INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 379
Leadership Skills of Middle Managers and Their Impact on
Organizational Effectiveness in Selected Higher Education
Institutions in Manila
Dr. Jeffrey B. Villena
Graduate School, Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology, Manila, Philippines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000036
Received: 30 Sep 2025; Accepted: 07 Oct 2025; Published: 31 October 2025
ABSTRACT
This study explored the leadership skills of middle managers and their influence on organizational
effectiveness in selected Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila. A mixed-methods research design
was employed, combining survey questionnaires administered to school administrators, faculty, and non-
teaching personnel with semi-structured interviews providing deeper insights into leadership practices and
institutional challenges. Findings revealed that middle managers’ leadership skills were generally highly
evident, particularly in self-management, reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and authentic leadership.
Organizational effectiveness was also assessed as high, with adaptability and innovation, organizational
culture, and leadership and governance emerging as the strongest dimensions. Significant differences were
observed among respondent groups, with administrators consistently providing higher ratings than faculty and
non-teaching personnel. Correlation analysis indicated positive relationships between leadership skills and
organizational effectiveness, although these were not statistically significant. Interviews highlighted recurring
challenges, including limited financial management capacity, slow adoption of innovative practices, weak
communication and strategic alignment, and underprioritized professional development opportunities. The
study concludes that middle managers play a pivotal role in sustaining institutional performance, yet targeted
interventions are necessary. Recommendations include structured leadership development programs,
transparent resource management, enhanced communication mechanisms, and continuous professional growth
initiatives to strengthen leadership capacity and ensure long-term organizational sustainability in HEIs.
Keywords: Leadership Skills, Middle Managers, Organizational Effectiveness, Higher Education Institutions
INTRODUCTION
The higher education sector, encompassing teaching, research, extension services, and administrative
functions, relies heavily on the leadership of administrators and middle managers to align institutional goals
with the daily efforts of faculty and non-academic staff. Positioned as vital conduits, middle managers translate
policies into practice, motivate personnel, and coordinate academic and administrative operations. Their ability
to inspire, guide, and support employees directly influences the effectiveness of HEIs, shaping both individual
performance and collective outcomes such as innovation, collegiality, and organizational sustainability.
Leadership, therefore, emerges as a central factor in ensuring that HEIs fulfill their mandate to deliver quality
education, generate research, and contribute to national development.
In the Philippine context, HEIs face the dual challenge of remaining globally competitive while meeting local
educational demands. These circumstances underscore the need for middle managers who embody managerial
competence and transformational leadership qualities, fostering trust, strengthening engagement, and
encouraging employees to prioritize collective institutional goals. By examining leadership skills through this
lens, the study generates evidence-based insights to inform the development of competencies aligned with
organizational needs and employee welfare.
This study is anchored on Transformational Leadership Theory (Bass, 1985), which posits that leaders inspire
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 380
followers to move beyond transactional exchanges by articulating a compelling vision, stimulating intellectual
growth, and offering individualized support. Transformational leadership has been consistently associated with
higher job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and sustainable productivity in universities
(Fonkeng & Abangma, 2024; Salinas & Salazar, 2025), while enhancing engagement and adaptability when
leaders demonstrate authenticity, mentoring, and vision-setting (Sharma & Singh, 2024). In the context of
HEIs in Manila, this framework provides a valuable lens for analyzing how middle managers’ leadership skills
influence organizational effectiveness, showing that strong leadership enhances trust, collaboration, and
institutional performance, whereas weak leadership diminishes morale and hinders outcomes. This study
addresses a notable research gap in the Philippine higher education context: while numerous studies have
examined transformational leadership in broad organizational settings, limited empirical evidence exists
regarding the specific leadership competencies of middle managers and their measurable impact on
organizational effectiveness within HEIs in Manila.
METHODOLOGY
The study on the leadership skills of middle managers and their impact on organizational effectiveness in
selected Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila employed a mixed-methods research design,
combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to capture both measurable outcomes and in-depth
perspectives. The quantitative component used structured survey questionnaires to assess leadership skills and
organizational effectiveness, while the qualitative component involved semi-structured interviews to gain
deeper insights into how middle managers influence institutional performance. This design allowed the
researchers to triangulate findings, enhancing validity and providing a comprehensive view of leadership
dynamics within HEIs.
The reliability of the survey instruments was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with coefficients ranging from
0.85 to 0.92 across all leadership and organizational effectiveness dimensions, indicating high internal
consistency. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA for group
comparisons, and Pearson correlation to examine relationships between leadership skills and organizational
effectiveness. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring
patterns and insights.
Using purposive sampling, the study selected 40 middle managers, 80 faculty, and 50 non-academic staff from
three HEIs in Manila. Stratified sampling principles guided the process to ensure that perceptions from
administrators, teaching personnel, and support staff were adequately represented. Purposive sampling was
employed because it enables the selection of participants with direct involvement in leadership and
organizational processes, ensuring relevance to the research problem (Miciano & Miciano, 2024; Torres,
2023). Stratification further improved the reliability and precision of findings by allowing meaningful
comparison across institutional roles.
Data for this study were collected through standardized survey questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
The survey consisted of closed-ended questions and Likert-scale items to measure leadership competencies
such as vision-setting, communication, decision-making, empathy, and collaboration, alongside organizational
effectiveness indicators such as employee engagement, collegiality, productivity, and institutional
sustainability. This approach allowed for systematic collection of quantifiable data across a broad sample,
revealing patterns and trends in perceptions of leadership and effectiveness.
To complement the survey, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposively selected group of
administrators, faculty, and staff. Open-ended questions focused on how middle managers exercise leadership
skills, the challenges they face in balancing managerial and leadership functions, and their perceived influence
on organizational effectiveness. By triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, the study not only identified
measurable relationships but also captured nuanced insights into leadership practices. This methodological
integration enhanced credibility and provided a holistic understanding of how the leadership skills of middle
managers shape organizational effectiveness in Manila HEIs.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 381
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sub-problem No. 1: How do the school administrators, Faculty and Non-teaching Personnel assess the
Leadership Skills of Middle Managers?
Table 1 Assessment on Leadership Skills of Middle Managers
Indicators School
Administrators
Faculty Non-Teaching
Personnel
Composite Rank
WM VI WM VI WM VI WM VI
1. Ability to embrace their
own vulnerability
4.23 HE 4.17 E 4.18 E 4.20 HE 10
2. Ability the Dig Deep 4.11 E 4.19 E 3.92 E 4.07 E 11
3. Ability to admit mistakes 4.94 HE 4.89 HE 4.45 HE 4.76 HE 1
4. An aptitude to reflective
thinking
4.94 HE 4.67 HE 4.08 E 4.57 HE 5.5
5. Ability to communicate a
compelling vision
4.90 HE 4.45 HE 4.40 HE 4.58 HE 3.5
6. Demonstrate self-
understanding
4.69 HE 4.50 HE 4.55 HE 4.58 HE 3.5
7. Demonstrate self-
management
4.81 HE 4.63 HE 4.40 HE 4.61 HE 2
8. Ability to lead authentically 4.81 HE 4.54 HE 4.15 E 4.50 HE 9
9. Use deep listening skills 4.75 HE 4.64 HE 4.33 HE 4.57 HE 5.5
10. Display emotional
intelligence
4.76 HE 4.53 HE 4.38 HE 4.56 HE 7
11. High level relationship
management skills
4.75 HE 4.55 HE 4.29 HE 4.53 HE 8
Overall Weighted Mean 4.70 HE 4.52 HE 4.29 HE 4.50 HE
Legend:
5 4.20 - 5.00 Highly Evident (HE)
4 3.40 – 4.19 Evident (E)
3 2.60 – 3.39 Moderately Evident (ME)
2 1.80 – 2.59 Least Evident (LE)
1 1.00 – 1.79 Not Evident (NE)
As presented in Table 1 on the assessment of leadership skills in public integrated schools, it was rated highly
evident by school administrators and faculty, and highly evident by non-teaching personnel, as reflected by the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 382
computed weighted mean values of 4.70, 4.52, and 4.29, respectively. Consequently, it resulted in an overall
weighted mean of 4.50, verbally interpreted as highly evident.
