. ‘ . n . 2.... . . V .. . . . 4 . . ‘ . . . ‘ . . .. . ‘ a . v. . . . . ‘ . . . c . _ .. . . .3. .1... THESIS lllllUlllllHllllllHillH1!IIIHIIHIHHIIiHIlIlHllHHl 3 1293 104357 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Organizational effectiveness of universities: A sociotechnical analysis presented by Carmen Catarina Silva Handel has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor degree in Philosophy W35? /2 2 (MY! C< Major professor Date May 16, 1983 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 RETURNING MATERIALS: bV1ESI_] Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from __ your record. FINES Wll] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. and 213‘ K Wfim 3W nun/Hwy I k“ 'K ‘ I“ 19.! :176 W ATqE H45 Mm” ‘1, Mai v: “2/ {L 065 2- c: it- (a; "L: '5’! U4” :) mam - . v q 641995 /‘//— 36/5 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF UNIVERSITIES: A SOCIOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS by Carmen Catarina Silva Handel A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 © Copyright by Carmen Catarina Silva Handel 1983 iii ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL EFECTIVENESS OF UNIVERSITIES: A SOCIOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS by Carmen Catarina Silva Handel Based on sociotechnical system theory, the present study aims at developing a set of instruments to study universities from an organizational perspective. Relevant variables of this model include perceptions of actual and ideal primary tasks and roles, sentience (trust and loyalty), participant-satisfaction, as well as tangible and intangible technology. The principle objectives of the research were to (a) describe the characteristics of different programs within a major Brazilian university in terms of sociotechnical theory; (b) test a model derived from sociotechnical theory for the analysis of university aspects, predicting differences in program effectiveness; and (c) develop instruments and conduct a pilot study in a single university to evaluate the reliability and validity of items and scales included in the questionnaires. Carmen C. S. Handel At the Federal Univeristy of Rio Grande do Sul sixteen programs offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Of these, ten were randomly selected: Faculty and administrators (deans, department heads, program coordinators), as well as graduates of these programs were interviewed. The findings of the study indicate that (a) the various scales to measure the relevant variables present a high degree of 'reliability; ib) administrators differ significantly from faculty members with respect to. factors related to their respective roles; (c) individuals wit greater investment in the university (time, qualifications, rank) perceive the same more positively; (d) there is no direct relation between the level of satisfaction and productivity; (e) loyalty to one's profession may be more important that loyalty to university in terms of achievement; (f) the sociotechnical model used in the present research appears to be a valid approach to study universities. From the present study, it is possible to conclude that 1. Effectiveness of universities is a complex construct, constituting three different domains: productivity (academic), participant-satisfaction (morale), and impact (external adaptation). Different kinds of results and their respective influences should be studied separately, i.e., _proportion of students completing their programs, research, service, etc. Different kinds of result may be expected for different kinds of organizations, participant characteristics, etc. Results of appraisals of program productivity and impact on other organizations constitute an adequate basis for curriculum organizational change. More research related to each component or domain of effectiveness of universities is needed. Research of faculty and administrator characteristics is needed to better understand universities as organizations, and their products. Research regarding the respective loyalty of faculty and administrators to their professional group and to the university, and the influence of such loyalty to the products of the university is needed. Research of the control and reward system, and its relation to the products of the university is needed. This Dissertation is dedicated to very special people. I did the work. They gave me the conditions. EGON HANDEL My husband and colleague. His understanding, support, encouragement and love were immeasurable. CRISTINE LUISE LUCIA VERONICA ANA CAROLINA My daughters. Their understanding, loving support and the time they gave me so generously were essential. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the support of many people and agencies who made my PhD program and this dissertation possible. Througout this work, I received uncommonly strong support from my Academic Committee. I wish to express my deep appreciation to: Dr. Max R. Raines - Chairman of my Committee, whose support was decisive and from whose wisdom and personal attitudes I learned so much. Dr. Robert H. Davis - for serving as my Dissertation Director, for his time given so generously, the excellence of his advice, enthusiasm, encouragement, and friendship. Dr. Stephen L. Yelon - advisor during my master's. program in Educational Psychologyy and member of my Committee, for his constant support, valuable advice, encouragement, enthusiasm, and friendship. Dr. Richard L. Featherstone - for his assistance at the beginning and his understanding and support throughout the program. I deeply appreciate and recognize the support and assistance of: Dr. Hartmut Gunther - Visiting Professor in Psychology. and Professor de Psicologia da Universidade Federal da Paraiba. Prof. Jose Olavo do Nascimento - Professor Titular do Depar- tamento de Ciencias Contabeis da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Dr. Ivo Antoniazzi - Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Cien- cias Administrativas da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Dr. Edemundo Rocha Vieira - Diretor do Centro de Processamento de Dados da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Neron Arruda Leonel e Rosa Maria Viccari - do Centro de Proces- samento de Dados da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Furthermore, I wish to thank the following individuals: Eduardo and Marta Bittencourt - whose assistance and support to me and my family were decisive. vi Mauro and Ida Gus - whose support and encouragement were essential. Piero and Selma Tedeschi - whose support and friendship were very special. Sandra Rose da Luz - for her dedication during this period. My mother-in-law Luisa Carlota Handel, and my brothers and sisters who were very helpful in providing emotional support. Finally, I wish to express my recognition and thanks to: Deans, Chairpersons, coordinators of academic programs, faculty members and graduates, who helped by answering the questionnaires and provided the empirical basis for this study. The members of the Department of Administrative Sciences of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, my colleagues, who approved my leave and provided support during the program. To the Centro de Integracao Escola-Empresa, for their help with the data collection. vii To the Rector of the Federal Univeristy of Rio Grande do Sul, Prof. Earle Diniz Macarthy Moreira and the Vice-Rector, Prof. Sergio de Meda Lamb for their understanding and support of the development of this research. The Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnolbgico (CNPq), my sponsor, for the financial support of my PhD program. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ xiii INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ............................... Significance of the Research ........................... Cultural Context of the Study .......................... QU'IQN Objective and Hypotheses ............................... Summary ................................................ 12 SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................... 13 Sociotechnical Systems Theory .......................... 13 Organizational Effectiveness ........................... 31 Effectiveness of Universities .......................... 40 mmw.uuuuuunu”Hunnuuuunuuunuuuu w Population and Sample .................................. 59 Respondents ............................................ 63 Instruments ............................................ 65 Procedure .............................................. 72 AnaIYSis Of the Data OOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000000000000000 73 ix ' FIN: «v. c. U (x FINDINGSWIMERPRETATIO” I.00.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... Characteristics of the Individual Subjects ............. Characterisitcs of the Instruments ..................... Components of the Sociotechnical Model ................. Program Effectiveness 0.00.00.00.00000000000000000000000 Aggregate Data Analysis ................................ DISCUSSIONWRECOMNDATIONS 0......OOOOOOOOOOOOO‘IOOOOOOOO Limitations Of the StUdY OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOOO0...... Group comparisons 00.000.000.000000000......0.00.00.00.00 Components of the Sociotechnical Model ................. Recommendations OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO REFERENCES 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GLOSSARY .00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. APPENDICES OOOOOOOCOOOOO00.00.00.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A: Questionnaire Used with Faculty and Administrators (Portuguese Original) ............................ Questionnaire Used with Faculty and Administrators (Translation) .................................... Questionnaire Used with Graduates (Portuguese) ...... Questionnaire Used with Graduates (Translation) ..... Program Characterisitcs in Terms of Number of Candidates and Percent Concluding the Program .... 75 76 76 83 95 100 110 110 111 113 123 126 138 141 141 165 187 191 195 10. ' LIST OF TABLES Dimensions and Criteria of Academic Effectiveness ..... Number of Departments and Programs at URRGS ........... Number of Graduate Programs by Area at UFRGS .......... Distribution of Programs at UFRGS Offering both Undergraduate and Graduate Programs .................. Demographic Characteristics of University Staff ....... Demographic Characteristics of Graduates .............. Reliability Coefficients (Alpha) of the Scales: Primary Task, Social and Technological System, and Attitudes toward the Organization ................... Mean Scores of Perceptions of Faculty and Administrators of Tasks, Roles, Satisfaction and Technology ........ Mean Scores of Perception of University Staff with ' Different Levels of Qualification of Tasks, Roles, Satisfaction and Technology ......................... Mean Scores of Perceptions of University Staff with Different Contracts of Tasks, Roles, Satisfaction and TeChnOIOgY 0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00... xi . Page 43 60 61 62 77 78 79 86 88 90 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Mean Scores of Perceptions of Univeristy Staff with Different Academic Rank of Tasks, Roles, Satisfaction and Technology ...................................... Mean Scores of Perceptions of University Staff by Department of Tasks, Roles, Satisfaction and Technology ...................................... Percentage of Graduates, and Mean Scores of Publication Index and Participant Satisfaction by Program ....... Mean Scores of Perceptions of Graduates by Program of Relevance, Satisfaction, and Professional Competence Correlations between the Variables of the Components of the Theoretical Model: Primary Task, Social and 92 94 97 99 Technological Systems by Program .................... lOl Indices of Organizational Structure and Measures of Effectiveness by Program OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000... 