See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4884983

Models for Organizational Self-Assessment

Article  in  Business Horizons · February 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0007-6813(02)00257-4 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS
11 5,720

2 authors, including:

Matthew W. Ford
Northern Kentucky University
35 PUBLICATIONS   483 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew W. Ford on 07 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Models for organizational
self-assessment

Matthew W. Ford
Assistant Professor of Management, Northern Kentucky
University, Highland Heights, Kentucky
A n increasingly observable phenomenon in the
business world is the corporate practice of eval-
uating behavioral or work processes using little
or no external help. Conducting such a self-assessment
helps managers answer essential questions such as “How
James R. Evans are we doing?” “What are our strengths?” and “What areas
Professor of Quantitative Analysis and Operations
require improvement?” Although organizational assess-
Management, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
ments have been conducted for decades, outside consult-
ants (often scholars) have traditionally managed the
process for clients. The rise in self-assessment suggests that
companies are now more apt to internalize the activity.
The quality movement—most notably, the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award Program—has boosted
interest in self-assessment. With well over two million
copies of the Baldrige criteria disseminated worldwide
among practitioners, it is presumed that a large number
Organizational self-assessment of firms have been using those criteria for self-assessment.
As such, the organizational model contained in the Bal-
is the evaluation of a firm’s drige program is likely the most popular self-assessment
model in the world. Interest extends beyond the quality
processes or systems using little context, however, with self-assessment frameworks emerg-
ing in a number of functional disciplines, including
or no outside assistance. A key accounting, information systems, product development,
aspect of such a project is the model manufacturing, and strategic planning. Empirical studies
of organizational functioning against suggest that the number of firms that have conducted or
plan to conduct self-assessments is large and growing.
which actual performance is compared.
Why would managers want to assess their own firms?
Drawing from experiences with the Baldrige
Self-assessments are useful when managers sense a per-
Criteria for Performance Excellence and other formance problem but lack an understanding of its sever-
frameworks, we define criteria that managers ity or its source. Managers may perceive, say, a “culture
can use to select an appropriate model, and problem” or difficulties “doing change” well, but they
have scant data or insight on what to do about it. Firms
illustrate how those criteria apply to popular
exhibiting factors that facilitate organizational learning
models used for self-assessment. Understanding are also more likely to be interested in self-assessment.
the managerial issues and the characteristics Learning factors such as the tendency for experimenta-
that influence a model’s usefulness for self- tion, a concern for measurement and objective informa-
tion, and involved leadership often encourage a firm to
assessment can help managers find one that
investigate the possible benefits of self-assessment. Man-
will work best for their companies. agers can identify organizational levers that, when ad-
justed, boost performance. Self-assessment essentially

25
serves as an information system for managers interested in
identifying and improving organizational processes.
Selecting the model

M
anagers considering conducting self-assessments
Instrumental to self-assessment is the organizational
in their firms face some important issues related
model used in the evaluation. The model is an abstract
to the organizational model. The first is model
representation of the firm’s behavior or functioning. Al-
selection. Scholars and practitioners have developed many
though these models are often developed by academics
organizational models, but relatively few of them are
and theoretically grounded, such as Nadler and Tushman’s
employed in a self-assessment mode. What separates a
(1980) congruence model of change, many of the popular
good model from a less effective one? Several factors
ones have originated largely from practical wisdom and
should be considered, including its conceptual domain,
experience, such as the performance management model
concreteness, diagnostic guidance, affiliation, and validity.
embedded in the Baldrige criteria. Organizational models
serve as the reference standard for self-assessment. They Conceptual domain
identify the processes or activities that will be evaluated
(often termed “process variables”) and at least one out- Managers must locate a model with a conceptual domain
come or performance variable. Important relationships similar to the organizational area of interest. The scope of
between the process variables and the outcome variables some models is broad and covers many functions or disci-
are specified as well. To be useful in self-assessment as a plines, while other models are more appropriate for spe-
comparator, an organizational model must also specify cific problems or topics. Figure 1 shows selected models
standards for “goodness” so that the degree to which matched with common self-assessment topics.
processes conform or align with these standards can be For companies with a specific problem in mind, choosing
evaluated. an appropriate organizational model may be straightfor-
What are the issues involved in choosing and using an ward. If managers sense that a problem exists with, say,
organizational model for self-assessment? Drawing from the firm’s culture, then a model that elaborates various
our research and consulting experience in 100-plus self- cultural dimensions can be obtained. Often, however,
assessments involving the Baldrige framework and other managers cannot articulate precisely what they want to
models, we present criteria that have consistently resulted assess. In a struggling firm with many perceived problems,
in the selection of a useful model, and highlight particu- it can be difficult to pinpoint problematic areas that re-
lar aspects of the self-assessment process that interact with quire attention. Indeed, complex problems are often diffi-
the model in use. cult for managers to recognize and diagnose.

Figure 1
Some self-assessment topics, objectives, and representative models
Scope of
Assessment topic Objective Representative model assessment impact

Organizational Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of key Malcolm Baldrige Criteria Broad
performance managerial processes and their relationship to for Performance Excellence
performance (NIST 2002)

Organizational Understanding the firm’s ability to achieve change Nadler and Tushman’s
change (1980) congruence model

Culture Determining key aspects and degree of fit of a Schein’s (1985) model of
firm’s culture culture and leadership

Work systems Evaluating work and job design and the relation- Hackman and Oldham’s
ship to performance (1980) model of work design

Purchasing & Measuring success and improving supply manage- Institute of Supply Manage-
supply mgmt. ment practices ment’s (1997) audit framework

Quality Determining the extent to which internal quality ISO 9000 Series of Quality Narrow
assurance systems ensure that outputs conform to a Assurance Standards (American
customer’s specified requirements Society for Quality 2001)

26 Business Horizons / November-December 2002

Historically, such a predicament has often entailed bring- ant to explain it to you?” Useful self-assessment models
ing in outside experts to help identify problematic areas are those that managers can grasp with little or no outside
and broker the appropriate assessment model. However, assistance.
firms seeking to conduct self-assessment often wish to
minimize the involvement of outsiders. For situations Diagnostic guidance
involving ambiguous problems, models with a broad An effective model for self-assessment guides managers
scope often prove excellent initial choices for self-assess- toward processes that can be improved. Many models pro-
ment projects. The Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Perfor- vide data on performance but lack a diagnostic compo-
mance Excellence (NIST 2002), for example, provides an nent that signals where the problems are or where to look
integrative model across a variety of disciplines such as for answers. Consider the experience of one chief quality
leadership, strategic planning, marketing, IS, HR, and officer who was frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the
operations management. Its conceptual domain is meant model used by her company to monitor progress toward
to span critical activities and success factors that support strategic goals:
the concept of high performance. This and other models
built to reflect organizational effectiveness help familiar- At each monthly meeting, most of our key indica-
ize managers with a palette of variables that influence per- tors were flashing red at us—indicating that we
formance and aid in pinpointing areas that require more weren’t hitting our numbers. But the executive com-
managerial attention. mittee just looked at each other and asked, “What
else can we do that we aren’t doing already?” Our
Concreteness current system tells us that we have a problem, but
we have no idea of where to go in our processes to
For self-assessment, in which employees primarily man-
fix it.
age the assessment activities, the less abstract the organi-
zational model the better. A concrete model rich with A valuable self-assessment model provides more than just
examples and real-life detail encourages managers to learn a measure of organizational performance or progress. It
it because it leverages empirical experience. Models of directs managers toward behavioral processes that can be
organizational change, for instance, often highlight the leveraged for improvement. One firm that was using an
importance of aligning structure with the objectives of the internally developed questionnaire to evaluate its quality
change being implemented. An abstract model of organi- management system found that a gradual drop in meas-
zational change might ask, “How has the firm’s structure ured levels of customer satisfaction corresponded to lower
been adjusted to support the change under assessment?” ratings in leadership activities (allocating executive meet-
Some managers might find it hard to answer this ques- ing time to quality-related issues, visiting key customers,
tion, since “structure” may seem somewhat unclear. A and so on). After reflecting on this finding, the manage-
more specific question might ask, “How have key report- ment team developed an action plan to allocate more
ing assignments and relationships been adjusted to sup- senior-level attention to leadership activities.
port the change under assessment?” Most managers
Baldrige-based self-assessments commonly emphasize
would find this question easier to answer, since it con-
diagnosis and actionable improvement opportunities. The
nects to activity that can be more precisely evaluated in
assessment is focused on identifying the effectiveness and
the context of managing change.
deployment of a firm’s approaches, leading to a list of
One reason for the Baldrige criteria’s popularity in self- strengths and opportunities for improvement that are
assessment appears to be the presence of mechanisms in linked to key strategic success factors. Numerical scores
the model’s narrative to help users understand it and apply describing levels of maturity in the firm’s management
it in an evaluative context. One section, for instance, elab- processes are summarized in a written “feedback report”
orates a set of core values underpinning the model that intended to provide actionable priorities that can be inte-
reflect widely recognized managerial concepts such as grated into subsequent planning cycles. Many companies
organizational and personal learning, customer-driven use such feedback as a basis for strategic planning.
excellence, management by fact, and a system perspective,
thereby providing a cultural context for those wishing to Affiliation
understand the model. In addition, the Baldrige narrative Organizational models are more likely to be adopted
includes a glossary of key terms, examples, diagrams, and when their originators are recognized and respected by
notes to further clarify the conceptual narrative and the firm’s managers. Affiliating the model with a famous
describe key links between variables. developer or a renowned institution lends legitimacy to
One executive captured the essence of concreteness, assert- the self-assessment initiative. Models developed by aca-
ing, “Here’s the acid test: Can your team get its arms demics sometimes gain an edge here, since well-read and
around the model on its own, or do you need a consult- educated managers are often favorably attracted to the
work of widely published scholars and their affiliated in-

