Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Support in Ohio State University Extension: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Examining Central Actor Characteristics and Influence in a Distributed Educational
Outreach Organization
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Karen Jane Argabright, MS
Graduate Program in Agricultural and Extension Education
The Ohio State University
2018
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Graham R. Cochran, Co-Advisor
Dr. Jeff King, Co-Advisor
Dr. Mary Rodriguez
Copyright by
Karen Jane Argabright
2018
ii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the informal network of social support
within the Ohio State University Extension system, specifically exploring the perceived
behaviors, characteristics, and influence of central actors as sources of social support. A
mixed-methods approach was employed in two phases: (1) using network analysis to
identify the central actors from a census of OSU Extension personnel; and (2) a follow-up
survey of identified central actors and their specific relational ties.
Findings from this study showed a sparse network with informal social support
actor-tie connections generally existing in close physical proximity supporting the
preference of in-person interactions. Central actors were described as being older, more
experienced, and possessing attributes and characteristics of: accessibility, positivity,
listening, open-mindedness, encouragement and coaching, being a role model, an
altruistic service orientation, building relationships, being a connector, relevant
experience and knowledge, and inclined to provide instrumental assistance. An
interesting finding included an element of motivation among central actors reflecting that
of self-actualization and spirituality.
Central actors were perceived to hold influence on behaviors of ties. Actions
reported as contributing to the central actors’ influence included: providing aid to
navigate organizational practices, empowerment through positivity, encouraging a work-
iii
life balance, and enhancing competencies of ties. Interestingly, central actors are passive
leaders, as they saw evidence of changes in tie behaviors yet did not perceive themselves
as influential.
Implications of this study are to encourage others to think about organizational
change differently and be encouraged to engage in social support behaviors, and for
leaders to create an environment where supportive behaviors are encouraged, developed,
and rewarded for the sake of building capacity for change.
iv
Dedication
This work is dedicated to:
My nephews and nieces
Evan Argabright, Megan Argabright,
Owen Hershberger, & Marin Argabright
May you realize that you are limitless.
v
Acknowledgments
Many individuals were instrumental in guiding, supporting, and encouraging me
as I navigated this journey. To everyone, from the depths of my heart I am extremely
grateful for the support, encouragement, and love shown to me that kept me going.
To my co-advisors Drs. Graham Cochran and Jeff King and dissertation
committee member Dr. Mary Rodriguez – your support, guidance, and encouragement,
were invaluable to my continued growth as a scholar.
To my candidacy committee members, Drs. Joe Heimlich and Ryan Schmeising –
your insights and challenging questions were most welcomed and helpful.
To Dr. Greg Davis – your not so subtle shoving and prodding boosted and
encouraged me when I needed it most.
To Dr. Kirk Bloir and Becky Nesbitt – your patience in listening and knowing just
what I needed to hear, especially during the rough times, helped me persevere.
To my friends and colleagues, Cheryl B., Jessica B., Suzanna W., Amy E. – your
instrumental assistance for my study by serving as objective peer reviewers and member-
checks was invaluable to the completion of the work.
To Kim and Brent – graciously opening your home to me reduced the stress of a
regular commute and allowed me to be considerably more productive when I really
needed to be.
vi
To Barbette Spitler – your positive energy and teachings has helped me navigate
this process with intention and aim toward reaching my higher potential.
To all my dear friends and colleagues, Frances K., Mariah S., Trina B., Toni B.,
Mary K., and too many others to mention everyone – your support and never-failing
positive encouragement kept me moving forward.
To my mom, sister, and family members – your unwavering support,
unconditional love, and patience powered me through the challenges. You have
supported my dreams and been my advocate even when you didn’t understand what it
was I was seeking.
To God – for with God all things are possible. My sentiments are best articulated
through these song lyrics – I love you, Lord, and I lift my voice to worship You. Oh, my
soul, rejoice! Take joy my King in what You hear, let it be a sweet, sweet sound in Your
ear.
vii
Vita
June 1998 .......................................................Jackson Center High School, Jackson Center, OH June 2001 .......................................................A.A.S. Equine Reproduction and Management,
The Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute, Wooster, OH
March 2010 ....................................................B.S. Animal Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH
April 2012 .....................................................M.S. Agricultural and Extension Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH
viii
Publications
Argabright, K. J., Cochran, G. R., & King, J. (2015) Organizational Values in Ohio State University Extension: Employee Perceptions of Value and Evidence in Practice. Journal of Extension, 53(3). Article 3FEA7. Retrieved from: https://www.joe.org/joe/2015june/a7.php
Chen, C.Y., King, J., Cochran, G. R., Argabright, K. J. (2014). Evaluation of the Leadership Institute: A program to build individual and organizational capacity through emotional intelligence. Journal of Extension 52(1). Article 1RIB2. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2014february/rb2.php
Argabright, K. J., King, J., Cochran, G. R., & Chen, C. Y. (2013). Leadership Institute: Building leadership capacity through emotional intelligence. Journal of Extension 51(2). Article 2IAW3. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2013april/iw3.php
Argabright, K. J., McGuire, J., & King, J. (2012). Extension through a new lens: Creativity and innovation now and for the future. Journal of Extension, 50(2). Retrieved from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/comm2.php
Argabright, K. J. (2012). Assessing Organizational Values within the Ohio State University Extension System. Master’s thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Retrieved from OhioLink: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1338339287
Fields of Study
Major Field: Agricultural and Extension Education
Major focus areas: Community Leadership Research Methods and Statistics Minor focus areas: Positive Organizational Leadership Informal Adult Learning Organizational Culture and Change
ix
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ...................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... v
Vita ................................................................................................................................ vii Publications .................................................................................................................. viii Fields of Study ............................................................................................................. viii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xvii
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Organizational Context ................................................................................................... 2
Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 8
Purpose and Research Objectives ................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 10
Overview of Methodology ............................................................................................ 11
Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 11
Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 14
Limitations/Delimitations.............................................................................................. 14
Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................. 16
Organizational Change .................................................................................................. 16
Change Management ..................................................................................................... 22
The In-formal Organization ....................................................................................... 23
Psycho-social Dynamics of Individual Change ......................................................... 25
Social Support ............................................................................................................... 28
x
Overview and Definition ........................................................................................... 28
Social Support and Change ........................................................................................ 31
Network-based Interventions ........................................................................................ 33
Use of Opinion Leaders to Promote Behavior Change ............................................. 35
Identifying and Characterizing Opinion Leaders .......................................................... 39
Identification of Opinion Leaders .............................................................................. 39
Typology of Opinion Leaders .................................................................................... 41
Characteristics of Central Opinion Leaders ............................................................... 44
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 56
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 3 Methods ............................................................................................................ 61
Research Context........................................................................................................... 61
Research Paradigm ........................................................................................................ 62
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 63
Phase I – Quantitative ................................................................................................... 65
Methodological Approach ......................................................................................... 65
Population .................................................................................................................. 66
Instrument .................................................................................................................. 67
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 69
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 70
Overview of Population/Respondents ....................................................................... 72
Phase II – Qualitative .................................................................................................... 77
Methodological Approach ......................................................................................... 77
Population .................................................................................................................. 78
Instrument .................................................................................................................. 81
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 82
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 83
Reliability and Validity Considerations ........................................................................ 84
Phase I – Quantitative ................................................................................................ 84
Phase II – Qualitative ................................................................................................ 86
xi
Chapter 4 Findings ............................................................................................................ 90
Research Objective 1 ..................................................................................................... 90
Network Size ............................................................................................................. 91
Density ....................................................................................................................... 93
Components ............................................................................................................... 93
Connectedness and Fragmentation ............................................................................ 94
Homophily ................................................................................................................. 95
Reciprocity................................................................................................................. 99
Centralization and Degree Centrality ...................................................................... 102
Whole Network Relational Connections ................................................................. 104
Research Objective 2 – Describing Central Actors ..................................................... 107
Relational Connections ............................................................................................ 110
Personal Characteristics ~ Relational Tie Perspective ............................................ 114
Personal Characteristics ~ Central Actor Perspective ............................................. 134
Relational Characteristics ~ Relational Tie Perspective .......................................... 139
Relational Characteristics ~ Central Actor Perspective........................................... 151
Work-Specific Characteristics ~ Relational Tie Perspective................................... 158
Work-Specific Characteristics ~ Central Actor Perspective ................................... 163
Adjectives Describing Central Actors ..................................................................... 166
Research Objective 3 ................................................................................................... 168
Perceived Influence ................................................................................................. 168
The Influential Role of the Central Actor ................................................................ 169
Personal Philosophy of Central Actors’ Influence .................................................. 180
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 182
Chapter 5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 183
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 183
Review of Methodology .............................................................................................. 185
Phase I...................................................................................................................... 185
Phase II .................................................................................................................... 185
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 186
xii
Objective 1 ............................................................................................................... 186
Objective 2 ............................................................................................................... 187
Objective 3 ............................................................................................................... 194
Conclusions and Researcher Insights .......................................................................... 200
Insight #1: Lack of Connection in the Network of Social Support ......................... 201
Insight #2: Interaction is Not Exclusive to Particular Demographics ..................... 203
Insight #3: Proximity is Important........................................................................... 204
Insight #4: Findings Support and Contribute to Opinion Leader Literature ........... 205
Insight #5: Central Actors in OSU Extension Influence Their Ties ........................ 209
Insight #6: Findings Advance Change Management Practices ............................... 211
Implications for Practice .......................................................................................... 212
Suggestions for Additional Research ...................................................................... 217
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 218
References ................................................................................................................... 220
Appendix A: IRB Approval Documentation ............................................................... 228
Appendix B: Letter of Support from OSU Extension Director Roger Rennekamp .... 233
Appendix C: Phase I Questionnaire ............................................................................ 235
Appendix D: Phase I Survey Communication ............................................................ 240
Appendix E: Phase II Questionnaire ........................................................................... 243
Appendix F: Phase II Survey Communication ............................................................ 247
xiii
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Typology of Organizational Change in Terms of Scale, Rate of Occurrence,
and How it Happens. ............................................................................................. 18
Table 2-2. Methods, Techniques, Advantages, and Disadvantages for Identification of
Opinion Leaders. ................................................................................................... 40
Table 2-3. Hamilton’s Types of Influence (as cited in Weimann, 1994). ........................ 43
Table 2-4. A Selection of Identified Attributes of Opinion Leaders. ............................... 53
Table 3-1. Mean FTE and Age of Population, Respondents, and Non-respondents. ....... 73
Table 3-2. Frequency Distribution of Gender and Ethnicity across Population,
Respondents, and Non-respondents. ..................................................................... 73
Table 3-3. Respondents’ Mean Years of Service and Years in Current Job Role. ........... 74
Table 3-4. Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Demographics. ............................ 76
Table 3-5. Relational Tie Mean Age, FTE, Years of Service. .......................................... 79
Table 3-6. Frequency Distribution of Job Classification, Program Focus, and Education
of Relational Ties. ................................................................................................. 80
Table 4-1. Whole Network Measures. .............................................................................. 94
Table 4-2. E-I Index Scores for Homophily. .................................................................... 96
Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics for Network Centrality ................................................ 103
Table 4-4. Mean and Percentages of Distance Description of Connections. .................. 105
xiv
Table 4-5. Frequency of Modes of Interaction Among Nodes and Relational Ties. ...... 106
Table 4-6. Mean Interactions and Years of Relationship Between Node and Relational
Tie. ...................................................................................................................... 107
Table 4-7. Central Actors’ Age, FTE and Years of Service. .......................................... 108
Table 4-8. Frequency Distribution among Demographic Characteristics for Central
Actors. ................................................................................................................. 109
Table 4-9. Distance Between Central Actors and Relational Ties in Miles. .................. 110
Table 4-10. Mean Interactions and Years of Relationship Between Tie and Central Actor.
............................................................................................................................. 111
Table 4-11. Relational Tie Excerpts from Approachable. .............................................. 116
Table 4-12. Relational Tie Excerpts from Attitude and Temperament ~ Authenticity .. 118
Table 4-13. Relational Tie Excerpts from Attitude and Temperament ~ Positive. ........ 120
Table 4-14. Relational Tie Excerpts from Attitude and Temperament ~ Collected. ...... 122
Table 4-15. Relational Tie Excerpts from Innovative. ................................................... 123
Table 4-16. Relational Tie Excerpts from Intelligence and Problem-Solving................ 125
Table 4-17. Relational Tie Excerpts from Joyfulness and Humor.................................. 126
Table 4-18. Relational Tie Excerpts from Listening. ..................................................... 128
Table 4-19. Relational Tie Excerpts from Open-minded. ............................................... 130
Table 4-20. Relational Tie Excerpts from Trustworthiness and Values. ........................ 132
Table 4-21. Relational Tie Excerpts from Work Ethic and Accountability. .................. 133
Table 4-22 Central Actor Excerpts from Positive Attitude and Humility. ..................... 135
Table 4-23. Central Actor Excerpts from Listening. ...................................................... 137
xv
Table 4-24. Central Actor Excerpts from Open-minded. ............................................... 139
Table 4-25. Relational Tie Excerpts from Encouragement and Coaching. .................... 141
Table 4-26. Relational Tie Excerpts from Relationship Building and Connector. ......... 144
Table 4-27. Relational Tie Excerpts from Role Model ................................................... 146
Table 4-28. Relational Tie Excerpts from Service Orientation with Altruism. .............. 147
Table 4-29. Relational Tie Excerpts from Shared Interests. ........................................... 150
Table 4-30. Central Actor Excerpts from Accessible and Role Model. ......................... 152
Table 4-31. Central Actor Excerpts from Encouragement and Coaching. ..................... 153
Table 4-32. Central Actor Excerpts from Relationship Building and Connector. .......... 155
Table 4-33. Central Actor Excerpts from Service Orientation with Altruism. ............... 156
Table 4-34. Relational Tie Excerpts from Experience and Knowledge ......................... 159
Table 4-35. Relational Tie Excerpts from Instrumental Assistance. .............................. 161
Table 4-36. Central Actor Excerpts from Experience and Knowledge. ......................... 164
Table 4-37. Central Actor Excerpts from Instrumental Assistance. ............................... 166
Table 4-38. Relational Tie Excerpts from Appreciation ................................................. 173
Table 4-39. Relational Tie Excerpts from Different Thinking. ...................................... 174
Table 4-40. Relational Tie Excerpts from Gained Clarity and Understanding. .............. 176
Table 4-41. Relational Tie Excerpts from Personal and Professional Growth. .............. 178
Table 4-42. Relational Tie Excerpts from Stress Mitigating Actions. ............................ 179
Table 5-1 Summary of Central Actor Characteristics/Attributes/Behaviors from
Relational Tie Perspective .................................................................................. 189
xvi
Table 5-2 Summary of Central Actor Characteristics/Attributes/Behaviors from Central
Actor Perspective ................................................................................................ 192
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Conceptual Model .......................................................................................... 58
Figure 3-1. Study Design. ................................................................................................. 64
Figure 4-1. OSU Extension non-positional network of social support, 629 nodes & 1,319
ties. ........................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 4-2. Network partitioned by gender. Males = blue circles, Females = red squares.
............................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 4-3. Network partitioned by program/work focus. ANR = light blue square; CD =
aqua upward triangle; 4-H = purple diamond; FCS = green down facing triangle;
Administration = orange circle in box; Other=dark blue plus sign; Undisclosed =
pink circle.............................................................................................................. 98
Figure 4-4. Network partitioned by ethnicity. White = blue square; Hispanic = green
circle; Black = red diamond; and Other ethnicities = purple diamond. ................ 99
Figure 4-5. Reciprocal ties across whole network. Reciprocal ties indicated by heavier red
lines. .................................................................................................................... 100
Figure 4-6. Reciprocal ties among females. Reciprocal ties indicated by heavy red lines.
............................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 4-7. Reciprocal ties among males. Reciprocal ties indicated by heavy red lines. 102
xviii
Figure 4-8. OSU Extension non-positional network – nodes sized by degree centrality;
the larger the node, the higher the in-degree centrality. ..................................... 104
Figure 4-9. Themes and Sub-themes of Relational Ties Perception of Central Actor
Characteristics. .................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4-10. Themes and Sub-themes for Central Actor Characteristics as Perceived by
Themselves. ........................................................................................................ 114
Figure 4-11. Relational Tie Most-Used Adjectives to Describe Central Actors. ........... 167
Figure 4-12. Relational Tie Themes and Sub-themes for Explored Influence. .............. 169
Figure 4-13. Central Actor Themes and Sub-themes for Explored Influence. ............... 170
Figure 5-1. Summary of Actions Contributing to Central Actors’ Influence. ................ 196
Figure 5-2. Summary of Perceived Impact on Behavior of Relational Ties. .................. 199
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Despite the copious amounts of resources available, leaders face a persistent
challenge with the growing complexity of change (Cross, Ernst, & Pasmore, 2013).
Adding to the complexity, the successful leading of change is deemed critical for
organizational success and even survival (By, 2005; Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Kotter,
2005). Change leaders are expected to simultaneously lead multiple interdependent
efforts often involving elusive cultural elements for which they may not have a full
understanding. Hiatt and Creasey (2012) argue, for organizational change to be
successful, individuals must change personally held beliefs and behaviors. Often these
beliefs and behaviors are products of social influence within individual networks, as
individuals seek support from those around them to make sense of demands (Srivastava,
2015). It is this human element that poses one of the greatest challenges for change
managers and leaders to create organizations that are readily adaptable to change.
So, rather than focusing on merely restructuring or the technical side of change,
the focus could be on creating the space for change to occur organically among the
informal networks of those directly involved. Leaders could seek methods to enact and
support change that directly involve knowledge of informal networks, thus allowing
mobilization of the relational power of individuals throughout the organization to
enhance outcomes of change.
2
A brief overview of Ohio State University Extension as the study setting is
presented next, followed by a brief background on change management and leadership,
the human side of change, social support as a coping mechanism for stress induced by
change, and the individuals central in the support network. The problem statement,
purpose and objectives follow. The chapter concludes with definitions of terms, basic
assumptions, limitations, and significance of the study.
Organizational Context
Ohio State University Extension (OSU Extension) is an Ohio Cooperative
Extension organization housed within the College of Food, Agricultural, and
Environmental Sciences at The Ohio State University, Ohio’s first land-grant institution.
OSU Extension was operating before the official federal legislation of the Smith-Lever
Act of 1914 (Jones & Speigel, 2013). OSU Extension is CFAES’ outreach and
engagement arm. Extension personnel share the knowledge of CFAES faculty and staff
as well as the resources of the college with citizens in all of Ohio’s 88 counties.
Extension personnel also bring people and ideas together to solve problems and improve
Ohioans’ quality of life.
OSU Extension’s administrative offices are located in Columbus, Ohio with local
units located in each of Ohio’s 88 counties. OSU Extension is organized as a distributed
non-formal educational organization with the mission of “creating opportunities for
people to explore how science-based knowledge can improve social, economic and
environmental conditions” (OSU Extension, 2018)
OSU Extension has experienced many changes over its 100-plus year existence.
The most recent of those changes being new leadership, as the director of 22 of years
3
retired in the year 2015. Even though change has been evident over the years, both in OSU
Extension and with Extension organizations nationwide, a prevalent call for a system-wide
change has permeated the literature. Patton (1987) called for a culture shift within
Extension that supports future oriented thinking, enabling change to support an information
age organization. Apps (1993) at the time felt leaders in Extension were still trying to act in
the present through applying solutions of the past. Patterson (1997 & 1998) proposed a
paradigm shift for Extension administrators to move into a realm of thought that aligned
with the modern workforce. He expressed the need for administrators to abandon the
traditional theories of management style of command and control to instead, a style of
facilitation and encouragement.
Many others have added their voices to the topic of change in Extension by
proposing a variety of remedies including: employing particular leadership styles (Astroth,
Goodwin, & Hodnett, 2011; Brown, Birnstihl, & Wheeler, 1996; Fehlis, 2005; Morse,
Brown, & Warning, 2006; Smith, 1990); engaging in a culture shift (Alter, 2003;
Argabright, McGuire, & King, 2012; Leuci, 2012); enhancing Extension’s capacity for
change (Bloir & King, 2010; Franz & Cox, 2012; Franz, Peterson, & Dailey, 2002; Smith
& Torppa, 2010); and re-envisioning Extension (CFAES, 2014; King & Boehije, 2000;
McDowell, 2004; West, Drake, & Londo, 2009).
Specifically related to Extension’s capacity for change, Bloir and King (2010)
suggested that change within Extension historically has been a function of replacing or
substitutions of the like; thus in reality, not really change at all. It is not a far stretch to
relate that assessment to OSU Extension, as OSU Extension is Bloir and King’s home
institution. As the context for this study, OSU Extension provides the landscape for an
4
environment where change has been difficult to sustain on a transformational level. Also,
OSU Extension is an organization where individuals rely on informal support networks as
a part of their distributed work across the state of Ohio.
Background
In today’s complex organizational environments, where being proactive and
flexible is a requirement and changes must occur at a faster pace, leaders are discovering
they cannot act alone with a “top-down” approach. Despite the copious amounts of
resources available, leaders are facing a persistent challenge as “change today is
increasingly complex, involving multiple interdependent efforts that must be undertaken
simultaneously” (Cross, Ernst, & Pasmore 2013, p. 81). Although the successful
leadership of change is deemed critical for survival (By, 2005), organizations are still
experiencing failure – meaning they have not successfully met their change goals (Burke,
2011). The failure many organizations experience is not a factor of technical issues, but
instead human issues (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Schein, 2010).
Kotter and Cohen (2002), learned over their decades of studying organizations and
change, “people change less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than
because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings (emphasis original)” (p.1).
Implementing organizational change is more than just reorganizing structures or
implementing processes. Changing the individual is fundamental to successful
organizational change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). The psycho-social dynamics of
organizational change involve a human system attempting to maintain balance amid
disequilibrium-inducing events; events that challenge the way things have always been
5
done and thus often challenge an individual’s very identity in the organization (Schein,
2010). Cross, Ernst, & Pasmore (2013) state…
The effectiveness of a change effort is fundamentally determined by issues
of identity: our core values, how we define ourselves, and our beliefs
concerning how we fit into our social and organizational environment.
Beyond just alterations to operational systems and structures, effective
change efforts need to address the deeper issues associated with human
networks… Simply put, identity is at the heart of change. (p. 84)
Change of this magnitude is not without stress and anxiety. As individual identities
are challenged, fears surface manifesting as resistance, cognitive dissonance, denial, and
repression – all of which are barriers to change and found to be primary factors in why
change efforts fail. Most of these fears are associated with what Schein calls “learning
anxiety.” Learning anxiety is when an individual fears he or she will not be able to learn the
new skills and knowledge required while simultaneously unlearning old patterns. Schein
(2010) has found that learning anxiety is founded in fears associated with incompetence,
punishment for temporary incompetence, loss of power or position, loss of personal identity,
and loss of group membership. Creating an environment where individuals can feel safe as
they overcome their anxieties of learning will go a long way in encouraging change to occur
and for it to be sustained. When faced with adaptive or transformational change, individuals
need to find solutions to overcome anxieties, and they typically look to those around them
for support.
6
“Relationships influence a person’s behavior above and beyond the influence of
his or her individual attributes” (Valente, 2010 p.3). While individual attributes (e.g., age,
education level, occupation) influence individual attitudes and behaviors, they also
influence who individuals connect with or their network composition. Considerable
research within various disciplines has been conducted to explore how these relationships
within networks ultimately influence attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Valente, 2010).
Social support has been a focus in this research. A large amount of literature now exists
linking social support to positive health outcomes, especially serving a moderating role
for coping with stress (Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2015). This body of research has
expanded recently to explore the role of social support in helping employees cope with
change (Lawrence & Callan, 2011). Networks play an important role in the mobilization
of social support throughout an organization.
Informal organizational networks and the power that exists outside the formal
design have been somewhat of a mystery to organizational leaders. Compared to the formal
hierarchal structure, the informal structure or network is more elusive and challenging to
capture because it represents a living and ever-evolving web of relationships spanning the
entire organization. Informal networks “are those channels that carry information and
connect organizational members through routes not prescribed by the organization”
(Huning, Bryant, & Holt, 2015 p. 20) and are where the majority of the power exists to
shape change outcomes (Chan, 2002). Informal networks represent informal and unwritten
cultural norms that allow the reality of the day-to-day activities to unfold. When acting
alone, or leading through a narrowed lens, leaders tend to focus so much on the formal
structures that they disregard the informal ones (Cross & Parker, 2004).
7
Largely due to their complexity, these networks are overlooked as a necessary
component of a change management strategy. Another reason networks haven’t been
utilized as a mainstream management tool is that leaders rarely acknowledge that a
network even exists in their organization. Also, if they do recognize there’s a network,
leaders may be overly confident in believing they know all the primary players in the
informal network. Research supports that leaders have narrowed perceptions when it
comes to identifying key organizational players (Cullen-Lester & Willburn, 2016).
According to Cross, Cowen, Vertucci, and Thomas (2009), leaders are able to accurately
identify approximately 25-40 percent of the central actors when compared with central
actors revealed through network analysis. This narrowed perspective is understandable
when placed alongside the multitude of formal responsibilities accompanying positional
leadership. In reality, navigating the ‘unseen’ can be incredibly daunting.
When assessing network utility, it is beneficial to evaluate the positions that
individuals hold in relation to how they influence human behavior. The position typically
wielding more power to influence the behavior of others is that of the central actor
(Valente, 2010). “Centrality is the extent to which a person inhabits a prestigious or
critical position in the network” (Valente, 2010 p.16) and also denotes a greater number
of connections. In many cases, centrality is equated with popularity, thus also perceived
as opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are those individuals who provide legitimacy to
change efforts and act as role models for behavior change (Valente, 2010). Research
conducted in the public health discipline supports utilizing opinion leaders as an effective
tactic for behavior change (Valente, 2010). Today’s organizations are facing even
8
stronger urgencies to manage change, and perhaps it’s time leaders could benefit from
taking a different, more humanistic, approach to change.
Given the anxiety and stress-inducing effect that change can have on individuals,
encouraging social support in the workplace, especially during times of change, could
have noticeable effects on the overall change outcomes. An understanding of social
support network composition and those central individuals who have influence in this
network could have huge implications for leaders as they create organizations that are
readily adaptable to environmental pressures.
Problem Statement
Human issues are central to today’s change management practices. The failure
many organizations experience when implementing organizational change is not typically
a result of technical issues, but human issues instead (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Kotter &
Cohen, 2002; Schein, 2010). In order for change to be successful, leaders need to
understand the informal networks and psycho-social dynamics at play when individuals
are facing change. When faced with change, individuals seek to find solutions to
overcome anxieties, and they typically look to those around them for support. Finding
ways to address the anxiety and stress of individuals involved in the changes has been a
commonly overlooked practice by change leaders amid the routine complexities that
accompany change efforts. Schein (2010) proposes that creating an environment where
individuals can feel safe as they overcome their anxieties of change will go a long way in
encouraging change to occur and for it to be sustained.
In addition to reducing anxieties, the connections within the support networks
have been examined showing evidence that supportive relationships within networks
9
influence individual attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Valente, 2010). The position
typically wielding more power to influence the behavior of others is that of the central
actor (Valente, 2010). Central actors in a social support network are not only plugged in
to the dynamics of the informal organization but they also wield an influence through the
support they provide.
The dynamics of Extension work lend it to be a high-stress environment even
without inserting requirements for change. It was my hypothesis that an informal network
of social support exists as a way to cope within this environment. In addition, I posited
there are individuals positioned centrally within these networks who have a degree of
influence of which they may not even be aware they hold. An exploratory look into this
network within OSU Extension could spur the conversation on how to effectively engage
and support individuals through change. If more is known about the network composition
and specifically the central actors, leaders can begin to think strategically about engaging
central individuals in meaningful ways to create an environment conducive for change.
Purpose and Research Objectives
With this study, I intended to discover the informal network of social support,
highlighting the non-supervisory relationships, within OSU Extension. I further examined
the individuals positioned centrally in regard to their collective characteristics, behaviors,
traits, and attributes as well as the manner in which they are perceived to influence the
behavior of those in their networks.
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the informal network of
social support, highlighting non-supervisory relationships, within OSU Extension.
The specific objectives were to:
10
1. Explore key network characteristics to describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension.
2. Describe the central actors in the non-supervisory network of social support.
3. Explore the perceived influence of central actors on behavior of ties.
Significance of the Study
Change is imminent, and OSU Extension is not exempt. As it enters its second
century of service, OSU Extension has the opportunity to emerge as a leader within the
broader Cooperative Extension system when it comes to implementing change. Over the
past few years, there has been momentum in Ohio to explore the future of Extension and
examine the possibilities of how work will be done in the future. The Vice President’s
Conversation on the Future of Extension has illuminated opportunities that if actualized,
have the potential to change the way Extension operates. Another factor contributing to
an unavoidable and potentially significant transformational culture change in OSU
Extension is the presence of new leadership at both the college and Extension levels. The
College of Food Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) gained a new dean
and OSU Extension gained new leadership as a result of the previous director retiring
after 22 years of service.
Extension’s opportunity through this study will be to emerge on the leading edge of
utilizing knowledge of informal networks as an internal management tool. There is
considerable research within Extension that addresses management topics of organizational
development, culture, professional development, and leadership. However, little work has
focused on using network knowledge for management strategy or examined the concept of
social support within Extension’s internal operations. OSU Extension can bring to light a
potential paradigm shift for change management within the broader Extension system.
11
While this study does not examine change in the organization itself, its antecedents
or consequences, it does examine the individuals and connections who are the heart of the
informal networks where the work happens. As a result, findings from this study help
provide an understanding of the informal organizational dynamics, as examined through the
lens of social support. Additionally, the findings here build upon the literature examining
opinion leaders (i.e., central actors) characteristics, behaviors, and influence. Broadly, the
conceptual frame of this research, specifically how it has brought together uniquely distinct
concepts as a new approach to managing change, provides inspiration for leaders as they
face continued and increasingly complex change in the future.
Overview of Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods approach, starting with a quantitative
network analysis employing survey methodology to obtain sociometric data to establish
the network composition and identify central actors. This was followed by a qualitative
examination of the central actors’ characteristics and influence through a questionnaire
obtaining both central actor and tie perspectives.
Definitions
Actor – an OSU Extension employee functioning as a discrete social being.
Central Actor – individual positioned centrally in a network based upon number of in-
degree ties. As a point of analysis for this study, these individuals will be
identified by receiving the top 10-15 percent of nominations (Valente, 2010) or
through a cutoff point that appears as a natural break in the data. For continued
exploration, the frame will be condensed to explore only central actors not
holding a formal administrative position (i.e., excluded positions being: director
12
of Extension, associate director of Extension, regional directors, assistant
directors, and EFENP/SNAP regional specialists).
Connection – known relationship between actor/node and relational ties.
Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) – the hours appointed to personnel as a typical work week
based on the following range: 0.25 = 10 hours, 0.5 = 20 hours, 1.0 = 40 hours.
In-degree centrality – the number of nominations received by others in the network
(Valente, 2010).
Informal Network – “channels that carry information and connect organizational
members through routes not prescribed by the organization” (Huning, Bryant, &
Holt, 2015 p.20)
Node – see “Actor”
Ohio State University Extension (OSU Extension) – a publicly funded, non-formal
educational organization fulfilling the land-grant mission focused on the
interpretation and dissemination of research from The Ohio State University and
bringing that information to Ohioans so they can use the scientifically based
information to better their lives, businesses, and communities.
OSU Extension Personnel – active members with a 25 percent appointment or greater
within the Department of Extension; including the following job classifications:
• Administration – director, regional director, and associate director
• Administrative support – personnel technician, accountant, managers, leaders, executive assistant, professor, assistant professor, assistant manager, fiscal associate, accountability specialist, and database administrator
• Educators
13
• Office support – administrative associate, information assistant, information associate, office administrative associate, office assistant, office associate, and office production assistant
• Program management – program director, program manager, and program specialist
• Program support – program assistants and program coordinators
• Technical support – graphic artist, senior graphic designer, systems developer, systems manager, technical editor, technology coordinator, TV producer, and TV program manager
• Specialist – field specialist and state specialist
• Other – custodian, research assistant, and research associate
Relational Ties – individuals to whom the central actors are connected, as identified
through the nomination process.
Social Network – “consists of a finite set or sets of actors and the relation or relations
defined on them” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994 p.20)
Social Network Analysis – “Social network analysis [SNA] is the mapping and
measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations,
computers, URLs, and other connected information/knowledge entities” (retrieved
from http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html).
Social Support – feeling that one is cared for and feels belonging. The resources may
include a combination of emotional support, instrumental support, informational
support, advice, and appraisal. Social support may be either perceived or received.
Years of Service in Role (YOSR) – total number of years worked in current job
classification.
Years of Service in Extension (YOSE) – total number of years employed by OSU
Extension.
14
Assumptions
In commencing work on this study, a few assumptions were made:
• An informal network of social support exists in OSU Extension, complete with
individuals holding central positions.
• Participants have social support networks beyond that of their peers in OSU
Extension and may at times rely on those networks more than they do their
colleague network.
• Individuals who choose to respond will do so honestly, without external pressure
or obligation.
Limitations/Delimitations
The recognized limitations/delimitations of this study are as follows:
• Networks are constantly evolving and changing. People are continually entering
and leaving for a variety of reasons, which poses analytical challenges (Valente,
2010). Thus, this analysis represents a moment in time when the network was at a
particular composition and cannot be generalizable to other organizations.
• Sociometric data obtained are specific to the uniqueness of OSU Extension’s
informal social support network. No two organizations could possibly be exactly
alike. Findings may only be applied to OSU Extension and cannot be generalized
to other Extension organizations throughout the United States and beyond.
• This study relied on individual perceptions of social support. Social support is a
complex construct that encompasses several types (i.e., emotional, instrumental,
informational, and appraisal) which may be either perceived or actual. Although
efforts were made to clarify the study’s definition of social support, it may still
15
have been interpreted in various forms, affecting the reliability and validity of the
results.
• Individuals are social beings beyond the work environment. It is recognized that
forms of social support may be sought and received from individuals outside the
boundaries set for this study (OSU Extension-housed personnel .25 or greater
FTE). Social support is not contingent upon position or status. However, to
achieve a manageable frame for available time and resources, a network boundary
was required.
• Response rate: while every researcher strives for 100 percent response rate, it is
acknowledged that this is not likely. The data received will only reflect the
informal network of the respondents, thus opening up the potential for a modified
network structure and incomplete exposure of possible central actors.
• Omission and/or commission of data in the survey instrument. It is recognized
that individuals do make mistakes, and thus a chance exists that respondents could
either (a) not include individuals (omission) due to failed cognitive recall, or (b)
wrongly include names (commission) that upon later reflection would not be
perceived to provide social support.
16
Chapter 2 Literature Review
This chapter presents relevant research supporting the primary inquiry of
exploring networks of social support and their connection to advancing the practices
surrounding change management and change leadership. The chapter begins with a
glimpse into organizational change, focused on critical principles for successful
organizational change. A further summary of research relevant to the frame of inquiry in
this study follows, including: the connection of networks to organizational change,
change management and leadership, psycho-social dynamics of individual change, and
social support. The chapter concludes with a summary of literature reviewed and the
conceptual frame for the study.
Organizational Change
Organizational change has been defined in many ways. Daft and Marcic (2009)
identified organizational change as “the adoption of a new idea or behavior by an
organization” (p.289). Another, more involved definition from Burke (2002) views
organizational change as “…to turn the organization in another direction” (p.1), which
includes a fundamental shift in the way things are done and an overhaul of organizational
design and processes. While the definition may appear straightforward, implementing
organizational change is far from that.
Today’s organizations must be able to successfully undergo change if they are to
succeed in an increasingly complex and constantly shifting society (By, 2005; Cameron
17
& Quinn, 2011; Kotter, 2005). Although the successful leading of change is deemed
critical for survival (By, 2005), organizations are still experiencing failure – meaning
they have not successfully met their change goals (Burke, 2011). Literature and
contemporary media often associate a 70 percent rate of failure with organizational
change (Burke, 2011; By, 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2005). By (2005) suggested that this
widespread rate of poor success may be attributed to “a fundamental lack of a valid
framework of how to implement and manage organizational change” (p.370), which may
stem from a “debilitating fragmentation” of literature surrounding organizational change
(Jacobs, Witteloostuijn, & Christe-Zeyse, 2013, p.773).
The reality is that organizational change is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. By
(2005) asserted that organizational change is “triggered by internal or external factors,
comes in all shapes, forms and sizes, and therefore, affects all organizations in all
industries” (p.370). By’s work to build a pragmatic framework from available literature
on organizational change approaches appears to be the most comprehensive to-date.
Table 2.1 presents a synthesized version of By’s review of organizational change
typology in terms of scale, rate of occurrence, and how it happens.
18
Table 2-1. Typology of Organizational Change in Terms of Scale, Rate of Occurrence, and How it Happens.
Scale Fine-tuning/Incremental adjustment – ongoing process to align strategy, processes, people and structure. Targeted adjustments to distinct management processes and strategies; no radical changes
Modular transformation – major shifts in strategy, structure, processes, and people involving a subset of the organization, not the whole organization
Corporate transformation – radical alterations to company-wide strategy (i.e., changing mission, structure, culture)
Rate of Occurrence
Discontinuous – single abrupt shifts
Incremental – evolves slowly at a constant rate; typically, individual units working through changes independently from whole organization
Bumpy incremental – rate fluctuates between points of accelerated change and peacefulness
Continuous – continual changes affecting overall organizational strategy
Bumpy continuous – at the organizational level, rate fluctuates between points of accelerated change and peacefulness
How It Happens
Planned – change is implemented in prescribed phases, generally instigated from the top down
Emergent – Change emerges from the bottom up as a continuous open-ended process resulting from the organization’s ability to learn from and adapt to changing circumstances
Contingency – situational variables and structure drive the parameters in which change is implemented, given each organization’s unique contexts
Note. Framework Adapted from By (2005), pp.371-377.
Rowland and Higgs’s (2009) framework for understanding change approaches has
a strong focus on the practitioner. Their model is built on two axes: the first representing
19
the paradigm of either straightforward or complex; the second representing the
contrasting scenarios of a change approach being one size fits all or a view that change
approaches must be differentiated and aligned to unique organizational contexts.
Resulting from this matrix are four different approaches to the implementation of change.
This classification of the four approaches is presented in Figure 2.1. Rowland and Higgs
(2009) stated that “no single change process ever falls neatly into just one approach” (p.
31) and continue to imply that different approaches may be employed simultaneously in a
variety of different ways during the varying phases of the change process.
Figure 2.1. Leadership Beliefs and Approaches to Change (Adapted from Rowland & Higgs, 2009)
20
Another way to typify change in organizations comes from Daft and Marcic
(2009). They propose four aspects of change that organizations face. These include:
• Product or service outputs – primary mode of adapting and reacting to changes in
external environment
• Technology – pertains to changes in how the organization goes about its work,
generally associated with production processes, and software used for processing
systems
• People – changes geared toward improving employee skills among personnel
subgroups and improving leadership and human relations practices
• Culture – focused on changing how employees think across the whole
organization, involves a major shift in norms, values, attitudes, and mind-set
A more recent approach to typifying change is from Anderson and Ackerman-
Anderson (2010). They asserted developmental, transitional, and transformational are the
most prevalent types of change occurring in organizations. Aligning with By’s (2005)
framework, Anderson and Ackerman-Anderson’s model also highlights the degree of
change from minimal to radical that can be experienced by organizations. Their model is
described as follows:
• Developmental Change – improvements of what is; new state is a prescribed
enhancement of old state
• Transitional Change – requires replacement of an old state with a new state;
involves a managed transition process from old to new
21
• Transformational Change – a drastic and significant shift in strategy, structure,
systems, and processes that requires a simultaneous shift of culture, behavior, and
thinking to be successful and sustained long-term
Anderson and Ackerman-Anderson (2010) proposed that the three types of change are
mutually inclusive because they can occur simultaneously throughout a change process,
but there is always one that will emerge as paramount for ultimate success of the change.
These different typology frameworks are only a few of the many available today,
but they nonetheless demonstrate there are distinctly different perspectives in classifying
organizational change. Even more to the point of complexity is the understanding that
these approaches are not one-size-fits-all, and a more diverse analysis of change would be
more beneficial as opposed to viewing change events in a vacuum. Researchers
emphasize that most organizational change processes actually involve a synergistic blend
of types and approaches (Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2010; By, 2005; Higgs &
Rowland, 2005), thus exponentially increasing the complexity of change management.
Success in today’s organizational environments involves the ability to manage
change by balancing the often-paradoxical elements of organizational structures,
processes, and cultures to adapt to continuously evolving economic and societal
pressures. Leaders are being pushed to cultivate adaptable organizations that can readily
face the ever-evolving demands of society. In present years, it’s become apparent that an
organization’s success is contingent upon how well organizations adapt to changing
conditions (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) as well as how competent the leaders are leading
and managing change (Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2010).
22
Change Management
Despite the copious amounts of resources available, leaders face a persistent
challenge as “change today is increasingly complex, involving multiple interdependent
efforts that must be undertaken simultaneously” (Cross, Ernst, & Pasmore, 2013, p. 81).
Unfortunately, the ideology and practice forefront in many organizations when it comes
to change has been unnecessarily oversimplified. Many leaders approach change as a
singular, one-time event, devoid of cultural influences and thought best managed by top-
level leaders. Under this approach, many facets important to successful change (i.e., buy-
in from those directly affected, gaining perspectives from broader collaborations, and
implications to alignment affecting organizational synergy) are ultimately neglected.
An understanding of the type and scale of change could help leaders succeed in
their change management efforts (By 2005). However, leaders often misunderstand the
nature of the challenge they face…some require technical solutions; most require cultural
shifts and thus leaders do not employ the appropriate approaches. First, it must be
recognized that change is entirely contextual; no two organizations can or ever will be
exactly alike (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). Next, complexity is proportionate to the scale and
type of change desired (Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2010; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012);
different types require different approaches. And last, in order for an organization to
change, individuals must also change (Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012).
Change management is a complex undertaking. Numerous resources meant to
serve as guides to a change process are at a leader’s disposal. So many, that in most cases
leaders are overwhelmed by too many models, which leads to an inordinate amount of
confusion (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). Beer and Nohria (2000) felt that truly successful
23
organizational change requires a blending of theories: leading a strategic dance among
both the economic (e.g., stakeholder value, structure, systems, incentives) and
organizational capability (e.g., culture, behavior, attitudes, motivation) aspects of change.
When faced with the complexity and pressure of success, leaders will tend to focus too
much on the formal structures that they disregard the informal ones (Cross & Parker,
2004), among which the majority of the power exists to shape change outcomes (Chan,
2002). The two structures, formal and informal, should be viewed as complementary of
one another in a high-performing organization (Soda & Zaheer, 2012); yet both have
significant influence independently. Research conducted by Chan (2002) suggested when
considering organizational alignment, the informal organizational structure matters more
and is more enduring than the formal structure.
Two important topics of affecting change management are addressed next in this
review, the informal organization and individual psycho-social dynamics amid change.
The In-formal Organization
Organizations are complex systems comprised of two structures. One is the formal
structure, where decisions are made and implemented, usually depicted with boxes and
lines displaying the hierarchal flow of power. The other is the informal structure, more
challenging to capture because it represents a living and ever-evolving web of
relationships, powered by social connection rather than positional status, spanning the
entire organization. Discovered through the notable findings from the 1920’s-era
Hawthorne studies, social and psychological factors in the workplace, identified as the
“informal organization,” gave way to a broader recognition among management scholars
that human beings and their needs are present in the workplace (Rainey, 2003).
24
Krackhardt and Hanson (1993) viewed informal organizations as the “central
nervous system driving the collective thought processes, actions, and reactions of its
business units” (p.1). Tolbert and Hall (2008) claimed the “informal structure involves
norms and social expectations that are not officially prescribed by an organization, but that
can be a very powerful force in channeling people’s behavior” (p.20). Similarly, Vlak,
Thomas, and Lebovits (2010) described the informal organization as “a collection of
practices, ideas, feelings, and interactions that help fill the gaps left by the formal
organization – where plans and policies are in conflict or don’t tell employees what
behaviors are expected” (p.2). From a network perspective, informal organizational
networks “are those channels that carry information and connect organizational members
through routes not prescribed by the organization” (Huning, Bryant, & Holt, 2015 p. 20);
and they are often engaged to circumvent official channels of communication and decision
making in order to solve complex problems (Hoy & Miskel, 2008).
The informal organization has great influence on individuals and the evolution of
day-to-day activities (deToni & Nonino, 2010). “As people interact in organizations,
networks of informal relations emerge that have important effects on behavior” (Hoy &
Miskel, 2008, p.97). An employee’s informal social relationships provide important task
advice, affect decision making, and generally provide positive affect in the workplace
(Podolny & Baron, 1997). Composition of informal networks can be based on different
types of relationships such as communication, advice, information, friendship, problem
solving, knowledge, interpersonal, and social support (deToni & Nonino, 2010;
Krackhardtf & Hanson, 1993).
25
Psycho-social Dynamics of Individual Change
It’s well established that people are at the heart of change in organizations, both at
the individual level and the social level. Research supports that the greatest influence on
innovation, change, and productivity is the organization’s informal social network (Cross
& Parker, 2004). If leaders understand the composition of their social network and the
powerful relationships that exist, they could leverage the social influence to promote
adoption of new ideas or practices and increase the likelihood of a more successful
implementation (Hamre, 2008). This section will discuss the psycho-social dynamics of
change from a perspective of learning.
If organizations are to realize change outcomes, individual employees within that
organization must experience some level of personal change. Changes at the personal
level involve psychological processes associated with learning. Kegan and Lahey (2009)
felt deep introspection and understanding of one’s self is crucial for individuals to
undergo lasting change. They also argue for individuals to truly understand themselves,
they must receive feedback and cues from their social environment. Reflective of
Lewin’s (1947) influential model, change occurs as a process of both un-learning the old
way of being or doing and learning the new way of being or doing. Schein (2010) built on
Lewin’s model of unfreezing, moving, and re-freezing by providing a psycho-social
analysis of the stages in the context of learning. Schein’s elaboration of the model is
fundamentally built upon the notion that learning is essential to change and both learning
and change are inherently social processes.
Authors of many change models acknowledge a catalyst is needed to disrupt or
force a reflective process to create an urgency for change to take place. According to
26
Schein (2010) in his Stages of Learning/Change, the creation of a dis-equilibrium (a
recognition that something is wrong) incites uncomfortable and anxious behavior leading
to what Schein calls ‘survival anxiety.’ Survival anxiety “implies that unless we change,
something bad will happen to the individual, the group, and/or the organization” (Schein,
2010, p.301). This alone does not create a motivation to change. Schein proposed that the
true complexities of change exist as a result of the dynamic between survival anxiety and
learning anxiety.
Learning anxiety is when individuals fear they will not be able to learn the new
skills and knowledge required while simultaneously unlearning old patterns. According
to Schein (2010) learning anxiety is founded in fears associated with incompetence,
punishment for temporary incompetence, loss of power or position, loss of personal
identity, and loss of group membership. As long as learning anxiety remains high, an
individual will be unable to engage in the learning/change process and will manifest in
behaviors of denial, dodging, blaming, and bargaining (Schein, 2010). Schein proposed
that, in order for change to happen, learning anxiety must be reduced through increasing a
sense of psychological safety.
Psychological safety “describes perceptions of the consequences of taking
interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a workplace” (Edmondson & Lei, 2014,
p.24). Psychological safety is thought to help employees overcome the defensiveness, or
learning anxiety, that occurs when they are challenged in ways that contradict their
expectations (Schein, 2010). Psychological safety is created and mobilized from both the
formal and informal aspects of the organization. Schein (2010) proposed that leaders in
the organization are responsible for ensuring the organization is supporting the change
27
(i.e., provide detailed direction and vision, provide proper training, align system policies
and procedures, and create space for the change to happen). The informal networks are
activated in the forms of learning via role models and social support, providing avenues
for expressing frustrations and difficulties with those they trust, and getting feedback to
validate their progress. An environment of psychological safety allows individuals to be
free to focus on goals and problem prevention instead of engaging in self-protection
behaviors (Edmondson & Lei, 2014), which can manifest as resistance to change.
Resistance is an unavoidable response to organizational change. In addition to
cognitive and emotional factors, resistance also results from social factors as they too
play a role in how change is perceived. Helpap and Bekmeier-Feuerhahn (2016) stated
“resistance is highly affected by social (un)desirability” (p. 906). From a sensemaking
perspective, the heightened ambiguity organizational change creates leads people to seek
contact with peers and colleagues who can help them make sense of what is happening,
help them understand what it may mean for them, and determine how best to respond
(Srivastava, 2015).
As discussed earlier, organizational change has a high rate of failure. One reason
is leaders have a difficult time simultaneously managing both the technical and human
aspects of change. Humans have a natural inclination to reduce uncertainty and re-
balance their equilibrium in the face of change. With organizations not being adept at
managing the human side of change, individuals are left to seek support from their
networks to mitigate the stressors. Chou (2016) asserted that “organizational change is
stressful as it causes changes to, and demands readjustment of, an average employee’s
28
normal routine. In this regard, social support is important during organizational change as
it is thought to buffer job stress” (p.23).
Social Support
It is well established that organizational change incites stress of those directly
involved. Considerable research has been focused in this area by exploring topics of
employee readiness for change, change implementation strategies for positive change,
and a variety of other topics each contributing to the expansion of the knowledge base
surrounding constructive responses to change. Traditionally associated with public health
research, the construct of social support has recently been added to this list by those who
are exploring ways organizations can cope with change (Lawrence & Callan, 2011). The
remainder of this section provides an overview and definition of social support followed
by a review of social support in the context of change.
Overview and Definition
Epidemiologist John Cassel and psychiatrist Gerald Caplan launched social
support into popularity with their ground-breaking work in the 1970s. They brought into
focus the connection of one’s immediate social environment to vulnerability toward
disease (Gottlieb, 1981). Collectively, their work underscored the importance of social
support as a protective mechanism during stressful situations. Since then, a robust body
of evidence has developed showing that social support significantly and positively
influences health outcomes (Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2015), with many studies focused
on stress, coping, general health and wellbeing (Valente, 2010).
With the rise in attention to social support as a network-based construct comes a
multitude of lenses from which social support can be viewed. From a theoretical
29
perspective, social support has been viewed through the lenses of stress and coping,
social constructionist, and relationships (Lakey & Cohen, 2000). These theoretical lenses
influence how social support is associated with outcomes. The most common view is the
presence of supportive behaviors (e.g., advice, guidance) which are thought to mitigate
stress or at least alter the perceived stressor to a more positive frame. The constructionist
perspective of social support, under the premise that individuals construct their own
views framed in their own unique social contexts, suggests that “there may be no clear
consensus across individuals or groups as to what constitutes supportive behaviors”
(Lakey & Cohen, 2000, p.36). Relationally, social support is hypothesized as a related
concept to a basic biological need of being immersed and accepted in a social group.
Fulfilling this need is thought to increase self-esteem, which could be tied to positive
health affects (Lakey & Cohen, 2000). These distinctly different frames lend to the
difficulty of defining and further conceptualizing social support.
While the social constructionist and relational views have merit, the most
commonly studied perspective of social support is through the mitigation of stress and
coping. Helping clarify the conceptualization of social support, Barrera and Ainlay
(1983) sought to organize related content of support functions into rational categories
supported through empirical methods. They found, through a factor analysis of college
student responses to the Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB), four factors
after a Varimax rotation. Those factors were labeled (variance explained): directive
guidance (76.3 percent), nondirective support (11.6 percent), positive social interaction (7
percent), and tangible assistance (5 percent).
30
Holt-Lunstad and Uchino (2015) attempted to bring focus to the multi-
dimensional construct with a thorough review of how the construct has been
conceptualized and measured. They propose that in a broad sense, social support can be
discussed in two main categories: structural or functional. Structural support refers to
“the extent to which individuals are situated within or integrated into social networks”
(Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2015, p.184). This involvement in the network is measured
according to things like number of interactions, network density, network position, and
active social engagement across various activities or roles. Functional support, on the
other hand, references the specific functions served by relationships. Typically, these
functional aspects are “measured by actual or perceived availability of support, aid, or
resources from these relationships” (Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2015, p.184). These are two
seemingly interchangeable yet distinctly different frames of study.
Holt-Lunstad and Uchino (2015) continued to dissect the different elements of the
functional perspective of social support. They suggested that there are four primary
categories of social support or types of support that individuals provide to others. The
four types of social support are: emotional support (expressing of comfort and care),
informational support (advice and guidance), tangible or instrumental support (providing
materials and resources), and belonging support (shared activities and inclusion). These
aspects of support can be further categorized by whether support is perceived or received
(Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2015). Perceived support is the belief that support is available
or accessible if it is needed. This is based on the perceived existence of support, not the
actuality of an interaction. Received support refers to the actual support provided by
others.
31
Operational definitions vary for functional social support. As the concept of social
support was gaining speed, early definitions reflected the multi-dimensionality and dis-
agreement within the field. Cassel (1976), in his ground-breaking work on the subject,
referred to social support as “the protective factors buffering or cushioning the individual
from the physiologic or psychological consequences of exposure to the stressor situation”
(as cited in Song, Son, & Lin, 2011, p.117). Others such as Cobb (1974) and Caplan
(1974) approached social support from a communication perspective. They viewed the
concept as information being shared that leads to a feeling of being cared for, valued, and
sense of belonging in a network (as cited in Song, Son, & Lin, 2011).
Henderson (1977) viewed social support through attachment theory and defines it
as an “affectively positive social interaction with others under stressful conditions” (as
cited in Song, Son, & Lin, 2011, p.117). House (1981), (as cited in Lawrence & Callan,
2011, p.569), defined social support as “a positive or helpful interpersonal transaction
with a particular source (e.g., boss, colleagues, friends, and/or relatives) that involves one
or more of four functions: emotional (e.g., the provision of affect by showing concern or
listening); informational (e.g., the provision of information, advice); instrumental (e.g.,
the provision of active help with regard to labor, time); and appraisal (e.g., the provision
of information relevant to self-evaluation).” The latter definition has been used widely
among researchers and is the frame from which the definition is based in this study.
Social Support and Change
A large amount of literature now exists linking social support to positive health
outcomes, especially serving a moderating role for coping with stress (Holt-Lunstad &
Uchino, 2015). The evidence from these studies links social support to a change of
32
behavior among those who either perceive support exists or receive the support. While
this is well documented in public health literature, it is still emerging in the context of
organizations, specifically as social support in the workplace.
In the health context, social support interventions have been linked to changes
toward positive behaviors related to smoking cessation, healthy eating, and stopping drug
use. Some studies have looked at social support in the context of organizational change.
Amren (2009) found, in a global study exploring social support in relation to favorable
organizational psychological outcomes (attitudes), a significant positive relationship
between social support and favorable attitudes across all cultures. Given this finding for
the United States, Amren (2009) posited that organizational leaders “might want to
emphasize organizational social support as a crucial component of stress management in
order to help employees cope with role stressors and to improve favorable attitudes
toward the organization” (Amren, 2009, p.74).
Lawrence and Callan (2011) designed a study to test a model of social support
that assisted employees with large-scale change. They hypothesized that the effect of
change-related stress on job satisfaction would vary based on the level of perceived social
support. The organization studied was a large public hospital undergoing a large-scale
change that involved a physical move, implementation of new processes, and
restructuring of how work was accomplished. These changes affected staff at all levels.
Employing surveys to measure the variables of job satisfaction, support mobilization,
perceived available support, and change-related stress, the authors tested the mediating
effects of the influence of perceived available support from levels of colleagues,
supervisors, and non-work sources.
33
Findings indicate “when perceptions about colleague support availability were high,
support mobilization negatively mediated the relationship between change-related stress
and job satisfaction by decreasing levels of job satisfaction” (Lawrence & Callan, 2011,
p.579). This is opposite of what has been theorized in the literature, as high levels of
perceived available social support are thought to positively influence coping outcomes. The
authors posit that given this is an interpersonal relationship, the feelings of indebtedness for
support and the need for reciprocity add to the stress, thus decreasing job satisfaction. They
further hypothesize this negative relationship may be mitigated by an organizational culture
that values and encourages mentorship exchanges or other peer-coaching programs
(Lawrence & Callan, 2011). The aforementioned aside, their findings support that
“employees mobilized much higher levels of [organizational] support when stressed with
organizational change if they perceived higher levels of colleague support” (Lawrence &
Callan, 2011, p.580).
Feelings of safety and support are important in the work environment especially
during times of change. Leaders might then beg the question: what are ways to identify
sources of support, and how can we proliferate this type of behavior to enhance our
change efforts? Valente (2010) stated, “social support represents one type of affect that is
transmitted through social networks and represents an important means in which social
networks influence health” (p.36); thus a network approach is a great way to identify
social support.
Network-based Interventions
Smith (2005) counseled that successful outcomes don’t just come from ‘what you
know’ (i.e., human capital) or even ‘who you know’ (i.e., relationship capital), rather –
34
it’s ‘who you know well enough to trust for advice, or have confidence in getting things
done’ (i.e., social capital). Networks are structures dependent on social interaction; and
through the lens of social capital theory, every network has individuals who possess a
greater degree of influence than others. Social network research explores relationships
and often focuses on those central in the networks thought to have greater power and
influence over others (Brass & Burkhardt, 1992).
Social network theory (discussed in more detail in Chapter 3) offers an
empirically established method to examine opinion leaders (e.g., central actors or key
players) in an organization (Andrews, Conaway, Zhao, & Dolan, 2016). A primary
function of social network analysis is to identify the “most important” actors in the social
network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). While the meaning of “importance” varies by the
type of network and the research question at hand, importance in general references the
actor’s location in the network. Centrality is a commonly used measure to identify actors
who are extensively involved with other actors (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and thus
occupy important positions in the networks (Valente, 2015).
In social network analysis, centrality is determined by mathematical algorithms
indicating high scores. For instance, an actor may be central if (1) he or she receives a
greater number of nominations (i.e., degree); (2) if he or she is fewer steps from everyone
else in the network (i.e., closeness); or (3) if he or she lies on the shortest path connecting
other nodes in the network (i.e., betweenness). The most common measure used to
identify people with influence is degree centrality, simply due to their larger number of
connections in the network. Authors have used several names for actors in these central
positions, including central connectors, key players, and opinion leaders.
35
Use of Opinion Leaders to Promote Behavior Change
Given the low success rates of organizational change, it can be inferred that
changing the attitudes and behaviors of employees is a difficult task. Costly interventions,
such as intensive training programs for all employees, have been a go-to approach for
leaders. Recent research has shown evidence that supports a more targeted approach
involving opinion leaders can be as effective in creating attitude and behavior change
(Holt & Ryan, 2012).
Social science researchers have demonstrated over decades that there are groups
of individuals in every community or organization from whom others seek help and
guidance to form opinions on any given matter (Weimann, 1994). These individuals are
typically labeled ‘influentials’ or ‘opinion leaders.’ Regardless of the title, these
individual informally provide leadership to the formation of attitudes, opinions, and
public knowledge (Weimann, Tustin, van Vuuren, & Foubert, 2007). In the seminal
literature on the topic, Personal Influence, opinion leadership is explained in the
following quote.
What we shall call opinion leadership, if we may call it leadership
at all, is leadership as its simplest: it is casually exercised, sometimes
unwitting and unbeknown, within the smallest groupings of friends, family
members, and neighbors. It is not leadership on the high level of
Churchill, nor of a local politico; it is the almost invisible, certainly
inconspicuous form of leadership at the person-to-person level of ordinary,
intimate, informal, everyday contact (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955, as quoted
in Weimann, 1994, p.71).
36
In more current literature, opinion leadership has been defined with more detail
reflecting the evolution of the field. Rogers and Shoemaker (2003) felt that opinion
leadership is “the degree to which an individual is able to influence other individuals’
attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with a relatively high frequency” (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 2003, p.388). Gnambs and Batinic (2012) referred to opinion leadership as
characterizing an “individual’s disposition to influence opinions, attitudes, and behaviors
of others in a desired direction” (p. 607). The opinion leaders themselves are thought to
be “people who influence the opinions, attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and behaviors of
others” (Valente & Pumpuang, 2007, p.881).
Common within the public health discipline and consumer marketing, opinion
leaders have been extensively utilized to promote behavior change. Aligned with the
diffusion of innovation theory, the use of opinion leaders is a method to leverage
resources and accelerate the rate at which adoption happens in a system (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 2003). The most classic approach to using opinion leaders is demonstrated in
the agricultural Extension model. Early Extension agents, serving as change agents,
would hold demonstrations where members of the community could experience the
research of the university with their own hands in their homes or on their farms. Those
individuals experiencing this new way of doing things would then share what they
learned with their friends and extended family, thus exponentially increasing the reach of
the Extension agent. While this early model was founded by meeting practical needs,
there has been extensive research since then evaluating the effectiveness of using opinion
leaders to instigate and support attitude and behavior change in our modern society.
37
In successful behavior-change efforts, opinion leaders have several critical
functions. Valente (2010) proposed that the following functions are critical to successful
program implementation. The functions are:
1. Provide entrance and legitimacy to behavior change programs.
2. Act as a liaison between the communities and agencies implementing the
programs.
3. Act as role models of the change desired in communities.
4. Convey messages through interpersonal-level communication with
community members.
5. Remain as social capital in the community once the agency has withdrawn
from community.
In relation to influencing the success of the programs, Smith (2005) cautioned that
attitudes, beliefs, and opinions held by the opinion leaders may significantly impact the
success or failure of the program. He cautions further that decision makers should
ascertain opinion leaders’ views of the organization and its goals so that knowledge to be
shared is congruent, thus increasing the likelihood of buy-in among community members
(Smith, 2005).
Holt and Ryan (2012) investigated the effectiveness of an opinion leader program
intended to change the negative culture surrounding work-life balance in a small
organization where there was a considerable gap noted between policy provision and
employee utilization. Ten opinion leaders in a workforce of 209 individuals were engaged
in the pilot program. The opinion leaders participated in a one-day training program where
concepts based in interpersonal communication and diffusion principles were reinforced,
38
enabling them to (1) create a context for discussions about flexible work practices, (2)
model and support new behaviors in the workplace, (3) develop exit strategies, and (4)
maintain social authenticity. During the program, opinion leaders perceived the minimal
intervention model to be effective due to observed changes in attitudes and behaviors
surrounding perceptions of work-life balance. Benefits were recognized at both the
organization and personal levels, including enhanced communication skills, increased self-
confidence, and personal improvement in work-life practices. No negative reactions were
observed of workplace colleagues by opinion leaders regarding the opinion leaders’
involvement in the pilot program, thus supporting the retention of their social authenticity
(Holt & Ryan, 2012).
Andrews, Conaway, Zhao, and Dolan (2016) investigated the influence of opinion
leaders on teaching practices of science at a research university. The authors’ findings
demonstrated that the “faculty receive social resources (e.g., support, information,
feedback) from their colleagues and that this exchange of resources is associated with
changes in teaching views and practices” (Andrews et al., 2016, p.15). The authors
suggested, based on their findings, that influence is not due to the degree of interactions
they have with colleagues, but instead how they interact with one another. They found
that individuals at the faculty level (i.e., closer proximity and more experienced) were
perceived to cause more extensive change than those individuals with greater numbers of
regional connections (i.e., more dispersed personal network and still gaining experience).
This is supported by Borgatti and Cross’ supposition that individuals seek information
and are more willing to take action on that information based on the other person’s level
39
of knowledge, the degree to how much they value that individual’s expertise, and how
accessible the other person is to them (Borgatti & Cross, 2003).
Identifying and Characterizing Opinion Leaders
Empirical evidence supports that opinion leaders are an effective tool to creating
and embedding change in behavior. Organizations and communities have capitalized on
this phenomena by utilizing the influence these individuals have on creating behavior
change. This section reviews a selection of the expansive literature on methods of
identifying these individuals and characteristics that generally may describe them.
Identification of Opinion Leaders
Many variations exist on how opinion leaders are selected. Valente and
Pumpuang (2007), pioneers in the identification of opinion leaders, have classified and
reviewed 10 different techniques for identifying opinion leaders. Techniques can be as
simple as identifying celebrities or popular individuals based on their own perceptions or
the opinions of others. Methods involving self-selection hold selection bias yet are easy
to implement. Other, more rigorous methods, involve network analysis principles and
more intensive to implement yet they hold higher reliability and validity. The method of
choice is generally determined by the specific research questions, populations being
studied, and resources available. Table 2-2 shows an overview of the techniques in
addition to the advantages and disadvantages of each technique.
40
Table 2-2. Methods, Techniques, Advantages, and Disadvantages for Identification of Opinion Leaders.
Method Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Celebrities Recruit well-known people.
Easy to implement.
Pre-existing opinion leaders.
High visibility.
Contradictory personal behavior.
Difficult to recruit.
Self-selection Volunteers are recruited through solicitation.
Easy to implement.
Low-cost.
Selection bias.
Uncertain ability.
Self-identification Surveys use a leadership scale; those scoring above a certain threshold are considered leaders.
Easy to implement.
Pre-existing opinion leaders.
Selection bias.
Validity of self-reporting.
Staff-selected Leaders selected based on community observation.
Easy to implement. Staff misperceptions.
Leaders may lack motivation.
Positional approach Persons who occupy leadership positions such as clergy, elected officials, media, and business elites.
Easy to implement.
Pre-existing opinion leaders.
May not be leaders for the community.
Lack of motivation.
Lack of relevance.
Judge’s ratings Knowledgeable community members identify leaders.
Easy to implement.
Trusted by community.
Dependent on the selection of raters and their ability to rate.
Expert identification Trained ethnographers study communities to identify leaders.
Implementation can be done in many settings.
Dependent on experts’ ability.
continued
41
Method Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Snowball method Index cases provide nomination of leaders, who are in turn interviewed until no new leaders are identified.
Implementation can be done in many settings.
Provides some measure of social network.
Validity may depend on index case selection.
It can take considerable time to trace individuals who are nominated.
Sample Sociometric Randomly selected respondents nominate leaders, and those receiving frequent nominations are selected.
Implementation can be done in many settings.
Provides some measure of social network.
Results are dependent on the representativeness of the sample.
May be restricted to communities with less than 5,000 members.
Sociometric All (or most) respondents are interviewed, and those receiving frequent nominations are selected.
Entire community network can be mapped.
May have high validity and reliability.
Time-consuming and expensive to interview everyone.
May be limited to small communities (less than 1,000 members).
Note. Adapted from Valente and Pumpuang (2007).
Typology of Opinion Leaders
Several approaches have been taken to characterize the multidimensional social
phenomenon of opinion leaders. From degree of influence to leadership patterns, these
typologies have provided multiple frameworks for examining the roles, functions, and
characteristics of opinion leaders. Given that it is thought “the central outcome of opinion
leadership is a social influence on others” (Gnambs & Batinic, 2012, p. 598), it is
important to start with understanding the dimension of influence when classifying
Table 2-2. Continued
42
opinion leaders. This section starts with reviews of the influence typologies of
Hamilton’s Influence Flow and Merton’s Sphere of Influence and then covers a review of
Kingdon’s typology of opinion leaders from a leadership pattern.
Herbert Hamilton introduced a basic typology of influence flow derived from the
perceptions of the influential-influencee dyad (Weimann, 1994). Influentials (i.e., those
with influence) reported on his or her own perceived influence, and the influencee (i.e., the
person being influenced) reported their views on the influence. Hamilton’s matrix is shown
in Table 2-3. Corroborated persuasion indicates that both the influencer and influencee are
aware of and acknowledge the influence. When the influence is known by the influencee
and not the influencer, this is labeled as imitation. The influencer may not be aware of his
or her role as a model and therefore not realize his or her ideas, opinions or suggestions
have been used as guidance by others (Weimann, 1994). Another block in the matrix is
manipulation, where the influencer reports his or her influence and the influencee denies or
is unaware of it. This combination may derive from three possible avenues: (1) intentional
manipulation, (2) unsuccessful persuasion, or (3) an invalid report on measures exploring
influence. The last quadrant of the matrix indicates the block where both the influencer and
influencee deny the act of influence.
43
Table 2-3. Hamilton’s Types of Influence (as cited in Weimann, 1994).
Influencee Reports Influence
Influential Reports Influence
YES NO
YES Corroborated persuasion or advice
Manipulation or unsuccessful persuasion
NO Imitation Contagion
Another typology of opinion leaders involves the sphere of influence in which
they operate. First proposed by Robert Merton, this typology suggests that there are two
types of opinion leaders, the monomorphic and polymorphic (Weiman, 1994).
Monomorphic influentials are experts in limited fields or specific topic areas, and their
influence does not transfer to other spheres of decision. Polymorphic are those
influentials exerting influence in a variety of (sometimes unrelated) fields or topic areas.
While this typology creates two distinct domains of opinion leadership, Merton suggests
that an individual may operate across both domains as a monomorphic opinion leader
with some groups and a polymorphic opinion leader with others (Weiman, 1994).
Kingdon’s study of opinion leadership was one of the first to distinguish among
types of leaders, finding patterns among the various types (Weiman, 1994). Kingdon
found four types of leaders emerged from his study utilizing a nationwide sample that
assessed voting behaviors during the 1966 election. The types are as follows:
• Activists – targets and guides for advice seekers;
• Talkers – attempt to influence others, but are not actively sought out for advice or
guidance;
44
• Passive leaders – consulted for advice and guidance, but don’t attempt to
influence. They are sought out by others, but connections are not activated by
themselves;
• Non-leaders – were not sought out by others and did not attempt to influence
others.
These three models are just a few of many that have tried to bring clarity to the
multidimensional construct of opinion leaders. The models mentioned support and
demonstrate the complexity of the construct as they depict the rich variety of forms that
opinion leadership can take. Each form of influence and the context in which they operate
suggest different forms of opinion leaders (e.g., advice, role models, manipulation, and
contagion) and thus require different definitions. It is important to recognize that opinion
leadership is highly dependent on other variables such as the subject/product, domain of
interest, time, leadership style, and type of network. All of these factors may play a
primary role in identifying and describing opinion leaders.
Characteristics of Central Opinion Leaders
Years of social science literature has demonstrated the existence of opinion
leaders in a wide variety of social situations, and that these individuals are useful tools to
instigate and encourage change of norms and behaviors (Holt & Ryan, 2012). Despite the
extensive research on opinion leadership, researchers have not yet arrived at a consensus
on the roots of social influence (Gnambs & Batinic, 2012) or reached a consolidated
understanding of what characteristics and attributes make an opinion leader an opinion
leader (Chen, Glass, & McCartney, 2016).
45
There has been some contention among researchers around the idea of
‘generalized opinion leaders.’ Generalized opinion leaders are those who have influence
across domains. The contention lies in the supposition that very few people are capable of
being an expert across multiple fields (Gnambs & Batinic, 2013; Weimann, et al., 2007);
and yet researchers have discovered shared common attributes that transcend domain
boundaries (Weimann, 1994). These shared common attributes are the continued focus of
this review and are shared from research that spans disciplines of network analysis,
public health, and marketing/consumer research.
At the most basic level, opinion leadership is characterized in three criteria: (1)
who one is – the representation of certain values in the opinion leader’s character; (2)
what one knows – the competence or knowledge he or she possesses; and (3) whom one
knows – the position he or she holds in the social network (Katz, 1957; Weimann, 1994).
This characterization was further elaborated through Weimann et al’s (2007) review of
early studies on personal influence and opinion leadership. They arrived at a general set
of attributes describing opinion leaders. Their findings are as follows (Weimann et al.,
2007, p.176):
• Opinion leaders are found at every social level; and in most areas of decision
making, they influence people from the same social level.
• Opinion leaders are found in both sexes, all professions, all social classes, and all
age groups.
• Opinion leaders tend to be more involved in various social activities and social
organizations and occupy central positions in their personal networks.
46
• Opinion leaders are considered experts in their field; but this is an informal
recognition by close friends, relatives, co-workers, colleagues, and
acquaintances.
• Opinion leaders are more exposed to the mass media than non-leaders.
• Opinion leaders are more interested, involved, and updated in the field in which
they are influential.
• Opinion leaders tend to be monomorphous: they are usually experts in one area,
but rarely in various areas (i.e., polymorphous).
• Opinion leaders manifest a specific communication behavior: They are more
involved in formal and informal personal communication than non-leaders.
• Opinion leaders are usually well aware that they are sources of information and
influence for others.
The literature illustrates that opinion leaders exist in many contexts independent
of demographic factors. Kim, Scheufele, Han, and Shah (2017) noted in their study that
socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, ethnicity, education, and living condition)
“provided little contribution in describing opinion leaders” (p.148). An explanation for
this is likely the presence of homogeneity among opinion leaders and followers.
Researchers have discovered that opinion leaders tend to resemble the same cultural and
societal norms of those who seek their opinions (Weimann, 1994). Through years of
researchers’ efforts to identify and describe opinion leaders, it “became apparent that
socio-demographic variables alone provided little contribution in describing opinion
leaders” (Gnambs & Batinic, 2012, p.606).
47
The multi-dimensional nature of opinion leadership has led to increasingly
complex profiling of the influential individuals, recognizing the variance across scopes of
influence, domains of decision making, and attitudes (Weimann, 1994). It is recognized
that there are distinct differences of opinion leaders across fields of interest or industries.
For example, an opinion leader in the political arena is different than an opinion leader in
the fashion industry, thus requiring a different set of characteristics to be a successful
opinion leader (Weimann, 1994). These domain-specific competencies are only half of
the story when characterizing opinion leaders (Gnambs & Batinic, 2012). Personality and
dispositional traits have also become the focus of researchers’ efforts to shed light on the
shared characteristics of these unique individuals across domains, cultures, and societies
(Weimann, 1994; Gnambs & Batinic, 2012).
An early attempt to establish a correlation between personality attributes was
conducted by Robertson and Myers (1969). Their findings did not support the connection
of personality variables with opinion leadership; they found only weak correlations,
reporting “none of the personality variables would predict opinion leadership” (Robertson
& Myers, 1969, p.167). Although the findings were deflating to the discipline at the time,
later attempts have begun to report significant relationships (Weimann, 1994).
Myers and Robertson (1972) attempted to combat weaknesses they saw in
previous research by conducting a study of self-reported opinion leadership on
knowledge, interest, and discussion of 12 household-related topics. They discovered
knowledgeability, familiarity, and interest are excellent predictors of opinion leadership
based on the composite R values of the three measures across multiple domains,
including: discussion about the topic (.67), knowledge of it (.67), and interest in it (.60)
48
(Myers & Robertson, 1972). An assumption to explain these findings is that opinion
leaders are generally more motivated to discuss topics they are directly involved in or
with. “Regardless of the subject area, an opinion leader must be interested, involved,
informed, and updated about his or her area of expertise” (Weimann, 1994, p.75).
Weimann (1994), in his review of literature to expose characteristics that
transcend multiple domains, catalogued what he found as “powerful predictors” of
opinion leadership. Weimann’s (1994) list follows (p.89):
Personal Attributes • Innovativeness • Individuation combined with social conformity • Knowledgeability, familiarity, and interest in subject/domain • Cosmopoliteness • Personal involvement or enduring involvement
Social Attributes • Gregariousness • Social activity • Centrality in social networks • Social accessibility • Social recognition • Credibility
Socio-demographic Attributes • Profiles change according to domains • Within domains, profiles change across cultures and societies • Within domain and society, profiles change over time • Tendency to similarity of influencer or influencee profiles
Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente. (2004),
discovered, in their study on opinion leaders in substance abuse treatment agencies,
several key differences in characteristics between the opinion leaders and their peers.
Employing a sociometric approach to identify opinion leaders, the authors engaged 55
counselors across 10 programs in four community-based agencies in Florida. Findings
49
from this study show opinion leaders had significantly more work experience, had more
post-graduate education, and had significantly greater knowledge related to the diagnosis
and treatment of clients. Additionally, they found opinion leaders had more favorable
attitudes toward their work and especially exhibited a greater confidence and willingness
to work with more challenging clients (Moore et al., 2004).
Also in the healthcare field, McCormack Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson,
Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013), found a series
of characteristics when they conducted a literature review on change agency (opinion
leaders were one title in which they operationalized the term), asking “how do the
characteristics of the change agent affect knowledge utilization?” (p.5) First, they
discovered responsibility and accountability were important; not only because followers
perceive it attached to the role, but also because of the perception that the opinion leader
has about the importance of his or her responsibility and accountability in the role. The
authors also noted establishing respect and serving as role models were seen as crucial in
the literature.
Other features noted by McCormack et al., but deemed less important in the
literature, were accessibility, cultural compatibility, reflective nature, and positive
attitude (McCormack et al., 2013). Kim, Scheufele, Han, and Shah (2017), also reported
the characteristic of optimism in their study of breast cancer survivors. Further findings
reported in their study were characteristics of enhanced knowledge and expertise.
Smith (2005) posited that a command of well-developed meta-abilities including
exceptional cognitive skills, self-awareness, emotional resilience, and personal drive
determine an elevated status of opinion leaders. He surmised that possessing these meta-
50
abilities may contribute to greater influence in the organization because the individuals
tend to have a higher degree of insight, better decision making skills, ability to identify
alternative solutions, and an ability to successfully navigate realities of complex
environments (Smith, 2005).
Gnambs and Batinic (2012) furthered the idea of generalized opinion leadership
by conducting a study to trace the domain-independent traits back to the most basic traits
of human personality. They found that the big five personality traits model (i.e.,
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) explained
about 30 percent of the variance in their construct of generalized opinion leadership. In
addition, they found that self-efficacy explained a significant portion of generalized
opinion leadership (β = 0.29, p < 0.001) beyond the effects of the big five personality
traits yet the additional variance was small (∆R2 = 0.06). Gnambs and Batinic (2012)
found evidence to support that opinion leaders are generally confident in their abilities
and are strongly socially oriented. Related to Gnambs and Batinic’s findings, Chen,
Glass, and McCartney (2016) claimed less stubborn and less extreme-oriented (in terms
of thought and actions) opinion leaders are usually able to attract more followers, and
thus have greater influence.
Andrews, Tonkin, Lancastle, and Kirk (2014) were interested in identifying
characteristics of nurse opinion leaders to help support their premise that opinion leaders
help others integrate knowledge of genetics into nursing practices. They found that
opinion leaders had perceived influence over others, openness to experience and a great
interest in learning about, incorporating and discussing the topic of genetics with others.
They determined that their identified opinion leader characteristics aligned with findings
51
from a detailed literature review on opinion leader characteristics conducted as a part of
their larger study. The authors noted that the opinion leaders’ openness-to-experience
characteristic has been linked to leadership and “therefore can be used to target them as
potential change agents” (Andrews et al., 2014, p.2608).
Borgatti and Cross (2003) proposed that an opinion leader’s level of knowledge is
important to be a successful opinion leader. They claimed individuals are more likely to
seek and use information if they value the opinion leader’s knowledge and expertise; this
is especially the case when the opinion leader is perceived to be readily accessible
(Borgatti & Cross, 2003).
In a network analysis study exploring the antecedents to centrality, Klein, Lim,
Saltz, and Mayer (2004) reported two variables emerged as key predictors of centrality:
education and emotional stability. These findings were across three types of networks
studied – advice, friendship, and adversarial. Statistically significant across two of the
three networks were items of activity preference (i.e., strong work ethic), openness to
experience, tradition similarity (respectful and accepting of authority and established
norms), and hedonism (pursuit of personal pleasure or enjoyment).
Other important characteristics noted by Weimann (1994) regarding opinion
leaders across multiple domains included innovativeness, risk-taking, and individuation.
Research has been unclear on the definitive correlation of innovativeness with opinion
leadership, largely due to the conceptual understanding of the term ‘innovator’
(Weimann, 1994). Empirical evidence supports that opinion leaders are more innovative
than their followers, but are not necessarily considered innovators themselves (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 2003).
52
Opinion leaders tend to set themselves apart from their followers due to their
tendency to act and think differently. Individuation refers to the “state in which people
feel confident enough to be different” (Weimann, 1994, p.79) generally in terms of being
different from public and social norms, but not to the degree of being considered deviants
or nonconformists. Opinion leaders can be both conforming to the system norms and at
the same time lead the adoption of new ideas.
Weimann proposed that overall, opinion leaders tend to have more diverse
experiences, giving them more exposure because they travel more often and are exposed
to a broader variety of media sources (Weimann, 1994). Similarly, Andrews et al. (2016)
noted that faculty opinion leaders who participated in regional experiences outside of
their own department were found to have more impact on colleagues due to the perceived
value of the opinion leaders’ specialized knowledge (Andrews et al, 2016).
To coalesce findings in this review around this multi-dimensional construct of
opinion leadership, Weimann’s (1994) earlier mentioned list of powerful predictors for
opinion leadership were expanded to include other literature reviewed for this study.
Opinion leadership is a broad and expansive topic studied by many, therefore this table
represents only a selection of identified attributes, where other attributes may exist in
literature not reviewed for this study. The list in Table 2-4 shows a list of opinion leader
attributes providing a foundation for building a comprehensive model of generalized
opinion leader characteristics.
53
Table 2-4. A Selection of Identified Attributes of Opinion Leaders. Attributes Source Personal Attributes
Innovativeness Weimann (1994); Rogers & Shoemaker (2003)
Individuation combined with social conformity
Chan and Misra (1990); Weimann (1994)
Cosmopoliteness – experience and interest in other cultures, well-traveled, exposure to a variety of media sources
Weimann (1994)
Knowledgeability, familiarity, interest in subject/domain, expertise
Weimann (1994); Rogers & Shoemaker (2003); Borgatti and Cross (2003); Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente (2004); Andrews, Conaway, Zhao, and Dolan (2016); Kim, Scheufele, Han, and Shah (2017)
Interest in learning, using and discussing interests
Weimann (1994); Andrews, Tonkin, Lancastle, and Kirk (2014)
Openness to experience Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004); Gnambs and Batinic (2012); Andrews, Tonkin, Lancastle, and Kirk (2014)
Access to information early and more often Valente (2015)
Higher level of education Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004); Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente (2004)
More work experience Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente (2004)
Willingness to work in more challenging situations
Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente (2004)
Emotional stability Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004)
Strong work ethic Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004)
continued
54
Attributes Source
Personal Attributes, cont.
Hedonism – pursuit of joy and pleasure Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004)
Personal responsibility and accountability
McCormack, Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson, Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013)
Well-developed meta-abilities: cognitive skills, self-awareness, emotional resilience, personal drive
Smith (2005)
Self-efficacy Gnambs and Batinic (2012)
Confidence Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente (2004); Gnambs and Batinic (2012)
Agreeableness Gnambs and Batinic (2012); Chen, Glass, and McCartney (2016)
Favorable attitudes Moore, Peters, Hills, LeVasseur, Rich, Hunt, Young, and Valente (2004)
Optimism, positive attitudes McCormack, Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson, Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013); Kim, Scheufele, Han, and Shah (2017)
Reflective nature McCormack, Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson, Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013)
Social Attributes
Gregariousness, extraverted Weimann (1994); Gnambs and Batinic (2012)
Social activity – involvement Wasserman and Faust (1994); Weimann (1994)
continued
Table 2-4. Continued
55
Attributes Source
Social Attributes, cont.
Centrality in social networks
Wasserman and Faust (1994); Weimann (1994)
Social accessibility Weimann (1994); Borgatti and Cross (2003); McCormack, Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson, Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013); Andrews, Conaway, Zhao, and Dolan (2016)
Social recognition – more visible to others Wasserman and Faust (1994); Weimann (1994)
Credibility – role model Valente and Davis (1999); McCormack, Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson, Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013)
Awareness of and sensitivity to cultural norms and values
Valente and Pumpuang (2007); Valente (2015);
Socio-demographic Attributes
Profiles change according to domains Weimann (1994)
Within domains, profiles change across cultures and societies
Weimann (1994)
Within domain and society, profiles change over time
Weimann (1994)
Tendency to similarity of influencer/influencee profiles, cultural compatibility
Weimann (1994); Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004); McCormack, Malone, DeCorby, Hutchinson, Bucknall, Kent, Schultz, Clarke, Stetler, Titler, Wallin, and Wilson (2013)
Table 2-4. Continued
56
While researchers are gaining ground, empirical evidence of enduring personality
and dispositional characteristics have been somewhat elusive making it difficult for
researchers to confirm a sound model of attributes that transcends domains of opinion
leadership. Creating more of a challenge is the ever-evolving identities of opinion leaders
based on social settings, subject domains, cultures, and time (Weimann, 1994). Patterns
have certainly emerged that support the presence of enhanced knowledge and interest as
critical for opinion leadership. In addition, it seems common that opinion leaders are
socially inclined, hold positive attitudes, and are readily accessible to followers. Given
the lack of agreement on definition and sheer expansiveness of the opinion leadership
construct, it appears that the search continues for common characteristics of opinion
leaders as researchers and leaders are recognizing their utility in creating behavior
change.
Conceptual Framework
The premise of this study relies on the perceived influence of the central actors in
a network to influence behavior change. Given the anxiety and stress-inducing effect that
change can have on individuals, encouraging social support in the workplace especially
during times of change could have noticeable effects on the overall change outcomes. An
understanding of social support network composition and those central individuals who
have influence in this network could have huge implications for leaders in Extension.
Commonly referred to as opinion leaders, central actors act consciously or
unconsciously as role models for those in their networks. Studies on opinion leaders have
shown that “the opinion leader is a general approach to behavior change that can be
implemented in many settings among many different populations” (Valente, 2010 p.
57
200). Since these central actors or opinion leaders have been shown to be an effective
tactic to induce behavior change (Valente, 2010), this study aims to explore the
characteristics, behaviors, and influence of central actors.
The top half of the model in Figure 2-1 depicts the study from a broader lens by
highlighting the supportive relationships between central actor and relational ties and the
effects of influence. In the context of social support and opinion leadership, central actors
simultaneously provide support to relational ties and have an influential effect on the ties.
The central actors’ influence aids the relational ties in finding ways to cope with stress
and anxiety and also, in accordance with the literature presented in this chapter, results in
altered attitudes and behaviors of the ties.
The lower portion of the model in Figure 2-1 shows the questions being explored
in this study. What are the characteristics, behaviors, and domain specific competencies
(within the context of OSU Extension)? Additionally, given the influence of central
actors, what are the actions associated with the influence and what specific impacts or
changes are found in the behaviors and attitudes of the relational ties?
58
Figure 2-1. Conceptual Model
Summary
In summary, this chapter began by exploring literature around the complexity of
organizational change and its inevitable presence in organizational environments. The
review of organizational change was underscored by the mindset that effectively leading
change is critical for organizational survival (By, 2005); yet many organizations are still
experiencing failure of meeting change goals (Burke, 2011). Setting the stage to better
understand where the failure may originate, this chapter included a brief review of
organizational change typology. Researchers emphasize that most organizational change
59
processes actually involve a synergistic blend of types and approaches (Anderson &
Ackerman-Anderson, 2011; By, 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2005), thus exponentially
increasing the complexity of change management.
The literature suggests that the failure to change in many organizations is not a
factor of technical issues, but instead human issues (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Kotter &
Cohen, 2002; Schein, 2010). It may then be inferred that changing the individual is
fundamental to successful organizational change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). A review of
change management literature indicated that while there are a multitude of resources
available to support the execution of organizational change, it is the informal aspect of
the organization that holds the greatest power in realizing or deflating change
management intentions.
The informal organization is the ‘central nervous system’ of an organization’s
daily activities and reflects underlying cultural elements (norms and social expectations).
The informal organization is comprised of a network of relationships where individuals
are figuring out how to accomplish daily tasks beyond the prescribed organizational
expectations through connecting with others. Informal networks “are those channels that
carry information and connect organizational members through routes not prescribed by
the organization” (Huning, Bryant, & Holt, 2015 p.20) and are where the majority of the
power exists to shape change outcomes (Chan, 2002). Informal networks are where
individuals are making sense of changes and determining how to move forward. They
represent informal and unwritten cultural norms that allow the reality of day-to-day
activities to unfold.
60
This chapter looked into the psycho-social dynamics of change from a perspective
of learning. Individuals are at the heart of organizational changes, because they must alter
their behavior or way of thinking or being for the organization to realize the change.
Individuals undergo a psychological process involving both survival and learning
anxieties, where they must feel the urgency to change while at the same time feel
confident and supported during the changes.
This review explored the network-based concept from the public health discipline
as a moderating role for coping with the stress associated with anxieties from dealing
with change. Research has established that social support is linked to positive health
outcomes, especially serving a moderating role for coping with stress (Holt-Lunstad &
Uchino, 2015). This body of research has expanded recently to explore the role of social
support in helping employees cope with change (Lawrence & Callan, 2011). Networks
play an important role in the mobilization of social support throughout an organization. It
is through the organization’s informal networks where social support has its greatest
impact on behaviors and attitudes.
Network theory tells us there are strategically placed, highly influential people in
these networks called opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are those individuals who provide
legitimacy to change efforts and act as role models for behavior change (Valente, 2010).
Research conducted in the public health discipline supports utilizing opinion leaders as an
effective tactic for behavior change (Valente, 2010). Research supports there is a
collective set of attributes and characteristics that give someone an opinion leader status,
and that those individuals have a high chance of being able to influence the behavior and
attitudes of those to whom they are connected.
61
Chapter 3 Methods
The purpose of this study is to explore the informal network of social support,
highlighting non-supervisory relationships within the Ohio State University Extension
system in addition to a deeper exploration of central network actors. This study is best
suited to a mixed-methods approach, as the network must first be identified through
quantitative social network analysis and then additional data gathered through a
qualitative survey to obtain more detailed information to explore the characteristics of the
central actors. This chapter begins with a discussion of the context in which the research
was conducted. Next is the research paradigm under which the researcher operated. The
rest of the chapter describes details of the mixed-methods research design separated into
sections denoted as phase I and phase II. Approval for this study was granted by the Ohio
State University’s Behavioral and Social Sciences Review Board under protocol number
2016B0458 (see Appendix A for copies of the approval documentation).
Research Context
Structurally, Ohio State University Extension (OSU Extension) is a dispersed
system spanning all of Ohio’s 88 counties. Professionals within this distributed network
work in a variety of environments varying from local offices to central organizational
units with many employees. The nature of their work often leaves Extension employees
with feelings of being over-burdened; time is one of their greatest limitations in
managing work-life balance, professional development and other work-related
62
responsibilities (Cummings, Andrews, Weber, & Postert, 2015). The varied levels of
potential isolation or involvement and workloads may provide challenges to engaging in
relational networks in which employees can gain social support to prevent and buffer
stress as it occurs in their work environments.
Administratively, OSU Extension was poised for undergoing significant change
when a new director was recently named after the previous director of 22 years retired.
Also, Extension has entered its second century of work. During the past few years of
preparing for this significant event, there was a push in Ohio to explore the future of
Extension and examine the possibilities of how work will be done in the next century.
This positioned OSU Extension amid a significant culture change. Employees
experienced both intentional and ancillary changes as the new leadership began
articulating a vision for the future of OSU Extension.
Research Paradigm
The paradigm of pragmatism has guided choices made in designing and
conducting this study based on the following principles inherent among pragmatic views.
First, pragmatism is “outcome oriented” (Shannon-Baker, 2015) and “oriented toward
what works in practice” (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Fundamentally, the researcher values
work that has meaning. And the researcher finds meaning is derived by purposeful
inquiry to gain findings that inform and enhance our way of being. Next, employing
complementary perspectives is foundational to the pragmatist view. Methodologically,
pragmatism is regularly associated with using mixed methods – employing both
qualitative and quantitative methods – to best answer the research question. This frame
allowed the researcher to gain a more complex understanding of a phenomenon which
63
would otherwise be inaccessible using only one approach (Shannon-Baker, 2015). The
researcher role from a pragmatic stance is to balance both subjectivity in reflections and
objectivity in data analysis (Shannon-Baker, 2015).
Research Design
As mentioned in Chapter 1, this study had the following purpose and objectives.
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the informal network of social
support highlighting non-supervisory relationships within OSU Extension.
The specific objectives were to:
1. Explore key network characteristics to describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension.
2. Describe the central actors in the non-supervisory network of social support.
3. Explore the perceived influence of central actors on behavior of ties.
The decision to employ mixed-methods to address these objectives allowed the researcher
to enhance the study by employing a secondary method to dive deeper into exploring a
specific aspect of the overall network (i.e., central actors characteristics and influence)
thus providing a more complex understanding of the network and its integral components.
In designing a mixed-methods study Creswell and Clark (2011) recommend
researchers should think about not ‘typing’ their design by providing a specific name and
diagram but rather to reflect on the overall meaning and practice of mixed-methods
research. Following this guidance, this study utilized an emergent design approach which
resulted in a unique blend of methods found across two of Creswell and Clark’s (2011)
mixed-method design typologies – the explanatory sequential design and convergent
design.
The design for this study starts with a phase I qualitative network analysis to
generate the structure of the network and provide quantitative interpretation of the
64
connections within the network. The second phase expands the inquiry by exploring
deeper into an integral element of the network – the central actors, their behaviors,
characteristics, and influence. The findings will be both reported separately and merged
where appropriate to meet the study objectives.
Figure 3-1 shows the methodological design of this study.
Figure 3-1. Study Design.
This design relates to both Creswell and Clark’s (2011) explanatory sequential
design and convergent design. Associated strengths of this study’s mixed-methods design
are that it included two phases allowing for a more straightforward approach to
implementation where the second phase could emerge based on findings from the first
phase (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Additionally, this study, as it relates to the convergent
design, holds a strength where each type of data was collected and analyzed independently
which enables the researcher to be more focused on the traditional methodological and
analysis techniques of both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
The primary challenges to this study’s design were those related to time and
participant consent. Although the design is considered straightforward, it required a
65
lengthy amount of time to conduct two separate phases. Considering there were two
phases of research to conduct and the design of the second phase couldn’t be fully
articulated until phase one was complete, considerations were made about the contact of
participants at multiple points through the course of the study. The remainder of this
section reviews the specific details associated with each respective phase of the study.
Phase I – Quantitative
Methodological Approach
The initial purpose of this research was to explore the structure of non-
supervisory relationships of social support in OSU Extension, particularly exploring
characteristics of the network (e.g., centrality) and a deeper exploration of the central
actors and the perceived influence they have on the ties. To obtain this information a
network approach utilizing concepts associated with social network analysis was used.
Social network analysis (SNA) is both a perspective and method for analyzing
and modeling interactions among individuals (Borgatti, Mehra, Brass, & Labianca,
(2009; Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979). As a perspective, SNA rests on fundamental
principles associated with the importance of relationships, as opposed to individual
attributes, in explaining social phenomena. Individuals and their actions are viewed as
interdependent, and interactions among individuals (e.g., dyads, triads, or larger systems)
are channels for transfer of information and ideas (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Given this
perspective of a relational system, distinct empirical methods have evolved to allow the
unit of analysis to focus on a collection of individuals rather than the individual itself
(Marin & Wellman, 2011). Used widely across a variety of disciplines, SNA has allowed
researchers a new frame for addressing standard social and behavioral science questions
66
beyond the traditional methods of statistics and data analysis (Wasserman & Faust,
1994).
This study employed an applied approach utilizing a bounded whole network.
Network characteristics such as centrality were explored further, as previous studies have
shown that centrality is correlated with greater influence (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson,
2013). Phase I employed survey methodology, with a questionnaire serving as a name
generator to identify employees who provide social support in addition to other attributes
describing the relationship.
Population
This study explored the non-supervisory network of social support bounded
within OSU Extension. A census of OSU Extension personnel housed within the
Department of Extension were included in initial socio-metric data collection procedures
to provide a more comprehensive picture of the existing informal relational network
within OSU Extension. This study included personnel from all program areas and all job
classifications (see Chapter 1 definition of OSU Extension Personnel for a complete list).
As OSU Extension cooperates with many partners, it should be recognized that this study
excludes faculty and any other individuals with a partial appointment housed in
departments other than OSU Extension. Due to the significant time these individuals
spend in their home departments and among informal networks outside the frame for this
study, their responses may not be relevant to generating an informal social support
network of OSU Extension. A list of eligible employees’ names and email addresses was
obtained through the College of Food Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CFAES)
67
Human Resources team assigned to OSU Extension. Approval to utilize this population
was granted by the director of OSU Extension (see Appendix B).
Instrument
The questionnaire was loosely based on the framework published by Cross and
Parker (2004). A welcome page included a brief description and purpose of the study, an
option to voluntarily continue with the questionnaire, statements of subjects’ rights, study
procedures, estimated time required to complete the questionnaire, and a statement about
confidentiality. Respondents acknowledged their agreement to participate in the study
and to the use of their responses for research purposes by clicking on the navigational
“next (>>)” button to begin the questionnaire.
Each respondent was first presented with the definition of social support and
examples of behaviors associated with social support being used in the study. This was
done to create consistency by addressing potential differences in respondents’ perceptions
of social support, as it is a complex construct. Respondents were asked to consider the
definition and examples of social support provided, then select one name from a drop-
down menu of OSU Extension personnel names (last name, first name) of someone with
whom they have experienced one or more of the behaviors associated with social support
in their work environment. Because social support lends itself to be a close personal
relationship, the researcher believed there would be minimal challenges to recall names.
However, to enhance recall, a link to a searchable OSU Extension personnel directory
was available for respondents to search for names by location, role, or program area.
Upon selecting a name, the respondent was presented with optional questions to help
interpret the relationship. These included items measuring physical proximity (by
68
selecting an approximate location on a map for the individual selected), frequency of
interaction (times per month), length of relationship in years, type of interaction (e.g.,
mode of connection including in person, email, phone, social media), and if the selected
individual is the respondent’s direct supervisor.
Each respondent had the opportunity to name a range of one to six individuals
with whom they have experienced behaviors associated with social support. Following
the relationship interpretation questions, respondents were asked if they would like to
identify names of additional individuals exhibiting social support. If they answered yes,
they repeated the name and relationship interpretation questions until they indicated they
had no additional names to add. When they were done adding names, they were directed
to optional demographic questions. These demographic questions included job role,
highest level of education, years of service in OSU Extension (YOSE), years of service in
current job role (YOSR), programmatic focus, and approximate office location.
Respondents were able to navigate both forward and backward through the pages
of the questionnaire, with the option to save and return at any time. Once respondents
were satisfied with their choices, they submitted their responses by clicking the submit
button – at which point they received an email confirming their submission of the
questionnaire, appreciation for their participation, the incentive drawing procedure
including the odds of winning one of two gift cards, and contact information for the study
leaders.
The instrument was field tested among a set of graduate students in the college
familiar with OSU Extension. They provided feedback to enhance the clarity and function
of the questionnaire and the survey communication. They were specifically asked to test
69
the functionality of links to the name list, evaluate estimated length of time to complete
questions for the full six names, and clarity of navigation. The phase I questionnaire can
be found in Appendix C.
Data Collection
Quantitative data in phase I of this study was collected in two parts: (1) a request
to CFAES Human Resources for demographics data; and (2) participant responses to a
questionnaire. Demographic data for all eligible participants were obtained in conjunction
with generating the population list. The data obtained from HR included: first and last
name, work email address, age, gender, ethnicity, and full-time equivalency (FTE). This
demographic data remained identifiable until merged with questionnaire data and
participants were selected for Phase II of the study (more details to follow).
The second set of data collected were the participant responses to an online
questionnaire. Procedures for this set of data collection were guided by traditional survey
administration methodology (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009), as well as best
practices for conducting network analysis (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson 2013; Cross &
Parker, 2004; Hatala, 2006; Marsden, 2011). Names, emails, and collected demographics
of the population obtained from CFAES Human Resources were imported into the
Qualtrics survey management platform securely encrypted through The Ohio State
University.
Qualtrics is an inclusive survey platform that allows survey administrators to
generate individual emails and manage individual survey access. Unique identifiers were
created for each participant in the survey software that allowed for personalized email
correspondence from the researcher and served as a tracking mechanism to determine
70
who had already completed the questionnaire. The sequence of events for phase I survey
administration was as follows:
• Advance notice from director of OSU Extension (two to three days prior to opening, see Appendix A)
• Survey invitation to population (see Appendix D) • Reminder #1 to non-respondents (five to seven day intervals, see Appendix D) • Reminder #2 to non-respondents • Reminder #3 to non-respondents • Survey closed (20-30 days from opening)
Data Analysis
A combination of descriptive statistics and measures of network analysis was
used to satisfy objective number one and part of objective two of this study.
Objective 1. Explore key network characteristics to describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension.
Objective 2. Describe the central actors in the non-supervisory network of social support.
Data collected from Human Resources were integrated with data from the survey.
All quantitative data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS 24, and UCINET
(Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) network analysis software program, including the
open-source software add-on of NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002). All data were deidentified and
assigned a pseudonym (i.e., N001 – N721) to protect identities of OSU Extension
employees and retained the same identifier for both phases of the study.
The focus of phase I analysis was on the non-supervisory network; and as an
effort to control positional influence, all individuals holding state and regional-level
administrative positions were removed from the network data. Positions removed from
analysis, after basic demographic descriptions, included: director of Extension, associate
71
director, assistant director, regional director, state administration EFNEP/SNAP-Ed, and
regional specialists EFENP/SNAP-Ed.
Descriptive statistics reported in phase I include:
− To describe the network:
• Network size (study population and number of respondents)
• Density (measure of network connectivity)
• Components / Connectedness and fragmentation (measures of network
structure and connectivity)
• Homophily (tendency to interact with others of like characteristics and
attributes)
• Reciprocity – links where a connection goes both ways (A nominates B
and B nominates A) can signify stronger ties.
• Centralization – degree the network ties are focused around an individual
or set of individuals. Network level measure is “calculated by determining
the maximum individual centrality score in the network and subtracting it
from all other individual scores in the network” (Valente, 2010 p.139).
− To describe the respondents:
• Mean of age, years of service with OSUE (YOSE), years of service in
current job role (YOSR), and full-time equivalency (FTE)
• Frequency of gender, race, job classification, highest level of education
− To identify central actors:
• In-degree centralization – number of nominations received.
72
The threshold used for this study was guided by Valente’s (2010) recommendations
to use individuals receiving the top 10 percent to15 percent of nominations or use a cutoff
point that appears as a natural break in the data. A threshold of six or more indegree ties
was the obvious cutoff for central actor identification in the data and represented the top
5% of the nominations.
Overview of Population/Respondents
Phase I of the study was a census of 721 OSU Extension personnel housed within
the Department of Extension. The overall response rate was 73 percent (n = 525). Of
those who responded, 17 percent (n = 90) did not complete the name generator portion of
the survey and were eliminated. The final data set included data from 435 employees,
giving a 60 percent usable response rate.
Population demographics collected included age, gender, ethnicity, and full-time
equivalency (FTE). Other demographic attributes collected through the survey with an
optional response included job role, highest level of education, years of service in OSU
Extension (YOSE), years of service in current job role (YOSR), programmatic focus, and
approximate office location.
The respondents for this study were comprised primarily of white females
averaging 45 years of age, working mostly full time for OSU Extension. Relative to
overall gender and ethnicity, males were less than one-fourth of the respondents and
predominantly white; while African Americans and Hispanics were represented at very
low frequencies. Means for the study population, respondents’ and non-respondents’
FTE, and age are reported in Table 3-1. Frequency distribution of gender and ethnicity
for the study population, respondents and non-respondents can be found in Table 3-2.
73
Table 3-1. Mean FTE and Age of Population, Respondents, and Non-respondents.
Note. FTE 0.5 = 20 hour work week, 1.0 = 40 hour work week.
Table 3-2. Frequency Distribution of Gender and Ethnicity across Population, Respondents, and Non-respondents.
Population Respondents Non-respondents
Demographic Characteristics f % f % f % Gender Female 582 80.7 353 81.1 229 80.1 Male 139 19.3 82 18.9 57 19.9 Ethnicity White 638 88.5 380 87.4 258 90.2 African American 27 3.7 14 3.2 13 4.5 Hispanic 11 1.5 6 1.4 5 1.7 Asian/Am. Indian/two
or more races 7 1.0 6 1.5 1 0.3
Undisclosed 38 5.3 29 6.7 9 3.1
Note. N = 721 population, 435 respondents, 286 non-respondents.
FTE AGE Population Respondents Non-
respondents Population Respondents Non-
respondents N=721 N=432 N=286 N=721 N=432 N=286
Mean 0.93 0.938 0.915 46.4 45.5 47.8 Maximum 1.0 1.0 1.0 74 74 74 Minimum 0.05 0.10 0.05 21 22 21 Stan Dev 0.164 0.146 0.187 13.1 13.0 13.0
74
Information reported voluntarily by the respondents included job role, highest
level of education, years of service in OSU Extension (YOSE), years of service in current
job role (YOSR), and programmatic focus. On average, respondents have served
approximately 10 years in OSU Extension with approximately six and a half of those
years in their current job roles. Means for years of service are reported in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Respondents’ Mean Years of Service and Years in Current Job Role.
Note. Responses were optional. YOSE = years employed by OSU Extension, YOSR = years served in current job role.
Indicative of the distribution of employees in the organization, respondents
predominantly fell into four job roles including program support (28.5 percent), educator
(20 percent), office support (17 percent), and educator/CED (14 percent). The remaining
job roles represented relatively small percentages (5 percent or less). Among the
respondents, the Family and Consumer Sciences and 4-H Youth Development program
areas were well represented at 29 percent and 27 percent respectively. They were
followed closely by Agriculture and Natural Resources (15 percent), and administrative
roles, excluding state and regional leadership (12 percent). Community Development
YOSE YOSR N=401 N=398
Mean 9.9 6.7 Maximum 43 38 Minimum 1 .5 Stan Dev 9.8 7.5
75
roles (4 percent) and those identifying with ‘other’ represented the smallest portion of
respondents.
In terms of highest education obtained, the largest percentage of the respondents
hold a master’s degree (40 percent) followed closely by those with bachelor’s degrees (25
percent). High school diploma (12 percent), associate degree (8 percent), and doctoral
degree (7 percent) represent relatively small portions of the respondent group.
Approximately 5 percent of the respondents chose not to disclose their demographic
information. Frequencies and percentages among job classification, programmatic focus,
and education are reported in Table 3-4.
76
Table 3-4. Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Demographics. Respondents Demographic Characteristics f % Job Classification Program support 124 28.5 Educator 87 20.0 Office support 75 17.2 Educator/CED 62 14.3 Program management 19 4.4 Specialist 23 5.3 Administration 12 2.8 Admin support 10 2.3 Undisclosed 23 5.2 Program Focus Family and Consumer
Sciences 128 29.4 4-H Youth Development 116 26.7 Agriculture and Natural
Resources 67 15.4 Administration 52 12.0 Community Development 16 3.7 Other 33 7.6 Undisclosed 23 5.2 Education Master’s Degree 173 39.8 Bachelor’s Degree 108 24.8 High School Diploma 50 11.5 Associate Degree 35 8.0 Doctorate/Professional
Degree 30 6.9
Other 17 3.9 Undisclosed 22 5.1
Note. N = 435
77
Phase II – Qualitative
This phase of data collection was to satisfy the remainder of objective two and
objective three.
Objective 2. Describe the central actors in the non-supervisory network of social support and
Objective 3. Explore the perceived influence on behavior between central actors and ties.
To address objectives 2 and 3, it was necessary to build upon the quantitative
findings of network composition with qualitative data to gain a deeper understanding of
the central actors and the perception of influence on behavior. For example, measures of
centrality indicate individuals positioned with a degree of influence over relational ties.
An exploration of this influence on relational ties may prove useful in the context of
organizational change management. For Phase II, a case study approach was used
employing methods including a questionnaire targeting the particular perceptions of those
involved and the phenomena of influence (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010).
Methodological Approach
Phase II employed qualitative research methodology using a case study approach.
Qualitative research “seeks to understand and interpret human and social behavior as it is
lived by participants in a particular social setting” (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010 p.420).
Bound in a particular social context, qualitative methodology is focused on “how people
make sense of or interpret their experience” (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010 p.424).
Strengths of qualitative research include, it: (a) is conducted in natural or ordinary
settings, (b) has a predilection for context and meaning, (c) uses humans as the primary
instrument for collecting and analyzing data, (d) uses descriptive data in the form of
words and pictures, (e) has the ability to employ an emergent design, and (f) uses
78
inductive analysis allowing the holistic conceptual frame to be explored (Ary, Jacobs, &
Sorensen, 2010).
Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), stated “a case study focuses on a single unit to
produce an in-depth description that is rich and holistic” (p.454). The unit for a case
study is to be defined within specific boundaries otherwise known as a bounded system.
Case studies are a valuable research methodology due to the variety of data collection
methods that may be used to ensure the depth of understanding for which case studies are
known. While case studies are known for richness and depth of information, the approach
lacks in breadth due to the infeasibility of collecting enough data to accurately represent
all the possible dynamics of other related social entities.
Population
The population for phase II was identified using the findings of the in-degree
centrality measure in phase I. There are two perspectives from which data was collected.
Multiple perspectives were sought as this was felt to add richness and depth to the data
collected. The perspectives were as follows:
• Central actors – individuals with six or more in-degree ties (number of
individuals who named them and not holding a regional or state level
administrative position).
• Relational ties – individuals who named someone identified as a central actor in
the phase I survey name generator.
Phase II of the study was a census of 192 OSU Extension personnel identified
through phase I. Respondents for phase II were categorized according to role: central
actors (16 individuals), relational ties (159 individuals), or both central actor and
79
relational tie (17 individuals). Those identified as both central actors and relational ties
were asked to respond to two separate sets of questions, thus a total of 33 responses were
possible from central actors and 176 responses for relational ties. Response rates by
perspective, were 66 percent for central actors and 67 percent for relational ties. An
overview of descriptive statistics for those identified as relational ties are reported in
Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.
Table 3-5. Relational Tie Mean Age, FTE, Years of Service.
Relational Ties N=176 AGE FTE YOSE YOSR
Mean 45.5 .96 9.14 6.0 Maximum 69 1.0 35 35 Minimum 23 0.1 0 0 Stan Dev 12.1 0.13 9.13 7.05
80
Table 3-6. Frequency Distribution of Job Classification, Program Focus, and Education of Relational Ties.
Relational Ties
Demographic Characteristics f % Gender Female 143 81.3 Male 33 18.8 Job Classification Program support 31 17.6 Educator 57 32.4 Office support 26 14.8 Educator/CED 37 21.0 Program management 5 2.8 Specialist 11 6.3 Admin support 4 2.3 Undisclosed 5 2.8 Program Focus Family and Consumer
Sciences 48 27.3
4-H Youth Development 51 29.0 Agriculture and Natural
Resources 37 21.0
Administration 20 11.4 Community Development 4 2.3 Other 9 5.1 Undisclosed 7 4.0 Education Master’s Degree 94 53.4 Bachelor’s Degree 34 19.3 High School Diploma 9 5.1 Associate Degree 13 7.4 Doctorate/Professional
Degree 14 8.0
Other 7 4.0 Undisclosed 5 2.8
Note. N = 176
81
Instrument
The online questionnaire consisted of an introduction and open-ended questions.
The introduction reminded the respondent of the intentions of the previous survey. The
respondents as relational ties were presented with the names of the individuals they
named in the first survey as providing social support. “The key to getting good data from
interviewing is to ask good questions” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2009 p.95). Questions must
be clear to the person/individuals being interviewed and are best received when cultural
preferences have been taken into consideration. In addition, to yield more detailed and
descriptive data, the best approach is to use open-ended questions where the respondent is
not limited. Taking these factors into consideration, data were obtained through carefully
crafted open-ended questions considerate of cultural context and allowing the
respondents to write as much as they would like.
The questionnaire utilized logic to enhance the flow of the questions and
appropriate wording for each perspective. The questionnaire was built in three blocks of
questions: one block for the central actor perspective, one block for the relational ties
who named only one central actor (RTSingle), and one block for the relational ties who
named more than one central actor (RTMultiple). The questions for RTSingle and
RTMultiple were the same, but it was deemed necessary to have separate blocks to
ensure proper grammar usage in the question wording because the questions referenced
the names of the central actors who had been identified. Five possible paths existed for
survey flow. The paths were as follows:
• CA – central actors only
• CARTSingle – Central actors who also named another central actor
82
• CARTMultiple – Central actors who also named multiple other central actors
• RTSingle – named only one central actor
• RTMultiple – named multiple central actors
The questionnaire was field tested with six members of OSU Extension’s
administrative cabinet (i.e., state level members of administration not included in the
phase II population). OSU Extension cabinet members were assigned different paths and
some reviewers tested more than one path. They were asked to evaluate the clarity of
questions, ease of navigation, functionality of survey logic, and time to complete. Minor
changes were made in the phrasing of some questions and survey logic functionality
corrected as a result of their review. The questions used in the phase II questionnaire can
be found in Appendix E.
Data Collection
Data was collected via an online questionnaire. There were two primary streams
of data collected: one as self-perceptions from the central actors themselves and the other
as perceptions of central actors from the relational ties of the actors. Participants were
contacted to participate in the survey once identified as meeting the established criteria
for selection in phase I. Individuals receiving six or more nominations were identified as
central actors. Individuals who nominated one or more of those central actors were
surveyed as relational ties. Email communications were customized to the groups of:
central actors, relational ties, and both central actors and relational ties. The survey was
open for two weeks. The sequence of events for phase II survey administration was as
follows:
• Survey invitation to population of central actors and relational ties (see Appendix F)
83
• Reminder #1 to non-respondents (six day intervals, see Appendix F) • Reminder #2 to non-respondents • Survey closed (14 days from opening)
Data Analysis
Data from the open-ended questions in this study were used to compile a case
report and display. Data analysis began once the survey closed.
An inductive grounded theory approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to coding,
was used allowing the code categories to emerge as the data depicts. Coding is attaching
a form of meaning to bits of descriptive data. Building from the initial coding, categories
were developed to further organize the data. Codes and categories were kept on a master
list for quick reference. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2009) it is best to keep codes
flexible during inductive analysis to allow for renaming and reorganizing as needed.
When moving into the deductive phase of refining categories by confirming them against
research questions, Merriam and Tisdell (2009, p.185-186) offers some criteria to follow.
Categories should be:
• Responsive to the purpose of the research.
• Exhaustive in categorizing data; all relevant data should be coded and placed in a category.
• Mutually exclusive; one piece of data should fall in only one category.
• Easily understood by those outside the study.
• Conceptually congruent, analyzed at the same levels.
NVivo Pro software was used to organize data and codes. Peer reviewers were
enlisted to review the data and researcher coding at periodic points throughout the
analysis. This process served as a review and confirmation of researcher coding
decisions. The peers reviewed the accuracy and consistency of 70 percent of the data
collected. Once coding was complete, two separate member checks were conducted to
84
review the accuracy of information in reflecting the intentions of the respondents. The
member checks were conducted as one-on-one meetings where the researcher explained
themes and sub-themes from the coding and then entertained thoughts and concerns from
the members. Rich discussion with the members resulted in several alterations in the
coding choices and sub-themes.
Reliability and Validity Considerations
Phase I – Quantitative
This study employed a survey approach to network analysis, and thus took into
consideration potential errors affecting both network analysis and survey methodologies.
The instrument was developed using the design of an established instrument by Cross and
Parker (2004). Changes that were made were field tested by a group of graduate students
in the college that were familiar with Extension.
Primary threats to validity in social network research come from issues
concerning missing or wrongly included data (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013). This
threat is greatly exasperated in network surveys due to non-response bias. “Network
surveys are extremely susceptible to non-response bias in that missing actors and their
links can affect structural and analytical outcomes at both the network and individual
levels” (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013 p. 36).
There were a few strategies the researcher employed to address non-response error.
First, in concordance with Dillman, Smyth and Christian’s (2009) recommendations to
maximize the number of respondents, advance notification from OSU Extension director
was sent to the intended population highlighting his approval and interest in the study, the
85
survey instrument design was user-friendly, multiple reminders were sent, and an
incentive was included.
Additional widely accepted statistical measures to address non-response are
insignificant in network analysis due to the impact missing data has on the overall network
structure and measures. A comparison among characteristics of early to late respondents
or respondents to population will not confirm the data is valid for the entire OSU
Extension population. Therefore, measures were employed to achieve the highest possible
response rate when conducting the survey.
Errors of omission (i.e., missing) and commission (i.e., wrongly included) are
great threats in network analysis. In addition to not responding entirely, respondents may
forget names of individuals from which they seek social support, they may be confused
about what the question is asking, they may feel burdened in responding, and they may
feel the question is sensitive due revealing names of individuals they connect with
regarding social support. To address these potential errors, the survey instrument
included the following:
• Consideration of respondents’ cultural perceptions (particularly in the framing of
the study and wording of questions).
• Specification of a clear boundary (only OSU Extension personnel).
• A clear and concise name generator question. Social support was introduced as
an easy-to-read definition, including some practical examples of it in the work
environment, so the respondents would readily visualize who these individuals are
for them.
86
• A searchable database of OSU Extension personnel. Given the emotional nature
of social support relationships, it seems that names should be easily recalled, but
in the event respondents needed to jog their memory, a searchable (by location,
job role, or program area) OSU Extension personnel list was provided if the
respondents wished to use it.
Phase II – Qualitative
Trustworthiness & rigor. Authenticity and consistency of interpretation are
important in qualitative research. The standards for rigor in carrying out a qualitative
study speak to its trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). “To have any effect on
either the practice or the theory of a field, research studies must be rigorously conducted;
they need to present insights that ring true to readers, practitioners, and other researchers”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2009 p.210). A rigorous study uses strategies to promote validity
and reliability otherwise known as trustworthiness among qualitative researchers.
Transferability. Transferability of a study refers to the findings of one study
being applicable to other situations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Ultimately, transferability
is determined by the reader, not the researcher, as the reader decides if the results can be
applied to another situation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). While this study was conducted
in OSU Extension, the researcher has taken steps to increase the transferability to other
Extension organizations and beyond.
This study used the following strategies for establishing trustworthiness and rigor
through establishing credibility, transferability, and dependability, as outlined by
Merriam and Tisdell (2009 p.229):
87
• Maximum variation was sought when organizing participants and in data
collection methods, allowing for the optimal range of insights and experiences to
be applied to the findings.
• Triangulation of the data was achieved through collecting data from multiple
sources, thus gaining perspectives from different audiences.
• Two peer reviewers were identified to review the data and researcher coding at
periodic points throughout the analysis. This process was a review and
confirmation of the coding decisions – checking for congruency among raw data,
interpretations and study purpose.
• Member checks were used when possible. The researcher used language in the
questionnaire that encouraged the respondents to be clear and add any necessary
explanation to increase the likelihood that their thoughts will be interpreted
correctly.
• An audit trail in the form of a detailed researcher log depicted methods,
procedures and decisions within the study.
• Rich descriptions, including a high level of detail, were used to display the case so
readers could identify with the case and thus increase chances of transferability.
• I, as the researcher, engaged in critical self-reflection to ascertain and keep my
assumptions, perspectives, and biases in check and so that I genuinely articulated
a frame of how my personal values and beliefs influenced this study.
Self as researcher. As the researcher, my familiarity with OSU Extension runs
deep as I grew up with the influence of 4-H participation and worked closely in the
county Extension office during my time serving on the junior fair board.
88
More recently and throughout my entire graduate school career of 7 years, I
conducted organizational development work benefiting OSU Extension. I helped create
and implement professional development curriculum for Extension personnel on topics
including: time management, goal setting, coaching, emotional intelligence and
leadership. I coordinated and facilitated the county director assessment center for two
years. The assessment center was an event where county directors participated in life-like
role playing scenarios designed to enhance their skills around supervisory topics and
county-level leadership in OSU Extension. I also coordinated new educator retreats
where they gained skills in valuable competencies for their work.
Also, during my graduate work, I co-led a research study assessing the
organizational culture of 12 state Extension organizations in the north central region. I
was also tasked with creating a plan to redesign the new personnel onboarding process
for OSU Extension. This project resulted in significant changes in the organization (i.e.,
refined hiring process, common start dates, a first day orientation in Columbus, and an
annual new employee welcome festival).
I have a passion for challenging thought and creating change in the Extension
system. This has been the underlying principle that has guided my work with OSU
Extension. I used my passion and experience to work on a strategic foresight project
called the Vice President’s Conversation on the Future of Extension. This project
collected information that informed the future of OSU Extension and challenged thought
for the possibilities of the future.
During the course of my professional life, my interests in capacity development,
process/systems efficiency, and have evolved into passions with my work in OSU
89
Extension. I’m drawing from my personal past experiences where, upon reflection, I’ve
learned a great deal about human behavior and specifically what constitutes being a
leader during times of change. I bring these passions to this research study. My recent
work with OSU Extension has given me an appropriate frame by which to better
understand the needs of the organization and what may present as challenges during this
study. Given the depth of my passion for OSU Extension I was extra diligent in managing
my bias to remain as objective as possible. My own subjectivity was reviewed and
discussed regularly with peer reviewers so that I was cognizant of potential bias during
the distillation of useful data.
90
Chapter 4 Findings
As stated in chapter 1, the mixed-methods study reported here examined the non-
supervisory network of social support within Ohio State University (OSU) Extension.
Specifically, identifying and describing central actors within the network and further
explored any perceived influence the central actors may have on the relational ties. This
chapter presents the overall findings from this study, organized by the three research
objectives. As a reminder, the specific objectives were to:
1. Explore key network characteristics to describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension.
2. Describe the central actors in the non-supervisory network of social support.
3. Explore the perceived influence of central actors on behavior of ties.
Research Objective 1
The first objective in this study was to explore key network characteristics to
describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension. Both
descriptive statistics and network analysis were used to meet this objective. Descriptive
data of the network (i.e., location, distance, interaction length, interaction mode, and
interaction type) were analyzed using both Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS. The network
of social support data was analyzed using a combination of UCINET (Borgatti, et al.,
2002) and NetDraw software (Borgatti, 2002). Important terms recognized in this chapter
include:
Node – an OSU Extension employee functioning as a discrete social being.
91
Connection – known relationship between actor/node and relational ties.
Relational ties – individuals to whom the central actors are connected, as
identified through the nomination process.
General network measures were selected based on relevance to the overall scope
of research objectives and following recommendations of Wasserman and Faust (1994) to
gain a general understanding of a network. The measures chosen to explore this network
included density, components, connectedness, centrality, centralization, fragmentation,
homophily, and reciprocity. A few of these measures (i.e., homophily, reciprocity, and
centrality) will be displayed using network visuals generated by NetDraw. Analysis
conducted on general network measures was intended to provide a general description of
the network, highlighting potential areas for further exploration. Therefore, more
sophisticated and time-consuming network analysis measures and processes were not
used.
Network Size
The population for this study was a bounded network of personnel within OSU
Extension. There were 721 personnel invited to participate in the network name generator
survey. Overall, 60 percent of those individuals responded to the survey; however, given
the nature of networks, individuals were identified in the name generator, yet did not
respond to the questionnaire. There were 92 individuals who did not respond to the
questionnaire and who were not named in the name generator by others. With those
individuals removed, this study utilized a matrix of 629 nodes. The nodes were
comprised of the following:
• 113 nodes – named individuals, but not named by others • 194 nodes – named by others, but did not name anyone
92
• 322 nodes – named individuals who were also named by others
Connections in the matrix were indicated by a 1 and non-connections by a 0. To
control for supervisory or positional influence, all connections indicated as a supervisory
relationship were switched from a 1 to a 0 and thus were not a part of the network
analysis in UCINET.
Figure 4-1 is the non-positional network of social support, with 1,319 connections
– under the procedure of removing isolates, removing pendants, removing isolates again,
and activating the lightning bolt feature in NetDraw.
Figure 4-1. OSU Extension non-positional network of social support, 629 nodes & 1,319 ties.
93
Density
Density is a measure that describes the general level of cohesion in the network. It
is calculated by the number of actual connections in the network as a ratio to the total
number of possible connections. Density is a measure of network health and effectiveness,
because it signals the flow of information and level of social capital. “The density of a
network may give us insights into such phenomena as the speed at which information
diffuses among the nodes, and the extent to which nodes have high levels of social capital
and/or social constraint” (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005, Chapter 7 – Density). The overall
density (matrix average) for the OSU Extension non-positional network of social support
is .003 or 0.3 percent (sd 0.058) signifying a sparsely connected network. An alternative
method to explore network cohesion, especially when networks are large, is by looking at
the degree (number of connections) for each node. Of the 629 nodes in this network, the
average number of connections among the nodes in this network is 2.091.
Components
Taking into account the broader structure of the network, network graphs may be
explored by breaking them into two or more subsets by which no paths (honoring the
direction of the ties) exist between the nodes of the different subsets. Components are a
set of nodes that are linked to one another through continuous chains of connection until
the path reveals that no further connections to other nodes remain, thus highlighting the
number of isolated groups in the network. Components ratio is a normalized measure that
reaches its maximum at 1.0 when every node is an isolate. A minimum of 0 is when there
is only one component in the network (Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson, 2013).
94
In directed graphs, both strong and weak components may exist. Strong
components are those that honor the direction of the connection (A to B, but not B to A)
and assume that network flow happens in the direction of the connection. Weak
components consider connections as undirected connections, thus considering only the
presence or absence of a relationship. Only strong components were computed in
UCINET for this analysis.
The OSU Extension informal network of social support had 437 components with
a components ratio of 0.694, where 1.0 indicates total isolation of each node. These
network measures are displayed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Whole Network Measures. Whole Network Measure
Average Degree 2.097 Out-degree Centralization 0.006 In-degree Centralization 0.030 Density 0.003 Components 437 Component Ratio 0.694 Connectedness 0.221 Fragmentation 0.779 Dyad Reciprocity 0.111
Note. Numbers generated with UCINET function for whole network measures.
Connectedness and Fragmentation
Connectedness and fragmentation tend to be more sensitive measures of overall
cohesion in the network. These measures are used primarily to evaluate changes in the
95
network either by adding or taking away nodes, which is particularly helpful in
simulations to tear down terrorist networks for example. Connectedness is the proportion
of pairs that can reach each other within the same component by a path of any length.
Fragmentation is the inverse of connectedness, as it represents the proportion of nodes
that cannot reach each other by any means (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013).
The OSU Extension informal network of social support has a connectedness
measure of 0.221 (22 percent) and a fragmentation measure of 0.779 (78 percent).
Approximately 22 percent of the nodes in the network can reach each other by any path;
and inversely, approximately 78 percent of the nodes cannot reach other nodes by any
path.
These measures of connectedness and fragmentation, in addition to the other
selected whole network measures for the non-positional network of social support, are
reported in Table 4-1. Homophily, reciprocity and centrality will be reported in further
detail for the remainder of this research objective.
Homophily
Oftentimes networks are impacted by homophily – the tendency to interact with
others based on like behaviors, attributes, and other characteristics. Homophily can be
viewed as a tendency for nodes to interact with, and share the opinions and behaviors of,
other nodes like themselves on such dimensions as ethnicity, age, educational attainment,
and gender. (Kilduff & Tsai 2003). In network terms, homophily is a measure of the
tendency of nodes to be connected with relational ties possessing similar characteristics.
Using gender as an example, data are explored by measuring the extent to which nodes
are connected with relational ties the same gender as themselves. This measure can be
96
impacted by both preference and availability, as the node may choose the relational tie
and only certain choices may be available given the boundaries of the network.
A measure to determine potential evidence of homophily among groups is the E-I
Index generated in the UCINET software. A negative measure indicates the tendency
more toward homophily than heterophily (differences), with a negative 1 indicating
complete homophily. A positive measure indicates a tendency toward heterophily. Zero
indicates there is neither homophily or heterophily present. E-I Index scores for the OSU
Extension network are displayed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. E-I Index Scores for Homophily. Group Partition E-I Index score Gender -0.5057 Ethnicity -0.6422 Program -0.1263 Job Role 0.3133 Age 0.9439 Education 0.4602
Given the possible tendency of homophily, as indicated by the E-I Index scores
for gender, program and ethnicity, visuals of the network partitioned by these attributes
are beneficial to hone in on where potential homophily may exist in the network. The
gender distribution in OSU Extension as reported in Chapter 3 is approximately 80
percent females and 20 percent males. Figure 4-2 shows the OSU Extension non-
positional network of social support partitioned by gender. The visual supports a greater
97
number of female – female (red squares) connections than male – male (blue circles)
connections.
Figure 4-2. Network partitioned by gender. Males = blue circles, Females = red squares.
OSUE Extension has four primary programmatic areas and other supportive areas.
Figure 4-3 shows the network by program/work focus. Consistent with the E-I Index
score for program, where the score shows a slight tendecy toward homophliy, this
network map is complex with the multiple program areas shown, thus no patterns of
homophily are able to be detected.
98
Figure 4-3. Network partitioned by program/work focus. ANR = light blue square; CD = aqua upward triangle; 4-H = purple diamond; FCS = green down facing triangle; Administration = orange circle in box; Other=dark blue plus sign; Undisclosed = pink circle.
Ethnic diveristy in OSU Extension is predominately white with small numbers of
other ethnicities represented (i.e., approximately 11 percent of the population). With the
highest tendency toward homophily (E-I Index -0.6422), the map in Figure 4-4 shows the
network where the majority of connections between white individuals as opposed to other
known ethinicities.
99
Figure 4-4. Network partitioned by ethnicity. White = blue square; Hispanic = green circle; Black = red diamond; and Other ethnicities = purple diamond.
Reciprocity
Network theorists suggest that networks with reciprocated ties are often more
balanced, harmonious, and stable (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). In a directed network,
there could be four possible relationships among nodes: A and B are not connected, A
sends to B, B sends to A, or A and B send to each other. Reciprocity measures the extent
to which ties are reciprocated, meaning A and B send to each other. Dyad reciprocity in
UCINET indicates the proportion of ties that are reciprocated in the network. The OSU
Extension informal network of social support has a dyad reciprocity of 0.111 which
indicates that 11 percent of the pairs in the network have a reciprocal connection.
Exploring the concept of reciprocity in more depth, NetDraw was used to
illustrate the reciprocal connections in the network. Reciprocal ties were highlighted on
100
the network map to explore if there are patterns with the reciprocal connections. It
appeared gender might be worthy of further exploration among females and males. The
whole network with reciprocal ties indicated by the heavier red lines can be viewed in
Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-5. Reciprocal ties across whole network. Reciprocal ties indicated by heavier red lines.
Further exploration by gender indicated dyad reciprocity measures of: female-to-
female 0.131 (i.e., 13 percent reciprocal ties), male-to-male 0.070 (i.e., seven percent
reciprocal ties, and female-to-male 0.076 (i.e., seven percent of reciprocal ties). Using
101
line weights to signify reciprocal connections, the visuals confirm the dyad reciprocity
measure and by showing there are more reciprocal relationships among females (Figure
4-6) than among males (Figure 4-7).
Figure 4-6. Reciprocal ties among females. Reciprocal ties indicated by heavy red lines.
102
Figure 4-7. Reciprocal ties among males. Reciprocal ties indicated by heavy red lines.
Centralization and Degree Centrality
A network can be examined for centrality at two levels: centralization for the
whole network and centrality for the individual perspective. Centralization is described as
the extent to which the cohesion is centered around particular points in the graph or
single nodes (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013); and it is thought to provide sometimes
unexpected insights into how the network functions (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). The OSU
Extension informal network of social support is not highly centralized (out-central =
.0006; in-central = 0.030). The centralization numbers support there is not likely a central
node or nodes to which the rest of the nodes organize around in terms of providing social
support.
Degree centrality is an individual node level analysis and is generally the most
preferred method of identifying opinion leaders, those with great influence, in the
network. Centrality is a commonly used measure to identify actors who are extensively
103
involved with other actors (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and thus occupy important
positions in the networks (Valente, 2015). Degree centrality is based on the number of
connections each node has in both directions. In-degree are those connections coming to
the node and out-degree are those connections they are sending out. From a meta-level
analysis, there was an average of 2.1 in-degree (sd 2.22) and 2.1 out-degree (sd 2.03)
connections for this network ranging from 0 to 6 out-degree connections and 0 to 21 in-
degree connections. Table 4-3 displays the meta-level centrality descriptive statistics for
the OSU Extension informal network of social support. Figure 4-8 shows the sociogram
of the network with nodes sized by in-degree centrality. The larger the node size, the
higher the in-degree centrality. The descriptive measures include the nodes that represent
state and regional level administration; while the map does not include those specific
nodes due to their potential positional influence over the ties and will not be utilized in
further analysis.
Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics for Network Centrality Out-degree In-degree Mean 2.097 2.097 Stan Dev 2.033 2.224 Sum 1319 1319 Variance 4.132 4.946 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 6 21 # of Nodes 629 629 Network Centralization .006 .030
104
Figure 4-8. OSU Extension non-positional network – nodes sized by degree centrality; the larger the node, the higher the in-degree centrality.
Whole Network Relational Connections
In addition to the network-specific measures to describe the network, information
was collected to interpret the relational connections in the network. In the network
survey, after identifying a source of social support, the respondent was presented with
optional questions to help interpret the relationship. These questions included items
measuring physical proximity, frequency of interaction (i.e., times per month), length of
relationship in years, and the type of interaction method most used (i.e., in-person, email,
phone-voice, phone-texting, social media).
In terms of physical distance between the node and tie, respondents were asked to
click the approximate location on a heat map question in Qualtrics. The coordinates
105
generated by the map were used to calculate distance. All distances reported here are
direct ‘as the crow flies’ distance measures. The average physical distance between nodes
and ties for the whole network is approximately 31 miles, with the maximum being 229
miles. Distances of less than 1 mile were the most reported. This is likely a product of
more than 56 percent of the connections being located within the same county office and
almost 74 percent being from the same geographical boundary of an Extension Education
and Research Area (EERA), which are groupings of five to nine neighboring counties.
Table 4-4 shows the mean, max, min, mode and percentages describing the physical
proximity of connections between nodes and ties.
Table 4-4. Mean and Percentages of Distance Description of Connections. Connection Descriptors
Average physical distance apart 31 miles
Max 229 miles Min 0 miles
Mode 0.77 miles % connections located in same county 56.5% % connections located in same EERA 73.9%
Note. Distances reported as the direct path between the node and tie.
In-person, phone-voice, email, and texting were the most often selected modes of
interaction between nodes and ties. In-person was the most preferred mode of
communication with 1,524 mentions (29 percent), followed closely by email with 1,359
mentions (26 percent), phone-voice with 1,042 mentions (19 percent) and texting with
106
846 mentions (16 percent). Other modes of communication such as social media, instant
messaging and other online meeting platforms were mentioned less as the form in which
the nodes and ties connected in the informal social support network. Table 4-5 shows the
frequency of the modes of interaction among nodes and ties.
Table 4-5. Frequency of Modes of Interaction Among Nodes and Relational Ties. Mode of
interaction f %
In-person 1524 29.0
Email 1359 26.0 Phone-voice 1042 19.0
Texting 846 16.0 Social Media 329 0.6
Instant messaging 147 0.3 Other 18 0.03
Note. Respondents were asked to select all modes they typically use with each connection.
For the length of relationship, on average the nodes have known the relational ties
for approximately seven years and interact with them an average of 20 times a month.
The mean, minimum, maximum, and modes of the length of relationship and interactions
are reported in Table 4-6.
107
Table 4-6. Mean Interactions and Years of Relationship Between Node and Relational Tie.
Interactions in typical month
Years node known tie
Mean 19.9 7.2 Max 100 50 Min 0 0
Mode 20 1 sd 24.4 7.6
Research Objective 2 – Describing Central Actors
The second objective of this study was to describe the central actors in the non-
supervisory network of social support. This objective is satisfied both quantitatively and
qualitatively through descriptive statistics and descriptions from survey data. Descriptive
statistics were gathered through using SPSS and Excel. Qualitative data were analyzed
with NVivo Pro. Qualitative data was collected from both the central actors themselves as
well as those individuals who named them (relational ties) in the phase I survey.
Central actors were identified as having six or more in-degree connections from
the network analysis conducted for objective 1 and not holding a regional or state-level
administrative position in OSU Extension. There were 33 central actors identified as
meeting these criteria. The central actors were on average 51 years old working full-time
in Extension for an average of almost 16 years. They have held the same position in OSU
Extension for 10.5 years (on average). A summary of the descriptive statistics for central
actor age, FTE and years of service is displayed in Table 4-7.
108
Table 4-7. Central Actors’ Age, FTE and Years of Service.
Note. Responses were not required.
Consistent with the overall demographic profile of the organization, the central
actors are predominantly female (73 percent) serving in the roles of either educator/CED
(39 percent) or educator (30 percent). Approximately 15 percent of the central actors
identified are in office support roles. Most of the central actors have degrees in higher
education. Master degrees are held by approximately 64 percent and doctorates or
professional degrees are held by 15 percent of the central actors. Table 4-8 displays a
summary of the central actor demographics.
Central Actors N=33 N=22 AGE FTE YOSE YOSR
Mean 51 .99 15.7 10.5 Maximum 69 1.0 30 25 Minimum 29 0.8 0 0 Stan Dev 8.9 .05 8.8 7.7
109
Table 4-8. Frequency Distribution among Demographic Characteristics for Central Actors.
Central Actors
Demographic Characteristics f %
Gender Female 24 73
Male 9 27
Job Classification Program support 1 3.0 Educator 10 30.3
Office support 5 15.2 Educator/CED 13 39.4 Program management 1 3.0 Specialist 2 6.1 Administrative support 0 0.0 Undisclosed 1 3.0
Program Focus Family and Consumer Sciences 7 21.2
4-H Youth Development 11 33.3 Agriculture and Natural
Resources 7 21.2
Administration 4 12.1 Community Development 1 3.0 Other 1 3.0 Undisclosed 2 6.1
Education Master’s Degree 21 63.6
Bachelor’s Degree 3 9.1 High School Diploma 1 3.0 Associate Degree 0 0.0 Doctorate/Professional
Degree 5 15.2
Other 2 6.1 Undisclosed 1 3.0
Note: N=33
110
Relational Connections
Looking more closely to interpret the relational connections, physical proximity,
number of interactions, and length of relationship were explored among the connections
between central actors and relational ties. The average distance (as the crow flies)
between the central actors and the relational ties was approximately 41 miles, with the
longest connections spanning 229 miles. The majority of the connections were less than 2
miles. Slightly less than 46 percent of the connections were located in the same county,
and approximately 67 percent were located in the same geographical boundary of an
EERA. A summary of the distance between central actors and ties is found in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. Distance Between Central Actors and Relational Ties in Miles. Connection Descriptors
Average physical distance apart 41 miles
Max 229 miles Min 0 miles
Mode 1.72 miles % connections located in same county 45.9% % connections located in same EERA 66.8%
In terms of the length of relationship, on average the ties have known the central
actors for approximately 7.5 years and typically interact with them an average of 16 times
a month. The mean, minimum, maximum, and modes of the length of relationship and
interactions are reported in Table 4-10.
111
Table 4-10. Mean Interactions and Years of Relationship Between Tie and Central Actor.
Interactions with CA in typical
month
Years tie has known CA
Mean 15.8 7.5 Max 100 50 Min 0 0
Mode 3 1 sd 21.8 7.8
Note. CA = central actor
With intention to excavate a deeper understanding of the network, specifically to
ascertain behaviors and characteristics of central actors, qualitative data was collected
from both the perspective of the central actor and the relational tie. Through a survey
approach, the respondents replied to questions intended to divulge behavioral and
relational attributes – creating a profile of who is central in these important supportive
relationships and what those relationships typically look like. The remaining sections of
this objective is organized main themes followed by the sub-themes among both the
relational tie and central actor perspectives. In the following findings, the names of
respondents have been coded to preserve anonymity. Codes were generated in phase I for
the entire population (i.e., N001-N721), thus the coding numbers will not match up with
the number of respondents for phase II.
If they were a relational tie, respondents were given the name of the central actors
with whom they interact as determined by data from phase I. The ties were also reminded
of the study’s operational definition of social support prior to responding to a series of
questions about the central actors and their interactions with them. Respondents were
112
asked to generally tell us about the central actor(s), share why they go to that person for
social support, and detail the behaviors the central actor(s) exhibit that encourages their
engagement with them.
If they were a central actor, respondents were made aware that they were
identified as a central actor as determined by data from phase I; and, they were also
reminded of the study’s operational definition of social support prior to responding to a
series of questions about their thoughts, actions and feelings regarding a retrospective
social support interaction. Central actors were asked to share as much detail as possible.
The analysis was performed with the knowledge that researchers have not yet
arrived at a consensus on the roots of social influence (Gnambs & Batinic, 2012) or
reached a consolidated understanding of what characteristics and attributes make an
opinion leader an opinion leader (Chen, Glass, & McCartney, 2016). The initial coding
for each perspective (relational tie and central actor) was guided by the literature
reviewed in chapter 2 and adapting Weimann’s (1994) list of ‘powerful predictors of
opinion leadership.
Across both perspectives, three main themes emerged through coding this data:
personal, relational, and work-specific. The personal theme is comprised of attributes,
characteristics and behaviors that are mostly geared toward the central actor’s personality
and character. Relational references the items of a social nature where the central actor is
engaged with others in some way. The work-specific theme encompasses items relevant
to the nature of the work at hand in the organization and how it happens in the context of
the social support relationships. Themes and subthemes from the relational tie perspective
are shown in Figure 4-9.
113
Figure 4-9. Themes and Sub-themes of Relational Ties Perception of Central Actor Characteristics.
Ultimately, differences were noted in the analysis between relational ties and
central actors. With fewer data points from the central actors, sub-themes (where present)
were condensed or were renamed to reflect the analysis of the central actor perspective.
For example, under the theme of “personal” for relational ties exists the sub-theme of
Attitude and Temperament where under the same theme for central actors is the sub-
theme Positive Attitude & Humility. This is one example of how the sub-themes for the
114
central actor perspective were either condensed or renamed to reflect the unique nature of
how central actors described themselves. A chart showing themes and sub-themes for
central actor characteristics as perceived by themselves is displayed in Figure 4-10.
Figure 4-10. Themes and Sub-themes for Central Actor Characteristics as Perceived by Themselves.
Personal Characteristics ~ Relational Tie Perspective
Approachable. Central actors are generally perceived to be available and friendly
enough to welcome and encourage interactions with others. Words such as friendly,
welcoming, helpful, comfortable, and happy were used often in the statements about the
central actors. A statement from N104 reflects the friendly nature of the central actors: “I
115
think he is always warm and approachable. Smiles a lot, and shows interest in what you
say.” Another example from N281 speaks to the non-verbal essence of being
approachable: “Her tone of voice never indicated any frustration, irritation, lack of time
to deal with me when I contacted her.” These and other statements of a similar nature
reflect the behavioral cues, body language, and personality that the respondents
considered valuable in their interactions with the central actors.
Availability was another thread in this theme that exposed the nature of the
central actors’ willingness to engage with others, sometimes at their own encouragement.
N127 states: “She has made a point to try and stay in touch with me and help me in any
way she can”, and N361 says “[N109] has an open-door policy that makes you feel you
can go to her at any time.” These excerpts and others indicate that central actors make
themselves available to others and through that willingness are seen as approachable.
Table 4-11 contains excerpts of text supporting the description of central actors as
approachable.
116
Table 4-11. Relational Tie Excerpts from Approachable.
Source Excerpts from Personal: Approachable
N010 “I have known her for a while and trust her to always be available to answer questions and help me when I need it.”
N056 “She is helpful and always replies to questions.”
N076 “Extremely welcoming to my questions and always willing to take the time to help answer them.”
N087 “She’s welcoming and supportive. Doesn’t ‘push you away’ because she’s busy.
N104 “He just always leaves himself available for questions and discussions.”
“I think he is always warm and approachable. Smiles a lot, and shows interest in what you say.”
N127 “She has made a point to try and stay in touch with me and help me in any way she can.”
N155 “[N689] is always there and always has answers to my questions. She answers my questions day or night and even on weekends.”
N245 “…has verbally extended ‘you know you can call me on anything.’ And she has backed that up…she has always made me feel like my questions are welcome…never feel like she is too busy to listen or help.”
“[N524] continually tells me to contact him whenever I have questions or need assistance.”
N277 “…been warm and welcoming since my first interactions with each of them.”
N281 “Her tone of voice never indicated any frustration, irritation, lack of time to deal with me when I contacted her.”
N285 “She has created a welcoming environment when sometimes others have not given the same courtesy.”
N291 “On my first day I had received cards and messages welcoming me and letting me know they were at my disposal and they have lived up to the word ‘mentor’…kind individuals who made a conscious decision to be available and approachable so that others could benefit from the satisfying career they each have.”
continued
117
Source Excerpts from Personal: Approachable
N304 “…take the time to help me when needed, listen to my ideas, and offer suggestions in a positive way.”
N341 “They are happy to help me with any question or idea I have. They welcomed me from day 1 and continue to include me in the work they are doing.”
N345 “…attends many events to assist everyone in Extension and is always available.”
N361 “[N109] has an open-door policy that makes you feel you can go to her at any time.”
N365 “…are very welcoming, very supportive, and work very hard to include new people in things.”
N405 “She listens to me and is always available. Even when she is stressed out about her own work, she still takes time for others.”
N413 “Makes herself readily available.”
N409 “No matter how busy [N223] is, she always offers to help.”
N528 “Just a nice person, approachable and friendly.”
N561 “[N267] always has a friendly greeting!”
N574 “…a pleasant person with whom to interact…has a pleasant demeanor, always smiling when I see her.”
“Has recognized as spoken to me at annual conference and regional meetings, welcoming me and treating me like I am important and matter.”
N618 “She makes me feel comfortable in coming to talk with her either to run through an idea for an upcoming class or talk through a possible problem…”
N637 “She doesn’t act annoyed when I call.”
Table 4-11. Continued
118
Attitude and temperament. Data supported three different threads encompassed
under the theme of attitude and temperament: authenticity, positivity and collectedness.
Relational ties expressed perceptions of central actors being genuine, real, sincere, and
honest. N691 expresses the essence of authenticity by stating: “She is genuine. That is the
most important part of [N471]. She is genuine with her emotions, the way she interacts
with people and how she treats you even the first time you meet.” N298 states: “she is
consistently real;” and N405 feels “she is open and honest about her life, which makes
me feel more comfortable to talk about mine.” Respondents’ perceptions of the level of
honesty the central actors each have about their own life and genuineness in their
emotions speaks to the transparent nature of their interactions, thus the ties regard the
central actors as authentic. Table 4-12 displays the excerpts to demonstrate the
description of authenticity among central actors.
Table 4-12. Relational Tie Excerpts from Attitude and Temperament ~ Authenticity
Source Excerpts from Personal: Attitude and Temperament: Authenticity
N066 “I can tell they are sincere.”
N109 “They are successful, yet ‘real’.”
N123 “[N470] listens, follows up and provides genuine feedback. You can tell she cares.”
N196 “extremely honest”
N277 “They give me honest feedback and suggestions, but never make me feel less for not knowing something. They care and genuinely want to see me be successful in my position.”
N291 “They show a genuine interest in helping me succeed.”
continued
119
Source Excerpts from Personal: Attitude and Temperament: Authenticity
N298 “She is consistently real.”
N300 “I appreciate her honesty and integrity.”
N308 “I believe they genuinely care about me.”
N391 “They are straight forward with me – don’t sugar coat it.”
N405 “She is open and honest about her life, which makes me feel more comfortable to talk about mine.”
N457 “provides honest feedback which helps me grow in my job”
N499 “[N223] has genuine care and concern for others.”
N572 “cares deeply and is genuine”
N647 “honest in her interactions” “authentic in her critiques”
N689 “She provides honest feedback when I ask for input and opinions.”
N691 “She is genuine. That is the most important part of [N471]. She is genuine with her emotions, the way she interacts with people and how she treats you even the first time you meet.”
Respondents largely regarded central actors as being positive or having positive
interactions with them. As the ties described the central actors’ behaviors, they expressed
items that reflected the central actors’ positive outlook on work and life and the high
energy they bring to the situation. An example provided by N606 captures this well:
“…very positive personality and always enthusiastic…she always tries to see the best in
people. She has a very positive outlook on life and the job in general.” Similar to the
previous statement from N606, N477 takes it a bit deeper by expressing the positivity in
relation to the central actor’s impact on her work environment and those around them.
Table 4-12. Continued
120
“[N223] is positive and a good source of energy when morale and the
‘spirit’ of a lot of employees can seem low. She brings a lightness and joy
to work that could make Extension employees more effective and happier
if it could be spread a little farther!”
These statements and others suggest central actors radiate positivity as an individual, as
an employee, and in all their interactions. Excerpts that highlight central actors’ overall
positivity are displayed in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13. Relational Tie Excerpts from Attitude and Temperament ~ Positive.
Source Excerpts from Personal: Attitude and Temperament: Positive N002 “His love for Extension and his enthusiasm for his job is infectious! He
makes this office a better place to work.”
N080 “[N524] has a positive attitude that has been a model for how I approach issues here in my home county.”
N085 “She has a very upbeat personality. She is always smiling and happy.”
N096 “His positive perspective toward major challenges is contagious to those of us close to him.”
N155 “[N524] is always uplifting. He never seems to have a bad day and if he does, it does not linger for an extended period of time.”
N156 “She always has a kind word and a positive way of looking at any situation.”
N214 “does not dwell on negative thoughts or ideas”
N245 “He oozes excitement when he talks about Extension. This type of positive outlook is contagious.”
N277 “…have always been supportive and positive in their responses to any questions or concerns I’ve had. They never make me feel negative in any way for not knowing something.”
continued
121
Source Excerpts from Personal: Attitude and Temperament: Positive N281 “Responses were always truthful and positive.”
N298 “She is intelligent and positive.”
N320 “He possesses an open personality and sees value in everyone.”
N346 “He is our go-to person when we have new ideas or work-related issues. He helps keep an upbeat positive attitude in our office.”
N427 “positive attitude”
N477 “typically a very positive person” “[N223] remains positive and helpful.”
“[N223] is positive and a good source of energy when morale and the ‘spirit’ of a lot of employees can seem low. She brings a lightness and joy to work that could make Extension employees more effective and happier if it could be spread a little farther!”
N494 “She is positive and willing to look at new ideas in Extension.” “She is a positive person and seems to find a way to make Extension programs work.”
N546 “just an overall positive person”
N606 “very positive personality and always enthusiastic”
“She always tries to see the best in people. She has a very positive outlook on life and the job in general.”
N633 “[N524] is one of the most positive people and he loves his job.”
N647 “Though authentic in her critiques, she reminds me of the ‘glass half full’ which provides the infrequent motivation necessary for me to continue as a creative organizational leader.”
N689 “She has a positive outlook on life and always has a smile!”
The third sub-theme located under the main theme of attitude is related to the
calm and collected demeanor of central actors. Several statements emerge supporting this
Table 4-13. Continued
122
as a characteristic of a central actor, especially when facing difficult or trying situations.
N390 states the central actor possessed a “calmness when dealing with difficult people.
She always conducted herself as a very calm, cool, and collective demeanor.” N459 feels
“he always remains calm and level-headed even when dealing with the most difficult
situations.” According to the respondents, central actors possess a general calmness, are
even-tempered and collected. Table 4-14 displays excerpts that support the central actor
characteristic of a collected temperament.
Table 4-14. Relational Tie Excerpts from Attitude and Temperament ~ Collected. Source Excerpts from Personal: Attitude and Temperament: Collected N123 “a motherly figure who just calms everything down”
N330 “just seem to be even keeled, sharp, and involved in Extension”
N368 “her calm demeanor”
N361 “always seemed to be the calm, cool, collected person”
N390 “…calmness when dealing with difficult people. She always conducted herself as a very calm, cool, and collective demeanor.”
N459 “He always remains calm and level-headed even when dealing with the most difficult situations.”
N477 “[N223] remains calm…and finds a way to calm others and encourage them to continue to work hard and work for the mission.”
N618 “She is able to stay calm in high stress situations.”
123
Innovative. Central actors are seen as those individuals who think outside the
box, offer alternative solutions, and are creative in how they approach problems.
Relational ties see central actors as those individuals who challenge them to see things
differently. Innovative, as an encompassing term, best describes this behavior of central
actors. N158 used the phrases “creative and high-energy; always ready to explore new
territory; encouraged me to step outside the box” to describe central actors. Table 4-15
contains excerpts to support the description of central actors as innovative.
Table 4-15. Relational Tie Excerpts from Innovative. Source Excerpts from Personal: Innovative N037 “They offered alternative solutions to challenges I had.”
N056 “She questions authority or ‘how it has always been done’ and I am happy to see that tactic can work.”
N066 “…has challenged me to see things from a government standpoint when dealing with commissioners and thinking about the decision from another person’s perspective rather than just my own or the people around me.”
N073 “They inspire me to work harder and be more adventurous in the types of projects I take on.”
N158 “creative and high-energy, always ready to explore new territory”
“encouraged me to step outside the box”
N187 “I appreciate her honest perspective and way she challenges ideas.”
“She encourages me to think of ideas differently and challenges my way of thinking.”
N196 “inspires me and challenges my perspective”
N243 “creative and innovative with how he approaches Extension and how we reach out to the community”
continued
124
Source Excerpts from Personal: Innovative N269 “She helped me think in more creative ways about building partnerships.”
N304 “good at out of the box thinking”
N361 “She encourages me to think outside the box when considering new ideas.”
N442 “…has helped in programming ideas and new ways to approach everyday tasks. They create an atmosphere of creativity and we work to try new ideas together.”
N470 “Will challenge you to see things from a different perspective.”
N572 “…shown me the importance of opening my mind to other ideas or alternative ways of dealing with situations.”
Intelligence and problem-solving. Central actors are perceived as being
intelligent and possessing problem-solving skills. Respondents used terms such as smart,
sharp, intelligent, and common sense to describe the displayed cognitive abilities of the
central actors. The problem-solving skills of the central actors are recognized by the ties,
demonstrated by the following examples. N158 states: “I count on her for her tenacity
and her problem-solving skills.” Similarly, N523 states his or her central actor “is an
analytical thinker and is a good resource for problem-solving.” The central actor
characteristics of intelligence and problem-solving are demonstrated in the excerpts
located in Table 4-16.
Table 4-15. Continued
125
Table 4-16. Relational Tie Excerpts from Intelligence and Problem-Solving Source Excerpts from Personal: Intelligence and Problem-Solving N037 “their ability to take challenges and brainstorm ideas of how to make things
better”
N158 “I count on her for her tenacity and her problem-solving skills”
N229 “a lot of common sense”
N298 “She is intelligent and positive.”
N330 “even keeled, sharp…and willing to get things done”
N380 “good at thinking about all sides of the issue and bringing them up for discussion”
N442 “She brings people together to do programs and solve problems.”
N523 “is an analytical thinker and is a good resource for problem-solving”
N583 “not judge and to help point you in the right direction so that problems can be solved. Helps you find your own solution instead of doing everything for you.”
N680 “history of sound judgment and decision making”
Joyfulness and humor. Relational ties perceive central actors to be high-energy
joyous individuals. N123 describe a central actor as “the life of the party.” On a more
serious note, the central actors’ joyous humor is useful in stressful situations. N214
states: “She has a sense of humor that I really appreciate in times of stress;” and N477
feels “[N223] has a good sense of humor and great energy, even when others are down or
worried.” Ties see central actors as serious when needed, but generally fun and enjoyable
to be around. Table 4-17 displays the excerpts supporting the characterization of central
actors as joyful and with humor.
126
Table 4-17. Relational Tie Excerpts from Joyfulness and Humor.
Source Excerpts from Personal: Joyfulness and Humor
N010 “She is just fun and enjoyable to work with.”
N045 “He is a fun, energetic guy that offers a lot of support.”
N123 “the life of the party”
N127 “a great colleague who will always give you a good laugh”
N196 “has a thirst for adventure and good times, memory making and deep genuine conversations – he makes us all laugh!”
N214 “She has a sense of humor that I really appreciate in times of stress.”
N272 “She has a good work ethic, a sense of humor and is willing to help when asked.”
“…has always had a wacky, refreshing sense of humor….she is a go-to person who exhibits enthusiasm and vitality.”
N298 “She has a great sense of humor.”
N368 “serious when needed – and a heck of a lot of fun”
N413 “engaging, funny, non-judgmental”
N477 “[N223] has a good sense of humor and great energy, even when others are down or worried.”
N720 “They are fun and enjoyable to be around.”
“They have energy and enthusiasm for their work, and serve as an inspiration.”
Listening. References to listening were plentiful among the data. It appears that
the central actors’ ability to lend an ear is an important part of the central actor and tie
relationships. Listening, particularly in terms of reserving judgment, was noted. N689
states about a central actor: they “will listen to you rant and complain but won’t hold it
127
against you.” N380 feels his or her central actor “is an excellent listener and gives me
time to speak and give my own ideas and talk about concerns, etc.” Similarly, N320
states: “They value and listen to what you say. It is not an issue of being right or wrong,
they acknowledge your point of view even if they disagree with you.” These statements
reference the central actors’ ability to listen carefully to whatever the situation in addition
to their willingness to listen to gain context before reacting.
Being available as a listening ear, keeping confidences, and concern for personal
affairs appear to be important factors among the relational ties’ comments. The time that
the central actors devote to listening, even among perceptions that the central actors are
extremely busy, goes a long way in the support relationships. In addition, the ties
knowing that what the central actors are hearing will not be broadcast to others is a
recognized element in the listening capabilities of the central actors. N208 and N205
provide examples of this level of listening. N208 states “…willingness to listen. [N223]
remembers conversations and will inquire about my family members and how they are
doing;” and N205 states “…a good listener, and keeps confidences.” Excerpts that
support the listening capability of the central actors are found in Table 4-18.
128
Table 4-18. Relational Tie Excerpts from Listening. Source Excerpts from Personal: Listening N073 “easy to talk to and willing to listen”
N123 “thoughtfulness and listening”
N136 “She listens to the situation at hand or just acts as a sounding board if you need to vent.”
N187 “She continues to listen and offer advice.”
N205 “a good listener and keeps confidences”
N208 “…willingness to listen. [N223] remembers conversations and will inquire about my family members and how they are doing.”
N248 “[N719] is always willing to listen if I have a question or problem.”
N272 “She listens to people in order to have a good dialog on topics that are of concern to everyone.”
N298 “She listens well and is genuine.”
N300 “She is able to assist me with specific questions that I have or just listen and ask questions as we talk through topics.”
N308 “They also let me vent and don’t judge.”
N320 “They value and listen to what you say. It is not an issue of being right or wrong, they acknowledge your point of view even if they disagree with you.”
N346 “[N415] always has a listening ear. He never makes you feel like you are taking up his time.”
N354 “She has, by example, taught me to be a better listener.”
N361 “She is willing to listen to concerns as to provide insight into how to solve the problem.”
N380 “…is an excellent listener and gives me time to speak and give my own ideas and talk about concerns, etc.”
N387 “ability to listen and empathize”
continued
129
Source Excerpts from Personal: Listening N390 “[N005] stood and listened. She let them get all their frustrations out, then
calmly she started to communicate with them. She wasn’t able to fix the issues, but she did make them feel like someone took the time to listen to their concerns.”
N405 “She is a very busy lady, yet she always stops to listen to what I have to say. She always listens actively and gives actual responses and advice to show she is interested in what I am talking about.”
N470 “They listened and asked questions to challenge my thinking.”
N477 “She is hard working, but is never too busy to sit for a few minutes to listen and check-in with a colleague.”
N499 “She is always there to listen and give advice.”
N556 “She’s a great listener and always has helpful advice when I don’t know what else to do.”
N563 “[N546] is positive and always willing to listen to ideas or discuss issues that are important to others.”
N583 “He always has time to listen.”
N616 “She is a listening ear who allows me to express myself.”
N628 “caring nature and the ability to listen”
N680 “his outstanding listening and communication skills”
N689 “…will listen to you rant and complain but won’t hold it against you.”
N708 “They care. It is beyond lip service. They put time into listening and well thought out answers.”
Open-minded. Central actors are perceived to be non-judgmental and open-
minded. Relational ties felt central actors were open to ideas of others and they respect
and value viewpoints other than their own. Examples to demonstrate this characteristic
Table 4-18. Continued
130
are as follows. N136 states: “[N005] has always listened to mine and others’ opinions
before giving us her thoughts. She respects what everyone in the group has to say and she
often would support another’s idea and help them to further develop it.” N320 feels “they
value and listen to what you say. It is not an issue of being right or wrong, they
acknowledge your point of view even if they disagree with you.” In addition to being
open to others’ views, central actors were often referred to as non-judgmental and
unbiased. Table 4-19 displays selected excerpts demonstrating the characteristics of an
open-minded central actor.
Table 4-19. Relational Tie Excerpts from Open-minded. Source Excerpts from Personal: Open-minded N123 “She doesn’t judge and she takes everything in before speaking.”
N136 “[N005] has always listened to mine and others’ opinions before giving us her thoughts. She respects what everyone in the group has to say and she often would support another’s idea and help them to further develop it.”
N281 “[N035]’s interactions with me were always non-judgmental when I felt many in the organization were following inaccurate information about me circulated by others.”
N300 “I appreciate the fact that it’s not black or white, and without being judgmental, she just asks questions to make me think through a situation.”
N320 “They value and listen to what you say. It is not an issue of being right or wrong, they acknowledge your point of view even if they disagree with you.”
N380 “She is non-judgmental and gives me plenty of time to talk things out.”
N459 “He handles problems in a non-biased manner.”
N494 “She looks at both sides of the story.”
N546 “non-judgmental tone of voice”
continued
131
Source Excerpts from Personal: Open-minded N580 “She has reinforced the value of standing firm on unbiased decisions.”
Trustworthiness and values. Relational ties describe the relationship with
central actors as one based on trust. Many relational ties simply used the word trust or
trustworthy without a great deal of explanation. Evidence of personal values in the
descriptions exist as well and are also included in this section, because they can be
viewed as an underpinning to the establishment of trust. Relational ties describe their
trust in ways such as N254 states: “I know I can trust her. I know her counsel will be well
thought out and thoughtful;” and N556 states: “I fully trust everything she says.” Values
were described by capturing items that reflected moral character. For example, N196 says
“We aren’t afraid to pray with and for one another;” and N405 states “She is honest with
others. Watching others interact with her in the office, it is very apparent that many
others trust her guidance and support as well.” Excerpts highlighting the theme of
trustworthiness and values as describing central actors can be found in Table 4-20.
Table 4-19. Continued
132
Table 4-20. Relational Tie Excerpts from Trustworthiness and Values. Source Excerpts from Personal: Trustworthiness and Values N010 “I have known her for a while and trust her to always be available to answer
questions and help me when I need it.”
N109 “I respect their work, work ethic, and their personal moral character.”
N158 “I trust both of them to tell me the truth.”
N196 “We aren’t afraid to pray with and for one another.”
N198 “She will not tolerate biases or speaking ill of anyone, except for showing concern for consequences of their actions.”
“She stands up or what she believes, and being the good person that she is, she’s usually right.”
N205 “trustworthiness”
N245 “She exhibited knowledge, common sense, purposeful decision making and a straightforward approach – I know I could trust her input and confidentiality.”
“I know I can trust her. I know her counsel will be well thought out and thoughtful.”
N300 “It’s wonderful to have those you trust and respect to balance your thinking and refine your work goals.”
N368 “trusted friend”
N405 “She is honest with others. Watching others interact with her in the office, it is very apparent that many others trust her guidance and support as well.”
N457 “holds similar values as I do in how we perform our job responsibilities”
N488 “[N689] is a trusted team member and colleague.”
“she’s ethical and trustworthy”
N494 “She has morals and values.”
N556 “I fully trust everything she says.”
N689 “…a great confidante – I know when I tell her something, it won’t be repeated to everyone she knows.”
133
Work ethic and accountability. It is perceived by relational ties that the central
actors have an outstanding work ethic, which is described by following through on tasks,
performing job duties well, and going above and beyond expectations. Regarding the
work ethic of a central actor, N477 states he or she “works extremely hard, takes on
additional responsibilities and serves as an excellent example of the type of employee an
organization would be happy and proud to have.” N073 feels that, in general, central
actors are “extremely hard workers and always get their jobs done.” Central actors were
also described as being accountable to themselves (i.e., following through with tasks) in
addition to holding others accountable. N633 claims that his central actor “is not afraid to
tell you when you are skating. He expects people to do their jobs with the same
enthusiasm and love that he puts into his job, and when you do he celebrates your
success.” These statements speak to the work ethic and personal accountability
recognized in the central actors by the relational ties. Table 4-21 displays selected
excerpts highlighting this characteristic of central actors.
Table 4-21. Relational Tie Excerpts from Work Ethic and Accountability. Source Excerpts from Personal: Work Ethic and Accountability N002 “He makes time to help out when needed and follows through on tasks.”
N073 “extremely hard workers and always get their jobs done”
N109 “I respect their work, work ethic, and their personal moral character.”
N248 “I value [N719]’s opinion because he not only performs his job duties well, but is a person of integrity and character as well.”
continued
134
Source Excerpts from Personal: Work Ethic and Accountability N272 “Demonstrated an eagerness to learn and to improve the condition in her
programs. Her past work on committees have shown that she is willing to carry more that her share of the burden.”
N274 “[N001] has always done her part of projects as well shown additional support for other people’s ideas and ventures. I know I can rely on her.”
N330 “willing to get things done, not just sit back”
N346 “He always goes above and beyond. He is highly respected and I want to have the same work ethic as he does.”
N354 “detail oriented and likes to see projects through to completion”
N477 “…works extremely hard, takes on additional responsibilities and serves as an excellent example of the type of employee and organization would be happy and proud to have.”
“[N223] is hard working, but never too busy to sit for a few minutes to listen and check-in with a colleague.”
N486 “follows through with tasks”
N633 “He is not afraid to tell you when you are skating. He expects people to do their jobs with the same enthusiasm and love that he puts into his job, and when you do he celebrates your success.”
N680 “I admire his work ethic and professionalism.”
Personal Characteristics ~ Central Actor Perspective
Positive attitude and humility. Central actors were very positive in their
descriptions of their thoughts, feelings and actions regarding the social support
interaction. They routinely expressed positive feelings such as love, joy, appreciation,
and happiness. For example, N161 stated: “I love my job and the relationships I build
with my coworkers. It greatly improves my own job satisfaction when I know I
contribute to the success of others!” A portion of central actors even expressed an
Table 4-21. Continued
135
intention toward being positive. N223 stated I “try to leave a positive footprint wherever I
go;” and N308 remarked “I try to be positive and supportive.”
Central actors also expressed an attribute that is best described as humility. There
were a number of statements where central actors conveyed the notion of not having the
answers or disbelief that others have chosen them as a source of social support. N546
demonstrates this quality by stating “I am just not an ‘out there’ person – I am quiet and
don’t presume that I am an expert about things.” N512 stated: “I’m actually better at
hauling manure and fixing fence…I will try to do anything I can do to help my co-
workers!!” N368 stated: “I am always humbled that colleagues request my assistance and
I am happy to assist.” These are a few excerpts that show the positive and humble nature
of the central actors in this study. Excerpts from central actors highlighting their positive
and humble characteristics are located in Table 4-22.
Table 4-22 Central Actor Excerpts from Positive Attitude and Humility. Source Excerpts from Personal: Positive Attitude and Humility N037 “being positive, offering assistance, following up”
N109 “appreciated the opportunity to support and encourage someone else”
N161 “I love my job and the relationships I build with my coworkers. It greatly improves my own job satisfaction when I know I contribute to the success of others!”
N196 “There are times when my voice carries weight – there are times it is dismissed (sometimes rightfully so) because of my inexperience and/or age. ”
N223 “I was happy to be able to lend support, guidance, assistance to a co-worker – always am/always will be.”
“trying to leave a positive footprint wherever I go”
continued
136
Source Excerpts from Personal: Positive Attitude and Humility N300 “I feel blessed to have the opportunities to share with others who have
specific questions.”
“I do enjoy sharing my time and expertise with them, though I often feel inadequate to give the overall picture with depth due to lack of time.”
“I love to help others when they come to me for information. I don’t see myself as one with all the answers or the ‘right way to do it.’”
N303 “Glad to provide perspective / appreciative for being asked / hopeful about opportunity to have organizational impact”
N308 “I try to be positive and supportive…I want others to know they can come to me for help. It makes me feel good to help others.”
N368 “I am always humbled that colleagues request my assistance and I am happy to assist.”
N471 “I felt honored that she trusted me not only with the situation but that she felt I would be able to provide her with sound advice.”
N512 “I’m actually better at hauling manure and fixing fence…I will try to do anything I can do to help my co-workers!!
N546 “I was happy I could help the person out with the information so that they could resolve their own problem/answer the question.”
“I am just not an ‘out there’ person – I am quiet and don’t presume that I am an expert about things. I probably just don’t exhume expertise in many things I know I am good at.”
“glad she trusted me enough to help her work through the process”
Listening. Central actors indicated listening as a behavior in which they regularly
engage. They took time to actively listen to the concerns and ideas of others, sometimes
not with the intention of responding but just to let the other person feel heard. N043
stated: “They needed someone to listen, they needed an emotional hug.” Other times, the
listening occurred as a way to build confidence and gain understanding. For example,
Table 4-22. Continued
137
N300 stated: “I listened to make sure that her concerns were answered and she felt more
confident when our meeting was over.” N470 reported he or she is “willing to listen and
help them reframe their concerns to get a better understanding.” Excerpts that support
central actors’ engagement in active listening are found in Table 4-23.
Table 4-23. Central Actor Excerpts from Listening.
Source Excerpts from Personal: Listening N043 “They needed someone to listen, they needed an emotional hug.”
“If you don’t know much about someone, it is hard to help them out. Listening is key, observing others’ body language is key, noticing when someone’s responses aren’t in the normal register and asking what’s up. Don’t assume anger, assume an issue. Then find out what emotion it is through dialogue, not interrogation.”
N109 “listen, reflect, encourage”
N223 “Stopped what I was doing. Took time to be an active listener.”
N300 “I listened to make sure that her concerns were answered and she felt more confident when our meeting was over.”
N470 “A colleague was struggling with clientele being frustrated with them and making complaints. I made time to listen to their concerns and the events surrounding the complaints. After listening, I challenged them to see things differently.”
“It is good to have someone listen to you when you are upset.”
“Be willing to listen and help them reframe their concerns to get a better understanding.”
N471 “I stopped what I was doing and provided them with my entire attention, listening to what was being said. I then confirmed what I thought I heard by repeating back to them using supportive statements such as ‘what I hear you saying is…’ or ‘what I think you are telling me is…’”
continued
138
Source Excerpts from Personal: Listening N524 “just being a listening friend”
N656 “listened to frustrations and questions about job responsibilities and expectations”
“I try to listen and take the situation into account before sharing my thoughts.”
“Listened as a colleague discussed trying to identify programmatic and professional goals for the coming year, asked questions for clarification.”
Open-minded. Central actors made references to being open-minded, creative
and non-judgmental, however the number of references were considerably less than those
references by relational ties. A few central actors commented that they “challenged them
to see things differently” and felt “providing and alternate way of viewing the situation”
were relevant to social support interactions. Excerpts highlighting the central actors’
views of being open-minded and creative are located in Table 4-24.
Table 4-23. Continued
139
Table 4-24. Central Actor Excerpts from Open-minded. Source Excerpts from Personal: Open-minded N470 “After listening I challenged them to see things differently.”
N524 “providing and alternate way of viewing the situation”
N546 “Life is full of problems which I have more than one solution – you have to think outside the box sometimes too!”
N689 “Because I was not judgmental with her, she felt empowered to set her own goals and I believe she felt supported in her decision.”
“…not be judgmental or critical of others ideas even when you have concerns. Often by asking critical thinking questions, people can make their own determination whether or not they are on the right track!”
Relational Characteristics ~ Relational Tie Perspective
Encouragement and coaching. Evidence of encouragement and coaching were
found in the relational tie descriptions of the central actors. References to encouragement
were quite prolific in the data. The central actors were described as encouraging in
general, in addition to encouragement toward specific goals to foster personal and
professional development. Encouragement in this section is also viewed as praise for a
job well done and celebration of successes. To demonstrate, N010 states: “she is
encouraging but also realistic to the situation. I know she wants to see me at my best and
is willing to help me get there.” N158 states that they “encourage each other with success
stories and snafus in our work environment as expectations change over time.”
Coaching in this theme was defined by instances of guidance where the central
actor was described as providing direction and advice to the relational tie. N136 reports
“on several different occasions, [N005] has stopped what she was doing to provide
140
assistance to me or give me guidance for a certain situation.” One particular excerpt
demonstrates how encouragement and coaching is blended – N320 states:
“[N524] doesn’t seem to give you direct advice, instead he leads you
down a path created by your words. His respect for people and their
knowledge tends to bring out the best in people. He leaves you with a
great sense of self-worth and the sense of striving to become a better
person.”
Excerpts from the data to support the central actor relational characteristics of
encouragement and coaching can be found in Table 4-25.
141
Table 4-25. Relational Tie Excerpts from Encouragement and Coaching. Source Excerpts from Relational: Encouragement and Coaching N010 “She will always give me the best answer she can and offers tips and advice
she has learned from her years of experience.”
“She is encouraging but also realistic to the situation. I know she wants to see me at my best and is willing to help me get there.”
N073 “They offer both praise and constructive criticism in a non-threatening manner.”
N085 “She has encouraged me to advance my career through Ohio State, and has pushed me to pursue an educator position. She is always validating my work, and stating what a good team we are.”
N096 “…had the privilege of receiving guidance from [N415] as I worked my way through the P&T process to the rank of associate professor.”
N109 “They have encouraged me to strive for goals while maintaining balance in my life.”
N136 “On several different occasions, [N005] has stopped what she was doing to provide assistance to me or give me guidance for a certain situation.”
N158 “encourage each other with success stories and snafus in our work environment as expectations change over time”
N196 “He monitors my attitude, ethics, choices, and shares important information that would encourage or motivate me.”
N234 “encouragement / positive reinforcement / constructive criticism”
N269 “She helped me think of programming ideas. Additionally, she helped me think about activities and experiences that I should participate in to move my career forward.”
N274 “She has also encouraged my teaching at several statewide events.”
N300 “[N689] offers her advice/perspective and allows me the freedom to accept or change the direction I may be headed in.”
N320 “[N524] doesn’t seem to give you direct advice instead he leads you down a path created by your words. His respect for people and their knowledge tends to bring out the best in people. He leaves you with a great sense of self-worth and the sense of striving to become a better person.”
N346 “He always encourages us to share our ideas or frustrations.”
continued
142
Source Excerpts from Relational: Encouragement and Coaching N361 “She encourages you to seek the answer to the issue by reexamining what
happened.”
“She provides good feedback and advice on any issue.”
“She encourages me to think outside the box when considering new ideas.”
N380 “…gives me plenty of time to talk things out. She also offers some good advice and is very open to hearing about what I want to talk about.”
N391 “They praise me when I do good things. They are positive influences in my work life.”
N405 “encouraged me to step out of my comfort zone and talk to others more”
N410 “encouraged me when I was unsure of myself”
“I wasn’t sure of being put into [a particular role] but she encouraged me and helped me with the material required to have a positive experience.”
N442 “Through conversations he has helped me realize I’m not alone and offers solutions to make it work.”
N459 “He has encouraged me to understand that sometimes tough decisions have to be made for the greater good of the program.”
N470 “They are willing to disagree with you, share their knowledge and challenge you to grow.”
N486 “[N001] has noted a couple of times that she enjoys reading my articles and appreciates the time I take to create an article.”
N523 “She knows my strengths and encourages me to use them, and she knows my challenges and (at times) forces me to face them.”
N556 “She’s a great listener and always has helpful advice when I don’t know what else to do.”
N574 “She is considered a ‘go to’ person for assistance/guidance, especially on fiscal matters. I sought her out for information to help me better complete my tasks and for guidance in how to proceed in a couple of situations.”
N583 “…he took the time to answer my silly questions and to encourage me to research the answers. He has encouraged me to better myself through college courses.”
continued
Table 4-25. Continued
143
Source Excerpts from Relational: Encouragement and Coaching N618 “She is continually offering verbal support, she listens when I need to walk
through a thought process or if I am needing a suggestion.”
N633 “[N524] builds people up, reminds them of their strengths, and points out their successes.”
N689 “She asks critical questions and gives me honest feedback when I ask questions – even if I don’t really like what she has to say!!”
N691 “She encourages and supports everyone.”
Relationship building and connector. Relational ties indicated central actor
behaviors of working together, teamwork and making connections, which has been titled
in this analysis as relationship building and connector. The evidence of behaviors
indicating either the central actor is connected to a larger network or strives to make
connections for the relational ties were included here. The action of the central actors
helps the relational ties build relationships and expand their own networks.
Central actors are connected to larger networks. N229 states: “he is well
connected at both the state level and national level.” And N499 states: “she also knows
key people throughout the college that can provide assistance or answer questions.” N269
said “[N689] also has deep connections across the university through her involvement in
different committees and work groups.”
Central actors are also making connections for the ties in terms of people or
information. N037 feels “they made connections to get things done;” and N293 sees the
central actor as a “connection to someone else who might lead me to an answer or the
information I seek.” Central actors also are intentional about working with their ties,
Table 4-25. Continued
144
which includes inviting the ties to experience new and different opportunities and gaining
a better understanding about building partnerships. For example, N442 stated “she brings
people together to do programs and to solve problems, so she’s a great person to ask for
help with programs.” Excerpts from the data that support the central actors’ relational
characteristic of relationship building and being a connector are displayed in Table 4-26.
Table 4-26. Relational Tie Excerpts from Relationship Building and Connector. Source Excerpts from Relational: Relationship Building and Connector N037 “offered partnerships for programming / offered partnerships for
grants/projects”
“They made connections to get things done.”
N045 “I also plug into their network of support that they have built over the years that I have found very helpful”
N085 “She is always validating my work, and stating what a good team we are.”
N229 “He is well connected at both the state level and national level.”
N269 “[N689] also has deep connections across the university through her involvement in different committees and work groups.”
“She helped me recognize it takes time to build partnerships.”
N293 “connection to someone else who might lead me to an answer or the information I seek”
“She connected me to people who loaned supplies to our county for a collaborative event with another county. I didn’t even know these items existed and she totally hooked me up! She is a great connector and a wealth of information.”
N413 “Her willingness to work WITH me made me more willing to step up and assist her with office responsibilities.”
N442 “She brings people together to do programs and to solve problems, so she’s a great person to ask for help with programs.”
continued
145
Source Excerpts from Relational: Relationship Building and Connector N488 “She has also supported and encouraged opportunities to work with new
groups.”
N499 “She also knows key people throughout the college that can provide assistance or answer questions.”
N523 “She is able to manage the constant contact with all of her friends and co-workers.”
N628 “caring nature and the ability to listen as well as being connected in the academic sense”
N637 “She has invited me to her events, and I have invited her to mine.”
Role model. Relational ties feel that central actors provide good examples of
behavior. There were numerous mentions of relational ties desiring to emulate the
modeled behaviors. For example, N002 states: “He is a positive role model, because of
his approach, I want to be a better Extension employee.” N136 states: they “…always
strive to be like [N005]. She is a wonderful role model and is a great 4-H educator.”
Central actors model work-and-life-related responsibilities from which the relational ties
learn how to handle their own work and life situations. For example, N196 claimed the
central actor “models good work/life balance and priorities. He models being an active
involved caring father/husband/Christian;” and N205 states “she leads by example. I have
learned how to handle difficult situations by watching and learning how she handles these
types of situations.” Table 4-27 displays the excerpts to demonstrate the role model
behavior of central actors.
Table 4-26. Continued
146
Table 4-27. Relational Tie Excerpts from Role Model Source Excerpts from Relational: Role Model N002 “He is a positive role model, because of his approach, I want to be a better
Extension employee.”
N056 “Seems to balance work and family well – good role model for that.”
N080 “[N524] has a positive attitude that has been a model for how I approach issues here in my home county.”
N096 “He is someone that I try to emulate in my programming efforts.”
N136 “…always strive to be like [N005]. She is a wonderful role model and is a great 4-H educator.”
N196 “…models good work/life balance and priorities. He models being an active involved caring father/husband/Christian.”
N205 “She leads by example. I have learned how to handle difficult situations by watching and learning how she handles these types of situations.”
N293 “These strong, confident, capable women have modeled how to succeed in this job, as well as how to be a better professional.”
N304 “[N520]’s balanced, rational manner in working sets a good example for all.”
N341 “They are great role models in guiding me to know what is expected.”
N346 “Because of [N415] I stay organized and I go above and beyond at work. [N415] sets a good example. He always goes above and beyond. He is highly respected and I want to have the same work ethic as he does.”
N523 “She models how to act with intention to benefit others.”
N689 “She leads by example and is always calm and respectful of others.”
Service orientation with altruism. Central actors are seen as putting others first,
exhibiting a sincere desire to help others in any way possible. For example, N106 stated
“willing to assist in any and all concerns,” and N234 states “he is friendly and genuinely
147
cares about the success of others.” To a great degree, relational ties emphasized the
central actors’ sincerity of wanting to help while ignoring any cost to the central actor
themselves. The altruistic nature of central actors is described in statements such as: “the
way she cares about humanity, everyone around her;” and “she is willing to help if she
can, and never acts like helping you is an issue or an inconvenience;” and “she models
how to act with intention to benefit others, as well as sacrifices when necessary.”
Excerpts supporting the relational characteristic of service orientation with altruism are
displayed in Table 4-28.
Table 4-28. Relational Tie Excerpts from Service Orientation with Altruism. Source Excerpts from Relational: Service Orientation with Altruism N010 “I know she wants to see me at my best and is willing to help me get there.”
N085 “[N471] will often tell me to never hold back questions. She has a helping personality.”
N090 “I have never doubted that if I were dealing with an issue or unsure of which direction to take that she would go to any lengths to offer good counsel.”
N106 “willing to assist in any and all concerns”
N174 “[N520] is a kind person who cares about what is going on in your life both professionally and personally.”
N198 “the way she cares about humanity, everyone around her”
“She takes pride and joy in the successes of her clients, even if it’s a small thing.”
N234 “He is friendly and genuinely cares about the success of others.”
N245 “Although extremely busy – he WANTS to help. Makes you feel like he WANTS you to succeed, and that he is excited for you to have this opportunity.”
continued
148
Source Excerpts from Relational: Service Orientation with Altruism N272 “is willing to help when asked”
N285 “She is willing to help if she can, and never acts like helping you is an issue or an inconvenience.”
N352 “She is always eager to help.”
N354 “extremely friendly and sincerely enjoys helping others”
N361 “She is always asking how she can help.”
N368 “love for the work and even greater love of people”
N405 “…quick to help me in any way that she can and if she can’t, she will always follow up to make sure I’m staying on track and not getting bogged down with more stress.”
“She is kind and I know if I come to her for support she will not make fun of me and will help.”
N410 “…she was always willing to help where I needed it. She was one who would step out and offer assistance where I needed it, and sometimes before I knew that I needed it.”
N477 “works with a ‘people first’ mindset”
N499 “I know that she is truly concerned and committed to helping.”
“[N223] has a genuine care and concern for others.”
N523 “She models how to act with intention to benefit others, as well as sacrifices when necessary.”
“[N196] would do anything for anyone if she knows it will positively impact them or others. She has been known to make 3-hr drives, rearrange important events, and set aside copious amounts of time for others.”
N546 “She goes above and beyond to help others learn”
N572 “She takes time from anything she is doing to be sure that she is able to help when needed.”
“cares deeply and is genuine”
N574 “treating me like I am important and matter”
Table 4-28. Continued
continued
149
Source Excerpts from Relational: Service Orientation with Altruism N580 “She is always willing to lend a hand and/or give advice.”
N583 “He truly cares about Extension being a beacon in the community. He is constantly trying to make sure everything we do shows that Extension is here to help you with whatever your needs are.”
N633 “He gets very excited about successes. He really wants to help people, both colleagues and clients.”
N708 “They care about you and it shows in their answers and attention even when the message is difficult to hear.”
“They care. It is beyond lip service.”
Shared interests. Relational ties and central actors often have mutual interests
and shared experiences. Relational ties reported many similarities specifically among
personal values, work-related items and life experiences with the central actors. For
example, in terms of shared values, N096 feels he or she and the central actor hold a
“common belief system;” and N618 states: “I mostly go to her because we also share
some of the same core values and priorities in work and outside of work. She understands
my train of thought and intentions.” Also, shared values based on faith are reported.
N196 remarked “we aren’t afraid to pray with and for one another (shared belief in
God).”
Shared work experiences are also an area where relational ties note similarities
with central actors. N394 states: “[N267] and I have the same job titles, so we do similar
work and can share information/assistance when needed.” N234 felt “because we have
shared interests, we teach on related topics, so we share teaching materials.” The work-
related similarities lending to social support connections can also be beyond sharing job
Table 4-28. Continued
150
titles; for example, N218 stated: “we have similar sized county 4-H programs and fairs.”
Excerpts supporting that having shared interests in one or more areas with relational ties
is a relational characteristic of central actors can be found in Table 4-29.
Table 4-29. Relational Tie Excerpts from Shared Interests. Source Excerpts from Relational: Shared Interests N037 “ability to relate, based on similar positions in the system”
N090 “We share similar views on many issues.”
N096 “common belief system”
N123 “…a peer close in age, we are going through similar things, have similar interests”
N196 “…have 10 years of shared experiences, we share a similar network of friends, we are both ambitious and have a similar background that allows for an often shared perspective of our organization.”
“We aren’t afraid to pray with and for one another (shared belief in God).”
N208 “…mutual interest inside and outside of the office. Have several mutual friends. Relatively the same age.”
N218 “We have similar sized county 4-H programs and fairs.”
N234 “Because we have shared interests, we teach on related topics, so we share teaching materials.”
“Both of us enjoy writing to communicate with our clientele, so [N512] has great writing examples and is always encouraging of my writing efforts.”
N243 “We share the same struggles and it’s great to know that you are not the only one experiencing these feelings.”
N248 “We shared a common goal of representing [Extension] well in the community. We also became friends and shared information about our families and lives outside of work.”
N274 “[N001] has a similar background to me and because of shared interests and similar goals she has been a great source of social support.”
continued
151
Source Excerpts from Relational: Shared Interests N394 “[N267] and I have the same job titles, so we do similar work and can share
information/assistance when needed.”
N457 “…holds the similar values as I do in how we perform our job responsibilities. I have the most in common with her in my region.”
N556 “She and I had very similar opinions on things and always reinforced my decisions when I thought I was going crazy.”
N616 “When we both have to schedule undesirable medical appointments, we will schedule them together to support each other.”
N618 “I mostly go to her because we also share some of the same core values and priorities in work and outside of work. She understands my train of thought and intentions.”
Relational Characteristics ~ Central Actor Perspective
Accessible and role model. Central actors feel it is important to be accessible to
others, and often stated they encouraged others to come to them for support. For example,
phrases such as “my door is always open” and “make time for others” were used by
central actors. Additionally, central actors desire to lead by example. N223 stated: “I
work to build solid relationships and great rapport with colleagues, and I strive to lead by
example.” These excerpts and select others highlighting the central actors’ desire to be
accessible and a role model are located in Table 4-30.
Table 4-29. Continued
152
Table 4-30. Central Actor Excerpts from Accessible and Role Model.
Encouragement and coaching. This emerged as a sub-theme with fairly prolific
mentions among the central actors. Central actors engage often in activities associated
with encouragement and coaching, serving as a fundamental component to their social
support relationships. The central actors talked about times they were mentors to new and
mid-career colleagues, when they helped colleagues through tough situations, and when
they built a colleague’s confidence. Excerpts demonstrating the central actors’ tendency
toward encouragement and coaching actions are found in Table 4-31.
Source Excerpts from Relational: Accessible and Role Model N161 “[referencing specific support activities at work] I believe all of these
activities creates a level of trust between myself and our staff that eases their apprehension to contact me for advice and support in job-related decisions.”
N223 “I work to build solid relationships and great rapport with colleagues, and I strive to ‘lead by example.’”
“My door is always open.”
N308 “I try to be positive and supportive…I want others to know they can come to me for help.”
N470 “make time for others”
N524 “I have met w/ my colleague (in person); she calls my cell day or evening (when things get really bad); and I’ve partnered with her on a few projects.”
N546 “They had questions about the horse program and needed immediate assistance.”
N615 “having a good work ethic, always give more than we take, be a good example”
153
Table 4-31. Central Actor Excerpts from Encouragement and Coaching. Source Excerpts from Relational: Encouragement and Coaching N043 “We have team meetings where we share how classes are going and give
each other feedback and support.”
N109 “listen, reflect, encourage”
N161 “I provide one-on-one consultation for questions and concerns from staff.”
N223 “Asked what ideas my colleague had left to try, gave some suggestions on how to tackle the problem/challenge.”
N300 “I have met with educators, staff, and volunteers. Most recently I met with a new FCS educator who was floundering with what her job should look like and where to go for curriculum.”
“provided mentorship activity for newer educator”
N368 “I always encourage my colleagues, attempt to boost their confidence and let them know that similar experiences will improve their ability to deal with them, but it is always a great idea to see another ear and voice.”
“calming, supportive, work together with colleagues to find solutions – not prescriptions – building confidence and skills learned only by experience”
N385 “Gave a member of the office advice and guidance on working through a master’s program.”
N471 “I tried to get them to think of scenarios that may occur and how they could solve each one. They then realized that the worst case scenario in their mind – really wasn’t that awful. However, I also made sure that they realized that there was bound to be something that they hadn’t thought of, but considering the fact that they had worked thru all the previous scenarios with ease, they would be able to handle the unexpected.”
N546 “I was patient with their questions, reassured them that the solution was not as difficult as it might have seemed to them and I always try to not make the person feel like their questions are ‘dumb’ questions.”
N615 “I send office cards, of sympathy, get well, new baby, wedding, etc.”
“advice for doing our jobs to the best of our ability – learning what the rules are and helping others stay within those guidelines and keeping that information in front of them”
continued
154
Source Excerpts from Relational: Encouragement and Coaching N656 “I try to listen and take the situation into account before sharing my
thoughts, but it can be difficult to suggest that someone says ‘no thank you’ when they are asked to take on additional responsibilities.”
N689 “Listened as a colleague discussed trying to identify programmatic and professional goals for the coming year; asked questions for clarification; provided suggestions of ways to frame what she was wanting to accomplish into measurable goals. I was concerned she was being overly ambitious and encouraged her to break the project into smaller units and not try to accomplish everything within one year.”
N714 “helped her feel a little more confident in her new position”
Relationship building and connector. Relationships appear to be important for
central actors. Through those relationships, central actors both use their broad network
connections in addition to connecting the ties to appropriate resources and experiences.
For example, N037 spends time “connecting people that have the same interests, or that I
think would help each other in their positions” and “asked administration for help
connecting new educators and supporting them.”
Central actors also make a point to strengthen relationships by working with and
spending time with the ties. N043 stated: “Most days, we eat lunch together as an office
and talk about life outside the office. We have staff retreats where we get to learn more
about each other.” N308 stated: “I also like to get to know people, I think it makes life
and work better when you can relate to people and know what’s going on in their lives.”
Excerpts from the relationship building and connector sub-theme per the central actors
can be found in Table 4-32.
Table 4-31. Continued
155
Table 4-32. Central Actor Excerpts from Relationship Building and Connector. Source Excerpts from Relational: Relationship Building and Connector N037 “provided/planned sessions to get them together at workshops and events so
they could interact more and ask questions in an open forum”
“We started to build a network to help each other.”
“asked administration for help connecting new educators and supporting them”
“connecting people that have the same interests, or that I think would help each other in their positions”
“I think it is just about sharing, offering to be a mentor, offering support to others and asking for help when you need it.”
N043 “We have team meetings where we share how classes are going and give each other feedback and support.”
“Most days, we eat lunch together as an office and talk about life outside the office. We have staff retreats where we get to learn more about each other.”
N109 “I can persuade people by coming alongside them and working together.”
N223 “have great relationships with county faculty and staff…always striving to serve and learn”
“People from across [college] and Extension come to me for advice and for my input.”
“I work to build solid relationships and great rapport with colleagues.”
N308 “I also like to get to know people, I think it makes life and work better when you can relate to people and know what’s going on in their lives.”
N385 “Life is about relationships! Most important thing you will ever do.”
N615 “It doesn’t take much time to connect with folks.”
Service orientation with altruism. Central actors often expressed joy and
appreciation in having the opportunity to help colleagues. Statements such as “I like to
156
bring out the best in others,” “I love to help others,” “I am happy to assist,” and “it made
me feel good knowing that I can help someone” were used frequently. These kind of
statements suggest a service-orientated personality, as helping others brings joy and
fulfillment to the central actors.
It’s apparent that central actors want to help and are even excited about providing
support; but it’s more than just helping, it’s putting others’ needs before their own. We
see this demonstrated by N385 in his or her perspective: “It always feels great to help
people out. There is no place for it on the vita, but it is probably the best thing we do for
the organization.” This central actor engages in social support behavior knowing there is
no formal reward for this behavior in the organization. Excerpts highlighting the central
actors’ service orientation with altruism can be found in Table 4-33.
Table 4-33. Central Actor Excerpts from Service Orientation with Altruism.
Source Excerpts from Relational: Service Orientation with Altruism
N037 “As the numbers of new educators started to increase, I could see the void in training, the generational differences, the skill differences and overall need for supporting them in their new positions. Basically, because we needed it and nobody else was doing it.”
N043 “When a coworker was going through an illness of a parent, I asked them questions about their condition. I asked what I could do to help. As a Christian and person of compassion, I cannot turn my back on someone who is going through a rough time.”
“family of coworkers who truly care about each other’s well-being”
N109 “I like to bring out the best in others.”
continued
157
Source Excerpts from Relational: Service Orientation with Altruism
N223 “I strive for excellence, speak up for what’s right.”
“always striving to serve and learn…I want to help everyone be successful in their position/career.”
“Treat others as you want to be treated. Love what you do, grow deep roots in what you do, as a solid foundation will support you.”
N300 “I love to help others when they come to me for information.”
N308 “I want others to know they can come to me for help. It makes me feel good to help others.”
N368 “I am always humbled that colleagues request my assistance and I am happy to assist. I also feel badly that some take these situations so personally, are treated so badly and are so discouraged by the experience.”
N385 “It always feels great to help people out. There is no place for it on the vita, but it is probably the best thing we do for the organization.”
N391 “I like helping people. My colleagues are important to me and add value to my work.”
“It made me feel good knowing that I can help someone.”
N512 “trying my best to help others succeed and feel welcomed”
“I will do anything I can to help my coworkers!!”
N512 “[in regards to providing social support] I simply think it is the right thing to do for an experienced educator that loves his job, clientele, and coworkers to do whatever he can to help. This has been a great job and career and I hope others can gain the same satisfaction I have.”
N546 “I felt happy that I could help them out.”
N615 “This is the personal touch our office wants to portray – we are here for you in your personal lives too.”
Table 4-33. Continued
158
Work-Specific Characteristics ~ Relational Tie Perspective
Experience and knowledge. Relational ties reported central actors possess a
great deal of work-related experience and knowledge. Relational ties used phrases such
as “wealth of knowledge,” “knows everything,” “keeper of the rules,” “policy guru” and
“wellspring of information” to describe the central actors. The experience and knowledge
that central actors have is largely related to the years of service in the organization and
specific duties in their job. For example, N269 reported:
“[N689] has been with OSU Extension for a while and has a good
understanding of the organization. She is up-to-date with OSU Extension
policies and procedures. She also understands the promotion and tenure
process. She shares her knowledge of these subjects with other OSU
Extension employees to help them be successful in their position, as well
as their career path.”
In addition to the previous statement, N580 felt that the central actor “has much
experience with difficult volunteer situations;” and N046 stated: “she is knowledgeable
about office procedures.” Table 4-34 contains excerpts supporting experience and
knowledge as a descriptive characteristic of central actors as reported by relational ties.
159
Table 4-34. Relational Tie Excerpts from Experience and Knowledge Source Excerpts from Work-Specific: Experience and Knowledge N010 “She will always give me the best answer she can and offers tips and advice
she has learned from her years of experience.”
N046 “She is knowledgeable about office procedures.”
N085 “She is well versed in all of the ins and outs of the university. She has a lot of experience with technology as well.”
N087 “She’s been here awhile and ‘knows everything’.”
N125 “[N458] is a 20-plus year [program] educator and has many different experiences in her time here with Extension.”
N136 “When giving specific advice, she always handles it in a professional manner and gives you her best advice based on her past experiences.”
N155 “She has the experience and knowledge that I needed when starting my career and while I continue my Extension career.”
N198 “keeper of the rules, assuring that our office stays on track with procedures and office events”
N229 “[N303] has many years of experience and has been a very successful educator and content specialist.”
N234 “He has worked as a county Extension educator for many years and has a wealth of knowledge to share.”
N243 “Their experiences and knowledge of the profession have helped me in my position. I look up to them because they are old enough to have their own experiences and stories that I can apply to my career but young enough to not feel intimidated.”
N256 “They have the answers I need or can get them for me.”
N269 “[N689] has been with OSU Extension for a while and has a good understanding of the organization. She is up-to-date with OSU Extension policies and procedures. She also understands the promotion and tenure process. She shares her knowledge of these subjects with other OSU Extension employees to help them be successful in their position, as well as their career path.”
N274 “I appreciate and respect her industry work prior to Extension and I think she has a unique knowledge base to pull from.”
continued
160
Source Excerpts from Work-Specific: Experience and Knowledge N285 “knowledgeable in her area and others within Extension”
N298 “She uses her deep knowledge to explain why things matter.”
N300 “Her experience is invaluable to this organization.”
N354 “[N223] provides a wealth of knowledge.”
N361 “[N109] helps me see through the fog of office politics to help get to the bottom of issues. She has experience with the other office personnel that can help me understand why the issue may be occurring.”
N410 “With her years of experience, she was one that I felt comfortable asking questions.”
N427 “positive attitude and years of experience – wisdom”
N437 “has many years in Extension and has shown the willingness to share his knowledge and experience as a mentor”
N457 “She has the most experience in 4-H in our region.”
N459 “He has a great knowledge of policies and procedures.”
N488 “She has served in a variety of roles and brings a history of substantial experience.”
N510 “She knew all of the details of my program’s paperwork and expectations even though she didn’t work in that program herself. She always knows what is going on with all of the different programs in our office.”
N580 “has much experience with difficult volunteer situations”
N628 “She resides and works in a different part of the state so her experience was interesting to me as it was different from my own.”
N633 “He knows something about most or all area of Extension.”
N637 “I soon realized that she was the ‘policy guru’.”
N691 “is a wellspring of information”
N720 “They have a depth of knowledge in their areas of specialization.”
Table 4-34. Continued
161
Instrumental assistance. Evidence of actions of support specific to work were
reported by relational ties. Holt-Lunstad and Uchino (2015) define instrumental
assistance as providing materials and resources in a support relationship. The data
supports that this kind of support is provided by central actors and even goes beyond
providing materials and resources to instrumental aid to completion of a task. For
example, N155 stated: “She has provided 85 percent of the information I have needed to
accomplish multiple programs.” N229 reported that “he helped me with presentations at
the Farm Science Review. We also jointly published a presentation on urban farmer’s
program.” N477 stated: “She helped me move furniture, set my office and know where to
go for resources while I was new to the organization.” Excerpts providing examples of
instrumental assistance provided by central actors are located in Table 4-35.
Table 4-35. Relational Tie Excerpts from Instrumental Assistance. Source Excerpts from Work Specific: Instrumental Assistance N046 “She helped me get reports completed in a timely manner.”
N066 “New in my career, I was having trouble gaining access to their website to post blog links and Facebook posts. [N656] stopped what she was doing to provide help to me.”
N076 “I sought him out to help specifically with volunteer files/retention and filling e-postcards.”
N087 “Conference calls, etc. for EERA meetings were something I had never done; she provided info and number.”
N127 “She shares with me resources that she uses in her county to help me in my programming and various activities.”
continued
162
Source Excerpts from Work Specific: Instrumental Assistance N155 “He helped me, especially early, creating some presentations.”
“She has provided 85 percent of the information I have needed to accomplish multiple programs.”
N229 “He helped me with presentations at the Farm Science Review. We also jointly published a presentation on urban farmer’s program”
N234 “Because we have shared interests, we teach on related topics, so we share teaching materials.”
N248 “Bruce has helped me to be more organized. For example, he kept a list on our computer network for each of the events that we did throughout the year and what items we needed to take with us. So when it was time for project judging, for example, we could print out the list and check off items as we packed them.”
N272 “She shares her resources after adapting to the needs of others.”
N298 “[N005] taught me to prioritize people’s demands on my time using a quadrant model.”
N300 “…was my coach through the P&T process. She guided me to what the rules were and gave examples of what my document should look like. She reviewed my work and offered detailed suggestions for improvement.”
N437 “He has helped me navigate parts of my job as an educator that are not taught or described in programs or manuals. He has helped me streamline my process of teaching as it pertains to how I would develop myself going forward.”
N477 “She helped me move furniture, set my office and know where to go for resources while I was new to the organization.”
“Willing to jump in and do whatever was needed to get the job done and make sure the event went well.”
N574 “I sought her out for information to help me better complete my tasks and for guidance in how to proceed in a couple of specific situations.”
“has guided me through fiscal processes and issues”
N618 “She also provides resources that she thinks could be helpful in my work.”
continued
Table 4-35. Continued
163
Source Excerpts from Work Specific: Instrumental Assistance N720 “[N512] helped me tremendously as I was going through the P&T process.
He made time to review my documents and provide feedback. I consult with [N512] whenever I have a draft of a journal article or fact sheet.”
Work-Specific Characteristics ~ Central Actor Perspective
Experience and knowledge. Central actors recognize they possess experience
and knowledge yet, given the way they talk about it, they are not overt about it. Central
actors acknowledge their past experiences considerably more than they will say they
possess specific knowledge. They recognize that their past experiences and positions of
authority are what make them attractive sources of social support. N161 stated in regard
to why he or she can provide support: “the opportunities I am provided through my
position expertise, my previous experience and trust I have built with coworkers,” N368
felt “misery loves company and the voice of someone that has survived similar situations
–[makes them] stronger and wiser.” Excerpts highlighting central actors’ perceived
experience and knowledge can be found in Table 4-36.
Table 4-35. Continued
164
Table 4-36. Central Actor Excerpts from Experience and Knowledge.
Source Excerpts from Work-Specific: Experience and Knowledge
N161 “the opportunities I am provided through my position expertise, my previous experience and trust I have built with coworkers”
N223 “gave some suggestions on how to tackle the problem/challenge (based on past experiences)”
“Having been in challenging situations in my career, I understood how my colleague felt, so my thoughts were: ‘been there, done that.’”
“I’ve served on many committees and councils across the college and learned how we are structured; I’m connected to almost all departments within FAES and EHE.”
N300 “I do enjoy sharing my time and expertise with them.”
N303 “They valued or respected the experiences I had.”
N368 “Misery loves company and the voice of someone that has survived similar situations – stronger and wiser.”
“building confidence and skills learned only from experience”
N391 “leader in our professional organization / resource person for new educators”
N458 “mentoring new educators”
N470 “share examples of when you had similar challenges or experiences”
N546 “I simply provided information in line with my own experience and followed the rule book.”
Instrumental assistance. Specific assistance in the form of exchange of materials
and resources appears to be an activity that central actors do for their relational ties.
Central actors provided support on projects, helped create file systems, created
presentations, provided rules and procedures to follow, and provided training targeted to
new personnel needs. These actions provide evidence that central actors are deeply
165
engaged in the relationships because they will go beyond providing advice to sharing
resources that will make work easier for their colleagues. To demonstrate the type of
instrumental assistance and the mindset behind why they do it, N037 said he or she
“developed box.osu.edu folders for new educators to share information, files and
presentations that would save them time and reduce stress levels in their jobs.” Excerpts
that demonstrate the instrumental assistance that central actors provide are located in
Table 4-37.
166
Table 4-37. Central Actor Excerpts from Instrumental Assistance. Source Excerpts from Work-Specific: Instrumental Assistance N037 “answered calls and emails for new educators; provided files/resources to
help answer their questions”
“gave support on projects when needed”
“developed box.osu.edu folders for new educators to share information, files and presentations that would save them time and reduce stress levels in their jobs”
“Resources were provided – not just curriculum and professional resources for teaching programs, but resources for program planning, scheduling, program calendars, and examples of what to do in their positions.”
“I offered to teach programs in their counties and offered them teaching time on the program.”
N161 “I provided new [program] educator training to aid in early career success…meeting with most individually in their office to provide them training.”
N223 “offered physical assistance”
N300 “I shared materials available and how to access them via the website and Box.”
N615 “advice for doing our jobs to the best of our ability – learning what the rules are and helping others stay within those guidelines and keeping that information in front of them – especially with the PCard.”
N689 “I helped her with some long-range planning in addition to short-range planning.”
Adjectives Describing Central Actors
Relational ties were asked to choose the adjectives that best describe central
actors from a list of positive, neutral and negative adjectives across the five big
personality categories. Overwhelmingly, the respondents indicated positively oriented
167
adjectives to describe the central actors. The top adjectives chosen were: sociable (84
percent), trustful (83 percent), respectful (83 percent), cooperative (75 percent),
organized (69 percent), efficient (65 percent), and outgoing (64 percent). Figure 4-10
displays a word cloud of the most-used adjectives (larger words = more references) to
describe the central actors.
Figure 4-11. Relational Tie Most-Used Adjectives to Describe Central Actors.
168
Research Objective 3
The third objective of this study was to explore the perceived influence of central
actors on behavior of ties. Qualitative data was collected in survey form from both the
relational ties and the central actors. The qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo Pro.
This section begins with uncovering the existence of influence in these social support
relationships. Following then is a review of the influential role of the central actor,
highlighting reported behaviors and impacts from both the relational ties’ and central
actors’ perspectives. This section closes with a look into the personal philosophy of the
central actors with regard to influence in social support relationships.
Perceived Influence
Influence, for the purposes of this study is examined through the lens of opinion
leadership. Rogers and Shoemaker (2003) feels that opinion leadership is “the degree to
which an individual is able to influence other individuals’ attitudes or overt behavior in a
desired way with a relatively high frequency” (Rogers & Shoemaker, 2003, p.388).
Relational ties were asked if their perspective changed as a result of interactions with the
source of social support. Of the 118 respondents, 99 indicated YES (84 percent), 18
indicated NO (15 percent), and one MAYBE (<1 percent).
When the central actors were asked if they believed the relational tie experienced
a change in behavior or perspective, some were unsure, as they indicated maybe. Of the
22 central actors who responded, 17 indicated YES (77 percent), five indicated MAYBE
(23 percent), and none said NO (0 percent). Based on these descriptive findings, it is
reasonable to ascertain that a degree of influence exists within these relationships.
169
The Influential Role of the Central Actor
The data were analyzed to divulge main themes and sub-themes from both the
relational tie perspective and the central actor perspective. Main themes emerging in the
relational tie data include: (a) actions of central actor, and (b) impact on relational tie.
These themes and additional sub-themes can be viewed in Figure 4-12. Main themes
emerging from the central actor perspective include: (a) actions of central actor, (b)
impact on relational tie, and (c) philosophical view of their influence. These themes and
additional sub-themes can be viewed in Figure 4-13.
Figure 4-12. Relational Tie Themes and Sub-themes for Explored Influence.
170
Figure 4-13. Central Actor Themes and Sub-themes for Explored Influence.
Behaviors and actions. The examination of the data from relational ties
uncovered a set of behaviors and actions perceived to have contributed to the influence of
the central actor. These include things such as providing aid to navigate organizational
practices, empowering others through positivity, encouraging a work-life balance, and
enhancing competencies of the relational tie. From the central actor perspective, they
view creating an environment conducive to learning and providing instrumental
assistance as behaviors and actions that signify influence.
Starting with the relational tie perspective, central actors influence others by way
of providing answers to questions, guiding others through difficult organizational
processes, decision making, networking with colleagues and clientele, and providing
alternative solutions to challenging issues. To demonstrate the central actor behavior,
N090 stated: “she helps me see through the fog of office politics to help get to the bottom
171
of issues.” N583 stated: “when I was learning the financials, he took the time to answer
my silly questions and to encourage me to research the answers.”
Central actors were reported to encourage work-life balance among the relational
ties. N689 reported that “she reminded me to take time for me.” N045 shared that “he has
offered many strategies for managing life/work balance with a young child at home;” and
N298 reported “she taught me how to prioritize people’s demands on my time using a
quadrant model.” Similarly, relational ties reported that central actors were very
empowering through their positive demeanor and actions. Some relational ties identified
central actors as regularly saying things like “you got this!” and generally reinforcing
positive self-talk.
Central actors also were seen as advocating toward personal and professional
growth by seeking opportunities to encourage development of competencies. N248 said
“he helped me to be more organized;” and N405 mentioned “she encouraged me to step
outside my comfort zone and talk to people more.” Each of these statements are reflective
of the behaviors and characteristics identified in objective 2.
Central actors themselves felt that behaviors associated with their influence were
simply creating a space for learning to happen and providing the example of instrumental
assistance so solutions may be realized. Space, not necessarily in the physical sense, was
created through invitations to events, willingness to listen, and offering collaboration and
friendship. N368 shared “calming, supportive, work together with colleagues to find
solutions – not prescriptions – building confidence and skills learned only by
experience.” N037 said he or she reached out to relational ties through “offering
assistance by personal invitation” and “offered co-teaching opportunities and teaching
172
observations.” In addition to the actions of creating space, central actors also felt that
providing resources and materials as examples for what/how to go about their work was a
way they hold influence. Many of these actions and behaviors are reflective of the central
actor perspective of behaviors and characteristics identified in objective 2.
Impact on relational ties. Further exploration of central actors’ influence led to
discovering the impact their influence had on the relational ties, more specifically what
changes were noted in the behavior of the relational tie. Changes were reported in the
sub-themes of: appreciation, different thinking, gained clarity and understanding,
personal and professional growth, and stress-mitigating actions. Revisit the previously
mentioned Figure 4-12 for the themes and sub-themes.
Appreciation. Relational ties shared great appreciation and respect for the central
actors. While this may not be evidence of actual behavior change, this does underpin the
tendency toward changing behavior, because one is more likely to alter his or her own
behaviors if the change is emulating someone for whom they hold affinity, trust and
respect. Demonstrating appreciation, N368 stated: “she builds my confidence in my
ability to work toward solutions. I love her for that.” N155 remarked that “I appreciate all
they have done for me, especially [N689]. She has been an encouragement to me every
day!” Excerpts from appreciation can be found in Table 4-38.
173
Table 4-38. Relational Tie Excerpts from Appreciation Source Excerpts from Appreciation N087 “It’s nice to know that I’m not the only person who has had run-ins with
XYZ…that he’s been known to treat others that way, too.”
N274 “I appreciate and respect her industry work prior to Extension and I think she has a unique knowledge base to pull from.”
N368 “She builds my confidence in my ability to work toward solutions. I love her for that.”
N155 “I appreciate all they have done for me, especially [N689]. She has been an encouragement to me every day!”
N293 “Being confident in a new job is hard for me. These strong, confident, capable women have modeled how to succeed in this job, as well as how to be a better professional. I am very fortunate to have met them both.”
Different thinking. Relational ties reported that interactions with central actors
led them to think about things differently and view things from alternative perspectives.
In some cases, the influence from the central actor led the relational tie to examine issues
with a broader lens than just their immediate environment. N218 stated, as a result of
interactions with a central actor:
“I look at things through a broader lens than just looking at how
something affects my county. I also consider the implications on the
overall Extension organization and other counties as a result of some of
my conversations with them.”
This statement shows a different way of thinking in regard to how the relational tie
operates in daily organizational life. Similarly, the central actors have influenced how
relational ties view and interact with their colleagues. N010 stated he or she “helped me
174
broaden my perspective and to be a more understanding individual in my work with
others.” A more specific example from N691 shows the central actor influence on
personal growth:
“I was timid about reaching out to my peers. I met [N471] and through her
my perspective changed greatly. I reach out to my peers more often and I
have formed some truly amazing friendships. I always thought that
reaching out to others in my job throughout the state would be like a gnat
flying around a rotten tomato. A huge pest and not very well received.”
Evidence of influence that helps others shift perspective and alter behavior is found in
Table 4-39.
Table 4-39. Relational Tie Excerpts from Different Thinking. Source Excerpts from Different Thinking N010 “helped me broaden my perspective and to be a more understanding
individual in my work with others”
N125 “I look over all the possibilities before I make a decision and I am always looking for what can go wrong.”
N127 “My perspective changed in a way that there are always people that can help you in certain times of need. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel if there are already great colleagues who have already created something great. I have learned that using other people and other resources is a great way of networking and working together.”
N198 “I have become less judgmental and more compassionate for those that are in difficult situations.”
N208 “I have learned to show people I care by asking them about themselves and their family. It’s made me more aware of listening to what people say to understand what’s important to them.”
continued
175
Source Excerpts from Different Thinking N218 “I look at things through a broader lens than just looking at how something
affects my county. I also consider the implications on the overall Extension organization and other counties as a result of some of my conversations with them.”
N285 “I try to look for the good things in the situation.”
N361 “She has influenced me to be calmer and think things through before I take action.”
N413 “I no longer see Extension as an onerous, clunky, plodding organization. She has made it an active and engaging network, bordering on becoming a friend/family feeling.”
N580 “Her no-nonsense approach has changed my outlook on how I work with some of my volunteers and how to gauge a volunteer’s potential for change and improvement.”
N633 “I look for more positive outcomes in my job and try to remember that I could be making a difference to people even when I don’t know about it firsthand.”
N691 “I was timid about reaching out to my peers. I met [N471], and through her my perspective changed greatly. I reach out to my peers more often and I have formed some truly amazing friendships. I always thought that reaching out to others in my job throughout the state would be like a gnat flying around a rotten tomato. A huge pest and not very well received.”
Gained clarity and understanding. Similar to the different thinking obtained,
respondents reported that interactions with central actors provided them with greater
clarity and understanding of situations, people and the organization itself. This clarity and
understanding helps the relational ties navigate the organization through a different lens
and likely alters how they make decisions related to their work. N293 gave a great
example of his or her new clarity and understanding in relation to how Extension works:
Table 4-39. Continued
176
“When I accepted her invitation to shadow, I realized the power of
Extension as a network rather than a bunch of counties all doing similar
things. Her example of friendly welcome is one I hope I now share with
others.”
Excerpts demonstrating clarity and understanding gained through interactions with
central actors are located in Table 4-40.
Table 4-40. Relational Tie Excerpts from Gained Clarity and Understanding. Source Excerpts from Gained Clarity and Understanding N036 “better understanding of an educator’s ‘big picture’ of their county programs”
N090 “She has been able to help me understand the workings of a bureaucracy like a huge university.”
N556 “I got a better perspective of what people think about our office we worked in together. It seems like sometimes people have a tendency to be dishonest or not speak up when something is wrong, which I guess I didn’t realize before I talked with her.”
N073 “helped me set realistic expectations for myself as an educator”
N293 “When I accepted her invitation to shadow, I realized the power of Extension as a network rather than a bunch of counties all doing similar things. Her example of friendly welcome is one I hope I now share with others.”
Personal and professional growth. Interactions with central actors stimulated
personal and professional growth among the relational ties. Mentioned often were central
actors encouraging and guiding relational ties to pursue higher education experiences.
N583 said “he has encouraged me to better myself through college courses,” and other
177
statements included “encouraged me to pursue my master’s degree” and “helped me get
over my hesitations to start grad school.”
Central actors were also reported to be influential in the areas of promotion and
professional growth through things like working with different groups or taking the lead
in a professional association. N245 gave a great example of influence through inspiration,
reporting he...
“gave me the confidence to head a national association and conduct a
national conference. He had so much confidence in my ability that I
couldn’t say no when the opportunity presented itself. When someone
believes in you, you start believing in yourself.”
Other relational ties reported examples of influence through inspiration with statements
such as, “they inspire me to work harder and be more adventurous in the types of projects
I take on,” and “her behaviors have encouraged me to branch out in different positions
with my job.” Excerpts demonstrating the influence related to personal and professional
growth among relational ties can be found in Table 4-41.
178
Table 4-41. Relational Tie Excerpts from Personal and Professional Growth.
Source Excerpts from Personal and Professional Growth N073 “They inspire me to work harder and be more adventurous in the types of
projects I take on for work. They inspire me to stay focused on being the best I can be both at work and home.”
N080 “He has influenced my pursuit of promotion in Extension as well as influenced some of the groups I work with around the state.”
N085 “She has encouraged me to advance my career through Ohio State, and has pushed me to pursue an educator position.”
N109 “They have encouraged me to strive for goals while maintaining balance in my life.”
N187 “She influences me to better my work and make a bigger impact on the Ohio 4-H program.”
N245 “…gave me the confidence to head a national association and conduct a national conference. He had so much confidence in my ability that I couldn’t say no when the opportunity presented itself. When someone believes in you, you start believing in yourself.”
N405 “She encouraged me to pursue my master’s degree, which I have since begun, and continuously checks in on how I’m doing in school. I aspire to be open and helpful like she is to others.”
N583 “He has encouraged me to better myself through college courses.”
N618 “Her behaviors have encouraged me to branch out in different positions with my job. I think through how she might handle a new situation and allow that to guide me and I know that I would have her support.”
Stress-mitigating actions. Relational ties reported interactions with central actors
have helped them be calmer and less tense in difficult situations. Through the lens of
social support and psychological safety (see chapter 2 for a brief review), these
supportive interactions help mitigate stress. N563 provides an example to show the nature
of stress mitigation present as a result of interactions with central actors. “I think
179
knowing her and working with her has allowed me to loosen up a bit regarding tense
office situations – and go with the flow more than getting bent out of shape about little
things or others responses.” The calmness that the central actors display has caused
relational ties to act in a similar manner. Excerpts highlighting the stress-mitigating
actions learned from central actors can be found in Table 4-42.
Table 4-42. Relational Tie Excerpts from Stress Mitigating Actions.
Source Excerpts from Stress-Mitigating Actions N320 “Being able to step back, look, breathe before responding gives me the
advantages of having a cool head. This also eliminates the emotional response from me which in turn defuses most situations.”
N361 “She has influenced me to be calmer and think things through before I take action.”
N390 “The behavior I use the most which I learned from her is calmness when dealing with difficult people. She always conducted herself as a very calm, cool, and collective demeanor. I use that same method today.”
N477 “influences me to remain calm, positive, and working for the best for all involved”
N563 “I think knowing her and working with her has allowed me to loosen up a bit regarding tense office situations – and go with the flow more than getting bent out of shape about little things or others’ responses.”
Central actor reports of impact on relational tie. Data collected in this study
also took into account the central actor perceptions of behavior or perspective change
among the relational ties. Earlier in this objective, it was reported that all of the central
actors indicated either YES or MAYBE to whether or not the relational ties experienced a
180
behavior or perspective change. Elaborating on that question, central actors were asked
why they thought that a change was experienced. The data from the central actors fell
into three sub-themes: appreciation, different thinking and empowered confidence (see
Figure 4-13 presented earlier in this section for the themes and sub-themes).
Central actors felt that change was experienced due to the overt appreciation and
gratitude expressed by relational ties. Several central actors reported that the relational
ties said they were “glad they talked” and “thanked me for sharing my perspective and
ideas.” N689 reported that “she thanked me for keeping her grounded and realistic in
what could be accomplished.”
Central actors also noted a change in thinking among the relational ties. They
noticed that the relational ties “thought about the situation differently” and one, for
example “was able to remove herself from the scenario and view it as others might be
perceiving it.” Additionally, relational ties appeared to be more empowered and confident
in their work and personal lives. N196 stated he or she believed “they are demonstrating
better self-care habits and are empowered to ask for help or say no.” N391 remarked
“they gained the ability to work through a crisis.” N223 commented that “they took
action on their situation and successfully handled it with a new approach.” N223 also
commented that as a result of the situation outcomes, “they seemed to be more confident
for several weeks.” The central actors felt that the relational ties handled situations
differently, were more confident in their choices, and gained a positive outlook.
Personal Philosophy of Central Actors’ Influence
Exploring the influence further from the central actor perspective, central actors
were asked if they perceived themselves as influential. Central actors responded with 11
181
YES (50 percent), eight MAYBE (36 percent), and three NO (14 percent). For the half
who answered yes, they were asked how they describe their influence.
Central actors feel their influence results from the natural course of their job and
their desire to be of service. They view relationships as critical. To demonstrate, N385
said “life is about relationships! Most important thing you will ever do.” N308 said “I
like to get to know people. I think it makes life and work better when you can relate to
people and know what’s going on in their lives.” Statements such as “I like to bring out
the best in others” and “it makes me feel good to help others” were plentiful. Central
actors hold a people-centered philosophy of service. They care about others and
genuinely want to see them at their best.
Central actors understand that they have a natural tendency to understand people,
which gives them influence. N471 gave a great example of this: “I know that I am an
extremely empathetic person. This allows me to feel what it is like to be in another’s
shoes. As a result of this trait, I can frequently steer perspectives/situations in a positive
direction.” Similarly, N043 commented that “listening is key, observing others’ body
language is key, noticing when someone’s responses aren’t in the normal register and
asking what’s up.” Observation, listening and reading others’ emotions appear to be
fundamental to central actor perceptions of influence.
Central actors perceive influence as a result of non-judgmental actions and open-
minded thoughts which build trust. N689 stated: “perhaps the most critical component of
a social support relationship is to not be judgmental or critical of others’ ideas even when
you have your concerns.” N161 stated: “trust I have built with coworkers creates
influence.”
182
From a broader more holistic perspective, N223 described his or her influence in
the following way: “my door is always open; I want to help everyone be successful in
their position/career; treat others as you want to be treated; love what you do; grow deep
roots in what you do as a solid foundation will support you.” Putting the influence of
central actors succinctly, N043 said “anyone can be a person of influence if they choose
to be a part of someone else’s life.”
Summary
The findings in Chapter 4 were organized by the three specific research
objectives. In this mixed-methods design, objectives two and three were meant to
qualitatively explain a finding from objective 1. Findings from objective 1 provided a
broad picture of the OSU Extension informal network of social support using commonly
accepted network properties. Objective 2 utilized the findings of in-degree centrality from
objective 1 to identify the central actors in the network. Findings from a further
qualitative inquiry were used to describe the characteristics, attributes and behaviors of
the central actors, utilizing perspectives from both the central actor and relational ties.
Objective 3 sought to explore the perceived influence of the central actor on the
behaviors of the relational ties. A more detailed summary and discussion of findings is
presented in Chapter 5.
183
Chapter 5 Discussion
For the benefit of the reader, this chapter starts by restating the research problem
and providing an overview of the methodology used for the study. Results are summarized
and then discussed in a general sense. The discussion includes my insights as the
researcher intertwined with findings from literature. This chapter concludes with
implications for practice in Ohio State University Extension (OSU Extension) and
suggestions for additional research.
Statement of the Problem
Human issues are central to today’s change management practices. The failure
many organizations experience when implementing organizational change is not typically
a result of technical issues, but human issues instead (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Kotter &
Cohen, 2002; Schein, 2010). In order for change to be successful, leaders need to
understand the informal networks and psycho-social dynamics at play when individuals
are facing change. When faced with change, individuals seek to find solutions to
overcome anxieties, and they typically look to those around them for support. Finding
ways to address the anxiety and stress of individuals involved in the changes has been a
commonly overlooked practice by change leaders amid the routine complexities that
accompany change efforts. Schein (2010) proposes that creating an environment where
individuals can feel safe as they overcome their anxieties of change will go a long way in
encouraging change to occur and for it to be sustained.
184
In addition to reducing anxieties, the connections within the support networks
have been examined showing evidence that supportive relationships within networks
influence individual attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Valente, 2010). The position
typically wielding more power to influence the behavior of others is that of the central
actor (Valente, 2010). Central actors in a social support network are not only plugged in
to the dynamics of the informal organization but they also wield an influence through the
support they provide.
The dynamics of Extension work lend it to be a high-stress environment even
without inserting requirements for change. It was my hypothesis that an informal network
of social support existed as a way to cope within this environment. In addition, I posited
there are individuals positioned centrally within these networks who have a degree of
influence of which they may not even be aware they hold. An exploratory look into this
network within OSU Extension can spur the conversation on how to effectively engage
and support individuals through change. If more is known about the network composition
and specifically the central actors, leaders can begin to think strategically about engaging
central individuals in meaningful ways to create an environment conducive for change.
With this study, I intended to discover the informal network of social support,
highlighting the non-supervisory relationships, within OSU Extension. I further examined
the individuals positioned centrally in regard to their collective characteristics, behaviors,
traits, and attributes as well as the manner in which they are perceived to influence the
behavior of those in their networks. The specific objectives addressed in this study
included:
1. Explore key network characteristics to describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension.
185
2. Describe the central actors in the non-supervisory network of social support.
3. Explore the perceived influence of central actors on behavior of ties.
Review of Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods approach starting with a quantitative
network analysis employing survey methodology to obtain sociometric data to establish
the network composition and identify central actors. This was followed by a qualitative
examination of the central actors’ characteristics and influence through a survey approach
obtaining both central actor and tie perspectives.
Phase I
Phase I was a quantitative phase of the study and employed an applied network
analysis approach utilizing a bounded whole network, (i.e., a census of OSU Extension
employees). Survey methodology utilized a questionnaire as a name generator to identify
employees who provide social support and identified other attributes describing the
relationship. A combination of descriptive statistics and measures of network analysis
were used. Analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS, UCINET
(Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) and Netdraw (Borgatti, 2002).
Phase II
Phase II was used to explore the collective characteristics, behaviors, attributes,
and actions of the central actors in addition to further exploring any perceived influence
the central actors have on the relational ties. The population for phase II was identified
using the findings of the in-degree centrality measure in phase I. A survey approach was
used for both central actors and their relational ties. Analysis of the data was performed
using NVivo Pro and Excel.
186
There were certain limitations affecting the generalizability of this study. It was
recognized that the network examined exists in a single moment in time within OSU
Extension and thus represents a unique composition unlike any other organization. In
addition, this study relied on individual perceptions of social support. Social support is a
complex construct that encompasses several types (emotional, instrumental,
informational, and appraisal) which may be either perceived or actual. Efforts were made
to achieve a consistent definition but may still have been interpreted according to
individual experiences and knowledge within OSU Extension. Consequently, findings in
this study may only be applied to OSU Extension and cannot be generalized to other
Extension organizations throughout the United States and beyond.
Summary of Findings
Overall, the findings from this study encompass a general network profile, the
identification and description of central actors, and insight into influence that exists in the
relationships. Key findings from each objective will be summarized in this section.
Objective 1
The first objective in this study was to explore key network characteristics to
describe the non-supervisory network of social support in OSU Extension. Overall, it was
discovered that the OSU Extension informal network of social support is a very large
(629 nodes), yet loosely connected network (density <1 percent; average degree 2.1). The
network has 437 components. Examining by a measure for overall cohesion in the
network, connectedness and fragmentation indicate approximately 22 percent of the
nodes in the network can reach each other by any path and inversely approximately 78
percent of the nodes cannot reach other nodes by any path. Whole network centralization
187
measures coincide with the previous measures, as the measures reported a decentralized
network indicating there is not one or just a few nodes by which all other nodes are
organized around.
In looking at whether or not the connections among nodes tend to be along like
characteristics, measures of homophily were examined. Homophily in this network was
indicated among gender and ethnicity, as there is a greater tendency of connections to
interact with individuals of the same gender and ethnic origin. Among demographic
variables such as program, job role, age and education, homophily does not appear to
exist, instead, the connections tend more toward heterophily, the opposite of homophily.
Reference Table 4-2 for the associated E-I Index scores.
Approximately 11 percent of the connections in the OSU Extension informal
network of social support are reciprocated, with most of the reciprocated connections
being among females. The connections in the network can be described as within easy
driving distance (an average of 31 miles) and located within the same geographical
parameters, indicating a collaborative work area in the forms of county (57 percent) or
Extension Education and Research Areas (EERA) (74 percent). A large number of these
connections happen in-person (29 percent) or via email (26 percent). The length of the
relationship on average was seven years, and interactions take place on average 20 times
a month.
Objective 2
The second objective was to describe the central actors in the informal network of
social support. In all, 33 central actors were identified using criteria of having six or more
in-degree ties and not holding a state or regional-level administrative position. On
188
average, the central actors were mostly females 51 years of age, working full time in
OSU Extension for an average of 16 years. The central actors primarily serve in job roles
of educator/CED and educator, while a small percentage were also recognized in other
roles. Central actors tend to be more educated, with approximately 79 percent of them
holding a master’s degree or higher.
Exploring the connections on the same characteristics as objective 1, we found
that connections with central actors are an average of 41 miles apart, with 46 percent
located in the same county and 67 percent in the same EERA. On average the ties and
central actors have known one another for 7.5 years and typically interact an average of
16 times per month.
Qualitatively, relational ties of the central actors described central actors across
three primary themes: personal, relational and work-specific characteristics. A summary
of characteristics, attributes and behaviors derived from the analysis of the relational tie
perspective is found in Table 5-1.
189
Table 5-1 Summary of Central Actor Characteristics/Attributes/Behaviors from Relational Tie Perspective Themes and Sub-themes Description Summary
Personal Approachable Friendly, smiles a lot, shows interest
Welcoming and encouraging of interactions with others Makes themselves available to others
Listening Excellent in active listening Holds own thoughts/opinions while others are talking Will take time to listen even when otherwise busy
Attitude- Authenticity
Authentic in their interactions Transparent and honest Sincere, consistently real, genuine
Attitude- Positive
Positive outlook on life in general Radiates positivity Contagious enthusiasm, high-energy
Attitude- Collected
Calm, cool, and level-headed in tense situations and with difficult people
Joyfulness and Humor
High-energy, joyful nature Sense of humor Fun and enjoyable to be around
Work Ethic and Accountability
Follow through on tasks Perform job duties well Goes above and beyond expectations High personal accountability
Intelligence and Problem-Solving
Smart and sharp, possessing common sense Analytical thinker Looks at all sides before making a decision or providing a solution
Open-minded Non-judgmental, acting without bias Open to the thoughts/ideas of others
Innovative Thinks outside the box Offers alternative solutions Creative in their approach to situations/issues Always ready to explore new territory
continued
190
Themes and Sub-themes Description Summary
Trustworthiness and Values
Capable of establishing and retaining trust of ties Strong moral character Not afraid to express beliefs and values with others
Relational Encouragement
and Coaching Offers praise and celebrates successes of others Challenges others to stretch their boundaries of comfort Asks questions for others to arrive at their own solution
Relationship Building and
Connector
Works a part of a team Utilizes personal network to establish connections for others Makes connections to get things done
Role Model Exhibits behaviors that others desire to emulate
Service Orientation with
Altruism
Genuinely cares about the success of others Sincere desire to help others, often placing others’ needs before their own Helping whenever possible and not making others feel like it’s an inconvenience
Shared Interests
Possess mutual interests with tie (i.e., values, beliefs, goals) Have shared experiences (i.e., similar job scenarios, personal health situations, home and family)
Work Specific Experience and
Knowledge Possess considerable knowledge on the organizational system, processes and procedures Has experience navigating organizational norms and handling work situations Possess specific technical area of expertise
Instrumental Assistance
Provide resources or materials necessary for completion of task Provide physical assistance in completing tasks
Relational ties felt that central actors were friendly and approachable and never
made the ties feel bad or dumb for coming to the central actors with questions or
concerns. Central actors are perceived as making themselves available for others and are
very willing to provide help and support whenever possible. Central actors are service-
oriented individuals who often appear to put others’ needs before their own. Central
Table 5-1. Continued
191
actors are viewed as authentic individuals due to their honest and transparent nature with
others.
Central actors radiate positivity and are viewed as being generally fun and
enjoyable to be around. Even though they are seen as joyous, fun, and high-energy,
central actors possess a seriousness when needed. They have a calm and collected
demeanor in difficult situations. They are thought of as great listeners, as they actively
listen to others before sharing their own thoughts and opinions. In addition to being hard-
working and intelligent, central actors are open-minded, creative, and possess an elevated
sense of personal accountability.
Central actors are consistently encouraging others to be the best they can be. They
are diligent in connecting others with materials and resources necessary to complete
tasks. Central actors possess a great deal of knowledge and expertise to which they refer
when providing advice to ties. Central actors are known to dig in and provide
instrumental assistance when needed. See Chapter 4, Figure 4-9 for a list of themes and
sub-themes.
Data analyzed from the central actor perspective provides a somewhat different
description of central actors than from the perspective of the relational ties but were still
organized across three primary themes: personal, relational, and work-specific
characteristics. Data was obtained through the central actors’ recall of their actions, thoughts
and feelings regarding a social support interaction. Differences noted were in the central
actors’ expression of humility and not speaking to things like their work ethic, problem-
solving abilities, and ability to garner trust from others. A summary of characteristics,
192
attributes and behaviors derived from the analysis of the central actor perspective is found in
Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Summary of Central Actor Characteristics/Attributes/Behaviors from Central Actor Perspective Themes and Sub-themes Description Summary
Personal Positive Attitude
and Humility Love people and relationships Appreciative of opportunity to provide support Humbled that others would seek them for support
Listening Regularly listen to the concerns and ideas of others often, with the intention of building confidence and helping ties reframe the situation
Open-minded Challenge ties to see things differently Provide alternative solutions Non-judgmental
Relational
Accessible and Role Model
Make themselves accessible Encouraging interactions with others Lead by example
Empowerment and Coaching
Help colleagues through tough situations Mentor new colleagues
Relationship Building and
Connector
Relationships are important Use personal network to make connections for others Will spend time to inquire about personal lives of others
Service Orientation with
Altruism
Gain joy and fulfillment from helping others Desire to see others reach their potential Engage in supportive behaviors even with the lack of formal reward in the organization
Work Specific
Experience and Knowledge
Have learned from past experiences and willing to share with others Held positions of leadership in professional associations
Instrumental Assistance
Provide informal training where they see its needed Will share resources and knowledge that will make the task easier for others
193
Central actors talked about being positive, optimistic, grateful, appreciative,
humbled, and even blessed in regard to their social support interactions. They dedicated
themselves to be active listeners, because they understand that feeling heard builds
confidence in others. They appear to listen on two levels. They listened as a friend
showing they care about the tie on a personal level; and they listened to gain perspective
and context of problems and issues on which they were being asked to provide
advice/guidance.
Central actors felt they were intentional in withholding personal biases, and as a
result, challenged relational ties to view situations/issues outside their typical frame of
reference. Central actors talked about encouraging relational ties to be their best by
celebrating their successes and coaching them thorough their failures.
Being accessible was viewed as important to central actors. Often, they claimed
they encouraged relational ties to come to them no matter the time or question. Central
actors desired to lead by example and demonstrate their ability to build solid relationships
with colleagues, as relationships were said to be “the most important thing you will ever
do.” Central actors talked about working alongside relational ties in a collaborative team-
based format.
Central actors exhibited dedication to serving their colleagues. If they can be of
assistance, they WANT others to engage with them. Central actors derived joy and
fulfillment from these interactions even knowing it is not formally rewarded in the
organization. Central actors humbly recognized they possess vast experience, and through
that an enhanced level of knowledge; and they claimed they were willing to share what
they have learned with their colleagues in need. They even took their assistance to the
194
instrumental level, as they mentioned actively engaging in specific tasks (e.g., creating
presentations, developing filing systems) to make the task easier for the relational ties.
Objective 3
The third objective of this study was to explore the perceived influence of central
actors on behavior of ties. Influence was perceived to exist in the relationships, as 84
percent of relational ties self-reported a change of perspective or behavior; while 100
percent of central actors perceived either in certainty (77 percent) or the possibility (23
percent) of influence, as indicated by their observation of a behavior or perspective
change among the relational ties. The exploration of the data uncovered themes related to
the actions of the central actors and the impact the perceived influence had on the
behavior of relational ties. Included here first is a summary of the actions of the central
actors contributing to the influence from both the relational tie and central actor
perspectives. This is followed by a summary of the perceived impact on behavior or
relational ties (again from both perspectives), ending with a summary of the central
actors’ philosophical views of their influence.
Actions. Actions such as providing aid to navigate organizational practices,
empowering others through positivity, encouraging a work-life balance, and enhancing
competencies are behaviors/actions perceived by the relational ties to contribute to the
influence of the central actors. Relational ties reported actions of the central actors that
led to behavior change included: guidance through tough situations, extending
encouragement for ties to be their best, and advocating for the ties’ personal and
professional growth. Ties reported that central actors were very empowering through
their positive demeanor and actions.
195
Given that many central actors indicated they felt there was evidence of behavior
change in ties, they were basic in their descriptions of what they believed contributed to
their influence. From the central actor perspective, actions such as creating an
environment conducive to learning and providing instrumental assistance were associated
with their influence. Listening, personal invitations, and offering collaboration and
friendship were ways the central actors created space. A summary of the actions
perceived to contribute to central actors’ influence on tie behavior is shared in Figure 5-1.
196
Figure 5-1. Summary of Actions Contributing to Central Actors’ Influence.
Perceived impact. Further exploration of the central actors’ influence led to
discovering the impact their influence had on the behavior of the relational ties. The
perceived impact was reported as a noted change in behavior of the tie. Data were
organized by sub-themes: appreciation, different thinking, gained clarity and
understanding, personal and professional growth, and stress-mitigating actions for the
ACTIONS by perspective
Relational Ties Central Actors
Aid in Navigating Organizational Practices Guide through P&T process
Guide through financial rules
Clarify organizational norms
Guide through challenges
Empowering Others Through Positivity Reinforce positive self-talk
Cheer successes
Learn from failure
Encouraging Work-life Balance Encourage to take time for self
Taught how to prioritize people’s demands
Enhancing Competencies of Ties Encourage ties to be their best
Encourage ties to step out of comfort zone
Advocate for ties’ personal and professional development
Creating Space for Learning Personal invitations to events
Active listening
Offer collaboration
Offer friendship
Offer co-teaching opportunities
Providing Instrumental Assistance Help build presentations
Conduct teaching observations
Provide resources/materials for work
197
relational ties. Data from central actors were organized into sub-themes: created a space
for learning and instrumental assistance.
Relational ties reported that, as an outcome from their interactions with the central
actor, they felt appreciative of their support especially in the sense of keeping them
grounded and realistic. Ties were also thinking about things differently. A shift in
perspective was reported among relational ties, as they claimed they viewed situations
differently and were able to see situations through a broader lens via input and insight
from the central actors.
A sense of clarity and understanding was reported by relational ties, as
interactions with central actors provided them greater clarity and understanding of
people, situations and the organization itself. Central actors were reported to be
instrumental in the personal and professional growth of the ties. Ties reported that, after
encouragement from the central actors, they were inspired to pursue higher education, a
new job role or promotion. Relational ties reported that central actors inspired them to
work harder and be adventurous in their work.
Central actors were reported as being a calming influence; and through
interactions with the central actors, the relational ties found themselves engaging in the
same calming behaviors. Relational ties reported they often step back, breathe and think
before reacting to situations. They also noted that they felt like they were able to loosen
up in tense situations and go with the flow.
Central actors also reported on the change in behaviors they noted as a result of
their social support interactions with ties. Appreciation, different thinking, empowerment,
and confidence were aspects reflecting a change in relational ties’ behavior noted by
198
central actors. Central actors felt that change was experienced due to the overt
appreciation and gratitude expressed by relational ties. Central actors noted changes in
thinking as demonstrated by watching ties react differently to situations – as in removing
themselves from the scenario and then being able to see it from another perspective.
Central actors reported a sense of empowerment and confidence in the relational ties.
They noted the ties were practicing better self-care habits and were more confident in
their choices. Some ties, as noted by central actors, even gained a positive outlook. A
summary of the perceived impact on the behavior of the relational ties can be found in
Figure 5-2.
199
Figure 5-2. Summary of Perceived Impact on Behavior of Relational Ties.
IMPACT by perspective
Relational Ties Central Actors
Appreciation Demonstrate love and gratitude toward central actor
Tie doesn’t feel isolated
Different Thinking Examine situations with broader lens
More considerate of varied opinions and divergent thoughts
Stretch personal opinions
Gained Clarity and Understanding Better understanding of how organization works
Clarity of psycho-social underpinnings of officemates’ behaviors
Personal and Professional Growth Pursuing higher education
Pursuing different job role or promotion
Stepped out of comfort zone to meet people
Stress-mitigating actions Calmer and less tense in conflict
Loosened up in tense office situations
Breathing/thinking before responding
Appreciation Glad to have had the conversation
Appreciative of central actor keeping tie grounded and realistic
Different Thinking Thought about situation differently
Able to view the situation through another’s eyes
Empowerment and Confidence Demonstrating better self-care habits
Ties more confident in their choices
Handled situations differently
200
Philosophical view of influence. More than half of the central actors felt there
was a possibility they were an influential person. In all 50 percent of them claimed they
were influential, at least at the time they completed the questionnaire. Central actors hold
a people-centric philosophy of service. When describing their influence, central actors
took the philosophical route – describing their influence as a natural course of their desire
to serve others and their open-minded demeanor, coupled with their empathy. They
expressed a desire to be a part of the ties’ lives and showed a dedication to bring out the
best in them. Given their people-centric orientation, central actors feel their influence
may be derived from their innate understanding of human behavior and empathetic
qualities. Central actors believed their empathy and understanding of human behavior
afforded them the ability to steer perspectives and situations in positive directions when
needed.
Conclusions and Researcher Insights
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the informal network of
social support within the Ohio State University Extension system. Specifically, the
objectives were: (1) explore key network characteristics to describe the non-supervisory
network of social support in OSU Extension; (2) describe the central actors in the non-
supervisory network of social support; and (3) explore the perceived influence of central
actors on behavior of ties.
Revisiting the conceptual framework (chapter 2 Figure 2-1) of this study, the top
half of the model depicted the study through a broader lens by highlighting the existence
of supportive relationships between central actors and relational ties and the effects of
influence. In the context of social support and opinion leadership, central actors
201
simultaneously provide support to relational ties and have an influential effect on the ties.
The central actors’ influence aids the relational ties in finding ways to cope with stress and
anxiety and also, in accordance with the literature presented in chapter 2, results in altered
attitudes and behaviors of the ties.
The lower portion of the model showed the questions that were explored in this
study as it expanded on an understanding of the broader network by digging deeper into a
critical element – central actors. What are the characteristics, behaviors, and domain
specific competencies (within the context of OSU Extension)? Additionally, given the
influence of central actors, what are the actions associated with the influence and what
specific impacts or changes are found in the behaviors and attitudes of the relational ties?
The significance of this study is rooted in exploring the network, especially central
actors, for change management purposes while simultaneously contributing to the
knowledge base on opinion leaders. The interpretation in this section is framed with
change management applications in mind. In addition, as an aid to the reader, the words
‘central actor’ and ‘opinion leader’ are used synonymously throughout this section.
Based on a review of literature, my organizational development experience, and my work
with OSU Extension, a series of interpretations and insights related to the objectives of
this study were reached.
Insight #1: Lack of Connection in the Network of Social Support
Using social network analysis, I was able to explore interdependent relationships
serving as channels for transfer of information and ideas (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
Specifically looking at an informal network of social support (non-supervisory ties), I
found the size of the network (629 nodes, 1,319 connections) to be rather large and
202
cumbersome; therefore no patterns emerged under initial visual inspection of network
maps generated in NetDraw.
The composition of the OSU Extension informal network of social support is a
sparsely connected network as indicated by density (0.003). This indicates less than half
of 1 percent of the possible connections actually exist in this network. Similarly, the
network has a components ratio of 0.694 and 437 components. This indicates that it’s
nearing every node as an isolate, and when isolated, they are unable to connect with
others. Connectedness (0.779) is another measure that supports the sparseness of the
network, as it indicated 78 percent of nodes aren’t able to reach other nodes by any path.
This network may be sparsely connected, as it is examining only non-supervisory
ties. It is highly likely that the removal of the supervisor/supervisee relationships in terms
of social support decreased the total number of connections evident in the network.
However, I was intentional in removing the supervisory element of power and influence
so I could explore the truly informal relationships underpinning employee behavior in the
organization. This focus on non-supervisor relationships was partly due to the findings of
Bloir (2014) from his study positioned in OSU Extension. He found a substantial positive
association between high quality relationships with supervisors and satisfaction of
employee basic psychological needs, yet supervisory relationships explained only three
percent of the variance for employee readiness for change when controlling for
demographic variables and dispositional resistance to change.
The lack of connections could also be a product of the construct of social support
itself. It may be possible that personnel within the organization don’t experience that
depth of connection with more than one person if at all. In this instance, the organizational
203
culture and norms may be subject to explaining the sparse connections. Perhaps the
culture of OSU Extension has not formally encouraged or supported these type of social
support relationships. Therefore, an opportunity exists for OSU Extension to be intentional
in developing more social support connections through professional development
programs such as coaching, mentoring, and listening sessions.
Insight #2: Interaction is Not Exclusive to Particular Demographics
Interactions within the network were examined along a measure of homophily.
Homophily is the tendency to interact with others with similar characteristics. As
expected, in this network we see evidence of a tendency toward homophily among gender
and ethnicity; individuals tend to interact with those of the same gender and ethnicity.
This is not a surprising finding, as the network was mostly comprised of white females,
comparative to the overall organizational demographic composition. There is a minimal
tendency toward homophily by program. In addition, the network analysis conducted
here did not normalize the measure of homophily by creating equal groups that would
have allowed for a deeper understanding of the underlying preferences.
On the other hand, we see a tendency away from homophily (heterophily) among
job role, age, and education. Individuals do not tend to interact only with others of like
job roles, ages or level of education. This is indicative that individuals are not confined
by these demographic characteristics as a way of determining with whom they will
connect. This means there are other psycho-social factors to which the connections can be
attributed. These measures were explored at the whole network level and may indeed tell
a different story if explored among smaller, more targeted units or teams within the
organization.
204
Broadly the interaction here may be surprising to some individuals. As an
academic institution, stigmas of working in ‘silos’ exist and are often perpetuated by
those reticent to engage in interdisciplinary work. While my findings here were not
related to specific work responsibilities, I find it encouraging that individuals are
reaching across organizationally defined boundaries (e.g., program, position) for support.
Insight #3: Proximity is Important
In relation to physical proximity across the whole network, approximately 56
percent of the connections were located in the same county office and 74 percent were
located in the same EERA (which includes a group of neighboring counties). In miles, the
majority of connections were less than one mile away from each other. The number of
connections located so closely signify that physical proximity is a contributing factor in
establishing and sustaining social support relationships.
For central actor connections only, these numbers differed slightly. The average
miles between ties was 41 with the mode being almost 2 miles, an increase from ties
among the whole network. The percentages of those ties located in the same county or
EERA went down, signifying that central actors have more connections beyond their
local working unit. It could be said that central actors appear willing to spread their
support to those with whom they do not work directly and that proximity is less important
to them. This may also be related to the personal networks they have built over the course
of their work in state and national professional associations and other statewide work.
The preferred modes by which the connections happen are in-person, email, and
phone-voice. In-person was the most popular mode, further supporting that proximity is
important in these connections. Additionally, the connections average more than seven
205
years in length and interactions occur on average 20 times a month. These social support
connections are well established. It has taken time to establish and reach this level of
support, indicating the connections have likely been generated from friendships or have
evolved into friendships. Considering that the preferred mode is in-person, interactions
occur an average 20 times a month and they are long-term connections, this supports the
supposition that these relationships are based on physical proximity and may not have
occurred if the tie locations were further apart.
Insight #4: Findings Support and Contribute to Opinion Leader Literature
This study contributed to the need for a deeper understanding of opinion leaders.
Chen, Glass, & McCartney (2016) felt that researchers have not yet reached a consolidated
understanding of what characteristics and attributes make an opinion leader an opinion
leader. Findings from this study both support many of the characteristics and behaviors
that have been identified and offers a new lens for further exploration into the motivations
of opinion leaders.
Demographic profile. While literature supports that socio-demographic variables
alone are poor indicators of opinion leadership and don’t really contribute to a solid
description of opinion leaders (Gnambs & Batinic, 2012), many studies still report on
these variables. In this study, looking at demographics, central actors were generally
older, educated, white, females serving as educators or educator/CED. This is not
surprising as the organization in this study, as a whole, was predominately white females,
however, central actors were identified as both male and female and ranging in ages from
29 to 69.
206
Generally, opinion leaders are thought to be older as they are typically perceived
as experts resulting from varied experiences over time. In this study, given there were a
few younger opinion leaders identified, I cannot definitively attribute age as a descriptor
of opinion leaders. This finding is supported by findings from Weimann, Tustin, Van
Vuuren, & Joubert (2007) that opinion leaders were from both sexes and across all age
groups.
From a years of service standpoint, the average was approximately 16 years. Given
that respondents weren’t required to report this number and knowing the minimum age of
central actors is 29, I can infer that minimum years of service, at most, could be 7 years
conservatively. Central actors with only seven years of service could have spent that time
gaining connections and experience in the organization and as a result create more
established networks of support reaching others statewide. However, given my knowledge
of the complex nature of Extension and how long it typically takes employees to be fully
socialized with a level of comfort to begin supporting others, identifying central actors
with such few years of experience supports the knowledge that opinion leadership is better
described by a set of psycho-social characteristics.
Characteristics, attributes, and behaviors. The qualitative exploration of
behaviors and characteristics of central actors provided some insightful information that
builds upon the literature reviewed on opinion leaders. This study found themes of
accessibility, positivity, listening, being open-minded, encouragement and coaching,
being a role model, an altruistic service orientation, building relationships, being a
connector, experience and knowledge, and instrumental assistance. These themes were
cross-cutting across both the relational tie and central actor perspectives.
207
Differences among the perspectives include more detail from relational ties about
specific characteristics and attributes of central actors such as: trust, values, work ethic,
accountability, intelligence, problem-solving, innovativeness, joyfulness, humor, calm
demeanor, and authenticity. Relational ties also talked about shared interests between
them and the central actors that created a sense of comfort and familiarity. In support of
the central actors not boasting about personal attributes, they did talk about overall
humility and gratitude for the opportunity to serve.
The presence of knowledge, experience, positive nature, openness, personal
responsibility, joyfulness, and being relationally oriented all align with the literature
discussed in chapter 2 on the characteristics of opinion leaders. These findings support
Weimann’s (1994) findings that opinion leaders set themselves apart by thinking and
acting differently, but not so different that they greatly deviate from social norms. I saw
evidence of this in findings from this study, as the central actors were reported as
challenging the way ties were thinking about and approaching situations. Similarly,
findings from Gnambs and Batinic (2012) linked self-efficacy to opinion leadership
beyond the big-five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism). While self-efficacy was not directly addressed in this
study, aspects of confidence in knowledge and abilities were evident in central actors as
noted from the ties’ perspective.
Central actors in this study appeared to subscribe to a philosophy where there may
be more than one correct answer, and they are willing to explore and analyze the
information to find the most correct answer. Aligning with findings from Smith (2005)
208
and Andrews et al. (2014), this demonstrates the opinion leaders’ openness to experience
and thus enhanced ability to navigate complex decisions and environments.
Labeled as service orientation in this study, the central actors appear to possess a
deeper motivation to serving others that stems from happiness, goodness and even
spiritual faith. Central actors in OSU Extension serve others with both their head and
their heart, as kindness and goodness appear to be core to who they are. The closest
reference in reviewed literature is the pursuit of pleasure found by Klein et al. (2004).
While I believe it would not be a far stretch to infer that serving others brings enjoyment
to the central actors in this study, I also feel that there is something deeper at play;
something more inherent to their core way of being which would involve further study.
The role of support that central actors play appears to not only be due to their
innate character and need to serve; it stems from a necessity of obvious need in the
organization. In many cases noted in the data, the motivation for central actors to provide
support was to right what they perceived to be a wrong in the organization – the lack of
support and guidance for new employees as an example. Many central actors were
reported to have stepped up and served as mentors and role models to those in greatest
need, and they did so knowing there was no formal reward for their actions.
Through the lens of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the central actors in this study
have surpassed the lower order motivations of basic psychological needs, safety, and love
and belonging. It could be posited that they have worked past self-esteem, as they are
incredibly confident individuals and are operating from a need of self-actualization. I
would posit that with further study, a correlation would be noted among where the central
actors fall on the hierarchy of needs and their service orientation.
209
Insight #5: Central Actors in OSU Extension Influence Their Ties
“The central outcome of opinion leadership is a social influence on others”
(Gnambs & Batinic, 2012, p.598). I explored the perceived influence of central actors on
the perspectives and behaviors of ties. Both central actors and relational ties
acknowledged that influence existed in the relationships, but not once indicated that the
influence felt intentional or manipulative. Under Hamilton’s matrix (as cited in
Weimann, 1994), most of the connections in this study would fall within corroborated
persuasion or advice, because both parties acknowledged the influence by central actors
stating relational ties experienced a change in behavior or perspective as a result of the
interactions with central actors. Given that the influence was reported retrospectively, the
connections may have also been operating under the contagion effect, where neither party
is aware influence exists and may actually be in denial of it.
The central actors in this study could fall under what Kingdon refers to as passive
leaders (as cited in Weiman, 1994). These are leaders who are often consulted for advice
and guidance, but they don’t seek to exert influence as the connections are activated by
others and not themselves. In this study, central actors weren’t seen as forcing their own
opinions on others and generally have served as more of a coach helping others find their
own way or answer. Advice, guidance, and instrumental assistance were primary actions
that relational ties indicated as contributing to the influence of central actors.
Continuing with the notion of the passive leader, central actors don’t view
themselves as an opinion leader or influential. They are not manipulative. They see their
actions as supporting colleagues and friends, as opposed to the informal leadership role
that it is. Whether it be corroborated advice or a contagion effect, the central actors are
210
influencing the behaviors of others simply because they are willing to be a source of
social support.
How did the influence of the central actors impact the relational ties? A shift in
perspective was reported among relational ties because they were grateful to have a
grounding presence helping them view situations differently and gain the ability to view
situations with a broader lens. Also reported was a sense of clarity and understanding, as
interactions with central actors provided the ties with greater clarity and understanding
about people, situations and the organization itself. This finding aligns with Srivastava’s
(2015) hypothesis that the ambiguity of organizational change is a driver for people to
connect with colleagues who can help them make sense of what is happening and sort out
what it means for them. The role of central actors includes serving as a mechanism for
uncertainty reduction, stress moderation, and resistance reduction when it comes to
organizational change.
Central actors have established themselves as a source of social support for their
colleagues. Regardless of their intentions, central actors exert a degree of influence that
can at some level surpass even the influence of the organization leader. To illustrate, a
top-level leader imposes a change that directly affects front-line personnel. The leader
was somewhat ambiguous in his or her direction and articulating desired outcomes. The
front-line personnel will turn to their trusted support network to make sense of this
change. The front-line employees will take advice from those they trust and perhaps even
assume the same beliefs about the change, which could be good or bad, and then act in
accordance with those beliefs. These actions could perpetuate resistance or provide
clarity toward working solutions. Either way, the organization leader didn’t have direct
211
influence to ensure that every individual was understanding of the change and how it
would affect them personally. This simple illustration is obviously devoid of all the
contextual factors that are involved in organizational change and workplace dynamics;
but it supports how opinion leaders end up with influence in the workplace.
Through their own accord, central actors have assumed the role of informal trainer,
coach, advice giver, guide, and mentor for colleagues as well as new employees. The
advice and direction provided by the central actors are based upon the central actors’ own
experiences and beliefs about the organization. Good or bad, positive or misdirected, those
beliefs and experiences will permeate through the fabric of the organization as long as
opinion leaders are exerting influence on others within their network of social support.
Insight #6: Findings Advance Change Management Practices
Through a broader lens, findings from this study support an emerging paradigm
shift for change management practices. Organizational change has been difficult for
organizations largely due to the oversimplification of what is actually a highly complex
process involving a synergistic blend of types and approaches (Anderson & Ackerman-
Anderson, 2010; By, 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2005), thus exponentially increasing the
complexity of change management. When faced with the complexity and pressure of
success, leaders will tend to focus too much on the formal structures while disregarding
the informal ones (Cross & Parker, 2004), among which the majority of the power exists
to shape change outcomes (Chan, 2002).
Organizational change fails not only because leaders have trouble understanding
and navigating the complexity of the process but they tend to overlook the people side of
change as a result. This study provides several aspects that help advance change
212
management. First, this study provided a thorough literature review for leaders to better
understand the complexity of change so that they may employ the proper approach(es) to
meet their objectives. Next, this study presents insights into the psycho-social dynamics of
individual change, specifically highlighting Schein’s (2010) concept of learning anxiety as
a contributing factor to resistance. A basic understanding of the psycho-social dynamics of
change could guide leaders in their change-related decisions from a humanistic
perspective with an intention to reduce resistance to change.
Finally, this study examines a portion of the social support network with a focus
on, central actors, whom by definition possess social influence. Findings in this study
describe the nature of the social support connections and detail the characteristics and
behaviors of central actors. Understanding of the connections and central actors is a
foundation for determining meaningful ways to utilize the information and skills they
possess for advancing organizational change. The social influence in the context of social
support, if engaged meaningfully within the organization, could serve as a formal
mechanism to address the anxiety and stressors people face during change. Additionally,
leaders who discover and are open to the information the central actors can share about the
informal organization could be better positioned to identify the best working solutions for
creating and sustaining change. Over time, the organization may even experience a
cultural shift enabling a more change competent organizational environment, readily
flexible to meet the ever-changing demands of society.
Implications for Practice
Approaching this research through a pragmatist lens, the immediate focus of my
recommendations is for the organization in which the study took place, specifically
213
recommendations for how OSU Extension might use the research findings. Based on the
findings of this study, the review of relevant literature, and my insights as the researcher,
the following recommendations are offered for practice of developing an environment for
central actors to emerge, for employees to experience social support, and engaging
current central actors to build the capacity for change in the organization through a lens
of social support.
1. Regularly employ network analysis principles and procedures to discover central
actors in a clearly defined network of social support. Relational connections in
networks are continually evolving and thus should be revisited annually or as
often as resources allow. Other networks may be defined and targeted if better
suited to the specific change goals or challenges (e.g., friendship, trust,
communication, advice, energy).
2. Assess the central actors’ level of organizational commitment with the
understanding that the central actors may not be aware they hold such influence.
The advice and direction provided by the central actors are based upon the central
actors’ own experiences and beliefs about the organization. Good or bad, positive
or misdirected, those beliefs and experiences permeate through the fabric of the
organization as long as opinion leaders are exerting influence on others within
their network of social support. Leaders need to assess whether or not they are a
positive or negative influence and determine how best to utilize that influence in
reaching organizational goals.
3. Engage central actors in meaningful ways. Provide opportunities for central actors
to inform strategic organizational initiatives. Invite them to take part in strategic
214
planning and decision-making processes at the organizational level. Recruit them
to serve as formal mentors and coaches during the onboarding process. Their
informal position in the organization is tied to the pulse of where the work
happens, thus they have a perspective beneficial to deriving the most effective
working solutions to implement change.
4. Leaders in the organization should be open to the insights of the central actors and
flexible to how leaders achieve those goals based on that input. Leaders are
responsible for driving the vision and strategy of the organization and by vetting
ideas and plans through central actors, leaders can be more targeted and
intentional with their approaches to change.
5. Build an environment where social support can flourish, and central actors can
emerge organically. Encouraging supportive behaviors can go a long way to
having an environment where employees want to engage in change. One strategy
for this is to create an environment of psychological safety. Schein (2010) talked
about reducing learning anxiety that comes when facing organizational change by
creating an environment of psychological safety. Coupled with organization
leaders, central actors are key personnel in mobilizing the support, training and
role model elements to create psychological safety in an organization. Schein’s
list of activities, which leaders need to be prepared to implement simultaneously,
are as follows:
a) Communicate a compelling vision. Widely shared, this vision needs to
instill hope that things will get better.
215
b) Formal and informal training. Instill new knowledge and ways of
working.
c) Learners involved in own learning process. All individuals have their
own way of learning and will need to have the sense that they can
determine their own process. Goals of learning are non-negotiable, but
methods are individualized.
d) Targeted informal training of involved groups and teams. New cultural
assumptions and norms are built collectively. Training should be
provided to the whole group so all are engaged and none are
marginalized.
e) Provide spaces for practice and feedback. Time and space should be
provided so learners can practice the new ways of being without fear of
retribution and feedback to assess how they are doing.
f) Having positive role models. New behaviors and ways of being are
modeled by individuals they identify with, so they have knowledge of
what the behaviors look like and can imagine themselves doing it.
g) Provide opportunities for airing and discussing problems. A space to
talk about frustrations and difficulties with others who are experiencing
the same or who have experienced the same lends to learning new ways
of dealing with the difficulties.
h) Organizational systems and structures are consistent with the new way
of working. Systems for rewards and discipline must align with
encouraging the desired behaviors and discouraging the undesired ones.
216
6. Be strategic in creating accessible opportunities for all employees to perceive
and/or receive social support. The findings indicated most social support
relationships were in close proximity geographically, therefore a wide-spread
implementation of formal support programs (i.e., coaching and mentoring) would
be beneficial in ensuring more employees can have access to the benefits of
support, especially during times of organizational change.
7. From a professional development standpoint, identify the desired characteristics
and behaviors, aligned with that of the central actors, you wish to perpetuate in
your organization. Provide formal training opportunities for all employees to
engage in learning and developing these skills if they desire. Examples of targeted
and individualized professional development topics include, but are not limited to,
emotional intelligence, boundary spanning leadership, cultural intelligence, grit,
positive psychology, problem-solving, decision- making, conflict resolution,
personality/behavioral assessments, coaching, and understanding self and others.
8. Develop a recruitment strategy to identify, attract, and hire individuals possessing
traits and characteristics emulating those of the central actors to help build the
environment of support. Utilizing behavioral-based interviews and targeted
screening through assessments, candidates can be identified as possessing the
inherent qualities akin to those of the central actors identified in this study. While
the initial transition and socialization will take time to achieve the level of
knowledge and experience possessed by central actors, the foundational inherent
elements of service, positivity, etc. will already be in place helping create the
environment of psychological safety and social support.
217
Suggestions for Additional Research
Based on the findings of this study, a review of literature and my insights as a
researcher, the following recommendations are offered for further research.
1. This study was confined to OSU Extension and would further research would
benefit exploring if the same phenomena were discovered about central actors in
other organizations. Beyond the nationwide Extension system, it would be
especially interesting to see if the characteristics and behaviors discovered in and
education organization are also present in private industry.
2. Conduct network analysis with a targeted hypothesis allowing for an examination
of a narrower frame of nodes, thus allowing underlying patterns to emerge. Based
on exploratory findings from this study, a few suggested questions may include,
but are not limited to:
a) Does age or gender play a role in the mobilization of social support
among program professionals?
b) Are there similarities and/or differences in the composition of a
social support network and a friendship network in OSU Extension?
c) What are the tendencies of [demographic variable of choice] to
interact with one another? And why or why not?
d) Where are the reciprocal connections of social support in the
network?
3. To complement the research conducted around resistance to change from the
supervisor-employee relationship perspective (Bloir, 2014), discover if there is a
correlation between the perception of social support and a reduction in resistance
218
to change. Does having the perception of social support through central actors
mitigate the fears associated with antecedents of resistance or learning anxieties?
4. Especially in the context of change, explore antecedents and outcomes of influence
among colleagues to determine where the organization could use the most
influence and determine how best to execute desired changes from an organic
approach.
5. Examine the central actors’ characteristics and behaviors from this study
partitioned by demographic factors (i.e., geographic location, job role, and years
of experience). This study lumped them all together and it would be interesting to
see if there are any notable differences based on the different variables.
6. Conduct a qualitative case study of a central actor during a specific organizational
change. Document the attitudes, perceptions, interactions, and feelings about the
change and the impact of the central actor’s presence and actions on those around
them.
7. Engage the central actors as change agents in the organization and evaluate their
effectiveness and retention of social authenticity taking inspiration from the study
conducted by Holt & Ryan, (2012).
Summary
This mixed-methods study provided an opportunity to explore the informal
network of social support within OSU Extension, specifically the informal social support
relationships of central actors. This study explored central actors and their influence in a
time when change is an everyday consideration for managers and leaders. This research
was timely, as it examined central actors as a potential avenue for leaders to maximize
219
change efforts within the organization. Central actors or opinion leaders possess social
influence in the organization; and when engaged on behalf of the organization they could
reduce resistance, decrease stress and create an openness to change.
This study was not about creating ‘clones’ of central actors for the purposes of
aiding change efforts. However, we can strive to recreate experiences and feelings of
support. I examined the central actors to examine the characteristics and behaviors that
transcend the group so that leaders can identify those in their organizations to build
environments where employees WANT to engage in change.
The intent was, for those who review the information provided by this study, to
think about organizational change differently, be encouraged to engage in social support
behaviors, and create an environment where supportive behaviors are encouraged,
developed and rewarded for the sake of building capacity for change.
220
References
Alter, T. R. (2003). Where is Extension scholarship falling short, and what can we do about it. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(6) Article 6COM2. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/comm2.php
Amren, M. (2009). Implications of social support and culture in the context of work-related stress (Order No. 1470970). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305183579).
Anderson, D., & Ackerman-Anderson, L. (2010). Beyond change management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Andrews, T. C., Conaway, E. P., Zhao, J., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Colleagues as change agents: How department networks and opinion leaders influence teaching at a single research university. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar15.
Andrews, V., Tonkin, E., Lancastle, D., & Kirk, M. (2014). Identifying the characteristics of nurse opinion leaders to aid the integration of genetics in nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(11), 2598-2611.
Apps, J. W. (1993). Leadership for the next age. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(2) Article 2TP1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/tp1.php
Argabright, K., McGuire, J., & King, J. (2012). Extension through a new lens: Creativity and innovation now and for the future. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 2COM2. Retreived from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/pdf/JOE_v50_2comm2.pdf
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Astroth, K., Goodwin, J., & Hodnett, F. (2011). Servant leadership: Guiding extension programs in the 21st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 49(3) Article 3FEA1. Available at: www.joe.org/joe/2011june/a1.php
Barrera, M., & Ainlay, S. L. (1983). The structure of social support: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 11(2), 133-143.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. HBR’s 10 must reads on change, 78(3), 133-141.
Bloir, K. L. (2014). A Study of Ohio State University Extension Employees’ Readiness for Change in Relation to Employee-Supervisor Relationship Quality, Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction, and Dispositional Resistance to Change (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).
Bloir, K., & King, J. (2010). Change, who... me? Journal of Extension, 48(1), 1COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/pdf/JOE_v48_1comm1.pdf
Borgatti, S.P., 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies: Lexington, KY
221
Borgatti, S. & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science 49, 432-445.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Johnson, J.C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895.
Brass, D. & Burkhardt, M. (1992). Centrality and power in organizations. In Networks and Organizations Eds. Nitin Nohria & Robert Eccles , Harvard Business School Press Boston MA
Brown, W., Birnstihl, E. A., & Wheeler, D. W. (1996). Leading without authority: an examination of the impact of transformational leadership cooperative extension work groups and teams. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(5) Article 5FEA3. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/1996october/a3.php
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice.
Burke, W. W. (2011). A perspective on the field of organization development and change: The Zeigarnik effect. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 143-167.
By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-308.
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81-98.
Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven’t we mastered alignment? The importance of the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly executive, 1(2), 97-112.
Chan, K. K., & Misra, S. (1990). Characteristics of the opinion leader: A new dimension. Journal of advertising, 19(3), 53-60.
Chen, S., Glass, D. H., & McCartney, M. (2016). Characteristics of successful opinion leaders in a bounded confidence model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 449, 426-436.
Chou, P. (2016). The effects of social support on employee's behavioral support for organizational change. International Journal of Economics. Commerce and Management, 42, 22-41.
Christoff, Z., Hansen, J. U., & Proietti, C. (2016). Reflecting on social influence in networks. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 25(3-4), 299-333.
222
College of Food Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University (2014). The Vice President’s Conversation on the Future of Extension. Retrieved from https://extension.osu.edu/about/conversations-future-extension/visioning-osue-2035
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE.
Cross, R., Ernst, C., & Pasmore, B. (2013). A bridge too far?: How boundary spanning networks drive organizational change and effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 42(2), 81-91.
Cross, R., Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Cummings, S., Andrews, K., Weber, K., & Postert, B. (2015). Developing Extension Professionals to Develop Extension Programs: A Case Study for the Changing Face of Extension. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 3(2), 132-155.
Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2009). Understanding Management. Cengage Learning.
de Toni, A. F., & Nonino, F. (2010). The key roles in the informal organization: a network analysis perspective. The learning organization, 17(1), 86-103.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, 12, 239-272. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268328210
Edmondson, A. & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological Safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Fehlis, C. (2005). A call for visionary leadership. Journal of Extension,[On-line], 43(1) Article 1COM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/comm1.php
Franz, N. K., & Cox, R. A. (2012). Extension's future: Time for disruptive innovation. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 2COM1. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/pdf/JOE_v50_2comm1.pdf
Franz, N. K., Peterson, R. S., & Dailey, A. L. (2002). Leading organizational change: a comparison of county and campus views of extension engagement. Journal of Extension [On-line] 40(3), Article 3RIB1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/rb1.php
Gottlieb, B. H. (1981). Social networks and social support (Vol. 4). Sage Publications, Inc.
Gnambs, T. & Batinic, B. (2012). A personality-competence model of opinion leadership. Psychology & Marketing. 29 (8), 606-621.
223
Gnambs, T. & Batinic, B. (2013). The roots of interpersonal influence: A mediated moderation model for knowledge and traits as predictors of opinion leadership. Applied Psychology. 62(4), 597-618.
Hamre, L. (2008). Exploring the use of social capital to support technology adoption and implementation. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bath).
Hanneman, R. & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/
Hatala, J. P. (2006). Social network analysis in human resource development: A new methodology. Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 45-71.
Helpap, S. & Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., (2016). Employees’ emotions in change: advancing the sensemaking approach, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 Iss 6 pp. 903 - 916
Hiatt, J., & Creasey, T. J. (2012). Change Management: the people side of change. Prosci.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of change management, 5(2), 121-151.
Holt, J. & Ryan, C. (2012). Using opinion leaders to drive workplace change. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 36(4), 395.
Holt-Lunstad, J. & Uchino, B. N. (2015). Social support and health. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 5th edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 183-204.
Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. 8th Ed, McGraw Hill.
Huning, T. M., Bryant, P. C., & Holt, M. K. (2015). Informal Social Networks in Organizations: Propositions regarding Their Role in Organizational Behavior Outcomes. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 20.
Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772-792.
Jones, J. M., & Spiegel, M. R. (2013). Memories and milestones of OSU Extension 1905-2013. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension.
Katz, E. (1957). Two step flow communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 61-78.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1966). Personal Influence, The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Transaction Publishers.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.
224
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture (Vol. 30). Cambridge University Press.
Kilduff, M. & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kim, E., Scheufele, D. A., Han, J. Y., & Shah, D. (2017). Opinion Leaders in Online Cancer Support Groups: An Investigation of Their Antecedents and Consequences. Health communication, 32(2), 142-151.
King, D., & Boehlje, M. (2000). Extension: On the brink of extinction or distinction? Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(5) Article 5COM1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.php
Klein, K. J., Lim, B. C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952-963.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2005). Leading Change: Create a vision and build coalitions to bring about change. Leadership Excellence, 22(11), 5.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Harvard Business Press.
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111.
Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support and theory and measurement. Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists, 29-52.
Lawrence, S. A., & Callan, V. J. (2011). The role of social support in coping during the anticipatory stage of organizational change: A test of an integrative model. British Journal of Management, 22(4), 567-585.
Leuci, M. S. (2012). The nature of organizational learning in a state Extension organization. Journal of Extension [On-line], 50(3), Article 3FEA1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2012june/a1.php
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
Marin, A. and Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Eds. J. Scott and P. Carrington. Washington D.C.
Marsden, P. V. (2011). Survey methods for network data. The SAGE handbook of social network analysis, 25, 370-388.
McCormack, B., Rycroft-Malone, J., DeCorby, K., Hutchinson, A. M., Bucknall, T., Kent, B., & Wallin, L. (2013). A realist review of interventions and strategies to promote evidence-informed healthcare: a focus on change agency. Implementation science, 8(1), 107.
225
McDowell, G. (2004). Is Extension an idea whose time has come--and gone? Journal of Extension [On-line] 42(6) Article 6COM1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm1.php
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary “Change” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Miskel, C. G., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Moore, K. A., Peters, R. H., Hills, H. A., LeVasseur, J. B., Rich, A. R., Hunt, W. M., ... & Valente, T. W. (2004). Characteristics of opinion leaders in substance abuse treatment agencies. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 30(1), 187-203.
Morse, R. S., Brown, P. W., & Warning, J. E. (2006). Catalytic leadership: Reconsidering the nature of extension’s leadership role. Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(2) Article 2FEA9. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2006april/a9.php
Myers, J. H., & Robertson, T. S. (1972). Dimensions of opinion leadership. Journal of marketing research, 41-46.
Ohio State University Extension (2018). https://extension.osu.edu/about/vision-mission-values
Patton, M. Q. (1987). The extension organization of the future. Journal of Extension [On-line], 25(1) Article 1FUT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987spring/fut1.php
Patterson, T. F. (1997). Fundamentally flawed: Extension administrative practice part 1. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(6) Article 6COM1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/1997december/comm1.php
Patterson, T. J. (1998). Commentary II: A new paradigm for Extension administration. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(1) Article 1COM1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/comm1.php
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American sociological review, 673-693.
Rainey, H. (2003) Understanding and managing public organizations. (3rd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Robertson, T. S., & Myers, J. H. (1969). Personality correlates of opinion leadership and innovative buying behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 164-168.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. (2003). Diffusion of innovation: A cross-cultural approach. New York.
Rowland, D., & Higgs, M. (2009). Sustaining change: Leadership that works. John Wiley & Sons.
226
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th Ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-334.
Smith, K. (1990). The future leaders in extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(1) Article 1FUT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/fut1.php
Smith, P. (2005). Knowledge sharing and strategic capital: The importance and identification of opinion leaders. The Learning Organization, 12(6), 563-574.
Smith, K. L., & Torppa, C. B. (2010). Creating the capacity for organizational change: Personnel participation and receptivity to change. Journal of Extension [On-line], 48(4) Article 4FEA1. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2010august/a1.php
Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). A network perspective on organizational architecture: performance effects of the interplay of formal and informal organization. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 751-771.
Song, L., Son, J., & Lin, N. (2011). Social support. The Sage handbook of social network analysis, 116-128.
Srivastava, S. B. (2015). Intraorganizational network dynamics in times of ambiguity. Organization Science, 26(5), 1365-1380.
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of management review, 4(4), 507-519.
Tolbert, P. S., & Hall, R. H. (2008): Organizations. Structures, Processes, and Outcomes.
Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health. Oxford Press, New York.
Valente, T. W. (2015). Social networks and health behavior. Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice, 205-22.
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 55-67.
Valente, T. W., & Pumpuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education & Behavior, 34(6), 881-896.
Vlak, A., Thomas, S., Lebovits, E. (2010). Unleashing the power of the informal organization. HR Executive Online.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Weimann, G. (1994). The Influentials: People who influence People. State University of New York Press. New York.
Weimann, G., Tustin, D. H., Van Vuuren, D., & Joubert, J. P. R. (2007). Looking for opinion leaders: Traditional vs. modern measures in traditional societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 173-190.
227
West, B., Drake, D., & Londo, A. (2009). Extension: A modern-day pony express? Journal of Extension, [On-line], 47(2) Article 2COM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2009april/comm1.php
228
Appendix A: IRB Approval Documentation
229
230
231
232
233
Appendix B: Letter of Support from OSU Extension Director Roger Rennekamp
234
235
Appendix C: Phase I Questionnaire
236
Social Support Network Survey: Instructions Below are a few things to remember as you navigate through the questions.
• You will be provided a definition of “social support” and some examples of associated behaviors. We ask that you take a moment to carefully consider individuals with whom you’ve experienced these actions. To make your time more efficient, we encourage you to jot any names down when you are first brainstorming and then reference that list as you move through the questions.
• You have the opportunity to name up to six of your colleagues. The same block of questions will repeat for each name you select.
• If you can’t remember names but know other information like location, job role, a link to the searchable OSUE database is provided with the question to help encourage your recall.
• We recognize your networks of social support extend beyond your work environment. For the purposes of this study, the population has been limited only to those individuals housed within the Department of Extension, thus excluding academic faculty and other individuals with Extension appointments who are formally housed in other departments.
• You have the option to revisit previous responses to questions by using the << button at the bottom left of the screen. Be sure to click the >> button to save your responses and continue through the survey.
• If at any time you want to opt out of taking the survey, you may simply close your browser.
• If you aren’t able to complete it in one sitting, your responses will be saved when you click the >> button. To return to where you left off, click the link provided in your invitation email.
Click the >> below to get started!
237
Social Support Network Survey: Note not displayed in survey. This survey was built in Qualtrics and was quite lengthy with seven different blocks of questions (including demographics). For ease of display the standard block of questions for name generator and relationship interpretation is below. This same block of eight to nine questions was repeated for up to six additional names. When the respondents were done adding names, they were then presented with demographic questions. With whom have you experienced behaviors associated with social support in your work environment? Please read the brief information below regarding what we mean by social support. Take a moment to think about up to six names and jot them down for reference as you go through the questions. You will be asked to select a name from a drop down list and then provide some additional information about your relationship with this individual. You may do this up to six times. ******Start of standard question block******* Here’s what we mean by ‘Social Support’ Social support indicates a positive or helpful interaction with someone in your work environment that involves the sharing of information and advice, instrumental assistance, showing concern, listening, and feedback. Behaviors associated with social support… An individual will…
- Stop what they are doing to provide assistance to you - Listen to your ideas or opinions - Listen while you talk about your frustrations and/or anxiety about work issues - Be available as a source of strength or encouragement for you to count on when you
are facing work related problems - Provide you with valuable information or advice that enhanced your project or
solved your issue - Provide advice/help/coaching when you’re facing something too challenging to face
alone - Give you positive feedback, guidance, or advice
238
Question #1 Considering the explanation and examples above, please select from the drop-down list below the name of an individual with whom you have experienced one or more of these behaviors in your work environment. Note: Start typing the first few letters of their last name. The list will jump to that section of the list. If you are having trouble with recalling their name but know other things like job role, location, or program area, click {here – link to searchable directory} for a searchable directory of OSU Extension personnel to help you out. This will open a new browser window. Name
Be assured no names or identifying information will be revealed in reports produced from this study. The next set of questions will help us better understand your relationship with {NAME from Q#1}. Question #2 (optional) Is {NAME from Q#1} your direct supervisor? Answer choices: Yes; No Question #3 (optional) How many years have you known {NAME from Q#1}? Please round to the nearest half year (e.g., 1.5) Answer format: Insert number up to one decimal place Question #4 (optional) For the purpose of this study, interaction can mean engaging with the individual in any of the following methods. Please indicate the modes in which you typically interact with {NAME from Q#1}. Please select all that apply. Answer choices: Phone-voice; Texting; Instant Messaging; Social media; In-person; Other (free text) Question #5 (optional) How many times in the last month have you interacted with {NAME from Q#1}? Please use whole numbers only. Answer format: type in whole number Question #6 (optional) (skip logic if indicated zero for Q#5) Since you indicated you did not interact in the last month, please explain the typical frequency of your interactions with {NAME from Q#1}. Answer format: open text
Question #7 (optional) Click on the map to indicate the typical work location for {NAME from Q#1}. Answer format: map of Ohio with county distinctions will be the image Question #8 (optional)
239
Please use this space to provide additional comments about your relationship with {NAME from Q#1}. Answer format: open text Question #9 (required) Would you like to select another individual with whom you have experienced behaviors associated with social support in your work environment? Answer options: Yes; No (Skip logic – Yes, repeats starting with a reminder about the definition of social support; No, Skip to demographic questions) ******End of Standard Question Block********** Demographic Questions (all optional) Q: How many years have you been employed with OSU Extension? Answer format: insert whole number Q: What is your FTE in OSU Extension? (1.0 = 40 hrs) Answer format: range of 0.10 – 1.0 Q: Please select the role that most closely represents your primary job role. Answer format: Drop-down list of all possible job titles Q: How many years have you been in your current role? Answer format: insert whole number Q: What is your program area of focus? Answer options: ANR; CD; 4-H; FCS; Admin; Admin Support; Office support; Other, please describe. Q: What is your highest degree obtained? Answer choices: High School Diploma; Associate Degree; Bachelor; Master; Professional/Doctorate; Other, please describe (open text) Q: What is your typical work location? Please click the closest approximate area on the map. Answer format: map of Ohio with county distinctions will be the image Please note this is the final page of the questionnaire. Should you wish to review your responses, please use the “<<” button to navigate back through the pages. If you are satisfied with your responses, please use the “>>” button to save and submit your responses.
240
Appendix D: Phase I Survey Communication
241
Dear ${m://FirstName}, I am inviting you to participate in a research study I am conducting for my doctoral studies in Community and Extension Education. The purpose of my study is to explore the informal network of social support in OSU Extension. You were selected to receive this invitation because you are an Extension employee. Please review the information below and consider participating in this study. Adequate social support has been linked to many positive outcomes in the workplace and particularly useful in times of great stress such as when faced with change in the work environment. The purpose of this questionnaire is to explore the informal network of social support in OSU Extension. This is a multi-phase project that first uses network analysis concepts to identify the network structure and characteristics. In this survey, you’ll be asked to identify up to six fellow OSUE colleagues with whom you’ve experienced social support-related behaviors. You will also be asked some follow-up questions about your relationship with each person. Your responses when combined with those of other employees will provide a map of social support in OSU Extension that will be used to inform phase II of this study – a deeper look at network characteristics and how they may impact change within the network. Data collected from this study will be summarized and reported as research to be utilized for a doctoral dissertation and within OSU Extension. We value your time and appreciate your participation! This questionnaire will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. We ask that you complete this survey within the next two weeks (By DECEMBER 27th). If you choose to participate, please click on the link below. Please do not share this link with others as it is unique to this email.
Follow this link to the Survey:** ${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the survey}
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://SurveyURL} **Unfortunately, this survey is not accessible with mobile devices and may not load/function properly in a Safari browser. As an additional thank you, those who participate will be entered in a drawing to win one of two (2) $50.00 pre-paid cash gift cards (not purchased with OSU funds), Winners will be contacted via email after the close of the survey. Odds of winning are 1 in 400 with the potential to change based on number of people who participate. Receipt/non-receipt of the gift card holds no bearing on your continued participation in this study beyond this questionnaire. Thank you for your time and willingness to assist with this project. Sincerely, Karen and Jeff
For questions, concerns, complaints, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, you may contact Dr. Jeff King at 614-247-5034 or [email protected] or Karen Argabright at 937-638-8853 or [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 800-678-6251.
Karen J. Argabright Graduate Associate / PhD Candidate The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
Jeff King, Ph.D. Director, OSU Leadership Center and Associate Professor The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
242
** Variations of this email were used for second and third reminder emails.
Dear ${m://FirstName}, Recently you received a request to participate in a network study for OSU Extension. We realize that this is a busy time of year and you have a lot on your plate now. This is a friendly reminder because your responses are critically important for our research. Findings from this study will be utilized to better understand OSU Extension’s informal network of social support. Please consider scheduling a time to respond to our request over the next week (By December 27th). As an additional thank you, those who participate will be entered into a drawing for one of two (2) $50.00 pre-paid cash gift cards - (not purchased with OSU funds). Winners will be contacted via email after the close of the survey. Odds of winning are 1 in 400 with the potential to change based on the number of people who participate. To participate, please click on the link below or copy and paste the entire URL into your web browser. Please do not forward this link to others as it is unique to this email. Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the survey}
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://SurveyURL}
Unfortunately, this survey is not accessible with mobile devices and may not load or function properly in a Safari browser. Thank you for your time and willingness to assist with this dissertation project. Sincerely, Karen and Jeff
For questions, concerns, complaints, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, you may contact Dr. Jeff King at 614-247-5034 or [email protected] or Karen Argabright at 937-638-8853 or [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 800-678-6251.
Karen J. Argabright Graduate Associate / PhD Candidate The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Department of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
Jeff King, Ph.D. Director, OSU Leadership Center and Associate Professor The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
243
Appendix E: Phase II Questionnaire
244
Phase II Questionnaire *This survey was designed to show questions based upon group ID as central actors, relational ties, or both.
Central Actors Introduction
This survey serves as a follow-up to an earlier OSU Network survey sent in December of 2016 where you were asked to identify individuals with whom you experience social support. Findings from that data indicate you’re a central source of social support in the network. Respondents were asked to name individuals with whom they experienced social support. Your colleagues felt that you are a source because they have experienced more than two of the behaviors associated with social support from you. Here’s our operational definition… Social support indicates a positive or helpful interaction with someone in your work environment that involves the sharing of information and advice, instrumental assistance, showing concern, listening, and feedback. As a central source of social support, you have…
- Stopped what you are doing to provide assistance to them - Listened to their ideas or opinions - Listened while they talked about their frustrations and/or anxiety about work issues - Been available as a source of strength or encouragement for them to count on when they were facing work-related problems - Provided them with valuable information or advice that enhanced their project or solved their issue - Provided advice/help/coaching when they were facing something too challenging to face alone - Given them positive feedback, guidance, or advice
In this questionnaire, we are asking you to provide information about you and your interactions as a source of social support within OSU Extension. Please take a few moments to respond to the following questions by sharing the most detailed information possible.
1. As someone who was identified as providing social support for others…Please share details about a specific experience when you have provided social support for a colleague. Feel free to share as much information as you would like.
o What did you do and why? o What were your thoughts? o How did this make you feel? o Additional comments
245
2. Do you believe that the individual(s) in the interaction you described on the previous page experienced a change in perspective or behavior as a result of your interactions?
o YES Directed to question: As a result of the interaction with you, why
do you feel those you interacted with experienced a perspective or behavior change?
o NO Directed to question: As a result of the interaction with you, why
do you believe those you interacted with did not experience a perspective or behavior change?
o MAYBE – please explain
3. Would you consider yourself an influential person? o YES
How would you describe your influence? o NO
What factors limit your ability to influence others?
o MAYBE – please explain
4. Please add any additional information you'd like to share to help us get a better understanding of your social support relationships.
*******END Central Actors******
Relational Ties Introduction
This survey serves as a follow-up to an earlier OSU Network survey sent in December of 2016 where you were asked to identify individuals with whom you experience social support. Findings from that data indicate that someone you named was identified as a central source of social support in the network. In this questionnaire, we are asking you to provide information about your interactions specifically with [NAMEs]. As a reminder, you indicated [NAMEs] based on your interactions given the following definition. Social support indicates a positive or helpful interaction with someone in your work environment that involves the sharing of information and advice, instrumental assistance, showing concern, listening, and feedback. This/these individual(s)…
- Stop what they are doing to provide assistance to you - Listen to your ideas or opinions - Listen while you talk about your frustrations and/or anxiety about work issues - Are available as a source of strength or encouragement for you to count on when you are facing work related problems
246
- Provide you with valuable information or advice that enhanced your project or solved your issue - Provide advice/help/coaching when you’re facing something too challenging to face alone - Give you positive feedback, guidance, or advice
To help us learn more about [NAMEs], who you named as a source of social
support, please take a few moments to respond to a series of questions sharing the most detailed information possible.
1. Tell us about this [NAMEs]. Especially include why you sought them out as a source of social support.
2. What behaviors does [NAMEs] exhibit that encourages you to engage with them further in terms of social support?
3. Which adjectives best describe [NAMEs]. Please check all that apply.
arrogant, bossy, intimidating, conceited, courageous, aggressive moody, anxious, insecure, touchy, complaining, timid organized, efficient, serious, respectful, cooperative, trustful, obedient, moralistic, indifferent, uninspired, depressed, impersonal bubbly, outgoing, sociable, playful, dramatic, adventurous
4. Please list any additional adjectives that describe this/these individual(s) that weren’t included in the list.
5. In what ways has [NAMEs] influenced you? Please provide some detailed examples.
6. As a result of your interactions with [NAMEs], has your perspective changed in any way?
o YES Please explain what about [NAMEs] or your interactions with
them encouraged you to change your perspective. o NO
Please explain what would be needed from others to cause you to change your perspective.
7. Please include any additional information you'd like to share to help us better understand [NAMEs] as a source of social support.
****END Relational Ties******
247
Appendix F: Phase II Survey Communication
248
Phase II Survey Invitations by group
Central Actors only Dear [NAME], As you may recall, I am conducting a study related to social support in OSU Extension. I have now begun the second phase of my study where I am contacting individuals who were named by others as being a source of social support. You were named as one of those individuals and I hope that you are willing to assist me in finding out more about the role of social support in OSU Extension. I’m requesting that you please participate in this survey even if you did not participate in the first phase of this study. Study Background Adequate social support has been linked to many positive outcomes in the workplace and particularly useful in times of great stress such as when faced with change in the work environment. The purpose of my study is to explore the informal network of social support in OSU Extension. This is a multi-phase project that uses network analysis concepts to identify the network structure and characteristics and then explores the sources of social support more in-depth. We value your time and appreciate your participation! This questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We ask that you complete this survey by [DATE]. To take the survey, click on the link below or copy and paste the entire URL into your web browser. Please do not share this link with others as it is unique to this email. Take the Survey {unique survey link} Thank you for your time and willingness to assist with this project. Sincerely, Karen and Jeff
For questions, concerns, complaints, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, you may contact Dr. Jeff King at 614-247-5034 or [email protected] or Karen Argabright at 937-638-8853 or [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 800-678-6251.
Karen J. Argabright Graduate Associate / PhD Candidate The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
Jeff King, Ph.D. Director, OSU Leadership Center and Associate Professor The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
249
Relational Ties only
Dear [NAME], As you may recall, I am conducting a study related to social support in OSU Extension. I have now begun the second phase of my study where I am contacting individuals who named individuals that were identified as sources of social support. You named one or more of those individuals and I hope that you are willing to assist me in finding out more about the role of social support in OSU Extension. Study Background Adequate social support has been linked to many positive outcomes in the workplace and particularly useful in times of great stress such as when faced with change in the work environment. The purpose of my study is to explore the informal network of social support in OSU Extension. This is a multi-phase project that uses network analysis concepts to identify the network structure and characteristics and then explores the sources of social support more in-depth. We value your time and appreciate your participation! This questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We ask that you complete this survey by [DATE]. To take the survey, click on the link below or copy and paste the entire URL into your web browser. Please do not share this link with others as it is unique to this email. Take the Survey {unique survey link} Thank you for your time and willingness to assist with this project. Sincerely, Karen and Jeff
For questions, concerns, complaints, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, you may contact Dr. Jeff King at 614-247-5034 or [email protected] or Karen Argabright at 937-638-8853 or [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 800-678-6251.
Karen J. Argabright Graduate Associate / PhD Candidate The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
Jeff King, Ph.D. Director, OSU Leadership Center and Associate Professor The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
250
Both Central Actor and Relational Tie
Dear [NAME], As you may recall, I am conducting a study related to social support in OSU Extension. I have now begun the second phase of my study where I am contacting individuals who were named by or named others as being a source of social support. You were named as a source of social support AND you named someone who was also identified as a source of social support. I hope that you are willing to assist me in finding out more about the role of social support in OSU Extension. Study Background Adequate social support has been linked to many positive outcomes in the workplace and particularly useful in times of great stress such as when faced with change in the work environment. The purpose of my study is to explore the informal network of social support in OSU Extension. This is a multi-phase project that uses network analysis concepts to identify the network structure and characteristics and then explores the sources of social support more in-depth. We value your time and appreciate your participation! This questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We ask that you complete this survey by [DATE]. To take the survey, click on the link below or copy and paste the entire URL into your web browser. Please do not share this link with others as it is unique to this email. Take the Survey {unique survey link} Thank you for your time and willingness to assist with this project. Sincerely, Karen and Jeff
For questions, concerns, complaints, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, you may contact Dr. Jeff King at 614-247-5034 or [email protected] or Karen Argabright at 937-638-8853 or [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 800-678-6251.
Karen J. Argabright Graduate Associate / PhD Candidate The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
Jeff King, Ph.D. Director, OSU Leadership Center and Associate Professor The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
251
Survey Reminder Emails ** Variations of this email were used for second and third reminder emails. First Reminder Dear {First name}, Recently you received a follow-up survey to the network study for OSU Extension. We hope you’ll find a few minutes in your busy day to provide your responses. Findings from portion of the study will be utilized to better understand OSU Extension’s network of social support. Take the Survey{unique survey link} Unfortunately, this survey is not easily accessible with mobile devices. To take the survey, click on the link or copy and paste the entire URL into your web browser. Please do not forward this link to others as it is unique to this email. Please consider scheduling a time to respond to our request by [DATE]. Thank you for your time and willingness to assist with this project. Sincerely, Karen and Jeff
For questions, concerns, complaints, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, please contact Karen Argabright at 937-638-8853 or [email protected] or Dr. Jeff King at 614-247-5034 or [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 800-678-6251.
Karen J. Argabright Graduate Associate / PhD Candidate The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
Jeff King, Ph.D. Director, OSU Leadership Center and Associate Professor The Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Departments of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership and OSU Extension [email protected]
