Academy of Management Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To The Academy of Management Journal

Domains of Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges and Universities
Author(s): Kim S. Cameron

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 1981), pp. 25-47
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/255822
Accessed: 10-08-2015 14:52 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/255822?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management
Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 2.30.220.82 on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:52:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? Academy of Management Journal

1981, Vol. 24, No. 1, 25-47.
Domains
of
Effectiveness
Organizational
and
in
Universities1
Colleges
KIM S. CAMERON
University of Wisconsin
Four major domains of organizationaleffectiveness

in colleges and universitiesare identified-academic,
morale, external adaptation, and extracurriculardomains-and four typesof institutionsarefound thatdiffer significantlyin the domainsof effectivenessin which
theyexcel. Among the majorinstitutionalcharacteristics
that predict domain effectivenessare type of academic
program offered, institutional affluence, and institutional stability.
A varietyof approachesto the definitionof organizationaleffectiveness
has been taken. These differentapproachesgenerallyhave emergedfrom
different conceptualizationsof the meaningof an organization.That is,
organizationshave been viewedas rationalentitiesin pursuitof goals (Perrow, 1970), as coalitionsreacting(or proacting)to strategicconstituencies
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978),as individualneed-meetingcooperatives(Cummings, 1977; Keeley, 1978), as meaning-producingsystems (Pondy &
Mitroff, 1978; Weick, 1978), as information processing systems (Galbraith, 1975),and so on. As the conceptualizationof what an organization
is changes, so do the definitionsand approachesto organizationaleffectiveness.
Four approachesto defining organizationaleffectivenesshave received
particularattention. The most widely used is the goal model (including
both operativeand official goals), whichdefineseffectivenessas the extent
to whichthe organizationaccomplishesits goals (Etzioni, 1964;Campbell,
1977;Price, 1972;Scott, 1977).One problemwith this approachis that an
organizationmay be judged to be effective in areas outside its goal domain. For example, NASA was very effective in the 1960s in producing
useful consumerproductsaside from its primarygoal to reachthe moon,
'Special thanks are given to Larry Cummings and Randy Dunham for comments during the preparation of this manuscript. This research was funded by grant #91-09-77029 of the Employment and
Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. This report does not necessarily represent the
official opinion or policy of the Department of Labor, and the researcher is solely responsible for its
contents.
25
26
Academyof ManagementJournal
March
and the Liggettand MyersTobacco Companybecameso successfulat selling dog food that it was sued in the early 1970s for holding a monopoly.
Also, the organizationmay be ineffective even when accomplishingits
goals if the goals are too low, misplaced,or harmful. For example, Boise
Cascadeset a goal of increasingcompanyearningsby 20 percenteach year
and met that goal for twelveyears. However,in orderto do so the firm developed a norm of taking on risky projects that led to their demise and
forced reorganizationin 1972 (McDonald, 1975).
The second approach to effectiveness, the system resource model
focuses on the ability of the organizationto obtain needed resources.Inputs replaceoutputs as the primaryconsideration(Yuchtman& Seashore,
1967). Organizations,however, may prove to be effective even when inputs are not optimal and when a competitiveadvantagein the resource
marketplace does not exist. For example, the "no name" Seattle Supersonics did not succeedin attractingsuperstarsfor their ball team but still
reachedthe NBA championshipfinals in 1978 and won in 1979. Furthermore, Molnar and Rogers (1976) suggest that in nonprofit organizations
the acquisitionof inputs is not tied to the productionof outputs. Consequently, resourceacquisition(inputs) cannot be used as a legitimatecriterion of effectiveness.
A third approachis the process model, whereineffectivenessis equated
with internalorganizationalhealth, efficiency, or well-oiledinternalprocesses and procedures.Argyris (1964), Bennis (1966), and Likert (1967)
representpoints of view that fit underthis rubric.Again, however,an organizationmay be effectiveeven when organizationalhealthis low and internalprocessesare questionable(e.g., the strife-riddenWorld Champion
New York Yankees in 1977 and 1978 who, despite poor internalhealth,
still won the World Series). In addition, in turbulentexternal environments, the presence of organizational slack (unused, convertible resources)may indicateinefficiencyin internalprocesseswhile being essential for long term organizationsurvivaland adaptability.
The fourthapproachis the ecologicalmodel (Miles, 1980)or theparticipant satisfactionmodel (Keeley,1978).Effectivenessis definedin termsof
the degreeto which the needs and expectationsof strategicconstituencies
are met by the organization. (Keeley suggests that the minimizationof
regretis a betterway of statingthe criterion.)This approachcan be viewed
eitheras a summarymeasurefor an organization(e.g., the averageor minimal satisfaction levels for all constituencies)or as a series of different
scoresfrom a varietyof constituencies(e.g., wherescorevariancebecomes
critical).It mainlyemphasizesconstituenciesoutsidethe organization,and
the most effectiveorganizationis that whichat least minimallysatisfies,or
reduces the regret of these major strategic constituencies. See Steers
(1977).
Organizationsmay ignore strategicconstituencies,however, in seeking
effectiveness,and they may achievesuccessin spite of conflictingor contradictoryconstituencyexpectations.This is particularlytrue in charismatically led organizations.For example, Clark (1970) gives an account of
1981
Cameron
27
the developmentof the prestigious"Swarthmoresaga" by Frank Aydelotte despite externalconstituencyresistance.The growth and expansion
of the newly formed Mormonchurchin the 1880sdespiteresistance,persecution,and even an "exterminationorder"in Missouriis anotherexample.
Each of these approacheshas certainadvantagesas a researchand theoreticaltool, but each also has weaknesses(Cameron,1980). Becauseeach
of these models is analyticallyindependent,one approachmay be appropriate in certaincircumstancesor with certaintypes of organizationsfor
which other models are not appropriate.One major considerationin determiningwhichmodel is most appropriatein assessingeffectivenessis the
domain of activity in which the organizationis operating. For example,
the strategicconstituenciesapproachmay be most applicablein an organization operating in multiple domains, where outcomes are obscure, or
when requiredto respond to a diverse group of constituencydemands.
The goal model, on the otherhand, is not appropriatein those types of organizationalsettingsbut is most appropriatewhen organizationaldomains
are narrowlydefined, goals are consensual, or when outcomes are easily
identifiable.
Organizationaldomains generallyrefer to the population served, the
technology employed, and the services rendered by the organization
(Meyer, 1975). These domainsmay arise from choices made by dominant
coalition membersconcerningwhat activitiesare to be emphasized,what
the organizationalreadyknows how to do, and what evaluationcriteria
can be agreedupon (Lindblom, 1959;March& Simon, 1958;Thompson,
1967;Weick, 1979), or they may be officially prescribedfor an organization by externalmandate, such as with governmentagencies, certainservice organizations,or educationalinstitutions. Organizationsfrequently
operatein multipledomains,but few organizationsmaximizeeffectiveness
in all of their domains. More generally,organizationsare effective in a
limitednumberof domainsand ineffectivein the others (Cyert& March,
1963;Pennings& Goodman, 1977;Steers, 1977). In fact, achievingeffectiveness in one domain may mitigate against achieving effectiveness in
other domains.For example,a universityfacultymay unionizein orderto
enhanceindividualor subunitresourceacquisition(e.g., increasingfaculty
power, salaries, fringe benefits, grievanceresolutions), but at the same
time may destroyinternalorganizationalhealth (e.g., creatingadversarial
relationshipsamong organizationalconstituencies,undermining"system
4" characteristics,etc.).
Meyer (1975) points out that organizationaldomains in the not-forprofit sector are much more vague and ill-definedthan in the for-profit
sector, and that the performanceof not-for-profitorganizationsin their
domains frequentlycannot be evaluated.In institutionsof highereducation, for example, domain dissensus and lack of clarity about primary
tasks has been a consistentthemein the literature(Hutchins, 1977).Good
evaluationsof organizationaleffectiveness,therefore,have been absent.
28
March
This study sets out first to identify empiricallythe major domainsthat

