Dimensions of organizational culture and teaching performance in state colleges and universities in Region X1

• Main Author: Benedicto, Elizabeth P.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2004
• Subjects: Corporate culture; College teaching; State universities and colleges; Instructional systems; Educational Leadership
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_doctoral/59
• Institution: De La Salle University

This research was conducted to determine the relationship of four dimensions of culture: power, role, achievement and support based on the Harrison Model (1992) of colleges and institutions of state universities and colleges in the actual culture, desired culture and gap in organizational culture and their relationship with the teaching performance of the faculty. To determine the organizational culture of state universities and colleges in Region XI, the researcher administered the questionnaire developed by Roger Harrison (1992) to 200 teaching faculty. The teaching performance of the faculty was evaluated through the use of Student Assessment of Graduate Instruction (SAGI) instrument developed by Dr. Flordeliza Reyes. The study adopted the descriptive-correlational research design using frequency counts and percentage, mean and multiple regression as statistical tools. Findings revealed that in terms of the desired culture, the most preferred by the participating SUCS was achievement (2.75) and the least preferred was power (2.17). For actual organizational culture, the dominant culture was role (2.72) and the least dominant was Support (2.28). Consequently, in culture gap, the dominant dimension was power (0.45) and the least dominant was role (0.08). For the profile of participating colleges, findings reveal a similar result as those for institutions for the desired culture. The highest overall mean was achievement (2.68) and the lowest overall mean was power (2.29). In the actual iv culture, findings reveal that the highest overall mean was role (2.71) and the lowest overall mean was support (2.262). For the culture gap the highest overall mean was power (0.36) and the lowest overall mean was role (0.08). The culture Index for the existing culture indicated power and role-orientation, while the preferred culture showed an index of achievement and support-orientation. The culture Index in colleges revealed a dominant power and role-orientation in the existing culture and perceived to be achievement and support-oriented in the preferred culture. In terms of the teaching performance of the faculty in SUCS, the findings revealed very satisfactory ratings. The overall mean rating across colleges of SUCS institutions was 4.14 interpreted as very satisfactory with a standard deviation of 0.00. The multiple correlations for desired culture between each of the independent variables of power, role, achievement and support and the dependent variable performance revealed that only two variables showed significant correlations with teaching performance. For desired culture, performance was significantly but negatively correlated with role (-.361) at =.05 and significantly correlated with support (+.301) at = .05 in School 2. There were no other significant correlates among other variables. Based on the results of the stepwise regression analysis for School 2, only role has a significant contribution to faculty performance at =.05. For actual culture only two variables showed correlation with teaching performance at =.05. Performance was significantly but negatively correlated with role (-.247) in School 1 and significantly correlated with support (-.326) in School 5. Based on the stepwise regression analysis, role has a significant contribution to faculty performance at =.05 in School 1 and support has a significant contribution to faculty performance at =.05 in School 5. In culture gap, there were more variables that showed correlations with teaching performance. In School 2, performance was significantly but negatively correlated with support (-.293) at =.05. Based on stepwise regression analysis, support has a significant contribution to faculty performance at =.05. In School 3, performance was significantly and positively correlated with power (+.493) at =.05 and significantly but negatively correlated with support (-.380). However, only the contribution of support is significant at =.05 based on the stepwise regression analysis. In School 5 performance was significantly correlated with support (-.463) at =.01 and had a significant contribution with teaching performance. For desired culture of colleges in SUCS, performance was significantly correlated with all the independent variables of support (+.295), achievement (+.326), and role (-.321) and significantly but negatively correlated with power (-.283) at =.01. However, based on stepwise regression analysis, only achievement and role had significant contribution. In college E, performance was vi significantly but negatively correlated with power (-.372). There were no significant correlations established in other schools. There were no significant correlations between performance and the independent variables of power, role, achievement, and support for culture gap and the predictors of performance were power (+.175), role (+.377), achievement (-.427), and support (-.404). Role was significantly correlated with support. However, based on stepwise regression analysis only power has significant contribution at =.05. In the desired organizational culture, teaching performance was significantly correlated with role at =.05 across schools and support at =.05 in the actual organizational culture. Teaching performance in culture gap was significantly correlated with support at =.05 across participating institutions. However, there were no correlations between performance and each of the variables for organizational culture across participating colleges in culture gap. Based on culture gap, the best predictor of performance was power-oriented at =.05.