a study of organizational effectiveness

8/6/2019 A Study of Organizational Effectiveness

1/8

A Study of Organizational EffectivenessAuthor(s): Basil S. Georgopoulos and Arnold S. TannenbaumSource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 5 (Oct., 1957), pp. 534-540Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089477 .

Accessed: 30/07/2011 02:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2089477?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2089477?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/8

A STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS *BASIL S. GEORGOPOULOSND ARNOLDS. TANNENBAUM

Universityof MichiganORGANIZATIONAL effectivenesss one ofthe most complex and least tackledproblemsin the study of social organ-izations. Many difficulties arise with at-tempts to define the concept of effectivenessadequately. Some stem from the closenesswith which the concept becomes associatedwith the question of values (e.g., "manage-ment" versus "labor" orientations). Otherproblems arise when researchers choose apriori criteria of effectiveness that seem in-tuitively right, without trying systematicallyto place themwithin a consistentand broaderframework. In effect, specific criteria thatmight be proper in one case may be entirelyinappropriate to other organizations. Thequestion arises whether it is possible to de-velop a definition of effectivenessand to de-rive criteria that are applicable acrossorganizations and can be meaningfullyplaced within a general conceptual frame-work.The present paper has three objectives:(a) to examine the concept of effectivenessand to providea definitionderivingfrom thenature of organizations; (b) to developoper-ational criteria and to measure the conceptin a specific industrial setting; and (c) toevaluate these criteria and operations interms of their organizationalcharacter, i.e.,the extent to which they representan organi-zational-level phenomenon, their reliability,and their agreementwith independentexpertjudgment.

THE CONCEPTThe conceptof organizationaleffectiveness(sometimes called organizational "success"or organizational"worth") is ordinarilyused

to referto goal-attainment.In this sense, it isa functionalrather than a structuralconcept.* Expanded version of paper read at the AnnualConference of the American Association for PublicOpinion Research, May, 1957. The present studywas conducted by the Organizational Behavior andHuman Relations Program of the Survey ResearchCenter.

Furthermore,it is probably most useful incomparative organizational research, i.e., inrelationalrather than absolute terms,but theconcept could also be used developmentallyto study the effectivenessof the same organ-ization over time.Traditionally, in the study of industrialorganizations,effectiveness has been viewedand operationalized mainly in terms ofproductivity. In this connection, Thorndikehas noted a general tendency on the part ofpersonnel and industrial psychologists toaccept as "ultimate criteria" of organiza-tional success the following: organizationalproductivity, net profit, the extent to whichthe organization accomplishes its variousmissions,and the success of the organizationin maintaining or expanding itself.1 Othervariables that have been used in various con-texts as criteria of effectiveness include"morale," commitment to the organization,personnel turnover and absenteeism, andmembersatisfactions.2

With the exception of organizationalproductivity, however, practically all vari-ables used as criteria of organizationaleffectivenesshave been found inadequateandunsatisfactory. For example, previous find-1 R. L. Thorndike, Personnel Selection: Test andMeasurement Techniques, New York: Wiley, 1949,pp. 121-124.2 See, for example, R. L. Kahn, "The Predic-tion of Productivity," Journal of Social Issues, 12(No. 2, 1956), pp. 41-49; R. L. Kahn and N. C.Morse, "The Relationship of Productivity toMorale," Journal of Social Issues, 7 (No. 3, 1951),pp. 8-17; Daniel Katz and R. L. Kahn, "HumanOrganization and Worker Motivation," in L. R.Tripp (Ed.), Industrial Productivity, Madison:Industrial Relations Research Association, 1951.See also the following, published at the Institute

for Social Research, University of Michigan, AnnArbor: Daniel Katz, N. Maccoby, and N. C. Morse,Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an OfficeSituation, 1950; Daniel Katz, N. Maccoby, G.Gurin, and L. G. Floor, Productivity, Supervision,and Morale Among Railroad Workers, 1951; N. C.Morse, Satisfaction in the White-Collar Job, 1953;S. E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness in the Indus-trial Work Group, 1955.534


3/8

A STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 535ings regarding"morale"and member satis-faction in relationto effectiveness (effective-ness measuredon the basis of productivity)have frequently been inconsistent, nonsig-nificant, or difficult to evaluate and inter-pret. The case of turnover and absenteeismis similar. A major problem in using thesetwo variables as criteria of effectiveness istheir differential sensitivity to such "third"considerationsas the nature and volume ofwork to be processed, organizational levelaffected,and season of occurrenceapart fromthe degree of such occurrence. Net profit islikewise a poor criterion in view of manyunanticipated fluctuations external to thesystem, e.g., fluctuations in the generalecon-omy, markets, sales, and prices.In view of these and related inadequacies,the role of other potential criteria of organi-zational effectiveness should be studied. Onthis point, and in addition to productivity,Kahn and Morse have suggested the vari-ables of organizationalflexibility and maxi-mization of memberpotential,3but no workhas been done in this direction. Elsewhere,Bass has proposed as criteria the extent towhich an organization s of value to its mem-bers, and the extent to which the organiza-tion and its membersare of value to society.4For theoreticalreasons,however,it is prefer-able to look at the concept of organizationaleffectiveness from the point of view of thesystem itself-of the total organization inquestion rather than from the standpoint ofsome of its parts or of the larger society.Furthermore, proposed criteria should besystem-relevantas well as applicable acrossorganizations.It is most satisfactory, more-over, if such criteria are derived from acommonframeworkto which the concept oforganizationaleffectivenesscan be meaning-fully related.

GENERAL CRITERIA OF EFFECTIVENESSA distinguishing characteristic of nearlyall variables which have been used as criteriaof effectiveness is that, whether directly or

indirectly, they tie in with organizationalob-jectives. This relationship,however, is onlya necessary condition. Not all criteria that3 R. L. Kahn and N. C. Morse, op. cit., p. 16.4 B. M. Bass, "Ultimate Criteria of Organiza-tional Worth," Personnel Psychology, 5 (Autumn,1952), pp. 157-173.

fulfill this requirement are appropriate.Many cannot be applied acrossorganizations(e.g., some organizationshave no problemsof turnover and absenteeism or may evenbe overstaffed), and many do not logicallyconform to a generally accepted conceptionof organizations.It is our assumptionthat all organizationsattempt to achieve certain objectives nadto develop group products through the ma-nipulation of given animate and inanimatefacilities. Accordingly, definitions of organi-zational effectiveness must take into con-siderationthese two aspects: the objectives oforganizationsand the means through whichthey sustain themselves and attain their ob-jectives, particularly those means thatusually become functionally autonomous(i.e., that come to assume the character ofand function as organizational goals). Inshort, the study of organizationaleffective-ness must contend with the question oforganizationalmeans and ends.Assuming that the organizational systemmaintains itself, the most general and mostimportant common objectives of organiza-tions are: (a) high output in the sense ofachieving the end results for which theorganization is designed, whether quanti-tatively or qualitatively; (b) ability to ab-sorb and assimilate relevant endogenousandexogenous changes, or the ability of theorganizationto keep up with the times with-out jeopardizing its integrity; and (c) thepreservation of organizational resources, ofhuman and material facilities.5 It should beboth feasible and fruitful to study organiza-tional effectiveness by gearing our criterionvariables to these general aspects of organi-zation.We define organizational effectiveness asthe extent to which an organization as asocial system, given certain resources andmeans, fulfills its objectives without in-capacitating its means and resources andwithout placing undue strain upon its mem-

5 Satisfaction of member needs beyond someminimum critical level, and the maintenance ofsufficient member motivation and of an effort-reward balance constitute important problems forall organizations. And, it is under this concept ofpreservation (or incapacitation) of resources thatsuch variables as turnover, absenteeism, morale,and satisfaction could be viewed as "criteria" orcorrelates of effectiveness.


4/8

536 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEWbers. This conception of effectiveness sub-sumes the following general criteria: (1)organizational productivity; (2) organiza-tional flexibility in the form of successfuladjustment to internal organizationalchanges and successful adaptation to exter-nally induced change; and (3) absence ofintraorganizational train, or tension, and ofconflict between organizational subgroups.These three criteriaboth relate to the means-ends dimension of organizationsand, poten-tially, apply to nearly all organizations.Thefirst relates to the movement of the organi-zation toward its goals (locomotion); theothers relate to the requirementsof organi-zational survival in the face of external andinternal variability, and to the dimensionofpreservation(or incapacitation) of organiza-tional means. In an attempt to evaluate thepresent approach, we have used these cri-teria in the study of a large-scale organiza-tion, which we feel is particularlysuitable toour investigationbecauseof the simplicity ofits structure.

METHOD, OPERATIONS, AND MEASURESThe organization studied is an industrialservice specializing in the delivery of retailmerchandise.It is unionized and operates inseveral metropolitan areas, on a contractbasis with department stores. In each areathere is a company plant, under a plantmanager,which is divided into a number ofdivisions,each division encompassinga num-ber of smallerorganizationalunits called sta-

tions. These constitute the basic operatingunits of the company.The plant structure is replicated in everycase, i.e. the stations are structurallyhomogeneous and organizationally parallel.They all performthe same kind of activity,employ uniform-standardequipment, drawupon the same type of resources,and func-tion on the basis of uniformly establishedwork-standards.A typical station has a sta-tion manager, a day supervisor, a nightsupervisor,and about 35 workers. Approxi-mately three-fourthsof the workers are truckdrivers who transport and deliver packagesto private residences; the remaining,workerssort and load the merchandiseprior to de-livery. Thirty-two such stations, represent-

ing five company plants, are included in thestudy.In each case data were collected from allstation members,supervisory as well as non-supervisory.6The average questionnaire re-turn rate for supervisory personnel was 97per cent and for non-supervisory87 per cent(the questionnaires were administered onlocation). No station having a return ratelower than 75 per cent of its non-super-visory membersis represented n the sample.The operations and measures for the conceptof organizational effectiveness and for thethree criteria are based on this sample.Independent judgments were obtainedfrom a group of experts concerning the rela-tive overall effectiveness of the various sta-tions in the five plants. It was on this basisthat the 32 stations were selected for study.The expert raters had first-handknowledgeof the stations they rated but were not di-rectly involved in station operations. In-cluded among the raterswere the plant man-ager, the assistant plant manager, somedivision managers, and other key plant per-sonnel, comprising a total of six to nine ex-perts in each of the five company plants.Special forms and instructions, developedin consultation with the top managementofthe company,were sent to the various ratersseparately. These requested the rater to listall stations in the plant, to cross out thosestations he was not able to evaluate, and tojudge the remainingstations by placing theminto five categories of overall effectiveness,rangingfrom "best"to "poorest."The raterswere asked to use as a time basis the six-month period precedingthe evaluation. Thefollowing excerpts from the instructions in-

6The major backgroundcharacteristics f thenonsupervisory tation personnel,as of July, 1955,were as follows: all workersare male; nearly allworkersare unionized (95 per cent) ; 81 per centare between 26 and 49 years old; 82 per cent aremarried; 77 per cent have gone beyond gradeschool; 85 per cent have been on the same jobfor at least one year, 84 per cent have been work-ing in the same station for at least one year, and73 per cent have been with the companyfor threeyears or more. Three-fourthsof the workers ex-press "fair" or better than fair satisfaction withtheir wages, but 42 per cent are "very little" ornot at all satisfied with their chancesfor advance-ment in the company (probably due to the factthat upward mobility is extremely imited becauseof the structureof this organization).


5/8

A STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 537dicate the frame of reference for the conceptof effectivenessas presented to the raters:

You are to rank the performance of thestation as a whole as distinct from the per-formanceof any of the people in it....You may want to take into considerationuchthings as: how satisfied you are personallywith the total situation n the station,how wellit is measuringup to the expectationsandgoals of (the company) considering he par-ticulardifficultiest faces, also recentprogressand development,the way problems arehandled, communications,costs, efficiency,morale,performancen relation o standards,etc. The important thing is that all thesethings taken together and consideredas awhole will be the basis for the ranking....Fill the formwithout checkingyour opinionswith anyone and then send it directly to(the researchstaff). Your individual rank-ings will be treated as confidential nd onlythe summary indings will be used for thepurposesof the study.

Additional instructionswere given about themechanics of placing the stations in fiveeffectivenesscategories.All raters submitted their independentevaluations of the stations under their juris-diction, and their judgmentswere analyzed.All stations about which there was consistentagreement among raters (i.e., cases clearlyfalling at either of the two extremes or themiddle of the five effectiveness categories),as judged by three members of the researchstaff, were retained as candidates for inclu-sion in the sample. A list of these stationswas then submitted to each of the two re-gional managers of the organization. Eachmanager and one more expert classified theperformanceof the listed stations as "aboveaverage," "average," or "below average,"using a proceduresimilar to that of the firstgroup of raters. After eliminating a fewunits of ambiguouseffectivenessstanding, arepresentativesampleof 32 stations resulted.The effectiveness score for each stationwas computed by combining and averagingthe judgments of all raters.7 The range oneffectiveness was from 1.0, signifying unitsof highest possible effectiveness,to 4.8, with

7 Stations judged as "above average" by thesecondgroup of raterswere assigneda scale valueof 1, "average"stations 3, and "below average"stations 5 to achieveequivalenceof scales for thetwo rater groups.

5.0 being the lowest possible score. It shouldbe noted that the distributionof the sampleon effectiveness was later found to be posi-tively related with the mean responses ofnon-supervisory station personnel to thequestion: "How do you feel your stationcompares with other similar stations in get-ting the job done?"Apparentlythose directlyinvolved with the operations of the organiza-tion can make judgments about the per-formance of their respective units and theyseem to use similar frames of reference. Asimilarfinding has been reportedby Comrey,Pfiffner, and Beem.8Station productivity, the first of the threecriterionvariablesof organizationaleffective-ness, was measuredon the basis of standard,company-widerecords of performancevis-a'-vis establishedwork-standards.This measureis expressed n units of time consumedby theworker below or above what is "allowed"according to the standard. The averageproductivity of all drivers9 during the monthpreceding the field study 10 was taken torepresent the organizationalproductivity ofthat station. (Incidentally, it shouldbe notedthat no problemsof quality of output are in-volved.) On the basis of a standard of 2.00,the range of the obtained distributionof thesample on productivitywas from 0.81, signi-fying the highest producing station, to 2.93signifying the lowest producing station. Aninterval of .30 in the present scale is equiva-lent to 18 minutes of deviation from theestablishedwork-standard.Intraorganizationalstrain was conceptual-ized as the incidence of tension or conflictexisting between organizational subgroups.This criterionwas operationalizedand meas-

8A. L. Comrey, J. M. Pfiffner, and H. P. Beem,"Factors Influencing Organizational Effectiveness,"Personnel Psychology, 5 (Winter, 1952), pp. 307-328.9 Drivers constitute three-fourths of all mem-bers and operate under uniformly established work-standards. The remaining workers operate eitherunder no work-standards or under a group-standardthat may vary from station to station. However,their productivity is reflected in that of the driverssince these workers process exactly the same workvolume that the drivers deliver.10This particular month was chosen becauseit was the most recent month for which data couldbe made available to the researchers, and becauseit was a "normal" month in terms of work vol-ume. All months, except December, are considered"normal."


6/8

538 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEWured in terms of responses by non-super-visory station personnel to the followingquestion: "On the whole, would you saythat in your station there is any tension orconflict between employees and super-visors?" The respondent could choose, on afive-point scale, one of five alternatives rang-ing from there is "a great deal of tension"to"no tension at all." The average non-re-sponse rate to this question was 6.6 percent. The mean of the responses in each sta-tion represents the score of intraorganiza-tional strain characterizing hat station. Therange of these scores for the sample wasfrom 2.46, signifying the highest strain sta-tion, to 4.50 signifying the lowest strainstation. It is interesting to note that stationsupervisors generally agree with the con-sensus of their subordinates about the de-gree of strain characteristic of their station.Organizational flexibility, the third andlast criterion, was conceptualizedas the ex-tent to which the organization is able toadjust to internally induced change and toadapt to externally induced change. Twomeasures were used, one for each of thesetwo aspects of flexibility, and the resultswere then combinedinto a single measure."The first was based on the following ques-tion: "From time to time changes in meth-ods, equipment, procedures, practices, andlayout are introduced by the management.In general, do you think these changes leadto better ways of doing things?" The re-sponse alternatives, forming a five-pointscale, ranged from "they are always an im-provement"to "they never improve things"with an additional "I can't judge" category.The average non-response rate, including "Ican't judge"responses,was 7.3 per cent. Thesecond measure was based on the question:"In general,how well do you think your sta-tion handles sharp changes in volume duringpeak periods?" The response alternativeshere rangedfrom "excellent" to "very poor,"also forming a five-point scale. The non-re-sponse rate to this question was 3 per cent.The flexibility score assigned to a givenstation was obtainedby computingthe mean

11The rank-order correlation between these twoflexibility measures was found to be .71 for thestudy sample of 32 stations, suggesting a strongassociation between the two aspects of organiza-tional flexibility represented by the two measures.

of the responses of non-supervisory stationpersonnel for each of the two questions, andby adding the two means and dividing theresult by two. The obtained sample distribu-tion on flexibility ranges froma score of 1.78,signifying high flexibility, to a score of 2.99,signifying the least flexible station on a five-point scale. Again, as in the case of strain,station supervisorsgenerally agree with theirrespective subordinatesabout the flexibilityof their station.EMPIRICAL EVALUATION

The operations and measures used areevaluated in terms of three major consider-ations. Since effectivenessis viewed in termsof three criteria, the question arises (1)whether in fact each criterion is significantlyrelated to the appraisal of effectiveness byexperts, i.e. whether our operations corre-spond to such an independent standard;(2) whether the criteria are significantlyinterrelated and if so, what their joint reli-ability is. Since the concept of organizationaleffectivenessis by definition as well as logi-cally and theoretically a group concept, thequestion arises (3) whether our criterionmeasures represent group phenomena.The results of our study are presentedin Table 1. Based on an N of 32 stations,these rank-order correlations are significantat the .05 level or better. In short, as wasexpected, each of the three criteria is foundto be related to an independent assessmentTABLE1. RANK-ORDERORRELATIONSMONGCRI-

TERIONVARIABLESNDORGANIZATIONALEFFECTIVENESSCriterion Variables

Station Station StationProduc- Inter-group Flexi-tivity Strain bilityStationeffectiveness .73 -.49 .39Station

productivity ... - .48 .35Stationinter-groupstrain ... ... -.70

* All correlation coefficients are statistically sig-nificant at the .05 level or better, based on an N of32 organizational units (stations).


7/8

A STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 539of organizational effectiveness by experts.These results lend support to the validityof the three criteria.Table 1 also shows that the three criteriaare significantly interrelated. Based on thereported relationships, the overall relia-bility 12 of the three criteria is found tobe .77. These findings provide support forthe statistical reliability of the criteria, theo-retically considered in combination. Theprediction of the independently obtainedmeasure of organizational effectiveness wasattempted by combining the three criterionmeasures into a single index.To construct this index, the station pro-ductivity scores were transformed into five-point scale scores, with 1.00 signifying thehighest and 5.00 the lowest theoreticallypossible productivity.'8 With the inversionof the intraorganizationalstrain scale, thisoperation resulted in station productivityscores on a scale equivalent to the scalesused for the measurement of strain andflexibility. Thus, for each of the 32 sampleunits, three different scale scores becameavailable, each representingone effectivenesscriterion.These scores were averaged result-ing in a criterionindex score for each stationin the sample.This index score indicates the extent towhich a given organizational unit is effec-tive, or the extent to which it is productive,flexible, and devoid of internal strain. Therangeof criterionindex scores for the samplewas found to be from 1.69, the most favor-able score, to 3.11, least favorable,on a five-point scale. The sample distribution on thiscriterion index was then related to the dis-tribution of the sample on station effective-ness, and a correlationcoefficientof .68 wasobtained between the two distributions.When corrected for attenuation (This can

12 This reliability was computed on the basis ofthe relationships appearing in Table 1. For theformula used to compute the reliability coefficient,see J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psy-chology and Education, New York: McGraw-Hill,1942, p. 282.13 The theoretical scale limits in this transforma-tion were set so as to correspond to the productivityscores of the highest and lowest producing indi-vidual worker in the sample. It was assumed thatno station can have a higher productivity than thehighest producing individual worker in the sample,nor a lower productivity than the lowest producingworker.

be done since we know the reliability of thecriterion ndex.), this coefficientbecomes.77.This suggests that, by means of the presentcriterion index, one could predict to organ-izational effectiveness, as judged by experts,explaining about 46 per cent (or, theoreti-cally, when corrected for attenuation, about59 per cent) of the existing variance.14Inshort, this is the part of variance on stationeffectiveness that could be accounted for interms of the employed criterion index.Finally, to answer the question of whetherour three criteria of effectiveness representorganizational rather than individual phe-nomena, the productivity criterion waschosen for further study. This was donebecause productivity in the present studycontributes more to the explained vari-ance in effectiveness than either strain orflexibility, and because the station produc-tivity measure was derived by averagingtheproductivity of individuals. Unlike the flexi-bility and strain measures, which were de-rived from responses to questions that ex-plicitly referred to organizational aspects,the station productivity criterion had as itsinitial referent the individual worker.There-fore, the criterion of productivity is themost doubtful from the standpoint ofwhether or not it represents an organiza-tional phenomenon.The productivity criterion was furtherstudied by analysis of variance to determinewhether the stations or the individuals inthem constitute the primary source of pro-ductivity variance. Twenty-seven stations,distributedamong four company plants andencompassing a total of 685 individualworkerswhose productivity had been ascer-tained, were used. Suitable productivityscores were not available in the case of theremaining five stations, which belong to thefifth company plant studied.

14 A less satisfactory way to answer the samequestion empirically would have been to computethe multiple correlation coefficient between the threecriteria and effectiveness on the basis of the ob-tained correlational findings, without constructingan index. This was computed and found to be .75,suggesting that, in the present study, about 56 percent of the variance in effectiveness can be accountedfor in terms of the joint contribution of the threecriteria-productivity, strain, and flexibility. Thisfinding is similar to that obtained by using thecriterion index.


8/8

540 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEWTABLE 2. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON PRODUCTIVITY FOR TWENTY-SEVEN UNGROUPED STATIONS*

Mean SquareSource of Variance Sum of Squares d.f. (variance) F-ratio

Between-Stations 10,142 26 390 F = 5.82p < .001F.99(2,65s) = 1 . 90

Within-Stations 40,438 658 67Total 50,580 684*These stations are similar organizational units distributed among four, larger company plants.

Table 2 presents the results of thisanalysis. These results indicate that thebetween-stationsvariance on productivity isfar greater than the within-stations vari-ance. The obtained F-ratio of 5.82 is sta-tistically significant beyond the .001 level.This confirms our initial expectation thatthe productivity criterion measure repre-sents an organizational(station) ratherthanindividual level phenomenon.This evidence,however, is not adequate for it is conceiv-able that the results might vary from plantto plant. To test this possibility, similaranalyses of variance were also performedseparately for each of the four companyplants representedin the sample of 27 sta-tions.'5 In each case the between-stationsvariance on productivity was found to besignificantlygreater than the within-stationsvariance; i.e., grouping the stations intoplants makes no difference in this respect.Therefore, we are reasonably assured thatthe productivity criterion measure repre-sents an organizationalrather than an indi-vidual phenomenon.

SUMMARYThe concept of organizational effective-ness is an importantand widely used notionin the study of social organization. A con-siderablegap, however, exists between theo-15 The specific results from this analysis are asfollows: for Plant A, consisting of 12 stations and373 individual workers, the F-ratio is 3.67 andp < .01; for Plant B, consisting of 5 stations and136 individuals, F is 6.31 and p < .01; for Plant C,consisting of 6 stations and 99 individuals, F is6.57 and p < .01; and for Plant D, consisting of4 stations and 77 individuals, F is 3.50 and p < .05.Thus, in all cases, the between-stations variance onproductivity is significantly greater than the within-stations variance, as expected.

retical and empirical approaches. Becausethere is little theory that adequately treatsthis concept, research efforts have generallyproceeded unsystematically, without suffi-cient considerationof the conceptual aspectsof the phenomenon,and in terms of ad hoccriterianot systematicallyrelatedto theoreti-cal frameworks consistent with our knowl-edge of organizations.The objective of the present researchwasto examine and define the concept, and toinvestigate some of its operational aspectsby developing and testing criteria in an in-dustrial setting. These criteria of effective-ness stem from a commonly accepted viewof organizationalrequirementsand are gen-erally applicable across organizations.Basedon this view, the study of organizationaleffectiveness would require that emphasisbe placed on the means-ends dimension oforganizations, and that the criteria of or-ganizational flexibility, productivity, andstrain be taken into consideration.In the present case, organizational effec-tiveness was conceptualizedas the extent towhich an organization, as a social system,fulfills its objectives without incapacitatingits means and resourcesand without placingundue strain upon its members.The problemwas approached in terms of the criteria oforganizational productivity, intraorganiza-tional strain, and organizational flexibility,which were derived from a common frame-work. In the present study, the relevantoperations proved reliable and the criteriarelatedsignificantlyto an independentevalu-ation of effectivenessby experts. These cri-teria represent important aspects of organ-izational functioning and deserve furtherattention in the study of organizationaleffectiveness.

a study of organizational effectiveness

Documents