The Relationship of Leadership Environment and the VUCAD World Capacity among Directors, Faculty and Students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines’ Campuses

The Relationship of Leadership Environment and the VUCAD World Capacity among Directors, Faculty and Students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines’ Campuses

Jonathan A. Marquez

Polytechnic University of the Philippines- Open University System

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000334

Received: 09 July 2025; Accepted: 16 July 2025; Published: 16 August 2025

ABSTRACT

The study presented the assessment to the campuses’ leadership and the capacity to face the challenges of the VUCAD World then established correlation between these two variables. Using a descriptive- correlation research method, data were gathered using a combination of adapted and modified questionnaire among 21 directors, 144 faculty and 280 students from the campuses of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. To substantiate the discussion, 10 Key Informants were selected for detailed responses relative to the assessment. The data were treated using the median, percentage, and Spearman rank correlation test. Results showed that the indicators for assessment to leadership environment from the framework of Woodward (2017) which include Leadership Context, Leadership Objectives, Leadership Stakeholders and Leadership Self are always practiced. Likewise, the assessment to the capacity of the campuses to face the challenges of the VUCAD World in terms of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity and Diversity is exceptional. This concluded a significant relationship between the assessment of the leadership environment of the campuses and the assessment to the capacity of the campus to face the challenges of the VUCAD world. To strengthen the alignment between leadership environment and institutional preparedness across all campuses, it is recommended to enhance leadership engagement and awareness programs specifically targeted at directors to deepen their responsiveness in the areas of ambiguity and diversity. The study proposed a model entitled CLARM within VUCAD which stands for Campus Leadership Agility and Resiliency Model within Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity and Diversity.

Keywords:     Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Doctor in Education Management, Leadership Environment, VUCAD World Capacity, assessment

INTRODUCTION

Whenever educational stakeholders talk about leadership, what comes to their minds would be the style, the leadership icons, the challenges, the victories and the downfall leaders have undergone prior to the establishment of current disposition. There are few however, who might have considered the leadership environment and how it plays a pivotal part in the lives of the leaders. More so, now that the world is somewhat like a different dimension from what it was decades ago, it is imperative to note that these changes contribute a lot to the leadership practices and experiences particularly in the area of educational management.

Conducting this study may offer significant contributions by helping campus better understand the role of leadership in navigating a VUCAD world, ultimately leading to more resilient, adaptable, and innovative institutions. The findings may be valuable not only for academic research but also for practical applications in leadership development, strategic planning, and organizational change management. Understanding how leadership environments affect an organization’s capability to develop resilience, innovation, and strategic agility can be aided by this research. It can examine how leadership in a VUCAD environment affects employee engagement, morale, and organizational culture as a whole. These factors are vital for maintaining performance in times of transition. The study may shed light on how leadership contexts impact decision-making in VUCAD scenarios, which may help create more reliable frameworks for decision-making that take complexity and uncertainty into account.

This study was primarily anchored in the Leadership Interface Framework formulated by Woodward (2017). The Leadership Interface framework which provided the setting of the ‘Leadership Environment’ where effective leadership occurs, with four interconnecting dimensions: Leadership Context, Leadership Objectives, Leadership Stakeholders and Leadership Self.

The context of VUCAD in primarily anchored in Freudian, Kohlbergian and Piagetian theories of psychosocial development discussed in the book Learning (2017) in which we learn that sometimes the laws of society themselves are ambiguous and do not always follow a universal moral imperative. These developments are not a given, as we must be exposed to the stimuli that help us process the ambiguity and dissonance. We need to see and experience the uncertainty to grow to the challenge, and we are all primed to do so.

This study aimed to analyze the leadership environment and the VUCAD world capacity of the campuses then established the relationship between the assessments of these two variables as perceived by the directors, faculty and students of the PUP campuses.

Statement of the Problem

1. What is the academic community role of the respondents?
2. What is the respondents’ assessment to leadership environment of their campus in terms of:
   • Leadership Context;
   • Leadership Objectives;
   • Leadership Stakeholders; and
   • Leadership self?
3. What is the respondents’ assessment to the capacity of their campus to face the challenges of the VUCAD World as to:
   • Volatility;
   • Uncertainty;
   • Complexity;
   • Ambiguity; and
   • Diversity?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ assessment to their campuses’ leadership environment and the assessment to their campus’ capacity to face the challenges of the VUCAD World?

Hypothesis

H1       There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ assessment to their campuses’ leadership environment and the assessment to their campuses’ capacity to face the challenges of the VUCAD World when they are grouped according to directors, faculty and students

METHOD OF RESEARCH

The study utilized descriptive design as it described the assessment to leadership environment and the assessment of the capacity to face the challenge of the VUCAD world among the campuses of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The study is quantitative research as the data involved the directors, faculty and students’ numerical assessment to the campuses’ leadership environment and the capacity of the campuses to face the challenges of the VUCAD world. Further, this is correlation research. The study tried to establish correlation between the assessment to leadership environment as the independent variable and the assessment to the capacity of the campuses to face the challenge of the VUCAD world as the dependent variable.

Population, Sample Size, and Sampling Technique

The population was composed of directors, faculty and students of the 21 campuses of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Using the Raosoft sample calculator, the computation for the sample respondents were as follows: 21 Directors, 142 Faculty and 260 Students.

Research Instrument

The study utilized both self-made and adapted questionnaire. Part1 is the profile of the respondents. Part 2 is the assessment of the campuses’ leadership environment in terms of Leadership Context, Leadership Objectives, Leadership Stakeholders, and Leadership Self which used 5-point Likert scale. Part 3 which is the assessment to the capacity of the campus to face the challenge of the VUCAD world made use of the VUCA semantics reflecting the four dimensions of the VUCA framework which are based on Bennett & Lemoine (2014). The indicators for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity were adopted. However, the indicators for D- Diversity was based on the article entitled “People Management.” This used a 5-point Likert scale. The instrument has undergone validity test and the content validity is 1.0.

Thirty participants completed the survey for the pilot testing. The statistician utilized R software to compute Cronbach’s alpha in which values are all greater than 0.70, indicating that all the indicator variables meet the reliability threshold. After the issuance of the Ethical Clearance, the researcher secured endorsement from the Office of the Vice President for Campuses (OVPC) so that the survey questionnaire can be sent to the respondents from the 21 campuses of the university.

Statistical Treatment of Data

For sub-questions 1 and 2, and 3 percentage, mean and grand mean was used to determine the assessment to leadership environment and the assessment of the capacity to face the challenges of the VUCAD world. To answer question number 4, Spearman rank correlation was utilized as this would determine the significant relationship between the respondents’ assessment to their campus’ leadership environment and the assessment of their campuses’ capacity to face the VUCAD World. The correlation has been computed separately for directors, faculty, and students to examine the relationship within each group. The formula is:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

As to directors, majority 52.4% (11) are serving for 1-5 years; 71.4% 15) are Doctorate degree; and 47.6% (10) served only 1 campus. As to faculty, 32.6% (47) are serving for 1-5 years as regular faculty; 63.9% 92) are master’s degree; and 46.5% (67) served only 1 campus. As to students, majority 95.7% (268) are regular;73.6% (206) are baccalaureate programs. All the indicators in the assessment to leadership environment of the campus as to leadership context have 5.0 as median with verbal interpretation as always practiced. This finding is just the same as that of the leadership objectives, leadership stakeholders and leadership self, all having a median of 5.0 with verbal interpretation as always practiced. It was also evident that the assessment of the respondents to their campus leadership are aligned with the responses of the selected key informants but with a minor observation that getting attention from higher-level stakeholders can be difficult.

All indicators for the assessment of the campus as to VUCAD have the median 5.0 with verbal interpretation as exceptionally capable. It was further evident that the assessment of the respondents to the capacity of their campuses to volatility, uncertainty, and ambiguity were aligned with the responses of the selected key informants. In terms of Leadership Context, the P-Value is 0.057 at 0.05 level of significance. This failed to reject the null hypothesis and therefore, there is no significant relationship between the assessment to their campuses’ leadership context to the capacity of their campuses to face the challenges of the VUCAD World as to Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity and Diversity. The correlation coefficient value is 0.421 described as having moderate and direct correlation.

However, the results did not align with the assessment of selected key informants when it comes to complexity and diversity. There is a significant relationship between the assessment of the leadership environment of the campuses and the assessment to the capacity of the campus to face the challenges of the VUCAD world as to volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, with strong and direct correlation when grouped as director, faculty and students, though as to ambiguity and diversity, directors had a limited correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

Directors and faculty both put high regards to their educational attainment not just for professional growth but for them to serve their respective campuses with the best of their ability. It is also implied that student respondents were able manifest diligence in the duration of their stay in the respective campuses. The indicators of leadership environment of the campus as to leadership context, leadership objectives, leadership stakeholders, and leadership self are always practiced. This may be attributed to the synergy among the directors, faculty and students in the performance of their respective duties and endeavor. Thus, keeping an ideal leadership environment is upheld among these internal stakeholders.

