Conference Paper
ClimateQUAL® and
Thinklets: Using ClimateQUAL® with Group Support Systems to
Facilitate Discussion and Set Priorities for Organizational Change at Criss
Library
Audrey DeFrank
Associate Dean
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L.
Criss Library
University of Nebraska
Omaha
Omaha, Nebraska, United
States of America
Email: adefrank@unomaha.edu
Nora Hillyer
Director of Research Services
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L. Criss Library
University of Nebraska Omaha
Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America
Email: nhillyer@unomaha.edu
2013 DeFrank and Hillyer. This is an
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – This article discusses a series of actions
taken by the Criss Library at the University of Nebraska at Omaha to implement
organizational change, using the ClimateQUAL® survey
and facilitated discussions with ThinkTank™ group
decision software. The library had experienced significant changes over a
five-year period, with a renovation of the facility and three reorganizations
resulting in a 50% staff turnover. Recognizing the strain that years of
construction and personnel changes had placed on the organization, there was a
desire to uncover the mood of the employees and reveal the issues behind low
morale, uneasiness, and fear.
Methods
– In November 2009, the library
conducted a ClimateQUAL® survey to develop a baseline
to assess the effectiveness of any changes. After the results were distributed
to library faculty and staff, a series of two-hour facilitated discussions was
held to gather opinions and ideas for solutions using thinkLets, a pattern
language for reasoning toward a goal. The group support system ThinkTank™ software was loaded onto computers, and
employees were able to add their ideas anonymously during the sessions.
Finally, 12 employees (29%) completed a four-question survey on their
perceptions of the facilitated discussions.
Results
– The facilitated discussions returned 76 sub-themes
in 12 categories: staffing and scheduling issues, staff unity/teamwork,
communication, goodwill/morale, accountability, decision-making, policy issues,
skills and training, leadership, ergonomics/physical work environment, respect,
and bullying. An advisory team culled the 76 sub-themes into 40 improvement
strategies. Five were implemented immediately, and the remaining 35 were
scheduled to be presented to the faculty and staff via an online survey.
Participants’ perceptions of the facilitated discussions were mixed.
Eighty-three percent of respondents reported that they did not feel safe
speaking out about issues, most likely because a supervisor was present.
Conclusion
–
Improving organizational climate is a continuous and iterative process that
leads to a healthy environment.
Introduction
The
Criss Library at the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) has experienced
exceptional level of change within the last five years. The Library has
undergone a complete physical transformation; a 30,000 square foot addition was
completed in 2006 and a total renovation of the facility was completed in 2009.
Throughout the construction, the facility remained open and all services
available to patrons.
Not
only did the library faculty and staff endure the environmental stress of a
renovation, they were also affected by three reorganizations in a three-year
time frame. The reorganizations changed job descriptions for 30% of the
employees and resulted in a 50% turnover in staff from resignations, layoffs,
and retirements. The personnel changes left the remaining employees feeling
uneasy; and while there is a high level of achievement among the staff, an
undercurrent of low morale, distrust, and fear remained.
After
the completion of the building renovation and a change in leadership, the
organizational
focus returned to collections, services, and employees after long being on
facilities issues.
Recognizing
the strain that years of construction and personnel changes had placed on the
organization, there was a desire to uncover the mood of the employees and
reveal the true issues behind the low morale, uneasiness, and fear. After doing
some research on organizations, change, and the effects of change on employees,
it was decided to use the ClimateQUAL® survey for assessment of the library
staff.
Overview/Background
and ClimateQUAL®
The
Criss Library set out to determine its organizational health by measuring the
diversity and climate of the organization. As Lowry and Hanges (2008) indicate,
the climate of an organization helps employees interpret and understand what
behavior is rewarded, supported, and expected. A healthy organization creates
climates that show that teamwork, diversity, and
justice are valued and there is a strong concern for customers.
Beckhard
described the genesis of organizational development in Organization Development: Strategies and Models:
“Today there is a need for
longer-range, coordinated strategy to develop organization climates, ways of
work, relationships, communication systems, and information systems. It is out
of those needs that systematic planned change efforts – organizational
development – have emerged” (Beckhard, 1969, p. 8).
The
father of organizational development in academic and research libraries, Duane
Webster, identified the following principles for improvement of organizations:
“the importance of interpersonal competence; participation leading to
commitment; the importance of groups and teamwork; and importance of those who
will implement a change being involved in the planning of that change”
(Sullivan, 2009, p. 314). Some of these same principles were repeated as
elements of organizational development described by Karen Holloway: putting
decision-making closer to people doing the work; improving group dynamics,
organizational structure, and organizational culture; learning how to work
collaboratively and across hierarchies; and building trust (2004). The
Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment (OCDA) used the principles and
elements of organizational development and described them as climates (Lowry & Hanges, 2008).
Questions were developed for the OCDA, which later evolved into the
ClimateQUAL® assessment, to help libraries discover their strengths and
weaknesses within each principle or climate.
The
Criss Library used ClimateQUAL® tool to survey library employees and develop a
baseline to assess the effectiveness of any changes. The ClimateQUAL® survey
addresses climates for diversity, teamwork, learning, and fairness. The survey
was administered in November 2009 and results were received in December 2009.
The results were based on a seven-point Likert scale. With some exceptions, a higher mean score
indicates a stronger or healthier climate. The Criss Library results showed
healthy climates in several areas but also indicated three areas where changes
were warranted. The Criss Library work environment scored well on interpersonal
justice (M = 5.86), informational justice (M = 5.02), a healthy climate for
leadership (M = 5.69), a healthy climate for deep diversity (M = 5.18) and
demographic diversity for race (M = 6.74), gender (M = 6.47), rank (M = 5.20),
and sexual orientation (M = 6.40), organizational citizenship behaviors (M =
5.06), interpersonal conflict (M = 2.66, note scale with reversed coding), and
task conflict (M = 3.35, note scale with reversed coding). The three areas
where the mean scores were low included distributive justice (M = 3.29),
procedural justice (M = 3.98), and structural facilitation of teamwork (M =
3.79).
Criss
Library’s ClimateQUAL® Results
With
a better understanding of organizational development, research was conducted for
additional clarification on the three climates with the lowest mean scores at
the Criss Library: distributive and procedural justice and the structural
facilitation of teamwork. The ClimateQUAL® tool defines distributive justice as
the degree to which staff perceive that rewards are fairly distributed upon
performance, and procedural justice as the degree to which staff perceive the
procedures that determine the distribution of rewards are uniformly applied.
(Association of Research Libraries, n.d.). The climate for teamwork and the
structural facilitation of teamwork is the degree to which staff members
perceive that teamwork is valued by the organization and to which they perceive
that they are valued as team members.
In
general, distributive justice is related to specific attitudes or perceptions
of the fairness of organizational outcomes or processes received in a given
transaction such as pay satisfaction and job satisfaction (Greenberg &
Colquitt, 2005). Individuals evaluate and compare the outcome they receive to a
standard or rule or to the outcome received by a coworker. Distributive justice
perceptions are positively associated with job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and trust, and negatively associated with organizational withdrawal
(Chory & Kingsley Westerman, 2009). Negative associations of distributive
justice can contribute to rumor spreading, counter-productive work behaviors,
conflict at work, faking illness, and damaging or wasting organizational
resources or equipment (Chory & Kingsley Westerman, 2009).
Procedural
justice is more strongly related to global attitudes such as organizational
commitment and group commitment (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Procedural
justice in the group context demonstrates that individuals care about fairness
because of their relationships with the groups to which they belong (Greenberg
& Colquitt, 2005). Procedural justice can be defined as the perception of
the fairness of the processes used to arrive at outcomes. It is the
individual’s perception of the fairness of the process components of the social
system that regulates the distribution of resources. Procedures are judged on
their consistency of application, alignment with prevailing ethical standards,
the degree of bias present, their accuracy and correctability in application,
and the extent to which they represent all people concerned. Fair procedures
ensure acceptance of policies such as smoking bans, pay systems, parental leave
policies, and disciplinary actions. Positive procedural justice is associated
with trust in management, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Negative or low procedural justice can lead to counterproductive work
behaviors, conflict at work, and the use of organizational revenge strategies
(Chory & Kingsley Westerman, 2009).
Structural
facilitation of teamwork was another opportunity area where the Criss Library
scored lower than other academic libraries. The Criss Library work environment
scored a mean of 3.79 compared to 4.24 for all institutions, placing UNO below
the average. Only 40% of Criss Library employees responded positively to the
question about the Structural Facilitation of Teamwork, which compares to the
mean of 48% for all institutions. Teams, as defined by Baughman, are “small
groups of staff working on a common purpose” and teamwork is the environment
that is created to foster how the members of a group work together” (2008, p.
294). Moreover, Baughman describes a true team as one empowered to make
decisions, improve processes, and implement strategies to better serve the
user. A team can add to the success of
an organization by taking ownership of identifying ways to improve processes,
promote continuous learning and development, and increase innovation and
risk-taking. She goes on to explain that libraries that develop into learning
organizations focus on customer needs and building a culture of continuous
learning for team members.
The
Criss Library scored the highest on the ClimateQUAL® survey in the climates for Diversity. The Valuing Diversity
climate, defined as the degree to which equality between minorities and
majorities is valued, showed 71% of Criss employees responded positively. In
response to Race, which is the extent to which the library supports racial
diversity, 96% responded positively. Another climate where Criss Library
employees responded positively was Interpersonal Justice (84%) – the
degree to which one perceives there is fairness and respectfulness between
employees and supervisors. Finally, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (71%) – the
degree to which employees perceive that “professionalism,” politeness, and care
is exhibited within the organization, was another positive climate at the Criss
Library. Some comments:
·
“Overall this is a very good place to
work. Folks are generally helpful, good natured and open minded.”
·
“Our library caters greatly to the
patrons. There is a great working atmosphere at the service desks, and you know
that other employees are friendly and ready to help you, should you require
it.”
In
contrast to the healthy climates, three areas from the survey indicated
opportunities for improvement: distributive justice, procedural justice, and
structural facilitation of teamwork. In the climates for Justice/Fairness,
Distributive Justice, and Procedural Justice the Criss Library ranked lower
(22% and 35% employees responded positively respectively) than compared to all
institutions (30% and 47% respectively). In the area of climate for Teamwork,
the Structural Facilitation of Teamwork, the Criss Library received a lower
score (M=3.79) than all institutions (M=4.26). Furthermore, 43% of Criss
Library employees perceive they do not have as much influence over their teams
as other institutions’ employees, where 62% responded positively. Some comments
on the teamwork issue:
·
“Staff members, librarians, and
administrators need to be more open to helping other departments within the
library when asked.”
·
“I feel communication and teamwork are
two areas at the library that need to be addressed.”
Criss
Library employees also expressed concern in the climate for Psychological
Safety, defined as the degree to which employees feel the organization is a
safe environment for offering opinions and taking risks. The mean score for the
Criss Library was 4.52 compared with 4.95 for all institutions. Criss Library
employees expressed concerns regarding expressing ideas and opinions, and fear
that theirs is not a safe environment for risk-taking:
·
“There is a great deal of fear in this
organization.”
·
“This organization is a mess. People
don’t trust. Communication is the pits.”
·
“. . . they were out of favor with
administration. It created a climate of fear across the library. This is why
people are still afraid to try new things or offer dissenting opinions.”
There
were several comments regarding the absence of rewards in the organization. The
mean score for the climate for Continual Learning shows that Criss Library
employees felt they were not as encouraged to express new ideas and that their
ideas were not accepted or rewarded as those from other libraries. The mean
score for Criss Library was 5.05 compared to 5.28 for all institutions.
·
“The rewards questions were very hard
to answer because the library doesn’t give reward.”
·
“There are attempts at saying thank you
but I’d say most people do not feel personally rewarded for their work.”
·
“It would be nice if the Directors or
the Dean provided greater recognition and/or rewards (not just monetary, but
treats, prizes or even paper certificates) to those departments or individuals
who go ‘above and beyond’ to serve our patron population.”
Tables
1 and 2 break out the lowest and highest mean scores, by percentage of
respondents assigning a ranking of 5 or above on each 7 point scale.
Table
3 shows the top three opportunity areas for all departments and the range of
mean scores. All departments, with the exception of one (who did not have the
minimum number of responses for reporting), had the same three lowest scoring
climates (opportunity areas), but in varying rank order.
After
the Survey: Group Support Systems (GSS) and ThinkLets
The
receipt of the survey results coincided with the semi-annual ClimateQUAL®
partners meeting at the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Boston. A number of
partners spoke informally on their experiences with survey administration and
the common theme running through those discussions was the importance of
library staff involvement in the identification of interventions and solutions.
This concept was communicated to the Criss Library ClimateQUAL® advisory team, and the group began to discuss
ways to garner feedback from library staff. One of the team’s members is a
senior fellow at the University of Nebraska at Omaha’s Center for Collaboration
Science (CCS), an experienced facilitator, and knowledgeable about the CCS’ use
of group decision software to facilitate meetings both on-campus and in the
Omaha business community.
Table
1
All
Library Organization Climate Lowest Five Ranked
|
ClimateQUAL®
climate |
Percentage of
respondents assigning a ranking of 5 or above (7 point scale) |
|
Organizational
Climate for Justice Distributive Justice |
22.22% |
|
Procedural Justice |
34.62% |
|
Climate
for Teamwork Structural Facilitation of Teamwork |
40.00% |
|
Climate
for Customer Service |
62.26% |
|
Climate
for Psychological Safety |
62.26% |
Table
2
All
Library Organization Climate Highest Five Ranked
|
ClimateQUAL®
climate |
Percentage of
respondents assigning a ranking of 5 or above (7 point scale) |
|
Climate
for Demographical Diversity Race |
95.74% |
|
Gender |
90.38% |
|
Sexual Orientation |
90.00% |
|
Organizational
Climate for Justice Interpersonal Justice |
84.44% |
|
Leadership
Climate Leader-Member Relationship Quality |
83.67% |
Table
3
Top
Three Opportunity Areas for All Departments
|
ClimateQUAL®
climate |
Range of mean
scores |
|
Organizational
Climate for Justice Procedural Justice |
2.00 – 4.88 |
|
Climate
for Teamwork Structural Facilitation of Teamwork |
2.75 – 4.36 |
|
Organizational
Climate for Justice Distributive Justice |
2.44 – 4.14 |
The
advisory team chose to use the group decision software based on prior
experience using it in other contexts at UNO.
In addition to being a very productive and successful system, it is fun
and engaging to use. There is a level of
anonymity that can provide psychological safety to participants, which they may
not experience using other traditional brainstorming systems, as well as
providing a focus on the quality of the feedback and not on the personality of
the person providing it. We felt the anonymity was an important factor given
the general feeling of mistrust among library faculty and staff.
The
system developed at the CCS uses “thinkLets.” A “thinkLet” is “the smallest
unit of intellectual capital required to create one
repeatable pattern of thinking among people working toward a goal” (Briggs, de
Vreede, Nunamaker, & Tobey, 2001. p. 2).
Briggs
and de Vreede (2009) have developed over sixty thinkLets that can be configured
and used within a group decision system and can “encapsulate the components of
a stimulus used to create a single repeatable, predictable, pattern of thinking
among people working toward a goal” (Briggs, de Vreede, Nunamaker, & Tobey,
2001, p. 2). It was decided that the Criss Library would use the ThinkTankTM
group collaboration software, and employ the FreeBrainstorm,
FastFocus, and PriorityVote
thinkLets.
Facilitated
Discussion Process
The
ClimateQUAL® survey was administered to the following library departments,
which align with the current organizational reporting structure: Administrative
Services, Collections, Leadership Team, Patron Services, Research Services, and
Virtual Services. Likewise, the facilitated discussions were conducted among
these same departmental groups, with the exception of student assistants, who
did not participate in the initial facilitated discussions. There are plans to
hold conversations with student assistants later in the process.
Prior
to the scheduled discussions, each departmental group was provided a summary
report of ClimateQUAL® results. The report included both the highest and lowest
scoring climates for their department as well as the library as a whole.
Faculty and staff were asked to reflect on the lowest-scoring climates,
referred to as “opportunity areas” and to begin thinking of possible answers to
this question: Over the next year, what
can we do to improve our work environment? Given the complexity of
organizational development and possible interventions to address opportunity
areas, the one-year time frame was presented in order to provide a manageable
time frame for our initial work.
Two-hour
blocks were scheduled to maximize participation from faculty and staff. Sessions were facilitated by faculty and
graduate students affiliated with the Center for Collaboration Science as well
as faculty colleagues from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries ClimateQUAL®
team. The GSS software was installed on library laptops and each participant
was given a computer with which to work. Facilitators used the ThinkTank™ group
facilitation software to garner answers to the aforementioned question. A page
was displayed for each participant in the session and the FreeBrainstorm thinkLet was used to provide participants the
opportunity to share their particular points of view; and it also enabled them
to quickly see the bigger picture and to diverge from comfortable patterns of
thinking (see Figure 1). Participants were instructed to move to another page
where they could either enter a new idea or comment on the other ideas that
were entered onto that page by another participant. This thinkLet activity
varied by the size of the group, but ranged from 20 minutes to over an hour in
length.
The
FastFocus thinkLet was used in the next step of the process to
quickly extract a clean list of key issues (see Figure 2). Each participant was
assigned a page and given the opportunity to choose the idea they felt was most
important from that page. Each participant was given two “turns” to choose
important ideas. Once each participant had identified their two most important
ideas, the facilitator verbally engaged the group to refine this list to
eliminate duplication and to ensure that all agreed on and understood the idea
presented.
The
final thinkLet employed was PriorityVote which
is a simple ranking of the most important ideas (see Figure 3). The groups were
asked to individually rank the list and the top five or six ideas for each
group session remained.
Employee
Survey Perceptions of the Facilitated Discussions
To
gain more understanding and insight of employees’ perception of the facilitated
discussions, a four-question survey was distributed to all library employees,
via SurveyMonkey®. Twelve employees answered the survey, a 29% response rate.
Three short-answer essay questions were asked: “In your experience during the
ClimateQUAL® facilitated discussion, what worked well?”; “What did
NOT work well?”; and “What could have been done differently?” The fourth
question was a Likert-scale matrix question where the respondents were asked to
strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with four statements: 1)
Differing opinions were openly discussed; 2) It was safe to speak up without
fear of a negative effect; 3) I am satisfied with my involvement at the
facilitated discussion; and 4) There was good cooperation within my group.
Figure
1
FreeBrainstorm thinkLet
Figure
2
FastFocus thinkLet
The
response for Questions 1 and 2 was mixed. For Question 1, five respondents
stated they felt the anonymity of the process worked well. Five respondents for
Question 2 answered that anonymity did not work well with one comment stating
anonymity was compromised in the facilitated discussions. Additional comments
provided from the survey indicated participants could tell who was typing;
others were uncomfortable expressing any opinions if their supervisor attended
the same facilitated discussion. Additionally, 33% of the respondents (n=4)
felt nothing worked well in the discussions.
Question
3 asked what could have been done differently in the facilitated discussions.
Most people responded by writing that they wished they could have chosen their
own group rather than joining their department in the discussions. Several
reasons explaining this response can be found in the agree/disagree matrix
questions. A large number (83%) did not feel safe speaking out about issues,
most likely because of a supervisor present. Only 50% of the respondents felt
opinions were openly discussed and were satisfied with their involvement in the
discussions. Even though people did not feel safe speaking in their group, a
majority of respondents agreed that there was good cooperation in their
group.
Results of
ThinkTank™ Sessions in All Groups
Reports
were returned for each departmental session, which included transcripts from
the FreeBrainstorm sessions and results from the PriorityVote. All departmental sessions were combined to
provide 12 general themes for the Library as a whole:
- Staffing
and Scheduling Issues (5)
- Staff
Unity/Teamwork (5)
- Communication
(5)
- Goodwill/Morale
(4)
- Accountability(4)
- Decision-Making(4)
- Policy
Issues (4)
- Skills
and Training (3)
- Leadership(3)
- Ergonomics/Physical
Work Environment(3)
- Respect(3)
- Bullying (2)
The
numbers in parentheses represent the number of groups identifying the theme as
a priority (total number of groups, n=6). Each of the 12 themes had between 3
and 10 related sub-themes and strongly corroborated sub-themes (priority ranked
by over one-half of the generating group) were noted.
Figure
3
PriorityVote
ThinkThank™ Sessions and ClimateQUAL®
results
Recall
that the question asked in the facilitated discussions was “Over the next year, what can we do to
improve our work environment?” While some of the groups answered that
question in the context of the opportunity areas (lowest scoring climates)
identified in the ClimateQUAL® report for their department, some did not. Thus,
it is somewhat difficult to draw parallels between the feedback from the
facilitated discussion to the ClimateQUAL® results. However, based on keywords
and concepts delivered in facilitated discussions, some associations were made
(see Table 4). For example discussion related to “staff unity and teamwork”
were associated with the ClimateQUAL® concept of “structural facilitation of
teamwork,” “communication” relates to “climate for psychological safety,”
“goodwill/morale” relates to a number of different ClimateQUAL® scales such as
“climate for procedural justice,” “job satisfaction,” “climate for
psychological safety,” and “organizational citizenship behavior.” Similarly facilitated discussion themes on
“policy issues” relate to “climate for procedural justice,” “leadership” to
“climate for leadership,” “respect” to “team psychological empowerment” and
“bullying” to “climate for interpersonal justice.”
Strategies for
Improvement: The Next Steps
The
facilitated discussions returned 76 sub-themes under the 12 general themes. The
advisory team culled the 76 sub-themes into 40 statements, or improvement strategies by removing
duplicates such as “make people accountable” and “develop a way to make people
accountable” and combining like statements such as “reorganize circ area” and
“optimize work spaces” into “optimize work spaces for all departments as needed
so staff can do their job tasks effectively and efficiently.”
Of
the 40 improvement strategies, there were five that could be implemented immediately:
The Courtesy Committee was reinstated, and reconceived as the Positive Employee
Recognition Committee (PERC). This committee would not only oversee the social
activities but also organize and advise the leadership team and the Dean on a
staff recognition program. A mechanism for staff to provide anonymous ideas,
comments, and feedback was developed by the Communications Advisory Group
(CAG), which was also formed with representatives from each library department.
Several members of the leadership team and library supervisors have completed
or are scheduled to participate in a new campus leadership program; and lastly,
a current project to collate policies on the library’s internal wiki will be
followed by an internal review of all policies.
Table 4
Mapping Themes
from Facilitated Discussions to ClimateQUAL® Core
Concepts
|
General
Themes from Facilitated Discussions |
ClimateQUAL®
Core Concepts |
|
Staff
Unity/Teamwork |
Structural
Facilitation of Teamwork |
|
Communication |
Climate for Psychological
Safety |
|
Goodwill/Morale |
Climate for
Procedural Justice; Job Satisfaction; Climate for Psychological Safety;
Organizational Citizenship Behavior |
|
Policy
Issues |
Climate for
Procedural Justice |
|
Leadership |
Climate for
Leadership |
|
Respect |
Team
Psychological Empowerment |
|
Bullying |
Climate for
Interpersonal Justice |
The
remaining 35 improvement strategies are scheduled to be presented to the
faculty and staff via an online survey where they will
be asked to rank the strategies in order of importance. The resulting list is
where the Criss Library will take the first solid steps toward organizational
change and a healthier organizational climate.
Conclusion
To
sum up, the Criss Library conducted
the ClimateQUAL® survey during the Fall
semester in 2009. The Library had experienced numerous changes due to a
three-year library renovation and several personnel resignations and library
reorganizations. There was an over-riding perception of mistrust, fear, and
uncertainty that needed to be addressed. The first step in addressing these
negative perceptions was to administer the ClimateQUAL® survey to gather data
for a better understanding of staff perceptions. The next step was to report
the ClimateQUAL® results to library staff and begin discussions on goals and
solutions for improving the organizational climate. The third step was to
identify areas of concern within the organization to address. Once those
organizational areas were identified, they were prioritized and goals with
associated solutions were developed. Improving organizational climate is a
continuous and iterative process that leads to a healthy environment.
Acknowledgement
The
authors would like to acknowledge contributions of the members of the Criss
Library ClimateQUAL® Advisory Group: Lynn Harland, Elaine Westbrooks, and Sarah
Rowe as well as the faculty and facilitators from UNO Center for Collaboration
Science: Andy Callens, Roni Reiter-Palmon, and Ross Rippe.
References
Association of
Research Libraries. (n.d.). Core Scales—Concepts Measured in the Survey.
Retrieved 24 May 2013 from http://www.climatequal.org/about/concepts/core-scales
Baughman,
M. S. (2008). Assessment of teams and teamwork in the University of Maryland
Libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(3),
293-312. doi:10.1353/pla.0.0003
Beckhard, R.
(1969). Organization development:
Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Briggs, R. O.,
de Vreede, G.-J., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., & Tobey, D. (2001). ThinkLets:
Achieving Predictable, Repeatable Patterns of Group Interaction with Group
Support Systems (GSS). Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 9,
1057-1065. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2001.926238
Briggs, R. O., & de Vreede, G.-J. (2009).
ThinkLets: Building blocks for concerted collaboration. Nebraska: Briggs en De
Vreede.
Chory, R. M.,
& Kingsley Westerman, C. Y. (2009). Feedback and fairness: The relationship
between negative performance feedback and organizational justice. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2),
157-181. doi:10.1080/10570310902856055
Greenberg, J.
& Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Handbook of
organizational justice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holloway, K.
(2004). The significance of organizational development in academic research
libraries. Library Trends, 53(1),
5-16.
Lowry,
C. B. & Hanges, P. J. (2008). What is the
healthy organization? Organizational climate and diversity assessment: A research
partnership. portal: Libraries and the
Academy, 8(1), 1-5.
Sullivan, M.
(2009). Duane Webster's contribution to organization development in academic
and research libraries. portal: Libraries
and the Academy, 9(3), 313-316.
ThinkTank
(Version 2.4.1) [Computer software]. (n.d.).
Greenwood Village, CO: GroupSystems.