Organizational and External Influences on Effective Implementation
We postulate that our understanding of the contributions of organizational and external influences on the effectiveness of core implementation components will be furthered when all three levels are measured simultaneously. The table below suggests some possible fidelity outcomes and sustainability outcomes for different combinations of strong or weak core implementation components and organizational components within the context of policy and funding environments that generally are enabling or hindering.
| Postulated Relationships Among Core Implementation Components, Organizational Components, and External Influence Factors that may Help Explain Various Implementation Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| External Influence Factors | Organizational Components | Core Implementation Components | Possible Fidelity Outcomes | Possible Sustainability Outcomes |
| Generally Enabling | Strong | Strong | High | Long term |
| Weak | Low/Medium | Medium term | ||
| Weak | Strong | High | Medium term | |
| Weak | Low | Short term | ||
| Generally Hindering | Strong | Strong | High | Medium term |
| Weak | Low | Medium | ||
| Weak | Strong | Medium/High | Short term | |
| Weak | Low | Short term |
For example, Glisson & Hemmelgarn (1998) found a positive link between organizational culture and climate and organizational outcomes in typical child welfare environments. A similar study using data from MST implementation sites failed to replicate that relationship (Schoenwald et al., 2003) It may be that this is a comparison of an “enabling-strong-weak” configuration in the Glisson & Himmelgarn study vs. an “enabling-strong-strong” combination for MST. Typical MST implementations have well-designed and executed core implementation components that may override many inconsistencies or inadequacies within an organization. Thus, the influence of comparatively weak variables such as organizational culture and climate would not be detected in an MST implementation site.
Interestingly, in keeping with this speculation, Schoenwald et al., (2003) found that organizational culture and climate were associated with practitioner fidelity when fidelity was low, but not when fidelity was high.
In another example, Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez (2003) noted a linear relationship between implementation and administrative support for teachers learning new instructional methods for inclusive classrooms (enabling-strong-weak). That is, when teachers perceived that the instructional practice was valued by their school leader, there was a greater likelihood they would implement the practice. However, Gersten, Chard, & Baker (2000) suggest that teachers who have developed a high degree of mastery of an innovation may be able to persevere in their implementation despite changes in administration (enabling-weak-strong). Thus, organizational factors may have a greater impact on new learning and less impact on well-established repertoires and routines.
It is likely that answers to these riddles will be found when we simultaneously measure core components, organizational components, and influence factors and assess their interactive contributions to implementation. It seems likely that the desired outcomes of sustainable high fidelity practices best will be achieved when strong core implementation components are well-supported by strong organizational structures and cultures in an enabling mix of external influences.
