Goofing off is in the eye of the beholder A case of trust, culture, and change

Abstract

Bailey is the quality manager employed by Golden XYZ Factory. Over the past two years, she has worked to implement a quality management initiative and institutionalize quality as part of the company's culture. At the time of this case, the quality initiative has begun to take root, excitement is building throughout the organization, and employees are sending her suggestions for improvement in their respective job areas. While Bailey is pleased about the employees' building excitement, she is concerned about the willingness of the top leadership team to trust the employees to implement these initiatives. The leadership team members have received training in several areas including: (1) quality theories and tools; (2) leadership; (3) empowerment; and (4) change management. However, there still seems to be a lack of trust in the non-management employees' decision-making capabilities. One example of the lack of trust is the incident in the case where the Vice President of Production, Albert Jones, called a staff meeting because of his perception that when production employees are talking together during work, they are goofing off. He is not willing to believe that they could be discussing various improvement opportunities for the firm, and he demands that they be given demerits. This trust issue is blocking progress in implementing the employees' quality improvement suggestions. Bailey is worried that without the ability to harness the enthusiasm and make the suggested improvements, the non-management employees will lose their improvement momentum and things will return to "business as usual".

Full text

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 1
Goofing off is in the eye of the beholder
A case of trust, culture, and change
Mildred Golden Pryor
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Leslie A. Toombs
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Sonia Taneja
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Randy Odom
Texas A&M University-Commerce
ABSTRACT
Bailey is the quality manager employed by Golden XYZ Factory. Over the past two
years, she has worked to implement a quality management initiative and institutionalize quality
as part of the company’s culture. At the time of this case, the quality initiative has begun to take
root, excitement is building throughout the organization, and employees are sending her
suggestions for improvement in their respective job areas. While Bailey is pleased about the
employees’ building excitement, she is concerned about the willingness of the top leadership
team to trust the employees to implement these initiatives. The leadership team members have
received training in several areas including: (1) quality theories and tools; (2) leadership; (3)
empowerment; and (4) change management. However, there still seems to be a lack of trust in
the non-management employees’ decision-making capabilities. One example of the lack of trust
is the incident in the case where the Vice President of Production, Albert Jones, called a staff
meeting because of his perception that when production employees are talking together during
work, they are goofing off. He is not willing to believe that they could be discussing various
improvement opportunities for the firm, and he demands that they be given demerits. This trust
issue is blocking progress in implementing the employees’ quality improvement suggestions.
Bailey is worried that without the ability to harness the enthusiasm and make the suggested
improvements, the non-management employees will lose their improvement momentum and
things will return to “business as usual”.
Key Words: Trust, Culture, Change Management,
Note: This is a field-researched case based upon an actual situation within a company. The
names of the employees and the company have been disguised.

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 2
THE CASE: INTRODUCTION
This case raises several issues that must be managed correctly in order to facilitate
change through employee involvement in process improvement and other change initiatives.
These issues are relevant for management and non-management employees. This case is
energizing for students and teachers alike as they debate issues of “goofing off,” trust,
organizational culture, change management, empowerment, process improvement, and other
related issues.
Case Objectives
A major teaching objective of this case is to facilitate the discussion of the importance of
trust between management and non-management employees. Organizational trust has been
established as a key driver of firm effectiveness and ultimate performance. Trust becomes even
more important during periods of organizational change, including process improvement
initiatives. Through the discussion of this primary trust objective, students will also address
several underlying issues including: (1) Organizational structure, culture, and loyalty, (2) The
change management process, and (3) Empowerment and process improvement.
Courses and Levels
This case is appropriate for use in the organizational behavior course at both the
undergraduate and graduate level. It can also be used in principles of management courses,
undergraduate or graduate quality management courses, and graduate organizational
transformation courses.
THE CASE: BACKGROUND
The quality initiative had been in place at Golden XYZ Factory for about two years. In
fact, Bailey Davis had been hired to help plan and implement a quality initiative, first at one
plant, then in all plants. She had pulled together an informal team, a vertical and horizontal
microcosm of employees from throughout the facility, to develop the quality plan. They
presented the plan to the executive leadership team, and all the vice presidents agreed with the
plan. Unfortunately, their agreement with the plan did not change the culture of the plant which
was definitely “old school,” with a lack of trust between most management and non-management
employees. Many improvements had been made by hourly employees, engineers, et al. Even
though Bailey presented the improvements, along with savings, to the leadership team, some vice
presidents were still suspicious of non-management employees, particularly hourly employees.
INFORMATION ON KEY PLAYERS
Larry Smith, who had hired Bailey Davis, had come up through the ranks. He had been
an engineer, an engineering manager, director, and vice president. Now he was Corporate Vice
President and Plant Manager. Larry had an MBA from a local university. There were six vice
presidents of functional areas, Engineering, Human Resources, Production, Financial Operations,
Quality, and Marketing. Albert Jones, Vice President of Production, had also come up through

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 3
the ranks, serving as supervisor, manager, and director before he was made Vice President of
Production. Many years ago, he had completed two years of college. Bailey Davis, Director of
Production, had a Ph.D. in Production Management, with two minors, Quantitative Methods and
Organizational Behavior. She had 10 years teaching experience in the College of Business at a
local university. See Chart 1 for reporting details.
CASE SCENARIO
As Albert Jones, Vice President of Production at Golden XYZ Factory, walked through
the plant, he noticed two people leaning against the wall talking with each other. They were
laughing and talking with excitement in their voices. It was not break time, and it was obvious to
Albert that the employees were goofing off. He would make sure to give them demerits. Why
could they not just do their jobs? He went back to his office and called a staff meeting. When
employees were goofing off, it was their manager’s fault. He was steaming mad when his staff
members came in and sat down around the conference table. They were laughing and talking
too. Things were different since Bailey Davis, the new production manager, came on board.
Everyone seemed to relax more and worry less about work.
“Can we get down to the reason I asked for a staff meeting? A couple of employees were
leaning against the wall laughing and talking for 10 minutes, and it was not break time. I don’t
want to see that happen again. I want them both to have demerits. If it does happen again, I
want them fired.” Bailey spoke up and said, “Now, Albert, how do you know they weren’t
talking about work? After all we have been encouraging the workers to come up with ideas for
improving our processes.” Albert responded angrily, “They weren’t talking about work. They
were goofing off. I’ve been here 20 years. I know when people are goofing off. As a matter of
fact, Bailey, you are not serious enough about work either.” Bailey responded, “Sorry chief, I’ll
try to frown more. Hey let’s get back to work guys. Let’s see if we can catch some more people
goofing off!”
Bailey rushed to out to production to see who had caused Albert’s fury. Two workers,
Jake and Tommy seemed to be working at the same work station as Bailey asked, “What’s up?”
Jake replied, “The work is faster and easier if we both work at this station and then move around
to the other side and work at that station. Plus work is more fun when we can talk about it. It
gets boring just standing alone and doing work” Bailey asked, “Did you see Albert this
morning?” Tommy said, “Yes, but he seemed angry so we did not talk to him.” Bailey said,
“Next time, go over and talk with him and tell him your ideas.” Jake and Tommy both replied,
“Not me.” Jake went on to say, “Albert is from the old school. He does not want us to even talk
to each other, much less talk to him about changing how work gets done.” Bailey replied,
“Albert will come around. Just keep doing what you are doing – working together to make
continuous improvement a part of your daily work. I’ll run interference with Albert.”
The Next Steps
Bailey had told Jake and Tommy, “Albert will come around. Just keep doing what you
are doing – working together to make continuous improvement a part of your daily work. I’ll
run interference with Albert.” However, Bailey was not nearly as confident as she had tried to
sound. She knew this was not just a problem with Albert’s attitude, but with many of the people
in management positions. All the vice presidents, directors, managers, and supervisors had

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 4
integrated quality into their respective strategic and operational plans, and they completed
several types of training: (1) Quality Theories and Tools; (2) Leadership; (3) Empowerment; and
(4) Change Management. However, there was something missing. Many of them did not seem
to trust the non-management employees (i.e., engineers, production associates, et al) to make the
decisions that were necessary for them to be efficient and effective in completing their work.
Bailey did not know what the next steps should be. If she reported the trust problem to
Larry, the Corporate Vice President and Plant Manager, he would lean hard on his vice
presidents. However, she did not know if that would make a difference. She needed some way
to make Larry, his staff members, et al aware of the positive results the workers were achieving
out on the production floor and in other areas throughout the plant. The newsletter had not
worked. Postings on the intranet had not worked. She did not know if anyone read them. She
contemplated having members of each team present their results to the leadership team, but she
did not want the leadership team members to get involved in the day-to-day improvement
activities, particularly in terms of requiring lots of signatures before improvements could be
made. She thought perhaps Larry should host team-of-the-quarter and team-of-the-year
competitions for which vice presidents, directors and managers would select outstanding teams
from their areas.
The next Thursday Bailey proposed both actions to the leadership team (1) having the
teams present their results to the leadership team and (2) having team of the quarter and team of
the year competitions. The responses were as she had feared. Comments from the vice
presidents included: (1) We don’t have time to meet with all these people or have team
competitions; (2) We need to be concentrating on real work; (3) This is “mickey mouse,
kindergarten” stuff; (4) This is what we get by hiring a Ph.D. – you just don’t understand what it
takes to run a business. After the vice presidents left the room, Larry said, “Don’t worry, Bailey.
You know that change takes time. They’ll come around. You just make the improvements
happen. I’ll run interference with the vice presidents.” To Bailey, this sounded too much like
her own statements to Jake and Tommy.
Bailey thought perhaps she and Larry were setting up the non-management folks for big
disappointments in the future if something pretty drastic wasn’t done soon. Bailey did not know
what to do next since every suggestion she made to the leadership team seemed to be rejected or
postponed. Fortunately, the decision about the next step was made for her. When Larry sent out
the agenda for his next leadership team meeting, one of the agenda items was a presentation by a
machine shop team that had significantly improved quality and cycle time as well as cost. Also,
there was an email from Larry asking the vice presidents to submit their best teams for the
previous quarter and to prepare for a team-of-the-year banquet where all the best teams for the
year would be honored with plaques and monetary awards.
The Challenge
Bailey met with each vice president and each of their direct reports to determine how she
and her quality engineers could assist with their process improvement efforts and the selection of
the best improvement teams in their respective areas. Previously, the improvement initiative had
primarily been deployed in Production and Engineering. Now process improvement concepts
and tools would be utilized in all areas. While she appreciated Larry’s rapid utilization of her
suggestions, she knew the potential negative repercussions of mandated requirements as opposed
to team consensus. Several vice presidents were not friendly, and one was angry when Bailey

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 5
met with them. However, the directors who reported to the vice presidents seemed to be
energized and excited about involving their people in process improvement. Also, Bailey began
receiving emails from employees in Engineering, Finance, Human Resources, and other areas
throughout the facility. The emails were suggestions for improvement. The scenario had
changed dramatically. Now the challenge was how to harness the energy for improving since she
had neither the resources nor the authority to make the suggested improvements.
Bailey looked out of her office window and realized that it was getting late. She had
spent the last couple of hours reviewing the non-management employee emails regarding
improvement suggestions and thinking about how much everyone in the firm had to lose if this
initiative was not successfully absorbed into the company’s culture. There would be finger-
pointing at the leadership level, and the non-management employees would probably walk away
from the experience thinking the quality initiative was just another “flavor of the month” for top
management.
Bailey knew that if employees were disappointed too many times, their morale and
organizational loyalty would suffer. She was truly committed to the concept of quality
management, and she believed that successful implementation of this initiative at Golden XYZ
Factory would position the company to be more competitive in the industry. She took a deep
breath as she packed her briefcase. As she walked to her car, she thought: “I am not ready to
give up yet! The quality fires are burning because there are pockets of excellence within the
company, and we will find a way to grow that passion and improve the culture, no matter what it
takes.”
Case Questions
Using scholarly journal articles and your textbook, please answer the following questions
(Include in text APA citations for your answers and an APA style reference page at the end of
your case analysis):
1. Discuss change management theories and apply them to the organization in this case.
2. Discuss the role of a change agent in helping the change initiative to be successful.
3. Discuss the concept of trust and apply to the organization in this case.
4. Discuss the issues regarding empowerment and process improvement as they relate to
this case. How would you solve them?
5. Suggest additional training that could be beneficial to members of the “old guard” (i.e.,
status quo or traditional managers) in terms of leadership development and changing the
culture of the organization.

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 6
Chart 1: Golden XYZ Factory Executives, et.al.
Name
Title
Reports to:
Larry Smith
Corporate Vice President &
Plant Manager
CEO
Albert Jones
Vice President of Production
Larry
Bailey Davis
Director of Production
Albert
Jake & Tommy
Non-management Production
Employees
Production Supervisor

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 7
TEACHING NOTES/INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL
While a case analysis and solutions are presented, teachers and students will be able to
present many other relevant solutions and substantiate their answers through scholarly journal
citations.
Case Analysis
The top management team at Golden XYZ Factory has invested resources for the
development and implementation of a quality management initiative. For this initiative to
succeed and the firm to receive a return on investment of the resources invested, the quality
initiative has to become institutionalized into the corporate culture. Several steps have been
taken to ensure that this happens. For example, the top management team has received training
to support this movement. In addition, all the vice presidents, directors, managers, and
supervisors have integrated quality into their respective strategic and operational plans. Thus,
the infrastructure for success was in place. However, the critical missing piece is trust in the
non-management employees’ ability to handle empowerment, including decision making about,
and implementation of, improvement changes in their respective work areas. The Production
Vice President’s tirade about employees goofing off is a symptom of this underlying problem.
Bailey is faced with trying to find ways to keep momentum for the quality initiative
going, while not setting the non-management employees up for disappointment and
disillusionment. The Corporate Vice President and Plant Manager, Larry Hammond, has
encouraged Bailey to keep moving forward – his closing remark to her is that “change takes
time”.
The following discussion questions and answers can be used to facilitate classroom
discussion of the case. In addition, students can be assigned to role play the case prior to the
discussion of the questions.
Suggested Answers to Case Questions
1. Discuss change management theories, and apply them to the organization in this case.
One of the most commonly discussed change management theory in undergraduate
organizational behavior textbooks is by Kurt Lewin (1938). He believed that change was a
three-step process (unfreeze, change, freeze). In the application of Lewin’s theory, students
may propose that the existing culture hasn’t really successfully moved beyond the unfreeze
part of the process. Although the top management team has received training and has
incorporated quality goals into the planning process, the true resistance to change by some of
the leadership team has not been dismantled. Change has happened in some areas of the firm
as evidenced by the e-mails proposing quality improvement opportunities. Also there have
been quantifiable successes which are evidence of change. Lewin notes that during the
change period there is much confusion as the transition is in process. Albert is aware that the
existing culture is being modified; however, his existing mindset regarding what productive
employees’ behaviors “look like” has not been dismantled. Freeze cannot happen until all
members of the leadership team have a crystallized view of the new culture and their comfort
level with this new culture is at the level of their level of comfort with the old culture. They

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 8
must reach the point where they truly believe that quality is the company’s way of doing
business. See Lewin, K. (1938). The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of
Psychological Forces, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Selected other change
management theories which may be discussed include:
a. Kübler-Ross model, commonly known as the five stages of grief, is also used to show
emotional states (i.e., denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) that
employees encounter as they are confronted with change. (See Kuber-Ross, E. 1969. On
Death and Dying. New York: Collier Books) In this case Albert is in the first two stages
of the model – he doesn’t believe employees can be having a meaningful work related
discussion while they are working and his anger at this occurrence has resulted in him
demanding they be given demerits. On the other hand, the two production employees
have accepted the quality culture and are actively engaged in the process.
b. Formula for Change (Gleicher’s Formula) is a model which can be used to assess the
relative strengths affecting the likely success or failure of organizational change
initiatives. See Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization Development: Strategies and Models,
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley).
c. Dynamic conservatism by Donald Schön, who proposed that the inherent nature of
organizations is to be conservative. As part of this conservatism, organizational leaders
tend to protect their organizations from constant change. Schön recognized that the pace
of change organizations face will continue to move more quickly and the firm will need
to embrace learning about the need for these changes in an ongoing manner. This is a
forerunner to the “learning organization” concept. See Schön, D. (1973). Beyond the
Stable State. Public and private learning in a changing society. Penguin.
2. Discuss the role of a change agent in helping the change initiative to be successful.
Change agents must carry out a variety of activities when planning and implementing
changes. Some of those activities include: (1) assessing, and helping create, readiness for
change; (2) creating a vision, i.e., a valued outcome or a desired future state, that builds on an
organization’s core values; (3) developing political support for the changes; (4) designing a
roadmap for, and managing the organizational transition from, the current state to the desired
future state; and (5) providing (or acquiring) resources needed for change such as a support
system for change agents, development of leadership competencies, reinforcing the new
behaviors needed to implement the changes; and (6) assisting organizational leaders in
staying the course. See Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2009). Organization
Development and Change. United States: Thomson/South-Western.
Change initiatives, including process improvement initiatives, require that change agents
understand organizational development theories and tools. In addition, change agents must
understand how to put their knowledge into practice. See Hutton, C., & Liefooghe, A.
(2011). Mind the gap: Revisioning organization development as pragmatic reconstruction.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1):76-97 and Miller, J. (2011, April). How to
achieve lasting change. Training Journal, 58-62. Also, change agents must understand

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 9
organizational development theories and tools from the perspectives of a myriad of
approaches and methods developed over many decades. These approaches include strategic,
process, behavioral, and many other theories. See Van Nistelrooij, A. & Sminia, H. (2010).
Organization development: What's actually happening? Journal of Change Management
10(4): 407-420.
3. Discuss the concept of trust and apply to the organization in this case.
Trust is a concept which has been widely researched in the management literature. Students
can examine trust from a variety of perspectives in this case.
a. One area from motivation theory which can be applied is McGregor’s Theory X and
Theory Y Management styles. This shows that a manager’s underlying beliefs regarding
the motivation of their employees drives how they treat the employees. For example a
Theory X manager believes that employees inherently dislike work and must be managed
closely. Albert could have shades of the Theory X manager in his leadership style. On
the other hand, a Theory Y manager believes that employees are self-motivated and want
to participate in the decision making process at work. For empowerment and the quality
initiative at Golden XYZ Factory to work, this has to be underlying belief of the
leadership team. See McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York:
McGraw Hill. Yoon and Ringquist (2011) caution that “. . . trust . . . (is) a product of the
measurable . . . factors that build trust, that is, characteristics and behaviors that signal
trustworthiness” (pp. 55-56). So Albert should have known from the process
improvements that the production employees were making that he could trust them to do
their work and that their conversations were relevant to their work.
b. Models for building trust can also be introduced into the discussion and students can
provide suggestions regarding this process for Larry and his leadership team. The
following resources provide background information to assist students with this question
(there are many other sources in addition to these):
Barker, R.T. & Camarata, M.R. (1998). The role of communication in creating and
maintaining a learning organization: Preconditions, indicators, and disciplines. Journal of
Business Communication, 35(4): 643-663.
Blanchard, K. (2010, November). Rebuild trust. Leadership Excellence, 27(11), 14.
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust:
Evolution of conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.
Gladis, S. (2010, November). The trusted leader. T + D, 64(11): 14.
Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications
for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-548.

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 10
Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict:
The role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(2): 312-319.
Yoon Jik, C., & Ringquist, E. J. (2011). Managerial trustworthiness and organizational
outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(1): 53-86.
4. Discuss the issues regarding empowerment and process improvement as they relate to
this case. How would you solve them?
In quality management theory and training, employees are a key element of the
implementation of building in quality on the front end of the production process rather than
inspecting quality in after production has occurred. In other words, employees are supposed to
make decisions during ongoing operations regarding the quality of the output being produced. If
an employee determines that the correct level of quality is not being achieved, he/she should be
empowered to shut the production process down and make the changes necessary to fix the
problem. Also, as part of the quality philosophy of continuous improvement, employees should
be encouraged and empowered to look for ways to improve operations in their respective areas.
One underlying component of this practice of empowerment is employee training in quality tools
such as statistical process control. Of course, all change initiatives, including process
improvement initiatives should be integrated into the development and execution of strategic and
tactical plans. Pryor, Anderson, Toombs, and Humphreys (2007) indicate that strategic
implementation should one of the core competencies for any organization, and they suggest a
strategic leadership model that will increase an organization’s potential for success.
In the current case, Albert and some of the other management people are not willing to
allow employees to be truly empowered. As discussed in the answer to question one relating to
change management, these managers how not successfully transformed their thinking regarding
what the new organization and the trained non-management employees look like. For example,
in the case what Albert sees as goofing off is really two production employees engaging in
meaningful discussion regarding ways to improve their processes. For this quality initiative to
be successful, employees must be trained appropriately in quality management and then be given
empowerment to do their jobs. In addition, they must be rewarded for their successes, and not
punished when the improvement initiatives don’t yield appropriate results. Selected resources
are:
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self Interest, San Francisco: Berrett
Koehler Publishers.
Pryor, M.G., Anderson, D., Toombs, L., and Humphreys, J. (2007). Strategic implementation as
a core competency: The 5P’s Model. Journal of Management Research, 7(1):3-17.
Pryor, M. G., Humphreys, J. H., & Taneja, S. (2008, September/October). Freeing Prisoners of
Work. Industrial Management, 50(5), Pages 21-24.

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 11
5. Suggest additional training that could be beneficial to members of the “old guard” (i.e.,
status quo or traditional managers) in terms of leadership development and changing
the culture of the organization.
Leadership training is necessary so that management people will understand the type of
leadership that is required to transform an organization. In fact, they will need to learn what
changes they personally need to make in order to transform their organization and its culture.
The following article may be helpful:
Humphreys, J.H., & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the sun: Transformational
leadership from a historical perspective. Management Decision, 41(1): 85-95.)
Additional Materials/Suggestions for Classroom Case Discussion
Faculty using this case can also use the scenario to launch a discussion of the
organization of work from a historical perspective. Starting with the Scientific Management Era
and Frederick Taylor’s approach of specialization to the use of cross-functional teams in the
workplace today, the issues underlying this case such as trust and empowerment emerge at
various stages. For example with work specialization came the challenges of boredom and
reduced quality. Job enlargement, job enrichment, job rotation, and work groups emerged as
solutions to the boredom issue. As work groups grew, empowerment of these groups contributed
to the emergence of true work teams charged with the management of their performance. The
instructor may want to start this discussion with a review of the classic article: Roy, D. F.
(1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18: 158-
168. In this article Roy shows how employees made a game of their work as they tried to find
meaning in their jobs.
EPILOGUE
Initially, Albert, Vice President of Production, had caused Bailey much concern because
of his attitude toward, and lack of trust of, non-management employees, particularly hourly
employees. However, as more and more Production processes were streamlined, Albert and the
other supervisory people in Production became major supporters of the Quality initiative. Slowly
but surely, vice presidents of all functional areas became supporters of the Quality initiative.
However, the Vice President of Engineering was transitioned out of his position because of his
disregard for the Quality initiative, and it was his successor who encouraged the engineers and
their supervisors to play a leadership role in the Quality improvement initiative. Bailey reported
to vice presidents of different functional areas and assisted them in their improvement efforts.
REFERENCES
Barker, R.T. and Camarata, M.R. (1998). The Role of Communication in Creating and
Maintaining a Learning Organization: Preconditions, Indicators, and Disciplines. Journal
of Business Communication, 35(4): 643-663.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization Development: Strategies and Models, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley.

Journal of Business Cases and Applications
Goofing Off, Page 12
Blanchard, K. (2010, November). Rebuild Trust. Leadership Excellence, 27(11), 14. Retrieved
June 2, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2197463991).
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self Interest, San Francisco: Berrett
Koehler Publishers.
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of
conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. 2009 Organization Development and Change, 9
th
ed.
Thomson (South-Western), United States.
Gladis, S. (2010, November). The Trusted Leader. T + D, 64(11), 14. Retrieved June 2, 2011,
from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2191375741).
Humphreys, J.H. & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the sun: Transformational
leadership from a historical perspective. Management Decision, 41(1): 85-95.)
Hutton, C. & Liefooghe, A. (2011). Mind the Gap: Revisioning Organization Development as
Pragmatic Reconstruction. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1): 76-97.
Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2295697761).
Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-548.
Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E. & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role
of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312-319.
Kuber-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Collier Books.
Lewin, K. (1938). The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological
Forces, Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
Miller, J. (2011, April). How to achieve lasting change. Training Journal, 58-62. Retrieved June
2, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2321627451).
Pryor, M.G., Anderson, D., Toombs, L., and Humphreys, J. (2007). Strategic implementation as
a core competency: The 5P’s Model. Journal of Management Research, 7(1):3-17.
Pryor, M. G., Humphreys, J. H., & Taneja, S. (2008, September/October). Freeing prisoners of
work. Industrial Management, 50(5): 21-24.
Roy, D. F. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization,
18: 158-168.
Schön, D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State. Public and Private Learning in a Changing
Society, Penguin Publishers.
Van Nistelrooij, A. & Sminia, H. (2010). Organization Development: What's Actually
Happening? Journal of Change Management, 10(4): 407-420. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from
ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2174464931).
Yoon Jik, C. & Ringquist, E. J. (2011). Managerial trustworthiness and organizational outcomes.
Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(1): 53-86.
doi:10.1093/jopart/muq015.