View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
The review of related literature was divided into four
sections: (1) approaches to the determination of organizational
effectiveness (OE) criteria; (2) approaches to the study of
relationships between OE determinants and criteria; (3)
empirical studies of OE of higher education organizations;
and (4) highlights of the review of related literature. For
definitions of terms used in the reviewed literature consult
Appendix C.
Approaches to the Determination of
Organizational Effectiveness Criteria
The literature on OE suggests two general approaches
to defining OE criteria, i.e., the goal approach and the systems
approach. Campbell (1976, p.31), Etzioni (1971, pp. 33-36),
Ghorpade (1971, pp. 85-86), and Price (1972, p. 100)
compared these two approaches. With the first approach an
investigator would use the formal and operative goals of the
organization. With the latter he would try to identify the
requirements or the coping mechanism an organization must
have in order to be effective.
The goal orientation is considered objective because it
18
uses the values of the organization under study as criteria, and
not those of the researcher. There are, however, a few
problems associated with this approach, e.g., formal goals are
different from operative goals; formal goals are often too
idealistic, especially those that incorporate public goals;
organizations are multifunctional units, and each sub-unit has
its own operative goals; and the different points in time at
which operative goals are measured have to be taken into
consideration (Etzioni, 1971, pp. 34-35).
Yuchtman and Seashore (1967) believed that the goal
concept is useful in the study of individuals in organizational
settings, but that it is less so in the study of organizational
effectiveness (OE). Adhering to the systems approach, they
defined OE as “the ability of the organization, in either
absolute or relative terms, to exploit its environment in the
acquisition of scarce and valued resources” (p. 89). The
definition focuses on the input process of the system.
Etzioni (1971, p. 36) emphasized the transformation
process of the systems model. He considered it vital for the
organization to reach of optimum distribution of
organizational resources among its sub-units in order to be
effective. He also suggested that the system approach is more
demanding and expensive than the goal approach (p. 41).
Evan (1976, pp. 19-24) maintained that if one chooses
19
to utilize the systems model for assessing OE, “one must
measure performance with respect to all four systemic
processes as well as their interrelationships.” The four
systemic processes, i.e., the inputs (I), the transformations (T),
the outputs (O), and the feedback effects, were
operationalized as nine OE ratios or systemic process
variables. Three of these ratios, O/I, T/I, and T/O, require a
single time slice in the systemic cycle; and the other six
feedback ratios, ΔI/I, ΔT/T, ΔO/O, ΔT/I, ΔT/O, and ΔO/I,
require at least two time slices.
Evan further gave an illustration of OE ratios for
different types of organizations. For colleges and universities
the ratios are as the following:
O/I – Number of students graduated/annual budget
T/I – Cost of information system/annual budget
T/O – Cost of information system/number of students
graduated
ΔI/I – Change in student enrollment
ΔT/T – Change in administrative personnel to total
personnel
ΔO/O – Change in number of students graduated;
change in number of publications of faculty
ΔT/I – Change in cost of information system/annual
budget
ΔT/O – Change in cost of information system/number
of students graduated
20
ΔO/I – Change in rate of admission of students whose
parents are alumni; change in rate of alumni
contributions (Evan, 1976, p. 23).
Campbell (1976, p. 32) and Ghorpade (1971, pp. 87-88)
reasoned that there really is no difference between the goal
and systemic orientations. According to these authors,
organization is a subsystem of a larger social system, and the
goals of the organization are primary societal mission carried
out by the organization. A similar relationship between the
organization and its subunits. The goal oriented researcher,
then, should try to find out why organizational performance
deviates from the goal criteria; and the system oriented
analyst should try to find out how the tasks of the subunits
contribute to the overall performance of the organization.
The time dimension was taken into consideration by
Gibson and others (1973, p.37). They classified OE criteria
into short-run, intermediate, and long-run criteria. Production,
efficiency, and satisfaction are the short-run criteria;
adaptiveness and development the intermediate; and survival
is the long-run criterion.
Steers (1975; 1977, pp. 43-51) examined 17 OE models
and reviewed them on the following dimensions:
1. The frequency with which each criterion is
mentioned: adaptability-flexibility is mentioned in
10 models; productivity in six; satisfaction in five;
21
profitability and resource acquisition in three each;
absence of strain, control over environment,
development, efficiency, employee retention, growth,
integration, open communication and survival in two
each; and all other criteria in one each.
2. The nature of the criteria: 13 are normative and four
are descriptive.
3. The generalizability of the criteria: 10 are
universalistic and seven are contingent upon the type
of the organization under study.
4. Derivation of criteria: 10 were derived deductively
and seven inductively.
After examining the empirical literature dealing with
criterion measures of OE, Campbell (1976, pp. 36-38) was
able to synthesize a list of 30 criteria. A few examples are:
overall effectiveness, productivity, efficiency, profit, quality,
growth, satisfaction, morale, utilization of environment, and
stability.
Approaches to the Study of Relationships
Between Organizational effectiveness
Determinants and Criteria
The relationships between OE determinants and criteria
can be examine at the individual, group, and organizational
level, or simultaneously at more than one level. An example
of OE investigation at the individual level is the work of
22
Getzels and Guba (1954) on role conflict. They hypothized
that:1. The greater the intensity of an actor’s involvement
in role conflict the greater his relative ineffectiveness in at least one of the roles.
2. The intensity of an actor’s involvement in role conflict is systematically related to certain personal and attitudinal characteristics. (p. 166)
The attitudinal and personal characteristics were classified
into: (a) descriptive information, such as, age, rank,
educational training, and current duties; and (b) attitudinal
information, e.g., interest in the goals of the organization,
feelings of adequacy or inadequacy in his role, and
sentiments. The assessment of effectiveness was
accomplished by peer ratings as either below or above
average in performance.
