Models-Based Organizational Effectiveness Scale: Development and Validation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/363195640
Models-based Organizational Effectiveness Scale: Development and

Validation
Article in International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · January 2018

DOI: 10.21275/27121704
CITATIONS READS
7 42
2 authors, including:
Chiyem Lucky Nwanzu

Delta State University, Abraka
48 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Empathy in Nigerian Health Care View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Chiyem Lucky Nwanzu on 01 September 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2016): 79.57 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
Models-based Organizational Effectiveness Scale:

Development and Validation
Nwanzu, Chiyem L. PhD1, Uhiara, Anayo C. PhD2
1
Department of Psychology, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria
2
Department of Social Sciences, Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri
Running head: Development of OE Scale
Abstract: This study was on development and validation of models-based organizational effectiveness scale. On the basis of inclusive
characteristics, four models of organizational effectiveness were adopted and combined to produce the scale. The models are goal
attainment, system resources, internal processes and stakeholder. Fifteen items for each of the models were generated from extensive
review of the literature. However, after subject-experts’ review, 40 items were subjected to factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis
(varimax) on the 40 items, using 244 participants from public, private, manufacturing and service organizations resulted in 10 factors
with eigen value 1 and above. And Scree plot of the items showed 1 factor. The Scree plot result was adopted in the study because the 1
factor accounted for 35.33% of the total variance. The scale showed satisfactory psychometric properties. With a sample of 20
participants, the following coefficients for reliability and validity were observed on the entire scale. Test-retest reliability .73; alternate
form reliability, .94; cronbach alpha reliability, .96; split-half reliability (correlation between forms, .78; spearman-Brown coefficient,
.88; Guttman split-half coefficient, .86); convergent validity, .89; discriminant validity, -.13 with perception of organizational politics;
.32 with organizational stress; and -.23 with turnover intention. The adopted model also showed satisfactory relationship between each
other. The specific and inclusive characteristics of the scale make it a very useful tool for both research and practice
Keywords: Organizational effectiveness, psychometric properties and scale development,
1. Introduction systematic concern for OE started 50 years ago (McCann,

2008). One explanation for the diversity in the definition of
Humanity and society exist largely at the dictates of OE is in the various perspectives of organization. How
organizations. Almost everything, (such as food, shelter, organizations should operate and what is expected of them
clothing and luxuries) about human beings is determined vary among people. Main elements in the perspectives are
directly or indirectly by the organization. Organization could issues bordering what organizations are, what they should
be formal or informal. A formal organization, the concern of be, what they do, what they should do, whom they serve and
this study is a planned co-ordination of the activities of a whom they should serve. Perspectives of organization that
number of people for the achievement of some common, impact widely on the definition of OE are rational goal, open
explicit purpose or goal, through division of labor and systems, internal processes, information processing units and
function, and through a hierarchy of authority and organization as political arena (Scott, 1992). Each of the
responsibility (Schein, 1988). And the earliest systematic perspectives results in different definition of OE (Goodman
concerns about the functioning of organizations were in & Pennings, 1980), and each highlights, even uncovers,
theories (scientific management, administrative organizational phenomena that were missed or ignored by
management, human relations, open systems and the others (Cameron & Whetten, 1983).
contingency). The theories were necessarily and timely
followed by empirical works (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Another explanation is in the large number of stakeholders
Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Woodward, 1965). of any organization. As open system, organizations are
network of interactions. A stakeholder audit of an
Theoretical and empirical concerns about organizations were organization will likely include employees, suppliers,
rooted in the understanding that solution to meeting the customers, shareholders, host community and government
increasing needs of humanity and by extension the society is regulatory agencies. These are constituencies with various
largely in organization. However whether in theory building and sometimes conflicting needs and expectations that
or research activities, works on organizations implicitly or reflect in how OE is conceptualized. These explanations
explicitly have organizational effectiveness (OE) as the account largely for the existing models and multitude of OE
propelling force (Bryman,1989). Influence that was indicators.
succinctly expressed by Pfeffer and Salanick (1978) when
they remarked that “organizations survive to the extent they A number of measures exist on OE. Even studies that work
are effective” within an indicator (e.g. profit) or model (e.g. goal
attainment) differ in content and coverage. Almost every
2. Organizational Effectiveness (OE) study on OE adopts its specific measure (e.g. Brown, 2013;
Duke, Kankpang, & Okonkwo, 2012; Fbrahimpour, Salarifar
Literarily, the concept of OE has multitude of definitions. It & Asiaeri, 2012). The reason for this is not because there are
is like there are almost as many definitions as there are OE no existing measures on the concept, but because even the
scholars. The debate over definition is as old as when available measures were also developed to meet the need of
Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 21
specific studies. This situation has its merits (e.g. high developed, however, in different ways. While corporate
confidence in specific application of results) but with three performance has for a long time been exclusively associated
major problems for studies on OE. It renders results from with financial performance, organizational effectiveness has
studies on OE non-cumulative (Bryman, 1989). Because the been broadened. Recent developments in strategic
results are products of varied OE measures, adding and performance research, with a broader notion of performance,
building on them lacked scientific justification. The use of show a recurrent convergence. The parallel embracing of the
too many and different measures in studies on OE do not multiple-constituency or stakeholder perspective has made
allow results generalization. Results from measures both constructs interchangeable (p. 18).
developed for specific study may not generalize beyond the
population on which the study was based. Finally, the 3. Models of OE
adoption of varied measures does not make possible
comparison of results from studies on OE. Goal attainment model is an offshoot of the rational-goal
perspective of organization. The model focuses on the
These limitations to application of results represent serious organization’s output, that is, on the degree of goal achieved
opposite of scientific process. Without the possibility of by the organization (Etzioni, 1964, Price, 1972; Steer, 1977).
accumulation, generalization and comparison it is This model provided the platform for every other model of
unimaginable the quantity of research efforts that would be OE. Herman and Renz (1998) wittingly expressed this when
required to build a body of knowledge in the area of OE. they stated that the theory of OE may be summarized as the
The implication of the stated weaknesses is that every development of alternatives to or modifications of what has
imaginable need for knowledge of OE would necessities a been called the goal model of effectiveness. This model is
separate study. This is not only wasteful in terms of fund and very appropriate when goals are clear, consensual, time
time; it is impracticable given the infinite number of bound and measurable (Cameron, 1983).
organizations in any given society.
System resources model represents the open system
The preceeding discussion points to the absence of perspective of organization and the focus is on input. An
satisfactory measure on OE. The purpose of this study is to organization is effective to the extent it can acquire the
address this gap. Consequently, this study aimed to develop needed resources such as raw material, labour, capital,
OE scale that has the potential of meeting the needs of managerial and technical expertise (Yuchtman & Seashore,
researchers with different orientations, and saves the 1967). The assumption of Yuchtman and Seashore (1967)
literature the setback of every study on OE with its specific about this model is that an organization’s bargaining
measure. Realizing this requires framework that represents a positioning in its input environment is a “function of all the
number of opinions and constituencies. And review of the three phase of organizational behaviour. The phases are the
literature shows that four models of OE (goal attainment, importation of resources, their use (including allocation and
system resources, internal processes and stakeholders) processing), and their exportation in some output form that
adequately meet this requirements. For instance, the 30 OE aids further output”. The system resources model is most
indicators listed by Campbell (1977) directly or indirectly appropriate when clear connection exists between input and
reflect the positions of the four OE models. Therefore, this performance (Cameron, 1983).
paper adopted four models of OE as sufficient and valid
means to achieving a standard scale on OE. Internal processes model deals more narrowly with internal
mechanism of the organizational. It focuses on minimizing
Some concepts such as organizational performance, strain, integrating individual and smooth and effective
organizational efficiency and organizational productivity operations (Georgopoule & Tannerbaum, 1957). An
have been widely used interchangeably with OE (Glunk & organization that focuses primarily in maintaining
Wilderon, 2012). The usage of these concepts in the employee’s satisfaction and moral, minimizing conflict, and
literature clearly showed that their scope is not inherent in being efficient subscribes to this view. This model satisfies
them, but in how there are conceptualized and adopted. largely the humanistic organizational theorizing. It is very
Some researchers operationalized organizational appropriate when organizational performance is strongly
performance narrower than OE, some others operationalized influenced by specific process (e.g. cross-functional
OE as a component of organizational performance. teamwork) (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). .
Anastasia (2008) measure of organizational performance
covered effectiveness, efficiency, development, satisfaction, Stakeholders model is based on the political view of
innovation and quality. Like the measurement of OE, the organization (Adas, 2000), and focuses on the groups that
measurement of the other related concepts has grown from have stake in the organization (Atkinson, 1997; Connolly,
being narrowly focused to being very inclusive. All the Colon, & Deutch, 1980). The underlying assumption of
terms have over time moved beyond shareholder theory to stakeholder approach is that organizations depend on various
stakeholder theory of organizational management (Hubbard, groups for resources and, ultimately for their survival.
2006). This development was clearly expressed by Glunk Therefore, unless organizations can at least minimally
and Wilderon (2012): satisfy such groups, those groups will withdraw their
support, causing organizational decline and possible death.
… The degree of similarity between the constructs of Stakeholder audit of an organization would include supplies,
organizational effectiveness and performance has varied customers, employees, stock holders, the host community,
over time. Being initially defined within the rational - goal government regulatory agency and others who are
approach, both constructs shared common roots. They influenced by the organization (Appleby, 1984). This model
www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 22
is appropriate when stakeholders/constituencies have Table 1: Scholars and Proposed Indicators of OE
powerful influence on the organization, and the organization Scholar Proposed Indicators
has to respond to their demands. Aggyris (1970) Adaptation to external environment
monitoring of internal environment, and
Population ecology model proposes that the environment is achieving objectives.
the critical factors that determine which organizational Caplow (1964) Stability, achievement, integration and
voluntarism
succeeds and which fails and thereby selects the most robust
Child (1974,1975) Profitability and growth
competitors through elimination of the weaker ones
Duncan (1973) Adaptation, integration, goal attainment.
((Aldrich, 1979; Hannan & Freeman, 1977). This model Drucker, 1959 Survival
postulates that OE assessment should be based on the Etzioni (1960) Environmental orientation, optimum
conditions provided by the environment. Inferred from the allocation of resources, and goal
propositions, this perspective is insensitive to the attainment.
contributions of organization’s members (particularly Friedlander and Pickle Profitability employee satisfaction and
managers and decision makers) in the attainment of OE. (1968) contribution to society and maintenance.
Georgopoulo and Productivity, flexibility and strain
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) proposed the competing Tannenbaum,
values mode. The model requires that an organization Gibson, Ivancevich, & Production, efficiency, satisfaction,
scrutinizes the balances among four (rational goal, system Donnelly, (1973) adaptation, and development
Gross (1965) Acquiring resources, operating efficiency,
resources, internal processes and human resources) OE
producing outputs, behaving rationally,
models. This model identifies three sets of competing observing codes, investing in the
values. Values related to organizational focus, from internal, organization and satisfying interests
micro emphasis on the well-being and development of Katz and Kahn (1966) Efficiency and political effectiveness
people in the organizational to an external, macro emphasis McCann (2004) Agility and resiliency.
on the well –being and development of the organizational Mott (1972) Adaptability, flexibility and productivity
itself. Values related to organizational structure, from an Price (1968) Productivity, morale, conformity, and
emphasis on stability/control to on emphasis on flexibility. adaptation
Values related to organizational means and ends, from an Seashore and Yuchman Optimization of resource acquisition, and
emphasis on impact process (e.g. planning and goal setting) (1967) maximization of bargaining position with
to an emphasis on final outcome (e.g. efficient product of respect to environment
output). Therefore, an effective organization is one that Seiler (1967) Productivity, satisfaction and development
Simpson and Gulley Goal attainment in voluntary
achieved balance among these set of competing values. This
(1962) Organizational and adaptation to internal
model is most preferred when the organization is unclear and External pressure.
about its own criteria, or change in criteria over time is of
interest (Cameron, 1983). The inclusiveness of the models is also supported by
Campbell’s (1977) list of 30 indicators of OE that comprises
The Ineffectiveness/fault–driven model identified an overall effectiveness, productivity, efficiency, profit, quality,
effective organization by the extent it has an absence of accidents, growth, absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction,
faults or traits of ineffectiveness (Cameron, 1983). The basic motivation, morale, control, conflict/cohesion,
assumption behind this model is that it is more accurate, flexibility/adaptability, planning and goal setting, goal
more consensual and more beneficial to identify problem consensus, internalization of organizational goal, role and
and fault (ineffectiveness) than criteria of competence norm congruence, managerial interpersonal skills,
(effectiveness)(Henri, 2010). To this model organization is a managerial task skills, information management and
set of problems and faults. Ineffectiveness indicators for this communication, readiness, utilization of environment,
model include production defect, customer complaints, evaluation of external entities, stability, value of human
production waste and work injuries. The fault-driven model resources, participation and share influence, training and
is most appropriate when criteria of effectiveness are development emphasis and achievement emphasis. These
unclear, or strategies for improvement are needed (Cameron, indicators largely spread within the four models. Therefore,
1983) the models make manageable the various propositions of the
scholars and the available multitude of OE indicators. The
As indicated above, (and the list is not exhaustive) a number four models have been reported to apply to large, small,
of models exists on OE. However, four of the models were profit and non-profit organizations (Kreitner & Kinicki,
adopted in this study. And some factors are basic to the 2003). This implies that the models have wide application.
choice of the four models. They are models of choice in the The models can be combined in various degrees (Kreitner &
literature. The majority of OE studies adopted these models Kinicki, 2003). This possibility points to the network of
separately or in combination. Therefore the prominence of relationships that indicates certain commonalities that justify
the four models in the literature attests to their value. The grouping the models under some circumstances. Finally, the
four models separately or in combination are highly four models are actually the source of almost all the existing
representative and inclusive. The OE indicators proposed by models. For example, the competing values model is a
a few notable scholars almost completely spread among synthesis of the four traditional models (goal, system
these models (see Table 1 below). resources, internal processes and human relations). The
other models either expand or make explicit what is implicit
in the four models.

www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 23
4. Relationships among OE Models model(s) to be approached broadly with all their
implications
Almost always, OE models are discussed without reference
to their network of relationships. This silence prevents
adequate knowledge of the models that in turn limit their
usefulness and informed some controversies over their
application. The four models of OE adopted in this study
incorporate every other model of OE and are highly related
with each other. In terms of relationships between the four
and other models of OE, the goal attainment model emphasis
on structure covers partly the concern of the managerial
model. In its emphasis on organization-environment
relationship, the system resources model expresses the
proposition of the population ecology model. In its concern
for system maintenance, the internal processes model covers
much of the components of the human relations model. And
the competing value model is an elaboration and integration
of goal attainment, system resources, internal processes and
human relations models.
Figure 1: Network of Relationships among the OE Models.
In terms of the relationship among the adopted four models,
goal model could be used broadly to reflect, imply and Figure above shows the four models of OE adopted in this
associate with indicators that represent the other models. For study. Each circle represents the entirety of a model. The
instances, the indicators such as profit, adaptability and dots inside each circle symbolize the various indicators of
flexibility of system resource model can be expressed as set OE the model represents. The circles cutting across each
of goals for an organization. Meeting the needs and other express an important feature of OE models - models of
expectations of the stake holders (stakeholder model) could OE are well related. A fact most researchers of OE have not
also be set goals of an organization. The integration of fully realized and utilized.
organization members, and smooth operations (indicators of
internal processes model) could be expressed as an
5. Method
organization’s set goals.
Participants
The various indicators (quantity, quality, and efficiency)
Two hundred and forty-four participants provided the data
associated with goal attainment model impact tremendously
for the exploratory factor analysis. The participants comprise
on the indicators of the other three models. The quantity,
147 male and 97 females with mean age of 41 years. The
quality of production and efficiency (indicator within the
participants were permanent staff with 2 years and above in
goal model) largely determined profit, market share and
the employment of their organizations. It was assumed that a
survival (indicators of system resource and internal process
period not less than two years with an organization is long
models). The indicators of goal models have the potentials
enough for employees to understand the prevailing situations
of creating enabling conditions for an organization to
in their organizations. In addition, they were from
achieve internal and external adaptation (internal process
organizations that have existed for at least two years and
and system resource models), and meet the needs and
with workforce not fifty and above.
expectations of significant proportion of the organization’s
stakeholder (stake holder model)
Their academic qualifications range from First Leaving
Certificates (5), West Africa School Certificate/Senior
The indicator of system resources model such as
School Certificate Examination, (25), Ordinary National
profitability, and resource acquisition contribute to
Diploma (23), Nigeria Certificate in Education (19), Higher
achieving healthy organization (internal process model) and
National Diploma/First Degree (126), and Post graduate
meeting the needs and expectations of some stakeholder.
(46). Of the 244 participants, 203 were drawn from public
Finally, emphasis on smooth internal functioning of internal
organizations, 41 from private organizations, 221 from
process model could result in profitability (system resources
service organizations and 23 from manufacturing
model) and satisfaction for some stakeholders (stake holder
organizations. The high level of literacy of the participants
model). Cconclusion that could be drawn from the above is
implies that the items that constituted the research
that the boundaries between the four models are well
instruments were sufficiently comprehended and “rightly”
adjustable. Depending on the prevailing circumstance, the
responded to. The educational qualification of the
application of a model could be more or less inclusive.
participants revealed that the sample comprises both junior
and senior staff.
The preceding discussion established that the four models
adopted in this study adequately represent OE models. This
Procedure
representative characteristic of the models is achievable both
A large number of items derived from associated indicators
when they are adopted individually or in combination. What
were generated on the four models of OE (goal attainment,
is required to achieve this feat is for the propositions of the
systems resources, internal processes and stakeholders).

www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 24
Indicators on which items were generated on were: Goal as many observations as variables (Habing, 2003). Each
model (quantity and quality of output and efficiency), models had ten items on it. The items were presented to the
System resources model(acquisition of factors of production, participant in Likert (1932) summed format. This scaling
profitability, adaptability, and growth), Internal processes approach was adopted because it is of similar reliability with
model (employee morale, commitment, loyalty, trust, job other scaling approach (e.g. scaled statements approach), it
satisfaction, cohesiveness, and free flow of information) and is relatively simple in construction and it is easy to perform
stakeholder model (meeting the needs and expectations of item analysis on data generated from it (Sax, 1980;
shareholders, employees, management, suppliers, customers, Thorndike & Hagan, 1969). Likert type scale has also been
trade unions, and regulating government agencies). reported to be easy for respondents to understand (Malhotra,
2012). However, unlike the scaled statement /Thurstone
On various discussions with subject experts, 40 items were (1928) approach, the summed /Likert (1932) procedure does
retained and subjected to exploratory factor analysis. Two not differentiate items according to their degree of implied
hundred and eighty five employees of public, private, affect (Upshaw, 1968).
manufacturing and service organizations received the study
questionnaire. Within a period of three weeks, 272 filled 6. Results
copies of the questionnaires were collected by the
researcher. However, due to filling errors, 28 of the retrieved Factor analysis on the 40 items yielded 10 factors with eigen
copies were unusable. Therefore, 244 copies were used for value 1 and above. On the other hand, the scree plot
the analyses. The data were collected and analysed at suggested one factor. Eigen value and scree plot are the two
organization level. means to determine the number of factors associated with a
variable. This study adopted the scree plot for two reasons.
Exploratory data analysis was conducted on the data. The First, of the 66.79% variance accounted by the 10 factors
analysis was done with SPSS Version 16.0. The with eigen value 1 and above, factor 1 accounted for
measurement requirements for conducting and reporting 35.34%. Figure 2 and Table 2 below present the Scree plot
exploratory factor analysis were met in the study. First, the and total variance explained respectively.
measurement was at interval level. Second, sample size of
244 met the minimum of 50 observations or at least 5 times
Figure 1: Scree plot
Therefore, one factor analysis was performed. This analysis items on the table were arranged in the following order.
yielded eigen value of 13.49 and variance of 33.74. Kaiser- Goal attainment model, 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37;
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of .89, and system resources model, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38;
significant result from Bartlett’s test of sphericity also internal processes model, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 38,
signify the usefulness of the result of the data. Each of the and stakeholder model, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40.
40 items had loading of .03 and above. (See appendix). The

www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 25
Table 2: Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalue Extraction sums of squared loadings
Comment Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 14.135 35.339 35.339 14.135 35.339 35.339
2 2.075 5.189 40.527 2.075 5.189 40.527
3 1.790 4.474 45.001 1.790 4.474 45.001
4 1.731 4.328 49.329 1.731 1.377 4.328 49.329
5 1.377 3.442 52.771 1.251 1.151 3.442 52.771
6 1.251 3.127 55.898 1.132 1.058 3.127 55.898 58.776
7 1.151 1.132 2.878 58.776 1.016 2.878 61.605 64.251
8 1.058 2.829 61.605 2.646 66.791
9 1.016 2.646 64.251 2.540
10 .929 .840 2.540 66.791
11 .819 2.323 69.113
12 .718 2.099 71.213
13 .699 .678 2.048 73.261
14 .644 1.795 75.056
15 .619 1.747 76.803
16 .605 1.695 78.498
17 .590 1.611 80.109
18 .531 1.546 81.656
19 .514 1.513 83.169
20 .482 1.476 1.328 84.645
21 .465 1.284 85.973 87.257
22 .415 1.204 88.461 89.624
23 .403 1.163 90.661
24 .383 1.037 91.668
25 .325 1.007 92.626
26 .308 .958 93.438
27 .294 .812 94.207
28 .277 .769 94.943
29 .265 .736 95.635
30 .236 .692 96.297
31 .228 .663 96.886
32 .213 .589 97.455
33 .199 .569 97.989
34 .190 .533 98.487
35 .153 .499 98.962
36 .137 .475 99.345
37 .125 .383 99. 687
38 .342 100.000
39 .313
40
Tests of psychometric properties (reliability and validity) items were correlated with Kacmer & Ferris’ (1991) 12-
were conducted on the 40 items. Test - retest reliability items Perception of Organizational Politics Scale; Rizzo,
coefficient of the entire scale was .73. For the subscales, the House and Lirtzman’s (1970) 10-items Role Conflict and
obtained reliability coefficients were: goal attainment model, Role Ambiguity Scale, and Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins &
.66; system resources model. 45; internal processes model Klesh’s (1979) 3- items Employee Turn Over Intention
.58 and stakeholder model, .64. Alternate-form reliability Scale. Pearson Moment Correlation on the three pairs
was determined by correlating the 40 items with yielded the following coefficients - the 40 items and
Anantharaman and Chacko’s (2008) 40- items OE scale. The Perception of Organizational Politics Scale, -.13; the 40
obtained reliability coefficient of the entire scale was .94. items and the Organizational Stress Scale, .31, and the 40
For the subscales, the obtained reliability coefficients were: items and the Turn Over Intention scale, -.23. The high
goal attainment model, .78; system resources model, .80; correlation coefficient between the 40 items and
internal processes model .62 and stakeholder model, .67. For Anantharaman and Chacko’s (2008) 40- items OE scale, and
split-half reliability, the correlation between forms yielded the low and negative correlation coefficients of the 40 items
.78 :Spearman-Brown coefficient, .88: Guttman Split-Half and the perception of politics, organizational stress and turn
Coefficient .86. Cronbach’s Alpha of .96 was observed. over intention scales satisfactorily confirm the construct
validity of the new scale.
Subject experts adjudged the items to have face and content
validity. The construct validity (convergent and The use of perception of organizational politics,
discriminant) were established. For the convergent validity, organizational stress (role ambiguity and role conflict) and
the scores on the 40 items were correlated with turn over intention scales to establish the discriminant
Anantharaman and Chacko’s (2008) 40-items OE scale. validity of the new measure is based on extant literature. A
Using Pearson Moment correlation, coefficient of .89 was number of studies have reported negative relationship
observed. For discriminant validity the scores on the 40 between OE and these other variables. Perception of

www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 26
organizational politics (POP) negatively relates with both 8. Discussion
individual performance and OE (Vigoda, 2000; Chang,
Rosen, & Levy, 2009), turn over intention and job This paper is on development and validation of scale on OE.
performance relates negatively (Mossholder, Bedein, Noriss, The exercise was necessitated by the existing need for a
Giles, & Field, 1988), and organizational stress relates standard and broad spectrum and practical measure on OE.
negatively with individual job performance and OE (Kazimi, Consequently, 40-item scale was developed on four models
Rubina, Amjad, Khan, 2008) of OE. Each of the models was represented by 10 items. The
four adopted model implicitly and explicitly incorporate
In order to identify the nature and strength of relationships every element of all models on OE. The seemingly large
between the OE models adopted, Pearson moment number of items for each model is to enable, where
correlations were conducted on the data. Table 3 below necessary independent adoption of the models.
shows the obtained coefficients. The observed relationships
were significant at .01 level. The observed psychometric properties are satisfactory.
Subject experts adjudged the measure to have both face and
Table 3: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the OE content validity. Test-retest reliability coefficient of .73,
Models alternate-form reliability coefficient of .94, Cronbach’s
Alpha of .96 and split-half reliability coefficients between
forms .78: Spearman-Brown coefficient, .88: Guttman Split-
Half Coefficient .86. Convergent validity coefficient of .89
and discriminant validity coefficient of -.13, .31, and -.23
established the construct validity of the scale. In addition,
the observed correlation coefficients between the OE models
supported the proposal that the models are highly related and
7. Model Identification that they can be adopted as a whole and independently.
Adoption of models in the measurement of OE is a common In conclusion, it is apparent that standard measure of OE is
feature in the literature. Researchers, however differ in how needed. It is of necessity for the admirable features (results
the models are adopted. Some researchers adopt a single accumulation, generalizability and comparison) of science to
model, while some combined two or more. Whether used reflect in the understanding of OE. The role of models in
singly or in combination, a serious error that cut across the achieving these scientific principles for OE was established.
majority of the study is indiscriminate adoption of the The usefulness and adequacy of the four models of OE in
models. In other words, the models are adopted without assessing OE was justified in this study. The justification
prior identification of what OE means to the organization efforts added up to the birth of a standard OE scale.
being studied or which OE model(s) matches with the However, with the understanding that a single exercise of
organization’s perspective of OE. Without this initial reliability and validity does not completely make a scale, it
identification, possibility of mis-matching organizations and is recommended that more tests of the psychometric
model(s) exists. This is a major source of disillusionment properties be conducted on the scale.
when models are used to measure OE. In fact, when an
organization’s definition of OE and the adopted References
effectiveness model in a study are not congruent, results are
likely to be unreliable in every sense of the word. [1] Adas, A. A. (2000).A configurational approach for
assessing organizational effectiveness of the
To address this issue, four statements representing each of architectural / construction firm. JKAU: Eng.Sci, 12(2)
the adopted models where developed to be used along with 3-17.
the 40 items. In this case, respondents/organization will be [2] Adrich, H. (1979). Organization and environment.
evaluated based on choice of model expressed in the Englewood Clifts, NJ: Prentice Hall.
definitions. This identification process can come prior to the [3] Anantharaman, R.N & Chacko, A. (2008)
administration of research instrument or along with the Organization climate: A predictor of organizational
research instrument. However, if the 40 items would be effectiveness. Retrieved on 13th December 2008 from
adopted in a study, this identification exercise may not be wide world web http//mgv.edu.my/MMR/9709/97.Htm.
required. The statements of identification representing goal, [4] Anastisi, A. K. (2008). Measuring impact of HRM on
systems resources, internal processes and stakeholder organizational performance. Journal of Industrial
models respectively are: (1) Management emphasis centres Engineering and Management(1) 2 199-142.
on quantity, quality and efficiency, ( 2) Mmanagement [5] Appleby, R. C. (1984). Modern business
emphasis centres on profitability, adaptability, and growth,( administration (6th ed). London: Pitman.
3) Mnagement emphasis centres on employee morale, [6] Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method.
commitment, loyalty, trust, cohesiveness, and free flow of Reading MA. Addison- Wesley.
information,( 4) Management emphasis centres on satisfying [7] Atkinson, A .A, .Waterhouse, J. H. & Well, R.B.
the stakeholders (e.g. shareholders, suppliers, customers, (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic
trade unions, and regulating government agencies) of the performance management. Sloan Management Review,
organization. Respondent would be requested to indicate Spring, 25-37.
how much each statement applies to their organizations. [8] Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management
of innovation. London: Tavistock.
www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 27
[9] Bryman, .A. (1989). Research methods and [27] Glunk, U. & Wilderon, P. C. (2012). Organizational
organization studies. London: Unwin Hyman. effectiveness and corporate performance: Why and
[10] Brown, R.S. (2013). Capabilities, strategic intent and how two research traditions need to be merged.
firm performance: An empirical investigation. Retrieved on 25 January, 2012 from http//en.scientific
Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadepie, commons.org/55314279.
Pennsyvania. [28] Goodman, P. S. & Penning, J. M. (Ed). (1977). New
[11] Cameron, K.S. (1983). Organizational effectiveness: A perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San
comparison of multiple models. New York: Academy Fransco: Jossey-Bass.
Press. [29] Gross, B. M. (1965). What are your organization’s
[12] Camman, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. & Wesh, J. objectives? A general system approach to planning,
(1979). The Michigan organizational assessment Human Relations, 18, 195-215.
questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript University of [30] Habing, B. (2003). Exploratory factor analysis.
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Retrieved on 10 May, 2004 from ./http://www.
[13] Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of organizational Stat.sc.edu/-habing/course/530EFA.pdf
effectiveness, In Goodman, P. S. & Penning, M J. [31] Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The
(Eds. ). New perspectives on organizational population ecology of organizations. American Journal
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossy. of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
[14] Caplow, T. (1964). Principles of organization. New [32] Henri, J. (2010). Performance measurement and
York: Harcourt, Bruce & World. organizational effectiveness: Bridging the gap.
[15] Chang, C., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The Retrieved on 23 October, 2010 from www.http/
relationship between perception of organizational Fsa.ulaval.ca/filadmin/pdf/Ecole-
politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behaviour: Comptability/publications/2003-04-3.pdf.23rd
A meta- analytic examination, The Academy of [33] Hubbard, G. 2009. Measuring organizational
Management Journal, 52(4), 779-801. performance beyond the triple bottom line business
[16] Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors strategy and environment, 19 177-191.
associated with company performance: Part one. [34] Kacmer, K. M. & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perception of
Journal of Management Studies, 11, 175-189. organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and
[17] Connolly, T., Colon, E. M. & Deutch, S. J. (1980). construct validation. Educational and Psychological
Organizational effectiveness: A multiple constituency measurement, 51, 193-205.
approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211- [35] Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology
218. of organizations. New York: Wiley.
[18] Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. New [36] Kazimi, R., Amjad, S. & Khan, D. (2008).
York: Harper and Row. Occupational stress and its effect on job performance:
[19] Duke, J., Kankpang, K., & Okonkwo, G (2012). A case study of medical house officers of district
Corporate governance and drive of organizational Abbottabad. Journal of Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 20
efficiency in courier firms: Empirical finding from (3).
Nigeria. Interdisplinary journal of research in busness [37] Kreitner R. & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational
(1) 11, 26-38. behaviour (6th Edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
[20] Duncan, R.B. (1973). Multiple decisions - making [38] Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization
structures in adapting to environmental uncertainty: and environment: Managing differentiation and
The impact on organizational effectiveness. Human integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
Relations, 62, 273-291. School.
[21] Ebrahimpour, H., Salarifar, M., Asiaeri, H (2012). The [39] Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of
relationship between agility, capabilities and altitude. Achieves of Psychology .(1). 22, 5-55.
organizational performance: A case study among home [40] Malhotra, K. N. (2012). Questionnaire design and scale
appliance factories in Iran. European Journal of development. Retrieved on 12 July, 2012 from
Business and Management, (4) 17 186-195. http://www. Terry. Uga edu/-grover/chaper 5pdf.
[22] Ekvall, G. & Ryhammar, L. (1997). Leadership style, [41] March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organization.
social climate and organizational outcomes: A study of New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Swedish University College. Creativity and Innovation [42] McCann, J. (2004). Organizational effectiveness:
Management (7), 3,126-130. Changing concepts for changing environments. Human
[23] Etzioni, H. (1964). Modern organization. Englewood Resources Planning, 27 (1), 42-50.
Cliffs, New Jessey: Prentice Hall. [43] Mossholder, K. W., Bedein, A. G., Noriss, D. R. Giles,
[24] Friedlander, F., & Pickle, H. (1968). Components of W. F. & Field, H. S. (1988). Job performance and turn
effectiveness in small organization. Administrative over decisions: Two field studies. Journal of
Science Quqrterly, 13, 289-304. Management, 14, 403-414.
[25] Georgopoules, B.S. & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1987).The [44] Mott, P. (1972). The characteristics of effective
study of organization effectiveness. America organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
Sociological Review 22, 534-540 [45] Price, J. L. (1968). Organizational effectiveness.
[26] Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J. M.. & Donnelly, J. H. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
(1973). Organizations: Structure, processes and [46] Quinn, R. & Rohrbaugh J. (1983) A spatial model of
behaviour. Texas: Business Publications, Inc. effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing Value

www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704 DOI: 10.21275/27121704 28
approach to organizational analysis. Management [52] Upshaw, H. S. (968). Attitude measurement. In H. M.
Science,(29), 3, 363-373. Blalock & A. B. Blalock,. (Ed) Methodology in social
[47] Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educational and research. New York: McGraw Hill
psychological measurement and evaluation (2nd ed). [53] Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory
California: Wadsworth publishing Co. and practice. London: Oxford Univrsity
[48] Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational psychology (3rd [54] Zhang, M., McCullough, J. & Wei, R. N. (2004).
ed). Prentice-Hall Effect of organizational structure and information
[49] Seiler, J. A. (1967). Systems analysis in organizational technology capability on organization effectiveness in
behaviour. .Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., emerging markets. Retrieved on 13th December 2008
and The Dorsey Press. from worldwide web
[50] Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitude can be measured. http://findarticles.Com/p/articles/mi-mooGT/is-1-3a-
American Journal of Sociology, 3, 529-554. in8690388=artBodycoll
[51] Thurndike, L. R. & Hagan, E. (1969). Measurement
and evaluation in psychology and education (3rd ed).
New York: John Willey and Sons Inc.
Appendix
Factor Loading of the 40 OE Items

Items Factor
Loading
1
1 Desired level of output is always attained .45
2 Needed manpower is always acquired .64
3 Employees attitude to work is always encouraging .64
4 Needs and expectations of the stakeholders are often met .63
5 Set quantity of products/ services is achieved at all time .59
6 Needed raw materials are often acquired .61
7 Job satisfaction among employees .62
8 Shareholders needs and expectations are always satisfied .63
9 Set quantity of products/services is frequently attained .72
10 Needed working capital is regularly acquired .71
11 High level of employee loyalty .50
12 Needs and expectations of the customers are often met .36
13 Desired input – output ratio is attained all the time .52
14 Needed technical skill is always available .65
15 Trust exists among Members .41
16 Needs and expectations of employees are attended to regularly .63
17 Production /services processes are regularly carried out efficiently .51
18 Net profit is regularly recorded .57
19 High employee Commitment .60
20 Request and demand of the trade unions are always promptly addressed .60
21 Departmental/sectional output goals are often achieved .65
22 Desired market share is often attained .60
23 Low level of dysfunctional conflicts .50
24 Managers/ administrator needs and expectations are often satisfied .52
25 Output per unit-input Is always as desired ..53
26 Returns on investments is always adequate .32
27 High degree of cohesion among members .42
28 Standards of the regulatory agencies are regularly attained .58
29 Outputs/services are produced/rendered within the shortest possible time .47
30 Earnings per share is comparatively satisfactory .61
31 High level of employees’ morale .60
32 Expectations of the suppliers are usually met .57
33 Things are always done at the right time .64
34 Products/services are made in response to demand of the environment .51
35 Labour- management relationship is always satisfactory .51
36 Level of corporate social responsibility is always satisfactory .57
37 Desired productivity level is always achieved .66
38 Desired degree of expansion is usually attained .59
39 Free flow of information among members .65
40 Interests of the various constituencies are often satisfied .65

www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: 27121704
View publication stats DOI: 10.21275/27121704 29

Models-Based Organizational Effectiveness Scale: Development and Validation

Uploaded by

Models-Based Organizational Effectiveness Scale: Development and Validation

Uploaded by

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Models-based Organizational Effectiveness Scale: Development and

Article in International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · January 2018

Chiyem Lucky Nwanzu

Empathy in Nigerian Health Care View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Models-based Organizational Effectiveness Scale:

Running head: Development of OE Scale

Keywords: Organizational effectiveness, psychometric properties and scale development,

1. Introduction systematic concern for OE started 50 years ago (McCann,

Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018

Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018

Figure 1: Scree plot

Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018

Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018

Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018

Factor Loading of the 40 OE Items

Volume 7 Issue 1, January 2018

You might also like