University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Nonprofit Middle Manager Perceptions of Organizational Efficacy: A Gap Analysis

Daniel Foley

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

May 2023

© Copyright by Daniel Foley 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Daniel Foley certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Darline Robles
Susanne Foulk
Adrian J. Donato, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This case study utilized a performance gap closure protocol to support the development of
recommendations intended for increasing the organizational efficacy perceptions of Trust the
Process Inc.’s central-office middle-management cohort (COMM). A review of the literature
surfaced essential performance management practices as meta-need areas assumed to influence
manager efficacy perceptions. Perspectives and experiences of the 28-member group with the
performance management practices were gathered via survey, interviews, and document review.
The study identified procedural knowledge, attainment value, self-efficacy, team-efficacy, goal
orientation, the organization’s culture of accountability, and the availability of tools and practices
as critical assets and needs for increasing COMM organizational efficacy perceptions from 65%
to 80% by January 2026. Research findings were applied to an integrated implementation and
evaluation plan highlighting strategies to embed practices bringing about drivers and behaviors
to positively influence COMM efficacy perceptions. For future research, the study recommends
continued investigation of the performance problem through the experiences of other
management cohorts, along with the development of cohort-specific implementation and
evaluation plans. The findings outlined in the study suggest the importance of organizational
efficacy and offers strategies for developing positive efficacy perceptions for TTP’s central-
office middle manager cohort.
Keywords: organizational efficacy, middle managers/management, nonprofit,
performance management

v
Dedication
To Alexandrea Gayda: During this journey, we welcomed our son and said goodbye to my
mother (I love you, Mom); My partner through it all was you. There are so many people who
come to mind as I reflect on this process. Each of them will appreciate that I have dedicated
these few lines to my love, who was always there for me through the ups, downs, early
mornings, short days and long nights. I love you, Alex, and this accomplishment is ours.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Donato, and committee members, Dr. Foulk and Dr.
Robles, for their instrumental role in developing this work. I will be forever grateful for your
generosity of time, insight, and commitment.
Next, I want to share my appreciation for my study informants. Your insights and
experiences brought this work to life. I hope your participation in this project gave each of you a
moment of reflection that somehow elevates your practice, as it certainly has elevated mine.
I want to thank my OCL Saturday Crew and other classmates for the years of learning,
laughs, and love. Special shout-outs to my “battle buddy”, Dr. Daniel Luna, and peer mentor, Dr.
Daniel Scott. This dissertation journey would not have been the same without the two of you on
it with me.
I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Jonathan López, Dr. Jarrad Plante, and Dr.
Michael Stevens for being brothers whose leader-scholar example served as my guide for
starting down this road.
I want to acknowledge my brother, Jake (John Foley, AZ2, USN), for his lifetime of love
and encouragement and my sister, Honora Zaahid, for continuing to inspire me. Thank you to my
step-father Alfred Moffa, Noreen Foley (Aunt No), Rose, (Mom), Ron (Dad), RJ Gayda, Sabeen
Perwaiz Syed and Asghar Syed, and Laura Lee for the countless ways you saw me to and
through this process.
Finally, I want to thank my son Julian for being the cutest study buddy anyone has ever
asked for. You sitting by my side or me holding you in one arm while simultaneously working
on this very document was often the motivation I needed to get through. I am humbled by the
opportunity to pour into you the best of what has been poured into me. I love you, my son.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.....................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Performance ................................................................................................3
Related Literature.................................................................................................................4
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................7
Organizational Performance SMART Goal .........................................................................8
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................9
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Performance Goal for the Study ...................................10
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ..........................................12
Key Definitions ..................................................................................................................13
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................15
Influences on the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................15
Clark and Estes’s Conceptual Framework .........................................................................33
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................34
Summary ............................................................................................................................54
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................55
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................55
Overview of Research Design ...........................................................................................57

viii
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................58
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................61
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................64
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................65
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................66
Ethics..................................................................................................................................68
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................69
Summary ............................................................................................................................71
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................72
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................72
Influence Validation Framework .......................................................................................74
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences ...............................................................75
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences ................................................................93
Results and Findings for Organizational Factor Influences .............................................151
Summary ..........................................................................................................................190
Chapter Five: Recommendation and Discussion .........................................................................192
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................193
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..............................................................................193
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..........................................194
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan: The New World Kirkpatrick Model ...221
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ....................................................................247
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................248
Future Research ...............................................................................................................250
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................252
References ....................................................................................................................................255

ix
Appendix A: KMO Survey Crosswalk ........................................................................................291
Appendix B: KMO Survey Protocol ............................................................................................297
Demographics ..................................................................................................................297
Motivation ........................................................................................................................298
Organizational Factors .....................................................................................................303
Knowledge .......................................................................................................................306
Interview Invitation ..........................................................................................................307
Appendix C: Survey Recruiting Communications ......................................................................309
Pre-Survey: Initial Email to Request Study Participation ................................................309
Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................310
Appendix E: KMO Interview Crosswalk .....................................................................................312
Appendix F: KMO Interview Protocol ........................................................................................317
Interview Questions .........................................................................................................318
Conclusion of the Interview .............................................................................................320
Appendix G: Pre-Interview Recruiting Communications............................................................321
Pre-Interview: Email to Confirm Participation for Study ................................................323
Appendix H: Level 2 and Level 1 Post-Training Series Evaluation Ideal Responses .................324
Appendix I: Sample Level 1 and Level 2 Immediate Program Evaluation Survey .....................325
Appendix J: Sample Survey Measuring Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Level 3 Critical
Behaviors .....................................................................................................................................327
Appendix L: Hypothetical Data Report for External and Internal Outcomes After Installing
the Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................330
Appendix M: KMO Document Analysis Protocol.......................................................................332
Appendix N: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................337

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Aligned
Stakeholder Performance Goal 11
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Central-Office Middle Manager
Organizational Efficacy Perceptions 38
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Central-Office Middle Manager
Organizational Efficacy Perceptions 46
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Central-Office Middle Manager
Organizational Efficacy Perceptions 53
Table 5: Research Questions and Applied Data Sources 58
Table 6: Survey Respondent Demographic Details 73
Table 7: Procedural Knowledge Influence Validation Summary Chart 76
Table 8: Responses to Goal Design Procedural Knowledge Question (n = 19 78
Table 9: Synthesis of Goal Design Procedural Knowledge Influence Related Interview Items 80
Table 10: Optional Response to Performance-Progress Monitoring Procedural Knowledge
Question. 85
Table 11: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Procedural Knowledge Influence
About Progress-Monitoring Report Design 86
Table 12: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Procedural Knowledge Influence
About Individual Development Plan Design 91
Table 13: Motivation Influence Validation Summary Chart 94
Table 14: Synthesis for the Interview Item 101
Table 15: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Attainment Value Influence About
Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meeting 105
Table 16: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Attainment Value Influence About
Individual Development Plan 110
Table 17: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Self-Efficacy Influence About
Goal Design 115
Table 18: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Self-Efficacy Influence About
Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meeting 119

xi
Table 19: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Self-Efficacy Influence About
Individual Development Plan 123
Table 20: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related Team-Efficacy Influence About Goal
Design 127
Table 21: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Team-Efficacy Influence of
Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings 132
Table 22: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Team-Efficacy Influence of
Individual Development Plans 135
Table 23: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Goal Orientation Influence About
Goal Design 138
Table 24: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Goal-Orientation Influence About
Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings 143
Table 25: Synthesis for the Individual Development Plan Goal Orientation Influence Related
Interview Item 148
Table 26: Organizational Factor Influence Validation Summary Chart 152
Table 27: Synthesis for the Goal Design Cultural Model Influence Related Interview Item 161
Table 28: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Cultural Model Influence About
Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings 166
Table 29: Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Cultural Model Influence About
Individual Development Plans 171
Table 30: Synthesis for the Interview Items Related to the Cultural Setting Influence About
Goal Design 176
Table 31: Synthesis for the Interview Items Related to the Cultural Setting Influence About
Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings 182
Table 32: Synthesis for the Interview Items Related to the Cultural Setting Influence About
Individual Development Plans 187
Table 33: Summary of Procedural Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 196
Table 34: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 201
Table 35: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 215
Table 36: The Four Levels of Training Evaluation From the New World Kirkpatrick Model 223
Table 37: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 225

xii
Table 38: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation for COMMs 228
Table 39: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behavior 229
Table 40: Evaluation of the Components of the Learning Program 237
Table 41: Components to Measure Reactions to the Training Program 243
Appendix A: KMO Survey Crosswalk 291

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for the Study Integrating Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences 56
Figure 2: Please Identify the Critical Elements of an Effective Performance Progress Report.
You May Select Multiple Items (n = 20) 84
Figure 3: Please Identify the Critical Elements of an Effective Individual Development Plan.
You May Select Multiple Items (n = 20) 89
Figure 4: I Find It Important to My Role to Design Individual Goals That Are Aligned With
Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans (n = 22) 100
Figure 5: I Find It Important to My Role for Me to Participate in Regular Performance
Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers 104
Figure 6: I Find It Important to My Role to Design an Individual Development Plan Which
Aligns With My Annual Goals 109
Figure 7: I Am Confident in My Ability to Design Individual Goals Aligned With My
Division’s Operating Plan and Organizational Strategy Plans 114
Figure 8: I Am Confident in My Ability to Participate in Regular Performance Progress
Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers 117
Figure 9: I Am Confident in My Ability to Design an Individual Development Plan Aligned
With My Annual Goals 122
Figure 10: I Am Confident in My Direct Report Team’s Ability to Design Goals Aligned
With Our Division’s Operating Plan and Organizational Strategy Plans 126
Figure 11: I Am Confident in My Direct Report Team’s Ability to Participate in Our Team’s
Regular Performance Progress Monitoring Meetings 130
Figure 12: I Am Confident in My Direct Report Team’s Ability to Design Individual
Development Plans Aligned With Their Annual Goals 134
Figure 13: The Purpose of Designing Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and
Organizational Strategy Plans Is Clear to Me 137
Figure 14: The Purpose of Participating in Regular Performance Progress Monitoring
Meetings With My Manager and Peers Is Clear to Me 141
Figure 15: The Purpose of Designing Individual Development Plans Aligned With My
Annual Goals Is Clear to Me 147

xiv
Figure 16: My Organization Has a Culture of Accountability Which Supports Me When I
Am Designing Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy
Plans 159
Figure 17: My Organization Has a Culture of Accountability Which Supports Me When I
Am Participating in Regular Performance Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager
and Peers 164
Figure 18: My Organization Has a Culture of Accountability Which Supports Me When I
Am Designing My Individual Development Plan Which Is Aligned With My Annual Goals 170
Figure 19: My Organization Has Practices Which Support Me When I Am Designing Goals
Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans 174
Figure 20: My Organization Has Tools Which Support Me When I Am Designing Goals
Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans 175
Figure 21: My Organization Has Practices Which Support Me When I Am Participating in
Regular Performance Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers 180
Figure 22: My Organization Has Tools Which Support Me When I Am Participating in
Regular Performance Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers 181
Figure 23: My Organization Has Practices Which Support Me When I Am Designing My
Individual Development Plan Which Is Aligned With My Annual Goals 185
Figure 24: My Organization Has Tools Which Support Me When I Am Designing My
Individual Development Plan Which Is Aligned With My Annual Goals 186
Figure 25: Level 3 Critical Behaviors and Required Drivers: Percentage Increase of COMM
Organizational Efficacy Perceptions Toward Gap Closure After the Implementation of the
Integrated Training and Evaluation Program 246
Figure L1: Level 4 Results and Key Indicators External Outcomes Data Report After the
Implementation of the Integrated Training and Evaluation Program 330
Figure L2: Level 4, Results and Key Indicators, Internal Outcomes Data Report After the
Implementation of the Integrated Training and Evaluation Program 331

xv
List of Abbreviations
COMM(s) Central-office middle manager
TTP Trust the Process Inc.

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The problem of practice investigates the underperformance in organizational efficacy
perceptions among central-office middle managers in a U.S.-based national nonprofit
organization. Organizational efficacy finds its conceptual roots in social cognitive theory,
specifically collective efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989). A group is said to have
collective efficacy when they demonstrate belief in their ability to complete a task or achieve a
goal (Bandura, 1998, 2000). Organizational efficacy is a contextually specific phenomenon
anchored in the group experiences of an organization’s employees during a particular period and
recognized as a contributing factor to employee engagement (Bandura, 2008; Culture Amp, n.d.;
Peterson et al., 2000; Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Employee engagement, an increasingly studied
dimension of organizational dynamics, goes beyond the dimensionally limited concepts of job,
employee, or workplace satisfaction by seeking to measure commitment to one’s organization,
enthusiasm for one’s role, and the willingness to go beyond work responsibilities through acts of
organizational citizenship (Harter et al., 2020; Payne et al., 1998; Shuck & Wollard, 2008). The
employee engagement research touts the powerful impacts of highly engaged workforces
through evidence of increased employee productivity, creativity, and tenure, along with
increased overall organizational achievement against key performance indicators such as
profitability (Granger et al., 2021; Harter et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2017).
Middle managers, or those individuals who serve in roles between senior executive
leadership and frontline leadership, have been cited as having some of the lowest levels of
engagement across industries and countries (Anicich & Hirsh, 2017a; Zenger & Folkman, 2014).
Middle managers are more likely than any other segment within an organization to experience
2

burnout, seek alternative job opportunities, and, as evidenced in a recent study, have a
disproportionately higher likelihood of developing depression and or anxiety (Prins et al., 2015).
In the resource-constrained nonprofit, middle managers play an even more pivotal and
likely more burdensome role by serving as both the capacity solution for today and the
leadership succession solution for tomorrow (Austin et al., 2011; Toupin & Plewes, 2009). A
core assumption of solution transferability underpins the study, namely, that focusing on the
organization’s lowest-performing cohort in organizational efficacy perceptions will produce
solutions that directly benefit that cohort while potentially offering some generalizable strategies
to support overall employee organizational efficacy (Bish & Becker, 2016; Chen & Bliese, 2002;
Zhang et al., 2008). The problem of low organizational efficacy among nonprofit middle
managers is important to address in light of its impact on employee engagement and on current
and future organizational performance (Austin et al., 2011; Bandura, 2000; Du et al., 2015; Lee
et al., 2017; Lee & Ko, 2010).
Organizational Context and Mission
Trust the Process Inc. (TTP; a pseudonym) is a 501(c)(3) national not-for-profit
organization that seeks to contribute to the conditions allowing for a community’s nonprofit
organizations to make deep and lasting differences in people’s lives through collective impact
strategies (Charity Navigator, 2006; Internal Revenue Service, 2022). Situated in over 20
communities across the United States, TTP works in partnership with local, regional, and
national nonprofit, government, and philanthropy leaders to develop collective goals and
implementation plans which will create meaningful positive change in the lives of key
stakeholders (Johnson, 2008). TTP coordinates the efforts of its nearly 500 employees through
six functional divisions: program design and management, local and regional operations,
3

business administration, human resources, fundraising, and strategy. Each division is headed-up
within TTP’s central office and led by a top manager alongside their teams of central-office
middle managers.
Organizational Performance
As with most organizations, TTP mobilizes its staff to implement mission-advancing
programs and strategies in keeping with its theory of change (Tuck & Yang, 2014). Since the
mid-2010s, TTP has partnered with a third-party survey science organization (3PSS, a
pseudonym) to facilitate the organization’s annual employee engagement surveying process.
Employee engagement surveying has indicated a negative year-over-year performance trend in
organizational efficacy, an organization-centric derivative of the broader social cognitive concept
of collective efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 2002; Bohn, 2010). 3PSS’s methodology acknowledges
that organizational efficacy often reflects perceptions of organizational strategy and decision-
making by measuring organizational efficacy via the response to the survey prompts, “Trust the
Process Inc. has positioned itself to succeed in the near future,” and “Trust the Process Inc.
successfully deploys internal resources against our priorities.” The organizational efficacy
favorability score is measured by averaging the response rates for the two prompt’s assertions.
According to the 2021 employee engagement survey, the overall organizational efficacy
favorability score was 70%. Despite witnessing a 5% increase in the overall organizational
efficacy favorability score since 2018 (65% favorable), progress was not linear and is still well
below 3PSS’ benchmark of 80% for proficient performance. If the causes for the
underperformance on these measures go unattended, there is a strong likelihood that the trend
will persist, if not worsen, negatively affecting TTP’s ability to execute its mission.

4

Related Literature
The following section provides a brief overview of core concepts explored while
investigating the problem of practice, including organizational efficacy, middle management,
and non-profit middle management.
Organizational Efficacy
Organizational confidence, or in theoretical terms, organizational efficacy, is a precursor
to employee engagement which has gained increasing attention over the past 2 decades
(Budworth, 2011; Chen & Bliese, 2002; Culture Amp, n.d.; Fernández‐Ballesteros et al., 2002;
Peterson et al., 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2004). Collective efficacy is a quality describing a
group’s beliefs in their ability to perform a task or achieve a goal (Bandura, 1986, 1998), and has
been studied in a diverse cross-section of settings such as amateur and professional athletics
(Carron et al., 1985; Hodges & Carron, 1992; Spink, 1990), military (Chen & Bliese, 2002;
Shamir et al., 2009), nursing and emergency response professions (Lee & Ko, 2010; Smith,
Morin et al., 2018), and teaching (Donohoo et al., 2018; Goddard et al., 2004; Hattie, 2016)
alongside social studies in neighborhood crime reduction (Browning et al., 2004; Sampson et al.,
1997) and climate change (Chen, 2015; Thaker et al., 2016). A meta-analysis by Hattie (2016),
which incorporated insights from 1,500 studies, uncovered that collective teacher efficacy, or a
school’s teachers’ beliefs in their ability to support student academic performance, was the most
important factor in student achievement overtaking other notable elements like prior
achievement, socioeconomic status, home environment, and parental involvement. From an
organizational perspective, the literature suggests that increased perceptions of collective
efficacy led to higher degrees of creativity, innovation, collaboration, and achievement against
key performance indicators and that leader behaviors play a role in collective efficacy
5

perceptions (Barrick et al., 2015; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021; Borgogni et al., 2011; Chen &
Bliese, 2002; Clark & Estes, 2008; Liu et al., 2015; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Walumbwa et al.,
2004).
Middle Management
Middle managers are leaders across different settings and sectors whose primary function
is to translate organizational strategy into operational implementation (Rouleau & Balogun,
2011; Tarakci et al., 2018; Wooldridge et al., 2008). Middle managers are expected to
demonstrate fluency in navigating multiple layers of management and authority, often reporting
to senior leaders but managing a complement of execution-oriented direct reports (Anicich &
Hirsh, 2017b; Heyden et al., 2017). While their contributions have been maligned or minimized
in conversations pertaining to contemporary organizational design, evidence prompting the re-
evaluation of middle manager value has begun to change the narrative (Balogun, 2003; Caye et
al., 2010; Lazear et al., 2015; Mollick, 2012; Shaw, 2019). Mollick (2012) conducted a study
within the gaming industry that identified middle managers contributed more to favorable
variations in company performance than executive leaders and those in innovator roles.
Additionally, middle managers play a unique role in organizational productivity that
would likely go unperformed in their absence, including strategy management, change
management, continuous improvement, and coaching and career development of frontline
leaders (Balogun, 2003; Hermkens & Romme, 2020; Heyden et al., 2017; Lazear et al., 2015;
Zhang et al., 2008). Shaw (2019) reported that employee turnover decreases as the people skills
of their managers increase. Lazear et al. (2015) identified that average middle managers
contribute 1.75 times the output of the average frontline implementer, and replacing an
underperforming middle manager with a high-performing one is like adding a 10th person to a
6

nine-person team. Complications related to authority asymmetries and the demands of mixed-
level translations, referred to by Anicich and Hirsh (2017b) as vertical code-switching, often
serve as the antecedents of the disproportionately high levels of burnout experienced by middle
managers (Anderson & Brion, 2014; Ashforth et al., 2000; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Middle manager burnout comes at a prohibitive price, as studies suggest that replacing a middle
manager could cost between $5000 and upward of 50% of their annual salary, not to mention the
incalculable costs of lost training, institutional knowledge and productivity (Caye et al., 2010;
Vincent & Marmo, 2018).
Nonprofit Middle Managers
This study focused on understanding the organizational efficacy perceptions of middle
managers within a nonprofit setting. Traditionally, nonprofit organizations operate in resource-
constrained circumstances due to their reliance on philanthropy and government funding to
underwrite the services they provide gratis to their clients (Tierney, 2006). Limitations in
resourcing capability create friction as an organization seeks sustainable operations and highly
impactful programming (Renz, 2016). Furthermore, resourcing constraints can manifest negative
workplace experiences for nonprofit employees who face increasing demands for their
organization’s services despite flat or dwindling means to meet those demands (Deaton et al.,
2013; Dolan, 2002). The result of prolonged experiences of resource scarcity can create
conditions for adverse employee engagement outcomes, including decreased organizational
efficacy, organizational identification, organizational commitment, and, eventually, employee
attrition (Caughron & Mumford, 2012; Clements, 2013; Du et al., 2015).
The circumstances of managing resource constraints in the face of high service demands
are the natural state of the nonprofit sector, increasing the complexity and importance of middle
7

management (Deaton et al., 2013; Dolan, 2002; Vincent & Marmo, 2018). Much like their out-
of-sector analogs, nonprofit middle managers are responsible for various duties, including
strategic planning, project management, and team leadership (Bish & Becker, 2016; Vincent &
Marmo, 2018). In addition to this list, Bish and Becker (2016) identified that nonprofit managers
are also expected to demonstrate high levels of self-awareness, strategic thinking, and
commitment to organizational and sector values. Finally, the retirement of baby boom generation
leaders has prompted concerns about an impending wave of nonprofit leadership transitions
(Santora et al., 2015; Tierney, 2006). Despite data demonstrating that organizations often look to
discover emerging leaders from their middle manager ranks, nonprofits struggle with the
strategic development and engagement of their middle managers, increasing the likelihood of
organizational underperformance today and in the future (Bell et al., 2006; Hannum et al., 2011;
Stewart & Diebold, 2017).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of underperformance in organizational efficacy perceptions among middle
management is important to solve for various reasons. As previously noted, middle managers
facilitate organizational performance by leading key functional capabilities that translate strategy
into implementation (Anicich & Hirsh, 2017a; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Tarakci et al., 2018;
Wooldridge et al., 2008). Acknowledging that proficient middle management is essential for
organizations to achieve their goals, depressed confidence among this group could present
significant performance challenges (Caye et al., 2010; Mollick, 2012). Additionally, middle
managers serve as peer and subordinate role models, creating a platform of influence that, at
times, surpasses the influence of even top managers (Bish & Becker, 2016; Zhang et al., 2008).
Social cognitive theory’s scheme of triadic reciprocity describes the relationship between an
8

individual’s environment, identity, and behavior exerting influence on one another (Bandura,
1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Vicarious experience, a core construct for developing efficacy
beliefs, articulates how a manager’s organizational confidence might influence the confidence
level of others in their surroundings (Bernardy & Antoni, 2021; Donohoo & Katz, 2017; Felps et
al., 2009). Through vicarious exchange, one manager’s sense of organizational efficacy can
beget another’s (Bandura, 1986, 2000; Du et al., 2015). The contrapositive of this example could
also arise, as the demonstration of a middle manager’s lacking organizational efficacy can prime
a cascade of weakening the organizational efficacy perceptions of others (Fernández-Ballesteros
et al., 2002; Goddard et al., 2004).
A few consequences of waning organizational efficacy are particularly damaging to
nonprofits. In addition to vicarious modeling, mastery experiences are another core component
of efficacy development, where positive performance leads to increased efficacy (Bandura,
1986). Conversely, poor performance leads to lagging efficacy, which further begets poor
performance (Donohoo & Katz, 2017; Peterson et al., 2000). Nonprofits exist to provide a
service to clients that might not otherwise receive those services, and so lacking confidence in
employees can lead to underserved clients (Bish & Becker, 2016; Chen & Bliese, 2002;
Stajkovic et al., 2009; Vincent & Marmo, 2018). Finally, middle managers are often the
backbone of senior leader succession planning, providing institutional knowledge and
organizational commitment yielding much-needed stability during times of transition (Austin et
al., 2011; Bell et al., 2006; Hannum et al., 2011).
Organizational Performance SMART Goal
Trust the Process Inc.’s goal is that by January 2026, overall organizational efficacy
perceptions across all staff cohorts would see a 10% increase over the 2023 employee
9

engagement survey results. Progress toward this goal should reflect a 5-percentage point average
annual increase over 3 years, keeping with 3PSS’ definition of adequate progress toward a stated
performance goal. This study sought to present clear guidance on which knowledge, skill,
motivational, and organizational factors require improvement to enhance organizational efficacy
and prescribe actions that managers can take to facilitate those improvements (Clark & Estes,
2008). The study focused specifically on understanding the needs of central-office middle
managers to promote that cohort’s organizational efficacy perceptions; however, a secondary
output would be to develop generalizable and transferable strategies that could benefit the
organizational efficacy perceptions of all TTP employees. Not pursuing a further understanding
of sagging central-office middle manager organizational confidence would likely see this
discouraging trend persist with its incumbent negative performance, engagement, and
sustainability outcomes sure to follow.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
As mentioned, 3PSS’ employee engagement methodology acknowledges that
organizational efficacy is rooted in perceptions of high-level strategy, a responsibility of TTP’s
executive leadership team. The literature frequently indicates the capacity of top organizational
leaders to shape workplace environments and perceptions of organizational efficacy (Bandura,
2000; Burke, 2018; Chen & Bliese, 2002; Clark, 2005; Petitta & Borgogni, 2011; Walumbwa et
al., 2004). The leadership team is headed by TTP’s CEO and includes the executive officers
reporting to the CEO and a select group of senior directors responsible for critical operational
and strategic priorities. Epistemologically, within the corporate bureaucracy of TTP and its
director-provider matrix, these 28 leaders are the directors most accountable for effectively
managing the organization’s strategy, resources, and approximately 500 employees (Aliyu et al.,
10

2015; Dubnick, 2014; Dubnick & Justice, 2004; Strebel, 1996). The study’s stakeholder group of
focus is TTP’s central-office middle managers, a group of 28 leaders who operate three layers
beneath the CEO in the organizational chart and report to executive officers. Trust the Process
Inc.’s central-office middle managers serve as functional leaders within the organization’s six
functional divisions, responsible for executing strategy within their content scope while usually
managing a team of direct reports. The final stakeholder group of interest is the central-office
middle managers’ direct reports. Varying in levels of seniority, experience, and tenure, this
group of employees is directly responsible for the execution of strategies that were envisioned by
the senior team and are coordinated by the central-office middle managers. Their influence on
strategic decision-making is frequently contingent upon their manager’s capability of translating
proximal insights into the wide lens typically required of strategy (Hentschke & Wohlstetter,
2004; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Wooldridge et al., 2008).
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Performance Goal for the Study
While increasing perceptions of organizational efficacy for all TTP stakeholder groups is
valuable for the organization’s immediate and long-term success, the central-office management
cohort was selected as the focus of this study. I selected this cohort for two reasons. The first is
that their central role in the epistemological matrix at TTP encourages the assumption that
improving collective efficacy perceptions for the cohort will have positive efficacy ripple effects
up and down the management chain (Aliyu et al., 2015; Dubnick, 2014; Dubnick & Justice,
2004). The second is that a multi-year trend demonstrated that central-office middle management
is the most pessimistic about TTP’s collective ability to achieve its goals.
Trust the Process Inc.’s executive team sanctioned this study of the innovation goal of
solving for slipping central-office middle management’s organizational efficacy perceptions.
11

3PSS’ methodology indicates that a favorability score of 80% would mark proficiency for this
factor. The study seeks to develop an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to guide
efforts in bringing the central-office middle manager cohort’s favorability scores from 65% to
80%, closing the current performance gap of 15% over 3 years. If the trend of low organizational
confidence continues, the literature suggests that a downward spiral of negative consequences
could arise, connecting near-term decreases in organizational performance, talent turnover
events, and long-term disruptions to organizational performance and critical leadership
succession pipelines (Austin et al., 2011; Lazear et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2017; Vincent & Marmo,
2018). Table 1 outlines TTP’s mission, performance goal, and the aligned central-office middle
manager stakeholder goal.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Aligned Stakeholder
Performance Goal
Organizational mission
Trust the Process, Inc. seeks to contribute to the conditions allowing for a community’s
nonprofit organizations to make deep and lasting differences in people’s lives through
collective impact strategies.
Organizational performance goal
Trust the Process, Inc. will see a 10% increase in overall organizational efficacy perceptions by
January 2026. (70% to 80%)
Stakeholder group performance goal
Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-office middle management cohort will increase their
organizational efficacy perceptions by 15% before January 2026. (65% to 80%)

12

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis examining the root assets and
needs related to solving for decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among TTP’s central-
office middle managers. The analysis will focus on identifying causes for this problem due to
gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational factors. The study began
by conducting a literature review to generate a list of possible influences. Next, the assumed
influences will be systematically examined through a mix-methods research design to identify
actual or validated causes for underperformance. While a complete gap analysis would
investigate the experiences of all stakeholders, for practical purposes, central-office middle
managers are this study’s focus. As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-office middle manager cohort’s knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational influences related to increasing their
organizational efficacy perceptions by 15% by 2026?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions addressing decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among Trust the
Process, Inc.’s central-office middle managers?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was adapted to an innovation model and
implemented as the conceptual framework (Osanloo & Grant, 2016). The model is a systematic,
analytical method employed to clarify organizational goals and identify the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impacting stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes,
2008). Knowledge deficits are demonstrated through shortfalls in information and skill
attainment. Motivational challenges manifest as limitations in stakeholder individual choice,
13

persistence, or mental effort. Organizational factors also impact stakeholder performance both
through limitations presented by organizational elements like norms or values, known as cultural
models, or by cultural settings, which are shortcomings in organizational structure or resources
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2017)
In this study, Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was levered for problem-solving
research. The methodological framework is a mixed-methods case study consisting of surveys,
individual interviews, and document analysis. The focus of the research is the organizational
efficacy perceptions of TTP’s central-office middle management cohort through the lens of
knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational needs. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact TTP’s central-office middle manager cohort perceptions of
organizational confidence were generated based on context-specific research as well as general
learning and motivation theory.
Key Definitions
● Middle management and middle managers are a cohort of individual employees who
sit between an organization’s senior-most executive ranks and frontline managerial
leadership. Floyd and Wooldridge (1997) characterize the middle manager role as one
which coordinates the relationship between an organization’s strategy (executive
functions) and operations (technical functions) through mediation, negotiation, and
interpretation.
● Organizational efficacy is a derivative of collective efficacy focused on the
phenomenological circumstances which impact individual and group perceptions of
confidence held in organizations with which they are affiliated. Bohn (2002)
described organizational efficacy as
14

Organizational efficacy (OE) is a generative capacity within an organization
to cope effectively with the demands, challenges, stressors, and
opportunities it encounters within the business environment. It exists as an
aggregated judgment of an organization’s members about their sense of
collective capacities, sense of mission or purpose, and a sense of resilience.
(p. 65)
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about organizational confidence perceptions and
middle management. The organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and the initial concepts of
gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature
surrounding the scope of the study and details the assumed influences. Topics of middle
management, nonprofit middle management, organizational efficacy, and self-efficacy will be
addressed. Chapter Three describes the methodology for choosing participants, data collection,
and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five
provides recommendations, based on the findings and literature, for closing the perceived gaps
and formulating an integrated implementation and evaluation plan for the recommendations.

15

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews pertinent literature related to nonprofit middle managers’
perceptions of organizational efficacy. The first section reviews the circumstances and
experiences of middle managers to contextualize the stakeholder under study. The second section
utilizes the broader concept of efficacy to introduce organizational efficacy and self-efficacy in
relation to middle management. Finally, the chapter concludes with an introduction of the
conceptual framework, which leverages Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis to uncover the
assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences which shape middle managers’
perceptions of organizational efficacy.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
The problem of practice investigates the conditions influencing the organizational
efficacy perceptions of Trust the Process Inc.’s central-office middle managers. The following
sections offer an in-depth literature review detailing the circumstances of middle managers and
the antecedents, catalysts, and significance of middle manager organizational efficacy.
Middle Management
Across most sectors and organization types, top managers are responsible for leading
strategic initiatives to evolve current-state operations to increase organizational competitiveness,
sustainability, and performance in the future (Hermkens & Romme, 2020; Mollick, 2012). On
the other hand, frontline implementors operate within the current state and are responsible for the
daily execution of an organization’s programs or services (Clements, 2013; Vincent & Marmo,
2018). Between top managers and the frontline are middle managers tasked with translating
organizational strategy into implementable actions (Bish & Becker, 2016; Rouleau & Balogun,
2011). In light of their central positioning in the org chart, middle managers can exert broad
16

influence in an organizational context despite lacking the authority to mandate action or change
(Balogun, 2003; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Middle managers play a lynchpin role in
ensuring effective information sharing, collaboration, and alignment vertically and horizontally
throughout an organization (Hermkens & Romme, 2020; Heyden et al., 2017).
Despite cultural perceptions that the middle layer may present barriers to performance
and evidence of organizational bloat, highly effective middle managers have been found to have
disproportionately positive effects on organizational performance compared to top managers and
frontline leaders (Balogun, 2003; Caye et al., 2010; Mollick, 2012; Shaw, 2019). Replacing
highly effective middle managers can be difficult and expensive due to their role in translating
strategy into implementation, organizational sense-making, and enhancing organizational
performance (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Lazear et al., 2015; Vincent & Marmo, 2018). This
may be especially true in the nonprofit sector, whose organizations often lack middle-
management bench strength and or lack the resources to train, support, and competitively
compensate managers compared to their for-profit counterparts (Deaton et al., 2013; Linscott,
2011).
Roles and Responsibilities
The following sections outline typical middle management roles and responsibilities,
including strategy management, people management, and change management.
Strategy Management. Middle managers translate organizational strategy and culture
into action through their stewardship of functional priorities and managerial oversight of
frontline leaders (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Zhang et al., 2008). Through modeling, training,
and managing frontline staff, middle managers serve a fulcrum-like role in advancing desired
organizational behavior (Clements, 2013; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010). Writing on a
17

middle manager’s ability to demonstrate self or personal leadership before cultivating team
leadership, Alston and Mujtaba (2009) acknowledge the influence of middle manager modeling
to support the vicarious development process of their peers and direct reports. Modeling serves
as a valuable reinforcement device for individual development, which middle managers are
responsible for delivering to their direct reports (Carlopio et al., 2012; Marjin Poortvliet &
Darnon, 2010). In training spaces, middle managers dispense knowledge on technical skills
required to perform a given task, allow for and support practice in executing the task, and
situational awareness coaching needed for high performance (Armstrong, 2017).
People Management. Considering that middle managers often manage teams of
individuals who have task and goal interdependencies, it is incumbent upon them to develop
individual and group capabilities in management and leadership (Bernardy & Antoni, 2021;
Clark, 2005). Middle managers model collective norms and expectations for their direct reports,
communicating what is important, permitted, and prohibited, cultivating a sense of psychological
safety as an antecedent to group identification, group commitment, and group efficacy
(Armstrong, 2017; Buckingham, 2005). In the values-forward nonprofit sector, managers are
expected to demonstrate leadership through their self-awareness and values orientation. Bish and
Becker (2016) found that nonprofit middle managers add to organizational capability by utilizing
emotional intelligence via self-knowledge and modeling social sector expertise through nonprofit
orientation.
Change Management. Organizational strategy, which develops plans around a vision for
a future state the organization is striving to achieve, is inherently a practice in change
management (Belias & Koustelios, 2014; Graetz & Smith, 2010). Balogun (2003) referred to
middle managers as change intermediaries due to their role in translating strategy into practice.
18

As a change intermediary, managers perform strategic sense-making, matching the essentials of a
plan to the realities of the present context and circumstances. To enable their sense-making
capabilities, managers participate in formal and informal information exchange networks,
tapping into insights throughout their organization (Banks et al., 2014). Heyden et al. (2017)
identified managers’ ability to capitalize on information networks as one of the mechanisms
middle managers utilized to supersede the contributions of top managers in their effect on change
management processes. Finally, as change intermediaries, middle managers are the primary
interpreters and instillers of organizational culture (Clements, 2013; McGurk, 2010). Strategic
planning is a cultural exercise, and middle managers facilitate change by carefully reconciling
organizational identity tensions emanating from perceived conflicts between established values
and emerging strategic directions (Bish & Becker, 2016; Walumbwa et al., 2004).
Relationships
The following sections detail the relationships shaping the workplace experiences of
middle managers, namely their supervisors and direct reports.
Supervisors: Top Managers. Depending on an organization’s scale, industry, and
functional design, the term “middle manager” can be used figuratively in highly layered
organizations or literally, such as in smaller settings featuring only three management layers
(Floyd & Wooldridge, 1996; Leavitt, 2005). Top managers are those leaders who head the
largest operating units of an organization and are responsible for the unit’s people, processes, and
performance (Austin et al., 2006). Utilizing their functional expertise, top managers collaborate
with CEOs and boards to develop organizational strategy and significantly influence
organizational effectiveness (BoardSource, 2017; Petitta & Borgogni, 2011).
19

Top managers and middle managers have an epistemological director-provider
relationship, where directors exert power over the actions of providers (Aliyu et al., 2015;
Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Middle managers are expected to integrate ideas and directions
dispensed by top managers into their workstreams through convergent management approaches
(Sijbom et al., 2013). The negotiation between executives and managers is more complicated
when a manager’s sense-making role prompts strategy recommendations that diverge from
originally agreed-upon approaches (Tarakci et al., 2018; Donald & Goldsby, 2004). Middle
managers rely on their direct supervisor’s trust, leadership, and guidance when surfacing
opportunities for strategy renewal or innovation, as doing so may come with reputational risk
(Farmer & Aguinis, 2005; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Finally, top managers are expected
to provide training, coaching, and individual development support to their middle manager direct
reports. The core function of executives as people managers can be neglected due to top manager
capability, capacity, and proclivity, with harmful consequences for middle managers (Caughron
& Mumford, 2012; Smith, Orlando, Berta, 2018).
Direct Reports: Frontline Leaders. Frontline leaders are responsible for executing a
narrow set of activities according to organizational strategy (Knies et al., 2018). In nonprofits,
frontline implementors are tasked with bringing to life the organization’s mission through
various functional roles in the current state (Benjamin, 2012). As the direct supervisor of
implementors, middle managers are expected to train, equip, manage, and coach individuals and
teams of frontline leaders (Perez Jolles et al., 2017). Middle managers also play a critical role in
developing an implementor’s trust in the organization through practices that create
psychologically safe, effective, and motivating work environments (Burgoyne, 1992; Du et al.,
2015; Zhang et al., 2008). Middle managers cultivate and utilize organizational trust to activate
20

implementor commitment and navigate change management processes (Bish & Becker, 2016).
Transformational leadership factors, such as leader-member exchange, are rooted in the
cultivation of organizational trust and have been found to increase the influence of middle
managers on the retention and affective commitment of their direct reports (Hamstra et al., 2014;
Petitta & Borgogni, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2004).
Common Challenges
The following sections provide insight into common challenges experienced by middle
managers, including the need to perform vertical code-switching when navigating environmental
dynamics and limits to their authority.
Vertical Code-Switching. Frequently negotiating between different perspectives at
different organizational power levels is often a necessity that negatively impacts middle
managers’ workplace experience (Anicich, 2021). Micro-role transitions were defined by
Ashforth et al. (2000) as the shifting of an individual’s self-view in light of rapid and frequent
changes in their positionality, causing identity confusion and conflict. Anicich and Hirsh (2017a,
2017b) extended the understanding of the micro-role transition construct by embedding it in the
circumstances of middle managers, referring to it as vertical code-switching. Furthermore,
Anicich and Hirsh (2017a, 2017b) identified vertical code-switching as a critical factor in middle
manager burnout with deleterious effects on physical, mental, and emotional health. Other
research (Prins et al., 2015; Zenger & Folkman, 2014) reveals that middle managers are among
the least content and most disengaged cohorts of employees in contemporary organizational
settings, demonstrating lower rates of commitment and efficacy and higher rates of turnover
intention
21

Limits to Authority. In addition to relationship challenges due to the demands of
frequent identity shifts, other difficulties arise from the dilemma of being high in accountability
but low in authority to effect change (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Middle managers
promote organizational success by enabling activity adjustments when environmental and
performance information calls for strategy and goal adaptation (LePine, 2005). Tarakci et al.
(2018) referred to this capacity as strategic renewal where middle managers support
organizational agility by tailoring activities to best meet strategic aims. Paradoxically, strategy
innovation facilitated by the entrepreneurial middle manager is a critical capability within
thriving organizations while simultaneously being a source of middle manager strife (Bish &
Becker, 2016; Donald & Goldsby, 2004). This is especially true when environmental or
performance information prompts a manager to design seemingly divergent objectives
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Tarakci et al., 2018). Top managers frequently assume that
strategies will be implemented as designed and, therefore, expect middle managers to execute
convergent, or clearly aligned, activities (Austin et al., 2006; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992).
Middle managers are forced to carefully balance making insight-led adjustments to support goal
achievement and meeting top manager mandates to rigidly adhere to plans as designed (Floyd &
Lane, 2000; Hermkens & Romme, 2020; Shi et al., 2009). That is, while the lack of certain
authorities might promote a middle manager’s impact by developing information exchange
networks that steward organizational collaboration, trust, and idea integration, these benefits
come at the cost of a manager’s autonomy, a necessary capability for strategy implementation
(Banks et al., 2014; Belason & Belason, 2016; Belias & Koustelios, 2014). In sum, whether it be
sudden changes in positionality or experiences of low authority and high accountability, the
relationship circumstances of middle managers present serious challenges.
22

