Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Managing complex team interventions
Robert Barner

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Robert Barner, (2006),"Managing complex team interventions", Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 1/2 pp. 44 - 54
Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590610652792 Downloaded on: 14 September 2014, At: 17:29 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2472 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 165542 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm TPM
12,1/2

Managing complex team interventions Robert Barner
Belo Corp., Plano, Texas, USA

44
Abstract
Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

Purpose – To provide readers with a better understanding of the organizational conditions that lead to complexity in team structure, operation, and dynamics, and introduce guidelines for facilitating complex team interventions.
Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on the author’s 20 years’ experience as an internal OD executive, external consultant, and associate professor in the areas of organizational change and team building.
Findings – The article concludes that team-building failures frequently occur when facilitators operate from team archetypes that are radically outmoded, and severely underestimate the complexity of certain team-building issues. Readers are introduced to six guidelines for managing complex team interventions. Practical implications – This article is designed to help OD practitioners plan extremely complex and difficult team-building interventions. The article should serve as a useful tool to experienced OD consultants who are attempting to tackle more advanced team-building interventions. An organizational example is provided to illustrate key concepts.
Originality/value – The author believes that this article provides a unique perspective, by examining issues of organizational complexity that must be faced by experienced team facilitators.
Keywords Team working, Teambuilding, Organizational planning, Change management
Paper type Conceptual paper

Why team interventions go wrong
We have all encountered team-building programs that have gone wrong. What begins with great fan-fare and high expectations ends with a frustrated team facilitator, and a very disappointed and increasingly cynical work team. My heart-felt belief is that such failures cannot always be attributed to a lack of OD competence on the part of the facilitator. Instead, I would contend that quite often when OD practitioners experience such failures it is due to the fact that they:
.
work from a team model that is out of sync with the realities of today’s workplace; and/or
.
attempt to force-fit a team-building approach that is not applicable to complex team performance issues.
In the remainder of this article I would like to summarize each of these two problems, and proposed four guidelines that team facilitators can use to tackle complex team interventions. Team Performance Management
Vol. 12 No. 1/2, 2006 pp. 44-54 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590610652792

The myth of the archetypical team
While the past 20 years have witnessed a radical transformation in the organizational workplace, many OD practitioners still adhere to facilitation approaches that are based on an outmoded archetype of what constitutes a “team”. The result is a bit like a family

therapist who fails in her task because she is working from a mental model of the family that resembles a 1950s sitcom. Just as today’s families are more likely to be represented by single parent or blended-family households, in the same way during the past two decades the concept of the “team” has undergone an intense metamorphosis.
Table I shows seven of the most prevalent team myths. Let us briefly consider some of ways in which these myths fail to convey current realities.

Complex team interventions Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

45
The myth: teams are intact
The team myth assumes that the team intervention will involve an intact team; that is to say, a team that is comprised of permanent, full-time members. The reality is that that one of the fastest-growing areas for team building involves the specialized needs of project teams and task forces, which are comprised of entirely of temporary, part-time members. For these individuals, one big challenge involves balancing the conflicting demands of their team with the daily demands of their “real” jobs. Another challenge falls to the team leaders, who are tasked with directing work groups over which they seldom have direct line authority. Still another challenge that temporary teams face, is the need to find ways to jump-start their performance over the course of their brief lifespan. Given these potential scenarios, teambuilding needs to be brief, intense, and task-focused, and focused on the issues of team decision making and member accountability.
The myth: teams are unitary
The team myth also assumes that are teams are unitary, that is, headed up by a single leader, who operates within a clear and unambiguous reporting structure. However, the reality is that many teams operate within matrix environments, in which direction and authority are split between functional and program leaders. In other organizations, teams may receive conflicting direction from leaders who share overlapping authority.

Teams myth
(archetype)

Teams reality

Implications for facilitation

Intact

Fragmented and temporary

Teambuilding must be brief, fast, task-focused.
Issues involve team decision making and member accountability
Issues of goal alignment, reporting relationships

Unitary

Matrix structure, or overlapping reporting structures Manager-led teams Self-directed or manager-coached teams
Equalitarian
Power inequalities
Co-located

Distributed

Culturally homogeneous Encapsulated

Different cultural norms
Permeable and political

Issues of shared ownership and role clarity
Impacts openness and open disclosure of issues; safety becomes a key issue
Key issues are team communication, shared decision making, and the sustainability of improvement Different cultural assumptions about teams and team facilitation approaches
Team issues are often reflective of broader organizational issues

Table I.
Seven factors that distinguish team myths from team realities

TPM
12,1/2

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

46

For the facilitator, these types of ambiguous reporting relationships translate into the team’s need to explore the issues of goal alignment, and clarity on reporting relationships. The myth: teams are manager-led
The team myth is also based on the concept of the manager-led team. This archetype calls forth the image of a strong, dominant, more experienced and knowledgeable manager, who uses his personal judgment and authority to set objectives, direct work activities, and reward the performance of his less experienced team members. The reality is that manager-led teams are increasingly being supplanted by self-directed or manager-coached teams. As a result of this change team members are increasingly expected to provide thought-leadership for setting team objectives, standards, and even the allocation of team rewards. Even in those cases where manager-led teams are formally retained on the work chart, the reality is that quite often, particularly in high-tech work organizations, managers increasingly find themselves dependent upon the specialized knowledge and expertise of their team members. For team facilitators, these factors highlight the issues of shared ownership and role clarity.
The myth: teams are equalitarian
The traditional team model assumes that all work groups operate within an equalitarian power base. Unfortunately, while readily acknowledging that team members are likely to constitute different reporting levels, in planning their teambuilding approaches many facilitators fail to consider the more subtle power relationships that are present within a team. Even if all members share the same grade levels and titles they may represent very different levels of power and influence, due to such factors as their access to senior managers, or varying levels of technical expertise.
In teams that are characterized by subtle but significant differences in power and authority, low-power members may fail to candidly disclose their concerns, due to feelings of vulnerability and the fear of retribution. Accordingly, team facilitators need to construct approaches that address concerns regarding safety and power inequality.
The myth: teams are integrated
Another common assumption is that teams will always be incorporated into an integrated structure, represented by team members who work within the same time zones, locations, and work shifts. In reality, members may be geographically or temporally distributed, with the extreme case being virtual teams that are held together entirely by groupware and telecommunications.
For team facilitators, distributed teams pose team-building challenges that extend well beyond the logistical problems of configuring meeting times and design formats.
Such teams are also at a severe disadvantage when it comes to constructing the types of unifying experiences that bond members together. They may also encounter communication breakdowns because they are unable to access the various non-verbal clues that members come to depend on to guide their interpersonal communications. In addition, recent communications research suggests that virtual communications can substantially alter power relationships. This reveals itself in the fact that low-status team members tend to be more willing to “push back” against the ideas presented by their more powerful counter-parts, when they are engaged in online communications.

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

Additional studies have shown that, compared to their on-site co-workers, those members who work out of remote locations or telecommute tend to be more cut off from important social networks and their organizational power base. For the team facilitator, these factors may results in team-building issues that center around the issues of intra-team communications, shared decision making, and creating avenues for member recognition. Moreover, since they are not co-located the members of distributed teams face the unique challenge of finding creative ways to manage and sustain any improvement actions that they initiate as the result of their team-building experience. The myth: teams are culturally homogeneous
Family counselors may mistakenly assume that all of the members of a family unit come from the same ethnic, religious, and cultural background. In the same way, team facilitators may fall into the trap of assuming that their client teams are homogeneous, in that members share the same corporate values and social norms. The reality is that we may be asked to support teams that span different national cultures, or radically different corporate cultures. Examples include team building that is designed to support: . international teams;
.
US-based teams that are strongly dedicated towards certain customer markets, such as the growing Hispanic market;
.
blended organizational units arising from M & A activities; or
.
the bridging of departments, functions or locations that represent divergent organizational sub-cultures.
In these types of situations facilitators can easily find themselves faced with team members who hold very different assumptions about how “effective teams” function, the role of the team leader, or the degree to which they feel comfortable publicly discussing sensitive issues or questioning their team leaders’ ideas. In addition, it is important to remember that we, as team facilitators, do not enter into the team-building process from a “value neutral” position. All of us come to the table armed with strong convictions regarding such elements as the conditions that foster strong team performance, the role that team members and leaders should play in decision making, and the team leader’s role in the change process. Before we direct a team-building engagement we have an ethical obligation to put our own set of values out on the table for the team’s review.
The myth: teams are encapsulated
Still another team myth is that the work groups who require team building will be encapsulated. Some facilitators treat teams as if they are self-contained units that are somehow hermetically sealed off from the rest of their organizations. In reality, teams are tightly interwoven into the fabric of their organizational structures, and the issues that they present for review are sometimes representative of broader organizational concerns. Consider a senior manager who requests team building for one of her newly-hired managers, because the manager’s director reports have communicated that they are

Complex team interventions 47

TPM
12,1/2

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

48

anxious about this leader’s stringent performance standards, and the manager’s tendency to provide tough, critical feedback. It is easy to fall into the trap of framing this teambuilding issue as a manager-team conflict that’s exacerbated by the leader’s low level of interpersonal competence, and his inability to adapt to a new organizational culture. But what if the team is currently caught up in a broader departmental reorganization and team members are concerned about their job security? What if the manager was brought in to institute draconian changes to get the team’s performance back on line? What if the company’s overall performance has gone into a protracted slide, and the company is making a desperate attempt to reduce costs and improve revenue?
The point that I am making here is that teams are not encapsulated; rather they are both permeable and political. They are permeable in that they are not magically sealed off from the rest of the organization, but stand as a microcosm of broader organizational issues. Reductions in force, shifts in market strategy, or changes in the prevailing culture are all factors that are reflected in the smaller stage of the team-building process. In the same way, teams are highly political, in that presented team-building issues may mask more salient issues and hidden agendas that are politically motivated. A common example is the senior manager who requests a team-building intervention for one of her managers, when she knows that the underlying issues center around the manager’s leadership style – a problem that could be more appropriately addressed through executive coaching.
Given that teams are both permeable and political, facilitators have an obligation to learn more about the contextual setting that defines and constrains the team-building process for a particular work group. Concurrently, they need to determine whether the team performance issues they face mask broader organizational issues that require a more extensive OD intervention.
Applying the right tool: team development programs versus team interventions The second reason why OD practitioners have difficulty facilitating complex team-building issues is that they sometimes fail to make the critical distinction between team development programs and team interventions. Its important for facilitators to understand how these two team-building approaches differ, because this difference has significant implications for the types of services in which the facilitator specializes, and the team performance issues that are likely to be addressed by these services. Team development programs employ a training approach to team-building that relies heavily on the use of team exercises and simulations to help team members develop the competencies needed to perform better as a unified group. This may include introducing team members to new methods for establishing work priorities, generating ideas, and resolving intra-team conflicts. These types of programs work best with either new teams that are attempting to formulate ground rules for their operation, or established teams that are attempting to prepare for impending changes to their structure and function, such as the integration of a new leader.
Team interventions, on the other hand, employ a problem-solving approach to team-building that helps established work groups identify and address obstacles and constraints to high performance. Examples include resolving power struggles between

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

team members, addressing communication breakdowns between members and their leaders, and tackling process and charter issues that have arisen with other work teams. Team interventions are designed not only help team members resolve existing problems, but also to set into place agreed on guidelines and norms for resolving similar issues in the future.
While both team development programs and team interventions can help improve organizational capability, team interventions represent a higher degree of complexity on the part of facilitators. This is because they require facilitators to help team members extract from their history and organizational setting their most important performance issues. In addition, team interventions constitute a more intense and emotional experience for team members, and contain a higher element of risk for both the client and the facilitator. The reason for this is that interventions are usually undertaken after teams have experienced a certain degree of emotional trauma or conflict, and the steady erosion of their performance. To use a seagoing analogy, team development programs take the form of redesigning boats when they are dry-docked, where as team intervention engagements involve repairing leaky vessels while they are still at sea. As a result, team interventions require a greater degree of facilitation expertise on the part of OD practitioners.

