Research Article: 2022 Vol: 25 Issue: 4S
Citation Information: Ututalum, C.S. (2022). Public administrative account ability practices among sulu statecollege employees. Journal of management Information and Decision Sciences, 25(S4), 1-18.
Public Administrative, Accountability, Practices, Sulu State College and Employees
This descriptive-correlational study determined the public administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees during Academic Year 2020-2021 in terms of administrative transparency, efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility, integrity, and equity and the significant correlation and differences in these levels when data are classified according to respondents’ demographic profiles. In this study, almost three-fourth or majority of the Sulu State College employees are female, within 30 years old & above and 31-40 years old brackets, almost one-half are married, having 10 years and below years of service, and with Bachelor’s degree. Generally, public administrative accountability is practiced to a high extent by Sulu State College employees. Except for variable educational attainment, all other variables such as gender, age, civil status and length of service do not significantly intervene in ways how Sulu State College employees perceive towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. Doctorate degree holders are better in perceiving the administrative accountability practices in terms of Efficiency, Responsiveness, Integrity and Equity Categories. With high extent of administrative accountability practices and the high positive correlation among the levels of this variable, this particularly study tends to support the model introduced by AbuHasanein’s (2017) Administrative Accountability Model derived from Bovens (2007) which stresses that accountability often covers other distinct concepts such as transparency, efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility, integrity and equity (Bovens, 2007 in AbuHasanein , 2017).
Accountability is a complex term which is has been a commonplace of public administration literature and discourse. Conceptually, public higher education institutions such as state universities and colleges have a constant accountability issues and concerns. This means that state colleges, per se bear the public mandate that which to take responsibility, irrespective of whether there are apparent problems or ambiguities. Basically, state college employees should be regarded as accountable, not only as individual workers performing their duties, but also as member of an academic organization striving to contribute and maintain good governance, public trust and confidence.
Administrative accountability is pseudo to public accountability which can mainly be studied as a question of the hierarchical responsibility status of the state college organization, as well as of its duties and responsibilities. From a philosophical viewpoint, the focus will lie on the administrative aspect of accountability.
In Sulu State College organizational hierarchy, the administrative accountability is related to an employee’s position whereby a superior call a subordinate to be accountable for their performance of delegated duties. However, managerial accountability is about monitoring output and results and making those with delegated authority in question for carrying out tasks in regard to agreed performance criteria. By looking back it is noticeable that this is different from traditional administrative accountability which is mostly concerned with monitoring the process or procedures whereby inputs are transformed (Christensen & Lægreid, 2015).
That is, the notion answerable of administrative accountability as an important element of good governance involves being answerable for decisions or actions, often to prevent the misuse of power and other forms of inappropriate behavior. This notion of accountability can be dived into a number of components, namely: 1. to give an explanation to stakeholders, 2. to provide further information where required, 3. to review, and if necessary to revise, systems or practices to meet the expectations of stakeholders, and 4. to grant redress or to impose sanctions (Cameron, 2015).
In contemporary academic and scholarly discourse, administrative accountability often serves as a conceptual umbrella that covers various other distinct concepts, such as transparency, equity, efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility and integrity. Particularly in American scholarly and political discourse, accountability often is used interchangeably with good governance or virtuous behaviors (Bovens, 2007).
Moreover, we need accountability as a virtue, which in turn is a more comprehensive conceptual entity than the one referred to by ethical accountability, for example. In practice, this means a transfer from passive accountability, such as control-oriented activity and actors, to a proactive and predictive aspect of accountability. Active accountability may be realized in the framework of a hierarchical organizational structure and management system and, therefore, it is more appropriate to talk about bureaucratic virtues.
Having referred to several researchers’ and authors’ views on what accountability actually is, this researcher can therefore assumed that accountability is an essential tool to different people in the organization because it helps in measuring the success and progress, accelerating the performance, keeping the employee responsible, and validating the thoughts and principles. Hence, this study was conducted to determine the extent of administrative accountability practices at Sulu State College as perceived by faculty and staff.
This chapter focuses on the research methodology that will be adopted in the conduct of this study. It covers research design, research locale, respondents of the study, sampling procedure, data gathering procedure and tools, research instrument, validity and reliability, and statistical treatment of data.
Research design
According to Bless and Higson-Smith (1995) a research design is “a program that guides a researcher in collecting, analyzing and interpreting observed facts.” Similarly, Babbie and Mouton (2001) regard research design as the road map or blueprint by which one intends to conduct a research and achieve his/her research goals and objectives.” A descriptive research design method was employed in this study, that is, with the intent to describe, quantify, and infer as well as to discover relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from present knowledge or phenomenon of college faculty members and none-teaching staff, namely: 1) The socio-demographic profile of faculty members and none-teaching staff of Sulu State College in terms of gender, age, civil status, length of service, and educational attainment; 2) The extent of administrative accountability practice such as administrative transparency, efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility, integrity, and equity; and 3) The significant difference in the extent of administrative accountability practice at Sulu State College when data are grouped classified according to gender, age, civil status, length of service, and educational attainment.
Faculty members and none-teaching staff were the main source of data which were quantified to answer the research questions in this study. Library and internet research were used as the sources of information that were used to enrich the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of this research. The data from the respondents were collected through the use of questionnaires.
Research locale
This study was conducted in Sulu State College specifically among faculty members and none-teaching staff during the School Year 2020-2021. This higher educational institution is under the direct supervision of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
Faculty members included in this study are those college professor and instructors teaching at the different academic departments regardless of courses/subjects they are handing, while none-teaching staffs were taken from different administrative and academic department offices.
Respondents of the study
The respondents of this study were college faculty members and none-teaching staff who are currently employed at the Sulu State College during the school year 2020-2021 (Table 1).
| Table 1 Distribution of the target samples among faculty members and none-teaching staff |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sulu State College | Faculty | None-Teaching | Total |
| Schools/ Academic Departments |
Frequency | Frequency | |
| Agriculture | 10 | 30 | |
| Arts and Sciences | 10 | ||
| Business Administration | 20 | ||
| Computer Science and Engineering | 10 | ||
| Education | 10 | ||
| Nursing | 10 | ||
| Total | 70 | 30 | 100 |
Sampling design
A purposive sampling method was employed in this study. Representatives of one hundred (100) samples were purposively chosen based on the availability of faculty and none-teaching personnel. The use of purposive sampling in this study was to ensure the representation of gender, age, civil status, length of service, and educational attainment.
Data gathering procedure
The following steps were followed in the course of data gathering:
Research instrument
A survey questionnaire was the main instrument employed to gather data on the extent of administrative accountability practice as perceived by college faculty and nine-teaching personnel. It was adapted and patterned from Abu Hasanein (2017) which was used in his study on “The Effect of Accountability Elements on Public Trust: An Empirical Study on the Palestinian Authorities in Gaza Strip” with established reliability where Cronbach's Alpha equals0.959.
The research instrument used in this study consisted of two parts. Part I of the questionnaire focused on obtaining the demographic profile of the respondents which include gender, age, civil status, length of service, and educational attainment. Part II was geared towards obtaining data on the extent of administrative accountability practice such as administrative transparency, efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility, integrity, and equity.
Validity and reliability
The instrument used in this research was patterned and adapted from standardized questionnaires which have been used in previous studies. However, to suit its applicability to the local settings, these questionnaires were subjected for perusal of at least two experts from among the faculty members of the Graduate Studies of Sulu State College.
Statistical treatment of data
Both descriptive and inferential statistical tools were appropriately employed in the treatment of data that were gathered for this study, namely:
The following rating scales intervals were adopted in the analyses of the results of the computations to be yielded by both descriptive and inferential statistical tools (Table 2):
| Table 2 Rating scales interval on respondents’ levels of administrative accountability practices based on 5-point likert’s scale |
||
|---|---|---|
| Point | Scale Value | Descriptors |
| 5 | 4.50-5.00 | Strongly Agree (Very High Extent) |
| 4 | 3.50-4.49 | Agree (High Extent) |
| 3 | 2.50- 3.49 | Undecided (Moderate Extent) |
| 2 | 1.50- 2.49 | Disagree (Low Extent) |
| 1 | 1.00- 1.49 | Strongly Disagree (Very Low Extent) |
This study geared to determine the following:
In terms of gender
Table 3 shows the demographic profile of college faculty and staff in terms of gender. This table reveals that out of 100 employee-respondents, 72 (72.0%) are female and only 28 (28.0%) are male. This means that, in this study, almost three-fourth or majority of the college employee-respondents are female. This result implies that female employees at Sulu State College are far dominating in number as compared to their male.
| Table 3 Demographic profile of employee-respondents in terms of gender |
||
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Number of Employees | Percent |
| Male | 28 | 28.0% |
| Female | 72 | 72.0% |
| Total | 100 | 100% |
In terms of age
Table 4 presents the demographic profile of the college faculty and staff in terms of age. This table reveals that out of 100 employee-respondents, both 30 years old & above and 31-40 years old are 32 (32.0%) each, 28 (28.0%) are 41-50 years old, and 8 (8.0%) are 51 years old & above. This means that, in this study, employee-respondents’ age are concentrated more on 30 years old & above and 31-40 years old brackets. This result implies that majority of the employees at Sulu State College are belonged to the lower age bracket.
| Table 4 Demographic profile of employee respondents in terms of age |
||
|---|---|---|
| Age | Number of Employees | Percent |
| 30 years old & below | 32 | 32.0 |
| 31-40 years old | 32 | 32.0 |
| 41-50 years old | 28 | 28.0 |
| 51 years old & above | 8 | 8.0 |
| Total | 100 | 100% |
In terms of civil status
Table 5 presents the demographic profile of the college faculty and staff in terms of civil status. This table reveals that out of 100 employee-respondents, 48 (48.0%) are married, 40 (40.0%) are single, 9 (9.0%) separated, and 3 (3.0%) are widowed. This means that, in this study, almost one-half of employee-respondents are married and followed in number by single which is 40%. This result implies that majority of the employees at Sulu State College are married.
| Table 5 Demographic profile of employee-respondents in terms of civil status |
||
|---|---|---|
| Civil Status | Number of Employees | Percent |
| Single | 40 | 40.0 |
| Married | 48 | 48.0 |
| Separated | 9 | 9.0 |
| Widowed | 3 | 3.0 |
| Total | 100 | 100% |
In terms of length of service
Table 6 illustrates the demographic profile of the college faculty and staff in terms of length of service. This table reveals that out of 100 employee-respondents, 57 (57.0%) are 10 years & below, 35 (35.0%) are 11-20 years and 8 (8.0%) with 21 years & above years of experiences. This means that, in this study, more than half or majority of the employee-respondents are having 10 years and below years of service. This result implies that Sulu State College is having employees with considerable less number of years of working experiences.
