Organizational structure and performance of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines : a critical analysis / Naomi S. Garcia. 6

Thesis (Ph.D.)-- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1992.;A dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Arts, Sciences, Education and Nursing in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education. 56

5

ABSTRACT: The study attempted to assess the organizational structure of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) in the light of its philosophy, institutional goals and its level of performance as a social system and as an economic system. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions: (1) What is the perception of the respondents about the effectiveness of the PUP organizational structure in meeting the needs of the institution in terms of: 1.1 mission, goals, and objectives 1.2 academic programs 1.3 co-curricular activities (2) How did the respondents perceive the university's level of organizational performance as a social system and as an economic system in the areas of: 2.1 organizational management 2.2 organizational climate 2.3 physical resources 2.4 services 2.5 financial services 2.6 support system, internal control, and maintenance of facilities (3) Is there any significant difference in perception of respondents about the university's organizational structure, and its performance as a social environment and as an economic system? Null Hypothesis: 1. There is no significant difference in the perceptions of respondents: 1.1 administrators 1.2 faculty members 1.3 students 1.4 graduates Of the university's organizational structure. 2. There is no significant difference in the perception of respondents about PUP's level of organizational performance as a social system and as an economic system. PROCEDURE: This investigation utilized a Likert-type questionnaire checklist composed of questions in statement form on PUP's organizational structure and its social and economic environments. The 2,926 participants in this study consisted of 3 vice presidents, 11 deans and directors, 25 chairpersons, 10 chiefs of offices, 166 faculty members and 2,511 fourth year students and 200 graduates. TREATMENT OF DATA To interpret the data on the perceptions of the respondents the weighted mean was computed to serve as basis for determining the rankings. To find the relationship between the perceptions of the four groups of respondents, the chi-square was computed. The obtained chi-square was tested against the x2 table at .05 level of significance. This served as the basis for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses. To further determine the agreement or concordance between the perceptions of the four groups of respondents, Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) formula was applied. FINDINGS: 1. The university as a social system is functional as such with the different subsystems interacting with one another I achieving its mission, goals, and objectives. 2. As an organization, the university as a whole is well-structured as authority and responsibility are clearly delineated. 3. Mutual respect and cooperation in various activities is evident. 4. Duties and functions are clearly defined to prevent work overlaps and role ambiguities. 5. The mission, goals and objectives of the university are relevant to the national goals. 6. Practicum and field experiences are part of the curriculum. Curricula and all program of studies are approved by the University Academic Council. 7. Goals and objectives of the university are reflected in the co-curricular program and activities. 8. Students are recognized for outstanding achievements trough various forms of rewards. 9. The university site and campus are free from safety hazards. 10. Buildings are structurally safe and structured for school purposes. 11. Medical, dental and canteen services need further improvements to meet the growing student population. 12. There is fair evidence that the facilities are properly maintained. CONCLUSIONS: 1. PUP is a well-structured organization, but there still a need for realigning hierarchical levels and work units. 2. There is apparent strong work motivation in faculty and other university personnel. 3. PUP as an institution has well-defined goals and objectives which are congruent and complimentary to the national goals. 4. There is relevance in the curricular offerings to the demands of the time such as in its various areas of specialization offered. 5. Co-curricular activities are not only functional but are also responsive to university goals and objectives. 6. Teamwork and cooperation in the social environment of PUP as a result of organizational management contribute to effective and efficient operations. 7. Friendly interaction, high degree of confidence and mutual interest pervade the social environment of PUP. 8. School site is well-planned with provisions for expansion and with enough space to accommodate students for outdoor activities. 9. Reasonable tuition fees are being charged and various forms of financial assistance are being given to deserving students. 10. Medical, dental and canteen services still have to be improved. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Further refine its organizational structure towards making it more dynamic and responsive to the changing needs of the environment. 2. Promote greater teamwork and cooperation among all members of the academic community. 3. Continually assess academic programs to ensure its relevance to the changing needs of students. 4. Continue to provide scholarships, grants and other forms of financial assistance to poor but deserving students. 5. Improve further its services, specifically in the following areas: medical, dental and canteen services. 6. Undertake further research that would enrich and confirm the findings of this study such as: (a) Correlation of PUP's organizational structure to the external productivity of the university; (b) Comparative study between PUP's performance and those of other state universities; (c) PUP's institutional development and its contribution to national development (d) Correlation of the administrative leadership styles of PUP's administrators to organizational effectiveness; (e) Organizational climate of PUP as compared with private learning institutions. 7. Provide the University Administration results of this study to serve as a guide in future planning.

5