1.
This is an example of work I did at Maddock Douglas. For this project, I conducted
30 stakeholder interviews, helped to conduct focus groups, and analyzed the data
into a digestible overview with suggestions for next steps based on our findings.
Qualitative Analysis Overview
Background
Stakeholder Interviews:
In May/June 2013, 50 one-on-one qualitative stakeholder interviews were conducted.
Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and were conducted primarily by phone. (To
date, Maddock Douglas has conducted 29 out of 30 interviews and Company X has
conducted 20 out of 20 interviews.) These interviews targeted individual Company X
employees across location, function, level and gender to get a broad cross section of
employees (in contrast to the 2012 stakeholder interviews, which focused primarily on the
perspectives of the senior leadership team). The interview findings were used to inform the
development of the COI quantitative tracking survey and will support shareout efforts of
that survey later this year.
Innovation Conversations:
In June 2013, 20 Innovation Conversations (focus groups) were conducted across 10
Company X locations. Maddock Douglas and Company X each conducted 10
conversations in five locations. The conversations lasted approximately 90 minutes per
group, had approximately 8 to 12 participants each, and were conducted in person. These
conversations included Company X employees across function, level, tenure and gender
to get a broad representation of employees. The groups were broken out by level within
the organization, separating VPs and Directors from other management and non-
management employees to create opportunities for all employees to voice their opinions
and to identify any differences in perspectives. The findings were also used to support COI
quantitative tracking survey development and will support shareout efforts.
Qualitative information gathering objectives:
• To better understand Company X employee perspectives related to innovation in
general and TLP’s Culture of Innovation specifically
• To understand important trends, capabilities, challenges and internal expertise or
resources that can be leveraged to inform the ongoing COI process.
The discussion guide for both the Stakeholder Interviews and Innovation Conversations
was broken into several categories including Culture generally, Innovation generally, the
Culture of Innovation (COI) initiative, and the six Innovation Pillars (Leadership,
Infrastructure, Customer Focus, Engagement, Risk Taking, and Creativity.) Questions
varied during interviews based on the role/expertise of individual participants.

2.
Stakeholder Interviews: Overarching findings
Overall, findings in each of these categories were largely consistent across interviews,
though differences did emerge between senior (VP and above) and non-senior level
employees.
The overarching themes are:
• There is constant change in the structure (reorganization) and frequent reductions
among employees in Company X. This creates a lot of stress for employees, fear for
the security of their jobs, and a lower drive to achieve when management is constantly
changing.
• Time was cited frequently as a constraint to innovation. Employees, particularly below
the VP level, believe that there isn’t enough time to be innovative (many are already
working required overtime hours).
• Communication about innovation efforts has increased, though there is still room to
improve. Most communication is delivered via email, but employees want more face-to-
face communication and leadership is beginning to respond in kind.
• Communication is particularly poor when it comes to messaging about organizational
changes. Employees often feel blindsided by decisions and are given no explanation
as to why cuts, restructuring, lay offs, project changes, etc. take place.
• Participants point out the erratic rhythms of project cycles due to leadership decisions.
There is a lot of stop and start on projects, often mid-cycle, without notice or
explanation.
• Ideas succeed when they are championed by supervisors and senior managers.
Employees need support from senior managers to bring their ideas to fruition.
• Opinions regarding hierarchy differ depending on employee level, where more junior
employees believe that hierarchy exists and is a barrier to risk taking and
communication and senior leaders do not perceive that it exists or remains a problem.
• There is cynicism toward the COI change effort and leadership commitment.
Category specific themes
COMPANY X Culture
• Company X is a series of micro-cultures. This has been changing since Company X
was created and as a result of the branding efforts around “One Company X
• Interviewees generally appreciate working at TA and have good things to say about the
culture. Several participants mentioned that working for Company X is great because
of the people they work with. Words used to describe the culture include: friendly,
welcoming, hard working, open, positive, and informal.
• Interviewees also cite numerous cultural barriers to successful innovation, including
constant change, confusion, accountability, risk aversion, fear, lack of trust,
bureaucracy, hierarchy, cost consciousness, compliance and uncertainty.