| Table 6 Demographic profile of employee-respondents in terms of length of service |
||
|---|---|---|
| Length of Service | Number of Employees | Percent |
| 10 years & below | 57 | 57.0 |
| 11-20 years | 35 | 35.0 |
| 21 years & above | 8 | 8.0 |
| Total | 100 | 100 |
In terms of educational attainment
Table 7 presents the demographic profile of employee-respondents in terms of highest educational attainment. This table reveals that out of 100 employee-respondents, 48 (48.0%) are Bachelor’s degree, 45 (45.0%) are Master’s degree, and 7 (7.0%) are doctorate degree holders. This means that, in this study, almost one-half of the employee-respondents are with Bachelor’s degree and followed by those with master’s degree holders. This result implies that, in Sulu State College there are still a significant number of employees having only with Bachelor’s degree.
| Table 7 Demographic profile of employee-respondents in terms of highest educational attainment |
||
|---|---|---|
| Educational Attainment | Number of Employees | Percent |
| Bachelor’s degree | 48 | 48.0 |
| Master’s degree | 45 | 45.0 |
| Doctorate degree | 7 | 7.0 |
| Total | 100 | 100 |
In terms of administrative transparency
Table 8 shows the level of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of administrative transparency. Under this category, employee-respondents have total weighted mean score of 4.0129 with standard deviation of .61019 which is rated as “Agree” and interpreted as “High Extent”. This result indicates that employee-respondents perceive that there is a high extent of administrative transparency practices in the administration of Sulu State College.
|
Table 8 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Statements |
Mean |
S.D. |
Rating |
|
|
1 |
The administration follows the policy of not to hide information from workers in the authority. |
4.0500 |
.62563 |
Agree |
|
2 |
The administration communicates with workers through open multidirectional communication channels. |
4.0400 |
.76436 |
Agree |
|
3 |
The administration accepts notes and suggestions from members in the authority |
4.0000 |
.75210 |
Agree |
|
4 |
The administration follows clarity policy in practicing its work and complies with accountability. |
4.0300 |
.74475 |
Agree |
|
5 |
There is trust and reliability between the administration and members in the authority. |
4.0900 |
.80522 |
Agree |
|
6 |
The administration implements accountability system effectively and in public. |
3.8800 |
.79493 |
Agree |
|
7 |
The administration believes in the right of the external community to monitor the performance of the authority. |
4.0000 |
.81650 |
Agree |
|
Total Weighted Mean |
4.0129 |
.61019 |
Agree |
|
|
Legend: (5) 4.50-5.00=Strongly Agree; (4) 3.50-4.49=Agree; (3) 2.50- 3.49=Undecided; (2) 1.50- 2.49=Disagree; (1) 1.00- 1.49=Strongly Disagree |
||||
Moreover, from among the items under this category, employee-respondents rated with High extent the following items: “The administration follows the policy of not to hide information from workers in the authority”, “The administration communicates with workers through open multidirectional communication channels”, “The administration accepts notes and suggestions from members in the authority”, “The administration follows clarity policy in practicing its work and complies with accountability”, “There is trust and reliability between the administration and members in the authority”, “The administration implements accountability system effectively and in public”, and “The administration believes in the right of the external community to monitor the performance of the authority”.
In terms of efficiency
Table 9 shows the level of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of efficiency. Under this category, employee-respondents have total weighted mean score of 3.8775 with standard deviation of .62411 which is rated as “Agree” and interpreted as “High Extent”. This result indicates that employee-respondents perceive that there is a high extent of efficiency practices in the administration of Sulu State College. Moreover, from among the items under this category, employee-respondents rated with High extent the following items: “The employees have skills and knowledge that matches the requirements of their jobs”, “The employees have enough information to do their tasks completely”, “The knowledge and experiences of the workers are kept in a database to get back to it when needed”, “The employee can provide new knowledge and skills to the authority”, “The workers can acquire knowledge quickly and use it through to implement work with a high quality”, “The workers have intellectual skills, having a comprehensive view of the organization, connecting parts of the subject together to perform their tasks”, “The authority utilizes skills and abilities of workers use it in all the services provided”, and “Workers develop their abilities and skills constantly according to work requirements”.
| Table 9 Level of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees in terms of efficiency |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statements | Mean | S.D. | Rating | |
| 1 | The employees have skills and knowledge that matches the requirements of their jobs. | 3.9200 | .67689 | Agree |
| 2 | The employees have enough information to do their tasks completely. | 3.9100 | .76667 | Agree |
| 3 | The knowledge and experiences of the workers are kept in a database to get back to it when needed. | 3.8900 | .70918 | Agree |
| 4 | The employee can provide new knowledge and skills to the authority. | 3.8400 | .74833 | Agree |
| 5 | The workers can acquire knowledge quickly and use it through to implement work with a high quality. | 3.8900 | .79003 | Agree |
| 6 | The workers have intellectual skills, having a comprehensive view of the organization, connecting parts of the subject together to perform their tasks. | 3.8800 | .79493 | Agree |
| 7 | The authority utilizes skills and abilities of workers use it in all the services provided. | 3.8700 | .83672 | Agree |
| 8 | Workers develop their abilities and skills constantly according to work requirements. | 3.8200 | .75719 | Agree |
| Total Weighted Mean | 3.8775 | .62411 | Agree | |
| Legend: (5) 4.50-5.00=Strongly Agree; (4) 3.50-4.49=Agree; (3) 2.50- 3.49=Undecided; (2) 1.50- 2.49=Disagree; (1) 1.00- 1.49=Strongly Disagree | ||||
In terms of responsiveness
Table 10 shows the level of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of responsiveness. Under this category, employee-respondents have total weighted mean score of 3.7114 with standard deviation of .56889 which is rated as “Agree” and interpreted as “High Extent”. This result indicates that employee-respondents perceive that there is a high extent of responsiveness practices in the administration of Sulu State College.
