Public Organiz Rev (2018) 18:361–380

DOI 10.1007/s11115-017-0383-5

Diagnosis of Organizational Culture in Public Sector

Undertakings Undergoing Reforms

Neale J. Slack 1,2 & Gurmeet Singh 1

Published online: 11 April 2017

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract This study investigates a comparative analysis of civil servants’ perceptions of

organisational culture in two public sector undertakings undergoing public sector reform in
Fiji, and a public administration industry reference group. Data collected from Fijian civil
servants and analysed superficially indicate similarity in cultures and suggested interven-
tion strategies to create the preferred organisational cultures. In addition, the findings show
the criticality of deciphering and understanding public sector organisational culture at both
the superficial and deeper levels, in order to guide intervention strategies and support
sustained organisational change.

Keywords Organizational culture . Reforms . Public sector . Fiji

Introduction

Organizational culture is universally regarded to be one of the most influential factors

affecting organizational change (Pool 2000; Kloot and Martin 2007; Morgan and Ogbonna
2008), and in overhauling public administration and service delivery (Morgan and
Ogbonna 2008). However, considering the tension between the need for changes to
outdated public sector bureaucracies, and the desire to maintain the status quo (Parry and
Proctor-Thomson 2003), change in the culture of the public sector is a serious obstacle to
realising a more customer-oriented and entrepreneurial public sector (Walker et al. 2011).

* Gurmeet Singh
drgurmeetsingh@yahoo.com
Neale J. Slack
njslack@gmail.com

1
School of Management and Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics, The
University of the South Pacific, Private Mail Bag, Laucala Bay Campus, Suva, Fiji
2
Uniservices, Fiji National University, Nasinu Campus, Suva, Fiji
362 Slack N., Singh G.

Understanding organizational culture and knowing how to effectively shape,

manage and measure culture in public sector organizations is considered vital
(Wilson 2001). Notwithstanding, public sector researchers (Haider and Mariotti
2010; Lok et al. 2011) postulate that serious gaps in the literature exist regarding
understanding of the public sector organisational culture necessary to support
sustained organisational change, public service improvement (Boyne 2003), and
economic performance (Sorensen 2002).
This study was prompted by the substantial body of research that emphasises the
importance of organisational culture in public sector reform (Pool 2000); a review of the
literature on culture that reveals to understand an organisation the culture must also be
understood (O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Cameron and Quinn 2011; Testa and Sipe 2013);
the manifold organizational culture studies conducted in Western cultures (Ernst 2001;
Kirkman et al. 2006; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland 2013); and the dearth of
organisational culture studies conducted in other cultures (Denison, Haaland and Goelzer
in Yilmaz and Ergun 2008) such as Fiji.
However, diagnosing organisational culture is challenging (Scott et al. 2003),
and organizational culture change is daunting (Rashid et al. 2004). Before an
organization’s culture can be changed, the current culture and the preferred culture
must first be understood; plans developed to enable the preferred culture to
become reality; and behaviour change must occur, to create the preferred culture
(Suderman 2012). Bate et al. (2000) suggest that cultural analysis can provide
change facilitators with a detailed insight into the organization and the change
process, and guide intervention strategies.
In the next section we provide a theoretical background of organizational culture,
followed by the theoretical framework, and background to this study. The following
section provides the research problem, justification, and research questions. The sub-
sequent sections provide a description of the methodology adopted, results and discus-
sion, and conclusion and research implications.

Literature Review

Organisational culture in public sector organisations determines the public service

orientation and service delivery, and is affected by how employees are treated
(Rice 2004). Literature highlights that public sector organisations have a culture of
control (Parker and Bradley 2000), of process (Claver et al. 1999), of conformity
(Feldman 1985), and of technical rationality (Adams and Ingersoll 1990). As
stated by Claver et al. (1999), classic public sector bureaucratic culture is inwardly
focused, displays an authoritarian management approach, extreme level of control,
and constrained, top down management communication. Employees are required
to follow orders, initiative is limited, and stability is pursued. The decision-making
process is centralized and repetitive, there is an unwillingness to start new
processes, and there is an excessive degree of conformity. Jabbra and Dwivedi
(2004) reinforce the viewpoint of Claver et al. (1999) and indicate that public
sector administrative cultures typically operate outdated systems and practices that
impede growth and innovation, and a more inflexible system results that promotes
nepotism, accountability issues, corruption, and indifference of public servants.
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture 363

O’Donnell and Boyle (2008) state that organizational culture is a primary

battleground with regards management of reform in the public service, and a
comprehensive understanding of organizational culture of the public service is
foundational to successful management reform. Literature also indicates that
traditional public sector organisational cultures are apt to hinder public sector
reform unless the culture is changed and aligned with the current role of govern-
ment as a driver of economic development (O’Donnell and Boyle 2008).
Budd (2007) argues that the public service needs to transition to a more flexible,
and customer-oriented culture, which is more externally focused on providing the
highest quality of services to the citizens. Parker and Bradley (2000) reinforce this
argument by stating that public agency employees seek a culture less focused on
rules and regulations, and greater flexibility, and that is more externally focused
than the one that is practiced in their current organizations. According to Denhardt
and Denhardt (2000) creation of an entrepreneurial and user-oriented culture within
public organizations is ongoing. Vigoda (2002, p.529) suggests that the customer-
oriented culture Bmust be reactive, sympathetic, sensitive and capable of feeling^
and responsive to the customers’ needs and opinions.

