Organizational Culture

and the Paradox of

Performance Management
Jeannette Taylor
University of Western Australia

ABSTRACT: Many public organizations collect information indicating whether

their operations, programs, and policies achieve the desired performance
outcomes, but often they do not use this information. Why do managers in some
public organizations fail to use performance information to achieve desired
outcomes? Why is the idea behind the implementation of performance management
not reflected in the observed behavior of public managers? Organizational culture
is a conceptual tool that can provide useful insights into this paradox. This article
proposes that culture manifests itself at different levels of an organization and
presents a set of propositions on the use of performance information that takes
into account both the different levels of organizational culture and the different
cultures in an organization.

KEYWORDS: organizational culture, performance information, performance

information use, performance management

Performance management has received considerable research attention in recent

decades, and interest continues to grow (Hood, 2012). Studies have shown that
performance information is used in public organizations to different extents and
for different purposes (de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001; van Dooren, Bouckaert,
& Halligan, 2010). In several instances, performance information is used incon-
sistently, and the original idea or desired behavior behind the implementation of
performance management is not reflected in the observed behavior. For example,
instead of using performance information to make evidence-based policy, some
public managers use it as policy-based evidence to justify a predetermined policy
(Banks, 2009; Feldman & March, 1981). Or the information collected is ignored
by decision-makers (Pollitt, 2006; Taylor, 2009). Why does this inconsistent use
of performance information occur? Why does performance management cause
some managers to use performance information in a manner at odds with the
original, desired purpose?
This article addresses the question of this paradox in performance management.
It proposes that the answer lies partly in an organization’s culture. Performance

Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, September 2014, pp. 7–22.
© 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1530–9576 (print), ISSN 1557–9271 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576380101 7
8  ppmr / September 2014

management essentially requires leaders of public organizations “to use culture

as a tool to turn the bureaucratic paradigm on its head—to change the values,
assumptions, and behaviors in public organizations” (Sanger, 2008, p. 624). At-
tempts to understand the effects of performance management in an organization
should, therefore, take the organization’s culture into account. There are two
other reasons to focus on organizational culture. First, few studies have focused
exclusively on the cultural effects of performance management in public settings.
Second, research to date on performance management and organizational culture
has helped us to understand what public organizations are doing with performance
information, including anomalies in its use, and what purpose(s) organizational
cultures use performance information for. Although this is progressively chang-
ing, the bulk of the literature is less helpful in explaining why these trends occur.
Acquiring a better understanding of why public organizations behave the way
they do with performance information is central to our ability to implement an
effective performance management system.

Performance Information Use

Performance information is promoted as a valuable and versatile decision-making

aid for public managers. Atkinson, Waterhouse, and Wells (1997) differentiated
three uses of performance information: (1) to coordinate (i.e., direct attention to
the organization’s objectives); (2) to monitor (i.e., measure and report on perfor-
mance); and (3) to diagnose (i.e., assess the cause-and-effect relationships among
process performance, organizational learning, and organizational performance).
Behn (2003) presented a longer list of purposes, some of which overlap with the
earlier categories. He listed eight purposes of performance information: to evaluate,
control, budget, motivate, promote, celebrate, learn, and improve. He indicated that
improvement is the core purpose behind the other seven purposes. Van Dooren,
Bouckaert, & Halligan (2010) added another—to account and explain. In fact, as
many as 44 potential uses have been identified (van Dooren, 2006).
Several empirical studies have shown instances in which the actual behav-
ioral outcomes of performance management contradicted the desired behavioral
outcomes. There have been several reports of public agencies failing to use per-
formance information for purposes beyond reporting (Ammons & Rivenbark,
2008; Taylor, 2009). Both academics and practitioners have noted that not many
agencies actually use the performance information they collect to improve their
decision-making (Pollitt, 2006; Taylor, 2009; U.S. General Accounting Office,
2008). Further, there have been reports of negative side effects, such as goal dis-
placement and gaming (Dubnick & Frederickson, 2010; Heinrich & Marschke,
2010; Vakkuri & Meklin, 2006),
It is apparent that the original idea or desired behavior behind the implementa-
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  9 

tion of performance management is not always reflected in the actual behavior.

Performance information use is defined as consistent when the desired behavior
is realized in the actual behavior. The concept of consistent use can also be used
to describe situations where a desired behavior leads to a complementary and fa-
vorable behavior. Thus, if an organization establishes a performance management
scheme primarily to evaluate its programs (desired behavior), and its managers end
up using the information to evaluate programs (actual behavior) and to improve
and promote its programs (complementary, positive behaviors), then consistent use
of information is said to occur. Inconsistent use arises when the actual behavior
is not reflected in or undermines the desired behavior. Not using the performance
information collected is one example. The earlier example of using performance
information as policy-based evidence instead of fostering evidence-based policies
is another. As discussed in the next section, organizational culture has a salient
influence on performance information use.

The Significance of Organizational Culture

for Performance Information Use

Organizational culture is conceptualized as

A pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems
of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 2010, p. 18)

Organizational culture can define what is important to an organization and can

affect how organization members feel and behave (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996).
This implies that it can color their views on the relevance and importance of per-
formance management and the information obtained thereby. It can shape their
behavioral responses to the performance information acquired.
The strong link between organizational culture and performance management
has been raised by various authors. Nearly 75 years ago, Friedrich (1940) asserted
that it was administrators who had internalized a set of norms consistent with
public purposes and who delivered public services in an effective and account-
able manner. More recently, Mahler stated that the more controversial an agency’s
performance results are or the more difficult a situation is for employees to assess
(e.g., due to ambiguous procedures), the more employees “will rely on cultural
beliefs to determine if the news is bad, good, or inconsequential” (1997, p. 535).
Jennings and Haist (2004) argued that the effects of performance information
on organizational performance depend on the organization’s culture. Moynihan
and associates pointed out that managers’ demand for performance information
increases when their organizational culture supports performance management
(Moynihan & Landuyt, 2009; Moynihan & Pandey, 2010).
10  ppmr / September 2014

Organizational culture has also been identified as a salient antecedent of per-

formance information use. Moynihan and Pandey (2010), for example, examined
10 possible antecedents of performance information use: individual beliefs (public
service motivation), job attributes (e.g., reward expectation), organizational factors
(e.g., information availability), and environmental factors (e.g., citizen participa-
tion). Developmental culture was found to play the fourth-most influential role,
after generalist leadership, information availability, and professional influence.
Taylor (2011) analyzed another list of antecedents: individual attitudes toward
performance management, the performance management system, stakeholder sup-
port, the external environment, and organizational culture (rational, hierarchical,
group, or developmental). She found that organizational culture, in the form of
a rational culture, was the dominant antecedent of performance information use.
Studies such as these show that performance information use is more associated
with some cultures than with others.
Various models of organizational culture have been used to illustrate the effects
of culture on the way in which performance management operates (Hood, 2000,
2012; van Dooren et al., 2010). The models include Douglas’s (1996) grid-group
theory, Hofstede’s (2005) five components of culture (power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term
vs. short-term orientation), and Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) competing-values
framework. For example, drawing from Douglas’s grid-group theory, Van Dooren,
Boukaert, and Halligan (2010) proposed that different types of cultures adopt
performance management differently. For instance, individualistic cultures, which
stress individual effort and skill and a belief in competition, may adopt performance
incentive structures. In contrast, egalitarian cultures, which emphasize a high sense
of belonging to a group, are likely to be opposed to individualized incentives but
receptive to performance dialogue. Hierarchist cultures, which stress well-defined
rules of social interaction or regulation, may require performance management
to be aligned with the professional corpus of the organization. Fatalist cultures,
which are skeptical about organizational prescriptions for human betterment, may
engage in ritualistic performance management exercises.
While many cultural frameworks have advanced our capacity to examine and
understand the impact of culture on performance management, they are all sub-
ject to some limitations. The first involves their distinct and ordered views of an
organization’s culture. Referring to the four models under the competing-values
framework—human relations, open system, internal process, and rational goal—
Quinn acknowledged that “real organizations do not fall neatly into one or the
other of these four models” (1988, p. 42). It is apparent that an organization’s
culture is likely to be more complex and messy than the neat typologies presented
in most cultural analytical schemes. Hood (2012) and other researchers suggest
that cultural hybrids can exist in organizations but do not elaborate on how they
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  11 

affect performance management. The second limitation pertains to the focus in

most studies on a singular or dominant culture operating in an organization. It is
common knowledge that there may be a mosaic of cultural views or subcultures
among the members of any organization (de Long & Fahey, 2000; Keeton & Men­
gistu, 1992). Most cultural frameworks, however, do not explain why subcultures,
or “silos,” exist in organizations. Noting these limitations, the discussion will now
turn to Schein’s (1984) model of organizational culture.

A Layered Perspective of Organizational Culture

Schein (1984, 2010) argues that culture manifests itself at different levels in an
organization. He differentiates three levels of organizational culture, based on
the extent of the cultural phenomenon’s visibility to the observer. The first level
represents the artifacts that are the visible products or physical manifestations of
an organization’s culture. These include the architecture, office layout, technology,
dress code, manner of address, visible behavioral patterns, observable rituals and
ceremonies, and published documents. Although artifacts are easy to observe, they
are difficult to interpret. For example, we can describe what patterns of performance
information use are discernible in an organization but not why the organization’s
members behave the way they do with the information.
The second level consists of the espoused values and beliefs, or the documented
norms, ideals, goals, and aspirations, of the organizational group. Analyzing at
this level will increase our awareness of an organization’s culture but may reflect
the members’ rationalizations or aspirations. Espoused values can be abstract and
contradictory, such as when an organization claims to use performance manage-
ment both to lower the costs and to raise the quality of its performance.
The third level, the basic underlying assumptions, provides a deeper understand-
ing of an organization’s culture. Schein (2010) argued that failure to understand the
pattern of basic assumptions will make it harder to make sense of the more visible
manifestations of culture—for example, how to interpret the artifacts correctly or how
much credence to give the espoused values. Basic assumptions are the unconscious,
taken-for-granted, and non-negotiable beliefs and values that influence how group
members think, view, and feel about things and guide their behavior. Schein (1984)
explains that basic assumptions are learned responses that originated as espoused
values. When a value is used to guide a behavior, and that behavior is repeatedly seen
to solve a problem, the value will progressively become an underlying assumption
about how things really are. As this assumption is increasingly taken for granted,
it drops out of consciousness. Schein (1996) referred to basic assumptions as the
“essence of culture.” They are the hardest to change and may be viewed as a “source
of resistance” (Schein, 1992) or a “source of defensive routines” (Argyris, 1991) in
opposition to learning and change in organizations.
12  ppmr / September 2014

Schein’s layered approach to organizational culture is attractive for at least

three reasons. First, it explains the complexity of an organization’s culture. Not
only does organizational culture exist at different levels but the levels also vary
in visibility and ease of change. The deeper one goes into an organization, the
harder it is to identify, measure, and change the culture. Second, it allows us to
examine the uniqueness of an organization’s culture. In all probability, no two
organizations have precisely the same culture. Schein’s framework recognizes
that different organizations can have different cultures. Third, as elaborated below
in Proposition 5, Schein’s framework recognizes the existence of subcultures in
an organization. Discussions of culture in the literature have usually focused on
the idea that there is a singular culture in any given organization. This implies
that all the groups in any organization hold similar basic assumptions about
performance management. In the presence of subcultures, the singular cultural
approach assumes that a dominant culture will prevail. What happens when this
does not occur? Schein’s framework takes into account that groups within an
organization, although exposed to the same artifacts and espoused values, can be
strongly divided based on the shared assumptions of their members. This enables
subcultures to be examined.
The layered view of organizational culture has since been adopted by several
authors (de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001; de Long & Fahey, 2000; Moynihan
& Landuyt, 2009; Popper & Lipshitz, 2004; Sanger, 2008). Schein’s framework
overlaps with the organizational culture models of Mahler (1997) and of Trice
and Beyer (1993). Mahler’s (1997) “overt signifiers of culture” and “meanings”
are similar to Schein’s artifacts and basic assumptions, respectively. The same
applies to Trice and Beyer’s (1993) “forms” and “substance” of culture. Similarly,
O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991), like Schein, argued that the set of values
and assumptions act as the defining elements around which norms, symbols, ritu-
als, and other cultural activities revolve. A few authors have attempted to study
culture using this layered approach (Hall, Kutsch, & Partington, 2012; Homburg
& Pflesser, 2000). In sum, the view that culture can operate at different levels in
an organization appears to be well accepted by many academics.

Cultural Effects of Performance Information Use

Drawing upon Schein’s framework, a series of propositions are presented below

on how the different levels of an organization’s culture can shape its degree of
consistent use of performance information. The first three propositions focus on
the links between the three levels of organizational culture and performance in-
formation use. The fourth proposition looks at the alignment among the different
levels of information use. The fifth proposition concentrates on subcultures and
their effects on performance information use.
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  13 

Proposition 1: Performance information use in an organization is

influenced by the organization’s artifacts.
Visible artifacts, such as rituals or routines, can shape how performance informa-
tion is used. Managers are likely to use performance information to make policy
decisions when their organizations have created routines whereby they can do so
(Kroll, 2013; Moynihan & Lavertu, 2012). Leavitt & March (1990) pointed to
routines as the critical factor in the shaping of behavior. Organizations can facili-
tate performance information use for learning purposes through learning forums
(Moynihan & Landuyt, 2009), Learning forums are organizational routines in which
employees regularly examine and discuss information and consider subsequent ac-
tions aimed at improving the organization. These actions include strategic planning
routines and benchmarking processes. Organizations that have formal procedures
for learning can become more effective learners (Pisano, Bohmer, & Edmondson,
2001). In contrast, organizations that design procedures mainly for reporting may
not foster performance information use for improved decision-making. Vakkuri &
Meklin noted that most information collected at universities was not used to support
decision-making but “to create coherent, and convincing histories to be told to other
organizations, constituencies or stakeholders” (2003, p. 755).
Other artifacts, such as the incentive, communication, and decision-making
mechanisms, can also shape performance information use. Several authors have
argued that in the absence of incentives, managers are unlikely to use performance
information to improve performance (Hvidman & Andersen, 2013; Jennings &
Haist, 2004). However, attaching financial incentives to the achievement of per-
formance targets can encourage managers to avoid difficult client groups so as not
to endanger their achievement of the targets (Boyne & Chen, 2007). At the same
time, some managers may be motivated by the satisfaction they derive from doing
a good job, the social recognition they receive, or the opportunity to improve their
future performance (Herzberg, 1966). The design of incentives is thus important.
Communication or dialogue is also important. Yang and Pandey (2008) reported
that managing-for-results reform efforts were positively shaped by communication
adequacy and flexible structures. Further, performance information is likely to be
used when managers are provided with the authority to act on the information to
make appropriate decisions (Raudla, 2012). Autonomy in decision-making has
been reported to facilitate performance information use for organizational learning
(Hvidman & Andersen, 2013; Moynihan & Landuyt, 2009).

Proposition 2: Performance information use in an organization is

influenced by the organization’s espoused values.
Espoused values usually involve the organization defining itself in reference
to the external environment, and its priorities, such as an emphasis on outcomes
rather than process. Espoused values, such as the organization’s mission and
14  ppmr / September 2014

goals, can shape employee mission valence, which is employee attraction to the
organization’s purpose or mission (Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012). This is
achieved by raising employee awareness of what is important to the organization.
An organization’s mission can also articulate what is distinctive about the organi-
zation, including a connection with and contribution to the larger policy domain
(Weiss & Piderit, 1999). A clear, understandable, and distinctive organizational
mission has been found to be positively related to employee mission valence
(Wright & Pandey, 2011). Employees become committed to the organization’s
mission (mission valence) and align their actions, which may include performance
information use, to the mission.
The importance of clearly espoused values also extends to key concepts or terms
of reference in an organization’s performance management and related initiatives.
Hall and Holt (2003) found that too many conflicting benchmarking initiatives were
being piloted within the British construction industry and government. They also
noted the frequently interchangeable and confusing use of terminology in bench-
marking. They concluded that these performance definitional issues compromised
the validity of the benchmarking exercise. They argued that the development of a
common language, particularly for key concepts like performance indicator and
benchmarking, can contribute to the successful use of in-project measurement.

Proposition 3: Performance information use in an organization is

influenced by the organization’s underlying basic assumptions.
Performance information is not value-free. Far from being objective, perfor-
mance information involves subjective interpretation by the managers who acquire
and use it. Kaye (1995) commented that “the manager is not an unbiased recipient
of information. Each manager’s perceptions are colored by his/her background,
education and experience, by values and motives, and by personality and cognitive
style” (p. 10). Performance management requires that judgments be made on what
to measure, how to measure and interpret it, what determines success and failure,
and what information is relevant or important. An organizational group’s taken-for-
granted values and beliefs can influence how it views and behaviorally responds to
performance management. A situation that compels managers to reexamine their
basic assumptions may temporarily destabilize their “mental map” of the world.
The results are anxiety and defensive behaviors (Schein, 2010).
The empirical evidence is compelling. Ho (2006) reported that the use of perfor-
mance information by a group of Midwestern mayors was significantly influenced
by their level of interest in performance and bench­marking information. Ammons
and Rivenbark (2008) found that city managers who used performance informa-
tion to improve services tended to have a positive attitude to comparison. Sanger
indicated that changing the New York City Department of Finance from a public
bureaucracy into a results-based organization required “changing the hearts and
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  15 

minds” of its employees (2008, p. 621). Taylor’s (2011) study of Australian govern-
ment managers found high use of performance information by those who believed
in the beneficial effects of the information for their agency. Similarly, Kroll (2013)
found that “it is the enthusiastic manager who is willing to engage in data usability
improvements which eventually leads to a higher data use.”

Proposition 4: Whether actual performance information use reflects

desired use in a public organization depends on the extent of alignment
among the three levels of organizational culture: its artifacts, espoused
values, and basic assumptions.
Based on the first three propositions, performance information use can be af-
fected at multiple levels of an organization’s culture. It is, in turn, possible for any
of these levels to interact with other level(s) to affect performance information use.
In presenting the three elements of their cultural framework—practices, norms,
and values—which are similar to Schein’s (1984) model, de Long and Fahey
(2000) indicated that the three elements are fundamentally interrelated. Yang and
Pandey (2008) showed how managing-for-results reforms interacted with vari-
ous subsystems of an organization, from structures to goals and communication.
Feldman (2000) argued that organizational routines are not inert, as commonly
viewed, but are capable of change. She reported that routines can promote continu-
ous change when the following conditions hold: (1) the routines occur regularly,
(2) the organizational context supports change efforts, and (3) professional em-
ployees have discretion in the way they perform their tasks. She recognized the
interaction between people and routines in that “people will breathe life into the
routines they engage in because of the relationship between their behavior and
their plans and ideals” (p. 627).
Henri (2006) discussed the connections between an organization’s values and
its practices or routines and their effects on performance information use. Routines
include the importance placed on control systems and the nature of information
flow. He described organizations that predominantly reflect control values as
showing the following characteristics: formality, rigidity and conformity, tight
control of operations, and highly structured and restricted flow of information.
He described flexibility values as characterized by openness, responsiveness,
and adaptability, informal and loose controls, open and lateral communication
channels, and free flow of information across the organization. He found that
managers in organizations with predominantly flexibility values used performance
information to focus organizational attention, support strategic decision-making,
and legitimate actions more frequently than did their counterparts in organizations
with predominantly control values.
If performance information use is influenced by each of the three levels of or-
ganizational culture described above, and by the connections between these levels,
16  ppmr / September 2014

then the degree of consistency across the three levels can influence the degree of
consistent use of performance information. For example, symbolic performance
management occurs when an organization explicitly states the desired purpose to
use performance management to learn (espoused values) but fails to put in place
the necessary mechanisms to enable organization members to learn (artifacts),
or most of them remain unconvinced of its value (basic assumptions). Organiza-
tions can espouse performance management values but not facilitate the use of
the information, because they fail to provide the essential support mechanisms or
to integrate the performance management system with other key systems in the
organization (Yang & Pandey, 2008).
The importance of aligning the three levels of an organization’s culture is
supported in several studies. In his study of cultural change in the Turkish health
sector, Ates (2004) proposed that the successful implementation of new pro-
grams requires changes in the organization’s systems and structures (artifacts),
its underlying values (assumptions), and the way management reinforces these
values (espoused values). Kroll and Vogel’s study of local government manag-
ers in Germany found that “successful performance management is not only
a function of improving data quality and reporting formats. . . . Performance
targets need to be linked to higher goals and values” (2013, p. 14). The former
pertains to the cultural effects of artifacts, and the latter cover the espoused
values and basic assumptions. Jennings and Hall (2012) indicated that the use
of scientific evidence and evidence-based practices depends on the mission and
mandates of the agency and its internal characteristics. Mission and mandates
relate to espoused values; internal characteristics cover the visible artifacts
and the less observable basic assumptions. Popper and Lipshitz (2004) argued
that organizational learning mechanisms (artifacts) yield productive learning
if they are embedded in an appropriate normative system of shared values and
beliefs. They differentiated two situations: (1) “espoused values” in which the
organizational learning values are manifested by compatible rhetoric, and (2)
“values in use” in which the organizational learning values are manifested by
an actual investment in resources and the willingness to incur losses in order to
realize compatible outcomes.

Proposition 5: Whether actual performance information use reflects

desired use in a public organization depends on the extent of alignment
among the cultures in the organization.
Several authors have pointed out the existence of “silos,” or subcultures, within
organizations (de Long & Fahey, 2000; Keeton & Mengistu, 1992; Schein, 1996).
Subcultures are particularly likely in large organizations, especially when units
work independently under different supervisors and are geographically dispersed
(Glisson & James, 2002; Trice & Beyer, 1993), as in the case of federal agencies
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  17 

operating in different states. Organizational subcultures tend to be based on dif-

ferences between groupings, such as geography, profession, hierarchical level, and
functional specialization (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Subcultures within organizations
often arise from the unique shared experiences of their members. According to
Schein (1996), cultures occur through shared experiences of success. If members
of a unit discover a way of managing a task or a stakeholder group that is con-
sistently successful, they will develop their own shared assumptions on how to
view and act on such matters. Even if they are all exposed to the same artifacts
and espoused values, groups within an organization can be strongly divided from
one another because of the shared assumptions of their members.
Divided subcultures derived from different assumptions may undermine an orga-
nization’s shared purpose and organizational learning (Mahler, 1997). Schein (1996)
identified three functional cultures in an organization: operator culture (units that
provide support to the organization’s operational success, i.e., the bureaucrats), engi-
neering culture (the professionals or technocrats), and executive culture (senior and
middle management). He argued that organizational innovations often fail to occur or
to survive and proliferate because of a lack of alignment among these three cultures.
The negative effects of this lack of alignment can extend to performance infor-
mation use. In their study of knowledge creation, sharing, and use, de Long and
Fahey (2000) stated that subcultures can influence what is perceived as useful,
important, or valid information. Similarly, Jennings (2012) mentioned that subcul-
tures may interpret performance information differently, and this may determine
what information a group focuses on. Subcultures can apply different criteria in
valuing information. For example, they can have conflicting preferences for dif-
ferent types of performance measures or conflicting views about the importance of
specific performance measures. These dissimilar views of information can lead to
miscommunication and conflict within the organization. Thus a lack of alignment
in the assumptions of groups or cultures within an organization may contribute to
inconsistent performance information use.

Conclusion

The inconsistency between desired behavior and actual behavior under a perfor-
mance management system has puzzled both academics and practitioners. This
article argues that an organization’s culture is an important conceptual tool that
can provide useful insights into this paradox in performance management. Rather
than rely on the defined but limited cultural categories provided by most cultural
frameworks, this article adopts the view that culture can be analyzed at multiple
levels in an organization. According to Schein (1996), behavior is a compromise
among the visible artifacts of an organization, the organization’s espoused values,
and the deeper assumptions of organizational groups. Any effort to understand
18  ppmr / September 2014

performance information use, including the extent to which the use is consistent,
should take these levels of organizational culture into account.
This article presents a modest set of cultural propositions that explain the occur-
rence of inconsistent performance information use. The propositions are modest
for two reasons. First, they have not been tested systematically, even if they are
broadly in agreement with the findings of several studies of performance manage-
ment and organizational culture. Second, they set aside many of the conceptual
and methodological arguments about culture. Although it is not the aim here to
review the challenges associated with studying organizational culture, one cannot
deny that there are numerous definitions and measurement instruments of culture
(Jung et al., 2009). Identifying the best approach to operationalize culture is not
easy. While the more visible aspects of culture may be easier to measure (e.g.,
the mission statement for espoused values), the less visible assumptions pose a
huge challenge. One possibility is to measure managers’ rational motives toward
performance management. Schein (2009, 2010) suggested a list of questions that
could be used to tap into assumptions. Systematic testing of the hypotheses can
in turn take the form of laboratory-style experimentation. It could also make use
of ethnographic case studies of natural public settings (Schein, 2010).
Based on the limited analysis in this article, three preliminary cultural explana-
tions are provided for the inconsistency and seemingly incomprehensible aspects of
several performance management schemes. First, culture exists at multiple levels
in an organization. An organization that focuses on only one level of its culture
to promote performance information use and fails to address the other two is un-
likely to achieve its desired outcome. Second, the three levels of organizational
culture are interrelated. Failure to understand that changes to one level may affect
another can undermine performance information use for the desired purpose.
Third, performance information use depends on alignment of the different levels
of organizational culture and different cultures within an organization. A lack of
alignment among the levels or subcultures can contribute to inconsistent use of
performance information. Effective performance management, therefore, is more
likely when it is integrated and aligned with an organization’s cultures.

Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges the financial support provided by the Institute Public Administra-
tion Australia/University of Canberra Public Administration Research Trust Fund.

References
Ammons, D.N., & Rivenbark, W.C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance
data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking
project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  19 

Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3),
99–109.
Ates, H. (2004). Management as an agent of cultural change in the Turkish public sector.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 33–58.
Atkinson, A.A.; Waterhouse, J.H.; & Wells, R.B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic
performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25–37.
Banks, G. (2009). Evidence-based policy-making: What is it? How do we get it? Address
delivered at Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)/Austra-
lian National University (ANU), Canberra, February 4, www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0003/85836/20090204-evidence-based-policy.pdf, accessed January 7, 2014.
Behn, R.D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different mea-
sures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
Boyne, G., & Chen, A. (2007). Performance targets and public service improvements.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 455–477.
de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance
measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and
implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708.
de Long, D.W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge manage-
ment. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113–127.
Douglas, M. (1996). Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London: Routledge.
Dubnick, M.J., & Frederickson, H.G. (2010). Accountable agents: Federal performance
measurement and third-party government. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 20(1), 143–159.
Feldman, M.S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Orga-
nization Science, 11(6), 611–629.
Feldman, M.S., & March, J.G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171–186.
Friedrich, C.J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public
Policy, 1(1), 3–24.
Glisson, C., & James, L.R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human
service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 767–794.
Hall, M., & Holt, R. (2003). Developing a culture of performance learning in U.K.
public sector project management. Public Performance & Management Review,
26(3), 263–275.
Hall, M.; Kutsch, E.; & Partington, D. (2012). Removing the cultural and managerial
barriers in project-to-project learning: A case from the UK public sector. Public Ad-
ministration, 90(3), 664–684.
Heinrich, C.H., & Marschke, G.R. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sec-
tor performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
29(1), 183–208.
Henri, J.F. (2006). Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Ac-
counting, Organizations and Society, 31(1), 77–103.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World.
Ho, A. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspec-
tive of Midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
16, 217–237.
Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organiza-
tional culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing
Research, 37(4), 449–462.
20  ppmr / September 2014

Hood, C. (2000). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hood, C. (2012). Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug: Two
hypotheses. Public Administration Review, 72, S85–S92.
Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S.C. (2013). Impact of performance management in public
and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
24(1), 35–58.
Jennings, E.T., Jr. (2012). Organizational culture and effects of performance measurement.
Public Administration Review, 72(1), 93–94.
Jennings, E.T., Jr., & Haist, M.P. (2004). Putting performance measurement in context.
In P.W. Ingraham & L.E. Lynn Jr. (Eds.), The art of governance: Analyzing manage-
ment and administration (pp. 173–194). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Jennings, E.T., Jr., & Hall, J.L. (2012). Evidence-based practice and the use of informa-
tion in state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 22, 245–266.
Jung, T.; Scott, T.; Davies, H.T.O.; Bower, P.; Whalley, D.; McNally, R.; & Mannion, R.
(2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature.
Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1087–1096.
Kaye, D. (1995), The importance of information. Management Decision, 33(5), 5–12.
Keeton, K.B., & Mengistu, B. 1992. The perception of organizational culture by manage-
ment level: Implications for training and development. Public Productivity & Manage-
ment Review, 16(2), 205–213.
Kroll, A. (2013). Explaining the use of performance information by public manag-
ers: A planned-behavior approach. American Review of Public Administration. doi:
10.1177/0275074013486180
Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2013). The PSM-leadership fit: A model of performance informa-
tion use. Public Administration. doi: 10.1111/padm.12014
Leavitt, B., & March, J. (1990). Chester I. Barnard and the intelligence of learning. In
O.E. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and
beyond (pp. 11–37). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of organizational culture in learning in public agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 519–540.
Moynihan, D.P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridg-
ing cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6),
1097–1105.
Moynihan, D.P., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Does involvement in performance management
routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public
Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602.
Moynihan, D.P., & Pandey, S.K. (2010). The big question for performance management:
Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J.A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and
commitment. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (vol. 18, pp. 157–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
O’Reilly, C.A., III; Chatman, J.; & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy
of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.
Pisano, G.P., Bohmer, R.M., & Edmondson, A.C. (2001). Organizational differences in
rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery.
Management Science, 47(6), 752–768.
 Taylor / Organizational Culture  21 

Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance information for democracy: The missing link? Evaluation,
12, 38–55.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2004). Organizational learning: Mechanisms, culture, and
feasibility. In C. Grey & E. Antonacopoulou (Eds.), Essential readings in management
learning (pp. 37–53). London: Sage.
Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, R. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards
a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3),
363–377.
Raudla, R. (2012). The use of performance information in budgetary decision-making by
legislators: Is Estonia any different? Public Administration, 90(4), 1000–1015.
Sanger, M.B. (2008). Getting to the roots of change performance management and orga-
nizational culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 621–653.
Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 25(2), 3–16.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning.
Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9–20.
Schein, E.H. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, J. (2009). Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision
making. Public Administration, 87(4), 853–871.
Taylor, J. (2011). Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision
making in Australian state agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316–1334.
Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993). The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). (2008). Government performance: Lessons
learned for the next adminis­tration on using performance information to improve
results. Washington, DC.
Vakkuri, J., & Meklin, P. (2003). The impact of culture on the use of performance measure-
ment information in the university setting. Management Decision, 41(8), 751–759.
Vakkuri, J., & Meklin, P. (2006). Ambiguity in performance measurement: A theoretical
approach to organisational uses of performance measurement. Financial Accountability
& Management, 22(3), 235–250.
Van Dooren, W. (2006). Performance management in the Flemish public sector: A supply
and demand approach. Leuven: KU Leuven.
Van Dooren, W.; Bouckaert, G.; & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the
public sector. London: Routledge.
Weiss, J.A., & Piderit, S.K. (1999). The value of mission statements in public agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), 193–223.
Wright, B.E., & Pandey, S.K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence: When
does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43, 22–44.
Wright, B.E.; Moynihan, D.P.; & Pandey, S.K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational
leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration
Review, 72(2), 206–215.
Yang, K., & Pandey, S.K. (2008). How do perceived political environment and administra-
tive reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 19(2), 335–360.
22  ppmr / September 2014

Jeannette Taylor is a professor on the political science faculty at the University of

Western Australia. Her research covers topics in performance management and
evaluation and in public service motivation. She has published in Public Admin-
istration Review and Review of Public Personnel Administration.
Copyright of Public Performance & Management Review is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.