environments modified the strength, but not the form of the relationship between
the strategic variables and performance. Prescott finds that the "environment is critical
because it establishes the context in which to evaluate the importance of various
relationships between strategy and performance" (p. 342).
Mission and Strategy

Much has been written about the benefits of having a mission statement and a
strategic plan for implementing the mission statement, but little empirical research has
been done that shows the link between strategic planning and performance. Formal
strategic planning is defined by Pearce, Freeman, and Robinson (1987) as "the process of
determining the mission, major objectives, strategies, and policies that govern the
acquisition and allocation of resources to achieve organizational aims. . . " (p. 658). In a
critical review of 18 empirical studies of formal strategic planning (F SP) on
organizational effectiveness by Pearce et a1. find that "empirical support for the
normative suggestions by strategic planning advocates that all firms should engage in
FSP has been inconsistent and often contradictory" (p. 671) with as many studies finding
negative as well as positive results.

In an organization the mission statement serves three functions as described by
Oster (1995). First, the mission statement serves as a boundary function by describing
the bounds that the organization can operate in. Second, the mission statement motivates

staff by describing the "ideology of the organization, to serve as a flag around which the

32

“fi—
. I - -_ J
.-

organization can rally" (p. 23). Third, the mission statement can be used to help in the
evaluation of the organization, checking to see if it accomplished its intended purpose.

Drucker (1995) states that "every agency, every policy, every program, every
activity, should be confronted with these questions: 'What is your mission?‘ '15 it still the
right mission?’ '15 it still worth doing?’ 'If we were not already doing this, would we now
go into it?” (p. 54). These questions have been asked ofien in business, non-profit
organizations, hospitals, and government to know that developing a mission and strategy
works (Drucker).

Leadership

Leadership has been defined and conceptualized in a multitude of ways.
Northouse (1997) lists several components "central to the phenomena of leadership.

They are (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership
occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership involves goal attainment" (p. 3). Based
on these components Northouse states " leadership is a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3).

Leadership according to Burns (1978) takes on two fundamentally different forms
in the leader-follower relationship. The first form Burns labels as transactional, which is
based on the exchange of valued things. You do X for me, and I will provide you with Y,
as in, for example, an exchange of money for labor. Transforming is the second form of
leadership which Burns identifies as transformational leadership that "occurs when one or
more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one

another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (p. 20).

33

 

“Id! MK:
h

Bass (1985) extends Burns (197 8) definition of transactional and transformational

leadership to include supervisory--subordinate relations. Bass states a transactional
leader:

1. Recognizes what it is we want to get from our work and tries to see that we get
what we want if our performance warrants it.
2. Exchanges rewards and promises of rewards for our effort.
. Is responsive to our immediate self-interests if they can be met by our getting
the work done. (p. 11)

DJ

The transactional leader then exchanges rewards for subordinates services rendered.

Bass (1985) finds the transformational leaders "motivates followers to work for
transcendental goals and for aroused higher-level needs for self-actualization rather than
for immediate self interest" (p. 11). Bass states such a transformation can be achieved:

1. By raising our level of awareness, our level of consciousness about the

importance and value of designated outcomes, and ways of reaching them.

2. By getting us to transcend our own self-interest for the sake of the team,

organization, or larger polity.

3. By altering our need level on Maslow's (or Alderfer‘s) hierarchy or expanding

our portfolio of needs and wants. (p. 20).

Howell and Avolio (1993) in a study examining the relationship of transactional
and transformational leadership to unit performance use a sample of 78 managers
representing the top four levels in a large Canadian financial institute. They examined
"the degree to which leader locus of control predicts transformational-leadership behavior
as well as the moderating effect of support for innovation on the relationship between
transformational-leadership behaviors and performance" (Howell & Avolio, p. 894).

The measures used by Howell and Avolio (1993) for the study consisted of four
scales: leadership behavior, locus of control, support for innovation, and consolidated-

unit performance. The leadership behavior was measured using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire MLQ-Form 10. MLQ—Form 10 uses three scales to measure

34

 

5'4

transformational leadership and they are charisma, individual consideration, and
intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership was measured using three scales:
contingent reward, active management-by- exception, and passive management-by-

exception. Locus of control was measured using a 13-item scale developed by Rotter

(1966). Rotter's "forced choice questionnaire assesses whether people believe that events

are contingent on their own behavior (internal orientation) or on external forces (external
orientation)" (Howell & Avolio, 1993, p. 894). Consolidated unit performance is a
measure of "the degree to which a manager achieved targeted goals for the year,
calculated in terms of the percentage of goals met" (Howell & Avolio, 1993, P. 894).

Results of Howell and Avolio's (1993) study indicate that behaviors associated
with transformational leadership had a positive contribution on unit performance and that
transactional leadership was directly and negatively related to unit performance. The
study also found that in "an environment in which change is occurring, a pure
transactional-leadership style may be counter productive" (Howell & Avolio, p. 894).

In addition a study by Lawrence (2000) of for-profit hospital senior
executives/department heads and their immediate subordinates using the MLQ form 5x-
short finds "that the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm does exist in the
hospital setting" (p. 127).

Organizational Culture
"Culture is the invisible force behind the tangibles and observables in any

organization, a social energy that moves people to act. Culture is to the organization

what personality is to the individualua hidden, yet unifying theme that provides meaning,

direction, and mobilization" (Kilmann, Saxton, & Serpa, 1985, p. ix).

35

 

it

 

Cooke and Rousseau (1988) using the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI)
find that "behavioral norms do vary across organizations and levels and in ways
consistent with the focal organization's management style" (p. 267). The OCI consists of
120 items which combine to produce twelve scales of ten items each; the twelve scales
identify the cultural styles of an organization and are classified by, Cooke & Rousseau,
as: humanistic-helpful culture, affiliative culture, approval culture, conventional culture,
dependent culture, avoidance culture, oppositional culture, power culture, competitive
culture, competence/perfectionistic culture, achievement culture, and self-actualization
culture. Part of the change process is the identification of the direction that leaders of the
organization are headed. The OCI instrument provides executives with a means of
identifying changes desired and the behaviors critical to achieving organizational goals
and strategies (Cooke & Rouseau).

Klein, Masi, and Weidner (1995) developed a typology of organizational culture
based on the twelve cultural styles developed by Cooke and Rousseau in 1988. Klien et
al., categorize organizational culture as constructive cultures, passive/defensive cultures,
and aggressive/defensive cultures. In a study identifying linkages between the norms and
expectations (organizational culture), control situation (distribution & amount of control),
perceived quality of service, and employee performance. Klein et al., found that
constructive cultures have a significant positive relationship to employee performance.
In this same study Klein et al., also found that passive/defensive cultural styles have a
significant negative relationship to employee performance and the relationship between

employee performance and aggressive/defensive cultural styles are not significant.

36

 

 

Bass (1998) posits the concept of transactional and transformational cultures
operating in organizations. An organization in the transactional culture mode
"concentrates on explicit and implicit contractual relationships. Job assignments are in
writing accompanied with statements about conditions of employment, rules, regulations,
benefits, and disciplinary codes" (p. 65). In a transactional culture the employees do not
relate to the organizations vision or mission. The leader is a negotiator and allocator of
supplies and resources based on power and politics more than merit, with risk taking and
innovation discouraged (Bass). Lawrence (2000) using the MLQ 5x-short and the ODQ
developed by Bass and Avolio in a study of a for-profit hospital states "the research
finding in this study do not corroborate a significant relationship between leadership style
and organizational culture" (p. 130).

Gordon (1985) states "but whether or not management wishes to address
corporate culture specifically, it seems patently evident that every company still has a
culture, which is perceived by its members and which provides direction for the many
specific things that people will or will not do" (p. 121). Gordon studies upper level
management because it is believed the corporate values held by management are reflected
in the culture. Gordon states:

Further, if a company wishes to modify its culture, we believe that the trust must

come fiom the top. Although there is little disagreement that cultures are resistant

to change or that ultimately the commitment of large numbers of people is
necessary, our own observations indicate that a company's culture can change, but
only through the perseverance of its leaders. It is they who set the direction,

reinforce the values, and raise the consciousness of the organization to what it
.must be rather than what it has been. (p. 104)

37

 

 

 

Organizational Performance

Organizational performance has been the dependent variable in several of the
aforementioned studies and has been measured on several different scales. Howell &
Avolio (1993) measure the "consolidated-unit performance represented by the degree to
which a manager achieved targeted goals for the year, calculated in terms of the
percentage of goals me " (p. 894). Prescott (1986) uses a return-on- investment as a
measure of business performance.

As the previously mentioned studies indicate organizational performance is also

the result of leadership (Bass, 1998; Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burns, 1978; Northouse,

 

1997), external environment (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Edginton & Neal, 1983; Emery &

 

Trist, 1965; Prescott, 1986), mission and strategy (Burke & Litwin, 1992; McGinnis &
Kohn, 1993; Prescott, 1986), and organizational culture (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Cooke &
Rosseau, 1988; Klein et al., 1995. This study differs from previous studies because it is
the first study to examine the relationships between all the independent variables and the

dependent variable in an organizational model.

38

 

Chapter Three
Methodology
This chapter describes the research methodology used in this study. The purpose

of this study was to examine the relationships between external environment,
transformational and transactional leadership styles, mission and strategy, organizational
culture, and performance at the White River Junction, Vermont, Veterans Administration
Medical and Regional Office Center. The research methods discussed in this chapter
include population and sample, instrumentation, pretest and focus group, data collection,

and data analysis.

 

Population and Sarnple

The population of this study included all current full and part-time employees at
the VA Medical Center (V AM & ROC), White River Junction, Vermont. The data for
this research was collected from senior, mid-level, and first-line managers, and their
subordinates. The Director of the facility offered assistance and support, in the form of
making staff available for help with printing and distribution of the survey packet. It
included help from the Human Resources (HR) Department with the mailing list, and
Quality Improvement in providing a person to help with the process (see Appendix A).
The White River Junction VAM & ROC HR Department supplied a list of employees,
which included all 657 employee's names and their internal mailing addresses at the WRJ
VAM & ROC facility. The number of employees changed during the process of
gathering the data. The facility was and continues to be in a transformational process that

requires restructuring of departments through retraining, attrition offers of early

39

 

 

retirement and subsequent shifting of employees' work responsibilities. The total number
of employees at the time of the data collection was 657.

Excluded from the sampling frame because of their knowledge of the
questionnaire was the facility Director, the Human Resources Chief, the Quality
Improvement Coordinator, the President of AFGE Local 2604, and eight employees who
participated in the pretest and the focus group. The pretest and focus group were
composed of employees whom were randomly selected from the WRJ VAM & ROC
employee list, and they were asked to voluntarily participate in completing the
questionnaire and providing feedback on the questionnaire (see Appendix E). If they
agreed to take part in the pretest and focus group, they were sent a survey packet that
included a cover letter, a questionnaire, and a pre-addressed return envelop. They were
asked to keep track of the time required to complete the questionnaire, wording, and
clarity of the instrument. Ten survey packets were returned because they were
undeliverable. The addressees were no longer at the facility. A total of 252 completed
surveys were returned, of which 248 were usable, from a sample population of 635
employees, for a 39% rate of return.

Instrumentation

A questionnaire was used in this study to gather data on the variables from the
participants (see Appendices N). Not all of the questions, asked, are shown in Appendix
N due to copyright restrictions. Each of the variables identified in the transformation
model (external environment, mission & strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and
performance) required a scale for the measurement of each particular variable. Each of

the scales has from four to thirty-six items per variable. The measures and the design for

40

 

each of the five variables: (a) external environment, (b) mission and strategy, (c)
transformational and transactional leadership styles, (d) organizational culture, (e) and
performance measures are discussed in the following sections. Demographic information
was also obtained from the participants.
External Environment

External environmental data were collected using items from the Survey on
Performance and Management Issues (PMI), a questionnaire developed by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) (2000), (see Appendix B), which is based on participant's
perception of external situations that influence the performance of the WRJ VAM &
ROC. Two scales, Q-lO, nine-items, and Q-l l, four-items, consist of statements
answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale were used to measure the perceptions of the
participants, reporting on the extent that the external environment and its affects on the
organization. Respondents made their selection on each item that ranged from "0 = to no
extent" to "4 = to a very great extent" (see Appendix N).
Mission and Strategy

Mission and strategy data were collected using items from the Survey on
Performance and Management Issues, a questionnaire developed by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) (2000), (see Appendix B). Scale Q-3 asks "Are you a
manager or supervisor?" if employees answer yes they are supervisors/managers, then
they continue on with question Q-4 and Q—S, and employees that were not
supervisors/mangers skip to Q-6. Supervisors/managers responded to scale Q-S seven-
items consisting of statements answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. All employees

used scale Q-8 eight-items consisting of statements answered on a 5-point Likert-type

41

 

 

scale. The two scales Q-5 and Q-8 measured the dimensions of mission and strategy (see
Appendix N). The participants responded by selecting answers that ranged from "O = to
no extent" to "4 = to a very great extent" on each of the scales.

Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-faire Leadership Styles

Leadership data were collected using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ), Leader and Rater Form (5x-Short) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), (see
Appendix C). A thirty-six item modified version of the MLQ, Leader and Rater Form
(5x-Short) questionnaire consisting of statements answered on a S-point Likert-type scale
were used to obtain the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles
of the employees. The transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire style subscale
items are described in Table 1, 2, and 3. The employees describe their own and/or their
immediate supervisor's leadership style on each item using a frequency scale that ranged
from "O = not at all" to "4 = frequently, if not always" (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Because of copyright restrictions, the MLQ Form (5x-Short) questionnaire in its
entirety can not be reproduced, however five sample items from the MLQ Form (5x-
Short) can be reproduced for inclusion and are as follows: the personl am rating (a)
"provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts," (b) "talks about their most
important values and beliefs," (c) "focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes,
exceptions, and deviations," (d) " seeks differing perspectives when solving problems"

and, (e) "avoids getting involved when important issues arise."

42

Table l

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire F arm 5 -x Short - Transformational Leadership

 

 

Style Items

Transformational

Subscale Statement Number Description

Idealized Influence (Attributed) 10, 18, 21, 25 Admired, respected,
and trusted.

Idealized Influence (Behavior) 6, 14, 23, 34 Displays persistence,

Inspirational Motivation 9, 13, 26, 36
Intellectual Stimulation 2, 8, 30, 32
Individualized Consideration 15, 19, 29, 31

43

determination, and risk-
taking.
Involves followers in a
vision of a better future.
Encourages innovation and
creativity by questioning
assumptions.
Acceptance of differences,

acts as coach or mentor.

Table 2

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire F orm 5-x Short - Transactional Leadership Style

 

 

 

Items

Transactional

Subscale Statement Number Description

Contingent Reward 1, 11, 16, 35 Rewards individuals based
upon agreed objectives.

Management-by-Exception (Active) 4, 22, 24, 27 Actively monitors mistakes
and takes corrective action.

Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3, 12,17,20 Waits for mistakes to occur
then takes corrective action.

Table 3

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire F arm 5 -x Short - Laissez-faire Leadership Style
Items

Laissez-faire

Subscale Statement Number Description

Laissez-Faire Leadership 5, 7, 28, 33 Resists making decisions.

Organizational Culture

Measurement scales from the Organizational Description Questionnaire (ODQ)

developed by Bass and Avolio (1992) were used to obtain the perceived organizational

44

 

DI

culture qualities of WRJ VAM & ROC (see Appendix D). Fourteen-items on the ODQ
deal with the transformational elements and fourteen-items deal with the transactional
elements (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The ODQ subscale items are described in Table 4.
Respondents of the ODQ used a rating scale of "true", "false", or "‘?" if the respondent
was undecided. From the responses it is determined which of the nine prototype
organizational culture typologies that the organization demonstrates. The types of

cultures according to the ODQ are predominately four i's, moderately four i’s, high-

 

r
-l

contrast, loosely guided, coasting, moderately bureaucratic, garbage can, pedestrian, and
predominately bureaucratic (Bass & Avolio, 1992).

Because of copyright restrictions, the ODQ in its entirety can not be reproduced.
However, five sample items from the ODQ can be reproduced for inclusion, and are as
follows: (a) "we negotiate with each other for resources," (b) "people go out of their way
for the good of the team, department and/or organization," (0) "mistakes are treated as
learning opportunities," (d) "new ideas are greeted with enthusiasm" and, (e) "one or two

mistakes can harm your career."

45

Table 4

Organizational Description Questionnaire Culture Types

 

 

 

Organizational Culture
Subscale Item Numbers Description
Transactional l, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, Jobs are explicitly stated,
13, 15, 17, 19, commitments are short-term,
21, 23, 25, 27 resources are negotiable.
Transformational 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 Work for the good of the M
14, 16, 18, 20, team, continuous.
22, 24, 26, 28 improvement, commitments

are long term.

 

Performance Measures

Performance measures data were collected using items from the PMI developed
by the General Accounting Office (GAO) (2000), (See Appendix B). Employees
responded to scale Q-6 four-items and scale Q-7 seven-items on a 5-point Likert-type
scale that measures the dimensions of performance using a scale ranging from "O = to no
extent" to "4 = to a very great extent" (see Appendix N). Q-6 four-item scale was used to
measure the frequency to which all participants were involved in setting their work
group's performance measures. Q-7 seven-item scale measured the extent that factors

hindered the use of performance measures.

46

Demographics
Five demographic questions were asked of respondents pertaining to the number
of years they were employed at the WRJ VAM & ROC, their work group, gender,
organizational levels, and their level of education. Space for the employees' comments
and/or feedback was provided at the end of the questionnaire.
Pretest and Focus Group

A pretest of the questionnaire design and a follow-up focus group was conducted

 

r
4h

by randomly selecting twenty employees from WRJ VAM & ROC, and one union
appointed employee. A systematic sampling technique was used to make the sample
selection for the pretest and follow-up focus group meeting (Babbie, 1992). The
alphabetized listing of all full and part-time employees, and a random numbers chart
(Babbie) was used to select a random starting point in the employee list. The sample
pretest and focus group were selected by progressing through the random numbers until
twenty employee candidates were selected. Subjects that were randomly selected a
second time were skipped and another selection was made. If the random number was
outside the range of the employee list, the next number from the random number chart
was used in making the employee selection (Babbie).

A memo asking for voluntary participation in the pretest was sent by the Director
(see Appendix E) of the facility to each of the selected pretest and focus group
candidates. If the candidate agreed to participate, a survey packet (with a cover letter,
questionnaire, and self-addressed envelope) was distributed to the employee. Each
participant of the pretest was given two weeks to complete the questionnaire. After the

questionnaire was completed, the participants were invited to give feedback on the

47

questionnaire in a focus group meeting held at the WRJ VAM & ROC facility. The focus
group was conducted using a retrospective technique, (Dillman, 2000) where a follow-up
discussion took place shortly after completion of the survey. Based on participants'
feedback, the questionnaire design was modified. This technique allowed the researcher
to identify where there were information gaps or inconsistencies in the wording of
questions, to measure the approximate length of time needed to complete the survey, the
overall quality of the survey instrument, and the ease to which it was completed
(Dillman).
Data Collection

Survey Packets

Approximately two weeks before the survey packets were mailed to the
participants, a letter from the White River Junction VA Medical Center and Regional
Office Director (see Appendix F ) was sent to all employees. The letter was an
introduction to the upcoming survey to encourage their voluntary participation in the
study. The WRJ VAM & ROC facility is union organization. The President of AF GE
Local 2604 was consulted as the study was being developed (see Appendix G).
Approximately two weeks before the survey was mailed, a news release by the AF GE
Local 2604 President (see Appendix H) went into a newsletter at WRJ VAM & ROC
encouraging employees to voluntarily participate in the survey. A survey packet was
distributed to each of the employees at WRJ VAM & ROC through its internal mailing
system. Included in the survey packet was a cover letter, the questionnaire, and a self-
addressed return envelope, marked CONFIDENTIAL. The questionnaires were

returned through WRJ VAM & ROC's internal mail system (Babbie, 1992).

48

 

 

All subjects were informed through a cover letter (see Appendix I) enclosed with
the questionnaire that their participation in this study was voluntary, and that their
responses would remain confidential and that their responses were designed for research
purposes only (University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, 2003).
Approval for this project was obtained through the Michigan State University internal
review board, the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, before
the survey packet was mailed to participants.

Distribution and Return

The distribution and return of the survey packets was accomplished through the
use of the internal mailroom at WRJ VAM & ROC. Participants' names and addresses,
obtained from the current employee listing supplied by WRJ VAM & ROC Human
Resources Department were used for addressing the survey packets. The survey packet
included a pre-addressed return envelope. Respondents had only to put their completed
questionnaire in the pre-addressed return envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL, seal it in
the envelope, and drop it in WRJ VAM & ROC's internal mail system when completed
(Babbie, 1992). The completed questionnaires were then returned to the researcher in the
sealed pre-addressed envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL.

In the mailroom, was a container designated for holding the returned
questionnaires until the researcher picked them up. The container was marked with a
sample of the pre-addressed envelope, and the mailroom staff was informed of the
procedure. For the first six weeks after the initial mailing, the researcher, on a weekly
basis, picked-up the returned questionnaires from WRJ VAM & ROC's mailroom. Six

weeks after the initial mailing of the survey packet, the researcher closed the internal

49

 

mailing process by picking up returned questionnaires collected at the WRJ VAM &
ROC mailroom and leaving a forwarding address where the mailroom staff could send
the sealed pre-addressed envelopes received after the closed collection date. At the end
of the seventh week, after the initial survey packets were mailed the data collection
ended. During the open collection process twenty four completed questionnaire were
returned to the researcher through the US. Postal Service

Identification Numbers

Following survey techniques suggested by Dillman (l 978) all survey

 

questionnaire booklets were marked with a four-digit identification number on the front
cover of the booklet which corresponded to an individual participant. For tracking and
follow-up purposes, this number directly corresponded to the number marked next to the

participant's name on the researcher's master mailing list. The purpose of the coding was

 

solely to allow for follow-up mailings of the survey packet to non-respondents.
Follow-up

Two-weeks after the survey packet was originally mailed, a postcard reminder
(see Appendix J) was sent through VAM & ROC's internal mail system to all employees
on the mailing list. The postcard served as a thank you to participants in the survey who
returned a completed questionnaire, and secondly as a friendly reminder to complete the
questionnaire for those that have not yet returned their questionnaire (Dillman, 197 8; Rea
& Parker, 1997). Four weeks afier the original mailing of the survey packet, a second
survey packet was sent to non-respondents of the original questionnaire to replace the
first survey packet that may have been misplaced or discarded (Rea & Parker). The

follow-up survey packet contained the same information as the original survey packet: a

50

cover letter (see Appendix K), questionnaire, and pre-addressed envelop marked
CONFIDENTIAL.

Seven weeks after the initial mailing and before the close of the survey process a
telephone call was made to a random sample of non-responsive subjects. A random
selection of 50 non-respondent subjects make up the telephone survey sample to compare
for non-response bias. The participants in the telephone survey were asked to respond to
seven questions selected from the questionnaire (see Appendix L). The questions asked
of participants in the telephone survey were used to measure the differences between

questionnaire respondents and the telephone survey respondents on the variables of g,

 

external environment, performance measures, and strategy. Two demographic questions
were asked to examine the difference in the respondents' profile. Seven weeks after the
original survey packet mailing the researcher closed the survey process.
Data Analysis

A 162-item questionnaire was developed to gather data on the external
environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, performance
variables, and employees' demographic profiles. The Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS-12.2) for Windows was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics
were used to characterize the data on the dimensions of: external environment, mission
and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, performance, and the demographic
profile as it pertains to WRJ VAM & ROC participating employees.

A significance level of .05 is used to establish the differences between the

variables for the significance tests. The results of the hypothesized relationships are

51

displayed in tabular format in Chapter IV. The data gathered through the questionnaire

were analyzed and reported as aggregate scores to protect individual identities.

 

 

52

Chapter Four
Data Analysis

This chapter presents the results of the statistical procedures used to determine the
relationships between the external environment, mission and strategy, leadership,
organizational culture and performance in the Department of Veterans Affairs, White
River Junction Medical and Regional Office Center. The data were collected using three
research instruments that were combined into the one instrument used in this study. The
instrument was analyzed to determine (a) the significant relationships between the
external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture and
performance measures created in this study and differences between the perceptions of
supervisors/managers and subordinate groups, (b) the other significant relationships
between demographic variables, external environment, mission and strategy, leadership,
organizational culture, and performance that aid in understanding organizations, and (c)
the research hypotheses were supported by significant relationships and differences
between the supervisor/mangers and subordinate groups.

The data analysis is organized into four main sections: demographic
characteristics, descriptive statistics, instrument's reliability, and hypotheses' test results.
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science revision 12.2
software. See Appendix M, for participants' comments.

Demographic Characteristics

The five demographic questions relating to functional work group, gender,

organizational level, education level, and years of employment all included the response

Option of "prefer not to respond". In addition, some participants chose to respond

53

 

 

selectively to the demographic questions or did not respond at all. The demographic
characteristics and their frequencies are shown Table 5.

Six hundred thirty-five employees at the WRJ VAM & ROC facility were asked
to participate in the study. Two hundred forty-eight employees (39% response rate)
participated in the study and their responses to the demographic questions are presented
in Table 5. In the functional work groups, the nursing and allied health/technical had the
most responses (36.8%); the administrative staff response rate was (28.2%); providers
(23.2%); and trades/crafis/facilities management services (11.8%). More females
(60.9%) than males (39.1%) responded. The responses were primarily from non-
management (80%) with (20%) of the responses from managers. The majority (69.4%)
of the respondents had competed an Associate's degree or higher with an additional
(21.2%) having completed some college or technical/trade school, and (8.6%) having
completed high school or less. Regarding the number of years employed at the WRJ
VAM & ROC, (24.9%) had less than 4 years, (19.7%) from 4 to 10 years, (32.6%) had 11
to 20 years, (18.5%) had from 21 to 30 years, and (4.3%) had 31 years or more of

employment at the facility.

54

 

 

Table 5

Demographic Characteristics

 

 

Demographic Valid Cumulative
Variable Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Functional Work Group:
Providers 51 20.6 23.2 23.2
Nursing & Allied
Health/Technical 81 32.7 36.8 60.0
Administrative Staff 62 25.0 28.2 88.2
Trades/Crafis/Facilities
Management Services (FMS) 26 10.5 11.8 100.0
Total 220 88.7 100.0
Missing:
Mistake 6 2.4
Prefer Not To Respond 15 6.0
System 7 2.8
Total 28 11.3
Total 248 100.0

 

55

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 (cont'd).

Demographic Valid Cumulative

Variable Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Gender:

Female 143 57.7 60.9 60.9

Male 92 37.1 39.1 100.0
Total 235 94.8 100.0

Missing:

Prefer Not To Respond 12 4.8

System 1 .4
Total 13 5.2

Total 248 100.0

Organizational Level:

Management 46 18.5 20.0 20.0

Non-management 1 84 74.2 80.0 100.0
Total 230 92.7 100.0

Missing:

Mistake 1 .4

Prefer Not To Respond 11 4.4

System 6 2.4
Total 18 7-3

Total 248 100.0 #

 

56

Table 5 (cont'd).

 

Demographic Valid Cumulative
Variable Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Highest Level of
Education Completed:
Less than High School 1 .4 .5 .5
High School 20 8.1 9.0 9.5
Some College 37 14.9 16.7 26.1
Associate's Degree 28 1 1.3 12.6 38.7
Technical/Trade School 10 4.0 4.5 43.2
Bachelor's Degree 61 24.6 27.5 70.7
Master's Degree 37 14.9 16.7 87.4
Doctoral Degree 28 11.3 12.6 100.0
Total 222 89.5 100.0
Missing:
Mistake 9 3.6
Prefer Not To Respond 13 5.2
System 4 1.6
Total 26 10.5
Total 248 100.0

 

57

Table 5 (cont'd).

 

Demographic Valid Cumulative
Variable Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Years Employed at
WRJ VAM & ROC:
Less than 4 Years 58 23.4 24.9 24.9
4 to 10 Years 46 18.5 19.7 44.6
11 to 20 Years 76 30.6 32.6 77.3
21 to 30 Years 43 17.3 18.5 95.7
31 Years and Over 10 4.0 4.3 100.0
Total 233 94.0 100.0
Missing:
Prefer Not To Respond 14 5.6 5.7 100.0
System 1 .4
Total 15 6.0
Total 248 100.0

 

Descriptive Statistics

The number of respondents, minimum and maximum scores, mean values, and

standard deviations for supervisors/managers self-reported transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership style at the WRJ VAM & ROC are reported in

Table 6. A 5-point Likert type scale, the MLQ (Form 5x-short), measured the frequency

on a scale of 0 = "not at all" to 4 = "frequently, if not always" of the

58

 

supervisors/managers self-reported leadership style. The self-reported transformational
leadership style means and standard deviations of the supervisors/managers are:
Idealized influence (attributed) 3.12, idealized influence (behavior) 3.13, inspirational
motivation 3.12, intellectual stimulation 3.20, individual consideration 3.36. The
supervisors/managers perceive that they display transformational leadership styles fairly
often.

The self-reported transactional leadership style means of supervisors/managers
are: Contingent reward 3.11, management-by-exception (active) 1.36, management-by-
exception (passive) 1.15 The supervisors/managers perceive that they display contingent
reward fairly often, and that they utilize management-by-exception, active and passive,
only once in a while.

The self-reported laissez-faire leadership style mean of supervisor/managers was
.75. This leadership style is perceived by supervisors/managers as occurring once in a

while.

59

Table 6

Supervisors/Managers Self-reported Perceived Mean Leadership Scores

 

 

Leadership Style N Min Max M SD
Transformational:

Idealized Influence (Attributed) 43 2.25 4.00 3.12 .45
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 45 1.25 4.00 3.13 .57
Inspirational Motivation 43 .75 4 .00 3. l 2 .6 1
Intellectual Stimulation 42 1.00 4.00 3.20 .62
Individual Consideration 44 2.25 4.00 3 .36 .47
Transactional:

Contingent Reward 43 1.75 4.00 3.1 1 .54
Management-by-Exception (Active) 42 .00 2.75 1.36 .74
Management-by-Exception (Passive) 45 .00 2.50 1.15 .68
Laissez-faire Leadership 45 .00 1.75 .75 .56

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .204, n = 36.

Mean score values and standard deviations, as measured by the MLQ (5x-short),
for supervisors as perceived by their immediate subordinates on transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership style at WRJ VAM & ROC are shown in Table
7. The mean scores for transformational leadership are: Idealized influence (attributed)
2.51, idealized influence (behavior) 2.35, inspirational motivation 2.53, intellectual
stimulation 2.31, individual consideration, 2.32. Transformational style leadership mean
scores reported by subordinates, are lower than the supervisors/managers self-reported

mean scores. The transformational leadership style of the supervisors/managers as

Perceived by their immediate subordinates occur sometimes. The findings suggest that

the supervisors/managers perceive that they demonstrate transformational leadership

more frequently than their subordinates reported.

60

Transactional mean scores and standard deviations for supervisors as perceived by
their immediate subordinates are: Contingent reward 2.36, management-by-exception
(active) 1.61, and management-by-exception (passive) 1.53. The transactional leadership
style of supervisors/managers as perceived by their immediate subordinates occurs
sometimes. The mean score reported by subordinates for contingent reward is lower,
occurring sometimes, as opposed to the supervisors/managers' self-reporting of fairly
ofien. The mean score on management-by-exception, active and passive, is higher
occurring sometimes as reported by the immediate subordinates than the self-reported

scores by the supervisors/mangers once in a while.

61

 

Table 7

Supervisors/Managers Mean Leadership Scores as Perceived by Their Immediate

 

 

Subordinates

Perceptions About

Immediate Supervisors
Leadership Style N Min Max M SD
Transformational
Idealized Influence (Attributed) 215 .00 4.00 2.51 1.14
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 203 .00 4.00 2.35 1.05
Inspirational Motivation 219 .00 4.00 2.53 1.06
Intellectual Stimulation 204 .00 4.00 2.31 1.11
Individual Consideration 216 .00 4.00 2.32 1.08
Transactional
Contingent Reward 212 .00 4.00 2.36 1.06
Management-by-Exception (Active) 188 .00 4.00 1.61 .90
Management-by-Exception (Passive) 216 .00 4.00 1.53 .98
Laissez-faire Leadership 230 .00 4.00 1.07 .96

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .710, n = 150.

The mean scores on the Organizational Description Questionnaire (ODQ),
measured on a transactional and transformational culture scale from +14 to -14 which are
converted into an organizational culture typology, are presented in Table 8 and Table 9.
The transformational mean score is 6.08, and transactional mean score is .27 for

employees (see Table 8). The mean values as self-reported by the supervisors/managers

62

 

 

and by their subordinates are in Table 9, and shows two distinct mean values. The self-
reported mean score on the transformational culture scale for supervisors/managers of
8.55 is higher than the mean score of 5.51 as reported by their subordinates on the ODQ
with + 14 as the highest transformational score and -14 as the lowest transformational
score.

The mean scores on the ODQ transactional scale is -.84 as reported by
supervisors/managers and .50 as reported by their subordinates. The organizational
culture typology is perceived to be more transactional by the subordinates as compared to
the mean score perceived by their supervisors/managers. The self-reported mean for
supervisors/managers on the ODQ is less transactional on a scale of +14 the highest
transactional score and -14 as the lowest transactional score.

Table 8

Organizational Culture Typology Mean Scores as Perceived by Employees

 

Organizational Typology N Min Max M SD
Transformational 248 -12.00 13.00 6.08 7.48
Transactional 247 -14.00 14.00 .27 4.83

 

63

 

 

Table 9

Organizational Culture Typology Mean Scores as Perceived by Supervisors/Managers

 

and Their Subordinates
Organizational Supervisors/managers' Subordinates
Typology Min Max M SD Min Max M SD

 

Transformational -I3.00 14.00 8.55,. 6.45 -l4.00 14.00 5.51., 7.70

Transactional ~10.00 13.00 «.848 5.38 -12.00 10.00 .50c 4.70

 

an = 49. "n = 177. °n =176.
Instrument Reliabilities

The responses to the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x-Short (MLQ
(5x-short)), and the Survey on Performance and Management Issues (PMI) were
examined for internal consistency using Cronbach's coefficient alphas. Cronbach's alpha
as a test of reliability measures the degree to which all items of a scale are measuring the
same construct (Cronk, 2002). Cronbach's alpha can have a value from 1.00 to 0.00. A
Cronbach's alpha of 1.00 is a "value that represents a highly reliable measure. An alpha
value between 0.6 to 0.8 can be considered very reliable" (Mitra & Lankford, 1999, p.
273). The alpha scores for each scale on the MLQ (5x-short) and the PMI that are used
in this study are presented in Tables 6 - 15.

Cronbach's alphas for the scales of PMI ranged from a = .505 for Q11 to .942 for
Q10. The reliability for Q11 at a = .505 would increase to or = .763 if the first item was
removed from the scale.

A Pearson correlation coefficient is used to identify the direction of relationships

and the strength of the relationships between scale items on the instrument (Mitra &

 

 

Lankford, 1999). A Pearson r can vary between +1 to -1, where a positive value
indicates a positive relationship, a negative value indicates a negative relationship, and a
rho value of 0 indicates no relationship (Mitra & Lankford). Conclusions about the
relationships are based on conventions for social science. Mitra and Lanford state:

A rho value under 0.2 is considered to represent a weak or nonexistent
relationship. Values between 0.2 and 0.4 indicate a moderate relationship, those
between 0.4 and 0.6 indicate a strong relationship, and values over 0.6 indicate
the existence of a very strong relationship. (p. 270)

The Pearson r's are for the items are shown in Tables 16 - 22 and Tables 24 - 36.

Table 10

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Mean Scores on Mission and Strategy Scale Q5

 

 

Item N Min Max M SD

1 47 O 4 2.62 1.21
2 48 1 4 3.10 .88
3 45 0 4 2.73 1.11
4 48 1 4 2.56 .99
5 48 1 4 3.17 .89
6 46 1 4 2.39 .98
7 46 0 4 2.13 1.22

 

 

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .894. n=42.

65

Table 11

Employees Perceived Mean Scores on Performance Measures Scale Q6

 

Item N Min Max M SD

1 243 0 4 2.31 1.20
2 242 0 4 2.39 1.26
3 241 0 4 2.42 1.22
4 238 0 4 2.29 1.28

 

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .919. n=236.

Table 12

Employees Perceived Mean Scores Use of Performance Information Scale Q7

 

Item N Min Max M SD

1 228 0 4 1.74 1.22
2 228 O 4 1.81 1.25
3 231 0 4 2.13 1.42
4 220 0 4 1.64 1.27
5 222 0 4 1.15 1.23
6 211 O 4 1.21 1.21
7 210 0 4 1.55 1.46

 

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .844. n=199.

66

Table 13

Employees Perceived Mean Scores on Strategic Goals Scale Q8

 

 

Item N Min Max M SD

1 225 0 4 2.60 1.07
2 220 O 4 2.36 1.16
3 224 0 4 2.50 1.10
4 217 O 4 2.09 1.21
5 217 0 4 2.09 1.17
6 214 0 4 1.95 1.24
7 214 0 4 1.93 1.20
8 217 0 4‘ 1.95 1.27

 

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .938, n=202.

67

 

Table 14

Employees Perceived Mean Scores an External Environment Scale Q10

 

 

Item N Min Max M SD

1 218 O 4 2.08 1.30
2 216 0 4 2.00 1.25
3 219 0 4 2.06 1.17
4 213 0 4 1.69 1.16
5 211 0 4 1.89 1.27
6 213 0 4 1.96 1.29
7 209 0 4 1.53 1.21
8 210 0 4 1.64 1.25
9 216 0 4 1.85 1.29

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .948, n=197.
Table 15

Entployees Perceived Mean Scores on Strategies for an External Environmental Change

 

 

Scale Q11

Item N Min Max M SD
1 227 0 4 1.66 1.20
2 221 0 4 1.94 1.24
3 211 o 4 1.49 1.08
4 216 o 4 1.59 1.13

 

Note. Cronbach's alpha = .505, n=207

68

 

Table 16

Pearson Reliability Correlation C oeflicients Among Leadership Styles for Employees as Measured by the

 

 

 

MLQ (5x-short)

Idealized Idealized

Influence Influence Inspirational Intellectual Individualized Contingent

(Attributed) (Behavior) Motivation Stimulation Consideration Reward
Idealized Influence
(Attributed) -- .837 ‘ .860‘. 847* 854* .826“
N 215 192 204 194 202 200
Idealized Influence
Behavior) .837“ -- .853‘ .841 " .800* .806“
N 192 203 198 187 195 193
Inspirational Motivation .860" .853“ -- .822“ .789“ .807*
N 204 198 219 193 206 203
Intellectual Stimulation .847" .841‘ .822“ -- .850“ .823*
N 194 187 198 204 195 192
Individualized
Consideration .854" .800" .789“ .850" -- .813 "'
N 202 195 206 195 216 199
Contingent Reward 826* .806" .807“ .823" .813* --
N 200 193 203 192 199 212
‘p<.05, two-tailed.

69

Table 16 (cont’d).

 

 

Management- Management- Laissez-
Contingent By-Exception By-Exception Faire
Reward (Active) (Passive) Leadership
Contingent Reward -- -.046 -.568* -.646*
N 212 179 201 206
Management-By-Exception
(Active)- .046 -- 244* .218*
N 179 1 88 1 83 1 85
Management-By-Exception
(Passive) -.568* 244* -- .746*
N 201 183 216 211
Laissez-Faire -.646* .2 18* .746* --
N 206 185 211 230

 

*p<.05, two-tailed.

7O

8:562 .38...

 

 

3. S 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. z
-- 3.». as. .68. .53.. 3%. 3:. a 285>

3. 3. 3. 3. s. 3. 3. z
.3. -- .5. .33.. .33.. em”. .3S. 0 2§a>
3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. S 2
33. SW. -- .63.. .63.. Sam. .33. m 23:9
3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. S 2
.68. .33.. 3S. -- .23.. a _ m. .34 S o§E>
S S S S 3. S S 2
$3.. .33.. .63.. .23.. -- :8. .3... m 2.33,
3. 3. 3. S 3. 3. S 2
.8“. 38. Sam. .30 L8. -- 3.8. N o§E>
S 3. S S 3. S S 2
.3». .33.. .33. .34 .33.. SS. -- _ 23>
a. o m S m N _ 63%.; 2a 2:362

 

mm 33% 4963.5. 38 324.3: Seamumhvob 26252.60 AESSBK 36.23%

E 033.

71

38.62 .32...

 

 

«mm 5mm «mm emu Z
-- $2.. $2.. 43%. 3. Bfita>
SUN 3N :VN 3N Z
snob. -- .3”. 1.5. m o_na_.a>
«mm SN New :3 Z
.22.. 4mm». -- 8%. m 0333;
2N 3N own new 2
43.0. LS. ego. -- _ oEuca>
w m N _ czar—g Ea 2:862

 

em 28% 85.86: mczufiuobmm acmwogmob neeufitob AEBSEQ 20.23%

w— 035.

72

.__s.oE .Sva.

 

 

73

o _ N VON 3N 8N c _ N SN MON 2

.. sONv. 33.. .on. ath. 83m. 63m. 2. 03atu>

voN _ _N EN EN _ .N SN ch Z
*ONv. .. .20. $3. .wmm. scam. .ONv. o 0523>
3N aON NNN :N _NN EN EN 2
33.. $3. .. «Nan. seam. 13. soon. m 03¢ta>
EN SN 2. _ N oNN ONN h _ N w _ N Z
acNm. 3%. anm. I .05.. Lhm. 50mm. v 0305>
SN _ _N .NN cNN 5N oNN cNN 2
«RV. anmn. econ. .05.. 1 .NNv. .va. m 23>
EN SN 3 N N. _ N oNN wNN eNN Z
.3}... seam. L _m. it... .NNv. 1 32.. N 030E>
woN SN 2 N a _ N oNN eNN «N 2
even. eoNv. 30m. econ. .mNV. 3:. .1 _ 0338‘,
h c n v m N _ 033.: can 0.3302

 

mm 030%. 2238.643: monaELobmk 332.2%.000 30.528560 5.236202 309.30%

2 033.

 

 

wNN EN EN :N N_N EN EN EN Z

-- .o5w. .08. .80. .3». . _ no. .mow. 1mm. w 0_nata>

EN EN SN SN N_N N—N. N_N :N Z
.05”. -- .50. .25. :3. Leo. .oNe. .55m. 5 030E>
EN EN EN N_N :N 9N :N NEN Z
.08. .53. .. .mmw. .mwo. .V5m. .03. .20 e 033.53
IN ON N_N EN EN EN N_N 2N Z
.30. .25. .3”. -- .ooc. .ovc. .woc. .E5m. m 030Ea>
N_N NEN :N EN EN EN :N 2N Z
.3». 1mm. .30. .oao. .. .85. .05m. .Nmm. v 053—5/
EN N_N EN EN EN VNN 3N MNN Z
. _ 8. Leo. .V5n. .53. .55. -- .cco. .wNe. m 0333>
ON «ON IN N_N :N ”N oNN 3N Z
.mom. .08. .93. .wow. .o5w. .ocw. : .25. N 030ta>
EN EN N_N EN EN MNN 2N mNN Z
inn. .55n. .Em. ._5n. .Nmm. .ch. .5_5. .. E 03£Ha>
w 5 e n v m N E 033...; and 0.50002

 

m6 030% £86 0&0305 3=0N0m§0ob 230300.39 §~3~50- 50.50%

cN 030.5

74

.362 3%...

 

 

00N v0N v0N 00N 00N 00N 00N Z

-- . E m0. .000. .m05. . ENO. .03. .E n. 5 0E00ta>

v0N m E N 00N 00N 0— N 00N 00N Z

. E m0. 2. .005. .90. .Vm0. .0v0. .5m0. 0 0Enata>
00N 00N E EN 00N 0 E N 00N 00N Z
.000. .005. -- .30. .000. .0v0. .000. m 0E00E00>
00N 00N 00N m E N mEN 00N 0EN Z
.m05. .03. .30. -- .000. .03. .N5w. v 0EnaEua>
00N EN EN EN 0EN EN EN Z
. ENO. .30. .000. .000. : .000. .v00. m 0E00Eua>
00N 00N 00N 00N m E N 0 E N E N Z
.03. .0v0. .0v0. .03. .000. .. .mm5. N 0E00ta>
00N 00N 00N EN EN EN ”EN Z
.E n. .5n0. .000. .N5n. .v00. .25. -- E 0E00E00>
5 0 w v m N E 0E00ta> 0:0 0.50002

 

0 NW 03004 ~=0E=oh>=m 0050030 8:000EN000 =020E0h00 6.50000M =0030k

E N 030.5

75

.362 .33..

 

0EN

0EN

 

 

 

00N Z

-- .E05. .25. 0 0300:;

0EN 0EN 00N Z

.55. -- .03. w 03095

00N 00N 00N Z

.25. .0mm. -- 5 053.35

0 a 5 Boat? 05 03302

€2.80 EN 033

00N 00N 50N 00N m E N 0 E N E EN Z
.95. .50m. .Nv0. .35. .30. .m0m. .N0m. 0 0E00E5>
00N voN 00N 00N 0EN m0N 00N Z
.03. .30. :3. .m05. .mE0. .0Nn. .mmm. m 0EnEaEB>
00N 00N 3N 00N 00N 00N 00N Z
-- .Em0. .000. .35. .ENO. .03. .En. 5 0E00t0>

. 0 n v m N E 03.5., Ba 0.58»:

 

.9680 EN 2...;

76

Table 22

Pearson Reliability Correlation Coeflicients External Environmental Change Scale Q11

Measure and variable

1

 

 

2 3 4
Variable l -- -.127 -.060 -.l 10
N 227 219 210 215
Variable 2 -.127 -- .457" .468"
N 219 221 210 214
Variable 3 -.060 .457* -- .632"
N 210 210 2] 1 209
Variable 4 -.l 10 .468“ .632“ --
N 215 214 209 216
*p<.05, two-tail.

77

 

 

Table 23

Frequencies Sett_ing_l’erforrnance Measures Scale Q9

 

Valid Cumulative
Measure and variable Frequency Percent Percent Percent
1
Yes 79 31.9 35.1 35.1
No 146 58.9 64.9 100.0
Total 225 90.7 100.0
Missing (System) 23 9.3
Total 248 100.0
2
Yes 104 41.9 46.2 46.2
No 146 48.8 53.8 100.0
Total 225 90.7 100.0
Missing (System) 23 9.3
Total 248 100.0
3
Yes 86 34.7 38.2 38.2
No 139 56.0 61.8 100.0
Total 225 90.7 100.0
Missing (System) 23 9.3
Total 248 100.0
4
Yes 80 32.3 35.9 35.9
No 143 57.7 64.1 100.0
Total 223 89.9 100.0
Missing (System) 25 10.1
Total 248 100.0

 

78

Hypotheses Test Results
The fifteen research hypotheses tested in this study are analyzed and their results
are presented below. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (Pearson r) are
calculated to test the research hypotheses. Significance is tested at the .05 level.
Hypothesis 1: Among employees, a direct relationship exists between external
environment and performance measures. The relationship was examined using a Pearson
r. The correlation analysis resulted in a partial relationship between the performance

measure scale (Q6 & Q7) and external environment scales (Q10 & Q11), see Table 24.

 

 

 

Table 24
Performance and External Environment Scales Pearson Correlation Coeflicients HI l
Measure and scale Performance Q6 Q7

External

Environment

Q10 .266* -.048

Q1 1 .369" -.026

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 1 was not supported. No significant direct relationship was
found between performance measure scale Q7, and external environment scales of Q10
and Q11.

Hypothesis 2: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between
external environment and their transformational leadership style. The relationship was
examined using 3 Pearson r. The results of this correlation were significant for the

transformational leadership styles of idealized influence (behavior), inspirational

79

motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration and external
environment scale Q10, but not idealized influence (attributed). Idealized influence
(behavior) and inspirational motivation were significantly correlated on the external
environment scale of Q11, but idealized influence (attributed), intellectual stimulation,

and individual consideration were not significantly correlated with Q11 (see Table 25).
Table 25

Supervisors/Managers Transformational Leadership Style and External Environment Scales Pearson

Correlation Coeflicients H2

 

Idealized Idealized

Influence Influence Inspirational Intellectual Individual

 

Measure and scale (Attributed) (Behavior) Motivation Stimulation Consideration
External

Environment

Q10 .012 .468‘ .371“ .429“ .277“

Q1 1 .044 .355“ .283“ .223 .038

 

"p<.05, one-tailed.
Research hypothesis 2 was not supported. No significant relationship was found
between the supervisors/managers transformational leadership styles and external

environment scale Q10 and Q11.

Hypothesis 3: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between
external environment and their transactional leadership style. The relationship was
examined using a Pearson r. The results of this correlation were not significant for the

transactional leadership style and external environment scale of Q10 and Q11, see Table
26.

80

Table 26

Supervisors/Managers Transactional Leadership Style and External Environment Scales Pearson

 

 

Correlation Coeflicients H3
Management Management

Contingent by-Exception by-Exception
Measure and scale Reward (Active) (Passive)
External
Environment
QIO .298“ -.194 .074
Q11 .097 -.018 .133

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 3 was not supported. No significant relationship was found
between the supervisors/managers transactional leadership style and external
environment scale Q10 and Q11.

Hypothesis 4: Among supervisors/managers, an inverse relationship exists
between the external environment and their laissez-faire leadership style. The result was
examined using a Pearson r.

Research hypothesis 4 was not supported. A Pearson r was calculated for the
relationships between supervisors/managers external environment and laissez-faire
leadership. No significant relationships were found. External environment is not related
to supervisors/managers laissez-faire leadership style.

Hypothesis 5: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between
leadership style and their subordinates' perception of their supervisors/managers
leadership style. This relationship was examined using a Pearson r. The results of this

correlation were not significant, see Table 27.

81

Table 27

Supervisors/Managers Leadership Style and Subordinates Perceptions of Their Supervisors/Managers

Leadership Style Scales Pearson Correlation Coeflicients H5

 

Measure and scale

Subordinates
Idealized
Influence
(Attributed)
Idealized
Influence
(Behavior)
Inspirational
Motivation
Intellectual
Stimulation

Individual

Consideration

‘p<.05, one-tailed.

Supervisors/managers'

 

Idealized Idealized

Influence Influence Inspirational Intellectual

(Attributed) (Behavior) Motivation Stimulation

.065

.549"

.440‘

.209

82

Individual

Consideration

.038

Table 27 (cont'd).

 

Supervisors/Managers

 

Management Management Laissez-
Contingent by-Exception by-Exception faire
Measure and scale Reward (Active) (Passive) Leadership
Subordinates
Contingent
Reward .297“
Management-
by-Exception
(Active) .509‘
Management-
by-Exception
(Passive) 529*
Laissez-
F aire
Leadership 388*
‘p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 5 was not supported. No significant relationship was found
between leadership style of supervisors/managers and their subordinates' perceptions of
their leadership style.

Hypothesis 6: Among supervisors/managers a direct relationship exists between

their transformational leadership style and performance measures. The result was

examined using a Pearson r. The results of the correlation were not significant see Table

28.

83

Table 28

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transformational Leadership Style and Performance Scales Pearson

Correlation Coefiicients H6

 

Idealized Idealized

 

Influence Influence Inspirational Intellectual Individual
Measure and scale (Attributed) (Behavior) Motivation Stimulation Consideration
Performance
Q6 .451 * .564“ .560* .454* .280*
Q7 .218 .237 .151 -.025 -.092

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 6 was not supported. No significant relationship was found
between supervisors/managers transformational leadership style and performance

measures scale Q7 and Q6.

Hypothesis 7: Among supervisors/managers a direct relationship exists between
their transactional leadership style and performance measures. This relationship was
examined using a Pearson r. The results of the correlation were not significant for all
supervisors/managers transactional leadership style and performance measures scale Q6

and Q7, see Table 29.

84

Table 29

Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transactional Leadership Style and Performance Scales Pearson

Correlation C oeflicients H7

 

Management Management

 

Contingent by-Exception by-Exception
Measure and scale Reward (Active) (Passive)
Performance
Q6 379* -.005 -.341"‘
Q7 .194 -.221 -.083

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 7 was not supported. There is no significant relationship
between the supervisors/managers' perceived transactional leadership style of
management-by-exception and performance scale Q6. And, there is no difference
between the transactional leadership style and performance Q7.

Hypothesis 8: Among supervisors/managers an inverse relationship exists
between their laissez-faire leadership style, and performance measures. This relationship

was examined using a Pearson r. The results of the correlation were significant and

negatively correlated for all supervisors/managers' transactional leadership style and the

performance scales Q6 and Q7, see Table 30.

85

Table 30

Supervisors/Managers Laissez-faire Leadership Style and Performance Scales Pearson
Correlation Coeflicients H8

Measure and scale Laissez-faire Leadership

Performance
Q6 -.318*
Q7 -.319*

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 8 was supported. A significant inverse relationship was
found between supervisors/managers laissez-faire leadership style and their performance
measures.

Hypothesis 9: A direct relationship between employees mission and strategy, and
performance measures. The relationship was examined using a Pearson r. The results of
the correlation were significant between participants mission and strategy score scale Q8
and the performance scales Q6 and Q7, see Table 31.

Table 31
Employees Mission and Strategy and Performance Scales Pearson Correlation
Coeflicients H9

Measure and scale Mission & Strategy Q8

 

Performance
Q6 .392*
Q7 .238*

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

86

Research hypothesis 9 was supported. A significant relationship was found
between employees' mission and strategy score Q8 and their performance measures on
scales Q6 and Q7.

Hypothesis 10: Among supervisors/managers, a direct relationship exists between
their transformational leadership style and mission and strategy. This relationship was
measured was examined using 3 Pearson r. The results of the correlation were not

significant, see Table 32.

Table 32
Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transformational Leadership Style and Mission and Strategy Scales

Pearson Correlation Coeflicients H10

 

Idealized Idealized

 

Influence Influence Inspirational Intellectual Individual
Measure and scale (Attributed) (Behavior) Motivation Stimulation Consideration
Mission and Strategy
Q5 .466* .563“ .617* .510" .355*
OS .3 1 1" .520" .3 36" .450“ .203

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 10 was not supported. No significant relationship was found
between the supervisors/managers transformational leadership style and mission and
strategy scale Q5 and Q8.

Hypothesis 11: Among supervisors/managers a direct relationship exists between
their transactional leadership style and mission and strategy. This relationship was
examined using a Pearson r. The results of the correlation were not significant between
supervisors/managers transactional leadership style and mission and strategy scale Q5

and Q8, see Table 33.

87

 

Table 33
Supervisors/Managers Perceived Transformational Leadership Style and Mission and Strategy Scales

Pearson Correlation Coeflicients H II

 

Management Management

 

 

Contingent by-Exception by-Exception
Measure and scale Reward (Active) (Passive)
Mission and Strategy
Q5 .499* -.210 -.364"‘
Q8 .231 -.345"' -.119

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 11 was not supported. No significant relationship was found
between supervisors/managers transformational leadership style and mission and strategy
scale Q5 and Q8.

Hypothesis 12: Among supervisors/managers, an inverse relationship exists
between their laissez-faire leadership style, and mission and strategy. This relationship
was examined using a Pearson r. The results of the correlation were inverse and
significant between supervisors/managers laissez~faire leadership style and the mission

and strategy scale Q5 and Q8, see Table 34.

88

Table 34
Supervisors/Managers Perceived Laissez-faire Leadership Style and Mission and

Strategy Scales Pearson Correlation Coeflicients H12

 

Measure and scale Laissez-faire Leadership

Mission and Strategy
Q5 -.322*
Q8 -.374*

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 12 was supported. A significant inverse relationship was
found between supervisors/managers laissez-faire leadership style, and the mission and
strategy scale Q5 and Q8.

Hypothesis 13: A direct relationship exists between the transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors/managers and their
subordinates' perception of organizational culture typology. A Pearson r was calculated
for the relationships between the leadership style of supervisors/managers' and
subordinates' perception of organizational culture typology. No significant relationships
were found. Supervisors/managers' leadership style is not related to subordinates‘
perception of organizational culture typology.

Research hypothesis 13 was not supported. No relationship was found between
supervisors/managers leadership style and their subordinates' perception of organizational
culture typology.

Hypothesis 14. One of the organizational culture typologies will be more

predictive of performance than the other organizational culture typologies. This

89

 

relationship was examined using a Pearson r. The transformational culture typology was
directly correlated with the performance scales Q 6 and Q7. The transactional
organizational typology was inversely correlated with the performance scales Q6 and Q7,
see Table 35.

Table 35

Predictability of Organizational Culture Typologies and Performance Scales Pearson

Correlation Coeflicients H14

 

 

 

Transactional Transformational
Measure and scale Culture Typolggy Culture Typolgy
Performance
Q6 -.233* .500*
Q7 -.213* 514*

 

*p<.05, one-tailed.

Research hypothesis 14 was supported. A significant direct relationship was
found between the transformational organizational typology and the performance scales
Q6 and Q7 .

Hypothesis 15. No difference exists among employees organizational culture

typologies on external environment. This relationship was examined using a Pearson r.

There is a difference between the organizational typologies and the external environment

scale Q10 and Q11, see Table 36.

90

 

Table 36

Organizational Culture Typologies and External Environment Scales H15

 

Transactional Transformational
Measure and scale Culture Typolog; CultureLIpology
External Environment
Q10 -.203* .262*
Q11 -.069 .17 6*

 

1‘":
*p<.05, two-tailed. i

 

Research hypothesis 15 was not supported. A difference was found between

employees transactional and transformational culture typology and external environment

 

scale Q10 and Q 11.
Additional Analysis

Additional analysis was conducted to examine for significant relationships in
areas of interest that were not included in the hypotheses testing. The areas of interest
that were examined involved relationships between: participant's demographics; female
& male; management & non-management, and the transformational and transactional
leadership styles, organizational culture typologies, external environment, mission and
strategy, and performance scales.

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean transactional
organization culture typology score of participants, who identified themselves as female,
to the mean transactional organization culture typology score of participants, who

identified themselves as male. No significant difference was found (t(233) = -1.052,

91

p>.05. The mean of females (m = -.13, sd = 4.65) was not significantly different from the
mean ofmales (m = .55, sd = 5.12).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean
transformational organization culture typology score of participants, who identified
themselves as female, to the mean transformational organization culture typology score
of participants, who identified themselves as male, found a significant difference between
the means of the two groups (t(233) = 3.149, p<.05. The mean of the females was
significantly higher (m = 7.50, sd = 6.81 than the mean of the males (m = 4.45, sd =
7.88).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean transactional
organization culture typology score of participants, who identified themselves as
management, to the mean transactional organization culture typology score of
participants, who identified themselves as non-management, found a significant

difference between the means of the two groups (t(227) = -2.673, p<.05). The mean of

the management was significantly lower (m = -1.48, sd = 4.88) than the mean of the non-

management (m = .62, sd = 4.72)-

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean

transformational organization culture typology score of participants, who identified

themselves as management, to the mean transformational organization culture typology

score of participants, who identified themselves as non-management, found a sigmficant

difference between the means of the two groups (t(288) = 2.737, P<-05)- The mean 0f

the management was significantly higher (m = 8.94, sd = 6.70) than the mean of the non-

management (m = 5.69, sd = 7.32).

92

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean external
environment scale Q10 score of participants, who identified themselves as management
to the mean external environment scale Q10 score of participants, who identified
themselves as non-management, found a significant difference between the means of the
two groups (t(208) = 3.282, p<.05). The mean of the management was significantly
higher (m = 19.80, sd = 8.32) than the mean of the non-management (m = 14.88, sd =
9.18).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean external
environment scale Q11 score of participants, who identified themselves as management
to the mean external environment scale Q11 score of participants, who identified
themselves as non-management. No significant difference was found (t(207) = 1.871,
p>.05). The mean of management (m = 5.57, sd = 2.65) was not significantly different
from the mean of non-management (m = 4.67, sd = 2.89).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean transactional
leadership style score of participants, who identified themselves as management, to the
mean score of participants who identified themselves as non-management. No significant
difference was found p>.05. The mean of management was not significantly different
from the mean of non-management.

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean
transformational leadership style score of participants, who identified themselves as
management, to the mean score of participants who identified themselves as non-
management. The mean of the management was significantly higher (p<.05) on all

transformational leadership styles than the mean of the non-management.

93

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean laissez-faire
leadership style score of participants who identified themselves as management to the
mean score of participants who identified themselves as non-management. No significant
difference was found (t(213) = -l .312, p>.05. The mean of management (m = .89, sd =
.92) was not significantly different from the mean of non-management (m = 1.10, sd =
.97).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean mission and
strategy scale Q8 score of participants, who identified themselves as management, to the
mean mission and strategy Q8 score of participants who identified themselves as non-
management, found a significant difference between the means of the two groups (t(210)
= 3.215, p<.05). The mean of the management was significantly higher (m = 20.18, sd =
7.64) than the mean of the non-management (m = 15.92, sd = 7.88).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean performance
scale Q6 score of participants, who identified themselves as management, to the mean
performance scale Q6 score of participants, who identified themselves as non-
management, found a significant difference between the means of the two groups (t(225)
= 2.013, p<.05). The mean of the management was significantly higher (m = 10.61, sd =
4.96) than the mean of the non-management (m =9.12, sd = 4.34).

An independent-samples t-test was calculated comparing the mean performance
scale Q7 score of participants, who identified themselves as management, to the mean
performance Q7 score of participants who identified themselves as non-management. No

Significant difference was found (t(185) == -1 .334, p>.05. The mean of management (111 =

94

15.50, sd = 6.12) was not significantly different from the mean of non-management
(m=17.09, sd = 6.68).
A discussion and conclusions and recommendations based on the results in this

chapter, and recommendations for future research, are presented in Chapter Five.

95

Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations

All hypotheses were tested to examine the relationships between the variables:
external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and
performance. Of the fifteen hypotheses tested, four were supported and eleven were not
supported. The hypotheses that were supported confirmed portions of the
transformational model posited by Burke and Litwin (1992), and were consistent with the
literature. Of the eleven hypotheses that were not supported, eight were partially
supported. The fifteen hypotheses were tested using a Pearson correlation coefficient
with a significance level at p<.05. Based upon the findings, and within its limitations,
this study has added an empirical perspective to the body of knowledge on the
relationships between the variables external environment, mission and strategy,
leadership, organizational culture, and performance.
Supported Hypotheses

The results of the study allow the researcher to conclude that a significant inverse
relationship exists between supervisors/managers perceived laissez-faire leadership style,
performance measures, and mission and strategy. This is an expected result because
laissez-faire leaders, as defined, are not goal directed. It would not be in the laissez-faire
leader's character to be concerned with performance measures or the organization's
mission and strategy. In relationship to Burke and Litwin's (I992) transformational
model laissez-faire leaders would not play an active role in the change process.

The results of the study allow the researcher to conclude that a significant direct

relationship exists between employee's mission and strategy and performance measures.

96

This suggests that performance measures are a powerful tool that keeps the organization's
goals as a priority for employees throughout all levels of the organization. The more
involved employees are in the development of performance measures, the stronger the
correlation between the performance measures and the mission and strategy. This
correlation suggests that the WRJ VA has successfully incorporated an awareness of the
mission and the strategies employed to achieve their objectives.

The employees indicated that they were informed and involved in the
development of performance measures. This awareness has increased employee's
knowledge of the organization's mission and strategy, and performance measures. The
awareness of the mission and strategy and performance by the employees keeps the
organization on track in its effort to transform. The performance measures are a tool for
management to assess where they are in the transformation process. By knowing where
they are in the transformation process managers at WRJ VA can implement changes in
operation to achieve their stated objectives as defined by their mission and strategy. This
finding supports the linkage between mission and strategy and performance as posited in
Burke and Litwin's (1992) transformational model.

The results of the study allow the researcher to conclude that the transformational
culture typology is significant and more predictive of performance measures than a
transactional culture typology. This gives support for Burke and Litwin (1992)
transformational model demonstrating that while the organization is changing and

transforming, a link between organizational culture and performance exists.

97

 

Partially Supported Hypotheses

Eight hypotheses were not accepted due to certain components of the variables
involved, however there were components of the variables that were significantly
correlated. Furthermore, because analysis was conducted in this study, some additional
findings of interest, beyond what was hypothesized, were teased out of the data. For the
purposes of this study, the researcher wanted to minimize the probability of making a
type I error, so a standard level of significance of .05 was chosen.

Transformational and transactional leadership styles were found to exist at the
WRJ VA facility at the time this study was conducted. Partially supported in the
hypothesis tests, transformational leadership style is significant and positively correlated
with the external environment, mission and strategy, and performance measures. This
shows, as in Burke and Litwin's (1992) transformational model, that leadership
(transformational) is serving as a linking variable between external environment, mission
and strategy, and performance. It appears that through these linkages the
transformational leader is cognizant of what is occurring in the organization's external
environment, and has the decision-making authority to develop the organization's mission
and strategy goals, and performance measures based upon knowledge of the external
environment.

Another partially supported significant relationship exists between transactional
leadership style and external environment. In this study, it appears to the researcher that
the transactional leaders at the WRJ VA are focused on the external environment in
conducting the day-to-day operations of the organization such as setting priorities,

allocating resources and coordinating efforts with internal and external service lines.

98

A significant positive relationship exists between external environment,
organizational culture, and performance, which are partially supported by the data. It
appears to the researcher that a transformational organizational culture is providing a link
between the external environment and performance measures. The link between
performance measures and external environment provides a feedback loop between the
two variables. In Burke and Litwin's (1992) transformational model the link between
external environment, organizational culture, and performance is shown, but what isn't
shown in the model is the direct link between external environment and performance.

This suggests to the researcher that as the external environment changes the measures of
performance must also change.

Overarching Conclusions

The results of this study suggest to the researcher that the WRJ VA facility has
transformational variables that have caused a positive change in the organization's
processes with regard to its external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, and
performance. However, the data also suggests that forward movement in transforming
the organization has slowed leaving the organization in a coasting mode (Bass & Avolio,
1992). The coasting could be caused by two factors, one is that the transformation
process is in stasis, and the organization is remaining stable while getting use to the
changes it has implemented before the organization moves forward with its strategic
goals. Second, the WRJ V A might be set in its current state, or status quo, and the

organization will have to call on its transformational leaders to move forward with

additional changes.

99

The data also indicates that no correlation exist between leadership styles and
organizational culture. Without a link between the transformational leadership and the
organizational culture the WRJ VA may not be able to complete its transformation. The
transformational leaders have put substantial efforts into the mechanics of the operation.
However, without an equal transformation within the culture the efforts may not be
sustainable. This finding is consistent with a study conducted by Lawrence (2000), and
suggests that organizational culture may need to be measured at different organizational
levels that separate personal motivations from perceived leadership influence.

It is important for the WRJ VA organization to determine its leadership mix and
the location of the leadership styles within the organization. A mix of transactional and
transformational leaders is necessary to fulfill both the transformational function as well
as the transactional day—to—day operations. Knowing where the transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership exists will help deterrrrine whether leadership
roles are filled with the appropriate leadership style. For example, if it is found that
laissez-faire leadership is located in key leadership positions the WRJ VA will have a
harder time moving forward with its transformation. And similarly, if there aren't enough
transactional leaders, day-to-day operations may be threatened. Finally, leaders that
display both transformational and transactional characteristics move along a continuum
from transformational to transactional (Bass, 1998). These leaders are able to change
their leadership style in response to the needs of the organization.

The researcher finds that a positive correlation exists between a transformational
organization culture, performance measures, and the external environment. As the WRJ

VA continues transforming with employees going out of their way for the good of the

100

organization, looking for ways to improve Operations, and are encouraged to consider
future possibilities then performance measures will be successfully used to improve the
operations at the facility.

Recommendations for Managers

Transformational leaders take up the charge in communicating with employees a
compelling vision of the future. In linking the external environment, mission and
strategy, and performance these transformational leaders discuss their most important
values and beliefs, talk optimistically about the future of the organization, and what needs
to be achieved. They demonstrate a strong sense of purpose by encouraging employees
to develop their strengths and to face problems from a variety of perspectives. For these
reasons it is important for organizations to have leaders with a transformational style in
key positions within the organization as it embarks upon change.

Transactional leaders make it clear what employees can expect if goals are
achieved and will provide employees with or withhold rewards based upon how well they
meet expectations. Transactional leaders do demonstrate knowledge of the external
environment and a competency for running day-to-day operations, but in an organization
going through a transformation they demonstrate little guidance or support to
subordinates on how to accomplish the transformation. They will better serve the
organization in key leadership positions when it has accomplished its transformation.

Laissez-faire leaders aren't motivated to take action and have an absence of
concern for their subordinates or their organization's needs. They avoid getting involved
when faced with important issues or in making decisions, and are absent when needed or

fail to respond to pressing questions. If laissez-faire leaders are in key leadership

101

positions they should receive training in how to become a transformational and/or
transactional leader and/or be moved out of their key leadership positions.
Implications for Park, Recreation and Tourism
Although this study was conducted at a Veterans Affairs health care facility, to

the extent possible, it is generalizable to other public agencies and programs. Agencies,
such as, the National Park Service, the US Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of
Land Management, various state agencies of Natural Resources, and municipal agencies. L
For effective and efficient operation of park, recreation and tourism organizations

requires an awareness and understanding by management of the relationships between P

 

their external environment, mission and strategy, organizational culture, and performance
measures.

For leaders and managers in park, recreation and tourism organizations the results
of this survey provide additional insight on how elements in their organizations are
related. For example leaders of a park, recreation, and tourism organization wishing to
make changes in policy, program, and/or performance should consider using personnel
who display the qualities of a transformational leader to take part in introducing and
implementing the new changes. They should use the transformational leaders to lead
changes because they have the skills necessary to communicate the need for change, and
can encourage employees with a new vision of the future as they go forward
implementing the changes.

Increasing the employees' involvement in defining and creating their own work
group goals in the park, recreation and tourism organization may strengthen employee's

investment and attachment to reaching common goals. This in turn may secure a

102

concerted effort as employee's work toward increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of
their operations in achieving their mission.

The variables of external environment, mission and strategy, leadership,
organizational culture and performance in Burke and Litwin's (1992) transformational
model can be used as a starting point for developing courses to be offered at the college
level. Because change is an integral part of our universe, universities and colleges
providing instruction in the park, recreation and tourism fields should take a proactive
stance toward change. This can be accomplished by developing and implementing
curriculum at the graduate and undergraduate levels that explores ways to make park,
recreation and tourism organizations more effective and efficient in their operation. It
will also require an environment scanning process to be used by the college and/or
university, offering the instruction, to keep the organization abreast of changes and trends
in its external environment.

The results of this study would be useful in developing non-traditional education
programs to serve the needs of professionals already working in the park, recreation and
tourism field with an emphasis on organizational transformation, accountability, and
managing for results. Training should be developed for a variety of management levels
within the federal government for the National Park Service, US Forest Service, Fish &
Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management. Similar training and education programs
focusing on transformation, performance, and accountability should also be developed for
park, recreation and tourism organizations in state and local governmental agencies along

with commercial recreation, and nonprofit leisure service delivery systems.

103

Recommendations for Future Research

The results of this study provide suggestions for future research. To date this is
the first empirical study to examine the relationship between external environment,
mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance. A replication
of this study should be considered for future research. Since a paucity of research on
organizational transformation exists a more heterogeneous array of organizations need to
be studied.

A longitudinal study of a large-scale change using quantitative and qualitative
research techniques would give further insight into an organization's external
environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance.
A longitudinal study would also demonstrate how the variables change over time. Since
this study took place in the middle of a transformation at the WRJ VA it is difficult to
explain what changes in organizational variables have occurred since the transformation
began. Since this study provides a snapshot in time it does not give a complete view of
what has or what will happen at the WRJ VA as it continues to transform. For a better
assessment in determining the success of the WRJ VA's transformational efforts, in
regard to sustainability of the effort and the value of these variables in predicting
outcomes, this study should be further refined and replicated. A comparison of the
variables can then be made to determine if there are changes in the relationship amongst
variables over time and if the organization is moving in the desired direction. Enough
time should be provided between study cycle time to allow changes to take place. It is
important to the sustainability of the current transformation efforts and future changes at

the WRJ VA that the organizational culture he brought into closer alignment with a

104

transformational culture typology. In a longitudinal study it may also be helpful to
provide leaders with training between studies through a series of in-house training
programs. Training could be developed and offered to correct gaps identified between
the variables in the transformational model.

The researcher found that while a significant positive relationship exists between
the mission and strategy variable and the performance measures variable, the strength of
the relationship was moderate in nature (r = .392 and .238). This leads the researcher to
conclude that there is room for improvement in strengthening the relationship between
mission and strategy and performance measures variables. Leaders and followers
developing performance measures that ensure involvement by employees in the
accomplishment of the mission and strategy may strengthen this relationship.

Future research should include a detailed examination of the relationship between
the organizational culture and leadership. The organizational culture was not correlated to
any of the three leadership styles in this study or mission and strategy. It may be that the
organizational culture is independent of the leadership and mission and strategy of the
organization and acts as an independent variable influenced only by the external
enviromnent. It would be of interest to see if the organizational culture is leading or
lagging the organization in relationship to its external environment, mission and strategy
and if there are some intervening variables between organizational culture and leadership.

It appears from this study that the organizational culture variable can operate
independent of a dominant leadership style. This may be an indication that
transformation occurs regardless of leadership style when sufficient performance

measures are utilized over an extended period of time. The performance measures may

105

act as an educational instrument for employees and provide them with leadership by
stating performance that is important to the organization. Additionally, employees who
don't contribute to a transformational culture, continue to Operate within the performance
measure guidelines because they are self-motivated to do so. Having employees provide
their own motivation is also an indication of laissez-faire leadership, which would be a
contributing factor to the organization's coasting culture typology and an area of interest
for future research.

For the purpose of this study the instrument used was constructed from three
stand-alone instruments (the MLQ, ODQ, and PMI) that have been used in previous
studies on a variety of organizations including hospitals. In developing the questionnaire
the researcher removed some of the questions and instructions from the MLQ, ODQ, and
PM] instruments and changed the order in which questions were asked when modifying
the instruments. The resulting questionnaire used in this study was built by placing the
ODQ first, followed by the MLQ leader and rater form, which had its subscales of extra
effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction removed. Then, scale-items for questions adopted
fiom the PMI were included in the questionnaire to measure external environment,
mission and strategy, and performance. For future use of the instrument a consideration
of the scale-items that could be removed from the questionnaire should be made based
upon item-total analysis, Cronbach's alpha's, test-retest reliability, and criterion-related
validity.

For the purpose of replicating this study the external environment scale Q11, see
Appendix N item one should be removed from use. The Q11 scale item one had an item-

total correlation less than .3, and was removed from data analysis (Cronk, 2002). With

106

item one removed the remaining items in scale Qll had correlations greater than .3, so
they were considered internally consistent (Crook, 2002).

To gather data from non-respondents a telephone call was used as part of the
study methodology to interview employees at the WRJ VA that had not responded to the
questionnaire. In this situation using a telephone interview as a technique to gather
responses from non-respondent employees working at the WRJ VA facility was not a
useful technique. This technique was problematic because employees in critical care and
patient focused operations were involved in the telephone interviews. Employees at the
facility, especially nurses, work a variety of shift configurations. Even rotating the time
of day the call was placed did not effectively guarantee employee availability. The
employees that were contacted by telephone were reluctant or refused to answer the
questions because their supervisor was within hearing range. Employees that worked in
emergency rooms, intensive care units, radiology, and labs were not willing to take the
time away from their patients to respond to the telephone survey. For future studies in
the health care setting the researcher does not recommend a method of telephone follow-
up calls to be placed to the employee's work telephone. For obtaining information from
non-respondent employees in the health care setting it may be best to call them at home
and not in the workplace.

For reasons of parsimony, the researcher analyzed only some of the relationships
that exist at the WRJ VA. The researcher focused on a particular set of hypotheses, but
there were other possible relationships to be explored from the data collected. A further
examination through the use of cross-tabs and multivariate analysis should be conducted

to glean additional information from the data. The value of this would be in determining

107

where in the organization the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
exists. For example, if it were found that Iaissez-faire leadership exists with
supervisors/managers in the administrative staff work group at the WRJ VA. Then it
would be reasonable to assume that the WRJ VA facility would have difficulty in
transforming the organization any further towards being a results driven, patient focused
facility. It would also be of interest to see what affect, the number of years employed at
the WRJ VA, the functional work group, and/or gender may have on the
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Decision-makers
could then direct resources and training towards raising employees' leadership
competencies in areas where it is most needed.

A study conducted by Lawrence (2000) found no evidence that a relationship
existed between organizational culture typologies and leadership styles. Since the
transformational model developed by Burke and Litwin forecast that a transformational
leadership style be present for organizational change to occur, the researcher assumed
that positive relationship between the transformational and transactional leadership styles
and transformational and transactional organizational culture would exist at the WRJ VA.
The WRJ VA organizational culture was found to be best described as a coasting
typology, yet it is perceived as more transformational then transactional. This would
suggest that there is a gap between the idealized definition of transformational leadership
and what employees perceive occurs at the WRJ VA. Future research could focus on
which of the leadership subscales are most beneficial in determining the organizational

culture.

108

Although, not part of the analysis, an Open ended comment section was provided
for employees at the WRJ VA to enable them to discuss their issues. The frequency Of
comments by employees suggests that many employees see their supervisors/managers as
a "boss" who sets performance measures with or without the employee's input. They also
have "layers Of administration" and "inflexible rules and regulations that restrict personal
initiative." For transformation to continue, employees need more flexibility in exercising
their judgment, and a greater presence Of trusting relationships between
supervisors/managers and employees. The researcher feels it would be enlightening to
add a qualitative component investigating these comments further.

Change in organizations and society is a fact of life. Because of the demands
placed on organizations by society to be more effective, efficient, and accountable in
their Operation organizations are trying to respond by changing. Leaders and cultures in
dynamic organizations seeking to change need aid in their efforts and research based on

strong theory in the process of change will help them become more efficacious.

109

APPENDICES

110

APPENDIX A

Letter of Commitment to Stuay by Director

111

VA Medical and Regional Office Center
215 North Main Street
White River Junction, VT 05009

 
 
  
        

(‘4 a3 '
\ v '.-'
“\xlfi‘o’

1“"

l 0 xi:

\ J" — 5-
\ 7A7 or .0
\\\\\E\s\\“

Jllly 8, 2003 In Reply Refer To: 405/ 00

Richard Paulsen, Ed.D.

Guidance Committee Chairperson
Michigan State University

131 Natural Resources Bldg.

E. Lansing, MI 48824-1222

Dear Dr. Paulsen:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the VA Medical and Regional Office Center
(VAM&ROC), White River Junction (WRJ), Vermont commits to work with your student,
Zachary Pratt, on his dissertation concerning the elements of transformation. The WRJ
VAM&ROC commits to work with Zachary through to completion Of his study.

Zachary’s primary WRJ contacts will be Joanne Puckett, Quality Improvement Coordinator, and
Vickie Grubb, Chief Human Resources. I will also make the staff of the Director's Office
available tO assist where necessary and appropriate. Our staff will actively work with Zachary in
gathering documents, information, background, and giving him insight in negotiating within the
VA system. We are also very interested in working with Zachary, you and the rest of hrs .
Advisory Committee to assure that his study, while meeting the requirements of hrs dissertation,
may also add value to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the WRJ VAM&ROC.

rtation will be published and become public _
information at the end of the study period. Zachary has kindly agreed to give a presentation of
his findings to management and staff upon completion. In support of his study, the WRJ VHA
will help Zackary facilitate the distribution and receipt Of the survey Instruments and follow-ups.

It is our understanding that Zachary's disse

We look forward to working with Zachary, you and his other dissertation advisors. If at any point
te to contact me, Joanne or

in time you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesrta . _ .
Vickie. My phone number is: 802-295—9363 ext. 5400 or I can be reached vra emall.
Gm.DeGasta@med.va.gov. The e-mail addresses for Joanne and Vlele are:
Joanne.Puckett@med.va.gov and WW TeSPCCthelY-

Sincerely,

ls/Gary M. De Gasta
Gary De Gasta
Director

112

APPENDIX B

Permission to use Survey on Performance and Management Issues

113

November 30, 2000

Mr. Zachary Pratt
29 Maple Ave, #2
Nahant, MA 01908.

Deaer.Pratt:

Enclosed please find two copies of the survey instrument that I faxed you earlier, in
case the faxed version was unclear or had missing information.

Please feel free to use selected contents ofthe survey instrument in your study. As I
mentioned, we would be very interested to see the results of your work.

Sincerely yourszg . 49%
Joyce D. Corry

Senior Analyst

Strategic Issues

Enclosure

114

APPENDIX C

Permission to use Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

115

Date: Tam’a“! <5 +4"; ZOOL/

To whom it may concern.

This letter is to grant permission for 20 (MOW? FP‘NM-

to use the following purchased copyright material;

Instrument liqlll‘iiiiaiiflfi Legng 3‘th Amiltmoti

Author: Bernard M Brk‘.‘ 1’ Bfgfig KAJolr'o

for her/his thesis research.

 

In addition. 5 sample items from the instrument may be reproduced for

inclusion in a proposal or thesis.

The entire measure may not at any time be included or reproduced in other published material.

chle " 72/

rm
Director of aeration:

Sincerely.

      

116

APPENDIX D

Permission to use Organizational Description Questionnaire

117

Date: Ill-Lung ‘ am, alzg

To whom it may concern.

This letter is to grant permission for ZMUQV¥ Prati'“?

to use the following purchased copyright material;

Instrument: Armnigorhon Rh hex—“.9505“ MitonOW‘C.
Author: 1 Bernard M B433 _ .

for her/his thesis research.

In addition, 5 sample items from the instrument may be reproduced for.

Inclusion in a proposal or thesis.

The entire measure may not at any time be included or reproduced in other published material.

Sincerely,

war Jam

Director of Operations ,

 

118

APPENDIX E

Letter from Director to Pretest and Focus Group Participants

119

October 6, 2003
Director (00)
Survey Questionnaire

Focus Group Participant

1. The VA Medical & Regional Office Center, White River Junction, Vermont
has agreed to participate in an all-employee survey which will focus on organizations and
how they accomplish transformation.

2. Zachary Pratt, a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University in the College
of Agriculture and Natural Resources is completing his dissertation research on the topic
of organizational transformation of which the survey is a vital component. The results of
Mr. Pratt’s survey will be of benefit to the facility in that we will learn more about our
organization and how to best serve our veterans.

3. You, and a small number of other employees, have been randomly selected to
voluntarily participate in a focus group to help design the questionnaire to be used in the
survey. Your participation in this group will entail taking the actual survey, keeping
track of how long it takes you to complete the questionnaire, reviewing the questions for
wording and clarification, and attendance at a meeting of the focus group with Mr. Pratt
to discuss your comments and recommendations.

4. Your participation in this endeavor, while entirely voluntary, is a key part of
the research. Please contact the Quality Management Office at extension 5434, no later
than October 10, 2003, to inform them of your decision on whether or not to participate.
If you are willing to participate, please complete the attached questionnaire no later than
October 24, 2003 and notify the Quality Management Office, extension 5434 upon your
completion of the survey. A meeting of the focus group will be scheduled once all
participants have completed the surveys.

5. If you have any questions regarding the focus group, please contact the Quality
Management Office at extension 5434.

Gary M. De Gasta

120

APPENDIX F

Letter of Introduction from Director to Survey Participants

121

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Medical and Regional Office Center
215 North Main Street
White River Junction, VT 05009
866-687-8387 (Toll Free in New England)
802-295-9363 (Commercial)

 

March 2004
In Reply Refer To: 405/004

Dear VHA Employee:

The VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont has agreed to participate
in an all-employee survey that will focus on organizations and how they accomplish
transformation.

Zachary Pratt, a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources is completing his dissertation research on the topic of
organizational transformation of which the survey is a vital component. The results of
Mr. Pratt’s survey will be of benefit to the facility in that we will learn more about our
organization and how best to serve our veterans as well as your perceptions and opinions
of our external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and
performance.

Your participation in this endeavor, while entirely voluntary, is a key part of the
research. I encourage you to take the time necessary to complete and return the
confidential survey that you will be receiving within the near future.

If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact the Quality
Management Office at extension 5434 or Zachary Pratt at (802) 748-5861.

Sincerely,

Gary M. De Gasta
Director

122

APPENDIX G

Letter to AF GE Local 2604 President

123

Zachary L. Pratt

PO Box 126
St. Johnsbury, VT 05819
802.748.5861
January 6, 2004
Thomas L. Mattingly
President
AFGE Local 2604

215 N. Main St., % VA Medical Center
White River JCT, VT 05009

Dear Mr. Mattingly:

The VA Medical & Regional Office Center (VAM&ROC), White River Junction,
Vermont has agreed to participate in an all-employee survey which will focus on organizations
and how they accomplish transformation. I am conducting this research as a doctoral candidate at
Michigan State University in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The results of
the survey will provide additional insight into VAM&ROC's employee's perceptions and opinions
of the external environment, mission & strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and
performance.

A survey packet containing a cover letter (consent form), questionnaire, and self-
addressed return envelope will be sent to all employees at VAM&ROC. l have attached a copy of
the questionnaire and cover letter that will be used in this study. All questionnaires Will be kept
confidential for research use, and the individuals names will not be reported in the results of the
Study. Each questionnaire will have an identification number on the cover, which rs placed there
by me. That individual's identification number and the employee's answers on the questionnaire
will not be disclosed to anyone at VAM&ROC. When the participants return of the questionnaire
in a sealed self-addressed envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL to me, I Will cut off the
identification number and destroy it. The identification number is a way for me to track
reSpondents, send a postcard thank you/reminder, and a follow-up survey packet to those that
need one. Results from the survey will be combined and reported in the aggregate form.
Participant's privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at (802) 748-5861, pr Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involvmg Human Subjects

(UCRIHS) by phone at (517) 432-4503.
Sincerely,

Zachary L. Pratt
Research Investigator

124

APPENDIX H

News Release to AF GE Local 2604 from President

125

March 2004

News Release -- Thomas L. Mattingly

President
AF GE Local 2604

UPCOMING ALL-EMPLOYEE SURVEY TO FOCUS
ON TRANSFORMATION PROCESS

The White River Junction VA Medical Center has agreed to take part in an all-
employee survey. The focus of the survey is on organizations and how they transform.
Zachary Pratt, a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University, completing his
dissertation research on organizational transformation will be conducting the study. The
survey questionnaire you will be receiving is designed to gather employee perceptions
and opinions about our external environment, leadership, mission and strategy,
organizational culture, and performance. The responses you provide on the survey
questionnaire will be used to benefit our facility by giving us a greater understanding of
our organization and ways that we can better server our veterans.

A survey packet from Mr. Pratt will be sent to you in the near future.
Participation in the upcoming survey is voluntary, but I encourage all employees to
complete and return this confidential survey questionnaire. If you have any questions
regarding the survey, please contact Thomas L. Mattingly or Cheryl Stancil in the Union
Office at extension 5169 or Zachary Pratt at (802) 748-5861.

126

APPENDIX I

Cover Letter Sent with Initial Mailing of Survey Packet

127

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Michigan State University
(517)353-5190

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN, EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT,
MISSION AND STRATEGY, LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZATION CULTURE, AND PERFORMANCE

29 March 2004
Dear Participant:

Never before has there been so much discussion about healthcare providers and their ability to
change. To continuously improve and transform organizations like the VHA, will require a better
understanding of the underlying causes and efi‘ects that leadership, organizational culture, mission and
strategy, and the external environment (forces beyond the organizations control) have on performance. The
purpose of this study is to better understand the key elements affecting this organization's transformation.
The research is sponsored by the White River Junction (WRJ) VA Medical and Regional Office Center's
Quality Improvement Department and Michigan State University.

You, as an employee at the White River Junction VA Medical and Regional Office Center, are
being asked to give your opinion on these matters. Please take the 20 minutes or so necessary to complete
the questionnaire. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or
you may refuse to answer certain questions or may discontinue participation in this study at any time
without penalty. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire. This will allow your opinions to be heard on elements related to organizational change and
performance at the WRJ VA Medical and Regional Office Center.

When you have completed the questionnaire, please insert the questionnaire in the self-addressed
envelope provided marked CONFIDENTIAL, seal the envelope, and mail it back to me. All surveys will
be kept confidential for research use, and individual names will not be used in this study. (The
identification number on the survey will permit me to check with the non-respondents to see if they need a
replacement survey or other information.) Scores and demographic information will be analyzed and

reported as combined scores so that individuals cannot be identified. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator (Zachary L. Pratt, by
regular mail: PO Box 126, St. Johnsbury, VT 05819, by phone: (802) 748-5861; or e-mail:
prattzac@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -- anonymously, if you wish - Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)

by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

Please insert, seal and mail your completed questionnaire back to me in the self-addressed

envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL, and feel free to call if you have any questions. Thank you for your
assistance.

Sincerely,

Zachary L. Pratt
Research Investigator

128

APPENDIX J

Postcard Thank You/Reminder

129

April 2004

Last week a questionnaire seeking your opinion about organizational transformation at
the WRJ VA Medical & Regional Office Center was mailed to you. As an employee of
VAM & ROC you were chosen to participate in the survey.

If you have already completed and returned it to us please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please do so today. Because you are an employee at WRJ VAM & ROC it extremely
important that yours also be included in the study if the results are to accurately represent
the opinions of VAM & ROC employees.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, please call

me right now, at (802) 748-5861 and I will get another one in the mail to you today.
Sincerely

Zachary L. Pratt
Research Investigator

130

APPENDIX K

F ollow-up Mailing of Cover Letter

131

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Michigan State University
(517)353-5190

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN, EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT,
MISSION AND STRATEGY, LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZATION CULTURE, AND PERFORMANCE

26 April 2004

Dear Participant:

About four weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire seeking your opinion on elements affecting
transformation at the White River Junction VA Medical and Regional Office Center. As of today we have
not yet received your completed questionnaire.

Although your response is completely voluntary, it is highly valued. We have undertaken this
study because of the belief that employee opinions should be taken into account in understanding the
elements affecting an organization's transformation. The research is sponsored by the White River

Junction, VA Medical and Regional Office Center's Quality Improvement Department and Michigan State
University.

You, as an employee at the White River Junction VA Medical and Regional Office Center, are
being asked to give your opinion on these matters. Please take the 20 minutes or so necessary to complete
the questionnaire. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or
you may refuse to answer certain questions or may discontinue participation in this study at any time
without penalty. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire. This will allow your opinions to be heard on elements related to organizational change and
performance at the WRJ VA Medical and Regional Office Center.

When you have completed the questionnaire, please insert the questionnaire in the self-addressed
envelope provided marked CONFIDENTIAL, seal the envelope, and mail it back to me. All surveys will
be kept confidential for research use, and individual names will not be used in this study. (The
identification number on the survey will permit me to check with the non-respondents to see if they need a
replacement survey or other information.) Scores and demographic information will be analyzed and

reported as combined scores so that individuals cannot be identified. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator (Zachary L. Pratt, by
regular mail: PO Box 126, St. Johnsbury, VT 05819, by phone: (802) 748-5861; or e-mail:
prattzac@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -- anonymously, if you wish -- Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)

by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

Please insert, seal and mail your completed questionnaire back to me in the self-addressed

envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL, and feel free to call if you have any questions. Thank you for your
assistance.

Sincerely,

Zachary L. Pratt
Research Investigator

132

APPENDIX L

Telephone Script and Question F ollow-up of Non-respondents

133

Name Michigan State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRJ VAM & ROC Survey

Phone # X (May, 2004)
Hello. Is this ? Eggteputer

(If NO. The number I was calling is

and it was for do ID #

you know their number? (If WRONG NUMBER,

TERMINATE WITH: Thank you for your help.) Sex 1 Male
0F YES) 2 Female

Good _AM/PM_! This is Zachary Pratt at Michigan State University

I am calling fiom my office in St. Johnsbury, VT. We are doing a {$111313ng
research study of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 2 = PIC
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT, MISSION AND STRATEGY, 3 = REF
LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, AND 4 = DISC
PERFORMANCE at the White River Junction, VA Medical 5 = WN
& Regional Office Center. The Primary Investigator of this 6 ___ NA

study is Dr. Richard Paulsen and he may be reached by
telephone at Michigan State University
by calling (517) 353-5190, ext 114.

 

 

 

To continuously improve and transform organizations like the VHA,

will require a better understanding of the underlying causes and effects
that leadership, organizational culture, mission & strategy, and the
external environment (forces beyond the organizations control) have

on performance. The purpose of this study is to better understand the key
elements affecting this organization's transformation.

You, as an employee at the White River Junction VA Medical and Regional Office
Center, are being asked to give your opinion on these matters. Your name was drawn in a
random sample of employees at the White River Junction VA facility that did not respond
to the mailed questionnaire. Your responses to the questions will be kept
CONFIDENTIAL for research use, and individual names will not be used in this study.
Scores and demographic information will be analyzed and reported as combined scores

so that you cannot be identified. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or
you can refuse to answer any question, or you can terminate your participation at any
time without penalty. You may contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects by telephone at (517) 355-2180, if
you have any questions about your rights as a research participant.

134

The seven (7) questions I need to ask should take about 5 minutes. I want to add that I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have about the study, either now or
later. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by beginning the phone
interview. Okay? (If yes, begin questioning if no, end call with a thank you have a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

good day)
Code for
Date Time Interviewer Result Recalls
Abbreviations:
NA = No answer. IC = Interview NAW = Not at work
completed
WR = Will return (when) REF = Refused (when, why,
at what point, M or F)
PIC = Partially completed WN = Wrong number DISC = Disconnect

(Questions to be asked in telephone follow up of non-respondents to mailed questionnaire
at the White River Junction VAM & ROC.) (question code: To no extent (0); to a small
extent(l); to a moderate extent(2); to a great extent(3); to a very great extent(4).)

(If YES)

Okay, then let's begin the questioning. Please use the following rating scale: To no
extent; to a small extent; to a moderate extent; to a great extent; and to a very great

extent for your answer to the following four questions.

1. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following statement?

My work group has deveIOped ways to deal with changes in our external

environment.

To no extent (0); to a small extent(l ); to a moderate extent(2); to a great extent(3); to a

very great extent(4)

135

2. To what extent do you agree with the following statement as it relates to performance
measures for the activities with which you are involved?

We have performance measures that inform us about the quality of the services
we provide.

To no extent (0); to a small extent(l ); to a moderate extent(2); to a great extent(3); to a
very great extent(4)
3. For the activities in which you are involved, to what extent has the following factor
hindered the use of performance information in measuring performance?

Difficulty of determining meaningful performance measures.
To no extent (0); to a small extent(l); to a moderate extent(2); to a great extent(3); to a
very great extent(4)
4. For those activities in which you are involved, to what extent do you consider your
work group strategic goals when participating in the following activity?

Refining work group performance measures.

To no extent (0); to a small extent(l); to a moderate extent(2); to a great extent(3); to a
very great extent(4)

For the following question please respond with a yes or no.

5. During the past three years have you been directly involved in setting your work
group's performance measures:

By assessing the quality of data used in measuring performance.
Yes No
6. What is your functional work group?

1. Providers

2. Nursing and Allied Health/Technical

3. Administrative Staff

4. Trades/Crafts/Facilities Management Services (FMS)

136

 

7. What is your organizational level?

1. Management

2. Non-management
Thank you for taking part in this study. Do you have any questions?
(If YES, answer question(s) to best of my ability. Then terminate call.)
(If NO, then terminate call.)

Okay, good-bye. (disconnect)

137

APPENDIX M

Participants Comments

138

Comments from Questionnaires
White River Junction
VA Medical & Regional Office Center
Spring 2004

l. The facility is a dead end for career advancement / enhancement, giving a chosen few
multiple opportunities for change and feedback. Many hard working employees efforts
go completely unnoticed and unrewarded. Merit promotion is nil. Many supervisors do
not follow work rules and expect line employees to accept this. Decent supervisors do
not seem to be recognized by management and their skill are not given opportunity to be
shared.

2. Performance measures placed on us by front office don't always seem useful or
sensible.

3. There is a "huge" disconnect between the hospital and Research Service that even
shines through in this survey. In a ten-page survey not one question was geared toward
the mission of research toward the veteran.

4. I would like someone to look at how best to help the individual provider in the
trenches get all the work done, all the data collected for the bean counters, all the pt care
& education done in the time allotted for a pt unit. Help me! Please.

5. Regarding my Supervisor: Although it looks like I have rated her poorly, that is due
to extenuating circumstances. Our team has two long time employees that do not get
along & are really difficult to handle. Due to the environment of the Govt it makes it
near impossible to discipline bad behavior. I also believe that my supervisor is way
overextended with the services & amount of employees that she oversees. I really think
that there should be a mid-level Supervisor to carry some of the workload. Also, we are
overloaded with work, which makes it difficult to do a good thorough job & to enjoy
what you are doing. I barely get to say "Hello" to my fellow employees on a day to day
basis. Just filling this survey out has put me behind in my work!

6. Sorry, I misunderstood the question in Q10. We don't have visible strategic goals that
I know of - in Police & Security Services.

7. Leadership is overall, more focused on "looking out" for themselves than for the
people they lead. Pay & cost of living scales need to be re-evaluated for some services &
locations.

8. Some questions are subjective. Its hard to assign #"s without an explanation of more
concrete ideas.

9. Many of the questions are not applicable and left blank. I have recently changed jobs
within the VA system and am unaware (by choice) of the political & admin environment.

139

10. I love my job & the supervisors/manager. I have a medical condition & they have
been very supportive & encouraging. I have worked at other VAMC's and this is the best
one I have been at.

11. The environment (work) is diffith when work group is a small out-pt clinic and
very few employees have any history or commitment to "veterans" client and view the
administration at WRJ as an enemy.

12. Some questions can be interpreted 2 ways-positive or negative. A few questions
should simply be rephrased - just say what you mean -Q2 #4 - Do you mean focus to find
fault with worker's performance or do you mean to identify problems and help the worker
improve performance - one trait creates a mentor the other causes friction. Keep it simple
and in plain language - to much room for misinterpretation and results will be
contaminated.

13. VISN's growing bureaucracy and continued emphasis on service-line structure are
wasting vital resources.

14. Main problem is not with our direct supervisor. Rather, the front office, which allows
no input, and does not heed our advise. Pharmacy decisions are outside the local hospital
and often seriously flawed. We have no input.

15. Most of these questions are irrelevant - I am not management, the only group I work
with are other nurses on the same level providing care.

16. I have a great job & a great boss. The VA has not always been good to me but I
never took it out on veterans. I have always & will continue to here lst & foremost for
the Vet. The dead beet managers we have will answer to God some day. I am a vet
myself.

17. This particular VA does great things for their Veterans and will keep on improving.
18. I respond to the best of my ability.

19. Since I was sent a reminder card and this questionnaire has an ID number, I assume
this is not an anonymous survey.

20. It was 8 pages too long - way too long. Questions too wordy, often confusing and
often not applicable. Didn't feel questions would necessarily elicit what you seemed to
be looking for! Every member of my stafi~ complained about survey (20 people)! Too
long, confusing, waste of their time. Performance measures are perceived as taking time
away from patient care, they are tired of getting surveys (I agree we get too many) and no
one sees any improvement in our day to day work as a result of filling them out. In short
- people sitting in an office devising ways to measure what we do is annoying to clinical

140

staff as we are struggling to do clinical care with diminishing resources and every time
we turn around another measure is being added. Lastly the overwhelming response to
this was not another page (annoyance) - shorten it to max 2 pages.

21. The direct supervisor for our team has infrequent contact. She / He depends on the
independent, professional work ethics of each member to successfully complete each
days mission.

22. The questionnaire is mostly off the mark.

23. Interesting that the cover letter indicates participation is voluntary but a card was sent
requesting that I complete the questionnaire - Patients were my priority as I was out 2
days & wanted to be current. Statements appear to be subjective & N/A to Psychiatry.
Sometimes many ?'s were left blank as I've been at the VA for about 5 mos. only.

24. Much too long a questionnaire & irrelevant - please take my name off list.

25. There's very little "hierarchy" in Research. My responsibilities rarely involve
interactive with the chief. I run a lab. 1-3 technicians and have little formal relationship
to other labs. My "work group" is very small.

26. The government system in allocation of funds needs to be addressed @ the local
VA's not VISN. Wage Grade Classification need updating, get out of the 1950's, we are
2004 (look @ the future). We need help (FTE's) working with less is insane and the
facility and veterans loss. Dump Bush administration.

27. If you expect rank & file employees to complete this way too wordy, unclear. Needs
to be simplified.

28. Senior management tends to ignore performance data and asset inequities in
allocating resources (staff, facility).

29. Questions were a bit difficult to understand.

30. The VA generally has smoother transitions for change, due to planning and training
ahead.

31. I have been here less than 4 months and I hope this 5 helpful.

32. Apparently you are not employed by the government, or you would realize how
ridiculous these questions are.

33. Do not feel that any survey can show accurate results of my job or managementll

141

34. Pay good - benefits good; personal recognition not good; personal awards not good;
being dedicated, self-efficient and attendance exceptional - no award/reward no
advancement.

35. Performance seems to play no part in advancement. There is no efficient system to
correct non-performance or poor performance on the job.

36. Why are we reinventing a billing system when there are so many systems that are out
"more" that actually work!!!

37. Most of the time things are already decided by management - so most time is wasted.

38. The management from upper levels are rarely seen on my site. Careline & Director
L5 or 5 in 6 years I have been here. Feels we are micro managed which is a huge waste
of our time, very non-productive. Should get more support less resistance. We are all on
the same team.

39. Why are management positions given to people who know nothing about their
subordinate's job?

40. This is a waste of time because things do not change for the better here at the WRJ
VA.

41. My supervisor is only concerned about those issues that have caught the attention of
the Associate Director.

42. Some sections at WRJ VA make it very difficult to function as an affiliate of the
Dartmouth Medical School and the training programs at DHMC. The clinical services
interact very closely with trainees in the training program at DHMC. The IRM Section,
due to their interpretation of HIPPA rules makes it difficult to communicate with trainees
at DHMC who have VA clinics and who follow VA patients, even when they are
assigned to DHMC.

The Human Resources Section does not assist employees who are trying to
upgrade their position. They continually put up roadblocks and make every effort to keep
employees at the lowest grade possible.

43. Locked into position w/little chance of advancement. Many GS jobs are GS 4-5-6 or
lower. Then you have the GS 11-12 and not much in-between. Will have to keep
moving from Dept. to Dept. to advance when new jobs open up.

44. Survey was done reflecting conditions of the discipline that impacts my job in
another department. The discipline leader has a long history of maintaining a hostile
environment for workers devoid of help or resources.

45. The burden of ever increasing and inflexible rules & regulations restrict personal
initiative & exercise of good judgment.

142

46. I think that management should recognize what the staff actually does here for them
to receive the monetary awards they receive. Share the wealth. We like a buck or two in
our pockets as well. I have not received an award from my Chief, I get awards from
other depts. To include the Director. Why not my Chief?

47. I think you are missing the mark by a wide margin. As usual with this sort of thing,
your "loaded" questions and statements have all the earmarks of having been prepared by
people that have never spent time as frontline workers. I think this might have been a far
more beneficial and usefiil survey had some actual workers been involved in it's
development and the statements/responses solicited some real information. But of
course, you probably don't want any real input as that would go against your pre-
determined hypothesis/outcomes. I think I can speak for many, if not most of my
colleagues when I say that we are getting very tired of so often being asked for our input
when it is so constantly and consistently ignored. 1 don't believe you really want, or
appreciate mine, or anyone else's contrary comments. I think you just want to be able to
say you asked for and that I had my chance to give, my input. What it really comes down
to is if I don't say what you want to hear, then you just discount it and focus on the input
you received that you were looking for. When you do get a result that you like than there
is a great ballyhoo and all kinds of publicity about it. I suppose can live with that, but I
am real tired of having my intelligence repeatedly insulted in this manner.

48. Good luck.
49. Need more help in all depts.

50. The WRJ VA is a good place to work. The Vets are a good population of people.
Difficult areas that affect our section/work group. 1) Minimal infrastructure - no
secretary short staff; 2) space limitations; 3) difficulty getting needed technology
upgrades; 4) lack of merit-based promotions / financial remuneration.

51. Disparate government hiring practices, regulations, and extensive union penetration
will limit the performance of this organization compared to Tim Collins good to great
companies. You are working at the margins for squeezing productivity out of providers
paid lower than the private sector with private sector performance expectations. Good
luck!

52. In my dept. my immediate supervisor has been contracted from DHMC. Good
work/learning/ team effort is encouraged by that supervisor. Leadership culture at VA is
hampered by rules, layers of administration and long periods of time for change to occur
or for new resources to be allocated. This causes frustration and fosters poor morale.
Also accounts for some seeming contradictions in answers.

53. As an employee of the VA I would like to see more recognition for positive
performance and more resources for education toward trade. The organization is a

143

 

wonderful benefit for Veterans of War. Maybe to also allow some overtime
compensation when needed for short staff service clinics (lines).

54. Honestly, the dept. I work in is understaffed & we do not have enough room to work
in currently because of staffmg & space. We are trying to make best w/resources we
have. It's very frustrating to help vets (our mission) when basics can't be met!

55. If this is a confidential survey, how do you know my name?

56. You must understand that I have no respect whatsoever for the performance
measures as they exist at VA.

57. Questions were tricky & answers had to be changed. Overall this (VA) is a great
place to work. Administration is visible & they view my work for VA as valuable. I
work hard to exemplify mission, vision and VA values.

58. The VA has done a great job in regionalizing facilities into VISN's and using the
VISN structure to keep down costs, standardize equipment and procedures and provide
better quality care to the veteran.

59. I am much too busy to fill this out & am amazed that if this is so confidential how do
you know who answers them and who does not. Pls do not send any more.

60. My apologies for this belated response. Please understand, I have been at tl_u'_s VA
but a short time. Information in my department is limited to a as needed basis. I am not
part of the management staff therefore my knowledge of the actual workings and reasons,
as well as any input I may have is m limited.

61. I not sure exactly what this survey is going to prove nothing ever seems to change
around here.

62. Morale is low we need more help. Some people are very busy most all the time
while others are not. Shouldn't have to blow your own horn. Supervisor should
recognize good work & have the ability to reward accordingly. I completed this survey at
home since I didn't have the time to complete it at work.

63. There should be a "not applicable" option on most Q's. TOO LONG!

64. Don't know that much on how things are run at WRJ but what I could answer is
allocated to CBOC.

65. N/A really I only work part time (4hrs a month) Intermittent.
66. The ------ is largely an independent entity, but because of the way the VA is

structured has to be " attached" somewhere. I manage the ------ but as there is no
employees, supervise no one. My immediate supervisor is an MD, with whom I have

144

little contact. All the members of my team work in aspecte (sp) of hospital
administration. In form and function very different from ------ administration.

67. Blatant screw ups are not adequately punished, exemplary performance is not
adequately rewarded. Boss thinks useless body is better than no body. Our government
bureaucracy at it's finest.

68. Very long not able to answer all questions I hope it helps.

69. It is impossible to answer these questions 2 many ways. There are people in my
work group who _QQ strive to improve things & some who do not. I therefore answered
in regards to the people who are more resistant to change.

70. I wasn't always sure the meaning/intent of the questions asked.
71. Most of the survey 78% - did not apply to me -

72. Performance measures are very easily manipulated to make some services look good.
No continuity across the board - no accountability - Our Baldridge leaders particularly
the Quality Manager, talk the talk but don't walk the walk - meaning they preach it but
don't practice what they preach. This is a double standard which is inexcusable.

73. Q5 p. 6 I'm not sure of questions b, c, f, & there wasn't an answer for it if you weren't
sure. Also Q7 I'm not sure of answers.

74. You are tenacious . . . it pays off, good luck. I no longer work for fiscal however I
will evaluate as I still do. Next survey should be not as long. People lose interest in
filling anything over 2 pages out.

75. To lengthy!

76. Since nursing is a profession, nurses function and operate according to guidelines of
their profession v.s. that which comes from a hierarchical authority. However, there are
institutional policies, standards and goals, which we in nursing function under and with
which we comply. Most nurses are internally motivated and directed by the sense of
professionalism which each nurse has developed in their own studies and training.

145

 

Appendix N

Questions Q5 through Q16fi'om Questionnaire

146

IN THIS SECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE MISSION,
STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE AT THE WRJ VA MEDICAL 8: REGIONAL

OFFICE CENTER.

Q-5 To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following statements?
Use the following rating scale: (Circle number)

 

 

 

o no To a sfill’ To a moderate To a great To a very
xtent extent extent extent great extent
0 1 2 3 4
a. Supervisors at my level have the decision-making
authority they need to help the work group accomplish
its strategic goals. 0 1 2 3 4
b. Supervisors at my level are held accountable for the results
of the activities for which they are responsible. 0 1 2 3 4
c. Supervisors at my level are held accountable for the Quality
of sugrvision they provide (for example, setting employee
performance expectations and providing feedback). 0 1 2 3 4
d. Employees in my work group receive positive recognition for
helping accomplish our strategic goals. 0 1 2 3 4
e. My work group’s top leadership demonstrates a
strong commitment to achieving results. 0 1 2 3 4
f. Changes by managers above my level made to the activities for
which I am responsible are based on results, trends, or
outcome-oriented performance information. 0 1 2 3 4
g. Supervisors at my level take part in developing the organizations 0 1 2 3 4

strategy and performance goals.

Q-6 To what extent do you agree with the following statements as they relate to performance

measures for the activities with which you are involved?

Use the following rating scale: (Circle number)

 

 

 

0 no To a W To a moderate To a great To a very
xtent extent extent extent great extent
0 1 2 3 4
a. We have performance measures that inform us if we are 1 2 3 4
working efficiently. 0
b. We have performance measures that inform us whether 0 1 2 3 4
we are satisfying our customers.
c. We have performance measures that inform us about the 0 1 2 3 4
quality of the services we provide.
'de
d. We have performance measures to demonstrate. to someone outs:
of our work group whether we are achieving our Intended results. 0 1 2 3 4

147

 

 

Use the following rating scale:

 

o no To a small To a moderate To a great To a very
xtent extent extent extent great exten
0 l 2 3 4

 

 

Q-7 For the activities in which you are involved, to what extent have the following factors
hindered the use of performance information in measuring performance? (Circle number)

3. Difficulty of determining meaningful performance measures. 0 1 2 3 4
b. Difficulty obtaining valid or reliable performance data. 0 1 2 3 4
c. Lack of incentives (i.e., rewards, positive recognition). 0 1 2 3 4
d. Difficulty resolving conflicting interests between service lines. 0 1 2 3 4
e. Concern that performance information could be used

against my work group. 0 1 2 3 4
f. Difficulty in resolving conflicting interests of external

stakeholders (for example, federal regulators, veterans). 0 1 2 3 4
9. Lack of ongoing management commitment or support _ .

for using performance information to make funding decrsrons. 0 1 2 3 4

Q-8 For those activities in which you are involved, to what extent do you consider your work
group strategic goals when participating in the following activities? (Circle number)

Setting priorities.

Allocating resources.

Adopting new approaches or changing work processes.
Developing or refining performance measures.
Coordinating efforts with other internal service lines.
Coordinating efforts with external organizations.
Refining work group performance measures.

Setting new or revising existing performance goals

9399-9-99!”
OOOOOOOO
Ad-tA—h—SAA
NNNNNNNN
wwwwwwwm
hhhhh-bhh

n directly involved in setting your work group's

- ' three ears have on bee .
Q 9 During the past y y rk group outcomes) (Circle answer)

performance measures? (for example, your we

a. By developing ways to measure whether Yes No
performance goals are being achieved.
b. By gathering and analyzing datato measure whether Yes No
activities are meeting their specific goals.
c. By using measures for performance goals to determine No
if the work group strategic goals are belng achieved. Yes N
Yes 0

d. By assessing the quality of data used in measuring performance.

148

IN THIS SECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT
THE WRJ VA MEDICAL 81 REGIONAL OFFICE CENTER'S EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT.

For the purposes of this study the term external environment can be thought of as any outside
condition or situation that influences the performance of the organization (for example, suppliers,
federal legislation, veterans groups, and/or other healthcare providers).

040 For those activities in which you are involved, to what extent do you consider your
external environment when participating in the following activities?

Use the following rating scale: (Circle number)

 

 

 

 

o no To a small To a moderate To a great To a very

xtent extent extent extent great extent

0 l 2 3 4
a. Setting priorities. 0 1 2 3 4
b. Allocating resources. 0 1 2 3 4
c. Adopting new approaches or changing work processes. 0 1 2 3 4
d. Developing or refining performance measures. 0 1 2 3 4
d. Coordinating efforts with other internal service lines. 0 1 2 3 4
e. Coordinating efforts with external organizations. 0 1 2 3 4
f. Refining service line performance measures. 0 1 2 3 4
9. Setting new or revising existing performance goals. 0 1 2 3 4
h. Developing training activities to meet future needs. 0 1 2 3 4
Q-11 To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following statements?
Use the following rating scale: (Circle number)

0 no To a small To a moderate To a great To a very

xtent extent extent extent great extent

0 1 2 3 4

 

 

a. I am not aware of changes in the VA's external environment.

b. Changes in the external environment have caused my work group
to perform its activities in a different way.

c. My work group has adequate measures to indicate a change
in our external environment.

d. My work group has developed ways to deal with changes 0 1 2 3 4
in our external environment.

149

 

IN THIS SECTION WE ARE ASKING FOR SOME BASIC CLASSIFYING

INFORMATION.

Q-12 Please identify your functional work group. (Circle number)

Providers
Nursing and Allied Health/'1' echnical
Administrative Staff

#wN—l

99 Prefer not to respond
Q-13 Your gender. (Circle number)

1 Female
2 Male
99 Prefer not to respond

Q-14 Organizational level. (Circle number)

1 Management
2 Non-management
99 Prefer not to respond

Q-15 Which is the highest level of education that you have completed?

Less than high school
High school

Some college
Associate's degree
Technical/trade school
Bachelors degree
Master‘s degree

QNQUI-wa-b

Doctoral degree

(.0
(D

Prefer not to respond

Trades/Crafts/Facilities Management Services (FMS)

 

(Circle number)

046 Number of years employed at the WRJ VA Medical Center. (Circle number)

1 Less than 4 years
4 to 10 years

11 to 20 years

21 to 30 years

01th

31 years and over
99 Prefer not to respond

150

REFERENCES

151

 

REFERENCES

Abrahams, J. (1999). The mission statement book: 30] corporate mission statements
from America's top companies (2nd ed.). Berkely, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Transformational leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 20-
25.

Aday, L. A., Begley, C. E., Lairson, D. R., & Slater, C. H. (1993). Evaluating the
medical care system: Eflectiveness, efliciency, and equity. Ann Arbor, MI:
Health Administration Press.

Ammons, D. N. (1995). Overcoming the inadequacies of performance measurement in
local government: The case of libraries and leisure services. Public
Administration Review, 55(1), 37-47.

Alvesson, M. (1987). Organizational theory and technocratic consciousness:
Rationality, ideology, and quality of work. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Avolio, B. J ., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. (1988). Transformational leadership in a
management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group &
Organization Studies, 13(1), 59-80.

Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Backer, T. E. (1997). Managing the human side of change in VA's transformation.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 42(3), 433-459.

Bannon, J. J ., & Busser, J. A. (1992). Problem solving in recreation and parks (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Barling, J ., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. A field experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-832.

Barnett, L. A. (Ed.). (1995). Research about leisure: Past, present, and future.
Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Barrow, M. M. (1990). Techniques of efficiency measurement in the public sector. In
M. Cave, M. Kogan, & R. Smith (Eds), Output and performance measurement in
government: The state of the art (pp. 21-38). London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.

152

 

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Organizational description questionnaire: Review
set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden, Inc.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 1 7(3&4), 541-554.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting tmit performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bohnan, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bourgeois, L. 1., III (1980). Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration.
Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 25-39.

Bryson, J. M. (1990). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide
to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (5th printing). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper& Row.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New York:
Atlantic Monthly Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial
enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cohen, S., & Brand, R. (1993). Total quality management in government: A practical
guide for the real world San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conway, W. E. (1997). The quality secret: The right way to manage (2nd ed.). Nashua,
NH: Conway Management Company.

153

 

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A
quantitative approach to assessment of organizational culture. Group &
Organizational Studies, 13(3), 245-273.

Cronk, B. C. (2002). How to use SPSS: A step-by-step guide to analysis and
interpretation (2nd ed.). Los Angles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Curtis, R. S. (2001 ). Successfiil collaboration between hospitals and physicians:
Process or structure? Hospital Topics, 79(2), 7-13. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
ProQuest database.

Department of Vetems Affairs (V HA). (2001, April). Journey of Change - Discovering
six for 2006. Washington, DC: Author. '

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). (2003, June). State summary: Vermont and the
US. Department of Veterans A flairs. Washington, DC: Author.

Dillman, D. A. (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dreachslin, J. L. (1999). Diversity leadership and organizational transformation:
Performance indicators for health service organizations. Journal of Healthcare
Management, 44(6). Retrieved February 16, 2004, from InfoTrac database.

Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers.

Drucker, P. F. (1995). Really reinventing government. The Atlantic Monthly, 275(2),
49-52, 54, 56-57, 60-61.

Edginton, C. R., & Neal, L. L. (1983). Park and recreation directors' perceptions of
organizational goals. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 1(1), 39-
49.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments.
Human Relations, 18(1), 21-32.

Forehand, A. (2000). Mission and organizational performance in the healthcare industry.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 45(4). Retrieved February 16, 2003, from
InfoTrac database.

Fuller, M. (1996). Strategic planning in an era of total competition. Strategy &
Leadership, 24(3), 22-27. Retrieved April 7, 2004, Item ProQuest database.

154

General Accounting Office. (1997). The Government Performance and Results Act:
1997 governmentwide implementation will be uneven. Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office. (2000). Survey on performance and management issues.
Washington, DC: Author.

Gibson, J . L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., Jr., & Konopaske, R. (2003).
Organizations: Behavior, structure, process (11th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill
Irwin.

Gordon, G. G. (1985). The relationship of corporate culture to industry sector corporate
performance. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds),
Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 103-125). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Gottlieb, T. D. W. (1990). Transactional and transformational leadership styles of Chief
and Associate Chief Nurses in Department of Veterans' Affairs Medical Centers:
A descriptive study. UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (U M1 No. 9033844)

Graham, J. W., & Havlick, W. C. (1994). Mission statements: A guide to the corporate
and nonprofit sectors. New York: Garland Publishing.

Halachmi, A. (1992). Strategic management and productivity. In M. Holtzer (Ed),
Public productivity handbook (pp. 551-563). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Hall, R, H. (1996). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (6th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St.
Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Holzer M., & Callahan, K. (1998). Government at work: Best practices and model
programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of

consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6),
891-902.

Isaac-Henry, K., Painter, C., & Barnes, C. (Eds). (1997). Management in the public
sector: Challenge and change (2nd ed.). Boston: International Thomas Business
Press.

155

Jarnieson, L. M., & Wolter, S. A. (1999). Management - what is it? In B. van der
Smissen, M. Moiseichik, V. J. Hartenburg, & L. F. Twardzik, (Eds),
Management of park and recreation agencies. Ashburn, VA: National
Recreation and Park Association.

Kihnann, R. H., Saxton, M. J ., Serpa, R., & Associates. (Eds). (1985). Gaining control
of the corporate culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kizer, K. W. (1995). Vision for change: A plan to restructure the Veterans Health
Administration. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Kizer, K. W. (1996). Prescription for change: The guiding principles and strategic
objectives underlying the transformation of the Veterans Healthcare system.
Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Kizer, K. W. (1996). Transforming the veterans health care system: The "new VA".
Journal of the American Medical Association, 275(14), 1069.

 

Klein, A. S., Masi, R. J ., & Weidner, C. K., II (1995). Organization Culture, distribution
and amount of control, and perceptions of quality: An empirical study of
linkages. Group & Organization Management, 20(2), 122-148. Retrieved on
January 18, 2000, from ProQuest on-line database.

Kraus, R., & Allen, L. R. (1998). Research & evaluation in recreation, par/rs & leisure
studies (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kraus, R. G., & Curtis, J. E. (1990). Creative management in recreation, parks, and
leisure services (5“ ed). St. Lois, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Kraus, R. G., & Curtis, J. E. (2000). Creative management in recreation parks, and
leisure services (6th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Lawrence, E. T. (2000). The relationship between, transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles of the senior executives/department heads and their
immediate subordinates' perceived satisfaction, extra effort, effectiveness, and
organizational typology in the hospital setting. ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
(UMI NO. 9962666)

Longest, B. B., Jr., & Darr, K. (1993). Organizational leadership in hospitals. Hospital
Topics, 71(3). Retrieved April 19, 2004, from EBSCO database.

McGinnis, M. A., & Kohn, J. W. (1993). Logistics strategy, organizational environment,

and time competitiveness. Journal of Business Logistics, 14(2), 1+. Retrieved on
August 19, 2000, from EBSCO on-line database.

156

McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2003). Organizational behavior: Emerging
realities for the workplace revolution (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in government boards and commissions. Public
Administration Review, 57(2), 160-167.

Mitra, A., & Lankford, S. (1999). Research methods in park, recreation, and leisure
services. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Morgan, G. (1992). Proactive management. In D. Mercer (Ed), Managing the external
environment: A strategic perspective (pp. 24-37). London: Sage.

Morton, M. N. (1997). Budgeting systems: Operationalizing goals and values. In M. E.
Haskins & B. R,. Makcla (Eds), The CF 0 handbook (Rev. ed.) (pp. 131-142). r
Chicago: Irwin.

Munoz, M. A. (1999). Total quality management in higher education: Lessons learned
fiom an information technology ofiice. Retrieved on December 21, 2002, from
ERIC database. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED462882)

 

National Academy of Public Administration. (1999). Building a community of
performance leaders [On-line]. Available:
http://www.performance.napawash.org/reports/fy99.htrn

Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB). (1993). Government Performance and
Results Act of I 993. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on April 17, 2000,
from Whitehouse database on the World Wide Web:
http://www.Whitehouse.gov/OMB/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.htrnl

Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB). (1997). Preparation and submission of
strategic plans and annual performance plans (Circular No. A-l 1, Part 2).
Washington, DC: Author.

Opeil, D. K. (1998). Subordinates' perceptions of nurse executives‘ leadership styles:
Transformational and transactional. ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI NO.
9822234)

Oster, S. M. (1995). Strategic management for nonprofit organizations: Theory and
cases. New York: Oxford University Press.

Parkman, A. W. (2001). An investigation of Bass' model of transformational and

transactional leadership theory in respiratory care. UMI ProQuest Digital
Dissertations. (UMI No. 3006431).

157

Pearce, J. A., II, Freeman, E. B., & Robinson, R. B., Jr. (1987). The tenuous link
between formal strategic planning and financial performance. Academy of
Management Review, 12(4), 658-675.

Prescott, J. E. (1986). Environments as moderators of the relationship between strategy
and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 329-346.

Provan, K. G. (1987). Environmental and organizational predictors of adOption of cost
containment policies in hospitals. Academy of Management Journal, 30(2), 219-
239. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Rabin, J ., Hildreth, W. B., & Miller, G. J. (Eds). (1989). Handbook of public
administration. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1997). Designing and conducting survey research: A
comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reinhart, C. (2000). How to leap over barriers to performance. Training and
Development, 54(1), 20-24.

 

Roy, D. D., & Ghose, M. (1997). Awareness of hospital environment and organizational
commitment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(3), 380-386. Retrieved
April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about
culture change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Stanglin, D. (1997, March). What are you trying to do? A new law demands that
bureaucrats rethink their missions. US. News & World Report, 122(8), 36-37.

Tomey, A. M. (2000). Guide to nursing management and leadership (6th ed. ). St.
Louis: Mosby.

Trofino, A. J. (2000). Transformational leadership: Moving total quality management
to world-class organizations. Nursing Review, 47, 232-242.

van der Smissen, B., Moiseichik, M., Hartenburg, V. J ., & Twardzik, L. F. (Eds).
(1999). Management of park and recreation agencies. Ashburn, VA: National
Recreation and Park Association.

158

Vestal, K. W., Fralicx, R. D., & Spreier, S. W. (1997). Organizational culture: The
critical link between strategy and results. Hospital & Health Services
Administration, 42(3), 339-365. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest
database.

Veterans Health Administration. (2003). VHA vision 2020: Charting a new direction. . .
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved online August 8, 2003 from
http://www.va.gov/vhareorg/vision2020.pdf

Wegner, D., & Jarvi, C. K. (1999). Planning for strategic management. In B. van der
Smissen, M. Moiseichik, V. J. Hartenburg, & L. F. Twardzik (Eds), Management
of park and recreation agencies. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park
Association.

Witt, P. A., & Crompton, J. L. (1997). Invited paper--The protective factors framework:
A key to programming for benefits and evaluating for results. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 15(3), 1-18.

 

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, R. G., & Lemons, J. (Eds). (1996). National Parks and protected areas: Their
role in environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.

Young, G. J. (2000). Managing organizational transformation: Lessons from the
Veterans Health Administration. California Management Review, 43(1), 66-82.
Retrieved August 7, 2003, from ProQuest database.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business
Review, 55(3), 67-78.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control,
and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,
16(5), 725-750.

Zink, K. J. (Ed.). (1997). Successful TQM: Inside stories fiom European Quality
Award winners. New York: Wiley.

159

BIBLIOGRAPHY

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds). (2000). Handbook of
organizational culture & climate. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Personal selling and transactional/transformational leadership. The
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17(3), 19-28

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How
prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of
transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 509-527.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1987). Transformational leadership and
the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organizational Studies, 12(1), 73-87.

Biech, E. (1994). T QM for training. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berger, L. A., Sikora, M. J ., & Berger, D. R. (1994). The change management
handbook: A road map to corporate transformation. New York: Irwin.

Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration
Review, 55(4), 313-324.

Berger, S. (2002). Achieving results through accountability management. Healthcare
Financial Management, 56(4). Retrieved April 7, 2004, from InfoTrac database.

Berman, E. M., & West, J. P. (1995). Municipal commitment to total quality

management: A survey of recent progress. Public Administration Review, 55(1),
57-66.

Bernstein, W. M., & Burke, W. W. (1989). Modeling organizational meaning systems.
In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds), Research in organizational change
and development, 3, 117-159. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positive, political skills at work San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brinckerhoff, P. C. (1994). Mission-based management: Leading your not-for-profit
into the 21st Century. Dillion, CO: Alpine Guild.

Brown, S. M., & Seidner, C. J. (Eds). (1998). Evaluating corporate training: Models
and issues. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

161

Burke, W. W., Coruzzi, C. A., & Church, A. H. (1996). The organizational survey as an
intervention for change. In A. L. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for
assessment and change (pp. 41-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468-478.

Carmella, A. A., JR., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic
leaders: Towards a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of
Management, 23(3), 213-238.

Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader
behaviour as measured by MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 71(4), 353-358.

 

Carnall, C. A. (1990). Managing change in organizations. New York: Prentice Hall.

 

Carnevale, A. P., Gainer, L. J ., & Meltzer, A. S. (1990). Worlrplace basics: The
essential skills employers want. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carr, D. K., Hard, K. J ., & Trahant, W. J. (1996). Managing the change process: A field
book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering managers.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Carroll, S. J ., JR., & Tosi, H. L., JR. (1973). Management by objectives: Applications
and research. New York: Macmillan.

Carver, J. (1990). Boards that make a diflcrence: A new design for leadership in
nonprofit and public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cave, M., Kogan, M., & Smith, R. (Eds). (1990). Output and performance
measurement in government: The state of the art. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.

Chambers, H. E., & Craft, R. (1998). Nofear management: Rebuilding trust,
performance, and commitment in the new American workplace. Boca Raton, FL:
St. Lucie Press.

Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of
Management Executive, 5(1), 31-45.

Connor, P. E. (1997). Total quality management: A selective commentary on its human

dimensions, with a special reference to its downside. Public Administration
Review, 57(6), 501-509.

162

Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, 1. T. (Eds). (1994). International review of industrial and
organizational psychology 1994, volume 9. Chichester, Great Britain: Wiley.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Culkin, D. F., & Kirsch, S. L. (1986). Managing human resources in recreation, parks,
and leisure services. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organizational development and change
(6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Westem College Publishing.

Davidson, F. J. (1995). Managing projects in organizations: How to make the best use
of time, techniques, and people (2"d ed.). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, D., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Business research for decision making (2"d ed.).
Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1989). Human behavior at work: Organizational
behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deluga, R. J. (1988). Relationship of transformational and transactional leadership with

employee influencing strategies. Group & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 456-
467.

Deming, W. E. (1982/1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drucker, P. F. (1977). Management cases. New York: Harpers College Press.

Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles.
New York: HarperCollins

DuBrin, A. J. (1977). Casebook of organizational behavior. New York: Pergamon
Press.

Durmette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (Eds). (1990). Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1-3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.

163

 

DuPont-Morales, M. A., & Harris, J. E. (1994). Strengthening accountability:
Incorporating strategic planning and performance measurement into budgeting.
Public Productivity & Management Review, 1 7(3), 231-239. Retrieved July 27,
2000 from ProQuest on-line database.

Eadie, D. C. (1997). Changing by design: A practical approach to leading innovation
in nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass.

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (Ed.). (1990). Performance indicators. Philadelphia, PA:
Multilingual Matters LTD.

F umham, A., & Gunter B. (1993). Corporate assessment: Auditing a company 's
personality. London: Routledge.

Gillies, R. R., Shortell, S. M., & Young, G. J. (1997). Best Practices in managing
organized delivery systems. Journal of Healthcare Management, 42(3), 299-321.
Retrieve April 7, 2004 from ProQuest database.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Cardy, R. L. (1998). Managing human resources
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goodman, P. S., & Pennings, J. M., & Associates (1977). New perspectives on
organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hagen, A. F., & Amin, S. G. (1995). Corporate executives and environmental scanning
activities: An empirical investigation. SAM. Advanced Management Journal,
60(2), 41-47. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Halachmi, A., & Bouckaert, G. (Eds). (1995). The enduring challenges in public
management: Surviving and excelling in a changing world. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass.

Halachmi, A. & Bouckaert, G. (Eds). (1996). Organizational performance and
measurement in the public sector: Toward service, effort and accomplishment
reporting. West Port, CT: Quorum Books.

Hambrick, D. C., Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (Eds). (1998). Navigating change:
How CEOs, top teams, and boards steer transformation. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. S. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for
business revolution. New York: HarperCollins

Handy, C. B. (1993). Understanding organizations. New York: Oxford University
Press.

164

 

Hartog, D. N. D., Muijen, J. J. V., & K00pman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: Analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19+. Retrieved June 18, 1999 at ProQuest on-
line database.

Harvard Business Review. (1998). Harvard Business Review on measuring corporate
performance (8th ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Haskins, M. E., & Makcla, B. R. (Eds). (1997). The CFO handbook (Rev. ed.).
Chicago: Irwin.

Hater, J. J ., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73(4), 695-702.

Havitz, M. E. (Ed.). (1995). Models of change in municipal parks and recreation: A
book of innovative case studies. State College, PA: Venture.

Hax, A. C. (1990). Redefining the concept of strategy and the strategic formation
process. Planning Review, 18(3), 34-40. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest
database.

Hendee, J. c., Stankey, G. H., & Lucas, R. c. (1990). Wilderness management (2“d ed.,
rev.). Golden, Co: North American Press.

Hedley, T. P. (1998). Measuring public sector effectiveness using private sector
methods. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21(3), 251-258.

Hjelte, G., & Shivers, J. S. (1963). Public administration of park and recreational
services. New York: Macmillan.

Hjelte, G., & Shivers, J. S. (1972). Public administration of recreational services.
Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Holloway, J ., Lewis, J., & Mallory, G. (Eds). Performance measurement and
evaluation. London: Sage.

Holtzer, M. (Ed.). (1992). Public productivity handbook New York: Marcel Dekker.

House, E. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political
consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Houston, A., & Ryan, B. (Ed.). (1997). Survey handbook (TQLO Pub. No. 97-06) [On-

line]. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, TQL Office. Available:
http://tql-navy.org/tqlpub/index.html.

165

 

Huffington, C., Cole, C., & Brunning, H. (1997). A manual of organizational
development: The psychology of change. London: Karnac Books.

Huyck, H., Norris, L. Brown, M., Petersen, E., & Mendelson, L. (1998). Field guide to
National Park Service performance management (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
National Park Service Office of Strategic Planning.

Hyde, A. C., & Shafi'itz, J. M. (Eds). (1979). Program evaluation in the public sector.
New York: Praeger.

Jensen, C. R. (1995). Outdoor recreation in America (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Jha, A. K., Perlin, J. B., Kizer, K. W., & Dubley, R. A. (2003). Effect of the
transformation of the Veterans Affairs health care system on the quality of care.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 348(22). Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
ProQuest database.

Johnson, P., & Gill, J. (1993). Management control and organizational behavior.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Johnston, R. J. (1992). Multivariate statistical analysis in geography: A primer on the
general linear model. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program

evaluations standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jreisat, J. E. (1997). Public Organization Management: The development of theory and
process. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Jubenville, A., & Twight, B. W. (1993). Outdoor recreation management: Theory and
application (3rd ed.). State College, PA: Venture.

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction--life
satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 939-948.

Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating
natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 241-262.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., Massey, T. K., JR., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Motivation in public and

private organizations: A comparative study. Public Productivity & Management
Review, 21 (3), 230-250.

166

 

Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:
Wiley.

Katz, D., Kahn, R. L., & Adams, J. S. (Eds). (1980). The study of organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Josscy-Bass.

Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore,
MD: The John Hopkins Press.

Kaufinan, H. (1971). The limits of organizational change. University, AL: The
University of Alabama Press.

Kaufman, H. (1981). The administrative behavior of federal bureau chiefs.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Kautz, J. R., 111, Netting, F. E., Huber, R., Borders, K., & Davis, T. S. (1997). The
government performance and results act of 1993: Implications for social work
practice. Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, 42(4), 313-408.

 

Keller, R. T. (1989). A test of the path-goal theory of leadership with need for clarity as
a moderator in research and development organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(2), 208-212.

Kennedy, C. R., Jr. (1984). The external environment - strategic planning interface:
U.S. multinational corporate practices in the 19805. Journal of International
Business Studies (pm-1986), 15(2), 99-108. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
ProQuest database.

Kerrnally, S. (1997). Total management thinking. Great Britain: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

Kimbler, D. L., & Ferrell, W. G. (1997). TQM-based project planning, Landon:
Chapman & Hall.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-51.

Kizer, K. W. (1996). Geriatrics in the VA: Providing experience for the nation. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 275(17), 1303. Retrieved August 8, 2003,
from ProQuest database.

Knight, R. L., & Bates, S. F. (Eds). (1995). A new Century for natural resources
management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

167

Koehler, J. W., & Pankowski, J. M. (1996). Quality government: Designing,
developing, and implementing TQM Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:
The Free Press.

Kraus, R. G., & Curtis, J. E. (1990). Creative management in recreation, parks, and
leisure services (5th ed.). St. Lois, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Kraut, A. I. (1996). An overview of organizational surveys. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.),
Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 1-14). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. i

Kraut, A. 1. (Ed.). (1996). Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Kravchuk, R. S. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under
the government performance and results act of 1993. Public Administration
Review, 56(4), 348-358.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A
constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4),
648-657.

Lant, T. K., & Hurley, A. E. (1999). A contingency model of response to performance
feedback. Group & Organizational Management, 24(4), 421-437.

Lawson, R. B., & Shen, Z. (1998). Organizational psychology: Foundations and
applications. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leavitt, J. S., & Nunn, P. C. (1994). Total quality through project management. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewis, S., & Jones, J. (1990). The use of output and performance measure in
government departments. In M. Cave, M. Kogan, & R. Smith (Eds), Output and
performance measurement in government: The state of the art (pp. 39-55).
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.). (1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm
revolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Locke, E. A., & Latharn, G. P. (1984). Goal setting for individuals, groups, and
organizations. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.

168

Longest, B. B., Jr. (1997). Managerial roles in contemporary hospital departments.
Hospital Topics, 75(1). Retrieved April 19, 2004, from EBSCO database.

Lowenburg, G., & Conrad, K. A. (1998). Current perspectives in
industrial/organizational psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Macy, B. A., & Mirvis, P. H. (1982). Organizational change efforts: Methodologies for
assessing organizational effectiveness and program costs versus benefits.
Evaluation Review, 6(3), 301-372.

Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of organizational culture on learning in public agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 519-540. Retrieved
April 27, 2000 from ProQuest on-line database.

Masuch, M. (Ed.). Organizational management, and expert systems: Models of
automated reasoning, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

McCue, C. P., & Gianakis, G. A. (1997). The relationship between job satisfaction and
performance: The case of local government finance officers in Ohio. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 21(2), 170-191.

McLarney, C. 92001). Strategic planning - effectiveness - environment linkage: A case

study. Management Decision, 39(10), 809-817. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
ProQuest database.

Medina, W. A. (1982). Changing bureaucracies: Understanding the organization
before selecting the approach. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Methtabdin, K. R. (1986). Comparative management: Business styles in Japan and the
United States. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Melkers, J ., & Willoughby, K. (1998). The State of the States: Performance-based

budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66-
7 3.

Mercer, D. 03d.) (1992). Managing the external environment: A strategic perspective.
London: Sage.

Meyer, M. W., & Zucker, L. G. (1989). Permanently failing organizations. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J ., JR. (1978). Organizational
strategy, structure, and process, New York: McGraw-Hill.

169

r

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J ., Jr. (1978). Organizational
Strategy, structure, and process. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-
562.

Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure:
Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2),
280—308. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Miner, J. B. (1978). The management process: Theory, research, and practice (2“.
ed.). Macmillan Publishing.

Miner, J. B., Singleton, T. M., & Luchsinger, V. P. (1985). The practice of management.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nutt, P. C. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2),
230-261.

Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1997). Transforming organizations with second-order
change. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 10, 229-274). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Oakland, J. S., & Porter, L. J. (1994). Cases in total quality management, Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.

OECD Working Papers. (1997). Benchmarking evaluation and strategic management in
the public sector. OECD W92 7P 5/6 7. Paris: OECD.

Omachonu, V. K., & Ross, J. E. (1994). Principles of total quality. Delray Beach, FL:
St. Lucie Press

Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese
challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Paddock, S. C. (1997). Administrative benchmarks in management training. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 21(2), 192-201.

Pappas, J. M., Flaherty, K. E., & Woolridge, B. (2003). Achieving strategic consensus
in the hospital setting: A middle management perspective. Hospital Topics,
81(1), 15-22. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Parks, S. (1995). Improving Workplace performance: Historical and theoretical
contexts. Monthly Labor Review, 118(5). Retrieved April 7, 2004, from InfoTrac
database.

170

 

Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical systems
perspective. New York: Wiley.

Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Perrow, C. (1979). Complex organizations: A critical essay (2"d ed.). Dallas, TX:
Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Pierce, R., & Sorkin, A. (1972). How to conduct a psychographics stuay. Chicago:
Bank Marketing Association.

Pittman, J. A., Jr. (1995). The future of the VA: Centralization, costs, politics, and
presentism. JAM, 273(8), 667-668.

Porter, L. J ., & Tanner, S. J. (1996). Assessing business excellence: A guide to self-
assessment. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Poister, T. H. (1995). MBO in municipal government: Variations on a traditional
management tool. Public Administration Review, 55(1), 48-56.

Poister, T. H. (1997). Performance measurement in state departments of transportation.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pugh, D. 3. (Ed.). (1984). Organization theory (2“(1 ed.). New York: Penguin Books.

Raadschelders, J. C. N. (1998). Handbook of administrative history. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a
theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32. Retrieved April 27 , 2000, from ProQuest
database.

Ramanujam, V., Venkatraman, N., & Camillus, J. C. (1986). Multi-objective assessment
of effectiveness of strategic planning: A discriminant analysis approach.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 347-372.

Roemer, L. (1996). Hospital middle managers' perceptions of their work and

competence. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 41(2), 210-235.
Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

171

Rouse J. (1997). Resource and performance management in public service
organizations. In K. Isaac-Henry, C. Painter, & C. Barnes (Eds), Management in
the public sector: Challenge and change (2nd ed.) (pp. 73-104). Boston:
International Thomson Business Press.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1997). Research methods for social work (3rd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

SaIant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Schachter, H. L. (1995). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: Two
models for irnproving government performance. Public Administration Review, 1
55(6), 530-537. r
l

Schilling, M. A., & Schilz, M. (1998). Improving the organization of environmental t.
management: Ecosystem management, external interdependencies, and agency
structures. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21 (3), 293-308.

 

Searle, S. R., & Udell, J. G. (1970). The use of regression on dummy variables in
management research. Management Science, 16(6), B-397-B-409.

Sharpe, G. W., Odegaard, C. H., & Sharpe, W. F. (1994). A comprehensive introduction
to park management (2"d ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Shrode, W. A., & Voich, D., JR. (1974). Organization and management: Basic systems
concepts. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Singh, S. N. (1997). Administrative culture and development. New Delhi, India: Mittal
Publications.

Smith, G. P. (1997). The new leader: Bringing creativity and innovation to the
workplace. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Smith, S. L. J. (1990). Dictionary of concepts in recreation and leisure studies. New
York: Greenwood Press.

Sorge, A., & Warner, M. (Eds.). (1997). The IEBM handbook of organizational
behavior. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Stanbury, W. T., & Thompson, F. (Eds). (1982). Managing public enterprises. New
York: Praeger.

172

Stanton, J. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of electronic performance

monitoring on personal control, task satisfaction, and task performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81 (6), 738-745.

Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1997). Understanding and overcoming supervisor
resistance during the transition to employee empowerment. In W. A. Pasmore &
R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development
(V 01. 10, pp. 169-196). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Storey, J. (Ed.). (1995). Human resource management: A critical text. London:
Routledge.

Tannenbaurn, R. J ., & Wesley, S. (1993). Agreement between committee-based and
field-based job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 975-980. F

Tarter, J. L. (1974). Managing by objectives for public administrators. Washington, D.
C.: National Training and Development Service Press.

 

Tavakoli, I., & Perks, K. J. (2001). The development of a strategic control system for
the management of strategic change. Strategic Change, 10(5), 297-305.
Retrieved April 7, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Terziovski, M., Howell, A., Sohal, A., & Morrison, M. (2000). Establishing dependence
between TQM and the learning organization: A multiple case study analysis. The
Learning Organization, 7(1), 23-31. Retrieved January 3, 2003, from Emerald-
Library database.

Thompson, A. A., JR., & Strickland, A. J ., III (1995). Crafiing & implementing
strategy: Text and readings (6th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.

Transportation Research Board. (1997). Performance measurement in State
Departments of Transportation (Synthesis of Highway Practice 23 8).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Tripodi, T. (1983). Evaluative research for social workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Twight, B. W. (1983). Organizational values and political power: The Forest Service
versus the Olympic National Park. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania
University Press.

United States Office of Personnel Management. (1999). Senior Executive Service:

Survey of Senior Executive Service - 1999, Retrieved April 30, 2000 from
http:/lwwwopm.gov/ses/survey.html

173

Valentine, N. M. (2001). Quality measures essential to the transformation of the
Veterans Health Administration: Implications for nurses as co-creators of change.
Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 15(4), 48-59.

Vasu, M. L., Stewart, D. W., & Garson, G. D. (1998). Organizational behavior and
public management (3rd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Varney, G. H. (1987). Goal-driven management: Getting back to basics. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.

Wagner, J. A., III., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Organizational behavior: Securing
competitive advantage (3 "1 ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of
performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(3),
177-1 86.

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-
management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 266-285. Retrieved April 21 , 2000 on-line from Proquest on-line database.

Watson, C. E. (1981). Results-oriented managing: The key to effective performance.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weber, P. S., & Manning, M. R. (1998). A comparative framework for large group
organizational change interventions. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore
(Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development (V 01. 11, pp. 225-
252). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weihrich, H. (1985). Management excellence: Productivity through MBO, New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Weirsma, W. (1991). Research methods in education: An introduction (5th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weiss, J. A., & Piderit, S. K. (1999). The value of mission statements in public

agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), 193-223.
Retrieved April 27, 2000 from ProQuest on-line database.

174

 

Wells, D. L., & Doherty, L. M. (1994). A handbook for strategic planning (TQLO Pub.
No. 94-02) [On-line]. Arlington, VA: Department of the Navy, TQL Office.
Available: http://tql-navy.org/tqlpub/index.html

Wells, D. L. (1996). Strategic management for senior leaders: A handbook for

implementation. Arlington, VA: Department of the Navy Total Quality
Leadership Office.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization
fiom an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Wild, R., & Lowes, B. (1977). The principles of modern management (2"d rev). New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

5‘1
Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, & Maslowski, R. (2000). Organizational culture as a
predictor of organizational performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds), Handbook of organizational culture &
climate. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

_ . .-_h.-._n:l.._-._

Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship

between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28(3), 468-481.

Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (Eds). (1987). Research in organizational
change and development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

175

        

WI: MGM Si Al E UN“. ‘FRSIT'V LtBHARVE

H l “l I Hi» 1M“! 1“ l

293 02736 3435