Applied Project Final Defense Final

Running head: EVERY ACCOMPLISHMENT

Every Accomplishment Starts With the Decision to Try: How Bona Fide Groups and

Organizational Identification Can Explain Small Group Decision-Making

Jacob Dicus, M.A. Student

Department of Applied Communication Studies

ACS 598: Applied Project

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

EVERY ACCOMPLISHMENT 1

Abstract

This research aims to explore the role that Graduate Assistants (GA) play in the organizational

environment of the Kimmel Student Involvement Center at Southern Illinois University

Edwardsville (SIUE). To accomplish this, a review of literature on bona fide groups and

organizational identification will be applied to the small group environment to pertain to group

characteristics. Organizational action concepts including leadership succession, knowledge

sharing, and creative action aim to establish how organizations can take procedures to promote a

dynamic environment. Methodology includes the use of qualitative interview techniques such as

needs-assessments and one-on-one interviews with the students and faculty involved with the

Kimmel Student Involvement Center. Key findings from the research showed that GAs influence

student groups by being indispensable resources, upholding their respective advisor role or roles

within an organization, and by being a “bridge” between campus partners and the undergraduate

student experience. These results implicate that GAs in the Kimmel environment and culture are

necessities for the scope and scale of organizational programming to stay as influential as it is

currently seen. By assembling these concepts, a new visualization of small groups will be applied

to promote consistency within this organization.

Keywords: Bona Fide Theory, Unstable Environments, Knowledge Sharing, Organizational

Identification, Leadership Succession, Learning Organizations


Introduction

Organizations across the country have to deal with a multitude of external problems that

can harm production, profit, and image. One major concern for an organization, however,

actually comes internally in the form of leadership succession and the absence of job specific

knowledge turnover causing the organizational environment to become unstable. During my time

as an undergraduate member of the Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) campus, I

have had the privilege of participating in many of the various departments that the college

campus provides including Dining Services, University Housing, and the Kimmel Student

Involvement Center. Each of these subsystems has their own set of values and departmental

identification. In addition, I have been included in several student organization weekly meetings,

as a member and then as an advisor, and the leadership turnover processes of several of these

organizations felt rushed at first. A patter began to emerge; I would end up observing, and

personally experiencing, that the outgoing organization’s leadership board members would leave

virtually nothing for the new leadership board to build upon. No one would be given any

materials to make my experience more meaningful on a personal level or to make my respective

organization(s) more efficient. In response to this, I would have to “catch-up” on all of the

knowledge and duties that my position entailed which, as a result, “wasted” my time as a leader

on items that should have already been available upon the succession of leadership. This causes

many new officers to have to use the majority of their appointed terms of leadership covering

ground that has already been done in the past. Hence, productive tasks are kept to a small

timeframe and each student leader does not receive the full experience and expertise they might

have wanted from taking on these leadership positions.


Once I started my position as a Graduate Assistant, or also known as a “GA,” I had duties

that entailed supervising student groups that I had not been a part of. Once again, the problems of

unshared knowledge and succession could be seen. Even further, my own workplace, the

Kimmel Student Involvement Center, has had numerous changes in leadership and policies that

have not only disorganized the operations of the employees, but also how the students operate

within their own organizations. While it can be argued that many tasks and goals have already

been put in place within the Kimmel subsystem to handle change within the organization, change

in one’s environment will affect individuals on several different and personal levels.

Through these personal observations, it has become apparent that leadership and

knowledge succession in the Kimmel Center are in need of further investigation due to student-

led groups regularly dealing with the difficulties of maintaining consistent and advancing

operations due to unplanned leadership succession and unstable environments. For most of the

student groups at SIUE, they must work with either a full-time employee of the university or a

GA that has direct ties to the department they are working in to complete their operations and

tasks. This is an important aspect to note when considering how the operations are completed

within the Kimmel Center. It is through the creation of a departmental manual pertaining to the

duties, tasks, and operations of the Graduate Assistants at SIUE in the Kimmel Student

Involvement Center that I hope to foster and promote a more unified and dependable working

environment that could be implemented not only in one department of the university, but also

adapted to the needs of any department that may need a focal point for Graduate Assistant

succession.

Kimmel Student Involvement Center Background


To ensure that all aspects of this organizational environment are understood, a brief

summary of the procedures the Kimmel Student Involvement Center handles will reinforce the

desire to create the manual and form a clearer picture of the department’s culture and

identification within the university. The Kimmel Student Involvement Center, or simply known

as “The Kimmel,” is considered one of the focal points for campus and where students have the

opportunity to get involved in various departments across special interests. Such departments

include Fraternity and Sorority Life, Campus Activities Board, Student Government,

Volunteerism, and the Student Leadership Development Program. The office is also the

communication center for over 260 student organizations. In addition to these broad departments,

the Kimmel hosts campus and community wide events including Welcome Week, Homecoming,

Family Weekend, Black Heritage Month, Volunteer Fairs, Springfest, and many others. With this

description alone, it is obvious that there are countless moving parts to make everything in this

department continually operate efficiently. Within the Kimmel, there are several employees that

work in this environment that include: one full time Director, three full time Assistant Directors,

four full time office support associates, nine part time Graduate Assistants, and three part time

student workers. As you can tell by the numbers, the GA pool of workers is a large portion of the

staff and these students are typically only there for a maximum of two years. This regular

turnover, combined with the situations that are plaguing the state of Illinois’ budget for state

universities, creates an unstable environment in terms of knowledge management for the GAs.

To attempt to understand the phenomenon at hand, a literature review will first discuss

concepts relating to group characteristics including organizational identification and bona fide

group theory. Next, it will highlight organizational actions that may be taken in the form of

leadership succession, knowledge management and sharing, and decision-making as a learning


organization before concluding with a proposed method section including qualitative

interviewing methods of needs-assessment one-on-one interviews and focus groups. See

Appendix A and B for a visual look at the culture of the SIUE Kimmel Student Involvement

Center.

Review of Literature

Group Characteristics

Within the framework of an organization are the groups that make up the organization.

Each of these groups has a specific state of mind that guides the way operations are implemented

and the leaders of these groups have set values and beliefs that are the backbone for decisions

made. With this in mind, organizational identification and bona fide group theory will help

explain the structures that lie within organizations.

Organizational Identification

Millward, Haslam, and Postmes (2007) define organizational identity as a form of

organizational portrayal and occur when a decision maker within the company decides to choose

an alternative way to represent their values and goals to the public. “A person identifies with a

unit when, in making a decision, the person in one or more of his/her organizational roles

perceives that unit’s values or interests as relevant in evaluating the alternatives of choice”

(Tompkins & Cheney, 1983, p. 144). This aspect is important to focus on due to the concept of

control having a definite presence in how actions are carried out. One basic human need is to

identify and feel part of a larger group. "Fitting in" with the group or groups you are in within an

organization can lead to an organizational atmosphere where input of opinions can create

positive outcomes for work attitudes and behaviors including motivation, job performance and


satisfaction, individual decision-making, among others. Organizational identity is also linked to

organizational outcomes and organizational behaviors including leadership and meaning of work

(Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013). Deschamps (1982) states the categorization of persons

help to answer “who are they?” while also addressing “How should I act toward them?” when

considering the relations between dominant groups and individuals. The power of such group

labeling of others has been supported in studies involving group situations where a competitive

spirit is fostered through the sheer identification itself (Allen, Wilder, and Atkinson, 1983).

Shamir, Zakay, Brainin, and Popper (2000), through the study of military units, stresses the

importance of promoting collective identity and fostering shared group values and coherence

with a group’s goals in order to acquire discipline and power, which are factors that positively

relate to team cohesion.

Identity within small group environments leads to even further explanations into how and

why leaders in organizations make the decisions that they do. This could be linked to the concept

of moving from an individual identity to a collective identity to produce organizational

commitment. Kiesler (1966) defines commitment as the “pledging or binding of the individual to

behavioral acts” (p. 30). When relating commitment to identification, with an emphasis on

organized groups, Kanter (1972) observes that there is an appropriation in social relations. She

writes:

“[The] reciprocal relationship, in which both what is given to the group and what is

received from it are seen by the person as expressing his [or her] true nature and as

supporting his [or her] concept of self, is the core of commitment to a community” (p. 65-

66).


In this view, commitment becomes a key outcome in an individual’s linkage to the group

over a period of time. Here, identification and commitment can be expressed as a motive that

will likely affect future action (Mills, 1940). For example, an employee who seeks to promote

the company’s interests will tend to express concerns, act it out through decisions, and produce a

pattern of pro-organizational behavior where one act motivates another act (Burke, 1968).

However, Sennett (1980) reminds us that a bond with a group is both a source of individual

identity and a constraint on action. This is due to limiting one’s possibilities to a particular

group’s goals and values. This has been described as an organization being “shipwrecked”

because of the unshakable commitment to a particular course. Over-identification is something

that organizations will need to overcome due to it preventing an employee from seeing other

courses of action and/or options. In any case, identifications and commitments should be viewed

in both terms of the perspective of the individual and the perspective of the organization (Cheney

& Tompkins, 1987).

Alone, organizational identification cannot be used to accurately examine the extent to

which groups and organizations establish their values and goals. This section is important to

begin with to establish that each organization will have their own identity that is portrayed to the

world and their employees. In correlation with an overall organizational identity, an inquiry into

bona fide group theory allows a more dynamic approach and vision of group identity to be

determined and formed to complete the group characteristics categorization.

Bona Fide Groups

While organizational identity is essential to defining the personality of the organization

and/or small group, the concept of bona fide groups expands the boundaries of how groups and

larger social systems work together to present a relationship in which each contributes to the


other’s development and survival (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). In a sense, organizational

identification research has been able to show how individuals within the group portray their

commitments to their respective organizations or groups, but bona fide group research extends

the notion of a group’s developmental purposes and answers why belonging to a group is an

important aspect to the members that belong to said group. Collaboration is something that is

widely used and applied across multiple disciplines (Lewis, 2006). Typically, inter-

organizational relationships have a particular focus and purpose (Gray & Wood, 1991) while also

including collaborative endeavors and interconnected leaders (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). This

is the purpose of using the bona fide group model due to the focus on the collaborating group,

comprised of individuals from related organizations, engaged in some form of project requiring

inter-organizational coordination (Walker & Stohl, 2012).

Bona fide groups have certain characteristics that make them able to achieve this

described relationship. These characteristics include stable but permeable boundaries and

interdependence with immediate context. The first characteristic of a stable yet permeable

boundary centers on the membership and survival aspects that small groups need to endure the

systems the group is a part of. This is where organizational identity plays a key role as well.

Boundaries, created within and outside the group, indicate membership in or out of a group as

well as requirements of group identity. If membership is too strict, current members are too

daunted with stress and anxieties to do all of the tasks needed for the group to succeed. However,

if membership is too lax in member intake, the group becomes in danger of being overtaken by

other, outside groups and their unique qualities fade (Smith & Berg, 1987). Moreover, Putnam

and Stohl (1990) propose that this permeability of boundaries directly ties into the survival of the

group. This is due to the fluid and dynamic nature of individual membership in groups that


occurs through multiple aspects including communication between groups, relationships among

group members in other contexts, and fluctuations in membership within groups (i.e., rotation of

members or turnover). The last aspect mentioned is particularly interesting to highlight due to the

connection to the overall research topic at hand. Fluctuations in membership will shift the

dynamics of a group. When new members are brought in, these members bring in valuable

information that a group needs to succeed that includes new information, perspectives, and

resources that alter how the group will operate from that point on (Poole, Seibold, & McPhee,

1985).

While this first characteristic could arguably be seen as the internal relation side of bona

fide groups, the second characteristic of group context handles the external relations. Group

context refers to the way or ways in which a group depends on and contributes to its

environment. In turn, an environment consists of an intergroup system that interacts and

exchanges information with a particular group (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). Putnam (1994) states,

“Context is settled in group interaction as members reference, negotiate, and develop their social

systems. A group, then, is not a container, nor does it have a fixed location in relation to its

social context” (p. 100). The way members unite within will typically arise from not only what

gets imported and exported into the group, but also from what and how members emphasize

elements from their environment. This may include making decisions that are partially biased

due to your professional career preference, departmental opinion on a matter, or possibly propose

a perspective that is completely new on a task. No matter the case, it is important for scholars to

realize these individual differences and influences that go into small group communication

structures and they may be more complex than previous research may have suggested.


