URLEND Leadership / Research Project Guide 2014-2015
Revised 08/27/2014
The goal of the URLEND Leadership / Research Project is to identify projects that are consistent
with the mission and purpose of MCH & URLEND – to foster excellence in service provision for
children and youth with special health care needs and their families, based on respect for the
family, cultural sensitivity, and active cooperation among service providers and family members.
The following link is provided as a reminder of the MCH and URLEND competencies. Please
review this resource in preparation for participation in your project.
http://urlend.org/documents/mch_leadership_comp_3-0.pdf
In order to best meet the MCH & URLEND competencies, URLEND requires each trainee to
participate in a team leadership project. In addition, trainees may wish to work as a “consultant”
on other projects if asked, not making a full commitment to the entire project, but providing
supportive guidance in his/her area of expertise. In order to achieve these competencies, the
URLEND management team has developed the following goals in order to develop leadership
skills required by leaders of today and leaders for tomorrow.
Leadership Projects Goals:
1. The project will result in a deliverable with impact
 Type I: a product that is publishable
 Type II: a product that could be in the public domain and have an impact in systems,
families (faculty note: the type of product that is reportable in NIRS)
2. The project will result in a meaningful interdisciplinary team experience
 Learning from the team process
 Learn skills in the team process
 To facilitate a productive interdisciplinary team experience, groups will be organized
according to the following:
 Clustering trainees with similar long term professional goals
 Diversity of trainee disciplines within projects
 Diversity of geographical locations
 Cluster AE-only trainees together
3. The project will be used to complement/enhance the trainees leadership experience that occurs
concurrently in the didactic portion of the curriculum.
Beginning on page 13 of this document, you will find the following supportive documents:
 Timelines for development and submission of the paper and presentation (pg. 13)
 Guidelines for writing an APA Style Paper and for your leadership paper (pg. 13-14)
 Template for the Initial URLEND Leadership/Research Project Description (pg. 15)
 Guidelines for the Leadership Project Presentation (pg. 17)
 A document entitled, Creating Working Norms and Agreements, a required reading
(pg. 18)
 Team Charter Template – a resource for teams who wish to formalize their working
relationships (pg. 21)
1
All projects are intended to be evidenced based and may focus on one or more of the influence
areas described by MCH (Self, Others and Community). Each team of trainees will produce a
product at the completion of their project (see descriptors above). Each team must identify a
methodology in which they will disseminate their information as well. This may include
submitting to AUCD or other professional associations for presentation at conferences, preparing
an article to a journal for publication, development of a website with linkages identified so that
information may be widely accessible.
All projects will follow the same procedures outlined here. Each project team will present a
draft of their project (see outline below starting on page 14) by the end of the first semester and
the results of the project at the end of the second semester. By the end of the academic year,
trainees must complete and turn in a professional write-up of their project(s) in APA style (see
guidelines below). Projects that will result in a product other than a journal ready paper will still
follow the procedures and outlines below as much as possible and submit their final product at
the end of the academic year. Each project mentor will guide their team more specifically.
Examples of previous projects and presentations can be found at www.urlend.org (lower right
hand side). Please refer to the presentations under the link Previous Trainee Presentations to see
the format that is required. Any projects that are in print or accepted for publication will be
posted following publication.
As you work together in teams to develop your project, consider these questions:




Does your project involve children / young adults with special health care needs
and/or their families?
Will you need IRB approval?
Does your project consider cross-cultural differences and foster inclusion?
Are you considering an interdisciplinary approach to service delivery, or taking a
larger systems view rather than that of a single discipline?
2
Protecting Human Subjects: When to Get Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
Please read through the document “Is Your Project Human Subjects Research,”
(http://www.umt.edu/research/compliance/IRB/Docs/Is%20it%20Human%20Subjects%20Resea
rch.pdf) created by the University of Montana, to help you determine whether or not IRB
approval will be necessary for your leadership project (a copy of this document has also been
placed on the Canvas website).
It is important to start the IRB process as early as possible, in order to ensure your group will get
approval for your research and still have enough time to complete your project. If you have
questions or concerns about your project, please contact your University’s IRB. You will
need faculty approval in order to submit to the IRB, in order to keep things moving
smoothly, your faculty mentor will submit the IRB application.