The capacity of the campus to face the challenges of the VUCAD world as to volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity and diversity is exceptional. This may be attributed to innate capacity of the campuses to deal with challenges and combating them with resourcefulness, cooperation, and strategic management. Their individual journey in the quest for excellence despite of limitations inherently built the agility and resilience they possess amidst the VUCAD world.

Assessment of the leadership environment within campuses are closely linked to how prepared the campuses are to navigate the challenges of the VUCAD world. While directors showed limited correlation particularly in the areas of ambiguity and diversity, faculty and students demonstrated a consistently significant relationship across all five dimensions. This suggests that, for most campus stakeholders, especially faculty and students, effective and responsive leadership is perceived as a key factor in enhancing institutional resilience and adaptability in a VUCAD context.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Directors and faculty should continue with their services and drive for higher educational attainment as they play indispensable role in keeping an ideal leadership environment and coping with VUCAD world. Likewise, students should keep the determination and drive to deal with their academic requirements.
2. To sustain and further enhance the positive leadership environment observed across campuses, it is recommended to institutionalize structured leadership development programs that focus on adaptive, inclusive, and strategic leadership competencies aligned with the demands of the VUCAD environment. Additionally, the campuses should regularly assess and recalibrate their leadership frameworks to ensure continued alignment with evolving stakeholder needs and global trends. Encouraging participatory governance and promoting a culture of continuous improvement will help maintain clarity, responsiveness, and accountability in leadership practices.
3. Campuses should sustain the resilient and innovative framework that embeds agility, data-driven strategies, interdisciplinary collaboration, and inclusive practices into all levels of planning and operations. This should include periodic reviews of strategic plans, integration of real-time data analytics in decision-making, cross-functional task forces to address complex challenges, and structured platforms for diverse voices to inform policies.
4. To strengthen the alignment between leadership environment and institutional preparedness across all campuses, it is recommended that campuses enhance leadership engagement and awareness programs specifically targeted at directors to deepen their responsiveness in the areas of Ambiguity and Diversity. This can include tailored workshops, reflective leadership assessments, and inclusive leadership training that emphasize navigating ambiguity and fostering diversity.
5. Future research could focus on testing and refining the model across other institutions. Deeper analysis on how specific leadership behaviors impact readiness in each VUCAD dimension especially ambiguity and diversity could lead to more targeted interventions.

Proposed Conceptual Model

CLARM within VUCAD

Looking at how the rounded rectangles were arranged; it resembles a structure with two solid bases for balance. Meaning, the top appears to be the head directly connected with the body and down connect with two bases like feet. This implies that Leadership Environment is the first to be considered as it would lead to the VUCAD Readiness. Primarily, these are the two main variables of the study in which relationship has been established.

The base on the left carries the Stakeholder’s cohesion which was born out of the conclusion of the study that the common experiences and struggles of the directors, faculty and students made them stand as one with their vision and goals. The other base on the right has the Leadership Impact Perception which balances with the cohesion. This means that without a strong belief coming from the stakeholders that leadership at any form or intention would greatly affect the entire system as a whole, the model would be crippled.

Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Mode

The figure 1 above presents the relationships among constructs. Leadership Environment (LE) is directly connected to VUCAD Readiness (VR) This means that a strong and responsive leadership environment fosters better preparedness and agility in facing VUCAD challenges. Stakeholders’ Cohesion (SC) likewise, is directly connected to the VUCAD Readiness (VR). Therefore, cohesive stakeholder experiences reinforce perceptions of leadership effectiveness and institutional readiness. Leadership Impact Perception (LIP) in the same manner is directly connected to VUCAD Readiness (VR). Thus, the perception of leadership impact varies by stakeholder group, with directors, faculty and students showing a strong belief that effective leadership is key to VUCAD adaptability.

REFERENCES

1. Learning, G. (2017). Theories of Development. Retrieved on, 20, 2017.
2. Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business horizons, 57(3), 311-317.
3. Woodward, I. C. (2017). ‘The leadership interface’: effective leadership communication for contemporary global leaders’Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University).