MHRM 6801 Week 1 Effectiveness Discussion Post Example

Week 1 Discussion: What Would It Mean for This Organization to Be Effective?

Effective for Whom, at What, Over How Long? A Working Definition of Effectiveness for a Five-Depot Moving Company That Names Whose Judgment It Favors and the Period It Measures

Before this course I would have said a company is effective if it makes money and its customers are happy. Applied to Bellamy Moving & Storage, the composite family-owned mover with five depots along Colorado's Front Range that our course follows, that answer falls apart quickly, because three parties judge Bellamy and want different things. The owners judge it by margin and by whether the newer Aurora and Fort Collins depots are growing. Customers judge it by whether their belongings arrive on the scheduled day without damage. Crews judge it by whether they get steady hours and a fair share of the good jobs, the local moves that finish by mid-afternoon rather than the long hauls that stretch past dark.

Why One Definition Cannot Satisfy All Three

Connolly et al. (1980) argued that organizations serve multiple constituencies, each holding its own criteria, and that effectiveness cannot be judged without first asking whose criteria count. Cameron (1986) went further, arguing that effective organizations often satisfy criteria that pull against each other at once, such as growth and stability. At Bellamy, the owners' push to grow the newer depots could raise revenue while lowering quality if crews there are less experienced. A definition that tries to honor every party equally would end up measuring nothing in particular.

My Working Definition

For this course I will define Bellamy as effective to the extent that its moves are delivered on the scheduled day with no damage claim, measured as a share of all moves over a rolling twelve months, provided the company's operating margin stays above the level the owners need to keep investing. This definition favors customers' judgment. I chose it because customers' experience drives referrals and repeat business, which a mover depends on, and because damage claims are recorded consistently at the claims desk, so the measure can be checked. The margin floor keeps the owners' judgment in the definition as a constraint rather than the goal.

The definition deliberately leaves crews' judgment outside the measure itself. That is a real weakness. Harrison (2005) notes that diagnosticians should state which stakeholders their criteria favor, so others can see what is being left out. If crews' fairness concerns turn out to explain why some moves go badly, I will need to revise this.

Why Twelve Months

A month is too short; moving is seasonal, and summer, when most families move, strains every depot. Twelve months captures a full season and smooths out a single bad week. It is also long enough for a change at one depot, such as a new manager or a new estimating method, to show up in the numbers without being confused with a lucky or unlucky stretch. A longer window, such as three years, would hide whether the newer depots are improving as they mature.

Question for the Class

Which party's judgment did your own definition favor, and did you notice you were choosing?

References

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539-553. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539

Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 211-218. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1980.4288727

Harrison, M. I. (2005). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models, and processes (3rd ed.). Sage.