School Leaders E-Governance and Organizational Agility of Public Junior High Schools in the Division of Cavite Province: Basis for Continuous Improvement Program
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21522176Keywords:
e-governance, organizational agility, school leadership, digital governance, public junior high schools, continuous improvementAbstract
This study assessed school leaders’ e-governance and the organizational agility of selected public junior high schools in the Division of Cavite Province as a basis for a Continuous Improvement Program. A quantitative descriptive-correlational design was used. The study involved 414 respondents composed of nine principals, 46 department heads, and 359 teachers during School Year 2025–2026. A researcher-made and modified five-point survey questionnaire was administered, and the data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, weighted mean, analysis of variance, and Pearson product-moment correlation. School leaders’ e-governance was Evident (M = 3.89), with online communication and collaboration platforms obtaining the highest domain mean (M = 4.23). Significant differences were found among principals, department heads, and teachers across all seven e-governance dimensions. Organizational agility was also Evident (M = 4.02), led by ICT integration and digital competence (M = 4.14) and continuous learning and motivation (M = 4.10). E-governance was significantly related to leadership adaptability (r = .87), teachers’ empowerment and collaboration (r = .84), ICT integration and digital competence (r = .63), decision-making and responsiveness (r = .58), and continuous learning and motivation (r = .52), with p = .001 in all tests. Challenges in e-governance and organizational agility obtained means of 3.70 and 3.59, respectively, and were concentrated in unstable internet connectivity, insufficient and outdated ICT resources, uneven digital skills, and weak continuity mechanisms. The proposed Continuous Improvement Program was Highly Acceptable (M = 4.31). The findings demonstrate that effective digital governance is strongly associated with adaptive leadership, empowered personnel, responsive decisions, and sustained organizational learning.
Downloads
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Andaya, E., Orlina, R., & Ilustre, R. (2025). Digital governance in the Philippines: A scoping review of current challenges and opportunities. Global Sustainability Research, 4, 89–111. https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v4i1.1204
Awad, J., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2024). Digital transformation influence on organisational resilience through organisational learning and innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00405-4
Bacon-Shone, J. (2022). Introduction to quantitative research methods.
Caffarella, R. S., & Daffron, S. R. (2013). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Daradar, M., & Atutubo, V. (2023). E-government program implementation in public elementary schools in Sorsogon, Philippines. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 13, 669–681. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v13.i2.202340
European Commission. (2022). The digital competence framework for citizens: DigComp 2.2. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
International Organization for Standardization. (2016). ISO 15489-1:2016 information and documentation—Records management—Part 1: Concepts and principles.
Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2020). Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102180
Noe, R. A. (2020). Employee training and development (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Applying evaluation criteria thoughtfully. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en
Republic Act No. 8792. (2000). Electronic Commerce Act of 2000.
Republic Act No. 9155. (2001). Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001.
Republic Act No. 10173. (2012). Data Privacy Act of 2012.
Republic Act No. 12254. (2025). E-Governance Act.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2022). Organizational behavior (19th ed.). Pearson.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 951–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004018
UNESCO. (2018). A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2.
UNESCO. (2023). Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? Global education monitoring report 2023.
United Nations. (2024). United Nations e-government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development.
United Nations Development Programme. (2009). Capacity development: A UNDP primer.
Vizmonte, E., & Magbunga, R. (2023). Navigating e-government challenges in the Philippines: An evolving digital landscape. Action for Economic Reforms.
Wilson, C., & Mergel, I. (2022). Overcoming barriers to digital government: Mapping the strategies of digital champions. Government Information Quarterly, 39, 101681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101681
World Bank. (2021). World development report 2021: Data for better lives.
Yukl, G., & Gardner, W. L. (2020). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Pearson.
Žitkienė, R., & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational agility conceptual model. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-2.8
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.