REGENERATIVE CHANGE:

CORE VALUES WORK IN A CHILDCARE COOPERATIVE

A Master’s Thesis Field Project

Presented to

Bastyr University

and

The Leadership Institute of Seattle

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Applied Behavioral Science

By

RACHEL LYN RUMSON

June 2009
 2

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………….….......3

CHAPTER 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………...4

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………….….13

CHAPTER 3: Intervention……………………………………………………………...39

CHAPTER 4: Results…………………………………………………………………...70

CHAPTER 5: Personal Impact…………………………………………………………77

CHAPTER 6: Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………....84

References………………………………………………………………………………95

Appendix A: Organizational Chart and Functions……………………………………...99

Appendix B: Time Table……………………………………………………………….101

Appendix C: Action Research Map…………………………………………………….105

Appendix D: Kick-off Handout………………………………………………………...106

Appendix E: Focus group Data Collection……………………………………………..108

Appendix F: Member Survey…………………………………………………………..112

Appendix G: Data Feedback Meeting………………………………………………….113

Appendix H: PRC Provider Survey - Project Measures………………………………..115

Appendix I: PRC Organizational Map………………………………………………….118

Appendix J: Community Building Event Design………………………………………128

Appendix K: Event Measures…………………………………………………………..130

Appendix L: Participant Responses…………………………………………………….131

Appendix M: Final Results PRC Survey……………………………………………….132

 3

Abstract

This action research project was with a student run childcare co-operative. The

co-operative consisted of 18 families, including the childcare providers who worked in

the co-operative and the director. When I entered the client system, the organization had

just begun a new academic year complete with a 70% change in membership and

advisory board leadership. The sponsor of the project and the scope changed during the

project. The original sponsor was the director, who was new to the organization and was

originally concerned with parent involvement improvements in PRC. She shifted her

focus to the quality of the child’s experience, use of feedback, and developing her own

leadership skills. Her project was terminated when she left the organization. The Board

chose a new project with different goals. The Board’s original goals were to agree on the

messaging to the other families about the departure of the director and two families from

the PRC and to fill the vacant board positions. These goals shifted after data collection

and feedback: to reassess the structure of the PRC, increase parents’ involvement in PRC

by filing open board positions, and building community. I facilitated a meeting for the

client group to achieve the second and third goals. The meeting allowed co-op members

to reflect on and share stories about their positive childcare experiences; then, the

members harvested a set of core values to guide their decisions for the new quarter. To

measure goal achievement, pre- and post-intervention survey results were analyzed using

the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test at a level of .05 significance for a 2-tailed test and a

Sign Test. The results showed statistically significant change for one of the goals.
 4

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This chapter will address the specifics about the client system I worked with as a

consultant for my Master’s Thesis Project (MTP). I will describe my interest with this

client system and how I became involved with the organization. In addition, I will

provide a summary of the project goals.

Client System

The Parent Resource Center (PRC) is a self organized childcare cooperative

located at a university. The PRC was organized by students who needed affordable

solutions to their childcare needs while attending classes. I will use the acronym PRC in

this thesis, however, I have changed the names of the PRC members, and I will refer to

the university where the project took place as “the School” to ensure anonymity.

In 1998, a group of students pooled their resources of time and money to form the

cooperative. In addition to providing childcare, the founders set out to provide parenting

resources, such as a support group for new parents and guest speakers (PRC, 2006). They

established bi-laws and policies for governance and chartered themselves as a student

club at their university. The School provides them with facilities at no cost. The PRC is

not affiliated with the School, nor is it licensed as a daycare or a preschool with the State

Licensing Agency. As such, PRC is a self-regulating childcare group catering to the

individual academic schedules of parents who enroll their children.

The School student council inconsistently recognizes the PRC as a student club.

They provide occasional funding for facility improvements and equipment purchases and
 5

they list the PRC on the School website as a student club, however they do not include

the PRC in their annual student satisfaction surveys.

Client Group

In the fall of 2006, the PRC consisted of 18 families. All of the childcare

providers at the PRC have children there as well. As I met people in the PRC, I learned

their ages, marital status and race by asking them. In some cases, I was given cues to this

demographic information and checked my assumptions. The parent group ranged in age

from late 20’s to late 60’s, consisting of single mothers, married couples, and unwed

parents. The group was racially diverse with White American, Israeli, Cambodian, and a

Portuguese-African American mixed family. Most families had one parent in medical

school; otherwise education ranges were not clear. The PRC has a governing board of an

odd number, all of whom are parents with enrolled children. Two members of the Board

are also providers.

The organizational documents explain the purpose of PRC, which was “to provide

safe, quality childcare for the children of students enrolled in and attending” [the School].

The PRC met as a group twice each quarter at the 2nd and 8th week of the quarter. Parents

were required to attend meetings and contribute to fundraising events. Fines were levied

for missed meetings and fundraising activities. Children were dropped off and picked up

at various times throughout the week according to the needs of parents. A quarterly

provider schedule was coordinated by a registrar to manage childcare coverage. Providers

were hired by the director, or the Board, and go through background checks. The director

was hired by the Board. (See Appendix A.)

 6

Each quarter new families joined the PRC and others exited. There were three

documents in the PRC Manual (PRC, 2006), which contained contradictory information

about the roles. These are the policies and procedures, bi-laws, and job descriptions.

There is a fourth document referenced in the bi-laws, called “the Declaration,” which was

not available; at least my queries were inconclusive. At the first board meeting that

attended, I perceived the group to be acutely unclear of the roles that structured the

organization. At that meeting, some board members said the PRC documents had

contradictions, and others said they had not seen any job descriptions.

After the director departed the PRC in April of 2007, thus ending the first project,

I met with the remaining Board members to explore the potential for a new project. I had

a rapid action research cycle in mind to propose to the Board and my adjunct. First, I

reviewed the process of action research with the board members. Then, I presented a

review of available information contained in the organizational documents regarding

roles and responsibilities. I was hoping the document review would spark a conversation

so I could to see if the board members were motivated to improve clarity in the

documents. Second, I asked the Board to decide if they were willing to move though all

the steps of action research in less than one next week. I did not have another quarter to

offer them since my timeframe for completing the project was June. After dialogue about

the data, the Board decided to form goals and proceed. It then produced an action plan.

My Involvement

My interest in approaching the PRC as a potential client was motivated by my

experience being in a full time graduate program at the School and a parent of a two year

old boy. When he was 10 months old, my fledgling family moved across the country to
 7

enable me to pursue a master’s degree. With my extended family and friends 3,000 miles

away, I found my struggle to find consistent quality childcare discouraging and isolating.

It made sense to use my disappointment and frustration with childcare as inspiration for

my thesis. As a student at the School, I had discovered the PRC and decided to join. I

introduced myself as a willing consultant during enrollment period.

I met my original project sponsor, Maria McCarthy, on the day I registered my

son for childcare. After conducting our enrollment business, I introduced myself as a

student in need of a coaching and consulting project to complete my thesis work at the

Leadership Institute of Seattle (LIOS), affiliated with the School. I asked if there was a

board I could approach about that. She said as the director she was the one I needed to

talk to. The director is responsible for the day-to-day operations and programs for the

children at the PRC. Maria has a degree in early childhood education and was trained in

Waldorf education. She had been in this position for almost two weeks.

In our initial conversations, she said she would be making several changes which

she said she had approved through the Board. She also said she was worried about

resistance from parents and that she wanted to learn how to gain the parents’ acceptance

to a new way of doing things. Before Maria and I met to set goals for the project, she said

these were not concerns any longer. Instead, Maria wanted the project to focus on

improving the quality of the children’s experience.

When I was working with the director in the Fall quarter of 2006, I met Todd

Ramon. Todd was the Secretary of the Board and a childcare provider at PRC. He

worked less than full time for the organization as a provider and the Board position was a

volunteer role. Todd formed a drumming circle together which met on a hill behind the
 8

School and shared the experience with our children. He was familiar with me as a student

at LIOS, a member of the PRC, and a systems consultant to the PRC director. He had

been to several meetings I had facilitated, and he was an active participant in the

director’s project.

At the beginning of the Spring quarter in 2007, Todd approached me and

expressed empathy for the termination of a project I had nearly completed. It was the day

after my original sponsor’s departure from the PRC. After a pause, he said he was

interested in taking over the project. I initially declined. I thought his sympathy would

undermine my ability to partner with my client. I had heard stories about the struggles of

working on a charity project for graduate theses. I explained that the project was designed

for Maria’s goals in leadership development specifically and that new project goals

would be appropriate. He was vague about the goals of a new project but seemed

optimistic that there was something I could help the Board. I suggested that we would

have to move fast. He suggested that I help with an upcoming member meeting. He

invited me to the next board meeting to explore the possibility. I accepted conditionally,

requesting two hours to explore the potential together. I had been involved with PRC for

9 months. In addition to the data collection I had done with Maria’s project, I had an

intimate understanding of patterns of behavior, structures, and processes in the

organization as a participant, an observer, and a researcher.

Todd and I agreed that, at a meeting with the Board, I would give the Board an

overview of the methodology, help define project goals, and negotiate a decision to

proceed. The Board defined the new project goals and decided Todd would be the

sustaining sponsor for the project.

 9

The Director’s Goals and Measures

Maria and I had several meetings in the contracting phase to help her develop a

set of project goals. When Maria and I first spoke, she described the challenges she faced

making changes before the fall quarter. She wanted to integrate Waldorf principals of

childhood development into childcare at the PRC. She said she also wanted to revitalize

the PRC’s mission and generate a sense of pride for the PRC in the community.

When I began working with her, she was unclear about her level of authority in

the organization. (Later, after an incident where her job was threatened, I met with Maria

to redesign goals that would be more in alignment with her influence in the system.)

Maria said that she wanted to improve the quality of children’s play at the PRC. She said

she wanted parents to have open communication with her and the other providers as

needed and she said that parents were giving feedback in a way that tended to disrupt the

children at play. She said that she believed children cannot develop concentration

capability or pursue their imaginations in an adult environment the way that adults

expect. She told me she wanted to learn how parents perceived the impact of their (the

parents) communication with providers on play activities. She also said she wanted full

participation of parents in the learning process and hoped she could garner support for

changing behavior using parent participation. From what she said, I interpreted that she

considered the mood and conduct of adults at the PRC important to her for achieving her

objectives as the head provider and the PRC mission – to create a safe, child friendly, and

age appropriate environment.

I tried to understand her dilemma; increasing the amount of uninterrupted play

activity for the children at the PRC meant decreasing the amount of adult conversations
 10

in the PRC. Yet, the PRC had one big room for play and meals and one smaller room for

naps. How would adults talk without intruding on childrens’ activities?

It took several sessions with Maria and coaching from my adjunct faculty to

determine her goals. Without decision making authority, a business goal was a hard sell

to my adjunct. The initial goals that my sponsor established were: (a) increase the

production of child’s play by increasing concentration, engagement, and imagination in

the children’s play activities; (b) improve communication by developing a better way to

give and receive feedback; and (c) develop Maria’s leadership strengths.

At our fourth goal setting meeting, I asked Maria to come up with measures for

the goals she had identified. How would she know if her goals where achieved at the

completion of the project? She identified the following criteria to measure each goal: (a)

Are children being interrupted when they are playing? Are providers soft-spoken? Have

parent conversations reduced in length, volume and frequency? Has there been an

increase in uninterrupted play time? (b) Have parents started using the white board for

feedback to providers? Are the parents using hand written notes to share concerns and

suggestions with providers? (c) Are parents commenting that she is responding to them

effectively? Has Maria provided useful input to the Board for its meetings? Has she

brought decision points forward to the board and members?

Maria left the organization after developing an action plan and before

implementation. Shortly afterward, I met with the Board to consider a new project with

them.
 11

The Board’s Goals and Measures

While my original project sponsor and I had several meetings in the contracting

phase that helped her develop a set of project goals, the Board and I had one meeting to

contract, set goals, gather data in real time, review data, and develop an action plan. As a

result, the project goals were more like tasks to be accomplished than goals.

When the Board and I met, one member asserted, “We need to talk about what we

are going to say to the families about what happened.” The mood seemed tenuous. I

acknowledged their need to conduct business about the director and the two families’

departure and I offered to come back to talk with them when they were finished. Todd

then proposed that they meet with me first and address the other business afterward. The

other’s agreed.

Before data feedback, the initial goals the Board defined were to: (a) fill the

empty board seats and (b) agree on a message about what happened with the director. I

tentatively agreed to move ahead with these goals, and I was hopeful that data feedback

would produce new goals. I explained that I was not willing to be involved in the member

relations item on their agenda.

When looking at the data with the group, I asked them to think back to when they

joined the Board. Did have clear information about the roles they had volunteered for?

How did they think that influenced the first meeting?

After data feedback, the Board refined the project goals which were to: (a)

reassess the functional structure of the PRC, (b) increase parent involvement by filling all

open board positions, and (c) build community at the next meeting. As the conversation

shifted to the immediate parent-member meeting, Todd advocated to the board that I
 12

assist him in planning the meeting. I listened closely to the responses. One member

claimed the Board could work on the organizational documents over the next few months

and that Todd could work on the meeting with me. This was our action plan for

implementation.

By telephone and email, Todd and I came up with measures for the goals the

Board members had identified. How would they know if their goals were achieved at the

completion of the project? Todd identified the following criteria to measure goals: (a) Is

the structure of the PRC clear? Are roles and responsibilities balanced and straight

forward? (b) Are parents nominating themselves for election to the Board? Are the roles

filled? (c) Do the parents know one another? Can they relate? Do they feel like they

belong?

These measures were tracked in pre and post intervention questionnaires. The

results were analyzed using a Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test and a Sign Test at a .05 level

of significance.

In this chapter, I provided an overview of the consulting projects with the PRC. In

the next chapter, I will discuss the theory that I used to guide my decisions regarding

interventions in this project.

 13

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

This chapter consists of a discussion of the theories that informed my work with

the PRC and guided the project intervention. This chapter addresses three areas of

inquiry: (a) client system, (b) content, and (c) methodology.

Client System – Macro

The PRC (2006) defined itself as a “parent cooperative” in its policies and

procedures documents and a “cooperatively run daycare” in the job description posted to

hire a director in the Summer of 2006. In this section, I review theory about the childcare

industry and cooperative management.

Childcare Industry

At the time of this project in the fall of 2006, one year or longer waiting lists were

common in the local childcare market. Costs of early care programs ranged from $100 to

$400 per week (US Census, 2005). In addition, the childcare system was said to be

straining under the volume of children needing care while their parents worked or were in

school (Greenspan, 2001). The National Center for Education Statistics (1995; 1998)

reported that more than half of the nation’s population of children are cared for by a non-

family member and half of those spend an average of 35 hours per week in childcare.

Research shows a valuable economic development opportunity with a clear return

on investment from early childcare programs (Friedman, 2004). Informal childcare

systems cannot meet demands for childcare.

 14

Co-operative Management

The PRC was formed when a group of enterprising student-parents in the market

for affordable childcare decided to organize to gain access to childcare services at cost

(PRC, 2006).The values of a co-operative organization are commitment to maximize

service to the members at the lowest cost and to provide governance by democratic

participation, according to Griffiths (2003). Griffiths (2003) summarized the attributes of

a healthy co-operative management practice as the following:

• Reports and recommendations to the board specifying any relevant

consequences for co-operative ownership and control.

• Co-operative education programs for managers, staff and members and

information about these programs.

• Ongoing training for co-operative directors and provisions for this in the

Rules of the co-operative.

• Regular reviews of membership activity policies and practices, e.g. numbers

of new members and numbers of members participating in elections.

• Member surveys.

• Member focus groups.

• A co-operative newsletter for members.

• Social audit reports.

• Special mailings to members. (Griffiths, 2006, p. 4)

In the co-operative management literature I reviewed, the collective approach is more

effective when the resources required are too much for the individual to supply

(Anderson & Henehan, 2002). Stoney (2004) argued, “The demand for early childhood
 15

education is linked to the ability of families to pay for it” (p. 27). The PRC’s founding

members ventured to solve an economic problem that they shared and decided to reduce

costs by pooling resources and/or expenses and forming a co-operative (PRC, 2006). As a

co-operative, economies of scale can arise through better utilization of personnel,

equipment or other resources as well as by the sharing of financing or risk management.

According to a study at Cornell University, “savings are most likely to occur when the

following administrative activities are centralized: staffing (especially fiscal/management

staff), food and nutrition and purchasing” (Stoney, p. 13).

Rosenberg (2003), writing about a preschool co-operative, suggested the co-

operative model has financial appeal. Rosenberg also described the expectations of

parents in preschool co-ops. Beyond financial, some of the other benefits of the co-op

preschool which Rosenberg described are that teachers and parents feel more like a team.

“Parents are supposed to do classroom and playground cleanup, help organize potluck

dinners, collect tuition fees, oversee the teachers and curriculum, and generally take a

hands-on approach to their preschooler’s educational experience” (p.14).

By the accounts of Sterling (2001) and Posner (2001), member contributions

required in cooperative systems can foster a culture of personal responsibility and

belonging to community. To support the cultivation of that sense of belonging, their

cooperatives used bylaws to help “resolve issues raised by new members” (Sterling,

2001, p. 41) and weekly meetings to provide the whole system a container for

“exploration of differences between members” (Posner, 2001, p. 46).

 16

Client System – Micro

The client system entered the daycare sector of the childcare industry as a student

club embedded in an academic institution. As a result, there was a concentration of the

co-operatives members from the student community. Originally, the founding members

received support in the form of startup funding from the student government of the

School. In this section, I review the qualities of the client system at the micro system

level.

Transition

Student run co-operative daycares are unique in that the members of the co-

operative have recently experienced a significant life transition. From initial interviews

with members, I learned that the majority of students in the PRC were parents for the first

time during this action research project. In order to understand the psychological theory

of transition, I turned to Bridges (1980).

Bridges’ (1980) work guided my understanding of transition as “a natural process

of disorientation and reorientation” (p. 5). Transitions are times of self renewal and

significant change. The phase between ending and beginning is not easy to assess as the

emotional and mental impact of transitions vary person to person. Bridges described three

distinct phases in transition: (a) endings, (b) the neutral zone, and (c) the new beginning.