typify colleges and universitiesand to assesslevels of effectivenessin each
of those domains. Second, it attemptsto determinethe characteristicsof
institutionsthat explainthe differencesin domainsof effectivenessamong
institutionsof highereducation. No researchto date has addressedthese
topics.
METHOD
Instrument
An instrumentreportedin Cameron(1978a)was used to identifyand assess the major characteristicsof colleges and universitiesthat are associated with effectiveness.That is, characteristicsand activitiesof institutions of highereducationthat werejudged by approximately40 administrators and faculty membersto be indicativeof effective organizational
performancewere used as the groundworkfor identifyingorganizational
domains.The problemin the past with identifyingdomainsin collegesand
universitieshas been that when asked, administratorsand faculty members cannot give useful answers. Gross and Grambsch(1968) found, for
example,that when seniorfacultymembersand administratorswereasked
to rate the importanceto their institutionof 47 goals in a wide varietyof
domains,all the goals wereratedas being important.That is, respondents
were unable to differentiateconsciouslyamong the importanceof a wide
varietyof domains for their institutions.
The approachtaken in this study is to use ratingsof the extentto which
an institutionis typified by certaincharacteristicsof effective institutions
that representa varietyof differentdomains. These ratingsthen are combined in such a way as to identify the importantdomains of the institutions and their effectivenessin each domain.
Institutional Sample
Selectedfor inclusionin the study were41 colleges and universitiesin 7

states in the northeast United States. Of the 41 institutions, 44 percent
have faculty unions, 56 percentdo not; 41 percentare public, 59 percent
are private. Institutionalage ranges from 12 years (two institutions)to
over 200 years(two institutions).Only a bachelor'sdegreeis offered by 17
percent,master'sdegreesare offered by 53 percent,and Ph.D.s by 29 percent. Size indicatorsrange from just under 1,000 undergraduatestudents
enrolledto just over 11,000;5 institutionshave less than 10 academicdepartments,and five have over 30. Confidentialitywas promisedto each institution, hence names of schools are not includedin this paper.
1981
Cameron
29
RespondentSample
In each of the 41 institutions, approximately55 academicdepartment
heads and administrators(dominantcoalition members)receiveda questionnairerequestingthat they ratethe extentto whichtheirinstitutionpossessed characteristicsjudged to be indicativeof effectiveness.Items used
to measureeffectivenessare listed in Table 1.
Of the questionnairesdistributed,61 percent(1,317) werereturned.Return ratesacrossinstitutionsrangedfrom 40 percentto 77 percent,and responses acrossthe 5 job categories(general,academic,financial,and student affairs administrators,and academicdepartmentheads)rangedfrom
55 percentto 69 percent.Respondentsincluded610 academicdepartment
heads and 707 administrators.
Analyses
Data analysis relied on three separateprocedures.First, the questionnaireitems were examinedto determineif separatedimensionsof organizational effectivenesscould be identified for each institution. Cameron's
(1978a)study suggeststhat nine separatedimensionsshould emergefrom
these items, and psychometrictests are needed to determineif those dimensionsgeneralizeto this largersampleof institutions.
Second, in orderto identify the organizationaldomainsrepresentedby
these nine dimensionsof effectiveness,institutionalscores on the nine dimensionswere submittedto a clusteringprocedureto determinewhich of
the dimensionsgroup together and whetherinstitutionscan be identified
that clearly excel in a particulardomain. A variety of clusteringprocedures is available(Hartigan, 1975; Johnson, 1967), and since no agreed
upon criteriaexist for determiningwhich clusteringalgorithmproduces
the best results(Hartigan,1975;Arabie& Boorman, 1973),a clusteringalgorithmwas selectedthat producesthe set of clustersthat are most interpretable, or for which statementsregardingsimilaritiesand differences
among the groupscan be made. This algorithm,called CONCOR,was introducedby Breiger,Boorman, and Arabie (1975). Whereasapplyingthe
criterionof "meaningfulness"of clustersis a subjectiveendeavor,no objective criteriaare available, and meaningfulnessof results is the most
practicalcriterionfor purposesof this study.
The third part of the analysis focused on explaining the differences
among institutionsthat differ in their domain effectiveness.That is, the
task was to identify institutionalcharacteristicspossessedby one institutional group that are not possessedby other groups. Discriminantanalysis, a statisticaltechniquethat weightsand linearlycombinesvariablesso
that groupsare forcedto be as differentas possibleon the linearcombinations, was appliedin order to differentiatethe institutionalgroupsbased
on theireffectivenessin the domains.A numberof discriminantfunctions
is producedby this procedure(up to the numberof groups minus one),
TABLE 1
Items, Dimensions, and Definitions of Organizational Effectiveness in Institutio
Dimension
Definition
1. Studenteducationalsatisfaction
The degreeof satisfactionof studentswith their

educationalexperiencesat the institution.
2. Studentacademicdevelopment
The extentof academicattainment,growth,and

progressof studentsat the institution.
3. Studentcareerdevelopment
The extentof occupationaldevelopmentof students,

and the emphasison careerdevelopmentand the
opportunitiesfor careerdevelopmentprovidedby
the institution.
Xi i
Xi2
X13
X14
X21
X22
X23
X24
X25
4. Studentpersonaldevelopment
5. Facultyand administrator
employmentsatisfaction
6. Professionaldevelopmentand
qualityof the faculty
Manifes
Received
Attrition
School sp
Amount
Levelof
Number
Amount
Emphas
Number
Extentto
Number
Number
Importa
Opportu
Nonacad
Emphas
Importa
X31
X32
X33
X34
X35
Studentdevelopmentin nonacademic,noncareer
X41
orientedareas, e.g., socially,emotionally,culturally, X42
and the emphasison personaldevelopmentand op- X43
portunitiesprovidedby the institutionfor personal X44
development.
Satisfactionof facultymembersand administrators X51 Facultyp
with theirjobs and employmentat the institution.
X52 Adminis
others
X53 Facultys
X54 Adminis
X55 Facultys
X56 Adminis
The extentof professionalattainmentand develop- X61 Facultya
ment of the faculty, and the amountof stimulation X62 Facultyp
towardprofessionaldevelopmentprovidedby the
X63 Teaching
institution.
X64 Awardsr
X65 Amount
TABLE 1 (cont.)
of
and
Definitions
Items, Dimensions,
Organizational Effectiveness in Institutio
Dimension
Definition
7. Systemopennessand community
interaction
The emphasisplacedon interactionwith, adaptation to, and servicein the externalenvironment.
8. Abilityto acquireresources
The abilityof the institutionto acquireresources

