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
James R. Evans
Professor of Quantitative Analysis and Operations
Management, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
Organizational self-assessment
is the evaluation of a firm’s
processes or systems using little
or no outside assistance. A key
aspect of such a project is the model
of organizational functioning against
which actual performance is compared.
Drawing from experiences with the Baldrige
Criteria for Performance Excellence and other
frameworks, we define criteria that managers
can use to select an appropriate model, and
illustrate how those criteria apply to popular
models used for self-assessment. Understanding
the managerial issues and the characteristics
that influence a model’s usefulness for self-
assessment can help managers find one that
will work best for their companies.
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
are we doing?” “What are our strengths?” and “What areas
require improvement?” Although organizational assess-
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
of firms have been using those criteria for self-assessment.
As such, the organizational model contained in the Bal-
drige program is likely the most popular self-assessment
model in the world. Interest extends beyond the quality
context, however, with self-assessment frameworks emerg-
ing in a number of functional disciplines, including
accounting, information systems, product development,
manufacturing, and strategic planning. Empirical studies
suggest that the number of firms that have conducted or
plan to conduct self-assessments is large and growing.
Why would managers want to assess their own firms?
Self-assessments are useful when managers sense a per-
formance problem but lack an understanding of its sever-
ity or its source. Managers may perceive, say, a “culture
problem” or difficulties “doing change” well, but they
have scant data or insight on what to do about it. Firms
exhibiting factors that facilitate organizational learning
are also more likely to be interested in self-assessment.
Learning factors such as the tendency for experimenta-
tion, a concern for measurement and objective informa-
tion, and involved leadership often encourage a firm to
investigate the possible benefits of self-assessment. Man-
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
Instrumental to self-assessment is the organizational
model used in the evaluation. The model is an abstract
representation of the firm’s behavior or functioning. Al-
though these models are often developed by academics
and theoretically grounded, such as Nadler and Tushman’s
(1980) congruence model of change, many of the popular
ones have originated largely from practical wisdom and
experience, such as the performance management model
embedded in the Baldrige criteria. Organizational models
serve as the reference standard for self-assessment. They
identify the processes or activities that will be evaluated
(often termed “process variables”) and at least one out-
come or performance variable. Important relationships
between the process variables and the outcome variables
are specified as well. To be useful in self-assessment as a
comparator, an organizational model must also specify
standards for “goodness” so that the degree to which
processes conform or align with these standards can be
evaluated.
What are the issues involved in choosing and using an
organizational model for self-assessment? Drawing from
our research and consulting experience in 100-plus self-
assessments involving the Baldrige framework and other
models, we present criteria that have consistently resulted
in the selection of a useful model, and highlight particu-
lar aspects of the self-assessment process that interact with
the model in use.
anagers considering conducting self-assessments
in their firms face some important issues related
to the organizational model. The first is model
selection. Scholars and practitioners have developed many
organizational models, but relatively few of them are
employed in a self-assessment mode. What separates a
good model from a less effective one? Several factors
should be considered, including its conceptual domain,
concreteness, diagnostic guidance, affiliation, and validity.
Conceptual domain
Managers must locate a model with a conceptual domain
similar to the organizational area of interest. The scope of
some models is broad and covers many functions or disci-
plines, while other models are more appropriate for spe-
cific problems or topics. Figure 1 shows selected models
matched with common self-assessment topics.
For companies with a specific problem in mind, choosing
an appropriate organizational model may be straightfor-
ward. If managers sense that a problem exists with, say,
the firm’s culture, then a model that elaborates various
cultural dimensions can be obtained. Often, however,
managers cannot articulate precisely what they want to
assess. In a struggling firm with many perceived problems,
it can be difficult to pinpoint problematic areas that re-
quire attention. Indeed, complex problems are often diffi-
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-
ing in outside experts to help identify problematic areas
and broker the appropriate assessment model. However,
firms seeking to conduct self-assessment often wish to
minimize the involvement of outsiders. For situations
involving ambiguous problems, models with a broad
scope often prove excellent initial choices for self-assess-
ment projects. The Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Perfor-
mance Excellence (NIST 2002), for example, provides an
integrative model across a variety of disciplines such as
leadership, strategic planning, marketing, IS, HR, and
operations management. Its conceptual domain is meant
to span critical activities and success factors that support
the concept of high performance. This and other models
built to reflect organizational effectiveness help familiar-
ize managers with a palette of variables that influence per-
formance and aid in pinpointing areas that require more
managerial attention.
Concreteness
For self-assessment, in which employees primarily man-
age the assessment activities, the less abstract the organi-
zational model the better. A concrete model rich with
examples and real-life detail encourages managers to learn
it because it leverages empirical experience. Models of
organizational change, for instance, often highlight the
importance of aligning structure with the objectives of the
change being implemented. An abstract model of organi-
zational change might ask, “How has the firm’s structure
been adjusted to support the change under assessment?”
Some managers might find it hard to answer this ques-
tion, since “structure” may seem somewhat unclear. A
more specific question might ask, “How have key report-
ing assignments and relationships been adjusted to sup-
port the change under assessment?” Most managers
would find this question easier to answer, since it con-
nects to activity that can be more precisely evaluated in
the context of managing change.
One reason for the Baldrige criteria’s popularity in self-
assessment appears to be the presence of mechanisms in
the model’s narrative to help users understand it and apply
it in an evaluative context. One section, for instance, elab-
orates a set of core values underpinning the model that
reflect widely recognized managerial concepts such as
organizational and personal learning, customer-driven
excellence, management by fact, and a system perspective,
thereby providing a cultural context for those wishing to
understand the model. In addition, the Baldrige narrative
includes a glossary of key terms, examples, diagrams, and
notes to further clarify the conceptual narrative and
describe key links between variables.
One executive captured the essence of concreteness, assert-
ing, “Here’s the acid test: Can your team get its arms
around the model on its own, or do you need a consult-
Models for organizational self-assessment
ant to explain it to you?” Useful self-assessment models
are those that managers can grasp with little or no outside
assistance.
Diagnostic guidance
An effective model for self-assessment guides managers
toward processes that can be improved. Many models pro-
vide data on performance but lack a diagnostic compo-
nent that signals where the problems are or where to look
for answers. Consider the experience of one chief quality
officer who was frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the
model used by her company to monitor progress toward
strategic goals:
At each monthly meeting, most of our key indica-
tors were flashing red at us—indicating that we
weren’t hitting our numbers. But the executive com-
mittee just looked at each other and asked, “What
else can we do that we aren’t doing already?” Our
current system tells us that we have a problem, but
we have no idea of where to go in our processes to
fix it.
A valuable self-assessment model provides more than just
a measure of organizational performance or progress. It
directs managers toward behavioral processes that can be
leveraged for improvement. One firm that was using an
internally developed questionnaire to evaluate its quality
management system found that a gradual drop in meas-
ured levels of customer satisfaction corresponded to lower
ratings in leadership activities (allocating executive meet-
ing time to quality-related issues, visiting key customers,
and so on). After reflecting on this finding, the manage-
ment team developed an action plan to allocate more
senior-level attention to leadership activities.
Baldrige-based self-assessments commonly emphasize
diagnosis and actionable improvement opportunities. The
assessment is focused on identifying the effectiveness and
deployment of a firm’s approaches, leading to a list of
strengths and opportunities for improvement that are
linked to key strategic success factors. Numerical scores
describing levels of maturity in the firm’s management
processes are summarized in a written “feedback report”
intended to provide actionable priorities that can be inte-
grated into subsequent planning cycles. Many companies
use such feedback as a basis for strategic planning.
Affiliation
Organizational models are more likely to be adopted
when their originators are recognized and respected by
the firm’s managers. Affiliating the model with a famous
developer or a renowned institution lends legitimacy to
the self-assessment initiative. Models developed by aca-
demics sometimes gain an edge here, since well-read and
educated managers are often favorably attracted to the
work of widely published scholars and their affiliated in-
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-
sidering such a project can use the dimensions elaborated
here to choose a model that will best improve the success
of the initiative.
Using the model
C
areful selection of an organizational model im-
proves the chances of effective self-assessment. But
how is the model best employed in the process it-
self? According to Lawler, Nadler, and Cammann (1980),
the process can be temporally divided into three groups of
activities. Pre-collection consists of developing the asses-
sors and planning the data collection. Data collection fol-
lows, in which the assessor gathers information from the
firm that pertains to the model. And post-collection in-
volves analysis, reporting, and subsequent use of the find-
ings. A growing volume of work provides detailed guid-
ance on how to conduct self-assessments. Our intent here
is to highlight how the organizational model, once cho-
sen, interacts with that process. Below are several areas in
which the model-process interplay is strong.
Assessment scope
The choice of assessment topic and corresponding model
largely dictates what part of the firm will be evaluated and
where potential solutions can be found (see Figure 1). For
example, assessing a firm’s quality assurance or supply
chain management practices will focus data gathering and
evaluation on a relatively narrow group of processes. The
findings from these events are likely to be of greater inter-
est to functional managers than to general managers.
On the other hand, many assessment topics slice broadly
through the firm. For example, evaluating a firm’s readi-
ness to implement large-scale change using Nadler and
Tushman’s congruence model requires the assessment to
touch many functional areas for data gathering and evalu-
ation. Senior managers must allocate considerable re-
sources, including large amounts of personal attention, in
order to make these broad-based assessments worthwhile.
Managers new to self-assessment are often unprepared for
the commitment of time, manpower, and organizational
access needed to gather data and conduct a thorough eval-
uation. This is especially true when they have chosen a
model that is broad in scope, because the sweeping con-
ceptual domain usually requires assessing a large part of
the firm. All else being equal, broader scopes entail com-
mitting more resources. Recognizing the relationship be-
tween a model’s domain and the subsequent resource
commitment is important in the effective execution of a
self-assessment project. Practical benchmarks for resource
requirements can be found in Manzini (1988), Mohrman
and Cummings (1989), and Hakes (1995).
Models for organizational self-assessment
Assessor development
The design of many self-assessment programs requires
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
of the model being used as the reference. They analyze the
mosaic of data using the model’s variables and relation-
ships as a guide, then interpret how well the organiza-
tional processes under investigation meet the standards
for “goodness” articulated by the model.
This approach requires assessors to develop a strong
understanding of the organizational model and its under-
lying assumptions in order to effectively gather and ana-
lyze data. Extensive training is required to develop such
content experts, whose knowledge of the model is largely
tacit. Perhaps the benchmark for developing assessor
expertise is the typical training program for assessors
who conduct evaluations based on the Baldrige criteria.
National and state award program “examiners” receive
training to develop in-depth content knowledge of the
model and its embedded linkages as well as skills on how
to evaluate a firm using the criteria to identify “strengths”
and “opportunities for improvement.” The training
includes the assessment of case studies to sharpen the
examiners’ analytical skills. Many firms that adopt the
Baldrige criteria for self-assessment employ national or
state examiners who might subsequently train a larger
group of internal examiners. Sometimes firms hire addi-
tional external examiners to enhance objectivity or round
out support for the assessment team.
Although assessors draw largely from their tacit under-
standing, they often carry checklists to remind themselves
of the model’s key variables and relationships as they
scour the firm for data. Converting the organizational
model into “cheat sheets” can be a big help. In addition
to providing a useful tool for recording interview and
observational data during the evaluation, the process of
transposing the model into more of an outline form helps
the assessors “think through” the model and express it in
a sensible form.
Organizational models can also be expressed in a ques-
tionnaire format. The Center for Quality of Management,
a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based industrial consortium,
has developed a questionnaire-based approach for self-
assessing change management effectiveness (CQM 2001).
Brown (1997) and Blazey (1998) have also proposed sim-
plified questionnaires for Baldrige-based self-assessment.
When models are expressed in this manner, the assessors
can often “hit the ground running” with less training. They
answer the questions based on their experience, observa-
tions, or other acquired data. Models expressed in this
manner can be attractive to assessor groups comprising
29
senior managers, since an assessor may require little time
to comprehend the underlying model reflected by the
questionnaire and use it in data collection.
Often, the questionnaire format supports a “convergent”
approach to self-assessment, whereby the data providers,
the data analysts, and the group receiving the completed
analysis can be one and the same. For example, we have
observed several groups of managers use the CQM instru-
ment to assess their firms’ effectiveness at managing
change. In these cases, the executive group completed the
survey (data collection), determined the levels and trends
from the survey data (analysis), and then met to follow up
(reporting and action) based on lessons learned from the
evaluation. In a relatively short amount of time, often less
than two hours, these managers were able to efficiently
learn about their firms’ effectiveness in managing change
and to initiate improvements as necessary—a common
objective of self-assessment.
One potential disadvantage of using questionnaires, partic-
ularly for the convergent approach, is that the evaluation
can sometimes be completed too easily. Busy managers
may hurriedly complete a self-administered questionnaire
without the ample reflection needed for accurate response.
The subsequent analysis may also be compromised if the
assessors spend too little time studying the results and
looking for the subtle linkages that often accompany the
complex social systems reflected in organizational models.
That said, questionnaire-based models offer value to some
self-assessment projects, particularly when senior managers
are involved as assessors. The efficient expression of mod-
els in a questionnaire format invites a higher degree of
executive involvement while conserving management
attention—a scarce organizational resource.
Assessment frequency
Some self-assessments are a one-time event conducted in
response to an acute problem requiring a quick solution.
The executive team at a privately owned metal fabrication
company was struggling to turn around a sinking busi-
ness. Most of the restructuring initiatives that had been
initiated were not progressing and financial performance
was deteriorating. Aware of a problem but unsure of its
source, the executive team used a model developed by an
industrial consortium to assess the company’s ability to
manage change. Findings revealed that strategic objectives
were not being translated into tactical action plans and
the company’s reward system was encouraging different
behaviors in different work units. Subsequently, a consult-
ant was hired to coach the executive team in strategic
processes. The team also modified the reward system to
ensure that desired behavior was being consistently re-
warded across the company.
Self-assessments can be more programmatic, wherein the
evaluation is repeated over time, often in regular intervals.
30
Many firms have instituted annual self-assessments based
on the Baldrige criteria. In a different context, to better
implement important planned changes, firms have con-
ducted self-assessments at various points in the imple-
mentation process—before the change, midway through,
and near the end—to evaluate progress.
Instituting an ongoing self-assessment program of key
organizational processes offers some benefits. Managers
often develop an intimate understanding of the model as
they repeatedly see it at work in the evaluations. After
multiple assessments, they can incorporate the model’s
concepts and terms into the company’s communication
and planning processes. And they can reevaluate items
that required follow-up in previous assessments, thereby
enhancing management control systems. Moreover, regu-
lar assessment encourages a rhythm or cycle of systematic
improvement that may be difficult for the firm to achieve
through other means.
Reporting and follow-up
A common venue for reporting assessment findings is the
written document. One such document that is widely
used is the “feedback report” associated with Baldrige-
based self-assessments. Prepared by the assessors for sen-
ior management upon completion of the data-gathering
and analysis phases of the process, the feedback report
details the firm’s strengths and areas for improvement as
identified from a comparison of the data to the standards
expressed in the model. The findings are presented in sec-
tions corresponding to the major constructs of the organi-
zational model defined by the criteria.
Self-assessment findings can also be reported in oral pre-
sentations to management. This approach has some ad-
vantages over the written report, since documents are
notoriously unread and subject to the file-it-and-forget-it
syndrome. By convening key managers to hear the find-
ings, a venue is created for management to discuss the
findings as a group and determine how to respond. The
degree of management’s engagement in such discussion is
usually heightened if the managers themselves partici-
pated as assessors in the process.
In our experience, the usefulness of a self-assessment de-
pends largely on the degree to which the firm’s managers
meet to reflect on its findings. Discussion often invites
managers to articulate their concerns and assumptions
about the firm’s strategic objectives. A consequence of such
open sharing of viewpoints, or dialogue, is to reduce or
eliminate “defensive routines”—policies, practices, or
actions that often impede organizational progress. Argyris
(1985, 1989) suggests that when executives learn to over-
come defensive routines by engaging in dialogue that
forces the articulation of assumptions and reservations
about particular strategic decisions, they are able to imple-
ment strategic changes more effectively. In addition, infor-
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.
Boston: Putnam.
———. 1989. Strategy implementation: An experience in learn-
ing. Organizational Dynamics 18/2: 5-15.
———, and Donald A. Schon. 1978. Organizational learning: A
theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Black, Simon A., and Leslie J. Porter. 1996. Identification of the
critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences 27/1: 1-21.
Blazey, Mark. 1998. Insights into organizational self-assess-
ments. Quality Progress 31/10: 47-52.
Brown, Mark G. 1997. Measuring up against the 1997 Baldrige
Criteria. Journal for Quality and Participation 20/4: 22-28.
———. 2001. Baldrige Award winning quality. 11th ed. Portland,
OR: Productivity Press.
CQM (Center for Quality of Management). 2001. Mobilizing
change using the 7 infrastructures. Cambridge, MA: Center for
Quality of Management.
Finn, Mark, and Leslie Porter. 1994. TQM self-assessment in the
UK. TQM Magazine (1 August) 6/4: 56-61.
Ford, Matthew W., and James R. Evans. 2000. Conceptual founda-
tions of strategic planning in the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for
Performance Excellence. Quality Management Journal 7/1: 8-26.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1980. Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hakes, Chris. 1995. The corporate self-assessment handbook for
measuring business excellence. London: Chapman & Hall.
Herrington, Mike. 1994. Why not a do-it-yourself Baldrige
Award? Across the Board 31/9: 34-38.
Institute of Supply Management 1997. Purchasing and supply
management audit and performance review program. Tempe, AZ:
Institute of Supply Management.
Isaacs, William N. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective think-
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.
Lawler, Edward E., III, David A. Nadler, and Cortlandt Cammann.
1980. Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the measurement
of organizational behavior and the quality of work life. New York:
Wiley.
32
View publication stats
Link, Albert N., and John T. Scott. 2001. Planning report 01-3:
Economic evaluation of the Baldrige National Quality Pro-
gram. National Institute of Standards and Technology Pro-
grams Office.
Manzini, Andrew. 1988. Organizational diagnosis: A practical
approach to company problem solving and growth. New York:
AMACOM.
March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1959. Organizations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mohrman, Susan Albers, and Thomas G. Cummings. 1989. Self-
designing organizations: Learning how to create high performance.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Myers, Dale H., and Jeffrey Heller. 1995. The dual role of AT&T’s
self-assessment process. Quality Progress 28/1: 79-83.
Nadler, David A., and Michael L. Tushman. 1980. A model for
diagnosing organizational behavior: Applying the congruence
perspective. Organizational Dynamics 9/2: 35-51.
Nevis, Edwin C., Anthony J. DiBella, and Janet M. Gould. 1995.
Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Man-
agement Review 36/2: 73-85.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2002.
Criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: US De-
partment of Commerce.
Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van der Weile, T., A. Brown, R. Millen, and D. Whelan. 2000.
Improvement in organizational performance and self-assess-
ment practices by selected American firms. Quality Manage-
ment Journal 7/4: 8-22.
Wilson, Darryl D., and David A. Collier. 2000. An empirical
investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
causal model. Decision Sciences 31/2: 361-390.
The authors wish to thank Dr. Gary Burchill and the
Center for Quality of Management for their contributions
to this article.
Business Horizons / November-December 2002