University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A Leadership Framework For Customer Reputation Evaluation:
An Innovation Study

Kathleen Kane

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2023

© Copyright by Kathleen Kane 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kathleen Kane certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Carey Regur
Patricia Tobey
Kenneth Yates, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

Abstract
This study examined the efficacy of senior/mid-level leadership in evaluating and achieving
100% customer reputation. A conceptual framework postulating fourteen knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences guided a gap analysis methodology for the problem of practice.
The research hypothesis asked, first, what are managers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs to achieve 100% customer reputation metrics? Second, how do
organizational culture and context interact with the senior/mid-level leaders’ knowledge and
motivation? Third, what are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) solutions to the influences identified to achieve 100% customer reputation? The
stakeholder group for the study was the senior/mid-level leadership team. The research paradigm
was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach synthesizing surveys, interviews, and
artifact analysis. Fourteen influences were validated by the research study as needs. The five
knowledge influences validated as a need are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Data collected for the five motivational influences support task value, self-efficacy, attribution,
goal orientation, and expectancy outcome as a need. Two cultural settings and two cultural
model organizational needs were validated. The new world Kirkpatrick model provided the
scope for evidence-based recommendations to bridge the performance gap. The solutions include
learning goals, critical behaviors, and drivers to guide the program outcome. The integrated
implementation plan provides an innovative solution for strategic leaders to enhance their
efficacy in the components contributing to customer reputation. In achieving a 100% customer
reputation, stakeholders can shape their market uniqueness and push the boundaries of their
organizational value, a blue ocean shift in strategy.
Keywords: customer reputation, motivation, organizational value, performance

Epigraph

Do you give strength to the horse? Do you adorn his neck with a mane? Do you make him leap
like a locust? His proud snorting fills one with terror. He paws in the valley and rejoices in his
strength; he charges into battle. He laughs at fear since he is afraid of nothing; he does not run
from the sword. A quiver rattles at his side, along with a flashing spear and a javelin. He
charges ahead with trembling rage; he cannot stand still at the trumpet’s sound. (Job 39: 19-24)

Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I thank the Lord God Almighty for a life of blessings, faith, and
strength. With each day You give me, I try to appreciate a message that may not be clear from
the challenges: to look for the opportunity to serve all Your creatures, to love, be humble, and
trust You. I hope to bring further growth and learning into doing You and the uncharted territory
before me…
Before becoming my committee chair, Dr. Yates, you took an extraordinary amount of
time and effort as a committee member to coach, support, teach, and invest in the “performance
outcome” of me and my purpose at USC. You deserve the most extensive high five, incredible
kudos, profound appreciation, and a giant hug. I am forever indebted to your understanding of
my needs, patience, and still being my sherpa…thank you is not enough.
Dr. Regur, you taught me much more than just what was in our syllabus, and I am forever
grateful for your expertise and conviction. You held me accountable for my work and the level
of excellence required with unparalleled understanding and humanity. I take our story of
achievement as an example to the team members I work with today. Thank you.
Dr. Tobey, we did not have an opportunity to share a class during my USC graduate
tenure. However, you were highly regarded in my cohort, and that is an “off-stage” reputation
that is relevant and valuable for all of us. I am humbled by your willingness to come onto my
committee, and I look forward to our future. Thank you.
Although we did not finish the journey together, Dr. Donato, you were patient, diligent,
and an astute example of skill mastery. When things were not going according to schedule, you
held the door open and presented opportunities to ensure my success without judgment. I am

proud you were there for my hooding at commencement and a light to guide the potential where
my dissertation may take me. Thank you.
Thank you, Robb Flak! We were a grand alliance through the last few semesters of our
course work and quickly found that our values, beliefs, and outlook for life had similar
trajectories. I am so proud to have been part of my qualitative research work as a research
manager, and I trust you implicitly. Your influences as a teacher, leader, coach, and mentor are a
great responsibility. The world is blessed to have you be part of that to shape future generations.
Thank you to my family. We have our unique vibe, and I am thankful that we stand by
each other when things get tough. Special call out to my mom...I know it has not been easy. Your
sincerity and authenticity are a baseline for whatever good and bad life brings; your heart is
unbounded in love, while your resilience and grit are what I have founded my life on. I love you,
am so thankful to have you, and will be your #1 fan forever…
My daughter Alexis, I love you to the moon and back; we are similar in many things, but
you are the best of me. I am so proud of your journey, faith, purity, and abounding love for every
one of God’s people and creatures. You tried to keep me on dissertation milestones when it was a
tricky question to ask while understanding the complexity of what I needed to do. While on my
graduate path, you got engaged and married Sam, bought a house, and had two precious souls of
grandbabies, Brooks and Cooper. While in the blur of my graduate work, your whole life moved
to other chapters and put all of our lives in perspective. Our future. Thank you for listening,
loving, laughing, and crying with me. You are a beautiful human being and an angel on earth.
To my husband Peter … I can’t write this without wanting to smile and cry because my
journey has been one that you have had to experience the most. Living with life’s stresses,
external forces have constantly challenged us since I started this four years ago. You support me,

understand me, and know when to let me have space without shame; you know when it becomes
imperative. With each day we live together, the respect, admiration, surprise, love, wonder, and
utter amazement I have for your music artistry, business acumen, and patents (impressive) are a
testament to God’s promise of love. You are my guy…I love you shamelessly.
To Jana, Martina, Stefan, Guadalupe, and Bonny (my tri-pod dissertation doggie), you
brought aspects of peace, expertise, inspiration, therapy, and pure presence to get me to this
milestone. Thank you for being patient, generous, and kind.
Lastly, to those who are only with me in spirit, in my soul, each who helped shape me
and bring me here in your unique way…you are in my heart always.

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Performance Status/Need ............................................................................3
Related Literature.................................................................................................................4
Importance of Organizational Innovation ............................................................................7
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................................7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................8
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals.............................................................................8
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap.............................................9
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................10
Methodological Framework ...............................................................................................11
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................13
Leadership Efficacy and Multinational Companies ...........................................................14
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus .................................................................................23
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Framework .................................................23
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................24
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context .........................................................................................52
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................54

Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................55
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................57
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................63
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................66
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................67
Ethics..................................................................................................................................68
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................69
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................69
Determination of Assets and Needs ...................................................................................71
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.....................................................................71
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .....................................................................87
Results and Findings for Organization Cause ..................................................................105
Summary of Validated Influences ...................................................................................123
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ........................................................................126
Organizational Context and Mission ...............................................................................126
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................127
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................127
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study ..................................................................128
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..............................................................................128
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..........................................129
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................150
Summary ..........................................................................................................................192
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ....................................................................194
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................195
Future Research ...............................................................................................................196

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................197
References ....................................................................................................................................200
Appendix A: Survey Items...........................................................................................................223
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................231
Appendix C: Observation Protocol ..............................................................................................236
Appendix D: Survey Instrument-GIDE Training Reactions Evaluation .....................................239
Appendix E: Survey Instrument-GIDE Learning Evaluation ......................................................242
Appendix F: Training Survey Reaction Data Summary ..............................................................245
Appendix G: Training Survey. Learning Data Summary ............................................................246
Appendix H: Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Four-Level Blended Survey Example ......................249

List of Tables
Table 1: Stakeholders’ Goals 9
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 30
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivation Influence Assessments 44
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments 50
Table 5: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components 73
Table 6: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components 76
Table 7: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components 79
Table 8: Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components 83
Table 9: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components 86
Table 10: Survey Results for Task Value Motivation 89
Table 11: Survey Results for Attribution 96
Table 12: Survey Results for Goal Orientation 99
Table 13: Survey Results for Expectancy Outcome 102
Table 14: Survey Results for Cultural Models 107
Table 15: Survey Results for Cultural Models 111
Table 16: Survey Results for Cultural Settings 114
Table 17: Survey Results for Organizational Settings and Expectations 120
Table 18: Summary of Influences as Needs or Assets for Senior/Mid-Level Leadership Team
Members 124
Table 19: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 154
Table 20: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 157
Table 21: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 161
Table 22: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 186
Table 23: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 188

Table A1: Knowledge 223
Table A2: Motivation 225
Table A3: Organization 228
Table B1: Knowledge 232
Table B2: Motivation 233
Table B3: Organization 234
Table C1: Knowledge 236
Table C2: Motivation 237
Table C3: Organization 238

List of Figures
Figure 1: Employee Experience of Work-life Balance Across Levels Within an Organization 5
Figure 2: The Trust Triangle Identifies Three Variables in Which People Develop Trust and
Collective Efficacy 20
Figure 3: The Tacit- Explicit Knowledge Spiral Depicts the Four Forces Connecting Tacit
Knowledge to Explicit Knowledge Transfer 29
Figure 4: The Dweck Schema for Motivation Compares the Motivational Outcomes for
Recognition of Learning and Performance 39
Figure 5: The Competing Values Framework With Four Areas of Focus Considered in the
Gallus International Organizational Dynamic Analysis 49
Figure 6: The Conceptual Framework for the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
(KMO) Gap Analysis at Gallus International and Their Stakeholder Goal 53
Figure 7: Document Analysis of Customer Reputation 74
Figure 8: Management System Index for Quality Performance 77
Figure 9: Customer Loyalty/Satisfaction Matrix 80
Figure 10: Survey Results for Self-Efficacy Motivation 93
Figure 11: Survey Results for Goal Orientation 98
Figure 12: Survey Results for Expectancy Outcome 103
Figure 13: Survey Results for Cultural Models 108
Figure 14: Survey Results for Cultural Settings 115
Figure 15: Survey Results for Organizational Settings 121
Figure 16: A Framework of Leadership Values Coexisting in an Organization 143
Figure 17: Kirkpatrick’s Interaction Model for the Four Levels of Learning 151
Figure 18: Forms of Account-Giving Relationships 161
Figure 19: Interactive Effects of Environment, Efficacy, and Value on Motivation 169
Figure 20: The Conscious Change Leader Accountability Model 171
Figure 21: Gallus International Discovery and Exploration 4-Phase Learning Program 176

Figure 22: Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 1 178
Figure 23: Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 2 180
Figure 24: Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 3 182
Figure 25: Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 4 184
Figure 26: Kirkpatrick’s Three Phases of a Program 193
Figure A1: Customer Loyalty/Satisfaction Matrix 230
Appendix D: Survey Instrument-GIDE Training Reactions Evaluation 239
Appendix E: Survey Instrument-GIDE Learning Evaluation 242
Appendix F: Training Survey Reaction Data Summary 245
Figure G1: Training Survey Data Example 1 246
Figure G2: Training Survey Data Example 2 247
Figure G3: Training Survey Data Example 3 248
Appendix H: Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Four-Level Blended Survey Example 249

1

Chapter One: Introduction
The organization’s performance problem focused on the efficacy of the senior/mid-level
leadership team in evaluating and achieving 100% customer reputation. Customer reputation is a
stakeholder’s concept in recognizing and interpreting what an organization collectively stands
for(Walsh & Beatty, 2007). “Identity (personal or corporate) can be defined as that set of
attributes that distinguishes one entity from another; thus, corporate identity is that set of
attributes that distinguishes one organization from another.” (Bromley, 2001, p. 316) . This study
will focus on six attributes of customer reputation: market uniqueness, customer satisfaction,
triple bottom line (people-profit-planet), organizational culture, brand loyalty, and corporate
social responsibility. In 2005, Bain & Company surveyed 362 firms and found that 80% of those
organizations believed they had superior customer reputations. The same survey study asked the
company’s customers about their experience and perception of them and found that only 8%
agreed with the exceptional expertise (Kureemun & Fantina, 2011).
A leader’s perception of self-efficacy is based on their believed capability to structure
and execute ventures that attain specific outcomes (Bandura, 1997). Leaders must build a
workplace culture within an organization that allows people to create and expand their
capabilities (Senge, 1990). The control of a person to do this in the work environment translates
to a team that performs well in their job (C. A. Grant et al., 2013). “The impact of enhanced
efficacy on the nature and quality of life depends on the purposes to which it is put.” (Bandura,
1997, p. viii) Technology has enabled companies to connect leadership and cultures; it does not
address the impacts of leadership style, values and beliefs, and bias on motivation, engagement,
and efficacy.
2

The challenge of limited market space, pricing competition, and the commodity-based
nature of Gallus International creates the red ocean that constrains differentiation (Chan Kim &
Mauborgne, 2017). The organization’s attainment of a 100% customer reputation by improving
the customer experience allows senior/mid-level leaders to create a competitive advantage
through value innovation (Baer, 2016).
Organizational Context and Mission
The study’s organization is Gallus International (a pseudonym), a development partner in
the automotive industry. Gallus International is a global full-service supplier of complex
aluminum, steel, and hybrid body structures. These products’ applications include body-in-white
chassis frames, crash management systems, and front-end cross-car beams for commercial and
retail markets. Gallus International is a European, family-owned company. Gallus International
is one of the business units of Gallus International Group, which consists of four business units
in total. Gallus International Automotive is the largest business unit of the Gallus International
Group, with over 9,000 employees in 11 countries. The organization has a corporate
management system that aligns sustainability and corporate social responsibility perspectives to
meet the requirements of social, political, and business environments. In 2015, the company’s
shareholders defined their vision and values to frame the corporate social responsibility policy of
Gallus International Automotive. The values that impact the Gallus International team’s daily
interactions while providing a sense of direction and certainty are rooted in the company culture.
Gallus International’s values are honesty and reliability, trust and respect, and social,
environmental, and cultural responsibility. The values set a foundation for appreciating and
caring for individual differences and cultural uniqueness. The cultural differences add value to
the company and serve as a source of innovation and continuous improvement.
3

The company’s management board has also established a “Code of Conduct” to shape
environmental responsibility, ethical and sound business relationships, and fair, healthy working
conditions. The “Code of Conduct” details the commitments and principles the Gallus
International team and external business partners expect the organization’s team to observe.
The organization’s shared vision is:
Gallus International is a global leader in designing and supplying best-in-class structures
for vehicles’ bodies and chassis. The corporation creates sustainable and profitable growth while
committing to being financially independent and family-owned. Gallus International is
performance-oriented and stands for the highest level of customer service. The company
develops its employees and actively supports their health and satisfaction.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
The organizational impact must be understood, as highly effective teams produce results
that can meet 100% customer reputation while underperforming teams fail. The
underperformance in functional areas and facilities has led to decreased employee engagement,
revenue loss, and reputation damage. The team’s performance gap has resulted in no budget
attainment and only a 13% improvement in customer satisfaction. There needs to be an
organizational metric for customer reputation.

4

Related Literature
An organization's image reflects what it stands for, while the customer reputation reflects
its success within the marketplace lens (Weiss et al., 1999). “Relative to other species, human
beings stand for their capacity to create and innovate, both as individuals and as groups.” (Elliot
et al., 2017, p. 353) As people integrate into work groups, they develop a sense of belonging to
the organizational culture, norms, and values (Buis et al., 2019). In Figure 1 (Pangallo, 2023),
research conducted across 27 countries with 28,808 participants indicates a disparity in what
people experience in their work life compared to their expectations. The people’s perceptions
(their beliefs) are an opportunity for an organization to learn what team members value and what
reputation the organization is creating. The employee experience study showed that 63% of those
who perceived a healthy work/life balance (a team member’s ability to control their life) were
willing to go above and beyond expectations for their organization (Pangallo, 2023). When a
person can manage and control this element in their work environment, it becomes a
motivational construct that may translate to their performance. (C. A. Grant et al., 2013).
Organizations should focus on group composition to optimize a team’s motivation by
understanding the interactions of competency, communication, and developmental needs (Neale,
2011).

5

Figure 1
Employee Experience of Work-life Balance Across Levels Within an Organization

As teams benefit from flexibility for the organization and an energized workforce, they
present challenges from a leadership perspective. A leader is responsible for developing
performance management and consequent metrics for measuring team success (Bell &
Kozlowski, 2002). A vital aspect of the team member’s success in performance management is
regulating their activities within the group or themselves, a concept known as self-regulation.
When a leader defines goals related to a strategy, connecting to the company vision (how-when-
why), team members can own commitments and accountability to the targets (Bell & Kozlowski,
2002).
Similarly, when a team leader assigns clear and concise goals, they are perceived as
removing barriers to the collaborative teams’ efficacy. In establishing clear expectations,
6

motivation can begin (or continue) to influence achievement that positively impacts a team’s
collective effectiveness (Borgogni et al., 2011). Leaders who can lead a high-performance team
must leverage technology, provide skilled training, and establish frequent meetings. Sixty-three
percent of higher-performing organizations meet with their leaders at least once weekly,
compared to only 29% for lower-performing teams (Neale, 2011).
The review of this problem uncovered challenges for individual and team motivation. The
definition of efficacy is the power to produce a desired outcome (Merriam-Webster & Inc.,
2016). Self-efficacy (personal) and collective efficacy (group) are components of social-
cognitive theory (Bandura, 2012). Self-efficacy is the belief and judgment of personal capability
(Bandura, 1997). Collective efficacy refers to a person’s perception of their group’s ability to be
productive and successful (Borgogni et al., 2011).
A leader can influence collective efficacy when facilitating the team’s interpersonal
dynamic and creating an environment for achieving their goals (Borgogni et al., 2011). In
reflecting on the agentic perspective to which a person can control the setting in a team, it is
essential to note that monitoring motivation is vital when there is a lack of structure, either
within the group or leadership. Sociocultural systems shape the development of efficacy beliefs,
the purpose in which they are established, and the context in which they are used (Bandura,
2000). The cross-cultural impacts of efficacious ideas and what the team values are vital for a
leader to assess and monitor dynamically (T. W. Knowles, 2010). “For a German and a Finn, the
truth is the truth. In Japan and Britain, it is all right if it doesn’t rock the boat. In China, there is
no absolute truth. In Italy, it is negotiable.” (T. W. Knowles, 2010, p. 3).

7

Importance of Organizational Innovation
Gallus International’s organization needs to implement a systematic method for
monitoring and measuring customer reputation. If the organization does not have visibility to the
customer’s perception, it is at risk of losing new business and growing as an organization. The
organization’s recent business acquisition and organic growth ensure the region’s future
development and growth of jobs, people’s development, and sustainable economic commitment
to the communities. The consequence of not having a system for monitoring and measuring the
customer reputation is that the organization is at risk of having no visibility as to why business is
lost. Without new business, company growth stalls, investment in expansion and capital are not
feasible in the competitive landscape, and the surrounding community loses employment
opportunities. The organization’s innovation of measuring customer reputation is essential in its
future ability to evolve into a learning organization that is unique in its marketplace and,
importantly, achieves its mission statement.
Organizational Performance Goal
Gallus International’s senior/mid-level leaders will develop an organizational plan to
evaluate and achieve 100% customer reputation by December 2024. Derived from the mission
statement is a corporate performance goal that is specific and measurable and targets
achievement for short-term and long-term activities. There is no plan to reach the customer
reputation score; hence, there is a 100% gap in goal achievement. Though the timeline may seem
extensive, implementing the goals and objectives internally for the organization in January 2024
will translate to the customer experience based on performance data and sustainability over a 6-
month timeframe.

8

Description of Stakeholder Groups
The three primary stakeholder groups at Gallus International are the executive leadership
team, the senior/mid-level leadership team, and the plant leadership team. The executive
leadership team sets overarching goals and objectives based on the board of directors’ vision and
mission. The board of directors of the family-owned organization is composed of the family and
an outside financial perspective. The three executive leadership team members that report to the
board of directors are operations, controlling, and sales. The executive leadership team members
have various functional-specific responsibilities communicated to the 70-plus senior/mid-level
leadership team members worldwide (Gallus International works with a lean matrix
organizational structure). The senior/mid-level leadership team is responsible for the support
functions and manufacturing operations. The support functions are program management, sales,
controlling, quality, logistics, information technology, and human resources.
Stakeholder Groups ’ Performance Goals
At Gallus International, a top-down perspective establishes performance goals through
three primary stakeholder groups: the executive leadership team (managing directors), the
senior/mid-level leadership team, and the plant leadership team. The executive leadership team
establishes goals and objectives based on the linkage between the board of directors’ vision and
the organization’s mission. The executive leadership team then translates this to the senior/mid-
leadership team, which needs to define the plant leadership team’s specific and measurable goals
to link the mission to the expected baseline to achieve customer reputation. Table 1 presents the
stakeholders’ goals.

9

Table 1
Stakeholders’ Goals
Organizational mission:
The vision is to be a best-in-class global leader for automotive structures. Gallus International,
a family-owned and financially independent company, is a performance-oriented
organization targeting the highest customer service levels. The organization is committed to
developing its employees by supporting their health and satisfaction, aiming for sustainability
and continued profitable growth.

Organizational performance goal
Gallus International’s senior/mid-level leaders will develop an organizational plan to evaluate
and achieve 100% customer reputation by December 2024.

Executive leadership team
By September 2023, the SLT
will create a customer
reputation scorecard driven
by customer reputation
metrics to a targeted goal
and add to the lean
manufacturing process.
Senior/mid-level leadership
By November 2023, the
senior/ mid-level leadership
team will create a glide path
plan to align the
functional/corporate
management goals and
objectives to the customer
reputation metrics and
targeted goals.
Plant leadership teams
By January 2024, the Plant
Leadership teams will
implement plant
performance goals and
objectives for the customer
reputation metrics, targeted
goals, and communication
through the quality
excellence process.

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap
In consideration of stakeholder groups for the analysis: Executive leadership teams,
senior/mid-level leadership teams, and plant leadership teams, the stakeholder group of study
will be the senior/mid-level leadership group. Although a complete analysis would include all
stakeholder groups, and the executive leadership team is responsible for setting the tempo and
tone of its mission, the senior/mid-level leadership is accountable for executing the task. Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework clarifies the influences between a performance gap
and organizational goals. When looking at the organization’s performance on the ability to
secure new business, it was not just customer scorecard performance to the tasks assigned; it was
10

the perception of what the organization achieved for the functions. As a stakeholder, the
senior/mid-level leadership team is crucial in attaining the customer reputation goal as they need
to align the plant leadership teams’ performance and attainment. The risk to the organization’s
senior/mid-level leadership goal achievement is that the competitive marketplace would outpace
the organization regarding customer reputation. The Gallus International organization would lose
its market position and strategic sustainability. The performance goal of customer reputation is
new to the organization and the senior/mid-level leadership team; the performance gap is 100%.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
This project analyzed the knowledge, skill, motivation, and organizational resources
necessary to meet corporate performance goals. The study began by generating a list of possible
needs and then examining these systems to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete
needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders for practical purposes, the stakeholders focusing
on this analysis were the senior/mid-level leadership team. The needs analysis addresses
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization resources and solutions for these
stakeholders.
1. What are the leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organization needed influences to
achieve 100% customer reputation metrics?
2. How do organizational culture and context interact with the senior/mid-level leaders’
knowledge and motivation?
The third research question provides the framework for Chapter Five: What are the
recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to the influences identified to
achieve 100% customer reputation?
11

Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was adapted for the needs analysis. Assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs were generated based on personal experience
and related literature. The assumed needs were validated using surveys, focus groups, interviews,
literature review, and content analysis. Recommendations were developed for the research-based
solutions and evaluated comprehensively.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters establish the organization of this study. This chapter provided the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in discussing remote leadership teams in a
multinational company and customer reputation components. The study introduced the
organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders and the initial concepts of gap analysis adapted
to needs. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Furthermore, the chapter addresses cultural beliefs, goals and objectives, accountability,
efficacy within remote team leadership, and trust. Chapter Three details the assumed causes for
this study and the methodology for participants’ choice, data collection, and analysis. Chapter
Four provides a summary of the data and an analysis of the results. Finally, Chapter Five
provides solutions, based on data and literature, for addressing the needs, closing the
performance gap, and recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan.
Social-cognitive theory, founded on an agentic perspective, subscribes to triadic
reciprocity (Bandura, 2012). Behavior, interpersonal influence, and environmental factors are the
three determinants of a triadic causal structure for human function (Bandura, 2012). The
12

constructed, imposed, and selected factors of an agentic perspective contribute to how we shape
our personal experiences and events (Bandura, 2000). These experiences within the team
atmosphere enable people to control their lives better, conduct their daily work, and learn
(Bandura, 2012). Motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment result from people’s confidence
in their capabilities (Borgogni et al., 2011).

13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review aims to provide a general overview of senior/mid-level leadership
teams’ efficacy within a multinational environment and its consequent relationship to customer
reputation. Efficacy, related to a person or team’s effectiveness and productivity, connects to the
organizational culture’s motivation and trust (Bandura, 2000). Leaders are responsible for
cultivating a workplace environment for people to create and expand their capabilities (Senge,
1990). The control of a person to do this in the work environment translates to a team that
performs well in their job (C. A. Grant et al., 2013) and is satisfied. In congruence with a
customer relationship management’s attitude and commitment, a person’s motivation provides
positive influence (White, 2015), which cascades to customer reputation. Technology has
enabled multinational companies to connect their organizational culture with differing personal
values and beliefs. The relationship of personal values and thoughts combined with an
appropriate leadership style translates to a dynamic organization that can drive competitive
advantage (Schwartz, 2014).
This chapter overviews customer reputation and its influence on multinational
companies, cultures, and industries. We will look at the origination of current customer
reputation metrics and data acquisition methodologies. Next is a review and evaluation of how
industries use customer reputation to drive organizational change. An introduction to Clark and
Estes’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) gap analysis framework (Clark et al.,
2004) provides a conduit to the research roadmap. Finally, focusing on the senior/mid-level
leadership team’s KMO influences closes the chapter with a conceptual framework presentation.

14

Leadership Efficacy and Multinational Companies
The efficiency and productivity of leadership teams in multinational companies are
contingent upon multiple variables within knowledge, motivation, and organization (Helm &
Tolsdorf, 2013). The workplace culture that results within the organizational structure must
foster an environment conducive to a customer-centric perspective to remain competitive (Jevons
et al., 2005). Bolman and Deal review a four-frame model of organizational perspectives
consisting of structural, human resource, political, and symbolic categories (Bolman & Deal,
2017). The four frames of supporting disciplines, central concepts, leadership image, and
challenges within the leadership teams provide context for the analysis (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
We find the research path for organizational change recommendations within these categories to
achieve the closure of the performance gap or a 100% customer reputation.
Customer Reputation
An organization’s customer reputation, or its corporate brand, is the constitution of its
overall identity (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). Four primary elements attributed to competitive
advantage are incorporating a customer-centric perspective. The company should be valuable in
the competitive marketplace. The company should be rare among its competitors. It should
possess some unique aspect to differentiate it from the competition, and there cannot be
equivalent substitutes (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). When looking at an organization’s identity,
the intangible aspects create a performance advantage (Jevons et al., 2005) with this viewpoint
and consequent performance of the organizational stakeholder and customer interaction that
provide the relationship resulting in reputation (Bahaee, 2017).

15

History and Development of the Concept
Initially, customer reputation’s definition is the sum of one stakeholder’s perspective on
how an organization responds to its needs and requirements (Wartick, 2002). Customer
reputation is not a static characterization of an organization; instead, it is an appraisal, a
differentiator amongst stakeholders, and an outcome of short and long-term perceptions of what
an out-group believes (Terblanche, 2014). The development of an objective measure across
multiple industries and organizations resulted in annual conferences, journals, and a research
center. Customer reputation’s perceived construct has terms used reciprocally, such as corporate
identity, esteem, image, and brand (Wartick, 2002). A customer reputation methodology
establishes criteria based on what consumers, stakeholders, and people say and do within that
industry.
Current Measures of Customer Reputation
There have been multiple approaches to measuring customer reputation. A review of
several critical metrics for customer reputation, but not all metrics across disciplines, is part of
this literature review.
The reputation quotient is a measure of corporate reputation that aspires to encompass
multiple disciplines while calibrating an organization’s expected outcome by its stakeholders
(Fombrun et al., 2000). While a collection of a company’s behavior and results are part of the
reputation quotient, the intention is to align and calibrate the teams within an organization and its
external stakeholders (Fombrun et al., 2000). Surveys and focus groups based on operational
capability, strategic positioning, industry leadership, credibility, influence, empathy, and clarity
are a few variables the reputation quotient can entail within a list of 27 criteria to establish
validity (Fombrun et al., 2000).
16

Fortune Magazine’s Most Admired Companies (FMAC) ranks organizations based on
eight attributes (Kaur & Singh, 2018). The features are innovation, talent, corporate assets,
quality, corporate social responsibility, management, financial astuteness, and long-term validity
(Kaur & Singh, 2018). Despite the FMAC’s unrelenting effort to conduct quantitative
assessments, there are many inefficiencies in qualitatively measuring customer reputation. The
FMAC evaluates the organization’s age, price-earnings ratio, corporate social responsibility
criteria, and market capitalization to constitute its rankings (Kaur & Singh, 2018).
The Net Promoter Score (NPS) uses a customer’s inclination to recommend a product,
organization, or service in its reputation measurement (Laitinen, 2018). The NPS was introduced
in 2003 to present another perspective (and less traditional) of reputation measurement compared
to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, the European Performance Satisfaction Index, and
the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (Laitinen, 2018). The NPS is based on a
quantitative survey methodology utilizing a 5- to 10-point Likert scale and is popular due to its
simplicity (Laitinen, 2018).
Kano’s customer satisfaction model has established that three primary criteria must be
present to fulfill the customer’s expectations: Attractive requirements, One-dimensional
requirements, and must-be requirements (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998). First, there is an
expression of attractive conditions that entail surprise-specific tailoring to customer needs and an
experience that is not expected or predicted. Second, there is a review of the one-dimensional
requirement for performance-related expectations that involve stated, specific, and measurable
aspects. Third, the must-be conditions of basic expectations implied, taken for granted, and self-
evident are considered (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998). While Kano’s customer satisfaction
17

model envelopes some sophisticated criteria, it must identify a customer’s needs and priorities to
maximize its benefit (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998).
Some of the most prominent customer reputation metrics weave together variables of
corporate social responsibility and financial performance. The sampled review of multiple
methods for measuring customer satisfaction and reputation has identified a need for a research-
based metric that is sustainable, quantifiable, and a tool for organizational change within a
multinational organization. While we did not explore the Word-of-Mouth Index (Freed, 2013),
from the assessment of current metrics for customer reputation, it appears there is a gap in
measurement that coincides with loyalty, trust, and intangible customer behavioral characteristics
(Sarstedt et al., 2013). The intangible assets, the customer’s perception, can determine the
competitive advantage an organization can leverage if understood (Sarstedt et al., 2013).
Customer Reputation in Multinational Companies
Multinational companies are subjected to a rigorous expectation of customer reputation,
significantly as the importance evolves of having customer reputation to include ethics.
International companies conceptualize domestic companies due to their woven interactions in the
global marketplace (Swoboda et al., 2017). A central location typically manages multinational
organizations; this often central location is the centerpiece of the company culture. Research
conducted on a multinational corporation that spanned 43 countries shows that the distance
between the country where the headquarters resides and its satellite locations weakened its
customer reputation (Swoboda et al., 2017).
The cultural-cognitive spaces and the country’s sociocultural influences directly affect
customer reputation on trust and loyalty (Swoboda et al., 2017). Customer perception is a critical
success factor contributing to competitive advantage, and the home country’s senior leadership
18

team is vital for establishing organizational behavior/expectations (Swoboda et al., 2017). A
formal code of ethics determines elements paramount to a multinational company’s customer
perception for a sustainable and trustworthy market presence (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). In a
global company environment, senior management establishes ethical practices encompassing a
vast network of stakeholders that may not connect to the corporate identity (Bendixen & Abratt,
2007).
Additionally, multinational organizations expose an expanded lens of expectations for
improving social and environmental factors through corporate social responsibility, which
further pressures the perceived customer expectations (Subramaniam et al., 2019). Research
conducted on 141 multinational companies showed that cultural influences within a global
network could positively impact the intangible resources that create a competitive advantage
(Subramaniam et al., 2019).
Cultural Factors for Multinational Reputation
Cross-cultural communication and multicultural groups have complicated factors
influencing performance, particularly within a multinational organization. While there may be
many opportunities for differing perspectives and collaboration within the diversity that comes
from an international environment, conscious attention to values and beliefs needs to be
considered by the leadership team (L. Robinson et al., 2014). A study involving 60 staff and
students within an international university showed that communication was not an overarching
concern with the diverse teams; a proper framework for team management and expectations was
crucial for success (L. Robinson et al., 2014). Cultural distance, or conflict, can occur when two
cultures are more different than similar (Triandis, 2000).
19

The cultural differences that can be challenging to navigate within a multinational
organization start with collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Within a group setting, a person
from an individualistic culture will tend to focus on the internal processes and individual goals,
which could be detrimental to the team’s efficacy if working within a team composed of
collectivists (Triandis, 2000).
A construct developed by Dupont and Karpoff (2020) highlights the development of a
trust triangle (Figure 2) to depict the interaction of three key facets that work together to
influence customer reputation within a multinational company’s culture (Dupont & Karpoff,
2020). The three main interrelated mechanisms are a company/society’s legal framework,
reputational capital, and the cultural norms that define ethical expectations (Dupont & Karpoff,
2020). When all three elements are in balance, trust is an outcome that emphasizes the
organization’s reputation, with the customer being a key stakeholder (Dupont & Karpoff, 2020).
The concept of cultural intelligence brings this scenario into focus. Cultural intelligence consists
of four dimensions: knowledge of cultural differences, cultural sensitivity, motivation to learn
about other cultures, and agility to learn new ways of thinking (Schein, 2016). Cultural
sensitivity within a multinational organization builds a foundation that creates a positive
organizational dynamic (T. W. Knowles, 2010).

20

Figure 2
The Trust Triangle Identifies Three Variables in Which People Develop Trust and Collective
Efficacy

Personality Traits and Cultural Factors in a Multinational Company
Working with team members from different cultures can present communication and
team effectiveness barriers based on intercultural communication (Ang et al., 2006). Early and
Ang (2003) defined cultural intelligence as a team member’s ability to evaluate and respond
efficiently to cultural diversity within their team or workplace. There are four factors considered
in the cultural intelligence model. They possess metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and
behavioral influences within the personality traits relationship (Ang et al., 2006). While culture is
a complicated construct by nature due to its effect, sociocultural factors attempt to calibrate and
measure the congruent dimensions from researchers Hofstede and Schwartz (Ng et al., 2007).
Additionally, the big five personality traits (Ang et al., 2006) that researchers identified
have been associated in a limited context to adapt to positive influences in cultural intelligence.
21

The big five personality dimensions are conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability,
extraversion, and openness to experience (Ang et al., 2006). They increase as adults mature
(Hudson et al., 2012). These dimensions’ opportunity to grow with maturity is a facet to
remember when exploring a sub-dimension of conscientiousness or grit in the expectancy-value
theory (Duckworth et al., 2007). Grit is about working with resilience and diligence while
frequently facing adversity to persevere in attaining top-level, long-range goals (Eskreis-Winkler
et al., 2014). In a quantitative study conducted on 338 business university undergraduates,
openness to experience was the only experience related to all four cultural dimensions (Ang et
al., 2006).
As the four cultural dimensions’ relationship to the big five personality traits historically
evolves, researchers Alon et al. (2016) developed a business cultural intelligence quotient
(BCIQ). The BCIQ envelopes a metric that can evaluate the acumen of culturally intelligent
multinational leaders in the business global remote workforce (Alon et al., 2016). This
measurable provides. Finally, leadership coherence is a construct developed to evaluate the
purposeful method in which a leader’s decisions impact how a team member responds to their
environment (Michel & LeBreton, 2011). Coherence looks at behavior that adapts from one
situation to another in a consistent, legal, and predictable manner (Michel & LeBreton, 2011). A
global remote environment challenges multinational leaders ‘sociocultural communication style
and a corporation’s uncertainty avoidance in a culturally specific context (Ergeneli et al., 2007).
In evaluating a leader’s cultural intelligence and leadership style in culturally diverse settings,
the more aptitude they have to have efficacy (Alon et al., 2016). This efficacy is not limited to
global environments but also domestic ones (Alon et al., 2016).

22

Role of Leadership and Customer Reputation
Customer reputation drives the focus of goals and objectives in organizational leadership.
Reputation management understands its identity and brand value (Soviar et al., 2019). The
business environment and corporate culture established by the senior/mid-level management
team are critical for establishing the value connection between the employees and internal and
external stakeholders. As presented by Dupont and Karpoff (2020), the trust triangle
demonstrates that modeling trustworthiness within an organization sets the relationships that
foster customer reputation. The teams’ trust in a leader results in positive organizational
performance outcomes and individual and team efficacy (Sherwood & DePaolo, 2005).
Leadership Teams in a Family-Owned Company and Reputation
Customer reputation, or a stakeholder’s perception of an organization’s past, present, and
potential future actions, has been shown by research to impact family-owned organizations
positively (Schellong et al., 2019). Socioemotional wealth within family-owned companies
provides the context in which the owners make investments and business decisions (Schellong et
al., 2019). Socioemotional wealth is considered a metric within family firms and customer
happiness and personal commitment: within these aspects, familial identity can transfer to the
customer’s reputation (Schellong et al., 2019). A favorable family firm reputation reflects a sense
of value and embraces long-term organizational goals (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013).
Organizational identity theory explains why family firms are motivated by non-financially driven
behaviors, such as customer reputation (Zellweger et al., 2013). When family firms integrate
familial identity, positive impacts result from the organizational identity, legitimacy, and
reputation to drive nonfinancial goals, and external stakeholders such as customers are positively
impacted (Zellweger et al., 2013).
23

The family member’s name is also associated with the organization’s name, further
connecting their socioemotional investment to shaping an organizational mission (Deephouse &
Jaskiewicz, 2013). A qualitative study of 300 executives at family firms showed that when the
familial stakeholders have their name on the building, they are more conscious of their corporate
social responsibility and reputation (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). The more the family is
involved in the business, the more personal investment the organization has in its stakeholders
(Bingham et al., 2011). Stakeholder management and the commitment to remaining competitive
in markets that may be challenging for family-owned businesses gives the personal connection to
managing customer reputation a market advantage (Claver et al., 2009).
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus
The senior/mid-level leadership team consists of several layers of the company’s
organization that establish its tone. The organization is a hierarchical matrix organization with
three distinct managing directors. The three managing directors are responsible for the
overarching functional responsibilities such as operations/procurement, controlling/human
resources, and sales/research. Within these three reporting structures, the senior/mid-level
leadership defines the organization’s extended operations’ goals and objectives that cascade from
the board of directors.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Framework
Clark and Estes’s (Clark et al., 2004) gap analysis framework was a critical factor in
identifying the areas to focus on for closing the stakeholder performance gaps in the senior/mid-
level leadership team within the Gallus International organization. The gap analysis framework
consisted of three primary constructs: the KMO influences. The problem-solving process
evaluated (a) understanding the senior/mid-level stakeholder goal concerning the corporate goal
24

of achieving a 100% customer reputation score by 2024 and (b) identifying assumed
performance influences in the KMO areas based on general theory, context-specific literature,
and a current understanding of the organization. The KMO influences the senior/mid-level leader
stakeholder group to follow within the study. Within the gap analysis, we based the research’s
conceptual framework. The research project’s conceptual framework is a preliminary design of
the theories, influences, expectations, concepts, and assumptions (Adom et al., 2018).
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
According to Clark and Estes (Clark et al., 2004), it is essential to identify the mastery
and scope of a team member’s knowledge to achieve their goals. In examining literature relevant
to the senior/mid-level leader’s goals, the stakeholder group must have the skills and specific
knowledge types, such as conceptual and factual, to be engaged and motivated. As leaders
understand how they organize knowledge influences their team’s learning, there is a more
significant opportunity for its application (Ambrose, 2010).

Knowledge and Skills Influences
There are four primary types of knowledge: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge,
metacognitive knowledge, and procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge is
simple information that provides the foundation for the other types of knowledge defined.
Conceptual knowledge is the ability to develop factual expertise into broader concepts.
Metacognitive knowledge is our knowledge about ourselves, an element of self-awareness.
Finally, procedural knowledge performs a skill or task (Krathwohl, 2002). We will categorize
each knowledge influence into the appropriate knowledge type to effectively understand the gaps
and potential solutions defined in the research.
25

Knowledge Influence 1: Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Need to Know the Components That
Comprise Customer Reputation (Factual Knowledge)
When an organization has multiple accountability levels within the principal-agent
relationship, reputation manipulation is risky due to divergent goals (Kim, 2017). The
organization’s senior/mid-level leadership team has plans that may line up functionally within
their roles within the upward vertical leadership structure. Still, it may translate poorly across the
organization’s horizontal lines. To be held accountable within an organization, the leader must
understand the consequences of actions by explaining the scenario, justifying a decision, and
taking responsibility for the activities (Messner, 2009). The relationship levels within an
organization’s macro culture are critical success factors in establishing goals built in a trusting
and open context (Schein, 2016).
Knowledge Influence 2: Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Need to Know the Importance of Building
and Maintaining the Components of Customer Reputation (Conceptual Knowledge)
A leader can predict collective team efficacy when facilitating the team in achieving their
goals (Borgogni et al., 2011). An accomplished leader in the leadership team structure is vital to
creating a learning environment that fosters commitment, motivation, and positivity for day-to-
day work activities (Sappe et al., 2016). Leaders must build a workplace culture that allows
people to create and expand their capabilities (Senge, 1990). Leadership’s strategy and mission
are critical factors for motivation in a team environment. A team’s interactions require mitigation
with strong interpersonal dynamics that build trust, relationships, and transparency (Neale,
2011). A leader is responsible for developing performance management and consequent metrics
for measuring team success (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). A vital aspect of the team member’s
success in performance management is regulating their activities within the group or themselves,
26

a concept known as self-regulation. When a leader defines goals related to a strategy, connecting
to the company vision (how-when-why), team members can own commitments and
accountability to the targets (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002).
Similarly, when leaders assign clear and concise goals, they are perceived as removing
barriers to the collaborative teams’ efficacy. In establishing clear expectations, motivation can
begin (or continue) to influence achievement that positively impacts a team’s collective
effectiveness (Borgogni et al., 2011). Leaders who can lead a high-performance team must
leverage technology, provide skilled training, and establish frequent meetings. Sixty-three
percent of higher-performing organizations meet with their leaders at least once weekly,
compared to only 29% for lower-performing teams (Neale, 2011).
Knowledge Influence 3: Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Understand the Importance of Building
and Maintaining the Custom Reputation Components That Impact Customer Perception in
the Principal-Agent Relationship (Conceptual Knowledge)
Within an organization, three facets weave the definition of a macro culture and ethical
expectations: a company/society’s legal framework, reputational capital, and cultural norms.
When these three dimensions are balanced, organizational trust is an output that provides a
conduit for the emphasis on customer reputation (Dupont & Karpoff, 2020). Cultural intelligence
focuses on the importance of trust and customer reputation. Cultural intelligence consists of four
dimensions: knowledge of cultural differences, cultural sensitivity, motivation to learn about
other cultures, and agility to learn new ways of thinking (Schein, 2016). Cultural sensitivity
within a multinational organization builds a foundation that creates a positive organizational
dynamic (T. W. Knowles, 2010). As a leader applies the understanding of a global-growing
mindset, working within a culturally diverse team results in successful intercultural
27

communication and improved relationships (Crossman, 2010). Finally, when a leader can
interpret and influence decision-making and commitment, it can increase creativity and
innovation (Savu et al., 2017).
Knowledge Influence 4: Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Must Know How to Improve Customer
Reputation (Procedural Knowledge)
Open and unbiased communication of procedural expectations reduces uncertainty and
goal ambiguity in teams and organizational needs (Clark & Estes, 2008). As teams find
motivation in participating and articulating their priorities, the connection to “why” matters
becomes relevant in achieving objectives (M. S. Knowles, 1980). Organizations with high levels
of cultural trust produce higher results as they can retain motivated team members who take time
to follow procedures, perform their jobs correctly, and demonstrate sustainable decision-making
(Colquitt et al., 2007)
Knowledge Influence 5: Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Team Must Self-Reflect on Tier Progress
Toward Improving Customer Reputation (Metacognitive Knowledge)
High-intensity and driven corporate values can encapsulate powerful views that elicit
desirable and undesirable actions and decision-making (T. W. Knowles, 2010). As leadership
establishes the team’s expectations, organizational effectiveness increases when the leaders
reflect, learn, and know their business (Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Additionally, when a
leader (and learning organization) stays current with mastering skills and tacit knowledge, it
increases their learning outcome and influences motivation (Waters et al., 2003).
Tacit knowledge is the intangible dimension of knowledge that people bring into an
organization based on beliefs, thoughts, and accumulated experience (Gierszewska, 2012).
People do not come into teams as blank slates (Ambrose, 2010). The prior tacit knowledge
28

acquired influences how people filter, structure, and interpret new information (Ambrose, 2010).
Figure 3 shows how tacit knowledge can transfer to explicit knowledge or the experience we can
tangibly share with others (Gierszewska, 2012). When leaders recognize the key elements
impacting tacit knowledge creation into detailed knowledge, the organization benefits from
transferring information from an individual to a team (Gierszewska, 2012). While there may be a
generation of creative tension in this transfer process, it is necessary to reduce uncertainty,
reduce anxiety, and build organizational trust. The four elements of socialization, externalization,
combination, and internalization show the cyclical interdependence of identifying knowledge,
giving it a voice, creating a path for its transfer, and industrializing it within the organization
(Gierszewska, 2012). Senior/mid-level leaders are critical in identifying a learning organization’s
tacit knowledge and potential gaps/inaccuracies (Ambrose, 2010). Predominantly, learning
occurs outside of a structured workplace environment, where education is not the team’s
preeminent goal (Eraut, 2004). As part of a leadership methodology, contextualizing where
people learn, how people bring knowledge into organizations, and how tacit knowledge transfers
into a broader team’s explicit standardization experience is a crucial success factor to
commitment. Table 2 shows the knowledge influences, types, and assessments for the
organizational goal.

29

Figure 3
The Tacit- Explicit Knowledge Spiral Depicts the Four Forces Connecting Tacit Knowledge to
Explicit Knowledge Transfer

30

Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
Senior/mid-level leaders
must know how to
improve customer
reputation.
Declarative

Examples of interview questions:
Could you tell me about your role in the
organization?
Please describe how you see goals,
accountability, and trust working together
here.
Examples of survey questions:
How effectively are you applying the
strategic goals within your functional
team?
Artifacts reviewed:
Review the training and competence metrics,
review the budgetary use of training, and
check the HR orientation
guidelines/checklist.
Senior/mid-level leaders
need to know the
components that comprise
customer reputation.
Factual Examples of interview questions:
How would you describe the status today of
customer reputation for our organization?
Look at this matrix that portrays loyalty and
satisfaction for customer reputation.
Where do you see our organization?
Examples of survey questions:
Customer reputation consists of several
components; check all that apply.
Senior/mid-level leadership
teams must follow the
steps to achieve functional
team objectives.
Procedural Examples of interview questions:
Please describe your process to set the
functional teams’ goals and objectives.
Examples of survey questions:
What percentage of your team meets its
goals and objectives annually?
Please rank the importance of the tasks from
1–4:
Intrinsic motivation: Interest
Extrinsic motivation: Utility
Attainment value: Importance
Cost value: Benefits
Senior/mid-level leaders
understand the importance
of building and
maintaining the customer
Conceptual Examples of interview questions:
How would you define cultural intelligence?
How do you see the company culture
impacting our customer reputation?
31

Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
reputation components that
impact customer
perception in the principal-
agent relationship.
Examples of survey questions:
How often do you meet with your team?
Please rank what you review with your team
when you meet with them:
Operational metrics, goals progression,
changes in the organization, project/task
updates, customer metrics, HR
initiatives/training, and blank
Artifacts reviewed:
Evaluate the company intranet site for the
focus of the regional activity, initiatives,
plant activity, and corporate focus
Senior/mid-level leaders
need to know the
importance of building and
maintaining the
components of customer
reputation.
Conceptual Examples of survey questions:
Describe or select items that affect customer
reputation (multiple choice or response) in
a brief phrase.
Examples of interview questions:
How does your daily work or that of your
department contribute to customer
reputation?
Senior/mid-level leaders
must self-reflect on their
progress toward improving
customer reputation.

Metacognitive Examples of interview questions:
Can you give an example of how tacit
knowledge influences our organization
positively? In a negative way?
Examples of survey questions:
Have the respondent create a mind map of
how knowledge is used in the
organization, with organizational
dynamics being the central concept.

Motivation Influences
Motivation-related influences are critical to achieving senior/mid-level leadership
stakeholder group goals. In the 1950s, psychologists purported that the study of motivation was
driven predominantly by external factors (Locke & Latham, 2002). By the 1970s, behaviorists
debated that people are affected by conscious tasks, intentions, and purpose, and these first-level
explanatory concepts are what we know today as motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002).
32

Recently, there have been endeavors to discern the true contextual meaning of motivation.
However, it has resulted in the supposition that motivation is not driven explicitly by
achievement but by competence (Elliot et al., 2017).
Consequently, studies on motivation and knowledge concluded that these two different
psychological systems in human beings work symbiotically (Clark et al., 2004). As we know
them today, motivational theories focus on the ideology of goals, beliefs, and values (J. S. Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002). Motivation compels us daily to keep going and how much effort we want to
spend on tasks to accomplish them (Clark et al., 2004). As each team member believes they have
the choice to develop a motive, they will seek more opportunities for learning and education
(McClelland, 1965). Leaders who empower their teams and individual team members’ decision-
making create a mindset based on commitment and high performance (Sappe et al., 2016).
Motivation does not come without understanding the fixed or growth mindset that
impacts critical meaning systems for individuals (Elliot et al., 2017). Team members with a fixed
mindset who have not mastered skills immediately are less likely to feel fulfilled than those with
a growth mindset (Elliot et al., 2017). People predisposed to a fixed mindset often cannot
accurately interpret their performance and ability (C. Dweck, 2012). In contrast, those with a
growth mindset are self-reflective, self-aware, and believe in their development (C. Dweck,
2012). The sustained mental effort it takes for a team member with a growth mindset to find
satisfaction in attaining a new skill and increasing their confidence (Elliot et al., 2017). In
understanding the two primary facets of motivation, the interpreted value of a goal and the
potential to achieve the goal, we can see the impact of meaningful behavior, learning, and
performance on an individual (Ambrose, 2010). While the business world seems to have
33

misaligned these two motivational aspects, this research must focus on the three intrinsic factors
that drive success: autonomy, mastery, and purpose (D. Pink, 2009).
The following motivational theories explored relate to the hypotheses: goal orientation
theory, self-efficacy theory, attribution theory, task value theory, and expectancy outcome
theory.
Goal Orientation Theory
The theories of motivation related to goals, goal setting theory and goal orientation
theory, are founded on two distinct achievement principles. Figure 4 compares the relationship
and outcomes of motivation when the focus drives mastery of skills and learning or operational
metrics and performance (Lumen Learning, n.d.). Goal orientation theory provides the
framework for motivating people to achieve goals, overcome challenges, and learn from adverse
scenarios (Rusk & Rothbaum, 2010). Goal orientation theory, also known as the achievement
goal theory, looks at why self-validation or performance goals lead to perceived low competence
compared to why people respond positively to stress in the workplace (Rusk & Rothbaum,
2010). Additionally, some goal orientation theorists have provided research that a person’s
internal belief system on their perceived ability to accomplish goals is typically growth-oriented
(incremental views) or fixed (entity views; Rusk & Rothbaum, 2010). When mastery goals align
with an incremental view mindset, the sociocultural environment for self-actualization or
developing oneself to one’s most significant potential becomes the focus (Bolman & Deal,
2017). Research also suggests that goal orientation may combine high mastery and performance
goals. Still, it is unclear if it translates into a complex environment of learning and achievement
outcomes (Meece et al., 2006). Finally, as we look at the contrast between achievement goals
based on learning or performance, we can also see that these distinctions parallel task versus ego
34

involvement and mastery versus ability perception (Meece et al., 2006). In the next section, we
will explore how goal theory and the Gallus International senior/mid-level leaders will come
together to focus on attaining 100% customer reputation by 2024.
Senior/Mid-Level Leadership Teams and Goal Orientation Theory
The senior/mid-level leadership team is willing to establish clear, concise, and concrete,
measurable goals to attain the glide path for establishing a 100% customer reputation. Goal
orientation, or the level at which a person is learning-oriented or performance-oriented (both
proving and avoiding), is a factor the senior/mid-level leadership team members need to consider
in a context in which goal orientation is in both a learning or performance situation (Davis et al.,
2007). When leaders identify the key factors to focus on with their personal and team goals, they
must avoid setting goals that induce stress, refrain from punitive feedback, and provide the
resources for their success (Ordóñez et al., 2009). A lack of unified team goals may cause
stressors to cascade to performance metrics where people try to prove themselves and develop
avoidance behaviors to mitigate negative feedback from leaders and peers (Elliot et al., 2017).
These two sub-dimensions identify variables where people are working to prevent failure
compared to others and avoid being perceived as incompetent, both of which indicate adverse
outcomes (Elliot et al., 2017). Practical goal orientation is essential for Gallus International’s
senior/mid-level leadership team to achieve the glide path plan for customer reputation.
Additionally, when team members participate in the management process of problem-
solving, particularly for aligned goals of a cross-functional team, it is a platform for relationship
development within the person and group (Ellström, 2001). A typology of team members in the
access, participation, and development of goals revealed four primary levels: no participation,
routine-based problem-solving, official problem-solving, and involvement in the next step of
35

benchmarking and innovation (Ellström, 2001). These four dimensions outline an additional
context a leadership team must incorporate into developing goals to align with their teams.
Research shows that accountability, particularly in the context of goal orientation, can
help align people’s decision-making in a more purposeful and less biased way (Davis et al.,
2007). Outcome accountability, or a scenario where the resulting outcome focuses on the quality
of decisions or actions, can result in people not collaborating, increasing political undertows, and
jeopardizing the sense of belonging (Davis et al., 2007). Furthermore, while leaders may feel the
need to enforce goals, the modeled behavior should be personal responsibility through actions
that connect the individual’s goals to the organizational goals (Ebrahim, 2016). In looking at an
example of modeling, the senior/mid-level leadership teams can evaluate a social-cognitive
theory-based paradigm, mentoring. Mentoring encourages team members to learn from a more
tenured and experienced professional leader by imparting the wisdom of values, politics, and
systematics to develop the person and their career (Sosik et al., 2004). Research involving 217
mentors and their mentees in 11 industries showed a positive relationship between learning goal
orientation and expected success within the modeling that can occur during mentoring (Sosik et
al., 2004). Understanding the benefits of career development, especially decision-making in the
context of goal orientation, can motivate a person to evaluate achievement, learning balance,
development, and, importantly, reputation (Sosik et al., 2004). Finally, goal orientation and self-
regulation within social-cognitive theory show an intersection within the triadic relationship of
higher perceived self-efficacy, buying into higher goals, and translating to higher performance
(Phillips & Gully, 1997).

36

Self-Efficacy Theory
Efficacy is the ability to be effective. Self-efficacy (personal) and collective efficacy
(group) are components of social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2012). Social-cognitive theory,
founded on an agentic perspective, subscribes to triadic reciprocity (Bandura, 2012). In
determining the three areas of a triadic causal structure in the human function, we look at
interpersonal influence, environmental factors, and behavior (Bandura, 2012). It is important to
note that an agentic perspective (constructed, imposed, and selected) looks at the premise that we
create our lives’ experiences and events (Bandura, 2000). Within a team or remote team
atmosphere, these experiences enable people to control their lives better, conduct their daily
work, and learn (Bandura, 2012). People confident in their capabilities are likelier to enjoy their
job and be motivated and committed (Borgogni et al., 2011).
Additionally, while we know that self-esteem is positively associated with the mastery of
skills, research has shown that learning goal orientation is positively related to efficacious
individuals (Payne et al., 2007). While self-efficacy or effectiveness motivates us to assign our
time to the work activities with the most impact, we navigate the cultural differences that guide
the question about what is effective (Clark et al., 2004). The following review will evaluate how
self-efficacy theory and the identified stakeholder group’s goal will contribute to the
organization.
Senior/Mid-Level Leaders and Self-Efficacy Theory
When evaluating the impacts of efficacy among the senior/mid-level leadership team of
Gallus International, we should also assess collective efficacy and the intercultural differences
that influence it. Collective efficacy refers to a person’s perception of their group’s ability to be
productive and successful (Borgogni et al., 2011). A leader can predict collective efficacy when
37

facilitating the team in achieving their goals (Borgogni et al., 2011). In reflecting on the agentic
perspective to which a person can control the environment in a team, it is essential to monitor the
potential for lack of structure within the leadership or the groups.
A study found that team members who have the agility to flex with the ambiguous nature,
solitary approach, and lack of structure by leadership have a higher commitment to the teams
than those who do not have agility (Workman et al., 2003). It is vital to have some flexibility in
adapting a cognitive style that works for the group’s communication and learning. If there is a
strict and rigid approach to a conversation, frustration and incompatibility can arise (Workman et
al., 2003). In the context of efficacy and work motivation, a key aspect to note is that a
leadership team within a multinational company needs transparency and an understanding of the
influence of diverse cultural beliefs and values. Research has shown that individual trust does not
necessarily increase the contribution of perceived value from the collectivistic lens but
strengthens the team identity and potential for a positive collective outcome (De Cremer & van
Dijk, 2002). The collectivistic “We” culture team members drive the value of being within a
group and do not seek autonomy as part of their value paradigm (Clark et al., 2004).
Additionally, within the lens of a collectivistic approach, identity can be perceived as one
of those valued aspects of oneself that strengthen a sense of belonging to valued teams and
relationships (J. Eccles, 2009). Conversely, the team members within an organization from an
individualistic “I” culture find their drive and commitment to endeavors where they have direct
influence over the initiative and goals (Clark et al., 2004). There are inherent challenges for a
team in understanding whether the individuals come from a collectivistic culture, an
individualistic culture, or a combination of both. A collectivistic culture will focus on the whole
(team or organization). At the same time, individualism can concentrate on the personal goals
38

within the group, not that of the more significant team (Savu et al., 2017). Cultural intelligence,
or exploring a multinational company’s cultural influences or cultural intelligence, can provide
visibility to both self and collective efficacy within an organization (Van Dyne et al., 2012).
While global leadership involves understanding technical, financial, and social attributes,
effective leadership must recognize the institutional and cultural contexts (or biases) influencing
organizational effectiveness (Rockstuhl et al., 2011).
Attribution Theory
When looking at attribution theory’s motivational construct, we look at the fundamental
perspective that learning and motivation experience momentum when team members attribute
success and failure to a person’s effort rather than their actual ability (E. Anderman &
Anderman, 2009). Multiple motivational theories have provided a foundational scholarship for
researchers and academics on how and why people learn (E. M. Anderman, 2020). Attribution
theory is significant in its framework as it focuses on how motivation can occur after an event
occurs and is a predictor of future behavior (E. M. Anderman, 2020). Attribution is a crucial
sociocultural vulnerability in performance-oriented organizations and results-driven
environments where time resources are compromised and threaten competency achievement.
As a leader can construct goals, and therein the goal feedback cycle, the attainment focus
should be on learning, mastery of skills, and applying knowledge so that team members are
intrinsically motivated (E. Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Feedback, evaluation, and reflection
on outcomes are necessary for learning, regardless of the learning environment (Ellström, 2001).
The risk of not having clear goals can induce ambiguity and stress into the feedback cycle if they
remain too conceptual and not interrelated to other functions (Ellström, 2001). Figure 4 presents
a process alignment where comparing a focus on learning and success can result in two
39

substantially different outcomes (C. S. Dweck, 2017). The focus on education allows people to
understand what they can do to improve from their mistakes, energizes them, and improves
performance overall. When focusing on success, people’s demotivation occurs in the face of
failure, and that mindset can cascade to unsatisfactory performance (H. Grant & Dweck, 2003).

Figure 4
The Dweck Schema for Motivation Compares the Motivational Outcomes for Recognition of
Learning and Performance

40

Seven emotions play a role in an ineffective life, such as what we see in an attribution
theory drove the organizational environment (Weiner, 1985). A causal structure that
encompasses self-esteem, hopelessness, pity, guilt, anger, gratitude, and shame contextualizes
emotions in the dimension of control (Weiner, 1985). These seven dimensions of emotions are
distilled into four feelings controlled by a person in an organization or team: anger, pity,
gratitude, and guilt (Weiner, 1985). Finally, when looking at the six models of motivation
potentially at work within an organization (Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland, Hackman and
Oldham, Lawrence and Nohria, and Pink), the juxtaposition of purpose and intent becomes
challenging to separate (Bolman & Deal, 2017). When evaluating the KMO theory against those
six motivational models and the context and positionality of research, Pink’s triadic approach of
mastery, autonomy, and purpose comes to the forefront (D. H. Pink, 2011). People who are
autonomous and are working in parallel toward knowledge of their skills perform at high levels.
However, those with purpose and intention tend to achieve even more (D. H. Pink, 2011). The
subsequent paragraph will outline how the Gallus senior/mid-leadership team will envelop
attribution theory in achieving its goal as a stakeholder.
Senior Mid-Level Leadership and Attribution Theory
The Gallus International senior/mid-level leadership team must attribute success or
failures in developing the glide path plan to their effort rather than ability. In the manufacturing
world, customer-supplier relationships provide many learning opportunities. Accountability
within a customer-supplier relationship can have divergent goals with unpredicted outcomes.
Learning opportunities and learning organizations translate to an environment in manufacturing
where sustainability derived from successful outcomes is based on consistent effort (E. M.
Anderman, 2020). In the psychological pursuit of self-value and belonging, the challenge for
41

leaders of teams is how to leverage people’s diversity and creativity so that they embrace the
opportunity.
Global team leaders should define a distinct vision and identity to solidify the group
(Quiros, 2012). As a leader translates the vision, values, and beliefs into the individual and team,
they can develop a social identity where they see themselves as part of the broader ecosystem
(Meyer et al., 2006). The need for an individual and team to belong to a higher purpose can
result in a sense of belonging within the workforce’s value system. Value-based commitment, or
the commitment level of a person in a deep-structure perspective, is when a team member can
produce results rooted in the organization’s long-term future (Meyer et al., 2006). A community
of knowledge-sharing and learning translates into a values-based commitment mindset that
supports personal relationships (Pintrich et al., 2003). Exchange-based commitment, the
commitment level for a task-oriented, often short-term perspective where effort is not
recognized, is a level that can produce low motivation in team members (Meyer et al., 2006). In
a global team, technology competency, lack of social identity, and connection to team culture put
at risk the feedback cycle that can identify skills an individual lacks and the path needed for
learning (E. Anderman & Anderman, 2009). It is in accountability to structure and develop a
diligent approach to effectively communicate the priority of effort and potential self-control of
learning that is a conduit for motivation and a need for the senior/mid-level leadership team to
establish (Pintrich et al., 2003; Quiros, 2012). Understanding the building blocks of a person’s
psychological motivation can instill the desirable behaviors often seen in high-performance
teams (Carr & Walton, 2014). Social cues, a challenge to communicate in remote teams, can
become a shared bond in tasks and projects generated by intrinsic motivation (Carr & Walton,
2014). Research conducted with 49 college students working psychologically together
42

demonstrated an aptitude to choose more complex tasks 53% of the time and increased
motivation 1-2 weeks later (Carr & Walton, 2014). This research shows the intrinsic motivation
that can be realized in a team when developed in a social setting. However, within the
environmental context of global and virtual teams, this loss of social connection and consequent
intrinsic motivation could jeopardize the opportunities to exercise choice and control, an
essential attribute of perceived effort (Pintrich et al., 2003).
Expectancy Outcome Theory
Empirical research on the motivational construct of the expectancy outcome theory posits
that people engage in their behaviors with the expectation that these actions will lead to their
desired outcomes (Fabes et al., 1981). In the differing theories of motivation, mainly work
motivation, the context of effectance is the most fundamental competency paradigm (Elliot et al.,
2017). Effectance is used interchangeably (valence) and the outcome of the working relationship
(instrumentality) (Neck et al., 2016). A critical factor in expectancy outcome theory has been
deemed competence in team self-awareness or perception (Elliot et al., 2017). The perceived
value of this aspect of motivation looks at two different elements: “Can I do the task at hand?”
and “Do I want to do the task at hand?” (J. Eccles, 2009). The first question pertains primarily to
the self-efficacy theory, whereas the second pertains to desire and perceived value in task
completion. Furthermore, (J. Eccles, 2009) theorized four primary areas of value that contribute
to perceived value and motivation: intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and perceived
cost (J. Eccles, 2009). The following paragraph will evaluate how the Gallus International
senior/mid-level leadership team looks at the construct, values, and pursuit of its goal.

43

Senior/Mid-Level Leaders and Expectancy Outcome Theory
The senior/mid-level leadership team believes they are competent with the mastery of
skills to complete the glide path to meet the 100% customer reputation goal and expectation
(expectancy outcome theory). Within the expectancy outcome theory construct, organizational
inertia creates an environment that requires a balance of goal orientation—understanding how
tasks of interest are valued across various scenarios and can result in long-term commitment (J.
S. Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). What is critically important for the leadership team of Gallus
International organization is to strategically create the environment for their team members to be
successful. Resonant leadership is integral to a functional team’s success.
The atmosphere is essential to the triadic perspective of effort-to-performance
(expectancy). The desirability of outcome for a member within an organization must answer the
question of if they do a good job, they can expect a favorable outcome; this is the essence of
expectancy (Neck et al., 2016). A person’s relationship to expectancy value drives persistence,
performance, and task choice (J. S. Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). This is integral for the leadership
team of Gallus International because its success circulates the perception of competency, the
difficulty of tasks, and individual goals (J. S. Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Similarly, the
connection to an expectation’s outcome may be transparent to oneself. However, constancy and
resilience are unnecessary to achieve the goal (Duckworth et al., 2007).
Grit is a construct that is part of the conscientiousness facet within the extensive five
personality traits profile (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014). Grit defines a trait in which achievement
outcomes utilizing perseverance of effort and consistency of interest are attained (Karlen et al.,
2019). Qualitative research has indicated that grit may be as crucial in high accomplishment as
talent and intelligence (Duckworth et al., 2007). Utilizing the quantitative Short Grit Scale
44

(Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), four studies presented positive correlations in that if leaders can
provide an environment where people can engage in activities with passion and perseverance,
those leaders can improve their team members’ lives and, ultimately their well-being (Eskreis-
Winkler et al., 2014). In the evaluation of the expectancy outcome theory and Gallus
International’s glide path to 100% customer reputation intersection, grit will be a behavioral
characteristic to nurture the passion and effort needed while preparing for the challenges in
getting there (Karlen et al., 2019) (Duckworth et al., 2007; Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014). Finally,
when organizational leadership models credibility and culturally appropriate values to generate
enthusiasm and excitement in tasks, the importance of utility value and knowledge sharing can
generate a positive perception (Pintrich et al., 2003). Table 3 outlines the assumed motivational
influences and motivational influence assessments.

Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivation Influence Assessments
Assumed motivation influences Motivational influence assessment
Senior/mid-level leaders must be confident in
implementing the components that build and
maintain customer reputation (self-efficacy).
Examples of interview questions:
How do you feel about your ability to create a
glide path plan to improve customer
reputation metrics?
Examples of survey questions:
Have you overcome setbacks to achieve a
significant challenge? Yes or no
Artifacts reviewed:
Observe behaviors for evidence of self-
efficacy within business review meetings,
interactions with customers, and senior
leadership team meetings
Senior/mid-level leaders attribute their success or
failure of customer reputation components to
their effort for elements within their control
(attribution theory)
Examples of interview questions:
What are the reasons for the successes and
failures in developing a glide path for
customer reputation--effort or ability?
Examples of survey questions:
45

Assumed motivation influences Motivational influence assessment
Have you achieved a goal that took years of
work? Yes or no?
Do setbacks discourage you? Yes or no?
Artifacts reviewed:
Observation of the learner related to questions
such as:
“I am not smart enough…I am not good at ... I
cannot…” regarding performance-related
outcomes or the opposite.
Senior/mid-level leaders need to balance the
elements of performance and goal orientation
(goal orientation theory)

Examples of interview questions:
Please tell me how you would establish goals
for customer reputation.
Examples of survey questions:
Likert scale ranking 1-8
I want to do better than my peers in the goals
of customer reputation.
I like work; I learn from it even if I make
mistakes.
I want to avoid looking like I cannot do my
work.
I prefer challenges at work that stretch me
past my comfort zone.
Examples of artifacts reviewed:
Review forms of praise and criticism in
private or public forums (public recognition
leads to more performance-oriented
behavior).
Is praise attributed to effort (mastery) or
ability(performance)?
Accountability and consequences of success
or failure?
Do participants ask for help (mastery)?
Senior/mid-level leaders must value the
components to build and maintain customer
reputation (task value).
Examples of survey questions:
Likert scale of little importance-absolutely
essential
Rate the value of each component to improve
customer reputation
Examples of interview questions:
How valuable is it for you to help improve the
organization’s customer reputation?
Senior/mid-level leaders need to know how their
expectations and feedback contribute to
improving customer reputation (expectancy
outcome theory)
Examples of interview questions:
What will result from establishing a glide path
for 100% customer reputation?
How do you expect to be part of the
contribution to this goal?
46

Assumed motivation influences Motivational influence assessment
Examples of survey questions:
Likert scale ranking 0-80
I expect my impact on the organization’s
goals to be positive.
I want to choose how I contribute to the
group’s goals.
I am invested in the outcome of the
organization’s goals.

Organization
Clark and Estes (Clark et al., 2004) defined culture as the preeminent energy that defines
a person’s knowledge of an organization and influences beliefs, emotions, processes, values, and
goal orientation. A collective group of people sharing values and norms describes what is known
as organizational culture (Bahaee, 2017). Researcher Geert Hofstede (Hofstede, 1984) defined
culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one
human group from another” (p.51).
General Theory
Within the context of culture is the premise that organizational culture consists of a
complex interaction of values, beliefs, cognitive patterns, and behaviors defining and influencing
its team (Kirkman et al., 2017). Organizational culture influences a group, agility, and social
structure (Kautz et al., 2009). Taking organizational culture theory one step further, we can look
at two contributing factors: cultural settings and cultural models (Goldenberg et al., 2001). First,
the social arena in which team members perform their work, including how and why they
complete it, is known as the cultural setting (Goldenberg et al., 2001). Second, the mental
schema and cultural practices that coincide within an organization are known as cultural models
(Goldenberg et al., 2001). In further clarifying the differences between cultural models and
cultural settings, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) looked at settings as the opportunity when a
47

team jointly aligns to focus on a task they value. In cultural models, the set of values a group
forms a positional perspective and interprets experiences.
Gallus International has established a cultural model within the organization based on a
strong sense of familial heritage and standardization. However, its organizational inertia or the
companies’ resistance to change the status quo (Bahaee, 2017) puts the company at risk for
external and internal forces shifts. Gallus International is a global organization coexisting in
virtual and face-to-face environments. The cultural settings range from virtual meetings at home,
customer manufacturing locations, corporate headquarters from one country/customer to another,
the manufacturing shop floor, and traveling. These vast differences in cultural settings and
models provide a foundational aspect of exploring the organization’s goals, attitudes, efficacy,
and trust.
Stakeholder-Specific Factors
A catalyst for organizational change is when stakeholders understand customer reputation
(Kim, 2017). An organization’s customer reputation, or its corporate brand, is the constitution of
its overall identity (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). A competitive advantage that attainment is a
result of incorporating a customer-centric perspective that entails four key elements: (a) The
company should be valuable in the competitive marketplace,(b) the company should be rare
among its competitors, (c) it should possess some unique aspect to differentiate it from the
competition, and (d) there cannot be equivalent substitutes (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). When
looking at an organization’s identity, the intangible aspects create a performance advantage
(Jevons et al., 2005). With this viewpoint and consequent performance of the organizational
stakeholder and customer, interaction provides the relationship resulting in reputation.
48

Cultural beliefs within Gallus International’s senior/mid-level leadership organization can
encompass multiple areas, such as mission, values, ideas, and goals. These attributes shape an
organization’s cultural identity and personality. A team member’s values and beliefs influence
their decision-making, perception of what they can control, and the sustainability of their ability
to affect change (Schneider et al., 1996). When a leader can interpret the factors that influence
their diverse team’s cultural impacts, they can foster an environment that increases a mindset of
innovation and creativity (Savu et al., 2017). A leader’s role in navigating high-performing
global teams and competitive advantage (or customer reputation) centers on their cultural
acumen (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Additionally, multicultural groups can present a collaborative
environment based on diversity or a disruptive backdrop impeding team performance (L.
Robinson et al., 2014).
For Gallus International, its corporate office in Europe has a challenge, as well as the
satellite locations for research and development throughout 26 countries. Signaling theory
research conducted with 29987 consumer evaluations of multinational companies in 43 countries
showed that the distance between parent and child countries negatively impacted loyalty and
trust within the customer reputation schema (Swoboda et al., 2017). In Figure 5 (Morais &
Graça, 2013), we see a Competing Values Framework developed to outline the internal and
external forces and flexibility and stability structures that influence organizational models.
Significantly, the senior/mid-level leadership team can evaluate these factors and overlay the
Hofstede Dimensions of Culture (Hofstede, 1984) to initiate a culture change based on personal
competencies and capabilities for its well-being (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

49

Figure 5
The Competing Values Framework With Four Areas of Focus Considered in the Gallus
International Organizational Dynamic Analysis

A multicultural, qualitative study with 60 staff and students explored factors such as the
face (worth/dignity), social rights/obligations, and goal orientation (L. Robinson et al., 2014).
Results showed that communication with a clear and distinct vision, rules, and boundaries was
integral for success and translated to positive customer relationships (Triandis, 2000).
Though global teams benefit from flexibility for the organization and an energized
workforce, they present challenges from a leadership perspective. A leader is responsible for
developing performance management and consequent metrics for measuring team success (Bell
& Kozlowski, 2002). Specifically, the relationship between positionality, leadership style, and
organizational culture is a crucial factor to consider (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). A vital aspect of
the team member’s success in performance management is regulating their activities within the
50

group or themselves, a concept known as self-regulation. When a leader defines goals related to
a strategy, connecting to the company vision (how-when-why), team members can own
commitments and accountability to the targets (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Similarly, they are
perceived as removing barriers to the collaborative teams’ efficacy. In establishing clear
expectations, motivation can begin (or continue) to influence achievement that positively impacts
a team’s collective effectiveness (Borgogni et al., 2011).
Leaders who can lead a high-performing team must leverage technology, provide a
mastery of skills, and establish frequent meetings to optimize communication. Sixty-three
percent of higher-performing organizations meet with their leaders at least once weekly,
compared to only 29% for lower-performing teams (Neale, 2011). Table 4 outlines the
organizational influences and organizational influence assessments.

Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments
Assumed organizational influences Organization influence assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: Senior/mid-level
leaders must perceive the organization’s
acceptance and commitment to
organizational change to improve customer
reputation.
Examples of interview questions:
Please describe any transparency measures within
the organization that strengthen relationships
between senior/mid-level management teams
Examples of survey questions:
Likert scale rating 0-80
Please rank the following:
I trust the leadership to influence the team’s ability
to achieve a glide path plan.
My values align with the importance of my direct
leader.
My values align with the organization.
Artifacts reviewed:
Review turnover metrics, job descriptions, internal
promotions, and requests to move into high-
performance projects, company intranet for job
openings
51

Assumed organizational influences Organization influence assessment
Cultural Model Influence 2: Senior/mid-level
leaders must perceive confidence and trust in
the organization to improve customer
reputation.
Examples of interview questions:
Please describe your interaction with different
parts of our global organization
Examples of survey questions:
Do you feel a sense of belonging between you and
the other global locations you work with? Yes
or no
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Senior/mid-level
leaders need to encompass the perspectives
of key stakeholders from the design stage
through decision-making that will improve
customer reputation.
Examples of interview questions:
Can you describe the interaction between your
goals and how they link to the glide path plan
for our organization’s customer reputation?
Examples of survey questions:
How many goals do you have that connect to a
vision leading us to a glide path plan completion
for 100% customer reputation? (numerical-open
answer)
Artifacts reviewed:
Customer scorecard trends overlaid with
completing goals, accurate timing, competency
training, and employees leaving after bonus
payout.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Senior/mid-level
leaders must ensure the active organizational
culture is aligned with the organization’s
stated culture to improve customer
reputation.

Examples of interview questions:
Can you describe your effectiveness within our
global organization’s extended team structure in
providing a plan for our customers to improve?
Examples of survey questions:
Likert scale rating 1-6
Does working remotely impact your effectiveness
within a multinational organization for
customers?
Does working remotely impact your effectiveness
within your immediate team for customers?
Are there cultural impacts you believe are
impacting your effectiveness?
Do you see our organization as one that learns and
has the agility to adapt to team effectiveness?
Artifacts reviewed:
A review of completeness and accuracy of audits
about program launch gate reviews, customer
corrective action metrics and grading of
objective documents, systemic responses to the
regular feedback of customers’ concerns, and
reactive, not proactive nature of processes.
52

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders ’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework’s purpose is to take the theoretical framework to its next stage
of development. It allows the researcher to explore aspects of the theoretical framework and
develop a hypothesis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The evaluation of potential influences in the
KMO tables noted above shows that they are neither isolated nor unique, particularly within the
conceptual framework figure and narrative. Gallus International’s senior/mid-level leadership’s
stakeholder knowledge and motivation are critical success factors in developing the glide path
plan and the overarching goal of a 100% customer reputation score by 2024. The stakeholder
group must connect to the desired goals’ value to be motivated to pursue it (Ambrose, 2010).
Efficacy expectancies are also an integral part of the metacognitive aspect of motivation. People
must believe they can control the possibilities to achieve them (Ambrose, 2010). In determining
the three areas of a triadic causal structure in the human function, we evaluated interpersonal
influence, environmental factors, and behavior (Bandura, 2012). It is important to note that an
agentic perspective (constructed, imposed, and selected) considers the premise that we create our
lives, experiences, and events (Bandura, 2000). Figure 6 shows the interactions for knowledge,
motivation, and organizational culture with the performance goal of a 100% customer reputation.

53

Figure 6
The Conceptual Framework for the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (KMO) Gap
Analysis at Gallus International and Their Stakeholder Goal

54

Conclusion
As this research project evaluated the gap for meeting a 100% customer reputation
metric, Chapter Two explored the efficacy of leadership teams within a multinational
environment and its consequent relationship to customer reputation. Cultural intelligence and
competing values are posits in which diverse cultures can successfully interact with each other in
a global organization that needs focus within a cultural model. The contribution value of
individual self-efficacy and collective efficacy can suffer when interpersonal trust among
collaborators has not developed sufficiently. The lack of effectiveness can reduce motivation and
commitment to the leader and the organization. If the senior/mid-level leadership does not
clearly understand how an organization’s cultural factors can influence team motivation, it can
negatively impact customers’ reputations. Examples are goal orientation, cultural intelligence,
growth mindset attitudes, and learning through mastery of skills. Finally, we explored the
cultural models and settings that risk a firm’s agility, adaptation, and evolution into a learning
organization. The KMO influences define Chapter Three’s methodological framework.

55

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter examines the influences derived from the gap analysis framework that Clark
and Estes (2008) introduced and analyzed in Chapter Two. The gap analysis framework covered
three primary KMO dimensions. Furthermore, the chapter provided an overview of the
methodology established to choose the research participant group, the strategy for data
collection, and the data analysis technique for the research questions that guided the project.
This study examined Gallus International’s efficacy of leadership teams within a
multinational environment and its consequent relationship in achieving 100% customer
reputation. The evaluation identified three stakeholder groups for research. This study focused on
the senior/mid-level leadership stakeholder group and the potential causes and solutions for the
performance gap related to KMO.
Three research questions guided data collection:
1. What are the leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to achieve
100% customer reputation metrics?
2. How do organizational culture and context interact with the senior/mid-level leaders’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to
the influences identified to achieve 100% customer reputation?
The study employed a mixed-methods approach, incorporating qualitative and
quantitative analysis. Though mixed-methods studies require additional time, resources, and
research expertise, the data collection, rigorous methodology, and integration provided a richer
insight into the study’s conclusion (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Additionally, the combined
value of inductive and deductive reasoning cultivated an expanded perspective on the
56

researcher’s philosophical belief systems (McKim, 2017). The data collection of quantitative
data, which were closed-ended questions (deductive), and qualitative data, which were open-
ended (inductive) questions, provided the stakeholder group insight into the hypotheses queries
and problem of practice (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). In this project, we utilized the
explanatory sequential mixed-method approach. The explanatory sequential process involved
collecting quantitative data where results brought breadth, validity, and reliability to the study (P.
Leavy, 2020). The second data collection phase involved a qualitative degree where findings
provided the study depth, credibility, and truthfulness (P. Leavy, 2017). The explanatory
sequential process approach proposed qualitative data collection through interviews and
explained the quantitative data collection through surveys.
A mixed-methods data collection method resulted in data triangulation for validation,
depth, and consistency (Denzin, 2010). While rigorous research methods were critical in the
explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, the researcher’s philosophical worldview was
considered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I predominantly believe in a constructivist worldview.
Epistemology considers the human construct subjective, and the meaning of actions or deeds
based on context (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Constructivist belief systems refer to
interpretive perspectives on why people do what they do and how factors interact to find
meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The mixed-methods explanatory sequential approach fits
the paradigm for this study. Chapter Three’s final paragraph described the effort to ensure the
credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative data and the validity and reliability of quantitative
data in the mixed-methods study. The research project’s delimitations, limitations, and a
summary of the ethical implications closed the chapter.

57

Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders for the study were the senior/mid-level leadership team of three
stakeholder groups identified in Chapter One. This stakeholder group targeted the most impactful
organizational change opportunities based on recommendations from the study. The senior/mid-
level leadership team influences goals and objectives, setting policies, procedures, and corporate
culture. These attributes of the KMO dimensions can close the organizational performance gap
of not having a customer reputation metric. The senior/mid-level leadership team can create a
glide path plan to align the functional/corporate management goals and objectives to the
customer reputation metric and targeted goals in achieving 100% customer reputation.
The quantitative data collection involved approximately 120 leaders across eight
countries. The study did not include all countries, so I limited the senior/mid-level leadership
teams to alleviate translation errors and increase validity. The leaders’ roles and responsibilities
crossed the organization’s functions: engineering, logistics, program management, quality, R&D,
sales, controlling, and operations. The 120 leaders provided a rich cross-section of perspective,
context, and diversity. The qualitative data collection from 8-10 leaders was a purposeful
selection based on their understanding of the research problem and ability to influence change
within the organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Mertens, 2007). While the quantitative
research participants did not need to be within a targeted age demographic, the minimum
requirement was to have been employed by the company and in their current position for at least
one year. Although a fresh-eyes perspective is beneficial, the rationale behind this requirement is
that the data must be collected from participants who have experienced the combination of
organizational dynamics, leadership culture, and customer interaction. The qualitative research
participants must have been within their role in the organization for at least three years. The
58

positionality and lens gained through organizational performance tenure, business awards, and
market losses framed the qualitative participant requirements. The conceptual framework and
mixed-method research questions drove the KMO influences to achieve the corporate goal of
achieving a 100% customer reputation score by December 2024.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
There are three criteria selected for the quantitative survey methodology. The integrity of
the data acquisition required participants to understand the organizational culture and the
systematic processes that drive the company. People with a strong belief in their capabilities
approach challenges as an opportunity to improve mastery rather than avoid a task (Bandura,
1997).
Criterion 1. Position Within the Organization
The individual must have been a senior/mid-level leader as defined by an organizational
chart from the company intranet site. Senior/mid-level leaders could have titles such as executive
vice-president, vice-president, global vice-president, director, global director, and manager. The
individual’s roles and responsibilities could come from multiple organization functions:
engineering, logistics, program management, quality, human resources, R&D, sales, controlling,
and operations.
Criterion 2. Time in the Current Position
The individual must have been in their current role within the organization for at least
one year to have sufficient time to develop internal and external customer relationships and go
through at least one goal and objective cycle.

59

Criterion 3. Location of Organizational Position
The individuals must have met Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 and had been in one of the
eight countries identified: the United States, Mexico, Canada, Poland, Germany, Hungary,
Portugal, and Ireland.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
A Qualtrics survey, conducted via an internal/online/mobile phone format, was the
quantitative methodology in the purposeful survey design approach. Throughout a 6-week
timeframe, there were three attempts at participant notification and request for completion. As
the survey design process is iterative, three primary components created a path for an effective
and robust outcome: planning and pre-drafting, question development, and finalization of the
research instrument (S. B. Robinson & Leonard, 2018). Clark and Estes ’s (2008) gap analysis
tables determined the KMO influences, types, and influence assessments for the foundation of
the survey questions and aligned with the conceptual framework defined in Chapter Two.
Fourteen closed-ended questions focused on combining attributes, behaviors, abilities, and
thoughts to include a reference period for the participant to keep in context. The quantitative data
collection phase was the first of the sequential explanatory methodology. There were no filters or
follow-up questions. Foils introduced to questions ensured participants read the survey (S. B.
Robinson & Leonard, 2018). A purposive sampling strategy further supported the constructivist
paradigm. The goal of purposive sampling enabled me to gain fresh insights and generate new
perspectives (Mertens, 2007). As this dissertation was an innovative approach to fill the
performance gap of not having a customer reputation metric based on research, this sampling
methodology was vital for external validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Additionally, in utilizing a
typical purposive sampling methodology, the analysis yielded information relevant to the
60

research questions and conceptual framework specific to the identified stakeholder group
(Maxwell, 2012). The research population targeted 120 senior/mid-level leaders across eight
countries and was expected to be broad due to the intrinsic organizational value.
Interview and Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The qualitative portion of this mixed-methods study utilized the interview process.
Bandura (1997) states that when people interact verbally, such as with open-ended questions
within an interview process, they are likely to engage with more effort and intention. A data
collection manager increases confidence in the anonymity of the participant's feedback.
Criterion 1. Position Within the Organization
The individual must be a senior/mid-level leader as defined by an organizational chart
from the company intranet site. Senior/mid-leaders could have titles such as executive vice-
president, vice-president, global vice-president, director, global director, and manager. The
individual’s roles and responsibilities could comprise multiple organizational functions:
engineering, logistics, program management, quality, human resources, R&D, sales, controlling,
and operations.
Criterion 2. Time in the Current Position
The individual must have been in their current role within the organization for at least
three years to mature within the internal and external customer relationships and experience
multiple cycles of goal setting and strategic planning for their functions.
Criterion 3. Location of Organizational Position
The individual was required to have met Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 and had been in one
of the eight countries identified: the United States, Mexico, Canada, Poland, Germany, Hungary,
Portugal, and Ireland.
61

Criterion 4. Reporting Structure
The individual was required to have met the first three criteria and had been a leader of
other leaders responsible for cascading goals to the plant and functional work teams.
Interview Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
After assessing the quantitative data collection in the explanatory sequential mixed-
methods technique, qualitative data collection followed. The qualitative phase explored the
process and meaning of the research participants ’ feelings, knowledge, opinions, and experiences
based on their positionality and lens (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
A purposive sampling strategy provided structure to support the constructivist paradigm.
The purposive sampling yielded fresh insights and generate new perspectives (Mertens, 2007).
When defining a sampling strategy even further, a typical purposive sampling methodology
encompassed specific research participants relevant and familiar with the research questions for
the KMO framework (Maxwell, 2012). In qualitative research, the investigator ’s philosophical
lens became a vital aspect of being considered as the investigator becomes a primary data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A distinctive subset of 120 senior/mid-level leaders
surveyed was selected to comprise a population of 8-10 leaders. Once established, the interview
population followed a specific protocol that provided a clear and concise outline for the study,
what the expectations were of the participants, the interview duration (approximately 30–45
minutes), what would happen with the information and assessment of the study and a
confidentiality agreement. In keeping the interview ’s context and purpose transparent, I created a
relaxed and less threatening environment (Alex Edmonds & Kennedy, 2016). The sample size of
8-10 stakeholders allowed for establishing a relationship with the participants and maintaining a
semi-structured interview approach. Protocol questions were part of the structure to attempt
62

consistency along the influences defined for KMO dimensions. As the questions ’ nature could
have inherently created hierarchical or organizational political threats to the interview group, the
human resource department was used to establish and screen the pre-selected subset according to
the criterion. The cultural models and settings deeply entrenched with an organization dynamic
benefited from the qualitative interview phase ’s small sampling size (Clark et al., 2004).
Document Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Gallus International provided information and communicated to its approximately 10,000
global team members through various methods. This data offered valuable, non-intrusive
qualitative insights as documents and artifacts could have been anything from pictures, art, and
written and digital material (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Criterion 1. Relevance to the Conceptual Framework
The KMO influences evidence in documents and artifacts that provide communication,
compliance, policies, metrics, and results.
Criterion 2. Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Vertical and Horizontal Communication
Communication was assessed via internal and external operational metrics, customer
scorecards, business awards, team-building events, corporate social responsibility, and goal
orientation.
Documentation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
This innovative study ’s third qualitative data research method involved analysis of public
records, internal documents, and artifacts about the KMO influences, as depicted in Clark and
Estes ’s (2008) gap analysis in Chapter Two. The framework design created triangulation with the
third methodology within the research (Maxwell, 2012). Triangulation allowed me to have a
63

check and balance between three different data collection methods to further credibility through
comparison (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Whether digital or traditional, a researcher (as an instrument of data collection) could
identify an organization ’s values in its day-to-day culture through document sampling.
Organizational culture was a critical attribute interpreted from my lens as an insider (implicit
bias) and created visibility into the cultural settings and models within the conceptual framework
(P. Leavy, 2017). Reviewing the organization ’s mission, core values, and beliefs system
provided an additional data set to synthesize the influences defined through knowledge and
organization dimensions.
The research involved a review of digital media that could assess public or customer
perception of the organization and corporate social responsibility. As the study ’s organization
was a family-owned company in Europe, there was an additional challenge to establish what was
relevant to the research methodology and questions. Carefully exploring and understanding the
data analyzed from digital or online sources was needed. It was a research method that could be
threatened by being unable to be replicated (Giles, 2008). Digital and online sources could
threaten dependability and confirmability. The research design sources and linkages were
required to connect field notes and observations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). From a document and
data analysis perspective, evaluating the study holistically was essential, as there may have been
an overwhelming amount of information. Once the information was understood, the context was
coded for future research questions (P. Leavy, 2017).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The explanatory sequential mixed-methods model created an opportunity to incorporate
an inductive and deductive rationale for research data integration. The quantitative side was
64

collected through surveys to give breadth and scope to the factors and causal mechanisms in the
senior/mid-level leadership teams and how they interacted with customer reputation knowledge
and motivational aspects. Next, the qualitative side would take the factors assessed from the
deductive analysis and connect the meaning of why people acted or reacted in their context.
Interviews, documents, and artifact reviews facilitated an understanding of the alignment of
organizational culture and settings with the beliefs and knowledge of the senior/mid-level
leadership team and the conceptual framework.
Finally, as a non-traditional approach and supplement to the quantitative and qualitative
research, the small interview group could participate in a concept map and mind-mapping
exercise. Mapping the participants’ knowledge through visualization would provide a graphical
tool for representing and organizing experience, thereby improving interpretation (Wheeldon,
2010). While concept maps are quantitative and include concepts like memories, understanding,
and ideas linked by lines and figures, a mind map could take a qualitative approach with a central
idea (like customer reputation), and a diagram would have been drawn from that idea outward
with additional ideas and tasks (Wheeldon, 2010). Analyzing the KMO influences visually
allowed me to draw on the population’s perception of the problem of practice while assessing the
respondent’s lens or positional paradigm. As people assimilate information, learn, and convey
tacit knowledge differently, this visual method enables people to connect relationships and learn
uniquely (Lim et al., 2009)—no one in the selected stakeholder group elected to participate in the
concept map or mind-mapping approach.
Surveys
A Qualtrics survey conducted via an internal/online/mobile phone format was the
quantitative methodology in the purposeful survey design approach. Throughout six weeks, there
65

were three attempts of participant notification for 120 leaders and requests for completion. As
the survey design process was iterative, three primary components contributed to an effective
and robust outcome: planning and pre-drafting, developing questions, and finalizing the research
instrument (S. B. Robinson & Leonard, 2018). The survey targeted 14 closed-ended questions
that combined attributes, behaviors, abilities, thoughts, and a reference period for the participant
to keep in context. As this quantitative data collection phase was the first of the sequential
explanatory methodology, follow-up questions were not required (the approach was appropriate
in the qualitative portion via protocol questions).
Interviews
The interview goal was 12 participants; nine were recruited, or 75% of the target. It was
an informal, semi-structured format with supplemental protocol questions available if there was
an opportunity to understand further. The interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom. The
virtual interview platform allowed physical distancing and a more comfortable home or office
environment where the participant would have been threatened by being in the exact physical
location. The semi-structured protocol provided consistency in approach while moving within
protocol questions based on the feedback and openness during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015).
Additionally, the semi-structured approach created a path for tracking and logical linkage
to the research design, supporting dependability (Maxwell, 2012). The type of qualitative
questions, such as knowledge-based, helped create a sense of belonging and value that could
translate to efficacy (Patton, 1990). Open-ended questions facilitated the participants in
expressing opinions on their behaviors and sharing feelings that could connect to the asserted
influences of knowledge, motivation, organizational culture, and settings (Patton, 1990).
66

Documents and Artifacts
Whether digital or traditional, the researcher (as an instrument of data collection)
identified an organization ’s values in their day-to-day culture through document and artifact
sampling. Organizational culture was a critical attribute that could be interpreted from my lens as
an insider (implicit bias), allowing a view into cultural settings and models within the conceptual
framework (P. Leavy, 2017). The ability to review the organization ’s mission, core values, and
beliefs could have provided a conduit for the influences defined through knowledge and
organization dimensions. The research involved a review of digital media that assessed public
and customer perception of the organization and corporate social responsibility. The document
and artifacts reviewed included coding aligned with the Organizational Change Assessment
Instrument (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) and Bolman and Deal Four Frames Cultural Models
(Bolman & Deal, 2017) for cultural indicators.
As the study ’s organization is a family-owned company in Europe, there was an
additional challenge to establish what was relevant to the research methodology and questions.
There was a need to be careful in exploring and understanding the data analyzed from digital or
online sources. It was a research method that could be threatened by being unable to be
replicated (Giles, 2008).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Reflexivity is how the researcher, as the research instrument in qualitative analysis,
understands and reflects what they bring to the research design process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). The interview process brought verbal, non-verbal, and environmental context, allowing
the researcher insight into attributes via reflective memos (Maxwell, 2012). In coding transcripts,
reflective notes provided additional qualitative meaning to the observations. Utilizing thick
67

descriptions and robustly detailed outlines of the interview provided a foundation f to make
decisions based on the interview results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
There were inter-rater and peer debriefing checks on the coding of the key terms. The data
analysis connected the research and design framework, avoiding coding drift (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017). As the only White female leader within the executive leadership team, bias
from that lens could have influenced the study's interpretation. As I came from a challenging
socioeconomic upbringing, this could have impacted the probing and follow-up questions, so a
focus on neutrality was paramount (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Using a journal to make brief
notes allowed me to highlight the worldview paradigm constructivists brought an opportunity to
assess research bias (Maxwell, 2012). The reflective memos, raw data, and apparent field notes
provided a chance to reconstruct any research that brought unexpected results.
Validity and Reliability
The internal and external validity of the quantitative survey analysis had several
strategies implemented to mitigate threats. First, there was a large sampling size for the
stakeholder population in the organization of 120 senior/mid-level leadership team members,
which would provide statistical confidence in the response rate. The study population utilized a
specific stakeholder group through random selection. The random sample within the stakeholder
group’s chosen criteria provided external validity as the quantitative causal relationship was
across different countries, roles, people, and functions (Creswell & David Creswell, 2017). The
survey’s internal reliability, non-response bias, standardized measures, training, and tools were
mitigated to increase data confidence (Maxwell, 2012). Hazards were minimized to provide the
research design and study methodology, sample size, demographic analysis, and necessary
external reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
68

Ethics
As qualitative and quantitative research involved data collection from human subjects, I
was cognizant of the study’s ethical implications (Creswell & David Creswell, 2017). The
institutional review board ensured that the research design conformed to the rules and regulations
to which the certified researcher agreed. Communication with the participants about the study’s
intention, that they did not have to sign the consent form, and that they could stop at any time
was a crucial success factor in being transparent and creating trust (Creswell & David Creswell,
2017). The recorded and transcribed virtual interview sessions provided a clear and concise
methodology for the participant’s consent. I treated each participant equally while avoiding the
risk of exploiting and manipulating feedback from participants in the research (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). The research group’s protection from harm, informed consent, and privacy rights
reinforced that the research group consisted of people, not coded and anonymous subjects.
There was a risk that my role would not be that of an investigator but of an insider within
the stakeholder group and the leadership organization. This research risk was reinforced to
ensure it was recognized and understood (Patton, 1990).

69

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This study explored what needs or assets senior/mid-level leadership team members
experience in achieving a glide path to 100% customer reputation for the organization. Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model evaluated the KMO influences.
This chapter presents results and findings aligned with the research questions, beginning
with a review of the organizational and stakeholder forces and how the research data reflected
opportunities and challenges to achieve the 100% customer reputation goal. Quantitative,
qualitative, and artifact data support the analysis of five knowledge, five motivation, and four
organizational influences. This chapter concludes with a summary of the validated KMO
influences used to assert recommendations with an implementation and evaluation plan in
Chapter Five.
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder for the study was the senior/mid-level leadership team of three
stakeholder groups identified in Chapter One. The senior/mid-level leaders influence goals and
objectives, policies and procedures, and corporate culture. The leaders’ roles and responsibilities
will cross the organization’s functions: engineering, logistics, program management, quality,
R&D, sales, controlling, and operations. These KMO dimensions can close the performance gap
of needing a customer reputation metric. The individual must have been in their role for at least
one year to have sufficient time to develop internal and external customer relationships and have
gone through one goal and objective-setting cycle. A random sample within this stakeholder
group ’s criteria provides an element of external validity as the quantitative causal relationship is
across different countries, roles, people, and functions (Creswell & David Creswell, 2017). The
quantitative survey population goal was 120 participants.
70

One hundred twenty-nine participants were surveyed through an online survey tool,
Qualtrics, or 107% of the plan. Sixty-five participants responded, with a 50% completion rate.
The Qualtrics option to Prevent ballot box stuffing ensured they only took the survey once, while
the save and continue option allowed them to pick up where they left off. I sent reminder emails
two times, one week apart, and sent thank-you emails upon survey completion.
Anonymous survey responses were recorded, and participants were asked if they would
like to volunteer for an interview. A link to a Google Form was provided to participants directly
so they could submit their contact information to an independent data collection manager. The
qualitative interview goal was 12 participants. The survey request recruited nine research
subjects, or 75% achievement of the nine, seven scheduled interviews, or 78% of the recruits.
The interview entailed seven senior/mid-level leadership team members and lasted an average of
34 minutes.
The cultural models and settings deeply entrenched in the organizational dynamic
benefited from the small sampling size of the qualitative interview phase (Clark et al., 2004). The
research population did not provide demographic data. A CITI-certified data collection manager
conducted the interviews to avoid any concern of coercion due to the principal investigator’s
position in the research organization. The interviews were conducted via a web-based platform,
recorded, and transcribed utilizing open-ended questions.
Public document and artifact analysis occurred parallel to the quantitative and qualitative
data collection. Various company databases, the internet, and intranet sites provided the research
content for artifact analysis. Carefully scrutinized digital and online sources provided data to
mitigate threats to research methodology validation (Giles, 2008).
71

The triangulation of quantitative survey, qualitative interview, and document/artifact
analysis allowed me to validate the three data collection methods to further credibility through
triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Specifically, data from surveys, interviews, and
document artifacts were collected to understand the KMO challenges senior/mid-level leaders
encounter in developing a glide path to a 100% customer reputation.
Determination of Assets and Needs
The KMO influences were studied to understand whether they were confirmed or
partially confirmed as assets or needs. The quantitative analysis resulted in a 50% response rate,
so the cut scores for prioritizing the influences are critical to establishing the overall
organizational impact. The customer reputation components are high stakes needed for the
organization’s knowledge and success, so the cut score is 80%. Observations were not part of the
research. The quantitative survey results and qualitative interview findings outweigh the
document analysis because they provide rich detail and are more substantial evidence of
participants’ behavior. Three heuristics were used in a systematic methodology to rank each
influence objectively, average the three rankings, and mindfully determine the priority of
implementation based on the mean score. Heuristic categories ranked on a Likert scale represent
needs that could impact KMO gap closure. The feasibility of needs was depicted by the difficulty
of industrialization and the significance of the need, as presented by the percentage of
senior/mid-level leaders’ research feedback.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The results and findings of the knowledge needs were reported using the knowledge
categories and assumed knowledge influences for each category. Examined in the data are four
72

types of knowledge. They are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
types.
Factual Knowledge
Assumed Knowledge Influence 1 was that senior/mid-level leaders understand the
components contributing to customer reputation. When people can acquire and practice the
component skills, they have confidence in understanding the factual elements of its application
(McCrudden et al., 2006). Practical change efforts can mobilize leaders when they have a clear
view of what is required.
Survey Results
As shown in Table 5, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need.
There are six proposed components of customer reputation. The survey asked participants to
select what components contributed to customer reputation to demonstrate their factual
knowledge. The participants identified the correct responses with an asterisk. Two of the eight
proposed components were “foils” or invalid to the hypothesis (items D and G). Table 5 shows
that Item B received the highest score at 18.8%, well below the cut score of 80%, as this is a
high-stakes influence for the organization. Thus, this influence is a need for the organization;
senior/mid-level leaders require additional factual knowledge to understand the components
contributing to customer reputation.

73

Table 5
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components
Customer reputation consists of several components. Check all that apply. n = 330
Choice Factual knowledge item Percentage Count
A Corporate social responsibility* 9.7% 32
B Customer satisfaction* 18.8% 62
C Triple bottom line* 8.5% 28
D Supplier Quality 18.5% 61
E Market uniqueness* 7.6% 25
F Organizational culture* 12.7% 42
G On-time delivery 18.2% 60
H Brand loyalty* 6.1% 20

*Customer reputation components/

Interview Findings
It is evident from seven interviews that this influence is needed. Seventy-one percent of
the participants believed the company has a poor customer reputation and could refer to only
50% of the six customer reputation components. As for discerning the reasons for poor customer
reputation, Participant 7 asserted, “Quality is a big challenge in the industry we work in.
Especially when we have different technologies and steel products. Many variations can occur
with steel products and can be very easy to miss. …” which refers to the component of customer
satisfaction. Participants 3 and 4 referred to customer reputation elements of brand loyalty and
customer satisfaction. Participant 3 noted, “For instance, customer H loves us, and they think we
are just the cat’s meow. Customer G wants to like us, but we just keep doing things to shoot
ourselves in the foot, and then they have to be coached back to the table.” Further, Participant 2
stated, “…we have some history that we are trying to overcome…” and Participant 1 indicated
the customer reputation “…is relatively poor…”. The participant’s interview findings confirmed
that this factual knowledge influence is a need.
74

Document Analysis
From the document analysis, this influence is a need. Figure 7 shows a Competitive
Advantage Survey conducted by the company sales team and asked, “What is most important to
our customers?”. Of the seven choices in the survey, customer reputation was in the bottom two.
Similarly, 40.3% of the participants chose customer reputation components, 39.7% below the cut
score of 80%. Thus, this influence is a need for the organization; senior/mid-level leaders require
additional factual knowledge to understand the components contributing to customer reputation.
Figure 7
Document Analysis of Customer Reputation

75

Summary
The survey results confirmed the assumed factual knowledge influence that senior/mid-
level leaders need to understand the components contributing to customer reputation. The
interview findings showed that 71% of the participants referred to the customer reputation as
poor, and only 50% of the customer reputation components could be identified. This is 30%
below the cut score of 80% and is confirmed as a need. Further, document analysis of a
competitive advantage survey that asked participants what was most important to the customers
resulted in the identification of customer reputation components at 40.3%. This is 39.7% below
the cut score of 80%. There are no contradictory findings for the influence of factual knowledge;
therefore, it was confirmed to be a need.
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge comprises two assumed knowledge influences for this study. The
first assumed knowledge influence is that senior /mid-level leaders need to know the importance
of building and maintaining the components of customer reputation. As leaders understand
“why” achieving the goal is necessary, there is a realization of the commitment needed to
complete the target outcome.
Survey Results
As shown in Table 6, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need.
There are six proposed components of customer reputation. The survey asked the participants to
select the word or phrase that best described the effects of customer reputation to demonstrate
their conceptual knowledge. The correct responses are highlighted in bold font. Table 6 shows
that three of the six components (Item D at 51.6%, Item E at 17.7%, and Item F at 24.2%) are
below the cut score of 80%. Participants correctly answered 50% of the customer reputation
76

descriptions; this influence is necessary for the organization. Senior/mid-level leaders require
additional conceptual knowledge to understand the importance of building and maintaining the
components of customer reputation.

Table 6
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components
The senior/mid-level leaders need to know the importance of building and maintaining the
components of customer reputation. In a brief phrase, how does each of the items below
affect customer reputation? Select the best description. n = 62
Choice Conceptual knowledge item Percentage Count
A Organizational culture increases (reputation) 87.1% 54
B Triple bottom line increases (competitive advantage) 85.5% 53
C Corporate social responsibility increases (trust) 100.0% 62
D Market uniqueness increases (sales) 51.6% 32
E Customer satisfaction increases (loyalty) 17.7% 11
F Brand loyalty increases (profits) 24.2% 15

Interview Findings
The interview findings indicate that the assumed conceptual knowledge influence is a
need. Participant 3 was clear:
Different departments use the same strategies to communicate daily messages. This could
include the KPIs, which are the key process indicators, and also to get an overview of
how the previous day was and how we stand in the customer ratings and whatnot. So, all
team members continually dialogue on how we did for performance.
Participants 4 and 7 indicated that communication, integrity, and trust were essential for
customer reputation. Corporate social responsibility was a knowledge component depicted as
increasing confidence, while organizational culture grew reputation. Participant 1 stated, “I do
see that we have a powerful influence in our reputation for us, particularly in the industry we are
77

at; speed is the determining factor. Our customers must decide on investments or changes, and
we are an information provider.” Though each interview participant was articulate and detailed
in their role of customer reputation, they could not connect the 6-customer reputation
components to their effects on them. Therefore, this conceptual knowledge influence is a need.
Document Analysis
In Figure 8, an analysis of a company management system index dashboard consisting of
two customer reputation components regarding triple bottom line and customer satisfaction key
process indicators (KPIs) shows a declining trend in performance of 54.5% at the organization’s
manufacturing locations. The six areas improving in the management system index dashboard
equates to 45.5%, which is 34.5% below the asset/need assessment cut score of 80%. The
knowledge influence of senior/mid-level leaders needing to understand the importance of
building and maintaining the components of customer reputation was confirmed as a need.
Figure 8
Management System Index for Quality Performance

78

Summary
The survey results confirmed that the assumed conceptual knowledge influences that
senior/mid-level leaders need to know the importance of building and maintaining the
components of customer reputation. The interview findings showed that the participants could
speak about their role in customer reputation; however, they could not connect the importance of
the six components. The interview findings confirmed that this assumed influence is a need.
Document analysis of the organizations’ management system index dashboard showed 45.5% of
the manufacturing locations improving in the components of triple bottom line and customer
satisfaction, below the cut score of 80%, similarly confirming the influence as a need. There are
no contradictory findings for the first of two assumed influences for conceptual knowledge;
therefore, these were confirmed as needs.
Conceptual Knowledge
The second conceptual knowledge influence is assumed Knowledge Influence 3. The
senior/mid-level leaders understand the importance of building and maintaining the customer
reputation components that impact customer perception in the principal-agent relationship. When
conceptual knowledge is clear to a team, they can prioritize challenges.
Survey Results
As shown in Table 7, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need. A
matrix of four categories shown in the survey (Figure 9) provides a visualization of customer
loyalty compared to customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is one of the six proposed
components of customer reputation. Of the four categories in the matrix, defectors and hostages
are in the negative range of customer satisfaction, while mercenaries and loyalists are in the
79

positive range. The participants selected where they perceived the organization fit within the four
categories. The survey asked participants to select up to two classes to demonstrate their
conceptual knowledge. Table 7 shows that the two positive customer satisfaction categories, Item
A at 8% and Item C at 30.7%, are below the cut score threshold of 80%. The cut score threshold
is 80%, as it is a high-stakes influence for the organization. Thus, this influence is a need for the
organization; senior/mid-level leaders require additional conceptual knowledge to know the
importance of building and maintaining the components of customer reputation.

Table 7
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components
The customer loyalty/satisfaction matrix visualizes a customer’s willingness to return
compared to their perceived value of execution. Which of the four categories do you see the
organization fitting today? (Respondents could select two). n = 88
Choice Conceptual knowledge item Percentage Count
A Mercenaries 8.0% 7
B Hostages 20.5% 18
C Loyalists 30.7% 27
D Defectors 21.6% 19
E Combination of 19.3% 17

80

Figure 9
Customer Loyalty/Satisfaction Matrix

Note. From Your Customers’ Perception of Quality: What It Means to Your Bottom Line and
How to Control It by B. Kureemun and R. Fantina, 2011. CRC Press. Copyright 2011 by CRC
Press.
Interview Findings
The results of the interviews indicate that this influence is a need. The matrix (Figure 9)
characterizes customer loyalty and customer satisfaction from a low to large scale, having
defectors and hostages at the low end of the customer satisfaction spectrum (a component of
customer reputation). Participant 7 asserted, “We have multiple customers, and depending on the
customer, they can fit in all these boxes.” Similarly, Participants 3 and 5 indicated that the
company was between the low and high end of customer satisfaction, wherein Participant 5
stated, “I would say we are kind of between the ‘hostages’ and the ‘loyalists,’… where we
81

communicate, we address, we try to understand and support our customer, and they know that.”
Participants 1, 2, and 6 each asserted that the organization’s customers fit into different
categories for different reasons. Participant 4 reinforced this point by stating, “This is not an easy
question because we must consider different phases, e.g., the RFQ phase, the launch phase, and
the phase after SOP, and this in the context of the different customers. Therefore, I cannot apply
the matrix directly.” The interviewees spoke to 50% of the components for customer reputation
as they applied to the matrix, differing customers, and phases of the organization’s value chain.
The cut score is 80% due to the high stakes within the organization. This second influence of
conceptual knowledge was confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not analyze documents or artifacts for this influence.
Summary
The survey results show that the two positive customer satisfaction categories, Item A at
8% and Item C at 30.7%, are below the cut score threshold of 80%, thus confirming the
conceptual knowledge influence. There was no document/artifact analysis conducted for this
influence. The interview findings confirmed the conceptual knowledge influence. Interviewees
spoke to 50% of the components for customer reputation as they applied to the matrix, differing
customers, and phases of the organization’s value chain. The cut score is 80% due to the high
stakes within the organization. Thus, this second influence of conceptual knowledge was
confirmed as a need.
Procedural Knowledge
The assumed Knowledge Influence 4 was that senior/mid-level leaders must know how to
improve customer reputation. Procedural knowledge in an organization is understanding how to
82

do specific tasks. Practical knowledge ensures proper goal alignment by eliminating the need for
tacit knowledge.
Survey Results
As shown in Table 8, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need.
There are six proposed components of customer reputation. The survey asked the participants to
match each customer reputation component with a choice as to how that strategy could align
with improving customer reputation to demonstrate their procedural knowledge. The participant
could use a strategy more than once in matching it to a customer reputation component. The
strategy responses are highlighted in bold font. Table 8 shows that two of the six components,
Item A at 90.3% and Item B at 96.8%, were above the cut score of 80%. Only 33% of the
customer reputation strategies matched correctly, and this is a high-stakes influence, so the
influence is a need for the organization. Senior/ mid-level leaders require additional procedural
knowledge to understand “how” to improve the components contributing to customer reputation.

83

Table 8
Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components
There are many reasons for building customer reputation; match each strategy with its primary
focus. n = 62
Choice Procedural knowledge item Percentage Count
A Corporate social responsibility (build and maintain
relationships that support good causes within the
community)
90.3% 56
B Customer satisfaction (execute high-quality products
and services)
96.8% 60
C Brand loyalty (accountability for expert
communication, transparency, and going beyond
what is expected)
33.9% 21
D Triple bottom line (establish a clear vision for
financial robustness and the environmental future)
69.4% 43
E Market uniqueness (Grow the team’s competence in
learning and skills while highlighting well-being)
24.2% 15
F Organizational culture (foster a positive workplace
environment that promotes trust, equity, and respect)
79.0% 49

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed influence of procedural knowledge as a
need. When asked how the strategic aspects of customer reputation components related to their
focus, Participant 4 stated, “Internally, we push the organization to achieve the customer metrics
and then among customer satisfaction metrics.” Participant 1 indicated, “So, we have the internal
organization to meet those, and then we must help the organization communicate directly to the
customer. This is where we are in trouble.” Similarly, Participant 7 reflected,
How can we make our internal processes faster, not undermining profitability? How can
we make an organization less bureaucratic and less inward-oriented? There is always a
healthy tension inside. How much should we pull to the customer’s needs but not
profitably undermine our control processes, and so on?
84

The perspective Participant 2 shared indicates the organizational focus: “We are reporting out on
even higher-level metrics, including our profitability, because ultimately, if you are not
profitable, you are shipping money with every part that you make.” Participants 3 and 6 spoke of
meeting customer metrics and reacting to customer expectations; the key deliverable for this
assumed influence is that the company is not driving the organizational strategy according to
their procedures about customer reputation, as they do not exist. The participants’ responses in
the interview confirmed that procedural knowledge is a need.
Document Analysis
The document analysis confirmed the assumed procedural knowledge influence as a
need. Document analysis of the presumed procedural knowledge influence involved a review of
the company’s management system procedure database for a policy, standard, or procedure that
outlined the components of what is required to improve customer reputation. Fifteen
organizational measures reviewed designated how to report specific KPIs for business processes;
however, no standards or procedures depict how to enhance the components of customer
reputation as an organizational framework. Organizational leaders require procedural knowledge
to understand “how” to improve the components contributing to customer reputation.
Summary
The survey results confirmed this assumed influence as a need. Thirty-three percent of
the customer reputation strategies were matched correctly, below the 80% cut score. As this is a
high-stakes influence, the influence was confirmed as a need for the organization. The document
analysis of the assumed influence established no policies, standards, or procedures for
senior/mid-level leaders to know or learn how to improve customer reputation. The document
analysis confirmed this influence as a need. The interview findings confirmed the assumed
85

influence of procedural knowledge as a need. Though the interviewees could speak to how the
organization reacts to customer metrics, they could not define the procedures needed to lead the
organization strategically for building customer reputation. The assumed procedural knowledge
influence was confirmed as a need.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The assumed Knowledge Influence 5 was that senior/mid-level leaders must self-reflect
on their progress toward improving customer reputation. For a leader to appropriately understand
their and their teams' growth, resources are required to reflect on what they have learned. The
organization should ensure a commitment of time and environment is available for individuals
and groups to reflect.
Survey Results
As shown in Table 9, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need. The
survey asked the participants to select how they reflected on their contribution toward improving
customer reputation to demonstrate their metacognitive knowledge. The correct response is
highlighted in bold font. Table 9 shows that Item D received the highest score at 55.8%, below
the cut score of 80%, as this is a high-stakes influence for the organization. Thus, this influence
is a need for the organization; senior/mid-level leaders require additional metacognitive
knowledge to reflect on their contribution toward improving customer reputation components.
The assumed influence of metacognitive knowledge was confirmed as a need.

86

Table 9
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Customer Reputation Components
As a leader, I reflect on my contribution toward improving customer reputation by …
(multiple choice, select all that apply). n = 52
Choice Metacognitive knowledge item Percentage Count
A Thinking about the effectiveness of my progress
toward improving the components
11.5% 6
B Acting on what needs to be changed in the
improvement of the component
25.0% 13
C Distributing the customer scorecards 1.9% 1
D All of the above 55.8% 29
E None of the above 5.8% 3
F Other 0.0% 0

Note. Bold indicates the correct response.
Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed influence of metacognitive knowledge as
a need. Participant 4 reflected, “It is a continual effort that the upper management expects to
deliver on. This is in terms of customer scorecards, delivery scorecards, performance scorecards,
customer satisfaction, customer responsiveness, and many other things.” Customer satisfaction is
one of the components of customer reputation. Participant 5 asserted, “Every time you are in
front of the customer, it does not matter who that customer is or what position they are; you are
selling your plant to that function.” This response can be linked to the component of corporate
social responsibility.
Similarly, this component is seen in the response from Participant 2: “Small steps make
business personal, and I think that is how we can improve this a lot.” Finally, the statement from
Participant 1 brings forward a mindset of evaluating lagging indicators of customer metrics
compared to self-reflection: “Performance is strongly linked to customer reputation and the
critical discussion point inside the department’s management team; the frequency is daily. The
87

improvement has been significant over the last two years (e.g., no miss on a customer milestone).
As 57% of the participants did not reflect on their effectiveness and actions toward improving
customer reputation, this assumed influence was confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not analyze documents or artifacts for this influence.
Summary
The survey results for the metacognitive knowledge influence confirmed its need. The
multiple-choice responses for the survey had a high score of 55.8%, below the cut score of 80%,
as it is a high-stakes influence. There was no document or artifact analysis conducted for this
assumed influence. The interview findings confirmed the metacognitive knowledge influence as
a need. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the interviewees did not reflect their effectiveness in
improving customer reputation; therefore, this assumed influence was confirmed as a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The results and findings of the reported motivational influences used assumed theories
for each cause. Examined in the research data are five types of motivational causes. They are
task value, self-efficacy, attribution, goal orientation, and expectancy outcome.
Task Value
Assumed Motivational Influence 1 was that senior/mid-level leaders must value the
components to build and maintain customer reputation. Task value is the incentive for academic
activity engagement and consists of four elements: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value,
and cost (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). When people know how to perform a task, they find it
motivating and engaging.

88

Survey Results
As shown in Table 10, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need.
The survey asked senior/mid-level leaders to demonstrate how they valued the customer
reputation components. The survey asked them to rate four elements of value motivation:
intrinsic performance, intrinsic/extrinsic mastery, and cost. The influence was evaluated by
summarizing the Likert ratings of very important and absolutely essential for a positive
motivational value alignment. Two of the four assumed elements were below the cut score of
80%. Item 1 for intrinsic mastery was 75.9%, and Item 4 for cost was 60.3%. As this is a high-
stakes influence for the organization, the assumed motivational influence for value was
confirmed as a need.

89

Table 10
Survey Results for Task Value Motivation
# Field Not
important
at all
Of little
importance
Of average
importance
Very
important
Absolutely
essential
Total
1 Learning the
elements that
comprise
reputation and
adding them
to my
expertise
(intrinsic
mastery)
1.7% 0.0% 22.4% 41.4% 34.5% 58
2 Connecting the
performance
goals of the
organization
and mastering
the elements
of customer
reputation
(intrinsic
performance)
1.7% 0.0% 10.3% 6 46.6% 41.4% 58
3 Learning the
components
of customer
reputation is
valuable for
me in terms of
my future
goals
(extrinsic)
0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 8 63.8% 22.4% 58
4 It is important to
improve the
customer
reputation
regardless of
time and
effort (cost)
3.4% 8.6% 27.6% 43.1% 17.2% 58

90

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed motivational influence of task value as a
need. The participants discussed how valuable it was to contribute to improving the components
of the organization’s customer reputation. All were clear on the importance and priority of how
they value their contribution to customer reputation. Participant 4 stated, “The customer is our
future; therefore, it is a fundamental task.” Participant 1 asserted, “The situation is very valuable.
It is the most valuable thing.” However, the participants could not connect their motivational
value to the six customer reputation components. For example, Participant 5 shared, “My biggest
challenge at the end of each project, whether successful or not, is to run what we call a
postmortem or lessons learned.” This is a value they connect to, but it is not a component of
customer reputation the research is discerning. To further that assumption, Participant 6 stated,
Once you have damaged a customer, it does not matter that you have one outstanding
plant in the middle of five doing all the right things. You have damaged your reputation;
you are damaged goods. Moreover, they will withhold that work.
Importantly, Participant 7 made this statement: “Our body language, our thought process,
the way we speak, the way we see things, the way we understand the vibe of the company, the
vision of the company, the policy. … All of that has to be in unison, and once we are in unison
and thinking alike, we are all automatically making positive contributions towards the company.”
The senior/mid-level leaders are motivated by the value of customer reputation but not by the
value of their contribution to the components that comprise customer reputation. The interview
findings confirmed this assumed influence as a need.

91

Document Analysis
The document analysis for the assumed motivational influence for value was confirmed
as necessary. The company website has a guideline that designates the organizational vision and
values; this guideline is also part of the company’s onboarding program for new team members.
Four primary values are outlined: honesty and reliability, trust and respect, and
social/environmental and cultural responsibility. The guideline provides transparency for each of
the values depicted; however, it does not identify how internal values connect to senior/mid-level
leaders’ motivations about components of customer reputation. Thus, the document analysis for
the assumed motivational influence of importance was confirmed as a need.
Summary
The survey results confirmed the assumed motivational influence of value as a need. Of
the four elements assessed, two were below the cut score of 80%. Item 1 for intrinsic mastery
was 75.9%, and Item 4 for cost was 60.3%. As 50% percent of the elements for value motivation
were below the cut score of 80%, the survey results confirmed the assumed influence as a need.
The document analysis for the assumed motivational influence for value was confirmed as
necessary. The company guideline provides transparency for each of the values identified;
however, it does not determine how internal values connect to senior/mid-level leaders’
motivations about components of customer reputation. The interview findings confirmed the
assumed motivational influence of value as a need. The participants discussed how valuable it
was for their contribution to improving the components of the organization’s customer
reputation. The senior/mid-level leaders are motivated by values but not discernible by the value
of their contribution to the elements that comprise customer reputation. As this is high stakes for
the organization, the assumed motivational influence for value is confirmed as a need.
92

Self-Efficacy
The assumed Motivational Influence 2 was that the senior/mid-level leaders must be
confident in implementing the components that build and maintain customer reputation. Self-
efficacy is the central construct in social-cognitive theory. Social-cognitive theory refers to
people's beliefs and judgments regarding their ability to accomplish specific tasks (Bandura,
1977).
Survey Results
As seen in Figure 10, the survey results show the assumed motivational influence, self-
efficacy, as a need. Participants rated their confidence in implementing changes for building and
maintaining customer reputation. Seven elements identified for senior/mid-level leaders were
evaluated for their self-efficacy. Two customer reputation components were placed below the cut
score of 80%: Item 2 at 72.44% and Item 3 at 73.18%. In evaluating the overall results of the
survey elements for this assumed motivational influence, the participant’s assessment of their
confidence to implement the customer reputation components was 71.4%. Therefore, the overall
survey result is below the cut score of 80% as it is high stakes for the organization, and this
assumed motivational influence is a need.
93

Figure 10
Survey Results for Self-Efficacy Motivation

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed motivational influence of self-efficacy as
a need. The senior/mid-level leaders provided examples that conveyed their confidence in
impacting customer reputation in the company. Participant 7 stated, “Well, the confidence part
always comes with a driven and known technology process. If we know anything, we have
tremendous exposure, knowledge, and experience.” Further, Participant 6 stated, “So, when we
can engage the customer early on, and the timeframe is not very tight on us, we outperform, and
we do a good job.” When asked for an example to exemplify confidence, Participant 2 indicated,
“So, that would be when a situation occurred … and convincing the organization to be forthwith,
step up to the plate, own the issue, take ownership of it, take responsibility for it, go to the
customer and explain it … not try to whitewash it, so to speak, which they did and turned out to
94

being the right thing to do which helped our reputation immensely.” In connecting responses
from other leaders, Participants 3 and 5 were confident in their senior leadership roles and how
they can influence customer reputation but did not define how they did it. Participant 5’s
response demonstrates this, “I have been part of the company for more than 20 years, and no
matter what role I could work here, I have always played an important role in keeping our
customers satisfied.” Finally, Participant 1 shared, “Often the organization has not been able to
perform at the level that it needs to, so your confidence droops as you try to sell whatever you
are trying to sell to the customer…”. The senior/mid-level leaders are confident in their
contribution to customer reputation, citing interview examples that are 57% of the components.
The interview findings confirmed this assumed influence as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not analyze documents or artifacts for this influence.
Summary
The survey results for the assumed motivational influence of self-efficacy confirmed it as
a need. In evaluating the seven elements of this research question, the senior/mid-level leaders’
assessment of their confidence to implement the customer reputation components was 71.4%.
Therefore, the survey result is below the cut score of 80% as it is high stakes for the
organization. No document analysis was conducted for this assumed influence. The interview
findings confirmed this belief influence as a need. The senior/mid-level leaders cited examples
during the interviews of their confidence in influencing the customer reputation components,
which equated to 57%, below the cut score of 80%. The assumed motivational influence of self-
efficacy is confirmed as a need.

95

Attribution
The assumed Motivational Influence 3 was that the senior/mid-level leaders attribute
their success or failure of customer reputation components to their effort for elements within
their control. People can attribute behaviors to internal influences such as personality. Similarly,
a person can attribute external observations of behavior to environmental factors.
Survey Results
As shown in Table 11, the survey results for this influence confirmed that it is a need.
The survey asked what element or effort can be attributed to the participants’ success/failure
regarding their role in improving customer reputation. The survey also asked them to rate nine
aspects of the assumed influence for attribution: luck, wisdom, effort, customer bias,
competence, relationship, talent, tenure, and grit. Three proposed elements were “foils” or
invalid (items 1, 2, and 9). The influence was evaluated by summarizing the two positive
attribution elements, essential, on a five-point Likert scale. Three of the six assumed elements to
be validated were below the cut score of 80%. Item 4 for customer bias was 49.1%, Item 6 for
talent was 73.7%, and Item 8 for tenure was 28.1%. In evaluating the overall results of the
survey elements for this assumed motivational influence, the participant’s attribution of their
success/failure for improving customer reputation was 50%. Therefore, the overall survey result
is below the cut score of 80% as it is high stakes for the organization, and this assumed
motivational influence is a need.

96

Table 11
Survey Results for Attribution
# Field Not
important
at all
Of little
importance
Of average
importance
Very
important
Absolutely
essential
Total
1 Luck 36.84% 43.86% 15.79% 3.51% 0.00% 57
2 Wisdom 1.75% 7.02% 29.82% 42.11% 19.30% 57
3 Effort 0.00% 3.51% 5.26% 28.07% 63.16% 57
4 Customer
bias
5.26% 10.53% 35.09% 35.09% 14.04% 57
5 Competence 0.00% 1.75% 3.51% 24.56% 70.18% 57
6 Talent 1.75% 0.00% 24.56% 52.63% 21.05% 57
7 Relationship 0.00% 1.75% 8.77% 40.35% 49.12% 57
8 Tenure 14.04% 12.28% 45.61% 21.05% 7.02% 57
9 Grit 8.77% 15.79% 26.32% 26.32% 22.81% 57

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed motivational influence of attribution as a
need. The senior/mid-level leaders shared some areas they attribute their success/failure to
improve customer reputation. Participant 5 shared, “The organization should be organized
around needs. Successful companies are completely organized around customer needs, whether a
speed, prize or different attributes that ultimately make a company what it is.” Further,
Participant 1 indicated, “Customer always first! Our internal goals must be achieved to satisfy
the customer long-term.”
Participants 2, 3, and 4 each shared that they try to work on the customer satisfaction
element of customer reputation. Participant 4 stated, “I am trying to drive home the customer
satisfaction by those things we can control.” Finally, while asking about the attribution of
success or failures of improving customer reputation, a specific incident was outlined by
Participant 6. In closing, interview Participant 6 stated, “The organization believed something
97

different than what we were telling them. … Reality turned out to be as predicted. … We
significantly impacted our customer reputation by ignoring some of that advice.” As the
participants focused on customer satisfaction, one of the six components of customer reputation,
the assumed motivational influence of attribution is confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not analyze documents or artifacts for this influence.
Summary
The survey results for this influence regarding attribution confirmed it as a need. In
evaluating the overall results of the elements for this assumed motivational influence, the
participant’s attribution of their success/failure for improving customer reputation was 50%. As
the cut score is 80% high-stakes for the organization, this assumed motivational influence is a
need. No document analysis was conducted for this influence. The interview findings confirmed
the presumed motivational influence of attribution as a need. The senior/mid-level leaders shared
some areas they attribute their success/failure to improve customer reputation. As the
participants focused on customer satisfaction, one of the six components of customer reputation,
the assumed motivational influence of attribution is confirmed as a need.
Goal Orientation
The assumed Motivational Influence 4 was that senior/mid-level leaders need to balance
performance and mastery of skills. Goal orientation establishes the relationship between people
and their goals. There may be a long-term goal, known as a core goal, or proximal goals that are
shorter in time and attainment.

98

Survey Results
As seen in Figure 11, the survey results show that the assumed motivational influence
(goal orientation) is needed. The senior/mid-level leaders answered questions about the need to
balance elements of performance orientation/goals with learning and mastery of skills. Although
the challenges of improving customer reputation may be present, they are motivated to learn
from it even if they make mistakes. In ranking the organization’s focus on the balance of
learning and performance, they used a sliding scale with 0 being seldom and ten being almost
always; as seen in Table 12, the mean is 7.4. Fifty-eight percent of the participants answered on a
scale of 8 to 10. A scale of 8 to 10 was assessed, as the cut score is 80%, which is high stakes for
the organization. This result indicates that 42% of the senior/mid-level leaders do not see a
balance between the organization’s focus on learning and performance. As 58% is below the cut
score, goal orientation’s assumed motivational influence is needed.

Figure 11
Survey Results for Goal Orientation

99

Table 12
Survey Results for Goal Orientation
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std
Deviation
Variance Count
1 Leaders need to balance
the elements of
performance
orientation/goals with
learning and mastery
of skills. Despite the
challenges improving
customer reputation
may present, I am
motivated in knowing
I will learn from it
even if I make
mistakes. Use the
thermometer to rate
our organization’s
focus on the balance
of learning and
performance, with 0
being seldom and ten
being almost always.
1.0 10.0 7.4 1.9 3.4 55

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed motivational influence of goal orientation
as a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders what the goals and objectives they felt contributed
to the components of customer reputation were. Participant 3 stated, “We must meet KPIs in all
areas/ departments and track them closely! If we do this, it will always positively affect the
customer side.” Further, Participant 7 shared, “I think customer reputation has two levels of
metrics. One is the hygiene factor or fundamental factors mandatory to have quality.
Furthermore, the second is that you deliver what you say you will provide.” In addition,
Participant 6 indicated, “Continuous improvement! To stay competitive, we must constantly
100

work on ways to remove costs from our organization … and there is no finish line, so
technically, it is a death march.” Participants 1, 2, and 4 focused on integrity and reliability.
Participant 4 shared, “Accountability, reliability, honesty, and integrity. Reputation is everything
… it is a huge component. Do people trust you?” Finally, Participant 5 emphasized, “To be
“good-looking” with your customer, you need to be competitive first, and after that, it becomes a
relationship based on substance.” There was zero feedback from the interviews that indicated
how goal and objective setting contributed to customer reputation. The assumed motivational
influence of goal orientation is confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
The document analysis for this assumed motivational influence confirmed that goal
orientation is necessary. A review of goals and objectives for a functional group in the
organization revealed competency assessments, employee development requirements, and
structured tools available to senior/mid-level leaders. However, they are not linked to
components of customer reputation. A review of competency requirements aligned with
functional goals is individually determined by the functional leader and is not aligned with a
centralized goal of customer reputation components. Thus, the document analysis confirmed this
assumed influence as a need.
Summary
The survey results show that the assumed motivational influence, goal orientation, is a
need. The scale of 8 to 10 was assessed as the cut score is 80%, which is high stakes for the
organization. This result indicates that 42% of the senior/mid-level leaders do not see a balance
between the organization’s focus on learning and performance. As 58% is below the cut score,
goal orientation’s assumed motivational influence is needed. The interview findings confirmed
101

the assumed motivational influence of goal orientation as a need. I asked the senior/mid-level
leaders what the goals and objectives they felt contributed to the components of customer
reputation were. There was zero feedback from the interviews that indicated how goal and
objective setting contributed to customer reputation. As such, the discussions confirmed the
assumed motivational influence of goal orientation as a need. The document analysis for this
took the motivational influence of goal orientation and confirmed that it is needed. A review of
goals and objectives for a functional group in the organization revealed competency assessments,
employee development requirements, and structured tools available to senior/mid-level leaders.
However, they are not linked to components of customer reputation. In conclusion, the results
and findings show that the assumed motivational influence, goal orientation, is a need.
Expectancy Outcome
The assumed Motivational Influence 5 was that senior/mid-level leaders need to know
how their expectations and feedback contribute to improving customer reputation. Positive
emotional environments support motivation (Clark et al., 2004). When an organization increases
a person's outcome expectancies, they have a sense of control by avoiding competitive
environments.
Survey Results
As seen in Table 13, the survey results show that the assumed motivational influence,
expectancy outcome, is a need. The senior/mid-level leaders rated how their expectations and
feedback contribute to improving the outcome of customer reputation. The participants’ rating
was based on a 5-point Likert scale, with zero indicating disagreement and five indicating total
agreement. The influence was evaluated by summarizing the two positive expectancy outcome
elements (Figure 12), somewhat agree and totally agree. One of the three assumed elements to
102

be validated below the cut score of 80% was Item 1 at 70.3%. In evaluating the overall results of
the survey elements for this assumed motivational influence, the participant’s expectancy
outcome of their contribution to improving the customer reputation components was 66%. The
overall survey result is below the cut score of 80% as it is high stakes for the organization, and
this assumed motivational influence is a need.

Table 13
Survey Results for Expectancy Outcome
Field Disagree Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree Totally
agree
Total
My feedback regarding
actions needed to improve
reputation is considered,
supported, and acted on.
1.9% 3.7% 24.1% 40.7% 29.6% 54
My day-to-day work behavior
models the expectations for
improving the components,
leading to a positive
customer reputation.
0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 38.9% 48.1% 54
I expect to do well in
improving the components
that contribute to customer
reputation.
0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 40.7% 53.7% 54

103

Figure 12
Survey Results for Expectancy Outcome

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed motivational influence of expectancy
outcome as a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders how their expectations, feedback, and
motivation impact the organization’s customer reputation. Participant 7 stated, “Sometimes the
expectations can be very aggressive and challenging, and without having all the right people
around you and creating that right environment, it is impossible.” Similarly, Participants 5 and 6
related that a reliable approach in the organization is missing, noted in Participant 6’s statement,
“Operational metrics for customer reputation are missing and communicated through all teams.
Furthermore, goals and objectives need to be consistent between all functions.”
From a different perspective, Participant 1 indicated, “I want to be the best in class! I think that
answers the question.” Participant 2 stated, “Essentially, my team is giving them feedback, so it
104

is like we are the voice for and to the customer.” Participants 3 and 4 similarly referred to the
communication aspect to the customer, with Participant 3 stating, “Sometimes, not very well,
because I am probably, I am a harsh critic of poor performance. I set the bar for myself very
high, so the expectation is the same level I expect of everyone else.” Participant 4 stated, “I think
we have the privilege of being in front of a customer. In a company like ours in the automotive
industry in a B2B, you are the face of the company, you know, you speak, you feel the pressure,
and you are sort of a pinch point between the internal organization and the customer and it is a
privilege to see that.” Finally, Participant 1 summarized, “but to repeat it, … that depends on
location and customer; some are good, some are poor.” Three of the seven, 43%, interviewees
stated they lacked consistency in goals and resources for customer reputation. Four of the seven
interviews, 57%, did not link their results to the components of customer reputation. This is
below the cut score of 80% as it is high stakes for the organization and is confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not conduct a document or artifact analysis for this influence.
Summary
The survey results show that the assumed motivational influence, expectancy outcome, is
a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders to rate how their expectations and feedback
contribute to improving the outcome of customer reputation. The survey’s overall results for the
participant’s expectancy outcome in their contribution to improving the customer reputation
components was 66%. The comprehensive survey result is below the cut score of 80% as it is
high stakes for the organization, and this assumed influence is confirmed as a need. There was no
documented analysis of this influence. The interview findings confirmed the assumed
motivational influence of expectancy outcome as a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders
105

how their expectations, feedback, and motivation impact the organization’s customer reputation.
Three of the seven, 43% of interviewees, stated they lacked consistency in goals and resources
for customer reputation. Four of the seven interviews, 57%, did not link their results to the
components of customer reputation. Therefore, the assumed motivational influence of
expectancy outcome is confirmed as a need.
Results and Findings for Organization Cause
The results and findings of the organizational influences were reported using assumed
organizational influences for each cause. The research data results and conclusions examine two
types of organizational reasons. They are cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural Models
Assumed Organizational Influence 1 was that the senior/mid-level leaders must perceive
the organization’s acceptance and commitment to organizational change to improve customer
reputation. For Gallus International, a cultural model is the framework that influences, shapes,
and defines its vision and values. Organizations looking for transformation, such as GI, require
astute attention to sub-cultures within the corporate structure.
Survey Results
As seen in Table 14, the survey results show that the assumed organizational influence
for a cultural model is a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders about their perception of the
organization’s ability to accept and commit to change pertained to improving customer
reputation. They evaluated four statements on a 5-point Likert frequency scale that ranged from
rare to most of the time. Three questions in the survey were assessed by adding three mid-range
to positive scale rankings: half the time, most of the time, and all of the time. Item 2 at 58.3%,
Item 3 at 75.5%, and Item 4 at 63.8% were below the cut score of 80%, as it is high stakes for the
106

organization. As shown in Figure 13, Item 1, at 84.3%, is about barriers to change and was
assessed by adding three mid-range to negative scale rankings: half the time, occasionally, and
rarely. The overall survey result is 25%, as three out of four responses were below the cut score
of 80%. As senior/mid-level leaders need to perceive confidence and trust in the organization to
improve customer reputation, the assumed organizational influence of cultural models is
confirmed as a need.

107

Table 14
Survey Results for Cultural Models
# Field Rarely Occasionally Half the
time
All of the
time
Most of
the time
Total
1 There are
barriers to
the change
needed to
improve
customer
reputation.
21.57% 43.14% 19.61% 9.80% 5.88% 51
2 There is an
opportunit
y to be the
agent of
organizati
onal
change
and
commitme
nt.
16.67% 25.00% 16.67% 31.25% 10.42% 48
3 The
organizati
onal
structure
provides
visibility
and
resources
to remove
hurdles.
16.33% 8.16% 40.82% 22.45% 12.24% 49
4 There is a
solid
understand
ing of the
change
needed to
improve
customer
reputation.
6.38% 29.79% 21.28% 27.66% 14.89% 47

108

Figure 13
Survey Results for Cultural Models

109

Interview Findings
The interview findings for the assumed organizational influence of a cultural model are
confirmed as a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders about the culture at the company within
the context of acceptance and commitment in the organization to improve customer reputation.
Participants 1,2 and 3 collectively identified with the aspects of family. Participant 1 stated, “We
are one global family!” While Participant 3 said, “Family. The first cultural point I would bring
up is …it is a family-owned company, a family-owned business, and they have been around
since 1875. That would be first and foremost.”
Further, Participants 5 and 6 highlighted the processes and procedures of the
organization. Participant 5 shared, “Sure. Internal processes and procedures must be followed,
even if customer service suffers little.” Participant 6 indicated, “We are a very process-oriented
company, strong engineering company, future-looking company … that is loyal towards
customers and employees but also has shortcomings. We tend to make decisions with pros and
cons and be quite risk averse.” Participants 4 and 7 brought elements of leadership and cohesion
to the discussion. Participant 4 indicated, “Also, even in our leadership, which would be almost a
three-way split. Our senior leadership is reporting to different places. The goals do not
necessarily align between these different factions, which has made us dysfunctional.”
Moreover, finally, Participant 7 shared, “As a whole, the culture is very performance-
driven. Every plant is like its own business unit and works with itself. So, cohesiveness between
plants could be improved upon quite a bit.” While three of the six customer reputation
components (triple bottom line, organizational culture, and market uniqueness) are referenced,
the overall interview findings are 50%, below the cut score of 80%. As senior/mid-level leaders
110

need acceptance and commitment to change to improve customer reputation, the assumed
organizational influence is confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not analyze the documents or artifacts for this influence.
Summary
The survey results show that the assumed organizational influence for the cultural model
is a need. The senior/mid-level leaders discussed their perceptions of the organization’s ability to
accept and commit to change pertained to improving customer reputation. The overall survey
result is 25%, as three out of four responses were below the cut score of 80%; therefore, as this is
high stakes for the organization, the survey results confirmed this organizational influence as a
need. I did not conduct a document analysis for this influence. The interview findings for the
assumed organizational influence cultural model were confirmed as a need. While three of the
six customer reputation components (triple bottom line, organizational culture, and market
uniqueness) are referenced, the overall interview findings are 50%, below the cut score of 80%.
Therefore, the assumed organizational influence of the cultural model’s research results was
confirmed as a need.
Cultural Models
Assumed Organizational Influence 2 was that senior/mid-level leaders must perceive
confidence and trust in the organization to improve customer reputation. A high-trust culture
fosters innovation, engagement, and productivity. Managers in organizations are looking for
leaders who provide autonomy, positive relationships, and a trustworthy work environment
(Bolman and Deal, 2017).

111

Survey Results
As seen in Table 15, the survey results show the assumed organizational influence for a
cultural model as a need. The senior/mid-level leaders identified three strengths related to their
perception of confidence and trust in the organization to improve customer reputation. Six of the
seven elements were below the cut score of 80%. The cut score is established at 80% as it is high
stakes for the organization, Item A at 37.1%, Item B at 74.1%, Item C at 82.3%, Item D at
59.5%, Item E at 62.9%, Item F at 30.6%, Item G at 45.2%. The organizational influence for the
culture model is a need, as 14% of the strengths were below the cut score of 80%. Senior/mid-
level leaders must build trust and confidence for change to improve customer reputation.
Table 15
Survey Results for Cultural Models
A perception of confidence by the leadership is necessary for an organization to improve its
customer reputation. Choose three strengths the organization has in building trust and
confidence for change. n = 62
# Organizational influence (cultural model) Percentage Count
a Communication of vision 37.1% 23
b Commitment and willingness 74.1% 46
c Financial focus and resources 82.3%% 51
d Effective problem-solving 59.5% 37
e Change implementation 62.9% 39
f Inclusion 30.6% 19
g Cultural intelligence 45.2% 28

Interview Findings
The assumed organizational influence and cultural model’s interview findings are
confirmed as a need. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders how the organization communicates
change to establish trust and achieve goals within the context of confidence and trust in the
organization to improve customer reputation. Participants 1, 3, and 7 provided insight into the
organization’s tactical change process; however, they did not relate the shift in trust and
112

achieving goals within the organization. This is seen in Participant 1’s feedback: “We will
normally roll it out in a meeting. We just had a meeting today rolling out a new auditing
process.” Participant 7 agreed: “We have an excellent system to communicate a normal change.
Suppose an expectation is set for that change or any expectation. … There will always be an
element of required training.” Participant 3 stated, “Well, traditionally, it is done by participation
in small groups, and now, obviously, it is over multiple conference calls. So, I try to have pre-
meetings before the overall meetings so that, in all the major questions and concerns, some of the
internal influencers are up to date before trying to implement the change.”
Further, Participants 2 and 4 identified the hierarchal nature of change and its
communication; the establishment of trust and goal achievement did not connect to the interview
findings. Participant 2 shared, “That starts from the top and filters down. It goes by the
department and is not always clearly communicated.” Then Participant 4 said, “It is up to the
functional leader (VP) to communicate this change.” Participants 5 and 6 raised concerns about
what the organization could do more effectively to bridge change, confidence, and trust for
customer reputation improvement. Participant 5 stated, “We are outstanding at many things, but
certainly, change is not our strength.”
Furthermore, Participant 6 said, “I think we fall short in making organizational changes.
When I say changes, I mean process changes or internal process changes. How are we
challenging ourselves to make what we do better?” Two of the seven participants (29%)
provided information connecting change to customer reputation improvement; therefore, as it is
below the cut score of 80%, the organizational influence for cultural models is confirmed as a
need. Senior/mid-level leaders need to perceive confidence and trust in the organization to
improve customer reputation.
113

Document Analysis
I did not conduct a document or artifact analysis for this influence.
Summary
The survey results show the assumed organizational influence of a cultural model as a
need. Six of the seven elements were below the cut score of 80%, as it is high stakes for the
organization, Item A at 37.1%, Item B at 74.1%, Item D at 59.5%, Item E at 62.9%, Item F at
30.6%, and Item G at 45.2%. The organization needs this influence because only 14% of the
strengths were selected. I did not conduct a document analysis for this influence.
The interview findings confirmed the assumed organizational influence and cultural
model as necessary. I asked the senior/mid-level leaders how the organization communicates
change to establish trust and achieve goals within the context of confidence and trust in the
organization to improve customer reputation. Two participants (29%) provided information
connecting change to customer reputation improvement; therefore, as it is below the cut score of
80%, the organizational influence for cultural models is confirmed as a need. Senior/mid-level
leaders need to perceive confidence and trust in the organization to improve customer reputation.
Six of the seven elements were below the cut score of 80%, as it is high stakes for the
organization, Item A at 37.1%, Item B at 74.1%, Item D at 59.5%, Item E at 62.9%, Item F at
30.6%, and Item G at 45.2%. The organization needs this influence because only 14% of the
strengths were selected. Senior/mid-level leaders must build trust and confidence for change to
improve customer reputation. The overall research results show the organizational influence of
cultural models as a need.

114

Cultural Settings
The assumed Organizational Influence 3 is that the senior/mid-level leaders must ensure
the active organizational culture is aligned with the organization’s stated culture to improve
customer reputation. “System blindness” is a term used to highlight intra-company tensions or
challenges between functions that go undetected (Bolman and Deal, 2017). The executive leaders
at GI must ensure that the organizational values are not usurped for operational performance.
Survey Results
As seen in Table 16, the survey results confirmed that the assumed organizational
influence for cultural settings is a need. Within the context that the daily organizational dynamic
people work within requirements to be actively aligned by leaders to ensure it connects to the
values and beliefs of the company, the senior/mid-level leaders rated their perception of the
organizational culture’s opportunity for change in customer reputation. Zero is poor, and one
hundred is exceptional. Figure 14 shows that all four organizational culture elements were below
the cut score of 80%: Item 1 at 77.56%, Item 2 at 73.85%, Item 3 at 62.69%, and Item 4 at
64.25%. As it is high stakes for the organization, the assumed organizational influence of
cultural settings was confirmed as a need.

Table 16
Survey Results for Cultural Settings
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std
Deviation
Count
1 The stated values and beliefs of the
organization provide the
framework for improving
customer reputation.
10.00 100.00 77.56 21.77 52
2 The leadership team demonstrates
the values by walking the talk.
4.00 100.00 73.85 22.32 52
115

3 Resources are aligned with
organizational priorities to ensure
effective change.
2.00 100.00 62.69 22.92 52
4 Diverse perspectives are considered
at multiple levels of the
organization.
2.00 100.00 64.25 27.63 52

Figure 14
Survey Results for Cultural Settings

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed organizational influence and cultural
settings as a need. Through the lens of the senior/mid-level leaders needing to ensure the active
organizational culture aligns with the organization’s stated culture for improving customer
reputation, I asked the participants what the organization needs to do to ensure the expectations
116

of change for customer reputation are industrialized effectively in the day-to-day activities.
Interestingly, Participant 4 used storytelling to share their thoughts:
The new project attribute industry process is sometimes even less profitable than the
current one. So, why should I plant a seed if I harvest tons of corn here? I mean, it is …
come on, folks. We are getting tons of corn, so do not distract yourself by weeding out
the following plot of land if I do not have hands to cash in. That is basically what has
happened.
Participants 1, 3, 5, and 7 shared that it starts from the top of the leadership team for the
organization. Participant 7 stated,
Understanding customer expectations sometimes is a considerable part … but it is up to
the upper management to understand what the customer expects from us. It is the upper
management’s responsibility to make sure that they communicate it most effectively so
that the information is uniformly passed on to every facet of the organization.
Similarly, Participant 5 said,
As you break apart the organization from the top down, through levels, it has to be
communicated from the top down. Management training, management support, and
leadership training. … That all filters down because, frequently, the reputation is affected
by people, not in leadership positions, so leadership needs to be more engaged and
communicate that interaction with every employee.
Participant 1 suggested, “The leadership needs to demonstrate to the customer that they are more
important than many aspects of the business and that they make them a priority. Then obviously
people will take note and follow that example.” Finally, Participant 2 concluded that consistency
in goals that guide and communicate customer reputation is missing, as stated here: “Operational
117

metrics for customer reputation are missing and shared through all teams. Furthermore, goals and
objectives need to be consistent between all.” All interviewees indicated what the organization
needed to do but could not share what they were doing. Therefore, the interview findings
confirmed the assumed organizational influence and cultural settings as a need.
118

Document Analysis
The document analysis for this assumed cultural influence confirmed it as an asset. The
organizational vision and values book clearly defines expectations and behaviors. It is shared
with each person during onboarding; the conference rooms have pictures and posters depicting
cultural expectations. The external internet site and internal company site also reinforce cultural
expectations. There is annual training for compliance to ethics, compliance, and sexual
harassment for all team members.
Summary
The survey results confirmed that the assumed organizational influence for cultural
settings is a need. Within the context that the daily organizational dynamic people work within
requirements to be actively aligned by leaders to ensure it connects to the values and beliefs of
the company, the senior/mid-level leaders rated their perception of the organizational culture’s
opportunity for change in customer reputation. All four organizational culture elements were
below the cut score of 80%, Item 1 at 77.56%, Item 2 at 73.85%, Item 3 at 62.69%, and Item 4 at
64.25%. As it is high stakes for the organization, the assumed organizational influence of
cultural settings is confirmed as a need; however, the document analysis for this assumed
cultural influence is an asset. The interview findings confirmed the assumed organizational
influence and cultural settings as a need. Through the lens of the senior/mid-level leaders
needing to ensure the active organizational culture aligns with the organization’s stated culture
for improving customer reputation, I asked the participants what the organization needs to do to
ensure the expectations of change for customer reputation are industrialized effectively in the
day-to-day activities. All seven interviewees indicated what the organization required them to do
but could not share what they were doing. Therefore, the interview findings confirmed the
119

assumed influence as a need. Though the document analysis was determined to be an asset, the
results of the survey and interview findings outweigh the document analysis because they
provide rich detail and are more substantial evidence of participants’ behavior. Thus, the
assumed organizational influence of cultural settings is confirmed as a need.
Cultural Settings
The assumed Organizational Influence 4 was that the senior/mid-level leaders need to
encompass the perspectives of key stakeholders from the design stage through decision-making
that will improve customer reputation. The GI strategy must include all levels of the organization
in its planning, communication, and feedback to ensure agility in tactical decision-making.
Survey Results
As seen in Figure 15, the survey results confirmed that the assumed organizational
influence for cultural settings is a need. The senior/mid-level leaders rated their thoughts and
expectations on six elements that engage stakeholders’ views from all aspects of the organization
for decision-making that will sustain an improved customer reputation. They evaluated the
elements on a 5-point Likert frequency scale that ranged from far short of expectations to
exceeding expectations. Four factors were below the cut score of 80%, as it is high stakes for the
organization: Item 2 at 45.1%, Item 4 at 68.6%, Item 5 at 64.7%, and Item 6 at 76.5%. Item 2’s
survey result is of particular importance. The element asked of senior/mid-level leaders’
expectations in the organization bringing forward silent voices had an aggregate sum of 54.9%
(Table 17) between short of expectations and far short of expectations. The overall survey result
is 67%, as four out of six responses were below the cut score of 80%. As senior/mid-level
leaders need to encompass the perspectives of key stakeholders from the design stage through
120

decision-making to improve customer reputation, the assumed organizational influence for
cultural settings was confirmed as a need.
Table 17
Survey Results for Organizational Settings and Expectations
Field Far short Short of Equals Exceeds Far exceeds
Evidence-based
solutions are
used and
communicated
.
1.96% 17.65% 61.78% 19.61% 0.00%
The organization
works to bring
forward “silent
voices.”
19.61% 35.29% 35.29% 7.84% 1.96
Innovation is
supported by
company
values.
5.88% 13.73% 43.14% 29.41% 7.84%
Role models and
mentors
nurture and
promote
personal
growth.
5.88% 25.49% 43.14% 19.61% 5.88%
There is
cognitive
diversity in the
planning teams
for change.
5.88% 29.41% 49.02% 11.76% 3.92%
The organization
provides
resources for
personal and
professional
growth.
5.88% 17.65% 54.90% 15.69% 5.88%

121

Figure 15
Survey Results for Organizational Settings

Interview Findings
The interview findings confirmed the assumed organizational influence on cultural
settings as a need. Within how senior/mid-level leaders need to encompass critical stakeholder
perspectives through multiple stages of decision-making in customer reputation, the participants
discussed a role or person that demonstrates the traits to lead the company through successful
change. Participant 3 spoke about detachment as a trait to be aware of in leadership,
As you grow into an organization, bureaucracy makes you detach from the day-to-day
and even become detached from the customer. That is a serious risk because they are
more oriented toward establishing guidelines and processes than the customer’s realities.
Participants 1, 2, and 4 thought everyone in the organization has a role in customer
reputation; however, they did not articulate what traits should be demonstrated for successful
change. Participant 2 stated, “I think that reputation falls on everyone. Every person in the
organization who interacts with the customer impacts their reputation. It is about conveying that
122

message throughout a large organization that sometimes gets lost a little bit.” Participants 5 and 6
shared their thoughts on the importance of mid-level leaders in the organizational structure and
how relationship-building is vital. Participant 6 stated,
Mid-level managers have more influence than people believe. It is easy to be at the top,
but when you are a mid-level manager, you are closer to the people who do the work, and
that is where the real relationship comes in. You have more influence than you would be
led to believe you were.
Finally, Participant 7 echoed the feedback that it is everyone’s role and added that
employees model traits of their leaders’ expectations: “Everybody should be an influencer in
their own right. I am an influencer for my department, but I get influenced by what is expected of
me.” As two out of seven participants, 29%, spoke to the leadership traits for successful change
in customer reputation, it is below the cut score of 80%; therefore, it is confirmed as a need.
Document Analysis
I did not conduct a document or artifact analysis for this influence.
Summary
The survey results demonstrate that the assumed organizational influence for cultural
settings is a need. The senior/mid-level leaders rated their thoughts and expectations on six
elements that engage stakeholders’ views from all aspects of the organization for decision-
making that will sustain an improved customer reputation. The overall survey result is 67%, as
four out of six responses were below the cut score of 80%. The cut score is 80%, which is high
stakes for the organization. As senior/mid-level leaders need to encompass the perspectives of
key stakeholders from the design stage through decision-making to improve customer reputation,
the assumed organizational influence for cultural settings was confirmed as a need. I did not
123

conduct a document for this influence. The interview findings for the assumed organizational
influence and cultural settings were established as a need. Within how senior/mid-level leaders
need to encompass critical stakeholder perspectives through multiple stages of decision-making
in customer reputation, the participants discussed a role or person that demonstrates the traits to
lead the company through successful change. As two participants, 29%, spoke to the leadership
traits for successful change in customer reputation, it is below the cut score of 80%; therefore, it
is a need. Thus, the overall research result for this assumed organizational influence on cultural
settings is confirmed as a need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 18 shows the KMO influences for this study and their determination as an asset or
a need. Based on the data revealed in the survey results, document analysis, and interview
findings, the organization needs all 14 influences. Moreover, based on the research examined in
the literature review in Chapter Two, all 14 influences are essential to achieving the
organizational goal of providing a roadmap to 100% customer reputation evaluation. The five
knowledge, five motivational, and four organizational influences are all determined to have the
most significant impact in addressing the required changes.

124

Table 18
Summary of Influences as Needs or Assets for Senior/Mid-Level Leadership Team Members
Item Influence Asset or need
Knowledge influences
Conceptual
knowledge
Senior/mid-level leaders need to
know the importance of
building and maintaining the
components of customer
reputation.
Need
The senior/mid-level leaders
understand the importance of
building and maintaining the
customer reputation
components that impact
customer perception in the
principal-agent relationship.
Need
Factual
knowledge
The senior/mid-level leaders
understand their role in
applying strategic goals to their
functional teams in the
organization.
Need
Procedural Senior/mid-level leaders must
know how to improve customer
reputation.
Need
Metacognitive The senior/mid-level leaders must
self-reflect on their progress
toward improving customer
reputation.
Need
Motivation influences
Goal orientation Senior/mid-level leaders need to
balance the elements of
performance and goal
orientation.
Need
Expectancy
outcome
The senior/mid-level leaders need
to know how their expectations
and feedback contribute to
improving customer reputation.
Need
125

Item Influence Asset or need
Attribution The senior/mid-level leaders
attribute their success or failure
of customer reputation
components to their efforts for
elements within their control.
Need
Task value The senior/mid-level leaders must
value the components to build
and maintain customer
reputation.
Need
Self-efficacy The senior/mid-level leaders
must be confident in
implementing the components
that build and maintain
customer reputation.
Need
Organization influences
Cultural model The senior/mid-level leaders must
perceive the organization’s
acceptance and commitment to
organizational change to
improve customer reputation.
Need
Senior/mid-level leaders need to
perceive confidence and trust in
the organization to improve
customer reputation.
Need
Cultural settings The senior/mid-level leaders need
to encompass the perspectives
of key stakeholders from the
design stage through decision-
making that will improve
customer reputation.
Need

The senior/mid-level leaders must
ensure the active organizational
culture is aligned with the
organization’s stated culture to
improve customer reputation.
Need

126

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
In Chapter Four, the study intended to determine factors that influence the efficacy of
senior/mid-level leaders in achieving 100% customer reputation at Gallus International, a
supplier for the automotive manufacturing sector. Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
model, senior/mid-level leaders assessed 14 KMO influences. I evaluated the survey results,
interview findings, and document artifacts and identified 14 needs. The new world Kirkpatrick
model (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is used in Chapter Five to create an
implementation and evaluation plan that senior/mid-level leaders can operationalize for
sustainability (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002)in the performance goal. These KMO dimensions close
the performance gap of needing a customer reputation metric. To provide the framework of what
recommendations, Chapter Five provides an overview of the Gallus International organizational
context/mission, performance goal, cross-functional stakeholders, and research questions are
synthesized.
Organizational Context and Mission
The study’s organization is Gallus International (pseudonym), a development partner in
the automotive industry. Gallus International is a global full-service supplier of complex
aluminum, steel, and hybrid body structures. These products’ applications include body-in-white
chassis frames, crash management systems, and front-end cross-car beams for commercial and
retail markets. Gallus Automotive is the largest business unit of the Gallus International Group,
with over 9,000 employees in 11 countries. The organization has a corporate management
system that aligns sustainability and corporate social responsibility perspectives to meet the
requirements of social, political, and business environments. In 2015, the company’s
shareholders defined their vision and values to frame the corporate social responsibility policy of
127

Gallus International Automotive. The organizational values that impact the Gallus International
team’s daily interactions while providing a sense of direction and certainty are rooted in the
company culture. Gallus International’s values are honesty and reliability, trust and respect, and
social, environmental, and cultural responsibility. The values set a foundation for appreciating
and caring for individual differences and cultural uniqueness. The cultural differences add value
to the company and serve as a source of innovation and continuous improvement.
The organization’s shared vision is:
Gallus International is a global leader in designing and supplying best-in-class structures
for vehicles’ bodies and chassis. The corporation creates sustainable and profitable growth while
committing to being financially independent and family-owned. Gallus International is
performance-oriented and stands for the highest level of customer service. The company
develops its employees and actively supports their health and satisfaction.
Organizational Performance Goal
Gallus International’s senior/mid-level leaders will develop an organizational plan to
achieve 100% customer reputation by December 2024. The organization’s vision is to be a
global leader in automotive structures. Gallus International, a family-owned and financially
independent company, is a performance-oriented organization targeting the highest customer
service levels. The organization is committed to developing its employees by supporting their
health and satisfaction.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The three primary stakeholder groups at Gallus International are the executive leadership
team, the senior/mid-level leadership team, and the plant leadership team. The executive
leadership team sets goals and objectives based on the board of directors’ vision and mission.
128

The family-owned board of directors is composed of a family member as chief executive officer
(CEO), a global chief operating officer (COO), a chief technology officer (CTO), a chief
financial officer, and an outside individual to balance a financial perspective. The global
executive leadership team members that report to the board of directors are across the functions
of procurement, sustainability, operations, controlling, human resources, and sales. The
executive leadership team members have various functional-specific responsibilities
communicated to the seventy-plus senior/mid-level leadership team members worldwide (Gallus
International works with a lean matrix organizational structure). The senior/mid-level leadership
team is responsible for the support functions and manufacturing operations.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete gap analysis would focus on three stakeholder groups identified in Chapter
One: executive leaders, senior/mid-level leaders, and plant-level leaders. The primary
stakeholder for the study was the senior/mid-level leadership team. Senior/mid-level leaders
influence goals and objectives, policies and procedures, and corporate culture (Savu et al., 2017).
When the appropriate stakeholder group understands the impacts of customer reputation, this can
bring change and shift the momentum of an organization (Kim, 2017). Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis model was used to evaluate the KMO influences. These KMO dimensions have the
potential to close the performance gap of needing a customer reputation metric. As such, this
study explored what needs or assets senior/mid-level leadership team members experience in
achieving 100% customer reputation.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
This research project aimed to conduct a needs/asset analysis to understand, from a data-
driven perspective, the root cause contributing to an organizational gap. Senior/mid-level leaders
129

influence goals and objectives, policies and procedures, and corporate culture (Savu et al., 2017).
The roles and responsibilities crossed multiple organizational functions: engineering, logistics,
program management, quality, sales, controlling, and operations. A strategic organizational
performance relationship exists between customer satisfaction, customer reputation, and
sustainable competitive advantage (Saeidi et al., 2015). Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
model was used to evaluate the KMO influences. These KMO dimensions may close the
performance gap of needing a customer reputation metric. This study explored what needs or
assets senior/mid-level leadership team members experience in achieving 100% customer
reputation. Research shows that organizational effectiveness increases when a leadership team is
knowledgeable, learning, and reflective about their teams and business (Mezirow & Associates,
2000).
Two research questions guided data collection:
1. What are the leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to achieve
100% customer reputation metrics?
2. How do organizational culture and context interact with the senior/mid-level leaders’
knowledge and motivation?
The third research question provides the framework for Chapter Five: What are the
recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to the influences identified to
achieve 100% customer reputation?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The study provided data through a mixed-methods approach that validated fourteen needs
and no assets. Two cultural model needs were validated and had a foundation to provide a
130

combined recommendation. Two cultural setting needs were validated and had a foundation to
provide combined guidance. There is a total of eleven KMO recommendations.
Knowledge Recommendations
The data validated that factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
influences the problem of practice. The senior/mid-level leaders demonstrated knowledge needs
in the four constructs. The recommended strategies for the identified knowledge needs provide
research-proven methods for closing the performance gap of senior/mid-level leaders achieving
100% customer reputation. The theoretical principles identified for the knowledge needs support
the recommendations.
Increasing Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Factual Knowledge of the Components That Comprise
Customer Reputation
The results and findings of this study indicated that 50% of senior/mid-level leaders need
in-depth factual knowledge of the components contributing to customer reputation. Information
processing theory (McCrudden et al., 2006) can inform a recommendation for this factual
knowledge need. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggest that to develop mastery effectively, the
individual must acquire the component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply
the knowledge they have learned. Information processing theory also asserts that providing
opportunities for people to connect learning material facilitates learning as they are not reliant
upon only memorization (McCrudden et al., 2006). Introducing learning material suggests that
providing learners with a visual infographic of the customer reputation components would
support their learning. The recommendation is to provide senior/mid-level leadership with a
visual infographic highlighting the six customer reputation components and the linkages to the
organization’s business functions.
131

Research shows that time dedicated to mastering a concept or skill correlates with the
predicted success of learning and applying that in daily life (Ambrose et al., 2010). Therefore, to
be held accountable within an organization, the leader must understand the consequences of
actions by explaining the scenario, justifying a decision, and taking responsibility for the
activities (Messner, 2009). The relationship levels within an organization’s macro culture are
critical success factors in establishing goals built in a trusting and open context (Schein, 2016).
Also, researchers have found that tools such as a visual infographic can help learners focus on
goals; therefore, they are more likely to generate constructive connections with mental pictures,
which positively influences learning (Graesser et al., 1994). Finally, a visual infographic or “job
aid” is a reinforcement for people to apply knowledge to goals and objectives (Clark & Estes,
2008). During an organization’s growth, procedures, tacit knowledge, tribal rituals, and values
are supportive but become institutionalized as the company stabilizes (Schein, 2016).
Improving Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Conceptual Knowledge of the Importance of Building
and Maintaining the Components for Customer Reputation
Two influences for the conceptual knowledge construct were determined to be a need.
Each influence had survey results, interview findings, and artifacts analysis consistent with
determining conceptual knowledge as a need. The research results for conceptual knowledge
synthesize the two influences with recommended theories and principles. Knowing the
importance of building and maintaining the components of customer reputation will address the
stakeholder’s efficacy for reaching the goal of 100% customer reputation by December 2024.
The results and findings of this study indicated that 50% of the senior/mid-level leaders
need in-depth conceptual knowledge to build and maintain the components of customer
reputation. Information processing theory (McCrudden et al., 2006) can inform a
132

recommendation for this conceptual knowledge need. As we define conceptual knowledge as the
ability to develop factual expertise into broader concepts (Krathwohl, 2002), information
processing theory (McCrudden et al., 2006) provides a bridge. Increasing conceptual
knowledgeability furthers the integration of visual and auditory sources, improving working
memory capacity (Mayer, 2011). Giving learners a graphic, conceptual map, and framework
creates increased understanding and importance of building and maintaining customer reputation
components. The recommendation is to provide senior/mid-level leadership with a visual concept
map that connects the six customer reputation components with the leadership team’s business
indicators, goals, and objectives.
Knowledge management research states that converting existing knowledge to practical
use reduces risk and uncertainty (Gierszewska, 2012). Further, Senge (1990) introduced a
concept called creative tension. He stated that the positive momentum of learning and change
comes from the seminal difference (tension) in how people envisage what might be more
important than their reality. Teams are more likely to be motivated to participate and articulate
priorities when they see the connection to the relevance of information and “why” it matters (T.
W. Knowles, 2010). As people assimilate information, learn, and convey knowledge differently,
a visual method enables people to connect relationships and learn uniquely (Lim et al., 2009).
The senior/mid-level leadership’s learning is improved when concept maps create
structure, analogies, and mental organizational growth (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
In summary, for this knowledge influence, a concept map links the customer reputation
concept to the company’s business function concepts (Clark & Estes, 2008). As the
senior/mid/level leadership team has expertise in their functional roles, they may not reliably be
able to correlate their experience with customer reputation management.
133

Strengthening the Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Procedural Knowledge to Ensure Their
Understanding of How to Improve Customer Reputation
The results and findings of this study indicated that 67% of the senior/mid-level leaders
need strengthened procedural knowledge to identify the strategic impacts that result from
improving customer reputation. Sociocultural theory can substantiate the recommendation for
this procedural knowledge need. An emphasis on the importance of context is needed to inform
the focus of this recommendation. Cultural and social contexts in which learning occurs are
influential (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In procedural learning, it is beneficial for individuals to learn
in a context similar to the one in which they will use the skill common to the learner’s familiar
cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). According to sociocultural theory, learning is
a socially mediated process that occurs through participation in activities within a social and
cultural context (Scott & Palincsar, n.d.).
Procedural knowledge, or how to perform a particular task or skill (Krathwohl, 2002), is
a vital aspect of learning supported through social interactions and activity participation
(Bandura, 1997). Providing learners with cognitive apprenticeships, reciprocal teaching,
cooperative learning, and social interactions facilitates knowledge-building (Scott & Palincsar,
n.d.). The recommendation is to provide senior/mid-level leadership with a structured
apprenticeship program that scaffolds the learning of customer reputation components, thereby
promoting knowledge transfer.
Research on this concept indicates that as learners participate in a broad scope of
conjoined activities, they can build a mental model due to the positive effects of collaborating
and working together (Scott & Palincsar, n.d.). By providing learning in a meaningful way, the
134

germane cognitive load increases while schema construction improves effectiveness (Kirschner
et al., 2006).
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that open and unbiased communication of procedural
expectations can reduce the organization’s uncertainty and goal ambiguity. Further, as an
organization grows, the mechanisms of procedures, tacit knowledge, and tribal rituals become
institutionalized as the company stabilizes, thereby mechanizing the goals and objectives of the
team (Schein, 2016). Further, researchers evaluating empirical studies of apprenticeship look at
intrinsic rewards, task knowledge, and skills to be learned, albeit within the context of how the
value of knowledge transfer takes place by being part of a communal atmosphere (Lave &
Wenger, 1991).
Heightening the Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Metacognitive Knowledge to Strengthen Their
Ability to Self-Reflect in Their Progression for Improving Customer Reputation
The results and findings of this study indicate that 44.2% of the senior/mid-level leaders
need strengthening in metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge aids in strategic
impact identification for the improvement of customer reputation. Schraw and Moshman’s
theory of metacognition (1995) can inform this metacognitive knowledge influence need. Theory
denotes three metacognitive knowledge constructs: factual, procedural, and conditional
(conditional as in the person’s ability to monitor and adjust their actions; Schraw & Moshman,
1995). Further, a person’s metacognitive influence conveys their ability to connect factual,
conceptual, and procedural knowledge for a company’s strategic initiatives and understand their
limitations to the company objective (Krathwohl, 2002). The results and findings for factual and
procedural knowledge recommendations focus on the conditional knowledge construct for
learners. Motivation and learning can increase when the team sets goals, monitors their
135

performance, and evaluates their progress in achieving them (Ambrose et al., 2010); (Pintrich,
2000). The recommendation is to establish a strategic approach for organizational goal setting
and performance while establishing an accountable/communicated place for monitoring the
feedback. The senior/mid-level leadership feedback, reflection, and forum bring self-reflection-
related elements of customer reputation into a continuous improvement cycle. Collaborative and
organic reflective sessions for learners nurture an open forum to discuss learning, processes, and
strategic impacts that intersect with customer reputation goals and objectives, fostering a growth
mindset (C. Dweck, 2012).
Research shows that organizational team members require a place, opportunity, and safe
structure to connect their values, beliefs, and meaning to what they know to be successful
(McCrudden et al., 2006). People’s collection and self-reflection of reasoning abilities is a
learned skill acquired from the organization or personal culture periphery (Fletcher & Carruthers,
2012). Further, metacognitive knowledge is critical to strategic leaders’ problem-solving skills
(Bloom, 2001) and understanding the influences when analytical thinking is required for conflict
management (Thompson & Johnson, 2014). Senior/mid-level leaders must know when specific
customer reputation strategies are efficacious for people regarding metacognitive knowledge.
The stakeholder team needs the competence to understand that metacognitive skills can be
acquired and taught (Rueda, 2011a). Finally, when senior/mid-level leaders have a forum for
bringing their reflections into a collective group, an opportunity for sharing their learning
strategies and processes evolve, the leader’s model and demonstrate the importance of self-
reflection or the conditional knowledge element of metacognitive learning (Schraw & Dennison,
1994).

136

Motivation Recommendations
The research analysis revealed that senior/mid-level leaders demonstrated gaps in five
motivational constructs: goal orientation, expectancy outcome, attribution, task value, and self-
efficacy. According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation influences a person, group, or
organization’s choice of engagement, effort, and ongoing persistence. Importantly, human
performance improvement research indicates that though outcomes, results, and
accomplishments outline it, performance is often confused with behavior, and there is a vital
difference between them (Rothwell et al., 2012).
The motivational construct of KMO theory has resulted in a need for recommendations
that are imperative for the organization’s success. From a motivational lens, “... behaviors are
what people take with them, and accomplishments are what they leave behind” (Rothwell et al.,
2012). This leads us to understand Pintrich et al. (2003), who stated that five motivational
beliefs: attribution, values, goal orientation, interests, and self-efficacy are under three
motivational indicators of choice, persistence, and effort. To give appropriate context and weight
to the principle of motivation, the definition as captured from the Handbook of Competence and
Motivation:
Competence motivation encompasses the appetitive energization and direction of
behavior with regard to effectiveness, ability, sufficiency, or success…it is ubiquitous in
everyday life, it has an important influence on emotion and well-being, it is operative and
integral throughout the lifespan, and it is relevant to individuals across cultures. (Elliot et
al., 2017, p. 3)
While understanding the primary facets of motivation, the interpreted value of a goal, and
the potential to achieve the goal, we can see the impact of meaningful behavior, learning, and
137

performance on an individual (Ambrose, 2010). The research shows that the business world
misaligned these two motivational aspects. Therefore, this research will focus on the three
intrinsic factors that drive success: autonomy, mastery, and purpose (D. Pink, 2009).
The recommended strategies for the motivational needs identified in the analysis provide
research-proven methods for closing the performance gap for the senior/mid-level leaders to
achieve 100% customer reputation. The theoretical principles highlighted for motivational needs
support the recommendations.
Goal Orientation: Improving Senior/Mid-Level Leader ’s Ability to Balance the Elements of
Performance and Skill Mastery
The results and findings of this study indicate that 42% of the senior/mid-level leaders do
not see a balance between the organization’s focus on performance orientation and mastery of
skills. The balance of performance orientation and mastery skills are vital to the organizational
goal of achieving 100% customer reputation by 2024. Goal orientation theory can inform a
recommendation for this motivational need. Goal orientation theory asserts that people are in two
categories of motivation. First, task-oriented outcomes, results, and accomplishments outline the
desire for learning and may improve task-oriented individuals’ self-efficacy (Kaplan & Maehr,
2007).
Second, performance-focused outcomes are measures of the ability and characteristics of
ego-oriented individuals (Ames, 1992; H. Grant & Dweck, 2003) and are motivated by a desire
to demonstrate competence and outperform others (Ames, 1992). While both elements of goal
orientation are critical to senior/mid-level leadership, the research data shows that a balance is
needed. The recommendation is to establish a customer reputation-balanced scorecard.
138

Measurement of learning and performance, as noted in goal orientation, creates an accountable
environment capable of improving the Gallus International organization’s performance goal.
Research indicates that a scorecard used for organizational accountability and transparent
communication for stakeholders detects inequality (Bensimon, 2007). Balancing skill mastery
and performance orientation can lead to higher motivation levels, job satisfaction, and individual
engagement (Kozlowski & Salas, 2012). Performance improvement for the person, team, and
organization realizes a feeling of accomplishment when they achieve goals but gain satisfaction
in further developing competence and expertise (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). A balanced scorecard
introduces a tool that drives senior/mid-level leaders to push beyond pain points objectively
(Ambrose et al., 2010). To further validate the customer reputation scorecard’s goals and
indicators, benchmarking in both standards and peer-based criteria provides a check and balance
that ensures organizational performance aligns with its overall vision and goals (Bogue & Hall,
2003).
Expectancy Outcome: Enriching Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Knowledge of How Their
Expectations and Feedback Contribute to the Improvement of Customer Reputation
The results and findings of this study indicate that 34% of senior/mid-level leaders need
to see how their expectations and feedback contribute to improving the components that
contribute to customer reputation. The senior/mid-level leadership team must be motivated to
give clear expectations and provide feedback with the expectation that it will improve customer
reputation (Deci, 1976). Expectancy-value theory can inform a recommendation for this
motivational need. According to the expectancy-value theory, people are more likely to engage
in a behavior if they believe they can execute it (expectancy) and if they believe the behavior to
be important to them (value; J. S. Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Expectancy-value theory is a social-
139

cognitive model of motivation applied in various fields, including education, health, and social
psychology (C. S. Dweck, 2000).
People are intrinsically motivated to lead, participate, and learn when they see “why” the
request or task connects to their outcome (M. S. Knowles, 1980). The recommendation is to
create a Gallus International organizational charter (infographic) that envisages a representation
of the company’s vision (which will include 100% customer reputation) to strategic goals (which
have the six components of customer reputation) and then clear objectives across functions. The
organizational charter will ensure consistent communication with the people about the vision and
prioritize the goals across parts.
In various theories of motivation, mainly work motivation, the context of effectance is
the most fundamental competency paradigm (Elliot et al., 2017). Effectance, or valence, is used
interchangeably with the outcome of a working relationship and instrumentality (Neck et al.,
2016). A factor for expectancy-value theory has been deemed competence in team self-
awareness or perception (Elliot et al., 2017). The perceived value of this aspect of motivation
looks at two different elements: “Can I do the task at hand?” and “Do I want to do the task at
hand?” (J. Eccles, 2009). The first question pertains primarily to the self-efficacy theory,
whereas the second pertains to desire and perceived value in task completion.
The leadership team of Gallus International organization has a strategic imperative to
create an environment for their team members to be successful. The connection to an
expectation’s outcome may be transparent to oneself. However, constancy and resilience are
unnecessary to achieve the goal (Duckworth et al., 2007). Finally, when organizational
leadership models credibility and culturally appropriate values to generate enthusiasm and
140

excitement in tasks, the importance of utility value and knowledge sharing can generate a
positive perception (Pintrich et al., 2003).
Attribution: Strengthening Senior/Mid-Level Leaders Understanding Regarding Their Effort
Attributed to Improving Customer Reputation
In evaluating the overall results of the survey elements for this motivational influence, the
participant’s attribution of their success/failure for improving customer reputation was 50%. The
senior/mid-level leadership team’s motivation to achieve the organizational goal of 100%
customer reputation is attributed to their effort rather than their ability. Attribution theory can
inform a recommendation for this motivational need. According to attribution theory, it is how
people interpret and make sense of their own and others’ behaviors and attribute causality to
events and situations. The theory asserts that people make attributions based on two main
factors: internal or dispositional factors and external or situational factors (Fiske et al., 2010).
Attribution theory is a motivational construct different from others, focusing on processes that
occur after an event has occurred and being a predictor of future behavior (E. M. Anderman,
2020). The Gallus International senior/mid-level leadership team must attribute success or
failures in developing the glide path plan to their effort rather than ability.
In the manufacturing world, customer-supplier relationships provide many learning
opportunities. Accountability within a customer-supplier relationship can have divergent goals
with unpredicted outcomes. Learning opportunities and organizations translate to an environment
in manufacturing where sustainability based on successful results aligns with consistent effort (E.
M. Anderman, 2020). The recommendation is to design a research-based appreciation, reward,
and incentive system that aligns with the organizational vision and the Gallus International goals
and objectives. Research shows that accountability increases when the architecture of the
141

incentive structure ensures adequate financial resources are in place to drive organizational
improvement (Elmore, 2002).
As a leader constructs goals and the goal feedback cycle, the attainment focus should be
on learning, mastery of skills, and applying knowledge to motivate team members (E. Anderman
& Anderman, 2009). Feedback, evaluation, and reflection on outcomes are necessary for
learning, regardless of the environment (Ellström, 2001). Motivation, knowledge, and personal
performance can improve when people anticipate equity in an outcome (Vroom, 1964). The risk
of not having clear goals can induce ambiguity and stress into the feedback cycle if they remain
too conceptual and not interrelated to other functions (Ellström, 2001). Furthermore, attribution
theory can be beneficial in fostering conflict resolution effectiveness by enabling people’s
understanding of the attributions and perspectives of others. In recognizing that values elucidate
different behaviors, thereby attributing outcomes differently, individuals, teams, and
organizational cultures can develop more effective communication (FitzGerald, 2002).
Task Value: Fortifying Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Connection to the Intrinsic Value of
Building and Maintaining Customer Reputation
In evaluating the overall results of the survey elements for this motivational influence, the
participant’s task value associated with building and maintaining customer reputation was 50%.
The senior/mid-level leaders are motivated by values but not discernible for the task value of
their contribution to the components that comprise customer reputation. Task value theory can
inform a recommendation for this motivational need. Task value theory suggests that an
individual’s value of a task is a motivation mechanism, including its relevance, interest, and
importance (J. S. Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Four types of jobs influence motivation, learning,
and performance: interest (intrinsic), utility (extrinsic), importance (attainment value), and
142

benefit (cost value) (Clark & Estes, 2008). Researchers indicate the value seen can incentivize
engagement (J. Eccles et al., 1993). With a sense of autonomy and ownership over their work,
people can feel a purpose that could drive improved innovation and creativity (D. H. Pink, 2011).
The concept of identified regulation is a construct by theorists that relates our conscious
value of activity; we also value the consequences as intended (Meyer et al., 2004). The conscious
value of a task is significant for the Gallus International senior/mid-level leadership team.
Though functions associated with improving customer reputation may not be intrinsically
motivating, their purpose and importance to the organization facilitate how their values connect
to behaviors, resulting in autonomy (Meyer et al., 2004).
The recommendation is to have Gallus International implement a senior/mid-level leader
motivational values project that requires each team member to participate in a big five
personality (Ang et al., 2006) trait assessment and a Business Culture Intelligence assessment
(Alon et al., 2016). For accountability and transparency, a team matrix highlighting which
individuals’ traits and strengths can benefit closing the organizational performance gap for
customer reputation. In understanding what personality dimensions, cultural intelligence, and
values are important to themselves, the team, and the organizational vision, the senior mid/level
leaders will be motivated to achieve 100% customer reputation. By building the capacity of the
Gallus International leadership team, their perception of expectations shared, as well as the needs
that come from tasks, actions, and beliefs, can improve trust, ownership, and accountability
(Ammeter et al., 2004).
The Big Five personality dimensions are conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional
stability, extraversion, and openness to experience (Ang et al., 2006). Also, the four cultural
dimensions’ relationship to the big five personality traits historically evolves as the individual
143

matures, as researchers Alon et al. (2016) noted. The Big Five theory categorizes behavioral
characteristics into conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, openness to experience, and
emotional stability (Bandura, 2012). The BCIQ envelopes a metric that can evaluate the acumen
of culturally intelligent multinational leaders in the global business workforce (Alon et al., 2016).
This measurement provides insight into leadership coherence, a construct developed to evaluate
the purposeful method in which a leader’s decisions impact how a team member responds to
their environment (Michel & LeBreton, 2011). As seen in Figure 16, the Competing Values
Framework for Leadership roles denotes how multiple values can coexist within an
organizational structure; however, the leadership team must recognize how to overcome them
(Moen, 2017).

Figure 16
A Framework of Leadership Values Coexisting in an Organization

144

The relevance of senior/mid-level leaders’ values, beliefs, and personality traits
highlights a need for Gallus International stakeholders to understand performance orientation.
Establishing the performance-oriented measurement of a balanced scorecard should also consider
whether the senior/mid-level leaders will see the metrics with an avoidance or acceptance
mindset. There can be high levels of correlation between performance approach and avoidance
tasks, each partially influenced by people’s differences (Bong, 2004).
Finally, the team’s learning, performance, and motivation will be enhanced if there are
clear, concrete, challenging, and concise goals where feedback is timely and tasks are focused
(Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). As the value of a job or purpose can impact an individual through four
elements: direction, energy, persistence, and discovery, senior/mid-level leaders need to have the
tools of what drives and motivates them (Locke & Latham, 2002).
Self-Efficacy: Ameliorating Senior/Mid-Level Leader ’s Confidence for Implementing
Components That Build and Maintain Customer Reputation
In evaluating the overall results of the survey elements for this assumed motivational
influence, the participants who did not feel confident implementing the components that build
and maintain customer reputation was 28.6%. The senior/mid-level leaders need confidence in
themselves as well as their teams to achieve the organizational goal of achieving 100% customer
reputation by December 2024. Self-efficacy theory can inform a recommendation for this
motivational need. The self-efficacy theory looks at pursuit and task attainment while the
individuals prioritize and structure their capabilities, self-regulation, organization, judgments,
and execution (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy theory is part of the broader social-cognitive
theory, founded on an agentic perspective and comprising three environmental influences:
imposed, constructed, and selected (Bandura, 2012).
145

The recommendation is to have Gallus International develop a customer reputation
mentoring project. A fundamental principle for this project is that in establishing a structured
mentoring (modeling) program for learning strategies, subject matter experts for each of the six
components of customer reputation for senior/mid-level leaders would improve their self-
efficacy (Urdan & Pajares, 2006).
When evaluating the impacts of efficacy among the senior/mid-level leadership team of
Gallus International, they should understand how self-efficacy translates to collective efficacy
and the intercultural differences that influence it. Collective efficacy refers to a person’s
perception of their group’s ability to be productive and successful (Borgogni et al., 2011). A
leader can predict collective efficacy when facilitating the team in achieving their goals
(Borgogni et al., 2011). In reflecting on the agentic perspective to which a person can control the
environment in a team, it is essential to monitor the potential for lack of structure within the
leadership or the groups.
Research has shown that individual trust does not necessarily increase the contribution of
perceived value from the collectivistic lens but strengthens the team identity and potential for a
positive collective outcome (De Cremer & van Dijk, 2002). The collectivistic team members
drive the value of being within a group and do not seek autonomy as part of their value paradigm
(Clark et al., 2004). Senior/mid-level leaders have inherent challenges in understanding efficacy
when team members come from collectivistic and individualistic cultures. A collectivistic culture
will focus on the whole (team or organization). At the same time, individualism can concentrate
on personal goals, more so, autonomy within the group, not that of the more significant team
(Savu et al., 2017). Cultural intelligence, or exploring a multinational company’s cultural
influences, can provide visibility to an organization’s self and collective efficacy (Van Dyne et
146

al., 2012). Finally, the recommendation of motivational modeling within a mastery context can
provide examples of successful performance orientation with few conflicts or resource
constraints. Conversely, the coping modeling form of teaching and learning can elucidate a
demonstration of conflict management, more so overcoming obstacles under duress, requiring
leadership to mitigate that risk (Bandura, 1997).
Organizational Recommendations
The research analysis revealed that senior/mid-level leaders demonstrated needs in four
organizational influences. Two influences fell into the organizational model construct, and two
into the organizational setting construct. Researchers indicate it is an organizational culture that
shapes and predicts if there may be performance gaps (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Clark
and Estes (Clark et al., 2004) referred to culture as the preeminent energy defining a person’s
knowledge of an organization while influencing beliefs, emotions, processes, values, and goal
orientation.
Researcher Hofstede (Hofstede, 1984) defined culture as “the collective programming of
the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (p.51). Taking
organizational culture definition one step further, we can look at two contributing factors:
cultural settings and cultural models (Goldenberg et al., 2001). The recommended strategies for
the identified organizational needs provide research-proven methods for closing the performance
gap of senior/mid-level leaders achieving 100% customer reputation. Theoretical principles
identified for the organizational needs support the recommendations.

147

Cultural Setting: Strengthening the Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Aptitude for Aligning the
Active Organizational Culture and Its Stated Culture
Two influences for the cultural setting construct were determined to be a need. Each
influence had survey results, interview findings, and artifacts analysis consistent with
determining cultural settings as a need. The two cultural setting influences pertain to Gallus
International’s senior/mid-level leaders’ ability to align the active culture with the organization’s
stated culture and encompass the perspectives of key stakeholders that are part of improving
customer reputation. The research results for the organizational construct of culture setting
synthesize the two influences with recommended theories and principles. The recommendation
provides a conduit for closing the performance gap for the senior/mid-level leaders to achieve a
100% customer reputation.
In understanding how the cultural settings’ influence impacts the senior/mid-level leaders
of Gallus International, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) have proposed that an opportunity
arises from a team’s alignment for the task value they provide. Cultural settings may encompass
multinational hybrid work schedules, customer manufacturing locations, the manufacturing shop
floor, and business travel. Gallus International is a family-owned company with a legacy
extending over 200 years; the multinational leadership needs transparent cognizance of the
company’s interrelatedness to the community (Chávez et al., 2008). The recommendation for
improving cultural settings for the senior/mid-level leaders of Gallus International is to create a
positive emotional environment that supports motivation and organizational change (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Organizational change to improve customer reputation requires senior/mid-level
leaders to mobilize multiple resources to attain the performance goal. The recommendation is to
create digital tools that enable agile and timely communication of the customer reputation
148

scorecard. A digital strategy in delivering a balanced scorecard allows stakeholder calibration of
the vision and results. The mobile phone application, intranet web page, and monthly all-hands
meeting are current opportunities for Gallus International platforms.
Culture-assessment processes are vital for the inside stakeholders who need an
understanding of the culture (Schein, 2016). To ensure that leaders create a sense of belonging
and credibility, leaders must focus on four key attributes: hope, stability, compassion, and trust
(Rath & Conchie, n.d.). When an organizational setting fosters trust, trust increases confidence in
organizational goodwill, reduces anxiety about exploitation, and fortifies group identity (De
Cremer & van Dijk, 2002). Senior/mid-level leaders of Gallus International must ensure a
cultural setting for the company's vision compared to the stage the team works within.
Cultural Models: Enriching the Senior/Mid-Level Leaders ’ Perception of the Organization ’s
Acceptance and Commitment to Cultural Change in Customer Reputation Improvement
Two influences for the cultural model construct were determined to be a need. Each
influence had survey results, interview findings, and artifacts analysis consistent with
determining cultural models as a need. The two cultural model influences pertain to Gallus
International’s senior/mid-level leaders’ perception of the organization’s commitment to change
and confidence and trust in improving customer reputation.
The research results for the organizational construct of the cultural model synthesize the
two influences with recommended theories and principles. People come to an organization
shaped by their family, education, and previous work experiences that, in turn, translate to what
is acceptable according to individuals or an organization’s beliefs and standards (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). In cultural models, the set of values of a group forms a positional perspective and
interprets experiences (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The key for the Gallus International
149

senior/mid-level leaders is to focus on improving the perception of the organization’s confidence
and trust in its commitment to enhancing customer reputation. Focusing on the organization’s
performance goal is vital instead of changing its cultural model (Schein, 2016). The
recommendation is to provide a structured problem-solving process encompassing the
organization’s multiple functions and hierarchical layers and establish a systematic focus for
resolution. Using systemic problem-solving tools that are data-driven and inclusive creates an
environment where it is safe to include voices from multiple perspectives. If the organization
establishes a culture where barriers are evaluated in a structured problem-solving process,
removing an unconscious performance-avoidance mindset, the team can focus on achieving
100% customer reputation. As an organization brings effective leadership and communication to
its culture, its competitive advantage increases with the company’s performance (Byrne &
Bradley, 2007).
Organizational commitment binds people to a company and has three conjoining
mindsets: affective attachment, the perceived cost to leave, and the obligation to remain (Meyer
et al., 2004). When group identity is solid and challenging, outcomes may improve team
responsibility and accountability, which can improve the mindset to achieve group goals (Turner
et al., 1984). Further research shows that individual goals (that focus on individual performance)
can undermine group performance for interdependent outcomes/goals.
In contrast, group-centric goals (maximizing individual contribution to the group)
improve group performance (Kleingeld et al., 2011). Finally, organizational change is only
successful if it responds to external cues or merely reacts to information (lagging indicators).
There must be an internal system for agreement, alignment, and accountability of the accord
(Elmore, 2002). At its core, accountability in an organization is about trust (Ebrahim, 2016).
150

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
In 1954, a doctoral student’s dissertation proposed four operative words used as
distinctive levels in training evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (J. D.
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on his interpretation of the work of industrial-
organizational psychologist Raymond Katzell. That doctoral student, now known as Dr. Donald
Kirkpatrick, the creator of the Kirkpatrick model, developed a systematic approach that allowed
organizations a pragmatic approach to evaluating training and development. Years later, Dr.
Donald Kirkpatrick, his son, and his daughter-in-law formulated the new world Kirkpatrick
model. The next phase of this framework highlights that the end of the process is not when
instructional design effectiveness through results is determined; it should be considered in the
beginning (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As a result, the integrated implementation and
evaluation plan prescribed for Gallus International and its senior/mid-level leadership team has
the organizational goal of 100% customer reputation and outcome.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan is founded under J. D. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level evaluation model as framed in the new world Kirkpatrick model.
Four distinctive levels describe the new world model: reactions, learning, behavior, and results.
The philosophy is to start with Level 4, the results element; the mindset reflects that the end
should be the starting point (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The focus on increasing
accountability for the organization informs the development of training and education around the
desired results or outcomes. The Kirkpatrick model considers the goal and vision of the
organization as a driver for the desired outcomes. As demonstrated in the model’s founding
principles, value creation precedes value industrialization; one such indicator of value creation is
151

the return on expectations (ROE; J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Figure 17 visualizes
their interaction and relationship. The four levels are Level 4, based on results, defined as the
degree to which the targeted outcomes occur as a benefit of the training and education; Level 3,
based on behavior, defined as the degree to which individuals apply the knowledge derived from
the activity at the workplace; Level 2, based on learning, defined as the degree to which
individuals build confidence, develop commitment, improve attitude, and acquire knowledge
based on their training; and Level 1, based on reaction, defined as the degree to which
individuals feel the training, education, and learning have impacted their engagement to their
workplace (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Figure 17
Kirkpatrick’s Interaction Model for the Four Levels of Learning

Note. From Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation by J. D., Kirkpatrick & W. K.
Kirkpatrick, 2016. Association for Talent Development. Copyright 2016 by Association for
Talent Development. Used with permission.

152

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The organization’s performance problem focused on the efficacy of the senior/mid-level
leadership team in evaluating and achieving 100% customer reputation. Efficacy, or the
effectiveness and productivity of a person or group, is related to motivation and trust (Bandura,
2000). Leaders must build a workplace culture within an organization that allows people to
create and expand their capabilities (Senge, 1990).
A positive work environment transforms job satisfaction into a high-performance team
(C. A. Grant et al., 2013). Efficacy can be an organizational problem. The organizational impact
is vital to understand as highly effective teams produce results that can meet 100% customer
reputation while underperforming teams fail. The underperformance in functional areas and
facilities has led to decreased employee engagement, revenue loss, and reputation damage. The
team’s performance gap has resulted in zero percent of budget attainment and only a 13%
improvement in customer satisfaction. There needs to be an organizational metric for customer
reputation.
The organization’s vision is to be a best-in-class global leader for automotive structures.
Gallus International, a family-owned and financially independent company, is a performance-
oriented organization targeting the highest customer service levels. The organization is
committed to developing its employees by supporting their health and satisfaction, aiming for
sustainability and continued profitable growth. The Gallus International organization will
achieve a score of 100% customer reputation by December 2024. By November 2023, the Gallus
International senior/mid-level leadership team will create a glide path to align the
functional/corporate management goals and objectives to the customer reputation metrics and
targeted goals.
153

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The business results in an organization demonstrate to stakeholders that they cannot rely
upon only knowledge transfer through training; Kirkpatrick described organizational results as
an intentional outcome produced through accountability, support, and training (p.61). The
founding principles of Kirkpatrick state that stakeholders must acknowledge the business
partnership required to create value in the company’s bottom line (J. D. Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evident and measurable proof of value adds a clear view of what success will
look like for Gallus International, coming through agreed-upon leading indicators. Leading
indicators are measures that provide insight into an organization’s future performance and are
used to inform strategic decision-making. They are a crucial tool for organizations that want to
stay ahead of the curve and achieve long-term success. A metaphor within the context of
automotive manufacturing compares how leading and lagging indicators provide information to
stakeholders. A vehicle driver (Gallus stakeholders) looking into the rearview mirror of elements
behind them is a lagging indicator.
In contrast, a leading indicator is what the driver predicts as required to reach the
destination fuel level, the mileage required, preventative maintenance, inspection checks, and tire
pressure. In research methodology, J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that critical
behaviors are paramount in the leading measurement indicators and short-term observation
accuracy. The why of training performance is the essence of Level 4; why is the result? The
performance outcome of 100% customer reputation ensures the Gallus International stakeholders
that the organizational goal of 100% customer reputation demonstrates value. Leading indicators,
both internal and external, help to build confidence that the critical behaviors are progressing and
motivate team members with incremental wins. This study identified internal indicators that
154

drive outcomes for improved quality excellence, functional compliance, and employee
satisfaction. The external indicators ensure that Gallus International is on track for 100%
customer reputation targets and increased market position in sustainability, customer, and market
response. Table 19 shows the internal and external indicators, methods, and metrics proposed to
the stakeholder team.
Table 19
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
It increased customer
reputation.
Rankings on the balanced
scorecard.
Results of audits conducted by
senior/mid-level leaders.
It increased its
sustainability position.
Rankings on sustainability
matrix.
Results of audits on
sustainability by senior/mid-
level leaders.
Increase in customer
response.
Sales dollar turnover and quote
for business.
Monthly sales capital report
review by senior-mid-level
leaders.
Increase in market
response.
Customer supply chain awards. Monthly business report review
of social media profiles and
external awards.
Internal outcomes
They have improved
quality excellence.
The six pillars of the quality
excellence program drive
actions for audit result
rankings.
Results of an audit conducted
by senior/mid-level managers.
It improved functional
compliance.
Scoring on the problem-solving
tool and audit findings.
Results of monthly business
review by senior/mid-level
leaders.
It improved employee
satisfaction.
Employee performance review
feedback and reduced
attrition.
Results of performance review
data and employee turnover
by senior/mid-level leaders.

Level 3 Behavior
A critical level of evaluation within the new world Kirkpatrick model lies at Level 3
Behavior. Accountability and critical behaviors are deemed the “missing link in moving from
155

learning to results” (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 49). Training does not produce the
(ROE or the measurable organizational results stakeholders value (J. D. Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 49). A leadership team owns the behaviors that foster collaboration,
commitment, and unity to create a collective mindset that functions in harmony (Leinwand et al.,
2022). Leaders, like the Gallus International stakeholders, are responsible for creating
expectations for performance and transformation; however, “if you only perform but do not
transform, you have no future” (Leinwand et al., 2022, p. 66).
Level 3 Behavior is defined by how much learning team members apply to their role
after training while also bringing healthy disruption (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.
49). Disruption is an organizational catalyst for innovation, while in contrast, comfort and
complacency become barriers (Henman, 2021). A disruptive paradigm shift leads to the
importance of defining critical behaviors that frame an expectation for performance of 100%
compliance. Accountability for mission-critical outcomes reduces the threat of historical
workplace behaviors driven by external forces (Jones, 2001). The accountability binary and its
relationship with external forces bring into view the influence of personal and organizational
ethics. Ethics are standards in which market accountability shares a relationship (M. Dubnick,
2005).
Critical Behaviors
The comprehensive, continuous monitoring of specific, observable, and measurable
behaviors (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) reduces the threat of divergent objectives,
information asymmetry, and adverse goal selection (Jones, 2001). Gallus International’s
performance outcome requires that the organizational goal of 100% customer reputation cascade
similarly to an individual’s performance mindset. With a few critical behaviors performed by
156

team members reliably, the potential for goal misalignment is reduced and may positively affect
organizational performance and demonstrate bottom-line value (Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996).
Successful implementation of recommendations designates those responsible for creating
internal and external outcomes while specifying when, where, and how they will occur. When
methods define a situational context and behavior is directed toward an expected result, people
feel a level of commitment (Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996). As noted, J. D. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 (2016) for behavior is the point of organizational disruption. Critical
behaviors and required drivers of change should follow criteria that are specific, measurable,
achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART; J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To avoid
ambivalence toward organizational change, it is critical to specify the few critical behaviors that
can characterize the achievement of organizational success (Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996).
In this study, the Gallus International stakeholders of focus are the senior/mid-level
leadership team. There are four critical behaviors defined. First, senior/mid-level leaders will
define strategic goals for the six components of customer reputation that link to functional
objectives and expectations for next-level leaders and communicate them with a customer
reputation concept map. Second, the senior/mid-level leaders will create an internal Gallus
Organizational Excellence (GOE) program to measure the maturity of processes and people’s
knowledge across six pillars: people and culture, process and product development, production
and delivery, supplier excellence, sustainability, and digitalization. Third, the senior/mid-level
leaders will develop a customer reputation-balanced scorecard system based on six components:
triple bottom line, customer satisfaction, corporate social responsibility, brand loyalty, market
uniqueness, and organizational culture. Fourth, the senior/mid-level leaders will establish a
Gallus Organizational Appreciation (GOA) program to provide next-level functional leaders
157

structure for individual and team appreciation, incentivization, and rewards weighted in skill
mastery and performance. Table 20 shows the four critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and
timing defined to maximize the value of what is learned and applied by the senior/mid-level
leaders of Gallus International.

Table 20
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behaviors Metrics
Methods
Timing
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level
leaders will establish
annual strategic
goals for the six
components of
customer reputation
that link to
functional objectives
and expectations for
next-level leaders
and communicate
them with a
customer reputation
concept map.
The number of annual
strategic goals
linked to functional
next-level leaders’
objectives focused
on the components
of customer
reputation and a key
process indicator of
percent achievement
for the leader’s
purposes.
The GI leadership
team will review the
annual individual
goals and objectives
quarterly according
to the customer
reputation concept
map and the KPIs
for location-specific
team charters
established for
functional leaders
during a people and
culture roundtable
conference.
Quarterly
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level
leaders will create an
internal GOE
program (Gallus et
al.) to measure the
maturity of
processes and
people’s knowledge
across six pillars:
people and culture,
process and product
development,
production and
delivery, supplier
The critical process
indicators measured
against expected
targets defined for
each of the six
pillars and an
aggregate percentage
achievement (0-
100%) score for the
GOE program by
location
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level and
next-level functional
leaders will conduct
audits and
summarize reporting
in a company
intranet dashboard
and a GOE
infographic
communicated
digitally and in
person through
company town hall
meetings.
Quarterly
158

Critical behaviors Metrics
Methods
Timing
excellence,
sustainability, and
digitalization.
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level
leaders will develop a
customer reputation-
balanced scorecard
system based on six
components: triple
bottom line, customer
satisfaction, corporate
social responsibility,
brand loyalty, market
uniqueness, and
organizational culture.
The critical process
indicators are
measured against
expected targets for
each customer
reputation
component and an
aggregated GI Index
(weighted KPIs for
the six components
0-100%).
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level
leaders and next-
level functional
leaders will assign
process owners to
each of the six
customer reputation
components
responsible for
assessing and
summarizing KPIs
reporting them in a
Gallus executive
team customer
reputation
roundtable,
reflective feedback
sessions, and in-
person company
lunch forums.
Monthly
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level
leaders will establish
a G.O.A. program
(Gallus et al.) to
provide next-level
functional leaders
structure for
individual and team
appreciation,
incentivization, and
rewards are
weighted in skill
mastery and
performance.
The number of
appreciation
recommendations,
percentage of
financial awards,
and several
incentivizing
marketing articles
shared and given
between teams and
across functions:
artificial intelligence
analytics for the
viewing, sharing,
and interacting
social media
platforms for G.O.A.
communications.
The Gallus
International
senior/mid-level
leaders will review
the G.O.A. program
tool utilization
across next-level
functions and
performance
evaluation feedback
in People & Culture
roundtable
conferences and
regional business
review meetings.
Monthly

159

Required Drivers
When understanding human performance improvement, behavior, effort, and activities
are the means to an end for accomplishments, results, and outcomes (Rothwell et al., 2012). As
such, integrating drivers that require the application of learning in a real-time context provides
insight into what performance impact the training creates (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The new world Kirkpatrick model (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) describes how
a framework of required drivers reinforces, monitors, encourages and rewards critical behaviors
within the job environment. The organizational climate may witness workforce behaviors
predicated on tacit knowledge (Jones, 2001). Tacit knowledge is a potential barrier that may
threaten a learning organization’s culture when divergent objectives, information asymmetry,
and adverse selection challenge personal decision-making.
As an organization’s maturity and learning evolve, accountability in the marketplace is a
competitive advantage. “At its core, accountability is about trust” (Ebrahim, 2016). The external
accountability forces that influence an organization may evolve incrementally and silently. The
accountability binary and its relationship with external forces highlight the importance of ethics
(Dubnick, 2007). A learning organization can leverage building customer reputation internally
and externally.
Moreover, it can foster a workplace setting built on trust. Tactical and learning needs
establish the required driver’s effectiveness, highlighting the importance of accountability.
Figure 18 highlights three types of interactions in an account-giving relationship: reporting,
mitigating, and reframing (M. Dubnick, 2005). As a process, the accountability relationships
support the critical behavior methodology through J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
reinforcement, monitoring, encouragement, and reward systematic.
160

In a reporting relationship, the account giver, or agent, provides information to the
principal. Within the Gallus International (GI) implementation plan, compliance with measurable
and specific goals provides information to gauge performance based on the principal’s
expectations. The reporting account-giving process supports the monitoring and reinforcing
elements of required drivers. M. Dubnick (2005) described the mitigating relationship between a
principal and agent as a peer-based interaction that “involves significant input from the account-
giving agent who is expected to respond to an implicitly or explicitly awkward or untoward
situation for which he or she is considered responsible (in whole or part) by the principal” (p. 9).
The mitigating relationship is attributable to unclear or ambiguous drivers or unsuccessful
training within the GI implementation plan context. As a process to support J. D. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) required drivers, the mitigating relationship supports reinforcement and
reward elements. M. Dubnick (2005) brings into focus the reframing relationship as an
opportunity for the agent to evolve into an “account maker with a purpose” (p. 9). The reframing
relationship can highlight the potential wherein the organization experiences transformation as a
learning culture. The account giver process of reframing supports the rewarding, encouraging,
and reinforcement elements of J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model. Reframing
continuous feedback, learning, and growth furthers a cultural haven for motivation, innovation,
and agility at GI.

161

Figure 18
Forms of Account-Giving Relationships

Note. From “Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms” by
M Dubnick, 2005, Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.
People performing the same tasks may conceptualize what they are doing in entirely
different ways despite being trained the same and executing it the same way (Gollwitzer &
Bargh, 1996, p. 261). Resources such as job standards, data, objectives reviews, coaching,
mentoring, and performance-based compensation may provide a mechanism for recognizing
positive effort and execution to ensure consistency in applying what is learned (J. D. Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Motivation for what people believe is essential to value contribution is
vital to the impact of critical drivers. Table 21 references the recommendations for drivers to
support critical behaviors that achieve 100% customer reputation at GI.
Table 21
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Gallus International (GI) global executive team
establishes an agenda for shareholder review of global
customer reputation components through a customer
reputation dashboard.
Annually 1,2,3,4
GI global executive team establishes an agenda for
shareholder review of global goals, regional goals, and
plant goals alignment in a company dashboard.
Quarterly 1,2,3,4
162

Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
GI global executive team establishes an agenda for the
monthly business review KPIs, prioritizing customer
reputation components and goals
alignment/achievement as a second order of business
after the EBIT review.
Monthly 1,2,3,4
GI global executive team establishes a research-based
appreciation, reward, and appreciation system that
aligns with the organization’s vision, goals, and
objectives to balance organizational performance, skill
mastery, and sustainability.
Annually 1,2,3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders develop a motivational values
system incorporating cultural intelligence, significant
five personality assessments, and 360 feedback
assessments to communicate transparency with
horizontal and vertical networks and future actions as
part of team development.
Annually 1,4
Senior/mid-level leaders’ completion of a self-directed
learning module of concepts that provide the cultural
relatedness for the Big Five personality assessment,
Cultural Intelligence assessment, and 360 feedback
assessment to communicate transparency and team
development, communication as it relates to intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation.
Bi-annually 2,4
Senior/mid-level leaders’ completion of a self-directed
learning module of concepts for identifying the plant-
level goals that connect to the strategic cross-functional
goals for customer reputation.
Annually 1,2,3
Senior/mid-level leaders create a visual concept map that
shows the linkages of the six customer reputation
components with the cross-functional team’s business
indicators, goals, and objectives.
Review
annually
1,2,3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders provide job aids in connection
with the Big Five personality assessment, the Cultural
Intelligence assessment, and a 360 Feedback
assessment to communicate transparency, development,
and communication related to intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.
Review
annually

4
Senior/mid-level leaders provide job aids in self-reflective
activities of skip-level meetings, brown-bag lunch with
a leader meeting, and one-on-one feedback.
Review
annually

3,4
3,4
163

Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
Senior/mid-level leaders provide job aids in self-reflective
activities of town hall meetings at a plant level,
corporate level, and regional level.
Review
annually

Senior/mid-level leaders provide job aids in systematic
problem-solving, lessons learned, read-across, and best
practice methodology for all business functions.
Review
annually

2,3,4
Encouraging
GI global executive team accomplishes the scheduled
organizational reviews of customer reputation
component reviews and strategic agility shifts through
the customer reputation scorecard and communicates
results.
Bi-annually 1,2,3,4
GI global executive team completes and communicates
the expectations for the shareholder review of global,
regional, and plant goals alignment in a company
dashboard.
Annually 1,2,3,4
GI global executive team supports the prioritization of
monthly business review KPIs, prioritizing customer
reputation components, team learning goals, and how
they relate to operational goals alignment/achievement.
Monthly 1,2,3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders appreciate and recognize leaders,
plant team members, catch of the day, customer
incident saves, team huddles, “what did I learn?”
opportunities, and “what am I doing this week?”
possibilities. These cross-functional goal-post
accomplishments connect to KPIs, learning, and
customer reputation objectives.
Daily 3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders communicate customer
scorecard index metrics, business review metrics,
lessons learned, how the metrics connect to the plant,
regional, and corporate team members- what the
development % of accomplishment is for the team
members.

Quarterly

1,2,4
Senior/mid-level leaders evaluate the effectiveness of the
training programs, establish task forces to improve
training programs, and provide periodic communication
on the apprenticeship and mentoring programs to
ensure knowledge transfer of customer reputation
components, team growth, motivation, and cultural
Quarterly 3,4
164

Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
impacts to the business strategically are relatable to the
organization.
Rewarding
Senior/mid-level leaders provide communication for the
achievement of self-directed training completion as a %
per plant, region, and globally; special recognition for
self-directed training accomplishment as it ties to
customer reputation scorecard metrics.
Quarterly 1,2
Senior/mid-level leaders provide positive affirmation for
completing the big five personality assessment, Cultural
Intelligence assessment, and 360 feedback assessment
to trust, vulnerability, and transparency for the
leadership motivation.
Annually 3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders establish a GOA program that
details types of reward, appreciation, and recognition
elements that are balanced in organizational
performance and skill mastery-this will be location,
regionally, and globally initiated and communicated.
Weekly 3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders provide digital communication
of cross-functional SMART goals and how they relate
to the 1-year/3-year/5-year strategic plan for intrinsic
and extrinsic metrics.
Quarterly 1,2,3,4
GI global executive team communicates the Top 3
accomplishments and Top 3 opportunities for learning
within the multi-level team based on the research-based
appreciation, reward, and appreciation system that
aligns with the organization’s vision, goals, and
objectives for a balance of organizational performance,
skill mastery, and sustainability.
Bi-annually 3,4
Monitoring
Senior/mid-level leaders conduct surveys of the cross-
functional team to evaluate the understanding of
customer reputation components, goals, objectives, and
skill mastery.
Bi-annually 1,2,3,4
Senior/mid-level leaders develop a People & Culture
Roundtable to evaluate goals and objectives from a
Weekly 1,3,4
165

Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
customer reputation concept map and location-specific
team charter.
Senior/mid-level leaders will conduct audits of the GOE
program based on six pillars of cross-functional internal
targets.
Quarterly 2,4
According to the GOA program, senior/mid-level leaders
evaluate the percentage of awards, incentives,
recognition, and appreciation initiatives.
Quarterly 2,4
Senior/mid-level leaders will evaluate the KPIs for the six
customer reputation components and the aggregate
customer reputation index (CRI).
Monthly 1,2,3
Senior/mid-level leaders implement a structured customer
reputation dashboard digital “huddle” for location,
regional, and global team members to evaluate KPIs'
trends and agility measures.
Weekly 1,2,3,4

Organizational Support
The place to initiate an organization’s transformation begins with stakeholders at the GI
executive level. As a foundation for the organizational change implementation plan, Tables 20
and 21 detail the critical behaviors and required drivers. The executive-level leadership must
have a clear and concise vision of where they want to be as an organization while being honest
and truthful about the current state. The delta between a company’s organizational vision and
actual reality is known as creative tension (Senge, 1990). Creative tension’s motivation for
change modulates the basis of an intrinsic driver focusing on the goal, while the reactive-state
response drives extrinsic motivation with a problem-solving focus (Senge, 1990). A company’s
vision influences differentiation, innovation, and competitive advantage through generative
learning within an organizational culture (Abdi et al., 2018). Organizations are complex,
surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous ecosystems that challenge the current state in which the
predictions of people, competition, technology, strategy, goal alignment, and underlying
166

stressors for the environment in which they exist (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The value proposition
the GI executive leaders define is the expected result from the training and implementation plan
and achieving 100% customer reputation. The ROE supported by stakeholders will require cross-
functional consensus for observable leading indicators that reflect resource commitment (J. D.
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Gallus International executive leaders must allocate adequate
resources for time, money, and people to achieve the performance outcome effectively.
J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) shared insights for sustaining program success,
noting that the execution of programs must be defined and monitored for support in team
learning, training, and development. The disruption of organizational change can lead to
politically driven behavior in the workforce (Neck et al., 2016). Political skill, or the ability to
influence others for the good of organizational change, must be closely monitored during weekly
roundtables and quarterly audits by the GI leaders (Neck et al., 2016). Cognizant disruptors and
their needed resources (financial, people, time.) may inadvertently starve a rogue idea for
innovation due to prioritization of the known and comfortable concepts already institutionalized
(Christensen et al., n.d.). The rogue concepts of today may be the innovative disruptors of
tomorrow.
Market complexity, challenging organizational hierarchy, and ambivalence to the
interaction of short-term and long-term goals create “blind spots” that impact customer
reputation expectations and shareholders’ value-add needs (Bolman & Deal, 2017). An
organization’s executive team identifies roles to mold the future, places the right team members
in those roles, and focuses on behaviors and drivers for transformation while nurturing an
environment for ownership and accountability (Leinwand et al., 2022). The executive leader’s
support of appreciation programs and practical goal setting will realize the responsibility of
167

critical behaviors. The executive team is one of GI’s many stakeholder groups encompassing
interdependent relationships with senior/mid-level leaders, employees, competitors, suppliers,
and customers. The stakeholders’ positionality, perception, and status create a platform where
formal and informal roles simultaneously influence change (Lewis, 2019). To close a
motivational gap, the executive leaders of GI will provide the financial resources required in
annual budgets to complete the personality and competing values assessments with a
performance target of 100% completion. The top three areas participants want to focus on for
individual improvement opportunities are reviewed in a monthly collaboration with a human
resource coach to develop motivational strategies.
The leadership team will require vigilance to understand business and family-centric
socioemotional goals that could result in tensions impacting the stakeholder attributes of power,
legitimacy, and urgency (Mitchell et al., 2011). During organizational change, traditionalists and
innovators can generate conflict that isolates, silences, and stagnates the intervention (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). Gallus International is a family-owned organization, and as such, the roots of
scaffolded structures, intertwined systems, and deep attachment to historical processes may
present an organizational gap (Rueda, 2011b). The CEO will need to champion the
implementation project to model the critical importance of the conscious change and
transformation of the organizational culture (Anderson & Anderson, 2010). The executive
stakeholder team must create trust and accountability through interactions with the GI people
across each level via communication of cross-functional SMART goals and how they relate to
the strategic plan for intrinsic and extrinsic motivational metrics.
Confidence and commitment were added to the new world Kirkpatrick model (J. D.
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to close potential gaps between learning and behavior. The
168

learning components of confidence and commitment create an opportunity for teams to mitigate
the cycle of waste that organizations can experience when performance fails to meet expectations
despite the required knowledge and skills being present (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The executive leaders of GI are responsible for implementing the needed drivers outlined in
Table 21 to support the critical behaviors in Table 20. When a training program is the only
element relied upon to improve job performance, an organization could expect a 15%
implementation rate, leaving an 85% opportunity to achieve the ROE (Brinkerhoff, 2006). Clark
and Estes (2008) posited that when the executive levels of an organization support the setting,
translating, and communicating business goals, it creates an optimal environment for
performance improvement. Clear and concise performance objectives translate into the primary
business goal of 100% customer reputation. To close a knowledge gap, the executive team
establishes monthly business review targets of 90% for customer reputation components KPIs
and team learning goals while supporting the senior/mid-level leaders with weekly coaching and
mentoring time to reflect on improving performance, skill mastery and continuous improvement.
Figure 19 visualizes a framework for the impacts of an organizational environment that is
supportive compared to an environment that is not supportive. As efficacy and purpose connect
to value, while the organization provides a supportive environment, the person is motivated
(Ambrose et al., 2010). Positive human performance outcomes include job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, improved task performance, and reduced turnover when positive
attitudes and behaviors are present (Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2018).

169

Figure 19
Interactive Effects of Environment, Efficacy, and Value on Motivation

Note. From How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching by S. A.
Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman, 2010. John Wiley &
Sons. Copyright 2010 by John Wiley & Sons. Used with permission.
Level 2: Learning
A fundamental principle of learning is based on a process approach mindset that
catalyzes change because of one’s experience (Ambrose et al., 2010). A learning organization’s
leaders are architects, coaches, teachers, and stewards. Leaders are responsible for building a
supportive environment where a shared vision challenges current paradigms, fosters systemic
thinking, and people continually expand their capabilities (Senge, 1990). As J. D. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) defined, learning is the degree to which people acquire the knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment as intended by their participation (p.10). J. D.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) indicated that participants understand and acknowledge
certain information with the phrase “I know it.” Also, the skill demonstrated by people who
170

share that they recognize how to perform specific tasks when communicating with the words, “I
can do it now.” While adaptive organizations may focus on organizational performance issues
such as a knowledge or skill deficit, J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that a
lack of motivation or other environmental forces may impact underperformance.
Further, “I believe it will be worthwhile” characterizes a motivated employee, while “I
believe it will be worthwhile” demonstrates engagement in their current activity. The confidence
to perform, the belief that a person can execute what they learned from the training, is reflected
in phrases like “I think I can do it on the job.” People strive to control and influence events to
realize their desired goal better while mitigating undesired results (Bandura, 1997). “I will do it
on the job” indicates a demonstration of commitment and is defined as “the degree to which
learners intend to apply the knowledge and skills learned during training” (J. D. Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 47).
As the GI executive leadership supports the expansion of learning and the growth of
knowledge, people’s ability to predict outcomes and realize stakeholder expectations is enhanced
by their ability to manage them effectively (Bandura, 1997). Figure 20 below relays an
infographic for the interrelatedness of the KMO elements from Clark and Estes’s gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008) through four quadrants of conscious change. Mindset includes values and
beliefs; behavior encompasses work styles and skills; culture brings norms and climate, while
systems have structures and processes (Anderson & Anderson, 2010). An essential visualization
of the transformation process through this model is that change must focus on the organization
and the individual, the relationships, the team, and the marketplace- these are key for the
components of customer reputation management.

171

Figure 20
The Conscious Change Leader Accountability Model

Note. From Beyond Change Management: How to Achieve Breakthrough Results Through
Conscious Change Leadership by D. Anderson and L. A. Anderson, 2020. Copyright 2020 by
John Wiley & Sons. Used with permission.

Learning Goals
In an organizational setting, internal and external forces may conflict with the team’s
focus on achieving the needed ROE. As typical for strategic business planning, stakeholders may
find that setting performance outcome goals for themselves may not be as effective for a
marketplace competitor’s survival as setting specific learning goals (Noel & Latham, 2006) or
behaviors that lead to performance outcomes. People may employ undesirable strategies or
decision-making based on tacit knowledge when cognitive resources target performance
objectives and people are pressured for time or lack the requisite skills (Kanfer & Ackerman,
1989). Establishing specific learning goals that are challenging and connect to a person’s value-
add can address a suboptimal performance outcome (Noel & Latham, 2006). Recommendations
for the KMO gap analysis for achieving 100% customer reputation are the basis for the
172

stakeholder team’s success in the learning goals of industrialization. After this learning
intervention and program concludes, the senior/mid-level stakeholders will demonstrate the
following competencies:
• Identify the strategies of customer reputation components to goals and objectives to
support organizational performance improvement (factual knowledge).
• Describe the importance of building and maintaining customer reputation components
with the company strategy and business function framework)
• Apply the learning of “how” to concepts for the customer reputation components and
“when” the knowledge transfer takes place (procedural knowledge).
• Demonstrate the connection of factual, conceptual, procedural knowledge, and self-
reflection for the elements of customer reputation into continuous improvement
(metacognitive knowledge).
• Balance the goals and objectives based on performance orientation and skill mastery
(goal orientation).
• Set expectations of success in the execution of behaviors that contribute to improving
customer reputation (expectancy outcome).
• Attribute success or failure by understanding the team’s effort to enhance customer
reputation (attribution).
• Value the task, purpose, and consequence of building and maintaining customer
reputation (task value).
• Demonstrate confidence in implementing components that build and sustain customer
reputation (self-efficacy).
173

• Align the active organizational culture with the stated culture (organization, cultural
settings).
• Enrich the perception of the organization’s acceptance and commitment to change in
improving customer reputation (cultural models).
Program
Organizations shape market boundaries and their industrial environment while creating
strategies that challenge a preconception that competitive differentiation may result in a value-
cost tradeoff (Chan Kim & Mauborgne, 2017). Organizations that encapsulate a unique learning
mindset around the value-cost landscape (value-innovation) and incorporate diverse voices glean
the possibility for a new competitive advantage by institutionalizing a research-based learning
program compared to benchmarking their competition (B. Leavy, 2018). Chan Kim and
Mauborgne (2015) posited that companies that are unsuccessful in performance expectations
may focus on defeating the rival compared to the organizational innovations that create value.
Creating value and the cost of value is one of the concepts behind a blue ocean strategy
(Chan Kim & Mauborgne, 2015). Blue ocean strategy, where value-innovation enhances
performance outcomes (Yunus & Sijabat, 2021), and the interrelatedness of J. D. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Foundational Principle 4, which value creation takes place before the
realization of ROE is the foundation of GI’s learning and training program. Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis resulted in 11 recommendations to achieve the company’s performance goal
of attaining 100% customer reputation. Four knowledge, five motivation, and two organizational
constructs define the recommended learning framework for the training program. The activities,
outputs, and external/internal outcomes framed in the new world Kirkpatrick model’s (J. D.
174

Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) Level 2 (Table 20) support the four critical behaviors essential
for improved performance.
The organizational transformation from training programs to performance improvement
is predicated on organizational support, vision, growth, transparency, and commitment (Rothwell
et al., 2012). J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) shared that a comprehensive, continuous
performance monitoring and improvement system is the missing link to transforming learning
into organizational results. To strategically engrain the stakeholder’s commitment to the
organization’s expected performance outcome, the GI Discovery and Exploration Program
(GIDE, pronounced “gIEd”) provides implementation, monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging, and
rewarding methodology. The organizational perception for the acronym GIDE is essential.
Merriam-Webster defines (n.d.) “guide” as an implication of intimate knowledge of a direction
and its difficulties, risks, and potential to show the way while keeping to the course and
maneuvering correctly.
The GIDE program launch has a recommended 3-day offsite conference with an external
subject matter expert/coach and the stakeholder teams of executive leaders, senior/mid-level
leaders, and plant leadership. As part of the research recommendations, organizational leaders
and senior/mid-level leaders have been the primary stakeholder focus of the implementation
plan. However, the plant leadership teams are responsible for the measurement impact of the
bottom-line evaluation, and they must be part of a discovery and exploration training program to
ensure the sub-cultures of each location align with the expected organizational behavior (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
The external subject matter expert/training coach will need to be a neutral part of the
principal/agent relationship in the accountability binary to ensure GI's ownership environment
175

remains with the stakeholders across the organizational boundaries. A detailed orientation for the
subject matter expert/training coach will entail understanding the performance goal from the
executive leader’s perspective, the 11 recommendations for the research-driven gap analysis
elements from the senior/mid-level leader’s perspective, and the organization’s mission and
vision. Milestone commitments and clear communication pathways are vital to establishing trust
and confidence for the external coach to develop an authentic relationship with the GIDE team.
The logistical element of the location of the GIDE program is paramount for the
stakeholder’s perception of commitment to organizational change. The GIDE program roll-out
(foundational phase of overall organizational transformation) should require physical attendance
at an offsite location, providing an environment that encourages a reduction of external stressors
for mental effort while fostering a personal space for self-reflection and group team building.
The executive leadership commitment to a learning and development location aside from the
daily workplace provides an atmosphere to build both self and collective efficacy. Further, the
G.I.D.E training program should be held during the team’s typical work week to avoid conflicts
with life balance and personal commitments, showing respect to the organization’s team
members.
The GIDE program will consist of four learning and development modules, each aligning
with the desired learning goals that connect to the four theories of change logic maps for critical
behaviors (Figures 21 through 24). Each learning module will present an eight hour-block
training for a total training program of 32 hours. The learning modules will not require a
serialized approach to provide flexibility for the resources, trainers, and participants. The
timeframe for participants completing the program is three calendar months, targeting the 1st
quarter of the fiscal year. In creating a distinctive point of training completion, milestones for
176

critical behaviors will align with the organization’s budget year, thus evaluating measurable
value-add. Figure 21 shows the four recommended GIDE learning and training modules as an
overall implementation plan for learning and development.

Figure 21
Gallus International Discovery and Exploration 4-Phase Learning Program

An iterative training program allows the executive leadership team to adjust each section
based on the evaluations and results. As a learning organization, the results will provide data-
driven insight into the drivers or training concepts and how evaluation for the desired ROE
provides agility in the program design. Further, if additional learning and training designs need
consideration, a course correction can happen concisely and effectively based on the individual
outcome of each GIDE module.
177

To mitigate the risk of overwhelming the cognitive load for a participant, learning is
more effective when scaffolded to provide the best opportunity for a learner’s working memory
to be made available for future application in decisions from the long-term memory (Lacerenza
et al., 2017). Through a manageable module size, the participants are provided a sense of
accomplishment through incremental achievement without significantly impacting the team
members’ functional responsibilities in the workplace (Mayer, 2011). Finally, the training
methodology will encapsulate a triangulated approach encompassing information-based,
demonstration-based (modeling), and practical-based application delivery to ensure the desired
objectives and results of the learning goals are optimized for the participants (Lacerenza et al.,
2017).
Training coaches will communicate timely feedback and instill self-reflection
opportunities at the end of each learning session to check progress, adjust as needed, and link the
strategy to the desired performance outcome (Denler et al., 2014). Coaches will provide
immediate feedback for simple tasks, delayed feedback for complex tasks, and balance insights
for the learner’s strengths and challenges (Borgogni et al., 2011).
GIDE Learning Module 1. The theory of change logic map in Figure 22 depicts the
learning goals for factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and goal orientation (motivation)
that support the first critical behavior.

178

Figure 22
Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 1

An external instructional designer will create a learning program incorporating a
“gamification” element for teaching the infographics and concept maps for the customer
reputation components. Learners will interact with other stakeholders and a digitalized “avatar”
to rehearse, integrate, and reinforce desired behaviors (Mayer, 2011). Gamification creates an
entertaining and cognitively challenging environment for the participants to make mistakes,
restart the game when they occur, and establish a mental connection that failure is an opportunity
to continue learning (Aries et al., 2020). Gamification in this training module fosters autonomy
and skill mastery for growing entrepreneurship business function alignment for customer
reputation (Aries et al., 2020).
Gallus International participants will learn how to simulate the creation of pilot or model
projects to balance goals and objectives based on performance orientation and mastery of skills.
Learners will be presented with a training environment to model expected behaviors by applying
179

the customer reputation components to the business functions in various role-play scenarios
demonstrating the impact on organizational value (Denler et al., 2014). Further, by enabling an
opportunity for autonomy and mastery in the learners, applying a reverse classroom environment
provides the participants with an active ability to demonstrate knowledge transfer. The GIDE
coach will monitor the progress of the knowledge application and begin sharing information
about additional details for the components of customer reputation and its application to
performance before the subsequent module’s training sessions. A more profound understanding
can be seen in outcomes when the coach shares the expected procedures and facts required for
the organization’s performance goal of 100% customer reputation. The reverse classroom
concept enables the GI stakeholders to demonstrate active learning and improved return on
training investment (ROI). Participants will be able to encompass the idea of “storytelling” with
the dichotomous relationship of personal and professional values. They will create and model
“storytelling” for customer reputation strategies that contribute to building a balanced scorecard
for transparency and accountability. Storytelling will develop a community of learners in a
personal, comfortable, and safe environment for applying the learning (Pintrich et al., 2003). The
community will provide peer reflection, foster collaboration, and build the personal acumen for
accepting errors as opportunities when translating customer reputation components into balanced
scorecard metrics.
GIDE Learning Module 2. The theory of change logic map in Figure 23 depicts the
learning goals for procedural knowledge, expectancy outcome (motivation), task value
(motivation), and organizational cultural settings that support the second critical behavior.

180

Figure 23
Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 2

The GIDE program will implement a structured apprenticeship initiative where reciprocal
teaching and cooperative learning enable participants to identify the strategic impacts of
improving customer reputation components. The training complexity of the six customer
reputation components moves from simple concepts to more challenging applications to provide
the appropriate partnership and expertise for learning and performance success (Scott &
Palincsar, n.d.). An agreed-upon timeframe between the expert and apprentice will be determined
at the module’s commencement to assess what the learner can do, what they need assistance with
at the start and the potential for future growth related to the expected customer reputation
strategic outcomes.
An external instructional designer will create a learning program incorporating a
“gamification” element for teaching the infographic required to envisage a GI functional team
charter. Gamification provides an interactive way of explaining “why” the organization focuses
181

on customer reputation and asks the learner how each applicable decision furthers the mission
and commitment through a team charter (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). When connecting the
training purpose to an outcome that is in a tangible and accountable methodology, consistency in
“why” the vision relates to the “what” goals are and “how” objectives create the expected
outcome for customer reputation provide the conduit to a sense of belonging, or effectance.
Effectance in the gamification training context presents a relationship between the proposed team
charter for goal alignment for customer reputation and the learner’s perceived self-awareness of
the training outcome (Elliot et al., 2017).
An external cultural intelligence coach will provide ongoing learning for understanding
the Big Five personality assessments and the competing values framework. The coach will
coordinate learning what members of the GI team value through a traits and strengths analysis.
The cultural intelligence project matrix will present the relationships of each team member’s
personality and value framework assessment and highlight accountability regarding the tasks
required to achieve customer reputation. The knowledge transfer of what each team member
values improves trust and ownership to align the functions necessary for a positive return on
investment (ROI; Ammeter et al., 2004).
The program training will initiate a GIDE digitalization project encompassing a mobile
phone application, company intranet web page, social media site, and virtual monthly all-hands
meeting to communicate customer reputation-balanced scorecard trends. The digital knowledge-
sharing strategy for multiple stakeholders calibrates the vision and results, which translates to
improving motivation and sustainable organizational change. The company marketing and
human resource team will collect feedback from social media sites, blogs, and meetings and
182

present the comments with consequent activities as part of the digitalization project to encourage
a safe environment within the company’s cultural setting (Clark & Estes, 2008).
G.I.D.E Learning Module 3. The theory of change logic map in Figure 24 depicts the
learning goals for metacognitive knowledge, attribution (motivation), and task value (motivation)
that support the third critical behavior.
Figure 24
Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 3

The GIDE program will initiate three forums to ensure that multi-level stakeholders
provide the resources for individual reflection, collective reflection, and self-reflection. Skip-
level meetings will be scheduled quarterly between multiple stakeholder groups; the GI
executive leadership team will assimilate and review the feedback. Monthly lunches, called
Lunches for Exploration & Discovery (LED), will be held with six cross-functional team
members and a senior/mid-level leader. The LED forum creates an environment for group
reflection and knowledge sharing. The GI executive leadership team will assimilate and review
the LED feedback to assess any changes needed to the specific drivers selected.
183

A new required competence, self-reflection, will be part of the annual employee
development process. The team member will self-assess the objective criteria on a 5-point Likert
scale (rarely to frequently). The senior/mid-level leader will provide feedback on their
observations for the participant in the Likert scale and compare the results. Gaps and
opportunities for improvement are highlighted and documented as part of the continuous
improvement for strengthening knowledge to improve customer reputation.
The GOE program industrialization creates visibility for evaluating the effectiveness of
processes and effort applied by team members as a result of their knowledge to build customer
reputation. The GOE initiative encompasses six pillars of knowledge management and critical
operations: people and culture, process and product development, production and delivery,
supplier excellence, and sustainability. Quarterly audits conducted by senior/mid-level leaders
and cross-functional team members provide quantifiable feedback identifying the strengths and
opportunities for learning based on the impact of the person or team’s effort (Pintrich et al.,
2003). The GOE data shared through town hall meetings and the digital media project allows
employees to choose what additional learning or skills they want to utilize to enhance customer
reputation.
GIDE Learning Module 4. The theory of change logic map in Figure 25 depicts the
learning goals for goal orientation (motivation), self-efficacy (motivation), and organizational
culture models that support the fourth critical behavior.

184

Figure 25
Theory of Change Logic Map for Critical Behavior 4

A mentoring and modeling framework is a training principle of the G.I.D.E program. The
modeling framework will establish a path to personal and collective efficacy for the six
components of customer reputation. The modeling program design will entail a 6-month
commitment to the group project and achieving the goals. Two days will be allowed as a
resource commitment for the workshop, allowing travel and activities critical to developing
relationships. There is a limit of six partnerships per session, with each mentor a designated
subject matter expert in the components of customer reputation. There is a team-building dinner
for the mentees/mentors, a signed project charter for their commitment to the learning goals, an
orientation to the organization’s dedicated intranet site for sharing knowledge and feedback, and
an agreed method of accountability, ownership, and reinforcing each other (Tuckman &
Kennedy, 2009). During an evening event, the small team partners will work together on an
assigned escape room challenge to build trust and instill positivity in strategic planning and
185

critical thinking. Before departing the two-day workshop, an external consultant will lead an
innovation lab to encourage creativity, brainstorming, and a culture of collaboration.
Schein (2016) states that focusing on the organization’s performance goal is vital instead
of changing its cultural model. GI’s senior/mid-level leadership team developed a systematic
approach to problem-solving across the organization’s functions for a disciplined methodology
that fosters confidence and trust in the company. Training and resource commitment to a cross-
functional objective tool-driven approach creates an inclusive environment for diverse voices
and perspectives. One-day training workshops, with a neutral facilitator, will encompass groups
of 20 people and interactive simulations of barriers requiring evaluation. A digitalized problem-
solving tool with specific questions, measurement criteria, and targets creates an aggregate score
communicated as part of the overall customer reputation-balanced scorecard. In maximizing the
individual contribution to the group with a precise, articulate method of improvement through
the systemic approach to problem-solving, the executive leadership team creates an atmosphere
of ownership, and the group achievements for customer reputation improve (Turner et al., 1984).
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The Gallus Discovery and Exploration program provides a learning and development
framework to close a performance gap regarding achieving a 100% customer reputation goal.
The blended evaluation methodology (J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016) offers the
opportunity to collect robust data from multiple sources using various methods and evaluate all
four Kirkpatrick levels. The design of the evaluation strategy is to incorporate qualitative and
quantitative data that provides value to the GIDE team and is credible to the senior/mid-level
leaders and executive stakeholders (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). A cross-functional
committee of company stakeholders, program designers, and external coaches will provide
186

feedback regarding the data compiled from the evaluation plan. The multi-disciplinary approach
to training evaluation produces a more effective program overall (Lacerenza et al., 2017).
Formative evaluation takes place during the training event. This method allows the learner’s
voices and feedback to adjust training, improve engagement, and increase satisfaction.
Summative evaluation takes place post-program completion.
The goal is to conduct this evaluation form at the end of each module and as the
participants complete the entire four-module learning program. Learning components to collect
intelligent data include declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment. Table 22 describes the methodology, activity, and timing required to reinforce the
GIDE learning program.
Table 22
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Think in pairs and share knowledge with the
GIDE workshop team.
During the training session, after coming
back from a break for the halfway point
of training time
Knowledge checks via digital gamification
exercises that create multiple-choice, real-
time results of the team communicated
digitally.
During the learning goal training within a
module component
Knowledge checks with pre-testing and post-
testing
Before, during, and after the four-module
GIDE training program completion
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
Knowledge check of the infographics, concept
maps, and digital content available to
participants
During the training workshops for each
module and employee surveys
Focus group for in-depth feedback on module
training
Immediately after the training module
completion
Observation by designated training workshop
coach for each learning goal
During the module training session and
documented by the workshop coach
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Post-module training survey to ascertain the
teams’ attitude about the learning
Immediately after the training module
completion
187

Methods or activities Timing
GIDE workshop coach leads open dialogue
about the consequences of critical behavior
application.
During the training module workshop,
Team roundtables to share how they value the
module learning goals and how they have
applied them in their leadership function
30, 60, and 90 days after each module
completion
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Reverse classroom by the participants of the
goals learned to other team members.
During the training module workshops
GIDE workshop coach engages participants in
dialogue (a pulse check) regarding
confidence in learning goals.
During the training module workshops,
A survey assesses participant confidence in
applying concepts to their job function.
At the end of the training module
workshop, 30, 60, and 90 days after each
module completion,
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
GIDE workshop coach observes the level of
commitment of participants (no mobile
devices or computers allowed)
During the training module workshops
Demonstration of participant progress against
established goals and deliverables for the
training module
30, 60, and 90 days after the module
completion,
Participants establish personal action plans for
each training module.
During training module workshops

Level 1: Reaction
J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) defined reaction as the degree to which team
members find the training outcome favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs. The training
outcome of favorability, also known as customer satisfaction, has a positive connection to
learning. It is essential to understand that formative evaluation is most effective for customer
satisfaction training improvement as it supports removing training challenges during the learning
process. Engagement levels relate directly to the level of learning attained, and relevance is the
knowledge applied directly to the job environment in the proper timeframe and context (J. D.
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). According to social learning theory, a person must be
motivated to learn for the learning to occur; the data gained from participant reactions may
188

represent their motivation for actual knowledge transfer, and trainee reactions may indicate
whether the reason is increasing, decreasing, or maintaining with the implementation program
(Bandura, 1977). The data ascertained from evaluating the team’s reaction to the training
becomes a diagnostic tool for the GIDE learning program’s continuous improvement. Table 23
details the methods, tools, and frequency for measuring the participant’s reactions.
Table 23
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Quality of workshop module projects,
practice sessions, and team deliverables
During the training module workshop
The workshop coach builds a pulse check for
the module training schedule monitors
timeliness from scheduled breaks, and
overall attendance.
During the training workshop, after the team
comes back from each break
Post-module training survey for the team
energy and value, limited to three
questions
Immediately after the training module
completion
Relevance
The GIDE coach observes the training
participants to ensure they provide real-
time feedback on workshop content.
During the training module workshop
The workshop coach conducts an
unscheduled digital pulse check; results are
displayed in real time for the team.
Before the training workshop takes its first
break
Post-module training survey for application
of concepts, limited to three questions
Immediately after the training module
completion
Customer satisfaction
GIDE coach observes the training
participants to ascertain the connection to
workshop content
During the training module workshop
The workshop coach conducts an
unscheduled digital pulse check; results are
displayed in real-time for the team
(environment, space, refreshments).
During the training module workshop,
prioritize the timing to be early in the
schedule.
A dedicated workshop observer participates
in module training to assess class dynamics
and “provide instructor feedback.”
During the training module workshop

189

Evaluation Tools
The integrated implementation and training program have summative and formative
methods used to acquire feedback and assess the effectiveness of the four modules of the GIDE
initiative. In combining the two types of evaluation, the training assessment provides confidence
and agility for the short-term and long-term needs of the program. The closed-loop system of
feedback and adjustments develops confidence and trust with the stakeholders.
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Actionable intelligence is a concept J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) posited as a
strategic differentiator in training evaluation outcomes. A combination of deliberate data
methodology, purposeful design, and value to stakeholders creates agility in intervention and a
positive ROE for the organization. As the plan outlines the four evaluation levels, focusing the
question architecture on a learner-centered context reduces the barriers where honest feedback is
at risk due to anxiety over providing critical feedback. Importantly, when attitude and behavioral
characteristic assessments are within a short period of each other, self-attributed motivational
elements are closely aligned (McClelland et al., 1989).
The timing of training evaluation is also considered integral to the program design as the
new world Kirkpatrick model’s (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) four levels each provide
a unique perspective on the expected performance outcome. The immediate feedback and
evaluation benefits of Level 1 Reaction and Level 2 Learning will offer credible data to the
workshop coach, training environment, and learner’s motivation (J. D. Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The formative methodology conducted during and immediately after training
also allows the participants to have a voice in their commitment to the program and foster
personal engagement. Appendix D provides an example of the GIDE program's Level 1
190

(reaction) evaluation components. Questions about engagement, relevance, and customer
satisfaction intend to measure the participants’ knowledge and perception of the workshop
utilizing a 4-point Likert scale. A mobile device or computer provides the team immediate access
to the digital survey module. Dynamic workshop results are displayed quickly to enhance
transparency and open communication and provide ownership for program influence. Appendix
F portrays a bar-chart graph for the three reaction sample questions and aggregated results for ten
simulated participants. Appendix E describes the Level 2 Learning evaluation survey sample.
The learning components of attitude, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, confidence,
and commitment comprise a formative and summative approach. The declarative knowledge
element asks an open-ended question. The procedural knowledge and commitment details use a
multiple-choice question. The confidence and attitude concepts utilize a 4-point Likert scale for
agreement. Appendix G represents data for the five learning sample questions while depicting
bar-chart graphs for the multiple-choice and Likert scale inquiries, a response summary for the
open-ended questions, and aggregated results for seven simulated participants.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
“Training that is well learned, but never used, or poorly used, produces no value for the
business that invested in the training” (Brinkerhoff, 2006, p. 303). The concern of skills not
being applied effectively with a demonstration of expected critical behaviors after training is
fundamental for not achieving a program’s ROI or return on investment. A delayed evaluation
approach provides the stakeholders with data demonstrating whether the organizational
commitment to support the intervention is adequate. The Level 3 Behaviors and Level 4 Results
are a product of the responsibility to learning application, tool utilization, and a continuous
improvement cycle through measurable goals (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Appendix
191

H highlights the Blended Evaluation sample survey instrument inclusive of J. D. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four levels of learning. The simultaneous nature of this learner-centered
approach maximizes the response rate, is tailored to the intervention, and mitigates the stress of
surveys (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The optimal timeframe for an organization to conduct the delayed post-program survey
depends on the industrialization of defined drivers and specific critical behaviors. The nature of
GI’s organizational culture, performance orientation, and manufacturing market commitments
create a need for an iterative assessment schedule. Four modules define the GIDE Blended
Evaluation survey, each aligning to the four levels of learning. The modules can be moved in
order, questions “muted,” and questions optimized by reformatting response style. A customized
approach is used throughout the survey to vary the participant’s interaction and response type.
Multiple choice, 4-point, and 5-point Likert questions and matrix-style checkboxes provide the
foundation for credible data analysis. The stakeholder team aims to administer the study at 30-
day, 60-day, and 90-day intervals to develop a baseline. The primary objective of an incremental
approach of the survey instrument is to maintain visibility of critical behaviors required and the
cultural shift needed to build trust and credibility in the program. Level 3 is deemed the missing
link between learning and performance results; consequently, indicators of how the drivers
support the specific critical behaviors are key success factors (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Data Analysis and Reporting
A vital component of data accuracy is the validity and credibility of the methodology that
information is derived. The summative and formative nature of the survey design provides a
valuable combination of immediate and delayed feedback (encouraging qualitative and
192

quantitative questions). The data analysis will require an objective review by cross-functional
stakeholders to ensure the survey designer’s positionality is understood. The element of
positionality, implicit bias (McClelland et al., 1989), of the program evaluation architect, is a
component in an organization’s performance improvement program that requires consideration.
As stakeholders evaluate the data, its acquisition, reliability, and cultural setting are potential
external forces of influence. Appendix F and Appendix G show how sample data is generated
and presented. Data analytics by a survey software tool provides a consistent, unfiltered
perspective. Three critical behaviors of the GOE program, the customer reputation-balanced
scorecard, and the GOA program will each capture metrics from the drivers proposed. The GOE
program will encapsulate the overall learning and development intervention results and activities
with executive stakeholder review through business review meetings and company town halls.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick model (D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, n.d) provided the
framework to plan, implement, and evaluate data gleaned from recommended activities for
behavioral change. A KMO gap analysis delivered a needs analysis for recommendations to
close the performance gap and achieve 100% customer reputation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
ideology behind incorporating the four levels of the new world Kirkpatrick model (J. D.
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) in reverse order, or starting with Level 4 Results, is part of the
cultural shift for GI stakeholders to focus on the GIDE program outcome (J. D. Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Start with the end in mind.
Training evaluation is a foundational piece of the learning and performance architecture
for the stakeholder goal of GI. Integrating an implementation and evaluation initiative provides a
glide path to intervention within the company, a necessary disruption for behavioral change. J. D.
193

Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) posited three key questions to consider during the program
implementation: Does the level of the driver or behavior meet expectations? If not, why? If so,
why?
The gap analysis conducted for implementing this program is only the first step in a
learning organization’s continuous improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008). The problem-solving
program proposed as a learning goal allows the Gallus team to systematically address what may
need further investigation to prioritize activities from data analysis. The success case method
(Brinkerhoff, 2006) frames benchmarking two extremes of training outcomes from best to worst
with surveys and interviews and provides evidence to utilize in future program adjustments.
Figure 26 summarizes the fundamental elements of an initiative, unifying learning and business
functions into a chain of evidence and demonstrated value (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). A common-sense, integrated approach for the GIDE program establishes a conduit for
why the resource investment and meaningful data yielded will translate to the bottom-line
results, achieving 100% customer reputation.

Figure 26
Kirkpatrick’s Three Phases of a Program

Note. From Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation by J. D., Kirkpatrick & W. K.
Kirkpatrick, 2016. Association for Talent Development. Copyright 2016 by Association for
Talent Development. Used with permission.
194

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
All methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks have strengths and
weaknesses. Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework provided the basis for
understanding the KMO influences and the problem of practice. The KMO approach is well-
developed and supported by seminal research. The structure and quantity of various knowledge
and motivational constructs were challenging to translate effectively in the mixed-methods study
to the participants.
The needs/asset analysis validated all 14 proposed influences, and it was apparent that the
knowledge component became an early barrier to the study participants’ clarity on the problem
of practice. For example, the quantitative survey method had questions set in KMO blocks. The
study used an explanatory mixed-methods approach where the quantitative piece is first, and the
qualitative component is second. Initially, the survey distribution saw 33% of the people
stopping at the third knowledge question, and they did not return. I moved the motivational block
of questions to the beginning of the survey, and the completion rate went to 72% once they
started it. The customer reputation knowledge construct needed to be clarified early on as I
brought insider bias from a function that worked with it often (Karlen et al., 2019). As a result of
the early data implications in the survey participation, an exploratory mixed-methods approach
(qualitative first, quantitative second) may have provided early insight regarding the significance
of the knowledge gap. The quantitative tool could have had KMO sequencing adjustments and a
final evaluation regarding the type of questions posed before survey completion. In reflecting on
the human subject study, regardless of the population typology, I was challenged to develop skill
mastery in Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO theoretical framework while applying the concepts in
parallel.
195

The New World Kirkpatrick model (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) presents an
innovative training program development approach focusing on performance value and bottom-
line results. The pragmatic focus of starting with the desired outcome Level 4 Results requires
that drivers and critical behaviors are clearly defined. A challenge for this study is predicated on
the new world Kirkpatrick model (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), looking for the few
critical behaviors that bring monitoring, reinforcement, rewards, and encouragement through
program development. However, the KMO gap analysis identified 14 needs to translate into
learning goals. The few specific critical behaviors for the new world Kirkpatrick model’s
program were challenging to build a bridge for closing the gap in the organization’s KMO needs.
Limitations and Delimitations
Reflexivity is vital for the researcher as the research instrument in qualitative analysis to
understand what is introduced in the research process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A CITI-
certified data collection manager conducted the interviews in a virtual setting due to the COVID-
19 pandemic during the research and the various global locations of the participants. There was a
limited opportunity to gain insights regarding the non-verbal and environmental context. In their
very nature, methods and theories are a researcher’s idea, their posit, and this introduces
positionality and bias. Further, a paradigm gap analysis was not conducted to understand the
CITI-certified data collection manager’s positionality compared to myself as the researcher. This
difference in potential bias could present variation in the consequent probing questions following
the initial qualitative interview questions. The study combined peer-reviewed concepts, new
theoretical frameworks, the constructivist view, and a structured course design. These internal
and external forces contributed to the proposed conceptual framework and direction for the
problem of practice within the study.
196

The organizational setting of the research population had a cultural context of being
family-owned with European values and beliefs. The study did not require demographic data, so
the influence of a dominant culture, subculture, or counterculture was not discernible in the
results. This potential data input could present a limitation in trying to implement a tailored
program for learning if the critical behaviors desired were different from country to country
based on values (Neck et al., 2016). Document and artifact analysis was challenging for parts of
the KMO gap analysis for data triangulation. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of
corporate offices during the research period, and only essential workers were permitted to travel
to manufacturing locations.
Future Research
Future research for this innovation study should include expanding the targeted
demographic for the qualitative and quantitative methodology for data collection. The
quantitative research participants had a minimum requirement of being with the company and
their functional position for at least one year. The tenure restriction presents an opportunity to
include diverse voices from other workplace environments and cultural settings despite their
tenure in the team. The qualitative research participants had a minimum requirement of being in
their role for at least three years. Research should expand to no minimum requirement in the
functional role as team members may bring ideas for customer reputation management that result
from being an internal customer or supplier in the accountability relationship.
The number of KMO influences confirmed as a need (14; 100% of the posited influences)
with no assets validated indicates additional research into other variables is required. Factors
such as population demographics needed assimilation into the study and could provide insight
into the impact of cultural values and beliefs across countries and regions. Future research should
197

include demographic data, including age, gender, workplace location, and country of birth.
Further, a manufacturing organization provided the population studied and is a subset of the
automotive industry. Customer reputation, the six components researched, and how leaders
understand their role should expand to other for-profit commodities, service industries, and non-
profit organizations. In using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis for KMO influences for the
evaluation of customer reputation, there are other theoretical applications, such as the implicit
theory of self-regulated behavior and incremental approach for performance orientation, that
could lend additional insights into the motivation behind achieving customer reputation (Karlen
et al., 2019).
In comparison, investigating J. D. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 3 Behavior
and the potential disruption it brings to organizational change through required drivers, a
relationship was seen with M. Dubnick’s (2005) research on the accountability binary and
presented an opportunity to conduct a formal study on their interactions for organizational
performance outcomes. As noted in Chapter Three, the targeted stakeholder group for the
research was the senior/mid-level leaders as they impact the KMO influences identified in Clark
and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis. However, identifying learning goals, critical behaviors, and
drivers brings forward an opportunity for the plant management team structure to have an equal
impact on the desired performance outcomes. The operational team is often a direct customer or
supplier regarding customer reputation.
Conclusion
This innovation study design develops a leadership framework for customer reputation
evaluation. The research examined the efficacy of senior/mid-level leadership in evaluating and
achieving 100% customer reputation. A complete analysis would include the three stakeholder
groups of the organization; however, the executive leadership team is responsible for setting the
198

tone of the Gallus vision and supporting the organization, while the senior/mid-level leadership
is accountable for executing the critical behaviors needed to achieve the desired performance
outcome.
Gallus International’s organizational performance and ability to secure sustainability in
the marketplace is not predicated purely on business metrics; it is the perception (the reputation)
of what the internal and external customers experience through the multi-disciplinary functions.
As a stakeholder, the senior/mid-level leadership team is crucial in attaining the customer
reputation goal as they need to align the plant leadership teams’ performance and value-add. The
performance goal of customer reputation evaluation is new to the organization and the
senior/mid-level leadership team; consequently, the performance gap is 100%.
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that human subject research can provide data-driven
systemic improvement. As such, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework established
the conceptual and methodological architecture for the study to support the research in
understanding KMO influences at GI. The explanatory mixed-methods study identified 14 needs:
five regarding knowledge, five about motivation, and four connected to organizational culture.
The new world Kirkpatrick model (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided the scope for
determining evidence-based recommendations to bridge the performance gap of customer
reputation. An integrated implementation plan offers an innovative solution for strategic leaders
to enhance their efficacy in the components contributing to customer reputation. The solutions
include 11 learning goals, four critical behaviors, and multiple drivers to guide the program
outcome.
As a result of the innovation study, a theory of change logic map creates a strategic vision
for the specific critical behaviors identified to achieve the stakeholder’s goal. The logic maps
199

derived from the research-driven recommendations visualize the interrelatedness of learning
goals, organizational support, training programs, critical behaviors, metrics, and outcomes. In
understanding the four levels of the new world Kirkpatrick model (J. D. Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), focusing on Level 4 (results) ensures a robust evaluation plan to integrate and
analyze formative and summative data. The vital nature of evaluating the critical behaviors of
industrialization in a concise and objective forum fortifies GI’s commitment to organizational
transformation.
The integrated implementation plan provides an innovative solution for strategic leaders
to enhance their efficacy in the components contributing to customer reputation. Value
innovation, a construct of the Blue Ocean Strategy (B. Leavy, 2018), seeks to redefine industry
conditions that generate market differentiation. The GIDE program is an innovative research-
based development program created to establish a chain of evidence that demonstrates bottom-
line value (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
In achieving a 100% customer reputation, senior/mid-level stakeholders can shape the
company’s future through creative tension and push the boundaries of their organizational value,
a conscious choice for the transformational culture shift from a stagnated red ocean fixed-
mindset to an innovative blue ocean growth-mindset at GI (Chan Kim & Mauborgne, 2017).

200

References
Abdi, K., Mardani, A., Senin, A. A., Tupėnaitė, L., Naimavičienė, J., Kanapeckienė, L., & Kutut,
V. (2018). The effect of knowledge management, organizational culture and
organizational learning on innovation in automotive industry. Journal of Business
Economics & Management, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2018.1477
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework:
Mandatory ingredients of quality research. Journal of Applied Sciences Research/
International Network for Scientific Information, 7(1), 438–441.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alex Edmonds, W., & Kennedy, T. D. (2016). An applied guide to research designs:
Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE Publications.
Alon, I., Boulanger, M., Meyers, J., & Taras, V. (2016). The development and validation of the
Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1),
78–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-10-2015-0138
Ambrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching
(1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
201

Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Goka, H. (2004). A social relationship
conceptualization of trust and accountability in organizations. Human Resource
Management Review, 14(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.003
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Attribution theory. Education. Com, 23.
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/files/mldschmot.html
Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101864.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864
Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010). Beyond change management: How to achieve
breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of
cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275267
Aries, A., Vional, V., Saraswati, L. A., Wijaya, L., & Ikhsan, R. B. (2020). Gamification in
learning process and its impact on entrepreneurial intention. Management Science
Letters, 10(4), 763–768.
Bahaee, M. (2017). Strategic management. McGraw-Hill.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
202

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on
self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3),
497–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.497
Bendixen, M., & Abratt, R. (2007). Corporate identity, ethics, and reputation in supplier–buyer
relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
006-9273-4
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032
Bingham, J. B., Gibb Dyer, W., Jr., Smith, I., & Adams, G. L. (2011). A stakeholder identity
orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Journal of Business
Ethics, 99(4), 565–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0669-9
Bloom, H. (2001). How to read and why. Simon and Schuster.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Bong, M. (2004). academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal
orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 287–
298. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.6.287-298
203

Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2006). Increasing impact of training investments: An evaluation strategy for
building organizational learning capability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(6),
302–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850610685824
Byrne, G. J., & Bradley, F. (2007). Culture’s influence on leadership efficiency: How personal
and national cultures affect leadership style. Journal of Business Research, 60(2), 168–
175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.015
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
Carr, P. B., & Walton, G. M. (2014). Cues of working together fuel intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 169–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.015
Chan Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (2015). Blue Ocean strategy, expanded edition: How to create
uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Harvard Business Review
Press.
Chan Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (2017). Blue ocean shift: Beyond competing - Proven steps to
inspire confidence and seize new growth. Hachette Books.
Chávez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). The dance of race
and privilege in CBPR. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community-Based Participatory Research
for Health: From Process to Outcomes (pp. 91–105). Jossey-Bass
204

Christensen, C., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (n.d.). Disruptive innovation.
https://www.innosight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Innosight_HBR_What-is-
Disruptive-Innovation.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, R. E., Estes, F., Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Performance Improvement,
43(1), 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140430110
Claver, E., Rienda, L., & Quer, D. (2009). Family firms’ international commitment: The
influence of family-related factors. Family Business Review, 22(2), 125–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486508330054
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk-taking and job performance.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.4.909
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. SAGE Publications.
Crossman, J. (2010). Act them into a new way of thinking: Multiple stakeholder perspectives on
developing international and cultural leadership (ICL) through experiential learning.
International Journal of Management Education, 9(1), 33–42.
https://doi.org/10.3794/ijme.91.306
205

Davis, W. D., Mero, N., & Goodman, J. M. (2007). The interactive effects of goal orientation
and accountability on task performance. Human Performance, 20(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280709336926
Deci, E. L. (1976). The hidden costs of rewards. Organizational Dynamics, 4(3), 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(76)90036-X
De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2002). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of
identification level: A test of the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 435–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00009-4
Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-
family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories.
Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12015
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry,
16(6), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364608
Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the
mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.
Dubnick, M. J. (2007). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. In E. Berman
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (2nd. ed., pp. 10–24).
https://doi.org/10.1081/e-epap2-3
206

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–
1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale
(Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634290
Dupont, Q., & Karpoff, J. M. (2020). The trust triangle: Laws, reputation, and culture in
empirical finance research. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(2), 217–238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04229-1
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: Changing the way you think to fulfill your potential. Hachette UK.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory
of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082
Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & R. D. Herman
(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (pp. 102–
123). Jossey& Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176558.ch4
Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective
identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
207

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in
children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development,
64(3), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131221
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation,
second edition: Theory and application. Guilford Publications.
Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1006
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. In C. M. Grant, V. L. Mills, M. Blouck, E.
Davidson, B. S. Nelson, & S. Benson (Eds.), Secondary lenses on learning participant
book: Team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools (pp. 313–344).
Corwin.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2),
247–273.
Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its relationship
to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(6), 703–
724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.07.003
208

Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect:
Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school, and marriage. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 36. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036
Fabes, R. A., Moran, J. D., III., & McCullers, J. C. (1981). The hidden costs of reward and
WAIS Subscale performance. The American Journal of Psychology, 94(3), 387–398.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1422251
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social psychology. Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119
FitzGerald, M. R. (2002). Organizational cynicism: Its relationship to perceived organizational
injustice and explanatory style (Publication No. 3062422) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Cincinnati]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Fletcher, L., & Carruthers, P. (2012). Metacognition and reasoning. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1366–1378.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0413
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation QuotientSM: A multi-
stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4),
241–255. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.10
Freed, L. (2013). Innovating Analytics: How the next generation of net promoters can increase
sales and drive business results. John Wiley & Sons.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
209

Gierszewska, G. (2012). The Japanese model of knowledge management. Foundations of
Management, 4(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2013-0001
Giles, J. (2008, February 13). Interview: The man who would prove all studies wrong. New
Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726432-000-interview-the-man-who-
would-prove-all-studies-wrong/
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal
study of immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations and their children’s
school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547–582.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003547
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Linking cognition and motivation to behavior: The
psychology of action. Guilford Press.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.101.3.371
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological
factors affecting remote worker’s job effectiveness, well‐being, and work‐life balance.
Employee Relations, 35(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.85.3.541
Helm, S., & Tolsdorf, J. (2013). How does corporate reputation affect customer loyalty in a
corporate crisis? Corporate reputation, customer loyalty, and crises. Journal of
210

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(3), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
5973.12020
Henman, L. (2021). Risky business: Why leaders must develop a disruptive mindset. CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003168669
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Sage.
Hood, C., Nagy, D. G., & Lister, K. (2018). “The once” alternative workplace strategies: Fifth
biennial global benchmarking study. Global Workplace Analytics.
Hudson, N. W., Roberts, B. W., & Lodi-Smith, J. (2012). Personality trait development and
social investment in work. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3), 334–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.002
Jehanzeb, K., & Mohanty, J. (2018). Impact of employee development on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment: Person–organization fit as moderator. International Journal
of Training and Development, 22(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12127
Jevons, C., Gabbott, M., & de Chernatony, L. (2005). Customer and brand manager perspectives
on brand relationships: A conceptual framework. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 14(5), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510616331
Jones, M. L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: Is organizational learning a
key? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 91–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713769590
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657
211

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-
9012-5
Karlen, Y., Suter, F., Hirt, C., & Maag Merki, K. (2019). The role of implicit theories in
students’ grit, achievement goals, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and achievement in
the context of a long-term challenging task. Learning and Individual Differences, 74,
Article 101757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101757
Kaur, A., & Singh, B. (2018). Measuring the immeasurable corporate reputation.
Metamorphosis, 17(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972622518778210
Kautz, K., Pedersen, C. F., & Monrad, O. (2009). Cultures of agility--Agile software
development in practice. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2009/87/
Kim, D. (2017). Motivating for new changes when agents have reputation concerns. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 37–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.02.015
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2017). A retrospective on Culture’s
Consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1),
12–29. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0037-9
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirpatrick, J. D. (n.d.). The Kirkpatrick four levels.
https://www.academia.edu/download/39262447/Kirkpatrick_Four_Levels_-
_Audio_Recordings_Study_Guide.pdf
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
212

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group
performance: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024315
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Association Press.
Knowles, T. W. (2010). When cultures collide. Journal of Healthcare Protection Management:
Publication of the International Association for Hospital Security, 26(1), 69–73.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (2012). Learning, training, and development in organizations.
Routledge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership
training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241
213

Laitinen, M. A. (2018). Net promoter score as indicator of library customers’ perception. Journal
of Library Administration, 58(4), 394–406.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1448655
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Leavy, B. (2018). Value innovation and how to successfully incubate “blue ocean” initiatives.
Strategy and Leadership, 46(3), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-02-2018-0020
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and
community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications.
Leavy, P. (2020). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice (3rd. ed.). Guilford
Publications.
Leinwand, P., Mani, M. M., & Sheppard, B. (2022). Reinventing your leadership team your
organization’s future depends on getting this right. Harvard Business Review, 100(1-2),
61–69.
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change: Origins and traditions of organizational
communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119431503
Lim, K. Y., Lee, H. W., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Does concept-mapping strategy work for
everyone? The levels of generativity and learners’ self-regulated learning skills. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2008.00872.x
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.
214

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Lumen Learning. (n.d.). Emotion and motivation: What you’ll learn to do: Explain motivation,
how it is influenced, and major theories about motivation.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/introduction-motivation/
Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more
successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function
deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00072-
2
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. The American Psychologist,
20(5), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022225
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit
motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.96.4.690
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. Journal of Experimental
Education, 74(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.4.291-310
McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
215

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Guide. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/guide
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811
Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8),
918–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.003
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
A conceptual analysis and integrative model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6),
991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work:
Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 665–683.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.383
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory
in progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Michel, J. S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Leadership coherence: An application of personality
coherence theory to the study of leadership. Personality and Individual Differences,
50(5), 688–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.018
216

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Chrisman, J. J., & Spence, L. J. (2011). Toward a theory of
stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 235–255.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121215
Moen, D. (2017). Using leadership studies as a model for conscientization through adaptive
leadership, the four frames approach, giving voice to values, and the competing values
framework. Journal of Thought, 51(3-4), 22–37.
Morais, L. F., & Graça, L. M. (2013). A glance at the competing values framework of Quinn and
the Miles & Snow strategic models: Case studies in health organizations. Revista
Portuguesa de Saude Publica, 31(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpsp.2012.12.006
Neale, M. A. (2011). Collaborating from a distance. International Journal of e-Collaboration,
12–24.
Neck, C. P., Houghton, J. D., & Murray, E. L. (2016). Organizational behavior: A critical-
thinking approach. SAGE Publications.
Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks
congruent? International Marketing Review, 24(2), 164–180.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330710741802
Noel, T. W., & Latham, G. P. (2006). The importance of learning goals versus outcome goals for
entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 7(4), 213–220.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006779111594
Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone
wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999
217

Pangallo, A. (2023). The Year Employees Restructure Their Relationship With Work.
https://www.qualtrics.com/ebooks-guides/2023-ex-trends-report
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the
goal orientation nomological net. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement,
and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal--setting process. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(5), 792–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.792
Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation. TEDGlobal 2009. https://globalioc.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Pink-Motivation.pdf
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–
104. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal
theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5), 319–337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002
Quiros, E. (2012). Remote leadership can bring out your best. Strategic Finance, 93(12), 16.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (n.d.). What makes a great leadership team?
http://www.weber.edu/WSUImages/leadership/docs/sq/great-leadership-team.pdf
218

Robinson, L., Hogg, P., & Higgins, R. (2014). An observational study of cross-cultural
communication in short-term, diverse professional learning groups. Radiography, 20(4),
356–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.06.007
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general
intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ)
on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues,
67(4), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x
Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2012). Human performance improvement.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080475424
Rueda, R. (2011a). Cultural perspectives in reading: Theory and research. In M. L. Kamil, P. D.
Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume
IV (pp. 84–104). Routledge.
Rueda, R. (2011b). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Rusk, N., & Rothbaum, F. (2010). From stress to learning: Attachment theory meets goal
orientation theory. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American
Psychological Association, 14(1), 31–43.
Sappe, S., Rante, Y., Tuhumena, R., & Bharanti, B. E. (2016). Effect of leadership on
employee’s performance mediated by cultural organization, work commitment and
motivation. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 8(2), 101–107.
https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v8i2(J).1258
219

Sarstedt, M., Wilczynski, P., & Melewar, T. C. (2013). Measuring reputation in global
markets—A comparison of reputation measures’ convergent and criterion validities.
Journal of World Business, 48(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.017
Savu, I., Popa, C. L., & Cotet, C. E. (2017, November 8–11). Mitigating friction in multicultural
virtual organizations/teams [Paper presentation]. 28th DAAAM International
Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing and Automation, Zadar, Croatia.
Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Schellong, M., Kraiczy, N. D., Malär, L., & Hack, A. (2019). Family firm brands, perceptions of
doing good, and consumer happiness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(5), 921–
946. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717754202
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processingtheory/
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review,
7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value
differences and cultural distance. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of
the economics of art and culture (Vol. 2, pp. 547–586). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53776-8.00020-9
220

Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (n.d.). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from www.dr-
hatfield.com/theorists/resources/sociocultural_theory.pdf
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Sherwood, A. L., & DePaolo, C. A. (2005). Task and relationship-oriented trust in leaders.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 65–81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501200206
Sosik, J. J., Godshalk, V. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). Transformational leadership, learning
goal orientation, and expectations for career success in mentor–protégé relationships: A
multiple levels of analysis perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 241–261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.003
Soviar, J., Holubčík, M., Vodák, J., Rechtorík, M., & Pollák, F. (2019). the presentation of
automotive brands in the on-line environment—The perspective of KIA, Peugeot, Toyota
and VW in the Slovak Republic. Sustainability, 11(7), Article 2132.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072132
Subramaniam, P. L., Iranmanesh, M., Kumar, K. M., & Foroughi, B. (2019). The impact of
multinational corporations’ socially responsible supplier development practices on their
corporate reputation and financial performance. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 50(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-
2019-0002
Swoboda, B., Huber, C., Schuster, T., & Hirschmann, J. (2017). Corporate reputation effects
across nations: The impact of country distances and firm-specific resources. MIR.
221

Management International Review, 57(5), 717–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-017-
0313-3
Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking.
Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 145–
152. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399448
Tuckman, B. W., & Kennedy, G. (2009). Teaching learning and motivation strategies to enhance
the success of firstterm college students. American Educational Research Association.,
http://oesar.osu.edu/pdf/presentations/Teaching_tuckman_kennedy_AERA2009_Paper_0
22609.pdf
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and defeat as
determinants of group cohesiveness. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 97–
111.
Urdan, T., & Pajares, F. (2006). SelfEfficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. IAP.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-Dimensions
of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence: Expanding the Conceptualization and
Measurement of Cultural Intelligence: CQ: Sub-Dimensions Of Cultural Intelligence.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–313.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00429.x
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1964-35027-000.pdf
Wartick, S. L. (2002). Measuring corporate reputation: Definition and data. Business & Society,
41(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650302238774
222

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning Aurora.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Wheeldon, J. (2010). Mapping mixed methods research: Methods, measures, and meaning.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 87–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809358755
White, C. (2015). The impact of motivation on customer satisfaction formation: A self-
determination perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 49(11/12), 1923–1940.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2014-0501
Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., & Bommer, W. (2003). The effects of cognitive style and media
richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
63(2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00041-1
Yunus, M., & Sijabat, F. N. (2021). A review on Blue Ocean Strategy effect on competitive
advantage and firm performance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 1–
10.
Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family firms
strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00466.x

223

Appendix A: Survey Items
Tables A1–A3 present the survey used in this study.
Table A1
Knowledge
Influence Survey
Factual: The senior/mid-level
leaders need to know the
components of customer
reputation.
Customer reputation consists of several components. Check
all that apply:
Corporate social responsibility*
Customer satisfaction*
Triple bottom line* (planet/people/profit)
Supplier Quality
Market uniqueness*
Organizational Culture*
On-time delivery
Brand loyalty*
Conceptual: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to know
the importance of building
and maintaining the
components of customer
reputation.
How does each of the items below affect customer
reputation?
Fill in the blank.
For example,
Customer satisfaction increases confidence in execution.
Organizational Culture increases _________
Triple Bottom Line (planet/people/profit) increases
_________
Corporate Social Responsibility increases ___________
Market Uniqueness increases ____________
Customer Satisfaction increases __________
Brand Loyalty increases ____________
The customer loyalty/satisfaction matrix (figure below)
visualizes a customer’s willingness to return compared to
their perceived value of execution. Which of the four
categories do you see the organization fitting today?
Select one.
Mercenaries
Hostages
Loyalists
Defectors
Combination of________
224

Influence Survey
Procedural: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to know
how to improve customer
reputation.
There are many strategies for building a customer reputation.
Match each strategy with its primary implementation.
Corporate social responsibility
Customer satisfaction
Brand loyalty
Triple bottom line (planet/people/profit)
Market uniqueness
Organizational culture
Foster a positive work environment that fosters trust,
equity, and respect *G
Build and maintain relationships that support good causes
within the community *A
Establish a clear vision for financial robustness and the
environmental future *D
Accountability for expert communication, transparency,
and going beyond what is expected *C
Grow the team’s competence in learning and skills while
highlighting well-being *D
Execute high-quality products and services *B
Metacognitive: The
senior/mid-level leaders
must self-reflect on their
progress toward improving
customer reputation.

Multiple choice- select all that apply.
As a leader, I reflect on my contribution toward improving
customer reputation by…
Thinking about the effectiveness of my progress toward
improving the components
Acting on what needs to be changed in the improvement
of the components.
Distributing the customer scorecards
All of the above
None of the above
Other___________

Note. An asterisk denotes the correct response.

225

Table A2
Motivation
Influence Survey item
Task value: The senior/mid-
level leaders must value the
components to build and
maintain customer
reputation.
Rate the value of each component below to improve
customer reputation.

Likert scale-
0 = Not important at all
1 = Of little importance
2 = Of average importance
3 = Very important
4 = Absolutely essential

Learning and adding to my expertise the components of
customer reputation (Intrinsic mastery)
Connecting the performance goals of the organization and
mastering the components of customer reputation
(Intrinsic performance)
Learning the components of customer reputation is valuable
for me in terms of my future goals (Extrinsic)
Improving the customer’s reputation regardless of the time
and effort required. (Cost)
Self-efficacy: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to be
confident in implementing
the components that build
and maintain customer
reputation.

Rate your confidence in doing the following actions right
now.
0 being cannot at all to 100 highly certain can do it.
Sliding Bar Scale-
Foster a positive work environment that fosters trust, equity,
and respect
Build and maintain relationships that support good causes
within the community.
Establish a clear vision for financial robustness and the
environmental future.
Demonstrate consistency in being capable of going beyond
expectations.
Communicate concisely and urgently with transparency
about facts and data.
Grow the team’s competence in learning and skills while
highlighting well-being.
Execute high-quality products and services
Attribution: The senior/mid-
level leaders attribute their

226

Influence Survey item
success or failure of
customer reputation
components to their effort
for elements within their
control.
From your perspective, rate each of the following reasons for
our success or failure to improve customer reputation.

Likert scale-
0 = Not Important at All
1 = Of Little Importance
2 = Average Importance
3 = Very Important
4 = Absolutely Essential

Luck
Wisdom
Effort
Bias from the customer
Competence
Talent
Relationship
Tenure
Grit
Goal orientation: The
senior/mid-level leaders
need to balance the
elements of performance
orientation and mastery
goal orientation.
Rate your agreement with the following statements.
In the face of challenges and setbacks for customer
reputation, the objective is to balance learning and
performance
Seldom
Occasionally
To a considerable degree
Almost always
Even though improving customer reputation may be
particularly challenging, I am motivated to know I will
learn from it even if I make mistakes.
Seldom
Occasionally
To a considerable degree
Almost always
Expectancy outcome: The
senior/mid-level leaders
need to know how their
expectations and feedback
contribute to the outcome of
improving customer
reputation.
Rate your agreement with the following statements regarding
your contribution to customer reputation.
0 being no agreement to 100 being total agreement.
Sliding Bar Scale-
I expect to do well in improving the components that
contribute to customer reputation.
My feedback regarding customer reputation is considered
and acted on.
227

Influence Survey item
My day-to-day work behavior models the expectations for
improving customer reputation.

228

Table A3
Organization
Influence Survey item
Cultural models
Cultural Model
Influence 1: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
perceive the
organization’s
acceptance and
commitment to
organizational
change to improve
customer reputation.
Rate your agreement with the following statements regarding your
perception of the organization’s culture for improving customer
reputation.

Likert scale-
0 = Never
1 = Seldom
2 = Sometimes
3 = Often
4 = Almost Always

There are barriers to the change needed to improve customer
reputation.
There is an opportunity to be the agent of organizational change and
commitment.
The organizational structure provides the visibility and resources to
remove hurdles.
A solid understanding of the change is needed to improve customer
reputation.
Cultural Model
Influence 2: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
perceive confidence
and trust in the
organization to
improve customer
reputation.
Specify 3 ways the organization builds trust and confidence for the
change needed for improving customer reputation…
Specify 3 barriers to building the trust and confidence needed for
change ...
Cultural settings
Cultural Setting
Influence 3: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
ensure the active
organizational
culture is in
Rate your perception of the organizational culture for improving
customer reputation.
0 being poor to 100 being exceptional
Sliding Bar Scale-
The stated values and beliefs of the organization provide the
framework for improving customer reputation.
The leadership team walks the walk.
229

Influence Survey item
alignment with the
stated culture of the
organization to
improve customer
reputation.
Resources are aligned with organizational priorities to ensure
effective change.
Diverse perspectives are considered at multiple levels of the
organization.
Cultural Setting
Influence 4: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
encompass the
perspectives of key
stakeholders from
the design stage
through decision-
making that will
improve customer
reputation.
Rate your agreement regarding the cultural impacts of improving
customer reputation.
0 = Never
1 = Seldom
2 = Some of the time
3 = Most of the time
Likert Scale-
Evidence-based solutions are used and communicated
The organization works to bring forward the “silent voices”
Innovation is supported through the company’s values
Role models and mentors manifest personal growth
There is cognitive diversity in the planning teams for change
The organization provides resources for personal and professional
growth

Figure A1 presents the customer loyalty/satisfaction matrix.

230

Figure A1
Customer Loyalty/Satisfaction Matrix

Note. From Your Customers’ Perception of Quality: What It Means to Your Bottom Line and
How to Control It by K. Baboo and R. Fantina, 2011, CRC Press. Copyright 2011 CRC Press.

231

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Good afternoon (morning), and welcome to our interview. I am Robb Flak, a doctoral
candidate at USC for Organizational Change and Leadership. I will be helping to conduct
research that will help us gain perspective on customer reputation. Within the last 2 weeks, we
shared some information with you regarding the purpose of the study. The research aims to gain
your perspective on customer reputation and how the organization influences it. As a side note,
you will hear the phrase customer reputation multiple times throughout the discussion, as we
want to keep the questions and context closely connected.
You were sent an informed consent form by email to sign and send back, which we
appreciate you doing beforehand. I hope to make this interview an open and energizing forum for
our discussion, as your viewpoint is valuable to the study.
Do you have any questions or concerns before we start?
I would like to record our interview with your permission. The recording will be used for
my purposes only to clarify any errors in the transcription and then deleted. Your name will not
be used in the study. If you are all set, I want to start the recording; let us begin.

232

Table B1
Knowledge
Influence Interview item
Factual: The senior/mid-level
leaders need to know the
components of customer
reputation.
How would you describe the status today of customer
reputation for our organization?
Look at this matrix that shows loyalty based on reputation and
satisfaction based on execution (Table 1). Where do you
think our customers see us? You can be specific to different
customers if it is helpful.
Conceptual: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to know
the importance of building
and maintaining the
components of customer
reputation.
How does your daily work or that of your department contribute
to customer reputation?
Procedural: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to know
how to improve customer
reputation.
Please tell me what you do daily, weekly, and monthly to
improve customer reputation.
Metacognitive: The
senior/mid-level leaders
must self-reflect on their
progress toward improving
customer reputation.
Please tell me when and how you think about your progress in
improving customer reputation.

233

Table B2
Motivation
Influence Interview item
Value: The senior/mid-level
leaders must value the
components to build and
maintain customer
reputation.
How valuable is it for you to help improve the organization’s
customer reputation?
Self-efficacy: The
senior/mid-level leaders
need to be confident in
implementing the
components that build and
maintain customer
reputation.
Tell me about when you felt confident impacting the
organization’s customer reputation.
**Now, tell me about a time when you felt low confidence.
Attribution: The senior/mid-
level leaders attribute their
success or failure to
customer reputation
components to their effort
for elements within their
control.
In looking again at the Customer Loyalty/Satisfaction Matrix,
please share some areas where you could currently attribute
your success in improving customer reputation.

What would be an example of a barrier or risk for failure in
creating a positive customer reputation in the same context?

Goal orientation: The
senior/mid-level leaders
need to balance the
elements of performance
orientation and mastery
goal orientation.
What are the goals and objectives that contribute to the
components of customer reputation?
Expectancy outcome: The
senior/mid-level leaders
need to know how their
expectations and feedback
contribute to improving
customer reputation.
How do your expectations, feedback, and motivation impact
the organization’s customer reputation?

234

Table B3
Organization
Influence Interview item
Cultural models
Cultural Model
Influence 1: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
perceive the
organization’s
acceptance and
commitment to
organizational
change to improve
customer reputation.
Tell me about the organizational culture at the GI company.
How do you see the political influences of the organizational
structure impacting the ability to improve customer reputation?
Cultural Model
Influence 2: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
perceive confidence
and trust in the
organization to
improve customer
reputation.
Tell me how the GI organization communicates change to establish
trust in achieving goals.
Cultural settings
Cultural Setting
Influence 3: The
senior/mid-level
leaders need to
ensure the active
organizational
culture aligns with
the organization’s
stated culture for
improving customer
reputation.
What must the organization do to ensure the expectations of change
(for customer reputation) are effectively industrialized in the day-
to-day activities?

** What examples can you provide illustrating your or your team’s
ability to change?

Cultural Setting
Influence 4: The
senior/mid-level
Tell me about a role or a person within the organization that has
demonstrated the traits to lead us through successful change.
**What roles do you see as key influencers in the organization?
235

Influence Interview item
leaders need to
encompass critical
stakeholders’
perspectives from
the design stage
through decision-
making to improve
customer reputation.

236

Appendix C: Observation Protocol
Tables C1–C3 present the observation protocol.

Table C1
Knowledge
Influence Observation or document analysis
Factual: The senior/mid-level leaders need to
know the components of customer
reputation.
Review the training and competence metrics,
review budgetary use of training, customer
scorecards, business lost/won analysis,
strategic leadership meeting minutes, and
check the HR orientation
guidelines/checklist.

Conceptual: The senior/mid-level leaders
need to know the importance of building
and maintaining customer reputation
components.

Evaluate the company intranet site to focus
on regional activity, initiatives, plant
activity, and corporate focus.
Is there Big Data from GI looking at the
Internet and Intranet site- what and where
are they going for information? Data
analytics.
Procedural: The senior/mid-level leaders need
to know how to improve customer
reputation.
Review the completion of Goals and
Objectives, the Leadership Team Strategy
Meeting Action plans, Sales Strategy
Action plans, and the KPI matrix alignment
to the business processes. Training and
Competency training matrix, job
descriptions, orientation data, and
competency evaluations annually.

237

Table C2
Motivation
Influence Observation or document analysis
Task value: The senior/mid-level leaders must
value the components to build and maintain
customer reputation.
Observe behaviors for evidence of values in
decision-making, aligning feedback within
team meetings, customer meetings, business
review meetings, interactions with
customers, and senior leadership team
meetings.
Self-efficacy: The senior/mid-level leaders
need to be confident in implementing the
components that build and maintain
customer reputation.
Observe behaviors for evidence of self-
efficacy within business review meetings,
interactions with customers, and senior
leadership team meetings.
Attribution: The senior/mid-level leaders
attribute their success or failure of customer
reputation components to their effort for
elements within their control.
Observation of the learner related to
questions, such as “I am not smart enough.
… I am not good at … I cannot.” regarding
establishing trust, what is essential or
urgent, ability to contribute to customer
reputation.

238

Table C3
Organization
Influence Observation or Document Analysis
Cultural models
Cultural Model Influence 1: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to perceive the
organization’s acceptance and commitment
to organizational change to improve
customer reputation.
Review orientation lists, training feedback
forms, turnover metrics, job descriptions,
internal promotions, and requests to move
into high-performance projects and
company intranet for job openings.
Cultural Model Influence 2: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to perceive confidence
and trust in the organization to improve
customer reputation.
Feedback from multiple recruiting agencies
across the organization about interviews,
pluses, and minuses. Observe the
interactions and “silenced” voices of
diverse team members in meetings.
Cultural settings
Cultural Setting Influence 3: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to ensure the active
organizational culture aligns with the
organization’s stated culture for improving
customer reputation.
Customer scorecard trends overlaid with
completing goals and accurate timing,
business won versus business lost, exit
interviews, top talent feedback during
annual reviews, competency training, and
employees leaving after bonus payout.
Cultural Setting Influence 4: The senior/mid-
level leaders need to encompass critical
stakeholders’ perspectives from the design
stage through decision-making to improve
customer reputation.
A review of completeness and accuracy of
audits about program launch gate reviews,
customer corrective action metrics and
grading of objective documents, systemic
responses to the regular feedback of
customers’ concerns, and reactive, not
proactive nature of processes. Email
communications about internal and external
customer feedback.

239

Appendix D: Survey Instrument-GIDE Training Reactions Evaluation

Appendix D: Survey Instrument-GIDE Training Reactions Evaluation
240

241

242

Appendix E: Survey Instrument-GIDE Learning Evaluation

Appendix E: Survey Instrument-GIDE Learning Evaluation
243

244

245

Appendix F: Training Survey Reaction Data Summary

Appendix F: Training Survey Reaction Data Summary

246

Appendix G: Training Survey. Learning Data Summary
The following graphics summarize the learning data.

Figure G1
Training Survey Data Example 1

247

Figure G2
Training Survey Data Example 2

248

Figure G3
Training Survey Data Example 3

249

Appendix H: Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Four-Level Blended Survey Example

Appendix H: Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Four-Level Blended Survey Example
250

251

252

253

254

255

256

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

Universal algebra: an evaluation

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

PDF

Maximizing BCBA trainee development during supervision: knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Universal Wellness Network: a study of a promising practice

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Improving transfer of leadership training from the classroom to the corporate environment within the private sector in Saudi Arabia

Asset Metadata

Creator Kane, Kathleen Ann (author)

Core Title A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/11/2023

Defense Date 08/28/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag customer reputation,knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational value,Performance

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Regur, Carey (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email pkb21@live.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113310171

Unique identifier UC113310171

Identifier etd-KaneKathle-12363.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-KaneKathle-12363

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Kane, Kathleen Ann

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230912-usctheses-batch-1096 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu