A Spatial Modle of Effectiveness Criteria

  • View
    231

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of A Spatial Modle of Effectiveness Criteria

  • 7/25/2019 A Spatial Modle of Effectiveness Criteria

    1/16

    MANAGEMENT SCIENCEVol. 29, N o. 3, March 1983

    Printed n U S A

    A SPATIAL MO DEL OF EFFECTIVENESS CRITER IA:TOWARDS A CO MPETING VALUES APPROACH TO

    ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS*

    ROBERT E. QUINN f AND JOHN ROHRBAUGHf

    This paper presents a framework for organizational analysis. The empirically derivedapproach does not emerge from the observation of actual organizations, but from the ordering,through multivariate techniques, of criteria that organizational theorists and researchers use toevaluate the performance of organizations.

    In a two-stage study, organizational theorists and researchers were impaneled to makejudgments about the similarity of commonly used effectiveness criteria. The model derivedfrom the second group closely replicated the first, and in convergence suggested that threevalue dimensions (control-flexibility, internal-external, and means-ends) underlie conceptuali-zations of organizational effectiveness.

    When these value dimensions are juxtaposed, a spatial model emerges. The model serves anumber of important functions. It organizes the organizational effectiveness literature, indi-cates which concepts are most central to the construct of organizational effectiveness, makesclear the values in which the concepts are embedded, demonstrates that the effectivenessliterature and the general literature on organizational analysis are analogues of one another,and provides an overarching framework to guide subsequent efforts a t organizational assess-ment.(ORGANIZATIONANALYSIS, EFFECTIVENESS)

    Deeply embedded in the organizational literature is the construct of effectiveness.Improved effectiveness, for example, is claimed as the desired end in the applied fieldsof organization development [10] and organization design [16]. At the theoretical level,Goodman and Pennings [12] have argued that effectiveness is the central theme in allof organizational analysis and that it is difficult to conceive of a theory of organizationthat does not include the effectiveness construct.

    While effectiveness is clearly a construct of central importance, it is not withoutproblems. One of the major problems pertains to the elusiveness of a definition. In amajor review of the effectiveness literature, Campbell [8] was able to identify 30different criteria of effectiveness. The imprecise definitions and conceptual overlapbetween the 30 criteria led Campbell to conclude:

    . . . different people adhere to different models, and there is no correct way to choose among

    them. Thus, when a Hst is put together from different conceptual points of view, the compositelist will almost inevitably look messy. [8, p. 40]

    Observations such as this one are part of an increasing disillusionment with theeffectiveness construct. Steers [33] has questioned the value of the construct, andHannan and Freeman [14] have severely criticized it. More recently, Bluedom [3] hasargued that the construct should be entirely eliminated. While some disagree with thecall for a moratorium on studies of organizational effectiveness [30], [7], nearly allwould agree that the effectiveness literature is in disarray.

    While there are many reasons for the confusion [6], there is one that is of particular

    importance to this study: the fact that effectiveness is not a concept but a construct. A

  • 7/25/2019 A Spatial Modle of Effectiveness Criteria

    2/16

    36 4 ROBERT E. QUINN AND JOHN ROHRBAUGH

    concept is an abstraction from observed events, the characteristics of which are edirectly observable or easily measured. Some concepts, however, cannot be so erelated to the phenomena they are intended to represent. They are inferences, higher level of abstraction from concrete events, and their meaning cannot easiconveyed by pointing to specific occurrences. Such higher-level abstractionssometimes identified as constructs, since they are constructed from concepts at a l

    level of abstraction. The problem is that no one seems to be sure which concepts (as productivity or capital growth) are to be included in the construct of effectiveor how they are to be related [7], [33]. The highly abstract nature of the constructhe lack of agreement as to its structure accounts for a major portion of the confin the effectiveness literature.

    Given divergent perspectives and emphases in the organizational literature, whnecessary in order to clarify the construct of organizational effectiveness? Steerssuggested that the first step should be to identify ali of the variables in the domaeffectiveness and then to determine how the variables are similarly related. Cam[8] proposed a similar approach. As mentioned above, he identified a comprehe

    list of 30 criteria; he pointed out that the list of variables was long and variegenerality, methods of operationalization, and closeness to the final payoff; and stressed the need to weed out the overlap and get down to the core variables 39].

    Scott [29], Seashore [30], and Cameron [5] have all attempted to bring integration to the literature. Scott [29, pp. 73-74], for example, has suggested thanumerous criteria of effectiveness can be reduced to three basic models: the ratsystem model, natural system model, and open system model. According to Scotemphasis of the rational system model, due to its mechanistic, instrumental bias, the number of units produced in a given time (productivity) and the number of

    produced for a given number of input units (efficiency). The natural system apprconsiders not only the production function, but also the activities required for theto maintain itself From this organic view, attention is focused on such propertiemorale and cohesion. The open system model includes system-elaborating as wesystem-maintaining functions. The activities emphasized by this model are adaptaband resource acquisition.

    Seashore [30] has also suggested a three-model integration of the effectiveliterature. His goal model is very similar to Scott's rational model, but he has usenatural system model to cover both the natural and open system approaches descrby Scott. His third model, the decision process model, is unlike any of the mproposed by Scott. In the decision process model, the effective organization is thewhich optimized the processes for getting, storing, retrieving, allocating, m aniping, and discarding information.

    Cameron [5] has proposed a four-model integration of the literature. These models are the goal, systems resource, internal processes, and participant satisfaapproaches. The goal model is very similar to the rational or goal models describeScott and Seashore. The system resource model is very similar to Scott's open symodel, while the internal process model parallels Seashore's decision process mCameron's last model, the participant satisfaction or strategic constituency modan elaboration of the natural system model mentioned by both Scott and SeashHere the organization is seen as a dynamic coalitional entity within which comtransactional networks of constituencies develop. The effective organization

  • 7/25/2019 A Spatial Modle of Effectiveness Criteria

    3/16

    A SPATIAL MODEL OF EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA 36 5

    effectiveness literature, yet each theorist offers an integration that differs somewhatfrom each of the others. While their agreement is considerable, the construct ofeffectiveness as it has been employed is certainly fuzzy enough to generate theapparent divergencies as to which concepts belong in the construct, how they relate toeach other, and what particular clusters of concepts should be called.

    Neither have traditional multivariate methods been particularly appropriate for

    solving the problem at hand. The shortcomings of such approaches have been notedby Campbell [8], who was particularly pessimistic about the pitfalls of factor analyticstudies. Assembling a large sample of organizations, measuring a set of potentialcriteria, and then reducing them through factor analysis is a process the outcome ofwhich is highly dependent upon the initial task of selecting measures. Whenever anorganization is to be evaluated, investigators must consciously choose a precise set ofcriteria upon which to base their assessments. In organizational research, these criteriatraditionally have been either selected and then imposed upon the organization by theresearchers or evaluators themselves, or they have been derived from interviews withmembers of the target organizations. In either case, the selected criteria usually reflectan unarticulated but fundamental set of underlying personal values about the appro-priate emphases in the domain of effectiveness. These personal values that motivatethe choice of particular criteria ultimately underlie the resulting effectiveness dimen-sions uncovered by (but actually antecedent to) factor analytic studies.

    The method of investigation used in the present study, although multivariate, was aradical departure from previous factor analytic efforts employed to derive dimensionsof organizational effectiveness. The focus was on the cognitive structure of theorganizational theorist, not on the operational structure of the organization. Here weprovide a method for making the implicit and abstract notions of multiple theorists

    and researchers explicit and precise. The question posed was, How do individualtheorists and researchers actually think about the construc t of effectiveness? Theprocedure described in the following sections uses multidimensional scaling to ap-proach the problem. The present paper emerges from an initial exploratory studyemploying a panel of 7 experts [23] and a second study in which a larger group of 45theorists and researchers participated.

    1. Initial Exploratory Study

    rticip nts

    Seven individuals w