Chapter II

Review of Related Literature

The review of related literature was divided into four

sections: (1) approaches to the determination of organizational

effectiveness (OE) criteria; (2) approaches to the study of

relationships between OE determinants and criteria; (3)

empirical studies of OE of higher education organizations;

and (4) highlights of the review of related literature. For

definitions of terms used in the reviewed literature consult

Appendix C.

Approaches to the Determination of

Organizational Effectiveness Criteria

The literature on OE suggests two general approaches

to defining OE criteria, i.e., the goal approach and the systems

approach. Campbell (1976, p.31), Etzioni (1971, pp. 33-36),

Ghorpade (1971, pp. 85-86), and Price (1972, p. 100)

compared these two approaches. With the first approach an

investigator would use the formal and operative goals of the

organization. With the latter he would try to identify the

requirements or the coping mechanism an organization must

have in order to be effective.

The goal orientation is considered objective because it

18

uses the values of the organization under study as criteria, and

not those of the researcher. There are, however, a few

problems associated with this approach, e.g., formal goals are

different from operative goals; formal goals are often too

idealistic, especially those that incorporate public goals;

organizations are multifunctional units, and each sub-unit has

its own operative goals; and the different points in time at

which operative goals are measured have to be taken into

consideration (Etzioni, 1971, pp. 34-35).

Yuchtman and Seashore (1967) believed that the goal

concept is useful in the study of individuals in organizational

settings, but that it is less so in the study of organizational

effectiveness (OE). Adhering to the systems approach, they

defined OE as “the ability of the organization, in either

absolute or relative terms, to exploit its environment in the

acquisition of scarce and valued resources” (p. 89). The

definition focuses on the input process of the system.

Etzioni (1971, p. 36) emphasized the transformation

process of the systems model. He considered it vital for the

organization to reach of optimum distribution of

organizational resources among its sub-units in order to be

effective. He also suggested that the system approach is more

demanding and expensive than the goal approach (p. 41).

Evan (1976, pp. 19-24) maintained that if one chooses

19

to utilize the systems model for assessing OE, “one must

measure performance with respect to all four systemic

processes as well as their interrelationships.” The four

systemic processes, i.e., the inputs (I), the transformations (T),

the outputs (O), and the feedback effects, were

operationalized as nine OE ratios or systemic process

variables. Three of these ratios, O/I, T/I, and T/O, require a

single time slice in the systemic cycle; and the other six

feedback ratios, ΔI/I, ΔT/T, ΔO/O, ΔT/I, ΔT/O, and ΔO/I,

require at least two time slices.

Evan further gave an illustration of OE ratios for

different types of organizations. For colleges and universities

the ratios are as the following:

O/I – Number of students graduated/annual budget

T/I – Cost of information system/annual budget

T/O – Cost of information system/number of students

graduated

ΔI/I – Change in student enrollment

ΔT/T – Change in administrative personnel to total

personnel

ΔO/O – Change in number of students graduated;

change in number of publications of faculty

ΔT/I – Change in cost of information system/annual

budget

ΔT/O – Change in cost of information system/number

of students graduated

20

ΔO/I – Change in rate of admission of students whose

parents are alumni; change in rate of alumni

contributions (Evan, 1976, p. 23).

Campbell (1976, p. 32) and Ghorpade (1971, pp. 87-88)

reasoned that there really is no difference between the goal

and systemic orientations. According to these authors,

organization is a subsystem of a larger social system, and the

goals of the organization are primary societal mission carried

out by the organization. A similar relationship between the

organization and its subunits. The goal oriented researcher,

then, should try to find out why organizational performance

deviates from the goal criteria; and the system oriented

analyst should try to find out how the tasks of the subunits

contribute to the overall performance of the organization.

The time dimension was taken into consideration by

Gibson and others (1973, p.37). They classified OE criteria

into short-run, intermediate, and long-run criteria. Production,

efficiency, and satisfaction are the short-run criteria;

adaptiveness and development the intermediate; and survival

is the long-run criterion.

Steers (1975; 1977, pp. 43-51) examined 17 OE models

and reviewed them on the following dimensions:

1. The frequency with which each criterion is

mentioned: adaptability-flexibility is mentioned in

10 models; productivity in six; satisfaction in five;

21

profitability and resource acquisition in three each;

absence of strain, control over environment,

development, efficiency, employee retention, growth,

integration, open communication and survival in two

each; and all other criteria in one each.

2. The nature of the criteria: 13 are normative and four

are descriptive.

3. The generalizability of the criteria: 10 are

universalistic and seven are contingent upon the type

of the organization under study.

4. Derivation of criteria: 10 were derived deductively

and seven inductively.

After examining the empirical literature dealing with

criterion measures of OE, Campbell (1976, pp. 36-38) was

able to synthesize a list of 30 criteria. A few examples are:

overall effectiveness, productivity, efficiency, profit, quality,

growth, satisfaction, morale, utilization of environment, and

stability.

Approaches to the Study of Relationships

Between Organizational effectiveness

Determinants and Criteria

The relationships between OE determinants and criteria

can be examine at the individual, group, and organizational

level, or simultaneously at more than one level. An example

of OE investigation at the individual level is the work of

22

Getzels and Guba (1954) on role conflict. They hypothized

that:1. The greater the intensity of an actor’s involvement

in role conflict the greater his relative ineffectiveness in at least one of the roles.

2. The intensity of an actor’s involvement in role conflict is systematically related to certain personal and attitudinal characteristics. (p. 166)

The attitudinal and personal characteristics were classified

into: (a) descriptive information, such as, age, rank,

educational training, and current duties; and (b) attitudinal

information, e.g., interest in the goals of the organization,

feelings of adequacy or inadequacy in his role, and

sentiments. The assessment of effectiveness was

accomplished by peer ratings as either below or above

average in performance.

