72

Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter focuses on providing answers to the research questions through
analysis, interpretation and discussion of the data gathered for this study in determining
the relationship of management control system, human resource management practices
and organizational performance as moderated by age, educational attainment, position,
and length of service in current position of regular workers of selected higher educational
institution in the Southern Asia Pacific Division (SSD).

The Perceptions of Workers Institutions on

Management Control System
Strategic Planning
Respondents as came from the nine higher institutions which were ranked from
highest to lowest as shown in Table 4. Presentation of the items showed the mean and
standard deviation. It revealed that all the items in strategic planning were rated
oftentimes in the following order: The vision is clearly stated (M = 4.3817; SD =
0.8518); Administrators and department heads are involved in strategic planning (M =
4.2692; SD = 0.8570); Strategic planning considers: a. strengths (M = 4.1747; SD =
0.8478); Planning consist of: a. short term goals (M = 4.1447; SD = 0.9500);
Planning considers who has authority and responsibility for activities (M = 4.1232; SD
= 0.8782); Planning is based on condition of the organization (e.g. economic) (M =
4.0956; SD = 0.8565); Management makes assumption to determine the plan (M =

73

4.0898; SD = 0.8388); Strategic plan provides the framework for the operating budget
(M = 4.0835; SD = 0.8840); Planning consists: c. long term goals (M = 4.0665; SD =
0.9703); Strategic planning considers: c. opportunities (M = 4.0315; SD = 0.8908);
Planning consists of: intermediate goals (M = 4.0063; SD = 0.93678); Strategic
planning considers: b. weakness (M = 3.9582; SD = 0.9610); Analytical skills are
employed in strategic planning (M = 3.9522; SD = 0.9266); Goals and objectives are
attained (M = 3.9440; SD = 0.7723); Planning is supported by data or information (M
= 3.9186; SD = 0.9660); Strategic plan is communicated to employees (M = 3.8971;
SD = 0.9704); Strategic planning considers: d. threat (M = 3.8835; SD = 0.9943);
Strategic plan is regularly evaluated to achieve the goals (M = 3.8191; SD = 1.0319)
The grand mean of 4.0466 with a standard deviation of 0.6717 reveals that the
institutions had good management control system in terms of strategic planning as
perceived by the respondents institution. This implies that the institutions oftentimes
follow procedures in preparing, implementing, and monitoring the strategic planning with
the institution policies.
Certo (2003) mentioned that strategic planning is long-range planning that focuses
on the organization as a whole. In the strategic planning phase, senior management
determines the major programs the organization will undertake during the coming
period and the approximate expenses that each will incur. These decisions are made
within the context of the goals and strategies that emerged from the strategy formulation
activity..
.

74

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics of Strategic Planning
Item
No
Statement
Mean
1
The vision is clearly stated.
4.3817
5
Administrators and department
4.2692
heads are involved in strategic
planning.
4.a
Strategic planning considers:
4.1747
strengths.
6. a
Planning consists of: short term
4.1447
goals.
10
Planning considers who has
4.1232
authority and responsibility for
activities.
9
Planning is based on condition of 4.0956
the organization
(e.g. economic).
11
Management makes assumption
4.0898
to determine the plan.
8
Strategic plan provides the
4.0835
framework for the operating
budget.
6. c Planning consists of: long term
4.0665
goals.
4. c Strategic planning considers:
4.0315
opportunities.
6. b Planning consists: intermediate
4.0063
term goals.
4. b Strategic planning considers:
3.9583
weakness.
7
Analytical skills are employed in 3.9522
strategic planning.
2
Goals and objectives are attained 3.9440
13
Planning is supported by data or
3.9186
information.
3
Strategic plan is communicated to 3.8971
the employees.
4. d Strategic planning considers:
3.8835
threat.
12
Strategic plan is regularly
3.8191
evaluated to achieve the goals.
Overall strategic planning
4.0466

SD
0.8518
0.8570

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes
Oftentimes

Descriptive
Interpretation
Good
Good

0.8478

Oftentimes

Good

0.9500

Oftentimes

Good

0.8782

Oftentimes

Good

0.8565

Oftentimes

Good

0.8388

Oftentimes

Good

0.8840

Oftentimes

Good

0.9703

Oftentimes

Good

0.8908

Oftentimes

Good

0.9367

Oftentimes

Good

0.9610

Oftentimes

Good

0.9266

Oftentimes

Good

0.7723
0.9660

Oftentimes
Oftentimes

Good
Good

0.9704

Oftentimes

Good

0.9943

Oftentimes

Good

1.0319

Oftentimes

Good

0.6717

Oftentime
s

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);;
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

75

Anthony and Govindarajan (2004) when they said that strategic plans show the
financial and other implications over the next several years of implementing company
strategies. They also mentioned that strategic planning process involves the following
steps: reviewing and updating the strategic plan from last year, deciding on assumptions
and guidelines, first iteration of the new strategic plan, analysis, second iteration of the
new strategic plan, review and approval. In the strategic plan process, management
decides on the goals of organization and main strategies for achieving these goals and
seeks to develop programs that will implement the strategies efficiently and effectively.
Budget Preparation
All the management controls of the respondents in terms of budget preparation in
Table 5 were rated oftentimes except in item 8. The responses indicated that the
respondents institutions were doing very well in dealing with their worker especially on
the following:Budgets are approved by appropriate committee (M = 4.2625; SD =
0.8819); The budget explains the need for expenditure (M = 4.1444; SD = 0.8773);
Budget is adjusted according to available funds (M = 4.1444; SD = 0.8262); The
administration receives budget proposal from the department (M = 4.1420; SD =
0.9360); Budget provides an estimated amount money needed to carry out the plan (M
= 4.1253; SD = 0.8575); Budgets reflect the objectives of a plan (M = 4.0983; SD =
0.8670); The department heads are involved in preparing the budget (M = 4.0919; SD
= 0.9488); The administrators prepare budget according guidelines (M = 4.0774; SD =
0.8739); The increase of the estimated expenditure depends on the increase in economic

76

inflation (M = 3.9540; SD = 0.8386); Program includes allocation for expenditure (M

= 3.9561; SD = 0.8973); Administrators conduct a budget hearing (M = 3.9189; SD =
1.0543); Administrators evaluate all program (M = 3.8170; SD = 1.0425); Once the
budget is approved, it is communicated to the employees (M = 3.6432; SD = 1.2125)
and Every employee is involved in preparing the budget (M = 2.8852; SD = 1.2579)
was interpreted as fair, which means the employees were sometimes involved in the
budget preparation.
The grand mean of 3.9472 with a standard deviation of 0.71674 reveals that the
institutions had good management control system in terms of budget preparation as
perceived by the respondents institutions. This implies that the institutions oftentimes
follow a budget preparation process toward accomplishing their goals and objectives.
This study supports the study of Hartman as cited in Narbarte (2000). He
explained that since the budget is prepared by several persons, in the organization, all
those involved must follow the same direction. Consequently, the first step in the budget
process is the preparation of guidelines for the individual preparing a portion of the
budget. The guidelines frequently contain such items as: directives from the board
concerning the size of the budget; limitations in expenditure requests; accompanying the
use of the forms; and, cost estimating procedures, among others.
The finding of this study also supports the research conducted by Qomoyi (2008)
that in budget preparation they need to request proposal from departments, review
departmental estimates for the accuracy, the department to provide budget manual in
order to assist them in capturing their income, expenditure, activity planning as well as

77

how to extract reports, and budget hearing to discuss their requested budget and for them
to motivate their need required funding.

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Budget Preparation
Item
No
Statement
Mean
13
Budget are approved by
4.2625
appropriate committee.
7
The budget explains the need for
4.1444
expenditure.
6
Budget is adjusted according to
4.1444
available funds.
4
The administration receives
4.1420
budget proposal from the
department.
5
Budget provides an estimated
4.1253
amount of money needed to carry
out the plan.
1
Budget reflects to objective of
4.0983
plan
3
The department heads are
4.0919
involved in preparing the budget.
2
The administrators prepare
4.0774
budget according to guidelines.
11
The increases of the estimated
3.9540
expenditure depend on the
increase in economic inflation.
10
Program includes allocation for
3.9561
expenditure.
12
Administrators conduct a budget
3.9189
hearing.
9
Administrators evaluate all
3.8170
programs
14
Once the budget is approved, it is 3.6432
communicated to the employees.
8
Every employee is involved in
2.8852
preparing the budget.
Grand Mean and SD for
3.9472
Budget Preparation

SD
0.8819

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

0.8773

Oftentimes

Good

0.8262

Oftentimes

Good

0.9360

Oftentimes

Good

0.8575

Oftentimes

Good

0.8670

Oftentimes

Good

0.9488

Oftentimes

Good

0.8739

Oftentimes

Good

0.8386

Oftentimes

Good

0.8973

Oftentimes

Good

1.0543

Oftentimes

Good

1.0425

Oftentimes

Good

1.2112

Oftentimes

Good

1.2579

Sometimes

Fair

0.7167

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49) Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

78

Operation and Measurement

Table 6 shows the perception of the respondents toward institutions which were
ranked from highest to lowest. All the items in operating and measurement are oftentimes
practiced in higher education institutions except for item 9a which yielded the result of
sometimes. The responses indicated that respondents of institutions were doing
well:The goals are communicated to the employees (M = 4.0872; SD = 0.91136);
Performance measurement is used for: a. improvement (M = 3.9604; SD = 0.9359);
Performance measurement is used for: b. monitoring (M = 3.9480; SD = 0.9174);
Employees understand and agree on work goals (M = 3.9066; SD = 0.8482);
Management coordinates between groups of employees (M= 3.8441; SD = 0.8894);
Performance measurements are aligned with strategy (M = 3.8235; SD = 0.9168);
Employee skills are matched to their work (M = 3.8108; SD = 0.8221); Each
department has the freedom to adapt their goals as needed (M = 3.7884; SD = 0.9688);
Employees have the equipment to do their work (M = 3.7842; SD = 0.8368); Abilities
of employees are matched to their work (M = 3.7630; SD = 0.8890); Performance
measurements are frequently discussed in staff and management meeting (M = 3.7079;
SD = 1.0010); Measurement feedbacks are proactively sought and welcomed (M =
3.6778; SD = 0.9609); Employees contribute with: b. organizational directions (M =
3.6381; SD = 0.9249); Employees work together with outside community to meet
mutual needs (M = 3.5565; SD = 1.0235); Employees contribute with: a. up-to-date

79

information competitors (M = 3.4449; SD = 0.0131) which was interpreted as fair. This

shows that employees contribute with up-to-date information competitors was sometimes
practiced.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of Operation and Measurement
Item
No
Statement
Mean
SD
1
The goals are communicated to
4.0872 0.9113
the employees
6.a
Performance measurement is used 3.9604 0.9359
for: a. improvement.
6.b
Performance measurement is used 3.9480 0.9174
for: b. monitoring.
2
Employees understand and agree
3.9066 0.8482
on work goals
3
Management coordinates between 3.8441 0.8894
groups of employees.
7
Performance measurements are
3.8235 0.9168
aligned with strategy.
12
Employee skills are matched to
3.8108 0.8221
their work.
10
Each department has the freedom 3.7884 0.9688
to adapt to their goals as needed.
13
Employees have the equipment to 3.7842 0.8368
do their work.
11
Abilities of employees are
3.7630 0.8890
matched to their work.
5
Performance measurements are
3.7079 1.0010
frequently discussed in staff and
management meeting.
4
Measurement feedbacks are
3.6778 0.9609
proactively sought and welcomed.
9.b
Employees contribute with: b.
3.6381 0.9249
organizational directions.
8
Employees work together with
3.5565 1.0235
outside community to meet
mutual needs.
9.a
Employees contribute with: a. up- 3.4449 1.0131
to-date information competitors.
Grand Mean and SD for
3.7828 0.7169
Operation and measurement.

