This document discusses models of organizational life cycles and how criteria of effectiveness change over the stages of an organization's development. Nine models of organizational life cycles are reviewed that identify characteristics of organizations in different developmental stages. The models emphasize factors like cognitive orientations, structures, and environmental relations. A framework is proposed that integrates the nine models into four main stages and hypothesizes that certain models of effectiveness are important for evaluating organizations at different life cycle stages. Evidence from a case study is presented to support how criteria of effectiveness predictably change as organizations develop through their life cycles.

1. oRGANI;/,ATIoNAt-, L|FI]' CYCI,ES ANiD S[|II.1.|N(;i
C]RtT'E,RIA oF EI..t..t]Cl.IvENE,SS: S()ME
Ournn. Robcfl [;Kint, (-rnlcron
i:urnLr,rr',' ' t, nt' !tr,'le6) Jan lqXJ. 2q. l: PrilQ'rc r ( Ln r"l
p8.:ll
IANACEIENT SCIENCE
vol l9 N*o. l.Jlnu:ry 1983
P.iild in U.S.A
ORGANIZATIONAL I.II'IE CYCLES AND
SHIFTING CRITE:RI,A OF EI]FECTIVENESS:
SOME PRELI MI NAR'Y EVIDENCE*
ROBERT E. QUINN f ANr) X:lM CAMERONT
This paper discusses the rehtionship:i bct,Ncen slatgc of
tlcvclopmcnt in organiational lifc
.y"t",
"nd
organiational effcclitcness. 'c begin lhc paper bl revicrving
ninc modcls oI
organizational life c)cles thar have bcen proposed in lhc
litcraturc. Each of thcsc modcls
i6intifics certain characteristics that typifl organi;rations in
diffcrcnt stages of dc'clopmcnt. A

2. summrry model of lifc cyclc stagcs is derivcd that inte8ratcs
each of thcsc nine models'
Ncxt. a framcsorh of organizational cffcr;tilcrress devclopcd b1'
Quinn and Rohrbrugh is
introduced. This framcNork or3anizes crileri0 of cffer:lirener;s
into four models-rational
goal.
open slstcms. human rclations. and intcrnal Procsssts modcls.
Ne h1pothcsizc thar cerlrin
of
themodclsareimPortantincvaluatingthcefftcti'enessoforgani:ntio
nsinparticularlifc
c)cle stages bur not in others. The analysis of a stixlc agcnc)rs
Jclclopmcnl ovcr fitc ycrrs
provides some cvirlcnce to support thesc hlpothesizld
rclationships bctNcen lifc c)clc slilScs
and criteria of elfectileness.
Yc concludc that mrjor criteria 0[ ellectivcness changc irt
prcdictablc $r]s as or:lilniations
dcrelop rhrouSh rheir lifc clcles. some shLifts in stalc of
dcvcloprncnt rrc rcsislcd b)lhc
organiation much more than are olheE. ltld inlcncntion into
orginiations nral bc nccdcd
to-hclp mak" the transitions less painlul and costll' rc also
discuss Nhy thc prcdictions of
contingency theory oftcn rre not substintialcd b1'rcscrtch
bccuuse tlhc rcsPOnscs ol org:lnia-

3. tions to the cxternxl cnlironmeni vaD in dittcrcnt lifc clclc
strgcs'
(ORGANIZ.ATIONALEFFECTIVENESIi;ORCANIZATIONAI'
LIFECYCLES;OR-
GANTZATIONAL CHANGE)
l" httroduclion
A historical bias in rhe literature on olganizational analysis and
desiSn has been thc
tendenc), to generate studies rvhich focus on firatule rather than
nerv organizallions'
and thai are;xecuted with a cross-sectional ratlner than a
longitudinal perspective [18]'
As a result, we have learned little about the design and the
devclopment of ncN
organizations. Reccntly, horvever, a numbcr of 'riters have
suggested that the dr:sign,
deielopment and behavior of organizations can be predicted by
meatts of org|Lniza-
tional iire cycle models tll' tl0l, t111, tl6l, tl9l, t22l' [23]' [27]'
[3ll' [39]' These authors
suggest thai changes that occur iil organizations follorv a
predictable pattern that can
be-Jharacterized by {evelopmental sta8es. These stages are (l)
sequcntill in naturc, (2)
occur as a hierarchical progression that is not easily reverser:l,
and (3) involve a llroad

4. range of organizational activities and sllructures [19]. A variet-
y of bases; for describing
the-changing characteristics of organizations in different r;tages
have been uscd by
thesc rvriiers. They range from the cognitive orientations of
organizatign members to
organizarional structures and environmental relations. 1'he
consequence is thrt the
ttiiferent authors each have emphasiz:ed somewhat uniq're sels
of organizational
characteristics and life cycles modcls.
.Acccptcd by Arie Y. Lcrvin; received Novcmber 9. 1931.',this
prpcr has bccn $ith thc autlrors I month
for I revision.
tState Univcroit;' of Ncrv York. Albany
lNational Center for tligher Education Manag;emenl Syslems
and Unirersity of Colorado'
This papcr received honorable menlion in thc
rl98l
annual International Prizc Compctition sponsr:red by
the Coliege on Organiation of Thc tnstitute of Mrnagem(nt
Scisnces for tlre most originll ncrv contribution
ro the fie-ld of Orlaniational Analysis anr.l Dcsign. This vas
lhc highcst aNard Sranted in thc compctttton'
002s- 1909/8 l/2901 /0ol3s0l.2s
Cof!.ishl r l9lll.'Ihc In(tilulc(rf lhnrgcmcnl Scicnc$

5. Reproduced with pemission of the copyright owner F urth0r
reprodudion prchibited without permrssron
Unfortunarely, empirical research hal; not been lorthcoming to
validate these
various models of life cycle developmr:nt. Instead, rvriten; rvho
have considr:red
organizarional life cycles have focused orr either identifying
diifferent tlPe: ot. existing
orianizations tlll, i331, or on identifyinil sratic. characteristics
or organizations that
cx'ist in different strges tl6l. 13ll. Stinchcombe [37], Kimberly
[16], varr de ven [40]
and others argue that the eariy developrnent of or:ganizations
has profor:nd influence
on ,utrat theylubsequently become, yet little is knorvn about
characteristics of early
dcvelopmenLl ,tog.i, o. about the processes by rvhich
organizations progress from one
s(age to another. Given the fact that 54 percenI ol' a]l
businesses fail rvjithin one and
onJ-h"lf years, and thar rhe median age.f all firms is only seven
years, il lvould seem
that increascd understanding of the design and development of
new organizations
might be significant for both theoretical and prar:tical reasons
[18]'

6. 6u, pu.por., in this papcr, thereforc, are threefold' First, rve
revierv proposed life
cycles mo<iels to determine if common stages of development
can be identified among
rhcm. Second, we utrempt to identify the major criteria of
organizational effective ness
prescnt in each of the siages of devclopment. Because criteria of
effecti"'eness chilnge
bver time, <iifferent models of effectivcness (e.g., the goal
m'del, the system resource
model) have been found to be appropriate at certain times in
organizations, but n'ot at
other times t4l, t5l. It rvould appear tcr bc important, therefore,
to discover s;ome
prcdicrable .-t uni.i in crireria of organizational effectiveness,
so that dii ferent models
of effectiveness could bc applied at predictable times in an
organization's devr:lop-
ment.
The third purpose is to elaborate our integration of the literature
by presenting a
<lescription oi a developing organization in its early life cycle
stages. We focus on 'early
development of the organization because changes in life cycle
stages seem to occur
more iapidly in nerv organizations than in older, established
organizations [16].

7. 2. Models of Organizationrl t,ife Cycle Derelopntent
At least nine clifferent models of organizational life cycles have
been proposed, each
of rvhich emphasizes different factors to explain the changing
charracteristir:s of
organizations over time. Because they have been reported in
diverse literatures, a brief
rcvierv and contparison of the models is presented here' This
comparison forms the
basis for a framework that integrates these nine perspectiver;.
'fable I summarizes the
chrracteristics of each model as specificd by its authors, arrd
identifies the nlljor
factors upon rvhich each model is based. Each of the nine
models is or:ganized in the
table undcr a summary model consisting of four rnajor stages.
Dorns A'lotivation for Grott'th
In one of the carliest models, Dorvns il01 focused on the lille
cycles of government
bureaus. After dcscribing four different wayt in rvhich brureaus
afe born, Drowns
suggests that three main stages of grorvth and development are
€xPerirsnccd by these
organizafions. The first stage. struggle for autonomy, may occur
before formal birth or
just after. It is typified by attempts to obtain legitirnacy and
needed resources from the
environment to achieve a "survival threshold." The sec'rnd
stage, rapid growth,
inclu<les rapid expansion and emphasis on innovation and

8. ,creativity. lfhe final stage,
deceleration, is typified by an elaboration andl forntalization of
rules and procedures
and an emphasis on predictability and coordination. In brief,
Downs' model views
government organizations as moving from the r:stablishing of
legitimacl', to innorration
ancl expansion, and then to formalization and control-
Reoroduced with 0ermission of the copyright owneL Furthe
reproduction prolribited without permlssron
l*!E* I I I I *l llui* ] o:ls*iiiiiis
lii*iEll
I
*ill*i,l
I
l**l
|
**
I l,*:
#:i'sEill*l*llllll,ll
***il:l*Es::
l;l
*:'
lll,:* lil

9. O===<E>
=OCluJO
[GO= F.XU J-FU|!:<|-]EU
&
€
e
e-
?aFi.
=
E
:c
ReprodUcedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.FUrtherrl]p|od
uctionproh]|Jitedwitl]outp€,rm|SS|on
3:
;:,=t
3: r:o::!
i;'::
6 .":
,t:i.,
!ii::
!i:ii
!'
*

10. U'
-i
?a
F:'
o_:
Es
til
J-FUI:<F:O:U
ReDroduced with p€rmission of the copyright owner t urther
reprodLction profibited wlthoul
pernllsslon
:i
5!.
B:]; F
!l!;s!
E 5 t3:-:, *E
!1ls Pi i iii
; !i: !€ ; i.{
f ,j:i.: ao r 6
t, ... . "
;-3 ec

11. :g: E lggi s
;; ii:Ei "ui iE a :,e;EE 3;3sS 39:;...: :a:5
:e :;ilq ?:; €gi3 i'l;:s
lisl!;E -!l;Eei:E *;9iin
iFeEEl=s
#iE :!;ii: iSils;
9' ' " F" " ' I' "'
*
I
e-
?:F:-
.s
iic
ii , '€ ;!;;', i=! o:;-;
= !:3 -o!9e;9
i:;i EiEiI;g
iiEiii'iiiil;il
i
-:" "F!F;g f.i i
;:! :: !iiFz
!et;E: :e:!t
:;aE?a l::o:p9^de:,9 :;;;:!
:5::i:: Iai.tr E
!..... o....

12. vr>6
l. r
a
;;3 i
6€ea
!3:6
3. .
:oouJo rccr: FIU J-F-uE<F>E|!
Reproduced with p3rmission of ihe copyright owner' Further
reproduction prohibrted without
perrnrssion
.Lippitt and Schmidt:. Crilical Managerial ()otrcertts
Lippiu and schmidt [21] developed one of the earliest models of
life cycles
in the
privat. sector. Thr:y suggesi that corporari<lns progress through
three stages of 6e.veliop-
ment: (l) Uirth-creating an operating system and learning to
become viable; (2)
youthJeveloping stability and reputatic'n; and (3) maturity-
achieving. uniqueness
and adaptabiliiy niiong rvith domain expansion.'l'he model
specifies six major
manirge'

13. rial concerns ,uhich .hung" as the oiganization progresses from
stage to slage.
At
"birth," the critir:al .on..rn, ur. .r.ulli.'n of fhe system and
achieving a sun'ival
threshold. In..youth," rhe main concerns are stability and
earning a reputation' In
maturity, achieving uniqueness and responding to diverse
societal necds becorne
mirjor
concerns.
Scott I Slrdteg)' and Stntcture
Scott[31]baseshismodelofcorporatelifecyckdevelopmentontherv
or.kof
Chan6lei 1tl. Tn* modet identifies three distinct types of
corporate
forms that follorv a
historical..qu.n...Stagelorganizationsarccharacterizedbylittle<lrn
<lformal
srructure, a iingle product. and-personal control and
paternalistic rervar<ls'.Stage
2
organizarions aie c'haracterizcd by functional r;pecialization,
institutionalizecl
seaLrch'

14. unl in.,p.rronul rervard systems. Stagc 3l organizations have
multiple product lines,
divcrsified producr markeir, and orientattions trlrvard R and D'
grorvth' and adapta-
tion. In summarJr, Scotfs model suggests that finms progress
from informal
"one-rnan'
shorvs," to formilized bureaucracies, and then to diversified
conglomerates'
Greiner: Problents Leading to Evolution and Revolutiort
Another early private sector model of organizational
development lvas proposed by
Greincr tl4l. FIi; model suggests that organii:ations; evolvc
through
five sequerntial
.,rg.., .r.h-of Nhich is rollowea by a "rervolution".or a
transilional phase ari:;ing from
a iajor organizational problem. it i, only by solving the problcm
inherent in each
rlcvclopmcntal stage that the organization successfully
advances to a more mrature
stagc.
6rganizations advance out of the entrepreneurial and creat.ivity
stage
(stlge l) by

15. overc-oming crisis of leadership arising fiom the need to
rationalizc organizational
activities.
-progression
through stagc 1--grorvth through direction or rationrlized
leadership--is nlotivated by overcoming, a crisis of autonomy.
'I-his crisis urises from
the need to decentralize decisi<ln mal:ing. Sitage 3-grorvth
through delegation-'
encounters a crisis of control rvhen noninteSralled goals in
autonomous subunits begin
to emcrge. The organization overcornes this crisis iry rdvancing
to slagc
zl' -growth
through coordination (e.g., restructuring, formal planning,
pnoject teams)--until
an-
other-crisis, the crisis of-red fape, induces the organization to
move toward another
stage-grorvth through collaboration. Collabonation in Greiner's
model refers to ma-
t.iidesigns, spontaneity in managemenl, and increa:;ing
organLizational flexibilitl'. The
major crisis oi the fifth stage is iriformation overload and
psychological saturation' but
Greiner does not specify i resolution of that crisis in his model.

16. In bricf, Creiner's
modelmovesfromstagesemphasizingcreativi|'yandentreprcneursh
iptoforrmali;ration
and then to adaptability and flexibility.
Torberr: illenta,lity of Menbers
Torbert [39] proposed a moclel of developmernt based on
the individual "mentalities"
of organizational ntembers. Organizations progress through
stages as orglnizational
members become ,nor" .*p.riintially arvire of the causal factors
and dynarnics
operating in rhr: organization, and as ihey develop greater
caprcities for person:rl
and
Reproduced with permission of ihe copyright own€f Furth€rr
reproduction
prohibited without permlsislon
interpersonal effectiveness. Torbert does not specify the process
by rvhich organiza-
tiOns progress from one stage to another; rather, he specifies
successively higher levels
of organiltional functioning that organizations may attain. The
model moves from an
earfstage of inclividuality, informality, and dilifusion to group

17. unity and a sensr: of
collectiviiy. Thereafter, fi,ted rules and structure predominate
until renerval and
adaptabilitY occur.
Lyden: Functiottatr P roblenrs
Lyden [22], basing his model on Parsons'[28]l functional
problems of organizalions
(i.e., the eCit"
"toO"t),
suggests that organizations put primary emphasis on 'different
iunctional problerms at different stages in their development-
environmental adapta-
tion, resource acquisition, goal attainmelrt, and pattern
mainlenance. The first major
focus of nerv orgrinizations, according to Lyden., is adapting lo
and gcneratinll a-niche
in the external r:nvironmenl. This generally occurs through
innovation. (ln highly
routine and stable external environmenl.s, Lyden suggests that
goal attainment
may
come first, but fhat is rare.) Second, the organi;zation
emphasi:es resource acquisiition
and the development of rvorkflorv proccdures. Third, the

18. emphasis stvitche:; 1o
goal
attainment and- the efficient production of c'ulPut. Finally,
slage 4 organizations
..ptrutir" pattern maintenance and the institutionalization of
structurc. In general, the
pattern of ieysls,prnent moves from emphasis on innovation and
"niche gencration" to
stability and institutionalization.
Katz and Kahn: Organizational Struclure'
Katz and Kahn [15] base their model r:rn the
r"'laboration oi organizational sitructures
that develop over time, an<i they suggest that three m:rin stages
occur in orgarrizatrional
life cycles. The first stage is .ill.d o prhnitiw ,'steil stage rvhere
thc rudiments of a
froduction system are based on the cooperative
endeavon of organizational rnembcrs.
ihe ...ond ita';e, the stable organizatiin staget, focuses on
coordinalion and conlrol
behavior. An aurthority system;nd a m'aintenance system occur
in order t. regulale
organizational activitiis. An informal structure also arises
during this stage.
'Ihc third
an-d final stage mentioned by Katz ancl Kahn is the elaborolion

19. .of ilructure
rvherein
adaprive mechanisms are esrablishcd for dealirrg rvith the
external environment.
Atlizes : M ai or (l r gani za! ional A c t it il ies
Adizes' Il] model of organizational dervelopmcnt suggesls that
organizations develop
through stages lbecause oi changes in ermphases on four
activities-producing r'esults
(p), icting int.epreneurially (f ), administering formal rules and
procedures ("1 1, and
int.grurn! individuals into the organi:ration (/).
'I'his mc'del of organizrlional life
cy"[s i, t-he on,ly one that accoun(s for both maturing stages
and declini:ng stagcs.
S-imply put, the model suggests that organizations develop
through distinctiv,c
slagcs-
frorn iniancy to, maturity:and that thery decline in distinclive
stages---fromL maturity
to death-tleper:ding on the emphasis placcd ,on the four
different activities' Progres-
sion from oni stage to the next occurs primarily by overcoming
the ma.ior problems of
,u."...iu" stages.brganizations, accorcling to this model, begin

20. with an emLphasis on
entrepreneurial activiiy (E) that latcr becomes coupled rvith an
e mphaiss on
producing
resulis (P). Formalization, administratlive activities, and
rnte8ralion emphasesi tal(e
pr.ced.n.e as n:aturity is approached. organizationa.l decline
occurs primarilly be cause
of un o".r-.tphasis on stability, admirristration, and rules and
procedures'
Kin$erly; lntemal social control, slntcure oJ lvork, and
Eitn'ironntental Relations
Kimberly's [16] srudy of the creation and developrment
ofa medical school prr:vides
still another model of organizational ,rlevelopment. Kimberly
suggests that lhe first
Reoroducedwithpemissionofthecopyrightown€:'FUrtherreptocuct
ionprohibitedWlthoulperm|:;S|on'
identifiable stage in organizational development occurs before
the organization is
actually formed, It involves the marshalling of resources and
the formation oli an
ideology. This teads to a second stage $hich irrcludes selection
of a "prinre mover"'

21. hiringi staff, and establishing support from strfategic
constituencies.
'fhe third stage
involues the forrnation of an organizatiional irJentity, high
emotional and physicai
invesiment by orlganizational members, ancl a sense of high
rnember commitment and
cohesiveness as the primary mission or i.deology of the
orga.nization is pursrred- The
fourth stage, referred to as institutionalization. occurs rvhen
policies and rules become
more rigid, struc1ure becomes formalized. and the organizatign
becomes more conser-
vative anrl pledictable as it responds to cx(ernal environmental
prcssurcs.
Integration ol the illodels
Although these nine models are based on different
organiirational phenomena i[e.g.'
structure, individiual mentalities, functiolal problems), it is
notervorthy that all nine
suggest progress through similar life cycle stages. Each model
contains an entrcPreneur'
iol-trcg, (early innovation, niche formation, creativity). it
collectilitl' stage (high
cohcsiJn, commitment), a lornnli:ation and conrrol rrage
llstability and institution-
alization), and a. slrrrc/are

22. -elaborution
aud adaptatiotr stage (domain expansion and
decentralization). Thc summary model in Table I enumerates the
common organiza-
tional characteristics typical of each of thcse stages. liome oI
the authors divide these
four major stages into multiple sub-stllg€rs (e.g.,
Adizes'adolescent' prime, and mirture
organizitionat strges are all in the forr:nalization and control
stage); somc aulhors
igiore eithcr lhc lirsr or thc last stage (e.g., Katz and X.ahn do
not include the
entrcpreneurial stagc in thcir modcl); and Do,vns, [,yden.
,Adizes, and Kimberly do
not inclu<.le lhc fourth stage (elaboration o[ structure) in their
models. But as a group,
there seems to be some consensus in the models about the
characteristics of ccrtain
developmental stlges as organizations progress through their
life cycles. This consen-
sus is reflected in (hc summary model irr Table l.
With thc exception of Adizes [l], norre of the models is
concerned rvith organiza-
tional dcclirre arrd death, so the life cyr:le is not complete. This
may bc becausc in
mature organizations (after the elaboration of structure stage)
life cycle models break

23. dorvn, and r:hange occurs metamorphically and unpredictably
[17]. The stages from
birrh to maturity may be the only predictablc ones. In the small
group literature,
holever, it has been found that groups frequently rr:vert to
earlier stages ol' develop-
ment As environmental turbulence is encountered, ali turnover
in membership or:curs,
ls the primxry task changes, or as the leadership style is
altr:red. This also rnay tre the
case rvith the development of organizatir:ns in their life cyclcs-
In addition, the lcngth of time that organizations remain in
parlicular stag,es of
<levclopmcnr is nor spccificd by the authors. llow,ever,
research by Kimberly [16],
Cameron and lVhetter: [5], Miles and Fl'andolph [25;1, and
Neal [27] suggest that the
stages can crccur in rapid sequence (i.e., maturity can be
reached quickly) or they can
be very slo$r in rleveloping [10]. Lippitt anct Schmidt [21] even
hold that organizational
age an<l stalle of development are poorly correlated. We rvill
not speculate here on the
variations in this temporal dimension.
What is important to point out, however, is lhat a consistent
pattern of development
seems to occur in organizations over time, anil orgarrization'al
activities and structures

24. in one stag: are not the same as the actil'ities and struclures
present in anolher stage.
This implier; thart (he criteria used to evaluate rn organization's
success in one stlge of
tlevelopmerrt also may be different from criteria used to
evalu&te success iin another
stage of {evelopment. That is, given diffcrent. emphases arrd
different organizutional
characteristics, the bases for evaluating rcrgani:lationirl success
are likely to be different
as well. Whereas most rvriters have admitted that appropriate
criteria of effectiveness
ReorodUcedwithpermissionofthecopyrightownel'FUrtherreprodu
c|.onprc|hibitedwithoutpermlSS|on.
change over timr:, ferv have investigated horv the criteria
change or if there are
pred[table p,atterns of such change. The fact that this is an
important area of
investigationin or:ganizations is pointed out by several of
the'vrilers on life cycles (eg''
tU, t141, tl9l, I2lli. They argue rhat organizations are prone to
pursuc !;trategies lhat
prouea-eifective in the past [9]. But rvhen ne,,v stages of
development occur, past
itrategies andl behaviors become inappropriate and ineffectivc'
and possibly even fatal
[4]. iherefcne, rrerv indicators of effectiveness must emerge. To
assess effectiveness

25. Lsing oufdated or inappropriate criteria (i.e., $iteria that do not
matclr the stage of
the irganization's development) produces inaccurale
informa,tion about the true level
of orginizational effectivlness an{ the major criteria guiding
organizational action'
Oui revierv of the life cycles models provides some hints
regarding the dominan(
criteria of effectiveness that are likely to be present in each of
the early life cycle
stages. In order to Put them in context, a discussion of thc
ntajor model:; of
org-anizational eflectiveness is necessary beiore they can be
prresented'
3. Criteria of Orgunizalional Eifeclireness
Despite the centralit),of the concept of effectiveness in
organization theorl, it has
not been rvdl rlcveloped or defined, and there has been little
agreenlent as t<r lhe
crireria rhat serve !o define organizational efiectiveness t3l,
tl2l, [361 A variely of
models and approaches have bein used, and the indicators of
effectiveness employed
by researchers :rre numerous [6]. Debates ab'or.rt the
superiority of onc rnodr:l o[
eifectiueness over others continue to be found in the literature
[26]' [29]' [l]51. t$6n1

