For the present study what can be the mediator variable is organizational innovativeness. There can be found ample definitions and models for the organizational innovativeness in the literature. To evaluate the organizational innovativeness, there are two kinds of innovativeness which are known as technical and administrative innovations which have drawn a lot of attention in the related literature (Damanpour,1991;Jaskyte,2002 and Obenchain,2002).Furthermore, many other models and definitions related to the concept will be presented.
Organizational innovativeness approaches
As a complicated construct, innovation is the subject of many scholars from various disciplines; it is examined from various viewpoints at different levels of analysis. At the level of organization, there is a general agreement on the definition; that is, innovation means development or use of new opinions and behaviors. This may refer to system service, technology, practice or a product. (Damanpour and Schneider, 2009).The definition which describes organizational innovativeness in this research refers to the frequency of times that each type of innovation is actually implemented in the organization during a certain period (Shin,1996).
The studies done on the organizational innovativeness have classified innovativeness into three groups: researches dealing with the process of innovation, antecedent researches and finally the types of innovation (Obenchain,2002). These ideas will be discussed below:
The organizational innovation process
The model which quite known in the area of organizational innovation process belongs to Rogers (1967), who believes innovation is an idea, object or practice which an individual or other units of adoption consider new. According to him, the adoption process falls into five steps:
The first stage is named awareness stage in which the individual knows about the innovation, but is not encouraged to get more information about it yet. Its primary duty is to trigger the sequences of the next stages which will eventually result in the rejection or adoption of the innovation.
Stage two is known as interest. Here the person begins to like the new ideas and tries to get more information about it. They are generally interested in the innovation, but have not digested its usefulness for his present position. The main task of the interest stage is to build up the person's knowledge concerning the innovation.
The third stage is called evaluation. This is a mental process in which the person tries to use the innovation to their present and future expected situation and after that they make a decision whether to try it or not. As was mentioned there is a kind mental trial at the stage of evaluation. If it is noticed that the benefits of innovation are higher than the drawbacks, the individual will make his mind to try the innovation. At this stage there is a subjective risk threatening the individual, because he is uncertain about the result and that is why a reinforcement effect is required at this level to make him believe that he is on the right path. Friends and partners can be very helpful in providing advice and information.
The next stage is known as the trial stage in which the innovation is used on a small scale to determine its usefulness for the individual's situation. The trial stage mainly deals with displaying the new ideas in the person's own situation and determining its utility for the next stage.
The fifth one is called the adoption stage. At this level the individual makes up his mind to go on with the full use of the innovation. The major duties of this stage are to consider the trial results and to decide to approve the continuous use of the innovation especially in the future (Rogers, 1967; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).
Schermrhorn, Hunt and Osborn (2005) believed the innovation stage can be complete only when the final application has been obtained. They believed that a new idea is not adequate by itself; it must pass through all the steps of innovation and become ready for use before its value is understood. According to them, there four more steps in any process of organizational innovation. The first step is named idea creation in which an idea is created through information processing, ingenuity and spontaneous creativity. The next step is the preliminary experimentation in which the potential value and application of the idea are established. The third step is referred to as feasibility determination in which the expected costs and profits are identified. The final step is known as the final application. At this step, it is attempted to produce and market a new service or product, or apply a new method to operations (Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, 2005). The process method of innovation has its own critics who imply that ignoring the implementation section of the process can only result in imperfect concept of innovation (West and Farr, 1990).
The antecedent approach
There is another study which is based on the antecedent approach. In this approach, the emphasis on the identification of the elements which facilitate the organizational innovations is higher than that of the factors which prevent it (Obenchain, 2002). Antecedents are the factors which are available in the situation before the introduction of the innovation. They can be categorized into two groups; the first one is the actor's identity and the second one is the actor's perception of the situation. His identity which influences the adoption of innovation is made up of all of the assets that he owns: sense of security, mental ability, dominant values, conceptual skills, social status and cosmopolitanisms.
The perception of the situation affects the actor's adoption behavior and the norms of the social system of the innovativeness works as motives or constraints on his behavior. People in a social system with an up-to-date norm act differently from the way they do where the norms are traditional. The economic limitations and encouragements and features of the unit like the farm, business or school can also have an effect on the adoption behavior (Rogers, 1967).
Obenchain (2002) identified three important kinds of facts on antecedents of the organizational innovation. These are the general features of the organizational members; that is, the leadership and additional organizational factors like the environmental variables and the attributes of the organization itself such as age, type and structure.
It is beyond the scope of this research to go through the organizational processes and the antecedent studies on a large scale, This is, in fact available in the works of Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), Damanpour(1991), Damanpour and Schneider (2009).
The type approach
The type approach is the third method which is used in this research. This method tries to classify innovations along common dimensions. In the past, researchers argued when we wish to understand the organizations' adoption behavior and identify the important elements of innovation in them, it is essential to distinguish different types of innovation (Downs and Mohr, 1976). Wang and Ahmed (2004) have defined organizational innovativeness according to five dimensions as product innovativeness, market innovativeness, process innovativeness, behavioral innovativeness and strategic innovativeness.
According to their model, product innovativeness refers to the novelty and meaningfulness of the new products presented to the market at the right time. The second dimension is market innovativeness which deals with the novelty of the approaches that companies take to enter and make use of the market intended. The third one is called process innovativeness controlling the introduction of new methods of production, fresh management methods and recent technology that can be applied to improve production and management processes. Aspect number four is known as behavioral innovativeness that is displayed via people, teams and management and helps create an innovative culture, the general preparation to receive new opinions and innovations. The last one is named strategic innovativeness that concentrates on measuring an organization's capability in achieving the objectives set for the organization and identifying incongruence between these ambitions and the existing resources so that the limited resources can be creatively used (Wang and Ahmed, 2004).
In addition, Tang ( 1998) presented his model of organizational innovativeness on the basis of six constructs including project raising and doing, knowledge and skills, behavior and integration, information and communication, guidance and support and finally the external environment. Based on this model, an organization is defined as an open system that is subjected to impacts of its external environment and the other way round. Information and communication can provide incentives and connection between the organization and its external environment as well as among the members. The reaction of an organization to a stimulus put forward by new information relies upon the skills and knowledge of the people within the organization. Besides, it is related to the behavioral features of the members and how efficiently they are incorporated into the business and support each other's ideas and actions. What is expected to be the final goals is that projects will be sponsored and supported by the organization and finally novel processes, services and products will be created ( Tang,1998).
Although there are many different types of innovation in the literature, there are three types which have gained widespread recognition and each of them focuses on one pair of innovation type; namely, product and process, administrative and technical, and radical and incremental (Damanpour, 1991). The varied nature of innovation can be seen in the classifications of innovation distributed across a continuum from radical to incremental impacts. The focus of attention ranges from a person to an organization (Zaltman et al, 1973, cited in 2010).
Product innovation refers to the new services and products that are used to satisfy the market i.e. the external users. By process innovation it is meant that there are new factors which are mingled into the organization's service operations as well as the production processes. There are some characteristics which are part of the process and are used to give service or make a product. Those features include work, information, task specifications, input materials, mechanisms and equipment (Utterback, 1974).
There are two other main innovation types that appear systematically in the literature namely, technical and administrative innovations. Technical innovations can be observed in the technical system of an organization, which is directly linked to the primary work processes of the organization, and is not derived just from the implementation of technology (Damanpour & Evan, 1984; Damanpour, Szabat, & Evan, 1989). The other type, administrative innovations, is inside an organization's social system and is associated with rules, roles, structures and procedures that depend on the communication and interaction among people within the atmosphere of the organization (Damanpour & Evan, 1984; Damanpour, Szabat, & Evan, 1989).
Moreover, Daft (1978) said that administrative and technical innovations indicate that there are potentially many different decision-making processes and all of these represent the changes which are present in a wide variety of activities in an organization. Daft's study suggests that the performance of an organization can be affected by the discovery of the complementary nature of administrative and technical innovations.
It is highly important to distinguish technical from administrative innovations, because it is related to a more general difference between social structure and technology (Evan, 1966). Technical innovations are related to services and products and production process technology; they deal with the fundamental work activities and are related to either product or process (Damanpour & Evan, 1984). However, the administrative innovations include administrative processes and organizational structure. They are indirectly related to the fundamental work activities of an organization and mostly deal with its management (Damanpour, 1991).
In addition, Perri 6 (1993) introduced a classification for the organizational innovation that consisted of dimensions namely, product innovation, process innovation, and organizational innovation. As Obenchain (2002) pointed out Perri 6's classification is conceptually like the typology of technical, and administrative innovation introduced by Damanpour and Evan (1984).
The present research will focus on the organizational innovativeness according to the conceptualization of Shin (1996), Jaskyte (2002) in nonprofit human service organizations, and the ideas of Obenchain (2002 ) in higher education environment that are similar to the classification proposed by Perri 6 (1993) and Damanpour and Evan( 1984). Furthermore, there will be a combination of product innovation and process innovation so as to represent technical innovation according to the definition given by Damanpour and Evan (1984) and hereby new products, services and new factors in the processes of producing them will be included.
A comparison between organizational innovativeness approaches
Overall comparison of three approaches shows that each of them studies organizational innovativeness in a different way. First, Process approach focuses on stages from initiation of an innovation to its implementation in an organization (Rogers,1983). Second, antecedents approach relates to factors that facilitate organizational innovation rather than inhibit it such as, organizations age, type, size, resource, economic- social environment and etc. Third, typology approach that categorizes innovations along common dimensions. This research is a cross-sectional survey, that it is a common approach to data collection in the studies related to organizational adoption (Obenchain,2002). Based on research objectives, Process and antecedents approaches are beyond the scope of this study. Current research will use both technical innovation and administrative innovation of typology approach. These two types are the most popular for the assessment of the organizational innovativeness (Damanpour, 1991).
Organizational effectiveness is the dependent variable for this study .It has several definitions and models which will be introduced in this study; nevertheless there is not a single definition or model to be appropriate for all organizations. There will be a review of the attempts made to operationally define and evaluate organizational effectiveness in higher educational institutes and Cameron's model will also be applied in this research. In addition, the previous studies which were based on Cameron's model and dealt with organizational effectiveness in higher education will be presented as well.
General models of organizational effectiveness
There are various scholarly definitions for organizational effectiveness. Some of them are as follows:
â€¢ The proficiency of the organization at having access to the essential resources (Cameron, 1978).
â€¢ The organization's capability to attain the desired level of input or outcome attainment (Pennings and Goodman,1979).
â€¢ The organization's success in achieving a set of objectives which encompassed outcomes such as profit, growth, decrease in diseases and increase in productivity and also discarded the measures of the organizational behavior and process (Engle ,1990).
â€¢ The criterion of the organization's successful fulfillment of their purposes through core strategies (McCann ,2004).
There are also different models as to how to determine organizational effectiveness. Since organizations encounter different environments, they produce different goods. The members of such organizations are of various types and the organizations themselves are at different phases of devolvement. Any model can be suitable for an organization provided that there is a special mixture of these organizational and environmental traits (Toosi, 2005). Organizational effectiveness is in several chief models and they have been discussed by many authors in the course of time. Some of them are presented below:
The goal approach
The first and extensively used approach in organizational effectiveness is the goal approach. Its focus is on the output to figure out the essential operating objectives like profit, innovation and finally product quality ( Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, 2005). There are some basic assumptions for the goal approach. One of them is that there should be a general agreement on the specific goals and the people involved should feel committed to fulfilling them. The next assumption is that the number of goals is limited and achieving them requires certain indispensable resources. (Robbins,2004).
There are some other criticisms for this approach. One of them is that it mainly concentrates on the official or management aims and ignores the ends of the organization's members, constituency or even the society. The second criticism lies in the fact that it does not pay attention to the multiple and contradictory nature of the organizational objectives. The third drawback refers to its inattention to the environmental effects on the organization and its goals. And finally there are retrospective goals, and instead of directing the action, they try to justify them (Gigliotti, 1987).
The system resource approach
The second approach is called the system resource approach which pays attention to the input side of the figure and explains the effectiveness from the point of view of the ability to obtain necessary resources from the external environments of the organization (Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, 2005).To system theorists, organizational process comprises at least four significant sections, namely, input, through-put, output and feedback. According to this outlook, it is believed that the capability of an organization to obtain resources (i.e. input) is directly connected with its ultimate survival and effectiveness (Katz and Rosenzweig,1972). Full concentration is directed to the whole work organization and the interrelation between behavior and structure as well as the extent of the variables within the organization.
This approach invites managers to consider the organization not only as a whole but as a part of a larger group as well. The dominating attitude is that any part of the activities of an organization has an effect on all parts (Mullins, 2006). As an effectiveness measure, acquisition of resources is of high importance for new organizations. As the organization develops, the output side becomes more significant for the purpose of evaluation. The output which may be used includes such sources as articles, journals, books, newsletters, monographs, seminars and conferences attended or conducted as well as other dissemination activities and positive stakeholder perception of the organization (Singh et al. 1986).
The process approach
The third approach is known as the process approach which pays attention to the transformation process and is dedicated to seeing to what extent the resources are officially used to give services or produce goods (Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, 2005). By effectiveness it is meant that the organization is internally healthy and efficient and the internal processes and procedures in that place are quite well-oiled. In an effective organization there is no trace of stress and strain; the members are completely part of the system and the system itself works smoothly and the relationship between the members is based on trust, honesty and good will; there is a smooth flow of information both horizontally and vertically, In this approach, the degree of effectiveness of the organization is quite high provided that they have a high degree of these internal features. On the contrary, if the degree of these attributes is low, the organization will be less effective (Cameron, 1981).
The strategic constituency approach
The fourth approach is the strategic constituency which deals with the effect of the organization on the main stake holders and their interests ( Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, 2005). According to this approach, effectiveness refers to the minimal satisfaction of all of the strategic constituencies of the organization. Strategic constituency refers to any group of the people who have some stake in the organization. These people can be users of the services or products of the organization; they may be resource providers; they may include the producers of the organization's output; they may be some groups whose cooperation is indispensable for the survival of the organization and finally the people whose lives are to a great extent influenced by the organization. According to this approach, the effectiveness of the organization is determined by how efficiently the organization manages to fulfill the demands and expectations of the strategic constituencies involved. The proponents of the strategic constituencies approach have usually paid particular attention to the external constituencies who are outside the organization but have an outstanding effect of the organization (Cameron, 1981).
Organizational effectiveness models in higher education
In fact, there has been no attempt to use the above models present in the literature to directly measure the organizational effectiveness at the higher educational institutes (Karagoz and Oz, 2008). An attempt to measuring the effectiveness at higher education was made by Kleeman and Richardon (1985). They studied student perceptions of effectiveness of the three state universities in Arizona following survey procedures. The instrument included ten factors or activity domain categories in to lists of the 54 statements. Responders were 3308 students at three universities. Researchers developed a group of criteria named "Effectiveness Field Criteria" .In their views, organizational effectiveness at higher education can be classified into ten categories which follow:1)student programs and services,2)considering minorities and women, 3)quality of research and teaching,4)research and knowledge publication, 5)workshops and counseling to broaden access, 6)sports, 7(supporting cultural activities, 8)presentation of graduate programs, 9)leasing facilities, and 10)increasing standards. At the end of this research, the writers come to the conclusion that students believe that notions such as the development of the student programs and services, the quality of research and education and finally the presentation of graduate programs are of such high qualities that they should mainly be developed at universities.
According to Antia and Cuthbert (1976) there are nine "critical success factors" in polytechnic performance. These factors are related to each other, and if achievement is not granted due to any one factor, it would, in time, adversely impact the performance in respect of others. The nine factors are as follows:
1) Social tune:
By social tune it is meant that when objectives have been fixed and budget has been allotted to the programs, the shares of different institutions from the allocated funds will be based mainly on their capability in tuning into and responding to the social needs through research projects and courses they offer. Another feature of the social tuning is related to flexibility of the learning environments provided. There is still another way by which a polytechnic can attract a student and that is how much it can remove the student's needs in the programs of the study, timing and so on. If the client is an organization, this very concept of flexibility requires that programs present a philosophy that is vividly considered by such organizations as being compatible with the needs of their organization.
2) Cost effectiveness:
An economy which struggles to allocate its limited resources in order to get best value for money pays remarkable attention to the notion of cost- effectiveness. The money needed for financing Polytechnics has to be collected from taxation, loans and charges. Any economic attempt to raise funds by any of these methods means inviting economic and political debates and public scrutiny. Thus, cost- effectiveness of the proposed programs and the wise use of resources in programs which are already in progress require to be made clear if polytechnic managements are to stand away from criticism.
3) Course development:
Another important success factor is course development. In education courses are the "product" programs and the significance of the product planning in education is equal to its importance in commercial business. The courses which are poorly developed give rise to frustration for the staff and the students. Besides, they may result in staff loads which are redundant in comparison with the national resource norms. Furthermore, they may produce a framework of staff time tables which are incompatible with the performance in other crucial areas. Fame is created slowly, but can be eradicated very rapidly by a poorly designed course and the disgrace will not be localized to the course but may appear on the polytechnic in general which may include a reduction in the admission of students in the following years, a decrease in establishing institutions, possible redundancy and depression of work spirit among staff members.
4) Corporate reputation:
The next factor is called corporate reputation. This factor is based on the recorded achievements of the staff members of the polytechnic as well as on the number of achievements and also the extent the knowledge that such achievements can nationally and globally cover.
5) Investment in human capital:
The fifth factor that represents the success factor is the human capital, that is, staff members. These people are the main resource of the polytechnic. The quality of staff's welfare is one of the most influential factors in improving polytechnic performance. High quality academic staff can interest students through the corporate fame they create which is based on good courses and published research. Academic staff, however, needs support from high-ranking administrators. The academic and administrative staff can also match the culture of the polytechnic with the students.
6) The development of physical facilities:
The sixth critical factor for success refers to the development of physical facilities. The lack or shortage of teaching and library facilities, laboratory equipment, studios and computer facilities, administrative facilitates as well as communal accommodations inevitably imposes limits on growth. These take time and require considerable financial scrutiny, because each of the mentioned fields demands appropriate justifications.
7) Student relation:
Factor number seven is known as student relation. This refers to the concept that students should be the focus of attention by the educational institution; however, in higher education, staffs frequently consider the students as nuisances who interfere with their research and their promotion prospects. Nevertheless, this is not a universal stance; there are many people who recognize the value of the students as individuals who provide jobs for teachers and administrators.
Good student relationships have to be cultivated; they do not simply occur. When there is a positive attitude on the part of the staff towards the students, mutual respect can be created. The students should be entitled to take part in some of the decision making events in the polytechnic; pastoral care should be taken into consideration; the importance, the relevance and quality of teaching need to be examined, personal contact between staff and students should be appreciated and the adequate provision of recreational and sport facilities, accommodation and catering should be taken into account.
8) The quality of employee relations:
The eighth critical success factor is the quality of the relations between the employees. When there is a low level of interaction between the employees, the efficiency will be harmed, resulting in staff wastage, and following this, students will be affected and finally the corporate reputation will be destroyed.
9) Public responsibility:
The last critical success factor is called public responsibility. As a public institution, a polytechnic is of vital importance in terms of the activities and relations of its staff and students. In other words, this can depict an image of high standard of public responsibility. However, if this responsibility fails to be granted, it has invited public criticism, disgrace, reduced student intake and reduced morale.
Researchers believe that measuring performance and achievement of Polytechnics is a multi-dimensional issue. Performance can be correctly evaluated form different points of view such as role effectiveness, efficiency and potential capability for the future activities. There are nine critical success factors which need to be spotted and any inter-Polytechnic comparison has to emphasize these factors. The performances in these areas are signs of survival and growth.
In another study, Cameron (1978) made an effort to devise a model for the evaluation of organizational effectiveness at higher education. It is based on nine dimensions of organizational effectiveness: 1) student educational satisfaction, 2) student academic development, 3) student career development, 4) student personal development, 5) faculty and administrator employment satisfaction, 6) professional development and quality of the faculty, 7) system openness and community interaction, 8) ability to acquire resources and 9) organizational health, The nine dimensions mentioned above are discussed below:
Student educational development is the first dimension that deals with the satisfaction of students with their educational experiences at the place where they are studying. The second dimension is referred to as student academic development. It discusses the amount of achievement, growth and progress which the students have managed to gain at the institute and also it deals with opportunities for academic development which is given to them by the institution. Dimension number three is named student career development. It indicates the range of the students' occupational and vocational progress as well as the opportunities which are given to them by the institutions. The fourth aspect is called student personal development. It refers to the extent of the students' progress in non-career, non-academic areas; in fact, they are on the social, cultural and emotional basis. The opportunities which are offered by the institutions are also within this dimension.
The fifth dimension is called faculty and administrator employment satisfaction. This refers to the satisfaction which the faculty members and administrators have with their employment and job at the institution. The dimension of professional development and quality of the faculty talks about the range of professional achievement and development of the faculty as well as the extent of stimulation toward professional progress the institution provides.
Another dimension is system openness and community interaction .It displays the emphasis which is given to the interaction with the external environment of the institution , the adaptation to it and also the service given in that place. The eighth dimension is the ability to acquire resources; that is, the range of resources the institution can earn from the external environment. They can include high-quality students and faculty, financial aid and political legitimacy. The last dimension by Cameron is called organizational health. It refers to the amount of smooth functioning of the institution from the viewpoint of its processes and operations such as good-will and liveliness of the institution (Cameron, 1978).
Furthermore, according to Cameron's (1981) research there are four main fields of organizational effectiveness which are compatible with the effectiveness dimensions:
The first one is named the academic field which is concerned with the students' academic progress, professional development and the productivity of the lecturers as well as the potential to obtain resources. The second field is known as the moral field. This deals with the student's educational satisfaction, the organizational health and the faculty and administrator employment satisfaction. The third one is the external adaptation which deals with the student's career progress and system openness and community interaction. And finally the outside program filed discusses the single dimension of student's personal development. Later, Cameron incorporated the student's personal progress dimension into the academic field and deleted the last field (Anderson, 2000). According to Cameron's research, the organizational effectiveness has a multi-field; that is to say, the system resource model is very close related to the external adaptation field in the higher educational institutions. There seems to be some similarity between the process approach and the moral field. The goal model also, is similar to the academic field (Karagoz and Oz, 2008). As Cameron (1981) concluded due to their structures, the four effectiveness approaches are not suitable in such organizations as higher institutions.
Evaluation of organizational effectiveness models
Every one of above models can present extremely clear guideline for the systematic assessment of the effectiveness of organizations. For instance, the goal model can be used when the organizational goals are clear-cut, measurable and mutually agreeable. The application of system resource can be effective when there is a vivid relation between resources which an organization receives and the goods or services it produces. The stress of the process approach is on the internal organizational processes as the main principle of the organization effectiveness. The strategic constituencies approach finds it hard to assess the effectiveness since it assumes that organizations are just effective enough to minimally meet the strategic constituency demands ( Cameron ,1981).
As Altschuld and Zheng (1995) said the weakened significance of the goal-based approach for the evaluation of the effectiveness of research organizations and academic establishments is depicted in the accurate and clear measurement of the results and must be accurately and clearly measured. In fact, what is crucial in the vividness of the goals and output measures. The goal model is suitable only when these conditions are met. However, this is not usually applicable for the educational research organizations specifically in conditions where they are responsible to the goals and there must be justifications for their large-scale social functions. Moreover, any research possesses an exploratory nature and for the job of inquiry, freedom is essential. These are the facts which must not be restricted by narrow goals. In this case, the goal-oriented approach will be only partly suitable.
In addition, due to their quantitative features, the uses of input and output measures of effectiveness in the system resource approach seem appealing. However, they will not actually display the entire story of performance, because it is not possible for new thoughts and discoveries to have an immediate and directly observable effect. It is also possible that the academic and research organization will not give out outstanding results even after a long period of funding. Considering the prospect of making remarkable contributions in the future, and even though there may be no adequate evidence of effectiveness, founders may go on offering support.
Furthermore, in academic and research environments in which it is not quite easy to define the cost-benefit relations, it is sensible to make use of the strategic constituency approach. This approach assumes an exhaustive attitude toward effectiveness and evaluates the factors both in the environment and within the organization. In this outlook the concept of social responsibility is taken into consideration. This is the notion that is not formally paid attention to in the traditional approaches, but it is of crucial importance for academic and research institutions which are financially supported by national money. Policy makers continuously pay attention to social responsibility because the resources which are available for research and development have been growing smaller and smaller at all levels of organizations. In order to evaluate how answerable an organization is to the society, there rises the question of accountability of research activities and outcomes in relation to public expectations. The questions are: is there a balanced position in terms of political issues? Does the organization have clear-cut measures or service quality? And what interests can it serve with its results? (Dalton and Dalton, 1988).
Based on above discussion, the Cameron's model of organizational effectiveness, has close relationship with three difference models named goal, system resource, and process. It pays attention to the fact that the organization is effective as long as it can achieve the goals intended; it can obtain the resources from the environment, and it can get along with all of its system processes in terms of the performance of the organization. It should be taken into consideration that there is not one single suitable model for the assessment of the organization. Even though the organizations fulfill the criteria of each approach, they may be judged ineffective and on the contrary, they may be considered effective although there may be no agreement with the criteria (Cameron, 1981).
Moreover, a comparison between three academic papers in higher education, indicates that one is based upon reflection (Antia and Cuthbert,1976) and two are empirical investigation (Kleeman and Richardon 1985; Cameron 1978). Each of these authors suggests nine or ten general aspects of effectiveness.There are a degree of overlap between their suggestions for example, the first four of Cameron's model - student educational satisfaction, student academic development, student career development, and student personal development - encompass activities in factor 1- programs and services for students - of Kleeman and Richardon's model. Professional development and quality of the faculty dimension is similar to quality of research and teaching. Sponsoring cultural activities implies many of the same activities as Cameron's system openness and community interaction dimension. Factor 9, leasing facilitates is a specific application of Cameron's ability to acquire resources dimension (Kleeman and Richardon,1985).The Antia and Cuthbert's (1976) model suggests student relations factor similar to the first four Cameron's student dimensions. Moreover, employee relations factor is similar with faculty and administrator employment satisfaction of Cameron's model ( Yorke, 1987).
In this research, the Cameron's model of organizational effectiveness is used for two main reasons: the first one is that this model is associated to three general models of organizational effectiveness namely, goal, system resource and process, that seems most appropriate for studying organizational effectiveness in compare with previous other models. The second reason is that this model with its instruments has already been used so often to deal with the organizational effectiveness in higher educational contexts. In the course of time, the capacity of the model, and reliability and validity of its questionnaire have been confirmed by many authors. As a result, according to the objectives, it seems quite suitable to use this model in the present study.