Managing complex team interventions
Each of the seven emerging “team realities” that we have just reviewed can result in teambuilding situations that can prove challenging to facilitators. Going further, there are times when these characteristics interact to produce teambuilding scenarios that are so difficult and convoluted that they can only be addressed through the use of complex team interventions. Such scenarios tend to be characterized by one or more of the following conditions:
.
they involve team performance issues that are tightly embedded within broader and more complicated organizational issues;
.
They require the coordinated direction of multiple team interventions at several intersecting organizational levels; and/or
.
the participants of these interventions hold very different assumptions regarding the goals of team building, the roles that members and leaders should play in the team-building process, and the relative legitimacy of alternative approaches to the assessment and resolution of team performance issues.
When any conditions of these conditions are present, facilitators must be able step back and reframe team building, not as a set of problem-solving techniques or activities, but as an important organizational assessment and intervention. In my experience, there are six guidelines that can assist facilitators in this reframing process.
While these guidelines stop short of a paint-by-the-numbers system, I believe that they can provide useful guidance in the design and implementation of difficult team-building engagements.

Complex team interventions 49

TPM
12,1/2

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

50

The six guidelines
Check your assumptions
It is easy to leap to conclusions about the underlying factors that are contributing to a team’s performance problems, based on only a cursory discussion with the team leader.
Instead of yielding to this temptation, identify questions that can help you to construct a more accurate and detailed mental model of your client team. Use the seven “team realities” summarized in Table I as a check sheet for developing these questions. For example, you can select interview questions that can help you determine the degree to which the team is fragmented, temporary, geographically or temporally distributed, or comprised by members who represent different national and/or corporate cultural norms. Once you have gathered your information, let the data guide you in discerning what is uniquely different about your client team.
Step outside the circle
Another step you can take check your assumptions is to “step outside the circle.” This means, whenever possible, moving outside the team to conduct interviews with senior managers, internal customers, and support groups. The purpose of these interviews is to see how the team’s view of itself matches up against the reputation that it has gained with its key organizational stakeholders. Adhering to this guideline also means being willing to honestly discuss your own assumptions regarding the factors that you feel are contributing to the team’s problems. If you feel that the team leader’s leadership style is part of the issue, tell her so. If you are concerned that the team’s performance issues are linked to broader organizational changes currently under way in the company, then you should test this assumption by sharing it with your team.
Map the organization
Consider having participants graphically sketch out on a flipchart where their team sits in their organizational structure. When employing this procedure I use blue and red markers to indicate inter-departmental relationships that are either strong or eroded. In the same way, I ask the team to draw different size circles to indicate the degree of influence that each department has on the team’s performance. Finally, I ask them to indicate on this map any impending changes to their organizational structure, as a result of such factors as departmental reorganizations and reductions to staff.
Determine your path of entry into the intervention
When dealing with a complex team-building issue involving several teams, an important facilitation decision involves determine the in which you will attack team-building issues. This decision is especially important when the work group is question is a senior-level executive team, and the team-building request may involve related performance issues that extend across multiple teams that are nested within the same organizational unit. In this situation, it is important to work with the senior team to think through the most effective order of what may be several successive team interventions. As a general rule of thumb, if team members express confusion or disagreement regarding the direction and focus of their overall organizational unit, and wish to obtain stronger alignment on the unit’s vision, strategy, or business priorities, I find it useful to take an outside-in approach and focus the initial intervention on the broadest

