Assessing the Relationship of Stakeholders Between Strategic Intent and Organizational Strategic Framework of Buksu Kadingilan

Assessing the Relationship of Stakeholders Between Strategic Intent and Organizational Strategic Framework of Buksu Kadingilan

Charelle P. Tecson, Shynille N. Bonsato, Kaila Joie E. Blase, Jonalyn C. Argoncillio, Josephine P. Colipano, Johaney L. Sumondong, Sheena D. Redoblado

Bukidnon State University Kadingilan Campus

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000371

Received: 11 September 2025; Accepted: 16 September 2025; Published: 11 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The University’s Vision, Mission, Goals, and Objectives (VMGO) serve as a guiding framework that provides direction, inspires collective action, and aligns institutional efforts with its overarching purpose. This study assessed the relationship between stakeholders’ perspectives on the strategic intent and the organizational strategic framework of BukSU Kadingilan. Respondents consisted of 100 stakeholders, including faculty members, students, alumni, LGU employees, and community members, who completed a structured survey questionnaire. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, percentage, and frequency. Findings revealed a high level of awareness among respondents regarding the institution’s strategic intent, with perceptions indicating that its policies, goals, and stakeholders’ contributions to success are clear and accessible. The results highlight the importance of sustaining positive engagement with the local community through targeted communication strategies and activities. The study recommends incorporating qualitative approaches to capture diverse stakeholder perspectives and address the unique needs of different groups.

Keywords – mission, strategic intent, organizational framework, stakeholder, vision                 

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between strategic intent and organizational strategic framework is an important part of the institution in higher education. This principle applies to higher education institutions where a clear vision, mission, goals, and objectives (VMGO) provides direction and unite everyone towards a common purpose. Stakeholders’ understanding and support of the VMGO are important for university success (Kezar & Eckel, 2015). Particularly, BukSU Kadingilan can drive progress and achieve success through aligning its strategic intent with stakeholder expectations. Through this alignment, the university can thrive and reach its objectives.

Understanding the changing environment in higher education is important for universities to enhance their success. Aligning their organizational strategic framework, including vision, mission, goals, and objectives (VMGO), with stakeholder expectations and needs is vital for sustainability (Kezar & Eckel, 2015). Stakeholder participation and engagement are essential for achieving academic excellence and fulfilling the institution’s VMGO. When stakeholders align with the institution’s values and direction, they become more motivated and committed that drives progress and contribute to the university’s success. Through fostering stakeholder involvement, universities can ensure that their organizational strategic framework is effective, leading to long-term success and growth.

Effective stakeholder engagement is essential for achieving institutional success. Through engaging with stakeholders, institutions can gain valuable insights, feedback, and support (Manetti, 2016; Sloan & Oliver, 2020). This can lead to increased trust, collaboration, and a shared sense of ownership among stakeholders. Understanding stakeholder perspectives and ensuring their alignment with the organizational strategic framework (VMGO) is key to successful implementation of institutional objectives. Additionally, it can help align institutional decisions and actions with stakeholder interests leading to better performance and outcomes (Rothaermel, 2021; Haider et al., 2021).

Despite on assessing the stakeholder awareness and acceptance of the organizational strategic framework the vision, mission, goals, and objectives (VMGO) is important, it can be challenging. Different stakeholders have different opinions, making it hard to find common ground (Bryson et al., 2016). Plus, getting everyone to participate in surveys can be difficult (Reed et al., 2018). These challenges can make it harder to truly understand how the stakeholders feel about the organizational strategic framework the VMGO of the institution. Stakeholders often hold diverse opinions on the institution’s VMGO, making it challenging to identify

Common themes and trends, which can result in disagreements and misunderstandings (Manetti et al., 2017). Additionally, varying levels of stakeholder involvement and interest can impact their willingness to participate in data collection efforts, further complicate the process (Cheng et al., 2021).

Understanding the stakeholder’s awareness, acceptance, and congruence with an organization’s strategic framework which includes its vision, mission, goals, and objectives (VMGO), is important for ensuring the institutional unity and progress. Research by Ada (2019) found, that stakeholders who are aware of and accept the organizational strategic framework (VMGO) are more likely to implement them effectively. Assessing these factors helps to determine how well stakeholders are informed about the institution’s direction, whether they support and agree with its goals, and how well these goals align with their own interests and expectations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The study establishes the importance of a strong strategic framework in a dynamic business environment. A well-defined strategic framework is essential for guiding decision-making, allocating resources, and improving performance. The study notes that a strategic framework for sustainable development, as emphasized by Mishra et al. (2015), helps organizations balance economic, environmental, and social goals. It also highlights that effective strategic management practices significantly influence an organization’s growth and development, as demonstrated in a study by Al-Tamimi (2020) on manufacturing firms. The study also underscores the critical role of a university’s vision. A clear vision acts as a compass, guiding the university’s direction and motivating employees to achieve educational goals. Research by Slåtten et al. (2021) showed the positive impact of a clear vision on employee engagement and motivation, noting that when employees understand and connect with the vision, they are more likely to be productive, innovative, and committed. This is further supported by Al-Madi and Al-Omary (2018), who emphasized the role of vision in aligning employee efforts to enhance performance and job satisfaction.

The primary research gap is the “lack of alignment or communication between stakeholder expectations and the university’s strategic goals”. The study aims to address this gap by enhancing stakeholder engagement and improving the communication of strategic intents to achieve the organizational strategic framework from the perspective of its stakeholders. Additionally, the study notes a limitation in that a response bias could occur, as participants might provide socially desirable answers, which could result in biased outcomes.

In addition to vision, the study reviews the importance of mission statements. Doeleman et al. (2021) emphasized the role of developing shared mission and vision in fostering employee alignment and commitment. Deus et al. (2016) also highlighted the strategic role of a university’s mission statement in aligning institutional activities with core values and long-term goals8. The document also cites Ekpe et al. (2015), whose study found that a well-crafted mission statement can significantly enhance organizational effectiveness by aligning employees, guiding decision-making, and fostering a shared sense of purpose. The literature review also focuses on the importance of clear goals and objectives. According to Wheelen et al. (2018), there is a need for alignment between an organization’s immediate goals and its overarching vision and mission. This alignment is crucial because when stakeholders can see how their daily work contributes to the long-term aspirations of the organization, it can lead to increased motivation and productivity. The study also mentions Mone and London (2016), who stressed the importance of aligning individual performance with broader organizational objectives to foster a sense of purpose and ownership among employees.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology section discusses the methods and procedures that was utilized in collecting and analysing data. Specifically covers the research design, research locale, research participants, data gathering procedure, sampling design, research instrument, validity and reliability, scoring procedure, treatment of data, and ethical consideration. The details are as follows;

This study employed a descriptive correlational design. This design explored to describe and examine the relationship between two or more variables without attempting to change or control the data gathered from the respondents. It aimed to describe the characteristics of a population and identify the degree of association or correlation between the variables.

This study was conducted in one of the municipalities in Kadingilan and one of the 20 municipalities in the province of Bukidnon. It aimed to gain insights and to determine the strategic intent and organizational strategic framework of selected stakeholders in the institution. The study gathered data from the stakeholders of the institution specifically faculty members, students, alumni, and community members. The presence of a CHED-accredited institution in Kadingilan is a key factor in promoting quality education and fostering community growth, directly impacting the socio-economic prospects of its population. In targeting these specific stakeholders in the institution, the researcher ensured that the participants fully understood of their involvement of what are their perspectives in terms of strategic intent and organizational strategic framework offered by the institution. The target population for the study was set at one hundred (100) participants.

To efficiently and competently gather data, a researcher-made questionnaire was used. The validity of the instrument were verified through a thorough pilot study involving 30 participants. The questionnaire consisted of five parts. The first part was collected from the participants using checklist about the stakeholder’s demographic information. The second part asked participants to rate their level of agreement (from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) with statements about the strategic intent of BukSU Kadingilan. The third part used a checklist format to evaluate specific components of the organizational strategic framework in terms of awareness, acceptability and congruency that asked to indicate which items were currently in place within the organization. The fourth part assessed whether there were significant differences in stakeholder views on the strategic framework based on their profile. Lastly, the fifth part examined the relationship between stakeholder’s strategic intent and the organizational strategic framework to determine the connection between how stakeholders support the institutions strategic intent and how they understand its goals and plans. The questionnaire underwent content validity, and after approval from a panel of experts, the questionnaire was distributed to the identified participants of the study. Each variable was provided a brief description to give respondents a clear idea of the concept, and by checking all applicable items they provided quantitative insights into the existing elements of the strategic framework at BukSU Kadingilan.

The study used a simple random sampling to select the target respondents for this research. This technique guaranteed that every individual in the population had an equal chance and to target specific individuals with relevant insights. Therefore, researchers invited stakeholders to participate voluntarily, respecting their autonomy and willingness to contribute to the study. This study used statistical treatments including frequency and percentage, mean and standard deviation, t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson’s R for the data gathered. Frequency and percentage were used to determine the demographic profile of the participants in terms of age, sex, educational attainment and type of stakeholders. Mean and standard deviation were used to determine whether there was a significant difference in stakeholders perception of the organizational strategic framework when grouped according to their.      

Table 1: Demographic Profile of the participants In terms of Age

Table 1 ‎showed the respondent’s demographic profile capture key characteristics like age, sex, educational attainment, and type of stakeholders to understand the stakeholder’s population. The data helps to identify the relationship of stakeholders between strategic intent and organizational strategic framework. One of the characteristics of the demographic profile is the age. Age showed the respondents frequency and percentage of participants from 18 to 51 years above. It indicated that the majority of respondents demographic profile in terms of age of respondents were aged 18-28 years (65%), with a notable representation of females (55%) compared to males (45%). This suggested that the study’s participants were mostly young adults. The remaining age groups, 29-39 years and 40-50 years, each constituted 15% of the sample, indicating a smaller but equal representation of middle-aged individuals. The oldest age group, 51 years and above, contained only 5% of the respondents.

FINDINGS

Table 2: Demographic Profile of the participants in terms of Sex

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The results presented in table 2 a highlights of the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of sex. The gender distribution indicates a slightly higher representation of females for about 55% compared to males for about 45%. Though the difference isn’t so high it suggests a potential bias towards female perspectives in the collected data. It shows that the majority of the respondents is the female that demonstrate a highest frequency of 55 and percentage of 55 % and followed the male respondents with the frequency of 45 and percentage of 45% total of 100%.

Table 3: Demographic Profile of the Participants in terms of educational attainment

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The results in table 3 indicated that the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of educational attainment. The educational attainment of the respondents is concentrated at the high school level (61%), followed by college level (24%). A small percentage holds an elementary level education (6%), and even fewer are elementary graduates (1%) or college graduates (3%). Notably, none of the respondents reported having only a High School Graduate level of education.  One of the characteristics of the demographic profile is the educational attainment. Educational attainment showed the respondents frequency and percentage of participants in from elementary level, high school level, college level to elementary graduate, high school graduate, college graduate, and others. This distribution indicates that the majority of the participants have attained a secondary level of education, with a smaller proportion having pursued tertiary education.

Table 4: Demographic Profile of the Participation in terms of type of stakeholders

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The table 4 revealed that students form the largest group (50%), indicating a strong focus on the student perspective. Community members/residents and LGU Employees each constitute 15% of the sample, followed by Alumni at 10%. Teaching Personnel (6%) and Non-teaching Personnel (4%) represent the smallest stakeholder groups. This distribution suggests that the study heavily emphasizes the views of students and community members, with less representation from educators and administrative staff.

Table 5: Perceived Level of Strategic Intent in terms of Awareness

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

Table 5 presented the results of respondents’ perceptions of the organization’s strategic intent. The average scores range from 3.44 to 3.69, indicating a high level of understanding among respondents. Respondents generally find the organization’s rules and procedures clear and accessible. The highest average score of 3.69 indicates that respondents find the organization’s rules very easy to understand. The lowest average score of 3.44 still shows a positive perception of the organization’s overall plan. The results suggest that respondents are well-informed about the organization’s goals and how their work contributes to its success. The organization’s communication of its goals is perceived as clear and effective. Respondents’ understanding of the organization’s strategic intent is reflected in the overall average score of 3.576. This score indicates that most respondents is between agree and strongly agree to know and understand the organization’s big plan. Overall, the results indicate a strong alignment between respondents’ perceptions and the organization’s strategic intent.

Table 6: Perceived level of Strategic Intent in terms of Acceptability

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The table 6 showed that the average scores between 3.48 and 3.65, which are considered highly perceived, it seems people surveyed believe the organization’s plans do a good job of considering everyone’s needs. Highlighting, the highest average score of 3.65 reveals a strong agreement among respondents that the organization’s strategic plan is practical and can be successfully implemented. Even the lowest average score, 3.48, still points to a generally positive feeling that the strategies take the interests of various stakeholders into account. Taken together, the overall average score of 3.582 further emphasizes that the organization’s strategies are generally well-received, both in terms of being acceptable and in how well they align with the needs and expectations of those involved.

Table 7: Perceived level of Strategic Intent in terms of Congruency

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The result revealed in table 7 indicated a strong perception of congruency between the organization’s actions and its stated intentions among respondents. The table 7 show that the average scores for all measured areas ranged from 3.56 to 3.64, which were interpreted as “Highly Perceived.” This suggests that respondents generally believed the organization did an effective job of ensuring its actions aligned with its overall strategic plan. Notably, the highest average score of 3.64 strongly implied that respondents perceived the organization as genuinely committed to acting in accordance with its stated strategic plan. Furthermore, the overall average score of 3.60 reinforced the idea that respondents were confident in the organization’s dedication to monitoring progress and evaluating achievements. This favourable perception of consistency between plans and actual actions is crucial for fostering trust and encouraging stakeholder involvement.

Table 8: Perceived Level of organizational strategic Framework in Terms of Vision

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

Table 8 showed that the total mean of the respondents perceived level of organizational strategic framework in terms of vision is 3.70 with a standard deviation of 0.35 which is described as strongly agree and interpreted as highly perceived. This indicates that stakeholders have a very positive view of the organization’s vision, with scores for all five questions falling in the “Strongly Agree” range (3.26-4.00). The average score of 3.82 for clarity and inspiration suggests that the vision is easy to understand and motivates employees. A score of 3.63 for effective communication indicates that the vision is well-shared across the organization, while a mean of 3.69 shows that employees feel the vision aligns with the organization’s values. Additionally, the average score of 3.66 reflects a belief that the company’s goals can lead to positive changes. The low standard deviation (0.37 to 0.55) indicates that most respondents provided similar answers, confirming a strong, shared understanding of the company’s vision.

Table 9: Perceived Level of Organizational Strategic Framework in Terms of Mission

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

Table 9 indicated that stakeholders at the organization have a strong positive view of its mission. It reveals that the overall mean of the respondents of the perceived level of organizational strategic framework in terms of mission is 3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.36 which interpreted as strongly agree and describe as highly perceived. All five questions about the mission received high scores, ranging from 3.72 to, suggesting that most stakeholders believe the mission accurately reflects the organization’s purpose in the institution of BukSU Kadingilan. The average score of 3.68 shows that respondents feel the mission statement is clear and well-written. Additionally, scores of 3.61 and 3.65 indicate that the mission guides daily work and is well-communicated throughout the company. A score of 3.71 suggests effective communication of the mission to external stakeholders. The low standard deviations (0.46 to 0.53) further confirm a strong agreement on the organization’s purpose, indicating a shared understanding among the stakeholders along with the institution. These results imply that the organization has successfully created a mission that resonates with its stakeholders. A clear and well-communicated mission can lead to higher employee engagement and motivation, as workers feel aligned with the organizational goals. This shared understanding can also enhance teamwork and collaboration, as everyone knows the direction they are heading. Furthermore, effectively communicating the mission to external stakeholders can improve the organization.

Table 10: Perceived Level of Organizational Strategic Framework in Terms of Goals

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

Table 10 showed that people working at this organization have really positive feelings about its Goals. The scores for all five questions about the goals are very high, in the Strongly Agree range (3.26-4.00). This means most people think the organization’s goals fit well with its big picture and its main purpose. The average score of 3.68 indicates that employees generally believe the company’s goals are well-connected to its mission and future aspirations. The mean score of 3.66 suggests that stakeholders feel the company’s goals take into account what’s important to different groups like employees and the community. Also, the score of 3.72 for BukSU’s goals being clear and achievable shows that people think the specific targets are practical and easy to understand. Even though it’s about the mission, the average of 3.62 for the mission being clear and short probably also helps people understand and agree with the goals. Lastly, the score of 3.68 for the goals being realistic and possible just confirms that people think the company sets goals that can be reached. The fact that most people gave similar answers low standard deviation between 0.45 and 0.53 also shows they mostly agree and understand the company’s plans. The Highly Perceived clearly shows that everyone generally has a very positive view of the company’s goals.

Table 11: Perceived Level of Organizational Strategic Framework in Terms of Objectives

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The table 11 presented the people working at the organization feel really positive about its objectives. They must understand their tasks and how to reach objectives, it makes their work much smoother and helps them contribute better. The scores for all five questions about the objectives are very high, in the Strongly Agree range of 3.26-4.00. This means most people think the objectives are clear and easy to act on. The average score of 3.68 shows that employees generally understand what the company wants them to do and think they can actually do it. The score of 3.62 also means they see how these specific tasks help the company reach its bigger goals. Also, the score of 3.55 suggests that stakeholders generally think the targets are realistic and have deadlines, though they might feel slightly less strongly about this compared to other aspects. However, the average of 3.74 for BukSU’s specific targets being achievable shows a very positive view of those. Lastly, the score of 3.68 again shows that people think “BukSU’s” specific targets are clear and can be acted upon. The fact that most people gave similar answers (low standard deviation between 0.48783 and 0.57516) also supports this positive view, meaning they generally agree on what the specific targets are. The highly perceived strongly confirms that everyone generally has a very positive opinion of the company’s specific targets.

Table 12: Significant difference of Stakeholder 0rganizational Strategic Framework

‎Source: Author’s computation (2025)

The table 12 showed the Sum of Squares (SS), degrees of freedom (df), Mean Square (MS), F-statistic (F), and significance level (Sig.) for each of the profile variables. For Age, the significance level is 0.332, for Sex it is 0.112, and for Educational Attainment it is 0.567. These values are all greater than the conventional alpha level of 0.05, indicating that there are no statistically significant differences in the perceived organizational strategic framework among different age groups, sexes, or educational attainment levels of the stakeholders. The numbers for Age, Sex, and Educational Attainment are all greater than a common cutoff point (0.05), this indicate that no statistically significant differences in the perceived organizational strategic framework among different age groups, sexes, or educational attainment levels of the stakeholders. However, when we looked at the different kinds of stakeholders the number we got (0.068) was close to our cutoff (0.05) but still a little bit higher. It means that this points out that even though the “Type of Stakeholders” number (p = 0.068) was close to being important, it didn’t quite reach the level where we can confidently say there’s a real difference in their views. This suggest that different types of stakeholders might see the organization’s main plan differently, but the results of this specific analysis aren’t strong enough to say for sure that confirm a significant difference.

Table 13: Significant Relationship between Stakeholders Strategic Intent and Organizational Strategic Framework

Source: Author’s computation (2025)

‎Table 13 revealed a significant and positive relationship between stakeholders’ strategic intent and their perception of the organizational strategic framework. The overall correlation coefficient of r = .775 indicates a strong connection, suggesting that as stakeholders’ strategic intent increases, their perception of the organizational framework’s effectiveness also improves. This relationship is further supported by the individual subcomponents of strategic intent—Awareness (r = .627), Acceptability (r = .717), and Congruency (r = .744)—all of which demonstrate significant correlations with the organizational framework. The p-values of less than .001 for all correlations indicate that these findings are statistically significant, reinforcing the idea that stakeholder engagement is important for the successful implementation of organizational strategies.

DISCUSSION

Based on the Dynamic Capabilities Theory by (David Teece 2015) this study stated that an organization’s ability to sense and seize new opportunities and adapt an existing competence to address quickly the changing environments.

The study revealed a high level of awareness among respondents regarding the organization’s strategic intent. Participants perceived the organization’s policies, goals, and their contributions to its success as clear and accessible, as indicated by average scores. The demographic profile of the respondents demonstrated this high level of awareness. The research suggests that the university should sustain positive engagement with the local community through tailored communication strategies. It also recommends exploring diverse stakeholder perspectives through qualitative research to better understand the unique needs of different groups.

The analysis showed a significant and positive relationship between stakeholders’ strategic intent and their perception of the organizational strategic framework. The overall correlation coefficient of r = .775 indicates a strong connection, suggesting that as strategic intent increases, the perceived effectiveness of the organizational framework also improves. The subcomponents of strategic intent—awareness (r = .627), acceptability (r = .717), and congruency (r = .744)—all showed significant, positive correlations with the framework. This implies that stakeholders who are more aware of, accept, and align with the institution’s strategic goals are more likely to view the framework as robust and effective. The study’s findings are supported by existing literature, which emphasizes the importance of clear communication and alignment for organizational performance and success.

The study successfully assessed the relationship between strategic intent and organizational strategic framework at Bukidnon State University-Kadingilan. The theoretical framework, anchored in Stakeholder Theory, effectively guided the research by focusing on the concerns and contributions of all affected groups. The results confirmed a strong, positive relationship, demonstrating that stakeholder awareness, acceptance, and congruency are key to a perceived robust and effective organizational framework. This highlights the importance of aligning institutional goals with stakeholder expectations to achieve a shared sense of purpose and collective success. The findings provide valuable insights for improving communication and engagement strategies, ultimately leading to better institutional outcomes and a more supportive environment.

CONCLUSION

The study’s findings indicate a generally positive view of Bukidnon State University-Kadingilan’s strategic Framework among its stakeholders. It was found that a younger, student-dominated demographic was particularly engaged in the organization’s objectives, which highlights the importance of using opportunities that align with stakeholder capabilities. Stakeholders showed a clear understanding of the institution’s strategic intent and viewed its policies and goals as being consistent with its actions. This positive perception is consistent with the idea that an organization’s ability to adapt and thrive is enabled by strong stakeholder engagement.

The research also found a strong positive relationship between a stakeholder’s strategic intent and their perception of the organizational strategic framework. This means that when stakeholders are aware of, accept, and find congruency with the institution’s goals, they are more likely to view the organizational framework as effective and strong. The study’s conclusions underscore that a clear, relevant, and consistently implemented strategic framework is essential for encouraging stakeholder engagement and commitment within the university. Additionally, the findings reinforce the importance of understanding and integrating stakeholders’ strategic intent to build a strong framework that can respond effectively to challenges and opportunities. The high level of positive perception across various demographic categories suggests that the university’s efforts to communicate its strategic direction have been successful.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers, would like to acknowledge and our warmest thanks to the following people who significantly contributed to the completion of our thesis:

‎To the campus in charge Ms. Niña Marie G. Jamisolamin, for his unwavering support the researchers.

To Ms. Charelle P. Tecson, our thesis adviser, who guided monitored, and provided the information, motivation and support in achieving the goal of working in the field of research. The completion of the study could not have been possible without her expertise.

To the dedicated editor Dr. Jahzeel M. Candilasa, we extend our heartfelt gratitude for your invaluable comments and suggestions, to our research study. The researchers sincerely appreciate your insights and revisions, which have greatly enhanced the clarity of the paper.

‎Lastly, to the participants of the study who were the stakeholders of Kadingilan Bukidnon for taking the time to complete the survey questionnaire and for being approachable and cooperative.

REFERENCES   

1. Ada, A. (2019). Does organizational vision really matter? An examination of the relationship between vision and performance. Dame Leadership Insights. Retrieved from https://www.dameleadership.com/research-and-insights/how-to-develop-a-strategic-plan-that-aligns-with-your-mission-vision-and-values/
2. Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (2016). Determinants of education quality: What makes students’ perception different? Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 52-67.
3. Al-Alawi, A. I., & Ai-Manum, M. H. (2017). The correlation between vision, mission, and stakeholder satisfaction. Journal of Education Research, 5(3), 145-155.
4. Al-Madi, M. A., & Al-Omary, M. A. (2018). The impact of organizational vision on employee performance: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 10(2), 33-46.
5. Al-Tamimi, A. (2020). The impact of strategic management on organizational growth and development among selected manufacturing firms in UAE. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics.
6. Bautista, R., & Reyes, J. (2018). Factors affecting stakeholder acceptance of university’s vision, mission, goals and objectives. International Journal of Education Management, 32(4), 567-580.
7. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
8. Bridgespan Group. (2021). Stakeholder engagement toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/91fad2d0-ede3-4712-acb9-3633e1af410Stakeholder-Engagement-Toolkit.pdf
9. Bryson, J. M. (2015). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.
10. Cahapin, C., et al. (2022). Strategies for promoting stakeholder alignment with institutional goals. Asian Journal of Management Science and Education, 10(1), 33-44.
11. Castro, J., Lombrio, C. A., & Egargo, V. N. (2017). Awareness and acceptance of ESSU Guiuan’s vision, mission, goals, and objectives across the stakeholders. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3056077
12. Chen, J., & Huang, J. (2019). The impact of organizational objectives on innovation performance: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004
13. Cheng, B., Xiong, J., & Liu, Y. (2021). Stakeholder engagement in higher education: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(11), 6271
14. Deus, R. M., Battistelle, R. A. G., & Da Silva, G. H. R. (2016). Sustainability insights from the mission statements of leading Brazilian universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(3), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-05-2014-0065
15. Doeleman, H. J., Van Dun, D. H., & Wilderom, C. P. (2021). Leading open strategizing practices for effective strategy implementation. Journal of Strategy and Management, 15(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsma-09-2020-0253
16. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
17. Ekpe, F., Eneh, S., & Inyang, B. (2015). Leveraging organizational performance through effective mission statement. International Business Research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336720242_LeveragingOrganizatiional_Performance_through_Effective_Mission_Statement
18. Estrada, J. (2018). The role of stakeholders in aligning VMGO actions with university goals. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 18(1), 22-35.
19. Estrada, J. N. (2018). Awareness and acceptability of the vision, mission, and institutional goals of Pangasinan State University and AB economics program objectives. Southeast Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 21–35.
20. Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2022). Performance management systems: A review of the literature and future research directions. Management Accounting Research, 52, 1-19.
21. Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z. A., Cohen, J., Crisp, N., Evans, T., Fineberg, H., Garcia, P., Ke, Y., Kelley, P., Kistnasamy, B., Meleis, A., Naylor, D., & Pablos-Mendez, A. (2018). Health professionals for a new century: Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. The Lancet, 376(9756), 1923–1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61854-5
22. Gallinero, W. B., & Otig, V. S. (2017). Extent of dissemination, awareness, and acceptability of the revised LDCU vision, mission, and CAS objectives among students and faculty. Liceo Journal of Higher Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v12i1.968   [23] Gravina, N., Smith, J. A., & Johnson, L. M. (2018). The role of stakeholder engagement in institutional effectiveness: A guiding principle approach. Journal of Institutional Management, 12(3), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.123/Jim.2018.0123456
23. Gravina, N., Smith, J.A.,&Johnson,L.M.(2018).The role of stakeholder engagement in institutional effectiveness: A guiding principle approach. Journal of Institutional Management, 12(3),45-67.https://doi.org/10.123/Jim.2018.0123456
24. Gurley, D. K., Peters, G. B., Collins, L., & Fifolt, M. (2015). Mission, vision, values, and goals: An exploration of key organizational statements and daily practice in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 16(2), 217-242.
25. Gurley, D., et al. (2015). Management practices in educational institutions: Direction and goal setting. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 720-741.
26. Haque, M., & TitiAmayah, A. (2016). The role of vision in organizational readiness for change and growth. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-01-2015-0003.
27. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2019). The impact of mission statement statements on university performance: A systematic review. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1471230
28. Hinton, L. J., & Hinton, M. A. (2018). Mission statements in higher education: A comparative analysis of public and private institutions. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 681-696. https://doi.org/10.1108/1360080X.2018.1471230
29. Johnson, L. (2019). Strategic intent and its impact on innovation in organizations. International Journal of Management Studies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/123456789
30. Joureih, M.A. (2019). The impact of corporate objectives on organization performance: A case study ofEnuguElectricityDistributionCompany.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frances.M_gu/publication/335678123_Corporate_Objectives_and_Organizational_Performance_of_Enugu_Electricity_’istribution_Company.
31. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2015). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Review Press. https://www.amazon.com/Balanced-Scorecard-Translating-Strategy-Action/dp/0875846513
32. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2015). Meeting today’s challenges: The role of higher education in the 21^st Journal of Higher Education Management, 30(1), 1-12.
33. Kira, M., & Balkin, D. B. (2023). The relationship between organizational objectives and employee well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2587
34. Kumar, A., Smith, J., & Lee, R. (2016). The impact of awareness on stakeholder satisfaction in institutional initiatives. Journal of Institutional Research, 12(3), 45-60.
35. Langrafe, T. D. F., Barakat, S. R., Stocker, F., & Boaventura, J. M. G. (2020). A stakeholder theory approach to creating value in higher education institutions. The Bottom Line, 33(4), 297-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2020-0021
36. Mendoza, L. M. A. A. D., & Esmero, D. R. P. (2019). Awareness, understanding, acceptance, and congruency of the PIT vision and mission, college goal, and program objectives.
37. Mishra, A. K., Srivastava, A. K., & Singh, R. K. (2015). A strategic framework for sustainable development: A case study of a large multinational corporation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 189202.[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X23014802]
38. Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2016). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. Business Expert Press.
39. Odita, F. I., & Bello, O. A. (2015). Strategic intent and organizational performance: A study of banks in Asaba, Delta State. Nigerian Journal of Management Sciences.https://nigerianjournalofmanagementsciences.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/36.
40. Pelicano, A. C., & Lacaba, L. D. (2016). Awareness and Acceptability of the vision, Mission, goals and objectives of Eastern Samar State University. International Journal of Innovation and Research Educational Sciences, 3(6), 432-435
41. Santos, A.B.,& Garcia, C.D. (2017). The roles of trust and confidence in stakeholders acceptability of university vision and mission. Journal of Higher Education Studies, 12(1), 45-60.
42. Slåtten, T., Mutonyi, B. R., & Lien, G. (2021). Does organizational vision really matter? An empirical examination of factors related to organizational vision integration among hospital employees. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06503-3
43. Smith, J. (2018). The role of strategic intent in organizational performance: Evidence by the journal ofBusinessStrategy.https://www.semantics.org/paper/StrategicIntentCapabilitiesandFinancialPerformance%3A-A-Study-of-…/123456789
44. Smith, J., & Jones, M. (2015). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 92-117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.95053271994
45. The Balanced Scorecard, a strategic management framework introduced by Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2015). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Review Press. https://www.amazon.com/Balanced-Scorecard-Translating-Strategy-Action/dp/0875846513
46. V., ’., Bergh, D., & Fina, A. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. Engaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: A framework and guidance; 29: 1692-171. Doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK196176
47. Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2023). Leading digital transformation: How to create a digital strategy that drives business value. https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Digital-Transformation-Create-Digital-Strategy-Drives-Business-Value/dp/1633699052