Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education

Abstract

Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values Framework or Model has been proposed as ‘a general paradigm of organisational effectiveness’, yet the relevance of the model to higher educational organizations has never been tested. This paper describes the development of a set of organizational effectiveness self-rating scales for higher educational institutions in Hong Kong. The method of development tested the relevance of the effectiveness dimensions contained in the Competing Values Model to Hong Kong higher educational establishments. Rating scales were developed in four of the model’s nine effectiveness dimensions. There are grounds for suggesting that these four dimensions constitute the core of a model of organizational effectiveness applicable to Hong Kong higher education. Additionally, the study raised some important managerial issues in higher education.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cameron, K.S. (1986) ‘Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions ofOrganisational Effectiveness’, Management Science,32(5): 539–553.

Campbell, J.P. and Fiske, D.W. (1959) ‘Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait–Multimethod Matrix’, Psychological Bulletin 36: 81–105.

Edwards, R.L. (1986) ‘Using Multidimensional Scaling to Test the Validity of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales: An Organisational Example Involving the Competing Values Framework’,PhD diss., State University of New York at Albany.

Henderson, F. , Anderson, N. and Rick, S. (1995) ‘Future Competency Profiling: Validating and Redesigning the ICL Graduate Assessment Centre’, Personnel Review 24(3): 19–31.

Kinicki, A. , Bannister, B. , Hom, P. and DeNisi, A. (1985) ‘Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales vs Summated Rating Scales: Psychometric Properties and Susceptibility to Rating Bias’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 45: 535–549.

Lascu, D.N. , Ashworth, N. , Giese, T. and Omar, M. (1995) ‘The User Information Satisfaction Scale: International Applications and Implications for Management and Marketing’, Multinational Business Review 3(2): 107–115.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pounder, J.S. (1997) ‘Measuring the Performance of Institutions of Higher Educationin Hong Kong: An Organisational Effectiveness Approach’, PhD diss. Brunel University/Henley Management College.

Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (1983) ‘Organisational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence’, Management Science 29: 33–51.

10.

Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (1988) Paradox and Transformation: Towards a Theory of Change in Organisation and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

11.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981) ‘A Competing Values Approach to Organisational Effectiveness’, Public Productivity Review 5(2): 122–140.

12.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983) ‘A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organisational Analysis’, Management Science 29(3): 363–377.

13.

Schreisheim, C.A. and Eisenbach, R.J. (1995) ‘An Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Investigation of Item Wording Effects on the Obtained Factor Structures of Survey Questionnaire Measures’, Journal of Management 21(6): 1177–1193.

14.

Smith, P.C. and Kendall, L.M. (1963) ‘Retranslation of Expectations: An Approach to the Construction of Unambiguous Anchors for Rating Scales’, Journal of Applied Psychology 47: 149–155.

15.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) ‘Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation’, Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1442–1465.

16.

Sullivan, D. (1996) ‘Measuring the Internationalization of a Firm: A Reply’, Journal of International Business Studies 27(1): 179–192.