26. model advocate:s, for example, claim that effectiverress must be
measured by goal
accomplishnrent, rvhile advoiates of the systems tesource m.del
claim that the a6ility
to acquire rersout-ccs is the appropriale criterion of success.
unfortunately, almost
nll of
the efiectiveness research has been limited to the asse:ssment of
static criteria in mature
organizations t2l, t23], and the appropriateness of different
cr:iteria at different tinr'es in
thl organizaLtionai tiie.y.t. has seldom been r:onsidered. The
result is that <lrganizr-
tional effecliveness research has continued to be criticizcd as
non-integrated and
diverse bcca,use of the multiple, and sometimel; conlladictoly
critcria that are used'
M odels oJ Ctrganizational Elfect iveness
In an attempt. to bring some order to the divcrse array of
cffectivctress criteria used
in empirical i.sear"h, Campbell and lhis associat€s [7] surveyed
the literalure on
organiiational effectiveness ind compiled what they termed a
comprehensivc list of all
uuiiubl., that have been proposed ui indi..t of organizational
effectivenss. Using this

27. comprehens;ive list, Quinn und Rohrbuugh [30] aske,d a panel
of experts in orgrniza-
tional effectiveness to reduce ancl organize thc critcria, so that
they rvere lll on the
same level of analysis, non-overlapping, and specifically related
to organizational
performance. 1'he resulting list of criteria rvas submilted to ia
multidimensiorral sr:aling
iechnique to tr:/ to identiiy underlying cognitivc dimensions
upon rvhich the cr:iteria
rvere based. Quiinn and Rohrbaugh discovered that individuirls
make
evaluations about
the effectiveness of organizations based on thlcer underlying
dimensions-(l) an
internal focus'versus an external focus (e.g., individual
satisfaction versus olganiza-
tional goal accomplishment); (2) a concern lc'r flexibility
ver,sy: a conc-ell for control
(e.g', in,novatiorr and adaptation versus predictabilily and
stability); and (3) a concern
foi eilrts versuts a concern for nreans (e.g., efficient
pro,Cuction of outputs 'versus
planning arnd goal setring). campbell's criteria arrayed
themselves in such a rval' that
Itt.igti..,.Uinations oi these three dlmensions are repreliented'
That is, lhe criteria

28. clustJred together so that each combination of'dimensions
typifies some of the cfitcria'
Figure I illustrates this model.
ReDroducedwithpermissionolthecopyrightowner.FUrtherrepro(l
Uctionpr,rhIbitedwithoutpern||5sion
Human Relaiions Model
Means:
Co hesicrn
Morale
InienicL
Means:
lnfornralioll
ManarJemenl;
Communication
E:nds:
Flexibility
Open Syslems Model
Ends:
Besource
Acquisition;
Growth
ExLernal

29. Ends:
Product ivity:
Efficiency
stability;
Control
Means:
Pla nn ing;
Goal Settinq
Eva ualion
Internal Process Model Rational Goal Model
Quinn and Rohrbaugh also discovered that theser clusterrs of
effectiveness criteria
and the un,clerlying dimensions that represelt them are
consistent rvith f6ur rnajor
models of orgarrizational effcctiveness that h.rve been used in
the past (sec Figure l).
The reason rve use the Quinn and Rohrbaugh model here, irn
fact, is that it provides a
goocl summary of the major models of effe<:tiveness, and it
illustrates well how the
ippropriateness of the various models of effectiveness changes
in different life cycle
stages. Baser{ on the characteristics of tlhe four summary lil'e
cycles stages, 1hese four
models of o'rganizational effectiveness ace hyp'tthesized to
receive different degrees of
emphasis in, each of the different stages. As c,rganiz:ations
progress through their life
cycles, the different criteria of effectiveness cmphasized by

30. these rnodels should
parallcl the changing activities and characteristics of
organi:zations over time' Figure 2
ihows the hypor:tresiied panerns of effectiveness during the
four life cycles stages.r
'Tichy []81 hrs simuhirncously and indepcndcntly dc'vcloped
a similar fmmcrvork' It is brcd on the
solution o[ three organiarionrl problems that clascly parallel
three of thc four quadrants in Figure 2' The
lrcscnt frimcrork has somer advrntrgcs over the'Iichy scherne,
however. li is somewhat more pasimonious
while at thc slLme rjinrc more comprehensivc: it is empiricrlly
derivcd: and it is grounded in Scfleral lheones
of organiation (i.c., [31. t281, [32]).
ReorodUcedwithpemissiono'thecopyrightowner.Furth.3rreprodU
ctionprohibitedwithoUtpernrission'
tstOUR[ l- Four Mdlcls of Effccriscncss Valiucs
1. Entreprsngullsl Stago
3. Formallzallon and Control Stage 4.
Ftrsunt 2. Eftectiveness Valucs During thc Early Stagcs of
Dcvclopncnt
In the entrepneneurial stage-typified by inrrovation, creativity,
and the marshalling

31. of resources-the strongest emphasis appeatfs to be on open
systems critefia of
effectiveness. Tlhat is, the success of an ,organization rvill tend
to be associatcd g'ith its
flexibility, jgrowth, resource acquisitionl, and the development
of external support.
Downs nol, for example, discusscs the achievement of a
"survival threshold" arrd the
stabilization of resources as prerequisites for,organizational
success. Adizes Il] speci-
fied "dreanring" and entrepreneurship as activities necessary to
g,et the organiilation
off the ground during the first developmental stage.
As shorvn in Figure 2, open systems criteria are also
hypothesized to be important in
other life cycle stages (less so in the forrnalizattion stage), but
in stage I they appear to
be particullrly important. Organizational success tends to be
defined in thc entrcpre-
Reoroducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner'
FurthsrreproductionProhibitedwithoutpermrsslon'
Elaboratlon of Sttucturo Stsgo
neurial stage tprirnarily by horv rvell the organization meets
crileria of
growth, resource
acquisition, e:tternal support, and readineris.

32. 6rganizatic,ns iin the collectivity stage appear to be
characterized by the criteria
associated rvith the human relations model. Lifc cycle theorists
describe this stage
as
typified by inforrnal communication anil structure. a sense of
family and coopera-
tiuene.. among rnembers, high member commitment, and
personalized leadership'
Emphasis on irirteria ,uch os human resource development,
morale. cohesion, and
human necd satisfaction (human relations criteria) are highest in
this stage. For
example, Katz and Kahn Il5l clescribe effr:ctive r:rganizational
activities in this stage as
,.rulting from "thc cooperatiue response 'of people based on
their common needs
and
.*p.",.ionr'" (p.7l).forbert [39] suggests that group unity and
psychological con-
tracts are typ,ical of effective organizations in ttris stage'
Again, rvc arc not suggesting that human relations criteria are
the orrly relevant
crireiia during the collectivit,r- stage of developnrent, nor that
human relations crttena

33. are not impoitant in other 6evelopmental stage s as well. Ralher,
we are pointingi oul
that human nelations crite:ia appear to <jominatc in defining
organizational effcctive-
ness in this s[age. and that they are morc important in thc
collectivity stage ttran in any
otncr stage.
In the formalizarion stage. organizatir.rnal stability, cfficicncy
of production, rules
and procc<lures, nncl conseryative trends rypify organizations.
Effectivcncss itppears to
be dcfinctl primarily on the basis of crit,:ria in the internal
process and rational goal
models; that is. lby goal. setting and goal attainment,
productivity, efficiency informa-
tlon manag(:me,r,-.onr,r,unication, and stirbility-control. For
example. Lyden [22]
,..o**.nJ, evaluating effectivencss qr.rantitatively in this stage
using productivity
measures and efficiency ratios; and Adi;res Il] lists achieving
efficicncy, being results
oricnrcd. anrJ having established plans and procedures for
getting things done (goals)
as major in,Jicarors of effectiveness. whilc goal
accomplishment, productivity, and
efficiency are clearly imporftnt through most of the life cycle of
an organization, it is

34. in thc formulization stage that thcse rational rnodel criteria are
most emphasizcd by
life cyclc thcorists.
The fourth stage. claboration of siruclure. appears to be one in
rvhich the organtza-
tion monil.ors the extcrnat cnvironment in ordcr to renew itsell
or expand its domtin,
or both. Dccenl.ralization of structurc {lccurs and a balance
betrveen differentiation
anil integrarion is necessrry [20] at this stage. whilc there
appe:rrs to be at lcast
moderate ernphasis on intcrnal process r:riteria, human relations
criteria, and ra1i6nal
goal model crit,eria, the open systems rnodcl, rvhich
emphasizes flexibility' resource
icquisition, and grorvth, seems to receive the most emphasis in
this stage. Open
,yrt.r, criteria arc suirgestc<l in Katz and Kahn's [15]
description of effective orgrni-
zations in this stage as those that "devr:lop at the boundaries" of
the organizatiorr in
monitoring ancl c<.rntrolling cnvironmenlal relationships.
In or4eiro explorc f,urther these hypot,hesized relationships
betrveen the stages of life
cycle tlcvclopmcnr and changes in enrgrhasis given to criteria
of organizational effec-

35. tivcncss, rve, tlecided t<l track rn organi;tation over time and to
obscrve changes in its
stages of cft:velopment. Because the prr:rcesses by which
development occUrs are also
important, simprly comparing different organizations in
different stages of development
is not appr,opriate. An organizrtion harl to be found in which
observable changes in
stage dcvclopment occuned, and from tuhich evidence for a
change in the emphasis on
effectivcnes's criteria could be producccl.
4. A Chronick: of Life CYcle Change
The oreanization selected rvas a developmental center in the
former New York State
Departmint of Mental Hygiene. The events described here are
from observations
Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner'
Furtherreproductlonprohtbltedwithoulpertrlsslon
made over a threre yealperiod, 1974-l97ti. These observations
are part of a "pror:ess
research appfoach'; [6] in rvhich interviiervs, observations, and
archival techniques
rvere employed. 'llhe focal organization served children rvith
developrnental disorrJers

36. and the ietarded of all ages in a six county area. lt includcd the
developmental centcr
and scven "teamsi", or subsystems, rvhich operilted in the six
counlies. A staff of r:ver
800 and an operating budget of over $9,1100,0110 were present
during the observation
years.
The center rvas direcled from its estatllishmcnt in 1969 by a
psychiatrist rvho rvas
nationally kn.orvn for his lvritings and fon his $'ork in thc area
of community me nlal
healfh. Fic rvas a charismatic leader rvho tendr:d to generate
either extreme loyalty or
opposition. Whil,: ferv of his associates lielt indifferent
torvards him, both supportf:rs
and critics rvere in agreement that he rvaLs a "near genius" in
conceptualizing inrrova-
tive solutions, to the problems of service delivery'
Earlr Stuges of l)eveloPnent
The director's ptst rvrork and writings iin cornmunity mental
health had generaled il
series of prescrip,iions f,or the treatment,cf thc
nrentalll,disabled. These prescripli.ns
bccame t'he organizational itleology. Col.lectively, they rverc
callcd the devclopmental

37. trcatnlent m,odel. This model emphasizerl the broad
participation of Parents' consum-
ers, and the community', as well as focusiing on the
development of indcpendencc
and
seli-reliance by clients. This developmeotal ideology was on lhe
cutting edge of the
"deinstitutionali:ration" movemcnt that rvas then srveeping the
nrental health profes-
sion.
The center wa.s composed of sevcn teams and a support group'
Although thc teams
were relative,ly autonomous, they follorved a common set of
guidelines. The tcams werc
characrerize,iby numerous disciplines (social rvork, child
psychiatry, special educ'ttion'
pediatrics, psycirotogy, rehabilitation counseling, etc.), and
rvere staffcd to nraintain a
Lolun." amo;g at Gast four areas: sr:rcial-recreational,
psychological, cclucalional'
vocational,:tnd health care. For every professional hired, at
lcast one person frour thc
community (rvith a bachelor's deBree or less) also had to be
hired. After thc first rvave
of interviews in 1975, the follorving desr:ription was cntered in

38. the first fielcl rcport:
Thc tcum is a fluitl, nonburcaucratic system $ilh the caprcity to
inrmcdirtell assign antl
rcassign siaff in rcsponse to chrnging organ izrtional nccds.
Ercn thc usc o[ lhc tdministrrlori
is chJn.ctcrizerl b): fleibilir)' sinlc rhey c,iten hlre morc thrn
onc organizational rclc. Thi
organizltion appaafs to hrvc bccn vcrl succcsful in idcntifying
nccds and rcortirnizing stall
and othcr rcsourccs lo mcet lhcsc necds. Thc organiation has
bccn scll nrntchcd 10 lhc
charlctJristics of thc cnvironmcnt and thc nrturc o[ thc trsk. In
gcncrrl' thc sta[[ cprcscd
stisfaction Nith thc tluid, and informalL nrture of the
organization and lhc subscqucnl
frcc<Jom, rcsponsibiliry, and rmm for crcarivity Nhich this t)
pc oI organiation flcililalcs- This
is rcflc(tcd in thc facl that tlrcy habitually spcnd Iong hours at
rvork. rrrrrk 'eckcnds' catD'ou.
mullipl,e orgtnirational roles. anrl crpJnd 0,r strelch thcir
talcnts and influenccs almost bclond
a poinr of icason. This almost misionary dcdication and zcrl is
infcctious and is a uluabl:
tactical tool in their rJealings rrith thc conrmunitl'.
In shorti thr: organizational structure was a reflection of thc
philosophy of its

39. director. For example, the director had no office, but rvent
rvhere believed hc rvas
needed, establishing a temporary base of operations. Strong
emphasis rvas placetl on
openness, cooperation, creativity, and i,nnovation. While the
director reserved n veto
porver over group decisions, he seldom used it and most major
decisions rvcre rrrrived
af thtough panticipative decision-makjing techniques. Thc
physical plants of some
teams rvere' int,entionally too small, berlause it rvas believed
lhat ovcrcrowding rvould
encourage members to be in the community rathcr than in their
ofl'ices. Dress
standards and strict attention to senLiorit5' were not in
operation' The chain of
Reoroducedwithftermissiollofthecopyrightownc'r'Furtherreprodu
ctionprohlbitedwithoutperrrrssion
comm&nd was nort easill,identifiable. andl there rvas a heavy
emphasis
on face-to-face
communictlion r,ather i6an on formal rvritten documents. The
organic or ambiguous
nature of the structure s'as reflecte<l by ttre fact that, desPite
attempts to.do so'

40. no one
had been abl: to drarv an organizational r:hart that satisfactorily
reflected the function-
ing of the organi:zation'
Perprnance dnd Resource Acqttisition
Within the organization, there was a high concern for the
accomplishment of
pu.po,r., as r;et firth in the developmental mor3el. This required
an emphasis orL the
establishment o[ interorganizationaj relationships an6 the
capturing of external sup-
port. Here. :rgain, an excerpt from the rinitial field report
provides a descriptiorr
of
conditions in earlY 1975:
.fhctcarr.hasbcenvcrysucccssfulirtmarshr'llingthcenergicsofitsor
vnrr'orkcrsandthoscof
lhccommunitytodcl,elopandprtrvidernarrayofservices(otheretrrd
cdnot0Ylilable
lhcrcroforc. Both thc strft;nd thc communitli rvorien cxhibitcd a
high degrcc of cohesion and
ln intcnsc dcdrcrtion to the "Causc." [t rvrs our obscrvalion lhat
a goorl deal of thc
community's in(crest l;as a rcsult of the zeal of the slaff of the
lerm' Thc tcam hirs

41. bccn very
succcsrfulinidcnlif)'insanrJobtainingmonicsfrornvarioussources,
includingapproprirtions
from thc Departmcnt of itcntal Fly:gicne' the Legishturc' gmnl
moflies from the Federal
Govcmmcnl as rvcll ls convincing community agencies to
rcdcploy sontc o[ their monrcs
to
scn icc for thc rctardcd.
In ,:arly I9?5, aftcr sl.ightly more than five years of existence,
thc focal organization
hatl ilcvelopc<i in rvays very similar to those predicted in the
first two stages of our
model. 'fable 2 summarizei these chara.cteristics. Early
emphasis on innovatiorr and
creativity :rnd trre porvr:rful presLnce of a prime mover
(entreprcneurial stage) led to
high levcls of cohesion among lvorkers, a dedicarion to the
organization's ideology,
arul ar sense of unity annong the employces (coltectivity stagc).
Frorn the point olview
II'ABLE 2
C.hartcreristics o[ Eurl.v Sragcs oJ Duelopnrcn! in rhc
Depannenr "f :l!:y4]!g::

