Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 297–321 | Cite as

The relation of organizational process orientation to effectiveness and efficiency in elementary public schools

  • James Griffith


Organizational psychology has identified four recurrent organizational models (rational goal, open systems, human relations, and internal processes), each placing different emphases on internal and external organizational processes. Using a sample of 122 elementary schools in a large suburban school district located outside a metropolitan area, the present study examined the relation of school emphases on internal and external processes to school effectiveness and efficiency. Consistent with hypotheses, inefficient schools (lower-than-average student achievement test scores, adjusted by the percentage of students enrolled in the free and reduced-price meal program and per-pupil expenditures) were identified by the human relations model or as inward-directed with emphasis on the quality of student-school staff interpersonal relationships, by higher levels of student enjoyment, and by smaller student enrollments and smaller student-faculty ratios. Contrary to expectation, results showed that effective schools (higher-than-average student achievement test scores) were best described in terms of the rational goal model or as outward-directed, with emphasis on involving and empowering parents and on internal structure, control, and inflexibility (i.e., more school order and discipline). Results are discussed in terms of the broader organizational literature, specifically, competing organizational value orientations, effects of organizational structure and member characteristics on organizational process orientation, and the use of organizational process orientation as means to achieve organizational effectiveness and efficiency.


Human Relation Goal Model Student Enrollment Effective School Organizational Literature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, Carolyn S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research.Review of Educational Research,52 (3), 368–420.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, Roger G. & Gump, Paul (1964).Big school, small school. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Battistich, Victor, Solomon, Daniel, Kim, Dong-il, Watson, Marilyn & Schaps, Eric (1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students' attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis.American Educational Research Journal,32 (3), 627–658.Google Scholar
  4. Burtless, Gary (Ed.) (1996).Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, DC: Brooking.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, Kim S. (1981). Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities.Academy of Management Journal,24, 25–47.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, Kim (1986). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors.Management Science,32(1), 87–112.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, James S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.American Journal of Sociology,94 (Suppl. 95), S95-S120.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, James S., Campbell, Ernest Q., Hobson, Carol F., McPartland, James M., Mood, Alexander M., Weinfeld, Frederic D., & York, Robert L. (1966).Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education.Google Scholar
  9. Dubin, Robert (1976). Organizational effectiveness: Some dilemmas of perspective.Organizational and Administrative Sciences,7, 7–14.Google Scholar
  10. Eberts, Randall W., Schwartz, Eilen K., & Stone, Joe A. (1990). School reform, school size, and student achievement.Economic Review,26, 2–15.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, Joyce L. (1982).Student reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement (unpublished report). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, Joyce L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers' practices of parent involvement. In S. Silver (Ed.),Advances in reading/language research, Vol. 5: Literacy through family community, and school interaction. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 261–276.Google Scholar
  13. Evaluation Perspectives (1994, April). What parents want to know about schools: A report on school report cards (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 2–4). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation.Google Scholar
  14. Goldring, Ellen B. & Shapira, Rina (1993). Choice, empowerment, and involvement: What satisfies parents?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,15, 396–409.Google Scholar
  15. Halpin, Andrew W. & Croft, Don B. (1963).The organizational climates of schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center.Google Scholar
  16. Hanushek, Eric A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools.Journal of Economic Literature,24(3), 1141–1177.Google Scholar
  17. Hanushek, Eric A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In Gary Burtless (Ed.),Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, DC: Brookings, pp. 43–73.Google Scholar
  18. Hanushek, Eric A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,19(2), 141–164.Google Scholar
  19. Hoy, Wayne K., Tarter, C. John, & Bliss, James R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis.Educational Administration Quarterly,26, 260–279.Google Scholar
  20. Huber, Joseph D. (1983). Comparison of disciplinary concerns in small and large schools.The Small School Forum,4, 7–9.Google Scholar
  21. James, Lawrence R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.Journal of Applied Psychology,67, 219–229.Google Scholar
  22. James, Lawrence R., Joyce, William F., & Slocum, John W. (1988). Organizations do not cognize.Academy of Management Review,19 (1), 129–132.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, Dale & Walker, Todd (1991). A follow-up evaluation of the Houston parent-child development center: School performance.Journal of Early Intervention,15(3), 226–236.Google Scholar
  24. Katz, Daniel & Kahn, Robert L. (1978).The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Keeley, Michael (1978). A social justice approach to organizational evaluation.Administrative Science Quarterly,23, 272–292.Google Scholar
  26. Kenny, David A. & Judd, Charles M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance.Psychological Bulletin,99, 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiesling, Herbert J. (1968).High school size and cost factors. A report of project 6-1590, Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Google Scholar
  28. Klecka, William R. (1975). Discriminant analysis. In Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, & Dale H. Bent (Eds.),Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 434–467.Google Scholar
  29. Klecka, William R. (1980).Discriminant analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Klitgaard, Robert E. & Hall, George R. (1973).A statistical search for unusually effective schools (ERIC Document No. ED085409). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  31. Kreft, Ita. G. G. (1993). Using multilevel analysis to assess school effectiveness: A study of Dutch secondary schools.Sociology of Education,66, 104–129.Google Scholar
  32. Kozlowski, Steve W. J. & Hattrup, Keith (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus.Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levine, Daniel U. (1992). An interpretive review of U.S. research and practice dealing with unusually effective schools. In David Reynolds & Peter Cuttance (Eds.),School effectiveness: Research, policy, and practice. New York: Cassell, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
  34. Likert, Rensis (1967).The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. McGrew, Kevin S. & Gilman, Cheri. J. (1991). Measuring perceived degree of parent empowerment in home-school relationships through a home-school survey.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,9, 353–362.Google Scholar
  36. Moos, Rudolf H. (1979).Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Nunnally, Jum C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Ostroff, Cheri (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level of analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ostroff, Cheri & Schmitt, Neil (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency.Academy of Management Journal,36, 1345–1361.Google Scholar
  40. Perrow, Charles (1970).Organizational analysis: A sociological analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  41. Quinn, Robert E. & Rohrbaugh, John (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis.Management Science,29, 363–377.Google Scholar
  42. San Diego County (1984).San Diego County effective schools program (ERIC Document No. ED239337). San Diego, CA: San Diego County, Office of Education.Google Scholar
  43. Shouse, Roger C. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement.Social Psychology of Education,1, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva, A. Pedro D. & Stam, Antonie (1995). Discriminant analysis. In Laurence G. Grimm & Paul R. Yarnold (Eds.),Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 277–318.Google Scholar
  45. Steers, Richard M. & Black, J. Stewart (1994).Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  46. Stockard, Jean & Mayberry, Maralee (1992).Effective educational environments. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  47. Summers, Anita A. & Wolfe, Barbara L. (1977). Do schools make a difference?American Economic Review,65, 639–652.Google Scholar
  48. U. S. Department of Education (1988).National education longitudinal study school questionnaire, NELS: 88, First-follow-up. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  49. University of Washington (1988).Effective schools research (ERIC Document No. ED297459). Seattle: University of Washington, College of Education.Google Scholar
  50. Walberg, Herbert J. & Anderson, Gary J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,59, 414–419.Google Scholar
  51. Wicker, Allan W. (1968). Undermanning, performances, and students' subjective experiences in behavior settings of large and small high schools.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,10, 255–261.Google Scholar
  52. Wicker, Allan W. (1969). Cognitive complexity, school size, and participation in school behavior settings: A test of the frequency of interaction hypothesis.Journal of Educational Psychology,60, 200–203.Google Scholar
  53. Willems, Edwin (1967). Sense of obligation to high school activities as related to school size and marginality of students.Child Development,38, 1247–1260.Google Scholar
  54. Yuchtman, Ephraim & Seashore, Stanley A. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness.American Sociological Review,32, 891–903.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Griffith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations