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.

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 goal and system resource approaches represent alternative conceptions of organizational effectiveness. The goal approach views effectiveness in terms of internal organizational objectives and performance. Organization-environment relations are the focus of the system resource approach, though previous applications of this perspective have been limited to profit-making organizations. This paper reconceptualizes the system resource approach for use in public agencies and examines the flow of organizational resources as an indicator of effectiveness.

An extensive monitoring of the Jones and Laughlin (J&L) steel mill in Hennepin, Illinois suggests that absentee-owned corporations have the ability to involve themselves in local community affairs while maintaining an illusion of non-involvement. Three techniques J&L employed to exert influence are described: unilateral actions, cooptation, and intervention. The failure of reputational leadership data to identify corporate influentials is used to suggest both the success J&L had in concealing corporate influence and the inadequacy of the reputational technique for fully identifying power structures in verticalized communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational change may be considered as analogous to scientific change. Kuhn's analysis of scientific activities as paradigm guided is applied to an organizational framework to suggest that organizational activities may be understood in the same fashion. This perspective is briefly applied to the current controversy in health care. Research attention is directed toward the use of knowledge in organizational activities and in health care in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Bonjean reputational technique of identifying community leaders is employed in two small Texas communities differing vastly in demographic and economic characteristics. The rankings of leaders revealed a highly visible power structure in both communities with few concealed leaders (those ranked higher by key influentials than by lower-ranking influentials) and few symbolic leaders (the opposite ranking pattern). High visibility in vastly dissimilar towns is discussed in terms of (low) magni-complexity (Bonjean) and preponderantly horizontal linkages (Warren) found in small communities; this suggests that the Bonjean technique is a more valuable instrument in larger communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the relationship between organizational size and the proportional size of the administrative component. The hypothesis is that organizational size is directly related to the difference between the relative sizes of the clerical and managerial components-the clerical ratio minus the managerial ratio. The data, drawn from general hospitals, show that the managerial component and organizational size are negatively related, and that organizational size and the relative size of the clerical component are not related. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]