The study undertaken by Duncan (1973) is an
illustration at the group level. His intention was to examine
the relationship between structure of organizational decision-
making units and OE criteria. The structure of these units was
operationalized and measured in terms of: (a) hierarchy of
authority; (b) degree of impersonality in decision-making; (c)
degree of participation in decision-making; (d) degree of
specific rules and procedures; and (e) degree of division of
labor. Organizational effectiveness criteria, on the other hand,
were conceptualized as having three components:1. Goal achievement : the extent to which the system is
attaining its formally defined goals and objectives.
23
2. Integration : how completely members are being integrated into the system through clearly defined goals. (Duncan, 1973, p. 275)
3. Adaptation : the extent to which the system is adapting structurally to its environment so that role occupants can adapt to new demands, resulting from a changing environment, on their job. (p. 275)
The author theorized that the group structures would be
different for routine and non-routine decisions, and that when
the perceived uncertainty (because of lack of knowledge
regarding the environment and the outcomes of decisions) is
high the differences would be even greater. The effectiveness
of groups with different structures, making different
decisions, working in different levels of uncertainties, was
measured.
Examining the top level administration in county
offices of federal, state, and county agencies, Rogers and
Molnar (1976) correlated intra- and inter-organizational
variables with role conflict and role ambiguity, which they
assumed are related to organizational performance. The
internal factors selected for analysis were: the type of
services, accountability, autonomy, and formalization.
According to these authors, the external factors are the Administrators’ perceptions about their inter-organizational field, that is, the position of their organization in the field relative to others and the amount of interaction between their organization and other organizations as reflected by contacts between directors, the flow of information, of resources, and overlapping members of the boards of directors. (p. 275)
At the organizational level Bennis (1971), and Mott (1972)
studied the relationship between the structure for problem
24
solving and OE criteria. According to Bennis (1971, p. 128),
to enhance the spirit of inquiry, or the scientific attitude, of
the organization special attention should given to
methodological rules and operating procedures. Mott (1971,
pp. 11; 15-16) pinpointed the optimal combination of formal
and informal problem solving, or the degree of centralization
and formalization. He defined OE as “the ability of an
organization to mobilize its centers of power to produce,
adapt to change, and cope with emergencies” (p. 34). The
dependent variables were specified as the following:A. Organizing centers of power for routine
production (productivity)1. The quantity of the product2. The quality of the product3. The efficiency with which it is produced
B. Organizing centers of power to change routines(adaptability)1. Symbolic adaptation
a. anticipating problems in advance and developing satisfactory and timely solutions to them
b. staying abreast of new technologies and methods applicable to the activities of the organization
2. Behavioral adaptationa. prompt acceptance of solutionsb. prevalent acceptance of solutions
C. Organizing centers of power to cope with temporally unpredictable overloads of work (flexibility). (p. 20)
Focusing on the structuring of power and involvement
Etzioni (1975, pp. 12-14) elaborated on OE with his
compliance theory. He suggested that congruent compliance
structures, i.e., the type of power applied to members of lower
echelons is congruent to the type of involvement by these
25
members, are more effective than incongruent structures.
Coercive power should be applied to an alienative type of
lower member involvement (e.g., for custodial organizations),
remunerative power to a calculative type (e.g., business
organizations), and normative power to a moral type (e.g.,
schools, religious organizations, military organizations,
unions, non-profit organizations). For evaluating the
effectiveness of each compliance structure corresponding
criteria are employed: order goals (prevention of occurrence
of certain events) for a coercive compliance structure;
economic goals (production of commodities and services) for
a utilitarian compliance structure; and culture goals (creation,
preservation, application of culture) for a normative
compliance structure (Etzioni, 1975, pp. 103-106). In
professional organizations both normative and remunerative
controls are applied, but the first is predominant. The
techniques for normative control are, for example, leadership,
rituals, manipulation of social and prestige symbols, and
resocialization (pp. 32; 40; 48).
Congruent compliance structures involve the proper
structuring of the organization’s elites and charismatics.
Organizational elites are the members who have the power,
and they consist of: officers—those who have the positional
power; formal leaders—those who have positional and
personal power; and informal leaders—those who have
26
personal power. According to Etzioni, an organization must
solve four basic functional problems: two instrumental needs
of input and allocation; and two expressive needs of social
and normative integration. Expressive activities require moral
involvement and are, therefore, best supervised by elites who
have normative power. Leaders tend to more effective than
officers, and informal leaders tend to be more effective than
formal ones. Instrumental activities require calculative
involvement and are, therefore, best supervised by elites who
have utilitarian power. Officers and formal leaders tend to be
more effective than informal leaders, and officers tend to be
more effective than formal leaders. For culture goals it is
functional if the expressive elites take the lead (1975, pp. 155-
158).
Etzioni hypothesized that “the effectiveness of
normative organizations will be higher if the expressive elites
are superior to the instrumental ones, rather than the other
way around, because the expressive elites are closer to the
normative purposes and compliance structure’ (p. 217). The
expressive activities of normative organizations include
services, consultation, training, planning, and research; and
the instrumental activities are the administration and
management of the organization.
In colleges and universities the professional staff, as
27
lower echelon members, is better amalgated, or integrated,
into the organizational elite. The potential informal leaders are
absorbed (recruited into full-time organizational positions),
co-opted (special positions and tasks are created for them), or
they collaborate. Etzioni underscored that these integrated
professionals staff members should function only as
expressive elites, for if they assume the positions as
administrators they will pay more attention to normative
activities and neglect the utilitarian needs of the organization.
Charismatics are the members in an organization who
have the ability “to exercise diffuse and intense influence over
the normative orientation of other actors.” They are functional
only in positions which require moral involvement of
subordinates. They should be the persons who make decisions
regarding expressive activities. Although specialists in their
own fields, they ought to be generalists in terms of scope of
perception, time orientation, orientation to means, flexibility,
and others.
Professional organizations will be more effective if the
integrated professional staff members, or the expressive elites,
have charisma and are generalists. Charisma in the hands of
the administration officials, or the instrumental elites, may be
used to overemphasize the instrumental needs (e.g., economy,
efficiency), and, consequently, undermine the attainment of
culture goals. Professionals acquire charisma from their status
28
as accredited professionals, their academic rank, and their
personal qualities (e.g., extraordinary talent, skill,
competence, knowledge, persuasive powers, and eccentric
behavior (Etzioni, 1975, pp. 305-351).
Etzioni (pp. 232-276) also called attention to the
relationships between compliance structure and the degree of
consensus, communication networks, socialization, and
organizational environment. Normative organizations require
high consensus on all norms that are highly related to
expressive activities and emphasize downward expressive
communication.
Socialization, expressive or instrumental, is the transfer
of consensus structure and communication practices to new
members. Note Etzioni’s comment on socialization in
normative organizations:[Expressive socialization] is given somewhat less weight in military academies, and considerably less in law and medical schools, where training predominates and indoctrination plays a minor role. Professional organizations such as universities, hospitals, and research organizations, the least normative of normative organizations, typically emphasize instrumental socialization. Much of the limited expressive socialization which takes place here is unorganized, and is sometimes an unintended consequence of other processes such as interaction with peers and senior members of the profession. (pp. 249-250)
The organization’s interaction with its environment
consists of the recruitment of members, and the scope and
pervasiveness of penetration into the environment. To attain
high commitment, normative organizations have to stress
29
both selectivity and socialization. Scope is the number of
activities in which organization members are jointly involved
(action boundaries), and pervasiveness is the number of
activities inside or outside the organization for which the
organization sets norms (normative boundaries). Normative
organizations are high in the pervasiveness and vary in scope
(Etzioni, 1975, pp. 262-275).
Unlike this deductive approach by Etzioni, Price (1968)
inductively constructed OE propositions from fifty studies. He
arranged the propositions into four organizational systems: the
economic system, which is responsible for the production
output of the system; the political system, which make
decisions and endeavors to acquire resources from the
environment; the control system, which controls organization
members’ conformity to norms; and the population and
ecology, which deal with the volume of output and members’
spatial mobility.
The OE criteria were not specified; rather, the author
assumed that they are positively related to productivity,
morale, conformity, adaptiveness, and institutionalization (as
intervening variables), and that they are more closely related
to productivity than to the other four.
Price hypothesized that for an organization to be
effective the following characteristics in each system have to
be met:
1. The economic system (pp. 15-43):
30
- has a high degree of division of labor;
- has a high degree of specialized
departmentalization, except where there is a
high degree of knowledge required to produce
the output (complexity);
- a high degree of mechanization, except where
there is high degree of professionalization;
and
- has a continuous system of assembling output
(rather than a batch system).
2. The political system:
a. The internal component, which makes decisions
(Price, 1968, pp. 49-94):
- has high degree of legitimacy;
- has a rational-legal type of decision-making
(rather than a charismatic type);
- has a high degree of centralization with
respect to tactical decisions, except where
there is a high degree of complexity; and
- has a maximum degree of centralization with
respect to strategic decisions.
b. The external component, which attempts to
obtain support or decisions from the environment
(pp. 96-132):
- has a high degree of autonomy;
- has an ideology;
31
- its ideologies have high degrees of
congruence, priority, and conformity;
- has co-optation;
- has a high degree of representation; and
- has major elite representation.
3. The control system (Price, 1968, pp. 137-181):
- has a high degree of sanctions;
- whose norm enforces-norm conformer relationships
are basically specific, emotionally neutral, impartial,
and focused on achievement criteria (rather than
diffuse, emotionally involved, biased, and governed
by ascribed criteria);
- has a sanction system with a high degree of grade,
i.e., service to the social system is positively
sanctioned, and lack of service is negatively
sanctioned;
- has a sanction system which is primarily based on
group output (rather than individual output);
- has a high degree of communication, vertical and
horizontal; and
- whose system of communication is primarily
instrumental, personal, and formal (rather than
expressive, impersonal, and informal).
4. Population and ecology:
- in terms of population, has a high degree of size,
i.e., the volume of output produces and
32
distributed, except where there is a high degree
of professionalization; and
- in terms of ecology, has some spatial mobility,
i.e., role occupants move from one location to
another, except where the performance of
different roles in different locations is coupled
with a high degree of professionalization; and has
a spatial mobility which is primarily oriented to
effectiveness.
Lawless (1972, pp. 397-398) proposed the following
model (Figure 2) for examining OE. Lawless underscored that it
is not always necessary to examine all possible relationships. The
focus of the study can be limited to only those levels and
variables that are relevant to the research question (p. 404).
The present study’s research approach is similar to that of
Rice’s (1971). Investigating the OE of psychiatric hospitals Rice
went through the following steps:
1. the development of criterion measures for psychiatric
hospital performance,
2. the development of measures of hospital resources,
programs, and policies, and
3. the determination of possible relationships between
these two sets o measures. (p. 90)
He also conducted a preliminary survey to aid him in deciding
which variables to include in the study.
33
Individual level Independent variables
Physical attributes
Psychological attributes
Engineering factors
Individual level Effectiveness
Personal outputCreative outputLoyalty-
commitmentPersonal
developmentConformity-
devianceInfluence on
others
Intervening variables
Group level Independent variables
Structural variables
Task variablesEnvironmental
conditions
Intervening variables
Intervening variables
Organizational level Independent variables
Structural variables
Task variablesEnvironmental
conditionsControl and Incentive
systemsExisting personnel
Group level Effectiveness
Group productivity
Group moraleConformityAdaptivenessInstitutional-
ization
Figure 2. Organizational Effectiveness model for identifying the variables and their interrelations
(Lawless, 1972, pp. 397-398)
Organizational level
EffectivenessProductivityMoraleConformityAdaptivenessInstitutional-
ization
34
Empirical Studies of Organizational Effectiveness
of Higher Education and Research Organizations
Simple and partial correlation studies of OE of higher
education and research organizations were searched for in the
1968 to 1977 issues of the following periodicals:
1. Acadeny of Management Journal
2. Administrative Science Quaterly
3. Adult Education
4. Advanced Management Journal
5. American Educational Research Journal
6. American Sociological Review
7. California Management Review
8. Colloge and University
9. Educational Administration Review
10. Harvard Business Review
11. Hospital Administration (1968-1975)
12. Human Organization
13. Industrial and Labor Relations Review
14. Sloan Management Review (1970-1976)
15. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
16. Journal of Apllied Psychology
17. Journal of Business
18. Journal of Higher Education
19. Journal of Management Studies
35
20. Human Resource Management (1971-1972)
21. Management International Review
22. Management Review
23. Management Science
24. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
25. Organizational Dynamics (1972-1977)
26. Personnel
27. Personnel Journal
28. Personnel Psychology
29. Public administration Review
30. Public Personnel Management (1968; 1972-1977)
31. Sociology of Education
32. Training and Development Journal
33. Universities Quaterly
Ten studies were found in these periodicals, and they are
reported here in alphabetical order by authors’ surname. Each
report consists of three parts: Hypotheses, or Purpose; Method;
and Results. No attempts were made to offer methodological
criticisms on the studies.
1. Aram, J.D. & Morgan, C.P. The role of project team
collaboration in R & D performance. Management Science,
1976, 22, 1127-1137.
Purpose: to examine the relationship between individual
perception of team collaboration and individual technical
performance in an R & D laboratory.
36
The authors defined team collaboration as: “The presence
of mutual influence between persons, open and direct
communication and conflict resolution, and support for
innovation and experimentation.”
Method: One hundred ten professionals of an R & D
laboratory completed two questionnaires: one on team
collaboration, and another on job needs and opportunities.
Evaluation of the overall performance of each
professional by his supervisors was used as a measure of
individual technical performance. This evaluation was
available only for 62 individuals.
Results: The responses to the first questionnaire were first
factor analyzed, and three factors came forth as distinct
dimensions of team collaboration.
a. Problem-solving through support and integration;
b. Open, authentic communication; and
c. Knowledge-based risk taking.
A factor analysis of the responses to the second questionnaire
yielded four areas of the professionals’ needs and
opportunities on the job.
a. professionalism , e.g., reputation, competence, and
37
professional associations;
b. job conditions of employment stability, competent
supervision, congenial co-workers, clear objectives,
and a good salary;
c. status orientation in terms of advancement in
administrative authority and status, salary, fair
evaluation, and association with top executives; and
d. self-actualization dealing with challenging work,
growth in knowledge and skills, and freedom to
carry out ideas.
The difference between job needs and opportunities in each of
these four areas constitutes an index of job satisfaction.
Knowledge-based risk taking, job conditions,
satisfaction, and individual technical performance were
correlated significantly with each other. There was no
substantial drop the relationship between any two variables
when the third was controlled.
Knowledge-based risk taking, opportunities in all four
areas and the total opportunity score, and individual technical
performance were correlated significantly with each other.
Adjusting for opportunities reduced the relationship between
38
knowledge-based risk taking and individual technical
performance to near zero.
2. Bachman, J.G. Faculty satisfaction and the dean’s
influence: anorganization study of twelve liberal arts
colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 55-61.
Hypotheses:
a. the effective dean is influential; and
b. the effective dean’s influence is based upon a
relatively high degree of expert and referent power,
and a relatively low degree of legitimate and
coercive power.
The author considered faculty satisfaction with the dean as
measure of the dean’s effectiveness.
Method: Using questionnaires, 1,201 faculty members of
12 liberal arts colleges were asked
a. to rate, on a 5-point scale, the amount of influence
of each of the following groups or persons: the
board of trustees, the president, the dean, the
department chairman, the faculty as a group, and the
students as a group;
b. to rank order, according to their importance to the
faculty, five different bases of influence as reasons
for compliance to the dean’s requests and
39
suggestions. The five bases of influence are:
hierarchical authority (legitimate power),
competence and experience (expert power), personal
admiration (referent power), and the potential use of
positive and negative sanctions (reward abd coercive
power); and
c. to indicate agreement or disagreement, on a 5-point
scale, satisfaction with the dean.
Results:
a. colleges in which the dean’s influence is high
showed greater mean satisfaction with the dean (r
= .69, p < .05); and
b. correlations with faculty satisfaction were positive
for expert (r = .75, p < .01) and referent (r = .67, p
< .05) power, and negative for reward (r = -.80, p
< .01) and coercive (r = -.70, p < .05) power.
3. Coltrin, S. & Glueck, W.F. The effect of leadership roles
on the satisfaction and productivity of university research
professors. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20,
101-116.
Hypotheses: on the basis of the contingency theory of
40
leadership, i.e., “appropriate leadership style is a function
of the leader, the group, the task and the environment,” the
authors developed the following hypotheses:
Ia. A positive correlation between the researchers’ satisfaction with the administrator and the components of the administrator’s leadership style will vary by science classification.
