IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness


  • Kim S. Cameron

    (Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)


Attention to the subject of organizational effectiveness has been increasing in the last several years as popular management books have extolled management excellence, almost two million jobs have been lost due to poor U.S. competitiveness, and economic conditions have put pressure on organizations to become more accountable with their resources. However, despite its popularity, much confusion continues in the organizational literature regarding the definition, circumscription, and appropriate criteria for assessing effectiveness. In this paper, I summarize what areas are becoming consensual among most writers on effectiveness, and I point out continuing areas of disagreement and conflict. The five statements summarizing consensual characteristics of effectiveness and the three statements summarizing areas of continuing conflict point out that agreement about effectiveness is mainly an agreement to disagree. Conflicts center mainly on the incompatibility and inappropriateness of commonly selected criteria. The main theme of the paper, however, is a discussion of an inherent, but largely ignored, characteristic of effectiveness in organizations---the paradoxical nature of effectiveness criteria. This discussion illustrates that the most effective organizations are also those characterized by paradoxes---i.e., contradictions, simultaneous opposites, and incompatibilities. Taking account of this characteristic helps explain one reason why so much confusion and disagreement continues to surround effectiveness, and it uncovers a new set of research questions that can guide future investigations. Some suggestions are provided for how research on paradoxes in effectiveness might be pursued in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim S. Cameron, 1986. "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 539-553, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:32:y:1986:i:5:p:539-553

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:inm:ormnsc:v:32:y:1986:i:5:p:539-553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.