Research in US higher educational institutions over more than a decade has produced dimensions defining aspects of inputs, processes and outcomes which are important for organisational effectiveness (OE) . Furthermore, these dimensions have been shown to vary systematically to define the domain of each type of institution (e.g., ivy league versus regional college).
A significant step in the process of exploring various relationships impacting on effectiveness in Australian higher education would be to derive a classification along the fines of Cameron's work. This paper first reviews research in Australian higher education testing Cameron's dimensions and exploring aspects of organisational climate which appear to represent equally important dimensions of organisational effectiveness (Lysons and Ryder, 1988, 1989).
This study then undertakes a combined analysis of Cameron and of Jones and James (1979) variables to identify a more comprehensive set of dimensions. Discriminant procedures successfully predict and further define the single taxonomy suggested by the previous work involving organisational climate only . Finally, the implications of these findings with particular regard to very recent structural adjustments in the higher education system are discussed including reference to further OE research directions undertaken in this ongoing program.
Organisational research in higher education
Arguably, one of the most significant contributions in the study of organisational effectiveness in higher education was the work of . His approach was to empirically identify dimensions of OE involving aspects of student, staff and organisational issues. His nine dimensions involve student (1) academic (2) career, and (3) personal development, and (4) satisfaction; staff(5) professional development and quality, and (6) satisfaction; and the organisation's (7) health, (8) openness in the community, and (9) ability to acquire resources (see also Lysons and Ryder, 1988, p. 324). Ultimately, Cameron (1981) was able to demonstrate how these dimensions systematically classified various categories of institutions (e.g., Ivy league, State funded universities, institutes of technology, regional colleges, etc.) by defining their different domains of activity (e.g., elite high morale, elite low morale, external oriented and mediocre types of organisations, respectively).
This was an important development because the taxonomy portrayed the truly complex mosaic of the higher education system in the US at that time. It illustrated the multivariate and multi-dimensional nature of organisational effectiveness in higher education while confirming the generally held intuitive view of the system's structure. Significantly, Cameron went on to use this model as the basis for institutional research to assist management decision making and in further related