THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
B a s i l S. Georgopoulos Survey Research Center U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan
Paper d e l i v e r e d a t the Annual Conference of the American Association f o r Public Opinion Research, Washington^ D.C, May 11, 1957.
THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS* B a s i l S. Georgopoulos Survey Research Center U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan One of the most complex and l e a s t tackled problems i n the study o f s o c i a l organizations i s t h a t o f organizational effectiveness. culties
Many d i f f i -
i n t h i s area a r i s e w i t h attempts t o define the concept of e f f e c -
tiveness adequately.
Same of these stem from the closeness w i t h which t h i s
concept becomes associated w i t h the question o f values (e.g., "management" versus "labor" o r i e n t a t i o n s ) . Other problems a r i s e vihen researchers choose a p r i o r i c r i t e r i a of effectiveness which seem i n t u i t i v e l y r i g h t , without t r y i n g s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t o place them w i t h i n a consistent and broader framework.
I n e f f e c t , s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a which might be proper i n one case may
be e n t i r e l y inappropriate t o other organizations.
I n t h i s respect, t h e
question arises as t o whether i t i s possible t o develop a d e f i n i t i o n o f effectiveness and t o derive c r i t e r i a which are both applicable across organizations and can be meaningfully placed w i t h i n a general conceptual framework.
The present paper deals w i t h one attempt i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n .
The Concept and Related Issues The concept o f organizational effectiveness (sometimes c a l l e d organi z a t i o n a l "success" or organizational "worth") i s o r d i n a r i l y used t o r e f e r to goal-attainment
— t o "how w e l l " an organization i s doing, or t o i t s
r e l a t i v e " o v e r a l l success" and t o the adequacy w i t h which i t operates
* The author wishes to thank Dr. Arnold S. Tannenbaum f o r h i s and c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n parts o f the present study.
assistance
2 given c e r t a i n f a c i l i t i e s and resources.
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , i n the study o f
i n d u s t r i a l organizations, effectiveness has been viewed and operationalized mainly i n terms o f p r o d u c t i v i t y . I n t h i s connection, Thorndike has noted a general tendency on the p a r t o f personnel and i n d u s t r i a l
psychologists
t o accept as "ultimate c r i t e r i a " o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l success the f o l l o w i n g : organizational p r o d u c t i v i t y , net p r o f i t , the extent t o which the organizat i o n accomplishes i t s various missions, and the success o f the i n maintaining or expanding i t s e l f ( ? ) •
organization
Other variables which have been
used i n various contexts as c r i t e r i a o f effectiveness include "morale," commitment t o the organization, personnel turnover and absenteeism, and member s a t i s f a c t i o n s (3> h
3
5, 6, 7, 8 ) .
With the exception o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y , p r a c t i c a l l y a l l variables which have been used i n research as c r i t e r i a of organizational effectiveness have been found inadequate and u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .
For example,
previous findings regarding "morale" and member s a t i s f a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o effectiveness (effectiveness having been measured on the basis of prod u c t i v i t y ) have f r e q u e n t l y been inconsistent, n o n s i g n i f i c a n t , and d i f f i c u l t t o evaluate and i n t e r p r e t .
The case o f turnover and absenteeism i s s i m i l a r .
A major problem i n using these two variables as c r i t e r i a of effectiveness i s t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i a l s e n s i t i v i t y t o such " t h i r d " considerations
as the
nature and volume o f work t o be processed, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l a f f e c t e d , and season o f occurrence apart from the degree o f such occurrence. Net p r o f i t i s l i k e w i s e a poor c r i t e r i o n i n view o f many unanticipated
fluctu-
ations e x t e r n a l t o the system, e.g., f l u c t u a t i o n s i n the general economy, markets, sales, and p r i c e s .
3 I n view o f these and r e l a t e d inadequacies, the r o l e of other p o t e n t i a l c r i t e r i a o f organizational effectiveness should be s t u d i e d . On t h i s p o i n t , and i n a d d i t i o n t o p r o d u c t i v i t y , Kahn and Horse have suggested the v a r i a b l e s of organizational f l e x i b i l i t y and o f maximization o f member p o t e n t i a l ( u ) , but no work has been done i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . Elsewhere, Bass has proposed as c r i t e r i a the extent t o which an organization i s of value t o i t s members and the extent t o which the organization and i t s members are o f value to society ( l ) . For t h e o r e t i c a l reasons, however, most would p r e f e r t o look a t the concept o f organizational effectiveness from the p o i n t of view of the system i t s e l f — of the t o t a l organization i n question rather than from the standpoint of some o f i t s parts or of the l a r g e r society. Furthermore, proposed c r i t e r i a should be system-relevant as w e l l as applicable across organizations. I t i s most s a t i s f a c t o r y , moreover, i f such c r i t e r i a are derived from a common framework t o which the concept o f organizational effectiveness can be meaningfully r e l a t e d .
General C r i t e r i a of Organizational Effectiveness A d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f nearly a l l variables which have been used as c r i t e r i a o f effectiveness i s t h a t , whether d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , they t i e i n w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l objectives. however, i s only a necessary c o n d i t i o n .
This r e l a t i o n s h i p ,
As we have i n d i c a t e d , not a l l
c r i t e r i a which may f u l f i l l t h i s requirement are appropriate.
Many cannot
be a p p l i e d across organizations (e,g,, some organizations have no problems of turnover and absenteeism or may even be o v e r s t a f f e d ) , and many do not l o g i c a l l y conform t o any generally accepted conception o f organizations.
k I t i s our assumption t h a t a l l organizations attempt t o achieve c e r t a i n objectives and t o develop group products through the proper manipulation
of given animate and Inanimate f a c i l i t i e s .
Accordingly,
d e f i n i t i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l effectiveness must take i n t o consideration these two aspects:
the objectives of organizations and the means through
which they sustain themselves and a t t a i n t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those means which u s u a l l y become f u n c t i o n a l l y autonomous ( i . e . , such means as those which come t o assume the character o f and f u n c t i o n as organizat i o n a l goals).
I n short, the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l effectiveness must
contend w i t h the question o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l means and ends. Assuming that the organizational system maintains i t s e l f , the most general and most important common objectives of organizations a r e : (a) high output i n the sense of achieving the end r e s u l t s f o r which the organization i s designed, whether q u a n t i t a t i v e l y or q u a l i t a t i v e l y ; (b) a b i l i t y t o absorb and assimilate relevant endogenous and exogenous changes, or the a b i l i t y of the organization t o keep up w i t h the times without jeopardizing i t s i n t e g r i t y ; and (c) the preservation o f organizat i o n a l means and resources, of human and m a t e r i a l f a c i l i t i e s . *
We believe
t h a t i t should be both f e a s i b l e and f r u i t f u l t o study organizational effectiveness by gearing our c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s t o these general aspects o f organization.
* I n connection w i t h t h i s o b j e c t i v e , such considerations as s a t i s f a c t i o n of member needs beyond some minimum c r i t i c a l , l e v e l , and t h e maintenance of s u f f i c i e n t member motivation and of an e f f o r t - r e w a r d balance c o n s t i t u t e important problems f o r a l l organizations. And, i t i s under t h i s concept of preservation (or i n c a p a c i t a t i o n ) of means and resources t h a t such v a r i a b l e s as turnover, absenteeism, morale, and s a t i s f a c t i o n could be used, i n c e r t a i n cases, as c r i t e r i a of effectiveness.
5 I n l i n e w i t h t h i s t h i n k i n g , we have conceptually defined organizational effectiveness as: the extent t o which an organization as a s o c i a l system, fiiven c e r t a i n resources and means, f u l f i l l s i t s objectives *?ithout incap a c i t a t i n g i t s means and resources and without p l a c i n g undue s t r a i n upon i t s members. This conception of effectiveness subsumes the f o l l o w i n g gene r a l c r i t e r i a : (1) organizational p r o d u c t i v i t y ; (2) organizational f l e x i b i l i t y i n the form of successful adjustment t o i n t e r n a l organizational changes and successful adaptation t o e x t e r n a l l y induced change; and (3) absence of i n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a i n , or tension and c o n f l i c t between' organizational subgroups. These three c r i t e r i a both r e l a t e to the meansend dimension of organizations and, p o t e n t i a l l y , apply t o nearly a l l organi z a t i o n s . I n an attempt t o evaluate the present approach, we have used these c r i t e r i a i n the study of a large-scale organization. This organizat i o n , we f e e l , i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t a b l e to our I n v e s t i g a t i o n because of the s i m p l i c i t y of i t s s t r u c t u r e .
Method, Operations, and Measures The organization studied i s an i n d u s t r i a l service s p e c i a l i z i n g i n the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and d e l i v e r y of r e t a i l merchandise.
I t i s unionized
and
operates i n several metropolitan areas, on a contract basis w i t h department stores.
I n each area there i s a company p l a n t , under a plant manager,
which i s divided i n t o a number of d i v i s i o n s , each d i v i s i o n encompassing a number of smaller o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s c a l l e d s t a t i o n s . These c o n s t i t u t e the basic operating u n i t s of the company. The p l a n t s t r u c t u r e i s r e p l i c a t e d i n every case i n t h a t the stations are s t r u c t u r a l l y homogeneous and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y p a r a l l e l , or r e p l i c a t e d groups.
They a l l perform the same k i n d of a c t i v i t y , employ uniform-standard
6 equipment, draw upon the same type of resources, and f u n c t i o n on the basis of u n i f o r m l y established work-standards.
I n terms of personnel, a t y p i c a l
s t a t i o n consists of a s t a t i o n manager, a day supervisor, a n i g h t supervisor, and about 35 workers.
Approximately three-fourths of the workers are
d r i v e r s whose task i s t o t r a n s p o r t and deliver' packages o f merchandise t o p r i v a t e residences; the remaining workers s o r t and load the same merchandise on trucks p r i o r t o d e l i v e r y .
T h i r t y - t w o such s t a t i o n s , representing
f i v e company p l a n t s , are included i n the study. I n each case, data were c o l l e c t e d from a l l s t a t i o n members, superv i s o r y as w e l l as non-supervisory.
The average questionnaire r e t u r n rate
f o r supervisory personnel was 97% and f o r non-supervisory 87% (the questionnaires were administered on l o c a t i o n ) .
No s t a t i o n of a r e t u r n rate lower
than 75% of i t s non-supervisory members i s represented i n the sample.
The
operations and measures f o r the concept of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l effectiveness and f o r the three c r i t e r i a used are based on t h i s sample and w i l l be presented next. VJe were able t o o b t a i n independently judgements from a group of experts concerning the r e l a t i v e o v e r a l l effectiveness of the various s t a t i o n s i n the f i v e plants. study.
I t was on t h i s basis that the 32 stations were selected f o r
The experts chosen had f i r s t - h a n d knowledge of the s t a t i o n s they
r a t e d , while not being d i r e c t l y involved i n s t a t i o n operations.
Included
among the r a t e r s were the p l a n t manager, the a s s i s t a n t p l a n t manager, sane d i v i s i o n managers, and other key p l a n t personnel, comprising a t o t a l of s i x t o nine experts i n each of the f i v e company p l a n t s .
7 Special forms and i n s t r u c t i o n s , developed i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the top management of the company, were sent t o the various r a t e r s separately. These requested the r a t e r t o l i s t a l l s t a t i o n s i n the p l a n t , t o cross out those s t a t i o n s which he was not able t o evaluate, and t o judge the remaining
s t a t i o n s by p l a c i n g them i n t o f i v e categories of o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s ,
ranging from "best" t o "poorest,"
The r a t e r s were t o use as a time basis
the six-month p e r i o d preceding the evaluation.
The f o l l o w i n g excerpts
from the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n d i c a t e the frame of reference f o r the concept of effectiveness as presented t o the r a t e r s : You are t o rank the performance o f the s t a t i o n as a whole as d i s t i n c t from the performance of any of the people i n i t .., You may want t o take i n t o consideration such t h i n g s as: how s a t i s f i e d you are personally w i t h the t o t a l s i t u a t i o n i n the s t a t i o n , how w e l l i t i s measuring up t o the expectations and goals of (the company) considering the p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s i t faces, also recent progress and development, the way problems are handled, communications, costs, e f f i c i e n c y , morale, performance i n r e l a t i o n t o standards, etc. The important t h i n g i s t h a t a l l those things taken together and considered as a whole w i l l be the basis f o r the ranking ..• F i l l the form w i t h o u t checking your opinions w i t h anyone and then send i t d i r e c t l y t o (the research s t a f f ) . Your-individual rankings w i l l be t r e a t e d as c o n f i d e n t i a l and only the summary f i n d i n g s w i l l be used f o r the purposes o f the study. A d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were given t o the r a t e r s about the mechanics of p l a c i n g the s t a t i o n s i n f i v e effectiveness categories. A l l r a t e r s submitted t h e i r independent evaluations of the s t a t i o n s under t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n , and t h e i r judgements were analyzed.
