Advertisement

Critical Reflections on the Past, Present and Future Development of Organisational Evaluation

  • Amanda Gregory

Abstract

This paper is about the pattern of development of organisational evaluation. Following a review of Bruscaglioni’s theory of the development of organisational theory (1982), the question is posed ‘what does all this imply for evaluation theory?’. It will be argued that evaluation has progressed from the ‘isolation of approaches stage,’ during which the goal, system-resource and multi-actor were each seen to be, at different times, the ‘best’ model of evaluation, to the ‘mechanical complementarism’ stage. Use will be made of Flood and Jackson’s Total Systems Intervention (TSI) (1991 (a)) as a mechanical approach which might be relevant in the evaluation context. Finally, an assessment will be made of what the final stage of development, ‘the integration of approaches,’ might hold for evaluation theory and practice.

Keywords

Evaluation Theory Evaluation Methodology Goal Model Organizational Effectiveness System Methodology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bruscaglioni, M., 1982, Il comportamento organizzativo, in: “La Psicolgia Organizzativa,” M. Bruscaglioni and E. Spaltro, eds., Angeli, Milan.Google Scholar
  2. Deal, T., and Kennedy, A., 1982, “Corporate Cultures. The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,” Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
  3. Drucker, P.F., 1946, “Concept of the Corporation,” John Day, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Etzioni, A., 1960, Two approaches to organizational analysis: a critique and a suggestion, Administrative Science Quarterly. 5: 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flood, R.L., and Jackson, M.C., 1991 (a), “Creative Problem Solving. Total Systems Intervention,” John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. Flood, R.L., and Jackson, M.C., 1991(b), Total systems intervention: a practical face to critical systems thinking, in: “Critical Systems Thinking. Directed Readings,” R.L. Flood and M.C. Jackson, eds., John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 321–337.Google Scholar
  7. Francescato, D., 1992, A multidimensional perspective of organizational change, Systems Practice. 5(2): 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedlander, F., and Pickle, H., 1967, Components of effectiveness in small organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly. 18: 291–310.Google Scholar
  9. Georgopoulos, B.S., and Tannenbaum, A.S., 1969, A study of organizational effectiveness, in: “Readings on Modern Organizations,” A. Etzioni, ed., Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 80–88.Google Scholar
  10. Gregory, A.J., 1995, “Organisational Evaluation: A Complementarist Approach,” Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  11. Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S., 1989, “Fourth Generation Evaluation,” Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, M.C., 1987, New directions in management science, in: “New Directions in Management Science,” M.C. Jackson and P. Keys, eds., Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, M.C, and Keys, P., 1984, Toward a system of system methodologies, Journal of the Operation Research Society. 35: 473–486.Google Scholar
  14. Kanter, R.M., 1983, “The Change Masters,” Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  15. Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L., 1978, “The Social Psychology of Organizations,” 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  16. Meyer, M.W., and Associates, 1978, “Environments and Organizations,” Jossey-Bass Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  17. Pfeffer, J., 1977, Usefulness of the concept, in: “New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness”, P.S. Goodman, J.M. Pennings and Associates, eds., Jossey-Bass Publishers, London, pp. 132–145.Google Scholar
  18. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G., 1978, “The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependent Perspective,” Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Quinn, R.E., and Cameron, K., 1983, Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: some preliminary evidence, Management Science. 29(1): 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quinn, R.E., and Rohrbaugh, J., 1983, A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis, Management Science. 29(3): 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schneider, B., 1983, An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness, in: “Organizational Effectiveness. A Comparison of Multiple Methods,” K.S. Cameron and D.A. Whetton, eds., Academic Press, London, pp. 27–54.Google Scholar
  22. Seashore, S.E., 1983, A framework for an integrated model of organizational effectiveness, in: “Organizational Effectiveness. A Comparison of Multiple Methods,” K.S. Cameron and D.A. Whetton, eds., Academic Press, London, pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
  23. Seashore, S.E., and Yuchtman, E., 1967, Factorial analysis of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12: 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson, J.D., and McEwen, W.J., 1958, Organizational goals and environment: goal setting as an interaction process, American Sociological Review. 23: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weick, K.E., and Daft, R.L., 1983, The effectiveness of interpretation systems, in: “Organizational Effectiveness. A Comparison of Multiple Methods,” K.S. Cameron and D.A. Whetton, eds., Academic Press, London, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
  26. Zammuto, R.F., 1982, “Assessing Organizational Effectiveness: Systems Change, Adaptation, and Strategy,” State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda Gregory
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and Information SystemsUniversity of HumbersideHullUK

Personalised recommendations