Employee Engagement, Digital Competency, and Work Autonomy on Innovation in Student Services

In the context of Education 4.0, innovation in student services has become essential for higher education institutions seeking to deliver responsive, technology-enabled, and student-centered support. This study examined how employee engagement, digital competency, and work autonomy influence innovation in student services among Student Affairs and Services practitioners in Region 10, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. A descriptive-correlational and causal-comparative design was utilized, involving 286 practitioners who answered a structured Likert-type questionnaire. Results showed that employee engagement, digital competency, work autonomy, and innovation in student services were all rated at high levels. Innovation was positively associated with organizational factors (r = .613, p < .01), digital problem-solving skills (r = .715, p < .01), and especially work autonomy, whose sub-dimensions, work method, work schedule, and work criteria autonomy demonstrated strong correlations with innovation (r = .743 to .777, p < .01). Overall work autonomy exhibited the strongest association with innovation (r = .816, p < .01). These findings highlight that granting SAS practitioners substantial autonomy, supported by strong digital competencies and favorable organizational conditions, is critical for fostering innovation in student services and advancing institutional transformation in a digitally driven educational landscape

employee engagement, digital competency, work autonomy

1. Al Khateeb, A. A. M. (2017). Measuring digital competence and ICT literacy: An exploratory study of inservice English language teachers in the context of Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 10(12), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n12p38 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alshukri, T., Ojekemi, O. S., Öz, T., & Alzubi, A. (2024). The interplay of corporate social responsibility, innovation capability, organizational learning, and sustainable value creation: Does stakeholder engagement matter? Sustainability, 16(13), 5511. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135511 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ampo-o, E. G., & de Guzman, A. B. (2024). Challenges and dilemmas of digitalization in Philippine education: A grassroots perspective. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 14(2), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v14i2.22325 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Artusi, F., & Bellini, E. (2021). From vision to innovation: new service development through front-line employee engagement. Innovation, 24(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1979986 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barooah, I. (2025). A guide to descriptive correlational research design. Merren. https://merren.io/blogs/descriptive-correlational-research/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Basantes-Andrade, A., Casillas-Martín, S., Cabezas-González, M., Naranjo-Toro, M., & Guerra-Reyes, F. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. (2022). Standards of teacher digital competence in higher education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability,14(21), 13983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113983 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bhandari, P. (2023). Descriptive statistics: Definitions, types, examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.co.uk/stats/descriptive-statistics-explained/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brennan, J., Broek, S., Durazzi, N., Kamphuis, B., Ranga, M., & Ryan, S. (2014). Study on innovation in higher education: Final report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/55819/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Burcharth, A., Knudsen, M. P., & Søndergaard, H. A. (2017). The role of employee autonomy for open innovation performance. Business Process Management Journal, 23(6), 1245–1269. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2016-0209 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Calobag, G. B. (2024). Exploring non-teaching personnels’ challenges on training through webinars: Administrative officers in focus. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3), 1–11. https://www.ijfmr.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (EUR 28558 EN). Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/38842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Celino, A. D. (2025). Correlational study on internal communication strategies, knowledge sharing, employee engagement, and job satisfaction in one state university: Basis for internal communication action plan. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 9(5), 282–297. https://www.ajhssr.com. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Černe, M., Kaše, R., & Škerlavaj, M. (2024). Idea championing as a missing link between idea generation and team innovation implementation: A situated emergence approach. European Management Journal, 42(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chandani, A., Mehta, M., Mall, A., & Khokhar, V. (2016). Employee engagement: A review paper on factors affecting employee engagement. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(15), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i15/92145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cheng, B. L., Cham, T. H., Dent, M. M., & Lee, T. H. (2019). Service innovation: Building a sustainable competitive advantage in higher education. International Journal of Services, Economics and Management, 10(4), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSEM.2019.105014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Clinton, M. E., & Conway, N. (2025). Within-person increases in job autonomy linked to greater employee strain. Work & Stress, 39(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2024.2364593 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Commission on Higher Education. (2021). Guidelines on the implementation of flexible delivery of student affairs and services programs during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHED Memorandum Order No. 8, Series of 2021). https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-8-s.-2021.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/creswell.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dacay, S. D., Pingkian, P. M., Simbajon Jr., A. A., & Davin, J. M. (2024). Digital literacy and digital competence of teaching and non-teaching staff of Samal Island Colleges. International Journal of Research Publications, 159(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP10015911020247266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Dara, D., Hamidah, & Saparuddin. (2022). Job autonomy, work satisfaction, and innovative work behavior: Investigation of Indonesian lecturers. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), 1422–1435. http://journalppw.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Datta, P., Balasundaram, S., N. E., & Nair, S. (2025). Measuring autonomy in hybrid work: Scale development. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 38(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-025-00338-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Deprez, J., Robijn, W., & Euwema, M. (2023). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior of employees: Two sides of the story. In P. Tyagi, V. Nadda, V. Bharti, & E. Kemer (Eds.), Embracing business sustainability through innovation and creativity in the service sector (pp. 221–236). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6732-9.ch014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Edelbroek, R., Peters, P., & Blomme, R. J. (2023). Leading innovation in inter-organizational teams: The moderating role of shared leadership behavior in the transition between different phases of the open innovation process. European Journal of Management Studies, 28(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMS-12-2021-0113 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ergun, E., Tunca, S., Cetinkaya, G., & Balcıoğlu, Y. S. (2025). Exploring the roles of work engagement, psychological empowerment, and perceived organizational support in innovative work behavior: A latent class analysis for sustainable organizational practices. Sustainability, 17(4), 1663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041663 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Felix, E., & Lerner, C. (2017). The why, what, when, where, and how of student service innovation. Planning for Higher Education, 45(2), 54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Forneas, R. A. P. (2025). ISPSC personnel in the digital workplace: An assessment. International Journal of Marketing and Technology, 15(5), Article 47. http://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2025/IJMT_MAY2025/IJMT2May25.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Gelbolingo, R. M., & Samillano, M. B. (2023). Status of blended library services in the selected higher education institutions in Region XI. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 6(2), 102–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. González-Prida, V., Chuquin-Berrios, J. G., Moreno-Menéndez, F. M., Sandoval-Trigos, J. C., ParionaAmaya, D., & Gómez-Bernaola, K. O. (2024). Digital competencies as predictors of academic selfefficacy: Correlations and implications for educational development. Societies, 14(11), 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. HolonIQ. (2023). 2023 higher education digital transformation survey. https://www.holoniq.com/notes/2023-higher-education-digital-transformation-survey [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Huu, P.T. (2023) Impact of employee digital competence on the relationship between digital autonomy and innovative work behavior: A systematic review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56, 14193–14222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10492-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kahkipuro, P. T. (2020). Cultural change in digital transformation within higher education. Proceedings of the EUNIS 2020 Conference. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kuzmina, K., Trimingham, R., & Bhamra, T. (2020). Organisational strategies for implementing education for sustainable development in UK primary schools: A service innovation perspective. Sustainability, 12(22), 9549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229549 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kwon, K., & Kim, T. (2020). An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review, 30(2), Article 100704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100704 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Labitad, R. J. C. (2025). Factors influencing employee engagement in a private higher education institution. Journal of Tertiary Education and Learning, 16(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Lambriex-Schmitz, P., Van der Klink, M.R., Beausaert, S., Bijker, M. & Segers, M. (2020), When innovation in education works: stimulating teachers' innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Training and Development, 24: 118-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Lumasag, R., & Gawahan, R. (2025). Assessment of the implementation of student affairs and services: A basis for the intervention program. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9, 1289–1301. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Madrid, H.P. & Patterson, M.G. (2023). An examination of the relationship between idea generation versus idea implementation and subsequent self-efficacy and positive affect. Journal of Business and Psychology. 38, 529–537 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09820-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Magallanes, T. M., Mansueto, J. M., Sallong, M., & Abun, D. (2025). Nurturing a competitive attitude to enhance work performance and innovative work behaviour of employees. Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities, 4(2), 1608–1633. https://doi.org/10.62025/dwijmh.v4i2.140 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Mascareño, J., Rietzschel, E. F., & Wisse, B. (2021). Ambidextrous leadership: opening and closing leader behaviours to facilitate idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(4), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1872544 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Poszytek, P. (2024). Digital transformation in educational organizations: Leadership, innovation and industry 4.0 (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003482246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Sari, D. & Yudiarso, A. & Sinambela, F. (2021). Work engagement and innovative work behavior: Metaanalysis study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ASSEHR). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210423.053 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sia, S. K., & Appu, A. V. (2015). Work autonomy and workplace creativity: Moderating role of task complexity. Global Business Review, 16(5), 772–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915591435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Spante, M., Sofkova Hashemi, S., Lundin, M. &Algers, A. (2018). Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use. Cogent Education, 5. Article 1519143. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1519143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Takaishi, K., Sekiguchi, K., Kono, H., & Suzuki, S. (2019). Interactive effects of work autonomy and proactive personality on innovative behavior. Asian Business Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.20849/abr.v4i1.548 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter? PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0204089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The digital competence framework for citizens with new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Wan, X., He, R., Zhang, G., & Zhou, J. (2022). Employee engagement and open service innovation: The roles of creative self-efficacy and employee innovative behaviour. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 921687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921687 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Wang, L., Wang, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, H., Wei, N., Zhou, B., & Li, J. (2025). Comparative analysis of innovative behavior in migrant workers and local employees in the Greater Bay Area of China. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1576470. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1576470 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. World Bank. (2022). Digital transformation of Philippine higher education (Report No. AUS0002964). http://hdl.handle.net/10986/38481 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Zhao, Y., Sánchez Gómez, M. C., Pinto Llorente, A. M., & Zhao, L. (2021). Digital Competence in Higher Education: Students’ Perception and Personal Factors. Sustainability, 13(21), 12184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112184 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Is Strike Relevant in the Modern Era? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing, IT/Ites, FMCG, Electronics and Emerging Sectors
• A Qualitative Exploration of Work-Life Balance Among Private Universities Lecturers in Klang Valley
• Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation: Examining the Impact on Job Satisfaction and Turnover
• Human Resource Management, Organizational Culture, and Good Governance Practices: A Structural Equation Model on Service Orientation among Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation in Davao Region
• Cost of Silence: Exploring the Impact of Organisational Silence on Employee Engagement