| Table 10 Level of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees in terms of responsiveness |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statements | Mean | S.D. | Rating | |
| 1 | Workers in the authority explain to clients how services are provided accurately. | 3.7600 | .69805 | Agree |
| 2 | Workers in the authority are ready to respond to the needs of the clients immediately. | 3.7300 | .69420 | Agree |
| 3 | Workers in the authority would always like to provide assistance to people. | 3.7100 | .75605 | Agree |
| 4 | People don’t wait long time to receive the service | 3.5600 | .72919 | Agree |
| 5 | The procedures are simplified in a way to allow finishing the work without complications. | 3.7100 | .74257 | Agree |
| 6 | The authority provides clear and easy to use forms for work. | 3.7600 | .72641 | Agree |
| 7 | The rules and systems of the authority facilitate accomplishing work. |
3.7500 | .71598 | Agree |
| Total Weighted Mean | 3.7114 | .56889 | Agree | |
| Legend: (5) 4.50-5.00=Strongly Agree; (4) 3.50-4.49=Agree; (3) 2.50- 3.49=Undecided; (2) 1.50- 2.49=Disagree; (1) 1.00- 1.49=Strongly Disagree | ||||
Moreover, from among the items under this category, employee-respondents rated with High extent the following items: “Workers in the authority explain to clients how services are provided accurately”, “Workers in the authority are ready to respond to the needs of the clients immediately”, “Workers in the authority would always like to provide assistance to people”, “People don’t wait long time to receive the service”, “The procedures are simplified in a way to allow finishing the work without complications”, “The authority provides clear and easy to use forms for work”, and “The rules and systems of the authority facilitate accomplishing work”.
In terms of responsibility
Table 11 shows the level of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of responsibility. Under this category, employee-respondents have total weighted mean score of 3.9111 with standard deviation of .57724 which is rated as “Agree” and interpreted as “High Extent”. This result indicates that employee-respondents perceive that there is a high extent of responsibility practices in the administration of Sulu State College.
| Table 11 Level of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees in terms of responsibility |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statements | Mean | S.D. | Rating | |
| 1 | Workers believe that responsibility is part of practical life. | 4.0000 | .79137 | Agree |
| 2 | When I have an assignment, I finish it at the assigned time. | 3.9900 | .74529 | Agree |
| 3 | I put a plan for the required work and the long term and short term objectives I have. | 3.9800 | .72446 | Agree |
| 4 | The employee doesn’t pretend to have work load to avoid taking responsibility. | 3.8300 | .71145 | Agree |
| 5 | I prefer taking responsibility than enjoying my time doing anything else. | 3.7900 | .85629 | Agree |
| 6 | I take responsibility for the work I am performing. | 3.9100 | .81767 | Agree |
| 7 | I am always totally reliable. | 4.0600 | .77616 | Agree |
| 8 | I avoid making mistakes related to work. | 3.7800 | .70467 | Agree |
| 9 | I make sure to perform work according to the general plan of the authority. | 3.8600 | .80428 | Agree |
| Total Weighted Mean | 3.9111 | .57724 | Agree | |
| Legend: (5) 4.50-5.00=Strongly Agree; (4) 3.50-4.49=Agree; (3) 2.50- 3.49=Undecided; (2) 1.50- 2.49=Disagree; (1) 1.00- 1.49=Strongly Disagree | ||||
Moreover, from among the items under this category, employee-respondents rated with High extent the following items: “Workers believe that responsibility is part of practical life”, “When I have an assignment, I finish it at the assigned time”, “I put a plan for the required work and the long term and short term objectives I have”, “The employee doesn’t pretend to have work load to avoid taking responsibility”, “I prefer taking responsibility than enjoying my time doing anything else”, “I take responsibility for the work I am performing”, “I am always totally reliable”, “I avoid making mistakes related to work”, and “I make sure to perform work according to the general plan of the authority”.
In terms of integrity
Table 12 shows the level of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of integrity. Under this category, employee-respondents have total weighted mean score of 3.4614 with standard deviation of .64907 which is rated as “Undecided” and interpreted as “Moderate Extent”. This result indicates that employee-respondents perceive that there is a moderate extent of integrity practices in the administration of Sulu State College.
| Table 12 Level of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees in terms of integrity |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statements | Mean | S.D. | Rating | |
| 1 | A person may lie or deceive in order to succeed. | 3.2200 | 1.1333 | Undecided |
| 2 | People who do not cheat or lie are less successful than others. | 3.3800 | 1.0710 | Undecided |
| 3 | I am totally satisfied with my ethics and character. | 3.9500 | .74366 | Agree |
| 4 | The values and behaviors I followed when I was young are the same I am following now. | 3.9600 | .92025 | Agree |
| 5 | I don’t hide or change important information when communicating with my boss. |
3.7400 | .83630 | Agree |
| 6 | I lie to my clients and hide important information from them. | 3.0400 | 1.0817 | Undecided |
| 7 | I use the internet for more than 30 minutes for personal reasons during work hours. | 2.9400 | 1.1961 | Undecided |
| Total Weighted Mean | 3.4614 | .64907 | Undecided | |
| Legend: (5) 4.50-5.00=Strongly Agree; (4) 3.50-4.49=Agree; (3) 2.50- 3.49=Undecided; (2) 1.50- 2.49=Disagree; (1) 1.00- 1.49=Strongly Disagree | ||||
Moreover, from among the items under this category, employee-respondents rated with High extent the following items: “A person may lie or deceive in order to succeed”, “People who do not cheat or lie are less successful than others”, “I lie to my clients and hide important information from them”, and “I use the internet for more than 30 minutes for personal reasons during work hours”.
