The Impact of Culture on Performance Appraisal Reforms in Africa: The Case of Uganda’s Civil Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the impact of administrative culture on performance appraisal reforms in Uganda’s civil service. Data gathered from 147 questionnaires, 29 interviews and various documents indicates that administrative culture sabotages the actual conduct of performance appraisals and undermines its institutionalization. The study supports the use of power distance and uncertainty avoidance. The additional dimensions of political (neutrality) biasness and ethnicity are a highly relevant addition to the literature on administrative culture and its linkage to instruments of management. Thus, for the successful introduction of performance appraisals, culture matters because the performance appraisal is imposed from abroad and requires a compatible host administrative culture in order to take root. In this case, the host administrative culture was not compatible in many respects with the values underlying the appraisal reforms. Although the Ugandan government introduced appraisal reforms, incompatibility between the values embedded in the appraisal and the host administrative culture watered down the reform.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".