Models for organizational self-assessment 27

stitutions. Managers are also influenced by external organ- known about organizational phenomena. However, the
izations that sponsor or endorse a particular model. The practical context of self-assessment also requires that a
Baldrige model is administered and endorsed by two model possesses “face validity.” If the propositions and
groups perceived as credible and legitimate in many man- relationships of a model do not make sense in light of
agers’ eyes: the American Society for Quality and the managers’ day-to-day experience, then it will be of little
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Dual use. Any model under consideration for use in self-assess-
endorsement by a large professional trade group and an ment needs to be validated against a manager’s world-
agency of the federal government is impressive and greatly view. When two or more models are being considered, the
enhances the legitimacy of the model. one with the highest degree of face validity is usually
more attractive because managers will be more prone to
When given a choice between an internal and externally
accept and use self-assessment findings based on a model
developed model, managers commonly favor outside
that best matches practical experience.
affiliation. An executive task force at one company opted
to hire a consulting firm to develop a model that would In Figure 2 we provide a checklist to guide managers
allow management to self-assess its communication toward the successful acquisition of a useful organiza-
processes—although a model reflecting
this domain already existed inside the
company. When asked why they did not
Figure 2
choose the readily available and cer-
Questions when seeking a useful model for self-assessment
tainly less expensive internal model,
members of the task force replied that Conceptual domain
they thought the self-assessment find- • What area of the firm is targeted for self-assessment?
ings would be more credible to both • What off-the-shelf models are available that relate to this conceptual
employees and the board of directors domain? Have they been validated?
(who encouraged the study) if it were • If no external models are available, can we develop an appropriate model
developed by someone perceived as an internally?
expert in the field. Objective: Find a model with a conceptual domain similar to the area requiring
assessment.
Validity
Concreteness
The items articulated above contribute to • Does the model contain many abstract concepts?
a model’s perceived validity—the degree • Is the language written in terms that are easily grasped by managers?
to which it is considered acceptable, • Can the model be related to practical experience?
accurate, or convincing. The notion of Objective: Models used for self-assessment must relate to experience and real life
validity is a popular topic among aca- events.
demics. The volume of scholarly work
debating the definition of validity and Diagnostic guidance
how to evaluate it is truly breathtaking. • Does the model allow managers to assess how well the firm is doing?
Regardless of the technical challenges • Does the model provide actionable guidance on strengths and weaknesses?
• Can managers pinpoint processes or behaviors that require improvement
associated with its measurement, the
based on self-assessment results?
concept of validity is important here
Objective: The model should allow managers to understand process strengths and
because the use of a nonvalid model for weaknesses and guide them toward areas that need corrective action or improvement.
self-assessment could be disastrous if it
guides managers toward erroneous con- Affiliation
clusions and actions. • Do you know and respect the developer of the model?
• Is the model affiliated or promoted by an organization you trust or admire?
To establish the validity of an organiza-
• Is the model internally or externally developed?
tional model, scholars often evaluate it Objective: Strong affiliation lends legitimacy to the model, which will enhance the
in light of previous theory and in actual self-assessment initiative.
settings to ensure that specified variables
and relationships appropriately reflect Validity
the empirical world. For example, Ford • Has the model been tested against existing theory, standards of measure-
and Evans (2000) and Wilson and Col- ment, and/or real life experience?
lier (2000) have recently undertaken rig- • Has the model been used successfully elsewhere to identify problems and
orous investigations of the Baldrige improve organizational performance?
model’s validity. Formal validation is a Objective: A valid model improves the probability of accurate conclusions and effec-
tive actions stemming from the self-assessment.
valuable credential because it ensures
that a model is consistent with what is

28 Business Horizons / November-December 2002

tional model for self-assessment. Companies that are con- Assessor development
sidering such a project can use the dimensions elaborated
here to choose a model that will best improve the success The design of many self-assessment programs requires
of the initiative. assessors to collect data from the company in the form of
observations, interviews, documents and their interpreta-
tion, scaled questionnaires, and so on. After these data are
collected, the assessors must make sense of them in light
Using the model of the model being used as the reference. They analyze the
mosaic of data using the model’s variables and relation-

C
areful selection of an organizational model im-
ships as a guide, then interpret how well the organiza-
proves the chances of effective self-assessment. But
tional processes under investigation meet the standards
how is the model best employed in the process it-
for “goodness” articulated by the model.
self? According to Lawler, Nadler, and Cammann (1980),
the process can be temporally divided into three groups of This approach requires assessors to develop a strong
activities. Pre-collection consists of developing the asses- understanding of the organizational model and its under-
sors and planning the data collection. Data collection fol- lying assumptions in order to effectively gather and ana-
lows, in which the assessor gathers information from the lyze data. Extensive training is required to develop such
firm that pertains to the model. And post-collection in- content experts, whose knowledge of the model is largely
volves analysis, reporting, and subsequent use of the find- tacit. Perhaps the benchmark for developing assessor
ings. A growing volume of work provides detailed guid- expertise is the typical training program for assessors
ance on how to conduct self-assessments. Our intent here who conduct evaluations based on the Baldrige criteria.
is to highlight how the organizational model, once cho- National and state award program “examiners” receive
sen, interacts with that process. Below are several areas in training to develop in-depth content knowledge of the
which the model-process interplay is strong. model and its embedded linkages as well as skills on how
to evaluate a firm using the criteria to identify “strengths”
Assessment scope and “opportunities for improvement.” The training
The choice of assessment topic and corresponding model includes the assessment of case studies to sharpen the
largely dictates what part of the firm will be evaluated and examiners’ analytical skills. Many firms that adopt the
where potential solutions can be found (see Figure 1). For Baldrige criteria for self-assessment employ national or
example, assessing a firm’s quality assurance or supply state examiners who might subsequently train a larger
chain management practices will focus data gathering and group of internal examiners. Sometimes firms hire addi-
evaluation on a relatively narrow group of processes. The tional external examiners to enhance objectivity or round
findings from these events are likely to be of greater inter- out support for the assessment team.
est to functional managers than to general managers. Although assessors draw largely from their tacit under-
On the other hand, many assessment topics slice broadly standing, they often carry checklists to remind themselves
through the firm. For example, evaluating a firm’s readi- of the model’s key variables and relationships as they
ness to implement large-scale change using Nadler and scour the firm for data. Converting the organizational
Tushman’s congruence model requires the assessment to model into “cheat sheets” can be a big help. In addition
touch many functional areas for data gathering and evalu- to providing a useful tool for recording interview and
ation. Senior managers must allocate considerable re- observational data during the evaluation, the process of
sources, including large amounts of personal attention, in transposing the model into more of an outline form helps
order to make these broad-based assessments worthwhile. the assessors “think through” the model and express it in
a sensible form.
Managers new to self-assessment are often unprepared for
the commitment of time, manpower, and organizational Organizational models can also be expressed in a ques-
access needed to gather data and conduct a thorough eval- tionnaire format. The Center for Quality of Management,
uation. This is especially true when they have chosen a a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based industrial consortium,
model that is broad in scope, because the sweeping con- has developed a questionnaire-based approach for self-
ceptual domain usually requires assessing a large part of assessing change management effectiveness (CQM 2001).
the firm. All else being equal, broader scopes entail com- Brown (1997) and Blazey (1998) have also proposed sim-
mitting more resources. Recognizing the relationship be- plified questionnaires for Baldrige-based self-assessment.
tween a model’s domain and the subsequent resource When models are expressed in this manner, the assessors
commitment is important in the effective execution of a can often “hit the ground running” with less training. They
self-assessment project. Practical benchmarks for resource answer the questions based on their experience, observa-
requirements can be found in Manzini (1988), Mohrman tions, or other acquired data. Models expressed in this
and Cummings (1989), and Hakes (1995). manner can be attractive to assessor groups comprising

Models for organizational self-assessment 29

senior managers, since an assessor may require little time Many firms have instituted annual self-assessments based
to comprehend the underlying model reflected by the on the Baldrige criteria. In a different context, to better
questionnaire and use it in data collection. implement important planned changes, firms have con-
ducted self-assessments at various points in the imple-
Often, the questionnaire format supports a “convergent”
mentation process—before the change, midway through,
approach to self-assessment, whereby the data providers,
and near the end—to evaluate progress.
the data analysts, and the group receiving the completed
analysis can be one and the same. For example, we have Instituting an ongoing self-assessment program of key
observed several groups of managers use the CQM instru- organizational processes offers some benefits. Managers
ment to assess their firms’ effectiveness at managing often develop an intimate understanding of the model as
change. In these cases, the executive group completed the they repeatedly see it at work in the evaluations. After
survey (data collection), determined the levels and trends multiple assessments, they can incorporate the model’s
from the survey data (analysis), and then met to follow up concepts and terms into the company’s communication
(reporting and action) based on lessons learned from the and planning processes. And they can reevaluate items
evaluation. In a relatively short amount of time, often less that required follow-up in previous assessments, thereby
than two hours, these managers were able to efficiently enhancing management control systems. Moreover, regu-
learn about their firms’ effectiveness in managing change lar assessment encourages a rhythm or cycle of systematic
and to initiate improvements as necessary—a common improvement that may be difficult for the firm to achieve
objective of self-assessment. through other means.
One potential disadvantage of using questionnaires, partic- Reporting and follow-up
ularly for the convergent approach, is that the evaluation
can sometimes be completed too easily. Busy managers A common venue for reporting assessment findings is the
may hurriedly complete a self-administered questionnaire written document. One such document that is widely
without the ample reflection needed for accurate response. used is the “feedback report” associated with Baldrige-
The subsequent analysis may also be compromised if the based self-assessments. Prepared by the assessors for sen-
assessors spend too little time studying the results and ior management upon completion of the data-gathering
looking for the subtle linkages that often accompany the and analysis phases of the process, the feedback report
complex social systems reflected in organizational models. details the firm’s strengths and areas for improvement as
That said, questionnaire-based models offer value to some identified from a comparison of the data to the standards
self-assessment projects, particularly when senior managers expressed in the model. The findings are presented in sec-
are involved as assessors. The efficient expression of mod- tions corresponding to the major constructs of the organi-
els in a questionnaire format invites a higher degree of zational model defined by the criteria.
executive involvement while conserving management Self-assessment findings can also be reported in oral pre-
attention—a scarce organizational resource. sentations to management. This approach has some ad-
vantages over the written report, since documents are
Assessment frequency notoriously unread and subject to the file-it-and-forget-it
Some self-assessments are a one-time event conducted in syndrome. By convening key managers to hear the find-
response to an acute problem requiring a quick solution. ings, a venue is created for management to discuss the
The executive team at a privately owned metal fabrication findings as a group and determine how to respond. The
company was struggling to turn around a sinking busi- degree of management’s engagement in such discussion is
ness. Most of the restructuring initiatives that had been usually heightened if the managers themselves partici-
initiated were not progressing and financial performance pated as assessors in the process.
was deteriorating. Aware of a problem but unsure of its
In our experience, the usefulness of a self-assessment de-
source, the executive team used a model developed by an
pends largely on the degree to which the firm’s managers
industrial consortium to assess the company’s ability to
meet to reflect on its findings. Discussion often invites
manage change. Findings revealed that strategic objectives
managers to articulate their concerns and assumptions
were not being translated into tactical action plans and
about the firm’s strategic objectives. A consequence of such
the company’s reward system was encouraging different
open sharing of viewpoints, or dialogue, is to reduce or
behaviors in different work units. Subsequently, a consult-
eliminate “defensive routines”—policies, practices, or
ant was hired to coach the executive team in strategic
actions that often impede organizational progress. Argyris
processes. The team also modified the reward system to
(1985, 1989) suggests that when executives learn to over-
ensure that desired behavior was being consistently re-
come defensive routines by engaging in dialogue that
warded across the company.
forces the articulation of assumptions and reservations
Self-assessments can be more programmatic, wherein the about particular strategic decisions, they are able to imple-
evaluation is repeated over time, often in regular intervals. ment strategic changes more effectively. In addition, infor-

30 Business Horizons / November-December 2002

mation sharing and discussion
among senior managers is Figure 3
likely to apprise them more Interaction between the self-assessment process and the organizational model
uniformly about issues facing
General progression of
the firm. Less information
self-assessment process Issue Impact of organizational model
asymmetry among executives
prompts better consensus Scope of assessment Broad-scope models require
about what follow-up actions more resources and manage-
are needed to improve per- Preparation ment attention.
formance.
Assessor development Assessors need to understand
An effective organizational
the model, and sometimes re-
model plays a large role in quire extensive training. Mod-
these reporting and discussion els converted to checklists and
activities, helping managers Data collection questionnaires may improve
diagnose the health of the knowledge transfer and data
organizational processes that collection.
have been evaluated and plot
opportunities for improve- Frequency of assessment Regular assessments help man-
ment based on the findings. agers learn the model and en-
Its diagnostic capability must Analysis & reporting courage improvement cycles.
be realized when the results
Reporting & follow-up Diagnostic content helps man-
are presented and discussed
agers determine the health of
among the leadership. For processes under assessment
example, a model used to and promotes corrective and
assess a firm’s ability to imple- preventive follow-up actions.
ment large-scale change must
not only inform managers
about the firm’s degree of
effectiveness in executing strategic change, it should also “fixed” in the first place and then adopt a better set of
highlight those elements of the change process (work assumptions to support future performance.
tasks, reporting structures, control structures, and so on) Figure 3 summarizes the interaction between the self-
that require improvement. assessment process and the organizational model.
Assessment models point managers toward two types of
follow-up action that largely resemble the notions of sin-
gle- and double-loop organizational learning. One type
allows managers to perceive a real-time performance devi-
ation and “fix” it. Continuing the strategic change assess-
ment example above, managers might detect a problem in
implementing a current initiative, then take action to cor-
R esembling Adler’s (1999) notion of an “enabling
bureaucracy,” self-assessment represents an ad-
ministrative procedure that can be used to sup-
port and improve organizational processes. Employing an
effective organizational model is critical to the enabling
rect the deviation. They might make changes in reporting nature of self-assessment. Indeed, without a valuable
relationships, say, to assist in resource sharing among model, such assessment will likely flounder. Managers
functions. who are considering a self-assessment project can use the
dimensions elaborated here to assist them in locating and
Follow-up can also be preventive in nature. In addition to employing a model that will contribute to the success of
correcting the immediate deviation, managers might also the initiative. ❍
step back and question the assumptions and policies that
led them to believe the strategic initiative was effective
and could be implemented. Such questioning might cause
them to revise some key organizational processes, such as
References and selected bibliography
those for leadership or for understanding market behav- Adler, Paul S. 1999. Building better bureaucracies. Academy of
ior, so that future strategic initiatives will be implemented Management Executive 13/4: 36-47.
more effectively. Preventive action is more sophisticated American Society for Quality. 2001. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-Qual-
than corrective action, since the firm must review the ity management systems: Requirements. Milwaukee, WI: Ameri-
can Society for Quality.
underlying assumptions that created the problem to be

Models for organizational self-assessment 31

Argyris, Chris. 1985. Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Link, Albert N., and John T. Scott. 2001. Planning report 01-3:
Boston: Putnam. Economic evaluation of the Baldrige National Quality Pro-
———. 1989. Strategy implementation: An experience in learn- gram. National Institute of Standards and Technology Pro-
ing. Organizational Dynamics 18/2: 5-15. grams Office.
———, and Donald A. Schon. 1978. Organizational learning: A Manzini, Andrew. 1988. Organizational diagnosis: A practical
theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. approach to company problem solving and growth. New York:
Black, Simon A., and Leslie J. Porter. 1996. Identification of the AMACOM.
critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences 27/1: 1-21. March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1959. Organizations.
Blazey, Mark. 1998. Insights into organizational self-assess- New York: John Wiley & Sons.
ments. Quality Progress 31/10: 47-52. Mohrman, Susan Albers, and Thomas G. Cummings. 1989. Self-
Brown, Mark G. 1997. Measuring up against the 1997 Baldrige designing organizations: Learning how to create high performance.
Criteria. Journal for Quality and Participation 20/4: 22-28. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
———. 2001. Baldrige Award winning quality. 11th ed. Portland, Myers, Dale H., and Jeffrey Heller. 1995. The dual role of AT&T’s
OR: Productivity Press. self-assessment process. Quality Progress 28/1: 79-83.
CQM (Center for Quality of Management). 2001. Mobilizing Nadler, David A., and Michael L. Tushman. 1980. A model for
change using the 7 infrastructures. Cambridge, MA: Center for diagnosing organizational behavior: Applying the congruence
Quality of Management. perspective. Organizational Dynamics 9/2: 35-51.
Finn, Mark, and Leslie Porter. 1994. TQM self-assessment in the Nevis, Edwin C., Anthony J. DiBella, and Janet M. Gould. 1995.
UK. TQM Magazine (1 August) 6/4: 56-61. Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Man-
Ford, Matthew W., and James R. Evans. 2000. Conceptual founda- agement Review 36/2: 73-85.
tions of strategic planning in the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2002.
Performance Excellence. Quality Management Journal 7/1: 8-26. Criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: US De-
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1980. Work redesign. partment of Commerce.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San
Hakes, Chris. 1995. The corporate self-assessment handbook for Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
measuring business excellence. London: Chapman & Hall. Van der Weile, T., A. Brown, R. Millen, and D. Whelan. 2000.
Herrington, Mike. 1994. Why not a do-it-yourself Baldrige Improvement in organizational performance and self-assess-
Award? Across the Board 31/9: 34-38. ment practices by selected American firms. Quality Manage-
Institute of Supply Management 1997. Purchasing and supply ment Journal 7/4: 8-22.
management audit and performance review program. Tempe, AZ: Wilson, Darryl D., and David A. Collier. 2000. An empirical
Institute of Supply Management. investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
Isaacs, William N. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective think- causal model. Decision Sciences 31/2: 361-390.
ing, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics 22/2:
24-39.
Juran, Joseph M. 1995. A history of managing for quality. Milwau-
kee, WI: ASQC Quality Press. The authors wish to thank Dr. Gary Burchill and the
Lawler, Edward E., III, David A. Nadler, and Cortlandt Cammann. Center for Quality of Management for their contributions
1980. Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the measurement to this article.
of organizational behavior and the quality of work life. New York:
Wiley.

32 Business Horizons / November-December 2002

View publication stats