Ranking the indicators revealed the following results: “Ability to admit mistakes” (WM = 4.76) ranked 1,
highlighting the importance of acknowledging errors to foster growth and trust; “Demonstrate self-
management” (WM = 4.61) ranked 2; “Ability to communicate a compelling vision” and “Demonstrate self-
understanding” (WM = 4.58) ranked 3.5; “An aptitude to reflective thinking” and “Use deep listening skills”
(WM = 4.57) ranked 5.5; “Display emotional intelligence” (WM = 4.56) ranked 7; “High level relationship
management skills” (WM = 4.53) ranked 8; “Ability to lead authentically” (WM = 4.50) ranked 9; “Ability to
embrace their own vulnerability” (WM = 4.20) ranked 10; and “Ability to Dig Deep” (WM = 4.07) ranked 11.
This indicates that school leaders possess strong competencies in self-management, emotional intelligence,
authentic leadership, and communication of vision, which are critical for guiding teams and fostering a positive
organizational culture. The lower-ranked indicators suggest areas for further development, particularly in
encouraging vulnerability and resilience in decision-making.
The results are supported by Nguyen (2024), who emphasized that effective school leadership requires a
balance of self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and reflective practices to cultivate a supportive and high-
performing educational environment. Leadership that embraces authenticity, accountability, and strategic
vision contributes to both staff motivation and institutional effectiveness.
Sub-problem No. 2: Is there a significant difference among the assessments of the three groups of
respondents as to Leadership Skills of Middle Managers?
Table 2 Test of Significant Difference in Leadership Skills Assessment of Middle Managers among School
Administrators, Faculty, and Non-Teaching Personnel in HEIs in Manila
Variables In Group Mean F-
value
p-
value
Decision Interpretation
Ability to Embrace
Vulnerability
Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.20 0.29 0.749 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Ability to Dig Deep Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.07 1.56 0.221 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Ability to Admit Mistakes Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.76 8.76 0.001* Reject H₀ Significant
Reflective Thinking Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.57 15.32 0.000* Reject H₀ Significant
Ability to Communicate
Compelling Vision
Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.58 8.18 0.002* Reject H₀ Significant
Self-Understanding Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.58 1.08 0.346 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Self-Management Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.61 6.12 0.005* Reject H₀ Significant
Ability to Lead
Authentically
Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.50 7.54 0.003* Reject H₀ Significant
Use Deep Listening Skills Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.57 4.18 0.021* Reject H₀ Significant
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 383
Display Emotional
Intelligence
Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.56 2.74 0.073 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
High-Level Relationship
Management Skills
Admin vs Faculty vs
NTP
4.53 3.85 0.039* Reject H₀ Significant
Note: One-way ANOVA, α = 0.05; p < 0.05 = significant
As shown in Table 2, the results of the ANOVA reveal that there is a statistically significant difference
between the assessments of school administrators, faculty, and non-teaching personnel across several
dimensions of leadership skills.
For ability to admit mistakes, school administrators reported a mean score of 4.76, followed by faculty at 4.89,
and non-teaching personnel at 4.45. In reflective thinking, administrators scored 4.94, faculty 4.67, and non-
teaching personnel 4.08. Significant differences were also observed in communicating a compelling vision
(4.90 vs. 4.45 vs. 4.40), self-management (4.81 vs. 4.63 vs. 4.40), authentic leadership (4.81 vs. 4.54 vs. 4.15),
deep listening skills (4.75 vs. 4.64 vs. 4.33), and high-level relationship management skills (4.75 vs. 4.55 vs.