So why use bona fide group perspectives in this study? This area of research has proven

to be a useful tool in understanding small group communication by showing a focus back to

topics including cohesion conformity and identity. Decisions-making is not the only thing groups

do. Groups integrate new members into their organization, create an overall image and persona

to their outside environments, provide membership support, coordinate work operations, and

provide opportunities for social change (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). One further area of justification

for the usefulness of this theory examining the phenomena is how group concepts such as roles,

norms, and phases interact with organizational positions within the organization. Feldman (1984)

found that most group norms will typically develop after either explicit statements of supervisors

or coworkers are given or from their previous carryover behaviors from outside the group.

In summary, the combination of the group characteristics of organizational identification

and bona fide group theory has shown that there are several intertwining structures that factor

into how groups, and the individuals that are a part of those groups, will make their decisions to

operate effectively within their organizations. These parts were important to highlight in this

research due to their strong focuses on why actions of individuals within an organization can and

will happen. As well, it is important to first include the underlying reasoning’s as why actions are

taken before we, as researchers, can begin to find avenues as to how we can “fix” an

organization. With the underlying explanations to “why” actions are taken, focus will now shift

to answering “how” groups and organizations can take action to approach environmental

instability that is a part of the focus of this study.

Organizational Actions

Organizations, no matter the size or type, are always in danger of environmental

exigencies (Walker & Stohl, 2012). Exigencies come in many different shapes and forms and


pertain to demands that are put on the organization from external environments. One of the more

prominent environmental endangerments includes how leadership plays into the actions of group

member’s decision-making processes. New leaders bring new ideas, operational preferences, and

values into a group or organization. It is the actions these new leaders take that can change the

course of how progressive the organization can become once leadership is in a state of turnover.

The members of the organization or group are also key players in this equation where conflicting

interests determine how much knowledge is passed from one member to another and how

creative these actions need to be to tackle the problems that face groups in today’s ever-changing

society. Through the detailing of leadership succession, knowledge sharing, and actions as a

learning organization, the need for a set standard of continual procedures will be established and

justified. Once again, organizational actions are described in this section to promote multiple

alternatives and/or activities to understanding inconsistent environments.

Leadership Succession

Many organizational and group members assume too much when it comes to transition of

leadership within their groups. These assumptions will typically come in the form of extending

the roles that a previous leader had while also being treated as a non-event where individuals

“should” be able to figure things out themselves and implicitly assume that previous knowledge

and experience is enough (Kroh, 2012). In today’s fast-paced and rapid reactions to changing

environments, there is little time to gain tactic knowledge that is needed to successfully perform

the job duties of a leader that is lost to not only the individuals, but also to the organization as a

whole (Kleinsorge, 2010). There are several factors that will influence the relationship between

leader succession and post-succession organizational performance. These include the knowledge

and skills of the new leader, the ability of the leader and organization to learn from one another,


and the potential for unbalanced information acquired in the hiring process (Shen & Cannella,

2002; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2003).

With the first factor, the different skills and abilities that leaders gain from either inside

or outside of the organization results in varying effects on performance. Human capital theory

supports this analysis by defining human capital as an individual’s knowledge, skills,

experiences, and abilities (Bailey & Helfat, 2003; Harris & Helfat, 1977), which can be

accumulated through education, employment, and activities (Becker, 1993). Next, successful

leadership must include learning from one another to engage in information collection to make

appropriate strategic decisions (Glenn Rowe, Cannella, Rankin, & Gorman, 2005). The third and

final factor described involves the environmental factor of risk. Risk is a factor due to leadership

candidates having more knowledge of their own personal abilities than the ones tasked with the

hiring decision which can lead to leadership hiring becoming suboptimal (Zajac, 1990). These

three factors play into group dynamics and are important to understand due to the high influence

they have in leadership succession.

With leadership framed as an essential part of the success of a group, it is valuable for a

group or organization to implement succession planning. Succession planning ensures that

qualified candidates are available when vacancies occur within an organization and the process,

overall, would be a seamless process (Bonczek & Woodard, 2006). While training and planning

for the competencies of leadership positions are necessary for a group or organization, it is also

valuable to project what the organization may need to adapt to the environments they are in years

from now. One such suggested leadership transition tool, provided by Bond and Naughton

(2011), suggests that one must first accept these timing and content considerations mentioned

above. From this position, the use of coaching in the transitioning process promotes the ideals of


accountability of new leaders to set the succession process up for success to minimize the

negative impact on productivity and disruption for the rest of the organization. This transition

tool also provides features such as relationship building and creating performance agreements

that promote a sense of consistency and understanding of the roles and duties that leaders are

anticipated to implement.

While leadership succession is a factor that is crucial when considering the operations of

a group or organization, it is just one factor that is included in the overall analysis of actions

organizations must take to promote consistency in their respective environments. Leadership

succession is an important first step in tackling an inconsistent environment. Succession must be

fully approved by the organization’s employees before any of the other organizational topics can

be considered or applied. Though knowledge has been touched upon in the leadership succession

process, the managing and sharing of knowledge is still an organizational action that requires

further analysis to further the needs of unstable environments.

Knowledge Sharing

Attaining knowledge on a topic is something that everyone strives for in their lives.

Organizationally, increasing personal or organizational knowledge prepares the organization to

face uncertainties and instability from the environments around it while also staying competitive

and sustainable in the competitive markets it is directly involved in (Almeida & Soares, 2014).

When considering the topic of knowledge sharing, it is perceived as an organizational practice

that facilitates and structures distribution and learning. In addition, instilling a mindset of

knowledge within an organization arguably promotes embracing and learning practices that

strengthen their own, and their constituents’, knowledge in order to influence development-

related decision-making processes and lead to strengthening self-sufficiency (Ferguson,


Huysman, & Soekijad, 2010). Tying in the concept of knowledge sharing ensures that there is a

certain aspect of this study that inspires a sense of trust and personal connection to the work each

member of a group is contributing. Simply giving members of a group a stake in the operations

of a group or organizations tends to lead to strengthening the relations throughout all levels of

the member hierarchy and decision-making process.

Knowledge is something that needs to be shared and recorded for any and all

organizational members to ensure that knowledge may be dispersed to have meaning to the

organizational structure. The common problem, however, is what Almeida and Soares (2014)

calls the “informational limbo.” Any project being conducted produces information at a rapid

pace through formal or informal channels. This information, while organized and vital to the

project at that immediate time, will typically lose usefulness due to the eventual end of that said

project. Once a project ends, however, the most optimal route for an organization to take is to

transfer the knowledge gained to the organization as a whole for the purpose of organizational

learning and common knowledge sharing across company projects. Ferguson, Huysman, and

Soekijad (2010) also note that the success of knowledge sharing and organization tactics depends

on the control mechanisms and incentives from top management and their willingness to “talk

the talk and walk the walk” while their interviews yielded an extending result stating that

incentives to share knowledge are chief among a staff’s willingness to share knowledge. With

the idea of leadership succession in place, it is clear that including the sharing of knowledge is

the second step for an organization to function effectively and efficiently. Again, knowledge

sharing is described here to facilitate bridging the gap between accepting succession into your

organization and taking that knowledge and actually passing it on to any and all that are involved

within the organization you are involved with to keep operations consistent.


Decision-Making as a Learning Organization

Rapidly changing environments are essentially a given within an organization. The

responses that organizations and their members take have an influence on the outcomes that

result from decisions made. One such action is the use of creative, new thinking. A typical

problem with changes in the organizational environment is when managers attempt to use older,

previous tactics to solve evolving problems (March & Simmon, 1958). This linear and fairly

static mindset may lead to an attempt to find “one right answer” where creative action is

hindered in the decision-making process (ogilvie, 1998). In unstable environments, instead of

using rational-logical decision making, organizations should consider taking a dynamic action-

based approach that can help a group develop and engage in models of “creative destruction”

that is necessary to succeed in dynamic and ambiguous marketplaces (Jacobson, 1992). In seems

reasonable that if individuals consider multiple solutions, more diverse and higher quality

solutions should arise from this selection pool than if only few options were under consideration.

For instance, Sawyers and Mehrotra (1989) found that as decision makers increased the

number of solutions, the quality of their solution also increased. Creative action is needed to

stabilize environments to ensure that operations are not hindered for future practices. However,

one proponent of this area of analysis may result in positive outcomes. This is due to the

requirement of new and innovative strategies to ensure that the organization can continually

operate with consistent changes around them. Creativity feeds from the divergent and can serve

as a tool to select relevant practices in decision-making processes that will answer strategic

problems that would not have been answered if not for these unstable environmental factors

being introduced into the organization (ogilvie, 1998). Based off of the synergetic paradigm,

uncertainty is not interpreted as an external anomaly but a key characteristic that extends the


boundaries of theoretical analysis. Application of behavioral models, based on this approach,

allow maximum expansion of social system reaction for dynamic changes of external

environments (Nikitina, 2015). In other words, the expectations pushed upon the organization

when an environment becomes unstable leads to the organization expanding their frames of mind

when in the decision-making process. It is through this research that a goal of seeing how

valuable or harmful Graduate Assistants play in the creativity of departmental operations within

a university department will play into the finalized product of this research.

One further aspect that applies and connects to approaching responses to unstable

environments is for the organization to learn and adapt to make improvements in performance.

One such approach is to focus an organization on becoming a learning organization. A learning

organization, as defined by Senge (1990), is an organization “where people continually expand

their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of

thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually

learning to learn together” (p. 3). This learning aspect includes gaining knowledge continuous

learning, learning from mistakes, and learning from all members of the organization. The aspect

of a learning organization is more of a cultural or ideal form for organizations to emulate to

improve on all learning process to modify behaviors in response to the changing environments

around the organization (Weldy, 2009). Ending with describing a learning organizing within this

particular section is crucial because it is the end goal of both leadership succession and

knowledge sharing. If an organization becomes a learning organization, then it has also

embraced a new organizational identity and has become a bona fide group; essentially, the

background research for this study has become full-circle and each section will need one another

to fully embrace a new way of organizational operations.


Through a variety of discoveries and approaches in how to observe and tackle small

group communication and responses to shifts in their surrounding environments, it is seen that

the aspects and roles individuals acquire within their groups affect how they will confront

environmental troubles. While most research tends to focus on external environmental influences

as to why operations must deal with their decision-making processes, further insight into the

influence of particular roles within an organization offers additional insight into why specific

decision-making processes are chosen over others.

With the given connections between the foundational concepts of bona fide groups,

organizational identification, leadership succession, knowledge, and learning organizations, the

influence of Graduate Assistants in the described culture of the Kimmel Student Involvement

Center at SIUE will offer insight into how these positions, and others like them in other

organizations, encourage how the organization is ran while they are in their respective positions.

Thus, this leads to the following research question:

RQ: “How does the role of a Graduate Assistant shape the tasks, activities, and processes

of student groups in the Kimmel Student Involvement Center?”

Methods

To answer the research question, this study used in-depth qualitative interviews to gauge

what aspects are essential to creating the proposed manual pertaining to the position of Graduate

Assistants within the Kimmel environment. Interviews started in the form of a preliminary

needs-assessment with students and faculty involved with the Kimmel Center and will be

conducted face-to-face. Next, through a purposeful non-random sample collection plan, multiple

one-on-one interviews were used to uncover themes to answer the research question.


Data Collection

The selection of the sample for the needs-assessment stage of the interviewing process

was with one person from each of the following communities within the Kimmel environment:

full-time staff members, Graduate Assistants, and student organization leaders who directly deal

with a Graduate Assistant. A purposeful non-random sampling method is utilized due to

increasing credibility with the small sample population being utilized. Purposeful non-random

sampling aims at identifying a population of interest and to increase, as mentioned, credibility

not foster representativeness (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). See Appendix C for sample interview

questions to promote conversation.

Once the needs-assessment process was completed, a shift in focus was to interview, by

the one-on-one technique, two more interviewees comprised of members of the same

communities mentioned above with questions slightly altered directly from the needs-assessment

portion of the research. This stage of interviewing followed typical instance sampling due to

interviewees being chosen being typically involved with the phenomenon at hand (Tracy, 2012).

All interview questions are intended to have structured questions that were used to compare

answers in the beginning of the process. Informal conversation and open-ended questions,

however, also lead to aspects that will be beneficial to the Kimmel Center and the proposed

creation of a comprehensive manual. All interviewees were recorded and transcribed without

their identity being revealed. All participants have a common interest in the Kimmel office and

GA students, so questions can be focused on their reactions to and evaluations of that shared

topic. In total, the interviewing process consisted of three full-time staff members, three

Graduate Assistants, and three student leaders who have a direct connection and experience with

the Kimmel Student Involvement Center. This totals to a sample size of nine participants.


Data Management

Once interviews were completed, the interviews were transcribed to detail all data that

was recorded in the interviewing process. Once the transcriptions were completed, fact checking,

in the form of comparing the transcription to the taped interviews, was employed to adjust any

corrections or modifications, if needed, to ensure that access to quality data for the final product

is accurate. All data was managed in the form of printed, transcribed interviews and notes taken

on the interview protocol for each interviewee. Once each person’s interview was complete, their

information and statements were secured in a locked area to ensure identity and data protection.