The study undertaken by Duncan (1973) is an

illustration at the group level. His intention was to examine

the relationship between structure of organizational decision-

making units and OE criteria. The structure of these units was

operationalized and measured in terms of: (a) hierarchy of

authority; (b) degree of impersonality in decision-making; (c)

degree of participation in decision-making; (d) degree of

specific rules and procedures; and (e) degree of division of

labor. Organizational effectiveness criteria, on the other hand,

were conceptualized as having three components:1. Goal achievement : the extent to which the system is

attaining its formally defined goals and objectives.

23

2. Integration : how completely members are being integrated into the system through clearly defined goals. (Duncan, 1973, p. 275)

3. Adaptation : the extent to which the system is adapting structurally to its environment so that role occupants can adapt to new demands, resulting from a changing environment, on their job. (p. 275)

The author theorized that the group structures would be

different for routine and non-routine decisions, and that when

the perceived uncertainty (because of lack of knowledge

regarding the environment and the outcomes of decisions) is

high the differences would be even greater. The effectiveness

of groups with different structures, making different

decisions, working in different levels of uncertainties, was

measured.

Examining the top level administration in county

offices of federal, state, and county agencies, Rogers and

Molnar (1976) correlated intra- and inter-organizational

variables with role conflict and role ambiguity, which they

assumed are related to organizational performance. The

internal factors selected for analysis were: the type of

services, accountability, autonomy, and formalization.

According to these authors, the external factors are the Administrators’ perceptions about their inter-organizational field, that is, the position of their organization in the field relative to others and the amount of interaction between their organization and other organizations as reflected by contacts between directors, the flow of information, of resources, and overlapping members of the boards of directors. (p. 275)

At the organizational level Bennis (1971), and Mott (1972)

studied the relationship between the structure for problem

24

solving and OE criteria. According to Bennis (1971, p. 128),

to enhance the spirit of inquiry, or the scientific attitude, of

the organization special attention should given to

methodological rules and operating procedures. Mott (1971,

pp. 11; 15-16) pinpointed the optimal combination of formal

and informal problem solving, or the degree of centralization

and formalization. He defined OE as “the ability of an

organization to mobilize its centers of power to produce,

adapt to change, and cope with emergencies” (p. 34). The

dependent variables were specified as the following:A. Organizing centers of power for routine

production (productivity)1. The quantity of the product2. The quality of the product3. The efficiency with which it is produced

B. Organizing centers of power to change routines(adaptability)1. Symbolic adaptation

a. anticipating problems in advance and developing satisfactory and timely solutions to them

b. staying abreast of new technologies and methods applicable to the activities of the organization

2. Behavioral adaptationa. prompt acceptance of solutionsb. prevalent acceptance of solutions

C. Organizing centers of power to cope with temporally unpredictable overloads of work (flexibility). (p. 20)

Focusing on the structuring of power and involvement

Etzioni (1975, pp. 12-14) elaborated on OE with his

compliance theory. He suggested that congruent compliance

structures, i.e., the type of power applied to members of lower

echelons is congruent to the type of involvement by these

25

members, are more effective than incongruent structures.

Coercive power should be applied to an alienative type of

lower member involvement (e.g., for custodial organizations),

remunerative power to a calculative type (e.g., business

organizations), and normative power to a moral type (e.g.,

schools, religious organizations, military organizations,

unions, non-profit organizations). For evaluating the

effectiveness of each compliance structure corresponding

criteria are employed: order goals (prevention of occurrence

of certain events) for a coercive compliance structure;

economic goals (production of commodities and services) for

a utilitarian compliance structure; and culture goals (creation,

preservation, application of culture) for a normative

compliance structure (Etzioni, 1975, pp. 103-106). In

professional organizations both normative and remunerative

controls are applied, but the first is predominant. The

techniques for normative control are, for example, leadership,

rituals, manipulation of social and prestige symbols, and

resocialization (pp. 32; 40; 48).

Congruent compliance structures involve the proper

structuring of the organization’s elites and charismatics.

Organizational elites are the members who have the power,

and they consist of: officers—those who have the positional

power; formal leaders—those who have positional and

personal power; and informal leaders—those who have

26

personal power. According to Etzioni, an organization must

solve four basic functional problems: two instrumental needs

of input and allocation; and two expressive needs of social

and normative integration. Expressive activities require moral

involvement and are, therefore, best supervised by elites who

have normative power. Leaders tend to more effective than

officers, and informal leaders tend to be more effective than

formal ones. Instrumental activities require calculative

involvement and are, therefore, best supervised by elites who

have utilitarian power. Officers and formal leaders tend to be

more effective than informal leaders, and officers tend to be

more effective than formal leaders. For culture goals it is

functional if the expressive elites take the lead (1975, pp. 155-

158).

Etzioni hypothesized that “the effectiveness of

normative organizations will be higher if the expressive elites

are superior to the instrumental ones, rather than the other

way around, because the expressive elites are closer to the

normative purposes and compliance structure’ (p. 217). The

expressive activities of normative organizations include

services, consultation, training, planning, and research; and

the instrumental activities are the administration and

management of the organization.

In colleges and universities the professional staff, as

27

lower echelon members, is better amalgated, or integrated,

into the organizational elite. The potential informal leaders are

absorbed (recruited into full-time organizational positions),

co-opted (special positions and tasks are created for them), or

they collaborate. Etzioni underscored that these integrated

professionals staff members should function only as

expressive elites, for if they assume the positions as

administrators they will pay more attention to normative

activities and neglect the utilitarian needs of the organization.