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Often times

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Sometimes

Fair

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49) Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

80

The grand mean of 3.7828 with a standard deviation of 0.7169 reveals that the
institutions had good management control system in term of operation and measurement
as perceived by respondents institution. This implies that the institutions oftentimes
follow operation and measurement in accomplishing their goals and objectives.
Result of this study is supported by the study of Anthony and Young (2003) that
demonstrated the three basic measurement categories such as social categories, result
measures, and process measures. The social indicator is a broad measure of output that
reflects the impact of organizations work in the society at large. Social indicators can be
useful in strategic planning, however, in that they can help guide senior managements
decisions about the overall directions the organization should take. Result measures, on
the other hand, attempt to express output in terms that are related to an organizations
objectives. Objectives are stated in measurable terms, and output measures are stated in
these same terms. A result measure relates to an organizations success in attaining its
goals. Furthermore, the process measures (also called a productivity measure) relate to an
activity carried out by the organization. A process measures related to what a
responsibility center or an individual does to help organization achive its objectives.
Thus, process measures help managers gauge efficiency.
According to Oliver (2000), management control systems are standard cost
system, budgets, performance evaluation and quality control. A management control
system operates through a repetition of five squinty steps: (1) Establish standard of
performance, (2) Measure actual performance, (3) Analyze performance and compare it

81

with standard, (4) Construct and implement and action plan, (5) Review and revise
standard.
Reporting and Evaluation
Table 7 shows the perception of respondents on reporting and evaluation which
were ranked from highest to lowest. Items rated oftentimes are: Work accomplishments
are recognized (M = 3.8441; SD = 0.88710);Reports that cover a period of time
facilitate management action (M = 3.7822; SD = 0.8301); Significant information are
reported accurately (M = 3.7588; SD = 0.8785); There is a system for evaluating
employee performance (M = 3.7386; SD = 1.0846); Performance standard is
maintained (M = 3.7089; SD = 0.9214); Work schedule is monitored to ensure that the
task is completed on time (M = 3.6750; SD = 0.9972); Management action is done
promptly (M = 3.6743; SD = 0.9016); Actual performance is reported accurately
according to budget (M = 3.6701; SD = 0.9711); Progressing employees are evaluated
and reported (M = 3.5979; SD = 1.0035); Performance appraisal works well for all (M
= 3.7386; SD = 1.0846); Poor performance is handled sensitively (M = 3.4959). Items
were rated sometimes are: Underlying causes of conflict are solved (M = 3.4570; SD =
0.9709); Employees with good performance are recommended for promotion (M =
3.3929; SD = 1.1219).
The grand mean of 3.6392 with a standard deviation of 0.7894 reveals that the
institutions had good management control system in terms of reporting and evaluation as
perceived by the respondents. This implies that the workers of institutions are oftentimes
responsible for their work done according to their assigned activities in the institutions.

82

Works accomplishments are recognized, reports that cover a period of time facilitate
management action and significant information are reported accurately.

Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of Reporting and Evaluation
Item
No
Statement
Mean
1
Works accomplishments are
recognized.
3.8441
12
Reports that cover a period of
time facilitate management
action.
3.7822
11
Significant information are
reported accurately.
3.7588
3
There is a system for evaluating
employee performance.
3.7386
7
Performance standard is
maintained.
3.7089
6
Work schedule is monitored to
ensure that the task is completed
on time.
3.6750
13
Management action is done
promptly.
3.6743
10
Actual performances are reported
accurately according to budget.
3.6701
8
Progressing employees are
evaluated and reported.
3.5979
4
Performance appraisal works well
for all.
3.5135
2
Poor performance is handled
sensitively.
3.4959
5
Underlying causes of conflicts are
solved.
3.4570
9
Employees with good
performance are recommended
for promotion.
3.3929
Grand Mean and SD for
Reporting and evaluation.
3.6392

SD

Scaled
Responses

Descriptive
interpretation

0.8871

Oftentimes

Good

0.8301

Oftentimes

Good

0.8785

Oftentimes

Good

1.0846

Oftentimes

Good

0.9214

Oftentimes

Good

0.9972

Oftentimes

Good

0.9016

Oftentimes

Good

0.9711

Oftentimes

Good

1.0035

Oftentimes

Good

1.0605

Oftentimes

Good

0.9816

Sometimes

Fair
Fair

0.9709

Sometimes

1.1219

Sometimes

Fair

0.7894

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49) Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

83

The result of this study is supported by the studies of Gibbs, Merchant, Stede, and
Vargus (2005). They said that performance evaluations play important roles in almost all
jobs, from the lowest levels of the organization to the CEO. Subjectivity can be used to
increase the alignment of interest between the performer and the firm, while reducing
performers risk. Scwhartz and Wayne (2005) said that evaluation reports can provide
information on the occurrence of expected changes from the program or policy, the part
of these changes that can be attributed to the program, cost effectiveness of the
intervention, the unintended effects of any and the continued relevance of a goal.

Overall Management Control System

Table 8 shows the overall perception of workers on each dimension of
management control system. The dimensions are arranged from highest to lowest
according to the value of the mean. The management control system of the participating
institution is perceived by their workers as oftentimes practiced by their institution.
The overall mean and standard deviation of management control system as
perceived by the workers as oftentimes by their institution are: strategic planning (M =
4.0466; SD = 0.6717), budget preparation (M = 3.9472; SD = 0.7167), operation and
measurement (M = 3.7828; SD = 0.7169), reporting and evaluation (M = 3.6392; SD
= 0.7894).
The grand mean of overall management control system is 3.8539, with a standard
deviation of 0.6570. The finding indicated that management control system in terms of
strategic planning, budget preparation, operation and measurement, and reporting and

84

evaluation are good. The workers of institutions followed the instructions and procedures
in their job to accomplish organizational objectives.
This study is supported by the study of Ghost (2005) indicated that management
control system is the process by which managers influence other members of their
organization to implement their strategic plan, and also assures that resources are
obtained and used effectively and efficiently in achieving its objectives. The process of
management control is carried on within the framework outlined by strategic planning. It
is intended to achieve the planned objectives as effectively and efficiently as possible
within the given parameter.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Overall Management Control System
Scaled
Mean
SD
Responses
Strategic Planning
4.0466 0.6717 Oftentimes
Budget Preparation
3.9472 0.7167 Oftentimes
Operation and Measurement
3.7828 0.7169 Oftentimes
Reporting and Evaluation
3.6392 0.7894 Oftentimes
Overall for Management Control
3.8539 0.6570 Oftentimes
System

Descriptive
Interpretation
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49) Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Perception of Workers Institutions on

Human Resource Management Practices
Recruitment
The perception of the respondents on recruitment of the four 483 respondents
from nine higher education institutions were ranked from highest to lowest as shown in
Table 9. Table 9 shows respectively, that seven items were rated as oftentimes, three items
sometimes and one item rarely practiced. These items are presented in the following

85

order: The organization prefers to recruit employees who graduated from SDA
institution (M = 4.3536; SD = 0.8230); Recruitment is conducted according to
organizational need (M = 3.8963; SD = 0.9946); Work experiences are considered in
recruitment policies (M = 3.8503; SD = 1.0517); The organization has recruitment
policies (M = 3.8503; SD = 1.0517); Recruitment is included in organizational
planning (M = 3.7396; SD = 1.0490); Applicants applied for a vacancy because of
someone in the organization (M = 3.6709; SD = 1.0178);Candidates are interviewed by
HR personnel (M = 3.5729; SD = 1.2800); The organization indentified and attracted
potential employees (M = 3.5198; SD = 1.0565); The organization has budget for
recruitment (M = 3.4688; SD = 1.1373); Recruiters of organization are HR specialists
(M = 3.3090; SD = 1.2275); The organization periodically turns to outside labor market
to replace employees who leave (M= 2.9000; SD = 1.2266); Vacancy is posted online
(M = 26549; SD = 1.2985); The organization advertises job vacancies through media
(such as daily newspaper, TV, and radio) (M = 2.274; SD = 1.2588)
The grand mean of 3.4686 and a standard deviation of 0.7391 reveal that
recruitment practices were fair. This implies that the institutions oftentimes had
recruitment policies and recruit employees who graduated from SDA institution.
Sometimes the institutions had budget for recruitment, and rarely advertised job
vacancies through media (such newspaper, TV, and radio).
The result of this study supported the recent study of Omolo, Oginda, and Oso
(2012) on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Kisuma Municipality Kenya. The
study found that the overall average performance of SMEs in Kisuma Municipality was
60.71 %. There was a significant positive correlation between recruitment and

86

performance of SMEs. The average performance of SMEs with good recruitment was
81.90 %, with moderate 67.94 %, and poor 53,90 %. Recruitment had a significant effect
on the performance of SMEs.

Table 9
Descriptive Statistics of Recruitment
Item
No
Statement
9
The organization prefers to recruit
employees who graduated from
SDA institution.
1
Recruitment is conducted
according to organizational need.
2
Work experiences are considered
in recruitment.
7
The organization has recruitment
policies.
13
Recruitment is included in
organizational planning.
10
Applicants applied for a vacancy
because of someone in the
organization.
4
Candidates are interviewed by
HR personnel.
12
The organization identified and
attracted potential employees.
6
The organization has budget for
recruitment.
8
Recruiters of organization are HR
specialist.
5
The organization periodically
turns to outside labor market to
replace employees who leave.
11
Vacancy is posted online
3
The organization advertises job
vacancies through media (such as
daily newspaper, TV, radio).
Grand Mean and SD for
Recruitment

Mean
4.3536

SD
0.8230

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

3.8963

0.9946

Oftentimes

Good

3.8815

0,9946

Oftentimes

Good

3.8503

1.0517

Oftentimes

Good

3.7396

1.0490

Oftentimes

Good

3.6709

1.0178

Oftentimes

Good

3.5729

1.2800

Oftentimes

Good

3.5198

1.0565

Oftentimes

Good

3.4688

1.1373

Sometimes

Fair

3.3090

1.2275

Sometimes

Fair

2.9000

1.2266

Sometimes

Fair

2.6549
2.2744

1.2985
1.2588

Sometimes
Rarely

Fair
Poor

3.4686

0.7391

Sometimes

Fair

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

87
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Selection
Most of items shown in Table 10 were rated as oftentimes except items 1, 3, 4 and
8. Items in Selection that were rated oftentimes are: The organization has criteria for
selection (M = 3.8669; SD = 0.99530); Candidates are informed whether they are hired
or not (M = 3.7615; SD = 1.0631); Candidates for hiring are required to undergo
medical examination (M = 3.7505; SD = 1.2154); The organization has a standard
method for selecting candidates (M = 3.7417; SD = 1.1341); Applicants are required to
accomplished application form (M = 3.6674; SD = 1.2969); A background check of
candidate is done in selection (M = 3.6250; SD = 1.1217); Interview is conducted to a
job applicants who passed the initial screening (M = 3.5322) and Selection starts when
enough job applicant have applied (M = 3.2883; SD = 1.2029); Interviews are trained
on how to ask objective questions (M = 3.2104; SD = 1.2686); Applicants are required
to take aptitude test (M = 3.0313; SD = 1.3174); Candidate may negotiate with the
organization regarding salary (M = 2.8212; SD = 1.2488) were interpreted as fair.
The grand mean of 3.4810 and a standard deviation of 0.9167 reveal that selection
practices were fair. The practices that were rated oftentimes clearly indicate that the
institutions set criteria as basis of selection and candidates were asked to undergo medical
checkup, accomplish application form and background check. Institutions sometimes start
selection when enough job applicants have applied, train interviewer, and require
applicants to take aptitude test.
Finding of this study is congruent with Ekuma (2012) study that in the selection
of candidates, the process must be fair and conducted, honestly and courteously with all
applicants and providing framework within which diverse candidates can demonstrate

88

their ability, and should be a primary pursuit of HR practitioners. The employee selection
requirements may emphasize skills and knowledge not easily learned on the job. It is
often wise to select candidates who already have these skills and knowledge rather than
hope a candidate will be able to learn them after hiring, (Billikoff, 2003).
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics of Selection
Item
No
Statement
2
The organization has criteria for
selection.
9
Candidates are informed whether
they are hired or not.
6
Candidates for hiring are required
to undergo medical examination.
11
The organization has a standard
method for selecting candidates.
10
Applicants are required to
accomplish application form.
7
A background check of candidate
is done in selection.
5
Interview is given to job
applicants who passed initial
screening.
1
Selection starts when enough job
applicants have applied.
8
Interviewers are trained on how
to ask objective questions.
3
Applicants are required to take
aptitude test.
4
Candidates may negotiate with
organization regarding salary
Grand Mean and SD for
Selection

Mean
3.8669

SD
0,9953

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

3.7615

1.0631

Oftentimes

Good

3.7505

1.2154

Oftentimes

Good

3.7417

1.1341

Oftentimes

Good

3.6674

1.2969

Oftentimes

Good

3.6250

1.2154

Oftentimes

Good

3.5322

1.2486

Oftentimes

Good

3.2833

1.2029

Sometimes

Fair

3.2104

1.2686

Sometimes

Fair

3.0313

1.3174

Sometimes

Fair

2.8212

1.2261

Sometimes

Fair

3.4810

0.9167

Sometimes

Fair

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Training and Development

The items rated as oftentimes in Table 11 are: In assessing training needs, the
following are considered: a. skill (M = 3.7854; SD = 0.98842); In assessing needs, the

89

following are considered: c. abilities (M = 3.7699; SD = 0.9691); In assessing training

needs, the following are considered: b. knowledge (M = 3.7568; SD = 0.9646);
Employees are helped to acquire knowledge, skill, abilities through training (M =3.617;
SD = 1.0071); Informal training (such as meeting, teaming, customer interaction and
mentoring) is conducted (M = 3.6112; SD = 1.1010); Training and development are
reflected in the organizational budget (M = 3.6042; SD = 1.0901); Training program is
related to personnel career plans (M = 3.5630; SD = 1,07322); Training on skill
improvement is provided (M = 3.5551; SD = 1.0977); Training is recommended by the
department heads of employees (M = 3.5438; SD = 1.0337); There is a process to
assess the training need in the organization (M = 3.5396; SD = 1.0829); Training
programs are communicated to all employees (M = 3.5290; SD = 1.1415); External
training program is given to improve employees performance (M =3.4927; SD =
1.0910) and the items rated as sometimes are: Training programs are well planned (M =
3.4606; SD = 1.0795); Employees participate in assessing their training need (M =
3.4361; SD = 1.1000); There is a continuing program of training for all levels of
employees (M = 3.3617; SD = 1.1442); Result of training program is evaluated (M =
3.2813; SD = 1.1332); Long term training is conducted.
The grand mean of training and development is 3.5370 with a standard deviation
0.8989. This reveals that training and development practices were good. The results
indicated that through training, employees are able to acquire the needed skills, abilities
and knowledge, informal training (such as meeting, teaming, customer interaction and
mentoring) is conducted. Also employees involved in informal training are recommended
by the department heads.

90

The other practices that were rated sometimes imply that training programs were
not regularly planned, employees were not always participating in assessing their training
need and there is a continuing program of training for all levels employees.

Table 11
Descriptive Statistics of Training and Development
Item
No
Statement
Mean
SD
7a
In assessing training needs, the
3.7854 0.9884
following are considered: a. skill.
7c
In assessing training need, the
3.7699 0.9691
following are considered: c.
abilities
7b
In assessing training need, the
3.7568 0.9646
following are considered: b.
knowledge.
13
Employees are helped to acquire
3.6375 1.0071
knowledge, skill, abilities through
training.
10
Informal training (such as
3.6112 1.1010
meeting, teaming , customer
interaction and mentoring) is
conducted.
4
Training and development are
3.6042 1.0901
reflected in the organizational
budget.
6
Training program is related to
3.5630 1.0732
personnel career plans.
1
Training on skill improvement is
3.5551 1.0977
provided.
12
Training is recommended by the
3.5438 1.0337
department heads of employees.
5
There is a process to assess the
3.5396 1.0829
training need in the organization.
3
Training programs are
3.5290 1.1415
communicated to all employees.
9
External training program is
3.4927 1.9010
given to improve employees
performance
2
Training programs are well
3.4606 1.0795
planned.

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Sometimes

Fair

91

8
14

Employees participated in
assessing their training need.
There is a continuing program of
training for all levels of
employees.

3.4361

1.1000

Sometimes

Fair

3.3617

1.1442

Sometimes

Fair

(Table
continuous)

92

Table 11
Descriptive Statistics of Training and Development (continued)
Item
Scaled
No
Statement
Mean
SD
Responses
15
Result of training program is
3.2813 1.1332 Sometimes
evaluated.
11
Long term training is conducted.
3.2017 1.0850 Sometimes
The Grand Mean and SD for
3.5370 0.8989 Oftentimes
Training and development.

Descriptive
interpretation
Fair
Fair
Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

McConnel (2003) described that the training function is becoming an increasingly

important element of organizational and individual employee success. As jobs have
become more technical and organization specific, there are fewer candidates whose
qualifications meet such requirement. The need for pair of hands is diminishing as the
need for technological knowledge and abilities is increasing. New jobs are continually
being created, and new equipment and system are introduced for existing jobs. Some jobs
are vanishing, and many whose jobs are elimated do not have the needed skills for the
positions that are now available.
Performance Management
Table 12 shows the perceptions of the respondents on performance management
which were ranked from highest to lowest. The items in performance management which
were rated oftentimes are:Performance evaluation is needed (M= 4.3077; SD = 0.8719);
Performance evaluation involves: b. superior evaluation (M = 4.0146; SD = 1.0534);
Performance management is helpful for improving individual skill (M = 4.0042; SD =
0.9619); Performance evaluation involves: a. self-evaluation (M = 3.9834; SD =
1.0544); Performance evaluation improves work effectiveness (M = 3.9605; SD =
0.9491); Employee performance is measured based on established standards (M =

93

3.8784; SD = 0.99891); Performance evaluation improves work efficiency (M =

3.8254; SD = 0.9698); Performance evaluation is conducted regularly (M = 3.8087; SD
= 1.0992); Performance evaluation involves: c. peer evaluation (M = 3.7322; SD =
1.1592); Performance evaluation involves: d. client evaluation (M = 3.7259; SD =
1.1764); Performance evaluation is independently conducted (M = 3.7256; SD =
1.0444); I am informed of the result of my evaluation (M = 3.5462; SD = 1.2490), The
items rated sometimes are: Performance evaluation improves my motivation (M =
3.4710; SD = 1.1176); I am satisfied with the existing performance evaluation (M =
3.1521; SD = 1.1593); After performance evaluation, I am given: a. reward (M=
2.6369; SD = 1.2700),
The grand mean of performance management is 3.7181 and the standard deviation
is 1.1176. It is interpreted as good. The finding implies that institutions performance
evaluation for every employee to improve work effectiveness and efficiency was good.
Performance of employees were measured based on established standards, performance
evaluation is helpful for improving individual skills, performance evaluation is conducted
regularly, The findings also reveal that performance evaluation sometimes improved
motivation of employees by giving rewards.
The result of this study is supported by study of Buytendijk (2009). He said that
performance management is more crucial now than it was during the booming years,
accurate insight into what is working, and what is not, may mean the difference between
survival and failure over the next few years. Many organizations need to consider the
focus of their performance management activities.

Table 12

94

Descriptive Statistics of Performance Management

Item
No
Statement
Mean
SD
1
Performance evaluation is
4.3077 0.8719
needed.
4b
Performance evaluation involves: 4.0146 1.0534
b. superior evaluation.
6
Performance evaluation is helpful 4.0042 0.9619
for improving individual skills.
4a
Performance evaluation involves: 3.9834 1.0544
a. self-evaluation.
7
Performance evaluation improves 3.9605 0.9491
work effectiveness.
3
Employee performance is
3.8784 0.9989
measured based on established
standards.
5
Performance evaluation improves 3.8254 0.9698
efficiency.
8
Performance evaluation is
3.8087 1.0992
conducted regularly.
4c
Performance evaluation involves: 3.7322 1.1592
c. peer evaluation.
4d
Performance evaluation involves: 3.7259 1.1764
d. client evaluation.
2
Performance is independently
3.7256 1.0444
conducted.
9
I am informed of the result of my 3.5462 1.2490
evaluation.
12
Performance evaluation improves 3.4710 1.1176
my motivation.
11
I am satisfied with the existing
3.1521 1.1593
performance evaluation system.
10a
After performance evaluation, I
2.6369 1.2700
am given: a. reward.
Grand Mean and SD for
3.7181 1.1176
Performance management

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Sometimes

Fair

Sometimes

Fair

Sometimes

Fair

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49) Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Compensation

95

Table 13 shows the perception of respondents on compensation which were

ranked from highest to lowest. Items in compensation that were rated oftentimes are:
Medical fees are covered by the organization (M = 4.4772; SD = 0.7760): Length of
service influence salary rate (M = 4.0313; SD = 1.0170); Employees receive salaries
according to: a. educational level (M =4.0166; SD = 0.9531); Employees are informed
of their benefit (M = 3.9387; SD = 0.9123); Employees receive salaries according to: b.
work experience (M = 3.8631; SD = 1.0672); The organization is transparent in
determining compensation (M = 3.8441; SD = 0.9888); Employee salaries are adequate
to enhance cost of living (M = 3.8299; SD = 0.9917); The organization explains all
allowance system to employees (M = 3.7563; SD = 1.0647); The organization
communicates to employees any change in pay structure (M = 3.5971; SD = 1.1242);
Current compensation system is competitive (M = 3.5912; SD = 1.0075); Employees
are allowed to have: a. annual pay leave (M = 3.5437; SD = 1.3566); Employees are
given group life insurance (M = 3.5292; SD = 1.2895), and the items rated as sometimes
are: Employees are allowed to have: b. pay service leave (M = 3.3782; SD = 1.3679);
Annual pay increase are linked to performance appraisal rating (M = 3.2458; SD =
1.1572); Employees are paid for overtime work (M = 2.4229; SD = 1.3794).
The grand mean of 3.6710 with a standard deviation of 0.6620 reveals that
compensation practices was good. This indicates that medical fees were covered by the
organization, length of service affected salary and employees receive salary based on
education level and experiences.

Table 13

96

Descriptive Statistics of Compensation

Item
No
Statement
11
Medical fees are covered by the
organization.
13
Length of service is influence
salary rate.
10b
Employees receive salaries
according to: a. educational level
9
Employees are informed of their
benefit.
10a
Employees receive salaries
according to: b. work experience.
12
The organization is transparent in
determining compensation.
8
Employee salaries are adequate to
enhance cost of living.
3
The organization explains all
allowance system to employees.
7
The organization communicates
to employees any change in pay
structure.
4
Current compensation system is
competitive.
2a
Employees are allowed to have: a.
Annual vacation leave with pay.
5
Employees are given group life
insurance.
2b
Employees are allowed to have:
b.Sservice leave with pay.
1
Annual pay is linked to
performance appraisal rating.
6
Employees are paid for overtime
work.
Grand Mean and SD for
Compensation

Mean
4.4772

SD
0.7760

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

4.0313

1.0170

Oftentimes

Good

4.0166

0.9531

Oftentimes

Good

3.9387

0.9123

Oftentimes

Good

3.8631

1.0672

Oftentimes

Good

3.8441

0.9888

Oftentimes

Good

3.8299

0.9917

Oftentimes

Good

3.7563

1.0647

Oftentimes

Good

3.5971

1.1242

Oftentimes

Good

3.5912

1.0075

Oftentimes

Good

3.5437

1.3566

Oftentimes

Good

3.5292

1.2895

Oftentimes

Good

3.3782

1.3679

Sometimes

Fair

3.2458

1.1572

Sometimes

Fair

2.4229

1.3794

Sometimes

Fair

3.6710

0.6620

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

According to the study of Kulik (2001), compensation practices may reflect not
only the organizations business strategy but also the organizations corporate identity and

97

the employees decision to accept a particular amount and form of compensation, as this
reflects his or her aspirations and self- perception.
Relationship
All the items in Table 14 were rated oftentimes except items 6 and 7. The results
of this study indicated that the respondent schools are doing well in dealing with their
workers especially on the following: A friendly atmosphere is promoted in the work
place (M = 4.0603; SD = 0.8986); The workers environment is enjoyable (M =
4.0479; SD = 0.8831); Employees are given a copy of the handbook (M = 3.9772; SD
= 1.1849); There is team work among employees (M = 3.8504; SD = 0.9081);
Organization allows employees opportunities to develop (M = 3.8013; SD = 0.9642);
Organization encourages employees to practice in improving the employee-management
relationship (M = 3.8000; SD = 0.9541); Employees are treated fairly (M = 3.7542;
SD = 1.0336); The HR department handles questions regarding organizational policy
(M = 3.6736; SD = 1.1466); Superiors consider the suggestions of employees (M =
3.6141; SD = 0.9728); As a follower, if I have complaints, my superior calmly explains
what went wrong (M =3.6008; SD = 0.9868); The socialization program is satisfying
(M = 3.5477; SD = 1.0035). The score in items, Employees are given feedback to solve
employees problem ( M = 3.4726; SD = 1.0467) and The HR department addresses
employees dissatisfaction (M = 3.3145; SD = 1.0958) were ranked sometimes.

The grand mean of 3.7319 with a standard deviation of 0.9081 reveals that the
management, relationship its worker was good. It indicates that there was a friendly
atmosphere in the work place and the work environment was enjoyable. There was
teamwork among employees.

98

Table 14
Descriptive Statistics of Relationship
Item
No
Statement
11
A friendly atmosphere is
promoted in the work place.
10
The workers environment is
enjoyable.
1
Employees are given a copy of
the handbook.
13
There is team work among
employees.
9
Organization allows employees
opportunities to develop.
8
Organization encourages
employees to practice in
improving the employeemanagement relationship.
12
Employees are treated fairly.
2
The HR department handles
questions regarding
organizational policy.
4
Superiors consider the
suggestions of employees.
5
As a follower, if I have
complaint, my superior calmly
explains what went wrong.
3
The socialization program is
satisfying.
7
Employees are given feedback to
solve employees problem.
6
The HR department addresses
employees dissatisfaction.
Grand Mean and SD for
Relationship

Mean
4.0603

SD
0.898

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

4.0479

0.8831

Oftentimes

Good

3.9772

1.1849

Oftentimes

Good

3.8504

0.9081

Oftentimes

Good

3.8013

0.9642

Oftentimes

Good

3.8000

0.9541

Oftentimes

Good

3.7542
3.6736

1.0336
1.1466

Oftentimes
Oftentimes

Good
Good

3.6141

0.9728

Oftentimes

Good

3.6008

0.9868

Oftentimes

Good

3.5477

1.0035

Oftentimes

Good

3.4726

1.0467

Sometimes

Fair

3.3145

1.0958

Sometimes

Fair

3.7319

0.9081

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49) Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Findings are supported by the study of Rhee (2004) stating that employees who
have positive employee-organization relationship (i.e., employees who have high level of
commitment) and those who are capable of using symmetrical cultivation strategy
contribute significantly to the development of positive organization-public relationship.
The study also found that when the external publics have positive interactions and

99

develop trusting individual relationships with employees, they tend to evaluate the overall
organization positively. In other words, when employees have positive employeesorganization relationships and employee-public relationships, external publics who
interact with those employees tended to develop positive organization-public relationship.

Overall Human Resource Management Practices

The overall perception of workers of the respondent institutions in each
dimension of human resource management practice are shown in Table 15. The
dimensions are arranged from highest to lowest to the value of the mean. The overall
human resource management practices mean and standard deviation are M = 3.7319 and
SD = 0.7976, respectively, for relationship (M = 3.6710; SD = 0.6620), compensation (M
= 3.6231; SD = 0.7968), performance management (M = 3.5370; SD = 0.8989), training
and development were interpreted as good. Selection (M = 3.4810; SD = 0.9167), and
recruitment (M = 3.4686; SD = 0.7391) were interpreted as fair.
The grand mean of 3.5853 with a standard deviation of 0.6964 revealed that the
overall human resource management practice was good. The findings imply that human
resource management practice was good in relationship, compensation, performance
management, training and development and fair in selection and recruitment.
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics of Overall Human Resource Management Practices
Scaled
Descriptive
Mean
SD
Responses Interpretation
Relationship
3.7319 0.7976 Oftentimes
Good
Compensation
3.6710 0.6620 Oftentimes
Good
Performance Management
3.6231 0.7968 Oftentimes
Good
Training and Development
3.5370 0.8989 Oftentimes
Good

100

Selection
Recruitment
Overall for Human Practice
Management Practice

3.4810
3.4686
3.5854

0.9167 Sometimes
0.7391 Sometimes
0.6964 Oftentimes

Fair
Fair
Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

York (2010) mentioned that the purpose of human resource management (HRM)
is to manage the people who run the organization. Just as organizations must effectively
manage their physical, capital, and information resources, they must also effectively
manage their human resources-the people who run the organization. Organizations must
recruit, select, and retain qualified people to perform important tasks, motivate them, and
train them to maintain and improve their job skills.
He also added that organizations must forecast their human resources needs by
accurately predicting how many people with specific job skills will be needed in the near
future and in the long term. Policies must be established specifying how much each
employee in a specific job will be paid, what percentage of the pay will be based on job
performance, and whether workers in that job will be paid incentives or commission or
salary. Human resource management is concerned with people who work in the
organization to achieve the objectives of organization.

The Level of SDA Higher Education Performance

Learning and Growth
The perception of respondents on learning and growth which were ranked from
highest to lowest are shown in Table 16. The items that were rated oftentimes are:

101

Organization ask employees to do more than one job (M =3.9584; SD = 0.8511);

Organization is encourages employees to share their capabilities to their co-employees
(M = 3.8667; SD = 0.8896); Organization is develops information technology to support
the strategy (M = 3.8372; SD = 0.8633); Organization invites employees to contribute
to the organizations vision (M = 3.8354; SD = 0.9041); Organization encourages
employees to develop innovative service (M = 3.7875; SD = 0.8765); Organization
improves service quality every year (M = 3.7838; SD = 0.8850); Employees are openminded in the organization (M = 3.7775; SD = 0.8364); Organization motivates
employees to improve their competency (M = 3.7458; SD = 0.8702); Skills and jobs
are matched in the organization (M = 3.7000; SD = 0.8723); Employees are recognized
by management for taking initiative (M = 3.6798; SD = 0.9072); Employee satisfaction
is measured in the organization (M = 3.5551; SD = 0.9777); Complete facilities are
available in the organization (M = 3.53543; SD = 0.9350).
The grand mean of 3.7552 and a standard deviation of 0.68965 reveal that the
organizational performance in terms of learning and growth was good. This means that
workers of institutions had more than one job, sharing their capability to co workers and
striving to be innovative and involved in improving outcome

Table 16
Descriptive Statistic of Learning and Growth
Item
No
Statement
Mean
12
Organization asks employees to
3.9584
do more than one job.
8
Organization is encourages
3.8667

SD
0.8511

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

0.8896

Oftentimes

Good

102

9
7
6
1
10
4
11
3
2
5

employees to share their

capabilities to their co-employees.
Organization is develops
information technology to support
the strategy.
Organization invites employees to
contribute to the organizations
vision.
Organization encourages
employees to develop innovative
service.
Organization improves service
quality every year.
Employees are open-minded in
the organization.
Organization motivates
employees to improve their
competency.
Skills and jobs are matched in the
organization.
Employees are recognized by
management for taking initiative.
Employee satisfaction is
measured in the organization.
Complete facilities are available
in the organization.
Grand Mean and SD for
Learning and growth

3.8372

0.8633

Oftentimes

Good

3.8354

0.9041

Oftentimes

Good

3.7875

0.8765

Oftentimes

Good

3.7838

0.8850

Oftentimes

Good

3.7775

0.8364

Oftentimes

Good

3.7458

0.8702

Oftentimes

Good

3.7000

0.8723

Oftentimes

Good

3.6798

0.9072

Oftentimes

Good

3.5551

0.9777

Oftentimes

Good

3.5354

0.9350

Oftentimes

Good

3.7552

0.6895

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

This study supports the study of Sadler, Spicer, and Chaston (2001) indicated
casual relationship between learning and firm growth. Their study showed that higher
growth small manufactures report behaviors that are conducive to lifelong learning.
Business and Production Process
All the items shown in Table 17 which were ranked from highest to lowest are
rated oftentimes except for item 4. These are presented in the following order:
Employees have necessary skills to perform their job (M = 3.9896; SD = 0.7552); The

103

organization has good relation with supplier (M = 3.9583; SD = 0.8034); Employees

submit reports to superior: (M = 3.9419; SD = 0.8906); Employees are willing to accept
change (M = 3.9004; SD = 0.8009); There are standard operating procedures (M =
3.8836; SD = 0.8731); Operational procedures facilitate efficient work (M = 3.8008;
SD = 0.8604); Improvement efforts start after an assessment is conducted (M = 3.7354;
SD = 0.8366); Work activities of employees are continuously monitored (M = 3.7069;
SD = 0.9353); The organization sets clear standards for output (M = 3.6299; SD =
0.9042), and Employees are provided with advanced technology (M = 3.4772; SD =
0.9042) is rated sometimes.
The grand mean of 3.8024 and a standard deviation of 0.6795 reveal that the
organizational performance in term of business and production process is good. This
means that workers of institutions delivered quality in their work outcomes and they had
skills to do their work. Institutions supported their workers with advanced technology to
accomplish their job, had good relation with their suppliers and had standard operating
procedures.
Harmon (2003) stated that business process represents the core of the functioning
of organization because the company primarily consists of process. Business process is
measured at an aggregate level and by the following individual dimensions: process view,
process job, process management, and measurement. Process view involves a focus on
the workflow and process across an organization. Functional roles and title, reflecting the
traditional hierarchical structure, are replaced by owner leaders who are responsible and
accountable for the operation and improvement of the business. Process management,
supplemented with process measure, has as much to do with changing the culture and the

104

way of thinking, as it does with setting process oriented measures and goals for an
organization.
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics of Business and Production Process
Item
No
Statement
Mean
SD
7
Employees have necessary skills
3.9896 0.7552
to perform their job.
1
The organization has good
3.9583 0.8034
relation with suppliers.
9
Employees submit reports to
3.9419 0.8906
superior.
6
Employees are willing to accept
3.9004 0.8009
change.
8
There are standard operating
3.8836 0.8731
procedures.
2
Operational procedures facilitate
3.8008 0.8604
efficient work.
10
Improvement efforts start after an 3.7354 0.8366
assessment is conducted.
3
Work activities of employees are
3.7069 0.9353
continuously monitored.
5
The organization sets clear
3.6299 0.9042
standards for output
4
Employees are provided with
3.4772 0.9814
advanced technology.
Grand Mean and SD for
3.8024 0.6795
Business and Production
Process.

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Oftentimes

Good

Often times

Good

Sometimes

Fair

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Financial
The perception of respondents on financial performance is ranked from highest to
lowest in Table 18. All the items in financial were rated oftentimes and are shown in
following order:The organization pays employees salaries on time (M = 4.3568; SD =
0.7949); The organization avails of government scholarship programs (M = 3.9710; SD

105

= 0.9218); Promotional campaigns are conducted periodically (M = 3.9313; SD =

0.8407); The organization has capacity to settle its financial obligations (M = 3.9170;
SD = 0.8382); Organizational facilities accommodate additional students (M = 3.7967;
SD = 0.8174); Revenue growth is caused by quality service offering (M = 3.7827; SD
= 0.8528); External sources (such as donation, grants, and subsidies) also finance capital
expenditure (M = 3.7755; SD = 0.8992); The ancillary service generates income (M =
3.7271; SD = 0.9123); Effective marketing impacted to a number of students (M =
3.6985; SD = 0.8847); The organization finds new sponsors for student scholarships
(M = 3.6674; SD = 0.8555); The organization implements cost reduction activities (M =
3.6646; SD = 0.8598); The number of enrollment is increased (M = 3.6021; SD =
1.0010); The students are open-minded for fee increases (M =3.5996; SD = 0.8662);
Organization industries increase organizations revenue (M = 3.5854; SD = 0.91382);
Tuition fees are enough to support organizational operation (M = 3.5717; SD = 1.03
The grand mean of 3.7765 and a standard deviation of 0.5734 reveal that the
organizational performance in terms of financial was good. This means that the
institutions were capable of paying the salaries of their employees on time, institutions
availed scholarship from the government, institutions had the capacity to settle their
financial obligations, and revenue growth was also caused by quality service offering.
Table 18
Descriptive Statistics of Financial
Item
No
Statement
15
The organization pays employees
salaries on time
13
The organization avails of
government scholarship
programs.
9
Promotional campaigns are
conducted periodically.

Mean
4.3568

SD
0.7949

Scaled
Responses
Oftentimes

Descriptive
interpretation
Good

3.9710

0.9218

Oftentimes

Good

3.9313

0.8407

Oftentimes

Good

106

14
10
4
5
2
11
8
6
7
12
3
1

The organization has the capacity

to settle its financial obligations.
Organizational facilities
accommodate additional students.
Revenue growth is caused by
quality service offering.
External sources (such as
donation, grants, and subsidies)
also finance capital expenditure.
The ancillary service generates
income.
Effective marketing impacted to a
number of students.
The organization finds new
sponsors for student scholarships.
The organization implements cost
reduction activities.
The number of enrollment is
increased.
The students are open-minded for
fee increases.
Organization industries increase
organizations revenue.
Tuition fees are enough to support
organizational operation.
Grand Mean and SD for
Financial

3.9170

0.8382

Oftentimes

Good

3.7967

0.8174

Oftentimes

Good

3.7827

0.8528

Oftentimes

Good

3.7755

0.8992

Oftentimes

Good

3.7271

0.9123

Oftentimes

Good

3.6985

0.8847

Oftentimes

Good

3.6674

0.8555

Oftentimes

Good

3.6646

0.8598

Oftentimes

Good

3.6021

1.0010

Oftentimes

Good

3.5996

0.8662

Oftentimes

Good

3.5854

0.9138

Oftentimes

Good

3.5717

1.0344

Oftentimes

Good

3.7765

0.5734

Oftentimes

Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49); Fair (2.50 3.49) Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

To verify the perception of the employees of respondent institutions that their

financial standing was good, the researcher requested the division (SSD) to allow the
researcher to look into the financial statements of respondent institutions to conduct
liquidity analysis to find out if the respondent institutions had the capability to meet their
current obligation. Based on current ratio analysis (see Table 19) from the financial
statements of the four respondent institutions, they had capabilities to pay their current
obligations. This means that the perception of the employees with regards to the ability of

107

the respondent institutions in paying their current obligation was confirmed by the
analysis in Table 19.
Table 19
Liquidity Analysis by Current Ratio
Institutions
A
B
C
D

2010
1.74
2.75
1.20
16.08

2011
1.70
3.41
1.25
11.43

Based on Table 20, the overall performance of the 4 schools in term of

profitability, as shown by their average increase, is going better. The increase is higher
than the decrease. Through the significance of the increase can not be measured
statistically. Visually, the increase is more significant than the decrease. Therefore, the
general observation of respondents that the organizational performance of their school
are good, seem to be valid.
Table 20
Profitability Analysis by Net Profit margin
Institutions

2010

2011

A
B
C
D
Average Increased

0.62%
2.56%
-7.08%
-5.73%

-3.11%
10.26%
-1.35%
-6.53%

Increase
(Decrease)
(3.73%)
7.7%
5.73%
(0.8%)
2.225%

The result of this study supports Des, Lumpkin, and Eisner (2007). They stated
that measures of financial performance indicate whether the companys strategy,
implementation, and execution are indeed contributing to bottom-line improvement.
Typical financial goals include profitability, growth, and shareholders value. Periodic
financial statements remind manager that improved quality, response time, productivity,

108

and innovative products benefit the firm only when they result in improved sales,
increased market share, reduced operating expenses, or higher asset turnover.

Overall level of Organizational Performance

The overall level of organizational performance is ranked from highest to lowest
in Table 21. The grand mean of 3.7780 with a standard deviation of 0.5917 revealed that
the overall organizational performance was good. The findings imply that the institutions
were doing well. The workers of institutions were innovative and developing, their
workers had skills and capabilities and the institutions had the ability to generate income.
Table 21
Descriptive Statistics of Overall Level Organizational Performance
Scaled
Mean
SD
Responses
Business and Production Process
3.8024 0.6795 Oftentimes
Financial
3.7765 0.5734 Oftentimes
Learning and Growth
3.7552 0.6895 Oftentimes
Overall for level organizational
3.7780 0.5917 Oftentimes
performance

Descriptive
Interpretation
Good
Good
Good
Good

Legend: Very Good (4.50 5.00); Good (3.50 4.49) Fair (2.50 3.49); Poor (1.50 -2.49);
Very Poor (1.00 1.49)

Relationship between Management Control System

and Organizational Performance
Strategic planning, budget preparation, operating and measurement, reporting and
evaluating are dimensions of management control system that were individually
correlated with learning and growth, business and production process and financial the
dimensions of organizational performance. The Tables shown in this section present the
results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. Results of this study
were evident by their obtained coefficient of correlation (r) and their significance (sig).

109

The correlation coefficient was interpreted (I) according to whether it is significant (S) or
not significant (SN).
Strategic Planning
This section shows whether or not there is a significant relationship between
strategic planning as a dimension of management control system to the dimensions of
organizational performance (learning and growth, business and production process and
financial).
Table 22
Correlation of Strategic Planning and Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
VI
Strategic
0.693*
0.457*
Planning
0.675**
.000
S
*
.000
S
*
.000
S
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 22 shows that strategic planning was significantly related to the following:
learning and growth (r = 0.675); business and production process (r = 0.693); and
financial (r = 0.457). The associated probability is .000 for strategic planning and
significant at 0.01 level. The direction of the relationship is positive indicating that the
more the respondent institutions practiced strategic planning, the more they would attain
learning and growth, better business and production process, and better financial.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that states there is no significant relationship between
strategic planning and the dimensions of organizational performance is rejected.
The result of this study is supported by the study of Arasa and KObonyo (2012)
on organization, from both the private and public sector. It focused on the relationship
between strategic planning and organizational performance, and indicated the existence
of a strong relationship between strategic planning and firms organization. Similarly, an

110

empirical research conducted in Jourdanian hotels in two cities (Aqaba and Petra)
quessionnaires were distributed to hotel managers found that strategic planning processes
achieved a good fit (or alignment) between the environment and internal capability of
organization, followed by formal strategic planning is an effective way to achieve
improved financial performance. (Aldehyyat, & Al khattab, 2011).
Budget Preparation
This section presents whether there existed a significant relationship between
budget preparation as dimension of management control system to learning and growth,
business and production process and financial as measures of organizational performance.
Table 23 shows that budget preparation was significantly related to the following:
learning and growth (r =0.665); business and production process (r =0.694); financial (r =
0.495). The associated probability is .000 for budget preparation and significant at 0.001
level. The direction of the relationship is positive, indicating that the better the budget
preparation is practiced, the better the learning and growth, business and production
process, and financial of organization. Therefore the null hypothesis that states there is
no significant relationship between budget preparation and each dimension of
organizational performance is rejected.
Table 23
Correlation of Budget Preparation and Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
VI
Budget
0.495*
Preparation 0.665** .000
S
0.694** .000
S
*
.000
S
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Result of this study was confirm by Silva and Jayamaha (2012) study. They
found that budgetary process have significant associations with the organizational

111

performance of apparel industry in Sri Lanka. This confirms that efficient apparel
companies maintain sound budgetary process which contributes to higher levels of
organizational performance. Shastri and Karen (2008) indicated that the majority of
respondents believe that the budget is usefulas it relates to the list of business
objectives. Traditionally, the budget was considered to be important for planning and
control purpose only. The mere fact is that the budget preparation indicated is also useful
for other functions such as strategic planning, communication, team work, and incentive
rewards determinations.
Operation and Measurement
This section shows whether or not there is a significant relationship between
operating and measurement as dimension of management control system to learning and
growth, business and production process, and financial.
Table 24
Correlation of Operation and Measurement, and Dimensions of Organizational
Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
VI
Operation
and
0.723*
Measurement 0.756** .000
S
*
.000
S
0.576** .000
S
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-taile

Table 24 shows that operation and measurement was significantly related to the
following: learning and growth (r = 0.756); business and production process (r = 0.723);
financial (r = 0.576). The direction of relationship of all the three dimensions of
organizational performance is positive indicating that the more the operation and
measurement is practiced, the more the employees institutions would attain learning and
growth, business and production process, and financial, respectively. Therefore, the null

112

hypothesis that states there is no significant relationship between operation and

measurement, and each dimension of organizational performance is rejected.
This study conforms to the study conducted by Garrea, Ilies, and Stegerean (2011)
in over 135 manufacturing companies in Rome Italy. They found out that there was a
strong relationship between the performance measurement and organizational
performance.
Reporting and Evaluation
This section presents whether there exists a significant relationship between
reporting and evaluating as dimension of management control system to learning and
growth, business and production process, and financial as dimensions of organizational
performance.
Table 25
Correlation of Reporting and Evaluation, and Dimensions
of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
VI
R
Sig
Reporting
and
Evaluatio
0.723*
n
0.756**
.000
S
*
.000
S
0.576** .000

VI

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 25 shows that reporting and evaluation was significantly related to the
following: learning and growth (r = 0.758); business and production process (r = 0.763);
financial (r = 0.578). The associated probability is .000 for reporting and evaluation, and
significant at 0.01 level. The direction of the relationship is positive indicating that the
more reporting and evaluation, the more learning and growth, business and production
process, and financial. The null hypothesis that states there is no significant relationship
between reporting and evaluation, and each dimension of organizational performance is
rejected.

113
The result of this study support the studies of Donnirimata and Gunawan (2006) in

Perusahaan Terbatas (PT) Indonesia Jamsostek indicated that regular evaluation exercised
in the company leveraged the performance of employees in the organization. Another
study by Jacob (2004) found that there is a significant discounting effect in performance
evaluations-based budgets and financial outcomes. Judgments of performance when
financial outcomes are unfavorable and outcome facilitating situational factors were
present. There was a shift upwards in the face of outcome-inhibiting situational factors.
Similar downward adjustments in performance evaluation do not occur when financial
results are unfavorable and outcome facilitating situational factors are present. Kurniasari
(2012) conducted a study on insurance companies listed in Jakarta Stock Exchange which
found that financial reporting and evaluating significantly
influence firms performance.

Correlation of the Overall Management Control System and Individual

Dimension of Organizational Performance
Table 26
Correlation of Overall Management Control System and
Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
VI
R
Sig
Managemen
t Control
0.793*
0.583*
System
0.788** .000
S
*
.000
S
*
.000

VI
S

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 26 presents the correlation of management control system to the dimensions

of organizational performance as follows: learning and growth (r = 0.788); business and

114

production process (r = 0.793); financial (r = 0.583). The associated probability is .000

for the overall management control system and significant at .01 levels..
The direction of the relationship of management control system to learning and
growth, business and production process, and financial was positive. It implies that better
management control system means better organizational performance in terms of learning
and growth, business and production process, and financial. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that states there is no significant relationship between management control
system and each dimension of organizational performance is rejected.
Relationship Management Control System to Organizational Performance.
The results in Table 27, show that management control system (r = 0.798);
strategic planning (r = 6.75); budget preparation (r = 0.684); operation and measurement
(r = 0.756), and reporting and evaluation (r =0.773) are significantly related to
organizational performance. The associated probability is .000 for management control
system which is significant at .01 levels.
Table 27
Correlation Management Control System to Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
R
Sig
Strategic Planning
0.675**
.000
Budget Preparation
0.684**
.000
Operation and Measurement
0.756**
.000
Reporting and Evaluation
0.773**
.000
Management Control System
0.798**
.000

I
S
S
S
S
S

**correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

As indicated in Table 27, management control system in terms of strategic

planning, budget preparation, operation and measurement, and reporting and evaluation is
significantly related to organizational performance. Thus, the hypothesis that states there
is no significant relationship between the dimensions of management control system and
organizational performance is rejected.

115

This study is supported by the study of Purnamasari (2006) at Indonesia Railway

Company Limited which showed that the structure and process of management control
system have a simultaneous positive correlation with financial performance. This means
that the company financial performance is strongly determined by the system of
management control of structure and process and the process of management control
system has positive correlation with financial performance
Relationship between Human Resources Management Practices
and Organizational Performance
Recruitment, selection, training and development, performance management,
compensation, relationship as dimensions of human resources management practice were
individually correlated with learning and growth, business and production process, and
financial as dimensions of organizational performance. The table shown in this section
presents the results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. Results of
this study were evident by the obtained coefficient of correlation and their significant
(sig). The verbal interpretation, VI of the correlation coefficient was interpreted S or NS
according to whether it is significant or not significant.
Recruitment
This section shows whether or not there is a significant relationship between
recruitment as dimension of human resource management practice to the dimensions of
organizational performance (learning and growth, business and production process and
financial).
Table 28
Correlation of Recruitment, and Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
Sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig

VI

116

Recruitment

0.692**

.000

0.693**

.000

0.581*
*

.000

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 28 shows that recruitment was significantly related to the following:

learning and growth (r =0.691); business and production process (r = 0.693); and
financial (r = 0.581). The associated probability is .000 for recruitment and significant at
0.01 level. The direction of the relationship is positive indicating that the more the
institutions practiced recruitment, the more institution would attain learning and growth,
business and production process, and financial. Therefore, the null hypothesis that states
there is no significant relationship between recruitment and each dimension of
organizational performance is rejected.
The result of this study supports the finding of Tespstra and Rozel (1993), that
staffing practices such as recruitment and selection were significantly related to annual
profit and profit growth across all industries. However, the strength of relationship
between the use the staffing practices and organizational performance was found to vary
by industry type.
Selection
The results shown in Table 29 revealed a positive correlation between selection as
dimension of human resources management practice and organizational performance in
terms of the following: learning and growth (r = 0.666); business and production process
(r = 0.685); and financial (r = 0.451). The associated probability is 0.000 for selection and
significant at 0.01 levels. The direction of the correlation indicates that the better the
selection is practiced, the better the learning and growth, business and production
process, and financial of the respondent institutions. Thus, the null hypothesis that states
there is no significant relationship between selection and each dimension of
organizational performance is rejected.
Table 29

117

Correlation of Selection and dimensions of Organizational Performance

Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
Sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
0.685*
Selection
0.666**
.000
S
*
.000
S
0.451** .000

VI
S

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The study is supported by the study conducted by Chad, Ferres, Perrewe,

Perryman, Blass, and Heetderks (2009). There study showed that selection procedures
affected the different aspects of organization performance overtime, and also affected the
financial performance of organization.
Training and Development
This section presents whether training and development as dimension of human
resource management practice is significantly related to the dimensions of organizational
performance. Table 30 shows that selection was significantly related to the following:
learning and growth (r = 0.770); business and production process (r = 0.741); and
financial (r = 0.545). The associated probability is .000 for training and development and
significant at 0.01 level. The direction of the relationship is positive indicating that the
more training and development, the more learning and growth, business and production
process, and financial. The null hypothesis that states there is no significant relationship
between training and development, and each dimension of organizational performance is
rejected.
Table 30
Correlation of Training and Development, and Dimensions
of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
Sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
sig
Training and
Developmen
0.741*
0.545*
t
0.770** .000
S
*
.000
S
*
.000

VI
S

118
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Result of this study is consistent with the result of study conducted by Gafoor,
Ahmed, and Aslan (2011). They reported that training and development have significant
effect on organizational performance. It means that there was an increase in the overall
organizational performance.
Performance Management
The result of this study in Table 31 indicates a positive correlation between
performance management as dimension of human resource management and the
individual dimension of organizational performance such as learning and growth (r =
0.724); business and production process (r = 0.717); and financial (r = 0.530) exists. The
associated probability is .000 for performance management and it is significant at 0.01
level. The direction is positive indicating that the better the performance management, the
better the organizational performance in terms of learning and growth, business and
production process, and financial. Therefore, the null hypothesis that states there is no
significant relationship between performance management and each dimension of
organizational performance is rejected.
Table 31
Correlation of Performance Management and dimensions
of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
Sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
Performance
Managemen
0.717*
0.530*
t
0.724** .000
S
*
.000
S
*
.000

VI
S

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

This study is supported by the research of Homayounizad and Bager (2012). The
study found that majority of the respondents (38%) agree that performance management
system determines productivity level of their organization and majority of the
respondents (40%) believe that performance management system determines the

119

efficiency level of the organization. Gunaratne and Plessis (2007) conducted a study on
performance management system. The study revealed that implementing a performance
management system that people understand and believe in will provide a powerful
foundation for employees to achieve their ambitions and organizations to achieve their
key financial goals.
Compensation
Table 32 shows that compensation was significantly related to the following:
learning and growth (r = 0.677); business and production process (r = 0.607); and
financial (r = 580). The associated probability is .000 for compensation and it is
significant at 0.01 level. The direction of the relationship is positive indicating that the
better the compensation means better learning and growth, business and production
process, and financial. The null hypothesis that states there is no significant relationship
between compensation and each dimension of organization performance is rejected.
Table 32
Correlation of Compensation and Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
VI
Compensatio
n
0.677** .000
S 0.607** .000
S 0.580** .000
S
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The result of this study conforms to the research of Jave, Khan, Azam, and

Iqbal (2010) conducted a research about employees compensation and organizations

financial performance which found that employee compensation is linked to subsequent
performance and suggested that firms should use effective compensational strategies to
boost firms financial position. According to the study of Kulik (2001), compensation
practices may reflect not only the organizations business strategy but also the
organizations corporate identity of the employees decision to accept a particular amount

120

and form of compensation, reflecting his or her aspirations and self-perception.

Mohammad, May, and Maw (2009) stated that incentives are positively related to
organizational performance.
Relationship
The results of this study in Table 33 show that the relationship was significantly
related to learning and growth (r = 0.826); business and production process (r =
0.793);and financial (r = 0.600). The associated probability for relationship is .000, and it
is significant at 0.01 level. The direction of the relationship is positive indicating that the
better the relationship, the better the organizational performance in terms of learning and
growth, business and production process, and financial. The null hypothesis that states
there is no significant relationship between relationship and each dimension of
organizational performance is rejected.
Table 33
Correlation of Relationship and dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
Sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
Relationshi
0.600*
p
0.826** .000
S
0.793** .000
S
*
.000

VI
S

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The finding of this study is confirmed by study of Rhee (2004) mentioned that
stating the employees who have positive employee-organization relationship (i.e.,
employees who have high level of commitment) and those who are capable of using
symmetrical cultivation strategies contribute significantly to the development of positive
organization-public relationship. The study also found that when the external publics
have positive interactions and develop trusting individual relationships with employees,
they tend to evaluate the overall organization positively. In other words, when employees

121

have positive employees-organization relationships and employee-public relationships,

external publics who interact with those employees tended to develop positive
organization-public relationship.
Correlation of the Overall Human Resources Management Practice
and Individual Dimension of Organizational Performance
Table 34 presents the correlation between human resource management practices
and each dimensions of organizational performance. Human resource management
practices is significantly related to learning and growth (r = 0.837); business and
production process (r = 0.817); and financial (r = 0.626). Associated probability of .000
which is significant at 0.01 level.
Table 34
Correlation of the overall Human Resource Management Practices
and dimensions of Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
Learning and Growth
Business and
Financial
Production Process
R
Sig
VI
R
sig
VI
R
Sig
Human
Resource
Managemen
0.817*
0.626*
t Practices
0.837** .000
S
*
.000
S
*
.000

VI

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The direction of the relationship is positive. It implies that the better is the human
resource management practices, the better the organizational performance of the
respondent institutions in terms of learning and growth, business process and production ,
and financial. Therefore, the null hypothesis that states there is no significant
relationship between human resource management practices and each dimension of
organizational performance is rejected.
Relationship of the Overall Human Resource Management
Practice to Organizational Performance

122

The result in Table 35 Shows that human resource management and its
dimensions: practices (r = 0.840), recruitment (R = 0.722), selection (r = 0.666), training
and development (r = 0.759), performance management (r = 0.727), compensation (r =
0.683), relationship (r = 0.818) are significantly related to the organizational
performance.
Table 35
Correlation of the Overall Human Resource Management
Practice to Organizational Performance
Organizational Performance
R
Sig
Recruitment
0.722*
.000
Selection
*
.000
Training and Development
0.666*
.000
Performance Management
*
.000
Compensation
0.759*
.000
Relationship
*
.000
Human Resource Management
0.727*
.000
Practice
*
0.683*
*
0.818*
*
0.840*
*

VI
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

**correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The direction of the relationship between human resource management practice,

and organizational performance was positive; this implies that the better the human
resource management practices in term of recruitment, selection, training and
development, performance management, compensation, relationship, the better the
organizational performance of the respondent institutions.
As indicated in the table, there is a significant relationship of human resource
management practices to the overall organizational performance. Thus, the hypothesis
that states there is no significant relationship between the overall human resource
management practice to the overall organizational performance is rejected.

123

The finding of this research support the study conducted by Khan (2010) on oil
and gas industry in Pakistan. A total of 150 managers of 20 randomly selected firms
found that all HRM practices have positive and significant influence on the firm
performance. The empirical results indicated that Pakistan organizations, both public and
private sectors, are integrating HRM practices in organizational strategy to improve
business performance and remain competitive.
Difference in the Level of Organization Performance
when Respondents Profile is considered.
In this section, this study tested if there is a significant difference in the level of
organizational performance considering the respondents profile such as age, educational
attainment, position, and length of service, where the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was
used.
Age
Table 36 shows statistical results regarding the level of organizational
performance when the age of respondents is considered. The F ratio of 1.131 and Sig =
0.324 indicate that the means of different classifications of age did not differ significantly
in terms of organizational performance. This means that when respondents are grouped
according to age, do their perceptions on the level of organizational performance are
same.
When the dimensions of organizational performance were considered, the test
results in Table 38 show the same, the values of significance are more than 0.05. This
implies that age as a variable is not a factor to cause differences on organizational
performance in learning and growth, business and production process, and financial
dimensions. Thus, the null hypothesis that states There is no significant difference in
level of organizational performance when age is considered is accepted.

124

The result of this study is related to Felicianos (2011) study. He found that
organizational performance does not significantly vary when age of respondents is
considered. This means that age as variable is not a factor to cause differences in the
organizational performance as perceived by the respondents.
Table 36
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA of by Age Classification
on Organizational Performance
N
Mean
Std
Deviation
Learning and Growth
39 years and below
164 3.7205
0.72900
40 49 years
164 3.7167
0.69319
50 years and above
153 3.8294
0.64242
Business and Production Process
39 years and below
164 3.7668
0.70553
40 49 years
164 3.7657
0.66252
50 years and above
153 3.8741
0.66966
Financial
39 years and below
164 3.7451
0.55116
40 49 years
164 3.7798
0.59254
50 years and above
153 3.8041
0.58052
Organizational Performance
39 years and below
164 3.7441
0.61417
40 49 years
164 3.7541
0.58305
50 years and above
153 3.8359
0.57799

F
Value

Sig.

VI

1.346

0.261

NS

1.313

0.270

NS

0.424

0.655

NS

1.131

0.324

NS

I = Verbal Interpretation, NS = Not Significant, S= Significant; The mean difference is significant at the
0.05 level.

Educational Attainment
Table 37 shows the statistical results regarding the level of organizational
performance when the educational attainment of respondents is considered. Based on
ANOVA results, organizational performance (F = 0.747, Sig = 0.388) does not
significantly vary when the educational attainment of respondents is considered. This
implies that each mean of educational attainment classification does not differ each other.
hence educational attainment as a variable is not factor to cause differences in the
organizational performance, as perceived by respondents.

125

When the dimensions of organizational performance were considered in the test,

the test results in Table 37 show the same, the values of significance are more than 0.05.
This mean that respondents when grouped according to educational attainment did not
significantly vary in their perception on the level of organization performance in learning
and growth, business and production process, and financial. Thus, the null hypothesis that
states There is no significant difference in the level of performance of the subject
organizations when educational attainment is considered is accepted.
Table 37
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA of Educational Attainment
on Organizational Performance
N
Mean
Std
Deviation
Learning and Growth
At most Baccalaureate Degree
220 3.7090
0.66649
Post Baccalaureate Degree
250 3.7912
0.71627
Business and Production Process
At most Baccalaureate Degree
220 3.7774
0.64481
Post Baccalaureate Degree
250 3.8119
0.71438
Financial
At most Baccalaureate Degree
220 3.7218
0.56295
Post Baccalaureate Degree
250 3.8140
0.58320
Organizational Performance
At most Baccalaureate Degree
220 3.7361
0.56880
Post Baccalaureate Degree
250 3.8057
0.61448

F
Value

Sig.

VI

1.073

0.301

NS

0.852

0.357

NS

0.445

0.505

NS

0.747

0.388

NS

I = Verbal Interpretation, NS = Not Significant, S= Significant; The mean difference is significant at the
0.05 level.

The result of this study is similar to the findings of Feliciano (2011), that there
was no significant variation in their perception of organizational performance when
educational attainment of respondents was considered (sig = 0.129). This means that
educational attainment is not factor to cause difference in the perception of respondents
pertaining to the organizational performance.
Position
Table 38 shows the statistical results regarding the level of organizational
performance when the position of respondents is considered. The F ratio of 0.158 and

126

Sig = 0.854 do not significantly vary when the position of respondents is considered. This
means that the respondents, when grouped according to position, did not significantly
vary in their perceptions on the level of organizational performance.
Therefore when the dimensions of organizational performance were considered,
the test results in Table 38 show the same, the values of significance are more than 0.05.
This implies that position as a variable is not a factor to cause differences on
organizational performance in learning and growth, business and production process and
financial dimensions. Thus, the null hypothesis that states There is no significant
difference in level of organizational performance when position is considered is
accepted.
Table 38
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA of Position
on Organizational Performance
N
Mean
Learning and Growth
Head of department/Administrator
Faculty
Staff
Business and Production Process
Head of department/Administrator
Faculty
Staff
Financial
Head of department/Administrator
Faculty
Staff
Organizational
Head of department /Administrator
Faculty
Staff

Std
Deviation

F
Value

Sig.

VI

132
201
144

3.7875
3.7211
3.7504

0.74491
0.66176
0.68114

0.377

0.686

NS

132
201
144

3.7848
3.7867
3.8252

0.72412
0.67428
0.64986

0.167

0.846

NS

132
201
144

3.7740
3.7605
3.7884

0.62918
0.55599
0.54632

0.099

0.905

NS

132
201
144

3.7821
3.7561
3.7903

0.64637
0.57363
0.56683

0.158

0.854

NS

I = Verbal Interpretation, NS = Not Significant, S= Significant; The mean difference is significant at the
0.05 level.

The results of this study contradict the study of Goll and Rasheed (2005). Their
study revealed that position in organization influences rational decision making and

127

rational decision making influences high profitability performance. Meanwhile, Paguia

(2013) stated that rank and file employee and administrator or manager respondent did
not vary in their perceptions on customer service, financial perspectives, business
processes, and employee satisfactions.
Length of Service
Table 39 shows the statistical results regarding the level of organizational
performance when the length of service of respondents is considered. Based on ANOVA
results, organizational performance (F = 0.631, Sig = 0.676) does not significantly vary
when the length of services is considered. This means that length of service as a variable
is not a factor to cause differences in the organizational performance, as perceived by
respondents.
When the dimensions of organizational performance were considered, the test
results in Table 39 show the same, the values of significance are more than 0.05. This
implies that length of service as a variable is not a factor to cause differences on
organizational performance in learning and growth, business and production process and
financial dimensions. Thus, the null hypothesis that states There is no significant
difference in level of organizational performance when length of service is considered is
accepted.
The results of this study support the study of Carpizo (2008). He found that the
level of performance was not significantly different when the length of service of
respondent is considered, where the significance value was 0.228. This means that the
respondent when grouped according to length of service does not significantly vary in
their perception on the level of organizational performance.
Table 39
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA of Length of Service
on Organizational Performance

128

Learning and Growth

5 years and below
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 20 years
21 25 years
26 years and above
Business and Production Process
5 years and below
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 20 years
21 25 years
26 years and above
Financial
5 years and below
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 20 years
21 25 years
26 years and above
Organizational Performance
5 years and below
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 20 years
21 25 years
26 years and above

Mean

Std
Deviation

83
98
74
63
69
92

3.7166
3.7531
3.7102
3.6455
3.8519
3.8160

0.75377
0.75053
0.59648
0.66363
0.68997
0.66102

83
98
74
63
69
92

3.7525
3.8295
3.7050
3.7683
3.8976
3.8326

0.66642
0.69717
0.66975
0.66595
0.66921
0.70976

83
98
74
63
69
92

3.8500
3.7936
3.8119
3.6134
3.7745
3.7662

0.52073
0.65460
0.51339
0.55789
0.53937
0.60854

83
98
74
63
69
92

3.7730
3.7921
3.7424
3.6757
3.8413
3.8049

0.60964
0.64973
0.51746
0.56316
0.58386
0.60521

F
Value

Sig.

VI

0.841

0.521

NS

0.755

0.582

NS

1.368

0.235

NS

0.631

0.676

NS

I = Verbal Interpretation, NS = Not Significant, S= Significant; The mean difference is significant at the
0.05 level.

Predictors of Organizational Performance

This section shows the results of regression coefficients as to which of the
indicators of management control system and human resource management practices are
predictors of organizational performance in terms of learning and growth, business and
production process, and financial.
Learning and Growth

129

Table 40 shows the data that identifies which of the four dimensions of
management control system and the six dimensions of human resource management
practice best predicts learning and growth.
The first model showed that relationship is a predictor of learning and growth as
indicated by R Square (0.682) and R (0.826) which is significant at 0.000. R (0.826)
indicates relationship while R Square (0.682) indicates the magnitude of variance in
learning and growth performance that can be explained by relationship. An R Square of
0.682 means that 68.2% of the variation in learning and growth can be explained by
relationship. As a predictor, it can predict 68.2% of the variation in learning and growth.
The second model shows two predictors: relationship, and operation and
measurement. When both are joined as one predictor, the R is 0.854 and the R Square is
0.729. This means that when relationship, and operation and measurement are treated as
one predictor, they predict 72.9% of variation in learning and growth. When operation
and measurement is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.047. The R Square
(0.047) of operation and measurement is also indicated in R Square Change. If
used as separate indicator, it explains only 4.7% of the variation in learning and growth.
Therefore the two predictors that make up the second model are relationship, and
operation and measurement.
The third model identifies three (3) predictors. These are relationship, operation
and measurement and training and development. When the three predictors are taken as
one, the R value was 0.863 and the R Square value was 0.744. They explain 74.4% of the
variation in learning and growth. The training and development is 0.016 in the total R
Square change. If used as separate indicators, than only 1.6% of the variation in learning
and growth.
Table 40
Regression Analysis for Learning and Growth
Model
R
R
Adjusted

Std

R2

Sig.

130

1
2
3
4
5

0.826
0.854b
0.863c
0.869d
0.871e

Square
0.682
0.729
0.744
0.755
0.759

R Square
0.681
0.728
0.743
0.753
0.756

Error
0.38952
0.35985
0.34972
0.34303
0.34036

Change
0.682
0.047
0.016
0.010
0.004

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004

a. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship; b. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement;

c. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Training and Development; d.
Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Training and Development,
Compensation; e. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Training and
Development, Compensation, Strategic Planning.

The fourth model shows four predictors: relationship, operation and measurement,
training and development compensation. When all are joined as one predictor, the R is
0.869 and R Square is 0.755. This means that when relationship, operation and
measurement, training and development and compensation are treated as one predictor,
they account or predict 75.5% of the variation in learning and growth. When
compensation is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.011. The R Square
(0.011) of compensation is also indicated in R Square Change. The R Square implies that
compensation can predict 1.1% of the variation in learning and growth. Therefore the
four predictors that make up the fourth model are relationship, operation and
measurement, training and development, and compensation.
The final model indicated in Table 40 is model five. The model identifies five
predictors. These are relationship, operation and measurement, training and development,
compensation, and strategic planning. When the five predictors are taken as one, the R
Square value was 0.871 and the R Square value was 0.759. They explain 75.9% of the
variation in learning and growth. When strategic planning is treated as a separate
predictor, the R Square is 0.005. The R Square implies that strategic planning can predict
0.5% of the variation in learning and growth.
Another regression model that is very important in this section is Table 41 that
shows the regression coefficients. The regression coefficients (B) of the predictor that are

131

very important in predicting learning and growth are shown in the final model (model 5).
The regression coefficient of relationship (B = 0.339), operation and measurement (B =
0.157), training and development (B = 0.146), compensation (B = 0.149), and strategic
planning (B = 0.104) reveals that for each unit increase in the measure of relationship,
operation and measurement, training and development, compensation, strategic planning,
the score of learning and growth would increase by 0.339, 0.157, 0.146, 0.149, and 0.104
points, respectively
The resulting regression model used to predict the value of learning and growth
performance is: LG = 0.413 + 0.339*R + 0.157*OM + 0.146*TD + 0.149*C + 0.104*SP.
Where LG is learning and growth: R, relationship: OM, operation and measurement: C,
compensation: SP, strategic planning.
Table 41
Regression Coefficient
Unstandardized
coefficient
Std.
B
Model
Error
(Constant)
0.413
0.108
Relationship
0.339
0.036
Operating and Measurement
0.157
0.040
Training and Development
0.146
0.031
Compensation
0.149
0.033
Strategic Planning
0.104
0.035

Standardized
Coefficient
Beta

Sig

0.393
0.163
0.191
0.143
0.101

3.811
9.349
3.923
4.763
4.486
2.923

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004

Dependent Variable: Learning and Growth

Based on the finding discussed above, relationship, operation and measurement,

training and development, compensation, and strategic planning are good predictors of
learning and growth, and the best predictor of these five is relationship.
Business and Production Process
Table 42 shows that relationship, reporting and evaluation, strategic planning as
dimension of management control system and training and development, and
performance management as dimensions of human resource management practices were
predictors of business and production process.

132

The first model showed that relationship is a predictor of business and production
process as indicated by R Square (0.629) and R (0.793) which is significant at 0.000. R
(0.793) indicates relationship while R Square (0.629) indicates the magnitude of variance
in business and production process that can be explained by relationship. An R Square of
0.629 means that 62.9% of the variation in business and production process can be
explained by relationship. As a predictor, it can predict 62.9% of the variation in business
and production process.
The second model shows two (2) predictors; relationship, and reporting and
evaluation. When both are joined as one predictor, the R is 0.828 and the R Square is
0.686. This means that when relationship, and reporting and evaluation are treated as one
predictor, they predict 68.6% of variation in business and production process. When
reporting and evaluation is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.057. The R
Square (0.057) of reporting and evaluation is also indicated in R Square Change. If used
as a separate indicate, it explains only 5.7% of the variation in business and production
process.
The third model identifies three (3) predictors. These are relationship, reporting
and evaluation, and strategic planning. When the three predictors are taken as one, the R
value was 0.840 and the R Square value was 0.705. They explain 70.5% of the variation
business and production process. The strategic planning is 0.019 in the total R Square. If
used as a separate indicator, it explains only 1.9% of the variation in business and
production process.
Table 42
Regression Analysis for Business and Production Process
Model
R
Adjusted
Std
R
Square R Square
Error
1
0.793a
0.629
0.628
0.41421
2
0.828b
0.686
0.685
0.38166
c
3
0.840
0.705
0.703
0.37040

R2
Change
0.629
0.057
0.019

Sig.
0.000
0.000
0.000

133

4
5

0.846d
0.847e

0.716
0.718

0.713
0.715

0.36393
0.36281

0.011
0.002

0.000
0.047

a. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship; b. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Reporting and Evaluation; c.

Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Reporting and Evaluation, Strategic Planning; d. Predictor: (Constant),
Relationship, Reporting and Evaluation, Strategic Planning, Training and Development; e. Predictor:
(Constant), Relationship, Reporting and Evaluation, Strategic Planning, Training and Development,
Performance Management.

