Week 3 - Discussion 2
cedicr
hw.pdf
oRGANI;/,ATIoNAt-, L|FI]' CYCI,ES ANiD S[|II.1.|N(;i C]RtT'E,RIA oF EI..t..t]Cl.IvENE,SS: S()ME Ournn. Robcfl [;Kint, (-rnlcron i:urnLr,rr',' \' t, nt' !tr,'le\6) Jan lqXJ. 2q. l: PrilQ'rc r ( Ln r"l p8.:ll
\IANACE\IENT SCIENCE vol l9 N*o. l.Jlnu:ry 1983
P.iild in U.S.A
ORGANIZATIONAL I.II'IE CYCLES AND SHIFTING CRITE:RI,A OF EI]FECTIVENESS:
SOME PRELI MI NAR'Y EVIDENCE*
ROBERT E. QUINN f ANr) X:lM CAMERONT
This paper discusses the rehtionship:i bct,Ncen slatgc of tlcvclopmcnt in organiational lifc
.y"t", "nd
organiational effcclitcness. \\'c begin lhc paper bl revicrving ninc modcls oI organizational life c)cles thar have bcen proposed in lhc litcraturc. Each of thcsc modcls
i6intifics certain characteristics that typifl organi;rations in diffcrcnt stages of dc'clopmcnt. A
summrry model of lifc cyclc stagcs is derivcd that inte8ratcs each of thcsc nine models'
Ncxt. a framcsorh of organizational cffcr;tilcrress devclopcd b1' Quinn and Rohrbrugh is
introduced. This framcNork or3anizes crileri0 of cffer:lirener;s into four models-rational goal.
open slstcms. human rclations. and intcrnal Procsssts modcls. Ne h1pothcsizc thar cerlrin of
themodclsareimPortantincvaluatingthcefftcti\'enessoforgani:ntionsinparticularlifc c)cle stages bur not in others. The analysis of a stixlc agcnc)rs Jclclopmcnl ovcr fitc ycrrs
provides some cvirlcnce to support thesc hlpothesizld rclationships bctNcen lifc c)clc slilScs
and criteria of elfectileness. \Yc concludc that mrjor criteria 0[ ellectivcness changc irt prcdictablc $r]s as or:lilniations
dcrelop rhrouSh rheir lifc clcles. some shLifts in stalc of dcvcloprncnt rrc rcsislcd b)lhc organiation much more than are olheE. ltld inlcncntion into orginiations nral bc nccdcd
to-hclp mak" the transitions less painlul and costll' \\rc also discuss Nhy thc prcdictions of
contingency theory oftcn rre not substintialcd b1'rcscrtch bccuuse tlhc rcsPOnscs ol org:lnia-
tions to the cxternxl cnlironmeni vaD in dittcrcnt lifc clclc strgcs'
(ORGANIZ.ATIONALEFFECTIVENESIi;ORCANIZATIONAI'LIFECYCLES;OR- GANTZATIONAL CHANGE)
l" httroduclion
A historical bias in rhe literature on olganizational analysis and desiSn has been thc
tendenc), to generate studies rvhich focus on firatule rather than nerv organizallions'
and thai are;xecuted with a cross-sectional ratlner than a longitudinal perspective [18]' As a result, we have learned little about the design and the devclopment of ncN organizations. Reccntly, horvever, a numbcr of \\'riters have suggested that the dr:sign,
deielopment and behavior of organizations can be predicted by meatts of org|Lniza- tional iire cycle models tll' tl0l, t111, tl6l, tl9l, t22l' [23]' [27]' [3ll' [39]' These authors suggest thai changes that occur iil organizations follorv a predictable pattern that can
be-Jharacterized by {evelopmental sta8es. These stages are (l) sequcntill in naturc, (2)
occur as a hierarchical progression that is not easily reverser:l, and (3) involve a llroad
range of organizational activities and sllructures [19]. A variet-y of bases; for describing
the-changing characteristics of organizations in different r;tages have been uscd by
thesc rvriiers. They range from the cognitive orientations of organizatign members to
organizarional structures and environmental relations. 1'he consequence is thrt the ttiiferent authors each have emphasiz:ed somewhat uniq're sels of organizational characteristics and life cycles modcls.
.Acccptcd by Arie Y. Lcrvin; received Novcmber 9. 1931.',this prpcr has bccn $ith thc autlrors I month
for I revision. tState Univcroit;' of Ncrv York. Albany lNational Center for tligher Education Manag;emenl Syslems and Unirersity of Colorado'
This papcr received honorable menlion in thc rl98l
annual International Prizc Compctition sponsr:red by
the Coliege on Organiation of Thc tnstitute of Mrnagem(nt Scisnces for tlre most originll ncrv contribution
ro the fie-ld of Orlaniational Analysis anr.l Dcsign. This \vas lhc highcst aNard Sranted in thc compctttton'
002s- 1909/8 l/2901 /0ol3s0l.2s Cof!.ishl r l9lll.'Ihc In(tilulc(rf l\hnrgcmcnl Scicnc$
Reproduced with pemission of the copyright owner F urth0r reprodudion prchibited without permrssron
Unfortunarely, empirical research hal; not been lorthcoming to validate these various models of life cycle developmr:nt. Instead, rvriten; rvho have considr:red organizarional life cycles have focused orr either identifying diifferent tlPe: ot. existing
orianizations tlll, i331, or on identifyinil sratic. characteristics or organizations that cx'ist in different strges tl6l. 13ll. Stinchcombe [37], Kimberly [16], varr de ven [40] and others argue that the eariy developrnent of or:ganizations has profor:nd influence
on ,utrat theylubsequently become, yet little is knorvn about characteristics of early
dcvelopmenLl ,tog.i, o. about the processes by rvhich organizations progress from one
s(age to another. Given the fact that 54 percenI ol' a]l businesses fail rvjithin one and
onJ-h"lf years, and thar rhe median age.f all firms is only seven years, il lvould seem
that increascd understanding of the design and development of new organizations might be significant for both theoretical and prar:tical reasons [18]'
6u, pu.por., in this papcr, thereforc, are threefold' First, rve revierv proposed life cycles mo<iels to determine if common stages of development can be identified among
rhcm. Second, we utrempt to identify the major criteria of organizational effective ness
prescnt in each of the siages of devclopment. Because criteria of effecti"'eness chilnge
bver time, <iifferent models of effectivcness (e.g., the goal m'del, the system resource
model) have been found to be appropriate at certain times in organizations, but n'ot at
other times t4l, t5l. It rvould appear tcr bc important, therefore, to discover s;ome prcdicrable .-t uni.i in crireria of organizational effectiveness, so that dii ferent models of effectiveness could bc applied at predictable times in an organization's devr:lop- ment.
The third purpose is to elaborate our integration of the literature by presenting a
<lescription oi a developing organization in its early life cycle stages. We focus on 'early development of the organization because changes in life cycle stages seem to occur more iapidly in nerv organizations than in older, established organizations [16].
2. Models of Organizationrl t,ife Cycle Derelopntent At least nine clifferent models of organizational life cycles have been proposed, each
of rvhich emphasizes different factors to explain the changing charracteristir:s of organizations over time. Because they have been reported in diverse literatures, a brief
rcvierv and contparison of the models is presented here' This comparison forms the basis for a framework that integrates these nine perspectiver;.
'fable I summarizes the chrracteristics of each model as specificd by its authors, arrd identifies the nlljor factors upon rvhich each model is based. Each of the nine models is or:ganized in the table undcr a summary model consisting of four rnajor stages.
Dorns A'lotivation for Grott'th In one of the carliest models, Dorvns il01 focused on the lille cycles of government
bureaus. After dcscribing four different wayt in rvhich brureaus afe born, Drowns suggests that three main stages of grorvth and development are €xPerirsnccd by these
organizafions. The first stage. struggle for autonomy, may occur before formal birth or just after. It is typified by attempts to obtain legitirnacy and needed resources from the environment to achieve a "survival threshold." The sec'rnd stage, rapid growth, inclu<les rapid expansion and emphasis on innovation and ,creativity. lfhe final stage, deceleration, is typified by an elaboration andl forntalization of rules and procedures and an emphasis on predictability and coordination. In brief, Downs' model views government organizations as moving from the r:stablishing of legitimacl', to innorration ancl expansion, and then to formalization and control-
Reoroduced with 0ermission of the copyright owneL Furthe reproduction prolribited without permlssron
l*!E* I I I I *l llui* ] \o:ls*iiiiiis lii*iEll
I *ill*i,l
I l**l
| **
I l,*:
#:i'sEill*l*llllll,ll
***il:l*Es::
l;l *:'
lll,:* lil O===<E>
=OCluJO [GO= F.XU J-FU|!:<|-]EU
& €
e
e-
?aFi. = E :c
\
ReprodUcedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.FUrtherrl]p|oductionproh]|Jitedwitl]outp€,rm|SS|on
3: ;:,=t
3: r:o::! i;':: 6 .": ,t:i., !ii:: !i:ii !'
*
U'
-i
?a F:'
\
o_:
Es
til J-FUI:<F:O:U
ReDroduced with p€rmission of the copyright owner t urther reprodLction profibited wlthoul pernllsslon
:i 5!.
B:]; F !l!;s!
E 5 t3:-:, *E !1ls Pi i iii ; !i: !€ ; i.{ f ,j:i.: ao r 6 t, ... . "
;-3 ec :g: E lggi s
;; ii:Ei "ui iE a :,e;EE 3;3sS 39:;...: :a:5 :e :;ilq ?:; €gi3 i'l;:s lisl!;E -!l;Eei:E *;9iin iFeEEl=s
#iE :!;ii: iSils; 9' ' " F" " ' I' "'
*
I
e-
?:F:-
.s
iic
ii , '€ ;!;;', i=! o:;-; = !:3 -o!9e;9
i:;i EiEiI;g iiEiii'iiiil;il
i -:" "F!F;g f.i i ;:! :: !iiFz !et;E: :e:!t :;aE?a l::o:p9^de:,9 :;;;:! :5::i:: Iai.tr E !..... o....
vr>6 l. r
a
;;3 i 6€ea
!3:6 3. .
:oouJo rccr: FIU J-F-uE<F>E|!
Reproduced with p3rmission of ihe copyright owner' Further reproduction prohibrted without perrnrssion
.Lippitt and Schmidt:. Crilical Managerial ()otrcertts
Lippiu and schmidt [21] developed one of the earliest models of life cycles in the
privat. sector. Thr:y suggesi that corporari<lns progress through three stages of 6e.veliop-
ment: (l) Uirth-creating an operating system and learning to become viable; (2) youthJeveloping stability and reputatic'n; and (3) maturity-achieving. uniqueness
and adaptabiliiy niiong rvith domain expansion.'l'he model specifies six major manirge'
rial concerns ,uhich .hung" as the oiganization progresses from stage to slage. At
"birth," the critir:al .on..rn, ur. .r.ulli.'n of fhe system and achieving a sun'ival
threshold. In..youth," rhe main concerns are stability and earning a reputation' In
maturity, achieving uniqueness and responding to diverse societal necds becorne mirjor
concerns.
Scott I Slrdteg)' and Stntcture
Scott[31]baseshismodelofcorporatelifecyckdevelopmentonthervor.kof Chan6lei 1tl. Tn* modet identifies three distinct types of corporate
forms that follorv a
historical..qu.n...Stagelorganizationsarccharacterizedbylittle<lrn<lformal srructure, a iingle product. and-personal control and paternalistic rervar<ls'.Stage
2
organizarions aie c'haracterizcd by functional r;pecialization, institutionalizecl seaLrch'
unl in.,p.rronul rervard systems. Stagc 3l organizations have multiple product lines, divcrsified producr markeir, and orientattions trlrvard R and D' grorvth' and adapta-
tion. In summarJr, Scotfs model suggests that finms progress from informal "one-rnan'
shorvs," to formilized bureaucracies, and then to diversified conglomerates'
Greiner: Problents Leading to Evolution and Revolutiort
Another early private sector model of organizational development lvas proposed by
Greincr tl4l. FIi; model suggests that organii:ations; evolvc through five sequerntial
.,rg.., .r.h-of Nhich is rollowea by a "rervolution".or a transilional phase ari:;ing from
a iajor organizational problem. it i, only by solving the problcm inherent in each rlcvclopmcntal stage that the organization successfully advances to a more mrature
stagc.
6rganizations advance out of the entrepreneurial and creat.ivity stage (stlge l) by
overc-oming crisis of leadership arising fiom the need to rationalizc organizational activities.
-progression through stagc 1--grorvth through direction or rationrlized
leadership--is nlotivated by overcoming, a crisis of autonomy. 'I-his crisis urises from
the need to decentralize decisi<ln mal:ing. Sitage 3-grorvth through delegation-' encounters a crisis of control rvhen noninteSralled goals in autonomous subunits begin
to emcrge. The organization overcornes this crisis iry rdvancing to slagc zl' -growth
through coordination (e.g., restructuring, formal planning, pnoject teams)--until an-
other-crisis, the crisis of-red fape, induces the organization to move toward another
stage-grorvth through collaboration. Collabonation in Greiner's model refers to ma-
t.iidesigns, spontaneity in managemenl, and increa:;ing organLizational flexibilitl'. The
major crisis oi the fifth stage is iriformation overload and psychological saturation' but
Greiner does not specify i resolution of that crisis in his model. In bricf, Creiner's modelmovesfromstagesemphasizingcreativi|'yandentreprcneurshiptoforrmali;ration and then to adaptability and flexibility.
Torberr: illenta,lity of Menbers
Torbert [39] proposed a moclel of developmernt based on the individual "mentalities"
of organizational ntembers. Organizations progress through stages as orglnizational
members become ,nor" .*p.riintially arvire of the causal factors and dynarnics operating in rhr: organization, and as ihey develop greater caprcities for person:rl
and
Reproduced with permission of ihe copyright own€f Furth€rr reproduction prohibited without permlsislon
interpersonal effectiveness. Torbert does not specify the process by rvhich organiza-
tiOns progress from one stage to another; rather, he specifies successively higher levels
of organiltional functioning that organizations may attain. The model moves from an
earfstage of inclividuality, informality, and dilifusion to group unity and a sensr: of
collectiviiy. Thereafter, fi,ted rules and structure predominate until renerval and
adaptabilitY occur.
Lyden: Functiottatr P roblenrs
Lyden [22], basing his model on Parsons'[28]l functional problems of organizalions
(i.e., the eCit" "toO"t),
suggests that organizations put primary emphasis on 'different iunctional problerms at different stages in their development-environmental adapta-
tion, resource acquisition, goal attainmelrt, and pattern mainlenance. The first major
focus of nerv orgrinizations, according to Lyden., is adapting lo and gcneratinll a-niche
in the external r:nvironmenl. This generally occurs through innovation. (ln highly routine and stable external environmenl.s, Lyden suggests that goal attainment
may
come first, but fhat is rare.) Second, the organi;zation emphasi:es resource acquisiition
and the development of rvorkflorv proccdures. Third, the emphasis stvitche:; 1o goal
attainment and- the efficient production of c'ulPut. Finally, slage 4 organizations ..ptrutir" pattern maintenance and the institutionalization of structurc. In general, the pattern of ieysls,prnent moves from emphasis on innovation and "niche gencration" to
stability and institutionalization.
Katz and Kahn: Organizational Struclure'
Katz and Kahn [15] base their model r:rn the r"'laboration oi organizational sitructures
that develop over time, an<i they suggest that three m:rin stages occur in orgarrizatrional
life cycles. The first stage is .ill.d o prhnitiw ,'steil stage rvhere thc rudiments of a
froduction system are based on the cooperative endeavon of organizational rnembcrs.
ihe ...ond ita';e, the stable organizatiin staget, focuses on coordinalion and conlrol behavior. An aurthority system;nd a m'aintenance system occur in order t. regulale organizational activitiis. An informal structure also arises during this stage.
