- Email: [email protected]
Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes
GOVINF-01048; No. of pages: 7; 4C: Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf
Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes Eric W. Welch, Mary K. Feeney ⁎ School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 450, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online xxxx Keywords: Information and communication technologies Centralization Routineness Local government Managerial outcomes Technology capacity
a b s t r a c t The adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in public organizations promises to better connect managers with citizens, increase public participation in government decision making, improve the efficiency of service delivery, decrease uncertainty, and improve information dissemination. While each of these outcomes is important for both public managers and citizens, we know little about how organizational culture mediates the effectiveness of ICTs on producing these outcomes. This research, using data from two points in time, investigates the relationships between ICTs and managerial outcomes (e.g. improved decision making and public participation) and how they are mediated by organizational culture such as centralization and routineness. Technology variables include technology use and capacity. Models will control for other organizational and technological factors such as size, structure, task and department to investigate the mediating effects of organizational culture on ICT outcomes for local governments. The data come from two national surveys of 2500 local government managers in the United States in 2010 and 2012. The results are important for understanding how organizational mechanisms, in particular organization culture, mobilize ICTs in ways that affect managerial outcomes. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction e-Government initiatives abound, both in the United States and around the world. Governments are under increasing pressure to adopt technologies to improve service delivery, increase efficiency, improve communication with stakeholders, and enhance civic engagement. Adopting e-government services and information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been shown to increase both efficiencies, measured as lower costs and increased service delivery, and civic engagement (Edmiston, 2003; Kakabadse, Kakabadse, & Kouzmin, 2003). Research has shown that governments that use technology are able to save time and money and better serve citizen demands, resulting in improved experiences between citizens and governments (Al Ajeeli, Abid, & Al-Bastaki, 2010; Holzer & Manoharan, 2008), increased transparency (Blackstone, Bognanno, & Hakim, 2005), and increased citizen trust in government (Scott, 2003). While ICTs promise great advancements and opportunities for governments to provide service and communicate with citizens, the effective adoption and implementation of ICTs require organizational capacity, motivation, or commitment and a well-managed fit between technology and the organization. For e-government initiatives to increase outcomes for policy-makers, public managers, governments, communities, and citizens, public organizations need to be reform ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.W. Welch), [email protected] (M.K. Feeney).
minded, enabled with resources and technology know-how, and led by managers that are able to both utilize these technologies and implement them in ways that make it convenient and sensible for others in the organization to follow suit. However, even when organizations have high levels of technology capacity and managers working in those organizations use those technologies, it is not necessarily true that e-government initiatives will increase citizen participation and efficiencies in policy-making, since the organizational culture and environment might constrain the ability of local governments to effectively benefit from those activities. West (2004) argues that although e-government promises to improve service delivery, democratic responsiveness, and public attitudes about government, “the e-government revolution has fallen short of its potential to transform service delivery and public trust in government” (page 15), possibly because e-government efforts have focused too much on technology and too little on how organizational culture and other factors might influence e-government adoption and success. We expect that while e-government initiatives can serve to improve government service delivery, democratic governance, and public participation in government, those outcomes are conditioned by technology use and capacity in local government and the organizational culture in which those technologies are being implemented. This research investigates the mediating relationship that organizational culture plays in the relationship between technology use and capacity and e-government outcomes including improved decision-making and public participation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006 0740-624X/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
2
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
We propose a model for understanding the effectiveness of e-government initiatives on public outcomes, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In this model the key capacity determinant is the extent to which the department is able to take advantage of new technologies at time one. This technology-organization capacity directly and positively affects the ability of the organization to effectively deliver public outcomes including improved decision-making and public participation in time two. In addition to the direct effect, there is an indirect effect of technologyorganization capacity on outcomes. Otherwise said, we expect that organizational culture, here measured as centralization, routineness, and openness, mediates the organization's ability to convert technologyorganization capacity to enhance public outcomes over time. This research seeks to understand how organizational culture in local governments (centralization, routineness, and openness) mediates the relationship between technology-organization capacity and important public outcomes such as increased participation with citizens and improved decision making, while controlling for other key organizational and individual respondent factors. The research takes advantage of data collected at two points in time to explore how capacity and two dimensions of organizational culture reported in one year affect outcomes at a future point in time. Next we present some of the literature that leads us to our hypotheses. We then present the data and methods followed by the analysis and a discussion of the results. 2. Literature and hypotheses 2.1. Technology capacity Technology capacity is widely recognized to be an important predictor of adoption and success of e-government initiatives. For example, research indicates that technology capacity is a critical requirement for adopting intranet systems in order to improve government efficiency and effectiveness (Moon & Bretschneider, 2002; Pandey & Bretschneider, 1997; Welch & Pandey, 2007). Other work has shown that technology capacity is a key determinant of the perceptions of managers about the electronic service delivery effectiveness or ability to engage the public. Recent work has shown that excessive amounts of ‘capacity’ also have negative outcomes such that more applications used for more purposes create a highly complex technological environment that is difficult to manage (Feeney & Welch, 2012). Technology capacity is often measured as a count of computers in use, the percentage of computers with internet connections in the organization, number of applications on a website, or the number of applications or electronic services in use. Here, we argue that these types of capacity variables provide limited insight into the actual technological capacity of the organization. Instead of measuring only widgets, it is necessary to measure technological capacity as a function of fit between what technologies the organization has in its repertoire and whether it has the ability to use the technologies it has in effective ways. We call this technologyorganization capacity. It is not a new concept and in fact there is a good deal of literature that seeks to demonstrate the important interplay between social context and technological context to explain key
Routineness (T1) Centralization (T1) Openness (T1) E-gov Outcomes (T2) Technical Organizational Capacity (T1)
- Participation - Decision making
outcomes. Socio-technical system theory is a well-regarded theoretical base in which these ideas have been effectively integrated. Sociotechnical theory examines “the interaction between people and technology as part of a larger social and technical mosaic in which the development and use of the focal technology is embedded” (Kling & Scacchi, 1982, page 3). The technological features and the social structure interact (Trist & Bamforth, 1951) in such a way that one cannot be separated from the other. The technical component of the sociotechnical systems approach includes the technology components needed to convert inputs to outputs while the social components comprise the individual abilities and attitudes, and institutional factors that enable or hinder conversion (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). Based on this theoretical approach, we expect that the fit between technology and organization components is a key determinant of e-government outcomes. In earlier research comparing American states, Tolbert, Mossberger, and McNeal (2008) find that one of the most important predictors of innovative outcomes in e-government is institutional capacity. Although e-government initiatives have been enforce in U.S. local governments for a number of years, there continues to be variation in the capacity of local governments to adopt and implement e-government initiatives. Some communities, due to the institutional environment, are better equipped to adopt e-government technologies and some governments have more capacity to adopt, alter, and take full advantage of a variety of technologies such as e-services, communication technologies, and web 2.0 two-way communication and social media technologies. In their study of state governments, McNeal, Tolbert, Mossberger, and Dotterweich (2003) found that variation in e-government initiatives was related not so much to citizen demand but to legislative professionalization and professional networks, indicating some basis for an argument that technological capacity is an important component of e-government success. In addition, several studies have demonstrated that organizational factors – structures, human resources, leadership and attitude – are important determinants of public outcomes. A recent work by Olivia and Welch (in press) shows clear relationships between the tasks that an organization typically undertakes and how social media technology is used for work purposes. Earlier work has also made it quite clear that the organizational context cannot easily be separated from the technological context in public organizations (Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1986). Other research on technology use in organizations has identified two components of the strategic use of IT: technology and organizational assets and the means by which technologies are used to address the needs of the organization (Hackler & Saxton, 2007). Nevertheless, these components – technological and social – are often separated in analysis that shows how the social context does or does not allow the uptake of new technologies, for example. This research takes a slightly different approach by recognizing that the quality of the technology–social interface at one point in time is likely to affect outcomes at a later point. The fit between the available tools and the ability of the organization to apply them appropriately is one means of capturing two dimensions of the socio-technical systems approach at once. Analysis over time provides a way of understanding how technology-organization capacity feeds forward to explain in the future why some local government organizations do a better job of applying technology for public service and engagement. Based on the above, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 1. Technology-organization capacity in local governments at time one will be positively related to e-government outcomes at time two. 2.2. Organizational culture
Control Variables (T1) Fig. 1. Organizational culture's mediating effects on e-government outcomes.
While it is widely accepted that adopting technology can result in an assortment of important outcomes for governments and citizens, it is
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
less clear how organizational cultures shape the effectiveness of e-government initiatives resulting in their intended outcomes. Organizational culture is an important determinant of innovation adoption. For example, when an organization adopts new rules and policies related to e-government and information technology, organizational culture can have an effect on whether or not those rules and reforms are effectively adopted. Scott (2003) notes that organizations are subject to regulative, normative, and cultural cognitive elements, so while external government rules and mandates may require the adoption of e-government initiatives, effective organizational change requires normative shifts in thinking about such initiatives. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) go so far as to assert that normative pressure can be more influential in organizational change than the rules and policies dictating such change. Organizational culture will be shaped by not only the organization's mission, its members, but also the external influences that exert pressure on the organization — in the case of local governments, the public and external governing bodies. Organizational culture is an important component of local government's adoption and adaptation of technologies for improved outcomes. Some local government agencies may adopt e-government technologies because of federal or state mandates, others may adopt them in response to citizen demands, and still others might adopt technologies because of managerial preferences. While a number of factors may predict adoption, we suspect that organizational culture will also shape the success with which technologies are adopted and the extent to which they result in positive managerial views of the technologies. Specifically, the centralization of an organization, the routineness of work in that organization, and the organization's tendency toward openness and interactions with the public will mediate the ability of local governments to effectively adopt e-government initiatives. For example, Tolbert et al. (2008) find that governments that have a culture that is more reform-minded and focused on modernization are more likely to lead e-government initiatives, indicating that institutional views matter for adopting e-government initiatives. Work environment is a critical predictor of change in organizations (Aiken & Hage, 1971) and culture is an important predictor of the ability of an organization to effectively adopt e-government technologies. Organizations might be inert or slow to adopt new initiatives (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Hannan & Freeman, 1989) because employees resist change or because the structure of the organization makes adopting changes difficult in terms of capacity and goal achievement (Hannan & Freeman, 1989). While financial resources and capacity are critical for implementing e-government initiatives and improving e-services, effective innovation adoption requires an organizational culture that is open to such changes. In sum, the culture of the organization and perceptions of managers leading those reforms will be critical for ensuring the effective adoption of e-government initiatives and the achievement of positive outcomes from those reforms (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009). Previous research has shown that organizational factors such as centralization, work routineness, formalization, and complexity are related to innovation adoption (Ahn, 2011; Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990). In the case of e-government, for example, Li and Feeney (2012) find that both routineness and organization centralization are negatively related to the adoption of e-services. Organizations that are highly centralized, lack diversity, and have high levels of work routineness are less likely to adopt innovations because they are, first, less likely to be exposed to new ideas and second, when they are, less likely to be able to act quickly on those new ideas. Organizations that are more heterogeneous offer more opportunities for individuals to become exposed to new ideas and be more innovative (Aiken & Hage, 1971; Powell & Grodal, 2006). Welch examines the relationship between transparency, in which public organizations provide stakeholders with knowledge about processes, structures and products of government, and participation, which is the quantity, quality and diversity of input of stakeholders
3
into government decision-making (2012). In disentangling the two dimensions of openness, he finds that participation activity in an organization positively affects transparency, but that transparency does not necessarily lead to participation. Prior work finds that new interactive technologies, particularly social media, have the potential to affect the culture of transparency in public organizations (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010). Other researchers note that e-participation is a dimension of openness enabling governments to interact with citizens online and engage citizens in policy-making using electronic technologies which can increase civic participation (Dutton, 1999; Macintosh, 2004). Yet, Yildiz (2007) finds a general lack of outcome focused studies that examine how ICTs that may enable greater openness of government actually matter for outcomes such as improved decision making or quality of participation, to name two. It is possible that being open to the public also increases the costs of managing the policy process and daily work-a-day activities of managers. One manager in our study responded to an open ended item indicating that “The anonymous blogs and forums have a detrimental effect on local government and generally discourage local governments from getting into social networking and other forms of web based communication”. Given this, it is reasonable to consider that ICTs are applied in public organizations that vary in terms of their general levels of openness. While there may be technology impacts on openness, it is also likely that organizations that are already more transparent or participative, particularly in the short term, will report more positive outcomes from technology use. Taking this approach we expect that organizations that are more participative – that have more inclusive decision making and more interactive governance processes – will realize incremental positive effects on outcomes from the application and utilization of new information and communication technologies. Hence, organizational openness will positively mediate the effect of technology capacity on organizational outcomes. Given these previous findings and our expectations of managers' reactions to open online public interactions, we expect that routineness and centralization will stifle the ability of organizations to successfully benefit from e-government initiatives, even when organizations have high levels of technology capacity and are effectively utilizing these types of technology. In contrast, we expect that organizational openness will tend to enhance the impact of e-government initiatives on organizational outcomes. Hypothesis 2. Organizational culture at time one will mediate the relationships between technology use and capacity and e-government outcomes at time two. Hypothesis 2a. Centralization will mediate the relationship between technology use and capacity and outcomes; organizations that are more centralized at time one will see decreased outcomes from e-government initiatives at time two. Hypothesis 2b. Routineness will mediate the relationship between technology use and capacity and outcomes; organizations have higher levels of routineness at time one will see decreased outcomes from e-government initiatives at time two. Hypothesis 2c. Openness will mediate the relationship between technology use and capacity and outcomes; organizations that are more open to public input at time one will see increased outcomes from e-government at time two. 3. Data and methods This research uses data from two national surveys conducted in 2010 and 2012 and sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Both surveys
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
4
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
were administered to managers in 500 randomly selected local governments with citizen populations ranging from 25,000 to 250,000. The breakdown of cities by population is highly skewed to smaller cities (50%), with only 16% of cities having a population of 100–250,000. The sample included a census of the larger communities (100K–250K), and drew a proportional sample for the cities 25K–100K.1 The final dataset is weighted to account for the representation of cities in the dataset. We surveyed five lead managers in each city from the following departments: general city management, community development, finance, police, and parks and recreation, for a total of 2500 managers. The population size was reduced to 2380 in 2010 and 2428 in 2012 after removing bad addresses and individuals who were no longer working in the position. The final response rates were 37.9% (902 respondents) in 2010 and 29% (703 respondents) in 2012. 3.1. Dependent variables We include two dependent variables in the analysis: Decision making and participation. These two variables come from a set of 9 questionnaire items that asked respondents the extent to which e-government technologies lead to positive and negative outcomes for local government and the community (response categories: 1 = to a very small extent; 2 = to a small extent; 3 = somewhat; 4 = to a great extent; and 5 = to a very great extent). Specifically, the questionnaire asked: “In your opinion, to what extent do electronic information and communication technologies lead to the following outcomes?” [improve governmental decision-making; lead to better policies; revitalize public debate; improve information dissemination to external stakeholders and citizens; increase opportunity to interact and collaborate with other government officials; increase access to government services; enable feedback on service quality; enhance citizen trust of government; improve efficiency and lower costs of the department]. 3.2. Key independent variables and mediating variables Perceived department ICT capacity ranges from 0 to 5 and is the average of four questionnaire items (5-point Likert scale of agreement): (1) My department is ill-equipped to manage important questions about online security and privacy; (2) staff in my office are resistant to change related to technology; (3) management lacks software applications that would make work more efficient; and (4) there is a mismatch between our department's needs and what technology can provide. The Cronbach's alpha for perceived department capacity is .679. While this Cronbach's alpha is below the ideal of .700, we conducted an additional analysis investigating the advantage of dropping an item. Keeping all four measures in the scale results in the most robust measure. Additionally, there are theoretical reasons for keeping these items together, in that they capture department capacity. This variable measures the respondent's perception of the organization's capacity to utilize online initiatives and is the indicator for technology-organization capacity that exists at time one. We operationalize three mediating variables for organizational culture: centralization and routineness. The variable centralization is an average of the following three items (Cronbach's alpha = .750) [2]: (1) There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision; (2) in general, a person who wants to make his own decisions would be quickly discouraged in this agency; and (3) even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer. Response categories are a five-point Likert scale of agreement, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Routineness is a scale measure developed from the following questionnaire items: 1 The census of cities with a population 100K–250K resulted in 184 cities. For the remaining 316 cities, a proportional sample with 59% of the sample was drawn from 25K to 50K, 28% from 50 to 75K, and 13% from cities 75K–100K. Among all respondents, 37.8% are from smaller towns with a population less than 49,999 and 19% are in cities with a population from 50,000 to 74,999.
(1) One thing people like around here is the variety of work (reversed coded) and (2) most jobs have something new happening every day (reversed coded) (response categories 5-point Likert scale of agreement). Routineness is the average of responses with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.683. Some researchers argue that .700 is the ideal for social science research. However, others note that a Cronbach's alpha between 0.6 and 0.7 is sufficient, especially in cases where there are few items (Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). The lower alpha here is likely explained by there being few items. Moreover, these items are commonly used to capture routineness in the literature, offering a theoretical basis for retaining the measure. Openness is a scale variable developed as the averaged response from five questionnaire items: Over the past year, how often did members of the public interact in the following ways with your organization? (1) Provide input on long range plans, (2) provide input on service priorities, (3) provide formal oversight of your organization, (4) voice agreement or disagreement with department decisions, and (5) voice concerns or opinions about community issues. Factor analysis demonstrated that these question items represent one factor (Table 1). The Cronbach's alpha correlation for this constructed variable is 0.79. 3.3. Control variables The model includes two variables that measure the availability or application of technologies at time one. Social media use ranges from 0 to 14 and indicates if the respondent's organization uses the following technologies to facilitate participation with the public: blogs, online chats, discussion forums, e-mail, online newsletters, audio webcasts, text messaging, really simple syndication (RSS), social networking sites, video sharing sites, video webcasts, web surveys or polls, wikis, and electronic polling. Intranet is a dummy variable coded 1 if the local government or department has an intranet, 0 if not. We believe that these two variables tend to capture the existence of two different types of e-government activities that are still not widely adopted, thereby giving a good basis for understanding the agency's status as a technology user. We include three IT variables that capture the IT management context of the organization. IT contractor is a dummy variable that measures whether or not the department contracts with an outside firm to manage ICTs used by the organization (yes = 1). Hacking experience measures respondent knowledge about information security that has occurred in the agency, which could negatively affect perceived outcomes (yes = 1). It is expected that these two variables represent dimensions of the information technology context that could affect
Table 1 Factor analysis of managerial perceptions of electronic information and communication technology outcomes. Loading Participation Improve information dissemination to external stakeholders and citizens 0.734 Increase opportunity to interact and collaborate with other government 0.771 officials Increase access to government services 0.846 Enable feedback on service quality 0.825 Enhance citizen trust of government 0.615 Improve efficiency and lower costs of the department 0.521 Initial eigenvalues 4.74 % of variance 52.72 Decision making Improve governmental decision-making Lead to better policies Revitalize public debate Initial eigenvalues % of variance
0.890 0.896 0.670 1.14 12.69
Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
the extent to which respondents believe e-government has contributed to the two outcome variables. Finally, we control for characteristics of the department, city and respondent. Controlling for city size is important since previous research has shown that city size is a critical determinant of municipal e-government adoption. The city size control is measured as an ordinal scale variable ranging from one to nine in which larger cities are higher on the scale. Recognizing that some departments have fundamentally different cultures and contexts, we also control for department type. A dummy variable for mayor's office or city manager represents the type of department that has the most politicized environment. We control for organization size using the natural log of the number of full time employees in the department. We include respondent controls for education, job tenure, gender, and race. MPA is a dummy variable for whether or not the respondent has a Master of Public Administration degree. Job tenure is a continuous variable with a mean of 14.4 years. Female is coded one for women (men = 0); and white is coded one (non-white = 0). Descriptive statistics for the study variables are in Table 2.
5
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for study variables. Variable name
Min
Dependent variables Decision making Participation
Max
1 1
5 5
3.189 3.67
0.768 0.708
Mediation variables Centralization Routineness Openness
1 1 1
5 5 5
3.715 3.836 2.712
0.743 0.665 0.746
Independent variables Perceived department ICT capacity Social media use Intranet IT contractor Hacking experience Size Mayor's office or city manager White MPA degree holder Female Job tenure Organization size
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.252 4.285 0.945 0.065 1.326 2.727 0.13 0.857 0.278 0.21 14.484 3.732
0.738 2.517 0.527 0.246 1.497 2.041 0.337 0.35 0.449 0.408 10.423 1.563
5 14 3 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 44 7.496
Mean
Std Dev
4. Analysis and results We conducted OLS regressions using a multiple mediator modification in SAS, to investigate the research question: Do two measures of organizational culture, centralization, routineness, and openness mediate the effect of technology-organization capacity on public outcomes including improved participation and decision-making? Although the SAS software package does not provide an efficient method for conducting mediation analysis, Andrew Hayes has developed a macro to be used with SAS to estimate path coefficients for mediators and to generate confidence intervals using a bootstrap method. The SAS macro is available on Hayes' website.2 The method improves upon SOBEL, a widely used mediation method, by enabling simultaneous analysis of multiple mediators and adjusting all pathways for the potential influence of covariates that are not mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The empirical operationalization of the mediation model followed the schematic outline presented in Fig. 1. Results are presented in two forms. First, we provide graphical depictions of the significant and non-significant relationships for the variables of interest for the dependent variables: participation and decision-making (Figs. 2 and 3). Second, we provide results for all variables and model statistics in Table 3. The mediation results predicting decision-making outcomes, presented in Fig. 2, show that perceived ICT capacity at time one is significantly and positively associated with Perceived ICT Decision Making Outcomes at time two. Hence the extent to which managers believed there to be a fit between the technology available or under use, and the organization's ability to take advantage of it in 2010 is directly related to the extent they perceive whether e-government contributes to improved decision making in the organization two years later. This finding, also evident for participation outcomes in Fig. 3, provides strong support for our first hypothesis (H1). Beyond these direct effects, the analysis revealed an important but somewhat unexpected indirect effect for both the decisionmaking and participation models. Examining all paths, we see that perceived technology-organization capacity is positively associated with routineness, centralization, and openness in both models. However, the path between centralization and the perceived decision-making and participation outcomes are not significant, while the paths between routineness and openness and the outcome variables are significant. Hence, we find that routineness and openness mediate the relationship between perceived technology-organization capacity and the two 2
http://afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html.
outcomes in the positive direction, while centralization is not a statistically significant mediator. There is clear evidence that some dimensions of organization culture explain how some organizations are more able than others to convert ICT capacity into government outcomes. We explain the positive mediating effect of routineness on outcomes, a finding which is contrary to our H2b, by considering the complex nature of technology and technological application in the current work environment. Feeney and Welch (2012) have shown that as the complexity of the technology environment increases, managers are less positive about the impact of technology on outcomes. Similarly, these findings seem to show that higher routineness (lower organization task complexity) helps agencies apply and assess how technology can be connected to outcomes. Perhaps this is because higher levels of routineness represent lower levels of uncertainty about task and task processes. Under conditions of low uncertainty it may be easier for managers to apply new technologies to improve services and other activities. We find support for H2c, that organizations that are more open to public input in time one see increased decision-making and participation outcomes in time two. The results show that a culture of openness mediates the effect of ICT capacity on both types of outcomes. While ICT capacity affects outcomes directly, it also affects outcomes indirectly through the participative nature of the organization. This finding makes clear sense in the case of the participation outcome variable where there is a more obvious linkage between ICT capacity, participation and participation outcomes. That the findings hold for decision making outcomes seems to indicate that organizations are able to effectively integrate technologies into participation activities in ways that enhance decision making ability. Table 3 provides additional information on the models. For example, social media use and organization size are the two covariates not considered mediators that are statistically significant across both the decision-making and the participation outcome models. These findings indicate that more social media technologies in use and larger organizations tend to be more positive about decision and participation outcomes. Additionally, hacking experience is positively related to decision-making and participation outcomes, likely because higher use of technology leads to greater exposure and vulnerability to hacker attacks, while accidental release may be negatively associated with participation. Possibly, the respondent recognizes that there is a higher likelihood that accidental disclosures could be prevented, and such a realization could work against perceived outcomes. Finally, intranet is significantly related to decision outcomes but not related to
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
6
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
0.173 ***
Routineness
0.161 *** Perceived ICT Capacity (T1)
Perceived ICT Decision Outcomes (T2)
0.141 *** 0.236 ***
Centralization
0.069 **
-0.034 ** 0.130 ***
Openness
Fig. 2. Mediation results: decision outcomes.
Routineness
0.167 *** Perceived ICT Capacity (T1)
0.148 *** Perceived ICT Participation Outcomes (T2)
0.0.94 *** 0.229 ***
Centralization
-0.017 ** 0.167 ***
0.065 *
Openness Fig. 3. Mediation results: participation outcomes.
participation outcomes. Other variables – white and female – are also significant in the different models indicating that the two dependent variables, although correlated, represent different outcomes (r = 0.552). Overall, these findings provide further evidence for the value and contribution of this research: even controlling for traditional measures of technology and organization capacity, it is possible to see the mediating effect of these dimensions of organizational culture on outcomes. 5. Discussion This study set out to understand whether or not cultural factors of the organization mediate the effects of technology capacity on managerial outcomes. Adopting a socio-technical approach, we conceptualized Table 3 Results for predicting e-government outcomes over time. Independent variables—time 1
Perceived department ICT capacity Routineness (mediator) Centralization (mediator) Openness (mediator) Intranet Social media use IT management Hacking experience City size Mayor's office White MPA degree Female Years worked Organization size ICT capacity effect on routineness ICT capacity effect on centralization ICT capacity effect on openness ICT indirect effect on routineness ICT indirect effect on centralization ICT indirect effect on openness Model fit Adjusted R-square Sample size ***p b .001; **p b .01; *p b .05.
Dependent variables—time 2 Decision outcomes
Participation outcomes
0.141 (0.037) 0.173 (0.043) −0.034 (0.037) 0.130 (0.037) 0.103 (0.047) 0.049 (0.011) 0.130 (0.107) 0.043 (0.019) −0.008 (0.018) −0.118 (0.084) 0.151 (0.082) 0.089 (0.063) −0.039 (0.065) −0.004 (0.003) 0.064 (0.020) 0.161 (0.030) 0.236 (0.035) 0.069 (0.035) 0.028 −0.008 0.009 F = 8.595 0.139 360
0.094 (0.034) 0.148 (0.040) −0.017 (0.034) 0.167 (0.034) −0.044 (0.045) 0.025 (0.010) 0.070 (0.098) 0.062 (0.017) −0018 (0.016) −0.123 (0.076) −0.008 (0.076) −0.054 (0.058) 0.160 (0.060) −0.001 (0.003) 0.067 (0.018) 0.167 (0.030) 0.229 (0.035) 0.065 (0.035) 0.025 −0.004 0.011 F = 8.075 0.136 346
*** *** *** ** *** **
*
*** *** *** **
***
*** *** *** ** ***
technical–organizational capacity as the fusion of technical and social dimensions and measured it as the perceptions by managers about the level of fit between technology, task, needs, and attitude. We found direct effects of the integrated capacity on the two outcomes — decision-making and participation. Overall, we found mixed support for our mediation hypotheses. Contrary to our hypothesis on negative direction of the mediation by routineness, we found evidence for mediation in a positive direction. We explain this based on prior findings that less complex environments are more likely to facilitate the conversion of capacity to outcomes. We find that organizational openness is a positive mediator of outcomes, probably an indication that managers that operate in a more open and participative culture are more likely to integrate ICTs effectively and recognize the value they provide. There was no support for mediation by centralization in the models. Several questions arise as a result of this research. Given that analysis showed only moderate significant evidence for mediation, it is worth now asking what other cultural variables may mediate the ability of public organizations to convert capacity to outcomes. Our measures of culture are quite limited, focusing on task, authority, and openness. Other measures of culture certainly exist and future studies should begin to investigate how different dimensions of culture matter for conversion. Unexpected findings raise other questions. One mediation pathway was not significant and another was significant in the opposite direction from our hypothesis. This demonstrates an opportunity for further development of theory connecting ICT capacity and managerial outcomes and better understanding of how different dimensions of ICT capacity may matter for different types of managerial outcomes. References
*** *** *** *** *
***
Ahn, M. J. (2011). Adoption of E-communication applications in U.S. municipalities: The role of political environment, bureaucratic structure, and the nature of applications. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 428–452. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology, 5(1), 63–82. Al Ajeeli, Abid, T., & Al-Bastaki, Y. A. (2010). Handbook of research on e-services in the public sector: E-government strategies and advancements. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. Blackstone, E. A., Bognanno, M. L., & Hakim, S. (Eds.). (2005). Innovations in E-government: The thoughts of governors and mayors. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. I. (1986). Public management information systems: Theory and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46, 475–487. Cohen, M.D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495–522. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Dutton, W. H. (1999). Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local E-government. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45. Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), 815–833. Hackler, D., & Saxton, G. D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 474–487. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holzer, M., & Manoharan, A. (2008). Opportunities for civic engagement. In K. Yang, & E. Bergrud (Eds.), Civic engagement in a network society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63, 44–60. Kling, R., & Scacchi, W. (1982). The web of computing: Computing technology as social organization. Advances in computers, 21, New York: Academic Press. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220. Li, M. H., & Feeney, M. K. (2012). Adoption of electronic technologies in U.S. local governments: Distinguishing between e-services and communication technologies. The American Review of Public Administration(October 2012). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0275074012460910. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. McNeal, R., Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & Dotterweich, L. J. (2003). Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 8(2), 52–70. Moon, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. I. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 273–292.
7
Olivia, G., & Welch, E. W. (2014). Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government Information Quarterly (in press). Pandey, S. K., & Bretschneider, S. I. (1997). The impact of red tape's administrative delay on public organizations' interest in new information technologies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 113–130. Powell, W., & Grodal, S. (2006). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. Scott, R. (2003). Institutional carriers: Reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 879–894. Tavakol, Mohsen, & Dennick, Reg (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, innovation and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549–563. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). Technological innovation as a process. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38. Welch, E. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 93–115. Welch, E. W., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 379–404. West, D.M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. Eric W. Welch is a Professor at the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University and Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies at ASU. His research focuses on information technology and e-government, science and technology policy, and public management. Mary K. Feeney is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Affairs at ASU and Lincoln Professor of Ethics in Public Affairs. Her research focuses on public and nonprofit management, e-government, and science and technology policy.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf
Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes Eric W. Welch, Mary K. Feeney ⁎ School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 450, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online xxxx Keywords: Information and communication technologies Centralization Routineness Local government Managerial outcomes Technology capacity
a b s t r a c t The adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in public organizations promises to better connect managers with citizens, increase public participation in government decision making, improve the efficiency of service delivery, decrease uncertainty, and improve information dissemination. While each of these outcomes is important for both public managers and citizens, we know little about how organizational culture mediates the effectiveness of ICTs on producing these outcomes. This research, using data from two points in time, investigates the relationships between ICTs and managerial outcomes (e.g. improved decision making and public participation) and how they are mediated by organizational culture such as centralization and routineness. Technology variables include technology use and capacity. Models will control for other organizational and technological factors such as size, structure, task and department to investigate the mediating effects of organizational culture on ICT outcomes for local governments. The data come from two national surveys of 2500 local government managers in the United States in 2010 and 2012. The results are important for understanding how organizational mechanisms, in particular organization culture, mobilize ICTs in ways that affect managerial outcomes. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction e-Government initiatives abound, both in the United States and around the world. Governments are under increasing pressure to adopt technologies to improve service delivery, increase efficiency, improve communication with stakeholders, and enhance civic engagement. Adopting e-government services and information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been shown to increase both efficiencies, measured as lower costs and increased service delivery, and civic engagement (Edmiston, 2003; Kakabadse, Kakabadse, & Kouzmin, 2003). Research has shown that governments that use technology are able to save time and money and better serve citizen demands, resulting in improved experiences between citizens and governments (Al Ajeeli, Abid, & Al-Bastaki, 2010; Holzer & Manoharan, 2008), increased transparency (Blackstone, Bognanno, & Hakim, 2005), and increased citizen trust in government (Scott, 2003). While ICTs promise great advancements and opportunities for governments to provide service and communicate with citizens, the effective adoption and implementation of ICTs require organizational capacity, motivation, or commitment and a well-managed fit between technology and the organization. For e-government initiatives to increase outcomes for policy-makers, public managers, governments, communities, and citizens, public organizations need to be reform ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.W. Welch), [email protected] (M.K. Feeney).
minded, enabled with resources and technology know-how, and led by managers that are able to both utilize these technologies and implement them in ways that make it convenient and sensible for others in the organization to follow suit. However, even when organizations have high levels of technology capacity and managers working in those organizations use those technologies, it is not necessarily true that e-government initiatives will increase citizen participation and efficiencies in policy-making, since the organizational culture and environment might constrain the ability of local governments to effectively benefit from those activities. West (2004) argues that although e-government promises to improve service delivery, democratic responsiveness, and public attitudes about government, “the e-government revolution has fallen short of its potential to transform service delivery and public trust in government” (page 15), possibly because e-government efforts have focused too much on technology and too little on how organizational culture and other factors might influence e-government adoption and success. We expect that while e-government initiatives can serve to improve government service delivery, democratic governance, and public participation in government, those outcomes are conditioned by technology use and capacity in local government and the organizational culture in which those technologies are being implemented. This research investigates the mediating relationship that organizational culture plays in the relationship between technology use and capacity and e-government outcomes including improved decision-making and public participation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006 0740-624X/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
2
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
We propose a model for understanding the effectiveness of e-government initiatives on public outcomes, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In this model the key capacity determinant is the extent to which the department is able to take advantage of new technologies at time one. This technology-organization capacity directly and positively affects the ability of the organization to effectively deliver public outcomes including improved decision-making and public participation in time two. In addition to the direct effect, there is an indirect effect of technologyorganization capacity on outcomes. Otherwise said, we expect that organizational culture, here measured as centralization, routineness, and openness, mediates the organization's ability to convert technologyorganization capacity to enhance public outcomes over time. This research seeks to understand how organizational culture in local governments (centralization, routineness, and openness) mediates the relationship between technology-organization capacity and important public outcomes such as increased participation with citizens and improved decision making, while controlling for other key organizational and individual respondent factors. The research takes advantage of data collected at two points in time to explore how capacity and two dimensions of organizational culture reported in one year affect outcomes at a future point in time. Next we present some of the literature that leads us to our hypotheses. We then present the data and methods followed by the analysis and a discussion of the results. 2. Literature and hypotheses 2.1. Technology capacity Technology capacity is widely recognized to be an important predictor of adoption and success of e-government initiatives. For example, research indicates that technology capacity is a critical requirement for adopting intranet systems in order to improve government efficiency and effectiveness (Moon & Bretschneider, 2002; Pandey & Bretschneider, 1997; Welch & Pandey, 2007). Other work has shown that technology capacity is a key determinant of the perceptions of managers about the electronic service delivery effectiveness or ability to engage the public. Recent work has shown that excessive amounts of ‘capacity’ also have negative outcomes such that more applications used for more purposes create a highly complex technological environment that is difficult to manage (Feeney & Welch, 2012). Technology capacity is often measured as a count of computers in use, the percentage of computers with internet connections in the organization, number of applications on a website, or the number of applications or electronic services in use. Here, we argue that these types of capacity variables provide limited insight into the actual technological capacity of the organization. Instead of measuring only widgets, it is necessary to measure technological capacity as a function of fit between what technologies the organization has in its repertoire and whether it has the ability to use the technologies it has in effective ways. We call this technologyorganization capacity. It is not a new concept and in fact there is a good deal of literature that seeks to demonstrate the important interplay between social context and technological context to explain key
Routineness (T1) Centralization (T1) Openness (T1) E-gov Outcomes (T2) Technical Organizational Capacity (T1)
- Participation - Decision making
outcomes. Socio-technical system theory is a well-regarded theoretical base in which these ideas have been effectively integrated. Sociotechnical theory examines “the interaction between people and technology as part of a larger social and technical mosaic in which the development and use of the focal technology is embedded” (Kling & Scacchi, 1982, page 3). The technological features and the social structure interact (Trist & Bamforth, 1951) in such a way that one cannot be separated from the other. The technical component of the sociotechnical systems approach includes the technology components needed to convert inputs to outputs while the social components comprise the individual abilities and attitudes, and institutional factors that enable or hinder conversion (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). Based on this theoretical approach, we expect that the fit between technology and organization components is a key determinant of e-government outcomes. In earlier research comparing American states, Tolbert, Mossberger, and McNeal (2008) find that one of the most important predictors of innovative outcomes in e-government is institutional capacity. Although e-government initiatives have been enforce in U.S. local governments for a number of years, there continues to be variation in the capacity of local governments to adopt and implement e-government initiatives. Some communities, due to the institutional environment, are better equipped to adopt e-government technologies and some governments have more capacity to adopt, alter, and take full advantage of a variety of technologies such as e-services, communication technologies, and web 2.0 two-way communication and social media technologies. In their study of state governments, McNeal, Tolbert, Mossberger, and Dotterweich (2003) found that variation in e-government initiatives was related not so much to citizen demand but to legislative professionalization and professional networks, indicating some basis for an argument that technological capacity is an important component of e-government success. In addition, several studies have demonstrated that organizational factors – structures, human resources, leadership and attitude – are important determinants of public outcomes. A recent work by Olivia and Welch (in press) shows clear relationships between the tasks that an organization typically undertakes and how social media technology is used for work purposes. Earlier work has also made it quite clear that the organizational context cannot easily be separated from the technological context in public organizations (Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1986). Other research on technology use in organizations has identified two components of the strategic use of IT: technology and organizational assets and the means by which technologies are used to address the needs of the organization (Hackler & Saxton, 2007). Nevertheless, these components – technological and social – are often separated in analysis that shows how the social context does or does not allow the uptake of new technologies, for example. This research takes a slightly different approach by recognizing that the quality of the technology–social interface at one point in time is likely to affect outcomes at a later point. The fit between the available tools and the ability of the organization to apply them appropriately is one means of capturing two dimensions of the socio-technical systems approach at once. Analysis over time provides a way of understanding how technology-organization capacity feeds forward to explain in the future why some local government organizations do a better job of applying technology for public service and engagement. Based on the above, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 1. Technology-organization capacity in local governments at time one will be positively related to e-government outcomes at time two. 2.2. Organizational culture
Control Variables (T1) Fig. 1. Organizational culture's mediating effects on e-government outcomes.
While it is widely accepted that adopting technology can result in an assortment of important outcomes for governments and citizens, it is
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
less clear how organizational cultures shape the effectiveness of e-government initiatives resulting in their intended outcomes. Organizational culture is an important determinant of innovation adoption. For example, when an organization adopts new rules and policies related to e-government and information technology, organizational culture can have an effect on whether or not those rules and reforms are effectively adopted. Scott (2003) notes that organizations are subject to regulative, normative, and cultural cognitive elements, so while external government rules and mandates may require the adoption of e-government initiatives, effective organizational change requires normative shifts in thinking about such initiatives. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) go so far as to assert that normative pressure can be more influential in organizational change than the rules and policies dictating such change. Organizational culture will be shaped by not only the organization's mission, its members, but also the external influences that exert pressure on the organization — in the case of local governments, the public and external governing bodies. Organizational culture is an important component of local government's adoption and adaptation of technologies for improved outcomes. Some local government agencies may adopt e-government technologies because of federal or state mandates, others may adopt them in response to citizen demands, and still others might adopt technologies because of managerial preferences. While a number of factors may predict adoption, we suspect that organizational culture will also shape the success with which technologies are adopted and the extent to which they result in positive managerial views of the technologies. Specifically, the centralization of an organization, the routineness of work in that organization, and the organization's tendency toward openness and interactions with the public will mediate the ability of local governments to effectively adopt e-government initiatives. For example, Tolbert et al. (2008) find that governments that have a culture that is more reform-minded and focused on modernization are more likely to lead e-government initiatives, indicating that institutional views matter for adopting e-government initiatives. Work environment is a critical predictor of change in organizations (Aiken & Hage, 1971) and culture is an important predictor of the ability of an organization to effectively adopt e-government technologies. Organizations might be inert or slow to adopt new initiatives (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Hannan & Freeman, 1989) because employees resist change or because the structure of the organization makes adopting changes difficult in terms of capacity and goal achievement (Hannan & Freeman, 1989). While financial resources and capacity are critical for implementing e-government initiatives and improving e-services, effective innovation adoption requires an organizational culture that is open to such changes. In sum, the culture of the organization and perceptions of managers leading those reforms will be critical for ensuring the effective adoption of e-government initiatives and the achievement of positive outcomes from those reforms (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009). Previous research has shown that organizational factors such as centralization, work routineness, formalization, and complexity are related to innovation adoption (Ahn, 2011; Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990). In the case of e-government, for example, Li and Feeney (2012) find that both routineness and organization centralization are negatively related to the adoption of e-services. Organizations that are highly centralized, lack diversity, and have high levels of work routineness are less likely to adopt innovations because they are, first, less likely to be exposed to new ideas and second, when they are, less likely to be able to act quickly on those new ideas. Organizations that are more heterogeneous offer more opportunities for individuals to become exposed to new ideas and be more innovative (Aiken & Hage, 1971; Powell & Grodal, 2006). Welch examines the relationship between transparency, in which public organizations provide stakeholders with knowledge about processes, structures and products of government, and participation, which is the quantity, quality and diversity of input of stakeholders
3
into government decision-making (2012). In disentangling the two dimensions of openness, he finds that participation activity in an organization positively affects transparency, but that transparency does not necessarily lead to participation. Prior work finds that new interactive technologies, particularly social media, have the potential to affect the culture of transparency in public organizations (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010). Other researchers note that e-participation is a dimension of openness enabling governments to interact with citizens online and engage citizens in policy-making using electronic technologies which can increase civic participation (Dutton, 1999; Macintosh, 2004). Yet, Yildiz (2007) finds a general lack of outcome focused studies that examine how ICTs that may enable greater openness of government actually matter for outcomes such as improved decision making or quality of participation, to name two. It is possible that being open to the public also increases the costs of managing the policy process and daily work-a-day activities of managers. One manager in our study responded to an open ended item indicating that “The anonymous blogs and forums have a detrimental effect on local government and generally discourage local governments from getting into social networking and other forms of web based communication”. Given this, it is reasonable to consider that ICTs are applied in public organizations that vary in terms of their general levels of openness. While there may be technology impacts on openness, it is also likely that organizations that are already more transparent or participative, particularly in the short term, will report more positive outcomes from technology use. Taking this approach we expect that organizations that are more participative – that have more inclusive decision making and more interactive governance processes – will realize incremental positive effects on outcomes from the application and utilization of new information and communication technologies. Hence, organizational openness will positively mediate the effect of technology capacity on organizational outcomes. Given these previous findings and our expectations of managers' reactions to open online public interactions, we expect that routineness and centralization will stifle the ability of organizations to successfully benefit from e-government initiatives, even when organizations have high levels of technology capacity and are effectively utilizing these types of technology. In contrast, we expect that organizational openness will tend to enhance the impact of e-government initiatives on organizational outcomes. Hypothesis 2. Organizational culture at time one will mediate the relationships between technology use and capacity and e-government outcomes at time two. Hypothesis 2a. Centralization will mediate the relationship between technology use and capacity and outcomes; organizations that are more centralized at time one will see decreased outcomes from e-government initiatives at time two. Hypothesis 2b. Routineness will mediate the relationship between technology use and capacity and outcomes; organizations have higher levels of routineness at time one will see decreased outcomes from e-government initiatives at time two. Hypothesis 2c. Openness will mediate the relationship between technology use and capacity and outcomes; organizations that are more open to public input at time one will see increased outcomes from e-government at time two. 3. Data and methods This research uses data from two national surveys conducted in 2010 and 2012 and sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Both surveys
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
4
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
were administered to managers in 500 randomly selected local governments with citizen populations ranging from 25,000 to 250,000. The breakdown of cities by population is highly skewed to smaller cities (50%), with only 16% of cities having a population of 100–250,000. The sample included a census of the larger communities (100K–250K), and drew a proportional sample for the cities 25K–100K.1 The final dataset is weighted to account for the representation of cities in the dataset. We surveyed five lead managers in each city from the following departments: general city management, community development, finance, police, and parks and recreation, for a total of 2500 managers. The population size was reduced to 2380 in 2010 and 2428 in 2012 after removing bad addresses and individuals who were no longer working in the position. The final response rates were 37.9% (902 respondents) in 2010 and 29% (703 respondents) in 2012. 3.1. Dependent variables We include two dependent variables in the analysis: Decision making and participation. These two variables come from a set of 9 questionnaire items that asked respondents the extent to which e-government technologies lead to positive and negative outcomes for local government and the community (response categories: 1 = to a very small extent; 2 = to a small extent; 3 = somewhat; 4 = to a great extent; and 5 = to a very great extent). Specifically, the questionnaire asked: “In your opinion, to what extent do electronic information and communication technologies lead to the following outcomes?” [improve governmental decision-making; lead to better policies; revitalize public debate; improve information dissemination to external stakeholders and citizens; increase opportunity to interact and collaborate with other government officials; increase access to government services; enable feedback on service quality; enhance citizen trust of government; improve efficiency and lower costs of the department]. 3.2. Key independent variables and mediating variables Perceived department ICT capacity ranges from 0 to 5 and is the average of four questionnaire items (5-point Likert scale of agreement): (1) My department is ill-equipped to manage important questions about online security and privacy; (2) staff in my office are resistant to change related to technology; (3) management lacks software applications that would make work more efficient; and (4) there is a mismatch between our department's needs and what technology can provide. The Cronbach's alpha for perceived department capacity is .679. While this Cronbach's alpha is below the ideal of .700, we conducted an additional analysis investigating the advantage of dropping an item. Keeping all four measures in the scale results in the most robust measure. Additionally, there are theoretical reasons for keeping these items together, in that they capture department capacity. This variable measures the respondent's perception of the organization's capacity to utilize online initiatives and is the indicator for technology-organization capacity that exists at time one. We operationalize three mediating variables for organizational culture: centralization and routineness. The variable centralization is an average of the following three items (Cronbach's alpha = .750) [2]: (1) There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision; (2) in general, a person who wants to make his own decisions would be quickly discouraged in this agency; and (3) even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer. Response categories are a five-point Likert scale of agreement, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Routineness is a scale measure developed from the following questionnaire items: 1 The census of cities with a population 100K–250K resulted in 184 cities. For the remaining 316 cities, a proportional sample with 59% of the sample was drawn from 25K to 50K, 28% from 50 to 75K, and 13% from cities 75K–100K. Among all respondents, 37.8% are from smaller towns with a population less than 49,999 and 19% are in cities with a population from 50,000 to 74,999.
(1) One thing people like around here is the variety of work (reversed coded) and (2) most jobs have something new happening every day (reversed coded) (response categories 5-point Likert scale of agreement). Routineness is the average of responses with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.683. Some researchers argue that .700 is the ideal for social science research. However, others note that a Cronbach's alpha between 0.6 and 0.7 is sufficient, especially in cases where there are few items (Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). The lower alpha here is likely explained by there being few items. Moreover, these items are commonly used to capture routineness in the literature, offering a theoretical basis for retaining the measure. Openness is a scale variable developed as the averaged response from five questionnaire items: Over the past year, how often did members of the public interact in the following ways with your organization? (1) Provide input on long range plans, (2) provide input on service priorities, (3) provide formal oversight of your organization, (4) voice agreement or disagreement with department decisions, and (5) voice concerns or opinions about community issues. Factor analysis demonstrated that these question items represent one factor (Table 1). The Cronbach's alpha correlation for this constructed variable is 0.79. 3.3. Control variables The model includes two variables that measure the availability or application of technologies at time one. Social media use ranges from 0 to 14 and indicates if the respondent's organization uses the following technologies to facilitate participation with the public: blogs, online chats, discussion forums, e-mail, online newsletters, audio webcasts, text messaging, really simple syndication (RSS), social networking sites, video sharing sites, video webcasts, web surveys or polls, wikis, and electronic polling. Intranet is a dummy variable coded 1 if the local government or department has an intranet, 0 if not. We believe that these two variables tend to capture the existence of two different types of e-government activities that are still not widely adopted, thereby giving a good basis for understanding the agency's status as a technology user. We include three IT variables that capture the IT management context of the organization. IT contractor is a dummy variable that measures whether or not the department contracts with an outside firm to manage ICTs used by the organization (yes = 1). Hacking experience measures respondent knowledge about information security that has occurred in the agency, which could negatively affect perceived outcomes (yes = 1). It is expected that these two variables represent dimensions of the information technology context that could affect
Table 1 Factor analysis of managerial perceptions of electronic information and communication technology outcomes. Loading Participation Improve information dissemination to external stakeholders and citizens 0.734 Increase opportunity to interact and collaborate with other government 0.771 officials Increase access to government services 0.846 Enable feedback on service quality 0.825 Enhance citizen trust of government 0.615 Improve efficiency and lower costs of the department 0.521 Initial eigenvalues 4.74 % of variance 52.72 Decision making Improve governmental decision-making Lead to better policies Revitalize public debate Initial eigenvalues % of variance
0.890 0.896 0.670 1.14 12.69
Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
the extent to which respondents believe e-government has contributed to the two outcome variables. Finally, we control for characteristics of the department, city and respondent. Controlling for city size is important since previous research has shown that city size is a critical determinant of municipal e-government adoption. The city size control is measured as an ordinal scale variable ranging from one to nine in which larger cities are higher on the scale. Recognizing that some departments have fundamentally different cultures and contexts, we also control for department type. A dummy variable for mayor's office or city manager represents the type of department that has the most politicized environment. We control for organization size using the natural log of the number of full time employees in the department. We include respondent controls for education, job tenure, gender, and race. MPA is a dummy variable for whether or not the respondent has a Master of Public Administration degree. Job tenure is a continuous variable with a mean of 14.4 years. Female is coded one for women (men = 0); and white is coded one (non-white = 0). Descriptive statistics for the study variables are in Table 2.
5
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for study variables. Variable name
Min
Dependent variables Decision making Participation
Max
1 1
5 5
3.189 3.67
0.768 0.708
Mediation variables Centralization Routineness Openness
1 1 1
5 5 5
3.715 3.836 2.712
0.743 0.665 0.746
Independent variables Perceived department ICT capacity Social media use Intranet IT contractor Hacking experience Size Mayor's office or city manager White MPA degree holder Female Job tenure Organization size
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.252 4.285 0.945 0.065 1.326 2.727 0.13 0.857 0.278 0.21 14.484 3.732
0.738 2.517 0.527 0.246 1.497 2.041 0.337 0.35 0.449 0.408 10.423 1.563
5 14 3 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 44 7.496
Mean
Std Dev
4. Analysis and results We conducted OLS regressions using a multiple mediator modification in SAS, to investigate the research question: Do two measures of organizational culture, centralization, routineness, and openness mediate the effect of technology-organization capacity on public outcomes including improved participation and decision-making? Although the SAS software package does not provide an efficient method for conducting mediation analysis, Andrew Hayes has developed a macro to be used with SAS to estimate path coefficients for mediators and to generate confidence intervals using a bootstrap method. The SAS macro is available on Hayes' website.2 The method improves upon SOBEL, a widely used mediation method, by enabling simultaneous analysis of multiple mediators and adjusting all pathways for the potential influence of covariates that are not mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The empirical operationalization of the mediation model followed the schematic outline presented in Fig. 1. Results are presented in two forms. First, we provide graphical depictions of the significant and non-significant relationships for the variables of interest for the dependent variables: participation and decision-making (Figs. 2 and 3). Second, we provide results for all variables and model statistics in Table 3. The mediation results predicting decision-making outcomes, presented in Fig. 2, show that perceived ICT capacity at time one is significantly and positively associated with Perceived ICT Decision Making Outcomes at time two. Hence the extent to which managers believed there to be a fit between the technology available or under use, and the organization's ability to take advantage of it in 2010 is directly related to the extent they perceive whether e-government contributes to improved decision making in the organization two years later. This finding, also evident for participation outcomes in Fig. 3, provides strong support for our first hypothesis (H1). Beyond these direct effects, the analysis revealed an important but somewhat unexpected indirect effect for both the decisionmaking and participation models. Examining all paths, we see that perceived technology-organization capacity is positively associated with routineness, centralization, and openness in both models. However, the path between centralization and the perceived decision-making and participation outcomes are not significant, while the paths between routineness and openness and the outcome variables are significant. Hence, we find that routineness and openness mediate the relationship between perceived technology-organization capacity and the two 2
http://afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html.
outcomes in the positive direction, while centralization is not a statistically significant mediator. There is clear evidence that some dimensions of organization culture explain how some organizations are more able than others to convert ICT capacity into government outcomes. We explain the positive mediating effect of routineness on outcomes, a finding which is contrary to our H2b, by considering the complex nature of technology and technological application in the current work environment. Feeney and Welch (2012) have shown that as the complexity of the technology environment increases, managers are less positive about the impact of technology on outcomes. Similarly, these findings seem to show that higher routineness (lower organization task complexity) helps agencies apply and assess how technology can be connected to outcomes. Perhaps this is because higher levels of routineness represent lower levels of uncertainty about task and task processes. Under conditions of low uncertainty it may be easier for managers to apply new technologies to improve services and other activities. We find support for H2c, that organizations that are more open to public input in time one see increased decision-making and participation outcomes in time two. The results show that a culture of openness mediates the effect of ICT capacity on both types of outcomes. While ICT capacity affects outcomes directly, it also affects outcomes indirectly through the participative nature of the organization. This finding makes clear sense in the case of the participation outcome variable where there is a more obvious linkage between ICT capacity, participation and participation outcomes. That the findings hold for decision making outcomes seems to indicate that organizations are able to effectively integrate technologies into participation activities in ways that enhance decision making ability. Table 3 provides additional information on the models. For example, social media use and organization size are the two covariates not considered mediators that are statistically significant across both the decision-making and the participation outcome models. These findings indicate that more social media technologies in use and larger organizations tend to be more positive about decision and participation outcomes. Additionally, hacking experience is positively related to decision-making and participation outcomes, likely because higher use of technology leads to greater exposure and vulnerability to hacker attacks, while accidental release may be negatively associated with participation. Possibly, the respondent recognizes that there is a higher likelihood that accidental disclosures could be prevented, and such a realization could work against perceived outcomes. Finally, intranet is significantly related to decision outcomes but not related to
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
6
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
0.173 ***
Routineness
0.161 *** Perceived ICT Capacity (T1)
Perceived ICT Decision Outcomes (T2)
0.141 *** 0.236 ***
Centralization
0.069 **
-0.034 ** 0.130 ***
Openness
Fig. 2. Mediation results: decision outcomes.
Routineness
0.167 *** Perceived ICT Capacity (T1)
0.148 *** Perceived ICT Participation Outcomes (T2)
0.0.94 *** 0.229 ***
Centralization
-0.017 ** 0.167 ***
0.065 *
Openness Fig. 3. Mediation results: participation outcomes.
participation outcomes. Other variables – white and female – are also significant in the different models indicating that the two dependent variables, although correlated, represent different outcomes (r = 0.552). Overall, these findings provide further evidence for the value and contribution of this research: even controlling for traditional measures of technology and organization capacity, it is possible to see the mediating effect of these dimensions of organizational culture on outcomes. 5. Discussion This study set out to understand whether or not cultural factors of the organization mediate the effects of technology capacity on managerial outcomes. Adopting a socio-technical approach, we conceptualized Table 3 Results for predicting e-government outcomes over time. Independent variables—time 1
Perceived department ICT capacity Routineness (mediator) Centralization (mediator) Openness (mediator) Intranet Social media use IT management Hacking experience City size Mayor's office White MPA degree Female Years worked Organization size ICT capacity effect on routineness ICT capacity effect on centralization ICT capacity effect on openness ICT indirect effect on routineness ICT indirect effect on centralization ICT indirect effect on openness Model fit Adjusted R-square Sample size ***p b .001; **p b .01; *p b .05.
Dependent variables—time 2 Decision outcomes
Participation outcomes
0.141 (0.037) 0.173 (0.043) −0.034 (0.037) 0.130 (0.037) 0.103 (0.047) 0.049 (0.011) 0.130 (0.107) 0.043 (0.019) −0.008 (0.018) −0.118 (0.084) 0.151 (0.082) 0.089 (0.063) −0.039 (0.065) −0.004 (0.003) 0.064 (0.020) 0.161 (0.030) 0.236 (0.035) 0.069 (0.035) 0.028 −0.008 0.009 F = 8.595 0.139 360
0.094 (0.034) 0.148 (0.040) −0.017 (0.034) 0.167 (0.034) −0.044 (0.045) 0.025 (0.010) 0.070 (0.098) 0.062 (0.017) −0018 (0.016) −0.123 (0.076) −0.008 (0.076) −0.054 (0.058) 0.160 (0.060) −0.001 (0.003) 0.067 (0.018) 0.167 (0.030) 0.229 (0.035) 0.065 (0.035) 0.025 −0.004 0.011 F = 8.075 0.136 346
*** *** *** ** *** **
*
*** *** *** **
***
*** *** *** ** ***
technical–organizational capacity as the fusion of technical and social dimensions and measured it as the perceptions by managers about the level of fit between technology, task, needs, and attitude. We found direct effects of the integrated capacity on the two outcomes — decision-making and participation. Overall, we found mixed support for our mediation hypotheses. Contrary to our hypothesis on negative direction of the mediation by routineness, we found evidence for mediation in a positive direction. We explain this based on prior findings that less complex environments are more likely to facilitate the conversion of capacity to outcomes. We find that organizational openness is a positive mediator of outcomes, probably an indication that managers that operate in a more open and participative culture are more likely to integrate ICTs effectively and recognize the value they provide. There was no support for mediation by centralization in the models. Several questions arise as a result of this research. Given that analysis showed only moderate significant evidence for mediation, it is worth now asking what other cultural variables may mediate the ability of public organizations to convert capacity to outcomes. Our measures of culture are quite limited, focusing on task, authority, and openness. Other measures of culture certainly exist and future studies should begin to investigate how different dimensions of culture matter for conversion. Unexpected findings raise other questions. One mediation pathway was not significant and another was significant in the opposite direction from our hypothesis. This demonstrates an opportunity for further development of theory connecting ICT capacity and managerial outcomes and better understanding of how different dimensions of ICT capacity may matter for different types of managerial outcomes. References
*** *** *** *** *
***
Ahn, M. J. (2011). Adoption of E-communication applications in U.S. municipalities: The role of political environment, bureaucratic structure, and the nature of applications. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 428–452. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology, 5(1), 63–82. Al Ajeeli, Abid, T., & Al-Bastaki, Y. A. (2010). Handbook of research on e-services in the public sector: E-government strategies and advancements. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. Blackstone, E. A., Bognanno, M. L., & Hakim, S. (Eds.). (2005). Innovations in E-government: The thoughts of governors and mayors. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006
E.W. Welch, M.K. Feeney / Government Information Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. I. (1986). Public management information systems: Theory and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46, 475–487. Cohen, M.D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495–522. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Dutton, W. H. (1999). Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local E-government. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45. Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), 815–833. Hackler, D., & Saxton, G. D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 474–487. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holzer, M., & Manoharan, A. (2008). Opportunities for civic engagement. In K. Yang, & E. Bergrud (Eds.), Civic engagement in a network society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63, 44–60. Kling, R., & Scacchi, W. (1982). The web of computing: Computing technology as social organization. Advances in computers, 21, New York: Academic Press. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220. Li, M. H., & Feeney, M. K. (2012). Adoption of electronic technologies in U.S. local governments: Distinguishing between e-services and communication technologies. The American Review of Public Administration(October 2012). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0275074012460910. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. McNeal, R., Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & Dotterweich, L. J. (2003). Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 8(2), 52–70. Moon, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. I. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 273–292.
7
Olivia, G., & Welch, E. W. (2014). Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government Information Quarterly (in press). Pandey, S. K., & Bretschneider, S. I. (1997). The impact of red tape's administrative delay on public organizations' interest in new information technologies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 113–130. Powell, W., & Grodal, S. (2006). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. Scott, R. (2003). Institutional carriers: Reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 879–894. Tavakol, Mohsen, & Dennick, Reg (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, innovation and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549–563. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). Technological innovation as a process. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38. Welch, E. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 93–115. Welch, E. W., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 379–404. West, D.M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. Eric W. Welch is a Professor at the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University and Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies at ASU. His research focuses on information technology and e-government, science and technology policy, and public management. Mary K. Feeney is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Affairs at ASU and Lincoln Professor of Ethics in Public Affairs. Her research focuses on public and nonprofit management, e-government, and science and technology policy.
Please cite this article as: Welch, E.W., & Feeney, M.K., Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes, Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.006