Theoretical Framework

The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) utilized in this research is

based on a theoretical model known as the Competing Values Framework. To discern
the most appropriate dimensions to concentrate on, it is crucial to utilise an underlying
framework, a theoretical foundation capable of targeting essential cultural dimensions.
With the Competing Values Framework, two major dimensions emerged and form four
competing quadrants (each representing a specific set of organizational effectiveness
indicators) or competing values (flexibility versus stability, internal versus external).
The four quadrants are named according to their most notable characteristics—clan,
adhocracy, market, and hierarchy (Cameron and Quinn 2006) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Competing values framework. Source: Cameron and Quinn (2006, p.35)
364 Slack N., Singh G.

Background

In 1998, the Marine Department was declared a ‘Reorganization Entity’ under the
Public Enterprise Act 1996, resulting in the formation of the Shipping Corporation Fiji
Limited (‘SCFL’). SCFL was later wound up in 1999. The Marine Department was
renamed the Fiji Islands Maritime Safety Administration (‘FIMSA’). In spite of these
name changes, no noticeable reform of FIMSA (cultural, structural or organizational)
resulted, and no improvement in service delivery. In 2006 FIMSA was declared a
‘Reorganization Entity’ (Secretariat of the Pacific Community 2008). In 2011 FIMSA
was wound up and was replaced by the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (‘MSAF’). 80
FIMSA employees transferred to MSAF.
The Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (MSAF), a newly established State Owned
Enterprise (Slack and Singh 2015), was mandated Bto depart from traditional bureaucratic
values and to adopt a greater emphasis on change, flexibility, entrepreneurialism, outcomes,
efficiency and productivity^ (Parker and Bradley 2000, p.125). Rightsizing of MSAF
resulted in retention of only 21 ex-FIMSA employees. Notwithstanding, since 1998 efforts
at public sector reform of the predecessor enterprises to MSAF (including FIMSA) failed to
appreciate the cruciality of culture to lasting change efforts (Latta 2009). Those enterprises
also failed to ensure optimization of organisational culture, hence desired outcomes of
change efforts were not realized (Slack and Singh 2015).
This study compared the culture of these two Fiji government public enterprises –
FIMSA, a government department that since 2006 was aware that the enterprise would
be wound up, yet continued to hinder reform; and MSAF, a newly established
commercial statutory authority that had replaced FIMSA, and had undertaken some
cursory cultural analysis (employee interviews) to assist reform efforts. This study was
carried out on FIMSA in 2011 and on MSAF in 2013.

Research Problem, Justification and Research Questions

Endeavours to establish an effective public sector and public sector culture in Fiji appear
doubtful to succeed if public sector employees continue to be enticed by ‘guaranteed’ job
security, rather than by commitment to customer-oriented service delivery; if public sector
employees are risk-averse, rule-following, cautious, and reluctant to challenge the prevail-
ing public sector ideology, rather than highly motivated innovators (as present in the private
sector); and if the archaic, hierarchical, organizational culture of the public service rewards
longevity and encourages compliant career loyalists rather than visionary leadership,
exceptional performance, and enterprising problem-solving (Baldwin 1991). Traditional
public sector organisational cultures are apt to hinder public sector reform unless the culture
is changed and aligned with the current role of government as a driver of economic
development (O’Donnell and Boyle 2008).
The research questions of this study relate to two public enterprises expected to
undergo reform:

1. How do the two public enterprises’ employees perceive their current culture?
2. How do the two public enterprises’ employees perceive their current culture
should change?
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture 365

3. How do the two public enterprises’ employees perceptions of their current and
preferred culture differ?
4. How do the two public enterprises’ employees perceptions of their current and
preferred culture differ from the average culture profile for the Public Administra-
tion industry reference group?

Methodology

Research Design

This research uses a parallel-database, convergent, mixed methods research design,

where qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) data of equal weight are collected
concurrently and independently, with integration of data at the interpretation stage
(QUAL + QUAN).

Qualitative and Quantitative Data

For qualitative data, non-probability sampling with two explanatory case studies
(FIMSA and MSAF); with a combination of overt full participant-observations, docu-
mentation, diary notes and archival records is used; and thematic analysis for analyzing
data and interpreting results. For quantitative data, a self-completion, written, face-to-
face, cross-sectional, explanatory survey is used, administered in groups to both public
enterprises, and statistical analysis is performed using Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences package.

OCAI Survey

The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is the survey instrument utilised
in this study because it assesses the essential culture dimensions of this research, namely
culture type, strength, and congruence (Choi et al. 2010). According to Suderman (2012) the
OCAI has been widely used in excess of ten thousand organizations, and found to
accurately identify an organisation’s current culture and the culture organisation members
perceive should be developed to meet future business demands (Cameron and Quinn 1999).
The OCAI consists of six questions (Dominant Characteristics, Organizational Leader-
ship, Management of Employees, Organizational Glue, Strategic Emphases, Criteria of
Success), being core cultural elements as perceived by employees with each question
having four alternatives (A = Clan, B = Adhocracy, C = Market, D = Hierarchy) (Shilbury
and Moore 2006). According to Cameron and Quinn (2005) a clan culture emphasises
teamwork, consensus, human resource development and involvement, and participation;
an adhocracy culture emphasises innovation, risk taking, change, agility, and flexibility; a
market culture emphasises clear goals and goal attainment, productivity and efficiency; and
a hierarchy culture emphasises a formalised and structured work environment, centralised
decision making and authority, and values stability and uniformity.
Respondents allocate 100 points among these four alternatives based on the extent to
which each alternative is similar to the organisation being assessed. More points are
allocated to the alternative that is most like the organisation being assessed. The OCAI
366 Slack N., Singh G.

instrument is divided into two columns: ‘now’ (current state of the organisation) and
‘preferred’ (respondents’ perception as to how the organisation could be successful in the
next five years period). The respondents complete the assessment by allocating 100 points
to all alternatives in the ‘now’ and ‘preferred’ columns (Cameron and Quinn 1999).
These OCAI questions and alternatives yield two main cultural dimensions, each with a
competing value. The first dimension determines whether a company’s culture is internally
or externally focused, and the second dimension whether organizations acted with flexi-
bility or with stability. When placed on two axes, these two dimensions form four
quadrants, each representing a distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators
(Fig. 1) (Cameron and Quinn 2006).
Basic level statistical analysis is performed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences package to determine the average of each response score for each question
alternative in both the Now and Preferred columns. The Now and Preferred culture
profile results can be plotted, and provide a visual representation which supports
diagnosis and intervention (Cameron and Quinn 1999).
The survey instrument for this research is a reliable and valid structured survey
questionnaire (Cameron and Quinn 2011) and proved to be quicker and cheaper to
administer, as many respondents were able to complete the questionnaire simultaneously.
This survey was administered as a self-completion, written survey, face-to-face, in groups.

Significant Features

No prior research has compared current and preferred cultures of public enterprises in
Fiji. One of the significant features distinguishing this research from previous studies of
public sector organisational culture is that this study aims to fill this gap by comparing
two public enterprises in Fiji.

Results and Discussion

Demographics

Data was collected from the whole population of FIMSA employees, which totaled 93, and
MSAF employees, which totaled 66. Most of the FIMSA respondents were between 31 and
50 years of age (78%); the majority was male (84%) and Indigenous Fijian (88%); had been
employed in the public sector for an average of 16 years; and gross income of respondents
per annum (Fiji Dollars) predominantly was in the range of less than or equal to 10,000
(61%). In comparison, most of the MSAF respondents were between 21 and 40 years of age
(60%); the majority was male (75%) and Indigenous Fijian (75%); had been employed in the
public sector for an average of 6 years; and gross income of respondents per annum (Fiji
Dollars) predominantly was in the range of 11,000 to 20,000 (62%).

Case Study

The primary themes coded from both public enterprises’ employee dataset were the
employees’ perception that the existing culture was hierarchical in nature, and their
overwhelming preference to change the hierarchical organisational culture (evidenced
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture 367

by centralised power and control, rule following, risk averse, inefficient and ineffective
governmental system that censured creativity, initiative and anything that was done
differently) to a clan culture (evidenced by a more liberated, less bureaucratic, ‘team-
oriented’, collaborative, productive culture, with an opportunity to utilise and display
abilities and creativity, and was a happier work environment).
Comments espoused by both public enterprises’ employees reinforced their perception
that their enterprises’ current culture was hierarchical in nature. FIMSA employees
commented: B[t]hey (government and senior management) give us no choice but to
conform^; B[w]hat critical thinking? Step outside the box, make a mistake, and you are
gone^; B[w]e blindly conform to rules and procedures we know do not work;^ and B[w]e
raise concerns and nothing changes.^ MSAF employees commented: B[t]his is all about
power and control! They (government and Board) have the power, and they (government
and board) control us!^; B[w]hy bother? We make a decision and they (government and
Board) overrule us^; B[w]e make recommendations and they are not accepted^; B[w]e do
not have authority to do anything other than routine tasks^; B[w]e cannot be held
accountable for anything, because they (Government and Board) make all the decisions^;
and B[i]t is so frustrating working here because the processes we follow are so inefficient
and ineffective, our customers are affected, and we still have to follow these procedures^.
Comments espoused by both public enterprises’ employees reinforced their preference
for a clan type culture. FIMSA employees commented: B[t]his could be a pleasant place to
work, where everyone works together^; B[m]anagement should be more concerned about
staff teambuilding and moral^; BThey (management) should tell us what is going on and
keep us informed^; and [w]e want to contribute our good ideas^. MSAF employees
commented: B[i] wish the negative staff would just stop complaining and work together^;
B[w]e want to be part of the change, but we need to understand what is happening^; B[t]he
training we attended was very good. I hope there is more training^; B[i] make mistakes, but
I also do good work. It would be good to be thanked for doing something good^; B[w]e
always get told what we have to do. We have some ideas how to make our jobs easier^;
B[w]e are planning to have staff activities every fortnight…a fun walk, BBQ, company t-
shirt^; and B[b]eing Fijian, our family, and extended family are most important to us. It is
the same at work^.
While many employees from both public enterprises espoused support for a pre-
ferred ‘changed’ culture, there were also some employees with deep-seated opinions
against the idea of a change, and also of a change in culture. Typically the responses
were defensive, referred to the past way of doing things, were generally negative
towards the enterprise and any change in the culture; and could be deemed counter-
productive to the reform efforts and culture change.
These research findings described both public enterprises’ current and preferred
‘changed’ organisational culture from the employees’ perspective, and provide a better
understanding of the culture and how the culture could be changed. It is suggested that
each of the current culture themes had the potential to continue to adversely affect both
public enterprises, if left unaddressed; or conversely, favourably impact it if addressed.