106 xii l. A Sociotechnical Organizational 2. Contributions to Organizational 3. A ResearCh Model Organizational LIST OF FIGURES Framework for Effectiveness the Construct Effectiveness for the Study Effectiveness the Study of of Universities ......... of of Universities ......... of of Universities ......... Page 48 50 66 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Institutions of Higher Education play a central role in contemporary society. Decisions and actions by faculty and ad- ministrators affect not only their students and employees at all levels, but other organizations, such as state legislatures, contracting organizations, high schools, and ultimately the whole society. Therefore, it is essential that such institutions have their mission or primary task defined with great care and their various programs structured to achieve their objectives as efficiently as possible. Specifically, the staff and technology available to an institution of higher education must be consistent with the objectives of the various programs within which they are located and must be organized in ways that will enable them to most efficiently realize the programs' objectives. In addition ' to an established and coherent task system, organizations must have credible measures of effectiveness (i.e., measures of results attained and of their relevance to internal and external constituencies in terms of quantity and quality). The present study is an effort toward this end. Unfortunately, the methodology and instruments needed to study, understand, and evaluate institutions of higher education from a sociotechnical perspective do not exist. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this study is to begin the development of the needed methods and instruments to meet the larger goal described above. There is a second sense in which this is a developmental study: it is a pilot study of only a single university. The long range goal is to improve the methods and instruments so that a large sample of universities may be studied. Statement of the Prob] em The. focUs of the present study is on the development of methods and instruments for meaSuring the relationship of program charac- teristics to effectiveness, and more specifically, the level of compatibility among organizational components and effectiveness in organizations of higher education. The term compatibility refers in this context to (a) the extent to which various components of a program, such as its technical and social systems and its defined primary tasks are congruent with one another, and (b) the extent to which perceptions of actual roles and tasks agree with ideal roles and tasks as measured by difference or discrepancy scores. Obviously, many variables influence program effectiveness (i.e., the relevance of the results to internal and external consti- tuencies - organizational member and other organizations). To try to identify the contributions of free resources, faculty/stu- dent ratios, quality of students entering the programs, and a multiplicity of other factors, would clearly require a multi-institutional study and is beyond the scope of this research. The aims of this study are more modest, i.e., to look at a single university and some of its programs, and to attempt to determine whether or not there is some relationship between compatibility as defined above and effectiveness. If, for example, a department were to define basic research in the physical sciences as one of its primary tasks, but lacked the technology to perform this task, a major incompatibility would exist, presumably reducing effectiveness. Secondly, this study aims to test a model and a set of scales to be used in other studies of organizational effectiveness of universities. If a relationship could be established between compatibility and effectiveness, the implications for higher education are substantial. According to sociotechnical theory, tasks and objectives, social system and technology must be aligned if an organization is to achieve its potential. While the availability of free resources, competent faculty, and high-caliber students certainly increase the chances for a successful program, the organization may still be ineffective, if the major factors of task, role and technology are incompatible. -The problem under study in this research can be stated in terms of the following questions: (a) What is the relation between the various organiza- tional aspects, such as primary tasks, social and technological systems, structure, and the compatibility among them to organiza- tional ‘effectiveness of universities? (b) Is sociotechnical theory an adequate frame of reference to analize universities in terms of investigation of its organizational effectiveness? (c) Are the scales constructed to measure the variables presented in the theoretical model of this study an adequate instrument to collect data to be used in studies of organizational effective- ness of universities? Significance of the Research From a practical perspective, this study was constructed (a) as an attempt to develop methods and instruments to study organiza- tional effectiveness of universities, and (b) with a view to identifying alternatives for the improvement of organizational effectiveness of universities, in terms of changes needed to align tasks, technology, social system and structure. From the perspective of sociotechnical theory, which provides the basic premises for the model used in this study, many questions remain unanswered, which require further research. Certain questions refer to te relation of technology to effectiveness. Several authors (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Perrow, 1967; Woodward, 1978) suggest that organizations will perform effectively only to the extent that their structures are compatible with the requirements of their technological systems. Although some studies have confirmed this hypothesis, a study by Mohr (1971) fails to support this premise. To this author's knowledge, no effort has been made to validate this proposition in higher education organizations. Thus, one of the objectives of this 'study is to test a model based on the premises of sociotechnical theory emphasizing compatibility or congruence among structure, technology and other organizational aspects and its relationships to effectiveness. CUItural Context of the Study In Brazil, a general reform took place in the universities in the 1970's, which iresulted in a complete restructuring of institutions of higher education. The reform required the establishment of a departmental system modeled along North American lines, having as its smallest unit the academic department, which is directly responsible for teaching, research and extension. The general goals of Brazilian universities, as stated in the General Law of the Reform are ”research, the development of the sciences, letters and arts, and professional education". An .essential structural requirement stated in the Law is that "teaching and research should be integrated", and that "the university will have scientific, disciplinary, administrative and financial autonomy" (Law Number 5540, 1968). Departments All faculty members and courses are related to a specific academic department, which is primarily an administrative unit. Each department is administered by a chairperson and a committee with a maximum of eleven members, elected by the members of the department for a two-year term. Committee members and the department head (who are always faculty members of the department) may be reelected for one additional term. Faculty Faculty members are heterogeneous in such characteristics as rank, nature of their contract and qualifications. The qualifi- cations, i.e., holding an advanced degree or not, determine whether they will teach only undergraduate courses, or will be permitted to teach graduate courses as well. Faculty are selected by the department, but are hired as federal employees by the university. .Administrators At the central administrative level, UFRGS is administered by (a) the rector, or university president, who is a faculty member, chosen by the national president from a list of six candidates submitted by the university council; (b) a vice-rector, chosen in the same manner; (c) six pro-rectors, indicated by the rector, and responsible for the areas 'of undergraduate education, graduate education and research, administration and finances, extension and continuing education, student affairs and planning. (d) council for teaching and research, composed of representatives of each program and representatives of the students, (e) university council, composed of the 23 deans of colleges and institutes, plus representatives of each faculty rank cohort, i.e., full, associate, assistant professors and teacher assistants, as well as of the students. Graduate Programs Graduate programs are directed by a coordinator and a committee of three to five faculty members who are responsible for the administration of the program. For the purpose of this study, the following groups were classified as administrators: deans of colleges and institutes, chairpersons, coordinators of undergraduate and graduate programs and members of the committees for the coordination of graduate programs. Objectives and Hypotheses Objectives of the Study As a consequence of the problem stated in the present chapter and the review of the literature presented in the following one, the current study was designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. Describe the characteristics of different prdgrams within a major Brazilian university in terms of sociotechnical theory. Appraise differences in perception of faculty and ad- ministrators within various programs, with regard to the existing state of affairs and the most appropriate state of affairs, related to primary tasks and roles. Appraise the perceptions of faculty and administrators within the various programs wih respect to structure, level of trust and loyalty. Test a model derived from sociotechnical theory for the analysis of university characteristics, predicting differences in program effectiveness. To develop instruments for measuring the variables identified in objectives one through four above, and conduct a pilot study in a single university to evaluate the reliability and validity of items and scales included in the questionnaires. Research Hypotheses The theoretical model constructed to serve as a basis for this study considers level of compatibility among different organiza- tional aspects as a factor to be stressed in studies of effec- tiveness. The conceptualization of effectiveness of universities presumes that one indicator of compatibility is the level of agreement between perceptions of actual and ideal tasks and roles. The first five hypotheses were formulated on the basis of this premise as follows: 1. Ho There are no differences in perception between faculty and administrators with regard to the following: 1. primary tasks, both operative (actual) and expected (ideal); 2. social system, i.e. actual and ideal roles; 3. actual and ideal task and role; 4. trust and loyalty vis-a-vis the organization; 5 . technological system and organizational structure. There are no differences in perception among university staff members with different qualifications in regard to the following: 1. primary tasks, both