Ib. A positive correlation between the researchers’ overall satisfaction with the position and the components of the administrator’s leadership style will vary by science classification.
II. The greater the compatibility between perceived and desired administrator roles (a) the more satisfied researchers will be with their administrators, (b) the more satisfied researchers will be with their overall positions.
III. The more researchers perceive their administrators as attempting to reward them, the more satisfied they will be (a) with their administrators, (b) with their overall positions.
IV. There will be a positive correlation between research productivity and (a) the degree to which researchers perceive their administrator as attempting to reward them, (b) the leadership style components of administrators, (c) the compatibility between perceived and desired administrator roles. (pp. 101-102)
Method: the subjects of the study were 248 researchers
from 46 academic departments of a university who:
a. had been on the faculty for at least one year;
b. held the rank of assistant professor or higher;
and
41
c. were members of departments which place a
strong emphasis on research activities.
A modification of the federal science classification of
the National Science Foundation was used to classify
the researchers into eight groups of 31 (± 2). The
administrators consisted of the chairmen of departments
from which the researchers were selected. The
researchers were queried about:
a. their satisfaction with the administrator and
overall satisfaction with their position at the
university;
b. the leadership style components of the
administrator: administrator integrity,
administrator satisfaction with researchers,
helpfulness, accurate and complete
communication, administrator willing to stand
for them, helpful in research projects, and
frequency of communications; and
c. the perceived and desired role of the
administrator: resource person, technical
consultant, manager, trouble shooter,
coordinator, no role, combination or other.
A Weighted Publication Index formula was used to
42
compute research productivity:
Weighted Publication Index = (A + B)/y x 5
A = the number of journal articles published in the past
five years
B = the number of books published in the past five
years
y = the number of years since obtaining the highest
degree
Results: hypotheses II and IIIa were supported; Ib and
IIIb were partially supported; and Ia and IV were not
supported.
4. Frew, D.R. Perceptions of leadership effectivenss and
organizational ideology. Management International
Review, 1973, 13(4-5), 117-124.
Hypothesis: perceived goal similarity is positively
correlated with perceived leadership effectiveness.
The authors defined the independent and dependent
variables as the following:
Perceived goal similarity: “the extent to which an
organizational member perceives similarity between his
personal ideology of organization and that of the leader to
be judged.”
Perceived leadership effectiveness: “the rating the
effectiveness assigned by a judge to a leader.”
43
Method: a questionnaire as sent to 1000 randomly selected
faculty members, administrators, and trustees of colleges
and universities within a particular state. (Usable response
rate 47%)
To measure the independent variable the respondents
were asked to rate, on a 5-pont rating scale, each of the 34
college and university goals, according to Gross typology,
in two ways:
a. What is your perception of the importance of each
particular goal to the university?
b. To what extent do you perceive the goals to be
important to the university president in his operation
of the institution?
The difference between the ratings for each item was
computed and averaged.
The dependent variable was measured by asking the
respondents to rate, on a 5-point rating scale, their respective
presidents from highly ineffective to highly effective.
Results: the correalation coefficient of the relationship
between the two variables wa .57 (p < .01).
5. Hall, D.T. & Lawler, E.E. Job characteristics and pressures
and the organizational integration of professionals.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 271-281.
44
Hypothesis: pressures which are generated by challenging
and responsible jobs are positively related with high
organizational effectiveness, need satisfaction, and job
involvement.
Method: twenty-two directors and 291 professionals of 22
R & D laboratories in Connecticut were selected as
subjects of the study.
Job pressure was measured by asking the professionals,
through interviews, “What sorts of pressure do people feel
around here the most?” A modified version of the Lodahl
and Kejner scale was used to assess job involvement of the
professionals.
The directors were asked to rate, on a 6-point percentile
scale, the global technical performance and global
administrative performance of their own organizations.
Objective performance was computed as the sum of:
a. net change in research and development budget
during the last year;
b. number of new outside contracts;
c. number of new internally funded projects;
d. percentage of projects meeting time schedule;
e. number of contracts renewed; and
f. percentage of projects meeting cost budget.
45
(The correlation coefficient of the relationship
between the objective and global technical
performance ratings was .12)
The composite performance index is the sum of the
standardized scores for the six components of objective
performance, global technical performance, and global
administrative performance.
Perceived job challenge was measured by averaging the
responses to seven Likert-type questions on challenge and
skill utilization. To assess job design characteristics three
factors were considered: (a) range of projects; (b)
independent budget research account; and (c) direct
customer responsibility. If the professionals indicated,
during the interviews, that they were in charge of a very
wide range of projects the laboratory was given a score of
one. A score of zero was assigned if the phenomenon was
not mentioned or if the professionals indicated that their
work involve only a few projects. If the director disclosed
that the professionals have an independent budget account
a score of one was given. A score of one was also given if
the professionals had direct contact with customers.
The Porter scale, minus part b, was used to measure
need satisfaction, in terms of security, social need, esteem,
autonomy, and self-fulfillment.
46
Results: the pressures most frequently reported by the
professionals were time (77%), quality (27%), and
financial responsibility (41%).
Recorded significant correlations:
a. Between job challenge and job pressure.
- job challenge and quality:
r = .48, p < .05
b. Between job design characteristics and job
pressure:
- independent budget and financial
responsibility: r = .43, p < .05
- direct customer contact and financial
responsibility: r = .42, p < .05
- direct customer contact and time:
r = .37, p < .10
c. Between job pressures and organizational
effectiveness:
- quality and global performance:
r = .40, p < .10
- quality and objective performance:
r = .37, p < .10
- quality and composite index
r = .44, p < .05
47
- financial responsibility and global
performance: r = .54, p < .01
d. Between job pressure and need satisfaction:
- time and security: r = .44, p < .05
- financial responsibility and social needs:
r = .38, p < .10
- financial responsibility and autonomy;
r = .40, p < .10
e. Between job pressures and job involvement:
- quality and job involvement:
r = .56, p < .01
f. Other:
- job challenge and esteem:
r = .72, p < .01
- job challenge and autonomy:
r = .78, p < .01
- job challenge and self-fulfillment:
r = .83, p < .01
- direct customer contact and social needs:
r = .36, p < .10
- direct customer contact and esteem:
r = .37, p < .10
- job involvement and global technical
performance: r = .43, p < .05
48
6. Jauch, L.R. & Glueck, W.F. Evaluation of university
professors’ research performance. Management
Science, 1975, 22, 66-75.
Purpose: to identify measures of research performance
that are valid and acceptable to university ptofessors.
Method: the subjects for the study were:
a. Eighty-six professors in 23 departments in
natural, mathematical, medical and biological
sciences at the University of Missouri-
Columbia who had been involved in
significant grant research over a 5-year
period; and
b. The 23 department chairmen of these research
professors.
Personal interviews were conducted, and printed
data (e.g., curriculum vitas, grant proposals, and
citation indexes) were examined to investigate the
validity of the following performance criteria:
a. Productivity measures:
- number of papers, books, and technical
reports published; and
- number of papers presented at professional
meetings.
b. Qualitative measures:
- Journal Quality Index: number of articles
49
- published in quality periodicals (agreed by
the professors);
- citations to published materials; and
- success rate of proposals for research
support.
c. Eminence measure:
- referee or editor of scientific journals;
- recognition-honors and rewards from the
profession;
- officer of national professional association;
- invited papers and guest lectures; and
- number of dissertations supervised.
d. Other measures:
- peer evaluations of research and
publications; and
- self-evaluations of research and
publications.
To study the acceptability of these performance
criteria the professors and department chairmen
were asked to rank them for their impartiality and
desirability. They were also asked to give their
opinions, on a Likert-type scale, on the following
issues:
a. Number of publications reflect quality.
50
b. Number of citations reflect quality.
c. It is difficult for anyone other than peers to
evaluate.
d. A journal quality index is a better way to
evaluate.
Results: significant correlations existed among
Productivity measures, Qualitative measures, Eminence
measures, and Total Performance Index. The best
relationship existed between the number of publication
and Total Performance Index; and the best combination
to improve the relationship was the number of papers
referred and published.
In general research professors and department
chairmen rated:
a. as good performance criteria: Journal quality
Index, peer evaluation, citation indexes, and
number of honors and awards;
b. as moderately good performance criteria:
number of invited papers, number of
publications, and grantsmanship abilities; and
c. as poor performance criteria: number of
offices held, number of papers presented at
meetings, and number of dissertations
supervised.
They felt that the quality of the periodicals where
51
the articles appear should be evaluated in order to
improve the validity of simple publication count
as performance criterion.
7. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. Organizational decision
making as a political process: the case of a university
budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19,
135-151.
Hypothesis: the allocation of resources is positively
related with departmental power, and negatively
related with work load.
Method: the department heads of 29 departments in
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were
selected as subjects, and the period of 1958-1970 was
chosen as the study period.
The dependent variable, the allocation of the
budget, was the proportion of the general funds
budget each department receives in each year.
Departmental power was measured in two ways:
a. Interviews with the department heads—they
were asked to rate, on a 7-point scale, the
amount of power each department, including
their own, had within the university.
b. Unobtrusive measure—the proportional
representation of each department on major
university committees and their relative
52
representation on the total of the committees.
The criteria used for selecting the committees
were: (1) that it be a recurring committee; and
(2) that it be as committee which had
responsibility for allocating real resources or
for dealing with educational matters or
student policy.
The measure of instructional workload was the
number of students taught multiplied by the number
of credit hours per course.
Results: the correlations between the determinants
and the allocation of general funds were:
a. Instructional work load: .68 (.001)
b. Departmental power:
(1) As measured by the interviews; .58 (.001)
(2) Membership on major committees:
- number of persons on total
committees: .53 (.002)
- proportion of persons on research
board: .77 (.001)
- proportion of persons on budget
committees: .27 (.10)
- proportion of persons on college executive
committees: .31 (.10)
- proportion of persons on student affairs
committee: .01 (NS)
53
- proportion of persons on educational
policy committee: .30 (.10)
- proportion of persons on senate
coordinating council: -.10 (NS)
- proportion of persons on building program
committee: .40 (.05)
- proportion of persons on non-recurring
appropriations committees : .25 (.10)
Partialling out each of the four measures of size (the
total number of instructional units taught, the number of
advanced graduate instructional units taught, the
fulltime-equivalent teaching faculty, and the full-time-
equivalent faculty supported by research or other
restricted funds) only one out of the 12 correlations
between three power measures (power as measured by
interviews, research board membership, and
membership on all committees), and the allocation of
general funds was not significant at the .10 level.
The correlation between the proportion of
instructional units taught and the proportion of budget
received, over the 13-year period, was negative.
54
8. Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. The bases and use of
power in organizational decision making: the case of a
university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974,
19, 453-473.
Hypotheses:
a. Departmental power is positively related with
the importance of resource contribution by the
department to the organization.
b. The allocation of scarce and critical resources is
positively related with departmental power.
Method: see study No. 7 for information on the
subjects of the study and the measurement of the three
power indicators.
The departments’ contributions to the university
were measured in two ways:
a. Historical measures, e.g., the proportion of total
grants and contracts a particular department
received; the proportion of undergraduate and
graduate students taught (13-period); and data on
national prestige (from studies conducted by the
American Council on Education).
b. Each department head was asked to assess, on a
5-point rating scale, the extent to which his
55
department contributed each of the following
seven resources compared to other departments
in the university: (1) number of graduate
students; (2) national rank of prestige of the
department; (3) number of undergraduate
students; (4) amount of outside grants or
contracts; (5) public visibility of the department;
(6) administrative and service contributions to
the university; and (7) business and professional
contracts. They were then asked to rank, on a 7-
point rating scale, the importance of the seven
resources.
The department heads were also asked to rank, on a 7-
point rating scale, the scarcity and the criticality of the
following seven resources: (1) graduate university
fellowships; (2) summer faculty fellowships; (3)
University Research Board grants for faculty research; (4)
appointments to the Center for Advanced Study; (5)
computer money for faculty research; (6) computer money
for instructional use; and (7) new courses. The actual
allocation of these resources were verified by archival
records.
Results: the rank order of the importance of resources
provided to the university were:
56
1st – graduate students;
2nd – national prestige; and
3rd – undergraduate students.
Correlations between the historical measures of
departmental contribution and the three indicators of
departmental power indicated the following rank order of
historical measures as predictors:
1st – proportion of faculty supported by restricted funds;
2nd – relative proportion of graduate students; and
3rd – the department’s national prestige.
Correlations between the subjective measures of
departmental contribution and the three indicators of
departmental power showed the following rank order of
subjective measures as predictors:
1st – amount of outside grants and contracts;
2nd – the number of graduate students; and
3rd – the department’s national prestige.
The discrepancy between the importance rank ordering
and the predictor rank ordering was ascribed by the authors
to either incorrect hypotheses or incorrect information with
regards to the relative importance of resources to the
university.
The four resources perceived as most scarce on the
57
average were also perceived as most critical. Starting
with the most scarce and the critical rank order was:
1st – university graduate fellowships;
2nd – Research Board grants for faculty research;
3rd – summer faculty fellowships; and
4th – opportunities to the Center for Advanced
Study.
The three measures of power were highly
correlated with the subjective measures of resource
allocation according to the same rank order. On the
basis of this parallel rank ordering the authors
concluded that the second hypotheses was supported.
9. Smith, C.G. Consultation and decision processes in a
research and development laboratory. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 203-215.
Hypothesis: the optimal balance between types of
consultation structures for effective performance in
contingent upon heterogeneity, involvement, role
expectations, and coordination.
Method: the subjects of the study were scientists
working in a research laboratory, which consisted of 15
divisions of 20-150 members each.
58
Organizational performance was assessed by two ways:
a. Evaluations by supervisors and colleagues of
technical contributions and general usefulness
to the laboratory.
b. Number of actual patents, published technical
papers, and unpublished papers.
The types of consultation structures were determined by
asking each scientist to name his five most significant
colleagues. From the responses seven indices were
computed:
a. Decentralized consultation : the ratio of the
number of all supervisory downward choices
to the number of upward choices made by
those below the level of senior scientists.
b. Horizontal consultation : the ratio of the
number of choices made by scientists on their
own level or below the number of upward
choices within the division.
c. Multidirectional consultation within the
division: the ratio of the total number of intra-
divisional choices to the number of possible
intra-divisional choices.
d. Formal consultation : the ratio of the number
of times the formal supervisor was named to
59
the number of times other scientists and other
supervisors in a division were named.
e. Integration of each work group or R & D
team in a division: the ratio of the number of
choices within the work group to the number
of possible choices within the group,
weighted by the number of work groups in the
division.
f. Functional consultation : the ratio of the
number of choices in other work groups to the
number of choices within the group.
g. Extra-divisional consultation : the ration of the
number of colleagues in other divisions
chosen to the number of choices within one’s
own division.
The intervening variables were:
a. Heterogeneity in a division: the inverse
variances of the ratings, by respondents in a
division, of specific items relating to: (a)
technical achievements desired; (2)
opportunities desired; (3) problem-solving
approaches; and (4) technical functions. A
general ranking of each division on the degree
of heterogeneity was computed.
60
b. Level of member involvement in a division:
the mean of all scientist ratings of the degree
involvement in their technical work.
c. Adequacy of role expectations: the average of
ratings from immediate supervisor to top level
executives, to those of the customer or client.
d. Level of divisional coordination: the average
of combined ratings by respondents of the
extent to which members of significant units
within the division coordinated their efforts
for some common objective.
Results: the partialling out of intervening variables
showed that coordination has no effect on the
relationships between consultation structures and
performance criteria.
10.Smith, C.G. Scientific performance and the
composition of research teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1971, 16, 486-495.
Hypothesis: a heterogeneously composed research team
will be superior in group performance.
Method: a questionnaire was sent to 418 scientists and
engineers in a large laboratory. The professionals were
grouped into 49 teams of three to eleven.
61
Group performance was measured by the means
of members’ scores on each of four individual
performance criteria (Evaluated technical contributions,
Evaluated general usefulness, logarithm of patents, and
logarithm of technical papers).
Group heterogeneity was measured in four areas:
a. Professional achievement values (what
experiences would produce feelings of
technical success or accomplishment).
b. Institutional achievement values (the
importance attached to organizational
opportunities).
c. Preferred problem-solving approaches.
d. Actual contributions to group problem-
solving (technical functions).
Each team’s Group heterogeneity measure was
computed by averaging the reciprocals of the groups’s
variances across the component questions.
The leader-member heterogeneity was also
assessed, i.e., the absolute difference between the
leader’s response and the mean response of the rest of
the group. Leadership functions and actual problem-
solving approaches were evaluated.
Results: the results were presented separately for
Young (Y) and Old (O) teams. Y teams were those
62
which has been in existence for three years or less, and
O teams were those which had been in existence for
more than three years.
Controlling for leader-member heterogeneity,
leadership functions, and actual problem-solving
approaches, the significant correlations between Group
heterogeneity and Group performance were:
- Achievement values and Technical papers (Y): .46
(.01)
- Organizational opportunities and Technical papers
(Y): .28 (.05)
- Technical functions and
Evaluated Technical contributions (Y): -.39 (.01)
Evaluated general usefulness (O): .34 (.01)
Technical papers (O): -.28 (.05)
Adjusting for Group heterogeneity, leadership
functions, and actual problem-solving approaches, the
significant correlations between leader-member
heterogeneity and Group performance were:
- Achievement values and
Evaluated Technical contributions (Y): .48 (.01)
Evaluated general usefulness (Y): .41 (.01)
- Organizational opportunities and
Evaluated Technical contributions (Y); .34 (.01)
Evaluated Technical contributions (O): -.36 (.01)
63
Evaluated general usefulness (Y): .43 (.01)
Logarithm of patents (O); .56 (.01)
- Problem-solving approaches, and
Evaluated technical contributions (O): .29 (.05)
Logarithm of patents (O) .32 (.01)
- Technical functions and
Technical papers (Y): .48 (.01)
Patents (Y): .29 (.05)
Highlights of the Review of Related Literature
1. Determination of organizational effectiveness criteria:
- There are two ways of defining OE criteria: the goal
approach and the systems approach. The first uses
formal and operative goals of the organization as
criteria, and the latter uses sub-unit tasks as criteria.
- The goal approach is useful only for the study of OE
at the individual level (Yuchtman & Seachore,
1967).
- All four systemic processes (Inputs,
Transformations, Outputs, and Feedback effects)
and their interrelationships should be considered as
systems criteria (Evans, 1976, pp. 19-24).
64
- Both goal and systems criteria should be utilized in
the study of OE (Campbell, 1972, p. 32; Chorpade,
1971, pp. 87-88).
- OE criteria can be classified into short-run
(Production, Efficiency, Satisfaction), intermediate
(Development, Adaptability ) and long-term
(Survival) criteria (Gibson et al., 1973, p.37).
- There are universalistic and organization specific
criteria (Steers, 1975; 1977, pp. 49-50).
2. Relationships between organizational effectiveness
determinants and criteria:
- Can be studied at the individual, group, and total
organization levels separately, or at more than one
level simultaneously (Lawless, 1972, pp. 397-398;
404).
- Examples of studies of these relationships at various
levels:
a. Individual descriptive (age, rank, educational
training, present duties) and attitudinal
characteristics and the intensity of involvement
in role conflict, which in turn is related with
individual performance criteria (Getzels & Guba,
1954).
65
b. The structure of decision-making groups
(hierarchy of authority, degree of impersonality
in decision-making, degree of participation in
decision-making, degree of specific rules and
procedures, and degree of division of labor), and
group effectiveness criteria (goal achievement,
integration, adaptation) (Duncan, 1973).
c. Intra-organizational group variables (type of
services, accountability, autonomy, and
formalization) and inter-organizational group
variables (horizontal integration, horizontal
autonomy, and inter-organizational contacts)
with role conflict and role ambiguity, which in
turn are related with performance criteria (Rogers
& Molnar, 1976).
d. Organizational structure for decision-making
(centralization and formalization) with
productivity, adaptability, and flexibility (Mott,
1972, pp. 11; 15-16; 20; 34).
e. Congruent compliance structure with
organizational criteria (Etzioni, 1975).
f. Economic system, political system, control
system, and population and ecology variables
66
With productivity, morale, conformity,
adaptability, and institutionalization, which in
turn are related with OE criteria (Price, 1968).
3. Simple and partial correlation studies of organizational
effectiveness of higher education and research
organizations indicate the following significant
relationships:
a. Knowledge based risk taking is positively
correlated with individual technical performance;
and
Knowledge based risk taking is positively
correlated with professional opportunities
(professionalism, job conditions, status
orientation, and self-actualization), which in turn
are positively correlated with individual technical
performance (Aram & Morgan, 1976).
b. Administrator’s influence is positively correlated
with mean faculty satisfaction with the
administrator; and faculty satisfaction with the
administrator is positively correlated with the
administrator’s expert and referent power, and
negatively correlated with the administrator’s
reward and coercive power (Bachman, 1968).
67
c. Compatibility between perceived and desired
administrator roles is positively correlated with the
researchers’ satisfaction with the administrator and
with their position in the organization; and the
researchers’ perception of their administrators as
attempting to reward them is positively correlated
with researchers’ satisfaction with their
administrators (Coltrin & Glueck, 1977).
d. Perceived goal similarity is positively correlated
with perceived leadership effectiveness (Frew,
1973).
e. Job challenge is positively correlated with quality
pressure; independent budget is positively correlated
with financial pressure; direct customer contact is
positively correlated with financial and time
pressure; and quality pressure is positively related
with effectiveness criteria (Hall & Lawler, 1970).
f. The most valid university research performance
criterion is the number of publications; the criteria
most acceptable to research professors an
department chairmen are: Journal Quality Index,
peer evaluation, citation indices, and number of
honors and awards (Jauch & Glueck, 1975).
68
g. The allocation of general fund budget is positively
correlated with departmental power, and negatively
correlated with instructional team load (Pfeffer &
Salancik, 1974).
h. The allocation of scarce and critical resources is
positively correlated with departmental power
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974).
i. Combination of consultation structures is positively
correlated with OE criteria, controlling for
heterogeneity in a research division and adequacy of
role expectations (Smith, 1970).
j. Team heterogeneity is positively correlated with rate
of technical papers in young teams (in existence for
three years or less) (Smith, 1971).
69
Recommended