Organizational culture typologies and strategy implementation: lessons from Nigerian local government

ABSTRACT This study investigates organizational culture typology and strategic implementation process in the local governments of a low middle income country in order to reveal the mix of culture types and implementation patterns that are needed for the success of local governments. Based on rich secondary datasets and in-depth qualitative study of six Nigerian local governments involving 42 participants, the findings highlights that local governments adopt different combinations of organizational cultures and those combinations can have varying implications for the way strategic actors approached their implementation process. As governments and funding bodies, such as the World Bank, continue to seek ways to meet the infrastructural and social needs of low middle income countries, particularly within local governments, this article presents opportunities and a platform for researchers and policy makers to explore the interrelationships between different organizational culture types and strategic implementation process for the successful delivery of developmental projects.


Introduction
Prior literature has positioned organizational culture as vital to the successful delivery of public sector reforms (Slack and Singh 2018). Most articles have examined ways in which organizational culture has influenced the relationship between workplace attributes, organizational climate, leadership styles and conflict management (e.g. Di Pietro and Di Virgilio 2013;Ravasi and Schultz 2006;Jung and Avolio 1999), and organizational culture theories (Matheson 2018). This organizational culture research has primarily focused on understanding the role of organizational culture in the implementation of developmental initiatives within public institutions (e.g. Parker and Bradley 2000), or conceptualization of the role of organizational culture on strategy implementation (e.g. Andrews et al. 2011) in a Low Middle Income Country (LMIC), but increasingly local governments in a LMIC need to align organizational culture and strategy implementation to produce favourable interrelationships, thus presenting unique organizational culture dynamics.
Organizational culture, defined as social interaction within an organization that interprets the organization's identity (Di Pietro and Di Virgilio 2013) in terms of employees' actions and understanding of their and others' actions (Helms and Stern 2001), has become increasingly important to delivering successful reforms. On the other hand, strategy implementation, whether emergent or intended in approach, is designed to address the implementation dynamics of an organization emerging from the everyday decisions that are taken at that time (Burgelman et al. 2018). Thus, strategy implementation has been found to influence the delivery of developmental initiatives (Walker and Andrews 2015;Andrews et al. 2011), project effectiveness (Ramadan 2015) and public service performance (Andrews et al. 2011).
Taking these two concepts together, organizational culture influences the understanding of strategy implementation and affects its operationalization (Ahmadi et al. 2012); while Peters and Waterman (1982) unpack organizational culture as a quick fix for managers seeking to improve productivity and performance. Similarly, Slack and Singh (2018) presents the importance of culture as the foundation to a successful public reform. Furthermore, Bushardt, Glascoff, and Doty (2011) attempt to present an alignment of strategy implementation with organizational culture. Yet, prior research offers limited insights into how organizational culture affects the dynamics of strategy implementation, particularly within LMICs and Local Government Areas (LGAs). The emphasis in this article on a LMIC is due to the growing demand for effective strategy implementation (e.g. Andrews et al. 2011) to address societal needs of the people, particularly those who live within LGAs where infrastructural and social needs are inadequate (Jibrin, Tayeb, and Razali 2021). For instance, in Nigeria there are over 202 million people, accounting for about half of West Africa's population, and 40% (i.e. 83 million) mostly live within the LGAs that are below the poverty line (World Bank 2021). Specifically, LGAs are relevant as the third tier of government involved in governing processes at grassroots level in Nigeria (Awofeso and Ogunne 2020) and have a monthly allocation of about USD 374 million as at November 2021 (National Bureau of Statistics 2022). As such, the LGAs form an important part of the public sector in LMICs.
Without examining organizational culture in LGAs, our understanding of strategy implementation and organizational culture will remain incomplete. Thus, this study investigates LGA interrelationships with organizational culture typology and their strategic implementation process in a LMIC. We achieve this aim by addressing the following research objectives: First, we identify the type(s) of organizational culture that exist in Nigerian LGAs. Second, we examine current patterns of strategy implementation processes in Nigerian LGAs. Third, we determine the interrelationship between the types of organizational culture and the elements of strategy implementation processes in Nigerian LGAs. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study of six LGAs involving 42 participants and a rich secondary dataset that includes local government reports, news articles and policy documents.
Our research offers three contributions to the literature on organizational culture and the public sector in the context of the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron and Quinn 1999). First, the article provides a systematic analysis of how organizational culture typologies can be examined within strategy implementation in the public sector. Subsequently, we present an approach to guide further research into the distinct phases of strategy implementation and the typologies of culture, thus enabling public managers and practitioners to evaluate the different approaches for the effective implementation of their strategies. Second, we theoretically inform and empirically identify the interrelationship between organizational culture typologies and the elements of strategy implementation process in LMICs, particularly Nigeria. In so doing, we examined extant literature on the influence of culture type on implementation within various homo-and heterogeneous LGAs, with a view to obtaining a robust understanding within LMICs. Third, in contrast to prior studies on organizational culture typologies and in particular the strategy implementation process (e.g. cultural theory (Matheson 2018) and implementation styles (Andrews, Beynon, and Genc 2017)), we answer the call for more in-depth case studies within local government areas. In so doing, the article develops a more comprehensive understanding of how the process of implementation is influenced in an internally and externally complex environment.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the extant literature on organizational culture and strategic implementation and develop the conceptual framework. We present the key methodological considerations and findings. Next, we discuss the findings, implications, boundary conditions and further research. Last, we conclude the article by positioning the outcome of the study.

Organizational culture types
The transformation of organizational culture in the public sector, including LGAs, from a bureaucratic culture (rule-based, hierarchical and process-driven) to a business-like culture (competition-based, marketized and result-oriented) is necessary (Slack and Singh 2018). The main driver of change in public services was the arrival of neoliberal, right-wing governments in the UK and the USA, which drove the need for more efficient public services (Dingwall and Strangleman 2007). This reform movement was widely referred to as New Public Management (NPM) and spread to other countries mostly because of international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD and the UN (Osborne 2009). As a result, the culture of public organizations became a topical issue. These reforms were followed by modernization initiatives that brought networktype culture into the public sector, aimed at adaptability, negotiation and innovation, as opposed to bureaucratic and market cultures. The driving force for network culture was again pro-reform governments and politicians, who attempted to enable advanced and efficient public services through technologies and collaborative governance (Osborne 2009).
In detail, our review (Table 1) considered organizational cultures globally and their various issues within different, mainly public sector organizations. Public sector organizations are not unified organizations, but rather multi-faceted collections of diverse entities with distinct mandates and different scales of operation. Therefore, visualizing a single culture or a common bureaucratic culture across an entire public sector would be a significant mistake (Rus and Rusu 2015). Public sector cultural reforms are connected to beliefs, values and practices, along with notions of what constitutes effectiveness criteria, outcomes and results. Thus, we present the need to evaluate the effects of cultural types on the performance of organizations. Lindquist and Marcy (2014) claimed that the CVF, with its broad coverage, was introduced into the public sector as an efficient way of analysing different public sector reform movements. The reform and management of the public sector has continued to throw up different types of culture under new labels and reform initiatives, highlighting the usefulness of the CVF in providing a checklist of sorts to show how balanced the reform initiatives and cultural changes are. Whilst past research in the public sector literature that investigated the CVF has focused on healthcare, education or government administration, not all of these studies thoroughly investigated the impact of CVF on public service management.
Consequently, four assumptions are presented on the relationships between culture types Quinn 1999, 2011). First, the CVF along with existing public The conflict process is greatly influenced by organizational culture and presents an intriguing link between informal conflict management and the culture of an organization.
More work in exploring possible roles of sub-cultural issues such as the strength and intensity of culture variables (including the type of leadership, ritual and symbols, and prevailing stories and myths). Ravasi and Schultz (2006) Public financial organization; USA The study presents a hierarchical values map to explore the relationship between workplace attributes, organizational climate and personal values.
The Affirmation, Belonging and Competence (ABC) of an inspiring workplace has the potential to develop the desire and expectations of both public and corporate America organizations. Jung and Avolio (1999) Public educational organization; USA The perception and motivations derived from a particular leadership style vary across different cultural groups.
Future research should explore a broader theoretical framework that includes different types of cultural contingencies, a broader range of tasks and cultural value orientations.
sector literature, suggests that a Hierarchy-oriented culture should be aligned with the quality of services provided in terms of its performance, stability, efficiency and hierarchical levels of coordination (Cameron and Quinn 1999;Quinn and Spreitzer 1991). Second, a Market-oriented culture in public sector organizations is expected to produce citizen satisfaction by focusing comparison with other culture types, productivity and satisfaction of all stakeholders (Helfrich et al. 2007;Cameron and Quinn 1999). Third, the Clan-oriented culture is characterized by staff commitment, loyalty, team working and open communication (Demir, Unnu, and Erturk 2011;Cameron and Quinn 1999). Fourth, Adhocracy-oriented culture may fit best with public service innovation, openness, flexibility, risk-orientation and accountability (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011;Cameron and Quinn 1999).

Strategy implementation
There is a growing call among scholars, practitioners and policy makers to implement strategies effectively in public sector organizations, and local governments in particular. To achieve this, Leonardi (2015) averred that organizations must integrate their organizational culture with other factors such as organizational structures and control systems to produce strategies that enhance their performance. The strongest and most robust strategies are valueless if they cannot be successfully implemented. Thus, the success of strategy not only requires an appropriate strategy, but also one that is implemented successfully and timely. A number of studies show the increasing rate of failed strategy implementation efforts among business firms (Speculand 2009;Andrews et al. 2011). A general finding among many of these studies is that about half of organizational strategies and policies fail at the implementation phase (Speculand 2009). According to Johnson (2004), sixty-six percent of corporate strategy is never implemented, highlighting the difficulty of successful implementation in actual business conditions. Apparently, a significant part of these failures can be attributed to a poor knowledge of strategy implementation. Therefore, achieving successful implementation remains a continuing challenge for managers (Shimizu 2017). These widely reported incidences of implementation failure suggest that a careful examination of implementation practice should be the priority of both practitioners and researchers.
In seeking to understand an appropriate implementation practice for an organization, we consider two key implementation styles: incremental or ad-hoc and rational or planned (Andrews, Beynon, and Genc 2017). The incremental implementation style prioritizes fluidity in managing change within organizations. It highlights the need to encourage and support strategic decision-makers to modify strategies in a way that works for all. By contrast, the rational implementation style emphasizes the need to organize people to follow precise guidelines when introducing new policies and strategies, and the use of systems to ensure that people follow a pre-planned sequence of steps during such changes within the organization. It is important to note that each of these styles possesses distinct merits that could enhance organizational performance.
The successful implementation of any public policy revolves around the willingness of citizens to participate in ensuring the achievement of set goals (Nwagboso 2012), incorporating knowledge management initiatives (Khilji et al. 2017), improving stakeholder engagement (Fernandes, Lopes, and Sargento 2021) and successful management of complex networks within the public sector (Kamuzinzi 2021). Sadly, there is currently a lack of trust and confidence in local government systems in Nigeria (Akkoyunlu 2015). To achieve success in its policy implementation drive, the current situation in Nigeria warrants that the federal government and indeed, all state and local governments secure the trust of the people in order to facilitate the required level of participation and collaboration that will guarantee the success of the implementation of public policies. Nwagboso (2012) asserts that a major step to achieve this is to develop policies that respond to the needs of the people. This is expected to ultimately re-establish the trust and confidence of citizens in the system. Efficient public service delivery breeds greater trust and thus increases the possibility of achieving set goals. Greater confidence in the government is achieved through this means, and citizens are more receptive to vision plans which guarantee their participation in the implementation of the policy (Adeyemi 2013).

Organizational culture and strategy implementation
Culture is the shared beliefs and values that help an individual to understand the functions and norms of an organization (Deshpande and Webster 1989). Furthermore, organizational culture comprises separate layers including values, norms and behaviours. Schein (2010) expanded these layers by adding a different construct of organizational culture, which he describes as artefacts. Cultural beliefs and values can be referred to as strategies, goals, vision and mission in organizations, while symbols, uniforms, logos and stories are examples of cultural artefacts. On the other hand, organizational strategy is defined as a complex set of activities, processes and routines involved in the design and execution of policies and practices (Zheng, Yang, and Mclean 2010). The strategic orientation of an organization defines the basic focus of its long-term goals and objectives, all of which are related to actions and behaviour.
Putting organizational culture and organizational strategy together, it is evident that organizational culture relates to a set of common beliefs and values forming a basis for the operations of an organization, whilst organizational strategy refers to actions and behaviours which occur at the actual operational stage. Thus, strategy-culture congruence becomes most apparent and prominent during the strategy implementation phase (Bates et al. 1995). Alamsjah (2011) discovered that middle management can implement strategies more successfully when organizational culture fits with their own outlook. In other words, well-structured and well-implemented strategies can affect organizational culture positively by means of the practices, regulations and processes in which organizational strategies are practised (Bates et al. 1995). Bates et al. (1995) suggested that differences in strategy implementation can be associated with different types of organizational culture. Hynes (2009) also pointed out that every organization has a certain degree of fit between the way strategies are implemented and the culture within the organization. Organizational performance cannot be entirely achieved without ensuring some degree of realignment between the organization's culture and strategy (Dobni and Luffman 2003). To examine how well the planned and implemented organizational strategies and organizational culture are fitted, the effect of this relationship on outcomes requires the simultaneous consideration of multiple characteristics of the organization (Doty et al. 1993). Cameron and Quinn (2011) concluded that organizational culture is a broad concept with different dimensions and characteristics that could be adapted to any type of organization.
This study, therefore, classifies the four types of culture under two dimensions in order to match them with incremental and rational strategy implementation styles, which have similar features (Su, Yang, and Yung 2012). From this perspective, a rational implementation style, which emphasizes regulations, rational decisions, plans and stability complements Hierarchy and Market types of culture, which are control-orientated. As Deshpande and Webster (1989) argued, it can be claimed that the artefacts of Hierarchy and Market types of culture under controlled orientation should be in close proximity with the abovementioned characteristics of rational implementation styles in order to achieve better performance. Accordingly, a moderating effect of rational implementation can be hypothesized on the relationship between Hierarchy-and Market-oriented cultures and organizational performance. Likewise, incremental implementation, which emphasizes continuous monitoring, changes, cooperation and openness, can be more easily associated with Clan and Adhocracy cultures, which are directed by orientation towards flexibility and related outcomes. Meanwhile, the flexibility-oriented artefacts of Clan and Adhocracy cultures are expected to align themselves with the features of incremental implementation styles to achieve optimum performance. Consequently, the moderation effect of incremental implementation is demonstrated on the relationship between Clan-and Adhocracy-oriented cultures and organizational performance.

