Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 1
Higher Education Mid-Level Professional Staff and Strategic Planning: An Evaluation Study
by
Samara Ferber Rasmussen
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December, 2017
Copyright 2017 Samara Ferber Rasmussen
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 2
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my dissertation chairperson, Dr. Helena Seli of the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am so grateful for your thoughtful,
thorough and fast responses to questions and drafts. Your guidance made this process seamless
and productive. Dr. Darline Robles and Dr. Don Murphy, you both pushed me to challenge my
thinking and work to my best self. Thank you all for your time, flexibility, and insights.
My beloved family, Kiffrey, Ellia, Avilly, Mom and Dad, there is no way my studies
were possible without your belief in me, your support, and your love. This degree is opportunity
for all of us to grow, learn, and put good back into the world. Thank you.
The mid-level professional staff in higher education – this work honors you and your
commitment to yourselves, your motivation, and your willingness to work hard for students and
organizations around the world. Thank you.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 3
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between the mid-level professional staff in a higher
education setting and the organization’s strategic planning process and strategic plan outcomes.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model informs this study and sets the framework for
studying the relationship with respect to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences (KMO) which have an impact on the mid-level professional staff. The group was
surveyed and the data analyzed to establish the KMO’s and set the stage for future study and
support of this group of professionals. Recommendations based on the gap analysis are outlined
and coupled with example activities to provide the organization support in meeting their
organizational goal.
Keywords: strategic planning, outcomes, professional staff, higher education
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction of the Problem of Practice .................................................................................................... 7
Organizational Context and Mission ......................................................................................................... 8
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................................. 9
Related Literature ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Importance of the Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 11
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Their Role in the Organizational Goal .................................... 12
Stakeholder Group for the Study ............................................................................................................ 13
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................................... 14
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .......................................................................................... 14
Definitions............................................................................................................................................... 15
Organization of the Project ..................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review................................................................................................................. 17
Mid-Level Professional Staff Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Related to
Capacity to Implement Organizational Strategic Goals .......................................................................... 19
Knowledge and Skill-Related Influences ............................................................................................ 19
Motivational Influences ...................................................................................................................... 24
Organizational Influences .................................................................................................................. 28
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Mid-Level Professional Staff Knowledge, Motivation and
the Organizational Context ..................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 39
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................................... 39
Participating Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................... 40
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale .......................................................................................... 40
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................................................................... 41
Data Collection and Instrumentation ...................................................................................................... 41
Survey ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 44
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 5
Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................................................... 44
Ethics ...................................................................................................................................................... 46
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 47
Bias ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
Reliability ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ............................................................................................................ 53
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................................... 53
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
Knowledge Results ............................................................................................................................. 57
Motivation Results .............................................................................................................................. 58
Organizational Results ........................................................................................................................ 60
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
Themes: Inclusion and Influence ........................................................................................................ 65
Knowledge .......................................................................................................................................... 65
Motivation ........................................................................................................................................... 66
Organizational Influences .................................................................................................................. 67
Synthesis ............................................................................................................................................. 67
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 69
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................................. 69
Knowledge Influences, Principles, and Recommendations ............................................................... 69
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................... 76
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................................... 76
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ................................................................................ 77
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................................. 78
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................................ 81
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................................ 86
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................................ 90
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................................. 91
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 92
Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 93
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................................... 94
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 6
Future Study ............................................................................................................................................ 94
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 96
References ................................................................................................................................................. 100
Appendix A: Survey Items ........................................................................................................................ 109
Appendix B: Information Sheet ................................................................................................................ 113
Appendix C: Post Annual Evaluation Survey ........................................................................................... 115
Appendix D: Annual Evaluation Six-Month Follow-Up Survey .............................................................. 117
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 7
Higher Education Mid-Level Professional Staff and Strategic Planning: An Evaluation Study
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
In today’s changing world of work, there seems to be an increased interest from
organizations to provide professional development opportunities as well as to engage employees
across the institution in planning, process, and leadership. In 2013, Delprino suggested that
during the strategic planning process, planning teams promote their inclusion of all stakeholders
in the process and communication of the process and plan. There is developing evidence that
there may be some stakeholders who are not included as effectively, or possibly at all, as other
stakeholders in the strategic planning process: the mid-level professional staff (Andrews,
Dougherty, 2007; Eddy, 2008; Harris, Wright, Msengi, 2011; Jo, 2003; Jo, 2008; Powell, 2008).
Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, and Ryland (2012) suggest possible ways to include diverse stakeholders
in the strategic planning process in higher education. The inclusion of diverse stakeholders
creates a more comprehensive process which addresses multiple perspectives and outcomes
(Jones, Lefoe, Harvey & Ryland, 2012). In higher education, there are commonly recognized
stakeholders: students, administrators, faculty, executives, and boards of directors or trustees.
Mid- to large-size higher education institutions may favor groups of stakeholders over one
another, which may cause communication gaps and inequities for those trying to follow the
organizational mission. A current staff member of one such university writes, “…there is too
much of a political game to gain a promotion. We sometimes feel very top heavy in management
with fewer qualified people to do the work necessary to make this a great university. It saddens
me when dedicated people are overlooked” (Manager, 2015). This sentiment describes the
feelings of a member of an invisible stakeholder group, the mid-level professional staff of a
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 8
higher education institution. There are publications directed to faculty and top administrators
such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and much press around the top level of higher
education administration, but little attention paid to the mid-level professional staff (Krieger,
2015; Pounds, 2015; Rice, 2012).
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization of study in this dissertation is Private University, a pseudonym being
used to protect the study participants and the organization. According to the university’s
website, the mission of Private University is to promote learning by engaging with students to
advance scholarly pursuits and form partnerships with local and global communities to
contribute to a sustainable common good. Private University is a traditional, ground-based
university which grants bachelor’s through doctoral degrees. This university is located in the
southwestern United States and is run by an executive team of the Chancellor, one Provost, and
ten Vice-Chancellors and the Board of Trustees. Additionally, there are 12 college deans, and
the professional staff (University, 2015). Private University offers more than 100 undergraduate
programs, more than 120 graduate and professional programs to approximately 11,000 students.
Women make up roughly 55% of the total student body, and students of color 19% of all
students. All 50 states and 74 countries are represented in the student population. There are
1300 teaching faculty, both tenured and non-tenured, full-time and part-time at Private
University. To support the faculty and students there are approximately 350 mid-level
professional staff employees who are not classified as faculty, or as hourly employees.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 9
Organizational Goal
Private University’s goal is to be diverse and ethical and provide an outstanding
educational experience which will invigorate research and scholarship to address the important
issues of the new century. Specifically, the stated organizational goal for the university is to
implement the strategic plan by 2025 and to do this by including all stakeholders. The
University’s strategic planning website describes the university’s claim to engage with all
University stakeholders in comprehensive discussion and strategic plan development. The
university’s strategic planning information does not describe how the strategic plan will be
implemented other than through the dedication of stakeholders. It is unclear, however, how the
University is engaging with mid-level professional staff in the strategic planning process or the
process of implementing the strategic plan. The task force report generated through the strategic
planning process at Private University details the motivation for improving the relationship
between the mid-level professional staff and the university’s strategic plan goals. Private
University’s report indicates that professional development removes barriers to growth and
supports the pathway goals of employees. The task force’s statements about professional
development place both the faculty and mid-level professional staff in the same employment
group. This study will examine how the mid-level professional staff perceive their roles in
relationship to the university’s strategic planning process and the implementation of the strategic
plan.
Related Literature
During and after university strategic planning, there should be much communication and
inclusion to determine whether the organization is on the right track and is developing achievable
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 10
outcomes (Krieger, 2008; Manager, 2015; Pounds, 2015; Rice, 2012;). Best practices in strategic
planning suggest that including multiple stakeholders, performing varied and constant
communication, and developing a succinct, clear, and achievable strategic plan will provide
organizations a platform for defining and refining their mission, vision, and activities to connect
to the strategic plan (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Schein, 2010). This evaluation of the mid-
level professional staff perception of the strategic planning process and strategic plan
implementation may point to actions the university could take to more fully engage this
stakeholder group. Specific methods and processes for engaging with the mid-level professional
staff, assessing their work performance, and tying these work outcomes to specific goals within
the strategic plan for the university may become useful tools (Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, &
Irmer, 2011; Burke, 2004; Delprino, 2013; Drake, Wong, & Salter, 2007; Holland, Sheehan, &
De Cieri, 2007).
Evidence suggests women in mid-level professional roles are being overlooked in higher
education and they are leaving the institution at high rates (Andrews & Dougherty, 2007;
Bolden, Petrov & Gosling, 2008; Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011; Gleason-
Gomez,; Hellawell & Hancock, 2001; Hornsby, Morrow-Jones, & Ballam, 2012; Jo, 2003; Jo,
2008; Powell, 2008; Ryan, & Fraser, 2012; Russell, & Williams, 2010; Wallace, & Marchant,
2009). When these mid-level professionals leave organizations, they take institutional
knowledge and their professional skills with them. Turnover in the mid-level professional staff
of nearly any organization, not just higher education, may remove the necessary commitment to
the strategic plan which, properly cultivated, might garner the organization the follow-through
and tenacity needed to realize the strategic mission and goals (Andrews & Dougherty, 2007;
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 11
Bhattacharyya & Jha, 2013; Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011; Davies & Davies,
2004; Gleason-Gomez, Russell & Williams, 2010).
Importance of the Evaluation
The problem of strategic planning communication throughout higher education
stakeholders is important to solve for a variety of reasons. Organizations need to include all
stakeholders when developing short- and long-term goals for the future (Drake, Wong, & Salter,
2007). Inclusion allows for creativity and innovation especially when different voices join the
conversation (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001). When there are gaps in communication in
organizations, there is the opportunity for other actors to make inferences, set the tone, and
distract stakeholders from the organizational mission (Senge, 1990). Organizations may benefit
more fully from strategic planning and strategic plan implementation if there is a concerted effort
to include all stakeholders at every level (Van Ameijde, et al, 2009). Specifically, when
organizations strive for inclusivity in strategic planning, the opportunity may exist to address
other concerns such as employee retention, employee recognition, and the cultivation and
utilization of institutional knowledge (Jo, 2008).
The need for inclusion of the mid-level professional staff before, during, and after
strategic planning also encompasses issues around employee recognition, employee retention,
and institutional health. Considering accountability from the institution, in terms of
organizational adherence to the strategic plan, as well as accountability from its employees may
be an important part of the strategic planning process and inclusion as well (Burke, 2004).
This study evaluates the level of inclusion and understanding of the strategic plan from
the perspective of mid-level professional staff within the university setting. Understanding how
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 12
this employee band is included or not in the strategic planning process and held responsible to its
outcomes, allows the university to further review its efforts to cultivate and nurture these
employees who appear to have a significant impact on the overall health of the university as well
as the opportunity to direct its future growth.
In 2014, Jones, Harvey, Lefoe and Ryland discussed creating a culture of trust within
organizations and strategic planning groups to facilitate communication and distributed
leadership. Trust is essential in creating an environment ripe for change, and then being able to
implement changes and change culture (Jones, et al, 2014). If organizations neglect to gather
data from any group of stakeholders, the chances of successful change are dramatically reduced.
Gosling, Bolden and Petrov (2009) indicated that in organizational communication and change
missteps, a disconnect occurs between actual performance and expected performance. That is,
when organizations neglect communication around the strategic planning process,
implementation expectations and outcomes, stakeholders may have difficulty connecting their
work to the overall strategic plan.
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Their Role in the Organizational Goal
In higher education organizations, there are multiple stakeholders involved in creating a
strategic plan, and then implementing that plan. These stakeholders may be readily recognized
as, but not limited to, boards of trustees, executive leadership team members, community
members, external thought leaders, and faculty (Private University strategic planning website).
The role of the different stakeholder groups in the context of the organization is to meet their
performance goals in relationship to the organizational strategic plan. These groups provide
institutional knowledge and organizational cultural perspectives. The executive level employees,
provosts, chancellor or president, deans provide a global leadership perspective. Boards of
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 13
trustees are included as they tend to be responsible for major financial and resource guidance.
Institutional faculty are included in strategic planning because they are directly involved with
curriculum and learning delivery. Community members are often involved in strategic planning
initiatives as colleges and universities generally have impacts on the communities in which they
are located, so this stakeholder group can offer an external perspective to the overall process.
Within a college or university; however, there is a large group of stakeholders who are included
in the strategic plan implementation, though it is not as clear whether they are or are not included
in the planning process for the strategic plan itself. The work of the mid-level professional staff
within a college or university has a measurable impact on the institutional knowledge,
organizational culture, and the achievable outcomes of a strategic plan.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete analysis of strategic planning participation and implementation would
involve all Private University stakeholder groups. For the purposes of this study, the mid-level
professional staff is the focus. This stakeholder group was selected because there is evidence to
suggest these stakeholders are critical to the organization’s mission, but may be overlooked in
the strategic planning and implementation process and thus leave the institution due to a possible
lack of advancement and recognition (Andrews & Dougherty, 2007; Bhattacharyya & Jha, 2013;
Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011; Davies & Davies, 2004; Gleason-Gomez, Russell
& Williams, 2010).
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 14
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which the university is meeting its
goal to include all stakeholders in strategic planning. The analysis will focus on knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the
stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is the mid-level professional staff.
As such, the questions that guide this study are:
1. To what extent is the university meeting its goal of including the mid-level professional
staff in strategic planning?
2. What are the middle level professional staff’s knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to implementing the University’s strategic plan?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
For this project, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model was utilized because it
focuses on understanding and supporting organizational performance via understanding
organizational goals and performance gaps. For this study, gap analysis was modified to an
evaluation model. The methodological framework is a quantitative study designed to measure
professional staff awareness of, participation in, and satisfaction with the university strategic
planning and implementation process.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 15
Definitions
Hourly employees: those who are involved with the daily operations of the university in roles
like facilities, groundskeeping, security, and food service.
Mid-level professional staff: those employees with the titles of, but not limited to, coordinator,
manager, director and who may or may not have some supervisory responsibility; also
those employees who are not faculty, but hold positions similar to, associate dean,
assistant dean, or other administrative title; these employees may or may not be directly
responsible for the strategic plan outcomes.
Stakeholder(s): a person or group with an interest in the success of the organizational mission
Strategic plan(ning): an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making
decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this mission
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about higher education strategic
planning, communication, stakeholders, and potential problems. The organization’s mission,
goals and stakeholders and the framework for the project were generally introduced though not
specifically cited to protect the anonymity of the organization. Chapter Two provides a review of
current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of strategic planning, distributed
leadership, turnover, and gender bias will be addressed. Chapter Three details the methodology
when it comes to choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data
and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 16
literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter two analyzes the available literature about mid-level professional staff
performance within the higher education structure. General research about the factors
influencing the mid-level professional staff of higher education institutions who are often
charged with the daily operationalization of the overall organizational strategic plan are
reviewed. The first section addresses the literature discussing the professional knowledge
necessary for their practice and the standards and expectations regarding their work. The second
section reviews the higher education and management literature around motivation and the mid-
level professional staff. This section will be based on the work of Clark and Estes (2008) in their
book, Turning Research into Results. The assumed knowledge influences identified for the mid-
level professional staff are the strategic plan goals for staff, the performance goals within the
department, and how to implement the strategic plan. Finally, literature regarding the assumed
organizational influences of the value of professional development and the time and the
resources necessary for development of the mid-level professional staff will be discussed.
Organizations interested in growth and innovation may want to consider the particular
assets of the mid-level professional staff to their overall strategic plan. In developing a strategic
plan for the future, organizations demonstrate their commitment to change and growth (Delprino,
2013). The mid-level professional staff are often the employees most closely connected to
customers or students, as in this case. Within the strategic planning process, these employees
can address specifics about engagement, resources, and other opportunities for growth and
change.
The mid-level professional staff often possess considerable time-on-job as well as
institutional knowledge of processes and change which may benefit the institution (Delprino,
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 18
2013). When these employees elect to depart the organization, it is often for greater
responsibility, recognition and opportunity (Jo, 2008). Change management history affects
employee attitudes and actual turnover (Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, and Irmer, 2011). There
may be missed opportunity for both the organization and the employees to work together to
understand recognition, reward, and how resources are deployed to address workforce need as
well as retention and investment in the people as well as the organization (Drake, Wong, and
Salter, 2007). This collaboration, especially during the strategic planning process, is an
opportunity for the organization to learn more about itself and opportunities for growth.
Mid-level professional staff in higher education appear not to be as frequently studied as
similar employees in more corporate settings. Delprino (2013) writes about how to engage in
strategic planning and the critical need to include all stakeholders in the strategic planning
process as well as the implementation process. There is some evidence of the application of
strategic planning practice in corporate settings being applied to higher education in Hellawall
and Hancock’s (2001) work about hierarchical control and collegiality and the intersection of
faculty and mid-level professional staff in academic management. In 2008, Powell studied
stakeholder perception of decision making in higher education and appears to focus more on
faculty rather than on mid-level professional staff. There is also some discussion of the changing
method of leading and changing higher education organizations and the tension between
traditional higher education leadership approaches and more contemporary corporate leadership
activities (Senge, 1990; Schein, 2010; Van Ameijde, Nelson, Billsberry, & van Meurs, 2009).
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 19
Mid-Level Professional Staff Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Related to Capacity to Implement Organizational Strategic Goals
Knowledge and Skill-Related Influences
The mid-level professional staff of higher education institutions is often charged with the
daily operationalization of the overall organizational strategic plan. These professionals may be
held to standards and expectations regarding their work through their specific departments and
upward to the executive level leadership of the organization. To complete their work, these
professionals should possess the necessary knowledge and practical skills to be successful.
Robert Rueda (2011) points to the types of knowledge employees may have or need to give
leaders opportunities to provide support and resources. These knowledge types are described in
upcoming sections. This literature review focuses on the knowledge and skills necessary for the
mid-level professional staff of Private University to participate in the strategic planning and
strategic plan implementation within the organization, their work, and how their work relates to
the overall strategic plan. The literature will be analyzed regarding the knowledge types for
these stakeholders.
Knowledge influences. Mid-level professional higher education staff need knowledge
and skills to support their work within the organization. The literature analyzed here will be
sorted into knowledge types in order to help understand the literature regarding the stakeholder
goal of self-analysis. In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl proposed a revision to Bloom’s
Taxonomy which helps define four different knowledge types. The knowledge types considered
in this review are declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. In The Three Dimensions of
Improving Student Performance, Rueda (2011) explicates declarative knowledge as the factual
and conceptual knowledge one needs to complete work. One’s procedural knowledge is the
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 20
information about how to do a task or implement a process. Individuals also utilize
metacognitive knowledge to support their work product, bringing to bear their knowledge of self,
ability to adjust strategies, and the awareness of one’s own knowledge (Rueda, 2011).
Strategic plan goals. Mid-level professional staff need knowledge of strategic plan goals
for staff. This declarative (factual) knowledge describes the strategic goals for Private University
and should explain the connection between performance goals and overall strategic goals to the
mid-level professionals so they understand how their work performance affects the work and
outcomes of the university. Sometimes, mid-level professionals do not have the information,
data, or knowledge to make necessary decisions as well as the political capital to influence
decisions (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001). The literature explains the importance of stakeholders’
knowledge of the strategic planning process within the institution (Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson
& Irmer, 2011; Delprino, 2013; Drake, Wong, & Salter, 2007; Hellawell & Hancock, 2001;
Powell, 2008). Without this knowledge and information, those charged with carrying out the
work of the institution, the mid-level professional staff, face challenges in decision making and
influence (Powell, 2008).
Performance goals within the organization. Mid-level professional staff need
knowledge of their performance goal expectations within the university and/or their department.
The strategic plan may explicate the expectations of the mid-level professional staff and their
work for the university and it may describe how the university expects to collaborate with or
otherwise utilize the mid-level professional staff. Wang, Tseng, Yen, and Huang (2011) discuss
the need for the mid-level professional staff to understand the skills and knowledge pertinent to
their daily work and how their performance is measured. The authors point out that when
employees have performance goal expectations which have an impact on the larger organization,
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 21
there may be better morale and loyalty from the employees toward the institution. It is
important; then, for professionals to understand how their departmental and individual
performance goals connect to the larger strategic goals of the higher education organization
(Hellawell & Hancock, 2001). In higher education, there has traditionally been more emphasis
placed on faculty performance goals than the mid-level professional staff performance goals (Jo,
2008). The growing literature suggests that increased attention to these mid-level professional
staff and their performance outcomes may have a positive impact on the institution (Jo, 2008).
Performance goals. It is suggested in the literature that when mid-level professional staff
are aware of their performance goals, they have the ability to adjust their planning to meet their
personal as well as their department’s needs, they can adjust strategies to complete work, and
they can think critically about their work and themselves in relation to their work (Halpern,
2004). Additionally, employees who think critically may be able to deepen their knowledge of
their skill set and performance such that they can more easily adapt to new settings and transfer
knowledge and skills from one work setting to another (Carpenter, 2012). To understand more
clearly the self in relation to performance and organizational goals, employees should be able to
see how their work and performance expectations connect to the umbrella organizational
mission, vision, and strategic plan. Rueda (2011) discusses metacognitive knowledge which can
be used by mid-level professionals to understand how their performance interacts with the
institution and how one’s daily goals stem from the larger goals which should be aligned with the
organizational mission and knowing when and how to complete work. Though individual goals
can become misaligned, it is important for these professionals to see how their stakeholder goals
connect with the upstream goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Stakeholders can then critically use this
metacognitive model to determine how their performance goals connect with strategic goals in
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 22
order to connect their outcomes and what skills and knowledge they need to achieve the
designated goals (Alexander, Schallert & Reynolds, 2009).
Table 1 shows the organizational mission and organizational goal for Private University
with the stakeholder goal clearly described. The knowledge influences, types, and assessments
are depicted to illuminate further the necessary skills and knowledge needed by mid-level
professional stakeholders and how their knowledge and skills might be assessed.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 23
Table 1
Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of Private University is to promote learning by engaging with students to advance
scholarly pursuits and form partnerships with local and global communities to contribute to a
sustainable common good.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2025, the University will implement its strategic plan.
Stakeholder Goal
Mid-level professional staff will work to meet their performance goals in relationship to the
organizational strategic plan.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative factual or
conceptual, procedural, or
metacognitive
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Mid-level professional staff
need knowledge of strategic
plan goals for staff.
Declarative (factual) Mid-level staff will be asked
whether they know there is an
organizational strategic plan.
Mid-level staff will be asked
whether their performance goals
connect to the strategic plan.
Mid-level professional staff
need knowledge of their
performance goals within the
university and/or department.
Declarative (Factual)
Procedural
Mid-level professional staff will
be asked whether they know
what their specific performance
goals are with respect to the
strategic plan.
Mid-level professional staff will
be asked if they receive an
annual evaluation.
Mid-level professional staff will
be asked if their performance
goals are explained to them in
their annual evaluation.
Mid-level professional staff
need to know how to connect
their work to the overall
strategic plan goals of the
university.
Metacognitive Mid-level professional staff will
be asked if they understand how
their performance goals connect
to the university strategic plan.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 24
Motivational Influences
Social cognitive theory suggests that when people learn new skills, they may not
demonstrate their new skills until they are motivated to do so (Denier, Wolters, & Benzon,
2006). This is relevant to mid-level professional staff performance goals within higher education
because unless these professionals are regarded as valuable and their work recognized, there is
the likelihood they will leave the institution in search of recognition and take their learning and
skills with them (Jo, 2008). The motivation of the mid-level professional higher education staff
may stem from multiple sources: the self, the organization, and the relationship between the two
(Ola & Adeyemi, 2012).
When someone is willing to start a task, persist through the task, and expend the
necessary mental effort to complete the task, they are described as motivated (Clark & Estes,
2008). Motivators are one’s values, success expectations, self-efficacy, and interest. In order for
mid-level professional staff to be successful in their work, these employees should be motivated
to meet or exceed their understood performance goals. Eccles (2006) discusses that motivation
can be intrinsic, internal to the person, or externally driven, and that people have internal
expectations for success which is based on the value someone places on the options. That is, if
people have confidence in their ability to do well and place a high value on doing well, they
likely will see some success in a given task. Expectancy value theory and self-efficacy theory
are helpful in considering the motivation behind the higher education mid-level professional and
their work relative to the larger institution. As previously discussed, possessing knowledge and
skills is a foundation for performance. In order to build on that foundation, one must value their
work and demonstrate self-efficacy to complete work.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 25
Expectancy Value Theory. Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele (1998) linked one’s beliefs
about one’s ability to do work with internal schemas built on prior experience and other social
beliefs about one’s abilities, knowledge and skills by asking the questions: “Can I do the task?”
and “Do I want to do the task?” It is the linkage between the self-knowledge of one’s ability to
do a task coupled with one’s value for the task that sets up the expectancy that one will be able to
succeed at a task. When the answers to both the questions are yes, the person expects to be
successful with the task as well as values the task enough to persist through it. When one
answers “no” to one or both of the motivational questions, the expectancy for success is reduced
(Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998).
Higher education institutions are typically perceived as working in the public interest
and this mission also serves to help mid-level professional staff find motivation to complete their
work. In 2011, Jacobson studied workers who chose the public sector for meaningful work
rather than for money, status, and prestige. Jacobson’s work may provide some insight into
some of the motivations for those who choose to work in higher education either in a public
school or private school. This study suggests that one’s internal motivations for pursuing work
do not always hinge on the expected motivation of salary and benefits (Jacobson, 2011). Drake,
Wong, and Salter (2007) present another finding regarding professional performance suggesting
that it is not performance reward that specifically drives employees at the mid-level professional
status. In completing work and connecting knowledge and motivation to the university’s
strategic plan, mid-level higher education professionals are seeking organizational feedback.
Feedback is important as it helps the employee answer the motivational question of “Can I do
this task?” and “Do I want to do this task?” (Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007). This study
demonstrated that meaningful feedback has significant and positive effects on the mid-level
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 26
professional’s self-efficacy, while performance based rewards can reduce one’s self-
determination and perceptions of one’s ability and competence level. Thoughtful recognition of
effort is also perceived as motivational by mid-level professional employees (Hernandez, 2010).
Organizationally, if the institution supports the efforts to conduct and then provides resources for
professional development, skills training, or even promotions, these actions are externally
motivating (p. 108). Professional development linked with the external recognition is
challenging work. When employees are tasked with work, or conducting work which makes
them think and when they are allowed to use their critical thinking skills to achieve outcomes,
employees are motivated toward success (p. 113).
Self-Efficacy Theory. In 1986, Bandura posited that behavior and motivation primarily
rest on one’s self-beliefs as critical elements. That is, unless one believes his or her actions can
produce the desired outcomes, there is little incentive to persist through a task when the work
becomes difficult (Pajares, 2006). These ideas about oneself touch nearly every aspect of one’s
life. These thoughts about the self, whether they are productive or debilitating, have an impact
on the life choices one makes (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is influenced by one’s personal
experience as well as the cues and feedback from our social milieu and culture. People can also
form self-efficacy beliefs from observing others in action. For example, if one sees a person
performing an unfamiliar task, one might think, “If he can do it, so can I.” (Pajares, 2006). Self-
efficacy can be influenced by meaningful feedback, which is another form of observation and
self-reflection.
Research is beginning to show that mid-level higher education professionals are
intrinsically motivated to reach or even set their own performance goals (Jacobson, 2011; Jo,
2008). If we are considering self-efficacy based on Rueda’s (2011) writing, it is interesting to
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 27
study the degree to which the mid-level professional staff believe they are efficacious about their
work performance in relationship to the university’s strategic plan. The connection from Rueda
(2011) is that self-efficacy is a predictor of performance, so if the mid-level professional staff do
believe in their own self-efficacy, it is reasonable to expect they would be successful in working
to the strategic plan.
Table 2 shows how the organization mission and goals for Private University support and
sustain the Stakeholder goal for the mid-level professional staff. The assumed motivational
influences for the professional staff are the expectancy value theory and the self-efficacy value
theory. The table demonstrates the value professional staff might place on completing work and
connecting performance to the strategic plan along with the self-efficacy needed to make those
connections. Survey questions may look similar to the provided examples to evaluate the level
to which mid-level professional staff do value strategic planning and feel confident about their
participation in the process.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 28
Table 2
Motivation Influences, Motivational Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of Private University is to promote learning by engaging with students to advance
scholarly pursuits and form partnerships with local and global communities to contribute to a
sustainable common good.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2025, the University will implement its strategic plan.
Stakeholder Goal
Mid-level professional staff will work to meet performance goals in relationship to the
organizational strategic plan.
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivational Influence Assessment
Value – Mid-level staff sees
value in participating in
organizational strategic
planning and implementation
of the strategic plan.
Written survey item: “It is valuable for me to participate in
organizational strategic planning in order to ensure strategic
plan goals include the mid-level professional staff.” (Not at all
valuable – Very valuable)
Self-Efficacy – Mid-level
staff should be confident in
collaborating with the
university to participate in
organizational strategic
planning and implementation.
I feel confident about my ability to perform my job duties
related to the strategic plan.
Organizational Influences
Mid-level professional staff are often able to find meaning, or motivation, to complete
work from sources other than salary or benefits. Personal satisfaction from the work appears to
drive many professionals in the absence of recognition, promotion, or other support from the
organization (Kuckinke, Ardichvili, Borchert, Cornachione et al., 2011). Motivation can be both
internal to the person, and external from the organization. The influences the organization
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 29
utilizes to support motivation can be found in the overall institutional culture (Clark & Estes,
2008). If the organization does not provide external influences on employees to support
motivation, employees may apply their own internal motivations to support their work, or,
employees may start to seek organizational influence for motivation elsewhere. In 2008, Jo
asserts that mid-level professional staff will begin to seek other opportunities to feed their
internal motivation if their work is not recognized, promotions are not provided, or information
is not available to support necessary decision making for this employee group.
To work toward strategic plan related performance goals, mid-level professional staff
within the university utilize many resources. These resources are both internal and external to
the person. Without adequate resources, even the most exceptional employees encounter
obstacles in reaching performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Mid-level professional staff may
find themselves caught at the intersection of performance goals and resource gaps which may
then lead to diminished motivation or ability to achieve goals. Clark and Estes (2008) encourage
considering the organizational resources surrounding employees, in this case the mid-level
higher education professional staff. One must look to the organizational cultural model
influences and setting influences to understand where gaps can occur. According to Rueda
(2011), cultural models are generally understood by groups within organizations and while they
are changeable, these models are expressed through behaviors and spoken, or unspoken rules.
Further, the cultural setting is the mechanics of the routines which govern activities in the
workplace (Rueda, 2011). In Private University, there may be a cultural setting which prevents
mid-level professional staff from fully engaging, or believing they can fully engage, with the
strategic planning processes of the university.
Rueda (2011) discusses that employee ability to conduct work may affect their perception
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 30
about their ability to work within an institution and so, when one considers the mid-level
professional staff at a university, it may be useful to consider their self-efficacy within their
performance context. The nature of the work in higher education is often perceived as public
sector work, and people who pursue this type of work possess some measure of intrinsic
motivation which is less influenced by external motivators like salary (Drake, Wong, & Salter,
2007). The self-efficacy held by mid-level professional staff is increased when these staff are
recognized for their effort and motivation through public recognition and private feedback
(Hernandez, 2010; Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007). When these employees experience
dissatisfaction and become unmotivated, there is often an external cause. Research is
demonstrating that these external factors are the lack of recognition, lack of promotion, and
insufficient information and autonomy to make necessary decisions (Jo, 2008). In the absence of
these variables, mid-level professionals can experience weakened self-efficacy and begin to look
to other organizations for these missing elements (Kerby & Burns, 2012). In higher education,
employees are generally motivated internally and by the mission of the organization (Jacobson,
2011). A common belief is that universities and colleges exist for the good of society and the
production of a motivated and educated workforce. According to Jacobson (2011), this drive and
willingness to work toward a public service mission draws in employees who are motivated not
by money, but by meaningful work. Where higher education sees motivation drop; however, is
when employee internal motivations are not recognized or supported through feedback or other
recognition or promotion (Jo, 2008).
Organizational value of professional performance. Organizations often provide
training and professional development opportunities along with increasing attention paid to the
recruiting and hiring of qualified employees who fit a given organizational culture (Holland,
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 31
Sheehan & De Cieri, 2007). In these areas, organizations provide valuable organizational
resources to meet performance goals and, possibly, address the strategic plan goals.
In the case of the mid-level professional staff, research may be able to describe the
perceptions held by these employees about the value the organization places on their work.
These specific employees, in the case of higher education, may be the ones fully tasked with
meeting strategic plan and performance goals though the necessary organizational resources to
meet these goals may not be fully provided or understood. In 2007, Holland, Sheehan, and De
Cieri conducted a study to look at human resource development trends and how these trends are
perceived by those employees the organizations may want to retain and develop. The authors
point out that there is an expectation that employers will play a part in “upgrading employees’
knowledge, skills and abilities, so that these workers remain in demand in a wider employment
market” (p. 250). Mid-level professional staff may apply their internal motivations toward an
organization’s mission and culture. If the organization does not support the work of these
employees by recognizing work, providing promotions, and encouraging data-driven decision
making, employees may be more likely to seek organizational support from other institutions (Jo,
2008).
In addition to tangible resources being available to mid-level professional staff to
improve performance, there is the matter of the intangible organizational culture and its effect on
these employees tasked with outcomes reliant on informed decisions. Hellawell and Hancock
(2001) posed questions to mid-level university managers regarding the decision making process.
When questioned about collegiality and decision-making, responses suggested that collegiality
decreased at higher levels of the organizational chart. Due to multiple factors, including physical
separation from necessary stakeholders, mid-level managers in higher education find decision-
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 32
making “a slow and difficult process with some staff, which at times could be very demanding
for the managers concerned” (p. 189). Mid-level professional staff may have the perception,
then, that their performance is less valuable than faculty work when organizational culture
appears not to support their need for data and input to make and drive decisions.
It appears that within higher education, when organizations produce training and
professional development, it is often focused on the teaching faculty and improving teaching and
learning for students. Mid-level professional staff focused on operations, student support and
bureaucratic endeavors may see the lack of specific professional development opportunities
focused on their work as reinforcing the perception their work is not valued as highly within the
organization (Elton, 2009). Mid-level professional staff may seek out opportunities to expand
their skill sets in order to apply improved skills toward their work. An organization which
provides professional development for mid-level professional staff may demonstrate an
organizational influence on these employees which can contribute to mid-level professional staff
retention (Wang, Tseng, Yen, Huang, 2011).
Organizational resources for mid-level professional staff. The mid-level professional
staff often possess technical, process oriented knowledge specific to the industry or organization
as well as the soft skills acquired through extended time in the position and professional growth
through the ranks. In 2013, Gallagher, Gallagher and Kaiser studied mid-level professionals in
technical fields and found a gap in career planning for these employees within the organization.
That is, there was little in the way of a “career map” for these mid-level professionals to follow
when trying to ascend the career ladder or move into different responsibility areas.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 33
In higher education organizations, there may be similar gaps with respect to career
development and planning for those who do not have faculty status. Those who find themselves
responsible for implementing strategic plan goals and perceiving a lack of appreciation for their
performance effort may be at risk for leaving the institution and taking their invaluable
institutional knowledge with them (Jo, 2008). Universities may be better served if they more
clearly identified their organizational culture with respect to the mid-level professional staff and
offered training and skill-building opportunities as well as feedback and evaluation designed to
retain and develop these employees (Wang, Tseng, Yen, & Huang, 2011). These researchers
continue in their article to discuss the need for an individual to align him or herself with the
organization’s identity. When there is a mismatch of identity, such as when an employee does
not understand or personally subscribe to an organization’s mission, it is possible performance
can suffer. The institution, then, may choose, in the interest of employee retention, to offer
professional development or other methods to assist the employee in greater connection to the
organizational identity (Wang, Tseng, Yen, & Huang, 2011). That is, if the employee offers a
skill set or other motivation to remain employed by the institution. The institution may want to
review retention efforts before an employee leaves the organization. By supporting and
improving the connection between the employee and the organization, “feelings of a common
fate to the organization occurred” (p. 48). When organizational identity or culture is
pronounced, it can influence employee attitudes and effectiveness (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley,
2000).
In 1997, Winston and Creamer studied the staffing practices for mid-level professional
staff in universities and found the on-boarding for these professional people was cursory at best.
In their survey, findings included the subjects least likely to be addressed in orientation were
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 34
“unwritten institutional expectations,” and “staff development policies” among others. Because
mid-level professional staff are integral to the institution’s life, they are expected to foster
effectiveness with limited formal authority (Mather, Bryan, & Faulkner, 2009).
Mid-level professional staff positions are challenging because they are in the middle of
the organizational structure. They often must translate direction from the top to those below, or
provide communication from below upwards. Sometimes, these employees are tasked with
interpreting student needs to the university administration to begin a change process. These
employees often must bridge the gap between front-line staff and faculty as well as institutional
leaders (Mather, Bryan, & Faulkner, 2009). That is, these professionals must be able to absorb
multiple communication streams and turn them into daily operationalized work. Because these
mid-level roles are often poorly defined, in the case of larger institutions, there can be many
mixed messages from surrounding stakeholders regarding the mid-level professional’s
opportunities and resources (Mather, Bryan, & Faulkner, 2009).
In order to maximize the potential of the mid-level professional staff within higher
education, organizations may want to consider reviewing and reinforcing the opportunities and
resources which already exist for this employee band. In cases where resources already exist to
support the mid-level professional’s work, organizations can look to their internal marketing
strategies and potentially re-frame professional development as recognition and reward for the
valuable work being done (Drake, Wong, & Salter, 2007). Empowering the mid-level
professional staff to speak up and request meaningful recognition and resources for their work
may also improve relationships and understanding of the vital role played by these professionals
in the daily life of the higher education institution (Jo, 2008).
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 35
Table 3 clarifies the organizational influences which have an impact on the ability of
mid-level professional higher education staff to complete their work, meet performance goals,
and participate in the life of the organization.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 36
Table 3
Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of Private University is to promote learning by engaging with students to advance
scholarly pursuits and form partnerships with local and global communities to contribute to a
sustainable common good.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2025, the University will implement its strategic plan.
Stakeholder Goal
Mid-level professional staff will work to meet performance goals in relationship to the
organizational strategic plan.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: The
organization needs to see the value of mid-
level professional staff’s work and
performance.
Survey questions to identify whether the mid-
level professional staff feel valued.
Cultural Model Influence 2: There is a
general organizational expectation that mid-
level professional staff have insight into the
implementation needs of the strategic plan.
There is a general organizational practice
that the university explains to the mid-level
professional staff how to implement and
reach the expected outcomes of the overall
strategic plan.
Survey questions to identify the insights mid-
level professional staff have about
implementing a strategic plan.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: To address the
strategic plan goals, the organization needs
to provide mid-level professional staff
resources, training, and support.
Survey questions about resources, training, and
support.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 37
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Mid-Level Professional Staff Knowledge,
Motivation and the Organizational Context
It is often helpful for a researcher to present the framework of one’s study visually to
demonstrate the possible connections between the key concepts and variables being studied.
Constructing, or building, a framework for one’s study helps to refine research questions and
organize one’s tentative theories about the possible findings (Maxwell, 2013). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) discuss the possibility of demonstrating qualitative data through a model which
shows the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of one’s research findings. This approach to
data reporting connects to Maxwell’s support of beginning one’s study with a visual to begin to
understand the relationships between the variables under consideration.
This study assesses the relationships between higher education mid-level professional
staff and the university strategic planning and implementation process and outcomes. The
literature suggests that this band of university employees may be overlooked during, yet
ultimately responsible for, the outcomes of the university strategic plan (Hellawell & Hancock,
2001; Jo, 2008; Powell, 2008). Though presented in this evaluation study as individuals’
knowledge and motivation factors, they are directly impacted by the organizational influences.
This study aims to discover how the mid-level professional staff understand the strategic
planning and implementation process, their role in it, and the expected outcomes for which they
may be responsible. This study will also uncover possible relationships between the university’s
investment in this employee band and if providing more meaningful resources will have an
impact on the university’s overall strategic planning process and outcomes.
This graphic, Figure A, provides a visual representation of the influences under
consideration and preliminary assumptions about relationships between these variables.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 38
Figure A. Mid-level professional staff and university variables: Conceptual framework
This diagram demonstrates the knowledge and motivation necessary from the mid-level
professional staff to successfully meet their performance goals. Then, the organization
influences impact the employee variables when the organization is expected to provide adequate
resources, recognition, and inclusion. If the organization supports those variables, there may be
some anticipated outcomes. In the absence of those variables, other outcomes may occur. This
study surveys the relationship between the employee variables and the organizational influences
and provide recommendations for how to achieve more positive outcomes for both employees
and the organization.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 39
Chapter Three: Methodology
The mid-level professional staff at Private University are stakeholders in the strategic
planning process and the strategic plan outcomes. This study examines the relationship of the
mid-level professional staff to the strategic planning process and outcomes. The mid-level
professional staff’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the
organizational and stakeholder’s goals will be analyzed to determine if the university is reaching
its stated goal of including all stakeholders in the strategic plan process and outcomes.
Research Questions
The research questions that guide this study are:
1. To what extent is the university meeting its goal of including the mid-level professional
staff in strategic planning?
2. What are the middle level professional staff’s knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to implementing the University’s strategic plan?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model focuses on performance goals, performance gaps
and solutions to close any performance gaps. This model is applied to this study to discover how
mid-level professional staff view their position, inclusion, and influence regarding the
university’s strategic planning process and implementation. The methodological framework is a
mixed-methods study designed to measure mid-level professional staff awareness of,
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 40
participation in, and satisfaction with the university strategic planning process and their work
performance. The knowledge, activities, and organizational influences which impact strategic
planning and participation in planning will be generated based on participant knowledge and
relevant literature. A survey will be constructed and deployed to mid-level professional staff to
delve deeper into these influences. Data will be evaluated and researched solutions will be
recommended to the participating organization. The choice to utilize a survey is driven by the
number of possible respondents which is more than 100 individuals, and the desire to use
descriptive statistics to understand the knowledge, motivation, and beliefs about organizational
resources of the mid-level professional staff and strategic planning, outcomes, and performance
goals within a mid-size, southwestern, private university. At the end of the survey, respondents
were given the opportunity to participate in an in-person interview to provide more in-depth
responses.
Participating Stakeholders
The mid-level professional staff was selected for this evaluation because there is evidence
to suggest these stakeholders are critical to the organization’s mission, but may be overlooked in
the strategic planning process and implementation and thus leave the institution due to a possible
lack of advancement and recognition (Andrews & Dougherty, 2007; Bhattacharyya & Jha, 2013;
Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011; Davies & Davies, 2004; Gleason-Gomez, Russell
& Williams, 2010).
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participants will not be faculty. Faculty are included in the strategic
planning process.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 41
Criterion 2. Participants will be those with the titles of coordinator, manager, director.
These titles align with the mid-level professional staff who do not teach, but who are student
facing. There is some evidence these employees are not included in the university strategic
planning.
Criterion 3. Participants will not be those defined as hourly employees. These
employees typically are those who are involved with the daily operations of the university in
roles like facilities, grounds keeping, security, and food service.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
This researcher contacted the president of the Private University Staff Advisory Council
(SAC) and asked for the group’s support for this study and to send out the survey to the mid-
level professional staff across campus. The survey was emailed to the distribution list of the
Staff Advisory Council (SAC) with their support of this study. This email went to 44 SAC
members who were eligible to respond to the survey. These 44 respondents were also
encouraged to forward the email to their departmental colleagues. The SAC representative stated
that, “Many of the members did forward the email, but we do not know to how many
respondents.” It was expected that not all recipients would respond to the survey. There were
30 responses collected for this survey, and zero respondents were willing to participate in an in-
person interview.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The survey collected data to analyze the mid-level professional staff’s relationship with
the university’s strategic plan and strategic planning process, the implementation of the strategic
plan, as well as the knowledge necessary for the mid-level professional staff to meet their
performance goals, the motivation necessary to perform work, and the organizational influences
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 42
which impact the mid-level professional staff’s performance. The in-person interviews
contained open-ended questions to collect more in-depth responses from the mid-level
professional staff.
Questions directed to this sample will include questions regarding feelings, beliefs, and
perceptions related to employee performance, the university strategic plan, and the relationships
between the mid-level professional staff and the strategic planning process. The size of the
sample necessitates using a survey which allows data to be collected quickly and
comprehensively across a large group of people (Creswell, 2014). There are demographic
questions in the survey used to assist in data analysis and make some observations related to
items like gender, job title, ethnicity, and age.
Survey
The survey was administered and created using Qualtrics survey software which is
available to this researcher through the University of Southern California. The survey was
distributed with an active link to the Qualtrics website. The survey contains 35 questions which
includes branching to direct participants to different question sets depending on their responses
to certain questions. An advantage to utilizing a web-based survey platform is that respondents
can be shown questions which are most relevant to their circumstances and knowledge (Dykema,
Jones, Piche, & Stevenson, 2013). To address validity issues, items are grouped as they relate to
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary for the mid-level
professional staff to complete their work to ensure that questions relate to each other within those
groups and back to the main research questions. This survey was developed for this research
project to begin the evaluation of higher education inclusiveness in strategic planning and to
make recommendations to the organization about how to communicate with and support all
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 43
stakeholders in the strategic planning process and performance related to the strategic plan goals
(Burke, 2004; Clark &Estes, 2008; Elton, 2009).
