HOW PROGRAM DESIGN AFFECTS

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND PARTICIPANT

MOTIVATION
Vaughan P. Houger, CPT, PhD

This article focuses on how program design affects program performance, linking participant
motivation to performance. The focus of the article is a study that took place in a nonprofit
organization and addressed how to engage volunteers such that they find meaning in the
work they do and satisfy the needs of those they serve. Moreover, the findings suggest causal
relationships among the variables of program design, leadership, and participant motivation.
The article highlights some implications of human motivation on performance improvement.
The following questions are addressed: How does a leader evaluate program performance and
participant motivation? How does a leader redesign a program so that it maximizes participant
performance and elevates intrinsic motivation? It is noted that motivation translates into energy.
Energy is what one expends to accomplish a task. That task, once accomplished, can be
measured against an expectation. Did what was produced meet or exceed expectations?

HAVE YOU HEARD the words “I just can’t make
them do what I want them to do”? Conversely, have
you uttered the words “I am just not into this project
or assignment”? The project brings people together,
including a project manager and team members or a
program manager and program participants. However,
as the routine of work begins, participant enthusiasm
can wane. Leaders need to be attentive to what factors
in their organization can drain or inject participant
energy. The reasons why individuals come together
to collectively work are myriad indeed. There must
be something about the work environment that is
interesting and rewarding and sparks the desire to pour
energy into it. Leveraging these elements is paramount
to keeping engaged participants.
People congregate for a variety of reasons, including
for religious, work, and sports activities as well as fam-
ily and friends gatherings. They collectively congregate
because of a shared interest or purpose (Rummler &
Performance Improvement, vol. 54, no. 7, August 2015
©2015 International Society for Performance Improvement
10 Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21492
Brache, 1995). Nonprofit organizations are one example
of people coming together for a common purpose, usu-
ally for combining their energies to meet the needs of
others. This can be accomplished through a single pro-
gram or multiple programs depending on the objectives
determined by the organization’s stated overall purpose.
Typically, the majority of the workforce in nonprofit
organizations is composed of volunteers. Often, there is
paid staff, but it is the volunteer base that carries out the
day-to-day tasks and makes things happen (Krout, 1989).
Leaders in such organizations need to understand volun-
teers: What motivates volunteers, and what does it take to
keep them engaged?
This article addresses how leaders in nonprofit orga-
nizations go about measuring program performance,
understanding the science behind program design and the
linkage to clinical theory. The article provides insights as
to how a program design affects program performance.
It takes the perspective that if a program is designed

One thing to keep in mind
pertains to a person's
decision as to what choices to
pursue and how much energy
to invest for the purpose of
satisfying needs.
correctly, it can effectively maximize individual motiva-
tion. The remainder of this article addresses the concept
of motivation, program design, and the use of a holistic
leadership approach as demonstrated through a research
project pertaining to a specific program.
MOTIVATION: WHAT IS IT?
There are myriad extant studies and articles on motiva-
tion. Types of motivation typically are categorized into
two groups: extrinsic and intrinsic. One thing to keep in
mind pertains to a person’s decision as to what choices to
pursue and how much energy to invest for the purpose of
satisfying needs (Latham, 2012), no matter how basic the
needs. For example, an individual has the basic need to
satisfy hunger. An employer provides the means for the
employee to meet those needs through an exchange of
work performed resulting in tangible outcomes includ-
ing pay, health benefits, paid vacation, promotions, and
so on (Barbuto, 2005). Thus, the employee is given the
money needed to buy food to satisfy nutritional needs.
The employee is intrinsically motivated to perform the
necessary actions to meet the employer’s requirements. In
turn, the employer extrinsically incentivizes the employee
through various rewards, such as money. In this article,
the term employee is synonymous with participant and
volunteer.
The terms incentive and motivation can be confusing,
with the tendency of some to see them as synonyms.
However, the seminal work of Thomas Gilbert (1996)
clearly delineates the differences between incentives and
motivation. Incentives are part of the work environ-
ment used as rewards for work performed. These can
include, but are not limited to, financial compensation,
recognition, and career growth opportunities (Gilbert,
1996). Chevalier (2003) expands the incentive category,
such that the job takes on a broader meaning than just
performing tasks to produce outputs, thus taking a more
holistic approach to the work environment with the intent
of enabling the employee to succeed and grow.
Gilbert (1996) addresses motivation by looking at what
the person brings to the work environment. This attempts
to answer the question of why the employee wants to per-
form the work. The other aspect is that it assesses the fit
of the employee to the work environment. The intent is to
match the person with the work environment. Chevalier
(2003) revised the motivation factor, noting that employ-
ees are selected based on their abilities to perform in a
specified work situation. Houger (2011) further expands
the thinking on motivation to include attitude. The logic
leads one to consider employee engagement. Therefore,
when an employee is aligned correctly with the work
environment, has a positive attitude, is on task, and takes
the initiative to look for and act on opportunities for
improvement for the organization’s success, the employee
is engaged (Wellins & Concelman, 2005).
Let us look at motivation from a nonprofit organiza-
tional perspective. As mentioned earlier, the work of a
nonprofit organization would not be complete without
the efforts of its volunteer workforce. So what motivates
a volunteer to spend energy where monetary compen-
sation is not the incentive? Fundamentally, individuals
congregate as a means for meeting their social needs
(Krout, 1989; Putnam, 2000). Unifying their energies
to provide a product or service suggests that these indi-
viduals are motivated by the common desires to relate to,
and with, others (Bass, 1990; Selznick, 1948). Yet just the
very act of doing brings about a sense of belonging and
satisfaction.
ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS
An organization, by definition, is a grouping of indi-
viduals who in cooperation establish themselves for the
purpose of achieving prescribed goals and objectives
(Barnard, 1938; Blau & Scott, 1962). Bringing about
fruition to a specific goal or objective can be seen as
translating the concept into reality through the means
of controlled actions and behaviors via a stated process
(Beniger, 1986). The term program is defined as organiz-
ing the necessary steps and activities to achieve the stated
goals or objectives (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008).
The difference between the organization and the program
is that the organization is about bringing people together
for a purpose, whereas a program is a means for fulfill-
ing that purpose. This holds true for both for-profit and
nonprofit organizations.
A nonprofit organization can exist for one specific
purpose, or it can have several different programs or
purposes. Whether there is one program or many and
how they are organized and managed affects the degree
to which goals are effectively met. A program design
Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 7 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 11

Volunteer motivation can be
as simple as just the act of
volunteering to bring about
a sense of belonging and
satisfaction.
is one means for evaluating a program’s performance
at the larger level as well as at the individual level. A
program design methodology is useful to learn about
a program’s strengths and weaknesses and to identify
performance gaps or areas of improvement (Kettner
et al., 2008).
A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Considering a program’s strengths and weaknesses
requires a means for assessing its performance. Some of
those areas can include customer satisfaction, internal
work performance processes, employee satisfaction, and
more (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). A holistic approach is a
means of taking a set of variables and then learning how
they interrelate. This is accomplished through employing
an iterative process of inquiry (Gharajedaghi, 2006). The
assertion regarding iterative inquiry is where one per-
ceives realities to know what has to be learned (Houger,
2011; Singer, 1959). The use of a holistic approach
(Bertalanffy, 1972) enables a practitioner, researcher,
or leader to more accurately diagnose the health of a
program. Figure 1 is a model representing a holistic
FIGURE 1. PROGRAM DESIGN AND A HOLISTIC APPROACH
12 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • AUGUST 2015
approach. Using a model like this, one can better expose
mismatches, determine root causes, and begin to design
plausible interventions (Ackoff, 1996; Gharajedaghi,
2006).
PROGRAM DESIGN: WHAT IS IT?
The program design methodology employs a logical
six-step model that is based on the client/patient pro-
cess. Definitively, this is referred to as a practical clinical
theory. A research study that is clinical in nature is about
gathering relevant evidence that one can use for seek-
ing insights and meaning for a given problem statement
(Kettner et al., 2008).
A program design serves to fulfill a designated pur-
pose pertaining to a specific product or service. It is a
systematic framework the researcher can use to identify
what resources are required to meet the clients’ needs.
Subsequently, it provides the means for transferring those
resources into finished products or services (Kettner
et al., 2008).
The six steps of clinical theory are listed in Table 1.
Additionally, similarities exist among program design,
clinical theory, and the human performance improve-
ment (HPI) process (International Society for Performance
Improvement [ISPI], 2014).
A note is in order. The intent is not to compare the
HPI process to program design. Both approaches enable
the performance improvement practitioner to employ
a scientific process (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). They
also aid in understanding the problem or situation
from a gap and improvement analysis and to collect
evidence and analyze the data to identify relationships
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF HPI AND PROGRAM DESIGN STEPS
HPI STEPS PROGRAM DESIGN STEPS CLINICAL THEORY ACTIVITIES