from the externalenvironment,such as good students and faculty, financialsupport,etc.
9. Organizationalhealth
The benevolence,vitality,and viabilityin the internalprocessesand practicesat the institution.
Commun
Professio
Emphasi
Commun
Adaptive
National
Drawing
Drawing
Drawing
Drawing
Abilityto
X9g Student/
X92 Intergro
X93 Amounto
X94 Typicalc
X95 Presence
X96 Flexibilit
X97 Levelsof
X98 Amounto
X99 Problem
X9gl Use of ta
Xg9l Typesof
X912 Typesan
X9g3 Decision
X914 Amounto
Xg15 Equityof
X9g6 Organiza
X917 Long term
X918 Intellectu
X71
X72
X73
X74
X75
X81
X82
X83
X84
X85
X86
32
Academy of Management Journal
March
each of which independentlydiscriminatesamong the groups of institutions.

The explanatoryvariables used in the discriminantanalysis were selected becausethey have been found in other researchto have some relationship to organizationaleffectiveness.These variablesare groupedinto
the following categories:(1) perceptionsof organizationalstructureand
dimensionsof the externalenvironment,(2) the strategicemphasesof top
administrators,(3) organizationalgoal preferences,(4) financial indicators, and (5) organizationaldemographics.Table 2 lists the variablesin
TABLE 2
PredictorVariablesUsed in DifferentiatingAmong Effectiveness
Domains (with Referencesand ReliabilityCoefficients)
Organizational Structure and Organizational
Environment
(Duncan, 1973; Hirsch, 1975; Ivancevich &
Donnelly, 1975; Miles & Cameron, 1977;
Negandhi & Reimann, 1973; Osborn & Hunt,
1974; Pennings, 1975, 1976; Reimann, 1974)
Environmental richness (89)
Environmental turbulence (74)
Environmental control (74)
Environmental support (74)
Centralization (61)
Standardization (61)
Professionalization (61)
Strategic Emphases of Administrators
(Child, 1974, 1975; Miles, 1980; Miles &
Cameron, 1977; Miles, Snow & Pfeffer, 1974)
Internal/external (55)
Proactive/reactive (77)
Finances and budgetingb
Academics and scholarshipb
Legal mattersb
Students affairsb
Fund raisingb
Public serviceb
Politics and public relationsb
Organizational Goals
(Campbell, 1977; Molnar & Rogers, 1976;
Price, 1972; Scott, 1977; Steers, 1977)
Goal clarity (98)
Importance of goals concerning:d
Student educational satisfaction
Student academic development
Student career development
Student personal development
Faculty/administrator satisfaction
Professional development of faculty
Community interaction and system openness
Acquiring resources from the environment
Organizational health
Financial Variables
(Astin, 1977; Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley,
1978; Bowen, 1973, 1977; Meeth, 1974)
Revenues (1970-1976) from:a
Federal government
State government
Local government
Private gifts
Endowment
Tuition and fees
Total budget
Value of endowment
Expenditures (1960-1976) for:a
Research
Student aid and student services
Public service
Academic support
Library books
Auxiliary enterprises
Physical plant
Demographic-Context Variables
(Baldridge et al., 1978; Bowen, 1977; Garbarino, 1973; Kemmerer & Baldridge, 1975;
Lupton, 1976; Silber, 1976; Vermilye, 1976)
Affiliation (public/private)c
Unionizationc
Agea
Highest degree offeredc
Percent of terminal degree holdersa
Types of programs offeredc
Student/faculty ratioa
Enrollmenta
Number of facultya
Number of departmentsa
Size of librarya
aAbsolute values used.

bRating from 1 = very high emphasis to 7 = no emphasis.
cDummy coded.
dRating from 1 = not at all important to 7 = extremely important.
1981
Cameron
33
each category along with the referencesto some studies associatingthe

variableswith organizationaleffectiveness.Internalreliabilitiesor coding
schemes are also presented in the table for each variable. Interested
readersare referredto Cameron(1978b)for a detailedtheoreticaljustification for the inclusionof each variableand for additionalpsychometrics.
RESULTS
Effectiveness Dimensions
The same 9 dimensions of effectiveness found in Cameron (1978a)

emergedin these 41 institutions.The dimensionsare listed in Table 1. The
internalconsistencyreliabilitiesfor each of the dimensionsrangefrom .83
to .99. Averagewithin-dimensioncorrelationsare higherthan the outsidedimensioncorrelationsat thep< .001 level for each dimension,indicating
that internalconsistencyand discriminantvalidityare acceptable.An interdimensioncorrelation matrix revealed an average correlationin the
9x9 matrixof .39, indicatingthat severalof the dimensionsmoderately
covary across the 41 institutions.Obliquefactor analyticresultsalso provide evidenceof the clarityof the dimensionsinasmuchas items from eight
of the nine dimensionsload highlyon theirown factors. (An obliquerotation was used inasmuchas the nine dimensionsare not assumedto be orthogonal. Factor analyticresultsare not reportedhere to conservespace,
but they can be obtainedfromthe author.)One of the dimensions,student
academicdevelopment,does not load on any of the factors. These results
show that the nine dimensionsof organizationaleffectivenessas identified
by the dominant coalition have high internal consistencyreliabilityand
statistically significant discriminantvalidity, although they do possess
moderateintercorrelation.
Mean scores for each institutionwere examinedacrossthe nine dimensions. It was found that each institutiondisplaysa relativelyunique pattern of scoreson the dimensions.That is, no two institutionswereratedas
having identical profiles of effectiveness. MANOVA and univariate
ANOVAstested the statisticalsignificanceof these differencesand, as reported in Table 3, significantdifferencesexist among the institutionson
each of the nine dimensions.No significantdifferenceswerefound among
the five differentjob categories,however, except on the systemopenness
and communityinteractiondimension. That is, respondentsin different
job categoriesin the institutionsdid not differ significantlyin theirratings
of effectivenesson any of the dimensionsexcept one. And in the case of
that one dimension,the varianceaccountedfor (r2)isonly 1 percent.
DomainIdentification
In order to identify the organizationaldomains representedby these
nine dimensionsand to assess effectivenesslevels in those domains, the
34
March
TABLE 3
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance
for the Effectiveness Dimensions
MANO VAa
42.86**
ANOVA
Job
Institution
F
0
Multiple R2
.52**
1.59*
Institution
F
q2
Institution x Job
F
0
.02
1.20
.04
Job
F
Institution x Job
F
n2
1. Student educational satisfac.01

1.00
2.13
.39
50.76** .38
tion
1.12
.01
.82
126.61** .48
.48
2. Student academic development
.32
.01
1.40
.37
80.51** .36
3. Student career development
.01
1.22
.78
.23
13.56** .23
4. Student personal development
5. Faculty and administrator em.01
.45
9.68** .18
1.67
.20
ployment satisfaction
6. Professional development and
.00
.44
89.30** .43
.50
1.30
quality of the faculty
7. System openness and commu.14
2.58*
.01
.72
2.88*
.15
nity interaction
1.27
.01
1.64
.52
83.60** .52
8. Ability to acquire resources
12.24** .15
.74
.01
.54
.16
9. Organizational health
aDegrees of freedom for institution were 36 and 4813; for job, 36 and 4813; and for the interaction,
144 and 10162.
*p<.05
**p< .001
nine effectivenessdimensionsand the 41 institutionswere clusteredusing

the CONCOR algorithm. A matrix was formed in which institutional
clusters were matched with effectiveness dimension clusters to form
groups of institutions differing in domains and in effectiveness levels.
These groupings form the domains of organizationaleffectiveness. The
four clustersof effectivenessdimensionswere:
(1) An externaladaptationclusterof dimensionscomprisingstudentcareer developmentand system openness and communityinteraction.The
criteriacomprisingthese dimensionsindicatethat high scoringinstitutions
are successful in interactions involving the external environment. The
communityinvolvementof the institutionand the focus given to student
preparationfor outside-of-school employment are the two key dimensions, and both emphasizeenvironmentalinteraction.
(2) A moraleclustercomprisingstudenteducationalsatisfaction,faculty and administratoremploymentsatisfaction,and organizationalhealth.
This clusteris concernedwith student, faculty, and administratorsatisfaction and with the healthof internalinstitutionalprocesses.Schools scoring
high on this cluster are typified by high morale among organizational
membersand by high levelsof trust, membercommitment,conflict resolution, etc.
(3) An academic-orientedclustercomprisingstudentacademicdevelopment, professionaldevelopmentand qualityof the faculty, and abilityto
acquire resources. These dimensions relate to traditional academic
Cameron
1981
35
activitiesand to educationaloutputs, i.e., the academicdevelopmentof

studentsand the professionaldevelopmentof the faculty. At first blush,
the abilityto acquireresourcesdimensionseemednot as centralto the academiclabel as werethe other dimensions.Closerinspectionof the criteria
comprisingthat dimension,however, shows that they relateto the ability
of the institutionto obtain high qualityfaculty, students,researchgrants,
and other financial resources,and the consistencyof those transactions
with the label "academicorientation"seems reasonable.
(4) An extracurricularcluster comprisinga single dimension, student
personaldevelopment.Thesecriteriarelateprimarilyto personal,nonacademic developmentof students, and extracurricularactivities.
Four groupingsof institutionsthat possess similarscores on the effectivenessdimensionsalso emergedfrom the clusteringprocedure.Figure 1
presentsthe effectivenessprofiles for the four institutionalclustersacross
the nine dimensions of effectiveness. Two of these institutionalgroups
scorehigh on the academicallyorienteddimensions,consequentlythey are
FIGURE 1
Profiles of Effectiveness for Four Institutional Clusters
65-
60+
a,,
\
55
/
/
o55--
ScholarlyHigh Morale
.35-j
ScholarlyMedium Morale
/or/ X
-
IE
r)
CIS
><
0
6 3
Q
ov,
g SQ
o
>
du0-
P>(^
w C
36
March
given the label "scholarly institutions." These two groups differ, however, in theirscoreson the effectivenessdimensionsrelatingto the satisfaction of students, faculty members,and administrators,and with internal
organizationalhealth. Therefore one group is labelled "scholarly-high
morale"becauseit maintainsthe highestscoreson the satisfactionand organizational health dimensions, and the other is labelled "scholarlymedium morale" because its scores are about averageon the morale dimensions.A typical scholarly-highmoraleinstitutionis one that is highly
successfulacademicallyand has high morale among organizationalmembers. An institutionin the scholarly-mediummorale clusteris typified by
highly successfulacademicachievementbut averagemembersatisfaction
and internalorganizationalhealth.
Anotherclusterconsistsof institutionsscoringslightlybelow averageon
most of the dimensions of effectiveness. This group displays relatively
littlevarianceacrossthe nine dimensionsand does not excelin any domain
of effectiveness.This clusteris labelledthe "mediocregroup" becauseof
the averageand below averagelevels of effectivenessdisplayed.
The final clusterof institutionsshows extremelyhigh scores compared
to the other three clusterson student careerdevelopmentand on system
opennessand communityinteraction-the two externaladaptationdimensions-and this group is labeled the "externally oriented group." As
shown in Figure 1, however,this externalgroup has low scores on all the
other effectivenessdimensions.Hence, a school in this clusteris one that
excels in the effectiveness domain relating to external transactionsbut
does ratherpoorly in other domainsof organizationaleffectiveness.
DifferencesAmong Clusters
Table 4 presentsthe standardizedmean scores for each groupingof effectivenessdimensions(domains)and institutionalclustersas well as the
TABLE4
DifferencesAmong Groupsof InstitutionsAcross
Four Domains of Effectiveness(StandardizedScores, Mean= 50)
Domains
Institutional Groups
External
Adaptation
Morale
Academic
Extracurricular
46.02
63.45c
57.43
62.01b
Scholarly-high morale (N= 5)
44.69
49.95
62.42d
55.42
Scholarly-medium morale (N=4)
47.46
58.81a
46.79
44.13
Externally oriented (N=8)
47.28
46.81
49.96
48.08
Mediocre group (N= 24)
aThe externally oriented group differs from the mediocre group and the scholarly-high morale
group at the p < .06 level.
bThe scholarly-high morale group differs from all other groups at the p<.01 level.
CThe scholarly-high morale group differs from the externally oriented group and the mediocre
group at the p< .01 level.
dThe scholarly-medium morale group differs from the externally oriented group and the mediocre
group at the p< .01 level.
1981
Cameron
37
resultsof the F tests for significantdifferencesamong the means. Statistically significantdifferenceswereobservedamong certainof the groupsof
institutionsin a comparisonof theireffectivenessacrossthe four domains.
The externallyorientedgroup, for example,differs from the other groups
in the externaladaptationdomain at the p< .06 level. The scholarly-high
moralegroup differs significantlyfrom all other groups of institutionsin
the moraledomain(p< .01). And both scholarlygroupsdiffer significantly from the other clusters in the academicallyoriented domain at the
p < .01 level. No significantdifferencesexist amongany of the four groups
in the extracurricular
domain.
Differences
PredictingInstitutional
To explainthese significantdifferencesin domain effectivenessamong
the groupsof institutions,discriminantanalysisprocedureswereused employingthe variableslisted in Table 2 as predictors.Becauseof degreesof
freedom problems it was inappropriateto include all the variablesin a
single discriminantanalysis. Therefore,each of the five categoriesof explanatoryvariableswas includedin a separatestepwisediscriminantanalysis in orderto determinewhichvariablesare most powerfulin discriminating among the institutions. Variableswere kept only if they contributed
significantlyto the discriminatingpower of a statisticallysignificantfunction as determinedby a partialF of 1. Emergingwere 14 variables,which
were then includedin a final discriminantanalysis.
Table 5 reportsthe resultsof the final discriminantanalysis,and Figure
2 plots the centroidsfor the threesignificantdiscriminantfunctions.Based
on these 14 variables,97.6 percentof the institutionscan be correctlyclassified into their propereffectivenessclusterwhen the probabilityof being
classifiedinto each group is constrainedto be equal (Klecka, 1975). Only
one institutionis incorrectlyclassifiedon the basis of its scores on these
predictorvariables.This analysisprovidesevidencethat the resulting14
variablesare very powerfulin explainingdifferencesamong the 4 groups
of institutions.(Conductingtwo successivediscriminantanalysesfor each
variable, in reducingthe data, capitalizeson chance; consequently,the
discriminatingpower of the variablesmay be inflated.)
Each of the discriminantfunctionsmay be thought of as an important
underlyingdimensionof differencesamong the institutionalgroups. Furthermore,each of these underlyingdimensions(functions)is independent
of the other functions;that is, the secondfunctionexplainsdifferencesnot
accountedfor by the first function, and the third functionexplainsdifferencesnot accountedfor by the firsttwo functions. It is informative,therefore, to interpreteach discriminantfunction individuallywith respectto
the institutionalgroups. Correlationsof the variableswith the discriminant score are relied on for interpretationratherthan the discriminant
weights inasmuchas the correlationsare not sensitiveto intercorrelation
among the explanatoryvariables (Bargmann, 1970; Perreault& Miles,
1978).Tatsuoka(1971)refersto these correlationsas the structurematrix.
38
March
TABLE 5
The Fourteen Most Important Variables in
Discriminating Among the Four Clusters of Institutions
Function
Eigenvalue
1
2
3
9.94096
1.86670
1.46751
Canonical Correlation Wilks' Lambda
134.815
60.648
28.000
.0129
.1414
.4053
.953
.807
.771
A
.189
Change in enrollment (51-75)
-.398
Tuition charged
-.385
Age of institution
-.498
Goal of career development
.020
Goal of faculty development
-.180
Emphasis on fund raising
-.322
Liberal arts program
.106
Teacher training program
.214
Professional program
-.133
State revenue for research
-.105
Revenue from endowment
.186
Value of endowment (71)
-.189
Expenditures/academic support
.230
Total expenditures
I = First discriminant function
II= Second discriminant function
III= Third discriminant function
A= Discriminant function weight
B = Correlation with discriminant score
*p< .05
**p< .01
***p< .001
B
.406***
-.745***
-.316**
-.826* *
.512***
.515***
-.381**
.156
.158
-.313**
-.499***
-.479***
-.127
-.111
A
-.247
-.333
.474
.344
.429
-.127
.418
.274
-.065
-.357
-.367
.173
-.223
-.180
Significance
42
26
12
II
I
Variable
Chi Square d.f.
.000
.000
.006
III
B
.094
-.239
.165
-.061
.523***
.069
.506***
.453***
-.079
-.437***
-.360**
-.334**
-.314**
-.170
A
.099
.196
-.492
-.281
.173
-.255
.352
.249
-.246
.311
1.171
-1.297
.768
-.492
B
.054
-.095
-.618***
-.007
.111
.029
.212
.260*
-.433***
.256*
-.227
-.466***
-.243
-.445***
The first discriminantfunction separatesthe two scholarlygroupsfrom

the externallyoriented and the mediocre groups. The centroids of the
scholarly-mediummoraleand the scholarly-highmoralegroupsfall on the
negativeside of the axis in Figure2. The mediocreand externalgroupsare
on the positive side.
The two scholarlygroups tend to be older liberalarts institutionswith
high revenuesfrom tuition and endowment.Futhermore,they have high
revenuesfor researchand high endowmentvalues. The distinguishingattributes of the external and mediocre clusters on this function, on the
other hand, are an emphasison fund raising, faculty development,and
dynamic (growing) enrollments.This first discriminantfunction, therefore, distinguishesbetweenwell-establishedinstitutionsand developinginstitutions.The scholarlyinstitutionsare characterizedby attributestypical
of wealthy,old, venerableuniversities,whereasthe externaland mediocre
institutionsappearto be engagedin the process of advancementand enrichment.
The second function mainly separatesthe scholarly-highmoralegroup
from the scholarly-mediummoralegroup. Smalldifferencesexist between
the externaland the mediocregroups. The scholarly-highmoralegroup is
1981
39
Cameron
FIGURE 2
Plots of Group Centroids for the Three Significant Discriminant Functions
II
ScholarlyMediumMorale
+2.0
-1.0
+2.
* 1.0
-1.0
I
Externally
Oriented
Group
-2.0
ScholarlyHigh Morale
Group
Group
Centroid I
Centroid II
Centroid III
Scholarly-HighMorale
ExternallyOriented
Morale
Scholarly-Medium
Mediocre
-.84
.78
-2.34
.30
-2.01
.02
1.09
.23
.04
-1.33
-.51
.52
characterizedby high revenuesin endowment,a high endowmentvalue,

and by high research-orientedrevenuesand expenditures.The scholarlymediummorale group, on the other hand, is typified by liberalarts and
teachertrainingprogramsand by faculty professionaldevelopment.This
discriminantfunction distinguishesbetweenwealthy,researchinstitutions
and institutionswith faculty developmentand teachingemphasis.Speaking more simplistically,the differencesmay be typified as teachingversus
40
March
researchorientation,assumingthat the wealth factors are associatedwith

researchinstitutions.
The third function accounts for differencesnot accounted for by the
firsttwo functions.This functiondistinguishesthe externallyorientedand
the scholarly-mediummorale groups (negativeside of the axis) from the
scholarly-highmoraleand mediocregroups(positiveside of the axis). Variables such as high endowmentvalue and high expendituresare coupled
with older institutionalage and the offering of professionalprogramsin
the external and scholarly-mediummoral group. Teacher training and
high researchrevenues, on the other hand, are typical of the scholarlyhigh moraleand the mediocregroups.This function, therefore,may be interpretedas being a separationof "professional"institutionsfrom "academic" institutions. The academicallyoriented groups (scholarly-high
moraleand mediocreschools) seemto be exemplifiedby traditionalteaching and researchemphasis,whereasthe professionallyorientedgroups(externaland scholarly-mediummorale)appearto have high expendituresfor
professionalprograms.The differencesmight be stereotypedas being between schools emphasizing law, medical, engineering, and business
degreesversusschools interestedin nonprofessionalteachingand research
activities.
TABLE 6
Major Distinguishing Characteristics of the Institutional Groups
Institutional Group
Scholarly-high morale group
Scholarly-medium morale group
Externally oriented group
Mediocre group
Major Distinguishing Characteristics

Affluent, Academic Institutions
Charges high tuition
High endowment revenue
High endowment value
High state revenue for research
High expenditures for academic support
Offers liberal arts programs
Affluent, Professional Institutions
Charges high tuition
High endowment revenue
High state revenue for research
High total expenditures
Offers professional programs
Developing, Professional Institutions
Emphasis on fund raising
Growing enrollments
High total expenditures
Offers professional programs
Developing, Teaching Institutions
High emphasis on fund raising
Growing enrollments
Offers teacher training programs
1981
Cameron
41
Interpretations of Institutional Characteristics
The discriminantfunctionspoint out that differenttypes of institutions

differ in the domainsin which they excel. Table 6 summarizesthe institutional characteristicstypical of each group of institutions. For example,
scholarly-highmoraleinstitutions,whichexcel in the academicand morale
domains, seem to be best typified by institutionalwealthand researchactivity. Institutionsthat possess the characteristicsof the scholarly-high
morale group, therefore, might best be labelled affluent, academic colleges and universities.
Many of the variablesindicatinginstitutionalwealthalso are typicalof
the scholarly-mediummorale group. However, there also is an emphasis
among these schools on professionalprogramsand professionaldevelopment of the faculty. Thus, when characterizedon the basis of theirinstitutional characteristics,the scholarly-mediummorale institutions are labelled affluent, professional institutions.
Institutionsthat excel in the externaladaptationdomain but do poorly
in the other three domains are exemplified primarilyby indicators of
growingenrollment,fund raising,facultydevelopmentand the offeringof
professionalprograms(e.g., law, medicine,business).This mix of predictor variablessuggeststhat the label developing,professional is an appropriate summaryfor the externallyorientedcluster.
Finally,the mediocregroup, those institutionsthat do not show distinctive competencein any of the domains, are typified as developing,teaching institutionsbecauseteachertrainingprogramsand indicatorsof institutional development (e.g., emphasis on fund raising, growing enrollments, faculty development)are typical characteristics.
DISCUSSION
These analysesshow that four major domainsof effectivenessexist for

colleges and universitiesfrom the standpoint of the internal dominant
coalition-an academicdomain, a moraledomain, an extracurriculardomain, and an externaladaptationdomain. Furthermore,four groups of
institutions are found to differ significantlyfrom one another in their
levels of effectiveness in these domains. These are (1) a scholarly-high
morale group, which is rated as highly effective in the academic and
moraledomainsbut as very ineffectivein the externaladaptationdomain;
(2) an externallyorientedgroup, which is highly effective in the external
adaptation domain but ineffective in all other domains; (3) a mediocre
group, composedof schoolsthat scorebelow averagein effectivenessin all
the domains;and (4) the scholarly-mediummoralegroup, which excels in
the academicdomain, is averagein the moraledomain, and is ineffective
in the externaladaptationdomain.
Each of these four groups of institutionsis typified by a unique set of
institutionalcharacteristics(Table 6). Affluent, academiccollege characteristicsare most closely associatedwith the scholarly-highmoralegroup.
42
March
Affluent, professionalcollege characteristicstypify the scholarly-medium

morale group. Characteristicssummarizedas developing, professional
traitstypify the externallyorientedinstitutions,and developing,teaching
characteristicsare associatedwith the mediocreschools.
Significantdifferencesexistingamong the four groupsof institutionsin
their domains are associated with three major institutionalcharacteristics-the type of academicprogramoffered, institutionalaffluence, and
institutionalstability.On the basis of the discriminantfunctions, a parsimonious summaryof the findingswould suggestthat the types of institutions excellingin the academiceffectivenessdomainare wealthy,research
oriented,liberalartsinstitutions;those excellingin the externaladaptation
domainare developing,professionallyorientedinstitutions;and those excelling in the morale domain are well-established,stable institutions.All
institutionsseem to do about equallywell in the extracurriculardomain.
IMPLICATIONS
Three main implicationsof these results have relevancefor organizational theorists and for evaluatorsof organizationaleffectiveness. They
can be stated in the form of propositions.
1. Organizationaleffectiveness is a multidomain construct. Because
each of the four majorapproachesto organizationaleffectivenessemphasizes a limiteddomainset, the complexitiesof organizationaleffectiveness
and the multiplelevels of effectivenessthat are inherentin organizations
frequentlyare ignored. That is, the use of only one of the four models of
effectivenessmay limit unwittinglythe evaluatorto a narrowset of relevant effectivenessdomains. The system resourcemodel, for example, is
most closely associatedwith the externaladaptation domain in colleges
and universities,the process approachseems to parallelthe morale domain, and the goal model may be comparedto the academicdomain.
If one defines and assessesorganizationaleffectivenesson the basis of
organizationalgoal accomplishment,for example, significantdifferences
in effectivenessdomains-which actuallyexist among collegesand universities and which may be very importantto potential students, faculty, or
funders-would be masked. Most of the institutionsin this study would
appearto be largelythe samein effectiveness,as evidencedby the fact that
the institutionsare not distinguishableon the basis of theirgoals. On only
one goal did the institutionalgroups differ significantly(Table 5).
Similarly,if effectivenessis definedsimplyas the abilityof the organization to acquire resources from the environment (the system resource
model), effectivenessin the morale domain, the extracurriculardomain,
and much of the academicdomain would be ignoredin colleges and universities.
Also impliedis that differentmodelsof effectivenessmay be relevantto
different types of organizations. Cameron (1980) argues, for example,
that none of the four modelsof effectiveness-the goal model, the system
1981
Cameron
43
resourcemodel, the processmodel, the strategicconstituenciesmodel-is

appropriatein organizationssuch as colleges and universitiesbecause of
the anarchisticnatureof those organizations.Goodman(1979)arguesnot
only that differentmodels of effectivenessare needed for differenttypes
of organizations,but that appropriatemodels may differ even among organizationalsubunits.This is partlybecausedomainsof effectivenessare
groundedin post hoc choicesof organizationalconstituencies(e.g., dominant coalition members)regardingwhat organizationalactivitieswill be
emphasized(Cyert& March, 1963), what the organizationalreadyknows
how to do (March& Simon, 1958;Weick, 1979), and what criteriacan be
agreedupon (Lindblom, 1959). Differenttypes of organizationswith differentdominantcoalitionsare not likelyto producethe samedomainsets.
This study illustratesthat a general construct of organizationaleffectivenessthat is applicableto all types of organizationsand to all domains
of organizationalactivity is not likely to develop. And, because of the
multipledomain natureof the construct,a generalmodel of effectiveness
may not be very enlighteninganyway.
2. Whenorganizationaleffectivenessis viewed as a multidomainconstruct, the relationshipsamong other organizationalvariablesare altered.
That is, the distinctive organizationalcharacteristicsof institutions of
higher education that differ in their domain effectiveness illustrateone
possible reason why confusing and contradictoryfindings have been reported in the literatureexaminingvarious organizationallevel variables.
Bergerand Cummings(1979),Ford and Slocum(1977),and others, for example, concludethat relationshipsamongvariablessuch as organizational
structure,technology, size, and the externalenvironmentare ambiguous
and problematic. In most organizationalstudies, however, researchers
have not controlledfor the effectivenessof the organizationsthey have investigated,let alone for the variety of "effectivenesses"typical of most
organizations.Yet thereis no reasonto expectthat the same relationships
among variables(e.g., technology and structure)will hold in ineffective
organizationsas hold in effective organizations,and the relationshipsare
likely to change in organizationswith different patternsof effectiveness
across domains.
Duncan (1973) and Lawrenceand Lorsch (1967), for example, report
that effective organizationsare typified by differentorganizationalstructure-external environmentrelations than are ineffective organizations.
Reimann(1974)found that industrialorganizationsthat are ratedas effective are differentin structurefrom that of ineffectiveindustrialorganizations. Pennings (1975) found that structuralvariables are different for
highly effective brokeragefirms than for ineffective firms, although the
goodnessof fit betweenstructureand environmentalvariableswas not dependenton effectiveness.
This study points out how institutionsmay be typified by a uniquepattern of organizationaleffectivenessacrosscertaindomains, and that each
44
March
major effectivenessprofile may be associatedwith a differentset of institutional characteristics.That is, not only may effective organizationsbe
structureddifferentlyfrom ineffectiveorganizations(Reimann,1974),but
organizationstypified by success in one effectivenessdomain may have
differentorganizationalcharacteristicsthan organizationswith successin
anotherorganizationaleffectivenessdomain. The focus on only one overall ratingof effectivenessfor an organizationmasksthese findings.The relationshipof institutionalgrowthand effectivenessprovidesone example.
Norris (1976) suggeststhat institutionsthat are growingin enrollments
differ in effectivenessfrom institutionsthat are static. In fact, growthhas
been a major indicator of effectivenessin higher education in the past
(Dressel, 1971). What this study points out, however, is that growth is
associatedwith ineffectivenessin the academic,morale, and extracurricular domains.Only in the externaladaptationdomainis enrollmentgrowth
associatedwith high levels of success. That is, in institutionstypified by
growth,effectivenessis ratedlow in academic,morale,and extracurricular
domainsand high in the externaladaptationdomain. This suggeststhat in
periods of growth and dynamism, institutions trade off internal effectiveness(i.e., academic,morale, and extracurriculareffectiveness)for effectivenessin adaptingto the externalenvironment.In periods in which
little or no growth is experienced,the external adaptationdomain may
then become less importantand internaleffectivenessis emphasized.
It is proposedthat organizationlevel researchbegin to account for the
effectivenessof organizationsand the possibledifferencesin effectiveness
across domainsbefore conclusionsare drawn. Part of the confusion and
contradictionin findings in macro organizationalresearchmay derive
largelyfrom treatingorganizationsas if they have only one effectiveness
domain, from ignoringorganizationaleffectivenessas a control variable,
and from not consideringthe possibilitythat effectivenessdomain selection may be a causal factor in determiningstructural, technological,
and/or environmentalinterrelationships.
3. Organizational effectiveness in external domains may mitigate
againsteffectivenessin internaldomains. Dubin (1976)speculatedthat because organizationsare ambivalentabout whetherto maximizeinternal
organizational effectiveness or external organizational effectiveness,
achievementof both is unlikely. Accordingto his hypothesis, organizations are eitherinternallysuccessfulor externallysuccessful,but not both.
This study's resultsseem to supportDubin's hypothesis.That is, institutions that are effective in the externaladaptationdomainare not effective
in the internaldomains(i.e., academic,morale, extracurricular)
and vice
versa. An examinationof the relativerankingsof effectivenessfor each of
the 41 institutionsin the 4 domainsrevealsthat no institutionscoredin the
top 20 in everydomain;and of the institutionsrankedin the top 10 in the
externaladaptationdomain, the averagerankingin the academicdomain
is 22, the averagerankingin the moraledomainis 19, and in the extracurriculardomainis 29.
1981
Cameron
45
On a pragmaticlevel, this implies that institutionsof highereducation

that achieve the highest external visibility, and therefore may show up
more often on prestigepolls or ratingsof institutionalreputation,may be
less effective in the traditionalacademicdomain and in internalmorale
than are schools that don't make those lists. That is, schools rated as
doing well academicallyare ratedratherpoorly in the externaladaptation
domain, and schools achievinghigh externaladaptationscores do rather
poorly in the academicdomain.
If it is correctto assumethat schools that are highly effective in the externaladaptationdomainachievemore externalvisibility,then it is important to interpretwith cautionthe frequentlypublishedlistingsof "top" institutions based on prestige or general quality ratings (Ladd & Lipset,
1979; Cartter, 1966; Ross, 1977). These polls may representjust the reverse of what potential studentsand administratorsthink they represent
(i.e., high ratingsequal low academiceffectiveness).
This study serveslargelyas an exploratorystep in identifyingand predicting domains of organizationaleffectiveness, and more research is
neededto expandand developthis notion. In institutionsof highereducation, for example,morerefinedmeasurementsof the majorpredictorvariables found to be important in differentiatingorganizationaltypes are
needed. One weaknessof this study is the possibilityof randomerroreffects becauseof the numberof variablesincludedand the data reduction
proceduresnecessitated.Follow-upresearchshould focus on the few predictor variablesthat appearto be key.
In other types of organizations,researchefforts should begin to focus
on domainsof effectivenessratherthan on overallassessments.This does
not mean that the organizationallevel of analysisshould be abandonedin
favor of subunitor individualperformanceanalyses.Ratherit meansthat
assessmentsshouldbe sensitiveto the differenteffectivenessdomainspresent in organizationsand the probability that different levels of effectiveness exist across the different domains. Furthermore,organizational
effectivenessshould begin to be used more widely as a control variablein
organization-levelresearch.
REFERENCES
1. Arabie, P., & Boorman,S. Multidimensionalscalingof measuresdistancebetweenpartitions.
Journalof MathematicalPsychology, 1973, 10, 148-203.
2. Argyris,C. Integratingthe individualand the organization.New York: Wiley, 1964.
3. Astin, A. Four criticalyears. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1977.
4. Baldridge,J. V., Curtis,D. V., Ecker,G., & Riley,G. L. Policy makingand effectiveleadership.
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1978.
5. Bargmann,R. E. Interpretation
and use of a generalizeddiscriminantfunction.In R. C. Bose, I.
M. Chakravarti,P. C. Mahalanobis,C. R. Rao, & K. R. C. Smith(Eds.), Essaysin probability
and statistics.ChapelHill, N.C.: Universityof North CarolinaPress, 1970, 35-60.
6. Bennis,W. G. The conceptof organizationalhealth.In W. G. Bennis(Ed.), Changingorganizations. New York:McGrawHill, 1966.
7. Berger,C., & Cummings,L. L. Organizationalstructure,attitudesand behaviors.In B. Staw
(Ed.), Researchin organizationalbehavior.Vol. 1. Greenwich,Conn.:JAI Press, 1979,169-208.
46
March
8. Bowen, H. R. Holding colleges accountable. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 12,
1973.
9. Bowen, H. R. Investment in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.
10. Breiger, R. L., Boorman, S. A., & Arabie, P. An algorithm for clustering relational data with applications to social network analysis and comparison with multidimensional scaling. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 1975, 12, 328-383.
11. Cameron, K. Assessing organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978a, 23, 604-632.
12. Cameron, K. Organizational effectiveness: Its measurement and prediction in institutions of
higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1978b.
13. Cameron, K. Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational
Dynamics, 1980,, Autumn, 66-80.
14. Campbell, J. P. On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977,
13-55.
15. Cartter, A. M., An assessment of quality in graduate education. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1966.
16. Child, J. Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance-Part I.
Journal of Management Studies, 1974, 11, 175-189.
17. Child, J. Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance-Part 2.
Journal of Management Studies, 1975, 12, 12-27.
18. Clark, B. R. The distinctive college. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.
19. Cummings, L. L. Emergency of the instrumental organization. In P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977,
56-62.
20. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1963.
21. Dressel, P. L. The new colleges: Toward an appraisal. Washington, D.C.: American College
Testing Program and The American Association for Higher Education, 1971.
22. Dubin, R. Organizational effectiveness: Some dilemmas of perspective. Organizational and Administrative Sciences, 1976, 7, 7-14.
23. Duncan, R. B. Multiple decision-making structures in adapting to environmental uncertainty:
The impact on organizational effectiveness. Human Relations, 1973, 26, 273-291.
24. Etzioni, A. A. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.
25. Ford, J. D., & Slocum, J. W. Size, technology, environment and the structure of organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 1977, 2, 561-575.
26. Galbraith, J. Organization design: An information processing view. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1975.
27. Garbarino, J. W. Emerging patterns of faculty bargaining. In J. P. Begin (Ed.), Academics at the
bargaining table. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1973, 1-15.
28. Goodman, P. S. Organizational effectiveness as a decision making process. Paper presented at
the 39th National Meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, 1979.
29. Gross, E., & Grambsch, P. University goals and academic power. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1968.
30. Hartigan, J. Clustering algorithms. New York: Wiley, 1975.
31. Hirsch, P. M. Organizational effectiveness and the institutional environment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 327-344.
32. Hutchins, J. M. Interview with John Maynard Hutchins. Chronicle of Higher Education, 1977,
14, 5.
33. Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction,
anxiety-stress, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 272-280.
34. Johnson, S. C. Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 241-254.
35. Keeley, M. A social justice approach to organizational evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 22, 272-292.
36. Kemmerer, F. R., & Baldridge, J. V. Unions on campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
37. Klecka, W. R. Discriminant analysis. In N. H. Nie et al., SPSS, 2nd Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1975, 434-467.
38. Ladd, E., & Lipset, S. M. The well-known universities lead in ratings of faculties' reputations.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 1979, 16, 6-7.
39. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. Organization and environment. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1967.
40. Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
1981
Cameron
47
41. Lindblom, C. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 1959, 19, 79-88.
42. Lupton, A. H. States and productivity in higher education: An ill-defined relationship. Public
Productivity Review, 1976, 2, 56-62.
43. March, J. G., & Simon, H. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.
44. McDonald, J. The game of business. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press, 1975.
45. Meeth, R. L. Quality education for less money. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
46. Meyer, M. W. Organizational domains. American Sociological Review, 1975, 40, 599-615.
47. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., & Pfeffer, J. Organization-environment: Concepts and issues. Industrial Relations, 1974, 13, 244-264.
48. Miles, R. H. Macro-organizational behavior. Santa Monica, Cal.: Goodyear, 1980.
49. Miles, R. H., & Cameron, K. Coffin nails and corporate strategies. Working paper No. 3,
Business-Government Relations Series (C), Yale University, 1977.
50. Molnar, J. J., & Rogers, D. C. Organizational effectiveness: An empirical comparison of the
goal and system resource approaches. Sociological Quarterly, 1976, 17, 401-413.
51. Negandhi, A. R., & Reimann, B. Task environment, decentralization, and organizational effectiveness. Human Relations, 1973, 26, 203-214.
52. Norris, D. M. Speculating on enrollments. In D. W. Vermilye (Ed.), Individualizing the system.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976, 139-147.
53. Osborn, R. N., & Hunt, J. C. Environment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 231-246.
54. Pennings, J. The relevance of the structure-contingency model for organizational effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 393-410.
55. Pennings, J. M. Dimensions of organizational influence and their effectiveness correlates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 688-699.
56. Pennings, J. M., & Goodman, P. S. Toward a workable framework. In P. S. Goodman & J. M.
Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1977, 146-184.
57. Perreault, W. D., & Miles, R. H. Influence strategy mixes in complex organizations. Behavioral
Science, 1978, 23, 86-98.
58. Perrow, C. Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth, 1970.
59. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row,
1978.
60. Pondy, L., & Mitroff, I. Beyond open systems models of organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1978, 1-36.
61. Price, J. The study of organizational effectiveness. Sociological Quarterly, 1972, 13, 3-15.
62. Reimann, B. Dimensions of structure in effective organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 693-708.
63. Ross, S. S. Ranking the business schools. MBA Magazine, 1977, 10 (4), 21ff.
64. Scott, W. Effectiveness of organizational effectiveness studies. In P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977,
63-95.
65. Silber, J. R. Financing the independent sector. In D. W. Vermilye (Ed.), Individualizing the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976, 107-117.
66. Steers, R. M. Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view. Santa Monica, Cal.: Goodyear
Press, 1977.
67. Tatsuoka, M. Multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley, 1971.
68. Thompson, J. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
69. Vermilye, D. W. Individualizing the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.
70. Weick, K. Enactment processes in organizations. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1978.
71. Weick, K. E. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
72. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness.
American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 891-903.

Academy of Management Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To The Academy of Management Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To The Academy of Management Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domains of Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges and Universities

Author(s): Kim S. Cameron

? Academy of Management Journal

Four major domains of organizationaleffectiveness

This study sets out first to identify empiricallythe major domainsthat

Selectedfor inclusionin the study were41 colleges and universitiesin 7

The degreeof satisfactionof studentswith their

The extentof academicattainment,growth,and

The extentof occupationaldevelopmentof students,

The emphasisplacedon interactionwith, adaptation to, and servicein the externalenvironment.

The abilityof the institutionto acquireresources

The benevolence,vitality,and viabilityin the internalprocessesand practicesat the institution.

Academy of Management Journal

each of which independentlydiscriminatesamong the groups of institutions.

aAbsolute values used.

each category along with the referencesto some studies associatingthe

The same 9 dimensions of effectiveness found in Cameron (1978a)

Academy of Management Journal

1. Student educational satisfac.01

nine effectivenessdimensionsand the 41 institutionswere clusteredusing

activitiesand to educationaloutputs, i.e., the academicdevelopmentof

Academy of Management Journal

Academy of Management Journal

Canonical Correlation Wilks' Lambda

Chi Square d.f.

The first discriminantfunction separatesthe two scholarlygroupsfrom

characterizedby high revenuesin endowment,a high endowmentvalue,

Academy of Management Journal

researchorientation,assumingthat the wealth factors are associatedwith

Scholarly-medium morale group

Externally oriented group

Major Distinguishing Characteristics

Interpretations of Institutional Characteristics

The discriminantfunctionspoint out that differenttypes of institutions

These analysesshow that four major domainsof effectivenessexist for

Affluent, professionalcollege characteristicstypify the scholarly-medium

resourcemodel, the processmodel, the strategicconstituenciesmodel-is

On a pragmaticlevel, this implies that institutionsof highereducation

Academy of Management Journal

You might also like