Slider

News and Recent Events

Recent Publications

CPSC Quarterly

Featured Papers & Presentations

STEPS

Special Feature

» » » Level of Institutional Productivity and Organizational Climate of Carlos Hilado Memorial State Colleges: Basis for Institutional Productivity Plan

Scholarly Technical Education Publication Series (STEPS) Vol. 2


Level of Institutional Productivity and Organizational Climate of Carlos Hilado Memorial State Colleges: Basis for Institutional Productivity Plan


Author:

    Vanessa Joy Z. Judith
    Faculty
    Carlos Hilado Memorial State College- Alijis Campus, Philippines
    vanessajoyzjudith@gmail.com

Abstract

This study identified the level of institutional productivity and organizational climate of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College (CHMSC) as the basis for institutional productivity plan. Specifically, it determined the level of institutional productivity in terms of instruction, research, extension and production and the type of organizational climate as perceived by the participants when taken as a whole and grouped according to certain variables. The study included 137 or 66 percent of the permanent faculty employed in school year 2012-2013. Data were gathered using the researchermade questionnaire, the institutional productivity questionnaire and the organizational climate questionnaire. The organizational climate of the participants was a combination of controlled, closed, autonomous and open climate. Also, institutional productivity did not significantly differ in terms of civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank. Institutional productivity in terms of instruction, research, extension and production was found to be significantly related to organizational climate. The researcher concluded that: Carlos Hilado Memorial State College’s institutional productivity was very satisfactory; in terms of organizational climate, it is a combination of controlled, autonomous, closed and open climate and regardless of organizational climate, institutional productivity in terms of instruction, research, extension and production was very satisfactory.

Keywords: Institutional Productivity, Institutional Productivity Plan, Organizational Climate, Carlos Hilado Memorial State College, Negros Occidental, Philippines


Introduction

Society is composed of many different kinds of institutions, such as health, religious and educational institutions to just name a few. An institution has been created, whenever people join together in some sort of formal structure to achieve an objective. Now more than ever, institutions of higher education face pressure from stakeholders to provide evidence of productivity and efficiency of its operations (CHED, 2003).

A productive school system is exemplified by the quality of its education through excellence in instruction, research, production and community service (Glomo, 2012). Evidently, an institution has its own culture, traditions and methods of action, which determine the climate or atmosphere within which the people work. An institution tends to attract, motivate, lead and keep people who fit its atmosphere, so that its patterns are to some extent perpetuated. This atmosphere is something intangible; it is a property of the institution as a whole which gives that institution its distinct personality.

The status and correlation of these two factors of Institutional Productivity and Organizational Climate will be of interest in determining the directions and future plans that an institution will set in order to respond to stakeholders’ demand for evidence of productivity and efficiency in its operations. With the growing concern to determine the level of productivity and the kind of organizational climate of CHMSC as the basis for Institutional Productivity Plan, hence, this research was conducted.

Statement of the Problem

The research aims to determine the following research questions:

  1. What is the level of institutional productivity in terms of instruction, research, extension, and production as perceived by the respondents when they are taken as a whole and grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank?
  2. Is there a significant difference in the level of institutional productivity when the respondents are taken as a whole and grouped according to the variables mentioned?
  3. What are the types of organizational climate, underlying the level of institutional productivity, as perceived by the respondents when taken as a whole and grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank?
  4. Is there a significant relationship between the level of institutional productivity and organizational climate?

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were formulated:

  1. There is no significant difference in the level of institutional productivity when the respondents are taken as a whole and grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.
  2. There is no significant difference in the organizational climate of the institution when the respondents are taken as a whole and grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.
  3. There is no significant relationship between the level of institutional productivity and organizational climate.

Review of Related Literature

This section presents both the conceptual and research literature that will help the investigation needed to focus, to give direction and clarity to the study. The literature reviewed provides the researcher the insights into the subject matter of the present study. It also provides the researcher information and materials needed in the formulation and development of the data gathering instrument. It focuses on the following: Institutional Productivity, Research and Extension, Instruction and Production. Related studies are also included to enrich the study.

On Institutional Productivity

There are various approaches on how to measure institutional productivity especially of state colleges and universities in the Philippines. According to CHED “a State University shall perform all the four functions of instruction, research, outreach and production; and offer a full range of baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral and post-doctoral programs in various disciplines provided said programs meet CHED requirements and standards” (CHED, 2003).

Alexander in his paper “Changing the Face of Accountability” stated that “with greater expectations being placed on it, higher education is being obliged to examine itself or be examined by others. This observation reflects the increasing societal requirement that colleges and universities must become responsive to national economic needs and governmental demands for increased performance” (Alexander, 2000). He further pointed out how governments would turn to quality higher education in enhancing the productivity and economic strength of the nation.

On Organizational Climate

Gilmer (1986) as noted by Hoy and Miskel (1991) defined organizational climate as the total environment quality within an organization that distinguishes the organizations from other organizations and influences the behavior of the people in the organization. School climate, on the other hand, refers to the teacher’s perceptions of the general work environment of the school. It is the relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by the participants that affect their behavior and is based on their collective perceptions of behavior in school.

Kidd, Crawford and Riches (1997), cited organizational climate as a concept that refers to the different cultures or qualities possessed by organizations regardless of whether the structure is hierarchical and bureaucratic or informal or dynamic. Likewise, whether risk- taking or not, the use of individual initiative is encouraged or frowned upon.

Climate Types

The most well-known conceptualization and measurement of organizational climate in school is pioneered by Halpin and Croft (1963). They developed an instrument, the Organizational Climate Descriptive Questionnaire (OCDQ) to identify organizational climate of schools based on teacher-teacher, and teacher-principal interactions. The different climate types are open, autonomous, controlled, familiar, paternal and closed climate.

Open Climate is a climate that depicts a situation in which the teachers enjoy friendly relations with each other and obtain considerable satisfaction and are sufficiently motivated to overcome difficulties and frustrations.

Autonomous Climate is a climate which has for its distinguishing feature the almost complete freedom that the leader gives to the teachers to provide their own structurefor-interaction so that they can find ways within the group for satisfying their social needs.

Controlled Climate is a type of climate which is characterized by diligence and hard work. Even though the administrator does not model commitment, hard work is overemphasized to the extent that little or no time is given to social life. Nonetheless, teachers are committed to their work and spend considerable time on paper work. Thus, in most cases, there is little time to interact with one another.

Familiar Climate is a type of climate which depicts a laissez-faire atmosphere. The principal is concerned about maintaining friendly atmosphere at the expense of task accomplishment. Thus, a considerable percentage of teachers are not committed to their primary assignment. Some who are committed resent the way the principal runs the college, they do not share same views with the principal and their colleagues. As a result, those who are not committed, form a clique because they are of the same attitude, they become friends.

Paternal Climate is a type of climate which depicts an atmosphere where the principal is very hardworking but has no effect on the staff, to them hard work is not a popular term.

Closed Climate represents the “antithesis of the open climate”. There is no emphasis on the accomplishment; rather the principal stresses on routine, trivial and unnecessary paper work to which teachers minimally respond. The principal is strict and rigid in behavior. He/she is inconsiderate, unsupportive and unresponsive.

Research Methodology

The study utilized the descriptive research method of research. This method involves collecting data in order to test hypothesis or answer questions concerning the current work status of the participants of the study (Gay, 1992). It also utilized the annual report from the research office on productivity for further analysis of data and results.

The participants of this study were 137 permanent faculty members of CHMSC employed in the academic year 2012-2013 in the following campuses: (1) CHMSCTalisay Campus, Talisay City; (2) CHMSC- Binalbagan Campus, Binalbagan; (3) CHMSC- Alijis Campus, Bacolod City; and (4) CHMSC- Fortune Town Campus, Bacolod City. Stratified random sampling was employed in the selection of the participants. In this sampling procedure, each unit in the population is identified, and each unit has a known, non-zero chance of being in the sample. This is used when the population has sub- groups (strata) that are of interest. The 137 permanent faculty members of CHMSC, were categorized according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.

The researcher – made questionnaire was utilized in this study. This consisted of three parts. These are: the Personal Data Sheet, the Institutional Productivity Questionnaire and Organizational Climate Questionnaire. To establish the validity of the instrument, a panel of three juror experts in the field of research, testing, psychology and guidance were requested to validate the content of the questionnaire using the criteria developed by Carter V. Good and Douglas B. Scates.

The questionnaires were pilot tested among 17 faculty of CHMSC Fortune Town Campus. The statistical tool used to determine the reliability and the interval consistency of the two instruments was the alpha coefficient known as Cronbach Alpha. This coefficient is the general form of Kuder – Richardson Approaches (KRZO) used in calculating the reliability of the items that are not scored right versus wrong. The results of the pilot administration were subjected to test reliability using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The obtained reliability coefficient Cronbach alpha was 0.8133 for the rating scale on Institutional Productivity and 0.8312 for Organizational Climate.

The data gathered for the actual investigation were subjected to appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics. These are: Percentage, Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson r, t-test and ANOVA.

Results and Discussions

The following presents the data and their corresponding analyses and interpretation. The researcher aimed to investigate through the gathered data the existing level of institutional productivity and organizational climate of CHMSC as the basis for institutional productivity plan of the college with consideration to antecedent variables like civil status, sex, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service.

The Level of Institutional Productivity in Instruction of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College

The institutional productivity in instruction of CHMSC as an entire group was “Very Satisfactory” (M-4.09, SD= .62) in terms of instruction. Instruction is one of the functions of higher education institutions which include their continuing quest for excellence and commitment to reasonably high standards of instruction through the quality of their educational programs, outstanding achievements of their students and excellent performance of their graduates particularly in government/board examinations. CHMSC has “Very Satisfactory” performance in the area of instruction. These were supported by the findings from the document analysis, as well as the implications associated from the interpretation of the findings below. Refer to Table 1.

Table 1: Institutional Productivity of CHMSC in Instruction*

*Legend: Scale and Description= 4.21-5.00-Excellent; 3.41- 4.20-Very Satisfactory; 2.61-3.40-Satisfactory; 1.81-2.60-Needs Improvement; and 1.00-1.80-Poor

The faculty members, through the HRD program of CHMSC have developed themselves professionally to be different now from what Tan (1995) observed a decade ago that while some tertiary institutions have maintained a high level of instruction, many of them have remained substandard (Tan, 1995). What Tan found out in 1995 seemed not to hold true in the case of CHMSC system presently. The institution continuously works out to be productive by updating its programs in institution. A more recent study of Quinon (2004) noted that faculty members in the higher institutions included in her study have “high” productivity in instruction. As such, they were highly committed to instruction.

The Level of Institutional Productivity in Research of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College

Research, being one of the functions of higher education institutions which comprise activities such as conducting studies, producing creative works like scientific articles and books, preparing proposals for funding and attending professional meetings or conferences essential to one’s field. The institutional productivity of CHMSC as an entire group in terms of research was “Excellent” (M=3.80, SD=.78). Refer to Table 2. CHMSC’s institutional productivity in research was “Very Satisfactory” which is credited to its strength such as “wide ranging research development program in the College and its campuses, availability of research grants to faculty members, non-teaching personnel and students, and participation of the College personnel in professional research conferences. These were confirmed by the document analysis”.

Table 2: Institutional Productivity of CHMSC in Research*

*Legend: Scale and Description= 4.21-5.00-Excellent; 3.41-4.20-Very Satisfactory; 2.61-3.40-Satisfactory; 1.81-2.60-Needs Improvement; and 1.00-1.80-Poor

The Level of Institutional Productivity in Extension of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College

Community service is an inherent function of higher educational institutions with the purpose of initiating, catalyzing and sustaining the development of various communities, especially the adopted barangays, using the College’s research outputs and available resources for both academic and non-academic pursuits. As such, the Extension Services of CHMSC envision to be the center of excellence for quality and relevant community extension services and training by providing the community the technologies and developmental information and expertise and improve quality of life; implement programs and projects for the development of the community; establish linkages and collaboration for resource generation; explore appropriate approaches/ modes and strategies to facilitate the effective transfer of technology to the respective communities; and enhance capability of service providers/ teachers for effective delivery of services and technologies. The institutional productivity in extension of CHMSC as an entire group was “Very Satisfactory” (M=3.88, SD=.44) as illustrated in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Institutional Productivity of CHMSC in Extension*

*Legend: Scale and Description= 4.21-5.00-Excellent; 3.41- 4.20-Very Satisfactory; 2.61-3.40-Satisfactory; 1.81-2.60-Needs Improvement; and 1.00-1.80-Poor

The Level of Institutional Productivity in Production of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College

The primary purpose of production is to facilitate the income and Resource Generation Program of CHMSC by strengthening the major functions of instruction, research, extension and production. It serves as venue for students, faculty members, staff and other concerned parties to enhance their business acumen, skills and values. It includes all income generating assets, projects and services operated and managed within and among the four campuses and each of the College’s individual department. As reflected in Table 4, the institutional productivity in production of CHMSC as an entire group was “Very Satisfactory” (M=3.68, SD=.73).

Table 4: Institutional Productivity of CHMSC in Production*

Institutional Productivity in Instruction of the College

The computer-processed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the t- test were used to determine whether or not there exist significant differences in the institutional productivity in instruction in CHMSC when grouped as to civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 5 shows the statistical difference in the institutional productivity when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service.

Table 5: t- test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Instruction among Civil Status and Sex

Results of the t-test revealed that there was a significant difference in the institutional productivity in instruction of the teachers in CHMSC when the teachers were grouped according to civil status [t=(135)=.3.21, p=..002], and sex [t=(135)=2.07,p=.040)]. The study has sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that states that there is no significant difference in the organizational climate of the institution when the respondents are taken as a whole and grouped according to civil status and sex. This implies that institutional productivity among civil statuses and genders indeed differ.

Table 6 shows the difference in the institutional productivity in instruction when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.

Table 6: ANOVA Test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Instruction and Educational Attainment, Length of Service and Academic Rank

The ANOVA Results of the Difference in the Institutional Productivity in Instruction in the CHMSC when the Teachers were grouped as to Selected Variables.

F results revealed that there was no significant difference in the perceived institutional productivity in instruction in CHMSC when the teachers were grouped according to educational attainment. When grouped as to (F=[2, 134]=1.120],p=.9.028), length of service (F=[3,133]=.000,p=.000) and academic rank (F=[2,134]=p=4.252), there was a significant difference. For the two latter classifications, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the organizational climate of the institution when the respondents are taken as a whole and grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, length of service and academic rank is thereby rejected. This implies that differences in educational attainment does not really factor into the organizational climate since the staff members are considered to be qualified in their jobs.

Institutional Productivity in Research of the College

The computer- processed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the t- test were used to determine whether there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis if the differences on institutional productivity in research in CHMSC are significant if the respondents are grouped among their civil status, gender, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service of the respondents are measured. The results are presented in Tables 8 and 9.

Table 7 shows the difference in the institutional productivity when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service.

Table 7: t- test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Research among Civil Status and Sex

Results of the t-test revealed that there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis if the institutional productivity on research is grouped according to sex and not on civil status. This may imply that the motivation to conduct research may differ among males and females but not among single and married people.

Table 8 shows the difference in the institutional productivity in research when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.

Table 8: ANOVA Test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Research and Educational Attainment, Length of Service and Academic Rank

F results revealed that there was no significant difference in the perceived institutional productivity in research in CHMSC when the teachers were grouped according to educational attainment (F=[2, 134] =.068 ,p=.934), length of service (F=[3,133]=1.835,p=.144) and academic rank (F=[2,134]= 0.55 p=.453). The results show that the research culture and the perceptions and motivations to conduct it are the same across the different distinctions on educational attainment, length of service and academic rank. This further Implies that the research culture in the college does not reflect the different differences in personal and professional characteristics.

Differences in the Institutional Productivity in Extension of CHMSC

The computer-processed ANOVA and the t- test were used to determine whether there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis if the differences on institutional productivity in extension in CHMSC if the respondents are grouped among their civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service of the respondents are measured. The results are presented in Tables 10 and 11.

Table 9 shows the difference in the institutional productivity when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service.

Table 9: t- test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Extension among Civil Status and Sex

Results of the t-test revealed that there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis if the institutional productivity on extension is grouped according to civil status and not on sex. This may imply that the motivation to conduct extension is different on married people compared to the single people but may not matter between males and females.

Table 10 shows the difference in the institutional productivity in extension when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.

Table 10: ANOVA Test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Extension and Educational Attainment, Length of Service and Academic Rank

F results revealed that there is enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis in the perceived institutional productivity in extension in CHMSC when the teachers were grouped according to educational attainment (F=[2, 134] =.985 ,p=.376), length of service (F=[3,133]=1.153,p=.330) and academic rank (F=[3,133]= 1.213 p=.345).

Institutional Productivity in Production of CHMSC

The computer- processed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the t- test were used to determine whether or not there exist significant differences in the institutional productivity in production CHMSC when grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service. The results are presented in Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11 shows the t-test results in the institutional productivity when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank, highest educational attainment and length of service.

Table 11: t- test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Production among Civil Status and Sex

Results of the t-test revealed that there is no enough proof to reject the null hypothesis when the teachers are grouped according to civil status [t=(135)=1.486, p=.141], and sex [t=(135)=1.660,p=.099). This means that sex and civil status differences will not matter in the amount of production (as measured in the income generating activities) brought in the college.

Table 12 shows the difference in the institutional productivity in production when the teachers in CHMSC were grouped according to educational attainment, length of service and academic rank.

Table 12: ANOVA Test Results for the Difference Between Institutional Productivity in Production and Educational Attainment, Length of Service and Academic Rank

F results revealed that there is enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis in the perceived institutional productivity in extension in CHMSC when the teachers were grouped according to educational attainment (F=[2, 134] =1.431 ,p=.243), length of service (F=[3,133]=.987,p=.401) and academic rank (F=[2,134]= .606 p=..547).

The Relationship Between Institutional Productivity and Organizational Climate in Carlos Hilado Memorial State College

The result of the correlational analysis using Pearson r revealed that a significant relationship exists between institutional productivity and organizational climate. The r value is 1 and .594 for organizational climate at .05. thus, organizational climate is a contributing factor for institutional productivity. Table 13 presents the relationship between institutional productivity and organizational climate.

Table 13: Relationship between Institutional Productivity and Organizational Climate

Pearsons’ r test result in Table 45 showed that there was a significant relationship between institutional productivity and organizational climate.

Summary of the Findings

The major findings of the study were as follows:

  1. The participants perceived the institution to be very satisfactory in institutional productivity in terms of instruction. However, the annual report from the Research Office in 2012 reveals that only 60.15% is the average board passers for a 6-year period from 2007 to 2012. Likewise, it also revealed the result of the CHED monitoring report. Of the 14 courses offered by the college 10 did not reach the standard for faculty qualification, 13 did not have enough resource materials in the library, 12 did not have sufficient research outputs and 10 did not have sufficient programs for extension.
  2. The participants perceived the institution to be very satisfactory in institutional research. However, the annual report of the Research Office of the college in 2012 reveals that in the period from 2008 to 2012 only 31% of the faculty were involved in research. Though there is an increase in research output and presentation from 2008 to 2012 only two campuses contributed substantially to the number. Moreover, majority of the research outputs were academic requirements. Of the four campuses, three have research journals which are non-refereed except for one which was refereed in 2008.
  3. The participants perceived the institution to be very satisfactory in institutional extension. However, in 2011 only 10 extensions and spearheaded by two campuses were recorded in the annual report of the Research Office, considering that the college has 4 campuses and 14 course offerings.
  4. The participants perceived the institution to be very satisfactory in production. However, the annual report of the Research Office reveals that most of the income came from dormitories and rentals of spaces and equipment. In terms of modules and workbooks, only 3 were published.
  5. Generally, institutional productivity in instruction, research, extension and production did not differ significantly in terms of the civil status, sex, educational attainment, academic rank and length of service.
  6. When instructional productivity is assessed between sexes, civil statuses, length of services and academic ranks, there is a perceived statistical difference. This implies that the management should consider the distinctions on the perceptions and needs between the different characteristics that each employees possess in drafting measures and rules to enhance their productivity.
  7. There is a significant, positive relationship between organizational climate and instructional productivity.

Conclusions

In view of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

  1. Carlos Hilado Memorial State College’s institutional productivity was only satisfactory. This means that the college has a good rating in these core areas according to participants’ perception, however, the annual report from the research office indicated that there is still room for improvement to achieve an excellent rating.
  2. The organizational climate of CHMSC is related to its productivity. CHMSC’s organizational climate is a combination of controlled, autonomous, closed and open climate. This means that some teachers enjoy friendly relations with each other and obtain considerable satisfaction and are sufficiently motivated to overcome difficulties and frustration. Others feel complete freedom that the leader gives to them to provide their own structure- for- interaction so that they can find ways within the group for satisfying their social needs. Others feel they want to achieve at the expense of social – needs satisfaction and others obtain little satisfaction in respect to either task – achievement or social needs.
Recommendations

In view of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are recommended in order to develop an effective and efficient institutional productivity plan:

On Institutional Productivity

  1. In terms of productivity in instruction, CHMSC should be able to strengthen certain foundations for excellence in education. First is to qualify more faculty for every course offered by the college. It is likewise important that the library should be able to upgrade and increase its collections so as to respond to the academic requirements of each course offered by the College. Research and extension should be more visible in the curriculum design of the college. There is also a need to improve the review program of the College for those courses that requires board exams so as to increase the passing percentage of the College.
  2. Encourage, if not require, the faculty members to do research in order to increase the percentage of faculty members who are involved in research and to serve as foundation for more productivity and well-studied extension programs. This means more incentive should be provided to those who do research work in terms of financial assistance and professional growth.
  3. The extension program of each campus should explore more possibilities for College’s involvement in the community around it. Let the Extensions Office work hand in hand with the Research Office in identifying and recognizing these possibilities.
  4. For institutional productivity, there should be a common discernment by the stakeholders on what particular area can the College increase its productivity while not sacrificing its core competence but in fact strengthening it in the process. Each campus should be able to contribute to this. Faculty members should also be encouraged to come up with workbooks and modules not only to contextualize the textbooks but at the same time to contribute as a source of income for the College.
  5. The College should be actively involved in accreditation process to benchmark with other state universities and colleges in the country and even beyond and to serve as guide in aiming for excellence in institutional productivity.

On Organizational Climate

  1. Since organizational climate correlates with productivity, CHMSC must maintain a conducive organizational climate where teachers would feel comfortable and would consider the institution as a place where they like to be. Organizational thrusts and policies must be well communicated while organizational standards must be flexible enough to give them more room for improvement and considerations.
  2. As organizational climate affects institutional productivity, it is interesting to note that there are some who perceive the atmosphere in the institution as closed climate which somehow affects the rating of productivity. Though high in its rating as very satisfactory, productivity can still achieve a higher rating of excellence if closed climate can be lessen all the more if not totally eradicated. An open climate will eventually encourage a more autonomous climate as trust is being built. In this way the demand of the institution especially in our thrust ‘CHMSC Excels” would be a more enjoyable but a decisive journey towards achieving excellent results for every member of the institution.
References

  1. Didimus, Fr. N.Y. (2001). “Organizational Climate, Teachers Morale and Teaching Performance in Four Divine Word Schools in East Nusa – Tenggara Province, Indonesia”. Unpublished master’s thesis. De La Salle Univeristy, Manila.
  2. Fairweather, James S. (2002). “The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity: Implications for Institutional Policy and Decision Making.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 1. Retrieved on May 14, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1558446.
  3. Glomo, D. (2012). “Communication Climate: Its Relation to Institutional Productivity”. Retrieved on February 11, 2013. Available at http:// www.academia.edu/2352763/Communication_Climate_Its_Relation_ to_ Institutional Productivity.
  4. Good, C.V. (1973). Dictionary of Education. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  5. Guthrie, J.W. (1995). Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. : McMillan Meriam Publishing.
  6. Grolier International Encyclopedia. (1996).Connecticut, USA: Grolier Publishing.
  7. Hoy, W. K., Miskel, C. G., & Tarter, C. J. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, Research, and Practice.
  8. Ilagan, P. (1987). “Organizational Climate of La Salette of Santiago and La Salette of Ramon as Perceived by their Administrators and Teachers During the School Year 1986-1987”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. De La Salle University, Manila.
  9. King, A.F. (2000). “The Changing Face of Accountability: Monitoring and Assessing Institutional Performance in Higher Education.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 71, No. 4. Retrieved on May 12, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2649146.
  10. Kline P.A. (1996). Handbook of Test Construction, Introduction to Psychometric Design. London: Methuen and Company Ltd..
  11. . Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education. Retrieved on April 26, 2014 from http://www. jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2112851.
  12. Lunenburg, F. C. and Ornstein. AC (1991). School management and organization.
  13. Ong, M.G. (1997). “Organizational Climate at Paglaum College”. Unpublished master’s thesis. West Negros University, Bacolod City.
  14. Parcon, T. (2008). “Organizational Climate of University of San Agustin”. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of San Agustin, Iloilo City.
  15. Philippines. Commission on Higher Education. (2003). Towards Rationalizing Philippine Higher Education: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Rationalization of the Philippine Higher Education System: 18-19 September 2003, Manila Hotel, Philippines. Commission on Higher Education.
  16. Prasetyo, V.W. (1980). “Leadership Behavior and Organizational Climate in Widya Mandala Catholic University in Surbaya – Indonesia. Unpublished master’s thesis. De La Salle University, Manila.
  17. Sergiovanni, T., et al. (2001). Educational Governance and Administration. 5th ed. CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc.
  18. The Merriam-Webster Concise School and Office Dictionary. (1991). Meriam and Webster Bookstore Inc.: Manila.
  19. Toledano, M.S. (2007). “Organizational Climate of Colegio de San Agustin – Bacolod: Its Impact on the Level of Job Satisfaction of the Teaching Personnel for Academic Year 2006-2007”. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of San Agustin, Iloilo City
  20. Victoriano, J. (2007). “Organizational Climate and Faculty Performance: Their Influence of the Instructional Goal Attainment of John B. Lacson Colleges Foundation”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of San Agustin, Iloilo City.

«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post