Survey

This research analysed mean scores of the two public enterprises to study employees’
perceptions of the current and preferred organisational culture types; the strength of the
368 Slack N., Singh G.

culture; the discrepancy between the current and preferred cultures; congruence of the
current and preferred cultures; and a comparison between the two public enterprises’
current and preferred cultures. A comparison was also made between the two public
enterprises current and preferred cultures and a Public Administration reference culture.

Reliability

Table 1 shows the results of the Cronbach’s Alpha values for both public enter-
prises by culture type, and by current and preferred culture, were considered to be
reliable. The questionnaire was also considered to be reliable (for FIMSA
α = .796 and for MSAF α = .790).

Dimensions of Organizational Culture

Table 2 shows the current situation highest mean score exhibited by FIMSA respon-
dents was the dominant characteristic dimension (Mean = 33.71, SD = 17.82) with
hierarchy the dominant culture type, and emphasized permanence and stability. In the
preferred situation, the highest mean score was the organizational glue dimension
(Mean = 34.77, SD = 11.74) with clan the dominant culture type, and emphasized
the enterprise was held together by tradition and loyalty. In contrast, the current
situation highest mean score exhibited by MSAF respondents was the strategic em-
phasis dimension (Mean = 31.11, SD = 15.46) with hierarchy the dominant culture
type, and emphasized permanence and stability. In the preferred situation, the highest
mean score was the criteria for success dimension (Mean = 28.49, SD = 9.86) with clan
the dominant culture type, and emphasized organizational success on the basis of
development of human resources and employee commitment.
The standard deviation scores by dimension for FIMSA indicate deviation away
from the means was more consistent and larger than for MSAF, and suggested a wider
range of opinions of FIMSA respondents.

Congruence of Culture

Table 2 shows that both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s current culture demonstrated strong
congruence, with four and five cultural dimensions respectively reflecting the hierarchy
culture, and suggested emphasis on policies, rules and stability. The preferred cultures
of both public enterprises also demonstrated strong congruence, with four cultural

Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients – by public enterprise and culture type

FIMSA MSAF

Culture type Cronbach’s alpha by Cronbach’s alpha by Cronbach’s alpha by Cronbach’s alpha by
dimensions - current dimensions - preferred dimensions - current dimensions - MSAF

Clan 0.811 0.829 0.802 0.846

Adhocracy 0.802 0.821 0.796 0.805
Market 0.769 0.799 0.745 0.785
Hierarchy 0.751 0.783 0.739 0.798
Table 2 Dimensions of FIMSA and MSAF organisational cultures - highest mean scores and dominant culture type
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture

FIMSA MSAF

Current situation Preferred situation Current situation Preferred situation

Dimension Mean SD Dominant culture Mean SD Dominant culture Mean SD Dominant culture Mean SD Dominant culture
type type type type

Dominant characteristic 33.71 17.82 Hierarchy 29.21 12.57 Clan 28.69 14.21 Hierarchy 27.82 11.35 Market
Organisational leadership 33.16 18.06 Hierarchy 27.91 12.22 Hierarchy 25.71 14.45 Hierarchy 26.75 10.40 Clan
Management of employees 33.25 17.23 Clan 31.47 11.19 Clan 26.98 9.36 Market 27.30 8.84 Clan
Organisational glue 29.46 16.87 Clan 34.77 11.74 Clan 29.29 12.24 Hierarchy 27.70 8.97 Clan
Strategic emphases 31.92 17.59 Hierarchy 28.16 10.99 Hierarchy 31.11 15.46 Hierarchy 26.75 8.14 Hierarchy
Criteria for success 32.21 16.37 Hierarchy 30.12 10.76 Clan 30.08 14.61 Hierarchy 28.49 9.86 Clan
Congruence Strong Strong Strong Strong
369
370 Slack N., Singh G.

dimensions for both public enterprises reflecting the clan culture, and suggested
emphasis on a common vision, collaboration, and employee commitment.
Cameron and Quinn (1999) state that historically companies exhibit cultures that are
internally focused (a hierarchical or a clan culture); however, with time, organisations
transition from an internally focused, stable, hierarchical culture, to externally focused
market and adhocracy cultures. The suggested cultural transition does not appear to
have been evident in the results of the two public enterprises in this research, as the
classic bureaucratic culture appears to have been retained in the current culture. The
results of this research also suggest a preferred transition for the two public enterprises
from the current hierarchical culture to a clan culture. This apparent conflict with the
findings of Cameron and Quinn (1999), in terms of preferred culture, can be explained
by the findings of Lincoln (2010, p.5): BOne culture is not necessarily better than the
others. The proper culture for each organization depends on the organization’s industry
and strategy.^

Profiles of Dimensions

Table 3 shows independent cultural profiles of the six dimensions of both public enter-
prises’ current culture compared to the preferred culture show individual aspects of the
culture: culture ‘strength’, dominant culture type, and discrepancy between the current and
preferred culture type. The cultural profile is a mix of the four cultural archetypes (clan,
adhocracy, market and hierarchy). The higher the mean score the more dominant the
cultural archetype. Research has shown that strong cultures correspond with homogeneity
of efforts, a clear sense of direction, and an unambiguous environment and services
(Cameron 2008). Strong cultures require more effort to change (Scott et al. 2003).