Charismatics are the members in an organization who

have the ability “to exercise diffuse and intense influence over

the normative orientation of other actors.” They are functional

only in positions which require moral involvement of

subordinates. They should be the persons who make decisions

regarding expressive activities. Although specialists in their

own fields, they ought to be generalists in terms of scope of

perception, time orientation, orientation to means, flexibility,

and others.

Professional organizations will be more effective if the

integrated professional staff members, or the expressive elites,

have charisma and are generalists. Charisma in the hands of

the administration officials, or the instrumental elites, may be

used to overemphasize the instrumental needs (e.g., economy,

efficiency), and, consequently, undermine the attainment of

culture goals. Professionals acquire charisma from their status

28

as accredited professionals, their academic rank, and their

personal qualities (e.g., extraordinary talent, skill,

competence, knowledge, persuasive powers, and eccentric

behavior (Etzioni, 1975, pp. 305-351).

Etzioni (pp. 232-276) also called attention to the

relationships between compliance structure and the degree of

consensus, communication networks, socialization, and

organizational environment. Normative organizations require

high consensus on all norms that are highly related to

expressive activities and emphasize downward expressive

communication.

Socialization, expressive or instrumental, is the transfer

of consensus structure and communication practices to new

members. Note Etzioni’s comment on socialization in

normative organizations:[Expressive socialization] is given somewhat less weight in military academies, and considerably less in law and medical schools, where training predominates and indoctrination plays a minor role. Professional organizations such as universities, hospitals, and research organizations, the least normative of normative organizations, typically emphasize instrumental socialization. Much of the limited expressive socialization which takes place here is unorganized, and is sometimes an unintended consequence of other processes such as interaction with peers and senior members of the profession. (pp. 249-250)

The organization’s interaction with its environment

consists of the recruitment of members, and the scope and

pervasiveness of penetration into the environment. To attain

high commitment, normative organizations have to stress

29

both selectivity and socialization. Scope is the number of

activities in which organization members are jointly involved

(action boundaries), and pervasiveness is the number of

activities inside or outside the organization for which the

organization sets norms (normative boundaries). Normative

organizations are high in the pervasiveness and vary in scope

(Etzioni, 1975, pp. 262-275).

Unlike this deductive approach by Etzioni, Price (1968)

inductively constructed OE propositions from fifty studies. He

arranged the propositions into four organizational systems: the

economic system, which is responsible for the production

output of the system; the political system, which make

decisions and endeavors to acquire resources from the

environment; the control system, which controls organization

members’ conformity to norms; and the population and

ecology, which deal with the volume of output and members’

spatial mobility.

The OE criteria were not specified; rather, the author

assumed that they are positively related to productivity,

morale, conformity, adaptiveness, and institutionalization (as

intervening variables), and that they are more closely related

to productivity than to the other four.

Price hypothesized that for an organization to be

effective the following characteristics in each system have to

be met:

1. The economic system (pp. 15-43):

30

- has a high degree of division of labor;

- has a high degree of specialized

departmentalization, except where there is a

high degree of knowledge required to produce

the output (complexity);

- a high degree of mechanization, except where

there is high degree of professionalization;

and

- has a continuous system of assembling output

(rather than a batch system).

2. The political system:

a. The internal component, which makes decisions

(Price, 1968, pp. 49-94):

- has high degree of legitimacy;

- has a rational-legal type of decision-making

(rather than a charismatic type);

- has a high degree of centralization with

respect to tactical decisions, except where

there is a high degree of complexity; and

- has a maximum degree of centralization with

respect to strategic decisions.

b. The external component, which attempts to

obtain support or decisions from the environment

(pp. 96-132):

- has a high degree of autonomy;

- has an ideology;

31

- its ideologies have high degrees of

congruence, priority, and conformity;

- has co-optation;

- has a high degree of representation; and

- has major elite representation.

3. The control system (Price, 1968, pp. 137-181):

- has a high degree of sanctions;

- whose norm enforces-norm conformer relationships

are basically specific, emotionally neutral, impartial,

and focused on achievement criteria (rather than

diffuse, emotionally involved, biased, and governed

by ascribed criteria);

- has a sanction system with a high degree of grade,

i.e., service to the social system is positively

sanctioned, and lack of service is negatively

sanctioned;

- has a sanction system which is primarily based on

group output (rather than individual output);

- has a high degree of communication, vertical and

horizontal; and

- whose system of communication is primarily

instrumental, personal, and formal (rather than

expressive, impersonal, and informal).

4. Population and ecology:

- in terms of population, has a high degree of size,

i.e., the volume of output produces and

32

distributed, except where there is a high degree

of professionalization; and

- in terms of ecology, has some spatial mobility,

i.e., role occupants move from one location to

another, except where the performance of

different roles in different locations is coupled

with a high degree of professionalization; and has

a spatial mobility which is primarily oriented to

effectiveness.

Lawless (1972, pp. 397-398) proposed the following

model (Figure 2) for examining OE. Lawless underscored that it

is not always necessary to examine all possible relationships. The

focus of the study can be limited to only those levels and

variables that are relevant to the research question (p. 404).

The present study’s research approach is similar to that of

Rice’s (1971). Investigating the OE of psychiatric hospitals Rice

went through the following steps:

1. the development of criterion measures for psychiatric

hospital performance,

2. the development of measures of hospital resources,

programs, and policies, and

3. the determination of possible relationships between

these two sets o measures. (p. 90)

He also conducted a preliminary survey to aid him in deciding

which variables to include in the study.

33

Individual level Independent variables

Physical attributes

Psychological attributes

Engineering factors

Individual level Effectiveness

Personal outputCreative outputLoyalty-

commitmentPersonal

developmentConformity-

devianceInfluence on

others

Intervening variables

Group level Independent variables

Structural variables

Task variablesEnvironmental

conditions

Intervening variables

Intervening variables

Organizational level Independent variables

Structural variables

Task variablesEnvironmental

conditionsControl and Incentive

systemsExisting personnel

Group level Effectiveness

Group productivity

Group moraleConformityAdaptivenessInstitutional-

ization

Figure 2. Organizational Effectiveness model for identifying the variables and their interrelations

(Lawless, 1972, pp. 397-398)

Organizational level

EffectivenessProductivityMoraleConformityAdaptivenessInstitutional-

ization

34

Empirical Studies of Organizational Effectiveness

of Higher Education and Research Organizations

Simple and partial correlation studies of OE of higher

education and research organizations were searched for in the

1968 to 1977 issues of the following periodicals:

1. Acadeny of Management Journal

2. Administrative Science Quaterly

3. Adult Education

4. Advanced Management Journal

5. American Educational Research Journal

6. American Sociological Review

7. California Management Review

8. Colloge and University

9. Educational Administration Review

10. Harvard Business Review

11. Hospital Administration (1968-1975)

12. Human Organization

13. Industrial and Labor Relations Review

14. Sloan Management Review (1970-1976)

15. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

16. Journal of Apllied Psychology

17. Journal of Business

18. Journal of Higher Education

19. Journal of Management Studies

35

20. Human Resource Management (1971-1972)

21. Management International Review

22. Management Review

23. Management Science

24. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

25. Organizational Dynamics (1972-1977)

26. Personnel

27. Personnel Journal

28. Personnel Psychology

29. Public administration Review

30. Public Personnel Management (1968; 1972-1977)

31. Sociology of Education

32. Training and Development Journal

33. Universities Quaterly

Ten studies were found in these periodicals, and they are

reported here in alphabetical order by authors’ surname. Each

report consists of three parts: Hypotheses, or Purpose; Method;

and Results. No attempts were made to offer methodological

criticisms on the studies.

1. Aram, J.D. & Morgan, C.P. The role of project team

collaboration in R & D performance. Management Science,

1976, 22, 1127-1137.

Purpose: to examine the relationship between individual

perception of team collaboration and individual technical

performance in an R & D laboratory.

36

The authors defined team collaboration as: “The presence

of mutual influence between persons, open and direct

communication and conflict resolution, and support for

innovation and experimentation.”

Method: One hundred ten professionals of an R & D

laboratory completed two questionnaires: one on team

collaboration, and another on job needs and opportunities.

Evaluation of the overall performance of each

professional by his supervisors was used as a measure of

individual technical performance. This evaluation was

available only for 62 individuals.

Results: The responses to the first questionnaire were first

factor analyzed, and three factors came forth as distinct

dimensions of team collaboration.

a. Problem-solving through support and integration;

b. Open, authentic communication; and

c. Knowledge-based risk taking.

A factor analysis of the responses to the second questionnaire

yielded four areas of the professionals’ needs and

opportunities on the job.

a. professionalism , e.g., reputation, competence, and

37

professional associations;

b. job conditions of employment stability, competent

supervision, congenial co-workers, clear objectives,

and a good salary;

c. status orientation in terms of advancement in

administrative authority and status, salary, fair

evaluation, and association with top executives; and

d. self-actualization dealing with challenging work,

growth in knowledge and skills, and freedom to

carry out ideas.

The difference between job needs and opportunities in each of

these four areas constitutes an index of job satisfaction.

Knowledge-based risk taking, job conditions,

satisfaction, and individual technical performance were

correlated significantly with each other. There was no

substantial drop the relationship between any two variables

when the third was controlled.

Knowledge-based risk taking, opportunities in all four

areas and the total opportunity score, and individual technical

performance were correlated significantly with each other.

Adjusting for opportunities reduced the relationship between

38

knowledge-based risk taking and individual technical

performance to near zero.

2. Bachman, J.G. Faculty satisfaction and the dean’s

influence: anorganization study of twelve liberal arts

colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 55-61.

Hypotheses:

a. the effective dean is influential; and

b. the effective dean’s influence is based upon a

relatively high degree of expert and referent power,

and a relatively low degree of legitimate and

coercive power.

The author considered faculty satisfaction with the dean as

measure of the dean’s effectiveness.

Method: Using questionnaires, 1,201 faculty members of

12 liberal arts colleges were asked

a. to rate, on a 5-point scale, the amount of influence

of each of the following groups or persons: the

board of trustees, the president, the dean, the

department chairman, the faculty as a group, and the

students as a group;

b. to rank order, according to their importance to the

faculty, five different bases of influence as reasons

for compliance to the dean’s requests and

39

suggestions. The five bases of influence are:

hierarchical authority (legitimate power),

competence and experience (expert power), personal

admiration (referent power), and the potential use of

positive and negative sanctions (reward abd coercive

power); and

c. to indicate agreement or disagreement, on a 5-point

scale, satisfaction with the dean.

Results:

a. colleges in which the dean’s influence is high

showed greater mean satisfaction with the dean (r

= .69, p < .05); and

b. correlations with faculty satisfaction were positive

for expert (r = .75, p < .01) and referent (r = .67, p

< .05) power, and negative for reward (r = -.80, p

< .01) and coercive (r = -.70, p < .05) power.

3. Coltrin, S. & Glueck, W.F. The effect of leadership roles

on the satisfaction and productivity of university research

professors. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20,

101-116.

Hypotheses: on the basis of the contingency theory of

40

leadership, i.e., “appropriate leadership style is a function

of the leader, the group, the task and the environment,” the

authors developed the following hypotheses:

Ia. A positive correlation between the researchers’ satisfaction with the administrator and the components of the administrator’s leadership style will vary by science classification.

Ib. A positive correlation between the researchers’ overall satisfaction with the position and the components of the administrator’s leadership style will vary by science classification.

II. The greater the compatibility between perceived and desired administrator roles (a) the more satisfied researchers will be with their administrators, (b) the more satisfied researchers will be with their overall positions.

III. The more researchers perceive their administrators as attempting to reward them, the more satisfied they will be (a) with their administrators, (b) with their overall positions.

IV. There will be a positive correlation between research productivity and (a) the degree to which researchers perceive their administrator as attempting to reward them, (b) the leadership style components of administrators, (c) the compatibility between perceived and desired administrator roles. (pp. 101-102)

Method: the subjects of the study were 248 researchers

from 46 academic departments of a university who:

a. had been on the faculty for at least one year;

b. held the rank of assistant professor or higher;

and

41

c. were members of departments which place a

strong emphasis on research activities.

A modification of the federal science classification of

the National Science Foundation was used to classify

the researchers into eight groups of 31 (± 2). The

administrators consisted of the chairmen of departments

from which the researchers were selected. The

researchers were queried about:

a. their satisfaction with the administrator and

overall satisfaction with their position at the

university;

b. the leadership style components of the

administrator: administrator integrity,

administrator satisfaction with researchers,

helpfulness, accurate and complete

communication, administrator willing to stand

for them, helpful in research projects, and

frequency of communications; and

c. the perceived and desired role of the

administrator: resource person, technical

consultant, manager, trouble shooter,

coordinator, no role, combination or other.

A Weighted Publication Index formula was used to

42

compute research productivity:

Weighted Publication Index = (A + B)/y x 5

A = the number of journal articles published in the past

five years

B = the number of books published in the past five

years

y = the number of years since obtaining the highest

degree

Results: hypotheses II and IIIa were supported; Ib and

IIIb were partially supported; and Ia and IV were not

supported.

4. Frew, D.R. Perceptions of leadership effectivenss and

organizational ideology. Management International

Review, 1973, 13(4-5), 117-124.

Hypothesis: perceived goal similarity is positively

correlated with perceived leadership effectiveness.

The authors defined the independent and dependent

variables as the following:

Perceived goal similarity: “the extent to which an

organizational member perceives similarity between his

personal ideology of organization and that of the leader to

be judged.”

Perceived leadership effectiveness: “the rating the

effectiveness assigned by a judge to a leader.”

43

Method: a questionnaire as sent to 1000 randomly selected

faculty members, administrators, and trustees of colleges

and universities within a particular state. (Usable response

rate 47%)

To measure the independent variable the respondents

were asked to rate, on a 5-pont rating scale, each of the 34

college and university goals, according to Gross typology,

in two ways:

a. What is your perception of the importance of each

particular goal to the university?

b. To what extent do you perceive the goals to be

important to the university president in his operation

of the institution?

The difference between the ratings for each item was

computed and averaged.

The dependent variable was measured by asking the

respondents to rate, on a 5-point rating scale, their respective

presidents from highly ineffective to highly effective.

Results: the correalation coefficient of the relationship

between the two variables wa .57 (p < .01).

5. Hall, D.T. & Lawler, E.E. Job characteristics and pressures

and the organizational integration of professionals.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 271-281.

44

Hypothesis: pressures which are generated by challenging

and responsible jobs are positively related with high

organizational effectiveness, need satisfaction, and job

involvement.

Method: twenty-two directors and 291 professionals of 22

R & D laboratories in Connecticut were selected as

subjects of the study.

Job pressure was measured by asking the professionals,

through interviews, “What sorts of pressure do people feel

around here the most?” A modified version of the Lodahl

and Kejner scale was used to assess job involvement of the

professionals.

The directors were asked to rate, on a 6-point percentile

scale, the global technical performance and global

administrative performance of their own organizations.

Objective performance was computed as the sum of:

a. net change in research and development budget

during the last year;

b. number of new outside contracts;

c. number of new internally funded projects;

d. percentage of projects meeting time schedule;

e. number of contracts renewed; and

f. percentage of projects meeting cost budget.

45

(The correlation coefficient of the relationship

between the objective and global technical

performance ratings was .12)

The composite performance index is the sum of the

standardized scores for the six components of objective

performance, global technical performance, and global

administrative performance.

Perceived job challenge was measured by averaging the

responses to seven Likert-type questions on challenge and

skill utilization. To assess job design characteristics three

factors were considered: (a) range of projects; (b)

independent budget research account; and (c) direct

customer responsibility. If the professionals indicated,

during the interviews, that they were in charge of a very

wide range of projects the laboratory was given a score of

one. A score of zero was assigned if the phenomenon was

not mentioned or if the professionals indicated that their

work involve only a few projects. If the director disclosed

that the professionals have an independent budget account

a score of one was given. A score of one was also given if

the professionals had direct contact with customers.

The Porter scale, minus part b, was used to measure

need satisfaction, in terms of security, social need, esteem,

autonomy, and self-fulfillment.

46

Results: the pressures most frequently reported by the

professionals were time (77%), quality (27%), and

financial responsibility (41%).

Recorded significant correlations:

a. Between job challenge and job pressure.

- job challenge and quality:

r = .48, p < .05

b. Between job design characteristics and job

pressure:

- independent budget and financial

responsibility: r = .43, p < .05

- direct customer contact and financial

responsibility: r = .42, p < .05

- direct customer contact and time:

r = .37, p < .10

c. Between job pressures and organizational

effectiveness:

- quality and global performance:

r = .40, p < .10

- quality and objective performance:

r = .37, p < .10

- quality and composite index

r = .44, p < .05

47

- financial responsibility and global

performance: r = .54, p < .01

d. Between job pressure and need satisfaction:

- time and security: r = .44, p < .05

- financial responsibility and social needs:

r = .38, p < .10

- financial responsibility and autonomy;

r = .40, p < .10

e. Between job pressures and job involvement:

- quality and job involvement:

r = .56, p < .01

f. Other:

- job challenge and esteem:

r = .72, p < .01

- job challenge and autonomy:

r = .78, p < .01

- job challenge and self-fulfillment:

r = .83, p < .01

- direct customer contact and social needs:

r = .36, p < .10

- direct customer contact and esteem:

r = .37, p < .10

- job involvement and global technical

performance: r = .43, p < .05

48

6. Jauch, L.R. & Glueck, W.F. Evaluation of university

professors’ research performance. Management

Science, 1975, 22, 66-75.

Purpose: to identify measures of research performance

that are valid and acceptable to university ptofessors.

Method: the subjects for the study were:

a. Eighty-six professors in 23 departments in

natural, mathematical, medical and biological

sciences at the University of Missouri-

Columbia who had been involved in

significant grant research over a 5-year

period; and

b. The 23 department chairmen of these research

professors.

Personal interviews were conducted, and printed

data (e.g., curriculum vitas, grant proposals, and

citation indexes) were examined to investigate the

validity of the following performance criteria:

a. Productivity measures:

- number of papers, books, and technical

reports published; and

- number of papers presented at professional

meetings.

b. Qualitative measures:

- Journal Quality Index: number of articles

49

- published in quality periodicals (agreed by

the professors);

- citations to published materials; and

- success rate of proposals for research

support.

c. Eminence measure:

- referee or editor of scientific journals;

- recognition-honors and rewards from the

profession;

- officer of national professional association;

- invited papers and guest lectures; and

- number of dissertations supervised.

d. Other measures:

- peer evaluations of research and

publications; and

- self-evaluations of research and

publications.

To study the acceptability of these performance

criteria the professors and department chairmen

were asked to rank them for their impartiality and

desirability. They were also asked to give their

opinions, on a Likert-type scale, on the following

issues:

a. Number of publications reflect quality.

50

b. Number of citations reflect quality.

c. It is difficult for anyone other than peers to

evaluate.

d. A journal quality index is a better way to

evaluate.

Results: significant correlations existed among

Productivity measures, Qualitative measures, Eminence

measures, and Total Performance Index. The best

relationship existed between the number of publication

and Total Performance Index; and the best combination

to improve the relationship was the number of papers

referred and published.

In general research professors and department

chairmen rated:

a. as good performance criteria: Journal quality

Index, peer evaluation, citation indexes, and

number of honors and awards;

b. as moderately good performance criteria:

number of invited papers, number of

publications, and grantsmanship abilities; and

c. as poor performance criteria: number of

offices held, number of papers presented at

meetings, and number of dissertations

supervised.

They felt that the quality of the periodicals where

51

the articles appear should be evaluated in order to

improve the validity of simple publication count

as performance criterion.

7. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. Organizational decision

making as a political process: the case of a university

budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19,

135-151.

Hypothesis: the allocation of resources is positively

related with departmental power, and negatively

related with work load.

Method: the department heads of 29 departments in

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were

selected as subjects, and the period of 1958-1970 was

chosen as the study period.

The dependent variable, the allocation of the

budget, was the proportion of the general funds

budget each department receives in each year.

Departmental power was measured in two ways:

a. Interviews with the department heads—they

were asked to rate, on a 7-point scale, the

amount of power each department, including

their own, had within the university.

b. Unobtrusive measure—the proportional

representation of each department on major

university committees and their relative

52

representation on the total of the committees.

The criteria used for selecting the committees

were: (1) that it be a recurring committee; and

(2) that it be as committee which had

responsibility for allocating real resources or

for dealing with educational matters or

student policy.

The measure of instructional workload was the

number of students taught multiplied by the number

of credit hours per course.

Results: the correlations between the determinants

and the allocation of general funds were:

a. Instructional work load: .68 (.001)

b. Departmental power:

(1) As measured by the interviews; .58 (.001)

(2) Membership on major committees:

- number of persons on total

committees: .53 (.002)

- proportion of persons on research

board: .77 (.001)

- proportion of persons on budget

committees: .27 (.10)

- proportion of persons on college executive

committees: .31 (.10)

- proportion of persons on student affairs

committee: .01 (NS)

53

- proportion of persons on educational

policy committee: .30 (.10)

- proportion of persons on senate

coordinating council: -.10 (NS)

- proportion of persons on building program

committee: .40 (.05)

- proportion of persons on non-recurring

appropriations committees : .25 (.10)

Partialling out each of the four measures of size (the

total number of instructional units taught, the number of

advanced graduate instructional units taught, the

fulltime-equivalent teaching faculty, and the full-time-

equivalent faculty supported by research or other

restricted funds) only one out of the 12 correlations

between three power measures (power as measured by

interviews, research board membership, and

membership on all committees), and the allocation of

general funds was not significant at the .10 level.

The correlation between the proportion of

instructional units taught and the proportion of budget

received, over the 13-year period, was negative.

54

8. Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. The bases and use of

power in organizational decision making: the case of a

university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974,

19, 453-473.

Hypotheses:

a. Departmental power is positively related with

the importance of resource contribution by the

department to the organization.

b. The allocation of scarce and critical resources is

positively related with departmental power.

Method: see study No. 7 for information on the

subjects of the study and the measurement of the three

power indicators.

The departments’ contributions to the university

were measured in two ways:

a. Historical measures, e.g., the proportion of total

grants and contracts a particular department

received; the proportion of undergraduate and

graduate students taught (13-period); and data on

national prestige (from studies conducted by the

American Council on Education).

b. Each department head was asked to assess, on a

5-point rating scale, the extent to which his

55

department contributed each of the following

seven resources compared to other departments

in the university: (1) number of graduate

students; (2) national rank of prestige of the

department; (3) number of undergraduate

students; (4) amount of outside grants or

contracts; (5) public visibility of the department;

(6) administrative and service contributions to

the university; and (7) business and professional

contracts. They were then asked to rank, on a 7-

point rating scale, the importance of the seven

resources.

The department heads were also asked to rank, on a 7-

point rating scale, the scarcity and the criticality of the

following seven resources: (1) graduate university

fellowships; (2) summer faculty fellowships; (3)

University Research Board grants for faculty research; (4)

appointments to the Center for Advanced Study; (5)

computer money for faculty research; (6) computer money

for instructional use; and (7) new courses. The actual

allocation of these resources were verified by archival

records.

Results: the rank order of the importance of resources

provided to the university were:

56

1st – graduate students;

2nd – national prestige; and

3rd – undergraduate students.

Correlations between the historical measures of

departmental contribution and the three indicators of

departmental power indicated the following rank order of

historical measures as predictors:

1st – proportion of faculty supported by restricted funds;

2nd – relative proportion of graduate students; and

3rd – the department’s national prestige.

Correlations between the subjective measures of

departmental contribution and the three indicators of

departmental power showed the following rank order of

subjective measures as predictors:

1st – amount of outside grants and contracts;

2nd – the number of graduate students; and

3rd – the department’s national prestige.

The discrepancy between the importance rank ordering

and the predictor rank ordering was ascribed by the authors

to either incorrect hypotheses or incorrect information with

regards to the relative importance of resources to the

university.

The four resources perceived as most scarce on the

57

average were also perceived as most critical. Starting

with the most scarce and the critical rank order was:

1st – university graduate fellowships;

2nd – Research Board grants for faculty research;

3rd – summer faculty fellowships; and

4th – opportunities to the Center for Advanced

Study.

The three measures of power were highly

correlated with the subjective measures of resource

allocation according to the same rank order. On the

basis of this parallel rank ordering the authors

concluded that the second hypotheses was supported.

9. Smith, C.G. Consultation and decision processes in a

research and development laboratory. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 203-215.

Hypothesis: the optimal balance between types of

consultation structures for effective performance in

contingent upon heterogeneity, involvement, role

expectations, and coordination.

Method: the subjects of the study were scientists

working in a research laboratory, which consisted of 15

divisions of 20-150 members each.

58

Organizational performance was assessed by two ways:

a. Evaluations by supervisors and colleagues of

technical contributions and general usefulness

to the laboratory.

b. Number of actual patents, published technical

papers, and unpublished papers.

The types of consultation structures were determined by

asking each scientist to name his five most significant

colleagues. From the responses seven indices were

computed:

a. Decentralized consultation : the ratio of the

number of all supervisory downward choices

to the number of upward choices made by

those below the level of senior scientists.

b. Horizontal consultation : the ratio of the

number of choices made by scientists on their

own level or below the number of upward

choices within the division.

c. Multidirectional consultation within the

division: the ratio of the total number of intra-

divisional choices to the number of possible

intra-divisional choices.

d. Formal consultation : the ratio of the number

of times the formal supervisor was named to

59

the number of times other scientists and other

supervisors in a division were named.

e. Integration of each work group or R & D

team in a division: the ratio of the number of

choices within the work group to the number

of possible choices within the group,

weighted by the number of work groups in the

division.

f. Functional consultation : the ratio of the

number of choices in other work groups to the

number of choices within the group.

g. Extra-divisional consultation : the ration of the

number of colleagues in other divisions

chosen to the number of choices within one’s

own division.

The intervening variables were:

a. Heterogeneity in a division: the inverse

variances of the ratings, by respondents in a

division, of specific items relating to: (a)

technical achievements desired; (2)

opportunities desired; (3) problem-solving

approaches; and (4) technical functions. A

general ranking of each division on the degree

of heterogeneity was computed.

60

b. Level of member involvement in a division:

the mean of all scientist ratings of the degree

involvement in their technical work.

c. Adequacy of role expectations: the average of

ratings from immediate supervisor to top level

executives, to those of the customer or client.

d. Level of divisional coordination: the average

of combined ratings by respondents of the

extent to which members of significant units

within the division coordinated their efforts

for some common objective.

Results: the partialling out of intervening variables

showed that coordination has no effect on the

relationships between consultation structures and

performance criteria.

10.Smith, C.G. Scientific performance and the

composition of research teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 1971, 16, 486-495.

Hypothesis: a heterogeneously composed research team

will be superior in group performance.

Method: a questionnaire was sent to 418 scientists and

engineers in a large laboratory. The professionals were

grouped into 49 teams of three to eleven.

61

Group performance was measured by the means

of members’ scores on each of four individual

performance criteria (Evaluated technical contributions,

Evaluated general usefulness, logarithm of patents, and

logarithm of technical papers).

Group heterogeneity was measured in four areas:

a. Professional achievement values (what

experiences would produce feelings of

technical success or accomplishment).

b. Institutional achievement values (the

importance attached to organizational

opportunities).

c. Preferred problem-solving approaches.

d. Actual contributions to group problem-

solving (technical functions).

Each team’s Group heterogeneity measure was

computed by averaging the reciprocals of the groups’s

variances across the component questions.

The leader-member heterogeneity was also

assessed, i.e., the absolute difference between the

leader’s response and the mean response of the rest of

the group. Leadership functions and actual problem-

solving approaches were evaluated.

Results: the results were presented separately for

Young (Y) and Old (O) teams. Y teams were those

62

which has been in existence for three years or less, and

O teams were those which had been in existence for

more than three years.

Controlling for leader-member heterogeneity,

leadership functions, and actual problem-solving

approaches, the significant correlations between Group

heterogeneity and Group performance were:

- Achievement values and Technical papers (Y): .46

(.01)

- Organizational opportunities and Technical papers

(Y): .28 (.05)

- Technical functions and

Evaluated Technical contributions (Y): -.39 (.01)

Evaluated general usefulness (O): .34 (.01)

Technical papers (O): -.28 (.05)

Adjusting for Group heterogeneity, leadership

functions, and actual problem-solving approaches, the

significant correlations between leader-member

heterogeneity and Group performance were:

- Achievement values and

Evaluated Technical contributions (Y): .48 (.01)

Evaluated general usefulness (Y): .41 (.01)

- Organizational opportunities and

Evaluated Technical contributions (Y); .34 (.01)

Evaluated Technical contributions (O): -.36 (.01)

63

Evaluated general usefulness (Y): .43 (.01)

Logarithm of patents (O); .56 (.01)

- Problem-solving approaches, and

Evaluated technical contributions (O): .29 (.05)

Logarithm of patents (O) .32 (.01)

- Technical functions and

Technical papers (Y): .48 (.01)

Patents (Y): .29 (.05)

Highlights of the Review of Related Literature

1. Determination of organizational effectiveness criteria:

- There are two ways of defining OE criteria: the goal

approach and the systems approach. The first uses

formal and operative goals of the organization as

criteria, and the latter uses sub-unit tasks as criteria.

- The goal approach is useful only for the study of OE

at the individual level (Yuchtman & Seachore,

1967).

- All four systemic processes (Inputs,

Transformations, Outputs, and Feedback effects)

and their interrelationships should be considered as

systems criteria (Evans, 1976, pp. 19-24).

64

- Both goal and systems criteria should be utilized in

the study of OE (Campbell, 1972, p. 32; Chorpade,

1971, pp. 87-88).

- OE criteria can be classified into short-run

(Production, Efficiency, Satisfaction), intermediate

(Development, Adaptability ) and long-term

(Survival) criteria (Gibson et al., 1973, p.37).

- There are universalistic and organization specific

criteria (Steers, 1975; 1977, pp. 49-50).

2. Relationships between organizational effectiveness

determinants and criteria:

- Can be studied at the individual, group, and total

organization levels separately, or at more than one

level simultaneously (Lawless, 1972, pp. 397-398;

404).

- Examples of studies of these relationships at various

levels:

a. Individual descriptive (age, rank, educational

training, present duties) and attitudinal

characteristics and the intensity of involvement

in role conflict, which in turn is related with

individual performance criteria (Getzels & Guba,

1954).

65

b. The structure of decision-making groups

(hierarchy of authority, degree of impersonality

in decision-making, degree of participation in

decision-making, degree of specific rules and

procedures, and degree of division of labor), and

group effectiveness criteria (goal achievement,

integration, adaptation) (Duncan, 1973).

c. Intra-organizational group variables (type of

services, accountability, autonomy, and

formalization) and inter-organizational group

variables (horizontal integration, horizontal

autonomy, and inter-organizational contacts)

with role conflict and role ambiguity, which in

turn are related with performance criteria (Rogers

& Molnar, 1976).

d. Organizational structure for decision-making

(centralization and formalization) with

productivity, adaptability, and flexibility (Mott,

1972, pp. 11; 15-16; 20; 34).

e. Congruent compliance structure with

organizational criteria (Etzioni, 1975).

f. Economic system, political system, control

system, and population and ecology variables

66

With productivity, morale, conformity,

adaptability, and institutionalization, which in

turn are related with OE criteria (Price, 1968).

3. Simple and partial correlation studies of organizational

effectiveness of higher education and research

organizations indicate the following significant

relationships:

a. Knowledge based risk taking is positively

correlated with individual technical performance;

and

Knowledge based risk taking is positively

correlated with professional opportunities

(professionalism, job conditions, status

orientation, and self-actualization), which in turn

are positively correlated with individual technical

performance (Aram & Morgan, 1976).

b. Administrator’s influence is positively correlated

with mean faculty satisfaction with the

administrator; and faculty satisfaction with the

administrator is positively correlated with the

administrator’s expert and referent power, and

negatively correlated with the administrator’s

reward and coercive power (Bachman, 1968).

67

c. Compatibility between perceived and desired

administrator roles is positively correlated with the

researchers’ satisfaction with the administrator and

with their position in the organization; and the

researchers’ perception of their administrators as

attempting to reward them is positively correlated

with researchers’ satisfaction with their

administrators (Coltrin & Glueck, 1977).

d. Perceived goal similarity is positively correlated

with perceived leadership effectiveness (Frew,

1973).

e. Job challenge is positively correlated with quality

pressure; independent budget is positively correlated

with financial pressure; direct customer contact is

positively correlated with financial and time

pressure; and quality pressure is positively related

with effectiveness criteria (Hall & Lawler, 1970).

f. The most valid university research performance

criterion is the number of publications; the criteria

most acceptable to research professors an

department chairmen are: Journal Quality Index,

peer evaluation, citation indices, and number of

honors and awards (Jauch & Glueck, 1975).

68

g. The allocation of general fund budget is positively

correlated with departmental power, and negatively

correlated with instructional team load (Pfeffer &

Salancik, 1974).

h. The allocation of scarce and critical resources is

positively correlated with departmental power

(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974).

i. Combination of consultation structures is positively

correlated with OE criteria, controlling for

heterogeneity in a research division and adequacy of

role expectations (Smith, 1970).

j. Team heterogeneity is positively correlated with rate

of technical papers in young teams (in existence for

three years or less) (Smith, 1971).

69