PSY FPX 6730 Assessment 5 Case Study: Implementation 

Abstract

This assessment will focus on the implementation part of the case study. Under this assessment will be the selection of two suitable group-level interventions for improving performance. Next, we will develop an implementation plan that outlines the objectives and process of the group-level interventions. Further into the implementation plan will also outline an evaluation plan for the group-level interventions. Last but not least, an analysis of the future development of my consultant skills for the future.

Implementation

The Implementation Process

Group-Level Intervention Selection

To increase performance while conducting this case study, two distinct methods will be chosen to help rectify issues such as resistance from the client and potential issues with performance. With the aim of a leadership development process in mind, there are barriers that will be present for the consultant in terms of the organization size and number of people. Directing the attention of the reader to the size of the agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is North America’s largest transportation agency and the second largest globally. The agency has six independent agencies and its own headquarters with a combined total of approximately 70,000 employees. Of these, approximately 93% are operational and the remaining 7% are administrative. Leadership consists of approximately 4000 people, from supervisors all the way up to agency chiefs.

This case study is an enormous undertaking with an enormous number of people involved in all of the MTA’s independent agencies. All sets of leaders from these agencies all have their concerns and opinions regarding what a leadership development project ought to be. Having that settled, it is proper to include group-level interventions in the planning to help manage those resisting the current direction and to help align these groups as best as possible. This analysis will mention two whole-system processes that are the best fits for sorting through the challenges the consultant is facing with a client as large and expansive as the MTA.

World Café Intervention Method

World Café (TWC), Ropes et al. (2020, p. 303) define TWC as “a form of large-scale organizational development intervention conceived as a space for open and creative conversation—the distinctive feature of it is the basis on which communication is built, which is around conversations framed as dialogue.” It was developed by Juanita Brown, who believed that “by creating a cafe-like setting, people would naturally talk to each other, share and relate ideas, and generate new thinking” (Gill et al. 2016, p. 101). The consultant sees TWC as a platform that will bring forth high-level leaders throughout the organization to share thoughts and ideas as to how their respective agencies pursue leadership development within their areas of operation.

It is worth noting that each organization has its leadership chain of command and style for developing the next-generation leaders and enhancing those in office. However, the idea of the one-size-fits-all leadership development machine has been met with middle levels of resistance by the different groups of leaders. Nonetheless, Ropes et al. (2020, p. 304) talk about the way “according to most available publications, TWC targets one or more of the following:

PSY FPX 6730 Assessment 5 Case Study: Implementation 

• “Description of its implementation in different contexts” (Ropes et al., 2020, p. 304).
• “Describing best practice and lessons learned from the implementation of TWC” (Ropes et al., 2020, p. 304).
• “Explaining the use of TWC to tackle detailed goals such as leadership development or change in an organization” (Ropes et al., 2020, p. 304).
• “Demonstrating the application of TWC and redressing inequalities and service delivery” (Ropes et al., 2020, p. 304).

I believe that this intervention would greatly assist in bringing leaders from across the MTA together to engage in lengthy idea-sharing conversations. With the figure of MTA and its various agencies, the consultant would introduce TWC by opening a discussion where “the host person (the consultant) facilitating the conversation creates a welcoming environment for the group to discuss an important question for them” (Gill et al. 2016, p. 101). With this method applied to small-sized groups, it opens doors for agency heads to share information and gain trustworthiness with the advisor.

Rapid Results Intervention Method

Yet another intervention approach in question with this case study is the Rapid Results implementation. Schaffer and Stearn (2015, p. 687) characterize Rapid Results as an approach “which asks managers and frontline workers to work in small teams to make big steps up the performance within very tight timescales.” Reading continues that “though this technique repeatedly yields big performance gains, it also generates two kinds of management development required to achieve the transformation just described” (Schaffer & Stearn, 2015, p. 687). The two ways through which management development is articulated in practice through the concept of rapid response as addressed in the reading are:

PSY FPX 6730 Assessment 5 Case Study: Implementation 

• “Team members learn a wide array of skills needed to achieve their goals within a brief period of time—they learn to spontaneously develop productive collaboration, sometimes formal and sometimes informal” (Schaffer & Stearn, 2015, p. 687). For the case study, MTA leaders from various agencies can gather to share information and learn how to collaborate because it will be a necessity for the consultation to succeed.
• “Members gain new confidence that will permit personal and organizational change—as they push themselves to new levels of performance, they discover that dramatically higher performance is possible, not through stress and strain, but through creative innovation” (Schaffer & Stearn, 2015, p. 687).

The Rapid Response intervention process would work well with the management infrastructures within each agency in terms of being able to cut through barriers once the leadership development process is established. There will definitely be issues once the consultant leaves; however, the client being able to correct things and become more effective in the process is a plus hands down.

Client Resistance Strategies

There will be times of resistance throughout the case study due to the size of the MTA and its management base as we move forward in developing a more universal leadership development program. There are three strategies for combating resistance from within that will be outlined in this section.

• It is their responsibility as the consultant to identify signs of resistance. The consultant expects this resistance at the managerial level of the MTA for this project based on the size of the organization. Block (2011, p. 151) cites three steps involved in handling resistance: i. “Identify in your own mind what form the resistance is taking. The skill is to pick up the cues from the manager and then describe to yourself what you see happening” (Block, 2011, p. 151). ii. “State, in a neutral, nonpunishing way, the shape the resistance is taking. This is called “naming the resistance.” The skill is to find the neutral words (Block, 2011, p. 151). iii. “Be silent. Allow the line manager to respond to your news about the resistance” (Block, 2011, p. 151).

PSY FPX 6730 Assessment 5 Case Study: Implementation 

• Rafferty and Jimmieson (2017, p. 251) say that “when employees undergo changes to significant components of their work environment such as values, strategy, and structure, they will experience some discomfort owing to the amount of adaptation required—this can then manifest in resistance to change in the form of negative action or intentions as people respond negatively to this discomfort.” I am suggesting that the agency chiefs hold TWC-type meetings with their frontline leaders and the consultant in one voice regarding what the leadership development program is for the MTA and how it will benefit the organization overall. I would point out that all the participants are engaged in this project, and it is a great opportunity to network with agency leaders at all levels.
• The participants in this project will resist during the early stages of the case study, even after making it clear that this leadership development project is critical and time-critical. Considering the scope of the project, when faced with resistance towards some of the tangibles, activities can be reorganized as “short-term” projects that have the resistors working on an objective that “produces both bottom-line results and personal and organizational development outcomes” (Schaffer & Stearn, 2015, p. 689). It should give the sense of accomplishment to the detractors and engender more confidence in the leadership development plan.

Implementation Plan

For implementation of the group-level intervention plans, the case study requires a plan of action for the interventions to operate through. The goals for these group-level interventions are designed to promote cooperation between agency leadership as it comes together under the project framework, works through and ultimately dissipates resistance, and drives improved levels of performance. Some of the introductory methods these group-level interventions will bring into play by the consultant include:

• The World Café process will be initiated by the consultant to first meet with MTA agency leaders to discuss implementing the process. Obtaining these leaders to discuss best practices and expectations for under-leaders and listening for resistors at high levels should be achieved on a biweekly basis. I also believe that there should be an executive presence present at the meeting, perhaps every other session. This would help go a long way in showing that the top management of the MTA is serious about the success of the project.
• Rapid Response treatment must be applied on the lower levels of leadership to help counter resistance and resistors. I believe that this approach also builds engagement on a grass-roots foundation, as it makes the same-level agency leaders cooperate with each other and improve performance by collaborating over specific project work. The consultant also must take these frontline leaders for a sitting discussion on a weekly basis to examine the project conclusion and to get the sense of collaboration among the leaders.

Evaluation Plan

Of some of the defects of the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation, however, there exist some criticisms of the program to note. Under an article written by Reio et al. (2017, p. 37), “in a 30-year review of articles evaluating the model, three major problematic assumptions were identified.” Following is a list of the three criticisms of the Kirkpatrick Model:

• “The first assumption is that the levels are ordered in a hierarchical manner from lowest to highest and that the model is hierarchical in structure. Therefore, the top levels are more valuable and meaningful than the bottom ones” (Reio et al., 2017, p. 37).
• “The second assumption is that the four levels of assessment are causally connected. From this assumption, many researchers and HRD professionals presume that affirmative reactions are a prerequisite for learning to occur” (Reio et al., 2017, p. 37).
• “The third assumption is that the four levels are positively intercorrelated. If these two assumptions were true (the second and third assumptions), it would be sufficient just to evaluate whether employees have positive reactions (Level 1) to the training program, from which it could be assumed they learned from the training, they ultimately would improve their job performance, and they would positively contribute to organizational results” (Reio et al., 2017, p. 37).

PSY FPX 6730 Assessment 5 Case Study: Implementation 

Speaking of some of the strengths of the Kirkpatrick model, despite its detractors, it is still being used, and Alsalamah and Callinan (2022, p. 39) tell us that “many researchers and practitioners have found it very useful, and it is the most commonly used model in organizations.” The endurance of the Kirkpatrick model can be seen in other models, which draw on its basis to create their own frameworks. The hoped-for result of the evaluation by executing the Kirkpatrick Model is reaching the fourth level successfully to offer positive results. Evolving through the evaluation and reaching a complete leadership development program is the measure of success the consultant is striving for.

It does not imply that there would be no small issues even at the completion of the consult. I recommend reviewing the evaluation plan at each step in scheduled meetings with MTA leadership to define exactly where the evaluation is getting stuck and what we need to do about it and address it before moving on to the next step. I would emphasize that steps three and four of the Kirkpatrick model are difficult but are necessary experiments that will require an intensified effort from all stakeholders in each agency.

Conclusion

This case study has been challenging with all its elements, but I believe this project can be achieved by a consultant. Based on the group intervention plans that have been selected, I believe these methods will correct the high level of project participants that will be utilized in this project.

I believe that while others may not so much want to opt into this level of change, ultimately the processes selected will move minds and provide a new generation of participation that will not just add value not just to the MTA in terms of a new leadership development program but also frontline leadership throughout all agencies will have a rebirth through new objectives and metrics for performance. The evaluation process will be robust, and the consultant will be welcomed by backing from above and grass-roots established by working with low-level leaders. I see success in the future of the case study and the consultant (myself) as I learn and refine my trade through trial, error, resistance, adjustments, and small victories in steps.

PSY FPX 6730 Assessment 5 Case Study: Implementation 

Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2017). Subjective Perceptions of Organizational Change and Employee Resistance to Change: Direct and Mediated Relationships with Employee Well-being. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12200

Reio, T. G., Rocco, T. S., Smith, D. H., & Chang, E. (2017). A Critique of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(2), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20178

Ropes, D., Han, V. K., & Douven, G. (2020). Learning in the World Café: an empirical evaluation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(4), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2019-0126

Schaffer, R.H., & Stearn, J.M. (2015). The rapid results package: Better performance/stronger managers. Business Horizons. 58(6), 687-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.07.006