However, respondents agreed to the following items: “I am totally satisfied with my ethics and character”, “The values and behaviors I followed when I was young are the same I am following now”, and “I don’t hide or change important information when communicating with my boss”.
In terms of equity
Table 13 shows the level of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of equity. Under this category, employee-respondents have total weighted mean score of 3.7483 with standard deviation of .60465 which is rated as “Agree” and interpreted as “High Extent”. This result indicates that employee-respondents perceive that there is a high extent of equity practices in the administration of Sulu State College.
| Table 13 Level of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees in terms of equity |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statements | Mean | S.D. | Rating | |
| 1 | I am satisfied with justice and equity in promotion and other chances. | 3.6300 | .79968 | Agree |
| 2 | I feel equality if I consider the responsibilities I have. | 3.7300 | .73656 | Agree |
| 3 | The administration rewards me equally if they consider my scientific level and training. | 3.7600 | .71237 | Agree |
| 4 | My boss cares about treating me equally. | 3.6900 | .84918 | Agree |
| 5 | When my direct responsible takes a decision on my work he gives acceptable clarification and justification on it. | 3.7100 | .72884 | Agree |
| 6 | I treat all people equally. | 3.9700 | .83430 | Agree |
| Total Weighted Mean | 3.7483 | .60465 | Agree | |
| Legend: (5) 4.50-5.00=Strongly Agree; (4) 3.50-4.49=Agree; (3) 2.50- 3.49=Undecided; (2) 1.50- 2.49=Disagree; (1) 1.00- 1.49=Strongly Disagree | ||||
Moreover, from among the items under this category, employee-respondents rated with Moderate extent the following items: “I am satisfied with justice and equity in promotion and other chances”, “I feel equality if I consider the responsibilities I have”, “The administration rewards me equally if they consider my scientific level and training”, “My boss cares about treating me equally”, “When my direct responsible takes a decision on my work he gives acceptable clarification and justification on it”, and “I treat all people equally”.
Is there a significant difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees when data are classified according to
In terms of gender
Table 14 presents the difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees when data are classified according to gender. It can be gleaned from this table that except for sub-category Efficiency with a Mean Difference = -.28249*, t-value = -2.066 with probability value of .042 which is significant at alpha .05, the rest of the sub-categories are not significant at alpha .05. This means that, male and female employee-respondents in this study generally do not differ in their perceptions towards the extent of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees. This result implies that being a male employee-respondent may not probably make him better perceiver towards the extent of administrative accountability practices than his female counterpart, or vice versa.
| Table 14 Difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees when data are classified according to gender |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables Grouping | Mean | S. D. | Mean Difference | T | Sig. | Description | |
| Administrative transparency | Male | 3.9796 | .66974 | -.04620 | -.338 | .736 | Not Significant |
| Female | 4.0258 | .58991 | |||||
| Efficiency | Male | 3.6741 | .61833 | -.28249* | -2.066 | .042 | Significant |
| Female | 3.9566 | .61243 | |||||
| Responsiveness | Male | 3.5816 | .56334 | -.18027 | -1.430 | .156 | Not Significant |
| Female | 3.7619 | .56688 | |||||
| Responsibility | Male | 3.9087 | .48484 | -.00331 | -.026 | .980 | Not Significant |
| Female | 3.9120 | .61255 | |||||
| Integrity | Male | 3.5153 | .62614 | .07483 | .516 | .607 | Not Significant |
| Female | 3.4405 | .66088 | |||||
| Equity | Male | 3.6250 | .53021 | -.17130 | -1.276 | .205 | Not Significant |
| Female | 3.7963 | .62812 | |||||
Hence, it is safe to say that variable gender has no significant influence in the ways how Sulu State College employees perceive towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. Therefore, the hypothesis which states that “There is no significant difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices at Sulu State College when data are classified according to gender” is accepted.
*Significant at alpha 0.05
In terms of age
Table 15 presents the difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees when data are classified according to age. It can be gleaned from this table that the F-ratio values and probability values of all sub-categories subsumed under administrative accountability practices are not significant at alpha .05. This means that, employee-respondents in this study despite of the variations in their age ranges do not differ in their perceptions towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. This result implies that an employee-respondents within the age of 30 years & below may not probably better perceiver towards the extent of administrative accountability practices than those within the age ranges of 31-40 years, 41-50 years, and 51 years & above, or vice versa.
| Table 15 Differences in the levels of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees when data are classified according to age |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of Variation | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Description | |
| Administrative Transparency | Between Groups | .606 | 3 | .202 | .535 | .659 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 36.255 | 96 | .378 | ||||
| Total | 36.861 | 99 | |||||
| Efficiency | Between Groups | .992 | 3 | .331 | .845 | .473 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 37.570 | 96 | .391 | ||||
| Total | 38.562 | 99 | |||||
| Responsiveness | Between Groups | 1.285 | 3 | .428 | 1.337 | .267 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 30.755 | 96 | .320 | ||||
| Total | 32.040 | 99 | |||||
| Responsibility | Between Groups | .452 | 3 | .151 | .444 | .722 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 32.536 | 96 | .339 | ||||
| Total | 32.988 | 99 | |||||
| Integrity | Between Groups | 1.501 | 3 | .500 | 1.195 | .316 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 40.207 | 96 | .419 | ||||
| Total | 41.708 | 99 | |||||
| Equity | Between Groups | 1.437 | 3 | .479 | 1.323 | .271 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 34.757 | 96 | .362 | ||||
| Total | 36.194 | 99 | |||||
Hence, it is safe to say that variable age has no significant influence in the ways how Sulu State College employees perceive towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. Therefore, the hypothesis which states that “There is no significant difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices at Sulu State College when data are classified according to age” is accepted.
*Significant at alpha 0.05
In terms of civil status
Table 16 presents the difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees when data are classified according to civil status. It can be gleaned from this table that the F-ratio values and probability values of all sub-categories subsumed under administrative accountability practices are not significant at alpha .05. This means that, employee-respondents in this study despite of the variations in their age ranges do not differ in their perceptions towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. This result implies that an employee-respondents who are single may not probably better perceivers towards the extent of administrative accountability practices than those who married, separated and widowed, or vice versa.
| Table 16 Differences in the levels of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees when data are classified according to civil status |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of Variation | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Description | |
| Administrative Transparency | Between Groups | 1.302 | 3 | .434 | 1.172 | .325 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 35.559 | 96 | .370 | ||||
| Total | 36.861 | 99 | |||||
| Efficiency | Between Groups | .567 | 3 | .189 | .477 | .699 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 37.995 | 96 | .396 | ||||
| Total | 38.562 | 99 | |||||
| Responsiveness | Between Groups | 1.511 | 3 | .504 | 1.584 | .198 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 30.529 | 96 | .318 | ||||
| Total | 32.040 | 99 | |||||
| Responsibility | Between Groups | 1.096 | 3 | .365 | 1.100 | .353 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 31.891 | 96 | .332 | ||||
| Total | 32.988 | 99 | |||||
| Integrity | Between Groups | 2.247 | 3 | .749 | 1.822 | .148 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 39.462 | 96 | .411 | ||||
| Total | 41.708 | 99 | |||||
| Equity | Between Groups | 1.407 | 3 | .469 | 1.294 | .281 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 34.788 | 96 | .362 | ||||
| Total | 36.194 | 99 | |||||
| *Significant at alpha 0.05 | |||||||
Hence, it is safe to say that variable civil status has no significant influence in the ways how Sulu State College employees perceive towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. Therefore, the hypothesis which states that “There is no significant difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices at Sulu State College when data are classified according to gender civil status” is accepted.
In terms of length of service
Table 17 presents the difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees when data are classified according to length of service. It can be gleaned from this table that the F-ratio values and probability values of all sub-categories subsumed under administrative accountability practices are not significant at alpha .05. This means that, employee-respondents in this study despite of the variations in their length of service do not differ in their perceptions towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. This result implies that an employee-respondents who have been in service for 21 years & below may not probably better perceivers towards the extent of administrative accountability practices than those who have been in service for 11-20 years and 21 years & above, or vice versa.
| Table 17 Differences in the levels of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees when data are classified according to length of service |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of Variation | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Description | |
| Administrative Transparency | Between Groups | 0.025 | 2 | 0.012 | 0.033 | 0.968 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 36.836 | 97 | 0.38 | ||||
| Total | 36.861 | 99 | |||||
| Efficiency | Between Groups | 0.185 | 2 | 0.093 | 0.234 | 0.792 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 38.377 | 97 | 0.396 | ||||
| Total | 38.562 | 99 | |||||
| Responsiveness | Between Groups | 0.002 | 2 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.997 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 32.038 | 97 | 0.33 | ||||
| Total | 32.04 | 99 | |||||
| Responsibility | Between Groups | 0.002 | 2 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.996 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 32.985 | 97 | 0.34 | ||||
| Total | 32.988 | 99 | |||||
| Integrity | Between Groups | 1.776 | 2 | 0.888 | 2.157 | 0.121 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 39.933 | 97 | 0.412 | ||||
| Total | 41.708 | 99 | |||||
| Equity | Between Groups | 0.274 | 2 | 0.137 | 0.37 | 0.692 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 35.92 | 97 | 0.37 | ||||
| Total | 36.194 | 99 | |||||
| *Significant at alpha 0.05 | |||||||
Hence, it is safe to say that variable length of service has no significant influence in the ways how Sulu State College employees perceive towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. Therefore, the hypothesis which states that “There is no significant difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices at Sulu State College when data are classified according to length of service” is accepted
In terms of educational attainment
Table 18 presents the difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees when data are classified according to educational attainment. It can be gleaned from this table that except for Administrative Transparency and Responsibility which have the F-ratio values of 2.392 and 3.051 with probability values of .097 and .052 are not significant at alpha .05, all the other sub-categories subsumed under administrative accountability practices are significant at alpha .05. This means that, employee-respondents in this study by virtue of the variations in their educational attainment really differ in their perceptions towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. This result implies that an employee-respondents who have bachelor’s degree may probably better perceivers towards the extent of administrative accountability practices than those who have master’s degree and doctorate degree, or vice versa.
| Table 18 Differences in the levels of administrative accountability practices among sulu state college employees when data are classified according to educational attainment |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of variation | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Description | |
| Administrative Transparency | Between Groups | 1.733 | 2 | 0.866 | 2.392 | 0.097 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 35.128 | 97 | 0.362 | ||||
| Total | 36.861 | 99 | |||||
| Efficiency | Between Groups | 2.763 | 2 | 1.382 | 3.744* | 0.027 | Significant |
| Within Groups | 35.799 | 97 | 0.369 | ||||
| Total | 38.562 | 99 | |||||
| Responsiveness | Between Groups | 2.354 | 2 | 1.177 | 3.847* | 0.025 | Significant |
| Within Groups | 29.686 | 97 | 0.306 | ||||
| Total | 32.04 | 99 | |||||
| Responsibility | Between Groups | 1.952 | 2 | 0.976 | 3.051 | 0.052 | Not Significant |
| Within Groups | 31.036 | 97 | 0.32 | ||||
| Total | 32.988 | 99 | |||||
| Integrity | Between Groups | 5.491 | 2 | 2.746 | 7.354* | 0.001 | Significant |
| Within Groups | 36.217 | 97 | 0.373 | ||||
| Total | 41.708 | 99 | |||||
| Equity | Between Groups | 8.929 | 2 | 4.465 | 15.883* | 0 | Significant |
| Within Groups | 27.265 | 97 | 0.281 | ||||
| Total | 36.194 | 99 | |||||
| *Significant at alpha 0.05 | |||||||
| Table 19 Post hoc analysis: differences in the administrative accountability practices of employees of sulu state college in terms of efficiency, responsiveness, integrity and equity when data are categorized according to educational attainment |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | (I) Grouping by Educational Attainment | (J) Grouping by Educational Attainment | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. |
| Efficiency | Doctorate degree | Bachelor's degree | .63021* | .24579 | .042 |
| Master's degree | .43333 | .24683 | .219 | ||
| Dependent Variable | (I) Grouping by Educational Attainment | (J) Grouping by Educational Attainment | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. |
| Responsiveness | Doctorate degree | Bachelor's degree | .61990* | .22382 | .025 |
| Master's degree | .52426 | .22477 | .071 | ||
| Dependent Variable | (I) Grouping by Educational Attainment | (J) Grouping by Educational Attainment | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. |
| Integrity | Doctorate degree | Bachelor's degree | .82866* | .24722 | .005 |
| Master's degree | .49433 | .24827 | .143 | ||
| Dependent Variable | (I) Grouping by Educational Attainment | (J) Grouping by Educational Attainment | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. |
| Equity | Doctorate degree Doctorate degree |
Bachelor's degree | 1.18948* | .21450 | .000 |
| Master's degree | .93069* | .21541 | .000 | ||
Hence, it is safe to say that variable educational attainment has no significant influence in the ways how Sulu State College employees perceive towards the extent of administrative accountability practices. Therefore, the hypothesis which states that “There is no significant difference in the levels of administrative accountability practices at Sulu State College when data are classified according to educational attainment” is rejected.
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Is there a significant correlation among levels of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees?
Table 20 illustrates the correlation among the sub-categories of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees in terms of Administrative transparency, Efficiency, Responsiveness, Responsibility, Integrity, and Equity. It can be gleaned from this table that the computed Pearson Correlation Coefficients (Pearson r) between these variables are all significant at alpha .05.
| Table 20 Correlation between administrative transparency, efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility, integrity, and equity among sulu state college employees |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Pearson r | Sig | N | Description | |
| Dependent | Independent | ||||
| Administrative Transparency | Efficiency | .666* | .000 | 100 | High |
| Responsiveness | .555* | .000 | 100 | Very High | |
| Responsibility | .672* | .000 | 100 | High | |
| Integrity | .332* | .001 | 100 | Moderate | |
| Equity | .463* | .000 | 100 | Moderate | |
| Efficiency | Responsiveness | .641* | .000 | 100 | Very High |
| Responsibility | .580* | .000 | 100 | High | |
| Integrity | .264* | .008 | 100 | Low | |
| Equity | .506* | .000 | 100 | High | |
| Responsiveness | Responsibility | .700* | .000 | 100 | High |
| Integrity | .420* | .000 | 100 | High | |
| Equity | .652* | .000 | 100 | High | |
| Responsibility | Integrity | .401* | .000 | 100 | Moderate |
| Equity | .627* | .000 | 100 | High | |
| Integrity | Equity | .527* | .000 | 100 | High |
*Correlation Coefficient is significant at alpha .05
Correlation Coefficient Scales Adopted from Hopkins, Will (2002):
0.0-0.1=Nearly Zero; 0.1-0.30=Low; .3-0.5 0=Moderate; .5-0.7-0=High; .7-0.9= Very High; 0.9-1=Nearly Perfect
Specifically, the degree of correlations among the sub-categories of administrative accountability practices among Sulu State College employees are as follows:
Post Hoc Analysis using Scheffe’s Test was conducted to determine which among groups classified according to educational attainment to have different levels of mean in areas subsumed under Efficiency, Responsiveness, Integrity and Equity as perceived by employee-respondents of Sulu State College.
The result of the analysis which is shown in Table 19 indicates that the difference in the means of the Efficiency, Responsiveness, Integrity and Equity are obtained by way of lower group means minus higher group means.
These results indicate that the Sulu State College employees who perceived the level of Administrative Transparency as “Agree” or “High Extent” are most probably the same group of Sulu State College employees who perceived the Efficiency, Responsiveness, Responsibility, Integrity and Equity as “Agree” or “High Extent”.
Meanwhile, it is safe to say that, generally the level of Administrative Transparency, Efficiency, Responsiveness, Responsibility, Integrity and Equity are highly correlated.
Therefore, the hypothesis which states that, “There is no significant correlation between the levels of Administrative Accountability Practices among Sulu State College employees” is rejected.
This study concludes that:
This study further supports the notions that: Transparency implies openness, communication and accountability; Efficiency is associated with the optimal use of resources, which are based on clear, objective, and fair goals; Responsiveness is the ability to react purposefully, and within an appropriate timescale, to significant events, opportunities or threats in order to achieve or maintain competitive advantage; Responsibility is consisted of a duty to discharge not only the functional obligations of role, but also the moral obligations; Integrity is virtue which is defined simply as a discrete component of good character and as a person's behavior is consistent with espoused values also that the person is honest and trustworthy; and Equity is how well public organizations are able to tailor service provision to meet the needs of the diverse groups of citizens that they serve.
Ashworth, R., & Downe, J. (2014). Achieving accountability in public service: evidence review prepared for the commission on public service governance and delivery. The public policy institute for wales. Google Scholar
Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Bless, C., & Higson-Smith, C. (1995). Fundamentals of social work research: A guide for students and beginning practitioners. Juta: Second Edition. ISBN0702134325, 9780702134326 Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Bovens, M. (2003). Public Accountability. Paper for the EGPA annual conference, Oeiras Portugal September 3-6, 2003 to be presented in workshop 8 (Ethics and integrity of governance). Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Bovens, M. (2006). Analysing and assessing public accountability. A conceptual framework. European Governance papers (EUROGOV) No. C-06-01. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Bovens, M. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Bovens, M. (2005). From financial accounting to public accountability. H. Hill (ed.) Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven des Haushalts- und Finanzmanagements, Baden Baden: NomosVerlag 2005. 183-193. Google Scholar, Indexedat
Brillantes, Jr., Alex, B., & Fernandez, M.T. (2011). Restoring trust and building integrity in government: issues and concerns in the philippines and areas for reform. International Public Management Review, 12(2). Google Scholar, Indexedat
Briones, L. (n.d.). Accountability for integrity and results: The case of the philippine bureau of the treasury. public financial accountability for integrity and results. Google Scholar
Daigle, S.L., & Cuocco, P. (2002). Public accountability and higher education: Soul mates or strange bedfellows?. Center for Applied Research. Research Bulletin. 9. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
DePáduaRibeiro, L.M. (2013). The role of accounting in public governance process. African Journal of Business Management, 7(29), 2905-2915 Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Editorial (2013). Public sector governance and accountability. Editorial / Critical perspectives on accounting, 24, 479–487. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Ejere, E. (2013). Promoting accountability in public sector management in today’sdemocratic Nigeria.Tourism & Management Studies, 3, 953-964. Google Scholar, Indexedat
Gabriel, A.G. (2019). Transparency and accountability in local governance: The Nexus between democracy and public service delivery in the Philippines. Public Policy and Administration ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online). Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Herguner, B. (2012). Local administrative reforms in turkey and the Philippines with regard to Agenda21: Profiling Contexts, Parallelisms, and Contrasts. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(19). Google Scholar
Jelmin, K. (2011). Democratic accountability in service delivery: A synthesis of case studies. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). Google Scholar
Maulid, M.J. (2017). Accountability in education management: The efficient use of fiscal resources in Tanzania. University of York, 2017. Google Scholar, Indexedat
Magno, F.A. (2012). Monitoring social accountability: Stocktaking Report. Published in 2012 by La Salle Institute of Governance De La Salle University Taft Avenue, Manila With support from the World Bank. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Minja, D. (2013). Accountability practice in kenya’s public service: Lessons toguide service improvementauthor’s bio data. International Journal of Business and Management Review,1(4), 54-63. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Perante-Calina, L.E., & Brillantes, Jr,A.B. (2018). An assessment of governmental services in the Philippines from Spanish to contemporary times. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 191.Asian Association for Public Administration Annual Conference (AAPA 2018). Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Razon-Abad, H. (2010). Social accountability practice in the Philppines: A scoping study. © 2010 by the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP).
Rosario, G.M. (1999). Indicators of good governance: Developing an index of governance quality at the LGU Level. Discussion Paper Series No. 99-04. The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies 3rd Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines Tel Nos: 8924059 and 8935705. Google Scholar, Indexedat
Salajegheh, S. (2013). Explaining public accountability at public management theories & studying its relationship with professional ethics at public organizations of Iran case study: Welfare organization of kerman province. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(3).
Sahid, A. (2016). Bureaucracy accountability in public administration at creative economy and tourism department of makassar in Indonesia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,7(5). Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Schillemans, T. (2013). The public accountability review: A meta-analysis of public accountability research in six academic disciplines. Utrecht University School of Governance. Google Scholar, Indexedat
Sylvester, F. (2013). An assessment of accountability in the public sector in Ngeria. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review,1(3). Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Tasan-Kok, T., Van den Hurk, M., Özogul, S., &Bittencourt, S. (2019). Changing public accountability mechanisms in the governance of Dutch urban regeneration.European Planning Studies, 27(6), 1107-1128. Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
United Nations (2004). Public sector transparency and accountability in selected Arab countries: Policies and Practices. United nations development programme regional bureau for Arab States.
United Nations Development Programme (2006). Mutual accountability mechanisms: accountability, voice, and responsiveness. (2006). Crossref, Google Scholar, Indexedat
Yamamoto, K. (2011). Educational and public accountability of higher education institutions in case of national universities in Japan. The Journal of Management and Policy in Higher Education. Google Scholar, Indexedat
(n.d.) Accountability in public administration and management: A theoretical exposition. University of Pretoria.
Received: 30-Dec-2021, Manuscript No. JMIDS-21-9469; Editor assigned: 01-Jan-2021, PreQC No. JMIDS-21-9469 (PQ); Reviewed: 13- Jan -2021, QC No. JMIDS-21-9469; Revised: 17-Jan-2021, Manuscript No. JMIDS-21-9469 (R); Published: 25-Jan-2022.