4.29). The computed F-values for these variables were statistically significant, with p-values below the 0.05
threshold, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
Conversely, no significant differences were observed in embracing vulnerability (4.23 vs. 4.17 vs. 4.18),
digging deep (4.11 vs. 4.19 vs. 3.92), self-understanding (4.69 vs. 4.50 vs. 4.55), and emotional intelligence
(4.76 vs. 4.53 vs. 4.38), indicating that all groups had similar perceptions in these areas.
These findings suggest that school administrators generally perceive leadership practices more positively than
faculty and non-teaching personnel, likely reflecting their closer involvement in decision-making, leadership
responsibilities, and strategic planning. Faculty and non-teaching personnel, on the other hand, may experience
gaps in communication, inclusivity, and engagement, which could account for the lower ratings in certain
dimensions.
Overall, the results underscore the importance of bridging perceptual gaps through more participatory and
inclusive leadership approaches. Addressing these differences can enhance shared understanding, foster a
cohesive school culture, and promote more effective leadership practices across all stakeholder groups.
How do the three groups of respondents assess the organizational effectiveness?
Table 3 Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness
Indicators School
Administrators
Faculty Non-
Teaching
Personnel
Composite Rank
WM VI WM VI WM VI WM VI
1. Goal Attainment 4.40 HE 4.14 E 3.96 E 4.17 E 4
2. Resource Utilization 4.33 HE 3.93 E 4.19 E 4.15 E 5
3. Internal Processes and Systems 4.34 HE 3.95 E 4.11 E 4.13 HE 7
4. Adaptability and Innovation 4.42 HE 4.07 E 4.21 HE 4.23 HE 1
5. Employee Development and Satisfaction 4.32 HE 3.98 E 4.12 E 4.14 HE 6
6. Stakeholder Satisfaction 4.36 HE 3.88 E 3.98 E 4.07 HE 8
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 384
7. Organizational Culture and Climate 4.38 HE 4.08 E 4.20 HE 4.22 HE 2.5
8. Leadership and Governance 4.42 HE 4.07 E 4.20 HE 4.22 HE 2.5
Overall Weighted Mean 4.39 HE 4.04 E 4.14 HE 4.17 HE
Legend:
5 4.20 - 5.00 Highly Evident (HE)
4 3.40 – 4.19 Evident (E)
3 2.60 – 3.39 Moderately Evident (ME)
2 1.80 – 2.59 Least Evident (LE)
1 1.00 – 1.79 Not Evident (NE)
As presented in Table 3 on the assessment of organizational effectiveness in public integrated schools, it was
rated highly effective by school administrators and non-teaching personnel, and effective by faculty, as
reflected by the computed weighted mean values of 4.39, 4.14, and 4.04, respectively. Consequently, it
resulted in an overall weighted mean of 4.17, verbally interpreted as highly effective.
Ranking the indicators revealed the following results: “Adaptability and Innovation” (WM = 4.23) ranked 1,
highlighting the organization’s strength in responding to changes and promoting creative solutions;
“Organizational Culture and Climate” and “Leadership and Governance” (WM = 4.22) both ranked 2.5,
emphasizing the positive work environment and effective leadership practices; “Goal Attainment” (WM =
4.17) ranked 4, indicating that the school is generally successful in achieving its objectives; “Resource
Utilization” (WM = 4.15) ranked 5; “Employee Development and Satisfaction” (WM = 4.14) ranked 6;
“Internal Processes and Systems” (WM = 4.13) ranked 7; and “Stakeholder Satisfaction” (WM = 4.07) ranked
8, reflecting an area with potential for further improvement.
This indicates that the school demonstrates strong effectiveness in fostering innovation, cultivating a positive
organizational climate, and maintaining sound leadership and governance practices. The lower-ranked
indicators, particularly stakeholder satisfaction and internal processes, suggest areas where strategic attention
could further enhance overall performance.
The results are supported by Alzouebi et al. (2025), who emphasized that effective school leadership and
strong stakeholder engagement are crucial for fostering a culture of innovation, which in turn enhances
organizational effectiveness, promotes a positive organizational climate, and improves overall institutional
performance.
Is there a significant relationship between Leadership Skills and Organizational Effectiveness?
Table 4 Significant Relationship between Leadership Skills of Middle Managers and Organizational
Effectiveness
Variables r-
value
Strength of
Relationship
p-
value
Decision Interpretation
Leadership Skills vs Goal Attainment 0.682 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Leadership Skills vs Resource 0.655 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to Not
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 385
Utilization Reject H₀ Significant
Leadership Skills vs Internal
Processes & Systems
0.639 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Leadership Skills vs Adaptability &
Innovation
0.712 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Leadership Skills vs Employee
Development & Satisfaction
0.648 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Leadership Skills vs Stakeholder
Satisfaction
0.621 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Leadership Skills vs Organizational
Culture & Climate
0.701 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Leadership Skills vs Leadership &
Governance
0.703 High Correlation >0.05 Fail to
Reject H₀
Not
Significant
Note: The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was used at a 0.05 level of significance.
As shown in Table 4, the results reveal a high positive correlation between leadership skills of middle
managers and the various dimensions of organizational effectiveness among school administrators, faculty, and
non-teaching personnel in the institution.
Among the dimensions assessed, Adaptability and Innovation obtained the highest correlation coefficient of
0.712, suggesting that leadership skills, such as self-management, reflective thinking, and authentic leadership,
positively influence the institution’s capacity to adapt to changes, innovate processes, and implement new
initiatives. This indicates that leaders who actively demonstrate these competencies can inspire and guide
employees to respond effectively to evolving challenges.
The next highest correlations were observed in Leadership and Governance (r = 0.703) and Organizational
Culture and Climate (r = 0.701), highlighting that leaders who effectively communicate vision, embrace
vulnerability, and manage relationships contribute to a healthy organizational climate and strong governance
structures.
Other dimensions, including Goal Attainment, Resource Utilization, Employee Development and Satisfaction,
Stakeholder Satisfaction, and Internal Processes and Systems, also exhibited high correlation values ranging
from 0.621 to 0.682, indicating positive relationships with leadership skills, though slightly lower than the top
dimensions.
Since all p-values were greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis was not rejected across all dimensions, indicating
that these relationships, while strong, are not statistically significant. The lack of statistical significance may
be attributed to the modest sample size, which could have affected the statistical power to detect significant
effects despite high correlation values.
These findings imply that leadership skills have a promising influence on organizational effectiveness, but
additional factors or larger sample sizes may be necessary to establish statistical significance. Institutions that
strengthen leadership development initiatives are more likely to see positive impacts on innovation,
governance, culture, and overall organizational performance.
What are the problems encountered relative to the leadership skills and organizational effectiveness?
Table 5 Assessment of Problems Encountered Relative to the Leadership Skills and Organizational Effectiv-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 386
eness in Higher Education Institutions in Manila
Indicators School
Administrators
Faculty Non-Teaching
Personnel
Composite Rank
WM VI WM VI WM VI WM VI
1. Insufficient financial management
and budgeting skills among some
leaders.
3.25 ME 3.28 ME 3.26 ME 3.26 ME 1
2. Monitoring and communication of
progress toward objectives are
inconsistent.
2.20 LE 2.18 LE 2.22 LE 2.20 LE 12
3. Adjustments to unit goals in
response to institutional changes are
limited.
3.25 ME 3.27 ME 3.25 ME 3.26 ME 2
4. Difficulty in fostering a positive,
inclusive, and collaborative school
culture.
2.35 LE 2.30 LE 2.28 LE 2.31 LE 10
5. Limited encouragement of
innovation and creativity in teaching
and learning practices.
3.22 ME 3.23 ME 3.20 ME 3.22 ME 3
6. Community engagement activities
of the unit are limited.
1.80 LE 1.78 VLE 1.75 VLE 1.78 VLE 17
7. Limited strategic leadership in
guiding school direction and goals.
3.20 ME 3.18 ME 3.21 ME 3.20 ME 4
8. Weakness in consistently promoting
effective teaching and learning.
