| Organizations require tools as means of organizational assessment, organizational behavior and organizational change. This research developed and tested a tool called the Organizational Efficacy Questionnaire to measure perceptions of organizational efficacy, which has been theorized as a component of organizational performance. While many components of organizational behavior have been analyzed (Organizational Culture, Organizational Citizenship, and others), a tool to test perceptions of Organizational Efficacy was not available at the time of this study (2001), although it was recommended in the literature nearly 15 years ago. The development of this instrument, including construct definition, a testing of its reliability, and analysis of its factors, is the focus of this work and its primary contribution to the literature.;The instrument was developed using proven procedures and analyzed using well-accepted statistical techniques. Overall results showed proper discriminant reliability with self-efficacy and organization-based esteem, and convergent reliability with two different collective efficacy instruments. The research was conducted in 3 parts: Study 1 was a pilot to assess discriminant and convergent reliability. Study 2 assessed the factors and alpha levels of reliability, and Study 3 was a Time 1, Time 2 study to assess malleability of the instrument. All studies took place in manufacturing companies throughout Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin.;Study 1 (142 participants) yielded 23 items from a 37-item pool to be used in study 2, and also showed expected discriminant and convergent reliability. Study 2 (619 participants) yielded a 3-factor solution as predicted from the literature, including Sense of Mission, Sense of Collective Capability, and Sense of Resilience. All alpha levels exceeded .8 on all scales. Both Regression and Analysis of Variance tests showed that the organizational level was primary in explaining organizational efficacy. Study 3 showed some slight changes in the 3 factors over a 4-month period, indicating malleability of the construct. Predictive validity was not established due to extenuating circumstances, though a positive relationship with Turnover appeared evident. |