1. Organizational analysis
2. Gap analysis: desired performance vs.
actual performance
3. Cause analysis: environmental and indi-
vidual factors
4. Interventions and business case
1. Analysis and description of need
2. Statement of goals and objectives
3. Identification of program alternatives
4. Development of an evaluation design
5. Identification of strategies for
program improvement
1. Collect data and transform to information
2. Assess the problem based on data
3. Develop a treatment plan
4. Plan implementation
5. Monitor progress
6. Evaluate program

Evaluation:
• Formative
• Summative
• Confirmative
• Meta evaluation and validation

between variables (Gephart, 1999). In addition, both
lead to identifying interventions and making program
improvement recommendations (Kettner et al., 2008).
A differing characteristic of the program design process
from the HPI process is the assessment of the entire
program followed by a program redesign (Kettner et al.,
2008). The following further delineates the steps of a pro-
gram design approach:
• Analysis and description of need:
• Current state of program: What needs are being
met? What needs are not being met?
• Analyses of each program component.
• Analyses of the relationships between each com-
ponent.
• Discovery of strengths, weaknesses, and barriers for
each component.
• Statement of goals and objectives:
• Identify the underlying assumptions.
• Delineate the expected effects of the present pro-
gram that can be related to the expected outcomes
of the new program.
• Identification of program alternatives:
• Delineate possible alternatives.
• Design a new program from a holistic perspective.
• Develop an evaluation design that addresses what
changes will produce outcomes that meet stated needs
and identify strategies for program improvement:
• Identify the process for the new program design
implementation.
• Identify required resources and points of need.
• Consider financial implications.
• Consider political feasibility.
• Construct a monitoring and evaluation plan.
• Construct an implementation strategy.
Program assessment is framed as follows. The pro-
gram design methodology, the clinical theory, and HPI
methodology share similarities in evaluation. The second
step in the clinical theory points to assessing a problem
based on assessment data. Likewise, in both the program
design approach and HPI, the evaluation process includes
identification of program strengths, weaknesses, and bar-
riers to implementing proposed solutions or a formative
evaluation. Subsequent, summative evaluation is about
determining whether the implemented solutions were
successful (Marrelli, 2008).
As mentioned earlier, a program design methodology
is useful to learn about a program from a holistic perspec-
tive, including its strengths, weaknesses, performance
gaps, and areas of improvement. Stakeholders will find a
program assessment of value if the results reveal not only
what program areas are well aligned with the stated func-
tions and purpose and what areas are not, but if it also
helps in identifying the plausible interventions necessary
to optimize efficiencies (Houger, 2011).
A HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR ASSESSING
A PROGRAM’S CURRENT SITUATION
So how does one go about assessing a program to deter-
mine how well it is performing? Many models, approaches,
and processes exist. This author took the approach of
combining several methodologies while being mindful of
the five-step program design process. Figure 2 illustrates a
combination of thought from Ackoff (1996), Gharajedaghi
(2006), Houger (2011), and Kettner et al. (2008).
One must conduct a needs analysis to understand how a
specific program is performing and to identify mismatches

Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 7 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 13

 FIGURE 2. A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE
between desired performance and actual performance
(Kettner et al., 2008). The idea is to learn about the
program, its purpose, what functions it performs, what
processes it uses, how it is structured, and how it manages
information. On a larger scale, the program can be one
of many within an organization. It interacts with other
programs and leaders. Often, programs share resources
and individuals across other programs. Both the program
and the organization in which it resides operate within an
external environment. From a systemic perspective each
program, its staff, and its clients are associated with the
organization as well as the community at large. The rela-
tionships between individuals, programs, the organization,
and the community are organic. A symbiotic nature exists
between all entities. This is graphically depicted in Figure 2.
Let us turn our attention to a research project con-
ducted in this area that this author carried out (Houger,
2011). In this project the focus was on a nonprofit senior
activity center. The project began with analyzing context
including the purpose of the organization and its func-
tions and output. In this example, the program facilitates
the interchange of resources received and distributed for
senior citizens. A primary output is quality services for
seniors. Those services comprise social interaction, group
activities, transportation, meals, exercise, and conversa-
tions as well as volunteer opportunities (Houger, 2011).
Let us focus on one of the functions, providing meals via
a community dining program, as an example to illustrate
14 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • AUGUST 2015
how program design works. To provide meals a certain
structure is necessary, consisting of kitchen facilities, raw
food sources, volunteers (including their availability),
knowledge management, and leadership. If we look at just
the volunteer component, we note that there are four dis-
tinct subsystems that impact the effectiveness and quality
of the volunteer experience (see Figure 3). The subsystems
are decision, information, diagnostic, and learning. The
information subsystem is a mechanism to determine how
many volunteers are required. If the current program is
organized using a few volunteers, and the needs analysis
shows there are many others who would like to volunteer,
then a plan is needed to adjust the program. The sub-
systems are used to elicit feedback from volunteers, who
typically are program participants. The diagnostic sub-
system is activated to uncover the causes for there being
too few volunteer positions. Then the leader looking at
the overall meal program is able to identify opportunities
and mismatches for improvement. The decision subsystem
involves comparing and contrasting alternatives so that the
program leader can determine the one best intervention
alternative that satisfies patron meal expectations and vol-
unteer opportunities (Gharajedaghi, 2006; Houger, 2011).
If we look at volunteer motivation using the subsys-
tems, starting with the information subsystem, much can
be learned. In the project it was posited that motivation
was a contributing factor for volunteer attitude. Earlier
we learned that the information subsystem indicated how
 FIGURE 3. COMMUNITY DINING PROGRAM DESIGN
many volunteers are required for the program. Additionally,
data gathered for the information subsystem revealed
whether the volunteers had characteristics indicating
a sense of altruism, values, beliefs, work ethic, health,
energy, and the chemistry of social interaction with others,
to name a few. The diagnostic subsystem was activated to
learn what kind of environment would cause a volunteer
to underperform or lack enthusiasm for a particular task.
Subsequently, the decision subsystem enables a leader
to compare the existing environment to an alternative
one better suited to enhance volunteer motivation. Then
the leader can think about what to implement in the
new program so that volunteer motivation is maximized
(Gharajedaghi, 2006; Houger, 2011).
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY PERTAINING
TO THE COMMUNITY DINING
PROGRAM
The research conducted for the senior center community
dining program portion of the project was quite extensive
and involved. The intent was to compare the research
findings to the results of the needs analysis to either
confirm or disconfirm the needs analysis. Each of the
program components was analyzed in detail. Only a few
of the findings are presented here focusing on volunteer
motivation. A priority was the need for the program leader
to take the initiative in assessing the current program and
determine a vision for a better program. A major driver
was discovering that the patrons of the community dining
program were not all that excited about the regular noon
meals. Another finding pertained to the ever-increasing
pressure to reduce costs. The major cost variables were
transportation and the full-time paid cook along with
the costs associated with purchasing the food. The cost of
food was the only variable that could be readily reduced,
resulting in smaller portions and compromises on the
variety and taste of prepared meals (Houger, 2011). A
final outcome was determining that meals could be made
fresh from raw materials and sometimes at much lower
costs. However, preparing meals from scratch required
expanding labor and thus more volunteer support, given
that the cook alone was not able to perform all of the job
functions and to produce the meals from scratch in a
timely manner (Houger, 2011).
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION
It is important to note that using a program design in
conjunction with a holistic needs analysis model results
in a fairly comprehensive and detailed report. For this
project, the report included relevant program perfor-
mance metrics. These metrics, along with the associated
artifacts, were used to evaluate program performance.
The level of complexity is dependent on the program
Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 7 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 15
under examination, and in this project the focus was on
volunteer involvement in a nonprofit organization, spe-
cifically the meal program (Houger, 2011).
When it comes to volunteer motivation within a specific
program, the needs analysis findings can be quite reveal-
ing. Volunteer staff operating at senior centers tend to be
retired, elderly, and can have a variety of limitations. Each
volunteer is unique, in terms of personality, energy, capabil-
ity, talents, desires, and time commitments (Houger, 2011).
The typical metric to measure volunteer performance
is volunteer satisfaction. Volunteer satisfaction generally
comes down to the feeling that the effort that the volun-
teer expends in the action of volunteering is worthwhile
to others. In concert with the act of performing a task is
the additional aspect of enjoying the activity (Houger,
2011). So what is the leadership’s role in ensuring an
engaged and motivated volunteer staff?
LEADERSHIP AND PARTICIPANT
MOTIVATION
Program change begins with one taking a leadership role
and visualizing a better program (Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996). The leader recognizes the need to solicit the aid of
others to carry out the required tasks. Subsequent to one
taking the initiative to bring about change, a leader then
needs to recognize the state of the program in terms of the
motivations of those who are being led and productivity
(Bass, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Drucker, 2008). A leader
is one that is capable of drawing in followers to the point
of connecting the organization vision with their needs
and values (House, 2005). The use of a program design
methodology affords a leader the mechanism to evaluate
follower motivation and outputs. Levinson makes the fol-
lowing observation regarding employee motivation as it
relates to an organization:
The organizational task becomes one of first
understanding the employee’s needs, and then, with
him or her, assessing how well they can be met in this
organization, doing what the organization needs to
have done. Thus, the highest point of self-motivation
arises when there is a complementary conjunction
of the individual’s needs and the organization’s
requirements. The requirements of both mesh,
interrelate, and become synergistic. The energies of
employee and organization are pooled for mutual
advantage. (Levinson, 2003, p. 86)
Leaders of a nonprofit organization consisting mainly
of volunteers should be attentive to several key ideas.
Leaders should take the time to connect with each volun-
teer and show genuine appreciation for his or her time and
16 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • AUGUST 2015
energy to the cause. Managing relationships is exponen-
tially paid back through follow-up engagement activities.
Additionally, volunteers can be easily overworked. It is
imperative that leaders and volunteers decide on what can
be committed to in terms of activity, effort, and time. Given
that each person is unique, there are cases when volunteers
work well together and there are other situations that are
more challenging. The sooner the leader figures this out
and makes adjustments, the better for the entire volunteer
staff. This helps reduce tension and increases productivity.
CONCLUSION
A leader who takes the initiative to improve a program
is able to learn how to maximize participant participa-
tion. This is accomplished through integrating a holistic
problem-solving approach with program design steps
when analyzing a specific program. Many benefits can be
realized in conducting a program design needs analysis
followed up with an in-depth cause analysis. Greater
efficiencies can be leveraged, in terms of processes, func-
tions, structure, knowledge management, and decision
making. All of this effort involves people. In a nonprofit
organization it is critical for a leader to pay special atten-
tion to the volunteers who make the program a success.
Volunteer motivation is something to be nurtured.
One result of the program design analysis described in
this article is the need for individuals in nonprofit settings
to be valued for what they contribute. Most volunteers do
not overtly express a desire to volunteer. The leader of a
volunteer-oriented program, who is astute regarding a
program’s needs, can take the initiative to ask individuals
if they would be willing to contribute. Frequently, that is
all it takes to get someone involved.
Volunteering is an emotional experience. Volunteers
are motivated by the experience of being involved and
altruism, including service to meet the needs of others. It
involves a strong work ethic and a sense of the right thing
to do as well as being able to visualize positive outcomes.
A leader needs to understand the sensitive nature of vol-
unteers. This requires leadership skills such as:
• Careful management of relationships.
• Managing the energy of volunteers.
• Noting and planning for the fact that volunteers can
leave at any time.
• Effective communications.
In a more general context, Argyris (1994) associates
improved employee performance to better communica-
tion. One of the major transformational goals of leaders
is to encourage and reward people to reflect on their
performance, behaviors, and attitudes while at work. The
communication process within organizations depends
on using the aforementioned information subsystem to
identify audiences of staff and patrons and to delineate
their needs. These guidelines are of particular importance
in organizations that rely on volunteers.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R.L. (1996). On learning and the systems that facilitate
it. Reflections, 1(1), 14–24.
Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning.
Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77–85.
Barbuto, J.E., Jr. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic,
and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26–40.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgdill’s handbook of leadership:
Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organi-
zational effectiveness through transformational leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beniger, J. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and
economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Blau, P., & Scott, W. (1962). Formal organizations: A compara-
tive approach. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Chevalier, R. (2003). Updating the behavior engineering
model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 8–14.
Cooper, D.R., & Schindler,  P.S. (2006). Business research meth-
ods (9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Drucker, P. (2008). Classic Drucker. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Gephart, R. (Ed.). (1999). Paradigms and research methods.
Academy of Management, Research Methods Division. Retrieved
from http://division.aomonline.org/rm/1999_RMD_Forum_
Paradigms_and_Research_Methods.htm
Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and
complexity: A platform for designing business architecture (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence engineering worthy
performance. Washington, DC: International Society for
Performance Improvement.
Houger, V.P. (2011). Generational differences and the impact
to employee engagement: A program design. Ann Arbor, MI:
ProQuest LLC. (UMI No.3443843)
House, E.R. (2005). Qualitative evaluation and changing social
policy. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 1069–1081). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
International Society for Performance Improvement. (2014).
What is HPT? Retrieved from http://www.ispi.org/content
.aspx?id=54
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (2001). The strategy-focused orga-
nization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new
business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Kettner, P.M., Moroney, R.M., & Martin,  L.L. (2008).
Designing and managing programs: An effectiveness-based
approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect
effects of three core charismatic leadership components on
performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(1), 36–51.
Krout, J.A. (1989). Senior centers in America. New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.
Latham, G. (2012). Work motivation: History, theory, research,
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levinson, H. (2003). Management by whose objectives. In
Harvard business review on motivating people (pp. 73–102).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Marrelli, A.F. (2008). Collecting data through focus groups.
Performance Improvement, 47(4), 39–45.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rummler, G.A., & Brache, A.P. (1995). Improving performance:
How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization.
American Sociological Review, 13(1), 25–35.
Singer, E.A. (1959). Experience and reflection. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general sys-
tems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.
Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a culture for
engagement. Workforce Performance Solutions. Retrieved from
www.wpsmag.com.
Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 7 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 17
 VAUGHAN P. HOUGER, CPT, Ph.D., is a practicing Performance Consultant at The Boeing Company.
He works in the Learning, Training, and Development (LTD) organization as a strategic business partner.
In this role he works with Boeing Supplier Management organizations in learning about their specific
business goals and objectives; to identify performance opportunities followed by subsequent relevant
interventions. He is a member of the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI). In April
2015, Vaughan and colleague Martin Zink, CPT, presented at The Performance Improvement Conference
on “How to achieve mutual project success.” He can be reached at vaughan.p.houger@boeing.com or
vphouger@gmail.com.

18 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • AUGUST 2015