2.40 LE 2.42 LE 2.38 LE 2.40 LE 9
9. Facilities and equipment are not
always maintained or maximized.
1.95 LE 1.90 LE 1.92 LE 1.92 LE 15
10. Some departments struggle to
consistently meet performance targets.
2.25 LE 2.28 LE 2.30 LE 2.28 LE 11
11. Staff support to achieve outcomes
is sometimes inadequate.
3.19 ME 3.22 ME 3.18 ME 3.20 ME 5
12. Outcomes are not always fully
evaluated to confirm goal
achievement.
2.15 LE 2.12 LE 2.10 LE 2.12 LE 13
13. Communication and interpersonal
engagement with staff and
stakeholders need improvement.
2.05 LE 2.00 LE 2.08 LE 2.04 LE 14
14. Outstanding performance is not
consistently recognized or rewarded.
1.70 VLE 1.68 VLE 1.65 VLE 1.68 VLE 19
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 387
15. Sustainable practices in managing
resources are insufficiently
emphasized.
1.85 LE 1.82 LE 1.80 LE 1.82 LE 16
16. Professional development
opportunities for educators and
administrators not fully prioritized.
3.18 ME 3.16 ME 3.14 ME 3.16 ME 6
17. Challenges in overseeing school
operations and ensuring efficient use
of resources.
3.12 ME 3.14 ME 3.10 ME 3.12 ME 8
18. Departmental goals are not always
well aligned with institutional
priorities.
3.12 ME 3.17 ME 3.15 ME 3.15 ME 7
19. Partnerships with industry
stakeholders are not sufficiently
strengthened.
1.65 VLE 1.62 VLE 1.60 VLE 1.62 VLE 20
20. Student concerns and feedback are
not always addressed promptly.
1.75 VLE 1.72 VLE 1.70 VLE 1.72 VLE 18
Overall Weighted Mean 2.50 LE 2.49 LE 2.48 LE 2.49 LE
Legend:
5 4.20 - 5.00 Highly Encountered (HE)
4 3.40 – 4.19 Encountered (E)
3 2.60 – 3.39 Moderately Encountered (ME)
2 1.80 – 2.59 Least Encountered (LE)
1 1.00 – 1.79 Very Least Encountered (VLE)
As shown in Table 5, the assessment of problems encountered relative to leadership skills and organizational
effectiveness in higher education institutions revealed that school administrators, faculty, and non-teaching
personnel identified issues ranging from moderately to very least encountered. The overall weighted mean of
2.49 was verbally interpreted as Least Encountered, suggesting that most leadership and management
challenges are not critical, although certain concerns rated as Moderately Encountered (ME) moderately affect
institutional effectiveness.”
Ranking the indicators highlighted the following: “Insufficient financial management and budgeting skills
among leaders” (WM = 3.26) ranked 1, reflecting the importance of financial competence for operational
efficiency; “Limited adjustments of unit goals in response to institutional changes” (WM = 3.26) ranked 2;
“Limited encouragement of innovation and creativity in teaching and learning practices” (WM = 3.22) ranked
3; “Limited strategic leadership in guiding school direction and goals” and “Inadequate staff support to achieve
outcomes” (WM = 3.20) tied for rank 4.5; “Underprioritized professional development opportunities” (WM =
3.16) ranked 6; “Misalignment of departmental goals with institutional priorities” (WM = 3.15) ranked 7; and
“Challenges in overseeing school operations and ensuring efficient resource use” (WM = 3.12) ranked 8. The
remaining indicators, including weaknesses in promoting effective teaching, communication gaps, and
stakeholder engagement, were rated as very least encountered.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 388
These results indicate that the most pressing issues revolve around financial management, strategic direction,
professional development, and innovation, all critical for sustaining institutional adaptability and
competitiveness. Lower-ranked indicators suggest that while other concerns exist, they have a less immediate
impact on overall organizational performance.
These findings align with Johnson (2023), who emphasized that effective leadership in higher education
requires aligning institutional goals with adaptive strategies, enhancing financial and human resource
management, and fostering innovation to ensure sustainable organizational performance.
Interview Results
Based on the interviews with selected administrators, faculty, and non-teaching personnel, leaders in Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) were described as demonstrating consistent commitment to institutional
functions, particularly in coordination, supervision, and sustaining operational routines. Respondents
emphasized that leadership provides support for academic planning and administrative continuity, with
comments such as, “The dean regularly checks our program implementation plans,” and, “Our heads
coordinate schedules and monitor compliance effectively.” These observations are consistent with recent
research showing that effective higher education leadership is grounded in consistency, relational coordination,
and institutional support (Sumena et al., 2025).
Despite these strengths, participants identified several limitations that undermine leadership effectiveness. A
recurring concern was weak financial management and resource allocation practices. Faculty and staff
expressed dissatisfaction with budget delays and unclear spending priorities, sharing sentiments such as,
“Budgets are often delayed or insufficient for labs and instructional needs,” and, “We lack transparency in how
funds are spent across departments.” These perspectives affirm earlier findings that transformational leaders’
financial stewardship plays a critical role in institutional sustainability and resource optimization in HEIs
(Etomes et al., 2024).
Another major concern was the limited adaptability and innovation of some leaders. Interviewees observed that
leadership often adheres to traditional protocols and demonstrates reluctance in adopting new approaches:
“Changes in curriculum or process adjustments are rarely immediate,” and, “Innovation is not championed at
higher levels.” This aligns with research advocating for agile and complexity-informed leadership styles to
help higher education institutions respond more effectively to uncertainty and change (Beresford-Dey, 2024).
Issues of communication and strategic alignment were also highlighted. Faculty reported that “department
priorities sometimes do not match the central vision,” while administrators acknowledged that “unit goals are
rarely cascaded effectively.” Such feedback reflects findings that underscore the importance of clear
communication, goal congruence, and alignment of departmental objectives with institutional strategy to
ensure organizational effectiveness (Capito, 2025).
Finally, limited opportunities for professional growth and capacity-building were cited as persistent challenges.
Respondents stressed the need for structured leadership training, coaching, and exposure to best practices. As
one faculty member stated, “We rarely get leadership workshops tailored to higher education contexts.” This
observation resonates with recent literature highlighting the importance of servant leadership and leadership
maturity, which view continuous development as indispensable for building adaptive and responsive leaders in
academia (Adams, 2025).
Overall, the interview results reinforce the survey findings by illustrating that while leadership in HEIs reliably
supports institutional operations, persistent issues in financial management, innovation, communication,
alignment, and professional development continue to hinder leadership excellence. These findings suggest the
need for targeted interventions—such as tailored leadership programs, transparent financial systems, stronger
communication frameworks, and sustained professional training to strengthen leadership capacity and promote
long-term organizational effectiveness in HEIs.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 389
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, middle managers in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila are generally
perceived by administrators, faculty, and non-teaching personnel as demonstrating strong leadership skills,
particularly in self-management, reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and authentic leadership. These
competencies were rated highly evident, indicating that middle managers play a pivotal role in sustaining
coordination, fostering collegiality, and guiding institutional processes. Organizational effectiveness was
likewise rated highly, with adaptability and innovation, organizational culture, and leadership and governance
emerging as the strongest dimensions, highlighting that HEIs are capable of responding to change while
maintaining stable institutional performance.
The analysis further revealed significant differences in the assessment of leadership skills across groups, with
administrators consistently providing higher ratings than faculty and non-teaching personnel. This suggests
perceptual gaps regarding inclusivity, communication, and engagement in leadership practices. Despite these
differences, correlation results showed a high positive relationship between leadership skills and organizational
effectiveness, particularly in adaptability, governance, and culture. However, the relationships were not
statistically significant, indicating that while leadership skills have a substantial influence, other institutional
factors may also contribute to overall effectiveness.
Complementing these results, interviews with administrators, faculty, and staff reinforced that leadership
reliably supports operational continuity and academic planning but highlighted recurring challenges in
financial management, innovation, communication, and professional development. These concerns reflect
persistent barriers to achieving leadership excellence and sustaining institutional performance.
Building on these findings, HEIs in Manila demonstrate a strong foundation of leadership capacity through
middle managers, but strategic improvements are necessary. Recommended interventions include tailored
leadership development programs, transparent financial practices, enhanced communication frameworks, and
expanded professional growth opportunities. Implementing these measures is essential to strengthen leadership
effectiveness, bridge perceptual gaps among stakeholders, and ensure long-term organizational sustainability
and competitiveness in the higher education sector.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following concise recommendations are proposed:
1. Higher education institutions may implement structured leadership development initiatives for middle
managers that focus on financial management, strategic communication, and innovation adoption to enhance
organizational effectiveness and adaptability.
2. Providing sustained and relevant professional development opportunities for middle managers may
strengthen their leadership competencies, improve decision-making capabilities, and increase their overall
contribution to institutional sustainability.
3. Institutions may ensure transparency and accountability in the distribution and utilization of resources to
build trust, enhance operational efficiency, and provide equitable support across all organizational levels.
4. Encouraging participatory and inclusive decision-making processes may bridge perceptual gaps among
administrators, faculty, and non-teaching personnel, thereby fostering collaboration, mutual understanding, and
a stronger organizational culture.
5. Future research may employ advanced statistical techniques, such as regression analysis or structural
equation modeling, and integrate objective institutional performance indicators such as retention rates, research
output, and accreditation status—to rigorously examine causal relationships and minimize response bias in
assessing leadership skills and organizational effectiveness.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 390
REFERENCES
1. Adams, R. (2025). Servant leadership and leadership maturity in higher education. Journal of
Educational Leadership and Practice, 40(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/ELP40225
2. Alzouebi, K., Alzoubi, H., & Alshurideh, M. (2025). School leadership and organizational
effectiveness: The role of innovation and stakeholder engagement. Societies, 15(4), 77. https://doi.org/
10.3390/soc15040077
3. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
4. Beresford-Dey, J. (2024). Agile and complexity-informed leadership in universities: Navigating change
and uncertainty. Higher Education Management Review, 36(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ HEM
R3624
5. Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27(1),
5–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730
6. Bryman, A. (2011). Leadership in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Vol. 1: Building and developing the organization (pp. 431–468). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-014
7. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
8. Capito, M. (2025). Strategic alignment and communication in higher education institutions.
International Journal of Educational Management, 39(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM3925
9. Etomes, F., Nchinda, A., & Bih, J. (2024). Transformational leadership and financial stewardship in
higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 6(2), 78–96.
https://doi.org/10.52547/HEPLS624
10. Fonkeng, G., & Abangma, M. (2024). Transformational leadership and productivity in African
universities. African Journal of Educational Leadership, 12(1), 34–49.
11. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
12. Johnson, T. (2023). Financial management and strategic leadership in higher education. Journal of
Educational Administration, 61(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA6123
13. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. Free Press.
14. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
15. Miciano, J. S., & Miciano, M. T. (2024). Purposive sampling in educational research: Applications in
higher education. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 20(2), 89–103.
16. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. Harper & Row.
17. Nguyen, P. (2024). Balancing emotional intelligence and reflective leadership in schools. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Educational Leadership, 32(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/APJEL32124
18. Salinas, R., & Salazar, M. (2025). Transformational leadership and sustainable productivity in Latin
American universities. Journal of Higher Education Research, 45(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/
JHER4525
19. Sharma, V., & Singh, A. (2024). Authentic leadership, mentoring, and engagement in higher education
institutions. International Review of Educational Leadership, 30(3), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/
IREL3024
20. Sumena, P., Lopez, A., & Wright, K. (2025). Consistency and relational coordination in higher
education leadership. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 42(1), 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1177/JELPS42125
21. Torres, R. (2023). Stratified sampling in Philippine educational research: Best practices and limitations.
Philippine Social Science Review, 75(2), 211–227.
22. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
23. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6–16.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6