Iimpact of the Human Dynamics Program

Exploring the Impact of the Human Dynamics Program in a Healthcare Organization: A Case Study

By:

Frances D. Glosson

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education
In Leadership for the Advancement of Learning and Service at Cardinal Stritch University

December, 2002

Approval Page

As members of the dissertation committee for Frances D. Glosson and on behalf of the Doctoral Program at Cardinal Stritch University, we affirm that this report meets the expectations and academic requirements of the Ed.D. in Leadership for the Advancement of Learning and Service.

Kristine A. Hipp, Ph.D., Chairperson Approval Date

Michael Dickmann, Ph.D. Approval Date

Michelle Hutchinson Schofield, MHA Approval Date

As Dean of the College of Education, and on behalf of the Doctoral Program at Cardinal Stritch University, I affirm that this report meets the expectations, and academic requirements of the Ed.D. in Leadership for the Advancement of Learning and Service.

Anthea L. Bojar, Ph.D. Approval Date

© copyright by Frances D. Glosson 2002
All Rights Reserved
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research study was possible only because of the many people who were willing to share their energy and thoughts with me. A heartfelt thanks to those who have joined me on this journey. I owe them much. Special thanks go to: My family: ▪ Dean Glosson, my husband, who sustained me with love and purposeful conversations; and ▪ Joshua Glosson, my son, for his encouragement and love of learning; and ▪ William and Rita Sullivan, my parents for providing a childhood rich with learning opportunities and strong role modeling; and ▪ Mary Barbara Kenny, my sister, for her undying sponsorship and belief in the value of Human Dynamics in enhancing communication; and ▪ Therese Sullivan Koujikov, my sister, for her contribution of editing with a joyful spirit; and
My mentors: ▪ Dr. Kristine Hipp who provided clarity and challenged my thinking; and ▪ Dr. Sandra Seagal, David Horne, and Linda O’Toole, for their inspiration; and; ▪ Michelle Hutchinson Schofield, who remained by my side and reminded me to stay on course and provided the historical thread to the focus of this dissertation; and ▪ Dr. Francis Ulschak, who encouraged me to search for universal messages and sustainable connections throughout the research process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………….…...…iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………....v
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..viii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..ix
ABSTRACT……………...……………………………………………………………….1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ……………...……..………………...…….………….2 Background……………………………………………………………………………5 Purpose of the Study………………………………………..…………………………5 Guiding Questions.………………………………………………………………...….6 Overview of Human Dynamics.……………………………………………..………..6 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………….11 Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………..13
CHAPTER II: A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE…………………….………16 Human Dynamics……………………………………………………………………16 Personality Trait Theory…………………………….……………………………….18 Learning Organization Theory…………………………………………………….…25 Organizational Culture Theory………………………………..………………….….27 Chapter Summary………………………………..……………………………….….28
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………….………29 Type of Design………………………………………………………………………29 Qualifications and Role of the Researcher…………………..………………………30 Selection and Description of Site and Participants……………………..…………...31 Protocol, Ethics and Protection of Human Subjects……………………………..…..34 Data Collection Strategies…………………………………………………….……...35 Survey Procedures……………………………………………………………….…...35 Interview Procedures………………………………………………………………....37 Focus Group Procedures…………………………………………………….………..38 Procedures for Collection of Observation Data…………………………….……..….40 Data Analysis Methods and Procedures……………………………………….……..41 Analysis of Survey Data……………………..………………………………….…....42 Analysis of Interview Data………………..……………………………………….…43 Analysis of Focus Group Data……………..……………………………….………..43 Analysis of Data Collected Through Observations…………………………………..44 Validity and Reliability………………...…………………………………………….45 Chapter Summary………………………………..……………………………….….45
CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS………………………………………47 Survey Findings…………………………………………………………………...…48 Interview Findings……………………………………………………………..…….59 Focus Group Findings……………………………………..………………………...92 Observation Findings…………………………………………………….………...102 Additional Analysis of Findings: The Shadow Side……………………...………..106 Synthesis of Findings across All Data Sources………………………...…….…….106
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION……………….……………….……109 Introduction………………………………….…….…………………………….…109 Discussion Related to Guiding Question…..…….……………..……..…………...110 Relationship to Literature ..………………………………………………….…….115 Relationship to Human Dynamics…………………………………………..….115 Relationship to Personality Trait Theory……………………………………….116 Relationship to Learning Organization Theory………………………………...117 Relationship to Organizational Culture Theory………………………………...122 Limitations………...……………………………………………………………123 Implications for Leadership, Learning and Service…...…………………………….124 Implications for Healthcare Practice .………………………………………………127 Future Research Recommendations...….……….………….. ………………………130
Summary………………………………………………………………………………..131
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………134
APPENDIXES………………………………………………………………………….142
Appendix-A-Survey Invitation Letter…………………….…………………….142 Appendix-B-Survey Tool……………………………………………………….143 Appendix-C- Interview Protocol………………………………………….…….144 Appendix-D- Focus Group Protocol……………………………………………145 Appendix-E- Member Check………..……………………………………….…146 Appendix-F- Highlights of Comments found in Section Four of the Written Survey Regarding Human Dynamics and Self-Knowledge…………….147

Appendix-G- Highlights of Comments Regarding Human Dynamics Relating to Team Behaviors………………………………………………………148

Appendix-H- Copyright Authorization……..………………….………….…….149

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Human Dynamic Model of Three Universal Principles……………….…. 8
Figure 2. Average Change across 105 Survey Respondents for each of the Individual Learning Dimensions………………………………………………..………....49
Figure 3. Plot of Survey Data for Individual Learning Dimension - Understanding Learning Needs.………………………………………………………………..50
Figure 4. Plot of Survey Data for Individual Learning Dimension - Managing Change…………………………………………………………………….….. 51
Figure 5. Plot of Survey Data for Individual Learning Dimension - Recognizing Diverse Learning Needs…...…………………………………………………..……....51
Figure 6. Plot of Survey Data for Individual Learning Dimension-Communications.….52
Figure 7. Average Change for the Team Learning Dimensions.…………..…………….54
Figure 8. Plot of Survey Data for Team Learning Dimension - Cooperation….…….….55
Figure 9. Average Change for the Organizational Learning Dimensions….………...….56

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Communication Needs Related to Function of the Five Human Dynamics …...10
Table 2: Demographic Chart of Interview Participants……………………...……….….33
Table 3: Participant Profile of Focus Group……………………………………..………34
Table 4: Comparison Chart of the Dimensions of Learning and the Five Learning Disciplines…………………………………………………………..….……...36
Table 5: Dimensions Measured at the Individual Learning Level and Associated Statements………………………………………………………………...……49
Table 6: Team Learning Level Survey Dimensions………………………………….….53
Table 7: Team Learning Level Survey Dimensions…………………………….……….55
Table 8: Responses to 11 Improvement Areas…………………………………..……....56
Table 9: Impact of Human Dynamics Knowledge-Survey Findings…………..………..59
Table 10: Major Improvement Categories from Interview Findings post Human Dynamics…………………………………………………………….…..…....91
Table 11: Summation of Focus Group Findings…………………………………..……102
Table 12: Observations Related to Self-Knowledge……………………………..….….104
Table 13: Observations Related to Understanding Others.………………………….….104
Table 14: Observations Related to Communications…………………………………...104
Table 15: Observations Related to Team Behaviors…………………………………....105
Table 16: Comparison of the Major Improvement Categories Reduced from Findings across the Three Levels of Learning……………………………….……......107
Table 17: Matrix of Major Findings Across All Data Sources………..…………....…..107
Table 18: Comparison of Research Findings and the Five Learning Organization Disciplines…………………………………………………………………...122
EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF THE HUMAN DYNAMICS PROGRAM
IN A HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION
Frances D. Glosson
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this case study was to describe and interpret the impact of the Human Dynamics (Seagal, 1997) program in a healthcare organization. The Human Dynamics program is an organizational development strategy that strives to promote a better understanding of individual differences and interpersonal effectiveness. Human Dynamics has been recognized by Peter Senge (1994) and other organizational behavior researchers to be a foundational approach that supports the creation of a learning organization (Gauthier, 1995; Karash, 1995). This study sought to discern whether or not the Human Dynamics program was serving as an effective methodology for enhancing organizational learning. The manifestations of practical outcomes were probed and described utilizing a qualitative case study research design. First and foremost this study determined that the Human Dynamics program had been an effective tool improving employee-learning capabilities and tangible results were realized as a result of this learning organization strategy. Second, this study provided a return on investment analysis of the Human Dynamics program for the stakeholders of a particular healthcare system. Thirdly, the study provided insight into claims made by various researchers that, by adopting some or all of the prescribed features of the learning organization, an organization’s performance improved. The results of this research study are important to share with other organizations striving to create learning cultures.

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Human Dynamics provides a foundation of human understanding that facilitates implementation of each of the five disciplines we have found crucial in building learning communities. (Senge, 1999, p. 4)

Today’s healthcare environment is facing tremendous changes, particularly as the industry struggles with workforce shortages, modifications in the patient care delivery model, and financial constraints imposed by managed care and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Institute of Medicine’s 2001 report on the quality chasm in healthcare recommends that health systems of the 21st century should be required to address the challenge of becoming learning organizations. The healthcare industry must be accountable for all expenditures and measure the efficacy of current programs and processes. Stakeholders will put increasing pressure on integrated health systems for the measurement of performance, demanding data on quality and patient satisfaction, while simultaneously pressing for lower costs (Griffith, 2000). Healthcare processes and programs are increasingly being analyzed and assessed for their worth, and the providers of programs are being held accountable for return on investments. Human Dynamics is a program offered in several healthcare organizations that warrants analysis for its potential to improve learning capacity at an individual, team and organizational level. This research study pursued an in-depth analysis of the impact of the Human Dynamics program throughout one healthcare system. Healthcare is much more than the mere application of technology to diagnose and treat medical conditions. It is a complex business of relationships, whose broad mission involves optimizing health, not just minimizing illness (Williamson et al., 1993). Kaiser (2000) claimed that as the new century accelerates, a new education will be necessary for all healthcare professionals that includes an expansion of consciousness. Raising consciousness will be the prime requisite for any healthcare organization that desires to maintain its leadership position in the industry (Kaiser, 2000). Expansion of consciousness is at the core of the Human Dynamics program. According to Human Dynamics author and psychologist, Dr. Sandra Seagal (1997), Human Dynamics brings new opportunities for improved communications, for better teaching and learning, and for the integration and development of groups and individuals, regardless of age, culture, race or gender. This supposition has been borne out in practice. When the Human Dynamics program was implemented in a complex Minneapolis-based healthcare organization, improvement in human functioning and potential across all boundaries was observed (Morath, 1995). According to Morath, Human Dynamics provided an affirming language that increased the ability to understand and accept differences. It also enhanced strategy, culture and organizational effectiveness by offering a systemic approach for transformation. Becoming a learning organization has been championed as a success strategy by top leadership in multiple organizations in reaction to the increasing speed of technological, economic, and social change. Senge (1990) introduced the concept of the learning organization as an answer to changing economic, social, and technical conditions, asserting that, “the need for understanding how organizations learn and accelerating that learning is greater today than ever before” (p. 7). Organizations must not only learn at increasing rates, but also learn how to learn; they must become capable of developing the capacity for examining and changing immediate, routine tasks ( single-loop learning ( and underlying governing values, policies, and assumptions ( double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). The prescriptions for becoming a learning organization are numerous. Learning organizations are said to require continuously developing strategies, organically networked structures, a task-oriented culture, and supportive systems (Sweiringa & Wierdsma, 1992). They must embrace systems thinking, develop anticipatory and loop learning capabilities, apply action learning, develop information systems, and create learning spaces (Marquart & Revans, 1999). In addition, they need to simultaneously focus on realizing human potential at individual, team, and organizational levels. Inevitably this requires work redesign, empowerment of employees, and enlightened leadership (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). Healthcare needs to become a community of learners, living out shared values ( including service and compassion ( and valuing the contribution of everyone. According to Gauthier (1995) new competencies need to be developed in healthcare such as recognizing different patterns of human dynamics and the deeper capacities that exist in everyone. Gauthier (1995) suggested that the Human Dynamics method was a strategy to assist leaders who want to accelerate their own development and that of their associates. Healthcare service teams are called upon to demonstrate a mastery of the “five disciplines” as identified by Peter Senge in his book, The Fifth Discipline (1990): systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Human Dynamics has been lauded as a strategy to assist in enhancing these five disciplines within an organization.
Background
In 1995, the executive leadership of the site studied in this research committed to the creation of a learning organization. The primary goals for this strategy were to improve communications, teamwork and overall organizational performance for the healthcare system. The senior executives provided resources for training and development of the leaders and employees in the essentials of building a learning organization based on the five disciplines outlined by Peter Senge (1990). The Human Dynamics program was one of the initiatives launched in 1995 and had been maintained as a current strategy. The original impetus for introducing the Human Dynamics program at the study site was to
1) improve interpersonal relationships 2) enhance learning and 3) assist in the transformation of the organizational culture to a learning organization. Senior leaders continue to seek strategies to assist in their ongoing quest to improve customer satisfaction, develop resources, improve processes and manage change. The question remained as to whether or not the Human Dynamics program had proven to effectively move this healthcare organization toward the original improvement goals.
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify and describe how the Human Dynamics program had impacted learning in a healthcare organization. Case study methodology was used to explore healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the impact of the Human Dynamics program in their day-to-day practice. In addition, this study sought to answer the question of whether or not the Human Dynamics program was an effective program to enhance organizational learning and to create a learning organization.

The questions guiding this study included: 1. How has the Human Dynamics program affected the day-to-day practice of individual participants of this study? 2. How has the Human Dynamics program affected the day-to-day practice of healthcare teams that participated in this study? 3. How has the Human Dynamics program affected the day-to-day practice of the organization where this study was carried out? The researcher served as facilitator of the research process through multiple research strategies including: survey, individual and focus group interviews, and participant observations over a three-month period. As a participant observer the researcher captured respondents’ stories in multiple forms including in-depth narratives and exhibited behaviors. The researcher recorded, through notes and audiotapes, what she heard and made every attempt to avoid allowing prior knowledge to misrepresent or exaggerate the information collected. The researcher documented what she heard and did not embellish or distort the data with her own background knowledge or bias. Member-checks were completed with participants to validate the findings and assure non-bias.
Human Dynamics -Overview

Human Dynamics is the term given to new understandings of human functioning developed by Dr. Sandra Seagal and her associates at Human Dynamics International in the course of continuing research since 1979. Human Dynamics looks at fundamental structures and processes that form distinct infrastructures underlying typologies and psychologies (Seagal, 1997). According to Seagal, Human Dynamics is not a typology; instead, this body of knowledge identifies fundamental structures that underlie distinctions in the functioning of people. The framework of Human Dynamics examines individuals as whole systems and describes the processes and the function of these systems (Seagal, 1997). Participants in Human Dynamics programs identify their own dynamic through a process of self-discovery, which does not include the utilization of a written test. Self-identification of the individual’s human dynamic is accomplished through dialogue with a trained facilitator, the utilization of videos, and the reading of stories containing distinctions of functioning. Participants of the programs are trained to identify their own and other personality dynamics through heightened awareness and sensitive listening and observation. This investigation has involved more than 50,000 people from over 25 cultures. Seagal (1997) defined Human Dynamics as a body of knowledge that “identifies and documents distinctions in the functioning of people as whole systems” (p.xix). Seagal purposefully avoids the words "personality types” and instead, utilizes the phrase "ways of being". Human Dynamics is not a group of personality characteristics describing superficial behaviors, but a way of understanding and recognizing internal processes particular to various personality dynamics. Therefore, it goes much deeper than any other personality assessment technique the researcher has experienced and cannot be reduced to a paper and pencil test. The assumption is that an individual’s human dynamic is largely innate versus a learned process. The focus of this body of knowledge looks at how people inherently process information, learn, communicate, problem-solve, contribute to teams, become stressed, maintain health, and advance along their path of development. The Human Dynamic research explores how three universal principles, ( the mental, the emotional or relational, and the physical or practical ( combine in a dynamic interplay to form each person’s distinct way of functioning, which is termed “personality dynamic” (Seagal, 1997). Each of the three principles and their attributes are active in all people, but to varying degrees and in varying combinations. The major attributes of these three dimensions of the personality are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The human dynamic model of three universal principles. (adapted from Seagal and Horne, 1997, p. 27) According to Seagal, some people function as “mentally centered” systems, some are “emotionally centered,” and others are “physically centered.” There are five predominate personality dynamics found in Western culture, and two of the five predominate in the Far East. These are the five major groups, with the proportions consistent in Western cultures: Mentally Centered 5%, Emotional-Mental 25%, Emotional- Physical 55%, Physical-Emotional 5%, Physical-Mental 10 %. The Human Dynamics developmental system recognizes that each of the five personality dynamics has a unique path of development. Seagal (1997) asserts that each of the personality dynamics has the potential to contribute different perspectives toward the enrichment of the whole group. The more conscious individuals become of both their own and others’ communication needs, and the more they strive to meet those needs, the more support is realized for natural contributions. Dr. Seagal has been engaged in this original investigation since 1979. She and her partner David Horne have developed Human Dynamics training programs for business, education, parenting, healthcare, and cross-cultural understanding. Besides Peter Senge other luminaries, such as the late Buck Minster Fuller who nominated her for a MacArthur Prize Fellowship, have lauded her work. Dr. Seagal 's expertise is rooted in her background in education and psychology, with extensive service as a teacher, school psychologist, and psychotherapist. The purported benefits derived from the basic program include: (a) greater individual self-understanding and self-esteem, (b) greater understanding of others, and respect for their differences (c) improved cooperation among staff members, (d) improved communication and relationship skills, (e) improved ability of people from diverse cultural backgrounds to work harmoniously together, (f) ongoing personal and professional maturation and (g) teamwork that is conscious, qualitative and productive (Seagal, 1997). Table 1 provides an overview of the communication needs related to natural contributions based on the five predominate human dynamics or personality dynamics found in Western culture.

Table 1

Communication Needs Related to Functioning of the Different Human Dynamics

|Personality |Communication |Function in |
|Dynamic |Needs |Organization |
|Mental –Physical |Objective |Evaluates objectively |
| |Logical |Articulates principles |
| |Precise |Makes long-range plans |
|Emotional-Mental |Direct |Moves events forward |
| |Goal-Oriented |Innovation |
| | |Makes short-range plans |
|Emotional –Subjective |Personally connecting |Expert at people issues |
| |Sensitive to Feelings |Synthesizes and organizes information and people |
| | |Creates new forms |
|Physical –Emotional |Requires considerable detail |Creates systems |
| |Practical |Ensures practicality |
| | |Operationalizes |
|Physical –Mental |Purpose clearly established |Plans strategically |
| |Sufficient context and detail |Makes models |
| | |Creates systems |
| | |Operationalizes |

Note: Communication Needs Related to Functioning. (adapted from Seagal and Horne, 1997, p. 3.5) In Senge’s 1999 book, The Dance of Change, David Marsing, Vice-President and General Manager of Assembly Test Manufacturing for the Intel Corporation, was noted as saying: Training in Human Dynamics has been a strategic factor in sustaining our efforts over the years. Once people understand that other people do, indeed, listen and speak with different languages, then they can integrate their own learning styles with the other personalities in a team or a company. Human Dynamics is more effective than other learning styles programs and tools because it provides an individual path: a way for people to pull together their own capabilities and make themselves more effective. (p. 220) Marsing repeated his endorsement of the Human Dynamics work during his keynote address at the 1999 Systems Thinking and Organizational Learning conference by describing the utilization of the Human Dynamics process in building a learning organization at two Intel plants. In his presentation, Marsing noted that the Human Dynamics process was one of the technologies Intel was using at the Malaysia plant as well as at the Albuquerque, New Mexico, site. He claimed that the use of Human Dynamics along with other learning organization strategies resulted in dramatic improvements in performance and positive bottom-line financial results. At Intel, according to Marsing, Human Dynamics has helped teams to work together more harmoniously and productively, and to recognize and utilize one another’s diverse capacities.
Significance of the Study There are multiple reasons why this study is important for this healthcare system and perhaps, on a broader scale, for any organization or community attempting to create a learning organization. This study will assist in validating that the Human Dynamics program has been an effective strategy or tool to enhance and improve learning capacity at multiple levels within one organization. Complex organizations, like the healthcare system studied, are increasingly being challenged to leverage learning as a competitive advantage. Many of those who study and write about corporate performance claim that knowledge creation and continuous learning at the individual, team, and organizational level comprise the only source for a sustainable competitive advantage (DeGues, 1988, 1997; Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1993; Slater & Narver, 1994, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). According to Kim (2001), organizational learning requires a community that enhances research, capacity building, and practice. This study utilized research as a vehicle to investigate one healthcare community to assess whether or not capacity building took place as a result of one specific learning organization strategy. This study describes how learning was enhanced and sustained as a result of the Human Dynamics program. It is important to determine if tangible improvements have been realized as a result of endorsed learning organization strategies such as the Human Dynamics approach (Griffith, 2000). The completion of a return-on-investment analysis of this program was an additional benefit and an additional significant reason for pursuing the implementation of this research study. This study provides insight into claims made by various researchers that, by adopting some or all of the prescribed features of the learning organization, an organization’s performance improves (Kline & Saunders, 1993; Kuchhinke, 1995; Senge, 1992; Slater & Narver, 1995). There was little data to support the claim that improvement in a learning organization’s performance was directly related to its adoption of a program or method such as Human Dynamics. Research was sorely needed to fill this void (Kaiser, 1998). This study should assist, since it provides groundbreaking research at the practice level exploring outcomes after the implementation of Human Dynamics. The broader question the researcher was attempting to answer was whether the Human Dynamics program has contributed to the establishment of a learning culture in a healthcare organization. Answering this research question may inform the growing body of knowledge on organizational cultures. Finally, the importance of this study is that it established that the Human Dynamics program was an effective organizational learning strategy for a particular healthcare system. This knowledge should be shared with other organizations pursuing similar goals.
Definition of Terms This study utilized specific terminology, which is described in this section. Further definitions of terms frequently used in the study are found within the study.
Culture — The basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization. These operate unconsciously and define an organization’s view of itself and its environment in a “taken-for-granted” fashion. These assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group’s problems. They come to be taken for granted because they solve those problems repeatedly and reliably (Schein, 1985).
Human Dynamics — Human Dynamics is the term given to a new way of understanding human functioning, developed by Sandra Seagal, Ph.D. and her associates. Human Dynamics identifies the interaction in people of three basic organizing principles: mental, emotional and physical (Seagal, 1997).
Learning — Learning is a process of active engagement with experience. It is what people do when they want to make sense of the world. It may involve an increase in skills, knowledge, understanding, values, and the capacity to reflect. Effective learning leads to change, development and a desire to learn more (Fryer, 2000).
Learning Levels — Learning takes place at successively more complex, collective learning levels in organizations: individuals, groups and teams, larger business units and networks, the organization itself, its network of customers and suppliers, and other societal groups. (Watkins & Marsick, 1993)
Learning Organization — A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge, and at purposefully modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 2000).
Mental Models — Mental models are internal pictures that reflect our understanding of the world. These pictures can shape our actions and decisions. Behavioral changes can be brought about by reflecting upon, continually clarifying, and improving these models (Senge, 1994).
Organizational Learning — Organizational learning is an experience-based process through which knowledge about action-outcome relationships develops. It is encoded in routines, embedded in organizational memory, and changes collective behavior (Barnett, 1994).
Personal Mastery — Learning to expand personal capacity to create the results most desired. This is best achieved in an organizational environment, which encourages all members to develop themselves toward the goals and purposes they choose (Senge, 1994).
Shared Vision — Building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of the future they seek to create, and by openly stating the principles and guiding practices by which they hope to get there (Senge, 1994).
Systems Thinking —A way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems. This discipline helps individuals work within and change systems more effectively. Also it helps them to act more in tune with the larger processes of the natural and economic world (Senge, 1994).
Team Learning — Team learning involves transforming conversational and collective-thinking skills, so that groups of people can reliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents (Senge, 1994).

CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature This study builds from theory and research from multiple fields: Human Dynamics, personality trait theory, learning organization, and organizational culture. Organizational learning and strategies in building a learning organization were seen as interconnected yet unique and the literature was reviewed distinctly.
Human Dynamics According to Seagal, she and her associates have been engaged in an ongoing research program entitled Human Dynamics with over 80,000 individuals to explore, verify, and expand their understanding of the underlying variables and attributes of personality dynamics (Seagal, 1997). Initial research efforts (1979-1982) were exploratory, attempting to define the basic categories, the most fundamental attributes of these categories, and the scope of the observed distinctions in psychological and behavioral functioning. During this period, nine Ph.D. theses were completed that used the understandings now known as the Human Dynamics system, as their theoretical framework. The past Human Dynamics research has been qualitative and exploratory. There have been relatively few attempts to quantify this research as that was not the direction of Seagal 's interest nor does the subject matter lend itself to quantification. The single most important piece of research has been the thousands of people who have participated in the self-identification process in seminars. Additionally, more than 400 videotaped research projects (from USA, Canada, Israel and Sweden) have been completed with infants, children and adults. One particular research piece has been videotaped over 150 times. The Human Dynamics research team has conducted over 12,000 interviews with individuals. The majority of these interviews have been unstructured in format, but have centered on the themes of attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions related to work, education, and relationships. Additional topics have included stress and health issues. The surveys have been used primarily in educational settings where teachers and parents have been asked to rate, on a five-point scale, a child’s performance and capacity in a variety of situations and the adults own attitudes toward education. The research as it relates to observations has included systematic behavioral observation by trained observers of over 50,000 subjects. Specific observation categories documented are as follows: use of language (pace, rhythm, type and number of words used, silence, degree of dominance in conversation, etc.); use of body (hands, eyes, face); and contribution to problem-solving activities. The Human Dynamic research included structured videotapes that have set parameters, tasks, or situations for groups of two, three, and four people to respond to within a given time. Seagal (1997) asserted that results from past research validate the theory as espoused in the Human Dynamics text. Longitudinal studies have been conducted with similar results. One group of approximately 60 adults in the Los Angeles area were studied over a five-year period through repeated interviews, observations, surveys, and projective tests. A second group of 35 adults in Canada participated in a similar research project for three years. A group of children from an Arlington, Texas, school have been videotaped and analyzed at two-year intervals since 1983. The patterns as described by Seagal (1997) continue to emerge. Subjects in the research program have ranged in age from two weeks to 94 years of age. Approximately 12% of the research subjects have been elementary school students: less than 1% of the subjects have been younger than five years of age; and 85% have been adults (ranging between 25 and 60 years of age). Women represent about 40% of the sample studies. More than 75% of the research subjects came from three countries(the United States, Canada and Sweden(although they have represented diverse cultures within those countries (for example, among immigrant children in northern California and Native American women in Canada). There have been four specific studies held in educational settings spanning from 1982 to today. In 1982, Jane Adams School, located in Lawndale, California, initiated a study using a Human Dynamics framework. In 1983, the Robert Muller School located in Arlington, Texas, started a study, which continues today involving 20 researchers and 20 parents in initial interview and observation. These researchers utilized follow-up videotapes with selected children at two-year intervals. In 1985, the Middlesex School District, located in Ontario, Canada, held a yearlong study in two schools (K-8) with 576 researchers. This study included interviews and administration of projective tests with all researchers; and 90 children were selected for videotaping for behavioral analysis.
Personality Trait Theory This study is not a critique or a defense of Seagal’s work as it relates to the field of personality dynamics, but an illustration of the impact of this body of knowledge on one healthcare system. Despite the fact that Seagal and Horne’s work is an emerging body of knowledge and not derived from a past theoretical construct, it is still important to place the work in context. In order to facilitate this placement the researcher found it necessary to start with an overview on past research on personality-trait theory and personality typologies. The personality trait approach to psychology traces its origins back to the earliest records of Western thought (Eysenck, 1985). The doctrine of four humors or temperaments date back to the age of Hippocrates, the father of medicine, and are still referred to in literature in the last century. Hippocrates identified four categories when he described individual differences as follows: choleric, phlegmatic, sanguine and melancholic. The temperament of the calm and tough phlegmatic was influenced by excess phlegm, and was closely associated with water, cold and moisture. The characteristics of a phlegmatic individual were described as being dull, pale and cowardly. A sanguine individual demonstrated a cheerful and lively temperament, which resulted from the dominance of the blood, and was associated with the air, heat and moisture. The worry and gloominess of the melancholic were due to a surfeit of melancholy. This type of individual was associated with earth, cold and dryness and was characterized as gluttonous, lazy and sentimental. The energetic choleric had too much choler in their system. They were associated with fire, heat and dryness and had characteristics of being violent and vengeful. Each humor was thought to give off vapors that ascended to the brain. An individual’s personal characteristics (physical, mental, moral) were explained by his or her temperament, or the state of that person’s humors. The perfect temperament resulted when no one of these humors dominated. Hippocrates’s classifications have many features in common with modern systems used to describe people (Eysenck, 1985). The task of personality psychology as a whole can be seen as the description and explanation of both general trends and individual differences in peoples’ personalities (Eysenck, 1985). Psychological type was an explanation of human personality developed by the Swiss psychiatrist, Carl G. Jung (1921). Although Seagal does not acknowledge any theoretical antecedents for Human Dynamics, a connection might begin with the psychological types offered by Jung. He explored the difference in the way people perceive and process information and he defined four categories. He observed that human behavior was not random, but instead follows identifiable patterns that develop from the structure of the human mind. Seagal (1997) claimed an individual’s personality dynamic was largely innate and similarly Jung (1921) believed that people are born with preferences for how they will use their mental processes. According to Jung when the human mind is active, people are doing one of two things: perceiving (taking in information) or judging (organizing and prioritizing information to arrive at decisions). He believed that we each have a dominant or superior mental function ( Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, or Feeling ( that provides the core of our personality, our basic identity. This appears to mirror Seagal and Horne’s mental or emotional centering terminology. What was distinct in the description of Seagal’s personality dynamics versus Jung and other personality trait researchers was her emphasis on an individual being either mentally, emotionally or physically centered. Jung claimed that there were inborn, underlying preferences for one way of perceiving and one way of judging which influences the kind of information people usually pay attention to and the process they most often use in making decisions. Jung believed it is an individual 's preferences that shape the manner in which one interacts with the world. Jung also coined the description of being born with a preference for extraversion or introversion. Much of the literature through the ages features detailed analyses of the personalities of both real and fictional characters, and all human languages contain a vast array of vocabulary to describe personality (Allport & Odbert, 1936). Gordon Allport investigated such terms in the English language and he found almost 18,000 descriptive terms. Thus, a certain proportion of the task of describing types of people has been done already, but what remains is the development of a scientific paradigm and its application. Trait psychologists regard the individual as being broadly describable in terms of a few key characteristics (ranging widely in number from one theory to another), which are known as the trait units of personality (Pervin, 1996). There is a range of opinions regarding how traits can be defined and measured, and very little agreement as to what the basic trait units are. However, most current theories have certain aspects in common. Isabel Briggs Myers was a student and researcher for Carl Jung and developed a widely used personality typology called the Myers Briggs Personality Index. The Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. is a non-profit organization concerned with the constructive utilization of differences. This center, located in Gainesville, Florida, houses the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Library including 350 research based articles relating to her personality typology. Based on the work of Jung, the Myers-Briggs system is one that assesses people’s individual preferences on four basic scales: whether the person relates more to the external or internal world, how a person absorbs information, how a person makes evaluations and decisions, and how a person lives(in an organized or spontaneous fashion. There are 16 personality types in this taxonomy (Myers, 1981). Trait psychologists generally accept that trait units describe regularities that will result in some consistency in peoples’ behavior, and that they can form the basis of a description of one’s personality (Pervin, 1996). Recently there have been some attempts made at linking personality traits to biological function, in particular by Hans Eysenck, but this research is at an early stage of development (Pervin, 1996). Critics of the trait approach attack the validity of both the theoretical constructs on which it was based and the methods used by trait psychologists. Researchers use various forms of factor analysis to formulate their various personality typologies by extracting from a list of descriptive behavioral terms. (Pervin, 1996) Even trait psychologists do not universally accept factor analysis as a valid methodology. Human Dynamics uses factor-analysis by having participants self-select their own personality dynamic after reading stories including specific personality factors and by observing videos where a variety of traits are exhibited. Gordon Allport rejected factor analysis because it placed too much emphasis on the average, and the individual got lost in the process (Pervin, 1996). Many researchers highlight factor analysis as the major weakness of the personality trait field (Pervin, 1996). Hans Eysenck (1985), although a strong supporter of the use of factor analysis, lists many criticisms of this type of methodology. An essential point is that in constructing an initial survey on which a functional analysis is to be based, decisions must be made as to the inventory of items and the frequency of use. Eysenck (1985) pointed out that, in fact, any measurement in any science only returns what it was intended to find. The function of factor analysis is seen as a way of testing a theory. As with any other experimental technique, to test a trait theory one must devise a means of looking for a set of traits, and then factor analyze the results to see if the common factors in the data correspond with the traits that were sought (Kline & Barrett, 1983). Critics of factor analysis point out that any personality survey reduces the individual to a set of numbers, and that scores on various personality dimensions can hardly be expected to capture the unique character of an individual (Kline & Barrett, 1983). It is imperative to realize that any trait theory aims to give a broadband description of the general character of a person. Moreover, there are few, if any, researchers who would claim that a person’s score on their personality inventory describes them with any great degree of precision (Pervin, 1996). Likewise, Seagal (1997) and McCarthy (1980) suggested that their personality category frameworks provide common themes and patterns of human functioning, not precise personality determination. The other aspect of trait theories that are often criticized is their poor predictive validity and reliability. Hampson (1988) argued that because peoples’ behavior is not consistent, it cannot be governed by unchanging traits. Hampson outlines different types of consistency: test-retest consistency, cross-situational consistency, consistency of behavioral styles in one situation, and cross-situational consistency of behavioral styles. According to Gleitman (1995), the only theory of personality that would seem to indicate that a person should behave with complete consistency is the conditioning theory of B.F. Skinner. Skinner stressed the importance of an individual’s reinforcement history, and the conditioned responses that one will display to a given stimulus. Trait theorists refute this theory altogether, regarding the individual as a considerably more complex system than this mechanistic input-output depiction (Gleitman, 1995). It appears that the critics of the trait approach to personality are somewhat misguided in their criticisms of its validity and value. Trait psychology is an approach that has potential to provide the precision of description necessary for personality to be studied scientifically, but it has yet to fulfill this potential. Kagan (1998) confronts the complexity of understanding human behavior and warns researchers not to oversimplify personality by viewing all individual differences as quantitative variations that fall on a continuum. One of Kagan’s maxims is to replace each current personality typology with a family of categories that acknowledges the person’s temperament, developmental history, and adult characteristics. He also warns that the creation of these types of classes or categories of personality would require multiple views. Seagal 's research honors the lateral processing approach for learning and communicating. DeBono (1967, 1971) has supplied substantial research on the application of lateral thinking to management development and provides ongoing studies of this type of thinking with children. Lateral thinking according to DeBono is a way of thinking which seeks the solution to a problem by making associations with other apparently unrelated areas, rather than pursuing one logical train of thought. For the past thirty years, Edwards (1997) has built on DeBono 's research on lateral thinking and confirms DeBono 's hypotheses with his action research with both children and adults. Edwards continues to research thinking in Australian business and industries as well as in the field of education. His most recent work focuses on achieving excellence in professional performance and thinking. Similar to Seagal’s research, McCarthy’s (1980) work grew out of her own personal experience as a psychologist. She was involved in a six-year experiment at a suburban Chicago high school looking at different learning styles. McCarthy classified these variations into a system and claims her findings are strikingly similar to the findings of David Kolb and David Merrill. McCarthy (1980) claims that it is evident that researchers from diverse fields are identifying similar strands and providing descriptions of perceiving and processing based on the same conceptual insights. McCarthy studied the research of 18 personality researchers and made connections in the similarity of their results. According to McCarthy (1980), Kolb’s research represents a breakthrough because it formulates learning style findings into model form. According to Kolb (1983), each learner can be identified by one of the following descriptors: (a) diverger, (b) assimilator, (c) converger or (d) accommodator. Analogous to Jung (1921) and Seagal (1997), Kolb (1983) noted that our dominant learning abilities are the “result of our hereditary equipment, our particular past life experiences, and the demands of our present environment” (p. 27). The vast literature review on personality psychology appears to reveal the ongoing complexity of unanswered questions about human nature, dimensions of individual differences, and unique patterns of processing. Research in these differences ranges from analysis of genetic codes to the study of sexual, social, ethnic, and cultural differences. It includes research on cognitive abilities, interpersonal styles, and emotional reactivity. Methods range from laboratory experiments to longitudinal field studies and include data reduction techniques such as factor analysis and principle component analysis (Boeree, 2000). Multiple models have emerged to capture the distinctions in human functioning. Human Dynamics appears to be one of the possible frameworks in understanding our diversity. Predictably, measurement issues continue to exist with all the models.
Learning Organization Theory The second area of literature review focused on learning organizations and organizational learning, which provided both a conceptual base for this study and helped identify the interconnections in the realms of both areas. Learning organizations and organizational learning are used both synonymously and also as distinct unique areas of theory and research. Reviewing the literature on both organizational learning and learning organizations uncovered hundreds of articles. Clearly, Senge (1990, 1994, 1999) and the work of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have provided the majority of the current research in this field. There is some agreement that a learning organization facilitates the learning of all its members (Burgoyne, 1992; Hawkins, 1991), and that this learning is transmitted from one organizational member or group of members to another via organizational histories and mores (Burgoyne, 1992; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Levitt & March, 1988; Shrivastava, 1983; Simon, 1991). More importantly, this new information must be used to better understand and affect the relationship between organizational activities and outcomes (Duncan & Weiss, 1979; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Levitt & March, 1988; Shrivastava, 1983; Simon, 1991). DiBella and Nevis (1998) differentiated between the similar and related ideas of "organizational learning" and the "learning organization" since they are often used interchangeably. They view the learning organization as a system-level concept with particular characteristics; it is a metaphor for the ideal organization. Organizational learning is a term used to describe certain types of activities or processes that may occur at any one of several levels of analysis or as part of an organizational change process. Hence, organizational learning is something that takes place in all organizations, whereas the learning organization is a particular type or form of organization in and of itself. The two terms are often used side by side, if not interchangeably, because organizational learning applies to several levels of analysis: individuals learn, teams learn, and companies learn (DiBella & Nevis, 1998). DiBella and Nevis’s (1998) research in healthcare highlighted that the single most important fact that leads to learning in healthcare was the presence of trusting relationships. Healthcare respondents in their research claimed that when you trust your colleagues, you can be open about explaining not only your successes but also your failures. Within that context of support and mutual respect, a practitioner can take risks to learn. Should the learning action fall short of the original goal, the risk taker feels safe knowing that colleagues will still appreciate the effort involved in the learning.

Organizational Culture Theory The final area of research explored was literature on organizational culture. A number of experts have conducted research on the subject of organizational culture. Kotter and Heskett (1992) viewed culture as a two-tiered concept that includes visible, malleable attributes as well as less visible, harder to change elements. Edgar Schein (1992), defines culture as a “pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 40). According to Lowery (1997), the organization’s culture and all the elements that it encompasses must be aligned with its structure, work processes, and human resource strategies if the culture is to support the organization’s business strategy and achieve the desired results. Deal & Kennedy (1982, 1999) maintain that culture is a critical driver in transforming strategic intent into real performance. It is important to remember that there are no inherently good or bad cultures ( just appropriate and inappropriate ones (Lowery, 1997). Further, as Hershey, Blanchard and Williamson (1996) suggested, the more the basic assumptions or belief systems reflect a learning culture, the higher the organizational readiness for transformation will be. Research findings on organizational culture over the past decade have witnessed an ever-increasing emphasis on the need for organizations to develop a learning culture. Researchers (Garvin, 2000, Mumford, 2000, Schein, 1992) claim this type of culture as the only way to sustain a competitive advantage over the long term in an increasingly complex and turbulent environment. A learning culture is characterized by continuous learning from experiences, and by a population interested in learning how to learn.
Chapter Summary This study builds from theory and research from multiple fields: Human Dynamics, personality trait theory, learning organizations, and organizational culture. This chapter provided oversight on these four areas of supportive literature that guided this research study. Throughout history researchers have attempted to explain the differences in people. Explorations of these distinctions continue today as evidenced in the literature reviewed in this chapter. In the current organizational culture literature, organizations are exhorted to become learning organizations skilled at leveraging learning at the individual, team, and organizational levels (Argyris and Schon, 1996; Watkins and Marksick, 1993,1996). Yet, despite this assertion, limited research has been conducted that empirically examines this quest. This study will examine Human Dynamics, a body of knowledge, connected to the various literature strands found in this chapter. The next chapter will provide the methodology utilized in this research study.

CHAPTER III
Methodology
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to describe and interpret the impact of the Human Dynamics program on one health care organization. The study gathers and analyzes the experiences of a diverse group of past participants of the Human Dynamics program.
Type of Design The research design utilized in this qualitative study is a descriptive, exploratory case study. The purpose of a case study is to “shed light on a phenomenon, be it a process, event, person, or object of interest to the researcher” (Leedy, 1997, p.157). A case study design was selected for this research in order to gain a deep understanding of the impact of the Human Dynamics program within one healthcare system. As a descriptive case study, the researcher studied multiple perceptions at three distinct levels: individual, team, and organization-wide. Case study research holds a long, distinguished history across many disciplines (Cresswell 1997). In conducting case study research Cresswell (1997) encourages the researcher to select cases that provide different perspectives on a unique issue. Case studies can increase the reader’s understanding of a situation by bringing about the discovery of new meaning, extending one’s experience or confirming what is already known (Merriam, 1998). Insights gained from case studies can influence policy, practice and future research (Merriam, 1998). Case study research includes in-depth descriptions and analysis of a single unit or “bounded system” such as an individual program or event (Smith, 1978). This study attempts to contribute groundbreaking research at a practice level on the effects of the Human Dynamics program for one healthcare organization. The perceptions are triangulated across four data collection strategies. The four strategies include the use of surveys, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observations. According to Boyer (1990) the work of the scholar means stepping back from one’s investigation, looking for connections, building bridges between theory and practice, and communicating one’s knowledge effectively to all stakeholders. This study sought to encompass Boyer’s scholarship philosophy throughout the entire research experience. In particular, the scholarship of discovery and the scholarship of integration were foundational to the research design. A case study is one that presents a detailed account of the phenomenon under study and is useful in presenting information about areas where little research has been done (Merriam, 1998). There has been little research on the impact of the Human Dynamics program; consequently, this study could provide a foundation for future comparisons and theory building. This study attempts to make connections across a variety of healthcare disciplines, illuminating the data in a revealing way. It seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on the original Human Dynamics research.
Qualifications and Role of the Researcher The researcher currently serves as the Director of Organizational Learning for a 26 site integrated healthcare system located in the Midwest. In addition, she is a registered nurse in the State of Illinois and brings 20 years of healthcare leadership experience to this study. The researcher holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Health Arts and a Masters of Science degree in Health Care Management. The researcher also serves as a facilitator for various community groups in areas of improving communication, team building and strategic planning. The researcher has had past experience conducting surveys, interviews and focus groups including the use of both structured and open-ended designs. This experience has been gained on-the-job as an organization development practitioner and while conducting research with nationally known researchers in the area of learning.
Selection and Description of Site and Participants
Site
The site for this study was a midwestern healthcare system spread across multiple locations. Over the past five years, this healthcare system has experienced three mergers, reengineering of departments, a reduction in staff, and an intensified focus on financial performance. During the same period, this healthcare system has expanded to 26 locations and increased its workforce by 33%. Today senior leaders of this site continue to seek strategies to assist in the ongoing quest to develop resources, enhance the culture, and manage vast changes.
Participants
Participants were comprised of healthcare workers currently employed at the study site who had past experience attending a Human Dynamics program. Each participant had at least 16 hours of training in Human Dynamics, and at least three months post-program experience to assure there was time to process and potentially integrate the knowledge into their practice. Selection of participants for the survey phase of this study was accomplished through a random sampling method. Every tenth name in the electronic database of potential participants was chosen until 150 candidates were identified. The 150 potential respondents were sent an invitation letter with a survey to participate in the study. Instructions guided the respondent to complete and return the survey to the researcher within a three-week period. Appendix A and B provide a sample of the letter of invitation and a copy of the survey instrument. Respondents were comprised of employees from 36 different departments located throughout the 26 healthcare locations. The job functions represented within the healthcare organization varied from administrator to direct care provider. Males and females were representative of the overall gender profile of the organization. The organization is comprised 94% females, a common profile for any large healthcare system. The sampling technique chosen for the interview phase of this study was purposeful (Patton, 1989). This sampling technique allowed for a practical approach utilizing multiple data collection methodologies. Candidates were selected based on their identified Human Dynamic with the goal of having at least one representative from each of the five human dynamics. An additional criterion for the selection process was that the individual was willing to share their perceptions and experiences as it related to Human Dynamics. This was determined through a telephone pre-screening technique where the researcher posed the question as to whether the potential respondent could indeed share their perceptions and experiences as it related to their Human Dynamic’s training and the outcome of the training. The researcher reviewed the electronic database of 1200 names of potential participants, which included an identification of each individual’s human dynamic. The researcher purposefully selected interview candidates based on their human dynamic, availability, and desire to engage in the research process. A listing of potential participants was created and the researcher contacted potential respondents by phone. Selection was then based on receiving an affirmative response from potential candidates to participate. Once six respondents had been confirmed the selection process ended. Table 2 provides a profile of the interview participants including their name, gender, age, department and their position within the healthcare system. Names were changed to protect the anonymity of each respondent.
Table 2
Demographic Chart of Interview Participants
|Name |Gender |Age |Department |Position |
|William |Male |Early 40’s |Information Systems |Systems Analyst |
|Mary Barbara |Female |Early 40’s |Behavioral Health |Crisis Line Manager |
|Kathleen |Female |Mid 30’s |Accounting |Budget Analyst |
|Judith |Female |Early 40’s |Community Outreach |Coordinator |
|Therese |Female |Early 40’s |Information Systems |Systems Support |
|Janet |Female |Early 40’s |Organizational Learning |Learning Specialist |

Six candidates were selected based on Seidman’s (1998) recommendations in determining the optimal number of interview candidates. Seidman (1998) proposed two criteria to determine appropriate selection, sufficiency and saturation of information. In this study the researcher was prepared to expand the number of interviews if a lack of new information was evident. After six interviews, the researcher noted no new information was emerging thus, at this point in the study she ended the interview phase. Candidates for focus groups were selected based on team make-up and availability to participate. A convenience sampling method was utilized by employing an open invitation technique. Individuals were invited based on the quest to find a representative sampling from a clinical and a non-clinical department. The researcher utilized the electronic database of 1200 past participants to identify and confirm those healthcare departments where 40% of the team had attended 16 hours of Human Dynamics training. Using the platform of a senior leadership meeting the researcher extended the invitation to participate in this research study using the focus group method. The first two team leaders who accepted the open invitation on behalf of their teams and met the criteria for Human Dynamics attendance were selected to participate in this study. The first focus group was composed of four registered nurses serving in the Critical Care Department including their Director of Nursing. The other focus group was composed of employees working in the Information Systems Department. Fictitious names are utilized to assure the anonymity of focus group participants. Figure 4 provides an overview profile of the two focus group participants.
Table 3
Participant Profile of Focus Groups
|Focus Group One-Clinical-Nursing Service |
|Participant |Gender |Position |
|Participant #1 – Rita |Female |Registered Nurse |
|Participant #2 – Lauren |Female |Licensed Practical Nurse |
|Participant #3 – Sadie |Female |Nursing Manager |
|Participant #4 – Clare |Female |Chief Nursing Officer |
|Focus Group Two-Non-Clinical-Information Systems |
|Participant |Gender |Position |
|Participant #1 – Courtney |Female |Network Analyst |
|Participant #2 – David |Male |Department Specialist |
|Participant #3 – Jacqueline |Female |Administrative Support |
|Participant #4 – Adrianne |Female |Department Specialist |
|Participant #5 – Jennifer |Female |Network Analyst |

Protocol, Ethics and Protection of Human Subjects Ethical standards from the Cardinal Stritch University Institutional Review Board were followed in the construct of this study. The participants were protected through the use of an informed consent. The consent form described the purpose of the study, the identity of the researcher and what participants were being asked to do. The consent form process informed participants about risks and vulnerability, the right to participate and withdraw from the process, and the process for dissemination of the study.
Data Collection Procedures Data was collected at three levels of organizational learning: individual, team and organization-wide. Multiple data collection methods were utilized as follows: (a) a written survey distributed to 150 past participants in the two day Human Dynamic program, (b) individual interviews with six past participants in the two-day Human Dynamics program, and (c) two focus groups comprised of four to six past participants in the Human Dynamics program. In addition, observations were made and notes were collected for a period of three months whenever the language of Human Dynamics was introduced spontaneously into conversation witnessed.
Survey Procedures This study utilized surveys as one data collection strategy to gather perceptions from past participants of the Human Dynamics program. The survey method gathers data from a relatively large number of cases at a particular time (Best & Kahn, 1999). It is concerned with the statistics that result when data are abstracted from a number of individual cases. It is essentially cross-sectional. In this research study a written survey was distributed to 150 past participants in the Human Dynamics training program to assess opinions, perceptions, and attitudes. The Dimensions of Learning Organization Survey (DLOQ) created and tested by researchers Watkins and Marsick (1993,1996) informed the design of the survey. Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) DLOQ survey included six dimensions they call action imperatives for the learning organization. These dimensions include the following: create continuous learning opportunities, promote dialogue and inquiry, encourage collaboration and team learning, establish systems to capture and share learning, empower people toward a collective vision and connect the organization to its environment. The DLOQ was divided into the three levels of organizational learning; individual, team level and organization level. The researcher determined that the DLOQ captured the essence of the five essential learning disciplines Senge (1990) identified as being central to the creation of a learning organization. The five disciplines include: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. Table four presents a comparison of Watkins and Marsick’s six action imperatives for the learning organization with Senge’s five disciplines of learning.
Table 4
Comparison Chart of the Dimensions of Learning (Watkins and Marsick, 1993), and the Five Learning Disciplines (Senge, 1990).
|The Six Action Imperatives of Learning |The Five Learning Disciplines |
|(Watkins and Marsick, 1993) |(Senge, 1990) |
|Creating Continuous Learning Opportunities |Team Learning |
|Promote Dialogue and Inquiry |Personal Mastery |
|Encourage Collaboration and Team Learning |Mental Models |
|Establish Systems to Capture and Share Learning |Systems Thinking |
|Empower People toward a Collective Vision |Shared Vision |
|Connect the Organization to its Environment | |

Two stages of field-testing were already conducted on the major design of the survey instrument. The rating code was tested for reliability and validity in 1997, when a similar survey was administered to healthcare workers. Eighty respondents participated in this one-dimensional survey study. A similar survey tool was administered to 10 healthcare leaders during a pilot study focusing on Human Dynamics and leadership competencies, further testing the reliability of the rating code (Glosson, 2000). In the survey design respondents were asked to rate each item in terms of how things were before and then after the Human Dynamics experience. A six point Likert type scale from “almost never true” to “almost always true” was utilized. The researcher designed the survey tool in an attempt to capture outcomes from the Human Dynamics program related to the five disciplines of building a learning organization as outlined by Peter Senge as well as to assess the three levels of learning; individual, team and organization-wide.
Interview Procedures Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with past participants of the Human Dynamics program to gain their insights on what they had learned as a result of the program. According to Kvale (1996) the qualitative research interview is a construction site for gaining knowledge. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) claimed that the semi-structured interview provides a greater breadth of information than the other types, given its qualitative nature. Spradley (1979) described a semi-structured interview as the establishment of a human-to-human relation with the respondent and the desire to understand rather than to explain. The researcher actively listened to respondents and captured their perceptions on the outcomes of their experience with the Human Dynamic program at the three levels of learning; by individuals, within teams and throughout the organization. Interview questions and exploratory probes were designed and utilized to guide but not to strictly govern the interview process. Appendix C provides the protocol used throughout each interview. The questions and exploratory probes provided a standardized framework to guide each interviews. The questions included: 1. How has the Human Dynamics approach affected your day-to-day practice? Exploratory Probe: What have been the change(s) you have experienced as a result of the knowledge gained through the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: What is different about the way you currently work compared to before the Human Dynamics experience? Exploratory Probe: How has learning been enhanced for you as a result of Human Dynamics? 2. How have your team interactions changed as a result of the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: How do individuals on your team perform better on the job as a result of attending the Human Dynamics program? 3. What improvements have been noted in this healthcare system’s processes and systems as a result of the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: How have the key principles from the Human Dynamics program been embedded in the culture of the organization? The six semi-structured interviews were held over a three-month period and each interview lasted an average of 40 minutes. All interviews were audio taped and transcribed into text by the researcher.
Focus Group Procedures Focus groups were facilitated to gather information from two teams of past participants of the Human Dynamics program. The purpose of facilitating two focus groups was to gather additional stories of learning impact experienced from past participants of the Human Dynamics program at this healthcare site. The focus group discussion is particularly effective in providing information about why people think or feel the way they do (Krueger, 1994). The researcher of this study chose the addition of focus groups to strengthen the study and expand it beyond the three other data collection methodologies. Krueger and Casey (2000) noted that the quality of a study is not dependent on the size of the sample; instead the researcher is seeking theoretical saturation, which is analogous to redundancy. Therefore, the researcher of this study was watching for patterns that repeated from the other data collection sources. Predetermined interview questions found in Appendix D provided minimal structure for the flow of each focus group. The questions and the exploratory probes were as follows: 1. What have been the change(s) you have experienced as a result of the knowledge gained through the Human Dynamics program? The exploratory probe for this first question was to ask the respondent to identify what was different about the way they currently work compared to before the Human Dynamics experience? 2. How have your team interactions changed as a result of the Human Dynamics program? The exploratory probe for this second question was to ask how had learning been enhanced for the respondent as a team and as a result of the Human Dynamics approach? The respondent was asked to identify how team members performed better on the job as a result of attending the Human Dynamics program? 3. Identify improvements noted in the healthcare system’s processes and systems as a result of the Human Dynamics program? The exploratory probe for the third question was to ask how key principles from the Human Dynamics program had been embedded in the culture of the organization as a whole? The researcher served as the facilitator while the process observer’s role was pre-designed to keep the group focused on the protocol questions. The group did not stray from the pre-designed questions so the processor became a silent member in the room during the focus groups. A recorder was present to manage the audio taping of the two focus group sessions. The rule of thumb according to Krueger & Casey (2000) is to conduct three or four focus groups. Since this study was triangulated across four data collection methods the researcher determined that two focus groups were adequate but was open to moderating more if the need arose. Additional focus groups were deemed unnecessary based on the point of diminishing return of new knowledge during the ongoing thematic analysis.
Procedures for Collection of Observation Data Data was gathered from informal observations made by the researcher during a three-month study period as she participated in various healthcare meetings and activities. This included listening and noting any references made regarding Human Dynamics. Other information was gleaned from pertinent documents and other artifacts encountered by the researcher during informal observation. The researcher remained cognizant of not introducing Human Dynamics into any dialogue that took place with healthcare leaders, physicians and employees during this phase of the study. Observation is the study of what occurs and what individuals describe. It avoids the potential distortion of interview situations (Wellington, 1996). Combined with other methods, it allows links and comparisons to be made between what is reported or documented and what occurs in practice. Although observers will always have subjective perceptions, combining observation and other data collection strategies can give a more comprehensive view of the situation.
Data Analysis Methods and Procedures Data analysis was accomplished on an ongoing basis while it was being gathered through the four data collection methods. Once all of the data was gathered, the data was triangulated across all data collection procedures. The objective in analyzing the data gathered in a qualitative e case study as posited by Polit and Hungler (1993), as with all methods of qualitative analysis, is not quantification of facts but in-depth presentation of the relevant elements of a real-life situation. There is no universally accepted method for analyzing qualitative data generated from a case study (Polit & Hungler 1993). Jasper (1994) claimed that all qualitative data analysis methods ultimately involve coding data into themes then categories to form conclusions. The researcher used a constant comparative analysis process as suggested by several researchers (Hewitt & Taylor, 2001; Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2003) as an overarching data analysis framework. Tentative categories and themes helped to organize answers to the central research questions. The researcher gathered and simultaneously analyzed data from the diverse data collection methods. Data was continuously compared with each other and units of data were sorted into groupings that had common themes. As with any research involving multiple data collection sources, the comparison process had to ensure that the data gathered from all the methods was compared, to ensure that the findings and conclusions presented a complete picture of this healthcare organization case. Analysis procedures for the four data collection methods will be presented in the following sections.
Analysis of Survey Data Quantitative analysis procedures were used to analyze survey data collected through the survey method. Creswell’s (2003) recommended steps in analyzing survey data provided the primary framework. Responses from 105 Human Dynamic participants were entered into a computer software spreadsheet with a new column added to register the change value for each respondent for each question. These changes were then averaged for each question. The average change provided a measure of the impact the Human Dynamic’s training had on each dimension. The next step in the survey information reduction process was to consider the average change distribution for each level—individual, team, and organization, giving close scrutiny to the dimensions that registered the highest average change, or impact of Human Dynamics. The next procedural step was to ask the question, “Does the data support the question of whether or not: “Learning had occurred on this dimension?” Looking at the data another way, the researcher assessed, “What percentage of the respondents believe that they have incorporated the Human Dynamics learning, that is, what percentage of the respondents have given themselves, their teams, the organization an ‘Almost Always’ or ‘Always’ rating with respect to applying the specific dimension of learning. A respondent/nonrespondent bias analysis was also instituted as suggested by Creswell (2003) by contacting ten non-respondents to assess whether their input would substantially change the findings. Sampling for the non-respondent bias analysis was determined through a random sampling using names of past participants who did not complete a written survey. Through the process a determination was made that their responses supported the overall survey findings.
Analysis of Interview Data Interview findings were analyzed utilizing the coding and categorizing steps suggested by both Merriam (1998) and Creswell (2003). These research steps engaged the researcher in a systematic process of analyzing the textual interview data. The interview transcripts were read carefully to obtain a sense of the whole. The researcher took one interview at a time and began to identify thoughts of interest by making notations in the margins of the transcripts. This process was repeated for each transcript. After this task was completed for all interview transcripts a listing of all identified topics was created and entered into a code book. From this listing the researcher clustered together similar topics and placed these topics into columns around unique themes and created a miscellaneous category for additional information. This provided an organizing scheme to identify if new categories and codes emerged. The major categories that emerged were coded with a term, often based on the actual language from the interview participants. Five major categories emerged from the data based on frequency of identification by the interview respondents. All of the collected data was continuously assessed to determine consistencies and, inconsistencies, in the information. Through the constant comparison technique the researcher discovered patterns and themes and made connections between the findings from all data collection methods.
Analysis of Focus Group Data Data analysis procedures were modeled according to Krueger and Casey’s (2000) framework for the analysis of data collected through the focus group methodology. This required the use of a systematic, sequential analysis that ensured that results accurately reflected what was shared in the two focus groups. The researcher utilized a coding scheme and identified the major themes based on the frequency of identification by the focus group participants. Through this technique, the researcher discovered patterns and compared the major themes from the focus group findings to the data from the surveys, interviews and observations.
Analysis of Data Collected Through Observations The researcher followed Merriam’s (1998) suggested scenario as a template while she analyzed the observation data. Data was continuously compared with each other and with the findings from the other three data collection methods. A codebook was used and data was sorted according to frequency of use by the individual or team being observed. Through this technique, the researcher sought to discover the major themes and compare them to the other findings from the three other methods.
Validity and Reliability The researcher has applied methods of validity and reliability based upon the writing of Merriam (1998). Covered in this section will be internal validity, external validity and reliability.
Internal validity The researcher used four strategies to enhance internal validity. The strategies included: (a) triangulation by using multiple sources of data (written surveys, interviews, focus groups and observations) to confirm findings, (b) verifying tentative interpretations with a critical mass of the respondents requesting validation and authenticity through the member-check process, (c) promoting peer examination by asking colleagues to comment on findings as they emerge and, (d) identification of any biases including existing mental models, beliefs, and views of the work that reflect the researcher’s theoretical orientation.
These four primary strategies lend credibility to the cumulative analysis of the results.
External validity External validity is concerned with the generalizability of the conclusions reached through observation of a sample to the universe (Leedy, 1997). The question to gauge this study by is, “Can the conclusions drawn from this study be generalized to other organizations?” One way the researcher approached the external validity of this qualitative study was to think in terms of the reader of the study. Reader generalizability involves the extent to which a study’s findings apply to other situations and according to Merriam (1998) should be left up to the people in those situations. The detailed description of this case study should enable readers to draw their own conclusions and should plant a seed for potential future research.
Reliability
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested thinking about reliability in a qualitative study in terms of the dependability of consistency of the results obtained from the data. A goal of the researcher was to have the reader agree that, given the data collected, the results make sense and are consistent and dependable. The researcher used several techniques to assure reliability in this study. Besides triangulation, the researcher clearly explained the assumptions and theory behind the study, identified biases, and offered a description of participants and the contexts in which the data was collected (LeCompte & Prewassle, 1993).
Chapter Summary This chapter has explained the methods used in this qualitative study of the experience of healthcare workers and the Human Dynamics program. Data was collected at three levels of organizational learning: individual, team and organization-wide. Multiple data collection methods were utilized as follows: (a) a written survey was distributed to 150 past participants, (b) the researcher conducted six individual semi-structured interviews with past participants of the Human Dynamics program; (c) the researcher facilitated two focus groups comprised of four to six past participants of the Human Dynamics program, (d) observations were collected for a three month time period of spontaneous comments referencing Human Dynamic’s language. The design for the selection of participants, procedures for data collection, and data analysis techniques were also offered in this chapter. Chapter IV will present the findings from this qualitative case study.

CHAPTER FOUR

Presentation of Results

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the findings of this case study on the impact of the Human Dynamics program on one Midwest healthcare system. The perceptions of past participants in the Human Dynamics program were captured using surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observations. The resulting data is analyzed in this chapter using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam, 1998). The data tells the story of the healthcare system’s experience with the Human Dynamics program which was instituted seven years ago. The researcher utilized a mixed method approach in the design and the analysis of this research study. Yin (1989) suggests case studies should use multiple data sources to create a rich and deep data pool. Such methodological triangulation was used in this study. The researcher designed this study by combining different data sources within this single study to enhance the researcher’s understanding of the Human Dynamics impact at the site. The researcher designed each research phase in this study to encompass Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) definition of learning levels. Watkins and Marsick (1993) assert that learning takes place at successively more complex, collective learning levels in organizations: individuals learn; groups and teams learn; larger business units and networks learn; and the organization itself learns. Learning can also extend throughout an organization and its network of customers and suppliers, as well as into other societal groups. For this study, the researcher set out to examine the learning impact at the individual, team and at the organizational level; thus, three questions guide the framework for this study: 1. How has Human Dynamics affected the day-to-day practices of individual participants of this study? 2. How has Human Dynamics affected the day-to-day practices of healthcare teams who participated in this study? 3. How has Human Dynamics affected the day-to-day practices of the whole organization where this study was carried out? This chapter is divided into five major sections. The first section will present the survey findings next the interview and focus group results will be presented and then the observations will be provided. The last section presents a synthesis of findings across all data sources. The researcher primarily followed Merriam’s (1998) suggested scenario as a template as she gathered and simultaneously analyzed data across the four diverse data collection methods. The name of the healthcare system, as well as the names of the participants has been changed in order to provide anonymity for all individuals involved in this research study.
Survey Findings A 70% percent response rate was reached from the selected population, which translates to 105 respondents out of 150 returning their surveys for tabulation and analysis. Glatthorn (1998) claimed that most experts in the field of survey research believe that researchers should aim for a 60% return rate. The survey was designed such that respondents rated change in skills, attitudes and behaviors before versus after Human Dynamics training along multiple dimensions. Subjects were asked to self-report, recording their response to a statement along a scale from one to six using equal-appearing intervals that began at ‘Almost Never’ and ended at ‘Almost Always’. Each statement written into the survey was designed to measure a single dimension. Nine attitude-measuring statements were presented on the individual level, six on the team level, and three on the organizational level. Table 5 lists the dimensions measured at the individual learning level and their associated statement.
Table 5
Dimensions Measured at the Individual Learning Level and Associated Statements
|Individual Level of Learning |
|Dimension |Survey Statement |
|1. |Self Knowledge |I have an understanding of my learning needs. |
|2. |Management of Change |When faced with new challenges I know how to apply an effective learning approach.|
|3. |Recognition of Diverse Learning Needs |I recognize the diverse approaches individuals need in how they learn |
|4. |Communications |I adapt my communication to meet the learning needs of others. |
|5. |Receiving Feedback |I seek out opportunities for learning and am receptive to feedback from others. |
|6. |Understanding Others |I demonstrate attention to and convey understanding of the comments. |
|7. |Supporting Team Behaviors |I have the ability to be quiet when it supports others to reflect, think, and |
| | |contribute. |
|8. |Listening |I listen intently to others without interruption. |
|9. |Supporting Diverse Learning Needs |I seek opportunities to support others in their diverse learning needs. |

Following the Likert method of summated ratings, the researcher added all the values (from 1 to 6) offered by subjects (105) for each pair of responses for each dimension and then calculated the average value. The average of the ‘before Human Dynamics’ data column was then subtracted from the average of the after Human Dynamics column to arrive at an average change value for each dimension. The average change values are plotted in the bar chart in Figure 2.
[pic]Figure 2. Average change across the 105 survey respondents for each of the individual learning dimensions. The x axis plots dimensions of learning and the y axis plots the interval value (1 to 6).

Figure 3 reveals that survey respondents gave the highest change rating to individual learning dimensions three and four—Recognition of Diverse Needs and Communication respectively. Compared with other individual learning dimensions and with team and organization learning dimensions, the change ratings effected for individual learning dimension one (Self-Knowledge) and two (Management of Change) are also quite high. It’s clear that the respondents perceive the most measurable change in their attitudes and behaviors since Human Dynamics along these dimensions. Taking a closer look at the data collected in response to the survey statement designed to measure individual learning dimension one, Self-Knowledge, respondents gave themselves an average 1.63 higher rating on this dimension after Human Dynamics training, as compared with before. Also significant, of the 105 respondents, 96 gave themselves an ‘Almost Always’ rating of ‘6’ or the next highest interval rating of ‘5’after Human Dynamics training. They thus rated themselves in the top third level of mastery along this dimension as plotted in Figure 3.

[pic]
Figure 3. Plot of survey data in response to the statement: I have an understanding of my learning needs. The x axis plots number of respondents and the y axis plots the six intervals offered on the rating scale.

The data skews similarly to the right for individual learning dimension two, Managing Change, after Human Dynamics training. Respondents gave themselves an average 1.61 higher rating on this dimension after Human Dynamics training. Of the 105 respondents, 95 rated themselves in the top third level of mastery post Human Dynamics as plotted in Figure 4.

[pic]
Figure 4. Plot of survey data for individual learning dimension 2, Managing Change, in response to the statement: When faced with new challenges, I know how to apply an effective learning approach.

The highest average change rating was measured along individual learning dimension three, Recognizing Diverse Learning Needs. Respondents gave themselves an average 2.54 higher rating on this dimension after Human Dynamics training. Of the 105 respondents, 95 rated themselves in the top third level of mastery post Human Dynamics as plotted in Figure 5.
[pic]
Figure 5. Plot of survey data for individual learning dimension 3, Recognizing Diverse Learning Needs, in response to the statement: I recognize the diverse approaches individuals need to learn.

The second highest average change rating was measured along individual learning dimension four, Communications. Respondents gave themselves an average 2.04 higher rating on this dimension after Human Dynamics training. Of the 105 respondents, 95 put themselves in the top third level of mastery post Human Dynamics as plotted in Figure 6. [pic]
Figure 6. Plot of survey data for individual learning dimension four, Communications, in response to the statement: I adapt my communication to meet the learning needs of others.

Survey Results for Team Learning Level Survey data analysis at the team level followed the pattern set at the individual level. Table 6 lists the six dimensions measured at the team learning level and their associated statement. Figure 7 presents team findings related to the six learning dimensions.

Table 6. Dimensions Measured at the Team Learning Level and Associated Statements
|Team Level of Learning |
|Dimension |Survey Statement |
|1. |Cooperation |As a team, we demonstrate cooperation among team members. |
|2. |Conflict Management |As a team, we address conflicts openly and honestly. |
|3. |Respect for Teammate’s Ideas |As a team, we seek and respect diverse opinions. |
|4. |Support for Team Learning |As a team, we help each other learn. |
|5. |Receiving Feedback |As a team, we give open and honest feedback to each other. |
|6. |Team Listening |On our team, whenever team members state their views, they ask what |
| | |others think. |

[pic]
Figure 7. Average change across the 105 survey respondents for each of the team learning dimensions. The y-axis plots the interval value and the x-axis plots the six dimensions of team learning.

Comparing Figure 2 to Figure 7, it’s clear that the survey data recorded a much smaller level of change before versus after Human Dynamics training at the team learning level than at the individual learning level. Quantitatively, the average of the average change values at the individual level for these survey responses is 1.63 intervals. At the team level the average of averages is 1.02 interval. The highest recorded change value at the team level—1.16 intervals for the Cooperation dimension—is almost 1.5 intervals less than the highest individual level change of 2.54, Recognizing Diverse Learning Needs, at the individual level. Of the 105 respondents, 76 rated their teams in the top third level of mastery post Human Dynamics as plotted in Figure 8. This is significantly less than the 95 respondents that rated themselves in the top third in various dimensions at the individual level of learning.

[pic]
Figure 8. Plot of survey data for team learning dimension four, Cooperation, in response to the statement: As a team, we demonstrate cooperation among team members.

A Receiving Feedback statement was included in the survey at both the individual level and the team level. This gives opportunity to compare perceived changes at each level for a similar dimension. The average change value at the team level is .97 intervals; and at the individual level, mastery of the “Receiving Feedback” dimension is self-rated at 1.12 intervals better after Human Dynamics training. Of the 105 respondents, 55 rated their teams in the top third level of mastery at Receiving Feedback post Human Dynamics. Whereas 95 of the 105 respondents rated themselves in the top third at Receiving Feedback at the individual level of learning. Survey Results for Organizational Learning Level Survey data analysis showed less change post-Human Dynamics at the organization level of learning, than at the individual level. All questions at this level related to the respondents experience serving on healthcare multi-disciplinary committees. Thirty surveys were returned with blanks left in this section and fourteen respondents indicating that they did not serve on committees beyond the scope of their individual departments. Table 7 lists the three dimensions measured at the organizational learning level and their associated statement.
Table 7
Organizational Learning Level Survey Dimensions
|Organizational Level of Learning |
|1. |Cooperation |On the committee(s) where I serve committee members demonstrate cooperation. |
|2. |Supporting Team Behavior |On the committee(s) where I serve we focus both on the group’s task and on how well the|
| | |group is working together as a team. |
|3. |Listening |On the committee(s) where I serve, committee members revise their thinking as a result |
| | |of group discussions and/or information collected. |

The average change values for the organizational level are plotted in the bar chart found in Figure 9.

[pic]
Figure 9. Average change across the 105 survey respondents for each of the organizational learning dimensions. The x-axis plots the interval value and the y-axis plots the three dimensions of organizational learning.

Comparing Figure 9 to Figure 2 shows that the degree of behavioral change post Human Dynamics training at the organizational learning level is again less than at the individual learning level. Some ambiguity exists in the comparison of the team level survey data to the organizational level: The ‘average of the averages’ change values at the organizational level is 1.24 intervals—more than ‘the average of averages’ at the team level of 1.02 interval. Yet, to compare again perceived change at each level for a similarly worded statement—the Cooperation dimension at the team level and at the organizational level—the team-level average of 1.16 intervals is slightly greater than the organizational level at 1.15 intervals. Of the 105 respondents, 76 of the 105 respondents rated their teams in the top third at the team level of learning. Whereas only 72 rated the organization in the top third level of mastery at Cooperating, post Human Dynamics. Perhaps more survey statements related to organizational learning would have helped strengthen the evidence that any change occurred due to Human Dynamics training.
Additional Learnings and Open Comments from Survey The fourth section of the survey included an area for the respondent to list any additional learning they had experienced as a result of the Human Dynamics training. Eleven specific labels were listed in this section for the respondent to check. The eleven competency areas selected were based on categories found in the Dimensions of Learning Organization Survey created and tested by researchers Watkins and Marsick (1993,1996).
Respondents were asked to check all areas where they had found Human Dynamics training to be useful. Also, if there were other areas not listed they were instructed to please identify those specific areas. Table eight provides the summation of the findings from this open comment section of the survey.
Table 8. Responses to 11 Improvement Areas
|Improvement Area |Number of Respondents identified improvement in this area |
|Communication |97 |
|Learning |83 |
|Function on Teams |79 |
|Conflict Resolution |75 |
|Problem Solving |70 |
|Leading Others |62 |
|Personal Health |46 |
|Managing Stress |46 |
|Project Management |45 |
|Future Planning |38 |
|Parenting |33 |

The last part of the survey included a comment area which provided respondents with a space to offer additional information on the impact of the Human Dynamics program. Appendices F and G provide highlights obtained from this final segment of the written survey.
Summary of Survey Findings Survey data was collected from past participants of the Human Dynamics program throughout the study site. A 70% return rate was achieved. The survey analysis revealed that learning occurred as a result of the Human Dynamics program at all three levels of learning. The greatest learning and change in behavior occurred at the individual level of learning. Positive impact was also evident at the second level of learning-team learning in the area of improved team behaviors. There was no strong evidence that learning had occurred at the organizational level. Further analysis revealed the emergence of five major categories of learning impact. The five are enhanced: self-knowledge, understanding and respect of others, team interactions, communications and facilitation of meetings. The analysis of the open comments from the survey offered additional anecdotal evidence of impact at all three levels of learning. Table 9 provides an overview of the major findings from the survey data.
Table 9

Impact of Human Dynamics Knowledge-Survey Findings

|Lessons Learned |I |T |O |OC |
|Self-Knowledge |X | | |X |
|Understanding of Others |X |X | |X |
|Communications |X |X |X |X |
|Team Behaviors |X |X | |X |
|Facilitation of Meetings |X |X | |X |

Code: I = Individual Level, T = Team Level, O = Organizational Level, OC = Open Comments

The data from the surveys will be compared and analyzed across the other three data collection methodologies in the remainder of this chapter. The constant comparison method of analysis will serve as the framework for an in-depth analysis of the findings.
Interview Findings

Interview findings were analyzed utilizing the coding and categorizing steps suggested by both Merriam (1998) and Creswell (2003). The researcher sought to discover patterns or themes that represented perceptions (Leedy, 1997). These research steps engaged the researcher in a systematic process of analyzing the textual interview data. Narrative passages presented as stories will be used to convey the major interview findings. Also, a short overview of each of the personality dynamics as defined by Seagal (1997) is provided for the reader to offer a description of the primary characteristics of each dynamic. Each respondent’s story has been organized into the three levels of learning: by individuals, within teams and throughout the organization.
The length of each story varies and mirrors the actual interview experience with interviews lasting anywhere from 22 minutes to 90 minutes.
William’s Human Dynamic Story “Quite clearly for me I think Human Dynamics has been helpful in terms of recognition of others, what drives other people and how that meshes with what I want to accomplish personally or what the organization is trying to accomplish.” William, Mental-Physical, Human Dynamic, 2001 In general the characteristics of a mental-physical individual according to Seagal (1997) is that they are most attuned to the world of thoughts, vision, concepts and overviews. They can easily maintain focus and can inspire that gift in others. There process is naturally an internal process whereby they think before they speak. They often bring structure, objectivity, and precision to projects and interactions. Because their minds are more central to their personality than emotions, their mood is generally stable and they are not given to emotional or impulsive display. Seagal (1997) claims, They have a natural affinity for solitude, which facilitates their capacity for careful thinking and meticulous, precise work. It helps them become more effective when they become conscious of their feelings and values. They are most comfortable working alone. It is important to them to help establish, articulate, and maintain the guiding vision, values, and principles in relationships, groups, or organizations. They have an affinity for precision, focus, and careful discrimination; they welcome highly detailed work, provided that they value its purpose. Their communications are generally thoughtful, purposeful, objective, and logically connected. Because clarity and precision are important to them they are usually meticulous in their choice of words. They can be relied upon for their objectivity, constancy, and ability to perceive and articulate essential factors and principles in any situation. (Seagal, 1997, p.46) Individual Learning William, an analyst in the Information Systems department, highlighted that he has found Human Dynamics far more valuable to him as it relates to self-awareness. He stated, “I see it as far more value to me, I think there 's a lot in terms of self-awareness and self-learning and understanding about one self.” He offered that Human Dynamics should not be utilized as a stereotyping method and stressed that this does not work well in terms of the basic Human Dynamic assumptions. William illustrated this point by offering, I think as far as stereotyping someone; this does not work well in terms of the basic Human Dynamic assumptions. I was placed on a team probably as a mental resource, if you will, and to kind of serve as the facilitator, while I was planning out what we were going to do week by week and where we were going to be on the third Thursday of next May doing my own little schedule basically the team finished the project while I was still planning the implementation timeline. It was a circumstance where my role was probably not needed. Team Learning William offered that Human Dynamics has made a difference for him in the team environment. So much of his work now, compared to when he started with the organization eight years ago, involves more of a team environment versus an individual work orientation. He stated, Teams are ongoing for me. I very rarely work in isolation. Almost invariably it involves a slice across the organization. So much of my work is team based and at the team level. The challenge is managing the human dynamics of the various individuals. I think where it has really made a difference for me is in the team environment, so much of our work now, since I started here eight years ago is being part of a team. I think there is more of a team environment by that I mean so much more of our work is team oriented as opposed to individual work. I think Human Dynamics comes into play through those times of the beginnings of team atmosphere and improved interactions. William reflected on the era of re-engineering in healthcare when he participated in a program entitled “operational improvement”. He highlighted that the re-engineering initiative was launched at approximately the same time the Human Dynamics program was initiated yet the re-engineering program has come and gone and “quite clearly”, according to William, the Human Dynamics program has sustained. He offered, I can go back to operational improvement; I think that 's when Human Dynamics first came into play. I think Human Dynamics was initiated about the same time as Healthcare 2000. Healthcare 2000 has come and gone and quite clearly the Human Dynamics program has continued on just in terms of our day-to-day workflow and going back to the team environment and understanding what 's driving the team what 's driving the different people on the team I think it has been very productive. Those are some of the primary aspects that I see. William stressed that there can be somewhat of a fallacy in trying to create some type of team model with Human Dynamics. This comment related to an attempt to place one of every personality dynamic on each of the re-engineering process improvement teams with the goal of attaining optimal results. William stressed that he did not believe that this strategy always worked ,as planned by Administration of the healthcare system. He did emphasize the value of the overall benefit from attendance at the Human Dynamics training program. Organization-Wide Learning
According to William measurement of impact at the organization level becomes more difficult. He noted, I am not quite sure about the organization perspective. I struggle with does the organization itself have a dynamic. In a formal sense I tend to think it does somewhat. I am not saying it should or should not but first of all I think we should take a step back and determine, the shareholders, if this would be beneficial to have a predominate human dynamic. William ended the interview with a challenge for the organization—to collectively take a step back and determine if having one primary dynamic would be beneficial. William ended the interview stating, “I think Human Dynamics impacts people in a variety of perspectives and hope it continues for the employees.”
Mary Barbara’s Human Dynamic Story “I think as a result of Human Dynamics I have gained an understanding of myself and others which has resulted in a more responsible performer and leader.” Mary Barbara, Emotional-Mental, Human Dynamic, 2001 In general, according to Seagal (1997) the characteristics of an emotional-mental individual is that they are problem solvers with an affinity for generating new ideas and promoting innovation. They relish change and challenge and they stay very alert for windows of opportunity. One of their major functions on teams or within an organization is to light the fires of new endeavors and initiate the process of movement into unknown territory. Their attention is focused on the immediate future, and thus they feel a sense of urgency in relationship to time. Their minds are usually focused, but may pursue several ideas and alternatives to each idea at once.( Seagal ,1997) Seagal claims, They identify with what they do rather that with who there are. They are natural innovators, interested in generating and articulating new ideas and moving events forward. They like to create essential models and structures to facilitate solving problems and getting work done. They have a natural entrepreneurial capability, though they are very aware of the need to work with groups. They often prefer to leave details to others while they move on to new initiatives. The new and unknown is far more interesting to them than the tried and true. They have an emphasis on movement and new ides and a desire to link goals and purposes with people. (Seagal, 1997, p.49) Individual Learning Mary Barbara started the interview by reflecting on her initial new learning as she left the Human Dynamics two day session. She left not only with a new understanding of her own process of communication and how she learns but also with an understanding of others as it relates to their communication needs. She stated, I was trying to think back and I remember immediately the learnings I came out of Human Dynamics with was not only the understanding of myself but the understanding of others. Even though I am in the behavioral health field where we normally use labels for those with mental illnesses, and that 's what I am use to doing, but for us regular normal people there are no places where really understanding human behaviors besides, oh there are there are some other tools but Human Dynamics was a good tool for understanding normal human behaviors the best I had come across at the time and that was real helpful for me. Mary Barbara stressed the practical benefits she had gained as she leads meetings in the healthcare system. Prior to Human Dynamics, sometimes she was frustrated with meeting situations where the group could not stay on an agenda item. She offered, I was frustrated with why couldn 't we stay on an agenda at times and why did some people need all this information that didn 't have anything to do with our focus. Now I see it did and that 's helped a lot for me to understand the dynamics of people that I don 't get as frustrated with leading meetings or feeling like I have to stay on this agenda and offering everything that is needed to understand the topic that we 're on and that 's different for me. Before gaining the knowledge of Human Dynamics and understanding that differences exist in how individuals need information Mary Barbara was frustrated at team meetings. She highlighted this by offering, I learned the reasons for processing information differently -of why people needed more time. I didn 't understand why people didn 't get it right away and then the deviation or what I would call a deviation from a topic and why- why that was occurring so there were things that helped me understand and this was most helpful for me again in leading meetings. I feel less frustrated and also the self-criticism at times saying OK I must not be doing something right if this is happening that I 've been able to give up so also feeling I think with my dynamic that staying with the agenda, the task was real important versus seeing the process itself and helping others understand where we are at in the process which I never took the time to do as much before Human Dynamics. She emphasized that she now becomes less frustrated and also less critical of herself as team leader and of the team members for differences in functioning. She admitted that prior to gaining the Human Dynamics knowledge she did not allow time for processing at an individual or team level. She stated, I now allow time to absorb and analyze information. There are a lot of meetings where there are massive amounts of information that I distribute and analyze ahead of time and I now recognize my own way of thinking and processing which is not better or worse that other team members, just different and distinct. I am a kinder, gentler, emotional objective and conscious now of working on my third principle and overall integration of the three Human Dynamic principles. During the interview Mary Barbara repeated three times that she “valiantly works on her third principle” which has resulted in a “kinder, gentler emotional objective leader.”
She had written down the following and presented a document to the researcher which included the following text, I work more responsibly and efficiently since Human Dynamics. I now make lists for myself, which assists me to enhance my physical principle and results in being more effective in my written communications. I am a better learner since I pay more attention and document “detail”. Through this process and the doing, I have become a better learner. Her perception was that she had an excellent memory for what she had to get done, however, what she had been missing was the integration of the physical principle. According to Seagal (1997) all people have mental, emotional, and physical capacities; that are basic threads in the human system so fundamental and universal that Seagal has termed them principles. However well or poorly expressed, she sees the mental, emotional, and physical principles active in everyone. Seagal (1997) offers, The physical principle is the pragmatic part of people according to Seeagal (1997) expressed in making, doing, and actualizing. Those in whom the physical principle is less developed may lack practicality and attention to detail, and may have difficulty bringing ideas to fruition. They may also have a tendency to be either dominated by the senses or disconnected from their physical selves, lacking sensory feedback and unaware of their own natural rhythms, processes, and instincts. They lack full appreciation of the systemic interconnectedness of things and events in both the natural and human worlds, and their approach to endeavors is not systematic. Each of these three principles and their attributes are active in all people, but to varying degrees and in varying combinations. Mary Barbara went on to explain that she has incorporated the practice of using a daily planner to enhance her physical principle, which has resulted in increased effectiveness with her daily activities. She noted that this has been work for her and requires a daily “valiant” effort on her part. According to Mary Barbara, writing is a wonderful way for her to get her thoughts out. She emphasized that she did not take the time before Human Dynamics to do this. She noted that she did not want to take time to write her thoughts down but now she thinks it is important and makes her a more responsible leader. As a meeting participant she now, post-Human Dynamics, finds herself writing things down and not interrupting like she did prior to the Human Dynamics Training.
She stated, I write down not only what others may be saying and the important pieces of the meetings but also some of my points that I may want to make. I may choose not to but it 's one way for me to stay focused on the topic and not interrupt the speaker which I have a tendency doing. I need to work on not interrupting and Human dynamics has helped. It is a lot of work and sometimes I think interruptions are fun. So I think that is a day-to-day practice I have changed. She was aware that she had a tendency to interrupt others and actually thought that it was fun to build on another individual’s ideas through interruptions. Mary Barbara now incorporates the practice of writing things down during meetings and she has found that she is less apt to interrupt others and she can stay focused on the points she wants to make when the time is right during a meeting. She noted, I find myself in meetings when I’m most effective because I always have things to say but now I write down not only what others may be saying and the important pieces of the meeting but also some of my points that I may want to make. I may choose not to but it’s one way for me to stay focused on the topic and not to interrupt which I have a tendency to do.
Mary Barbara then shared that her preference in the past was to work on projects alone versus working with a group. She offered, I use to rather to work projects alone which is still a challenge because I know I can get it done and get it done fast but now I value the team approach and have patience, that 's the big thing, the patience with projects taking longer than I wanted since I have an understanding not only of the team value but seeing the synergistic comprehensive outcomes that could not truly be accomplished alone. Yeah, and I know that I know my product since I am a perfectionist would be good but it 's great it 's just outstanding when you have the team and everybody else 's involvement in it that it just makes it so much better.
Mary Barbara continued to share, I’m still very task oriented versus relationship oriented since it is about the doing for me. It is all about what needs to get done and I really need to focus on the relationships so that is one of my current goals.
As a result of Human Dynamics training, Mary Barbara claimed that she now has, not only an understanding of herself, which has resulted in being a more responsible performer, but she also has gained an understanding of her team members. Team Learning As a result of the Human Dynamics knowledge Mary Barbara now values the group process or approach, although it requires a great deal of patience on her part since it takes longer than what she was used to. She highlighted, “I now value the synergistic comprehensive outcomes that could not be accomplished alone.” She went on to note that it is outstanding when you lead a team and participation occurs from a variety of team members. She stated, “Human Dynamics has helped me to understand the dynamics of people and now I do not get as frustrated with leading meetings or struggle with my need to stay on a structured agenda.” As a result of the Human Dynamics knowledge that Mary Barbara has gained, she began to integrate a practice of providing additional information and offering more time for participants to process the information. She noted that this has been a change in her practice highlighting that she now respects the needs of others to process communication differently than she does. Mary Barbara noted that she now creates opportunities to utilize the team process approach and highlighted this with an example of a team she recently facilitated which focused on enhancing the patient experience in the two emergency departments. She highlighted by sharing, I am now engaged in and I look for more team developments -I use the team process in problem solving for instance, we developed an emergency department-behavioral health performance improvement crisis team. This is between the emergency departments, behavioral health and the crisis team on the care and the admission of behavioral health patient. The process has been wonderful, the use of HD has been a wonderful tool in problem-solving and performance improvement versus dealing with issues one on one. I mean actually using this wonderful team approach and there are some improvements that need to be made…we have gone to quarterly meetings and some things that have been let go of but it 's wonderful, I love that process where I probably wouldn 't have valued that pre Human Dynamics. Mary Barbara continued with a second illustration of team learning connected to the Human Dynamics training and her new found appreciation for team process improvements. The focus of this teams energy was on the creation of the crisis line’s new web site. Mary Barbara stated, It is just outstanding when you have the team and everybody else 's involvement in it that it just makes it so much better, hmm one of those case in points is the development of our web site which I 'm real proud of that was a total team. I could 've said, "OK run it all by myself and said this is what we 're going to have on it “ but it was a total team effort and it came out and it still is- it is still improving. It is a wonderful outcome I love our website-it is great! Currently, and as a result of the Human Dynamics learning, she is more at ease with leading meetings as evidenced in her practice of taking time in the beginning of her meetings to review the agenda, the purpose, and spending more time with new members. She labeled this new behavior “bringing them up to the history of the meeting” which has resulted in improved outcomes. An additional day-to-day change in practice for Mary Barbara has been her interactions with new members assigned to her team. Now she provides newcomers with additional information than she would have prior to the Human Dynamics program. In the past, prior to the Human Dynamics experience, she thought individuals deviated from agendas and went off on tangents. After the Human Dynamics experience she came to the realization that they were not deviations but natural ways for team members to understand and process information. The change in her practice, as team leader, now includes providing time for individuals to review information first before she provides highlights of what she has discerned as the important pieces. She now welcomes all questions from team members instead of viewing their questions as deviations from the structure of a focused agenda. She shared that she had checked with her team members about how they perceived her practices had changed since gaining the Human Dynamics knowledge. The team members, according to Mary Barbara, affirmed that she had indeed changed her day-to-day practices especially as it relates to her provision of additional information. The team members perceived that she offered much more detail since her Human Dynamics training. She stated, I was talking to my team about this and they said, "Yes, you do explain things a lot more." It has taken awhile for me to integrate my third principle and assimilating the behaviors, honoring the natural learning curve. It is not something that happened right away. I think with all of our different learning curves it takes time. So yeah, but two and a half years ago was probably when I hired my biggest group of folks so those folks have no idea. I mean and not that I was less tactful much more succinct and shorter without explanations on things, probably didn 't give as much of the positives out to team members. Mary Barbara noted that it has taken awhile for her to integrate her third principle, the physical principle, into new behaviors and assimilate a respect for others natural learning process. She offered that it has not been something that happened right away. She declared that there have been numerous positive things that she has gained as a result of Human Dynamics and of primary importance for her has been an increased awareness for and attention to the recognition and rewarding of team members positive behavior. From the Human Dynamics sessions Mary Barbara has learned that particular dynamics appreciate validation and connecting in at an emotional level. Organizational Learning According to Mary Barbara it has been helpful to have Human Dynamics as a common analytical behavioral tool to use with colleagues throughout the healthcare system. She claimed, It is helpful having a common analytical behavioral tool among the Associates. Attention is given to all dynamic principles when rolling out new initiatives and policies. I can tell that there 's attention to that in the organization when things are rolled out and how it 's communicated -as noted in the various methods of communication attention given to the make-up of teams making sure that different dynamics are represented.
As to whether or not Human Dynamics is embedded in the organization’s culture she offered the following, The language and understanding of Human Dynamics is common, but are principles truly “embedded” in the culture? The Organizational Learning department has been instrumental in utilizing the principles for any communications they are involved with, but I am not sure the ‘culture’ and other departments do the same. Her perception is that those who believe in the benefits of Human Dynamics embed key principles in subcultures of the organization. She stressed that leaders provide a disservice to those they lead if they are not positive about the program. She stressed that individuals who overtly dismiss the program actually oppress the learning that could be of benefit for themselves and their team members. According to Mary Barbara, Leaders who believe Associates use this "tool" as an excuse overtly oppress the learning that can be obtained from this program. They also miss the opportunity for their own growth. The dynamics are not an excuse and the "labeling" is not malicious, but it 's just another tool in understanding behavior. Leaders and associates who believe and use Human Dynamics as a tool have incorporated the practices in their departments and have probably not only improved internal processes but have also improved team understanding and overall team work. Leaders who dismiss the merits of the Human Dynamics program stifle growth and prevent new learning to possibly take place. This is unfortunate for both the employee and the organization.
Kathleen’s Human Dynamic Story
“I am standing there thinking this is Human Dynamics and it works.” Kathleen, Emotional-Physical -Human Dynamic, 2001 In general, according to Seagal (1997), the characteristics of an emotional-physical individual is that all of their experiences are personalized. They have personal responses to everything, and want to connect personally with everything and everyone. They have a wide range of feelings and are sensitive to and interested in the feelings of others. Relationships with others are most important to them. Maintaining harmony between themselves and others, and among those around them is a constant concern. They are highly intuitive but sometimes lack the confidence to act on their intuition. Seagal (1997) claims, Emotional-physical individuals have an affinity for diversity and are attracted to a myriad of activities and interests, including a deep interest in people. They are also attracted to the many forms in which objects are created; they appreciate their aesthetic content, the values they represent, the skill that went into their construction, and their effect upon those who use them. They often find that, given the availability of materials and time, they are stimulated to creative activity. Their attraction to diversity is reinforced by their ability to be involved in many things simultaneously and to keep track of them all. However, at times they become over-stressed or scattered when they participate in too much. Part of their life’s work is to learn to value the “middle way”-to balance the extremes within themselves and in their commitments. When they do this, they stay focused and clear. Having time alone, which balances the intensity of their involvement with others and allows them to find their own center, helps them. They are natural connectors. One of their functions is to understand the nature of people and to use this understanding to enhance communication and promote harmony. Individual Learning Kathleen opened the interview by explaining that she, “lives and breathes” Human Dynamics in her service role coordinating the budgetary process at the healthcare system. She noted, I sometimes do not even realize that I am experiencing a Human Dynamic moment until I reflect on the interaction I just had with another employee. As I reflect on what I had done and think about what just happened I am like "That is Human Dynamics". Kathleen offered work place examples where she utilized the Human Dynamic knowledge in her daily practice. One example focused on her attempt to communicate a financial analysis to another leader whose Human Dynamic was distinctly different than her own. She shared that she thought the individual involved was emotional objective and hence, would require a fast paced interaction, a pace that is faster than Kathleen’s natural pace. Kathleen explained that during the encounter she was able to shift her own thinking and the delivery of her message and provided what appeared to be a clearer more efficient communication to her colleague regarding the financial analysis. She stated, This morning I was trying to communicate a financial analysis and I pointed to one of the items listed and just said take a look and this and blah, blah, blah," and the interpretation was that hmm the item wasn 't going to be allocated properly and wasn 't going to be included in the allocation and I said No, this is just an example. And so I was hmm trying to then realize ok this person is not understanding what I am trying to say nor am I communicating it effectively I need to like shift gears here a little bit and be like, "For example." because this person is emotionally objective, I believe, emotional objective, so they were charging off like in a direction, and I was trying then to reel us both in by citing examples at the time I did not realize or know that that was exactly what I was doing until I reflected on what had happened and determined that that was definitely Human Dynamics and it worked. She highlighted that Human Dynamics saves time and has resulted in streamlined efficiencies in the annual budgetary process. Human Dynamics has helped Kathleen to slow down, formulate a plan and has resulted in enhanced time management. Also, prior to attending Human Dynamics training she felt that everyone needed to like her however, this has changed due to the insights she gained through the Human Dynamics program. She illuminated her increased self-knowledge by stating, Before understanding my own human dynamic, if someone was not pleased with my work, the wind was knocked out of my sails. After Human Dynamics I gained a new found philosophy that I am here to do a job and I now accept that not everyone is going to like me and that is okay with me. As a result of the Human Dynamics program, she asserted that she is better able to set boundaries and is now comfortable, although still challenged in saying no to individuals and redirecting them to others for assistance. This has been a change in her behavior that she believes has resulted in a more balanced lifestyle. She emphasized that she perceives her transformation started with knowledge of Human Dynamics and with maturity in life. Team Learning Kathleen offered another example focusing on a team level impact from the Human Dynamics training. She claimed, Today I had an experience with Human Dynamics with Michael. I needed his signature regarding a capital budget request. I know his dynamic is the physical mental one and I know he appreciates information ahead of time in writing and time to process it so I said you know what I am going to be stopping at South Street today and can do the mail and shift some things around so why don 't I just bring the requisition over to you. I think I did that because I knew Michael would want to see the requisition and understand what was going on in response to what I said-So, of course, I am standing there thinking this is Human Dynamics and it works. According to Kathleen, she thought that this individual’s human dynamic was physical mental and she appreciated and honored the fact that he preferred data presented in paper form versus receiving it just in a verbal face-to-face manner. Having this particular Human Dynamic knowledge provided Kathleen the impetus to make a special trip to his office 10 miles away to deliver the information. This provided the supervisor an opportunity and increased comfort level to physically view the report, and to take time to absorb and process the information before making his decision. Kathleen offered that post-Human Dynamics she definitely understands others better and elaborated on how essential this understanding has been in regards to her service role in the healthcare system. She noted, It is important that I understand where others are coming from in my service role in the healthcare system and Human Dynamics has enriched the understanding for those I serve. Definitely I understand others well because I am in a service role here so it is important that I understand where others are coming from. They are either running on or they are giving me so much information that I zone out. So let me understand you so let me repeat what you have said so you can give them a better product in the end. So it saves time, it streamlines things for me and the leadership team. The various communication styles each individual presents, based on the Human Dynamic framework, has provided Kathleen the opportunity to adapt her own communications to meet individuals needs. She did not offer insight into a particular organizational learning as a result of Human Dynamics training.
Judith’s Human Dynamic Story
“Although I will always see through the eyes of an emotional physical I now have an understanding that not everyone sees the world the same way I do.” Judith, Emotional-Physical, Human Dynamic, 2001 In general the characteristics of an emotional-physical individual’s process is clearly a non-linear, spontaneous, associative, highly interactive, imaginative process, with a strong focus on establishing positive connection among diverse groups of people. (Seagal, 1997) Individual Learning Judith acknowledged that the most important learning she had gained through the Human Dynamics program was her new awareness of her own communication process. She explained by stating, Understanding my own dynamic has helped me realize how others may perceive me or respond to my presence in communication. A good example would be just the internal versus the external process. I think that has been an enormous learning and I think if people can understand that -then they are really walking away from Human Dynamics with something. The internal and the external piece have been huge for me. I didn’t realize before Human Dynamics that there were internal processors, I may have realized that some people were more quiet than others and didn’t participate at meetings or we didn’t hear their voice, so much, but I never realized that perhaps they were engaged in the process in a meeting or that they were right there with me all along and that their process would just be different than mine. Just gaining this realization, I think, is the best example of the impact that Human Dynamics has had on my self-awareness. Judith, using the Human Dynamics knowledge, now attempts to honor both the internal and external process of individuals and she perceives she uses better judgment in her communications. She emphasized that she now experiences what she calls, “a-ha” moments. Judith stated, These are moments in a communication where I suddenly realize that the cause of a stumbling block or a challenge is actually due to a difference in an individual’s human dynamic. These human dynamic moments have resulted in what I believe are the ultimate success of a team task. She highlighted that she has experienced significant changes regarding the way she works now, post Human Dynamics training, by recognizing and then honoring all dynamics in almost all of her communications. The example she shared to illustrate this assimilation of new behavior was in the creation of various memorandums and electronic mails. She offered, I take time now to assure that specific items of importance for each dynamic are included in my communications. The most significant change regarding the way I work now after attending the Human Dynamics program is the recognizing and the honoring of all dynamics in most all of my communications. An example of this is the creation of memorandums and electronic mails. I make sure the items important to each dynamic are included like purpose, structure, action piece-connecting to the whole-inclusion of the people or Associates involved. Running meeting, including sending agenda 's out ahead of time scheduled time for brainstorming balanced teams (dynamically). Also, I work hard to "plump up" my third principle-the mental principle. An example is that I create more grids, flow charts and models Also, I ask what, when, how and why which serves to enhance the gift I bring-the who! She also highlighted that she has gained improved efficiencies as she serves as a facilitator of meetings. She now sends meeting agendas out allowing ample time for team members to immerse in reading them and preparing for the meeting. She also includes structured brainstorming time during meetings as well as facilitating process checks and she designs balanced team participation based on an individual’s human dynamic. According to Judith this has resulted in a diverse group of thinkers and an optimal outcome. The practical example she offered as it related to self-awareness is her increased discipline of allowing more silence to emerge at the meetings through the practice of thinking, writing her thoughts down before speaking or not feeling the need to always speak up. She remarked, I have made an effort to be more focused and to enhance my third principle, which is the mental principle. I allow for more silence now since I learned, through the Human Dynamics program, that this can enhance my mental principle. I now create more models, tables and flowcharts to explain a project or to make a point in my communications. Now I ask for the “ what, when, how and why of a project or a task,” which serves to enhance the gift or strength I bring to a team or to a communication, which is the people connection part the “who!” This can be difficult work for me but the pay off has been worth the effort and now I find it is second nature. Although I will always see through the eyes of an emotional physical I now have an understanding that not everyone sees the world the same way I do. Team Learning Judith noted that she is now more aware of the “gifts” or “strengths” that each team member brings to a team. Judith believes that past participants of the Human Dynamics program are more cognizant of each other’s needs and they now honor the need for diversity on teams. She stated, I think Human Dynamics has been used by some departments as a “springboard” for further team learning or team building. The specific example I remember is a sustainability program that the Human Resource department requested to assist in building teamwork within their team. Organizational Learning. A key principle as it relates to the organization as a whole, as perceived by Judith, is when an Associate chooses to enhance their third principle and they recognize the path of integration of Human Dynamics. Judith noted, I know that all leaders and past participants have not chosen this pathway of integration. I think if participant choose to work on their third principle it is bound to affect the whole system. I think that the use of Human Dynamic terminology and the honoring of the principles have served as a common ground to enhance team culture and therefore the organization’s culture. This concluded the interview with Judith on her experience with the Human Dynamics training program. She left the interviewer with the following words, “Human Dynamics is common language in some departments throughout the organization, but not all departments.”
Therese’s Human Dynamic Story I found myself in Human Dynamics and it was so wonderful to have something, a book, an idea, and a process to say, “This is really you and its OK.” Therese, Physical – Emotional, Human Dynamic, 2001 In general, according to Seagal (1997), the characteristics of a physical-emotional individual are that they are natural systems thinkers interested in concrete work. They want to translate thoughts and ideas into practical results that satisfy a need or solve a problem. They especially excel in the tactical implementation of work. Details are important to them, and they will perform repetitive tasks if that is what is required to complete the job. Seagal (1997) claims, They have an innate sense of continuity and a respect for the past- historical content is essential to them. They think naturally in terms of whole systems and all the interconnections within them. Their function is to respect the “whole” in their thinking and in their actions. In any undertaking, they absorb and synthesize large amounts of data in order to construct comprehensive systemic plans. In this way, they ensure that work proceeds in accordance with the initial vision and that all the details necessary from implementing the plans are in place. It is important they are given the time this inclusive process requires. Because they tend to think in terms of connected systems, group life effects them deeply. They understand the purpose of teams and work well in them. They are orderly in their working habits, which makes them reliable to themselves and others. They generally follow this sequence: (1) Obtain consensus on the project to be implemented; (2) immerse themselves in data; (3) make detailed tactical plans; (4) put the plans into action. Individual Learning Human Dynamics impacted Therese’s day-to-day practice and her self-knowledge by giving her the insight that individuals process information in different manners. Prior to her Human Dynamics experience Therese noted that she was aware that others came to conclusions much faster than she did, however, she discerned that their conclusions could not possibly be right since it was a faster process than hers. Post Human Dynamics she shared that her realization that they just processed information naturally faster and differently than she did. She stated, “I use to think oh, they can’t be right, but now I know that is not necessarily true, these individuals just process a lot differently that I do.” Therese has learned through the Human Dynamics program, to respect other team member’s time to process communication and information. Therese highlighted that this has been a “real learning experience” for her because prior to Human Dynamics she would just get frustrated with team interactions. According to Therese she now takes a step back and determines what her needs are and what her team member’s needs are as she seeks common ground. She offered, I know the information I need to gather for a project or a task and on the first day of the Human Dynamics program it was just wonderful for me. When the facilitator asked, “How many of you went out and either drove here ahead of time or looked at the map”? I had done this very thing but did not think anything of it. It was so wonderful to identify myself, I felt validated and affirmed. Another important piece of the Human Dynamics program that helped me was the learning about the physical emotional dynamic. The Human Dynamics workbook highlighted the importance of words for the physical emotional and this is true for me as a physical emotional. Words mean a lot to me. Team Learning Therese has given her team members the space that they need and her team members, post Human Dynamics training, have respected her need for space in order to accomplish their daily tasks at the healthcare systems information help desk. According to Therese, through the Human Dynamics program, she learned to accept the way that her co-workers need to process and she now knows individuals do not all process information in the same manner. Therese stated, We need teams that are a mix of all the Human Dynamics in order to work together efficiently. Each human dynamic brings a unique strength to our team. One individual will process information in a shorter term, while another like myself will require a longer period of time. One individual based on their human dynamic will need more information than others. Our team knows this now, post Human Dynamics training, and we respect and allow for these distinct needs. Therese compared the human dynamic variations individuals manifest to her work as a volunteer at her children’s school. Just as the different students have different space and communication process needs her team members also have these requirements. The Human Dynamics knowledge has resulted in an enhanced learning experience for Therese on the project teams she has served on at the healthcare system. She notes, In Information Systems Human Dynamics really works well for us especially at the Help Desk. We work very closely because we know what one person needs to finish the job and we work hand-in-hand; there is a couple of us that work very well together, knowing Human Dynamics and knowing what we need. This individual can get it done quickly, while another team member needs a little more time to complete a task. We respect that some team members do not like detail work while another is very good at detail work. Human Dynamics works very well for our team. Therese, post Human Dynamics training, has been able to step back and honor her team member’s need for space and honor the time they need to immerse in a particular project to produce an optimal result. According to Therese on her team they talk a lot about Human Dynamics and the need to respect each other’s dynamic. Therese quantified this by declaring that this sharing of Human Dynamics lessons occurs on a weekly basis. Organizational Learning
Therese did not have very much detail on Human Dynamics as it related to organizational learning. She identified that it has impacted her behavior mostly at a team level. She did note that those who have not attended the Human Dynamics program do not appear as respectful to team members as those who have attended. Therese was very thrilled to have been able to attend the Human Dynamics program and highlighted how this program was a benefit for her in understanding herself and her team members.
Janet’s Human Dynamic Story

“Those who believe in the power of Human Dynamics keep it alive in what we say about it, how we speak about it and how we treat each other and every time it is mentioned.” Janet, Physical – Mental Human Dynamic, 2001 In general, according to Seagal (1997), the characteristics of a physical-mental individual are that they are practical, detailed, thorough, and precise. They are also natural strategic planners and system thinkers. They have a strategy for almost everything that they do. They tend to assemble and reassemble data until interconnected patterns or systems emerge. Seagal (1997) claims, At the outset of any undertaking, they need to understand clearly the purpose and the essential context-where we want to go and why, where we are now, and where we have come from (future, present, past). This understanding lays the foundation for future planning. As they proceed they create diagrams, models, maps, charts, and graphs, which they use as tools for creating structures and facilitating their own thinking, learning, and communicating with others.
They are deeply interested in how things work both mechanically and systemically, and in making things work well. They like their efforts to result in systems of operation that are efficient and can be applied to other situations. Logical thinking and spatial intelligence are key strengths. They are orderly in their work habits, a trait that make them reliable to themselves and to others. They generally follow this sequence: (1) Obtain consensus on the purpose to be achieved; (2) gather and assimilate relevant data; (3) make detailed strategic and tactical plans; (4) put these plans into action in order to fulfill the original purpose. This process is quite similar to that of physical-emotional people, but is more structured, based on more selective data, and less detailed data. (Seagal, p.54) Individual Level of Learning On a personal level Janet asserted that she is now less structured in her approach to work and she is now much more relaxed. She believes that co-workers who know Human Dynamics are more accepting of her. She stated, On a personal level, as a result of the knowledge I have gained, I feel I have gained knowledge. I feel like I am much less structured and much more relaxed. Co-workers who know Human Dynamics are more accepting of me. I feel less of an outcast, more valued because they do not take it as personally, I have the knowledge, they have the knowledge, and we are more accepting of each other. I feel knowing other 's gifts that I have gained knowledge on issues faster because I know who I can go to for particular gifts so I feel like I can gain that knowledge faster for problem solving depending on what I need. Janet highlighted that she has learned a great deal from one of her daughters who has a different human dynamic than Janet does. She noted, I learn a great deal from one of my daughters who has the human dynamic that I need to work on, where I probably would have ignored it without knowing or having that knowledge before so I learn a great deal from her and as well as coworkers where I probably would not have paid attention before. I make a much better attempt to connect where I probably would not have before and it has been satisfying. I feel I make a better role model for my children and for people because of the improvements I have made and the knowledge I have gained from Human Dynamics. As far as her own learning needs Janet offered the following, I think I know what I need when I am learning more so if it is not provided for me then I make it myself so if it is purpose or being more structured I think my learning is enhanced because I know what I need that 's what I need and if I don 't get it Ill make it for myself and begin with that rather than struggle with that and realize what I didn 't have or what I needed to make learning easier. I know where I can be more challenged and where there is growth opportunity so learning is enhanced that way and I also can choose something that is easier for me if that is what I need too so I 'll choose a particular thing to learn where I know it 's not going to take me as much to learn because I know that it is going to be very structured with a purpose yet I know what will be challenging for me and I tend to avoid that sometimes if I know that it is not the right time to do something. Again, I think it is just knowing yourself better through knowing Human Dynamics that learning can be enhanced.

Team Learning As far as the team dynamics Janet believes that she now knows her co-workers better and understands their learning and communication needs. She offered, …Knowing, I think, better my co-workers and their needs I connect personally more often than not rather than voice mails and e-mails. I feel I do a lot more connecting on a personal level especially with people I feel would prefer that. I structure in unstructured time with co-workers, I never did that before and it has paid off with a deeper, I think, relationship with them. I pay attention to the feelings in team meetings and use more guidelines to empathy than I probably would have before knowing the Human Dynamic knowledge especially in the areas I need for improvement. There is awareness for membership of a team because of the awareness of the gifts that each one brings. I think our communication is looked at differently where it reaches more people based on knowing what people need. Janet acknowledged that knowing the strengths of others, based on the Human Dynamics knowledge, has provided her with a productive problem solving strategy whereby she leverages an individual’s innate natural gifts like analysis or innovation.
She also thought Human Dynamics had resulted in improved listening skills for many of the past participants. She also noted that individuals are less judgmental and more respectful for distinctions in processing and learning. She asserted that knowing the Human Dynamic principles has assisted some individuals to not take things personally and to stay more objective in their interactions with team members. Organizational Learning Janet perceives that Human Dynamics has resulted in improved organizational communications. She noted, This can be pretty difficult to think about but I think that within our processes particularly when we change a process and we need to educate and communicate I think we provide more options than we use to. I think we use more flowcharts, as well as dialogue, as well as procedure steps, as well as some participation maybe some hands-on and less of just the lecture pieces although that is not always true. I think that we are more cognizant of the provision of more options in our processes or at least in the communication and education of those processes and systems. I think that the Human Resources Department, with any change have to be cognizant and maybe the Human Dynamics knowledge has helped in how they have changed the processes and how they communicate the new processes.
She continued by sharing, …Certainly the knowledge of Human Dynamics has been embedded in the culture through regular Human Dynamics programs offered to all Associates. There are waiting lists and sign-up is mostly through word of mouth promotion. People who believe in Human Dynamics and its power can keep it alive. We do this through what we do, what we say, how we say it, how we treat one another, though General Orientation. How we approach changes in the organization. It is right in our values when it states recognizing and honoring diversity. That is it. She also pointed out that she believes the organizations education training programs are designed with a Human Dynamic framework whereby all learning styles are recognized and planned for to enhance the transfer of knowledge. In the area of problem solving and process improvement Janet perceived that Human Dynamics has had a positive impact. She stated, I think we now use more flowcharts, as well as dialogue, as well as procedure steps. We encourage brainstorming and the use of silent process checks. I think that we are more cognizant of the provision of more options in our processes or at least in the communication and education of those processes and systems. I think that the Human Resources Department, with any policy change have to be cognizant and maybe the Human Dynamics knowledge has helped in how they have changed the processes and how they communicate the new processes. The Human Dynamics knowledge has been embedded in the culture based on the fact that the Human Dynamic program has been sustained for the past seven years. She emphasized that a waiting list still exists for attendance and frequent requests are received for additional advanced Human Dynamic programming. She thought this was an unusual circumstance for an educational program since the program is promoted almost entirely by word of mouth. She concluded that individuals who believe in Human Dynamics and its power “can keep it alive”. Janet believes they accomplish the sponsorship of the Human Dynamics program through their actions.
Synthesis of Interview Findings The researcher actively listened to respondents and captured their perceptions on outcomes of the Human dynamics program at the three levels of learning. Interview findings were analyzed utilizing the coding and categorizing steps suggested by both Merriam (1998) and Creswell (2003). Interview texts were coded, numbered and frequency distributions were assessed to determine major improvement categories. Table 10 presents a thematic conceptual matrix of the major improvement categories that emerged during the interviews.

Table 10

Major Improvement Categories from Interview Findings Post-Human Dynamics

|Improvement Category |Frequency Distribution |
|Self-Knowledge |20 comments were offered with an average of three per interview respondent. |
|Understanding Others |18 comments were made with an average of three per interview respondent. |
|Communications |12 comments were made with an average of three per respondent. |
|Team Behaviors |12 comments were made with an average of three per respondent. |
|Meeting Facilitation |Four comments were made identifying enhanced facilitation of meetings as an area of |
| |improved impact. |

Summary of Interview Findings The organization of the interview findings was accomplished by utilizing a composite of research techniques outlined by Merriam, (1998), Creswell (2003) and Leedy (1997). After reducing and coding the interview findings five major categories of improved learning became evident. The five categories are enhanced: self-understanding, understanding of others, communications, team behaviors and facilitation of meetings. The interview data was compared to the survey data and will be compared to the focus group data as well as to the observation data. The next part of this chapter is devoted to the focus group findings.

Findings from Focus Groups Data was collected through the facilitation of two focus groups. Focus groups gave participants the opportunity to talk freely about the impact of the Human Dynamics program at an individual, team and organizational level. Data analysis procedures were modeled according to Krueger and Casey’s (2000) framework for the analysis of data collected through the focus group methodology. This required the use of a systematic, sequential analysis that ensured that results accurately reflected what was shared in the two focus groups. The focus group protocol found in Appendix D provided a guiding structure for the researcher and the participants. Narrative passages will be utilized to convey the findings of the analysis. The text has been organized into the three levels of learning: individual, team and organizational-wide.
Individual Learning

Rita reflected on how Human Dynamics provided her with the insight that she tends to think more abstractly then her co-workers. Human Dynamics has provided her with a framework for understanding the various distinctions in thinking. She stated, “Human Dynamics is a way for me to look at myself and see how I fit into an interaction with another individual who processes information differently than I do.” Jennifer, a newcomer to the organization, highlighted the benefit Human Dynamics had been to her as she entered the new organization and began to experience the culture. She noted, “I was fortunate to attend Human Dynamics early in my career here and I gained self-knowledge on my process and how it differed than the majority of the team I lead in the intensive care unit.” Jennifer initiated a new practice based on her Human Dynamics experience by providing additional written protocols for her team members knowing that, unlike her, they learn best with written materials. She illustrated this new practice by noting, …At first I thought it was rather annoying because other individual’s need for internal processing of a communication was so different from my own style of learning. I would ask others why they required all kinds of additional information when I did not find it necessary. I told them to just move on and to take action. I learned through Human Dynamics that this need of others for more detail was not any better than my way, just a different natural way of processing for my team members. In my department I needed to remember that I am serving the team members and I need to remember and honor differences in the way we process information. Jennifer shared that she had the realization, after Human Dynamics training, that her external processing may actually serve as a distraction to those individuals who are physically centered. She has been consciously attempting to embrace more silence in her day-to-day practices to allow physically centered team members to think things out without being interrupted. Adrianne shared that Human Dynamics has changed her nursing practice as it relates especially to patient education. She stated, My greatest learning from the Human Dynamics program is in the situation where I talk with a patient and I now know more about how they learn and then I begin to assist them in learning about their health condition. For some of my male patients I use stories and models than include examples of motors or engines. I do this when I explain information about the heart. I compare the heart to a piece of machinery and tell them how it works. They seem to get a little more interested and engaged in the process when I use this Human Dynamic approach. I am physical emotional and I need detailed examples and I realized so do many of my patients. Now instead of offering them just the technical terms I have incorporated more story telling and the use of models to my patient teaching technique. Human Dynamics has helped me with this aspect of patient care. Jacqueline highlighted that in her role as team leader Human Dynamics has served to assist with the manner in which she facilitates team meetings. She also noted, “Human Dynamics caused me to go introspective into how I fit best into this organization and helped me to focus on my natural strengths.” She perceived that her communications have been enhanced due to the knowledge she gained through the Human Dynamics program. An additional area Jacqueline highlighted was how Human Dynamics pulled her out of her comfort zone and she declared this has resulted in personal growth. Courtney asserted that since her Human Dynamics experience she has become more verbal at meetings. She declared that this was not comfortable for her, however she has identified this as one of her growth areas that she has been proud of developing since she attended Human Dynamics. Sadie clarified that Human Dynamics opened up her thinking about how she learns and how others learn. She stated, I think if you can recognize how you learn and you want that to be respected then you tend to be more sensitive to how others will learn and whether they’ll be open to what it is you have to say or what it is you have to share. Rita and Clare both shared that Human Dynamics made it easier for them to understand how they think and how they make choices with various approaches to problem solving. Clare also noted, The greatest strength of the Human Dynamics program for me was the ability to look at how I communicate and how you communicate, how I learn, how you learn and it has placed us on an even playing field that respects all team members. Parenting advances were noted by three of the focus group participants. Jennifer, a cancer survivor, noted that Human Dynamics had helped her during the acute phase of her illness. The self-knowledge she gained reminded her to stay calm and to slow down and attempt to actively listen to others. It also allowed her a new framework for understanding the reaction of her co-workers and family members to her cancer experience. Jennifer shared, Human Dynamics helped me both professionally and personally especially when I was going through all my cancer stuff. I think it really helped me because I was like a moving so fast with my mind racing. I process information very quickly. I look for results and I am ready to go on to the next thing immediately. I’m thinking, “Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go,” Human Dynamics really helped and I think understanding helped me during a difficult time experiencing cancer. It helped me understand some of the differences in my team member’s reactions. I think it was really beneficial. Jacqueline shared that Human Dynamics was an important personal awakening for her as it related to beginning to appreciate and then respect how she learns. She offered, Because I pick up a lot of information and I process it internally it takes time. I recognize not everyone learns this way. I have always felt sort of odd about this; however, Human Dynamics has helped me integrate all three principles. Before Human Dynamics I couldn’t always understand. In working with the variety of people that I have the opportunity to work with Human Dynamics has given me a new understanding. I like to tell stories and I need an overview, what I call the larger view and then I like it brought down to the basics. I know there are other dynamics who don’t appreciate this. So I’ve learned to bullet point information for them – if they want history they ask for it. I’m okay with this now but it took Human Dynamics to really help me understand this distinction. David reflected on working in a team environment and how Human Dynamics has impacted his practice. Prior to Human Dynamics he use to consider himself a good listener but post training he realized that perhaps he really was not. He has changed his practice and now attempts to actively and empathetically listen more, even though the purpose of something is not explained which is a point he prefers upfront. He stated,
“I have to accept what is being told to me. I used to find this frustrating. I would ask myself: Why am I here? Why am I doing this? Why are we going through this exercise?” Throughout the two focus groups 18 comments were made focusing on the enhancement of self-knowledge. There were no discernable distinctions between the two focus groups regarding self-knowledge. This data was compared to the data from the surveys and the interviews for commonality. The findings appear to be supported throughout the other methodologies.
Team Learning

Clare noted that one of the most significant things for her after attending Human Dynamics was the respect she gained from learning about the different ways her team members process information and relate to one another. She stated, “It opened my eyes to a different realm of thinking of not only my own way of broadcasting in the day to day but of my co-workers way of processing information.” Sadie shared that she used Human Dynamics as a strategy to assist in building her team spirit and she experienced improved team communication. She also encouraged her team to view Human Dynamics as a tool for reflective practice on their strengths and growth areas. Rita noted, As we started to build the team, I guess I looked at Human Dynamics not only from a vantage point of how I could use this knowledge for self improvement but especially to use it to improve our team communications. My team members have come back from these sessions energized and engaged in team improvements. Sadie offered that Human Dynamics has provided leaders with a tool to assist in improved team behaviors. She noted, Human Dynamics has provided my team with a common language to use to discuss differences that they had major difficulty with in the past. Also, the use of Human Dynamics language has provided them something other to talk about than the negativism that we, as leaders, keep trying to change. I see this as a real positive outcome and benefit. Sadie also highlighted her perception that this program has provided a strategy for career development and advancement. She uses Human Dynamics during performance reviews and ongoing performance management sessions. Courtney perceived that Human Dynamics had assisted her team as it related to respecting various communication styles. Courtney also believed Human Dynamics had assisted her team to understand their learning styles and their co-workers learning needs. She thinks it also showed her team members that the organization honors learning as a value and are interested in employee developmental growth. She stated, We are not just saying you have to think this way or you have to see it our way. We’re encouraging them to find out how they can improve themselves and how they can understand people better. I think Human Dynamics has really helped build our learning team. I think it was helpful from the standpoint of when a new leader joined our team and we were in a transition period. The three of us have three different human dynamics and attack an issue in three different manners. We experience the organization very differently but once we had taken Human Dynamics we had a common way of discussing our differences and building bridges towards consensus. I think for all three of us, recognizing that we have different strengths and different weaknesses and we share those with the staff even during interviews for potential new hires. We let them know that we are very different people but we work as a team. Human Dynamics helps bring that out and you can honor our differences and view them as strengths. Lauren highlighted that Human Dynamics impacted the critical care department’s annual skills validation fair by offering awareness into multiple modes of learning. She stated, “Human Dynamics assisted us to set the tone for our learning this year and we had better results based on the design that everyone learns differently.” She emphasized, “Not everyone learns the way I do, some people need only the verbal while others the written information or the visual.” David noted that he does not remember all the specifics about the different human dynamics; however, it was a positive experience for him that resulted in a change of behavior. Specifically, David shared that he now stops his actions during meetings to allow his team members time to process. He stated, I try to remember people have different human dynamics and they process information so much differently than me. Certainly in a team environment it’s been a big plus for me. If I’m working with Adrianne, I have to sit back and take in the information slowly and analyze each step and I know that’s not always the best approach. I think Human Dynamics has helped me working with team members to become a better listener; some people because of the way they work-they’re going too fast for me. I used to just block out their words. I wouldn’t listen. Now I make more of an effort to do that because I know they’re not talking quickly on purpose just to annoy me or make it hard for me to understand. That’s just the way they explain things. Jacqueline built on David’s opinion by adding, I think the use of Human Dynamics has been a way of using my strength to help bring focus into groups. For instance, to bring focus in a compassionate way when things aren’t moving well and there’s a need to begin to get the process moving. If the leader is cognizant of the human dynamic of a group, you can actually see how the meeting can be managed in a new way. After learning Human Dynamics I try to think about using several different approaches when working with my team. I try to think about the different ways in which they process information and I try to prepare myself in advance. I never would have thought about that much preparation before the Human Dynamics class. David added to the group comments by stating, I was just going to add to what Jacqueline was saying- I know we’re not suppose to categorize each other and talk about how I’m in that category and you’re in that category. But I think just the process of understanding another team member’s human dynamic results in better communication with them. When you have to work together as a team, you are going to be more tolerant and that’s one of the things I have written down here, is that it seems to me in our group, you can tell that people have been to class recently because they are more tolerant of the other people within the team. I am more tolerant of people and they’re more tolerant of me. I became more tolerant of other individuals because of Human Dynamics, and more open to learn from them. Eight of the nine focus group participants commented on their increased level of respect for the variety of learning styles individuals have within a team. Eight of the nine noted a new respect within their teams for differences in processing information. Seven of the nine participants highlighted that team communications had been enhanced after team members had attended Human Dynamics.
Organizational Learning Focus group participants offered several insights into the effects of Human Dynamics in terms of the organization as a whole. David noted that the Human Dynamics program had resulted in the use of a common language by a majority of the healthcare leaders. Sadie offered that Human Dynamics has served to build communication bridges between individuals, teams, and departments throughout the entire organization. Three of the nine respondents are using Human Dynamics in goal setting during the annual performance review process. They elaborated on the usefulness of having this program serve as an option for personal growth, team growth and enhancing organizational capacity. Providing a common language to build the organization’s culture was mentioned by five of the nine respondents as a benefit from the program. All nine of the focus group participants asserted that communications had improved pertaining to organizational messages as a result of the program. Three of the nine respondents posited that the organization’s educational offerings had been improved due to the instructional design including the learning needs of all individuals based on their human dynamic. Three of the nine mentioned that this program was evidence that the organization was aligned with the value of learning which they espouse at the orientation program for the healthcare system. Lauren offered this view by stating, I think Human Dynamics offers us proof that learning is an important value within this institution. In having worked at other institutions with and without staff development departments, there are more educational opportunities here. I think that is because when the nurses and other staff members think about getting information across learning is valued and when something becomes a value, it becomes practiced and becomes an important part of the culture. Human Dynamics places the ownership and the responsibility and authority in the hands of the people who actually perform the hands on care. Four of the nine respondents commented on how the Human Dynamics knowledge had assisted them in their leadership roles throughout the organization. They highlighted the advantage they had experienced at the individual, team and at the organizational wide level.
Summary of Focus Group Findings Participants from two focus groups provided multiple stories of individual learning, team learning and organizational learning related to their Human Dynamics experiences. The five categories of practice improvement are enhanced: self-understanding, understanding of others, communications, team behaviors and meeting facilitation. Table 11 three depicts a summation of the major learning categories that emerged from the data collected across both focus groups.
Table 11

Summation of Focus Group Findings

|Major Improvement Categories |Frequency of Response |
|Self-Knowledge |9 of 9 participants responded on the enhancement of self-knowledge|
|Understanding Others |8 of 9 participants responded on the expansion of understanding |
| |and respecting others |
|Communications |6 of 9 participants responded on improved communications |
|Team Behaviors |6 of 9 participants responded on the enhancement of team behaviors|
|Facilitation of Meetings |3 of 9 participants responded on the improvement of meeting |
| |facilitation |

Findings from Observations

Data was gathered from informal observations made by the researcher during a three-month study period as she participated in various healthcare meetings and activities. This included listening and noting any language that emerged in reference to the Human Dynamics approach. The researcher remained cognizant of not introducing Human Dynamics into any dialogue that took place with healthcare leaders, physicians and employees during this observational data collection phase. The researcher believed that using observation as well as the three other data collection methods would enhance understanding of the reality of the impact of the Human Dynamics program. A total of sixteen observations were collected over a three-month period by the researcher. The observations were analyzed with four major categories discovered. The four categories mirrored four of the five major improvement categories revealed from the other three data collection methodologies. Table 12 provides the observations gleaned related to individuals comments regarding and area of self-knowledge.
Table 12
Observations Related to Self-Knowledge
|Date |Observation |
|08/02/01 |At a Senior Leadership meeting the Chief Operating Officer made a comment about his own HD and how he has an |
| |affinity for numbers. Exact quote was, “I am numbers oriented, perhaps it is my HD.” |
|09/20/01 |The researcher was stopped in a hospital hallway by a respiratory therapist who initiated a conversation about HD |
| |and the impact on him since attending the training session. He stated that the HD knowledge had changed him and |
| |that it is painful for him to get in touch with his emotional principle. |
|9/28/01 |At a meeting a nurse practitioner described to the researcher how HD had resulted in her own understanding of her |
| |new supervisor who processes information in an external manner. She offered that this approach was very different |
| |from her own way of processing communications. |

Table 13 highlights the comments gathered from individuals related to understanding their team members or in one case the entire workforce. Two of the three comments made were provided by the top t senior executives at the study site.

Table 13

Observations Related to Understanding Others

|Date |Observation |
|09/12/01 |The president of the healthcare system stopped the researcher and asked her how the different dynamics would have |
| |experienced or processed the September 11, 2001 Twin Towers event. |
|09/22/01 |The facilitator of a new recruitment software-training program shared with the researcher that the participant’s |
| |HD was evident during the training sessions. She emphasized that this especially related to the diverse |
| |approaches to learning each student demonstrated. |
|10/01/01 |The chief operating officer of the healthcare system directed the Senior Vice-President of Nursing Service to |
| |contact the researcher regarding a performance review of a healthcare leader. This included a goal to enhance the|
| |development of this leader’s third principle as it related to the HD framework. |

Table 14 provides the observational comments that emerged in the three month study phase related to improved communications.
Table 14
Observations Related to Communications
|Date |Observation |
|08/15/01 |A registered nurse from the rehabilitation department stopped the researcher to tell her that HD had an |
| |insightful effect on her practice. Gaining this knowledge resulted in enhanced communications for her with |
| |her team members. |
|09/21/01 |An RN from the enterostomal therapy service stopped the researcher to tell her that HD had a profound effect|
| |on her practice. It has resulted in enhanced communications with her team members. It has resulted in her |
| |making a new colleague friend with a pharmacist who, prior to attending the HD program had challenged her |
| |with his communication style. |
|10/19/01 |The director of guest services declared that he now understood why the chief operating officer needed to |
| |utilize flowcharts to explain his process. He also said ignorance builds fear and how helpful HD had been |
| |to reduce the fear that can occur when one individual does not appreciate another’s natural communication |
| |process. |

Table 15 showcases observational comments related to team behaviors which surfaced at a variety of informal team meetings and formal interdisciplinary committee meetings. One particular observation took place during an accreditation survey whereby a formal presentation on the Human Dynamics program was requested by the regulatory assessment team as a result of hearing accolades about the program from numerous employees.
Table 15
Observations Related to Team Behaviors
|Date |Observation |
|08/18/01 |The Comprehensive Accreditation for Rehabilitative Facilities Surveyors received feedback from the |
| |healthcare systems rehabilitation team about the benefits of the HD program. They shared that attending this|
| |program had resulted in enhanced team interactions. |
|08/23/01 |During a luncheon two critical care nurses shared with the researcher that HD had assisted them in their |
| |team interactions. |
|10/12/01 |During the quarterly lunch with the health system’s president a participant offered a positive comment |
| |regarding the Human Dynamics program and advocated that every employee attend this program. This healthcare|
| |Associate offered that the Human Dynamics program was wonderful and had helped tremendously in her team |
| |projects.” She went on to state,” I think HD is great because it allows for the actual application of what |
| |you have learned rather than just the theory.” |

Summary of Findings from Observations

A total of sixteen comments were considered observations in this study collected through random encounters with the researcher. The researcher observed random comments at meetings, in hospital hallways, in elevators and in a parking lot where she was stopped and employees spontaneously shared lessons learned from Human Dynamics. After analyzing and coding each observation four major improvement categories were evident. The four major categories are improved: self-knowledge, understanding others, communications and team behaviors. These four categories support the major findings from the written surveys, the interviews and from the findings from the focus groups.
Additional Analysis of Findings: The Shadow Side Across all of the data-collection sources six comments were made in reference to the less than positive impact of Human Dynamics. The researcher has identified this as the shadow side. All these comments were framed in the context of how first and foremost the Human Dynamics experience was positive for the respondents, however there existed a small piece for each of the six participants enough that they mentioned a shadow side to the program. One respondent stated, “I do not appreciate being pigeon –holed into a category”. While another focus group member stated, “I think some leaders use the dynamics as an excuse for their behavior.” Another stated, I do not like labels and placing people in categories.” The majority of these respondents highlighted that despite this negative aspect the program should continue with increased promotion.
Synthesis of Findings Across All Data Sources The researcher brought order and meaning to the survey, interview, focus group and observation data by reducing the profile data to coherent stories that allowed patterns, themes, and meanings to emerge. Tentative categories and themes helped to align responses to the central research questions. The researcher primarily followed Merriam’s (1998) suggested scenario and Creswell’s (2003) framework while she gathered and simultaneously analyzed data from each method of data collection. Data was continuously compared with each other and units of data were sorted into groupings that had common themes. The analysis sought to make sense of and determine the connective thread among the stories. Table 16 presents a comparison across the three levels of learning: by individuals, within teams and throughout the organization while Table 17 offers an insight on the major findings across all four data collection methods.
Table 16
Comparison of the Major Improvement Categories Reduced from the Findings across the Three Levels of Learning
|Major Improvement Category |Individual |Team |Organizational Level |
| |Level |Level | |
|Self-Knowledge |X | | |
|Understanding of Others |X |X | |
|Team Behaviors |X |X | |
|Communications |X |X |X |
|Facilitation of Meetings |X |X | |

Table 17

Matrix of Major Findings Across All Data Sources

|Major Improvement Categories |Sources of Data |
| |S = Surveys I = Interviews |
| |FG = Focus Groups O = Observations |
| |S |I |FG |O |
|Self-Understanding |X |X |X |X |
|Understanding of Others |X |X |X |X |
|Communications |X |X |X | |
|Team Behaviors |X |X |X |X |
|Facilitation of Meetings |X |X |X | |

The next chapter will present interpretations drawn from the composite data of this research study. Relationships to purpose, literature and to the guiding questions will be presented. Major findings will be explored for meaningful application to practice and future research. The chapter will conclude with a summary of the importance and meaning of the study.

CHAPTER FIVE
Summary and Discussion
Introduction
This research study pursued an in-depth analysis of the impact of the Human Dynamics program throughout one healthcare system. The purpose of this research study was to explore and document the impact of Human Dynamics based on the perceptions of past participants of the program. This was accomplished through a case study research design. Data collection was achieved through written surveys, interviews, focus groups and three months of observations. A systematic thematic analysis resulted in the identification of five major improvement categories. The five categories of practice improvement are self-understanding, understanding of others, communications, team behaviors and meeting facilitation. The results of this study provide data to support the claim that improvement in a learning organization’s performance is directly related to its adoption of the Human Dynamics program. Research was sorely needed to support this type of claim (Kaiser, 1998). This study assists in filling this void by providing empirical research on how the use of the Human Dynamic program provides an effective learning organization strategy. Findings indicate that there has been a positive effect at the individual and team level of learning. This chapter presents an overview of the study, a discussion of the findings as they relate to the guiding questions, the relationship to existing literature and relevant theory. Limitations and implications for leadership, learning and service are presented as well as the implications specific to healthcare practice. This chapter concludes with recommendations for future research and a summation of the findings of this study.
Overview
The purpose of this case study was to describe and interpret the impact of the Human Dynamics program in a healthcare organization. The Human Dynamics program is an organizational development strategy that strives to promote a better understanding of individual differences and interpersonal effectiveness. Human Dynamics has been recognized by Peter Senge (1994) and other organizational behavior researchers to be a foundational approach that supports the creation of a learning organization (Gauthier, 1995; Karash, 1995). This study sought to discern whether or not the Human Dynamics program served as an effective methodology for enhancing organizational learning. Implicit in this quest was the determination of whether or not evidence emerged that a learning organization resulted due to the implementation of the Human Dynamics program. The manifestations of practical outcomes were also probed and described utilizing a case study design. Triangulation was assured in the design by combining four different data streams within this single study to determine the impact of the Human Dynamics training at the study site. Data was collected at three different levels of learning: by individual, within teams and throughout the organization. The four data collection methods implemented were (1) a written survey distributed to 150 past participants of the Human Dynamics program, (2) the facilitation of six individual semi-structured interviews with past participants of the program; (3) the facilitation of two focus groups comprised of past participants of the program, (4) observations of spontaneous comments referencing Human Dynamics.
Discussion Related to Guiding Questions Three questions served to guide but not limit this case study. In this section each question will be presented along with a discussion of the findings. The questions guiding this study included:
1. How has the Human Dynamics program affected the day-to-day practice of individual participants of this study?
2. How has the Human Dynamics program affected the day-to-day practice of healthcare teams that participated in this study?
3. How has the Human Dynamics program affected the day-to-day practice of this healthcare organization? In general, the findings indicate that the healthcare respondents in this study answered all three of the guiding questions as they shared their stories of assimilating new and improved behaviors as a result of the Human Dynamics program. Each guiding question will be reviewed and answered separately in the following section.

Results in Relationship to Guiding Question 1: How has the Human Dynamics Program Affected the Day-to-Day Practice of Individual Participants of this Study? Participants indicated that learning had occurred as a result of the Human Dynamics program at the individual level of learning. Analysis of the data resulted in a positive outcome based on perceptions of past participants especially in the area of improved self-knowledge. Most respondents acknowledged that it was the Human Dynamics program that served as a catalyst for assimilation of new awareness into how they think and process information. Respondents experienced a new way of communicating that resulted in a reflective pathway into their own thinking. Human Dynamics has had a positive outcome for these individuals based on their own stories as highlighted by one respondent who stated, I have a better understanding of self, what drives me and a better recognition of the personal gifts and talents of others. I have gained deeper insight into my actions, interactions, and reactions to others and situations. This self-understanding has helped me to see myself with deeper clarity. What becomes clear from the participants’ responses is that they have experienced a new way of thinking about their mental models as they relate to communication with others. The vast majority of respondents cited a positive outcome in the way they learn, process information and relate to others. It appears, for this organization, that individuals have assimilated newly acquired positive behaviors as a result of the Human Dynamics program. Five major themes emerged from the respondents written feedback as well as from the stories they shared during the interviews and focus groups. The observations added another depth of analysis to support the overall positive outcomes that were realized for these healthcare individuals. The five major improvement categories are self-awareness, understanding others, communications, team behaviors, and meeting facilitation. These five areas are essential for building a learning organization (Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1994).
Results in Relationship to Guiding Question 2: How has Human Dynamics Affected the Day-to-Day Practice of Healthcare Teams that Participated in this Study? Participants indicated that learning had occurred as a result of the Human Dynamics program at the team level of learning. Team learning in healthcare may be the link between individual and organizational learning. Teams are simply socially constructed connecting groups that integrate individuals and organizations. Mumford (1996) suggested a pyramid of learning that begins with individual learning at its base, followed by one-on-one learning, progressing to group or team learning, and culminating in organizational learning. This hierarchy model suggests that organizational learning cannot happen without the preceding levels of learning. The critical understanding gained through the interviews and the focus groups lies in the linkage that became evident between individual and team learning and the synthesis of findings from both. Respondents reported that attendance at the Human Dynamics program had resulted in the promotion of not only individual growth but also positive change within their healthcare teams. Respondents reported significant learning as it related to understanding others and respecting differences in functioning. Attendance at the Human Dynamics program has resulted in an enhanced sense of respect for team members’ differences in communication styles as noted by the majority of respondents. An illumination of this fact was noted by one individual when he stated, “I have learned to listen better, to honor another’s process, to understand and respect.” Another respondent continued, “I am able to focus much better on the “process” rather than on the “people issues” which has increased my team’s work efficiency. One respondent declared, “Human Dynamics allowed me to be much more accepting of how my co-workers need to process information, ideas and changes.” This study provides evidence that assimilation of new positive behaviors at the team level of learning resulted from participation in the Human Dynamics training program. The positive impact at the team level was supported throughout all four phases of the study.
Results in Relationship to Guiding Question 3: How has Human Dynamics Affected the Day-to-Day Practice of this Healthcare Organization? This level of learning was difficult to clearly discern and not as evident in the findings. One could argue that if learning occurred at the individual and team level, then the organization has been impacted in a positive manner. Organizational learning is dependent on individual and team learning. Dodgson (1993) argued that, “individuals are the primary learning entity in firms, and it is the individuals who create organizational forms that enable learning to occur throughout organizations. It is the individuals, leveraged by their new learning, who facilitate organizational transformation. Individual development and performance are not “either-or” options in healthcare organizations today. Healthcare is made up of people who are bound by a shared vision, core values and structure. Learning occurs all the time in a healthcare organization. The task is to harness it and to ensure that it is effective learning. This is precisely what this study did by capturing the learning about Human Dynamics at three distinct learning levels within one healthcare organization. Organizational transformation and optimal performance will improve with individual and team learning, but the culture must also support it. Senge (1990) noted, “Ironically, by focusing on performing for someone else’s approval, corporations create the very conditions that predestine them to mediocre performance. Over the long run, superior organizational performance depends on superior learning.” To foster cultural change, organizations must design infrastructures to support individual and team development. The evidence from this study finds that this healthcare organization is well on its way with its introduction and continued support of the Human Dynamics program. Organizations similar to the site in this study must recognize that only through relationships does anything get done and to cultivate strong relationships through organizational learning is a key performance strategy. An organization like this one is not a machine; it is living organization and as such requires the nurturing of an environment, which supports holistic development. This is essentially the outcome of the introduction of the Human Dynamics program for the respondents in this study. Participants of this study reported significant learning related to the creation of a common language as a result of their Human Dynamics training. The presence of a common language is a critical ingredient to creating and sustaining a learning organization. Although limited, a few respondents reported significant learning specifically related to the organization’s culture with the introduction of Human Dynamics. One Director shared, I appreciate and value the opportunities I have been provided by this organization to learn and understand Human Dynamics. It is a tremendous journey! It has had a profound effect on the way I lead and the way I live.
Another offered, I understand much better how I process information and my need for structure. All the things I learned from Human Dynamics have been invaluable in my interpersonal relationships-at work. It is, after all, individuals and teams who contribute to systems thinking and create the culture of an organization. This healthcare organization is comprised of a network of complex relationships that require ongoing nurturing. Human Dynamics has offered a nurturing strategy to cultivate positive relationships based on individual and team development.
Relationship to the Literature The present study represents an attempt to contribute to knowledge in the fields of Human Dynamics, organizational learning, personality trait theory, and organizational culture. A review of the various strands of literature of this study suggested that throughout history people have attempted to explain the differences in people, teams and organizations. There appears to be relationships found throughout the literature reviewed and the findings of this study that provide evidence of practical outcomes when an organization uses the Human Dynamics training program as a learning organization strategy. This section will provide an overview of the literature linked to the findings of the present study.
Relationship to Human Dynamics A review of the literature suggested that Human Dynamics has been a part of ongoing research since 1979 through the work of Sandra Seagal and David Horne. Luminaries such as the late Buck Minster Fuller and Peter Senge who wrote the watershed book, The Fifth Discipline, have lauded Human Dynamics as important knowledge for individuals, teams and organizations. Overall, there was consistency in findings from this present study with the prior Human Dynamics research. This study confirms Sandra Seagal’s assertions that Human Dynamics’ training is a proven process for understanding people and unlocking their potential. (Seagal, 1997). It also supports her claim that Human Dynamics serves as a practical tool to learn personal and interpersonal mastery with managing the complexity of interacting with people. This study provides supporting research that Human Dynamics has helped individuals and teams develop the skills and deep insight needed to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world. This study substantiates Seagal’s claim that Human Dynamics training can support goals such as: developing personally and professionally; gaining insight into diverse kinds of individuals; learning, teaching and coaching effectively; building strong teams and communities; developing natural leadership abilities; managing rapid change; and maintaining health and reducing stress. This study also confirms that Human Dynamics can contribute to the building of remarkable teams that bring out everyone’s innate talents. This has been the reality for this healthcare organization and for the teams interviewed in this study.
Relationship to Personality Trait Theory Despite the fact that Seagal’s (1997) work is an emerging body of knowledge and not derived from a past theoretical construct, it was still important to place the work in context. In order to facilitate this placement, the researcher found it useful to review the literature on personality typologies. This review uncovered evidence that psychological typologies have a rich history dating back to Ancient Greece and Hippocrates, the “Father of Medicine”. Hippocrates provided the foundations of scientific medicine by freeing medical study from the constraints of philosophical speculation and superstition. He offered his concept of the four temperaments and believed that personality was shaped by blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. It is interesting to note that today’s healthcare organizations, like the one in this study, continue to seek methods to understand the differences in people. The vast literature review on personality psychology appears to uncover ongoing complexity of unanswered questions about human nature, dimensions of individual differences and unique patterns of processing. Essentially the present study on Human Dynamics adds to the extensive research bank focusing on personality trait theory and the distinctions of thinking and processing information.
Relationship to Learning Organization Theory The third strand of literature reviewed focused on organizational learning and learning organizations. The findings from this study add to this emerging research area especially as it relates to Senge’s body of knowledge on the five disciplines critical to the creation of a learning organization. Correlations can be made between five of the present studies findings and four of Senge’s learning disciplines. The five learning disciplines are systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Human Dynamics has been lauded as a strategy to assist in enhancing these five disciplines within an organization. This study confirms Senge’s assertion related to four of the five learning disciplines. The purpose of Human Dynamics is the development, empowerment and sustainment of individual and collective human potential. Human Dynamic programs are among those selected by the Society for Organizational Learning as foundational to the development of learning organizations. Peter Senge (1999) has asserted, The work of Human Dynamics is seminal. Those of us involved in building learning organizations will look back in ten years time, and wonder how we had ever proceeded without this understanding and appreciation of the diversity of human functioning. (p. 4) According to Senge direct links exist between Human Dynamics and the five learning disciplines referred to in his book The Fifth Discipline. This study offers evidence to support Senge’s claim that Human Dynamics has served as a tool for enhancing learning at an individual and at a team level. He has endorsed Human Dynamics by noting, Human Dynamics offers a simple, elegant, and powerful framework for understanding the diversity of human functioning and for realizing its potential—a framework that, promises to be effective across all cultures, no matter how different they may be. (p. xviii) The relationship between Human Dynamics and Systems Thinking is explained by Senge (1999) when he maintained, Human Dynamics identifies distinct human systems (personality dynamics) and explicates their functioning as whole systems; it also explores their systemic interactions in the context of larger systems of operation such as teams, families, schools, classrooms and communities. Since human beings create all other systems (with the exception of nature itself), it should be common wisdom that understanding the fundamental functioning of the human systems should be a priority. Once the understanding of Human Dynamics exists, the systems that people create will be more whole, and will better reflect the needs and functioning of the people they are designed to serve. (p.1) The findings from the present study confirm Senge’s assertion regarding Human Dynamics and the connection to systems thinking. Respondents repeatedly noted the positive impact Human Dynamics has had on the way they view the human system the systems within their teams and within the organization. The relationship between Human Dynamics and Personal Mastery is explained by Senge (1999) when he asserted, The passionate focus of Human Dynamics is upon not only personal mastery but also upon inter-personal and transpersonal mastery. Human Dynamics constitutes a body of knowledge upon which to base development in all these areas. First, understanding oneself is the basis of, and a requirement for, on-going human development. Secondly, Human Dynamics maps the developmental steps for each human system’s personal, interpersonal and transpersonal maturation. And thirdly, it offers individual and collective tools for facilitating progress on the never-ending journey towards personal, interpersonal and transpersonal mastery. These tools are based on a solid framework of understanding how the different human systems inherently function. (p.1) In this study evidence was found that the participants experienced an enhanced self-awareness of their communication and learning processes. This study lends credence to Senge’s assertion regarding personal mastery and Human Dynamics. Senge (1999) also explained the relationship between Human Dynamics and Mental Models when he noted, The particular mental – emotional – physical “organization” of each personality dynamic is characterized by distinctive inherent processes for taking in and assimilating information, and for experiencing all of life. Each, therefore, tends to perceive and evaluate events and situations from quite different viewpoints and out of different experiential contexts, which contributes to the formation of characteristic mental models. Understanding the personality dynamics, therefore, leads to greater insight into both the nature of the process of formation of one’s own mental models and those of others, which facilitates greater ease and effectiveness in appropriately responding to, effecting or amending them. (p. 2) The findings throughout this study validate Senge’s assertion related to mental models as evidenced by the participants positive reporting on improvement in their understanding of others. Respondents throughout all data collection methods asserted that participants’ thinking patterns, or their worldviews, had changed as they assimilated new behaviors as a result of the Human Dynamics training. The relationship between Human Dynamics and Team Learning is explained by Senge (1999) when he noted, In every team, at least some, if not all, of the five predominant human systems will be represented. When its members are unconscious of the personality dynamics distinctions among them, the result is commonly misunderstanding and misinterpretation of one another, mis-communication, disharmony or outright conflict, and consequently less than optimum functioning. Awareness of the personality dynamics represented and their respective attributes and processes fosters mutual understanding and respect, and enables the members to consciously leverage one another’s gifts and capacities for the benefit of the whole. Human Dynamics also provides a basis for formulating team development plans. Such a team becomes a small learning organization, its members constantly learning from and about one another. Among other things they learn the distinctly different processes by which each personality dynamic learns and problem-solves which is fundamental knowledge for the development of learning organizations. Teams trained in Human Dynamics typically experience much greater enjoyment in their process of working together, at the same time as achieving more qualitative results. (p. 2) Respondents highlighted these same types of claims through their stories of healthier team interactions. The findings from this study validate Senge’s assertion regarding team learning as it relates to Human Dynamics. The relationship between Human Dynamics and Shared Vision is explained by Senge (1999) when he claimed, When the formulation of a vision consciously includes the contribution of the different personality dynamics, the collective vision that results is most likely to be comprehensive, inclusive, and representative of the way of “seeing” of the personality dynamic “constituency” of each of the people involved. Additionally, understanding the various communication needs and processes facilitates communication of the vision and subscription to it. (p. 2) There is not a direct correlation from this study to validate Senge’s assertion regarding shared vision at this healthcare organization. Future studies may explore this thread of creating a learning organization and its relationship to the Human Dynamics program. The researcher believes a strong correlation is evident between four of the learning disciplines and the five major improvement categories of the present study. Table 18 offers a comparison between the five learning disciplines identified by Senge (1990) and the major improvement categories found in this study.

Table 18
Comparison of Research Findings and the Five Learning Disciplines of a Learning Organization
|The Five Disciplines of a Learning Organization |Research Findings |
|Systems Thinking |Improved Communications |
|Personal Mastery |Gained Self-Knowledge |
| |Meeting Facilitation |
|Mental Models |Understanding Others |
|Shared Vision | |
|Team Learning |Enhanced Team Behaviors |

Literature on Organizational Culture Research findings on organizational culture over the past decade have witnessed an ever-increasing emphasis on the need for organizations to develop a learning culture. Researchers (Garvin; 2000; Mumford; 2000, Schein; 1992) claimed this type of culture as the only way to sustain a competitive advantage over the long term in an increasingly complex and turbulent environment. A learning culture is characterized by continuous learning from experience, and by a population interested in learning how to learn. The results from this study indicate that the Human Dynamics program has provided a common language for learning in this healthcare organization. According to Schein (1992) a common language and common conceptual categories are clearly necessary for consensus to be established and for any communication to occur at all. As Hershey, Blanchard and Williamson (1996) suggested, the more the basic assumptions or belief systems reflect a learning culture, the higher the organizational readiness for transformation will be. Findings from this study support that learning occurred and five major areas of personal and team improvement were realized as a result of the Human Dynamics program. Establishing a chain of evidence by grounding this study in four research areas: Human Dynamics, organizational learning, personality trait theory, and organizational culture, produced an opportunity to make connections between the findings and past research and add to the literature.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. This study offers a view of one healthcare system located in one geographic location. The healthcare system has 26 sites and the participants of this study represent the diversity of the sites. The study offers no analysis of the likelihood that similar results would be achieved at other healthcare organizations of varying sizes located in different geographic areas. Qualitative methods used in this case study yielded a rich database for triangulation based on the perceptions of the respondents; however, the nature of self-report is wrought with subjective bias. This is a limitation to the ability to generalize the findings across a broad spectrum. It is also important to note that the subjects’ stories may have been influenced by the interviewer’s professional identity serving as a facilitator of the Human Dynamics program. This factor may have influenced some participants who may have wished to convey a positive image by emphasizing positive results. Also, this study was exploratory and non-positivistic. The nature of Human Dynamics is exploratory and generative and non-positivistic. Inferences are not generalizable. In turn, the qualitative nature of Human Dynamics and selection of a qualitative design provided the researcher an opportunity to add to this groundbreaking body of knowledge that merits additional study. The sample included past participants of the Human Dynamics program without special attention to distinctions between job classifications, for instance, professional versus non-professional. Thus, the study was limited to looking at a broad spectrum of employees serving in a variety of job classifications. No attempt was made to probe down into the impact on a specific area of expertise within the healthcare field, such as looking at just registered nurses. This study did not attempt to study all facets of a learning organization in depth, but rather focused on the practical outcomes of one learning organization program, Human Dynamics.
Implications for Leadership, Learning and Service Today, leaders hear ongoing rhetoric about "the knowledge-based economy" and how knowledge and learning are critical and key to acquiring a competitive advantage in their organizations. What leaders, especially those striving to emulate servant leadership practices, must realize is that behind such statements is a simple yet challenging mandate: Leaders must understand people better and more deeply than ever before, and must therefore, embed in their organizations a continual curiosity to understand themselves and their team members. This is the ongoing quest for today’s servant leader and Human Dynamics is one strategy to reach this goal. Robert Greenleaf (1977) defined servant leadership as follows: The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The best test is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants? (p. 13)

Servant leadership emphasizes a holistic ecological approach to work (Covey, 1998; Spears, 1998). Covey (1998) suggested that Greenleaf’s concept of leadership provides a balance, a synergy of four basic needs – physical, social, mental, and spiritual. This study also supports a balanced approach for today’s servant leaders who strive to mentor and “grow” those they serve. Human Dynamics is a natural fit for servant leaders striving to encourage their followers to engage in the inner work required for transformation. In Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goldman (1995) identifies the need to link both the head and the heart, Goldman cites brain research that indicates that when we make decisions we employ two kinds of intelligence, a type that deals with facts and logic, and a kind that deals with emotions and feelings. This correlates with Seagal’s Human Dynamic principles she has entitled the mental and the emotional principle. Goldman asserts that these two types of intelligences work together to produce good decisions and subsequent actions. The mistake most leaders make when they seek to gain the commitment of others is employing only logic-based strategies. They mistakenly believe that once people know the facts they will commit to making the necessary changes. This view is only partly right. To produce commitment, both types of intelligence must be accessed. Human Dynamics offers a mindful strategy and access to understanding these types of intelligence, which Goldman maintains are present in all teams and throughout organizations. This researcher believes that the findings from this study also support the brain based learning research presented by Dickmann and Stanford-Blair (2002). These cutting edge researchers offer a model of principles and practices for mindful leaders that includes cultivating mindful dispositions and proactively exercising the multiple dimensions of intelligence. This is precisely the work of the Human Dynamics program; it too is aimed at understanding distinctions in functioning. Organizations form so as to benefit from the collective efforts of individuals who are striving to accomplish a set of common goals. Human Dynamics has impacted the study site at an individual and team level by developing awareness about patterns of thinking, learning, interacting, and leading. This, no doubt, will have or has had a positive impact within this healthcare organizational setting. Developing an understanding about the dynamics of group action and interaction has resulted in an enhanced capacity to work effectively in groups. Leaders should take heed of the findings from this study as they attempt to create learning cultures. Servant leaders who are searching for increased and sustained productivity and profitability will find that Human Dynamics creates an atmosphere for collaboration and positive team behaviors. This will result in increased customer service and, consequently, increased customer productivity, profitability, retention and loyalty. Organizations are facing extraordinary crossroads of change and although no leadership concept or training program is a quick fix for years of bad policy and inadequate decision-making, Human Dynamics provides one powerful long-range alternative to enhance the health of an organization. Mindful leaders who embrace learning, reflection and service would benefit by adopting Human Dynamics as a learning strategy. Human Dynamics is a body of knowledge that has served to engage individuals in a transformational journey towards self-knowledge and ongoing development. This strategy has also resulted in team transformation, which is connected to organizational transformation. A final and essential element for leaders is their need for ongoing reflection and personal development on the journey towards transformation. One prerequisite to truly transform, is deep knowledge of and commitment to one’s own strengths and developmental pathway. This requires moral courage to travel this path and perhaps to lead the way for the transformation of their team members and for their organizations. Human Dynamics can assist leaders with this journey by providing a framework and a language to reflect on and to utilize as they lead.
Implications for Healthcare Practice The Committee on Quality of Health Care in America declared in their 2001 Institute of Medicine report that the health system of the 21st century will require that health care organizations successfully address the challenge of becoming learning organizations. The findings from this research study have a number of implications for healthcare executives, leaders and organizational development practitioners to assist in reaching this goal. The results endorse implementing and sustaining the Human Dynamics program in an organization to enhance and leverage learning. Healthcare leaders are encouraged to think of their organizations as living, learning systems, using the expertise found in all parts of the health care system to promote learning throughout the organization. This study encourages healthcare leaders to participate in the Human Dynamics program and subsequently to sponsor and to encourage those they lead to attend. Leaders in healthcare are also encouraged to develop learning environments and encourage dialogue on using the lessons learned from Human Dynamics within their departments to sustain the benefits. Though the data suggests that the impact of Human Dynamics at an organization- wide level may be small or moderate, there is significant positive impact at both the individual and team level of learning. An awareness of these positive effects is invaluable for better healthcare team relationships and the leveraging of learning throughout the entire healthcare organization. The impact of Human Dynamics positively affects essentials of adult learning such as improved self knowledge, communication, diverse team behaviors and facilitation of meetings. Healthcare leaders need to realize these implications and the positive outcomes for individuals and teams and then plan accordingly for future programs. More specifically, identifying individual developmental learning needs based on Human Dynamics can serve as a roadmap for leaders as they create and encourage lifelong learning. This study provides insight for healthcare practitioners at the site being studied and possibly for other healthcare organizations and perhaps, to any community of practice. Leaders at the study site can benefit from the information gleaned to assist them in reflecting and planning future strategies as they continue to seek methods to improve teamwork and communications. New standards distributed by the Joint Commission of Accreditation for Health Care Organizations (JCAHO, 2001) include requirements for routine team training to occur in healthcare organizations. The purpose of this new mandate is to support patient safety and reduce medical care error. Leaders are mandated to foster communication among individuals and departments. The intent of the JCAHO standard is to encourage leaders to develop a culture that emphasizes cooperation and communication. This research study may assist in providing information on one successful program, Human Dynamics, which has assisted some health care practitioners in meeting this new regulatory requirement. The site being studied has a mission that reads as follows, “To provide quality healthcare with innovative use of resources and to promote wellness throughout the community served”. The vision of this organization is, “ To become the destination healthcare system in the Midwest providing the clinical quality of a Mayo Clinic and the service quality of a Ritz-Carlton by the year 2010. The newly created values statement reads, “ We commit to serving with genuine respect, passionate caring and with a joyful spirit.” This study may offer insight for healthcare leaders into a foundational strategy, Human Dynamics, to serve in carrying out the mission, vision and values of their own organizations. At the core of healthcare are teams of individuals taking care of patients or supporting direct care providers. Healthcare practitioners must commit to the path of self-mastery which includes: being in touch with core values and aspirations; understanding one 's own deeper personality dynamics and self-limiting patterns; being open, vulnerable and compassionate; accepting ambiguity and some discomfort as part of the learning process. Today’s healthcare leaders and team members must develop new skills such as recognizing different patterns of Human Dynamics and the deeper capacities that exists in everyone. Human Dynamics spurs the engagement and facilitation of dialogue by being mindful and present of others, seeking and building on diversity and taking time to build relationships. Human Dynamics offers a deep and practical awareness of the different patterns of learning, communicating and working with others, as well as of the deeper capacity that exists potentially in each of us that can be developed. In healthcare, if practitioners would couple this with work on personal vision and values, leaders would be enabled to venture safely onto the path of self-knowledge and to engage in dialogue and team learning on a much sounder basis. Healthcare leaders at all levels must be willing to allocate time and resources to a transformation process which does not yield immediate results, but over time sustainable results will be reached as evidenced in the findings of this study. It will require courageous leaders who demonstrate determination by "staying the course" over several years and proactively addressing the resources required by investing significantly in both personal and healthcare organizational development. Healthcare leaders should understand that self-transformation enables team and organizational transformation, which, in turn, fosters further personal development in an upward spiral. Leaders are encouraged to experiment with approaches like Human Dynamics, which help challenge prevailing mental models and habitual behaviors. This study supports the premise that Human Dynamics is a robust leadership strategy of hope if participants embrace the rigorous path required to integrate the three universal principles that Seagal has identified as essential for understanding self and others.
Implications for Future Research This exploratory research has primarily focused on Human Dynamics and learning. Another promising area of investigation might be the exploration of Human Dynamics and the impact on leadership. For a more complete understanding of the possible outcomes of the Human Dynamics program, it might be fruitful to determine what role the leader plays in promoting its usefulness in specific areas such as team formation and ultimately organizational transformation. Further research employing alternative occupational groups from different industries may be of benefit as well as using more objective learning and job performance measures (such as employee opinion surveys and patient satisfaction surveys). Indeed, if the results of this study were replicated in other types of organizations with diverse population samples, there would of course be additional evidence to support the major conclusions of this study. Case studies may also be launched seeking insight from both individuals and from work teams. Future empirical studies can emerge by replicating this study by implementing a longitudinal study, by expanding to different populations, and by creating partnership studies globally.
Summary

Creating a learning organization is a moral imperative for the 21st century healthcare leader. The challenge of this quest is colossal. The five disciplines of a learning organization (Senge, 1990) and Human Dynamics (Seagal, 1997) are excellent strategies to embed lifelong learning into today’s healthcare culture. This study on the impact of Human Dynamics on learning at one healthcare organization provides evidence to this claim. Healthcare organizations are comprised of living systems, and it is individuals and teams who build the networks within these living systems. Healthcare service teams are called upon to demonstrate a mastery of the “five disciplines” including effective communication. The outcome of this study shows distinct patterns of positive program impact due to the introduction and ongoing study of Human Dynamics, leading to a mastery of four of Senge’s five disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and systems thinking. The findings are robust and support past research on how Human Dynamics has helped to explain the unique ways people process information, interact with one another, and maintain well being. This study illustrates the practical benefits of the Human Dynamics training program as reflected through the respondents’ stories. The results of this study contribute to the body of research in the area of Human Dynamics through the creation of a definition for applicability and measurement. These findings constitute a critical step in the acceptance of Human Dynamics as a practical program to facilitate effective interaction among employees in healthcare organizations. Moreover, significant relationships were observed between the major findings and the literature reviewed. All learning is a process of self-discovery. Human Dynamics has served this healthcare system well as a navigational tool for a continual journey of knowing self, contributing to teams, and building a strong community (or in this case, a strong healthcare organization. Healthcare leaders and practitioners, surrounded by the flurry and chaos of the day, are constantly asking “How can we survive and thrive?” Human Dynamics training contributes to the answer and builds the infrastructure needed to link people, so they can dialogue and continue the important work of patient care. Human Dynamics is a strategy that has proven itself over time in this healthcare organization. It offers endless possibilities for other organizations(not-for-profit as well as for-profit(seeking sustainable learning cultures. Human Dynamics, however, is not a quick fix; it is a commitment to valuing our core strengths and our limitless capacity to learn and improve. The ultimate value is not in the reading, thinking and discussing of Human Dynamics, but simply in “living” it. Human Dynamics is a proven strategy, which allows for conscious intention to create healthier communities of practice within healthcare settings. It is evident in the findings of this study that Human Dynamics has served the study site well in its journey toward creating a learning organization. This empirical case study underscores the powerful learning that has manifested as evidenced in the stories from respondents as a result of the Human Dynamics program. Human Dynamics has provided this one organization with an approach to learning and a vocabulary for working through differences. Human Dynamics has encouraged individuals to honor the wholeness of their own beings, as well as their team members and to integrate this wholeness into the fiber of their lives. Human Dynamics is a hopeful, sustainable learning strategy for creating learning organizations. It is the end of this study where the real beginning takes place.

REFERENCES
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 211.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barnett, C. (1998). Organizational learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 433, 208.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education. Needham Heights, MA: A Viacom Company.
Beyea, S. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (2000). Methods to conduct focus groups and the moderator’s role. AORN Journal, 71(5), 1067.
Boeree, G. (1999). Personality theories-Hans Eysenck. Retrieved April 4, 2000 from http://www.ship.edu/-cgboeree/eysenck.html.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Burgoyne, J. (1992). Creating a learning organization. RSA Journal, 38, 132-134.
Covey, S. R. (1998). Servant-leadership from the inside out. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership (pp. xi-xvii). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2003). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The new corporate cultures. New York, NY: Perseus Publishing.
DeGeus, A. (1988, March/April). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 70-74.
Denzin, K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DiBella, A., & Nevis, E. (1998). How organizations learn: An integrated strategy for building learning capability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dodgson, M. (1993). (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organizational Studies, 14, 375-394.
Duncan, R. & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. Research in organizational behavior. 1, 75-123.
Ettorre, B. (1996, summer). A conversation with Charles Handy on the future of work and an end to the century of the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 15.
Eysenck, H. J. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum.
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250.
Fiol, C., M. & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review. 10 (4), 803-813.
Fryer, R. (2001). National Learning Forum, Campaign for Learning. Retrieved January 24, 2001 from: http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.
Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gauthier, A. (1994). The challenge of stewardship: Building learning organizations in healthcare. In S. Chawla, & J. Renesch (Eds.), Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace (385-401). Portland Oregon: Productivity Press.
Gleitman, H. (1995). Psychology. London: Norton.
Glosson, F. (2000). The impact of the human dynamics process on ten leaders in a healthcare system: a pilot study. Cardinal Stritch University. Applied Research: Leadership Practicum for ED 741.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantum Books, 1995.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Griffith J. R. (2000, January/February). Championship management for healthcare organizations. Journal of Healthcare Management, 45,1, 17-31.
Hampson, S. E. (1988). The construction of personality survey: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. London: Routledge.
Hawkins, P. (1991). The spiritual dimension of the learning organization. Management Education and Development, 22, (3), 172-187.
Institute of Medicine (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Retrieved April 1, 2001 from: http://www.nationalacademies.org//iom/iomhome.
Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Constant comparative analysis: A method of analyzing qualitative data. Nursing Standard, 15, 39-42.
Jasper M (1994) Issues in phenomenology for researchers of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 19, 2, 309-314.
Joint Commission of Accreditation for Health Care Organizations. (2001). Retrieved March 27, 2001 from http://www.jcaho.org/trkhco_frm.html.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Bollingen Series.
Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaiser, L. (2000, March-April). Spirituality and the physician executive. The Physician Executive, 6-13.
Karash, R. (1995). Groupware and Organizational Learning, Retrieved December 1, 1999 from http://world.std.com/~rkarash/GW-OL/
Kim, D. (2001). Organizing for learning: Strategies for knowledge creation and enduring change. Waltham, MA: Pegasus.

Kleinke, J. D. (1998). Bleeding edge: The business of health care in the new century. Gaithersberg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers.

Kline, P. & Barrett, P. (1983). The factors in personality surveys among normal subjects. In S. McCrae & J. C.Costa (Eds.), Advances in Behavioral Respiratory Therapy 141-202.
Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers.
Kolb, D., Rubin, I., & McIntyre, J. (1974). Organizational Psychology: A book of readings. 2d ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskeette, J. L., (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.
Krueger, S. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.
Kuchhinke, K. (1995). Managing learning for performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (3), 307-316.
Kvale, S. (1996). InnerViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J., Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.
Leedy, P. D. (1997). Practical research planning and design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. C. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lowery, J. E. (1997). Cultureshift: A leader’s guide to managing change in health care. Chicago, Ill: American Hospital Publishing.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K.E. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for hrd. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Austin, Texas, 111.
Marquart, M. J., & Revans, R. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, Ca: Davies-Black Publishing.
McCarthy, B. (1980). The 4MAT system. Barrington, IL: EXCEL.
McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington, IL: EXCEL.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Morath, J. (1995). Human dynamics at allina healthcare system. Retrieved September 17, 1999 from http://www.humandynamics.com/pages/allina.html.
Mumford, A. (1996). Building a learning pyramid. In K. Watkins & V. Marsick (e’s.), In Action Creating the Learning Organization. Alexandria: American Society for Training and Development.
Mumford, A. (2000). A learning approach to strategy. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12, 265-271.
Myers, I. (1981). Gifts differing. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Applications of Psychological Types.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 11, 96, 104.
Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality. Westchester: William Wiley & Sons.
Polit D, Hungler B (1993) Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. Third edition. Philadelphia PA, Lippincott.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.

Seagal, S., & Horne, D. (1997). Human dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1992,March). Building the learning organization. Journal for Quality and Participation, 30-38.

Senge, P. (1993). Transforming the practice of management. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 5-32.

Senge, P., & Kliener, A., & Roberts, C., & Ross, R., B. & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1999). Human Dynamics: Understanding people and realizing our individual and collective potential. First international human dynamics forum. Retrieved December 17, 2000 from http://humandynamics.com/pages/conference.html.
Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change. New York: Doubleday.
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies. 20, 7-28.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Sounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational Science. 2, 125-134.
Slater, S. & Narver, J. (1994). Market oriented isn’t enough: Build a learning organization. Marketing Science Institute (Report Number 94-103), 1-30.
Slater, S. & Narver, J. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing. 59 (July), 63-74.
Smith, L. M. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation: Educational ethnography and other case studies. In L. Schuman (Ed.) Review of research in education. Itasca, IL. Peacock.
Spears, L.C. (1998c). Tracing the growing impact of servant leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp.1-12). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Stake R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sweiringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. F. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, E., K. & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria: American Society for Training and Development.
Williamson, K. E., Grossman, W., Lang, H., Wong, B., Libert, B., Gustafson, J., Wolfe, E., Hothe, M., Lev, B., Livnat, J. (1999). Leadership for a healthy 21st century: Creating value through relationships, (The Healthcare Forum, Arthur Anderson Healthcare Practice, DYG, Inc,. Stern School of Business, New York University).
Yin, R. (1989). Case Study Research. Second edition. London, Sage.

Appendix A
Survey Invitation Letter
Dear
This is an invitation to participate in a research project to determine the outcome(s) of the Human Dynamics program at Nautilus Health System. (NHS) I am conducting a research case study on the overall impact of the Human Dynamics program. We have been providing Human Dynamics sessions for the past five years and it is essential that we evaluate the outcomes of this program in our ongoing continuous improvement quest. The goal is to learn about your perceptions and experiences with the principles shared during the Human Dynamics program. Your insights will provide guidance to better understand the ways in which we create, evaluate and sustain future developmental programming for NHS Associates. Your participation is completely a voluntary option and your comments will be kept confidential. Study results will be provided upon request. Filling out the survey on Human Dynamics indicates that you are giving your informed consent to be a participant in this study. Attached you will find the five page survey. Please follow the instructions provided.
I ask that I receive your completed survey in the next three weeks. Please return in the envelope provided or return to the Organizational Learning Department. Your opinion is important to me and to the organization. I look forward to your responses. Thank you in advance for your participation.
Sincerely,
Frances Glosson
Director of Organizational Learning, NHS

Appendix B
Sample of the survey utilized in this dissertation study.

Appendix C
Interview Protocol
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PAST PARTICIPANTS OF THE HUMAN DYNAMICS PROGRAM
Name: Position:
Department/Service Date:
Interviewer: Frances Glosson, Cardinal Stritch University Doctoral Candidate
The questions and exploratory probes guiding this interview include: 1. How has the Human Dynamics approach affected your day-to-day practice? Exploratory Probe: What have been the change(s) you have experienced as a result of the knowledge gained through the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: What is different about the way you currently work compared to before the Human Dynamics experience? Exploratory Probe: How has learning been enhanced for you as a result of Human Dynamics? 2. How have your team interactions changed as a result of the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: How do individuals perform better on the job as a result of attending the Human Dynamics program? 3. What improvements have been noted in this healthcare system’s processes and systems as a result of the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: How have the key principles from the Human Dynamics program been embedded in the culture of the organization?

Appendix D
Focus Group Protocol
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS FOR PAST PARTICIPANTS OF THE HUMAN DYNAMICS PROGRAM
Team Name:
Facilitator: Frances Glosson, Cardinal Stritch University Doctoral Candidate
Date: Number of Participants:
The questions and exploratory probes guiding this interview include:
1. What have been the change(s) you have experienced as a result of the knowledge gained through the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: What is different about the way you currently work compared to before the Human Dynamics experience?
2. How have your team interactions changed as a result of the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: How has learning been enhanced for you as a team and as a result of the Human Dynamics approach? Exploratory Probe: How do individuals perform better on the job as a result of attending the Human Dynamics program?
3. What have been the improvements noted in this healthcare system’s processes and systems as a result of the Human Dynamics program? Exploratory Probe: How have the key principles from the Human Dynamics program been embedded in the culture of this team and in the organization as a whole?

Appendix E
Member Check Assessing the Human Dynamics Program at Centegra Health System Name: _____________________________________________ Department: ________________________________________

Date of Interview: Thank you for participating in this research. The next step in the data collection process is called member check. The purpose of a member check is to determine if the researcher (that would be me) captured your thoughts accurately as it relates to the interview questions: The primary question was " How has Human Dynamics impacted learning at Centegra Health System?" Please review this transcript and if you agree with the accuracy of your comments please sign this form and return to Frances Glosson, Organizational Learning, Nautilus Health System. Remember sentence structure is not critical in this raw data. The researcher 's next step is to extract common themes and to discern patterns. Thank you again for your time participating in this research project. I will continue to keep you updated on the progress of this research.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------This transcript is an accurate representation of my interview focusing on Human Dynamics. ________________________ __________
Signature of Interview Participant Date

Appendix F
Highlights of Comments found in Section Four of the Written Survey
Regarding Human Dynamics and Self-Knowledge
| |
|Self-Knowledge |
|I have a better understanding of self, what drives me and a better recognition of personal gifts and talents. |
|I have gained deeper insight into my actions, interactions, and reactions to others and situations. This self-understanding has |
|helped me to see myself with deeper clarity. |
|I realized sometimes it is better to process, think over something, rather than immediately react and act. |
|I look into another’s eyes when communicating and have learned to back up and regroup or go forward depending on what I am because |
|processing is happening. |
|I have been able to focus on specific growth areas for myself and I am very aware on a daily basis of how well I am doing with my |
|own practice. Being aware for me is over half the battle. |
|It helps me work more efficiently with others and how I can make someone understand what I am talking about. It has been a profound|
|learning tool. |
|I understand much better how I process information and my need for structure. All the things I learned from Human Dynamics have |
|been invaluable in my inter-personal relationships-at work and with my family and friends |
|Human Dynamics has helped me with listening skills. |
|Understanding my own personal path of integration has been very valuable. I am more effective in my work and communication with |
|others due to the work of integration of my third principle. |
|Human Dynamics has been a valuable adjunct to my professional learning-it has helped me to put concepts of adult learning into my |
|day to day practice. |
|It made me more aware of “tuning down” my natural expressions, actions, speech patterns in order to get other dynamics to really |
|“hear” me. |
|My personal anxiety and stress levels, and sense of humor have all been impacted positively. Honoring another as a person is very |
|fulfilling. |
|I appreciate and value the opportunities I have been provided by this organization to learn and understand Human Dynamics; it is a |
|tremendous journey! It has had a profound effect on the way I lead and the way I live. |

Appendix G

Highlights of Comments Regarding Human Dynamics Relating to Team Behaviors
| |
|Improvements in Team Behaviors |
|Human Dynamics has promoted a “Blending” and “Balancing” of interactions. Since I have a better understanding of others, I attempt |
|to adapt to their dynamic, which also promotes reciprocation. |
|I found out we are not all the same and to respect the talents we all bring to the group. |
|I have learned to listen better, to honor another’s process, to understand and respect. |
|I now know how to communicate better and connect with different groups. I recognize the value of personal exchanges. |
|Human Dynamics has helped me with conflict resolution. |
|Human Dynamics has assisted me in my leadership responsibilities in recognizing the unique gifts each of the managers and other |
|Associates bring to a discussion. |
|I am able to focus much better on the “process” rather than on the “people issues” which has increased my work efficiency and has |
|demonstrated to others (team or one-on-one) a more functional way to get the work done. |
|I understand that others do not require as much information as I do to start a task more as much time to process the information. |
|By being more aware of the various Human Dynamics, I am more patient with them and with myself. |
|Human Dynamics has helped me understand the dynamics of various personalities. |
|I have tried to make my communications more holistic and persuasive focusing on the person(s) as well as the message. |
|Human Dynamics allowed me to be much more accepting of how my co-workers need to process information, ideas and changes. |
|I do not get as frustrated as I used to when working with others who have a pace that is different (faster or slower) than mine. |
|Even is I knew some of this before, I am definitely more cognizant of my/other’s communication processes. |
|Human Dynamics is about honoring each other and building bridges. It is a powerful tool in an organization where leadership and |
|associates apply the principles. |

Appendix H
Copy of the Consent Form regarding utilization of the Human Dynamics© Trade

-----------------------
Doing
Making
Actualizing
Sensory Experience
Systemic Experience
Practicality

Physical

Emotional

Feeling
Subjectivity
Relationship
Communication
Organization
Creative Imagination

Thinking
Objectivity
Vision
Overview
Structure
Values

Mental

Three Universal Principles

Human Dynamics International

2002

©

References: Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 211. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley. Barnett, C. (1998). Organizational learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 433, 208. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education. Needham Heights, MA: A Viacom Company. Beyea, S. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (2000). Methods to conduct focus groups and the moderator’s role. AORN Journal, 71(5), 1067. Boeree, G. (1999). Personality theories-Hans Eysenck. Retrieved April 4, 2000 from http://www.ship.edu/-cgboeree/eysenck.html. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Burgoyne, J Covey, S. R. (1998). Servant-leadership from the inside out. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. (2003). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The new corporate cultures. New York, NY: Perseus Publishing. DeGeus, A. (1988, March/April). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 70-74. Denzin, K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DiBella, A., & Nevis, E. (1998). How organizations learn: An integrated strategy for building learning capability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dodgson, M. (1993). (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organizational Studies, 14, 375-394. Duncan, R. & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. Research in organizational behavior. 1, 75-123. Ettorre, B. (1996, summer). A conversation with Charles Handy on the future of work and an end to the century of the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 15. Eysenck, H. J. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250. Fiol, C., M. & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review. 10 (4), 803-813. Fryer, R. (2001). National Learning Forum, Campaign for Learning. Retrieved January 24, 2001 from: http://www.campaign-for-learning.org. Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gauthier, A. (1994). The challenge of stewardship: Building learning organizations in healthcare. In S. Chawla, & J. Renesch (Eds.), Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace (385-401). Portland Oregon: Productivity Press. Gleitman, H. (1995). Psychology. London: Norton. Glosson, F. (2000). The impact of the human dynamics process on ten leaders in a healthcare system: a pilot study. Cardinal Stritch University. Applied Research: Leadership Practicum for ED 741. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantum Books, 1995. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness Griffith J. R. (2000, January/February). Championship management for healthcare organizations. Journal of Healthcare Management, 45,1, 17-31. Hampson, S. E. (1988). The construction of personality survey: An introduction. London: Routledge. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. London: Routledge. Hawkins, P. (1991). The spiritual dimension of the learning organization. Management Education and Development, 22, (3), 172-187. Institute of Medicine (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Retrieved April 1, 2001 from: http://www.nationalacademies.org//iom/iomhome. Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Constant comparative analysis: A method of analyzing qualitative data. Nursing Standard, 15, 39-42. Jasper M (1994) Issues in phenomenology for researchers of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 19, 2, 309-314. Joint Commission of Accreditation for Health Care Organizations. (2001). Retrieved March 27, 2001 from http://www.jcaho.org/trkhco_frm.html. Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Bollingen Series. Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kaiser, L. (2000, March-April). Spirituality and the physician executive. The Physician Executive, 6-13. Karash, R. (1995). Groupware and Organizational Learning, Retrieved December 1, 1999 from http://world.std.com/~rkarash/GW-OL/ Kim, D Kleinke, J. D. (1998). Bleeding edge: The business of health care in the new century. Gaithersberg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers. Kline, P. & Barrett, P. (1983). The factors in personality surveys among normal subjects. In S. McCrae & J. C.Costa (Eds.), Advances in Behavioral Respiratory Therapy 141-202. Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers. Kolb, D., Rubin, I., & McIntyre, J. (1974). Organizational Psychology: A book of readings. 2d ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kotter, J. P., & Heskeette, J. L., (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press. Krueger, S. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc. Kuchhinke, K. (1995). Managing learning for performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (3), 307-316. Kvale, S. (1996). InnerViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J., Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press. Leedy, P. D. (1997). Practical research planning and design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. C. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lowery, J. E. (1997). Cultureshift: A leader’s guide to managing change in health care. Chicago, Ill: American Hospital Publishing. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K.E. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for hrd. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Austin, Texas, 111. Marquart, M. J., & Revans, R. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, Ca: Davies-Black Publishing. McCarthy, B. (1980). The 4MAT system. Barrington, IL: EXCEL. McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington, IL: EXCEL. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Morath, J. (1995). Human dynamics at allina healthcare system. Retrieved September 17, 1999 from http://www.humandynamics.com/pages/allina.html. Mumford, A. (1996). Building a learning pyramid. In K. Watkins & V. Marsick (e’s.), In Action Creating the Learning Organization. Alexandria: American Society for Training and Development. Mumford, A. (2000). A learning approach to strategy. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12, 265-271. Myers, I. (1981). Gifts differing. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Applications of Psychological Types. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 11, 96, 104. Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality. Westchester: William Wiley & Sons. Polit D, Hungler B (1993) Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. Third edition. Philadelphia PA, Lippincott. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass. Seagal, S., & Horne, D. (1997). Human dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1992,March). Building the learning organization. Journal for Quality and Participation, 30-38. Senge, P. (1993). Transforming the practice of management. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 5-32. Senge, P., & Kliener, A., & Roberts, C., & Ross, R., B. & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1999). Human Dynamics: Understanding people and realizing our individual and collective potential. First international human dynamics forum. Retrieved December 17, 2000 from http://humandynamics.com/pages/conference.html. Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change. New York: Doubleday. Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies. 20, 7-28. Simon, H. A. (1991). Sounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational Science. 2, 125-134. Slater, S. & Narver, J. (1994). Market oriented isn’t enough: Build a learning organization. Marketing Science Institute (Report Number 94-103), 1-30. Slater, S. & Narver, J. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing. 59 (July), 63-74. Smith, L. M. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation: Educational ethnography and other case studies. In L. Schuman (Ed.) Review of research in education. Itasca, IL. Peacock. Spears, L.C. (1998c). Tracing the growing impact of servant leadership. In L. C. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Stake R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sweiringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. F. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Watkins, E., K. & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria: American Society for Training and Development. Williamson, K. E., Grossman, W., Lang, H., Wong, B., Libert, B., Gustafson, J., Wolfe, E., Hothe, M., Lev, B., Livnat, J. (1999). Leadership for a healthy 21st century: