Assessing Organisational Culture in Local Government: Using the Competing Values Framework

Culture Shapes Local Authority Success

Culture is not a soft, abstract concept it is a critical determinant of how local authorities deliver services, manage change, and engage communities. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) has identified poor organisational culture as a common factor in every statutory and non-statutory intervention in UK councils since 2010. Failures in governance and culture not strategy were the root causes of breakdowns in performance and trust.

Local government accounts for roughly 20% of total UK public expenditure, managing budgets of around £100 billion annually and delivering essential services from education to waste collection. In this context, culture influences everything from staff retention and service quality to financial sustainability and public confidence. Research shows that councils with positive, adaptive cultures are more likely to achieve better outcomes, foster innovation, and maintain citizen trust. For example, an OECD study found that a culture of service excellence correlates strongly with higher levels of citizen satisfaction and trust in government.

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” – Peter Drucker

This quote resonates deeply in local government, where structural reforms often fail without cultural alignment. Councils that neglect culture risk creating environments of resistance and disengagement, undermining transformation efforts.

Why Assess Culture?

Culture is often described as “the way we do things around here,” but in reality, it is far more complex and far more influential. For local authorities, culture determines how decisions are made, how staff collaborate, and how effectively services are delivered. Without understanding cultural dynamics, even the most well-designed strategies can fail. A well-known model for assessing culture is the Cameron and Quinn Competing Values Framework (CVF), supported by the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI). The CVF is one of the most widely validated frameworks in organisational science, used by over 10,000 organisations globally and more than 100,000 individuals to diagnose cultural strengths and gaps. Its popularity stems from its ability to simplify complexity without losing depth.

The framework categorises culture into four archetypes Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy based on two dimensions:

• Internal focus vs external focus

• Stability and control vs flexibility and discretion

“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.” – Kim Cameron, Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture

This quote reflects the reality that organisations often embody competing values. Effective leadership is not about eliminating these tensions but about navigating them intelligently. For councils, this means balancing innovation with compliance, and flexibility with accountability.

The Stakes for Local Authorities

• Rigid cultures hinder adaptability

  Councils operating with strong hierarchical cultures often struggle to adapt to rapid policy changes, technological shifts, and evolving community expectations. In contrast, those embracing flexibility and collaboration (Clan or Adhocracy) tend to innovate and respond faster to local needs.

• Cultural misalignment can derail transformation

  Evidence from mergers of English councils shows that cultural misalignment can undermine integration efforts, even when structural and financial plans are sound. Successful mergers require deliberate strategies to “unfreeze” entrenched behaviours before new ways of working can take root.

• Inclusive cultures drive better outcomes

  A narrative review of global local government performance found that inclusive, participatory cultures foster transparency, accountability, and improved service delivery aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 16 on building effective, accountable institutions.

What is the Competing Values Framework?

The Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn, is one of the most widely recognised and academically validated models for diagnosing organisational culture. It is built on the premise that every organisation embodies a mix of cultural types that compete for dominance, creating inherent tensions that leaders must navigate. These tensions are not weaknesses they are the reality of complex organisations and, when managed well, can become a source of strength.

The framework maps culture across two key dimensions:

• Internal focus and integration vs external focus and differentiation

• Stability and control vs flexibility and discretion

From these dimensions, four distinct cultural archetypes emerge:

• Clan Culture – Collaborative and family-like, emphasising mentoring, teamwork, and employee development. This culture thrives on trust and loyalty, making it well-suited for councils that prioritise community engagement and staff wellbeing.

• Adhocracy Culture – Innovative and entrepreneurial, thriving on creativity, adaptability, and calculated risk-taking. Councils with strong Adhocracy traits are often early adopters of digital transformation and service redesign.

• Market Culture – Results-oriented and competitive, prioritising achievement, targets, and external positioning. This culture aligns with performance-driven environments where meeting statutory obligations and financial targets is paramount.

• Hierarchy Culture – Structured and formalised, valuing stability, efficiency, and clear processes. Many local authorities lean towards Hierarchy due to regulatory requirements and the need for robust governance.

“The most effective organisations are those that can manage the inherent tensions between competing values.” – Cameron & Quinn

This insight is particularly relevant for local authorities, where balancing flexibility with accountability, and innovation with compliance, is a daily challenge. For example, a council may need to adopt Adhocracy traits to innovate in housing delivery while maintaining Hierarchical controls to ensure legal compliance.

Pros of Using CVF in Local Authorities

• Validated and widely used

  The Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), based on the CVF, is a globally recognised tool with strong academic credibility. It has been applied in thousands of organisations, including public sector bodies, making it a trusted method for cultural diagnosis. For councils, this means adopting a framework that is not experimental but proven, reducing the risk of wasted effort and ensuring that insights are grounded in evidence.

• Simple yet comprehensive

  The four cultural archetypes Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy provide a clear and accessible framework that is easy for staff and leaders to understand. Despite its simplicity, CVF captures the complexity of organisational dynamics by recognising that most organisations exhibit a blend of these cultures rather than a single dominant type. This balance makes it practical for councils with diverse services and teams.

• Supports change management

  Culture is often the invisible barrier to transformation. By identifying gaps between current and preferred culture, CVF helps councils prioritise interventions and align cultural shifts with strategic objectives. For example, a council aiming to become more innovative can use CVF to understand how far its current culture leans towards Hierarchy and what steps are needed to move towards Adhocracy.

• Encourages dialogue

  The process sparks meaningful conversations about values, behaviours, and leadership styles, creating a shared language for discussing culture across teams and departments. This dialogue is critical in local government, where collaboration between elected members, officers, and external partners is essential for success.

  

“Culture is the foundation upon which all change efforts rest.” – Cameron & Quinn

Cons and Limitations

• Oversimplification risk

  Real-world cultures are nuanced, and reducing them to four quadrants can feel restrictive. Councils must interpret results carefully and avoid stereotyping teams or departments. CVF should be seen as a starting point for deeper exploration, not a definitive label.

• Survey fatigue

  Staff may perceive OCAI as “just another questionnaire,” particularly if previous engagement exercises have lacked follow-through. To avoid this, councils should clearly communicate the purpose of the assessment and how results will inform tangible actions.

• 

  Requires skilled facilitation

  Misinterpretation of results can lead to poor decisions. Skilled facilitators are essential to guide discussions, contextualise findings, and translate insights into practical steps. Without this expertise, the process risks becoming a tick-box exercise.

• Not a quick fix

  Culture change is a long-term endeavour requiring sustained leadership commitment, clear communication, and reinforcement through policies and everyday practices. Councils should set realistic timelines and integrate cultural work into broader organisational development strategies.

“Changing culture is not about imposing new values; it’s about creating conditions where desired behaviours can thrive.” – Adapted from Cameron & Quinn

Conclusion

The Competing Values Framework (CVF) provides local authorities with a structured, evidence-based approach to understanding and shaping organisational culture. While no model can capture every nuance of human behaviour, CVF’s simplicity and clarity make it an accessible starting point for councils seeking to align culture with their vision, values, and strategic priorities.

By diagnosing current and preferred cultural profiles, leaders can identify gaps, anticipate resistance, and design interventions that foster collaboration, innovation, and accountability. However, it is important to remember that culture change is not a quick fix it requires sustained leadership commitment, transparent communication, and reinforcement through policies and everyday practices.

For local authorities navigating complex challenges from financial pressures to digital transformation investing in cultural assessment is not optional; it is essential for long-term resilience and public trust.