You are on page 1of 30

94

13

Studies on the Evaluation of Organizational Effectiveness for the Elderly Care Institutions in Taiwan
1

Lu, Fong-Tsu

123

94

13

Keywords: Organizational Effectiveness Institutions

Evaluation

The Elderly Care

Competing Values Approach

124

1970

criteria

organizational effectiveness

performance

125

94

13

indicator

Kanters and David, 1987

85

126

Goodman and Pennings, 1980

Zammuto 1982

frame of reference

Etzioni Katz & Kahn Pickle & Friedlander Seashore & Yuchtman Mott Steers Hannan & Freeman Zammuto Robbins Hall Scott

1964 1966 1967 1967 1972 1977 1977 1982 1990 1991 1992

127

94

13

Scott bases

1992

Scott, 1992: 343-348

128

Cameron and Whetten

1981 Cameron and Quinn

1983

Cummings

1977

Lawrence and Lorsch 1967

Scott

1992

129

94

13

Campbell

1977

, D Aunno, 1992

, D Aunno, 1992: 357

130

Robbins

1990

Hall

1991

Scott

1992

Goal-Attainment Approach Systems Approach Constituencies Approach Approach, CVA StrategicCompeting Values

Cameron and Whetten, 1983: 276

Goal-Attainment Approach

Perrow official goals

1961

operative goals

131

10

94

13

1990 Systems Resource Approach Systems Approach

Strategic-Constituencies Approach

dominant coalition

132

11

Quinn and Rohrbaugh Approach 1983 Competing Values

Hall

1991
F E

M C

Robbins, 1990 : 70

133

12

94

13

1994

Campbell

1977

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.


Campbell, 1977: 36-41

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

134

13

1.

flexibility

control

2.

people

organization

3.

means

ends

OFM OFE PCM PCE OCM OCE PFM PFE


Robbins, 1990: 71

135

14

94

13

Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983: 267

Quinn and Rohrbaugh

1983

136

15

Seashore and Yuchtman, 1967 Hall 1991

Hasenfeld, 1992

137

16

94

13

Cameron, 1978

Campbell, 1977 Pfeffer and Salancik Zammuto 1982 1978 Goodman and Pennings 1980

Zammuto 1982

niche

dimensions 1995

138

17

Szilagyi

1984

multiple constituencies

139

18

94

13

1.

flexibility

control

F C
2. people organization

P O
3. means ends

M E

1 _____ 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. _____ 4. _____ 5. _____ 6. _____ 7. _____ 8. _____ 9. _____ 10. _____ 11. _____ 12. _____ 13. _____ 14. _____ 15. _____ 16.
Quinn, 1988: 139

140

19

Quinn

1988

1.

OFM OFM OFE OFE


2.

PFM PFM PFE PFE


3.

PCM PCM PCE

141

20

94

13

PCE
4.

OCM OCM OCE OCE

Likert Scale 1 7 1 7

75.4% 55.6% 24 60.0%

52

15

24

142

21

29

0.05

15 5

143

22

94

13

Quinn

1988

144

23

145

24

94

13

146

25

147

26

94

13

148

27

1994 29-66 1990 1990

55

1995 43 2001

120

35-

Cameron, K. S. (1978).

Organizational Effectiveness in Institutions of Higher

Education. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, Vol.23, No.4, 604-632. Cameron, K. S. and Quinn, R. E. (1983). Organizational Life Cycles and

Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminiary Evidence. Management Science Vol.29, No.1, 33-51. Cameron, K. S. and Whetten, D. A. (1981). Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness over Organizational Life Cycles. Quarterly. Vol.26, 525-544. Cameron, K. S. and Whetten, D. A. (1983). One Model or Serveal Organizational Effectiveness: Administrative Science

in Cameron, K. S. and Whetten, D. A. (eds.)

149

28

94

13

Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press. 1-2. Campbell, J. P. (1977), On the Nature of Organizational Effectiveness. in

Goodman, P. S. and Pennings, J. M. (eds.) New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness. San-Francisco:Jossey-Bass. 13-55. Cummings, L. L. (1977). Emergence of the Instrumental Organization. in Goodman, P. S. and Pennings, J. M. (eds.) New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 56-62. D Aunno, T. (1992). The Effectiveness of Human Service Organizations: A in Hasenfeld, Y. (ed.) Human Service as

Comparison of Model.

Complex Organizations. Newbury Park:Sage Publications. 339-361. Goodman P. S., Pennings, J. M. and Associates (1980). Assessing Organizational Effectiveness. Critical Issues in

in Lawler, E. E. et al.,(eds.)

Organizational Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill. 185-215. Hall, R. H. (1991). Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hasenfeld, Y. (1992). Organizations. Theoretical Approaches to Human Service

in Y. Hasenfeld(ed.) Human Service as Complex

Organizattions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 24-44 Kanter, R. M. and Summers, D. V. (1987). Doing Well while Doing Good:

Dilemmas of Performance Measure in Nonprofit Organizations and the Need for a Multiple-Constituency Approach. in P. Walter (ed.) The

Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven:Yale University Press. 154-166. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967), Organization and Environment:

150

29

Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Perrow, C. (1961). The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations.

American Sociological Review, Vol.26, No.2, 194-208. Pickle, H. and Friedlander, F. (1967). Seven Societal Criteria of

Organizational Success. Personnel Psychology, Vol.20, 165-178. Quinn, R. E. (1988) Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance. San-Francisco: JosseyBass. Quinn, R. E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness

Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, Vol.29, 363-377. Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 3rd Ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Seashore, S. E. and Yuchtman, E. (1967). Factorial Analysis of

Organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.12, No4, 377-395. Szilagyi, A. D. (1984). Management and Performance. 2nd New Jersey: Scott Foresman and Co. Goodyear Publishing. Zammuto, R. F. (1982). Assessing Organizational Effectiveness. Albany: State University of New York Press.

151