EDO 810 Module 7 Organizational Effectiveness Example

Fast for Callers, Fair to Counties, Livable for Staff: Defining and Measuring Effectiveness at a Merged 911 Authority

Student Name

Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University

EDO 810: Organizational Theory

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Fast for Callers, Fair to Counties, Livable for Staff: Defining and Measuring Effectiveness at a Merged 911 Authority

Each month the board of Tri-County Emergency Communications receives one number: the share of 911 calls answered within fifteen seconds. Last quarter it was about 88%, against a widely cited national benchmark of 90%, and the board spent most of an hour on why it had slipped. The number matters; a caller in cardiac arrest cannot wait. But the same quarter saw eleven telecommunicators resign, a dispatch error that sent an ambulance to the wrong county and a complaint from rural residents that their calls were transferred more often than city callers' calls. None of this appeared in the board packet. This paper defines effectiveness for the authority and designs a way to measure it. Every name and figure in this case is fictional.

Why Effectiveness Is Contested

Organizational effectiveness has been one of the most debated concepts in organization theory, because there is no agreed answer to the question of effective for whom and by what standard. Goal-based approaches judge an organization by whether it meets its stated goals, but goals are often vague, multiple and in conflict. System resource approaches judge it by its ability to secure resources, but resources are a means, not an end. Process approaches judge it by its internal health, but a smoothly running organization can still fail its public.

Whose Criteria Count

Connolly et al. (1980) proposed a multiple constituency approach. They argued that an organization is judged by many constituencies, inside and outside it, each of which applies its own criteria based on its own interests. Rather than searching for a single correct measure, the analyst should identify the constituencies, the criteria each uses and how each rates the organization, accepting that the ratings may differ and that no one of them is the real effectiveness.

Organizing the Measures

Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) asked researchers to sort effectiveness criteria by similarity and found that the criteria arranged themselves along three underlying dimensions: whether the focus was internal or external to the organization, whether the emphasis was on control or flexibility, and whether the criteria concerned means or ends. Combining the first two dimensions yielded four models of effectiveness, each with its own values. The human relations model values cohesion and staff development. The open system model values adaptability and external support. The rational goal model values planning and productivity. The internal process model values information management and stability. The models compete, because each emphasizes what another neglects.

A Twelve-Measure Scorecard

Tensions Among the Measures

Some measures will conflict. Raising the share of calls answered in fifteen seconds without new hires means more mandatory overtime, which worsens retention, which in turn makes speed harder to sustain. Spending more time verifying addresses improves accuracy but lengthens time to dispatch. Lowering cost per call can reduce the staff available for debriefs.

Cameron (1986) argued that such contradictions are not a sign of failure. Studying colleges and universities, he found that the most effective institutions were often those that displayed seemingly contradictory attributes at the same time, such as being both stable and adaptable, or both tightly controlled and loosely coupled, and that effectiveness itself could be understood as a paradox. Organizations that resolved the tension by choosing one side tended to become less effective over time, as the neglected quality eroded.

The lesson for the authority is that the board should not ask whether speed or staff wellbeing matters more. It should expect both, track both and look for ways to improve one without sacrificing the other, such as adding part-time telecommunicators for peak hours, which can raise speed and lower overtime together.

Using the Scorecard

The authority will report all twelve measures to the board each quarter on a single page, with the trend for each. Each year the board will choose two measures for focused improvement, at least one from a quadrant other than internal process. The first year's likely choices are two-year retention, where the authority is furthest from its own goal, and the rural transfer rate, where the gap between counties raises a question of fairness that the founding agencies have argued about since the merger. Showing the rural figure on the same page as the city figure is itself a change: it turns a complaint heard only at board meetings into a number that can be tracked and, over time, closed. Responder satisfaction will be surveyed for the first time this spring. Measures will be reviewed every two years with representatives of each constituency, in keeping with the multiple constituency view that the definition of effectiveness is itself something to be negotiated.

Conclusion

Effectiveness at the authority cannot be captured in one number. Connolly, Conlon and Deutsch show why each constituency's criteria count, Quinn and Rohrbaugh supply a model that keeps competing values in view, and Cameron shows that holding contradictory demands is a mark of effective organizations rather than a problem to be solved. A balanced scorecard of twelve measures gives the board a fuller and more honest picture of how well the authority serves the people who depend on it.

References

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539-553. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539

Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1980.4288727

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363