Transition begins with an ending. An ending is an “experience of dying” (Bridges,

1980, p. 109). During an ending, people are disoriented and may actually grieve their loss

of identity associated with the social context of the way things were. Sometimes the

grieving process occurs before the ending in a transition such as when there is

foreknowledge of a change. Sometimes grieving begins with the actual change. “There is
 17

no natural or normal order” (p. 109). Bridges described the elements of an ending are

“disenchantment” and “disengagement” (p. 109).

The neutral zone is a chaotic and creative time. People are disconnected from the

past and have an opportunity to develop a new identity. Bridges (1980) described this

phase as a sort of “emptiness” and the corresponding process is one of becoming who one

is. This is a stage that Bridges called “between dreams. . . . where a new sense of self can

gestate” (p. 112).

In the new beginning phase of transition, people feel ready for change and start a

new way of thinking and behaving and begin feeling normal. Bridges (1980) described

this phase as unimpressive and indirect. One emerges from the chaos of the neutral zone

with “inner realignment” and “energy renewal” (p. 136). In this phase, the corresponding

process is subtle, “when we are ready to make a beginning, we will shortly find and

opportunity” (p. 136). He described a process of receiving signals or serendipitous

circumstances that launch one into a new beginning.

In terms of transition, the PRC had been through significant changes in

membership and board representation. As an organization, PRC seemed to be in the

neutral zone.

Kurt Lewin’s (1951) equilibrium change model described a similar three phases:

(a) unfreezing, (b) changing, and (c) refreezing. His three step model emphasized that

people can only be changed once established ways of thinking and working have melted

and become fluid. Since co-operative values emphasize the “collective”, I was curious

about the collective equilibrium specifically in regard to the transition from one academic
 18

quarter to the next. Lewin’s idea of ‘unfrozen ways of working’ came to mind when I

began collecting data about the PRC.

Storytelling. According to the literature on student housing cooperatives (Posner,

2001; Sterling, 2001), storytelling is useful activity at the beginning of each school year

that serves to celebrate the traditions of the community and orient new members into the

coop. Both Sterling and Posner described the power of stories to carry the spirit their co-

operative organizations. Theoretical support for this practice is provided by Mirvis and

Gunning (2006) who focused on the tasks necessary to cultivate community. They

described storytelling as an essential and nurturing practice for organizations to “connect

a group of people” (p. 74). “By sharing stories, we establish bonds of mutual

understanding and empathy” (p. 74). Personal stories provide a sort of anchor for

people’s identity to support us in transitions and change.

Owen (2000) further supported this practice when he asserted in his theory of

organizational culture that “The power, focus, and integrity of culture is maintained by

the stories we tell” (p. 160). Owen (1987, 2000) referred to story as “mythos”. “Mythos

arises out of the life of a group [and is] the mechanism through which the group comes to

experience its past, present and potential” (p. 17).

Storytelling activities for the benefit of change management and group cohesion

were not apparent at the PRC in my observations. Had they explored their collective

mythos? Had the succession of members, leaders and the director meant the PRC’s story

was unfrozen (Lewin, 1951)? I thought the PRC was in the midst of transformational

journey.
 19

Future shock. Toffler (1970), a futurist, explained that people will exhibit bad

behavior when they are not about to adapt to rapid change. He called the response future

shock which is defined as too much change too fast. In this state, social systems become

overwhelmed; organizations and individuals are unable to adapt. The failure of the first

two attempts using action research in the system may have been a result of future shock

as there was a new director, new board members and new members.

Resilience. According to Conner (1993), in order to adapt to rapid change,

resilient people are required to understand the way people deal with change. What I came

to realize was that the PRC was struggling to absorb changes which had already occurred.

The organization was what Conner described as a “saturated sponge” (p. 55). This

concept was particularly helpful to me in managing my own anxiety about completing

my thesis requirements, allowing me to pay attention to emerging opportunities for thesis

work within the client system.

Open space. Additionally, Owen (1987) was helpful in this regard. He explained

that constant turnover can “destroy organizational memory and play havoc with

coherence” yet he argued that there are advantages to this in that “the organization is

always being cut loose in order to appear in different and more useful ways” (p. 35).

Organizational transformation requires a process of returning to a state of potential, or

“open space”. In this sense, the PRC was evolving.

Competitive Behavior

As the entry and contracting phase of the action research project kept repeating, I

made a choice to pay attention to behaviors I thought represented cooperation. In order to

understand this concept better, I turned to the work of Thomas and Kilmann (1974) on
 20

the modes of conflict and Paul (1995) for his work on the personal aspects of effective

communities.

Conflict. The model for understanding personal conflict strategies designed by

Thomas and Kilmann (1974), the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI), informed my

understanding of cooperation early one. According to their model, there are five modes of

conflict: (a) avoiding, (b) competing, (c) compromising, (d) accommodating, and (e)

collaborating. The modes are positioned on two axes for: (a) assertiveness and (b)

cooperation. According to their model, the most cooperative modes of conflict are

collaboration and compromise which have equal parts of assertiveness and cooperation.

The TKI was a helpful a lens for me to perceive patterns of behavior and actually

feel confident in the assumption that all the modes were present in a system, somewhere,

at least potentially, and that all modes are useful resources “depending on the situation”

(Thomas and Kilmann, 1974, p. 11). This kept me open to what new situations might

emerge.

The exploration of conflict styles was not incorporated in the design of the

intervention but it was helpful when organizing my thoughts about the patterns of

communication I thought I was witnessing. The TKI described the avoiding and

competing modes to be most uncooperative.

Cooperation. To understand cooperation further, I turned to a list of Eight

Respectful Behaviors that help communities be successful. Paul (1995) described the

behaviors as follows:
 21

Honoring. Being aware of and considering other people’s boundaries – their right

not to have anything done to them that they do not want done, or violates their

sensitivities.

Accepting. Appreciating differences by valuing and supporting the choices and

feelings of others.

Empathy/Compassion. Feedback that acknowledges and understands the feelings

and actions of others. It follows from the reasoning that all behavior is motivated

by important reasons.

Inclusivity. Inviting others to participate in discussions and decisions about things

that affect them.

Cooperation. Considering and valuing each person’s thoughts and feelings,

desires and goals when working on a task.

Faith. Maintaining one’s caring while allowing others to solve their own

problems, especially in the face of difficulties.

Humility. Remaining unattached to beliefs. Having strong ideas but holding them

lightly enough to remain open and flexible.

Open to learning. Desiring to learn about oneself and others when differences

occur. Having faith that solutions which do not compromise anyone’s integrity

emerge from explorations and learning (Paul, pp. 217-218).

I learned more about competition after the project was completed which I explain later in

chapter 6.
 22

Content

In this section, I will explain the concepts supporting two sets of original project

goals. The first set is Maria’s initial project goals: (a) increase production of child’s play

by increasing concentration, engagement, and imagination in the children’s play

activities; (b) improve communication by developing a better way to give and receive

feedback; and (c) develop Maria’s leadership strengths, and second, the Board’s initial

project goals: (a) reassess the functional structure of the PRC, (b) fill all open Board

positions, and (c) build community at the next meeting. Specifically, I will address (a)

authority; (b) paradigms of organizational life: technical, transactional and

transformational; (c) appreciative inquiry; and (d) core values work. The first three of the

content pieces are relevant to my work with Maria and the client system. Both

appreciative inquiry and core values work are relevant to my work with the Board.

Authority

In the first attempts at a change project in the client system, sponsorship was a

significant challenge. As change agent, I was looking for a sponsor that fit the criteria

described by Conner (1992) and Smith and Berg (1987).

According to Conner’s (1992) criteria, to qualify as a sponsor, a person must

possess authority in the system and be dissatisfied with the present state of the

organization. He explained that for a change initiative to be successful, effective

sponsorship is essential. Additionally, it is helpful if the sponsor is aware of the impact of

change on other people and be able to effectively communicate about change. This

quality distinguishes one as a resilient person.

 23

Maria initially qualified as a sponsor. When complaints about her were circulated

about her assuming power she did not possess and making changes without consulting

others, her position in the PRC was in question. After her authority in the system was

clarified by the board, and the initial project terminated, she was actually in a role of

advocate. In order to establish Maria’s role as sponsor again, I worked with her to scope a

project according to her level of authority in the system.

When Todd approached me to consult with the Board on a third attempt at a

change project, he was an advocate. He needed to build consensus on the Board in order

to be effective as an authority in the system. Smith and Berg (1987) defined authority as

“sanctioned power” (p. 135). Ascribing power is a process of social interaction whereby a

person is given authorization to lead others. According their theory of authorization, the

process of empowering an individual is achieved creatively by empowered people. The

giving of authorization, and reciprocally, in the acceptance of authorization, it becomes

possible for a leader to be effective in representing the group’s interests. They explained

that, “taking all the power that is available and using it often creates a vacuum, because it

is experienced as depriving others of a scare commodity” (p. 134). The result is a

reinforcing loop pattern starting with a reluctance to take power (because one would not

want to be accused of taking it away from others), which leads to a greater wish for

power, making it harder for anyone to seize it, and so on. Smith and Berg explained that

the key to breaking the cycle is “talking power and then using it to empower others” (p.

135). The developmental task of groups then is to figure out how to empower both ‘I and

thou’ simultaneously.
 24

Additionally, Smith and Berg (1987) discussed the implications of resistance to

authority as an authorizing force. They explained that resistance implies authorization. If

an individual does not possess authority, what is to be resisted? Following Smith and

Berg then, when Maria was fired, her authority was affirmed as much as it was negated,

potentially plunging the organization into a preoccupation with the fear of losing power

again.

Three Key Factors

Working within Maria’s level of authority in the system, I helped her to develop a

set of initial project goals. I used the Three Key Factors methodology (O’Neill, 2000) to

guide my work with her. The three factors that leaders need to be aware of in order to

achieve business success are: (a) the business results that leaders need to achieve, (b) the

leadership behaviors they need to exhibit, and (c) the team interactions that the leader

requires of staff in order to attain the desired results. I used these to focus my efforts with

Maria to set goals.

I struggled to help her form “business goals” that made sense to her. Business

results can be related to money, time, quality, quantity, or improving or increasing any of

these areas (O’Neill, 2000, pp. 209-211). Maria’s first goal, “to increase production of

child’s play by increasing concentration, engagement and imagination in the children’s

play activities” was as close as she could get. For this goal, I explored Waldorf theories

of childhood development; I turned to Kotzsch (1990), Patterson and Bradley (2003), and

Steiner (1927).

Waldorf education was founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), a Austrian

scientist and philosophical thinker. According to Kotzch (1990), Steiner founded

 25

Anthroposophy, which he explained as “knowledge of the true nature of the human

being” (Steiner, 1927). Kotzsch explained that Steiner wanted to integrate spiritual and

scientific forms of understanding and experience in the Waldorf model. Engagement,

concentration, and imagination are important principals of Waldorf education and

Steiner’s (1927) theory of early childhood development. Researching this helped me

think about the implications of Waldorf on the PRC’s culture.

Patterson and Bradley (2003) wrote about how children grow and learn with

openness. They explained that “young children trust in the world completely and that an

adult’s responsibility is to understand the whole child’s developmental needs” (p. 1).

They offered practical ways to help children develop their feeling, will, and cognitive

senses as well as creative ideas for discipline to guide children in learning about the

world and nurture the spirit of the child. For instance, they emphasized the use of natural

toys such as dolls with no faces to allow a child’s imagination to create the expression

and feeling of the dolls.

In addition to business goals, O’Neill (2000) identified a menu of behaviors that

an executive can choose from for the leader and team actions, depending on the specific

challenges that each executive faces. Team actions refer to behaviors that the team needs

to engage in, in order to assist the leader in achieving the business results, such as

paraphrasing to clarify understanding or managing conflicts. Leadership behaviors might

include gaining commitment from the team, or giving goals and expectations. The

challenge of this model is “to customize and render measurable each of the three Key

Factors while demonstrating their interrelationships” (p. 43).

 26

For her second goal, “improve communication by developing a better way to give

and receive feedback,” we went through several iterations. When I prompted Maria to

come up with a behavioral goal for the group, or “team”, I was careful to suggest that it

would relate to her first goal. Maria candidly answered that she wanted “parents to stop

barging in!” It was not until I explained “SMART goals” (SMART criteria) that Maria

was able to see that the goal as she originally stated was not “appropriate” for the

participatory action research approach to problem solving that we had agreed to use.

SMART is a learning aid for evaluating goals for a project (SMART criteria). The key

words or criteria for SMART are: (a) specific, (b) measurable, (c) appropriate, (d)

realistic, and (e) time-based.

The third goal of Maria’s change strategy, “to develop Maria’s leadership

strengths” was meant to target leader behaviors as part of key factors model. This project

concluded while we were collaborating to design a leadership development program for

her using behaviorally specific learning objectives.

Paradigms of Organizational Life

After my work with the PRC concluded, I reviewed the theory of organizational

life to understand the project’s failure and what may have been at the root of the apparent

allergic reaction the PRC had to Maria’s style. There are three paradigms of

organizational life that organize a person’s worldview in an organization (Quinn, 1996).

These are the following: (a) individual contributor, (b) manager, and (c) leader.

According to Quinn’s (1996) model, an “independent contributor is a person

whose technical competence is judged by singular rather than interdependent action” (p.

115). A powerful individual contributor can undermine the influence of others. When this
 27

happens, the atmosphere is poisoned and morality wanes. Quinn stated, “Cooperation

turns to competition, then ill will, and then into subtle forms of sabotage” (p. 116). While

technical competence is important, it has to be balanced with the ability to relate to

others.

The political paradigm of “manager” requires a view of the organization “not only

as a technical system but also as a political system” (Quinn, 1996, p. 124). In this

paradigm, “everyone has an agenda and a set of needs and is engaged in a variety of

transactions where a wide array of resources are exchanged” (p. 124). When conflicts

emerge in the organization, people with this theory of organization will use a “diplomatic

approach and resolve controversial issues using compromise” (p. 124). Quinn explained

that “the transactional paradigm arises from administrative socialization” (p. 124). This

was a particularly unlikely development at the PRC at the time with the election of an

almost entirely new board just after Maria was hired.

In comparison, a “transformational leader” is one who views the organization as a

technical, political, and moral system. Quinn (1996) described a transformational leader

as one who “will develop a plan of action, mobilize the workforce, and unleash power by

vocalizing the core values of the system” (p. 124). In this paradigm, the assumption of the

transformational paradigm is “vision at any cost” (p. 124). The importance of vision

supersedes political survival and technical competence.

With a degree in early childhood education and experience with teaching Waldorf

education, Maria was a technically skilled individual contributor; the equivalent of an

engineer in the for profit world of business. One intervention design for this project, a

leadership development training program, was focused on developing her “transactional

 28

skills” (p. 122). In this theory of organizational life, Quinn (1996) described the

phenomenon of “the tyranny of competence” (p. 116). This is when knowing how to get

things done becomes a detriment.

Appreciative Inquiry

Without strong sponsorship within the PRC, I relied on theories that emphasized

emergence and the social construction of reality to help guide the intervention. Social

constructionism is a body of social theory concerned with the interaction of people in

society, and “shared understandings of the world” (Gergen, 1990, p. 154). Language and

exchange of ideas between people form cultural patterns and personal narratives. These

constructs shape what is perceived and how people behave in society. Appreciative

Inquiry (AI) as a theory of positive change and a process for change management fits

within the school of thought that is social constructionism. I reviewed the AI theory of

positive change to guide my work and not the process, because I used traditional action

research to guide the process. For assistance, I turned to Cooperrider (1999) and Whitney

and Trosten-Bloom (2003).

Many other change models leverage critical thinking and approach organizational

change as a problem to be solved (Conner, 1993; Crosby, 1994; Senge, Kleiner, Ross,

Smith, & Roberts, 1994; Kotter, 1996; Block, 2000; Collins & Porras, 2002). Alternately,

AI looks for opportunity and seeks the positive images which can be organizing forces

for change (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). AI offers a strengths-based and positive

approach to organizational change. The premise that “organizations are created as

solutions to problems,” (p. 1) provides an opening for different resources to emerge in a

change effort. The theory is based on the assumption that “questions and dialogue about
 29

strengths, successes, values, hopes, and dreams are themselves transformational” as an

organizing principal (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003). The PRC was embroiled in

conflict; an appreciative approach to change would access different skills and resources.

Throughout my work in the client system and at the time of intervention, I had an

appreciative bias.

Cooperrider (1999) said future reality is shaped by how people think. It is

“permeable, emergent, and open to the mind’s causal influence. . . . reality is conditioned,

reconstructed, and often profoundly created through our anticipatory images, values,

plans, intentions, beliefs, and the like” (p. 30). In the time I had with the PRC, I wanted to

honor the emergent PRC of the future, especially in the final steps of the intervention and

evaluation.

The idea that a positive image held in mind can change behavior was something

Maria and I had discussed in our early sessions. The way plants move toward sunlight is

the analogy Cooperrider used to illustrate the heliotropic propensity in human systems.

Cooperrider said, “Human systems are heliotropic in character, meaning that they exhibit

an observable and largely automatic tendency to evolve in the direction of positive

anticipatory images of the future” (p. 30).

The basic assumption that positive images lead to positive action informed my

intervention. I hypothesized that an opportunity to explore core values and converse

about those values would nourish the social bonds of the PRC, and I hoped it would lead

to cooperation among the new PRC group.

 30

Core Values

By the time of the intervention with the Board’s project, I believed that core

values work would both build a sense of belonging and set the field for the achievement

of the two goals the Board wanted my help with: (a) filling the seats on the board and (b)

building community. I believed an exploration of core values with the new group would

both allow PRC members to get acquainted on a deeper level than casual complaining

and possibly generate a positive image of the future PRC.

In my literature review, I came across a great deal of theory on core values work

as a foundation of strategic planning. Strategic planning, however, was not the work of

this project, nor was it a concept one normally heard in the course of a day at the PRC.

