STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION, CULTURE AND PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION Текст научной статьи по специальности «Экономика и бизнес»

Original article

DOI: 10.17323/1999-5431-2022-0-6-33-52

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION, CULTURE AND PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION

Elif Genc-Tetik1

1 Ph.D., Lecturer, Hitit University, Corum, Turkey; Hitit University, Akkent Mahallesi, 3. Cadde, Akkent Cd., 19040 Merkez / Corum, Turkey; elifgenc@hitit.edu.tr; ORCID: 0000-0002-6306-8550

Abstract. It is largely accepted that effective strategy implementation, as one of the most essential phases of the strategy making process, leads to good organisational outcomes. However, there is still very little research addressing which implementation style is associated with better public service outcomes. For public sector organisations, there is a common belief that the implementation of strategies mostly fails in practice. Another important organisational characteristic, seen as an effective tool for increasing performance, is organisational culture. While there are also numerous studies in the literature investigating the relationship between organisational culture and performance in both the private and public sectors, most of this research only investigates the direct effects of culture. This research undertakes a novel approach and explores the separate and combined effects of strategy implementation style and organisational culture on performance in Turkish local government organisations. Survey data were analysed using multiple and robust moderated regression models. The results of the study confirmed the presence of a significant positive relationship between rational strategy implementation and organisational performance and consistently positive influence of hierarchy type of culture on performance. Moreover, a rational strategy implementation style appeared to strengthen the effects of a hierarchical and a market-based culture on performance, while an incremental strategy implementation style seemed to enhance the effects of a clan-oriented culture and an adhocracy culture on performance.

Keywords: strategy implementation styles, organisational culture, Competing Values Framework, organisational performance.

For citation: Genc-Tetik, E. (2022) 'Strategy implementation, culture and performance in the public organizations: An empirical examination', Public Administration Issue, 6 (Special Issue II, electronic edition), pp. 33-52 (in English). DOI: 10.17323/19995431-2022-0-6-33-52

JEL Classification: H83, D73, L19 Introduction

Managing people and organizations has become increasingly difficult in today's complex and turbulent world. Strategic management ideas and tools have been brought into play to enhance organisational capacities and accomplish organisational goals in the face of such growing complexities. The vast majority of studies focus on the strategic planning and formulation stages, while less is known about the strategy implementation phase (George, 2021). As a critical phase of strategy-making where many organisational plans fail, strategy implementation is considered the most difficult part of the policy-making process compared to the formulation, planning and decision-making stages (Nutt, 1998; Hre-biniak, 2005; Cina and Cummings, 2018).

Culture is often regarded as the most fundamental element of an organisation. Due to its elusive nature, there is no consensus in the relevant literature on how to deal with it most effectively. Some researchers claim that the concept of culture needs to be examined holistically (Meyerson, 1991; Trice and Beyer 1993), others assert that it is too complicated to investigate as a whole and claim that its more tangible aspects should be studied to integrate them with other organisational components such as personnel, strategy and performance (Denison, 1990; Kotter and Heskett, 1992). By following the latter approach, this study will examine the functional aspects of organisational culture, allowing the topic to be more easily linked with concepts of organisational performance.

A need for cultural change in public organisations has also become a popular topic in public sector literature over the last three decades (Newman, 1994; Ash-worth, 2010). Many initiatives have been put forward within the field as well as a variety of practices have been adopted from the private sector, all aimed at producing more innovative and better-performing services in order to determine clear strategies and establish a strong human resource team to direct all these changes (Oz-turk and Genc-Tetik, 2021). Understanding and investigating organisational culture is necessary because it forms the essence of all these initiatives as part of the change process. The current study therefore aims to investigate the operational side of organisational culture in line with strategy and performance, as this is one of the most crucial but understudied relationships in contemporary public management.

Strategy Implementation

Strategy implementation is the process of putting strategies into practice, which includes planning and delivering services, developing the efficiency and effectiveness of operations, and designing the organisational structures, evaluation systems

and cultures required to fit the new strategy (Hill and Jones, 2008). It is considered a difficult task that demands persistence, draws attention to details and prepares the organisation for the future (Joyce, 1999). Jenkins et al. (2003) consider that the implementation of a strategy in an organisation is akin to fighting a long and bloody battle.

Strategy implementation is seen as the most difficult phase of the whole strategy process. There is often a concern that strategic management will fail in the implementation phase (Levi and Doig, 2020). It has also been claimed that less than 50% of formulated strategies are actually implemented (Mintzberg, 1994; Nutt, 1999). The challenges and problems faced in implementing strategies and the key attributes of successful strategy implementation have been widely investigated (Alashloo et al., 2005; Elbanna et al., 2015). One of the most important reasons that makes this phase so problematic is the "implementation gap", as formulating strategies and implementing them are frequently considered as entirely distinct processes (Noble, 1999).

The successful implementation of strategic decisions is widely considered critical to the achievement of organisational aims and objectives (Elbanna et al., 2015; Tawse and Tabesh, 2021). Boyne et al. (2010) also assert that delivering well-coordinated public services is directly related to achieving the best possible outcomes. Public sector agencies all over the world have begun to prepare strategy documents or plans to implement their policies more effectively (Desmidt and Meyfroodt, 2021). Where the process has been carried out in practice, there is a common belief that strategy implementation is a powerful determinant of organisational performance (Levi and Doig, 2020). It is extensively acknowledged that no matter whether a strategy is emergent or deliberate, planned or unplanned, it will have little effect on an organisational performance until it is implemented (Mintzberg, 1994). This means that the successful implementation of strategies depends on the particular style of implementation that an organisation decides to adopt, which in turn has important implications for organisational performance (Elbanna et al., 2020). Conceptual studies have developed alternative frameworks for categorising different approaches to strategy implementation (e.g. Mitchell, 2019).

From a rational perspective, strategic management is a deliberate policy that takes shape in a chronological sequence, culminating in the attainment of strategic targets set at the start of the process (Andrews et al., 2017). Strategies are deliberately formulated and implemented, following the classic rationale of diagnosis followed by prescription. An emphasis on rational implementation seems to result in better organisational performance because the clearly defined organisational goals on which it rests allows for ongoing review, control and smooth integration of activities. As a result of this evidence, a following hypothesis can be suggested:

H1a: A rational approach to implementation is positively related to organisational performance.

The learning school of thought, which mainly originated from Lindblom's seminal paper, emphasised the elements of incremental strategic decision-making processes based on a chain of small, gradual and unplanned changes taking place over time (Quaye et al., 2015). Unlike the planning school, which emphasises the importance of deliberate and pre-planned strategies, the learning school evaluates the concept of emergent strategies as "a pattern of action which develops over time

in an organisation in the absence of clear mission and goals; or sometimes despite mission and goals" (Griffin 2013, p. 207). Quinn (1978) argues that even with a well-developed strategic planning system, major strategic decisions are taken outside that planning framework because targets are often ambiguous, making their implementation complicated to measure (Hill and Hupe, 2009).

Strategy implementation should therefore take the form of a learning process focusing on continuous adaptation in order to adapt to new situations and possible scenarios arising from contingencies (Mitchell, 2019). Incremental strategy making occurs as a learning process, which automatically makes formulation and implementation identical, thereby minimising the possibility of implementation failure (Hambrick and Cannella, 1989). As a result of this evidence, another hypothesis can be suggested:

H1b: An incremental approach to implementation is positively related to organisational performance, but less so than a rational approach.

Implementation, as a critical element of strategy, is believed to have a significant impact on performance, although existing studies assume that both rational and incremental implementation styles can have positive or negative relationships with organisational performance, depending upon different parameters such as strategic stance, culture, middle manager involvement, political influence and context. Organisational culture can be especially important because it can have an impact on the characteristics and outcomes of strategic management in the public sector (Wynen and Verhoest, 2013).

Organisational culture

Whilst numerous studies over the last few decades have focused on how public service organisations and their staff can perform better, it has also become essential to work out the importance of culture in the performance of public sector organisations (Mudrak et al., 2021). In the 1980s, organisational culture in the public sector began to transform from a traditional bureaucratic culture (rule-based, hierarchical and process-driven) to a business-like culture (competition-based, marketised, results-oriented) (Newman, 1994). Though shifts in the public sector from a bureaucratic to a market culture and then to a network culture over recent decades appeared to follow a linear process, all types of cultures still coexist within public sector organisations (Cameron and Quinn, 2011).

Although there is a growing body of research on the public sector, investigations are very fragmented and their findings are insufficient in terms of providing any concrete conclusions regarding the relationship between different organisational cultures and performance (Nitzl et al., 2019). The most systematic research on this relationship has been done through the CVF (Competing Values Framework), a model which allows both topics to be examined together. The framework basically conceptualises four different types of culture and links them to relevant characteristics such as the strategic orientation of the organisation, effectiveness criteria and leadership style (Ozturk and Genc-Tetik, 2021). In this way, the CVF maps each type of culture to its most pertinent performance criteria. More specifically, it permits this study to examine the relationship between clan culture

and quality criteria, hierarchy culture and quantity criterion, market culture and citizen satisfaction criteria, and lastly adhocracy culture and innovation criterion. In Figure 1 below, the core axes along which organisations are classified in the CVF depending on whether the organisation has a predominantly internal focus/ integration or external focus/differentiation and whether they aim at flexibility or discretion or stability and control (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

Flexibility & discretion

»

a e

Clan soV 4<rS. Adhocracy

/ Hierarchy Market

x

r-r

TO

O O

<R

O-

o

I—r-

o"

Stability & control Figure 1: Competing values framework.

Source: Cameron and Quinn, 2011.

Hierarchy cultures are stability-oriented and driven by values such as efficiency, timeliness and smooth functioning (Cameron and Ettington, 1988). This means that managers in hierarchy cultures are expected to care about finishing tasks on time and performing better. It is widely agreed that public sector organisations are traditionally associated with this type of culture, which relies on formal rules and procedures as control mechanisms to ensure conformity and predictability (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). Processes in the public sector are executed mostly through rational planning, which allows the work to be completed in a smooth and timely manner. As a result of this evidence, a hypothesis can be suggested:

H2a: A hierarchy-oriented culture is more positively related to quantity than other types of culture.

In terms of public sector organisations, a market-based culture is a comparatively recent concept, which was adopted as a new organisational model that was designed to be less bureaucratic and more efficient (Ozturk and Genc-Tetik, 2021). With the adoption of market-based initiatives in the government sector, executing and delivering public services became more closely connected with better performance and meeting the needs of citizens (Macedo and Pinho, 2006). Ferrira (2014) also found that market culture is significantly and positively associated with customer. As a result of this evidence, we can suggest a following hypothesis:

H2b: A market-oriented culture is more positively related to citizen satisfaction than other types of culture.

A clan culture, oriented towards human affiliation, is driven by values such as trust, collaboration, empowerment and attachment (Cameron et al., 2011).

The values associated with this type of culture lead to a specific set of behaviours defined by teamwork, participation, employee involvement and commitment (Cameron et al., 1988; Hartnell et al., 2011). In this type of culture, common values generated within the processes are expected to be embraced by all the members of the organisations along with a sense of belonging. When personnel feel attached to organisation and responsible for other personnel, they will be inclined to produce better quality work. In this direction, the current study examines the relationship between clan culture and service quality output within the CVF model. As a result of this evidence, a hypothesis can be suggested:

H2c: A clan-oriented culture is more positively related to quality than other types of culture.

Adhocracy cultures are change-oriented and driven by values such as growth, new ideas, autonomy, and stimulation (Cameron et al., 2011; Hartnell et al., 2011). However, since government bodies inherently favour low risk-taking and stability, a need has been identified for them to adopt a culture, which enables change, improvement and innovation in their services (Manimala et al., 2006). An adhocracy culture has therefore become much more relevant to public sector organizations, especially in relation to innovation and performance (Mudrak et al., 2021). Most empirical research in CVF has found a positive relationship between adhocracy culture and innovation and related performance measures. As a result of this evidence, a further hypothesis can be suggested:

H2d: An adhocracy-oriented culture is more positively related to innovation than other types of culture.

Moderating effect of strategy implementation styles

There is a well-established canon of literature focusing on the fit between organisational strategy and culture. They represent two essential elements, that both play a role in the successful organisational performance. Brenes et al. (2008) conclude that 86% of successful organisations regard the alignment of strategy and culture as highly significant. Organisation theory generally considers that organisational strategy and culture should be intimately connected, as culture can influence strategy and vice versa (Yarbrough et al., 2011). Dobni and Luffman (2003) also claim that the specific characteristics of an organisation culture must align with its organisational strategy, and that any changes in either of these must facilitate the other in order to ensure a well-functioning organisation. More clearly, organisational culture implicitly regulates how employees and managers behave and work, and how their collective beliefs correspond to the strategic targets which directly affect organisational functioning (Quinn, 1988; Deshpande et al., 1993; Weber and Camerer, 2003; Schein, 1997; Scholz, 1987).

Some researchers assert that the congruence between strategy and culture becomes most apparent and prominent in the strategy implementation phase (Bates et al., 1995). Alamsjah (2011) and Bates et al. (1995) suggest that well-structured and well-implemented strategies can affect organisational culture positively by means of the practices, regulations and processes in which organisational strategies are practiced. Other research also concluded that one of the most important

barriers to strategy implementation is an unaligned organisational culture (Heide et al., 2002; Alashloo et al., 2005). From this perspective, a rational implementation style, which emphasises regulations, rational decisions, plans and stability, complements the hierarchy and market-oriented culture that focuses on control. It can be claimed that the artefacts of hierarchy and market-oriented culture under controlled orientation should be in close proximity to the above-mentioned characteristics of rational implementation styles in order to achieve better performance. Likewise, incremental implementation, which emphasises continuous monitoring, changes, cooperation, and openness, can be more easily associated with clan and adhocracy cultures, which are oriented towards flexibility and related outcomes. The flexibility-oriented artifacts of clan and adhocracy cultures are expected to align with the features of incremental implementation styles to achieve optimum performance. Consequently, the moderation effects of the implementation styles mentioned above can be suggested on the relationship between the four types of organisational cultures and performance. Based on these assumptions, four more hypotheses can be suggested:

H3a-3b: A rational implementation style strengthens the relationship between hierarchical/market-oriented cultures and performance.

H3c-3d: An incremental implementation style strengthens the relationship between clan/adhocracy-oriented cultures and performance.

Methodology

Data for this study were drawn from an email survey of managers in Turkish local governments. This study specifically focused on metropolitan municipalities, which represent the largest locally elected bodies in Turkey. To ensure the perceptions of performance and strategy implementation of managers at different levels of the organisation were captured, the survey was distributed to deputy general secretaries, department heads and unit heads in each metropolitan municipality, across a range of core service areas including culture, corporate, back office, distributive, fire, health, finance, police, protection, planning, transport and waste.

The total number of potential informants was 840 from 30 metropolitan municipalities, and the number of actual respondents was 157 (18.6%), of which 134 (15.9%) were complete in terms of the data necessary for this study1. The responses covered 20 metropolitan municipalities in different regions, and the actual responses included 6 deputy general secretaries, 28 heads of departments and 99 heads of units. The 30 metropolitan municipalities (20 municipalities included in the study and 10 other municipalities not included) are shown in Figure 2. Incomplete and straight-lined questionnaires (i.e. giving identical answers to survey items) were eliminated. Having done these corrections in the dataset, non-response bias test was run, and it showed that the dataset is robust enough to do the further tests. The data normality test also revealed that the values of skewness and kurtosis of the items were within acceptable parameters and no serious viola-

1 Cronbach's alpha value of the data is 0.87

tions of the construct were found. Eventually, Multiple Regression analyses (for 1a to 2d) and Moderated Multiple Regression analyses (for 3a to 3d) were used to test the hypotheses using SPSS 23.0, Stata 22.

This study uses a set of control variables to exclude probable alternative explanations for the findings. Expenditure, population size, population density, municipal district and poverty rate are applied in this study as control variables, as many studies focusing on local government performance have used these variables to control the analysis processes. Initially, the relevant data regarding municipal expenditure were found in performance programme reports published in 2016 and were collected from the website of each municipality. For population size, population density, municipal districts and poverty rates, the relevant data were collected from the reports released by the Turkish Statistical Institute (commonly known as Turk-Stat)2, which is a Turkish government agency commissioned to produce official statistics on Turkey, its population, resources, economy, society, culture etc.

Results and analyses

Metropolitan Municipalities Included in This Research

[ Metropolitan Municipalities Not Included in This Research

I Other Cities

Figure 2: Map of Turkey showing the metropolitan municipalities included and not included in the study

The analyses presented in the first two tables below investigate the direct effects of the variables hypothesised in the study. It presents the results of the regression analyses of the relationships between the implementation styles and the types of organisational culture as independent variables and two dimensions of organisational performance as dependent variables, including the control variables. Table 3 and 4 examine the moderating effects of implementation styles

2 URL: https://www.tuik.gov.tr/

on the relationship between types of organisational culture and organisational performance. The results of testing the effects of the control variables on each type of organisational performance are also explored in detail.

The quantitative analysis results showed that the rational implementation style (RIS) was positively associated with organisational performance, although the impact of the incremental implementation style (IIS) was found to be statistically insignificant. In statistical terms, rational implementation showed a strong positive correlation with the performance aspects of quantity (QUAN), citizen satisfaction (CSAT), quality (QUAL) and innovation (INNOV). These effects were still present when controlling for five exogenous factors, including expenditure, population, population density (POP. DENSITY), poverty level and municipal district (MUN. DIST). However, the incremental implementation style presented no significant relationship with any of these dimensions in quantifiable terms.

The study findings are mainly consistent with previous research on the comparative benefits of the rational implementation style and the incremental style (Miller, 1997; Andrews et al., 2017). As the study examined the four culture types from the Competing Values Framework (CVF) and looked at their relationships with different types of organisational outcomes, the results of the quantitative analysis show that a hierarchical culture (HIER) has a very strong positive correlation with organisational performance. As for the results of the current study on market-oriented culture (MRKT) and citizen satisfaction, the analysis discovered no significant relationship between market culture and citizen satisfaction. When considering the relationship between the adhocracy culture (ADHC) and innovation, the CVF specifies innovation as the primary performance criterion of the adhocracy-oriented culture, explaining this relationship in terms of taking risks, being innovative, encouraging the development, and provision of new ideas and services. Regarding the relationship between clan-oriented culture and quality, the quantitative analysis found no statistical correlation.

The study hypothesised that strategy implementation styles would positively moderate the relationship between the types of organisational culture and organisational performance. Regarding the moderation effects, four hypotheses were generated, and the models included types of organisational performance as dependent variables, organisational culture types as independent variables, strategy implementation styles as moderator variables and control variables. Four separate moderator variables were generated by mixing implementation styles with the different types of organisational cultures.

The results linked the rational implementation style with the relationship between hierarchy culture and performance. Strong links between rational and top-down implementation styles and hierarchy culture in Turkish public administration (Kesik and Canpolat, 2014; Ozturk and Genc-Tetik, 2021) could imply that the results of the study are consistent with the way local government administrations already function in Turkey. This study also investigated the impact of rational implementation on the relationship between market-oriented culture and performance and the findings showed a positive relationship for this interaction. Overall, there were no explicit results for this type of interaction, although it can be said that the most significant impact of rational implementation

is specifically on the relationship between market-oriented culture and citizen satisfaction compared to quality, quantity and innovation outcomes. Regarding the moderation effect of incremental implementation on adhocracy culture and performance relationship, the analysis found a strong connection. The benefits of incremental implementation on the relationship between clan-oriented culture and performance were proved by the quantitative analysis.

Table 1

Strategy implementation styles, organisational culture types and quality - Innovation

PREDICTOR QUAL QUAL QUAL QUAL INNOV INNOV INNOV INNOV

RIS .571*** .291* .497*** .249

IIS .052 -.148 .082 -.119

CLAN .548 .436 .304 .204

ADHC -.267 -.166 .091 .177

MRKT -.097 -193 -.202 -.282

HIER .528** .493*** .452** .420***

REGULATORY -.206 -.223 -.208 -.231 -.147 -.157 -.160 -.179

DISTRIBUTIVE -.270 -.236 -.163 -.136 .121 .145 .176 .197

SAFETY -1.01 -.713 -.584 -.529 -.920 -.654 -.548 -.502

POP. -.157 -.347 -.109 -.268 -.592 -.752** -.543* -.678**

POP. DENSITY -.057 -.180 -.114 -.123 .091 -.021 .047 .038

MUN. DIST .038 .037* .022 .030 .068** .067*** .052** .059**

POVERTY RATE .044 .000 .029 .024 .114 .073 .069 .065

EXPENPER1000 CAP. -1.36 4.85 1.38 3.55 -7.15 -1.60 -3.87 -2.00

CONSTANT 7.48 7.61* 3.38 5.47 11.95*** 11.88*** 8.49** 10.26**

Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p<0.05; *p<0.1. Sources: Completed bythe author (- hereinafter).

Table 2

Strategy implementation styles, organisational culture types and quantity - Citizen satisfaction

PREDICTOR QUAN QUAN QUAN QUAN CSAT CSAT CSAT CSAT

RIS .434*** .199 .452** .198

IIS .125 -.074 .151 -.072

CLAN .519 .430 .352 .262

ADHC -.055 .010 .115 .181

PREDICTOR QUAN QUAN QUAN QUAN CSAT CSAT CSAT CSAT

MRKT -.336 -.395 -.356 -.414

HIER .456** .424** .539** .506***

REGULATORY -.071 -.073 -.054 -.067 -.211 -.210 -.209 -.221

DISTRIBUTIVE -.139 -.127 -.059 -.046 -.193 -.184 -.129 -.117

SAFETY -1.20 -.962* -.794 -.761 -.803 -.543 -.384 -.352

POP. .466* .333 .447 .341 -.537 -.674* -.534* -.640*

POP. DENSITY -.293* -.400* -.315* -.324* .154 .040 .129 .119

MUN. DIST .004 .001 -.007 -.002 .053** .049** .038** .044*

POVERTY RATE -.011 -.052 -.034 -.039 .102 .057 .059 .054

EXPENPER1000 CAP. 1.18 6.26 4.32 5.83 -4.33 1.04 -6.97 8.01

CONSTANT 0.61 0.29 -2.04 -0.65 11.18*** 10.74*** 8.15** 9.52**

Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p<0.05; *p<0.1.

Table 3

Hierarchy culture and market culture x Rational implementation

PREDICTOR QUAL INNOV QUANT CSAT QUAL INNOV QUANT CSAT

RIS -.138 -.093 -.179 -.140 -.490 -.436 -.571 -.597

IIS -.115 -.093 -.045 -.046 -.083 -.061 -.010 -.005

CLAN .479 .239 .468 .297 .475 .239 .469 .303

ADHC -.173 .171 .004 .175 -.203 .144 -.026 .142

MRKT -.246 -.325 -.442 -.456 -.899* -.901** -1.091** -1.132**

HIER .183 .172 .149 .261 .599*** .512*** .528*** .613***

RIS X HIER .084 .067 .074 .066

RIS X MRKT .148* .130** .146** .151**

REGULARITY -.214 -.165 -.051 -.207 -.128 -.089 .034 -.116

DISTRIBUTIVE -.088 .235 -.004 -.079 -.042 .280 .046 -.020

SAFETY -.491 -.471 -.727 -.322 -.488 -.466 -.720 -.310

POP. -.240 -.656** .365 -.618** -.160 -.583** .447 -.530

POP. DENSITY -.140 .024 -.340** .106 -.170 -.002 -.371** .072

MUN. DIST .027 .057*** -.004 .041** .022 .052*** -.010 .035**

POVERTY RATE .018 .060 -044 .050 .004 .047 -.059 .033

EXPENPER1000 CAP. 5.06 -7.93 7.17 1.99 6.27 3.84 8.51 3.56

CONSTANT 6.54 .286 10.36* 11.11** 6.96* .808 11.03** 11.56**

Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p<0.05; *p<0.1.

Table 4

Clan culture and adhocracy culture x Incremental implementation

PREDICTOR QUAL INNOV QUANT CSAT QUAL INNOV QUANT CSAT

RIS .332** .275** .232* .229 .315** .262* .219* .217

IIS -1.00** -.677 -.763* -.735* -.924** -.568 -.710 -.714*

CLAN -.217 -.220 -.094 -.242 .601** .300 .565 .399

ADHC -.302 .088 -.098 .075 -1.088** -.356 -.744 -.582

MRKT -.233 -.308 -.427 -.445 -.226 -.301 -.422 -.442

HIER .710*** .561*** .598*** .674*** .696*** .537*** .589*** .674***

IIS X CLN .159** .103* .127* .123*

IIS X ADHC .152** .088 .124 .126*

REGULARITY -.119 -.106 .023 -.134 -.152 -.133 -.001 -.155

DISTRIBUTIVE -.058 .248 .016 -.056 -.071 .235 .006 -.063

SAFETY -.599 -.548 -.817 -.406 -.590 -.537 -.810 -.402

POP. -.262 -.674** .346 -.635** -.236 -.660** .367 -.613**

POP. DENSITY -.129 .034 -.329** .115 -.129 .035 -.330** .114

MUN. DIST .024 .055*** -.007 .039** .025 .056*** -.006 .039**

POVERTY RATE .057 .086 -.012 .080 .045 .077 -.022 .071

EXPENPER1000 CAP. 6.83 1.36 8.47 3.34 5.65 -7.85 7.55 2.54

CONSTANT 7.83** 1.24 11.35** 11.80*** 7.41* 0.92 11.12** 11.38**

Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p<0.05; *p<0.1.

Conclusion and discussion

This research investigated the relationships between strategic implementation styles, organisational culture and performance in Turkish local government departments. It specifically explored rational and incremental implementation styles and their separate and mutual relationships with types of organisational culture and performance. The study was based on a survey of Turkish local government managers and the quantitative analyses largely supported the proposed hypotheses.

The results of the study on Hypotheses 1a and 1b demonstrate that rational implementation style is positively associated with organisational performance, although the impact of incremental implementation appeared to be statistically insignificant. These results are consistent with previous research on the comparative benefits of a rational implementation style (Miller, 1997; Parsa, 1999; Schaap, 2006; Schaap, 2012; Andrews et al., 2017) and an incremental style (Miller, 1997). Most of the related research states that provisional plans such as roadmaps, projects and action plans that define work in terms of targets were seen as essential for successful implementation (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984; Pinto and Prescott, 1990;

Chustz and Larson, 2006; Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). Moreover, Ansoff (1991) argues that a rational implementation style facilitates the control and review of clear strategies. An incremental style of strategy implementation leads to more effective learning within organisations and can be more responsive to situations in the field (Mintzberg, 1994; Montgomery, 2008). Andrews et al. (2011) argue that incremental implementation can lead to continuous adaptation of strategies as they are adjusted throughout the implementation process.

The Hypotheses 2a-2b-2c-2d proved that different types of organisational cultures correspond to particular organisational outcomes in Turkish local government. Many previous studies support this culture-performance relationship in the public sector (Argote, 1989; Zimmerman et al., 1993; Brewer and Selden, 2000; Parry and Proctor-Thomson, 2003; Scott et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2006), but the question of which type of culture leads to better outcomes remains fundamentally undetermined because of the insufficient number of studies on the relationships. The results in this study showed a consistency with past research (Acar and Acar, 2014; Gerowitz et al., 1996; Davies et al., 2007), all of which correspond to elements of hierarchical culture and its relationship with quantity studied in the current research. In terms of market-oriented culture and organisational performance, no significant relationship was found in the quantitative analysis, as previous studies were dispersed and even in some cases reached contradictory results (Cameron and Freeman, 1991; Gerowitz et al., 1996). The quantitative analysis of the relationship between adhocracy type and performance found no relationship, in contrast to some existing research indicating a positive relationship (Cameron and Freeman, 1991; Gerowitz et al., 1996; Moynihan and Pandey, 2004; Jacobs et al., 2013; Ferreira, 2014). Previous studies suggest that the relationship between clan-oriented culture and organisational performance depends on improvements in quality (Scott-Cawiezell et al., 2005); quality of care (Van Beek and Gerritsen, 2010); quality improvement initiatives in healthcare (Wicke et al.', 2004) Regarding the relationship between clan-oriented culture and quality, the analysis in this research found no statistical relationship.

Finally, the Hypotheses 3a-3b-3c-3d addressed the effects of the interaction between strategy implementation styles, organisational culture, and performance. Despande and Webster (1989) argue that a hierarchy-oriented culture must work hand-in-hand with rational processes in order to achieve better performance as this study confirms the positive moderation effect of rational implementation on the relationship between a hierarchy culture and performance. The current study also propounds that rational implementation influences relevant organisational outcomes in a market-based culture. Regarding the moderation effect of incremental implementation on an adhocracy culture and performance relationship, the analyses of the research identified a strong connection. The literature also supports these findings showing that more flexible strategies should perform better in an organic structure to facilitate changes in the organisations (Su et al., 2011). Lastly, the effect of incremental implementation on the relationship between clan-oriented culture and performance was proved by the quantitative analysis.

Table 5

Summary of hypotheses testing results

Hypothesis Hypothesized Relationship Results

H1a RIS ^ Organisational Performance Supported

H1b IIS ^ Organisational Performance Not supported

H2a HIER ^ Quan Supported

H2b MRKT ^ Csat Not supported

H2c CLAN ^ Qual Not supported

H2d ADHC ^ Innova Not supported

H3a RIS * Hier ^ OP Supported

H3b RIS * Mrkt ^ OP Supported

H3c IIS * Clan ^ OP Supported

H3d IIS * Adhc ^ OP Supported

Some theoretical contributions of this paper can be addressed. There are only few studies examining organisational performance together with implementation styles in the public sector (Bantel, 1997; Hickson et al., 2003; Andrews et al., 2011; Schaap, 2012; Elbanna et al., 2020; Mitchell et al., 2021) and organisational cultures (Shortell et al., 2004; Davies et al., 2007; Jacobs et al., 2013; Moynihan and Pandey, 2004). This study is the first to examine implementation styles, organisational cultures and performance concepts in a public sector setting with the direct and moderated effects.

The findings of the study should be considered alongside their potential limitations. The study surveyed senior managers from 11 different departments in 20 metropolitan municipalities. However, there are more departments in 30 metropolitan municipalities throughout Turkey and as the sample size of the study is also limited, the results cannot be generalised to all departments in all of Turkey's metropolitan municipalities. There is also no consensus on which set of performance variables should be taken into consideration while examining public sector organisations. It is also possible to consider other performance criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, equity (Andrews et al., 2017), value for money (Walker and Andrews, 2015), productivity and staff satisfaction (Brewer, 2005) as criteria used in the literature.

A number of promising directions for future research can be considered. Since cross-sectional design did not allow the study to establish causal associations between the variables, prospective research could take advantage of testing the construct of the present study through a longitudinal research design which would examine causal relationships. There are other factors that have been characterised as important elements of successful implementation, such as external

stakeholders, provision of adequate resources, communication, strategic mindset and alignment with the plan (Stewart and Kringas, 2003; Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Andrews et al., 2011; Elbanna et al., 2020; George, 2021). Future studies could also attempt to measure objective performance attributes, which could help to obtain more impartial results, which capture the actual output of Turkish municipalities.

REFERENCES

1. Alamsjah, F. (2011) 'Key success factors in implementing strategy: Middle-level managers' perspective', Procedía - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 24(1), pp. 14441450.

2. Alashloo, F.R., Castka, P. and Sharp, J.M. (2005) 'Toward understanding the imped-ers of strategy implementation in higher education (HE). A case of HE institutes in Iran', Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), pp. 132-147.

3. Andrews, R., Beynon, M. and Genc, E. (2017) 'Strategy implementation style and public service effectiveness, efficiency and equity', Administrative Sciences, 7(4).

4. Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A., Law, J. and Walker, R.M. (2011) 'Strategy implementation and public service performance', Administrative Society, 43(6), pp. 643-671.

5. Ansoff, H.I. (1991) 'Critique of Henry Mintzberg's the Design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management', Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp. 449-461.

6. Argote, L. (1989) 'Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field', Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, pp. 131-140.

7. Ashworth, R. (2009) 'Organisational culture, in: R. Ashworth, G.A. Boyne and T. En-twistle (eds.) Public Service Improvement: Theories and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 98-119.

8. Bantel, K.A. (1997) 'Performance in adolescent, technology-based firms: Product strategy, implementation, and synergy', The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8(2), pp. 243-262.

9. Bates, K.A., Amundson, S.D., Schroeder, R.G. and Morris, W.T. (1995) 'The crucial interrelationship between manufacturing strategy and organisational culture, Management Science, 41(10), pp. 1565-1580.

10. Boyne, G.A. (2010) 'Strategic planning', in: R. Ashworth, G.A. Boyne and T. Entwist-le (eds.) Public Service Improvement: Theories and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60-77.

11. Brewer, G.A. (2005) 'In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), pp. 505-527.

12. Brewer, G.A. and Selden, S.C. (2000) 'Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organisational performance in federal agencies', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), pp. 685-711.

13. Cameron, K.S. and Ettington, D.R. (1988) 'The Conceptual Foundations of Organisational Culture', in: C.J. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, New York: Agathon, pp. 56-396.

14. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011) Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. USA: Jossey-Bass a Wiley Imprint.

15. Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S.J. (1991) 'Cultural congruence, strength, and type: Relationships to effectiveness', Research in Organisational Change and Development, 5, pp. 23-58.

16. Chustz, M.H. and Larson, J.S. (2006) 'Implementing change on the front lines: A management case study of West Feliciana Parish Hospital', Public Administration Review, 60, pp. 725-729.

17. Cina, A. and Cummings, S. (2018) 'Open Innovation Communication: Improving Strategy Implementation in the Public Sector', Policy Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 74-80.

18. Davies, H., Mannion, R., Jacobs, R. and Powell, A. (2007) 'Is there an association between senior management team culture and hospital performance?, Medical Care Research and Review, 64(1), pp. 46-65.

19. Denison, D.R. (1990) Corporate Culture and Organisational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.

20. Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989) 'Organisational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda', Journal of Marketing, 53, pp. 3-15.

21. Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993) 'Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis', Journal of Marketing, 57(1), pp. 23-37.

22. Desmidt, S. and Meyfroodt, K. (2021) 'What motivates politicians to use strategic plans as a decision-making tool? Insights from the theory of planned behaviour', Public Management Review, 23(3), pp. 447-474.

23. Elbanna, S., Andrews, R. and Pollanen, R. (2015) 'Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations: Evidence from Canada', Public Management Review, 18, pp. 1017-1042.

24. Elbanna, S., Al Katheeri, B. and Colak, M. (2020) 'The harder firms practice strategic management, the better they are', Strategic Change, 29, pp. 561-569.

25. Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2006) 'Managing successful organisational change in the public sector', Public Administration Review, 66(2), pp. 168-176.

26. Ferreira, A.I. (2014) 'Competing values framework and its impact on the intellectual capital dimensions: Evidence from different Portuguese organisational sectors', Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 12, pp. 86-96.

27. George, B. (2021) 'Successful strategic plan implementation in public organizations: Connecting people, process, and plan (3Ps)', Public Administration Review, 81(4), pp. 793-798.

28. Gerowitz, M.B., Lemieux-Charles, L., Heginbothan, C. and Johnson, B. (1996) 'Top management culture and performance in Canadian, UK and US hospitals', Health Services Management Research, 9, pp. 69-78.

29. Griffin, R.W. (2013) Management, USA: Cegage Learning.

30. Hambrick, D.C. and Cannella, A.A. (1989) 'Strategy implementation as substance and selling', Academy of Management Executive, 3, pp. 278-285.

31. Hartnell, C., Ou, A. and Kinicki, A. (2011) 'Organisational culture and organisational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions', Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), pp. 677-694.

32. Heide, M., Gronhaug, K. and Johannessen, S. (2002) 'Exploring barriers to the successful implementation of a formulated strategy', Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, pp. 217-231.

33. Hickson, D.J., Miller, S.C. and Wilson, D.C. (2003) 'Planned or prioritised? Two options in managing the implementation of strategic decisions', Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 1803-1836.

34. Hill, M. and Hupe, P. (2009) Implementing public policy, London: Sage.

35. Hill, W.L.C. and Jones, R.G. (2008) Essentials of strategic management. USA: Cen-gage Learning Custom Publishing.

36. Hrebiniak, L.G. (2005) Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and change. USA: Ft Press.

37. Jacobs, R., Mannion, R., Davies, H.T.O., Harrison, S., Konteh, F. and Walshe, K. (2013) 'The relationship between organisational culture and performance in acute hospitals', Social Science and Medicine, 76, pp. 115-125.

38. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. and Brew, A. (2003) Re-shaping higher education: Linking teaching and research. London: Routledge Falmer.

39. Joyce, P. (1999) Strategic management for the public services. USA: Open University Press.

40. Kearns, K.P. (2000) Private sector strategies for social sector success: The guide to strategy and planning for public and non-profit organizations. USA: Jossey-Bass.

41. Kesik, A. and Canpolat, E. (2014) 'Strategic management and public management reforms in Turkey', in: P. Joyce and A. Drumaux (eds.) Strategic Management in Public Organizations: European Practices and Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 226-242.

42. Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992) Corporate culture and performance. New York, Ny: Macmillan.

43. Levi, M. and Doig, A. (2020) Exploring the 'shadows' in the implementation processes for national anti-fraud strategies at the local level: Aims, ownership and impact. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 26, pp. 313-333.

44. Macedo, I.M. and Pinho, C.J. (2006) 'The relationship between resource dependence and market orientation: The specific case of non-profit organisations', European Journal of Marketing, 40(5-6), pp. 533-553.

45. Manimala, M.J., Jose, P.D. and Thomas, K.R. (2006) 'Organisational constraints on innovation and intrapreneurship: Insights from public sector', Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 31(1), pp. 49-60.

46. Martin, J., Frost, P.J. and O'Neill, O.A. (2006) 'Organisational culture, beyond struggles for intellectual dominance', in: Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. and Nord, W. (eds.) The Handbook of Organisation Studies (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 725-753.

47. Meyerson, D.E. (1991) 'Acknowledging and uncovering ambiguities in cultures', in: P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Reframing organisational culture. California: Sage, pp. 254-270.

48. Miller, S. (1997) 'Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors', Organization Studies, 18, pp. 577-602.

49. Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. New York: The Free Press.

50. Mitchell, D. (2019) 'It all depends, but on what? Testing contingency in public strategic implementation', Public Performance and Management Review, 42(4), pp. 783-807.

51. Mitchell, D., Kanaan, D. and Stoeckel, S. (2021) 'Put your money where your mouth is: The influence of designated funding upon strategic implementation in US municipalities', Public Administration Quarterly, 45(1), pp. 29-50.

52. Montgomery, C.A. (2008) 'Pulling leadership back into strategy, Harvard Business Review, 86(1), pp. 54-60.

53. Moynihan, D. and Pandey, S.J. (2004) 'Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, pp. 241-439.

54. Mudrak, J., Zabrodska, K., Machovcova, K., Cidlinska, K. and Takacs, L. (2021) 'Competing values at public universities: Organisational cultures and job demands-resources in academic departments', Higher Education Quarterly, 00, pp. 1-21.

55. Newman, J. (1994) 'Beyond the vision: Cultural change in the public sector', Public Money and Management, pp. 59-64.

56. Nitzl, C., Sicilia, M. and Steccolini, I. (2019) 'Exploring the links between different performance information uses, NPM cultural orientation, and organisational performance in the public sector', Public Management Review, 21(5), pp. 686-710.

57. Noble, C.H. and Mokwa, M.P. (1999) 'Implementing marketing strategies: Developing and testing a managerial theory', Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 57-73.

58. Nutt, P.C. (1998) 'Leverage, resistance and the success of implementation approaches', Journal of Management Studies, 35, pp. 213-40.

59. Nutt, P.C. (1999) 'Surprising but true: Half of the decisions in organizations fail', Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), pp. 75-90.

60. Ozturk, A.O. and Genc-Tetik, E. (2021) 'Preliminary identification of organisational culture styles in the process of strategic planning: Employee perception in the Turkish public higher education', Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 8(1), pp. 231-255.

61. Parry, K.W. and Proctor-Thomson, S B. (2003) 'Leadership, culture and performance: The case of the New Zealand public sector', Journal of Change Management, 3(4), pp. 376-341.

62. Parsa, H.G. (1999) 'Interaction of strategy implementation and power perceptions in franchise systems: An empirical investigation', Journal of Business Research, 45, pp. 173-185.

63. Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1990) 'Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation process', Journal of Management Studies, 27, pp. 305-327.

64. Quaye, I., Osei, A., Sarbah, A. and Abrokwah, E. (2015) 'The applicability of the learning school model of strategy formulation (strategy formulation as an emergent process)', Open Journal of Business and Management, 3, pp. 135-154.

65. Quinn, J.B. (1978) 'Strategic change: Logical incrementalism', Sloan Management Review, 20, pp. 7-21.

66. Quinn, R.E. (1988) Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

67. Schaap, J.I. (2006) 'Toward strategy implementation success: An empirical study of the role of senior-level leaders in the Nevada gaming industry', Unlv Gaming Research and Review Journal, 10(2), pp. 13-37.

68. Schaap, J.I. (2012) 'Strategy implementations: Can organizations attain outstanding performance?', Strategic Management Review, 6(1), pp. 98-121.

69. Schein, E. (1997). Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Ca: Josey-Bass.

70. Scholz, C. (1987) 'Corporate culture and strategy: The problem of strategic fit', Long Range Planning, 20(4), pp. 78-87.

71. Scott, T. Mannion, R., Marshall, M. and Davies, H. (2003) 'Does organisational culture influence health care performance? A Review of the Evidence', Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 8(2), pp. 105-117.

72. Scott-Cawiezell, J., Jones, K. and Moore, L. (2005) 'Nursing home culture: A critical component in sustained improvement', Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 20(4), pp. 341-348.

73. Steward, J. and Kringas, P. (2003) 'Change management-strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian public service', Public Administration Review, 63, pp. 675-88.

74. Su, Z., Yang, D. and Yung, J. (2012) 'The match between efficiency / flexibility strategy and organisational culture', International Journal of Production Research, 50(19), pp. 5317-5329.

75. Tawse, A and Tabesh, P. (2021) 'Strategy implementation: A review and an introductory framework', European Management Journal, 39, pp. 22-33.

76. Trice, H. and Beyer, J. (1993) The Cultures of Work Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

77. Van Beek, A.P. and Gerritsen, D.L. (2010) 'The relationship between organisational culture of nursing staff and quality of care for residents with dementia: Questionnaire surveys and systematic observations in nursing homes', International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(10), pp. 1274-1282.

78. Walker, R.M. and Andrews, R. (2015) 'Local government management and performance: A review of evidence', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), pp. 101-133.

79. Weber, A.R. and Camerer, J.F. (2003) 'Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental approach', Management Science, 49(4), pp. 400-415.

80. Wicke, D., Coppin, R. and Payne, S. (2004) 'Teamworking in nursing homes', Journal of Advanced Nursing, 452, pp. 197-204.

81. Wynen, J. and Verhoest, K. (2013) 'Do NPM-type reforms lead to a cultural revolution within public sector organizations', Public Management Review, pp. 1-24.

82. Zammuto, R.F. and Krakower, J.Y. (1991) 'Quantitative and qualitative studies of organisational culture', Research in Organisational Change and Development, 5, pp. 83-114.

83. Zimmerman, J., Shortell, S. M., Rousseau, D., Duffy, J., Gillies, R. and Knaus, W. (1993) 'Improving intensive care: Observation based on organisational case studies in nine intensive care units: A prospective, multi-centre study', Critical Care Medicine, 21, pp. 1443-1451.

The article was submitted: 23.08.2021;

approved after reviewing: 15.04.2022;

accepted for publication: 20.08.2022.