Respondents were selected from the overall Private University staff to include those
people identified as mid-level professional staff by their position titles and non-faculty status.
Titles included, but were not limited to; coordinator, manager, director, supervisor. The
employees included do not have faculty status, nor are they termed classified, hourly, or non-
exempt. Because this researcher is interested in this specific group of people, this sample has
been identified for the survey administration. Data would have been collected from those who
choose not to complete the survey, identify any trend of those who did not complete, and any
reason for not completing (Fink, 2013). In this case; however, of the 30 responses, all
respondents completed the survey.
Respondents received the initial survey via the university email system. The introductory
email provided the survey administration information. Respondents were not incentivized to
complete the survey, or the in-person interview beyond an appeal to support this researcher’s
dissertation study with their support and completion. In 2013, Dykema, Jones, Piche, and
Stevenson, through their research into web-based survey administration, discuss the notion of
social exchange, wherein respondents are more likely to respond to a survey if they trust and
know the originator of the request (p. 362).
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 44
Data Analysis
Utilizing the Staff Advisory Council (SAC) for the survey distribution enabled this
researcher to contact a group of mid-level professional staff members interested in support the
university staff. The SAC distribution email list contained 44 people who received the survey
directly. This group was to forward the survey to others in their departments, which resulted in
the survey reaching approximately 150 mid-level professional staff. The survey collected 30
responses (20% response rate) and from this dataset, frequencies will be calculated. The
percentage of stakeholders who indicate more positive responses will be compared to those who
indicate more negative responses. There will be minimal demographic questions asked to
maintain anonymity; though the demographic responses received will be used to analyze the data
by gender, title, age, and years of service. Creswell (2014) encourages researchers to discuss
response bias, and this researcher will do so based on data collected if a respondent abandons the
survey after starting, or opts-out of the survey given the option at the beginning. The means,
standard deviations and ranges of scores will be provided and analyzed. Finally, analysis of the
dataset will offer information related to the research questions and provide a foundation for
future research on the topic and stakeholder group under study.
Reliability and Validity
This survey and research are based on the hypothesis that the mid-level professional staff
in universities are tasked with performing to and implementing strategic goals they have not had
a role in creating. The survey as administered is designed to measure the mid-level professional
staff’s understanding of their role and relationship with the strategic planning process and
whether they want to see changes in those roles and relationships. Questions were developed to
provide opportunities for respondents to assess their performance-based knowledge, personal and
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 45
external motivations for performance, and the resources available to support their performance
relative to the strategic planning process within the organization and the existing strategic plan
itself. A survey is the most useful tool for assessing variables such as “belief,” “value,” and
connections between personal motivation and organizational resources (Kurpius & Stafford,
2006).
Based on the literature review, questions were developed to understand how mid-level
professional staff view their own work and how they believe their work is viewed by the
university. The literature suggests that these employees may become frustrated within the
university because their own goals are not realized, resulting in impacts on motivation (Jo, 2008;
Powell, 2008). This frustration may be the result of the mid-level professional staff believing the
organization does not value their work and/or input into the strategic goals (Bolden, Petrov,
Gosling, 2008; Gleason-Gomez, Russell, & Williams, 2010; Jacobson, 2011). As such, this
survey evaluates a connection between the mid-level professional staff and their inclusion in the
strategic planning process.
While this study and the survey questions are being created and used for the first time for
the purposes of this study, the intent is that this study and the survey questions will be used again
at other institutions and be revised to increase the validity of the questions as well as the
reliability of the instrument itself (Creswell, 2014). A pilot study was not completed for this
study to test the questions, but there was testing of the survey tool to ensure that choosing certain
responses would trigger the correct branching to display the intended questions for the
participant.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 46
Ethics
For this quantitative study, a survey instrument was written by this researcher with
support from the faculty and institutional review board and disseminated to the selected
population to gather data related to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Informed
consent via an Information Sheet is necessary to ensure that participants understand and are
aware their participation is completely voluntary, their survey responses will be confidential and
anonymous, and they do not have to complete the survey (Glesne, 2011).
To ensure the safety of the participants, the study was submitted to the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and follows the University of Southern
California (USC) policies and procedures to protect the well-being and safety of this study’s
research participants. This study was also presented to Private University’s IRB for approval
prior to administration of the survey. Private University’s response to the request to their IRB
indicated that no formal approval was necessary to conduct this research.
The survey was delivered through Private University’s email system via the Staff
Advisory Council to protect the participant’s anonymity. The email participants received a link
to the survey with a letter from this researcher and provided the informed consent information.
This email reminded participants of the voluntary nature of the survey, as well as how the data
will be received by the researcher, stored securely, and reported only in aggregate information
with descriptive statistics. An active hyperlink was provided directing respondents to the
Informed Consent/Information Sheet for their information (Appendix B). Any IP address
collected by the survey software was scrubbed from the data collection report.
This researcher is storing the scrubbed data and responses in the ‘cloud’ along with the
drafts of this dissertation writing. There is no way for this researcher to access the university
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 47
email system to identify or contact any of the survey recipients. After two reminders from this
researcher to the SAC representative, the survey was closed and there was no more
communication with the SAC regarding survey responses.
Limitations and Delimitations
Bias
A limitation of this study is the personal experience this researcher has with higher
education organizations and personal perceptions about the relationships between the mid-level
professional staff and the strategic planning process. While this researcher is aware of the bias
and has taken steps throughout the formulation of the study to minimize the bias, there is still the
possibility the bias is infecting the survey questions and analysis. In 2014, Creswell writes that
discussing researcher bias in the data analysis can support a study and transparency around the
bias can inform the reader about the descriptive statistical analysis and how the researcher
understands the study’s results. This researcher provides narrative with the data analysis to
describe the bias affecting perceptions of the data collected.
The decision to keep the survey to approximately 34 questions may impact the depth of
the data collected. Respondents may wish to share more information than is asked, and that data
will be missed by the choice not to include other open-ended response mechanism. Though the
survey includes open-responses for some questions and an open-response question, respondents
may choose not to participate in that question, or collected data may not directly address the
research questions (Creswell, 2014). This study offered an opportunity for respondents to
participate in an in-person interview to provide more information about their experience with
strategic planning and the strategic planning process. None of the 30 respondents selected the
option to participate in an in-person interview. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest that using
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 48
online in-person interview tools like Skype, or other video conferencing tools or even the phone
might deter respondents from participating in interviews. Concerns about confidentiality, or
even the possibility of repercussions in the workplace might also deter people from participating
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the case of this study, possible participants might have felt
constrained from participating because of time constraints. As one survey respondent indicated
“I was working too many hours to participate [in strategic planning].” If possible interview
participants believe they are already working too many hours to participate in the university
strategic planning process, they may have felt participating in an interview was too much of an
infringement on their personal time.
Reliability
Reliability of the instrument is a limitation of this study. The survey was created for this
study with the intent that questions will relate to each other and develop content reliability. This
was the first time this instrument was used to study this relationship, thus the resulting data
cannot be compared to similar studies. It is the researcher’s hope that this survey can be and will
be used at other organizations to assess mid-level professional staff and their beliefs about the
strategic planning process where they work, but the instrument was tested first through this
initial study. Kurpius and Stafford (2006) are clear that a reliable instrument is one that
measures what it purports to measure. Though this researcher may be able to offer some
statistical evidence of reliability, the study is limited.
To maintain as much anonymity as possible, the study limits demographic questions
regarding where the respondent works on campus. Though the researcher has not worked at the
organization for several years, it is still possible respondents might be known to the researcher.
Because of this possibility, demographic questions are limited to: gender, length of employment,
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 49
and job title (not including any departmental identifier). Using these demographics will allow
the researcher to utilize descriptive statistics to analyze the data, but not to identify respondents
in any way. Keeping the data anonymous will protect the respondents and allow them to share
information about their beliefs, motivations, and perceptions without concern they will be
identified (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006).
Limitations
This researcher used a survey to collect data because of the anticipated number of
respondents, the desire to collect data about beliefs and values, and to objectively analyze the
data using descriptive statistics. During the development of the quantitative portion of the study,
this researcher was guided to include a qualitative in-person interview to those survey
respondents who would be offered the opportunity to self-select into the qualitative interview. It
was anticipated that more of the mid-level professional staff would receive the survey via the
Staff Advisory Council and participate. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) point to reluctance to
participate in research as a function of desires not to draw attention to oneself in the workplace.
None of the respondents opted into the in-person interview portion of the study. The survey did
allow respondents to share additional responses to some questions and those text responses were
analyzed for themes and direct support of data analysis in the quantitative findings. This survey
was intentionally limited to specific multiple choice questions for the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences areas. There were opportunities for respondents to complete open
text responses to some questions to collect more specific data. The text responses allowed
participants to share more information anonymously without any risk of identification through
in-person participation. This risk may have affected the in-person interview response rate
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 50
because this researcher was identified to participants. Thus, participants who realized they knew
the researcher may have decided to avoid the in-person interview to avoid identification.
Table 4
Survey Question Distribution
Framework Area Number of Multiple
Choice Questions
Number of Open Text
Questions (Follow-up) –
Based on multiple choice
selection
Demographic Questions 6 0
Knowledge Questions 10 5
Motivation Questions 4 1
Organizational Influence Questions 3 0
Satisfaction 2 2
It is recommended that subsequent distribution of this survey include additional questions
to address concerns raised in this initial study. Specifically, motivation questions which get at
why the respondent does not feel valued by the organization compared to their feeling of value
by their supervisor and department. More questions about motivation and reward may help the
organization understand more fully the role of these mid-level professionals and how to reduce
turnover and increase retention and sustain institutional knowledge and continuity. Specific
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 51
questions about how the mid-level professional staff understand how their performance connects
to specific strategic plan outcomes could connect with more questions about employee
motivation when the connection between work and strategic plan are clear and understood.
There was an expectation from this researcher that the Staff Advisory Council (SAC)
contacted on the campus of Private University had a complete email list of all the mid-level
professional staff at the university. This turned out not to be the case and the email soliciting
survey responses was sent to the 44 mid-level professional staff directly connected to this staff
group. These 44 people were asked to forward the survey to their departments creating an
unexpected snowball effect for gathering survey responses. Because of the miscommunication
between this researcher and the SAC, the survey was not distributed in a smooth way, and the
total number of recipients could not be clearly identified. It is reasonable to believe the survey
reached approximately 150 people, resulting in 30 responses for a 20% response rate.
This survey could be easily implemented at other, similar higher education institutions to
collect data which could be compared to this initial collection as well as in the aggregate. This
survey and the data it seeks could also be utilized in corporate organizations, or other
organizations outside the sphere of higher education. The key to collecting and analyzing useful
data lies in understanding exactly who will receive the survey upon its initial deployment in an
organization.
Delimitations
Different organizations, not just higher education, could use this survey and
recommendations to evaluate the relationship between the mid-level professional staff and the
organizational strategic plan and begin to eliminate gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 52
organizational influences. The conditions for the survey and recommendations would be to
review an organization of such size where this group of employees can clearly be identified and
will provide an adequate anonymous pool of responses. That is, employees who are defined by
title, coordinator, manager, director, but are not hourly or who report to the mid-level
professional staff. The organization which implements this study and recommendations would
be one which values their employees and wants to retain institutional knowledge while providing
meaningful professional development for existing employees. As discussed in the Limitations
section, it would be valuable to follow the survey implementation with a series of in-person
interviews to collect deeper data and address common themes. The size of the organization
would dictate whether an anonymous pool of in-person interviews could be created. When
gathering data about beliefs and values, it is important for respondents to trust the researcher to
keep information confidential and for the researcher to utilize methods to ensure the validity of
the study by triangulating data collection with the survey and in-person interviews (Creswell,
2014).
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 53
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Purpose of the Project and Questions
To determine whether Private University is meeting its stated goal of including all
stakeholders in strategic planning and what the mid-level professional staff’s understanding of
their role in strategic planning is and how it is applied, a survey was conducted to evaluate the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources in the organization and among this group of
stakeholders. The questions which guided this study are:
1. To what extent is the university meeting its goal of including the mid-level professional
staff in strategic planning?
2. What are the middle level professional staff’s knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to implementing the University’s strategic plan?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Results
An electronic survey was delivered to the mid-level professional staff at Private
University via the university email system. The Staff Advisory Council (SAC) assisted in survey
delivery by sending the survey to their email list of 44 members. These members then forwarded
the email to their departments. It is understood the survey reached 150 mid-level professional
staff and 30 responses to the survey were recorded for a 20% response rate. At the end of the
survey was an invitation to participate in an in-person interview to provide more data for the
study. None of the 30 survey respondents accepted this invitation, so there were no in-person
interviews conducted.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 54
The median years of service for respondents was 3.5 years, while the mean was 7.26
years with a standard deviation of 7.45, while the years of service in the respondent’s current
department median was 2.5 years with a mean of 5.33 and a standard deviation of 5.98. The
expected titles of respondents are indicated in Table 5 with the following frequencies:
Table 5
Frequencies of Respondent Professional Title
Title Frequency
Director 5
Manager 6
Coordinator 5
Assistant Director 3
Associate Director 2
Assistant Dean 1
Assistant to… 2
Other/Varied 6
Respondents were asked to share their gender identity and people who identify as female
make up the majority of respondents. Table 6 shows the frequency of responses to the gender
identity question on the survey.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 55
Table 6
Respondent Gender Identity
Response Number Percentage
Decline to
answer
3 10%
Female 23 76%
Male 3 10%
Please share 1 (Trans Non-
Binary)
3%
The respondents were asked to share their ethnicity and provide details if their ethnic
identity was not listed as a response choice. Table 7 displays the percentage of ethnicities
reported by survey respondents.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 56
Table 7
Respondent Ethnicity
Ethnicity Number Percentage
White 22 73%
Black 0 0%
Asian 1 3%
Latino/a 1 3%
Hispanic 1 3%
Native
American
1 3%
Please
share:
1 (Mixed
Asian and White)
3%
No
response
3 10%
The ages of this group of mid-level professional staff are represented by a median age of
36 years with a mean of 37.8 and a standard deviation of 9.7. It is interesting to note the median
age of this group relative to the median length of service at 3.5 years which suggests these roles
are, in fact, mid-level roles and this group has the potential to either promote from these roles, or
leave the institution in search of career growth. Mather, Bryan, and Faulker (2009) point out that
this group of professionals, while very knowledgeable, may need additional supports from their
organization to fully inhabit their roles.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 57
Knowledge Results
Strategic plan. Respondents were asked several questions to evaluate their knowledge
of the university’s strategic plan, their participation in the plan and how they value the
opportunity to participate in the strategic planning process. Of the 30 respondents to the survey,
only 10% of respondents somewhat agree they have awareness of the university strategic plan.
The majority of respondents, 83%, indicated strong agreement with the statement that they are
aware of the university’s strategic plan. Participation in the development of the strategic plan is
somewhat more mixed with 46% (14 respondents) indicating they were included and 26% (eight
respondents) stating they strongly disagree or somewhat disagree about inclusion. The majority
of the group somewhat agreed or strongly agreed (66%) that they value participating in strategic
planning, while 26% seem more apathetic about participating. An opportunity to provide a
written response was offered if a respondent selected “somewhat disagree” or “strongly
disagree” to the participation value question. One respondent answered, “I was working too
many hours to take time to participate…”
Performance goals. Only three respondents (10%) disclosed they are not aware of their
performance goals. One of these respondents stated, “Not a clear goal-setting process within my
department.” Another respondent wrote, “I am staff member with an (sic) supervisor who is
faculty, and I think that the expectations for staff are not clearly laid out for faculty, and I’m not
sure that faculty think professional development is as important for staff as it is for faculty.”
Most respondents believe their performance goals connect to the university strategic plan.
Only two respondents indicated they did not have the knowledge to meet their work performance
goals with 90% of respondents feeling confident in their ability to achieve their performance
goals. Four respondents provided survey feedback that their supervisor does not complete an
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 58
evaluation of their work. Comments about the lack of evaluation include, “Supervisors do not
provide opportunities for growth because they prioritize highlighting excellence to ensure merit
is awarded,” “I am not consistently evaluated; I am only evaluated 2x/year when the University
mandates it to be completed by my supervisor in the system,” and “Supervisor does not do it.”
Respondents were provided an opportunity to describe the annual performance
evaluations they receive. Of the 30 survey respondents, 22 respondents provided a text response
(73%) with responses generally mentioning feedback being provided in the annual review
process. Personal goal setting with input from the supervisor was mentioned as part of the
annual review process by four (11%) respondents. For the annual evaluation, 36% of
respondents indicated receiving non-specific verbal feedback about performance. Thirty percent
of respondents mentioned written feedback included within the annual review process.
Motivation Results
Mid-level professional staff motivation. Respondents were asked to rank their
motivation for work with provided motivation choices. These choices were: salary, career goals,
supervisor, rewards, nothing, and other. Table 8 organizes the rankings from the 30 respondents
to show that career goals is the main motivation for this group of mid-level professional staff.
This data seems to connect with existing literature about employees in the public or service
sector who are motivated for work more by performance and personal achievement than by
salary or other external motivation (Jo, 2008; Ola & Adeyemi, 2012).
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 59
Table 8
Mid-level professional staff motivation
This table shows the ranked responses from the survey with career goals being the prime
motivator for this group. When asked to provide details about other motivations for this group,
the main theme of responses was self-motivation. Specific responses included, “Structured
deadlines motivate me,” “My ability to do a great job motivates me,” and “Accountability/Being
part of a team.” It is interesting to note that while these mid-level professional staff seem to be
internally motivated to complete work, most respondents feel their supervisor values their work,
while a third of respondents do not feel the university values their work.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Salary Motivates
Career Goals Motivate
Supervisor Motivates
Rewards Motivate
Nothing Motivates
Other Motivates
Mid-Level Professional Staff Motivation
1 Highest 2 3 4 5 Lowest Other
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 60
Organizational Results
Resources. Respondents were asked questions regarding the resources provided to
complete their work. Seven respondents (23%) disagree that they are provided the resources
necessary to complete their work. Mid-level positions represented in this study are just that, in
the middle. In these roles, employees are tasked with taking information from higher levels of
the leadership and translating that information into actionable activities and outcomes (Mather,
Bryan, and Faulkner, 2009). These employees may also come to their roles with varying levels
of experience in supervision, resolving interpersonal conflicts and decision making. Experience
variances across the population of the mid-level professional staff support the institutional need
for adequate and meaningful professional development opportunities.
Professional skill training or development. Respondents believe there are
opportunities for professional skill training and development with Private University. Eighty-
seven percent of survey takers said these opportunities exist on campus. It seems Private
University provides some opportunity for the mid-level professional staff to develop their skills,
but respondents overwhelmingly indicated their work was not recognized by the university, nor
were they given sufficient data to make informed decisions about their work. This result
regarding organizational influences seems to connect to the finding that a third of respondents do
not believe the university values their work.
Satisfaction with work. Mid-level professional staff who responded to the survey were
asked about their satisfaction with employment at this organization. Eight respondents selected
the disagreement choice regarding satisfaction. Given the opportunity to respond to an open-
ended question about employment satisfaction, the following statement was provided by a
respondent:
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 61
“I think that staff roles aren't considered as important to the university as faculty roles,
and I don't think that my personal obligations (i.e. family, taking vacations, time spent
away from work) are as considered as those in faculty roles. I find that faculty expect that
administrative work should be done on their time and to suit their needs, but if staff ask
faculty to meet certain deadlines, it's not prioritized if it conflicts with their own
deadlines. In general, I find that I'm considered an essential part of the organization in
that I take care of a lot of tasks that faculty need taken care of, but any appreciation of my
work feels like lip-service, and I'm not actually rewarded in salary increases, promotion,
or opportunities for professional development. While the university does offer
professional development opportunities on campus, I don't feel that I can actually attend
them without having my work pile up, and my time doesn't feel as valued as student or
faculty time.”
Additional comments from mid-level professional staff regarding work satisfaction
includes reference to low salaries with no incentive to remain, supervisor and university not
appreciating work ethic or opinions. Two respondents provided these comments, “Salaries are
notoriously low here. No incentive to stay. No room for promotion. Continual unfunded
mandates pushed down to worker bees.” and, “Younger, less experienced (sic) employees are
hired and paid more to do similar work. My boss and the university did not appreciate my skills
and work ethic.” These comments seem to align with the data collected which indicates that
one-third of respondents do not believe the university values their work and participation in
strategic plan goals.
Two-thirds of survey takers chose satisfied responses to the question of whether the
university values their work. The main themes from the open-ended question about satisfaction
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 62
points to satisfaction with co-workers, direct supervisor, immediate department, and opportunity
to do a good job. Specific comments state, “Benefits and flexibility in hours are a plus as well,”
“I like my work and feel as though it has meaning,” “Positive work environment, collegial
atmosphere, meaningful work…” There is also some indication that there are opportunities to
grow professionally at the university, but the data collected by the survey does not provide detail
about how these employees can or do take advantage of those opportunities.
Twenty-four survey respondents (80%) indicated that they would participate in university
strategic planning if given the opportunity. Only nineteen respondents believe they were
included in the development of the strategic plan. One of the 24 respondents who would
participate in strategic planning commented, “I would like to see staff better represented in the
plan, and I think the only way to do that is to participate, although I admit I don't have high
hopes that it would change very much since the problems I see seem to be more systemic and
engrained in the culture of universities.” Additional comments include, “It's important to get
many perspectives from a variety of participants across the university,” and “I offered to be on
some of the committees, but I wasn't invited to join,” along with, “Because everyone's voice us
(sic) significant in contributing to their organization's strategy; also, there would be more buy-in
for me to output what's expected of me in order to contribute to the strategy because of the input
I contributed.” Respondents who mentioned the organizational culture in their responses may be
responding to an unspoken cultural norm surrounding participation in studies, strategic planning,
and other opportunities where different voices would be valuable.
Table 9 shows that those respondents who are satisfied with their employment are more
likely to participate in strategic planning within the university while those who are unsatisfied
are less likely to want to participate in strategic planning.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 63
Table 9
Mid-level professional staff satisfaction and strategic planning interest
Results
The research questions guiding this study focused on the organizational goal of including
all stakeholders in the strategic planning process, the knowledge and motivation of the mid-level
professional staff, and recommendations for the organization relative to the findings from the
survey. The three main questions shaping this study also helped formulate the questions grouped
on the survey into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence (KMO) areas.
Discussion of the results is grouped into the KMO areas.
The responses from the mid-level professional staff at Private University indicate there was
some effort at inclusion by the university toward this group in the strategic planning process.
Additional survey questions, or in-person follow-up questions would benefit from further
research into this problem of practice. These mid-level staff professionals were aware the
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 64
university has a strategic plan, though the survey indicates some disconnect between how the
staff are to connect their work to the strategic plan.
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The mid-level professional staff
indicate they have the knowledge to complete their work, as well as the internal motivation to
complete work. Respondents indicate there is a lack of resources, specifically data, which would
allow the mid-level professional staff to make data-driven decisions about their work. Seventeen
respondents (53%) disagreed that the university provides data for informed decision making.
Quoted previously was the observation that mid-level professional staff work is valued
differently by the university than faculty work.
The perceived difference between faculty and staff is another reason why this study
focused on the mid-level professional staff. There is little literature which discusses the role of
the mid-level professional staff in higher education strategic planning and this study was
designed to identify this gap in university value for the mid-level professional staff. Specific
responses from mid-level staff respondents to this survey align with the literature which points to
the lack of opportunity for employees at this level to earn or enjoy promotions and the need to
disconnect from the university to advance professionally (Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, &
Irmer, 2011; Mather, Bryan, & Faulkner, 2006). Private University does mention the staff in
tasks and goals related to professional development and how training and career pathways will
benefit the institution within the strategic plan implementation phase. What is less clear, even in
listed tasks and goals, is how the university plans to differentiate the professional development
necessary for faculty and that of the mid-level professional staff.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 65
Themes: Inclusion and Influence
The themes of inclusion and influence are at the core of the study’s research questions.
Private University states in its strategic planning guide that the process of strategic planning was
inclusive of all stakeholders (University website, 2017). If the mid-level professional staff were
included in the strategic planning process, their input would lead to greater understanding of how
their output connects to the strategic plan and the overall value the university places on the work
of these employees. This section of research results is organized by theme to answer the
research questions based on the data collected and offer recommendations for how the university
might address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational resource gaps identified by the
study.
Knowledge
The mid-level professional staff have knowledge of the university’s strategic plan. What
is less clear is their knowledge of the strategic planning process inclusion strategy. Based on this
survey’s responses, the simple answer to the research question of whether the university is
achieving its goal of inclusion is, no. Survey results indicate willingness and interest of the mid-
level professional staff to participate in the strategic planning process. Future study would
benefit from questions geared to assess mid-level professional staff understanding of how to
participate. Future study would also benefit from research into the organizational culture around
participation and how the mid-level professional staff understands their reaction to cultural
models, settings, and norms.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 66
Motivation
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model serves to help structure this study and
identify possible gaps in the relationship between the mid-level professional staff, the strategic
planning process, and strategic plan expected outcomes. This visual representation of the
conceptual framework helps to show how these relationships interact.
Figure B. Mid-level professional staff and university variables: Conceptual framework
This figure shows the organizational variables which can affect mid-level professional
staff motivation. Results indicate the mid-level professional staff motivation to achieve their
performance goals are primarily intrinsic. Though respondents believe they are valued and
supported by co-workers, direct supervisors, and their specific department, there exists the
perception that their work is not valued by the university and perhaps the faculty as well. Figure
B shows the inter-relatedness of the organizational variables upon the mid-level professional
staff and possible outcomes. If the mid-level professional staff perceived greater value from the
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 67
university for their work, there would be an influence on morale and professional growth
opportunities.
Organizational Influences
The organization provides some opportunity for professional growth and development,
but the perception of the mid-level professional staff is that there is no time to take advantage of
it. If there is no time, then the mid-level professional staff believe the university does not value
their professional growth. When asked, respondents answered that the university does not
provide data for informed decision making. This is another variable which has an impact on
work performance outcomes for the mid-level professional staff. If this level of employee does
not have access to organizational resources necessary for their work, or to grow professionally
into their work, there are impacts on the organization itself as well as the mid-level professional
staff. The organization is attempting to define career pathways and ladders for this employee
group as evidenced in the Private University task force comments. What is less clear from the
organization is how these definitions will be derived and how implementation of career pathways
will be communicated to mid-level professional staff and utilized so that this group can actively
engage with the process of career pathing and performance improvement.
Synthesis
Though none of the respondents self-selected to participate in in-person interviews, some
of the survey questions invited additional responses where the respondent could provide a
written response. These details help provide depth to the collected data, as well as opportunities
for further research. Generally, respondents are self-motivated and interested in supporting their
department and the university through their work performance. While there is knowledge of the
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 68
strategic planning process, the university may need to improve communication regarding the
process so mid-level professional staff understand how to participate. The university may also
need to provide clarity and support to the mid-level professional staff for time management to
alleviate the impression that these employees do not have time to participate.
For this group of respondents, a disconnect appears between the university and the mid-
level professional staff regarding values. The mid-level professional staff value their role, their
work, and the organization with respect to student service. This group; however, does not
experience the organization holding value for them and their work. This gap is addressed
through the recommendations in Chapter Five.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 69
Chapter Five: Recommendations
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
To achieve the organizational goal of inclusion of all stakeholders in the strategic
planning process, the university should provide opportunities for the mid-level professional staff
to acquire the necessary knowledge and organizational resources to accomplish strategic
planning tasks and the work necessary to achieve the strategic plan outcomes. Clark and Estes’
(2008) work regarding gap analysis assessment, Rueda’s (2011) writing about learning and
motivation, and Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level mode of training evaluation are
used to provide foundations for the recommendations based on the research findings.
Knowledge Influences, Principles, and Recommendations
In Table 10, the assumed knowledge influences, principles, and recommendations are
depicted to illuminate how the mid-level professional staff’s knowledge and skills might be
assessed and learning opportunities created. The table addresses an assumed knowledge
influence for the mid-level professional staff and whether the influence was validated by the
survey data. Citations from the literature provide foundations for the recommendations.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 70
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence:
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Mid-level
professional staff
need knowledge of
how to participate
in the strategic
planning process.
(D)
Though mid-level professional
staff survey responses indicate
they were offered
opportunities to participate in
the strategic planning process,
it is unclear how, when, and to
what degree this group was
actually able to participate.
Poor communication
and withholding
important information
are very common
sources of knowledge
problems at work
(Clark and Estes,
2008).
Provide a communication
plan (information) to
university employees to
engage with and explain the
strategic plan process,
opportunities, and outcomes.
Mid-level
professional staff
need knowledge of
their performance
goals within the
university and/or
department. (P)
Most respondents were aware
of their professional goals and
performance outcomes
through the annual evaluation
process. In many cases, these
employees were responsible
for writing their own goals
and having a verbal discussion
with their supervisor to codify
the evaluation.
It is necessary for
people to know why to
achieve their
performance goals
(Clark and Estes,
2008).
Provide training from human
resources department to
departments and individuals
to explain the performance
expectations and evaluation
process.
Mid-level
professional staff
need to know how
to connect their
work to the overall
strategic plan goals
of the university.
(M)
Some survey respondents can
recognize the connection
between their work
performance to the general
strategic plan expectation that
the university would provide
an educational experience for
students.
Performance
improvement must
support the larger goals
of the organization
(Clark and Estes,
2008).
Training influences
how we organize our
professional knowledge
(Clark and Estes,
2008).
Provide education and
communication to employees
regarding expectations about
overall mission and vision
and how performance goals
contribute to the strategic
plan outcomes and goals.
Table 10 demonstrates how Clark and Estes (2008) discuss the connections between
performance goals and the goals of the organization. The three stated knowledge influences of
the mid-level professional staff create learning opportunities from the organization to support
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. When the mid-
level professional staff understand the facts of their work, the process of their work, and their
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 71
own connection to their work, they may be better able to meet expectations, create outcomes, and
achieve organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008) clearly state that organizational
communication, rationales, and training opportunities allow the organization to support the skills
of the people responsible for organizational outcomes.
Motivation Influences. The assumed motivational influences for the professional staff
were the expectancy value theory and the self-efficacy value theory. The table demonstrates the
value professional staff might place on completing work and connecting performance to the
strategic plan along with the self-efficacy needed to make those connections. Survey questions
may look similar to the provided examples to evaluate the level to which mid-level professional
staff do value strategic planning and feel confident about their participation in the process.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 72
Table 11
Motivation Influences, Motivational Influence Assessment
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset
Validated
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Value – Mid-level staff
see value in
participating in
organizational strategic
planning and
implementation of the
strategic plan.
Mid-level
professional staff
value participating in
the strategic
planning process
because they value
the overall mission
of the organization
and their role in
supporting that
mission.
Eccles, Wigfield,
and Schiefele (1998)
linked one’s beliefs
about one’s ability
to do work with
internal schemas
built on prior
experience and other
social beliefs about
one’s abilities,
knowledge and
skills.
Create rewards which
recognize work performance
and abilities. Work to provide
clear career paths for this
group of employees which
include salary raises and
professional promotions.
Clearly demonstrate the
organizational value of
strategic planning and
inclusion of all stakeholder
groups in the planning
process.
Self-Efficacy – Mid-
level staff should be
confident in
collaborating with the
university to participate
in the organizational
strategic planning and
implementation.
These employees
shared their personal
motivation to do
good work is the
primary motivation
which pushes them
to participate in the
university mission.
Bandura (1986)
posited that behavior
and motivation
primarily rest on
one’s self-beliefs as
critical elements.
Promotion and reward for
work performance beyond job
expectations may increase
motivation from
employees. In other words,
increasing recognition for
those who participate in
strategic planning may
increase motivation and desire
to participate.
Provide meaningful
professional development
opportunities which are
clearly linked to career path
and promotional
opportunities.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 73
Table 11 demonstrates the principles of value theory and self-efficacy. Eccles, Wigfield,
and Schiefele (1998) discuss the connection between one’s belief about one’s ability to complete
a task or participate in work being related to the value placed on the task or work by the
individual. Bandura (1986) provided the foundation that one’s belief in self would directly
impact the persistence and mental effort needed to complete a task or work. Applying these
principles to the mid-level professional staff in higher education, we see that these group of
employees may be intrinsically motivated to complete work, but with demonstration and support
of one’s values and abilities may be able to complete more work and more meaningful work for
the organization. The organizational recommendations should not be knowledge based
recommendations like training, or communication. Those activities support knowledge gaps for
employees. For motivational recommendations, the organization should consider how it
responds to motivation from its employees and provide activities related to motivated actions
from employees. Promoting employees, or expanding job descriptions with subsequent pay
raises, may support the intrinsic motivation displayed by employees. Acts of recognition also
support the motivated work from employees by recognizing effort which goes beyond defined
work performance goals. These are activities which address motivation, not knowledge.
Organizational Influences. Mid-level professional staff positions are challenging
because they are in the middle of the organizational structure. They often must translate direction
from the top to those below, or provide communication from below upward. Sometimes, these
employees are tasked with interpreting student needs to the university administration to begin a
change process. These employees often must bridge the gap between front-line staff and faculty
as well as institutional leaders (Mather, Bryan, & Faulkner, 2009). That is, these professionals
must be able to absorb multiple communication streams and turn them into daily operationalized
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 74
work. Because these mid-level roles are often poorly defined, in the case of larger institutions,
there can be many mixed messages from surrounding stakeholders regarding the mid-level
professional staff opportunities and resources (Mather, Bryan, & Faulkner, 2009).
In order to maximize the potential of the mid-level professional staff within higher
education, organizations may want to consider reviewing and reinforcing the opportunities and
resources which already exist for this employee band. In cases where resources already exist to
support the mid-level professional’s work, organizations can look to their internal marketing
strategies and potentially re-frame professional development as recognition and reward for the
valuable work being done (Drake, Wong, & Salter, 2007). Empowering the mid-level
professional staff to speak up and request meaningful recognition and resources for their work
may also improve relationships and understanding of the vital role played by these professionals
in the daily life of the higher education institution (Jo, 2008). Table 12 describes the
organizational influences which have an impact on the ability of mid-level professional higher
education staff to complete their work, meet performance goals, and participate in the life of the
organization.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 75
Table 12
Organizational Influences
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset
Validated
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The executive level
leadership of the
organization needs to
see the value of mid-
level professional
staff’s work and
performance. Cultural
model.
The mid-level professional
staff shared a general belief
that the organization does
not value their work
performance in the same as
they personally value their
work. These employees
felt valued at the
supervisory and
departmental level, but not
at the organizational level.
Organizational performance
increases when processes
and resources are aligned
with goals established
collaboratively (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
A high sense of urgency
within the managerial ranks
helps enormously in putting
together a guiding coalition.
(Kotter, 2007)
Managers and senior
leaders can conduct team
meetings with new and
experienced mid-level
professional staff and with
leadership to establish
goals, time frames and
expectations relative to the
strategic plan.
There is a general
organizational
expectation that mid-
level professional
staff have insight into
the implementation
needs of the strategic
plan. Cultural model.
Though the mid-level
professional staff were
aware of the strategic plan,
there are some disconnects
between their role in
implementation of work
performance relative to the
strategic plan as well as
through the value placed
on the work.
Effective leaders regularly
engage in the process of
reflection to ensure their
actions promote an
atmosphere of inclusion and
diversity. They facilitate
problem-solving strategies
that promote objectivity,
equity, and inclusivity.
Bensimon (2005) DiTomaso,
Post & Parks-Yancy (2007)
There should be a general
organizational practice that
the university explains to
the mid-level professional
staff how to implement and
reach the expected
outcomes of the overall
strategic plan.
To address the
strategic plan goals,
the organization
needs to provide mid-
level professional
staff resources,
training, and support.
Cultural setting.
These employees
demonstrate intrinsic
motivation to complete
work. This motivation and
self-efficacy would be
supported by clear career
paths and promotion
planning from the
university.
Effective leaders
demonstrate a commitment
to valuing diversity through
inclusive action. They
promote an organizational
culture that promotes equity
and inclusion and cultivate
an atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an
asset to the organization and
its stakeholders. Angeline
(2011) Prieto, Phipps &
Osiri (2009)
The organization needs to
provide clear, specific, and
detailed plans for
employee development,
promotion, and connect to
the overall strategic plan.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 76
The survey data indicates that mid-level professional staff who are satisfied with their
employment are more likely to be interested in participating in strategic planning. By capitalizing
on the mid-level professional staff value for their work and the organization, the university can
demonstrate the value of this group of employees. To address the organizational influences of
culture and process, the executive leadership should demonstrate inclusive practices within the
strategic planning process. Then, providing clear, specific, and detailed career planning and
work performance outcomes would help to connect the strategic planning process, the expected
outcomes, and the intersection of values between organization and mid-level professional staff.
When the mid-level professional staff receive clear and specific evaluations which detail
expected work outcomes; then, meet or exceed those expectations, the staff should earn a salary
increase or a promotion. If the organization supports detailed career paths with clear
expectations and trains supervisory staff in providing evaluations, the mid-level professional
staff should clearly see connections between their work outcomes and the overall university
strategic plan expected outcomes.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Model of Evaluation (2016) has informed this evaluation
study. The Kirkpatrick New World Model suggests that evaluating learning and behavior within
an organization should start with the organizational goals and connect to the stakeholder goals to
bridge to recommendations for change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The idea is that
organizational and stakeholder goals should be related and by working in the ‘reverse order’ of
the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the organization can develop solutions, leading indicators,
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 77
and information that the stakeholders are implementing expected strategies. Working through an
evaluation and recommendation process supported by the Kirkpatrick Model strengthens
connections between solutions and the overarching organizational goals and supports stakeholder
buy-in and adherence (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The stated organizational goal of Private University is to implement the university’s
strategic plan by 2025 and to do this by including all stakeholders. This study evaluated the
university’s mid-level professional staff understanding of and participation with the strategic
planning process. By surveying the mid-level professional staff and learning how this group
understands the university’s strategic planning process and their connection to the process,
recommendations are made to connect and integrate this group into this core university
process. The connection between the mid-level professional staff and the university strategic
plan intersects at the point where this group of employees is held accountable for the strategic
plan outcomes. This study provides some insight into this accountability and connection. The
Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation is discussed here to illuminate the connection
between mid-level professional staff inclusion in the strategic planning process and the
organizational influences which impact that inclusion.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 78
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 13 shows the expected external and internal outcomes of knowledge and
motivation leading indicators and their defined outcomes, metrics, and methods for Private
University and the mid-level professional staff. If the internal outcomes are met through the
evaluation and organizational support for this group of employees, then the external outcomes
should also be realized.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 79
Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
External stakeholders’
knowledge of mid-level
professional staff roles
and responsibilities.
There will be evidence of
specific inclusion of and
outreach to mid-level
professional staff in university
strategic planning.
Board of Trustees will
specifically include mid-level
professional staff in
conversations, meetings, and
discussion regarding strategic
planning.
The university
community will support
the increased inclusion
of mid-level professional
staff in university
strategic planning.
The external university
community will know who
the specific professionals
engaged in university
strategic planning and their
positions via a specific list
of invitees and
participants.
Community members will invite
and engage with the mid-level
professional staff throughout the
strategic planning process - in
strategic planning meetings,
communication, and all strategic
planning process activities.
External university
community will gain an
understanding of the role
of the mid-level
professional staff in
university strategic
planning outcomes.
The external university
community will be able to
connect the roles of the mid-
level professional staff to
specific strategic plan
outcomes by specifically
identifying the named roles and
strategic plan activities.
External community members
engaged in the strategic planning
process (meetings,
communication, planning
activities) will be able to
specifically connect the mid-
level professional staff across
the university to specific
strategic plan outcomes.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 80
Table 13 (Continued)
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Internal Outcomes
Mid-level
professional staff
knowledge of the
strategic planning
process will
increase.
There will be a 10% increase in the number
of mid-level professional staff members
included in the university strategic planning
process.
The university will
communicate clearly
with the entire
university community
about the strategic
planning process and
specifically invite the
mid-level professional
staff to participate and
engage in the process.
Mid-level
professional staff
will experience an
increase in job
satisfaction.
University human resources will report a
baseline of current employee satisfaction
metrics and compare it to employee
satisfaction results from the recommended
survey after mid-level professional staff
inclusion in the strategic planning process.
University human
resources will
investigate current
levels of employee
satisfaction and
compare to levels after
inclusion in the
strategic planning
process.
Mid-level
professional staff
employee retention
will increase and
these employees will
be retained and
promoted relative to
their job duties and
performance goals
being met and/or
exceeded.
University will measure retention by seeking
a 10% decrease in mid-level staff leaving the
institution annually.
Mid-level professional
staff will clearly
understand their career
path, expected
promotion, salary
increases, and
connections between
their work
performance goals and
the university strategic
plan.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 81
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The mid-level professional staff of Private University are the
stakeholders of focus. Critical behaviors are those which are specific, observable, and
measurable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). That is, one needs to be able to see and measure
the frequency of the behavior to know it is happening. The first critical behavior for this group is
the understanding of the university strategic planning process. The second critical behavior is
that the mid-level professional staff actively seek and respond to recruitment and participation in
the strategic planning process. Third, the mid-level professional staff must understand how their
work performance goals directly connect to the strategic planning process and specific strategic
plan outcomes. There are also behaviors the organization can demonstrate to support the
behaviors of the mid-level professional staff. If the organization, in fact, implements their stated
task of developing career pathways, then the mid-level professional staff would have measurable
expectations they can work toward to demonstrate their own critical behaviors. The specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 14.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 82
Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Mid-level professional staff
will demonstrate
understanding their role in the
strategic planning process.
The number of mid-level
professional staff who
specifically participate in
the strategic planning
process.
The executive team will actively
recruit members of the mid-level
professional staff to participate in
the strategic planning process.
During the
active strategic
planning process
recruiting phase.
2. Mid-level professional staff
will purposefully seek to
participate in the strategic
planning process.
The number of mid-level
professional staff seeking
participation will
increase.
The mid-level professional staff
will respond to specific recruiting
invitations from the executive team
and/or the board of trustees.
During the active
strategic planning
recruiting phase.
3. Mid-level professional staff
will understand how their work
performance directly connects to
the university strategic plan.
Mid-level professional
staff performance
evaluations will
specifically address
strategic plan goals.
The university will train supervisors
to evaluate the mid-level
professional staff specifically to
address the strategic plan goals and
measure performance against those
goals..
Annually during
the employee
evaluation period.
4. Mid-level professional staff
will understand how their work
performance specifically
connects to expected strategic
plan outcomes.
Mid-level professional
staff performance goals
will relate to specific
university strategic plan
goals.
The university will define and
specify outcomes and who, in the
university community, is
responsible for those outcomes.
Annually during
the employee
evaluation period.
Required drivers. The mid-level professional staff require support from the university
organization as well as from direct supervisors to establish the critical behaviors discussed in
Table 14 above. When these behaviors are observed and documented, mid-level professional
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 83
staff can connect their behaviors to career paths and promotion expectations established by the
university and explained to all employees. Table 15 below shows the required drivers of the
critical behaviors and how these drivers support the critical behaviors from the university and the
mid-level professional staff.
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3, 4 (see
Table XXX)
Reinforcing
Employee career paths defined and explained. Ongoing 3, 4
University invitations to participate in the strategic
planning process.
Weekly during the
recruiting phase
1, 2
Employee evaluations conducted to determine work
performance.
Annually 3, 4
Encouraging
University executives outreach to mid-level
professional staff for recruiting to participate in the
strategic planning process.
Weekly during the
recruiting phase
1,2
Feedback and coaching from supervisors regarding
work performance goals.
Ongoing 3, 4
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 84
Organization recognizes performance outcomes by
providing comp days.
Ongoing 3, 4
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 85
Table 15 (Continued)
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Rewarding
Positive feedback provided in regular status meetings with
descriptions of how employee is meeting goals.
Monthly 3, 4
Salary increase if work performance meets or exceeds
expectations.
Annually 3, 4
Job promotion if work performance meets or exceeds
expectations for promotion.
Annually 3, 4
Monitoring
Supervisors provide clear, specific feedback regarding work
performance relative to defined goals.
Quarterly 3, 4
Mid-level professional staff provide regular and consistent
communication to non-participating colleagues on strategic
planning process.
Monthly, during the
strategic planning
process.
1, 2
Organizational support. To support the critical behaviors of the mid-level professional
staff, the university can support the activities of the supervisors to conduct team and individual
meetings to explain connections and relationships between the strategic plan outcomes and the
mid-level professional staff performance. Supervisors should be supported in setting specific
and measurable goals as well as rewards when those goals are achieved. The university should
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 86
provide clear, specific career paths and salary expectations for the mid-level professional staff so
that expectations are understood, and when goals are achieved, there is the understanding that the
work and performance of the staff is valued. These behaviors from the university should support
the critical behaviors from the mid-level professional staff. Additional organizational resources
should include clear, specific, and repeated communication about the strategic planning process,
implementation, and outcomes. This communication model would serve to also create change
within the cultural setting and demonstrate a more giving culture around information exchange.
There was a 20% response rate to this study’s survey, which means there are 80% of
stakeholders who would also benefit from information exchange around this survey, and other
mid-level professional staff related activities.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. In following the recommendations for practice, the mid-level
professional staff would realize the following learning goals:
1. Articulate their performance goals within their department,
2. Discuss and understand how their departmental performance goals support the
university strategic goals
3. Connect their work to the overall strategic plan goals for the university.
Program. The learning goals for the mid-level professional staff will be achieved with
the investment of the university in the professional development of this group. This
development will include specific activities for the executive level leaders and the board of
trustees to provide the resources and cultural shift needed to implement the investment. The
learners, the mid-level professional staff, will see that the organization, through the activities of
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 87
the executive leadership values and supports their work and involvement in the university
strategic planning process as well as the strategic plan outcomes. The leadership will provide
clear direction to the human resources staff to create and abide by a set of clearly defined and
specific career paths relevant to the mid-level professional staff. These paths will explicate the
necessary work performance goals and rewards upon achievement of those goals.
Leadership will also provide training and support for the supervisory level employees so
that annual evaluations are specific, clear, measurable, and directly impact the salary and
promotion of the mid-level professional staff. University employees will be engaged and invited
to participate in strategic planning and their input valued and actionable. When these activities
occur, executive leadership will comment on and include this input into the strategic plan. The
strategic planning process occurs on a timetable described by the current strategic plan which is
scheduled to run through 2025. At that time, in a typical strategic planning process, outcomes
will be evaluated and a strategic plan debrief will occur to understand how the mid-level
professional staff participated, or not, in the planning and outcomes. At the time of a new
strategic plan, leadership will have adjusted the organizational culture to include the mid-level
professional staff.
Annually, the mid-level professional staff will experience evaluations and discussions of
their work performance, performance goals, and connections to the university strategic plan
goals and outcomes. These conversations will be documented and referenced at quarterly
feedback points so supervisors and staff understand where performance could be supported, or
goals have been met. Evaluations will be analyzed annually to determine the salary increases,
promotions, or other adjustments or rewards which need to be made to recognize the
contributions of the mid-level professional staff to the strategic plan goals and outcomes.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 88
Components of learning. Declarative knowledge, that is knowledge known by the
participant, and procedural knowledge, work that can be done by the participate are necessary to
demonstrate for solving problems and working to goals (Rueda, 2011). Evaluating the mid-level
professional staff learning and knowledge connects the learning and knowledge of this group to
the organizational goals. When employees are confident they have the organizational resources
to complete their work and achieve their performance goals, they can demonstrate the value they
hold for their work. As such, Table 16 describes the learning methods and timing.
Table 16
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Evaluations describe specific tasks and goals the employee must
complete.
Annually the mid-level professional staff
receive a work performance evaluation.
Supervisors check for operational knowledge through regular
meetings with supervisees.
Quarterly, at minimum, in feedback sessions.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Employees demonstrate their performance knowledge by
concretely completing tasks and producing work.
Daily.
Employees demonstrate the connection of their work to the
strategic plan goals.
Daily.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 89
Table 16 (Continued)
Components of Learning for the Program.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Employees consistently complete goals and tasks connected to the
university strategic plan.
Daily.
Employees earn rewards for work performance which meets or
exceeds expectations.
Annually.
Employees demonstrate the personal value they hold for their
work by producing work which meets or exceeds stated
performance metrics.
Daily.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Employees feel confident they have the organizational resources
they need to complete their work.
Daily.
Supervisors check-in with employees to ensure resources are
available.
As necessary.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Employees work to meet strategic plan goals and outcomes. Daily.
Supervisors and employees collaborate to develop specific, clear,
and actionable work performance goals.
Quarterly during evaluation feedback sessions.
University will provide clear and specific resources relevant to
mid-level professional staff work performance goals.
Daily.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 90
Level 1: Reaction
Table 17 demonstrates the methods recommended to assess reactions from the mid-level
professional staff to the cultural and work performance shifts necessary to achieve the learning,
behaviors, and leading indicators as described above.
Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool (s) Timing
Engagement
Mid-level professional staff will be assessed
to determine knowledge of current career
pathways.
Immediately.
Mid-level professional staff turnover will be
calculated and analyzed to determine
retention variables to be addressed.
Immediately.
Mid-level professional staff satisfaction will
be assessed through analysis of surveys
completed at end of training.
Immediately.
Relevance
Employee interest survey will be conducted to
assess interest in and knowledge of the
strategic planning process.
Immediately, then annually.
Customer Satisfaction
Mid-level professional staff will complete
evaluations of supervisors to assess whether
supervisors are implementing and providing
meaningful evaluations.
Immediately, then annually.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 91
Evaluation Tools
Immediate evaluation of the recommendation implementations. After the annual
evaluation process, the university can initiate an analysis of the evaluation process to check for
understanding and connection for the mid-level professional staff of their established work
performance goals to the university strategic plan. Additionally, the university can stage
evaluations during the strategic planning process to determine how the mid-level professional
staff perceive their role in the strategic planning process. These evaluations will allow the
participants to indicate the relevance of their annual evaluation to their work and the university
strategic plan as well as how they believe their role in the strategic planning process is valued by
the university.
For Level 1 evaluation of mid-level professional staff reaction, the university can
implement a survey which contains questions which ask the participants about the relevance of
the evaluation to their work performance goals, the organization, and the overall strategic
plan. Level 2 evaluation of learning will include checks for understanding about the mid-level
professional staff’s knowledge of how to perform their work and confidence in their ability to
complete their work. Appendix C contains sample survey evaluation questions to support this
process.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six months
after the annual evaluation, the mid-level professional staff should receive a survey containing
open and scaled items using the Blended Evaluation approach to measure, from the participant’s
perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their training (Level 2), application of the annual evaluation process and the support
from their supervisor (Level 3), and the extent to which their annual evaluation process has
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 92
become more relevant and useful (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Appendix D contains an
example of the delayed survey.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Surveys immediately after the annual evaluation process and then again six months after
the annual evaluation will measure the knowledge, motivation, and resources utilized by and
available to the mid-level professional staff at Private University. The survey findings will be
compared to each other to measure the immediate findings and the delayed findings regarding
the experiences and behaviors of the mid-level professional staff. Findings will be implemented
at the start of this evaluation process as baselines or benchmarks, and subsequent surveys can be
compared against these beginning measures to look for changes and gaps for further
study. Tables 18 and 19 are examples of the graphs which will be utilized with the data collected
by these surveys.
Table 18
Example of mid-level professional staff understanding of performance expectations
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 93
Table 19
Example of mid-level professional staff belief that their work is valuable to the university.
Summary
The Kirkpatrick Model offers a framework for how to implement and evaluate
meaningful and targeted training solutions within an organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). As described, Private University, based on its stated strategic plan goal of inclusion and
professional development, needs to develop a model for including the mid-level professional
staff in the strategic planning process. The organization also needs to provide resources to this
group to ensure they have the tools necessary to understand their work performance goals as well
as have access to the resources needed to complete that work. The Kirkpatrick Model helps
build and describe a process for educating the mid-level professional staff and providing data
back to the university to understand how the training worked or did not work and what steps to
take to improve performance for the future.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 94
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework for studying the relationship between the mid-
level professional staff in higher education and the university strategic planning process allows
the research to focus on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (KMO) which
impact the stakeholders being studied. By dividing the study into these component parts, data
was collected specific to the parts and analyzed in each part and relative to the whole. Careful
planning and implementation of the study with the Clark and Estes framework allowed this
researcher to plan and make specific choices about survey questions, implementation strategies,
and focused the study on the component parts. The KMO framework kept the focus on the
stakeholders and helped to manage the research bias.
When the research questions were developed under this KMO framework, survey
questions could be created to address each component and the data collected into the component
parts. This allowed the data to be grouped into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influence areas for clearer analysis. The approach did constrain the research into the KMO areas
and the recommendations, while aligned to the KMO areas, do not have the flexibility to address
other data points collected under the framework.
Future Study
Lessons learned from this initial survey implementation point to the need for additional
questions to provide deeper data regarding the mid-level professional staff’s attitude toward
inclusion in the strategic planning process. This survey implementation indicated staff
awareness of the strategic planning process, but did not question the staff awareness of access to
the process. Mid-level professional staff motivation and relationship to organizational influences
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 95
should also be studied more thoroughly to create a more complete picture of the mid-level
professional staff knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Anecdotal discussion
of this study with colleagues provided the researcher knowledge that other organizations may
have similar gaps in their employee relations and future study might include concurrent study of
higher education and other settings to provide comparison data and recommendations.
What is not clear from this study is the prevailing attitude from the mid-level professional
staff regarding whether knowledge of the strategic planning process and subsequent strategic
plan would improve or change beliefs and values about work performance within the institution.
Respondents indicated that while motivation for work performance was primarily intrinsic and
supported by the direct supervisor and department, inclusion in the strategic planning process did
not appear to have a bearing on employment satisfaction or work performance outcomes. The
mid-level professional staff respondents expressed frustration with the lack of promotion or
salary increase regarding their satisfactory work performance, but this study was not able to
make a connection between work satisfaction and strategic planning inclusion and strategic plan
outcomes.
Future study on this topic would benefit from clearer study of the connection between
mid-level professional staff inclusion in strategic planning, work performance, and career path
goals. Clear linkage of these three items within the evaluation study and through the change
recommendations would provide clearer data for the institution for decision making.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 96
Conclusion
As more organizations engage in strategic planning to define their mission and vision,
there is an opportunity for these organizations to become more inclusive in the strategic planning
process and to provide meaningful professional development opportunities for all stakeholders
(Delprino, 2013). Organizational researchers are beginning to discover that some stakeholders
are not being included in strategic planning processes and that is to the detriment of the
institution as well as the employees (Harris, Wright, Msengi, 2011; Jo, 2003; Jo, 2008; Powell,
2008). The inclusion of diverse stakeholders creates a more comprehensive process which
addresses multiple perspectives and outcomes (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey & Ryland, 2012).
This study has focused on the mid-level professional staff of a university and provided
some data which suggests that while this group is somewhat aware of the strategic planning
process and the actual strategic plan, there is little to no awareness of how to participate, or that
their participation is valued or encouraged. A survey respondent for this study stated, “I
currently participate in implementing on behalf of our unit – I don’t necessarily care about
developing the plan, that’s above my pay grade.” Another survey respondent wrote, “I don’t
know enough about it, and I think I would be overwhelmed by the scope of the project.”
Comments like these suggest the mid-level professional staff do not see themselves as active
participants in the overall mission and vision and outcomes of the university. Making the
connection between comments like these and survey responses which indicate that the university
does not value the work of the mid-level professional staff demonstrates opportunity for the
organization to close this gap, address the cultural issues, and work to include more voices in the
strategic planning process.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 97
Utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) theoretical framework for gap analysis based on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the stakeholder group and organization
under study allowed this researcher to conduct an evaluation study to determine the relationship
between the mid-level professional staff and the university strategic planning process, strategic
plan, and work performance outcomes. This model focuses on understanding and supporting
organizational performance via understanding organizational goals and performance gaps. When
we can assess what the stakeholder group knows, what motivates them, and how the organization
holds influence over that knowledge and motivation, the performance gaps can be identified and
recommendations crafted to support the organizational change.
This study identified greater knowledge of the strategic planning process than expected. The
mid-level professional staff are aware of the university’s strategic plan and that they are
responsible for working toward that plan. What is less clear and would benefit from additional
study, is specific connections between the performance of the mid-level professional staff and
specific strategic plan outcomes and how a defined relationship between the two would benefit
the organization and the employees.
Where this group of employees is held accountable for the strategic plan outcomes which
they did not help create is where the connection is made between the Clark and Estes (2008)
model and the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation used to generate recommendations
for closing the performance gap at this organization. Kirkpatrick’s level four discussion of
results and leading indicators provides understanding of how defining outcomes and expectations
for the mid-level professional staff and the organization cause the internal and external outcomes
to be understood (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Then, the Kirkpatrick level three behaviors
can be defined and applied to the performance goals. The mid-level professional staff must
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 98
understand the university strategic planning process so that this group can actively participate in
the process. Then, the mid-level professional staff must clearly understand how their work
performance will connect to the specific outcomes. By training supervisors to give and
participate in meaningful, specific, and consistent evaluation processes, the mid-level
professional staff can see how their behaviors connect directly to strategic plan outcomes and
support the organization. The organization then benefits by retaining qualified, knowledgeable
and motivated employees who value supporting an institution which values their work.
Supporting the level three critical behaviors are the required drivers of those behaviors. Defined
career paths and promotion expectations are organizational influences provided by the university
and when understood by the mid-level professional staff can specifically drive the performance
necessary to support strategic plan outcomes. At level two, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
discuss how the organization can outline learning goals for the mid-level professional staff and
participate in specific activities at the executive level which show investment in resources and
culture to implement the expected learning. When the executive level demonstrates value held
for the mid-level professional staff by providing clear, specific career paths and promotion
opportunities, the mid-level professional staff become more engaged in strategic planning and
the overall organization. Fundamentally, the reaction, or level one of Kirkpatrick’s model, to the
cultural and work performance shifts play a role in driving through the other levels of the model.
Giving voice to the mid-level professional staff in higher education is becoming a priority
for leaders because these employees are often the most student-facing employees after faculty.
Sometimes, this group has more student interactions than faculty. This researcher has learned a
great deal about change management, change communication, and change implementation. To
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 99
support organizational change, the university must demonstrate a willingness to listen and act
and provide specific, consistent, and clear direction for the change.
If we consider higher education a customer driven consumer model, there must be
attention paid to the people best suited to identify trends early and often and who can implement
change and growth. When the university truly invites, recruits, and listens to the voices of all
stakeholders, they can more clearly define a driving mission and outcomes to support that
mission. This group wants to participate and be valued for their performance and outcomes.
This group offers a great deal of support and loyalty to the institution. The current educational
climate is ripe for meaningful, clear, consistent change and the mid-level professional staff are
the best suited to identify the necessary changes, the tools needed to implement the change, and
the specific outcomes to measure the change. Universities, colleges, and schools would benefit
from engaging more completely with this group and understanding that supporting the
educational mission is more than simply providing classes and laboratories. The educational
mission is about modeling behavior which is inclusive and willing to listen and learn from all
stakeholders.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 100
References
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group).
Andrews, M., & Dougherty, K. (2007). Employee turnover in Christian college/university
admissions. Christian Higher Education, 6(1), 29-51.
Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Jha, S. (2013). Explicating strategic shared leadership process. Asian
Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(1), 57-71.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2008). Tensions in higher education leadership: Towards a
multi-level model of leadership practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 358-376.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00398.x
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N., & Irmer, B. E. (2011). Haunted by the past:
Effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group
and Organization Management, 36(2), 191-222.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 101
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.
Chancellor’s Letter. (2015). XX impact 2025 draft strategic plan. Retrieved from
University website.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, B. J., & Davies, B. (2004). School leadership and management: Formerly school
organization. Strategic Leadership, 24 (1), 29-38.
Delprino, R. P. (2013). The human side of the strategic planning process. Planning for Higher
Education Journal, 138-154.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Drake, A. R., Wong, J., & Salter, S. B. (2007). Empowerment, motivation, and performance:
Examining the impact of feedback and incentives on nonmanagement employees.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 102
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 71-89. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/
03296549?accountid=14749
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Dykema, J., Jones, N. R., Piche, T., & Stevenson, J. (2013). Surveying clinicians by web:
Current issues in design and administration. Evaluation and the health Professions,
(36)3, 352-381.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eddy, P. (2008). Reflections of women leading community colleges. The Community College
Enterprise, 14(1), 49-66.
Elton, L. (2009). Continuing professional development in higher education: The role of the
scholarship of teaching and learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8(3),
247-258.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Gallagher, V. C., Gallagher, K. P., & Kaiser, K. M. (2013). Mid-level information technology
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 103
professionals: Skills and traits relevant to fit, individual and organizational success
factors. International Journal of Social and Organizational Dynamics in IT, 3(2), 22.
doi:10.4018/ijsodit.2013040102
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.
Gleason-Gomez, C., Russell, E.M., & Williams, S.W. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of
administrative support and antecedents of turnover. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 24(3), 195.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson. Chapter 6, pp. 162-183.
Halpern, D. (2004). President’s column: I dare you to try this at home. APA Online, 35(2).
Hellawell, D., & Hancock, N. (2001). A case study of the changing role of the academic middle
manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality? Research
Papers in Education, 16(2), 183-197. 97, DOI: 10.1080/0267152011003743
Hernandez, C. L. (2010). A case study exploring motivational determinants of mid-level student
affairs administrators (Order No. 3446664). Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/
56585628?accountid=14749
Holland, P., Sheehan, C., & De Cieri, H. (2007). Attracting and Retaining Talent: Exploring
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 104
human resources development trends in Australia. Human Resource Development
International, 10(3), 247-262.
Hornsby, E. E., Morrow-Jones, H., & Ballam, D. (2012). Leadership development for faculty
women at The Ohio State University: The president and provost’s leadership institute.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14 (1), 96-112.
Jacobson, W. S. (2011). Creating a motivated workforce: How organizations can enhance
and develop public service motivation (PSM). Public Personnel Management, 40(3),
215-238. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/
664812286?accountid=14749
Jo, V. H. (2003). Diagnosing female staff turnover in higher education. University of
Pennsylvania: ProQuest Dissertation Publishing.
Jo, V. H. (2008). Voluntary turnover and women administrators in higher education. Higher
Education, 56(5), 565-582.
Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: a collaborative
framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 34 (1), 67-78.
Kerby, S., & Burns, C. (2012). The top 10 economic facts of diversity in the workplace (Center
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 105
for American Progress report, Washington, DC). Retrieved from
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/07/pdf/diverse_workpl
ace.pdf
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ADP Press, Inc.
Krieger, Z. (2008, April 13). The Emir of NYU. New York Magazine. Retrieved from
http://nymag.com/news/features/46000/
Kuchinke, K. P., Ardichvili, A., Borchert, M., Cornachione, E. B., Cseh, M., Kang, H., &
Zav’jalova, E. (2011). Work meaning among mid-level professional employees: A study
of the importance of work centrality and extrinsic and intrinsic work goals in eight
countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(3), 264-284.
doi:10.1177/1038411111413217
Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and Measurement: A user-friendly guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Manager, Marketing. (2015, September 8). Review [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/University-of-Denver-Reviews-E24452.htm
Mather, P. C., Bryan, S. P., & Faulkner, W. (2009). Orienting mid-level student affairs
professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 27(2), 242-256.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 106
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles:
Sage
Publications, Inc.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ola, C. O., & Adeyemi, B. M. (2012). Motivation, job satisfaction and service delivery: Mid
level staff at kenneth dike library, university of ibadan, nigeria. Library Philosophy and
Practice, 1-10. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/
349931179?accountid=14749
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pounds, J. (2015, September 8). Sweet Briar adds another member to the executive team. The
News and Advance. Retrieved from http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/sweetbriar-
adds-another-member-to-the-executive-team/article_3ff2ea3a-567f-11e5-
b9235f0d73ad2d13.html
Powell, B. (2008). Stakeholders’ perception of who influences the decision-making processes in
Ontario’s public postsecondary education institutions. Higher Education Research and
Development, 27(4), 385-397. 7, DOI: 10.1080/0729436080240684
Rice, A. (2012, September 11). Anatomy of a campus coup. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/magazine/teresa-sullivan-uva-ouster.html?_r=0
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 107
Robinson, G., Morgan, J., & Reed, W. (2016). Disruptive innovation in higher education: The
professional doctorate. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,
6(1), 85-89.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College: Columbia University.
Ryan, Y., & Fraser, K. (2012). Director turnover: An Australian academic development study.
International Journal for Academic Development, 17(2), 135-147.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–22.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Van Ameijde, J. D. J., Nelson, P., Billsberry, J., & van Meurs, N. (2009). Improving leadership
in higher education institutions: A distributed perspective. Higher Education, 58 (6), 763-
779.
Wallace, M., & Marchant, T. (2009). Developing female middle-managers in Australian
universities. Higher Education, 58(6), 781-797.
Wang, H., Tseng, J., Yen, Y., & Huang, I. (2011). University staff performance evaluation
systems, organizational learning, and organizational identification in Taiwan. Social
Behavior and Personality, 39(1), 43-54. Retrieved from
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 108
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/8
58094090?accountid=14749
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 109
Appendix A: Survey Items
Demographic information: These questions are for analysis purposes only and will not be used to
identify you in any way.
Gender:
Male:
Female :
Transgender:
Please share:
Ethnicity:
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Latino/a
White
Please share:
Age:
Should be open response?
Years of service at this university:
Years of service in this department:
Your title: (this will not be used to identify you in any way)
Coordinator
Manager
Director
Assistant Dean
Associate Dean
Other (Open response)
Knowledge: These questions will ask you to describe your knowledge of the university’s
strategic planning process, and the actual strategic plan.
1. To what extent are you aware the university has developed a strategic plan?
a. 1=Completely unaware.
b. 2=Minimally aware.
c. 3=Somewhat aware.
d. 4=Completely aware.
2. To what extent were you included in the university strategic plan development?
a. 1=Not included at all.
b. 2=Minimally included.
c. 3=Somewhat included.
d. 4=Completely included.
3. BRANCH: If you answered “Not included at all,” or “Minimally included,” for question
3, please explain why you believe you were not included in the university strategic plan
development: (Please select all that apply.)
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 110
a. 1=I did not volunteer.
b. 2=My supervisor did not allow me to participate.
c. 3=I did not know how I could participate.
d. 4=I did not know there was a strategic planning process in which I could
participate.
e. 5=Other (open response)
4. BRANCH: If you answered “Somewhat included,” or “Completely included,” for
question 3, please explain why you were included.
a. 1=I volunteered to participate.
b. 2=My supervisor requested that I participate.
c. 3=I sought out a way to participate.
d. 4=There was a clear invitation from the university for open participation.
e. 5=Other (open response)
5. To what extent do you value participating in university strategic planning?
a. 1=Not at all.
i. BRANCH: If a selected, please indicate why not.
b. 2=Minimally
c. 3=Somewhat
d. 4=Completely
e. 5=I don’t know.
6. To what extent do you value participating in the implementation of the strategic plan?
a. 1=Not at all.
i. BRANCH: If a selected, please indicate why not.
b. 2=Minimally
c. 3=Somewhat
d. 4=Completely
e. 5=I don’t know.
7. To what extent does the university provide the resources you need to complete your
work?
a. 1=Does not provide resources.
b. 2=Minimally provides resources.
c. 3=Somewhat provides resources.
d. 4=Provides resources.
e. 5=I don’t know.
8. To what extent are you aware of your performance goals?
a. 1=Not at all aware of my performance goals.
i. BRANCH: If a selected, why are you not aware of your performance
goals?
b. 2=Minimally aware of my performance goals.
c. 3=Somewhat aware of my performance goals.
d. 4=Completely aware of my performance goals.
e. 5=I don’t know.
9. To what extent do your work performance goals connect to the university strategic plan?
a. 1= No connection at all.
b. 2=Minimal connection.
c. 3=Some connection.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 111
d. 4=Completely connected.
e. 5=I don’t know.
10. Do you believe you have the necessary knowledge to meet your work performance goals?
a. 1=I do not have the knowledge I need.
b. 2=I have the minimal knowledge I need.
c. 3=I have some of the knowledge I need.
d. 4=I have the knowledge I need.
These questions relate to your motivation to work.
11. Please rank order the items which describe what motivates you to meet your work
performance goals.
a. 1=My salary motivates me.
b. 2=My career goals being met motivates me.
c. 3=My supervisor motivates me.
d. 4=Opportunities for rewards motivate me.
e. 5=Nothing motivates me
f. 6=Other (open response
12. If you answered “Nothing motivates me,” for question 8, please indicate why here:
a. Open response
13. To what extent do you believe your supervisor values your performance goals?
a. 1=Supervisor does not value my work at all.
b. 2=Supervisor minimally values my work.
c. 3=Supervisor somewhat values my work.
d. 4=Supervisor completely values my work.
e. 5=I don’t know.
14. To what extent do you believe your department values your performance goals?
a. 1=Department does not value my work at all.
b. 2=Department minimally values my work.
c. 3=Department somewhat values my work.
d. 4=Department completely values my work.
e. 5=I don’t know.
15. To what extent do you believe the university values your performance goals?
a. 1=University does not value my work at all.
b. 2=University minimally values my work.
c. 3=University somewhat values my work.
d. 4=Department completely values my work.
e. 5=I don’t know.
The following questions ask you to consider the organizational influences which may or may not
support your work within the organization.
16. To what extent does the university provide professional skill training or development?
a. 1=University does not provide skill training or development.
b. 2=University minimally provides skill training or development.
c. 3=University somewhat provides skill training or development.
d. 4=University completely provides skill training or development.
e. 5=I don’t know.
17. To what extent does the university recognize your work?
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 112
a. 1=University does not recognize my work.
b. 2=University minimally recognizes my work.
c. 3=University somewhat recognizes my work.
d. 4=University completely recognizes my work.
e. 5=I don’t know.
18. To what extent does the university provide you data to make informed decisions?
a. 1=University does not provide me data for informed decisions.
b. 2=University minimally provides data for informed decisions.
c. 3=University somewhat provides data for informed decisions.
d. 4=University completely provides data for informed decisions.
e. 5=I don’t know.
The following questions are designed to allow you to share information about your personal
knowledge and motivation for working within this organization. Please note: your responses are
confidential and there is no way to identify you based on your responses. All data will be
reported in aggregate.
19. To what extent are you satisfied with your employment.
a. 1=I am not at all satisfied with my employment.
b. 2=I am minimally satisfied with my employment.
c. 3=I am somewhat satisfied with my employment.
d. 4=I am completely satisfied with my employment.
20. BRANCH based on responses a/b – asking for details; responses c/d asking for details.
a. If not at all or minimally satisfied, are you looking for employment elsewhere?
i. Yes
ii. No
1. If yes, why are you looking elsewhere?
2. If no, why are you NOT looking elsewhere?
b. If satisfied, or completely satisfied, why are you satisfied?
i. Open response.
21. If you had the opportunity to be included in the strategic planning process at this
university, would you participate?
a. Yes
b. No
i. BRANCH: Why or why not?
22. What could the university do to increase employee satisfaction within the organization?
a. OPEN response
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 113
Appendix B: Information Sheet
University of Southern California
(Rossier School of Education)
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
HIGHER EDUCATION MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND STRATEGIC
PLANNING: AN EVALUATION STUDY
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this project is to examine the strategic plan process at this university with the
specific aim to understand how mid-level professional higher education staff understand, value,
and participate in the university strategic planning and implementation process.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which is
anticipated to take about 15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to,
click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
You will be asked to supply limited demographic information for data analysis purposes. This
demographic information will only be used in the aggregate. There will be no identifiable
information obtained in connection with this study. Your name, address or other identifiable
information will not be collected.
The data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three years
after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 114
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Samara Rasmussen via email at srasmuss@usc.edu or phone at (303) 550 -
0659 or Faculty Advisor Dr. Helena Seli at helena.seli@rossier.usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 115
Appendix C: Post Annual Evaluation Survey
This survey is to be completed by the mid-level professional staff member immediately
upon completion of the annual evaluation with the supervisor. This survey asks questions
regarding the staff member’s satisfaction with the annual evaluation process (Level 1) and
confidence about the staff member’s ability to complete work and achieve stated work
performance goals directly connected to the university strategic plan (Level 2).
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Declarative Knowledge
During my evaluation, my supervisor spent
adequate time describing the expectations for
my work.
1 2 3 4
Procedural Knowledge
I have the resources I need to complete my
work.
1 2 3 4
Attitude
I understand what is expected of my work
performance and am eager to perform.
1 2 3 4
Confident
I have confidence I can meet or exceed my
work expectations.
1 2 3 4
Commitment
My supervisor helped me set career goals I
can achieve.
1 2 3 4
Engagement
I believe my work is valued by the university. 1 2 3 4
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 116
Relevance
The annual evaluation process supports my
career goals.
1 2 3 4
Customer Satisfaction
I believe my supervisor supports my work
efforts and wants me to succeed.
1 2 3 4
MID-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 117
Appendix D: Annual Evaluation Six-Month Follow-Up Survey
This survey is to be completed by the mid-level professional staff member
approximately six months after the annual evaluation with the supervisor. This survey
asks questions regarding satisfaction and relevance of the annual evaluation (Level 1),
confidence and value of completing their work (Level 2), application of the annual
evaluation feedback and support from their supervisor they are receiving (Level 3), and
the extent to which their work performance is proceeding satisfactorily (Level 4).
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
1. Since my evaluation, my supervisor has
provided regular and consistent feedback
about my work. (L2)
1 2 3 4
2. I have the resources I need to complete
my work. (L2)
1 2 3 4
3. I understand what is expected of my
work performance. ( L4)
1 2 3 4
4. The annual evaluation process supports
my career goals.(L1)
1 2 3 4
5. I am achieving my career goals based on
feedback from my supervisor. (L3)
1 2 3 4
6. I have confidence I am meeting or
exceeding my annual work performance
goals.(L2)
1 2 3 4
7. I believe my supervisor supports my
work efforts and wants me to succeed. (L4)
1 2 3 4
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Retaining special education staff in a rural consortium setting: an evaluation study
PDF
Judiciary employees engagement and motivation: the impact on employee and organizational success: an evaluation study
PDF
Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study
PDF
Employment rates upon MBA graduation: An evaluation study
PDF
An evaluative study of accountability and transparency in local government: an executive dissertation
PDF
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study
PDF
High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study
PDF
Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses
PDF
Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model
PDF
Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
The Army’s process to evaluate costs versus benefits: a case study on the change of command ceremonies
PDF
Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study
PDF
An assessment of a nonprofit organization’s effort to increase its staff diversity
PDF
Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study
PDF
Evaluation of knowledge and motivation factors when assessing executive leadership candidates for new organizational roles: an evaluation study
PDF
Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation
PDF
“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments
PDF
Educator professional development for technology in the classroom: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rasmussen, Samara Ferber
(author)
Core Title
Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
11/10/2017
Defense Date
11/10/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,outcomes,professional staff,strategic planning
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Seli, Helena (
committee chair
), Murphy, Don (
committee member
), Robles, Darline (
committee member
)
Creator Email
samara.rasmussen@gmail.com,srasmuss@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-452691
Unique identifier
UC11265481
Identifier
etd-RasmussenS-5884.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-452691 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RasmussenS-5884.pdf
Dmrecord
452691
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Rasmussen, Samara Ferber
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
outcomes
professional staff
strategic planning