Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ENHANCING SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE OUTCOMES AT A MAJOR NORTH
AMERICAN ZOO: AN INNOVATION STUDY
By
Matthew Roger Mayer
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2020
Copyright 2020 Matthew Roger Mayer
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................... 4
Organizational Performance Status/Need ................................................................................... 4
Background of the Problem......................................................................................................... 5
Literature ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Importance of the Organizational Innovation ............................................................................. 8
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................. 10
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ................................................................. 10
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap .................................................. 11
Stakeholder Critical Behaviors.................................................................................................. 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................ 13
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 13
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 14
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 15
Social Responsibility in Organizations ..................................................................................... 16
Terms and Key Concepts ....................................................................................................... 16
Evolution of the Field ............................................................................................................ 17
Benefits of CSR ..................................................................................................................... 18
Museum and Zoo Social Responsibility.................................................................................... 19
Museum and Zoo CSR Gaps ................................................................................................. 19
Current State of Social Responsibility at Accredited Zoos ................................................... 21
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... 22
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ....................................... 22
Declarative factual knowledge influences ............................................................................. 23
Senior staff need to know the definition of social responsibility ....................................... 23
Senior staff need to know the benefits derived from socially responsible practices ......... 23
Conceptual knowledge influences ......................................................................................... 25
iii
Senior staff need to know what equity means ................................................................... 25
Senior staff need to know what sustainability means ........................................................ 26
Procedural knowledge influences .......................................................................................... 28
Senior staff need to describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible outcomes
............................................................................................................................................ 28
Senior staff need to know what leads them to change their practices ............................... 29
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 31
General theory. ................................................................................................................... 31
Value .................................................................................................................................. 31
Social responsibility needs to be valued as an organizational priority and value. ......... 31
Self-efficacy ....................................................................................................................... 32
Senior staff need to be confident in recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values .......................................................................................................... 32
Individual senior staff members need to be confident that the collective senior staff
group can take the steps necessary to develop a social responsibility strategy .............. 33
Mood .................................................................................................................................. 34
Senior staff need to feel positive about a socially responsible zoo ................................ 34
Attribution .......................................................................................................................... 34
Senior staff need to attribute the causes of success or failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their own efforts ..................................................................... 34
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 36
Cultural setting ................................................................................................................... 36
Resources ........................................................................................................................... 36
Senior staff need to identify what resources are needed to implement a social
responsibility strategy .................................................................................................... 36
Policies and procedures...................................................................................................... 37
Senior staff need to identify policies or procedures they would like to see created or
changed to implement a social responsibility strategy. .................................................. 37
Senior staff need to identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff
behaviors toward social responsibility ........................................................................... 38
Cultural models .................................................................................................................. 38
Culture................................................................................................................................ 38
Senior staff need to describe how the organization’s culture influences the
implementation of a social responsibility strategy. ........................................................ 39
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 41
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 41
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ........................................................................... 41
iv
Criterion 1. Accredited North American zoo ..................................................................... 41
Criterion 2. Senior staff of zoo located in major metropolitan area .................................. 41
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................................... 41
Data Collection and Instrumentation......................................................................................... 42
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 42
Documents and Artifacts ....................................................................................................... 44
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments ....................... 44
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 48
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 48
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 49
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 51
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 52
Determination of Assets and Needs .......................................................................................... 55
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes ............................................................................ 56
Factual Knowledge ................................................................................................................ 56
Influence I: Senior Staff Need to Know the Definition of Social Responsibility .............. 56
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 56
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 57
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 57
Influence 2. Senior Staff Need to Know the Benefits Derived from Socially Responsible
Practices ............................................................................................................................. 58
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 58
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 59
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 59
Conceptual Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 60
Influence 3. Senior Staff Need to Know What Equity Means ........................................... 60
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 60
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 61
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 61
Influence 4. Senior Staff Need to Know What Sustainability Means ................................ 62
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 62
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 63
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 63
Procedural Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 64
v
Influence 5. Senior Staff Need to Describe the Steps They Take to Produce Socially
Responsible Outcomes. ...................................................................................................... 64
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 64
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 65
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 65
Influence 6. Senior Staff Need to Know What Leads Them to Change Their Practices. .. 66
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 66
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 67
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 67
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ............................................................................ 67
Value ...................................................................................................................................... 67
Influence 7. Social Responsibility Needs to be Valued as an Organizational Priority and
Value .................................................................................................................................. 67
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 67
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 68
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 69
Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................................................... 69
Influence 8. Senior Staff Need to be Confident in Recalibrating Their Roles to Reflect
Socially Responsible Values. ............................................................................................. 69
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 69
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 70
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 70
Influence 9. Individual Senior Staff Members Need to be Confident that the Collective
Senior Staff Group can Take the Steps Necessary to Develop a Social Responsibility
Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 71
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 71
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 71
Summary. ....................................................................................................................... 72
Emotions ................................................................................................................................ 72
Influence 10. Senior Staff Need to Feel Positive About a Socially Responsible Zoo. ...... 72
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 72
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 73
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 73
Attributions ............................................................................................................................ 73
Influence 11. Senior Staff Need to Attribute the Causes of Success or Failure Adopting a
Social Responsibility Strategy to Their Own Efforts ........................................................ 73
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 73
vi
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 74
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 74
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ......................................................................... 75
Cultural Settings .................................................................................................................... 75
Influence 12. Senior Staff Need to Identify What Resources are Needed to Implement a
Social Responsible Strategy ............................................................................................... 75
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 75
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 75
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 76
Influence 13. Senior Staff Need to Identify Policies or Procedures They Would Like to
See Created or Changed to Implement a Social Responsibility Strategy .......................... 76
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 76
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 77
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 78
Influence 14. Senior Staff Need to Identify How the Zoo can Reinforce, Monitor, and
Reward Senior Staff Behaviors Toward Social Responsibility ......................................... 78
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 78
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 79
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 79
Cultural Models ..................................................................................................................... 80
Influence 15. Senior Staff Need to Describe How the Organization’s Culture Influences
the Implementation of a Social Responsibility Strategy. ................................................... 80
Interview Findings.......................................................................................................... 80
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................ 81
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 81
Summary of Validated Influences ............................................................................................. 82
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation and Evaluation ............................................. 84
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................ 84
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................... 84
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 84
Knowledge Recommendations .................................................................................................. 85
Senior staff need to know the definition of social responsibility ....................................... 89
Senior staff need to know the benefits derived from socially responsible practices ......... 90
Senior staff need to know what equity means ................................................................... 92
Senior staff need to know what sustainability means ........................................................ 93
vii
Senior staff need to describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible outcomes
............................................................................................................................................ 95
Senior staff need to know what leads them to change their practices ............................... 96
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................... 98
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 98
Social responsibility needs to be valued as an organizational priority and value ............ 101
Senior staff need to be confident in recalibrating their roles to reflect socially responsible
values ............................................................................................................................... 102
Individual senior staff members need to be confident that the collective senior staff group
can take the steps necessary to develop a zoo specific social responsibility strategy ..... 103
Senior staff need to feel positive about a socially responsible zoo .................................. 105
Senior staff need to attribute the causes of success or failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their own efforts ...................................................................... 105
Organization Recommendations.......................................................................................... 107
Introduction. ..................................................................................................................... 107
Cultural settings influence - Senior staff need to identify what resources are needed to
implement a social responsibility strategy ....................................................................... 109
Cultural settings - Senior staff need to identify policies or procedures they would like to
see created or changed to implement a social responsibility strategy ............................. 110
Cultural settings - Senior staff need to identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and
reward senior staff behaviors toward social responsibility .............................................. 111
Cultural models - Senior staff need to describe how the organization’s culture influences
the implementation of a social responsibility strategy ..................................................... 112
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 113
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................... 113
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ................................................................. 114
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................. 115
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 119
Critical behaviors. ............................................................................................................ 119
Required drivers. .............................................................................................................. 120
Organizational support. .................................................................................................... 122
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................. 123
Learning goals .................................................................................................................. 123
Program ............................................................................................................................ 123
Evaluation of the components of learning. ...................................................................... 124
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................. 125
Evaluation Tools .................................................................................................................. 126
viii
Immediately following the program implementation ...................................................... 126
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. ................................................. 126
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................... 126
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 127
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................... 128
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 128
References ................................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 138
Appendix B: Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 142
Appendix C: Immediate Evaluation Instrument Sample Questions ........................................... 144
Appendix D: Delayed Evaluation Tool Instrument Sample Questions ...................................... 145
Delayed Sample Questions ......................................................................................................... 145
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: The MAZ Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Performance
Goals ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal .................................................................................................................. 30
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal .................................................................................................................. 35
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal .................................................................................................................. 40
Table 5: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Methods and Measurements .. 45
Table 6: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................... 82
Table 7: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ................................................ 82
Table 8: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................. 83
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................................... 86
Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 99
Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 108
Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ..................... 115
Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 120
Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 121
Table 15: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 125
Table 16: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 125
x
List of Figures
Figure A: Sample Social Responsibility Dashboard – Select Indicators for External Outcomes
............................................................................................................................................. 127
xi
Abstract
This study uses Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis to clarify organizational and stakeholder
goals and identify gaps between actual performance and preferred performance. The purpose of
the study was to assess the needs of senior staff at the Major North American Accredited Zoo (a
pseudonym) to develop and implement innovation in social responsibility performance. Data
collection, via qualitative methods consisting of interview data from eight participants and
analysis of 20 documents sought to identify and validate assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources necessary for the senior staff to develop an adoptable social
responsibility strategy. Senior staff participants ranged from the organization’s director to the
director of human resources. Through the data collected, assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational causes were assessed, validated, and categorized as assets or needs. The findings
demonstrated factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge gaps, deficient levels of motivation,
and an absence of policies and positive behavioral support necessary to develop an adoptable
social responsibility strategy and implement innovation in social responsibility performance.
Based on the findings, research literature-based solutions are made to address these needs. The
study demonstrates how senior staff at the Major North American Accredited Zoo can utilize the
gap analysis framework to initiate, sustain, and ultimately achieve the goal of developing an
adoptable social responsibility strategy.
Keywords: social responsibility, organizational change, museums, zoos
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
More than fifteen years have passed since Rabb (2004) cautioned that zoos could become
extinct. Rabb and Saunders (2005) subsequently warned that “the future of zoos and aquariums
is in jeopardy” (p. 1). If population viability forecasts hold true, they asserted, numerous
vertebrate animal species would become extinct and “eventually, zoos and aquariums will simply
be out of business” (Rabb & Saunders, 2005, p. 1). The caution bells rung by Rabb (2004) and
Rabb and Saunders (2005) were based on concerns of species population viability and perceived
deficiencies in corresponding conservation and research investments. Sixteen years after Rabb
(2004) forewarned that zoos were headed toward extinction, unfavorable social, political, and
economic trends may be doing more to accelerate the industry’s demise.
Rabb and Saunders (2005) suggested that the future of zoos would be realized through
investments in conservation science. Reflecting upon Brundtland’s (1987) earlier assertion that
“A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and
other crises” (p. 42), it becomes plausible that zoo actions to remedy conservation dilemmas may
be unproductive if efforts are made in isolation from broader social and ethical dilemmas, as well
as economic paradoxes. Species population viability concerns remain serious and timely, yet
potential solutions to the uncertain future of both animal species and accredited zoos may lie in
the human sciences, particularly when contextualized within the notions of ethics and moral
responsibility.
North American accredited zoos produce meaningful conservation and animal welfare
outcomes, connecting increasingly urbanized populations with animals and wildlife. Despite
contributions that include improving genetic diversity and population stability for select
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List species and delivering some
2
informal education benefits, accredited zoos are not immune from socio-political and economic
conditions that apply to what White (2013) characterized as “volatile, uncertain, complex, and
ambiguous” (p. 3). Conditions include adverse legislative actions (Federal Register, 2009), an
unstable financial outlook (Scott, 2013; Cerezo & Kaspar, 2018), declining public funding
(Skolnik, 1992), potentially injurious legal efforts by adversarial groups (Nonhuman Rights
Project, 2016), failure to align business practices with a conservation ethos (Cerezo & Kaspar,
2018), and not contributing toward a “culture of sustainability” or “producing measurable social
change” (Fraser & Sickler, 2009, p. 1). Recent events related to the 2019 novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) caused some zoos to undertake furloughs and layoffs amidst significant revenue
losses. These trends can harm an accredited zoo’s legitimacy, undermine its autonomy,
destabilize its financial state, and diminish the organization’s ability to control its own agenda.
Maple and Mallavarapu (2016) cautioned that the pace at which institutions, including
accredited zoos, fail may not be immediately observable or immediate. Precipitated by ignoring
community needs, diminished public support, unstable finances, and preservation of the status
quo (Maple & Mallavarapu, 2016), gradual and unnoticed institutional failure is a serious and
timely consideration for accredited zoos. Reflecting upon institutional failure, it is likely the
serious challenges facing accredited zoos are not “technical problems . . . for which [existing]
authoritative and managerial expertise will suffice” (Heifetz, 2010, p. 73) but rather “adaptive
challenges” brought on by changes in society that requires organizations to “clarify [their]
values, develop new strategies, and learn new ways of operating” (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997, p.
124).
Scholars suggest that organizations may benefit from strategic outcomes derived from
socially responsible values and practices, including improved legitimacy and reputation (Carroll
& Shabana, 2010), diminished culpability when in crisis (Cherney & Blain, 2015), and enhanced
3
“reputational capital” (Isaksson et al., 2014, p. 65). The evidence (Federal Register, 2009;
Nonhuman Rights Project, 2016) suggests that zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZA) are experiencing a period of crisis and uncertainty.
Developing new strategies based on social responsibility, therefore, may represent a more
viable way for accredited organizations to stave off institutional extinction, enhance resilience
amidst volatile conditions, and evolve into a destination for sustained legitimacy and socio-
political and financial support. Through socially responsible values, strategies, and operations
and programs, accredited zoos have a formalized means to become “societal change agents,” as
suggested by Rabb and Saunders (2005, p. 19) and contribute toward what Fraser and Sickler
(2009) characterized as a “culture of sustainability” (p. 1).
An innovation study was commissioned at a major North American accredited
organization to advance the discourse of social responsibility within the accredited zoo industry,
spur interest and innovation toward morally responsible human behavior, and improve and
accelerate social responsibility performance at an accredited zoo. This study investigates two
primary questions that serve as antecedents to successful organizational change toward social
responsibility:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) needs are necessary for zoo
senior staff to achieve their goal of developing an adoptable social responsibility strategy
by December 2021 that is composed of financial, social, and environmental components
that support the organization’s evolution into a responsive, dynamic, equitable, and
resilient social institution?
2. What are the recommended KMO solutions to meet those needs?
4
Organizational Context and Mission
The Major Accredited Zoo (MAZ, a pseudonym) is located in a large and diverse
metropolitan area in the United States and is situated on a 100-plus acre campus owned by a
municipal entity. The MAZ employs more than 200 zoo staff who are municipal employees. The
MAZ is a popular cultural attraction, welcoming more than one million guests annually. The
organization’s mission focuses on education, animal welfare, community well-being, and
conservation. An associated non-profit organization supports the MAZ’s membership and
fundraising needs. In collaboration with its municipal and non-profit partners, the MAZ made
extensive capital improvements in recent years, repairing existing infrastructure and opening new
exhibits. Some of these new exhibits have drawn scrutiny from animal rights groups. Both AZA
and the American Alliance of Museums, however, accredit the MAZ.
For purposes of this study, there are three stakeholder groups:
1. the MAZ senior staff (primary stakeholder group/study participants),
2. an ancillary non-profit that supports the zoo, and
3. an aggregate of public sector entities (i.e., the mayor, city council, and a five-member
advisory group referred to as “the board” appointed by the mayor).
Organizational Performance Status/Need
To fulfill its mission, align its outputs with community member needs and values, and
sustain its role as a legitimate social institution, it is imperative that the MAZ adopts a social
responsibility strategy. By identifying performance gaps and integrating relevant values into the
firm’s mission, business plans, and priorities and situating these values as foundational to the
firm’s success, the MAZ can realize strategic benefits derived from socially responsible
practices. Failure to do so can result in a loss of public support, management over its own affairs,
and control over its destiny.
5
This study uses a gap analysis to investigate KMO influences among senior MAZ staff
toward the adoption of a social responsibility strategy by 2021. Strategy adoption includes full
integration of social responsibility into the firm’s culture, values, strategy, and mission. The lack
of a formally adopted social responsible strategy and failure to realize strategic outcomes at a
time when the MAZ, as well as other accredited zoos, face uncertain regulatory, legal, and
political risks demonstrates that this is a problem. Thus, it may benefit the organization’s risk
management, reputation, and standing as a legitimate social institution to undertake adaptive
change, characterized as “clarification of values, development of new strategies, and learning
new ways of operating” (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997, p. 124). This would help the organization
evolve into what Adams and Jeanrenaud (2008) characterized as a “responsive, dynamic,
equitable, and resilient social institution” (p. 2), and to foster legitimacy through what Stillman
(1974) referred to as alignment between organizational outputs and the needs and values of
community members.
Background of the Problem
The MAZ faces several issues. First, there are adverse macro-level trends affecting the
accredited zoo industry. Second, there are adverse micro-level conditions that specifically affect
the MAZ. Third, accredited zoos are not contributing toward a “culture of sustainability” or
“producing measurable social change” (Fraser & Sickler, 2009, p. 1). If left unresolved, these
trends and conditions represent unmitigated risk factors that can undermine the viability and
legitimacy of accredited zoos, including the MAZ. These risks are compounded because the
MAZ lacks a formally adopted social responsibility strategy. Without such a strategy, the MAZ
is less equipped to navigate and thrive amidst periods of volatility, align outputs with community
member needs and aspirations, and manage its long-term organizational and community
sustainability.
6
Adverse macro-level conditions include injurious legislative actions (Federal Register,
2009), an unstable financial outlook (Scott, 2013; Cerezo & Kaspar, 2018), and declining public
funding (Skolnik, 1992). Concerns also include misaligned business practices with its
conservation ethos (Cerezo & Kaspar, 2018) and potentially injurious legal efforts by adversarial
groups (Nonhuman Rights Project, 2016). Macro-level legal and public relations efforts by
animal rights groups deserve additional consideration due to the prolonged and intensified nature
of these strategies. Organizations that include the Nonhuman Rights Project are undertaking
significant capacity building to effectuate a successful “broad-based movement aimed at winning
legal personhood for nonhuman animals” which will involve, “ballot initiatives, referenda, and
public pressure campaigns” (Action Without Borders, 2016). In order to carry out its unfriendly
zoo objectives, the Nonhuman Rights Project will “file as many lawsuits as [long as] funds [are]
available” (Nonhuman Rights Project, 2016). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) continues to lead aggressive campaigns to eliminate public funding for zoos; stop
breeding programs; and inculcate students, teachers, and families through mediums that include
classroom curriculum and animal rights clubs for children (PETA, 2016). The organization
encourages individuals to “Never patronize zoos,” claiming, “Precious funds that should be used
to provide more humane conditions for animals [at zoos] are often squandered on cosmetic
improvements—such as landscaping, refreshment stands, and gift shops—in order to draw
visitors” (PETA, 2016).
Micro-level conditions particular to the MAZ include adverse legal action and public
relations campaigns undertaken by animal rights groups. Recent acts by adversarial groups
triggered judicial action about animals under the zoo’s care. For purposes of maintaining
stakeholder group anonymity, more particular context is not shared.
7
Literature
Generally conceived in the literature as a function of for-profit entities, Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) is a type of organizational self-regulation assimilated into a business model
(Fontaine, 2013) that advances a firm’s focus and influence beyond minimal contractual or
statutory obligations (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Through guidelines, operations, and values that
reflect stakeholder social needs (Fogel, 2016), corporations strive to improve social conditions
and sustainable development (World Business Council, 2005; Tuan, 2012). Many for-profit
entities locate CSR at the core of their business models (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Fogel, 2016)
as essential strategic components critical to organizational success (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
Organizational benefits derived from CSR include aligning of the organization's mission and
practice (Cerezo & Kaspar, 2018), diminishing risk exposure, enhancing reputation, public value,
and community relations (Carroll, 2015; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Isaksson, Kiesling, & Harvey,
2014).
Once viewed as an inconsequential element of business, CSR is now one of the most
critical issues facing businesses (Pirnea et al., 2011). Framed as a primary business purpose and
an effective means of improving firm legitimacy and reputation (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), CSR
can yield timely and strategic benefits that enhance competitiveness and legitimacy. For firms
facing dilemmas related to reputation, legitimacy, and ethics, CSR can enhance organizational
credibility and “reputation capital” in the event of “sub-optimal ethical behavior” (Isaksson et al.,
2014, p. 65). Related benefits include positive public relations (Carroll, 2015) and a potential
inoculation against criticism and vilification (Cherney & Blair, 2015). In addition, socially
responsible firms are viewed as more ethical, more trustworthy, and less blameworthy when in
crisis (Cherney & Blair, 2015).
8
Carroll and Shaban (2010) also noted that CSR can improve environmental or green
outcomes, thereby enhancing legitimacy through transparency of environmental and social
performance. Firm outcomes related to employee engagement (Carroll & Shabana, 2010),
attracting and retaining staff (Carroll, 2015), and staff satisfaction and commitment to the firm
(Hu, 2007) can also be improved. Lastly, CSR can increase the likelihood of consumer advocacy
for firms that practice socially responsible behaviors, potentially enhancing brand loyalty
(Chernev & Blair, 2015). Despite these and other benefits, and the absence of evidence that
precludes municipal or non-profit organizations from realizing benefits associated with CSR
practices, the MAZ has failed to formally adopt a social responsibility strategy.
Importance of the Organizational Innovation
This problem is important to address for a variety of reasons. The MAZ mission includes
service to the community and the organization relies on support from community members and
government officials. Scholars (Fraser & Sickler, 2009; Spade 2001; Simon, 2013) were critical
of organizations like the MAZ because they appear to be deficient in social mission excellence.
The lack of a social responsibility strategy may have a direct impact on the organization’s ability
to deliver on its community-focused mission, sustain support among community members and
government officials, drive social change, and contribute toward sustainable communities.
One intention of organizational innovation is to provide the MAZ with means to sustain
and enhance broader societal legitimacy and more locally, gain support from community
members and government officials. Support can be sustained and intensified when an
organization’s outputs align with what Stillman (1974) referred to as society’s value patterns.
Scholars suggested that identifying the value patterns and needs of local community members is
best supported through inclusive participatory efforts (Burns, 2004; Dylan, 2013; Stoecker,
2013). Collaborative efforts can be successful when the collaborating parties share mutual “trust,
9
understanding, and respect,” and negotiate “power issues” (Ross, 2012, p. 203). Through
community-based participatory action and relinquishing control to community members, the
MAZ may be better equipped to create the organizational and community dynamics that
according to Freeman (2014) “enable [people] to effectively pursue their final ends and
fundamental interests.” Through the organizational innovation, the MAZ will have the means to
align its purpose and outputs with the needs of community members and realize strategic
organizational and community outcomes.
Organizational innovation is also important to address because organizations like the
MAZ are not immune from states of vulnerability and disruption. Zolli and Healy (2013)
suggested that since times of uncertainty and change cannot be manipulated, organizations need
to reconfigure themselves. Through reconfiguration, organizations can become better equipped
to “absorb disruption, operate under a wider variety of conditions, and shift more fluidly from
one circumstance to the next” (Zolli & Healy, 2013, p. 5). Through the organizational
innovation, the MAZ senior staff can reconsider the zoo’s social purpose, how it will benefit
future generations, and how it interacts with communities of interest, so that recalibrated
standards of leadership, governance, accountability, transparency, and performance can inform
the organization’s reconfiguration.
The innovation also represents a more substantive and reflective opportunity to address
critiques in the literature about the societal role of zoos and prevalent business models. For
example, Fraser and Sickler (2009) asserted that the industry is not contributing toward a
“culture of sustainability” or “producing measurable social change” (p. 1). The call for improved
social mission excellence is not new. Rabb and Saunders (2005) called on the industry to become
“societal change agents” (p. 19) fifteen years ago. Spade (2011) claimed that the sector
abandoned what was once a commitment to driving social change. Rather than engaging in
10
“movement work” as it had historically, organizations like accredited zoos now offered
comfortable “career tracks for people with graduate degrees” (Spade, 2011, p. 40). Through
organizational innovation, the MAZ will be equipped to drive social change and contribute
toward community sustainability.
Senior staff at this accredited zoo are responsible for agenda setting, identifying budget
priorities, aligning resources with priorities, and engaging in strategic decision-making. They
have a duty to ensure their organization is responsive to community needs, that their business
models do not undermine their conservation ethos, and that their organization achieves
simultaneous and inter-related outcomes that enhance organizational and community well-being.
De-corporatizing CSR concepts and applying its conceptual frameworks may provide accredited
zoos with the means to realize similar strategic outcomes while contributing toward what Rabb
(2004) refers to as a “more sustainable and harmonious relationship” (p. 237) between people
and nature. Thus, it is important to understand social responsibility performance at a major North
American accredited zoo.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2022, the MAZ will integrate social responsibility into its mission, values,
culture, and practices, producing measurable social change and contributing toward a culture of
sustainability. This goal will involve adapting the daily activities of senior staff, examining
strategic and budgetary priorities, and co-producing ongoing strategies and activities with
external stakeholders, most notably community members. Stakeholders are individuals or groups
that impact “or are affected by” the realization of business goals (Fogel, 2016, p. 35).
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Three stakeholder groups were identified, with one group serving as study participants.
Stakeholder groups consist of the MAZ senior staff representing the zoo’s leadership team; an
11
affiliated non-profit; and collectively, three public sector entities representing the mayor, a five-
member advisory board appointed by the mayor, and the city council. The MAZ senior staff are
the study participants and primary stakeholder group. The performance goal for this primary
stakeholder group is that by December 2021, the MAZ senior staff will have developed an
adoptable social responsibility strategy composed of financial, social, and environmental
components that support the zoo’s evolution into a dynamic, responsive, equitable, and resilient
social organization.
Table 1
The MAZ Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The organization’s mission focuses on advancing education, animal welfare, community
well-being, and conservation.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2022, the MAZ will integrate social responsibility into its mission, values,
culture, and practices, producing measurable social change and contributing toward a culture of
sustainability.
Zoo Senior Staff Affiliated Non-Profit Mayor, City Council, Advisory
Board
By December 2021, senior staff
will develop an adoptable social
responsibility strategy composed
of financial, social, and
environmental components that
support the zoo’s evolution into a
responsive, dynamic, equitable,
and resilient social institution.
By August 2021, the
affiliated non-profit will
approve senior staff’s
draft of the social
responsibility strategy.
By December 2021, elected
officials and the advisory board
will endorse the social
responsibility strategy and hold
the zoo to account for its
implementation.
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap
Only a joint effort of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of integrating social responsibility into the zoo’s mission, values, culture, and
practices by December 2022, producing measurable social change and contributing toward a
12
culture of sustainability. It is important, however, to understand the needs of zoo senior staff as
they attempt to take steps that result in the organization’s adoption of a social responsibility
strategy. As the organization’s leadership team, the MAZ senior staff are responsible for
decision-making, as well as priority and goal setting. Therefore, the MAZ senior staff is the
stakeholder group of focus for this study. The stakeholders’ goal, with support from the zoo’s
director, is to develop an adoptable social responsibility strategy by December 2021 composed of
financial, social, and environmental components that support the zoo’s evolution into a
responsive, dynamic, equitable, and resilient social institution.
Behaviors include activities such as reviewing roles and responsibilities so that they align
with socially responsible outcomes; re-organizing programs and operations within a social
responsibility ethic; and changing metrics so that the zoo’s success is framed within its, and the
community’s, social, financial, and environmental well-being. Currently, the MAZ does not have
a social responsibility strategy or formally adopted socially responsible values. As a result of the
organizational innovation, the MAZ will integrate social responsibility into its mission, values,
culture, and practices by December, 2022, producing measurable social change and contributing
toward a culture of sustainability. Zoo senior staff will develop the strategy necessary to achieve
the organizational goal. The gap in senior staff performance, therefore, is currently 100%.
Stakeholder Critical Behaviors
To achieve their goal, zoo senior staff stakeholders of focus must perform the following
critical behaviors:
1. acquire social responsibility-specific knowledge that includes how social responsibility is
defined, how organizations derive benefits from socially responsible values and
practices, and how organizations produce socially responsible outcomes;
13
2. demonstrate, by choosing to develop a social responsibility strategy, their value of social
responsibility as an indispensable firm asset through integration into the organization’s
mission, values, culture, and practices; and
3. garner support for the social responsibility strategy from the affiliated non-profit
organization, and the mayor, city council, and appointees to the MAZ board.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs’ analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational resources necessary for the MAZ senior staff to develop an
adoptable social responsibility strategy comprised of financial, social, and environmental
components that support the zoo’s evolution into a responsive, dynamic, equitable, and resilient
social institution. The analysis will begin by generating a list of possible needs and will then
move to systematically examine whether the needs are actual or confirmed needs. While a
complete analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder group
of focus for this analysis are the MAZ senior staff members.
As such, two questions guide this study.
1. What KMO needs are necessary for senior staff to achieve their goal of developing an
adoptable social responsibility strategy by December, 2021 that is composed of financial,
social, and environmental components that support the organization’s evolution into a
responsive, dynamic, equitable, and resilient social institution?
2. What are the recommended KMO solutions to meet those needs?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, were adapted for the analysis. Assumed KMO needs
14
were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These needs were validated
by using interviews, literature review and content analysis. Research-based solutions are
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
In this study, Social Responsibility is defined in a non-corporatized setting as
organizational decision-making that aligns outputs with societal values (Bowen, 1953; James
2013) and is responsive to social movements and community member needs beyond meeting
minimal contractual or statutory obligations (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). This contributes toward
multi-generational organizational and community social, environmental, and financial well-being
(Fontaine, 2013). A Socially Responsible accredited zoo is a responsive, dynamic, equitable, and
resilient social institution.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about social responsibility and zoos.
The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap
analysis adapted to needs analysis, were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current
literature surrounding the scope of the study and will include topics like CSR. Chapter Three
details the assumed needs for this study, as well as the methodology for choosing participants,
data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed.
Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for addressing the needs and
closing the performance gap. The chapter also provides recommendations for implementing and
evaluating solutions.
15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to explore what it means for the MAZ senior staff
to develop an adoptable socially responsible strategy through the lens of critical behaviors
identified in Chapter One. It is equally imperative to create an implementable social
responsibility strategy because of the issues previously discussed. Not only does the MAZ face
adverse macro and micro-level adverse trends, but as a public institution, the organization must
continually demonstrate how it improves (benefits) the lives of community members whose
support is necessary to sustain the zoo’s legitimacy and socio-political support. The strategy
must be relevant to the unmet needs of community members and should be reproducible by other
accredited zoos facing similar legal, governmental, and social trends and conditions.
Chapter Two provides a review of the literature that addresses the major variables and
factors that are used to investigate possible links to the assumed causes of the knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps that lead to an absence of a formally adopted
social responsibility strategy at the MAZ. In this chapter, CSR is broadly defined and discussed,
and subsequently more narrowly reviewed based on literature related to social responsibility
within the museum sector. This informs the problem of practice. This section considers social
responsibility as a means of adaptive change for an industry experiencing a sustained period of
volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Chapter Two also provides an explanation of
the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences which
is used as a lens to view the problem of practice for this study. Next, the chapter turns attention
to defining the types of KMO influences examined and the assumed MAZ senior staff
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on performance. The chapter ends with a
presentation of the conceptual framework guiding this study.
16
Social Responsibility in Organizations
Terms and Key Concepts
Defining CSR is difficult as the term retains meaning but is otherwise open to diverse
interpretation (Pirnea, Olaru, & Moisa, 2011). Despite ambiguity around the term’s modern day
context, Falck and Heblich (2007) observed that the first formalized meaning of CSR was
developed by Bowen (1953), who defined the term as “the obligations of businessmen to pursue
those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in
terms of the objectives and values of society” (p. 6). The term subsequently evolved through an
expansion of meaning, with business social responsibility including “the economic, legal, ethical,
and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (Carroll,
1979, p. 500, 1991, p. 283).
Current CSR terms and concepts are generally based on the notions of shareholder value
and human well-being. For example, Fontaine (2013) characterized CSR as a self-regulating
tenet of a firm business model that extends organizational outputs beyond meeting requisite legal
and regulatory requirements. The goal of CSR, according to Fontaine (2013) was to achieve
organizational social, environmental, and financial well-being while advancing the social,
environmental, and financial well-being of stakeholders who include community members.
Balabanov and Dudin (2015) continued the stakeholder theme of CSR, asserting that “Social
responsibility of business is integration of social and environmental problems, solved by
enterprise structures in interaction with stakeholders” (p. 111). Terms and concepts associated
with CSR have also evolved with the field itself. From gaining traction through the 1960s social
movements, to building modern day associations with the sustainability discourse, CSR has
become a key tenet of business values and practices.
17
Evolution of the Field
CSR is not a new phenomenon but is still elusive within some organizations and largely
absent from some industries. Through an evolution of terms and concepts, the field has
maintained its initial ethos, but positioned itself in both human-centered and environmental
contexts. The social movements of the 1960s played a key role in advancing the need for socially
responsible business practices (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Throughout the decade, CSR-related
literature grew in scope and depth in large part due to concerns about pollution, deterioration of
urban areas, community challenges, and discrimination (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The need for
socially responsible business practices, however, was not universally affirmed. According to
Carroll and Shabana (2010), classical economist Milton Friedman rejected CSR, claiming that
the primary purpose of business was to maximize value for owners and stakeholders. Through
the 1970s and 1980s, businesses appeared to be more responsive to social movements and the
needs of community members (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Research into the relationship between
a company’s social impact and its revenue also gained traction in the 1970s (Falck & Heblich,
2007).
Between the 1900s and 2000s, CSR became positioned in a globalized context linked
with sustainability and sustainable development (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The development
and deployment of CSR values and practices grew noticeably in the 1990s through the
integration and alignment of business models and plans (Fontaine, 2013). Acceptance of CSR,
however, was not common. Although companies adopted CSR values and practices in the 1990’s
and supported novel efforts like the Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) initiative
established in 1992, others choose not to implement (Fontaine, 2013). Despite gaps in acceptance
and integration, this particular decade saw CSR expand beyond community affairs and corporate
giving to include focus on advancing and supporting achievements by women and people of
18
color and to advance sustainability practices (Fontaine, 2013). As a result, CSR fueled dueling
corporate interests between the need to generate financial returns for investors and to be
responsible to women, people of color, consumers, and the environment (Fontaine, 2013).
Once viewed as an inconsequential element of business, CSR is now one of the most
critical issues facing businesses (Pirnea, Olaru, & Moisa, 2011), a primary business purpose, an
essential strategic component critical to organizational success, and a main means of improving
firm legitimacy and reputation (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). CSR continues to be adopted by more
firms in the 2010’s (Isaksson, Kiessling, & Harvey, 2014).
Benefits of CSR
CSR can yield strategic business outcomes and advantages that help stabilize firms
during times of crisis and uncertainty. For firms facing dilemmas related to reputation,
legitimacy, and ethics, CSR can enhance organizational credibility and “reputation capital” in the
event of “sub-optimal ethical behavior” (Isaksson, Kiessling, & Harvey, 2014, p. 65). Related
benefits include positive public relations (Carroll, 2015) and a potential inoculation against
criticism and vilification (Cherney & Blair, 2015). In addition, socially responsible firms are
viewed as more ethical and trustworthy and less blameworthy when in crisis (Cherney & Blair,
2015).
Scholars highlight additional benefits that include reduced risk, diminished regulation,
improved community relations, environmental or green outcomes, and enhanced governance
(Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Firm outcomes related to employee engagement (Carroll & Shabana,
2010), attracting and retaining staff (Carroll 2015), and staff satisfaction and commitment to the
firm (Hu, 2007) can also be improved.
CSR can also enhance legitimacy through transparency of environmental and social
performance (Carroll & Shabana, 2010) and holds the potential to enhance brand loyalty
19
(Chernev & Blair, 2015). Lastly, CRS can increase the likelihood of consumer advocacy for
firms that practice socially responsible behaviors (Chernev & Blair, 2015). CSR can equip a firm
with the means of withstanding periods of volatility and uncertainty.
Museum and Zoo Social Responsibility
Museum and Zoo CSR Gaps
The MAZ is accredited by both AAM and AZA. This study therefore examines both
museum-level literature and zoo-based literature. In terms of museums, there is no evidence that
accredited North American museums have formally adopted and practiced socially responsible
values and business models. Despite the presence and evolution of CSR practices in for-profit
entities for more than 50 years, museums in North America have largely failed to formally adopt
applicable frameworks and practices. While a case could be made that CSR practices are mainly
applicable to for-profit institutions, CSR strategies can be adapted for non-profits or entities
performing government functions.
Falk and Sheppard (2006) observed how museums have mostly failed to integrate
socially responsible values and practices into organizational missions, values, cultures, and
practices. Furthermore, Simon (2013) similarly cited a sector-specific complacency amidst
negative social, environmental, and economic trends, asserting that if non-profits “do not achieve
their missions, no one goes hungry or homeless or loses their rights” (p. xv). As long as
organizations like accredited zoos stay clear of “embarrassment or gross misconduct, there is no
moral outrage to be had at laziness or ineptitude” (Simon, 2013, p. xv).
Falk and Sheppard (2006) asserted that museums are increasingly reliant on frameworks
and outcomes related to attendance and revenue generation, failing to adopt socially responsible
business models. Fleming (2012) maintained a similar perspective, contending that organizations
that include accredited zoos have opted for values and decision-making that solely generate
20
revenue as opposed to balancing the need for revenue generation with positive and
transformative social impact. Sandell and Nightingale (2013) highlighted how museums
primarily promote values and executive-level decision-making oriented toward revenue
generation as opposed to positive social impact.
Rather than adopting new practices, James (2013) cautioned that museums continue to do
more of the same, “refining their methods, getting better at what they are already doing well–
while the intractable questions about the societal purpose of museums, work design, job
satisfaction, creativity, innovation and experimentation remain immune to any systematic and
critical inquiry” (p. xix). According to Kotter (2004), museums continue to rely on outdated
ways of thinking, organizational cultures, and operations, which have negatively influenced
attendance and philanthropic outcomes. Through socially responsible practices, museums must
not only maintain an awareness of their “potential to impact societal inequality,” but also of the
organization’s obligation to “deploy their social agency and cultural authority in a way that is
aligned and consistent with the values of contemporary society” (James, 2013, p. 18). According
to James (2013), museum outputs are rarely aligned with society’s needs.
James (2013) calls for museums to benefit community members through more than
education and entertainment. The social purpose of museums, according to James (2013) must
extend to consideration of work design, job satisfaction, creativity, innovation, and
experimentation that are subject to systematic and critical inquiry. Scholars suggest that socially
responsible museums that include zoos must recalibrate their societal role around the unmet
needs of stakeholders in manners that advance well-being of living things and create the
conditions for stakeholders to achieve their fundamental interests (Scott, 2013; Anderson, 2004;
Crooke, 2008; James, 2013).
21
To navigate movement toward a more significant and transformative societal role,
Anderson and James (2004) urged museums to adopt balanced social, environmental, and
economic stewardship as new societal roles. Kotter (2004) called for museums to contribute
toward solving community challenges, improving the lives of people in nearby areas. Keith
(2004) stated that museums should advance beyond the minimal tenets of social responsibility
outcomes that laws or contracts may demand. Scott (2016) urged museums to intensify the
public value they create as a means of legitimizing their existence. Public value represents a
primary means of elevating social issues and problems and addressing “unmet social needs” of
local community members (Moore & Benington, 2007, p. 2). Scholars continue to call on
museums to adopt more socially responsible mission statements, values, and practices. There is
no evidence, however, that major North American zoos accredited by the AAM and the AZA
changed their current strategies.
Current State of Social Responsibility at Accredited Zoos
Zoo-specific literature highlights that scholars have been critical of zoos for not driving
social change (Rabb & Saunders; Fraser & Sickler, 2009), contributing toward a “culture of
sustainability” (Fraser & Sickler, 2009, p. 1), or aligning business practices with a conservation
ethos (Cerezo & Kaspar, 2018). While there is additional evidence that highlights social,
economic, legal and regulatory dilemmas facing zoos (Federal Register, 2009; Scott, 2013;
Cerezo & Kaspar, 2018; Skolnik, 1992; Nonhuman Rights Project, 2016; Action Without
Borders, 2016), there are particular gaps in the literature that consider if and how social
responsibility strategies could combat these issues and position the industry to thrive amidst
sustained states of volatility and uncertainty. While there is literature regarding social
responsibility at other institutions, zoos are generally not specifically included within the
discussion.
22
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework is suited to study stakeholder performance within an
organizational setting. This problem-solving process is based on understanding stakeholder goals
with regard to the organizational goal; and identifying assumed performance influences in KMO
areas based on general theory, context-specific literature, and an existing understanding of the
organization. In this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework is adapted as a needs analysis
for innovation. This framework enables the study of stakeholder specific KMO assumed
influences.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
For stakeholders to develop an adoptable socially responsible strategy by December
2021, they must have a complete understanding of their knowledge and skills. Each of their
knowledge influences are categorized into knowledge types. It is important to segment
knowledge types because diverse forms of knowledge are required to improve organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Types of diverse knowledge include factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Krathwohl, 2002). Within the organizational performance problem factual knowledge
represents the organizational and societal benefits derived from socially responsible values and
practices; conceptual knowledge represents social responsibility theories, concepts, and
frameworks; and procedural knowledge represents how social responsibility values and practices
are institutionalized, measured, and sustained. The fourth knowledge type, metacognition is
widely understood to play a critical role in knowledge transfer and performance improvement
through the regulation of thinking and behavior. Metacognition is also defined as “awareness of
one’s cognitive processing and control of one’s cognitive processing” (Mayer, 2010, p. 42).
Metacognitive capacity serves as an antecedent to successful change and performance
23
improvement because it “helps to guide the learner’s cognitive processing of the to-be-learned
material” (Mayer, 2011, p. 43).
Declarative factual knowledge influences
Senior staff need to know the definition of social responsibility. Current CSR terms
and concepts are generally based on the notions of shareholder value and human well-being. For
example, Fontaine (2013) characterized CSR as a self-regulating tenet of a firm’s business model
that extends organizational outputs beyond meeting requisite legal and regulatory requirements.
The goal of CSR, according to Fontaine (2013) was to achieve organizational social,
environmental, and financial well-being while advancing the social, environmental, and financial
well-being of community members and stakeholders. Balabanova and Dudin (2015) continued
the stakeholder theme of CSR, asserting that “Social responsibility of business is integration of
social and environmental problems, solved by enterprise structures in interaction with
stakeholders” (p. 111). In this study, Social Responsibility is defined in a non-corporatized
setting as organizational decision-making that aligns outputs with societal values (Bowen, 1953;
James 2013) and is responsive to social movements and community member needs beyond
meeting minimal contractual or statutory obligations (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). This contributes
toward multi-generational organizational and community social, environmental, and financial
well-being (Fontaine, 2013). A Socially Responsible accredited zoo is a responsive, dynamic,
equitable, and resilient social institution. The MAZ senior staff need to understand the concepts
and frameworks associated with the social responsibility discourse before they can begin to
understand its benefits.
Senior staff need to know the benefits derived from socially responsible practices.
Benefits from socially responsible practices can be realized at both the organizational and
community levels. Within an organizational setting, benefits from socially responsible practices
24
include enhanced credibility and “reputational capital” (Isaksson, Kiessling, & Harvey, 2014, p.
65), improved legitimacy through transparency of environmental and social performance,
(Carroll & Shabana, 2010), positive public relations (Carroll, 2015) by being viewed as more
ethical and trustworthy and less blameworthy when in crisis, and potential inoculation against
criticism and vilification (Cherney & Blair, 2015). Benefits also include strategic business
outcomes and advantages that help stabilize an organization during times of crisis and
uncertainty including reduced risk, diminished regulation, improved community relations,
environmental or green outcomes, and enhanced governance (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
Scholars also cited improved staff engagement (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), recruitment and
retention (Carroll, 2015), and satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Hu, 2007).
Literature on the subject also highlighted the potential to enhance brand loyalty (Chernev &
Blair, 2015) and to improve the likelihood of consumer advocacy (Chernev & Blair, 2015).
The literature (Scott, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011) also identifies how socially
responsible practices equip organizations to create public value. Public value refers to
purposefully designed and intended benefits “to the public sphere” (Scott, 2013, p. 2). One key
determinant of creating relevant and effective public value is the participation of community
members in the design of potential interventions that may benefit community members’ lives
(Scott, 2013). By co-creating public value with community members, collective impact can be
realized (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Through collective impact, value creation transcends
traditional disciplines through a structured process that leads to a “common agenda, shared
measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone
support” among all participants (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 2). Creating public value requires an
organic process where community members co-create agendas; choose courses of action; and
evaluate, clarify, and approve ideas and suggestions that originate from external sources
25
(Stoecker, 2013). Mulgan (2006) asserted that creating value begins with “the presumption that
people are competent interpreters of their own lives and competent solvers of their own
problems” (p. 150). In non-organizational contexts generally focused within communities,
potential benefits include addressing unmet community needs (Scot, 2007); enhancing social,
economic, and environmental conditions (Anderson, 2004); and improving engagement and
bidirectional dynamics with social institutions (Crooke, 2008).
While social responsibility frameworks have benefited a multitude of organizations, zoos
also can benefit from the enhanced legitimacy gained from adopting socially responsible
practices. By applying Stillman’s (1974) conceptual framework to the zoo’s setting, the MAZ
can ensure organizational compatibility with society’s value patterns, thereby diminishing any
incongruence between what the zoo produces and what its community members require. The
MAZ senior staff need to know the benefits derived from socially responsible practices,
including the creation of public value so they are positioned to maximize community member
input and co-produce social innovations that benefit the zoo, community members, and society.
Conceptual knowledge influences
According to Kratwohl (2002), conceptual knowledge is an individual’s understanding of
theories, principles, categories, or frameworks germane to a particular field or discipline.
Conceptual knowledge is a comprehension of the dynamics between smaller parts within a larger
system that allow them to interact (Krathwohl, 2002).
Senior staff need to know what equity means. The MAZ is dependent upon public
support for the appropriations it receives through a budget approved by a municipal entity. The
municipal entity, which includes a mayor and a city council is generally accountable to
community members. Weil (2003) suggested that organizations like the MAZ must continually
26
improve the quality of life for community members or forfeit requests for public support.
Therefore, the MAZ and the community have shared interests.
Contextualized in a social sense, this relationship deals with equity, and is a primary
means “to eliminate differences in outcomes for groups” (Svara & Brunet, 2005, p. 257), who
faced or are facing “treatment that is inferior, prejudicial, or hostile” (Johnson & Svara, 2011, p.
281). This difference is eliminated largely through maximum community participation in the
political process (Johnson & Svara, 2011). Layzer (2002) suggested that superlative equity
outcomes are supported through maximum stakeholder engagement. Loomis and Ditton (1993)
framed equity in a relational context, between the goods and services received by a person and
group compared to the distribution of such services and goods to other people or groups. Doppelt
(2010) cautioned that if services and goods are not shared equitably, social upheaval becomes
more likely.
Community members who may be excluded and marginalized live in areas that are
geographically and politically relevant to the MAZ. Excluded and marginalized community
members have likely confronted historical differences in outcomes and may stand to benefit from
what Goodman (2020) characterized as changes in inequities in power and privilege. It is
necessary for the MAZ senior staff to know what equity means since socially responsible
organizations demonstrate equity-informed practices and outcomes.
Senior staff need to know what sustainability means. According to Fontaine (2013), a
primary goal of socially responsible organizations is to achieve organizational and community
social, environmental, and financial well-being. Reflecting upon Fontaine’s (2013) frame of the
term, it can be argued that socially responsible and sustainable outcomes are related, however,
Sarmah, UI Islam, and Rahman (2015) assert that social responsibility strategies on their own are
insufficient to realize organizational sustainability objectives.
27
Both social responsibility and sustainability focus on stakeholder well-being and the
inclusion of stakeholders in decision making. Social responsibility includes “the economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time”
(Carroll 1979, p. 500, 1991, p. 283). Jenkins (2009) reduced any ambiguity between the terms
social responsibility and sustainability. Sustainability, according to Jenkins (2009) ensures
economic, social, and environmental viability whereas social responsibility is characterized by
organizational activities that support economic, social, and environmental sustainability.
Much of the modern sustainability discourse appears to draw from the Brundtland
Commission (1987) report which defined sustainable development as “development that meets
the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.” Although sustainability is open to diverse meanings (Dylan, 2013), the
term generally “expresses the basis upon which human existence and the quality of human life
depend: responsible behavior directed toward the wise and efficient use of nature and human
resources” (Theis, 2012, p. 9).
Intensified and more prevalent social, economic, and environmental dilemmas have
accelerated practical and theoretical activity within the sustainability discourse. Bain-Selbo
(2010) posited that these challenges are moral dilemmas, likely influenced by deficient human
behavior as it concerns “treating the Earth ethically” and “acting morally responsibly for the
benefit of distant future generations” (p. 1). Other scholars called for a rethinking of traditional
economic models through “a new economic paradigm that allows humans to live and work in
ways that can be maintained for decades and generations without depleting and causing harm to
our environmental, social and economic resources” (Doppelt, 2010, p. 58).
Sustainability, according to Theis (2012) “is a philosophy of limits in a world governed
by dreams of infinite growth and possibility” that “dictates that we are constrained by earth’s
28
resources as to the society and lifestyle we can have” (p. 502). Growth at all costs or the “simple
ethos of economic growth— ‘more is better’—is not sustainable in a world of complex food,
water and energy systems suffering decline” (Theis, 2012, p. 485). For Kelly and Walker (2004),
sustainability “is neither an output nor an outcome [but rather] a goal that must be continually
reassessed and pursued” (p. 2). It is necessary for the MAZ senior staff to understand the concept
of sustainability since sustainability can be derived from, although not exclusively, through
socially responsible practices.
Procedural knowledge influences
Senior staff need to describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible
outcomes. Producing and executing a social responsibility strategy can be characterized as an
organizational change process (Maon, Lindgree, & Swaen, 2009). Scholars generally asserted
that social responsibility is a critical issue facing businesses (Pirnea, Olaru, & Moisa, 2011) and
a primary business purpose (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Despite its perceived prevalence and
significance, Maon, Lindgree, and Swaen (2009) observed that literature gaps exist that describe
how prescriptive approaches can produce socially responsible outcomes. To address the deficit
of literature that proposes ways to embed social responsibility into an organization’s decision-
making, priorities, and dominant beliefs, Maon, Lindgree, and Swaen (2009) developed a
sequential nine-step process for producing and executing a social responsibility strategy to
realize socially responsible outcomes. Steps developed by Maon, Lindgree, and Swaen (2009)
consisted of:
1. Elevate internal social responsibility awareness.
2. Evaluate mission and purpose within a societal context.
3. Develop a vision and meaning for social responsibility.
4. Evaluate the current state of social responsibility.
5. Produce a social responsibility strategy.
29
6. Implement the strategy.
7. Share strategy obligations and performance.
8. Evaluate strategy and communications performance.
9. Fully embed social responsibility into the organization.
Relatedly, Fet, and Knudson (2017) advocated for a more succinct process for integrating
social responsibility into a firm’s goals and planning. The process consists of four steps:
planning and capacity building, analysis, planning for action, and implementation (Fet &
Knudson, 2017). In the planning and capacity building phase, senior staff accept the process,
establish it as an institutional priority, and integrate it into existing organizational frameworks.
During the analysis that occurs in the second step, stakeholders identify and develop stakeholder
expectations and analyze the current state of the organization relative to social responsibility.
The third phase consists of planning for action where staff acquire related knowledge, and are
introduced to and engaged with the social responsibility process. This is the step where goals are
established. The fourth phase is when the strategy is implemented, social responsibility-
directives are shared institution-wide, and the organization reports and communicates their
efforts. The MAZ senior staff need to describe the steps they will take to produce socially
responsible outcomes since they will be culpable for executing the social responsibility strategy.
Senior staff need to know what leads them to change their practices. The literature
highlights that instead of adopting new practices, cultural attractions like zoos continue to
promote the status quo, “refining their methods, getting better at what they are already doing
well–while the intractable questions about the societal purpose of museums, work design, job
satisfaction, creativity, innovation and experimentation remain immune to any systematic and
critical inquiry” (James, 2013, p. xix). The MAZ senior staff need to know what leads them to
change their practices since organizational improvement is supported when individuals like the
MAZ senior staff understand sources and influences of knowledge.
30
Table 2 demonstrates knowledge influences and types, with corresponding means of
assessment.
Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature
Declarative Factual
(i.e., terms, facts, concepts)
Senior staff need to know the definition
of social responsibility.
Fontaine, 2013; Balabanova & Dudin, 2015;
Bowen, 1953; James, 2013; Carroll & Shabana,
2010
Senior staff need to know the benefits
derived from socially responsible
practices.
Isaksson, Kiessling, & Harvey, 2014; Scott,
2013; Chernev & Blair, 2015; Carroll, 2015; Hu,
2007; Stoecker, 2013; Anderson, 2004;
Stillman, 1974; Mulgan, 2006; Crook, 2008
Declarative Conceptual
(i.e., categories, process models,
principles, relationships)
Senior staff need to know what equity
means.
Weil, 2003; Stillman, 1974; Svara & Brunet,
2005; Johnson & Svara, 2011; Layzer, 2002;
Loomis & Ditton, 1993; Doppelt, 2010;
Goodman, 2020
Senior staff need to know what
sustainability means.
Fontaine, 2013; Carroll, 1979, 1991; Brundtland
Commission, 1987; Dylan, 2013; Theis, 2012;
Bain-Selbo, 2010; Doppelt, 2010; Kelly &
Walker, 2004
Procedural
Senior staff need to describe the steps
they take to produce socially responsible
outcomes.
Maon, Lindgree, & Swaen, 2009; Fet &
Knudson, 2017; Carroll & Shabana, 2010;
Pirnea, Olaru, & Moisa, 2011
Senior staff need to know what leads
them to change their practices.
James, 2013
31
Motivation
General theory. Motivation-related influences are relevant to the achievement of the
stakeholder goal. The organizational performance problem is informed by theories that include
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2000) and expectancy value motivation theory (Eccles, 2006).
Clark and Estes (2008) offered a useful framing of motivation through active choice, persistence,
and mental effort. In a localized context, these tenets of motivation provide a means to initiate
and sustain action toward performance improvement, persist despite disruptions, and exert
mental effort to maximize performance and generate innovative ideas (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Active choice, according to Rueda (2011) is a selection of one task over the other and persistence
represents sustained focus of an activity despite interruptions. Mental effort is produced through
confidence (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Value. Clark and Estes (2008) postulated that values are a way in which people
communicate their perspectives about what they anticipate will make them successful. Values
are desires that drive people to take action and persevere despite interruption (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Social responsibility needs to be valued as an organizational priority and value. Kahle
et al. (1988) stated that a correlation exists between values and social change since “values are
individual representations of societal goals.” (p. 35). While Posner (2010) said that values are
found at the social, organizational, and personal levels, Agle and Caldwell (1999) suggested
different levels consisting of personal, organizational, institutional, societal, and global. For
purposes of this study, values are considered at the organizational and individual levels.
At the organizational level, values are the basis for what an organization stands for and what it
seeks to achieve (Posner, 2010). Jin and Drozenko (2010) cautioned that organizations need to
do more than set values or communicate that values exist. They suggested that values can
32
enhance organizational social responsibility performance when there is evidence that established
values result in achievement of intended social responsibility outcomes (Jin & Drozenko, 2010).
When organizational values reflect those of the individuals who set them, the values may be
more organic and authentic (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). Clark and Estes (2008) asserted
that individuals value an idea or duty due to their perception as to whether or not it will support
them.
At the individual level, decision-making by senior staff members is generally informed
by three factors: individual values, individual interests, and organizational goals (Hemingway &
Maclagan, 2004). The MAZ senior staff need to value social responsibility in organizational and
individual contexts since these values can simultaneously demonstrate what the zoo stands for
and what it intends to accomplish.
Self-efficacy. Bandura’s (2000) notion of self-efficacy posits that people control
experiences and influence events. The perception of self-efficacy plays a critical role in human
adaptation and change (Bandura, 2000). Eccles (2006) concurs, asserting that confidence is a
predictor of improved performance.
Senior staff need to be confident in recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values. In his consideration of motivational principles, Rueda (2011) highlighted
enhanced levels of value as a primary means of motivation. In practice, enhancing value means
aligning resources, including activities and resources with the interests of the individual, as well
as being attentive to the significance and use of materials and activities (Rueda, 2011). Through
a practical application of Rueda’s (2011) framework, the MAZ senior staff need to recalibrate
job descriptions and annual goals so that their own interests and aspirations are linked to the
needs of the organization. The MAZ senior staff need to have the confidence to recalibrate their
33
roles to reflect socially responsible values since their roles need to align with organizational
values and priorities.
Individual senior staff members need to be confident that the collective senior staff
group can take the steps necessary to develop a social responsibility strategy. Perceived self-
efficacy plays a critical role in human adaptation and change (Bandura, 2000). Confidence for a
specific task is crucial for sustaining motivation in an organizational environment (Bandura,
2000). Rueda (2011) asserted a correlation between confidence-building and persistence.
Reflecting upon Bandura (2000) and Rueda (2011), confidence that is task-specific will play a
key role in zoo senior staff goal development.
Bandura’s (2000) notion of social cognitive theory positioned individual learning as
occurring through a social context as well as through observation (Denler et al., 2009). Through
this framework, “personal, behavioral, and environmental factors” can “exert substantial
influence over their own outcomes…through forethought, self-reflection, and self-regulatory
processes…” (Denler et al., 2009, p. 2) as a means of acquiring new knowledge and skills and
adopting new behaviors to close the performance gap.
Bandura’s (2000) notion of self-efficacy invited consideration of individual behaviors
that are erratic or strategic, and optimistic or pessimistic, as well as those that are resilient amidst
adversity. Institutionalizing social responsibility at the MAZ requires staff to reconsider their
humanity and the zoo’s social location. Perceived self-efficacy plays a critical role in human
adaptation and change (Bandura, 2000). This framework posits that people control experiences
and influence events, tasks that are central to action (Bandura, 2000). The genesis of action,
according to Bandura (2000) was the individual’s belief that they can generate the intended
outcomes. Individual senior staff members need to be confident the collective senior staff group
34
can take the steps necessary to develop a social responsibility since self-efficacy can be an
antecedent to goal attainment.
Mood. Within the context of goal pursuit and achievement, emotion represents one’s
mood (Clark & Estes, 2008). If an individual feels the goal is unattainable or asserts that it is not
deserving of time or attention, it is plausible the individual will demonstrate a negative attitude
toward the task, which could have consequences toward the task completion (Clark & Estes,
2008). Individuals often address problem solving through a mindset that limits the discovery and
exploration of more viable answers and solutions (Haager et al., 2014).
Senior staff need to feel positive about a socially responsible zoo. Scholars suggested
that employees may feel more positive about an organization when social responsibility informs
an organization’s outputs, when outcomes are produced through those outputs, and when staff
are treated relationally (Rupp et al., 2006). Carroll and Shabana (2010) suggested that socially
responsible organizational practices can improve employee engagement and help attract and
retain staff. The MAZ senior staff need to feel positive about organizational social responsibility
since positivity is an antecedent to successful task management and completion.
Attribution. Attribution theory represents a person’s affirmation about the cause of
particular events and links these beliefs to the individual’s ensuing motivation (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). It is generally understood that attribution maintains three characteristics:
controllability, stability, and locus (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Senior staff need to attribute the causes of success or failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their own efforts. Beliefs are shaped through individual perceptions of
prior experiences and may or may not be valid (Clark & Estes, 2008). Beliefs influence
workplace performance and goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Attributions are a type of
belief held by individuals about the causes for achievement or failure, and the extent to which
35
they can influence an intended outcome (Rueda, 2011). Within an organizational setting, Weiner
(2011) contextualized attribution theory as a means of acquiring knowledge and insight into the
causes of events and sustained efforts to unearth and investigate the behaviors of others, with
corresponding positive and negative actions. The MAZ senior staff need to attribute the causes of
success or failure to their own efforts since these beliefs can influence their motivation toward
completion of a task or strategy. Table 3 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related
literature.
Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Value
Social responsibility needs to be valued as
an organizational priority and value.
Kahle et al., 1988; Posner, 2010; Agle &
Caldwell, 1999; Jin & Drozenko, 2010;
Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004
Self-Efficacy
Senior staff need to be confident in
recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values.
Rueda, 2008; Eccles, 2006
Individual senior staff members need to be
confident that the collective senior staff
group can take the steps necessary to
develop a social responsibility strategy.
Bandura, 2000; Rueda, 2011
Mood
Senior staff need to feel positive about a
socially responsible zoo.
Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Rupp et al., 2006
Attributions
Senior staff need to attribute the causes of
success or failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their own efforts.
Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda,
2011; Weiner, 2011
36
Organization
Organizational life consists of cultural models and cultural settings (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are generally abstract and characterized as shared
knowledge and mutual understanding of how the world functions, or would ideally function
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are physical places where individuals gather
to achieve something (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Both cultural models and cultural
settings are interconnected and part of an organization’s culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001).
Cultural setting. Cultural settings are observable or visible and influence standards
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are characterized as “the who, what, when,
where, why, and the how of the routines that constitute everyday life” (Rueda, 2011, p. 57).
Cultural setting takes place when individuals gather to achieve something (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001) and influence behavior (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) explained that the
dynamic between cultural models and settings is reciprocal.
Resources. Within a cultural setting, resources are materials that include staff, funds,
time, and knowledge required to meet performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Performance
gaps and sub-optimal performance to close performance gaps may be perpetuated by
organizational resource deficiencies (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Senior staff need to identify what resources are needed to implement a social
responsibility strategy. The zoo’s senior staff need resources to establish social responsibility as
both a tenet of organizational culture and as an organizational value. Through beliefs of group
members and their understanding of social responsibility values, new organizational values and
norms can be produced (Strautmanis, 2007). The MAZ senior staff need to identify the resources
37
needed to implement a social responsibility strategy since resources help close performance gaps
and support the achievement of the stakeholder goal.
Policies and procedures. When aligned and supported appropriately, work process and
policy play critical roles in closing performance gaps and achieving organizational goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) said that policies and procedures contribute toward attainment or
nonattainment of individual or organizational goals. Organizational goals are realized through a
system of interconnected processes that include how individuals and resources are connected and
aligned to produce the intended outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008)
cautioned that organizational performance can be diminished if policies do not support the
process. The MAZ senior staff need to develop policies and processes that are symbiotic, with
each influencing and supporting the other to support achievement of the stakeholder goal.
Senior staff need to identify policies or procedures they would like to see created or
changed to implement a social responsibility strategy. Aligning internal processes with policy
improves the likelihood of achieving organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to
Clark and Estes (2008), it is critical for organizations to track the performance of change
programs once they have been implemented. Clark and Estes (2008) warned that individuals
have a predisposition to go back to previous behaviors until newly acquired knowledge can
overtake prior habits. When training administrators clearly articulate goals and expectations,
trainees will have greater interest and motivation to utilize their new knowledge and skills (Clark
& Estes, 2008). According to Rueda (2011), “motivation is inherently cultural” (p. 39). Drawing
upon the theories and frameworks of Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011), the MAZ senior
staff should construct a process where progress toward social responsibility goals is tracked,
where new knowledge and skill development is constantly supported and integrated into the
organization’s schema, and where training programs effectively communicate the need to
38
immediately transfer new knowledge into practice. Changes to policies and procedures could
include modifications to the organization’s mission, vision, and values; employee goals and job
descriptions; employee performance reviews, budgeting process, and standards of accountability;
and strategies related to leadership, transparency, and communications. The MAZ senior staff
need to identify policies or procedures to implement a social responsibility strategy since these
processes can inhibit or support achievement of the stakeholder goal.
Senior staff need to identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and reward senior
staff behaviors toward social responsibility. Rueda (2011) stated that “motivation is inherently
cultural” (p. 39), with motivation, knowledge, and action influenced through interactions with
others in social settings. Dynamic social environments are in sustained states of change (Rueda,
2011). The MAZ is a complex social setting. Systems within the zoo can advance or impede the
organization’s ability to close performance gaps or realize social responsibility goals. It is
necessary for the MAZ senior staff to identify how systems influence goal attainment and change
since how these systems interact and perform will influence goal attainment.
Cultural models. Unlike cultural settings, cultural models are abstract and invisible,
shaped by history, and demonstrated through “...shared ways of perceiving, thinking, and storing
possible responses to adaptive challenges and changing conditions” (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001, p. 47). Both cultural models and settings influence whether or not performance
improvement is realized (Rueda, 2011).
Culture. Organizational culture represents the acquired and collective learning that
groups undertake to resolve challenges and issues related to change and internal assimilation
(Schein, 2017). Organizational culture is constituted through the beliefs of group members and
their understanding of their firm’s values (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996), producing
organizational values and norms (Erez & Gati, 2004). Clark and Estes (2008) defined
39
organizational culture as the primary “values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes” (p. 108).
Culture influences performance improvement success and successful improvement requires
consideration of cultural setting (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture and efforts to
drive change are interrelated, resulting in both positive and negative change outcomes (Clare &
Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that culture is manifest in the work environment, in
groups, and in individuals.
Social responsibility is both a tenet of organizational culture and an organizational value
(Strautmanis, 2007). Despite research gaps on stakeholder specific factors and more broadly, the
museum sector itself (Davies, Paton, & O’Sullivan 2013; Lee 2007), there is quantitative
evidence of links between organizational culture and social responsibility implementation and
performance (Übius & Alas, 2009; Pandu & Kamaraj, 2016; Deng, 2010).
Senior staff need to describe how the organization’s culture influences the
implementation of a social responsibility strategy. According to Schein (2007), there are three
levels of organizational culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying
assumptions. Artifacts can be observed and include staff behavior, but may be difficult to
interpret (Schein, 2007). Espoused beliefs and values represent ideology, rationalizations, goals,
and values (Schein, 2007). Basic underlying assumptions are values and beliefs individuals may
not be cognizant of that influence practice and perception and how staff think and feel (Schein,
2007). Developing adequate perceptions of a group’s culture requires an understanding of what
types of learning took place, over what time period, and by what types of leadership (Schein,
2017). The group acquires new meaning around who they are and what their purpose is when
learning is collectively transferred (Schein, 2017). It is necessary for the MAZ senior staff to
describe how the organization’s culture influences the implementation of a social responsibility
40
strategy since Schein (2017) said that culture represents assumptions that delineate what people
focus on and how they behave in different types of settings.
Table 4 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed Organization Influences Research Literature
Organization Setting - Resources
(i.e., time; finances; people)
Senior staff need to identify what resources are
needed to implement a social responsibility
strategy.
Strautmanis, 2007
Organization Setting - Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
Senior staff need to identify policies or procedures
they would like to see created or changed to
implement a social responsibility strategy.
Senior staff need to identify how the zoo can
reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff
behaviors toward social responsibility.
Fontaine, 2013
Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011
Cultural Models - Culture
Senior staff need to describe how the
organization’s culture influences the
implementation of a social responsibility strategy.
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Schein 2007, 2017
The knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences identified in Chapter
Two will be used as a foundation for data collection in Chapter Three. The literature highlights
how KMO factors influence the MAZ senior staff as they pursue social responsibility goals.
41
Chapter Three: Methods
This study consists of document analysis and interviews of MAZ senior staff. This
chapter includes research design and methods for data collection and analysis. The primary
research question is: what KMO needs are necessary for senior staff to achieve their goal of
developing an adoptable social responsibility strategy by December, 2021 that is composed of
financial, social, and environmental components that support the organization’s evolution into a
responsive, dynamic, equitable, and resilient social institution? The chapter first identifies
participating stakeholders and interview rationale, data collection and instrumentation, data
analysis, credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and finally, limitations and delimitations.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus was the MAZ senior staff. All members of the senior
staff were invited to participate in the case study. These stakeholders were selected based on
their leadership roles within the zoo, their responsibilities to set organizational agendas and
priorities, and their role in formulating and enacting budgets.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Accredited North American zoo. The conceptual framework was based on
KMO influences of social responsibility practices at an accredited zoo.
Criterion 2. Senior staff of zoo located in major metropolitan area. The conceptual
framework was based on the KMO influences of social responsibility practices among all 10
senior staff members at a zoo located in a major metropolitan area.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Eight of the 10 zoo senior staff members voluntarily participated in the interviews. The
positions of interviewed individuals include:
42
− Zoo Director,
− Director of Administration and Operations,
− Director of Animal Health,
− Human Resources Director,
− Director of Learning and Engagement,
− Projects Director,
− Communications Director, and
− Director of Conservation.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
All 10 members of the MAZ senior staff were invited to participate in voluntary
interviews for purposes of qualitative data collection. In addition, the principal investigator
undertook document research and analysis of zoo board meeting minutes, annual reports, and
member magazines. Both interviews and document research and analysis were qualitative forms
of research. Interviews allowed the principal investigator to investigate how the stakeholders
made sense and meaning of their experiences and perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a
qualitative research method and data collection approach, interviews are best suited when
behavior cannot be observed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews allow the principal
investigator to ascertain specialized and specific knowledge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as it
concerns the research inquiry.
Interviews
Patton (1987) asserted that interviews should be used when observation is not practical.
The principal investigator conducted eight semi-structured interviews with senior staff members
to investigate respondent understanding of themes, concepts, and practices. Semi-structured
interviews are open-ended and the best approach to data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
43
Follow-up interviews were not conducted. Semi-structured interviews were aligned with the
nature of the author’s research question through the use of flexibly worded questions and
autonomy to “respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and
to new ideas on the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). The author’s questions formed a
confluence of Patton’s (1987) six questions and the principal investigator’s conceptual
framework. Patton’s (1987) questions were generally focused on behavior and experience, values
and opinions, feelings, knowledge, sensory, and background/demography (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Interviews explored the KMO influences among the MAZ senior staff. These influences
included: knowledge as it concerns conceptual understanding of social responsibility theories,
concepts, or frameworks; motivation as to whether or not they desire to practice this discipline
and believe they are capable of carrying out its tenets; and organizational as it concerns whether
or not there are social responsibility-specific organizational goals, if resources are committed,
and if the organization needs to demonstrate a long-term commitment to social responsibility.
Interviews took place on mutually agreeable dates and times via Google Meet. Interviews
were arranged through a zoo staff member who was not a member of the senior staff. In addition
to interviews, the principal investigator analyzed relevant documents. Documents can
contextualize the environment in which individuals operate and initiate new questions to be
pursued (Bowen, 2009). Over eight hours of interviews were conducted. Data was captured by
audio/video recording and hand-written notes. All interviews were conducted in English.
The principal investigator crafted an interview strategy generally based on Merriam and
Tisdell’s (2016) framework consisting of the beginning of the interview, interviewer and
respondent interaction, and then the recording and transcribing of data. When initiating the
interview, the author heeded Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) suggestion to read from a script that
44
highlighted the voluntary nature of their participation and iterated how the interviewee could
leave at any time, asked permission to voice record the conversation, and clearly stated the
study’s purpose. In addition, the principal investigator protected each participant’s anonymity.
Once the interview was underway, the principal investigator followed Merriam and Tisdell’s
(2016) recommendations to be respectful and to not appear judgmental or threatening, and
otherwise ask questions that “uncover experiences, opinions, feelings, knowledge, sensory, and
demographic data” (p. 136).
Documents and Artifacts
Documents consist of images and words that are void of researcher interference (Bowen,
2009). Annual reports, board meeting minutes, and member magazines are publicly available
through the zoo’s website and were analyzed by the principal investigator as part of the study’s
document analysis. This analysis represents an intentional process for assessing documents. It is
generally understood that analysis should include consideration of who produced the document,
its purpose, and audience, as well as the researcher’s positionality and potential biases (Bowen,
2009).
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments
Table 5 shows each KMO influence and the method and measure of the influence.
Alignment of the influences and methods is demonstrated.
45
Table 5
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Methods and Measurements
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Interview Question Document
Declarative Factual
(i.e., terms, facts, concepts)
Senior staff need to know the
definition of social
responsibility.
What is your understanding of the
term social responsibility? How
would you define it?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Member magazines
Senior staff need to know the
benefits derived from socially
responsible practices.
What benefits can be realized
from the zoo’s practice of social
responsibility?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Member magazines
Declarative Conceptual
(i.e., categories, process
models, principles,
relationships)
Senior staff need to know
what equity means.
What is your understanding of the
term equity?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Member magazines
Senior staff need to know
what sustainability means.
What is your understanding of the
term sustainability?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Member magazines
Procedural
Senior staff need to describe
the steps they take to produce
socially responsible outcomes.
Describe the steps you take to
produce socially responsible
outcomes.
More broadly, what steps can the
zoo take to institutionalize social
responsibility?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Senior staff need to know
what leads them to change
their practices.
Describe what leads you to
change your practices.
Board meeting minutes
46
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Interview Question Document
Value
Social responsibility needs to
be valued as an organizational
priority and value.
Describe how social responsibility is
valued as an organizational priority and
value?
How valuable is it for the zoo’s senior
staff to produce socially responsible
outcomes?
Board meeting
minutes
Annual reports
Member
magazines
Self-Efficacy
Senior staff need to be
confident in recalibrating
their roles to reflect socially
responsible values.
Would you value recalibrating your role
and responsibilities to produce socially
responsible outcomes?
Would you value contributing toward
and producing a zoo social responsibility
strategy?
How confident are you in your abilities
to recalibrate your role to produce
socially responsible outcomes?
Board meeting
minutes
Annual reports
Individual senior staff
members need to be confident
that the collective senior staff
group can take the steps
necessary to develop a zoo
specific social responsibility
strategy.
How confident are you recalibrating
your role to produce socially responsible
outcomes?
How confident are you that the senior
staff can take the steps to develop a zoo
social responsibility strategy?
Board meeting
minutes
Annual reports
Mood
Senior staff need to feel
positive about a socially
responsible zoo.
How do you feel about social
responsibility at the zoo?
How positive do you feel about
implementing social responsibility at
your zoo?
Board meeting
minutes
Annual reports
Member
magazines
Attributions
47
Senior staff need to attribute
the causes of success or
failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their
own efforts.
Thinking about when you perform well
or fail at something, what do you believe
are the reasons for your performance?
What do you attribute success or failure
to?
Board meeting
minutes
Assumed Organization Influences Interview Question Document
Resources
(i.e., time, finances, people)
Senior staff need to identify what
resources are needed to implement
a social responsibility strategy.
What resources/if any would
you need to implement a
social responsibility
strategy?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Member magazines
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Senior staff need to identify
policies or procedures they would
like to see created or changed to
implement a social responsibility
strategy.
Senior staff need to identify how
the zoo can reinforce, monitor,
and reward senior staff behaviors
toward social responsibility.
What policies or procedures
would you see having to be
changed or created to
implement social
responsibility?
How can the zoo reinforce,
monitor, and reward senior
staff behaviors toward
socially responsible
outcomes?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Culture
Senior staff need to describe how
the organization’s culture
influences the implementation of a
social responsibility strategy.
How can the zoo’s culture
influence the implementation
of a social responsibility
strategy?
Board meeting minutes
Annual reports
Member magazines
Data Analysis
After conducting interviews and collecting documents, the principal investigator began
the process of data analysis. The principal investigator documented thoughts, concerns, and
initial conclusions about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions.
48
Interviews were transcribed and coded. The initial analysis phase utilized empirical and a priori
codes from the conceptual framework that were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. The
principal investigator also identified codes and themes that were outside of the conceptual
framework and did not answer the research questions. Artifacts and documents were evaluated
for evidence that aligned with concepts outlined in the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) identified bias and reactivity as threats to validity or credibility. As a
means of diminishing or managing bias, Maxwell (2013) recommended “understanding how a
particular researcher’s values and expectations may have influenced the conduct and conclusions
of the study” (p. 121). Reactivity is the second threat to credibility and is characterized as the
“influence of the researcher on the setting or individual’s studies…” (p. 124). The principal
investigator highlighted and addressed potential biases. To enhance conclusion credibility and
eliminate validity threats, Maxwell (2013) suggested collecting rich data, respondent validations,
and triangulation. Maxwell (2013) defines triangulation as “collecting information from a diverse
range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods…” (p. 128). Through triangulation,
the researcher can legitimize the study’s themes using various data sources (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). To address potential biases, the principal investigator triangulated by collecting
data from multiple sources that consisted of interviews and document analysis.
Ethics
Prior to the commencement of this investigation, the principal investigator did not have
any relationship with the MAZ. The principal investigator did serve as a senior vice president of
a different accredited zoo. Throughout the administration of the study, the principal investigator
intended to exercise the highest ethical standards. The principal investigator aimed to safeguard
study participants who had voluntarily elected to be interviewed by the author, provide
49
confidentiality and anonymity, and engage in informed consent (Glesne, 2011). Because Glesne
(2011) highlighted the importance of maximizing participant welfare and communicating that the
participant may end their participation at any time, study participants were asked to complete
informed consent forms asserting their participation as voluntary. To maximize study participant
welfare, the author submitted the study plan to the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB). The plan was approved and USC’s rules and regulations protecting the
rights and well-being of the study participants were observed throughout the course of the study.
No rewards or promises were made to the participants. Once the study concluded, the author did
not send thank you notes. The author recorded the interviews once the participants provided
separate and distinct permission prior to the interview. Data was kept solely by the author
through a password secure application and not shared with any individual or entity.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations are determined by the researcher’s study focus, the
conceptual framework, and qualitative research methods (Simon, 2011). Both limitations and
delimitations may influence the research and otherwise limit or confine any conclusions.
Anticipated limitations of the study were time, funding, and access to the population of interest.
Interviews conducted with eight members of the MAZ senior staff were not entirely
representative of leadership at all accredited North American zoos and may be limited by self-
report constraints.
Delimitations represent the researcher’s a priori choices, as well as the research scope and
focus (Simon, 2011). The study’s population of interest is one North American accredited zoo
and within this particular organization, the ten-member senior staff. Increasing the number of
participating accredited zoos and participants within the participating zoo may have yielded more
valuable results. The study population boundaries did not include all accredited zoo industry
50
staff, senior staff within the industry, or non-senior staff within the participating zoo. It was not
timely or practical for the principal investigator to interview senior staff at each accredited zoo,
to develop a sampling strategy representative of accredited zoo senior staff, or to interview or
sample all MAZ staff. Non-senior MAZ staff were excluded because they do not generally set
organizational agendas, determine budgeting priorities, or provide overall leadership.
51
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The assumed causes in Chapter Three were categorized under knowledge, motivation,
and organization (KMO) influences using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to
understand how influences shape senior staff adopting a social responsibility strategy and
realizing related outcomes. In this chapter, the results are organized by the assumed KMO
causes. Multiple sources of qualitative data were collected to validate the assumed causes.
Specifically, interviews and documents were collected to understand the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational challenges zoo senior staff face when attempting to develop and
adopt a social responsibility strategy that will subsequently realize socially responsible
outcomes.
Within the gap analysis framework, cut scores were used to determine whether
information gleaned from interviews and documents were assets or needs. Cut scores are a
normative concept that represent “selected points on the score scale of a test” (Zieky & Perie,
2006, p. 2) based on individual judgements that may be subjective and open to diverse
interpretation (Zieky & Perie, 2006). Meeting or exceeding an interview cut score is not meant to
be interpreted as proficiency or advanced demonstration of a particular influence, but rather
demonstrates a basic KMO threshold for purposes of the study. When using cut scores to
determine needs and assets within the gap analysis framework, a best practice is to implement
higher cut scores when respondent sizes are relatively small. For this investigation, eight of ten
zoo senior staff voluntarily participated in interviews, earning a characterization as a small
respondent size. The small respondent size of this study required higher cut scores for identifying
influences. With the study’s overall participant size of eight, an interview cut score for a critical
KMO asset was 87.5 percent out of a scale of 100. The 87.5 percent score represented seven out
of the eight participants meeting the adequate response threshold. For scores less than 87.5 in a
52
participant size of eight, the influence was determined to be a need. In cases where not all
questions were answered, a smaller participant size was used and cut scores were adjusted
accordingly. For example, if the total participant size was seven, a cut score of 85.7 or higher
would confirm the influence to be an asset. Scores below 85.7 would mean the influence is a
need. Cut scores for senior staff are generally scored for respondent sizes of 7 or 8.
The cut score is mathematically determined by dividing the number of responses that
align or do not align with the literature, with the total number of participants. Unlike interview
cut scores, document cut scores have no assigned numerical value, but are characterized as
critical or non-critical resources. If documents are deemed critical for the influence, it is expected
that senior staff demonstrated basic levels of knowledge or motivation for the corresponding
influence. If the influence is considered an asset, it should also be cross-institutionally applied
and adequately reflected in the documents. If an influence is not reflected in the assessed
documents through a cross-institutional application and fails to receive adequate consideration, it
is a need.
Participating Stakeholders
Data collected from the stakeholder population of focus, senior staff of the MAZ,
validated the assumed causes. All members of the senior staff were invited to participate in
interviews. Stakeholders were selected based on their formal zoo leadership roles and associated
responsibilities to set organizational agendas and priorities, and to formulate and enact budgets.
Data were collected via interviews with senior staff and through analysis of publicly available
documents. An initial email was sent by a zoo staff member who was not directly participating in
the study to all 10 senior staff members inviting their voluntary participation for a 45-60 minute
interview, which would be conducted via Google Meet over a two-week period in May 2020. Of
the ten zoo senior staff members, eight voluntarily participated in the interviews. Due to time or
53
other constraints, not all interview questions were asked although attempts were made to ask as
many approved questions as possible.
Three types of publicly available documents were analyzed to assess KMO influences
among senior staff. These documents were assessed for each influence. Evaluated documents
helped determine if senior staff demonstrated basic levels of knowledge or motivation for the
corresponding influence and/or whether the influence was represented cross-institutionally and in
a robust manner. The first series of documents evaluated were board meeting minutes for twelve
meetings conducted between April 9, 2019 and April 21, 2020. Second, annual reports were
evaluated from 2015 through 2019. Third, member magazines produced by an affiliated third
party were assessed for the Spring 2020, Fall 2019, Summer 2019, and Spring 2019 issues.
The first type of analyzed documents, publicly available meeting minutes from twelve
board meetings, were analyzed for relevant data regarding each influence. The following content
was relevant to the case study:
− On January 21, 2020, zoo senior staff announced that the education department would
operate under a new moniker, Learning and Community Engagement, with its work
informed by four new pillars: Curiosity, Empathy, Belonging, and Focus. Senior staff
shared that the newly named division would focus on providing outreach to audiences
beyond zoo visitors and programs for visiting school groups.
− The zoo director announced at the December 17, 2019 meeting that they attended an
event to announce enhanced connectivity between the zoo and public transportation.
− At the August 20, 2019 meeting, a senior staff member provided an overview on diversity
outreach efforts, how local students had travelled to a foreign country to engage in bee
conservation, and that a local individual was recognized for their support of conservation
education.
54
− A new senior staff person was announced at the July 16, 2019 meeting, where this new
senior staff member shared their intent to engage in greater outreach.
A second series of documents analyzed were annual zoo reports for the years 2015
through 2019. Portions of the annual reports relevant to each influence were evaluated and
included:
− Nine local school students studied flora and fauna in a foreign country. (2018-2019).
− A partnership launched with the local aquarium aimed to support community engagement
in environmental causes. (2018-2019).
− The zoo supported local students through free admission, a zoo camp, transportation, and
special programming. This included free admission for some students. (2018-2019).
− An inclusive programming and outreach program was initiated that included new
partnerships to improve zoo access for excluded and marginalized community members.
(2018-2019).
− Zoo-based events including camps, classes, and talks with staff and volunteers connected
with thousands of people. (2017-2018).
− Zoo-based events included elephant awareness engagements, camps, conservation and
environmental-focused community outreach and partnerships, and docent-led community
engagement. (2016-2017).
− The zoo focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education and
provided scholarships for school and community groups. (2015-2016).
A third document source, a collection of four editions of the zoo’s member magazine,
was evaluated. These magazines dated from the spring, summer, and fall of 2019, as well as from
the spring of 2020. Portions of the magazines relevant to each influence were evaluated and the
following content was included in the analysis:
55
− The zoo created special programs and free admission for students. (Spring 2019).
− The zoo participated in a public awareness campaign to stop wildlife trafficking. (Spring
2019).
− The zoo organized habitat restoration projects in local communities. (Summer 2019).
− The zoo hosted a booth at outreach events. (Fall 2019).
− Interviews with the zoo director identified priorities as, “engaging the community and
establishing partnerships and strategic alliances; having a work culture based on core
values of empathy, respect, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, and equality...” (Fall 2019).
− A new transport service began to reduce traffic and congestion by connecting the zoo
with other cultural attractions and public transportation in the area. (Spring 2020).
Determination of Assets and Needs
Interviews with senior staff and analysis of documents were the two main sources of data
for the study. To enhance conclusion credibility and eliminate validity threats, the literature
suggested collecting rich data, validating respondents, and conducting triangulation. Through
triangulation, the researcher legitimizes the study’s themes through the use of multiple data
sources (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, the principal investigator triangulated
themes through interviews and document analysis. Interview participants yielded particular
perspectives to the semi-structured questions rendering the process invaluable.
The assumed causes could be labeled as an asset or a need based on the interview data
and study specific criteria. Since the study purpose was to understand the zoo’s senior staff KMO
influences toward the development of a social responsibility strategy, interview responses were
assets if 87.5 percent or more of eight participants, 85.7 percent or more of seven participants, or
83.4 percent or more of six participants gave responses that aligned with the literature or gave
affirmative responses. These cut scores were arbitrarily determined to represent a basic level of
56
KMO influences. If participant answers did not meet the cut score thresholds, the influence was a
need. For example, if six of eight respondents gave answers that aligned with the literature for a
cut score of 75.0, the influence was a need since it did not meet the 87.5 percent cut score
threshold.
As part of triangulation, the principal investigator analyzed documents to determine if
senior staff demonstrated basic levels of knowledge and motivation and if influences were cross-
institutionally applied. The influence was a need if the documents did not demonstrate that senior
staff held basic levels of knowledge or motivation, and that the documents contained a lack of
cross-institutional application and substantive discussion.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The researcher assessed the knowledge causes of the zoo’s senior staff through interviews
and document analysis. The results and findings framed the assumed influences based on factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Based on the results and findings,
each assumed knowledge influence was identified to be an asset or a need.
Factual Knowledge
Influence I: Senior Staff Need to Know the Definition of Social Responsibility.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to share their definition of social
responsibility, all eight participants gave answers moderately consistent with the literature. This
made this influence an asset and indicated that senior staff possessed basic factual knowledge
about the meaning of social responsibility. For this study, social responsibility was characterized
as organizational decision-making and outputs that aligned with societal values (Bowen, 1953;
James 2013), as well as those that were responsive to social movements and community member
needs (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Socially responsible organizational achievements extend
beyond meeting requisite legal and contractual requirements and are generally framed through
57
both organizational and community social, environmental, and financial well-being (Fontaine,
2013).
All interview participants attempted to characterize social responsibility with
organizational obligations to communities, individuals, and/or the earth. For example, Participant
7 maintained that the zoo’s role needed to advance inclusive social and economic outcomes for
community members by “developing our programs and initiatives, or goals and objectives, to
support those efforts.” Participant 1 drew a connection between the organization’s mission and
community needs, while referencing the notion of equity. This participant framed social
responsibility as “understanding your obligation to make the connection between your mission
and how it can serve the community in a diverse and equitable manner.” Participant 5 continued
the theme of public value creation, suggesting that the zoo needed to use its “authority and
knowledge to better engage and educate community members.” Similarly, Participant 4 framed
social responsibility within environmental and sustainability contexts, characterizing the term as
“what we owe…this earth to make sure that it's sustainable.”
Document Analysis. The principal investigator also analyzed publicly available board
meeting minutes, annual reports, and member magazines to determine if senior staff
demonstrated a basic understanding of social responsibility. Based on recurring and substantive
discussion and stories, the documents demonstrated that the senior staff know what social
responsibility means. Senior staff knew the definition of social responsibility, and therefore, this
critical influence was an asset.
Summary. Interview findings showed that when senior staff were asked to define social
responsibility, eight out of eight participants provided answers consistent with the literature,
surpassing the cut score threshold of 87.5 and making this influence an asset. Examination of
documents consisting of board meetings, annual reports, and member magazines yielded similar
58
findings; senior staff demonstrated basic knowledge of the term social responsibility. Based on
the results and findings, this influence was an asset.
Influence 2. Senior Staff Need to Know the Benefits Derived from Socially
Responsible Practices.
Interview Findings. Senior staff were asked to share their knowledge about the benefits
derived from socially responsible practices. All but one of eight participants cited benefits related
to organizational trust and community education; therefore, this influence was an asset with a cut
score of 87.5. This indicates that senior staff possessed basic factual knowledge about the
benefits derived from socially responsible practices in both organizational and community
contexts. According to the literature, benefits derived from socially responsible practices
included enhanced credibility and “reputational capital” (Isaksson, Kiessling, & Harvey, 2014, p.
65), improved legitimacy through transparency of environmental and social performance (Carroll
& Shabana, 2010), increased positive public relations (Carroll, 2015), and inhibited criticism and
vilification (Cherney & Blair, 2015). Benefits also included strategic business outcomes and
advantages that helped stabilize an organization during times of crisis and that could help reduce
risk, diminish regulation, improve community relations, promote environmental or green
outcomes, and enhance governance (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Scholars also cited improved
staff engagement (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), attraction and retention (Carroll 2015), and
satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Hu, 2007). The literature highlights the
potential to enhance brand loyalty (Chernev & Blair, 2015) and to improve the likelihood of
consumer advocacy (Chernev & Blair, 2015) as benefits derived through socially responsible
practices.
Participant 2, whose response did not align with the literature, asserted, “I don't think that
there's the need for the zoo to benefit.” Participants 1 and 5 both cited community member trust
as benefits. Participant 1 spoke of “beginning to develop a brand…of being trusted” and
59
Participant 5 urged authentic dynamics with community members to “gain trust…[be] true to
your mission…not just paying lip service.” Participants 4 and 8 identified educational benefits of
community members. Participant 4, 6, and 7 identified mutually beneficial outcomes for both the
zoo and community. Participant 4 stated, “we're a city organization or city department...anything
good for our community is good for us as well.” Participant 6 claimed that the zoo would
“become more of a stronger asset to the city…” and improve community outcomes. Participant 7
spoke explicitly to mutually beneficial organizational and community outcomes and asserted that
“the more we're able to engage and bring the community into the zoo and what we do as an
organization, we mutually benefit from that sharing of our practices and [how] our mission it
impacts the community.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes, annual reports, and
member magazines were analyzed to determine if senior staff knew the benefits derived from
socially responsible practices. There is no implicit or explicit evidence that senior staff
demonstrated factual knowledge related to the benefits derived from socially responsible
practices. This critical influence was not demonstrated through robust discussion, exchanges, or
storytelling. Therefore, this influence is considered a need.
Summary. When interview participants were asked to share their knowledge about the
benefits of socially responsible practices, seven out of eight respondents cited benefits related to
organizational trust and community education, making this influence an asset with a cut score of
87.5. However, based on evaluations of board meeting minutes, annual reports, and member
magazines, there is insufficient document evidence to support the claim that senior staff possess
factual knowledge related to understanding the benefits derived from socially responsible
practices. The incongruence between sufficient knowledge shared by senior staff in interviews
and insufficient knowledge demonstrated in the reviewed documents may highlight a practical
60
application of Argyris and Schon’s (1974) espoused theory versus theory-in-use. Espoused
theory, according to Savaya and Gardner (2012) is characterized by how an individual perceives
their values and perspectives inform their actions. Theory-in-use, however, represents the values
and perspectives demonstrated through action that in reality inform their behaviors (Savaya &
Gardner, 2012). Through triangulation, defined by Maxwell (2013) as “collecting information
from a diverse range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods…” (p. 128), themes
emerged through the use of various data sources (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Based on these
themes, this influence is a need.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 3. Senior Staff Need to Know What Equity Means.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to share their meaning of the term
equity, only five of seven participants provided answers generally consistent with the literature,
making it a need with a cut score of 71.4. This indicated that senior staff do not possess some
conceptual knowledge about the meaning of equity. Equity is generally characterized by efforts
to eliminate differences in outcomes for groups (Svara & Brunet, 2005) who have faced or are
facing “treatment that is inferior, prejudicial, or hostile” (Johnson & Svara, 2011, p. 281).
Differences are eliminated through maximum community participation in the political process
(Johnson & Svara, 2011). Of the five participants whose answers aligned with the literature,
Participants 1, 2, and 3 included similar themes in their responses. Participant 1 included the
notion of “fairness” in their response. Participant 2 spoke to “opportunities [that] are available to
everyone.” Participant 3 highlighted the need to “lower barriers.” While responses from
Participants 7 and 8 were not as aligned with the literature as Participants 1, 2, and 3, answers
did include mentions of equality and diversity. These notions are not directly aligned, but are
generally associated with equity. Participants 4 and 5 both framed their answers in financial
61
contexts. Participant 4 framed equity as “having equity in a house or, how much something is
worth, how much you put into it, and how much it's worth today versus what it was worth ten
years ago.” Similarly, Participant 5 asserted that equity meant “I'm trying to sell my house…
cash in the bank.”
Document Analysis. Board meeting minutes, annual reports, and member magazines
were evaluated to determine if senior staff adequately defined the notion of equity. The terms
equity or equitable were not attributed to senior staff in any of the twelve board meetings, four
annual reports, or four-member magazine issues evaluated. Although the terms equity and/or
equitable were not explicitly used in any of the analyzed documents, the term appears to be
implied in a limited number of areas. For example, when describing organizational priorities in
the Fall 2019 member magazine, the zoo’s director describes tenets of equity. Equity also
appears to be implied in the January 21, 2020, zoo board meeting remarks by the director of
learning and community engagement, and in the 2018-2019 annual report where inclusive
programming and community partnerships were highlighted as means of improving zoo access to
excluded and marginalized community members. The evidence suggests that some senior staff
did implicitly or explicitly indicate their efforts or commitments to realize what Svara and Brunet
(2005) characterized as improvements in group outcomes for those who confront prejudice by
incorporating community members in a decision-making and resource allocation process
(Johnson & Svara, 2011). However, this evidence was limited, and the documents further
demonstrated a lack of cross-institutional application and robust consideration. The documents
reveal that the influence is a need.
Summary. When interview participants were asked to share their knowledge about
equity, 5 of 7 respondents gave answers that were generally consistent with the literature, making
this influence a need with a cut score of 71.4. Based on an evaluation of board meetings minutes,
62
annual reports, and member magazines, there is insufficient evidence that senior staff
demonstrated basic conceptual knowledge of the term equity. Based on the results and findings,
particularly a cut score of 71.4 for a critical knowledge element as well as sustained absences of
senior staff equity-informed activities, comments, or outcomes in the reviewed documents, this
influence is a need.
Influence 4. Senior Staff Need to Know What Sustainability Means.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to share their meaning of the term
sustainability, three of six participants gave answers that moderately aligned with the literature,
making it a need with a cut score of 50.0. This indicated that senior staff do not possess
conceptual understanding of the term sustainability. Although the notion of sustainability is
subject to diverse meaning and interpretation (Redclift, 1987), it is widely understood to be
“about people, the habitats we depend on for services vital to us, and our ability to maintain
culturally rich societies free from perennial crisis in food, water, and energy supplies” (Theis,
2012, p. 473). Sustainability “is a philosophy of limits in a world governed by dreams of infinite
growth and possibility” that “dictates that we are constrained by earth’s resources as to the
society and lifestyle we can have” (p. 502). Sustainable business organizations achieve short-
term outcomes without undermining long-term goals and welfare by “designing goals and
creating foundations for the future” (Fogel, 2016, p. 110).
Participant 5’s answer did not align with the literature and represented a sole focus on
finance and operations. The respondent shared their understanding of sustainability as “making
sure that we find ways to allow funding to continue to take place or that we streamline things that
are perhaps less necessary, so that we can continue to exist.” Although the response from
Participant 8 did not align entirely with the literature, they mentioned, “conservation of
species…saving animals from extinction” which included some relevant elements. Participants 1
63
and 4 appropriately gave future-oriented responses. Participant 4 spoke of the need for “this earth
to be sustainable for future generations, we have to make changes for the better.” Participant 1
also used the term future and implied the notion of inclusion, asserting that sustainability “means
the future for everybody.”
Document Analysis. Meeting minutes from board meetings, annual reports, and member
magazines were analyzed to determine if senior staff knew the meaning of sustainability. The
reviewed annual reports demonstrated that the term was generally assigned to meanings
associated with species conservation in three of four years. Sustainability was not used in the
annual report from 2015. The term appeared substantively in only one of four-member magazine
issues. In the Spring 2020 issue, sustainable was used to describe efforts to reduce traffic
congestion through a new shuttle transport system for zoo guests. The term was not attributed to
senior staff in board meeting minutes. While some apparent conceptual knowledge in limited
contexts by a small number of senior staff was demonstrated, there is limited cross-institutional
application and it was not robustly reflected. Therefore, this influence is considered a need.
Summary. When interview participants were asked to share their knowledge about
sustainability, three of six respondents gave answers that were generally consistent with the
literature, making this influence a need with a cut score of 50.0. Based on an evaluation of board
meeting minutes, annual reports, and member magazines, there is insufficient evidence that
senior staff demonstrated basic conceptual knowledge of the term. Based on the results and
findings, particularly the interview cut score of 50.0 and limited application of the term
throughout the documents evaluated, this influence was a need.
64
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 5. Senior Staff Need to Describe the Steps They Take to Produce Socially
Responsible Outcomes.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to describe the steps they take to
produce socially responsible outcomes, four out of eight participants replied with answers
generally consistent with the literature, making this influence a need with a 50.0 cut score. This
indicated that senior staff do not possess procedural knowledge regarding steps needed to
produce socially responsible outcomes. According to Fogel (2016), socially responsible
outcomes are adopted and practiced through steps reflected in guidelines, operations, and values
that reflect stakeholder social needs. These guidelines, operations, and values are assimilated into
a business model (Fontaine, 2013) with focus and influence beyond minimal contractual or
statutory obligations (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Fet and Knudson (2017) suggested a sequential
process consisting of planning, analysis, action planning, and implementation, although the
authors contend there are other steps that can be taken to reach the intended outcomes. Maon,
Lindgree, and Swaen (2009) suggested a sequential nine-step process for embedding social
responsibility into an organization’s decision-making, priorities, and dominant beliefs and
realizing socially responsible outcomes. This process began with elevating internal social
responsibility awareness and concludes with fully embedding social responsibility into the
organization (Maon, Lindgree, & Swaen, 2009).
Participants 1, 2, 3 and 6 gave responses generally consistent with the literature.
Participant 3’s answer aligned with the literature and identified a sequential process that relied
upon listening and maximizing input from community members. Participant 3 spoke of
“identifying a community that we can work with…find out what their needs are matching that up
with the resources that we have and…find some way to work together to achieve the sort of
mutually beneficial outcome.” While the response from Participant 6 was not as robust as
65
Participant 3, Participant 6 highlighted the need to “get as many voices as possible” as a step
necessary to produce socially responsible outcomes. Similarly, Participant 2 said “there's got to
be substantially more engagement and we have to stop requiring that people come to the zoo in
order to be a part of [our] goals.” Participant 1 added, “diversity and inclusion, accessibility and
equity are priorities…[and the] lenses through which we look at everything.” Participants 4, 5,
and 8, however, gave answers rooted in conservation or green initiatives. While these responses
have merit, they identify outputs instead of the steps taken to produce outcomes. Participant 4
highlighted how “we've gone digital in a lot of areas…we have vanpool for people to carpool.”
Participant 5 noted, “[some staff] participate in conservation related projects” and Participant 8
asserted that the “new conservation director will help determine steps.”
Document Analysis. Board meeting minutes and annual reports were evaluated to
determine if senior staff could describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible
outcomes. These documents included or referenced some guidelines, operations, and values that
reflected stakeholder social needs as characterized by Fogel (2016). However, the evidence was
not robust, suggesting that senior staff did not demonstrate sufficient procedural knowledge to
produce socially responsible outcomes. Therefore, this influence was considered a need.
Summary. When interview participants were asked to describe the steps they take to
produce socially responsible outcomes, four out of eight participants replied with answers
generally consistent with the literature. This made the influence a need with a 50.0 cut score.
Based on an evaluation of board meetings minutes and annual reports, there was insufficient
evidence that senior staff demonstrated adequate procedural knowledge. Based on the results and
findings, particularly the interview cut score of 50.0 and inconsistent integration into analyzed
publications, the influence is a need.
66
Influence 6. Senior Staff Need to Know What Leads Them to Change Their
Practices.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked what leads them to change their
practices, four of eight participants gave replies that demonstrated some knowledge, making this
influence a need with a cut score of 50.0. This indicated that senior staff do not possess the
requisite procedural knowledge on what leads them to change their practices. The literature
highlighted how, rather than adopting new practices, cultural attractions like zoos continued to
do more of the same, “refining their methods, getting better at what they are already doing well–
while the intractable questions about the societal purpose of museums, work design, job
satisfaction, creativity, innovation and experimentation remain immune to any systematic and
critical inquiry” (James, 2013, p. xix). Of the eight responses, Participant 7’s was generally
aligned with the literature’s intent of fostering change through highly reflective practices that
address intractable questions. The respondent identified the “introspection [through employee
engagement] process and really being more critical about how my actions or interactions with
[stakeholders] has impact and effect.” To a lesser degree, Participants 1, 3, and 5 demonstrated
similar practices. Participant 3 cited “feedback mechanisms” as sources of practice change.
Similarly, Participant 5 asserted, “[if] the framework I've chosen doesn't work…I'm probably
going to try to gather information from other people and say, what about this isn't working...and
then [ask] where does that leave us...what can be tweaked...what needs to change?” Participant 1
acknowledged that if “the desired outcome…is not occurring [they will] take a step back…and
allow a different approach.” Responses from Participants 6, 2, and 4 did not align with the
literature. Participant 6 asserted, “a lot of it depends on the zoo director and how [they] want to
do things.” Participant 2 said, “I would set goals and timelines and move towards them.”
Participant 4 would “pay attention to industry trends…good webinars…annual conferences.”
67
Document Analysis. Minutes from board meetings were analyzed to determine if senior
staff knew what led them to change their practices. There was no implicit or explicit evidence in
these documents that senior staff demonstrated the procedural knowledge related to changing
practices. Therefore, this influence is a need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked what led them to change their practices, four of
eight participants gave replies generally consistent with the literature, making this influence a
need with a cut score of 50.0. Based on an evaluation of board meetings minutes, there is
insufficient evidence that senior staff demonstrated adequate procedural knowledge. Based on
the results and findings, this influence was a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Zoo senior staff motivation causes were assessed through interviews and document
analysis. The results and findings were considered for the assumed influences of value, self-
efficacy, emotions, and attributions motivation causes. Based on the results and findings, each
assumed motivation influence was identified to be an asset or a need.
Value
Influence 7. Social Responsibility Needs to be Valued as an Organizational Priority
and Value.
Interview Findings. All eight senior staff affirmed, directly or indirectly, that social
responsibility was valued as a priority and value, making it an asset with a 100.0 cut score. This
indicated that senior staff possessed the motivation to sustain and intensify social responsibility
as an organizational value and priority. Literature highlighted how individuals like the senior
staff can develop positive values that include discussing the significance of the work or through
learning activities (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Scholars also asserted that motivation can be
enhanced through personal interest-focused opportunities for choice and control and that learning
and motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task (Eccles, 2006).
68
While all participants communicated that social responsibility was an organizational
priority and value, some answers were vague, others indicated there were opportunities for the
organization to do better, and some shared that there was “talk” about it being a priority or value.
For example, Participant 4 noted there was organizational “talk” about social responsibility,
sharing that “as a member of senior staff, it's something that we talk about all the time.”
Participant 2 indicated, “we already have a track record of doing positive things for people and
animals and wildlife, but we could be doing a lot more.” Similarly, Participant 3 communicated
that the organization had made social responsibility a value and priority but added, “this is
something that the organization is working through to figure out what that means to be a
conservation organization and a community organization… we are not settled on that yet.” Like
Participants 2 and 3, Participant 4 framed their response in an aspirational context while
confirming that social responsibility was a priority and value. Participant 4 noted, “if we want to
be a leading zoo…this is something that we have to pay attention to.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes, annual reports, and
member magazines were analyzed to determine if social responsibility was valued as an
organizational priority and value. The terms social responsibility, or its variations, do not appear
in any of the analyzed documents. Terms and concepts related to social responsibility, and
attributed to senior staff, appeared in four of 12 board meeting minutes, and in limited contexts
in each of the magazine issues and annual reports. An example of limited context is highlighted
in the 2018’s annual report, where socially responsible activities were highlighted in roughly 310
of the more than 1,700 words, or 17.5 percent of the total report. The notion of equity was
implicitly or explicitly communicated in some documents, particularly at a board meeting
through remarks delivered by the zoo director. The notion of sustainability was highlighted in
three of four years of annual reports, with its context generally limited to species conservation.
69
For the 2015 annual report, the term was not used in a substantive manner. The term appeared in
one of four-member magazine issues, where it was used to describe efforts to reduce traffic
congestion through a novel shuttle transport system for zoo guests. However, the term appeared
not to have been attributed to senior staff in board meeting minutes. There is insufficient
evidence to support a claim that senior staff value social responsibility as a priority and value.
Therefore, this influence was determined to be a need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked if social responsibility was valued as an
organizational priority and value, eight of eight participants gave replies in the affirmative,
making this influence an asset with a cut score of 100.0. Based on an evaluation of board
meeting minutes, annual reports, and member magazines, however, there was insufficient
evidence of cross-institutional application, robust content, or general demonstration by senior
staff that social responsibility was considered an organizational value and priority. Therefore,
this influence was considered a need.
Self-Efficacy
Influence 8. Senior Staff Need to be Confident in Recalibrating Their Roles to
Reflect Socially Responsible Values.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked if they were confident recalibrating
their roles to reflect socially responsible values, six of eight participants responded affirmatively,
making this a need with a cut score of 75.0. This indicated that senior staff may not possess the
motivation and confidence to recalibrate their roles to reflect socially responsible values and to
drive related practices. Scholars asserted that high self-efficacy can positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006) and that activating personal interest through opportunities for choice
and control can increase motivation (Eccles, 2006).
The response from Participant 4 was “fully confident,” but qualified their answer with a
need for additional resources, noting “I can do that if I had more people on my team.” Participant
70
2 said they would be “confident,” but went on to explain that “there don't seem to be enough
social scientists [in our industry/field]… there's no real strong social...responsibility perspective
in a lot of the conversations that are going on [industry-wide].” Participants 5 and 6 did not
answer in the affirmative, but expressed similar supportive themes in their answers. Participant 5
noted that although they “don't know how to formalize it,” they are willing to “step up” and
actually “love the idea.” Similarly, Participant 6 asserted, “my plate is pretty full,” but indicated
they were open to the recalibration of their role, adding they would need “more staff to do
more.” Overall, Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 all shared they had varying levels of confidence.
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes and annual reports were
analyzed to determine if senior staff were confident recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values and to drive related practices. The documents revealed three activities
relevant to the influence. At the January 21, 2020, zoo board meeting, senior staff announced
that the zoo’s education department had been renamed to “Learning and Community
Engagement.” This announcement included the establishment of four pillars for the department
that included empathy and belonging. At the July 16, 2019, board meeting, a new director of
conservation was announced. This new senior staff member shared their intent to engage in
greater outreach. Lastly, in a Fall 2019 member magazine article, the zoo director shared their
organizational priorities as, “engaging the community and establishing partnerships and strategic
alliances; having a work culture based on core values of empathy, respect, diversity, inclusion,
accessibility, and equality.” Based on analysis of referenced documents, the influence was a
need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked if they were confident recalibrating their roles to
reflect socially responsible values, six of eight participants responded affirmatively, making this
a need with a cut score of 75.0. Based on an evaluation of board meetings minutes and annual
71
reports, there is insufficient evidence that senior staff are confident in recalibrating their roles.
Based on the results and findings, including a 75.0 interview cut score and limited documented
evidence of senior staff confidence, this influence was a need.
Influence 9. Individual Senior Staff Members Need to be Confident that the
Collective Senior Staff Group can Take the Steps to Develop a Zoo Specific Social
Responsibility Strategy.
Interview Findings. When senior staff members were asked if they were confident the
collective senior staff team could take the steps necessary to develop a social responsibility
strategy, six of the seven participants responded affirmatively, making it an asset with a cut score
of 85.0. This indicated that senior staff may possess the motivation and confidence to
collectively develop a social responsibility strategy. Scholars asserted that high self-efficacy can
positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006) and that activating personal interest through
opportunities for choice and control can increase motivation (Eccles, 2006).
Participants 1, 4, and 6 shared they were “very confident.” Participant 2 was “very
competent.” Participants 3 and 7 suggested reduced levels of confidence. Participant 3 was
“moderately confident” while Participant 7 was “fairly confident” that the senior staff could take
the steps to develop an organizational social responsibility strategy. Unlike the other
respondents, Participant 8 did not provide an answer that included the terms “confident” or
“competent,” instead sharing that they “would really like to work with senior staff.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes and annual reports were
analyzed to determine if senior staff were confident the collective senior staff group could take
the steps necessary to develop a social responsibility strategy. These documents did not include
evidence that the senior staff group had the confidence to develop a social responsibility strategy,
therefore, this influence is a need.
72
Summary. When senior staff members were asked if they were confident that the
collective senior staff team could take the steps necessary to develop a zoo-specific social
responsibility strategy, six of the seven participants responded affirmatively, making it an asset
with a cut score of 85.0. Based on an evaluation of board meeting minutes and annual reports,
there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that senior staff as a group have the confidence
to develop a social responsibility strategy. Based on the results and findings, including a 85.0
interview cut score and non-critical nature of the document analysis outcomes, this influence was
an asset.
Emotions
Influence 10. Senior Staff Need to Feel Positive About a Socially Responsible Zoo.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked how they felt about social
responsibility at their organization, six of eight participants suggested positivity toward social
responsibility within their zoo. This influence was a need with a cut score of 75.0 and indicated
that senior staff may not possess the motivation and positivity about a socially responsible zoo.
According to Clark and Estes (2008) individual motivation is influenced through positive
emotional environments. Positivity is a motivating behavior (Bandura, 1997; Goette et al., 2002)
demonstrated in part through non-competitive dynamics where individuals have a sense of
control (Goette et al., 2002).
Participants 3 and 6 had future-oriented perspectives, with Participant 6 claiming, “I'm
excited…we could do some great things…it's going to be a great institution.” Participant 3 said,
“[we have] an opportunity to make a difference in people's lives.” Participants 7 and 8 explicitly
said they felt positive. Participant 7 shared that, “I'm very positive about things… and how do we
reach communities [to make] the zoo more accessible to the broader community.” Participant 8
was more succinct, stating they felt “positive.” However, four of the respondents felt concerned
73
that the zoo was not doing enough to drive socially responsible outcomes. Participant 2 observed
that social responsibility was “lacking” and that it had not “been a priority.” Similarly,
Participant 1 said, “there's a lot of room for opportunity to improve,” while Participant 4
commented, “it's the direction we have to go in, I don't really feel like we have.” Participant 5
shared these sentiments, claiming that “it really should be part of our mission… perhaps just
hasn't been formalized.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes, annual reports, and
member magazines were analyzed to determine if senior staff felt positive about a socially
responsible zoo. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim, making the influence a
need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked how they felt about social responsibility at their
organization, six of eight participants suggested positivity toward social responsibility, making
this a need with a cut score of 75.0. Based on an evaluation of associated documents, there is
insufficient documentation to support the claim that senior staff feel positive about social
responsibility. Based on the results and findings, including a 75.0 interview cut score, this
influence was a need.
Attributions
Influence 11. Senior Staff Need to Attribute the Causes of Success or Failure
Adopting a Social Responsibility Strategy to Their Own Efforts.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to attribute causes of success or failure
they have experienced, only one out of eight participants gave answers consistent with the
literature, making it a need with a cut score of 12.5. This indicated that senior staff do not
possess the motivation to attribute the causes of success or failure to their own efforts. Literature
highlighted how learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute success or
failures to effort rather than ability (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Attribution can be enhanced
74
through feedback that stresses the process of learning, including the importance of effort,
strategies, and potential self-control of learning (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Pintrich (2003)
asserted that adaptive attributions and control beliefs motivate learners.
The response of Participant 5 appeared to align with the literature, asserting that “success
is realized from hard work.” The remaining respondents gave answers that did not attribute
success or failure to their own efforts. Participant 4 claimed they did not “really look at my
career in terms of successes or failures,” adding, “as far as failures, I don't think I've had any.”
Participants 1 and 7 both characterized success as achieving impact but did not indicate the
causes. Participant 7 framed success as “connecting [staff] purpose to the mission and
developing that connection is very important to success and the ability to achieve outcomes when
people understand what they're doing and why they're doing it and how it relates to what the
organization stands for.” For Participant 1, “success is about making a difference and having an
impact and being able to measure that...failure is what can you learn…what can you take
positively from a failure, not be afraid to fail.” Participant 8 was unable to answer.
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes were analyzed to
determine if senior staff attributed the causes of success or failure to their own efforts. However,
senior staff would not attribute causes of success or failure within zoo magazines, annual reports,
or board meeting minutes so these documents were not critical to the determination.
Summary. When senior staff were asked to attribute causes of success or failure they
have experienced, only one out of the eight gave answers consistent with the literature, making it
a need with a cut score of 12.5. Although a series of documents were analyzed for this influence,
they were deemed non-critical to the determination as a need or asset. Based on the interview cut
score, however, the influence was a need.
75
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Zoo senior staff organization causes were assessed through interviews and document
analysis. The results and findings were considered for the assumed influences of cultural models
and cultural settings. Based on the results and findings, each assumed organization influence was
identified to be an asset or a need.
Cultural Settings
Influence 12. Senior Staff Need to Identify What Resources are Needed to
Implement a Social Responsible Strategy.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to identify what resources were needed
to implement a social responsibility strategy, all eight participants identified resources, making it
an asset with a cut score of 100.0. This indicated that senior staff may be able to identify what
organizational resources were needed to implement a social responsibility strategy. Participants
framed their responses within human resources, leadership, collaboration, and knowledge
contexts. Participants 1, 2, 4, and 6 specifically identified more staff as a required resource.
Similarly, Participant 7 cited the need to “address workloads.” Participant 3 suggested building
evaluation capacity, Participant 4 highlighted the need for enhanced partnership building, and
Participant 5 called for “leadership buy-in.” Participant 7 suggested providing staff who
otherwise may not have direct access to social impact initiatives with opportunities, where
appropriate, to contribute toward community engagement. Participant 5 identified knowledge-
based resources, citing, “time, providing the resources to know how to do that…some kind of
even just a guidance document or some bullet pointed ideas or hear suggestions on how to do
this.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes, annual reports, and
member magazines were analyzed to determine if senior staff could identify the resources
needed to implement a social responsibility strategy. There is insufficient evidence to support the
76
claim that senior staff identified these particular resources in the referenced documents through
robust discussion, cross-institutional application, or storytelling, making this influence a need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked to identify what resources are needed to
implement a social responsibility strategy, all eight participants identified resources that were
needed, making it an asset with a cut score of 100.0. The evaluated documents are deemed non-
critical based on the impractical expectation that senior staff would have demonstrated the
influence in the documents for a strategy that did not exist. Based on the results and findings,
most notably the non-critical nature of the evaluated documents, the influence was an asset.
Influence 13. Senior Staff Need to Identify Policies or Procedures They Would Like
to See Created or Changed to Implement a Social Responsibility Strategy.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to identify policies or procedures they
would like to see created or amended to implement a social responsibility strategy, six of the
eight participants identified particular policies or procedures that could be created or changed,
making it a need with a 75.0 cut score. This indicated that senior staff cannot identify the policies
and procedures they would like to see created or amended to implement a social responsibility
strategy. Participants 1 and 6 did not identify policies or procedures. Participant 6 said, “I’m not
sure I have an answer to that,” and Participant 1 shared, “I don't know that I can think of any off
the top of my head...we don't have all the answers...we aren't the experts.” The remaining
participants identified policies or procedures. Participants 3, 4, and 7 cited challenges related to
the zoo’s role as a municipal entity that reduced organizational independence or autonomy.
Participants 3 and 4 identified challenges related to hiring policies as a municipal entity.
Participant 4 cited, “a really lengthy process to hire someone new” as a practice that was ripe for
change to support the implementation of a social responsibility strategy. The respondent added,
“and so sometimes [a] position will sit vacant for months and months.” Similarly, Participant 3
claimed that it was a “challenge being a city department...through the policies and procedures
77
related to personnel and staffing and how our jobs work.” Although Participant 7 did not
highlight the need to alter policies related to hiring, the respondent did reference the zoo’s role as
a city asset, saying, “in some ways, we're a little constrained being part of a city government
agency…we have a lot of more structured policies and procedures and rules that we have to
abide by.” Participants 2, 5, and 8 highlighted policies related to leadership, stakeholder
engagement, and communications. Participant 8 referenced the new conservation director who
“will help with a conservation plan so people can internally engage in sustainable practices.”
Participant 2 focused on enhanced communications, sharing that “a lot of the procedures that we
have to change are about how we operate within our own organization and how we talk and
share knowledge and share information within our own organization.” Participant 2 went on to
add additional context that included the need to reflect upon what the organization does and why
it takes certain actions. The respondent said, “there's a lot of things we do because we've done
them…we have to really assess everything that we're doing and be willing to modify or even
completely stop.” Participant 5 added, “having leadership at all different levels, start talking
about [social responsibility] more.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes and annual reports were
analyzed to determine if senior staff could identify policies or procedures they would like to see
created or amended to implement a social responsibility strategy. There was insufficient
evidence to support this claim. Current and past policies were highlighted in the assessed
documents indicating socially responsible practices. For example, a zoo policy sought to provide
inclusive programming, to improve zoo access for excluded and marginalized community
members, and to provide free admission for students impacted by a teachers’ strike. This was
reflected in the zoo’s 2018-2019 annual report. Other evidence was forward looking, with the
zoo’s director anticipating policy changes to “have a work culture based on core values of -
78
empathy, respect, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, and equality...” as indicated in the Fall 2019
member magazine. However, given the amount of documents evaluated and the frequency in
which this particular topic was not addressed, combined with the absence of cross-institutional
application to the topic, the influence was a need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked to identify policies or procedures they would
like to see created or amended to implement a social responsibility strategy, six of eight
participants identified particular policies or procedures that could be created or changed, making
it a need with a 75.0 cut score. There was insufficient evidence within the evaluated documents
to support the claim that senior staff identified the policies or procedures that need to be
amended or created to implement a social responsibility strategy. Based on the results and
findings, most notably the 75.0 interview cut score and absence of document evidence of
sustained cross-institutional applicability, the influence is a need.
Influence 14. Senior Staff Need to Identify How the Zoo can Reinforce, Monitor,
and Reward Senior Staff Behaviors Toward Social Responsibility.
Interview Findings. When senior staff were asked to identify how the zoo can reinforce,
monitor, and reward senior staff behaviors related to social responsibility, seven of eight
participants made coherent and insightful suggestions, making it an asset with a cut score of
87.5. This indicated that senior staff may be able to identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor,
and reward collective senior staff behaviors toward social responsibility. Participants 2, 5 and 7
suggested enhanced recognition, with Participant 2 cautioning that recognition had “been largely
just [minimal].” Participant 5 suggested that, “simple recognition of efforts made…highlighting
different teams’ efforts towards social responsibility in a way that makes it clear to other teams
around the zoo that this is valued.” Participant 7 stated that, “a simple acknowledgement goes a
long way.” Participants 3 and 4 suggested that metrics developed in partnership with the city
could help reinforce behaviors. Participant 3 recommended “looking at metrics in terms of what
79
are the zoo's priorities and reassessing them and also making sure that we can talk about them in
the context for the city's priorities.” Similarly, Participant 4 said, “we all have our metrics from
the mayor's office…if there was a way to do that.” Participants 2, 6, and 8 cited monetary
compensation associated with enhanced performance. Participant 2 observed, “so maybe it's
money and maybe it's recognition and maybe it's accolades, or maybe it's awards... it's been
largely just [minimal].” Participant 6 was more direct stating, “we can always get paid more,”
while Participant 8 claimed that the “city is different than the private sector…performance
evaluations are not mandated…salary based on tenure.” Participant 1 did not highlight a
preferred mechanism, sharing that, “I have never really thought [it] out...but maybe it's not a bad
idea.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes and annual reports were
analyzed to determine if senior staff could identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and
reward senior staff behaviors toward social responsibility. There is insufficient evidence to show
that these publications supported the referenced behaviors. Therefore, this influence was a need.
Summary. When senior staff were asked to identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor,
and reward senior staff behaviors toward social responsibility, seven of eight participants made
coherent and insightful suggestions, making it an asset with a cut score of 87.5. Based on the
document evaluation, however, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that senior
staff identified how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff behaviors toward
social responsibility. Based on the results and findings, most notably the absence of document
evidence, the influence was a need.
80
Cultural Models
Influence 15. Senior Staff Need to Describe How the Organization’s Culture
Influences the Implementation of a Social Responsibility Strategy.
Interview Findings. When asked to describe how the zoo’s culture can influence the
implementation of a social responsibility strategy, all eight of the participants provided
substantive and appropriate replies, making this influence an asset with a cut score of 100.0. This
indicated that senior staff possessed some organizational knowledge about how culture
influences strategy implementation for social responsibility. Organizational culture is constituted
through the beliefs of group members and their understanding of their firm’s values (Schneider,
Brief & Guzzo, 1996), producing organizational values and norms (Erez & Gati, 2004).
Organizational culture represents assumptions that delineate what people focus on, how they
behave in different types of settings, and the acquired and collective learning that groups
undertake to resolve challenges and issues related to change and internal assimilation (Schein,
2017). The interviews indicated that senior staff can adequately describe how organization
culture influences the implementation of a social responsibility strategy.
Participants 1, 2, 7, and 8 identified employee engagement as a cultural influence that
could impact the implementation of a social responsibility strategy. While Participant 8 was
succinct in their response, remarking “employee engagement plays a role,” Participant 1
provided greater context by highlighting the role of employee engagement surveys and adding
dimensions related to supporting staff development and growth. This included, “asking questions
about mission and vision and values, and leadership and management and supervisors and…how
they feel about their career goals being supported.” Roles of organization mission and staff
engagement were also cited in Participant 7’s response. They said there was a need to “make
everybody feel a valued part of the organization and knowing what their contribution is to the
mission and understanding their own importance.” Participant 2 implicitly highlighted the role of
81
employee engagement and mission connectivity, claiming, “[if] everybody isn't on board…then
they just won't have as big a potential to make a positive impact or reaching those goals… key is
getting everybody to believe in what we're doing.” Participant 3 suggested greater staff
empowerment. The respondent observed, “we've [done things the same way] for so long that
sometimes it's hard to imagine doing things in different ways…the leadership we have in place is
the right leadership to get us where we want to go…we have to empower our teams to feel
inspired.” Participant 2 noted that, “we're all city employees…in the city structure we have to
meet certain goals…if people don't believe in what you're doing, then they're going to get those
extra things done so that they meet that meet their annual goal goals for their own job. They're
not going to do anything else outside of that.” Participant 3 asserted, “we are in the process of
establishing culture, to a large extent because of the leadership changes we've had in the last
year.”
Document Analysis. Publicly available board meeting minutes, annual reports, and
member magazines were analyzed to determine if senior staff described how the organization's
culture influenced the implementation of a social responsibility strategy. There is insufficient
evidence to support the claim that senior staff could describe how the organization’s culture
influenced the implementation of a social responsibility strategy. The only relevant evidence was
found in remarks from the zoo’s director in the Fall 2019 member magazine issue. The director
identified an organizational priority as “...having a work culture based on core values of -
empathy, respect, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, and equality...” (Fall, 2019). Based on this
being the only piece of evidence found in the analyzed documents, the influence was a need.
Summary. When asked to describe how the zoo’s culture can influence the
implementation of a social responsibility strategy, all eight participants provided substantive and
appropriate replies, making this influence an asset with a cut score of 100.0. Although
82
knowledge gaps were demonstrated in the analyzed documents, these artifacts were characterized
as non-critical to the achievement of the influence. Based on the results and findings, including
the non-critical nature of the evaluated documents and a 100.0 interview cut score, this influence
is an asset.
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 6, 7, and 8 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as an
asset or a need.
Table 6
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Factual
Senior staff need to know the definition of
social responsibility.
Asset
Senior staff need to know the benefits derived
from socially responsible practices.
Need
Conceptual
Senior staff need to know what equity means. Need
Senior staff need to know what sustainability
means.
Need
Procedural
Senior staff need to describe the steps they
take to produce socially responsible outcomes.
Need
Senior staff need to know what leads them to
change their practices.
Need
Table 7
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
Value
Social responsibility needs to be valued as an
organizational priority and value.
Need
Self-Efficacy
Senior staff need to be confident in
recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values.
Need
83
Individual senior staff members need to be
confident that the collective senior staff group
can take the steps necessary to develop a zoo
specific social responsibility strategy.
Asset
Emotions
Senior staff need to feel positive about a
socially responsible zoo.
Need
Attributions
Senior staff need to attribute the causes of
success or failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their own efforts.
Need
Table 8
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influence Asset or Need
Cultural Settings
Senior staff need to identify what resources are
needed to implement a social responsibility
strategy.
Asset
Senior staff need to identify policies or
procedures they would like to see created or
changed to implement a social responsibility
strategy.
Need
Senior staff need to know how the zoo can
reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff
behaviors toward social responsibility.
Need
Cultural Models
Senior staff need to describe how the
organization’s culture influences the
implementation of a social responsibility
strategy.
Asset
Solution recommendations for these KMO influences are highlighted in Chapter Five.
These influences are based on empirical evidence.
84
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation and Evaluation
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs’ analysis that identifies the knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational resources necessary for the MAZ senior staff to
develop an adoptable social responsibility strategy that includes financial, social, and
environmental components that support the zoo’s evolution into a responsive, dynamic,
equitable, and resilient social institution. The analysis began by generating a list of possible
needs and then systematically examining the needs to focus on actual or confirmed needs. While
a complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the
stakeholder group of focus for this analysis was all zoo senior staff members.
As such, the following questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) needs necessary for the
MAZ senior staff members to achieve their goal of developing an adoptable social
responsibility strategy by December, 2021, that is composed of financial, social, and
environmental components that support the organization’s evolution into a responsive,
dynamic, equitable, and resilient social institution?
2. What are the recommended KMO solutions to meet those needs?
Chapter Five addresses the second research question based on the findings revealed in Chapter
Four.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Introduction
The principal investigator examined literature relevant to the stakeholder goal of adopting
a social responsibility strategy. A brief overview of knowledge influences follows with each
influence categorized into a knowledge type. It is important to segment knowledge types because
85
diverse forms of knowledge are required to improve organizational performance (Clark & Estes,
2008). Redman (2013) posited that individual domains of knowledge cannot sufficiently account
for motivation, but collectively establish framing for the synthesis of various behavioral science
theories.
Knowledge Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that diverse forms of knowledge are needed to achieve
individual and organizational goals. Types of diverse knowledge include factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Within the organizational performance
problem, factual knowledge represents the organizational and societal benefits derived from
socially responsible values and practices; conceptual knowledge represents social responsibility
theories, concepts, and frameworks; and procedural knowledge represents how social
responsibility values and practices will be institutionalized, measured, and sustained at the MAZ.
The fourth knowledge type, metacognition, is widely understood to play a critical role in
knowledge transfer and performance improvement through the regulation of thinking and
behavior. Metacognition is defined as “awareness of one’s cognitive processing and control of
one’s cognitive processing” (Mayer, 2010, p. 42). Metacognitive capacity among the MAZ staff
serves as an antecedent to successful change and performance improvement because it “helps to
guide the learner’s cognitive processing of the to-be-learned material” (p. 43).
Table 9 shows the assumed knowledge influences and principles for change. These
influences have a high probability of achieving the stakeholders’ goal if implemented. Table 9
also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles. Both assets
and needs are addressed, providing an approach to maintain assets as well as address needs.
86
Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Asset or
Need
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Factual Knowledge
Senior staff need to
know the definition of
social responsibility.
Asset
Information that is learned,
internalized, and then
connected with prior
knowledge is stored more
quickly and remembered
more accurately because it is
linked with prior learning
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
How individuals organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Information sheets and Education
Provide information sheets that include
a glossary of social responsibility
terms.
Provide presentations with break-out
sessions and bi-directional dialogue
that allow for storytelling and
demonstration of how various
industries conceptualize social
responsibility. Provide assistance for
identifying areas of significance.
Provide designed experiences that
allow senior staff to make sense of the
material.
Factual Knowledge
Senior staff need to
know the benefits
derived from socially
responsible practices.
Need Information that is learned,
internalized, and then
meaningfully connected with
prior knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with
prior learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(e.g., reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction of new
knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Information sheets and Education
Provide information sheets that include
organizational and community benefits
highlighted in the literature; a
structured chart of the different tenets
of a socially responsible zoo, including
its applicability to leadership,
programs, operations, budgeting,
communications, and governance; and
a table that contrasts a socially
responsible zoo with one that is not.
Provide presentations with break-out
sessions and bi-directional dialogue
that allow for storytelling and
demonstration of how various
industries conceptualize social
responsibility and benefit from its
practices.
Provide design experiences that allow
senior staff to make sense of the
material.
87
Provide social interaction and
collaborative learning opportunities
with community members for learners
to see first-hand how benefits are
experienced at community level.
Conceptual Knowledge
Senior staff need to
know what equity
means.
Need Information that is learned,
internalized, and then
meaningfully connected with
prior knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with
prior learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(e.g., reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction of new
knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Information sheets and Education
Provide information sheets that include
a glossary of related terms and their
inter-connectivity to social
responsibility; a structured chart of
how social equity may apply to
leadership, programs, operations,
budgeting, communications, and
governance; and a table that contrasts a
zoo that demonstrates social equity
with one that is not.
Provide presentations with break-out
sessions and bi-directional dialogue
that allow for storytelling and
demonstration of how social sector
organizations conceptualize equity and
benefit from its practices.
Provide assistance for identifying areas
of significance.
Provide design experiences that allow
senior staff to make sense of the
material.
Provide social interaction and
collaborative learning opportunities
with community members so that
learners have the opportunity to see
first-hand how equity is and is not
experienced at the community level.
Conceptual Knowledge
Senior staff need to
know what
sustainability means.
Need Information that is learned,
internalized, and then
meaningfully connected with
prior knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with
prior learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Information sheets and Education
Provide information sheets that include
a glossary of sustainability-related
terms and their inter-connectivity to
social responsibility; a structured chart
of how sustainability may apply to
leadership, programs, operations,
budgeting, communications, and
governance; and a table that contrasts a
88
Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(such as reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction of new
knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
zoo that demonstrates sustainability
with one that is not.
Provide presentations with break-out
sessions and bi-directional dialogue
that allow for storytelling and
demonstration of how organizations
conceptualize sustainability and realize
benefits from its practices.
Provide assistance for identifying areas
of significance.
Provide design experiences that allow
senior staff to make sense of the
material.
Provide social interaction and
collaborative learning opportunities
with community members for learners
to see first-hand what sustainability
means at the community level.
Procedural Knowledge
Senior staff need to
describe the steps they
take to produce socially
responsible outcomes.
Need To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and know
what to apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Continued practice promotes
automaticity and takes less
capacity in working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is available
or known (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Training
Provide training that includes
information sheets and education;
modeling behavior that guides learners,
allowing for practice and feedback in
the production of steps that need to be
taken to produce socially responsible
outcomes; storytelling where human
and organizational impact of socially
responsible outcomes are highlighted
and examples are given of the steps
taken to produce socially responsible
outcomes by other organizations; and
information sheets that include a
decision flow chart for social
responsibility strategy development
and implementation.
Provide opportunities for skill
development and transfer by practicing
institutionalizing social responsibility,
allowing for feedback during learning.
Procedural Knowledge
Senior staff need to
know what leads them
Need Mastery occurs when
learners acquire relevant
skills, practice these skills,
Provide opportunities for social
interaction and cooperative learning
that includes engaging community
89
to change their
practices.
and understand how to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Through sustained skill
practice, automaticity is
promoted, requiring less
working memory (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Acquiring relevant skills for
mastery frequently begins
with learning declarative
knowledge about individual
procedural steps (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Learning declarative
knowledge is supported
through social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006).
members in decision making,
identifying mutual goals, supporting
each other, and taking responsibility
for group outcomes.
Provide learners with opportunities to
develop, practice, and apply new skills,
diminishing working memory recall.
Senior staff need to know the definition of social responsibility. The results
demonstrate that senior staff possess an understanding of social responsibility. Based on
collected and analyzed data, there are no perceived declarative knowledge gaps. Interview
findings show that when senior staff were asked to define social responsibility, eight out of eight
participants provided answers moderately consistent with the literature and with the definition
used for this study. Examination of documents consisting of zoo board meetings, annual reports,
and member magazines yielded similar findings.
Despite the absence of perceived knowledge gaps, there is literature that is relevant to
learners acquiring this type of knowledge. First, scholars assert that information learned
meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more
accurately when it is joined with prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Second, how
90
individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). If knowledge gaps were identified, recommendations would be to provide
senior staff with information sheets that include a glossary of social responsibility terms, as well
as education. Education would include presentations with break-out sessions and bi-directional
dialogue that allow for storytelling and discussions on how social responsibility is
conceptualized by other sectors. Senior staff would also receive support for identifying areas that
require assistance, and opportunities to design social responsibility strategies to make sense of
the material. These recommendations provide a means for senior staff to enter into a subsequent
space where they can gain what Clark and Estes (2008) referred to as skills and knowledge
informed by strategies, concepts, and theories through connections with prior knowledge.
According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), information connected with prior
knowledge is remembered more accurately when elaborated with prior learning. Learners can
acquire social responsibility specific knowledge if they practice connecting it with prior
knowledge, new learning material, dilemmas, trends, and conditions in the social world. When
learning about social responsibility, Debeljuh and Destefano (2005) suggested practices that
foster linkages between learning materials and experiences in the social world. Therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that storytelling and bi-directional dialogue to connect learner familiar zoo-
specific values, principles, and procedures with those of other sectors, as well as broader socio-
economic and environmental trends and conditions, will support senior staff development of
social responsibility understanding.
Senior staff need to know the benefits derived from socially responsible practices.
The results indicate that senior staff did not demonstrate that they know the benefits derived
from socially responsible practices. When interview participants were asked to share their
knowledge about the benefits of socially responsible practices, seven out of eight respondents
91
gave answers moderately consistent with the literature. However, based on evaluations of
documents, senior staff did not demonstrate basic factual knowledge. The results and findings
indicate there is insufficient evidence that senior staff demonstrated factual knowledge about the
benefits derived from socially responsible practices.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations address the perceived
declarative knowledge gaps through four information processing theory-related principles. First,
information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly,
and recalled with greater accuracy, since it is linked with prior knowledge (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). Second, the manner in which knowledge is organized will influence how
individuals learn and apply knowledge (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Third, social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (e.g., reciprocal teaching) facilitate
construction of new knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Lastly, integrating auditory and visual
information maximizes working memory capacity (Mayer, 2011). This would suggest that
providing learners with opportunities to construct new knowledge through connections with prior
knowledge would support their learning. The recommendation to support this learning is to
provide information sheets and education where learners gain “conceptual, theoretical, and
strategic knowledge and skills” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 59). This will better equip senior staff
members to foresee or successfully address new challenges by building upon newly acquired
knowledge about benefits derived from socially responsible practices and applying it to a zoo-
specific context. Another recommendation is to maximize social interaction and cooperative
learning with other senior staff members and with community members.
Social interaction, cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships as characterized
by Scott and Palincsar (2006) can support declarative knowledge acquisition among zoo senior
staff to facilitate understanding of the benefits derived from socially responsible practices.
92
Cognitive apprenticeships deserve particular attention because they include reciprocal teaching
and service learning. Reciprocal teaching and service learning facilitate construction of new
knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2006) through experience (Mayer, 2010). This would give
stakeholders the opportunity to acquire knowledge by engaging with community members,
discovering their unmet needs and the social realities they confront (Debeluh & Destefano,
2005). Examples of reciprocal teaching include community members sharing their social realities
and economic challenges and how they would benefit from socially responsible practices at the
zoo with senior staff. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that service learning and reciprocal
teaching facilitates the construction of knowledge by providing learners with opportunities to
simultaneously connect learning with prior knowledge and construct new knowledge from
community members.
Senior staff need to know what equity means. The results demonstrate that senior staff
need to develop an understanding of equity. When interview participants were asked to share
their knowledge about equity, five of seven respondents gave answers that were moderately
consistent with the literature. Within the analyzed documents, senior staff did not demonstrate
basic conceptual knowledge of the term. Overall, the results and findings indicate there was
insufficient evidence that senior staff demonstrated conceptual knowledge about the meaning of
equity.
Like the previous influence, recommendations address the perceived conceptual
knowledge gaps through an information processing theory-related principle. Information learned
meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more
accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). This would
suggest that providing learners with opportunities to construct new knowledge through
connections with prior knowledge would support their learning. The recommendation then is to
93
provide senior staff with the opportunity to participate in education and to acquire information in
a manner that connects new and existing knowledge. Education can take the form of
presentations with break-out sessions and bi-directional dialogue. This includes sharing stories
and providing examples of what equity means and how it can be contextualized within a zoo
setting through socially responsible practices.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) and Scott (2013) assert that storytelling and bidirectional
dialogue enables learners to connect new or nascent terms like equity with prior experiences.
These learning experiences reflect Schraw and McCrudden’s (2006) assertion that information
learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and
remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning. Equity is generally
characterized by efforts to eliminate differences in outcomes for groups (Svara & Brunet, 2005,
p. 257), who have faced or are facing “treatment that is inferior, prejudicial, or hostile” (Johnson
& Svara, 2011, p. 281) in large part through maximum community participation in the political
process (Johnson & Svara, 2011). Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that when zoo senior staff
connect existing knowledge about social, economic, and environmental dilemmas and outcome
differences among groups with new or novel approaches to addressing these dilemmas in
partnership with community members, the declarative knowledge gaps can be closed.
Senior staff need to know what sustainability means. The results demonstrate that
senior staff need to develop an understanding of sustainability. When interview participants were
asked to share their knowledge about sustainability, three of six respondents gave answers that
were moderately consistent with the literature. Within the analyzed documents, senior staff did
not demonstrate the necessary basic conceptual knowledge. Based on the results and findings,
there is insufficient evidence that senior staff demonstrated conceptual knowledge about what
sustainability means.
94
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations are made to address the
perceived declarative knowledge gaps through an information processing theory-related
principle. Like the previous need, information learned meaningfully and connected with prior
knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with
prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). This would suggest that providing learners with
opportunities to construct new knowledge through connections with prior knowledge would
support their learning. The recommendation then is to provide senior staff with the opportunity
to participate in education and to acquire information in a manner that connects new and existing
knowledge. Education can take the form of presentations with break-out sessions and bi-
directional dialogue. This includes sharing stories and providing examples of what sustainability
means, and how it can be contextualized within a zoo setting through socially responsible
practices.
Learner acquisition of declarative knowledge is supported when new information is
connected with prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Schraw and McCrudden (2006)
and Scott (2013) assert that storytelling and bidirectional dialogue enables learners to connect
new or nascent terms like sustainability with prior experiences. Sustainability is widely
understood to be “about people, the habitats we depend on for services vital to us, and our ability
to maintain culturally rich societies free from perennial crisis in food, water, and energy
supplies” (Theis, 2012, p. 473). Sustainability “is a philosophy of limits in a world governed by
dreams of infinite growth and possibility” that “dictates that we are constrained by earth’s
resources as to the society and lifestyle we can have” (p. 502). Sustainable business
organizations “operate today without compromising future well-being” by “designing goals and
creating foundations for the future” (Fogel, 2016, p. 110). Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that
when zoo senior staff connect existing knowledge about social, economic, and environmental
95
dilemmas with realizing zoo outcomes that advance the multi-generational well-being of all
living things with new or novel approaches to addressing these dilemmas, the declarative
knowledge gaps will be closed.
Senior staff need to describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible
outcomes. The results demonstrate that senior staff were unable to describe the steps they take to
produce socially responsible outcomes. When interview participants were asked to describe these
steps, four out of eight respondents gave answers moderately consistent with the literature.
Within the analyzed documents, senior staff did not demonstrate the necessary procedural
knowledge. Based on the results and findings, there is insufficient evidence that senior staff
demonstrated procedural knowledge about the steps they take to produce socially responsible
outcomes.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations address the perceived procedural
knowledge gaps through four related principles. First, according to Schraw and McCrudden
(2006), mastery occurs when learners acquire relevant skills, practice these skills, and understand
how to apply what they have learned. Second, through sustained skill practice, automaticity is
promoted, requiring less working memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Third, acquiring skills
for expertise frequently begins with learning declarative knowledge about individual procedural
steps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Fourth, according to Scott and Palincsar (2006) social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (e.g., reciprocal teaching) facilitate
construction of new knowledge. This would suggest that providing learners with opportunities to
develop, practice, and apply new skills will diminish working memory recall. Therefore, the
recommendation focuses on conducting training, including presentations and break-outs, to help
people make sense of the material rather than just focus on memorization (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006) and to connect learning to individual interests to encourage meaningfulness
96
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Through training, individuals can occasionally perform difficult
tasks in partnership with others (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). In newly constructed learning
environments, zoo senior staff have the opportunity to engage in social interaction and
cooperative learning with community members.
Mastery occurs when learners acquire relevant skills, practice these skills, and understand
how to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Acquiring relevant skills for
mastery frequently begins with learning declarative knowledge about individual procedural steps
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Learning declarative knowledge is supported through social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Examples of how
social interaction and cooperative learning can enhance procedural knowledge include
demonstrating how academic disciplines view the world and having individuals conduct
challenging tasks in collaboration with others (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). Through social
interaction and cooperative learning, zoo senior staff can acquire the declarative and procedural
knowledge to describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible outcomes. Acquisition
of declarative and procedural knowledge occurs through what Debeljuh and Destefano (2005)
characterized as engaging in decision-making with community members, identifying mutual
goals, supporting each other, and taking responsibility for group outcomes. Therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that zoo senior staff can acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to
describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible outcomes through social interaction
and cooperative learning.
Senior staff need to know what leads them to change their practices. The results
demonstrate that senior staff were unable to describe what leads them to change their practices.
When interview participants were asked what leads them to change their practices, four out of
eight respondents gave answers moderately consistent with the literature. Within the analyzed
97
documents, senior staff did not demonstrate the necessary procedural knowledge. Based on the
results and findings, there is insufficient evidence that senior staff demonstrated procedural
knowledge about what leads them to change their practices.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations are made to address the
perceived procedural knowledge gaps through two related principles. First, according to Schraw
and McCrudden (2006), mastery occurs when learners acquire relevant skills, practice these
skills, and understand how to apply what they have learned. Second, through sustained skill
practice, automaticity is promoted, requiring less working memory (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). This would suggest that providing learners with opportunities to develop, practice, and
apply new skills will diminish working memory recall. The recommendation then is to conduct
training (including presentations and break-outs) to help people make sense of the material rather
than just focus on memorization (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) and to connect learning to
individual interests to encourage meaningfulness (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Through
training, individuals can occasionally perform difficult tasks in partnership with others (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Mastery occurs when learners acquire relevant skills, practice these skills, and understand
how to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Acquiring relevant skills for
mastery frequently begins with learning declarative knowledge about individual procedural steps
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Learning declarative knowledge is supported through social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Examples of how
social interaction and cooperative learning can enhance procedural knowledge include
demonstrating how academic disciplines view the world and having individuals conduct
challenging tasks in collaboration with others (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). Through social
interaction and cooperative learning, zoo senior staff can acquire the declarative and procedural
98
knowledge to know what leads them to change their practices. Acquisition of declarative and
procedural knowledge occurs through what Debeljuh and Destefano (2005) characterize as
engaging in decision-making with community members, identifying mutual goals, supporting
each other, and taking responsibility for group outcomes. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that
zoo senior staff can acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to know what leads them to
change their practices through social interaction and cooperative learning.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Reviewed literature focused on motivation-related influences that are
relevant to achievement of the stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) offered a useful frame of
motivation through active choice, persistence, and mental effort. In a localized context, these
tenets of motivation provide a means to initiate and sustain action toward performance
improvement, persist despite disruptions, and exert mental effort to maximize performance and
generate innovative ideas (Clark & Estes, 2008). Through persistence, learners are determined to
sustain an activity despite disruption (Rueda, 2011). Mental effort requires confidence (Clark &
Estes, 2008) that allows for the mental exertion necessary to produce knowledge and learning
(Rueda, 2011). Active choice, according to Rueda (2011) is a selection of one task over the other
and persistence represents sustained focus of an activity despite interruptions. Motivation is
driven by what we believe and experience (Clark & Estes, 2008) and value (Rueda, 2011). Rueda
(2011) identified four motivation principles: self-efficacy, attributions, value, and goals. Table
10, highlights whether these influences are assets or needs based on collected and analyzed data.
Motivation influences included are expectancy value, self-efficacy, attributions, and emotion.
Table 10 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Both assets and needs are addressed providing an approach to maintain assets as well as address
needs.
99
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence*
Asset or
Need
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy Value
Social responsibility
needs to be valued as
an organizational
priority and value.
Need Rationales that include a
discussion on the importance
and utility of the work or
learning can help learners
develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).
Activating personal interest
through opportunities for
choice and control can
increase motivation (Eccles,
2006).
Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner
values the task (Eccles,
2006).
Provide literature to senior
staff about the value to be
achieved and importance
of realizing social
responsibility goals.
Provide staff with options
for creating and designing
a socially responsible zoo.
Provide staff with
opportunities to connect
personal interests with
social responsibility goals.
Expectancy Value
Senior staff need to
be confident in
recalibrating their
roles to reflect
socially responsible
values.
Need Activating personal interest
through opportunities for
choice and control can
increase motivation (Eccles,
2006).
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,
2003).
Provide senior staff with
opportunities to redesign
the role of their
departments, their
individual responsibilities,
and the roles of their
subordinates through a
socially responsible lens.
Provide rationales through
relevant and useful
materials and activities
based on the real-world
tasks of redesigning their
work roles.
Self-efficacy
Individual senior
staff members need
to be confident that
the collective senior
staff group can take
the steps necessary to
develop a zoo
Asset High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006).
Feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide feedback and
opportunities for senior
staff to engage in strategy
development and capacity
building activities that are
short-term tasks and that
allow the staff to
experience success and
100
specific social
responsibility
strategy.
Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for
success (Pajares, 2006).
gain confidence toward
social responsibility
strategy development.
Provide visioning
exercises and
collaborative production
of logic models that
engage senior staff in
futures-oriented thinking
and today’s
action/inaction and
consequences in the
future.
Provide opportunities for
senior staff to demonstrate
success at goal attainment;
receive feedback that
supports confidence
building and connects
knowledge acquisition
strategies with success.
Emotions
Senior staff need to
feel positive about a
socially responsible
zoo.
Need Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Motivation is enhanced
through team collaboration
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide collaborative
activities, diminishing
competition and
maximizing support
toward staff contributions
and goal attainment.
Provide literature to
diminish stress around
managing the unknown
and enhance positive
feelings toward goal
attainment.
Attributions
Senior staff need to
attribute the causes of
success or failure
adopting a social
responsibility
strategy to their own
efforts.
Need Learning and motivation are
enhanced when individuals
attribute success or failures
to effort rather than ability
(Anderman & Anderman,
2009).
Attribution can be enhanced
through feedback that
stresses the process of
learning, including the
importance of effort,
Provide opportunities for
senior staff to reflect on
prior successes and
failures and the role their
efforts played.
Provide senior staff with
feedback about knowledge
and skill gaps,
highlighting and teaching
the new knowledge and
101
strategies, and potential self-
control of learning
(Anderman & Anderman,
2009).
Adaptive attributions and
control beliefs motivate
learners (Pintrich, 2003).
skills that need to be
acquired.
Social responsibility needs to be valued as an organizational priority and value. The
results indicate that senior staff do not value social responsibility as an organizational priority
and value. When interview participants were asked if social responsibility was valued, all
participants gave affirmative replies. However, evaluated documents revealed that social
responsibility was not valued as a priority and value. The results and findings indicate there is
insufficient evidence that senior staff value social responsibility as an organizational priority and
value.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations are applied through three
expectancy value principles that can close the perceived motivation gap. First, learners can
develop positive values through rationales that include discussing the significance of the work or
learning activities (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Second, motivation can be enhanced through
personal interest-focused opportunities for choice and control (Eccles, 2006). Third, learning and
motivation can be enhanced if the learner values the task (Eccles, 2006). Based on these
theoretical principles, the following recommendations contribute to learning experiences: use
literature to communicate with senior staff about the value of prioritizing social responsibility as
a value and priority; allow for staff feedback to share potential or related personal interests;
connect the importance of evolving the zoo’s societal role with stakeholder interests; and frame
the importance of driving the evolution of the zoo’s societal role connecting to personal interests.
The recommendations and principles can strengthen how senior staff value social responsibility
as an organizational value and priority.
102
Value is demonstrated by the importance an individual assigns to a task and supported
through connections with personal interests and utility perception (Rueda, 2011). Establishing
connections between an individual’s values and the benefits associated with goal achievement
may be an effective means of initiating and sustaining interest and increasing overall task
commitment (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). For senior staff, linking individual and
organizational goals, like promoting a zoo that is able to thrive despite uncertainty, will increase
stakeholder motivation and performance toward goal attainment. Clark and Estes (2008)
provided additional relevant practice suggesting links between performance goals and learner
interests. Examples of these connections include revising senior staff job descriptions and
developing annual senior staff goals to sustain social responsibility-specific interest and task
commitment. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that senior staff would be more inclined to value
a socially responsible zoo through meaningful connections with personal interests and values.
Senior staff need to be confident in recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values. The results indicate that senior staff are not confident recalibrating their
roles to reflect socially responsible values and to drive related practices. When interview
participants were asked if they were confident recalibrating their roles to drive related practice,
six out of eight participants responded affirmatively. There was insufficient evidence of the
influence in the documents analyzed. Overall, the results and findings indicate there is
insufficient evidence that senior staff were confident recalibrating their roles to reflect socially
responsible values and to drive related practices.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations address the perceived
motivation gaps through theories and principles related to expectancy value. First, activating
personal interest through opportunities for choice and control can increase motivation (Eccles,
2006). Second, rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the
103
work or learning can help learners develop positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). The
recommendation, therefore, is broken down into steps. Provide senior staff with opportunities to
redesign the role of their departments, their individual responsibilities, and the roles of their
subordinates through a socially responsible lens. Then provide rationales through relevant and
useful materials and activities based on the real-world tasks of redesigning their work role.
Initiating and sustaining interest and activity toward goal attainment is supported by
identifying personal interests and utility perception (Rueda, 2011) and through opportunities for
choice and control (Eccles, 2006). Clark and Estes (2008) maintained that increasing task
commitment is supported by connecting a learner’s values and the benefits associated with goal
achievement. To support initial and sustained learner interest in goal attainment, Clark and Estes
(2008) suggested learning strategies that connect performance goals with learner interest. Within
the zoo’s setting for example, if senior staff are interested in sustaining their employment or
improving organizational conditions and outcomes to support the zoo’s long-term health, it is
plausible that senior staff will find interest revising their job descriptions and establishing annual
social responsibility goals. Connecting the personal interests of zoo senior staff to organizational
goal attainment will maximize stakeholder input, sustain task enjoyment, and minimize the time
to goal accomplishment. Once stakeholders see these benefits, they will be more confident in
recalibrating their roles.
Individual senior staff members need to be confident that the collective senior staff
group can take the steps necessary to develop a zoo specific social responsibility strategy.
The results indicate that individual senior staff are confident the collective senior staff group can
take the steps necessary to develop an organizational social responsibility strategy. When
interview participants were asked if they were confident the senior staff could develop this type
of strategy, six out of seven respondents replied affirmatively. While there was insufficient
104
evidence of the influence in the documents analyzed, the documents were characterized as non-
critical to achievement of the influence. Overall, the results and findings indicate that senior staff
were confident developing a social responsibility as a team.
Despite the assertion that the influence is an asset, recommendations to close a
performance gap if one existed would likely include theories related to self-efficacy. First, high
self-efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006). Second, feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). If a recommendation was made, it would consist of the
following five steps:
1. Provide opportunities for feedback and for senior staff to engage in strategy
development and capacity building activities that are short-term tasks that allow
the staff to experience success.
2. Provide visioning exercises and collaborative production of logic models that
engage senior staff in futures-oriented thinking and today’s action/inaction and
consequences in the future.
3. Reflect upon past experiences setting and reaching goals.
4. Fortify senior staff beliefs that they are capable of achieving the stakeholder goal.
5. Provide feedback in a manner that boosts senior staff confidence
Self-efficacy influences personal motivation (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011) and is
influenced by factors that include task-related existing knowledge, feedback, and prior success
and failure (Rueda, 2011). A direct correlation exists between higher self-efficacy, competence,
and elevated expectations for intended outcomes with the individual’s ability to initiate and
sustain interest and activity toward a goal (Rueda, 2011). To maintain and improve individual
self-efficacy, Pajares (2006) asserted that individuals need to believe they have the capacity to
achieve their goals. This would suggest that supporting the self-efficacy of zoo senior staff may
105
be encouraged in part through sustained verbal and written support toward the stakeholder goals
and through the celebration of progress and success toward goal achievement.
Senior staff need to feel positive about a socially responsible zoo. The results indicate
that senior staff do not feel positive about a socially responsible zoo. When interview
participants were asked if they felt positive about a socially responsible zoo, six of eight
respondents replied in the affirmative. There was also insufficient evidence of the influence in
the documents analyzed. Overall, the results and findings indicate that senior staff were not
positive about social responsibility at their zoo.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations can assist in closing the
perceived motivation gap through the principle of positive emotional environments that support
motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The recommendation, therefore, is to provide collaborative
activities, diminish competition, and provide literature to diminish stress around managing the
unknown.
According to Clark and Estes (2008) individual motivation is influenced through positive
emotional environments. Positivity is a motivating behavior (Bandura, 1997; Goette et al., 2006)
demonstrated in part through non-competitive dynamics where individuals have a sense of
control (Goette et al., 2006). Goette et al. (2006) posited that highly collaborative organizational
cultures and team building among senior staff and with community members, can support the
development of positive feelings toward goal attainment. This would suggest that zoo senior staff
will feel positively about social responsibility and their enhanced roles through highly
collaborative engagement with colleagues and external stakeholders, as well as a sense of social
responsibility-specific stakeholder goal ownership.
Senior staff need to attribute the causes of success or failure adopting a social
responsibility strategy to their own efforts. The results demonstrate that senior staff do not
106
attribute the causes of success or failure to their own efforts. When interview participants were
asked to attribute causes of success or failure, one out of eight respondents gave answers
moderately consistent with the literature. Analyzed documents were not critical to the influence
determination. Overall, the results and findings indicate that senior staff do not attribute causes
of success or failure to their own efforts.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations address the perceived
motivation gaps through three principles informed by attribution-related theories. First, learning
and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute success or failures to effort rather than
ability (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Second, attribution can be enhanced through feedback
that stresses the process of learning, including the importance of effort, strategies, and potential
self-control of learning (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Lastly, adaptive attributions and control
beliefs motivate learners (Pintrich, 2003). The recommendation, therefore, is to provide feedback
around knowledge and skill deficiencies within senior staff, communicate what knowledge and
skills can be learned, teach material that fills gaps in knowledge and skills, build a culture of
trust and support within senior staff and between senior staff and stakeholders, provide hands-on
activities that attribute goal attainment or failure to effort, and reflect on activities.
Supportive and caring relationships (Pintirch, 2003) provide a means by which learner
motivation is fostered through appropriate and accurate feedback of an individual’s knowledge
and skills (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Learner understanding of the causes of success and
failure allow for sense making of social climate and the learner’s role within the organization
(Rueda, 2011). When learners are provided with task-specific feedback, their perceived ability to
realize the goal is enhanced (Rueda, 2011). It is likely that zoo senior staff will attribute the
success of adopting a social responsibility strategy to their own efforts when they gain feedback
through a learning process that includes the importance of effort. This would suggest that the
107
senior staff’s ability to attribute success or failure to implementing a social responsibility
strategy is supported when they believe they receive feedback and understand that they control
the outcome.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational culture is a key
determinant of organizational performance improvement and is found in the work environment,
groups, and individuals. Composed of group member beliefs and understanding of organizational
values (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996), culture represents acquired and collective learning that
groups undertake to resolve challenges and issues related to change (Schein, 2017).
Organizational culture represents assumptions that delineate what people focus on and how they
behave in different types of settings (Schein, 2017), yet is challenging to pinpoint,
operationalize, and change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Since organizational culture is a key determinant of organizational performance
improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011), Table 11 highlights assumed organizational
influences. Table 11 also demonstrates whether these influences are an asset or need and whether
these influences must be addressed in order to achieve the stakeholder goal, as well as the
relevant principles that inform the assumed influences. Influences are framed as cultural models
or cultural settings. Cultural models are prevalent ways of thinking and shared understanding of
the current state or a desired future state (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011; Rueda, 2011),
informing how individuals respond to change (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011). Cultural settings
are manifested in physical settings and are more observable through routines of organizational
life (Rueda, 2011). Both cultural models and settings can support or restrict goal attainment and
organizational performance improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
108
Table 11 shows the assumed organization influences and principles for change, and
recommendations. These influences were determined from data collected in Chapter Four. Table
11 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles. Both
assets and needs are addressed providing an approach to maintain assets as well as address needs.
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence*
Asset or
Need
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Settings
Senior staff need to
identify what resources
are needed to implement
a social responsibility
strategy.
Asset Resources that
include time, staff,
and materials are
determinants of
successful change
(Clarke & Estes,
2008).
Provide resources for
capacity building,
including senior staff
training on social
responsibility strategy
development,
implementation, and
performance measurement.
Cultural Settings
Senior staff need to
identify policies or
procedures they would
like to see created or
changed to implement a
social responsibility
strategy.
Need Achievement of
performance goals is
influenced by
organizational
policies, processes,
and procedures
(Rueda, 2011).
Provide opportunity for
senior staff to review
organization’s policies,
processes, and procedures
for alignment with tenets
of social responsibility.
Provide opportunity for
senior staff to develop
processes that advance
socially responsible
practices that align with
zoo goals.
Cultural Settings
Senior staff need to
identify how the zoo can
reinforce, monitor, and
reward senior staff
behaviors toward social
responsibility.
Need Achievement of
performance goals is
influenced by
organizational
policies, processes,
and procedures
(Rueda, 2011).
Provide opportunity for
senior staff to review if
and how organization
reinforces stated behaviors
and to review industry best
practices.
Provide opportunity for
senior staff to develop
policies and procedures for
reinforcing, monitoring
and rewarding senior staff
109
behaviors toward social
responsibility.
Cultural Models
Senior staff need to
describe how the
organization’s culture
influences the
implementation of a
social responsibility
strategy.
Asset Goal attainment is
supported through the
use of evidence-
based solutions that
are integrated into the
organization’s culture
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Individual behavior
can be affected by
modifications in the
environment (Daly,
2009; Tuckman,
2009).
Provide opportunity for
senior staff to identify
critical areas of the
organization that should be
included in the change
process.
Provide opportunity for
senior staff to identify
environmental influences
that may affect individual
and collective behaviors.
Provide senior staff with
timely input and support.
Cultural settings influence - Senior staff need to identify what resources are needed
to implement a social responsibility strategy. The results indicate that senior staff can identify
resources that are needed to implement a social responsibility strategy. When interview
participants were asked to identify resources to implement a social responsibility strategy, all
eight provided substantive answers. While there was insufficient evidence of the influence in the
documents analyzed, the documents were characterized as non-critical to achievement of the
influence. Overall, the results and findings indicate that senior staff identified specific resources
needed to implement a social responsibility strategy.
Although the study confirmed the influence as an asset, prospective recommendations are
made in the case that the influence was considered a need. Likely recommendations are informed
by principles related to learning outcomes, organizational effectiveness, and resource allocation.
Resources, which include funding and knowledge are characterized as staff, time, and materials
that serve as determinants of successful change (Clark & Estes, 2008). As a primary tenet of
organizational culture, resources play a critical role that can impact strategy outcomes (Clark &
Estes, 2008). This suggests that the likelihood of senior staff achieving the stakeholder goal is
110
enhanced when adequate resources are utilized. The recommendation therefore is for senior staff
to identify and leverage sources of funding to support resource needs, aligning resource
allocation with stakeholder goals.
Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) established a positive correlation between
allocation and availability of adequate staff resources and improved learning outcomes. If
organizational culture, which includes resources, is a key determinant of strategy outcomes
(Clark & Estes, 2008) and organizational effectiveness is enhanced when employees have
adequate resources to achieve a goal, then staff need to ensure availability of resources, goal
alignment, and adequate monitoring of resource use. The rationale behind these principles is that
resources play a critical role in supporting goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008) and must be
aligned with goals and policies. If senior staff have the appropriate resources and align resources
with goals and policies, the stakeholder goal of having the necessary time, staff, funding, and
knowledge to realize socially responsible goals will be supported.
Cultural settings - Senior staff need to identify policies or procedures they would
like to see created or changed to implement a social responsibility strategy. The results
indicate that senior staff could not identify policies or procedures needed to implement the stated
strategy. Six of eight interview participants identified particular policies or procedures. Analysis
of related documents found a similar observation. Overall, the results and findings indicate that
senior staff did not identify policies or procedures they would like to see created or changed to
implement a social responsibility strategy.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations are made to address the
perceived organization settings gaps through principles related to organizational performance
improvement and cultural settings. According to Rueda (2011), organizational policies,
processes, and procedures influence achievement of performance goals. This suggests that senior
111
staff are more likely to achieve the stakeholder goal when the appropriate procedures, processes,
and policies are in place.
Scholars contend that misalignment of organizational procedures, policies, or goals
perpetuates performance issues and potential failure (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). To
avoid these pitfalls, Clark and Estes (2008) suggested creating an organizational culture profile
and ensuring both policies and culture support resource allocation. A direct correlation exists
between work processes and material resources with organizational performance (Clark & Estes,
2008). To improve cultural settings and related influences on achievement of relevant
stakeholder goals, Rueda (2011) asserted that organizational policies, processes, and goals must
support each other and maintain alignment. This would suggest that if senior staff align policies
and procedures with the applicable goals or values, they are better positioned to achieve the
stakeholder goal.
Cultural settings - Senior staff need to identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor,
and reward senior staff behaviors toward social responsibility. The results indicate that
senior staff could not identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff
behaviors toward social responsibility. Seven of eight interview participants made coherent and
substantive suggestions. However, there was insufficient evidence in the evaluated documents to
support a claim of the influence as an asset. Overall, the results and findings indicate that senior
staff could not identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff behaviors
toward social responsibility.
Based on collected and analyzed data, recommendations address the perceived
organizational settings gaps. Recommendations are related to motivation and organizational
settings and are made to close the perceived gaps through two principles. First, motivation is
developed when people interact with their organizational environment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
112
Second, motivation can be diminished through ambiguous goals, unethical behavior, burdensome
regulations, sustained competition among team members, and dispositive feedback (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Third, achievement of performance goals is influenced by organizational policies,
processes, and procedures (Rueda, 2011). The recommendation, therefore, is to take the
following steps: provide senior staff with opportunities to examine the current system of
reinforcing, monitoring, and rewarding behavior and performance; and provide senior staff with
opportunities to collaborate through supportive and noncompetitive experiences that support
achievement of stakeholder goals.
Motivation is produced through the interaction of people within their organizational
environment and optimized through clear goals, positive feedback, ethical behavior, and
diminished competition among team members (Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest that
when systems of interacting processes are in place, senior staff can maximize collaboration and
sustain interest, beliefs, and behaviors toward the stakeholders identifying how the zoo can
reinforce, monitor, and reward socially responsible behaviors.
Cultural models - Senior staff need to describe how the organization’s culture
influences the implementation of a social responsibility strategy. The results indicate that
senior staff could adequately describe how the zoo’s culture influences the implementation of a
social responsibility strategy. Eight of eight respondents gave coherent and substantive
responses, eclipsing potential deficiencies within the analyzed documents consisting of board
meeting minutes, annual reports, and member magazines. Overall, the results and findings
indicate that senior staff did describe how the organization’s culture influences the
implementation of a social responsibility strategy.
113
Although the study confirmed the influence as an asset, prospective recommendations are
made if the influence was considered a need. Recommendations related to organization settings
are made through two principles. First, goal attainment is supported through the use of evidence-
based solutions that are integrated into the organization’s culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Second,
individual behavior can be affected by modifications in the environment (Daly, 2009; Tuckman,
2009). Therefore, the recommendation includes: provide senior staff with opportunities to
identify critical areas of the organization that should be included in the change process, provide
opportunities for senior staff to identify environmental influences that may affect individual and
collective behaviors, and provide senior staff with timely input and support.
Cultural models can support or restrict goal attainment and organizational performance
improvement, influencing whether the intended change is realized (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). Culture mediates organizational behavior and can inhibit an organization from adapting to
changing conditions (Schein, 2004). This would suggest that when cultural models and
organizational culture are thoughtfully cultivated, and according to Schein (2004), organizational
problems are specifically identified (Schein, 2004), senior staff can maximize participation in the
change process.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Although the primary conceptual framework used for this study is Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis, The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was utilized
to frame the study’s evaluation and implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
framework provided a means to situate four levels of training and evaluation: reaction, learning
behavior, and results. Level 1, reaction, is demonstrated when participants characterize training
as positive, appealing, and germane to their roles. Level 2, learning, is characterized by
114
participant acquisition of training-specific knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and motivation by
engaging in the training. Level 3, behavior, is achieved when participants transfer training-
specific knowledge into their job functions. Level 4, results, represents the achievement of
intended outcomes through training, support and by being held to account. Through Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four levels, implementation and evaluation recommendations are made
to achieve the stakeholder goal. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) offered a revised sequential process for training and evaluation over the prior model.
Rather than ascending from Level 1 to Level 4, the new version begins with Level 4 and
sequentially descends to Level 1. The revised process started with identifying key indicators and
intended outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The MAZ mission focuses on animal welfare, education, conservation, and community
service. To fulfill its mission; address social, financial, legal, and regulatory-based dilemmas;
and support the accredited zoo industry’s conservation ethos, it is imperative that the MAZ adopt
a social responsibility strategy. To address real or perceived social, economic, legal, and
regulatory threats, the organization should adopt a plan to close performance gaps and evolve
into a socially responsible cultural attraction. This plan would help the zoo avoid potentially
injurious trends and conditions, drive social change, and contribute toward a culture of
sustainability. Failure to evolve through a social responsibility strategy could result in a loss of
public support, reduced capacity to control its own destiny, and diminished ability to re-
legitimize its status as a valued social institution.
By December 2022, the MAZ will integrate social responsibility into its mission, values,
culture, and practices. This goal will involve aspects such as senior staff daily activities, strategic
and budgetary priorities, and co-production of ongoing strategies and activities with external
115
stakeholders, most notably community members. The study evaluated the KMO needs required
to sufficiently meet the organization’s new social responsibility-specific goals. The study
identified associated recommendations, to include a comprehensive training program and related
supports required to close KMO performance gaps and to equip zoo senior staff with the means
to lead the zoo’s evolution into a dynamic, responsive, equitable, and resilient social
organization.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described leading indicators as “short-term
observations and measurements that suggest that critical behaviors are on track to create a
positive impact on the desired results” (p. 13). An example of a leading indicator would be the
number of messaging plans to generate stories that demonstrate positive community impact. The
outcome supported by the leading indicator is focused on increasing positive perception among
public officials.
Table 12 demonstrates the internal and external outcomes, and the methods and metrics
for the suggested Level 4: Results and Leading indicators for zoo senior staff progress against its
goal of implementing a social responsibility strategy. External outcomes are represented by
themes of reputational capital, stakeholder engagement, public value, community-based
participatory action, and sustainability. Internal outcomes highlight themes of accountability,
transparency, risk management, stakeholder engagement, and reputational capital.
Table 12
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased positive
perception among
public officials.
Number of messaging plans to
generate stories that demonstrate
Senior staff track the number of
positive televised, digital, and
116
positive impact in lives of
community members.
Number of plans to generate
positive feedback mentions from
public officials in zoo generated
surveys and interviews.
Number of plans to generate
positive public comments made in
public hearings.
print stories, as well as the
audience share captured.
Senior staff develop and track
surveys and interviews with
public officials.
Senior staff track type and
number of comments made at
public hearings.
Increased number of
media stories that
demonstrate
excellence in animal
care and welfare.
Number of messaging plans to
produce stories that demonstrate
excellence in animal care and
welfare.
Senior staff track the number of
positive stories and audience
share (i.e., televised, print,
digital).
Increased number of
planned events and
programs held with
public officials.
Number of plans for collaborative
events and programs held in
partnership with public officials.
Senior staff develop and track
the number of events.
Increased number of
plans to enhance
positive perception
among local residents.
Number of messaging stories that
demonstrate zoo benefit, good will,
and excellence in animal care.
Number of micro-targeted direct
mail (e.g., newsletters) pieces
delivered to homes in targeted
communities.
Senior staff conduct focus
groups, provide surveys, and
track Google Alerts.
Independent firm conducts
biennial public opinion poll.
Increased number of
plans to engage with
stakeholders who rely
on or effect the
organization.
Number of high influence/high
dependence stakeholders identified
and categorized.
Number of concerns and interests
identified by key stakeholders.
Number of key stakeholder concerns
identified/addressed.
Senior staff track stakeholder
engagement performance.
Increased number of
plans to generate
positive perception
among accredited zoos
and aquariums.
Number of stories told through AZA
Connect magazine.
Number of stories told through AZA
director’s list serve.
Number of presentations made at
AZA conferences.
Senior staff conduct and track
surveys and interviews.
117
Number of conferences and
programs hosted.
Increased number of
plans to enhance
accountability to
community members.
Number of community members
with governance role.
Number of diverse groups attending
zoo board meetings.
Number of zoo board meetings that
include community member
participation.
Number of community-based zoo
board meetings.
Senior staff track diverse
community members on zoo
board, community member
board participation, and
community-based board
meetings.
Increased number of
plans to enhance the
number of excluded
and marginalized
community members
directly or indirectly
supported by zoo
employment.
Number of excluded and
marginalized community members
employed by zoo or employment
supported by zoo.
Senior staff track employment.
Decreased negative
environmental costs
and consequences.
Number of plans developed to
reduce: pounds of carbon dioxide
emissions attributed to zoo
operations, including guest visits;
number of unsustainably produced
gift shop and food service items.
Number of plans developed to
increase: pounds of zoo generated
waste diverted from landfill, gallons
of water recycled, and use of local
food systems and local clean energy.
Senior staff track consumption,
water, and waste patterns.
Internal Outcomes
Increased number of
key social
responsibility
performance indicators
that include social (i.e,
governance,
community impact,
stakeholder
engagement),
economic (i.e.,
employment, vendors),
and environmental
Number of balanced social,
environmental, and financial
performance report cards.
Senior staff establish and track
key indicators.
118
(i.e., diminished
consequences)
achievements.
Increased number of
key risk indicators that
include avoidance of
likely litigation,
addressing regulatory
and legislative matters
and compliance,
animal welfare,
infrastructure, and
overall risk reduction.
Increased number of
identified risks (i.e.,
perceived and
occurred); recurring
risks, actual and
predicted risks,
unidentified risks, and
resolved risks.
Number of assessed risk indicators. Senior staff establish and track
key indicators.
Increased number of
plans to target
excluded and
marginalized
communities to
demonstrate positive
zoo perception.
Number of positive stories that
demonstrate zoo impact and benefit
within targeted excluded and
marginalized communities.
Number of direct mail pieces sent
within communities of interest.
Number of community events held
in community and at zoo.
Number of excluded and
marginalized community members
employed by or through zoo.
Number of community member
lives positively impacted by zoo.
Senior staff establish and track
key indicators.
Increased number of
plans for accredited
zoos to replicate MAZ
social responsibility
framework.
Number of accredited zoos that have
adopted social responsibility
framework.
Senior staff establish and track
adoptions.
Increased number of
plans to measure how
inspired staff are
achieving social
Number of employees who express
satisfactory levels of being
challenged, empowered, trusted, and
supported; included as team
Senior staff conduct employee
engagement surveys and exit
interviews.
119
responsibility
excellence.
members; and recognized for their
work toward social responsibility
goals.
Increased number of
plans to support direct
and indirect
employment of
excluded and
marginalized
community members.
Number of excluded and
marginalized community members
employed by zoo or employment
supported by zoo.
Senior staff establish and track
employment.
Increased number of
plans to enhance
vendor diversity.
Number of minorities, women, and
persons with disabilities,
particularly excluded or
marginalized community members
or disadvantaged business owners
doing business with the zoo.
Senior staff establish and track
employment.
Increased number of
plans to enhance staff
roles and
responsibilities to
reflect socially
responsible values and
goals.
Number of employee job
descriptions and annual goals
recalibrated to incorporate social
responsibility values.
Senior staff track re-written job
descriptions and staff goal
development.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the MAZ senior staff. Three key
critical behaviors demonstrated by the stakeholders of focus must be demonstrated to achieve the
outcomes. Behaviors must be “specific, observable, and measurable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 51). The first critical behavior is that the senior staff will continually seek input from
community members, government officials, and organizations of interest, to identify unmet
needs within communities of interest and design mission-informed zoo and community-based
interventions that achieve measurable and transformative social and organizational impact. The
second critical behavior is that senior staff will continually inform community members,
government officials, and organizations of interest on performance and progress toward social
responsibility goals. The final critical behavior is that senior staff will acquire the necessary
resources to sustain, intensify, and scale social responsibility strategies and outcomes. Table 13
120
identifies the metrics, methods, and timing that would demonstrate whether the critical behaviors
are being demonstrated.
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Senior staff conduct
monthly meetings to
solicit ideas from
external stakeholders
to address
community needs.
Number of monthly
meetings held to solicit ideas
generated from stakeholders.
Amount of ideas generated
from monthly meetings.
Input collected by
zoo staff.
Monthly
Senior staff and
external stakeholders
implement
interventions.
Number of ideas translated
into collaboratively
designed/launched
interventions to address
community needs.
Input collected by
zoo staff.
Quarterly
Senior staff share
progress and
performance toward
social responsibility
goals with external
stakeholders through
quarterly meetings,
phone calls, and
emails.
Number of communications
to external stakeholders.
Input collected by
zoo staff.
Quarterly
Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) asserted that required drivers are
critical determinants of success, and are part of an extensive and sustaining performance
evaluation and improvement structure. There are four types of required drivers: monitoring,
reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 14 identifies
drivers that will boost the critical behaviors zoo senior staff must demonstrate to initiate and
achieve optimal social responsibility performance and goal achievement. Reinforcers include
building knowledge through leadership training for zoo senior staff, improving motivation
through discussions that identify the value of time and resources invested in goal attainment,
rewarding senior staff through annual performance reviews, and monitoring performance
121
through periodic senior staff check-ins with the zoo’s director and any consultant retained by the
zoo to assist in developing the strategy or training zoo employees.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Senior staff modeling to reinforce
knowledge (i.e., new strategies, goals,
values) to non-senior staff.
Daily 1
Internal zoo communication from zoo
director to reinforce application of new
knowledge and goals/priorities.
Quarterly 1
Senior staff receive feedback from
consultant on performance toward goal
attainment.
Quarterly 2021
Biannually 2022
1, 2, 3
Self-reflection job aid to reflect on
progress toward goal attainment.
Quarterly 2021
Biannually 2022
1, 2
Check-in meetings with the zoo board to
reflect on progress toward goal attainment.
Quarterly 1, 2
Lunch meeting refreshers for senior staff to
review goals, newly acquired knowledge,
and application.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Senior staff discussions highlighting value
of time and resources invested toward
socially responsible outcomes and
celebrating accomplishments.
Quarterly 1, 3
Senior staff discuss funding opportunities
to sustain progress and impact.
Quarterly 3
Feedback and coaching from consultant to
senior staff to sustain and intensify
performance.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Zoo director meets with senior staff to
discuss milestone achievement and to
provide verbal encouragement;
communicates via internal email to all staff
to provide continued support.
Biannually 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Internal and external communications and
recognition at all staff meetings celebrating
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
122
individual and team achievement toward
goals.
Senior staff recognized in annual
performance reviews.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Recognize staff and community partners
with awards.
Annually 2
Staff and zoo board hear from and meet
with community members whose lives
have been positively impacted by zoo.
Annually 1, 2
Monitoring
Senior staff quarterly performance check-
ins with zoo director and consultant.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Senior staff collectively review key
performance indicators through
dashboards.
Biannually 1, 2, 3
Senior staff self-assess progress toward
goals.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Senior staff solicit performance-focused
feedback from community and government
partners.
Annually 1, 2
Consultant observes practices of senior
staff and non-senior staff to evaluate
alignment with goals and values.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Consultant interviews senior staff and
select non-senior staff to garner feedback
about performance toward goals.
Biannually 1, 2, 3
Organizational support. Through the drivers identified above in Table 14, the
organization will support critical senior staff behaviors that reflect Clark and Estes’ (2008)
suggestion to align culture with policy and procedures as part of performance improvement
strategies. Suggested critical behaviors represent changes to existing work processes, material
resources, and value chains and streams (Clark & Estes, 2008) through new standards of
accountability, stakeholder engagement, leadership, communications, and governance. Critical
senior staff behaviors are positioned within Clark and Estes’ (2008) three levels of culture found
in the environment, groups, and individuals. These are also informed by Clark and Estes’ (2008)
factors that heavily influence successful change outcomes, which are: unambiguous performance
measurement metrics supported by clear goals, alignment of systems and practices with goals,
123
clear and candid communication, sustained leadership involvement, and adequate support for
stakeholders.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The following list identifies learning goals for zoo senior staff to
initiate and master the critical behaviors highlighted in Table 13. These goals are aligned with
the validated KMO gaps described in Chapter Four. After completing the program described in
the subsequent section, senior staff will be able to:
1. know the benefits derived from socially responsible practices (D-F);
2. know the meaning of equity (D-C);
3. know what sustainability means (D-C);
4. describe the steps they take to produce socially responsible outcomes (P);
5. know what leads them to change their practices (P);
6. value social responsibility as an organizational priority and value (Expectancy);
7. initiate and sustain confidence recalibrating their roles to reflect socially responsible
values and to drive related practice (Expectancy);
8. feel positive about a socially responsible zoo (Emotions);
9. attribute the causes of success or failure adopting a social responsibility strategy to their
own efforts (Attributions);
10. identify policies or procedures they would like to see created or changed to implement a
social responsibility strategy (Cultural Settings); and
11. identify how the zoo can reinforce, monitor, and reward senior staff behaviors toward
social responsibility (Cultural Settings).
Program. Based on interviews with zoo senior staff and an analysis of relevant publicly-
available documents, the best approach to diminishing the identified KMO gaps should consist of
124
senior staff conducting periodic meetings to solicit ideas from external stakeholders to address
community needs; senior staff and external stakeholders collaboratively implementing
interventions that leverage zoo programs, operations and community expertise; and sharing
progress toward mutually-developed and agreed upon goals with external stakeholders through
quarterly communications.
Therefore, the training program will be delivered multiple ways. These ways include
regularly scheduled meetings for zoo senior staff, quarterly meetings with all zoo staff, monthly
meetings with community partners, and bi-annual meetings with elected officials and zoo board.
There will also be initial meetings convened by the zoo director and supported by a training
consultant. These meetings will serve as the epicenter for social responsibility strategy
development and implementation, and includes learning experiences for senior staff,
opportunities to frame and advance the stakeholder goals, and time to reflect upon progress
toward goal attainment. Quarterly meetings with zoo staff serve as opportunities to communicate
progress toward goal attainment and facilitate engagement with newly achieved outcomes.
Monthly meetings will be convened by the zoo and supported by the training consultant. The
purpose of the meetings is to identify community member needs and opportunities to leverage
zoo programs and operations to meet those needs, plan and initiate interventions, and reflect
upon progress toward goal attainment. Biannual meetings with elected officials and zoo board
members will provide opportunities to zoo staff and community members to publicly share
progress toward goals and to highlight mutually beneficial outcomes being realized.
Evaluation of the components of learning. It is necessary to assess whether program
participants can utilize new skills that are part of the training, and if their confidence and value
perception has grown. For these components of learning, Table 15 identifies the methods and
timing for evaluation.
125
Table 15
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Explain and demonstrate critical components of
a social responsibility strategy.
During and after
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrate they can develop a social
responsibility strategy.
During and after
Use self-reflection as a means of identifying
areas for improvement to goal attainment.
During and after
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Engage in dialogue about the value in expending
resources to attain social responsibility goals.
During
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Engage in dialogue about senior staff confidence
initiating and sustaining progress toward goals.
During and after
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Develop action plans for each senior staff
member.
During and after
Level 1: Reaction
Table 16 highlights the methods that will be used to identify how training participants
react to the learning events and the timing of when those methods would be provided.
Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance at trainings. During
Trainer observes learner interactions and
responses.
During and after
Interview learners to gain insight into their
feelings about the training.
During
Relevance
Conduct check-ins with participants through
discussions.
During and after
Customer Satisfaction
Conduct check-ins with participants through
discussions.
During and after
126
Hold interviews with individual learners. After each training session and as needed
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. The New World model
suggested an integrated approach to evaluation through four distinct levels that measure
effectiveness of training at immediate and delayed stages (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
First and second levels of evaluation capture immediate reaction. Third and fourth levels capture
delayed outcomes. Therefore, the following sections highlight the means of evaluation deployed
immediately following program implementation and delayed for a period after implementation of
the program.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. One month after the
implementation of the training, and then again at 16 weeks, the consultant will provide a limited
learning pulse check through interview questions provided by email, phone, and in-person
conservations, as well as observations of actions demonstrated by participants in alignment with
critical behaviors (i.e., monthly meetings to solicit ideas from external stakeholders,
implementation of interventions to address unmet community member needs identified through
these meetings, and sharing progress and performance toward mutually agreed upon goals). This
blended method will evaluate participant’s contentment and impression of the training (Level 1),
determination and value to apply their training (Level 2), application of the training to the
organization’s goal of implementing a social responsibility strategy (Level 3), and attainment of
intended outcomes (Level 4). Appendix D is a summary of the delayed evaluation tools and
Appendix D contains the actual delayed blended evaluation instrument.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The senior staff Level 4 goal is the implementation of a social responsibility strategy. The
performance metric set by the senior staff is the number of meetings held with external
127
stakeholders, including community groups and the interventions implemented to address
community member needs. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) posited that maximizing progress
visibility supports goal attainment. Prior to and after the training, the organization should
produce a dashboard that tracks the number of meetings held and interventions developed. Figure
A below highlights an example quarterly dashboard with fictitious information based on the
stakeholder goal of producing a social responsibility strategy.
Figure A
Sample Social Responsibility Dashboard – Select Indicators for External Outcomes
Summary
The implementation and evaluation plan was designed through the New World
Kirkpatrick Model. The starting point for this model was the end, organizational goals,
subsequently identifying and pursuing descending levels of behavior, learning, and reaction as a
structure to realize the stakeholder and organizational goals. Through the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, the intended outcomes of the recommended training program can be
supported, sustained, and intensified. The recommendations, and simultaneous implementation
Social Responsibility Dashboard
December 2022
Shape Public Opinion Build Political Capital Connect with Communities
# of press conferences held
at zoo and in community to
highlight
partnerships/impact
# of stories generated that
demonstrate positive impact
in lives of community
members
# of stories told through
AZA Connect and through
AZA director’s list serve
# of press conferences held
in partnership with elected
officials to tout zoo-related
outcomes
# of positive feedback
mentions from public
officials in surveys in
interviews
# of zoo and community
events held with public
officials
# of excluded and
marginalized community
members employed directly
or indirectly by zoo
# of locally produced
products sold in zoo gift shop
# of zoo and community
based events and programs to
connect people with mission
128
and evaluation, assures that intended solutions align with the identified problem while producing
sustained support and connectivity while preparing stakeholders to lead and sustain change
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2019).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Methodological approaches deployed in this study have strengths and weaknesses. The
Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework appeared to be the most appropriate framework
since it is a practical, evidence-based means of improving organizational performance. The
framework relies on successful diagnosis of root causes of performance gaps and a progression
to suggestive KMO improvements to close these gaps. Subsequently, Clark and Estes (2008)
provided evaluative tools to monitor and evaluate the efficacy of the improvement plan. Clark
and Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework aligned with considerations of the principal
investigator’s time, financial resources, access to stakeholders, and deadlines. Steps identified in
the case study were taken to maximize accuracy, completeness, validity, and reliability.
Limitations and Delimitations
The innovation study had several limitations. The study’s stakeholders of interest were 10
senior staff members at one North American accredited zoo. Due to limitations of factors that
include time, funding, and access to a broader population, the study did not include interviews
with non-senior staff members, non-zoo stakeholder groups that include a zoo advisory board
and local elected officials, or more broadly, zoo senior staff and non-senior staff from other
accredited zoos. Document analysis was limited to publicly available artifacts. Observations
were not conducted due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions and deadlines associated
with the study’s completion. Surveys were not conducted because the stakeholder of focus was
only 10 individuals. Due to these limitations and the data collection methods used, the findings
may not be representative or generalizable to the accredited zoo industry. The study’s findings
129
are limited to the particular stakeholder group. It is plausible the study could have been improved
through an expanded stakeholder of focus to include zoos that are diverse in size, budget,
geography and audience, as well as the deployment of data collection methods that include
observations and surveys.
130
References
Action Without Borders (2016). http://www.idealist.org/view/job/bCH4Jxw796W4
Adams, W. M., & Jeanrenaud, S. (2008). Transition to sustainability: Towards a humane and
diverse world. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Attributions. http://www.education.com/reference
/article/ attribution-theory/
Balabanov, V., Balabanova, A., & Dudin, M. (2015). Social responsibility for sustainable
development of enterprise structures. Asian Social Science, 11(8), 111-118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n8p111
Bandura, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1-3.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836
Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical
sociology, 34(1), 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920507084623
Bowen, H.R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper & Row.
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational administration quarterly, 40(1), 77-108.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report for the World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and
complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A
review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews,
12(1), 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x
131
Cerezo, A., & Kaspar, K. E. (2018). Zoo conservation disembarks: Stepping off the arc and into
global sustainment development. In B. A. Minteer, J. Maienschein, & J. P. Collins (Eds.),
The arc and beyond: The evolution of zoo and aquarium conservation (pp. 344-359).
University of Chicago Press.
Chernev, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1412-1425.
https://doi.org/10.1086/680089
Cimera, R. E., & Cowan, R. J. (2009). The costs of services and employment outcomes achieved
by adults with autism in the US. Autism, 13(3), 285-302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309103791
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing Inc.
Debeljuh, P., & Destefano, A. (2005). An inside look into teaching corporate social
responsibility: A practical study with NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 2(2),
137-150. http://www.libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/884628936?accountid=14749
Department of Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book.
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf
Dylan, A. (2013). Environmental sustainability, sustainable development, and social work. In M.
Gray, J. Coates, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Environmental social work. Routledge.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
www.education/com.reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking
132
dispositions and abilities. In Sixth International Conference on Thinking, Cambridge, MA
(pp. 1-8).
Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. 74 Federal Register 12531 (published
March 25, 2009).
Epstein, J. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C.
Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 259-295).
Academic Press.
Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good.
Business Horizons, 50(3), 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.12.002
Falk, J. H., & Sheppard, B. K. (2006). Thriving in the knowledge age: New business models for
museums and other cultural institutions. Altamira Press.
Fet, A. M., & Knudson, H. (2017). Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility.
Fleming, D. (2012). Museums for social justice. In R. Sandell et al. (Eds.), Museums, equality,
and social justice. Routledge.
Fogel, D. S. (2016). Strategic sustainability: A natural environmental lens on organizations and
management. Routledge.
Fontaine, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability: the new bottom line?
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(4).
Fraser, J., & Sickler, J. (2009). Measuring the cultural impact of zoos and aquariums.
International Zoo Yearbook, 43(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
1090.2008.00064.x
Freeman, S. (2014). Original Position. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/original-position
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
133
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (4th ed., 162-183). Pearson.
Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S. (2006). The impact of group membership on cooperation
and norm enforcement: Evidence using random assignment to real social groups.
American Economic Review, 96(2), 212-216.
Goodman, D. J. (2020). Cultural competence for equity and inclusion. The official journal of the
white privilege conference and the Matrix Center for advancement of social equity and
inclusion, X(1).
Heifetz, R. (2010). Adaptive work. Harvard University.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75,
124–134.
Hemingway, C.A. & Maclagan, P.W. (2004). Managers' Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate
Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 50, 33–44.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9
Isaksson, I., Kiessling, T., & Harvey, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: Why bother?
Organizational Dynamics, 43(1), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.10.008
Janes, R. R. (2013). Museums and the paradox of change. Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2009). A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small‐and
medium‐sized enterprises. Business ethics: A European review, 18(1), 21-36.
Jin, K. G., & Drozdenko, R. G. (2010). Relationships among perceived organizational core
values, corporate social responsibility, ethics, and organizational performance outcomes:
134
An empirical study of information technology professionals. Journal of Business Ethics,
92(3), 341-359.
Johnson, N. J., & Svara, J. H. (2011). Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public
administration. Routledge.
Kahle, L. R., Poulos, B., & Sukhdial, A. (1988). Changes in social values in the united states
during the past decade. Journal of Advertising Research. 28, 35–41.
Kelly, G., & Walker, P. (2004). Community systems level thinking. In Proceedings of the
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Oxford, UK.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Layzer, J. A. (2002) Citizen participation and government choice in local environmental
controversies. Policy Studies Journal, 30(2):193–207.
Lloréns Montes, F. J., Ruiz Moreno, A., & García Morales, V. (2005). Influence of support
leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and
performance: An empirical examination. Technovation, 25, 1159–1172.
Loomis, D., &, Ditton, R. (1993). Distributive justice in fisheries management. Fisheries, 18,
14–18. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1993)018<0014:DJIFM>2.0.CO;2
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the science of learning. Pearson.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations, 1(2), 145–162.
Nonhuman Rights Project (2016). Nonhuman Rights Project. Retrieved from
http://www.nonhumanrights.org
135
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/ article/self-
efficacy-theory/
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New Perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23-
39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
PETA (2016). Retrieved from ww.peta.org
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pirnea, I. C., Olaru, M., & Moisa, C. (2011). Relationship between corporate social
responsibility and social sustainability. Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition, 14(1).
Rabb, G. B. (2004). The evolution of zoos from menageries to centers of conservation and
caring. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(3).
Rabb, G. B., & Saunders, C. D. (2005). The future of zoos and aquariums: Conservation and
caring. International Zoo Yearbook, 39(1).
Ramirez de la Cruz, E. & Arellano, D. (2014). Strategies, dilemmas and opportunities of the new
mission and vision of infonavit: A case study. Gestion y Politica Publica, 23(1):121-183.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1735653065/
Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. Routledge.
Redman, E. (2013). Advancing educational pedagogy for sustainability: Developing and
implementing programs to transform behaviors. International journal of environmental
and science education, 8(1), 1-34.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
136
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to
corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(4), 537-543.
Sahagun, L. (2014). Exotic species are settling in at…new rain-forest exhibit. Times.
Saunders, D. (2003). The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology. Human Ecology
Review,10( 2).
Savaya, R., & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection to identify gaps between espoused theory
and theory-in-use. Social work, 57(2), 145-154.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/.
Scott, C. A. (Ed.). (2013). Museums and public value: Creating sustainable futures. Ashgatre.
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. http://www.education. com/reference
/article/sociocultural theory/
Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology and
politics. Zed Books.
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Dissertation
Success, LLC.
Skolnik, R. (1992). Arts & cultural organizations seek increased private support as public
funding dwindles. The Public Relations Journal, 48(2), 18.
Spade, D. (2011). Normal life. Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of
the Law. South End Press.
Stillman, P. G. (1974). The concept of legitimacy. Polity, 7(1), 32–56.
Theis, T. (2012). Challenges for sustainability. In T. Theis & J. Tomkin (Eds.), Sustainability: A
comprehensive foundation (pp. 11–13). U of I Open Source Textbook Initiative.
137
https://www.earth.illinois.edu/UserFiles/Servers/Server_4102/File/documents/sustain_co
mp_found.pdf
Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader
ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business
Ethics, 107(1), 49-64.
Tuan, L. T. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance. Social
Responsibility Journal, 8(4). Weil, S.E. (2003). Beyond big and awesome: Outcome
based evaluation. Museum News, November/December, 40-45, 52-3.
White, M. (2013). Building a resilient organizational culture. University of North Carolina
Kenan-Flagler Business School, Chapel Hill: UNC Executive Development 2013.
Retrieved from https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/~/media/Files/documents/executive-
development/Building-a-Resilient-Organizational-Culture-final.pdf
World Business Council (2005). Corporate Responsibility.
http://www.partnerships.gov.au/cst/corporate/shtml
138
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for meeting with me today. My name is Matthew Mayer. I’m a student at the
University of Southern California pursuing a Doctor of Education in organizational change. I
previously served as a senior vice president at the Chicago Zoological Society, which manages
the AZA-accredited Brookfield Zoo.
About the Study
As part of my dissertation, I would like to have a confidential conversation with you on the topic
of social responsibility. In order to fully capture your perspectives, I would like to record our
conversation and take notes. May I record our conversation? Thank you. Both the recording and
my notes will be kept securely through a password protected application and not shared with
anyone. The recording will be destroyed shortly after the interview is transcribed and my notes
will not contain any personally identifiable information for you.
Before I begin, can you please confirm that you’ve been provided with the Information Sheet
required by the USC IRB. And that you are here voluntarily and understand that you can
withdraw at any time? Great. Thank you. Our interview will last about one hour. Your
prospective is really valuable to this study.
Transition Questions
I’d like to start with a few questions about you. Can you please tell me your educational
background? What attracted you to work at the [MAZ]?
I’m going to read the zoo’s mission and then ask you some follow-up questions.
Key Questions
1. What is your understanding of the term social responsibility?
139
2. What does the term equity mean to you? How does the notion of equity inform your
work?
3. How would you define sustainability? How does the notion of sustainability inform your
work?
4. What do you think that a socially responsible zoo looks like?
5. What benefits can be derived from the zoo’s practice of social responsibility?
6. Who are the zoo’s stakeholders?
7. How does the zoo’s stakeholders benefit from socially responsible practices?
8. Do you feel the zoo is responsive to the needs of its community members? If so, how.
9. Describe the steps you take to produce socially responsible outcomes.
10. Tell me the steps you would take to institutionalize social responsibility into the zoo’s
culture.
11. More broadly, what steps can the zoo take to institutionalize social responsibility?
12. Describe how you reflect upon your role at the zoo?
13. What leads you to change your practices?
14. Describe the characteristics of a socially responsible zoo.
15. Describe how the senior staff reflects upon the zoo’s role.
16. Describe how social responsibility is valued as an organizational priority and value?
17. How valuable is it for the zoo’s senior staff to produce socially responsible outcomes?
18. Describe how social responsibility is valued as an organizational priority and value?
19. How valuable is it for the zoo’s senior staff to produce socially responsible outcomes?
20. Would you value recalibrating your role and responsibilities to produce socially
responsible outcomes?
21. Would you value contributing toward and producing a zoo social responsibility strategy?
140
22. How confident are you in your abilities to recalibrate your role to produce socially
responsible outcomes?
23. How confident are you recalibrating your role to produce socially responsible outcomes?
24. How confident are you that the senior staff can take the steps to develop a zoo social
responsibility strategy?
25. How do you feel about social responsibility at the zoo?
26. How positive do you feel about implementing social responsibility at your zoo?
27. Describe how the zoo maintains an understanding of community member needs.
28. Describe how the zoo uses its mission to improve the lives of its community members?
29. Thinking about when you perform well at something, what do you believe are the reasons
for that positive performance?
30. Thinking about when you do not perform well at something, what do you believe are the
reasons for the negative performance outcomes?
31. What resources would you need to acquire new knowledge and practice new behaviors
on the job?
32. Ideally, what resources would you need to implement social responsibility?
33. Tell me about the challenges you may face implementing social responsibility at the zoo.
34. What policies or procedures would you see having to be changed or created to implement
social responsibility?
35. How would your job description and goals change to support social responsibility?
36. Describe how the organization currently encourages you to produce social responsibility
goals?
37. Tell me how the culture of your zoo is going to influence the implementation of social
responsibility.
141
38. How do you identify and engage key zoo stakeholders?
39. How can the zoo reinforce, monitor, and rewards senior staff behaviors toward social
responsibility?
40. Tell me how the zoo recognizes senior staff and stakeholders who partner toward socially
responsible outcomes?
41. Describe how there is a culture of collaboration specifically to develop socially
responsible goals.
End
Thank you. I do not have any further questions. Is there anything else you would like to add? I
will follow up in the future and share the themes and patterns that emerged from my data
collection. I am grateful for the time you took to share your thoughts and appreciate your insight.
142
Appendix B: Information Sheet
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Enhancing Socially Responsible Outcomes at a Major North American
Accredited Zoo: An Innovation Study
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Matthew Mayer
FACULTY ADVISOR: Kenneth Yates, Ed.D.
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 investigate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) resources required to produce socially responsible zoo outcomes. The
study will employ qualitative research methods, including interviews and document analysis to
capture data that identifies the influential KMO factors that contribute to the production of
socially responsible organizational outcomes. You are invited as a possible participant because
you are a member of the zoo’s leadership team, the stakeholder group of interest.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants will be asked to participate in a one-hour interview about the zoo and social
responsibility. If you decide to take part, you will be asked to answer questions related to zoos
and social responsibility. Interviews will be conducted individually, in private, and at a zoo
location convenient to you. Interviews will be audio recorded with participant permission and
transcribed. Audio recordings will not be linked to participants. Participants may decline audio
recording of the interview and continue with their participation. Data collected will be kept
confidential and de-identified for data analysis.
143
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 the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information for the organization or participants will be used. For example, the study may be
referred to as: Enhancing Socially Responsible Outcomes at a Major North American Accredited
Zoo: An Innovation Study.
Data will be kept solely by the author through a password secure application and not shared with
any individual or entity. Data will be kept indefinitely.
Participants maintain the right to review/edit the audio recording or transcripts. The principal
investigator and transcriber will have access to the data. Audio recordings will be erased at the
study’s conclusion or December 21, 2021, whichever occurs first. Personal identities will be
shielded/disguised through research identification codes. Identification codes are accessed only
by the principal investigator through password protected systems. Codes will be destroyed as
soon as reasonably possible.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Matthew Mayer, principal investigator
at mayermat@usc.edu and Kenneth Yates, Ed.D., faculty advisor at kennetay@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.
144
Appendix C: Immediate Evaluation Instrument Sample Questions
Level 1 Reactions
I was interested in the training. (Engagement).
My interest and engagement were sustained throughout the training. (Engagement).
What I learned during the training will help me on the job. (Relevance).
The training material will support me in my role. (Customer Service).
The facilitator’s presentation style contributed to me learning new things. (Customer Service).
Level 2 Learning
Understanding of my social responsibility obligations was improved through the training.
(Declarative Knowledge).
I know how to execute my social responsibility obligations. (Declarative Knowledge).
The tools I need to develop and implement a social responsibility strategy were provided.
(Procedural Knowledge).
I will be a better senior staff member because of what I learned. (Attitude).
I have the confidence that I developed the right knowledge and skills to perform my social
responsibility obligations. (Confidence).
I am committed to applying what I learned. (Commitment).
145
Appendix D: Delayed Evaluation Tool Instrument Sample Questions
Delayed Sample Questions
My commitment to implementing a social responsibility is strong. (Level 1).
My confidence level about meeting my social responsibility has grown since the training. (Level
1).
My knowledge about how to develop a social responsibility strategy was improved through the
training. (Level 2).
Since the training, I reflect upon social responsibility, my role, and the strategies I develop to
meet my goals. (Level 2).
My understanding of zoo social responsibility and my role developing social responsibility
strategies was improved through the training. (Level 3).
I am driving or supporting social change. (Level 3).
Since the training, I have made progress toward my social responsibility goals. (Level 4).
Socially responsible values and practices are reflected through my decision-making, resource
allocation, and priorities. (Level 4).
I am realizing organizational outcomes that support the zoo’s role as an equitable, resilient,
responsive, and dynamic social organization. (Level 4).
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study uses Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis to clarify organizational and stakeholder goals and identify gaps between actual performance and preferred performance. The purpose of the study was to assess the needs of senior staff at the Major North American Accredited Zoo (a pseudonym) to develop and implement innovation in social responsibility performance. Data collection, via qualitative methods consisting of interview data from eight participants and analysis of 20 documents sought to identify and validate assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources necessary for the senior staff to develop an adoptable social responsibility strategy. Senior staff participants ranged from the organization’s director to the director of human resources. Through the data collected, assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational causes were assessed, validated, and categorized as assets or needs. The findings demonstrated factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge gaps, deficient levels of motivation, and an absence of policies and positive behavioral support necessary to develop an adoptable social responsibility strategy and implement innovation in social responsibility performance. Based on the findings, research literature-based solutions are made to address these needs. The study demonstrates how senior staff at the Major North American Accredited Zoo can utilize the gap analysis framework to initiate, sustain, and ultimately achieve the goal of developing an adoptable social responsibility strategy.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis
PDF
The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study
PDF
Improving exempt nurse leader work-life balance: an innovation study
PDF
Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program
PDF
Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study
PDF
Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis
PDF
A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study
PDF
Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study
PDF
The impact of high turnover and burnout among behavioral health's clinical workforce (clinicians)
PDF
Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study
PDF
Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices
PDF
Translating evidence-based medicine into practice in critical care: an innovation study
PDF
Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study
PDF
Mentorship challenges for occupational therapy clinicians transitioning into academia: an innovation study
PDF
The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice
PDF
Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study
PDF
A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study
PDF
The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study
PDF
Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis
PDF
An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development
Asset Metadata
Creator
Mayer, Matthew Roger
(author)
Core Title
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
11/13/2020
Defense Date
08/26/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
museums,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,social responsibility,Zoos
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Yates, Kenneth (
committee chair
), Donato, Adrian (
committee member
), Sparangis, Themistocles (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mayer.matthew.bz@gmail.com,mayermat@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-392563
Unique identifier
UC11666391
Identifier
etd-MayerMatth-9118.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-392563 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MayerMatth-9118.pdf
Dmrecord
392563
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Mayer, Matthew Roger
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
organizational change
social responsibility