PREDICTING A TAXONOMY OF ORGANIZATIONAL-EFFECTIVENESS IN UK HIGHER EDUCATIONAL-INSTITUTIONS

Major developments in organisational theory have witnessed the emergen ce of several models of organisational effectiveness (OE) and change ( Keeley 1978; Hannan & Freeman 1977; Miles & Cameron 1982). The integra tive competing values framework suggests organisations adopt uniquely effective approaches reflecting their needs at different stages in the ir life cycle by addressing varying degrees of emphasis on systems res ource, human relations, internal process, and rational goal orientatio ns (Cameron & Whetten 1981; Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983; Quinn & Cameron 19 83). This coincided with, and complemented, the growing recognition of the importance of developing systematic means for organisational spec iation (McKelvey 1975, 1982; Muchinsky & Morrow 1980) and using the re sulting taxonomies emerging from these studies to underpin theory buil ding and further research. The ongoing challenge of this era is, there fore, to continue to test and extend construct space and explore organ isational typologies in line with these theoretical and empirical deve lopments in order to provide practical utility for decision makers. In deed, this was the impetus for large scale OE research programs involv ing higher educational institutions in both Australia and the U.K. Thi s paper first briefly reviews highlights of the developments emerging from the Australian programs over a number of years. Framed in this co ntext, the paper then summarises the study program in the U.K. aimed a t further cross-cultural exploration of OE dimensions. Of particular i nterest was their usefulness in predicting and fleshing out a taxonomy of U.K. higher educational institutions, namely classical (red brick) universities, former polytechnics and colleges of advanced technology , and 60's greenfield universities. The results reinforced life cycle and resource dependency theory underpinning the competing values frame work based explanations for inherent and systematic differences betwee n these archetypes (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983; Lysons 1993). However, fur ther research directions are also suggested.