A l l stations
about which there was consistent agreement among r a t e r s , as judged by three members of the research s t a f f , were r e t a i n e d as candidates f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the sample,
A l i s t of these s t a t i o n s was then submitted t o each of the two
regional managers of the organization.
Each manager together w i t h one more
expert c l a s s i f i e d those of the l i s t e d s t a t i o n s w i t h the performance o f
8 •which they were f a m i l i a r as "above average," "average," or ""below average" i n effectiveness, using a procedure s i m i l a r t o t h a t folia-red by the f i r s t group of r a t e r s .
The above procedure f i n a l l y r e s u l t e d i n a representative
sample o f 32 s t a t i o n s , a f t e r e l i m i n a t i n g a few u n i t s of ambiguous e f f e c t i v e ness standing. The effectiveness score f o r each s t a t i o n was computed by combining and averaging the judgements o f a l l r a t e r s .
The obtained score range on effec-
tiveness was from 1.0, s i g n i f y i n g u n i t s o f highest possible effectiveness, t o u,8 w i t h 5.0 being the lowest possible score.
I t should a l s o be noted
t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sample on e f f e c t i v e n e s s was l a t e r found t o be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d w i t h the mean responses of non-supervisory s t a t i o n personnel t o the question:
"Hoi-/ do you f e e l your s t a t i o n compares w i t h other s i m i l a r
s t a t i o n s i n g e t t i n g the job done?" the
Apparently those d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h
operations of the organization can make judgements about the performance
of t h e i r respective u n i t s and, i n so doing, they seem to.use s i m i l a r frames of reference. A s i m i l a r f i n d i n g has been reported elsewhere by Comrie, P f i f f n e r , and Beam ( 2 ) . S t a t i o n p r o d u c t i v i t y , the f i r s t of the three c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l effectiveness, was measured on the basis o f standard, companywide records o f i n d i v i d u a l performance v i s - a - v i s established work-standards. This i s a metric measure, u l t i m a t e l y expressed i n u n i t s of time consumed by the
worker below or above what i s "allowed" according t o the standard. I n
e f f e c t , t h i s represents the number of u n i t s o f work accomplished c e r t a i n time i n t e r v a l .
during a
For each s t a t i o n , the average p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a l l
9 members* during the month preceding the f i e l d study was taken t o represent the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h a t u n i t ,
( I n c i d e n t a l l y , i t should be
noted t h a t no problems of q u a l i t y o f output are i n v o l v e d here, since quali t y i s p r a c t i c a l l y constant i n that the only important c r i t e r i o n of q u a l i t y i s the a c t of d e l i v e r i n g a package t o i t s addressee.)
On the basis of a
.standard o f 2.00, the range of the obtained d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sample on p r o d u c t i v i t y was from .81, s i g n i f y i n g the highest producing s t a t i o n , t o 2,93 s i g n i f y i n g the lowest producing station,-
An i n t e r v a l of .30 i n the
present scale i s equivalent t o 18 minutes, Intraorganizational
s t r a i n was conceptualized as the (incidence and)
r a t e of'tension or c o n f l i c t e x i s t i n g between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l subgroups. This c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d and measured i n terms of responses by non-supervisory s t a t i o n personnel t o the f o l l o w i n g question:
"On the whole,
would you say t h a t i n your s t a t i o n there i s any tension or c o n f l i c t between employees and supervisors?"
The respondent could choose, on a f i v e - p o i n t
scale, one of f i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s ranging from there i s "a great deal of tens i o n " t o "no tension a t a l l . "
The mean of the responses i n each s t a t i o n
represents the score of i n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h a t station.
The range of these scores f o r the sample was from 2,u6, s i g n i f y i n g
the highest s t r a i n s t a t i o n , t o h*$0 s i g n i f y i n g the lowest s t r a i n station.I t i s also i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t s t a t i o n supervisors generally agree w i t h the consensus of t h e i r subordinates as t o the degree o f s t r a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e i r - s t a t i o n .
* More accurately, t h i s i s the average p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a l l s t a t i o n members who operate under work-standards; these are a l l d r i v e r s , c o n s t i t u t i n g about t h r e e - f o u r t h s of a l l s t a t i o n members. The remaining workers e i t h e r work under no standards or work under a group standard which may v a r y from s t a t i o n t o s t a t i o n . Their p r o d u c t i v i t y , however, i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h a t of the d r i v e r s since the former process a l l of the same work volume t h a t the l a t t e r deliver.
10 Organizational f l e x i b i l i t y , the t h i r d and l a s t c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e , was conceptualized as the extent t o which the organization i s able t o absorb relevant endogenous and exogenous changes, or i t s a b i l i t y t o adjust to i n t e r n a l l y induced change and t o adapt t o e x t e r n a l l y induced change.
Two measures
were used, one f o r each of these tvio aspects o f f l e x i b i l i t y , and the results were then combined i n t o a s i n g l e measure. ing question;
The f i r s t was based on the f o l l o w -
"From time t o time changes i n methods, equipment, procedures,
p r a c t i c e s , and layout.are introduced by the management.
I n general, do you
t h i n k these changes lead t o b e t t e r ways o f doing things?" The response a l t e r n a t i v e s , forming a f i v e - p o i n t scale, ranged from "they are always an improvement" t o "they never improve t h i n g s " w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l " I can't judge" category.
The second measure was based on the question:
" I n general, how
w e l l do you t h i n k your s t a t i o n handles sharp changes' i n volume during peak periods?"
The response a l t e r n a t i v e s here ranged from "excellent" t o "very
poor," also forming a f i v e - p o i n t scale.
The f l e x i b i l i t y score assigned t o
a given s t a t i o n was obtained by computing the mean of the responses o f nonsupervisory s t a t i o n personnel f o r each o f the two questions, and by adding the two means and d i v i d i n g the r e s u l t by two.
The obtained sample d i s t r i -
b u t i o n on f l e x i b i l i t y ranges from a score of 1.78, s i g n i f y i n g high f l e x i b i l i t y , t o a score o f 2,99, s i g n i f y i n g t h e l e a s t f l e x i b l e s t a t i o n on a f i v e p o i n t scale.
Again, as i n the case of s t r a i n , s t a t i o n supervisors generally
agree w i t h t h e i r respective subordinates as t o the f l e x i b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e i r s t a t i o n .
11 Empirical Evaluation of the General C r i t e r i a of Effectiveness We now
t u r n to the data of t h i s study which bear on the concept of
organizational effectiveness and on the operations and measures used. These are evaluated i n terms of three major considerations:
( l ) since
effectiveness i s viewed i n terms of three c r i t e r i a , the question arises as t o whether i n f a c t each c r i t e r i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o the appraisal of effectiveness by experts —
whether our operations
correspond
t o such an independent standard; (2) are the c r i t e r i a s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r r e l a t e d and what i s t h e i r j o i n t r e l i a b i l i t y ; and (3) since the concept of organizational effectiveness i s both by d e f i n i t i o n and also l o g i c a l l y and t h e o r e t i c a l l y a group concept, or an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t h e r than an i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l concept, the question arises as t o whether our c r i t e r i o n measures represent group phenomena. The r e s u l t s of our analysis showed a c o r r e l a t i o n of .73 between s t a t i o n p r o d u c t i v i t y and effectiveness judged by experts, a c o r r e l a t i o n of between i n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a i n and e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and a c o r r e l a t i o n of .39 between s t a t i o n f l e x i b i l i t y and effectiveness..
Based on an N of 32
s t a t i o n s , these rank-order c o r r e l a t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .0? l e v e l or b e t t e r .
I n short, as was
expected, each of the three c r i t e r i a i s found
t o be r e l a t e d t o an independent assessment of organizational effectiveness. These r e s u l t s lend support t o the v a l i d i t y of the three c r i t e r i a . ' S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s , i n the form of rank-order c o r r e l a t i o n s , were obtained concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the three c r i t e r i a .
There i s a corre-
l a t i o n of .35 between s t a t i o n f l e x i b i l i t y and s t a t i o n p r o d u c t i v i t y , a c o r r e l a t i o n o f -.U8 between i n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a i n and s t a t i o n product i v i t y , and a c o r r e l a t i o n of -.70 between s t r a i n and f l e x i b i l i t y .
Based
12 on was
the obtained r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the o v e r a l l r e l i a b i l i t y of the three c r i t e r i a found t o be ,77«
reliability
These f i n d i n g s provide support f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l
of the c r i t e r i a , t h e o r e t i c a l l y considered i n combination.. The
question now arises as t o what extent can one p r e d i c t t o t h e independently obtained measure o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s by combining the three c r i t e r i o n measures i n t o a s i n g l e index. constructed,
Such a c r i t e r i o n index was also
and the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the sample on t h i s index was found
t o be correlated .68 ( o r .77 when corrected f o r attenuation) w i t h the dist r i b u t i o n of the sample on effectiveness.
This suggests t h a t about h6%
( o r $9% when c o r r e c t i o n f o r a t t e n t u a t i o n i s made) of the variance i n effect i v e n s s can be explained by means of the three c r i t e r i a combined i n t o an index.* F i n a l l y , t o provide an answer t o the question of whether our c r i t e r i a of effectiveness represent organizational rather than i n d i v i d u a l phenomena, the p r o d u c t i v i t y c r i t e r i o n was chosen f o r f u r t h e r study.
This was done
because p r o d u c t i v i t y i n the present study contributes more t o the amount of explained variance i n effectiveness than e i t h e r s t r a i n or f l e x i b i l i t y , and because the s t a t i o n p r o d u c t i v i t y measure was derived by averaging the product i v i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s .
Unlike the cases of the f l e x i b i l i t y and s t r a i n measures
which were derived from responses t o questions t h a t had as e x p l i c i t referents o r g a n i z a t i o n a l aspects, the s t a t i o n p r o d u c t i v i t y c r i t e r i o n had as i t s i n i t i a l r e f e r e n t the i n d i v i d u a l worker.
Therefore, the c r i t e r i o n of p r o d u c t i v i t y
would be the most questionable of the three c r i t e r i a from the standpoint of whether or not i t a c t u a l l y represents an organizational l e v e l phenomenon.
tt A less s a t i s f a c t o r y way t o answer the same question would have been t o compute the m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n between the three c r i t e r i a and e f f e c t i v e ness, on the basis of the c o r r e l a t i o n s above presented, w i t h o u t constructing an index. This was a c t u a l l y computed and found t o be ^75, suggesting t h a t i n the present study about $6% o f the variance i n effectiveness i s explained i n terms of the j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n of the three c r i t e r i a — p r o d u c t i v i t y , s t r a i n , and f l e x i b i l i t y .
13 The a d d i t i o n a l study of the p r o d u c t i v i t y c r i t e r i o n consisted of an analysis of variance designed t o determine whether the stations or the i n d i v i d u a l s i n them c o n s t i t u t e the primary source of p r o d u c t i v i t y variance. For purposes o f s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, 27 s t a t i o n s d i s t r i b u t e d among f o u r company p l a n t s and encompassing a t o t a l of 685 i n d i v i d u a l workers whose p r o d u c t i v i t y had been ascertained, were used,. S u i t a b l e p r o d u c t i v i t y scores were not a v a i l able i n the case of the remaining f i v e stations; which belong t o the f i f t h company p l a n t studied.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s analysis i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e between-stations variance on p r o d u c t i v i t y i s f a r greater than the wi t h i n - s t a t i o n s variance.
The obtained
F - r a t i o was found t o be 5«82, which ( f o r 26 and 6£8 degrees of freedom) i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .001 l e v e l .
This confirms our i n i t i a l
expectation t h a t the employed p r o d u c t i v i t y c r i t e r i o n represents an organiz a t i o n a l ( s t a t i o n ) r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l phenomenon.
This evidence,
however, i s not adequate f o r i t i s conceivable t h a t the r e s u l t s might vary from plant t o plant.
To t e s t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , s i m i l a r analyses of variance were
also'performed separately f o r each of the four company plants represented i n the sample o f 27 s t a t i o n s .
I n each case, the between-stations variance
on p r o d u c t i v i t y was again found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the wi t h i n s t a t i o n s variance; i . e . , grouping the s t a t i o n s i n t o p l a n t s makes no d i f f e r ence i n t h i s respect.
Therefore, we are reasonably assured that the produc-
t i v i t y c r i t e r i o n measure represents an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l phenomenon.
Summary The concept of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s an important and widely used n o t i o n i n the study o f s o c i a l organization. A considerable gap, however, e x i s t s between t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l approaches i n t h i s area.
lh
There i s l i t t l e theory which adequately t r e a t s t h i s concept.
Research
e f f o r t s have generally proceeded unsystematically, w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t cons i d e r a t i o n of the conceptual aspects of the phenomenon- i n question, and i n terms o f ad hoc c r i t e r i a which were not systematically r e l a t e d t o theoreti c a l frameworks consistent w i t h our knowledge o f organizations. The o b j e c t i v e of the present research was t o examine and define the concept, and t o i n v e s t i g a t e some o f i t s operational aspects i n the form of developing and t e s t i n g c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a i n a s p e c i f i c i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g . These c r i t e r i a of effectiveness stem from a commonly accepted view o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l requirements and are generally applicable across organizations.
Based on t h i s view, the study of organizational effectiveness would
r e q u i r e t h a t emphasis be placed on the means-ends dimension o f organization, and t h a t the c r i t e r i a o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y , p r o d u c t i v i t y , and s t r a i n be taken i n t o consideration. I n the present case, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l effectiveness was conceptualized as the extent t o which an organization as a s o c i a l system, given c e r t a i n means and resources, f u l f i l l s i t s objectives without i n c a p a c i t a t i n g i t s means and resources and without p l a c i n g undue s t r a i n upon i t s members. I t was approached i n terms o f the c r i t e r i a o f p r o d u c t i v i t y , s t r a i n , and f l e x i b i l i t y which were derived from a common framework.
Our analysis showed t h a t ,
i n the present study, the relevant operations prove r e l i a b l e and t h e c r i t e r i a used r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o an independent evaluation o f effectiveness by experts.
These c r i t e r i a represent important aspects of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
f u n c t i o n i n g and deserve f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n i n the study o f organizational effectiveness,.
15 References
1.
Bass, B.M.j '"Ultimate C r i t e r i a o f Organizational Worth," Personnel Psychology, 1952, 5, 157-173.
2.
Comrie, A.L., P f i f f n e r , J.M., & Beam, H.P., "Factors I n f l u e n c i n g Organizational Effectiveness," Personnel Psychology, 1952, 5, 307-328.
3.
Kahn, R.L., "The P r e d i c t i o n o f P r o d u c t i v i t y , " Journal of Social Issues, 1956,
12, hl-h9.
h* Kahn, R.L. and Morse, N.C., "The Relationship of P r o d u c t i v i t y t o Morale," Journal of Social Issues, 195l> 7, 5.
8-17.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L., "Human Organization and Worker M o t i v a t i o n , " i n Tripp, L.R. (Ed.), I n d u s t r i a l P r o d u c t i v i t y , Madison:
Industrial
Rela-
t i o n s Research Association, 1951. 6. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L.G,, P r o d u c t i v i t y , Superv i s i o n , and Morale Among Railroad VIorkers, Ann Arbor:
Institute for
Social Research, 1951• 7.
Morse, N.C., S a t i s f a c t i o n i n the White-Collar Job, Ann Arbor:
Institute
f o r S o c i a l Research, 1953. 8.
Seashore, S.E., Group Cohesiveness i n the I n d u s t r i a l Work Group, Ann Arbor:
9.
I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, 195U.
Thorndike, R.L,, Personnel S e l e c t i o n : New York: Wiley, 19U9.
Test and Measurement Techniques,