Positioning the conceptual framework
Given the above discussion, our conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1. The first part of the conceptual framework covers research question 1, which seeks to examine the organizational culture typology (OCT) in Nigerian LGAs. The second part is concerned with research question 2, where we explore the existing pattern of the strategy implementation process (SIP) in Nigerian LGAs. As such, it extends our view on the drivers of strategy implementation within these LGAs. The third part explores how the inherent organizational culture type(s) affect the core elements of the strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs. Our arguments lead to three distinct empirical views. First, we sought to know the current patterns of OCT. Second, we asked about existing SIP in the selected LGAs. Third, we examined how the inherent culture typologies could improve strategic implementation processes in Nigerian LGAs. To summarize, we examined the three research questions in our analysis: RQ 1 -What is the existing organizational culture typology in Nigerian LGAs?
RQ 2 -What is the current pattern of strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs?

RQ 3 -How do Nigerian
LGAs interrelate with the elements of strategy implementation process and organizational culture type(s)?

Research approach
Our study adopts an inductive research approach based on multiple-case studies. At its core, the inductive approach is one in which a researcher collects data and develops a theory as a result of the data analysis (Trochim et al. 2011). In this case, we found the inductive approach suitable because the study is based on propounding a framework which underpins the relevance of organizational culture typologies in the implementation of LGA strategies. In addition, the multiple case-study approach allows the researchers to investigate culture typologies from multiple perspectives, rather than from a single viewpoint (Yin 2003). We deliberately selected a multiple-case design involving six LGAs in order to benefit from the advantages over a single-case design.
More specifically, the study took advantage of the collection of robust and comprehensive datasets across multiple LGAs. This helped to compare results and draw out more fine-grained contributions to theory and practice (Eisenhardt 1989). The LGAs that we selected had a number of unique qualities for logical sampling (Shah and Corley 2006). First, we selected LGAs with more than 15 years of existence, to provide insights to the SIP and organizational culture adopted. Second, we required that an LGA could demonstrate a number of strategic implementation processes and issues that arose in those processes as well as the culture types used. Third, we interviewed participants that were experienced and engaged in the strategic processes of their organizations.
The study adopted qualitative research methods and considered interviews as most appropriate. Following Yin (2003), the interview was considered as an important source of case-study information because it would help to keep our focus on the casestudy topic and provide insights into perceived causal inferences. Therefore, we adopted a semi-structured interview technique with a mix of open-ended questions driven by theoretical questions. The key attributes of the interview instruments used were to be flexible, open and consistent.

Data collection and analysis
Multiple interviews were conducted on forty-two participants between November 2017 and April 2018 to gain an in-depth exploration of complex and interrelated implementation and culture issues, which demand detailed discussions. The researched LGAs cut across Nigeria's six geo-political zones. Table 2 shows the demographic classification of the researched LGAs and the demographic characteristics of respondents in each LGA. The names of the LGAs are coded for confidentiality purposes.
Out of the forty-two participants, only four choose to have long interview sessions with occasional time breaks. The researchers found short (forty-minute) multiple interviews particularly beneficial as this encouraged them to remain focused during the interview. Additionally, it gave the researchers sufficient information for detailed exploration. An interview guide with open-ended questions was necessary to establish details of the implementation process, the organizational culture within the LGA's context and their relationships. The interview questions, broken into three parts, were targeted at exploring past and current strategy implementation activities (i.e. how and why the existing implementations were done). Next, we asked questions on the various organizational culture typologies adopted and finally, the link between the strategy implementation process and organizational culture to fully understand the impact of the one on the other.
The semi-structured interviews were delineated for data collection purposes. In line with Krippendorff's (2004) guidelines, the second author employed the principles of unitizing and coding for the qualitative content analysis. The detailing of the open codes, delineation of categorical codes and the theoretical interpretation from categorical codes resulted in the identification of emerging concepts regarding the researched LGAs' heterogeneous organizational culture types and implementation process patterns. Consequently, the researchers positioned a framework to inform theory and practice.
Practically, the analysis of the strategic implementation process began with coding the interview transcripts (Strauss and Corbin 1998) by the second author independently before discussing them with the lead author. This helped us attain a high degree of reliability and generate an in-depth understanding of the dataset by the authors. In so doing, we identified common themes between these participants and manually grouped them as either incremental (dynamic-passive) or rational (dynamic-passive). For example, statements such as "differentiation", "competition" and the motivation to "stay ahead" were grouped as incremental. On the other hand, themes such as "action plans", "getting things done" and "execution of strategies" were ascribed to the rational type. We then classified the LGAs into the four culture types based on recurring themes from the collated responses Quinn 2011, 1999). For example, LGAs with attributes such as team working, standardization and open communication were classified as having a Clan culture, while those focused on productivity and goal-oriented approaches were classed as having a Market culture.

Existing organizational culture typologies in the Nigerian LGAs studied
We found that the LGAs exhibited varying organizational culture typologies. The empirical data (Table 3) reveals that LGAs 1 and 3 employed a mixture of Hierarchy culture (a focus on process control, stability and secured employment) and Clan culture (a focus on team building, standardization and open communication), with Adhocracy culture and Market cultures being the weak culture types. They attached great importance to cohesion, team building, stability, growth, communication, creating new standards and leadership. However, of the two strong cultures, Hierarchy culture was more dominant.
In LGA 3 a middle management staff noted: Everyone here is committed because we work as a team … I would say that because of the structured environment, the encouragement to be efficient and the security of employment, our staff are committed. (Respondent C5 LGA 3) LGAs 1 and 3 appear to place more emphasis on teamwork, timeliness, efficiency, leadership and stability. These respondents believe that visions, discretion of leader and standardized processes produce effectiveness. Most participants within these LGAs shared this viewpoint. They maintained that cohesiveness, consistency and communication exist within their LGA, and top management emphasizes discipline.
LGA 5 employed a mixture of Hierarchy and Market cultures, but Market culture, although relevant, was the weaker one. Their principal long-term emphasis is on stability and performance with smooth, efficient operations and on improving productivity. Their value drivers emerged as stability, focus on productivity and organizational goals through human participation to produce effectiveness. A respondent in LGA 5 explained: "Everyone is committed on what to do per time. We are focus on our goals and have laid down rules and regulations which are there to guide our activities … ". (Respondent D1 LGA 5) LGAs 2, 4 and 6 adopted a mixture of Adhocracy culture (a focus on innovation and experimentation) and Market culture (a focus on improving productivity and achievement of goals), with Clan culture being the weak culture type. They attached great importance to achieving targets and goals and improving outputs through innovative practices to produce effectiveness. Between the two strong cultures, Adhocracy culture was more dominant. For example, in LGA 4 a top management staff expressed: "I think above all, so far, the hallmark in our performance has been the flexible, strategic and innovative approach with which we deliver our goals … ". (Respondent D2 LGA 4). Respondent D1 in LGA 6 explained: "We are dynamic and result-oriented here, we believe in simply getting the job done." These three LGAs appear to place more emphasis on leading the other local councils within their regions. Success for them means gaining more recognition ahead of other LGAs, and this is achieved through innovative ideas and proactive measures. Success and reputation are common concerns for these LGAs, as the majority of participants maintained that the bond within their LGAs is their chairperson's and top management staffs' visionary approach, flexibility and striving for excellence.

Existing strategy implementation process in the LGAs studied
Evidence from our empirical data showed significant variations in the behavioural orientations of strategic actors in each of the researched LGAs. A closer look at these heterogeneous behavioural approaches identified the "Incremental" and "Rational" behavioural orientations to strategy implementation (Andrews, Beynon, and Genc 2017). These behavioural differences were found rooted in the way implementers approached their SIPs through the implementation activities they undertook. It emerged that top and middle managements were responsible for driving either of these orientations and influenced other implementers in their LGAs.
The incremental orientation highlights the behavioural approaches of LGAs and their strategic actors who consider strategy implementation as a strategic process that is able to significantly contribute to their competitive performance. Externally focused, competitive, differentiation and doing things their own way appears to be key motivators in this behavioural approach type in LGAs 2, 4 and 6. A top management staff in LGA 6 commented: A critical success factor for us to take the lead ahead of other local authorities around is strategy implementation. With respect to our implementation process, we carry out as much as possible what we put on paper. You know, paper is patient … . We once stated that within 3 months, we will complete a certain capital project, people said it was unrealistic and we achieved it. (Respondent A3 LGA 6) In contrast to incremental behavioural orientation, rational behavioural orientation underscores the implementing behaviours of LGAs and their implementers who approached strategy implementation as a routine process necessary to execute their strategies. It highlights the general view about implementation activities being centred on middle management and emphasizes that implementation action plans were targeted at getting things done "by the book". Execution of strategies appears to be the key motivator in this behavioural approach type in LGAs 1, 3 and 5.
As noted by a social welfare officer in LGA 1: The process of implementation only leads to the final execution of strategies … I mean, we can agree that, ultimately, the purpose of implementing strategies is to execute it, right? (Respondent B2 LGA 1) The implementation process did not begin from the same strategic position for all LGA groups. Further data examination uncovered two distinct process initiators within the two groups of LGAs: 1, 3 and 5 and 2, 4 and 6, which were identified for their motivation in the commencement of the implementation process. Strategic actors either initiated the implementation process dynamically in view of future opportunities or passively as a response to situations. These process initiators provide significant understanding of the action priorities and motivations guiding strategic actors' actions in the strategy implementation process. We labelled these distinctions as Dynamic and Passive process initiators and linked them to the implementing behaviours of strategic actors in the LGAs.
The Dynamic implementation process initiator defines the initial drive in the implementing process which results from the anticipatory, change-oriented and self-initiated behaviour of implementers and their LGAs. We found these attributes in LGAs 1, 3 and 6. A top management staff in LGA 6 stated: The new project you see going on demonstrates our commitment to proactively research about the causes of erosion and to tackle them head on before it occurs and destroys our citizen's farmlands. We want to be the best and on top of issues affecting our people. (Respondent D2 LGA 6) The Passive implementation process initiator highlights the initial push in the implementing process by implementers and their LGAs, which results from a reaction to situations. It underscores a response to change rather than a creating or controlling of it. We found these attributes in LGAs 2, 4 and 5. For example, a middle management staff of LGA 5 explained: You see, people may complain that our approaches to their problems are reactive, but I think this reactive approach has not come without its blessings and the evidence are all over the place. People are just impatient sometimes. (Respondent D1 LGA 5) Consequently, our classification of the different strategy implementation process patterns in the LGAs emerged from a hybrid of the behavioural orientations of strategic actors and the process initiators we found. We employed a 2 × 2 matrix to differentiate between four distinct strategy implementation process patterns as observed from the empirical data. Table 4 shows this classification and categorizes all six LGAs as adopting one of four implementing patterns: Incremental-Dynamic, Incremental-Passive, Rational-Dynamic or Rational-Passive. Our classification of the different strategy implementation process patterns rejects the idea of a generic approach to strategy implementation as discussed in much of strategy implementation literature (Noble 1999).

LGA interrelationships with organizational culture typology (OCT) and strategic implementation process (SIP)
Whilst all six LGAs were found to have elements of all four culture types, there were significant implications in the way they approached the different phases and activities in the Table 4. Strategy implementation process implemented in the selected local government authorities.

Process initiators
Dynamic Passive
Consequently, we present our findings based on two distinct categories. First, LGAs 1, 3 and 5 had Rational and Dynamic SIPs in most cases, except LGA 5 with a Passive implementation process. Also, they had Hierarchy and Clan cultures except LGA 5 with Hierarch culture only. The head of budgeting in LGA 3 averred to the Rational nature of their LGA, stating: "The implementation process provides the platform where we interact to execute our policies" (Respondent C4 LGA 3). A middle management staff of LGA 3 revealed the Dynamic nature by stating: "We set up an advisory committee to offer practical and feasible solutions to fix dilapidated roads and to ensure good roads are properly maintained" (Respondent A3 LGA 3).
For the culture types, LGAs 1, 3 and 5 employed a mixture of strong Hierarchy and Clan cultures, attributed to their ability to stabilize, standardize and build teams. In LGA 1, a junior staff reiterated: There has been a slow but incremental development here, you know, there is some satisfactory level of cohesion amongst us. Our chairman is visionary and so we emphasise strongly on growth of staff and of the council. Success for us means providing quality service to our people and having a standardised process to initiate our policies on time. (Respondent A3 LGA 1) LGA interrelationships with Organizational Culture Typology (OCT) and Strategic Implementation Process (SIP).
Second, LGAs 2, 4 and 6 have Incremental-Passive SIPs, except LGA 6 with a Dynamic implementation process. Also, they all had Market and Adhocracy cultures. A member of staff of the middle management team in LGA 4 supported his LGA's Incremental nature by indicating: "Successfully implementing our policies and strategies is critical for us here … . It is one sure way we employ to stay ahead of competition" (Respondent B1 LGA 4). Regarding the Passive nature of the LGAs, a staff of LGA 2 noted that: "How much can we possibly do without government allocation to stay ahead of others?" (Respondent B5 LGA 2).
For the culture types, LGAs 2, 4 and 6 were strong in Adhocracy and Market cultures because they demonstrated attributes of being innovative, productive and goal-oriented. A respondent in LGA 2 elaborated: Our long-term goal is meeting the needs of the local citizens before they even ask for it. We believe that this way our local council will lead the pack of councils within this region, we are bent on creating new standards in local governance, although resource supplies is a major issue for us but we are working on innovative means of getting constant supply of our relevant resources to achieve our aim. (Respondent A2 LGA 2)

Discussion
Our findings provide the outcome of our investigation of LGA interrelationships with organizational culture typology and their strategic implementation process. We conducted a detailed qualitative study of the types of organizational cultures and the elements of strategy implementation processes within selected LGAs in a LMIC. We addressed the first question by presenting the four organizational culture types -Hierarchy, Market, Clan and Adhocracyacross the selected LGAs (cf., Cameron and Quinn 1999). Furthermore, we categorized the LGAs by their demonstrated strong and weak cultures. As shown in Table 3, each of the LGAs exhibited varied cultural characteristics. It is observed that the Market culture was a subtle culture type that found its way into each of the LGAs, either as strong and weak culture. Hence, all the LGAs were focused on improving productivity and achievement of goals actively or passively (Helfrich et al. 2007;Cameron and Quinn 1999). However, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market were predominantly strong OCTs across the LGAs. It is apparent from the results, therefore, that there is a mixture of cultures within the LGAs showing evidence of innovation, experimentation, process control, stability and secured employment, improving productivity and achievement of goals (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011;Helfrich et al. 2007;Cameron and Quinn 1999;Quinn and Spreitzer 1991). Surprisingly, team building, which is attributed to the Clan culture, was not demonstrated strongly within the LGAs.
Next, our findings address the second research question by highlighting four distinct stages of the implementation process reflecting LGAs' varying levels of commitment to their strategy implementation, namely: Incremental-Dynamic, Incremental-Passive, Rational-Dynamic or Rational-Passive. However, both Incremental-Passive and Rational-Dynamic were the predominant SIPs across most LGAs. Most of the LGAs approached strategy implementation as comprising externally focused, competitive, differentiation and doing things their own way passively as a response to situations (i.e. Incremental-Passive) or as a routine process necessary to execute their strategies in a proactive manner (i.e. Rational-Dynamic).
Third, we explored the peculiarities and relationships between the elements of strategy implementation process and organizational culture type(s) within the selected Nigerian LGAs. Practically, our findings indicate that LGAs with strong Hierarchy and Clan cultures implement strategy in a routine and organized way, following precise guidelines, mainly dynamically in view of future opportunities or in some cases as a response to situations (i.e. LGAs 1, 3 and 5). On the other hand, LGAs with strong Adhocracy and Market cultures implement their strategy in a fluid way by supporting decisionmakers to modify strategies to work for all (e.g. Fernandes, Lopes, and Sargento 2021;Kamuzinzi 2021) in response to situations or in some situations as dynamic in view of future opportunities (i.e. LGAs 2, 4 and 6). This situation further supports the fact that the culture types and strategic implementation process of different LGAs are influenced by their approach to managing their group dynamics. For instance, those culture types with the ability to engage stakeholders in an accountable manner (e.g. Fernandes, Lopes, and Sargento 2021) mainly possess Adhocracy and Market cultures while supporting multiple actors in the implementation of policies that work for all (e.g. Kamuzinzi 2021). Consequently, our analysis here highlights that LGAs adopt different combinations of organizational cultures and those combinations can have varying implications on the way strategic actors approached their implementation process.

Theoretical implications
Our research contributes to theory in the following ways and adds to our understanding of organizational culture and strategy implementation in the local governments. First, we extend prior studies on organizational culture (Cameron and Quinn 2011;Helfrich et al. 2007;Quinn and Spreitzer 1991) and strategy implementation (Andrews, Beynon, and Genc 2017;Leonardi 2015;Speculand 2009). For instance, we found that due to the unique nature of local government areas where infrastructural and social needs are inadequate (e.g. Jibrin, Tayeb, and Razali 2021) and the clamour for effective strategy implementation is in high demand (e.g. Andrews et al. 2011), culture types like Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market are predominant. These OCTs are culturally driven towards formal approaches like improving productivity and achievement of goals, with limited emphasis on team building (i.e. an attribute of clan culture), as a result of the growing pressure of citizens within the LGAs. By pointing out this uniqueness, we add to previous studies on the peculiarities of organizational culture across different strategy implementation processes within LGAs, particularly in LMICs.
Second, our findings suggest that the implementation processes were informed by organizational culture serving as a unifier to shape stakeholders' activities and behavioural approaches to strategy implementation; thus, resulting in various cultures exhibited by LGAs. These findings provide support to prior arguments on the flexibility of cultures in strategy implementation processes (Kaul 2019;Ahmadi et al. 2012;Bushardt et al. 2011).
Third, our study explores strategic management theory, which is an important school of thought in management studies. Prior works have systematically examined the relationship between stages of strategy implementation process and the culture of public sector institutions in LMICs. The modest research effort has focused on the relationship between strategy implementation style and public service performance (Andrews et al. 2011), strategy implementation style (Dobni and Luffman 2003) and those undertaken in public institutions of high-income countries. Our study contributes to literature by examining the relationship between elements of strategy implementation process and the culture of public sector institutions in the context of Nigerian LGAs.