3.
• Employee perceptions of and willingness to change vary by tenure and level. Newer
employees are more apt to embrace and be enthusiastic about change, whereas
employees with more tenure are more cynical and more likely to want to keep the
status quo.
Culture of Innovation
• People know that there is an innovation initiative underway but don’t know about the
specifics, who is doing what, or where to go with their ideas (though that appears to be
changing as a result of the cafes). (This was less applicable at the Baltimore office and
among senior level employees.)
• Employees are curious about how they can get involved but worry that they will not
have enough time.
• Participants point to the importance of keeping the COI momentum going after cafes.
Innovation
• There is agreement that people at all levels, including the front lines, should be
involved in the innovation efforts, but there are differing opinions about how easy it is to
do this. For example, some participants feel it is unclear and/or difficult to get involved,
that there is limited time and resources, or that middle management serves as a barrier
to their involvement. Others feel that the innovation process is clear, and there are few
if any barriers to others’ involvement.
• Most people below the VP level don’t know what is happening with innovation, though
they believe that something is happening.
• It is not clear to employees how to get involved in innovation efforts. There is a
perception among some that innovation is only for certain functions/groups (e.g.
marketing but not operations).
Leadership
• Cost saving measures like reductions erode confidence in leadership. The roll out of
these measures is not transparent: people aren’t hearing about them in advance or as
part of a broader strategy.
• People believe that senior leadership is open to direct feedback, but many feel too
uncomfortable to reach out to them directly due to hierarchy.
• People are generally more confident about the direction and future of Company X
under the current leadership.
Innovation Infrastructure
• The current technology is antiquated. Technology limitations are hurting innovation
efforts, though there have been improvements.
• Incentives (e.g. monetary, employee recognition, training, etc.) would help to drive
more innovation.
• There is inconsistency among participants regarding the ease of getting a hold of new
or existing innovation information. Their intranet is referred to as a great repository that
contains all of the information needed. Others cite that there isn’t enough time to seek

4.
out information or that there are too many information channels, which makes it
confusing to know where to go.
• Most senior leaders interviewed believe that employees already have everything they
need to be innovative (such as brainpower, budget), but more junior employees
disagree (say they need time, direction, budget, other resources).
Customer Focus
• Not all participants were able to speak to this. Those who did, pointed out the
importance of improving customer focus as a company priority.
• There are many opportunities around improving the customer experience, but the
company needs to invest first (chicken before the egg situation).
• Believe it should be as simple as possible for customers (both agents and end
consumers) to do business with the company.
Engagement
• Employee engagement seems to vary based on function and group.
• Collaboration is weak across groups and locations. Some employees have
successfully created more opportunities for collaboration across groups by taking the
initiative on their own.
• Participants agree that there is a need to improve collaboration and information sharing
across sites.
• Some employees mention that engagement has improved in the past year, though
there is still room to improve.
Risk-Taking
• The culture is very risk averse. It’s not clear when people are encouraged to take risks.
• Employees are fearful to take risks in an environment of constant change and lay offs.
• There seems to be a divide between perception and reality when it comes to risk taking
and failing. Some believe that there are repercussions for this in the current culture.
They identify cases where it is happening now, while others point to a legacy left by
previous leadership.
• Senior level employees feel that their direct supervisors are open to them taking risks.
• Employees want to hear more – success stories but none of failure, leaves employees
feeling uncertain.
Creativity
• Many, participants do not view Company X as an innovative or creative environment,
though they point out that things are improving.
• There isn’t a lot of time for brainstorming. This reduces the creative process at all
stages.
• Employees have many ideas and are willing to give them, but are often discouraged.
This is sometimes because management is resistant to new ideas from employees.
Many times, managers welcome new ideas but do not move these ideas forward (due
to lack of time, resources, etc.), demotivating employees from continuing to provide
new ideas.

5.
Innovation Conversations
The key learnings from the Innovation Conversations are largely consistent with those of
the Stakeholder Interviews, and reinforce the findings above.
In addition, the Conversations also provide increased depth related to a number of
previous findings. Additional insights include:
Company X Culture
• There is a lack of agreement in terms of Company X’s cultural values within and
across locations. Participants cite that this can lead to confusion and a lack of
coordination across departments and locations.
• Many participants report a shift to a “virtual” office culture within the last year.
When team members are spread across different floors and location sites, face
time with coworkers decreases. These employees say they feel more isolated,
and in some cases have less familiarity with and trust in their team members.
Culture of Innovation
• There is a lack of agreement on what innovation means generally and what it
should mean at Company X. Opinions vary on whether something must be new
to the marketplace – or just new to Company X – to qualify as innovation.
• Employees who are directly involved or exposed to the COI initiative believe it to
be real and supported, whereas many other employees are unclear on the
desired goals and of what has taken place (apart from the Cafes) to date.
• Participants who had already attended an Innovation Café tended to say they
feel energized, feel optimistic about innovation, and believe Company X is
making a significant investment in innovation. For some employees, the Cafés
also created expectations for change that they don’t feel are being met. They are
eager to know more about the next steps and desired outcomes.
• Participants who had not yet attended an Innovation Café expressed interest and
hope for positive outcomes, but did not have specific expectations.
Innovation Infrastructure:
• Many locations mention the limited budget to hire full-time employees, which they
believe creates a greater reliance on temporary employees. To them, this leads
to a lack of information retention and ultimately inefficiencies.
• Employees feel more comfortable continuing to utilize existing systems and
processes, rather than adopting new systems and processes created as a result
of reorganizations and acquisitions.
• Technology constraints are frequently mentioned as a hindrance to productivity,
innovation and morale.