operative (actual) and expected (ideal ; 2. social system, i.e. actual and ideal roles; 3. actual and ideal task and role; 4. trust and loyalty vis-a-vis the organization; 10 5. technological system and organizational structure. Ho There are no differences in percpetion among university , staff members with different work contracts in regard to the following: 1. primary tasks, both operative (actual) and expected (ideal); 2. social system, i.e. actual and ideal roles; 3. actual and ideal task and role; 4. trust and loyalty vis-a-vis the organization; 5. technological system and organizational structure. There are no differences in perception among university staff members of different academic rank with regard to the following: 1. primer tasks, both operative (actual) and expected (ideali; ' 2. social system, i.e. actual and ideal roles; 3. trust and loyalty vis-a-vis the organization; 4. actual and ideal task and role; 5 . technological system and organizational structure. There are no differences among programs in terms of the perception of their faculty with regard to the following: 1. primary tasks, both operative (actual) and expected (ideal); 2. social system, i.e. actual and ideal roles; ll 3. trust and loyalty vis-a-vis the organization; 4. actual and ideal task and role; 5. technological system and organizational structure. The sixth hypothesis refers to the external adaptation domain. Differences in the relevance of the academic programs for profes- sional performance were examined in relation to different organi- zational objects of this research: 6. H 0 There are no differences among programs with respect to relevance of the program as perceived by graduates. The seventh hypothesis deals with the primary principle of sociotechnical theory (i.e., the congruence or compatibility among the various organizational subsystems and effectiveness) and the elements of the construct of effectiveness used in this study. This hypothesis refers to the test of the theoretical model: 7. H 0 There is no significant correlation between primary task, social and technological systems on the one hand, and the level of effectiveness (i.e., productivity, satisfaction and impact), given programs as the unit of analysis. 12 SUmmary The present study is primarily concerned with the development of instruments based on sociotechnical systems theory to study universities in aspects related to organizational effectiveness. The general purpose is to mark the characteristics of a single university in sociotechnical terms in an attempt to describe relationships among key organizational dimensions and identify their joint influence on effectiveness. The problem under study may be summarized by the questions: (a) To what extent does compatibility among key dimensions of a university, i.e. its social, technological and task systems and structure, as perceived by faculty and administrators, influence organizational effectiveness of a university? (b) To what extent is a model based on sociotechnical theory and the derived scales adequate instruments to study organizational effectiveness of universities? The long-term objective of the study is to build a model for organizational analysis of universities which might be used as a basis for improving organizational effectiveness of higher education organizations. 12 SUmmary The present study is primarily concerned with the development of instruments based on sociotechnical systems theory to study universities in aspects related to organizational effectiveness. The general purpose is to mark the characteristics of a single university in sociotechnical terms in an attempt to describe relationships among key organizational dimensions and identify their joint influence on effectiveness. The problem under study may be summarized by the questions: (a) To what extent does compatibility among key dimensions of a university, i.e. its social, technological and task systems and structure, as perceived by faculty and administrators, influence organizational effectiveness of a university? (b) To what extent is a model based on sociotechnical theory and the derived scales adequate instruments to study organizational effectiveness of universities? The long-term objective of the study is to build a model for organizational analysis of universities which might be used as a basis for improving organizational effectiveness of higher education organizations. Chapter II SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Three quite different but compatible theoretical orientations provide the basis for the present study. Sociotechnical theory provides a frame of reference for describing and analyzing events in organizations; organizational effectiveness theory provides basic models for the evaluation of programs: and theory and research in higher education provide organizational and structural models in the specific domain of interest of this study. Soc i otechn I cal Systems Theory Sociotechnical systems theory is a theoretical frame of reference developed originally at the Tavistock Institute in London (Cherns, 1976; Emery a Trist, 1965; Miller, 1975; Miller & Rice, 1967; Rice, 1958; Trist, 1951). This theory has promoted a shift from looking at enterprises primarily as closed systems to looking at them as open, sociotechnical systems (Trist, 1978). Sociotechnical systems theorists view organizations as open and living systems much like a biological cell, i.e., engaged in 13 14 active transactions with its environment (Pasmore & Sherwood, 1978). The theory describes the complex relationships which occur among people, tasks and technologies within organizations, emphasizing the importance of compatibility among these elements and its relation to organizational effectiveness. According to sociotechnical theory, all organizations are sociotechnical systems which develop interrelationships between social and technological sub-systems, at any level, be it individual, 'group, larger internal units or the enterprise as a whole. This relationship is the basis of the central princple of sociotechnical theory, i.e., the principle of joint optimization which states that organizational objectives are best met by the joint optimization of the technical and the social systems of any organization (Cherns, 1976). Therefore, a primary objective of the sociotechnical approach is to optimize the relationship between the social or human systems and the technological systems of the organization to produce the expected and relevant outputs. The assumption is that when these systems are arranged optimally, outputs are higher, employee's needs are better satisfied, and the organization remains adaptable to change. Sociotechnical systems theory also provides a frame of reference for organizational development that typically involves restructuring of work methods, rearrangement of technology and 15 the redesign of organizational social structures. In the present study, however, the theory serves primarily as a frame of reference for the generation of hypotheses, the collection of data and for the analysis and explanation of results. In this connection, four key variables have been drawn from the theory: (a) primary task, (b) social system, (c) technological system, and (d) level of compatibility. Primary Task Primary task is defined as the task that an organization must perform in order to survive. This concept developed by Rice (1958, 1963) is basic to the analysis of organizations in the sense that it determines the dominant import-conversion-export system. It also is the basis to specify the resources required, and thus determines priorities of constituent systems. The concept of primary task is similar to the concept of mission as stated by Selznick (1957). Selznick points out that an appropriately defined organizational mission offers stability and direction to an enterprise, protecting it from adventurism and costly drifting. The two concepts, mission and primary task, are complementary. Mission is the overall objective. It includes all the tasks that are essential for organizational survival. Primary task is more specific. This more limited concept of primary task'is more 16 useful for organization model building (Rice, 1963), as well as for organizational analysis. The' concept of primary task is related to a theory of organization that treats any organization as an open system, that is, a system in which continuous exchange of materials, with the environment is vital (Rice, 1963). Considering the concept of primary task and its relation to the open system theory, an important criterion emerges. The 'product' of an organization must be adequate, i.e., has to satisfy the needs and expectations of other organizations. Thus, an organization is a system which ”produces" an identifiable something which can be utilized in some way by other systems, the output of an organization is an input for some other system (Parsons, 1960). In other words, the primary task performed by an organization has to be relevant. The primary task is not a normative concept. In reality, every institutions at any given time has one or more tasks which are the primary tasks, in the sense that they are the reasons that it exists. One implication of this is that there may be conflict between the way in which a constituent system defines its primary task and the way in which the subordinate systems define it. Similarly, the environmental definitions of the primary task of an enterprise may differ from and impose constraints on its own definition (Miller 5 Rice, 1967). 17 In sociotechnical theory, the role of the primary task is emphasized as necessary to the assignment of roles and responsibilities and to the control process. Rice (1970) states that the most appropriate organization is one that best fits the primary task performance. In summary, sociotechnical theorists emphasize the essentiality of primary task clarification, organi- zational design and effectiveness. MUitipie Task Organization. Many institutions are created to carry out several different tasks at the same time. Universities and prisons are examples of public institutions with several different primary tasks. Inevitably, problems emerge from this situation, such as (a) diversity and conflict among goals, as in the case of the university (i.e., teaching, research, service): and (b) opposition of expected results, as in the case of a prison (i.e., punishment, rehabilitation, confinement). Different organizational arrangement may be required to perform these alternative tasks. For example, rehabilitation requires an open prison, whereas confinement, by definition, needs a closed prison (Rice, 1963). Inability to define the primary task either because there is in reality more than one, or because the one that exists is denied, results in confusion within the organization. The import-con- 18 version-export process is directly affected, the control system is nebulous, and organizational performance is uncertain. Rice (1970) suggests that if the primary task determines the type of import-conversion-export process and the control system, an organization with multiple tasks requires multiple organizations to be effective. This is true in the case of a university, which is a multiple-task organization, and therefore, needs more than one organizational model to be effective. Each task, though interdependent with other tasks, requires its own characteristic organization. In this manner, graduate and undergraduate teaching require structural differentiation, as do basic and applied research and consulting or extension services. As a consequence, a differentiated management system is required to control, coordinate and service the activities of these systems, as in any enterprise where there is more than one operating system (Rice, 1970). It follows that each part requires a special organization and that the organization of the whole will be constrained by the need to integrate the organization of its parts. 19 The Primary Task of Universities. Organization is a means to an end, and the most appropriate organization is the one that best fits primary task performance (Rice, 1970). In the case of a university, at least two different primary tasks and two major sub-systems can be identified. One is concerned with research, i.e., the discovery or generation of knowledge and the solution to problems. The other is concerned with teaching, i.e., the dissemination of knowledge. Each of these sub-systems has a characteristic throughput that differentiates it from the other. Furthermore, each has sub-sub-systems with characteristic throughputs that differentiate one sub-sub-system from another (Rice, 1970). Examining the primary task of a university as viewed above, at least five sub-tasks are apparent: (a) undergraduate teaching, (b) graduate teaching, (c) community teaching, i.e., extension courses, (d) basic research, and (e) applied research. Another subsystem may be considered, namely that of service, i.e., different kinds of projects for other community organizations. Because all these subsystems are part of one complex organization, as Rice (1970) suggests, there must be as many model organizations as there are primary tasks with their differentiated inputs, throughputs, and control systems. Another point which should be stressed is that a specific task 20 requires (a) specific skills of the role incumbents, (b) appropriate organization, and (c) a congruent culture, in order to achieve the expected results. In the present study, the primary task of the university will be considered (from two different perspectives: (a) the expected or ideal primary task, as perceived by faculty and administrators, and (b) the operative or actual primary task, as perceived by faculty and administrators (Cohen & March, 1974; Etzioni, 1964; Katz a Kahn, 1978: Perrow, 1961; Zey-Ferrel, 1979). Social System In order to achieve the primary task, any organization requires a technological system, i.e., methods, techniques, machinery, equipment to process the inputs and convert them into ”products". Thus, the technological system is essential to the import-conver- sion-export processes, which are the raison d’etre of any entity. But, organizations also include a social system which consists primarily of: (a) roles, as defined by the organization and as perceived by its members, (b) the characteristics, expectations, and skills of the role incumbents, and (c) sentience, i.e., commitment, trust and loyalty of individuals to the organization. These components of the social system and their interrelation- ships will inevitably influence organizational effectiveness. 21 Activities and R0195. Although there are different theoretical perspectives about the social system (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1970), it is generally agreed that one major element in the social system is roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Any organization has its roles defined, formally or informally, for its various members. Conversely, individuals as members within organizations have expectations about the roles they and others perform. Complementary to role definition and expectations, one must consider the personal characterisitcs and sentience of role incumbents (i.e., the skills, qualifications, motivation, needs, and level of committment to the organization on the part of those filling a given role). Social roles are commonly defined as a set of expectations oriented toward people who occupy a certain position in a social system or group (Gouldner, 1957; 1958). There are, therefore, two dimensions to be considered in relation to roles, (a) the definition of the expectations for a certain position, and (b) the perception of these expectations by the organizational members. Individuals acquire membership in one or more formal and informal groups within the organization and perhaps outside the organi- zation by virtue of their role performance. Miller & Rice (1967) 22 have used the term role to refer to the activities that the individual contributes to a particular activity system and to the interrelations involved in carrying out those activities. .Merton (1957) uses the term role-set to refer to the complement of role relationships which persons have by virtue of occupying a particular social status. The organization assigns activities to roles and roles to indi- viduals and groups, but the organization cannot always prede- termine the consequential role-sets. These are, nevertheless, highly relevant to the effectiveness of the organization (Miller & Rice, 1967). Two other organizational aspects emerge as a result of role expectations, and assignments to roles: (a) the necessity to establish boundaries, and (b) boundary control. Miller & Rice (1967, p. 41) state that mannagement of an enterprise requires four kinds of boundary control: 1. regulation of task-system boundaries (i.e., regulation of the enterprise as a whole, as an import-con- version-export system, and regulation of constituent system of activity: 2. regulation of sentient-group boundaries, i.e., the . boundaries of the grouping to which people belong either directly through their roles in systems of activity, or indirectly through their role-sets; 3. regulation of organizational boundaries where these do not'coincide with task-system boundaries: 23 4. regulation of the relation between task, sentient, and organizational boundaries. The importance of boundary definition is stressed by Miller & Rice in the following terms: unless a boundary is adequately located, different people will draw it in different places and, hence, there will be confusion between inside and outside interpretation. In the individual, this confusion leads to breakdown; in the enterprise, to inefficiency and failure (1976, p. 42). Another crucial aspect to be considered in relation to role expectations and role performance refers to characteristics, skills and expectations of the role incumbent. Role Incumbents. If roles are defined as expectations oriented toward people, it is essential to consider the general conditions in which these people are to play the roles or to satisfy the expectations of the roles in question and to consider the attributes of the role incumbents. Any study which includes roles as elements of observation has to consider the following elements: 1. the necessary skills required by the role performance; 2. the specific characteristics of the role incumbents: 3. the actual skill of the role incumbents to perform their roles: 4. the expectations of the role incumbents toward the roles to be performed. Interpersonal factors are an essential aspect to be considered as well in the performance of roles in organizations. In 24 particular, the adequacy of performance will depend upon the level of sentience in relation to the organization. Sentience. By performing roles, individuals commit themselves either to the role and task to which they have been assigned or to the other members of their task systems. Individuals may indeed give greater loyalty to groups outside the enterprise than to the enterprise itself: to their union, their friends, to colleagues doing the same kind of work in other task systems, or to groups outside of the enterprise, such as their family, their religion, or political party. These memberships are relevant to the effectiveness of task performance, serving either to support or oppose it (Rice, 1970). Rice also notes that a successful project team invariably develops sentience, i.e., the members become committed to working together. Such committment can be a powerful reinforcer of task performance. Rice concludes that ”sentient systems, differentiated from operating systems, are essential to provide alternative identification and to maintain institutional rather than project commitment (1978, p. 31)“. From the analysis of the concept of sentience, two constituent elements emerge. The first one is tnust, which is expressed as an attitude of confidence and a feeling of competence toward the 25 administrators. The second one is loyalty (Rice, 1970), or orga- nizational identification (Baldridge, 1980). Either of these two concpets refer to the attitude of the individual in the process of socialization into the organization. In summary, sentience refers to the perception of the relevance of the activity of the group in relation to the needs and/or objectives of the individual. In other word, it relates to the attitude of, the individual toward the activity, the group, and the organization. Trust. Trust in institutions of higher education is defined by Baldridge et al. (1980) as a generalized attitude of confidence, or lack thereof, which faculty members hold toward their adminis- tration. As used by Gamson (1968), this concept refers to feelings which are expressed in terms of two key elements: bias and efficiency. Bias is expressed by faculty members essentially as a feeling that administrators may or may not ”be on their side". The second element of trust is expressed by the faculty's feeling that administrators are efficient, capable of making intelligent decisions, and act accordingly (Baldrige et al., 1980). Considering the process of trust formation on groups, Gibb (1964) presents a model which specifies dimensions of personal and group I 26 growth. These dimensions are expressed in terms of basic concerns that arise inevitably from all social interaction. The formation of trust refers to a concern with acceptance. It has to ‘do 'with acceptance of self and others, and consequent growth of confidence. This concern becomes differentiated into concerns about degrees of membership in the various groups of which the person is a part (Gibb, 1964, p. 280). Loyalty. The second dimension of sentience, loyalty, can be viewed and studied from different perspectives. There is loyalty to the group, to the organization, to the leader, to the task, to the profession. Gouldner (1957; 1958) discusses the professional's dilemma of split loyalties, i.e., loyalty to the profession or to the organization, to the activity system or to the group. In this study, loyalty is measured in reference to the group and to the organization. The concept of sentience can be viewed by sociotechnical theorists, therefore, as having theoretical similarity to the concept of morale, as used in other fields of study, especially in terms of their component dimensions. This study, refering to social systems, is concerned with perceptions of faculty and administrators about which are the required roles by the administrators, and which are the expected 27 roles by faulty. Difference scores were used as a measure of discrepancy and dissatisfaction with the present situation. Also, as elements of social systems, the research considers trust in the administration and loyalty to the organization. Two Lickert-type scales were designed to measure these aspects. Technological System All kinds of enterprise or organization use certain procedures, with the aid of mechanical devises or not, to produce their desired results. Although this conversion process is common to any kind of organization, it is still quite difficult to isolate for the purposes of empirical research an organizations's technology and measure it. Sociotechnical systems theory emphasizes the importance of the technological sub-system and its compatibility with the social sub-system. The primary principle of this theory, as mentioned before, refers to the influence of the level of compatibility which exists between these two sub-systems on the effectiveness of the organizatiion. Although the importance of technology is inherent in any kind of organization, many problems still exist concerning this construct and consequently with its measurement, especially for higher education organizations. ..e iO" .D.’ '~ 11.. ‘II‘ .3-0.’ a “CA"- 9 luau" .Ie..: ~ifl' ‘ "“- 'VI.‘. 0.. .. w. " 28 Technological Construct. Technology can be defined in very broad or in narrow terms. Studies reporting difficulty in defining the construct of technology emphasize the multidimensionality of the concept -(Hrebiniak, 1974; Lynch, 1974; Mohr, 1971). The narrowest definition encompasses machine technology, i.e., ”the mechanical means for replacing human effort and for producing goals and services” (Kast a Rosenzweig, 1976, p. 181-2). Broader definitions of technology are based on the idea that technology represents knowledge about how work is accomplished (Cuddy, 1978), or represents the totality of methods and systems for improving efficiency (Ellul, 1964). Essentially, technology can be conceptualized as the means by which inputs are transformed into outputs on a predictable basis (Slocum & Sims, 1980). Perrow (1967) suggests a perspective to study organizations which assumes that (a) technology is an independent variable and that structure and goals are dependent variables (this perspective deals with the enterprise as a whole rather than in terms of specific processes of parts): (b) technology is the best basis for the comparison of organizations: and (c) the work done is a defining characterisitc of the organization. Perrow's concept of technology is sufficiently broad to permit the study and comparison of technologies of many different types of organizations (Lynch, 1974). Perrow defined organizational ' 29 technology as the actions that an individual performs upon an object, with or without the aid of tools or mechnical devices, in order to make some change in that object. The object or _'raw material' may be a living being, human or otherwise, a symbol or an inanimate object (1967, p. 195). Studies in technology have remained exploratory since the boundaries of the construct itself are still unclear (Hage & Aiken, 1969) and since there are so many organizational variables necessary for its measurement that discrimination of the most important ones is still not evident (Lynch, 1974). In summary, from the examination of definitions of technology, the following elements emerge: operations, which are found mostly in industrial organizations (Woodward, 1965); tools, instruments, machines and technical formulas (Dubin, 1968): transforma- tion pnooesses in which action, with or without tools, is performed upon an object (Perrow, 1967): and machines to trans- form inputs into outputs (Hunt, 1970). Different concepts of technology and, consequently, how it is studied or measured, make it extremely difficult to compare different studies. 30 Technology in EdUcation Organizations. In human educational service orgnizations, a distinction should be made between hardware definitions of technology, and more generic definitions, such as "a derivative or application of an underlying science” (Lumsdaine, 1964, p. 372). This definition is similar to those proposed by Hunt (1970), Ellul (1964), and Cuddy (1978). In this broader sense, technology refers to the systematic application of scientific principles, and possibly hardware, to some work or process. This concpet of technology is the one used in this study in considering the areas of teaching and research. Cempatibility. Sociotechnical theories affirm that organizational objectives are best met not by the optimization of the technical system and the adaptation of a social system to it, but by the joint optimization of technical and social aspects (Cherns, 1976, p. 63). The same author defines the principle of compatibility as the first principle of sociotechnical systems, that "the process of design must be compatible with its objectives” (p. 63). Compatibility, congruence and joint optimizations are emphases given by sociotechnical theorists which reflect the importance of the interrelationships among the different elements of the system. In this study, the level of compatibility is measured in terms of (a) the level of correlation or congruence within and between the different components, i.e., primary task, social system, technological system, and structure: (b) the level 31 of agreement in perceptions of these aspects as measured by difference scores. Organizational effectiveness is defined by the following indicators: (a) productivity (i.e., the quantity of outputs was measured by the percentage of graduates and index of publications); (b) participant-satisfaction (i.e., the extent to which faculty and administrators are satisfied with working conditions and student characteristics): (c) social impact (i.e.,. the reaction of graduates to the results of the organization, or the relevance of the program to their professional performance). Organ i zat i onai Effect i veness Organizational effectiveness has been a growing concern of researchers, administrators, and government officials in the recent decades. Studies show that different concepts of orgnization lead to a variety of definitions and approaches to organizational effectiveness and different criteria for its evaluation (Cameron, 1978). As a consequence of this variability, the assessment of organizational effectiveness is a very complex task. There are various decisions to be made in relation to diverse aspects of the study, such as (a) the approaches or models of effectivess to be used: (b) types and levels of measurement to be taken: (c) criteria to be used for empirical assessment: and (d) strategies for the research selected. 32 . Organizational Perspectives for the Study of Effectiveness An ~organization can be viewed essentially from three points of view. The first is the position that the only purpose of an organization is to ensure efficient task performance for the attainment of desired results. From this viewpoint, effective- ness is defined as the ability of an organization to achieve certain objectives. Compatible to this position, the following models to study effectiveness are identified: (a) the goal model which focuses on goals as a central theme in the concept of organizations and their effectiveness (Campbell, 1977; Etzioni, 1964; Georgopoulos & Tannenbaum, 1957; Price, 1972; Steers, 1975): and (b) the process model, with a focal point in the managerial process. In this model, effectiveness is viewed as synonymous with internal organizational health, efficiency and adequate internal processes and procdures (Argyris, 1964; Bennis, 1966: Likert, 1967). A second perspective, according to Miller & Rice (1967) considers that the primary task of any enterprise is to satisfy the needs of those who work in it. Related to this perspective is the par- ticipant-satisfaction model. Based on work by theorists such as Barnard (1938), Cyert & March (1963) and Friedlander & Pickel (1967), the participant-satisfaction model is suggested by Keeley (1978). The central idea of this approach is that organizational 33 success or effectiveness is relative to the interests of various participants. The basic assumption is that organizations exist ultimately for human benefit. The third perspective from which organizations may be defined and studied views the benefit of society and needs of client groups as the focus for conceptualization and study of effectiveness. Three models are consistent with this perspective: (a) the func- tional model in which on organization's effectiveness is deter- mined by the social consequences of its activities (Fremont, 1975 Merton, 1956; Parsons, 1960): (b) the ecological model suggested by Miles (1980), which assumes that effectiveness of organizations may be assessed in terms of their ability to minimally satisfy goals imposed upon them by their various constituencies and (c) the social justice model suggested by Keeley (1978), which emphasizes the satisfaction of interests of various participants as the indicators of organizational effec- tiveness. The approaches presented above represent only one classification scheme describing the various perspectives and models used in the past to study organizational effectiveness. A particular concep- tualization of organizational effectiveness is a function of either the values, interests and special interests of the researcher or of the nature, characteristics and processes of the 34 organization being studied. The particulars of this construct influence the approach, the methods and the data to be used in the study (Campbell, 1977). A broader definition of organizational effectiveness can be stated as the capacity for being effective or of producing effects. From this concept emerges the relationship of effec- tiveness to goals and obtained results and to the general characteristics and processes of an organization as well as to other organizations which are influenced by these effects. As a consequence of the present state of research and knowledge related to effectiveness, a study must have certain minimal attributes to be adequate. Goodman & Pennings (1977) include among the desired characteristics of studies of organizational effectiveness: 1. an explicit view of the organization; 2. a precise definition of effectiveness; 3. a domain in which the concept of effectiveness, i.e., the construct space, may be said to function; 4. the perspective of different groups, i.e., constituencies, that determine the type of criteria and the level of effectiveness desired; 5. a framework which defines determinants of organizational effectiveness. This problem is complex since the determinants are found at the individual, role, group, organizational and environmental levels. The framework must also separate the determinants of organizational effectiveness from the criteria of effectiveness; 35 6. adequate research strategies. The approach or model to be used will depend upon these variables. Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness. Many problems arise in the assessment of organizational effectiveness. The first, as mentioned, is the concept of effectiveness itself, or the con- struct used in the study. Cameron summarizes observations about the concept of effectiveness as In short, organizational effectiveness may be typified as being mutable (composed of different criteria in different life stages), comprehensive (including a multiplicity of dimensions), divergent (relating to different constituencies), transpositive (altering relevant criteria when different levels of analysis are used), and complex (having non-parsimonious relationships among dimensions) (1978, p. 604). Level of Measurement. The choice of criteria of organizational effectiveness can be viewed as being on a suborganizational, organizational, and super- or extraorganizational level (Kahn, 1977). Effectiveness related to the attainment of goals can be examined at the individual, organizational and societal level. Effectiveness would be facilitated with the discovery of better means of integrating personal and societal goals with organiza» tional objectives. This does not mean that organizational and individual goal must be synonymous. In fact, individuals and organizations often 'exchange resources in order to meet their 36 respectives goals (Zey-Ferrel, 1979). The level of measurement is dependent upon the definition of effectiveness. If, e.g., a researcher defines effectiveness of an organization as the degree to 'which it is instrumental to its members in the achievement of their goals, the measurement will be at the individual and/or group level, rather than at the organizational level. Problems of Indicators. A decisive aspect in the study of effec- tiveness is the identification of indicators. Cameron (1978) defined four types of problems related to indicators: 1. the organizational aspects being considered; 2. the universality or specificity of the indicators; 3. the normative or descriptive characteristics of the indicators; 4. the static and dynamic qualities of the indicators. Several authors (Friedlander & Pickle, 1968; Georgopoulos L Tan- nenbaum, 1957) suggest that effective organizations have the same characteristics and can be studied by the same indicators. The characterisics or indicators of effectiveness are adaptability, sense of identity, absence of strain, and the capacity for reality testing. Others point out that organizations have different characteristics, goals and constituencies, and that each organization (or type of organization) requires a unique set of effectiveness indicators (Hall, 1972; Scott, 1977).