Middle Manager Organizational Efficacy Perceptions
The following sections provide literature-based insights related to organizational efficacy
in general and, more specifically, those elements which most affect the experiences of
organizational efficacy had by middle managers.
Organizational Efficacy
Bandura et al. (1999) asserted that the relevance of the efficacy construct should be
considered beyond the individual (self-efficacy), extending to collectives such as dyads, groups,
networks of groups, organizations, and even nations (Gist, 1987; Gully et al., 2002). Often used
interchangeably with organizational confidence, organizational efficacy is the property of
organization members’ collective perceptions of their organization’s ability to accomplish
organizational tasks or achieve organizational goals (Bohn, 2010; Du et al., 2015). The literature
substantiates that middle managers’ organizational efficacy is shaped by their confidence in their
supervisors’, peers’, and direct reports’ skills and ability to exert extended mental effort in the
face of challenge (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Clark, 2005; Petitta & Borgogni, 2011). Borrowing
from Bandura’s broader definition of collective efficacy, Bohn (2002) offered the following
definition of organizational efficacy:
Organizational Efficacy (OE) is a generative capacity within an organization to cope
effectively with the demands, challenges, stressors, and opportunities it encounters within
the business environment. It exists as an aggregated judgment of an organization’s
members about their (1) sense of collective capacities, (2) sense of mission or purpose,
and (3) a sense of resilience. (p. 65)
Gist (1987) opined that there might be three ways to measure organizational efficacy: (a)
aggregate individual perceptions and compare them to whole-group perceptions, (b) use the
23

average of individual perceptions as the measure of group perceptions, and (c) measure via group
consensus response. Bandura was definitive in his belief that the only way to measure collective
efficacy in general, and by extension organizational efficacy, with validity and reliability is to
take the average of organization member perceptions (Bandura et al., 1999; Bandura, 2006). The
Organizational Efficacy Scale (OES) Bohn developed filled a void in empirical devices for
measuring organizational efficacy (Capone & Petrillo, 2015). Bohn’s scale identified three meta-
factors, which in combination, describe an individual’s sense of organizational efficacy (Bohn,
2002, 2010). The first factor is a sense of collective capability or an individual’s belief that their
organization is capable of collaborating to accomplish goals. The second factor is a sense of
mission, future, or purpose and investigates an employee’s understanding of the organization’s
direction. The third factor measures perceptions of an organization’s sense of resilience or ability
to overcome obstacles that arise in pursuit of goals. Roger Goddard and Robert Wood, two
leading collective efficacy experts, informed the OES, which has been adapted for use in diverse
cultural contexts, lauded for its applicability in various organizational settings, and has been
applied to collect the organizational efficacy perceptions of different cohorts (Capone & Petrillo,
2015; Du et al., 2015; McDowell, 2022).
Antecedents of Manager Organizational Efficacy
Developing confidence within an organization’s members of its members’ collective
ability to achieve its goals requires strategies identified in the literature. Clark (2005) outlined
five such research-based motivational strategies which might be implemented to support the
development of group and organizational efficacy, including (a) creating environments of mutual
respect, (b) supporting the confidence development of lower performers, (c) cultivating
24

confidence in team collaboration abilities, (d) fostering accountability for group effort, and (e)
channeling competition toward goals and not toward other group members.
Mutual respect in group member expertise creates psychological safety, promoting
individual member performance and yielding team performance (Buckingham, 2005; Zhang et
al., 2008). Organizational leaders steward organizational efficacy by attributing success to the
expertise individuals bring to an initiative. Building from inculcating respect for all contributions
and support for lower-performing team members in recognizing the significance of their
contributions to the team. Performance feedback focused on encouraging a group member’s
effort and not their ability creates the mastery experiences needed for skill attainment and
making meaningful contributions (Bandura et al., 1999; Goddard et al., 2004).
Another strategy begetting organizational efficacy is cultivating the shared belief in the
organization’s cooperative capabilities (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Wood et al., 1990).
Performance-progress monitoring is a continuous performance management mechanism for
reviewing the processes utilized by groups seeking to perform a task which illustrates how
collaborative efforts are required for overall success (Aguinis et al., 2013; Jelínková, 2017). In
these settings, leaders can identify opportunities for improvement and cooperation and recognize
individuals for modeling strong collaborative practices (Clark, 2005; LePine, 2005).
Performance-progress-monitoring processes also allow for encouraging individual accountability
for their contributions to overall group effort (Pagdonsolan et al., 2020; Williams & Beck, 2018).
Individuals in team settings respond positively and with greater collaborative efforts when they
believe their contributions to the team are fairly and effectively recognized. Finally,
organizational efficacy is engaged when organizations channel competitive energies toward
goals outside of the organization (Clark, 2003). When focusing on organizational goals and aims,
25

organizations leverage their collaborative skills and a collective competitive drive toward
achievement (Aguinis et al., 2013; Van Yperen et al., 2011).
Significance of Manager Organizational Efficacy Perceptions
While comparatively understudied relative to more general applications of collective
efficacy, evidence has been uncovered pointing to the significance of organizational efficacy in
the workplace setting (Bohn, 2010; Stajkovic et al., 2009). Organizational efficacy has been
demonstrated to predict positive organizational performance and employee outcomes. In a multi-
analytic study involving 846 participants, Du et al. (2015) found that perceptions of
organizational efficacy had a significant bearing on employee job performance and helping
behaviors. Similarly, increased organizational efficacy is related to higher collective goal
orientations resulting in stronger relationships between interorganizational partners and extra-
organizational partners (McDowell, 2022; Stanley & McDowell, 2014). Organizational efficacy
has also been found to encourage important collaboration catalyzers, including information
exchange processes, inclinations toward assisting colleagues, and other pro-social behaviors (Du
et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the psycho-emotional characteristics of grit, persistence, resilience,
determination, and perseverance have been positively linked as outputs of highly efficacious
organizations (Bandura, 2006; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021). In general, individuals prefer
membership in groups they deem to be high-performing, so perceptions of organizational
efficacy influence important employee engagement factors such as organizational identification
(Bohn, 2010), affective organizational commitment (Petitta & Borgogni, 2011), job satisfaction
(Capone & Petrillo, 2015), and employee retention (Fuller et al., 1982). In light of its bearing on
26

performance and employee experience, organizational efficacy is a critical cultural factor to
steward.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a broad concept emerging from social cognitive theory, established by
Albert Bandura in his 1986 seminal work, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social
Cognitive View (Bandura, 1986). Through the triadic reciprocity framework, social cognitive
theory describes how self-concept, behaviors, and environments influence, reinforce, and
perpetuate one another (Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989). The framework also
acknowledges the experience of multiple levels of identity, namely individual and group identity.
Where individual identity is rooted in one’s singular and internalized interpretations of self-
concept, behavior, and environmental experiences, group identity emerges from collections of
individuals whose identities and behaviors are present at the same time within a particular
environment (Bandura, 1998, 2000). As identity exists at multiple levels, so, too, does efficacy
(Fernández‐Ballesteros et al., 2002).
Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to accomplish a task or
achieve a goal (Bandura et al., 1999). This belief in one’s ability is a facet of one’s self-concept
influenced by their behaviors and environments. Different levels of efficacy beliefs, self and
collective, have distinctions but are predictive of one another (Borgogni et al., 2011; Du et al.,
2015; Gibson et al., 2000).
Antecedents of Manager Self-Efficacy. The principal sources of efficacy are mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective states (Donohoo & Katz,
2017; Goddard et al., 2004). Mastery experiences, also known as enactive experiences, are
instances in which skills are developed for practical usage to demonstrate proficient performance
27

in a given task (Bandura et al., 1999). Mastery experiences can be facilitated intentionally
through training or may arise unintentionally through situation-based opportunities. Individuals
and groups gain performance skills similarly through mastery experiences (Goddard et al., 2004).
However, group experiences, pending on the skills being learned, may emphasize collaboration
capabilities as a requisite factor in successful collective task accomplishment (Bandura, 2000;
Borgogni et al., 2010; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Wood et al., 1990).
Vicarious experiences are those experiences of skill development that arise from
witnessing the trial and error of others attempting to demonstrate proficient performance
(Bandura et al., 1999). Vicarious experiences rely on mastery models and coping models to
disseminate learning lessons (Clark & Ste-Marie, 2002; Gist, 1987). As their name would
suggest, mastery models provide highly proficient, if not flawless, demonstration of a skill to
educate learners on the behaviors and techniques necessary for success (Schunk, 1986). Coping
models, however, demonstrate only slightly higher proficiency levels relative to those of their
vicarious observer (Gist, 1987; McCullagh & Weiss, 2002). Observers gather helpful
information by witnessing the marginally superior performer strive to progress in accomplishing
their task (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Schunk, 1986).
The final two sources of efficacy are social persuasion and affective states. Social
persuasion is the influence exerted by others through intentional and unintentional social
processes impacting efficacy beliefs (Bandura et al., 1999). Social persuasion occurs through
interactions that can confirm or conflict with an individual’s efficacy perceptions for themselves
and for the group in which they are a member (Ahn et al., 2016; Gist, 1987). In group settings,
the shared perceptions of individuals create a climate for in-group and out-group experiences via
determinations of perceptual fit acting as a social persuasion reinforcement mechanism (Du et
28

al., 2015; Gully et al., 2002). The final sources of efficacy experiences are affective states, or an
individual’s or group’s emotional, psychological, and physical experiences that shape their
efficacy perceptions (Donohoo & Katz, 2017; Gist, 1987). Bandura et al. (1999) acknowledged
that the relationship between efficacy and affective states materializes through an individual or
group attributing their efficacy perceptions to a health-based reference point. A group feeling
highly efficacious may attribute their confidence to feelings of positivity experienced in their
environment, or a doubtful individual may attribute their lower efficacy to some physical
limitation (Bandura et al., 1999).
Measuring Manager Efficacy Perceptions. For the individual, self-efficacy arises from
one’s singular experiences of mastery, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and affective states.
Bandura (2006) developed a guide for constructing efficacy scales to help researchers and
practitioners design instruments that could be tailored to specific domains while retraining
validity and reliability. Domain specificity is a critical element of an effective self-efficacy scale,
as different tasks, goals, or environments determine the context in which efficacy is experienced
(Bandura, 2006; Gist, 1987). A group’s perceptions of collective efficacy is an emergent
property that melds both an individual’s self-efficacy perceptions and their beliefs in the abilities
of other group members resulting in their perceptions of the collective’s abilities (Bandura et al.,
1998; Bandura, 2000; Capone & Petrillo, 2015). In light of the interplay between one’s self-
beliefs and one’s beliefs of others, the most accurate way to measure collective efficacy is by
gathering individual group members’ impressions of collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000;
Fernández‐Ballesteros et al., 2002; Goddard et al., 2004). This approach has been validated
across many studies as it avoids the limitations of social biases such as the halo effect, false
29

consensus effect, and herd instinct which might be prompted by group consensus measures
(Bandura, 2006; Gully et al., 2002; Jung & Sosik, 2003; Spacey, 2021).
Catalysts of Manager Self and Organizational Efficacy Perceptions
The literature has consistently identified four elements serving as the catalysts for
developing manager self and organizational efficacy in workplace settings: leadership, goal
setting, continuous performance management, and individual development planning. Leadership
refers to the impact that the leaders of middle managers, typically top managers, have on
manager experience of self and organizational efficacy (Belason & Belason, 2016; Chen &
Bliese, 2002; Petitta & Borgogni, 2011; Tolleson Knee & Folsom, 2012; Walumbwa et al.,
2004). Goal setting, or the process of identifying performance measures and targets that speak to
a manager’s contributions to their organization’s efforts, also has implications on manager
efficacy (Locke & Latham, 1990; McGurk, 2010; Stanley & McDowell, 2014). Also leading to
efficacy once goals have been established, continuous performance management systems support
managers’ ongoing monitoring and performance (Arnetz & Blomkvist, 2007; Bernardy &
Antoni, 2021; Bohn, 2002; Fuller et al., 1982). Finally, individual development planning serves
as a bridge between each of the catalyzing elements where managers leverage feedback from top
managers when designing and monitoring action plans to achieve their goals (Austin et al., 2013;
Genis, 2008; Rampersad, 2005). The following outlines each catalyst and its influence on
manager efficacy with greater specificity.
Leadership. Leaders at all levels play pivotal but different roles in shaping their
subordinates’ workplace experiences of efficacy. Petitta and Borgogni (2011) observed that
while both top managers and an employee’s direct supervisor (middle managers) contribute to
organizational efficacy, top managers exert a more substantial influence through their role in
30

establishing organizational goals and values. The significance of top managers is corroborated by
Chen and Bliese (2002) and Walumbwa et al. (2004), who observed that direct supervisors exert
greater influence on perceptions of self-efficacy and team-efficacy, while top managers are
responsible for the macro-culture evaluated by holistic organizational efficacy measures.
Furthermore, top managers can contribute to conditions leading to lacking efficacy perceptions
in their middle manager direct reports by under acknowledging the rigors of their work through
personal support like coaching or resourcing support through needed materials (Belason &
Belason, 2016; Tolleson Knee & Folsom, 2012).
Goal Setting. In addition to shared leadership experiences, organizations enable manager
self and organizational efficacy through cohesive goals and goal-setting processes. In line with
Bohn’s second meta-factor of organizational efficacy, goals provide a sense of mission, future,
and purpose for an organization through critical strategy and behavior alignment (Bohn, 2010;
Harter et al., 2020). The literature touts the virtues of a multi-goal approach, mixing performance
and mastery goals, elevating the benefits of both goal types, and yielding successful performance
results (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Wood et al., 1990).
Performance-oriented goals have defined outcomes and precise deadlines and measure the
effectiveness of a task’s or strategy’s execution (Hamstra et al., 2014; Senko et al., 2011).
Mastery-oriented goals espouse a learning orientation in a performer as the intention is to
cultivate the development of a skill, knowledge, or capability which will support effective
performance in the future (LePine, 2005; Stout & Dasgupta, 2013). Through creating a
performance-related imperative for learning, mastery goals are enhanced by the outcome
orientation of performance goals (Darnon et al., 2010). On the other hand, performance goals
accompanied by mastery goals have been demonstrated to increase pro-social behaviors in
31

performance, such as information exchange and offering assistance to colleagues, decreasing the
negative impacts of competition (Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2007; Sijbom et al., 2013; Van Yperen
et al., 2011).
When designing goals, it is important that middle managers understand how what is
expected of them ties into the organization’s broader purpose (McGurk, 2010). In light of this,
the literature suggests that in addition to adopting a multi-type approach to goal setting,
performance and mastery, organizations must incorporate a multilevel design where an easily
identifiable relationship exists between measures at the organizational level down through to
subsidiary divisions, teams, and finally to individuals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Darnon et
al., 2010; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Goal convergence across multiple levels supports
organizational performance through the integrated alignment of capacities, resources, and
behaviors (Aguinis et al., 2013; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010). While developing divergent
objectives can support adaptation and strategic renewal, isolated and divergent agendas can
create friction within organizational processes leading to underperformance (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). Efficacy influences goal-setting processes, and in a 2013 study, Stanley and
McDowell found that an aligned orientation of individuals toward organizational goals was both
a predictor of individual and organizational efficacy along with individual and organizational
performance (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Continuous Performance Management. Once goals have been established, efficacy
emerges from performance feedback received in pursuit of those goals. Working toward goal
achievement presents the opportunity to have mastery experiences, which are a core antecedent
of efficacy (Bandura, 2006). Feedback sharpens the lessons learned through mastery experiences,
allowing performers to adjust behaviors to enable higher performance (Gist, 1987).
32

Organizations require reliable feedback mechanisms to prompt individual and organizational
learning, achievement, and efficacy experiences (Arnetz & Blomkvist, 2007). It is widely
recognized that consistent, purposeful, and regular performance management practices positively
correlate to employee engagement and performance (Aguinis et al., 2012; Alston & Mujtaba,
2009). Regularly convening groups of leaders at the team, division, and organizational level to
monitor performance progress supports the coordination of strategic and tactical adjustments,
which are frequently necessary when implementing a plan (Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010).
Done effectively, these regular convenings contribute to increases in identification, commitment,
and efficacy (Austin et al., 2006; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021; Petitta & Borgogni, 2011). Direct
managers and top leaders can stimulate perceptions of organizational efficacy through effective
goal setting, goal communication, and goal performance-progress monitoring practices (Bohn,
2002; Fuller et al., 1982).
Individual Development Planning. Individual development plans are used for various
purposes in an organizational context, including aligning individual, team, division, and
organizational goals with education, training, and reflection (Austin et al., 2013; Genis, 2008).
When aligned with individual and organizational goals, individual development plans have been
evidenced to facilitate learning processes supporting performance; as a mastery experience,
performance is an evidence-based antecedent of self and collective efficacy (Bandura et al.,
1999; Goddard et al., 2004). By aligning individual development plans with organizational goals,
middle managers position their plans to benefit from available resources such as training,
coaching, or financial support (Barrick et al., 2015; Rampersad, 2005). Furthermore, aligning
development plans to goals is critical in resource-constrained nonprofit organizations where
33

individual development budgets may be slim, scarce, or nonexistent (Clements, 2013; Hopkins et
al., 2014; Lee & Suh, 2018).
Clark and Estes’s Conceptual Framework
Gap analysis is a protocol for diagnosing and solving organizational performance
problems. Clark and Estes’s (2008) model for gap analysis is suited to study stakeholder
performance within a specific organizational context, facilitating the understanding of
stakeholder goals related to an organizational goal. The model also supports the identification of
assumed performance influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) factors based on current understanding of the organization and contextually germane
theories and literature. Problem framing and performance goal setting are the first of the KMO
model’s five stages, followed by root cause assessment and diagnosis, solution identification,
performance plan implementation, and performance improvement evaluation. The KMO issues
are the three areas where performance problems arise in the gap analysis framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Knowledge problems originate from skill or information gaps preventing
performance against a desired goal. In contrast, motivational challenges tend to involve
shortcomings related to individual choice, persistence, mental effort, or inadequate experiences
of self-efficacy (Middlebrook & Palchesko, 2004). More systemic in nature and frequently more
difficult to detect, organizational gaps manifest as inefficiencies, misalignments, cultural
deficiencies, and inadequate materials. While there are instances when interventions addressing a
single problem type are sufficient, it is more frequently the case that comprehensive, integrated
approaches addressing all three areas—knowledge, motivation, and organization—are required
(Middlebrook & Palchesko, 2004).

34

In this study, Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was adapted to explore the
organizational efficacy perceptions of TTP’s central-office middle-management cohort. TTP’s
organizational performance goal is to see a 10% increase in overall organizational efficacy
perceptions by January 2026, moving from 70% to 80% of TTP’s staff responding favorably to
engagement survey questions pertaining to organizational efficacy. To accomplish the
organizational goal, central-office middle managers will demonstrate growth in organizational
efficacy, moving from 65% to 80% before January 2026. Clark and Estes’s (2008) model will be
adapted to investigate the KMO factor deficits that serve as antecedents of a central-office
middle manager’s self-efficacy and organizational efficacy perceptions. Clark and Estes’s gap
analysis framework is a comprehensive methodology for alleviating difficult-to-name and deeply
entrenched organizational performance challenges. The work completed through the study is an
example of problem-solving research where immediate solutions are generated to alleviate real-
world, highly contextual, and organizationally embedded challenges. The KMO gap analysis was
utilized to interrogate the problem’s various dimensions, effectively surfacing recommendations
leading to performance improvement. The following section outlines the assumed KMO factors
influencing the organizational efficacy perceptions of TTP’s central-office middle managers.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
TTP’s central-office middle management cohort’s organizational efficacy perceptions are
shaped by knowledge, motivation, and organizational factor influences present in their
workplace environment. The following sections offer an in-depth overview outlining various
organizational efficacy influences and their effect on middle manager organizational efficacy
perceptions as found in the literature.

35

Knowledge and Skill Influences: Procedural Knowledge
To promote their perceptions of organizational efficacy, central-office middle managers
require specific knowledge and skills enabling proficient performance in goal setting, continuous
performance management, and development planning. Clark and Estes’s (2008) model helped to
analyze the status of central-office middle manager knowledge and skills as a critical step in
understanding potential deficits contributing to declining organizational efficacy. Factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive are the four knowledge types described by Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) in their revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. TTP’s
central-office middle managers require knowledge and skills in goal setting, continuous
performance management, and individual development planning in each of Anderson and
Krathwohl’s four knowledge areas to increase their perceptions of organizational efficacy and
contribute to meeting TTP’s overall organizational efficacy goal (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Procedural knowledge pertains to a learner’s ability to perform learned skills in simulated
or real-life settings (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Demonstrating the acquisition of procedural
knowledge would imply a learner’s absorption of subject-specific skills, algorithms, techniques,
and methods (Krathwohl, 2002). Additionally, procedural knowledge speaks to a learner’s
understanding of the situational appropriateness of utilizing learned procedures (Krathwohl,
2002). Procedural knowledge is particularly useful in adaptive learning environments where
performers are expected to know when, why, and how to implement a strategy appropriately
(Pintrich, 2002). Furthermore, procedural knowledge serves as a gateway toward the higher
executive thought required of metacognitive knowledge in processes such as analysis,
evaluation, and creation (Ferguson, 2002).

36

Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Design Goals Aligned With Division Operating
Plans and Organizational Strategic Plans
In the case of TTP central-office middle managers, procedural knowledge would be
called on when designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic
plans. In designing aligned goals, middle managers exhibit their proficient grounding in the
factual and conceptual knowledge of the different types of goals and organizational levels in
which goals might be applied (Darnon et al., 2010; McGurk, 2010). A manager’s capacity to
design goals reflective of the division’s priorities and objectives and the organization’s holistic
priorities and objectives is a critical process contributing to organizational cohesion (Saini,
2021).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Design Performance-Progress Monitoring Reports
Which Communicate Key Points of Performance During Performance-Progress Monitoring
Meetings
Another critical aspect of procedural knowledge is the ability to design performance-
progress monitoring reports that communicate key performance points to be shared in
performance-progress monitoring meetings (Saini, 2021; Tolleson Knee & Folsom, 2012). For
the objectives of the performance-progress monitoring meetings to be achieved, it is imperative
that each participant understands what is expected of their contributions, including reports on
individual and team goals, including successes, challenges, or knowledge gained while seeking
to perform their tasks (Austin et al., 2006; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Wood et al., 1990).
In designing reports consistent with the meeting objectives, middle managers will help maximize
the utility of those meeting spaces for themselves and others (Bernardy & Antoni, 2021; Genis,
2008).
37

Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Design Individual Development Plans Aligned With
Their Annual Goals
The demonstration of procedural knowledge is a key indicator of a performer’s ability to
accomplish a task (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). central-office middle managers demonstrate
their procedural knowledge for designing individual development plans by aligning goals and
performance monitoring processes to plans. Effective individual development plans feature clear
links between organizational, divisional, team, and individual goals, along with the requisite
education, information, training, and tools to assist in goal achievement (Austin et al., 2011;
McGurk, 2010). Building aligned individual development plans have been evidenced to support
individual and organizational performance (Caughron & Mumford, 2012). Table 2 provides an
overview of the research base for the study’s assumed knowledge influences.

38

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Central-Office Middle Manager Organizational
Efficacy Perceptions
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Procedural
Central-office middle managers need to
design goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational
strategic plans.
Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Darnon et al.,
2010; Krathwohl, 2002; McGurk, 2010; Saini,
2021
Central-office middle managers need to
design performance-progress
monitoring reports which communicate
key points of performance during
regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Austin et al.,
2006; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021; Genis, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon,
2010; Saini, 2021; Tolleson Knee & Folsom,
2012; Wood et al., 1990
Central-office middle managers need to
design individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals.
Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Austin et al.,
2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Caughron & Mumford,
2012

Motivation Influences
Motivation factors are the next set for an investigation to understand the root causes of
lacking central-office middle manager organizational efficacy at TTP. Active choice, persistence,
and mental effort are the core concepts under which motivation ought to be evaluated per Clark
and Estes’s (2008) model. When a performer chooses to accomplish a task or achieve a particular
goal and applies work toward that task or goal, they exhibit active choice (Clark, 2008; Mayer,
2011a). Once actively choosing to pursue an end, persistence describes the continuation of
initiative despite setbacks or obstacles (Bandura et al., 1999). Finally, as an outgrowth of
persistence, mental effort is the capacity to utilize cognitive strategies to overcome challenges
39

that arise in pursuit of a goal which results in learning to be applied to achieve the current task or
transferred to future achievement processes (Mulder, 1996). The following sections will apply
pertinent motivational theories to evaluate challenges influencing central-office middle manager
organizational confidence.
Attainment Value Influences
Managers exhibit attainment value when they view a task in terms of importance, and
their sense of importance drives their desire to perform well on that task (Eccles, 2006; Wigfield,
1994). Through attainment value, a performer ascribes a rating of personal identification with the
task; the more central they believe the task to be to their identity, the more they value it
(Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield et al., 2009). In the organizational context, an individual would
demonstrate high attainment value if they deemed a role-related task as important to their
identity within their organization (Pukkeeree et al., 2020). Managers need to find the efficacy
catalyzers of goal setting, performance reporting, and individual development planning to be
central to their middle manager identity and thus important to motivate achievement (McGurk,
2010; Pagdonsolan et al., 2020; Rampersad, 2005). Fuller et al. (1982) suggested that
organizational settings impact attainment value and efficacy. Interpersonal dynamics, cultural,
and organizational structures influence both manager attainment value and efficacy (Du et al.,
2015; Fuller et al., 1982; Schein, 2017)
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Find It Important to Develop Goals
Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans. Considering that
middle managers play a critical role in translating strategy to implementation, they may easily
identify the importance of their goals as a unique aligning mechanism for the organization
(Kheirandish, 2014). Identifying the significance of their goals in terms of the organization’s
40

strategic management and execution creates the conditions of increased attainment value among
middle managers supporting performance in their goal-creation processes (Pukkeeree et al.,
2020).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Find It Important to Participate in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings. By preparing reports for regular
program monitoring meetings, actively engaging during the meetings, and incorporating
feedback or reflection following the meeting, middle managers are likely to experience high
attainment value in meeting spaces (Eccles, 2006; Liebler, 2019). Continuous performance
management practices have been developed in response to employees’ desire to receive more
specific, actionable, and real-time performance feedback (Guerra‐López & Hutchinson, 2013;
Pagdonsolan et al., 2020). By finding importance in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings, middle managers are more likely to receive the benefits of their participation and
translate those benefits into results (Adams et al., 2020; Symes & Putwain, 2016).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Find It Important to Design Individual
Development Plans Which Align With Their Annual Goals. Lastly, when central-office
middle managers find it important to design aligned individual development plans, their
attainment value leads to their commitment to performing this task well (Rampersad, 2005;
Wigfield et al., 2009). Unlike many other workplace tasks, individual development planning can
be highly personal as individuals interpret organizational imperatives through the lens of their
growth as a contributor to those imperatives (Aguinis et al., 2013; Kheirandish, 2014). Middle
managers would need to consider both the organization’s cascade of goals and the strengths and
weaknesses in their ability to assist in achieving those goals. Middle managers would be
expected to experience high degrees of attainment value, particularly when designing the training
41

and resourcing aspects of their plans, as these will communicate the support they may need to
effectively contribute to organizational success (Austin et al., 2006; Tarakci et al., 2018).
Self-Efficacy Influences
An individual’s belief in their ability to complete a task or accomplish a goal is referred
to as their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 1999). Self-efficacy has been found to have a
reciprocal relationship with motivation and performance; as self-efficacy increases, one’s
motivation and expected performance of the task improve (Chen & Bliese, 2002). The
antecedents of efficacy are mastery experience, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and
affective states (Donohoo & Katz, 2017). An individual’s sense of efficacy is related to their
unconscious and conscious perceptions of their abilities through the prism of these antecedents
(Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need Confidence in Their Ability to Design Goals
Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans. In supporting
the organizational efficacy perceptions of TTP’s central-office middle managers, managers need
to demonstrate self-efficacy, or confidence, in developing goals aligned with division operating
plans and organizational strategic plans (Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Stanley &
McDowell, 2014). Having confidence in developing goals and aligning these with broader
planning structures is a key consideration in their motivation and, thus, their expected
performance (McGurk, 2010). Given the importance of middle manager leadership in strategy
management, their confidence in their ability to translate strategy into aligned action through
their goals could indicate the eventual quality of the organization’s performance within a
particular priority area (Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2015).
42

Central-Office Middle Managers Need Confidence in Their Ability to Participate in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings. Another example of self-efficacy being
necessary for cultivating middle managers’ perceptions of organizational efficacy is their
confidence in their ability to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings.
Continuous performance management practices like regular performance-progress monitoring
are frequently implemented to elicit a motivational response from those engaged in those
practices (Aguinis et al., 2012; Alston & Mujtaba, 2009). Confidence in an individual manager’s
participation in the performance-progress monitoring meetings influences both on their
performance but also on the confidence levels of their colleagues and, as such, their colleagues’
performance (Bandura, 2000; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need Confidence in Their Ability to Design
Individual Development Plans Aligned With Their Annual Goals. Finally, middle managers
ought to experience self-efficacy when designing their individual development plans and
aligning them with their goals. Despite the known benefits of increased confidence and self-
awareness, designing individual development plans can be complicated, given the need to
develop synergy across the components to ensure the plan’s optimal effectiveness (Evans et al.,
2002; Stanton & Nankervis, 2011). Planning of this kind can be overwhelming for those for
whom planning and reflection do not come easily (Austin et al., 2013; Genis, 2008). In these
instances, coaching, mastery models, and peer coping models may help inspire a middle
manager’s confidence by providing instruction on behaviors leading to positive task performance
(Armstrong, 2017; Austin et al., 2011; Bullock et al., 2007; Gist, 1987).

43

Team-Efficacy Influences
Alongside their own self-efficacy, a manager’s perceptions of team-efficacy, or their
confidence in their team’s ability to persist in achieving their collective goals, shapes their
overall view of organizational efficacy (Bandura et al., 1999; Gist, 1987). Managers are
responsible for stewarding efficacious environments for teams that impact individual team-
member performance, manager performance, and overall team performance (Bish & Becker,
2016; Clark, 2005). Confidence in their team’s abilities to perform tasks leading to goal
achievement would demonstrate a manager’s belief in their ability to foster group accountability,
collaboration, and an externally oriented competitive drive (Aguinis et al., 2013; Clark, 2005;
Wood et al., 1990).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need Confidence in Their Direct Report Team’s
Ability to Design Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational
Strategy Plans. In supporting the organizational efficacy perceptions of TTP’s central-office
middle managers, the teams which the managers lead need to demonstrate team-efficacy, or
confidence, in developing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational
strategic plans (Clark, 2005; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Stanley & McDowell, 2014). A
manager’s ability to cultivate team confidence in developing goals aligned with higher-level
organizational objectives should reflect positively on team and manager motivation and
performance (Druckman & Bjork, 1994; McGurk, 2010). Given that middle managers often
make their contributions to organizational performance through the teams they lead, their
confidence in their team’s ability to translate higher order directives into their specific locus of
responsibility would increase the organization’s performance within their remit (Kozlowski &
Ilgen, 2006; Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2015).
44

Central-Office Middle Managers Need Confidence in Their Direct Report Team’s
Ability to Participate in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings. A manager’s
team’s ability to effectively participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings is
another example of team-efficacy’s impact on middle manager perceptions of organizational
efficacy. In addition to supporting results, team performance management practices are
motivational drivers for individuals and teams when cultivating the capacity to demonstrate
persistence when facing challenges in task performance (Aguinis et al., 2012; Bernardy &
Antoni, 2021). Performance-progress monitoring meetings are environments where managers
can stimulate the necessary team-member development, collaboration, accountability, and
externally oriented competition which build the confidence levels of all involved (Druckman &
Bjork, 1994).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need Confidence in Their Ability to Design
Individual Development Plans Aligned With Their Annual Goals. Just as it is important for
middle managers to feel confident when developing their individual development plans, it is
likewise important for their teams to experience confidence in doing so. Managers play a unique
coaching role for their teams’ members when designing their plans, offering guidance, tools, and
feedback which ought to develop their efficacy over time (Armstrong, 2017; Genis, 2008;
Jackson & LePine, 2003). As managers experience confidence in their ability to positively
impact the planning of their team members, they will experience increases in their own sense of
efficacy and their sense of organizational efficacy (Austin et al., 2011; Clark, 2005; Gist, 1987).
Goal Influences
Goals are devices that cue a performer to achieve a particular end state or avoid one
(Hamstra et al., 2014). Goals that prompt achievement are referred to as approach goals, and
45

those born of the desire to avoid a disadvantageous end are known as avoidance goals (Darnon et
al., 2010). Whether approach or avoidance-oriented, goals are most effectively accomplished
when their purpose is clear to the performer (Van Yperen et al., 2009). Through Ford’s goal
taxonomy (1992), the type of goals most consistent with those needed to support the increase of
central-office middle manager organizational efficacy would be task management goals. Task
management goals seek to achieve order, organization, and productivity and avoid inefficiency
and disorganization (Ford, 1992).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Know the Goal of Designing Goals
Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans. Knowing the
purpose of developing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic
plans would likely encourage the growth of organizational efficacy perceptions among central-
office middle managers. This middle manager performance area aims to create productivity and
organization (approach) and avoid inefficiency and disorganization (avoidance) by aligning
multiple levels of goals from the organization down to the individual (Hamstra et al., 2014;
Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2015).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Know the Goal of Designing Goals
Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans. Similarly, the
goals of middle managers knowing the purpose of participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings and the purpose of designing individual development plans aligned with
their goals both seek to avoid inefficiency and increase productivity throughout the organization
(Beer et al., 2005; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021). Participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings has the dual benefit of supporting productivity at both the individual and
46

group levels, which supports the optimal utilization of resources to support goal achievement
(Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2007).
Central-Office Middle Managers Need to Know the Goal of Designing Individual
Development Plans Aligned With Their Annual Goals. Aligning individual development
plans also has implications for effective resource deployment, as alignment can uncover
opportunities to apply economies of scale for resources in demand across multiple managers
(Maurer, 2002; McGurk, 2010). Individual development planning, when done intentionally, calls
on performer metacognitive faculties, such as monitoring and reflection (Austin et al., 2011).
Middle managers knowing the purpose of development planning, namely supporting their
productivity through organization and alignment of strategies and goals, would support their
success in plan development (Austin et al., 2006; McGurk, 2010; Rampersad, 2005). Table 3
provides an overview of the research base for the study’s assumed motivation influences.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Central-Office Middle Manager Organizational
Efficacy Perceptions
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Attainment value
Central-office middle managers need to
find it important to design goals aligned
with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
Bandura et al., 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Eccles, 2006; Fuller et al., 1982; Pukkeeree et
al., 2020; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield et al.,
2009
Central-office middle managers need to
find it important to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings.
Adams et al., 2020; Bandura et al., 1999; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; Guerra‐López &
Hutchinson, 2013; Liebler, 2019; Pagdonsolan
et al., 2020; Symes & Putwain, 2016
47

Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Central-office middle managers need to
find it important to design individual
development plans which align with their
annual goals.
Aguinis et al., 2013; Austin et al., 2006;
Bandura et al., 1999; Caughron & Mumford,
2012; Clark & Estes, 2008; Kheirandish,
2014; Tarakci et al., 2018
Self-efficacy
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to design goals
aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
Bandura et al., 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Marijn
Poortvliet et al., 2015; McGurk, 2010; Stanley
& McDowell, 2014
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to participate in
regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings.
Aguinis et al., 2012; Alston & Mujtaba, 2009
Bandura et al., 1999; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021;
Clark & Estes, 2008
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to design
individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals.
Austin et al., 2011; Austin et al., 2013;
Armstrong, 2017; Bandura et al., 1999;
Bullock et al., 2007; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Evans et al., 2002; Gist, 1987; Genis, 2008;
Stanton & Nankervis, 2011
Team-efficacy
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design goals aligned with
division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
Bandura et al., 1999; Clark, 2005; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Marijn Poortvliet & Darnon,
2010; Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2015; McGurk,
2010; Stanley & McDowell, 2014
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings.
Aguinis et al., 2012; Alston & Mujtaba, 2009
Bandura et al., 1999; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021;
Clark, 2005; Clark & Estes, 2008
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.
Austin et al., 2011; Austin et al., 2013;
Armstrong, 2017; Bandura et al., 1999;
Bullock et al., 2007; Clark, 2005; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Evans et al., 2002; Gist, 1987;
Genis, 2008; Stanton & Nankervis, 2011
Goals
48

Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of designing goals aligned
with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
Darnon et al., 2010; Ford, 1992; Hamstra et al.,
2014; Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2015; Van
Yperen et al., 2009
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings.
Beer et al., 2005; Bernardy & Antoni, 2021;
Marijn Poortvliet et al., 2007
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of designing individual
development plans aligned with their
annual goals.
Austin, 2006; Austin et al., 2011; Maurer, 2002;
McGurk, 2010; Rampersad, 2005

Organizational Influences
When diagnosing challenges to organizational performance problems pertaining to the
organization itself, the final factors often arise as limitations presented by organizational culture
and the availability and allocation of resources (Clark & Estes, 2008; Tansky & Cohen, 2001).
An organization’s culture can be thought of as the aggregate of the basic underlying
assumptions, espoused values and beliefs, and the artifacts which support the application of those
assumptions, values, and beliefs (Schein, 2017). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) draw
distinctions between organizational cultural elements through the categories of cultural models
and cultural settings. While distinct in form, models and settings are interwoven throughout the
milieu of an organization, making it difficult to separate their functional effects (Rueda, 2011).
Because change management processes are essentially cultural in nature, organizations with
cultures that support learning, adaptation, and flexibility are most likely to instill enduring
positive change (Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2017; Senge, 1990). The following sections will use
49

cultural models, cultural settings, and resourcing to frame needs presented by the literature to
support the positive development of TTP’s central-office middle manager organizational efficacy
perceptions.
Cultural Model Influences
Cultural models include the invisible and unconscious aspects of culture comprised of
values, beliefs, and attitudes (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2017). Through the lens of
cultural models, culture refers to the pattern or system of shared assumptions that underpin
organizational meaning, norms, and expectations (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017; Schneider
& Blankenship, 2018). As visualized via Schein’s (1992) iceberg metaphor, models are the
dimensions of culture, which are automated, intangible, and implicit, existing invisibly beneath
the “waterline”.
TTP Needs to Have a Culture of Accountability Among Central-Office Middle
Managers Who Develop Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational
Strategy Plans. In application to the stakeholder challenge, accountability is a critical cultural
model needed to support the development of central-office middle-management organizational
efficacy perceptions by designing aligned goals, participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings, and designing aligned individual development plans (Aguinis et al., 2013;
Clements, 2013). Accountability in the organizational context refers to an individual or group’s
acceptance of their answerability and responsibility for facilitating a process or driving toward an
outcome (Dubnick, 2011; Lee & Suh, 2018; Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). As an essential
leadership competency, a sense of accountability can be transferred through leader-member
exchange and team-member exchange; thus, accountability is a facet of individual and collective
cultural experiences (Clements, 2013; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1996). To experience accountability,
50

middle managers need to feel that they are given the opportunity to make meaningful
contributions to TTP through their work (Austin et al., 2011). Designing goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans is a mechanism for middle managers
to be self-directed in developing a sense of accountability connected to overall organizational
performance (Aguinis et al., 2013; Darino et al., 2019).
TTP Needs to Have a Culture of Accountability Among Central-Office Middle
Managers Who Participate in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings.
Similarly, central-office middle managers would have the opportunity to experience individual
and collective accountability in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings (Austin et al.,
2011). Continuous performance management practices utilize cultural artifacts like progress
reports to facilitate the individual and collective experiences of accountability, which has been
demonstrated to improve performance (Alston & Mujtaba, 2009; Carlopio et al., 2012).
TTP Needs to Have a Culture of Accountability Among Central-Office Middle
Managers Who Design Individual Development Plans Aligned With Their Annual Goals.
Lastly, when middle managers are tasked with designing their individual development plans
aligned with their goals, they are afforded an opportunity to further their experience of
accountability to the organization (Beausaert et al., 2011). Individual development plans codify
the interplay between goals and the competencies and capacities individuals and teams need to
perform (Rampersad, 2005). The planning process prompts middle managers to reflect on the
organization’s priorities, which have been linked to team and individual goals (Eisele et al.,
2013; Lejeune et al., 2016). Going a step further than simply designing aligned goals, middle
managers are responsible for identifying the skills and resources they need to acquire to execute
their tasks effectively (Elwyn & Hocking, 2000). This reflection and action planning is an
51

example of a valuable self-reinforcing accountability mechanism, as middle managers will hold
themselves accountable and be held accountable by others (Dachner et al., 2021; Fenwick,
2003).
Cultural Setting Influences
Cultural settings are the regular, observable, and explicit systems of policy, procedure,
action, and artifacts that serve as the manifestation of cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Settings speak to the variety of organizational social contexts that are shaped by cultural
models through structures and attributes unique to the organization (Rueda, 2011). Goals,
incentives, models, rules, resources, and communication devices all serve as expressions of
cultural settings in contemporary workplace environments (Schein, 2017). Perceptions of
organizational support correlate to perceptions of organizational commitment and efficacy
(Tansky & Cohen, 2001).
TTP Needs to Have Practices and Tools to Support Central-Office Middle
Managers When Designing Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and
Organizational Strategy Plans. Ensuring that practices and tools are in place to support key
needs of middle managers’ organizational efficacy perceptions is a way to apply the concept of
cultural models to TTP’s challenge. An example of this application would be the availability of
practices and artifacts to help middle managers develop goals aligned with division operating
plans and organizational strategic plans. Practices such as those affiliated with the SMART goals
framework (Lawlor & Hornyak, 2012) or those recommended for blending goal types (Darnon et
al., 2010; Hamstra et al., 2014) or goal levels (Darino et al., 2019; Wood et al., 1990) serve as a
tangible platform for middle managers to begin their goal development work. Such frameworks
52

available as artifact templates also support critical evaluation and feedback practices that help
drive task-related reflection, improvement, and performance (Anseel et al., 2009).
TTP Needs to Have Practices and Tools to Support Central-Office Middle
Managers When Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings.
Additionally, cultural settings through practices and tools that encourage active participation in
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings would support the development of manager
self and organizational efficacy (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008; Pagdonsolan et al., 2020; Williams &
Beck, 2018). Continuous performance management practices, such as regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings, are proven practices that need to be adapted to the organization’s
specific and contextual environment (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Traynor et al., 2021). While
adopting and adapting the practice of performance-progress monitoring meetings, managers
would benefit from having access to reporting templates and models to support their efficacy in
meeting spaces leading to self-efficacy and organizational efficacy in task performance spaces
(Guerra-López & Hutchinson, 2013; Jelínková, 2017).
TTP Needs to Have Practices and Tools to Support Central-Office Middle
Managers to Design Individual Development Plans Aligned With Their Annual Goals.
Finally, the practice of individual development planning aided by tools to support middle
managers in aligning their plans to goals would exemplify how cultural settings can enhance
perceptions of organizational efficacy (Elwyn & Hocking, 2000; Rampersad, 2005). Espousing
proven frameworks aid organization’s in supporting their managers in effectively marrying those
goals to individual development plans (Maurer, 2002). Peer and supervisor coaching have been
proven to benefit continuous learning planning and implementation (Austin et al., 2006;
Sepdiningtyas & Santoso, 2017; Smith, Orlando, & Berta, 2018). Tools, coaching, and modeling
53

would serve as the requisite cultural setting devices needed for managers to perform this task
proficiently (Beausaert et al., 2011; Traynor et al., 2021). Table 4 provides an overview of the
research base for the study’s assumed organizational influences.

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Central-Office Middle Manager
Organizational Efficacy Perceptions
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Cultural models
TTP needs to have a culture of accountability
to support central-office middle managers
when designing goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational strategic
plans.
Aguinis et al., 2013; Austin et al., 2011;
Clark & Estes, 2008; Clements, 2013;
Darino et al., 2019; Dubnick, 2011; Floyd
& Wooldridge, 1996; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Lee & Suh, 2018;
Romzek & Dubnick, 1987; Schein, 2017
TTP needs to have a culture of accountability
to support central-office middle managers
when participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings.
Alston & Mujtaba, 2009; Austin et al., 2011;
Clark & Estes, 2008; Dubnick, 2011;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Lee & Suh,
2018; Schein, 2017; Carlopio et al., 2012
TTP needs to have a culture of accountability
to support central-office middle managers
when designing individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.

Beausaert et al., 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Dachner et al., 2021; Dubnick, 2011; Elwyn
& Hocking, 2000; Eisele et al., 2013;
Fenwick, 2003; Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Lee & Suh, 2018; Lejeune et al.,
2016; Rampersad, 2005; Schein, 2017
Cultural settings
TTP needs to have practices and tools to
support central-office middle managers
when designing goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational strategic
plans.
Anseel et al., 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Darino et al., 2019; Darnon et al., 2010;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Hamstra et
al., 2014; Lawlor & Hornyak, 2012; Schein,
2017; Tansky & Cohen, 2001; Wood et al.,
1990
TTP needs to have practices and tools to
support central-office middle managers
Aguinis & Pierce, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Guerra-
54

Assumed organization influences Research literature
when participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings.
López & Hutchinson, 2013; Jelínková,
2017; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006;
Pagdonsolan et al., 2020; Schein, 2017;
Traynor et al., 2021; Williams & Beck,
2018
TTP needs to have practices and tools to
support central-office middle managers
when designing individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.
Austin et al., 2006; Beausaert et al., 2011;
Clark & Estes, 2008; Elwyn & Hocking,
2000; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Maurer, 2002; Schein, 2017; Sepdiningtyas
& Santoso, 2017; Smith, Orlando, & Berta,
2018; Traynor et al., 2021

Summary
This improvement study sought to identify the practices and resources necessary for TTP
to reach its goal of increasing overall organizational efficacy by supporting the development of
positive organizational efficacy perceptions among central-office middle managers. Chapter Two
has reviewed pertinent literature related to nonprofit organizations, middle management, and
organizational efficacy to inform this study. Additionally, through the lens of Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis model, the review identified assumed KMO influences specifically related to
the achievement of the stakeholder and organizational goal of increasing positive perceptions of
organizational efficacy. Aligned goal setting, continuous performance management, and
individual development planning were identified in the literature and evaluated through the
KMO protocol as critical influences of organizational efficacy. Chapter Three illustrates the
research design and methodologies utilized to gather and analyze information, examining the
impact of the assumed influences.

55

Chapter Three: Methodology
This project aimed to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational resources related to achieving a 15% increase in TTP’s central-
office middle manager’s organizational efficacy perceptions. Chapter Two identified a
stakeholder-centric list of assumed influences, and Chapter Three will describe the study’s data
collection and analysis methodology for systematically examining those assumed influences.
While a complete needs analysis would focus on all organizational stakeholders, for practical
purposes, this analysis exclusively focused on TTP’s central-office middle-management cohort.
Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-office middle manager cohort’s knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational influences related to increasing their
organizational efficacy perceptions by 15% by 2026?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions addressing decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among Trust the
Process, Inc.’s central-office middle managers?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) model for gap analysis is designed to understand stakeholder
performance by identifying assumed performance influences in the areas of KMO factors present
within specific and current organizational contexts. Deficits in knowledge manifest through
lacking skill or information, while deficits in motivation result in inadequate demonstrations of
individual choice, persistence, or mental effort. Underperformance due to culture or resource
limitations is an example of an organizational deficit. In this study, Clark and Estes’s (2008)
framework was adapted for problem-solving research into the organizational efficacy perceptions
56

of TTP’s central-office middle-management cohort through the lens of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational needs. Figure 1 outlines the gap analysis protocol serving as the
foundation of the study’s conceptual framework.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for the Study Integrating Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences

Note. Adapted from Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance
solutions by R. E. Clark and F. Estes. IAP. Copyright 2008 by IAP.

57

Overview of Research Design
Chapter Three reintroduces the study’s stakeholder of focus by describing the sampling
criterion for participant participation, the participation recruitment strategy, and the rationale for
each of the three data collection protocols utilized in the study’s mix-method design. Following
this, the factors contributing to the study’s credibility, trustworthiness, validity, and reliability are
outlined. The chapter concludes by highlighting the study’s ethical implications, limitations, and
delimitations.
The study employed a mixed-method design leveraging the strengths of each instrument
to create a comprehensive illustration of the needs shaping the organizational efficacy
perspectives of TTP’s central-office middle manager cohort. Chapter Two identified the assumed
KMO influences described by the literature. Chapter Three describes how the survey, interview,
and document analysis sought to understand the impact of these influences within TTP’s specific
organizational context and the specific experiences of the central-office middle manager cohort.
Surveying was utilized as the quantitative method and was intended to gather insights from all
members of the population of interest. As the qualitative method, interviews were conducted
with cohort members representing different operational divisions within TTP. This criterion
aided in capturing the diversity of central office-middle manager experiences emerging from
their distinct workplace responsibilities. Finally, document analysis recorded manifestations of
knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors as evidenced through internal and external
organizational-specific artifacts. Table 5 matches the study’s research questions to the employed
research methods.

58

Table 5
Research Questions and Applied Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview
Document
analysis
What are Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-
office middle manager cohort’s knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational
influences related to increasing their
organizational efficacy perceptions by 15%
by 2026?
X X X
What are the recommended knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions addressing decreasing
organizational efficacy perceptions among
Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-office
middle managers?
X X X

Participating Stakeholders
Organizational efficacy at TTP is assessed annually through employee engagement
surveys and reflects the aggregate perceptions of many employee cohorts and sub-cohorts. I
selected the central-office middle manager cohort as the study’s stakeholder of focus in light of a
consistent multi-year downward trend in that group’s organizational efficacy perceptions. This
25-person group represents each of TTP’s six operational areas, reports to the organization’s top
managers, and frequently manages teams of direct reports. Given middle managers’
responsibilities and centralized position in the management hierarchy, their organizational
efficacy perceptions have impacts on organizational performance and others’ organizational
efficacy perceptions, most especially their direct reports (Bernardy & Antoni, 2021; Bish &
Becker, 2016; Du et al., 2015). All cohort members received invitations to participate in the
59

study ’s survey. Interviews engaged a subset of cohort members emphasizing representation of
TTP ’s six divisions to support understanding of the similarities and differences of experiences
across operational areas.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
The survey sample was comprised of all current central-office middle managers.
Collecting quantitative data on middle manager knowledge, skills, motivation, and
organizational influence related to organizational efficacy perceptions is necessary to answer
Research Question 1 and begin to outline recommended solutions for Research Question 2.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Considering that central-office middle managers are a discrete population within the
organizational hierarchy, the study utilized a non-probability convenience sample encouraging
all of them to participate (Pazzaglia et al., 2016; Robinson & Leonard, 2018). Engaging 80% to
100% of the cohort via survey response limits the impacts of selection bias and supports the
representativeness of the data and its related findings (Daniel, 2011). I utilized organizational
human resource systems to identify all members of the cohort and their up-to-date workplace
email contact information. I sent personalized email invitations to all cohort members, providing
a brief overview of the study, the parameters of the survey protocol, and a link to an online portal
where the survey was administered. The study ’s commitment to confidentiality supported
participants’ engagement and offered an adequate response window and regular reminders of
survey deadlines (Robinson & Leonard, 2018; Rosenberg, 2017). To effectively leverage the
data collection window, the study ’s mixed methodology employed an explanatory sequential
approach as surveying was conducted first, followed by interviews; document analysis was
conducted throughout the data collection window (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
60

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
I engaged 10 central-office middle managers through individual interviews with the goal
of having at least one representative from each of TTP ’s six operating divisions. Collecting
representative qualitative data on middle manager knowledge, skills, motivation, and
organizational influence related to organizational efficacy perceptions was necessary to answer
Research Question 1 and begin to outline recommended solutions for Research Question 2.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Through purposeful and representative sampling, 10 central-office middle managers were
selected to participate in the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Organizational human
resource systems supported the identification of prospective interviewees to represent each
division, ensuring adequate representation of middle manager perspectives across operational
divisions. I sent personalized email invitations to each prospective interviewee providing a brief
overview of the study, the parameters of the interview protocols, and a request for their
participation. Once an invitation was accepted, I sent a more in-depth follow-up email providing
greater detail on the interview protocol, including example questions, and formally requesting
consent to conduct the interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
The source of the document is the first criterion. The documents were gathered
exclusively from organizational sources as these most represented the specific contextual
influences experienced by central-office middle managers affecting their organizational efficacy
perceptions.

61

Criterion 2
The subject matter is the second criterion. The documents gathered were examined for a
direct conceptual relationship with the assumed influences identified in the literature.
Document Analysis Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
A preliminary scan of organizational information systems was conducted to uncover
prospective sources for document analysis. In alignment with the study’s assumed influences,
purposeful sampling was employed to gather documents related to goal setting, performance
review, individual development planning, and employee surveys. Once the preliminary scan was
complete, the responsible department was contacted to gain permission to include the document
in the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Guidance was requested from those familiar with the
document to effectively evaluate the information contained within the source (Bowen, 2009).
Coordination with department and organizational leaders ensured that no confidential
information in the documentation was disclosed publicly.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data sources were surveys, interviews, and document analyses. Surveying was conducted
first, followed by interviewing, in keeping with an explanatory sequential approach; document
analysis was conducted throughout the data collection period (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Additionally, each source provided unique and valuable information about the key stakeholder
group’s knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs and, thus, spoke to the study’s two
research questions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study’s mixed-method design promoted adequate
engagement of the stakeholder group and triangulation of data, supporting internal validity
(Bowen, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The following provides the rationale and explanation
of instrumentation, administration, and analysis.
62

Surveys
Central-office middle managers are a distinct population within the organizational
hierarchy. The study utilized a population-wide survey inviting all members of the 28-person
group to participate in a 28-question survey (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). Surveys provide
efficient means of accessing and including many individual perspectives (Fink, 2013). The
survey employs open-ended, multiple-choice, and Likert-style questions to garner respondent
insight. In alignment with the study’s conceptual framework, which melds the KMO gap analysis
protocol with organizational efficacy, survey questions were designed to gain an understanding
of the core considerations of the research questions, namely, how KMO factors influence the
participants’ perceptions of organizational efficacy (Bohn, 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008; Maxwell,
2013; Osanloo & Grant, 2016).
Supporting content validity, each survey item was calibrated to solicit information on
respondents’ specific experiences with an area of assumed influence according to knowledge,
motivation, or organizational factors as identified in the literature and discussed in Chapter Two
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Additionally, because the survey questions asked about opinion
and individual perception, there were no incorrect responses (Fink, 2013). I sent personalized
email invitations to each prospective survey participant providing a comprehensive overview of
the study, parameters of the survey protocol, and a link to Qualtrics, where the survey was
administered. Participants were reassured that they would be given ample time to respond and
that their contributions would remain confidential (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). Additionally,
electronic survey administration and analysis methods may bolster reliability by increasing the
consistency of the survey’s administration, protecting confidentiality, and minimizing respondent
and researcher errors (Pazzaglia et al., 2016; Robinson & Leonard, 2018).
63

Interviews
I interviewed 10 central-office middle managers, with at least one representative per
operational division. As a qualitative method, interviews allow researchers to better understand
the unique perspectives of individual stakeholder group members (Patton, 2002). In alignment
with the study’s conceptual framework, 28 questions guided the conversation to uncover
information related to the interviewee’s KMO factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). An optional closing
question captured any additional thoughts the interviewee would like to share on the topic.
Purposeful and representative sampling supported adequate respondent diversity while managing
administrative load and mitigating potentially adverse researcher effects such as selection bias
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). A semi-structured approach was utilized
throughout the interview protocol, where questions were written out in advance but intentionally
adapted during the interview session to naturally fit the flow of the conversation and maximize
the collection of the most critical data points (Johnson & Christiansen, 2012; Stuckey, 2013).
The interview data collection took place between September 15, 2022, and October 15,
2022. Over 4 weeks, 10 interviewees participated in 45- to 60-minute interviews. Before
beginning the interview, participants reconfirmed their willingness to participate in the study.
Since individual stakeholder group members are located in various areas across the
country, the interview protocol was facilitated on the Zoom web-conferencing platform. Zoom’s
recording function was enabled with the interviewee’s consent to increase the accuracy of the
data collected and aid the interviewer in focusing their attention on the interviewee (Patton,
2002; Weiss, 1995). Following the interview session, I reviewed the Zoom recordings,
transcripts and written notes to fully capture the insights provided within each interview session
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
64

Documents and Artifacts
Document analysis was the final method incorporated in the study’s explanatory
sequential mixed-methods approach. Documents may contain insights into individual
experiences or organizational context, giving a more holistic understanding of the phenomenon
under study when paired with quantitative and qualitative methods (McEwan & McEwan, 2003;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Annual employee engagement surveys were reviewed as they provide
rich information about organizational efficacy perceptions and motivational and organizational
factors contributing to those perceptions. Furthermore, documents pertaining to goal
development and alignment, performance-progress monitoring, and individual action planning
were also analyzed, as they demonstrate the presence or absence of devices that support the
assumed influences identified in Chapter Two.
Data Analysis
In alignment with the conceptual framework, the assumed influences identified in
Chapter Two formed the basis for analyzing data generated through surveying, interviewing, and
document review. Each research method was specifically designed to allow for the thematic
coding of each specific assumed influence. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach
guided the sequential collection of survey, interview, and document review data between
September 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. Document analysis was conducted throughout the data
collection window. Survey data was collected for the population of the 28-member of the
central-office middle manager cohort. The survey was administered through Qualtrics. I tracked
survey completion rates daily and sent completion reminders weekly to encourage participant
engagement (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). Interview data were collected from 10 cohort
members, engaging two representatives for each operational division, save program design.
65

While the survey and interview questions were thematically aligned due to their mutual
origin in the KMO influences supported by the literature, as a qualitative method, the purpose of
the interview was to gather unique and authentic responses in the interviewees’ own voices
(Clark & Estes, 2008). As such, there was an expectation that the interview data analysis might
require more time due to response complexity. Document review supported the triangulation of
the qualitative and quantitative methods by identifying the presence or absence of KMO
influences through other sources (Bowen, 2009). The analysis phase was conducted between
October 1, 2022, and November 1, 2022, according to a data analysis plan rooted in the
conceptual framework (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). The survey administration platform Qualtrics was
utilized for survey data collection and analysis. Data management tools, such as Microsoft Excel,
were used for interview and document review data analysis. Descriptive statistics generated by
survey and interview responses were analyzed, including central tendency, weighted mean,
response rankings, and standard deviation (Alkin & Vo, 2017; Pazzaglia et al., 2016; Salkind,
2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are essential qualities of effective qualitative research,
yielding confidence in the accurate representation of participants’ contributions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative data consists of the participants’ perspectives, opinions, and
viewpoints collected through qualitative methods such as interviews. A study’s data would be
deemed credible if it seems to represent truthful interpretations of the data (Cope, 2014;
Golafshani, 2003). The study utilized interviews as a qualitative method and employed quality
question design, member checks, and adequate engagement to support interview credibility
(Cairns-Lee et al., 2022; Cope, 2014). Credibility and trustworthiness were supported through
66

quality question design. Interview questions were developed in alignment with the study’s
research questions and adherence to Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework, decreasing the
likelihood of leading questions or conditioned responses (Cairns-Lee et al., 2022; Miles et al.,
2014). Furthermore, the semi-structured interview protocol and an adequate amount of time
allotted for the interview session helped facilitate a trustful interviewer-interviewee exchange
yielding rich data collection (Korstjens & Moser, 2018).
Lastly, the study established adequate engagement through its mixed-methods approach
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each stakeholder group member received an
invitation to participate in the survey protocol. I also asked 10 group members to participate in
interviews, representing 35% of the total population of interest. In addition, reviewing
documents holding secondary research, such as employee surveys, strengthened engagement by
referencing other sources reflecting stakeholder perspectives and organizational context (Bowen,
2009; Burkholder et al., 2019).
Validity and Reliability
Similar to the qualities of credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research, validity
and reliability attest to a quantitative method’s essential need for alignment with the study’s
research questions and the accuracy of its measurements (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Reliability is the capability of a quantitative research method, a survey in this
study’s case, to produce consistent results (Heale & Twycross, 2015; Robinson & Leonard,
2018). Survey reliability was supported through the intentional and methodical inclusion of all
members of the cohort of interest in the surveying aspect of the study (McEwan & McEwan,
2003; Salkind, 2017). Clarity of survey instructions and questions steward reliability by avoiding
exogenous loading and distractions (Salkind, 2017). Most of the survey’s questions are multiple-
67

choice, which has been noted to positively impact survey reliability by making questions more
approachable for respondents (Fink, 2013). Given that the stakeholder group is relatively small at
28 members, close to all group members would need to participate in the survey to have strong
confidence in the survey’s reliability (The Research Advisors, 2006). Participant response rates
were encouraged through consistent and personalized touch points with participants until they
completed the survey or the window for completion closed (Fink, 2013).
Validity describes a quantitative method’s capacity to accurately measure the concept
under study (Heale & Twycross, 2015). The validity of the study’s survey was supported by the
consistency of administration offered by the Qualtrics web-based survey platform (Pazzaglia et
al., 2016). Qualtrics also supports validity by encouraging participant completion at a time of
their convenience and in an environment conducive to their active engagement (Robinson &
Leonard, 2018). During the data collection phase, Qualtrics promotes validity by managing the
organization of survey response data (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). Furthermore, validity was
supported through the mixed methodology mitigating the challenge of testing or the participant
becoming overly familiarized with the research area (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). While surveys
and interviews were thematically aligned to the conceptual framework, different questions
offered the participants new ways to engage with the topic. The semi-structured interview
facilitation approach may also have limited testing effects as questions and probes are adjusted in
real-time to draw out valuable interviewee insights (Bhandari, 2022; Patton, 2002). Finally, the
short timeframe of the data collection phase supported internal validity by protecting against the
negative impacts of history and maturation (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). With less time
available, there is a decreased likelihood of exogenous events disrupting participant
68

interpretation of survey questions or dramatic changes in respondent perceptions of survey
questions due to an extended survey period (Bhandari, 2022).
Ethics
Research involving human subjects is directly or indirectly designed to benefit
individuals or human populations (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, n.d.). The Belmont Report commissioned in 1979 by The National Commission
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research outlines three core
ethical principles which should guide human research: respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.). In keeping with The Belmont
Report’s basic principles, researchers have a responsibility to acknowledge and affirm participant
autonomy; ensure no undue pressure, coercion, or harm would be experienced prior to, during, or
following the conclusion of the study; and maximize benefits to the participants (Glesne, 2011;
Maxwell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.). The
purpose of this study was to explore central-office middle manager requirements for the
development of organizational efficacy. Before proceeding to the data collection phase, approval
to conduct the research methods was obtained from the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board and TTP’s ethics team. As an Exempt-Category 2 study
classification, it is expected that only minimal levels of psychological stress may be experienced
by parties participating in the study (University of Southern California, n.d.).
Informed consent and at-will participation were the two primary participant protection
mechanisms used in the study. Before participating in either the survey or interview procedures,
participants received a detailed briefing outlining the purpose of the study, the nature of their
potential involvement, and the intended uses of research findings following the study’s
69

conclusion (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). To participate in both the survey and interview,
participants agreed to the informed consent requirement of the study. I explained to prospective
survey participants in writing that this was a voluntary role, and they could freely exit at any
point, including declining to take the survey, not completing the survey, or requesting that their
responses be excluded from analysis (Glesne, 2011). For the interview, participants received a
similar briefing on their voluntary and at-will status in writing via email prior to the interview
and were offered a second briefing verbally prior to conducting the interview (Robinson &
Leonard, 2018). Interview participants had the right to decline to be interviewed, discontinue and
exit the interview, and request their responses be excluded from the analysis (Glesne, 2011).
In addition to consent and at-will participation, respondents were briefed on the
confidentiality commitments included in the research design. No readily identifiable information
was collected through interviews and surveys; however, informants were assured of the
confidentiality of their participation in the study, the anonymity of their perspectives, and that I
had exclusive access to respondent information (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Glesne, 2011).
Surveys were administered on the Qualtrics platform and password protected. Interviews took
place on the Zoom video conferencing platform, and permission was requested to record
interviews to aid in transcription, which the interviewee was free to decline. Interview
transcriptions or recordings will be deleted no later than June 1, 2023.
Role of Investigator
The study intended to explore a problem of practice embedded within the context of my
current organization. My professional responsibilities involve facilitating the development and
management of organizational strategy and ensuring alignment between its mission and internal
performance structures, capacities, and processes. While not managing any cohort members, I
70

frequently collaborate with many central-office middle managers and, in some cases, share
longstanding professional and personal relationships with cohort members, which may impact
participant engagement (Biklen & Bogdan, 2006). This dynamic requires a study design that
protects against researcher effects bias, assumptions, and power (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To
design a study that allowed for critical narratives to emerge, I supported the informant’s
understanding of the project’s scope (Glesne, 2011; Tuck & Yang, 2014). Informants were
supported in re-identifying me as a student and recognizing the endeavor as academic and whose
recommendations were explicitly non-binding for TTP (Burkholder et al., 2019; Glesne, 2011;
Rosenberg, 2017).
A researcher’s identity has sweeping impacts on their research design and informants’
experience through their interactions with the researcher and the research design. I identify as a
cis-gendered heterosexual male, mixed-race American of African and European descent,
possessing contextually valuable academic, professional, and organizational credentials, all of
which offer a privileged platform for exercising power (Morgan, 2018; Villaverde, 2008).
Regarding biases and assumptions, the study’s conceptual framework focuses on performance
effectiveness over moral truth and thus espouses a pragmatic philosophical worldview as a
practical approach to solving shortcomings in organizational efficacy (Creswell & Creswell,
2017; Saunders, 2019). Some involved may view the study’s KMO gap analysis framing as
transactional, reductionist, and unwilling to grapple with other significant issues affecting the
topic area (Aliyu et al., 2015; Saunders, 2019). This tension might be especially true as the study
explicitly deals with issues related to positionality and power (Villaverde, 2008). With these
considerations in mind, I designed a study that enables critical narratives to inform
71

recommendations to be implemented by the organization and recommendations for future
research in the field (Glesne, 2011; Rosenberg, 2017).
Summary
Chapter Three presented a restatement of the study’s problem of practice, purpose, and
underpinning conceptual framework. The chapter continued with an overview of the research
design and methodologies, including the sampling criteria and rationale for the study’s interview,
survey, and document analysis protocols. Additionally, details on data analysis procedures were
provided, highlighting strategies to be implemented to foster credibility and trustworthiness of
the qualitative data and validity and reliability of the quantitative data. Chapter Three concludes
with an exploration of the study’s approach to adhering to ethical standards, discusses my role
and impact, and, finally, offers projections on the study’s limitations and delimitations.

72

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The mixed-method analysis described in this section was developed to serve the purpose
of the study: conduct a gap analysis examining the root assets and needs related to solving for
decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among TTP’s central-office middle managers.
The project sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What are Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-office middle manager cohort’s knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational influences related to increasing their
organizational efficacy perceptions by 15% by 2026?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
solutions addressing decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among Trust the
Process, Inc.’s central-office middle managers?
To validate the assumed influences outlined in Chapter Two, the study employed
quantitative methods via a stakeholder survey and qualitative methods via stakeholder interviews
and document/artifact review. The following results and findings are organized by the study’s
conceptual framework, which is rooted in Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis
performance problem-solving model. As identified in Chapter Three, an explanatory sequential
approach was utilized to manage data collection, beginning with survey administration, then
interview facilitation, and concluding with document review. Sequencing the data collection in
this way allowed homing in on the most relevant evidence supporting the data analysis believed
to answer each of the study’s research questions.
Participating Stakeholders
Of the total population of 28 central-office middle managers, 22 survey responses were
gathered (78%). The survey respondents represented each of TTP’s six operating divisions and
73

had a wide range of years of experience in middle-management-level roles. Most respondents
(68%) had spent between 1 and 3 years in their roles or at a similar management level. Managers
working in the local and regional operations division, the business administration division, and
the human resources division made up the majority of survey participants (73%). Table 6
features the survey participant demographic details.

Table 6
Survey Respondent Demographic Details
Division (n = 22) Count (%)
Program design and management 2 (9)
Local and regional operations 6 (27)
Business administration 5 (22)
Human resources 5 (22)
Fundraising 2 (9)
Strategy 2 (9)
Tenure role or like role (n = 22)
0–1 years 8 (36)
2–3 years 7 (32)
3–5 years 1 (4)
5–10 years 4 (18)
10+ years 2 (9)

74

I polled survey participants for interest in sitting for an interview to collect information
about their personal experiences related to the assumed organizational efficacy influences. I
interviewed 10 central-office middle managers, or 35% of the cohort, with each operating
division represented: one in program design and management, two in local and regional
operations, two in business administration, two in human resources, one in fundraising, and two
in strategy. In the following analyses, to ensure confidentiality, interview participants are
referred to by a categorial pseudonym, such as COMM1 and COMM2. Direct interview quotes
are utilized to evaluate the status of the various assumed influences.
Influence Validation Framework
The study sought to evaluate the assumed KMO factors influencing the organizational
efficacy perspectives of TTP’s central office middle managers. I employed a mixed methodology
of a quantitative survey, interviews, and document review to leverage triangulation and rich data,
ensuring the rigorous assessment of the study’s conceptual framework. The survey had a 3-week
participation window, during which 78% of stakeholder group members responded. Over 2
weeks, I conducted 10 interviews. Interviewing ceased after adequate representation of the
overall population was reached (35%), and interview responses became increasingly similar,
indicating saturation.
Given the rich data offered through interviews, interviews were weighted highest in
determining validation type (60%), followed by survey responses (30%), and lastly, document
review data when present (10%). The following outlines the criteria utilized to assess the
validation type of each assumed influence:
● Validated asset: An influence was determined to be a validated asset when interview
data suggested positive experiences by over 80% of interviewee participants, and
75

70% or more of survey responses indicated that they agreed or strongly with the
presence of the influence. When there was 100% agreement among interviewees, the
70% threshold for survey validation decreased in weight for the overall determination
of validation type. When available and in agreement with interview and survey
findings, document review evidence was utilized to confirm the influence as a
validated asset.
● Validated need: An influence is determined to be a validated need when interview
data suggested mixed or negative perceptions indicated by 70% or fewer interview
participants and 70% or fewer survey responses indicated that they agreed or strongly
agreed with the presence of the influence. When available and in agreement with
interview and survey findings, document review evidence was utilized to confirm the
influence as a validated need.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
The following section reports the results and findings for the knowledge-based influences
of central-office middle managers’ organizational efficacy perceptions. The procedural aspect of
knowledge and skill capabilities was determined to be the most salient for the study. Survey and
interview data were utilized to support the validation type for each of the conceptual
framework’s meta-influence areas: goal setting, regular performance-progress monitoring, and
individual development planning. No additional information evidencing the validation type was
gathered via document analysis, as this would have required access to personnel files that were
barred from usage in the study in keeping with the organization’s confidentiality requirements.
The study sought to validate each assumed influence as an asset or a need. Each assumed
76

knowledge influence was determined to be a validated asset in the context of the stakeholder
performance goal. Table 7 provides a synthesis of the knowledge influence finding.

Table 7
Procedural Knowledge Influence Validation Summary Chart
Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
Central-office middle
managers need to
design goals aligned
with division
operating plans and
organizational
strategic plans.

Validated asset
Survey 95% of central-office middle
managers demonstrated
procedural knowledge for
designing goals aligned with
division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
(n = 19)
Interviews 100% of interviewees were able
to speak about the process they
would use for designing goals
aligned with division operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Central-office middle
managers need to
design performance-
progress monitoring
reports which
communicate key
points of performance
during performance-
progress monitoring
meetings.
Validated asset
Survey 94% of central-office middle
manager responses
demonstrated procedural
knowledge for designing
progress-monitoring reports
which communicate key points
of performance during
performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (n = 20)
Interviews 100% of interviewees were able
to speak about the process they
would use for designing
performance-progress
monitoring reports which
communicate key points of
performance during
performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
77

Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
Central-office middle
managers need to
design individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.
Validated asset
Survey 80% of central-office middle
manager responses
demonstrated procedural
knowledge for designing
individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals.
(n = 120)
Interviews 100% of interviewees were able
to speak to the process they
would use for designing
individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals.
(n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.

Knowledge: Procedural Knowledge Influence 1
The first procedural knowledge influence examined here was that central-office middle
managers need to design goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic
plans.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to briefly develop a goal congruent with the prompt
provided to demonstrate their knowledge of the procedural steps required to design goals in
cascading alignment with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans. All but one
response (95%) demonstrated the participant’s capability to accomplish the task effectively.
Table 8 exhibits participant responses to the open-ended questionnaire prompt.

78

Table 8
Responses to Goal Design Procedural Knowledge Question (n = 19)
Prompt
In one sentence or less, please design an individual goal that aligns with the example
organizational goal and division goals below.
Organizational goal: TTP will not exceed its budgeted expenses in FY24
Division goal: Our division will not exceed its budgeted expenses in FY24
Evidence of procedural knowledge: 18 responses
The budget for my projects will not exceed the allowable x% above the budgeted expenses in
FY24.
Staff x will not exceed its budgeted expense in FY24.
My team will not exceed our budgeted expenses in FY24.
My team will not exceed its budgeted expenses in FY24.
My team of direct reports/department will not exceed its budgeted expenses in FY24.
My Business Unit will not exceed my budgeted expenses in FY24.
Individual X will effectively manage spending not to exceed the budgeted expenses in FY24.
Individual goal: I will not exceed my budgeted expenses in FY24.
Individual goal: I will monitor year-to-date expenses vs. budget each month and meet with
leaders across the division to set expectations and balance decisions to stay within budgeted
expenses in FY24 for the division.
I will not exceed the budgeted expenses for my team in FY24.
I will not exceed the amounts budgeted in the line items I’m responsible for.
I will not exceed my $3000 budget this year.
I will manage expense tracking on a monthly basis for our division and make adjustments to
spending as needed to ensure we do not exceed budgeted expenses in FY24.
I will keep my and my team’s expenses within budgeted limits in FY24.
I will ensure me and my direct reports will not exceed our budgeted expenses in FY24.
I will conduct monthly budget to actual reviews of my team budget to ensure we are staying
on pace with budget or course correct as needed.
Eighty percent of Group 1 branches meet goals by June 30 as outlined by lead performance
measures.
Present an FY24 expense budget for review and approval by Q2.

Non-evidence of procedural knowledge: one response
I’m not sure I understand

79

Interview Findings
To assess the interviewees’ knowledge of the procedural steps required to design, I asked
them to briefly discuss their general approach to developing goals congruent with their division’s
operating plans and organizational strategic plans. All interviewees (100%) were capable of
explaining how they might approach this goal-design task, with COMM2 stating,
First, I would want to make sure that I understood what the organization’s strategic plan
was so I would know what I was trying to align with and that I understood what the
broader goals were for the organization or vision for the organization were. Once I had
that information, I would take a look at my department and the work that we’re doing and
just try to figure out how that fits into that.
Additionally, COMM 4 shared, “Yeah, I tend to take, like, a top-down approach starting
from the organizational goals working down to individuals making sure that the individual goals,
you know, reflect the work that needs to be done.” Testimonials such as those offered by
COMM2 and COMM4 contributed to the determination of aligned goal setting as a validated
asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 9 displays the synthesized responses for the
interview item related to the procedural knowledge influence regarding goal design and is
emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

80

Table 9
Synthesis of Goal Design Procedural Knowledge Influence Related Interview Items
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
Can you tell me how you
might design an individual
performance goal to ensure
that it was aligned with your
vertical’s operating plans
and organizational strategic
plans?
COMM1 Yeah, I think our team usually
has department goals, and then
we sort of create smaller team
goals within their department
because our departments are
relatively large.
For the individuals, based on
those department goals, but
they won’t be exactly the same.
COMM2 First, I would want to make sure
that I understood what the
organization’s strategic plan
was so I would know what I
was trying to align with and
that I understood what the
broader goals were for the
organization or vision for the
organization were. Once I had
that information, I would take a
look at my department and the
work that we’re doing and just
try to figure out how that fits
into that.
COMM3 I read everything that the
organization puts out about
where we are going. All of that
I dig deep into, like, well, as of
today. What are the goals, and
why? And then think about
where do I want to be right.
Like, what are the things that I
need to know and learn where
the gaps that I have in
knowledge and understanding,
and the plan is based on that,
right?
81

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM4 Yeah, um, I tend to take like a
top-down approach starting
from the organizational goals
working down to individuals
making sure that the individual
goals, you know, reflect the
work that needs to be done.
COMM5 I need to know the organizational
mission and its trajectory over
the next year. I think I would
then look at what the goals are
that were identified at all of the
levels above me and then try to
make sure that what I was
designing met that need.
COMM6 I guess the organization is still
working on its calls. I would
first need to know the org
goals.
COMM7 If I were going to do it, I would
want to look at the org goals,
our department goals, my team
goals, and then understand
what my goals were, and I
would want to understand who
my goals are impacting. Ask
them what they think the goal
should be and what they need,
and then use that to inform the
actual creation of my goals.
COMM8 I really haven’t had personal
goals connected to my
department and understanding
that clarity related to my
department. So, to answer your
question, I might not do it as it
has been done.
COMM9 It’s helpful to start with the
organizational goals. So, we
know as an organization what
82

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
we’re looking to achieve for
some year or some other
extended period of time. And I
do the same thing for my work.
So, I want to make sure that
they align, obviously, with
what the organization wants to
pull off and what we need to
do.
COMM10 But I’d start by looking at what
are the organizational goals,
figuring out how my team
contributes to those and then
build the team goals like,
“What do we want to
accomplish as a team off?”
How do we sort of meet the
organizational goals and then
individual goals within that.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
stakeholder demonstration of capabilities required to design goals aligned with higher-level
organizational goals. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
With 100% of interviewees (10) and 95% of survey participants (18) demonstrating the
capability of designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic
plans, these findings suggest that this assumed influence can be confirmed as a validated asset.
Knowledge Influence 2
83

The second knowledge influence examined here was that central-office middle managers
need to design performance-progress monitoring reports which communicate key points of
performance during performance-progress monitoring meetings.
Survey Results
To demonstrate their knowledge of the procedural steps required to design performance-
progress monitoring reports that communicate key points of performance, survey participants
were provided with five research-based progress-monitoring techniques and asked to identify
elements consistent with their understanding of effective performance reporting. Out of the 100
opportunities offered collectively to the 20 respondents, 94% of the correct responses were
selected. Figure 2 displays response counts for each technique, and Table 10 features optional
responses offered by survey participants to share their perspectives on additional aspects of
effective performance-progress reporting.

84

Figure 2
Please Identify the Critical Elements of an Effective Performance-Progress Report. You May
Select Multiple Items (n = 20)

85

Table 10
Optional Response to Performance-Progress Monitoring Procedural Knowledge Question.
Participant Comment
COMM-A Culture and practice of inquiry and learning, not just accountability.
“Performance data” includes experiential/narrative on human experience and
contextual factors
COMM-B Rating alignment between performance goals and org-wide/department goals
and needed adjustments to maintain alignment
COMM-C Exemplars or rubrics
COMM-D “Action to be taken” could/should possibly include what a supervisor might be
contributing to support success if there are relevant things.
COMM-E Determine if any course correction is needed. Determine if any additional
resources are needed or can be returned. Determine if any help is needed.
Celebrate Successes.
COMM-F Meaningful conversation with the supervisor that includes multiple data sources
that are normed and leveraged within the division.
COMM-G Clear articulation of the purpose, intent, and scope of the review

Interview Findings
To assess the interviewees’ knowledge of the procedural requirements for producing a
performance-progress report communicating key aspects of performance, I asked them to briefly
discuss their general approach to developing such a performance report. All interviewees (100%)
could explain how they might approach generating a performance-progress monitoring report.
For example, COMM2 noted,
I envision a report that has the goal at the top and then, like, a table down below with
various tasks that are accomplishing that goal. The status of each of those tasks with a
date next to them when they’re anticipated to be accomplished.”
86

Interview testimony pertaining to the development of progress-monitoring reports led to
the determination of designing performance-progress monitoring reports as a validated asset in
the phenomenological environment. Table 11 displays the synthesized responses regarding the
procedural knowledge influence related to progress-monitoring report design and is emblematic
of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 11
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Procedural Knowledge Influence About Progress-
Monitoring Report Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
Can you tell me how you
might design a
performance-progress
monitoring report which
communicates key points
during performance-
progress monitoring
meetings?
COMM1 I will say like, for most of the
folks on our team, it is very
cut and dry. Do this every
month, and less sort of like,
I don’t know, less sort of
like forward thinking.
COMM2 I envision a report that has the
goal at the top and then,
like, a table down below
with various tasks that are
accomplishing that goal.
The status of each of those
tasks with a date next to
them when they’re
anticipated to be
accomplished.
COMM3 We have in the past, like in
years past, done a bit more
formal going through the
performance management,
and we have done that in the
past that has been more
conversational, which again
I also like around where my
87

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
manager thinks that I’ve
excelled. Are there places
that I think I still need to
grow, so it’s been a little up
and down.
COMM4 I view performance
management is like an
ongoing two-way process,
right, and not like an event
where you sit down and
have a review. Structuring
sort of ongoing one-on-one
around team and individual
goals, and what people are
working to achieve and
what, how, they’re working
to grow individually is the
most effective space and
way to approach it.
COMM5 I’m trying to think about how
I manage and how I want to
manage right. I don’t want
any surprise. Almost want
the annual check-in to be
the annual review to be a
formality. Like, I don’t hear
anything in that that
surprises me. And so, the
performance. You might sit
there and go, like, here the
performance goal, because
we need to put something in
a file. But, like, I’m having
conversations about those at
my checking. So, doesn’t
mean that every week we’re
like, Did you or not? Did
you step and meet this?
Maybe not, but probably
monthly.
88

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM6 It’s not really a practice that I
regularly do outside of the
projects I am leading on.
COMM7 I can do this but haven’t been
asked to, so I do not do it.
COMM8 We don’t have a good way of
managing goals unless it’s
really bad, and then we go.
Oh, my gosh, we got to do
something over here.
COMM9 My team and I review our
goals monthly and in formal
reviews three times a year.
COMM10 I always sort of working
towards my goals. Right?
But I don’t really do
performance reviews
anymore.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
stakeholder demonstration of capabilities required to design performance-progress monitoring
reports. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 94% of survey responses demonstrated
stakeholder capability of designing performance-progress reports that effectively communicate
key performance points, these findings suggest that this assumed influence can be confirmed as a
validated asset.
Knowledge Influence 3
89

The third knowledge influence examined was that central-office middle managers need to
design individual development plans aligned with their annual goals.
Survey Results
To demonstrate their knowledge of the procedural needs for designing an individual
development plan aligned with their annual goals, cohort members were provided six research-
based elements for development planning and asked to identify all which they believed were
consistent with effective individual development planning. Out of the 120 opportunities offered
collectively to the 20 respondents, 80% of the correct responses were selected. Figure 3 displays
response selection counts for each research-based technique described in the individual
performance planning literature. One participant responded to the opportunity to offer additional
techniques with, “Keeping it as short as possible, because if it is too long, it will not be used.”

Figure 3
Please Identify the Critical Elements of an Effective Individual Development Plan. You May
Select Multiple Items (n = 20)

90

Interview Findings
To assess interviewees’ procedural knowledge related to designing an individual
development plan aligned with their annual goals, I asked them to describe the approach they
would take to develop such a plan. All interviewees (100%) could illustrate, in their own words,
the core components of an effective individual development plan. An example of this from
COMM2 offered was,
I would try to figure out what sort of projects do our team work on … and what skills can
I develop to support those projects. The individual development plan would basically say,
I’d like to develop in … and pick the three areas …, and this is how I’m going to do it,
and it would list, like, the various workshops that I would go to or things that I’d want to
read.
Interviewee testimony pertaining to the design of individual development plans aligned
with their goals led to the determination of procedural knowledge for designing individual
development plans as a validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 12 displays
the synthesized responses for the interview item on the procedural knowledge influence related
to individual development plan design and is emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10
COMM interviewees.

91

Table 12
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Procedural Knowledge Influence About Individual
Development Plan Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
Can you tell me how you
might design an individual
development plan that is
aligned with your annual
goals?
COMM1 I don’t do this any formal
way. I always try to connect
things I am interested in
learning to my goals.
COMM2 The individual development
plan would basically say,
I’d like to develop in … and
pick the three areas, … and
this is how I’m going to do
it, and it would list, like, the
various workshops that I
would go to or things that’d
want to read.
COMM3 I don’t really do this. It’s not
ever been expected of me.
COMM4 I’m always enrolled in some
kind of skills development
course. I talk to my manager
about my goals, but that’s
where my IDP planning
ends.
COMM5 This is something that I think
about a lot … for myself
and team. But I don’t
actively engage in this work
the way I think I could.
COMM6 I don’t do this here but have
in other places in my career.
COMM7 Yeah, you know. Honestly, I
feel like I totally used to
make them because it was
like, Oh, I want to get this
kind of development and do
this and learn this. And now
92

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
I feel like everything is so
just focused on, like your
actual job and, like, do the
job that an IDP feels, like,
less important.
COMM8 Not something I’ve ever had
to do, so I am not so sure.
COMM9 I do not know of anyone who
really does this because the
resources needed to support
aren’t available.
COMM10 I would do this if it helped me
make progress in my career,
but I don’t think this is a
tool for that.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
stakeholder demonstration of capabilities required to design individual development plans
aligned with their goals. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
The findings suggest that designing individual development plans aligned with
stakeholder goals can be confirmed as a validated asset, with 100% of interviewees (10) and 80%
of survey responses demonstrating stakeholder capability of designing individual development
plans.

93

Synthesis of Results for Knowledge Influences
All told, the procedural knowledge influences of designing goals aligned with higher-
level organizational plans, designing regular performance-progress monitoring reports, and
designing individual development plans aligned with their goals were validated as assets. Survey
and interview findings reflected middle manager possession of knowledge required to perform
critical goal setting, progress monitoring, and planning tasks. These assumed influences were
evidenced to support the development of positive organizational efficacy perspectives. The
following section provides an overview of the study findings investigating the motivation
influences assumed to support the development of central-office middle manager organizational
efficacy perspectives.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
The following section reports the results and findings for the motivation-based influences
on central-office middle manager organizational efficacy perceptions. The study evaluated the
impact of goal setting, regular performance-progress monitoring, and individual development
planning on stakeholder experiences of attainment value, self-efficacy, team-efficacy, and goal
orientation. Survey and interview data were utilized to support the validation categorization. No
additional information evidencing the validation type was gathered via document analysis, as this
would have required access to personnel files that were barred from usage in the study in keeping
with the confidentiality requirements of the organization. The study sought to validate each
assumed influence as an asset or a need. In the context of the stakeholder performance goals,
67% (8) of the assumed motivation influences were validated as assets and 33% (4) as needs.
Table 13 provides a synthesis of the motivation influence findings.

94

Table 13
Motivation Influence Validation Summary Chart
Category Assumed influence
Validation
type
Method Summary
Attainment
value
Central-office
middle managers
need to find it
important to design
goals aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Validated
asset
Survey 73% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
designing goals aligned
with division operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans was
important for their
identity in their role. (n
= 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
spoke about the
importance of their role
of designing goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Attainment
value
Central-office
middle managers
need to find it
important to
participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Validated
need
Survey 59% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings
was important. (n = 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
spoke about the
importance of their role
of participating in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.

Central-office
middle managers
need to find it
important to design

Survey 41% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
designing an individual
95

Category Assumed influence
Validation
type
Method Summary

Attainment
value
individual
development plans
which align with
their annual goals.

Validated
need
development plan which
is aligned with their
annual goals was
important. (n = 22)
Interviews 40% of interviewees
spoke about the
importance to their role
in designing individual
development plans
which align with their
annual goals. (n = 10)
Document
Analysis
No data collected.
Self-
efficacy
Central-office
middle managers
need confidence in
their ability to
design goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Validated
asset
Survey 64% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they felt confident in
their ability to design
goals aligned with
division operating plans
and organizational
strategic plans. (n = 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
were confident in their
ability to design goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Self-
efficacy
Central-office
middle managers
need confidence in
their ability to
participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Validated
asset
Survey 86% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they felt confident in
their ability to
participate in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (n
= 22)
Interviews 90% of interviewees were
confident in their ability
to participate in regular
performance-progress
96

Category Assumed influence
Validation
type
Method Summary
monitoring meetings. (n
= 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Self-
efficacy
Central-office
middle managers
need confidence in
their ability to
design individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.
Validated
asset
Survey 77% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they felt confident in
their ability to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (n = 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
were confident in their
ability to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Team-
efficacy
Central-office middle
managers need
confidence in their
direct report team’s
ability to design
goals aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Validated
need
Survey 55% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they felt confident in
their direct report team’s
ability to design goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (n = 20)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
were confident in their
direct report team’s
ability to design goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (n = 7)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Team-
efficacy
Central-office
middle managers
need confidence in
their direct report
Validated
asset
Survey 75% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they felt confident in
97

Category Assumed influence
Validation
type
Method Summary
team’s ability to
participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
their direct report team’s
ability to participate in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 20)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
were confident in their
direct report team’s
ability to participate in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 7)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Team-
efficacy
Central-office
middle managers
need confidence in
their direct report
team’s ability to
design individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.
Validated
Need
Survey 53% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they felt confident in
their direct report team’s
ability to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (n = 19)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
were confident in their
direct report team’s
ability to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (n = 7)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Goals
Central-office
middle managers
need to know the
goal of designing
goals aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.

Validated
Asset
Survey 82% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they know the goal of
designing goals aligned
with division operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans. (n = 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
knew the goal of
designing goals aligned
with division operating
98

Category Assumed influence
Validation
type
Method Summary
plans and organizational
strategic plans. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Goals
Central-office
middle managers
need to know the
goal of
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.

Validated
asset
Survey 82% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they know the goal of
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (n
= 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
knew the goal of
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (n
= 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Goals
Central-office
middle managers
need to know the
goal of designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.
Validated
asset
Survey 64% of central-office
middle managers agreed
or strongly agreed that
they know the goal of
designing individual
development plans
aligned with their annual
goals. (n = 22)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
knew the goal of
designing individual
development plans
aligned with their annual
goals. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.

Motivation: Attainment Value Influence 1
99

The first motivation influence related to attainment value that this study examined was
that central-office middle managers need to find it important to design goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the importance of designing goals aligned with their division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans, gauging their experiences of attainment value. Most (73%) agreed
or strongly agreed that designing aligned goals is important to their role. Figure 4 displays the
counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

100

Figure 4
I Find It Important to My Role to Design Individual Goals That Are Aligned With Division
Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans (n = 22)

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees about their perspectives on the importance of designing goals in
alignment with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans for their roles. All
(100%) spoke of the importance of aligning their goals with higher-level plans. COMM5 offered
their view, stating,
I think it’s important because it helps clarify what an organization’s focus is and what it
isn’t. What my focus is, and what it isn’t. Like a figure drawn on a piece of paper. The
figure and the negative space around the figure are both a part of the picture. It’s
important that I know what’s expected of me, not expected of me, and how that aligns
with the organization’s mission.
101

In another example, COMM9 shared, “For me personally, it’s a part of my identity
because otherwise I don’t know how to gauge my work and my own progress, and I think that is
important in this part of my career.” Interviewee testimony pertaining to the design goals aligned
with division and organizational plans led to the determination of attainment value for designing
individual development plans as a validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table
14 displays the synthesized responses to the interview item related to the attainment value
influence regarding goal design, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10
COMM interviewees.

Table 14
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Attainment Value Influence About Goal Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How important is it for you to
design individual goals that
are aligned with vertical
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans? (Attainment value)
COMM1 Sometimes it feels like real
leadership, and sometimes
it’s like middle
management. I’m not like
making executive-level
decisions, but, like, I’m still
responsible for, like, the
core functions of like a
pretty big team.
COMM2 I think it’s pretty important. I
mean, if to the extent that I
find us trying to come up
with goals that don’t really
relate to what we do.
COMM3 It’s very important. Vitally
important to my work.
COMM4 I think it helps us keep
centered in the work. I think
it’s a good way to manage
as well, so to speak, so, like,
102

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
to make sure that you know
how you are connected.
COMM5 I think it’s important because
it helps clarify what an
organization’s focus is and
what it isn’t. What my focus
is, and what it isn’t. Like a
figure drawn on a piece of
paper. The figure and the
negative space around the
figure are both a part of the
picture. It’s important that I
know what’s expected of
me, not expected of me, and
how that aligns with the
organization’s mission.
COMM6 It’s important, but I don’t
have the upper-level goals
to create my goals, so it’s
not important to me right
now.
COMM7 In my current role, this
matters a lot, but in previous
roles, I realized I didn’t care
about wholistic alignment. It
didn’t matter as much.
COMM8 I think it, but I am not sure I
would use the word
important, but I haven’t
done it. I’d like to. But
haven’t.
COMM9 For me personally, it’s a part
of my identity because
otherwise, I don’t know
how to gauge my work and
my own progress, and I
think that is important in
this part of my career.
COMM10 It’s important to me because
it’s about accountability and
103

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
demonstrating success. So,
you have to do it.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of goal design on stakeholder attainment value. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 73% of survey responses reflected
feelings of the importance of designing goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans, these findings suggest that attainment value for designing aligned
goals can be confirmed as a validated asset.
Motivation: Attainment Value Influence 2
The second influence related to attainment value examined in this study was that central-
office middle managers need to find it important to participate in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the importance of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings, gauging
their experiences of attainment value. A slight majority (59%) agreed or strongly agreed that
participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings is important to their role.
Figure 5 displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

104

Figure 5
I Find It Important to My Role for Me to Participate in Regular Performance-Progress
Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees about their perspectives on the importance of participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings for their roles. All (100%) spoke of the
importance of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring. COMM3 offered their
view, stating,
Is it important? Absolutely. I think it’s vitally important to take a step back periodically
and make sure you’re not just going through the motions and just doing the thing that you
think you’re supposed to be doing. But you actually look at, “Are you actually helping
people?”
In another example, COMM10 shared,
105

So, again, progress monitoring against goals is important to me, one, because it’s about
accountability. It’s about demonstrating success. It’s about unifying the team around a
shared vision and how that vision manifests itself. And if you don’t refer back to that
stuff, people tend to get lost. So, you have to do it.
Interviewee testimony pertaining to participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings led to the determination of attainment value for participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings as a validated need in the phenomenological
environment. Table 15 displays the synthesized responses for the interview item related to the
attainment value influence of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings,
which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 15
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Attainment Value Influence About Participating in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meeting
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How important is it for you to
participate in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Attainment value)
COMM1 It is important to me, so I
make sure my team does
some kind of progress
updating regularly.
COMM2 It’s more so monitoring if we
are accomplishing the things
that we’re working on
efficiently, you know,
getting back to people, and I
guess what would be more
effective is if we had those
goals in front of us as well
to see if we are cross-
checking there.
106

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM3 Is it important? Absolutely. I
think it’s vitally important
to take a step back
periodically and make sure
you’re not just going
through the motions and just
doing the thing that you
think you’re supposed to be
doing. But you actually look
at, “Are you actually
helping people?”
COMM4 I mean, it’s important to know
if what we are doing is
working and if we need to
be doing something
different. Course correcting
when we learn something
new is important to me.
COMM5 Yes, I do find important in it
both to providing
opportunities for others and
to participate in those spaces
myself because people want
to know that they’re
successful, and if what they
are doing is working, or if
they’re going in the wrong
direction, they want to
change direction. I think
that regular progress
monitoring also takes the
edge off of progress
monitoring.
COMM6 I do find it valuable in my
role to both participate in
these conversations and to
lead them. I’m curious
about how to make this
important in virtual spaces.
COMM7 Not sure how important it is if
I am not doing it.
107

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM8 It’s hard to say yes, it was
important. It’s been 15
years, and it’s never
happened. But, like, it
seems … it feels like it
could be important.
COMM9 I think progress monitoring is
definitely important.
COMM10 So, again, progress
monitoring against goals is
important to me, one
because it’s about
accountability. It’s about
demonstrating success. It’s
about unifying the team
around a shared vision and
how that vision manifests
itself. And if you don’t refer
back to that stuff people
tend to get lost, and I would
give ones right. So, you
have to do it.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of participating in regular progress-monitoring meetings on stakeholder attainment
value. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 59% of survey responses reflected
feelings of the importance of participating in regular progress-monitoring meetings, these
108

findings suggest that this attainment value for participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings can be confirmed as a validated need.
Motivation: Attainment Value Influence 3
The third influence related to attainment value examined in this study was that central-
office middle managers need to find it important to design individual development plans which
align with their annual goals.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the importance of designing individual development plans which align with their annual goals,
gauging their experiences of attainment value. Less than a majority of middle managers (41%)
agreed or strongly agreed to finding participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings important to their role. Figure 6 displays the counts for each response type on the
survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

109

Figure 6
I Find It Important to My Role to Design an Individual Development Plan Which Aligns With My
Annual Goals

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees about their perspectives on the importance of designing
individual development plans which align with their annual goals to their roles. Consistent with
survey findings, only 40% of interviewees (4) spoke to the importance of designing development
plans aligned with their goals. COMM4 offered their view, stating,
Yeah, I mean, I think it’s an important part of your overall professional experience, right?
It’s been in my experience. You know, when people aren’t learning and growing in their
role, it’s more likely that they are going to want to leave, and I don’t want that to happen.
In another example, COMM9 shared,
110

I think it’s essential to my role because if not, if you feel like you’re giving everything to
the organization, and you don’t have any personal development, that’s when people begin
asking themselves, “What am I doing? Why am I doing this? What is it for?”
Despite testimonial evidence of middle managers finding individual development
planning to be important, most acknowledged not utilizing individual development plans leading
to the determination of designing development plans aligned with their goals as a validated need
in the phenomenological environment. Table 16 displays the synthesized responses for the
interview item related to the attainment value influence regarding individual development plans,
which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 16
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Attainment Value Influence About Individual
Development Plan
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How important is it for you to
design individual
development plans which
align with your annual
goals? (Attainment value)
COMM1 You know, I probably don’t. I
consciously categorize them
differently when I think of
development.
COMM2 I think it’s important because
it does force me to sort of
figure out where I am in my
career and what areas I need
to go into if I want to
advance in my career and
what things I’m good at and
what things I’m not good at.
So, I do think that it’s
helpful to have an individual
development plan because it
forces you to sit down at
least once in the course of a
111

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
year and have that
conversation, whereas it
might not happen otherwise.
So, I do think it’s valuable.
COMM3 No, I don’t think it’s … tied
to my identity and feeling
competent and capable to do
my job. But yes, I think you
should do it, because it is
necessary.
COMM4 Yeah, I mean, I think it’s an
important part of your
overall professional
experience, right? It’s been
in my experience. You
know, when people aren’t
learning and growing in
their role it's more likely
that they are going to want
to leave, and I don’t want
that to happen.
COMM5 It has not been as imperative
because the people I’m
reporting to is pretty
transactional, like my
experience in other sectors.
No one cared about that, …
to be honest.
COMM6 Yeah, it is too small. It is not
… multi-dimensional, but,
also, the actual
competencies themselves
are not, are not relevant, like
they are base level, right?
Everyone should know how
to do.
112

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM7 It might be important, but it
hasn’t been my experience
that this isn’t important.
COMM8 I feel like I’m just creating it
over here like I’m in this
like little bubble.
COMM9 I think it’s essential to my
role because if not, if you
feel like you’re giving
everything to the
organization, and you don’t
have any personal
development, that’s when
people begin asking
themselves, “What am I
doing? Why am I doing
this? What is it for?”
COMM10 It doesn’t feel important
because it doesn’t feel
connected to my goals or
any opportunities for career
progression.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of designing individual development plans which align with their annual goals on
stakeholder attainment value. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 40% of interviewees (4) and 41% of survey responses reflected feelings
of the importance of designing individual development plans which align with their annual goals,
113

these findings suggest that attainment value for designing individual development plans aligned
with annual goals can be confirmed as a validated need.
Motivation Influence 4: Self-Efficacy
The fourth motivation influence examined here pertained to self-efficacy. It was that
central-office middle managers need confidence in their ability to design goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about confidence in their
ability to design goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans,
gauging their experiences of self-efficacy. Most (64%) agreed or strongly agreed to feeling
confident in their ability to design goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. Figure 7 displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point
Likert-type scale.

114

Figure 7
I Am Confident in My Ability to Design Individual Goals Aligned With My Division’s Operating
Plan and Organizational Strategy Plans

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees about their confidence in their abilities to design individual goals
aligned with their division’s operating plan and organizational strategic plans. Breaking with
survey findings, all interviewees (10) spoke to their confidence in their abilities to design
individual goals aligned with their division’s operating plan and organizational strategic plans.
COMM2 offered their view, stating, “I think I’m pretty confident in that ability. You know, on a
scale from one to 10, I would probably say, eight or nine.” Interviewee testimony about their
confidence in their abilities to design individual goals aligned with my division’s operating plan
and organizational strategic plans led to the determination of self-efficacy when designing
aligned goals as a validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 17 displays the
115

synthesized responses for the interview item related to the self-efficacy influence regarding goal
design, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 17
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Self-Efficacy Influence About Goal Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How confident are you in
your ability to design goals
aligned with your vertical’s
operating plan and
organizational strategic
plans? (Self-efficacy)
COMM1 I think I’m relatively
confident, knowing what I
like and need to do to get
my work done. And I’d say,
like, I’m like only like 80%
confident that it’s connected
to the core goals.
COMM2 I think I’m pretty confident in
that ability. You know, on a
scale from 1 to 10, I would
probably say 8 or 9.
COMM3 But I often feel like what we
come up with doesn’t
always match what we
actually need to do. So, I do
believe I’m capable of
putting ideas down on
measurable goals and
timelines and all of that. But
it’s not actually what comes
to fruition.
COMM4 Yes, I feel confident doing
this.
COMM5 I am very confident in setting
goals.
COMM6 I find it pretty easy to identify
my goals.
COMM7 I feel confident.
116

COMM8 Very confident.
COMM9 I am confident doing this
when I know I have the
right supports available.
COMM10 Yes, I don’t know why people
would have problems with
that.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of designing individual goals aligned with their division’s operating plan and
organizational strategic plans on stakeholder self-efficacy. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 64% of survey responses reflected
confidence in their abilities to design individual goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans, these findings suggest self-efficacy for designing aligned goals
can be confirmed as a validated asset.
Motivation Influence 5: Self-Efficacy
Central-office middle managers need confidence in their ability to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about confidence in their
ability to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings, gauging their
experiences of self-efficacy. Most middle managers (86%) agreed or strongly agreed to feeling
117

confident in participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. Figure 8
displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

Figure 8
I Am Confident in My Ability to Participate in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring
Meetings With My Manager and Peers

118

Interview Findings
During interviews, middle managers were asked about their confidence in participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. The majority, 90% (9), spoke about their
confidence in their abilities to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings.
COMM4 offered their view, stating,
I do. There’s two different spaces along that line that I participate in. Sometimes I
participate in it as the one reporting on the progress, and sometimes I participate as the
one hearing from others. In either space, I feel confident.
In an example breaking from the generally positive perceptions of confidence felt by
others, COMM8 shared,
I don’t feel like folks really have a handle on my role or my team’s role, and so that
makes me feel defensive when it comes to participating in progress-monitoring spaces,
especially when I haven’t been given the time or information to prepare.
Interviewee testimony pertaining to their confidence in their abilities to participate in
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings led to the determination of participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings as a validated asset in the phenomenological
environment. Table 18 displays the synthesized responses for the interview item related to the
self-efficacy influence regarding participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

119

Table 18
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Self-Efficacy Influence About Participating in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meeting
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How confident are you in
your ability to participate in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings? (Self-efficacy)
COMM1 I feel confident when we do
this, but it’s [not]something
we do regularly or formally.
COMM2 I’m very confident about that
as well. But not all goals are
equal. Without that being a
formal thing for us to discuss,
it’s not going to come up in
the regular course of our
conversations until the end of
the year when we have to see
if we met the goals or not.
COMM3 We don’t always do those, so I
guess the question is, do I
feel capable or comfortable
doing it? Yes, but it’s not a
practice that is routine.
COMM4 I do. There’s two different
spaces along that line that I
participate in. Sometimes, I
participate in it as the one
reporting on the progress, and
sometimes I participate as the
one hearing from others. In
either space, I feel confident.
COMM5 I feel confident doing this for
the most part, but I don’t
think we do it in any formal
way.
COMM6 We don’t really do this. So yes,
I can do this, but no, I don’t
really do it.
COMM7 Confident in doing this when I
am asked to.
120

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM8 I don’t feel like folks really
have a handle on my role or
my team’s role, and so that
makes me feel defensive
when it comes to
participating in progress-
monitoring spaces, especially
when I haven’t been given
the time or information to
prepare.
COMM9 It’s not that lack the confidence
in my ability to do it because
I do it with my team, and I
can do it for myself. I think,
sometimes, when you’re in
other spaces, what ends up
happening is so many layers
of conversation take place
that are not meaningful, but
it’s, like, just more to check a
box as opposed to, like,
meaningfully advanced the
work.
COMM10 I feel I am very confident in
my ability to both: do self-
reflection through progress
monitoring and leading my
team through it and managing
up on what the progress
against our goals. I mean,
sometimes, you’re not
meeting goals right, and I
don’t take it personally. I take
it as sort of like, is it a goal
we should have? And if so,
then how do we fix it? And
it’s in? You know, it just
becomes a problem to solve
and not like a necessarily
reflection on the people.

121

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings on stakeholder
self-efficacy. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 90% of interviewees (9) and 86% of survey respondents reflected
confidence in their abilities to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings,
these findings suggest that self-efficacy when participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings can be confirmed as a validated asset.
Motivation Influence 6: Self-Efficacy
The sixth motivation-related influence examined in this study pertained to self-efficacy. I
was that central-office middle managers need confidence in their ability to design individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about confidence in their
ability to design individual development plans aligned with their annual goals, gauging their
experiences of self-efficacy. Most (77%) agreed or strongly agreed to feeling confident in their
ability to design individual development plans aligned with their annual goals. Figure 9 displays
the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

122

Figure 9
I Am Confident in My Ability to Design an Individual Development Plan Aligned With My
Annual Goals

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their confidence in their ability to design
individual development plans aligned with their annual goals. All interviewees (10) spoke about
their confidence in their abilities to design individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals. COMM2 offered their view, stating,
I believe I would be confident in my ability to do it. I do a self-assessment, and in my
mind, that self-assessment has many of the aspects that an individual development plan
would. When they say, “What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? What
things would you like to work on over the course of the next year?” In my mind, those
are the sorts of things that would be part of an individual development plan.
123

Interviewee testimony pertaining to their confidence in their abilities to participate in
designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals led to the determination
of self-efficacy when designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals as
a validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 19 displays the synthesized
responses for the interview item related to the self-efficacy influence on individual development
plans, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 19
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Self-Efficacy Influence About Individual
Development Plan
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How confident are you in
your ability to design
individual development
plans aligned with your
annual goals? (Self-
efficacy)
COMM1 I guess I am confident
because I know where I am
trying to grow, but it’s not
something I do.
COMM2 I believe I would be confident
in my ability to do it. I do a
self-assessment, and in my
mind, that self-assessment
has many of the aspects that
an individual development
plan would. When they say,
What are your strengths?
What are your weaknesses?
What things would you like
to work on over the course
of the next year? In my
mind, those are the sorts of
things that would be part of
an individual development.
124

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM3 Yeah. And yeah, this is. This
is a very informal process,
but it isn’t always done. At
points of my time here, it
has been, but right now, it
isn’t.
COMM4 Yes, I feel confident doing it
but do not do it.
COMM5 Very confident doing this.
COMM6 Confident in my ability to do
this.
COMM7 Yes, very confident.
COMM8 I used to do this, so I feel
confident doing it.
COMM9 Pretty confident, but don’t do
this anymore.
COMM10 Confident, but I put my
energies elsewhere.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals on
stakeholder self-efficacy. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 77% of survey respondents reflected
confidence in their abilities to design individual development plans aligned with their annual
goals, these findings suggest that this assumed influence can be confirmed as a validated asset.
125

Motivation Influence 7: Team-Efficacy
The seventh motivation influence evaluated here was that central-office middle managers
need confidence in their direct report team’s ability to design goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational strategic plans.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about confidence in their
direct report team’s ability to design goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans, gauging their experiences of team-efficacy. A slight majority of
middle managers (55%) agreed or strongly agreed to feeling confident in their direct report
team’s ability to design goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic
plans. Figure 10 displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type
scale.

126

Figure 10
I Am Confident in My Direct Report Team’s Ability to Design Goals Aligned With Our
Division’s Operating Plan and Organizational Strategy Plans

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design goals aligned with the division’s operating and organizational strategic plans.
Breaking with survey findings, all interviewees (10) spoke to their confidence in their direct
report team’s ability to design goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. COMM9 offered their view, stating,
They definitely are because they’re very capable people. It’s a high-performing team. I
think sometimes I can strengthen their work because of my vantage point in the
organization. I think they can get the goals and think about it conceptually. We know
what we’re driving to and what we want to accomplish. But I have the ability to pull it up
127

to a higher altitude sometimes and then show connections across the team, and that helps
like reinforce how all of our work comes together, which is another important part of our
team’s work, so you’re not kind of just driving in a silo.
In another example, COMM10 shared,
I think the team could do it without me without much of a problem. Now, certain ones of
them are going to do better than others, right? So, it depends on who that person is. But
yeah, like, if I stepped away tomorrow, I think my team will come up with goals.
Interviewee testimony about their confidence in their direct report team’s ability to
design goals aligned with division operating and organizational strategic plans led to the
determination of team-efficacy when designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals as a validated need in the phenomenological environment. Table 20 displays the
synthesized responses for the interview item related to the team-efficacy influence of goal
design, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 20
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related Team-Efficacy Influence About Goal Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How confident are you in
your direct report team’s
ability to design goals
aligned with your vertical’s
operating plan and
organizational strategic
plans? (Team-efficacy)
COMM1 Very confident.
COMM2 If I said that was a goal, I
think they could very easily
come up with a goal. It’s
very specific, and it’s
something that they know.
It’s when you get a little bit
more ambiguous that it gets
a little harder.
128

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM3 I have confidence that most of
them could do this without
needing me to support them.
COMM4 Yeah, I think so to develop
goals, but I try to support
them.
COMM5 Yes, I am confident in their
ability.
COMM6 I am pretty confident that they
can set goals.
COMM7 Very confident.
COMM8 We do this every year, and
every year, they get better at
it.
COMM9 They definitely are because
they’re very capable people.
It’s a high-performing team.
I think sometimes I can
strengthen their work
because of my vantage point
in the organization. I think
they can get the goals and
think about it conceptually.
We know what we’re
driving to and what we want
to accomplish. But I have
the ability to pull it up to a
higher altitude sometimes
and then show connections
across the team, and that
helps, like, reinforce how all
of our work comes together,
which is another …
important part of our team’s
work, so you’re not kind of
just driving in a silo.
129

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM10 I think the team could do it
without me without much of
a problem. Now, certain
ones of them are going to do
better than others, right? So,
it depends on who that
person is. But yeah, like, if I
stepped away tomorrow, I
think my team will come up
with goals.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of designing goals aligned with division operating and organizational strategic plans
on stakeholder team-efficacy. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 55% of survey responses reflected
feelings of confidence in their direct report team’s ability to design goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational strategic plans, these findings suggest that team-efficacy
when designing aligned goals can be confirmed as a validated need.
Motivation Influence 8: Team-Efficacy
The eighth motivation-related influence examined pertained to team-efficacy. It was that
central-office middle managers need confidence in their direct report team’s ability to participate
in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings.

130

Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about confidence in their
direct report team’s ability to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings,
gauging their experiences of team-efficacy. Most middle managers (75%) agreed or strongly
agreed to feeling confident in their direct report team’s ability to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings. Figure 11 displays the counts for each response type
on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

Figure 11
I Am Confident in My Direct Report Team’s Ability to Participate in Our Team’s Regular
Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings

131

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. All interviewees (10)
spoke about their confidence in their direct report team’s ability to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings. COMM2 offered their view, stating,
Yes, I do think they can. We have our one-to-one meetings, and we talk about what you
are working on. Where are you making progress? What are your professional goals? Yes,
I also think that it would be a lot easier for us to monitor progress if we had our goals in
front of us.
Interviewee testimony pertaining to their confidence in their direct report team’s ability to
participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings led to the determination of
team-efficacy when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings as a
validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 21 displays the synthesized
responses for the interview item related to the team-efficacy influence of participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of
the 10 COMM interviewees.

132

Table 21
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Team-Efficacy Influence of Participating in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How confident are you in
your direct report team’s
ability to participate in your
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings? (Team-efficacy)
COMM1 Yes, I feel confident in their
abilities to do this
COMM2 Yes, I do think they can. We
have our one-to-one
meetings, and we talk about
what you are working on.
What are you making
progress? What are your
professional goals? Yes, I
also think that it would be a
lot easier for us to monitor
progress if we had our goals
in front of us.
COMM3 Very confident
COMM4 Yes, I am confident they can
do this
COMM5 When we do this, they are
able to contribute
COMM6 Yes
COMM7 Yes, very confident
COMM8 Very confident
COMM9 I feel confident
COMM10 So, progress monitoring is
something I think they do
very well.

133

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings on stakeholder
team-efficacy. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 75% of survey responses reflected
confidence in their direct report team’s ability to participate in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings, these findings suggest that this assumed influence can be confirmed as a
validated asset.
Motivation Influence 9: Team-Efficacy
The ninth motivation influence examined in this study was that central-office middle
managers need confidence in their direct report team’s ability to design individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.
Survey Results
Survey participants responded to a prompt inquiring about confidence in their direct
report team’s ability to design individual development plans aligned with their annual goals,
gauging their experiences of team-efficacy. A slight majority of middle managers (53%) agreed
or strongly agreed with feeling confident in their direct report team’s ability to design individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals. Figure 12 displays the counts for each
response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

134

Figure 12
I Am Confident in My Direct Report Team’s Ability to Design Individual Development Plans
Aligned With Their Annual Goals

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design individual development plans aligned with their annual goals. All interviewees
(10) spoke about their confidence in their direct report team’s ability to design individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals. COMM2 offered their view, stating, “So,
with a little scaffolding, a little guidance, some priming, I think they would be able to do it.”
Interviewee testimony pertaining to their confidence in their direct report team’s ability to design
individual development plans aligned with their annual goals led to the determination of team-
efficacy when designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals as a
validated need in the phenomenological environment. Table 22 displays the synthesized
135

responses for the interview item related to the team-efficacy influence of individual development
plans, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 22
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Team-Efficacy Influence of Individual
Development Plans
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How confident are you in
your direct report team’s
ability to design individual
development plans aligned
with their annual goals?
(Team-efficacy)
COMM1 Confident in them
COMM2 So, with a little scaffolding, a
little guidance, some
priming, I think they would
be able to do it.
COMM3 Very confident
COMM4 Confident, but there’s no
expectation for us to do this
COMM5 Confident
COMM6 Confident
COMM7 Confident but haven’t done in
a long time
COMM8 Very confident
COMM9 Confident, but don’t do this
COMM10 Confident, but we don’t really
do this

136

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals on
stakeholder team-efficacy. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 75% of survey respondents reflected
feelings of confidence in their direct report team’s ability to design individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals, these findings suggest that team-efficacy when designing
individual development plans aligned with their annual goals can be confirmed as a validated
asset.
Motivation Influence 10: Goal Orientation
The 10th motivation influence this study examined was that central-office middle
managers need to know the goal of designing goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their knowing the
purpose or goal-designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational
strategic plans, gauging their experiences of goal orientation. A majority of middle managers
(82%) agreed or strongly agreed to knowing the purpose or goal of designing goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans. Figure 13 displays the counts for each
response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

137

Figure 13
The Purpose of Designing Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational
Strategy Plans Is Clear to Me

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their knowledge of the purpose or goal of
designing goals aligned with division operating and organizational strategic plans. All
interviewees (10) spoke about their knowledge of the purpose or goal of designing goals aligned
with division operating and organizational strategic plans. COMM5 offered their view, stating,
For sure. So that the energies within an organization are working towards the mission.
All of the things that people are working on should be working to advance the mission,
you know. I do think that those aligned goals are about helping individuals to understand
their contributions and value and then assuring that you know.
138

Interviewee testimony pertaining to their knowledge of the purpose or goal-designing
goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans led to the
determination of goal orientation for designing goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans as a validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table
23 displays the synthesized responses for the interview item related to the influence on goal
design goal orientation, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM
interviewees.

Table 23
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Goal Orientation Influence About Goal Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
What do you perceive to be
the goal or purpose of
designing goals aligned with
your division’s operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans? (Goals)
COMM1 Alignment
COMM2 Alignment
COMM3 I know I don’t do anything
that I don’t understand why,
and we spend a lot of time
on that as a team. It’s really
important to us because
what we are doing is
carrying information to
other people, and it’s
necessary that it’s not just a
well.
COMM4 You know, it’s a mechanism
to make sure we’re all
rowing in the same
direction. I mean, if people
are working out of
alignment, we’re probably
not going to yield the power
of us all rowing in the same
direction. Right?
139

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM5 For sure. So that the energies
within an organization are
working towards the
mission. All of the things
that people are working on
should be working to
advance the mission, you
know. I do think that those
aligned goals are about
helping individuals to
understand their
contributions and value and
then assuring that you
know.
COMM6 Alignment
COMM7 Alignment
COMM8 Well, I think that our
organization is trying to go
in one direction to fulfill a
mission. And so, the
purpose to me of that
cascade is to make sure that
we, to the extent possible,
know what that mission is
and all know how our work,
either directly or indirectly,
connects to that path
forward. Another important
purpose of that is to stay
kind of tied to the work that
we’re doing in the world
because one of intrinsic
benefits that you get for
working in a nonprofit
organization is going to
sleep at night knowing that
you contributed a little bit to
making a difference.
140

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM9 Yeah. The purpose of that, in
my opinion, is to advance
the work. That’s how we
make sure everybody’s in
the same book and on the
same page. It’s like that
alignment that’s happened.
So, that’s the purpose of the
goal setting, and folks can
see their work in the context
of what’s happening across
the organization.
COMM10 To keep us aligned

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts which might have indicated
the impact of knowing the purpose or goal-designing goals aligned with division operating plans
and organizational strategic plans on stakeholder goal orientation. No evidence was
ascertainable.
Summary. Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 82% of survey responses
reflected knowledge of the purpose or goal-designing goals aligned with division operating plans
and organizational strategic plans, these findings suggest that goal orientation for designing goals
aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans can be confirmed as a
validated asset.
Motivation Influence 11: Goals
The 11th motivation influence examined was that central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings.
141

Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their knowledge of
the purpose or goal of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings,
gauging their experiences of goal orientation. A majority of middle managers (82%) agreed or
strongly agreed to knowing the purpose or goal of participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings. Figure 14 displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-
point Likert-type scale.

Figure 14
The Purpose of Participating in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings With My
Manager and Peers Is Clear to Me

142

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their knowledge of the purpose or goal of
participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. All interviewees (10) spoke
about knowing the purpose or goal of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. COMM7 offered their view, stating,
Well, I would say the purpose is so that everybody is clear on what we’re trying to
achieve and then that we’re mapping out the work in order to do that as effectively as
possible and to add the layer of investment and engagement and, like, why.
Understanding the why is super powerful and motivating.
Interviewee testimony pertaining to their knowledge of the purpose or goal of
participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings led to the determination of
goal orientation for participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings as a
validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 24 displays the synthesized
responses for the interview item related to the goal orientation influence of participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring meeting, which are emblematic of the majority
perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

143

Table 24
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Goal-Orientation Influence About Participating in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
What do you perceive to be
the goal or purpose of
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Goals)
COMM1 I mean, even before, we have
some performance
challenges that we have to
… address, and I think that
becomes more top of mind.
COMM2 It’s really progress
monitoring, you keep people
honest, and you make sure
that folks are making
progress towards their goals.
If you didn’t have regular
progress monitoring and the
deadline for another
discussion is at the end of
the year. Most people would
not start to consciously
think about their goals until
that time, and then it’s just a
rush to try to redo what
happened over the course of
the year, whereas if you’d
have progress monitoring,
you can identify those goals
that realistically, you are to
make, and those that you
will, and make adjustments
over the course of the year
to maximize the chance that
the goals will be met and
will be successful.
144

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM3 I will say the team I’m on
does amazing work, but not
everybody values it, and not
everybody understands it.
So, it is necessary that we’re
able to speak about the work
and the impact that it is
having because many
people, particularly my role,
think they can do without it,
right? And then, and that’s
fine. But if we are, you
know, shame on us. So, if
we aren’t able to say, here’s
why this matters Here’s how
this supports where we’re
moving as an organization.
COMM4 To stay on top of our work
COMM5 To make sure that we have
the resources that we need
to do the work
COMM6 Alignment
COMM7 Well, I would say the purpose
is so that everybody is clear
on what we’re trying to
achieve and then that we’re
mapping out the work in
order to do that as
effectively as possible and
to add the layer of
investment and engagement
and, like, why.
Understanding the why is
super powerful and
motivating.
145

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM8 How are we going to all move
in the same direction if we
can’t gauge whether or not
individuals are meeting their
goals, particularly when
those goals either keep the
lights on and are super
important or are connected
to that strategic direction
that we’re trying to go into.
And it’s also about the
essence of organizational
trust and psychological
safety as well. Right? If you
want to be a learning
organization. It’s not
enough to just say that you
have to be monitoring those
tries and failures but how
we’re learning, you know,
and celebrating all of it. To
move the organization in the
right direction.
COMM9 Yeah. I mean, the reality is
that why we do that is that
we have to check and make
sure we’re progressing and,
like, moving towards the
goal that we set. We want to
make sure that we can
adjust if we need to. You
can have honest
conversations about some
changes in the work stream,
connections, collaboration.
That’s the purpose along the
way.
COMM10 Course correcting as needed
to support improvement

146

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of knowing the purpose or goal of participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings on stakeholder goal orientation. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 82% of survey responses reflected
knowledge of the purpose or goal of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings, these findings suggest that goal orientation for participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings can be confirmed as a validated asset.
Motivation Influence 12: Goals
The 12th motivation influence this study evaluated was that central-office middle
managers need to know the goal of designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their knowledge of
the purpose or goal of designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals,
gauging their experiences of goal orientation. Most middle managers (64%) agreed or strongly
agreed to knowing the purpose or goal of designing individual development plans aligned with
their annual goals. Figure 15 displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point
Likert-type scale.

147

Figure 15
The Purpose of Designing Individual Development Plans Aligned With My Annual Goals Is
Clear to Me

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their knowledge of the purpose or goal of
designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals. Breaking with survey
findings, all interviewees (10) spoke to their knowing the purpose or goal of designing individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals. COMM8 offered their view, stating,
One way that you can get people to be super committed and engaged in their current role
is to help them understand how their current role propels them into whatever that next
role or opportunity might be. It’s important for the organization because it helps folks be
really committed to the work. They’re into it because they can see how they are learning
and growing at work right now.
148

Interviewee testimony pertaining to their knowledge of the purpose or goal of designing
individual development plans aligned with their annual goals led to the determination of goal
orientation for designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals as a
validated asset in the phenomenological environment. Table 25 displays the synthesized
responses for the interview item related to the influence regarding individual development plan
goal orientation, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM
interviewees.

Table 25
Synthesis for the Individual Development Plan Goal Orientation Influence Related Interview
Item
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
What do you perceive to be
the goal or purpose of
designing individual
development plans aligned
with your annual goals?
(Goals)
COMM1 To keep people personally
connected to their work
COMM2 To make sure people are
aligned with the goals that
have been given to them
COMM3 Thinking about a plan is to
think about your own
practice and to see how you
continue to grow. Big
picture and smaller picture.
Like, are there particular
things that are of more
urgency than others, and
why I need to focus on
those, but I think it’s
necessary to map out where
you’re going and to
periodically take a step back
and think about, am I
getting there? And does this
149

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
matter to people right like?
Does it?
COMM4 Supporting individuals in
doing their work
COMM5 Keeping people’s career goals
in mind when they are
working through their
performance goals
COMM6 Keeping people motivated to
achieve their work goals to
support their own
development
COMM7 I place that much importance
on it, but not right now. But
should I? Yeah, And maybe
I maybe actually place more
importance on it than I,
naming because I am doing
a huge coaching training
program right now, and I
know the IDP stuff works.
COMM8 One way that you can get
people to be super
committed and engaged in
their current role is to help
them understand how their
current role propels them
into whatever that next role
or opportunity might be. It’s
important for the
organization because it
helps folks be really
committed to the work.
They’re into it because they
can see how they are
learning and growing at
work right now.
150

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM9 I understand the purpose of it,
and for me, it’s really, really
critically important for folks
to feel vested in the work,
feel a part of the work,
because, again, they’re
contributing to what’s
happening at the
organization, and I really
believe that it’s the
organization’s opportunity.
COMM10 This helps people see their
work as a platform for their
personal growth.

Document Analysis
Confidentiality limitations prevented the analysis of artifacts that might have indicated
the impact of knowing the purpose or goal of designing individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals on stakeholder goal orientation. No evidence was ascertainable.
Summary
Considering that 100% of interviewees (10) and 64% of survey responses reflected
knowledge of the purpose or goal of designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals, these findings suggest that goal orientation for designing individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals can be confirmed as a validated asset.
Synthesis of Results for Motivation Influences
In summation, the motivational influences of central-office middle managers to design
goals aligned with higher-level organizational plans, design regular performance-progress
monitoring reports, and design individual development plans aligned with their goals were mixed
151

in their validation type. Findings suggested that middle managers were more confident in their
abilities to complete the critical performance management tasks (self-efficacy) than they were in
their direct report teams to do likewise (team-efficacy). The survey and interview results also
spoke to middle managers’ perceptions of positive attainment value and goal orientation
regarding goal setting and performance-progress monitoring. However, they had weaker views
of importance (attainment value) and purpose (goal orientation) for individual development
planning.
The following section provides an overview of the study findings investigating the
organizational influences assumed to support the development of central-office middle manager
organizational efficacy perspectives.
Results and Findings for Organizational Factor Influences
The following section reports the results and findings for the organizational-factor
influences on central-office middle manager organizational efficacy perceptions. The study
evaluated the impact of goal setting, regular performance-progress monitoring, and individual
development planning on stakeholder experiences of organizational cultural models and settings
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Survey, interview, and document analysis data were utilized to
support the validation categorization. The study sought to validate each assumed influence as an
asset or a need. Each of the assumed organizational factor influences was determined to be
validated needs in the context of the stakeholder performance goal. Table 26 provides a synthesis
of the organizational factor influence findings.
152

Table 26
Organizational Factor Influence Validation Summary Chart
Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
Cultural
models
TTP needs to have a
culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Validated need
Survey 24% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
a culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans. (n =
21)
Interviews 50% of interviewees
felt no impact from
TTP’s culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans. (n =
10)
Document
analysis
In the FY22
engagement survey,
69% of managers
who participated in
the survey
responded favorably
to the question:
“We hold ourselves
and our team
members
153

Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
accountable for
results.” (n = 16)
Cultural
models
TTP needs to have a
culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Validated need
Survey 14% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
a culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
participating in
regular
performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 21)
Interviews 50% of interviewees
felt no impact from
TTP’s culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
participating in
regular
performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 10)
Document
analysis
In the FY22
engagement survey,
69% of managers
who participated in
the survey
responded favorably
to the question:
“We hold ourselves
and our team
members
accountable for
results.” (n = 16)

Survey 14% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
a culture of
154

Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary

Cultural
models

TTP needs to have a
culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.

Validated need
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals. (n =
21)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
felt no impact of
TTP’s culture of
accountability to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals. (n =
10)
Document
analysis
No data collected.
Cultural
settings
TTP needs to have
practices and tools
to support central-
office middle
managers when
designing goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Validated need
Survey 19% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
practices to support
central-office
middle managers
when designing
goals aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans. (n =
21)

19% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
tools to support
155

Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
central-office
middle managers
when designing
goals aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans. (n =
21)
Interviews 30% of interviewees
thought TTP had
practices and tools
to support central-
office middle
managers when
designing goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans. (n =
10)
Document
analysis
Evidence included
annual performance
review process,
scorecard
development
process, enterprise
goal planning
process, job
aids/training for
scorecard
development, one-
on-one meetings,
career
conversations,
managing
performance, and
fostering teamwork.
Cultural
settings
TTP needs to have
practices and tools
to support central-
office middle
managers when
participating in
Validated need
Survey 33% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
practices to support
central-office
156

Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
middle managers
when participating
in regular
performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 21)

48% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
tools to support
central-office
middle managers
when participating
in regular
performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = 21)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
felt no impact from
TTPs practices and
tools to support
central-office
middle managers
when participating
in regular
performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (n = X)
Document
analysis
Evidence included:
annual performance
review process;
scorecard
development
process; annual
staff engagement
survey, job
aids/training for
scorecard
development, one-
on-one meetings,
career
conversations,
managing
157

Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
performance,
fostering teamwork,
feedback, and an
ecosystem of
performance.
Cultural
settings
TTP needs to have
practices and tools
to support central-
office middle
managers when
designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.
Validated need
Survey 24% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
practices to support
central-office
middle managers
when designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals. (n =
21)

29% of central-office
middle managers
agreed or strongly
agreed that TTP has
tools to support
central-office
middle managers
when designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals. (n =
21)
Interviews 100% of interviewees
felt no impact from
TTP’s practices to
support central-
office middle
managers when
designing
individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals. (n =
10)
158

Category Assumed influence Validation type Method Summary
Document
analysis
Evidence included:
annual performance
review process; job
aids/training for
one-on-one
meetings, career
conversations,
career development
planning, managing
performance,
GROW planning.

Organizational Influence 1: Cultural Models
The first organizational influence examined in this study was that TTP needs to have a
culture of accountability to support central-office middle managers when designing goals aligned
with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the organization’s culture of accountability to support them when designing goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans, gauging their experience of this
cultural model. Few middle managers (24%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s
culture of accountability supported them when designing goals aligned with division operating
plans and organizational strategic plans. Figure 16 displays the counts for each response type on
the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

159

Figure 16
My Organization Has a Culture of Accountability Which Supports Me When I Am Designing
Goals Aligned With Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their perceptions of the organization’s culture of
accountability supporting them when designing goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. Consistent with survey findings, half of all interviewees (5) spoke
to the lack of impact that the organization’s culture of accountability had on them when
designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans.
COMM3 offered their view, stating,
I don’t think it does because I do what I do because it matters to the people I serve, not
because somebody said I had to do it. What drives me is the fact that I am accountable to
the people who I am serving, and so I need to do it well.
Additionally, COMM4 shared, “To be honest, I’ve never really felt like we had a super
strong culture of accountability as an organization to, like, goals. I mean, many of the
160

organization’s goals in any given year are pretty aspirational, right?” Interviewee testimony
about their perceptions of the organization’s culture of accountability supporting them when
designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans led to the
determination of a culture of accountability supporting goal design as a validated need in the
phenomenological environment. Table 27 displays the synthesized responses for the interview
item related to the cultural model influence regarding goal design, which are emblematic of the
majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

161

Table 27
Synthesis for the Goal Design Cultural Model Influence Related Interview Item
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How would you say the
organization’s culture of
accountability affects your
approach to designing goals
aligned with vertical
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans?
COMM1 I think it does, probably in
two ways. I think there is
clarity and accountability
that is important for the
work.
COMM2 I don’t feel like whether or
not I meet certain goals
really impacts my
compensation or rewards.
So, those things don’t have
a relationship to
accountability.
COMM3 I don’t think it does because I
do what I do because it
matters to the people I
serve, not because
somebody said I had to do
it. What drives me is the
fact that I am accountable to
the people who I am
serving, and so I need to do
it well.
COMM4 To be honest, I’ve never
really felt like we had a
super strong culture of
accountability as an
organization to, like, goals. I
mean, many of the
organization’s goals in any
given year are pretty
aspirational, right?
COMM5 I think there is a strong sense
of accountability for
creating goals, but maybe
not for making sure the
resources are in place to
achieve the goals.
162

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM6 I see possessiveness here. I
see a lot of possessiveness.
This is my work. This is my
lane. I’m doing this. Which
cannot exist in a learning
organization because you
have to be ready to change.
And so, I’m not sure how
they do their goal setting.
But if the way that we work
together on projects is an
indication of anything, then
I think that it might be
difficult for them.
COMM7 I don’t have clear goals that I
am aligning my work to, so
I would say there really isn’t
a sense cultural of
accountability there.
COMM8 I don’t think we actually have
a culture of accountability to
the goals
COMM9 I agree that we should have a
culture of accountability,
but sometimes, it feels like
we are just checking the box
COMM10 It sort of seems like …
accountability here comes
down to integrity. It’s hard
for me to know how other
parts of the organization are
held accountable.

163

Document Analysis
A review of TTP’s annual staff satisfaction survey yielded the finding that, in fiscal year
2020–2021, 69% of survey participants (n = 16) responded favorably to the question: “We hold
ourselves and our team members accountable for results.” This finding acknowledges the
elements of a culture of accountability; however, given the wording of the prompt, this may
indicate individual and team-level accountability rather than an organization-wide culture of
accountability.
Summary
Considering that 50% of interviewees (5) and 24% of survey responses reflected
perceptions on the organization’s culture of accountability supporting them when designing
goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans, these findings
suggest, despite a potentially conflicting data point from the staff satisfaction survey, that culture
of accountability supporting them when designing aligned goals can be confirmed as a validated
need.
Organizational Influence 2
The second organizational influence examined in this study was that TTP needs to have a
culture of accountability to support central-office middle managers when participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the organization’s culture of accountability to support them when participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings, gauging their experience of this cultural model. Few
(14%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s culture of accountability supported them
164

when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. Figure 17 displays the
counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

Figure 17
My Organization Has a Culture of Accountability Which Supports Me When I Am Participating
in Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers

165

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their perceptions of the organization’s culture of
accountability supporting them when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. Consistent with survey findings, half of all interviewees (5) spoke to the lack of impact
that the organization’s culture of accountability had on them when participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings. COMM4 offered their view, stating,
I don’t feel like there’s a culture of accountability within the organization that’s actually,
like, acting upon me. I feel like that’s just what I want for me and my team. And I, you
know, I see the benefits of having regular public accountability, you know, and how that
helps us learn a little bit more. I don’t feel like there’s necessarily, like, an organizational
culture there, to be honest.
Additionally, COMM7 shared,
I think a lot of people would agree that if we had a stronger culture around being
accountable, progress monitoring, and follow through, like, not missing deadlines,
because it, you know, has a cascading … effect. If we had a stronger sense of
accountability, it would be an easier place to work.
Finally, COMM9 noted similar sentiments regarding the organization’s culture of accountability:
I think that in this environment, it leads to exactly what we have, which is, like, objective
attempts. Performance monitoring [is] not taken seriously, right, because we know that
it’s really not about my performance. It’s about how I’ve been responsive in this
relationship to you, and particularly in relationships to folks who are deemed more
important in the organization.
166

Interviewee testimony about their perceptions of the organization’s culture of
accountability supporting them when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings led to the determination of a culture of accountability supporting performance-progress
monitoring as a validated need in the phenomenological environment. Table 28 displays the
synthesized responses for the interview item related to the cultural model influence about
participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings, which are emblematic of the
majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 28
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Cultural Model Influence About Participating in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How would you say the
organization’s culture of
accountability affects your
approach to participating in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings? (Cultural models)
COMM1 I don’t think we have a
culture that influences
progress monitoring
COMM2 It’s really up to us, for the
most part. Once your
supervisor signs off in your
goals, it’s really up to you to
sort of see how much you
met the goal or didn’t like to
meet the goal.
COMM3 I don’t see how our culture
supports accountability in
doing this way
COMM4 I don’t feel like there’s a
culture of accountability
within the organization
that’s actually, like, acting
upon me. I feel like that’s
just what I want for me and
my team. And I, you know,
167

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
I see the benefits of having
regular public
accountability, you know,
and how that helps us learn
a little bit more. I don’t feel
like there’s necessarily, like,
an organizational culture
there, to be honest.
COMM5 I do not know if there is a
culture that supports these
processes
COMM6 There is possessiveness in our
culture and that prevents
effective progress
monitoring
COMM7 I think a lot of people would
agree that if we had a
stronger culture around
being accountable, progress
monitoring, and following
through, like, not missing
deadlines, because it, you
know, has a cascading …
effect. If we had a stronger
sense of accountability, it
would be an easier place to
work.
COMM8 I think that in this
environment, it leads to
exactly what we have,
which is, like, objective
attempts. Performance
monitoring [is] not taken
seriously right because we
know that it’s really not
about my performance. It’s
about how I’ve been
responsive in this
relationship to you and
particularly in relationships
to folks who are deemed
168

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
more important in the
organization.
COMM9 It’s just more to check a box
as opposed to, like,
meaningfully advanced the
work.
COMM10 Accountability drives the
progress monitoring, right?
But I feel like accountability
more comes from me and
my team than any way that
we talk about it across the
organization.

Document Analysis
A review of TTP’s annual staff satisfaction survey yielded the finding that, in fiscal year
2020–2021, 69% of central office middle managers who participated (n = 16) in the survey
responded favorably to the question: “We hold ourselves and our team members accountable for
results.” This finding acknowledges the presence of elements of a culture of accountability;
however, given the wording of the prompt, this may indicate individual and team-level
accountability and not necessarily an organization-wide culture of accountability.

169

Summary
Considering that 50% of interviewees (5) and 14% of survey responses reflected
perceptions on the organization’s culture of accountability supporting them when participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings, these findings suggest, despite a potentially
conflicting data point from the staff satisfaction survey, that a culture of accountability
supporting them when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings can be
confirmed as a validated need.
Organizational Influence 3
The third organizational influence examined here was that TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office middle managers when designing individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the organization’s culture of accountability to support them when designing individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals, gauging their experience of this cultural
model. Few middle managers (14%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s culture of
accountability supported them when designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals. Figure 18 displays the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-
type scale.

170

Figure 18
My Organization Has a Culture of Accountability Which Supports Me When I Am Designing My
Individual Development Plan Which Is Aligned With My Annual Goals

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their perceptions of the organization’s culture of
accountability supporting them when designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals. Consistent with survey findings, all interviewees (10) spoke to the lack of impact
the organization’s culture of accountability had on them when designing individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals. COMM3 offered their view, stating,
I don’t have one. You couldn’t go back, at least for the last 3 or 4 years, and not find an
individual plan for me. I don’t know if it’s because it isn’t part of the culture right now.
So, this more is an individual piece of me, knowing that there are things that I need to do
better. And so, I think about what that is, but I don’t have anything formal.
171

Additionally, COMM7 shared,
I used to always fill in the individual development plan part of whatever that thing is in
the system, and, like, make stuff up. But I rarely did any of it because it, you know,
wasn’t part of my job to do it. It was like a nice kind of a thing. So, I think it definitely
impacted my not doing it.
Interviewee testimony about their perceptions of the organization’s culture of
accountability supporting them when designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals led to the determination of a culture of accountability supporting individual
development planning as a validated need in the phenomenological environment. Table 29
displays the synthesized responses for the interview item related to the cultural model influence
about individual development plans, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10
COMM interviewees.

Table 29
Synthesis for the Interview Item Related to the Cultural Model Influence About Individual
Development Plans
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How would you say the
organization’s culture of
accountability affects your
approach to designing your
individual development plan
which is aligned with your
COMM1 This doesn’t seem like a
priority, so I don’t think
there is any real
accountability
COMM2 There is no accountability for
doing or not doing this
172

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
annual goals? (Cultural
models)
COMM3 I don’t have one. You
couldn’t go back, at least for
the last 3 or 4 years, and not
find an individual plan for
me. I don’t know if it’s
because it isn’t part of the
culture right now. So, this
more is an individual piece
of me, knowing that there
are things that I need to do
better. And so, I think about
what that is, but I don’t have
anything formal
COMM4 Not sure if this is a part of our
culture
COMM5 This might be important, but
we don’t really do this
COMM6 We aren’t expected to do this
COMM7 I used to always fill in the
individual development plan
part of whatever that thing
is in the system, and, like,
make stuff up. But I rarely
did any of it because it, you
know, wasn’t part of my job
to do it. It was like a nice
kind of a thing. So, I think it
definitely impacted my not
doing it.
COMM8 There isn’t accountability for
doing this
COMM9 Sometimes we talk about it.
We write it down, but we
don’t actually revisit it and
make sure that there’s
dedicated time to individual
professional growth and
development.
173

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM10 Accountability isn’t a word
that I associate with our
culture.

Document Analysis
A review of TTP’s annual staff satisfaction survey yielded the finding that, in fiscal year
2020–2021, 69% of central office middle managers who participated (n = 16) in the survey
responded favorably to the question: “We hold ourselves and our team members accountable for
results.” This finding acknowledges the presence of elements of a culture of accountability;
however, given the wording of the prompt, this may indicate individual and team-level
accountability and not necessarily an organization-wide accountability culture.
Summary
Considering that 0 interviewees and 14% of survey responses reflected positive
perceptions of the organization’s culture of accountability supporting them when designing
individual development plans aligned with their annual goals, these findings suggest, despite a
potentially conflicting data point from the staff satisfaction survey, that a culture of
accountability supported them when designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals can be confirmed as a validated need.
Organization: Cultural Settings
The fourth organizational influence examined herein was that TTP needs to have
practices and tools to support central-office middle managers when designing goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans.

174

Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the organization’s practices and tools supporting them when designing goals aligned with
division operating plans and organizational strategic plans, gauging their experience of these
cultural settings. Few middle managers (19%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s
practices supported them when designing goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. Similarly, only 19% agreed or strongly agreed that the
organization offered tools to support them when designing goals aligned with division operating
and organizational strategic plans. Figures 19 and 20 display the counts for each response type
on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

Figure 19
My Organization Has Practices Which Support Me When I Am Designing Goals Aligned With
Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans

175

Figure 20
My Organization Has Tools Which Support Me When I Am Designing Goals Aligned With
Division Operating Plans and Organizational Strategy Plans

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their perceptions of the organization’s practices
and the tools supporting them when designing goals aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. Consistent with survey findings, 30% of all interviewees (3) spoke
positively about the impact of the organization’s practices and tools supporting them when
designing goals aligned with division operating and organizational strategic plans. COMM5
offered their view, stating,
176

I need to know the organizational mission and its trajectory over the next year. I think I
would then look at what the goals are that were identified at all of the levels above me
and then try to make sure that what I was designing met that need.
Additionally, COMM1 shared,
I feel like yes and no. I think you have to find them. I think there are tools that are created
and are tucked away in HR folders. … I think, like, they’re kind of there, and I think
there is like a solid like attempt to like making sure people know that they’re there, but I
think it’s like there needs to be a little bit more manager training and professional
development.
Interviewee testimony about their perceptions of the organization’s practices and tools
supporting them when designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational
strategic plans led to the determination of practices and tools supporting aligned goal design as a
validated need in the phenomenological environment. Table 30 displays the synthesized
responses for the interview items related to the cultural setting influence of goal design, which
are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 30
Synthesis for the Interview Items Related to the Cultural Setting Influence About Goal Design
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How would you say the
organization’s tools and
practices, or lack thereof,
affect you when designing
goals aligned with your
vertical’s operating plans
and organizational strategic
plans? (Cultural settings)
COMM1 I feel like yes and no. I think
you have to find them. I
think there are tools that are
created and are tucked away
in HR folders…I think like
they’re kind of there, and I
think there is like a solid
like attempt to, like, making
177

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
sure people know that
they’re there, but I think it’s
like there needs to be a little
bit more manager training
and professional
development.
COMM2 But for the most part, I find
that our goals really are
focused more upon the
things that we’re trying to
accomplish, and, usually,
that overlaps with the
organizations as opposed to
the organization’s goals
really driving what it is we
are trying to do.
COMM3 I absolutely think I have
adequate access to them. Do
I like them all, no, but I do
have access to them.
COMM4 Yeah, I’m not sure that any
tools specifically come to
mind.
COMM5 I need to know the
organizational mission and
its trajectory over the next
year. I think I would then
look at what the goals are
that were identified at all of
the levels above me and
then try to make sure that
what I was designing met
that need.
COMM6 I’ve got nothing from the
organization. Maybe from
my supervisor but not from
the organization
COMM7 I don’t think there are really
any tools or practices that
we do or are asked to use.
178

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM8 I think the actual designing of
goals it’s not really been
supported at all.
So, I’m trying to even think
of what those tools might
be, like, our performance
management thing. We did
five smart goals 5 years ago.
So, I would say not really at
all.
COMM9 My manager shapes my
experience with tools and
practices more than the
organization does.
COMM10 If we had a system that we
could use. But the problem
with any system is are
people actually going to use
it? Right? So, it’s easy for
me to sit here and tell you
it’d be great if we had that,
right, because, in my mind,
it would work for me but
maybe not for others.

Document Analysis
A review of TTP’s share-point system yielded evidence of practices and tools related to
annual performance review processes, scorecard development processes, enterprise goal
planning processes, one-on-one meetings, career conversations, managing performance, and
fostering teamwork. These findings acknowledge the presence of practices and tools aiding
middle managers in designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational
strategic plans.
179

Summary
Considering that three interviewees (30%) and 14% of survey responses, respectively,
reflected positive perceptions of the organization’s practices and tools supporting them when
designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans, these
findings suggest, despite document review revealing evidence confirming the existence of
practices and tools, that the cultural setting of practices and tools supporting middle managers
when designing goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic plans
can be confirmed as a validated need.
Organizational Influence 5
The fifth organizational influence evaluated was that TTP needs to have practices and
tools to support central-office middle managers participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the organization’s practices and tools supporting them when participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings, gauging their experience of these cultural settings.
Less than half of middle managers (33%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s
practices supported them when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. Similarly, 48% agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s tools supported them
when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. Figures 21 and 22
display the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type scale.

180

Figure 21
My Organization Has Practices Which Support Me When I Am Participating in Regular
Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers

181

Figure 22
My Organization Has Tools Which Support Me When I Am Participating in Regular
Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings With My Manager and Peers

Interview Findings
Throughout the interviews, middle managers discussed their perceptions of the
organization’s practices and tools supporting them when participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. All interviewees (10) reported they felt no impact from the
organization’s practices and tools supporting them when participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. COMM7 offered their view, stating,
I think we don’t really do it as an organization. We don’t make it easy. I think if we had
some structures around how to do it for certain things, it would be so much easier. And
again, would help people do their jobs better.
Additionally, COMM9 shared,
182

I really don’t feel like there’s a great structure for that. It’s a broken learning loop that
could actually advance the organization as a whole. So, if we would, take a little bit more
time to look at goals strategically and think about, what are we learning?
Interviewee testimony about their perceptions of the organization’s practices and tools
supporting them when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings led to
the determination of practices and tools supporting regular progress monitoring as a validated
need in the phenomenological environment. Table 31 displays the synthesized responses for the
interview items related to the cultural setting influence pertaining to participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of
the 10 COMM interviewees.

Table 31
Synthesis for the Interview Items Related to the Cultural Setting Influence About Participating in
Regular Performance-Progress Monitoring Meetings
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How would you say the
organization’s tools and
practices, or lack thereof,
affect you when
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Cultural settings)

COMM1 Annual performance review
system
COMM2 I’ll be honest, I think, usually
for our goal-setting process.
We come up with the goals
at the beginning of the year.
We unofficially talk about
them, and one-on-ones, and
things like that. But the only
time we’re actually putting
things on paper are when we
have, like, a meeting.
COMM3 No real tools that I have
found
183

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM4 No tools or practices
COMM5 No tools or practices
COMM6 Only tools from my manager
but nothing else
COMM7 I think we don’t really do it as
an organization. We don’t
make it easy. I think if we
had some structures around
how to do it for certain
things, it would be so much
easier. And, again, would
help people do their jobs
better.
COMM8 So, if those policies are seen
as tools or there’s like
frameworks of those are
seen as tools. Then, I think
those can help us set goals.
COMM9 I really don’t feel like there’s
a great structure for that. It’s
a broken learning loop that
could actually advance the
organization as a whole. So,
if we would, take a little bit
more time to look at goals
strategically and think
about, what are we
learning?
COMM10 Yes, but it is a little weird, but
when using our systems, I
don’t know what we’re
doing. If we’re using the
database for this or not
anymore. You know, when
you try and pull up your
goals, and then do your
progress towards your goal
and all that stuff, and it
never really seemed like that
stuff was current.
184

Document Analysis
A review of TTP’s share-point system yielded evidence of practices and tools related to
annual performance review processes, scorecard development processes, enterprise goal
planning processes, one-on-one meetings, career conversations, managing performance, fostering
teamwork, feedback, and an ecosystem of performance. These findings acknowledge the
presence of practices and tools aiding middle managers when participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings.
Summary
Considering that no interviewees (0%) and 33% and 48% of survey responses,
respectively, reflected positive perceptions of the organization’s practices and tools supporting
them when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings, these findings
suggest, despite document review revealing evidence confirming the existence of practices and
tools, that the cultural setting of practices and tools supporting regular progress monitoring can
be confirmed as a validated need.
Organizational Influence 6
The sixth organizational influence examined in this study was that TTP needs to have
practices and tools to support central-office middle managers when designing individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to respond to a prompt inquiring about their perceptions
of the organization’s practices and tools supporting them when designing individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals, gauging their experience of these cultural
settings. Less than a quarter (24%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s practices
185

supported them when designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals.
Similarly, less than a third (29%) agreed or strongly agreed that the organization’s tools
supported them when designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals.
Figures 23 and 24 display the counts for each response type on the survey’s 7-point Likert-type
scale.

Figure 23
My Organization Has Practices Which Support Me When I Am Designing My Individual
Development Plan Which Is Aligned With My Annual Goals

186

Figure 24
My Organization Has Tools Which Support Me When I Am Designing My Individual
Development Plan Which Is Aligned With My Annual Goals

Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees to speak about their perceptions of the organization’s practices
and tools supporting them when designing individual development plans aligned with their
annual goals. All interviewees (10) discussed they felt no impact from the organization’s
practices and tools supporting them when designing individual development plans aligned with
their annual goals. COMM7 offered their view, stating, “I would say they’re two thumbs down
bad. So, I don’t really even do the individual development plan anymore.” Additionally,
COMM9 shared,
So, I think sometimes we talk about it. We write it down, but we don’t actually revisit it
and make sure that there’s dedicated time to individual professional growth and
187

development. The other piece that I would say is that the tools or the form of that are
consistently changing and shifting. So, it turns into I’m checking the box. What do I need
to do to get this done?
Interviewee testimony about their perceptions of the organization’s culture, practices, and
tools supporting them when designing individual development plans aligned with their annual
goals led to the determination of practices and tools supporting individual development planning
as a validated need in the phenomenological environment. Table 32 displays the synthesized
responses for the interview items related to the cultural setting influence regarding individual
development plans, which are emblematic of the majority perceptions of the 10 COMM
interviewees.

Table 32
Synthesis for the Interview Items Related to the Cultural Setting Influence About Individual
Development Plans
Influence Respondent Synthesized response
How would you say the
organization’s tools
practices, or lack thereof,
affect you when designing
your individual
development plans aligned
with your annual goals?
(Cultural settings)

COMM1 There used to be an emphasis
on this, but not really
anymore.
COMM2 I’m not sure if there are tools
available, and I am not
aware of any practices
COMM3 I’m not expected to do this
COMM4 My manager and I work on
things together, but outside
of that, not really getting
anything from the
organization
188

Influence Respondent Synthesized response
COMM5 I don’t think this is
emphasized any longer
COMM6 I might do it if we were asked
to, but I don’t since I am
not.
COMM7 I would say they’re two
thumbs down bad. So, I
don’t really even do the
individual development plan
anymore.
COMM8 There are no tools or practices
that I am aware of
COMM9 So, I think sometimes we talk
about it. We write it down,
but we don’t actually revisit
it and make sure that there’s
dedicated time to individual
professional growth and
development. The other
piece that I would say is that
kind of the tools, or the
form of that, are
consistently changing and
shifting. So, it turns into I’m
checking the box. What do I
need to do to get this done?
COMM10 I’m not sure the tools are
effective because they don’t
actually impact my career
standing, so I don’t make
time for it

Document Analysis
A review of TTP’s share-point system yielded evidence of practices and tools related to
annual performance review processes, one-on-one meetings, career conversations, career
189

development planning, managing performance, and GROW planning. These findings
acknowledge the presence of practices and tools aiding middle managers when designing
individual development plans aligned with their annual goals.
Summary
Considering that no interviewees (0%) and 24% and 29% of survey responses,
respectively, reflected positive perceptions of the organization’s practices and tools supporting
them when designing individual development plans aligned with their annual goals, these
findings suggest, despite document review revealing evidence confirming the existence of
practices and tools, that this cultural setting of practices and tools supporting individual
development planning can be confirmed as a validated need.
Synthesis of Results for Organizational Factor Influences
In conclusion, the organizational factor influences of central-office middle managers to
design goals aligned with higher-level organizational plans, design regular performance-progress
monitoring reports, and design individual development plans aligned with their goals were all
identified as validated needs. Regarding the cultural model of accountability, in both surveys and
interviews, middle managers reported that the organization’s culture of accountability had little
impact on their experiences with the critical performance management elements. Similarly,
middle managers were pessimistic about the presence of practices and tools to support them
when undertaking goal setting, performance-progress monitoring, and individual development
planning. While document analysis revealed practices and tools to potentially be utilized, middle
managers were generally negative about the state of practitioner supports for critical performance
management tasks.

190

Summary
The data analysis presented in Chapter Four allowed for validating the assumed
influences previously discussed in Chapter Two as assets or needs. In summation, of the 21
KMO factors assumed to be influences of central-office middle manager organizational efficacy
perceptions, 11 were deemed validated assets, and 10 were validated needs. Procedural
knowledge in the meta-need areas of designing aligned goals, performance-progress reporting,
and designing individual development plans was decidedly validated as assets (100%) through
insight collected by survey and interview participants.
The motivation influences presented mixed results for the meta-need areas, with 67% (8)
of the assumed motivation influences found to be validated assets and 33% (4) determined to be
validated needs. Evidence suggested that COMMs demonstrated possession of attainment value
for designing aligned goals but only partially for participating in performance-progress
monitoring meetings, establishing this as a need. Attainment value for individual development
planning was evidenced as a need. COMMs indicated self-efficacy in aligned goal design,
participating in performance-progress monitoring meetings and designing individual
development plans, leading to these three influences being validated as assets. Regarding team-
efficacy, COMMs were somewhat confident in their direct reports’ abilities to design aligned
goals and individual development plans, evidencing these items to be validated needs. COMMs
demonstrated confidence in their direct reports’ ability to participate in progress-monitoring
meetings, leading to this item being named a validated asset. Finally, goal orientation toward
designing aligned goals, participating in regular performance-progress monitoring, and designing
individual development plans were all validated as assets.
191

Regarding organizational factor influences, all six items were validated as needs. Survey
respondents and interview participants were pessimistic about the three cultural models and three
cultural settings evaluated during the study. In terms of cultural models, accountability
supporting COMMs while designing aligned goals, participating in performance-progress
monitoring meetings, and designing individual development plans were validated as needs. Most
respondents noted that the culture of accountability had no effect or adverse effects on their
activities. Similarly, despite document analysis turning up evidence to the contrary, COMMs felt
little to no presence of practices or tools supporting them as they engaged in the meta-need
activities.
In conclusion, the evidence confirmed the relationship between the meta-need areas,
especially goal setting, performance-progress monitoring, and COMM efficacy perspectives.
Interview conversations underlined the importance of clear and aligned goals, which are
monitored and planned against, as efficacy enhancers for COMMs. As the project’s data
collection and analysis phases are complete, Chapter Five will present research-based
recommendations for solutions to support the improvement of TTP’s central-office middle
manager cohort’s organizational efficacy perceptions.

192

Chapter Five: Recommendation and Discussion
Data gathered to investigate the study’s research questions were analyzed, leading to
findings described in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five, recommendations emerging from the
study’s KMO conceptual framework will be outlined to support TTP’s efforts to increase the
organizational efficacy perceptions of its central office middle managers. The sections that
follow illustrate the relationship between the literature review found in Chapter Two and the
study’s validated KMO influence findings found in Chapter Four, serving as the foundation for
the development of an integrated implementation and evaluation plan ensuring the practicability
of the research-based recommendations. Recommendations will be incorporated into a program
specifically designed to address the validated stakeholder KMO needs and guided by the new
world Kirkpatrick learning framework.
Originally conceived in the 1950s by Donald L. Kirkpatrick, the learning framework has
since been updated to support organizational problem solving in contemporary workplace
settings (Kirkpatrick, 1979; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The four-level model is predicated
on designing integrated implementation and evaluation plans that begin at Level 4, or results.
Beginning with a results orientation ensures that learning program designers meet the
expectations of stakeholders investing resources into the program, what the model refers to as
return on expectation (ROE; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). From there, Level 3 outlines the
critical behaviors and required drivers needed to produce the results described in Level 4, and
Level 2 names learning goals for stakeholders participating in the designed learning program.
Finally, Level 1 gauges stakeholder reaction to the learning program both immediately following
the program and 90 days hence. Learner reaction at Level 1 is evaluated in terms of impression
of engagement, relevance, and satisfaction.
193

Following the description of the integrated implementation and evaluation plan and
instruments developed to support the plan administration, Chapter Five closes with a statement
on the strengths and weaknesses of the study’s methods, the limitations and delimitations which
affected the study, and researcher perspectives for future inquiry. It also provides a final view of
the study’s relevance and desired impact for intended stakeholders and their organizations. Table
1 outlines TTP’s mission, performance goal, and the aligned central-office middle manager
stakeholder goal.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Trust the Process Inc.’s central-office management cohort (COMM) was selected as the
focus of this study for two reasons. IThe first is that their central role in the epistemological
matrix at TTP encourages the assumption that improving collective efficacy perceptions for the
cohort will have positive efficacy ripple effects up and down the management chain (Aliyu et al.,
2015; Dubnick, 2014; Dubnick & Justice, 2004). The second is that a multi-year trend
demonstrated that central-office middle management is the most pessimistic about TTP’s
collective ability to achieve its goals.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis examining the root assets and
needs related to decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among central-office middle
managers. As such, two questions guided this study:
1. What are Trust the Process, Inc.’s central-office middle manager cohort’s knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational influences related to increasing their
organizational efficacy perceptions by 15% by 2026?
194

2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions addressing decreasing organizational efficacy perceptions among Trust the
Process, Inc.’s central-office middle managers?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The recommendations featured in the following are based on Clark and Estes’ (2008)
KMO performance problem-solving model as informed by a review of the literature related to
nonprofits, middle management, and performance management practices. Furthermore, the
sources—surveys, interviews, and document review—provided data to support a localized
understanding of the phenomenological environment housing the performance problem. With
this contextually embedded understanding, recommendations are positioned to positively
influence the study’s specific stakeholders—central-office middle managers—through an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan framed by the Kirkpatrick learning model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The new world Kirkpatrick model utilizes a results
orientation by establishing a learning program grounded in the desired stakeholder and
organizational results identified at Level 4. Level 3 identifies critical behaviors and required
drivers needed to achieve the Level 4 results. Level 2 outlines learning goals aligned with the
design of a learning program. Level 1 evaluates immediate and delayed reactions to the learning
program to indicate the likelihood of achieving the results named in Level 4. The sections that
follow detail the study’s KMO-aligned recommendations and model the application of the
recommendations through Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s framework.
Recommendations for Knowledge-Promising Practices
In a review of Bloom’s taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) explained that
procedural knowledge is the aspect of knowledge where a learner is capable of demonstrating
195

learned skills through performance in expected situations and settings. The study’s framework
for procedural knowledge was aggregated from the guidance provided by Clark and Estes’s
(2008) KMO gap analysis model along with the work of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) and
Krathwohl (2002). Procedural knowledge is the unconscious and automated expression of a
learner’s understanding of “how” and “when” to perform a task (Clark & Estes, 1996). Some
studies suggest that the development of procedural knowledge is rooted in the repeated use of
declarative knowledge to perform a task in a specific environment, like those simulated in
training sessions (Anderson, 1983, 1993). The study found procedural knowledge in designing
aligned goals, reports on performance-progress, and individual development plans as validated
assets for increasing the organizational efficacy perceptions of COMMs. These influences were
assumed to have an impact on the stakeholder goal by virtue of the evidence presented in the
literature review. The following criteria were used to aid in prioritizing the influences to be
addressed through theory-based recommendations through the study’s integrated implementation
and evaluation plan.
Criterion 1: Impact
How impactful will it be to address this influence with COMMs, positively shaping their
organizational efficacy perceptions?
Criterion 2: Feasibility
How feasible is it to address this influence with COMMs, positively shaping their
organizational efficacy perceptions?
Table 33 displays the validation type, priority status, underpinning theoretical
principle(s), and contextual commendations for each procedural knowledge influence.

196

Table 33
Summary of Procedural Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
knowledge influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
Procedural
Knowledge:
COMMs need to
design goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Asset Yes Self-regulatory
strategies,
including goal
setting, enhance
learning and
performance
(APA, 2015;
Dembo &
Eaton, 2000;
Denler et al.,
2006).
Provide COMMs
opportunities to set
productive learning
goals for themselves
that are challenging
but achievable and
encourage self-
evaluation when
designing aligned
goals.

Provide COMMs
opportunities
COMMs to practice
skills and for transfer
to increase their
competency in
designing aligned
goals.
Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive scaffolding
and tools to facilitate
learning and
performance, then
gradually withdraw
scaffolds as learning
progresses and
performance
improves

Procedural
Knowledge:
COMMs need to
design
performance
progress
Asset Yes Feedback as well
as actual
success on
challenging
tasks positively
influences
people’s
Provide COMMs
opportunities to
check their progress
and adjust their
learning strategies as
needed when
designing
197

Assumed
knowledge influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
monitoring reports
which
communicate key
points of
performance
during
performance
progress
monitoring
meetings.
perceptions of
competence
(Borgogni et al.,
2011).

performance
progress reports.

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
practice skills and
for transfer to
increase their
competency in
designing
performance
progress-monitoring
reports.

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive scaffolding
and tools to facilitate
learning and
performance, then
gradually withdraw
scaffolds as learning
progresses and
performance
improves (McNeill
et al., 2006).

Procedural
knowledge:
COMMs need to
design individual
development plans
aligned with their
annual goals.
Asset No Not a priority Not a priority

198

Provide COMMs Opportunities for Task-Specific Practice to Support Skill Acquisition and
Transfer
Despite interview findings which indicate that COMMs are not consistently expected to
perform aligned goal design and progress monitoring, the study’s findings highlighted that 95%
of survey respondents and 100% of interviewees felt comfortable with the procedural knowledge
needed to accomplish these tasks. These findings might suggest that managers overestimate their
own capabilities in performing the priority tasks. A recommendation founded in information
processing system theory and sociocultural theory was identified to solve for procedural
knowledge needs given the absence of guidance or expectations for the meta-need performance
management tasks of goal setting and performance-progress monitoring.
The work of Mayer (2011b) and Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) encourage deliberate
practice to facilitate performer knowledge transfer from simulated environments into real-world
settings. These findings indicate that COMMs who received opportunities to practice goal design
and performance-progress monitoring are more likely to demonstrate these practical and
important skills accurately. Thus, the recommendation is for opportunities for task-specific
practice to be provided to all COMMs before demonstrating goal design and progress monitoring
skills in consequential settings. For example, practice sessions would offer space for COMMs to
display their procedural knowledge of goal setting and performance-progress monitoring and
fine-tune areas of their practice that are inconsistent with performance standards. Developing a
robust base of procedural knowledge will support their capabilities in designing aligned goals,
and progress monitoring will aid COMM execution of these tasks and is likely to have a positive
influence on their organizational efficacy perceptions.
199

Bohn (2010) recognized the importance of goal-setting and monitoring processes as
critical elements affecting the organizational efficacy perceptions of employees. Providing
COMMs opportunities to practice these performance management skills supports capability
development and transfer (APA, 2015). Furthermore, considering that most COMMs have direct
reports, the value of this practice is compounded as it is frequently their responsibility to support
the performance management skills of their supervisees (Caughron & Mumford, 2012; Smith,
Orlando, & Berta, 2018). The literature suggests that opportunities for practice guided by task-
specific goals will support COMMs in effectively acquiring the necessary skills to engage in core
performance management activities (Mayer, 2011a; Pajares, 2006).
Provide COMMs Task-Specific Activities, Scaffolding, and Tools Connected to Support
Their Learning and Performance. As with the previous recommendation, the research produced
mixed findings leading to the generation of this second procedural knowledge recommendation.
Though 95% of survey responses and 100% of interviewees felt comfortable with their
procedural knowledge related to the meta-needs of designing aligned goals and participating in
regular progress-monitoring meetings, interviewee anecdotes acknowledged that COMMs are
not consistently expected to perform these tasks. A recommendation founded in information
processing system, cognitive load, and sociocultural theories was identified to support COMM
procedural knowledge needs.
Literature led by Sweller et al. (2007), Mayer (2011a), and Scott and Palincsar (2006)
emphasizes the value of learning spaces designed with the appropriate scaffolding and tools to
support learner knowledge development and improve performance. This would indicate that
COMMs participating in spaces where adequate scaffolding and tools are present would aid
learners in demonstrating the important skills involved in goal design and performance-progress
200

monitoring. In light of this, opportunities for COMMs to engage in effectively scaffolded and
resourced activities to demonstrate the ability to perform meta-need tasks are recommended.
Activity practice sessions, for example, would be designed with standards-based modules along
with industry-endorsed tools to support COMMs in sharpening their perceived level of goal
design and progress-monitoring procedural knowledge. Increasing COMM procedural
knowledge for the meta-need performance management techniques should lead to overall
COMM performance increases, organizational performance increases, and COMM
organizational efficacy.
Clements (2013) and Bish and Becker (2016) acknowledged the rigorous workplace
responsibilities of nonprofit middle managers, which create the conditions for lacking efficacy
perceptions. Despite resource constraints commonly present in nonprofit organizations,
providing COMMs training opportunities aiding skill gap closure is a valuable investment for
developing capabilities in core performance areas (Belason & Belason, 2016; Tolleson Knee &
Folsom, 2012). The literature suggests that opportunities for practicing task-specific activities in
environments with sufficient scaffolding and tools will support COMMs in acquiring the
necessary skills to effectively engage in goal setting and performance-progress monitoring
(Pajares, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2006).
Recommendations for Motivation Promising Practices
Research conducted examined the assumed motivation influences impacting COMM
organizational efficacy perspectives: attainment value, self-efficacy, team-efficacy, and goal
orientation. Under Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model, which frames the study,
motivation is comprised of active choice, persistence, and mental efforts. Performer motivation
is analyzed through their choosing to pursue a task outcome, persisting through adversity in this
201

pursuit, and demonstrating mental effort aiding in their likelihood to succeed in a desired
outcome. The study evaluated COMM attainment value (do they identify with the task), self-
efficacy (confidence in their ability to accomplish the task), team-efficacy (confidence in their
team’s ability to accomplish the task), and goal orientation (feeling purposeful when striving to
accomplish the task) (Bandura et al., 1999; Clark, 2005; Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006).
The analysis found mixed results for the four motivational constructs, based on the
literature review, and applied to each of the three meta-need areas under study: goal design,
performance-progress monitoring, and individual development planning. Each of the influences
was evaluated for priority status taking into account the influences’ potential impact on the
stakeholder goal and the feasibility of implementing a plan centered on developing stakeholder
organizational efficacy perceptions. Table 34 displays the validation type, priority status,
underpinning theoretical principle(s), and contextual commendations for each motivational
influence.

Table 34
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
Attainment value:
COMMs need to
find it important
to design goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Asset Yes Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for
choice and control
can increase
motivation
(Wigfield et al.,
2006).

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive rationales
about the
importance and
utility value of
designing aligned
goals to COMMs.

202

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of the
work or learning
can help learners
develop positive
values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich,
2002).

Expectancy/value:
the more a person
values a task and
the more they think
they are likely to
succeed at it, the
greater their
motivation to do it
(Wigfield et al.,
2006).

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive explicit
messaging about
value and
relevance of the
designing aligned
goals for COMMs.

Attainment value:
COMMs need to
find it important
to participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.

Need Yes Activating and
building upon
personal interest
can increase
learning and
motivation
(Schraw &
Lehman, 2001).

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Wigfield et
al., 2006).

Expectancy/value:
the more a person
values a task and
Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive modeled
values, enthusiasm
and interest in
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings for
COMMs.

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive messaging
explicit about
203

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
the more they think
they are likely to
succeed at it, the
greater their
motivation to do it
(Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000).
value and
relevance of the
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings for
COMMs.

Attainment value:
COMMs need to
find it important
to design
individual
development
plans which align
with their annual
goals.

Need No Not a priority Not a priority
Self-efficacy:
COMMs need
confidence in
their ability to
design goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.
Need Yes High self-efficacy
can positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide COMMs
opportunities to set
close, concrete and
challenging goals
that allow them to
experience success
at designing
aligned goals.

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive
instructional
support
(scaffolding) early
on, build in
multiple
opportunities for
practice and
gradually remove
supports aiding
their confidence in
204

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
designing aligned
goals.

Self-efficacy:
COMMs need
confidence in
their ability to
participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Asset Yes Feedback and
modeling increase
self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).

Provide COMMs
opportunities for
goal-directed
practice coupled
with frequent,
accurate, credible,
targeted and
private feedback
on progress in
learning and
performance,
aiding their
confidence in
designing aligned
goals.

Self-efficacy:
COMMs need
confidence in
their ability to
design individual
development
plans aligned with
their annual goals.

Asset No Not a priority Not a priority
Team-efficacy:
COMMs need
confidence in
their direct report
team’s ability to
design goals
aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.

Need Yes High team-efficacy
can positively
influence group
motivation (Clark,
2005).

Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders identify,
articulate, focus
the organization’s
effort on and
reinforce the
Provide COMMs
opportunities to set
close, concrete and
challenging goals
that allow them to
experience success
supporting their
direct report
teams’ confidence
when design
aligned goals.

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
205

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
organization’s
vision; they lead
from the why.

receive
instructional
support
(scaffolding) early
on, build in
multiple
opportunities for
practice and
gradually remove
supports aiding
their ability to
support their direct
report teams’
confidence when
designing aligned
goals.

Team-efficacy:
COMMs need
confidence in
their direct report
team’s ability to
participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.

Asset Yes Settings where
group members
feel safe providing
and receiving
modeling and
feedback can
increase team-
efficacy (Clark,
2005).

Leaders can create
an effective
accountability
system when they
engage in the
challenging but
necessary process
of analyzing the
complex social and
political elements
within an
organization.

Provide COMMs
opportunities for
goal-directed
practice coupled
with frequent,
accurate, credible,
targeted and
private feedback
on progress in
learning and
performance,
supporting their
ability to develop
their direct reports
team’s confidence
when participating
in regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Team-efficacy:
COMMs need
Need No Not a priority Not a priority
206

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
confidence in
their direct report
team’s ability to
design individual
development
plans aligned with
their annual goals.

Goals: COMMs
need to know the
goal of designing
goals aligned with
division operating
plans and
organizational
strategic plans.

Asset Yes Goals motivate and
direct students
(Pintrich, 2002).
Related research:
Adults are more
motivated to
participate (and
learn) when they
see the relevance
of information, a
request, or task
(the “why”) to
their own
circumstances.
They are goal-
oriented (Knowles,
1980).

Provide COMMs
opportunities to set
specific goals and
measurable
performance goals
for designing
aligned goals.
Provide COMMs
opportunities for
goal-directed
practice coupled
with frequent,
accurate, credible,
targeted and
private feedback
on progress in
learning and
performance for
designing aligned
goals.

Effective
organizations
ensure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
are aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
Provide COMMs
with rewards
aligned with task-
specific goals and
activities aiding
their goal-design
performance.

207

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Accountability is
increased when
individual roles
and expectations
are aligned with
organizational
goals and mission.
Incentives and
rewards systems
need to reflect this
relationship
(Ayers, 2015;
Elmore, 2002).

Goals: COMMs
need to know the
goal of
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.

Asset Yes Feedback that is
private, specific,
and timely
enhances
performance
(Shute, 2008).

Adults are more
motivated to
participate (and
learn) when they
see the relevance
of information, a
request, or task
(the “why”) to
their own
circumstances.
They are goal-
oriented (Knowles,
1980).

Provide COMMs
opportunities to
receive strategies
to manage their
motivation, time,
learning strategies,
control their
physical and social
environment, and
monitor their
performance when
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Effective
organizations
ensure that
organizational
Provide COMMs
with rewards
aligned with task-
specific goals and
208

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
are aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Accountability is
increased when
individual roles
and expectations
are aligned with
organizational
goals and mission.
Incentives and
rewards systems
need to reflect this
relationship
(Ayers, 2015;
Elmore, 2002).

activities adding
the progress-
monitoring
performance.

Goals: COMMs
need to know the
goal of designing
individual
development
plans aligned with
their annual goals.
Asset No Not a priority Not a priority

209

Provide COMMs Opportunities to Develop a Sense of Task Importance, Value, and Relevance
Through Explicit Rationales and Modeling
The study had mixed findings concerning COMMs valuing the literature-based meta-
needs of designing aligned goals and performance-progress monitoring. While, respectively,
73% and 100% of survey respondents and interviewees valuing goal design, fewer COMMs
found progress monitoring important (59%, surveys; 100% interviews). Once again, the variance
in the findings may be related to inconsistency in the expectations of the performance of these
tasks. A recommendation founded in expectancy-value and interest theories was identified to
support COMM’s motivational needs.
The writings of Pajares (2006), Pintrich (2002), and Schraw and Lehman (2009) each
spoke to the significance of learners being exposed to narratives demonstrating belief in the
importance, value, and relevance of critical tasks. Eccles (2006) extends this position by
encouraging the usage of mastery and coping models to support motivation and task
performance. The literature would suggest that COMMs provided messaging and modeling
which reinforces the importance, value, and relevance of the meta-need areas of goal setting and
progress monitoring will increase their performance of these tasks.
With this in mind, another recommendation is to provide opportunities for COMMs to
receive explicit rationales and modeling about the importance, value, and relevance. Combining
messaging and modeling to support COMM’s sense of importance, value, and relevance could be
effectively done in designed training spaces and real-world workplace settings. Regularly
participating in training spaces that employ tactics to stimulate value and interest is likely to
positively impact COMM task performance, their performance against goals, and their sense of
organizational efficacy.
210

Eccles (2006) posited that learning and motivation are positively augmented when the
performer values the task. As task value increases, Eccles suggests that performer confidence,
commitment, and performance are positively impacted. Furthermore, Schraw and Lehman
(2009) acknowledge that being explicit about the relevance of task performance in real-world
settings can activate personal interest as an accelerator of learning and motivation. When
managers develop an interest in goal setting and performance-progress monitoring, they create
the conditions to support their efficacy which has positive follow-on effects for team and
organizational efficacy perceptions (Clark, 2005; Guerra-López & Hutchinson, 2013; Pukkeeree
et al., 2020).
In both training and real-world setting, models play an important role in galvanizing task
interest and value by offering explicit rationales and modeling (Schraw & Lehman, 2009).
Demonstrating attempts at proficient performance, mastery models or supervisors, and coping
models such as peers shape the motivational state of performers (Denler et al., 2006; McCrudden
et al., 2006). COMMs participating in spaces where deliberate task-specific practice in goal
setting and progress monitoring skills are being practiced should experience increases in task-
specific efficacy perceptions and, by extension, efficacy increases in the other dimensions of
their experiences.
Provide COMMs Opportunities to Gain Confidence Through Checking Their Task-Specific
Goal-Directed Learning and Receiving Feedback
The research results were mixed for COMM’s efficacy perceptions and goal orientation
influences. COMMs generally felt self-confident and goal-directed regarding literature-based
meta-needs of designing aligned goals and performance-progress monitoring. On average, 75%
of survey respondents and 95% of interviewees reflected self-efficacy for performance
211

management tasks. Likewise, on average, 82% of survey respondents and 100% of interviewees
experienced a sense of goal orientation for engaging in goal design and progress monitoring.
However, COMMs had lower efficacy perceptions for their team’s abilities, known as team-
efficacy, with only 67% of survey respondents and 100% of interviewees demonstrating
favorable perceptions.
A recommendation founded in social cognitive, self-efficacy, and goal orientation
theories was identified to support COMM’s motivational needs. Borgogni et al. (2011), Denler et
al. (2006), and Pajares (2006) encouraged the utilization of goal-directed learning feedback as a
tool to simulate performer confidence. Clark (2005) and Yough and Anderman (2006)
recommended similar strategies leveraging task-specific peer modeling and coaching to be used
in group settings to impact team-efficacy positively. As such, the literature suggests that
COMMs provided opportunities to receive goal-directed learning and feedback reinforces the
meta-need areas of goal setting and progress monitoring, increasing their performance of these
tasks.
Thus, the recommendation is for TTP to provide COMMs opportunities to gain
confidence through checking their task-specific goal-directed learning and receiving feedback.
For example, task-specific and goal-directed learning and feedback could be offered in designed
simulation spaces and real-world workplace settings. The result of participating in these
simulated and real settings should be increased COMM self-efficacy, team-efficacy, and goal
orientation, leading to increases in their organizational efficacy perceptions.
Feedback is a critical element of task-specific learning and performance. Timing is a core
consideration of feedback strategies. Borgogni et al. (2011) and Mayer (2011a) agreed that
feedback should be delivered by a credible source and sequenced to occur during learning
212

sessions and follow-up activities. Pajares (2006) wrote about the value of providing goal-directed
practice and appropriately timed feedback of tools to cultivate performer efficacy perceptions.
COMMs seeking to improve performance in goal setting and performance-progress
monitoring should receive opportunities for goal-directed practice and feedback in simulated and
real settings. Training environments designed to cultivate goal setting and progress-monitoring
skills should use performance standards to guide COMM performance expectations. In everyday
settings, COMM’s managers should create regular spaces to provide guidance and feedback on
COMM performance in goal setting and progress monitoring (Armstrong, 2017; Genis, 2008;
Jackson & LePine, 2003).
In both training and real-world setting, models play an important role in galvanizing task
interest and value by offering explicit rationales and modeling (Schraw & Lehman, 2009).
Demonstrating attempts at proficient performance, mastery models or supervisors, and coping
models, such as peers, shape the motivational state of performers (Denler et al., 2006;
McCrudden et al., 2006). COMMs participating in spaces where deliberate task-specific practice
in goal setting and progress monitoring skills are being practiced should experience increases in
task-specific efficacy perceptions and, by extension, the other dimensions of their experiences.
Provide COMMs With Rewards Aligned With Task-Specific Goals and Activities
While the study did not intentionally focus on understanding the impact of reward
systems on COMM organizational efficacy, interviewee remarks and the literature suggest the
need for a deliberately crafted approach to acknowledge COMM performance of the meta-need
tasks of goal setting and progress monitoring. A recommendation founded in social cognitive
theory and organizational change and accountability literature was identified to support
COMM’s motivational needs.
213

Pintrich (2002) noted that effectively aligned reward structures that acknowledge
progress and performance stimulate performer efficacy and goal orientation. Through the lens of
organizational change and accountability, Ayers (2015), Clark and Estes (2008), and Elmore
(2002) noted that incentives and rewards increase sentiments of accountability, positively
affecting performance outcomes. Given the validating literature, COMMs should have their
motivation engaged to perform goal setting and progress monitoring through an integrated
reward system stimulating task performance and achieving desired performance outcomes.
The recommendation is for TTP to provide COMMs with rewards aligned with task-
specific goals and activities. For example, encouraging goal setting, progress monitoring, and
overall goal performance through a tiered system of rewards leveraging different techniques such
as praise, non-monetary benefits, and monetary benefits are likely to impact COMM engagement
and, thus, their organizational efficacy perspectives.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that effective organizations align rewards and other
incentive structures to enhance organizational capabilities and performance. Ayers (2015)
studied the impacts of goal alignment on employee performance, finding evidence of positive
performance outcomes for individuals and organizations when their goals are coordinated.
Elmore (2002) noted that incentive structures should be intentionally crafted with performance
outcomes in mind since using incentives is a powerful tool regardless of the actual incentive or
reward.
COMM skill development in the need areas of goal setting and performance-progress
monitoring should be encouraged through rewards in simulated and actual performance settings.
In practice spaces, rewards such as positive feedback and public praise could provide valuable
motivation reinforcement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006). These techniques, as examples of
214

non-monetary incentives, could also be employed in real goal setting and progress-monitoring
spaces in addition to using financial performance incentives for achievement against the set and
monitored goal. While monetary incentives are less common in the nonprofit sector than in the
for-profit, recent years have seen increases in their utilization (Frumkin & Keating, 2010;
Speckbacher, 2013).
Recommendations for Organization Factor Promising Practices
Research conducted examined the assumed organizational factor influences impacting
COMM organizational efficacy perspectives: the presence of a culture of accountability and
availability of practices/tools to support meta-need task completion. The assumed influences
were derived from the literature and prioritized according to their impact on the stakeholder goal
and feasibility of implementation. Analysis determined that all six assumed organizational factor
influences were validated as needs.
Tansky and Cohen (2001) acknowledged that employee perceptions of organizational
support are strongly related to employee sentiments of organizational commitment and
confidence in future organizational success. To evaluate the organizational factors influencing
the stakeholder goal, Schein’s (2017) and Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) two-factor
framework of cultural models and cultural settings was employed. Values, beliefs, attitudes, and
other invisible and unconscious elements are examples of cultural models (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2017). Cultural settings are the regular, observable, and explicit
systems of policy, procedure, action, and artifacts that serve as the manifestation of cultural
models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Table 35 displays the validation type, priority status,
underpinning theoretical principle(s), and contextual commendations for each organizational
factor influence.
215

Table 35
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
Cultural models:
TTP needs to
have a culture of
accountability
to support
COMMs when
designing goals
aligned with
division
operating plans
and
organizational
strategic plans.
Need Yes Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders help the
organization set
clear, concrete and
measurable goals,
aligned with the
organization’s
vision (Moran &
Brightman, 2000).

Provide COMMs with
clear, reasonable,
and concrete goals
that identify specific
actions to be
completed with
specific due dates.

Accountability is
increased when
organizations adopt
a balanced
scorecard approach
to assessing
performance
(Bensimon, 2004;
Libby et al., 2004).
Provide COMMs with
division operating
plans, goals and
indicators to reflect
various measures of
performance in
COMM work
settings.

Provide COMMs with
a balanced scorecard
which effectively
aligns organizational
strategic plans,
goals, and COMM
activities.

Cultural models:
TTP needs to
have a culture of
accountability
to support
COMMs when
participating in
regular
performance-
Need Yes People are more
productive when
goal setting and
benchmarking are
essential to
evaluating progress
and driving
organizational
performance in
Provide COMMs the
importance and
usage of data-driven
benchmarking in
improving
organizational
performance.
216

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
progress
monitoring
meetings.
accountability
(Bogue & Hall,
2003; Dowd, 2005;
Levy & Ronco,
2012; Marsh, 2012).

Cultural models:
TTP needs to
have a culture of
accountability
to support
COMMs when
designing
individual
development
plans aligned
with their
annual goals.
Need No Not a priority Not a priority
Cultural settings:
TTP needs to
have practices
and tools to
support
COMMs when
designing goals
aligned with
division
operating plans
and
organizational
strategic plans.
Need Yes Effective
organizations insure
that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders insure that
employees have the
resources needed to
achieve the
organization’s goals
(Harrison et al.,
2017; Kanfer et al.,
Provide COMMs
assurance of
organizational
alignment and task
support by
conducting audits of
resource allocation,
policies, and
procedures to check
for alignment or
interference with
COMM goals.

217

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Validation
type
(asset or
need)
Priority
(yes or no)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation for
COMMs
1994; Waters et al.,
2003).

Cultural settings:
TTP needs to
have practices
and tools to
support
COMMs when
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Need Yes Effective
organizations insure
that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders insure that
employees have the
resources needed to
achieve the
organization’s goals
(Harrison et al.,
2017; Kanfer et al.,
1994; Waters et al.,
2003).

Provide COMMs
assurance of
organizational
alignment and task
support by
conducting audits of
resource allocation,
policies, and
procedures to check
for alignment or
interference with
COMM goals.

Cultural settings:
TTP needs to
have practices
and tools to
support
COMMs when
designing
individual
development
plans aligned
with their
annual goals.
Need No Not a Priority Not a Priority
218

Provide COMMs With a Balanced Scorecard of Organization and Division Goals That
Identify Actions to Be Completed With Specific Targets and Due Dates
The research findings indicated that TTP’s culture of accountability was either a non-
factor or a barrier to the performance of goal setting and progress monitoring. On average, only
19% of survey respondents and 50% of interviewees reflected positive responses related to the
cultural model of a culture of accountability. Furthermore, interviewees cited ambiguity around
TTP’s overarching goals as a limiting factor when designing and monitoring their own goals. A
recommendation founded in organizational accountability and leadership literature was identified
to support COMM’s needs for a culture of accountability aiding their goal design and progress-
monitoring performance.
Bensimon (2004) and Libby et al. (2004) wrote about the value of balanced scorecard
structures as a goal clarity and alignment device in the organizational context. Brynjolfsson et al.
(2011), Clark and Estes (2008), and Kluger and DeNisi (1996) noted that organizational
performance is enhanced when leaders utilize data to inform goals that might appear in a
balanced scorecard and effectively communicate those goals throughout the organization. These
findings suggest that COMMs would benefit from a culture of performance accountability
guided by a data-informed and reinforced organization-wide balanced scorecard. The scorecard
would be the primary tool for prompting aligned goals design and progress monitoring, the core
performance management meta-needs under study in this project.
Thus, the recommendation is for TTP to provide COMMs with a balanced scorecard of
organization and division goals that identify actions to be completed with specific targets and
due dates. For example, by creating spaces intended for the regular performance review against
the annual balanced scorecard, COMMs should experience increased perceptions of TTP’s
219

culture of accountability. With evidence of a culture of accountability in place, COMMs should
experience increases in their perceptions of organizational efficacy.
Libby et al. studied the effects of balanced scorecard practices on managerial practices
and found a positive correlation between the presence of a balanced scorecard and employee
performance. Bensimon (2004) stated that a balanced scorecard is a device for organizational
accountability supporting practices that bring the performance status of key performance areas to
attention. A balanced scorecard rooted in reliable data should enhance organizational
performance by promoting the ability to monitor effectiveness across key indicator areas
(Brynjolfsson et al., 2011; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
Considering that the critical efficacy influences are performance management techniques,
goal setting, and progress monitoring, having a standardized and reinforced balanced scorecard
can serve as a helpful tool for cultivating COMM knowledge and motivation to perform these
tasks. Furthermore, the balanced scorecard creates the conditions for a culture of accountability
by clarifying organizational priorities, supporting COMM efforts of designing aligned goals, and
monitoring progress. With a balanced scorecard in place, the literature suggests that TTP would
expect increases in both COMM and overall perceptions of organizational efficacy.
Provide COMMs Assurance of Organizational Alignment and Task Support by Conducting
Annual Audits of Resource Allocation, Policies, and Procedures.
The study’s results suggested that TTP’s practices and tools were either a non-factor or a
barrier to the performance of goal design and progress monitoring. Regarding practices, on
average, only 26% of survey respondents and 30% of interviewees reflected positive views on
tools available to support them when engaging in performance management tasks. In addition,
interviewees cited lacking or inconsistent communications and procedures around performance-
220

related matters as a limiting factor when designing and monitoring their own goals. In regards to
tools, on average, only 33% of survey respondents and 30% of interviewees reflected positive
views on tools available to support them when engaging in performance management tasks.
Interviewees cited lacking, outdated, or under-communicated tools, templates, and supports for
performance management practices as limiting factors when designing and monitoring their own
goals.
A recommendation founded in organizational change and leadership literature was
identified to support COMM resource allocation, policy, and procedure needs. The writings of
Clark and Estes (2008) and Waters et al. (2003) indicate that adequate resourcing, policy, and
procedure supports are critical elements prompting positive employee performance and
effectively facilitating organizational change and improvement. COMMs would benefit from
systemic supports as they seek to meet the expectation of designing aligned goals and progress-
monitoring their performance.
Hence, the recommendation is for TTP to provide COMMs assurance of organizational
alignment and task support by conducting annual audits of resource allocation, policies, and
procedures. For example, communication around performance management practices should be
aligned with the organization’s operating calendar to leverage a sequential approach to designing
goals, monitoring goals, and action against goals. Similarly, policies that might present barriers
to COMM performance should be identified through mixed quantitative and qualitative methods,
presenting the added benefit of fostering a culture of two-way communication (Waters et al.,
2003). Providing COMMs tools such as information and job aids will directly support them in
designing aligned goals and progress monitoring. Strategies like these should steward positive
organizational performance and COMM perceptions of organizational efficacy.
221

Organizational performance requires regular practices of auditing support structures to
ensure their alignment with organizational priorities and goals. Clark and Estes (2008) submitted
that an organization’s effectiveness relies on employees having the resources they need to
conduct the organization’s business. They add that organizational resources include such cultural
settings as policies and procedures which govern the work and tools which enable work to be
accomplished. Waters et al. (2003) concluded that when staff resource needs are adequately
addressed, there is a correlation with key performance outcomes.
The balanced scorecard recommended in the prior section would serve as a reliable tool
for the resource, policy, and procedure audits encouraged in this recommendation. With a
comprehensive suite of cross-functional organizational priorities in place, COMM goal-setting
and progress-monitoring efforts will be aided by tools and practices that promote an aligned
performance environment, limiting interference factors. Removing resource and practice-related
friction from the COMMs’ performance environment should enhance their goal setting and
progress-monitoring performance and their actual performance on the goals, leading to increase
efficacy perceptions.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan: The New World Kirkpatrick Model
Organizations whose learning rate outpaces the rate of change within their industry or
markets position themselves for long-lasting success (Senge, 1990). Mission success requires the
positive performance of the core business, and learning organizations must have training
programs that cultivate the skills, activities, and behaviors leading to tangible performance
results. The new world Kirkpatrick model (NWKM) of training evaluation provides a framework
to ensure a direct connection between training and vital organizational objectives (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). A critical element of the NWKM is its emphasis on ROE or evaluating the
222

effects of training programming through the perceptions of trainee experience and learning,
trainee skill demonstration, and performance outcomes during a relevant period. Through this
evaluation effort, learner behaviors leading to performance are readily appraisable, validating the
training program’s effectiveness by demonstrating the achievement of expectations.
The NWKM is organized around four evaluation points referred to as levels, and each
level focuses on interrogating the effectiveness against ROE from training through on-the-job
performance. The model begins at Level 4, results, identifying leading indicators and desired
outcomes to ensure that attention to results, particularly against the highest organizational
performance goal, is prioritized from the start of a training program. Next, Level 3, behavior,
focuses on behavioral outputs from a training program, demonstrating that learning has not only
taken place but has also been applied as intended via pre-identified critical behaviors. Level 3 is
also interested in developing structural reinforcement mechanisms called required drivers and
on-the-job learning opportunities to maintain training insights.
The first evaluation of knowledge and skill development via training is at Level 2.
Gauging participant responses to prompts indicating comfort with content awareness and the
ability to apply content knowledge proficiently in real-life settings is the goal for Level 2,
learning. Level 2 is also interested in understanding the degree to which the training was valued,
perceptions of the efficaciousness of a trainee as a result of the training, and a trainee’s
dedication to applying training content. Finally, Level 1, reaction, seeks to understand trainees’
experience within the training space itself. Answering questions related to trainee satisfaction,
engagement, and perceptions of training relevance occurs during this evaluation level. Table 36
describes the NWKM found in Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
223

Table 36
The Four Levels of Training Evaluation From the New World Kirkpatrick Model
Levels of
training evaluation
Description
1: Reaction The degree to which participants find the training favorable, engaging,
and relevant to their jobs
2: Learning The degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their
participation in the training
3: Behavior The degree to which participants apply what they learned during
training when they are back on the job
4: Results The degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training
and the support and accountability package

The comprehensiveness of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model strengthens the conditions for
accountability for all involved in a particular training program and the performance outcomes it
has been designed to achieve through results alignment, behavior orientation, trainee
engagement, and content relevancy. In many cases, a sound foundation for utilizing NWKM as
an accountability vehicle is rooted in the concept of ROE as an expression of organizational and
stakeholder performance goals. Trust the Process Inc’s integrated implementation and evaluation
plan aims to increase organizational efficacy perceptions through a training series intended to
improve COMM capabilities in goal setting and performance-progress monitoring.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of the research was to conduct a needs assessment in the areas of knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational factors influencing the organizational efficacy
perceptions of TTP’s COMMs. This project seeks to offer TTP strategies for effectively
addressing depressed organizational efficacy perceptions for the stakeholder of focus to impact
overall staff organizational efficacy perceptions. The proposed solution set is a fully integrated
224

training and evaluation program that emerged from the literature review and stakeholder
research.
The program seeks to address COMM knowledge and motivation required for them to
perform the goal setting and performance-progress monitoring tasks that have been validated as
influences of their organizational efficacy perspectives. If the recommendations are implemented
to a high degree of fidelity, TTP should expect to see increases in COMM organizational
efficacy perspectives which should support TTP’s goal of seeing a 10% increase in overall
organizational efficacy perceptions by January 2026 (70% to 80%).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick model utilizes the process of defining outcomes, metrics, and
data collection methods to illustrate the results and leading indicators connected to the TTP’s
performance goal of seeing a 10% increase in overall organizational efficacy perceptions by
January 2026 (70% to 80%). As described in Table 37, if increases in internal performance
related to organizational efficacy perceptions, employee persistence, a culture of collaboration
perceptions, and performance against organizational goals are realized through the development
of COMM organizational efficacy perceptions, then increases in mission impact, partner
satisfaction, and fundraising would be expected.

225

Table 37
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Data collection methods
External outcomes
Mission impact

80%+ of TTP’s partner
communities reach their
collective impact goals by the
end of the strategy cycle.

Impact evaluation report will
be collected and analyzed by
TTP’s impact evaluation
team.

TTP expands its partner
community footprint by two
communities every 3 years per
its strategic plan.
Community expansion
opportunities are vetted by
TTP’s senior leadership
team and approved by the
TTP board of directors.
Partner satisfaction 90%+ of current TTP partner
communities “would
recommend” TTP to other
communities interested in
collective impact strategies.

Annual partner communities
survey responses will be
collected and analyzed by
TTP’s impact evaluation
team.

75%+ of current TTP partner
communities renew their
partnership with TTP after
completing their first three-
year strategy cycle.

Community partner renewal
rate information is collected
and analyzed by TTP’s
Impact Evaluation Team.

Funding cultivation,
retention and growth

TTP sees 3% + annual growth in
the number of contributions
made by first-time donors to
TTP.
Annual client management
systems (CMS) year-over-
year reporting will be
assessed by TTP’s funding
operations team.

TTP sees 85% + rate of multi-
year donors who were both
retained and increased their
gift.
Annual client management
systems (CMS) year-over-
year reporting will be
assessed by TTP’s funding
operations team.

TTP sees 5% + annual growth in
revenue coming from private
sources.
Annual client management
systems (CMS) year-over-
year reporting will be
assessed by TTP’s funding
operations team.

226

Outcome Metrics Data collection methods
TTP sees 5% + annual growth in
revenue coming from public
sources
Annual client management
systems (CMS) year-over-
year reporting assessed by
TTP’s Funding Operations
Team

Internal outcomes
Overall efficacy
perceptions

Three-year sustained
performance of 70%+ of all
employees are “confident” that
TTP will have a successful
future

Responses to TTP’s annual
staff survey in fiscal years:
24’-25’, 25’-26’, 26’-27
collected by TTP’s HR
operations team

Employee persistence Three-year sustained
performance of >20%
employee turnover year over
year
HR management system
reporting collected and
assessed by TTP’s HR
operations team

Culture of collaboration Three-year sustained
performance of 70%+ of
employees feeling “satisfied”
or “very satisfied” with TTP’s
culture of collaboration

Responses to TTP’s annual
staff survey in fiscal years:
24’-25’, 25’-26’, 26’-27
collected by TTP’s HR
operations team

25% or more of TTP’s annual
organizational goals are cross-
departmental, requiring the
collaboration of two or more
departments to be successful.

Organizational goals are
developed by division
leaders and evaluated by
TTP’s central planning
team.
80%+ of TTP’s annual
organizational goals, which are
cross-departmental goals, are
met/achieved
Organizational goals are
developed by division
leaders and evaluated by
TTP’s central planning
team.
Performance against goals 85%+ of TTP’s organizational
goals are met.

Organizational goals are
developed by division
leaders and evaluated by
TTP’s central planning
team.

85%+ of TTP’s division goals
are met.

Division goals are developed
by division leaders and
evaluated by TTP’s central
planning team.
227

Outcome Metrics Data collection methods

85%+ of TTP’s division goals
are met.

Individual goals are
developed by individual
leaders and evaluated by
TTP’s central planning
team.

Level 3: Critical Behaviors
Table 38 illustrates TTP’s COMM cohort’s critical behaviors as prescribed by the Level
3 of the NWKM. Critical Behaviors are those few key actions or habits where this stakeholder of
focus must demonstrate proficiency to expect positive performance in both internal and external
outcomes. Considering that the stakeholder of focus’s performance goal is for TTP’s COMM
cohort to increase their organizational efficacy perceptions by 15% by January 2026, the
recommended critical behaviors are intended to support the cohort’s organizational efficacy
development. The primary factors at the foundation of each critical behavior stem from the
literature-based and research-validated influences of goal setting and progress monitoring.
Critical behaviors have been identified as essential to developing the skills and motivation for
performing critical performance management tasks. The metric and data collection methods
outlined in Table 38 define proficiency for these critical behaviors. The required drivers depicted
in Table 39 have been aligned to support the content mastery, skill attainment, and motivational
state necessary for successfully executing the recommended critical behaviors.

228

Table 38
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation for COMMs
Critical behavior Metrics
Data collection
methods
Timing
CB1: COMMs
design goals
aligned with
division
operating plans
and
organizational
strategic plans.
All COMMs have
designed
individual goals.
Senior managers and
the central planning
team will gather
COMMs’ goals once
complete.
COMMs will design
goals annually.
CB2: COMMs
participate in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
COMMs will attend
and actively
engage in regular
performance-
progress
monitoring
meetings.
Meeting leaders will
note attendance to
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings.
COMMs will
participate in
regular
performance-
progress monitoring
meetings
monthly/quarterly.
CB3: COMMs
support their
direct report
team in
designing goals
aligned with
division
operating plans
and
organizational
strategic plans.

COMMs will attend
train-the-trainer
sessions intended
to develop
coaching skills in
goal design.

Trainers will note
attendance to the
train-the-trainer
coaching skill
development session.

COMMs will attend
the train-the-trainer
coaching skill
development
session annually.
COMMs will
schedule reviews
of draft goals with
members of their
direct report teams
prior to
submission.
COMMs will be
responsible for
scheduling and
participating in goals
review meetings.

COMMs will
schedule goal
review meetings
with members of
their direct report
teams annually or
as needed.
CB4: COMMs
support their
direct report
team in
participating in
regular
performance-
progress
monitoring.
COMMs will attend
the train-the-
trainer sessions
intended to
develop coaching
skills in
performance-
progress
monitoring.
Trainers will note
attendance to the
train-the-trainer
coaching skill
development session.
COMMs will attend
the train-the-trainer
coaching skill
development
session that will
take place annually.
COMMs will
schedule
COMMs will be
responsible for
COMMs will
schedule individual
229

Critical behavior Metrics
Data collection
methods
Timing
individual progress
reviews with
members of their
direct report teams.

scheduling and
participating in
individual progress
reviews.

progress reviews
with members of
their direct report
teams monthly.

Required Drivers. The required drivers displayed in Table 39 have been aligned with the
critical behaviors to ensure that TTP’s COMM cohort receives the appropriate reinforcement,
encouragement, rewards, monitoring, and support necessary to develop their organizational
efficacy perceptions by 15% by January 2026.

Table 39
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behavior
Type Methods Timing Critical
behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Information

Central planning team provides COMMs with
the organizational strategic plan and division
operating plans with their associated goals
and measures.

Annually

1, 2, 3, 4

Central planning team provides COMMs
format protocols for regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings and guidelines
for expected participants.

Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Senior Managers need to develop division
operating plans, goals, and indicators to
reflect various performance measures in
COMM work settings.

Annually 1, 2, 3, 4

Job aids Central planning team develops a template for
designing goals aligned with organization
Annually

1, 4
230

Type Methods Timing Critical
behaviors
supported
strategy plans and division operating plans to
be used by COMMs.

Central planning team develops a template for
designing performance-progress monitoring
reports to be used by COMMs.

Annually

2,4
Central planning team develops a
script/prompting guide for participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings to be used by COMMs.

Annually

2,4
Training Training team delivers training series featuring
a session on designing goals aligned with
organizational strategic plans and division
operating plans to be attended by COMMs.

Annually

1, 3
Training team delivers training series featuring
a session on performance progress reports to
be attended by COMMs.

Annually

2, 4
Training team delivers training series featuring
a session on participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings
to be attended by COMMs.

Annually

2, 4
Training team delivers training series featuring
a session on supporting direct reports in
designing goals aligned with organizational
strategic plans and division operating plans
to be attended by COMMs.

Annually

3
Training team delivers training series featuring
a session on supporting direct reports in
designing performance progress reports to be
attended by COMMs.

Annually

4
Training team delivers training series featuring
a session on supporting direct reports in
participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings to be attended by
COMMs.

Annually

4
231

Type Methods Timing Critical
behaviors
supported
Encouraging
Confidence COMMs develop a “community of practice
culture” through peer modeling and coaching
during annual goal-design and progress-
monitoring training series.

Annually

1, 2, 3, 4
COMMs receive strategies, modeling, skill
practice, coaching, feedback, encouragement,
and opportunities for self-evaluation through
annual goal-design and progress-monitoring
training series.

Annually

1, 2, 3, 4,
Training team and central planning team
provide COMMs expert coaching as they or
their direct reports experience difficulty in
designing goals, designing progress reports,
or participating in regular progress-
monitoring meeting.

As needed 1, 2, 3, 4
Value Training and central planning teams reinforce
the utility, importance, and benefit of
designing aligned goals, designing
performance progress reports, and
participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings with COMMs.

Annually 1, 2
Training and central planning teams reinforce
the utility, importance, and benefit of
supporting their direct reports by designing
aligned goals, designing performance
progress reports, and participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings
with COMMs.

Annually 3, 4
The training team will deliver a training
module focused on articulating key
accountability concepts during the annual
goal-design and progress-monitoring training
series.

Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Attribution COMMs create opportunities for reflection (by
themselves and with their managers) on
effort and outcome to encourage behavior
As needed 1, 2, 3, 4
232

Type Methods Timing Critical
behaviors
supported
demonstrating effort toward designing
aligned goals, designing performance
progress reports, and participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings.

COMMs create opportunities for reflection
with their direct reports on effort and
outcome to encourage behavior
demonstrating effort toward designing
aligned goals, designing performance
progress reports, and participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings.

As needed 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Senior managers provide private/public
recognition for COMMs and their direct
reports when they have designed goals that
are well-aligned with organizational strategic
plans and division operating plans, designed
effective performance-progress monitoring
reports, effectively participated in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings.

As needed 1, 2, 3, 4
Senior managers COMMs develop a reward
system aligned with the annual balanced
scorecard.

Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Accountability Senior managers COMMs provide feedback on
COMM and their direct reports’ goal design,
progress-monitoring report design, and
participation in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings.

Bi-monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Senior managers COMMs need to conduct
audits of resources, policies, and procedures
to check for alignment or interference with
COMM goals.

Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Key
performance
indicators
COMMs have goals aligned with
organizational strategic plans and division
operating plans approved by June.
Monthly or
bi-monthly
1
233

Type Methods Timing Critical
behaviors
supported
COMMs participate in performance-progress
monitoring meetings regularly.

Monthly or
bi-monthly
2
COMMs’ direct reports have goals aligned
with organizational strategic plans and
division operating plans approved by June.
Monthly or
bi-monthly
3
COMMs’ direct reports participate in
performance-progress monitoring meetings
regularly.

Monthly or
bi-monthly
4

Organizational Support. For the critical behaviors and required drivers to be
implemented successfully, TTP’s COMMs would benefit from support provided by their
supervisors, TTP’s training team, and TTP’s central planning team. The COMM’s managers play
a significant role in ensuring the ongoing performance of the necessary goal setting and progress-
monitoring tasks throughout the year. The managers also collaborate to generate the
recommended balanced scorecard, conduct the resource, policy, and procedure audit, and design
a system of rewards to incentivize performance. TTP’s training and central planning team will
support critical behavior development by facilitating training sessions and designing tools
intended to cultivate COMM skills and motivation for goal setting and progress monitoring.
Collectively, the COMM managers, training team, and central planning team bring about the
required drivers which enable COMM critical behaviors to take hold.
Learning Goals. Following the goal design and progress-monitoring training series,
TTP’s COMMs will be able to demonstrate the acquisition of these aspects of knowledge and
motivation:
234

1. Conceptual knowledge: Recognize the different components of designing goals
aligned with organizational strategic plans and division operating plans and the
different components of performance-progress monitoring reports.
2. Conceptual knowledge: Classify and differentiate the components of organizational
strategic plans and division operating plans to support goal design and progress
monitoring.
3. Procedural knowledge: Execute the process for generating goals aligned with
organizational strategic plans, division operating plans, and performance progress
reports.
4. Procedural knowledge: Design drafts of aligned goals and performance progress
reports during the training series to ensure that the component skills have been
transferred.
5. Procedural knowledge: Carry out or implement goal design and progress-monitoring
report processes immediately following the training series.
6. Metacognitive knowledge: Create a training needs/wants inventory to be shared with
the TTP training and central planning teams to support next year’s goal design and
performance-progress monitoring training series immediately following the training
series.
7. Metacognitive knowledge: Reflect on their individual and collective responsibilities
for contributing to organizational success and share actions they plan on taking to
demonstrate their commitment through their work.
235

8. Motivation, attainment value: Value designing, and progress-monitoring goals
aligned with TTPs’ organizational strategic plan and division operating plans because
of the importance to their role and the long-term success of the organizations.
9. Motivation, self-efficacy: Have confidence in their individual ability to design and
progress monitor goals aligned with organizational strategic plans and division
operating plans as learned in the training series.
10. Motivation, team-efficacy: Have confidence in their ability to support their direct
report teams in designing and progress-monitoring goals aligned with organizational
strategic plans and division operating plans as learned in the training series.
11. Motivation, expectancy outcome: Demonstrate commitment to implementing goal
and performance progress report design strategies learned during the training series
and believe that COMMs will successfully implement those strategies.
Goal-Design and Progress-Monitoring Training Series Program. TTP’s COMMs will
participate in a multi-installment training series to develop competencies allowing them to
perform against the learning goals. COMMs will participate in eight 2-hour learning modules
during the first quarter of the fiscal year, with each session focused on developing the
knowledge, skills, and motivation required to implement different aspects of their goal design
and progress-monitoring responsibilities. TTPs’ training team will facilitate the training series in
collaboration with the central planning team. The training team will administer and analyze all
assessments, knowledge checks, and surveys before, during, and following the retreat. TTP’s
senior leadership team, training team, and central planning team will meet prior to the annual
training series to support the design of learning modules, ensuring their connection to the critical
behaviors, required drivers, and training series learning goals.
236

The itinerary for the goals design and progress-monitoring training series will proceed as
follows:
● Module 1: Why designing aligned goals and progress-monitoring goals is important
● Module 2: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how to design aligned goals)
● Module 3: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how to design performance-progress monitoring
reports)
● Module 4: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how to participate in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings)
● Module 5: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how to support your direct reports in designing
aligned goals)
● Module 6: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how ow to support your direct reports in
designing performance-progress monitoring reports)
● Module 7: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how ow to support your direct reports in
participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings)
● Module 8: Learn, Practice, Evaluate (how ow to facilitate regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings for your direct report teams)
The training series was specifically designed to allow the COMMs to learn core content
areas related to critical behaviors, which were identified as essential to developing the strategic
plan and practicing those critical behaviors with the support of the training team, central
planning team, and their managers. The previously identified required drivers, namely,
information sets, templates, modeling, and coaching techniques, will be utilized in the learn,
practice, evaluate modules throughout the training series. Discussion, scenario-solving activities,
teach-backs, role-play, and presentations will all be used to facilitate learning and knowledge
237

transfer. Finally, the training series will be held in the first quarter of the fiscal year and serve as
the launching point for TTP’s goal setting and year-long progress-monitoring efforts,
encouraging the organization’s performance and success.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning. The learning goals for the strategic plan
training retreat were created to illustrate areas of knowledge, skills, and motivation that, if
developed, would increase the likelihood of strong performance by COMMs in their goal setting
and performance-progress monitoring efforts. While not perfectly linear, knowledge, skill, and
motivational development often proceeds in phases beginning with the acquisition of declarative
knowledge or the basic understanding of core concepts of a matter (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). Procedural knowledge indicates learning transfer as the learner gains the skills required to
perform the desired task, and metacognitive knowledge demonstrates a learner’s ability to apply
learned behaviors in various settings and contexts proficiently (Krathwohl, 2002). Finally,
motivation, in the form of valuing a task, confidence in the ability to complete the task, and
commitment to completing the task, is an essential dimension of performance and should be
cultivated by effective learning programming alongside adequate knowledge acquisition (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Table 40 provides an overview of how these learning components are
encouraged and evaluated during the goal design and progress-monitoring training series

Table 40
Evaluation of the Components of the Learning Program
Type Meaning Methods or activities Timing
Declarative
knowledge
Knowing
what to
do
“I know it.”
Pre-training series assessment and
survey: Pre-training series
knowledge assessment. Assessment
will utilize include a mix of
One week prior to the
launch of the training
series

238

Type Meaning Methods or activities Timing
true/false, matching list, multiple-
choice, fill-in-the-blank, and open-
ended responses.

Post-module knowledge check and
survey: “Exit Tickets” will serve as
knowledge checks and will be
administered at the end of a training
module. Knowledge checks will
utilize a mix of true/false, matching
list, multiple-choice, fill-in-the-
blank, and open-ended responses.

Throughout the training
series

Discussion: small-group and pair-
share break-out discussions and
scenarios will be utilized to assess
knowledge retention and application.
Low-embedded recall, high-
embedded recall, constructed
response, and selected-response
techniques will be used to facilitate
break-out discussions.

Throughout the training
series

Post-training series assessment and
survey: post-training series
knowledge assessment. Assessment
will include a mix of true/false,
matching list, multiple-choice, fill-
in-the-blank, and open-ended
responses.

After the training series
has concluded

Procedural
knowledge
Knowing
how to do
it
“I can do it right now.”
Practice and feedback: various
exercises will be utilized to facilitate
the transfer from knowledge to skill.
Participants will be provided
feedback following the conclusion of
the exercise. Practice formats will
include mapping, troubleshooting,
developing mock “worked-out”
solutions.

Throughout the training
series

239

Type Meaning Methods or activities Timing
Demonstration: participants will be
asked to draft aspects of goals and
performance progress reports and
discuss their process and products in
small and large group settings.
COOMs should expect to receive
both public and private feedback.
Throughout the training
series and following
the training series

Metacognitive
knowledge
Knowing
why this
is
important
“I can do it while adapting to different circumstances”
Predicting: participants are asked to
identify areas of their goals setting
and progress monitoring that
changes in internal and external
circumstances might impact

Throughout the training
series

Reflecting: participants are able to
identify the unique roles that they
might play in the organization’s or
their division’s success. Reflection
formats will include journaling, peer
dialogue, and whole-group sharing.

Throughout the training
series

Attitude Knowing
why this
is
important
“I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre-training series assessment and
survey: pre-training series task value
is assessed. The assessment will
include a mix of Likert-scale and
open-ended response survey
questions.

One week prior to the
launch of the training
series

Discussion: participants will be
provided opportunities to learn about
the value of aligned goal setting and
progress monitoring, hear from
others about why they value aligning
goals and progress monitoring, and
share their perspectives on why they
value aligning goals and progress
monitoring. Conversations will take
place in large-group, small-group,
and partner settings.

Throughout the training
series

Coaching: participants will be
provided information on behaviors
consistent with “valuing aligning
Throughout the training
series

240

Type Meaning Methods or activities Timing
goals and progress monitoring” and
given feedback on the demonstration
of these behaviors

Post-module knowledge check and
survey: “exit tickets” will serve as
task-value checks at the end of a
training module administered before
moving on to the next training
module. Exit tickets will include a
mix of Likert-scale and Open-ended
response survey questions.

Throughout the training
series

Post-training series assessment and
survey: post-training retreat task
value is assessed. The assessment
will include a mix of Likert-scale
and open-ended response survey
questions.

After the training series
Self-reporting: Individuals will
periodically provide information
pertaining to their “feelings of
valuing” aligned goal setting and
progress monitoring. Self-reporting
will include a mix of Likert-scale
and open-ended response survey
questions.

Following the training
series, and ongoing
every 30 days until
the end of the
strategic planning
process
Contextual Knowing
when to
do it
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Pre-training series assessment and
survey: pre-training series
confidence/self-efficacy is assessed.
The assessment will include a mix of
Likert-scale and open-ended
response survey questions.

One week prior to the
launch of the training
series
Discussion: participants will be
provided opportunities to engage
with peers to discuss their strengths
and weaknesses related to distinct
aspects of aligned goal setting and
progress monitoring. Conversations
will take place in large-group, small-
group, and partner settings.
During and after the
training series
241

Type Meaning Methods or activities Timing

Coaching: participants will be
provided information describing
what “good effort” looks like during
successfully aligned goal setting and
progress monitoring and given
feedback when demonstrating “good
effort”
During and after the
training series
Post-training retreat assessment and
survey: post-training retreat
confidence/self-efficacy is assessed.
The assessment will include a mix of
Likert-scale and open-ended
response survey questions.

After the training series
Self-reporting: Individuals will
periodically provide information
pertaining to their “feelings of
confidence” in their aligned goals
setting and progress-monitoring
performance. Self-reporting will
include a mix of Likert-scale and
open-ended response survey
questions.

After the training
series, and ongoing
throughout the fiscal
year
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Pre-training series assessment and
survey: Pre-training retreat
commitment is assessed. The
assessment will include a mix of
Likert-scale and open-ended
response survey questions.

One week prior to the
launch of the training
series
Discussion: participants will be
provided opportunities to engage
with peers discussing their
commitment to aligned goal setting
and progress monitoring.
Conversations will take place in
large-group, small-group, and
partner settings.

During and after the
training series
Coaching: participants will be
provided information describing
what “commitment” looks like
During and after the
training series
242

Type Meaning Methods or activities Timing
during successfully aligned goal
setting and progress monitoring and
given feedback when demonstrating
“commitment”

Action planning: participants will be
provided opportunities to self-design
a plan which will enable them to
utilize the knowledge and skills
developed.

During and after the
training series
Post-training series assessment and
survey: post-training retreat
commitment is assessed. The
assessment will include a mix of
Likert-scale and open-ended
response survey questions.

Following the
conclusion of the
training series
Self-reporting: individuals will
periodically provide information
pertaining to their “feelings of
commitment” to aligned goal setting
and progress monitoring. Self-
reporting will include a mix of
Likert-scale and open-ended
response survey questions.

After the training
series, and ongoing
throughout the fiscal
year

Level 1: Reaction
Table 41 provides an overview of the methods utilized to evaluate participant motivation
during and immediately following the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series.
Formative assessments such as exit tickets and pulse checks will be administered periodically
throughout each training module. The post-training series assessment and survey will serve as a
comprehensive summative assessment and will be opened for participant engagement for 3 days
following the conclusion of the training series.
243

Table 41
Components to Measure Reactions to the Training Program
Data collection methods or
activities
Timing
Engagement
Formative: module attendance records

Attendance is taken for each module on each day of
the training series.

Formative: module exit ticket
submission; engagement-focused
question

Exit tickets are submitted for review by the
facilitation team at the end of each training
module.

Formative: participation in mid-module
pulse checks

Halfway through each module, the trainer will
gauge participant engagement by noting the
“energy” in the room and asking, “How is this
feeling?” for participants.

Summative: post-training series
assessment and survey; engagement-
focused questions

Post-training series assessment and survey will be
open for 3 days following the conclusion of the
training series.

Relevance
Formative: module exit ticket
submission; engagement-focused
question

Exit tickets are submitted for review by the training
team at the end of each training module.

Formative: trainer observation and
participation in mid-module pulse
checks

Halfway through each module, the trainer will
gauge participant job relevance by asking, “So
far, does this module feel aligned with your role
as strategic planners? Why or why not?”

Summative: post-training series
assessment and survey; job relevance-
focused questions

Post-training series assessment and survey will be
open for 3 days following the training retreat.

Customer satisfaction
Formative: trainer observation and
participation in mid-module pulse
checks

Halfway through each module, the trainer will
gauge participant satisfaction by asking, “Is there
anything we can adjust to improve the learning
experience in this module?”

Summative: post-training series
assessment and survey;
satisfaction/quality focused questions
Post-training series assessment and survey will be
open for 3 days following the training retreat.

244

Evaluation Tools: Immediately Following the Program Implementation. During the
training series, formative tools like exit tickets and pulse checks will progress monitor Level 1
and Level 2 results according to the NWKM (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Appendix I.
displays the evaluation methods that will be utilized to understand COMM’s experience of
engagement, relevance, and satisfaction with the goal-design and progress-monitoring training
series and gauge the training series’ impact on participant learning and motivation at and after
the conclusion of the series.
The learning and skill development component of Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 will be evaluated
on the final day of the training series through a combination of summative tools, including
knowledge tests, teach-backs, presentations, and demonstrations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Two days following the conclusion of the training series, focus groups of COMMs will be
assembled to collect information pertaining to Level 2’s motivational aspects. Kirkpatrick’s
Level 1, which uncovers immediate participant reaction to their experience with the training
series in terms of engagement, job relevance, and trainee satisfaction, will be evaluated via the
Post-Training Series Assessment and Survey within 3 days of the conclusion of the series. The
post-training series assessment and survey are analogous to the pre-series assessment and survey
to provide a clear before-and-after comparison to acknowledge the training series’ impact.
Evaluation Tools: Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation.
Appendix K. depicts the delayed-blended program evaluation instrument, which will be utilized
to understand COMM perceptions of the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series
according to each NWKM level. This delayed survey will be administered 30, 60, and 90 days
following the conclusion of the training series and will feature four Likert-scale-style questions
pertaining to (a) COMM experience of the training series itself, (b) COMM knowledge, skills,
245

and motivation following the training series, (c) COMM performance of critical behavior
following the training series, and (d) achievement of TTP’s goal of increasing organizational
efficacy perceptions to affect important external and internal outcomes.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Following the COMM’s training series, TTP’s training team and central planning team
will collaborate on reporting and interpreting the results for the immediate evaluation instrument
(Appendix H.) and every 30 days for the delayed-blended evaluation instrument (Appendix K.).
During their monthly progress-monitoring meeting, the team will review these formative reports
alongside TTP’s top managers. The required drivers of recognition, feedback, and coaching, as
described in Table 39, will be leveraged to facilitate continued commitment to the performance
of the critical behaviors outlined in Table 38. Regarding summative reporting, Figure 25 displays
the ideal and anticipated organizational efficacy increases after installing the critical behaviors.

246

Figure 25
Level 3 Critical Behaviors and Required Drivers: Percentage Increase of COMM
Organizational Efficacy Perceptions Toward Gap Closure After the Implementation of the
Integrated Training and Evaluation Program

Summary
The literature review and research suggest that waning organizational efficacy
perceptions negatively impact performance in key external and internal indicator areas. The
integrated training and evaluation plan describes how the NWKM might solve such performance
gaps by addressing critical behaviors and required drivers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Due to their central role and span of influence, TTP’s COMMs were named the stakeholder of
focus as they were deemed to be the most influencing of overall perceptions of organizational
efficacy. Developing a training series was the most comprehensive vehicle for driving positive
change inside and outside the organization and thus became the focus of the integrated
247

implementation and evaluation plan. The strength of the NWKM as a problem-solving device is
its emphasis on clarifying the expectations of a change program as the first step in designing the
change program. Rooting in the desired results creates grounding from which key indicator
areas, critical behaviors, and required drivers can be identified, designed, and aligned. Once
those elements are established, a training series intended for skill and motivation building
inculcate the competencies needed to act on those pre-identified critical behaviors; in this case,
the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series. Finally, a robust post-training series
evaluation plan can be implemented to ensure those critical behaviors are executed with fidelity.
Each step of the NWKM enables the successful development of the succeeding steps, ultimately
allowing TTP to make its best attempt at meeting its expectations and closing its performance
gaps.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The project’s purpose was to solve an organizational performance problem by focusing
on the niche experience of a key stakeholder group whose experience of the problem was not in
proportion to other organizational groups. Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis protocol
was selected as the primary theoretical framework guiding the study in light of its readiness and
fit to explore organizational embedded problems of practice. Trust the Process Inc recognizes
that meeting its overall organizational efficacy perception goals requires prioritizing the needs
and influences of TTP’s COMM cohort, given their disproportionately pessimistic view of
organizational efficacy and their influence on the organization’s rank and file. A strength of the
KMO gap analysis framework is its insistence on qualifying change efforts as worthy of
organizational attention by ensuring they are made explicitly in service to a recognizable
organizational goal.
248

Founding change efforts in a compelling performance need, the model then requires an
evidence base through literature and research methods to guide the development of potential
solutions. Adding to the strength of the approach is the KMO’s recommended evaluation process
for monitoring the performance of change initiatives through lead measures, such as
accomplishing critical activities and “lag measures” or closing the intended performance gap
(McChesney et al., 2012). A valuable result of an effectively facilitated KMO research project is
the development of an inventory of validated influences and strategies that can address the
performance problem as organizational capacities allow.
While the framework does not prescribe a doctrinaire approach to defining and
distinguishing between assets or needs in the phenomenological environment, there could be a
tendency to create this false binary for validated influences. In most real-world settings, there is
likely a spectrum with gradations of assets and needs that operate in the problem area’s
circumstances. For the TTP research project, the integrated implementation and evaluation plan
is designed to address those priority areas which would likely have the largest effect on the
stakeholder of focus’ organizational efficacy perspectives. Only through rigorous testing and
evaluation cycles monitoring the impacts of research-based interventions can a researcher
determine the actual degree of influence as an asset or need and the magnitude of the influence’s
effect.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study is bound to be impacted by influences within a researcher’s control, known as
delimitations, and influences outside of a researcher’s control or limitations (Simon, 2011;
Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). The study employed mixed methodology to stem the inherent
limitations of any one research method (Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Maxwell, 2013). A
249

necessary limitation of the study occurred as confidentiality of terms virtually prohibited the
review of artifacts, leading to a deeper understanding of stakeholder knowledge and motivation,
dampening the effects of triangulation. Additionally, there is likely to be a limitation in the
credibility and trustworthiness of survey responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Respondents may
have been unfamiliar with the theoretical concepts embedded within the coded survey questions
or how those concepts were presented. As such, it should be expected that, while answering to
the best of their ability, there may be limitations on their responses’ accuracy due to limitations
in their theoretical or conceptual knowledge.
In addition, qualitative methods such as interviews present opportunities for human error
related to the researcher’s and informant’s psychological and emotional states (Patton, 2002).
While precautions were taken in advance to support interviewees’ psychological and emotional
experiences, it is impossible to know how any one person might respond during an interview
session (Glesne, 2011). The study was restricted to a specific period, which may have presented
challenges for participant engagement given related factors like topic relevance or unrelated
factors such as work obligations making study participation difficult (Moura, 2017). As a final
limitation, my positionality, relationships, and proximity to the COMM cohort likely had biasing
effects on the study, impacting the results and recommendations (Villaverde, 2008).
Delimitations, or influences within a researcher’s control, include the study’s conceptual
framework and criteria for stakeholder participation (Simon, 2011; Theofanidis & Fountouki,
2018). Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis, the foundation of the conceptual framework,
is suited for analyzing challenges related to organizational efficacy but not exclusively so. Other
research paradigms and philosophical worldviews might be better suited to analyze important
aspects of the phenomenological circumstances leading to decreasing organizational efficacy
250

perceptions (Aliyu et al., 2015; Saunders, 2019). Regarding criteria for stakeholder participation,
given how broadly middle management might be defined within any organization, COMMs were
selected based on preliminary secondary source document analysis identifying the significance
of their relationship with the problem under study, general representativeness of middle
managers within TTP, and the accessibility of the population was (Biklen & Bogdan, 2006;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Other cohorts within the organization, including other middle-
management cohorts, could have been selected for analysis, likely yielding different but equally
informative findings, contributing to the organization’s overall organizational efficacy perception
goals (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Moura, 2017).
Future Research
While comprehensive, the study leaves several areas for future research worth addressing
by TTP and the field. In light of limitations impacting determinations of practicality,
recommendations were developed for influences areas deemed most impactful and feasible. With
this in mind, the study’s recommended integrated implementation and evaluation plan focused
on addressing the critical behaviors and required drivers that most directly impacted COMM
organizational efficacy perceptions by making COMMs the focal point of the treatment plan.
Less directly addressed in this study, and as such serves as a recommendation for future research,
is the commissioning implementation and evaluation plan, which more deliberately treats the
organizational factors influencing efficacy perceptions.
The literature and the study’s research findings suggest that organizational factors play a
critical role in shaping COMM organizational efficacy, control of which typically falls within the
responsibilities of senior management. A plan supporting the competencies and motivations of
TTP’s COMMs to perform the critical behaviors associated with their post could address such as
251

creating an annual balanced scorecard, conducting alignment audits, designing a comprehensive
rewards system, and coaching COMMs through their goal setting and progress-monitoring
efforts, is expected to have positive effects on COMM perceptions of organizational efficacy. By
leveraging the KMO framework and the materials produced for this COMM-focused research
program, a study exploring the KMO factors influencing senior manager behaviors impacting
organizational efficacy perspectives is recommended.
Another set of recommendations is related to the areas of limitation worth exploring to
further understand the influences on organizational efficacy perspectives. COMMs were selected
as the stakeholder of focus due to their disproportionally depressed organizational efficacy
perceptions, but they are one of several different middle-management cohorts at TTP. A review
of the available secondary research suggests TTP would benefit from exploring the
organizational efficacy perceptions and needs of other middle-management cohorts, given that,
in general, the data bears that middle managers of all kinds hold different efficacy perceptions
than their senior manager and frontline manager counterparts.
A final recommendation calls for using other theoretical frameworks to explore the
organizational efficacy problem space. The KMO framework is designed as a practical and
methodical approach to solving organizational performance problems and, as such, espouses a
decidedly pragmatic or pragmatist philosophical worldview (Aliyu et al., 2015; Saunders, 2019).
Interview dialogues brought to the floor opportunities for other areas of exploration, like power
dynamics and equity influences on COMMs’ organizational efficacy experiences, which may be
more effectively interrogated from more critical theoretical models. TTP and the field at large
would benefit from the practicable insights that emerge from evaluating efficacy challenges
through multiple philosophical lenses.
252

Conclusion
Belief in one’s organization’s ability to achieve its goals through successful collective
efforts has been proven to be an essential factor influencing employee performance and
commitment (Bohn, 2002, 2010). Middle managers, whose roles span responsibility areas from
strategy planning to tactical execution, have been acknowledged for having higher rates of
burnout and job turnover than their senior manager and frontline manager counterparts (Anicich
& Hirsh, 2017a; Zenger & Folkman, 2014). In the nonprofit space, the conditions for burnout of
middle managers tend to be higher due to internal resource constraints impacting the training,
equipping, and compensating of middle managers (Deaton et al., 2013; Linscott, 2011).
Nonprofit middle managers play a lynchpin role in their organization’s current and future
success as the primary managers of frontline implementation and the pool for senior
management succession planning (Austin et al., 2011; Caye et al., 2010; Mollick, 2012; Toupin
& Plewes, 2009). Thus, the efficacy perceptions of nonprofit middle managers have significant
effects on organizational performance and long-term viability.
To improve its overall organizational efficacy perceptions by 10% by 2026, TTP
commissioned this study to understand and address the organizational efficacy needs of its
central-office middle manager cohort. A persistent downturn in this cohort’s organizational
efficacy perspectives, in combination with evidence of COMMs having disproportionately
negative views relative to all other cohorts, encouraged TTP to invite the selection of this cohort
as the stakeholder group of focus. Improvement of 15% by 2026 was established as the desired
stakeholder performance and the specific intended outcome of the study. At the time of this
study, the COMM group had 28 members representing each TTP’s six operational divisions.
253

A KMO gap analysis protocol was selected to frame the study due to its well-documented
effectiveness in solving contextually embedded organizational performance problems (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Middlebrook & Palchesko, 2004). The KMO model diagnoses stakeholder KMO
factor influences to identify literature-based and research-validated needs or assets to address the
challenge. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing survey, interview, and
document analysis to validate influences assumed by the literature. Of the 21 influences
cataloged by the literature review, 11 were validated as assets in the organizationally specific
phenomenological environment, and 10 were validated as needs. In preparation for the design of
an integrated implementation and evaluation plan, the 21 influences were prioritized according to
their impact and feasibility for addressing the problem. The prioritization exercise resulted in
eight recommendations: two knowledge-based, three motivation-based, and two organizational
factor-based.
In compilation, the recommendations homed in on developing practices for COMMs to
proficiently support the increase of their organizational efficacy perspectives. The
recommendations encouraged competency development via training sessions to ensure baseline
proficiency. As such, an integrated training and evaluation plan centered on convening an annual
goal-design and progress-monitoring training series to support COMM competency and
motivation acquisition. The training series would serve as the annual launch point for
organizational performance management practices, aiding the year-long application of the
practices in actual workplace circumstances.
For future research impacting the overall organizational efficacy perspectives at TTP, the
study recommended that training and evaluation plans be developed for senior managers
supporting their ability to implement validated and necessary organizational factors, along with
254

conducting similar studies interested in the organizational efficacy influences of other TTP
management cohorts. Beyond TTP, the study has broad applicability for organizations of all
industries seeking to address similar efficacy deficits among their middle-management ranks.
In conclusion, metaphorically, middle managers are the keystones of their organizations.
On one side of the archway are senior managers visioning the pathway to tomorrow. On the
other side are frontline managers, diligently working toward winning today. One need not look
any further than the confidence possessed by middle managers as a meaningful lead measure for
confidence in the organization’s present and future. Unconfident managers predict a tumultuous
today and tomorrow, while confident managers create the conditions for current and continued
success.

255

References
Adams, A. M., Wilson, H., Money, J., Palmer-Conn, S., & Fearn, J. (2020). Student engagement
with feedback and attainment: The role of academic self-efficacy. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 317–329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1640184
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Using performance management to win the
talent war. Business Horizons, 55(6), 609–616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.05.007
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Avoiding a “me” versus “we” dilemma: Using
performance management to turn teams into a source of competitive advantage. Business
Horizons, 56(4), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.02.004
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by
embracing performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29(1), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.493
Ahn, H. S., Usher, E. L., Butz, A., & Bong, M. (2016). Cultural differences in the understanding
of modelling and feedback as sources of self‐efficacy information. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86(1), 112–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12093
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & AbuBakar, M. (2015, December 22). Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception [Paper presentation] The Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon.
Abekuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.
Alkin, M. C., & Vo, A. T. (2017). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. Guilford Publications.
256

Alston, B. A., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2009). Performance Management Execution For Effective And
Continuous Employee Appraisals. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 7(9).
https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v7i9.2332
American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK–12 teaching and learning.
http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/toptwenty-principles.pdf
Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 67–97.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091259
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Anicich, E. M. (2021). Beyond high and low: Obstacles and opportunities associated with
conceptualizing middle power and other middle‐range effects. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 15(7), Article e12607. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12607
Anicich, E. M., & Hirsh, J. B. (2017a, March 22). Why being a middle manager is so
exhausting? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/03/why-being-a-middle-
manager-is-so-exhausting
Anicich, E. M., & Hirsh, J. B. (2017b). The psychology of middle power: Vertical code-
switching, role conflict, and behavioral inhibition. Academy of Management Review,
42(4), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0002
257

Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task
performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
110(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.003
Armstrong, M. (2017). Armstrong on reinventing performance management: building a culture
of continuous improvement. Kogan Page.
Arnetz, B., & Blomkvist, V. (2007). Leadership, mental health, and organizational efficacy in
health care organizations. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 76(4), 242–248.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000101503
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro
role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259305
Austin, M. J., Regan, K., Gothard, S., & Carnochan, S. (2013). Becoming a manager in nonprofit
human service organizations: Making the transition from specialist to generalist.
Administration in Social Work, 37(4), 372–385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.715116
Austin, M. J., Regan, K., Samples, M. W., Schwartz, S. L., & Carnochan, S. (2011). Building
managerial and organizational capacity in nonprofit human service organizations through
a leadership development program. Administration in Social Work, 35(3), 258–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2011.575339
Austin, M. J., Weisner, S., Schrandt, E., Glezos-Bell, S., & Murtaza, N. (2006). Exploring the
transfer of learning from an executive development program for human services
managers. Administration in Social Work, 30(2), 71–90.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v30n02_06
258

Ayers, R. S. (2015). Aligning individual and organizational performance: Goal alignment in
federal government agency performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel
Management, 44(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015575178
Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change
intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69–83.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00266
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159600
Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-
6402(78)90002-4
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Xinli
Kexue Jinzhan, 1(1), 51–71.
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
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive
psychology: Exploring the best in people (Vol. 1., pp. 167–196). Praeger
Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
259

Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158
Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014).
What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta‐analytic review of team
and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 273–295.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1885
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective
organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation,
and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 111–135.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0227
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: A
multiple goals approach. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 229–254).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012619070-0/50031-3
Beausaert, S., Segers, M., Van Der Rijt, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2011). The use of personal
development plans (PDPs) in the workplace: A literature review. In P. Gijselaers & R.
Milter (Eds.), Building learning experiences in a changing world (pp. 235–265).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0802-0_14
Beer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic management as
organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process.
Long Range Planning, 38(5), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2005.04.008
Belasen, A., & Belasen, A. R. (2016). Value in the middle: cultivating middle managers in
healthcare organizations. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1149-1162.
260

Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). The impact of leadership and change management strategy
on organizational culture. European Scientific Journal, 10(7).
Bell, J., Moyers, R., & Wolfred, T. (2006). Daring to lead 2006: A national study of nonprofit
leadership. Compass Point Nonprofit Services.
Benjamin, L. M. (2012). Nonprofit organizations and outcome measurement: From tracking
program activities to focusing on frontline work. The American Journal of Evaluation,
33(3), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012440496
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(1), 44–52.
Bernardy, V., & Antoni, C. H. (2021). With grit to innovative teams?: A theoretical model to
examine team grit as a team innovation competence. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation.
Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie. GIO.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-021-00555-z
Bhandari, P. (2022). Internal validity: Definition, threats, and examples. Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/internal-
validity/#:~:text=The%20validity%20of%20your%20experiment,mean%2C%20social%
20interaction%20and%20attrition
Biklen, S. K., & Bogdan, R. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Pearson.
Bish, A., & Becker, K. (2016). Exploring expectations of nonprofit management capabilities.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 437–457.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015583313
BoardSource. (2017). Leading with Intent: 2017 National index of nonprofit board practices.
261

Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bohn, J. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived leadership behaviors to organizational efficacy.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 65–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900206
Bohn, J. G. (2010). Development and exploratory validation of an organizational efficacy scale.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(3), 227–251.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20048
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
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., Petitta, L., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Predicting job satisfaction
and job performance in a privatized organization. International Public Management
Journal, 13(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2010.504114
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. National Academy Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Browning, C. R., Dietz, R. D., & Feinberg, S. L. (2004). The paradox of social organization:
Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces,
83(2), 503–534. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0006
262

Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. M., & Kim, H. H. (2011). Strength in numbers: How does data-driven
decision-making affect firm performance? Social Science Research Network.
Buckingham, M. (2005). What great managers do. IEEE Engineering Management Review,
33(2), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2005.26742
Budworth, M. H. (2011). Individual learning and group performance: The role of collective
efficacy. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23, 391–401.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621111154403
Bullock, A., Firmstone, V., Frame, J., & Bedward, J. (2007). Enhancing the benefit of continuing
individual development: A randomized controlled study of personal development plans
for dentists. Learning in Health and Social Care, 6(1), 14–26.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2007.00142.x
Burgoyne, J. G. (1992). Frameworks for understanding individual and collective professional
development. Educational and Child Psychology, 9(2), 42–54.
Burke, W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Research
design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage Publications.
Cairns-Lee, H., Lawley, J., & Tosey, P. (2022). Enhancing researcher reflexivity about the
influence of leading questions in interviews. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
58(1), 164–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211037446
Capone, V., & Petrillo, G. (2015). Organizational efficacy, job satisfaction and well-being: The
Italian adaptation and validation of Bohn organizational efficacy scale. Journal of
Management Development, 34, 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2014-0008
263

Carlopio, J., Andrewartha, G., Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2012). Develop management skills.
Pearson Higher Education AU.
Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., & Zhou, J. (2005). Collective efficacy as a measure of community.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1054974
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to
assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 7(3), 244–266.
Caughron, J. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Embedded leadership: How do a leader’s superiors
impact middle-management performance? The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 342–353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.008
Caye, J. M., Strack, R., Orlander, P., Kilmann, J., Espinosa, E. G., Francoeur, F., & Haen, P.
(2010). Creating a new deal for middle managers. Empowering a neglected but critical
group (White Paper). Frankfurt/Main: Boston Consulting Group and World Federation of
People Management Associations.
Charity Navigator. (2006). Types of nonprofits.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1559
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and
collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(3), 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549
Chen, M. F. (2015). Self-efficacy or collective efficacy within the cognitive theory of stress
model: Which more effectively explains people’s self-reported proenvironmental
264

behavior? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 66–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.002
Clark, R. C. (2008). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance
improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance
Improvement, 42(3), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420305
Clark, R. E. (2005). Research‐tested team motivation strategies. Performance Improvement,
44(1), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140440107
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996). Cognitive task analysis for training. International Journal of
Educational Research, 25(5), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)81235-9
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, S. E., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2002). Peer mastery versus peer coping models: Model type
has differential effects on psychological and physical performance measures. Journal of
Human Movement Studies, 43(3), 179–196.
Clements, V. L. (2013). The essential leadership and management skills of mid-level managers
in non-profit organizations. (Publication No. 3568447) [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Cope, D. G. (2014, January). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of
qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1), 89–91.
https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.89-91
Coutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success.
Educate, 7(1), 39–47.
265

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Culture Amp. (n.d.). Report factors. https://support.cultureamp.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115004213265-Report-factors
Dachner, A. M., Ellingson, J. E., Noe, R. A., & Saxton, B. M. (2021). The future of employee
development. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), 100732.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100732
Daniel, J. (2011). Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices. Sage
Publications.
Darino, L., Sieberer, M., Vos, A., & Williams, O. (2019). Performance management in agile
organizations. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/performance-
management-in-agile-organizations
Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Gilliéron, O., & Butera, F. (2010). The interplay of mastery and
performance goals in social comparison: A multiple-goal perspective. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(1), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018161
Deaton, A. V., Wilkes, S. B., & Douglas, R. S. (2013). Strengthening the next generation: A
multi-faceted program to develop leadership capacity in emerging nonprofit leaders. The
Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 3(1).
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
266

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dolan, D. A. (2002). Training needs of administrators in the nonprofit sector: What are they and
how should we address them? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(3), 277–292.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12305
Donald, K. F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurs or rogue middle managers? A
framework for ethical corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of business ethics, 55, 13-30.
Donohoo, J., Hattie, J., & Eells, R. (2018). The power of collective efficacy. Educational
Leadership, 75(6), 40–44.
Donohoo, J., & Katz, S. (2017). When teachers believe, students achieve. The Learning
Professional, 38(6), 20–27.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Lumina Foundation for Education.
Druckman, D. E., & Bjork, R. A. (1994). Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human
performance. National Academy Press.
Du, J., Shin, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Convergent perceptions of organizational efficacy among
team members and positive work outcomes in organizational teams. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 178–202.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12085
Dubnick, M. J. (2011). Move over Daniel: We need some “accountability space.”.
Administration & Society, 43(6), 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711424569
267

Dubnick, M. J. (2014). The ontological challenge. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 649–654). Oxford
University Press.
Dubnick, M. J., & Justice, J. B. (2004, September 2_5). Accounting for accountability [Paper
presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston,
MA, United States.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eisele, L., Grohnert, T., Beausaert, S., & Segers, M. (2013). Employee motivation for personal
development plan effectiveness. European Journal of Training and Development, 37,
527–543. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2013-0015
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Secondary lenses on learning participant book:
Team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools, 313-344.
Elwyn, G., & Hocking, P. (2000). Organisational development in general practice: Lessons from
practice and professional development plans (PPDPs). BMC Family Practice, 1(1), 2–9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-1-2
Evans, A., Ali, S., Singleton, C., Nolan, P., & Bahrami, J. (2002). The effectiveness of personal
education plans in continuing professional development: An evaluation. Medical
Teacher, 24(1), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00034980120103478
Farmer, S., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power:
An identity dependence model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1069–1083.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1069
268

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. (2009).
Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors
influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 545–561.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331075
Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Professional growth plans: Possibilities and limitations of an organization
wide employee development strategy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1),
59–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1050
Ferguson, C. (2002). Using the revised taxonomy to plan and deliver team-taught, integrated,
thematic units. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 238–243.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_6
Fernández‐Ballesteros, R., Díez‐Nicolás, J., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A.
(2002). Determinants and structural relation of personal efficacy to collective efficacy.
Applied Psychology, 51(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00081
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role
conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259268
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: The foundation of
effective implementation. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 6(4), 27–39.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1992.4274459
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1996). The strategic middle manager. Jossey-Bass.
269

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and
organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00059
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325361
Froelich, K., McKee, G., & Rathge, R. (2011). Succession planning in nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20037
Frumkin, P., & Keating, E. K. (2010). The price of doing good: Executive compensation in
nonprofit organizations. Policy and Society, 29(3), 269–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.004
Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapoport, T., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1982). The organizational context of
individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 7–30.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001007
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
Genis, M. (2008). So many leadership programs, so little change: Why many leadership
development efforts fall short. Journal for Nonprofit Management, 12(1), 32–40.
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An
empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group & Organization Management,
25(1), 67–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100251005
270

Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258514
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective
efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
62(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062001007
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3),
3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative
Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Gothard, S., & Austin, M. (2013). Leadership succession planning: Implications for nonprofit
human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 272–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.684741
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. (2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change
approach. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 135–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697011003795602
Granger, B., Marrs, S., Belliard, T., & Em, E. (2021). 2022 Employee experience trends: The 4
things your people need to know. Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
271

Guerra‐López, I., & Hutchinson, A. (2013). Measurable and continuous performance
improvement: The development of a performance measurement, management, and
improvement system. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21151
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-
efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators
of observed relationships. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819
Hamstra, M. R., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2014). Transformational and
transactional leadership and followers’ achievement goals. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 29(3), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9322-9
Hannum, K. M., Deal, J., Howard, L. L., Lu, L., Ruderman, M. N., Stawiski, S., & Price, R.
(2011). Emerging leadership in nonprofit organizations: Myths, meaning, and
motivations. Center for Creative Leadership, American Express. Leadership Academy.
Harrison, J. S., Hall, E. H., Jr., & Nargundkar, R. (2017). Resource allocation as an outcropping
of strategic consistency: Performance implications. Academy of Management Journal,
36(5), 1026–1051.
Hattie, J. (2016, July 11). Mindframes and maximizers [Paper presentation]. Third Annual
Visible Learning Conference. Washington, DC, United States.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Blue, A., Plowman, S. K., Josh, P., & Asplund, J.
(2020). The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes.
Gallup Poll Consulting University Press.
272

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-
Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, (Spring/Summer), 17–19.
Hermkens, F., & Romme, A. G. L. (2020). The role of middle management in continuous
improvement: The Bermuda Triangle of leadership, implementation and behavioral
change. Journal of Management Policies and Practices, 8(1), 24–35.
https://doi.org/10.15640/jmpp.v8n1a5
Heyden, M. L., Fourné, S. P., Koene, B. A., Werkman, R., & Ansari, S. (2017). Rethinking ‘top‐
down’ and ‘bottom‐up’ roles of top and middle managers in organizational change:
Implications for employee support. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7), 961–985.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12258
Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 23(1), 48–59.
Hopkins, K., Meyer, M., Shera, W., & Peters, S. C. (2014). Leadership challenges facing
nonprofit human service organizations in a post-recession era. Human Service
Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(5), 419–422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2014.977208
Internal Revenue Service. (2022). Publication 557: Tax-exempt status for your organization.
U. S. Department of the Treasury. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf
Jackson, C. L., & LePine, J. A. (2003). Peer responses to a team’s weakest link: A test and
extension of LePine and Van Dyne’s model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3),
459–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.459
273

Jelínková, L. (2017). Factors influencing the implementation and continuous improvement of the
performance management system. KnE Social Sciences, 242–256.
Johnson, E. S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model
of accountability in education complicity. An International Journal of Complexity and
Education, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8777
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their
predictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group
performance. Group & Organization Management, 28(3), 366–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102250821
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L. (1994). Goal setting,
conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.79.6.826
Kezar, A. (2001). Research-Based Principles of Change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4),
147.
Kheirandish, M. (2014). Measuring the personal and organizational goals alignment: Developing
a practical model. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 3(2), 125–132.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and
Development Journal, 33(6), 78–92.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
274

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
Knies, E., Leisink, P., & Kraus-Hoogeveen, S. (2018). Frontline managers’ contribution to
mission achievement: A study of how people management affects thoughtful care.
Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 42(2), 166–184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2017.1422067
Knowles, M. S. (1980). From pedagogy to andragogy. Religious Education.
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
Trustworthiness and publishing. The European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–
124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
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
Kurpius, S. E. R., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly guide.
Sage.
Larson, C., & LaFasto, F. J. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right; what can go wrong. Sage.
Lawlor, K. B., & Hornyak, M. (2012). Smart goals: How the application of smart goals can
contribute to achievement of student learning outcomes. In Developments in business
simulation and experiential learning. Developments in Business Simulation and
Experiential Learning, 39, 259–260.
275

Lazear, E. P., Shaw, K. L., & Stanton, C. T. (2015). The value of bosses. Journal of Labor
Economics, 33(4), 823–861. https://doi.org/10.1086/681097
Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more
effectively. Harvard Business School Press.
Lee, C., Esen, E., & DiNicola, S. (2017). Employee job satisfaction and engagement: The doors
of opportunity are open. Society for Human Resource Management.
Lee, T. W., & Ko, Y. K. (2010). Effects of self‐efficacy, affectivity and collective efficacy on
nursing performance of hospital nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(4), 839–848.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05244.x
Lee, Y., & Suh, J. (2018). Managerial development programs for executive directors and
accountability practices in nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 38(4), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16674783
Lejeune, C., Mercuri, D., Beausaert, S., & Raemdonck, I. (2016). Personal development plans
supporting employee learning and perceived performance: The moderating role of self-
directedness. Human Resource Development International, 19(4), 307–328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1203639
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal
difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1153–1167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1153
Levy, G. D., & Ronco, S. L. (2012). How benchmarking and higher education came together.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2012(156), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20026
276

Liebler, M. S. (2019). Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance
management: An evaluation study. (Publication No. 27788505) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Doctoral
dissertation.
Libby, T., Salterio, S. E., & Webb, A. (2004). The balanced scorecard: The effects of assurance
and process accountability on managerial judgment. The Accounting Review, 79(4),
1075–1094. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.1075
Linscott, K. G. (2011). Filling the leadership pipeline: Driving forces and their effect on the next
generation of nonprofit leaders. SPNHA Review, 7(1), 4.
Liu, J., Chen, J., & Tao, Y. (2015). Innovation performance in new product development teams
in China’s technology ventures: The role of behavioral integration dimensions and
collective efficacy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 29–44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12177
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.
Marijn Poortvliet, P., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement
goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information
exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1435–1447.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207305536
Marijn Poortvliet, P. M., Anseel, F., & Theuwis, F. (2015). Mastery-approach and mastery-
avoidance goals and their relation with exhaustion and engagement at work: The roles of
277

emotional and instrumental support. Work and Stress, 29(2), 150–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1031856
Marijn Poortvliet, P. M., & Darnon, C. (2010). Toward a more social understanding of
achievement goals: The interpersonal effects of mastery and performance goals. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 324–328.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410383246
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401106
Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an integrative
model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review,
1(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011002
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011a). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
Mayer, R. E. (2011b). Does styles research have useful implications for educational practice?
Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 319–320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.016
McChesney, C., Covey, S., & Huling, J. (2012). The 4 disciplines of execution: Achieving your
wildly important goals (Vol. 34, No. 10). Simon and Schuster.
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
McCullagh, P., & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Observational learning: The forgotten psychological
method in sport psychology. In J. L. Van Raalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport
278

and exercise psychology (pp. 131–149). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10465-007
McDowell, W. C. (2022). The impact of organizational efficacy and flexibility on small business
performance. The Coastal Business Journal, 12(1), 1.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
McGurk, P. (2010). Outcomes of management and leadership development. Journal of
Management Development, 29, 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039222
McKee, G., & Froelich, K. (2016). Executive succession planning: Barriers and substitutes in
nonprofit organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(4), 587–601.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12129
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’
construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions [Review of Turning research into results: A guide to
selecting the right performance solutions]. Performance Improvement, 43(1), 44–46.
Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140430110
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Sage.
279

Mirzaei, F., Phang, F. A., Sulaiman, S., Kashefi, H., & Ismail, Z. (2012). Mastery goals,
performance goals, students’ beliefs and academic success: Metacognition as a mediator.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3603–3608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.113
Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1001–1015.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1958
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 12, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010316226
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-)
equity. In A. Diller (Ed.), The gender question in education (pp. 105–122). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429496530-11
Moura, T. (2017). Extra step: Research limitations. LiveInnovation.org.
https://liveinnovation.org/why-addressing-the-limitations-of-your-research-is-so-
important/
Mulder, G. (1986). The concept and measurement of mental effort. In G. R. J. Hockey et al.
(eds.), Energetics and human information processing (pp. 175–198). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4448-0_12
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 7.
Pagdonsolan, M. M. H., Balan, D. J. S., Mariscal, K. D., & Chiu, J. L. (2020). Impact of
continuous performance management on job autonomy, motivation, and turnover intent
280

of employees in multinational companies within metro manila. Review of Integrative
Business and Economics Research, 9(2), 63-89.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents, 5, 339-367.
Patras, J., & Klest, S. K. (2013). Development of a collective efficacy measure for use in social
service organizations. Journal of Social Work, 13(1), 96–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017311412034
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
Payne, K., Cangemi, J. P., Fuqua, H., & Muhleakamp, R. (1998). Leadership and employee
empowerment: The foundation for organizational success and profit in the twenty-first
century. In J. P. Cangemi, C. J. Kowalski, & K. H. Khan (Eds.), Leadership behavior (pp.
119–130). University Press of America.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (Part 3 of 3). REL 2016-164. Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
Perez Jolles, M., Collins-Camargo, C., McBeath, B., Bunger, A. C., & Chuang, E. (2017).
Managerial strategies to influence frontline worker understanding of performance
measures in nonprofit child welfare agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
46(6), 1166–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017728366
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects
of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430200033005
281

Petitta, L., & Borgogni, L. (2011). Differential correlates of group and organizational collective
efficacy. European Psychologist, 16(3), 187–197. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000035
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Prins, S. J., Bates, L. M., Keyes, K. M., & Muntaner, C. (2015). Anxious? Depressed? You
might be suffering from capitalism: Contradictory class locations and the prevalence of
depression and anxiety in the USA. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(8), 1352–1372.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12315
Pukkeeree, P., Na-Nan, K., & Wongsuwan, N. (2020). Effect of attainment value and positive
thinking as moderators of employee engagement and innovative work behaviour. Journal
of Open Innovation, 6(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030069
Rampersad, H. K. (2005). Total Performance Scorecard: Aligning Human Capital with Business
Strategy and Ethics. Nanyang Business Review, 4(1), 72–99.
Renz, D. O. (2016). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. John
Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176558
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. Sage publications.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the
Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227–238.
https://doi.org/10.2307/975901
Rosenberg, S. (2017, March 13). Respectful collection of demographic data. Medium.
https://medium.com/managing-on-the-margins/respectful-collection-of-demographic-
data-56de9fcb80e2
282

Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive
competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953–983.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00941.x
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Saini, P. (2021). Performance management system. International Journal of Innovative Science
and Research Technology, 6(6).
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016. Sage.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., Bozer, G., Esposito, M., & Bassi, A. (2015). Nonprofit executive
succession planning and organizational sustainability. The Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 66–83.
https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.00006
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill (Eds.), Research methods for
business students (5th ed, pp. 128–171). Pearson Education India.
Schein, E. H. (1992). How can organizations learn faster?: The problem of entering the Green
Room. MIT Sloan School of Management.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2399/SWP-3409-45882883.pdf
283

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 5). John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., & Blankenship, M. (2018). Employee engagement: What we know and how to
profit from doing it. Employment Relations Today, 44(3), 7–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.21635
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions
for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Psychology of classroom learning: An Encyclopedia.
USA: Jay Flynn.
Schunk, D. H. (1986). Vicarious influences on self-efficacy for cognitive skill learning. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 316–327.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.316
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Scott, S. N. & Palincsar, A. S. (2006). Sociocultural theory. http://www.education.
com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Currency Doubleday.
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the
crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational
Psychologist, 46(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
Sepdiningtyas, R., & Santoso, C. B. (2017). The influence of leader-member exchange on
individual performance: The roles of work engagement as a mediating variable and co-
284

workers support as a moderating variable. Review of Integrative Business and Economics
Research, 6(4), 285.
Shamir, B., Brainin, E., Zakay, E., & Popper, M. (2009). Perceived combat readiness as
collective efficacy: Individual-and group-level analysis. Military Psychology, 12(2), 105–
119. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1202_2.
Shaw, K. L. (2019). Bosses matter: The effects of managers on workers’ performance. IZA
World of Labor: Evidence-Based Policy Making. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.456
Shi, W., Markoczy, L., & Dess, G. G. (2009). The role of middle management in the strategy
process: Group affiliation, structural holes, and tertius iungens. Journal of Management,
35(6), 1453–1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309346338
Shuck, M. B., & Wollard, K. K. (2008). Employee engagement: Motivating and retaining
tomorrow’s workforce. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource
Development, 22(1), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.10299
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Sijbom, R. B., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2013). Leaders’ management of creative
ideas: The joint impact of achievement goals and position power. Proceedings - Academy
of Management, 2013(1), 13957. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.19
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Dissertation
Success, LLC.
Smith, R. W., Orlando, E., & Berta, W. (2018). Enabling continuous learning and quality
improvement in health care: The role of learning models for performance management.
285

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 31(6), 587–599.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0198
Smith, J. G., Morin, K. H., Wallace, L. E., & Lake, E. T. (2018). Association of the nurse work
environment, collective efficacy, and missed care. Western Journal of Nursing Research,
40(6), 779–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945917734159
Spacey, J. (2021). 19 examples of social bias. Simplicable. https://simplicable.com/en/social-bias
Speckbacher, G. (2013). The use of incentives in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 1006–1025.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012447896
Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 12(3), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.12.3.301
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group
performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659
Stanley, L. J., & McDowell, W. (2014). The role of interorganizational trust and organizational
efficacy in family and nonfamily firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 264–
275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.07.001
Stanton, P., & Nankervis, A. (2011). Linking strategic HRM, performance management and
organizational effectiveness: Perceptions of managers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Business
Review, 17(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381003790382
Stewart, A. J., & Diebold, J. (2017). Turnover at the top: Investigating performance-turnover
sensitivity among nonprofit organizations. Public Performance & Management Review,
40(4), 741–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1340900
286

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86.
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2013). Mastering one’s destiny: Mastery goals promote challenge
and success despite social identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
39(6), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213481067
Stuckey, H. L. (2013). Three types of interviews: Qualitative research methods in social health.
Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 1(02), 056–059.
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques
do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426
Symes, W., & Putwain, D. (2016). The role of attainment value, academic self-efficacy and
message frame in the appraisal of value-promoting messages. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12117
Tansky, J. W., & Cohen, D. J. (2001). The relationship between organizational support,
employee development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.15
Tarakci, M., Ateş, N. Y., Floyd, S. W., Ahn, Y., & Wooldridge, B. (2018). Performance
feedback and middle managers’ divergent strategic behavior: The roles of social
comparisons and organizational identification. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4),
1139–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2745
Thaker, J., Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A., Zhao, X., & Howe, P. (2016). The role of collective
efficacy in climate change adaptation in India. Weather, Climate, and Society, 8(1), 21–
34. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00037.1
287

Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing-Quarterly Scientific, 7(3), 155–163.
The Research Advisors. (2006). Sample size table. http://research-
advisors/com/tools/SampleSize.htm
Tierney, T. J. (2006). The leadership deficit. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4(2), 26–35.
Tolleson Knee, R., & Folsom, J. (2012). Bridging the crevasse between direct practice social
work and management by increasing the transferability of core skills. Administration in
Social Work, 36(4), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2011.604402
Toupin, L., & Plewes, B. (2009). Exploring the looming leadership deficit in the voluntary and
nonprofit sector. Philanthropist, 21(2), 128–137.
Traynor, S., Wellens, M. A., & Krishnamoorthy, V. (2021). Continuous performance
management. SAP SuccessFactors Talent, 1, 613–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4842-6600-7_13
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223–248). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544329611.n12
University of Southern California. (n.d.). Office for the Protection of Human Subjects:
Institutional Review Board. https://oprs.usc.edu/irb/
National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, H. R. 2010, 103rd Cong. (1993).
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d.). The Belmont Report.
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf
288

Van Yperen, N. W., Elliot, A. J., & Anseel, F. (2009). The influence of mastery‐avoidance goals
on performance improvement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 932–943.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.590
Van Yperen, N. W., Hamstra, M. R., & van der Klauw, M. (2011). To win, or not to lose, at any
cost: The impact of achievement goals on cheating. British Journal of Management, 22,
S5–S15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00702.x
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education. Peter Lang.
Vincent, D., & Marmo, S. (2018). Commitment to social justice and its influence on job
satisfaction and retention of nonprofit middle managers. Human Service Organizations,
Management, Leadership & Governance, 42(5), 457–473.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2018.1532370
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the
relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 515–530.
https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596441
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. McREL
International.
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024
289

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development
of achievement motivation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel, &
A. Wigfield (Eds), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 55-76). Routledge Taylor
Francis Group.
Williams, G., & Beck, V. (2018). From annual ritual to daily routine: Continuous performance
management and its consequences for employment security. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 33(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12106
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee engagement: A structured review
of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 429–446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431220
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational performance
in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 46(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90028-8
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on
strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of
management, 34(6), 1190-1221.
290

Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2014, November 24). Why middle managers are so unhappy?
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/11/why-middle-managers-are-so-unhappy
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The
employee‐organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the
organization. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 111–132.

291

Appendix A: KMO Survey Crosswalk
Assumed influence Survey item
Knowledge
Central-office middle managers need to
design goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. (Procedural knowledge)

In one sentence, please design a goal which
aligns with the example organizational goal and
vertical goa.ls below. (Procedural knowledge;
open-ended)

Organizational goal: City Year will not exceed its
budgeted expenses in FY24.

Vertical goal: Our Vertical will not exceed its
budgeted expenses in FY24.

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need to
design performance-progress monitoring
reports which communicate key points of
performance during performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (Procedural
knowledge)
Please identify the critical elements to an
effective performance progress report. You may
select multiple items. (Procedural knowledge;
choose from list)

a. Timely and accurate performance data
related to individual and team performance
goals
b. Action to be taken prior to the next
performance-progress monitoring meeting
working toward the achievement of individual
and team performance goals
c. Actions taken since the previous
performance-progress monitoring meeting to
work toward the achievement of individual and
team performance goals
d. Reporting on barriers to performance
experienced since the previous performance-
progress monitoring meeting
e. Reporting on performance successes
experienced since the previous performance-
progress monitoring meetings

Optional: Are there any others you might add?
292

Assumed influence Survey item
Central-office middle managers need to
design individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals.
(Procedural knowledge)
Please identify the critical elements of an
effective individual development plan. You
may select multiple items (Procedural
knowledge; choose from list)

a. Self-assessment/reflection
b. Current performance goals (outputs or
outcomes)
c. Current mastery goals (comprehension or
skill development)
d. Resources and supports needed achieve
goals while striving to achieve goals
e. Action plans to guide performance and
learning while striving to achieve goals
f. Evaluation plan to guide performance and
learning

Optional: Are there any others you might add?
Motivation
Central-office middle managers need to find
it important to design goals aligned with
division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Attainment
value)
I find it important to my role to design individual
goals that are aligned with vertical operating
plans and organizational strategic plans.
(Attainment value: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need to find
it important to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Attainment value)
I find it important to my role for me to participate
in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Attainment value: 7-point Likert-
type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need to find
it important to design individual
development plans which align with their
annual goals. (Attainment value)
I find it important to my role to design an
individual development plan which aligns with
my annual goals. (Attainment value: 7-point
Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
293

Assumed influence Survey item
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to design goals
aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Self-
efficacy)
I am confident in my ability to design individual
goals aligned with my verticals operating plan
and organizational strategic plans. (Self-
efficacy: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to participate in
regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Self-efficacy)
I am confident in my ability to participate in
regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Self-efficacy: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to design
individual development plans aligned with
their annual goals. (Self-efficacy)
I am confident in my ability to design an
individual development plan aligned with my
annual goals. (Self-efficacy: 7-point Likert-
type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design goals aligned with
division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Team-
efficacy)
I am confident in my direct report team’s ability
to design goals aligned with our vertical’s
operating plan and organizational strategic
plans. (Team-efficacy: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Team-efficacy)
I am confident in my direct report team’s ability
to participate in our regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Team-efficacy:
7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.
(Team-efficacy)
I am confident in my direct report team’s ability
to design individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals. (Team-efficacy: 7-point
Likert-type)

294

Assumed influence Survey item
Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of designing goals aligned
with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Goals)
The purpose of designing goals aligned with
vertical operating plans and organizational
strategic plans is clear to me. (Goals: 7-point
Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Goals)
The purpose of participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings is
clear to me. (Goals: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of designing individual
development plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Goals)
The purpose of designing individual development
plans aligned with my annual goals is clear to
me. (Goals: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
Organization
TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office
middle managers when designing goals
aligned with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Cultural
models)
My organization has a culture of accountability
which supports me when I am designing goals
aligned with vertical operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Cultural models:
7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office
middle managers when participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Cultural models)
My organization has a culture of accountability
which supports me when I am participating in
regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Cultural models: 7-point Likert-
type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
295

Assumed influence Survey item
TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office
middle managers when designing
individual development plans aligned with
their annual goals. (Cultural models)

My organization has a culture of accountability
which supports me when I am designing my
individual development plan which is aligned
with my annual goals. (Cultural models: 7-point
Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have practices to support
central-office middle managers when
designing goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. (Cultural settings)
My organization has practices which support me
when I am designing goals aligned with vertical
operating plans and organizational strategic
plans. (Cultural settings, 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have tools to support central-
office middle managers when designing
goals aligned with division operating
plans and organizational strategic plans.
(Cultural settings)
My organization has tools which support me
when I am designing goals aligned with vertical
operating plans and organizational strategic
plans. (Cultural settings: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have practices to support
central-office middle managers when
participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural
settings)
My organization has practices which support me
when I am participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural
settings: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have tools to support central-
office middle managers when
participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural
settings)
My organization has tools which support me
when I am participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural
settings: 7-point Likert-type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have practices to support
central-office middle managers when
designing individual development plans
My organization has practices which support me
when I am designing my individual
development plan which is aligned with my
296

Assumed influence Survey item
aligned with their annual goals. (Cultural
settings)
annual goals. (Cultural settings: 7-point Likert-
type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.
TTP needs to have tools to support central-
office middle managers when designing
individual development plans aligned with
their annual goals. (Cultural settings)
My organization has tools which support me
when I am designing my individual
development plan which is aligned with my
annual goals. (Cultural settings: 7-point Likert-
type)

Optional: Please share any additional context for
your response.

297

Appendix B: KMO Survey Protocol
The principal researcher posed the following multiple-choice and open-ended questions
to all TTP central-office middle managers through a Qualtrics.com online survey. Parenthetical
notations identify the relationship between a survey item and the Clarke & Estes KMO Gap
Analysis framework and will not appear in the participant survey.
The introduction to the survey will proceed as follows:
Thank you for your willingness to take the Middle Manager Survey!
Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions about research-based factors
which contribute to organizational efficacy from your perspective as a central-office middle
manager at Trust the Process, Inc.
Important: Your responses are entirely anonymous and will help design specific
recommendations to be shared with TTP’s leadership about how best to support you and your
central-office middle manager colleagues’ development of organizational efficacy. I am grateful
for your candid responses.
Demographics
1. Tenure: How long have you served in your role or in a role at the same organizational
level? (Demographics)
• 0–1 years
• 2–3 years
• 3–5 years
• 5–10 years
• 10+ years

298

2. Vertical: Please identify the vertical team that you serve on. (Demographics)
• EPIC
• finance and administration
• operations
• planning and improvement
• people
• ransformation
Motivation
3. I find it important to my role to design individual goals that are aligned with vertical
operating plans and organizational strategic plans. (Attainment value; 7-point Likert-
type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
4. I find it important to my role for me to participate in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (Attainment value) (7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
299

• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
5. I find it important to my role to design an individual development plan which aligns
with my annual goals. (Attainment value) (7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
6. I am confident in my ability to design individual goals aligned with my vertical’s
operating plan and organizational strategic plans. (Self-efficacy) (7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
300

• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
7. I am confident in my ability to participate in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (Self-efficacy; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
8. I am confident in my ability to design an individual development plan aligned with
my annual goals. (Self-efficacy; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
301

9. I am confident in my direct report team’s ability to design goals aligned with our
vertical’s operating plan and organizational strategic plans. (Team-efficacy; 7-point
Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
10. I am confident in my direct report team’s ability to participate in our regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings. (Team-efficacy; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
11. I am confident in my direct report team’s ability to design individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals. (Team-efficacy; 7-point Likert-type)
302

• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
12. The purpose of designing goals aligned with vertical operating plans and
organizational strategic plans is clear to me. (Goals; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
13. The purpose of participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings is
clear to me. (Goals; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
303

• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
14. The purpose of designing individual development plans aligned with my annual goals
is clear to me. (Goals; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
Organizational Factors
15. My organization has a culture of accountability which supports me when I am
designing goals aligned with vertical operating plans and organizational strategic
plans. (Cultural models; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
304

• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
16. My organization has a culture of accountability which supports me when I am
participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural models;
7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
17. My organization has a culture of accountability which supports me when I am
designing my individual development plan which is aligned with my annual goals.
(Cultural models; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
305

• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
18. My organization has practices which support me when I am designing goals aligned
with vertical operating plans and organizational strategic plans. (Cultural settings; 7-
point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
19. My organization has practices which support me when I am participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural settings; 7-point Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
306

Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
20. My organization has practices which support me when I am designing my individual
development plan which is aligned with my annual goals. (Cultural settings; 7-point
Likert-type)
• strongly disagree
• disagree
• somewhat disagree
• somewhat agree
• agree
• strongly agree
• not sure
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
Knowledge
21. In one sentence, please design an individual goal which aligns with the example
organizational goal and vertical goals below. (Procedural knowledge; open-ended)
• Organizational goal: City Year will not exceed its budgeted expenses in FY24.
• Vertical goal: Our vertical will not exceed its budgeted expenses in FY24.
Optional: Please share any additional context for your response.
22. Please identify the critical elements of an effective performance progress report. You
may select multiple items. (Procedural knowledge; choose from list)
• timely and accurate performance data related to individual and team
performance goals
307

• action to be taken prior to the next performance-progress monitoring meeting
working toward the achievement of individual and team performance goals
• actions taken since the previous performance-progress monitoring meeting to
work toward the achievement of individual and team performance goals
• reporting on barriers to performance experienced since the previous
performance-progress monitoring meeting
• reporting on performance successes experienced since the previous
performance-progress monitoring meetings
Optional: Are there any others you might add?
23. Please identify the critical elements to an effective individual development plan. You
may select multiple items (Procedural knowledge; choose from list)
• self-assessment/reflection
• current performance goals (outputs or outcomes)
• current mastery goals (comprehension or skill development)
• resources and supports needed achieve goals while striving to achieve goals
• action plans to guide performance and learning while striving to achieve goals
• evaluation plan to guide performance and learning
Optional: Are there any others you might add?
Interview Invitation
Would you be willing to participate in a 45- to 60-minute follow-up interview to further
explore your perspectives related to performance management structures and organizational
efficacy?
308

• Yes, I would be willing to participate in a follow-up interview if contacted by the
researcher.
• No, I would prefer not to be contacted to participate in a follow-up interview.
Please share the email address you’d prefer to be contacted at if selected to participate in
a follow-up interview. (Note: This information is for communication purposes only.)
Share email address here.
Thank you for your participation!

309

Appendix C: Survey Recruiting Communications
The following email will be sent to TTP’s central-office middle managers
Pre-Survey: Initial Email to Request Study Participation
Dear Dr., Ms., or Mr. ___________
My name is Daniel Foley, and I am a doctorate student at the University of Southern
California. I am conducting research on understanding the needs shaping the organizational
efficacy perceptions for nonprofit middle managers. My goal as a student practitioner is to
provide insight to our field as to how we might be able to collaborate to overcome some of the
challenges we are facing. Ultimately it is my hope that this information will benefit nonprofit
middle managers specifically and nonprofit professionals in general. I assure you that
information acquired will remain anonymous as will the organization.
I have received IRB approval and am in the stage of my dissertation where I am gathering
data. I am conducting a survey with City Year, Inc.’s Headquarters Vice Presidents. All
participant and organizational information will be completely confidential. While I know how
busy you are, it would mean the world to me if you would consider giving 15–20 minutes of
your time to respond to the questionnaire linked below as a part of my data collection phase.
Over the next 3 weeks, I will send two additional requests to participate in the survey
unless you have indicated your desire to not participate in the survey. I will share the findings of
the study with you prior to them being published if that would be of value to you.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Daniel Foley
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California
310

Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Nonprofit Middle Manager Perceptions of Organizational Efficacy: A Gap
Analysis
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Daniel Foley, Doctoral Candidate
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Adrian J. Donato

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand the catalysts of organizational efficacy perceptions
among nonprofit middle managers. I hope to learn more about the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors required to support the development of middle manager organizational
efficacy. You are invited as a participant because of your specific role within your organization,
which fits the defined research population of the study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You are asked to respond to a survey about the research topic. The survey is expected to take no
more than 20 minutes to complete. All responses will be anonymous and confidential. Neither
you nor your organization will be named or alluded to in a manner that would provide
identification.
There is no ‘prework’ necessary for the survey, and it can be taken at a time most convenient to
you during a three-week window.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
If/When the findings of the research are published or discussed in academic or professional
settings, no identifiable information will be used.
Responses will not have any direct reference to the full name of the participant and will be used
solely for the purpose of analysis. The responses will remain in the sole possession of the
research team and will be destroyed following the completion and final approval of the study.
311

The study is expected to be fully completed by June 1, 2023. For this study, the Research Team
is the researcher and the Chair of the researcher’s dissertation committee.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Daniel Foley, foleyd@usc.edu,
213.271.5104, or Dr. Adrian J. Donato: adonato@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 01/ 25/2021

312

Appendix E: KMO Interview Crosswalk
Assumed influence Interview items Research
question
alignment
Knowledge
Central-office middle managers need to
design goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. (K, procedural)
Can you tell me how you might
design an individual
performance goal to ensure
that it was aligned with your
vertical’s operating plans and
organizational strategic plans?
(K, procedural)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need to
design performance-progress monitoring
reports which communicate key points
of performance during performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (K,
procedural)
Can you tell me how you might
design a performance-progress
monitoring report which
communicates key points
during performance-progress
monitoring meetings? (K,
procedural)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need to
design individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals. (K,
procedural)
Can you tell me how you might
design an individual
development plan that is
aligned with your annual
goals? (K, procedural)
1 and 2
Motivation
Central-office middle managers need to
find it important to design goals aligned
with division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans.
(Attainment value)
How important is it for you to
design individual goals that
are aligned with vertical
operating plans and
organizational strategic plans?
(Attainment value)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need to
find it important to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Attainment value)
How important is it for you to
participate in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Attainment value)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need to
find it important to design individual
How important is it for you to
design individual development
plans which align with your
1 and 2
313

Assumed influence Interview items Research
question
alignment
development plans which align with
their annual goals. (Attainment value)
annual goals? (Attainment
value)

Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to design
goals aligned with division operating
plans and organizational strategic plans.
(Self-efficacy)
How confident are you in your
ability to design goals aligned
with your vertical’s operating
plan and organizational
strategic plans? (Self-efficacy)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to participate
in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (Self-efficacy)
How confident are you in your
ability to participate in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings? (Self-
efficacy)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their ability to design
individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals. (Self-efficacy)
How confident are you in your
ability to design individual
development plans aligned
with your annual goals? (Self-
efficacy)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design goals aligned with
division operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Team-
efficacy)
How confident are you in your
direct report team’s ability to
design goals aligned with your
vertical’s operating plan and
organizational strategic plans?
(Team-efficacy)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Team-efficacy)
How confident are you in your
direct report team’s ability to
participate in your regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings? (Team-
efficacy)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need
confidence in their direct report team’s
ability to design individual development
plans aligned with their annual goals.
(Team-efficacy)
How confident are you in your
direct report team’s ability to
design individual development
plans aligned with their annual
goals? (Team-efficacy)
1 and 2
314

Assumed influence Interview items Research
question
alignment
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of designing goals aligned
with vertical operating plans and
organizational strategic plans. (Goals)
What do you perceive to be the
goal or purpose of designing
goals aligned with your
division’s operating plans and
organizational strategic plans?
(Goals)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring
meetings. (Goals)
What do you perceive to be the
goal or purpose of
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings? (Goals)
1 and 2
Central-office middle managers need to
know the goal of designing individual
development plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Goals)
What do you perceive to be the
goal or purpose of designing
individual development plans
aligned with your annual
goals? (Goals)
1 and 2
Organization
TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office
middle managers when designing goals
aligned with division operating plans
and organizational strategic plans.
(Cultural models)
How would you say the
organization’s culture of
accountability affects your
approach to designing goals
aligned with vertical operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans? (Cultural
models)
1 and 2
TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office
middle managers when participating in
regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (Cultural models)
How would you say the
organization’s culture of
accountability affects your
approach to participating in
regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Cultural models)
1 and 2
TTP needs to have a culture of
accountability to support central-office
middle managers when designing
individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals. (Cultural
models)
How would you say the
organization’s culture of
accountability affects your
approach to designing your
individual development plan
1 and 2
315

Assumed influence Interview items Research
question
alignment
aligned with your annual
goals? (Cultural models)
TTP needs to have practices to support
central-office middle managers when
designing goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. (Cultural settings)
How would you say the
organization’s practices or
lack thereof affect you when
designing goals aligned with
your vertical’s operating plans
and organizational strategic
plans? (Cultural settings)
1 and 2
TTP needs to have tools to support
central-office middle managers when
designing goals aligned with division
operating plans and organizational
strategic plans. (Cultural settings)
How would you say the
organization’s tools or lack
thereof affect you when
designing goals aligned with
your vertical’s operating plans
and organizational strategic
plans? (Cultural settings)
1 and 2
TTP needs to have practices to support
central-office middle managers when
participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural
settings)
How would you say the
organization’s practices or
lack thereof affect you when
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Cultural settings)
1 and 2
TTP needs to have tools to support
central-office middle managers when
participating in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings. (Cultural
settings)
How would you say the
organization’s tools or lack
thereof affect you when
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings?
(Cultural settings)
1 and 2
TTP needs to have practices supporting
central-office middle managers to design
individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals. (Cultural
settings)
How would you say the
organization’s practices or
lack thereof affect you when
designing your individual
development plans aligned
with your annual goals?
(Cultural settings)
1 and 2
316

Assumed influence Interview items Research
question
alignment
TTP needs to have tools to support
central-office middle managers to design
individual development plans aligned
with their annual goals. (Cultural
settings)
How would you say the
organization’s tools or lack
thereof affect you when
designing your individual
development plans aligned
with your annual goals?
(Cultural settings)
1 and 2

317

Appendix F: KMO Interview Protocol
The principal researcher will ask the following questions to eight central-office middle
managers. A semi-structured approach will guide the usage of pre-designed questions. Probing
questions will be utilized to clarify interviewee responses. Parenthetical notations identify the
relationship between an interview item and the Clarke & Estes KMO Gap Analysis framework
and will not appear during the interview.
Each interview will proceed as follows:
Thank you for making time to meet with me today. Over the next 45mins to 1 hour, I will
be asking you several semi-structured questions to help shape my understanding of the
organizational efficacy perspectives of middle managers based on your insights.
I know you have previously agreed to participate in this voluntary interview, but I will
ask again if you are still willing to proceed with the interview?
{Pause to allow for response}
If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer, this is fine, and you are free to
request the conclusion of the interview at any time and for any reason.
I would like to record our conversation using the record function in zoom so as to most
effectively capture your contributions. The recording will only be viewed by me and used strictly
for note-taking purposes. Are you comfortable with me recording?
{Pause to allow for response}
Lastly, I want to make a brief note on confidentiality. It is not my intention to share
information regarding your specific participation in this data collection process, to include any
direct quotes of yours in my reporting, or to attribute any elements of my reporting to you
318

directly. Prior to submitting the results and findings discussion section of my dissertation, I
would be happy to share a draft with you for review if that is something you are interested in.
{Pause}
Might you have any questions for me before we begin the interview?
[Pause to allow for response; note questions asked]
Great. Let’s begin the interview.
Interview Questions
1. Can you tell me how you might design an individual performance goal to ensure that
it was aligned with your vertical’s operating plans and organizational strategic plans?
(Procedural knowledge)
2. Can you tell me how you might design a performance-progress monitoring report
which communicates key points during performance-progress monitoring meetings?
(Procedural knowledge)
3. Can you tell me how you might design an individual development plan that is aligned
with your annual goals? (Procedural knowledge)
4. How important is it for you to design individual goals that are aligned with your
vertical’s operating plans and organizational strategic plans? (Attainment value)
5. How important is it for you to participate in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings? (Attainment value)
6. How important is it for you to design individual development plans which align with
your annual goals? (Attainment value)
7. How confident are you in your ability to design goals aligned with your vertical’s
operating plan and organizational strategic plans? (Self-efficacy)
319

8. How confident are you in your ability to participate in regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings? (Self-efficacy)
9. How confident are you in your ability to design individual development plans aligned
with your annual goals? (Self-efficacy)
10. How confident are you in your direct report team’s ability to design goals aligned
with your vertical’s operating plan and organizational strategic plans? (Team-
efficacy)
11. How confident are you in your direct report team’s ability to participate in your
regular performance-progress monitoring meetings? (Team-efficacy)
12. How confident are you in your direct report team’s ability to design individual
development plans aligned with their annual goals? (Team-efficacy)
13. What do you perceive to be the goal or purpose of designing goals aligned with your
vertical’s operating plans and organizational strategic plans? (Goals)
14. What do you perceive to be the goal or purpose of participating in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings? (Goals)
15. What do you perceive to be the goal or purpose of designing individual development
plans aligned with your annual goals? (Goals)
16. How would you say the organization’s culture of accountability affects your approach
to designing goals aligned with your vertical’s operating plans and organizational
strategic plans? (Cultural models)
17. How would you say the organization’s culture of accountability affects your approach
to participating in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings? (Cultural
models)
320

18. How would you say the organization’s culture of accountability affects your
approach to designing an individual development plan that aligns with your annual
goals? (Cultural models)
19. How would you say the organization’s tools, practices, or the lack thereof affect you
when designing goals aligned with your vertical’s operating plans and organizational
strategic plans? (Cultural settings)
• Probe: How would you say the organization’s tools, practices, or the lack thereof
affect you when participating in regular performance-progress monitoring
meetings? (Cultural settings)
• Probe: How would you say the organization’s tools, practices, or the lack thereof
affect you when designing individual development plans aligned with your annual
goals? (Cultural settings)
20. Is there anything else you would like to share on the topics we have covered before
we conclude the interview?
Conclusion of the Interview
That concludes our interview. Thank you so much for your candid and comprehensive
responses to my questions.
Are there any other questions you might have for me before we end?
[Pause to allow for response; note questions asked]
Great. Thanks again, and have an excellent day.

321

Appendix G: Pre-Interview Recruiting Communications
The following email will be sent to TTP’s central-office middle managers.
Dear Dr., Ms., or Mr. ___________
My name is Daniel Foley, and I am a doctorate student at the University of Southern
California. I am conducting research on understanding the needs shaping the organizational
efficacy perceptions for nonprofit middle managers. My goal as a student practitioner is to
provide insight to our field as to how we might be able to collaborate to overcome some of the
challenges we are facing. Ultimately it is my hope that this information will benefit nonprofit
middle managers specifically and nonprofit professionals in general. I assure you that
information acquired will remain anonymous as will the organization.
I have received IRB approval and am in the stage of my dissertation where I am gathering
data. I am conducting interviews with middle managers who operate out of TPP’s central office.
All participant and organizational information will be completely confidential. While I know
how busy you are, it would mean the world to me if you would consider giving me 60 minutes of
your time to participate in an interview as a part of my data collection phase. I will share the
findings of the study with you. It would be my hope that some of these findings could be of
professional value to you.
I would like to schedule 60 minutes with you in the next week at a time and date that is
most convenient to you. Please feel free to reply to this email with some dates and times that
work best. I have also included a link to a doodle calendar in case it is easier for you to use this
method to schedule a 60-minute block of time to be interviewed: [insert link]. Thank you very
much for your time and consideration.

322

Best regards,

Daniel Foley
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California

323

Pre-Interview: Email to Confirm Participation for Study
Following the scheduling of a participant the email below will be sent to confirm
interview appointments.
Dear Dr., Ms., or Mr. ___________
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in my research study concerning the
topic of understanding the needs shaping organizational efficacy perceptions of nonprofit middle
managers. You should have received a Zoom link when you registered for an interview. In case
you do not have it, your Zoom link is: [insert link]. As a reminder, your identity will be known
only to me, and I am conducting this study for my doctoral dissertation at the University of
Southern California. I am attaching a pdf file to this email regarding the formal notice of
participant rights and the protocol surrounding how the information you provide will be used and
protected. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this.
Thank you so very much for taking time out of your schedule to assist me with this
research, and I look forward to our conversation on [insert date and time].
Best regards,
Daniel Foley
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California

324

Appendix H: Level 2 and Level 1 Post-Training Series Evaluation Ideal Responses
Level 2: Learning
Declarative knowledge

“I know it.”
I know the components of an aligned goal, performance
progress report, and script for participating in a regular
progress-monitoring meeting.

I know the sequence of actions that must be completed
over the next 90 days for me to design aligned goals
and begin regular progress-monitoring meetings.

Procedural skills

“I can do it right now.”
I know how to compile the necessary information needed
to design aligned goals and begin regular progress
reporting.

I know how to facilitate monthly or bi-monthly
performance-progress monitoring meetings with my
direct reports.

Attitude

“I believe this is worthwhile.”
I believe that designing aligned goals and regular
progress monitoring is worthwhile for my direct reports
and me.

Confidence

“I think I can do it on the job.”

I think I can perform the skills they have learned during
the training series on the job.

Commitment

“I will do it on the job.”

I will apply the skills I have learned during the training
series on the job.

Level 1: Reaction
Engagement The goal-design and progress-monitoring training series
enhanced grew my interest and engagement in
designing aligned goals and participating in regular
performance progress-monitoring meetings

Relevance The goal-design and progress-monitoring training series
was useful to my efforts to design aligned goals and
participate in regular performance progress-monitoring
meetings

Satisfaction/quality I would recommend the training series to support the
efforts of other TTP cohorts when they are designing
goals and performance-progress monitoring

325

Appendix I: Sample Level 1 and Level 2 Immediate Program Evaluation Survey
The following is a survey intended to gauge participant response to the Goal-Design and
Progress-Monitoring Training Series. Survey findings will support efforts to improve the training
series in years to come.
Please provide honest responses to all questions. Thank you for participating!
For questions 1 through 3, please respond on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 stands for Strongly
disagree and 4 stands for strongly agree. Please consider how you would have responded before
and after participating in the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series.
1. I found the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series to be interesting and
engaging. (Level 1: engagement)
2. I found the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series to be useful for
designing my goals and participating in regular performance-progress monitoring.
(Level 1: relevance)
3. I would recommend the training series for other TTP cohorts when they are designing
goals and performance-progress monitoring. (Level 1: customer satisfaction)
For questions 4 through 10, please respond on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 stands for “Not
at all” and 4 stands for “Always.” Please consider how you would have responded before and
after participating in the goal-design and progress-monitoring training series.
4. I apply the skills required to design aligned goals, participate in regular performance-
progress monitoring meetings, and support my team in doing likewise. (Level 2:
commitment)
326

5. I think I can perform skills required to design aligned goals, participate in regular
performance-progress monitoring meetings, and support my team in doing likewise.
(Level 2: confidence)
6. I believe that designing aligned goals and regular progress monitoring is worthwhile
for my direct reports and I. (Level 2: attitude)
7. I know how to compile the necessary information needed to design aligned goals and
begin regular progress reporting. (Level 2: procedural knowledge)
8. I know how to facilitate monthly or bi-monthly performance-progress monitoring
meetings with my direct reports. (Level 2: procedural knowledge)
9. I know the components of an aligned goal, performance progress report, and script for
participating in a regular progress-monitoring meeting. (Level 2: declarative
knowledge)
10. I know the sequence of actions that must be completed over the next 90 days for me
to design aligned goals and begin regular progress-monitoring meetings. (Level 2:
declarative)

327

Appendix J: Sample Survey Measuring Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Level 3 Critical
Behaviors
The following is a survey intended to gauge experiences with the drivers of critical
behaviors supporting COMM organization efficacy perceptions. The following 7-item
questionnaire will solicit feedback on experiences had after the goal design and progress
monitoring training series. Survey findings will support efforts to improve delivery of
development of the drivers and behaviors in the years to come.
Please provide honest responses to all questions. Thank you for participating! Questions
1–6 have response options of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
1. I can design goals aligned with division operating plans and organizational strategic
plans.
2. I can design performance-progress monitoring reports that communicate key
performance points during regular progress-monitoring meetings.
3. I can participate in regular performance-progress monitoring meetings.
4. I can support my direct report team in designing goals aligned with division operating
plans and organizational strategic plans.
5. I can support my direct report team design performance-progress monitoring reports
that communicate key performance points during regular performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
6. I can support my direct report team in participating in regular performance-progress
monitoring.
328

Please respond to the following prompt by circling one response percentage response
below: As a consequence of my training, my organizational efficacy has increased by “x”
percent.
• 0%
• 5%
• 10%
• 15%
• 20%
• 25%
• 30%
• 35 %
• 40%
• 45%
• 50%

329

Appendix K: Delayed-Blended Program Evaluation Instrument (L4, L3, L2, L1) (30, 60, 90
days)
Kirkpatrick level Item/Likert-scale survey question
L1: Reaction

Respond to the following question on a scale
of 0 to 4, where 0 stands for “strongly
disagree” and 4 stands for “strongly agree.”

My experience during the goal-design and
progress-monitoring training series
continues to make me feel motivated about
and committed to TTP.
L2: Learning

Respond to the following question on a scale
of 0 to 4, where 0 stands for “strongly
disagree” and 4 stands for “strongly agree.”

As a result of the knowledge, skills, and
motivation I gained during the training
series, I was able to complete all of my
immediate next steps.
L3: Behavior

Respond to the following question on a scale
of 0 to 4, where 0 stands for “strongly
disagree” and 4 stands for “strongly agree.”

I consistently utilize the information, job aids,
and training presented in the training series
to design aligned goals, participate in
progress-monitoring meetings, and coach
my team in doing likewise.
L4: Results

Respond to the following question on a scale
of 0 to 4, where 0 stands for “strongly
disagree” and 4 stands for “strongly agree.”

TTP is on track for accomplishing its
organizational strategic plans and division
operating plans by the end of this fiscal
year, helping us to realize our key external
and internal outcomes by January 2027.

330

Appendix L: Hypothetical Data Report for External and Internal Outcomes After
Installing the Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Figure L1
Level 4 Results and Key Indicators External Outcomes Data Report After the Implementation of
the Integrated Training and Evaluation Program

331

Figure L2
Level 4, Results and Key Indicators, Internal Outcomes Data Report After the Implementation of
the Integrated Training and Evaluation Program

332

Appendix M: KMO Document Analysis Protocol
Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
Knowledge
Central-office middle
managers need to design
goals aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (Procedural
knowledge)
Scorecard development To understand middle manager
abilities to design goals
aligned with vertical operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans
Central-office middle
managers need to design
performance-progress
monitoring reports which
communicate key points of
performance during
performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
(Procedural knowledge)
Performance review
documentation
(individual & group)
To understand middle manager
abilities to design
performance-progress
monitoring reports which
communicate key points of
performance during
performance-progress
monitoring meetings
Central-office middle
managers need to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Procedural
knowledge)
IDP development To understand middle
managers’ abilities to design
individual development plans
aligned with their annual goals
Motivation
Central-office middle
managers need to find it
important to design goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (Attainment value)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle manager
perceptions of attainment
value
Central-office middle
managers need to find it
important to participate in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
Staff engagement survey To understand middle manager
perceptions of attainment
value
333

Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
meetings. (Attainment
value)
Central-office middle
managers need to find it
important to design
individual development
plans which align with
their annual goals.
(Attainment value)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of
attainment value
Central-office middle
managers need confidence
in their ability to design
goals aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (Self-efficacy)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of self-
efficacy
Central-office middle
managers need confidence
in their ability to
participate in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings. (Self-
efficacy)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of self-
efficacy
Central-office middle
managers need confidence
in their ability to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Self-
efficacy)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of self-
efficacy
Central-office middle
managers need confidence
in their direct report team’s
ability to design goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (Team-efficacy)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of
team-efficacy
334

Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
Central-office middle
managers need confidence
in their direct report team’s
ability to participate in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (Team-efficacy)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of
team-efficacy
Central-office middle
managers need confidence
in their direct report team’s
ability to design individual
development plans aligned
with their annual goals.
(Team-efficacy)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle manager
perceptions of team-efficacy
Central-office middle
managers need to know the
goal of designing goals
aligned with division
operating plans and
organizational strategic
plans. (Goals)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of
goals
Central-office middle
managers need to know the
goal of participating in
regular performance-
progress monitoring
meetings. (Goals)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of
goals
Central-office middle
managers need to know the
goal of designing
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Goals)
Staff engagement survey To understand middle
managers’ perceptions of
goals
Organization
TTP needs to have a culture
of accountability to support
central-office middle
managers when designing
goals aligned with division
operating plans and
Staff ecosystem of
performance
management
To understand how different
elements of the organizational
performance environment
impact middle managers’
experience
335

Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
organizational strategic
plans. (Cultural models)
TTP needs to have a culture
of accountability to support
central-office middle
managers when
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
(Cultural models)
Staff ecosystem of
performance
management

Performance review
documentation
(individual and group)
To understand how different
elements of the organizational
performance environment
impact middle managers’
experience
TTP needs to have a culture
of accountability to support
central-office middle
managers when designing
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Cultural
models)
Staff ecosystem of
performance
management
To understand how different
elements of the organizational
performance environment
impact middle managers’
experience
TTP needs to have practices
to support central-office
middle managers when
designing goals aligned
with division operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans. (Cultural
settings)
Scorecard development
(Cultural settings)
To understand practices utilized
to support goal setting
TTP needs to have tools to
support central-office
middle managers when
designing goals aligned
with division operating
plans and organizational
strategic plans. (Cultural
settings)
Scorecard development
(Cultural settings)
To evaluate tools utilized to
support goal setting
TTP needs to have practices
to support central-office
middle managers when
participating in regular
performance-progress
Staff ecosystem of
performance
management (Cultural
settings)

To evaluate practices utilized to
support performance-progress
monitoring
336

Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
monitoring meetings.
(Cultural settings)
Performance review
documentation
(individual and group)
TTP needs to have tools to
support central-office
middle managers when
participating in regular
performance-progress
monitoring meetings.
(Cultural settings)
Staff ecosystem of
performance
management (Cultural
settings)

Performance review
documentation
(individual and group)
To evaluate tools utilized to
support performance-progress
monitoring
TTP needs to have practices
to central-office middle
managers to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Cultural
settings)
IDP Development
(Cultural settings)
To evaluate practices utilized to
support individual
development plan design
TTP needs to have tools to
support central-office
middle managers to design
individual development
plans aligned with their
annual goals. (Cultural
settings)
IDP development
(Cultural settings)
To evaluate tools utilized to
support individual
development plan design

337

Appendix N: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Nonprofit Middle Manager Perceptions of Organizational Efficacy: A Gap
Analysis
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Daniel Foley, Doctoral Candidate
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Adrian J. Donato

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand the causes of organizational efficacy perceptions
among nonprofit middle managers. I hope to learn more about the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors required to support the development of middle manager organizational
efficacy.

COLLECTION PROCESS

Documents will be gathered by searching private organizational databases with the researcher’s
current level of access. Only items that are not marked as confidential or feature identifiable or
private information of other employees will be collected for review. No document solicitations
will be directed at study participants, and all documents used in the study will be shared with the
organization’s HR leader and General Counsel for approval prior to inclusion in the analysis.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When/If the findings of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Notes will not have any direct reference to identifying information of organizational employees
and will be used solely for the purpose of analysis. The notes will remain in the sole possession
of the research team and will be destroyed not later following the completion and final approval
of the study. The study is expected to be fully completed by June 1, 2023. For this study, the
Research Team is the researcher and the Chair of the researcher’s dissertation committee.

338

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Daniel Foley, foleyd@usc.edu,
213.271.5104, or Dr. Adrian J. Donato: adonato@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 01/ 25/2021

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Best practices for increasing Black technical managers in the executive space

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

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

PDF

U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study

PDF

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis

PDF

From a privilege to an option: hybrid work schedule: a gap analysis

PDF

Participating in your own survival: a gap analysis study of the implementation of active shooter preparedness programs in mid-to-large size organizations

PDF

Recruiting police diversity

PDF

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

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare

PDF

The declining enrollment in a California community college during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

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

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Management preconditions to mitigate virtual employee burnout

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Foley, Daniel (author)

Core Title Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/10/2023

Defense Date 02/28/2023

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

Tag middle managers/management,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational efficacy,performance management

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Donato, Adrian J. (committee chair), Robles, Darline (committee member), (Foulk, Susanne)

Creator Email foleyd@usc.edu,foleydann@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112956281

Unique identifier UC112956281

Identifier etd-FoleyDanie-11591.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FoleyDanie-11591

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Foley, Daniel

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230410-usctheses-batch-1018 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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