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

area of influence – the senior team. I might then attempt to address those conflicts that exist between the work groups that report up to the senior team. My last intervention would center on those subordinate issues that are unique to, and lie within the scope of, particular teams. On the other hand, when the most prevalent and important team issues appear to center on fractured relationships, communication breakdowns or lack of role clarity, I follow the inside-out approach. Accordingly, I would start out by resolving issues that lie inside each team before attempting to develop secondary interventions that address broader inter-team issues.
Use triangulation to explore alternative perspectives
In preparing for complex team interventions, a common facilitation mistake is to attempt to create a model of how the team operates based on a single assessment technique (a 3608 feedback instrument or team performance survey), limited information sources (interviewing only the team leader), and restricted viewpoints
(the team facilitator’s). When we fall into this trap we tend to view the team’s performance problems from a very limited perspective, much like attempting to paint a room by peering through a keyhole.
This limitation can be overcome by employing the research technique of triangulation, which involves making use of multiple assessment components to obtain a more comprehensive and balanced perspective of a how a team functions. One way to do this is utilize several assessment tools, such as a multi-rater instrument, to assess leadership style, team questionnaires and organizational assessments, to evaluate both micro and macro-level team performance factors. Facilitators can also broaden their perspective by including input from the team’s internal customers, suppliers and senior managers. A third approach involves making use of a second facilitator to assist in data gathering and in the analysis of findings. Having someone function as an independent set of eyes and ears is one way to insure that we do not become trapped in our own viewpoints.
Understand the context for change
Teams operate within the two-dimensional matrix of history and organizational setting. Understanding this backdrop means discovering how a team has evolved over time, and the broader organizational context in which it is currently embedded. While most team-building facilitators do not have the opportunity to perform a detailed organizational assessment, I have found that there are certain questions that can provide insight on the team’s history and organizational setting:
.
How has your team has changed over the past year? What differences would I have noticed if I had observed your team’s performance over this time period?
.
Tell me the story of how your team got to be where it is today.
.
Looking ahead, how does the story end? Assume that no changes are made in your team’s operation. Tell me what you see ahead for your team a year down the path. .
Every team has its own unique personality. If I were an invisible observer, what would I notice about your team that makes it stand out from other teams in this business unit?

Complex team interventions 51

TPM
12,1/2

.

.

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

52

What change events or initiatives (reduction-in-force, changes to organizational structure, changes in departmental roles and accountabilities) are happening in your organization right now that could be affecting your team’s performance?
Which of these events or initiatives are within your team’s control or influence?

It is important to pose these questions not only to team members and leaders, but also to senior managers and (if possible) and key organizational stakeholders. Sometimes these individuals can provide a broader business perspective that helps establish a meaningful context for understanding the team’s performance issues.
Not too long ago I was asked to provide team-building support to a procurement team within a franchise company. During their interviews team members voiced a great deal of frustration with the changes that their new manager was attempting to install, and the aggressive leadership approach that she had adopted to implement these changes. During conversations with the team leader and senior managers it soon became clear to me that there were several critical contextual pieces that members were missing. The fact was that the company was experiencing serious financial trouble.
Furthermore, an important part of their long-term recovery strategy depended upon transforming the team from a traditional procurement function into a one that could help the company generate incremental revenues by forming strategic alliances with other corporate partners. While team members understood the general outline for this transformation, what they lacked was a clear understanding of how these changes translated into the need to quickly ramp up their performance, and to graft on new technical competencies. Through discussions during the team-building session, members were able to more carefully separate out issues of leadership style, from those involving the need to more clearly understand changes to their team’s new organizational charter and their own roles in this change process.
Complex team interventions: two illustrations
Example one: addressing cross-cultural factors
Several years ago, I attempted to design my first cross-cultural team-building program.
The team in question was an international sales function that included some members from the US corporate office as well as others from the countries of France, England,
Australia, and Demark. Working with the team’s American leader, I put together what
I thought at the time was a first-rate teambuilding design, that was to include an initial written multi-rater feedback instrument and written team audit, followed by individual interviews with each team member. While the team leader liked the idea, it received mixed reactions from the other team members. The greatest resistance came from the three French team members, who voiced strong concerns about how the survey instrument and audit were going to be used.
I quickly backed away from my original teambuilding design, once I realized that I was operating from a team-building model that did not reflect the different national cultures represented by this team. Consequently I spent a lot of time attempting to better understand members’ biases and preferences regarding alternative approaches to data gathering, alternative vehicles for presenting issues for team review, and the roles that they want their team leader and me, as their facilitator, to play in this process. This discussion gave me a lot of insight regarding the very different ways that professionals from different countries construct the concepts of “teams”, “team leaders”

