Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seminar Notes
How organizational effectiveness has been constructed and evolved over 4
decades, examined against a ground of how an organization’s self-conception is
reflected in its unique construct.
The idea is to use organizational effectiveness as the probe into the effects (i.e.,
nature and characteristics) of the organization; the message that reveals the
medium, corresponding to the guided narrative that reveals role*.
1
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
2
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
3
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
Contention
• Organizational effectiveness as a construct is a probe into the culture, and
hence into the underlying values. It is thus a good instrument to
understand the nature and characteristics of an organization as an entity
within its environmental context, aside from operational considerations.
[message, medium, vs. content] Further, when constructed in this fashion,
the requirement to impose a(n often deterministic) model is minimized, so
that patterns and relationships are highlighted. (Why is this needed, and
why now? Read on!)
Argyris & Schön (1974, 1978): Theories of Action: Espoused theory vs. theory-in-use
• Single-loop vs. Double-loop organizational learning can be used to
bridge the gap so that organizations are consistent and coherent.
• Theory-in-use represents the actions taken to accomplish nominal goals;
the way people actually behave in real-world situations, typically reactive
“on reflex.”
• Espoused theory represents the belief system that governs nominal
responses to situations, that may or may not correspond to theory-in-use.
E.g., An organization may espouse a theory concerning the importance of
life-work balance, yet hold mandatory team get-togethers early in the
morning, or evening or on weekends. Theory-in-use is the “walk”;
espoused theory, the “talk.”
• Many organizations operate with “Model I” theory-in-use behaviours,
described by Argyris & Schön as instrumentally focused on accomplishing
goals, “winning,” rationality, and minimizing negative feelings. In contrast
Model II behaviours maximize information, free and informed choice, and
internal commitment to decisions; note the absence of instrumentality
and group compliance and conformity.
• While Model I behaviour supports corrective action (single-loop learning),
Model II behaviour enables reflecting on the validity of the objectives
(double-loop learning) through more open processes, safe exploration of
ideas, and trust, reciprocity, power-sharing, cooperation, etc. Often
individuals (and organizations) activate organizational defensive (Model I)
behaviours to deal with the dissonance between espoused and in-use
theories. E.g., compartmentalizing theory-in-use from espoused theory
when there are inconsistencies; willing deception or ignore-ance of salient
data that would expose incongruities; suppression of “bad news” through
intimidation or other power/control mechanisms (including coercive
control and punishment); changing espoused theory to correspond to
4
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
5
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
6
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
7
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
8
Towards an Effect-ive Theory of Organizational Effectiveness
Seminar Notes
References
Argyris, C. (1994). Good Communication that Blocks Learning. Harvard Business
Review, 72(4, July-August), 77-85.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In Goodman,
P.S. & Pennings, J.M. (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness
(pp. 13-55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8),
783-792.
Cilliers, P. (2005). Knowing complex systems. In Richardson, K.A. (Ed.), Managing
organizational complexity: Philosophy, theory and application. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing Inc.
Falconer, J. (2005). Unresolved issues in process-centric business analysis: A
cathartic role for complexity. In Richardson, K.A. (Ed.), Managing
organizational complexity: Philosophy, theory and application. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Pub. Inc.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard--measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71-79.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work.
Harvard Business Review, 71, 134-140.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75-85.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy
into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Murray, R. (2005). Theory of integral complex organization. In Richardson, K.A.
(Ed.), Managing organizational complexity: Philosophy, theory and
application. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing
Pennings, J. M., & Goodman, P. S. (1977). Toward a workable framework. In
Goodman, P.S. & Pennings, J.M. (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational
effectiveness (pp. 146-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. (1988). The Competing Values Model: redefining organizational
effectiveness and change. In Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the
paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the paradoxes and
competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards
a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management
Science, 29(3), 363-373.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work Teams: Applications and
Effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120-133.