Resource Enablement, Organizational Behavior, and Instructional Leadership Orientation on School Leaders’ Administrative Support Responsiveness in National Assessments

This study examined the influence of Instructional Leadership Orientation (ILO), Resource Enablement Capacity (RE), and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) on Administrative Support Responsiveness (ASR) in national assessments among school leaders in the Division of Valencia City. Employing a quantitative, non-experimental descriptive-correlational design, data were gathered from 230 school leaders selected through convenience sampling during School Year 2025–2026. Standardized and validated instruments with high reliability (α = 0.975–0.979) were used. Mean, Pearson r, and multiple regression analysis were utilized to analyze the data.
Findings revealed that school leaders demonstrated high levels of resource enablement (M = 4.403), organizational citizenship behavior (M = 4.488), instructional leadership orientation (M = 4.508), and administrative support responsiveness (M = 4.480), all interpreted as highly to exceptionally manifested. Correlation analysis showed significant positive relationships between ILO (r = 0.733), RE (r = 0.658), and OCB (r = 0.656) with ASR (p < 0.01). Regression analysis indicated that managing the instructional program, resource allocation support, defining the school mission, and altruism significantly predicted ASR, collectively explaining 61.2% of its variance (R² = 0.612). The study concludes that administrative responsiveness is strongly influenced by instructional leadership practices, resource alignment, and voluntary organizational behaviors. It further highlights that technical instructional management is the strongest predictor of effective data-driven school responsiveness. The findings underscore the importance of integrating leadership competencies to enhance sustained improvement in national assessment outcomes.

Resource Enablement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Instructional Leadership Orientation, Administrative Support Responsiveness, National Assessments

1. Abdul-Azeez, N. S., Ihechere, C., & Idemudia, S. (2024). Data-driven analytics for enhancing strategic decision-making in schools. Journal of Educational Administration and Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abun, D., et al. (2021). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment of administrators in Philippine higher education institutions. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aguila, S. et al. (2020). Employment, Skills and Work-Related Values of Engineering Graduates from a Philippine Institution of Higher Learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 7(4), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Mind Garden. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Darling-Hammond, L., et al. (2023). Professional development as a critical resource for school resilience and improvement. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2018). Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards equitable and excellent schools. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Deala, M. & Lopez, E. (2024). School Learning Action Cell (SLAC) Implementation and its Impact on the Personal and Professional Development among Elementary Teachers. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12536356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Department of Education. (2016). The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program school-based continuing professional development strategy for the improvement of teaching and learning (DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Department of Education. (2024). Results of the fiscal year 2023 national qualifying examination for school heads (NQESH) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Doğan, S., & Demirbolat, A. O. (2021). The role of data usage culture in school improvement. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fullan, M. (2020). The skinny on change leadership. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hallinger, P. (1982). Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hallinger, P. (2015). The evolution of instructional leadership. In L. W. Leithwood & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership and management (pp. 221–239). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). School leadership and the pandemic: Moving from reactive to proactive governance. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open schools: The organizational health inventory. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 501–528. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Magdato, G. R. C., Orongan, R. C., Caro, V. B., & Escarlos, G. S. (2025). Collaborative leadership capacity, data-driven decision-making capability, and socio-emotional competence on strategic foresight of school leaders. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 10(5), 2453–2465. https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25may1448 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). Data literacy for educators: Making it count in teacher preparation and practice. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Podsakoff, P. M., et al. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2014). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Poortman, C. L., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). Solving student achievement problems with a data use intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Prenger, R., & Schildkamp, K. (2018). Data-based decision making for teacher and student learning: A psychological perspective on the role of the teacher. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Rohrbeck, R., & Kum, M. E. (2018). Corporate foresight and its impact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Schildkamp, K. (2019). Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps. Educational Research, 61(3), 257–273. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Sebastian, J., et al. (2019). The role of school leadership in supporting the instructional program. Journal of Educational Administration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Somech, A., & Oplatka, I. (2015). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools: Examining the impact and opportunities within educational systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 1–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Spillane, J. P. (2017). Leadership and learning: The administrative practice. Harvard Education Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2020). Direction-setting school leadership practices: A meta-analytical review of evidence about their influence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3), 1–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• K To 12 at Ten: Implementation, Equity, and Outcomes of the Enhanced Basic Education Reform in the Philippines
• Work Engagement and Organizational Behavior on Occupational Burnout of Teachers