6.
Customer Focus
• Employee understanding of Compnay X’s end customer is dependent upon
employee function and the stakeholders served. Some employees see the end
customer as the policyholder, while others view the end customer as
agents/brokers or groups.
Engagement
• Employees say there can be a lack of information sharing outside of their
teams/groups. This may be because some employees feel territorial in an
uncertain job environment, while others believe that they do not have the time to
teach, train and collaborate with other employees.
Findings By Level
Adding to the previous analysis, the Conversations allowed for more pronounced
differences to emerge between levels and locations. Specifically, the Conversations
provided additional clarity on the marked differences in perception between leadership and
non-leadership level groups in the following areas:
Leadership Non-leadership
COI Initiative Have knowledge of and
exposure to the COI initiative
Often feel “out of the loop”
Non-leadership
level risk taking
Believe that risk taking is
encouraged for employees in
non-management roles (as
long as they are calculated
risks)
Believe that they do not have
the authority, resources or the
support to take risks
Feedback Perceive themselves as open
to feedback
Do not feel confident providing
feedback outside of their
immediate group or when it
pertains to sensitive topics
Priorities Say goals are related to growth
(revenue and profit), efficiency,
cost savings, and protecting
families
Would like stronger
prioritization of employee
needs

7.
Findings By Location
The Innovation Conversations also revealed that employees do not feel there is a uniform
culture across the locations. Each site has its own culture (and microcultures) within it,
which leads to a feeling of segregation. The unique experience at each location emerged
in the conversations.
Conversations conducted prior to that location’s Innovation Café:
Baltimore:
• Employees report a more diminished sense of community and a sense of
isolation because of extensive restructuring. Some also share a heightened
sense of fear and competition driven by a need to justify their value as Company
X employees.
• Employees describe Baltimore as highly formal and hierarchical, which may
contribute to hesitation and discomfort around risk taking.
• Many mention that they have innovative ideas but get frustrated when good ideas
get stuck indefinitely on a priority list.
Bedford:
• Participants share a heightened sense of isolation, and describe this as a major
departure from the sense of community they felt as recently as one year ago.
• Employees report that customer service often takes a back seat to getting their
daily workload done. They say that most of their work is “reactionary”, solving
issues that come up on a day-to-day basis.
Plano:
• Like Bedford, employees report a sense of isolation and difficulty prioritizing
important work such as customer service.
• Participants describe Plano as having a loyal, tight-knit community feel.
Employees report an “all hands on deck” attitude.
• The employees suspect that innovation may just be a “buzz word” or a “flavor-of-
the-month” that will not be an ongoing priority.
Conversations conducted after that location’s Innovation Café:
Cedar Rapids:
• Other locations perceive that Cedar Rapids is more informed about corporate
decisions being made. However, Cedar Rapids participants shared many of the
same thoughts and concerns as the other locations regarding corporate decision-
making and communications.

8.
Duluth:
• Duluth employees tend to think of themselves specifically as WFG employees,
and they do not feel in sync with the rest of the Company X organization. This
affiliation to WFG contributes to a common drive.
• As a whole, Duluth employees say they are focused on serving their agents, and
they rely on the agents to be attuned to the needs of the end consumer/policy
holder.
• The efforts of the Innovation Committee in Duluth seem to be well known and
appreciated (although there is a strong wish for more recognition for employees
who submit and execute ideas).
Exton:
• Employees describe a more optimistic outlook in terms of Company X as an
organization and its future. Many describe morale-boosting activities and
programs that are not shared by other locations.
• Participants report a positive perception of innovation and cite some specific
examples of risk-taking.
• Employees take a “whatever” mentality when it comes to challenges – they say
they don’t get caught up in drama and can focus on what needs to get done.
Little Rock:
• Little Rock employees say that providing negative feedback creates a perception
that you are a naysayer, which could lead to a negative reputation.
• Employees note fear related to the Company X merger. There is concern that
what has made Little Rock successful will be lost due to shifting priorities from
results to process.
• The leadership level group expressed that they are adapting to the new priorities
of Company X even if they do not agree they are the right decisions. They are
trying to hide these perceptions from junior staff to protect those employees.
Los Angeles:
• Some participants in the leadership level group in LA feel that negative feedback
is viewed as counterproductive and often ignored.
• Participants are concerned because one of the floors in their office is going to be
eliminated, and the effects of this have not been explicitly shared with
employees.
St. Petersburg:
• Participants feel that no challenge is impossible in St. Pete; together they can
achieve anything. However, employees express that there is a high risk of being
stretched too thin and not having enough time to devote to important priorities.

9.
Toronto:
• Employees say that being located outside the U.S. contributes to a feeling of
isolation.
• Employees have interest in what people in other departments do, and they
believe that a better understanding of other roles could encourage collaboration.
• Participants express frustration with not having a direct link to end consumers
and always having to deal with advisors.
• There is a sense of positivity and pride in Toronto for recent record sales in an
environment of limited resources.
Next Steps:
These findings have clarified and provided context for the upcoming Quantitative COI
Tracking Study. They will also contribute to the planned shareouts across locations later
this year. We will continue to reference these findings as we continue to build Company
X’s Culture of Innovation.