Once this management process was completed, a second phase of data analysis was completed

using a thematic analysis methodology to search for emergent themes from the interviews. In

total, there were 83 pages of transcribed pages from the nine interviews and ten pages of

handwritten coding pages that will be described in the following section.

Data Analysis

Thematic analyses allow flexibility in qualitative studies that can potentially provide a

rich and detailed, yet complex, account of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). These themes, in turn,

were then analyzed with an idiographic approach that analyzes inductively themes that

organically occur in the data (Grant & Oswick, 1996). An idiographic approach is best suited for

this research due to it having a loose structure in how the results emerge which follows the

structure of the purposeful random sampling methodology. Besides the full transcriptions of each

interviewee, coding was assisted by notes taken on the interview guide to draw out key words

and phrases that interviewees emphasized. Based off of the answers that were learned from the

research question, a manual aimed at Graduate Assistants will be produced, centralizing multiple

areas that are involved with the Kimmel Student Involvement Center.


Based off of these approaches, I first highlighted key terms and phrases that pertained to

the research question from each transcription and interview protocol. Once this was completed, I

looked at the two pieces of data, per interviewee, and started writing out all the highlighted

sections so it would be uniform on one sheet of paper. From this stage, another single-paged

document was created that entailed any phrases and statements that were mentioned my multiple

interviewees. It was from this condensation of the data from the interviewee’s transcriptions that

there were three clear themes that pertained to answering the research question.

As mentioned through the coding process, there were three emergent themes across all

three sampling demographics that pertained to the role or roles that Graduate Assistants play

within the Kimmel Student Involvement Center. These themes were as followed: (1) Graduate

Assistants are indispensable resources, (2) Graduate Assistants need to uphold the role of an

adviser with their respective student group(s), and (3) Graduate Assistants are “the bridge”

between campus partners and the student experience. The following sections will provide

foundation for the emergent themes.

Results

Graduate Assistants Are Indispensable Resources

The foundation for labeling this section started with the key phrase of “indispensable”

from Subject H who is quoted in this section later on. From there, statements from the coding

process that included mentions of Graduate Assistants being “peer professionals”, “having

valued input”, or “departments not running efficiently without them” were grouped into this

category due to all of these statements pertaining to Graduate Assistants as a resource to further

their long-term or daily operations. From my perspective as the researcher, this theme is one that

is meaningful to the SIUE community due to staffing and funding issues that Higher Education


in Illinois is facing at this moment. Upon coding the data, the word “indispensable” really

emerged as a powerful and meaningful word that presents itself, in the best possible way, to

categorize the thoughts and ideas that the interviewees were trying to get across.

To extend, the role of a Graduate Assistant was described by multiple interviewees as

being individuals that are not only needed for the whole Kimmel office to operate efficiently, but

also a resource for student groups to succeed in their individual operations. One GA interviewee

was stated saying that:

I definitely realized that departments that have Graduate Assistants can’t really operate

without them. I think we [GA’s] do a lot more than people tend to realize because the

little things get lost in the shuffle and that falls back on the grad assistant to kind of pick-

up those pieces. (Subject A, personal communication, Jan. 8, 2016)

As well, Subject H echoes these statements by saying, “I just think that Kimmel could not turn

its wheels without the GA’s. I know they’re indispensable” (personal communication, Feb. 22,

2016). One further justification for this theme came from Subject D saying that they include not

only their respective GA in decisions affecting students, but also all GA’s within the office:

I include mine [GA] in just about everything...Sometimes, I’ll be honest, I’m just

clueless and I need to bounce ideas off of somebody and I trust my grad assistant to be

honest and to know exactly what students need, how students would perceive something,

and just to give me an idea that I hadn’t thought about. So, I 150 percent value their input

even if they’re not my direct grad assistant. (personal communication, Jan. 21, 2016)

Even when some decisions that needed to be made in the office are confidential and the GAs are

not allowed to be in those processes, full-time staff members believe their GAs deserve


reasoning for why decisions were made the way they were. “I try to always give them [GAs] the

back story as much as I can so they can understand why a decision was made” (Subject B,

personal communication, Jan. 8, 2016). By going the extra step to include their GAs in the

history of a decision, it is apparent that the commitment to GAs as a resources is secure. With all

three demographics speaking of the value of Graduate Assistants as a resource for student

programming and operations, this theme is prevalent and relevant to this study.

Graduate Assistants Need To Uphold Advising Role(s)

The second emergent theme that arose from the interview process was the presence of a

notion that Graduate Assistants need to consistently uphold their role as an adviser to their

respective group(s). As a Graduate Assistant, they have much influence over the operations of

the student organizations they advise but based off of the interviews, all parties interviewed

made a note that Graduate Assistants need to draw the line between friend and adviser as well as

making sure they do not take over the operations from their students, thereby taking away a

student’s chance to experience things and make their own mistakes. When considering the data

for this emergent theme, statements that pertained to a GA’s level of involvement were placed

into this category. This included statements including “influence on programming,” “needing to

let the undergraduates run majority of work,” and “adviser boundaries.” All of these statements

highlight the fact that Graduate Assistants are there to guide the work being done, not exclude

students which is why this theme is labeled as such. Subject F, one of the Graduate Assistant

interviewees, described her stance as an adviser:

I try to be laissez faire. I try to give as much authority to the students. I want them to do

the best they can…If things are not working that’s when I’ll start to intervene, but I’m


realizing more that this is their thing. I’m there to help. (personal communication, Jan.

