As you’ll recall I posed on March 8th a question of definition for Organizational Effectiveness (OE). You’ll recall that I stated that defining OE is considered “elusive” [1, 2], that there is no accepted definition of it [3]. In short, scholars suggest that it can’t be defined.
Many of our colleagues entered this discussion. And, it seems to bear this out: Defining OE is elusive!
One of our colleagues supports this (Jeff Anthony, Global OD Executives): “… in response to [the] question: ‘Do you think we’ll ever develop a standard definition?’ … I suspect not.” The contention here is that with OE “… integrating systems thinking and the behavioral sciences… we learn more… we adapt … and refine our working definitions.” (i.e., we can’t define it.) Another colleague seems to suggest that to strive for definition is counterproductive, “…to define OE is to kill it” Sylvia Lee (OD Network). (i.e., we shouldn’t define it.)
Some of our practitioner colleagues hold the same view as the scholars.
There is no definition of organizational effectiveness.
But, that does not seem to limit us on measuring it!
Some in our group, (e.g., Brandser Oscar (ASTD National)), says that we can measure OE with “…three things; 1. customer (stakeholder) delight 2. engagement & productivity of employees 3. level of profits.” Others (e.g., Gregory E Huszczo (I-O Practitioners Network)) like the “… the old standard that suggests 4 basic ways to measure OE: 1. Goal accomplishment, 2. Resource acquisition, 3. Process effectiveness and efficiency, 4. Constituent satisfaction.”
So, we can’t define it, but we can measure it.
It seems that others suggest that we can’t measure any elements of or aspects of organizational effectiveness.
HOWEVER, OE is LINKED to output and/or outcome performance.
For example, Barry Stein (Center for Effective Organizations), says of OE it “… meets best-in-class standards,” and asks “Are you doing as well as possible, given your current resources?” Stuart Belle (Center for Effective Organizations) offers a very interesting perspective, “… we tend to define something by what it is not. For example, we all know a lack of organizational effectiveness when we see it!” (There is a sound philosophical principal to this, remember our early studies? To define light, we must know dark. To clearly understand group, we have to know what constitutes non-group.) Relative to performance, Stuart tells us that we have OE if “…the organization is aligned and tuned so the process happens smoothly and consistently,” or as Tim Parker (Triangle OD Network) says of OE, “the measure of performance of an organization in achieving desired goals,” or as Terrence Seamon (OD Network) asks about OE, “How close does the organization come to hitting its targets?”
So, where are we?
- We can’t define OE.
- However, we try to measure aspects of things that might be related to OE.
- And, those that don’t measure the integral “things” know nonetheless OE as performance.
Can we make analogous the organizational body to the biological body?
One colleague shared this statement: “OE frameworks were staked out long ago as a way to integrate systems thinking and the behavioral sciences.” Yes, this is correct. We know that organizations are dynamic complex adaptive systems [4]. In studying how organizations work we’ve taken general systems theories [5], folded it into a social context (e.g., organizations) [6], applied it to our businesses [7], and looked through behavioral lens [8], and psychological lens [9, 10].
Could we add additional elements? Additional perspectives?
Probably!
However, would that mean we would necessarily have to change our definition of OE?
As an example, if we make analogous the organizational body to that of the biological body, would our attempt to bring about a standard definition of organizational effectiveness seem somewhat like doctors’ understanding the biological system as “healthy”?
“Healthy” means “having or showing good health, functioning well” [11].
However, it seems even here that there is a wide range of possibilities. As an example, aren’t some healthier than others? If this is so, what does it mean for someone to claim to be “healthy?”
If we adopt a definition of OE
(e.g., ‘The strategically sound employment of all organizational resources in harmonious, efficient and ethical manner to meet key operational, financial, cultural, and corporate objectives in such a manner as to honor all stakeholders expectations”)
would it open us up to claims of “well, we’re more effective than you”?
Should we go down the path of considering
OE for an organization like
“health” for the biological body?
Jeff Anthony (GLOBAL OD EXECUTIVES) seems to suggest a harmonious functional of internal elements of an organization in our understanding of effectiveness (“health”): “Organizational Effectiveness was considered a business philosophy that emphasized team-building, transformation, organizational learning, and investing in people,” or “… an internal collaborative process that empowers the organization to evaluate itself critically, set its own priorities, and measure progress toward effectiveness.” [and adapt?] Glen Fahs (OD Network) suggest the same harmonious action of interrelated elements: “… an engaged workforce, agile adjustments to emerging challenges, competive products/services, an integrated culture and set of systems, good data effectively communicated and considered in decision-making, and an ethical approach to employees, customers and the marketplace. In short, trustworthy processes and solid outcomes.”
So, what does the doctor means when he/she says, “you’re healthy”? What would we mean when we say “you’re organization is healthy”?
Be sure to share your thoughts at the American Institute of Organizational Effectiveness blog: https://theaioe.wordpress.com/
References
1. Rojas, R.R., A Review of Models for Measuring Organizational Effectiveness Among For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations. NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, 2000. 11(1).
2. Quinn, R.E. and J. Rohrbaugh, A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 1983. 29(3).
3. Lawler, E.E., From the Ground Up, Six Principles for Building the New Logic Corporation1996, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 316.
4. McElroy, R.L., Circuitous Path to Organizational Systems, 2004, American Institute of Organizational Effectiveness: Raleigh, NC. p. 43.
5. von Bertalanffy, L., General Systems Theory1969, New York, NY: George Braziller. 295.
6. Bailey, K.D., Sociology and the New Systems Theory: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis1994, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 372.
7. Gharajedaghi, J., Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity – A Platform for Designing Business Architecture1999, Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. 302.
8. Blanchard, K.H. and P. Hersey, Management of Organizational Behavior, Utilizing Human Resources. Sixth ed1993, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 536.
9. Hirschhorn, L. and C.K. Barnett, eds. The Psychodynamics of Organizations. Labor and Social Change1993, Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA.
10. Schein, E.H., Organizational Psychology. Third ed1980, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 274.
11. Dictionary, Oxford American1980, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 816.
AIOE-notes 