Rossi Sanusi



Chapter IIReview of Related LiteratureThe 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 ofOrganizational Effectiveness CriteriaThe 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 18uses 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 chooses19to 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 budgetT/I – Cost of information system/annual budgetT/O – Cost of information system/number of students graduatedΔI/I – Change in student enrollmentΔT/T – Change in administrative personnel to total personnelΔO/O – Change in number of students graduated; change in number of publications of facultyΔT/I – Change in cost of information system/annual budgetΔT/O – Change in cost of information system/number of students graduated20ΔO/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:The frequency with which each criterion is mentioned: adaptability-flexibility is mentioned in 10 models; productivity in six; satisfaction in five; 21profitability 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.The nature of the criteria: 13 are normative and four are descriptive.The generalizability of the criteria: 10 are universalistic and seven are contingent upon the type of the organization under study.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 RelationshipsBetween Organizational effectiveness Determinants and CriteriaThe 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 22Getzels and Guba (1954) on role conflict. They hypothized that:The greater the intensity of an actor’s involvement in role conflict the greater his relative ineffectiveness in at least one of the roles.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:Goal achievement: the extent to which the system is attaining its formally defined goals and objectives.23Integration: how completely members are being integrated into the system through clearly defined goals. (Duncan, 1973, p. 275)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 problem24solving 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:Organizing centers of power for routine production (productivity)The quantity of the productThe quality of the productThe efficiency with which it is producedOrganizing centers of power to change routines(adaptability)Symbolic adaptationanticipating problems in advance and developing satisfactory and timely solutions to themstaying abreast of new technologies and methods applicable to the activities of the organizationBehavioral adaptationprompt acceptance of solutionsprevalent acceptance of solutionsOrganizing 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 25members, 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 26personal 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 27lower 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 28as 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 environmentconsists of the recruitment of members, and the scope and pervasiveness of penetration into the environment. To attain high commitment, normative organizations have to stress 29both 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:The economic system (pp. 15-43):30has 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; andhas a continuous system of assembling output (rather than a batch system).The political system: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; andhas a maximum degree of centralization with respect to strategic decisions.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;31its ideologies have high degrees of congruence, priority, and conformity;has co-optation;has a high degree of representation; andhas major elite representation.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; andwhose system of communication is primarily instrumental, personal, and formal (rather than expressive, impersonal, and informal).Population and ecology:in terms of population, has a high degree of size, i.e., the volume of output produces and 32distributed, except where there is a high degree of professionalization; andin 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:the development of criterion measures for psychiatric hospital performance,the development of measures of hospital resources, programs, and policies, andthe 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 variablesPhysical attributesPsychological attributesEngineering factorsIndividual level EffectivenessPersonal outputCreative outputLoyalty-commitmentPersonal developmentConformity-devianceInfluence on othersIntervening variablesGroup level EffectivenessGroup productivityGroup moraleConformityAdaptivenessInstitutional-izationGroup level Independent variablesStructural variablesTask variablesEnvironmental conditionsIntervening variables Organizational level Independent variablesStructural variablesTask variablesEnvironmental conditionsControl and Incentive systemsExisting personnelOrganizational level EffectivenessProductivityMoraleConformityAdaptivenessInstitutional-izationIntervening variablesFigure 2. Organizational Effectiveness model for identifying the variables and their interrelations(Lawless, 1972, pp. 397-398)34Empirical Studies of Organizational Effectiveness of Higher Education and Research OrganizationsSimple 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:Acadeny of Management JournalAdministrative Science QuaterlyAdult EducationAdvanced Management JournalAmerican Educational Research JournalAmerican Sociological ReviewCalifornia Management ReviewColloge and UniversityEducational Administration ReviewHarvard Business ReviewHospital Administration (1968-1975)Human OrganizationIndustrial and Labor Relations ReviewSloan Management Review (1970-1976)Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceJournal of Apllied PsychologyJournal of BusinessJournal of Higher EducationJournal of Management Studies35Human Resource Management (1971-1972)Management International ReviewManagement ReviewManagement ScienceOrganizational Behavior and Human PerformanceOrganizational Dynamics (1972-1977)PersonnelPersonnel JournalPersonnel PsychologyPublic administration ReviewPublic Personnel Management (1968; 1972-1977)Sociology of EducationTraining and Development JournalUniversities QuaterlyTen 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.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.36The 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.Problem-solving through support and integration;Open, authentic communication; andKnowledge-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.professionalism, e.g., reputation, competence, and 37professional associations;job conditions of employment stability, competent supervision, congenial co-workers, clear objectives, and a good salary;status orientation in terms of advancement in administrative authority and status, salary, fair evaluation, and association with top executives; andself-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 between38knowledge-based risk taking and individual technical performance to near zero.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:the effective dean is influential; andthe 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 askedto 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;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 39suggestions. 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); andto indicate agreement or disagreement, on a 5-point scale, satisfaction with the dean.Results:colleges in which the dean’s influence is high showed greater mean satisfaction with the dean (r = .69, p < .05); andcorrelations 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.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 40leadership, 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:had been on the faculty for at least one year;held the rank of assistant professor or higher; and41were 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:their satisfaction with the administrator and overall satisfaction with their position at the university;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; andthe 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 to42compute research productivity:Weighted Publication Index = (A + B)/y x 5A = the number of journal articles published in the past five yearsB = the number of books published in the past five yearsy = the number of years since obtaining the highest degreeResults: hypotheses II and IIIa were supported; Ib and IIIb were partially supported; and Ia and IV were not supported.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.” 43Method: 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:What is your perception of the importance of each particular goal to the university?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).Hall, D.T. & Lawler, E.E. Job characteristics and pressures and the organizational integration of professionals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 271-281.44Hypothesis: 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:net change in research and development budget during the last year;number of new outside contracts;number of new internally funded projects;percentage of projects meeting time schedule;number of contracts renewed; andpercentage 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.46Results: the pressures most frequently reported by the professionals were time (77%), quality (27%), and financial responsibility (41%).Recorded significant correlations:Between job challenge and job pressure.job challenge and quality:r = .48, p < .05Between job design characteristics and job pressure:independent budget and financial responsibility: r = .43, p < .05direct customer contact and financial responsibility: r = .42, p < .05direct customer contact and time:r = .37, p < .10Between job pressures and organizational effectiveness:quality and global performance: r = .40, p < .10quality and objective performance:r = .37, p < .10quality and composite indexr = .44, p < .0547financial responsibility and global performance: r = .54, p < .01Between job pressure and need satisfaction:time and security: r = .44, p < .05financial responsibility and social needs: r = .38, p < .10financial responsibility and autonomy; r = .40, p < .10Between job pressures and job involvement:quality and job involvement: r = .56, p < .01 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 < .10direct customer contact and esteem: r = .37, p < .10job involvement and global technical performance: r = .43, p < .0548Jauch, 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: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; andThe 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:Productivity measures:number of papers, books, and technical reports published; andnumber of papers presented at professional meetings.Qualitative measures:Journal Quality Index: number of articles 49published in quality periodicals (agreed by the professors);citations to published materials; andsuccess rate of proposals for research support.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.Other measures:peer evaluations of research and publications; andself-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:Number of publications reflect quality.50Number of citations reflect quality.It is difficult for anyone other than peers to evaluate.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:as good performance criteria: Journal quality Index, peer evaluation, citation indexes, and number of honors and awards;as moderately good performance criteria: number of invited papers, number of publications, and grantsmanship abilities; andas 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 where51the articles appear should be evaluated in order to improve the validity of simple publication count as performance criterion.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: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.Unobtrusive measure—the proportional representation of each department on major university committees and their relative52representation 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:Instructional work load: .68 (.001)Departmental power: As measured by the interviews; .58 (.001) 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)53proportion 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.54Salancik, 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:Departmental power is positively related with the importance of resource contribution by the department to the organization.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: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).Each department head was asked to assess, on a 5-point rating scale, the extent to which his55department 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:561st – graduate students;2nd – national prestige; and3rd – 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; and3rd – 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; and3rd – 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 57average 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; and4th – 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.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.58Organizational performance was assessed by two ways:Evaluations by supervisors and colleagues of technical contributions and general usefulness to the laboratory.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: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.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.Multidirectional consultation within the division: the ratio of the total number of intra-divisional choices to the number of possible intra-divisional choices.Formal consultation: the ratio of the number of times the formal supervisor was named to 59the number of times other scientists and other supervisors in a division were named.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.Functional consultation: the ratio of the number of choices in other work groups to the number of choices within the group.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: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.60Level of member involvement in a division: the mean of all scientist ratings of the degree involvement in their technical work.Adequacy of role expectations: the average of ratings from immediate supervisor to top level executives, to those of the customer or client.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.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:Professional achievement values (what experiences would produce feelings of technical success or accomplishment).Institutional achievement values (the importance attached to organizational opportunities).Preferred problem-solving approaches.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 62which 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 andEvaluated Technical contributions (Y); .34 (.01)Evaluated Technical contributions (O): -.36 (.01)63Evaluated 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 LiteratureDetermination 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).64Both 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).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: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).65The 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).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).Organizational structure for decision-making (centralization and formalization) with productivity, adaptability, and flexibility (Mott, 1972, pp. 11; 15-16; 20; 34).Congruent compliance structure with organizational criteria (Etzioni, 1975).Economic system, political system, control system, and population and ecology variables 66With productivity, morale, conformity, adaptability, and institutionalization, which in turn are related with OE criteria (Price, 1968).Simple and partial correlation studies of organizational effectiveness of higher education and research organizations indicate the following significant relationships: 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).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).67Compatibility 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). Perceived goal similarity is positively correlated with perceived leadership effectiveness (Frew, 1973).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).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).68The allocation of general fund budget is positively correlated with departmental power, and negatively correlated with instructional team load (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1974).The allocation of scarce and critical resources is positively correlated with departmental power (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974).Combination of consultation structures is positively correlated with OE criteria, controlling for heterogeneity in a research division and adequacy of role expectations (Smith, 1970).Team heterogeneity is positively correlated with rate of technical papers in young teams (in existence for three years or less) (Smith, 1971).69 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download