12th of October 2016

The Effectiveness of
Organizations and
Stakeholder
Perspectives
Connolly, Hickson, Keely, Pfeffer and
Zamutto

Maarten Roeterdink
Paul Lips
Thijs Oord
Nathan Buijs
Jarno van der Velde
Rosan Koekkoek
Jasmijn Kuipers
GROUP 13

1880128
1758545
1870564
1878395
1818651
1795473
1877097

Organi
zation
al
effecti
venes
s
perspe
ctives

Organization
is effective
when /if
[Definition]

Theoretical
grounds and
motivation

Strengths of
the
approach

Weakness
of the
approach

Common
and
different
issues,
compared
with other
perspectiv
es

Power

When the demand

of the most
powerful
members of the
dominant coalition
are satisfied, they
will support the
continuity of the
organization
(Zamutto, 1984).

To cope with
uncertainty,
organization have to
create certain parts
which are dealing
with this uncertainty,
whereby other parts
can work under
certain conditions
(Hickson, Hinings,
Lee, Schneck, &
Pennings, 1971).

Appropriate for
crossorganizational
study.

As the goals
outputs,
technologies
and markets of
organizations
change, for
each subunit,
the values for
the
interdependent
variables
changes. What
also changes is
the pattern of
the power
(Hickson,
Hinings, Lee,
Schneck, &
Pennings,
1971).

Common
issues:

Perspe
ctive

Based on the
resource dependence
model by Emerson
(as cited in Hickson et
al, 1971): actor A has
power over actor B
when she or he
controls recourses
that B values.

Relati
vistic
appro
ach

When several or
perhaps many
statements, each
reflecting the
evaluative criteria
applied by the
various
constituencies
involved to a
greater or lesser
degree with the
organization
(Connolly, Conlon,
& Deutsch, 1980).

The relativistic model

views the multiple
constituency
approach as an
empirical technique
for the collection of
information about
how well the entity is
performing or could
perform.
Connolly (1980) uses
two approaches:
Organizational Goals
Approaches and the
Systems Approaches.
The multiconstituency view is
based on the
assumption that
effectiveness can not
be measured by one
perspective
(Connolly, Conlon, &
Deutsch, 1980) .

An overall
judgement is
missing, when
effectiveness is
measured only
by the most
powerful
members of
the dominant
coalition
(Zamutto,
1984).
This approach is
assessed by
external entity,
everyone within
an organization
needs to have
subjectivity
when you
measure
effectiveness.
Thereby it
provides no
guidelines for
recommendatio
ns for the
managerial
actions
(Zamutto,
1984).

The main
problem of the
approach is
that it can be
true in
principle, but it
is useless in
practice
(Zamutto,
1984)
Also it grants
the most
biased
perspective
equal standing
with others and
so undermines
its own
impartiality
(Zamutto,
1984, p. 10).

both the
social-justice
as well as the
power
approach
have the
inability to
apply the
approach to
any
environment
(Zammuto,
1984,
Connolly,
1982).
Theoretically
there are an
infinite
number of
variations of
value
perspectives
about the
desired state
of social
arrangements
(Zammuto,
1984). Thus
there are also
an infinite
number of
effectiveness
models.
Especially the
social-justice
and power
approach
share the
problem that a
categorization
of people is
needed, which
is very
complex.
Different
issues:
The relativistic
approach sees
all

constituencies
as equal,
wherefore
none opinion
can be valued
more. This
results in both
an impossible
and
undesirable
judgement of
organisational
effectiveness
within the
company,
which is not
the case with
the socialjustice
approach.
Within the
social-justice
approach the
perspective is
focussed on
the least
advantaged
people which
can often be
less efficient
than the other
approaches.

Social
justice
appro
ach

Organization is
effective when/if:
all social values,
like self-respect
and income, are
distributed
equally over
everyone within
the organization.
The only
exception to this
is when an
unequal
distribution is to
everyones
advantage (Rawl,
1971). The least
advantaged
person is thereby
the effectiveness
standard of
organizational
performance
(Keeley, 1978,
House, 1980).

Theoretical grounds
and motivation: this
perspective is based
on non-utilitarianism,
meaning that actions
should benefit every
single person within
the group (Keeley,
1978). This means
that least advantaged
persons are
prioritized, even
when this means that
results in less overall
satisfaction (Rawls,
1971). Every person
has unique desires
whom should be
accomplished by
mutual cooperation in
an organization
(Rawl, 1971). The
goal approach
assume that
everyone has the
same desires, which
is often not correct
(Keeley, 1978). By
achieving individuals

Every person is
treated as
equally
important
within a
company.
Satisfaction
seems to be the
only common
denominator
that reflect the
diverse
interests of
organizational
participants
(Keeley, 1978,
p. 284).
This system is
stabilizing since
it reflects the
choice of free
and equal
persons in fair
circumstances
(Rawls, 1971).
This resuls in a
long run system

There are
ethical
implications to
this
perspective.
For example,
the least
advantaged
people are
often favoured
over the
biggest overall
advantage.
Favouring
disadvantaged
would prove to
be highly
insufficient in
certain
environment,
like in prisons
(Zammuto,
1984, Connolly,
1982).

Categorization
of people

goals, people are far

more motivated to
achieve a mutual
cooperation and a
successful operation
of the company.

equilibrium
(Keeley, 1978).
People are not
protecting
themselves
against worst
case scenarios,
wherefore they
are mutually
committed to
cooperate
(Rawls, 1971).

remains
problematic,
(Keeley,
1978, p. 289).

For the social

Justine model,
no implicit and
arbitrary
assumptions
are required to
set
effectiveness
goals, which is
the case in the
goal approach
(Keeley, 1978).
Social-justice
model manages
to balance
participants
interests in an
ethical fashion
(Keeley, 1978).

Evoluti
onary
perspe
ctive

Zammuto
mentioned that an
organization is
effective when the
choice of a value
perspective has to
be made within
the context of
constraints on
performance,
when using an
evolutionary
perspective.
Effective
performance is
seen as that
which relaxes the
constraints, it
allows an
organization to
satisfy changing
constituent
preferences over
time (Zammuto,
1984).

Organizational
effectiveness is an
external standard of
how well an
organization is
meeting the demands
of the various groups
and organizations
that are concerned
with its activity
(Pfeffer and Salancik,
1987, p. 10)
If we look at the view
of Zammuto the
question is not how
well organizations are
performing at any
given point in time,
but how far they are
able to adapt to the
dynamic
environment. So, not
of how to becoming
effective rather than
being effective
(Zammuto, 1984)

The
effectiveness of
a company can
grow, because
the efficiency
involves by
doing it better
than it already
does (Pfeffer
and Salancik,
1987). By an
ever-changing
environment it
helps that the
possibility of
adaptability is
high for an
organization
(Zammuto,
1984).

Because no
organization is
self-contained
the
independence
of the
environment is
high (Pfeffer
and Salancik,
1987). The
effectiveness is
hard to
measure,
because it is
specific
focused on the
short run
effectiveness.
Another reason
is the everchanging
environment
(Zammuto,
1984)

References
Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational Effectiveness: A
Multiple-Constituency Approach. The Academy of Management Review , 5 (2),
211-217.
Emerson, R. E. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological
Review , 27, 31-41.
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A
Strategic Constingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power. Administrative
Science Quarterly , 16 (2), 216-229.
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills .
Keeley, M. (1978). A Social-Justice approach to Organizational Evaluation. Cornell
University .
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge .
Zamutto, R. F. (1984). A Comparison of Multiple Constituency Models of
Organizational Effectiveness. The Acedamy of Management Review , 9 (4), 606616.