/ Assuming that model congruence exists between models, some investigators' \

tried to integrate several models and proposed multiple criteria models to define
and measure effectiveness (see Cheng, 1986b; 1993h; Hackman, 1987;
Hackman and Walton, 1986; Hoy and Miskel, 1991; Miskel, McDonald and
Bloom, 1983). For example, from Hackman and Walton's (1986) idea, school
effectiveness may be defined by the following three dimensions:
1

The degree to which the school's productive output (that is, its
product or service) meets the standards of quantity, quality, and
timeliness of the people who receive, review, and/or use that
output;

The degree to which the process of carrying out the work enhances
the capability of school members to work together
interdependently in the future; and

The degree to which the school experience contributes to the

growth and personal well-being of school members.

This conception comprises some important elements of the goal

model, the process model, the satisfaction model, the organizational
learning model, and tHe total quality management model. For another
example, based on a social-function approach, Hoy and Miskel (1991)
developed an integrated model for exploring the organizational effectiveness
of schools. They used the four necessary functions of social systems (i.e.
adaptation, goal achievement, integration, and latency) as guidelines to
select specific criteria of school effectiveness. They proposed that school
effectiveness is a multidimensional concept and therefore many process and
outcome variables can be used as indicators of effectiveness.

Basically, both Hackman and Walton (1986) and Hoy and

Miskel (1991) assume the existence of congruence across the
different effectiveness models, and hence the different
effectiveness criteria or categories. But we should pay
attention to a basic dilemma, that maximizing school
effectiveness in multiple criteria at the same time is often
impossible (Hall, 1987). For example, when a school is very
academically productive through very tense working pressure,
this pressure may frustrate teachers' personal ' "satisfaction
and growth and also increase the conflict between school
members. Since the resources available for a school are
always limited, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
maximize effectiveness on all the criteria, or to achieve the
goals of all the constituencies in a short time. Inevitably, there
are conflicts and contradictions in schools.

Hall (1987) proposed a contradiction perspective to describe the

conflicting * characteristics inherent in every organization.
According to this perspective, no school is always effective because
of the existence of multiple and conflicting " environmental
constraints, goals, constituencies and time frames. Or instead,
schools - can be viewed as effective (or ineffective) to some degree
only in terms of some specific criteria based on certain effectiveness
models.

Along this line of thinking, ensuring congruence across all

models or categories of school effectiveness as well as
maximizing effectiveness at all criteria seems very difficult, at
least in a short time. In current educational reforms, we
emphasize maximizing school effectiveness. What should we do
when facing this dilemma or limitation?
It seems that from an organizational perspective, the
conception of school effectiveness is complex and problematic,
and raises many debates over model selection and level of
analysis among investigators (Cameron, 1984; Cameron and
Whetten, 1981). Some researchers even argued that the concept
of organizational effectiveness in general, or school effectiveness
in particular is futile and has no inherent meaning in 'scientific
analysis of comparative organizational effectiveness' (Hannan and
Freeman, 1977: 131).