Mô hình chẩn đoán tổ chức trường hợp tổ chức chính quyền địa phương tại thành phố hồ chí minh, việt nam

ABSTRACT ---Organizational Diagnosis Model ODM is a rather new approach indevelopingcountries, especially in the public sector and local government ofthesecountriessuchasVietnam.Throught

MINISTRYOF EDUCATIONANDTRAININGUNIVERSITYOFECON

SUPERVISOR Assoc.Prof.TRANKIMDUNG, PhD.

HoChi MinhCity,2020

DECLARATION

The work presented in this thesis, to the best of my knowledge and belief,originalexcept as acknowledged in the text, I hereby declare that I have not submittedthismaterial,eitherinfullorinpart,foradegreeatthisoranyotherinstitution

Signature

LêThịLoan

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ii

TABLEOFCONTENT iv

ABBREVIATIONS viii

LISTOFTABLES ix

LISTOFFIGURES xi

ABSTRACT xii

CHAPTERI – INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 ORGANIZATIONALDIAGNOSISMODEL 1

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 8

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 8

1.4 RESEARCH SCOPE 8

1.5 RESEARCH METHODS 10

1.6 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS 11

1.7 STRUCTUREOFDISSERTATION 11

CHAPTERII –LITERATUREREVIEW 14

2.1 INTRODUCTION 14

2.2 ORGANIZATIONALDIAGNOSIS 14

2.2.1 –TheContigencyTheory 16

2.2.2 –OrganizationDevelopmentandOrganizationalDiagnosis 16

2.3 GOVERNMENTORGANIZATIONS 23

2.3.1 Definitionof GovernmentOrganizations 23

2.3.2 Thecharacteristicsofpublicsectororganizationsandgovernmentorganizations 23 2.3.3 OverviewthecontextoflocalgovernmentorganizationsinVietnam 27

2.4 GOVERNMENTORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 32

2.4.1 OrganizationalPerformance 32

2.4.2 Performanceofpulicsectorandgovernmentorganizations 34

2.5 ORGANIZATIONALDIAGNOSIS MODELS(ODMs) 39

2.5.1 The meaningofOrganizationalDiagnosisModel: 39

2.5.2 OverviewtheOrganizational Diagnosis Models 40

2.6 RESEARCH MODEL ANDHYPOTHESES 51

2.6.1 LeadershipandPerformance 61

2.6.2 Relationshipand Performance 63

2.6.3 RewardsandPerformance 63

2.6.4 AttitudetowardsChangeandPerformance 64

2.6.5 InformationManagement& CommunicationandPerformance 64

2.6.6 Inspection& SupervisionandPerformance 68

2.6.7 ConsensusandPerformance 70

CHAPTERIII–METHODS ANDMEASUREMENTS 73

3.1 INTRODUCTION 74

3.2 RESEARCHPROCESS 74

3.3 QUALITATIVERESEARCH 75

3.4 SUMMARIZEHYPOTHESESOF RESEARCHMODEL 78

3.5 DATA COLLECTIONPROCEDURES 79

3.5.1 Questionaire 79

3.5.2 Datacollectionprocedure 79

3.6 SUMMARYOFSCALES 80

3.7 PRELIMINARYRESEARCHRESULT 84

3.7.1 Reliabilitytests: 84

3.7.2 Theexploratoryfactoranalysis- EFA result 87

CHAPTERIV–DATAANALYSIS ANDRESEARCH RESULTS 91

4.1 INTRODUCTION 91

4.2 SAMPLECHARACTERISTICS 91

4.2.1 Generaloflocalgovernment organizationsinHCMC: 91

4.2.2 OverviewpositionsofLGOsinHCMC 93

4.2.3 Summaryofsurvey’srespondents: 93

4.3 ASSESSMENTOF MEASUREMENTSCALES 96

4.3.1 Reliabilitytest results 96

4.3.2 Assessmento f m e a s u r e m e n t s c a l e s u s i n g E x p l o r a t o r y F a c t o r i n g A n a l y s i s (EFA) 103

4.3.3 AssessmentofmeasurementscalesusingConfirmatoryFactoringAnal ysis(CFA) 114 4.3.4 SEMResult: 120

4.4 DISCUSSIONTHEANALYSISRESULT 127

4.4.1 Discussionabouttheresearchmodelandmoredetailsofeachfactormeasurem entscale 127

4.4.2 Discussionabout thetesthypothesis results 127

CHAPTERV-CONCLUSION 134

5.1 INTRODUCTION 134

5.2 SUMMARY OFRESEARCHFINDINGS 134

5.3 CONTRIBUTIONSANDIMPLICATIONS 135

5.3.1 Theoreticalcontributions 135

5.3.2 New measurementscales’contributions 136

5.3.3 Managerialimplications 136

5.4 LIMITATIONSANDFURTHER RESEARCHDIRECTIONS 137

LISTOF PUBLICATIONS 140

REFERENCE 141

APPENDICES 156

APPENDIX1– SUMMARYOFREVIEWEDORGANIZATIONALDIAGNOSISMODELS 156

APPENDIX2–QUALITATIVERESEARCHSCRIPT 159

APPENDIX3–LOCALGOVERNMENTFUNCTIONSinVIETNAM 181

APPENDIX4– QUESTIONAIREINVIETNAMESE 185

APPENDIX5 -M E A S U R E -M E N T S C A L E S I N E N G L I S H , V I E T N A -M E S E (BEFOREAN DAFTERTESTRESULTS)ANDCODINGDATA 191

APPENDIX6-PRELIMINARYRESEARCHRESULTS 198

APPENDIX7-MAINRESEARCHRESULTS 212

Table2.1-SummaryofmentionedOrganizationalDiagnosisDefinitions 20

Table2.2–Summarysome maincharacteristicsofspecialmunicipal HCMC 31

Table2.3-Summarycomponents ofmentionedOrganizationalDiagnosisModels 46

Table 2.4 - Summary the characteristics discrepancies of business enterprises, publicsectororgnizationsandlocalgovernmentorganizations 57

Table3.1-Summaryofhypothesestobe tested 78

Table3.2-Summaryofscalesforeightconstructsintheoriticalmodel 80

Table3.3–Result ofscalereliabilitytests inp r e l i m i n a r y research 84

Table3.4-ResultofEFAinpremilinaryresearch(foreachconstruct) 87

Table4.1–TheLGOsinHCMCanddesignedsurveysample 94

Table4.2–Summaryofsample’scharacteristics 96

Table4.3– ReliabilityStatisticTestResultofLeadershipConstruct 97

Table4.4– ReliabilityStatisticTestResultofRelationshipConstruct 98

Table4.5– ReliabilityStatisticTestResultof RewardsConstruct 99

Table4.6– ReliabilityStatisticTestResultofChangetowardAttitudeConstruct 100

Table4 7 – R e l i a b i l i t y S t a t i s t i c T e s t R e s u l t o f I n f o r m a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t a n d Communi cationConstruct100 Table4.8– Reliability StatisticTest ResultofInspection andSupervisionConstruct .101

Table4.9– ReliabilityStatisticTestResultof ConsensusConstruct 102

Table4.10– ReliabilityStatistic TestResult ofPerformanceConstruct 103

Table4.11–Thetotal varianceexplainedof8 constructs 105

Table4.12-Resultsofjointfactoranalysis for8scalesmeasurement 108

Table4.13–FactorCorrelationMatrix 110

Table4.15–Summarizeoftheoriticalmodelfitindices 117

Table4.16–Summaryofconvergentvalidityanddiscriminantvalidity 119

Table4.17–SummaryCFAresults 120

Table4.18–SummaryofSEMmodelfitresult 121

Table4.19–SEMresult 122

Table4.20-Summaryofhypothesistest statistics 126

Table4.21–Impactranksof eachcomponenttoPerformance 129

Figure2 1

-OrganizationalstructureoflocalgovernmentaccordingtotheLawOrganizingLocalGovernmen

Figure2.2-Studyplan ofthisdissertation 59

Figure2.3–ResearchModel 60

Figure3.1–ResearchProcess 75

Figure4.1–Diagram CFAresultof researchmodel 118

Figure4.2–DiagramSEMresultofresearchmodel 123

ABSTRACT -

Organizational Diagnosis Model (ODM) is a rather new approach indevelopingcountries, especially in the public sector and local government

ofthesecountriessuchasVietnam.Throughtheliteraturereview,werecognizedthatmostoftheresearchessuggestingODMsinbusinessenterprises,littleresearchesismentioningODMinthepublicsectorandLGOs.So,wetryto solvethis matter

By qualitative and quantitative research methods, we proposed an ODMframeworkthat concluded 07 independent variables, such as Leadership, Relationship,Rewards,Attitude towardsChange, Inspection &Supervision, InformationManagementandCommunication, and Consensus which impact to Performance of LGOs(dependentvariable)

The findings of this research obtained 02 contributions in theoretical andpracticalaspects: (i) propose an ODM in the case of LGOs; (ii) suggest Consensus component inODM of LGOs in Vietnam, this is a newfactor which has not mentioned in previousresearches in ODM theory; (iii) propose the scalemeasurements of eight variables asmentioned aboveincaseofLGOs

Keywords: Organizational Diagnosis Model, Performance, LocalGovernmentOrganizations,Consensus

CHAPTERI–INTRODUCTION

1.1 ORGANIZATIONALDIAGNOSISMODEL

-Organizational diagnosis is one of the steps to improve organizational performance.Inorder to change organizational behavior, the current status of organizations needs tobediagnosed.Organizationaldiagnosismeansapartoforganizationdevelopment.Cummings &Cummings (2014) proposed diagnosis is an action that belongs tothefundamentaldictumoforganizationalchange.Organizationaldiagnosistheoryhasbeenpopularinmanycountriessincethe1950suptonow

Therearealotoforganizationaldiagnosismodel(ODM)amongacademicsandpractitioners,such as Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis (1951), Leavitt’sDiamondModel(1965),OpenSystemTheory(1966),Likert’sSystemTheory(1967),Weisbord’sSixBox Model (1976), Nadler & Tushman’s Congruence Model Framework (1977,1995), Mc Kinsey Framework

TechnologicalPoliticalCultureFramework(1983),High-PerformanceProgrammingFramework(1984), Individual and Group BehaviorDiagnosing Framework – Porras & Anderson,Harrison (1987), Cause and EffectModel – Burke Litwin (1992), Falletta’s IntelligenceModel (2008), Semantic Network Model (2014), etc

MoreandSteane(2018)Organizationaldiagnosistheoryemphasizes2categories,including

(i) steps to diagnose and (ii) structural component Almost all researches

mentionedabovefromtheliteraturereviewfocusedonthesecondcategory:thestructuralco mponent.However,thecaseofenterprises hasbeenstudiedin this researches.

(1) Weisbord (1976) identified the general characteristics of organization not typeoforganization, 6 variables as “6 boxes of organizational characteristics oforganization,including (i) Purposes, (ii) Structure, (iii) Rewards, (iv) HelpfulMercharnisms,

(v)Relationship,and(vi)Leadershipinteractingeachotherinanorganization.Thisisthe

original ODM to diagnose some characteristics of the organization in general,butspecific characteristics of LGOs had not mentioned and how to affectorganizationalperformancehasnotbeenproposed.

(2) Nadler – Tushman ‘s Congruence Model (1977) clarified the type of organizationinhis research and mentioned a transformation process much clearer compared to theresearch of Weisbord (1976) bydepicting the transformational process from inputs(environment resources history) tooutputs (organization group individual) affectingeach other and following thetransformation process including 4 variables: (i) informalorganization, (ii) formalorganization, (iii) individual, and (iv) task interacting amongthem

(3) Preziosi (1980) supplied the questionnaire (35 items) that has developed fromtheModel Six Box of (Weisbord, 1976), and mentioned one additional factor:Attitudetowardschange.Thisisthegroundedtheoryformentioningapartofthequestionnaireinthisresearch, but adapting the case of LGOs modified for being more appropriate.Thisisconsideredasoneaspectofresearchgapthatneedstoexploreinthisstudybecauseuptonowaframeworkhasnotbeendevelopedtodiagnoseorganizationalperformanceandits activities in each factor: structure,

evenhelpfulmechanismandattitudetowardschangeofemployeewhoworkforLGOs

(4)

TheMcKinsey’s7SFramework(1981-1982)presentedmoredetailssomeaspectsoforganizationalcharacteristics,including7elements:(i)Style,(ii)Staff,(iii)Systems,

(iv) Strategy,(v)Structure,

(vi)Skills,and(vii)Sharedvalues(inthemiddleofframework,affectingtothesixremainelements;besides,4softelementscontain:Style,Skill, Staff and Shared Values; and 3 hard elements contain: Systems, Strategy,andStructure In the case of LGOs how to measure these factors scale measurement hasnotbeensetandmentioningascalemeasurement ofeachfactorisverycomplicatedand

there has had no existence from a literature review and the result of scalemeasurementreliabilityandeffectiveness couldnotbecheckedandtested.

(5) Tichy (1983) developed ODM of Weisbord’s Six Box Model (1976) basedonpolitical cultural aspect, however, this ODM had not mentioned the scale tomeasure 6factors: (i) Misson Strategy, (ii) Tasks, (iii) Prescribed Networks, (iv)OrganizationalProcesses,( v ) P e o p l e ,

(7) Porras & Robertson, Harrison (1987) discussed the Individual and GroupBehaviorDiagnosis

ModelinmoredetailedthanpreviousODMs.Thismodelnotonlymeasured

behaviors at individual, group, and organization level1, but also diagnosed inputsandoutputsofallthreelevels.However,thisoneisextremelyhardtomeasureinthecaseofgovernmentorganizationswhentakingthesurveyincaseofLGOsinVietnam,thathavesome special and different

(politicalregime,lawfulsystem,culturalfeatures,economyfeatures,etc).Thisisthefirstreasonthatt

hisstudyneedstodeeplyresearched

TheseareoverviewingODMsinpreviousresearchesingeneral.Inthecaseofthepublicsector orgovernment organization, we need to deeply research the ODM frameworkinthiscasestudy,andwhatarecomponentsthataffecttoLGOsperformance

In database ProQuest, we have also found 40.027 results (with abstract) bykeyword“organizational diagnosis model”, continued keeping narrow finding limit insciencearticles (review) there have been 1.743 results, but when we have beensearching withkeyword “organizational diagnosis model” (ODM) and “localgovernment” there havevery little researches Similarly, we continued searching on

are2.535;867;and6results;butthereisonlyoneresultofOlivier(2017)adjustedthemodelof Burke–Litwin (1992) to diagnose the performance of local government in SouthAfrica Continuing narrow findinglimitation with public sector and LGOs, there aresome main researches mentioned incase study of public sector and LGOs in UK,USA,Italia,China,Taiwan,Thailand,Malaysia,NewZealand,Rwanda,Australia,

1 First, at the individual level: the input – resource of model at each level can be measured by followes factors: (i)Individual Characteristics, (ii) Attitudes, (iii) Beliefs and (iv) Motivation; and the output factors of this level areindividual performance and quality of work life Second, at the group level : the input – resource of model at eachlevelcanbemeasuredbyfolloweselements: (i)Groupcomposition,(ii)Structure,(iii)Technology,(iv)Behaviour,

(v) Processes, (vi) and Culture; and the output of this level is group performance Last, at the organization level,the input contains some factors: (i) Purpose, (ii) Processes, (iii) Structure, (iv) Technology, (v) Behavior and (vi)Culture

Netherlands, etc., but they all suggested some components of organization, but thereisverylittleODMforpublicsectororLGOs,suchas:

(i) Leadership:researchesofWallis&Dollery(2005),Wuetal.(2010),Boonleainget al.(2010), Hamidet al.(2011), Muthukumaran (2014), Draghiciet al.(2014),Karimietal (2014),Cowellet al.(2011&2016),Imet al.(2016);

(ii) Relationship: studies of Nguyen (2016), Hung& Chen (2009);Rewards:research of Goulet & Frank (2002), Steijn & Leisink (2006), Newman &

According to Zaffaret al.(2018), in each type of organization, their’ members havedifferently responded to its environment, organizational diagnoses in different

relationships, motivation, and reward are greater, however, the purpose, structure

andhelpfulmechanismsbearinglowervaluethantheaverage(Hamidet al.,2011).

AccordingtoNguyen(2016)intheresearchtofindouttheorganizationalcharacteristicsand employeessatisfaction in Vietnam, he compared SOE and NSOE and found adifference in both type of organizations foreach of the organizational area/dimensionsthat differ based on working environment,procedures, and therefore, there will bedifferences in their organizational dimension

(1987)proposedthatthediscrepanciesofpublicandprivatesectororganizations’scharacteristics are: (i) Purposes, (ii) Leadership, (iii) and Job security; They mean thatthe goals

of public sector are more ambitious than those in private sector, and theleadershipturnover of public sector is much more than private sector, and employeesinpublicsectorhavebiggerjobsecuritythanthoseinprivatesectordo

Alford&Hughes(2008)alsoidentifiedfiveparticulardiscrepanciesoftheorganizationsinpublicandprivatesector:(i)Publicsectordecisionsarecoerciveascitizenstocomplywith, and subject to sanctions relating toenforcement right of the government Privatesectors are more freedom to supply their service (to chargethe customer with differentprices, style of service, even refuse to deal with others); (ii)The public officer isresponsible to the political leadership, parliaments, and thecommunity, citizens and tovarious parts of the judicial system Private sectormanagement is responsible to itsBoard and shareholders; (iii) Outside agenda in thepublic sector are largely set by thepolitical leadership, in contrast with the profitmotivation of a private organization; (iv)There are difficulties in measuring output or efficiency in production of publicsector,that relates to profit as is in the private sector; (v) Because of large size and

inthepublicsectormakecontrolorco-ordinationdifficult,thatiscompletelynotappearedin the private sector And this isthe first gapof research

in this dissertation, the authorwonderedhowtomeasuretheoutputmoreprecisely;

in general and the usage of ODM in these cases But in the case study ofLGOs inVietnam,because the discrepancy ofpolitical regime’scharacteristics tocompare withother countries, the leading role of the Communist Party to central andlocalgovernment organizations is very special, and that is legislated in Article 4,

TheConstitution of The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2013) This isthe second gaptoresearch, whether ODMs for other countries, even in the case of China can be

used forLGOs in Vietnam and the measurement of LGOs’ performance is needed toidentifiedinthiscase

Thirdly,Performanceisaconstructmeasuredchieflyinbusinessenterprises,evenintheagency of thepublic sector, but there is very little researches mentioned thescalemeasurementofperformanceinthisresearch.LGOshavesomeofthesimilarcharacteristic

s of public sector organizations (they all serve the social benefits of citizen;they are underthe authority of State in-law; their finance resource is guaranteed by

theStatebudget,etc.),butinthemainvisionandpurposeoftwotypeorganizationsarequitedifferent according the explanation of researches: Alford and Hughes (2008), Nguyen(2016), Miaoet al.(2013), Im, Campbell, and

Kokubun(2018),etc.willbepresentedinthenextsections.WecanbaseonthescalemeasurementofPerfo

rmance(SpekléandVerbeeten(2014);USA(researchofMelkersandWilloughby (2005)),Italian and UK (research of Taticchi (2005), New Zealand(studyofBreitbarth,Mitchell,andLawson(2010)),SouthAfricaofOlivier(2017),inRwandaof

Klingebielet al.(2016),etc.), but these coutries have a political regime completelydiffer

with Vietnam context So, this isthe third reasonwe need to modified a

scalemeasrement ofPerformanceinthecaseofLGOsinVietnam

1.2 RESEARCHOBJECTIVES

Thegoalof thisresearchintendssolving 2subjects:

(i) IdentifyingtheresearchframeworkofODMinthecaseofLGOsinHCMC,Vietnam;(ii) Developing the scale measurement of Consensus in LGOs – an aspect of culture -the new component which has not ever mentioned yet in any ODMs fromreviewingODMstheories

1.3 RESEARCHQUESTIONS

In this study, from the gaps of literature review in ODMs, we realized the necessityofODM in GO to explore the current status of GO and its problems, mentioningthedevelopment interventions to improve GOs’ performance or effectiveness Tosolvethesematters,thisresearchmustanswerthreequestions:

(i) What is the Organizational Diagnosis Model in the case study of localgovernmentorganizations?

(ii) Whatarecomponentsof thisOrganizationalDiagnosisModel?

(iii) How do these components affect performance in the case of localgovernmentorganizations?

1.4 RESEARCHSCOPE

Ingeneral,overviewingODMswecanrealizethattherearetwotypesofODMs:ODMswhichemphasizethestructurecomponents,andODMswhichemphasizedthediagnosisprocess.AndinthisresearchweintendtoproposeanODMindirectionof emphasizingstructure components because one of the commoncharacteristics of local governmentorganizations makes pressure to improve their effectiveness toserve the communities,citizens; it means that process to carry out public managementactivities always changeto adapt practical conditions The government uses power to compel those withinitsjurisdictionstodowhatitwantswithcitizensmostly willinglycomplyingwiththelaw

accordingtoAlfordandHughes(2008).SoinVietnam,GOshavesomesimilarcharacteristics withothers as the above section Based on previous researches and myresearch process, it seems a little specific

inthecaseoftheLGOs.IncontextoftheVietnameseeconomy

after“DOIMOI”,theVietnamesegovernmenthasissuedmanylawstoadaptwiththemissionandstrategytoward“socialist-orientedmarketeconomy”,thatrequiresLGOsinHCMC,Vietnam must be changed,what their characteristics are, what the relationship betweentheir components and output, how to measure the GO’s performance as the gapwhichHughes (2012) mentioned which concerned to the topic the author want to solvein

thedissertationandbasedontheODMintheenterprisesthataremodifiedtodiagnoseLGOsinthecontextofHCMC,Vietnam

d inthiscaseofLGOsinVietnam

So, there are two gaps in the research in this dissertation In Vietnam,governmentorganizations have some similar characteristics in comparison with othercountries asmentioned in the above section HCMC is the first level center of Vietnamin

theeconomy,p o l i t i c , c u l t u r e , a n d o t h e r f i e l d s ; s o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f L G O s i n H C M C , Vietnam generally represent characteristics for the system of municipalgovernmentorganizations in Vietnam at all levels This is the reason we carried out thesurvey

inHCMCforthisresearch.Basedonpreviousresearchesandmyresearchprocess,itseemsa little specific research about diagnosing organizations yet, especially in the caseoflocalg o v e r n m e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n V i e t n a m S o , w e i n t e n d t o r

e s e a r c h t h i s matter:“The Organizational Diagnosis Model: The case study

of local governmentorganizationsinHoChiMinh City,Vietnam”for mydissertation 1.5 RESEARCHMETHODS

This current study uses mixed methods that are carried out by not only thequalitativemethod but also a quantitative method based on a deductive approach(according toNewman(2000))

At first, by the qualitative method, the author reviews literature involved in ODMs,andperformance of LGOs Based on the theory of organizational diagnosis and ODMsresearches overtime as followcollected researches by Kasik (2011) and lots of previousresearches in LGOS and deep interview withrespondents who are leaders of LGOs inHCMC, Vietnam, we developed a theoretical framework forthis study The ODMframework in case of LGOs in HCM, Vietnam consists of 08variables: 07 independentvariables, such as: (1) Leadership, (2) Relationship, (3) Rewards, (4) Attitude towardsChange,(5)InspectionandSupervision,

(6)InformationManagementandCommunication,a n d ( 7 ) C o n s e n s u s ; a n d o n e i n

d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s : O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

PerformanceinthecasestudyoftheLGOsin HCMC,Vietnam.Andfromtheliteraturereview, thetheoretical framework we point out 7 hypothesies about the relationshipbetween these constructs Following the

andVerbeeten(2014),Im,Campbell,andJeong(2016)scalemeasurementsoftheconstructaremodifiedtoadoptincaseofVietnameseLGOs

After that, by the quantitative method, chiefly by software package SPSS 22.0andAMOS 22.0, we test against the research model and hypotheses through empiricaldatain preliminary research to find outfit scale measurement and main research withsurveysample of 510 respondents who have been working for LGOs in HCMC fromthreegovernmentlevels(ward,districtandmunicipal).ThemaintechniquesfordataanalysisarereliabilitytestbycalculatingCronbachalphaofeachconstruct,EFA,CFAandSEMtechnique to test

wemodifiedtheConsensusandPerformancemeasurementscalesofODMspecifiedinlocalgovernmentorganizations,testhypothesesofpathrelationshipbetweenconstructsofthetheoreticalmodelbyEFA,CFA,andSEM.Besides,throughthequantitativetechnique,wedefinedhowmanyvariablesremainedtohaveasignificanteffectonLGOs’performance; and which component has not a

(2) Besides,wedevelopedthescalemeasurementofConsensusintheODMofLGOsinVietnam andfulfilled the measurement scale of Leadership, Relationship, Rewards,Information Management and

Supervision,PerformanceincaseofLGOsofVietnam

1.7 STRUCTUREOF DISSERTATION

Thedissertationincludes5chaptersbesidessubordinate sections asrequired

Chapter I - Introduction: includes 07 sections from 1.1 to 1.7: introduction ofresearchbackground, research objectives, research questions, research scope, supplies

a brief ofmethodology,researchcontributionandstructureofdissertation

Chapter II– Literature Review: contains06 sections from 2.1 to 2.6: besidestheintroductionsection(2.1),thischapterprovidesthebackgroundtheoryofOrganizationalDiagnosis,ODMsandclarifiesthediscriminantbetweenthem;pointsoutdefinitionsandcharacteristics of LGOs inVietnam, Organizational Performance; performs theoreticalmodel, study plan; and assumes 7 hypothesesabout the relationship of 8 components oftheoretical model tobetestedinthe later chapters.Chapter III – Methods and Measurements: consists of 07 sections: similar to ChapterIIbesidestheintroduction(3.1),thischapterpresentstheresearchprocessincludedqualitative and

Chapter V – Conclusion: consists of 4 sections from 5.1 to 5.4: provides ingeneralsummary of research findings, contributions in theory and may offer a littleeffort topoint out new measurement scales in OMDs and managerial implications formanagersandleadersinthepracticalmanagementoftheirorganization.Besidesspecificcontributions, this research surely has its limitations and broaden some furtherresearchdirectionstoimproveandenrichthismatter.

CHAPTERII– LITERATUREREVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter focuses on the literature review of the organizational diagnosismodels(ODMs) over time After the introduction section, the rest of this chapterincludes fivesections

Section2.2introducesthegroundedtheoryandtheconceptof

organizationaldiagnosis,theroleofitsinmanagement,andclarifiestheorganizationaldiagnosisandorganizationalanalysis

Section 2.3 presents the definition of government organizations and localgovernmentorganizations(LGOs)inVietnamingeneral,anoverviewof

thecontextofLGOsinHoChiMinhCity,Vietnam

Section2.4mentionsdefinitionoforganizationalperformance,distinctwithorganizationaleffectivenessandgovernmentorganizationalperformanceingenrallyandthelocalgovernmentorganizationinVietnam

Section 2.5 depicts the concept of ODM,reviews all the ODMs over time, andasummaryofconstituentcomponentsofresearchODM

Section 2.6 introduces the research model used in this dissertation; summary thefactorsintheresearchmodelandexplainsthedefinitioneachfactorandexpressestherelationship between local government performance and seven independent factors intheresearch model Therefore, 7 hypotheses are constructed for testing in thenextsections

2.2 ORGANIZATIONALDIAGNOSIS

Thegoaloforganizationaldiagnosisisforimprovinganddevelopingorganizations;thescalem e a

s u r e m e n t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i s p e r f o r m a n c e C u m m i n g s & W o r l

e y

(2014)andsomeotherresearchesmentionedthatorganizationaldiagnosismeansmodifyingthe current status or problem of organizations by analysis on the wholeaspects of anyorganization and giving the appropriate/corrective solution ofincreasingorimprovingorganizationalperformance(solveits’shortcomingsandsupportitsstrengths) and organizational development in the future Expressing in another way,inthe process of organizational diagnosis, we need to modify which componentshaveimpact on Performance, and the grounded theory of modifying the effect ofsomevariablestoonevariableorothervariablesisTheContingencyTheory.

2.2.1 TheContingency Theory

According to Donaldson (2001), the Contingency theory is the grounded theorytoanalyze the structure, the characteristics of an organization both the internal aspectandits external environment; and contains the concept of a fit that affectsperformance,which,inturn,impelsadaptiveorganizationalchange2;Inanothereaning,thecontingencytheoryoforganizationsdisusses,therelationshipbetweensomecharacteristicsoftheorganizationandeffectiveness,andinpreviousstudieseffectivenesscanincludeefficiency,profitability,employeessatisfaction,etc.So,inthisstudy, the subject matter is researching the relationship of some variables (forexampleLeadership,Relationship,RewardsAttitudetowardsChange,InformationManagement,andCommunication,InspectionandSupervision,Consensus)andPerformanceofLGOs,sothecorerelationshipofeachfactortoPerformanceisbasedonthecontingencytheoryoforganization.Donaldson(2001)andsomeresearchesagreedthatorganizationsmovetowardfittogainbetterperformance3,itmeansthatLGOsinthiscasestudymust

followt h e c o n t i g e n c y t h e o r y a n d f i t t o a r c h i e v e b e t t e r

P e r f o r m a n c e Thisi s thegrounded theoryfor forming the research model

framework and hypotheses in thenextsections

2.2.2 –Organization DevelopmentandOrganizationalDiagnosis

PlannedchangeisoftenunderstoodasOrganizationDevelopment.Egan(2002)explored27 definitions forOrganization Development (between 1969 and 2003) In this section,the author only mentions some definitions that are closely related to theorganizationaldiagnosistoclarifytherelationshipbetweenorganizationaldevelopmentandorganizational diagnosis Some following definitions are based on the researchesofWilliams(2005)andMcLean(2005)

According to Beckhard (1969) who gave the first formal definition oforganizationaldevelopment, defined Organization Development as plannedinterventions through theorganizational processes using behavioral-science knowledge

to increase and improveorganizational effectiveness This is the first formal definition

of organization change(planned) Expressed in another understanding way, Bennis(1969) mentioned threeelementsinorganizationaldevelopment,thereare:(i)externalenvironmentoforganization;

(ii)responsetochangeandadapttoexternalenvironment;and(iii)modified“plannedinterventions”and“behavioral-scienceknowledge”clearerthanBeckhard (1969):“Organizational development as a response to change, a complexeducational strategy intended to

oforganizationssothattheycanbetteradapttonewtechnologies,markets,andchallengesandthediz zyingrateofchangeitself”.McLagan(1989)focusesontheinternalrelationshipaspectintheor

ganizationtochangeanddevelopwhendefinedorganizationdevelopment Similar to the previous researches when

inorganizationaldevelopment,however,French&Bell(1990)alsomentionedorganizationaldevelopmentasaprocessofsolvingits’problemandrenewalthrough

diagnosis and management, emphasized the role of organizational culture onformalworkteam,temporaryteamandinter-

groupculturewiththesupportofaconsultantandtheoryandtechnologyofappliedbehavioralscience,includingActionResearch

Williams(2005),andCummings&Worleys(1993)alsomentionedprocessandbehavioralscienceknowledgeinorganizationaldevelopmentinthepreviousresearches,they mentioned the purpose oforganizational development to achieve effectiveness,increase productivity, improve QWL (its’ members),the quality of its products andservices.Developingthisconcept,Cummings&Worley(2005)emphasizedmoreclearlyorganizationdevelopmentasasystem-

wideapplicationandtransferofbehavioralscienceknowledgetoplanneddevelopment,improvementandreinforcementofstrategies,structures,andprocessesthatleadtoorganizationeffectiveness.Cummings& Cummings (2014) clarify more clearly about Change Management, OrganizationDevelopment, andDiagnosis; Diagnosis is an action which belongs to fundamentaldictum ofOrganization Development; both Organizational Development andChangeManagement have common features, they all emphasized changes inorganizations(structure, process, and leadership) that aimed to improve organizationsmore

effective;butOrganizationalDevelopmentunderlinesthehumancapacitychangesasmembersoforganization;andChangeManagementfocusallchangesinprocessoforganizationsuchascreatinganewchangevision,structureandtechnologyandworkpracticeoforganizations

Fromtheseabovedefinitions,wecanrealizesomecorefeaturesoforganizationdevelopment:(i) Thegoalof organizationdevelopmentinimprovingorganizationaleffectiveness;

(ii) Itisadata-basedapproachtounderstandanddiagnoseorganizations;

(iii)

Itinvolvesactionresearchasplannedlong-termdevelopment,interventionsandimprovementsintheorganization’sprocesses,structuresandrequiresworkingskillsof

Thus,thereisacloserelationshipbetweenorganizationaldevelopmentandorganizationaldiagnosis, and organizational diagnosis is not a tool oforganizationaldevelopment,itisandkeepsasaverysignificantstageoforganizationdevelopment,andorganizationaleffectivenessasthesamegoaloforganizationaldiagnosisandorganizationdevelopmentfurthermore

2.2.2.1 TheconceptofOrganizational Diagnosis

OrganizationalDiagnosisismentionedforafewdecades,therearealotofresearchesofthistheory,suchasLevinson(1972);Weisbord(1976);Preziosi(1980);Alderfer(1980);

Paul (1996); Sarker (2000); Rafferty and Griffin (2001); Henri (2004);

Janićijević(2010);Hamidetal.(2011);Muthukumaran(2014);Draghicietal.

( 2 0 1 4 ) , etc.Astudyof Harrison & Shirom (1999) diagnosis refers to investigations that draw on the concepts,models, and

methods from the behavioral sciences to examine an organization’scurrentcontextandhelpclientsfindoutthewaystosolvetheirproblemsorimproveorganizationaleffectiveness

AccordingtoHarrisonandShirom(2012a,2012b),Chen,ShieandYu(2012),therearefour

approaches of Organizational Diagnosis: (i) “Sharp Image”; (ii) “Open System”;“Political”, (iv) and “Customer

advantagesanddisadvantagestodiagnosethecurrentstateandgivestrategicallyplannedinterventionsforimprovingtheeffectivenessoforganizations

(i) Thefirstapproach“SharpImageDiagnosis”:Harrison&Shirom(1999)proposeda four-stepprocess to have an overall view of the organization and lead to a tightdiagnosis ofits’problemsandchallenges

(ii) The Open System approach: views the organization as a system that getsinputsfromitsenvironment,processesthoseinputsandthenproducesoutputs.However,basedonresearchofAshmos&Huber(1987),Jackson(1991),Senge(1990),Chen,Shie,and

Yu(2012)arguedthisapproachhassignificantlimitationsbecausetheprinciplesofthisapproachislackofusefulinformationthatleadstotheapplicationofsuperficialconsideration in order to overlooksignificant specific operations of organization andignoresthe importantdiscrepancies inspecificorganizationalsituations.

(iii) ThePoliticalApproach:accordingtothisapproach,Bolman&Deal(1991),Hall& Morgan(1999) proposed an organization is considered as political competition inwhich negotiation and interchange carry outboth internal and external related partieswho are seeking their particular purposes andbenefits Bartunek (1993) said that thisapproach dwells on the internal relationship inthe organization, the ability of conflictamongst the stakeholders and the impacts ofstakeholders’activities on the budget andvarious forms of resource distribution Based

on the research of Savage et al (1991),Donaldson & Preston (1995), Chenet al.(2012)

withestablishedprocedurestoevaluatecarefullyandconsiderthecustomers’opinionswhichconcernedint

he organizationalactivities

(iv) The Customer complaint approach: This perspective mentioned thatcustomercomplaint as the driving force for analysis Bosch & Enríquez (2005)developed acustomer-oriented model of OD as a ‘Customer Complaint ManagementSystem’, forexample, TQM, QFD, and PDCA which are very popular in OD, especially in

the servicefield However, according to Chenet al.(2012), although this approach

emphasizes

thevalueofcustomercomplaintsasdrivingforcetoimproveorganizationeffectiveness,butitonlyrelatedtoindividualcustomercomplaintsbasically,itdoesnotnoticeandchooseuseful information of all customercomplaints to create a comprehensive diagnosisstrategytoimproveorganizationalservicesystem

These approaches can generally perspectives of diagnosis, that is the basicgroundopiniontomodifytheconceptoforganizationaldiagnosisandsomerelevantODMsarenotedi n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s , a n d t h e O D M i s c h o s e n f o r t h e c a s e o f g o v e r n m

e n t

oforganizationalsystem

Overview informationoforganizationalsystem,butwhatisinformati

experiences and feedback

- Clarifiestypesofinformation:human experiences, system andbehavior;

- Establishedsharedunderstandingsoforganization

- Donotmentioninterventionstoorganization

3 Stahletal.

(1997)

Indentify “gap”

between“whatisandwhatoughttobe”

Donot mentionthefullmeaningofOrganizational Diagnosis, “gap”and “what ought to be”

to solveorganizationalshortcomings

Mention full aspects ofOrganizationalDiagnosisincludedinvestigation of concepts, modelsand methods from behavioralsciences to check the context oforganization,solveitsproblems

andgeteffectiveness

No Author Mainkeysofdefinition Evaluationandnotedforthesis

5 Falletta(2005) Accessing

organization’scurrent level

of functions todesignappropriatechanges

Mentionedhowandwhattoaccessto giveinterventions inorganization

(2007)

Specifying gaps betweencurrent results and expectedperformance,andhowtogetorganization’spurposes

Firstmentionedperformance(outputs) of organization indiagnosis

7 Janićijević

(2010)

Mentioned organizationalanalysis method

externalprocedures;give suitableinterventions to developorganizationalperformance;

- Modified an exercise todeterminethe strengths and weaknesses ofits’structuralfactorsandprocedures

behaviorruleswithinanorganization

First mentioned subsystemssubsystems in organization,processesandrulesinorganization

10 Cummings,

&

Worley(2014)

Process to checkorganization’s presentwellbeing,shortcomingsandsuggesta n d u n d e

r t a k e astrategicsolution/

correctivemeasuretoimprovetheirperformance

Fullyallaspectsoforganizationaldiagnosis, included process toanalysis the strengths andweaknesses; point out strategicsolution, and improvemeasurementsof performance

Source:Byauthor’sreviewingliteratureconcernedOrganizationalDiagnosisdefinitions

Insummary,almostdefinitionsmentionedorganizationaldiagnosis-ODisaprocessofcollectingdata,assessingitsdataandgiveinterventionstoimproveanddeveloporganizations.Inanotherway,theorganizationaldiagnosismeansmodifyingthecurrentstatus or problem

of organizations by analysis on the whole aspects of anyorganizationandgivingtheappropriate/correctivesolutionofincreasingorimprovingorganizationalperformance(solveits’shortcomingsandsupportitsstrengths)andorganizationaldevelopment

in the future In this thesis, we based on the definition of Cummings,

&Worley(2014)inthementionedorganizationaldiagnosis

2.2.2.2 Organizationaldiagnosisand organizationalanalysis

Through Table 2.1 - Summary of Organizational Diagnosis, we can see arelationbetweenOrganizationaldiagnosisandanalysis.AccordingtoJanićijević(2010),organizational diagnosis is understoodas a concept related to organizational analysis,bothmethods (organizational diagnosis and organizational analysis) are focusedonunderstandingtheorganizationalcontent

Thekeydiscrepancyoforganizationalanalysisandorganizationaldiagnosisisshownastheir aims, itmeans that organizational analysis’s goal is the exploration of all aspectsof an organization, while organizationaldiagnosis’s goal is an exploration of changingand improving organization Wu, Dai, &

Magnier (2010) and Karimiet al.(2014) bothmentioned diagnosis in business

emphasizedorganizationaldiagnosisisananalysisprocessconcernedwithcollectinghumanexperience, from that pointing out methods to promote organizationalperformance.Karimi et al (2014) argued organizational diagnosis means identifyingorganizationaldeficienciesandplanningtoresolvethemthroughorganizationalchangesanddevelopment

From those meaning, in this dissertation, we realize that:organizational

diagnosismeansanexercisetoanalyzetheorganization,itsstructure,subsystems,andprocesses

in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of its structural componentsandprocesses and use it as a base for developing plans to improve and/or maximizethedynamismandeffectivenessoftheorganization.

2.2.2.3 Theroleoforganizationaldiagnosis

InastudyofHarrisonandShirom(1999):Cummings&Worley(1993),Howard(1994)saidthatorga

nizationaldiagnosisrelatestothesystematiccollectionofdatatodeterminethe current state of an organization,allowing managers and consultants to enhanceorganizational effectiveness Howard & Associates (1994)said that Burke Litwin hadexplained there are four ways in which organizational

(i)helpwholelevelsofmanagerstoimprovetheir’knowledgeoforganizationalbehavior;(ii)classifythedataofanorganization;

(iii)explainthedataofanorganization;and(iv)supplyashort-handandpopularlanguageinanorganization.Gavrea(2012),organizationaldiagnosisemphasizestheriskofinactionthreatensthatprovidemanagersthe most appropriate respondents with a chaotic businessenvironment In summary,organizational diagnosis helps managers in identifying and solvingthe problems oforganizations

2.3 -GOVERNMENTORGANIZATIONS

2.3.1 DefinitionofGovernment Organizations

Bengt Karlof& Fredrik HelinLovingsonand EdgarSchein (2005) hasdefined4categoriesoforganization:(i)Coordination,(ii)CommonGoal,(iii)Divisionoflabor,(iv) Hierarchical Structure Organizations are basically structured as follows: (i)thesimplestructure,(ii)thefunctionalstructure,(iii)thedivisionalstructure,(iv)thematrixorganization,(v)thevirtualorganizationandnetwork,(vi)intermediarystructures,(vii)andthe process

The government can be classified into many types: democracy, republic,monarchy,aristocracy,a n d d i c t a t o r s h i p T h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d p u b l i c s

e c t o r h a v e s i m i l a r

characteristics, but the core nature of the government and public sector aredifferent.Peabody & Rourke (1965) wrote organizations of the public sector areequated asgovernment agencies; Walsh (1978) proposed government corporations areusually setup with the aim of explicitly increasing the autonomy of management Also

in theresearch of Perry & Rainey (1988): organizational researchers have oftendesignatedpublic organizations owned by the government, such as governmental

bureaus, schools,or manufacturing firms (e.g.,Chubb & Moe (1985); Hicksonetal (1986) Phan

(2012)proposed that the Government consists of components such as structure,

functions,mechanisms, principles, institutions Boyneet al.(2009), Immordino (2010)

mentionedalltypesoforganizations(concludedgovernmentorganizations,publicsectororgani

zations, SOEs,etc.) must improve themselves effectiveness, and the governmentat all levels

are faced with the pressure to perfect continuously theirperformance,effectivenessandresponsiveness

ThisisamissionthatmakesenforcementtoGOsmustbedonetoservetheircommunities, thelevel of this pressure in GOs even requires higher than various kindsoforganizations

2.3.2 Thecharacteristicsofpublicsectororganizationsandgovernmentorganization s

The characteristics of business enterprises are quite different in comparison withpublicsectororganizations,andgovernmentorganizations,especiallylocalgovernmentorganizations in Vietnam Baldwin (1987) mentioned the public and privatesectororganizationsaredifferentin3features:goals,leadership,andjobsecurity,asfollowing:

(i)goalsintheprivatesectorsarelessambiguousthanthoseinthepublicsector;

(ii)theprivatesectoralsohaslessleadershipturnoverthanthepublicsectordoes;(iii)employees

in the private sector have smaller job security than those in the publicsectordo.Melkers&Willoughby(2005)emphasizedtheroleofsomecomponents:leadership,

communication, information, reform requirements in local governmentorganization’sperformancemeasurementthantheimpactoftheminbusinessenterprises.InVietnam,Nguyen(2016)examinedtheorganizationalcharacteristics(thetotalcombinatio

n of Purpose, Structure, Leadership, Rewards, Helpful mechanisms,andAttitudetowardsChange)thataresignificantlydifferentfromallthosesevencomponentsofprivateandpublicsectororganizationsinVietnam

In the context of the New Zealand government from 2007-2009, (Breitbarth,Mitchell,&Lawson(2010)mentioned(citizendemand,localauthorityobjectives,andregulatoryframeworks are three main enforcements that impish increasing and improving localgovernment organizations’ serviceperformance However, based on the New PublicManagement(NPM)approach,

(Klingebieletal.

(2016)proposedtherelationshipbetweenpublicadministrationandgovernmentoperationswhi

chisrelatedtogovernmentchangesofstructuresandprocessestoimprovepublicorganizations’functions On the other hand, public administration is considered a verysignificantmeans to obtain development purposes because it is the chief background toconformlawful systems, regulations, and decisions of government; and GOs must beexecutedandobeyedtooperatetheirsystemsandmanagesociety

In generally, Vietnam and China have some common features in political conditions.Ina research of the relationship between government integrity and corporateinvestmentefficiency,Du,Li,Lin,&Wang(2018)proposedthatGOsinChinakeepsadoublerole(thisdiffersincomparisonwithotherdevelopedcountries):participantandregulator(thestudy ofZou (2004)).These roles are similar to Vietnam's GOs Both Vietnam andChina reformedtransformational market-oriented economies, so GOs in both countriesmust adapt tochanges in environment transformation According to Vietnam PrimeMinisterstatements (2016), our nation must carry out government integrity forpublicservicestocitizensandentrepreneurs