IRB Information
University of Utah, (801) 581-3655
Utah State University, (435) 797-1821, irb@usu.edu
University of Idaho, Contact Gwen Mitchell (gwenm@uidaho.edu) prior to any submissions
University of Montana, (406) 243-6672
University of North Dakota, (701) 777-4279
University of Wyoming, (307) 766-5322
3
URLEND Program Leadership Projects 2014-2015
1. Montana Systems Change
URLEND faculty mentor - Kyle Colling, PLUK liaisons, Roger Holt and Mary Hall
Teresa Molina
Ann Douglas
Howard Fulk
Laura Ambrose
Social Work (Judith)
Clinical Psychology (Kyle)
Sp. Education (Gwen)
School Psych (Kyle)
SLC
Missoula
Boise
Missoula
Initial Concept
In conceptualizing a process that would be of most benefit, we came to the following
conclusions: 1.) Doing this research across states would be too large a task; and without some
careful controls, the findings would be confounded by systems variability and lacking the kind of
specificity that creates buy-in and best lends itself to systems change. 2.) Targeting Montana as
the focus of this project could result in two important outcomes: data and a process to support
systems change in Montana; and a model for data collection and outcomes application that could
be used as a framework for other states. 3.) In order to gather extensive and sufficient data, and
to bring this data forward as a catalyst for systems change, 3 years would be required. I assume
IRB application would be required (ours?) and the students would be responsible for drafting the
application.
Rough Design
Target population: Young adults who have ASD and do not quality for DD services, and
parents of the same target group. The purposive sampling process used in years one and
two would be led by PLUK. PLUK would have a partnership role throughout the entire
three-year process and would contribute materials, supplies, transcript preparation and
other supports as possible (within their role and scope and fiscal limitations).
Year One
Year one would generate qualitative data to be used to bring depth of understanding of the
challenges of transition. Four focus groups would be conducted: Two groups that would include
parents (group size approximately 10 each), and two groups of young adults with ASD (group
size approximately 5 each). LEND students would lead the focus groups, and they would be
assisted by a second moderator for each group. The parent group second moderator is TBD.
The second moderator for the student group would be Mary, but again the LEND student would
be primarily responsible. Students would develop the questioning route with review, feedback
and approval by the group leader, as well as Roger and Mary, and possibly others. Sites for the
focus groups are TBD. Groups would be tape-recorded and verbatim transcriptions prepared
with assistance by PLUK staff. Additionally, it may be desirable to conduct a number of
telephone interviews to gain information from people living in rural areas (rural vs. ‘urban’
experience) to augment the focus group data. Analytic procedures would be determined by the
group leader and the leadership students. Standard research protocols and subject safeguards
would be used. Product: This qualitative work would: 1.) Generate a stand-alone paper suitable
for wide distribution that summarizes this research, and 2.) Inform the development of the survey
to follow in year two, and 3.) Possibly publication
4
2. Genetic Testing in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (AE only trainees)
URLEND faculty mentors - Paul Carbone, Lead Faculty Mentor
Other faculty mentors - Terisa Gabrielsen, Deb Bilder
Kristina Cottle
Shelly Woeste
Psychology (Terisa)
Physical Therapy (Terisa )
SLC
SLC
Trainees need to be able
to at Dr. Carbone’s
clinic for record review.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Medical Genetics
recommends genetic testing (chromosomal microarray as a first tier test) for children with autism
spectrum disorder (ASD). There are several studies suggesting that genetic services (genetic
counseling and testing) are underutilized by families of children with ASD. The reasons for this
are not clear but may involve lack of awareness of this recommendation by primary care
providers, lack of insurance coverage for testing, lack of interest in this testing by parents, or
lack of access to genetic services. The object of this study is to examine the prevalence of
genetic services among children with ASD within the University of Utah Neurobehavior HOME
Program (HOME). Compared with previous studies, we hypothesize that an interdisciplinary
clinic that emphasizes family centered care will have a relatively high proportion of children
with ASD that have used genetic services and had appropriate testing among children with ASD.
As a secondary outcome we will also examine the results of genetic testing in children with
ASD, and if this testing changed treatment plans. Several patient and family variables (sex, age,
race/ethnicity, intellectual disability, insurance coverage, years enrolled in the program) will be
included in the analysis to assess for significant associations with the primary outcome variables.
Because this study is part of a greater group of studies that examine the associations of children
with ASD to a variety of outcomes, there is an existing IRB exemption from the University of
Utah to perform this retrospective chart review. Thus, no time will be needed to wait for IRB
approval.
Under the direction of the primary investigators, Drs. Carbone, Bilder and Gabrielson, trainees
will perform a preliminary literature search on the topic, conduct a retrospective chart review,
create a database, assist in data analysis and report results. We anticipate this work being
disseminated as a poster, journal publication or both.
5
3. Spanish / English radio novella
Faculty Mentor - Eduardo Ortiz
Dallin Dance
Elizabeth Lopes
Jessica Stevens
Jillian Fox
Dentistry (Duane/Jim)
Education (Barb)
Nursing (JoLynn)
Nutrition (Heidi W.)
SLC
SLC
Minot
Logan
Culture plays a large role in parents’ expectations regarding developmental milestones.
Racial and ethnic diversity is growing dramatically in the United States especially at younger
ages. For example, more than half of our nation's population younger than age 1 were minorities
in 2011 (US census https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb1290.html). Also, at present, there is a significant health and disability disparity gap among racial
and ethnic groups. The need for accessible health care information, nuanced for children with
special health care needs, and those with decreased access due to rural locations, poverty,
language barriers, immigration status, lack of insurance, and low levels of education represent a
challenge to develop effective ways to communicate meaningful information to minority
audiences considering best practices, family centered, and cultural competent/sensitive
approaches. Following the work developed by the Wisconsin Family Support 360 (WFS 360)
project who created a radio novella in both Spanish and English about important issues related to
a minority family having a child with disabilities
(http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/familysupport360/pdfs/novela.pdf), we would like to expand this
idea developing another radio novella but it will focus on our own regional/local issues and
priorities related to the disabilities field. This project will develop several episodes identifying
the values, best practices, challenges, cultural context, and take away message for each episode
emphasizing one critical issue at a time. We will create an interdisciplinary and intercultural
committee to guide the proposed work. A former URLEND trainee has a local radio program
that might help facilitating its product dissemination. The overarching goal of this project will be
to increase the families and communities’ understanding of their local health care system and to
facilitate the dissemination of disability information to diverse families. URLEND program can
play a pivotal role into this process.
Anticipated deliverable project – radio program that could be shared across our partner states
6
4. CMV video production – Part 2 (IPA project)
URLEND faculty mentor - Stephanie McVicar
Kristy Rogers
Taylor Stevenson
Ana Caballero Cardova
Janine Wood
Dentistry (Duane/Jim)
Audiology (Stephanie)
Audiology (Stephanie)
Physical Therapy (Heidi L.)
SLC
SLC
Logan
SLC
PSA for all partner states based on last year’s project. Utah is the first state in the nation to
mandate a CMV Public Health Initiative. These extra funds would allow this next year's IPA
Leadership Project to piggy-back on the excellent IPA project created by last/this? year's trainees
(CMV Public Awareness Video). Amazing footage was captured in their interviews with Utah
families affected by CMV. Only a small portion was utilized in this year's production. Extra
funding would help take this project to the next level, e.g. creating a much longer video as a
documentary containing increased educational content.
Anticipated deliverable project – video / PSA
Since this is a continuing project, please review the following information in preparation for this
project:
YouTube Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsqOb8wDY9c
Link to last years project
7
5. Self learning module, differentiating ASD from Hearing Loss (AE and IPA project)
URLEND faculty mentor - Vicki Simonsmeier
Lisa Rose
Lydia Rosado Rogers
Sumathi Rachamadugu
Nora Erickson
Audiology (Stephanie)
Audiology (Stephanie)
Genetics (Janice)
Clinical Psychology (Gwen)
Logan
SLC
SLC
Moscow
As evidenced at the National EHDI 2014, co-morbidity of hearing loss and ASD is an
increasingly known occurrence; however, not many clinicians may be prepared for the
evaluation and rehabilitation needs of this special population. Extra funds could allow our IPA
trainees to develop a learning module dedicated to these children; how to recognize this comorbidity; how to diagnose it; how to rule it out; accommodations that may be needed in the
testing or rehabilitation environments. Creating a module such as this would be the first of its
kind and allow current and future trainees to benefit from it on a local and national level.
Anticipated deliverable project is the online learning module that can be shared with other LEND
programs.
8
6. Evidenced based apps for children with ASD – (AE only trainees)
URLEND faculty mentor - Tom Higbee
Jill Karsky
Stella Patino
Emily Lund
Special Education (Gwen)
Early Childhood (Vicki)
Special Education (Vicki)
Moscow
SLC
Logan
An evaluation of iPad/tablet apps for kids with autism. The group could review and compile
published reviews of apps and/or evaluate apps personally. They could then generate a document
that rates apps and talks about characteristics of good apps for kids with ASD and
recommendations for using technology for kids with ASD.
Anticipated deliverable project – Guideline paper or publication in a parent or practitioner
journal or online.
9
7. Needs Assessment, CHSCN Itinerant Clinics
URLEND faculty mentor - Sarah Winter
CSHCN liaison – Allison Ellzey
Laila Andoni
Jason Fox
Nicole Graham
Mackenzie Boon
Genetics (Janice)
Business/Health Admin (Terry)
Nursing/Public Health (Blake)
School Psychology (Terisa)
SLC
SLC
Provo
SLC
This project targets Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) living outside of the Salt
Lake City metropolitan area. These children have significant geographic barriers to general and
subspecialty pediatric care. Ten counties in Utah that occupy over half of Utah’s land mass have
no pediatricians, and little pediatric subspecialty care is available outside Salt Lake and Utah
counties, which are a 5-6 hour drive from many rural areas. Many of these areas also lack local
access to other pediatric professionals, such as audiologists, psychologists, physical and
occupational therapists and speech-language pathologists.
To address these limitations in access to care, The Utah Department of Health has been operating
traveling clinics in which pediatricians, subspecialists, psychologists, and therapists provide
appointments to Utah CSHCN residing outside the Salt Lake metropolitan area (Vernal, Ogden,
Price, Moab, Richfield, St. George, Blanding). These clinics are held a few days per year in each
site. In 2010-2011 and 2012-4, URLEND leadership project groups (under the faculty
mentorship of Richard Harward and Stephanie McVicar) evaluated the impact of these clinics
via caregiver questionnaires. These studies showed an overall high level of caregiver satisfaction
with the clinics, and many families identified clinic staff as primary care providers. As these
clinics are held only a few times per year, it is important to understand how to better meet the
needs of Utah CSHCN in their communities. This project would build upon the work of prior
URLEND leadership groups by assessing the strengths and challenges of local providers in
providing family-centered care for CSHCN in their communities. The leadership group would
identify providers to query (primary care providers, health departments and early intervention
providers are some suggestions), develop and disseminate an assessment tool, and collect and
analyze resulting data.
The data collected by this project will be used to improve clinical services in these clinics, with
the ultimate goal of better serving Utah CSHCN and their families.
Anticipated deliverable project – strategic project, agency report
Since this project is related to past projects, please review the following information in
preparation for this project:
http://urlend.org/Leadership_Papers.php, 2012-2013 and 2010-2011
10
8.
Pilot of Up to Three Parent Satisfaction survey’s – Year 2
URLEND faculty Mentor - Heidi Weingreen
Dianne Bossert
Jeannette Johnson
Anthony Warn
Trisha Chase
Social Work (JoLynn)
MPH (Blake)
Education (Gwen)
Clinical Psychology (Gretchen)
Minot
Provo
Boise
Logan
Up-to-3 early intervention is an IDEA Part C service program. The mission of the program is to
promote the development of young children living in northern Utah who have a disability or
developmental delay. The services provided address the needs of both children and families and
offer a broad spectrum of assistance. The program will use parent feedback, provided by
electronic survey, to inform the program administrators and staff about the quality and
effectiveness of the services being provided. Surveys are administered at multiple stages of the
service and were developed by a URLEND leadership project team in 2013-2014, however the
surveys have not been piloted among Up-to-3 participants and are not yet being used routinely in
the program. The team assigned to this project will work with the Up-to-3 program staff (Curt
Phillips, PT, PhD, Up-to-3; curt.phillips@usu.edu, 435-797-7681) to refine the surveys within
the Qualtrics platform, pilot the surveys among a sub-set of current Up-to-3 participant families,
and hopefully help the Up-to-3 program integrate the use of these surveys within the structure of
their existing program. The team will be collecting both qualitative and quantitative data to
evaluate the surveys themselves, then later, using data collected from the surveys to help inform
administrators and staff of Up-to-3 about their program. Once the survey has been evaluated, it
will be shared with the other Utah Baby Watch programs, and other Part C programs in the
URLEND region.
Since this is a continuing project, please contact Faculty Mentor, Heidi Weingreen for a copy of
last years project presentation and for the paper from last year and read this information before
you begin your discussions for this year’s project.
Anticipated deliverable project – publication with quantitative data
11
9. Training and Support for Early Identification of Autism in Early Intervention Systems
(AE project)
URLEND faculty mentors: - Terisa Gabrielsen,
Ashley Stevens
Rebecca West
Dallin Burgon
Athena Carolan
School Psychology (Terisa)
SLP (Vicki)
Business/Health Admin (Terry)
Public Health (Natalie)
SLC
Logan
SLC
SLC
The task of identifying children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) within the Early
Intervention systems of these 5 URLEND states is complicated by challenges associated with
vast rural areas within each state, limited funding, interagency cooperation, and the very young
age of the population served. As a result, in Utah and other states, less than half of children with
autism spectrum disorders are identified in EI records before the age of 36 months. It may be
possible, however, with improved training resources, to increase the percentage of children
identified during the window for optimum treatment.
This project proposes to use the results of a needs assessment conducted in Fall, 2014, to address
areas of critical need for training and support in the Utah Baby Watch network. These results
will then guide development of a one-day training curriculum and follow-up consultation
structure to support ongoing training. The curriculum can then be piloted in any of the 5
URLEND states to determine its effectiveness (short term) in terms of gains in knowledge and
changes in practice and use of the follow-up consultation network (following a Telehealth
consultation model—could be a separate project). Long-term effects of training are proposed as
part of a subsequent project.
URLEND/AE trainees will conduct literature reviews of current evidence-based practice in early
identification and effective training methods. They will prepare instructional items (readings,
handouts, and selected videos) for use during the one-day training. They will also be involved in
piloting the daylong workshop within a local EI agency and collecting feedback on the
curriculum elements and presentation methods. Trainees in subsequent projects can participate
in follow-up consultation and future training opportunities.
Approval through State Health Department IRBs and the respective universities involved in the
project may be required to collect data regarding short term effects, as we intend to publish our
results in either poster or journal article formats. Some funding for travel for the training project
may be available through the Autism Council of Utah.
12
REQUIREMENTS FOR URLEND LEADERSHIP PAPER
Timelines: Trainees: most of these deadlines are one that you need to meet. Please pester your
faculty mentor (just as he/she pesters you) to make sure he/she does the item assigned to him/her.
You want credit for getting your Leadership Plan done on time…and you want feedback - stand
up for yourself!
 Prior to September 5th – Contact your group members for initial project planning.
 September 25th and 26th - meet with Faculty Mentor and team members in SLC
 October 3rd – submit draft of URLEND Leadership / Research Project Description (see pg.
15) to Faculty Mentor and individual Core Faculty Members for approval
 October 10th – submit approved URLEND Leadership / Research Project Description to
Vicki Simonsmeier (vicki.simonsmeier@usu.edu). Approved means that your Faculty
Mentor has approved your proposal.
 November 14th – submit draft of project (see pg. 14) to Faculty Mentor for
input/revision/approval. Submit a draft to individual Core Faculty Members for review.
 December 5th – submit approved draft of project to Vicki Simonsmeier
(vicki.simonsmeier@usu.edu)
 February 27th – submit update of project to Faculty mentor and individual Core Faculty
Members for input
 March 20th – submit draft of final project paper to Faculty Mentor input / revision /
approval. Submit a draft to individual Core Faculty Members for review.
 April 3rd – submit PowerPoint presentation to LaDawn Nielsen
(ladawn.neilson@usu.edu), your faculty mentor(s), and Vicki Simonsmeier
(vicki.simonsmeier@usu.edu)
 April 10th and 17th – URLEND Presentations
 May 1st – submit final project paper to Faculty Mentor, individual Core Faculty Members,
and Vicki Simonsmeier (vicki.simonsmeier@usu.edu)
Authorship: the interdisciplinary team produces only one paper, so the team should
All be listed as co-authors on the paper. Please also indicate others that helped as consultants and
advisors as a note at the end.
Length: 8-10 double-spaced pages for the body of the paper
General APA guidelines: Your paper should be typed, double-spaced on standard-sized paper
(8.5" x 11") with 1" margins on all sides. You should use a clear font that is highly readable.
APA recommends using 12 pt. Times New Roman font. Reference the latest APA style guide
(6th edition) or the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL)
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/ for more specific information.
13
Paper Outline – APA Style
 Cover Page with Running Title of Research Project or Program
 Abstract (150-250 words)
 Introduction
a. Brief overview of project
b. Rationale for project
c. Project aims or research hypotheses
 Methodology or Program Overview
a. Participants
i. Who participated or will participate in this project
ii. Characteristics of participants (age, gender, diagnosis)
iii. Selection criteria for participants (how did you decide who
would be in the project)
b. Measures or Evaluation Tools
i. Describe specific measures or tools used to evaluate your
research question or program effectiveness
ii. Rationale for selecting these measures
c. Procedures
i. Describe the procedures of your research project or
procedures of how the program was implemented (what
were the steps of the project, intervention procedures,
personnel involved, when measures were completed, etc.)
d. Data analysis procedures
 Results
a. Summary of research findings or results from program implementation
 Discussion (if project is completed)
a. Discussion of findings in relation to hypotheses or purpose of project
b. Implications of findings, including limitations
c. Future directions related to project
 References and citations
a. In APA style
 Appendices and Supplemental Materials
 Thank you to your specific consultants and others who advised/helped you
Draft
sections
due
November
14, 2014
Send this as a word document via e-mail by the timelines identified. If you do not get
confirmation of receipt, please follow up to make sure it was received.
A sample paper is on the URLEND website entitled Behavior and Social
Interventions in the Academic Setting. You can locate this paper under the 2011-2012
Leadership Project link. Additionally, the Purdue OWL website also contains a sample APA
style paper with detailed notation to help you in your writing of the project paper.
A sample product is also on the URLEND website entitled Healthy Sexuality, poster. This can
be found on the URLEND website under the 2010-2011 link.
14
Initial URLEND Leadership / Research Project Description
Complete this form and send it to your group’s Faculty Mentor and individual Core Faculty
Member(s) by October 3, 2014 for initial feedback. Submit your approved Project Description
to Vicki Simonsmeier by October 10, 2014.
Trainee name(s) and discipline(s):
Team leader (optional):
Team Charter completed:
_____ Yes _____ No (attach if yes)
Working title of the project:
Faculty Mentor for project:
Core Faculty Member(s):
Family / Consumer Consultant (required):
Brief description of project purpose and objectives:
Is this project a component of a larger research / evaluation effort? Yes ___ No ____
If yes, please describe the unique contribution of this effort to the overall project goals:
Will IRB approval be required for conducting/completing the project? (Please refer to the
attachment “Is Your Project Human Subjects Research”) Yes ___No ___
If yes, when/where (U of U, USU, IHC, UW etc.) will the IRB application be submitted?
15
Anticipated costs for this research project (be specific)
Literature Review / Evidence for your project:
Proposed method of dissemination of this project at the end of the URLEND year:
16
LEADERSHIP PROJECT PRESENTATION
Length: 30 minute presentation, plus an additional 5 minutes for each trainee to share individual
thoughts about LEND, followed by Q & A (a total of approximately one hour for each project
team).
Deadline: A copy of your PowerPoint presentation is due April 3, 2015 to the project faculty
mentor, Vicki Simonsmeier (vicki.simonsmeier@usu.edu) and LaDawn Nielson
(ladawn.neilson@usu.edu). Presentations dates are April 10th and 17th.
Content: Your presentation should cover your leadership project. Please do not get bogged
down in literature citations or details that are beyond the understanding of the audience and
should be included in your full paper.
The rule of thumb is to plan to spend about 5-6 minutes talking about each slide. For a 40
minute presentation you will have no more than 8-12 “real” slides and one of them must be the
slide detailed below (do not count the cover slide that has your name on it or a slide saying “Any
Questions?”). Remember that you are presenting at a distance, no font on your slide should be
smaller than 20 pt.
17
www.genderdiversity.cgiar.org/CreatingWorkingAgreementsDavison3.doc
Creating Working Norms and Agreements
Sue Canney Davison
Research and experience shows that diverse teams that consciously create early joint working
agreements tend to reach higher levels of performance than those who leave things to chance.
This is even truer for dispersed team members working across communication technologies.
The process of creating collaborative norms and agreements early in a team’s experience begins
by surfacing the relevant assumptions and expectations that team members have about each
other. The team members then need to go through a process of (sometimes intense) negotiation
so that the norms and agreements are shared enough to work and yet broad enough to allow
individual differences. They need to be both specific and shared so that they can also act as
socially agreed-upon boundaries for the team’s future interaction. Paradoxically, it is the
boundaries that they create, that can then free up the range of interaction and communication
styles within their safe parameters.
Early collaborative norms and agreements anticipate difficulties and so can also prevent the
team’s interaction from being derailed later by hidden agendas, simple misunderstandings and
preconceptions. They also act as powerful reference points for team leaders, facilitators and/or
members to guide the whole team back on track after disruptions.
In this online team interaction people may have experienced that coming to agreements online is
more difficult than sharing individual different opinions. Why is this?i
Sharing differences:
1. is usually based on aggregated individually generated contributions even though there
may be different types of divergent thinking
2. often refers to possibilities or personally held beliefs that are seldom taken as absolute
fact.
3. is usually done in a safe ‘brainstorming’ environment.
4. does not require agreement or disagreement by the rest of the group
Coming to agreements on the other hand:
1. Is a group activity that brings in complex group dynamics
2. Can result in social consequences especially if a team member needs to disagree with a
close colleague or boss.
3. Involves deciding on a process of choosing one from many that all team members think is
fair.
4. Usually applies to real facts and consequences, so involves joint critical and evaluative
thinking such as looking forward to anticipate possible consequences.
5. Involves having to move the whole context of the team forward from the pre-decision
mode to the post decision mode such that for instance, not doing something after a
decision has been made has different consequences to not doing it before.
18
The ‘convergent’ process of coming to agreements works through and across many more layers
of reality than the more individualistic ‘divergent’ process of sharing differences. Divergent
activities come first and can create a period of tension and unease (the ‘groan zone’ii) in which
teams can usefully focus on building shared frames of reference and strengthening relationships.
This can provide a sense of solidarity before heading into the more arduous task of negotiating
rich and inclusive convergent solutions.
Even when we work face to face, convergence often requires facilitated and/or structured
processes in order to be seen as fair. The mostly linear asynchronous - online environment can
make it harder to structure the convergent process so that we can pay attention to multiple issues
and levels at the same time. Some people can use the on line space to juggle multiple issues by
using a number of different conversational threads at the same time. Others can find this very
difficult and it can cause a disruption in the teams communication and coordination. Also
different people will see the ‘layers’ in different ways that are not then ‘visible’ to the group.
This makes convergent processes like coming to agreements, making decisions, deciding on one
solution, even harder, but not impossible, than face to face
What do working agreements look like?
There is a need to distinguish between baseline team working agreements and the more specific
communication rules for managing participation in F2F and on line meetings (see examples
below). One team expert reckons that only two sets of working agreements are fundamentally
necessary in a teamiii. These are;


The agreement of all team members to keep scanning the environment for those changes
which mean that the team need to change its approach to the task
A basic list of key ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’.
Such a list of basic ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ may include things like
We will:


Openly share information that is important to the rest of the team in a timely manner.
Support each other with an open mind and mutual respect and fill in for each other where
necessary.
 Share leadership roles as and when appropriate.
 Do whatever we agree to do in the time frame agreed.
 Give constructive timely feedback to the relevant person before complaining to someone
else.
 Acknowledge and /or respond to all relevant communication within 24 hours.
 Advocate for the work of the team within the rest of the organization.
We will not:



Criticize any other team member or the team as a whole outside the team
Plagiarize each other’s ideas.
Knowingly undermine the team leader’s roles and responsibilities.
19
These are more value laden and broader than the more straightforward communication rules for
managing participation in F2F and On-line meetings, which may look like:






‘Speak’ one at a time
Listen to each other
Make sure everyone participates
Be as brief as possible
Check e-mail every 24 hours.
Log on when we say we will.
We are suggesting that you and your team jointly create working agreements as well as
communication ground rules to improve your interaction after the course and to keep your team
on the path to timely success. The steps we suggest you follow here are:
1. As a result of the course so far, decide the top three key areas that your team needs to
develop working agreements on in order to work more effectively together after the
course. Please fill in small interdependent tasks audit in your team spaces.
2. The course facilitators will then set up separate discussion threads in your team room.
3. Go into each discussion thread and post your suggestion of the most important team norm
in this area. Respond to other team members
© Sue Canney Davison
First published November 2002, CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program Online Course for High
Performing Scientific Teams. Last update: January 2003
20
Southwest Public Health Leadership Institute
Leaders Across Borders Program
TEAM CHARTER TEMPLATE
One of the most basic but often overlooked elements necessary for team success is a team
charter. A well thought out team charter can help a team save time, avoid unnecessary diversion
and conflict, reduce uncertainty, and help productivity.
Take some time with your teammates to discuss how you will function as a team and what
you expect to achieve through your work together. The form below can help guide your
discussion.
Ground Rules
Ground rules, or group norms, address expected behaviors. The ground rules act as a code of
conduct for team members and provide a basic structure for conducting effective team work.
What norms will your group adopt around the following areas?
Meetings: How will we plan and schedule our meetings? How frequently and where will we
meet? How will we notify participants? How will we communicate between meetings? Will we
meet in person, or phone, or by web?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attendance: What are our expectations about meeting attendance? What are acceptable reasons
to miss a meeting? What will we do if a team member regularly fails to attend?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Preparation: What are our expectations regarding meeting preparation and completion of
assignments?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Participation: What are our expectations about participation – e.g., sharing ideas, opinions and
beliefs; openness to other ideas, opinions, and beliefs; sharing in the work of the team? What are
our expectations around multi-tasking during meetings?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
21
_______________________________________________________________________
Decision Making: How will we make decisions – e.g., consensus, voting, the rule of the mighty,
etc?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Conflict: How will we address differences of opinion and conflict?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Violations: How will we respond to violations of these ground rules?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Learning: What do we intend to learn from our work together? How will we assure that our
desire for action does not get in the way of our learning?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Confidentiality: What are our expectations around confidentiality?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Roles
Role assignments ensure that necessary activities – e.g., meeting scheduling, reminders, minutes,
and follow-up do not get dropped. They can be fixed or rotated, assigned to individuals or
shared.
Tasks: What are our tasks? How will we divide them up? How will we ensure that our team
facilitator is kept informed and involved?
_______________________________________________________________________
22
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Meetings: How will we manage our meetings? Who will facilitate? Will we conduct them in
English, Spanish, or both?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Names & Signatures of Team Members:
Your signature represents your commitment to your group’s ground rules and roles
Name
_____________________________
Signature
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Team Facilitator Name_____________________________________
These ideas are being developed in Canney Davison S, Ekelund B.Z. “Effective team processes for globally
distributed teams’ Forthcoming in the Handbook of Global Managing and Organizing. Blackwells 2003.
ii
Kaner. S. et al. (1996) ‘The Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making’ New Society Publishers.
iii
Hackmann R L (2002) Leading Teams. Harvard Business School Press.
i
23