// The researcher, in other words, must choose a level of specificity 37 for indicators, i.e., universial or specific (Cameron, 1978). A related problem refers to the use of derived or prescribed. indicators. The study of effectiveness can be approached deductively by stating the standards which the organization must meet to be effective, as suggested be Argyris (1962), Bennis (1966), Likert (1967) and McGregor (1960). An alternative approach in which organizational characteristics are described and inductively derived has been suggested by Price (1972), Steers (1977), and Webb (1974). Finally, the problem associated with the dynamic versus static nature of the variables studied should be mentioned. Alternative Strategies for Research. Identifying research strategies which can be carried out in the real world to investigate what independent variables actually distinguish between effective and ineffective organizations is an important issue. Campbell (1977) suggests that only two choices are available, (a) carefully done simulation studies, and (b) very intensive and very thorough case studies. In this context, a case study refers to a very intensive, longitudinal monitoring of each relevant variable in a specific organization, using a variety of observational and data collection techniques. Case studies can offer considerable potential for 'learning something fundamental about the interrelated facets of organizational 38 effectiveness. Measurement. Measurement and evaluation of organizational effec- tiveness is related to decision-making (Campbell, 1977). Results of effectiveness studies can influence different kinds of decisions made within organizations. They can be the bases for diagnosis, planning, comparisons, evaluation, organizational innovation, creation of knowledge about organizational phenomena, and about effectiveness and its determinants. The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of a Brazilian university, to appraise the perceptions of faculty members (and administrators regarding some indicators of effectiveness and their possible determinants, and, finally, to test a model a derived from sociotechnical theory for analyzing university organizations. The results may be used to help in the making of various kinds of decisions and for the generation of knowledge about organizational effectiveness and especially the effective- ness of universities. This study attempts to integrate the three organizational perspectives presented above and considers the characteristics of studies of organizational effectiveness suggested by Goodman & Pennings (1977). Related to these perspectives, this study considers that (a) to achieve certain results is a primary reason for an organization to exist; (b) not only the organization as 39 conceived and designed by its members is an instrument for the performance of various tasks to attain the expected results, but it also is an instrument by means of which diverse constituencies satisfy~ specific needs and achieve personal and professional objectives; and (c) the results of the efforts of an organization are an important input for other organizations in the social context. Relevance, in this case, is related to the benefits to society and needs of the client groups. Effectivness of higher education organizations, as defined before, consists in the present study of (a) productivity, (b) participant-satisfaction, and (c) social impact. In terms of domains, these indicators refer to (a) the academic domain (i.e, specific results, according to the nature of the organization that is an educational one): (b) the morale domain, especially as it relates to satisfaction; (c) the external adaptation domain, or the influence of the results on other organizations. Trying to initiate a study of organizational effectiveness of universities, faculty, administrators and graduates are the groups considered as informants. The author is aware that other groups should be considered in a more comprehensive study, such as students and other members of the university organization. The theoretical framework which gives support to this investiga- tion is sociotechnical systems theory which defines some deter- 40 minants of organizational effectiveness. Effect i veness of Un i versi t i es The purpose of universities can be stated as being (a) the promotion of human development through teaching (i.e., the dissemination of knowledge, development of personal and profes- sional skills, and of attitudes and values): (b) the creation of knowledge through research; (c) the discovery of solutions to social problems through projects and research. In other words, the basic responsibility of academic institutions are eucational and scholarly research (Blau, 1973). This specification of functions and responsabilities of the university is essential in providing bases for the examination of the issue of efectiveness in relation to universities. Few studies exist on the effectiveness of educational institutions, especially higher education institutions. In the last decade, some researchers have been concerned with effective- ness in higher education institutions from an organizational effectiveness standpoint (Cameron, 1978; 1981; Hartnett & Centra, 1977; Jauch & Glueck, 1975; Sadlask, 1978). 41 The Concept of Effectiveness Applied to Academic Organizations The concept of effectiveness has been studied and discussed over the past 50 years (Cameron, 1978), but this concept has been used in relation to educational organizations only for the last 10 years. Most of the existing literature about effects of organi- zations of higher education is concentrated on learning. Nehari & Bender (1978), e.g., conducted a study measuring the concpet of effectiveness related to outcomes of higher education. In this study, a conceptual model is presented based on the humanistic theory of education, using the learner's perception of meaning- fulness of the learning experience as a measure. They used inventories to measure content learning, personal learning and behavioral learning. Analyzing the results of studies such as these illustrate the way in which studies frequently concentrate on only one of the functions of organizations of higher education and/or academic departments, i.e., learning. Research, services and administra- tion as support systems are not examined. Jauch & Glueck (1976) conducted a study related to research using multiple measures both objectively and subjectively. The results showed that a simple count of publications (i.e., total number of publications) was the best objective measure of research performance of faculty and indirectly of effectiveness of academic departments in terms of research production. These authors suggest that new studies 42 be conducted that serve to better refine criteria as well as to establish a more adequate model of evaluating research and publication performance. Cameron (1978) conducted an empirical study that attempted to deal with several of the important problems related to organiza- tional effectiveness. In this study, nine dimensions of effec- tiveness were defined, as presented in Table 1. These dimensions were formulated through a primary study using interviews with individuals associated with a variety of institutions of higher education to insure that the indicators could be measured. The interviews were supplemented by questionnaires and the results of both were analyzed in terms of reliability and validity of the effectiveness indicators. A second study was designed to refine and improve the instruments in terms of their psychometric properties. Defining nine dimensions, the development of a network for the measurement of university effectiveness was initiated. It is suggested by Cameron that, by inductively deriving criteria, by focusing on organizational attributes rather than operationalized goals, and by carefully selecting sources and types of criteria to indicate effectiveness, important dimensions of effectiveness can be identified. Using the same instrument, Cameron (1981) studied some 41 institutions of higher education -in the United States. The analyses showed that four major domains of effectiveness exist for colleges and 43 Table 1 Dimensions and Criteria of Academic Effectiveness Dimension Criterion 1. Student education Degree of satisfaction of satisfation students with their educational experience. 2. Student academic Extent of academic attain- development ment, growth and progress. 3. Student career Extent of occupational deve- development lopment, emphasis, and opportunities provided. 4. Student personal Level of development in non- development academic, noncareer oriented areas. 5. Faculty and adminstrator Degree of satisfaction of employment satisfaction .faculty and administrators with job and employment at the institution. 6. Professional development Extent of professional attain- and quality of faculty ment and development of the faculty. 7. System openness and com- Degree of interaction with, munity interaction adaptation to the external envi- ronment and services. 8. Ability to acquire Extent of acquisition of resources resources from the external environment. 9. Organizational health Level of benevolence, vitality, viability in internal processes and practices. (adapted from Cameron, 1978, p. 614) universities from the standpoint of the internal dominant coalition - an academic domain, a morale domain, an extracurri- cular domain, and an external adaptation domain. The conclusion is that an institution can be effectives in one or more domains 44 and not in others. There is no doubt that results are being produced by educational and' other types of organizations. The critical problems are to identify what kinds of results and what organizational characteristics or variables are producing these results. It is probable that a more comprehensive framework is needed which contemplates a variety of organizational dimensions or variables that can affect organizational outcomes. This framework would serve to describe the situation and to provide the basis for inferences about effectiveness and some of its determinants. Framework for Studying Effectiveness of Universities To study effectiveness, a model is needed that will first specify multiple dimensions and their specific measures of effectiveness, and, second, be useful as a conceptual framework for comparative purposes. This model can be derived from systems theory require- ments which are related to the organization's internal and external environment. Cameron (1980) argues that none of the four models used to study effectiveness, i.e., the goal model, the systems resource model the process model, nor the strategic constituencies model, are appropriate for organizations such as colleges and universities, because of their anarchistic nature. Goodman (1979, apud Cameron, 1981) argues that different models of effectiveness are needed for different types of organizations 45 and that appropriate models may differ even among organizational subunits. Rice (1970) views the university as an open system and states that the university, like any other kind of organization, has a primary task, i.e., the task it must perform in order to survive, an import-conversion-export process, i.e., the process by which the primary task is performed, and a boundary which separates the system from its environment. Two models are presented below which demonstrate potential for use in studies about organizational effectiveness of universities. The Nbrmative Model. The present stage of development of knowledge and use of strategies to analysze effectiveness of organizations of higher education present many questions and uncertainties. As mentioned before, the use of a rational model of organizations that assumes a coherent and explicit set of collective goals toward which every action is directed and results are measured, is not the most realistic one or appropriate one for the study of higher education organizations. One alternative is to use a normative model (Mandelbaum, 1979), better suited to the characteristics of a contemporary university. According to this author, the model is appropriate for what he calls intelligent coalitions, defined by three 46 conditions: (a) a lack of the need to decide on a particular set of goals, but a willingness and ability to measure the outcomes of its actions along the dimensions considered relevant; (b) intelligent inquiry that goes beyond the assessment of the dynamics of 'production', i.e., a necessity to move toward the understanding of influences in all process that occur in organi- zations of higher education. and (c) the willingness and ability of the organization to alter the production process in order to achieve preferred results. In sum, by exercising these three conditions, a university can constitute an intelligent coalition and improve its level of effectiveness, by measuring results, evaluating the conditions for its achievement and providing for improvement of effective- ness in organizations of higher education. The Sociotechnical Systems Model. Social scientists at the Tavistock Institute conceptualized the organization as a sociotechnical system, emphasizing the integration of social and technological environment as the core aspect to be considered in a study of effectiveness. The use of this frame of reference in the study of the organization or to promote change and improvment requires: (a) understanding of the social processes that occur in organizations; (b) understanding of the technological processes used by the organization; (c) use of the open systems theory, as 47 no two organizations are exactly alike or are faced with the same environmental demands; and (d) understanding and use of mechanics of change for design and provision for continual adaptation of the. organization to new environmental demands (Pasmore & Sherwood, 1978). Sociotechnical theory is a frame of reference which can be used for organizational diagosis as well as to promote change. It views the organization as an open system and emphasizes the interrelationships, especially between the social and the techno- logical sub-systems as essential to effectiveness. Sociotechnical systems theory also provides a fram of reference for organizational development that typically involves restruc- turing of work methods, rearrangements of technology, and the the redesign of organizational social structures. This frame of reference integrates the open systems model and the so called normative model. The present study will attempt to use sociotechnical systems theory as the theoretical frame of reference to examine organizational aspects of a Brazilian university. Based on this theory, a model was structured and scales to measure the various variables were constructed. The model and the instruments were tested in this study. 48 A Mbdel to Study Effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness, as .was indicated earlier, may be studied from different points of reference. The model shown in Figure 1, which is based in sociotechnical theory, was employed to study organizational effectiveness of a Brazilian university. Figure l A Sociotechnical Framework for the Study of Organizational Effectiveness of Universities Primary Social task " + system 1 effectiveness $ A Structure Technological system In this model, effectiveness is viewed as a function of different organizational components, and of the level of compatibility among them. Effectiveness is conceptualized as the production of effects or results, expected or not, relevant to internal and 49 external constituencies and is measured by means of three indicators: (a) production, i.e., percentage of graduates and number of publications related to number of FTE (full time equivalent) engaged in research; (b) participant-satisfaction, i.e., the extent to which faculty and administrators perceive that individual professional needs are satisfied in the job situation; and (c) impact, i.e., the extent to which graduates perceive the results of education provided by the university as being adequate to professional perfermance. The overall effec- tiveness may be represented by a combined score on these three measures . COntributions to the Construct of Effectiveness As was mentioned ealier, there is no consensus on the concept of effectiveness or agreement concerning the definition of organiza- tional effectiveness. Campbell approaches this problem as follows: The meaning of organizational effectiveness is not a truth that is buried somewhere waiting to be discovered if only our concepts and data collection methods were good enough. As with theorists in general, a particular conceptualiza- tion of organizational effectiveness may be useful only for certain purposes. The usefulness of a particular formulation is a function of both the values of the user and the facts of organizational life (1977, p. 15). The conceptualization of organizational effectiveness used in the model presented in Figure 1 is based on the integration of vari- ous contributions (i.e., goal, participant-satisfaction, func- tional, social-justice and ecological models). Figure 2 50 illustrates the specific contribution of each of the models to the study. Figure 2 Contributions to the Construct of Organizational Effectiveness of Universities oal Focus on production - (on the task performed Participant— Focus on satisfaction satisfaction of internal constituencies Models Social justigel:=_Focus on internal and Ecological external constituencies Functional ———Focus on consequences for society 51 The Goal Mbdel. As discussed above, the goal model or goal approach focuses on the organization's ability to achive its goals (Etzioni, 1964; Parsons, 1960; Perrow, 1970: Simon, 1964). This approach uses the idea of official goals, i.e., general purposes of the organization as put forth in the charter, annual reports, public statements by key executives and other authoritative pronouncements as well as the concept of operative goals: designateld as] the ends sought through the actual opera- ting policies of the organization; they tell us what the organization is actually trying to do, regardless of what the official goals say are the aims (Perrow, 1961, p. 855). Despite criticism of the goal model, the concept of operative goal can be a useful one in the analysis of organizations, and contributes to a better understanding of them (Etzioni, 1960; Hall, 1972; Price, 1968; Steers, 1975).' \_E The present study uses a sociotechnical goal concept which stresses primary task, i.e., the task an institution or sub-institution must perform if it is to survive (Miller, 1963; Miller & Rice, 1967; Rice, 1970). This concept makes the construction and comparison of different organizational models possible, based on different definitions of the primary task (Miller 5 Rice, 1967). The present study proposes, in relation to primary task, (a) to describe perceptions of faculty and ad- ministrators about what the operative (i.e., required, actual) 52 and the expected (i.e., ideal) primary tasks are for different programs in the university, and (b) to identify the level of compatibility (i.e., relation) among primary task(s), social system(s) (i.e., roles and sentience), and technological system(s). The Participant-Satisfaction MOdel. The participant-satisfaction model is based on ideas presented by Barnard (1938), Cyert & March (1963) and Friedlander & Pickle (1967), and represents a relativistic notion of the organizational of effectiveness. The foCus of this approach as was already noted is that organizational effectiveness is relative to the interests of various organizational participants. Its basic assumption is that organizations exist for the benefit of human participants. The model constructed to support this study considers only certain organizational members as participants. The underlying assumption is that there is conflict between the expectations and needs of the organizational members and the expectations and needs of external constituencies. Each group views the organiza- tion from diverse perspectives and each expects different results. This fact is recognized as one limitation of the research. The present study deals with (a) satisfaction of internal members, i.e., faculty and administrators, in terms of their working conditions and goal attainments, and (b) perceptions of graduates in terms of the relevance of the program 53 for professional performance. It does not include students and members of other organizations. Other Models. The other three models, i.e., functional, social-justice and ecological, which serve as references for the study of organizational effectiveness, emphasize the importance of social consequences of organizational activities. These approaches are derived originally from Parsons, who stressed an orientation toward the attainment of social benefits as the primary defining characteristic of an organization, stating: An organization is a system which, in the attainment of its goals, ”produces" an identifiable something that can be utilized in some way by another system; that is, the output of the organization is, for some other system, an input (1960, p. 77). The ecological model (Miles, 1980) explicitely recognizes the roles of both external and internal constituencies in shaping goals, operations, and in the ultimate survival of the organiza- tion. From the ecological perspective, an organization must pursue the most adequate mix of goals to be effective. The appropriateness (i.e., the ability to satisfy external consti- tuencies) of a set of goals is considered an essential element of organizational effectiveness. In this same manner, the social-justice model (Keeley, 1978) stresses the satisfaction of needs and expectations of strategic constituencies. 54 The Construct of Effectiveness of Universities As a consequence of the various models presented above, three indicators are considered in this study as part of the effective- ness construct. These indicators are (a) production, (b) parti- cipant-satisfaction, and (c) social impact. This multiplicity of indicators is due to logical reasons related to the multidimen- sionality of the concept of effectiveness. Production. Various lines of inquiry have been developed in different studies of educational productivity. In technical terms, productivity is defined as the value of outputs relative to the value of inputs. The definition of productivity in the field of higher education depends on perceptions of the value of products and services. This definition is interpreted in a variety of ways as it relates to different decisions, policy issues and persons involved in higher education (Walhaus, 1975). Considering the wide range of products, such as student growth and development, community services, generation of knowledge and art forms, differences in perceptions of productivity are understandable (Gross & Grambsh, 1968; Micek & Walhaus, 1973). Walhaus identified three productivity constructs which can be used in studies of higher education organizations: 1. resource use (efficient use of resources) which refers to the production of the maximum output, given the ‘ inputs; focus is on products. 55 2. allocative efficiency, which relates to the possibility of output increasing by changing the input mix or by allocating resources differently; focus is on policy. 3. preference efficiency, which is concerned with the values of output for society; focus is on the mission of - the organization. To summarize, the conceptualization of productivity in higher education may be related to the quality of products, (given a set of inputs) to policy issues, and to missions and goals (related to their relevance to society). Like other service-oriented institutions, colleges and uni- versities have had difficulty in developing measures of effec- tiveness that could be used to justify the use of public and private resources and to make comparisons among organizations (Cameron, 1975). Besides the problem of conceptualization, and perhaps because of it, measurement of productivity in institutions of higher education is problematic in terms of availability of data and computational technique. The most widely used measures are the student/faculty ratio and cost per student or cost per student credit hour. Quality is generally ignored. Factors influencing these various ratios generally are not identified or measured. Another problem or deficiency to be pointed out is that the ratios mentioned relate only to teaching. Other activities, which play a significant role in universities, cannot be measured 56 and evaluated in terms of a single type of ratio. In addition to multiple outcomes, universities utilize a large number of resources (faculty, administrators, non-professional staff, classrooms, laboratories, supplies, etc.) These multiple resources also require multidimensional approaches, i.e., measures in order to more accurately reflect organizational productivity (Carlson, 1975). This study recognizes that outputs are not only related to in- puts, but are a function of organizational processes and numerous other factors such as characteristics of the entire educational environment. Given all these difficulties, the present research will not attempt to deal with the productivity in the broad sense discussed above, but will concentrate instead on a more limited aspect of productivity, i.e., production or quantity of outputs, related to some input. Satisfaction. Quality of life or life satisfaction is an under- standable, reasonable and legitimate goal for every human being (Sutermeister, 1976). Job satisfaction is part of this broad goal to achieve life satisfaction and some researchers have considered satisfaction as an indicator of organizational effec- tiveness (Cameron, 1978, 1981; Campbell, 1977; Friedlander & Pickle, 1968; Negandhi & Reimann, 1973). 57 The participant satisfaction model presented by Keeley (1978) stresses that organizational success or effectiveness is relative to the interests of various participants. The author contrasts the goal model with this model which holds that organizations are entities that exist not to pursue their own ends, but exist ultimately for human benefit. Consequently, organizational goals are important only insofar as their pursuit results in benefit to the participants. As participants the Keeley model includes both internal and external constituencies. The present study distinguishes between the term participant-sa- tisfaction, which refers exclusively to internal members of on organization (in the present case, faculty and administrators), and the term impact which refers to the consequences of organiza- tional actions or to the satisfaction (perception of results) by external constituencies, i.e, graduates of the university. This differentiation is needed because different constituencies may disagree over organizational effects. 58 Impact. Different frames of reference, such as the social-justice model, the ecological model, the functional model, have emphasized the relevance of organizational consequences or impact upon other organizations as a critical element in the study of organizational effectiveness. The concept of impact used in the present study uses these three models as references. The satis- faction of members of other organizations (i.eu, graduates of the university) is the indicator of this dimention of effectiveness. Chapter III METHOD This study describes some of the academic programs at a Brazilian university and attempts to explain differences among them in sociotechnical terms. The design is exploratory and develops methods and instruments to be employed in other studies about organizational effectiveness of universities. Population and Sample The~ Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) in Porto Alegre, R5 is the organization participating in this study. At UFRGS the academic fields are grouped in four fundamental areas, comprising 82 academic departments responsible for 45 undergraduate and 37 graduate programs (cf. Table 2). Of the latter, 32 are at the MA level, five at the PhD level. Faculty are principally connected with a department, yet participate in the course offerings of several programs. Programs are built around courses from different departments and are academically coordinated by a committee responsible for curriculum, quality control of teaching and learning, evaluation, and criteria for admission to the program. 59 60 Table 2 NUmber of Departments and Programs at UFRGS AREAS ------------------------------------------ TOTAL *Departments (1) (2) (3) (4) & Programs Departments 34 29 13 6 82 Undergraduate 20 7 8 10 45 Programs MA ProgramS' 13 15 3 l 32 PhD Programs 2 2 1_ - 5 *The areas are: (1) Basic Sciences and Technology (2) Biological Sciences (3) Philosophy and Social Sciences (4) Letters and Arts Source: UFRGS, PROPLAN, 1981. Several additional points need to be stressed regarding the situation presented in Table 2. First, while the basic, i.e., Natural Sciences and Technology constitute a single area at UFRGS, departments and programs were divided between two areas for the purpose of the present study. Second, some the the graduate programs do not have corresponding undergraduate pro- grams. This is especially true in the biological sciences, where there is one undergraduate program in human medicine, but five MA level programs in various medical specialties. Third, for a variety of reasons that have no direct bearing on this study, at 61 the time of the reform, certain programs were classified as belonging to the area of Technology, while they might better fit in the Social Sciences. One example of such a program is economics. Table 3 NUmber of Graduate Programs by Area A R E A S ------------------------------------------- TOTAL *Programs . (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) MA Level 3 6 15 7 1 32 ‘PhD Level 2 - 2 1 - 5 *The areas are: (1) Basic Sciences (2) Technology (3) Biological Sciences (4) Philosophy and Social Sciences (5) Letters and Arts Source: UFRGS, PROPLAN, 1981. Choice of Programs for the Study The first criterion in chosing a program for inclusion in the present study was that it offer 'both an undergraduate and graduate level program. Applying this criterion, sixteen ”multilevel" programs may be found at UFRGS, as indicated in Table 3. Of these, ten were randomly selected and included in 62 the present study (cf. Table 4 below). Table 4 Distribution of Programs at UFRGS Offering Graduate and Undergraduate Programs Basic Sciences MA *Mathematics PhD Geology *Physics Applied Sciences MA Administration *Agronomy -*Architecture *Engineering Biological Sciences MA Biology Dentistry *Medicine *Pharmacy ‘ PhD Cardiology Genetics Letters and Arts MA *Economics *Letters *Philosophy Sociology L Political Science PhD Education *Included in the present study 63 Respondents As indicated below, there are two levels of analysis, first by programs, and then by individual respondents. Program Level Subjects Tables 2 and 3 above presented the distribution of the departments and of the graduate programs at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Table 4 presents the distribution-of the programs that offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and furthermore indicates the distribution of the ten randomly selected programs included in the present research. Individual Respondents Two groups of respondents were studied, (a) faculty and adminis- trators associated with the programs indicated above, and (b) graduates of the programs. Faculty and Administrators. All administrators of the selected programs were considered in the survey, including deans of colleges, directors of institutes, coordinators of academic committees, graduate and undergraduate programs, as well as department heads. An equal number of faculty members were randomly selected from a sampling frame list of faculty members of each undergraduate and graduate program covered by the list of 64 programs indicated in Table 4. A total of 105 faculty and ad- ministrator responded, representing 50% of the sample selected. Characteristics of these respondents are presented in Table 5. Graduates of Programs. In order to study the effectiveness of the selected programs, graduates of these programs were interviewed regarding their perceptions of their programs. A simple random sample of individuals was selected from a list of organizations in the Greater Porto Alegre area employing graduates from UFRGS. The 71 respondents represent 70% of the sample selected. Characteristics of these respondents are presented in Table 6. 65 Instruments The Research Model Sociotechnical theory and the effectiveness models presented in the previous chapter provide the foundation for a research model used in this study to analyze a university in terms of its effec- tiveness. A more complete version of the preliminary model presented in Figure l is shown in Figure 3. Each of the five basic elements of the model, i.e., primary task, social system, technological system, structure, and effectiveness, as discussed above, will b addressed in the instruments utilized in the present research. Two questionnaires, one for faculty and admi- nistrators, and one for graduates of the university, were specially developed to collect the data for this study. Questionnaires for Faculty and Administrators A copy of the original questionnaire in Portuguese is presented in Appendix A (page 141), a translation in Appendix B (page 165). Part I of the questionnaire gathers background information about the respondent (cf. page 166 [1]), covering such information as position in the university, program affiliation, rank, type of contract, and qualification. 66 Figure 3 A Research Model for the Study of ' Organizational Effectiveness of Universities 4 External Interface 4 LTTQJT—‘Wim . i i «fag: ]-~ «aim ”