Toward the Self‐Evaluating Organization? An Empirical Test of the Wildavsky Model

This article presents the first empirical test of Wildavsky's model of self-evaluation by public organizations. We elucidate Wildavsky's arguments and identify six variables that have theoretical effects on self-evaluation. A statistical model that incorporates these variables explains 46 percent of the variation in self-evaluation. The evidence suggests that self-evaluation is positively related to leadership support and employee involvement, and negatively related to the number of organizational sub-units undertaking evaluation at the same time. Refinements to the Wildavsky model are proposed, and conclusions are drawn on the theory and practice of self-evaluation by public organizations.     

Conducting Meta-Analyses of Evaluations of Government-Funded Training Programs

Government‐funded training programs in the United States have often been subject to rigorous evaluation. Indeed, many of these programs have been evaluated with random assignment, although sophisticated quasi‐experimental methods have also been used. Until very recently, however, there has been little systematic attempt to use the cumulative information vested in these evaluations to attempt determine which kinds of programs work best in which setting and with respect to which types of client. Meta‐analysis—a set of statistical procedures for systematically synthesizing findings from separate studies—can, in theory at least, address these and other topics that evaluation of individual programs cannot. This article discusses the steps in conducting such a synthesis, summarizes the results of three recently conducted meta‐analyses of training and welfare‐to‐work programs, identifies limitations to the meta‐analytic approach, and considers ways in which some of these limitations can be overcome.     

US 11th Circuit rules that a mark must be likely to be seen to cause confusion

The 11th Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling that therewas no likelihood of confusion when a company's trade name wasimproperly used on component parts in a water-meter readingsystem, manufactured and sold by other companies. The 11th Circuitfound that the plaintiff had not shown that it was likely thatrelevant consumers would ever see its trade name used on componentparts within the larger meter system. Where relevant consumerswere not likely to encounter the use of the plaintiff's tradename, there could be no likelihood of confusion.