Implementing a Learning Organization Model in a Human Service Setting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Fall 12-12-2014 Strengths in Action: Implementing a Learning Organization Model in a Human Service Setting Barbara Ann Whitbeck Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons, Social Work Commons, and the Sociology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Whitbeck, Barbara Ann, "Strengths in Action: Implementing a Learning Organization Model in a Human Service Setting" (2014). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2095. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2093 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Strengths in Action: Implementing a Learning Organization Model in a Human Service Setting by Barbara Ann Whitbeck A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Work and Social Research Dissertation Committee: Maria Talbott, Chair Eileen Brennan Pauline Jivanjee Karen Seccombe Portland State University 2014 © 2014 Barbara Ann Whitbeck Abstract Although learning organization theory evolved in corporate settings, literature suggests that the theory has much to offer human service organizations. This dissertation examines the implementation of a modified learning organization model in three small field offices of a publicly-funded vocational rehabilitation organization in the Pacific Northwest, at a time when the organization was negotiating financial cutbacks and organizational changes. The model – known as Strengths in Action - was based on Senge’s five learning organization disciplines, and informed by organizational culture theory. In each participating office, all staff worked together to set a goal, make a plan, and achieve the goal. This dissertation covers the implementation of the modified learning organization model; the factors that facilitated and impeded the model’s implementation; the model’s impact on participating offices’ climate and culture; and the similarities and differences among participating offices. This primarily qualitative study utilized mixed methods: observations, interviews, and an online survey. Implementation of the model resulted in individual and team learning, better staff communication, more productive teamwork, stronger staff relationships, stronger office/community partner relationships, and improved office morale. This study shows that such a model can be effective in a human service setting, moving workgroups away from a mode of individual workers reactively handling individual cases, and toward a mode of proactive collective problem-solving. It also provides strong evidence that a learning organization model, implemented during a period of resource retrenchment, can i produce substantial benefits for small workgroups within human service organizations, even when the model is not disseminated organization-wide. ii Dedication To My late father, John Nicholas Arends, who gifted me with a love of learning and respect for those who “conclude well.” And to My husband, Dr. John Kenneth Whitbeck, whose love, support and encouragement made my dissertation journey possible. iii Acknowledgements Chair Maria Talbott, PhD – advisor, professor, mentor, and friend – for always being there Committee Members Eileen Brennan, PhD – for your consistent support and your thoughtful edits, which increased my knowledge and improved my work Pauline Jivanjee, PhD – for your warmth, your insights, and the opportunities you created for me throughout the PhD program Karen Seccombe, PhD (OGS representative) – for “taking me on” despite a myriad of professional and personal responsibilities, and for your keen and practical advice DVR Staff DVR’s director, management team, and all the Strengths in Action participants whose ideas and energy drove the Strengths in Action projects DSHS Staff Nancy Raiha, PhD, Barbara Felver, MES, MPA, Dario Longhi PhD, Jody Becker- Green, PhD, and all the others who supported me during the SIA study Technical and Process Advisors Dennis McBride, PhD, Kevin Ryser, Bob Drake, Pauline Duffy, Roxanne Treece, Thet Mar Win My Ever-Loyal Family John, Mom, Patti, Tim Jason, Ryan, Meghan, Drew, Caleb, Molly, Lucien, Joel, Evan, Masayo and Ayana Friends, Colleagues and Mentors Jim Blodgett, Theal Compton-Drake, Sandy Crouch, Sandy Desy, Warren Gohl, Christina Maleney, Cindy Marchand-Cecil, Lori McWilliams, Myrth Ogilvie, Dennis Olson, Mike and Nan Ponder, and George Uhlman. iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................. i Dedication ....................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................. vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview .............................................................................1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................7 Chapter 3: Process...........................................................................................................38 Chapter 4: Methods .........................................................................................................69 Chapter 5: Results .........................................................................................................118 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................250 References .....................................................................................................................279 Appendix A — Learning from Offices Study Overview ..............................................294 Appendix B — Informed Consent ................................................................................298 Appendix C — Interview Questions .............................................................................301 Appendix D — Online Survey ......................................................................................303 Appendix E — Description of Strengths in Action Study ............................................307 Appendix F — First Strengths in Action Agenda .........................................................310 v Appendix G — Response Glossary ..............................................................................312 Appendix H — ANOVA Results ..................................................................................316 Appendix I — Kruskal-Wallis Results .........................................................................318 Appendix J — Online Survey Closed-ended Questions: Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages of Positive Responses.........................................................................320 vi List of Tables Table 5.1 - Summary of Data Sources - Research Question 1 ....................................... 138 Table 5.2 - Closed-ended survey questions - Personal Mastery .................................... 144 Table 5.3 - Closed-ended survey questions - Mental Models ........................................ 149 Table 5.4 - Closed-ended survey questions- Building Shared Visions .......................... 153 Table 5.5 - Closed-ended survey questions - Team Learning ....................................... 157 Table 5.6 - Closed-ended survey questions - Systems Thinking ................................... 162 Table 5.7 - Summary of data sources - Research Question 2 ........................................ 163 Table 5.8 - Closed-ended survey questions - Structure of SIA Project ......................... 172 Table 5.9 - Closed-ended survey questions - Supervisor Support ................................. 175 Table 5.10 - Closed-ended survey questions - Staff-to-Staff Connections .................... 180 Table 5.11 - Closed-ended survey questions - Staff/Community Partner Connections 185 Table 5.12 - Summary of data sources - Research Question 3 ...................................... 190 Table 5.13 - Summary of data sources - Research Question 4 ...................................... 211 Table 5.14 - Closed-ended survey questions - Supervisors' Approaches ...................... 218 Table 5.15 - Closed-ended survey questions - New Relationships among Staff ........... 221 Table 5.16 - Closed-ended survey questions - New Community Partner Connections . 224 Table 5.17 - Summary of data sources - Research Question 5 ...................................... 227 vii List of Figures Figure 4.1 - Diagram of interconnections among study methods .................................... 77 Figure 5.1 - Storyline for Research Question 1 ............................................................. 138 Figure 5.2 - Outline of discussion of Research Question 1 Findings ............................ 140 Figure 5.3 - Storyline for Research