Abstract
Organizational success is dependent on the efficiency of the people involved. Often, people who are not really in the organization may have huge contributions for its development and success. Having outside influence can well determine the outcome of any organization’s undertaking, even its success. Outside intervention is not only the much needed part of organizational success; other factors that help make organizational success are the psychological and industrial aspects of organization.
“Industrial and organizational psychology’s major challenge for the future
is to convince both our academic and non-academic patrons to develop a more complex and multifaceted definition of what constitutes our own performance effectiveness … then, our impact on both the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology will be far more profound and will no longer be so dependent upon simply counting publications or on promoting faddish techniques that have often been prematurely foisted upon organizational systems. (Dunnette, 1990, p. 21) “
This paper delves into the controversial topic of industrial, psychological and external factors of organizational success.
Introduction
Background of the Study
I have chosen a study conducted in the Journal of Sociology and Sociological Welfare in order to demonstrate some integral parts of external practitioner intervention to organizational success. The study, entitled “Citizen participation in neighborhood organizations in poor communities and its relationship to neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy” delves into the success of neighborhood organizations due to the active participation of the citizens in the said area.
“Collective efficacy describes residents’ perceptions regarding their ability to work with their neighbors to intervene in neighborhood issues to maintain social control and solve problems. This study examines whether citizen participation in neighborhood organizations located in poor communities is related to neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy among residents. The results indicate that the more residents participated in their neighborhood organization, the greater their level of organizational collective efficacy, but not neighborhood collective efficacy. The results of the current study will help support social workers and other community practitioners understand how to effectively facilitate citizen participation in ways that enhance collective efficacy in poor communities. Implications for social work practice and research are discussed. “
Objective of the Study
This study examines whether the active involvement of residents in grassroots neighborhood organizations is related to perceptions of neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy among residents in poor communities. It helps to fill a gap in current research by analyzing citizen participation as a potential social mechanism contributing to collective efficacy. The results of the current study will help to support social workers and other community practitioners understand how to more effectively facilitate citizen participation in ways that enhance collective efficacy in poor communities.
Significance of the Study
This study is and effective tool on viewing the effectivity of neighborly intervention in solving neighborhood problems, thus, leading to organizational success.
Scope and Limitations
The scope of this study is on the Analysis of the following: neighborhood collective efficacy, organizational collective efficacy, citizen participation, neighborhood organizations, poor communities, community practice, and community level research. This study is done using the qualitative method in which studies and researches related to this study were reviewed and evaluated.
Review of Related Literature
Definition of Terms
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy. Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) propose an analogy between individual self efficacy and neighborhood efficacy in that both refer to the capacity for achieving an intended effect; however, at the neighborhood level, the shared willingness of local residents to intervene for the common good depends on conditions of mutual trust and cohesion among residents. Sampson and Raudenbush also argue that residents are not likely to take action in neighborhoods where people mistrust each other and the rules are unclear. Collective efficacy, therefore, is “the linkage of cohesion and mutual trust with shared expectations for intervening in support of neighborhood social control” (Sampson & Raudenbush, pp. 612-613). Sampson (2004[b]) explains that just as self efficacy is situated relative to a particular task, collective efficacy also takes place relative to specific tasks, including maintaining public order. Furthermore, the key causal mechanism in collective efficacy theory is social control, which is acted upon under conditions of social trust (Sampson).
Organizational Collective Efficacy. Pecukonis and Wenocur (1994) define organizational collective efficacy as an organization or group’s perception of its problem-solving skills and its ability to improve the lives of its members. They argue that efficacy embraced by a collective “provides a unique structural arrangement that allows individuals with common needs to combine and maximize their efforts toward a common end” (Pecukonis & Wenocur, p. 14). A key component of collective efficacy is shared beliefs about a group’s collective power to produce desired results (Bandura, 2001). The willingness of members of a community organization to engage in challenging activities, such as addressing decaying housing or crime, is positively associated with their perceptions of their problem-solving skills and their ability to produce positive outcomes for the community (Pecukonis & Wenocur). Therefore, the perceived efficacy of collective action is important for maintaining as well as initiating citizen participation in community organizations (Perkins & Long, 2002).
Citizen Participation and Collective Efficacy. There is small but growing body of research demonstrating the relationship between citizen participation in various types of community organizations and neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy. Chavis and his colleagues (1987) found that block association members were significantly more likely than non-members to have expectations of collective efficacy (i.e., defined as thinking that they can solve problems by working collectively and expecting residents to intervene to maintain social control). Moreover, members of block associations were also significantly more likely to engage in collective (as opposed to individual) anti-crime efforts than non-members. Sampson (1997) found that neighborhood collective efficacy was significantly and positively associated with organizational participation, along with friendship and kinship ties and the presence of neighborhood services. Finally, Perkins, Brown, and Taylor (1996) found that perceived organizational collective efficacy/civic responsibility and community attachments were consistently and positively related to participation in grassroots community organizations at both the individual and block levels of analysis.
Methods
Procedures
This study utilized a cross-sectional design to survey members and participants of nonprofit neighborhood organizations located in four different neighborhoods in metropolitan Pittsburgh. All four neighborhood organizations were located in poverty areas, defined as by the U.S. Census Bureau as census tracts where 20% or more of the residents are poor (Bishaw, 2005). The overall purpose of these four neighborhood organizations was to improve problematic conditions, and influence policies and programs that affect the quality of life in the neighborhood. All four neighborhood organizations had locally controlled boards (i.e., composed of residents and community stakeholders) and a membership base of at least 50 to 100 members. These organizations worked to improve the conditions in their neighborhoods through various community initiatives, including beautification projects, community planning, social and recreational activities, community newspapers, affordable housing, business and economic development, crime prevention and safety, youth development, leadership development, and residential block organizing.
A non-random sampling procedure was utilized in which all potential resident members and participants of the four neighborhood organizations were asked to fill out the survey. The survey was distributed door to door, at organizational meetings, and through the mail to 231 resident members and participants of the neighborhood organizations targeted for this study. The overall response rate was 54%, with a total of 124 respondents from the four neighborhood organizations who completed the survey. The response rates from each of the four neighborhood organizations individually were 39%, 51%, 53%, and 72%. The most effective data collection method was door-to-door (76% response rate), followed by organizational meetings (62% response rate), and then through the mail (26% response rate). Surveys were mailed to potential respondents only after they were not accessible at organizational meetings or by going door-to-door to their homes.
Sample Demographics
All of the respondents were residents of poverty areas, with the poverty rates in the four neighborhoods ranging from 24% to 38% in 1999 (USCSUR, 2002). In other words, all of the respondents, whether or not they were poor themselves, resided in poverty areas. As indicated below, approximately one quarter of the survey respondents had either poverty or near poverty level incomes.
Because this study was completed in 2004, it uses the poverty thresholds for that year. The 2004 poverty threshold for a two-person household was ,334, and for a two-person household with one child it ranged from ,971 [65 years and older] to ,020 [under 65 years old] (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The average household size for survey respondents was 2.3 persons. Overall, 8% of survey respondents had poverty level incomes at ,000 or less a year, and 16% had very low incomes between ,001 and ,000 a year. Based on the survey questions in the current study it is not possible to determine exactly which respondents fall under the 2004 poverty thresholds; however, the data indicate that 24% of respondents had poverty or near poverty level incomes. Among the remaining respondents, 24% earned between ,001 and ,000, 15% earned between ,001 and ,000, and 35% had incomes over ,000 a year.
More than half (59%) of the survey respondents were Caucasian, and 39% were African American. Sixty-two percent were female, and almost all respondents were registered voters (97%). The average age of respondents was 58 years old, and 41% were over the age of 65, which may help to explain the fairly large percentage of respondents who were also retired (40%). Another 40% were employed full-time. The majority of survey respondents were homeowners (81%); however, the value of their homes was quite low, with almost half (48%) reporting that their homes were valued at ,000 or less. Furthermore, respondents were very stable residents, having lived in their neighborhoods for an average of 34 years. Almost half of the respondents were married (49%), and the average household size was 2.3. The majority of respondents had some form of higher education, with 32% having a graduate or professional degree, 18% a college degree, and 25% some college. About a quarter of respondents had a high school degree (19%) or less (6%).
Measures
The survey instrument was seven pages and included and/or adapted the following scales which have been used in prior studies to explore neighborhood collective efficacy, organizational collective efficacy, and participation in neighborhood organizations.
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy. Neighborhood collective efficacy was measured using a scale developed by Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) in their study of Chicago neighborhoods. The neighborhood collective efficacy scale combined two subscales. The 5-item informal social control subscale asked residents the likelihood, on a scale from I to 5, 1 meaning “very unlikely” to 5 meaning “very likely,” that their neighbors can be counted on to do something if: “children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner,” and “the fire station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts.” The social cohesion/trust subscale contained 4 conceptually related items that asked residents how strongly they agreed on a scale from I to 5, 1 meaning “strongly disagree” to 5 meaning “strongly agree,” with the several statements including: “People around here are willing to help their neighbors,” and “This is a close-knit neighborhood.” The reliability for the 9-item neighborhood collective efficacy scale in the current study was .85.
Organizational Collective Efficacy. The measure for organizational collective efficacy adapted a scale developed by Perkins and Long (2002) in their study of block associations in New York City. The 8-item scale in the current study asked respondents how likely on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 meaning “very unlikely” to 5 meaning “very likely” that their neighborhood organization could accomplish several goals, including: “Improve physical conditions in the neighborhood like cleanliness or housing upkeep,” “Get people in the neighborhood to help each other more,” “Reduce crime in the neighborhood,” and “Develop and implement solutions to neighborhood problems.” The reliability for the organizational collective efficacy scale in the current study was .99.
Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations. Two measures were used in the current study: participation level and participation in decision making. The scale measuring participation level was adapted from the following three studies: York’s (1990) 3-item organizational participation scale; Perkins and Long’s (2002) 8-item citizen participation index; and additional items developed by Perkins and his colleagues (1990). In the current study, respondents were asked, on a scale from I to 5, 1 meaning “never” to 5 meaning “often,” how often in the past year they had participated in various organizational activities and functions, including attending meetings, actively participating in discussions, working for the organization outside of meetings, serving as a member of a committee, serving as an officer or as a committee chair, recruiting new members, and serving as a representative of the organization to other community groups. The reliability of the 11-item participation level scale in the current study was .95.
Itzhaky and York’s (2000) scale measuring participation in decision making was used in the current study. Respondents were asked to indicate how involved they were in the neighborhood organization by checking one of the following items: (1) I take no part at all; (2) I play a passive role; (3) I participate in relaying information; (4) I carry out various tasks at the instruction of the staff and/or board (note: this study added “and/or board” to this item); (5) I participate partially in planning, decision making and implementation; and (6) I am a full partner in planning, decision making and implementation.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment