Anecdote circles

The focus of the anecdote circle groups was on collecting experiential anecdotes. I had originally planned two data streams: to follow a series of one-to-one interviews with an online company questionnaire to bring depth and then breadth to the study. However preliminary analysis of interview data produced some complex, occasionally emotional, and unexpected themes suggesting that further investigation in a group setting might add important rich data.

As stories and anecdotes tap into underlying emotions, I looked for a way of eliciting stories from volunteer participants that was practical and meaningful. I considered different approaches: firstly using the company’s internal communication process to make a direct request for stories on an anonymous and confidential basis; secondly to arrange for people to voluntarily contribute stories by setting up post boxes in offices and thirdly to ask for stories at the end of the questionnaire. However further investigation into techniques for capturing stories suggested that a facilitated process would enhance the quality of such data. Drawing from Callahan et al (2006) and Carter (2009), I concluded that anecdote circles offered a way of understanding the subtle and unpredictable nature of organisational life in a way that complemented interview and questionnaire data.

Interestingly Callahan et al (2006) emphasise that anecdote circles are an intervention that creates change. However my emphasis was on reflecting ‘the messiness’ and revealing ‘insights one could never predict from the outset’ associated with organisational experience (Callahan et al, 2006, p5). In his ethnographic study Carter appears in tune with the systemic perspective at the heart of this study being interested in ‘serendipitous outcomes that interventions have created’ (p86).

The limitations of this method are firstly that it is difficult to generalise from the inevitably unique conversation of the group; secondly I may achieve little data should my facilitation and/or the dynamic of the participating group be flawed for any reason; thirdly it is difficult to reach saturation given that more anecdote circles will potentially yield even more unique and insightful data if the circle works well (Carter, 2009, p95). However I was not hoping to achieve saturation and was mostly interested in adding a dimension to the data that complemented the depth and breadth obtained from the interviews and questionnaire. Unlike the focus group method, which is associated with collecting of opinions, anecdote circles are aimed at connecting with participants’ emotions in order to generate stories. For this reason the challenge associated with

conducting anecdote circles was to consistently encourage participants towards sharing examples rather than views.

In preparation for the two anecdote circles and to ensure that I focused on process alone, I conducted a pilot circle with volunteers to collect stories on a theme of interest to Quantum team members but outside the scope of this study. The value of the pilot came from experiencing the challenge of standing back to allow the flow of conversation that produced shared experiences. Following the pilot I then selected groups of people who ‘got on with one another’ as this was crucial to creating the necessary relaxed atmosphere. In order to do this my counterpart provided me with six groups of close colleagues from around the company. To choose at random I numbered the groups, placed the numbers on pieces of paper and chose two groups of six people at random. Fortuitously these groups were very different in character, which subsequently added to the richness of the data.

After the interview phase of data collection it appeared that I had become known and trusted in the organisation and people seemed keen to join in the anecdote circles. I sent out invitations and suggested dates with Participant Information Sheets and Consent Forms (Appendices XII and XIII) to the twelve prospective participants. One person needed to decline resulting in participation by over 10% of the company, a proportion in line with recommendations in Callahan et al (2006). Sessions were held at lunchtime during the working day, and to create as relaxed an atmosphere as possible I provided an array of light snacks. All participants completed consent forms and, prior to each session, agreed to being audio-taped.

As the sessions were groups of people who were already bonded I felt a sense of being allowed to ‘pierce their veil’ as participants shared stories ranging from tragic to highly amusing. It was impossible for sessions to stick to telling anecdotes the whole time simply because it is not the way people chat when relaxed. I noticed that people wanted to share opinions in my presence perhaps as a way of ‘letting off steam’ in a safe and confidential environment. However drawing from the learning in the pilot session I encouraged people to share experiences using adjective laden questions that tapped into their feelings. Themes drawn from interview data, and theoretical insights and questions from my own experience informed the content of the anecdote circle questions.

During these sessions I was struck by how fond people were of one another, and how they looked after others’ emotions. The sessions felt just like a supper party despite being held in the middle of a working day with me acting as party hostess. My experience of facilitating these events was that participants seemed to enjoy them and I suspect they also gained valuable insights into their own working life from hearing

colleagues’ tales. A particular benefit of this method was that it offered a cost effective and time effective way of reaching more deeply into the organisational experience. 3.3.3 Online company questionnaire

Conducting an online company questionnaire was the most structured and distant of the three research methods. I framed my questions in line with my central research question, drawing themes from analysis of the interview and anecdote circle data, from key themes in the literature, from my own organisational experience and also from hunches I had about questions that needed asking. After clustering these themes I crafted questions that would work in the more controlled questionnaire environment and carefully phrased questions to suit the business environment. The aim of the questionnaire was to provide respondent validation by either corroborating or contrasting with the verbal data to enhance the credibility of the findings (Appendix XIV).

By the time of designing the questionnaire I had become familiar with many organisational team members and consequently had an array of characters in my mind when formulating the questions. However I also knew that I was trying to reach those who had so far declined to be involved and those with little time to spare. I recognised that contradictory individual organisational experiences would exist and that these multiple voices needed to be represented in the research. For this reason I saw the questionnaire both as a feedback loop in relation to the interview and anecdote circle phases and as an opportunity for as many people as possible to express themselves in narratives following specific questions. The online questionnaire had similarities with a structured interview but in this case was more practical in allowing me to potentially reach the whole organisation.

To strengthen the validity of the study I designed questions that probed further into themes generated in the earlier phases of data collection. I chose Survey Monkey as the vehicle for administering the questionnaire having successfully tested this method in 2009 as part of the Professional Doctorate programme activity. Before launching the questionnaire I obtained feedback on my questions from my Director of Studies, my second supervisor and then piloted the online version of the questionnaire with two employees at the organisation to check for content, logical sequence of questions, and usability. To avoid any inconvenience for Quantum staff I checked that the link to the online questionnaire worked with my Director of Studies before sending this via email with an attached Participant Information Sheet (Appendix XV) to all those members of the wider team at Quantum with over 12 months employment with the company. Participation was entirely voluntary and the design of the online questionnaire ensured the automatic anonymity of responses.

The online questionnaire was ‘live’ initially for the duration of one week to encourage a quick turnaround of responses and subsequently extended by a further week to allow for those who had taken holidays in the previous period. To aid achievement of a good response rate the questionnaire was launched between two exceptionally busy peaks in the accountancy calendar. However being a successful, growing accountancy firm it was impossible to choose a quiet period. I was also aware that team members had recently been asked to complete a separate annual survey with an external organisation. In addition the study’s questionnaire required more than box ticking as narrative responses were sought after some questions. Despite these challenges 30 completed responses were received constituting a 50% response rate.