IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v38y2001i2p173-200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managers’ Perceptions of Criteria of Organizational Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Eric J. Walton
  • Sarah Dawson

Abstract

This research explores managerial perceptions of organizational effectiveness and whether they have similarities with perceptions of academics, and with the competing values model of organizational effectiveness (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983). The results suggest that the same values organize the patterning of effectiveness criteria in a cohesion‐based solution for managers and academics. Yet, this cohesion model has inadequate explanatory power for managers’ perceptions and shows no relationship with either their experience or organizational preferences. In contrast, a conflict‐based solution provides adequate explanatory power for managers and relates to their experience and to organizational preferences. If managers play any part in influencing effectiveness in organizations, then incorporating their views into models of organizational effectiveness is therefore likely to improve our understanding of organizational functioning.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric J. Walton & Sarah Dawson, 2001. "Managers’ Perceptions of Criteria of Organizational Effectiveness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 173-200, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:38:y:2001:i:2:p:173-200
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00233
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6486.00233?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Behera, Rajat Kumar & Bala, Pradip Kumar & Rana, Nripendra P. & Kizgin, Hatice, 2022. "Cognitive computing based ethical principles for improving organisational reputation: A B2B digital marketing perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 685-701.
    2. Rita Di Mascio, 2016. "Firms’ adoption of self-service technology: how managerial beliefs shape co-production decisions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 79-97, June.
    3. Ikramul Hasan & M. Nazmul Islam, 2022. "Leadership instills organizational effectiveness: a viewpoint on business organizations," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Starbuck, William H. & Barnett, Michael L. & Baumard, Philippe, 2008. "Payoffs and pitfalls of strategic learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 7-21, April.
    5. A. Balduck & M. Buelens, 2008. "A Two-Level Competing Values Approach to Measure Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/510, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    6. Andersen, Jon Aarum, 2006. "Leadership, personality and effectiveness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 1078-1091, December.
    7. A.P. Barsukov & N.V. Bukhov, 2019. "Development of Company’s Management Framework on the Basis of Value Chain," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(Special 1), pages 101-114.
    8. Cristiana Parisi, 2013. "The impact of organisational alignment on the effectiveness of firms’ sustainability strategic performance measurement systems: an empirical analysis," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(1), pages 71-97, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:38:y:2001:i:2:p:173-200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.