Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

TEST TO DETERMINE THE CURRENT CONDITION AND STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION

A. Organizational Support B. Members Quality C. Openness


Q1 Q7 Q13 Q2 Q8 Q14 Q3 Q9
R1 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4
R2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
R3 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 4
R4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4
R5 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 4
R6 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 3
R7 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4
R8 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5
R9 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4
R10 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 3
R11 3 5 3 4 4 4 3 4
Total 45 48 44 40 48 48 43 43
% 81.82% 87.27% 80.00% 72.73% 87.27% 87.27% 78.18% 78.18%
Mean Score 4.09 4.36 4.00 3.64 4.36 4.36 3.91 3.91
4.1515151515 4.1212121212 3.6363636364
ess D. Supervisory Style E. Members Conflict F. Members Autonomy
Q15 Q4 Q10 Q16 Q5 Q11 Q17 Q6 Q12 Q18
5 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 1
3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4
3 3 4 5 1 4 1 5 5 3
4 3 3 4 3 5 3 4 4 2
2 4 5 5 3 2 2 5 4 4
3 5 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3
3 5 5 4 4 3 1 5 5 3
2 3 4 5 4 4 1 5 4 2
2 4 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 3
4 2 5 5 3 3 3 4 5 4
3 4 4 5 2 4 1 5 2 5
34 41 46 50 30 37 20 49 46 34
61.82% 74.55% 83.64% 90.91% 54.55% 67.27% 36.36% 89.09% 83.64% 61.82%
3.09 3.73 4.18 4.55 2.73 3.36 1.82 4.45 4.18 3.09
3.6363636364 4.1515151515 2.6363636364 3.9090909091
Restraining number percent COMPONENT ELEMENTPERCIEVED WEAKNESS OR R
Logistics 2 7.69% A.  Logistics
People 8 30.77% 1.Organization members are limited
Task 6 23.08% 2.No clear acquisition of facilities by
Technology 4 15.38% B.  People
Structure 6 23.08% 1.Lack openness to change
TOTAL 26 100.00% 2.Poor communication
3.Hesitate to take action on workabl
4.Skills not used to its potential
Driving number percent 5.Less fellowship with members
Logistics 2 6.90% 6.Needs team building activities
People 17 58.62% 7.Lacks continuous personal develop
Task 1 3.45% 8.Needs professional upgrade (mast
Technology 0 0.00% C.      Task
Structure 9 31.03% 1.Less commonality in related conce
TOTAL 29 100.00% 2.Less exposure to highly recognized
3.Faculty expertise not emphasized
4.Needs polishing job descriptions, r
5.Too much workload
6.Some are very traditional in their f

D.     
Technology

1.Communication Information Techn


2.New technology not perceived not
3.Lacks Mentoring of Neophytes
4.Slow Adaptation to changes

E.      Structure

1.Delayed Feedback/action
2.Less effective quality managemen
3.There are some inconsistent admi
4.No clear recruitment process by ad
5.Disregard of employees by admini
6.Lacks collaboration & Linkages wit
PERCIEVED WEAKNESS OR RESTRAINING FORCES COMPONEN PERCIEVED STRENGTH or D
Logistics 1. Change perceived as
on members are limited 2. Faculty Development
quisition of facilities by administrators
People 1. Flexible faculty
ness to change 2. Promotion is based o
unication 3. Diverse skillful faculty
take action on workable problems 4. Teamwork is well mai
sed to its potential 5. Members are willing
ship with members 6. Incentives are given t
m building activities 7. Accepts ideas of each
nuous personal development (Seminars, trainings) 8. Allows to reach their
essional upgrade (masters, Ph.D) 9. Good working relatio
10. Colleagues help one a
onality in related concepts 11. Good working relation
ure to highly recognized hospital/institutions for student learning. 12. Receptiveness of co-w
ertise not emphasized when it comes to appropriation of teaching load 13. Helpful and supportive
shing job descriptions, responsibilities of faculty and staff 14. Cheerful and positive
15. Lines of communicatio
ery traditional in their form of teaching 16. Cohesiveness of the C

17. Positive regard for eac


ation Information Technology mode of learning not introduced/emphasized Task 1. Good working atmosp
ology not perceived not necessary Technology
oring of Neophytes Structure 1. Leaders are approach
ation to changes 2. Leaders not intimidati

3. External audits as dri


edback/action 4. Improvement of Scho
ve quality management system/ Quality Management needs improvement 5. Leaders have high exp
ome inconsistent administrative functions 6. Allows organizational
cruitment process by administrators 7. Leaders allows person
of employees by administrators 8. Administrative Suppo
boration & Linkages with other Colleges 9. Superiors have perso
PERCIEVED STRENGTH or DRIVING FORCES
1. Change perceived as driving force
2. Faculty Development funds for employees who desire for higher learning.

1. Flexible faculty
2. Promotion is based on self-initiative
3. Diverse skillful faculty
4. Teamwork is well maintained
5. Members are willing to help, only if asked
6. Incentives are given to faculty
7. Accepts ideas of each members
8. Allows to reach their potentials
9. Good working relationship with colleagues and students
10. Colleagues help one another
11. Good working relationship with co-workers
12. Receptiveness of co-workers
13. Helpful and supportive colleagues
14. Cheerful and positive co-faculty
15. Lines of communication is open
16. Cohesiveness of the CON personel

17. Positive regard for each other


1. Good working atmosphere

1. Leaders are approachable


2. Leaders not intimidating

3. External audits as driving force


4. Improvement of School’s rank (natl & intl) as driving force
5. Leaders have high expectations to their faculty
6. Allows organizational standards for excellence through instruction, research, extension, and production
7. Leaders allows personal development through trainings and seminar workshop.
8. Administrative Support
9. Superiors have personal relationship with subordinates
Network Analysis of 33 Perceived Restrianing Forces Influencing the Interactive and Co
Components of CMU College of Nursing
Interactive and Complementary Components Cause
A.  Logistics 8
1.Organization members are limited 5
2.No clear acquisition of facilities by administrators 3
B.  People 20
1.Lack openness to change 4
2.Poor communication 6
3.Hesitate to take action on workable problems 2
4.Skills not used to its potential 1
5.Less fellowship with members 0
6.Needs team building activities 2
7.Lacks continuous personal development (Seminars, trainings) 3
8.Needs professional upgrade (masters, Ph.D) 2
C.      Task 17
1.Less commonality in related concepts 2
2.Less exposure to highly recognized hospital/institutions for student
1
learning.
3.Faculty expertise not emphasized when it comes to appropriation of teaching load
2
4.Needs polishing job descriptions, responsibilities of faculty and staff 3
5.Too much workload 6
6.Some are very traditional in their form of teaching 3
D.      Technology 4
1.Communication Information Technology mode of learning not introduced/emphasized1
2.New technology not perceived not necessary 0
3.Lacks Mentoring of Neophytes 2
4.Slow Adaptation to changes 1
E.      Structure 29
1.Delayed Feedback/action 5
2.Less effective quality management system/ Quality Management needs improvement12
3.There are some inconsistent administrative functions 4
4.No clear recruitment process by administrators 4
5.Disregard of employees by administrators 4
6.Lacks collaboration & Linkages with other Colleges 0
Interactive and Complementary
g
% Effect %
100 4 100
62.5% 3 75.0%
37.5% 1 25.0%
100 19 100
20.0% 3 15.8%
30.0% 3 15.8%
10.0% 2 10.5%
5.0% 4 21.1%
0.0% 1 5.3%
10.0% 3 15.8%
15.0% 2 10.5%
10.0% 1 5.3%
100 18 100
11.8% 3 16.7%
5.9% 1 5.6%
11.8% 2 11.1%
17.6% 2 11.1%
35.3% 7 38.9%
17.6% 3 16.7%
100 27 100
25.0% 3 11.1%
0.0% 3 11.1%
50.0% 5 18.5%
25.0% 16 59.3%
100 11 100
17.2% 4 36.4%
41.4% 1 9.1%
13.8% 3 27.3%
13.8% 2 18.2%
13.8% 1 9.1%
0.0% 0 0.0%