This is where I turned to Owen (1987, 2000) and the theory of Open Space Technology

for an alternate perspective on the use of values in organizational design. He explained,

“At the end of the day, the organization will live or die depending on the strength and

quality of its values” (2000, p. 157). According to Owen, values are frozen into the

stories, or “mythos”, of organizations.

Since every quarter the PRC changes membership, I considered the organization

in transition. Its story is unfrozen each quarter. A collective community mythos was what

I hoped to help members cultivate. “Mythos does not talk about the essence of the group

– but rather represents that essence in an immediate, almost palpable way.” (Owen, 1987,

p. 17)

Owen’s (1987) idea that “the essential spirit of the organization was always being

cut loose in order to appear in different and more useful ways” (p. 37) helped me to

assume a posture of resourcefulness each time the change project collapsed. This idea
 31

grounded my thought about my role as a change agent to pay attention to the “nascent”

PRC and to find a way to support the emerging story of the PRC and integrate members

into an experience of community. In order to optimize the open space the PRC was

already in, I designed a conversation that would help the members express specific values

that were meaningful to them personally. Then, they would listen for a common set of

values and eventually narrow those down to illuminate the most important collective

three values.

For the narrowing down process, I was inspired by Roberts (Senge, Kleiner, Ross,

Smith & Roberts, 1994) who offered a three step process for selecting personal values:

(a) selection, (b) elimination, and (c) articulation. In the first step, participants pick ten

important values from a broad range of possibilities. In the next step, they reduce these

first ten to five, then three, then two, then one. This is a process of choosing what is most

important. Finally, in the third step, they look at their top three values and ask the

following questions: “(a) What do they mean, exactly? What are you expecting from

yourself even in bad times? (b) How would your life be different if those values were not

prominent and practiced? (c) What would an organization be like which encouraged

employees to live up to those values? (d) Does the personal vision which you drew forth

reflect those values? (e) Are you willing to choose a life, and an organization, in which

these values are paramount?” (Senge, Kleiner, Ross, Smith & Roberts, 1994, p. 308). The

articulation re-expands the possibilities and crystallizes one’s intentions. This last step is

an invitation to bring detail to the top three values selected in terms of specific actions,

structures, and relationships associated with the values.

 32

Methodology

In this section, I will discuss the methodology and models that I applied in the

project including action research methodology, the Four Universal Healing Salves,

systems theory, and Theory U.

Action Research

Action research provided the structure and process to guide the project. Kurt

Lewin, an experimental social psychologist in the 1930s, conceived the term “action-

research” (1946). Lewin’s work is often referred to as “field theory” (Lewin, 1997, p. 6).

“The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social

management or social engineering” (Lewin, 1946, p. 33). “It is a type of action-research,

a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action,

and research leading to social action” (p. 33). Lewin believed that, “social-science theory

should do more than advance knowledge – it should also provide the sort of

understanding required for action” (Johnson & Johnson, 1975, p. 32).

Action research is a 4-step process used to understand a problem: (a) plan, (b) act,

(c) observe, and (d) reflect. According to Lewin (1946), the process is a “spiral of steps,

each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the

result of the action” (p. 37). It involves collecting data, providing the data back to the

organization, and then taking an action based on the findings (French & Bell, 1990).

Block (2000) referred to these steps as (a) contracting, (b) data gathering and collection,

(c) joint diagnosis and joint goal setting, (d) implementation, and (e) evaluation of goal

attainment. This was the language that I used with the client system.
 33

Block (2000) recommended that clear sponsorship and leadership for the project

be identified in the contracting phase of the project. This prompted conversations with

Maria and Todd about the role of the sponsor and their authority within the organization

to sponsor the project. Conner’s (1992) SATA model, also directed my thinking about

roles in a change project, the characteristics of a strong sponsor, and my role as a change

agent. Additionally, Scharmer’s (2004) ideas with regard to agency and collective

leadership, which I’ll describe later, guided my thinking about my role and where to

intervene in the system.

Another important component of action research methodology is participation,

whereby the people who have the problem play a role in each step of the problem solving

process. According to Weisbord (1987), Lewin believed that, “any well-motivated person

could ‘learn how to learn’ from everyday situations, improving general as well as specific

skills” (p. 72). Another concept shared by both Lewin and Block is collaboration.

According to Weisbord, Lewin pioneered the concept of collaborative consulting. “It is

not given to consultants to sow the seeds of change, but to discover what seeds are

already present and whether they can be grown,” said Weisbord of Lewin’s thinking (p.

72). Block (2000) also explained collaborative consulting as a joint process whereby the

consultants and clients solve the problem together. The alternatives to using a

collaborative approach, according to Block are the “expert” and “pair-of-hands” roles.

When a consultant plays the expert, the sponsor or client expects the consultant to solve

the problem. The client delegates authority to the consultant to both plan and provide

detailed instructions for implementation of a change program. In this role, the consultant

does not collaborate with the client. In the pair-of-hands role, the consultant takes a
 34

passive role. “Decisions on how to proceed are made by the manager and the manager

retains full control” (p. 24).

Throughout the project, I articulated my role as a collaborative consultant with

my sponsors and client group, however, the agreements I had with both Maria and Todd

were not enough to establish a collaborative relationship as Block described. I was often

negotiating my way out of an expert or a pair-of-hands role.

Roles of a Change Project

Having clarity about role assignments is one of the most important principles in a

successful change project (Conner, 1992), and I struggled with this throughout the

project. However, to guide my thinking about this topic, I considered the ideas presented

by Conner (1992). Conner’s SATA model suggests that there are four distinct roles in a

change initiative: (a) sponsor, (b) agent, (c) target, and (d) advocate. Each role has

specific responsibilities. The sponsor has the authority to legitimize changes and decides

what change will happen. Sponsors “decide which change will happen, communicate the

new priorities to the organization, and provide the proper reinforcement to assure

success” (p. 106). The agent, or change agent, is a person or group who is responsible for

making sure that the change happens. Change agents drive the change process, they

“develop a plan to deal with these issues, and execute the change effectively” (p. 106).

They make sure that the sponsorship is strong throughout the project and facilitate the

conversation between the sponsors and the targets and other interested parties. The

targets are “the focus of the change effort” (p. 106). They are responsible for

implementing the change and, therefore, “must be educated to understand the changes

they are expected to accommodate, and they must be involved appropriately in the
 35

implementation process” (p. 106). An advocate is a person or group who has a valuable

idea for change, “but lacks the power to sanction it” (p. 107). Advocates need to gain the

support of a sponsor in order to make change happen. Individuals may play more than

one role at a time depending on the situation or circumstance.

Systems Thinking

A systems perspective is a holistic one. System thinking was pioneered by

biologist Bertalanffy, who emphasized the view of living organisms as integrated wholes

(Capra, 2004). Bertalanffy (1968) wrote about general systems theory (GST) as

“realistic” unification of the sciences (biological, social and physical) that allows for

conceptual “perpectivism” where “organization is found at all levels” (pp. 48-49).

According to Bertalanffy, GST challenges one to see the interconnectedness of all people

and things in a system to allow one to understand the whole. It provides a way of seeing

the whole system as a set of interactions and linkages of the parts. Bertalanffy suggested

the model might help to reinforce reverence for the living” (p. 49).

Systems theorists talk about patterns and how the work of the systems thinker is

to see patterns. Capra (2004) described patterns as “a configuration of relationships

among the system’s components that determines the system’s essential characteristics”

(p. 70). Wheatley (2005) referred to patterns in a system as “any behavior that occurs

more than once” (p. 126). According to Senge (1990), counterproductive patterns in a

system, of which the people in the system are unaware, are the source of dysfunction in

organizations. In the early stages of this project, I saw patterns within individuals and

structures in the PRC and, throughout the project, I observed patterns of interaction

between members of the organization and myself.

 36

Triangulation. One of the patterns that I observed was triangulation (Bowen,

1978; Crosby, 1985; Kerr & Bowen, 1988), a term coined by psychiatrist Murray. Kerr

and Bowen (1988) described this as a predictable pattern where “a relationship may

absorb anxiety from other relationships” (p. 88). Crosby (1985) said triangulation “breaks

down boundaries” and often holds dysfunctional structures in place (p. 14). In the

termination of the project with Maria, which I will talk about more in chapter 3, I was

triangulated.

Systems theory suggests that once people understand the patterns that are creating

undesirable outcomes, a practitioner can easily find leverage points to change or reduce

the dysfunctional patterns. In this project, I tried to support the operational structures by

paying attention to functional roles in the client system and by keeping my own

boundaries around triangulating relationships.

Immediacy

In this research project, when I unclear how to move forward in helping my client

I found Carkhuff’s (1980) theory, the art of helping, useful. His work explained that with

a foundation of empathy, respect and concreteness in a relationship, one could use

genuineness, immediacy, confrontation, and appropriate self disclosure could help a

helper to understand a client better and then act to help them “achieve appropriate

outcomes” (p. 220). Genuiness is the ability to be honest about what one is hearing;

immediacy is the skill involved in noticing any behaviors happening in the moment that

the client is working to change; confrontation points out any incongruence or

discrepancies in feelings or ideas; and appropriate self disclosure is the coach disclosing

something about her own experience that relates to the client’s situation that might offer a
 37

helpful perspective. In a situation which arose with Maria, which I talk about in Chapter

3, I was able to use immediacy to help her act in accord with her expressly intended

outcome. According to Carkhuff, “Immediacy is the highest level of helping”. (p. 183)

The Four Universal Healing Salves

Storytelling was central to the intervention design. According to Arien (1993),

there are Four Universal Healing Salves: (a) storytelling, (b) singing, (c) dancing, and (d)

silence. These salves are practices that promote health and wellbeing in organizations and

are carried by way of culture. “Native cultures transmit their values, ethics, and spiritual

beliefs through songs, dances, silent rituals, prayer and storytelling” (p. 55). Of all these

human technologies, storytelling captures and transfers the essence of one person’s (or a

people’s) experience to another and then shapes their experience in the future. It is the

capacity to attend to the stories of life that opens peoples’ hearts allowing people “to

connect with the human resources of love” (p. 56). According to Arien, researchers at

Stanford Business School have discovered that “illustrative stories told within

organizations encourage more commitment, generate more belief, and are more

remembered then statistical data that ‘proves’ the same point in a factual way” (p. 55).

Arien’s model framed the use of storytelling in a way that was helpful in focusing my

intention for the intervention. It also strongly aligns with open space technology (Owen,

1987, 2000) and appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005).

Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the literature that supported my thinking

and ideas about theories and models that I used on the project. I described the literature

that helped me understand the client system, the ideas related to the goals and our work
 38

together on the project, and the methodological theories that guided my actions. Chapter

3 will provide information about the significant events in the projects in chronological

order.
 39

CHAPTER 3

Intervention

Timeline

In this chapter, I will expand on the significant events that occurred in the project.

The chapter is structured around the five stages of action research (Block, 2000). I

presented a proposed timeline to the sponsors in initial meetings. I thought this would

help set expectations regarding the steps of action research and help us manage our time.

Each phase of the project was delayed compared with the original plan (see Appendix B).

In the final contracting meeting, I presented a visual map to convey the action research

methodology (see Appendix C).

Entry and Contracting

Entry

I began talking with Maria McCarthy, the director of the PRC, in August 2006,

when I was enrolling my son in the program. I asked Maria if there was a Board of

Directors. She told me the board was inactive. Then she said she was recruiting parents to

be on the Board and would I like to be on the board.

At this point, I told her my reason for asking was that I was looking for a client to

sponsor a project for my thesis in which I would consult with a whole systems through a

participatory change process. She said, “We need that! You’re hired!” She seemed

passionate about change. We scheduled a meeting for the following week. She seemed to

have sponsorship authority (Conner, 1992), and I was curious about the potential and

about the role of the board in sponsoring a project.

Initial meeting. At the initial meeting, I expected to have a conversation about the

role of sponsor and consultant (Conner, 1993), action research methodology, my

 40

compensation, the project timeline, her goals for the project, and her anticipated

challenges meeting those goals. Maria seemed excited to get started with tasks. She

talked for a while about how she thought this was an opportunity to revitalize the mission

of the organization. She seemed to understand resistance as a natural human response to

change. She said that she wanted to include parents in decisions and tasks, and she shared

a story with me about a change she made without parents at another daycare which, in her

opinion, did not go over well.

At this meeting, she expressed interest in my background managing a volunteer

organization by consensus. I appreciated her openness to working with me and her

expertise as a professional childcare provider. During this meeting, Maria said, “I want

this stuff done before next week.” I felt a need to pace her in order to remain true to the

methodology that I was using for my thesis. Presenting the project timeline helped

explain action research in a timeframe that allowed us to synchronize our expectations for

the project.

At this meeting, I asked her if she had the authority to hire me after I explained

one of the requirements of my thesis was to partner with a sponsor who would be a

person who has appropriate authority in a system. She said that as Director, she did have

authority to do so and she explained the Board’s role was an advisory one. She mentioned

Board elections were expected to bring on new board members at the upcoming all-

member meeting. I was tentative about Maria’s authority for project and wanted board

sponsorship going forward. I told her that I wanted her to introduce me at the all-member

meeting, pitch the project to members, and then ask that the Board authorize the project. I

suggested that we move forward with forming goals at our next meeting and that we seek
 41

sponsorship from the Board once they were up and running. At this point, I presented

Conner’s (1993) SATA model to explain the roles in the change project.

I proposed compensation to Maria in the form of a trade for services contingent

on project success. She said she would check with the Treasurer about it and that she

thought it would be “no problem.” At this point, I thought Maria’s deference to the

Treasurer’s authority to make a decision seemed to be incongruent with her description of

the Board as advisory and inactive. Assured by our plan to seek the Board’s authorization

of the project, I chose not to directly address the incongruence. Also, I was still

interviewing other prospects for my thesis project.

The all-member parent meetings as explained on the enrollment forms were to be

held twice each quarter and were mandatory. I assumed the consulting work I was

offering was a cultural fit for the organization. Considering that participation in the

quarterly all-member meetings was a condition of membership, I sensed that the PRC had

the principles of action research built in because getting the whole system in the room

was “MANDATORY”, as per the registration paperwork. I received and read a binder

labeled “PRC Manual” to begin acquainting myself with the organization.

Second meeting. On the agenda for this meeting, I had the following objectives:

review the project timeline, review the process of action research, specify project goals

and measures, and discuss the project kick-off meeting. I wanted Maria to be more

specific about project goals and measures and that meant, specifically, which Waldorf

child development principals she wanted to integrate at the PRC. I had begun to research

Waldorf education and I noticed my anxiety level rise about the standard of childcare

involved in Waldorf methods. I was sympathetic to the values but didn’t know if, as a
 42

parent, I could live up to the practices. For instance, Patterson and Bradley (2003)

emphasized the use of natural toys such as dolls with no faces to allow a child’s

imagination to create the expression and feeling of the dolls. At this time, my sense was

that other parents in the organization might feel the same way I did about her plans –

similar to O’Neill’s (2000) theory of the client–consultant relationship as a microcosm of

the organization. I thought it might be a learning opportunity for both of us if I

confronted Maria with the feelings of resistance (Block, 2000) I was having.

During this meeting, I was able to use immediacy (Carkhuff,1980; O’Neill, 2000)

to share the feeling of anxiety I experienced about Waldorf standards for childcare and

asked if she thought other parents might feel similarly about Waldorf standards. She said

that she had relaxed standards at her home, and she would like parents to know she was

not judging them. She explained the PRC had a high profile and that it should have

higher standards. In this conversation, she categorized the PRC as a “school” and I

believed she held a personal vision for the PRC. I unconsciously colluded with her in that

vision and did not notice her label. I began to consider the many roles I was in at the PRC

as a new parent, a new member of the PRC, and a student at the School, and consultant to

the Director. It was my primary identity of the ‘new parent’ that had affinity with Maria’s

vision.

During this meeting I discussed bottom line, work process, and human relations

goals (O’Neill, 2005) with Maria and this gave me an opportunity to differentiate from a

“pair-of-hands” consulting role (Block, 2000), although I never quite reached the point

where I felt she had solid project goals. I coached my client to the best of my ability to set

a goal involving money, but I could not get Maria to come up with a business goal that
 43

was attached to finances. We determined that she had no fiscal responsibility in the

organization. Additionally, Maria said she had not had a chance to talk to the Treasurer,

Amiee, about the contingency trade. I had no reaction to these details at the time.

I followed up this meeting and each subsequent meeting with a letter summarizing

the meeting, goals, and next steps, in order to form a structure for the work, calm her

action-without-research approach, and for documentation.

Third meeting. I started the meeting by reviewing the previous meeting and

stating objectives which were to establish project goals and prepare for the kick-off. I

was feeling anxious about developing concrete goals and measures so my thesis proposal

would be approved. I reminded her that goals she set might change once data was

collected and parents had the opportunity to provide input. I commented that this was a

significant step in the process. I explained that integrating their ideas would ensure

parents highest possible level of commitment. The initial project goals she identified

were to: (a) increase the quality of childcare at PRC by integrating Waldorf principles of

childhood development, and (b) revitalize the mission statement of with an eye toward

expanding parenting resources. I was not sure what the measures would be for these goals

and I expected the data feedback conversation to shed light on this.

During this meeting, we also prepared for kick-off at the all-member meeting. I

asked her who set the agenda for the meeting and she said she did. I asked her how she

was going to announce the project and present the goals to attract support and from the

Board. We discussed the roles of advocate, change agent, sponsor, and target to remind

her of our roles as sponsor and change agent (Conner, 1993). We agreed the members

were targets.
 44

During the third meeting, I learned Maria had re-arranged the play space in the

PRC. She had sorted toys, putting some in a box to be sold or given away. I was surprised

because we had contracted for a participatory approach to engage the families in change.

I was concerned about our agreement. I was curious about other parents’ reactions to her

structural changes as well. I believed I was noticing a pattern in my sponsor. She seemed

to be unconcerned about the reactions of others. I was curious about her motivations and

thought she had potentially recreated a story about her experience at the other daycare. I

was feeling unsure about the project because of the sponsor’s behavior.

Sponsorship. I met Todd in passing at the PRC two days before the parent

meeting. The PRC was extremely busy. Maria did not formally introduce us although we

all stood within six feet of each other. She said to me, “Todd is on the board and will be

running the member meeting. He doesn’t think there will be time to talk about your

project. I don’t have time to talk.” Then she walked away, seeming tense. Was she

avoiding conflict (Thomas & Kilmann, 2001)? I introduced myself to Todd and shook his

hand. He told me that there was too much on the agenda already and seemed annoyed

that Maria had told me there was not an active board and yet he was warm to the project,

or more precisely, to supporting me. He said, “I am sure [your project] will be no

problem. We help our own here.” I petitioned Todd to talk about the project with Maria.

He seemed reluctant, saying, “Maybe, if there is time.” I felt confused about authority in

the system and anxious about completing my thesis project. I asked him what his role was

and he said, “Secretary of the Board.”

I sensed there was a strong emotional field forming (Smith & Berg, 1987) in this

interaction, and I did not realize I was adding my anxiety to it.

 45

The next day, Todd posted an email to all the parents listing 21 complaints against

Maria. She was not copied on the email and there were accusations of “inappropriate”

and “irresponsible” behavior and the frequent use of the words “completely”,

“whatsoever”, and “ironically.” I held my anxiety about the situation and analyzed the

content of the list. One of the accusations was, “She told several families that the Board

was inactive. That was a major lie since the Board met several hours to deal with the

problems she caused.” The conclusion of the email called for a decision to fire her at the

meeting the following day. I thought the information was so biased, it was hard for me to

take it as credible. I followed the ensuing online interaction which reflected a lack of trust

in the information or the people disseminating it. “I am on the Board and I didn’t know

the Board met over the summer,” one person wrote. Another replied, “This is a witch-

hunt! I am calling Maria.” I was aware that had I been an external consultant, I may not

have seen this email and that I was included in the distribution because I was a member.

My assessment was that there was very low trust in the organization.

The broadcast email presented a pattern of triangulation to distribute the anxiety

in the system (Bowen, 1978; Crosby, 1985; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). I also noticed my

anxiety increase when I was triangulated and understood these feelings to be in reaction

to the content in the email and the tension in the system. Had Maria concealed

information about Board concerns they had addressed with her? How could I salvage a

project from this for my thesis requirement? I relied on relationships outside of the PRC

system to manage my own anxiety.

Two hours before the mandatory meeting, Maria called me and asked if I had seen

the email. “What should I do?” she said. I offered her some coaching, and we contracted
 46

around that process. I told her I would help her map three scenarios for her to choose

from to manage her relationship with the families. From those, she chose to address the

families’ concerns.

Before ending that call, I told her it was awkward for me to learn there was an

active and disgruntled board this late in the game and asked her if she had known about

the complaints before now. She said she had received a call five days earlier from one of

the former Board members who had hired her over the summer but that the tone of the

concerns was much different. “How so?” I asked. She said, “Lighter.”

Contracting

At this point, I was hoping for an entirely new project and planned to seek

sponsorship from the newly elected board. I spoke with Maria about her situation and

about gaining sponsorship for the project from the Board. Then, I told her I would

prepare a handout describing myself as both a PRC parent and an applied behavioral

science student at the School (see Appendix D). It included a list of services I was

offering.

At the meeting, the parents elected four members to join Amiee and Todd on the

Board. Maria took the floor after the election and addressed the complaints. Members got

a chance to talk about their anxieties. They listened to each other, asked questions, and

some of the issues were brought to resolution. There was no motion to fire Maria and

Todd left before Maria finished talking with the parents. Maria then introduced me to the

other members. I passed out the handout and told them who I was and about the project

requirements. There were a few clarifying questions asked, such as “What does that

mean?” which I answered. I sensed that members and children were ready to end the
 47

meeting as children’s voices got louder than the adults and people adjusted in their seats.

I said that I would send some information to the Board for consideration. I felt excited

about the possibilities to help the PRC and left ready to start fresh. I prepared a proposal

and sent it to the Board members by email the following week. When no one replied to

my email, I felt abandoned, frustrated, and worried about fulfilling my thesis project

requirement.

Board meeting facilitation. I planned to attend the board meeting as a “parent

observer,” a role distinctly defined in the PRC Manual. The meeting got off to a late start

and the atmosphere seemed tense. Todd checked his phone several times and looked out

the window. The others sat on toddler sized chairs or stood and waited. Todd leaned over

my shoulder and said, “We’re waiting for one of the board members who’s running late.

Do you want to talk about your project now?” With surprise, I asked him if I was on the

agenda. I held an assumption that this meeting had an agenda and had a judgment in what

I saw as flawed leadership by Todd when he said, “There is no agenda.” Jeff, one of the

new members, uncrossed his arms and said, “We need to go over the responsibilities of

the Board before we can do anything. We don’t even know what we are doing.”

I offered to help the Board put an agenda together while we were waiting to start.

The Board accepted my offer and I found a dry-erase marker and child’s art easel with a

white board and placed them in the front of the group. Then, I turned to the group and

asked, “How long is this meeting?” Janet said, “Thank you for asking that!” I smiled,

nodded and said, “You’re welcome. It’s important, right?” The group members agreed

and Janet proposed a two hour time frame. There were no objections. I wrote, “2 hrs” on

the whiteboard. Then, I turned to Jeff, who had suggested they needed to clarify
 48

responsibilities. I asked the others for agreement on his suggestion as an agenda topic,

and, with nods from the group, I wrote “clarify roles” on the whiteboard. I then asked the

members for additional items for the agenda. I captured their agenda items on the easel

until they seemed to have no other ideas. Then I asked if they thought roles was a good

place to begin.

I chose not to insert my proposal onto the agenda and hoped one of them would. I

facilitated their entire meeting, acknowledging every decision point and asking clarifying

questions. I wrote outcomes of decisions made on the board. When Avalon arrived, I

asked them to pause for a moment to bring her up to speed. When one person stood up

and said he was “out of here”, I asked if there was anything he needed from the group

before he left, and he ended up staying. I enjoyed my facilitating role at the meeting.

When it was over, I got handshakes, saw smiles on their faces, and I heard “Thank you”

from of them.

At the beginning of the meeting, I thought it was inappropriate to put myself on

the agenda and, when it was over, I felt disappointed. I noticed that I had been quick to

save the meeting but not able to ask for what I needed. I realized an opportunity had been

lost. When I shared the story with my adjunct, she said, “Wow, that was a great gift you

gave them.” This was a reframe for me and returned my sense of curiosity about myself

and the client group. However, my thesis project did not have sponsorship. I began to

think about finding a new client system and starting over.

Intervention by dreaming self. One night, I had a dream that the table where

children ate at PRC had been moved. When I dropped my son off at PRC the next day, I

felt cramped and crowded while maneuvering around the table to settle my son in for the
 49

day. I told Maria about my dream. She smiled and said, “Let’s try it!” Then, with my

action-research-consultant-hat half on, I suggested we ask Kim, the other on-duty

provider, what she thought of the idea. Kim smiled and nodded and the three of us moved

the table together. At this point, Maria said, “I am curious what the others will think of

it.” I suggested she ask them and wrote “New Table Location Feedback” on the large

white board that had recently been installed on the wall.

For the next few days, affirmative comments appeared on the whiteboard. I asked

Maria how it felt to read them. She said it felt “healthy and wonderful.” She thanked me

for showing her how easy it was to ask for feedback. I accepted her appreciation and

commented on the vitality of feedback loops in healthy systems (Capra, 2004). I felt

elated and my assessment was that I had intervened skillfully in the system for the second

time without an established role as consultant.

Resurrection. With the insistence of my track faculty that I have an approved

project before returning to the program, I decided to initiate another proposal with Maria.

I felt encouraged by the satisfaction I felt about the “feedback intervention.”

Maria called me after attending the Board’s second meeting. She seemed to be

excited. She said, “Oh my god, they used the communication style you used at the last

meeting. It was fantastic. I think the storm is over.” She reported that there was no

discussion of a change project with me. I had to have a new project before returning to

LIOS so I took my track faculty’s suggestion and proposed to Maria that we design a

project that would adhere to her newly understood boundaries of authority and the

objectives of her clarified role in the organization. She said, “Yes. I want the project to

focus on creating feedback systems.”

 50

The following week, Maria and I met with the following objectives: re-

establishing our working relationship, defining new project goals, developing questions

for the interview process, and planning to kick-off the project. Her new bounds of

authority were articulated in writing by the Board as establishing a safe, child-friendly,

and age appropriate environment for children at the PRC.

Goal setting. In the ensuing weeks, we collaborated on discovery work.

Influenced by my judgment that her original goals were “moralistic” and “pressed for

solutions” (Block, 2000), I told her about appreciative inquiry and the idea that there is

power in a positive image to generate positive action (Cooperrider, 1999).

At this point, we discussed her goals with more clarity then before. The goals we

came up with were to (a) increase the production of child’s play by increasing

engagement and imagination, (b) develop “a better way” for providers and parents to give

and receive feedback, and (c) develop Maria’s leadership strengths. I worked with my

adjunct to make the first goal a “business goal” using O’Neill (2000) as a guide. I

reminded Maria to use affirming language in framing her second goal.

During the conversation about the second goal, her language was to “eliminate the

parents’ behavior” of “interrupting children’s activities” and disrupting the children’s’

“engagement” with providers. She felt strongly that this behavior was extremely harmful

to the children’s development and was a safety issue. Maria wanted to reduce adult

conversation to less than five minutes in the presence of the children engaged in play.

While I liked the specificity for the function of measurement, I thought there would be a

harsh reaction to this goal. I kept my thoughts to myself and I asked her, “Why is this

important?” (Collins & Porras, 2002). She explained that Waldorf principles of natural
 51

child development informed her belief that adult conversation can be disruptive and

harmful to children (Kotzsch, 1990) and, she added, she wanted the best for the children

in her care. She gave me a book from her collection and added that there are non-Waldorf

daycares that do not allow parents in the play space at all. She said the PRC parents

“don’t get it.” She referenced current behavior as parents “barging in and demanding

attention,” but then clarified that she valued open communication and feedback but there

has to be “a better way to do it.”

Then, I expressed my empathy for the dilemma of improving the children’s

experience while affirming and supporting adult communication at PRC. I suggested this

was exactly the type of situation action research process could help with because it

supports the whole system seeing the dilemma and engaging in a collaborative process to

make behavioral changes together (Block, 2000). I gave her an analogy that like a flower

moves toward the light, human systems move toward greater health when they have a

positive image in mind (Cooperrider, 1999; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). She added,

“That reminds me that children move toward greater imagination if given an environment

they can thrive in.” I was thrilled by the many parallels between organizational

development and early childhood development that surfaced as we collaborated.

Data Gathering and Data Feedback

At this point, Maria and I began to discuss data gathering. I focused on using a

collaborative approach (Block, 2000) that would put Maria’s leadership skills in the

foreground and provide me with a means to relate to the “multiplicity” (Cooperrider,

1999) and gather a sense of the group as a whole (Scharmer, 2004). I wanted to create a

space for shared meaning making (Cooperrider, 1999) about each of the project goals. At
 52

the time, I did not realize how hard it was for me to foster in my client the type of

leadership I had in mind. I proposed a three-part method to data gathering.

The first method was a focus group Maria and I would co-lead. My thinking was

that an all-parent meeting would essentially be facilitated feedback to the system. I

designed three questions using her goals and my adjunct as guides. I reviewed the

questions with her and we decided together that this would take an hour. The second

method was a participant observation study to be conducted by providers. The third

component of the data gathering design was for me to conduct individual interviews

using a standard format. I suggested using the same lines of inquiry as the focus group to

elicit personal experiences. I thought this three-fold strategy would facilitate joining

(O’Neill, 2000) in two ways, me with parents (the targets) and parents with each other. I

hoped that the data gathering design would generate a set of shared values that could

unify the parents (Cooperrider, 1999). I thought if the shared values were part of data

feedback and joint diagnosis work to follow, then we would produce the highest possible

level of participation in making changes toward shared goals (Cooperrider).

During this meeting, Maria and I agreed that at the next all-member meeting, we

would officially re-launch the project and jump into data gathering methods. We planned

to ask parents for feedback about the goals and facilitate a conversation about the current

state of the PRC. Finally, we agreed that Maria would draft a letter to the Board to share

our intentions and get their blessing. I suggested that she add a statement that “No

response would be sufficient for us to assume their alignment.” I was thinking, based on

my prior experience with the Board, there may not be a response.

 53

Focus Group

Maria, the other parents, and I met in the PRC play space. I hung posters of the

action research cycle and initial project goals. Maria and I planned her behavior to

include paraphrasing comments to convey understanding and recording ideas to

accentuate listening. My objective as facilitator was to hold space for an open “meaning

making” process. In total, there were 16 people present for the meeting. Four wore two

hats (board member and parent), two wore three hats (board member, provider, and

parent), and I was managing my roles in the organization (parent and consultant). At this

meeting, I imagined how complex roles might be a challenge for providers and board

members especially with conflicts of interest. At the beginning of the meeting, I felt

confident that we had a good discussion planned for the meeting. I was calm.

When it was time to begin, Maria and I stood up together. She identified herself

as the sponsor of the project and I as the consultant. She stated the goals for the project

and our intention to collect their thoughts on the goals of the project and the

organization in general at this stage. I talked about my role briefly and reviewed the

stages of action research, adding the current goals were subject to change at the next

phase, data feedback. Then I shared the proposed methods of data gathering. One of the

parents I had not met yet said, “I am not paying providers to make observations.” I

acknowledged the concern and asked for more thoughts on the topic. I crouched down

when listening to comments so I would blend in. Avalon, one of the providers on the

board, said, “I don’t want to make observations.” Janet, also a board member, asked

“What would the task look like?” I explained it would involve a tally system. The

parent who objected before added, “There were clip boards for noting children’s
 54

behavior on the wall.” She said she’d like them brought back. Jane suggested I enlist

the help of student volunteers. I felt anxious about the time we had to do an inquiry

with the group. I stood up to thank the group for the feedback. I made eye contact with

Maria and said, “Thanks for your feedback on this. I think we need to reflect on all

these ideas and talk about alternatives.” This created an opening to begin the focus

group.

I explained that we had a few topics to talk about with them and that Maria

would be recording their ideas. I said it was meant to be a collaborative process and

encouraged everyone to participate. Maria and I worked as a team. She asked questions

and recorded the ideas. I paced the discussion to ensure all the data was captured

literally. There were three questions we intentionally framed appreciatively focusing on

(a) providers behavior, (b) systemic limitations, and (c) personal involvement and

influence (see Appendix E). Everyone participated and the group generated a short list

of action items which were a byproduct of the dialogue. I reviewed the next steps in the

action research process at the end of the meeting. I was satisfied that the self organized

action list was generated by the group. I believed this was a function of the appreciate

inquiry approach I used in designing the meeting.

After the focus group, my adjunct faculty advised me to funnel the data into

categories that mapped to the project goals. I sorted the data before I was to conduct

formal interviews. When I funneled the focus group data into categories reflecting the

initial project goals, it seemed that most of the data fell under the first goal: creating a

safe, child-friendly, and age appropriate environment for the children (see Appendix E). I

sorted the data under each category by the focus group topics: (1) done well, (2) barriers,
 55

and (3) personal action items. There was less data in the feedback and leadership

categories; however, in the improving feedback category, there were specific behaviors

identified for personal action items. In the leadership categories, there were two personal

action items noted by one of the parents: “involvement in programs for children” and one

for Maria: “respond to feedback.”

Survey. After the initial data collection, Maria and I needed to address the matter

of parent and provider objections to conducting observations, and we discussed the

schedule for the interviews. I had conducted informal interviews prior to this, and I was

feeling pressure to develop a more formal line of questioning. Maria assumed parents

would not be available for interviews over the winter break and preferred that interviews

be completed before the break, which was four days hence. I thought I needed more time

to prepare questions and get feedback from my adjunct and decided to survey the

members instead. We also decided to plan a meeting for the data feedback and action

planning phases because the LIOS class schedule conflicted with the next regularly

scheduled all-member meeting.

The data collected at the focus group influenced the survey questions. After

witnessing the parent’s interactions with one another and facilitating a focus session, I

thought I had learned a lot about the system. I was still curious about the demographics of

the group. I wanted to survey their reactions to Maria’s initial goals for the project. I was

also interested in gathering data about Maria’s behavior. I thought that would help me

design an intervention that would have relevancy to the whole system. I prepared an 18-

question survey and got feedback from my adjunct faculty and my sponsor. I used the

finalized questions to design an online survey using Survey Monkey to host the survey
 56

and collate the data (http://www.surveymonkey.com). (See Appendix F.) Maria and I

both signed a letter inviting all the members to participate. The survey was open for two

weeks and 9 people, representing 50% of the families, completed it.

Data Feedback, Joint Diagnosis and Goal Setting

Maria scheduled and distributed invitations to the feedback session. On the

evening of the data feedback and action planning meeting, I arrived prepared. I brought

flip charts and copies of the raw data. I had prepared a presentation and felt confident it

was on target. (See Appendix G). I arrived early to set up the room and then I waited

alone in the room for 45 minutes after the meeting was to have started. I felt disappointed

because Maria had not come to the data feedback meeting and neither had anyone else! I

felt abandoned, again. As I was gathering my things, one board member came, Jeff. I

gave him a copy of the presentation. He said, “You’ve done so much work here. It would

be great if people could see this.” I told him that I was open to sharing it still and that I

needed to talk to Maria about that night. I called my adjunct later that night. She

empathized and told me I needed to express my disappointment to my sponsor and ask

her to make a decision one way or the other about the project. She suggested I point out

my investment in the project.

Re-contracting again. I called Maria the following day and asked for a meeting. I

told her I was prepared on Saturday and that one person had come. I told her I felt

disappointed, mentioning I had invested my tuition and office expenses for the project.

Then I asked her to meet to discuss what happened and gain some clarity about where the

project was going. She agreed and came to meet me the next day.
 57

At that meeting, I gave her the data packet and the presentation. She said, “Wow,

this is impressive!” She said she wanted to move forward. I reminded her of her role and

responsibility to assemble a group for the meetings. She agreed and said she could make

it happen on a weekday while the providers were there. She scheduled a four hour

meeting with me for the following Friday afternoon, during business hours. We planned

the meeting for the following week to included craft activities for the children. It seemed

we were back on track.

Meeting With Providers

There were three providers, one board member/provider, one parent besides me,

and five children present for data feedback and action planning. I presented the data

outdoors on the playground and facilitated a discussion about it. All of the adults

participated in the conversation and all the adults seemed to be engaged as they talked

about what they saw in the data and what it meant to them. They said the themes made

sense. Participants said they were cold, so we shifted the meeting indoors for the action

planning segment. It seemed like the shift indoors corresponded to a shift in participation

for the action planning conversation. After going indoors, two participants dominated the

conversation.

The ideas the group generated seemed to be in alignment with the goal to improve

communication between parents and providers. One idea was to install a locked

suggestion box specifically for anonymous provider feedback. I thought the need for

anonymity symbolized low trust and that anonymous entries would reinforce a pattern of

mistrust in the culture. So with a high level of curiosity, I asked why it was important that

the feedback be anonymous. The answer was that it's a way to address parent’s concerns
 58

without them having to identify themselves. After seeing the email list of concerns about

Maria, I was concerned that the criticisms would be destructive and that an opportunity

for learning would be potentially lost to the group. I concealed my thoughts and asked

others what they thought of the idea. Others agreed with needing input and feedback and

no one seemed to think anonymity was problematic. I thought challenging the group on

the anonymity verses authenticity would be engaging in the group’s work (Block, 2000).

The other action items the group generated were to initiate a practical skills development

committee whose activities would include writing discipline policies, planning activities

such as arts and crafts, and sending news and notices to families. These action items

seemed to encompass all the project goals. I was happy about the results of action

planning although I was not sure what my role could be in implementation besides a

“pair-of-hands.” I closed the meeting by reviewing the project goals and asking for any

changes. There were none.

After action planning, it was time to set measures in place before implementation.

I found a survey on group effectiveness and modified it for the providers to serve as a

metric for the intervention (Bushel, 2007) (see Appendix H). I worked with my adjunct to

guide my design and ensure the metrics where related to the project goals. I distributed

the survey with Maria’s help to all the providers. We shared the task of preparing the

mailing. It seemed that we were working as partners. All of the providers were surveyed

and 50% completed it.

Implementation

The action plan was a short list of projects that did not require my expertise.

Maria and Avalon collaborated to design the feedback system using a bulletin board and
 59

lock box outside the play space. They established a committee to draft a discipline plan

for providers and parents to approve. After a conversation with my adjunct about the

action plan, I met with Maria to suggest a training program for her as an intervention

targeting her third goal, leadership development. Maria agreed to a training focusing on

her specific leadership challenges. Maria and I set learning objectives for a series of

trainings and set a schedule to carry out the plan. I produced a macro-design for the

development series. I was in the process of gaining approval for the micro-design when I

noticed Maria was not returning my calls.

Termination and resurrection. The provider survey results revealed low scores on

the head provider’s leadership. I thought that Maria was still struggling in her

relationships at the PRC when Janet called me to ask if I could have my project be about

helping the Board confront her.

When Maria finally called me back, it was the Sunday evening before the first day

of the academic quarter and the week her training program was scheduled to begin. I had

received a call from Janet asking me for Maria’s new phone number. She said, “We need

to contact her and she has not updated her contact information.” She said, she thought I

might have her number. She explained that Maria’s contact information was not current. I

gave her the number I had for Maria.

A few minutes later, Maria called. She said, “Hello. Rick and Jeff resigned and I

am quitting tomorrow. Does that put an end to your project?” She told me that there had

been a big fight on the Board resulting in Rick resigning and then Jeff resigning. She

didn’t go into details. I did not tell her that Janet had called either. We wished one

another well and planned to stay in touch. Then, she called back 10 minutes later and said
 60

she had been fired. I thought she was triangulating. She told me Amiee had called and

said, “We are no longer in need of your services.” I talked with Maria about her hopes for

the future. I thought the project was over. I felt a little relieved.

A New Project

The next day, when I was dropping my son off, Todd came up to me and asked if

I’d heard about Maria. I said that I had. He asked what that meant for my project, and I

told him that meant it was over.

Entry and Contacting

Entry

That is when he said, “Maybe the board can sponsor your project.” I asked what

he had in mind; he seemed vague. I asked if what he wanted to do would include the

whole system. We discussed the upcoming all parent meeting as an opportunity without a

clear objective. He invited me to a board meeting to discuss a new project. He seemed to

want the Board to define the project. I was intrigued and agreed to meet the Board later

that week during an “emergency” meeting. I did not know if what I was agreeing to

explore would result in thesis project work. I was determined to try to use the action

research model anyway. I reached my adjunct as I was planning for the meeting with the

board. I reported to her that I was planning to re-contract with the board, set new goals,

and conduct a data feedback and joint diagnosis session in a two hour meeting with the

Board later that day.

As a member of the organization, I was feeling vulnerable, but part of me

remained curious. I was closest with Jeff's and Rick's families. I admired Jeff and his wife

a great deal. I had to suspend my grief about their departure to be present for my potential
 61

new clients. I thought that if I engaged in any conversation about it, I would be hooked

and eventually hijacked. I decided to set boundaries with them around the topics of

Maria, Jeff, and Rick. Beyond that, listening to the group as a whole and responding to

what emerged for opportunity were my objectives for the meeting.

Present at the emergency meeting were Janet, Avalon, Todd, and a rarely present

board member. Amiee was not there. I had seen her earlier that week in the cafeteria

telling the story of how she had fired Maria. She had said, "It was the best thing I have

ever done."

At the beginning of the meeting, Todd explained that he had invited me to see if

there was a project I could help them with since the project with Maria was incomplete.

Avalon, who had been on vacation the week before, said, "We need to talk about what we

are going to say to families." I felt anxious and I asked not be present for other business. I

politely offered to leave and come back later. They decided to meet with me first.

Contracting

I shared with them that I was hopeful I could help them with something within

about an 8 to 10 hour timeframe over the next week or two. Then, I presented a visual

depiction of the action research methodology, explaining the requirement of my thesis

work. (See Appendix B.) They group said they had no questions about action research or

the steps of the project and agreed to move forward with a focus on the upcoming

member meeting.

The Board’s Initial Project Goals

The Board’s goals were designed quickly during an “emergency meeting” that

occurred after a conflict had erupted on the Board resulting in several member-families
 62

leaving PRC, including two members of the Board. Therefore, I did not engage Board

members in a rigorous goal setting process, as I had done with Maria. Nevertheless, they

were able to articulate that they wanted to (a) reassess the functional structure of the

PRC, (b) fill all open Board positions, and (c) build community. At the joint goal setting

meeting, which set the scope and the timeline of the intervention, Board members

focused on an all-member meeting scheduled less than a week after for the intervention.

Data Gathering, Data Feedback and Joint Diagnosis

Data Gathering

For the data gathering part of the meeting, I explained to the Board that there were

several ways to gather data about the organization including document review,

interviews, focus groups, surveys, and observations. I asked the Board if it would be

useful to use document review to gather information about the organization considering

the time frame and the readily available organizational documents. The Board agreed to

review the documents together for the data gathering phase.

I came to the meeting with the various organizational documents in the manual,

including the policies and procedures documents, bylaws, and job descriptions which I

was given during the discovery phase of the first project. I also brought a traditional

organizational chart and a map of the organizational structure in more detail which I

prepared ahead of the meeting after reviewing the documents myself. (See Appendices A

and H.)

One of my illustrations combined information from the different documents

revealing changes over time in the organizational structure or PRC. (See Appendix I.)

The charts of the organizational structure used gray and black to categorize the work
 63

functions. Black showed work that was currently being done. Gray showed work that was

not being done. The documents showed an uneven workload across the roles of the board,

an apparent consolidation of responsibility over time, some overlap in responsibility, and

neglect of certain responsibilities.

Data Feedback and Joint Diagnosis

One member opened the conversation by saying he was impressed with how

much work I had done and that it was helpful to see the information visually. The data

conversation seemed to center on the history of the PRC and the structure of the

organization. The Board members noticed that some of the work that was not being done

had shifted to another role and some was just dropped. The fundraiser role was one role

that had accumulated responsibility over time. Another person noticed one role, the

facilities manager, was not represented by anyone at that time. Participants speculated on

what may have led to the changes and began to talk about how it should be now.

Goal Setting

After the group processed the data, I asked them to set some goals and work

together. Todd suggested the upcoming “all members meeting” at the first of the quarter

was an opportunity to do some community building. They agreed unanimously. The

registrar added that she thought they needed to increase parent involvement in the Board

now that seats were open. After asking if there were any other thoughts, I asked them

what they thought the goals should be and paraphrased what I heard. The goals they

defined for the project were to (a) reassess the functional organization structure of the

PRC, (b) increase parent involvement by filling the open positions on the Board, and (c)

design a parent meeting with community building activities. We did not spend a lot of
 64

time refining the goals. Then I made a list, read it though once, and committed to draft

and distribute a summary of the goals and measures for final comments by email. Todd

was appointed to work with me to plan the meeting as an intervention the following

week, focusing on the second and third goals. At the same meeting, I shifted the

conversation to action planning.

Action Planning

The action plan, included work the board would manage without my involvement

and collaborative work. We discussed activities that might get members to know one

another better, identify core values for the current the PRC, and build a sense of

belonging. We ended the meeting with an agreement that we would all arrive at the

intervention meeting 30 minutes early to review roles and the agenda.

Over the next few days, I worked hard and fast. I drafted a design for the parent

meeting that I thought would smooth the progress toward the Board's goals. (See

Appendix J.) I drafted the measures for the meeting and project and tried to align them

with their goals. (See Appendix K.)

Due to the rapid turnaround, I drafted the measures for my client rather than

coaching them to create them and then define them. I was working harder than my client

at this time and being a “pair-of-hands”. Also, I did not get feedback from my adjunct on

the measures for the new project until after the event. The measures were: (a) Are the

roles clear? (b) How are members motivated to contribute? (c) Are the Board positions

filled? (d) How well do parents know one another? and (e) Do they feel they belong in

the community?
 65

Implementation

In designing the community building event to address the third goal, I drew from

the principles of appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, 1999; Whitney & Trosten-Bloom,

2003), and action research (Block, 2000), and open space technology (Owen, 1987,

2000). From the goal setting conversation with the Board, I made the hypothesis that

group work on core values would stimulate a dialogue about what mattered to the

members of the PRC and that this would increase parent involvement, allow parents to

get to know one another and develop a center, or core, for the group.

Core Values Work

I was confident that the all-member meeting at the start of the quarter was a good

time to share stories because of Owen’s (2000) words, “There are special times in the life

of an organization when to tell the tale is not only important, but crucial. One of these

times is at the point when new people join up” (p. 191).

The PRC does not have a vivid oral history. The next best resource to draw upon,

I thought, was the stories of the individual members in a similar situation about childcare.

Processing their collection of stories could facilitate an individual coming into the

collective. I hoped the experience of the presence of self and collective would transmit

the best of the past and project it forward to the future. The stories I focused on in the

design were those individuals held in their hearts. In the intervention, I guided

participants to share stories about a positive childcare experience that they appreciated.

I designed the activity to progress from individual reflection to small group

interaction, then to a larger group debrief, and finally silence. I wanted the whole system

to learn about itself though reflection and social interaction (Cooperrider, 1999). Sharing
 66

core values, I believed, would essentially create a field of meaning that would allow the

group members to efficiently solve problems together in the future by reducing the

anxiety associated with group membership (Smith & Berg, 1987)

When I arrived at the meeting, three of the five Board members were present and

prepared for the event. I brought copies of the agenda, the organizational chart, posters I

had prepared of a list of “Respectful Behaviors” from Paul’s (1995) work, and of “before

and after” measures. The group of us huddled to go over roles for the meeting. Todd

opened the meeting on time with a review of the agenda. Then, he kicked off the project

by introducing me. Janet was responsible for recording on the flip chart when needed and

for distributing handouts before the Board election. Both of them were planning to be

active participants in the meeting. Amiee showed up for the meeting and was an active

participant, but she did not join the other board members in planning.

After I was introduced, I acknowledged individuals, the common need for

affordable childcare, the difference in familiarity with the PRC, and the potential of

renewal with new parents joining each semester. I asked Todd to read the purpose

statement from the manual. Then, I was silent for a moment before I commented that it

can be hard to behave cooperatively sometimes in a co-operative, especially when we

don’t know each other very well. I asked if the statement was true for the participants. I

saw nods. Then, I restated my intention to lead some activities that I hoped would help us

to identify a set of core values that we could draw on when cooperative life might get

difficult. Since I was a member of PRC, I used inclusive language with the participants.

At this point, I led a meditative exercise focusing on their best childcare

experiences. I guided participants to recall their memories in silence. When they were
 67

ready, I told them to take a deep breath and let it out all the way. Then I asked them to

think of a time when they had a really great experience with childcare. After a long pause

I also asked, “Where was it? Who cared for your child? What did you see that made you

think your child was in good hands? What did you hear that made you confident?” I was

careful to leave a silent pause between the questions. Before I asked them to come back

to the present, I asked them to notice how they felt thinking about that experience. After

this, we formed small groups of three or four to share the stories with others (Arien,

1993; Owen, 1987).

At this point, I led them in a small group sharing exercise and asked that everyone

share in the allotted time. To transition them to the larger group conversation, I asked

them to notice what they had in common with the others in their group.

After sharing stories in small groups, I had them open up in the larger group and

share what they noticed. I just asked, “What did you learn in the process?” and waited. I

facilitated this debrief before shifting to harvesting themes (values) from the room full of

stories. In the larger group, they reflected on all the values that they heard in the stories

and recorded them. I facilitated the dialogue and felt satisfied that people were present

and engaged.

When the comments stopped coming, I asked them to sit in silence for a minute,

just being together with these experiences. I wanted the silence to be a time of personal

reflection and presence. At the end of a minute, I asked them to feel the floor or the chair

under them and to “come back” to the room we were in together at the PRC.

I then asked them to complete the pre-intervention survey on the wall and told

them I would ask them to do it again at the close of the meeting. I shared my intention
 68

was to use the survey to measure the impact of the meeting on the goals that the Board

had defined for it. After participants found their seats again, I led a brainstorm exercise to

compile the core values of the PRC community. Janet recorded responses as I facilitated

a popcorn style collection of values from the group. I asked Janet to write exactly what

people said and that I would help her keep pace with writing. When the group seemed

complete with the initial list, I invited Janet to sit back down.

At this point, I asked the whole group to find the themes and patterns in the list of

values the group had created. Some of the participants grouped ideas together and others

pushed for distinction. The group was active; everyone participated.

Then I asked them to work together as a group to pick three core values from the

larger list. I wanted to generate commitment to a set of shared values for this group

(Senge, Kleiner, Ross, Smith & Roberts, 1994) in the semester going forward.

Participants reflected on the flip chart and one person said that there were three themes

visible on the list: learning, safety, and loving interactions. (See Appendix L.) I asked the

other group members what they thought of his connections. I made eye contact with

everyone and heads were bobbing up and down as if to say, “yes.” From this I determined

there to be consensual agreement.

I asked them what the PRC would be like if they lived up to those values. One

person said, “It would be a great place for our kids.” Others nodded affirmatively. I asked

for volunteers to make a poster for the play space wall to remind them of common ground

when things get tough. While the volunteers created the poster, Todd, Janet, and Amiee

continued the business part of the agenda.

 69

Evaluation of Goal Attainment

By the end of the meeting, they had elected three new Board members and

confirmed that the Board would continue to clarify roles by working with the job

descriptions in the manual. I thanked the group for allowing me to work with them and

the Board for collaborating with me. Then, I had participants complete the second survey,

explaining the intent in asking the same questions was to measure both “before and

after.” This marked the conclusion of my work with the PRC.

In this chapter, I described the key events of the project. In chapter 4, I will

describe the measurement process and the results.

 70

CHAPTER 4

Results

In this chapter, I describe the final set of project goals and the quantitative

measurements used to measure the outcome of the research project.

Scientific and Statistical Data

I attempted to gather empirical data in support of my master’s thesis project for

two of the three sets of project goals. I did not have an opportunity to gather data in

support of the goals for the initial project because we needed to redefine roles and goals

before proceeding. For the second set of goals, I did not complete the comparison loop

because the project was aborted. For the final set of project measures, I did pursue

numerical measures to evaluate my work (see Appendices J and L) and I attempted use of

the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test and a Sign Test to analyze the data.

Goals

Maria and I had three meetings where she developed the initial goals and

measures for the first project. Those goals were to (a) increase the quality of childcare at

PRC by integrating Waldorf principals of childhood development and (b) revitalize the

mission statement with an eye toward expanding parenting resources. She said she

wanted to revitalize PRC’s mission and generate sense of pride within the PRC

community.

For the first goal, the measures she came up with were increasing positive

feedback from visitors and improving parents’ perceptions of PRC. For the first measure,

I suggested we interview the person who leads the visitors through the School to find out

exactly what reactions to the PRC are. I explained to Maria that in order to be scientific,

we would have to interview them both before and after we make changes at PRC. This
 71

would allow me to compare the observational data and generate quantitative information

on the magnitude of change. I explained that pairs of matching data were a requirement

for my master’s thesis project.

For the second measure, I suggested we inquire into what the parents think the

strengths and weaknesses of the PRC are before and after. I suggested interviews for this

explaining that they would potentially increase the probability that individuals would get

involved in the subsequent action stage of the project. Additionally, I anticipated this

approach to data gathering would generate more practical ideas for how to produce the

quality my client was after.

The measures for the second goal, to revitalize the mission statement with an eye

toward expanding parenting resources, included documenting what resources and

programs exist at the beginning and again at the end of the project and conducting

interviews to gather data from parents about parenting resources they would like. We

discussed how to engage parents in ranking all generated ideas by importance to them or

by their willingness and personal availability to strategize and implement them.

When forming goals the second time, I emphasized having a business goal, a team

goal, and a leader goal (O’Neill, 2005), and I spent a lot of time listening to what Maria

wanted from the project. Maria and I had two meetings where she developed goals for the

second project. Those goals were to: (a) increase production of child’s play by increasing

concentration, engagement, and imagination in the children’s play activities; (b) improve

communication by developing a better way to give and receive feedback; and (c) develop

Maria’s leadership strengths.

 72

The providers came together two months later and kept the project goals at the

data feedback meeting and added a fourth goal. This goal was to (d) build a set of “child

centered” learning goals. We did not implement in the second project. It ended before

implementation, after I distributed a pre test survey (see Appendix G).

The final set of project goals the Board defined were to (a) fill the empty board

seats and (b) agree on a message about what happened with the director. After data

feedback, an hour later, the Board refined the goals to: (a) reassess the functional

structure of the PRC, (i.e., “who does what”), (b) fill all Board positions, and (c) build

community at the next meeting.

Methodology

For the second set of goals, I distributed a pre-test survey after action planning

and prior to implementation, and discarded the information after the second project

terminated.

For the final project goals, I distributed a pre-test survey at the implementation

meeting and asked participants to complete it before the meeting. I used an identical five

question post-test survey to gauge the success of the project. I printed the survey on

poster paper and mounted it on the wall in the meeting room. I used this method so the

system would immediately see the data and gauge the success of the project. I did not

plan to do any additional follow up. I tried to analyze the pre and post test scores using

the Wilcoxon Singed-Rank Test at a level of .05 significance for a two-tailed test

because that is the standard for the social sciences (Swanson, 2002). Several

requirements are needed to utilize the Wilcoxon Singed-Rank Test: (a) ordinal data, (b)
 73

two groups, (c) related groups, (d) ranked data, and (e) one tailed or two tailed test.

Zeros are not included in the sample size that must be at least six (Swanson).

In statistical analysis, the null hypothesis (H0) is that there is not statistical

improvement or difference with the project. The research hypothesis (H1) is that there is

a statistical improvement with the project. The tests for these results (see Appendix M)

show the requirement for a sample size of six was not met for four of the five questions.

Only question 3, with a sample of seven (n=7), met this requirement.

I also analyzed the pre- and post-test scores using the Sign Test at a level of .05

significance for the other questions.

Analysis of Results

Goal 1: Reassess the functional structure of the PRC

Question 1 measured project goal 1. The measure that the Board set to determine

success of this goal was to clarify the functional roles of the PRC structure. Question 1

was: How clear are you on the functional roles of the PRC? I had 10 matched pairs of

responses to this question. After I discarded 5 zero responses, I was left with a sample

size of 5 for this test. This sample size was not large enough to do a Wilcoxon Signed-

Rank Test. In order to determine if I could reject the null hypothesis, I needed to use a

Sign Test.

The requirements for a Sign Test are: (a) ordinal data, (b) two-group test, (c)

related groups, (d) when a pair of observations are tied, neither is used, (e) plus and

minus signs are used to indicate differences, and (f) primarily a one-tail test. I used a two-

tail probability by doubling values of binomial probabilities based on the sample size and

the lesser rank score. I used the same level of significance of .05 for this test as well. I
 74

accepted the null hypothesis (H0) because the probability that 0 or more successes from a

sample of 5 would occur is 1. Since the probability was greater than the level of

significance (.05), the HO that there is no statistical improvement due to the intervention

is accepted.

Goal 2: Increase parent involvement by filling all open (3) Board positions

Question 2 measured project goal 2. Filling Board positions would be obviously

achieved or not by the end of the meeting. In order to measure this with statistical

analysis the Board set motivational measures that were assumed to be positively

correlated to filled Board positions. How motivated to make a contribution are parents?

Question 2 was: How motivated are you to make a contribution this quarter? I had 9

matched pairs of responses to this question. After I discarded 5 zero responses, I was left

with a sample size of 4 for this test. This sample size was not large enough to do a

Wilcoxon Singed-Rank Test. In order to determine I could reject the null hypothesis, I

used a Sign Test. I accepted the null hypothesis (H0) because the probability that 0 or

more successes from a sample of 4 would occur is 1. Since the probability was greater

than the level of significance (.05), the HO that there is no statistical improvement due to

the intervention is accepted. Based on the meeting outcome, however, the two open

positions were filled.

Goal 3: Build community at parent meeting

Questions 3 and 4 measured project goal 3. The measures that the Board set to

determine success of this goal were: (a) How well parents know one another? and (b)

How well do they feel they belong in the community? Question 3 was: How well do you

know the people in your PRC Community? I had 9 matched pairs of responses to this
 75

question. After I discarded 2 zero responses, I was left with a sample size of 7 for this

test. This was enough to use the Wilcoxon Singed-Rank Test. Out of the 7 responses, I

had a positive rank score of 26.50 and a negative rank score of 1.5. Since the smaller sum

of ranks is less then T (35), the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. I accepted the research

hypothesis (H1) that there was a statistical improvement with this goal due to the

intervention.

Question 4 was: How well do you feel you belong in the PRC community? I had 9

matched pairs of responses to this question. After I discarded 7 zero responses, I was left

with a sample size of 2 for this test. This was not large enough to use the Wilcoxon.

Using the Sign Test, I accepted the null hypothesis (H0) because the probability that 2 or

more successes from a sample of 4 would occur is 1. Since the probability is not less than

the level of significance (.05), the HO that there is no statistical improvement due to the

intervention was accepted.

My choice to have one question to measure each goal created a flaw in the

measurement design resulting from poorly developed project goals and my haste in

completing the requirements for my thesis.

For qualitative measures, Todd reported to me that he thought the project went

well considering the lack of trust there was in the organization. (He was fired by the

board shortly after the project was completed.) My observations were that a new Director

was found from the meeting. I believe this person was set up for success with the

dialogue on core values. He is still functioning in that capacity for the organization.
 76

Summary

In this chapter, I provided a summary of the results of the project. I provided the

quantitative data that I collected to measure goal attainment for the project goals. I

analyzed the data using Wilcoxon Singed-Rank Test and a Sign Test and reference the

summary of this data (see Appendix K). Based in these tests, only the “How well do

people know each other” aspect of goal 3 (build community) showed improvement at the

level of significance (.05) (i.e., with at least 95% certainty). Also, the vacant Board

positions (goal 2) were filled. In the next chapter, I will share the personal impact of the

project with PRC.

 77

CHAPTER 5

Personal Impact

In this chapter, I discuss how this project impacted me and my impact on the

project. The aspects that I will focus on are my style of learning, risk taking, control, and

my relationship with authority. I will talk about how I handled these challenges in the

project and share information about various influences including my family of origin,

information from the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory and the FIRO-B, and my preferred

modes in each. I include feedback from the client system about my effectiveness as well.

Learning Styles

I took the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) (Kolb, 1999) in 2006, and it

confirmed what I suspected about my learning preferences, that I learn best by

experiencing and doing. The LSI refers to these two styles as Concrete Experience and

Active Experimentation. By combining these two learning steps, the inventory suggests

that I use the accommodating style of learning. I like to work with others to get things

done, I adapt to new circumstances or new information easily. The two other styles in the

model are Reflective Observation or learning by reflecting, and Abstract

Conceptualization or learning by thinking (Kolb); both are quite different than mine.

While everyone has a preferred style of taking in and dealing with experience,

Kolb (1999) suggested that the ideal learning experience engages people in a process that

cycles through all four styles and, by doing so, completes a learning cycle in four phases.

The challenge is to notice which phase one tends to skip because of discomfort with the

styles represented in the phase of the learning cycle. For example, I am uncomfortable

seeing things in abstract terms and defining problems. Accommodating learners, my

preferred style of learning, are good at taking risks, getting things done, working with
 78

others, finding opportunities, and practical application. Adapting to change and acting

from the gut are more important than being logical.

Learning by thinking and reflecting were required for this work. It was not

possible for me to skip over these styles of learning. Since this is not my preferred

learning style, there were many times in the project when I felt anxious. The anxiety

seemed to be more acute when a logical decision was required, or when there was a

situation that required patience without an opportunity to apply the skills I had learned.

One such moment was during the contracting phase. The process of establishing

sponsorship was challenging for me and required several attempts. I was extremely

uncomfortable approaching conversations about sponsorship. The process with Maria

required that I help my client understand the theory of sponsorship and talk to faculty

about how to scope the project appropriately for Maria’s level of authority in the system.

The process with the Board was all action. I drew on theories that I had embraced up to

that point. As a result, the project did not have the level of sponsorship required for

participation and alignment.

My learning style also influenced my actions during the project in other ways. In

the data gathering and data collection phases, I noticed a pattern. I was proceeding with

data gathering and collection even when the project was on hold. Before the data had

been processed by my client and the client group, and before selecting the problem we

would work on together, I was already picking models to use. For example, when I

facilitated the Board meeting; I initiated a practical approach to the meeting and executed

it. Afterward, I was frustrated because I still needed to conceive of a problem with them
 79

and explore possible solutions, which were requirements for the project but didn’t utilize

my preferred learning style.

Overall, my accommodating style was useful in staying adaptable in the face of

sponsorship changes. I took very little time to move through the phases of action research

with the Board. The time between the group data feedback and intervention was four

days. I was confident moving quickly but I was not expressly clear about the models I

was using to intervene in the system. Additionally, I had built relationships with people

while doing various other projects not associated with my master’s thesis project. For

instance, every Tuesday afternoon for one quarter Todd and I held a drumming circle on

the hill behind the school with our kids, and I worked on several fundraisers together with

other parents in the PRC.

Family of Origin

I believe my learning style, accommodating and adapting to changing

circumstances, acting quickly, and building relationship on the fly, which is sometimes

hasty or “pushy”, has roots in my family of origin. We had two family systems, the

original one consisting of my father, mother, and two older sisters, and one in which I

was an only child with a single mom.

I am closest to my mom and took it personally when my father left his marriage.

As the youngest sister of sisters, I can be “flighty and unpredictable”, “crave recognition”

and tend to “want it all” (Richardson, 1990). In other words, I am adventurous, can do

well with a mentor who guided me to use my abilities, and I have trouble making

decisions.
 80

I remember having a “normal” family during my formative years until I was 15.

The year I turned 15, my sisters moved out, my father moved out and filed for divorce,

and my mother attempted suicide. I became responsible for caring for my mother

emotionally, our home, and myself. Eighteen months later, due to complications

involving my decision to inhabit a dormitory on campus my freshman year of college and

my parents’ child support agreement, the family home went into foreclosure. In 2008, I

learned that my mother intentionally concealed the agreement in “support” of my

decision. These family dynamics influenced my sense of personal responsibility, my

ability to make decisions, and my relationship with authority in that I now tend to over

function. I tend to be ambivalent about authority; I either don’t trust authority or I expect

too much of authority figures. Also, my confidence fluctuates. I second guess my

decisions and have even used divination tools for life changing decisions. As a leader, I

love to work with community, and to make decisions by consensus. I often step into a

leadership vacuum.

Culture of Origin

My parents were both raised in large families in a suburb of Boston. Gathering

with the extended family to make music and play games was a regular occurrence. We

lived in the greater Boston area until I was 7 years old when we moved to a rural town in

Maine. In my family, a high value was placed on togetherness, humor, and chores. As a

result, children were welcomed around adults in work and in play. There was a lot of

laughter. Often that laughter was at someone’s expense through degrading comments,

and it was not uncommon for me to be sent my room to be alone as a punishment for
 81

being emotional. As a result of this experience, I am comfortable in large groups, and I

prefer team work to work in isolation.

Conversely, I am sensitive to subtle dynamics of power in groups including who

is defining the situation and I struggle sometimes to stay in the room when I feel strongly

about something. For instance, when the Board needed to talk about what they were

going to say to the parents about what happened (in regard to Jeff and Rick pulling their

families out and Maria being “fired”), I requested to not be present for the conversation.

Inventory of Interpersonal Needs

The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B)

instrument is based on the work of Schutz (1966), and it measures three interpersonal

needs of human beings on a scale of 0 low to 9 high. One axis is directed at the elements

of inclusion, control, and affection. It measures how much of these one prefers to initiate

with others and how much one prefers others to initiate these behaviors. My scores on

this instrument are shown in Figure 3.

Inclusion Control Affection

expressed eI eC eA Total Expressed

behavior 7 7 6 20

wanted wI wC wA Total Wanted

behavior 2 7 1 10

Total Inclusion Total Control Total Affection Overall

9 14 7 30

Figure 3. FIRO B Scores

 82

My family of origin experience corroborates the results of this test with regard to

control which influenced my behavior as a consultant. My parents’ relationship was

egalitarian and when the split happened, I joined that leadership dynamic with my

mother. In the client system, it was easy for me to be without leadership, I assumed “we”

would work it out together. This also influenced my intervention design.

I believed my low scores in wanting inclusion and affection were a result of my

relationship within my father. When he left my home, I was in the process of coming in

to my own as a young woman. The loss of inclusion in his world and of his affection

impacted deeply in ways that I am just beginning to understand. I believe this pattern

emerges as low confidence or naivety. I may have asked for feedback from my project

sponsors at the focus group, after each meeting, and certainly after the intervention if I

were not reacting—unconsciously—to my abandonment issues.

Personal Authority

Williamson (1991) described personal authority as “taking personal responsibility

for all of life’s experiences and outcomes” (p. 268). I learned, at 15, what Williamson

described as “a profound emotional acknowledgement that in the last resort there is no

place to go but to the self” (p. 256). After the divorce, because her isolation and despair

reminded me of being sent to my room, I identify more with my mother. Nevertheless, I

perceived my mother to be wise, strong, capable, and sometimes unreasonable. I

perceived my father to be affectionate, caring, entertaining, and sometimes aloof. I

believe both of my parents had boundary issues. Mom had a tendency toward fusion. She

would holler and threaten us and get into our personal affairs. My father was more apt to

close off when negative emotional feelings arose. After the divorce, he refused to
 83

communicate with me about my mother or the house. By identifying with my mother, I

think I have a tendency to isolate myself from others, avoid vulnerability, and thereby

sabotage my needs for community.

Feedback From Sponsors

I received feedback on several occasions during the course of this MTFP although

my design excluded comprehensive feedback for my role as a consultant. I left the PRC

shortly after my project was completed and did not conduct a survey on the impact of the

project or on my effectiveness. This seems like a significant omission and, as a result, I

do not have a clear picture of my impact on the PRC.

The first feedback I received came when Maria indicated her willingness to allow

me to conduct my project in her organization. She expressed confidence in me and said

she was glad that I was there. When Todd called me in for a new project, I asked him

what he wanted to focus on and he just said he thought I could help them get through this.

When I presented the data I had collected to the board, two people exclaimed

appreciation and stated that the information I had prepared was very useful for them.

After the project was over Todd said, “It was quite good. I think the only problem was

that there was already animosity, distrust, and resentment between different PRC

members, which hindered collaboration.”

Next, in chapter 6, I will summarize the system, goals, nature of the intervention,

and results from my MTFP; a summary of my learning; and the conclusions I reached

about my effectiveness.
 84

CHAPTER 6

Summary and Conclusion

In this chapter, I provide a summary of the project along with a synopsis of

lessons learned from both theory and from project experience.

Project Summary

Client System

My client system, the PRC, is a small student cooperative organization providing

childcare service to its members. It operates in a space between organized babysitting

share, student club, and daycare. The nature of the population that the PRC serves

requires childcare services that fall outside the norms of conventional daycare. Since the

members are both students and parents, one of the cooperatives main services is

coordinating childcare for 18 or so individual members’ on a quarterly basis, each with

different class schedules. In addition to frequent reorganizations of the childcare

schedule, the PRC often changed its management and governance structures when

students graduated, left the School, or just left the PRC. The organization evolves over

time and policies and procedures change according to who is in which role. The PRC was

in a state of perpetual change – saturated– as defined by Conner (1993).

My first sponsor, Maria, was the Director of this cooperative and was hired in

July 2006 – two weeks before I introduced myself to her as a consultant. Her hiring

resulted from the resignation of a well loved Director and the work of a Board which then

transitioned out of the School and out of the PRC leadership a month later. That Board

decided to hire Maria for her Waldorf Preschool Education training. The significance of

the change in governance was that 70% of the Board who hired her left the organization
 85

the same quarter she was hired. Membership also changed with 67% new. Newly hired to

the position, Maria’s goals were to improve the PRC’s image, and selection of toys,

books, and activities. After some conversation about why those particular changes were

important, she came up with this goal: to increase the quality of childcare at the PRC by

integrating Waldorf principals of childhood development. We also defined a secondary

goal: to revitalize the mission statement. Maria was inspired by reading the PRC’s

organizational documents and intended to expand parenting resources for members in

alignment with the documented mission.

When we agreed to restart the project with new goals, Maria wanted to build on

some of the learning she had gained while working with me in the interim. During that

time, I had facilitated a board meeting of the new Board and collaborated with her on

using inclusive communication and participatory decision making around moving a table.

From these experiences, she said I had shown her how easy it was to use feedback

systems. She wanted to build on that to improve communications at the PRC.

Specifically, she said she wanted to change the behavior of parents who “barged in on her

and the kids playing.” During the course of this conversation about goals, I introduced

O’Neill’s (2000) Key Factors model to have Maria think about goals regarding her own

behavior as well. When I offered to assemble a training program for her leadership

development, she accepted and added the goal: to develop her leadership strengths. She

liked the idea of using what she learned after she left PRC.

My second sponsor was the Board with Todd acting as advocate first, then as

sustaining sponsor. Todd was a board member who had wanted Maria’s job and had been

overlooked for it by the previous board. He told me that he had applied for her position
 86

before he joined the Board. He was a provider for a year before the resignation of the

previous Director. He was also Secretary of the Board and sent the broadcast email

calling for Maria’s firing before the first all-member meeting – where I was introduced as

a consultant. Todd commented to me once, about Maria’s leadership, that he “never seen

a better start to a quarter” at the PRC. To me, the fact that he sounded impressed by

Maria’s work was a significant shift in his thinking. He had, in a sense come around.

