Experiential Research Paper Based On Kolb’s Experiential Le ✓ Solved

Experiential Research Paper: Based on Kolb’s experiential le

Experiential Research Paper: Based on Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, identify a particular experience (problem or challenge) at a service site and analyze it within the broader social context; identify an underlying social issue you experienced, research the issue (read 3–5 articles), and make recommendations for change.

Organizational Framework/Outline:

1. Outline & Thesis: State a clear research question or thesis.

2. Description of the service site: brief history and culture; location and vital statistics; organizational structure, duties, responsibilities, mission, vision, mandate, philosophy and assumptions behind services/products.

3. Description of the Problem or Issue: state the problem (thesis), history/duration, analysis of why it is a problem, factors maintaining it, internal and external key players/conditions.

4. Possible Solutions: describe alternatives, significance, benefits/improvements, and specific recommendations for change, key personnel/resources, expected resistance, stepwise implementation strategy, and how implementation would affect you.

5. Conclusion: revisit thesis, include a personal anecdote illustrating the thesis, and provide a strong closing.

6. Works Cited, Appendices and Glossary as applicable.

Research requirements: This is a research paper. Use appropriate sources to support arguments and analysis. Minimum 6–8 full pages. Follow MLA formatting and documentation. Minimum five sources including at least one scholarly journal, one newspaper, and one Internet source. Cite all quoted and paraphrased material.

Paper For Above Instructions

Thesis: Implementing a structured employee evaluation and feedback system at a mid-sized nonprofit food bank will improve organizational effectiveness, employee morale, and service quality by clarifying expectations, aligning tasks with mission priorities, and enabling targeted professional development.

Introduction and Theoretical Frame

Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation) provides the guiding framework for this analysis: I identify a concrete workplace problem, reflect on its causes and context, connect those reflections to literature on organizational culture and change, and propose actionable interventions to test and refine (Kolb, 1984). Organizational scholarship shows that clear performance systems and culturally-aligned feedback processes increase productivity and morale when implemented with intentional change management (Aguinis, 2009; Schein, 2010).

Service Site Description

The service site is a mid-sized nonprofit food bank serving an urban county. Founded fifteen years ago, the agency’s stated mission is to reduce food insecurity by distributing groceries through partner agencies and mobile pantries. The organization employs roughly 45 staff and relies on 200 volunteers; operations include intake, distribution, volunteer coordination, fundraising, and community outreach. The culture emphasizes mission-driven service, but limited HR infrastructure means few formalized systems for performance measurement or staff development (Schein, 2010).

Description of the Problem

The specific issue observed is the absence of a formal employee evaluation system. No consistent procedures exist for setting performance goals, documenting outcomes, or providing actionable feedback. This has created unclear expectations, uneven workload distribution, low morale among frontline staff, and inconsistent client service quality. The problem has been present informally for several years and intensified as the organization scaled programs without adding HR capacity.

Analysis of Causes and Key Players

Several forces sustain the problem. Internally, leadership prioritizes direct service and fundraising over administrative investment, believing performance systems distract from mission work (an assumption common in nonprofits) (Aguinis, 2009). Budgetary constraints and limited HR expertise contribute. Volunteer-driven staffing models create variability in role expectations. Externally, donor restrictions and short funding cycles prioritize program outputs over organizational development, reducing the incentive to invest in staff systems (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Key stakeholders include the executive director, program managers, frontline staff, volunteer coordinators, and major funders; each has different incentives and power to shape HR decisions.

Literature Synthesis

Research indicates that thoughtfully designed performance management improves both organizational outcomes and employee engagement when linked to training and development opportunities (Aguinis, 2009; Buckingham & Goodall, 2015). Change literature stresses the need for clear vision, stakeholder alignment, and small wins to overcome resistance (Kotter, 1996; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Organizational culture research highlights that processes must be adapted to cultural values to be accepted; in mission-driven nonprofits, participatory design and emphasis on mission alignment increase legitimacy (Schein, 2010; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997).

Proposed Solutions and Rationale

I propose a phased implementation of a lightweight performance evaluation system tailored to nonprofit constraints: (1) co-design role descriptions and 3–4 measurable performance goals with staff input; (2) implement quarterly one-on-one feedback sessions focused on development; (3) link evaluations to training opportunities and non-monetary recognition; (4) pilot the system in two departments for six months and collect metrics on staff satisfaction, turnover intent, and service timeliness.

Importance and Benefits

This approach clarifies expectations, enables targeted coaching, and protects staff morale by ensuring evaluations are developmental rather than punitive (Aguinis, 2009). Benefits include improved service consistency, lower turnover costs, and better alignment of staff tasks with organizational mission. Piloting reduces risk and generates local evidence to persuade funders and board members (Kotter, 1996).

Recommendations: Steps, Resources, and Managing Resistance

Step 1: Convene a cross-functional working group (executive director, two program managers, two frontline staff, volunteer coordinator) to co-design the evaluation template and metrics (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). Step 2: Train managers in feedback techniques and coaching (one two-hour workshop, followed by a peer coaching group). Step 3: Pilot for six months with monthly check-ins and simple data collection (satisfaction surveys, service timeliness). Step 4: Review pilot data, refine tools, and plan organization-wide roll-out with board approval.

Anticipated resistance includes staff skepticism (fear of punitive use), managerial discomfort with evaluation conversations, and donor hesitance to fund administrative overhead. Mitigation strategies: emphasize developmental intent, secure a small discretionary fund for training, and present pilot as a quality-improvement initiative tied to improved measurable outcomes for service users (Buckingham & Goodall, 2015; Kotter, 1996).

Impact on Me (Reflective Component)

As the staff member who observed this problem, implementing these changes initially feels uncomfortable because it requires challenging long-held assumptions about “administration versus mission.” However, following Kolb’s cycle, I expect reflective practice and pilot experimentation to build confidence: seeing measurable improvements in client outcomes and team morale will validate the approach and shift my feelings from apprehension to empowerment (Kolb, 1984).

Conclusion

A carefully designed, participatory employee evaluation and feedback system can address the food bank’s performance gaps while respecting its mission-driven culture. Using a phased, evidence-driven approach grounded in experiential reflection and established change principles makes successful adoption more likely and sustainable. The recommended steps align practical benefits (service quality, lower turnover) with the organization’s values, ensuring the intervention supports rather than distracts from the core mission.

References

• Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.
• Aguinis, Herman. 2009. Performance Management. Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Schein, Edgar H. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Buckingham, Marcus, and Ashley Goodall. 2015. "The Performance Management Revolution." Harvard Business Review.
• Armenakis, Achilles A., and Arthur G. Bedeian. 1999. "Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s." Journal of Management.
• Hatcher, Julie A., and Robert G. Bringle. 1997. "Reflection: Bridging the Gap Between Service and Learning." College Teaching.
• Judge, Timothy A., and Joyce E. Bono. 2001. "Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations Traits to Job Satisfaction and Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology.
• Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). 2018. "Designing an Effective Performance Management System." SHRM.org. (online resource)
• New York Times. 2016. "The End of Traditional Performance Reviews" (article discussing shifts in performance appraisal practices).