'Ihc third
an-d final stage mentioned by Katz ancl Kahn is the elaborolion .of ilructure rvherein
adaprive mechanisms are esrablishcd for dealirrg rvith the external environment.
Atlizes : M ai or (l r gani za! ional A c t it il ies
Adizes' Il] model of organizational dervelopmcnt suggesls that organizations develop through stages lbecause oi changes in ermphases on four activities-producing r'esults
(p), icting int.epreneurially (f ), administering formal rules and procedures ("1 1, and int.grurn! individuals into the organi:ration (/).
'I'his mc'del of organizrlional life
cy"[s i, t-he on,ly one that accoun(s for both maturing stages and declini:ng stagcs. S-imply put, the model suggests that organizations develop through distinctiv,c
slagcs-
frorn iniancy to, maturity:and that thery decline in distinclive stages---fromL maturity
to death-tleper:ding on the emphasis placcd ,on the four different activities' Progres-
sion from oni stage to the next occurs primarily by overcoming the ma.ior problems of
,u."...iu" stages.brganizations, accorcling to this model, begin with an emLphasis on entrepreneurial activiiy (E) that latcr becomes coupled rvith an e mphaiss on
producing
resulis (P). Formalization, administratlive activities, and rnte8ralion emphasesi tal(e
pr.ced.n.e as n:aturity is approached. organizationa.l decline occurs primarilly be cause
of un o".r-.tphasis on stability, admirristration, and rules and procedures'
Kin$erly; lntemal social control, slntc\ure oJ lvork, and Eitn'ironntental Relations
Kimberly's [16] srudy of the creation and developrment ofa medical school prr:vides
still another model of organizational ,rlevelopment. Kimberly suggests that lhe first
Reoroducedwithpemissionofthecopyrightown€:'FUrtherreptocuctionprohibitedWlthoulperm|:;S|on'
identifiable stage in organizational development occurs before the organization is actually formed, It involves the marshalling of resources and the formation oli an ideology. This teads to a second stage $hich irrcludes selection of a "prinre mover"'
hiringi staff, and establishing support from strfategic constituencies. 'fhe third stage
involues the forrnation of an organizatiional irJentity, high emotional and physicai invesiment by orlganizational members, ancl a sense of high rnember commitment and
cohesiveness as the primary mission or i.deology of the orga.nization is pursrred- The
fourth stage, referred to as institutionalization. occurs rvhen policies and rules become
more rigid, struc1ure becomes formalized. and the organizatign becomes more conser-
vative anrl pledictable as it responds to cx(ernal environmental prcssurcs.
Integration ol the illodels
Although these nine models are based on different organiirational phenomena i[e.g.'
structure, individiual mentalities, functiolal problems), it is notervorthy that all nine suggest progress through similar life cycle stages. Each model contains an entrcPreneur'
iol-trcg, (early innovation, niche formation, creativity). it collectilitl' stage (high cohcsiJn, commitment), a lornnli:ation and conrrol rrage llstability and institution- alization), and a. slrrrc/are
-elaborution aud adaptatiotr stage (domain expansion and
decentralization). Thc summary model in Table I enumerates the common organiza- tional characteristics typical of each of thcse stages. liome oI the authors divide these
four major stages into multiple sub-stllg€rs (e.g., Adizes'adolescent' prime, and mirture
organizitionat strges are all in the forr:nalization and control stage); somc aulhors igiore eithcr lhc lirsr or thc last stage (e.g., Katz and X.ahn do not include the entrcpreneurial stagc in thcir modcl); and Do,vns, [,yden. ,Adizes, and Kimberly do not inclu<.le lhc fourth stage (elaboration o[ structure) in their models. But as a group,
there seems to be some consensus in the models about the characteristics of ccrtain developmental stlges as organizations progress through their life cycles. This consen-
sus is reflected in (hc summary model irr Table l. With thc exception of Adizes [l], norre of the models is concerned rvith organiza-
tional dcclirre arrd death, so the life cyr:le is not complete. This may bc becausc in
mature organizations (after the elaboration of structure stage) life cycle models break
dorvn, and r:hange occurs metamorphically and unpredictably [17]. The stages from
birrh to maturity may be the only predictablc ones. In the small group literature, holever, it has been found that groups frequently rr:vert to earlier stages ol' develop- ment As environmental turbulence is encountered, ali turnover in membership or:curs, ls the primxry task changes, or as the leadership style is altr:red. This also rnay tre the case rvith the development of organizatir:ns in their life cyclcs-
In addition, the lcngth of time that organizations remain in parlicular stag,es of <levclopmcnr is nor spccificd by the authors. llow,ever, research by Kimberly [16], Cameron and lVhetter: [5], Miles and Fl'andolph [25;1, and Neal [27] suggest that the
stages can crccur in rapid sequence (i.e., maturity can be reached quickly) or they can
be very slo$r in rleveloping [10]. Lippitt anct Schmidt [21] even hold that organizational
age an<l stalle of development are poorly correlated. We rvill not speculate here on the
variations in this temporal dimension. What is important to point out, however, is lhat a consistent pattern of development
seems to occur in organizations over time, anil orgarrization'al activities and structures
in one stag: are not the same as the actil'ities and struclures present in anolher stage. This implier; thart (he criteria used to evaluate rn organization's success in one stlge of tlevelopmerrt also may be different from criteria used to evalu&te success iin another stage of {evelopment. That is, given diffcrent. emphases arrd different organizutional characteristics, the bases for evaluating rcrgani:lationirl success are likely to be different
as well. Whereas most rvriters have admitted that appropriate criteria of effectiveness
ReorodUcedwithpermissionofthecopyrightownel'FUrtherreproduc|.onprc|hibitedwithoutpermlSS|on.
change over timr:, ferv have investigated horv the criteria change or if there are pred[table p,atterns of such change. The fact that this is an important area of investigationin or:ganizations is pointed out by several of the'vrilers on life cycles (eg''
tU, t141, tl9l, I2lli. They argue rhat organizations are prone to pursuc !;trategies lhat
prouea-eifective in the past [9]. But rvhen ne,,v stages of development occur, past itrategies andl behaviors become inappropriate and ineffectivc' and possibly even fatal
[4]. iherefcne, rrerv indicators of effectiveness must emerge. To assess effectiveness Lsing oufdated or inappropriate criteria (i.e., $iteria that do not matclr the stage of
the irganization's development) produces inaccurale informa,tion about the true level
of orginizational effectivlness an{ the major criteria guiding organizational action'
Oui revierv of the life cycles models provides some hints regarding the dominan( criteria of effectiveness that are likely to be present in each of the early life cycle stages. In order to Put them in context, a discussion of thc ntajor model:; of org-anizational eflectiveness is necessary beiore they can be prresented'
3. Criteria of Orgunizalional Eifeclireness
Despite the centralit),of the concept of effectiveness in organization theorl, it has
not been rvdl rlcveloped or defined, and there has been little agreenlent as t<r lhe
crireria rhat serve !o define organizational efiectiveness t3l, tl2l, [361 A variely of models and approaches have bein used, and the indicators of effectiveness employed
by researchers :rre numerous [6]. Debates ab'or.rt the superiority of onc rnodr:l o[ eifectiueness over others continue to be found in the literature [26]' [29]' [l]51. t$6n1
model advocate:s, for example, claim that effectiverress must be measured by goal
accomplishnrent, rvhile advoiates of the systems tesource m.del claim that the a6ility
to acquire rersout-ccs is the appropriale criterion of success. unfortunately, almost nll of
the efiectiveness research has been limited to the asse:ssment of static criteria in mature
organizations t2l, t23], and the appropriateness of different cr:iteria at different tinr'es in
thl organizaLtionai tiie.y.t. has seldom been r:onsidered. The result is that <lrganizr- tional effecliveness research has continued to be criticizcd as non-integrated and
diverse bcca,use of the multiple, and sometimel; conlladictoly critcria that are used'
M odels oJ Ctrganizational Elfect iveness
In an attempt. to bring some order to the divcrse array of cffectivctress criteria used
in empirical i.sear"h, Campbell and lhis associat€s [7] surveyed the literalure on organiiational effectiveness ind compiled what they termed a comprehensivc list of all
uuiiubl., that have been proposed ui indi..t of organizational effectivenss. Using this
comprehens;ive list, Quinn und Rohrbuugh [30] aske,d a panel of experts in orgrniza-
tional effectiveness to reduce ancl organize thc critcria, so that they rvere lll on the same level of analysis, non-overlapping, and specifically related to organizational performance. 1'he resulting list of criteria rvas submilted to ia multidimensiorral sr:aling
iechnique to tr:/ to identiiy underlying cognitivc dimensions upon rvhich the cr:iteria
rvere based. Quiinn and Rohrbaugh discovered that individuirls make evaluations about
the effectiveness of organizations based on thlcer underlying dimensions-(l) an internal focus'versus an external focus (e.g., individual satisfaction versus olganiza-
tional goal accomplishment); (2) a concern lc'r flexibility ver,sy: a conc-ell for control
(e.g', in,novatiorr and adaptation versus predictabilily and stability); and (3) a concern
foi eilrts versuts a concern for nreans (e.g., efficient pro,Cuction of outputs 'versus planning arnd goal setring). campbell's criteria arrayed themselves in such a rval' that
Itt.igti..,.Uinations oi these three dlmensions are repreliented' That is, lhe criteria
clustJred together so that each combination of'dimensions typifies some of the cfitcria'
Figure I illustrates this model.
