Thesis 1

THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF
SERVICE DELIVERY
By
Marlene J. Phillips
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Nova Southeastern University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3197585
Copyright 2006 by
Phillips, Marlene J.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3197585
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Dissertation
Entitled

SERVICE DELIVERY
By
Marlene J. Phillips
We hereby certify this Dissertation submitted by Marlene J. Phillips conforms to acceptable

standards, and as such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is therefore approved as the
fulfillment of the Dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business
Administration.
Approved:
Sabrina Segal, D.B.A. Date

Chair
\ 'j 1
Terrell Manyak,
Manvak. Ph.D. 0 Date
Committee Member
t o Dt*c»'7ia p i
A
f
Ti D
,
D
\D-j\
Robert Preziosi, D.P.A. Date
Committee Member
Russell Date
ams
J.^PestoiTJones,D.B.A. Date
sociate Dean, H. Wayne Huizenga School of
business and Entrepreneurship

2005
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language o f others
is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have
used the language, ideas, expressions or writings of another.
Signed i/t/^ fU s\ ( A
Marlene J. Phillips
ABSTRACT

SERVICE DELIVERY
By
Marlene J. Phillips
Over the years the perceived level of service provided by the public sector in Jamaica has
deteriorated and the level o f citizen satisfaction has declined substantially. To address this
situation, the Jamaican government has undertaken a major reorganization of the public
sector through a modernization program. This program is geared primarily to improve
service quality delivery through the establishment o f a performance culture in the public
sector {Government at Your Service, 2003). The study was conducted at the organizational
level of analysis and used two models, SERVQUAL and the Competing Values Framework
(CVF), that have both been applied to the public sector in previous research.
The purpose of this research was, first, to advance the understanding of organizational
culture and perceived service quality delivery in a public sector context; second, to provide
empirical evidence of the relationship between organizational culture and service quality;
third, to identify the organizational culture types present and determine whether a dominant
culture type exists in the public sector; fourth, to determine whether an organizational culture
type influences the quality of service delivery; and fifth, to determine if there is a difference
in the perceptions and expectations o f service quality delivery between customers of central
government and executive agency public sector entities.
The findings from this study should serve to assist government and public sector
managers in developing an understanding o f how organizational culture impacts the
perceived quality of service delivery and the resulting implications. Specifically, exploration
of this relationship should appeal to practitioners as well as academics since it provides
empirical data and expands the body of knowledge of service quality and organizational
culture in Jamaica and should prove instructive for other developing countries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express sincere appreciation to faculty, administrative staff, family,
friends and colleagues who provided support, guidance and encouragement during the pursuit
of my doctoral studies. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Sabrina
Segal, my dissertation Chair. Her faith in my ability and her continued support, guidance and
encouragement allowed me to make steady progress. She was more than a Chair as she
enquired of me continuously, especially when the various hurricanes threatened or even
ravished my island. I really appreciated those cards and words o f encouragement.
My committee members, Dr. Terrell Manyak and Dr. Robert Preziosi, many thanks
for your support and encouragement. Dr. Manyak, you were God-sent. I especially want to
thank you for your thoroughness as you reviewed the various versions of my dissertation,
resulting in major improvements in the quality of the final product. Many thanks to Dr.
Robert Preziosi who was most instrumental in my putting together the best dissertation
committee that one could ever hope for.
My husband Dwight, daughter Marcene, mother Joyce and brother Howard; your
unconditional love, continued support and encouragement made this journey not only
possible but also worthwhile.
Above all, I thank God for the successful completion of this journey, which was only
possible through His grace and mercy. To God be the glory.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1.....................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
Background o f the problem ....................................................................................................... 1
Purpose o f the study...................................................................................................................3
Theoreticalframework.............................................................................................................. 4
Statement o f the problem ........................................................................................................... 9
Research questions..................................................................................................................... 9
Research hypotheses..................................................................................................................9
Justification o f the study.......................................................................................................... 11
Definition o f terms.................................................................................................................... 13
Scope of the study..................................................................................................................... 14
Summary....................................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER II................................................................................................................................. 16
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................16
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 16
Overview....................................................................................................................................16
Historical perspective o f quality............................................................................................. 17
Definitions o f service quality...................................................................................................18
Service quality theories........................................................................................................... 18
Service quality models..............................................................................................................19
Measurement instruments o f service quality......................................................................... 22
Characteristics o f service quality in the public sector.......................................................... 23
Application o f SERVQUAL in the public sector....................................................................24
Perspectives on SERVQUAL.................................................................................................. 27
History o f culture and organizational culture....................................................................... 28
Definition(s) o f culture............................................................................................................ 29
Definitions o f organizational culture..................................................................................... 31
Typologies o f organizational culture..................................................................................... 34
Public sector organizational culture...................................................................................... 37
Application o f the competing values framework (CVF) in the public sector....................... 39
Perspectives on the competing values framework................................................................ 45
Service quality and organizational culture............................................................. 47
Summary................................................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER III...............................................................................................................................49
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 49
Introduction..............................................................................................................................49
Population................................................................................................................................49
Sample.......................................................................................................................................50
The variables.............................................................................................................................50
The independent variable.................................................................................................... 50
vi
The dependent variable........................................................................................................51
Relationship o f variables..................................................................................................... 51
Surveys.......................................................................................................................................53
Service quality...................................................................................................................... 54
Organizational culture.........................................................................................................56
Demographic information.......................................................................................................58
Research Design...................................................................................................................... 58
Data collection procedure.......................................................................................................58
Reliability and validity o f the survey instruments..................................................................60
Reliability o f the instruments...............................................................................................60
Validity o f the instruments................................................................................................... 61
Internal validity o f the study................................................................................................... 62
External validity o f the study.................................................................................................. 62
Ethical issues in the study........................................................................................................62
Pilot study................................................................................................................................. 63
Research questions and working hypotheses......................................................................... 63
Research questions...............................................................................................................63
Research hypotheses............................................................................................................ 64
Data analysis and strategy......................................................................................................68
Values and key limits............................................................................................................... 68
Limitations................................................................................................................................ 69
Rationale for hypothesis testing.............................................................................................. 69
Hypothesis 1..........................................................................................................................69
Hypothesis 2..........................................................................................................................70
Hypothesis 3..........................................................................................................................71
Hypothesis 3A....................................................................................................................... 71
Hypothesis 3B....................................................................................................................... 72
Hypothesis 3C ...................................................................................................................... 73
Hypothesis 3D.......................................................................................................................73
Hypotheses 4 - 6 ...................................................................................................................74
CHAPTER IV ...............................................................................................................................77
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS............................................................. 77
Introduction..............................................................................................................................77
Descriptive statistics............................................................................................................... 78
Customer demographics...................................................................................................... 79
Employee demographics...................................................................................................... 83
Characteristics o f the distribution..........................................................................................88
Tests of normality..................................................................................................................... 88
Data analysis and instrument evaluation...............................................................................88
Instrument Reliability...........................................................................................................88
Instrument Validity...............................................................................................................90
Test o f hypotheses....................................................................................................................95
Hypothesis 1..........................................................................................................................95
Hypothesis 2..........................................................................................................................99
Hypotheses 3A - 3D........................................................................................................... 106
Hypothesis 3A..................................................................................................................... 108
vii
Hypothesis 3B..................................................................................................................... 109
Hypothesis 3C .................................................................................................................... I l l
Hypothesis 3D.....................................................................................................................112
Hypothesis 4........................................................................................................................114
Hypothesis 5........................................................................................................................117
Hypothesis 6........................................................................................................................120
Summary................................................................................................................................. 126
CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................................. 127
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................127
Summary o f major findings and discussion o f results......................................................... 127
Hypothesis 1........................................................................................................................128
Hypothesis 2........................................................................................................................129
Hypotheses 3A to 3D.......................................................................................................... 130
Hypothesis 4........................................................................................................................131
Hypothesis 5........................................................................................................................132
Hypothesis 6................................................ 133
Interpretation of results......................................................................................................... 134
Academic and managerial implications o f the study............................................................136
Limitations o f the study......................................................................................................... 137
Direction for future research................................................................................................ 138
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 140
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 142
Permission To Use Survey Instruments................................................................................... 142
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 145
Comparative Public Sector Servqual Results...........................................................................145
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 148
Comparative Studies Using The Competing Values Framework........................................... 148
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................. 151
Survey Instruments And Permission Letters............................................................................151
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................. 167
Histograms...................................................................................................................................167
APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................................. 174
Normal Probability (Q-Q Plot)..................................................................................................174
APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................................. 192
Correlations For Perceptions, Expectations And Organizational Culture.............................. 192
APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................................. 196
Communalities For Perceptions, Expectations And Organizational Culture Using Oblimin
Rotation.......................................................................................................................................196
APPENDIX 1 ..............................................................................................................................200
Total Variances Explained For Perceptions, Expectations And Organizational Culture 200
APPENDIX J ..............................................................................................................................204
Scree Plot for Perceptions, Expectations and Organizational Culture................................... 204
APPENDIX K .............................................................................................................................206
Structure Matrix Using Oblimin With Kaiser Normalization for Perceptions, Expectations
and Organizational Culture........................................................................................................206
REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 210
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1 Definitions o f Organizational C ulture.................................................................33

Table 2 Typologies o f Organizational C ulture.................................................................35
Table 3 Approaches to Organizational Culture and Corresponding Measurement
Instruments............................................................................................................. 37
Table 4 Distribution o f customers by organization.......................................................... 79
Table 5 Distribution o f customers by gender....................................................................79
Table 6 Distribution o f customers by age group.............................................................. 80
Table 7 Distribution o f customers by highest educational levelachieved..................... 81
Table 8 Distribution o f customers by employment status............................................... 82
Table 9 Distribution o f employees by organization.........................................................83
Table 10 Distribution o f employees by gender...................................................................83
Table 11 Distribution o f employees by age group............................................................. 84
Table 12 Distribution o f employees by highest educational levelachieved.................... 85
Table 13 Distribution o f employees by years with current employer..............................86
Table 14 Distribution o f employees by current position....................................................87
Table 15 Cronbach’s Alpha o f employee organizational culture.................................... 89
Table 16 Cronbach’s Alpha o f customer service quality.................................................. 89
Table 17 Correlation o f Service quality dimensions and organizational culture
dim ensions............................................................................................................. 98
Table 18 Organizational culture types Descriptive Statistics.........................................100
Table 19 Organizational Culture Type A N O V A ..............................................................102
Table 20 Organizational Culture Type T -test................................................................... 104
Table 21 Highest Mean Scores on the Organizational Culture Dimensions for Central
Government and Executive A gency................................................................. 105
Table 22 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient for Service quality dimensions and
organizational culture ty p es...............................................................................107
Table 23 Analysis o f Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Clan culture type...
................................................................................................................................ 109
Table 24 Analysis o f Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Adhocracy culture
type.........................................................................................................................110
Table 25 Analysis o f Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Market culture type
112
Table 26 Analysis o f Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Hierarchy culture
type.........................................................................................................................113
Table 27 Customers’ Perceived Service Quality by Organization ANOVA and
Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................... 116
Table 28 Customer’s Mean Perception o f Service Quality Dimensions by Organization
................................................................................................................................ 117
Table 29 Customers’ Expected Service Quality by Organization ANOVA and
Table 30 Customer’s Mean Expectation o f Service Quality Dimensions by
Organization......................................................................................................... 120
ix
Table 31 Customers’ Service Quality Gap by organizational type ANOVA and
Table 32 T-test for Customers’ Service Quality Gap by organizational type 123
Table 33 Customer’s Mean Gap Score o f Service Quality Dimensions by Organization
................................................................................................................................ 124
Table 34 Summary o f Hypotheses Testing........................................................................125
Table 35 Comparative SERVQUAL results for public sector entities.......................... 131
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1 Customer Assessment o f Service Quality............................................................. 6

Figure 2 Service Quality D im ensions................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 Organizational Culture Types.................................................................................8
Figure 4 Gronroos Service Quality M odel......................................................................... 20
Figure 5 Conceptual Model o f Service Quality................................................................. 21
Figure 6 Levels o f Culture and Their Interaction.............................................................. 30
Figure 7 The Competing Values Framework.....................................................................39
Figure 8 A Model o f Organizational Culture Types & D im ensions.............................. 41
Figure 9 Conceptualization o f the Relationship between Service Quality and
Organizational Culture..........................................................................................52
Figure 10 Graphical Representation o f Organizational Culture Types for Central
Government, Executive Agency and Overall Public Service........................101
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The perceived level o f service provided by the public sector in Jamaica has
deteriorated and the level of citizen satisfaction has declined substantially. This chapter
presents a background of the problem, purpose and theoretical framework of the study,
statement of the research problem and research questions. It sets out the justification for the
study, provides a definition o f terms and discusses the scope of the study.
This study will be undertaken using the service quality instrument (SERVQUAL),
developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988). Organizational culture will be
assessed using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by
Cameron and Quinn (1999) based on the competing values framework. This study’s findings
are intended to contribute to improved service delivery in the public sector. It should also
contribute to the body o f knowledge by providing empirical evidence of the impact of
organizational culture on the quality of perceived service delivery in the Jamaican public
sector as most studies on service quality and organizational culture are centered
predominantly on developed countries (United States, United Kingdom and Australia). The
study of these constructs in a Jamaican context should contribute to a more useful
understanding of developing countries or island economies.
Background of the problem
Organizations worldwide have shifted their focus to making service quality a priority
based on the assumption that superior service quality is the key to gaining a competitive
advantage (Berry, 1995; Black, Briggs & Keogh, 2001). In the public sector Younis (1997)
2
argued that general public dissatisfaction exists with the quality and range of services being
offered. A similar perception is expressed in the Caribbean and documented in the World
Bank (1996) report on Public Sector Modernization in the Caribbean:
People in the Caribbean feel that they are not getting adequate service from the public
sector. They see the need for a mind shift in the public sector, a change of mental
objectives from preventing to enabling. Most governments have already undertaken
some reforms o f the public sector, but they still recognize the need to improve the
quality of service, (p.xi)
The World Bank report clearly linked perceived service quality with organizational
culture in the public sector, the focus of this research problem. Jamaica is no exception.
Researchers investigating the levels of service delivery o f the Jamaican workers found the
effects of slavery, exploitation and colonialism pervasive in the organizational culture of
Jamaica and the attitude toward work within the Jamaican labor force should not be
underestimated (Stone, 1986; Thompson, 1989). Furthermore, it is posited that
organizational culture explains the differences in perception of organizations operating in the
same national culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982 and Schein, 1990, cited in Lim 1995). A study
of the relationship between organizational culture and perceived service delivery in the
Jamaican public sector is, therefore, both timely and relevant since research on the
relationship between culture and service quality is sparse and focuses on national culture
(Donthu & Yoo, 1998; Furrer, Liu & Suharshan, 2000; Liu, Furrer & Sudharshan, 2001;
Mattila, 1999; Tsikriktsis, 2002; Winsted, 1997).
Like many countries, Jamaica embarked on a comprehensive public sector reform
program geared primarily towards improved service delivery through the establishment of a
performance culture in the public sector (Government at Your Service, 2003). Empirical
findings (Bissessar, 2001) and the Orane Report (1999) serve to confirm the dysfunctional
nature of the public sector. In addition, changes in the public sector worldwide to being
3
customer focused are also influential in the new paradigm of public sector management
adopted by the Jamaican government (Davis, 1999; Government at Your Service, 2003).
The Honorable P. J. Patterson, Prime Minister of Jamaica, reinforced the need for
improved public service delivery and performance in Jamaica at the launch o f the Citizen's
Charter in December 1994. The objective of the Charter was to support a functional and
efficient public service that met the needs of its customers (The Citizen's Charter, 1995).
Prime Minister Patterson stressed that achieving this objective required building an
organizational culture that challenged employees and recognized and rewarded them when
they did. It also required a change in how Jamaican public sector managers viewed
employees. Accordingly, in 1996, under the World Bank Structural Adjustment Program, the
government of Jamaica embarked on public sector reform with a mandate to agencies with
responsibility for executing governmental policies and programs to improve customer
service, achieve cost efficiency, strengthen policy capacity and reduce waste.
Given the vision o f the Jamaican government for a 21st century public sector
{Government at Your Service, 2003), and the establishment in the literature o f the importance
of organizational culture, it is therefore expedient to develop an understanding of the
relationship between organizational culture and the quality o f perceived service delivery in
the public sector. Further, given the extensive nature of reforms being undertaken in this
sector and the vast sums of money being expended, it would be beneficial to know
specifically if, within the public sector, there is indeed an organizational culture type that
correlates with a positive service quality experience.
Purpose o f the study
To address the deterioration in public sector service delivery, the Jamaican
government has undertaken a major reorganization o f the public sector through a
4
modernization program. The purpose of this research is, first, to advance the understanding
of organizational culture and perceived service quality delivery in a public sector context;
second, to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between organizational culture and
service quality; third, to identify the organizational culture types present and determine
whether a dominant culture type exists in the public sector; fourth, to determine whether an
organizational culture type influences the quality of service delivery; and fifth, to determine
if there is a difference in the perceptions and expectations o f service quality delivery between
customers of central government and executive agency public sector entities.
Researchers contend that an organization’s culture can either be its strength or its
weakness (Crow & Hartman, 2002). Therefore, empirical understanding of organizational
culture in the public sector could contribute to improved services and help to assess the
effectiveness of current strategies. The literature implies that organizational culture presents
challenges to change initiatives, and that the public sector is no exception. Therefore,
undertaking this research is not only imperative, but it is also timely given current
happenings in the Jamaican public sector.
Theoreticalframework
The theoretical foundation for this study is based on two streams of literature; the
theory of service quality and the theory of organizational culture. The theory of service
quality used in this study is based on the seminal work of Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry
(1985) in which they posited ten dimensions as the criteria customers used to assess service
quality and four key factors that influenced customers’ expectations (Figure 1). The
dimensions used in this study are based on a modified five dimensional model o f service
quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
5
Parasuraman et al. (1985) theory o f service quality is based on the assumption that
the overall assessment of service quality is a direct relationship between customer
expectations and customer perceptions of service quality. They defined service quality as the
difference between customer expectations of an ideal service and their perceptions of the
service quality actually received. Represented by the equation:
Service Quality Score = Perception Score (P) minus Expectation Score (E)
that is, SQ = P - E
6
Dimensions o f service Word of Personal Past External

quality: mouth Needs Experience Communications
■ Tangibles
■ Reliability
■ Responsiveness
■ Competence
Expected
■ Courtesy
Service
■ Credibility
Perceived Service
■ Security
Quality
■ Access
■ Communication Perceived
■ Understanding the Service
customer
Figure 1 Customer Assessment o f Service Quality

From Delivering Quality Service, (p. 23), by Valerie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman and Leonard Berry, 1990, New York: The
Free Press. Copyright 1990 by The Free Press.
7
This study measures service quality using SERVQUAL, an instrument consisting of
22-items for measuring service quality gaps. The service quality gaps between customers’
expectations and perceptions are measured along the five quality dimensions (tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy). Figure 2.
Tangibles
Reliability
Service Quality Responsiveness

Dimensions
Assurance
Empathy
Figure 2 Service Quality Dimensions
This study uses the competing values framework o f organizational culture to
determine public sector organizational culture. Developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981,
1983), this framework was used initially to determine the major indicators o f effective
organizations. The competing values framework of organizational culture is based on four
distinct culture types namely, clan (group) culture, adhocracy (developmental) culture,
hierarchical (bureaucratic) culture and market (rational) culture. The organizational culture
types are illustrated in Figure 3.
8
Clan
Adhocracy
f Organizational
I Culture Types )
Hierarchy
Market
Figure 3 Organizational Culture Types
The competing values framework has been used to explore organizational culture
(Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Kimberly, 1984); cultural congruence (Cameron & Freeman, 1991);
organizational culture types (Desphpande, Farley, & Webster, 1993); leadership,
effectiveness and organization theory (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) and organizational
effectiveness (Zammuto, Gifford & Goodman, 2000).
The competing values model of organizational culture types used in this study was
adapted from Quinn and Kimberly (1984); Cameron and Freeman (1991); Denison and
Spreitzer (1991); Deshpande et al.(1993) and Cameron and Quinn (1999). This model was
selected for use based on the ability of the competing values framework to measure the
constructs found in organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Also, the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn
(1999) that will be used to diagnose the culture types of public sector entities is a validated,
easy to use instrument.
9
Statement of the problem
This study seeks to address the problem of deteriorating service delivery in the
Jamaican public sector by focusing on the impact of organizational culture on the quality of
perceived service delivery in this sector.
Research questions
This study is designed to provide answers to the following research questions: Is
there a relationship between organizational culture and the quality of perceived service
delivery? Can organizational culture types classify public sector entities? Specifically,
within the public sector, is there a dominant organizational culture type? Do organizational
culture types influence the quality of service delivery? Finally, is there a difference in the
perceptions and expectations o f service quality between customers of central government and
executive agency public sector entities?
Research hypotheses
These research questions led to the development of the following research
hypotheses. To test the relationship between organizational culture and service quality the
following hypothesis is postulated:
Hypothesis l(H ai): Among public sector entities there is a relationship
between organizational culture and the perceived
quality of service delivery.
10
To test if a dominant organizational culture type exists in the public sector, the following
hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 2(Ha2): Among public sector entities there is a dominant
organizational culture type.
To test if organizational culture types influence the quality of service delivery, the following
hypotheses are postulated:
Hypothesis 3A(na3.a): There is a difference in the importance that customers
of clan culture type public sector entities place on
reliability, assurance, responsiveness and empathy,
compared to tangibles.
Hypothesis 3B(Ha3.b): There is a difference in the importance that customers
of adhocracy culture type public sector entities place
on responsiveness, tangibles and reliability, compared
to assurance and empathy.
Hypothesis 3C(Ha3.c): There is a difference in the importance that customers
of market culture type public sector entities place on
tangibles, assurance, responsiveness and reliability,
compared to empathy.
Hypothesis 3D(na3.d): There is a difference in the importance that customers
of hierarchical culture type public sector entities place
on, empathy and assurance compared to reliability,
responsiveness and tangibles.
11
To test if there are differences in the perceptions and expectations of service quality between
customers o f central government and executive agency public sector entities, the following
hypotheses are developed:
Hypothesis 4(Ha4): There are differences in perceptions of service quality
between customers of central government and executive
agency public sector entities.
Hypothesis 5(Has): There are differences in expectations of service quality
Hypothesis 6(na6): There are differences in the gap between perceived and
expected service quality o f customers of central government
and executive agency public sector entities.
Justification o f the study
This study is designed to contribute to government leaders and public sector
managers developing an understanding of the impact of organizational culture on the quality
of perceived service delivery. The following factors justify the study:
12
■ Research is relatively sparse on the relationship of organizational culture with
perceived service delivery. This study should provide empirical data and expand
the body o f knowledge especially in relation to Jamaica and other island
economies.
■ Previous research efforts have highlighted the importance of public sector
operations and particularly its culture (Brown, Waterhouse & Flynn, 2003;
O’Donnell, 1996, 1998). This study should provide government leaders and
public sector managers with a better understanding of the impact of
organizational culture on public sector operations in Jamaica.
■ Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1990) identified the service sector as a major
growth industry. This observation is equally true for Jamaica (Economic and
Social Survey Jamaica, 2004). With service delivery as a means to gaining
competitive advantage (Black et al., 2001; Sin & Tse, 2000), the management and
evaluation of service delivery has become even more important to organizations.
■ The Jamaican government has identified continuous improvement in customer
service as a priority in the reform and modernization of the public sector. The
publication Government at Your Service (2003) enunciated the vision of a public
sector:
Organized around the needs of its customers, directly accountable to them

through guarantees of services which are of the highest quality,
accessible, convenient, easy to use, integrated, responsive, cost effective,
and which assure redress when things go wrong, (p.31)
13
Definition o f terms
1. Organizational Culture: An organizational culture is reflected in what is valued,
the dominant leadership styles, the language and symbols, the procedures and
routines, and the definitions of success that make an organization unique
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
2. The Competing Values Framework: Explores the competing demands within
organizations between their internal and external environments on the one hand
and between control and flexibility on the other (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991).
3. Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI): A quantitative instrument
for assessing six key dimensions of organizational culture according to four types
of organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
4. Organizational culture type: The specific kind of culture that is reflected in the
organization. In this study organizational culture is classified into clan (group)
culture, adhocracy (developmental) culture, hierarchical (bureaucratic) culture
and market (rational) culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
5. Dominant culture: The core values, assumptions, interpretations and approaches
that characterize an organization and are shared by a majority o f the
organization’s members (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
6. Service Quality: The difference between customer expectations of an ideal
service and their perceptions of the service quality actually received
(Parasuraman et al.,1995).
7. SERVQUAL: A quantitative instrument for measuring customers’ perceptions of
service quality according to five dimensions (Zeithaml et al.,1990).
14
8. Public Sector: Government organizations are traditionally associated with the
internal process (bureaucratic) model of organizational culture, characterized by
limited budgets, restrictive laws and regulations and the administration of rules
and formal processes. A new type of government entity, the executive agency
refers to central government agencies devolved to agencies with widened
accountability and demanding performance targets established by executive acts
or directives of government. For the purposes of this study public sector includes
both traditional public sector (central government) and newly formed executive
agencies.
9. Customer: The citizen/public that uses the service.
Scope of the study
This study focuses on customer perceptions and expectations of the quality of service
delivery in the public sector and its relationship with organizational culture. Except for
demographic variables, other variables that may impact the quality of perceived service
delivery are not considered in this study. The study uses the SERVQUAL instrument and is
limited to the five dimensions of service quality as postulated by Zeithaml et al. (1990). The
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) that is based on the
competing values framework is used to assess organizational culture. Accepting the general
validity o f both instruments this study proposes their use by public sector entities after
relevant modification and reliability testing.
As explained in detail in the next chapter, participants were selected based on their
accessibility. Relevant permissions were obtained and students attending post-secondary
institutions sensitized to the data collection exercise administered the questionnaires. Data
were collected over a six-week period.
15
Summary
This study examines the impact o f organizational culture on the quality of perceived
service delivery. It will do so by addressing several research questions. The conceptual
framework for this study is derived from Parasuraman et al. (1988) conceptualization of
service quality and Cameron and Quinn (1999) and Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983)
competing values model of organizational culture.
The chapter provides an introduction, the background o f the problem, purpose and
theoretical framework of the study, statement of the research problem and research questions,
the justification of the study, definition of terms, the scope o f the study and summary.
Chapter II, Review of the Literature, provides an overview, and discusses literature pertinent
to service quality and organizational culture. Chapter III, Methodology, provides an
overview, the rationale for the research design, describes the population and sample, research
design, research questions and hypotheses, instrument, data collection and analyses. Chapter
IV, Analysis and Presentation o f Findings, reports on the results o f the study. Chapter V,
Summary and Conclusions, discusses the study’s findings and interpretations, implications
and conclusions. References and appendices are included at the end of this document.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Andreassen (1995) in a study of dissatisfaction with public services noted that more
research is needed in the area of service quality. This study adds to the body of knowledge
by examining the impact of organizational culture on the quality of perceived service
delivery in the public sector. In reviewing literature deemed pertinent to the research topic
seminal works are identified in the area o f service quality and organizational culture based on
the competing values framework, thus providing the theoretical context for this study. The
review also examines studies that have been conducted utilizing SERVQUAL to analyze the
quality of service delivery and the Organizational Culture Assessment (OCAI) to analyze
organizational culture in the public sxector. Essentially, the literature shows the probable
impact of organizational culture on the quality of perceived service delivery in the public
sector and the implication of such an impact.
The first section of the chapter reviews the literature relevant to service quality. The
second section reviews the organizational culture literature. The third section provides a
synthesis of the literature by integrating organizational culture and service quality and offers
a conceptual framework and measurement method for the study.
Overview
Previous researchers established a relationship between the dimensions of national
culture and service quality dimensions (Donthu & Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000; Mattila,
1999; Tsikriktsis, 2002; Winsted, 1997). This study, however, seeks to extend the focus of
16
17
these studies by examining the impact of organizational culture on the quality of
perceived service delivery.
As the service sector in both developed and developing countries becomes dominant,
service providers try to position themselves to gain competitive advantage by focusing on the
quality of service delivered to customers (Brown & Swartz, 1989; O ’Neill & Palmer, 2001;
Parasuraman et al., 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1988; Sin & Tse, 2000). This position was
supported by the World Bank as public administrators in the Caribbean were encouraged to
change the status quo by providing good customer relations in order to improve the quality of
service delivered to customers and to maintain relevance ( World Bank Report, 1996).
However, researchers Ferlie, Ashbumer, FitzGerald and Pettigrew (1996) identified problems
associated with changes by the public sector to a more market orientation unless there are
corresponding changes in the values and beliefs of employees. To this end they encouraged
the inclusion o f culture as a variable for bringing about organizational reform. Furthermore,
Brown et al. (2003) argued that a change toward market orientation by the public sector
without consideration for culture has repeatedly led to unfavorable results. In this regard
developing countries like Jamaica should consider organizational culture and its specific
influence on the quality o f service delivered to customers as they pursue public sector
reforms.
Historical perspective o f quality
There are a variety o f definitions of quality that have evolved and varying
perspectives taken in developing a definition of quality. Reeves and Bednar (1994)
summarized these definitions of quality as value, conformance to specifications, conformance
to requirements, fitness for use, loss avoidance and meeting or exceeding customers’
expectations. Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml (1991) also suggested that distinguishing
18
both product quality and service quality was necessary in understanding quality. They used
the characteristics of intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability, and perishability as the basis
for their position.
Definitions o f service quality
Researchers agree that service quality is difficult to define and measure (Lewis &
Mitchell, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Wisniewski, 2001). Gronroos (1984) defined
service quality as a perceived judgment resulting from an evaluation process where
customers compare their expectations with the service they perceive as having been received.
Gronroos (2001) later defined service quality as a mixture of three elements, that is, the
quality of the consumption process itself; the quality of the outcomes of the process; and
image of the provider of the service. The seminal work, o f Parasuraman et al. (1985)
established perceived service quality as the difference between customers’ expectations of an
ideal service and their perceptions of the service actually received from a specific service
provider. Despite the variety of definitions, service quality has most commonly been defined
as the extent to which the service meets customer needs or expectations (Dotchin & Oakland,
1994; Lewis and Mitchell, 1990; Wisniewski, 2001; Wisniewski & Donnelly, 1996). This
research will utilize the definition of perceived service quality posited by Parasuraman et al.
(1985) since it is easily understood and there is an already validated and reliable instrument
(SERVQUAL) for measuring service quality.
Service quality theories
According to Brady and Cronin (2001) the foundation o f service quality theory lies in
the product quality and consumer satisfaction literature. A review of pertinent literature
revealed that initial research on service quality centered primarily on the identification o f its
19
dimensions (Gronroos, 1982, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). Subsequent research
efforts, however, focused on the development o f measurement instruments of service quality
(Athanassopoulos, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1992, 1994; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
The work of Rust and Oliver (1994) advanced a 3-dimension model: the service
product, the service delivery and the service environment, while Dabholkar, Thorpe and
Rentz (1996) advanced a multilevel model: customers’ overall perceptions of service quality,
primary dimensions and sub-dimensions. On the other hand, Ovretveit (1991) posited three
categories of quality in public service organizations: namely, client quality - what consumers
want from the service; professional quality - appropriate techniques and procedures, and
finally, management quality - efficient and productive use of resources. However, the
‘Nordic’ perspective (Gronroos, 1982, 1984) that defines the dimensions of service quality as
consisting of functional and technical quality and the ‘American’ perspective (Parasuraman
et al., 1988) that uses five dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance and
tangibles) to describe service characteristics remain the most commonly used measures of
service quality.
Service quality models
Two major conceptualization of service quality that will be considered in this study
are Gronroos and Parasuraman models. The Gronroos (1982) model of service quality
(Figure 4) has three dimensions:
■ Functional quality - the process of service delivery or how the service is
performed and delivered.
■ Technical quality - what consumers actually receive.
■ Image - the firm and its resources as seen by the consumer during the buyer-seller
interaction.
20
Expected Service Perceived Service Perceived Service

Quality
Image
Technical Quality Functional Quality
Figure 4 Gronroos Service Quality Model

From A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications, byGroonroos, 1984,
European Journal o f Marketing, 18(4), p. 40.
In contrast, Parasuraman et al. (1985) developed a ten dimensional service quality
model that was subsequently reduced to five dimensions (tangibles, reassurance,
responsiveness, reliability, empathy). The researchers identified five service quality gaps
illustrated in Figure 5: customer expectations, management’s perceptions, service quality
specifications, service delivery and customers perceived service quality.
21
CONSUMER
Word o f Mouth Personal Needs Past

Communications Experience
Expected Service
GAP 5
Perceived Service
PROVIDER
GAP 4
Service Delivery External
Communications to
Consumers
GAP 3
GAP 1 Service Quality

Specifications
GAP 2
Management Perceptions
of Consumer
Expectations
Figure 5 Conceptual Model of Service Quality
From Delivering Quality Service, (p. 46), by Valerie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman and
Leonard Berry, 1990, New York: The Free Press. Copyright 1990 by The Free Press.
22
Gap 1 - The gap between consumer’s expectations and those perceived by
management to be the consumer’s expectations.
Gap 2 - The gap between management’s perceptions of consumer’s expectations and
the firm’s service quality specification.
Gap 3 - The gap between service quality specifications and service delivery.
Gap 4 - The gap between service delivery and external communication to consumers.
Gap 5 - The gap between perceived service and expected service delivered.
This research utilizes Parasuraman et al. (1985) perspective of service quality and focuses on
gap 5, since it addresses issues of interest to the researcher, that is, the difference between
expected service and perceived service delivered to customers.
Measurement instruments o f service quality
The ‘abstract’ and ‘elusive’ nature of service quality is part of the challenge faced by
researchers in establishing a single measurement instrument (Athanassopoulos, 2000; Brady
& Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Consequently, researchers have used conjoint
analysis (Carman, 2000; Danaher, 1997); critical incident technique (Johnston, 1997); quality
function deployment (Lam & Zhao, 1998; Sahney, Banwet & Karunes, 2003); and
SERVQUAL (Brysland and Curry, 2001; Donnelly, Wisniewski, Dalrymple & Curry 1995;
Wisniewski, 2001) to measure service quality. Yet, the SERVQUAL instrument remains the
most widely used measure o f service quality and there is general agreement as to the
relevance of the dimensions of SERVQUAL in determining service quality (Sivadas &
Baker-Prewitt, 2000; Wong & Sohal, 2002).
23
Characteristics o f service quality in the public sector
Drucker (1980) noted that typical public sector characteristics, such as, the lack of
clear performance target and an unwillingness to abandon programs, made adapting quality
management a difficult task. Later, Deming (1986) identified similar problems, namely, the
lack of vision, an emphasis on short-term thinking, the negative effects of performance
evaluation and the increase of non-value adding costs. These characteristics are just as
relevant to the public sector in the 21st century. The public sector is also characterized in
recent times by the adoption o f Charters (Younis, 1997). Charters are intended to encourage
quality in the delivery of public sector services. Rowley (1998) describes them as statements
made to the public about the standards of service they have the right to expect. Charters
include, but are not limited to, Citizen’s Charter, the Benefits Agency Charter, the Job
Seeker’s Charter, the Passenger’s Charter and the Parent’s Charter (Rowley, 1998; Younis,
1997).
The public sector also continues to be characterized by homogeneity o f the services
provided (Curry & Herbert, 1998; Donnelly, 1999; Rowley, 1998; Younis, 1997). Other
characteristics of the public sector include collectivity and complexity. Collectivity is the
provision of services based on the need to address a social good (Donnelly, 1999).
Complexity arises from the need to balance conflicting needs of individuals, including, the
wider public, and the political directorate, as well as the need to achieve greater cost-
effectiveness and social outcomes (Curry & Herbert, 1998; Donnelly, 1999; Rowley, 1998;
Younis, 1997). Bureaucracy is also a characteristic of the public sector (Brown et al., 2003;
Claver, Llopis, Gasco, Molina & Conca, 1999; Coram and Bumes, 2001). This longstanding
characteristic which was intended to be a positive characteristic (Brown et al., 2003), is now
commonly associated with lack of market competition, inefficiency, political self-interest and
unresponsiveness (Brown et al., 2003; Yeatman, 1998). The foregoing characteristics of the
24
public sector still obtain and typify most public sectors, including those in Jamaica. They
also tend to influence the quality of service delivered to customers.
Application o f SERVQUAL in the public sector
According to Gaster (1995) service provision in the public sector is the ability to
strike the balance o f needs, whether expressed or unexpressed, setting priorities, resource
allocation, and accountability. While data on the application of SERVQUAL in the public
sector is relatively sparse, recent studies (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999;
Donnelly et al., 1995; Orwig, Pearson & Cochran, 1997; Wisniewski, 2001; Wisniewski &
Donnelly, 1996) provide data that may be used in assessing the quality o f service delivered
based on customers’ expectations and or perceptions.
The work of Donnelly et al. (1995) provided a theoretical discourse on the
measurement of service quality in local government using the SERVQUAL approach. Their
research was influential in outlining how some features of local government might affect the
assessment o f service quality delivery. Orwig et al. (1997) also investigated the applicability
of the SERVQUAL instrument in a public sector environment and hypothesized that
SERVQUAL’s reliability and validity would be the same if service quality is viewed in a
similar manner by both private and public sector. They recommended further research to
determine if SERVQUAL was specific to the organization or symptomatic o f the public
sector.
Within the domain o f the public sector, Curry and Herbert (1998) identified
SERVQUAL as a tool for measuring service quality using the dimensions o f tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. They identified five service quality gaps
as being specific to the public sector:
25
Gap 1- Customer expectations versus management perceptions as a result o f lack o f a
marketing research orientation, inadequate upward communication and too
many layers o f management.
Gap 2- Management perceptions versus service specifications as a result of
inadequate commitment to service quality, perception of unfeasibility,
inadequate task standardization and an absence o f goal setting.
Gap 3- Service specification versus service delivery as a result o f role ambiguity and
conflict, poor employee-job fit, and poor technology-job fit, inappropriate
supervisory control systems, lack of perceived control and lack o f teamwork.
Gap 4- Service delivery versus external communications as a result of inadequate
horizontal communications and a propensity to over-promise.
Gap 5- Customer expectations versus customer perceptions of the service delivered
as a result o f the influences exerted from the customer side and the gaps on
the part of the service provider.
Donnelly and Shiu (1999) provided another perspective using a modified
SERVQUAL instrument to study the responsiveness of a UK local authority’s housing
repairs service. Specifically, the study focused on the quality of service delivery and the
correlation with value for money. Donnelly and Shiu (1999) incorporated feedback from the
pilot study conducted into the final instrument that was administered. They used the five
service quality dimensions and based their research on the assumption that the quality of
service experienced by customers was determined by the gap between their expectations of
the service and their perceptions of what they actually received. The results of the study
indicated that, overall, customers’ expectations of the service being provided were not being
met. Consistent with other research, the reliability dimension was found to be the most
26
important element of service quality (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
The results also indicated that the service performed poorest in the dimensions of reliability
and responsiveness.
Brysland and Curry (2001) used two service cases (catering and grounds
maintenance) to illustrate the use of the SERVQUAL instrument to improve both process
management and strategic planning in the UK North Lanarkshire Council. They examined
SERVQUAL as a measurement tool and the findings suggested that the gaps identified could
aid in prioritizing service developments and form the basis for future service developments.
In another study Wisniewski (2001) utilized a modified SERVQUAL questionnaire
developed specifically for each service to conduct pilot studies across a range of Scottish
Council services. The pilot studies assessed customer satisfaction with public sector services
in catering services, building control, development control, grounds maintenance, housing
repairs, leisure services and library services. The study examined the diagnostic
characteristics of the SERVQUAL instrument and its use in facilitating the continuous
improvement of councils.
Wisniewski (2001) identified seven ways in which SERVQUAL results could be
used to help services identify areas for performance improvement:
1. To enable the service manager to assess current service and quantify gaps that
exist.
2. To provide an overall understanding of the relative importance of the five service
dimensions from the customer’s perspective in terms of an individual service and
across different services.
3. To compare different customer groups
4. To allow comparisons across different parts of the same service on a geographical
basis.
27
5. To understand the internal customer.
6. To compare different or similar services
7. To allow action to be taken to close significant gaps in service provision.
From the literature review common findings of researchers include use of
SERVQUAL as a diagnostic tool o f service quality (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Donnelly et al.,
1995; Wisniewski, 2001). Researchers contend that SERVQUAL may be used in the public
sector provided the instrument is tailored to the context in which it is to be applied (Brysland
& Curry, 2001; Curry, 1999; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999). Given the complexity of the public
sector, several researchers expressed the view that despite SERVQUAL’s utility it should not
be the only method used to determine needs, expectations and perceptions o f customers
(Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Wisniewski, 2001). Furthermore, most studies concluded that
further research was needed and the application of SERVQUAL in the public sector should
be based on rigorously tested and validated models. The findings and conclusions of these
studies are applicable to the Jamaican situation and are influential in this research
methodology.
Perspectives on SERVQUAL
According to Buttle (1996), criticisms of SERVQUAL exist on both theoretical and
operational grounds. Researchers who have found between six and eight dimensions have
challenged the validity of the five dimensions on which the SERVQUAL instruments is
based. They also argue that the SERVQUAL instrument tends to be both industry and
country specific (Asubonteng, McCleary, & Swan, 1996; Carman, 1990). In addition,
Donnelly and Dalrymple (1996) found that the SERVQUAL dimensions seemed to be more
appropriate for those services that had a direct relation to payment for and receipt of services.
28
The perception-expectations approach has also been challenged. While Babakus and
Boiler (1992) and Carman (1990) argue that the perception-expectation approach provides no
additional information and should be combined into a single scale, Parasuraman, et al. (1991)
defend their approach by stating that the perceptions-expectations approach provided ‘richer’
information than those that focused on perceptions only. In addition, the perception-
expectation approach has been used consistently in public sector research.
In summary, the literature review revealed a paucity of empirical studies dealing
specifically with SERVQUAL and the public sector. The common factors in the studies
examined were complexity in the operations of the public sector and the need for
modification of the measurement instrument to the context. Nonetheless, the studies
confirmed the applicability of SERVQUAL for measuring service quality delivery in the
public sector (Brysland and Curry, 2001; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Orwig et al., 1997;
Wisniewski, 2001; Younis, 1997). Despite a lack of consensus, SERVQUAL continues to be
widely used in both public and private sector research. In addition, there is continued use of
the perceptions minus expectations or disconfirmation method (Brysland & Curry, 2001;
Donnelly et al., 1995).
History o f culture and organizational culture
The concept of culture has been traced to anthropologist Edward B. Tylor who, in
1871, defined culture as encompassing knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law and customs
(cited in Brown, 1998). In the field of anthropology, culture was originally used to describe
‘patterns of common behavior, knowledge, customs’(Henderson, 2004). Geertz (1973, cited
in Brown 1998) suggested that cultural studies should focus on those living the culture and
what they consider to be significant. A review of the literature suggests that organizational
29
culture is also rooted in sociology and was recognized as early as 1948 by Selznic as
influencing employee’s actions (cited in Crow & Hartman, 2002).
Four schools of thought contribute to current perspectives on organizational culture:
human relations, modem structural theory, systems theory, and power and politics (Brown,
1998). In addition, researchers have identified organizational culture as key to organizational
outcomes (Deshpande & Webster, 1989; Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv & Sanders, 1990; Schein,
1990; Trice & Beyer, 1984). In a more practical orientation of organizational culture,
Goodman, Zammuto, and Gifford (2001) studied the impact of organizational culture on the
quality of work life and concluded that in order to facilitate change managers must
understand the existing organizational culture.
Definition(s) o f culture
Culture has been described as one of the most powerful and stable forces operating in
organizations (Schein, 1996 as cited in Lamond, 2003). Smircich (1983) classified culture
into three categories. The external/environmental perspective is where culture influences
values, norms and behavior in the organization. The internal/organizational perspective is
based on the assumption that culture is formed within the organization and reflected in
organizational processes, structures and outcomes. The ‘root metaphor’ perspective is based
on the assumption that culture encompasses all aspects of the organization. In addition,
Cameron and Ettington (1989, as cited in Chang and Weibe, 1996) categorized the
definitions of culture into three types: social interpretation (indicators and components of
culture); behavioral control (activities that define shared organization behavior); and
organizational adaptation (solutions to commonly encountered organizational problems).
According to Schein (1999) culture must be viewed on several levels to be fully
understood. Therefore, the level at which cultural analysis is to be conducted should be
30
decided prior to research on organizational culture. He classified culture as being on three
levels, as shown in Figure 6.
Artifacts The most superficial manifestation o f culture

(stories, myths, jokes, metaphors, rites, rituals and
ceremonies, heroes and symbols)
Norms and rules that guide behavior

Espoused (strategies, goals, philosophies)
Values
Unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions,

thoughts and feelings
Basic
(concern for the environment, reality, human nature,
Underlying
activity, and relationships)
Assumptions
Figure 6 Levels of Culture and Their Interaction
From The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about Culture Change, by
Edgar Schein, 1999, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Copyright 1999 by Jossey-Bass.
1. Artifacts are what can be seen, heard and felt in an organization environment. It
consists of the physical and social organization, example, the architecture,
technology, office layout, manner of dress and employees, visible or audible
pattern.
2. Espoused values explain the behavior patterns and constituents of this level
provide the underlying meanings and interrelations by which the patterns of
behaviors and artifacts may be deciphered.
31
3. Basic assumptions are held unconsciously and are very difficult to surface
because underlying values, are transformed over time and taken as the
organizationally acceptable way of perceiving the world.
Hofstede (1980) defined culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.’ Five
dimensions of culture are identified; power distance (acceptance by society of the unequal
distribution of power); uncertainty avoidance (avoidance o f situations that are perceived as
unstructured, unclear or unpredictable); individualism/collectivism (concern with self and
immediate family only); masculinity/femininity (emphasis on traditional male values such as
assertiveness, competition and materialism; long-term/short-term orientation (focus of efforts
on the future or the present). In Hofstede’s study Jamaica was characterized by low power
distance; low uncertainty avoidance; high masculinity; and below average individualism.
The literature review reflected a lack of consensus on a definition for culture. Culture
being defined in terms of basic assumptions, values, beliefs, behaviors, expectations and
norms, meanings, common understandings, symbols and myths, rites and rituals, heroes,
tales, and mental models.
Definitions o f organizational culture
Definitions of organizational culture appear to be influenced by the researcher’s
interests and the field o f study o f the research. It is also dependent on a distinction of culture
being something an organization ‘is’ versus something an organization ‘has’ (Deshpande et
al. 1993; Smircich, 1983). Despite the lack of consensus on a definition o f culture,
researchers agree that each organization has a culture of its own (Hofstede, 1998). To
32
understand an organization’s culture, Schein (1992), suggests searching deeper than the
surface manifestations (language, traditions, and rituals) of organizational culture, and even
beyond espoused values (norms and rules that guide behavior).
Denison (1990) defined organizational culture as a system of shared meaning within
an organization, which influences how employees act. Whereas, Driscoll and Morris (2001)
articulated organizational culture as the pattern of values and beliefs held by members of an
organization. These definitions provide an overview of the organizational culture construct
and other definitions are included in Table 1.
In this study, Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) definition o f organizational culture is
adopted since the variables postulated are of significance to this study. Moreover, there is an
already validated Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument that is used to address these
variables.
33
Table 1 Definitions of Organizational Culture
AUTHOR & YEAR DEFINITIONS

Schein, 1992 A pattern of basic assumptions invented, discovered, or developed
by a given group as it leams to cope with its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration - that has worked well enough
to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members
as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems.
Scholz, 1987 Corporate culture is the implicit, intrinsic and informal

consciousness of the organization which guides the behavior of the
individuals and which shapes itself out o f their behavior.
Deshpande and Organizational culture is the pattern o f shared values and beliefs
Webster, 1989 that help members of an organization understand why things
happen and thus teach them the behavioral norms in the
organization.
Denison, 1990 The underlying values, beliefs, and principles that serve as a
foundation for an organization’s management system as well as the
set o f management practices and behaviors that both exemplify
and reinforce those basic principles.
Pettigrew, 1990 Organizational culture is a phenomenon that involves beliefs and

behaviors, exists at a variety of different levels in organizations,
and manifests itself in a wide range of organizational features such
as structures, controls and reward systems, symbols, myths, and
human resource practices.
Howard, 1998 An organization’s culture can be represented by the value

preferences for means and ends that inform its members’
attitudes and activities.
Cameron & Quinn, An organizational culture is reflected by what is valued, the

1999 dominant leadership styles, the language and symbols, the
procedures and routines, and the definitions of success that
make an organization unique.
Hofstede, 2001 The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the
members of one organization from another.
34
Typologies o f organizational culture
The literature provides a number of organizational culture typologies that are
summarized in Table 2. The typologies differ in terms of sophistication, the range of
variables taken into consideration and their applicability across organizations. This study is
based on Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1981) and Quinn and McGrath’s (1985) typology. This
model is considered ideal for providing an empirical measure of public sector organizational
culture since it has the capacity to deal with the competing demands that characterize these
entities, that is, between the internal and external environments on the one hand, and between
control and flexibility on the other (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991).
35
Table 2 Typologies o f Organizational Culture
Typology Variables
Harrison/Handy, 1978 - Power culture

- Role culture
- Task culture
- Person culture
Hofstede, 1980 _
Power distance
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Individualism/collectivism
- Masculinity/femininity
Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981 - Group culture type

- Adhocracy culture type
- Rational culture type
- Hierarchical culture type
Deal and Kennedy, 1982 -

Tough-guy: macho culture
- Work-hard/play-hard culture
- Bet-your-company culture
- The process culture
Quinn and McGrath, 1985 - Rational (market culture)

- Ideological (adhocracy culture)
- Consensual (clan culture)
- Hierarchical (hierarchy culture)
Scholz, 1987 .
Evolution
- Internal
- External
Denison, 1990 - Consistency hypothesis

- Mission hypothesis
- Involvement/participation hypothesis
” Adaptability hypothesis
From Organizational Culture, by Andrew Brown, 1998, Essex: Pitman Publishing.
36
Measurement instruments o f organizational culture
Organizational culture has been measured using various measurement instruments
(Scott, Mannion, Davies, Marshall, 2003) that may be classified according to behavioral
norms, organizational values or competing values (Table 3). Researchers Xenikou and
Fumham (1996) suggest that instrument selection should be based on the elements to be
examined. That is, the behavioral norms approach would be ideal if concern is on the way
people should behave and interact with others; while the organizational values approach
would be selected if the concern is on the things that are highly valued and the competing
values would be selected if the concern is about competing demands within organizations.
Another factor for consideration is whether quantitative or qualitative methods should
be used in the study of culture. According to Corbett and Rastrick (2000) quantitative rather
than qualitative studies on culture facilitate analysis of change in organizations. However,
other researchers (Zammuto & Krakower, 1991) argue that the methods are not mutually
exclusive and both contribute to a better understanding o f organizational culture.
Cameron and Quinn (1999) developed an organizational culture framework based on
the competing values framework. This framework refers to whether an organization has a
predominant internal or external focus and whether it strives for flexibility and individuality
or stability and control. Six organizational culture dimensions (dominant characteristics,
organizational leadership, management, organizational glue, strategic emphases, criteria for
success) and four dominant culture types (clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy) are the
bases of the framework. In addition, the authors generated an Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument (OCAI) that identifies organizational culture profile based on the core
values, assumptions, interpretations, and approaches that characterize organizations
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Ofori-Dankwa and Julian (2001) also support the competing
37
values framework (CVF) for measuring organizational culture because it addresses paradoxes
in organizations that other models fail to address by integrating the human relations, open
systems, rational goal and internal process models. This study uses the competing values
approach to diagnose organizational culture since it advocates multiple approaches and yields
a variety of perspectives in evaluating the attributes of an organization’s culture (Brown and
Dodd, 1998). CVF also has been used in previous public sector research on organizational
culture (Parker & Bradley, 2000).
Table 3 Approaches to Organizational Culture and Corresponding Measurement

Instruments
APPROACHES MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS

Behavioral Norms 1. Norms Diagnostic Index (Allen and Deyer, 1980)
2. Kilmann-Saxon Culture Gap Survey (Kilmann and Saxton,
1983)
3. Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke and Lafferty,
1989)
Organizational Values 1. Organizational Value Congruence Scale (Enz, 1986)

2. Organizational Culture Profile (O’Reilly, et al., 1991)
3. Organizational Beliefs Questionnaire (Sashkin, 1984)
4. Corporate Culture Survey (Glaser, 1983)
Competing Values 1. Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, OCAI

(Cameron and Quinn, 1999)
From A correlational andfactor analytic study offour questionnaires o f organizational

culture 49(3), 349-371, by A. Xenikou & A. Fumham and Diagnosing and Changing
Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, by K. Cameron and R.
Quinn, 1999, Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley. Copyright 1999 by Addison-Wesley.
Public sector organizational culture
The purpose o f this literature review is to show the relevance of organizational
culture within the public sector. Despite a lack of consensus on a definition or a method of
38
diagnosing organizational culture, many researchers agree that changes in organizational
culture are necessary for improvements to occur in the public sector (Brown et al., 2003;
Claver et al., 1999; Coram and Bumes, 2001; Driscoll and Morris, 2001; Keily and Peek,
2002; Valle, 1999).
Claver et al. (1999) identified seven typical features of the public sector:
■ A management style that is authoritarian with a high degree of control
■ Univocal top-down management with little communication
■ Individuals search for stability, have limited scope for initiative, and are oriented
towards obeying orders
* Repetitive and centralized decision-making process
■ Reluctance to start innovative processes
■ High degrees of conformity
■ High resistance to change
Similar characteristics have been identified in the Jamaican public sector (Government at
Your Service, 2003; Orane Report, 1999; UNDP Report, 1994).
Public sector managers have also been challenged to change the status quo by shifting
from stable and predictable organizational structures and work processes to customer-
oriented and entrepreneurial models (Valle, 1999). Coram and Bumes (2001) examined the
privatization of the Property Service Agency (PSA) and analyzed the management of change
in the public sector. In their research the public sector was characterized as lacking clarity,
with an over-emphasis on changes to structures and procedures, and staff resistance to
change. Consistent with previous researchers Coram and Bumes (2001) concluded that
successful implementation of change in the public sector required an approach that
incorporated both structural and cultural aspects of change. This study should therefore be
39
instructive in providing a better understanding of the impact of organizational culture on the
quality of perceived service delivery in public sector entities in Jamaica.
Application o f the competing values framework (CVF) in the public sector
The competing values framework (Figure 7) measures organizational culture by
exploring competing demands within organizations, between their internal and external
environments on the one hand and between control and flexibility on the other (Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1991). Public sector organizations have traditionally been associated with the
internal process (bureaucratic) model of organizational culture. However, researchers have
suggested that public sector managers should change from the internal process model of
organizational culture to the open systems model, human relations model or the rational goal
model (Bradley & Parker, 2001).
Flexibility and Discretion
External Focus and

Internal Focus and
Clan/Group Adhocracy/
Differentiation
Integration
Developmental
Hierarchy Market/
Rational
Stability and Control
Figure 7 The Competing Values Framework
The seminal work of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) on which the competing values
framework for organizational effectiveness is based has since been extended by researchers.
The extensions include a model o f cultural congruence for organizations (Cameron &
40
Freeman, 1991); organizational culture and quality of life (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991);
organizational culture types (Deshpande, Farley & Webster, 1993), leadership, effectiveness
and organizational theory (Cameron & Quinn, 1999); and organizational effectiveness
(Zammuto, Gifford & Goodman, 2000). Consistent in all the extensions are the
organizational culture types and dimensions that depict competing orientations. An
illustration (Figure 8) and explanation of the organizational culture types and dimensions
model follow.
41
O R G A N IC P R O C E S S E S (flexibility, spontaneity)
Human Relations Model Open Systems Model
TYPE: Clan/Group TYPE: Adhocracy/Developmental

- EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA: - EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA:
Cohesion, morale, development of human Cutting-edge output, creativity, growth
resource
- MANAGEMENT THEORY: - MANAGEMENT THEORY:
Participation, teamwork, sense of family Innovativeness fosters new resources
- LEADERSHIP STYLE: - LEADERSHIP STYLE:
Mentor, facilitator, parent figure Innovator, entrepreneur, visionary
- BONDING: - BONDING:
Loyalty, tradition, interpersonal cohesion Entrepreneurship, flexibility, risk
- STRATEGIC EMPHASES: - STRATEGIC EMPHASES:
Toward developing human resources, Toward innovation, growth, new resources
commitment, morale
EXTERN AL MAINTF.N ANCTi INTERNAL POSITIONING

(smoothing activities, integration) (competition, differentiation)
Internal Process Model Rational Goal Model
TYPE: Hierarchy/Bureaucratic TYPE: Market/Rational
- EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA: - EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA:

Efficiency, timeliness, smooth functioning Market share, goal achievement, beating
competitors
- MANAGEMENT THEORY: - MANAGEMENT THEORY:
Control fosters efficiency Competition fosters productivity
- LEADERSHIP STYLE: - LEADERSHIP STYLE:
Coordinator, monitor, organizer Hard-driver, competitor, producer
- BONDING: - BONDING:
Rules, policies and procedures Goal orientation, production, competition
- STRATEGIC EMPHASES: - STRATEGIC EMPHASES:
Toward stability, predictability, smooth Toward competitive advantage and market
operations superiority
M E C H A N IS T IC P R O C E S S E S (control, order, stability)
Figure 8 A Model o f Organizational Culture Types & Dimensions
SOURCE: Adapted from Cameron and Freeman (1991); Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983);
Deshpande, Farley and Webster (1993); Denison and Spreitzer (1991); Cameron and Quinn
(1999); Zammuto, Gifford and Goodman, (2000).
42
1. Clan Culture - The Clan Culture (Human Relations model) in the upper-left
quadrant of Figure 8 identifies dominant attributes as cohesiveness, participation,
teamwork and sense of family. Leaders are considered mentors, the glue that
holds the organization together is loyalty, and tradition and emphasis is on the
development of human resources, commitment and morale.
2. Market Culture - The Market Culture (Rational Goal model) in the lower-right
quadrant o f Figure 8 stands in contrast to the Clan Culture. However, it parallels
the Open Systems model by sharing an external focus and also parallels the
Internal Process Model with its mechanistic processes. The dominant attributes
being competitiveness and goal achievement. Leaders are hard-driving
competitors and producers and the organization is held together by goal
orientation, production and competition. The organization emphasizes market
superiority; competitive advantage and rewards are linked to outcomes.
3. Adhocracy Culture - The Adhocracy Culture (Open Systems Model) in the
upper-right quadrant of Figure 8 parallels the Human Relations Model with its
organic processes of flexibility and spontaneity. This model also parallels the
Rational Goal Model with its external focus. The dominant attributes are
entrepreneurship, creativity and adaptability. Leaders are considered visionary,
innovative and entrepreneurial. The glue that holds this organization together is
entrepreneurship, flexibility and commitment to risk and emphasis is on
innovation, rapid growth and acquiring new resources.
43
4. Hierarchy Culture - The Hierarchy Culture (Internal Process Model) located in
the lower-left quadrant o f Figure 8 runs counter to the Open Systems Model in
quadrant 2, but parallels the Rational Goal Model in that both have mechanistic
processes based on control, order and stability. The dominant attributes are
order, rules and regulations and uniformity. Leaders are good coordinators,
monitors and organizers. Consistent with the traditional model of public
administration, the organization is held together by formal rules, policies and
procedures and emphasis is on stability, predictability, and maintaining a smooth
running organization.
While the four culture types serve as a guide for the identification of organizational
culture, research has shown that all four types exist in organizations to a greater or lesser
extent (Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn, 1988; Quinn &
Kimberly, 1984; Yeung, Brockbank & Ulrich, 1991; Zammuto & Krackower, 1991).
The culture types are further explained by six dimensions namely, dominant
characteristics (the core values of the organization); leadership style (style of the organization
leader); organizational glue (the espoused values or accepted norms o f the organization);
organizational climate (the existing work environment of the organization); criteria of
success (success criteria of the organization); and management style (management style
toward the employees). These dimensions are assessed using the organizational culture
assessment instrument (OCAI) based on the competing values framework to determine the
type of organizational culture that prevails within the public sector entities (Cameron &
Quinn, 1999; Lamond, 2003; Quinn, 1988).
According to researchers the competing values model is ideal for providing empirical
measure of the organizational culture in organizations and is one of the few cultural models
44
that allow comparison to be made across different organizations (Brown & Dodd, 1998;
Dellana & Hauser, 1999). Researchers also used the Competing Values Framework (CVF) to
define culture types in hospital settings (Goodman et al., 2001; Kalliath, Bluedom & Strube,
1999); organizational culture and organizational performance (Deshpande et al., 1993),
organizational culture and higher education institutions (Berrio, 2003; Smart & St. John,
1996; Zammuto et al., 2000), organizational culture and quality of life (Quinn & Spreitzer,
1991), organizational culture and TQM (Chang & Weibe, 1996; Dellana & Hauser, 1999),
organizational culture and public sector (Bradley & Parker, 2001; Dunk & Lysons, 1997;
Parker & Bradley, 2000). Brown and Dodd (1998) also recommend using the competing
values model o f organizational culture in a cooperative setting to determine human resource
development needs as well as for hiring and training decisions.
While the public sector is constrained by traditional management practices and
values, the concept o f organizational culture and its application using the competing values
framework appears fully appropriate for these organizations (Bradley & Parker, 2001; Claver
et al., 1999; Driscoll & Morris, 2001; Dunk & Lysons, 1997; Parker & Bradley, 2000; Quinn
& Spreitzer, 1991). There is also a validated, easy to use instrument (OCAI) with detailed
instructions for its use and interpretation (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). This study will
highlight three specific studies (Bradley & Parker, 2001; Parker & Bradley, 2000; Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1991) that have utilized the competing values framework to measure the
organizational culture in the public sector.
Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) conducted a psychometric analysis of the competing
values culture instrument and also examined the impact o f cultural profiles on the quality of
life of executives in public utility organizations in the United States. In the first study the
authors concluded that the ipsative instrument was more appropriate in applied settings where
the objective is to emphasize the differences among the four culture types. The Likert scale
45
instrument was better in situations where the data will be submitted to more complex
analyses such as inferential statistics requiring interval scales. In the second study, Quinn
and Spreitzer (1991) found that, consistent with the findings o f previous researchers,
organizations are seldom characterized by one pure culture type, and that each culture type
has a different impact on executive quality o f life.
Parker and Bradley (2000) examined organizational culture in six public sector
organizations. They addressed the dimensions of organizational culture: organizational
characteristics; organizational managers; organizational cohesion; organizational emphases
and organizational rewards. The researchers found that contrary to expectations, the public
sector culture remained heavily skewed towards an internal process model in four of the six
departments. Bradley and Parker (2001) provided another perspective using data collected in
the previous study to investigate manager perceptions of ideal organizational culture and the
extent to which current organizational cultures in the public sector reflected their perceptions.
The findings revealed that while management’s preference for a less bureaucratic, more
flexible, external focus model o f organizational culture is consistent with new public
management theory; these preferences were not reflected in the current culture.
Perspectives on the competing values framework
Researchers agree that the main utility of the competing values framework is its
ability to diagnose and initiate change in the culture of organizations; it also addresses
paradoxes in organizations by advocating more than one approach (Brown & Dodd, 1998;
Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Ofori-Dankwa & Julian, 2001; Quinn & McGrath, 1985;
Sendelbach, 1993). Moreover, the graphical presentation of the competing forces of control-
flexibility and external-internal orientation facilitate understanding and application of the
46
concepts. In addition, the accompanying organizational culture assessment instrument is
considered relatively easy and inexpensive to administer.
The Competing Values Framework has been affirmed by researchers (Cameron &
Freeman, 1991; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991; Rameezdeen & Gunarathna, 2003; Yeung, et al.,
1991; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991) as being relevant for the study o f organizational culture.
They recommend the organizational culture assessment instrument for use in organizational
analysis and for guiding practitioners in the execution of organizational development
interventions. However, Bradley and Parker (2001) recommend further research to
investigate the appropriateness of the framework and the questionnaire within specific
organizational contexts.
In summary, the literature review revealed a paucity of empirical studies dealing
specifically with the Competing Values Framework and the public sector. Researchers
concluded that while a particular cultural orientation was not inherently wrong, it should be
balanced across the four culture quadrants (Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Quinn & Spreitzer,
1991; Yeung, et al., 1991). In addition, while the research findings o f Bradley and Parker
(2001) suggest that the direction of public sector change was contrary both to theoretical
prescriptions for change and with managers’ desire for change they nonetheless support the
use of the competing values framework and recommend further research. Quinn and
Spreitzer (1991) also support use of the competing values framework in the public sector for
organizational diagnosis and intervention. The public sector is an appropriate area for
investigating the impact of organizational culture on service quality since existing literature is
dominated with studies in the private sector. In addition, current reforms in the public sector
have created opportunities for documenting the impact of changes. Furthermore, exploration
of this relationship in the public sector should prove insightful to government leaders and
public sector managers.
47
Service quality and organizational culture
The primary focus of this study is to explore the impact o f organizational culture on
the quality of perceived service delivery. Researchers of service quality suggest a
relationship with organizational culture as they examine behaviors as well as structures,
processes and policies in organizations (Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Wisniewski, 2001; Younis,
1997). Having established a relationship between service quality and national culture (Furrer
et al., 2000; Tsikriktsis, 2002; Winsted, 1997) research is now being extended to suggest a
relationship between perceived service quality and organizational culture. While this implied
relationship is a common theme in the service quality and organizational culture literature, no
empirical studies have been found to support these claims.
The literature warns that public sector reforms aimed at improved service delivery
might be impacted by limited understanding o f organizational culture in this sector (Parker &
Bradley, 2000). Specifically, researchers claim that not considering organizational culture
could have negative effects on the change process and the attainment of strategic objectives.
Jamaica, like a number o f other countries, has pursued reforms in the public sector without
empirical understanding o f the impact o f organizational culture and, therefore, management
and public policy implications are quite applicable. Research in service quality and
organizational culture has confirmed the suitability of SERYQUAL and the organizational
assessment instrument for use in the public sector. Given the implied relationship and the use
of these instruments in previous research the basis is provided for empirical research on this
previously unrelated phenomenon.
48
Summary
This chapter reviewed the relevant literature on service quality, the SERVQUAL
instrument, organizational culture, the Competing Values Framework model and the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. It provided an overview of the studies
relevant to service quality and organizational culture in a public sector context. The literature
review suggests a relationship between organizational culture and the quality of perceived
service delivery and based on these findings it is believed that analysis o f these variables will
prove insightful to government leaders and public sector managers.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Chapter III describes the methodology used in this study to determine the impact of
organizational culture and the quality of perceived service delivery in the Jamaican public
sector. Specifically, the study addresses the relationship between organizational culture
measured by the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), based on the
Competing Values Framework, and the quality of perceived service delivery as measured by
SERVQUAL. The chapter is divided into sections as follows: the population and sample size,
the variables, operational definitions, the surveys, research design, reliability and validity,
pilot study, research questions and hypotheses, data analysis and strategy, values and key
limits and limitations.
Population
Two Jamaican public sector entities (1 central government entity and 1 executive
agency) were examined. Central government refers to the established traditional public
service that is characterized by bureaucracy, whereas executive agency refers to central
government agencies devolved to agencies with widened accountability and demanding
performance targets newly established by executive acts or directives o f government. The
target population in this study includes employees at all levels and customers from both
entities who access the service. For the purposes of this study employees are defined as
anyone employed by the organization whether on a temporary, contractual, part-time or full
time basis, having completed at least one month with the organization and over the age of 18
years. Customers are defined as those who have accessed the services o f either agency at
least once prior to the data collection period. Data collection was restricted to two entities to
49
50
allow the study to be kept manageable, while allowing for increased internal validity by
eliminating agency-agency differences and also reducing the level o f non-response.
Mangione (1995) suggests using a good respondent letter, providing return postage,
promise of confidentiality, incentives and endorsement by the leader to reduce non-response
levels. The measures adopted include: promise o f confidentiality to respondents and
obtaining the endorsement o f the department head.
Sample
The sample constitutes all current employees and a convenience sample of customers
of the two public sector entities. The unit o f analysis for this research is the organizational
level. The entities were selected based on accessibility, willingness to participate in the study
and the fact that they provide services to a wide range of customers. Every attempt was made
to use a representative sample size in this study since according to Zikmund (2000) sample
size influences the validity of statistical conclusions about relationships in the sample data.
Practical considerations such as logistics, costs and time helped determine the sample size.
The variables
The independent variable.
The independent variable for this study is organizational culture, which is grounded
in Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1981, 1983) competing values model. This model identifies
whether the organization has a predominant internal or external focus and whether it strives
for flexibility and individuality or stability and control (Berrio, 2003). The model classifies
organizational culture as having four culture types; clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchical,
with competing orientations (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
51
The dependent variable.
The dependent variable is service quality, with five dimensions as posited by
Zeithaml et al. (1990): tangibles - physical facilities, equipment and the appearance of the
personnel; reliability - ability to perform the promised service accurately and dependably;
responsiveness - willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service; assurance -
knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence;
empathy - caring and individualized attention to customers.
Relationship o f variables.
The literature suggests a relationship between service quality and organizational
culture and this conceptualization is depicted in Figure 9.
52
Expected
Service Quality Service
Dimensions
Service Quality
Tangibles
Reliability Perceived
Responsiveness Service
Assurance
Empathy
Organizational
Culture Dimensions
Organizational
• Organizational
Culture Type
leader
• Management of
• Clan
employees
• Adhocracy
• Strategic
emphases • Market
• Organizational • Hierarchy
glue
• Criteria of
success
Figure 9 Conceptualization o f the Relationship between Service Quality and Organizational Culture
53
Operational definitions
While several definitions exist, Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) definition is used in this
study to operationalize organizational culture:
An organization’s culture is reflected by what is valued, the dominant leadership

styles, the language and symbols, the procedures and routines, and the definitions of
success that make an organization unique (p. 15).
While the literature review indicates no universally accepted definition of service
quality; because the focus o f this study is on customers’ perception of service, Zeithaml et
al.’s (1990) definition is used to operationalize perceived service quality:
Service quality is the extent of discrepancy between customers’ expectations or

desires and their perceptions (p. 19).
Surveys
Previously validated scales, SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al. 1988) and the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron & Quinn, 1999), are used
respectively to measure the constructs, service quality and organizational culture. Feedback
from the pilot study resulted in a change from a 7-point Likert scale to a 5-point Likert scale.
Respondents reported that the 7-point scale would contribute to non-response since too much
thought would have to be put into each response and the time taken to complete the
questionnaire would be too lengthy. Previous researchers have used the 5-point Likert scale
successfully supporting this change (Chang & Weibe, 1996; Donthu & Yoo, 1998). Likert
scales are used since according to researchers they are better at capturing cultural phenomena
within organizations and the data will be subject to complex analyses (Lamond, 2003; Quinn
& Spreitzer, 1991).
Respondents in the pilot study also reported that attaching a letter to each
questionnaire would require too much reading, especially for low literate respondents. They
54
suggested that information in the introductory letter be condensed and the relevant areas be
summarized in two or three short paragraphs at the beginning of the questionnaires. They
further suggested that the instructions be presented in point form instead o f paragraph format.
Written permission for use of both surveys from their authors was obtained
(Appendix A). Representatives of the selected entities as well as customers reviewed the
instruments for appropriateness, readability and comprehensiveness. Suggestions and
corrections were incorporated into the final instruments that were administered.
Service quality.
Since the customer is the ultimate judge of service quality, researchers recommend
developing an instrument based on consumer experiences of service quality (Cronin &
Taylor, 1994). Accordingly, the SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman et al.
(1988) is deemed the most appropriate for operationalizing service quality in this study.
Furthermore, its 22 items are believed to represent the five key dimensions of service quality
and are considered good predictors of overall service quality (Babakus & Boiler, 1992;
Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1991; Zeithaml et al., 1990). Also, the research
efforts of Dalrymple et al. (1995), Orwig et al. (1997), Curry and Herbert (1998), Curry
(1999), Donnelly and Shiu (1999), Brysland and Curry (2001), and Wisniewski (2001)
demonstrate the use of the modified SERVQUAL instrument in the public sector, the
findings of which are illustrated in Appendix B.
Despite problems with its psychometric properties, researchers contend that the
SERVQUAL instrument consistently highlights the dimensions considered most important
by customers (Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Wisniewski, 2001). Research conducted in the public
sector support the instrument’s applicability and use as a tool for identifying performance
improvement. Research further supports SERVQUAL’s ability to locate quality related
55
problems and establish clear standards for service quality (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Curry &
Herbert, 1998; Donnelly et al., 1995; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Wisniewski, 2001).
In this study, the SERVQUAL instrument was modified to show the scales for
perceptions and expectations presented side-by-side, that is, one statement was made and two
responses elicited, one for perceptions and one for expectations. This approach was used
successfully in other studies to reduce the length of the questionnaire, improve the response
rate and encourage the completion of questionnaires as well as reduce the time taken to
complete the questionnaire (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Wisniewski, 2001).
The five dimensions o f the SERVQUAL survey as used in this study correspond to
the expectation and perception statements as follows: Tangibles (statements 1-4); Reliability
(statements 5-9); Responsiveness (statements 10-13); Assurance (statements 14-17); and
Empathy (statements 18-22), (Zeithaml, et al., 1990). Based on previous research, the
instrument was modified by removing all negative wording and excluding the ranked points
allocation to the five service quality dimensions in order to make the instrument more user
friendly and increase the usable return rate.
Participants were instructed to circle one of the 5 Likert-scaled categories for each
question, allowing the variables to be operationalized. Customers' expectation scores were
subtracted from their perception scores for all 22 items to find a service quality gap score (P-
E). Expectations “E” refer to how or what individual customers feel the service provider
should offer, whereas, perceptions “P” refer to customers’ beliefs concerning the service
received or experienced (Brown & Swartz, 1989; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Perceived
service quality for each entity was assessed along each of the five dimensions by averaging
the respondents SERVQUAL scores on statements that make up the dimension.
56
Organizational culture.
Whereas the concept of organizational culture is assessed traditionally by qualitative
methods, Corbett and Rastrick (2000) suggest that quantitative approaches may be more
practical for purposes of analyzing culture in organizations. The literature identifies three
available strategies to measure culture at the organizational level (Cameron & Quinn, 1999):
1. A holistic approach using in-depth participant observation;
2. Metaphorical or language approaches using language patterns in documents,
reports, stories and conversations in order to uncover cultural patterns;
3. Quantitative approaches using questionnaires and or interviews to assess
particular dimensions of culture.
The quantitative approach, specifically the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
(OCAI), is utilized in this study since it allows several options to be considered in evaluating
the attributes o f an organization’s culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The instrument also
identifies the organizational culture profile based on the core values, assumptions,
interpretations and approaches that characterize organizations. Cameron and Quinn further
claim that the instrument is unique in its ability to identify the organization’s cultural
strength, congruence and type. Cultural strength is the extent to which one or more culture is
strong or dominant. Congruence relates to the extent to which the six cultural dimensions are
congruent with one another and culture type is based on the quadrant that receives the most
emphasis.
Organizational culture type was measured using the OCAI. Similar to the Chang and
Weibe (1996) study, respondents were instructed to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) the extent to which each statement applied to their
organization. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) presents 24
statements, each representing one of the four organizational culture types. Group/clan culture
57
is measured by statements 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21; developmental/adhocracy culture is measured
by statements 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22; rational/market culture is measured by statements 3, 7, 11,
15, 19, 23; hierarchical/bureaucratic culture is measured by statements 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24.
The overall culture profile is obtained by aggregating multiple individual responses
for each question to yield an organizational-level response. The scores o f each of the four
culture statements across all six cultural dimensions were averaged to yield a numerical score
for each culture type for each entity (Chang & Weibe, 1996). The type with the highest
numerical score is assigned the dominant culture type for the entity. This approach is
supported by researchers (Yeung, et al., 1991).
Additionally, the six dimensions of organizational culture will be analyzed using a
similar procedure. The dimension dominant characteristic is measured by statements 1-4;
leadership style is measured by statements 5-8; management style is measured by statements
9-12; organizational glue is measured by statements 13-16; organizational climate is
measured by statements 17-20; criteria of success is measured by statements 21-24. The
culture profile classified according to the dimensions of organizational culture is obtained by
aggregating multiple individual responses for each question to yield an organizational-level
response. The scores o f questions relating to each of the six dimensions of organizational
culture will be averaged to yield a numerical score for each o f the four organizational culture
types for each entity. In each entity, the culture type with the highest numerical score is
assigned the dominant culture type for each dimension. A similar approach was taken by
Berrio (2003) in his study o f organizational culture in a university setting. The
organizational culture assessment instrument has been used in previous research to examine
organizational culture in the public sector (Bradley & Parker, 2001; Parker & Bradley, 2000;
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991) providing justification for use in this
study. These studies and their findings are shown in more specific terms in Appendix C.
58
Demographic information
Similar to previous research, demographic information was obtained about job
title/rank, gender, age, years of service and education in order to determine organizational
and respondent profile (Berrio, 2003; Bradley & Parker, 2001; Brysland & Curry, 2001;
Curry & Herbert, 1998; Dellana & Hauser, 1999; Donnelly et al., 1995; Donnelly & Shiu,
1999; Parker & Bradley, 2000; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991;Wisniewski, 2001).
Research Design
The purpose o f this research is to examine the impact o f organizational culture on the
quality of perceived service delivery, explore the extent of this relationship and predict
possible implications. Threats to internal validity were addressed by restricting the study to
two public sector entities, thereby eliminating the possible influence of differences in
organizational philosophies, internal processes and the complexity o f reporting relationships.
Data was collected using two slightly modified instruments, one based on Cameron
and Quinn’s (1999) Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, and the other based on
Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) SERVQUAL instrument. Each instrument is in two parts.
The first section o f the respective instrument elicits information on service quality and
organizational culture. The second section of each instrument elicits demographic
information including age, education, gender, years of service, and current position, which is
used to determine the characteristics of the sample and make statistical comparisons.
Data collection procedure
A personally addressed letter was sent to the head o f each organization providing
information about the purpose of the research, containing a copy of each questionnaire and
encouraging participation in the survey. Two hundred SERVQUAL and seventy-five
organizational culture instruments were distributed to each of the two entities. At the central
government entity, students sensitized to the data collection exercise and attending post
secondary institutions administered the questionnaires. This approach was not possible at the
executive agency based on the unpredictable flow of customers. At the executive agency,
customer service representatives were sensitized and encouraged to administer questionnaires
while customers waited. The customers surveyed at both entities were those present at the
organization during the four-week period assigned for data collection. The organizational
culture instruments were delivered to one manager who was responsible for distribution and
collection from the remainder of employees. Participation in the study was voluntary and
anonymity was assured. Detailed instructions on how to complete the questionnaire were
also provided. Because of the initial low response rate, the data collection period was
extended from four weeks to six weeks.
Respondents were generally hesitant to take the time to complete the
questionnaires, but some welcomed the opportunity to rate the organization. O f the 240
SERVQUAL questionnaires returned, 27 were rejected and o f the 66 OCAI
questionnaires returned, 4 were rejected. Questionnaires were rejected if they were
incomplete. M ost o f the rejected questionnaires were the result o f respondents
completing only one section (that is, either expectations or perceptions) o f the service
quality questionnaire. Each usable questionnaire was assigned a number that matched
that on the SPSS table. Data was coded, for example, “ 1” representing the central
government agency and “2” representing the executive agency. The surveys
administered and the cover letter describing the purpose o f the survey and requesting
participation are included in Appendix D.
60
Reliability and validity o f the survey instruments
The results for Cronbach’s Alpha (coefficient alpha), which provides a measure of
the extent to which all the items in a given measure are positively inter-correlated were
reportedly higher for both instruments than that considered sufficient for exploratory research
(Nunnally, 1978). The details of these results are provided in Chapter IV.
Another important consideration in this study is that the perspectives o f the
participants and the meanings they attach to their words and actions are accurately captured
and portrayed. This study sought to minimize the problems of measurement validity by using
two previously validated, reliable survey instruments. In addition, to determine the extent to
which the instruments actually measure what they are supposed to measure a panel of experts
and users drawn from both public sector entities were used to establish the validity of both
the OCAI and SERVQUAL instruments.
Reliability o f the instruments.
Researchers have expressed mixed response to SERVQUAL’s reliability. Whereas,
Parasuraman et al. (1988) attest to its reliability, other researchers suggest caution (Brysland
& Curry, 2001; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Orwig et al., 1997). As recommended by
Parasuraman, et al. (1991) the SERVQUAL instrument was modified with context-specific
items that are similar in structure to the existing statements. This modification has been
demonstrated to improve the reliability of the instrument (Babakus & Boiler, 1992; Carman,
1990; Fick & Ritchi, 1991).
Reliability of the organizational culture assessment instrument refers to the extent to
which the instrument measures culture types consistently. Yeung et al. (1991) provides
evidence of instrument reliability in a study of 10,300 executives in 1,064 businesses in
which reliabilities ranged from 0.77 to 0.80 for the four culture types. As in previous studies
61
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of internal consistency are calculated for this study and the
findings are conclusive that the OCAI is a reliable instrument (Berrio, 2003; Parker &
Bradley, 2000; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). Researchers have accepted reliability estimates of
0.50 to 0.60 as sufficient for basic research (Nunnally, 1978). This study reports and
confirms higher reliability coefficients for both instruments.
Validity o f the instruments.
The SERVQUAL instrument has been the subject o f much controversy. Whereas its
developers (Parasuraman et al., 1988) identified five factors, other researchers have not been
able to consistently identify five factors, as the service quality dimensions tend to split over
factors and are not well defined (Donnelly & Shiu, 1999; Orwig et al., 1997). Cameron and
Freeman (1991), in a study o f 3,406 individuals in 334 colleges and universities, concluded
that the organizational culture assessment instrument was valid in measuring the four culture
types. Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) also provided evidence of validity o f the OCAI instrument
in their study o f 786 public utility executives.
There are four basic types of validity: 1) content validity, 2) construct validity, 3) face
validity and 4) predictive/criterion validity. The current study addressed content validity
through literature review since content validity is concerned with how representative the
scale or instrument is in relation to the content of the property or characteristics being
measured (Green, Tull, & Albaum, 1988). Content validity was also achieved by the use of a
panel of experts. Construct validity using factor analysis was conducted on the data.
According to Zikmund (2000), construct validity is evident when the pattern of correlations
among variables conforms to what is predicted by theory. To establish face validity, a field
test was conducted after the review by the panel of experts. A group of individuals (n = 10)
from the target population were asked to comment on the clarity, wording, thoroughness,
62
ease of use, and appropriateness of the instrument. Involvement at this stage helped to ensure
that the questions and findings have some practical relevance to the respondents and
enhanced the response rate. The group selected for the field test comprised employees and
customers of the selected agencies. Predictive/criterion validity was not tested in this study
because no other study has established a criterion with which the results of this study could
be compared.
Internal validity o f the study
The internal validity of the study addressed the possibility that the observed
relationships between cultural traits and service quality are due to factors not included as
variables in the research (Zikmund, 2000). Threats to internal validity are addressed in the
research design.
External validity o f the study
External validity o f the study addressed the ability to generalize the research findings
to other public sector entities. Restricting the study to an executive agency and a central
government entity limits the ability to generalize from the findings. However, expanding the
scope to other public sector entities would greatly increase the cost and time to complete the
study. The current design was considered a reasonable tradeoff between feasibility and
applicability o f this study.
Ethical issues in the study
According to Zikmund (2000) primary ethical issues are confidentiality and
informing respondents of the nature of the study. This research used all ethical research
standards and procedures. To ensure confidentiality of the data collected, each organization
63
was coded and the information kept in a secure location. Only codes appear on survey forms
and in data files associated with the study. The study did not identify any individual or
organization by name. All respondents were informed of the researcher’s name, the purpose
and nature of the research, the time and effort involved in participation, guaranteed
anonymity and confidentiality and the risks and benefits of participation explained.
Pilot study
Researchers have advocated the necessity for pilot studies (Carman, 1990; Green &
Tull, 1978). This pilot study was used specifically to verify the research design, to determine
the time required for completion and to ensure that modifications to the wording o f the
instruments were appropriate. The instruments were administered to a sample of 10
customers and employees.
Research questions and working hypotheses
Research questions.
The literature review established that cultural factors within organizations influence
the perceptions o f service quality, thus providing the basis for the following research
questions: Is there a relationship between organizational culture and the quality of perceived
service delivery? Can organizational culture types classify public sector entities?
Specifically, within the public sector, is there a dominant organizational culture type? Do
organizational culture types influence the quality of service delivery? Is there a difference in
the perceptions and expectations of service quality between customers o f central government
and executive agency public sector entities?
64
Research hypotheses.
The purpose o f this study is to examine the impact of organizational culture on the
quality of perceived service delivery. It attempts to determine whether service quality
delivery varies systematically from one type of culture to another. The organizational culture
type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market culture) and the dimensions of service quality
(reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, assurance and empathy) were used to develop and test
hypotheses relating the four organizational culture types with a measure o f service quality.
Based on the literature review, all four culture types are found within organizations
with varying levels o f dominance (Berrio, 2003; Parker & Bradley, 2000; Zammuto &
Krakower, 1991). Therefore, all culture types were considered important in the context of
this study. The literature review of service quality found that within service situations,
perceived importance attached to the service quality dimensions varied according to the type
of service under consideration (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999). Based on
the literature, several hypotheses were developed to guide the study o f the relationship
between the quality of perceived service delivery and organizational culture in the public
sector.
To test the relationship between organizational culture and the quality of perceived
service delivery the following hypothesis is postulated:
H0i: Among public sector entities there is no relationship between
organizational culture and the perceived quality of service
delivery.
Hai: Among public sector entities there is a relationship between
delivery.
65
To test if a dominant organizational culture type exists in the public sector, the following
hypothesis is developed:
H02 : Among public sector entities there is no dominant
Ha2 : Among public sector entities there is a dominant
To test if organizational culture types influence the quality of service delivery, the following
hypothesis is postulated, and measured through four sub-hypotheses:
H03 .a: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
clan culture type public sector entities place on reliability,
assurance, responsiveness and empathy, compared to
tangibles.
Ha3.a: There is a difference in the importance that customers of clan
culture type public sector entities place on reliability,
tangibles.
Ho3 .t,: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
adhocracy culture type public sector entities place on
responsiveness, tangibles and reliability, compared to
assurance and empathy.
66
Ha3.b: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
H03 .c: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
market culture type public sector entities place on tangibles,
assurance, responsiveness and reliability, compared to
empathy.
Ha3.c: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
empathy.
Ho3,d: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
hierarchical culture type public sector entities place on,
empathy and assurance compared to reliability,
Ha3 .d: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
67
To test if there are differences in the perceptions, expectations and gaps of service quality
between customers o f central government and executive agency public sector entities, the
following hypotheses are developed:
H04 : There are no differences in perceptions of service quality between
customers of central government and executive agency public sector
entities.
Ha4 : There are differences in perceptions o f service quality between
entities.
H05 .' There are no differences in expectations o f service quality between
customers o f central government and executive agencies.
Ha5: There are differences in expectations o f service quality between
customers of central government and executive agencies.
Ho6: There are no differences in the gap between perceived and expected
service quality of customers of central government and executive
Hae: There are differences in the gap between perceived and expected
agency public sector entities
68
Data analysis and strategy
Inferential statistics were used to interpret the data. Analysis of variance and t-tests
were employed to test the hypotheses and to compare means. Descriptive statistics such as
means, standard deviations and variances were reported for all variables to analyze the data
set and provide a demographic profile of the public sector entities and the respondents.
Demographic data were used as the moderating variable to compare groups.
Factor analysis was used to assess both instruments’ dimensionality and construct
validity due to modifications. The five dimensions of service quality and the six dimensions
of organizational culture were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach’s
Alpha was computed to provide evidence of reliability.
The Kolmogorov-Smimov statistical test and the normal probability (Q-Q plot) were
used to assess normality for all variables. Pearson’s Correlation was used to validate the
existence of a relationship between organizational culture and service quality.
Values and key limits
The results obtained from the analysis o f variance were used to determine the level of
statistical significance. For this study, when the observed statistic is greater than the test
value for the 0.05 level o f significance, the null hypothesis is rejected (Zikmund, 2000).
Likewise, employing Pearson Correlation to analyze the relationship between organizational
culture and service quality, the null hypothesis was rejected when all the correlations are
highly significant. Cronbach’s Alpha was computed for each of the variables and a Cronbach
Alpha of greater than 0.60 was considered adequate (Nunnally, 1978). Factor analysis was
used to verify the dimensionality of the instruments. Dimensions were allowed to load freely
on factors. The number of factor loadings determined whether a five factor solution is
supported. The 0.05 level of significance was used as the criteria for rejecting the null
69
hypothesis (Babbie, 2001). Normality tests were used to assess the significance of the
difference from a normal distribution. According to Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black
(1998), a calculated value exceeding +1.96 would mean rejecting the assumption of
normality of the distribution at the 0.05 level of significance.
Limitations
First, only two entities in the public sector were studied due to time and cost
constraints as well as access to the entities. Second, given the relatively closed nature of the
public sector, there was some hesitation on the part of respondents about participating in the
study. Third, the study was based on the assumption that the dimensions of SERVQUAL
were the same across different organizational cultures. Fourth, the assumption was also
made that customers will indicate both their perceptions and expectations of service quality
for the two selected public sector entities. Fifth, while there are different classifications/types
of public sector entities (local government, public schools, hospitals etc.) only executive
agency and central government type public sector entities were examined. The conclusions
drawn from the results of this study are therefore reflective of these limitations.
Rationale for hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1.
Researchers suggest that service quality is largely influenced by culture (Donthu &
Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2001; Mattila, 1999; Winsted, 1997). In addition,
other researchers posit culture as an important influence on organizational life (Goodman et
al., 2001; Harris & Mossholder, 1996). This study posits that given the foregoing
organizational culture will influence the perceived quality of service delivery. Specifically, it
is hypothesized that:
70
Hai: Among public sector entities there is a relationship between
delivery.
Hypothesis 1 was tested using the six organizational culture and five service quality
dimensions to compute Pearson’s correlation coefficients. This tested the strength of
relationship between service quality dimensions and the organizational culture dimensions
and the approach is similar to that undertaken by Furrer et al., (2000). The organizational
culture dimensions were computed by averaging the scores o f each o f the four organizational
culture statements across all six cultural dimensions. Similarly, the service quality
dimensions were computed by averaging the gap scores (P-E) of each statement
corresponding to the five service quality dimensions. The organizational culture dimension
factors were copied to the service quality data sheet, thereby allowing for correlation analysis
of these two variables.
Hypothesis 2.
Parker and Bradley (2000) found differences in organizational culture types among
the six public sector entities they examined. In addition, the competing values framework is
based on the assumption that while each organization is a mix o f the four culture types, one
culture type might dominate (Dennison & Spreitzer, 1991). Furthermore, a growing body of
research provides additional theoretical and empirical support for this assumption, (Chang &
Wiebe, 1996; Parker & Bradley, 2000). Therefore, it is hypothesized:
71
Checking the mean scores assigned to each culture type for central government and
executive agency tested hypothesis 2. The highest mean score indicate the dominant culture
type. The mean scores were then compared by conducting t-tests and analysis of variance
(Berrio, 2003; Parker & Bradley, 2000).
Hypothesis 3.
Similar to previous studies (Donthu & Yoo, 1998; Tsikriktsis, 2002) it was expected
that the relative importance of each o f the SERVQUAL dimensions would be influenced by
organizational culture. To examine the influence of organizational culture type on perceived
service quality delivery, four related hypotheses were developed.
Hypothesis 3A.
Ha3.a: There is a difference in the importance that customers of clan
tangibles.
In the competing values framework of organizational culture, the clan culture falls in
the quadrant classified as the human relations model which has a flexibility/internal focus.
According to the competing values model, organizations within this quadrant are
characterized by loyalty and tradition, cohesion and morale, equity, trust and participation
through teamwork, development of human resources, compliance with organizational norms,
consensus building rather than control, leaders encourage and mentor employees. Given the
characteristics of this culture type, the service quality literature, and the definitions posited by
Parasuraman et al. (1988), it is proposed that within the clan culture reliability, assurance,
72
responsiveness and empathy would be of higher importance to customers than tangibles since
customers attach more importance to the delivery of the service and tangibles is not a
significant factor in ensuring service delivery.
Hypothesis 3B.
Ha3.b: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
The adhocracy culture type has a flexibility/external focus and is also referred to
as the developmental culture. The adhocracy culture type is reflective of the open systems
model with visionary, innovative leaders who focus on the external environment. These
organizations focus on growth and resource acquisitions, they are typically dynamic,
entrepreneurial, embrace change, risk takers and reward individual initiative. As the public
sector evolves with an increase in emphasis on flexibility, adaptability and performance
management, it is anticipated that customers will demand prompt services that must be
provided right the first time (Parker & Bradley, 2000). Thus they will attach more
importance on responsiveness, reliability, and tangibles rather than assurance and empathy.
Very few public services require long-term relationships since they are by nature infrequent
service situations and so it is hypothesized that the adhocracy culture type does not support
assurance and empathy as being extremely important.
73
Hypothesis 3C.
Ha3c: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
empathy.
In the competing values framework of organizational culture the market
culture type falls in the quadrant classified as the rational goal model which has a
control/external focus and is reflective of the executive agency type public sector entity.
According to the competing values model, organizations within this quadrant are
characterized by competition, tasks and goal accomplishment, productivity and efficiency,
and rewards are linked to outcomes. These characteristics support service dimensions of
responsiveness and reliability. Increased productivity and competition tend to lessen the
level of interaction with customers and the associated dimension empathy. The tangibles
dimension compensates for the loss of the empathy dimension since tangibles ‘are considered
a means to reduce the closeness o f the interaction’ (Furrer et al. (2000). Customers therefore
accord importance to the tangibles dimension. Despite changes towards outcomes, efficiency
and productivity, assurance is considered an important dimension in the market culture type
with its demand for high levels of service and its control/external focus.
Hypothesis 3D.
Ha3.d: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
74
The hierarchical culture type is reflective of the traditional public sector that is
characterized by formal rules and procedures, conformity, stability, and rewards based on
rank. The hierarchical culture type organization has a control/internal focus and is classified
in the competing values model as the internal process model. This type of organization
focuses on stability. Relations are long-term oriented and customers do not expect much
when it comes to aesthetics (Brysland & Curry, 2001). Responsiveness, reliability and
tangibles would therefore not be considered critical factors and so it is predicted that
assurance and empathy are the most important dimensions.
Hypotheses 3A to 3D were tested by computing Pearson’s correlation coeeficients for
the four organizational culture types and the five dimensions of service quality. The strength
of the relationship determined the level of importance of the service quality dimensions to the
particular organizational culture type. The hypotheses were tested further using t-tests and
analysis of variance.
Hypotheses 4 - 6 .
Customers differ in their service quality perceptions, expectations and gap scores.
According to Wisniewski (2001), the identification o f customers’ perceptions,
expectations and gaps in service quality delivery is important for the delivery of
continuous service improvements in the public sector. It is hypothesized that:
Ha4 : There are differences in perceptions o f service quality
75
Ha5: There are differences in expectations o f service quality
Ha6: There are differences in the gap between perceived and
expected service quality of customers o f central government
and executive agency public sector entities.
Hypotheses 4 to 6 were tested by obtaining the mean scores for perceptions, means
scores for expectations and mean gap scores. Each score was analyzed using one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Differences in the means were analyzed and the significance
determined at the 0.05 level of significance. Additionally, the mean score for the five
dimensions of perceived service quality will be obtained for each entity by aggregating
multiple individual responses for each question to yield an organizational-level response.
The scores of each o f the five dimensions will be averaged to yield a numerical score for
each entity.
76
Summary
This chapter outlined the methodology used in the study to analyze the relationship
between organizational culture (as measured by the clan/group, adhocracy/developmental,
hierarchy/bureaucratic and market/rational culture type) on perceived service quality delivery
in the public sector with dimensions o f reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and
responsiveness. The chapter addressed population and sample, variables, operational
definition, survey instruments, reliability and validity, ethical issues, pilot study, research
questions and hypotheses, data analysis, values and key limits, limitations, and rationale for
hypothesis testing. Chapter IV will present the results and analysis o f the study.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings of the study from the procedures discussed in
Chapter III. The main objective of the study is to investigate the impact of organizational
culture on the quality o f perceived service delivery among public sector entities. The chapter
is organized into five sections. The first section provides an introduction, section two covers
descriptive statistics and the third section addresses data analysis and instrument evaluation.
Section four outlines the tests o f hypotheses and a summary is provided in the final section.
Introduction
As discussed in Chapter III, the objective of this research is to examine the impact of
organizational culture on the quality of perceived service delivery in the public sector. The
instruments used in this study were revised based on consultation with experts from the two
government entities used in the study as well as the results o f the pilot study administered to
a sample of 10 customers and employees o f these entities.
Primary data was collected using two separate survey instmments. The first
questionnaire, SERVQUAL, measured customers’ perceptions and expectations of service
quality. Customers o f both entities completed this questionnaire. The second questionnaire,
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), measured organizational culture and
was completed by the employees of both public sector entities. A total o f 550 questionnaires
were distributed. One hundred and fifty (150) organizational culture questionnaires were
delivered to both entities. O f these, 62 employees completed the questionnaire in its entirety,
representing a response rate of 41% of the initial distribution to employees. The response
rate for customers was 53% of the total questionnaires distributed to customers; that is, of the
400 service quality questionnaires delivered to both entities, 213 usable responses were
77
78
returned. The total number of responses to the survey was 275, which comprised 62 (12.4%)
employees, and 213 (42.6%) customers, representing 2 public sector entities (1 central
government and 1 executive agency). Non-response to the customer’s questionnaires may
have been due to low literacy levels of some respondents, lack o f time or lack o f interest of
some customers, or the relative inexperience of those administering the questionnaires. In
addition, based on the unpredictable flow of customers, it was not feasible for questionnaires
to be administered directly and so the researcher had no control over the actual distribution of
questionnaires to customers at the executive agency. Customer service representatives of the
executive agency administered the questionnaires. The data was analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and the criterion used for statistical
significance to test all hypotheses was the 0.05 level of significance.
Descriptive statistics
The total sample size for both entities was 62 employees and 213 customers, a total
of 275 responses. The demographic data was examined in two parts: organizational culture
(employees) and service quality (customers) and included gender, age, education, position
and type of employment. Demographic data for customers and employees are presented in
the tables that follow.
79
Customer demographics.
Table 4Distribution o f customers by organization
Organization
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Dept. A (Central gov) 167 78.4 78.4 78.4
Dept. B (Exec, agency) 46 21.6 21.6 100.0
Total 213 100.0 100.0
Two organizations participated in the study, one central government (illustrated as
Department A) and one executive agency (illustrated as Department B). O f the 213
respondents, the majority, approximately 78% (167) came from central government and
approximately 22% (46) came from the executive agency type public sector entity.
Table 5 Distribution o f customers by gender
ORGAN * GENDER Crosstabulation
GENDER
male female Total
ORGAN Dept. A (Central gov) Count 88 79 167
% within ORGAN 52.7% 47.3% 100.0%
% within GENDER 84.6% 72.5% 78.4%
Dept. B (Exec, agency) Count 16 30 46
% within ORGAN 34.8% 65.2% 100.0%
% within GENDER 15.4% 27.5% 21.6%
Total Count 104 109 213
% within ORGAN 48.8% 51.2% 100.0%
% within GENDER 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
80
In the central government agency males were the majority (52.7%), whereas in the
executive agency females represented the majority (65.2%). O f the total respondents (213) in
the customer sample, females represented a marginal majority of 109 (51.2%), and males 104
(48.8%).
Table 6 Distribution o f customers by age group
ORGAN * AGEGP Crosstabulation
AGEGP
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and over Total
ORGAN Dept. A (Central gov) Count 56 66 27 13 5 167
% within ORGAN 33.5% 39.5% 16.2% 7.8% 3.0% 100.0%
% within AGEGP 93.3% 76.7% 61.4% 72.2% 100.0% 78.4%
Dept. B (Exec, agency Count 4 20 17 5 46
% within ORGAN 8.7% 43.5% 37.0% 10.9% 100.0%
% within AGEGP 6.7% 23.3% 38.6% 27.8% 21.6%
Total Count 60 86 44 18 5 213
% within ORGAN 28.2% 40.4% 20.7% 8.5% 2.3% 100.0%
% within AGEGP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In both central government and executive agency the age group with the highest
percentage was the 26-35, with 39.5% and 43.5% respectively. Only central government had
respondents in the 56 and over age group (3%). While the ages o f customers for both
departments ranged from 18 years to 55 years, the majority, 86 (40.4%) fell in the age group
26 to 35 years o f age. The lowest percentage (2.3%) was in the 56 and over age group, with
28.2% of customers in the age group 18 to 25 years. Customers in the age group 36 to 45
years accounted for 20.7% of responses and 8.5% were between 46 to 55 years.
81
Table 7 Distribution of customers by highest educational level achieved
ORGAN * EDU Crosstabulation
EDU
Graduate
High School Technical Undergradu degree/Di
Primary Graduate training ate degree ploma Total
ORGAN Dept. A (Central gov) Count 4 41 20 58 44 167
% within ORGAN 2.4% 24.6% 12.0% 34.7% 26.3% 100.0%
% within EDU 40.0% 74.5% 71.4% 82.9% 88.0% 78.4%
Dept. B (Exec, agency Count 6 14 8 12 6 46
% within ORGAN 13.0% 30.4% 17.4% 26.1% 13.0% 100.0%
% within EDU 60.0% 25.5% 28.6% 17.1% 12.0% 21.6%
Total Count 10 55 28 70 50 213
% within ORGAN 4.7% 25.8% 13.1% 32.9% 23.5% 100.0%
% within EDU 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
All customers had obtained at least primary level education. The majority of
customers (32.9%) had undergraduate degrees, and the lowest percentage was those with
primary level education at 4.7%. The second highest percentage of customers (25.8%) was
high school graduates. Customers at the graduate level constituted 23.5% of the sample
surveyed and 13.1% of customers had obtained technical (vocational) level education.
However, in central government, a majority of customers (34.7%) had attained undergraduate
degrees whereas a majority o f customers (30.4%) were high school graduates in the executive
agency.
82
Table 8 Distribution o f customers by employment status
ORGAN * EMPLOY Crosstabulation
EMPLOY
Self-em
Full-time Part-time ployed Unemployed Total
ORGAN Dept. A (Central gov Count 91 22 26 28 167
% within ORGAh 54.5% 13.2% 15.6% 16.8% 100.0%
% within EMPLC 77.8% 62.9% 92.9% 84.8% 78.4%
Dept. B (Exec, agen Count 26 13 2 5 46
% within ORGAf 56.5% 28.3% 4.3% 10.9% 100.0%
% within EMPLC 22.2% 37.1% 7.1% 15.2% 21.6%
Total Count 117 35 28 33 213
% within ORGAf 54.9% 16.4% 13.1% 15.5% 100.0%
% within EMPLC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 8 summarizes customers by type of employment. The majority of customers
(54.9%) were engaged in full-time employment, while 16.4% were employed on a part-time
basis. Unemployed customers represented 15.5 % of the sample and 13.1% of customers
were self-employed. For both the central government and executive agency, customers
engaged in full-time employment represented over 50%. For the central government
unemployment represented the next highest percentage (16.8%), while for the executive
agency part-time employment represented the next highest percentage (28.3%).
83
Employee demographics.
Table 9 Distribution of employees by organization
Organization
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Dept. A (Central gov) 21 33.9 33.9 33.9
Dept. B (Exec, agency) 41 66.1 66.1 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Of the 62 employees, 21 (33.9%) came from central government, and 41 (66.1%)
came from the executive agency type public sector entity.
Table 10 Distribution of employees by gender
ORGANIZA* GENDER Crosstabulation
GENDER
male female Total
ORGANIZA Dept. A (Central gov) Count 6 15 21
% within ORGANIZA 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%
% within GENDER 40.0% 31.9% 33.9%
Dept. B (Exec, agency) Count 9 32 41
% within ORGANIZA 22.0% 78.0% 100.0%
% within GENDER 60.0% 68.1% 66.1%
Total Count 15 47 62
% within ORGANIZA 24.2% 75.8% 100.0%
% within GENDER 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Of the total employee respondents, 47 (75.8%) were females and 15 (24.2%) were
males. In both the central government and executive agency, females represented the
majority, 71.4% and 78% respectively.
84
Table 11 Distribution of employees by age group
ORGANIZA * AGEGP Crosstabulation
AGEGP
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and over Total
ORGANIZA Dept. A (Central gov) Count 10 7 3 1 21
% within ORGANIZ. 47.6% 33.3% 14.3% 4.8% 100.0%
% within AGEGP 66.7% 23.3% 27.3% 33.3% 33.9%
Dept. B (Exec, agenc Count 5 23 8 2 3 41
% within ORGANIZ. 12.2% 56.1% 19.5% 4.9% 7.3% 100.0%
% within AGEGP 33.3% 76.7% 72.7% 66.7% 100.0% 66.1%
Total Count 15 30 11 3 3 62
% within ORGANIZ 24.2% 48.4% 17.7% 4.8% 4.8% 100.0%
% within AGEGP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sampled employees ages ranged from 18 years to over 56 years. The majority of
employees (48.4%) was between 26 to 35 years of age, while the age group 46 to 55 and 56
and over both scored lowest (4.8%). O f the total employees 24.2% were between 18 to 25
years, and 17.7% were between 36 to 45 years. Central government had a relatively young
workforce with majority o f employees in the 18-25 age group. Executive agency had a more
mature workforce with the majority being in the 26-35 age group. In the executive agency,
7.3% of the employees were in the 56 and over age group, while central government was not
represented in this age group. The age groups 26-35 and 36-45 represented over 75% of the
executive agency’s employees.
85
Table 12 Distribution of employees by highest educational level achieved
ORGANIZA * EDU Crosstabulation
EDU
Graduate
High School Technical Undergradu degree/Di
Primary Graduate training ate degree ploma Total
ORGANIZE Dept. A (Central gov) Count 9 1 4 7 21
% within ORGANIZ 42.9% 4.8% 19.0% 33.3% 100.0%
% within EDU 69.2% 11.1% 25.0% 30.4% 33.9%
Dept. B (Exec, agenc Count 1 4 8 12 16 41
% within ORGANIZ 2.4% 9.8% 19.5% 29.3% 39.0% 100.0%
% within EDU 100.0% 30.8% 88.9% 75.0% 69.6% 66.1%
Total Count 1 13 9 16 23 62
% within ORGANIZ 1.6% 21.0% 14.5% 25.8% 37.1% 100.0%
% within EDU 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
All respondents had obtained at least primary level education. The highest percent
(37.1%) had received graduate level degrees, and one employee respondent (1.6%) was at
primary level education. The majority of employee respondents were high school graduates
and undergraduates, represented by 21% and 25.8% respectively. Nine employees (14.5%)
had obtained technical (vocational) level education. In central government, a majority of
employees were educated up to high school, one third (33.3%) of employees were educated
at the graduate level. In the executive agency, a majority o f employees (39%) were educated
at the graduate level; the second highest level of educational attainment was at the
undergraduate level (29.3%).
86
Table 13 Distribution o f employees by years with current employer
ORGANIZA * YRSERV Crosstabulation
YRSERV
under 1 1-5 6-10 11-15 15-19 20-24 25 and over Total
ORGANIZ Dept. A (Central go Count 4 10 3 1 1 1 1 21
% within ORGAN 19.0% 47.6% 14.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 100.0%
% within YRSER\ 50.0% 29.4% 27.3% 20.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 33.9%
Dept. B (Exec, agei Count 4 24 8 4 1 41
% within ORGAN 9.8% 58.5% 19.5% 9.8% 2.4% 100.0%
% within YRSER\ 50.0% 70.6% 72.7% 80.0% 50.0% 66.1%
Total Count 8 34 11 5 2 1 1 62
% within ORGAN 12.9% 54.8% 17.7% 8.1% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0%
% within YRSERM00.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 13 summarizes respondents by years of service. More than half of the sampled
employees (54.8%) were employed for 1-5 years. It should be noted that 12.9 % were
employed with the organizations for less than 1 year. 17.7% were employed 6-10 years, and
8.1% of respondents were employed for 11-15 years. O f the 62 employees, one each
indicated being employed by the organization for 20-24 years and for more than 25 years. In
both the central government and executive agency, the majority of employees were employed
for 1-5 years, 47.6% and 58.5% respectively. Over 60% of employees have been employed
for up to 10 years in both departments. Central government had one employee employed for
over 25 years, representing 4.8% of its employment statistic.
87
Table 14 Distribution of employees by current position
ORGANIZA * POST Crosstabulation
IPOST
Weekly/hourly Administrative Profession
rated Clerical /management al/technical Total
ORGANIZA Dept. A (Central gov) Count 18 3 21
% within ORGANIZ 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%
% within POST 52.9% 14.3% 33.9%
Dept. B (Exec, agenc; Count 1 16 18 6 41
% within ORGANIZ, 2.4% 39.0% 43.9% 14.6% 100.0%
% within POST 100.0% 47.1% 85.7% 100.0% 66.1%
Total Count 1 34 21 6 62
% within ORGANIZ, 1.6% 54.8% 33.9% 9.7% 100.0%
% within POST 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In central government the majority (85.7%) of employees was engaged in clerical
positions, whereas in the executive agency the majority (43.9%) was engaged in
administrative/management positions. Only the executive agency had representation in the
professional/technical category (14.6%).
From the characteristics of the sample, statistical inferences were drawn about the
characteristics of the population. Customers utilizing central government services dominated
the sample. These customers were females (51.2%), having undergraduate qualifications
(32.9%), employed full-time (54.9%). O f the respondents 15.5% were unemployed. O f the
employees surveyed 66.1% were from the executive agency. They were female (75.8%, in
the age range o f 26 - 35 (48.4%), with 37.1% attaining graduate degrees. Most were
employed for between 1-5 years with their current employer and, of note, 12.9% were
employed for less than 1 year. A majority of employees (54.8%) were clerical. The
demographic data for both employees and customers showed no significant variability that
would indicate any systematic bias in the data generated. The data was therefore accepted as
void of systematic bias.
88
Characteristics o f the distribution
The data was examined graphically by means of histograms to provide a better
understanding of the general characteristics of the distributions. As illustrated in Appendix
E, the distributions appear normal except for that of the mean expectations of customers,
which is skewed to the right. This deviation is understandable since customer expectations
tend to be higher than their perceptions.
Tests o f normality
An important assumption for statistical procedures is that data samples are from a
normal population. Although histograms were used to determine that the data was from a
normal distribution, the normal probability plot (Q-Q plot) that compares the cumulative
distribution of the actual data values to the cumulative distribution of a normal distribution
along with the Kolmogorov-Smimov tests were used to validate this assessment. Appendix F
illustrates the normal probability plots (Q-Q plot) and Kolmogorov-Smimov tests for
normality of both customers and employees. The normal probability plot o f the difference
variable is relatively linear for all variables, so the assumption o f normality appears to be
reasonable. Based on the results of the Kolmogorov-Smimov tests for normality, there is
insufficient evidence to reject the sample as not coming from a normal distribution.
Data analysis and instrument evaluation
Instrument Reliability.
For the purpose of the study, instrument validity and reliability were established
(Berrio, 2003). Similar to previous studies (Berrio, 2003; Orwig et al., 1997), Cronbach’s
Alpha was used to assess the reliability o f scales used in the questionnaires and was
computed for the SERVQUAL and Organizational Culture Assessment instrument.
89
Reliability of the SERVQUAL instrument was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficients of the five dimensions of service quality by averaging customers’ SERVQUAL
scores on perceptions then expectations statements and gap scores that make up each
dimension of service quality. Applying a similar principle, reliability of the Organizational
Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients
of the four culture types o f organizational culture by averaging employees’ scores on
statements that make up each organizational culture type. The reliability coefficient of each
organizational culture type and each service quality dimension for both perceptions and
expectations computed is presented in Tables 15 and 16.
Table 15 Cronbach’s Alpha o f employee organizational culture

Culture Type Cronbach’s Alpha
Present Study Cameron & Quinn (1999)
Clan 0.82 0.82
Adhocracy 0.75 0.83
Market 0.81 0.67
Hierarchy 0.81 0.78
Table 16 Cronbach’s Alpha of customer service quality

Service Quality Cronbach’s Alpha
Dimensions
Current Study Parasuraman et
- a]
Perceptions Expectations Gap Scores
Tangibles 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.72
Reliability 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.83
Responsiveness 0.82 0.84 0.88 0.82
Assurance 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.81
Empathy 0.86 0.82 0.88 0.86
90
A comparison of the alpha coefficient for organizational culture type revealed that the
Cronbach’s Alpha obtained by Cameron and Quinn (1999) for clan culture type (0.82) is the
same measure obtained in this study. The difference in the measures obtained for the other
culture types could be attributed to cultural, organizational or other demographic factors.
The Cronbach’s Alphas of customer perceptions, expectations and gap scores of service
quality, show strong reliability which range from 0.80 to 0.86 for perceptions, 0.80 to 0.88
for perceptions and 0.86 to 0.90 for gap scores. The results of reliability scores for all scales
indicate strong support for the use of SERVQUAL and the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument. These results are considerably higher than that considered sufficient
for exploratory research (Nunnally, 1978).
Instrument Validity.
Validity was measured for both scales (SERVQUAL and Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument) using exploratory factor analysis. The objectives of the factor
analysis were to determine the factorial validity of the questions as well as the minimal
number of factors required to convey most of the information in the set o f variables. This
study used the criteria for the significance of factor loadings posited by Hair et al. (1998),
that is, factor loadings +0.30 or greater are necessary to meet minimal level, and loadings
+0.50 or greater are practically significant. Oblimin with Kaiser normalization rotation and
principal axis factor analysis method was used; a similar approach to that used in the
Parasuraman et al. (1991) study. To confirm the factor structure, principal components
analysis was also performed with a varimax rotation.
The rating scale used in this study for the SERVQUAL instrument contained 22
items. The first four items (1-4) in the scale measured tangibles; items 5-9 measured
91
reliability; items 10-13 measured responsiveness; items 14-17 measured assurance and items
18-22 measured empathy.
The 22-items for customer expectations were factor analyzed without specifying the
number of factors and loaded on 3 factors. Similarly, the 22-items for customer perceptions
were also factor analyzed resulting in a loading on 3 factors as well. Factor analysis for
organizational culture using the same procedure resulted in loading on 7 factors. The results
of the factor analysis began by providing the correlation matrix (Appendix G) together with
their significance levels, between the 22-items for expectations and perceptions and also
organizational culture. These correlation coefficients were used to group under a single
factor all items with fairly high correlations. All service quality items correlated positively
with each other at the 0.05 level or less. The correlation coefficients for organizational
culture reported all but 47 (17%) of the items were significantly correlated at the 0.05 level or
less.
The communalities tables for perceptions, expectations and organizational culture are
presented in Appendix H. The communality of a variable is the proportion o f its total
variance that is shared with the other original variables (Jaeger, 1993). The values of the
communalities that are explained by the three extracted factors are reported in the second
column, “extraction.” Communalities for perceptions ranged from 0.327 for question 15,
“Customers feel safe when conducting business with the organization,” to 0.704 for question
18, “The organization gives customers individual attention.” While communalities for
expectations ranged from 0.398 for question 3, “Employees are well dressed and neatly
attired,” to 0.727 for question 2, “The physical facilities are attractive.” The results indicated
that the common factors explained some of the variance of the variables, that is, the
communalities had some relation to the three factors. Communalities for organizational
culture range from 0.237 for question 1, “This organization is a very personal place. It is like
92
an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves and with one another;” to 0.807
for question 24, “This organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable
service delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost delivery o f services are critical.” The low
communality results for question 1 indicate that it has little relation to the 7 factors. The
overall results suggest that the common factors explained some of the variance of the
variables.
The total variances explained are presented in Appendix I. In all instance the first
factor accounted for the largest amount of variance. The second factor consisted of the next
largest amount of variance that was not related or explained by the first factor. The third
factor was derived by a method similar to factor two, and this was continued for all variables.
In the total variances explained table, eigenvalues represented the amount of variance
explained by a factor. They were ordered by size and plotted in the scree plot (Appendix J).
Hair et al. (1998) recommends that only eigenvalues greater than 1 should be considered
significant, and all factors with values less than 1 should be disregarded.
For perceptions the first factor accounted for 49.44% of the variance, the second
factor accounted for 7.45% and the third factor accounted for 5.12%. Together, the first three
factors accounted for 62% of the variability of the original 22 variables. It must be noted that
38% of the variance items in the rating scale was not explained by the 3 rotated factors,
thereby illustrating the less than perfect representation of the original variables.
For expectations the first factor accounted for 48.76% of the variance, the second
factor accounted for 7.77% and the third factor accounted for 5.19%. Together, the first three
factors accounted for 61.7% of the variability of the original 22 variables. It must be noted
that 38.3% of the variance items in the rating scale was not explained by the 3 rotated factors,
also illustrating a less than perfect representation of the original variables.
93
For organizational culture the first factor accounted for 37.62%, the second factor
accounted for 9.26%, and the third factor accounted for 6.93%. Factors four and five
accounted for approximately 5% each and factors six and seven accounted for approximately
4% each. Together, the first seven factors accounted for 73.12% of the variability of the
original 22 variables. Ftowever, it must be noted that approximately 27% of the variance
items in the rating scale was not explained by the 7 rotated factors, again illustrating the less
than perfect representation of the original variables.
The rotation method oblimin with Kaiser normalization provided a factor, pattern,
and structure matrix. Since the structure matrix is generally used to interpret factors (Bryman
& Cramer, 2001) and is computed by multiplying the pattern matrix by the factor correlation
matrix, the results o f this matrix were used to interpret the factors in this study (Appendix K).
Factors for perceptions, expectations and organizational culture were rotated using the
oblimin with Kaiser normalization as the rotation method and principal axis factoring as the
extraction method. Perceptions loaded on three factors and reported thirteen variables that
had moderate to high loadings on the first factor. All five questions relating to empathy,
three questions each relating to assurance and responsiveness and one question each relating
to reliability and tangibles loaded on factor 1. The second factor was defined by three
questions that had moderate to high loadings on this factor and contained all but one of the
questions relating to the tangibles dimension. Six questions had moderate to high loadings
on the third factor. The third factor includes four questions relating to reliability plus two
questions, one each relating to responsiveness and assurance.
Expectations also loaded on three factors and reported eleven variables that had
moderate to high loadings on the first factor. All five questions relating to reliability, three
relating to responsiveness, two relating to assurance and one relating to empathy loaded on
factor 1. The second factor was defined by seven questions that had moderate to high
94
loadings. Factor 2 includes four questions relating to empathy, two questions relating to
assurance and one question relating to responsiveness. The third factor contained all
questions relating to tangibles. For both perceptions and expectations the service quality
dimensions show a factor pattern of crossloadings that is not well defined which is consistent
with previous studies o f SERVQUAL in the public sector (Donnelly & Dalrymple, 1996;
Donnelly & Shiu, 1999).
Organizational culture loaded on seven factors with six questions that had moderate
to high loadings on the first factor. Two questions related to clan, three related to
hierarchical and one related to market type culture. The second factor was defined by four
questions, two relating to market, and one each relating to hierarchical and adhocracy culture
type. Factor 3 was defined by three questions, one each relating to hierarchical, adhocracy
and market type culture. Factor four had only one question relating to market type culture
with a high loading. This is considered to be an undesirable result since it does not contribute
to a reduction in the number of factors. Four questions, one relating to clan and three relating
to adhocracy culture type defined the fifth factor. Factor six was also defined by four
questions, one relating to each of the four culture types. The seventh factor was defined by
two questions, both relating to the clan culture type. The factor solution for organizational
culture types shows the questions relating originally to a particular culture type consistently
being split into two or more factors. This may be indicative of differences in the
interpretation of questions, which may require modification of the organizational culture
instrument to reflect the situational context.
To confirm the same factor structure and ensure that the results were not sample
specific and of limited utility, principal components factor analysis was conducted using a
varimax rotation for perceptions, expectations, and organizational culture. The factor
95
analysis solutions were compared and the loadings grouped in the same manner, establishing
internal consistency and reliability of both instruments.
Test o f hypotheses
Hypothesis 1.
Hoi: Among public sector entities there is no relationship between
organizational culture and the quality o f perceived service
delivery.
H ai: Among public sector entities there is a relationship between
organizational culture and the quality o f perceived service
delivery.
Hypothesis 1 was examined by computing Pearson’s correlation coefficients between
service quality dimensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy) and
the organizational culture dimensions (dominant characteristics, leadership style,
management style, organizational glue, organizational climate and success criteria).
The results (Table 17) indicated that tangibles dimension had a significant
relationship with reliability dimension (r = 0.701, p<0.01), responsiveness dimension (r =
0.748, p<0.01), assurance dimension (r = 0.727, p<0.01), and empathy dimension (r = 0.687,
p<0.01) respectively. However, there was no significant relationship between tangibles
dimension and dominant characteristics, leadership style, management style, organizational
glue, organizational climate and success criteria. Reliability dimension had a significant
relationship with responsiveness dimension (r = 0.837, p<0.01), assurance dimension (r =
0.774, p<0.01), empathy dimension (r = 0.790, p<0.01), and success criteria (r = 0.142,
p<0.05) respectively. The significant positive relationship between reliability and success
96
criteria supports this hypothesis. For organizations to be successful, reliability is both
expected and desired, and is usually a criteria for service quality evaluation. There was no
significant relationship between reliability dimension and dominant characteristics,
leadership style, management style, organizational glue and organizational climate.
Responsiveness dimension had a significant relationship with assurance dimension (r
= 0.827, p<0.01), empathy dimension (r = 0.806, p<0.01), and success criteria (r = 0.142,
p<0.05) respectively. Customers accord great importance to the responsiveness of their
service providers and so the significant positive relationship of responsiveness with success
criteria supports this hypothesis. There was no significant relationship between
responsiveness dimension and dominant characteristics, leadership style, management style,
organizational glue, and organizational climate. Assurance dimension had a significant
relationship with empathy dimension (r = 0.856, p<0.01). However, there was no significant
relationship between assurance dimension and dominant characteristics, leadership style,
management style, organizational glue, organizational climate and success criteria. There
was no significant relationship between empathy dimension and dominant characteristics,
leadership style, management style, organizational glue, organizational climate and success
criteria.
Dominant characteristics had a significant relationship with leadership style (r =
0.489, p = <0.01), management style (r = 0.652, p <0.01), organizational glue (r = 0.637,
p<0.01), organizational climate (r = 0.614, p<0.01), and organizational criteria (r = 0.645,
p<0.01) respectively. Leadership style had a significant relationship with management style
(r = 0.619, p<0.01), organizational glue (p = 0.643, p<0.01), organizational climate (p =
0.638, p<0.01), and success criteria (r = 0.487, p<0.01) respectively. Management style had
a significant relationship with organizational glue (r = 0.618, p<0.01), organizational climate
(r = 0.709, p<0.01), and success criteria (r = 0.539, p<0.01) respectively. Organizational glue
97
had a significant relationship with organizational climate (r = 0.680, p<0.01), and success
criteria (r = 0.716, p<0.01) respectively.
Organizational climate had a significant relationship with success criteria (r = 0.567,
p<0.01). The results suggest that the degree o f correlation between organizational culture
and service quality is mainly attributable to the relationship between success criteria and
responsiveness and reliability for public sector entities. The high importance of
responsiveness and reliability in this study is consistent with previous research in the public
sector (Brysland & Curry, 2001). Their study found the highest expectations scores were for
reliability and responsiveness respectively. Accordingly, the null hypothesis of no
relationship between organizational culture and perceived service quality delivery among
public sector entities is rejected.
98
Table 17 Correlation of Service quality dimensions and organizational culture dimensions
Correlations
Responsiv dominant
Tangibles Reliability eness Assurance Empathy characteri leadership management organizational organizational success
dimension dimension dimension dimension dimension sties style style dlue climate criteria
Tangibles dimension Pearson Correlation 1 .701** .748** .727** .687** .099 -.022 .024 .032 -.022 .129
Sig. (2-taiied) .000 .000 .000 .000 .151 .754 .728 .642 .755 .060
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
Reliability dimension Pearson Correlation .701** 1 .837’* .774** .790** .027 .046 .094 .047 .076 .142*
Sig. (2-taiied) .000 .000 .000 .000 .692 .506 .172 .497 .272 .039
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
I
!f»
I?
Responsiveness Pearson Correlation
CO
co
.748** 1 .827’* .806** .057 .027 .074 .081 .054 .142*
dimension Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .405 .693 .279 .239 .433 .039
N
213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
Assurance dimension Pearson Correlation .727** .774** .827** 1 .856*’ .057 .063 .080 .069 .063 .099
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .409 .364 .248 .317 .362 .152
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
Empathy dimension Pearson Correlation .687** .790** .806** .856** 1 .084 .040 .099 .063 .113 .107
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .222 .559 .150 .358 .101 .118
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
dominant characteristics Pearson Correlation .099 .027 .057 .057 .084 1 .489“ .652** .637“ .614“ .645”
Sig. (2-taiied) .151 .692 .405 .409 .222 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
leadership style Pearson Correlation -.022 .046 .027 .063 .040 .489** 1 .619“ .643** .638** .487”
Sig. (2-tailed) .754 .506 .693 .364 .559 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
management style Pearson Correlation .024 .094 .074 .080 .099 .652** .619“ 1 .618“ .709** .539”
Sig. (2-tailed) .728 .172 .279 .248 .150 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
organizational glue Pearson Correlation .032 .047 .081 .069 .063 .637“ .643“ .618” 1 .680** .716”
Sig. (2-tailed) .642 .497 .239 .317 .358 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
organizational climate Pearson Correlation
1
-.022 .076 .054 .063 .113 .614“
CO
o
.638” .709** 1 .567"
Sig. (2-tailed) .755 .272 .433 .362 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
success criteria Pearson Correlation .129 .142* .142* .099 .107 .645“ .487” .539“ .716” .567“ 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .060 .039 .039 .152 .118 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
**• Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*• Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
99
Hypothesis 2.
Ho2: Among public sector entities there is no dominant
The null hypothesis was evaluated using the highest mean scores obtained for each
culture type. The mean scores of the four culture types were then ranked from highest to
lowest for each entity. Table 18 illustrates the mean scores for each entity. Culture types
that were more reflective of a particular entity showed higher mean scores. An overall
analysis of the results for both entities showed that the dominant culture type for public
sector entities was the market culture (mean = 3.52). However, individual analysis indicated
that whereas for central government the clan culture type was dominant with highest mean
score of 3.29; for the executive agency the market culture type was dominant with highest
mean score of 3.80, illustrated in Figure 10. The result suggests a paradigm shift from the
hierarchical/bureaucratic culture in keeping with the objectives of public sector reforms.
This finding while being consistent with expectations is not consistent with findings of
Parker and Bradley’s (2000) study on six public sector entities in Australia. Parker and
Bradley found that contrary to their expectations four of the six entities reflected the
traditional hierarchical culture type.
100
Table 18 Organizational culture types Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive
95% Confidence Interval

Mean
N Mean Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimum Maximu
MEANCLA Dept. A (Central 21 3.2857 .9297 .2029 2.8625 3.7089 1.33 4.67
Dept. B (Exec. 41 3.4065 .7985 .1247 3.1545 3.6585 1.50 5.00
Total 62 3.3656 .8395 .1066 3.1524 3.5788 1.33 5.00
MEANMK Dept. A (Central 21 2.9841 .6850 .1495 2.6723 3.2959 1.33 4.50
Dept. B (Exec. 41 3.8008 .6944 .1085 3.5816 4.0200 2.00 5.00
Total 62 3.5242 .7886 .1002 3.3239 3.7245 1.33 5.00
MEANADH Dept. A (Central 21 2.7857 .6628 .1446 2.4840 3.0874 1.17 3.83
Dept. B (Exec. 41 3.1992 .7180 .1121 2.9725 3.4258 1.83 4.67
Total 62 3.0591 .7218 9.167E- 2.8758 3.2424 1.17 4.67
MEANHIE Dept. A (Central 21 3.2063 .9616 .2098 2.7686 3.6441 1.00 4.67
Dept. B (Exec. 41 3.6301 .5695 8.894E- 3.4503 3.8098 2.00 5.00
Total 62 3.4866 .7461 9.476E- 3.2971 3.6760 1.00 5.00
101
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Clan
Hierarchy Market
Adhocracy
EXECUTIVE AGENCY
Clan
Organizational
----• ---- Culture type
Hierarchy Market
Adhocracy
OVERALL PUBLIC SECTOR
Clan
Hierarchy Market
Adhocracy
Figure 10 Graphical Representation of Organizational Culture Types for Central

Government, Executive Agency and Overall Public Service
102
The ANOVA results (Table 19) indicated that for market, adhocracy and hierarchy
organizational culture types there were statistically significant differences between central
government and executive agency; (market: F = 19.382, p < 0.05; adhocracy: F = 4.844, p <
0.05; hierarchy: F = 4.754, p < 0.05). This finding suggests that differences exist between the
public sector entities in relation to organizational culture type. Accordingly, the null
hypothesis is rejected.
Table 19 Organizational Culture Type ANOVA
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CLAN Between Groups .203 1 .203 .284 .596
Within Groups 42.788 60 .713
Total 42.991 61
MARKET Between Groups 9.262 1 9.262 19.382 .000
Total 37.936 61
ADHOCRAC Between Groups 2.374 1 2.374 4.844 .032
Total 31.783 61
HIERARCH Between Groups 2.493 1 2.493 4.754 .033
Total 33.961 61
T-tests (Table 20) also showed statistically significant differences between the
market, adhocracy and hierarchy culture, (market:F = 0.167, p < 0.05; adhocracy: F = 0.235 <
0.05; hierarchy.F = 14.233, p < 0.05) and therefore equal variances cannot be assumed. T-
tests confirm the results o f the ANOVA and support previous findings that reject the null
hypothesis of no dominant organizational culture type in public sector entities (Berrio, 2003;
Parker & Bradley, 2000).
In addition, the six dimensions of organizational culture were analyzed for executive
agency and central government. The highest mean score for each dimension is shown in
Table 21. In central government, the highest mean score was in the dominant characteristics
dimension (3.76), while the lowest mean score was in the organizational climate dimension
(3.14). The highest mean score for the executive agency was in the organizational glue
dimension (4.10), while the lowest mean score was in the organizational climate dimension
(3.46). Three dimensions that demonstrated differences from the overall clan culture profile
in central government were organizational glue (market) and leadership style and
organizational climate (hierarchy). For the executive agency, the two dimensions that
demonstrated differences from the overall market culture profile were dominant characteristic
and organizational climate (hierarchy).
104
Table 20 Organizational Culture Type T-test
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
CLAN Equal variances
1.840 .180 -.533 60 .596 -.1208 .2266 -.5741 .3325
assumed
Equal variances
-.507 35.439 .615 -.1208 .2381 -.6040 .3624
not assumed
MARKET Equal variances
.167 .684 -4.402 60 .000 -.8167 .1855 -1.1878 -.4456
assumed
Equal variances
-4.422 40.930 .000 -.8167 .1847 -1.1897 -.4437
not assumed
ADHOCRAC Equal variances
.235 .630 -2.201 60 .032 -.4135 .1879 -.7893 -3.7675E-02
assumed
Equal variances
-2.259 43.427 .029 -.4135 .1830 -.7824 -4.4498E-02
not assumed
HIERARCH Equal variances
14.233 .000 -2.180 60 .033 -.4237 .1943 -.8125 -3.5005E-02
assumed
Equal variances
-1.859 27.389 .074 -.4237 .2279 -.8911 4.360E-02
not assumed
105
Table 21 Highest Mean Scores on the Organizational Culture Dimensions for Central
Government and Executive Agency
Central Government Executive Agency

Dimension Mean Culture Type Mean Culture Type
Dominant 3.76 Clan 4.07 Hierarchy

Characteristic
Leadership Style 3.71 Hierarchy 4.00 Market
Management 3.71 Clan 3.85 Market
Style
Organizational 3.38 Market 4.10 Market
Glue
Organizational 3.14 Hierarchy 3.46 Hierarchy
Climate
Criteria of 3.19 Clan 4.02 Market
Success
106
Hypotheses 3A - 3D.
The null hypotheses were tested by computing Pearson’s correlation coefficients
(Table 22). Pearson’s correlations were used to describe the strength o f the linear association
between the organizational culture types and service quality dimensions. According to Furrer
et al. (2000) correlation coefficients “are best used to capture the continuous dimension of
culture.” Subsequently, the mean scores were compared by conducting one-way analysis of
variance (Donthu & Yoo, 1998).
Table 22 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient for Service quality dimensions and organizational culture types
Correlations
TAN RELIA RESPON ASSUR EMPAT CLAN MARKET ADHOCRAC HIERARCH

TAN Pearson Correlation 1.000 .7 0 1 " .7 4 8 " .727" .6 8 7 " -.012 .056 .070 .059
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .858 .413 .312 .392
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RELIA Pearson Correlation .7 0 1 " 1.000 .837” .774” .790" .052 .083 .124 .050
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .446 .227 .071 .465
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RESPON Pearson Correlation .7 4 8 " .8 3 7 " 1.000 .8 2 7 " .806" .040 .093 .116 .061
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .565 .175 .090 .374
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSUR Pearson Correlation .7 2 7 " .7 7 4 " .8 2 7 " 1.000 .856” .058 .064 .111 .072
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .402 .353 .106 .297
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
EMPAT Pearson Correlation .6 8 7 " .7 9 0 " .8 0 6 " .856” 1.000 .042 .122 .128 .067
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .540 .075 .061 .333
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
CLAN Pearson Correlation -.012 .052 .040 .058 .042 1.000 .4 8 3 " .659” .787"
Sig. (2-tailed) .858 .446 .565 .402 .540 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
MARKET Pearson Correlation .056 .083 .093 .064 .122 .4 8 3 " 1.000 .697" .703”
Sig. (2-tailed) .413 .227 .175 .353 .075 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ADHOCRAC Pearson Correlation .070 .124 .116 .111 .128 .6 5 9 " .697” 1.000 .614”
Sig. (2-tailed) .312 .071 .090 .106 .061 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
HIERARCH P earson Correlation .059 .050 .061 .072 .067 .7 8 7 " .7 0 3 " .614" 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .392 .465 .374 .297 .333 .000 .000 .000
N 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
**■ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
108
Hypothesis 3A.
H03 .a: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
clan culture type public sector entities place on reliability,
tangibles.
Ha3 .a: There is a difference in the importance that customers of clan
tangibles.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient revealed no significance at the 0.05 level.
Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Table 22 presents the analysis of variance
used to test the hypothesis. The results reliability (F=1.175, p>0.05), assurance (F=0.753,
p>0.05), responsiveness (F=0.993, p>0.05), empathy (F=0.943, p>0.05) and tangibles
(F=0.937, p>0.05), indicate no difference between the importance placed on tangibles and the
other service quality dimensions of reliability, assurance, responsiveness and empathy.
Hence the null hypothesis 3A cannot be rejected.
109
Table 23 Analysis o f Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Clan culture type
ANOVA
Sum of
TAN Between Groups 33.908 19 1.785 .937 .539
Within Groups 367.769 193 1.906
Total 401.677 212
RELIA Between Groups 37.856 19 1.992 1.175 .282
Within Groups 327.276 193 1.696
Total 365.132 212
RESPON Between Groups 39.902 19 2.100 .993 .471
Within Groups 408.011 193 2.114
Total 447.914 212
ASSUR Between Groups 21.764 19 1.145 .753 .760
Within Groups 293.490 193 1.521
Total 315.254 212
EMPAT Between Groups 26.288 19 1.384 .943 .530
Within Groups 283.072 193 1.467
Total 309.360 212
Hypothesis 3B.
H03 .b: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
Ha3b: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
110
Computing Pearson’s correlation coefficient revealed that the null hypothesis
associating the level of importance o f service quality dimensions with organizational culture
types was not found to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level; and so the null hypothesis
cannot be rejected. In addition, analysis of variance (Table 23) was used to test the
hypothesis. The results reliability (F=0.781, p>0.05), assurance (F=0.364, p>0.05),
responsiveness (F=0.640, p>0.05), empathy (F=0.639, p>0.05) and tangibles (F=0.351,
p>0.05) respectively, indicate no difference between the importance placed on tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness and the other service quality dimensions of assurance and
empathy. Therefore, the null hypothesis 3B cannot be rejected.
Table 24 Analysis of Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Adhocracy

culture type
ANOVA
Sum of
TAN Between Groups 13.417 19 .706 .351 .995
Within Groups 388.259 193 2.012
Total 401.677 212
RELIA Between Groups 26.054 19 1.371 .781 .728
Within Groups 339.077 193 1.757
Total 365.132 212
Within Groups 421.362 193 2.183
Total 447.914 212
ASSUR Between Groups 10.906 19 .574 .364 .994
Within Groups 304.348 193 1.577
Total 315.254 212
EMPAT Between Groups 18.299 19 .963 .639 .873
Within Groups 291.061 193 1.508
Total 309.360 212
Ill
Hypothesis 3C.
H03 .c: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
empathy.
Ha3 .c: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
empathy.
The correlation was not found to be significant at the 0.05 level. In addition,
analysis of variance (Table 24) was used to test the hypothesis. The results reliability
(F=1.244, p>0.05), assurance (F=0.821, p>0.05), responsiveness (F= 1.101, p>0.05), empathy
(F=1.121, p>0.05) and tangibles (F=0.949, p>0.05) respectively, indicate no difference
between the importance placed on tangibles and the other service quality dimensions of
reliability, assurance, responsiveness and empathy. Hence the null hypothesis 3C cannot be
rejected.
112
Table 25 Analysis of Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Market

culture type
ANOVA
Sum of
W ithin Groups 370.983 195 1.902
Total 401.677 212
W ithin Groups 329.406 195 1.689
Total 365.132 212
RESPON Between Groups 39.228 17 2.308 1.101 .355
W ithin Groups 408.685 195 2.096
Total 447.914 212
W ithin Groups 294.206 195 1.509
Total 315.254 212
EMPAT Between Groups 27.538 17 1.620 1.121 .336
W ithin Groups 281.822 195 1.445
Total 309.360 212
Hypothesis 3D.
H03 .d: There is no difference in the importance that customers of
Ha3.d: There is a difference in the importance that customers of
113
The Pearson Correlation was not significant at the 0.05 level and so the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected. In addition, analysis of variance (Table 26) was used to test
the hypothesis. The results reliability (F=1.497, p>0.05), assurance (F=0.688, p>0.05),
responsiveness (F=0.756, p>0.05), empathy (F=0.800, p>0.05) and tangibles (F=0.561,
p>0.05) respectively, indicate no difference between the importance placed on empathy and
assurance and the other service quality dimensions of reliability, responsiveness and
tangibles. Hence the null hypothesis 3D cannot be rejected.
Table 26 Analysis of Variance for Service Quality dimensions and Hierarchy

culture type
ANOVA
Sum of
Within Groups 382.961 195 1.964
Total 401.677 212
Within Groups 322.987 195 1.656
Total 365.132 212
Within Groups 420.209 195 2.155
Total 447.914 212
Within Groups 297.422 195 1.525
Total 315.254 212
EMPAT Between Groups 20.168 17 1.186 .800 .692
Within Groups 289.192 195 1.483
Total 309.360 212
114
The results confirm previous research findings that perceived importance attached to
service quality dimensions is more a function of specific service situations than the particular
organization (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999).
Hypothesis 4.
H04 .’ There are no differences in perceptions o f service quality between
entities.
Ha4: There are differences in perceptions of service quality between
entities.
Perceived service quality scores were gathered from customers of central government
and executive agency. ANOVA was used to determine if there were any differences by
organizational culture type in the entities surveyed. Table 27 presents Analysis of Variance
results for perceptions and type of public sector entities. There are statistical differences
between the two groups. The mean o f 2.89 obtained for central government customers’
perceptions is significantly lower than the mean o f 4.32 obtained for executive agency
customers. The results (F = 169.55, p < 0.05) indicate that there are significant differences.
Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Customers o f executive agencies have higher
perceptions of service quality than do customers of central government.
In addition, Table 28 presents the means for customer’s perception o f the five
dimensions of service quality. This provides greater detail on the differences between the
two entities and allows for further analysis. As in previous studies, the poorest performing
dimensions were reliability and responsiveness (Brysland & Curry, 2001; Donnelly & Shiu,
1999). The results reveal that in both central government and executive agency the service is
performing poorest in the reliability and responsiveness dimensions with mean scores of 2.78
and 2.83; and 3.86 and 4.24 respectively. However, the mean perception score for both
dimensions in the executive agency is significantly higher than that for central government.
The results imply that whereas customers have a poor perception of the service quality
dimensions responsiveness and reliability, the customers in central government are more
dissatisfied with average perception score less than three. The results can also be used to
provide an overall understanding o f customers’ perception of the service quality dimensions
as it relates to central government and executive agency. The results imply that whereas
customers have a particularly low perception of service quality in all five dimensions in the
public sector, with average score for each dimension less than three; for executive agency the
perception is significantly higher, with average score for most dimensions over four and the
lowest dimension (reliability) scoring 3.86.
116
Table 27 Customers’ Perceived Service Quality by Organization ANOVA and Descriptive Statistics
Descriptives
MP__________________________________________________________________________________________
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
Dept. A (Central gov'. 167 2.8868 .7130 5.517E-02 2.7778 2.9957 1.18 4.64
Dept. B (Exec, agent 46 4.3152 .3999 5.896E-02 4.1965 4.4340 3.41 4.95
Total 213 3.1953 .8827 6.048E-02 3.0760 3.3145 1.18 4.95
ANOVA
MP
Sum of
Between Groups 73.591 1 73.591 169.545 .000
Total 165.174 212
117
Table 28 Customer’s Mean Perception of Service Quality Dimensions

by Organization
Dimension Central Executive

Government Agency
Tangibles 2.87 4.54
Reliability 2.83 3.86
Responsiveness 2.78 4.24
Assurance 2.99 4.41
Empathy 2.97 4.57
Hypothesis 5.
H05 : There are no differences in expectations of service quality between customers
o f central government and executive agencies.
Ha5: There are differences in expectations of service quality between customers of
central government and executive agencies.
Expected service quality scores were gathered from customers o f central government
and executive agency. ANOVA was used to determine if there were any differences in the
entities surveyed. Table 29 presents Analysis o f Variance results for expectations and type of
public sector entities. There are statistical differences between the two groups. The mean of
4.53 obtained for central government customers’ expectations is significantly higher than the
mean of 3.93 obtained for executive agency customers. The ANOVA results (F = 49. 6 , p <
0.05) indicate that there are statistical differences. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Customers of central government have higher expectations o f service quality than do
customers of executive agency.
118
The results were further examined by detailing customers’ expectations according to
the five dimensions of service quality. Table 30 presents the mean for customer’s
expectations of the five dimensions of service quality. Contrary to previous studies
customers expect the most from empathy and assurance in both central government and
executive agency, with mean scores of 4.58; and 4.29 and 4.15 respectively. Overall, mean
expectation scores for both entities were in excess of three, with expectation higher for all
dimensions in central government than that for executive agency. The results imply that
whereas customers have more than average expectations of the service quality dimensions in
executive agency, the customers in central government have much greater expectations with
average scores in excess o f four for all dimensions. The expectation score for tangibles
dimension (4.41) was lowest in central government, whereas, the lowest dimension in the
executive agency was responsiveness (3.58).
119
Table 29 Customers’ Expected Service Quality by Organization ANOVA and Descriptive Statistics
Descriptives
ME________________________________________________________________________
Mean
Dept. A (Central gov' 167 4.5349 .5013 3.879E-02 4.4583 4.6115 2.90 5.00
Dept. B (Exec, agent 46 3.9306 .5640 8.316E-02 3.7631 4.0981 2.62 5.00
Total 213 4.4044 .5713 3.915E-02 4.3273 4.4816 2.62 5.00
ANOVA
ME
Sum of
Between Groups 13.170 1 13.170 49.600 .000
Total 69.196 212
120
Table 30 Customer’s Mean Expectation of Service Quality Dimensions

by Organization
Dimension Central Executive Agency

Government
Tangibles 4.41 3.70
Reliability 4.57 3.72
Responsiveness 4.54 3.58
Assurance 4.58 4.15
Empathy 4.58 4.29
Hypothesis 6.
Ho6: There are no differences in the gap between perceived and expected
Ha6: There are differences in the gap between perceived and expected
Service quality gap scores were gathered from customers of central government and
executive agency. ANOVA was used to determine if there were any differences in the
entities surveyed. Table 31 presents Analysis of Variance results for service quality gap
scores and type o f public sector entities. There are statistical differences between the two
groups. The mean o f -1.65 obtained for central government customers’ perceptions is
significantly lower than the mean of 0.38 obtained for executive agency customers. The
negative mean score for central government suggests that their customers are more
121
dissatisfied with overall service quality than the customers of the executive agencies. The
ANOVA results (F = 218.763, p < 0.05) indicate that there are statistical differences.
Therefore, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Customers of central government agency
experience higher gaps in service than customers of executive agency.
The null hypothesis was also evaluated using the two-tailed T-tests for
Independent Samples (Table 32) to test the significance of a difference in the gap between
perceived and expected service quality gaps between central government and executive
agencies. The Levene Test is significant (F = 5.044, p <0.05). The variances are
significantly different and therefore equal variances cannot be assumed. The t value is -
17.613 with 96.369 degrees o f freedom. There is significant difference between central
government and executive agencies (p < 0.05). Accordingly, the t-tests confirm the results of
the ANOVA. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference in the gap between perceived
and expected service quality between central government and executive agencies is rejected.
The results illustrated in Table 33 provide the basis for further examination of the gap
scores for each dimension. The gap scores for all dimensions o f service quality for central
government were negative implying that customer expectations were not being met, whereas,
for the executive agency the gap scores for all dimensions were positive implying that the
service being provided exceeded customer expectations. The results o f the gap score further
imply that future service improvements are specifically needed in central government and
executive agency in the responsiveness and reliability dimension respectively.
122
Table 31 Customers’ Service Quality Gap by organizational type ANOVA and Descriptive Statistics
Descriptives
GAP
Mean
Dept. A (Central gov) 167 -1.6482 .8696 6.729E-02 -1.7810 -1.5153 -3.82 .66
Dept. B (Exec, agency) 46 .3846 .6359 9.376E-02 .1957 .5734 -1.54 1.48
Total 213 -1.2092 1.1751 8.052E-02 -1.3679 -1.0504 -3.82 1.48
ANOVA
GAP
Sum of
Between Groups 149.024 1 149.024 218.763 .000
Total 292.760 212
123
Table 32 T-test for Customers’ Service Quality Gap by organizational type
Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Sig. df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
GAP Equal variances _ _ ..
^ . 5.044 .026 -14.791 211 .000 -2.0327 .1374 -2.3037 -1.7618
assumed
Equal variances
-17.613 96.369 .000 -2.0327 .1154 -2.2618 -1.8037
not assumed
124
Table 33 Customer’s Mean Gap Score of Service Quality Dimensions by

Organization
Dimension Central Executive

Government Agency
Tangibles -1.54 0.84
Reliability -1.74 0.14
Responsiveness -1.76 0.66
Assurance -1.60 0.26
Empathy -1.61 0.28
125
Table 34 Summary of Hypotheses Testing
HYPOTHESES ACTION
Null Hypothesis 1: Among public sector entities there is no Reject the null
relationship between organizational
culture and the perceived quality of
service delivery.
Null Hypothesis 2: Among public sector entities there is no Reject the null
dominant organizational culture type.
Null Hypothesis There is no difference in the importance Do not reject the null
3A: that customers of clan culture type public
sector entities place on reliability,
assurance, responsiveness and empathy,
compared to tangibles.
3B: that customers of adhocracy culture type
public sector entities place on
responsiveness, tangibles and reliability,
compared to assurance and empathy.
3C: that customers of market culture type
public sector entities place on tangibles,
assurance, responsiveness and reliability,
compared to empathy.
3D: that customers of hierarchical culture type
public sector entities place on, empathy
and assurance compared to reliability,
Null Hypothesis 4: There are no differences in perceptions Reject the null
of service quality between customers of
central government and executive
agency public sector.
Null Hypothesis 5 There are no differences in expectations Reject the null

o f service quality between customers of
central government and executive
agencies.
Null Hypothesis 6 There are no differences in the gap Reject the null
between perceived and expected service
quality o f customers of central
government and executive agency public
sector entities.
126
Summary
This chapter presented the results of the data analysis. It included descriptive
statistics, estimates o f scale validity and reliability as well as hypotheses testing. Table 34
provides a summary of hypotheses testing results. The study failed to accept the null for
hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 however it accepted the null for hypotheses 3A to 3D. Chapter V,
discusses the results and statistical implications drawn from Chapter IV, makes
recommendations and provides direction for future research.
CHAPTERV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents a description of the study in six sections. First, a summary of
the major findings and a discussion of the results are presented. Second, interpretations of
the results are reported and third, the academic and managerial implications of the study are
discussed. Fourth, the limitations of the study are identified. Fifth, a direction for future
research is proposed and finally the chapter is concluded.
Summary o f major findings and discussion o f results
The objective of this study was to examine the impact of organizational culture on the
quality of perceived service delivery in public sector entities in Jamaica. This has
implications for government and public sector managers as they pursue public sector
modernization. The study was at the organizational level and examined central government
and executive agency type public sector entities. Central government refers to the established
traditional public service that is characterized by bureaucracy, whereas executive agency
refers to central government agencies devolved to new agencies with widened accountability
and demanding performance targets established by executive acts or directives of
government. The influence of demographic variables was also taken into consideration by
focusing on gender, age, employment status, educational level, and years with current
employer. Hypotheses designed to answer specific issues were empirically tested.
In this study two survey instruments were shown to be effective with reliabilities
exceeding the minimum acceptable level for exploratory research (Nunnally, 1978),
reliabilities ranged from 0.67 to 0.88. Validity was established and the pilot study provided
further evidence. Analysis of data revealed differences in the number of factors on which the
127
128
dimensions loaded. The differences should be subject to further study to determine whether
this may be due to demographic factors, the type o f organizations, or as suggested by Hair et
al. (1998), whether there should be a combination of related dimensions resulting in fewer
dimensions for each construct. The instability o f results from factor analysis has always been
a criticism of SERVQUAL. However, the results for the Organizational Culture Assessment
Instrument have tended to be consistent, and so the current inconsistency is an area for future
research. Overall, the study confirmed the usefulness of both instruments within public
sector organizations.
The discussions that follow relate to Table 34, Summary of Hypotheses testing
results.
Hypothesis 1.
This null hypothesis that posited no relationship between organizational culture and
perceived service quality delivery among public sector entities was rejected by this study.
Researchers studying culture at the national level and perceived service quality in other
industries reported a similar finding (Donthu & Yoo, 1998, Tsikriktsis, 2002). The results
from the correlation analysis generally supported the first hypothesis, however, most findings
did not yield statistically significant findings. Only one cultural dimension (success criteria)
had a significant impact at the 0.05 level on public sector service quality dimensions, namely
reliability and responsiveness.
The results may be interpreted to mean that for public sector entities, customers’
perceptions of service quality in the public sector especially with regards to the
organizational culture dimension ‘success criteria’ is significantly driven by reliability and
responsiveness. In addition, the results suggest that as the Jamaican government pursues
reform and modernization of the public sector, they should be guided by the critical success
129
factors of reliability and responsiveness. Consistent with previous research both dimensions
have been found to be the most important dimensions of service delivery (Brysland & Curry,
2001; Dalrymple et al., 1995; Donnelly & Shiu, 1999). Having invested large sums in public
sector reform, the Jamaican government and public sector managers should examine these
dimensions in order to determine the extent to which reliability and responsiveness contribute
to the delivery of quality service. Furthermore, since previous reform initiatives have failed
to significantly improve the quality of service delivery, it is critical that these dimensions be
investigated/analyzed and addressed in order to determine the extent of their contribution to
improved service delivery.
Hypothesis 2.
This hypothesis that posited that among public sector entities there is no dominant
organizational culture type was rejected. Berrio (2003) and Parker and Bradley (2000) found
that organizational culture types may classify public sector entities and that the theory of a
dominant organizational culture type held true both in institutions of higher learning and the
public sector.
Using the highest mean scores, overall public sector organizational culture type was
dominated by the market culture (3.52). However, the mean score for hierarchy (3.49) was
very close. The next highest mean score was 3.37 for the clan culture type and the lowest
mean score was for the adhocracy culture type (3.06).
Analysis of the data showed that while the market culture dominated overall, within
Department A (central government), the clan culture (human relations model) dominated.
This can possibly be explained by the fact that while central government agencies have
undergone managerial reforms aimed at achieving cost efficiency, accountability and
improved service delivery (Parker & Bradley, 2000), the management structure has not
130
changed and they have kept an internal focus emphasizing integration, information
management and communication. On the other hand Department B (executive agency) was
dominated by the market culture (rational goal model). This culture type has an external
focus emphasizing growth, resource acquisition and interaction with the external
environment (Parker & Bradley, 2000). A possible explanation for this is that executive
agencies have management structures similar to private sector and are expected to be self-
sufficient and profit oriented. These findings contribute to further understanding of
organizational culture in the public sector.
Analysis o f variance show statistically significant differences in the market,
adhocracy and hierarchical culture types, between central government and executive agency.
The differences imply the existence of competing values and support the findings o f previous
researchers (e.g. Cameron & Quinn, 1999) who reported that while organizations could be
classified by a dominant culture they typically have competing cultures.
Subsequent to the modernization program in the public sector, a departure from the
hierarchical culture (internal process model) was expected. While there has been a departure
from a wholly control/internal focus type culture, the results reveal that changes are
incremental and skewed to those cultures characterized by elements of control and an internal
focus represented by the market and clan culture respectively. The results imply that more
needs to be done in order to achieve the objectives of public sector reform.
Hypotheses 3A to 3D.
These null hypotheses, which stated that there were no differences in the importance
that customers o f the various organizational culture type public sector entities placed on some
service quality dimensions, were not rejected. Previous researchers reported that the
importance placed on service quality dimensions varied according to the service provided
131
(Brysland & Curry, 2001), thus supporting the findings. Table 35 illustrates the variations in
the importance of service quality dimensions in the public sector as reported by previous
researchers. It may be concluded that customer’s perceived importance of service quality
was dependent on the type of service provided and not primarily on the organizational culture
type.
Table 35 Comparative SERVQUAL results for public sector entities
Dimension Grounds maintenance Catering Public library Housing repairs
Tangibles 25 20 18 16
Reliability 28 30 23 30
Responsiveness 17 20 22 21
Assurance 15 15 21 17
Empathy 15 15 16 16
Hypothesis 4.
The null hypothesis, which stated that there was no difference in customers’
perceptions of service quality between central government and executive agency was
rejected. The results (F = l69.55, p<0.05) indicate that there are significant differences.
Customers o f executive agency have higher perceptions o f service quality than do customers
of central government. This could be explained by the mandate of executive agencies to be
both customer and service oriented. Also, employees of executive agencies are rewarded
based on achievement, part of which is determined by feedback from customers, while
central government managers ‘are not rewarded for performance’ (Brysland & Curry, 2001).
132
The findings suggest that government and public sector managers should develop
strategies aimed at improving the perception of service quality in all dimensions especially
for customers o f central government entities. Brysland and Curry (2001) argued that poor
service delivery was a consequence of the shift in focus from customers to operational
factors. Furthermore, since customers’ needs are neither exactly the same nor do they
perceive the service in the same way; it is imperative that customer perspectives be taken into
consideration. According to Curry and Herbert (1998), the challenge is to engage in research
to accurately determine the attributes customers consider most important.
Hypothesis 5.
This null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis testing showed significant differences
in expectations o f service quality between central government and executive agency. From
the results (F=49.6, p<0.05) it is concluded that customers o f central government public
sector entities have higher expectations o f service quality than do customers o f executive
agency. It could be explained that given the lower perceptions o f service quality,
expectations would naturally be higher for central government. In addition, customer
expectations would be further stimulated given the current reforms in the public sector, the
introduction of Citizen’s Charters, as well as the mandate to ‘eliminate waste and reduce
costs’ in public sector entities. Specifically it was found that contrary to the literature, while
both entities provided infrequent services and demonstrated organizational cultures other than
the hierarchical culture type, customers’ expectations were highest in the empathy and
assurance dimensions. This finding has implications for government and public sector
managers as they plan for improving service delivery.
133
Hypothesis 6.
The null hypothesis was rejected. In this study significant differences were found in
the service quality gap scores between central government and executive agency. The results
(F=218.76, p<0.05) support this. The negative mean score (-1.65) for central government
suggests that customers are more dissatisfied with the service they receive than customers of
executive agency with a mean gap score of 0.38. Further analysis highlighted the gap scores
for each service quality dimension as it relates to the public sector entities. The gap scores
served to identify responsiveness and reliability dimensions as areas for the greatest service
improvements for central government and executive agencies respectively. Similarly, the
study identified the dimension tangibles as the area requiring least improvement for both
central government and executive agency. It should be noted that whereas central
government customers considered reliability as having the second widest gap, executive
agency customers scored the assurance gap second. Both entities scored empathy as the
dimension with the third highest gap score. The results will prove useful to assist public
sector managers and government officials in determining current levels o f service quality as
well as areas for service improvement. Furthermore, if government and public sector
managers pursuing public sector reforms were able to identify specific service quality gaps
then it would better enable them to prioritize and according to Wisniewski (2001), ‘allow
action to be taken to close significant gaps in service provision.’ The results also clearly
indicate that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to service improvement is no longer acceptable as
customers are more discriminating in their service expectations. Therefore, understanding
and responding to customer expectations is necessary if government and public sector
managers want to meet the changing needs of customers.
134
Interpretation o f results
The purpose o f this study was to examine the impact o f organizational culture on the
quality o f perceived service delivery in the Jamaican public sector. It was hypothesized that
there would be a relationship between organizational culture as measured by the six
organizational culture dimensions (leadership style, management style, organizational glue,
organizational climate, criteria for success and dominant characteristics) and perceived
service quality delivery as measured by the five dimensions o f service quality namely,
assurance, responsiveness, tangibles, reliability and empathy.
The findings consistently support a relationship between organizational culture and
service quality dimensions. The weak relationships indicate that while organizational culture
is related to service quality, it is, nonetheless, a very weak predictor o f service quality. The
relationship between tangibles and leadership style and tangibles and organizational climate
suggests that the level of importance attached to these service quality dimensions by
customers is generally considered low. The findings are also consistent with the literature
that the importance of the dimensions varies according to the service provided (Brysland &
Curry, 2001). These results can help public sector managers in the planning, designing and
delivery of quality services.
The findings of this study indicate that while incremental changes have been made
away from the hierarchical culture, organizational culture continues to reflect traditional
approaches to public administration with the tendency for control of internal processes still
evident. Researchers (Bradley & Parker, 2001; Goodman et al., 2001) have reported that
understanding the existing culture is critical to implementing lasting changes in
organizations. Public sector managers who are spearheading the modernization process are
therefore challenged to understand the role of culture if they plan to lead change and pursue
programs and policies aimed at improved service delivery. This study’s finding is consistent
135
with the literature that increased competition and improved managerial incentives do not
automatically lead to enhance performance (Massey, 1996 cited in Parker & Bradley, 2000).
The findings also support the conclusion of previous researchers that four competing cultural
orientations exist within organizations (Chang & Wiebe, 1996; Goodman et al., 2001; Parker
& Bradley, 2000).
The findings of this study indicate that overall in the public sector the dominant
organizational culture type is the market culture type. This change from the typical
hierarchical culture type is in keeping with public sector reforms aimed at greater customer
focus. However, the results are also consistent with those of previous researchers who
reported no drastic changes in organizational culture types (Parker & Bradley, 2000). This
can possibly be explained by the fact that both entities are required to maintain public interest
(Parker & Bradley, 2000) while pursuing their specific mandate. On the one hand, executive
agencies exhibit a dominant market culture with an external focus as a result of the pursuit of
goals, objectives and rewards based on achievement which are similar to private profit-
making organizations, while on the other hand, central government entities exhibit a
dominant clan culture arising from the modernization programme and being driven by a
Citizen’s Charter. These findings contribute to an understanding of organizational culture in
public sector entities.
The findings of this study also suggest that customers have shifted from stereotyping
organizations to differentiating organizations by the extent to which perceptions and
expectations of service quality are met. Also, globalization has enabled customers to be well
informed with the ability to update and change their expectations at will. Customers
therefore expect that organizations will work harder to meet or exceed their expectations of
service quality in order to achieve and sustain competitive advantage. In a study of two
public sector entities Brysland and Curry (2001) found that customer’s perceptions and
136
expectations varied among service quality dimensions as well as within entities, supporting
this study’s findings.
Academic and managerial implications o f the study
Various researchers have been successful in using the SERVQUAL and OCAI
instruments in a variety o f applications. In this study both instruments were shown to be
effective for use in the Jamaican public sector and were useful predictors of perceived service
quality delivery and organizational culture type. The findings of this study provided
important information for public sector managers, which can form the basis for developing
and designing strategies for continuous improvements in the public sector.
The study identified public sector entities, organizational culture types and their
relation to service quality dimensions. Understanding these relationships should enable
public sector managers to deliver a higher quality service in an environment where meeting
and exceeding customer needs and expectations has become the norm, not the exception.
This study also made valuable contribution to the service quality and organizational culture
literature by providing empirical data on the relationship between organizational culture and
perceived service quality, a phenomenon not previously studied in the Jamaican public
sector. The results show that organizational culture type plays a significantly less important
role in the perceived delivery o f public sector services. While it was expected that the quality
of service delivery would be largely influenced by organizational culture the findings were
not significant for the most part. However, since the public services examined were
infrequent service situations then the results should not be surprising since ‘it is when
services involve a high degree o f interaction between customers and service personnel that
cultural elements have the greatest influence’ (Lovelock & Yip, 1996, cited in Tsikriktsis,
2002). Overall, the findings supported the initial hypothesis of a relationship between
137
organizational culture and the quality o f public sector service delivery. Specifically, the
results suggests that in developing and designing strategies for improvements in service
delivery, public sector managers need to examine each dimension and the specific questions
related to it, as well as, to differentiate between frequent and infrequent service situations
since organizational culture may impact these differently.
Limitations of the study
In this study only two public sector entities (1 central government and 1 executive
agency) were studied. The entities were both infrequent service providers and it is possible
that the use of frequent service providers or a combination of both would have allowed for
greater generalization o f the results. Similar studies should include more than two public
sector entities in order to support and extend the findings o f this study. In addition,
demographics might have impacted the results since, for service quality, three times as many
customers were from central government compared to executive agencies. Also, 73% of
central government customers were in the 18-35 age group, while over 80% of executive
agency customers were in the 26-45 age group. Employee respondents in executive agency
doubled those in central government, with approximately 43% having attained high school
level education. Executive agency employee respondents had 39% attaining graduate level
education. Future research could consider a comparable number o f respondents from each
public sector entity so that any single group does not dominate data.
The second limitation was the use of students for data collection. Students were
limited to collect data based on their class schedule. The data collected may well be
influenced by the time of day and the day of the week that it was collected. Future
researchers should consider the use of professional market research organizations for the data
collection and the logistics of the survey.
138
The third limitation was the survey instruments. Despite modifications, the
instruments still proved challenging especially to low literate respondents. The SERVQUAL
instrument capturing responses on both perceptions and expectations and the OCAI capturing
responses on the four organizational culture types proved quite challenging for some
respondents. In addition, as suggested in previous studies, focus groups could have been
used to extract pertinent information on organizational culture and service quality that may
not be readily captured using survey instruments.
The fourth limitation was using a convenience sample o f customers. Some
respondents were hesitant to complete the questionnaires and this may have affected the
quality of their responses. Some also expressed annoyance when approached to complete the
questionnaire. This difficulty could be addressed by possibly scheduling a time for the
completion of the questionnaire in a cool, quiet atmosphere where the instructions on how to
complete the questionnaire would be explained and especially low literate respondents would
have the opportunity to have explanations repeated. The results of the study are therefore
reflective of those respondents (customers and employees) who completed the survey
instruments.
Direction for future research
This study examined the impact of organizational culture on the quality of perceived
service delivery in the public sector. Future research could refine the present study by
addressing the limitations. According to Zeithaml et al. (1990) service quality is influenced
by factors such as, word-of-mouth communication, personal needs and past experiences.
Future studies could examine the extent to which these factors influence customer perception
of the quality o f service delivery.
139
According to the Jamaica Movement for the Advancement of Literacy (JAMAL,
2001) Jamaica’s literacy rate is approximately 80%. Since literacy level could influence the
response rate, then a modified instrument especially tailored for low literate respondents
could be considered and the requisite tests for validity and reliability conducted. In addition,
focus group studies could contribute to the extraction of more data.
In this study, data for the construct service quality was collected from customers and
data for the construct organizational culture was collected from employees. The results could
probably be different if the same respondents provided the data for both constructs. Also,
larger samples of similar sizes for the organizations being studied are advisable.
Validity and reliability of the survey instruments were established based on previous
studies. Findings from the pilot study were used to refine the survey instruments with
regards to verifying the research design, determining the time required for completion and
ensuring that modifications to the instruments wording were appropriate. Future studies
could, in addition, examine the psychometric properties of both survey instruments, by
examining the factor structure of the survey instruments to determine whether some factors
should be combined. This could result in a reduction of the number of dimensions and
appropriate modifications could be made prior to administering the instruments.
The service quality dimensions of responsiveness and reliability were found to
influence the cultural dimension, ‘success criteria’ in the public sector. Similarly, findings of
previous studies showed that customers also rated these two service quality dimensions
highest. While the study examined organizational culture and service quality dimensions,
future studies should consider examining the results of individual statements within each
dimension. Analysis o f these statements would reveal more specific areas for service
improvements.
140
This study focused on customers perceived service quality gap, that is, the gap
between customers’ expectations and their perceptions of service quality. Future studies
could examine the other gaps (Figure 5) in the service delivery process to determine the
extent of their contribution to the gaps in service delivery (Donnelly et al., 1995).
Conclusion
The recent public sector reform program has mandated public sector entities to
become more proactive in delivering quality service to customers who are expecting and
demanding higher quality service. The increased expectations o f customers necessitates
government and public sector managers to encourage organizational cultures in the public
sector that are more flexible and have an external focus. This would suggest an emphasis on
clan, adhocracy and market cultures over the hierarchical culture type. Furthermore, the
results show that customers rate service quality dimensions of reliability and responsiveness
highest and these dimensions tend also to be characteristic of clan, adhocracy and market
organizational culture types.
The findings o f this study reflect a shift that has quite possibly been influenced by
changes worldwide, as well as a revision in the thinking of customers, public sector managers
and government of the importance of service quality delivery in the public sector. Given
financial and other resource constraints, it is expedient that government and public sector
managers utilize cost effective ways to close the service delivery gaps identified.
Customer expectations and perceptions must ideally be met and exceeded if public
sector entities are to survive regionally or globally. While the services provided by
government for the most part are a monopoly, it is possible that less than satisfactory service
delivery can result in a withdrawal of customer patronage, by reduced compliance resulting
in significant reduction in government revenues. The results o f the study also suggest that
141
government and public sector managers need to take into consideration the impact of
organizational culture on public sector entities that provide frequent versus infrequent
services, since each may require a different approach to service improvements and service
delivery. Future research in this area is suggested.
The results o f this study indicate that the impact of the ‘success criteria’ dimension of
organizational culture was significant for the service quality dimensions responsiveness and
reliability. A more informed perspective on the relationship could have been extracted if the
relationship was examined on an entity-by-entity basis. While the dominant culture type
identified overall was the market culture, central government indicated a dominant clan
culture, whereas, executive agency indicated a dominant market culture. The findings also
confirmed previous research o f the existence of all four organizational culture types in each
entity.
Using the highest mean score, this study found that the organization that ranked
highest for the empathy dimension (executive agency) exhibited a market culture. This is
contrary to previous researchers who established that this dimension would rank least for
organizations with a dominant market organizational culture type. Similar to previous
studies, responsiveness and reliability were found to be equally important to central
government and executive agency customers and these dimensions also needed the greatest
service improvement. There is therefore need for government and public sector managers to
ensure greater integration of reliability and responsiveness in the delivery o f public sector
services.
Use o f SERVQUAL and the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
to measure both service quality and organizational culture in public sector entities have
produced relevant and meaningful results which is hoped will lead to continuous
improvements in the delivery o f public sector services.
APPENDIX A
Permission To Use Survey Instruments
143
Permission To Use Survey Instruments

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:34:46 -0500
From: "Quinn. Robert" <reimimift/':hus.umich.cdu>«?'
To: marnhi 1Ca :nova.cdu^
Subject: RF:
You may use it.
Robert E. Quinn, Ph.D.

ME Tracy Collegiate Professor o f Business Administration
University of Michigan Business School
701 Tappan Street Rm E2546
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234
734.615.4265
734.615.4266-fax
requinn@umich.edu
Original Message-----
From: marphil@nova.edu \mailto:marphil@nova.edul
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:49 PM
To: requinn@umich.edu
Subject:
Dear Dr. Quinn,
I am an international student pursuing the Doctorate in Business

Administration with Nova Southeastern University. For my dissertation I
am examining the relationship between organizational culture and service
quality in the public sector. During my literature review I discovered your
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument based on the Competing
Values Framework. I believe it would be appropriate in my research and am
hereby requesting your permission to use this instrument.
Thank you.
Marlene Phillips (Doctoral Candidate)
144
"Parasuraman, A" <aparasur@exchange.sba.miami.edu> B V iew Contact

From:
Details
To: '"Marlene Phillips <marlene_phillips@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Servqual
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:13:21 -0500
Dear Marlene,
I am hereby pleased to grant you permission to use SERVQUAL in your

dissertation research.
Sincerely,
Parasuraman
Original Message-----
From: Marlene Phillips
To: aparasur@exchange.sba.miami.edu
Sent: 2/7/04 10:55 AM
Subject: Servqual
Dear Professor Parasuraman,
I am a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern

University at the dissertation stage. My area of
interest is service quality in the public sector. For
my dissertation I will specifically be investigating
the relationship between service quality and
organizational culture. I would like to use the
SERVQUAL instrument in these research and am hereby
requesting your permission to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Marlene Phillips
Jamaica, W.I.
145
APPENDIX B
Comparative Public Sector Servqual Results
146
Comparative Public Sector Servqual Studies
Study/Y ear In d u stry context Instrum ent D im ension W eights
Parasuram an, B ank, O riginal 22 T angibles 11

Zeitham l & insurance, item s R eliability 32
B erry (1988) telep h o n e R esponsiveness 22
com pany, rep air A ssurance 19
and E m pathy 16
m aintenance,
D alrym ple, P u b lic library M odified to T angibles 18
D onnelly, in d u stry R eliability 23
C urry & context R esponsiveness 22
W isniew ski A ssurance 21
(1995) E m pathy 16
D onnelly & H o u sin g rep air M odified to T angibles 16

Shiu (1999) in d u stry R eliability 30
context R esponsiveness 21
A ssurance 17
E m pathy 16
B rysland & C atering, SERVQUAL C atering: G rounds:

C urry (2001) grounds m o d ified to Tangibles 20 25
m ain ten an ce in dustry R eliability 30 28
context R esponsiveness 20 17
A ssurance 15 15
E m pathy 15 15
W isniew ski C atering, SERVQUAL CS BC DC GM HR LS Lib

(2001) build in g m o d ified to T angibles 20 12 12 25 15 23 18
control, in d u stry R eliability 30 32 31 29 25 21 23
dev elo p m en t context R esponsiveness 20 23 22 16 22 19 22
control, grounds A ssurance 15 20 21 15 19 20 21
m aintenance, E m pathy 15 14 14 15 19 17 16
h o u sin g repairs,
leisure services,
lib rary service
CS = C aterin g Service BC = B uilding C ontrol
DC = D ev elo p m e n t C ontrol GM = G rounds M aintenance
HR = H o u sin g R epairs LS = L eisure Service
Lib. = L ib rary Service
147
Comparative Servqual Studies
Study/Y ear In d u stry Instrum ent A nalysis F actor Structure R eliability/

con tex t V alidity
C arm an (1990) T ire store, M o difications o f P rincipal factor Five to n in e factors R eliability
bu sin ess SERVQUAL analysis follow ed identified coefficient:
school, (u sin g 12 to 21 o f b y oblique 0.51-0.87
placem en t th e original item s rotation
center, dental in each case).
school, p atien t
clinic, acute
care hosp ital
Parasuram an, B ank, O riginal 22 item s Principal axis F ive factors, bu t R eliability
Z eitham l & insurance, factor analysis d ifferent from a priori coefficient:
B erry (1991) telep h o n e w ith oblique m odel. T angibles 0.80-0.93
c o m p an y rotation dim ension split into
tw o factors, w hile
resp o n siv en ess and
assurance dim ensions
loaded on a single
factor
C ronin & B anks, d ry O riginal 22 item s 1 .C onfirm atory 1 .U nidim ensional

T aylor (1992) cleaning, fast factor analysis factor.
food, p est 2 .oblique factor
control rotation 2.T he five-factor
structure h ad a p o o r fit
B abakus & G as and O riginal 22 item s 1 .Principal factor 1 .F ive-factor m odel R eliability
B oiler (1992) electricity analysis w ith no t supported coefficient:
u tility oblique rotation. 0.67-0.83
co m p an y 2 .C onfirm atory
factor analysis 2.T w o factors
O rwig, Pearson P u b lic Sector SERVQUAL 1 .Principal factor F ive-factor m odel not R eliability
& C ochran (m ilitary) (using 22 item s analysis w ith supported coefficient:
(1997) m o d ified to a varim ax rotation 0.57-0.92
p u b lic sector
context)
D onnelly & P ublic sector SE R V Q U A L 1 .R egression 1 .F ive-factor m odel R eliability
Shiu (1999) (housing) (using 25 item s analysis n o t supported coefficient:
m o d ified to a 2.P rincipal factor 0.94-0.95
p u b lic sector analysis w ith H ow ever
context) oblique rotations tangibles =
0.56
148
APPENDIX C
Comparative Studies Using The Competing Values Framework
149
Researchers (Year) Measures Organization Types and

Number
Yeung, Brockbank & -Financial performance 91 U.S. business firms
Ulrich (1991) -comparison o f 15 business
practices with competitors
Zammuto & Krakower -Org. characteristics 332 U.S. colleges and

(1991) -Climate Universities
-Strategic orientation
Quinn & Spreitzer -Executive satisfaction with work, 86 U.S. public utility firms
(1991) job, promotion, supervisory, life,
wellness
Cameron & Freeman -Student, faculty, and 334 U.S. colleges and
(1991) administration satisfaction and universities
development
-System openness
-Ability to acquire resources
-Organizational health
Chang & Weibe (1996) -Total quality management A panel o f experts from the
Conference Board Total
Quality Management Center
Smart & StJohn -Effectiveness 334 U.S. colleges and
(1996) universities
Dunk & Lysons (1997) -Departmental performance 28 public sector organizations
-Managerial control processes in Australia
-Environmental dimensions
Brown & Dodd (1998) -Human resource development 1 U.S. medium-sized Farmer’s
Cooperative
Dellana & Hauser -Total quality management 1000 members o f the American
(1999) Society for Quality
Kalliath, Bluedom & -Value congruence 2 U.S. hospitals
Stmbe (1999) -Org. commitment
-Job satisfaction
Zammuto, Gifford & -Success in innovation 2 U.S. hospitals
Goodman (2000)
Parker & Bradley -Org. culture 6 public sector organizations in
(2000) the U.S.
Bradley & Parker -Managers perceptions o f ideal 6 public sector organizations in
(2001) org. culture the U.S.
Berrio (2003) -Org. culture profile 1 U.S. university
Lamond (2003) -Org. culture 1 Australian university
Rameezdeen & -Org. culture o f consultants and 9 contractor and 9 consultant
Gunarathna (2003) contractors organizations in Sri Lanka
150
Researchers (Year) Organization Reliability

Types and Cronbach alpha
Number
Quinn & Spreitzer 86 public utility Likert scale: Ipsative scale:
(1991) firms Clan - 0.84 Clan - 0.74
Adhocracy - 0.81 Adhocracy - 0.79
Hierarchy - 0.77 Hierarchy - 0.73
Market - 0.78 Market -0.71
Yeung, Brockbank & 91 U.S. business Clan - 0.79

Ulrich (1991) firms Adhocracy - 0.80
Hierarchy - 0.76
Market - 0.77
Zammuto & 332 U.S. colleges Clan - 0.82

Krakower (1991) and Universities Adhocracy - 0.83
Hierarchy - 0.67
Market - 0.78
Cameron & Quinn Over 1000 private Clan - 0.82

(1999) and public sector Adhocracy - 0.83
organizations Hierarchy - 0.67
Market - 0.78
Parker & Bradley 6 public sector Clan - 0.74

(2000) organizations Adhocracy - 0.69
Hierarchy - 0.80
Market - 0.61
151
APPENDIX D
Survey Instruments And Permission Letters
152
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
The purpose of this research is to determine if a particular organizational culture type

correlates with a positive service quality experience in the Jamaican public sector.
This survey asks you to indicate the features that best describe your organization. Please
answer all questions and respond as candidly as possible. Your responses will be held in strict
confidence and anonymity is guaranteed.
Please mark all your responses by circling the appropriate number for each question or
placing a tick [V] mark in the appropriate box or filling in the relevant responses in the
space(s) provided.
Your participation is o f the greatest importance to the success o f this study. You MUST be
18 years or older to participate in this study.
153
SECTION I
DIRECTIONS:
Based on your experience as an employee of this organization, please indicate the extent to
which you agree with the feature described by each statement.
If you strongly agree that the feature is very similar to your organization, circle the number
5. If you strongly disagree that the feature is very similar to your organization, circle the
number 1.
If your feelings are less strong, circle one of the numbers in the middle. There is no right or
wrong answer- all we are interested in is a number that truly reflects your feelings regarding
the current organizational culture o f your organization.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree

4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
DOMINANT CHARACTE1RISTICS
The core values of the orga nization
1.
This organization is a very personal
place. It is like an extended family.
People seem to share a lot of
themselves and with one another. 1 2 3 4 5
2. This organization is a very dynamic
and entrepreneurial place. People are
willing to stick their necks out and
take risks. 1 2 3 4 5
3. This organization is very results
oriented. A major concern is with
getting the job done. People are very
competitive and achievement oriented. 1 2 3 4 5
4. This organization is a very formalized
and structured place. People pay
attention to procedures to get things
done.
1 2 3 4 5
154

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
LEADERSHIP STYLE:
Style of the organization’s leader
5.
The head o f this organization is
generally considered to be a mentor, a
facilitator or a parent figure (nurturer).
1 2 3 4 5
6. The head of this organization is
generally considered to be an
entrepreneur, an innovator, or a risk-
taker. 1 2 3 4 5
7.
The head of this organization is
generally considered to be a hard
driver, a producer, or a competitor. 1 2 3 4 5
8. The head of this organization is
generally considered to be a
coordinator, an organizer, or an
efficiency expert. 1 2 3 4 5
MANAGEMENT STYLE:
Management style toward the employees
9.
The management style in this
organization is characterized by
teamwork, consensus, and
participation. 1 2 3 4 5
10. The management style in this
individual initiative, innovation,
freedom, and uniqueness. 1 2 3 4 5
11.
The management style in this
organization is characterized by hard-
driving competitiveness, high
demands, and achievement. 1 2 3 4 5
12. The management style in this
security o f employment, conformity,
predictability, and stability in
relationships. 1 2 3 4 5
155

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
ORGANIZATIONAL GLUE:
The espoused values or accepted norms of the organization
13.
The glue that holds this organization
together is loyalty and mutual trust.
Commitment to this organization runs
high. 1 2 3 4 5
14. The glue that holds this organization
together is a focus on innovation and
development. There is an emphasis on
being first with products and services
offered. 1 2 3 4 5
15.
together is achievement and goal
accomplishment. 1 2 3 4 5
16.
together is rule enforcement and
effective administration. 1 2 3 4 5
ORGANIZATIONAL CLI MATE:

The existing work environment of the organization
17. The climate inside this organization is
participative and comfortable. The
strategic orientation is implementation
through consensus building. High
trust and openness exist. 1 2 3 4 5
18. The climate inside this organization
emphasizes dynamism and readiness to
meet new challenges. Trying new
things and trial-and-error learning is
encouraged. 1 2 3 4 5
19. The climate inside this organization is
competitive and confrontational.
Emphasis is placed on beating the
competition. 1 2 3 4 5
20.
The climate inside this organization
emphasizes permanence and stability.
Expectations regarding procedures are
clear and enforced. 1 2 3 4 5
156

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
CRITERIA OF SUCCESS:
Success criteria of the organization
21. This organization defines success on
the basis of its development of human
resources, teamwork, and concern for
people. 1 2 3 4 5
22.
This organization defines success on
the basis of having unique or the
newest services. It is a leader in
service delivery and an innovator. 1 2 3 4 5
the basis of economic goals,
competition, entrepreneurship and the
achievement of results. Greater client
focus, more competitive and efficient
delivery o f public services and
performance-based remuneration is a
key objective. 1 2 3 4 5
the basis o f efficiency. Dependable
service delivery, smooth scheduling,
and low-cost delivery of services are
critical. 1 2 3 4 5
157
SECTION II
DEMOGRAPHICS
Please place a tick (V) in the box that most accurately represents you.
1. Current Position:
□ Weekly/Hourly rated □ Clerical
□ Administrative/Management □ Professional/Technical
□ Other (specify):________________________________
2. Gender: □ Male □ Female
3. Age Group:
□ 18-24 □ 25-34 □ 35-44 □ 45-54 □ 55-64
□ 65 and over
4. Years with current employer:
□ under lo 1-5 □ 6-10 □ 11-15 □ 15-19
□ 20-24 □ 25 and over
5. Highest Education level attained:
□ Primary □ High School Graduate □ Technical Training
□ Undergraduate Degree □ Graduate Degree/Diploma
□ Other (specify):_________________________________________
THANK YOU!
158
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Service Quality Assessment Instrument
The purpose of this research is to determine if a particular organizational culture type

correlates with a positive service quality experience in the Jamaican public sector.
This survey asks you to indicate your perceptions and expectations of service quality in this
organization. Please answer all questions and respond as candidly as possible. Your
responses will be held in strict confidence and anonymity is guaranteed.
Please mark all your responses by circling the appropriate number for each question or
placing a tick [V] mark in the appropriate box or filling in the relevant responses in the
space(s) provided.
Your participation is of the greatest importance to the success of this study. You MUST be
18 years or older to participate in this study.
159
SECTION I
DIRECTIONS:
Based on your experience as a customer of this organization, please indicate your perceptions
and expectations of the service provided.
Two columns are provided for your response, one for perceptions and one for expectations.
Under column 1 indicate your belief about the service received. Under column 2 indicate
the service you feel the organization should offer.
If you strongly agree with the statement, circle the number 5. If you strongly disagree that
the statement, circle the number 1.
If your feelings are less strong, circle one of the numbers in the middle. There is no right or
wrong answer - all we are interested in is a number that truly reflects your feelings.
1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree

PERCEPTIONS EXPECTATIONS
Perceptions = Y o u r b e lie f concerning Expectations = T he service you feel

th e service received th e organization should offer
Strongly Strongly Strongly S trongly

D isagree A gree D isagree A gree
1. The organization has

up-to-date equipm ent. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2. The physical facilities

are attractive. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3. E m ployees are w ell

dressed and n eatly attired 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. M aterials (such as
pam phlets or form s) are
attractive and the
language sim ple. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5. W hen the organization

prom ises to do som ething
b y a certain tim e th ey
w ill do so. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
160



6. The organization
show s an interest in
solving your problem s. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
7. The organization
perform s the service rig h t
the first time. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8. T he organization is
dependable - delivers the
services at the tim e
prom ised. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
9. The organization
insists on error-free
records. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
10. E m ployees tell

custom ers exactly w hen
the services w ill be
perform ed. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
11. E m ployees deliver

prom pt service to
custom ers. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
12. E m ployees alw ays

respond to cu sto m ers’
requests. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
13. C ustom ers are given

the opportunity to m ake
suggestions. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
14. E m ployees b eh av io r
instills confidence in
custom ers. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
161



15. C ustom ers feel safe
w hen conducting
business w ith the
organization
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
16. E m ployees are

consistently courteous to
custom ers. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
17. E m ployees have the

know ledge to answ er
custom ers’ questions. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
18. T he organization
gives custom ers
individual attention. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
19. T he organization
offers operating hours
that is convenient to
custom ers. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
20. E m ployees give

custom ers personal
attention. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
21. The organization has

the custom er's b est
interests at heart. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
22. E m ployees
understand the specific
needs o f their custom ers. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
162
SECTION II
DEMOGRAPHICS
Please place a tick (V) in the box that most accurately represents you.
1. Gender: □ Male □ Female
2. Age Group:
□ 18-25 □ 26-35 □ 36-45 □ 46-55 □ 56 and over
3. Highest Education level attained:
□ Primary □ High School Graduate □ Technical Training
□ Undergraduate Degree □ Graduate Degree/Diploma
□ Other (specify)__________________________________________
4. Type of employment:
□ Full-time □ Part-time □ Self-employed □ Unemployed
THANK YOU!
163
Customer Respondent Letter
November 2004
Dear Respondent:
I am a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University conducting research for my

dissertation. The title of my dissertation proposal is “The impact of organizational culture on
perceived service quality in the Jamaican public sector.”
The purpose o f this research is to examine the quality o f service delivery in the public
sector and to determine if a particular organizational culture type correlates with a positive
service quality experience. The result of this study has implications for all stakeholders of
the public sector including the leaders, employees and external users of the services. The
results of the study also have implications for the growth and development o f the public
sector.
This survey asks about your perceptions and expectations of service quality.
Please respond based on your own experience. Your responses will be held in strict
confidence and anonymity is guaranteed.
Please answer all questions since each is important. Use a pen and mark all your
responses by circling the appropriate number for each question or placing a tick [V] mark in
the appropriate box or filling in the relevant response in the space(s) provided.
Your participation is of the greatest importance to the success of this study. Thank
you.
Sincerely
Marlene Phillips
Doctoral Candidate
Email: marphil@nova.edu
164
Employee Respondent Letter
November 2004
Dear Respondent:
I am a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University conducting research for my

dissertation. The title o f my dissertation proposal is “ The impact of organizational culture
on perceived service quality in the Jamaican public sector.”
The purpose of this research is to examine the quality o f service delivery in the public
sector and to determine if a particular organizational culture type correlates with a positive
service quality experience. The result of this study has implications for all stakeholders of
the public sector including the leaders, the employees and external users o f the services. The
results of the study also have implications for the growth and development o f the public
sector.
This survey asks about the culture of your organization. Please respond based on
your own experience. Your responses will be held in strict confidence and anonymity is
guaranteed.
Please answer all questions since each is important. Use a pen and mark all your
responses by circling the appropriate number for each question or placing a tick [V] mark in
the appropriate box or filling in the relevant response in the space(s) provided.
Your participation is of the greatest importance to the success o f this study. Thank
you.
Sincerely
Marlene Phillips
Doctoral Candidate
165
Organization Permission Letter
January 2005
Dear :
I am seeking permission to conduct research on your organization. I am a doctoral

student at Nova Southeastern University conducting research for my dissertation. The title of
my dissertation proposal is “The impact of organizational culture on perceived service quality
delivery in the Jamaican public sector.”
The purpose of this research is to examine the perceived quality o f service delivery in
the public sector and to determine if a particular organizational culture type correlates with a
positive service quality experience. The result of this study has implications for all
stakeholders of the public sector including leaders, employees and external users of the
services. The results o f the study also have implications for the growth and development of
the public sector.
Two survey instruments will be utilized. One asks about external customers’
perceptions and expectations o f service quality and the other elicits responses from staff
about organizational culture. Responses will be held in strict confidence and organizational
and respondent anonymity is guaranteed.
Your agreeing to participate is vital to the success of this study. Thank you.
Sincerely
Marlene Phillips
Doctoral Candidate
166
Expert Participation Letter
January 2005
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND SERVICE QUALITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Enclosed are two questionnaires that have been adapted for use in my dissertation
research. The purpose o f this research is to examine the perceived quality of service delivery
in the public sector and to determine if a particular organizational culture type correlates with
a positive service quality experience. Two survey instruments will be utilized. One asks
about external customers’ perceptions and expectations of service quality and the other elicits
responses from staff about organizational culture. Responses will be held in strict confidence
and organizational and respondent anonymity is guaranteed.
Before these instruments can be used, your assistance as an expert in your field is
being sought in determining the validity of the instruments in the following ways:
• content and clarity o f the items

• wording
• complexity
• reading level
• length
• format
• threatening or controversial items
• overall appearance
The result of this study has implications for all stakeholders of the public sector
including leaders, employees and external users of the services. The results of the study also
have implications for the growth and development of the public sector. Please write your
comments and suggestions directly on the instruments. Your agreeing to participate is vital
to the success of this study. Thank you.
Sincerely
Marlene Phillips
Doctoral Candidate
167
APPENDIX E
Histograms
168
Histograms
Histogram of SERVQUAL Mean perceptions
Mean perceptions
Std. Dev * ,8f

Mean = 3.20
0 N=
1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25 4.75
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean p ercep tio n s
Histogram of SERVQUAL Mean expectations

Mean expectations
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25 4.75
M ean ex p ectatio n s
Histogram of Tangibles dimension

TANGIBLE
Std. Devs 1.38

Mean = -1.03
N = 213.00
-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00
-3.50 -2.50 -1.50 -.50 .50 1.50 2.50
TANGIBLE
169
Histogram of Reliability dimension

RELIABIL
-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1,00 2.00

-3.50 -2.50 -1.50 -.50 .50 1.50
RELIABIL
Histogram of Responsiveness dimension

RESPONSI
RESPON SI
Histogram of Assurance dimension

ASSURANC
-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00

-3.50 -2.50 -1.50 -.50 .50 1.50
ASSURANC
170
Histogram of Empathy dimension

EMPATHY
-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00

-3.50 -2.50 -1.50 -.50 .50 1.50
EMPATHY
Employees/Organizational culture
Histogram of mean Dominant dimension

Mean dominant
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean dom inant
Histogram of mean Leadership dimension

Mean leadership
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean lea d e rsh ip
171
Histogram of mean Management dimension

Mean management
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean m an a g e m en t
Histogram of mean Climate dimension

Mean climate
1.00 150 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean clim ate
Histogram of mean Glue dimension

Mean org glue
I Std. Dev - .78

I Mean - 3.44
0 N=
1,50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean org glue
172
Histogram of mean Success dimension

Mean success
LJj
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M ean s u c c e s s
Histogram of clan Culture type

clan/group
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
clan/group
Histogram of Market culture type

market/rational
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
m arket/rational
173
Histogram of Developmental culture type

adhocracy/developmental
Std. Dev =.72
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
a d h o c racy /d ev elo p m en tal
Histogram of Hierarchical culture type
hierarchical
20
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
174
APPENDIX F
Normal Probability (Q-Q Plot)
175
Normal Probability (Q-Q Plot)
Customers’ Mean Perceptions
Q-Q plot of mean perceptions

Normal Q -Q Plot o f M ean perceptions
3
0
•1
Q.
•3 -2 ■1 0 1 2 3
S ta n d ard ize d O b se rv e d V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean perceptio
1
Q
S tan d ard ized O b se rv e d V alue
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f mean perceptions

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov0
Statistic df Sig.
MP .063 213 .037
a- Lilliefors Significance Correction
176
Customers’ Mean Expectations
Q-Q plot of mean expectations
Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean expectations

2
_ -1
(0
O
Z
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5^5
O b se rv e d V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean expectati

.4
.2
0.0
-.2
IO "4l
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f mean expectations

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov3
Statistic df Sig.
ME .149 213 .000
177
Q-Q plot of tangibles dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Tangibles
3
0
n>
§o -1
z
S .2
a
Cl
LU •3
X
-6 -2 0 2 4
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Tangibles
O bserv ed V alue
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of tangibles dimension

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov3
Statistic df Sig.
TANGIBLE .084 213 .001
178
Q-Q plot of reliability dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Reliability
3
0
■1
■0s)
a
a
-5 4 -3 -2 •1 0 1 2 3
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Reliability
O bserv ed V alue
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f reliability dimension

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov3
___________ Statistic df Sig.
REUABIL^^^06£^^^^1^__JD28_
179
Q-Q plot pr responsiveness dimension
Normal Q-Q Plot of R esp o n siv en ess

3
o
(0 •1
E
o
z
4>
-5 -4 -3 -2 ■1 0 1 2 3
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Responsivenes
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of responsiveness dimension

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov
Statistic df Sig.
RESPONSI .111 213 .000
180
Q-Q plot of assurance dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of A ssurance
3
0
■1
■2
LU
-5 -4 -3 -2 •1 0 1 2 3
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Assurance
*5 -4 -3 -2 -1
O bserv ed V alue
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f assurance dimension

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov8
_____________ Statistic df Sig.
A SSU ^N C ^^^86 213 ^ 0 1
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
181
Q-Q plot of empathy dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Empathy
3
0
■1
-2
&
•3
-5 -4 -3 -2 •1 0 1 2
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Empathy
O bserv ed V alue
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of empathy dimension

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov3
____________Statistic df Sig.
EMPATHY^X)84^213^^0a^
182
Organizational Culture
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of clan culture type

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov3
Statistic df Sig.
CLAN .116 62 .037
Q-Q plot of clan culture type

Normal Q-Q Plot of clan/group
3
i0
1CJ «
Q.
UJ -3
1 2 3 4 S 6
O bserved V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of clan/group
1 2
183
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of market culture type

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov3
Statistic df Sig.
^R K ET ^^90^62_^20^
*• This is a lower bound of the true significance,
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Q-Q plot of market culture type

Normal Q-Q Plot of market/rational
2
•1
•2
v
a
•3
1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserved V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of market/rational
1 2 3
O bserv ed V alue
184
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f adhocracy culture type

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov3
______________Statistic df Sig.
A D H O C ^C ^^=i086 _62_^2001
*• This is a lower bound of the true significance,
Q-Q plot of adhocracy culture type

Normal Q-Q Plot of adhocracy/developmental
3
2
1
0
•1
-2
-3
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of adhocracy/deve
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
O bserv ed V alue
185
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f hierarchy culture type

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov3
_____________ Statistic df Sig.
HIERARCH^^^20^e52^)27
Q-Q plot of hierarchy culture type

Normal Q-Q Plot of hierarchical
3
1
0
•1
n0) -2
o.
Ux
J
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserved V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of hierarchical
0 1 2
O bserv ed V alue
186
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f dominant characteristics dimension
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic df Sig.
MDOM .123 62 .020
Q-Q plot of dominant characteristics dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean dominant
3
1 -1
o
I(<Uu-
a
x
LU -3
1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean dominant
O bserv ed V alue
187
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f leadership style dimension
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov8
Statistic df Sig.
M L E A D ^J18^62^^3lJ
Q-Q plot of leadership style dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean leadership
3
1
0
•t
-2
-3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean leadersh
188
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of management style dimension
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov
Statistic df Sig.
MMAN .132 62 .009
Q-Q plot of management style dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean management
3
0
•1
-2
& -3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserved V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean manager
0 1
O bserv ed V alue
189
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f organizational glue dimension
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smimov
Statistic df Sig.
MGLUE .076 62 .200*
*■ This is a lower bound of the true significance,
Q-Q plot of organizational glue dimension

Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean org glue
2
•1
-2
I -3
1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserved V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean org glue
1 2
O bserv ed V alue
190
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test o f organizational climate dimension
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic df Sig.
MCLIMATE .124 62 .019
Q-Q plot of organizational climate

Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean climate
3
0
■1
o
z
■o
■2
Q.
111 "3
X ,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean climate
0 1 2 3
191
Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of organizational success dimension
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic df Sig.
MSUCCESS .126 62 .017
Q-Q plot of organizational success

Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean success
2
<0 -1
O
z
-2
T0
3)
a
uj -3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
O bserv ed V alue
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Mean success
0 1 2
192
APPENDIX G
Correlations For Perceptions, Expectations And Organizational Culture
193
Perceptions Correlation
Correlation Matrix
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22
Correlatic P1 .000 .687 .394 .495 .387 .512 .360 .331 .227 .305 .429 .483 .344 .390 .264 .478 .357 .372 .215 .393 .498 .408
P2 .687 1.000 .444 .518 .309 .498 .315 .292 .204 .294 .451 .450 .338 .470 .200 .556 .354 .409 .197 .452 .575 .393
P3 .394 .444 1.000 .613 .365 .465 .378 .391 .461 .434 .372 .373 .463 .406 .378 .450 .493 .491 .398 .466 .367 .476
P4 .495 .518 .613 1.000 .499 .500 .365 .462 .401 .451 .498 .505 .560 .567 .291 .504 .455 .460 .262 .462 .511 .485
P5 .387 .309 .365 .499 1.000 .607 .449 .676 .488 .566 .454 .409 .442 .459 .430 .409 .525 .442 .392 .486 .466 .538
P6 .512 .498 .465 .500 .607 1.000 .519 .562 .419 .528 .563 .554 .512 .497 .330 .564 .598 .575 .368 .598 .608 .536
P7 .360 .315 .378 .365 .449 .519 1.000 .642 .506 .475 .419 .443 .352 .394 .423 .438 .413 .511 .323 .469 .399 .447
P8 .331 .292 .391 .462 .676 .562 .642 1.000 .561 .581 .476 .446 .444 .487 .357 .428 .487 .426 .370 .487 .422 .456
P9 .227 .204 .461 .401 .488 .419 .506 .561 1.000 .662 .430 .381 .447 .386 .452 .388 .426 .482 .430 .457 .340 .450
P10 .305 .294 .434 .451 .566 .528 .475 .581 .662 1.000 .559 .495 .478 .517 .405 .439 .479 .451 .433 .454 .332 .432
P11 .429 .451 .372 .498 .454 .563 .419 .476 .430 .559 1.000 .672 .507 .593 .267 .653 .563 .542 .343 .517 .585 .504
P12 .483 .450 .373 .505 .409 .554 .443 .446 .381 .495 .672 1.000 .567 .547 .246 .633 .539 .525 .382 .561 .635 .512
P13 .344 .338 .463 .560 .442 .512 .352 .444 .447 .478 .507 .567 1.000 .476 .253 .534 .567 .541 .485 .502 .487 .516
P14 .390 .470 .406 .567 .459 .497 .394 .487 .386 .517 .593 .547 .476 1.000 .384 .635 .542 .497 .366 .526 .586 .536
P15 .264 .200 .378 .291 .430 .330 .423 .357 .452 .405 .267 .246 .253 .384 1.000 .333 .423 .442 .425 .383 .300 .416
P16 .478 .556 .450 .504 .409 .564 .438 .428 .388 .439 .653 .633 .534 .635 .333 1.000 .624 .590 .386 .623 .667 .558
P17 .357 .354 .493 .455 .525 .598 .413 .487 .426 .479 .563 .539 .567 .542 .423 .624 1.000 .685 .497 .666 .560 .657
P18 .372 .409 .491 .460 .442 .575 .511 .426 .482 .451 .542 .525 .541 .497 .442 .590 .685 1.000 .531 .763 .597 .565
P19 .215 .197 .398 .262 .392 .368 .323 .370 .430 .433 .343 .382 .485 .366 .425 .386 .497 .531 l.OOO .490 .376 .457
P20 .393 .452 .466 .462 .486 .598 .469 .487 .457 .454 .517 .561 .502 .526 .383 .623 .666 .763 .490 l.OOO .630 .558
P21 .498 .575 .367 .511 .466 .608 .399 .422 .340 .332 .585 .635 .487 .586 .300 .667 .560 .597 .376 .630 l.OOO .599
P22 .408 .393 .476 .485 .538 .536 .447 .456 .450 .432 .504 .512 .516 .536 .416 .558 .657 .565 .457 .558 .599 l.OOO
Expectations Correlation
Correlation Matrix
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22
Correlatic E1 .000 .658 .433 .641 .594 .375 .520 .550 .524 .494 .423 .363 .505 .500 .360 .251 .281 .393 .271 .275 .318 .367
E2 .658 l.OOO .524 .695 .586 .470 .571 .453 .472 .456 .410 .350 .489 .487 .429 .275 .258 .390 .275 .350 .347 .390
E3 .433 .524 l.OOO .493 .420 .409 .449 .310 .384 .373 .479 .332 .333 .484 .289 .354 .393 .335 .232 .329 .422 .337
E4 .641 .695 .493 l.OOO .578 .396 .599 .556 .536 .489 .492 .423 .586 .523 .459 .410 .325 .401 .222 .357 .392 .404
E5 .594 .586 .420 .578 l.OOO .634 .683 .598 .622 .649 .630 .463 .592 .570 .523 .370 .350 .360 .452 .418 .520 .571
E6 .375 .470 .409 .396 .634 l.OOO .566 .472 .439 .557 .528 .464 .505 .527 .476 .403 .363 .304 .410 .415 .474 .484
E7 .520 .571 .449 .599 .683 .566 l.OOO .729 .650 .666 .570 .441 .599 .596 .476 .388 .392 .396 .283 .461 .469 .479
E8 .550 .453 .310 .556 .598 .472 .729 l.OOO .654 .669 .556 .551 .613 .644 .453 .437 .372 .425 .343 .371 .426 .424
E9 .524 .472 .384 .536 .622 .439 .650 .654 l.OOO .699 .557 .485 .636 .536 .424 .363 .297 .328 .306 .274 .415 .453
E10 .494 .456 .373 .489 .649 .557 .666 .669 .699 l.OOO .653 .554 .669 .578 .502 .431 .388 .391 .406 .350 .463 .483
E11 .423 .410 .479 .492 .630 .528 .570 .556 .557 .653 l.OOO .631 .537 .538 .435 .504 .477 .401 .436 .392 .587 .580
E12 .363 .350 .332 .423 .463 .464 .441 .551 .485 .554 .631 l.OOO .491 .489 .375 .571 .375 .511 .396 .500 .426 .459
E13 .505 .489 .333 .586 .592 .505 .599 .613 .636 .669 .537 .491 l.OOO .534 .540 .419 .241 .368 .346 .386 .478 .510
E14 .500 .487 .484 .523 .570 .527 .596 .644 .536 .578 .538 .489 .534 l.OOO .587 .531 .536 .434 .318 .375 .515 .447
E15 .360 .429 .289 .459 .523 .476 .476 .453 .424 .502 .435 .375 .540 .587 l.OOO .524 .336 .275 .458 .301 .486 .494
E16 .251 .275 .354 .410 .370 .403 .388 .437 .363 .431 .504 .571 .419 .531 .524 l.OOO .519 .490 .408 .408 .420 .404
E17 .281 .258 .393 .325 .350 .363 .392 .372 .297 .388 .477 .375 .241 .536 .336 .519 l.OOO .459 .516 .417 .488 .295
E18 .393 .390 .335 .401 .360 .304 .396 .425 .328 .391 .401 .511 .368 .434 .275 .490 .459 l.OOO .399 .589 .421 .370
E19 .271 .275 .232 .222 .452 .410 .283 .343 .306 .406 .436 .396 .346 .318 .458 .408 .516 .399 l.OOO .455 .475 .420
E20 .275 .350 .329 .357 .418 .415 .461 .371 .274 .350 .392 .500 .386 .375 .301 .408 .417 .589 .455 l.OOO .544 .478
E21 .318 .347 .422 .392 .520 .474 .469 .426 .415 .463 .587 .426 .478 .515 .486 .420 .488 .421 .475 .544 l.OOO .664
E22 .367 .390 .337 .404 .571 .484 .479 .424 .453 .483 .580 .459 .510 .447 .494 .404 .295 .370 .420 .478 .664 l.OOO
195
Organizational Culture Correlation
Correlation Matrix
D1 D2 D3 D4 L1 L2 L3 L4 M1 M2 M3 M4 G1 G2 G3 G4 C1 C2 C3 C4 S1 S2 S3 S4
Correlatio D1l.OOO .159 .178 .146 .326 .178 .299 .284 .297 .202 .084 .351 .235 .149 .208 .202 .440 .254 .188 .284 .206 .208 .038 .270
D2 .159 1.000 .486 .236 .171 .246 .260 .197 .217 .364 .442 .239 .369 .291 .289 .181 .389 .278 .273 .340 .336 .403 .327 .169
D3 .178 .486 1.000 .575 .290 .175 .398 .403 .303 .332 .625 .470 .341 .350 .528 .385 .249 .348 .238 .470 .376 .384 .464 .349
D4 .146 .236 .575 1.000 .324 .163 .304 .335 .405 .196 .374 .257 .331 .210 .542 .481 .335 .237 -.019 .426 .388 .283 .383 .520
L1 .326 .171 .290 .324 1.000 .542 .315 .741 .492 .272 .156 .466 .517 .384 .285 .448 .598 .364 .080 .482 .509 .050 .035 .330
L2 .178 .246 .175 .163 .542 1.000 .419 .641 .514 .352 .245 .426 .477 .248 .419 .378 .499 .544 .278 .417 .397 .290 .258 .241
L3 .299 .260 .398 .304 .315 .419 1.000 .597 .291 .196 .493 .275 .315 .220 .420 .433 .288 .216 .333 .285 .178 .316 .300 .403
L4 .284 .197 .403 .335 .741 .641 .597 1.000 .538 .324 .356 .545 .437 .307 .479 .518 .550 .330 .111 .505 .446 .294 .266 .403
M1 .297 .217 .303 .405 .492 .514 .291 .538 1.000 .527 .230 .399 .292 .345 .261 .324 .415 .505 -.076 .341 .565 .224 .229 .197
M2 .202 .364 .332 .196 .272 .352 .196 .324 .527 1.000 .319 .462 .421 .416 .179 .269 .369 .474 .194 .380 .378 .229 .257 .028
M3 .084 .442 .625 .374 .156 .245 .493 .356 .230 .319 1.000 .369 .339 .290 .410 .336 .256 .429 .413 .363 .198 .381 .447 .157
M4 .351 .239 .470 .257 .466 .426 .275 .545 .399 .462 .369 1.000 .526 .186 .455 .377 .510 .525 .275 .598 .472 .241 .362 .209
G1 .235 .369 .341 .331 .517 .477 .315 .437 .292 .421 .339 .526 1.000 .323 .448 .488 .559 .370 .364 .536 .552 .178 .444 .343
G2 .149 .291 .350 .210 .384 .248 .220 .307 .345 .416 .290 .186 .323 1.000 .227 .467 .197 .297 .478 .246 .365 .469 .374 .220
G3 .208 .289 .528 .542 .285 .419 .420 .479 .261 .179 .410 .455 .448 .227 1.000 .541 .381 .368 .250 .481 .364 .385 .505 .471
G4 .202 .181 .385 .481 .448 .378 .433 .518 .324 .269 .336 .377 .488 .467 .541 1.000 .239 .194 .336 .481 .424 .414 .457 .406
C1 .440 .389 .249 .335 .598 .499 .288 .550 .415 .369 .256 .510 .559 .197 .381 .239 1.000 .458 .160 .439 .400 .146 .239 .425
C2 .254 .278 .348 .237 .364 .544 .216 .330 .505 .474 .429 .525 .370 .297 .368 .194 .458 1.000 .312 .371 .446 .222 .248 .121
C3 .188 .273 .238 -.019 .080 .278 .333 .111 -.076 .194 .413 .275 .364 .478 .250 .336 .160 .312 1.000 .304 .042 .369 .418 .106
C4 .284 .340 .470 .426 .482 .417 .285 .505 .341 .380 .363 .598 .536 .246 .481 .481 .439 .371 .304 1.000 .507 .289 .442 .207
S1 .206 .336 .376 .388 .509 .397 .178 .446 .565 .378 .198 .472 .552 .365 .364 .424 .400 .446 .042 .507 1.000 .364 .412 .328
S2 .208 .403 .384 .283 .050 .290 .316 .294 .224 .229 .381 .241 .178 .469 .385 .414 .146 .222 .369 .289 .364 1.000 .621 .515
S3 .038 .327 .464 .383 .035 .258 .300 .266 .229 .257 .447 .362 .444 .374 .505 .457 .239 .248 .418 .442 .412 .621 1.000 .344
S4 .270 .169 .349 .520 .330 .241 .403 .403 .197 .028 .157 .209 .343 .220 .471 .406 .425 .121 .106 .207 .328 .515 .344 1.000
196
APPENDIX H
Communalities For Perceptions, Expectations And Organizational Culture Using Oblimin
Rotation
197
Perceptions Communalities
Communalities
Initial Extraction
P1 .554 .553
P2 .612 .661
P3 .537 .392
P4 .616 .533
P5 .625 .560
P6 .624 .596
P7 .549 .455
P8 .654 .653
P9 .571 .584
P10 .634 .609
P11 .617 .546
P12 .621 .562
P13 .546 .477
P14 .581 .522
P15 .407 .327
P16 .656 .664
P17 .667 .679
P18 .703 .704
P19 .445 .441
P20 .679 .663
P21 .672 .662
P22 .576 .552
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
198
Expectations Communalities
Communalities
Initial Extraction
E1 .592 .607
E2 .641 .727
E3 .461 .398
E4 .656 .677
E5 .697 .664
E6 .533 .468
E7 .726 .664
E8 .702 .628
E9 .625 .645
E10 .685 .720
E11 .667 .613
E12 .597 .498
E13 .624 .612
E14 .663 .571
E15 .575 .427
E16 .558 .482
E17 .566 .472
E18 .512 .475
E19 .529 .426
E20 .564 .494
E21 .614 .550
E22 .570 .474
199
Organizational Culture Communalities
Communalitie
Initia Extractio
D1 .457 .237
D2 .557 .377
D3 .709 .687
D4 .670 .633
L1 .820 .734
L2 .710 .546
L3 .623 .617
L4 .832 .832
M1 .698 .791
M2 .562 .507
M3 .652 .711
M4 .660 .570
G1 .706 .635
G2 .667 .507
G3 .619 .562
G4 .620 .695
C1 .729 .792
C2 .648 .524
C3 .677 .814
C4 .608 .589
S1 .659 .644
S2 .771 .728
S3 .691 .604
S4 .698 .807
Extraction Method: Principal Axis
200
APPENDIX I
Total Variances Explained For Perceptions, Expectations And Organizational Culture
201
Total Variances Explained Perceptions
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotatio

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
1 10.876 49.437 49.437 10.453 47.512 47.512 9.220
2 1.640 7.453 56.890 1.217 5.534 53.046 5.185
3 1.125 5.116 62.006 .724 3.291 56.337 8.102
4 .951 4.323 66.330
5 .865 3.933 70.262
6 .695 3.161 73.423
7 .673 3.059 76.482
8 .605 2.750 79.233
9 .514 2.338 81.570
10 .476 2.163 83.733
11 .441 2.006 85.740
12 .430 1.956 87.696
13 .370 1.680 89.376
14 .351 1.595 90.971
15 .336 1.526 92.497
16 .314 1.425 93.923
17 .266 1.208 95.130
18 .258 1.172 96.303
19 .229 1.040 97.342
20 .209 .952 98.294
21 .198 .899 99.193
22 .178 .807 100.000
a- When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total varian
202
Total Variances Explained Expectations
________ Initial Eigenvalues_________ Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotatio

1 10.728 48.762 48.762 10.303 46.830 46.830 9.018
2 1.710 7.772 56.534 1.266 5.754 52.584 7.259
3 1.141 5.187 61.722 .724 3.289 55.873 5.917
4 .963 4.378 66.099
5 .885 4.022 70.122
6 .768 3.489 73.611
7 .719 3.269 76.880
8 .620 2.820 79.700
9 .608 2.762 82.462
10 .460 2.093 84.554
11 .418 1.902 86.456
12 .370 1.682 88.138
13 .363 1.652 89.790
14 .326 1.481 91.270
15 .306 1.390 92.660
16 .290 1.318 93.978
17 .278 1.263 95.241
18 .253 1.152 96.393
19 .230 1.044 97.436
20 .215 .977 98.413
21 .197 .896 99.310
22 .152 .690 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring,
a. When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total vs
203
Total Variances Explained Organizational Culture
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation

1 9.029 37.622 37.622 8.674 36.140 36.140 5.023
2 2.223 9.262 46.885 1.915 7.977 44.117 4.436
3 1.663 6.929 53.813 1.329 5.537 49.654 3.263
4 1.322 5.509 59.322 .997 4.153 53.807 1.932
5 1.202 5.007 64.329 .840 3.500 57.307 4.165
6 1.069 4.455 68.785 .735 3.063 60.371 3.825
7 1.041 4.338 73.122 .653 2.721 63.092 3.815
8 .876 3.652 76.774
9 .823 3.427 80.202
10 .678 2.824 83.026
11 .590 2.460 85.486
12 .519 2.161 87.647
13 .478 1.991 89.638
14 .428 1.783 91.421
15 .368 1.533 92.955
16 .334 1.393 94.348
17 .271 1.130 95.477
18 .253 1.053 96.530
19 .196 .818 97.348
20 .169 .704 98.053
21 .158 .657 98.709
22 .129 .536 99.245
23 9.891 E-02 .412 99.658
24 8.220E-02 .342 100.000

a- When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
204
APPENDIX J
Scree Plot for Perceptions, Expectations and Organizational Culture
Scree Plot for Perceptions
Scree Plot
12
10
a<D
sc 2
0
o)>
ill 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
F acto r Num ber
Scree Plot For Expectations
Scree Plot
12
10
<D
3
> 2
c
d
O))
ui 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
F acto r Num ber
Scree Plot For Organizational Culture
Scree Plot
10
2
5c>
0O))
ijj 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
F acto r N um ber
APPENDIX K
Structure Matrix Using Oblimin With Kaiser Normalization for Perceptions, Expectations
and Organizational Culture
207
Structure Matrix for Perceptions
Structure Matrix
Factor
1 2 3
P18 .838 -.374 .600
P17 .823 -.380 .620
P20 .812 -.438 .597
P16 .757 -.630 .534
P21 .732 -.659 .489
P22 .728 -.433 .610
P12 .686 -.590 .548
P6 .679 -.569 .665
P11 .674 -.564 .587
P13 .672 -.409 .578
P14 .661 -.541 .585
P19 .624 -.130 .528
P3 .566 -.414 .560
P2 .475 -.807 .355
P1 .447 -.727 .411
P4 .568 -.615 .586
P8 .549 -.341 .803
P10 .577 -.298 .781
P9 .561 -.165 .753
P5 .573 -.364 .741
P7 .537 -.328 .667
P15 .492 -.148 .543

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
208
Structure Matrix for Expectations
Structure Matrix
Factor
1 2 3
E10 .848 .531 .469
E9 .792 .412 .528
E5 .791 .551 .611
E8 .786 .505 .538
E7 .785 .515 .634
E13 .778 .482 .522
E11 .735 .665 .438
E14 .697 .620 .557
E6 .652 .559 .439
E22 .624 .613 .372
E15 .623 .538 .396
E21 .587 .718 .360
E20 .429 .697 .367
E17 .412 .686 .316
E16 .517 .683 .313
E18 .418 .662 .438
E12 .619 .647 .369
E19 .450 .642 .221
E2 .558 .410 .848
E4 .629 .451 .797
E1 .591 .367 .755
E3 .443 .482 .572
209
Structure Matrix for Organizational Culture
Structure Matrix
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
G1 .710 .339 -.237 .267 .370 .325 .520
C4 .702 .459 -.204 .175 .390 .336 .407
G4 .656 .344 -.494 .229 .309 .551 9.602E-02
S1 .643 .265 -.351 -6.816E-03 .626 .245 .372
M4 .588 .439 -.100 .179 .445 .343 .542
G3 .562 .557 -.464 .107 .195 .409 .324
M3 .259 .814 -.226 .350 .289 .279 .210
D3 .459 .787 -.384 9.290E-02 .328 .261 .222
D4 .516 .528 -.498 -.233 .229 .301 .199
D2 .262 .503 -.269 .259 .352 6.129E-02 .333
S4 .334 .253 -.792 -7.438E-02 3.972E-02 .411 .380
S2 .236 .438 -.753 .389 .360 .177 .104
S3 .503 .546 -.557 .364 .302 .114 .108
C3 .245 .355 -.218 .869 .133 .167 .167
M1 .326 .260 -.190 -.134 .802 .428 .387
M2 .339 .353 -5.604E-02 .232 .662 .154 .352
C2 .338 .412 -5.944E-02 .240 .588 .234 .510
G2 .338 .255 -.390 .432 .519 .261 9.137E-02
L4 .485 .328 -.267 3.080E-02 .434 .850 .494
L1 .561 8.825E-02 -.118 -3.951 E-02 .451 .670 .550
L3 .196 .486 -.352 .233 .164 .660 .298
L2 .391 .225 -.161 .236 .496 .559 .511
C1 .445 .269 -.201 4.546E-02 .368 .383 .868
D1 .196 .145 -.174 8.611 E-02 .219 .285 .448
REFERENCES CITED
211
References Cited
Andreassen, T.(1995). Dissatisfaction with public services: The case of public transportation. The
Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 3 0 -4 1 .
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K., & Swan, J. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of
service quality. The Journal o f Services Marketing, 10(6). Retrieved from http://0-
proquest.umi.com.novacat.nova.edu/t>qdweb?index=3&sid=l&srchmode=T&vinst=PROD&f
mt=3...
Athanassopoulos, A. (2000). Customer satisfaction cues to support market segmentation and explain
switching behavior. Journal o f Business Research, 47(3), 191.
Babakus, E., & Boiler, G.W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of
Business Research, 24(3), 253 - 268.
Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice o f Social Research. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
Berrio, A. (2003). An organizational culture assessment using the competing values framework: A
profile of Ohio State University Extension. Journal o f Extension, 41(2). Retrieved from
http://www.ioe.or g/i oe/2003at>ril/a3.shtml
Berry, L. (1995). Customer service solutions. Success, 42(6), 90 - 94.
Bissessar, A. (2001). Differential approaches to human resource management reform in the public
services of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Public Personnel Management, 30(4), 531-
547.
Black, S., Briggs, S., & Keough, W. (2001). Service quality performance measurement in
public/private sectors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(7), 400-405.
Bradley, L., & Parker, R. (2001). Public sector changes in Australia: Are managers’ ideals being
realized? Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 349-361.
Brady, M., & Cronin, J. (2001). Customer orientation: Effects on customer service perceptions and
outcome behaviors. Journal o f Service Research, 3(3), 241 - 251.
Brown, A. (1998). Organizational Culture. Essex: Pitman Publishing.
Brown, F., & Dodd, N. (1998). Utilizing organizational culture gap analysis to determine human
resource development needs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(7), 374.
Brown, K., Waterhouse, J., & Flynn, C. (2003). Change management practices: Is a hybrid model a
better alternative for public sector agencies? The International Journal o f Public Sector
Management, 16(3), 230-241.
212
Brown, S., & Swartz, T. (1989). A gap analysis of professional service quality. Journal of
Marketing, 53(2), 92 - 98.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows:
A Guide for Social Scientists. Philadelphia, PA.: Routledge.
Brysland, A., & Curry, A. (2001). Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL.
Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 389-401.
Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal o f Marketing,
30(1), 8 - 3 4 .
Cameron, K., & Freeman, S. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength and type: Relationships to
effectiveness. Research in Organization Change and Development, 5, 23-58.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework. Reading , Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.
Carman, J. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL

dimensions. Journal o f Retailing, 66(1), 33-55.
Carman, J. (2000). Patient perceptions of service quality: combining the dimensions. The Journal of
Services Marketing, 14(4), 337.
Chang, S., & Wiebe, H. (1996). The ideal culture profile for total quality management: A competing
values perspective. Engineering Management Journal, 8(2), 19-26.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Gasco, J., Molina, H., & Conca, F. (1999). Public administration: From
bureaucratic culture to citizen-oriented culture. The International Journal o f Public Sector
Management, 12(5), 455-464.
Coram, R., & Bumes, B. (2001). Managing organizational change in the public sector - Lessons
from the privatization o f the Property Service Agency. The International Journal o f the
Public Sector, 14(2). Retrieved from http://0-
proauest.umi.com.no vacat.no va.edu/pqdweb?index=21&sid=5&srchmode-1&vi...
Corbett, L., & Rastrick, K. (2000). Quality performance and organizational culture. A New Zealand
study. The International Journal o f Quality & Reliability, 17(1), 14.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension. Journal
o f Marketing, 56(-), 55 - 68.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measures of service quality. Journal o f Marketing,
58(1), 1 2 5 - 131.
Crow, S., & Hartman, S. (2002). Organizational culture: Its impact on employee relations and
discipline in health care organizations. The Health Care Manager, 21(2), 22 - 28.
213
Curry, A. & Herbert, D. (1998). Continuous improvement in public services- A way forward.
Managing Service Quality, 8(5), 339 - 349.
Curry, A. (1999). Innovation in Public Service Management. Managing Service Quality, 9(3), 180 —
190.
Dabholkar, P., Thorpe, D., & Rentz, J. (1996). A Measure of Service Quality for Retail Stores: Scale
Development and Validation. Journal o f the Academy o f Marketing ScienceA
Dalrymple, J., Donnelly, M., Wisniewski, M., & Curry, A. (1995). Measuring service quality in
local government. In Kanji, G. K. (Ed.) Proceedings o f the First World Congress on TQM,
Chapman and Hall, London, 263 - 266.
Danaher, P. (1997). Using conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance o f service attributes
measured in customer satisfaction surveys. Journal o f Retailing, 73(2), 235 - 260.
Davis, C. (1999). Reforming the Cabinet Office: Strengthening the core o f government in Jamaica.
Caribbean Journal o f Public Sector Management, 1, (1), 41-49.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals o f Cooperate Life.
Reading , MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Dellana, S., & Hauser, R. (1999). Toward defining the quality culture. Engineering Management
Journal, 11(2), 11-15.
Deming, W. (1986). Out o f the CrisisL, Boston, MA.: Cambridge MIT, Center for Advanced
Engineering.
Denison, D. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.
Denison, D., & Spreitzer, G. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A
competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change & Development, 5, 1-21.
Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research
agenda. Journal o f Marketing, 53(1), 3 - 15.
Deshpande, R , Farley, J., & Webster, F. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and
innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal o f Marketing, 57(1), 23-37.
Donnelly, M. (1999). Making the difference: Quality strategy in the public sector. Managing
Service Quality, 9(1), 47 - 52.
Donnelly, M., & Dalrymple, J. (1996). The portability and validity o f the SERVQUAL scale in
measuring the quality of local public service provision. Proceedings o f the International
Conference on Quality, Union o f Japanese Scientists and Engineers, Yokohama, Japan, 245
-2 4 9 .
214
Donnelly, M., & Shiu, E. (1999). Assessing service quality and its link with value for money in a
UK local authority’s housing repairs service using the SERVQUAL approach. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 10(4/5), S498-S506.
Donnelly, M., Wisniewski, M., Dalrymple, J., & Curry, A. (1995). Measuring service quality in
local government: The SERVQUAL approach. International Journal o f Public Sector
Management, 8(7), 15-20.
Donthu, N., & Yoo, B. (1998). Cultural influences on service quality expectations. Journal of
Service Research, 1(2), 178-186.
Dotchin, J., & Oakland, J. (1994). Total quality management in services - Part 3: Distinguishing
perceptions of service quality. The International Journal o f Quality & Reliability, 11(4), 6 -
28.
Driscoll, A., & Morris, J. (2001). Stepping out: Rhetorical devices and culture change management
in the UK civil service. Public Administration, 79(4), 803 - 823.
Drucker, P. (1980). The Deadly Sins in Public Administration. Public Administration Review,
40(2), 103.
Dunk, A., & Lysons, A. (1997). An analysis of departmental effectiveness, participative budgetary
control processes and environmental dimensionality within the competing values framework:
A public sector study. Financial Accountability and Management, 13(1), 1-15.
Economic and Social Survey Jamaica. (2004). Kingston, Jamaica: The Planning Institute of
Jamaica.
Ferlie, E., Ashbumer, L., FitzGerald, L., &. Pettigrew A. (1996). The New Public Sector in Action.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fick, G., & Ritchie, J. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal
of Travel Research, 30(2), 2 - 9 .
Furrer, O., Liu S., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationship between culture and service quality
perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of
Service Research, 2(4), 355-371.
Gaster, L. (1995). Quality in Public Services. Open University Press: Buckingham.
Goodman, E.; Zammuto, R.; & Gifford, B. (2001). The competing values framework: Understanding
the impact of organizational culture on quality of work life. Organization Development
Journal, 19(3), 58-68.
Government at Your Service. (2003). Kingston, Jamaica: Cabinet Office.
Green, P., & Tull, D. (1978). Research for Marketing Decisions, (4th ed). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall.
215
Green, P., Tull, D., & Albaum, G. (1988). Research for Marketing Decisions. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Gronroos, C. (1982). Strategic management and marketing in the service sector, Swedish School of
Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of
Marketing, 18(4), 3 6 -4 4 .
Gronroos, C. (2001). The perceived service quality concept - a mistake? Measuring Business
Excellence, 5(4), 46 - 47.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Black, W., & Tatham, R. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, (5th ed). New
York: Prentice Hall.
Harris, S., & Mossholder, K. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with
culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22(4),
527 - 547.
Henderson, K. (2004). Characterizing American public administration: The concept of

administrative culture. The International Journal o f Public Sector Management, 17(2/3),
234.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts.
Organization Studies, 19(3), 477 - 493.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A
qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly,
35(2), 286 -3 1 6 .
Howard, L. (1998). Validating the competing values model as a representation o f organizational

cultures. International Journal o f Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 231 - 250.
Jaeger, R. (1993). Statistics: A Spectator Sport, (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.
Johnston, R. (1997). Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retail banking:
importance and effect. The International Journal o f Bank Marketing, 15(4), 111.
Kalliath, T., Bluedom, A., & Strube, M. (1999). A test of value congruence effects. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1175-1198.
Keily, J., & Peek, G. (2002). The culture of the British police: Views of police officers. The Service
Industries Journal, 22(1), 1 6 7 - 183.
216
Lam, K., & Zhao, X. (1998). An Application of quality function deployment to improve the quality
of teaching. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(4), 389.
Lamond, D. (2003). The value o f Quinn’s competing values model in an Australian context.
Journal o f Managerial Psychology, 18(1/2), 46 - 59.
Lewis, B., & Mitchell, V. (1990). Defining and measuring the quality o f customer service.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 8(6), 1 1 -1 7 .
Lim, B. (1995). Examining the organizational culture and organizational performance link.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(5), 16-21.
Liu, B., Furrer, O., & Sudharshan, D. (2001). The relationships between culture and behavioral
intentions toward services. Journal o f Service Research, 4(2), 118-129.
Mangione, T. (1995). Mail Surveys: Improving the quality. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage
Publications.
Mattila, A. (1999). The role o f culture and purchase motivation in service encounter evaluations.
The Journal o f Services Marketing, 13(4/5), 376-389.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O ’Donnell, M. (1996). Into the mystic: Cultural change and TQM teams in the NSW public sector.
Journal o f Industrial Relations, 38(2), 241-263.
O ’Donnell, M. (1998). Creating a performance culture? Performance-based pay in the Australian

public service. Australian Journal o f Public Administration, 57(3), 28-40.
O’Neill, M., & Palmer, A. (2001). Survey timing and consumer perceptions o f service quality: An
overview of empirical evidence. Managing Service Quality, 11(3), 182 - 190.
Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. (2001). Complexifying organizational theory: Illustrations using time
research. The Academy o f Management Review, 26(3), 415-430.
Orane Report (1999). Report o f the Task Force to Reduce Waste in the Public Sector.
Orwig, R., Pearson, J., & Cochran, D. (1997). An empirical investigation into the validity of
SERVQUAL in the public sector. Public Administration Quarterly, 21(1), 54-68.
Ovretveit, J. (1991). Quality Health Services. BIOSS, Brunei University, Uxbridge.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., & Zeithaml, V. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale. Journal o f Retailing, 67(4), 420 - 449.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41 -5 0 .
217
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal o f Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organizational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six
organizations. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2/3), 125-141.
Pettigrew, A. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: Two constructs in search of a role. In B.
Schneider (ed). Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Quinn, R. (1988). Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R., & Kimberly, J. (1984). Paradox, planning, and perseverance: Guidelines for managerial
practice. Managing Organizational Translations, 259-313.
Quinn, R., & McGrath, M. (1985). The transformation of organizational cultures: A competing
values perspective. Organizational Culture, 315-334.
Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness.
Public Productivity Review, 5, 122-140.
Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing
values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.
Quinn, R., & Spreitzer, G. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument
and an analysis of the impact o f organizational culture on quality of life. Research in
Organizational Change & Development, 5, 115-142.
Rameezdeen, R., & Gunarathna, N. (2003). Disputes and construction industry cultures. AACE
International Transactions, CD24.1-CD24.8.
Reeves, C., & Bednar, D. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 19(3), 419 - 445.
Rowley, J. (1998). Quality measurement in the public sector: Some perspectives from the service
quality literature. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 9(2/3), 321 - 333.
Rust, R., & Oliver, R. (1994). Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Sahney, S., Banwet, K., & Karunes, S. (2003). Enhancing quality in education: Application of
quality function deployment - an industry perspective. Work Study, 52(6/7), 297 - 309.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 1 0 9 - 119.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. (1999). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about Culture
Change. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.
218
Scholz, C. (1987). Corporate culture and strategy - the problem o f strategic fit. Long Range
Planning, 204(104), 78.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instalments. Health Services
Research, 38(3), 923.
Sendelbach, N. (1993). The competing values framework for management training and
development: a tool for understanding complex issues and tasks. Human Resource
Management, 32(1), 75 - 99.
Sin, L., & Tse, A. (2000). How does marketing effectiveness mediate the effect o f organizational
culture on business performance? The case of service firms. The Journal o f Services
Marketing, 14(4), 295.
Sivadas, E., & Baker-Prewitt, J. (2000). An examination of the relationship between service quality,
customer satisfaction, and store loyalty. International Journal o f Retail & Distribution,
28(2), 73.
Smart, J., & St. John, E. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education: A test
of the “culture type” and “strong culture” hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18(3), 219-241.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 28(3), 339 - 358.
Stone, C. (1986). Work Attitudes Survey. Jamaica: Earle Publishers Ltd.
The Citizen’s Charter - Raising Standards o f Service. (1995). Kingston, Jamaica: Citizen’s Charter
Unit, Office of the Prime Minister.
The Jamaica Movement for the Advancement of Literacy (JAMAL) Foundation (2001). Adult
Literacy by Gender and Parish, 1999.
Thompson, J. (1989). A view from Jamaica. Social Education, 53(4), 241-256.
Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1984). Studying organizational culture throught rites and ceremonials.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 653 - 669.
Tsikriktsis, N. (2002). Does culture influence web site quality expectations? An empirical study.
Journal o f Service Research, 5(2), 101-112.
UNDP Report (1994). Public Sector Management Review o f the English speaking Caribbean.
Valle, M. (1999). Crisis, culture and charisma: The new leader’s work in public organizations.
Public Personnel Management [On-line], 28(2). Available:http://0-
proquest.umi.com.novacat.nova.edu/pqdweb?TS=l 056416905&RQT=309&CC=2...
219
Winsted, K. (1997). The service experience in two cultures: A behavioral perspective. Journal of
Retailing,73(3), 337-360.
Wisniewski, M. (2001). Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sector
services. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 380-388.
Wisniewski, M., & Donnelly, M. (1996). Measuring service quality in the public sector: The
potential for SERVQUAL. Total Quality Management, 7(4), 357-365.
Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2002). Customers’ perspectives on service quality and relationship quality
in retail encounters. Managing Service Quality, 12(6), 424 - 433.
World Bank Report (1996). Public Sector Modernization in the Caribbean..
Xenikou, A., & Fumham, A. (1996). A Correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire
measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49(3), 349 - 371.
Yeatman, A. (1998). Trends and opportunities in the public sector: A critical assessment.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57(4), 138 - 148.
Yeung, A., Brockbank, J., & Ulrich, D. (1991). Organizational culture and human resource
practices: An empirical assessment. Research in Organizational Change and Development,
5,59-81.
Younis, T. (1997). Customers’ expectations of public sector services: Does quality have its limits?
Total Quality Management, 8(4), 115-129.
Zammuto, R., & Krakower, J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture.
Research in Organization Change and Development, 5, 83-114.
Zammuto, R., Gifford, B., & Goodman, E. (2000). Managerial ideologies, organizational culture,
and the outcomes o f innovation. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderon & M. Peterson, (Eds.),
Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, 261 - 278. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service, Balancing Customer
Perceptions and Expectations. New York, NY.: The Free Press.
Zikmund, W. (2000). Business Research Methods. Fort Worth, TX.: Dryden Press.

Thesis 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thesis 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF

We hereby certify this Dissertation submitted by Marlene J. Phillips conforms to acceptable

Sabrina Segal, D.B.A. Date

Nova Southeastern University

used the language, ideas, expressions or writings of another.

THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF

I would like to express sincere appreciation to faculty, administrative staff, family,

of my doctoral studies. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Sabrina

enquired of me continuously, especially when the various hurricanes threatened or even

ravished my island. I really appreciated those cards and words o f encouragement.

committee that one could ever hope for.

possible but also worthwhile.

possible through His grace and mercy. To God be the glory.

Table 1 Definitions o f Organizational C ulture.................................................................33

Figure 1 Customer Assessment o f Service Quality............................................................. 6

developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988). Organizational culture will be

assessed using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by

contribute to the body o f knowledge by providing empirical evidence of the impact of

study of these constructs in a Jamaican context should contribute to a more useful

understanding of developing countries or island economies.

Background of the problem

Bank (1996) report on Public Sector Modernization in the Caribbean:

effects of slavery, exploitation and colonialism pervasive in the organizational culture of

underestimated (Stone, 1986; Thompson, 1989). Furthermore, it is posited that

organizational culture explains the differences in perception of organizations operating in the

Mattila, 1999; Tsikriktsis, 2002; Winsted, 1997).

Like many countries, Jamaica embarked on a comprehensive public sector reform

responsibility for executing governmental policies and programs to improve customer

of organizational culture, it is therefore expedient to develop an understanding of the

correlates with a positive service quality experience.

Purpose o f the study

To address the deterioration in public sector service delivery, the Jamaican

government has undertaken a major reorganization o f the public sector through a

customers of central government and executive agency public sector entities.

weakness (Crow & Hartman, 2002). Therefore, empirical understanding of organizational

happenings in the Jamaican public sector.

quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988).

the overall assessment of service quality is a direct relationship between customer

service quality actually received. Represented by the equation:

Dimensions o f service Word of Personal Past External

Figure 1 Customer Assessment o f Service Quality

This study measures service quality using SERVQUAL, an instrument consisting of

reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy). Figure 2.

Service Quality Responsiveness

Figure 2 Service Quality Dimensions

This study uses the competing values framework o f organizational culture to

organizations. The competing values framework of organizational culture is based on four

types are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Organizational Culture Types

organizational culture types (Desphpande, Farley, & Webster, 1993); leadership,

effectiveness (Zammuto, Gifford & Goodman, 2000).

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn

easy to use instrument.

Statement of the problem

perceived service delivery in this sector.

This study is designed to provide answers to the following research questions: Is

executive agency public sector entities?

These research questions led to the development of the following research

following hypothesis is postulated: