Search

Technology has been depicted, in recent years, as an important causal variable in some theoretical formulations of organizational structure and behavior. Studies conducted to investigate the relationships between technology and other organizational variables have not provided, thus far, a conclusive picture of the role of technology in a parsimonious model of organizational behavior. Much of the difficulty in studying technology can be traced to the problem of obtaining a satisfactory operational definition of technology. A related problem is that of establishing the appropriate unit of analysis within which to study technology variance. An operational definition of technology is developed and applied in this study, building from a typology of technologies proposed by J. D. Thompson. Analysis was conducted on 297 organization units (departments, devisions) from within a diverse sample of 17 business and industrial firms. The organization units were classified among three varieties of technology, specified as long-linked, mediating and intensive technology respectively (following the J. D. Thompson typology). The organization units were also described in terms of several dimensions of organizational behavior developed in earlier research. Direct and indirect relationships involving technology, 14 dimensions of organizational behavior, and organization unit effectiveness, were investigated in several analyses. The findings from these analyses support the hypothesis that the criteria of effectiveness of an organization unit vary with the nature of the technology of the unit. The nature of the intra-technology models of organizational effectiveness are generally supportive of the variation expected from the Thompson theoretical analysis. No direct technology-organizational effectiveness relationship was observed, a finding which is in keeping with the expectations of the researchers. The models of organizational effectiveness observed within each of the three technology categories are described and the implications of their differences and similarities are discussed. [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.

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.