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

and “team facilitators”. By taking the time to explore these areas and carefully negotiate with team members regarding the facilitation approach that I would be using, we were able to have a much more successful team-building experience.
Example two: intervening at multiple organizational levels
The most complicated team intervention that I ever directed was focused on four major departments of a US-based telecommunications company. These functions were:
(1) sales;
(2) international operations (the installation and maintenance of facilities and support equipment at international locations);
(3) engineering; and
(4) manufacturing.
The leaders of these teams struggled with a number of issues, including territorial disputes regarding which function was best equipped to take the lead on managing follow-on sales to international clients. While all department heads agreed that the sales function drove all new sales, the question of follow-on sales was more convoluted.
While the sales department claimed a major stake to this territory, the reality was that quite often, as the result of their frequent face-to-face contact with their international clients, the leaders of the international operations and engineering functions encountered many opportunities to secure follow-on business for the company.
The situation was made more difficult by the fact that the sales team’s two sales groups, on of which managed sales to members of NATO countries, and the other which directed national sales activities within several European countries, engaged in a fierce rivalry within several overlapping sales locations. These two groups not only had their own internal issues, but they frequently took very different positions on important inter-team issues, such as the issue of follow-up business.
In addition, there were several specialized inter-team issues that lay across the interface shared by the engineering and sales teams. These issues involved the extent to which commitments and promises were made by sales on behalf of engineering.
Engineering felt that sales “over-promised”, while the sales team felt that the engineering team had a tendency to slide out from under their commitments to customers. Heading up this division was a divisional vice president who saw the team’s issues as a relationship problem that centered on himself, those direct reports who headed up the four major departments, and the heads of four other supplementary departments.
The most difficult design challenges that I faced in this teambuilding intervention involved mapping these issues and getting all parties to agree on an acceptable on entry-path for their successive review. This, in turn, involved getting all of the key stakeholders to agree on the following points:
.
how we defined and framed each of the perspective challenges;
.
the participants who were needed to be included in discussions of key issues;
.
the degree to which certain issues could be most effectively attacked through discussions with small groups of senior leaders, or through larger groups that afforded greater representation by each respective group;

Complex team interventions 53

TPM
12,1/2

.

.
.

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)

54

the roles that the divisional president and the divisional SVP of HR would play in each session; the order of attack for these respective issues; and the degree to which session participants were willing to share with non-participants, information on the outcomes of these sessions.

After three weeks of intense discussion with the divisional president and his reports we were able to work through these design details. However, by taking the time to carefully construct this process, the participants entered into team building knowing our agreed upon ground rules for engagement, and where each group fit into the overall game for change. As a result, during the subsequent team-building program that extended over the next three months we were able to go much further in the resolution of team issues.
Some final thoughts
Managing a complex team intervention can be an arduous and tedious project, but the results are well worth it. As OD practitioners are increasingly called on to help facilitate broad-based organizational change, we can anticipate that knowing how to manage complex team interventions will become a critical OD competency. Although there are no simple rules for success, by carefully thinking through the design of a team-building process and by adhering to a few simple guidelines, team facilitators are more likely to increase their changes for success.
Corresponding author
Robert Barner can be contacted at: ibscribe@earthlink.net

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Downloaded by Florida International University GL810 At 17:29 14 September 2014 (PT)