Practical implications
This study offers important implications for strategic decision-makers, public sector organizations and stakeholders to understand the Incremental and Rational strategy implementation processes that are anchored on flexible cultures in providing implementation effectiveness. Our findings guide managers of public sector institutions to consider their organizational culture as a multi-dimensional phenomenon (i.e. Hierarchy, Adhocracy, Market and Clan) which impacts significantly on their implementation activities. It will be beneficial for managers of public sector institutions to identify appropriate cultures or culture mixes that are applicable for the successful implementation of their strategy(ies).
Our article indicates that understanding the interrelationships between strategy implementation and organizational culture is necessary to producing impactful public sector services, certainly for LGAs. As governments and funding bodies, such as the World Bank, continue to seek ways to meet the infrastructural and social needs of LMICs, particularly within LGAs; our findings present opportunities and an approach for consideration by facilitators of service delivery within LGAs. For example, this study helps to draw attention to the varying mix of culture typologies and the relevant implementation patterns that funding bodies should consider for relevance and challenges to meet the desired outcome without delay and resource wastage.

Boundary conditions and future research
The qualitative research presented in this study has limitations which provide opportunities for further research. First, the analysis presented here draws upon the findings from the case-study of six local government authorities during a specific time period. Further research into the relationships between organizational culture typologies and elements of strategy implementation over different time periods and organizational settings could enhance the validity and generalizability of our study.
Second, although we offer a novel inquiry into strategic management theory in LGAs, particularly in LMICs, our research does not examine the causal effects of changes in either patterns of strategy implementation or organizational culture. It will be valuable if future research in the field incorporates information on the changing patterns of strategy implementation and organizational culture to allow an in-depth investigation of the relationship between the two.
Finally, this study focuses on LMICs and Nigeria in particular. Extending our study to the local government areas of LMICs where infrastructural and social needs are inadequate (e.g. Jibrin, Tayeb, and Razali 2021), requiring regular use of flexible and suitable strategies (Ahmadi et al. 2012) to meet the uniqueness (in terms of the culture types) of each local government will also clearly enhance the generalizability of our findings. Future studies could investigate other strategy implementation scenarios and the impact of different cultures (organizational and national) on the delivery of LGA services in different countries. For instance, countries with possibly more developed public sector practices (e.g. stakeholder engagement, Fernandes, Lopes, and Sargento 2021 or politics and leadership, James 2021) may implement strategies differently compared to those LMICs with scarce resources (e.g. Kamuzinzi 2021).

Conclusion
This article has highlighted the role that the different cultural typologies can play in shaping public sector organizations' patterns of strategy implementation. It underscores the need for better understanding of strategic management matters in the local governments of a LMIC. We theoretically derived and empirically reveal the mix of culture types and implementation patterns that are needed for the success of LGAs. Thus, we have gone beyond the scholarly works of Howell and Shand (2015) and Jibrin, Tayeb, and Razali (2021) and policy documents like the World Bank (2021) in mapping out a rationale for classifying LGAs to understand strategy implementation attributes and culture types within LGAs in a LMIC.
Whilst our study evaluates Nigerian LGAs, creating a platform (e.g. Bukoye and Norrington 2014) for researchers and policy makers to explore LGA interrelationships with the organizational culture typology and the strategic implementation process. Our findings serve as a cautionary tale on cultural issues for stakeholders during the implementation of developmental initiatives in LMICs. We, therefore, reveal a transferable and generalizable understanding of strategy implementation and culture types within local governments of LMICs.

Notes on contributors
Oyegoke Teslim Bukoye is an Associate Professor at the University of Bath, fellow of Higher Education Academy (FHEA), fellow of Association of Project Management (FAPM) and member of Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) in the UK. His research interests are centred around project (i.e. agile, benefits realization, strategic project management and performance management), public sector (e.g. public culture, strategic implementation and best value), operations, and improving higher education practices. He coordinates consulting projects within public sector, OLSCM (Operations, Logistics and Supply Chaim Management), UK banks, retail companies, charities and start-up companies. Teslim is currently the Director of Studies for International Exchanges partnering with numerous universities in Australia, Asia, Europe and North America.
Previously, he has led apprenticeships and consulting projects for a leading UK retail supermarket, NHS and local councils. He is external examiner to a number of UK universities. He has reviewed and published in several journals and conferences globally.
Ayotunde Hakeem Abdulrahman is a business and management lecturer at the Results Consortium College, United Kingdom. His field of interest spans leadership, management, operations, innovation, public sector management and accounting. He is a member of the academic board involved in curriculum building, coordinating and supporting learners with the skillset for the future world.
Previously a doctoral student at the Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales, Ayotunde's current research interest is centred around understanding the interrelationship between organizational culture and strategy implementation, and its implication for public sector performance. He has presented at various academic conferences globally. He is currently pursuing a fellowship of the Higher Education Academy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).