42. Characterislic Stage
Innova(ive treatment model empha$rzing
''deins titutionalization
Fluid ilnd nonbureaucralic method:; ol task
assi9nment
Crireclor had slrong personal power
Clirector had no Permanenl ollice
Sitrong emphasis on creativitY
flo oflSanizational charl could be drawn
lvork teams formed
lVorked long hours and weekends
idissionary zeal and dedication to lhe
"cause"
Iitall encoura0ed to get out inlo the
comnunity, nrrl in ollices
Utalf and communily wotkers had high
cohe:;ion
x
x
X

43. x
Reftroduced with permission of the copyright owner' Further
reproduction prohibited without
permtsslon
of the Quinn-Rolhrbaugh effectiveness model, the organization
rvas doing exlremely
rvell on. ihe criteria in the open systems, and human relations
quadrants. That is, tirere
was continued acquisition of ptlitical and financial supPort and
cohesiveness and
morale rvere extremelY high.
Evenrs Leaditlg lo Laler Stages ol Dewloynenl
In the spring of I9?5, one of the trvo major ncwspapers serving
the area began to
,un an .it.niive expose of the entire Department of Mental
Hygiene' Entitled
l.Wasted Dollars,/Wisterd Lives," the se,ries included numefous
devastating reJNrrts
about bureaucraitic inel'ficiency at the 'entral
office of the DMH and numerous
A.r.;ptionr aborut the bleakest aspects of life in institutions.
Initially. the lOcal
organization was mentioned only in sunrrmary statements. But

44. beginning on May
9'
tgi5, rrhe prograrn became on the primar"y points of focus in
the series.
May gi The paper ran a fronr,pag€ article revealing rhat more
than $6,000 in drugs
and zupplies rverr: purchased direcily frorn local retail
pharmacies instead
of using, thc
less .xpenrive state contract procedure. The article indicated
that the State Depart-
rn.nt ,i Audit arrd conrtrol was nol aware of the practice. The
story rcceived cove rage
for several days arnd included a response ifrom the director,
rvho argued that
he rvanted
clients; to ha,rc the developmental experir:nce of buying their
orvn drugs, and
that the
practice rvas cheaper than if the organizr'tion ran its orvn
pharmacy''
Mqv 25; Six articles about the program appeared in the
nervspaper raising a
number of is;sues about administrative ptiaclices. one article
included a picture
of thc

45. comnrissioner-designate of the Department of Mental Hygiene
and quotcd hin as
saying:
..I trelie've- that [the focal orgarnization] is one of the most
innovative
and
"n.uu.oging
developme,nial cenrer opirations in the state, as a mattcr of
fact, in the
country." He went on to say that hc h'oped the program might
be a moclcl for thc
whole DMHI sYstem.
On the siame Page appeared another article describing the
findings
r:f a Slate
Department of ftealfh, ieport on the developmental center. In
regard lo Federal
regulations governing t,he payment of Mcdicaid and Medicare
monies, the article
cited
n,i*.,rou. findings of "deficiencies in the area of administration'
treatment
pro.gram'
medircal carc, fo,od services, record-kceping, pharmaceutical
and
dental operltions, and

46. environmental conditions.'i Findings par:ticularly focused on
inadequacies
Nith crrntrol
mechanisms such as orSanization chartr;, job descriptions,
maslcr plans.
policy manu-
als, and documcntation practices.
May 29: Three more articles appearr:cl, the most polent arguing
that the Parents of
mun;l prof,rundly rerarded childien rvere unable to admit their
children t'r the
pru.ii."lty emply center. Trvo local assemblymen were quoted as
saying that they had
t."n unibl,, to obtainL admission for p,atients. The rcfusal to
admit thc profoundly
retarded rvas anr issuc [hat rvas to conti]nue throughout the
summer'
June I: Fivr: articles appeared, the rsitlongest arguing that there
was poor account-
abilitty and conlrol at fhe benter, and tlhat "some key doctors"
rvere either-.ineffective
or unavailable because they had "secorLdjobs or other outsidc
interests'"'l'he
issue of
secornd salaries tvas also to become a major theme in the rvceks
that followed.
JttneS:AnarticleappearedquotirrgpartsofastatcDePartmentofAudi
tand

47. Conrtrol rep,ort rvhich indi.ateA thit rer::ord-keeping
procedures in the area of payroll
and personnel rvere extremely rveak. The report recommended'
..,..avariBt)ofchangesinclurtingverificationofappointmentsandtcr
minationsb)'thc
business officel god rJcord-keepin! and follorv'up by lhc
pcrsonncl officc: distrib-ution
ol
chccks by a leiponsible employec'of the busincss officc ho is
indcpcndcnt ot Payroll
prepanrtion;' close nronitoring oi cmployccs by thcir supcn isors
so that attendlncc
and lcavc'
record:; are kepr'prc'perl1'" oi,t ptytit"i licparalion of the
pcrsonnel and payroll of[ic'cs'"
Reproduced'tithp,ermisslonofthecopyrightown€r'
Furtherreproductionprohrbltedwrlhoutpermlssion
Jul.l, I9: The intense pressure on ther program continued, and it
rvas reportedl that
the director rvas asked by the Commissioner to take a six-rveek
leave of absencc in the
midst of tht: DlvtFI probe. The DMH investigations centered on
administrative and
personnel practices at the Center.
September 7: The results of the pro'be rverc made public.

48. Findings criticized the
director for failing to provide direction, ir traditional
organization structure, and other
necessary controls. It also recommendedl the topJevel
administrative staff be relieved
of their present duties.
Septenther l0: The report rvas met lvit.h outrage by supporters
of the director. They
accused the DVIFI of carrying out a vendetta. A nervspeper
article reported that the
Covernor, L,ieutenant (iovernor, and several Statc legislators
had expressed concern to
the Commissioner that the director get a fair shake.
Developntetil ol the Fornnli:atioil and Cavrtrol Stage
When the probe rvas; completed, the director was reinstated and
given one year to
address a lir;t of problems. Most had to do rvith establishing
clear lines of authority,
clearly identifiable roles, follorving rules and regulations, and
establishing mechanisms
of accountalbilitli and conlrol.
Shortly, after the year was ovcr, thc dircctor left the state and
he was replaccd rvith a
"more administratively minded" director:. Thercafter many staff
mcmbers left. By the
end of the nexl year, there rverc ferv people rvorking in jobs for
rvhich they s'ere
overqualifierJ, the missionary zeal disappeared, and thc Center
began to function in a
more controlled mannc:r.
At the close of the study, thc organizrtion was firmly

49. established in the formaliza-
tion stagc. While there rvas a high emplhasis on control, there
rvas a considerable fall
off in staff conrmitmcnt. productivity, arrd flexibility.
Of coursc, this single case study does not provide conclusive
cvidence that our
model of orgauizationaLl lifc cyclcs and effectiveness is
precisely as rve hypothesize in
all nerv organiz;rtions. Thc case does providc. horvcvcr, an e-
rample of the potential
utility of this mrrdcl for diagnosing and prcdicting
organizational phcnomena.
It seems r:lerr from this case that the focal organization moved
fronr the entrepre-
ncurial and col|:ctivity stages to thc forrnalization and control
stage. Furthermore, the
criteria by rvhich the organization rvasjudgerl to be effective
changed over time. In the
ycars prior to the newspaper cxpos6, opc:n systems criteria and
human relations criteria
rvere highll valued. Horvever, emergenc,:: of a nerv and
porverful strategic constituency
(i.e.. the nervspaper) resulted in change iLn emphasis torvards
rational goal criteria (e.g.,
efficiency) rnd a subsequent change in the characteristics of the
organization as lvell.
When thc relative po,rver among stralegic constituencics
changed, the criteria of
effectivencss chunged as l result, and pnessure mounted for the
organization to make
similar changcs in its organizational fonrr and behavior.
5. Discussion
As seen in Figure 2, in the entrepren,eurial and collectivity

50. stages, we hypothesized
that the nrost innportant criteria of effcctiveness for an
organization rvould be thrrse of
the open systems model (flcxibility and rcsource acquisition)
and of the human
relations model (cohesiveness-mor:rle, development of human
resources). During these
stages there should be less emphlsis on rational goal criteria
(planning-goal setting,
efficiency, and produr:tivity) and on internal process criteria
(information manage-
ment, communiicstionr;, stability, control). With the onset of
the formalization stage,
horvever, there should bc a dramatiq shift in criteria.
Information manaBement,
communication, stability, control, prorJuctivity, efficiency and
goal setting should
Reproduced with permission of the copyright ownef. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
become increasingly important. This, in ,turn, should be
accompanied by a dranrrtic
decline in thc enrthasis on open systems and human relations
criteria.
In the organizational history just provided, there is evidence to
sugSest that the
changes in tl.e dominant criteria of orgarrizational cffectiveness
follorved the
predicted

51. puir.in. The focaLl organization started oul in the
entrepreneurial stage and continued
in the collectivity stoge ,with an internal strategic constituency
being thc mosl
porverl'ul
(i.e., lcd by the ilirecior). The criteria of success that were most
valued by this
gtioup
.u.r. .'onrirt.,nt rvith thr: implementation of an inno'ative
treatment model. As such,
formalization, c'nlrol, nnd ifficiency w!:re not only unimportant
criteria.,-lhey
r*ere
contradictoql to the organizatiotl's acceptcd values. The major
criteria o[ effectiveness
i..il.i.r,i"i,y, informi,lity, morale), for this strategic
consriluency, rhereforc,
became
u.J.p,.a as part of the organization's selli definition because the)
'ere
pcrpetuated by
the constitue.ncy in porver. These criteria reflecred the seli
interests and
values ol that
group." fo, o time, this internal strategic const.ituency was
successful in rvarding off corLtrols

52. andporverplayl;ofinternalandotherextcrnalconstituencies.Holvev
cr,lheattack
from'the n"rurpop.. allorved many of the extcrnal constituencies
to coalcsce and
to
become domin}ni. That is, a new constituency acquired more
power relative to thc
focal organization than did the previously dominartt inlernal
stlategic
constitucncy'
This crJated an ove*helming pressur,: torvards forntalization in
the organization
br.uur" the critteria, ol cffectiieness vaLlued by the nerv
constituency included
effi-
ciency,cont.rol,planrling'etc.(criteriaconsistcntwiththeformalizat
ionslagc),The
orga;ization found it nl..ssury to ado,pt thcse nerv criteria of
success in orcler to
,uitiu., and. this in turn necessitated a change in slructure and
activitics'
What this suggests is that the organization must adopt the
primary criteria
of
effcctivenes:; esproused by the dominant consrituency in order
to survive'
And changcs

53. in the <lominancc of various constituen'cies over different lifc
cyclc stages
nccessitate
changes in lornr and frrnction.
ourexarnpleillustrateshorr,achangeinlifecyclestagesoccurredtrcc
auseof
external p..',,u,.,. with the change canre a new set of
effectivencss criteria and
a :rerr'
dominant coalition. The model suggests; that the periocl
between
stage 2 and stagc 3 is
the time rvlhen this chLange is tnoii liktty to happen' In
rcvierving four sintilar:
case
studies, Mites [23] d,tscrib.s some vOry sirnilar dynamics'
One value of .the
lifc
cycles-effectiveness model cleveloped in this paper is that it
prcdicts what
critcriI of
sirccess arc likr:ly to take precedence 1n rvhat scquence, and it
allorvs managcrs
to
rnticipate the necessatry changes.
one rvea,kness of this model as a predictive theory of
organizational life cycle

54. development, of course, is that it is bas,:d on thc integration of
existing theories
ol Iifc
cycles. Ho'vever, some evidence exists in other empirical
studies suggestinS that
the
modelmaybepredictive.Forexample'strasserand-
Deniston's[35]studyofamenta|
health facility iound that elfectiveness as measured by the open
systems rnodel
is a
prerequisitr: io effectiveness as measure4 by goal
accomplishntent and productivity
[rhe ,ationul model). The model outli]ned in Figure 2 suggests
a sirnilar concrlusion
inasmuchasopensystemscriteriaareemphasizedintheentrepreneuri
alstage,antlthe
rational gc,al nrodei a.nd internal process model criteria are
more t1'pical
of the Ialer
formalization srtage.
CameronandWhetLten[5]foundthalsignificantchangesoccurredint
heimpcrrtance
of criteria of effectiveness to organizational members as
eighteen simulated
organiza-

55. ,ion, progr"rr.:d through life cycles' '[]valuation-s of the
importance
of effectivcncss
criteria rvere rnade at several po;nts during the life cyclcs.
Open
systems model.criteria
rvere foun,C to be important in earl-v :;tages but then
decreased' Rational goal
nrodel
and internal process modcl criteria in,criased in importance over
time
and rvere the
ReDroducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightownsrFUrlherreprodU
ctionprohibitedwithoUlperm|Ss|on
most importlnt criteria in later stages ol' development. Again,
the model in Figure 2
makes a similar prediction.
Besides being predictrive of changes in r:riteria of effectiveness
and organizationa.l life
cycle stages, the model iin Figure 2 also pr:oduces an
interesting contrast to contingency
theories of organizrtional adaptation. In general, the
contingency literature suggests
that effective organizations should becorne organically
structured and adaptable when

56. faced rvith a conrplex or turbulent envirc,nmenl. On the other
hand, a placid or stable
environment sho'uld be matched with mechanistic or formalized
structures. Ilo*'ever,
our model predicts that the reaction oll an organization to
external environmental
turbulence rvill partly depend on its stagle of development. In
an organization operat-
ing in the co,llect.ivity stage, turbulence rvould result in a
tightelring up of controls and
a tendency torvlrd a mechanistic structure (progressing to stage
3). If the orgenization
was already in the formalization and control stage, the tendency
rvould be torvard a
fleribility and elaboration of struclure (progressing to stage 4).
This prediiction receives some supporli from a study by
Bourgeois, McAllister, and
Mitchel [2] rvho found that managers reacted to turbulence and
uncertainty in the
environmenl by shifting to mechanistic rather than organic
structures. What is most
important (and it is ign,ored by the authors of the study) is that
the units were all nen'/7
crealed, autonomous product divisions in a largc firm. That is,
they rvere likely to have
been in early stages ol' development in the life cycle, and,
according to the model,
should have progressed toward thc formalization and control
(mechanistic) stage.
Taken togcthr:r, the events in this ca:;e and the life cycle model
not only plcvide
evidence for predictatrility but also rsise the possibility that the

57. propositiorls of
contingency theory ma;y not hold for nerv and developing
organizations. It may be that
organization.s m,ust go through the first three stages in the
developmental model trefore
many of our conventional theories are a:ppropriate. This rvould
seem to be a particu-
Iarly rcasonable observation rvhen rve r:ecognize that most
research has focused on
mrture organizations and most research has been cross-sectional
in design.
Rreferences
l. ADrz[s. 1.. "Orgrniz,rtir:nrl Prssagcs: Diagnosing anrll
Trcrting Lifc CJcle Problems in OrgrnizLtions,"
Or go ni :n io nu l D-rrraaricr. (Summcr 1979). pp. 3-24.
2. BouRc[o{s. l-. J.. itc,{Lr.lsr[-. Drsrrl W. rso Nlttcttrll.
TEREcI R.. "The Effccts o[ Diftercnt
OrganiationLal Environmcn(s Upon Dccisions About
Organiza(ionrl Struc(urc." Acocl. llauogertem
J.. Vol. ll. i{o. I (1978). pp.508-514.
3. Crlrrto::. K. S., "itcrsuring Organiation l[iffcctivcncss in
Institutions of Highcr Education.",lrfurin-
Sci. parrr.. Vol.2l (1978), pp.6O1-632.
4.
-.
"fhc Enigma of Organiational fiffccrivcncss." In Dan Baugher
(Ed.), ler Dirtcrions itr
Progrtn Evthntion'. ,l!casuritg Elfectiteness. Jossc-y-Bass, San

58. Francisco' Calif., 1981.
5.
-
:so Wrrrms. D. ,.. "Perceptions o[ Organiation Effcctiveness
Across Orgrnintionrl Life
Clclcs.'' ,{r/rrr)r. Sci. Quorr., Vol.26 (1981). pp. 525-5'14.
6. C,strntlt.. J. P.. "On the Nrturc of Organiational
Effectiveness." In P. S. Cmdman anrl J. M.
Pcnnings. ([:ds.), ,'eu Perspcctles on Orgnti:ationa!
E![ectieness, Jossey-Bass, San Fnncisco, Calif-,
(19?7). pp. Il-55.
7. Csrponrr-, J. P. rr rl., "Thc lvlcasurcmcnt of Organiational
Effectivcncss: A Rcvierv of Relevant
Rc:carch and Opinic,n." Final Rcport. Navr I'emonncl Research
and DcyeloPment Center, Minneap-
olis: Pcrsonnel Dccisions. 1974.
8. CrAsDl-rER, A.D,. Strqtet| dn.l Stntcture, M.l.T. Prcss.
Cambridgc. Nlass.' 1962.
9. Cyrrr. f{. it. rso iUARctr. J. G.. A Bchayiorol Theory of the
Firar, Prentice-Hall, Eng,tcwmd Cliffs.
N.J.. 1963.
l0- Dorvss. A.. "The Lifc Cyclc of Burcaus," In Dorvns,
Anlhony, !rcide Bureaucracl', Little. Brorvn and
Compr.ny and Rrnd Corporrtion. San Frlncisco, Calif.' 1967' pp.
296-309.
ll. FlLr.Ey, ,A. A:;D ALD^c, R.. "Organiational Crorvth and
Typcs: Lessons From Small Institutions," ln

59. B. Stas and L. L. Cummings (Eds.). ,Rescorc/r in Organi:otionol
Eelovrcr' Vol. 3' JAI Press,
Crcenuich. Conn.. 1980.
Reproduced with pemission ot the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permissaon.
12. Cooornr-, P. $.,r,D PE:*rn-Gs, J. tU., "Critical Issues in
Assessing Organiational Elfcctivcncss," In
Edward E. Larvler, Dpvid A. Nadler, and Cortlandl Cammann
(ErJs.l, Organi:atiouol Assessnrcn!:
Perspeclb,es on the llewrenent ol Orgoui:crtional Beharior ond
the Qwli' oI ll'ork Lrle. Wile)', Nerv
York, 19t80, p'p. 185-2 15.
13. Gour-or..tn, A. W., "Organizational Analysis," In Robert K.
I'lerton, Leonard Broom' and Leonard S.
Cottrell, Jr., (Eds.), Socrc/ogl Todal', Brsic Books, Nerv York.
1959, pp. 400-428.
14. Gnrrr-rn, L., Evolution and Revolution as Ctrganiations
Grow, Ilannrd Srairtess fer. (July-A.ugust.
1972), p1t.37.46.
15. K^ D, lso K,rn-, R.. L., fllre Sxial Pg'c'olog' oJ
Ortani.a(iorc, wilcy' nNcw York' 1978.
16. KrrtstnLy, J, )R., "lssucs in the Creation oli Organiations:
Initiation. lnnovation, and lnstittutiqn-
alization." Acad. llanagenen J., Vol. 22 (11979), pp.437-457-
17.
-,

60. "fte,Organizational Life Cycle: Constructive Concept or
lvlisguided Metaphor?" ln J. R.
Kimberly and Miles, R. H., fie Organi;:ational bJe CS'cle:. Nar
Perspeaites Ior Oryaniiatioilal
Theory md Aiesearch, Josey-Basr San Fnncisco' Calif.' 1980.
18. ......".'-.'._axoMtLrqR. lH.,flieOrgani:ationdtr/eQcle,Jossey-
Bas'SanFrancisco,Calif.'1980.
19. L^yolE, ft. er*p Cutornr, S. A., "Stages in Clrganiation and
Dcvelopment," Hunnn Rdatorc, '!ol.3l
(1978), PP.417.-438.
20. LAyRENcE, P- R. lso lLoRscll, J. Y., Oryaai:ation ond
Entirowren!,lruin, llomclood, l]1., 1969.
21. Lrppr1, G. L. er-o Scrnqor. V. H., "Criser; in a Developing
Organizrtion," Ilon'ord fJuiness Rev..
vol. 45 (196?), pp. l0:l-l 12,
22. LyDEN, F. J., "Usin_e Pr6ons'Functionrl Arralysis in the
Study of Pltblic Organiuations," Adnitt- Sci.
Quart., Vol. ?0 (19751, pp. 59-?0.
23. MlLEs. R. H".'.Thc l|ole of Organiarional Leaming in the
Early Crcation and Dcvclopmcnl of
Organizations," In J. R. Kimberly and R. lH. Miles, 7'lre
Organi:ational LiJe C-rcle. Josscy-Bass, Srn
Fmncis,:o, Calif.. 1980-
24.
-,
"Findings and lmplicarions of Organiational Life C1'cles
Rcscarch: A Comme nccmcnl." In
J. R. llimbr:rly and R. ll. Miles, ?'/re Orllani:ationol LiJe

61. C.rcle, Jossc1.Bn5t, San Francisco, Cali[.,
1980.
25.
-
^)sD
R^NDoLpn, W. A., "lntlucnce of Organizational Leaming Stylcs
on Earll' Dcvclopme'nt,"
ln J. R. Kimberll'anrl R. H. Miles, Iie Organizotioaal lr/c
Clc/e,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif..
t980.
26. Mor-s,rr, J. J. e"so Rocrn5 D. C., "Orgarriz.rtional
Effectivcncss: An Empirical Comparison of thc
Goal and System Rer;ource Approachcs," ilriologicol
Quott.,Vol. l7 (1976). pp' 401-41J.
27. NEAL, J. A., The Lifc: Cycles of an Alternativc
Organiations, Intcrcollegiatc Casc Clcarinlghrrusc,
Boston. Mass., 1978-
28. Pensoss, T., litntclure oad Prres h lloden Socrrt, Frcc Press,
Glcnce. lll.' 1960.
29. PRrcE, J., "The Study of Organiational Effectivencss,"
Sociologicol Quart 'ol' l3 (1972)' pp 3-15'
3U. QUIN)-, Fi,. E. ,rr-o Rortnt,rucrr, J., "A Spatial Modcl of
Effcctivcncss Critcria: Touards a Cornpeting
Valus Approach to Organialional Anrllsis," Itlanagenent Sci. (to
apPear)'
31. Scorr, tt. R., srcges of corpordtc Dt;clcyuent-Parl l, case
No. 9-371-294, Inlcrcollc8iale Casc

62. Clearing House, Boston, Ir'lass., 1971.
32.
-,
"Effer:riveness of Organizationrl Efl ectivcness studies," ln
Paul S. Goodman and Johannes M,
Pennings (Eds.). Nat Perspecrires on Orgrnri:ational
EJlectircness. Josse1.915t, San Francisco, Calif.,
1977, p,p. 63-95.
31. Srrnsucx, w....organiational Metamorphosis," ln ,lillman,
R- '. and Hottenstcin, '1. P., Proarisirr3
Resean:h Directiots, Academy of Managcrnent, I968.
34. -.-.'......_, "Organizations and Their Environrrents" ln
Dunnettc, M. D., llandbnk of lndrctrial antl
Organi,:orionol Psyhologr, Rand McNalll'. Chicago' lll.' 1976.
15- STRASSER, S. ,riD Dgr.rsro-*, O. L.,'A Comparalive
Analysis of Goal and System Models Assigncd ttt
Evaluate Htalth Orglaniational Effectiveness"' Acad.
ilanageucnt Proc ' 1979, pp. 342-346
36. Srrens, R. M., "Problems in lhe l'[casurenrent of
Organizational Effcclivcncss," Admiu. Sci. Quart.,
Vol. 2(r (19'7'5). pp. 546-558.
37. SnNcrrconDE. A. L,. "social Structure rnd Organizrtions,"
ln James G. lt{arch (El.), Ilantlbook ot
Orgoni:atiotu. Rand lrtcNally, Chicago, lll., 1965.
3E. Trcrir, l,t. M.. -Problem Cycles in Organizrtions and the
lUanagement of Changc," In .1. R. Kimberl-v
and R. H. Miles, ll-lre Ortani:ation Lill CS'cle: Nat Perspecti'es

63. for Organi:ationol Thcorl' and
Research, Jossey-Bats. San Francisco, Calif., 1980.
39. Tonsrrrf, W. R., "Pre-Bureaucmtic and Post-Burcaucntic
Stages of Organiution [)cYcloPnent,"
Interycrsonal Da'eloltuent, Vol. 5 (1974), pp. l-25.
40. Vrs DE VEN, A. H.,'.Early Planning, Im;rlemenlarion, and
Performance of Ncrv organizatirrns," In
John lt. Kimberly and Robert H. lYlile$ (Eds.), The
oryani.ational uJe c.rcle, JosscJ.Bas, San
Fmncisco, l3alit.. 1980. pp. 83-133.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited wlthout permassion