Scope of the Theory
Positive Organizational Scholarship represented by Cameron provides an examination of typical and deviated patterns of behavior of employees to highlight the problems and positive outcomes of the organizational process (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003). Hence, the theory focuses on the organizational dynamics leading to the Development of Human Strength,
Employee Resilience, Restoration and Conciliation, and Organizational Performance (Cameron & Caza, 2003).
In addition, the theory overviews the concept of organizational effectiveness as an independent variable that influences other factors, like promotion and human resources management (Lewin & Minton, 1986).
Aims of the Theory
Cameron’s concept of organizational effectiveness is applied in the classificatory scheme for measuring business performance, as introduced by Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986). In addition, the theory also aims to understand the best conditions for a human performance about motivations, environment, and causes of successful work.
Theoretical Underpinning
While building a theory of Positive Organizational Scholarship, Cameron (2005) was specifically interested in the way organizational effectiveness can measure performance, which is associated with avoidance of wasteful and uncoordinated activities. Specific attention has also been made to different types of organizational structures and their influence on effective processes and productivity outcomes (Cameron, 2005, p. 306). Specifically, Cameron considers the term a construct, a ground theory, because it does not have specific parameters and indicators for measuring.
In addition, Robson, Leonidou, & Katsikeas (2002) prove the idea that the theory relies on an induction method because the researcher refers to some of its important components.
Empirical Support
The chapter does not provide a consistent overview of empirical evidence enabling research to build the major concepts of a theory (Cameron, 2005). On p. 306, the theorist mentions different theoretical schools that contribute to building a conceptual framework for the given theory. Specifically, the chapter provides a classification of different types of organizations, as presented by different scholars (Cameron & Caza, 2003). In this respect, the qualitative research method prevails in theory development. However, regarding practical applications of the theories, as presented in the studies by Bener and Glaister (2010) and Quer, Claver, and Rienda (2007), Cameron’s framework is a comprehensive model.
Weaknesses and Gaps in the Theory
Lack of quantitative data and excess emphasis on behavioral and organizational issues can contribute to the validity of the theory. For instance, while analyzing different factors embracing organizational performance, it is impossible to define precisely what factors are involved with regard to the type of an organization. For instance, the researches dedicated to the analysis of organizational performance underscore the variability of factors (Chowdhury, 1992; Glaister & Buckley, 1999). In this respect, there is not a unanimous opinion concerning how organizational effectiveness influences other factors. The abundance of features and phenomena characterizing organizational dynamics and performance prevents us from presenting Cameron’s framework as a single theory. Nevertheless, the theory still manager to capture common features, such as positive state, as well as analyze some concrete objects, such as resilience and meaningfulness.
References
Bener, M., & Glaister, K. W. (2010). Determinants of performance in international joint ventures. Journal of Strategy and Management. 3(3), 188-214.
Cameron, K. (2005). Organizational Effectiveness: Its Demise and Re-emergence through Positive Organizational Scholarship. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 304-330.
Cameron, K. S. & Caza, A. (2003). Contributions to the Discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist. 47, 731-739.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). An Introduction to Positive Organizational Scholarship. In. K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. pp. 3-13.
Chowdhury, J. (1992). Performance of International Joint Ventures and Wholly Owned Foreign Subsidiaries: A Comparative Perspective. Management International Review. 32(2), 115-133
Glaister, K. W., & Buckley, P. J. (1999). Performance Relationships in UK International Alliances. Management International Review. 39(2), 123-147.
Lewin, A. Y., & Minton, J. W. (1986). Determining Organizational Effectiveness: Another Look, and an Agenda for Research. Management Science. 32(5), 514-538.
Quer, D., Claver, E., and Rienda, L. (2007). Business and management in China: A review of empirical research in leading international journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 24, 359-384.
Robson, M. J., Leonidou, L. C., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2002). Factors Influencing International Joint Venture Performance: Theoretical Perspectives, Assessment, and Future Directions. Management International Review. 42, p. 385-418.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research. Academy of Management Review. 11(4), 801-814.