University of Huddersfield Repository Aboajela, Samia Mohamed The Influence of Organisational Culture on Performance Measurement Systems in Libyan Higher Education Original Citation Aboajela, Samia Mohamed (2015) The Influence of Organisational Culture on Performance Measurement Systems in Libyan Higher Education Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/25431/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • • • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and The content is not changed in any way For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ The Influence of Organisational Culture on Performance Measurement Systems in Libyan Higher Education Samia Mohamed Aboajela A Thesis Submitted to the University of Huddersfield in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Huddersfield University of Huddersfield Business School 2015     Abstract This research attempts to study the influence of organisational culture (OC) on the acceptance, importance and use of performance measurement systems (PMS) in Libyan higher education To achieve the objectives of this research, a contingency theory is adopted Organisational culture as a contingent variable was identified from the literature and appropriate statistical tests were undertaken to ascertain its influence The organisational culture assessment instrument (OCAI) devised by Cameron & Quinn (2011) was chosen to be the conceptual model for determining the organisational culture type of institutions Using the OCAI, an organisational culture profile could be verified by determining the organisation's dominant culture type characteristics The Competing Values Framework (CVF) model developed by Cameron & Quinn (2011) was chosen to be a measurement tool for Organisational Culture (OC) to examine aspects of dominant organisational culture types in the Libyan higher education sector A mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) approach, involving a survey questionnaire and interviews, was adopted Descriptive statistics, which include frequencies and percentages, were utilized to present the main characteristics of the sample, the profiles of organisations’ cultural types, and the information gained in relation to the acceptance, importance and use of performance measurement systems The sample of this study consists of three types of Libyan higher education (universities, higher institutions and technical collages) The intended participant lists covered the entire population of all groups in Libyan higher education The study revealed that the three types of Libyan higher education are not homogeneous In addition, the study showed that job titles and positions, experience and education levels are among the factors that influence organisational culture and thereby PMS acceptance, importance and use While Libyan higher education in general, which includes public universities and technical colleges, was dominated by a Hierarchy culture that favours a centralised management style, the private and higher institutions were dominated by a Clan culture which is often found in ‘family-type’ organisations Hierarchy culture exhibited a significant negative direct relationship with the acceptance and importance of performance measurement systems in Libyan universities On the other hand, Clan     culture exhibited a significant negative direct relationship with the acceptance and use of performance measurement systems in Libyan higher institutions The contingency theory of performance measurement systems is based on the assumption that there is no universally appropriate use of performance measurement systems that applies equally to all organisations in all circumstances and the findings of this thesis are consistent with this contingency theory assumption Therefore, organisational culture as a factor of contingency theory has influence on some aspects of performance measurement systems and does not influence others, and this depends on a given organisation’s circumstances     Table of Contents Abstract   2  Table of Contents   4  List of Tables   9  List of Figures  . 17  Acknowledgments   18  Abbreviations  . 19  Chapter 1 : Introduction  . 20  1.1 Chapter Outline   20  1.2 Background to the Study   20  1.3 Study problem   23  1.4 Research Aim and Objectives   25  1.5 Research Questions   25  1.6 The Need for the Research  . 26  1.7 Research Framework   28  1.8 Research Methodology  . 29  1.9 Contribution to the knowledge   30  1.10 Structure of the Thesis   32  1.11 Summary   34  Chapter 2 : Literature Review ‐ Organisational Culture   35  2.1 Introduction  . 35  2.2 Organisational Culture Definition and importance   37  2.3 Measures of Organisational Culture   38  2.4 Typologies of Organisational Culture   41  2.4.1 Rowe, Mason, Dickel, Mann and Mockler’s organisational culture Typology   41  2.4.1 Hellriegel, Jackson, Slocum, Staude, Amos, Klopper, Louw and Oosthuizen’s organisational culture  typology   43  2.4.2 The Competing Values Framework (CVF)   45  2.5 Organisational Performance Types According to "Competing Values Framework CVF"  . 52  2.6 Strategy Formulation and Change of Organisational Culture  . 55  2.7 Organisational Culture and Performance Measurement Systems   58  2.8 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses   60  2.8.1 Research Questions   61  2.8.2 Defining the Variables   62  2.8.3 The Conceptual Model of the Study   62  2.8.4 The Conceptual Model for Organisational Culture   63  2.8.4.1 The Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)  . 64  2.8.4.2 The competing values framework (CVF)  . 66  2.9 Summary   71  Chapter 3 : Literature Review for Contingency theory of Performance Measurement Systems  . 72  3.1 Introduction  . 72      3.2 Definition and Origins of Contingency Theory   72  3.3 The Contingency Theory of Performance Measurement   74  3.3.1 Contingent Variable Categories   76  3.4 Performance Measurement systems   78  3.4.1 Definition of Performance Measurement   80  3.5 Financial performance measurements   84  3.5.1 Non‐Financial Performance measurement   86  3.6 Balanced Scorecard (BSC)   88  3.6.1.1 Balanced Scorecard and Education  . 89  3.7 The Performance Measurement Systems: Acceptance, Importance and Use  . 91  3.7.1 PMS Acceptance   92  3.7.2 The Importance and Use of PMS  . 94  3.7.3 Summary   96  Chapter 4 : The Libyan Context  . 97  4.1 Introduction  . 97  4.2 Historical Background  . 97  4.3 The Libyan Environment and Population   97  4.4 Libyan Economy and Management   98  4.5 Overview of the Libyan Education System   99  4.6 Higher Education in Libya   99  4.7 Objectives of the Higher Education System in Libya   103  4.7.1 Objectives of Libyan Universities  . 103  4.7.2 Objectives of Libyan Higher Institutions   104  4.8 Financing of Libyan Higher Education  . 105  4.9 Accountability and Autonomy of Libyan Higher Education   106  4.10 Libyan Organisational Culture  . 107  4.11 Summary   109  Chapter 5 : Research Methodology  . 110  5.1 Introduction   110  5.2 Research Questions   110  5.3 Development of the Hypotheses   111  5.3.1 Hierarchy Culture  . 113  5.3.2 Clan Culture  . 114  5.3.3 Adhocracy Culture   115  5.3.4 Market Culture   116  5.4 Research Methodology   119  5.5 Research Philosophy   121  5.6 Research Approaches  . 123  5.7 Quantitative Research methods  . 124  5.7.1 Research Strategies   125  5.7.2 Survey   126  5.7.3 Research Design  . 126  5.7.4 Questionnaire Design   127  5.7.5 Research Population   128  5.7.6 Pilot Study   129  5.7.7 Translation of the Questionnaire  . 130      5.7.8 Data Collection   131  5.7.9 Mailing‐Out of Questionnaires   131  5.7.10 Follow‐up and Questionnaire Collection  . 132  5.7.11 Questionnaire Data Analysis   132  5.7.12 Response Rate  . 132  5.7.13 Organisational Culture Data Analysis  . 134  5.7.14 Performance Measurement Systems Data Analysis   135  5.7.15 The Influence of PMS on OC Data Analysis   136  5.8 Qualitative Research Methods   138  5.8.1 Qualitative Research Design: The Case Study   139  5.8.2 Descriptive of the Interviews Sample   139  5.8.3 Data Collection: The interview methods   140  5.8.4 Structured interview   141  5.8.5 Semi‐Structured Interview  . 141  5.8.6 Source of Data   142  5.8.7 Interview data Analysis   142  5.9 Validity and Reliability   143  5.10 Summary   145  Chapter 6 : Organisational Culture and Performance Measurement Systems Results   146  6.1 Introduction   146  6.2 Respondents' Profile in General   146  6.2.1 Organisational Culture Profile by Job Title and Position   149  6.2.2 Organisational Culture Profile by experience and education level   150  6.2.3 Organisational Culture Profile by Institution Type   153  6.3 Organisational Culture Profile   154  6.3.1 Higher Education Organisational Culture   154  6.3.2 Universities’ Organisational Culture Types   159  6.3.2.1 Public Universities’ Organisational Culture Type   159  6.3.2.2 Private Universities’ Organisational Culture Type   161  6.3.3 Higher Institutions’ Organisational Culture Type   162  6.3.4 Technical Colleges’ Organisational Culture Type  . 163  6.3.5 Organisational Culture Type in Public and Private Universities  . 165  6.4 Interviews Results for Organisational Culture Profile   166  6.4.1 Interviewees' Profile in General   167  6.4.2 Organisational Culture Profile   168  6.5 Performance Measurement Systems Profile   170  6.5.1 Performance Measurement Systems acceptance and Influence on Organisational Performance   171  6.5.1.1 Financial Performance Measurement system   171  6.5.1.2 Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems   172  6.5.1.3 Advanced Techniques of Performance Measurement Systems  . 173  6.5.1.4 Effectiveness of Using Advanced Techniques of Performance Measurement Systems   173  6.5.1.5 Using Performance Measurement Systems   174  6.5.1.6 Summary Performance Measurement Systems acceptance and Influence on Organisational Performance    174  6.5.2 Importance of Performance Measurement Systems  . 175  6.5.2.1 Importance of financial performance measurement systems   175  6.5.2.2 Importance of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Customer Satisfaction   176      6.5.2.3 Importance of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Innovation  . 177  6.5.2.4 Importance of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Employee  . 177  6.5.2.5 Importance of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Quality   178  6.5.2.6 Importance of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems; Community   178  6.5.2.7 Summary of Financial and Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems Importance   179  6.5.3 Use of performance measurement system  . 180  6.5.3.1 Financial Performance Measurement Systems Use   180  6.5.3.2 Use of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Customer Satisfaction   181  6.5.3.3 Use of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Innovation   181  6.5.3.4 Use of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Employee   182  6.5.3.5 Use of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Quality   182  6.5.3.6 Use of Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems: Community   183  6.5.3.7 Summary of Financial and Non‐Financial Performance Measurement Systems Used to Evaluate Libyan  Higher Education Performance  . 184  6.6 Summary   185  Chapter 7 : The Influence of Organisational Culture on Performance Measurement Systems Results    186  7.1 Introduction   186  7.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) Acceptance in Libyan Higher Education   186  7.2.1 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS acceptance in Libyan Universities  . 189  7.2.1.1 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) acceptance in Libyan Public Universities   192  7.2.1.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) acceptance in Libyan Private Universities  . 195  7.2.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS acceptance for Higher Institutions in Libya  . 198  7.2.3 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) Acceptance for Public Technical colleges in Libya   201  7.3 Influence of Organisational  Culture on Performance Measurement Systems Importance in Libyan  Higher Education   204  7.3.1 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS’s importance in Libyan Universities   207  7.3.1.1 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) Importance in Libyan Public Universities   209  7.3.1.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) Importance in Libyan Private Universities  . 212  Private Universities   212  7.3.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS’s importance for Higher Institutions in Libya   215  7.3.3 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS’s importance for Public Technical colleges in Libya   218  7.4 Influence of Organisational  Culture on Performance Measurement Systems Use in Libyan Higher  Education  . 220  7.4.1 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS Use in Libyan Universities   223  7.4.1.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) Use in Libyan Public Universities  . 225  7.4.1.3 Influence of Organisational  Culture on (PMS) Use in Libyan Private Universities   228  Private Universities   229  7.4.2 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS Use for Higher Institutions in Libya   231  7.4.3 Influence of Organisational  Culture on PMS Acceptance for Public Technical colleges in Libya   234  7.5 Summary   237  Chapter 8 : Discussion of Research main findings  . 238  8.1 Introduction   238  8.2 Descriptive of the Survey Sample   239  8.3 Research Questions, Objectives and Discussion   240  8.3.1 Research objective one: Organisational Culture Types   241  8.3.2 Research objective two: The Use of PMS   246  8.3.2.1 PMS Acceptance  . 246      8.3.2.2 Performance Measurement Systems Importance and Use   249  8.3.3 Research objective Three: Influence and role of Organisational Culture on Performance  Measurement Systems  . 254  8.3.3.1 Results of the Testing Research of Hypotheses   254  8.3.3.2 Findings Related to the Research Hypotheses of Organisational Culture   256  8.3.3.3 Results of Research Hypotheses Tests   267  8.3.3.4 Findings Related to the Research Hypotheses of Organisational Culture in Different Job Titles, Positions  and Levels of Education   268  8.4 Summary   270  Chapter 9 : Conclusion   271  9.1 Introduction   271  9.2 Research Aim, Objectives and Conclusions  . 271  9.3 Research contributions   277  9.3.1 Contributions to Knowledge and Theory   277  9.3.2 Empirical and Practical Contributions   278  9.4 Limitations  . 278  9.5 Future Studies   279  Reference:   280  Appendix A   296  Appendix B: Thesis Questionnaire   300  Appendix C: An interview guide   309  Appendix D   314  Appendix E   326  Appendix F   333  Appendix G   375  Appendix H   428      List of Tables Table 2:1 Classifications of organisational culture typologies 53  Table 2:2 Studies in Organisational Culture and Performance Measurement 58  Table 2:3 Six Organisational Culture Dimensions 65  Table 2:4 Studies Used the Competing Values Framework Model 68  Table 3:1 Contingency Theories Studies 74  Table 3:2 Contingency Factors Affecting Performance Measurement 78  Table 4:1 Number of Students and Academic Staff Members in different Libyan Universities for the Academic Year 2008-2009 102  Table 5:1 Research Steps 119  Table 5:2 A three dimensional framework for categorizing four scientific paradigms 122  Table 5:3 Major differences between deductive and inductive approaches to research 123  Table 5:4 Qualitative and Quantitative Research – A Comparison 125  Table 5:5 Libyan Public and Private Higher education 129  Table 5:6 The Questionnaire Distribution and Response Rate 133  Table 5:7 Reliability Test Results 144  Table 6:1 Job Title and Position 147  Table 6:2 Experiences 147  Table 6:3 Education Level 148  Table 6:4 Organisational Age 148  Table 6:5 Types of Higher Education and Ownership 149  Table 6:6 Experiences in the Current Job 150  Table 6:7 Experiences with the Current Organisation 151  Table 6:8 Education Level 152      Predicted Value Residual Std Predicted Value Std Residual 123 054 009 5.571 00 05 8.441 00 35 21.100 1.00 60 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation 1.7198 3.4312 2.6382 51049 -1.80938 1.64336 00000 75331 -1.799 1.553 000 1.000 -2.380 2.161 000 991 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use Charts     12 65 23 419 27 01 72 N 164 164 164 164 Regression For Performance Measurement System Use Descriptive Statistics Mean Std Deviation PMS Use 2.6382 90999 Adhocracy culture 21.49 5.207 Market culture 18.80 5.526 Hierarchy culture 29.27 7.768 PMS Use Adhocracy culture Pearson Correlation Market culture Hierarchy culture PMS Use Adhocracy Sig (1-tailed) culture Market culture Hierarchy culture PMS Use N Adhocracy culture     N 164 164 164 164 Correlations PMS Use Adhocracy culture 1.000 524 Market culture 239 Hierarchy culture -.024 524 1.000 215 -.195 239 -.024 215 -.195 000 1.000 -.441 001 -.441 1.000 382 000 003 006 001 382 164 003 006 164 000 164 000 164 164 164 164 164 420 Market culture Hierarchy culture 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Variables Method Entered Removed Hierarchy culture, Adhocracy Enter culture, Market cultureb a Dependent Variable: PMS Use b All requested variables entered Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Std Error of the Square Estimate 560a 314 301 76095 a Predictors: (Constant), Hierarchy culture, Adhocracy culture, Market culture b Dependent Variable: PMS Use ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Regression 42.332 14.111 24.369 000b Residual 92.647 160 579 Total 134.978 163 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use b Predictors: (Constant), Hierarchy culture, Adhocracy culture, Market culture Model     Unstandardize Standar d Coefficients dized Coeffic ients B Std Beta Error Coefficientsa t Sig 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Correlations Collinearit y Statistics Lower Upper Zero- Parti Part Toler VIF Bound Bound order al ance 421 (Constan -.484 t) Adhocra cy 090 culture Market 033 culture Hierarch 019 y culture 479 012 012 009 513 1.01 314 -1.429 462 7.60 000 113 066 524 515 498 941 2.73 1.26 007 009 057 239 211 179 788 2.25 1.25 166 025 002 036 -.024 176 148 795 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use 202 Collinearity Diagnosticsa Model Dimension Eigenvalu Condition Variance Proportions e Index (Constant) Adhocracy Market culture culture 3.835 1.000 00 00 00 107 5.988 00 02 24 047 9.075 00 74 37 011 18.409 1.00 24 39 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use Predicted Value Residual Std Predicted Value Std Residual     1.06 Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation 1.7254 3.4252 2.6382 50961 -1.80949 1.63837 00000 75391 -1.791 1.544 000 1.000 -2.378 2.153 000 991 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use 422 Hierarchy culture 00 27 07 66 N 164 164 164 164 Charts Regression For Performance Measurement System Use     423 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std Deviation PMS Use 2.9259 69080 Adhocracy culture 20.90 4.792 Market culture 21.30 6.394 Hierarchy culture 33.67 12.727 PMS Use Adhocracy culture Pearson Correlation Market culture Hierarchy culture PMS Use Adhocracy Sig (1-tailed) culture Market culture Hierarchy culture PMS Use Adhocracy culture N Market culture Hierarchy culture N 27 27 27 27 Correlations PMS Use Adhocracy culture 1.000 011 1.000 297 -.715 246 171 297 -.715 478 1.000 -.227 108 -.227 1.000 197 478 066 000 108 197 27 066 000 27 128 27 128 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Model Summaryb   Hierarchy culture 171 011 Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Variables Method Entered Removed Hierarchy culture, Market culture, Enter Adhocracy cultureb a Dependent Variable: PMS Use b All requested variables entered   Market culture 246 424 Model R R Square Adjusted R Std Error of the Square Estimate a 365 133 020 68372 a Predictors: (Constant), Hierarchy culture, Market culture, Adhocracy culture b Dependent Variable: PMS Use ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Regression 1.655 552 1.180 339b Residual 10.752 23 467 Total 12.407 26 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use b Predictors: (Constant), Hierarchy culture, Market culture, Adhocracy culture Model (Constan t) Adhocra cy culture Market culture Hierarch y culture Unstandardize Standar d Coefficients dized Coeffic ients B Std Beta Error 1.018 1.295 029 041 029 022 020 015 Coefficientsa t Sig 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Correlations Lower Upper Zero- Parti Part Toler VIF Bound Bound order al ance 787 440 -1.660 3.697 198 699 492 -.056 113 011 144 136 469   2.13 1.33 1.09 194 -.016 075 246 269 260 911 1.34 2.04 375 191 -.011 052 171 271 262 489 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use 272 Collinearity Diagnosticsa Model Dimension Eigenvalu Condition Variance Proportions e Index (Constant) Adhocracy Market culture culture 3.783 1.000 00 00 00 160 4.860 00 03 05   Collinearit y Statistics 425 Hierarchy culture 00 25 Predicted Value Residual Std Predicted Value Std Residual     050 007 8.731 02 13 23.425 98 84 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use 93 01 Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation 2.2678 3.2526 2.9259 25233 -1.19429 98189 00000 64307 -2.608 1.294 000 1.000 -1.747 1.436 000 941 a Dependent Variable: PMS Use Charts 426 00 75 N 27 27 27 27     427 Appendix H Clan culture Correlations Adhocra Market cy culture culture Hierarch PMS PMS PMS y culture acceptanc Importan Use e ce Pearson -.319** -.253** -.654** -.214** Correlation Clan Sig (2culture 000 000 000 001 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 Pearson -.319** 146* -.274** 222** Correlation Adhocracy Sig (2culture 000 019 000 000 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 Pearson -.253** 146* -.404** -.041 Correlation Market Sig (2culture 000 019 000 517 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 Pearson ** ** ** -.654 -.274 -.404 115 Correlation Hierarchy Sig (2culture 000 000 000 065 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 Pearson -.214** 222** -.041 115 PMS Correlation acceptance Sig (2.001 000 517 065 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 Pearson -.035 086 012 -.036 515** Correlation PMS Sig (2Importance 579 169 851 566 000 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 Pearson -.282** 364** 262** -.057 529** Correlation PMS Use Sig (2.000 000 000 360 000 tailed) N 257 257 257 257 257 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)     428 -.035 282** 579 000 257 257 086 364** 169 000 257 257 012 262** 851 000 257 257 -.036 -.057 566 360 257 257 515** 529** 000 000 257 257 307** 000 257 257 307** 000 257 257 Correlations Clan Adhocr Market Hierarc PMS PMS PMS BSC culture acy culture hy acceptan Importa Use acceptan culture culture ce nce ce Clan culture Adhocrac y culture Market culture Hierarchy culture PMS acceptance PMS Importanc e PMS Use BSC acceptance     Pearson 233 Correlation Sig (2.225 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson 233 Correlation Sig (2.225 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson 061 147 Correlation Sig (2.752 447 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson -.715** -.707** Correlation Sig (2.000 000 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson 258 059 Correlation Sig (2.176 762 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson 036 308 Correlation Sig (2.855 104 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson 045 119 Correlation Sig (2.818 538 tailed) N 29 29 Pearson 391* -.006 Correlation Sig (2.036 974 tailed) 061 -.715** 258 036 045 391* 752 000 176 855 818 036 29 29 29 29 29 29 147 -.707** 059 308 119 -.006 447 000 762 104 538 974 29 29 29 29 29 29 -.469* 053 258 057 099 010 787 176 770 610 29 29 29 29 29 29 -.469* -.238 -.254 -.199 -.253 214 183 301 185 010 29 29 29 29 29 29 053 -.238 433* 152 881** 787 214 019 433 000 29 29 29 29 29 29 258 -.254 433* 160 306 176 183 019 406 107 29 29 29 29 29 29 057 -.199 152 160 164 770 301 433 406 29 29 29 29 29 29 099 -.253 881** 306 164 610 185 000 107 396 429 396 N 29 29 29 29 29 29 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Clan culture Pearson Correlation Clan Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson Correlation Adhocracy Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson Correlation Market Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson Correlation Hierarchy Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson PMS Correlation acceptance Sig (2tailed) N Pearson Correlation PMS Sig (2Importance tailed) N Pearson Correlation PMS Use Sig (2tailed) N     Correlations Adhocra Market cy culture culture 29 29 Hierarch PMS PMS PMS y culture acceptanc Importan Use e ce -.463** 089 -.614** 129 -.254 -.215 004 602 000 448 129 202 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 -.463** -.403* 002 -.112 -.152 -.149 014 992 508 368 380 004 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 089 -.403* -.581** -.056 318 -.218 602 014 000 742 055 195 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 -.614** 002 -.581** 013 081 470** 000 992 000 940 632 003 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 129 -.112 -.056 013 108 -.012 448 508 742 940 523 945 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 -.254 -.152 318 081 108 462** 129 368 055 632 523 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 -.215 -.149 -.218 470** -.012 462** 202 380 195 003 945 004 37 37 37 37 37 37 430 004 37 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Clan culture Pearson Correlation Clan Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson Correlation Adhocracy Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson Correlation Market Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson Correlation Hierarchy Sig (2culture tailed) N Pearson PMS Correlation acceptance Sig (2tailed) N Pearson Correlation PMS Sig (2Importance tailed) N Pearson Correlation PMS Use Sig (2tailed) N     Correlations Adhocra Market cy culture culture Hierarch PMS PMS PMS y culture acceptanc Importan Use e ce -.527** -.367** -.507** -.347** -.095 432** 000 000 000 000 228 000 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 -.527** 215** -.195* 328** 085 524** 006 012 000 281 000 164 164 164 164 164 -.097 239** 000 164 -.367 ** 164 ** 215 000 006 164 164 -.507** -.441 ** -.229 ** 000 003 216 002 164 164 164 164 164 -.195* -.441** 332** 085 -.024 000 012 000 000 279 764 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 -.347** 328** -.229** 332** 509** 496** 000 000 003 000 000 000 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 -.095 085 -.097 085 509** 258** 228 281 216 279 000 164 164 164 164 164 -.432 ** ** 524 ** 239 -.024 ** 496 001 164 ** 258 000 000 002 764 000 001 164 164 164 164 164 164 431 164 164 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Correlations Clan Adhocra Market Hierarch PMS PMS PMS culture cy culture y culture acceptanc Importan Use culture e ce Pearson 228 -.464* -.713** -.171 Correlation Clan Sig (2culture 252 015 000 395 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 Pearson 228 297 -.715** 072 Correlation Adhocracy Sig (2culture 252 132 000 722 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 Pearson * -.464 297 -.227 024 Correlation Market Sig (2culture 015 132 256 905 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 Pearson -.713** -.715** -.227 110 Correlation Hierarchy Sig (2culture 000 000 256 583 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 Pearson -.171 072 024 110 PMS Correlation acceptance Sig (2.395 722 905 583 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 Pearson 274 054 -.168 -.178 451* Correlation PMS Sig (2Importance 166 788 402 375 018 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 Pearson -.349 011 246 171 463* Correlation PMS Use Sig (2.074 956 216 393 015 tailed) N 27 27 27 27 27 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)     432 274 -.349 166 074 27 27 054 011 788 956 27 27 -.168 246 402 216 27 27 -.178 171 375 393 27 27 451* 463* 018 015 27 27 033 868 27 27 033 868 27 27     433 ... and the findings of this thesis are consistent with this contingency theory assumption Therefore, organisational culture as a factor of contingency theory has influence on some aspects of performance. .. organisational culture on the acceptance, importance and use of performance measurement systems and the relationship of these systems to organisational performance in Libyan higher education Non-profit... the influence of organisational culture on the acceptance, importance and use of (financial and nonfinancial) performance measurement systems in Libyan higher education In addition, (Schein,