The moderating effects of policy domains on the relationship between group culture and organizational effectiveness: A study of public employees’ perceptions in Korea
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
The moderating effects of policy domains on the relationship between group culture and organizational effectiveness: A study of public employees’ perceptions in Korea
Although many practical attempts have been made to enhance the effectiveness of public agencies via improvement of group culture (or collaboration), little academic research, particularly in public management, has empirically evaluated the implications of group culture for organizational performance. This study proposes and examines a model of organizational performance that specifically accounts for group culture and the moderating effects of policy domains. This empirical research used quantitative data from survey questionnaires conducted in the City Hall of Seoul and its nine autonomous district governments in Seoul, Korea. The findings of ordinary least squares (OLS) analyses suggest that group culture has a positive effect on organizational performance. However, policy domains can strengthen or nullify the positive effects of the group culture.
AckroydSKirkpatrickIWalkerR (2007) Public management reform in the UK and its consequences for professional organization: a comparative analysis. Public administration85(1): 9–26.
2.
AgranoffR (2012) Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
3.
AllisonPD (1999) Multiple Regression: A Primer. Newbury Park: Pine Forge Press.
4.
AlstonJP (1989) Wa, guanxi, and inhwa: managerial principles in Japan, China, and Korea. Business Horizons32(2): 26–31.
5.
BellH (2013) Caseworkers’ assessment of welfare reform: report from the front lines. In: LarrisonCRSullivanM (eds). The Impact of Welfare Reform: Balancing Safety Nets and Behavior Modification. Routledge, 243–259.
6.
BovensMZouridisS (2002) From street‐level to system‐level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review62(2): 174–184.
7.
BoyneGA (2002) Concepts and indicators of local authority performance: an evaluation of the statutory frameworks in England and Wales. Public Money & Management22(2): 17–24.
8.
BozemanB (2000) Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
BrewerGA (2005) In the eye of the storm: frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(4): 505–527.
10.
BrowneWP (1995) Cultivating Congress: Constituents, Issues, and Interests in Agricultural Policymaking. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
11.
BursteinP (1991) Policy domains: organization, culture, and policy outcomes. Annual Review of Sociology17(1): 327–350.
12.
CaillierJG (2013) Do employees feel comfortable blowing the whistle when their supervisors practice transformational leadership?International Journal of Public Administration36(14): 1020–1028.
13.
CameronKSQuinnRE (1999) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
CameronKSWhettenDA (eds) (2013) Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. Cambridge: Academic Press.
15.
CameronKSFreemanSJMishraAK (1991) Best practices in white-collar downsizing: managing contradictions. Academy of Management Perspectives5(3): 57–73.
16.
ChaJH (1994) Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In: KimUTriandisH (eds). Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc, 157–174.
17.
ChoYHYoonJ (2001) The origin and function of dynamic collectivism: an analysis of Korean corporate culture. Asia Pacific Business Review7(4): 70–88.
18.
CondreySEBrudneyJL (1992) Performance-based managerial pay in the federal government: does agency matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2(2): 157–174.
19.
CramptonSMWagnerJA (1994) Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology79(1): 67–76.
20.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2000) The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60(6): 549–559.
21.
DenisonDR (1996) What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review21(3): 619–654.
22.
DenisonDRMishraA (1995) Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organisational Science6(2): 204–223.
23.
DrechslerW (2018) Beyond the western paradigm: Confucian public administration. Public Policy in the “Asian Century”19–40. Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
Fenno JrRF (1966) The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Little Brown.
25.
FilleyACHouseRJKerrS (1976) Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
26.
ForesterJ (1984) Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review44: 23–31.
27.
FredericksonHG (2002) Confucius and the moral basis of bureaucracy. Administration & Society33(4): 610–628.
28.
GregoryBTHarrisSGArmenakisAAShookCL (2009) Organizational culture and effectiveness: a study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research62(7): 673–679.
29.
GulickL (1937) Notes on the theory of organizations. With special references to government in the United States. In: Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University, 3–44.
30.
GuyME (1992) Productive work environments. In: Public Productivity Handbook. New York: M. Dekker, 321–333.
31.
HainesVYIIISt-OngeS (2012) Performance management effectiveness: practices or context?International Journal of Human Resource Management23(6): 1158–1175.
32.
HartnellCAOuAYKinickiA (2011) Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology96(4): 677–694.
33.
HoodC (1998) The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
34.
ImTCampbellJWChaS (2013) Revisiting Confucian bureaucracy: roots of the Korean Government’s culture and competitiveness. Public Administration and Development33: 286–296.
35.
JaccardJTurrisiRJaccardJ (2003) Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (No. 72). Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.
36.
KelloughJELuH (1993) The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: persistence of a problematic procedure. Review of Public Personnel Administration13(2): 45–64.
37.
KerrSJermierJM (1978) Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance22(3): 375–403.
38.
KimY (2016) The relation between policy types and organizational structures in US federal agencies: an analysis focused on formalization, span of control, headquarters ratio, and personnel mobility. Administration & Society48(8): 988–1030.
39.
KimY (2023) A contingent approach to the management of job satisfaction. Korean Governance Review30(3): 155–184.
40.
LangerJLeRouxK (2017) Developmental culture and effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. Public Performance and Management Review40(3): 457–479.
41.
LaumannEOKnokeD (1987) The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
42.
LawlerEEMohrmanSABensonG (2001) Organizing for high performance: employee involvement. In: TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000: The CEO Report. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass.
43.
LeeCY (2012) Korean culture and its influence on business practice in South Korea. The Journal of International Management Studies7(2): 184–191.
44.
LockeEALathamGP (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
45.
LowiTJ (1972) Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review32(4): 298–310.
46.
LowiTJ (1979) The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. New York: W. W. Norton.
47.
LowiTJ (1985) The state in politics: the relation between policy and administration. Regulatory policy and the social sciences. Berkeley: University of California Press, 67–110.
48.
LumpkinGTDessGG (2001) Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing16(5): 429–451.
McDermottCMStockGN (1999) Organizational culture and advanced manufacturing technology implementation. Journal of Operations Management17(5): 521–533.
51.
McGuireM (2006) Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review66: 33–43.
52.
MeierKJ (1993) Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government. 3rd edition. San Francisco: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
53.
MillerDFriesenPH (1983) Strategy‐making and environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal4(3): 221–235.
54.
MoynihanDPPandeySK (2005) Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(3): 421–439.
55.
MoynihanDPPandeySKWrightBE (2012) Setting the table: how transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22(1): 143–164.
56.
NaorMGoldsteinSMLindermanKW, et al. (2008) The role of culture as driver of quality management and performance: infrastructure versus core quality practices. Decision Sciences39(4): 671–702.
57.
NazimAAhmadS (2013) A comparison between Ordinary Least Square (OLS) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) methods in estimating the influencial factors of 8th grades student’s mathematics achievement in Malaysia. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research4(7): 717–722.
58.
NewmanMA (1994) Gender and Lowi's thesis: implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review54: 277–284.
59.
O'ReillyCAChatmanJCaldwellDF (1991) People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal34(3): 487–516.
60.
OhSSLewisGB (2009) Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically motivated employees?Review of Public Personnel Administration29(2): 158–167.
61.
OngaroETantardiniM (2023). Religion and Public Administration: An Introduction. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
62.
O’SullivanERasselG (1995) Research Methods for Public Administrators. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
63.
OuchiWG (1980) Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly25: 129–141.
64.
PandeySKGarnettJL (2006) Exploring public sector communication performance: testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review66(1): 37–51.
65.
PandeySKMoynihanDP (2006) Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: testing the moderating role of culture and political support. In: BoyneGAMeierKJO’TooleLJ, et al. (eds) Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 130–151.
66.
PandeySKCourseyDHMoynihanDP (2007) Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: a multimethod study. Public Performance and Management Review30(3): 398–425.
67.
ParkerRBradleyL (2000) Organisational culture in the public sector: evidence from six organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management13(2): 125–141.
68.
PatelPCCardonMS (2010) Adopting HRM practices and their effectiveness in small firms facing product‐market competition. Human Resource Management49(2): 265–290.
69.
PerrowC (1973) A framework for comparative analysis of organizations. In: KastFERosenzweigJE (eds) Contingent Views of Organization and Management. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
70.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJYPodsakoffNP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
71.
ProvanKGKenisP (2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(2): 229–252.
72.
QuinnRERohrbaughJ (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science29(3): 363–377.
73.
QuinnRESpreitzerGM (1991) The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Research in Organizational Change and Development5: 115–142.
74.
RadinBA (2006) Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
75.
RaineyHG (2003) Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. 3rd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
76.
RhodesRAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies44(4): 652–667.
77.
RipleyRBFranklinGA (1991) Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
78.
SamaLMPapamarcosSD (2000) Hofstede's IC dimension as predictive of allocative behaviors: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Value-Based Management13: 173–188.
79.
SandfortJR (2000) Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(4): 729–756.
80.
ScheinEH (2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
81.
SeldenSCSowaJE (2004) Testing a multi-dimensional model of organizational performance: prospects and problems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 395–416.
82.
SouthertonDG (2008) More thoughts on Korean business and popular culture: volume 2. Bridging Culture Publications Von Gilnow, MA, Huo.
83.
SpitzerRS (1983) The Presidency and Public Policy. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
84.
StazykECGoerdelHT (2011) The benefits of bureaucracy: public managers’ perceptions of political support, goal ambiguity, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(4): 645–672.
85.
StockGNMcFaddenKLGowenCRIII (2007) Organizational culture, critical success factors, and the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal of Production Economics106(2): 368–392.
86.
StokerG (2006) Public value management: a new narrative for networked governance?The American Review of Public Administration36(1): 41–57.
87.
TaylorJ (2014) Organizational culture and the paradox of performance management. Public Performance and Management Review38(1): 7–22.
88.
ThompsonJD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
89.
VenAHVDDelbecqALKoenigR (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review41: 322–338.
90.
WanousJPHudyMJ (2001) Single-item reliability: a replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods4(4): 361–375.
91.
WanousJPReichersAEHudyMJ (1997) Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures?Journal of Applied Psychology82(2): 247–252.
92.
WildavskyAB (1979) Speaking Truth to Power. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
93.
WoodwardJ (1965) Industrial Organization: Theory & Practice. London: Oxford Univ.
94.
YuklG (1998) Leadership in Organizations. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
95.
ZammutoRFKrakowerJY (1991) Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development5: 83–114.
