2.1 Overview, IRB, and Plan
This research was conducted in a professional services firm which has multiple offices across several states in the southeast. The firm in question was one that I (principal investigator) co-founded over 30 years ago. My initial submittal to the Institutional Review
Board proposed to camouflage my involvement to prevent any semblance of coercion during solicitation of volunteers for the experiment. During the Institutional Review Board approval process the IRB chairman and I discussed the potential ethical dilemma that proposal created. Following a lengthy discussion of the culture of the company and its use of other
psychometric instruments (e.g., MBTI) the chairman of the IRB suggested the only practical solution would be for my involvement to be completely visible. Consequently I informed all participants of my personal involvement during the solicitation process. I sent an email message to all host company employees in any office which had more than eight people (the desired number required to comprise a complete testing unit). That email is shown in
Appendix E and lists “Research Opportunity” in the subject line. The official invitation letter shown in Appendix F was attached to the email. The official invitation was sent in late August 2009.
The original plan for conducting the experiment called for three meetings: 1) an introductory meeting during which the subjects would be administered the KAI Inventory and supply some additional information, 2) the actual experiment, and 3) a debriefing meeting. All the meetings were proposed to be held during the lunch hour at the various participating offices. I had proposed that the initial meeting would not be a lunch-provided meeting due to its shorter length. However, after initial tepid response to my invitation I offered to buy lunch for those participating in the initial meetings as well. The initial meeting included a very brief introduction to my work included in a scripted message which set forth the plan for all the meetings, including lunch. Because two of my colleagues assisted in the experiment I wanted to narrow the possible variation of information provided to the
meetings. The IRB Consent Form is also included in Appendix G. The initial meetings were conducted beginning in early September 2009 and concluded on November 16, 2009.
2.2 Data Compilation and Team Formation
Between November 16 and November 30 all subject information was processed for the purpose of making team assignments. Each participating office was considered a
statistical unit for subteam assembly. The KAI total score for each participant was recorded and the subjects were rank-ordered from lowest to highest KAI score by office. The median was used as a cut point and all subjects with KAI scores below the cut point were assigned to the more adaptive group while subjects with KAI scores above the cut point were assigned to the more innovative group. A simple random-number generator was used to help make random assignment of subteams from the two groups (more adaptive versus more innovative). The subteams were then paired with sister subteams; i.e., a more adaptive
subteam was paired with a more innovative subteam. The two subteams would combine to be a testing unit—what I called a “Trial” for this research. I computed the standard deviation of the testing unit and, to the extent possible, assembled Trial units with subteams mean KAI scores greater than one and one half standard deviations apart. This was my definition of “different” subteams from the perspective of mean KAI scores.
The Hollow-Square experiment, as I have presented it, calls for four-person subteams, one relatively more adaptive and one relatively more innovative. I compiled each subteam of four participants. Unfortunately, due to scheduling difficulties there were some absentees on the days the trials were conducted in three different offices. That resulted in three trials being
conducted with only three-person planning subteams. I will expand more fully on the significance of three-person subteams subsequently.
2.3 De-identification of Subjects and Code Names
Because I had proposed to video record the actual experiments, the IRB required that I take care to protect the identities of participants. I, therefore, “de-identified” the subjects by asking them to assume a given alias during the experiment. In an effort to employ a system that would be revealing to the researchers while not having any pejorative meaning to the subjects I devised the following code naming convention (note that the terms adaptive and innovative relate to the specific measurement of the subjects’ KAI total scores):
The relatively more adaptive subteam member code names are: Abe—the most adaptive of the four subteam members Bo
Chris
Dale—the least adaptive of the four subteam members The relatively more innovative subteam member code names are:
Mel—the least innovative of the four subteam members Nat
Pat
2.4 Scheduling and Conducting Experiments
The actual experiments were conducted beginning on December 1 and were
concluded on December 18, 2009. Generally the meetings lasted approximately one hour and were usually held during the regular lunch period in each office. There were two exceptions to the lunch schedule arrangement: Fort Myers Trial T1 was held at 7:00 AM on Dec. 1 and Wilmington Trial T1 was held in the late afternoon rather than at lunch due to some
scheduling conflicts.
During the actual experiment the total team (all eight participants) would gather briefly and be told they were going to jointly solve a problem. The operations subteam was given a Hollow-Square Operating Team Briefing Sheet and would be sent to another room to prepare for their then unknown assignment. Pizza was served to the operating subteam during the time they were waiting to be summonsed by the planning subteam. There was no
indication of variation between offices and trials within offices except for the Fort Myers Trial T1 where the facilitator reported that the participants were anxious to get going to their field assignments. All but one of the participants in the Fort Myers office had to travel by truck to their daily assignments. I will comment further during the specific summary reports concerning Fort Myers Trial T1.
2.5 Video Recording of Experiments
I video recorded the experimental procedure. All of the experiments were recorded with a small digital video recorder called the Flip Video. The Flip Video recorder is ideally suited for field application like this one since it is small (approximately 4”x2”x1/2”) and not very imposing to the participants. All but one of the trials were conducted with the Flip
Video set on a tripod and it appeared that after an initial period of awareness the subjects quickly ignored the camera and went about their business of solving the problem. For 11 of the 12 trials a full hour (or more) of video was captured. This provided the opportunity to record post-experiment comments and/or questions from the participants. The exception to that occurred with the first trial which occurred in Fort Myers. The facilitator held the camera in her hand thinking that would be less obtrusive and objectionable by the participants. Unfortunately that also meant that the facilitator turned the recorder on and off during times she felt appropriate and, consequently, I only have a limited record of that trial.
2.6 Facilitator Variation and Implications
I invited two of my long-time colleagues to assist me during the first two meetings (the initial information gathering meeting and the experiment meeting). Phyllis Elikai is director of human resources and Linda F. Vaughn was a customer services specialist at the host firm (Vaughn has retired from the company since the end of 2009). Both were
certificated by Dr. Kirton after completing his week-long course in England in 2007. And, both have been MBTI certified as well. While both of these colleagues were eminently qualified to assist in this work I have noticed some variation of facilitation that occurred during the experiments.
Twelve experiments were conducted over a three-week period in December. Linda Vaughn conducted the initial trial in Fort Myers, Florida. Phyllis Elikai conducted two trials in Charlotte and two trials in Wilmington, North Carolina. And, I conducted two trials in Clearwater, Florida and five trials in Raleigh.
The facilitator’s instructions were relatively vague and, consequently, there were a few examples of different interpretations of facilitation which were observed during the review of video. I will comment on specific facilitator actions within each of the summary reports on trials below.