29, 2016)

One student, Subject I, even addressed the issue head-on:

I feel like they need to let the students take over, because I’ve heard from other people

who work with GAs that they take over their positions that they were elected in, and I

don’t think that’s fair because they’re students now. They [the students] pay to go here

and they need to do their position that they were elected in, rather than let the Graduate

Assistants take over. (personal communication, Feb. 22, 2016)

On the professional staff side, however, this demographic understands that there is that fine line

that their Graduate Assistants run into when conducting their operations with their respective

student group(s). Subject D states:

I feel that they are kind of in a difficult place. Their role is to advise but their role is also

to be more closely relatable to the student leaders than the full-time staff might be just

because of age or what the students’ needs are…It can be tricky that they don’t overstep

in controlling too much of what the students’ want to their wants and needs. (personal

communication, Jan. 21, 2016)

In summary, Subject G, a Graduate Assistant, offers a concise statement on the subject that

offers validity to this theme:

It really should be about the student, and what they do, and what works best overall…just

being there as the checks and balances to make sure that this thing is possible, and make

sure it would be worthwhile for our students, because you [the GA] would have that little

bit more experience than the undergrad would. (personal communication, Feb. 3, 2016)


Once again, this theme is important to this research due to the numerous accounts of how

Graduate Assistants should perform, in their actions, as an aid in the operations of their

respective student group(s). It is apparent that all demographics are aware that the programs the

Kimmel is trying to accomplish are needed to be undergraduate focused and need to lead to

giving students valuable post-undergraduate experience.

Graduate Assistants are “The Bridge” To Campus

The final theme that emerged was one that labeled Graduate Assistants as individuals that

were a sort of a “bridge” between student group operations and the professional staff that work

within the Kimmel Student Involvement Center along with the campus itself. Upon coding,

similar to the word “indispensable” with the first theme, the description of GAs as “a bridge”

really materialized through several different forms. Statements that related to this theme and

were placed into this theme were ones where the Graduate Assistant position was one that felt

like a “liaison,” “integrated experience,” “relatable,” and “not far from the undergraduate

experience.” All of these statements are integrated into the thought that GAs are essentially “the

middle man” between high-ranking campus officials and the students that they serve.

As mentioned, this is a significant addition to the previous two themes because Graduate

Assistants are perceived as not only advisers and crucial to the success of the Kimmel’s

operations, but they are also perceived as University employees who students can relate due to

their, typically, minor separation from the undergraduate experience. Subject C, one of the

student interviewees, describes Graduate Assistants as a direct line of contact and “it’s definitely

easier to reach out and get in contact with them then like say their boss” (personal conversation,

Jan. 21, 2016). When a professional staff member reflected upon this topic, they stated, “They

[GAs] are not that far removed from the undergraduate experience…they can provide us with


really great feedback about what their peers would want to see in terms of programming”

(Subject E, personal conversation, Jan. 27, 2016). Further, Subject E continued in stating that it

goes beyond individual Graduate Assistants and their positions. “Not that it’s difficult for me to

relate to college students…but there’s always becoming a more generational gap that I am seeing

so our grad assistants kind of help bridge that gap for us” (personal conversation, Jan. 27, 2016).

From the Graduate Assistant point of view, there was a common belief that follows this theme by

saying that what they were doing was to the benefit to the student experience as a whole. Subject

F summarizes the experience by saying:

We are here to serve the University in different realms of the University. I feel like

without Kimmel, there would be a huge gap between students and involvement,

scholarships, service, what college gives you. I think we’re the gatekeepers to

opportunity in college. Without us [GAs and Kimmel], I think it would be really difficult

for students to get the opportunities that they do (personal conversation, Jan. 29, 2016).

This theme holds significance in that it shows that Graduate Assistants hold a pivotal role in how

comfortable student leaders and professionals in the university are with their respective GAs to

foster situations that benefit programs of SIUE student groups. Now all three themes will be

related to in the following discussion section.

Discussion

This study has attempted to contribute to small group communication, leadership

succession, and Student Affairs research by applying these and other concepts to a research study

focused on understanding how Graduate Assistants in the Kimmel Student Involvement Center

shape the operations of student groups that they interact with. Perspectives from Graduate

Assistants, full-time staff members, and student leaders that interact with the Kimmel were


interviewed. The results confirm that GAs are an integrated and important part of SIUE and the

Kimmel’s success by engaging students in their organizational operations and GAs are

encouraged to incorporate their opinions on operations but are advised to let the students

establish their leadership opportunities for student development. These findings confirm that the

Graduate Assistantship program through the Kimmel is one that is viewed as an asset to the

SIUE community and will need to be a focus for future attention when considering inter-

organizational changes with the state of the Illinois State budget effecting funding for the SIUE

campus.

The relevance of these findings is to improve upon how all members of the Kimmel sub-

culture can understand how small groups, also known in this study as student organizations, can

and will make decisions based off of their internal decision-making processes. When referring

back to the structure of bona fide group theory, most of the focus is on collaboration within their

membership to establish leadership roles that will shape the norms for the organization while

these leaders are still in their positions (Feldman, 1984). The interviews affirm this perception by

the multiple statements that GAs are encouraged to take their respective organizations under

their personal preference of direction but to keep the internal workings of the small group

cohesive. The GAs need to also allow other members to make important decision on what this

direction ends up being to promote a sense that what they, the students, are doing has an impact

on the organization hence leading to more commitment from all parties involved within the

organization. This cycle of collaboration leads to the boundaries of the small group to remain

stable, but permeable, to new opinions and structures for organizational growth (Putman & Stohl,

1990) which is affirmed in this research by multiple GAs by their statements of involving their

respective committee members/student leaders in their decision-making processes and


operations. Although bringing in new employees or members into an organization or workplace

can yield characteristics resembling unstable environments, these fluctuations of new Graduate

Assistants into the Kimmel environment affirms the work of Poole, Seibold, and McPhee (1985)

who found that this particular group of new members will bring in new information,

perspectives, and resources that allow the organization to grow and expand beyond their

previously established boundaries. The nature of member fluctuation itself is an important aspect

to this study due to there always being new organization members GAs will be working with.

These new boundaries promote an atmosphere of open communication and collaboration

between all levels of campus partners and connects directly to the third emergent theme of GAs

being a bridge to campus resources outside of their typical interactions with the Kimmel Student

Involvement Center. Without this collaborative aspect, each area of the Kimmel environment

could not adapt to the various external changes that are instigated on them from year-to-year or

from each leader to the next.

In addition to this study taking a look at small group communication, it also looked at

how decision-making processes can be more consistent when there is a shift in the leadership of

the organization. To help address this aspect of the research design, a supplementary manual will

be created that addresses areas of concern within the subculture of the Kimmel Student

Involvement Center. The majority of the items that will be in this manual include information

that is specific to the Kimmel itself. Based off of the interviews, the areas that have the most

apparent lack of focus within this environment include: establishing the roles of everyone

working within the Kimmel, information on how to advise students, and the operations of the

Kimmel’s front desk. These areas of concern fall in line with helping the Kimmel become a

learning organization that can assist in promoting consistency in an unstable environment that is


referenced by Senge (1990) and is another validation for the results of this research and the

positive implications it will have for future professionals within the Kimmel. This combination

of importance of leadership transition and learning organization awareness are hence affirmed by

this research. While these notions do not directly pertain to the research question of this study,

this data has value in creating a finalized, collaborative product that will benefit the operations of

student organizations in the long run.

When looking at limitations and recommendations for future studies, this study has a

focused sampling selection of full-time staff members, Graduate Assistants, and student leaders

within the Kimmel Student Involvement Center only, which makes this study not generalizable

to all departments that hire GAs. This could be labeled as a limitation to the study. In addition to

this limitation, all but one interviewee had known me, the researcher, before the interviewing

process. This is a limitation of the study due to the possibility of answers to the interview

questions not being as candid or truthful when compared to results that may have been collected

from a different interviewer. This does not appear to be a problem with this study, however.

When looking at directions for future research, one avenue of exploration would be to include

Graduate Assistants from the other departments on SIUE’s campus and compare the results of

the two to examine if there is a different perception of the role of a Graduate Assistant depending

on what department of the University you interact or work with. This could offer a dynamic

perspective on the Graduate Assistant program overall while also assessing the scope of how

much Graduate Assistants do on the campus. Another direction for future research would be to

include focus groups into the research design. By including focus group methodology into this

research, participants are able to bounce ideas off each other where data would, most likely,

result in rich, honest statements that could add to the emergent theme results.


Conclusion

Overall, this study has aimed at establishing a connection between small group

communication and the Graduate Assistants and student organizations that reside within the

Kimmel Student Involvement Center at SIUE. This paper first described the background of the

Kimmel environment to inform the reader of the scale and scope of the operations of each sub-

culture within the larger university setting. Next, scholarly topics were divided within the review

of literature into two categories labeled as group characteristics and organizational actions to

support the research design of this study. The group characteristics section elaborated on

organizational identification and bona fide group theory to demonstrate why organizations take

the actions they do. The organizational actions section then contained matters pertaining to

leadership succession, knowledge sharing, and learning organizations to provide insight into how

small groups can make decisions to address issues pertaining to unstable environments and small

group decision-making.

With these fundamentals established, a research question was proposed aimed at

understanding how Graduate Assistants can shape or influence the student groups they are

working for. Through a qualitative interviewing research design, there were three emergent

themes that pertained to this research question. These themes were GAs as indispensable

resources, GAs needing to uphold their roles as advisers, and GAs bridging the gap or gaps

between the undergraduates and professional staff members of the university. These results

answered the research question by stating that GAs have influence over the tasks, activities, and

processes of student groups but are encouraged by their peers and student leader advisees to

allow undergraduates to gain valuable experience through their leadership positions and to not

take over operations completely.


Other findings from the qualitative study will be used to create a supplementary manual

aimed at the Graduate Assistants to promote consistency and leadership succession. In the end,

this study has shown that the Kimmel has a good rapport with staff members and the students

that want to become involved on the SIUE campus. With the minor additions that have been

proposed from this study, the small group communication structures within this culture can go

above and beyond the foundations that are already in place.


Appendix A

Infographic demonstrating the culture of the SIUE Kimmel Student Involvement Center.


Appendix A (Continued)


Appendix B

Organizational Chart for the 2015-2016 Kimmel Student Involvement Center staff.


Appendix C

Interview protocol/guide that was used to take notes on during each interview.

Demographic Questions:

1. What is your relation to the Kimmel Student Involvement Center?

1st year Graduate Assistant

2nd year Graduate Assistant

Full-Time Employee

Student Leader

Other (specify): __________________________

2. How many years had you been at SIUE? (fill in): ________ years

3. Thinking about your satisfaction, on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being low and 5 being

high, how would you rate your CURRENT satisfaction with the Kimmel Student

Involvement Center?

Explain.

Graduate Assistant Questions:

4. How do you perceive the position of a Graduate Assistant?

5. What is your respective Graduate Assistant in charge of?

5a. (For Grads) What are your assigned duties as a Graduate Assistant?

6. How much input should a Graduate Assistant play in the operations of a student group?

7. Have you experienced a time where Graduate Assistant’s over-stepped their boundaries?

Elaborate.

7a. (For Grads) To what extent do you involve yourself in the tasks and operations of your

respective student groups.

Kimmel Questions:

8. What is your experience with the Kimmel Student Involvement Center?

9. What area(s) do you see as the strongest for the Kimmel Student Involvement Center?

10. What area(s) do you see as a weakness in the Kimmel Student Involvement Center?

11. If you could change one thing about the Kimmel Student Involvement Center, what

would it be and why?

12. What areas do you have limited knowledge on when pertaining to the Kimmel Student

Involvement Center?

Consistency & Environment Questions:

13. Does the consistency of operations in the Kimmel Student Involvement concern you as

either a student or employee? Elaborate.

14. To what extent do you include a Graduate Assistant into your decision-making process?

14a. (For Grads) To what extent do you ask the opinions of your committee members,

position chairs, etc.?

15. How much information was passed along to you before you took your position over?

16. How much of your current position are you allowed to “make your own” (i.e. have free

range to make changes to the norms your position held before)?

17. In your opinion, does prior knowledge of the institution and/or position lead to a more

stable work environment for yourself and your respective student groups? Elaborate.

18. Before we conclude this interview, is there anything else you would like to share in

relation to the Kimmel Student Involvement Center and the Graduate Assistants that

would there?


References

Almeida, M., & Soares, A. (2014). Knowledge sharing in project-based organizations:

Overcoming the informational limbo. International Journal of Information Management,

34(6), 770-779. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.07.003

Allen, V. L., Wilder, D. A., & Atkinson, M. L. (1983). Multiple group membership and social

identity. Studies in social identity, 92-115.

Bailey, E. E., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). External management succession, human capital, and firm

performance: An integrative analysis. Managerial & Decision Economics, 24(4), 347-

369. doi:10.1002/mde.1119

Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through

interorganizational relationships. Journal Of Management, 26(3), 367-403.

doi:10.1177/014920630002600302

Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of

Political Economy, 385-409. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/

2138769?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Bonczek, M. E., & Woodard, E. K. (2006). Who'll replace you when you're gone?. Nursing

Management, 37(8), 30-34. Available from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.siue.edu/

ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ea5350d6-2da2-40f4-9feb-9e2e64d7e694%40

sessionmgr115&vid=101&hid=115


Bond, A. S., & Naughton, N. (2011). The role of coaching in managing leadership

transitions. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6(2), 165-179. Available from

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/ICPR%206_2-FINAL-WebVersion.pdf#

page=23

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burke, K. (1968). Counter-Statement. Berkeley: U of California P.

Carey, J. W. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing, and interpreting

focus research. In J. Morse (ed.) Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 225-

241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Purposeful random sampling. Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation. Retrieved April 02, 2016, from http://www.qualres.org/HomeRand-

3812.html

Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identification and

commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38(1), 1-15.

Deschamps, J. (1982). Social Identity and Relations of Power between Groups. In Social Identity

and Intergroup Relations (p. 85-98). Cambridge: Cambridge U P. Available from

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=q0wFY3Dcu1MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA85&

dq=Social+Identity+and+Relations+of+Power+between+Groups&ots=qurqBe5vHr&sig

=Z2rKpoamGOxXGuG0Rn851oWFmnc#v=onepage&q=Social%20Identity%20and%20

Relations%20of%20Power%20between%20Groups&f=false


Feldman, D. C. (1984). The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms. Academy Of

Management Review, 9(1), 47-53. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277934

Ferguson, J., Huysman, M., & Soekijad, M. (2010). Knowledge Management in Practice: Pitfalls

and Potentials for Development. World Development, 38(12), 1797-1810.

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.05.004

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glenn Rowea, W., Cannella Jr., A. A., Rankin, D., & Gorman, D. (2005). Leader succession and

organizational performance: Integrating the common-sense, ritual scapegoating, and

vicious-circle succession theories. Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 197.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.001

Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (1996). The organization of metaphors and the metaphors of

organization: Where are we and where do we go from here? In D. Grant & C. Oswick

(eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 213-226). London: Sage.

Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory.

Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021886391271001

Hannah, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organization. American

Journal Of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964. Available from https://www2.bc.edu/candace-

jones/mb851/Apr9/HannanFreeman_AJS_1977.pdf

Jacobson, R. (1992). The “Austrian” school of strategy. Academy Of Management Review, 17(4),

782-807. doi:10.5465/AMR.1992.4279070


Kanter, R. M. (1972). Commitment and community: Communes and utopias in sociological

perspective (Vol. 36). Harvard University Press. Available from

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HNkvPqXMbPwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&d

q=Kanter,+Rosabeth+Moss.+Commitment+and+Community.+Cambridge,+MA:+Harvar

d+U+P,+1972&ots=rg2GwjIU9u&sig=2ZGd4Na0jV-I-

WYjgykkJX5lq78#v=onepage&q=Kanter%2C%20Rosabeth%20Moss.%20Commitment

%20and%20Community.%20Cambridge%2C%20MA%3A%20Harvard%20U%20P%2C

%201972&f=false

Kiesler, C. A., & Sakumura, J. (1966). A test of a model for commitment. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 3(3), 349-353. doi: 10.1037/h0022943

Kleinsorge, R. (2010). Expanding the role of succession planning. T+D, 64(4), 66-69. Available

from http://www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/for_employers/WebinarInfo/Explanding%20the%

20role%20of%20succession%20planinning.pdf

Kroh, L. (2012). Crossing the great (management) divide: The business case for inboarding.

OD Practitioner, 44(2), 18-22. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.siue.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=64&sid=ea5350d6-

2da2-40f4-9feb-9e2e64d7e694%40sessionmgr115&hid=107&bdata=

JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=74024718&db=a9h

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors to live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.


Lewis, L. K. (2006). Collaborative interaction: Review of communication scholarship and a

research agenda. Communication Yearbook 30 (p. 197-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

March, J. G., and Simmon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley: New York.

Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological

Review, 5, 904-913. doi:10.2307/2084524

Millward, L. J., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2007). Putting employees in their place: The

impact of hot desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science,

18(4), 547-559. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0265

Nikitina, Y. (2015). Innovative behavioral models as a method for a social system adaptation in

the unstable external environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 166, 135-

141. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.498

ogilvie, d. (1998). Creative action as a dynamic strategy: Using imagination to improve strategic

solutions in unstable environments. Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 49-56.

doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00011-8

Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a

structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71(1), 74-102.

doi:10.1080/00335638509383719

Putnam, L. L. (1994). Revitalizing small group communication: Lessons learned from a bona

fide group perceptive. Communication Studies, 45, 97-102. doi:10.1080/


10510979409368413

Putnam, L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in

context. Communication Studies, 248-265. doi:10.1080/10510979009368307

Sawyers, J. K., & Mehrotra, J. (1986). A longitudinal study of original thinking in young

children. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 14, 130-162.

Schaubroeck, J.M., Chunyan Peng, A., & Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and

leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy

of Management Journal, 56(4), 1148-1168. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0358

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Currency Doubleday. Available from https://books.google.com/books?hl=

en&lr=&id=wg9DG42quXEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=The+Fifth+Discipline:+The+

Art+and+Practice+of+the+Learning+Organization&ots=TO2BYkb-UC&sig=

i_mi8gug1BhuSfmgsRUl7QtMUT4#v=onepage&q=The%20Fifth%20Discipline%3A%2

0The%20Art%20and%20Practice%20of%20the%20Learning%20Organization&f=false

Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. New York: Vintage.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in

military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

30(3), 612-640. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02499.x

Shen, W., & Cannella Jr., A. A. (2002). Power dynamics within top management and their

impacts on CEO dismissal followed by inside succession. Academy Of Management

Journal, 45(6), 1195-1206. doi:10.2307/3069434


Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Tracy, S. J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,

communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.

Tompkins, P., & Cheney, G. (1983). Account analysis of organizations: Decision making and

identification. In Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach (p. 123-

146). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Walker, K. L., & Stohl, C. (2012). Communicating in a collaborating group: A longitudinal

network analysis. Communication Monographs, 79(4), 448-474.

doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.723810

Weldy, T. G. (2009). Learning organization and transfer: Strategies for improving performance.

The Learning Organization, 16(1), 58-68. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

09696470910927678

Zajac, E. J. (1990). CEO selection, succession, compensation and firm performance: A

theoretical integration and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3),

217–230. doi:10.1002/smj.4250110304

Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2003). Explaining new CEO origin: Firm versus industry

antecedents. Academy Of Management Journal, 46(3), 327-338. doi:10.2307/30040626

Date post:	21-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jacob-dicus
View:	104 times
Download:	3 times

Applied Project Final Defense Final

Documents