Dominant Characteristics

Table 3 shows that both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s current dominant culture was hierarchy
(Mean = 33.71 and 28.69 respectively), emphasizing control, structure, and predict-
ability. The FIMSA preferred dominant culture was clan (Mean = 29.21) suggesting an
emphasis on cooperation, participation and unanimity, while the MSAF preferred
dominant culture was market (Mean = 27.82) suggesting a results-oriented organiza-
tion, and attainment of determinable goals and targets. The largest preferred mean
difference for both FMISA and MSAF can be seen in hierarchy culture (−7.12 and
−4.13 respectively) suggesting the focus on formality could be considerably less.

Organizational Leadership

Table 3 shows that both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s current leaders were considered to be
efficiency-minded coordinators and organizers (hierarchy culture mean = 33.16 and 25.71
respectively). The FIMSA largest preferred mean was in hierarchy culture (Mean = 27.91),
and largest mean difference in hierarchy culture (−5.25) suggesting the leadership focus on
coordination and efficiency-mindedness should continue, however could be considerably
less. In contrast, the MSAF largest preferred mean was in clan culture (Mean = 26.75), and
largest mean difference in clan culture (+3.18) suggesting the leadership focus on
mentoring and team building could be considerably more.
Table 3 FMISA and MSAF cultural profiles of dimensions

FIMSA MSAF

Dimensions Cultural archetype Current Preferred Difference Current Preferred Difference

Dominant characteristic Clan 26.42 29.21 2.79 25.32 23.73 -1.59

Adhocracy 19.29 20.38 1.09 20.48 23.89 3.41
Market 20.58 23.82 3.24 25.52 27.82 2.30
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture

Hierarchy 33.71 26.59 -7.12 28.69 24.56 -4.13

Organisational leadership Clan 23.11 26.85 3.74 23.57 26.75 3.18
Adhocracy 21.79 26.12 4.33 25.08 23.25 -1.83
Market 21.94 19.12 -2.82 25.63 23.73 -1.90
Hierarchy 33.16 27.91 -5.25 25.71 26.27 0.56
Management of employees Clan 33.25 31.47 -1.78 26.27 27.30 1.03
Adhocracy 19.86 25.51 5.65 21.03 23.81 2.78
Market 21.23 19.30 -1.93 26.98 25.56 -1.42
Hierarchy 25.66 23.72 -1.94 25.71 23.33 -2.38
Organisational glue Clan 29.46 34.77 5.31 25.00 27.70 2.70
Adhocracy 18.84 24.76 5.92 23.25 23.89 0.64
Market 23.83 20.60 -3.23 22.46 23.73 1.27
Hierarchy 27.87 19.87 -8.00 29.29 24.68 -4.61
Strategic emphases Clan 24.84 26.22 1.38 25.08 25.79 0.71
Adhocracy 22.51 23.88 1.37 22.38 24.52 2.14
Market 20.73 21.74 1.01 21.43 22.94 1.51
Hierarchy 31.92 28.16 -3.76 31.11 26.75 -4.36
Criteria for success Clan 25.33 30.12 4.79 24.68 28.49 3.81
Adhocracy 18.03 19.44 1.41 22.14 22.86 0.72
Market 24.43 25.05 0.62 23.10 23.25 0.15
Hierarchy 32.21 25.39 -6.82 30.08 25.40 -4.68
All dimensions Clan 27.07 29.77 2.71 24.99 26.63 1.64
Adhocracy 20.05 23.35 3.30 22.39 23.70 1.31
Market 22.12 21.61 -0.52 24.19 24.50 0.31
Hierarchy 30.76 25.27 -5.48 28.43 25.17 -3.26
371
372 Slack N., Singh G.

Management of Employees

Table 3 shows that in terms of FIMSA’s current management of employees, teamwork,

participation and unanimity were important (clan culture mean = 33.25), while in terms
of MSAF’s current management of employees, achievement and competitiveness were
important (market culture mean = 26.98). Both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s largest preferred
mean was in clan culture (Mean = 31.47 and 27.30 respectively) suggesting consensus,
cooperation, and teamwork were important; and for both FIMSA and MSAF the largest
mean difference in adhocracy culture (+5.65 and +2.78 respectively) suggesting em-
ployees be managed in a more dynamic and entrepreneurial manner.

Organizational Glue

Table 3 shows that the current FIMSA organisational glue was mutual trust and loyalty
(clan culture mean = 29.46). However, the current MSAF organisational glue was
policies and rules (hierarchy culture mean = 29.29). Both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s largest
preferred mean was in clan culture (Mean = 34.77 and 27.70 respectively) suggesting
consensus, cooperation, and teamwork were important; and for both FIMSA and
MSAF the largest mean difference in hierarchy culture (−8.00 and −4.61 respectively)
suggesting the focus on formal policies and rules could be considerably less.

Strategic Emphases

Table 3 shows that both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s current strategic emphasis was hierar-
chy (Mean = 31.92 and 31.11 respectively) emphasizing the strategic emphasis was
control, stability, and permanence. Both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s largest preferred mean
was in hierarchy culture (Mean = 28.16 and 26.75 respectively) suggesting the existing
strategic emphasis of control, stability and permanence is preferred to be ongoing.
However, the largest preferred mean difference in hierarchy culture (−3.76 and −4.36
respectively) suggests the focus on control, permanence and stability could be consid-
erably less.

Criteria of Success

Table 3 shows that both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s current criteria of success was on the
basis of dependability, efficiency, and stability (hierarchy culture mean = 32.21 and
30.08 respectively). The largest preferred mean for both FIMSA and MSAF was in clan
culture (Mean = 30.12 and 28.49), suggesting consensus, cooperation, and teamwork
was considered more important; and the largest mean difference for both FMISA and
MSAF was in hierarchy culture (−6.82 and −4.68 respectively) reinforcing the signif-
icance of a reduction in the hierarchy culture and increase in the clan culture as criteria
of success.

All Dimensions

Table 3 and Figs. 2 and 3 show and compare the average FIMSA and MSAF results of
all six dimensions’ means by cultural archetype. For both FIMSA and MSAF
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture 373

Fig. 2 FIMSA and MSAF current culture profile comparison – all dimensions

efficiency, stability, and dependability were the most prominent current traits (hierarchy
culture mean = 30.76 and 28.43 respectively). Emphasis on development of human
resources and employee commitment was also important (clan culture mean = 27.07
and 24.99 respectively) to both public enterprises; followed by both public enterprises
were improving productivity and competitiveness (market culture mean = 22.12 and
24.19 respectively). Both public enterprises were not innovators, risk takers, nor
entrepreneurial (adhocracy culture mean = 20.05 and 22.39 respectively). The largest
preferred mean for both organizations was in clan culture (Mean = 29.77 and 26.63

Fig. 3 FIMSA and MSAF preferred culture profile comparison – all dimensions
374 Slack N., Singh G.

respectively) suggesting promotion of teamwork, development of human resources and

employee commitment was considered more important, and the largest preferred mean
difference is shown in hierarchy culture (−5.48 and −3.26 respectively) suggesting a
defocusing on formal policies, rules, and standards.

Comparison with Public Administration Reference Culture

The all dimensions current and preferred culture profile of this study’s two public
enterprises were compared with the average culture profile for the Public Administra-
tion industry reference group, obtained from the observations of Cameron and Quinn
(2006). Table 4 and Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7 show that both public enterprises’ all dimensions
current and preferred cultural archetypes clan (Mean = 27.07, 29.77 and 24.99, 26.63
respectively) and adhocracy (Mean = 20.05, 23.35; and 22.39, 23.70 respectively)
mean scores were larger than the corresponding Public Administration reference culture
mean scores (Mean = 21.00 and 13.00 respectively) suggesting that both public
enterprises were more externally focused; consensus, cooperation, and teamwork was
considered more important, and both enterprises were innovators, risk takers, and
entrepreneurial, compared to the Public Administration reference culture. Notwith-
standing, both public enterprises’ all dimensions current and preferred cultural arche-
types hierarchy mean scores (Mean = 30.76, 25.27 and 28.43, 25.17 respectively) were
smaller than the corresponding Public Administration reference culture mean scores
(Mean = 32.00) suggesting that both public enterprises were defocused on formal
policies, rules, and standards, compared to the Public Administration reference culture.
It is also noted that FIMSA’s all dimensions current and preferred cultural archetype
market means scores (Mean = 22.12 and 21.61 respectively) were both smaller than the
corresponding Public Administration reference culture mean score (Mean = 23.00),
suggesting that FIMSA was less results oriented than the Public Administration
reference culture. However, MSAF’s all dimensions current and preferred cultural
archetype market means scores (Mean = 24.29 and 24.50 respectively) were both
larger than the corresponding Public Administration culture mean score (Mean = 23.00),
suggesting that MSAF was more results oriented than the Public Administration
reference culture.
Notable discrepancy between both public enterprises’ all dimensions current and
preferred adhocracy (Mean differences =7.05, 10.35 and 9.39, 10.70 respectively) and
the Public Administration adhocracy culture (Mean = 13.00), was evident, and these
results require further research.

Discussion

Zalami (2005) argues that dependent upon whether the current culture is aligned with the
preferred culture or not, may either promote or retard reform and cultural change. There-
fore, at the superficial level of analysis, misalignment between the strongly congruent
hierarchy culture that predominates in both FIMSA’s and MSAF’s current culture and the
strongly congruent clan culture preferred by both public enterprises, suggests that these
cultures will require far more time and effort to change deeply embedded cultural assump-
tions. Discrepancy between the current and preferred culture of both public enterprises
yields important information about desired changes and the direction they should move in,
 Diagnosis of Organizational Culture

Table 4 Comparison of FIMSA, MSAF and Public Administration all dimensions mean scores

FIMSA MSAF FIMSA vs. MSAF Public administration FIMSA vs. Public administration MSAF vs. Public Administration

Dimensions Current Preferred Current Preferred Diff. (Current) Diff. (Preferred) Public administration Diff. (Current) Diff. (Preferred) Diff. (Current) Diff. (Preferred)

Clan 27.07 29.77 24.99 26.63 -2.08 -3.14 21.00 6.07 8.77 3.99 5.63
Adhocracy 20.05 23.35 22.39 23.70 2.34 0.35 13.00 7.05 10.35 9.39 10.70
Market 22.12 21.61 24.19 24.50 2.07 2.89 23.00 -0.88 -1.39 1.19 1.50
Hierarchy 30.76 25.27 28.43 25.17 -2.33 -0.10 32.00 -1.24 -6.73 -3.57 -6.83
375
376 Slack N., Singh G.

Fig. 4 FIMSA all dimensions current culture profile compared to Public Administration reference culture

and suggests a preference for defocusing on formal policies, rules, and standards; and
development of teamwork, human resources, and employee commitment. Results of the
comparison between both public enterprises’ current and preferred culture, and a Public
Administration reference culture suggest that both public enterprises’ now and preferred

Fig. 5 FIMSA all dimensions preferred culture profile compared to Public Administration reference culture
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture 377

Fig. 6 MSAF all dimensions current culture profile compared to Public Administration reference culture

cultures were more agile and externally focused; far less focused on efficiency, consistency
and uniformity; and were far more collaborative and focused on commitment, communi-
cations and development than the reference culture.

Conclusion and Research Implications

While a comprehensive understanding of, and change in, organisational culture of the
public service is foundational to successful public sector reform and alignment with the
current role and priorities of government, organizational culture studies in non-Western
cultures such as Fiji are uncommon. This mixed methods study closes this gap in the
literature by comparing the current and preferred culture of two Fijian public

Fig. 7 MSAF all dimensions preferred culture profile compared to Public Administration reference culture
378 Slack N., Singh G.

enterprises, and also comparing the two public enterprises’ cultures to a Public
Administration reference culture.
It may appear from the primary case study themes and the superficial culture analysis
that both public enterprises exhibited similar current and preferred cultures, hence suggest-
ing intervention strategies to create the preferred organisational change for both public
enterprises should also be similar. Notwithstanding, to better understand the hidden and
complex aspects of culture, independent culture profiling and comparison of the six
dimensions by cultural archetype of both public enterprises revealed unique aspects of
each public enterprises’ current and preferred culture, and mean scores for FIMSA
generally higher than those of MSAF. Hence, it is suggested that intervention strategies
to create the preferred organisational change for both public enterprises should be quite
different, and culture change of FIMSA would require more time and effort.
FIMSA’s management failed to understand even the superficial aspects of the current and
preferred culture, and retained a strongly congruent hierarchy culture (even after twelve years
of public sector reform). It is suggested that FIMSA’s lack of insight into their culture
hindered insight into the enterprise, the change process, and intervention strategies necessary
to align the culture with the current role of government as a driver of economic development.
This may have ultimately contributed to the decision by the government to wind up FIMSA.
In contrast, at the time of this study MSAF had only been in existence for 2 years
since the winding up of FIMSA, and was actively seeking to understand the
organisational culture in order to support public sector reform. It is evident from the
MSAF cultural dimensions for both the current and preferred culture that the strength of
the hierarchy and clan culture archetypes were generally lower than that of FIMSA, and
the adhocracy and market culture archetypes were generally higher than that of FIMSA,
suggesting that transition in the MSAF culture towards a more externally focused,
agile, innovative, market-oriented preferred culture may have already been underway.
In conclusion, it is imperative to decipher and understand public sector
organisational culture at the superficial level and also the deeper levels, in order to
guide intervention strategies and support sustained organisational change. Additionally,
considering that organisational culture is continually developing, ongoing assessment
of culture is necessary to enable relevant adjustments to be executed (Schein 2004).
This study has several limitations. First, the use of mixed methods in this study
required a diversity of competencies, extensive time required for data collection, and
integration of a vast amount of information. The second limitation of this study is that
the findings were not generalisable, and the small country focus meant that care was
required in protecting the confidentiality of participants.
This study’s findings suggest several opportunities for future investigation. First, more
organisational culture studies conducted in non-western cultures and specifically of public
enterprises are needed, in order to determine if the results are robust between countries.
Second, future research should also examine the effects of different dimensions of culture
on organizational change and performance, to provide a deeper understanding of culture
and its critical dimensions. Lastly, future research should further investigate public sector
variation from the average culture profile for the Public Administration reference culture.
This paper makes its theoretical contribution to the scarce theoretical strands relating
to public sector culture in non-western countries such as Fiji, and practical contribution
towards government policymaking and strategic planning relating to public sector
cultural change.
Diagnosis of Organizational Culture 379

References

Adams, G. B., & Ingersoll, V. M. (1990). Culture technical rationality, and organizational culture. American
Review of Public Administration, 20(4), 285–303.
Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2013). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work
engagement, and organisational citizenship behaviours. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326.
Baldwin, N. J. (1991). Public versus private employees: Debunking stereotypes. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 11(2), 1–27.
Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring.
Organization Science, 11, 197–211.
Boyne, G. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 367–394.
Budd, L. (2007). Post-bureaucracy and reanimating public governance: A discourse and practice of continu-
ity? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(6), 537–547.
Cameron, K. S. (2008). A process for changing organizational culture. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational development (pp. 429–445). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based on the
competing values framework. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons.
Choi, Y. S., Seo, M., Scott, D., & Martin, J. J. (2010). Validation of the organizational culture assessment
instrument: An application of the Korean version. Journal of Sport Management, 24(2), 169–189.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Gasco, J. L., Molina, H., & Conca, F. J. (1999). Public administration. From bureaucratic
culture to citizen-oriented culture. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(5), 455–464.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public
Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
Ernst, H. (2001). Corporate culture and innovative performance of a firm. Management of Engineering and
Technology, 2, 532–535.
Feldman, S. P. (1985). Culture and conformity: An essay on individual adaptation in centralized bureaucracy.
Human Relations, 38(4), 341–356.
Haider, S., & Mariotti, F. (2010). Knowledge gaps: Knowledge sharing across inter-firm boundaries and
occupational communities. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 4(1), 1–17.
Jabbra, J. G., & Dwivedi, O. P. (2004). Globalisation, governance, and administrative culture. International
Journal of Public Administration, 27(13–14), 1101–1127.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review
of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37, 285–320.
Kloot, L., & Martin, J. (2007). Public sector change, organizational culture and financial information: A study
of local government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 485–497.
Latta, G.F. (2009), BA process model of organizational change in cultural context (OC3 model). The impact of
organizational culture on leading change^, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 16 No.
1, August, pp. 19–37.
Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: How the competing values framework can help
organizations improve global strategic performance. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 3(1), 3–9.
Lok, P., Rhodes, J., & Westwood, B. (2011). The mediating roles of organisational subcultures in health care
organisations. Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, 25(5), 506–525.
Morgan, P. I., & Ogbonna, E. (2008). Subcultural dynamics in transformation: A multi-perspective study of
healthcare professionals. Human Relations, 61(1), 39–65.
O’Donnell, O., & Boyle, R. (2008). Understanding and Managing Organisational Culture, Committee for
Public Management Research Discussion Paper 40. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organisations.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), 125–141.
Parry, K., & Proctor-Thomson, S. (2003). Leadership, culture and performance: The case of the New Zealand
public sector. Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 376–399.
380 Slack N., Singh G.

Pool, S. W. (2000). Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring outcomes
among business executives. Journal of Management Development, 19(1), 32–49.
Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M., & Rahman, A. A. (2004). The influence of organizational culture on attitudes
toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 161–179.
Rice, M. F. (2004). Organisational culture, social equity, and diversity: Teaching public administration
education in the postmodern era. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(2), 143–154.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass
Publishing.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. T., & Marshall, M. N. (2003). The quantitative measurement of organizational
culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services Research, 38(3), 923–945.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2008) Fiji Islands Maritime Safety Administration [FIMSA] reorgani-
zation. [Online] Available from: http://www.spc.int/maritime/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=92&Itemid=1 [Accessed: 29th Sept 2012].
Shilbury, D., & Moore, K. A. (2006). A study of organizational effectiveness for national Olympic sporting
organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 5–38.
Slack, N. J., & Singh, G. (2015). Public sector reform and service quality issues from the perspective of the
small island developing states in the Pacific: A case of Fiji. International Journal of Public
Administration, 38(10), 712–723.
Sorensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 70–91.
Suderman, J. (2012), BUsing the Organizational Cultural Assessment (OCAI) as a tool for new team
development^, Journal of Practical Consulting, Vol. 4 No. 1, Fall/Winter, pp. 52–58.
Testa, M. R., & Sipe, L. J. (2013). The organizational culture audit: Countering cultural ambiguity in the
service context. Open Journal of Leadership, 2(2), 36–44.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of
public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.
Walker, R. M., Brewer, G. A., Boyne, G. A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2011). Market orientation and public
service performance: New public management gone mad? Public Administration Review, 71(5), 707–717.
Wilson, A. M. (2001). Understanding organisational culture and the implications for corporate marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 353–367.
Yilmaz, C., & Ergun, E. (2008). Organizational culture and firm effectiveness: An examination of relative
effects of culture traits and the balanced culture hypothesis in an emerging economy. Journal of World
Business, 43(3), 290–306.
Zalami, A. (2005). Balignment of organisational cultures in the public and private sectors^, presentation given
at excellence in public service. Amman, Jordan: September.

Neale J. Slack is General Manager Uniservices, Fiji National University, Nasino, Fiji. Neale is also teaching
on part-time basis in the School of Management & Public Administration, The University of the South Pacific,
Fiji.

Gurmeet Singh is Associate Dean (Research and Graduate Affairs) in Faculty of Business and Economics.
He is also Associate Professor, School of Management & Public Administration, The University of The South
Pacific, Fiji.
Public Organization Review is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved.