Although organisational effectiveness serves as the theoretical focal point for all organisational models and represents the ultimate outcome variable for organisational studies (Eydi 2015), its conceptualisation, explanation and measurement still pose substantial challenges (Eydi 2015; Martz 2008; Oghojafor, Muo & Aduloju 2012; Olivier 2014). Several authors agree that there is no universal definition of organisational effectiveness: it means different things to different people (Eydi 2015; Martz 2008) with definitions being influenced by the conceptual worldview of the researchers studying it (Oghojafor et al. 2012). However, the majority of authors agree that the organisational effectiveness construct is multidimensional and complex and that it requires the evaluation of different functions and the measuring of multiple criteria, while both processes (means) and outcomes (ends) should be considered in assessing the construct (Eydi 2013; Martz 2008; Oghojafor et al. 2012).

For the purpose of this study, organisational effectiveness is defined as a ‘socially constructed, abstract notion’ (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983:374) that is broader than the concepts of organisational performance (e.g. shareholder return and financial, operational and product market performance) (Olivier 2014) and organisational efficiency (e.g. the amount of resources involved) (Martz 2008). Where the evolution of organisational effectiveness models reflects a construct perspective, the evolution of organisational performance and efficiency measures reflects a process perspective (Martz 2008). Therefore, organisational effectiveness encapsulates both organisational performance and efficiency (Martz 2008; Venkatraman & Ramanujam 1986), as well as additional external indicators or measures that pertain to factors beyond economic assessment that are important to customers, managers and shareholders (e.g. social responsibility) (Richard et al. 2009).

There are several models or frameworks used to measure organisational effectiveness. These models reflect different values and preferences of schools of thought regarding effectiveness. According to Eydi (2013) the best-known models are the goal model, the system resource model, the internal process approach, the multiple constituency models and the competing values approach. The goal attainment approach is characterised by an identification of goals to measure organisational effectiveness. However, in the case of the public services sector, a multi-goal orientation is required, as the effects of the various needs, expectations and perceptions of the multiplicity of stakeholders (e.g. society, employees, shareholders, lenders, customers, suppliers and government) on the organisation’s effectiveness should be considered (Hillman & Keim 2001). The system resource approach focuses on an organisation’s ability to attract resources to ensure viability and highlights the ability to measure some inputs and outputs, but this is not necessarily a measure of effectiveness (Eydi 2013). The internal process approach emphasises the importance of the dynamics among employees as an important effectiveness criterion and regards factors such as trust, integrated systems and smooth functioning as more accurate measures of organisational effectiveness compared to, for example, the goal attainment approach. The strategic-constituencies approach focuses on the identification of key stakeholders’ views of effectiveness and how each constituent group has a different interest in the way the organisation performs (Eydi 2013).

The CVF regards effectiveness as being based ‘on the recognition that organizations goals are simultaneously pulled in opposite directions by the expectations of multiple constituencies’ (Lee 2004:22) and that ‘organisations do many things and have many outcomes’, while having ‘disagreements and competing viewpoints about what constitutes effectiveness: which goals to pursue and measure, and how to measure them’ (Oghojafor et al. 2012:98). The CVF is the result of extensive theoretical and empirical organisational effectiveness research completed by expert scholars (Quinn 1981; Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1981) during the 1980s (Lee 2004; Lindquist & Marcy 2014; Ncume 2018) and is proposed as an organisational effectiveness approach applicable to the measurement of organisational effectiveness of SOEs (Muterera et al. 2012). The framework is anchored on mainly three axes or value dimensions (see Figure 1) and incorporates the organisational focus, organisational structure and the means and ends (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). The organisational focus axis includes an internal and external thrust – where the internal thrust is the micro emphasis related to the well-being and development of employees, and the external thrust is the macro emphasis related to the well-being and development of the organisation. The organisational structure axis emphasises stability (control) and flexibility, while the value dimension relates to means and ends. Means focus on vital processes (such as planning and setting organisational goals), while ends emphasise the outcomes (such as productivity and efficiency) (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983).

In developing the CVF, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) identified 17 effectiveness criteria. These criteria are sub-divided into the four models for effectiveness, namely the human relations model (HRM), rational goal model (RGM), internal process model (IPM) and open systems model (OSM). These criteria cater for various stakeholders.

The RGM holds that organisational effectiveness is related to goal achievement and emphasises control and an external focus (Gimžauskienė & Klovienė 2007; Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). This model assumes that organisations are there to pursue a purpose and to achieve a clear set of measurable goals as determined by the stakeholders (Muterera et al. 2012). Therefore, the organisation is regarded as effective if it achieves its specific objectives (Ncume 2018), which include productivity and profit (Morais & Graça 2013). Organisational effectiveness criteria in this model include planning and goal setting (as means) and productivity and efficiency (as ends) (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983).

The HRM emphasises staff cohesion and morale (means), as well as flexibility and an internal focus (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). Other components of this model include human resource development (ends) and human commitment and training (Gimžauskienė & Klovienė 2007). The focus is on the fulfilment of employees’ potential and their commitment to the organisation’s operations. Organisations perform well in this area if participation, team cohesion and openness result in the overall development of employees (Muterera et al. 2012). Besides the participation of staff members, conflict resolution and consensus building are critical in the HRM (Morais & Graça 2013).

The OSM assumes that the organisation must have resources in the form of goods and services from the environment, which are then used productively in pursuit of organisational goals (Muterera et al. 2012). This model emphasises ‘flexibility and readiness (as means) and growth, resource acquisition and external support (as ends)’ (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983:371), and it is anchored in adaptation and innovation (Morais & Graça 2013). Furthermore, the OSM has some thrust towards the organisation’s adaptation to the external environment (economic, social and political environment) (Gimžauskienė & Klovienė 2007), which is key to organisational effectiveness (Tregunno et al. 2004). An organisation that is flexible and adaptable, with the ability to utilise the environment to obtain scarce and valuable resources, will therefore be effective (Muterera et al. 2012).

The IPM is focused on the internal (micro) environment and is based on stability and control (Tregunno et al. 2004). It has its focus on communication processes and how information is managed (as means), resulting in stability and control (as ends) (Muterera et al. 2012). Effectiveness is therefore based on the processes involved in the production and provision of goods and services. Besides showing how various processes are to be measured, the IPM also involves documentation, defining responsibility and measurement. These are important to ensure that there is clarity on roles and responsibilities, besides showing how various processes are to be measured (Morais & Graça 2013).

The CVF integrates the competing values in an organisation (i.e. all four models) into a single framework to assist organisations to deal with the dilemma of competing models. Even though these models compete, they can be combined in the CVF, depicting an organisation as a political arena with the different competing models interacting with each other (Minvielle et al. 2008). The dimensions represented by the four models of the CVF (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983) show what people value about an organisation’s effectiveness. As an effectiveness measurement system, the CVF is effective in helping meet the various stakeholders’ requirements (Atkinson, Waterhouse & Well 1997). Whetten and Cameron (1994:141) argue that this framework allows for the inherently paradoxical nature of organisational life where managers ‘must not only make trade offs between day-to-day competing demands on the organization’s resources’, but they also must ‘balance competing expectations regarding the identity of the organization as an institution’. The CVF further emphasises that the pursuit of a single criterion of organisational effectiveness is less likely to become effective than is a broader and a more balanced approach (Gulosino, Franceschini & Hardman 2016). Therefore, it provides an integrated and systematic approach to investigate organisational effectiveness, allowing for flexibility when dealing with diverse organisational settings and contexts (Lee 2004).

Van der Wal et al. (2011) regard the CVF as the most widely recognised model for competing values in management and organisation and state that the main tension described in this framework relates to present debates on reconciling opposing or clashing values. State-owned enterprises attempt to balance two conflicting values: traditional governmental or bureaucratic values (e.g. legality and neutrality) on the one hand and so-called business-like values (e.g. effectiveness, responsiveness, innovation and efficiency) on the other hand. The CVF is widely accepted and has also been used in a wide array of academic disciplines for organising and understanding many individual and organisational issues, such as organisational culture (Morais & Graça 2013), leadership (Komarek, Knight & Bielefeldt 2017), organisational decision making, organisational communication and organisational transition (Zlatković 2018).

Given the above discussion, it seems as if there are several benefits of applying the CVF to SOEs. Firstly, it can assist these entities to balance public interest and commercial goals (public good vs. financial sustainability). Secondly, SOEs will be in a better position to manage the expectations from multiple stakeholders (government, policy makers, employees and the public). Lastly, it is highly likely that when SOEs apply the CVF, they would be able to better manage the risks associated with competing values and interests of different stakeholders in terms of financial sustainability and reputation.

To operationalise the CVF, various measuring scales were developed to validate the framework. However, despite the fact that the CVF was developed to ‘integrate the main dimensions of organizational effectiveness’ (Morais & Graça 2013:129), many researchers used alternative conceptualisations of the CVF – focusing mostly on leadership behaviour or organisational culture, instead of organisational effectiveness (e.g. Helfrich et al. 2007; Vilkinas & Cartan 2006). Those studies that did use the framework to focus on the measuring of organisational effectiveness were mainly conducted towards the end of the previous century (Kalliath, Bluedorn & Gillespie 1999; Pounder 2000; Quinn & Spreitzer 1991), leaving a gap in more recent research to validate the basic assumptions of the CVF in measuring and describing organisational effectiveness (Zlatković 2018).

Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) developed a scale consisting of 16 items to measure organisational effectiveness based on the CVF. Using multidimensional scaling and multitrait-multimethod techniques, they found support for the four dimensions (i.e. models) associated with the CVF, as well as acceptable reliabilities for each of the four dimensions. Several other researchers investigated the usefulness of Quinn and Spreitzer’s measuring scale using alternative statistical techniques. After conducting structural equation modelling and more specifically CFA, Kalliath et al. (1999) revised the 16-item scale developed by Quinn and Spreitzer and found acceptable goodness of fit for the four dimensions associated with the CVF. Subsequently, in order to measure the effectiveness of a hospital in Paris, Minvielle et al. (2008) developed a 66-item measure representing the four dimensions associated with the CVF and the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) supported the four models associated with the CVF. Eydi (2013) developed a measure for organisational effectiveness representing the four dimensions associated with the CVF for use within a sporting federation. The 65-item measure focused on eight effectiveness dimensions, reflecting the means and ends associated with each of the four models.

After studying these various measuring scales, the present study opted to adapt the questions developed by Eydi (2013) and Minvielle et al. (2008) to be more relevant in the context of SOEs. For example, when considering the variable ‘productivity’ (which is part of the RGM), the original item focused on financial stability. However, the present study adapted this item to reflect the complexity of the SOE context, with one item focusing on the profitability of the SOE, while a second item focused on a weak cashflow position. The adapted measure consisted of 85 questions across all four of the models associated with the CVF: rational goal model (Planning = 11 items; Productivity and Efficiency = 11 items), OSM (Flexibility and Readiness = 12 items; Growth and Resource Acquisition = 10 items), HRM (Maintaining Cohesion and Morale = 11 items; Development of Human Resources and Skilled Workforce = 12 items), IPM (Information Management and Coordination = 11 items; Stability and/or Equilibrium = 7 items). A seven-point Likert scale was used to indicate how often the SOE successfully engaged in each activity (1 = Never; 7 = Almost always). Examples of items associated with the eight dimensions are shared in Table 1.

To determine the psychometric properties (i.e. reliability and validity) of an adapted organisational effectiveness measure within the context of SOEs, a quantitative, cross-sectional research design was employed.

Ethical clearance to conduct the study was obtained from the University of the Free State Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences Ethics Committee (No. UFS-HSD2017/1150). The ethics committee recommended that in order to safeguard the participants, no biographical data (e.g. gender, age, SOE employed at) be collected. Hence, the committee only granted ethical clearance for participants to complete the questions in the survey. As part of the informed consent process, participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that their responses would be anonymous.

Parallel analysis suggested that the 22 items associated with the RGM are best viewed as a unidimensional construct. Regarding the factor structure of the OSM, parallel analysis suggested that the 22 items measure a unidimensional construct. A similar conclusion was reached for the 23 items associated with the HRM. Finally, the 18 items associated with the IPM also are best conceptualised as measuring a single construct. All the items had factor loadings of more than 0.3, except for item 74. However, the loading of this item was not substantially lower (0.270) and was therefore retained. According to Hair et al. (2006), factor loadings of 0.3 and higher are deemed statistically significant (see Table 2).

The reliability estimates for the four dimensions were: (1) RGM: α = 0.854; (2) OSM: α = 0.881; (3) HRM: α = 0.899; and (4) IPM: α = 0.873. The correlations among the four dimensions are reported in Table 3. It is evident that the four dimensions are highly correlated (≥ 0.8), suggesting that organisational effectiveness (as assessed by the present measure) might be unidimensional.

The present study continued to determine the goodness of fit associated with two different conceptualisations of the CVF: the original four-factor solution and a unidimensional factor solution. To minimise model complexity, item parcels were used to create indicators associated with each of the four models (Hair et al. 2006; Little et al. 2013). More specifically, the parcels reflected the various means and ends associated with each of the four models (as originally conceptualised by the CVF). In addition to this four-dimensional model, the present study also evaluated the goodness of fit associated with a unidimensional model (measuring organisational effectiveness) with the different means and ends associated with each of the four models of the CVF.

From Table 4, it is evident that both the correlated factor model (i.e. original four-dimensional structure associated with the CVF) and the unidimensional model have acceptable levels of fit, with the values associated with the RMSEA slightly above the recommended value (≤ 0.06) and the values associated with the SRMR below the recommended value (≤ 0.08) (Hu & Bentler 1988, 1999). In addition, the CFI was higher and better than the recommended value (≥ 0.95) (Hu & Bentler 1998, 1999). However, the original four-dimensional conceptualisation seems to be the better model when looking at AIC (which is lower than the AIC value of the unidimensional model).

The present study continued fitting a bifactor model (using all 85 items) to the data and conducted a Schmid-Leiman transformation to investigate the presence of a general factor. Omega hierarchical (0.83) and explained common variance (0.75) were obtained from the bifactor model. Both these values point to the presence of a general factor (i.e. organisational effectiveness).