Running Head: STORYTELLING AND UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION
21
STORYTELLING AND UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION
Storytelling and Uncertainty Reduction
Courtney A. Walker
Queens University of Charlotte
Abstract
Members of organizations who experience the process of
organizational change often experience anxiety as a result of such
change. Storytelling is often used as a method to help members
understand an organization’s culture. This study, therefore,
examines how storytelling reduces anxiety or uncertainty during
times when organizational change threatens an organization’s
culture. The researcher also studies how stories are typically
communicated during periods of organizational change, and why
organizational change causes anxiety for those involved in the
first place. The researcher used eight focus groups of five-seven
people to conduct her study. Students were asked a series of
questions related to organizational change at a private university,
Queens University of Charlotte, and how storytelling affected them
throughout the change.
Introduction
Organizations must undergo changes in order to survive and grow
in a market that is constantly changing. Such changes, however,
often come with backlash from an organization’s employees. Over
time, organizations create an organizational culture, and changes
within an organization often threaten the norms of said culture.
This cultural change often induces anxiety for those involved.
Companies ought to examine how they should present information to
their employees in order to implement change within an organization
without causing high levels of anxiety.
Nancy Koehn (2012) of the Health Leadership Forum lists the
current CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, as an example of a leader
who effectively presented and executed change to his employees. In
2007, she describes, Starbucks was experiencing both a financial
crisis and a crisis of organizational culture. Schultz stepped up
to the challenge of improving the sales and the identity of the
company as a whole. In this example, Starbucks is used to present
“four lessons about leading change” (2012, p. 3). These four
lessons included the existence of strong leaders within the
company, the realization that change would affect the
organization’s culture and that transparency, accountability, and
teamwork were fundamental in successfully making changes, the
commitment to transforming in order to create a more sustainable
business, and the ability to make changes while remaining faithful
to the organization’s identity (Koehn, 2012).
The researcher of this study was curious as to how these lessons
on leadership, transparency, and commitment to organizational
identity were successfully integrated and communicated to members
of an organization during times of organizational change. The
researcher wondered if storytelling, which is most often recognized
through media such as film or books, could be successful in aiding
an organization through change while reducing levels of uncertainty
and anxiety. The researcher, therefore, decided to focus on the
following research question: How does storytelling reduce anxiety
or uncertainty during times of organizational change? The
researcher also included two subquestions in her study: Through
what media are stories typically communicated? Why does
organizational change cause anxiety for those involved in the first
place?
The researcher believes that this study is quite important for
the field of communication. By increasing knowledge on the effects
of storytelling on levels of anxiety during organizational change,
organization leaders can begin to integrate effective storytelling
in the change-management process. If leaders learn how to most
effectively reduce levels of anxiety during organizational change,
their employees are more likely to accept the change and thus be
happier employees. This, in turn, could cause an organization to
become more productive and perhaps more profitable.
In the following study, the researcher will examine the
literature explaining organizational culture, organizational
change, and how storytelling reduces levels of anxiety during times
of organizational change. The researcher will then explain the
methodology of the study and present the findings of her research.
She will then conduct and present her analysis of the findings.
Finally, the researcher will conclude by noting the implications of
her study, as well as the limitations of the study and any
recommendations for future researchers.
Literature Review
Organizational Culture
Every organization has its own story or culture. Clifford Geertz
defines organizational culture by stating the following: “Man is an
animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I
take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be
therefore [...] an interpretive one in search of meaning” (Geertz,
1973, p. 5). Geertz (1973) explains that many different factors
make up a culture, including myths, rituals, or symbols. Although
the factors that make up a culture are not necessarily tangible
objects, culture is always present: “Though ideational, it does not
exist in someone's head; though unphysical, it is not an occult
entity” (Geertz, 1973, p. 10). While the cultures of some
organizations may be more evident than others, Geertz makes it
clear that every organization has its own culture.
Stories, whether printed or verbal, are also often used to help
form a cultural identity. Well-known brands, such as Nike (Brady,
2013) and Under Amour (Guber, 2011), place great emphasis on the
element of storytelling in their organization. They regularly make
use of corporate stories in order to help shape their identity.
Both companies are confident in telling their story, which makes
their organizational culture and identity very clear to those
within the organization. Because their employees know what their
company stands for, it becomes very easy for that message to be
translated to consumers. Some organizations, however, do not have
one fixed, cultural story. “For some organizations, their cultural
story is evolving” (Brady, 2013). This evolution of a culture’s
story may occur during periods of organizational change.
Organizational Change
Hasan Simsek and Karen Seashore Louis (1994) describe
organizations as the following: “Organizations are defined by their
paradigms, that is, the prevalent view of reality shared by members
of the organization. Under a particular dominant paradigm,
structure, strategy, culture, leadership and individual role
accomplishments are defined by this prevailing world view” (p.
671). Therefore, as Simsek and Louis continue to explain, when a
change occurs within an organization, it is as if a paradigm shift
occurs. This paradigm shift, otherwise known as organizational
change, by definition leads an organization’s members into the
unknown. This feeling of being led into the unknown often makes
people feel as if they are losing control, which causes them to
resist the change (Stanleigh, 2013). Such resistance should not
come as a surprise, for “it is human nature to exercise opposition
to a process laden with uncertainties and anxieties that generate
discomfort and doubts” (Mariana, Daniela, Nadina, 2013, p. 1606).
The anxiety and uncertainty that causes resistance can be quite
problematic for organizations. Uncertainty can cause an
organization to become paralyzed and, therefore, unable to progress
(Bordia & DiFonzo, 1998).
Charles Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory (1987) may give
organizations an insight into ways to reduce uncertainty in its
members during organizational change. Uncertainty reduction theory
posits that humans seek interpersonal interactions in order to
reduce anxiety (Bordia & DiFonzo, 1998). Organizations must
take caution, however, and realize that although communication
between individuals may help ease anxiety during organizational
change, it may also cause further harm to the situation. If those
who are helping implement the change do not properly inform an
organization’s members about a change, then it is possible for the
members to form and spread rumors. Rumors, rather than easing
uncertainty caused by organizational change, may cause members to
distrust their organization. Organizations ought to provide
constant communication once they decide to implement a change, even
if their plan for said change is not fully completed. It is better
to keep members up-to-date on information, despite its
incompleteness, than to allow members to spread untrue rumors about
a change (Bordia & DiFonzo, 1998). Constant and clear
communication will help organizations reduce uncertainty in its
members during the process of change. One important form of such
communication is storytelling.
Storytelling
Walter Fisher’s narrative paradigm theory may help organizations
learn more about storytelling as a means of communication. In fact,
Fisher believes that humans at their core are “storytelling
animals,” (Fisher, 1987; Hanan, 2008). Fisher (1984) states: “In
theme, if not in every detail, narrative, then, is meaningful for
persons in particular and in general, across communities as well as
cultures, across time and place. Narratives enable us to understand
the actions of others…” (p. 8). According to Fisher, this type of
understanding includes two important principles: narrative
probability and narrative fidelity (Fisher, 1984). Narrative
probability implies that a narrative must be coherent within its
given context: “If an argument cannot coexist within its own
narrative context (e.g., Exxon claiming to save the environment) it
is intrinsically a bad story” (Hanan, 2008, p. 5). Narrative
fidelity deals with the different aspects of a message and how it
relates to the values of that message’s audience. “To make a
successful argument, claims only need approval from the narrator’s
own ideal audience. To be righteous, however, claims must
fundamentally comply with the universal desires of humankind”
(Hanan, 2008, p. 6).
In addition to narrative coherence and fidelity, stories contain
many other characteristics. Stories must have a beginning, middle,
and end. They “state or imply causality, which distinguish them
from other sequential forms, such as chronicles” (Dailey &
Browning, 2014, p. 23). Stories can appear in many different forms
including written pieces, myths, photography, legends, movies, and
conversation (Dailey & Browning, 2014). According to Gabriel,
(as cited in Gill, 2011), stories “transcend age groups, cultures,
and genders and capture the imagination and attention of listeners
regardless of their backgrounds” (2008).
One of the most important characteristics of storytelling is its
ability to make a message clear: “Storytelling is a means of taking
in and making sense of information” (Kowalewski &
Waukau-Villagomez, 2011). This ability involves what many
researchers call “sensemaking.” McAdams, (as cited by Yang, 2013),
defines sensemaking as “the cognitive process of building internal
representations of external worlds and construing the causal
relations among objects and people to construct a functional map of
social relationships.” (1993). According to Maurice Thévenet
(1992), sensemaking, although he uses the word “understanding,” is
the second of three steps that organizations must take in order to
accomplish successful change. The first and third steps are
learning and integrating, respectively. Sensemaking is crucial in
order to arrive at the final step of change: the actual integration
of a change into an organization’s culture. Storytelling can be
used as a means to accomplish this goal. “By constantly telling and
sharing stories about what is happening around us, we often engage
in a sensemaking process” (Yang, 2013).
Organizational Storytelling and Anxiety Reduction
As previously mentioned, organizational change often leads to
anxiety, and storytelling helps people make sense of that change.
What does that mean for organizations? Just as stories can be used
outside of organizations, so too do they remain a helpful tool
inside of organizations, especially during times of organizational
change. Organizational crises, which frequently give birth to
significant changes in organizations, are described by Heath and
Miller, (as cited in Kopp, Nikolovska, Desiderio, & Guterman,
2011), as “inherently narrative, so it follows that organizational
storytelling can be used as an antidote” (2008). Organizational
storytelling can be useful during organizational change, therefore,
to help ease anxiety that may arise within the organization.
According to O’neill (as cited in Kopp, Nikolovska, Desiderio,
& Guterman, 2011) “Organizational stories can satisfy the needs
of organizational members by ‘reducing stress and uncertainty… in
providing explanations regarding events that have occurred in [or
affect] the work place’”
Storytelling not only provides a clear, reliable, sequential
explanation for an organization’s members, but it also helps reach
their emotions. Michael and Elisabeth Umble (2014) describe this
characteristic of storytelling quite well. Organizational change
often causes fear, which the Umble’s indicate as a “strong emotion”
(2014, p. 18). They reference Eli Goldratt, founder of the theory
of constraints (TOC) model for resistance to change: “Goldratt
often mused that if you think you can overcome emotion with logic,
you never have been married. So to proceed, you must overcome one
strong emotion with another strong emotion” (Unble & Umble,
2014, p. 18). This “other strong emotion” could be produced through
the act of storytelling. It is a tool that organizations can study
and integrate into their communication strategy in order to reduce
the anxiety that oftentimes comes hand-in-hand with organizational
change.
Case study
An ethnographic study conducted by Shelley Bird (2007) provides
an example of how storytelling allows organization members to make
sense of changes, therefore reducing anxiety and preserving
organizational culture. Bird conducted her study at the company,
Tritech. When she began her study in 2003, the organization was
experiencing many big changes. Their CEO, who had held his position
for the previous eight years, announced that he would be leaving
the company. In fact, he would be gone one month after his
announcement. The company was also experiencing economic trouble,
and even when they started to recover they continued to fail to
meet Wall Street’s expectations. The company, in turn, changed
their financial structure, which resulted in the loss of 1,500 jobs
(Bird, 2007).
Throughout her time at the organization, Bird conducted
interviews, focus groups, and had informal conversations with
members of the company’s women’s resource network, in addition to
observing participants for more than 120 hours. Bird reflects on
what she discovered while reviewing her data collection: “In this
review process, it became apparent that the transcribed and
captured dialogue was predominantly a collection of stories that
network members shared about their work experiences and the
negotiation of role balance…” These stories, she recognizes, helped
the company’s employees make sense of the changes occurring within
the organization. Furthermore, these stories helped employees deal
with the negative emotions experienced as a result of the changes.
“The stories revealed a reliance on collectively constructing
stories and using stories to deal with ambiguity and anxiety”
(Bird, 2007, p. 333). Stories helped the employees overcome their
anxiety in the face of uncertainty. Storytelling made the changes
start to make sense and, therefore, allowed the company to feel
familiar again.
Methodology
Objective
The researcher conducted eight focus groups of five to seven
participants in an attempt to discover how storytelling reduces
anxiety during the process of organizational change. The study used
the proposition of a football team at Queens University of
Charlotte as an example in its research. The focus groups were also
used to answer the researcher’s two sub-questions: Through what
media are stories typically communicated during periods of
organizational change? Why does organizational change cause anxiety
for those involved?
Participants
Unfortunately, time and money restraints did not allow the
researcher to acquire a random sample for her research. As such,
the researcher selected a non-random sample of forty-eight
traditional undergraduate university students between the ages of
eighteen and twenty-two. In order to ensure that her sample
remained unbiased, the researcher attempted to recruit participants
of different class levels, majors, and genders. Eight freshman,
eleven sophomores, twelve juniors, and seventeen seniors
participated in the focus groups. Out of the forty-eight
participants, twenty-seven were females and twenty-one were males.
The sample included twenty different majors. The researcher desired
a varied pool of participants in order for the sample to be more
reliable than a homogenous sample.
In order to ensure that the focus groups were unbiased, the
researcher had to develop a system to ensure that she gathered
participants from many different majors, grade levels, and ages. In
order to do so, the researcher recruited students from different
classes of different grade levels and majors. She sent an email to
the professors of the classes before entering the classroom to ask
students to participate. The researcher only entered the classroom
after having received explicit, written permission from the
professor that it was permissible for her to do so. The researcher
explained to the different professors the purpose of her study and
asked permission to use 3-5 minutes of class time to explain the
study to the students and ask for their participation.
Since the researcher was not able to recruit the necessary
amount of participants strictly from visiting classes, she also
asked students found in the library, courtyard, cafeteria, dorms,
and within her own classes to participate in the study.
The focus groups were conducted in March and April of 2014.
Participants were asked to voluntarily attend 30-minute focus
groups outside of their normal class times. There were not any
negative repercussions for a student if he or she declined the
request to participate. (See Appendix A for the Institutional
Review Board approval form).
Procedure
The participants were each given a number so that their names
remained anonymous during the transcription process. Before the
focus group began, participants were given a consent form to
complete (See Appendix B). The consent form informed the
participants that the focus group would be recorded and that the
recording would only be available to the researcher throughout the
study. It also informed the participants that the recording would
be properly disposed of by deleting it from the phone, computer and
the recycling bin after the research project had been completed in
order to protect their confidentiality. Participants were also
asked to fill out a sheet of paper with questions concerning their
name, age, class, major, and gender in order to collect demographic
data. After they had signed the consent forms and the demographics
sheet, the researcher reminded the participants of their
confidentiality throughout the study. The researcher then began the
focus group. Participants were asked to respond to questions in a
discussion format. The questions for the focus group can be found
in Appendix C. The researcher used the introduction of a football
team at Queens University of Charlotte in her study as an example
to see how students responded to change within an organization. The
researcher also strove to discover how the university introduced
the football team to students in order to determine whether or not
their methods were productive in decreasing or increasing
anxiety.
Findings
Change
To begin the focus group, the researcher asked the participants
to describe how they usually felt when dealing with big changes in
their lives. Responses were consistent throughout all eight of the
groups. A majority of the participants answered that they
experienced negative emotions when they encountered change. The
negative emotions presented included the following: anxiety,
stress, suspense, freaking out, the feeling of being overwhelmed,
worried, confused, thrown off, unorganized, uncertain, scared, and
helpless (feeling as if they had no control during times of
significant change). The top three negative responses included
anxiety, nervousness, and stress. One participant commented on the
stressfulness of change: “I think change is stressful because you
don’t know what the outcome is going to be. You know what you know,
and change is different.” Agreeing, yet another focus group member
stated, “You don’t have control.” Another respondent noted, “I
don’t like changes that much. I like familiarity.” The researcher
followed up with, “Why?” The participant answered, “I’m a lot more
comfortable with it… but I know eventually after the change I’ll
get comfortable and everything, but I don’t like that initial
part.”
Continuing with the theme of familiarity, two participants
commented on how change causes negative emotions when it is
introduced after experiencing consistency over a long period of
time. One of these participants described how she had grown up in
the same house her whole life until she reached junior year of high
school. Her parents decided to move to a new house in the
neighboring town, and the participant was very upset. She said the
change was so difficult for her because she was leaving “all she
had ever known.” Later in the focus group, another participant made
a connection between the idea of consistency and familiarity with
the anxiety that seems to be experienced during change: “When
something is tied to tradition it is more complicated to change
because it becomes more sentimental.”
Other participants disagreed with the idea that change causes
merely negative emotions. Many focus group members suggested that
change could be exciting and good. Another participant responded
that change makes him feel more interested. Yet another respondent
stated that he loved change and added, “Resistance is futile.”
Many of the responses to the question, “When you are
experiencing big changes in your life, how does that normally make
you feel?” came with a qualifier, especially with the responses
that included positive feeling. Most people said that the feelings
they experienced depended on the type of change that they were
experiencing. One participant offered, “It depends on whether or
not it [change] disrupts your comfort.” Another respondent stated
that change was likeable if they agreed with the change.
One particular participant presented the idea that a smooth
transition made change a little easier to manage emotionally. In
fact, this participant began by making an extreme claim against
change stating, “I hate it.” Later, however, the participant
decided to clarify that he did not hate all change: “I don’t
actually hate change. I think that some change is good; some change
is very frustrating. I think it depends on the type of change, so
if it’s like an easy, positive transition […] then it’s fine.”
Another student made a similar claim: “Change stresses me out if
it’s sudden, but if I’m told far enough in advance then I’m fine
with it.”
Changes at Queens
The researcher shifted the focus from general change to change
happening within the participants’ university, Queens University of
Charlotte. The researcher asked participants to describe changes
that had either already occurred on campus or any changes that they
had heard were being discussed for the future of Queens. It is
important to note that most participants would not only name a
change, but also state how they felt about the change. The
researcher often had to redirect the conversation and ask the
participants to simply name any changes that they had noticed on
campus. Many of the participants noted physical changes in the
University, such as the construction of a new dorm and fitness
center, or the plans to knock down an existing building to create a
new terrace. Other focus group members’ discussed changes in the
curriculum including the future switch to longer class times and
the tweaking of the university’s Core program. A change the
participants mentioned in seven of the eight focus groups was the
possibility of a football team at Queens.
What Do You Know About the Team?
The researcher then asked the participants to tell her what they
had heard or seen around campus about the possibility of a football
team at Queens. As with the previous question, the facts often
blended with the emotions and opinions about what they had seen or
heard. At the end of each focus group, the researcher asked them
for a recap of the facts that they had encountered without their
emotions attached to them. The most common responses were the
following: Queens is possibly getting a football team, the Queens
football team would play in the South Atlantic Conference, the team
will not play on campus, there is no room to play on campus, and
Queens is conducting a football feasibility study.
Many of the students commented on what they heard about when the
football program was set to begin at Queens. One student said that
the program would take about four to five years to develop, others
said that they heard it was not happening in the current year,
still others said that they heard that it was possible that the
football team would develop in the “near or far future.” At the end
of one focus group discussion, when the researcher asked for the
participants to list the consistent facts that they had come
across, one of the students replied, “We might be getting a
football team. There’s no definite answer, and we don’t know when.”
Another participant then asked the group, “Are we shooting for next
year? Because I heard it was 2015.” Yet another focus group member
stepped up with an explanation of the University’s hypothetical
timeline to start the football program, which he received from the
leader of the university’s football feasibility study: “They would
bring in their first class of recruits in 2015, and then they would
be practicing that year, and the first snap would be played fall,
2016.” Only one other student out of the forty-eight focus group
members vocalized their knowledge about bringing in recruits in
2015 and beginning the first real season in the fall of 2016.
Many focus group members seemed confused in their answers to the
question of where the Queens football team would play if the
university brought the program to completion. In one focus group, a
participant answered that the university was considering three
possible locations for football games. A fellow focus group member
asked, “What three?” The original respondent explained that Queens
would either build a place around the track at the university’s
current sports complex, use Memorial Stadium (a public field in
Charlotte, North Carolina), or that the team would play at Myers
Park High School. One of the students in the focus group confused
Myers Park High School with Myers Park Traditional School, which is
located next-door to Queens, and she said, “They’re not going to
let us use that one.” The participant who had previously offered
the possibility of the three locations quickly conceded: “Okay,
well then that’s out. But as of two months ago that was the three
locations they were thinking…” Members in other focus groups
mentioned the Grady Cole center, which is the same as Memorial
Stadium, while other participants simply did not know where the
football players would play.
Focus group participants also seemed to have discrepancies on
how Queens would pay for the program. Some participants were under
the impression that their tuition and/or fees would increase due to
the introduction of the program. One participant admitted that she
originally thought that the program would be funded by tuition, but
then “after talking to other people (students and members of the
Student Government Association)… made it clear that it would be
coming from outside sources.” Another participant noted that she
had heard that the money initially was supposed to go toward
funding a new music building, but that the money was now being
placed toward the football program. Another participant responded
that according to the leader of the feasibility study, the
university “didn’t ever have any money saved up for the football
team, and that would come primarily from philanthropy and the
tuition of the 120 new football players.” In a different focus
group one participant said, “I think a lot of people didn’t want
them to take money away from academics and stuff,” implying that
the university would use money originally allocated to academics or
other areas for the new program. Other students stated that they
heard that the program would be funded by donors and
fundraising.
A good number of participants vocalized their awareness of the
football feasibility study, and many knew the person, by name, who
was in charge of the study. The students also shared that the
feasibility study hosted an information session about the new
football team. A majority of the students, however, did not attend
the information session.
At the end of each session, when the researcher asked the
participants to quickly recap the facts that they had consistently
heard about the football team, the answer that appeared most
frequently was the mere fact that Queens might be getting a
football team. Most students knew that a new football team was a
possibility for the Queens University of Charlotte community, but
many of the shared facts were either confused or inconsistent with
one another. Some students, in fact, shared, “I haven’t really
heard much about it… They announced the feasibility study. We
participated, but the more recent announcement was that they’re
still continuing the feasibility study.” Others agreed, saying that
they have not heard much about the facts of the football team or
the study, but rather have just heard others’ opinions or that
Queens is asking for the students feedback: “Do you want it [a
football team]? Do you not want it? But they haven’t said anything
else really.”
Where Did You Receive Most of Your Information?
The researcher asked focus group members where they received
most of their information about the football team. Many students
said that they received much of the information via word of mouth
from “other people on campus.” Other participants said that they
heard the announcement of the football team at the “Campus Update”
with the university’s president at the beginning of the school
year. Many participants also received information from their
emails, and they often mentioned the name of the vice president of
enrollment management as being the sender of said emails.
The focus group members also mentioned the university’s
newspaper, The Chronicle, as being a source of information about
the football team. Some students, however, mentioned that the
newspaper did not include many facts, but rather included students’
opinions: “I think I saw an article in the Chronicle, but again it
didn’t have any information. It just talked about the hype of it if
we got one.” Another student similarly stated the following when
mentioning the Chronicle:
It was more about the objections than the pro’s. A lot of
students were voicing their concerns with how they thought that it
would be taking a ton of money away from our academics, and our
school already has a lot of different problems they should fix
before they spend money on that.
When discussing the Chronicle, students mentioned the importance
of the information coming from somebody in authority. One of the
focus group participants answered another group member’s comment
about a particular football article in the Chronicle not containing
much information by saying, “And that was written by like a
student.” The other group member chuckled and agreed. In yet
another focus group, a participant told the researcher that the
best way to get information was in person from “the powers that
be.” The participant continued to say that the problem is that “we
don’t really know a lot, and so people are kind of assuming what it
would be like, and assuming what the problems would be and what the
good things would be when we don’t really know...” In contrast,
some students stated that they talked to people in authority about
the subject, especially those students who were part of the student
government association or other important campus organizations.
Coaches also seemed to be a source of information for many
students.
Feelings about Football at Queens
The students who participated in the focus group expressed many
strong feelings about the possibility of the football team. A few
students believed that football would be good for Queens and its
growth, “I think it would be really cool. I think it would help our
university grow.” Another student stated, “I think maybe having a
football team would be good because it would bring a lot more
people wanting to come to Queens.” Yet another student agreed
saying that football would “definitely bring us all together
because that’s one sport that does.” While these students spoke
positively about the team, a majority of the participants did not
have very positive feelings about the new introduction.
The theme of money with the introduction of a football team
seemed to be a fundamental fear of the focus group participants. A
good number of participants vocalized their anxiety that student
tuition would increase with the introduction of a football team.
Other students complained that the money that would go towards a
football team ought to be spent on the current sports programs at
the university: “Why don’t we support the athletics that we have?”
Many other participants agreed. The university lacks their own
tennis courts and softball field, and the students vocalized their
belief that the money that would fund the football program would be
better spent creating facilities for the sports programs already in
existence. One student athlete offered the following opinion:
Just speaking from an athletes perspective, I don’t think that
the existing teams are catered to enough, so if they were to add on
another team that would literally be... quite literally be the
largest team on campus, I feel like they would put so much effort
into that since its new, and we would fall by the wayside more than
we already are.
Focus group participants also voiced their concerns about the
money that would have to be spent on hiring coaches and athletic
trainers, as well as building a new training facility.
Additionally, students shared that they felt a football team
would be a waste of money simply because Queens could not provide
an on-campus facility for the sport. During the 2012-2013 school
year, the Queens basketball team was forced to play off campus at
the Grady Cole center in Charlotte. Participants in the focus group
shared that barely any students showed up at games because they
were off campus. One focus group member stated, “I know for the
basketball team, when last year and the year before when we played
off campus, nobody came to our games except for the regulars… So I
feel like it would kind of be the same thing...” Another student
affirmed that statement adding, “Soccer is off campus, but at the
Queens sports complex, and barely anyone comes to those games
besides parents… and people’s babysitting families come more often
than students come.”
Among the concerns voiced by focus group members was the
practicality of adding a football team to a land-locked campus.
Students recognized that introducing a football team to the
university would add 100+ students to the student body. Many focus
group participants worried about where the university would house
all of the new incoming student athletes. They also shared their
concern that an introduction of a football team would decrease the
academic standards of the university. One participant stated,
It’s a very negative stigma, and it’s definitely not true about
all football players, but I feel like in some instances you’re not
going to bring in the brightest group of people, and I think that
Queens is trying to shift towards being more challenging to get in
to and increasing their academic level of success, and so I’m just
not sure if… it would contribute to that.
Perhaps most noteworthy were the students comments on Queens’
ability to handle change. After one student expressed that she
thought the football team was “a good idea in theory, but I don’t
think its right for Queens,” another participant agreed saying,
“Yeah, especially now with all the changes that we’ve already gone
through in such a short amount of time. Just wait a little bit.
Take a break, and just focus on what we have right now.” Another
student chimed in and noted that Queens is currently in the process
of making a huge academic change with their Core program, as well
as a large physical change with the addition of a patio. After
acknowledging these changes, the participant concluded, “It’s not
like there’s nothing going on. There’s still so much going on and
so much change happening, which is really good and really exciting,
but you want to be able to really focus on that.”
Analysis
Change and Emotion
When the researcher asked focus group participants to identify
the changes that they had noticed in the past, the changes that
were happening in the current moment, or those that were to occur
in the future around campus, they almost always began explaining
the feelings about the changes rather than simply naming the
changes themselves. The same phenomenon occurred when the
researcher asked the participants about the facts they had heard
about the introduction of the football team. Rather than simply
listing the facts, participants would often rant about their
feelings towards the introduction of a team. In fact, the
researcher often had to steer the groups back on track and ask them
to clearly distinguish the facts from their opinions. This
occurrence helped reaffirm that change is rarely experienced
without causing a rise in emotions. Focus group participants helped
show that it is hard to remain neutral in the process of
organizational change. Organizations, therefore, must recognize and
address these emotions rather than pretending they do not exist.
One way to engage these emotions, as discussed previously in the
review of the literature, is to create more strong emotions through
storytelling. Stories help mix logic with emotion, which could be a
productive way to combat feelings of anxiety during periods of
organizational change.
When asked about how participants felt about big changes in
their life, a majority of participants noted emotions such as
anxiousness, nervousness, or uncertainty. Some participants noted
that they found change exciting or good. When asked why they felt
that way, one student said that change was good if there was an
easy transition or if the change resulted in positive outcomes. The
problem is that the difficulty level of the transition or the
quality of the outcome is often only known once the change process
is complete. One does not typically know if the transition will be
easy or if the outcome will be positive at the beginning of the
change process. This may be part of the reason why so many
participants confessed that big changes often cause them to be
anxious. As previously stated, one participant shared, “I think
change is stressful because you don’t know what the outcome is
going to be. You know what you know, and change is different.”
Organizations, in order to create the possibility of an easy
transition and a positive outcome, ought to begin telling clear and
consistent stories from the very first day of the introduction to
change.
Through the focus groups, the researcher came to realize that
many people might feel anxious when experiencing organizational
change because such change often alters their routine or levels of
security. The focus group discussions helped support that most
people feel the most comfortable when they are in familiar
situations. One participant clearly stated her negative feelings
toward change and how those feelings connected with the idea of
familiarity: “I don’t like changes that much. I like familiarity
because I’m a lot more comfortable with it… but I know eventually
after the change I’ll get comfortable and everything, but I don’t
like that initial part.” Organizations, therefore, must take action
to make the initial part of the change process easier for its
members. One way organizations can do so is by trying to make the
change feel more familiar by providing all of the facts in a clear
and consistent manner through storytelling.
Organizations create a familiar atmosphere for their members by
building up a strong identity and acting in ways that are in
accordance with said identity. Group members seem to become
extremely anxious when changes cause this identity to begin to
shift. What was once taken for granted as normal begins to change,
and members within an organization often do not know how to handle
such a large change. A focus group participant alluded to this
sensation in her comments on the introduction of the football team
at Queens: “I just feel like it’s going to be such a drastic change
for Queens that it’s not doing to be Queens anymore.”
Other students made similar comments that also attributed to the
conclusion that changes that cause of shift in identity is a major
cause of anxiety. One student argued that people do not come to
Queens because they are particularly good at any given sport. “I
think most [people] do come for the programs or for the education.”
The participant added, “I mean if not then… if that’s what somebody
wanted they would go to like Georgia or Alabama.” Another student
chimed in saying, “Yeah, I mean USC and Clemson are right down the
street. If you really want to see college football… and those are
established teams.” This helps clarify that perhaps students felt
apprehension towards the introduction of a football team to the
university because the university’s current identity did not
revolve around a huge sports program. Students felt like Queens’
identity focused on education, while believing that the other
bigger, southern universities placed more of their identity in
football. This potential change, which moves away from the identity
of their university, caused students to become anxious and
therefore resist the possibility of change. Similarly, changes that
fall in line with an organization’s current identity may not cause
as much anxiety for its members. Organizations must strive to show
their members through storytelling that the changes align with
their overall mission and vision, or with the organization’s
identity. Even if the changes do not necessarily align with an
organization’s previous mission and vision, stories can help
organization members become familiar with the new changes, making
the identity shift less emotional.
Media
People in charge of leading change within an organization ought
to ensure that information is being properly shared to its members.
A fundamental aspect of storytelling is knowing where and from whom
members are receiving their information about changes within an
organization. Many students admitted to receiving most of their
information via email, by word of mouth, or through the university
newspaper. It is interesting, however, that most of these students
did not have the correct information about the football team and/or
about how the university planned to bring it to fruition.
The researcher searched through her Queens University of
Charlotte email inbox to find at least five emails including dates
and times for information sessions regarding the football team and
a list of frequently asked questions and answers. See Appendix D
for an example of an email to students about the football team. The
list of frequently asked questions and answers (see Appendix E)
includes answers to many of the issues that the students were
worried about during the focus group discussion, including money
issues, timeline confusion, and concerns about a shift away from an
emphasis on academics. The email inbox included a total of at least
thirteen emails mentioning the football team from October 18, 2013
through March 9, 2014. Additionally, the Queens Chronicle wrote two
news articles about the football team: the first was published on
November 11 (Herron, 2013) and the other on March 24 (Saunders,
2014).
This raises an interesting question: If students knew that
information about the football team could be found via email or the
Queens Chronicle, and if email and the newspaper did, in fact,
include information regarding the Queens football team, how did
students continue to not know many of the facts surrounding the
issue? There are many possible responses to this question. First of
all, most of the information presented in the emails came via
RexTexts, an online newsletter containing many different links to
information. It is quite possible that students, who receive at
least two RexTexts per week with links to activities and events
going on in the Charlotte area or on campus, simply skipped over
the links containing information for the football team because all
of the links appear the same way. In other words, the links for
information about the football team were not set apart or
highlighted from the other links causing them to get lost among the
load of information.
Accessibility is another possible reason why students may not
have known much of the factual information about the football team.
Although different media around campus presented ways to retrieve
information, it was not always very easy to locate the facts. For
example, the question and answer document could only be retrieved
by logging onto the Queens portal, locating the document on the
Football Feasibility page, and clicking on the link. Although this
may not seem particularly strenuous, students may be more likely to
pay attention to information that does not require them to work to
find it. Furthermore, many students in the focus groups mentioned
that the university had held different information sessions as well
as sessions for students to voice their opinions about the football
team, but not one student out of the forty-eight participants
attended the meetings. Some participants stated that the meetings
conflicted with their schedules, while other participants confessed
that they simply did not care to go. The University must find
innovative ways to reach out to students who may have a busy
schedule and to capture the attention of indifferent students in
order to persuade them to care about the changes. Properly
informing students would help avoid rumors, which often cause
anxiety to rise, from spreading.
Lastly, the quality, timing, and validity of the factual
information shared around campus also may have contributed to high
levels of uncertainty about the introduction of a football team to
Queens. Many focus group participants felt as if the information
presented to them through the Chronicle and through emails simply
asked for or stated opinions rather than present them with facts
about the team. As one student noted, “I think I saw an article in
the Chronicle, but again it didn’t have any information. It just
talked about the hype of it if we got one.” Furthermore, students
felt like they had heard more information at the beginning of the
school year than towards the end, leaving them confused as to the
progress being made. Most participants, as previously mentioned,
received their information from other students on campus via word
of mouth. One student recognized, however, that “facts” that are
spread around by people who are not in authority might not be the
most reliable: “I think in general, we are a small campus, so any
story that gets around and everyone’s talking about is going to be
distorted via word of mouth. Like it’s not going to be the same
story after a while… and that’s just a fact.” Other students
admitted that they would have liked to hear more information from
those in authority.
Storytelling and its Role in Uncertainty Reduction
The researcher asked focus group members in one of the focus
groups if the stories they had heard around campus about the
football team had been pretty consistent or if they had heard many
contradicting versions of the story. Their responses echoed the
responses of many of the other participants in the other focus
groups. One girl answered, “I feel like we haven’t heard enough to
have a story. Like the only think we’ve gotten is, ‘Oh, hey!
They’re doing a survey and looking into it,’ but end of story right
there.” These same students expressed a great deal of uncertainty
when it came to the introduction of the football team and expressed
that they often felt stressed or “thrown off” during times of big
change, especially when moving into unfamiliar territory. Leaders
of change, therefore, should consider storytelling as an important
strategy to use during times of organizational change, for
storytelling reduces levels of anxiety. Stories help make the
information more clear. Once the information is clear, it becomes
more difficult for contradicting stories, otherwise known as
rumors, to spread, which allows people to feel more comfortable
with the change.
Presenting the whole story, in fact, is an important aspect of
organizational storytelling, especially during times of
organizational change. A focus group participant admitted to not
knowing the full story about the introduction of the football team
at Queens:
We don’t really know because we don’t know a lot of details, and
things have kind of been blown out of proportion or like just
certain things have been stated, but not the whole… like we haven’t
heard it in one consistent like, “Here’s our plan. Let me tell you
all that it entails…”
Receiving bits and pieces of the story does not allow
organization members to understand why the change is occurring, how
it is going to go about, and what the possible or desired outcome
would be. Stories, in order to help reduce anxiety during
organizational change, must remain consistent in all aspects.
Although stories can differ to allow them to appeal to a variety of
personalities and interests, the facts within the story must remain
the same throughout every version. In the case of the Queens
football team, students heard stories containing inconsistent
information regarding funding, location, and the expected timeline
for the change. Leaders ought to strive harder to ensure that these
stories remain coherent throughout the change process.
Additionally, the leaders who act as the narrators of the story
should remain constant during the introduction of change to an
organization. If organization members hear stories about the change
from a particular narrator or narrators, and if the stories these
narrators share are consistent with one another, then members will
begin to recognize whom they can trust for reliable information. If
stories do not have a consistent narrator (the leader or leaders of
the change) then the story will likely become confused amongst the
masses.
In a society that is rich with information and that is
experiencing a rise in media through which to obtain this
information, storytellers must find a way for their message to
stand out from the rest. Leaders must help their organization’s
members recognize their stories before they can start helping
members understand and process the changes described within them.
Consequently, it is important for leaders to make their story
engaging in order to grab the attention of organization members.
Leaders must also select a medium or media through which to send
their story to guarantee that it actually reaches its members.
Conclusion
Storytelling is an effective way to reduce anxiety or
uncertainty. Anxiety or uncertainty arises, in particular, with the
introduction of change within an organization. Storytelling,
therefore, is an important tool for leaders to utilize when their
organization is undergoing big changes. The focus group discussions
used in this study confirm this conclusion. A majority of members
stated they felt anxious during times of change, displayed negative
emotions when discussing the possibility of a football team at
Queens, and confessed to not hearing much information from leaders
about the subject.
Many focus group members noted that the stories that they heard
about the football team contained incoherent information. In order
to be effective, stories within organizations must strive to be
consistent in their stories, make the stories available to everyone
within the organization, and strive to catch the attention of
members with their stories. Organizational stories, particularly
during the initial stages of change, must come from the leaders of
an organization. This will help rumors from spreading, as members
will know who to trust and who to turn to if they have any
questions. If leaders in organizations effectively communicate via
storytelling during times of organizational change, perhaps they
can prevent their members from experiencing high levels of anxiety
or uncertainty.
Limitations
The researcher was limited in the amount of time available to
conduct the study. She was also limited in the amount of money she
could spend on the study. These two limitations prevented the
researcher from collecting a random sample, which would be ideal
for unbiased research. Furthermore, the researcher, while she
accounted for gender, age, and class in her sample, did not account
for the number of student athletes in her study. Although she does
not know the exact number of student athletes present in her study,
she recognizes that many of the participants played college sports
and that this may have affected their feelings toward the
introduction of football at the university. Although she would not
ban student athletes from her focus groups, the researcher believes
it may be best to balance the focus groups with an equal number of
student athletes versus non-student athletes in order to have an
unbiased sample. The researcher also recognizes that she should
have investigated further into what some of the best strategies are
for capturing people’s attention with stories.
Recommendations for Future Researchers
The researcher, after analyzing her findings, realizes the
importance of using effective mediums to tell stories to
organization members, specifically during periods of organizational
change. With the boom of technology, possible media through which
leaders could possibly send their stories is constantly growing.
Therefore, the researcher recommends that future studies focus on
the most effective medium to use in the distribution of stories to
an organization during organizational change. The researcher is
also interested in the following research question: What are some
of the best strategies in terms of design to make stories stand out
in a world where people are constantly taking in information.
Answering these questions would help organizations better handle
anxiety and uncertainty during times of organizational change.
References
Barnett, W., & Carroll, G. (1995). Modeling internal
organizational change. Annual Review of
Sociology, 21, 217-236. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083410
Berger, C.R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M.E.
Roloff & G.R. Miller (Eds.),
Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication
research (pp. 39-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bird, S. (2007). Sensemaking and identity. Journal Of Business
Communication,
44(4), 311-339.
Bordia, P., & DiFonzo, N. (1998). A tale of two
corporations: Uncertainty during organizational
change. Human Resource Management, 37(3,4), 295-304. Retrieved
from
http://cyb.ox.or.kr/lms_board/bbs_upload/%C2%FC%B0%ED%B9%AE%C7%E54(%B1%B9%BF%DC-%B7%E7%B8%D3%B9%CE%B0%A8%B5%B5)_1.pdf
Brady, W. (2013). Storytelling Defines Your Organizational
Culture. Physician Executive, =
39(1), 40.
Dailey, S. L., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling stories in
organizations: Understanding the
functions of narrative repetition. Academy Of Management Review,
39(1), 22-43. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0329
Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication
paradigm: The case of public moral
argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22.
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: toward a
philosophy of reason,
value, and action. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina
Press.
Gabriel, Y. (2008). Organizing words: A critical thesaurus for
social and organization studies.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York:
Basic Books, Inc. Retrieved from
http://monoskop.org/images/5/54/Geertz_Clifford_The_Interpretation_of_Cultures_Selected_Essays.pdf
Gill, R. (2011). Corporate Storytelling as an Effective Internal
Public Relations Strategy.
International Business & Management, 3(1), 17-25.
doi:10.3968/j.ibm.1923842820110301.107
Guber, P. (2011). Telling Purposeful Stories: An Organization's
Most Under-Utilized
Competency. People & Strategy, 34(1), 4-5.
Hanan, J. (2008). The Continued Importance of Walter Fisher's
Narrative Paradigm: An Analysis
of Fisher's Extant Work. Conference Papers -- National
Communication Association, 1.
Heath, R., & Millar, D. (2008). Responding to crisis: A
rhetorical approach to crisis
communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Herron, G. (2013, November 11). Football at Queens? The Queens
Chronicle. Retrieved from:
http://www.queens-chronicle.com/2013/11/11/football-at-queens/
Koehn, N. (2012, July 18). Leading change: Two stories, four
lessons. Health Leadership
Forum. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from
http://www.athenahealth.com/leadership-forum/leadingchange-two-stories-four-lessons
Kopp, D. M., Nikolovska, I., Desiderio, K. P., & Guterman,
J. T. (2011). 'Relaaax, I remember
the recession in the early 1980s ...': Organizational
storytelling as a crisis management
tool. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 373-385.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.20067
Kowalewski, S. J., & Waukau-Villagomez, L. (2011).
Storytelling and career narrative in
organizations. Global Journal Of Business Research (GJBR), 5(4),
83-92.
Mariana, P., Daniela, B., & Nadina, R. (2013). Forces that
enhance or reduce employee
resistance to change. Annals Of The University Of Oradea,
Economic Science Series, 22(1), 1606-1612.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths
and the making of the self. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
O’Neill, J. W. (2002). The role of storytelling in affecting
organizational reality in the
strategic management process. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 4(1),
3–15.
Saunders, D. (2014, March 24). Football funding would be
self-sufficient, committee says. The
Queens Chronicle. Retrieved from:
http://www.queens-chronicle.com/2014/03/24/football-funding-would-be-self-sufficient-committee-says/
Stanleigh, M. (2013). Leading Change. Journal For Quality &
Participation, 36(2), 39-40.
Simsek, S., & Louis, K. (1994). Organizational change as
paradigm shift: Analysis of the change
process in a large, public university. The Journal of Higher
Education, 65(6), 670-695. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2943824
Thévenet, M. (1992). ¿Se puede cambiar la cultura?. In Auditoría
de la
cultura empresarialRetrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=ri4JjI6NaVsC&printsec=frontcover
Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education:
Defining the essentials. The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981868
Umble, M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change. Industrial
Management, 56(1), 16.
Yang, C. (2013). Telling Tales at Work: An Evolutionary
Explanation. Business
Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 132-154.
doi:10.1177/1080569913480023
Appendix A
Institutional Review Board Approval Letter:
March 26, 2014
Courtney Walker
Knight School of Communication
RESEARCH PROTOCOL APPROVAL, IRB FILE # 03-14-KSOC-00078
The Institutional Review Board reviewed your research
request:
Storytelling and Uncertainty Reduction
Your protocol (03/17/14); Informed consent form, Focus group
questions; and Recruitment materials were approved for use within
the facilities of Queens University of Charlotte. The Board
determined your study poses minimal risk to subjects and meets the
criteria for an exempt application. If you plan to use the protocol
outside of Queens University of Charlotte, you may need to submit
it to the IRB at that institution for approval.
This approval expires one year minus one day from date above.
Before your study expires, you must submit a notice of completion
or a request for extension. You are required to report any changes
to the research study to the IRB for approval prior to
implementation. This form can be found on the IRB site on MyQueens
and should be sent to [email protected].
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us. Please use the IRB file number when referencing your
case.
Sincerely,
Daina Nathaniel
Daina Nathaniel, PhD
Chair, IRB
Appendix B
Consent Form:
Informed Consent
Perception of Dynamic Activity Study
Project Title and Purpose:
You are invited to participate in a research study: Storytelling
and Uncertainty Reduction. This study will examine how storytelling
reduces levels of anxiety during the process of organizational
change. It will also aim to answer why organizational change causes
anxiety for those involved, and how stories are typically
communicated during periods of organizational change.
Investigator(s):
Courtney A. Walker, a senior Organizational Communication major
in the Knight School of Communication at Queens University of
Charlotte, is conducting this study. The study will turn into a
final project for the researcher’s COMM495 class under the
direction of Dr. Daina Nathaniel.
Description of Participation:
In this study you will be in a focus group of 6-8 people. The
researcher will ask you 10 questions relating to the research
question and sub-questions.
Length of Participation
It will take about 30 minutes to complete this focus group. If
you decide to participate, you will be one of approximately 55
participants in this study. Participants will be drawn on a
convenience and purposive basis from contacts in the student
population at Queens University of Charlotte across all class
levels.
Risks and Benefits of Participation:
There are no risks known at this time associated with
participating in the study. However, there may be risks that are
currently unforeseeable. The only benefit of participation in this
study is the ability to communicate your feelings about current
changes occurring at your university. The results of the study will
only be used for this class project. You may obtain a copy of all
results by contacting me at [email protected] any time after April
17, 2014. You will not receive financial reimbursement for your
participation.
Volunteer Statement
You are a volunteer. The decision to participate in this study
is completely up to you. If you decide to be in the study, you may
stop at any time. You may choose not to answer any question you
simply do not wish to answer. You will not be treated any
differently if you decide not to participate or if you stop once
you have started.
Confidentiality:
You will be recorded during this focus group. The recordings
will be recorded on the researchers phone, and then imported onto
the researcher’s laptop. The recordings will be kept secure on the
researchers laptop and phone, and will be destroyed after being
transcribed. The transcribed material will be written in a separate
notebook or Word document. After the research project is complete,
any paper containing transcribed material will be shredded and any
Word documents containing transcribed material will be permanently
deleted. Notes will also be taken during the focus groups in a
separate notebook. Likewise, any paper with notes from the focus
groups will be shredded after the research project is
completed.
All information you provide will be kept confidential. Although
names will be used throughout the focus groups, numbers, only, are
used as identification once the recordings are transcribed; no
names will appear with the data. You are also asked to protect the
privacy of the other participants in the study. All data files will
be destroyed at the end of the project.
Fair Treatment and Respect:
Queens University of Charlotte wants to make sure that you are
treated in a fair and respectful manner. Contact the University’s
Institutional review Board (Dr. Daina Nathaniel at 704.688.2743) if
you have any questions about how you have been treated as a study
participant. If you have any questions about the project, please
contact Courtney Walker at 404-358-4396.
Participant Consent:
I have read the information in this consent form. I have had the
chance to ask questions about this study, and those questions have
been answered to my satisfaction. I am at least 18 years of age, am
an emancipated minor*, or my guardian has signed below, and I agree
to participate in this research project. I understand that I am
entitled to receive a copy of this form after the researcher and I
have signed it.
By signing your name below, you agree to participating in the
focus group research and keeping the identities and information
shared by other participants confidential.
________________________ _____________________________
_____________
Participant Name Participant Signature DATE
(PLEASE PRINT)
______________________________________ _____________________
Researcher SignatureDATE
*Emancipated Minor (as defined by NC General Statute
7B101.14) is a person who has not yet reached their 18th
birthday and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) has
legally terminated custodial rights of his/her parents and been
declared ‘emancipated’ by a court; 2) is married, or 3) is serving
in the armed forces of the United States.
Appendix C
Focus Group Questions:
1. Can you please describe how change normally makes you
feel?
2. What are some of the big changes you have heard about
happening at Queens this year?
3. Can you please describe how changes at Queens make you
feel?
4. Moving specifically to the possibility of an introduction of
a football program at Queens: What are some of the stories you have
heard about this change?
5. Where or from whom have you heard these stories?
6. Can you estimate how many different stories you have heard
about the football program at Queens?
7. What facts or themes remain consistent throughout the stories
you have heard about the Queens’ football team?
8. Could you give me an example of a time when a story helped
make a dramatic change easier for you?
9. Could you give me an example of a time when a story (or lack
of a story) failed to help make a dramatic change easier for
you?
Appendix D
Example Email, Sent January 24, 2014:
The Football Feasibility Study Task Force continues to seek
input on the prospect of football as an intercollegiate sport at
Queens and is eager to hear your thoughts. Please click on
the link below to take a brief survey. The survey will be
open for two weeks, so please take just a few moments and complete
it now!
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e8twcn2zhqqqcqrs/start
On February 6 and 7, the Task Force will also be holding
information sessions to share an overview of the information that
has been gathered up this point and provide details on a timeline
for the decision. The sessions will also be a time to answer any
remaining questions. We value your input and invite you to attend
one of the following sessions in the Claudia Belk Dining Room:
Open Session for Staff:
Thursday, Feb. 6: 1:30-2:30 p.m.
Open Session for Students:
Friday, Feb 7: 1:30-2:30p.m.
Open Session for Faculty:
Friday, Feb 7: 2:30-3:30 p.m.
Please also remember that comments submitted to
[email protected] are welcome and will also be
considered.
For additional information on the study, read
the Frequently Asked Questions document that provides more
details on the scope and timeline for a decision on the topic, or
visit the Football Feasibility Task Force site on the MyQueens
portal.
Appendix E
Queens Football Feasibility Study Frequently Asked
Questions—January 2014:
BACKGROUND
1) Why are we doing this study?
Our new conference, the South Atlantic Conference asked us to
consider football. It was not a requirement to join the conference
but we felt the timing was right to explore whether football is a
good idea for Queens.
2) Did you feel compelled to head in this direction because UNC
Charlotte added a football team?
No. Our decision was influenced by the request of our new
conference which of course piqued our interest to the point of
engaging in a feasibility study. While it’s true UNC Charlotte is
close to us geographically, a Division I football program like UNC
Charlotte’s is a whole different ballgame (pardon the pun) than a
Division II program. We’re excited for UNC Charlotte and the 49ers,
but our exploration is completely independent.
PROCESS
3) Is the feasibility study being done just to validate a
decision already made?
Absolutely not. We would not be taking the time to engage as
many people as possible if we didn’t want to get an accurate read
as to whether this is a good idea for Queens.
4) How are you gaining input from various constituents at
Queens?
We’ve pulled together a taskforce comprised of faculty, staff,
students, alumni and trustees, and we’re hosting open sessions with
more than 20 groups to encourage feedback. We’ve also created an
email address for people to send feedback and questions
([email protected]), and we’ll launch a survey to further
understand the campus community’s perceptions and questions about
football. One of our sport management classes has also conducted
qualitative research through dozens of student interviews and
provided the results to the taskforce.
5) What kind of timeline are you talking about here?
Our consultants expect the feasibility study to be concluded in
early 2014. The taskforce will then review the study and forward a
recommendation to the President in mid-February. If it is
recommended that Queens pursue football, and the Board supports
that direction, we would launch a national search for a head coach
mid-2014 and develop a plan in concert with our conference to
determine the first season of competition. Our consultants have
advised us that 2016 is probably the earliest we could start
playing under this scenario.
6) It seems the study is moving pretty fast. Are we sure
we can be thorough under the current timeline?
Our goal is to conduct a thorough review and make a
recommendation to the President by February 15.
SELECTIVITY AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
7) How does the addition of football align with the Queens
2017 Plan strategy to further enhance student quality?
One of the key areas of interest we will explore during the
feasibility study is how to attract football players who are
academically strong and align with the high achieving standards at
Queens. There are many fine small universities and colleges, such
as Washington and Lee, Davidson, Wofford and Furman that have
football teams and strong academic programs.
8) Would football take resources away from the rest of the
2017 Plan, which is all about academic excellence?
If our preliminary analysis ends up being correct, it shows
Division II football actually brings in additional revenue, which
will help Queens contribute more resources to the strategic plan.
The feasibility study will look at how football will affect the
overall financial picture.
9) Isn’t it true that football programs cause institutions
to lose focus of their academic mission?
While that may be the case at some institutions, it is certainly
not true for all. If Queens were to add football, just like all of
our other athletic programs, student academic success would be our
first priority.
10) Will Queens consider a marching band if football is
added?
We’re not sure; we’ll be exploring it with the College of Arts
& Sciences and music department to discuss whether that makes
sense.
OPERATIONS
11) Is the academic calendar going to have to change because of
football?
We will certainly look at academic planning as part of the
analysis, but we don’t expect the addition of football to alter the
calendar.
12) Where will you play?
The feasibility study is going to include an assessment of
various sites, but one thing we know is it will not be on the main
Myers Park campus.
13) How many additional students will this bring to
campus?
If Queens adds football, we would expect our roster to be
similar in size to those in the South Atlantic Conference which
currently range from approximately 100 – 140 students.
COST
14) Why add football when it is so expensive and Queens has a
lot of areas in which we need to invest?
Our preliminary research indicates football would actually
contribute an increase in net operating revenue to the budget due
to the additional tuition, room and board of football players, as
well as the additional students who might attend Queens because we
have a football team. We will consider all revenue and expenses
very carefully in our recommendation to the President and Board of
Trustees.
15) How can Queens afford to start a football program?
If the study shows that football makes sense for Queens, the
university would raise the capital dollars to develop and launch
the program. Once the program is launched, Queens would utilize the
additional tuition, room and board resources to fund the football
program and other strategic initiatives on campus.
OTHER ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
16) Will football take money away from other athletic
programs?
Queens will continue to fully support all Royals athletic
programs. In fact, if our preliminary assumptions about the
football budget are correct, it may actually create additional
support for numerous areas on campus including other Royals
athletic teams. If, in any way, the feasibility study suggests
football would decrease the quality and support of other programs,
that finding would be a strong deterrent against adding it.
17) Will Queens evaluate the implications of adding football in
the context of Title IX?
Absolutely. We will work with the consultants to ensure we
continue to equally support both men’s and women’s athletic
programs.
DIVISION I VS. DIVISION II FOOTBALL
18) You’ve mentioned Queens’ football program would be Division
II. How is that different from Division I?
Division I and Division II football are two completely different
approaches to the game and have more differences than similarities.
In most cases, Division II football has a more balanced focus on
academic life. There are far fewer scholarships at the Division II
level, lower coaching salaries, lower operating budgets and in
fact, less than 25 Division I football programs generate net
revenue whereas the majority of Division II programs do generate
additional revenue for their schools beyond the costs of running
the program.
MISCELLANEOUS
19) Don’t football coaches have really large salaries?
Unlike many of the salaries you hear about in the media (which
are almost always about high-profile, Division I coaches), Division
II head coach salaries are much more in line with the salaries of
other coaches, faculty and staff members on Division II
campuses.
20) There seem to be a lot of scandals in the media surrounding
college football. Do you think Queens will encounter these same
problems?
If Queens were to start football, the intent would be to hire a
coach who would build a program on integrity and character in order
to minimize behavior that has plagued some other schools’ programs.
The vast majority of stories covered by the media are about large,
Division I programs.
21) Will Queens consider the potential for serious injuries,
such as concussions in the game of football?
Queens currently has concussion prevention, testing and
monitoring procedures in place for its 19 athletic teams. As part
of the consultants’ reports and taskforce discussions around the
addition of football, Queens will take an even deeper look at
concussion prevention, examining everything from equipment to
practice regimens.
22) There is a belief that a football program could add to the
rise of student misconduct. Will that be considered in the
feasibility study?
Yes, that will certainly be considered; however, if Queens were
to add football, we would expect the players to be outstanding
representatives of the university, abiding by the same policies,
procedures, rights and responsibilities as the rest of the Queens
campus. While there’s been some negative publicity around big
Division I programs; many smaller D II and D Ill programs are run
without the same disciplinary problems. There are currently 360+
student- athletes at Queens, and they don't have a higher
misconduct rate. In fact, Queens student-athletes tend to be some
of our best students and fill many leadership roles on campus.
Please send any additional questions/comments/feedback to
[email protected]