Todd and I formed a working relationship over the course of my work with Maria. I

assisted him during the first Board meeting and we collaborated on a project outside this

project. When Maria’s project stalled, he said, “Don’t worry about the project. We

support our own.” When Maria left, he approached me saying “maybe the Board could

take over the project.” He wanted my help with the all-member meeting coming up that

week. I believe he was straddling factions in the conflict over Maria’s presence and

competence. He was also responsible for the approaching MANDATORY all-member

meeting as well. We approached the Board together and worked on goals with the Board

as co-sponsors. The Board’s initial goals were to (a) fill the empty board seats and (b)

agree on a message about what happened with the director and the other board members.

In that meeting, I set boundaries around working on the second goal. I had been working

with Maria toward developing her leadership strengths up to this point. The remaining

Board had been working on discrediting her. The day before Todd invited me to the

board meeting, one of them had identified herself to me as the champion of her firing. It

was an ugly situation, but the Board was cognizant of the possibility that some of the

remaining families could be upset with the Board’s actions and the resulting departure of

the other families from the community. Avalon said, “We have to make sure we are all
 87

saying the same thing.” The purpose of the emergency meeting was to figure out how to

talk about what had happened. I offered to help with the upcoming meeting and getting

the involvement back up again, and I said I would like leave the room if they needed to

talk about Maria.

After data feedback, Board members said they had a renewed commitment to

clarify who does what. They may have seen how the clarity of roles may have mitigated

some of the pinches they felt personally when they joined the Board nine months earlier.

They came up with the goal: to reassess the functional structure of the PRC. They wanted

to do this after the all-member meeting that was only a few days away. They also said

they wanted to fill the positions open on the Board, so they made another goal: to fill the

open board positions. In order to form a third goal that would reflect their behavior, I

asked what requirements were needed to fill those positions. Avalon said they needed to

make being on the Board more alluring, especially after what had transpired. By asking

what that would look like and paraphrasing, we agreed that the community needed to just

start fresh, like it does ever quarter, with some intention on building relationships and

finding discovering peoples motivations. We defined the goal: to build community.

Intervention and Results

After Todd established his initial goals and invited me to meet with the Board, I

knew an entirely new data gathering process was not possible in the remaining time I had

to offer the PRC. As a result, I collected the data which I had gathered in the previous

projects with Maria. I did not present results of the interviews, surveys, or what the focus

group had collected. Instead, I choose to prepare the data I had pulled from the document

review to input a data feedback conversation, I borrowed the data gathered earlier to
 88

jump start the final project. The remaining members of the Board and I had been in a

meeting months before where the confusion of roles made getting work done very

difficult. I wanted to build a way forward together using our shared experience. This

approach allowed me to launch into a feedback and joint diagnosis conversation. In a

sense, this was the whole system’s data gathering process Block (2000) recommended. I

took a risk that I could tap into a reservoir of shared experience by collectively looking at

facts, and that I could harness commitment from a conversation about those facts. I had

done a two hour data feedback and joint diagnosis meeting with the providers a few

months before but this session with the Board was scheduled for approximately one hour.

I combined contracting, data feedback, goal setting, and action planning conversations

into one meeting.

In order to help the board achieve the goals established, I facilitated the quarterly

all-member meeting to help achieve their third goal. I facilitated a core values workshop

and the election of new board members. That took one meeting. For the intervention

design, I tried to collaborate with Todd. I had ideas for the entire meeting, and I wanted

him to make decisions about the details of the meeting. He took a passive role and did not

engage in the creative process with me. I believe I was a pair of hands at that point. I did

not acknowledge this to him at the time, instead, I took on the work of creating measures

for him.

The results of the implementation efforts and the three goals were measured with

pre- and post-surveys. I used a Sign Test for the first and second goal using the .05 level

of significance. I used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test at a same level of significance

using a two- tailed test for the third goal because n was greater than 6.
 89

Conclusions

I believe the project’s multiple failures were due to the challenges of sponsorship,

my own ambivalence toward authority, and the lack of effective measures.

Roles were confusing and authority structures were unclear for making decisions

at the PRC. This was compounded by people wearing multiple hats. Todd was a provider

and the Secretary. Avalon was a provider and the Registrar. Each of them had conflicts of

interest in those roles as they were both subordinate to the Director as providers and

superior to the Director as members of the Board. In addition to this “multiple hats”

pattern I noticed, the informal daycare did not have clear structures of authority. Rick,

one of the parents that left the PRC during the conflict, wanted to have the PRC shut

down, arguing it was an illegal daycare on the School’s premises. I thought the PRC had

been poorly succeeded at the Board level and at the management level.

I believe there was a high potential for this group to fracture over minor conflicts

and personality differences which, under a more defined organizational structure or a

more formal operation could have prompted generative conversations about diversity,

change, and system improvement. Therefore, I thought the group was vulnerable to

organizational dissipation. Additionally, members of the cooperative were all in a

personal transition into parenthood while in school pursuing higher education. The core

values exercise was an attempt to build bridges and regenerate the social fabric of the

PRC using conversations about things that matter to members.

 90

My Learning

Authority

There is a significant blind spot in this thesis about the project’s impact, and my

impact, on the client system. One contributing factor was that I did not conduct an

inquiry into my effectiveness. It was an oversight, and I think it was also an expression of

my internal ambivalence toward authority. By avoiding this step, I indirectly refused to

authorize the client system to formally consider my effectiveness. How do I authorize

myself to be a consultant and practitioner in this field without soliciting feedback? How

will I gain authorization to practice at all if I passively resist authorizing others who can

grant me authority in a system? Smith and Berg (1987) helped me to understand the

paradox of authority and the dynamic of resistance to it. How I resisted authority in this

system was the most disengaging type – as when the boss asks a subordinate to do

something and the subordinate says “oh yeah sure”, then does not act congruently. As an

applied behavioral scientist, this is an important lesson. How I engage with my

ambivalence to authority will be my ongoing experiment. I have considered that in my

practice I may have a niche in organizations with dissipative authority structures.

Induction

Another factor contributing to my blind spot was that, as consultant and member,

I was extremely challenged to hold the client system. I found the balance between joining

the client system and remaining separate from the social systems (i.e., the PRC, the PRC

community, and subsystems within it) to be difficult. I empathically identified with the

founders’ mission. I cared passionately about childcare resources for members and I was

a member. In my role as a member, I was unable to create a holding environment (Kahn,

 91

1993) for the larger system, the PRC. I believe the juncture at which I became inducted

with my client system was when I entered it because I was trying to wear two hats.

I learned how I projected my internalized original family system onto my client

system. Moments when I felt abandoned by the project’s sponsor, or when I became a

pair of hands, or when I took on more authority for the work than my sponsor stand out

as significant projections. My low commitment, ambivalence about the lack of

sponsorship for the project, “wanting out,” and continuing to pursue other projects for my

MTP well into the sixth month of the project, all seem to point to my abandonment of the

client system.

At the time I conducted this project, I was contemplating the practice of creating a

holding environment for my client system; a container that would allow the system to do

the work and me to be a facilitator of organizational development. I believe my story

parallels Kahn’s (1993) in that I was also “drawn to study a caregiving system, with a

hidden—from both myself and [PRC] members—agenda of learning how to create one

for myself” (p. 10). In a practical way, I understood what Kahn wrote about—being

overwhelmed by the need to be held myself. In this way, I believe I abandoned my client.

From Competition and Independence to Cooperation

Early in the project when I was observing the client system through the TKI

(Thomas & Kilmann, 1987, 2001), which illuminated my understanding of cooperation

and competition in the client system, I had not yet discovered Kohn’s ideas. Kohn (1992)

defined competition as: “the success of one simply rules out or reduces the chances for

success of the other [and]. . . .making the other lose to win” (p. 4.). He distinguished

between two difference types of competition: structural and intentional. “Structural

 92

competition has to do with the win/lose framework” and “the rules of the game”, which

are either implied or explicit (p. 4). Intentional competition is “an attitude”, a drive to be

number one (p. 4). Competition can exist in individuals or in groups. Kohn asserted that

competition is taken for granted, “easily observed” and “widely accepted” (p. 1). He also

explained that “alternatives to it are rarely considered.” (p. 1)

Kohn (1992) developed his theory of competition with three ways of achieving

goals: “competitively, which means working against others; cooperatively, which means

working with others, and independently, which means working without regard for other”

(p. 6). In hindsight, his model may have been useful to me in organizing my thoughts

about the culture of the PRC and shaping the intervention. Reflecting on client system,

the instances of an independent means to achieving goals that come to mind are when

Maria wanted to sort out toys without regard for others, or when Amiee wanted to fire

Maria without regard for others. It might have been an interesting inquiry for the group to

learn about their preferred means of achieving goals and to consider what “cooperative”

meant to them.

With Kohn’s (1992) ideas, I consider my own approach to have been rather

independent at times as well. It is useful for me to reflecting on both the most

encumbering and pivotal moments of the project with Kohn’s model. The most

encumbering moment or series of moments was in regard to goal setting itself. I had a

hard time coaching my client to do, especially the Board. This is because I was acting to

achieve the requirements of my thesis project independently. This occurred to me in the

last round of edits of this document, when my adjunct pointed out that the language I
 93

used to outline the goals throughout this document was different, and I had to wonder

why. Reading Kohn (1992), I got it.

The most pivotal moment for me was in the first project when moving the table

became a cooperation between Maria and I to cooperate with the other provider on duty

and then with rest of the families through the use of the white board. At the time, we

attributed the success of this experience to the feedback loop we created. It did increase

participation to ask others what they thought, however, it was a success I think because

we held a regard for others and sought a “cooperative means” (Kohn, 1992) to make a

change.

Self as Tool

A factor of success in this project was my ability to be flexible and adapt to the

changes. I was able to intervene in the system without having a formal consulting

relationship established. One example of this was when I facilitated the board meeting. I

was filling a leadership void at the request of Todd. Everyone in the room thanked me

afterwards. By qualitative analysis, this was a successful intervention. I believe my

flexibility was in part due to skill in stepping in with no agenda, a type of leadership

vacuum.

O’Neill (2000) talked about the use of immediacy in a client system. She said,

“Identifying your personal reactions is crucial for immediacy, which is ‘here and now’

conversation” (p. 34). I learned to practice immediacy in my family of origin. There were

moments when I had the experience of using immediacy and created awareness in my

client’s thinking, such as in the table moving incident. I was able to harness my internal

reactions into a learning opportunity for the client and client system in the moment. I am
 94

learning that this is a powerful resource at my disposal to effect change in any system. I

will continue practicing this skill in my personal and professional life.

Closing Comments

In this chapter, I have provided a brief overview of the client system, conclusions

drawn from the project, and pertinent themes where I gained learning. Based on the data,

the project was not a success, and I ran away crying. However, active experimentation of

action research and the reflection on complementary theories of leadership and

organizational development have resulted in a rewarding and enlightening journey. This

project deepened my learning of myself as practitioner considerably.

 95

References

Anderson, B., & Henehan, B. (2002). Questions cooperative directors should be asking
management. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from Cornell University, Department of
Applied Economics and Management:
http://cooperatives.aem.cornell.edu/pdf/resources/sp0201.pdf.

Arien, A. (1993). The four fold way: Walking the paths of the warrior, teacher, healer,
and visionary. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Bertalanffy, L.v. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.

Block, P. (2000). Flawless consulting (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Aronson.

Bridges, W., (1980). Transitions: making sense of life’s changes. Addison-Wesley.

Bushel, M. (2007). Work group effectiveness survey: Helping your group look into a
mirror. 2007 Pheiffer Annual: Consulting. (pp. 163-176). San Francisco: Pfeiffer

Capra, F. (2004). The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living. New York:
Anchor Books.

Carkhuff, R. (1980). The art of helping IV. Amherst, Massachusetts: Human Resource
Development Press.

Conner, D. R. (1993). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed
and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.

Cooperrider, D. (1999). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis for
organizing. Appreciative management and leadership: The power of positive
thoughts and action in organizations. Revised: Williams Custom Publishing.

Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in

change. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Crosby, R. P. (1985). Structural family therapy and consultative practice: A paradigm

shift for O.D. Journal of Consultation, Summer 1985, p. 1.

Friedman, D. E. (2004). The new economics of pre-school: New findings, methods, and
strategies for increasing economic investments in early care and education. Early
Childhood Funders’ Collaborative (electronic document).

French, W., & Bell, C. Jr., (1990). Organization development: Behavioral science
interventions for organization improvement. (4th ed), Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
 96

Gergen, K.J. (1990). Affect and Organization in Postmodern Society. Appreciative

management and leadership: The power of positive thoughts and action in
organizations. Revised: Williams Custom Publishing.

Greenspan, S. (2001). The four thirds solution. Cambridge: Perseus.

Griffiths, D. (2003). What is a co-operative manager?

http://www.australia.coop/e_what_is_a_cooperative_manager.htm.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1975). Joining together: Group theory and group
skills. Boston: Paramount Communications.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen
theory. NewYork: Norton.

Kohn, A. (1992). No Contest. New York, Houghton Mifflin

Kolb, D. (1999). The Kolb learning style inventory. Boston, Hay Resources Direct.

Kotzsch, R. (1990). Waldorf education: Schooling the head, hands, and heart. Utne
Reader Reprint. (Available from author; tel: 413-256-6478.)

Lewin, K (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, Vol.
2, 34-46.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D.

Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1935). Resolving social conflicts: Field theory in social sciences. Washington
DC: American Medical Association.

Mirvis, P., & Gunning. L. T. (2006). Creating a community of leaders. Organizational

Dynamics, 35(1), 69-82.

National Center for Education Statistics (1995, 1998). http://nces.ed.gov.

O’Neill, M. B. (2000). Executive coaching with backbone and heart. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Owen, H. (1987). Spirit: Transformation and development in organizations. Potomac,

VA: Abbott.

Owen, H. (2000). The power of spirit: How organizations transform. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Patterson, B. J., & Bradley, P. (2003). Beyond the rainbow bridge: Nurturing our
children from birth to six. Amesbury, MA: Michaelmas Press.
 97

Paul, J. (1995). The personal elements of effective communities. In K. Godz, (Ed.)

Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. (pp. 209 – 219)
San Francisco: New Leader Press.

Posner, H. S. (2001). Finding our way home in the giant Berkeley. Communities
magazine 110, 45.

PRC (2006). PRC Manual. Anonymus.

Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Richardson, R. W. (1990). Birth order and you. North Vancouver: Self-Council Press

Rosenberg, M. (2003, November 2). At preschool co-ops, parents told to linger. The New
York Times (Late Edition), p.14.

Scharmer, O. (2004) Theory U: Leading profound innovation and change by presencing

emerging futures. Boston: MIT electronic paper retrieved from
http://www.ottoscharmer.com.

Schutz, W. (1966). The interpersonal underworld: FIRO-B three dimensional

interpersonal behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

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

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Ross, P., Smith, B., & Roberts, C. (1994). The fifth discipline
fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.

SMART criteria. (n.d). Retreived November 15, 2006, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_(project_management).

Smith, K., & Berg, D. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis
and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steiner, R. (1965). The education of a child in the light of anthroposophy. (G. Adams &
M. Adams, Trans.) (2nd ed.) (Original work published 1927) New York:
Anthroposophic Press. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChi_index.html.

Sterling, T. (2001). It’s a magical life. Communities magazine, 110, 41.

Stoney, L. (2004). Collective management of early childhood programs: Approaches that

aim to improve quality maximize efficiency and stabilized the industry.
http://www.childcarereasrch.org/location/3581 Raleigh, NC: Smart Start National
Technical Assistance Center.

Swanson, G. C. (2001). Statistics: A user friendly guide. Edmonds, WA: GreyHeron

Press.
 98

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974, 2001). Thomas-Kilmann confict mode

instrument. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock New York:

Bantam Books.

US Census (2005). http://www.census.gov.

Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing and managing for

dignity,meaning and community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry: A

practical guide. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Williamson, D. S. (1991). The intimacy paradox: Personal authority in the family system.
New York: Guilford Press.
 99

APPENDIX A

Organizational Chart and Functions

100
 101

APPENDIX B
Time Table

Action Research Target Actual Type of Contact Content

Phase Date Date Interaction Hours

Entry and Sep. 15 Aug. 15, Introduction Met Director

Contracting 2006 –

Aug. 22 Meeting 1.5 Wants and

needs

Aug 24 Email .5 Review,

next steps

Sept. 20 Meeting 1 Finalize

contract,
discuss
goals

Sept. 21 Email .5 Review

contract
decisions
and next
steps

Sept. 26 Meeting 1 Goals and

measures,
Preparation
for project
kick-off

Phone 1 Goals and

measures
refined

Oct. 6 In passing .5 Met

Secretary of
the board

Oct. 8 Phone 1.25 Coached

director to
address
parents,
Prepared for
 102

my
introduction
to the
parents

Oct. 7 Preparation 1 Flier design

for meeting

Oct. 8 Meeting .25 All member

meeting,
introduction

Oct. 10 Email .5 Proposal to

the Board

Oct. 16 Meeting .5 Closure,

sponsor is
considering
resigning

Oct. 18 Meeting 2.75 Facilitated

board
meeting

Oct. 29 Phone .5 New project

proposal

Nov. 15 Meeting 1 Re-

contracting
and project
planning

Data gathering, Sept. – Nov. 18 Prep for 1 Design

data collection Oct 15 meeting focus group
session and
gather
materials

Meeting .5 Prep for

focus group

Nov. 19 Meeting 2 Focus Group

with whole
system

Meetings and 10 Unstructured

 103

Phone calls interviews

with parents

Meeting 1 Design
survey for
families

Dec. 3 Survey 4 Survey

families

Data Feedback and Decembe Dec, 27 Preparation 3 Sort, analyze

Action Planning r and prepare
data

Jan. 9, Meeting 1 Review data

2007 with on
Board
member

Jan. 10 Meeting 1 Re-

contracting,
data preview

Jan. 12 Meeting 3 Data

feedback,
Providers
action plan

Jan.14 Pre-test 2 Prepare and

conduct
provider
survey

Jan.19 Phone call .5 Re-

contracting

Feb 4 Meeting 2 Learning

objectives
and training
design

April 9 Phone call .5 Termination

Entry and April 15 Meeting 2 Contracting,

Contracting, data
Discovery and feedback &
 104

Dialogue, Data joint

Feedback and diagnosis,
Action Planning goal setting
and action
planning
with Board

Implementation January April 22 Meeting 3 Community

building
work,
orientation
and
elections

Evaluation February April 22 Survey Pre-test and

post-test at
meeting

Total. 50.25
 105

APPENDIX C

Action Research Map

 106

APPENDIX D

Kick-off Handout

Front:

Hello, my name is Rachel Lyn Rumson. I am a graduate student at

LIOS and a member of PRC.

I am very interested working with

community operated organizations like
PRC to help align their resources with
their mission and goals.

In my practice, I bring people together

to learn about the structures and
behaviors of their group, I help them
make well informed decisions together
and they work together in implementing
changes with a keen sense of
responsibility. The collaborative process
overcomes barriers, deepens community
and produces a high level of personal
commitment to the outcome.

I am offering 40 hours of consulting

services to PRC for trade and I will be
using the experience to write my thesis.
I bring a whole systems perspective to
organization health using a participatory
approach called action research.

If you are interesting exploring the possibility with me further please

consider the following
owing areas I can help with:

clarifying roles and responsibilities

team development

communication patterns and skills development

decision making dynamics

interpersonal conflict

I hope you will consider working with me.

Toward an abundant future,

Rachel Lyn
206.257.0525
 107

Back:

The following goals are available for the boards

review. They were developed by Maria Machack
over the course of three preliminary meetings with
me.

(a) Use action research to develop a plan to

make childcare at PRC more holistic by
integrating the childhood development
expertise of staff and families.

(b) Collaborate in designing programs that

expand parenting resources.

(c) Develop core childcare provider

competencies and operations practices and
link them to a parent satisfaction review
system

Goals are a starting point from which a whole

system discovery can begin.
 108

APPENDIX E

Focus group Data Collection and Data Funnel

With regard to creating a safe, child friendly and age appropriate environment for
play at PRC, what are providers doing really well?

Safe to the best of ability

Communication and support between providers is improved

Child’s basic needs are being met

Treating kids as their own

Putting kids to sleep the best of ability

Individual attention

Creative activities like cooking, art and crafts

General order

What barriers exist to an optimal experience for our children?

Lack of space

Rain ☺

Continuity of care (providers throughout the day)

Full movement room ([regularly occupied)

variable drop off and pick up times

different nap times

money (lack)

lack of musical activities

basic structure (lack of structure)

communication systems (between providers and parents)

toy selection

wide age range

age appropriateness of play structure

What could you be doing to help Maria and the other providers to create a safer,
more child friendly, and age appropriate play space at PRC?

Donate toys

Spend more time in the PRC

Have my child here by 1:00 to nap with the other kids

Involve myself with programs for the kids

Help coordinate programs to times with the most kids (registrar)

Bring appropriate rain gear for my child

Look for any of the times on the needs list

Use freecycle.com (to post needs)

Either bring my child for a half day, morning or afternoon, before or after nap or
for a whole day

Respond to and give feedback effectively
 109

Data Funnel

Goal #1a “Safe”

Done well
Safe to the best of ability
Basic needs being met
General order

Barriers
Lack of space
Rain
Variable drop off and pick up times
Toy selection
Wide age range
Play structure

Personal action items

Donate toys
Parents spend more time at PRC
Bring rain gear
Respond to feedback

Goal #1b “Child-friendly”

Done well
Putting kids to sleep
Individual attention
Creative activities
General order

Barriers
 110

Occupied movement room

Variable drop off and pick up times
Variable nap times
Musical activities
Lack of structure
Toy selection

Personal action items

Donate toys
Bring my child in earlier to nap with other kids
Help to coordinate programs to when the most children are there
Block the schedule into half-days (before and after nap) and whole days.
Use freecycle

Goal #1c “Age appropriate”

Done well
Basic needs met
Individual attention
Creative activities

Barriers
Continuity of care providers
Lack of musical activities
Toy selection
Money
Age range
Play structure

Personal action items

Donate toys
Spend more time at PRC
 111

Use freecycle

Goal #2 “Feedback”
Done well
Communication and support between providers

Barriers
Communication between providers and parents

Personal action items

Spend more time at PRC
Involve myself in programs for the children
Help coordinate programs for the children
Look for items on the needs list

Goal #3 “Leadership”
Done well
Treating children as their own [children]

Barriers
None

Personal action items

Involvement with programs for children
Respond to feedback
 112

APPENDIX F

Member Survey

Your participation in this survey will help establish a basis for proceeding with a
project to improve the PRC. The results of this survey will be available in January
2007. Your contribution is 100% confidential. Thank you for honest input.

1) How many quarters, including this one, have you been a PRC
member?
2) Are you on the board?
3) Are you a provider?
4) Are you male or female?
5) Do you think that it is appropriate for Maria to be working with a
consultant to improve the PRC?
6) Do you think increasing concentration, engagement, and
imagination in children's play activities is an appropriate goal for
the PRC?
7) How would you go about accomplishing this goal?
8) Do you think children's play activities are disrupted by adult
conversations at PRC?
9) What experience have you had that leads you to believe this is true?
10) Do you think improving communications between providers and
parents is an appropriate goal for PRC at this time?
11) What aspects of parent and provider communication have worked
well for you? Pick one written letters, white board, email, clip
boards, wall charts, interpersonal, other
12) What could you do to improve communications at PRC?
13) Describe a contribution you feel Maria made to PRC last quarter.
14) Why was this important to you?
15) If you were to hire a consultant for the PRC what would you want
the project to focus on? Are you willing to attend a 1 hour meeting
to talk about these results?
16) Please select the dates in early January which work for you
o Tuesday Jan 9th at 6pm
o Wednesday Jan 10th at 6pm
o Thursday Jan 11 at 6pm
o Saturday Jan 13 at 11 am
o None of these will do. Here is a suggestion:
 113

APPENDIX G

Data Feedback Meeting

PRC
Cooperative

Rachel Lyn Rumson

January 2006

Original Contract
• Project Goals
– To increase uninterrupted play
– To develop leadership strengths of head provider
– To develop a better communication
• October ’06 – February ’07
• 40 hours, No fee
goals revised in 11/06

Feedback Agenda
• Check in ……………………………..10 min.
• Findings ……........................………10 min.
• Recommendations…………….…....10 min.
• Reactions ………………..……….....30 min.
• Check in…………………….…..….….5 min.
• Decision to proceed……………..….20 min.
• Wrap up Feedback………………….20 min.

Diagnosis
• New group
• Unclear roles and responsibilities
• Strained relationships

Demographics
• > 60% of membership was new in Fall quarter
• < 25% of members have been here 2 years or more
• New head provider hired in Summer 2006
• 70% of board elected new in Fall quarter
• Low provider involvement in discovery

Goals
• 100% agree increasing concentration, engagement and imagination in children’s play is
a good goal.
• 100% agree improving communications is a good goal
• 66% say are children disrupted by adult communication
Improving communications
• Barriers to provider and parent communication still exist
• Information readily available
– Diaper changes
– Needs list
– Discipline committee report
• Communication between the board and members does not support cooperation

Unclear Roles and Responsibility

• Operational documents contain overlaps
 114

• Competency tensions
• Half 50% of early complains about HP were role related
• Incongruence between rules and practice
• Mission statement never read at meetings

Strained Relationships
• Unclear roles and expectations
• Differences are not talked out.
• People do not address concerns directly.
• Conflicted relationships impact the whole.
• Feelings are unexpressed.

Parents Want
• More structured play activities *
• Improved management
• To spend more time at PRC
• To talk more
• Simplified communications
• Clear guidelines established
• Play gym modified for toddlers

Recommendations
“We are a co-op, so let’s make decisions and move forward together.” – anonymous
member

• Clarify roles and responsibilities

• Structure meetings to support cooperation
• Clarify decision making process
• Bring ideas to the table
• Develop respect for one another
• Explore and settle differences
• Train your people in cooperative management
• Write mission statements and read at meetings

Reactions
Living Systems, when confronted with, when confronted with change, have the capacity
to fall apart so that they can reorganize themselves to be better adapted to their current
environment.”
- Margaret Wheatley, Power of Chaos

Resources
• Cooperation between providers
– new discipline policy
– new furniture
– new shelves
– new quarter
• Cooperation with [the School]
• Common interest in affordable, short term childcare
• An advisory board of 7 dedicated parents
 115

APPENDIX H

PRC Provider Survey - Project Measures

Instructions: Please think about all aspects of the project and how they have affected you. Things to reflect on
include: Surveys, interviews with Rachel Lyn, meetings you have attended, quality of childcare,
communication between providers and parents, and Maria's performance as head provider.

Please answer in whole numbers only.

1. PRC has a child friendly environment.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2. PRC provides age appropriate activities for children.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. My understanding of PRC’s approach to teaching practical skills is:

1 2 3 4 5
Unclear Clear

5. Children's engagement during play activity is:

1 2 3 4 5
Low High

6. Children's use of imagination during play is:

1 2 3 4 5
Low High

7. Children are disrupted while playing at PRC.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

8. PRC has a safe indoor environment for children.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

9. PRC has a safe outdoor environment for children.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

10. PRC environment is safe for children under 20 months.

1 2 3 4 5
 116

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

11. The time children have for uninterrupted play is:

1 2 3 4 5
Low High

12. Adults are soft-spoken when talking to one another when PRC is open.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

13. The time parents take talking to providers about their concerns while providers are working is:
1 2 3 4 5
Short Long

14. Frequency providers are told members value their work is:
1 2 3 4 5
Low High

15. Providers ability to receive parent feedback is:

1 2 3 4 5
Low High

16.We receive useful feedback about how we are performing.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

17. We regularly take time to talk about how we can improve PRC performance.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

18. The rate of occurrence we are recognized and rewarded for effective performance is:
1 2 3 4 5
Low High

19. If the members of PRC were asked to rate their level satisfaction with PRC services, what rating would
the customers give providers? Circle one of the percentages below.

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Very Satisfied Very Satisfied

20. We make use of the parent advisory board to communicate about children's well being at PRC.
1 2 3 4 5
 117

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

21. We are effectively using the white board for sharing information with parents.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

22. We are effectively using clipboard for sharing information about a child.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

23. People value and seek constructive feedback from each other so that giving and receiving feedback is the
norm.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

24. People in our group always speak and act in a way that shows support for one another.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

25. The head provider responds effectively to parents' concerns.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

26. The head provider ask for and listens to input from the other providers.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

27. The head provider gives reports to the board and asks for support when needed.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

28. The head provider brings policy decisions to the board for collaboration.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

29. The head provider brings opportunities for creative collaboration to members.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

30. The head provider communicates well with parents.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
 118

APPENDIX I

PRC Organizational Map

NOTE: This image shows all the branches of the PRC.
Ledge able blow ups are provided on the following pages.
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
 128

APPENDIX J

Community Building Event Design

Parent Meeting April 22, 2007

3:30 pm Board meets with Community Coach to go over the agenda, roles, goals and
tasks for the meeting.

4:00 pm Todd opens meeting introduces the Community Building project, Rachel Lyn
and project goals.

4:05 pm Reflection: Bringing the best forward (20 minutes)

One leader: “let’s get present”
a. Think of a time when you had a really great experience with childcare.
- Where was it?
- Who cared for your child?
- What did you see that made you think you child was in good
hands?”
- What did you hear that made you confident?
b. Now, notice how you feel when you think about this experience.
c. Coming back to the room now. Notice the floor and wear your body
touches it. Notice what you hear. Look around the room. You are at
PRC.
d. For about 10 minutes we are going to talk together about our
experiences. Form groups of 3-4 people.
- Everyone shares. Listen for understanding.
- Did you notice anything that you had in common?
e. Open group dialogue: Groups share learning with the big group.
f. One minute of silence: Being together now
g. Debrief: What’s up for you?

4:20 pm Brainstorm session: Core values (30 minutes)

Community Coach guides, Recorder lists items on poster paper
Art supplies
a. Secretary reads purpose statement from PRC manual
b. Given that is our task in the next 9 weeks, “What core values to we
share that will support us into achieving the best possible results?
- We need make decisions together.
- We need to get parent jobs done.
- We need to raise money together.
- We need to know that our kids are getting the best we can offer.
c. When it gets tough to be in community our core values will remind us
why we are together.
- We have different parenting styles
- Different economics
 129

- Different faiths
- Different lifestyles
- We need a community center we can all identify with in spite of
our differences
d. We are going to brainstorm for a few minutes and fill this poster
with the values in this childcare cooperative - the values you heard
today in your conversations and others you carry in your hearts for
this cooperative
e. Board member to captures all words spoken, contribute and elicits
participation
f. Other Board members listen, track themes
g. Now looking at this list of values, do you see any patterns?
h. If you had to pick just three to represent PRC’s core values this
quarter what would they be?
i. Now that we have identified your core values a few of you can
make a poster for the wall in the PRC to remind us why we are all
here.

4:51 pm Board business:

(Information, Decisions, Org Chart: job openings, committees)
Visuals – (suggestion: poster of Org Chart)
Handouts: (Ballots as per the bylaws)

5:51 pm Evaluation: Survey Posters (before and after denoted with colored dots)
Members use dots to signify their place on a scale.

6:00 pm Pot luck: Continuing the conversation…..

 130

APPENDIX K

Event Measures

1) How clear are you on the functional roles of the PRC?

1-------------2----------------3---------------4---------------5
Very clear neutral Unclear

2) How motivated are you to make a contribution this quarter?

1-------------2----------------3---------------4---------------5
Very motivated neutral Unmotivated

3) How well do you know the people in your PRC Community?

1-------------2----------------3---------------4---------------5
Not well at all neutral Intimacy

4) How well do you feel you belong in the PRC community?

1-------------2----------------3---------------4---------------5
Very well neutral Not at all

5) How well planned was this meeting?

1-------------2----------------3---------------4---------------5
Very well neutral Not well
 131

APPENDIX L

Participant Responses

Qualities associated with the best care for their child experience:

The provider remembers everything that has gone on a certain day

I know my child is safe,

Parents have an influence,

when checking in – can observe the providers with the other children,

feeding occurs,

manners are taught,

teaches values that the parents value as well

Core Values Brainstorm:

Safety (physical/emotional),

Trust,

Quality,

Structure/Flexibility,

Loving Interactions,

Empathy,

Healthy environment,

Guidance,

Learning,

Community/Sharing,

Cooperation

3 most central will be displayed in PRC as a reminder when times are rough:

Safety (physical/emotional)

Loving Interactions

Learning
 132

APPENDIX M

Final Results PRC Survey

Question 1 addresses goal 1: Reassess the functional structure of the PRC.

1. How clear are you on the functional roles of the PRC?

Beta Post D=(Pre-post) Rank R- R+

1 2 2 0
2 3 2 1 3 3
3 2 2 0
4 2 2 0
5 3 2 1 3 3
6 3 2 1 3 3
7 3 2 1 3 3
8 2 2 0
9 2 2 0
10 3 2 1 3 3
N=5 0 15
The sample size was not large enough to do a Wilcoxon Paired.
In a Sign Test since the probability (1) is greater than the level of significance
(.05) the HO is accepted.
The H1 (that improvement was statistically significant) is rejected.

Question 2 addresses goal 2 fill all (2) open Board positions.

2. How motivated are you to make a contribution this quarter?

Beta Post D=(Pre-post) Rank R- R+

1 2 1 1 1.5 1.5
2 2 2 0
3 4 2 2 3.5 3.5
4 2 4 -2 3.5 3.5
5 2 2 0
6 3 2 1 1.5 1.5
7 3 3 0
8 2 2 0
9 2 2 0
N=4 3.50 6.50
The sample size was not large enough to do a Wilcoxon Paired.
In a Sign Test, since the probability (1) is greater than the value (.05) the HO is
accepted.
The H1 (that improvement was statistically significant) is rejected.
 133

Question 3 addresses goal 3 build community.

3. How well do you know the people in your PRC Community?

Beta Post D=(Pre-post) Rank R- R+-

1 2 4 2 5 5
2 2 4 2 5 5
3 2 3 1 1.5 1.5
4 1 1 0
5 1 3 2 5 5
6 2 4 2 5 5
7 1 3 2 5 5
8 3 3 0
9 3 2 -1 1.5 1.5
N=7 Sum= 1.5 26.50
Since the smaller sum of ranks is less then T (35), the HO is rejected.
The H1 (that improvement was statistically significant) is accepted.

Question 4 addresses goal 3 to build community.

4. How well do you feel you belong in the PRC community?

Beta Post D=(Pre-post) Rank R- R+

1 2 2 0
2 2 2 0
3 2 2 0
4 3 2 1 1 1
5 4 4 0
6 4 4 0
7 2 2 0
8 2 4 -2 2 2
9 3 3 0
N=2 Sum= 2 1
The sample size was not large enough to do a Wilcoxon Paired.
In a Sign Test, since the probability (1) is not less than the level of significance
(.05) the HO is accepted.
The H1 (that improvement was statistically significant) is rejected.

Question 5 addresses the meeting design.

5. How well planned was this meeting?

Beta Post D=(Pre-post) Rank R- R+

1 3 2 1 1.5 1.5
2 4 4 0
3 2 2 0
 134

4 4 2 2 3.5 3.5
5 2 2 0
6 3 3 0
7 3 2 1 1.5 1.5
8 2 2 0
9 4 2 2 3.5 3.5
N=4 Sum= 0 10
The sample size was not large enough to do a Wilcoxon Paired.
In a Sign Test, since the probability was greater than the level of significance
(.05) the HO is accepted.
The H1 (that improvement was statistically significant) is rejected.