Identifying Ways to Tear Down Organizational Silos

Silo Mentality: An Organizational Case Study

Chapter Three: Methods

Chapter introduction

As noted in the introductory chapter, the guiding proposition of this study will be that team dysfunction enables the creation of silos which occur when teams do not share information with other teams within the same company. As also noted in the introductory chapter, the primary objective of my research will be to help leadership groups better understand subculture dysfunction in organizations that depend upon a collaborative communication model to achieve strategic results. A second objective will be to help corporations understand why some leaders are unable or unwilling to implement silo-eradication solutions. To achieve these objectives, the following assumptions and research methods will be used.

Epistemic, Paradigmatic, and Theoretic Assumptions

The epistemic assumptions for this study include the notion that the lived experiences of individuals who have contributed to organizational silos or mindsets as well as those who have sought to break down these silos can be known through appropriate research methods. Yet another epistemic assumption is that people’s views about the proprietary nature of the “turf” in the workplace can change over time as they gain insights into their role and its importance to the larger organization. This assumption is congruent with the guidance provided by Hofer and Pintrich (2009) who advise, “People's epistemic assumptions change over time in a developmental fashion from early adolescence to adulthood” (p. 38).

The paradigmatic assumptions for this study include the view that people naturally resist change and will struggle to maintain the status quo as long as it is in their best interests. Finally, the theoretic assumptions that are applicable to this study include the perspective that people tend to act in their own best interests in ways that exacerbate the adverse effects of organizational silos, making them even more intractable to change.

Discussion of Methodology

There are several research methodologies available to social science researchers, broadly divided into qualitative and quantitative strategies. Although qualitative and quantitative methodologies share some commonalities with respect to overall objectives, there are some fundamental differences involved that must be taken into account when making the determination as to which approach is best suited for a given research purpose as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Similarities and differences between qualitative and quantitative research strategies

Similarities

Differences

? Analysis for both involves inference - that is they both reach a conclusion based on evidence.

? Both involve a systematic process.

? Both involve comparison, either internally or with related evidence from elsewhere.

? Both strive to avoid errors, false conclusions and misleading inferences and seek valid description and explanations.

? Quantitative analysis is highly standardized and varies little between projects; qualitative analysis has many more possible approaches.

? Quantitative analysis takes place at the end of data collection; qualitative analysis takes place during data collection.

? Quantitative analysis tends to test hypotheses through the manipulation of numbers representing 'facts'. Qualitative analysis blends empirical evidence and abstract concepts in the form of words to explain or illustrate a theory or interpretation.

? Qualitative analysis is less abstract, and does not assume that real life can be measured by numbers.

Source: Adapted from Neuman, 2009

Based on the respective attributes of each research strategy, it was determined that both qualitative and quantitative research methods should be used to develop informed and timely answers to the study’s guiding research questions. Therefore, the study will use a mixed methodology research design to inductively understand the issues, which included one-on-one and focus group narrative interviews; survey questionnaires, with a Likert scale (1-5), to gather data on beliefs and values of team collaboration; as well as a direct observation of the behaviors of the focus group participants.

Although social science researchers have a number of different research methodologies available to them, a growing body of evidence confirms that the use of a mixed methods research design provides more “bang for the research buck” compared to the use of either qualitative or quantitative methods alone (Neuman, 2009). As a result, the selection of a mixed methods design was based on its ability to collect primary qualitative and quantitative data to enhance the robustness and trustworthiness of the findings that emerge from the data analysis based on the steps set forth in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Steps to determining appropriate of fit for the mixed methods research design

Source: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mixedmethodresearch-160730184401/95/mixed-method-research-28-638.jpg?cb=1469904353

According to Creswell (2008), mixed methods research strategies are typically used in those cases where the researcher wants to:

· To compare results from quantitative and qualitative research;

· To use qualitative research to help explain quantitative findings;

· To explore using qualitative research and then to generalize findings to a large population using quantitative research;

· To develop an instrument because none are available or useful; and,

· To augment an experiment with qualitative data (p. 37).

Moreover, there are a number of reasons for selecting a mixed methods research design over a qualitative or quantitative approach only. In this regard, Creswell (2008) reports that the reasons for selecting a mixed methods research design include the following:

· The insufficient argument – either quantitative or qualitative may be insufficient by itself;

· Multiple angles argument – quantitative and qualitative approaches provide different “pictures”;

· The more-evidence-the-better argument – combined quantitative and qualitative provides more evidence;

· Community of practice argument – mixed methods may be the preferred approach within a scholarly community;

· Eager-to-learn argument – it is the latest methodology; and

· “Its intuitive” argument – it mirrors “real life” (p. 38).

The procedures that will be used in the application of the mixed methods strategy will be administered in a concurrent fashion; in other words, the interpretation of the data that emerges from the primary and secondary data will be synthesized and interpreted simultaneously as the research process progresses (Creswell, 2008).

The data collection involved five focus groups consisting of 15 leaders and 10 team members, with five individuals per group. In chapter two, all data will be collected was analyzed, focused on themes and trends to identify clusters of interrelated beliefs and behaviors as described further below.

Focus group narrative interviews and observations. As noted in chapter one, this phase of the data collection involved five focus groups comprised of 15 leaders and 10 team members with five individuals per group. A summary of the five focus groups’ narrative interview results will be provided in tabular format as shown in Table 2 below, together with salient verbatim excerpts.

Table 2

Summary of five focus groups and verbatim excerpts format

Question

Summaries

Verbatim excerpts

Summary of survey results

As also noted in chapter one, a custom survey was used to collect a series of responses concerning respondents’ beliefs and values concerning team collaboration using a Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a neutral no opinion/no applicable option (3). The results of the administration of the custom survey to the 25 focus group participants resulted in the finding will be presented as shown in Table 3 below together with corresponding graphic results (questions subject to change following final literature review and face analysis).

Table 3

Proforma custom questionnaire format

Likert-scaled statement

SD

D

NA

A

SA

Team members are reluctant to share important information because it diminishes their own influence.

Silos are more commonplace in cross-functional teams.

Increased specialization promotes organizational silos.

A rapidly changing operating environment further exacerbates any existing organizational silos.

Cross-team collaboration can mitigate the silo mentality.

The major cause of organizational silos is decentralized responsibilities for cross-business practices.

Larger organizations with geographically disparate teams are especially vulnerable to silos.

Team members who possess expert knowledge in their fields want to protect their positions of influence which contributes to the silo mindset.

The larger the organization, the more likely that a silo mindset will develop.

The main cause of organizational silos is a lack of effective communication.

The main cause of organizational silos is a lack of effective leadership.

People who lack trust in each other are naturally prone to the silo mindset.

Note:

SD = Strongly disagree

D = Disagree

NA = No opinion/Not applicable

A = Agree

SA = Strongly agree

Summary of one-on-one interviews

Three interviewees (one leader and two team members) will be selected from the focus groups based on their active participation for one-on-one interviews and summaries of the interviews will be provided as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4

One-on-one interview summaries format

Interviewee #

Summary

Comments

This research strategy intends to collect relevant primary data from real-world practitioners concerning their views about the sources of organizational silos in order to identify optimal strategies for mitigating them. Although there have been some studies that have examined this issue from a single-sector perspective, the dichotomous sector approach that will be used in the proposed study will help contribute to the existing body of knowledge by providing a cross-sectional analysis of the antecedents to the silo mindset.

Although the proposed study anticipates some limitations with respect to the findings that emerge from the synthesis of the primary data that emerges from the administration of the custom survey, focus group and one-and-one interviews with the secondary data that results from the review of the relevant literature, the important features of mixed method research in relationship to the guiding research question include its ability to develop fresh insights and new findings that might otherwise be overlooked or indiscernible using a qualitative or quantitative research methodology in isolation.

Chapter summary

Just as farmers want to keep the contents of their silos separate from other types of agricultural products, so too do many members of teams and other divisions of organizations who want to protect their “tuft” and are therefore reluctant to share important information and tacit knowledge or expertise. The research showed that the silo mindset can adversely affect organizational productivity and employee morale as well as the effectiveness of cross-functional teams and work groups. In sum, to the extent that a silo mindset is allowed to persist will likely be the extent to which organizational fails to achieve their goals, including most especially developing and sustaining a competitive advantage and implementing strategic plans in response to changes in its operating environment. Therefore, identifying opportunities to overcome the silo mindset represent a valuable and important enterprise for organizations of all sizes and types.

Although the problem of the silo mindset is well documented, there remains a dearth of relevant research concerning its causes and best practices in directly addressing the problem. The mixed methods research design developed for the proposed study is intended to address this gap in part by providing empirical observations and primary data from real-world practitioners with experience in responding to organizational silos and their negative effects. Finally, because the proposed study intends to examine these issues from different sector perspectives, the findings that emerge from this study will be more generalizable than a study that is focused on a single sector only.