The fourth model shows four predictors: relationship, reporting and evaluation,
strategic planning, training and development. When all are joined as one predictor, the R
is 0.846 and R Square is 0.716, this means that when relationship, reporting and
evaluation, strategic planning, and training and development are treated as one predictor,
they account or predict 71.6% of the variation in business and production process. When
training and development is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0. 011. The R
Square (0.011) of training and development is also indicated in R Square Change. The R
Square implies that training and development can predict 1.1% of the variation in
business and production process. Therefore the four predictors that make up the fourth
model are relationship, reporting and evaluation, strategic planning, and training and
development.
The final model indicated in Table 42 is model five. The model identifies five
predictors. These are relationship, reporting and evaluation, strategic planning, training
and development, performance management. When the five predictors are taken as one,
the R Square value was 0.847 and the R Square value was 0.718. They explain 71.8% of
the variation in business and production process. When performance management is
treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.002. The R Square implies that
performance management can predict 0.2% of the variation in business and production
process. Therefore the five predictors that make up the final model are relationship,

134

reporting and evaluation, strategic planning, training and development, and performance
management.
Table 43
Regression Coefficient

Model
(Constant)
Relationship
Reporting and Evaluation
Strategic Planning
Training and Development
Performance Management

Unstandardized
coefficient
Std.
B
Error
0.708
0.104
0.298
0.038
0.170
0.039
0.175
0.037
0.111
0.034
0.073
0.037

Standardized
Coefficient
Beta

Sig

0.349
0.197
0.173
0.146
0.086

6.809
7.735
4.364
4.739
3.289
1.988

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.047

Dependent Variable: Business and production process

In terms of business and production process performance, Table 43 presents

regression coefficients (B) of relationship (0.298), reporting and evaluating (0.170),
strategic planning (0.175), training and development (0.111), performance management
(0.073). They indicate that for each unit increase in the measure of relationship, reporting
and evaluating, strategic planning, training and development, performance management,
the score of business and production process will increase by 0.297, 0.170, 0.175, 0.111,
and 0.073, respectively.
The resulting regression model used to predict the value of business process and
production performance is: BPP = 0.708 + 0.298*R + 0.170*RE + 0.175*SP + 0.111*TD
+ 0.073*PM. Where BPP is business and production process; R, relationship; RE,
reporting and evaluation; SP, strategic planning; TD, training and development; PM,
performance management.
Based on the finding discussed above, relationship, reporting and evaluation,
strategic planning, training and development, performance management are good

135

predictors of business and production process, and the best predictor of these five is
relationship.
Financial
Table 44 presents the regression coefficient for financial. The outputs for financial
were generated to distinguish which of the four dimensions of management control
system and the six dimensions of human resource management practices were predictors
and the best predictors that the best predict financial..
The first model shows that relationship is a predictor of financial as indicated by
R Square (0.360) and R (0.600) which is significant at 0.000. R (0.600), indicating
relationship while R Square (0.360), indicating the magnitude of variance in financial can
be explained by relationship. An R Square of 0.360 means that 36% of the variation in
financial can be explained by relationship. As a predictor, it can predict 36% of the
variation in financial.
The second model shows two predictors: relationship, and compensation. When
both are joined as one predictor, the R is 0.641 and the R Square is 0.411. This means that
when relationship and compensation are treated as one predictor, they predict 41.1% of
variation in financial. When compensation is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square
is 0.051. The R Square (0.051) of compensation is also indicated in R Square Change. If
used as a separate indicator, it explains only 5.1% of the variation in financial.
The third model identifies three predictors. These are relationship, compensation,
and recruitment. When the three predictors are taken as one, the R value was 0.670 and
the R Square value was 0.449. They explain 44.9% of the variation financial. The
recruitment is 0.038 in the total R Square. If used as a separate indicator, it explains only
3.8% of the variation in financial.
Table 44
Regression Analysis for Financial
Model
R
R

Adjusted

Std

R2

Sig.

136

1
2
3
4
5

0.600
0.641b
0.670c
0.678d
0.687e

Square
0.360
0.411
0.449
0.460
0.472

R Square
0.358
0.408
0.446
0.455
0.466

Error
0.45931
0.44110
0.42690
0.42317
0.41901

Change
0.360
0.051
0.038
0.011
0.012

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.001

a. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship; b. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Compensation; c. Predictor:

(Constant), Relationship, Compensation, recruitment; d. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Compensation,
recruitment, Selection; e. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Compensation, recruitment, Selection,
Operation and Measurement.

The fourth model shows four predictors: relationship, compensation, recruitment,

selection. When all are joined as one predictor, the R is 0.678 and R Square is 0.460. This
means that when relationship, compensation, recruitment, and selection are treated as one
predictor, they account or predict 46% of the variation in financial. When selection is
treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0. 011. The R Square (0.011) of selection
is also indicated in R Square Change. The R Square implies that selection can predict
1.1% of the variation in financial.
The final model indicated in Table 44 is model five. The model indentifies five
predictors. These are relationship, compensation, recruitment, selection, and operation
and measurement. When the five predictors are taken as one, the R Square value was
0.687 and the R Square value was 0.472. They explain 47.2% of the variation in financial
When operation and measurement is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is
0.012. The R Square implies that operating and measurement can predict 1.2% of the
variation in financial.
Table 45 of financial performance also presents regression coefficients (B) of
relationship (0.139), compensation (0.223), recruitment (0.262), selection (0.129),
operation and measurement (0.143). there indicate that for each unit increase in the
measure of relationship, compensation, recruitment, selection, operation and

137

measurement, the score of financial will increase by 0.139, 0.223, 0.263, 0.129, and
0.143, respectively.
The resulting regression model used to predict the value of financial performance
is as follow: F = 1.438 + 0.139*R + 0.223*C + 0.262*Rc + 0.129*S + 0.143*OM. Where
F is financial; R, relationship; C ,compensation; Rc, recruitment; S, selection; OM,
operation and measurement.
Based on the findings discussed above, relationship, compensation, recruitment,
selection, and operation and measurement are good predictors of financial, and the best
predictor of these five is relationship.
Table 45
Regression Coefficient
Unstandardized
coefficient
Std.
B
Model
Error
5 (Constant)
1.438
0.119
Relationship
0.139
0.044
Compensation
0.223
0.041
Recruitment
0.262
0.049
Selection
-0.129
0.037
Operating and Measurement
0.143
0.044

Standardized
Coefficient
Beta

Sig

0.194
0.257
0.338
-0.206
0.179

12.038
3.169
5.455
5.378
-3.456
3.246

0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001

Dependent Variable: Financial

Predictors of Organizational Performance as a Whole

Table 46 shows that relationship, operation and measurement, compensation,
recruitment, reporting and evaluating, training and development, and strategic planning
were predictors of organizational performance as a whole.
The first model shows that relationship is a predictor of organizational
performance as indicated by R Square (0.818) and R (0.669) which is significant at 0.000.
R (0.818) indicates relationship while R Square (0.669) indicates the magnitude of
variance in organizational performance that can be explained by relationship. An R
Square of 0.669 means that 66.9% of the variation in organizational performance can be

138

explained by relationship. As a predictor, it can predict 66.9% of the variation in

organizational performance.
The second model shows two predictors: relationship, and operation and
measurement. When both are joined as one predictor, the R is 0.849 and the R Square is
0.720. This means that when relationship, and operation and measurement are treated as
one predictor, they predict 72% of variation in organizational performance. When
operation and measurement is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.051. The
R Square (0.051) of operation and measurement is also indicated in R Square Change. If
used as a separate indicator, it explains only 5.1% of the variation in organizational
performance
The third model identifies three predictors. These are relationship, operation and
measurement, and compensation. When the three predictors are taken as one, the R value
was 0.858 and the R Square value was 0.737.
They explain 73.7% of the variation in organizational performance. The compensation is
0.016 in the total R Square. If used as a separate indicator, it explains only 1.6% of the
variation in organizational performance.
The fourth model shows four predictors: relationship, operation and measurement,
compensation, recruitment. When all are joined as one predictor, the R is 0.865 and R
Square is 0.749. This means that when relationship, operation and measurement,
compensation, recruitment are treated as one predictor, they account or predict 74.9% of
the variation in organizational performance. When recruitment is treated as a separate
predictor, the R Square is 0. 012. The R Square (0.012) of recruitment is also indicated in
R Square Change. The R Square implies that recruitment can predict 1.2% of the
variation in organizational performance.
Table 46
Regression Analysis for Organizational Performance
Model
R
R
Adjusted
Std

R2

Sig.

139

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

0.818
0.849b
0.858c
0.865d
0.868e
0.871f
0.872g

Square
0.669
0.720
0.737
0.749
0.754
0.758
0.762

R Square
0.669
0.719
0.735
0.747
0.752
0.755
0.757

Error
0.34062
0.31349
0.30450
0.29786
0.29491
0.29265
0.29144

Change
0.669
0.051
0.016
0.012
0.005
0.004
0.003

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.026

a. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship; b. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and

Measurement; c. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Compensation;
d. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Compensation, Recruitment;
e. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Compensation, Recruitment,
Reporting and Evaluation; f. Predictor: (Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement,
Compensation, Recruitment, Reporting and Evaluation, Training and Development; g. Predictor:
(Constant), Relationship, Operation and Measurement, Compensation, Recruitment, Reporting and
Evaluation, Training and Development, Strategic Planning.

The fifth model indentifies five predictors. These are relationship, operation and
measurement, compensation, recruitment, and reporting and evaluation. When the five
predictors are taken as one, the R Square value was 0.868 and the R Square value was
0.754. They explain 75.4% of the variation in organizational performance. When
reporting and evaluation is treated as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.005. The R
Square implies that reporting and evaluation can predict 0.5% of the variation in
organizational performance.
The sixth model shows six predictors. These are relationship, operation and
measurement, compensation, recruitment, reporting and evaluation, and training and
development. When the six predictors are taken as one, the R Square value was 0.871 and
the R Square value was 0.758. They explain 75.8% of the variation in organizational
performance. When training and development is treated as a separate predictor, the R
Square is 0.004. The R Square implies that training and development can predict 0.4% of
the variation in organizational performance.
The final model indicated in Table 46 is model seven. These are relationship,
operating and measurement, compensation, recruitment, reportion and evaluation, and

140

training and development, and strategic planning. When the seven predictors are taken as
one, the R Square value was 0.872 and the R Square value was 0.761. They explain
76.1% of the variation in organizational performance. When strategic planning is treated
as a separate predictor, the R Square is 0.003. The R Square implies that strategic
planning can predict 0.3% of the variation in organizational performance.
Another regression model that is very important in this section is in Table 47 that
shows the regression coefficients. The regression coefficients (B) of the predictor that are
very important in predicting organizational performance are shown in the final model
(model 7). The regression coefficient of relationship (B = 0.239), operation and
measurement (B = 0.083), compensation (B = 0.143), recruitment (B = 0.076), reporting
and evaluation (B = 0.099), training and development (B = 0.077), and strategic planning
(B = 0.069) reveals that for each unit increase in the measure of relationship, operation
and measurement, compensation, recruitment, reporting and evaluation training and
development, and strategic planning, the score of organizational performance would
increase by 0239, 0.083, 0.143, 0.076, 0.099, 0.077 and 0.069 points, respectively.
Table 47
Regression Coefficient
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficient
Coefficient
Std.
B
Beta
t
Model
Error
(Constant)
0.872
0.094
9.280
Relationship
0.239
0.032
0.322
7.366
Operating and Measurement
0.083
0.038
0.100
2.161
Compensation
0.143
0.028
0.160
5.048
Recruitment
0.076
0.031
0.095
2.441
Reporting and Evaluation
0.099
0.036
0.132
2.791
Training and Development
0.077
0.028
0.117
2.789
Strategic Planning
0.069
0.031
0.078
2.229
Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance

Sig
0.000
0.000
0.031
0.000
0.015
0.005
0.005
0.026

141

If relationship is written as R, operation and measurement as OM, compensation

as C, recruitment as Rc, reporting and evaluation as RE, training and development as TD,
strategic planning as SP, and organizational performance as OP, by using their
coefficients, a very good regression equation that reflects the final model (model 7) could
be written as follows: OP = 0.872 + 0.239*R + 0.083*OM + 0.143*C + 0.076*Rc +
0.099*RE + 0.077*TD + 0.069*SP. This equation can be used to predict the value of
organizational performance.
Based on the findings discussed above, relationship, operation and measurement,
compensation, recruitment, reporting and evaluation, training and development, and
strategic planning are good predictors of organizational performance, and the best
predictor of these seven is relationship.