Search

This article responds to author's commentaries on the article "The Study of Organizational Effectiveness," by J. L. Price. The basis of simplistic approach rests with three assumptions supposedly made by the paper. First, the paper, according to the authors, assumes uniformity in the meanings that respondents attach to words designating core organizational activities. The paper assumes that respondents possess knowledge and competency with respect to the evaluation of nursing care within their limited spheres of involvement in the hospitals. Although, it may be desirable to have a general measure of organizational effectiveness for the reason suggested in the paper, this may not be possible. Some scholars believe that organizational effectiveness is so specific that a general measure cannot be developed.

This paper reviews the goal approach and the system resource approach to the study of organizational effectiveness. First, the goal approach is defended with respect to criticisms made by the users of the system resource approach. Next it is criticized for its failure to develop general measures of effectiveness. The system resource approach is then criticized because optimization is not measured, few general measures are used, and the basic rule of mutual exclusiveness is seriously violated. Finally, a general measure of effectiveness is suggested, based on Georgopoulos and Mann's (1902) study of community general hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article "The Study of Organizational Effectiveness," by J. L. Price, the author surveyed strengths and weakness of two general approaches to the study of organizational effectiveness, the goal approach and the system resource approach. One of the central problem with the goal approach is the variety of goals which may be inferred from organizational behavior and the resulting ambiguity in the conceptualization of effectiveness. The meaning of organizational effectiveness in that work fluctuates widely as the analytical focus shifts between types of organizations and between levels of analysis. Organizational effectiveness appears to be a loose and ambiguous rubric under which a variety of observable outcomes of organizational behavior are listed in disarray.

The facts and myths of changes in technology and authority structure in public organizations are investigated using data from a case study of structural reorganization and the mechanization and automation of mail processing in the United States Postal Service. External political pressure and internal labor-management conflict combined to cause changes that were legitimated by an institutional logic of scientific management and technical progress. Improvements in productivity and overall mail service have been limited by political and institutional considerations that continue to govern the operation of the Postal Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]