ReDroducedwithpermissionolthecopyrightowner.FUrtherrepro(lUctionpr,rhIbitedwithoutpern||5sion
Human Relaiions Model
Means: Co hesicrn Morale
InienicL
Means: lnfornralioll ManarJemenl; Communication
E:nds:
Flexibility Open Syslems Model
Ends: Besource Acquisition; Growth
ExLernal
Ends: Product ivity: Efficiency
stability; Control
Means: Pla nn ing; Goal Settinq Eva ualion
Internal Process Model Rational Goal Model
Quinn and Rohrbaugh also discovered that theser clusterrs of effectiveness criteria
and the un,clerlying dimensions that represelt them are consistent rvith f6ur rnajor models of orgarrizational effcctiveness that h.rve been used in the past (sec Figure l). The reason rve use the Quinn and Rohrbaugh model here, irn fact, is that it provides a
goocl summary of the major models of effe<:tiveness, and it illustrates well how the ippropriateness of the various models of effectiveness changes in different life cycle stages. Baser{ on the characteristics of tlhe four summary lil'e cycles stages, 1hese four models of o'rganizational effectiveness ace hyp'tthesized to receive different degrees of
emphasis in, each of the different stages. As c,rganiz:ations progress through their life cycles, the different criteria of effectiveness cmphasized by these rnodels should parallcl the changing activities and characteristics of organi:zations over time' Figure 2
ihows the hypor:tresiied panerns of effectiveness during the four life cycles stages.r
'Tichy []81 hrs simuhirncously and indepcndcntly dc'vcloped a similar fmmcrvork' It is brcd on the
solution o[ three organiarionrl problems that clascly parallel three of thc four quadrants in Figure 2' The
lrcscnt frimc\rork has somer advrntrgcs over the'Iichy scherne, however. li is somewhat more pasimonious while at thc slLme rjinrc more comprehensivc: it is empiricrlly derivcd: and it is grounded in Scfleral lheones
of organiation (i.c., [31. t281, [32]).
ReorodUcedwithpemissiono'thecopyrightowner.Furth.3rreprodUctionprohibitedwithoUtpernrission'
tstOUR[ l- Four Mdlcls of Effccriscncss Valiucs
1. Entreprsngullsl Stago
3. Formallzallon and Control Stage 4.
Ftrsunt 2. Eftectiveness Valucs During thc Early Stagcs of Dcvclopncnt
In the entrepneneurial stage-typified by inrrovation, creativity, and the marshalling of resources-the strongest emphasis appeatfs to be on open systems critefia of effectiveness. Tlhat is, the success of an ,organization rvill tend to be associatcd g'ith its
flexibility, jgrowth, resource acquisitionl, and the development of external support. Downs nol, for example, discusscs the achievement of a "survival threshold" arrd the
stabilization of resources as prerequisites for,organizational success. Adizes Il] speci- fied "dreanring" and entrepreneurship as activities necessary to g,et the organiilation off the ground during the first developmental stage.
As shorvn in Figure 2, open systems criteria are also hypothesized to be important in
other life cycle stages (less so in the forrnalizattion stage), but in stage I they appear to be particullrly important. Organizational success tends to be defined in thc entrcpre-
Reoroducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner' FurthsrreproductionProhibitedwithoutpermrsslon'
Elaboratlon of Sttucturo Stsgo
neurial stage tprirnarily by horv rvell the organization meets crileria of growth, resource
acquisition, e:tternal support, and readineris.
6rganizatic,ns iin the collectivity stage appear to be characterized by the criteria
associated rvith the human relations model. Lifc cycle theorists describe this stage as
typified by inforrnal communication anil structure. a sense of family and coopera-
tiuene.. among rnembers, high member commitment, and personalized leadership'
Emphasis on irirteria ,uch os human resource development, morale. cohesion, and
human necd satisfaction (human relations criteria) are highest in this stage. For example, Katz and Kahn Il5l clescribe effr:ctive r:rganizational activities in this stage as
,.rulting from "thc cooperatiue response 'of people based on their common needs and
.*p.",.ionr'" (p.7l).forbert [39] suggests that group unity and psychological con- tracts are typ,ical of effective organizations in ttris stage'
Again, rvc arc not suggesting that human relations criteria are the orrly relevant
crireiia during the collectivit,r- stage of developnrent, nor that human relations crttena
are not impoitant in other 6evelopmental stage s as well. Ralher, we are pointingi oul
that human nelations crite:ia appear to <jominatc in defining organizational effcctive-
ness in this s[age. and that they are morc important in thc collectivity stage ttran in any
otncr stage. In the formalizarion stage. organizatir.rnal stability, cfficicncy of production, rules
and procc<lures, nncl conseryative trends rypify organizations. Effectivcncss itppears to
be dcfinctl primarily on the basis of crit,:ria in the internal process and rational goal
models; that is. lby goal. setting and goal attainment, productivity, efficiency informa-
tlon manag(:me,r,-.onr,r,unication, and stirbility-control. For example. Lyden [22] ,..o**.nJ, evaluating effectivencss qr.rantitatively in this stage using productivity measures and efficiency ratios; and Adi;res Il] lists achieving efficicncy, being results oricnrcd. anrJ having established plans and procedures for getting things done (goals)
as major in,Jicarors of effectiveness. whilc goal accomplishment, productivity, and
efficiency are clearly imporftnt through most of the life cycle of an organization, it is
in thc formulization stage that thcse rational rnodel criteria are most emphasizcd by
life cyclc thcorists. The fourth stage. claboration of siruclure. appears to be one in rvhich the organtza-
tion monil.ors the extcrnat cnvironment in ordcr to renew itsell or expand its domtin,
or both. Dccenl.ralization of structurc {lccurs and a balance betrveen differentiation
anil integrarion is necessrry [20] at this stage. whilc there appe:rrs to be at lcast moderate ernphasis on intcrnal process r:riteria, human relations criteria, and ra1i6nal
goal model crit,eria, the open systems rnodcl, rvhich emphasizes flexibility' resource
icquisition, and grorvth, seems to receive the most emphasis in this stage. Open ,yrt.r, criteria arc suirgestc<l in Katz and Kahn's [15] description of effective orgrni- zations in this stage as those that "devr:lop at the boundaries" of the organizatiorr in
monitoring ancl c<.rntrolling cnvironmenlal relationships. In or4eiro explorc f,urther these hypot,hesized relationships betrveen the stages of life
cycle tlcvclopmcnr and changes in enrgrhasis given to criteria of organizational effec-
tivcncss, rve, tlecided t<l track rn organi;tation over time and to obscrve changes in its
stages of cft:velopment. Because the prr:rcesses by which development occUrs are also
important, simprly comparing different organizations in different stages of development
is not appr,opriate. An organizrtion harl to be found in which observable changes in
stage dcvclopment occuned, and from tuhich evidence for a change in the emphasis on
effectivcnes's criteria could be producccl.
4. A Chronick: of Life CYcle Change The oreanization selected rvas a developmental center in the former New York State
Departmint of Mental Hygiene. The events described here are from observations
Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner' Furtherreproductlonprohtbltedwithoulpertrlsslon
made over a threre yealperiod, 1974-l97ti. These observations are part of a "pror:ess
research appfoach'; [6] in rvhich interviiervs, observations, and archival techniques rvere employed. 'llhe focal organization served children rvith developrnental disorrJers
and the ietarded of all ages in a six county area. lt includcd the developmental centcr and scven "teamsi", or subsystems, rvhich operilted in the six counlies. A staff of r:ver
800 and an operating budget of over $9,1100,0110 were present during the observation years.
The center rvas direcled from its estatllishmcnt in 1969 by a psychiatrist rvho rvas nationally kn.orvn for his lvritings and fon his $'ork in thc area of community me nlal
healfh. Fic rvas a charismatic leader rvho tendr:d to generate either extreme loyalty or
opposition. Whil,: ferv of his associates lielt indifferent torvards him, both supportf:rs
and critics rvere in agreement that he rvaLs a "near genius" in conceptualizing inrrova-
tive solutions, to the problems of service delivery'
Earlr Stuges of l)eveloPnent
The director's ptst rvrork and writings iin cornmunity mental health had generaled il
series of prescrip,iions f,or the treatment,cf thc nrentalll,disabled. These prescripli.ns
bccame t'he organizational itleology. Col.lectively, they rverc callcd the devclopmental
trcatnlent m,odel. This model emphasizerl the broad participation of Parents' consum-
ers, and the community', as well as focusiing on the development of indcpendencc and
seli-reliance by clients. This developmeotal ideology was on lhe cutting edge of the "deinstitutionali:ration" movemcnt that rvas then srveeping the nrental health profes-
sion.
The center wa.s composed of sevcn teams and a support group' Although thc teams
were relative,ly autonomous, they follorved a common set of guidelines. The tcams werc
characrerize,iby numerous disciplines (social rvork, child psychiatry, special educ'ttion'
pediatrics, psycirotogy, rehabilitation counseling, etc.), and rvere staffcd to nraintain a
Lolun." amo;g at Gast four areas: sr:rcial-recreational, psychological, cclucalional' vocational,:tnd health care. For every professional hired, at lcast one person frour thc
community (rvith a bachelor's deBree or less) also had to be hired. After thc first rvave
of interviews in 1975, the follorving desr:ription was cntered in the first fielcl rcport:
Thc tcum is a fluitl, nonburcaucratic system $ilh the caprcity to inrmcdirtell assign antl
rcassign siaff in rcsponse to chrnging organ izrtional nccds. Ercn thc usc o[ lhc tdministrrlori
is chJn.ctcrizerl b): fle\ibilir)' sinlc rhey c,iten hlre morc thrn onc organizational rclc. Thi organizltion appaafs to hrvc bccn vcrl succcsful in idcntifying nccds and rcortirnizing stall
and othcr rcsourccs lo mcet lhcsc necds. Thc organiation has bccn scll nrntchcd 10 lhc charlctJristics of thc cnvironmcnt and thc nrturc o[ thc trsk. In gcncrrl' thc sta[[ c\prcs\cd
stisfaction Nith thc tluid, and informalL nrture of the organization and lhc subscqucnl frcc<Jom, rcsponsibiliry, and rmm for crcarivity Nhich this t) pc oI organiation flcililalcs- This
is rcflc(tcd in thc facl that tlrcy habitually spcnd Iong hours at rvork. rrrrrk \\'eckcnds' catD'ou.
mullipl,e orgtnirational roles. anrl crpJnd 0,r strelch thcir talcnts and influenccs almost bclond
a poinr of icason. This almost misionary dcdication and zcrl is infcctious and is a uluabl:
tactical tool in their rJealings rrith thc conrmunitl'.
In shorti thr: organizational structure was a reflection of thc philosophy of its director. For example, the director had no office, but rvent rvhere believed hc rvas
needed, establishing a temporary base of operations. Strong emphasis rvas placetl on
openness, cooperation, creativity, and i,nnovation. While the director reserved n veto
porver over group decisions, he seldom used it and most major decisions rvcre rrrrived
af thtough panticipative decision-makjing techniques. Thc physical plants of some teams rvere' int,entionally too small, berlause it rvas believed lhat ovcrcrowding rvould
encourage members to be in the community rathcr than in their ofl'ices. Dress standards and strict attention to senLiorit5' were not in operation' The chain of
Reoroducedwithftermissiollofthecopyrightownc'r'Furtherreproductionprohlbitedwithoutperrrrssion
comm&nd was nort easill,identifiable. andl there rvas a heavy emphasis on face-to-face
communictlion r,ather i6an on formal rvritten documents. The organic or ambiguous
nature of the structure s'as reflecte<l by ttre fact that, desPite attempts to.do so' no one
had been abl: to drarv an organizational r:hart that satisfactorily reflected the function-
ing of the organi:zation'
Perprnance dnd Resource Acqttisition
Within the organization, there was a high concern for the accomplishment of
pu.po,r., as r;et firth in the developmental mor3el. This required an emphasis orL the
establishment o[ interorganizationaj relationships an6 the capturing of external sup-
port. Here. :rgain, an excerpt from the rinitial field report provides a descriptiorr of
conditions in earlY 1975: .fhctcarr.hasbcenvcrysucccssfulirtmarshr'llingthcenergicsofitsorvnrr'orkcrsandthoscof
lhccommunitytodcl,elopandprtrvidernarrayofservices(otheretrrdcdnot0Ylilable lhcrcroforc. Both thc strft;nd thc communitli rvorien cxhibitcd a high degrcc of cohesion and
ln intcnsc dcdrcrtion to the "Causc." [t rvrs our obscrvalion lhat a goorl deal of thc community's in(crest l;as a rcsult of the zeal of the slaff of the lerm' Thc tcam hirs
bccn very
succcsrfulinidcnlif)'insanrJobtainingmonicsfrornvarioussources,includingapproprirtions from thc Departmcnt of i\tcntal Fly:gicne' the Legishturc' gmnl moflies from the Federal
Govcmmcnl as rvcll ls convincing community agencies to rcdcploy sontc o[ their monrcs to
scn icc for thc rctardcd.
In ,:arly I9?5, aftcr sl.ightly more than five years of existence, thc focal organization
hatl ilcvelopc<i in rvays very similar to those predicted in the first two stages of our
model. 'fable 2 summarizei these chara.cteristics. Early emphasis on innovatiorr and
creativity :rnd trre porvr:rful presLnce of a prime mover (entreprcneurial stage) led to
high levcls of cohesion among lvorkers, a dedicarion to the organization's ideology,
arul ar sense of unity annong the employces (coltectivity stagc). Frorn the point olview
II'ABLE 2
C.hartcreristics o[ Eurl.v Sragcs oJ Duelopnrcn! in rhc Depannenr "f :l!:y4]!g::
Characterislic Stage
Innova(ive treatment model empha$rzing ''deins titutionalization
Fluid ilnd nonbureaucralic method:; ol task assi9nment
Crireclor had slrong personal power
Clirector had no Permanenl ollice
Sitrong emphasis on creativitY
f\lo oflSanizational charl could be drawn
lvork teams formed
lVorked long hours and weekends
idissionary zeal and dedication to lhe "cause"
Iitall encoura0ed to get out inlo the comnunity, nrrl in ollices
Utalf and communily wotkers had high
cohe:;ion
x
x
X
x
Reftroduced with permission of the copyright owner' Further reproduction prohibited without permtsslon
of the Quinn-Rolhrbaugh effectiveness model, the organization rvas doing exlremely
rvell on. ihe criteria in the open systems, and human relations quadrants. That is, tirere
was continued acquisition of ptlitical and financial supPort and cohesiveness and
morale rvere extremelY high.
Evenrs Leaditlg lo Laler Stages ol Dewloynenl
In the spring of I9?5, one of the trvo major ncwspapers serving the area began to
,un an .it.niive expose of the entire Department of Mental Hygiene' Entitled l.Wasted Dollars,/Wisterd Lives," the se,ries included numefous devastating reJNrrts
about bureaucraitic inel'ficiency at the 'entral office of the DMH and numerous
A.r.;ptionr aborut the bleakest aspects of life in institutions. Initially. the lOcal
organization was mentioned only in sunrrmary statements. But beginning on May 9'
tgi5, rrhe prograrn became on the primar"y points of focus in the series.
May gi The paper ran a fronr,pag€ article revealing rhat more than $6,000 in drugs and zupplies rverr: purchased direcily frorn local retail pharmacies instead
of using, thc
less .xpenrive state contract procedure. The article indicated that the State Depart-
rn.nt ,i Audit arrd conrtrol was nol aware of the practice. The story rcceived cove rage for several days arnd included a response ifrom the director, rvho argued that
he rvanted
clients; to ha,rc the developmental experir:nce of buying their orvn drugs, and that the
practice rvas cheaper than if the organizr'tion ran its orvn pharmacy'' Mqv 25; Six articles about the program appeared in the nervspaper raising a
number of is;sues about administrative ptiaclices. one article included a picture of thc
comnrissioner-designate of the Department of Mental Hygiene and quotcd hin as saying:
..I trelie've- that [the focal orgarnization] is one of the most innovative and
"n.uu.oging developme,nial cenrer opirations in the state, as a mattcr of fact, in the
country." He went on to say that hc h'oped the program might be a moclcl for thc
whole DMHI sYstem. On the siame Page appeared another article describing the findings
r:f a Slate
Department of ftealfh, ieport on the developmental center. In regard lo Federal regulations governing t,he payment of Mcdicaid and Medicare monies, the article
cited
n,i*.,rou. findings of "deficiencies in the area of administration' treatment pro.gram'
medircal carc, fo,od services, record-kceping, pharmaceutical and dental operltions, and
environmental conditions.'i Findings par:ticularly focused on inadequacies Nith crrntrol
mechanisms such as orSanization chartr;, job descriptions, maslcr plans. policy manu-
als, and documcntation practices. May 29: Three more articles appearr:cl, the most polent arguing that the Parents of
mun;l prof,rundly rerarded childien rvere unable to admit their children t'r the pru.ii."lty emply center. Trvo local assemblymen were quoted as saying that they had
t."n unibl,, to obtainL admission for p,atients. The rcfusal to admit thc profoundly retarded rvas anr issuc [hat rvas to conti]nue throughout the summer'
June I: Fivr: articles appeared, the rsitlongest arguing that there was poor account- abilitty and conlrol at fhe benter, and tlhat "some key doctors" rvere either-.ineffective
or unavailable because they had "secorLdjobs or other outsidc interests'"'l'he issue of
secornd salaries tvas also to become a major theme in the rvceks that followed.
JttneS:AnarticleappearedquotirrgpartsofastatcDePartmentofAuditand Conrtrol rep,ort rvhich indi.ateA thit rer::ord-keeping procedures in the area of payroll
and personnel rvere extremely rveak. The report recommended'
..,..avariBt)ofchangesinclurtingverificationofappointmentsandtcrminationsb)'thc
business officel god rJcord-keepin! and follorv'up by lhc pcrsonncl officc: distrib-ution ol
chccks by a leiponsible employec'of the busincss officc \ho is indcpcndcnt ot Payroll prepanrtion;' close nronitoring oi cmployccs by thcir supcn isors so that attendlncc
and lcavc'
record:; are kepr'prc'perl1'" oi,t ptytit"i licparalion of the pcrsonnel and payroll of[ic'cs'"
Reproduced'tithp,ermisslonofthecopyrightown€r' Furtherreproductionprohrbltedwrlhoutpermlssion
Jul.l, I9: The intense pressure on ther program continued, and it rvas reportedl that the director rvas asked by the Commissioner to take a six-rveek leave of absencc in the midst of tht: DlvtFI probe. The DMH investigations centered on administrative and personnel practices at the Center.
September 7: The results of the pro'be rverc made public. Findings criticized the director for failing to provide direction, ir traditional organization structure, and other necessary controls. It also recommendedl the topJevel administrative staff be relieved of their present duties.
Septenther l0: The report rvas met lvit.h outrage by supporters of the director. They accused the DVIFI of carrying out a vendetta. A nervspeper article reported that the Covernor, L,ieutenant (iovernor, and several Statc legislators had expressed concern to the Commissioner that the director get a fair shake.
Developntetil ol the Fornnli:atioil and Cavrtrol Stage
When the probe rvas; completed, the director was reinstated and given one year to address a lir;t of problems. Most had to do rvith establishing clear lines of authority, clearly identifiable roles, follorving rules and regulations, and establishing mechanisms of accountalbilitli and conlrol.
Shortly, after the year was ovcr, thc dircctor left the state and he was replaccd rvith a "more administratively minded" director:. Thercafter many staff mcmbers left. By the end of the nexl year, there rverc ferv people rvorking in jobs for rvhich they s'ere overqualifierJ, the missionary zeal disappeared, and thc Center began to function in a more controlled mannc:r.
At the close of the study, thc organizrtion was firmly established in the formaliza- tion stagc. While there rvas a high emplhasis on control, there rvas a considerable fall off in staff conrmitmcnt. productivity, arrd flexibility.
Of coursc, this single case study does not provide conclusive cvidence that our model of orgauizationaLl lifc cyclcs and effectiveness is precisely as rve hypothesize in all nerv organiz;rtions. Thc case does providc. horvcvcr, an e-rample of the potential utility of this mrrdcl for diagnosing and prcdicting organizational phcnomena.
It seems r:lerr from this case that the focal organization moved fronr the entrepre- ncurial and col|:ctivity stages to thc forrnalization and control stage. Furthermore, the criteria by rvhich the organization rvasjudgerl to be effective changed over time. In the ycars prior to the newspaper cxpos6, opc:n systems criteria and human relations criteria rvere highll valued. Horvever, emergenc,:: of a nerv and porverful strategic constituency (i.e.. the nervspaper) resulted in change iLn emphasis torvards rational goal criteria (e.g., efficiency) rnd a subsequent change in the characteristics of the organization as lvell. When thc relative po,rver among stralegic constituencics changed, the criteria of effectivencss chunged as l result, and pnessure mounted for the organization to make similar changcs in its organizational fonrr and behavior.
5. Discussion As seen in Figure 2, in the entrepren,eurial and collectivity stages, we hypothesized
that the nrost innportant criteria of effcctiveness for an organization rvould be thrrse of the open systems model (flcxibility and rcsource acquisition) and of the human relations model (cohesiveness-mor:rle, development of human resources). During these stages there should be less emphlsis on rational goal criteria (planning-goal setting, efficiency, and produr:tivity) and on internal process criteria (information manage- ment, communiicstionr;, stability, control). With the onset of the formalization stage, horvever, there should bc a dramatiq shift in criteria. Information manaBement, communication, stability, control, prorJuctivity, efficiency and goal setting should
Reproduced with permission of the copyright ownef. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
become increasingly important. This, in ,turn, should be accompanied by a dranrrtic
decline in thc enrthasis on open systems and human relations criteria.
In the organizational history just provided, there is evidence to sugSest that the changes in tl.e dominant criteria of orgarrizational cffectiveness follorved the
predicted
puir.in. The focaLl organization started oul in the entrepreneurial stage and continued
in the collectivity stoge ,with an internal strategic constituency being thc mosl porverl'ul
(i.e., lcd by the ilirecior). The criteria of success that were most valued by this gtioup
.u.r. .'onrirt.,nt rvith thr: implementation of an inno'ative treatment model. As such,
formalization, c'nlrol, nnd ifficiency w!:re not only unimportant criteria.,-lhey r*ere
contradictoql to the organizatiotl's acceptcd values. The major criteria o[ effectiveness
i..il.i.r,i"i,y, informi,lity, morale), for this strategic consriluency, rhereforc, became
u.J.p,.a as part of the organization's selli definition because the) \\'ere pcrpetuated by
the constitue.ncy in porver. These criteria reflecred the seli interests and values ol that
group." fo, o time, this internal strategic const.ituency was successful in rvarding off corLtrols andporverplayl;ofinternalandotherextcrnalconstituencies.Holvevcr,lheattack from'the n"rurpop.. allorved many of the extcrnal constituencies to coalcsce and
to
become domin}ni. That is, a new constituency acquired more power relative to thc
focal organization than did the previously dominartt inlernal stlategic constitucncy'
This crJated an ove*helming pressur,: torvards forntalization in the organization br.uur" the critteria, ol cffectiieness vaLlued by the nerv constituency included
effi-
ciency,cont.rol,planrling'etc.(criteriaconsistcntwiththeformalizationslagc),The orga;ization found it nl..ssury to ado,pt thcse nerv criteria of success in orcler to ,uitiu., and. this in turn necessitated a change in slructure and activitics'
What this suggests is that the organization must adopt the primary criteria of
effcctivenes:; esproused by the dominant consrituency in order to survive' And changcs
in the <lominancc of various constituen'cies over different lifc cyclc stages nccessitate
changes in lornr and frrnction. ourexarnpleillustrateshorr,achangeinlifecyclestagesoccurredtrccauseof
external p..',,u,.,. with the change canre a new set of effectivencss criteria and a :rerr'
dominant coalition. The model suggests; that the periocl between stage 2 and stagc 3 is
the time rvlhen this chLange is tnoii liktty to happen' In rcvierving four sintilar: case
studies, Mites [23] d,tscrib.s some vOry sirnilar dynamics' One value of .the
lifc
cycles-effectiveness model cleveloped in this paper is that it prcdicts what critcriI of
sirccess arc likr:ly to take precedence 1n rvhat scquence, and it allorvs managcrs to
rnticipate the necessatry changes. one rvea,kness of this model as a predictive theory of organizational life cycle
development, of course, is that it is bas,:d on thc integration of existing theories ol Iifc
cycles. Ho'vever, some evidence exists in other empirical studies suggestinS that the
modelmaybepredictive.Forexample'strasserand-Deniston's[35]studyofamenta| health facility iound that elfectiveness as measured by the open systems rnodel
is a
prerequisitr: io effectiveness as measure4 by goal accomplishntent and productivity
[rhe ,ationul model). The model outli]ned in Figure 2 suggests a sirnilar concrlusion
inasmuchasopensystemscriteriaareemphasizedintheentrepreneurialstage,antlthe rational gc,al nrodei a.nd internal process model criteria are more t1'pical
of the Ialer
formalization srtage. CameronandWhetLten[5]foundthalsignificantchangesoccurredintheimpcrrtance
of criteria of effectiveness to organizational members as eighteen simulated organiza-
,ion, progr"rr.:d through life cycles' '[]valuation-s of the importance of effectivcncss
criteria rvere rnade at several po;nts during the life cyclcs. Open systems model.criteria
rvere foun,C to be important in earl-v :;tages but then decreased' Rational goal nrodel
and internal process modcl criteria in,criased in importance over time and rvere the
ReDroducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightownsrFUrlherreprodUctionprohibitedwithoUlperm|Ss|on
most importlnt criteria in later stages ol' development. Again, the model in Figure 2 makes a similar prediction.
Besides being predictrive of changes in r:riteria of effectiveness and organizationa.l life
cycle stages, the model iin Figure 2 also pr:oduces an interesting contrast to contingency
theories of organizrtional adaptation. In general, the contingency literature suggests that effective organizations should becorne organically structured and adaptable when
faced rvith a conrplex or turbulent envirc,nmenl. On the other hand, a placid or stable environment sho'uld be matched with mechanistic or formalized structures. Ilo*'ever, our model predicts that the reaction oll an organization to external environmental turbulence rvill partly depend on its stagle of development. In an organization operat- ing in the co,llect.ivity stage, turbulence rvould result in a tightelring up of controls and a tendency torvlrd a mechanistic structure (progressing to stage 3). If the orgenization was already in the formalization and control stage, the tendency rvould be torvard a fleribility and elaboration of struclure (progressing to stage 4).
This prediiction receives some supporli from a study by Bourgeois, McAllister, and Mitchel [2] rvho found that managers reacted to turbulence and uncertainty in the environmenl by shifting to mechanistic rather than organic structures. What is most important (and it is ign,ored by the authors of the study) is that the units were all nen'/7 crealed, autonomous product divisions in a largc firm. That is, they rvere likely to have
been in early stages ol' development in the life cycle, and, according to the model, should have progressed toward thc formalization and control (mechanistic) stage.
Taken togcthr:r, the events in this ca:;e and the life cycle model not only plcvide evidence for predictatrility but also rsise the possibility that the propositiorls of contingency theory ma;y not hold for nerv and developing organizations. It may be that organization.s m,ust go through the first three stages in the developmental model trefore many of our conventional theories are a:ppropriate. This rvould seem to be a particu- Iarly rcasonable observation rvhen rve r:ecognize that most research has focused on
mrture organizations and most research has been cross-sectional in design.
Rreferences
l. ADrz[s. 1.. "Orgrniz,rtir:nrl Prssagcs: Diagnosing anrll Trcrting Lifc CJcle Problems in OrgrnizLtions," Or go ni :n io nu l D-rrraaricr. (Summcr 1979). pp. 3-24.
2. BouRc[o{s. l-. J.. i\tc,{Lr.lsr[-. Drsrrl W. rso Nlttcttrll. TERE\cI R.. "The Effccts o[ Diftercnt OrganiationLal Environmcn(s Upon Dccisions About Organiza(ionrl Struc(urc." Acocl. llauogertem J.. Vol. ll. i{o. I (1978). pp.508-514.
3. Crlrrto::. K. S., "i\tcrsuring Organiation l[iffcctivcncss in Institutions of Highcr Education.",lrfurin- Sci. parrr.. Vol.2l (1978), pp.6O1-632.
4.
-.
"fhc Enigma of Organiational fiffccrivcncss." In Dan Baugher (Ed.), ler Dirtcrions itr Progrtn Evthntion'. ,l!casuritg Elfectiteness. Jossc-y-Bass, San Francisco' Calif., 1981.
5.
-
:so Wrrrms. D. ,\.. "Perceptions o[ Organiation Effcctiveness Across Orgrnintionrl Life Clclcs.'' ,{r/rrr)r. Sci. Quorr., Vol.26 (1981). pp. 525-5'14.
6. C,strntlt.. J. P.. "On the Nrturc of Organiational Effectiveness." In P. S. Cmdman anrl J. M. Pcnnings. ([:ds.), ,\'eu Perspcctles on Orgnti:ationa! E![ectieness, Jossey-Bass, San Fnncisco, Calif-, (19?7). pp. Il-55.
7. Csrponrr-, J. P. rr rl., "Thc lvlcasurcmcnt of Organiational Effectivcncss: A Rcvierv of Relevant Rc:carch and Opinic,n." Final Rcport. Navr I'emonncl Research and DcyeloPment Center, Minneap- olis: Pcrsonnel Dccisions. 1974.
8. CrAsDl-rER, A.D,. Strqtet| dn.l Stntcture, M.l.T. Prcss. Cambridgc. Nlass.' 1962. 9. Cyrrr. f{. i\t. rso iUARctr. J. G.. A Bchayiorol Theory of the Firar, Prentice-Hall, Eng,tcwmd Cliffs.
N.J.. 1963. l0- Dorvss. A.. "The Lifc Cyclc of Burcaus," In Dorvns, Anlhony, !rcide Bureaucracl', Little. Brorvn and
Compr.ny and Rrnd Corporrtion. San Frlncisco, Calif.' 1967' pp. 296-309. ll. FlLr.Ey, ,A. A:;D ALD^c, R.. "Organiational Crorvth and Typcs: Lessons From Small Institutions," ln
B. Stas and L. L. Cummings (Eds.). ,Rescorc/r in Organi:otionol Eelovrcr' Vol. 3' JAI Press, Crcenuich. Conn.. 1980.
Reproduced with pemission ot the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permissaon.
12. Cooornr-, P. $.,r,\D PE:\*rn-Gs, J. tU., "Critical Issues in Assessing Organiational Elfcctivcncss," In Edward E. Larvler, Dpvid A. Nadler, and Cortlandl Cammann (ErJs.l, Organi:atiouol Assessnrcn!: Perspeclb,es on the llewrenent ol Orgoui:crtional Beharior ond the Qwli\' oI ll'ork Lrle. Wile)', Nerv York, 19t80, p'p. 185-2 15.
13. Gour-or..tn, A. W., "Organizational Analysis," In Robert K. I\'lerton, Leonard Broom' and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., (Eds.), Socrc/ogl Todal', Brsic Books, Nerv York. 1959, pp. 400-428.
14. Gnrrr-rn, L., Evolution and Revolution as Ctrganiations Grow, Ilannrd Srairtess fer. (July-A.ugust. 1972), p1t.37.46.
15. K^ D, lso K,rn-, R.. L., fllre Sxial Pg'c'\olog' oJ Ortani.a(iorc, wilcy' nNcw York' 1978. 16. KrrtstnLy, J, )R., "lssucs in the Creation oli Organiations: Initiation. lnnovation, and lnstittutiqn-
alization." Acad. llanagenen J., Vol. 22 (11979), pp.437-457- 17.
-,
"fte,Organizational Life Cycle: Constructive Concept or lvlisguided Metaphor?" ln J. R. Kimberly and Miles, R. H., fie Organi;:ational bJe CS'cle:. Nar Perspeaites Ior Oryaniiatioilal Theory md Aiesearch, Josey-Basr San Fnncisco' Calif.' 1980.
18. ......".'-.'._axoMtLrqR. lH.,flieOrgani:ationdtr/eQcle,Jossey-Bas'SanFrancisco,Calif.'1980. 19. L^yolE, ft. er*p Cutornr, S. A., "Stages in Clrganiation and Dcvelopment," Hunnn Rdatorc, \'!ol.3l
(1978), PP.417.-438. 20. LA\yRENcE, P- R. lso lLoRscll, J. \Y., Oryaai:ation ond Entirowren!,lruin, llomclood, l]1., 1969. 21. Lrppr1, G. L. er-o Scrnqor. V. H., "Criser; in a Developing Organizrtion," Ilon'ord fJuiness Rev..
vol. 45 (196?), pp. l0:l-l 12, 22. LyDEN, F. J., "Usin_e Pr6ons'Functionrl Arralysis in the Study of Pltblic Organiuations," Adnitt- Sci.
Quart., Vol. ?0 (19751, pp. 59-?0. 23. MlLEs. R. H".'.Thc l|ole of Organiarional Leaming in the Early Crcation and Dcvclopmcnl of
Organizations," In J. R. Kimberly and R. lH. Miles, 7'lre Organi:ational LiJe C-rcle. Josscy-Bass, Srn
Fmncis,:o, Calif.. 1980- 24.
-,
"Findings and lmplicarions of Organiational Life C1'cles Rcscarch: A Comme nccmcnl." In J. R. llimbr:rly and R. ll. Miles, ?'/re Orllani:ationol LiJe C.rcle, Jossc1.Bn5t, San Francisco, Cali[., 1980.
25.
- ^)sD
R^NDoLpn, W. A., "lntlucnce of Organizational Leaming Stylcs on Earll' Dcvclopme'nt,"
ln J. R. Kimberll'anrl R. H. Miles, Iie Organizotioaal lr/c Clc/e,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.. t980.
26. Mor-s,rr, J. J. e"so Rocrn5 D. C., "Orgarriz.rtional Effectivcncss: An Empirical Comparison of thc Goal and System Rer;ource Approachcs," ilriologicol Quott.,Vol. l7 (1976). pp' 401-41J.
27. NEAL, J. A., The Lifc: Cycles of an Alternativc Organiations, Intcrcollegiatc Casc Clcarinlghrrusc, Boston. Mass., 1978-
28. Pensoss, T., litntclure oad Prres h lloden Socrrt, Frcc Press, Glcnce. lll.' 1960. 29. PRrcE, J., "The Study of Organiational Effectivencss," Sociologicol Quart '\ol' l3 (1972)' pp 3-15' 3U. QUIN)-, Fi,. E. ,rr-o Rortnt,rucrr, J., "A Spatial Modcl of Effcctivcncss Critcria: Touards a Cornpeting
Valus Approach to Organialional Anrllsis," Itlanagenent Sci. (to apPear)' 31. Scorr, tt. R., srcges of corpordtc Dt;clcyuent-Parl l, case No. 9-371-294, Inlcrcollc8iale Casc
Clearing House, Boston, Ir'lass., 1971. 32.
-,
"Effer:riveness of Organizationrl Efl ectivcness studies," ln Paul S. Goodman and Johannes M,
Pennings (Eds.). Nat Perspecrires on Orgrnri:ational EJlectircness. Josse1.915t, San Francisco, Calif., 1977, p,p. 63-95.
31. Srrnsucx, w....organiational Metamorphosis," ln \,lillman, R- \\'. and Hottenstcin, \'1. P., Proarisirr3 Resean:h Directiots, Academy of Managcrnent, I968.
34. -.-.'......_, "Organizations and Their Environrrents" ln Dunnettc, M. D., llandbnk of lndrctrial antl Organi,:orionol Psyhologr, Rand McNalll'. Chicago' lll.' 1976.
15- STRASSER, S. ,\riD Dgr.rsro-*, O. L.,'A Comparalive Analysis of Goal and System Models Assigncd ttt Evaluate Htalth Orglaniational Effectiveness"' Acad. ilanageucnt Proc ' 1979, pp. 342-346
36. Srrens, R. M., "Problems in lhe l\'[casurenrent of Organizational Effcclivcncss," Admiu. Sci. Quart., Vol. 2(r (19'7'5). pp. 546-558.
37. SnNcrrconDE. A. L,. "social Structure rnd Organizrtions," ln James G. lt{arch (El.), Ilantlbook ot Orgoni:atiotu. Rand lrtcNally, Chicago, lll., 1965.
3E. Trcrir, l,t. M.. -Problem Cycles in Organizrtions and the lUanagement of Changc," In .1. R. Kimberl-v and R. H. Miles, ll-lre Ortani:ation Lill CS'cle: Nat Perspecti'es for Organi:ationol Thcorl' and Research, Jossey-Bats. San Francisco, Calif., 1980.
39. Tonsrrrf, W. R., "Pre-Bureaucmtic and Post-Burcaucntic Stages of Organiution [)cYcloPnent," Interycrsonal Da'eloltuent, Vol. 5 (1974), pp. l-25.
40. Vrs DE VEN, A. H.,'.Early Planning, Im;rlemenlarion, and Performance of Ncrv organizatirrns," In John lt. Kimberly and Robert H. lYlile$ (Eds.), The oryani.ational uJe c.rcle, JosscJ.Bas, San Fmncisco, l3alit.. 1980. pp. 83-133.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited wlthout permassion
