A new performance framework can change a template overnight. Changing how evidence is discussed, interpreted and used is a different task.
Results systems operate within organizations with established expectations, professional practices and decision-making arrangements. Understanding that context is essential if the framework is to become more than a reporting exercise.
There is no single organizational culture
Giorgio Giacomelli, Marta Micacchi and Lorenza Micacchi examine organizational subcultures and perceived performance in public administration. In the setting studied, innovation and group subcultures were associated with perceived performance, while results and rules subcultures were not significantly associated with it. Employee engagement also played a mediating role.
The findings should not be read as proof that rules or results do not matter. They concern particular relationships and perceived performance in a specific setting. Their value is in challenging the assumption that installing a results-oriented system is enough.
Look beyond national explanations
Fábio Albuquerque's discussion of national culture adds another layer. National culture can contribute to explanations of public management, but it does not operate alone. Organizational and professional cultures, institutions, financial constraints, accountability and political authority also shape the context in which managers act.
A practical lesson is to resist broad cultural labels as a complete explanation for what happens in an organization. Ask instead which conditions are relevant to the particular decision or change being considered.
Make improvement possible
Malcolm Prowle, Manj Kalar and Lynne Barrow identify six dimensions of a value-for-money culture: leadership focused on value for money; openness and innovation; an external focus; capacity for organizational change; involvement of frontline professionals; and suitable information and management infrastructure.
Together, these dimensions offer a useful way to connect culture with practical management. The issue is not simply whether employees support a framework. It is whether the organization creates conditions in which information can inform improvement.
Lesson learned
For PPX practitioners, a useful starting point is to examine the environment around one results conversation. Are different perspectives heard? Is relevant operational knowledge included? Is uncertainty acknowledged? Is there a route from the discussion to a decision?
These are suggested reflection questions, not a diagnostic test. They keep the focus on organizational practice rather than attributing success or failure to a single person or cultural label.
Frameworks can help organize evidence. People, working within supportive systems and cultures, determine how that evidence is used.
Which organizational condition would make the greatest difference to the usefulness of your results framework?
Share the question with your professional community and explore how others connect culture, engagement and results.
Sources and further reading
- Giorgio Giacomelli, Marta Micacchi and Lorenza Micacchi. Performance shall not live by results alone: organizational subcultures and perceived performance in public administration. Public Money & Management, 44(6), 2024, 500-514.
- Fábio Albuquerque. Debate: Does national culture really explain public management? Public Money & Management, 2026.
- Malcolm Prowle, Manj Kalar and Lynne Barrow. New development: Value for money (VFM) in public services: the importance of organizational culture. Public Money & Management, 36(7), 2016, 547-552.
Continue learning with PPX
Explore results-based management training, browse PPX learning events, or join the PPX community.
Comments are closed.