1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

In today’s rapidly-changing environment employees’ resilience is a critical

resource for organizations (Amir & Standen, 2012). In fact, it has been find out that

life happenings of Malaysian employees in an organization failed to cope with

stressful situations due to low level of resilience (Lee, 2011). The same holds true

in Kenan-North Carolina where it was found out that most of the employees in an

organizations were disengaged at work due to mentally checked out, causing to a

low performance, lost productivity, absenteeism and that employees felt stress and

anxiety at work (White, 2013). Moreover, stressed employees were not as much

dedicated to the organization and had greater intentions to leave their job and

demonstrated more negative attitudes towards resilience as they did not have the

means to cope and adapt with the problems experienced in the workplace (Vakola

& Nikolaou, 2005).

Organizational resilience is vital in understanding the critical role on how

organizations answer to external events and highly self-motivated environment and

the growing distractions to organizational life through economic crises have

improved awareness of the importance of resilience to the organizations and its

employees (Ho, Teo, Bentley, Verreyne & Galvin, 2014). However, improving the

resiliency of an individual will also allow the organization to better recognize its

keystone exposures and be able to set priorities when realizing business connection
 2

and alternative for the development of the management (McManus, 2008). In

today’s generation, resilience is required for an employment environment where

stress can gather over time because of the influence such as work overload, work

relationships, lack of resources and support, emotional and physical exhaustion and

work-life conflict (Vanhove, Herian, Perez, Harms & Lester, 2015).

Studies have shown that resilient individuals are more likely to have extra

social support than non-resilient individuals (Hickling, Gibbons, Barnett & Watts,

2011; Lee, Sudom, McCreary & McCreary, 2011; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2010;

Simmons & Yoder, 2013; Fredrickson & Tugade, 2004). Resilience is important for

employees, receiving support from their colleagues would increase the feeling of

belongingness and personal control (Simons & Yoder, 2013). In fact, a study

indicated that to remain physically and mentally healthy, employees must have

strong social support, which makes a person more resilient (Ozbay et al., 2007). In

addition, perceived higher social support allows an individual to develop their

resiliency in the organization because of its support from the management

(Mattanah et al., 2010).

Several types of research had been conducted in organizational studies,

human resources management, and strategic management literature but it is mainly

rooted in the environmental psychology, ecology field, and disaster management

field. Practically, no study, to the best knowledge of the researcher, has been done

on the domain of librarianship that focuses on determining the influences of work

context and social support climate and organizational resilience of librarians that
 3

pertaining to the concepts in the local setting. This study then was proposed to

address this research gap.

Research Objectives

This study aimed to determine which domain of work context and social

support climate best influenced organizational resilience among librarians.

Specifically, the study sought to attain the following objectives:

1. To assess the level of work context and social support climate of librarians in

terms of:

1.1 work autonomy;

1.2 task variety;

1.3 feedback from job;

1.4 social support;

1.5 organizational identification; and

1.6 knowledge sharing.

2. To ascertain the level of organizational resilience among librarians in terms of:

2.1 organizational adaptation;

2.2 organizational competitiveness; and

2.3 organizational value.

3. To determine the significant relationship between work context and social support

climate and organizational resilience among librarians.

4. To identify which domain of work context and social support climate that best

influences the organizational resilience among librarians.

 4

Hypothesis

The following null hypotheses was tested at 0.05 level of significance.

1. There is no significant relationship between work context and social support

climate and organizational resilience among librarians.

2. There is no domain of work context and social support climate that best

influences the organizational resilience among librarians.

Review of Related Literature

This section deals with the review of related literature and studies that show

a degree of relationship to the overall framework of the study. It is important to

mention too, the ideas of different authorities and cites some concepts conducted

to give a clearer emphasis and meaning to the present study. Work context and

social support climate were conceptualized by Chen-Chi and Cheng-Chieh (2013),

which focuses on the following indicators: work autonomy, task variety, and

feedback from job, social support, organizational identification, and knowledge

sharing. Conversely, the indicators of organizational resilience were intellectualized

by Mafabi, Munene, and Ahiauzu (2013), such indicators have been utilized and

adapted: organizational adaptation, organizational competitiveness, and

organizational value.

Work Context and Social Support Climate

A significant, but usually oversee, element of workforce development that is

highly relevant to the librarianship field is workplace social support. In librarianship

 5

profession, work is often demanding, and issues related to social support in the

workplace are common (Harris et al., 2017). The concept of workplace social

support is derived from the broader social-support literature. It is typically viewed as

a global construct with a range of definitional dimensions that fluctuate in meaning.

The most widely used and earliest definitions of social support defined as an

individual's belief that she is loved, valued, and her well-being is cared about as part

of a social network of mutual obligation (Kossek, Pichler, Bodner & Hammer, 2011;

Lysaght, Fabrigar, Larmour-trode, Stewart & Friesen, 2012; Nahum-Shani,

Bamberger & Bacharach, 2011; Rosenbaum, 2009; Shirey, 2004).

Hence, research revealed that support from supervisors, co-workers and the

organization as a whole has consistently been identified as an important factor that

contributes to workers’ well-being and effectiveness (Skinner, Roche, O’Connor,

Pollard & Todd, 2005). Equally important, workplace social support is defined as the

degree to which individuals perceive that their well-being is valued by workplace

sources, such as supervisors and the broader organization in which they are

embedded and the perception that these sources provide help to support this well-

being (Eisenberger, Singlhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002;

Ford, Heinen & Langkamer, 2007).

Yet, in an organization, employees who spend a substantial part of their lives

at the workplace, are dependent on their job to meet several personal needs

(Srivastava, Blakely, Andrews & McKee-Ryan, 2007). As a result, social support at

workplace represents a variety of interpersonal behaviors between providers and

recipients that can enhance an individual’s behavioral functioning (Harris,

 6

Winskowski & Engdahl, 2007) through demonstrations of human-heartedness at the

workplace (Lu, Gilmour & Kao, 2001). As such, workplace social support can be

considered a valuable tool for preventing work-related stress which resulted from

organizational change (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Sundin, Bildt, Lisspers, Hochwalder &

Setterkubd, 2006).

The first indicator is work autonomy or sometimes called as job autonomy, is

the degree of freedom and discretion that an employee has over the work that has

to be done (Sia & Appu, 2015). In addition, it is the number of control employees

have over their own work and how independent they are allowed to be in making

work-related decisions (Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger & Hemingway, 2005). In fact,

employees who have high levels of work autonomy perform their work relatively free

of direct supervision and is thought to be important to highly educated professional

workers who desire greater flexibility and control over the content and terms of their

work (Patillo, Moran & Morgan, 2009).

Likewise, autonomy refers to the freedom and willingness to use power

without fear and empowering others to do the same. Thus employees have the

liberty to act independently within their sphere of influence as imposed by their role

or job (Lather, Puskas, Singh & Gupta 2010; Subrahmanian, 2012). Moreover, study

argues that autonomy creates respect and confidence among organizational actors

and is a good motivator for employees to perform. This also means that an

organization where trust, openness, authenticity, and confrontation exist, autonomy

must also be present. Autonomy empowers organizational actors to do their job to

the best of their ability given that they are allowed the freedom to decide what to do
 7

and how to do it and in many ways, be responsible for their decisions (Choudhury,

2012).

Pursuing this further, a study has shown that younger workers seek flexible

schedules, work/life balance, challenging work, and control over the work itself

(Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008). Libraries are often challenged to offer the kinds of

work environments that these new professionals prefer. For instance, the

conceptualization of work autonomy requires a detailed understanding of work

processes, and therefore, needs to consider control over more than one aspect of

work (Rosenthal, 2006).

In another case, a Cornell University study by DeVaro (2006) looked at how

autonomy affected the organization. It was found out that half of the total population

of employees’ demonstrated old fashioned command and control management

practices, while the other half gave employees autonomy. Further, autonomy in

relations of work is particularly important for today’s worker (Huang, 2008). Having

flexible work arrangements is essential for achieving work life balance and often

plays a role in both individual recruitment and retention processes (Worldwide,

2004).

The second indicator is task variety defined as the extent to which employees

are required to execute a number of new situations that a worker experiences in

performing a job (Dobre, 2013). In addition, it is the level to which employees are

able to perform a wide range of tasks and refers to the use of different skills and

variety in their job content (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). In consonance to the job

demand-resource model, high task variety is a job resource and it is the aspects of
 8

work that help employees achieve personal goals, satisfy personal needs, stimulate

personal growth and cope with job demands that require effort to deal with. Also,

high levels of task variety are associated with positive motivational outcomes, such

as work engagement and organizational resilience (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;

Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Maric, Hernaus, Vujcic & Cerne,

2019). In contrast, lacking resources prevent dealing effectively with high job

demands and foster mental withdrawal or disengagement (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2004).

Likewise, high task variety has the functional value of making work-related

goals achievable and contributing to personal growth and thus qualifies as a job

resource (Selden & Sowa, 2011). Task variety offers valuable opportunities to use

different skills and fosters an experience of meaningfulness and motivation

(Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007). In fact, employees with high levels of

task variety show higher employee engagement that represents one of the critical

psychological states likely to influence employees’ intrinsic motivation (Zhang &

Bartol, 2010).

Moreover, in the study of Van den Broeck, Schreurs, Guenter and van

Emmerik (2015) showed that skill utilization is important for individual well-being;

Van Ruysseveldt, Verboon, and Smulders (2011) found that task variety promoted

on-the-job learning opportunities and Smith, Wagaman and Handley (2009)

demonstrated that individuals started to vary their tasks in order to remain interested

and therefore meet performance demands. In contrast to high task variety, low task

variety means a lack of opportunity to use valued skills. Low task variety may require
 9

additional effort to maintain attention and performance and is likely to result in a lack

of stimulation and motivation, displeasure and even more negative affective states,

such as frustration or anger (Zaniboni, Truxillo & Fraccaroli, 2013).

Today’s organizations use standardization, automatization, and technology

to gain efficiency in production and the way in which work is organized has

implications, which can often be lower levels of task variety (Loukidou, Loan-Clarke,

and Daniels, 2009). Evidently, low levels of task variety reflect a lack of work

stimulation (Sonnentag, 2017). The influence of job design on employees’ attitudes

and well-being has been studied widely. It is also the case that employees may not

want to simply accept unsatisfactory job design (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner &

Schaufeli, 2001; Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007).

However, a study revealed that when task variety is low, counterproductive

work behavior (CWB) appears to be a higher potential risk for organizations than

when task variety is high. Consequently, those in an organization that holds jobs

which unify a number of different tasks seem to be less likely to show

counterproductive work behavior. Indeed, employees with a lower level of education

have less access to jobs with high task variety. Providing these employees with

more task variety should, therefore, be a key priority for organizations.

Organizations with limited opportunities to increase task variety might profit from

measures such as controls, in order to prevent and detect counterproductive work

behavior more easily (Morf, Feierabend & Staffelbach, 2017). An alternative would

be to integrate gratification elements into daily tasks at work in order to make that
 10

work more enjoyable, therefore counteracting low task variety (Cardador, Northcraft

& Whicker, 2017; Dale, 2014).

The third indicator is feedback from job defined as a well-defined opportunity

to know how effective an employee is performing directly from the job itself (Hattie

& Timperley, 2007). Employers look for workers who take the initiative and have the

motivation to get the job done in a reasonable period of time. This is where quality

measure comes in to have check and balance on the outputs and outcomes of the

performance (Dotong & Laguador, 2015). A positive attitude gets the work done and

motivates others to do the same without dwelling on the challenges that inevitably

come up in any job. It is an enthusiastic employee who creates an environment of

good will and who provides a positive role model for others. A positive attitude is

something that is most valued by supervisors and co-workers and that also makes

the job more pleasant and fun to go to each day (Teijeiro, Rungo & Freire, 2013).

In the same way, feedback from job also refers to the degree to which

carrying out the work activities required by the job provides the individual with direct

and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance (London,

2003). Besides, feedback is a valuable resource to individuals for achieving various

objectives such as increasing job performance (Gruman & Saks, 2011).

Subsequently, the resource metaphor suggests that the more feedback people

passively receive through carrying out their work activities, the less additional

feedback they will require or desire and therefore seek (Krasman, 2013).

Furthermore, employees who obtained feedback from the work they have

done are more likely to demonstrate positive attitude and behavior at work (Johari
 11

& Yahya, 2016). In the context of the public sector, employees normally gather

feedback from various sources, such as supervisor, peers, and customers, as well

as the job itself (Bacha, 2014). Different sources of feedback provide useful

information on the effectiveness of their own performance (Ghosh, Chauhan, Gupta

& Singh, 2015). Based on the feedback received, public servants would be more

aware and responsive to their roles and their impact on the public sector and greater

society. Therefore, they will exert more efforts to enhance their job performance

(Krasman, 2012)

Correspondingly, employee or manager who actively seeks feedback about

his or her job performance is assumed to be more effective in his or her job than the

one who does not, suggesting feedback-performance relation (Asumeng, 2013).

However, job characteristics model shows that, for the individual, receiving

feedback gives rise to the critical psychological state of knowing the actual results

of the work activities, and this, in turn, leads to positive work outcomes

(Uruthirapathy, 2011).

Moreover, feedback from the job and feedback from others, such as from co-

workers and supervisors, were analyzed separately; feedback from the job was

classified as a motivating characteristic, while feedback from others was related to

social characteristics (Lee, Idris & Tuckey, 2019). In addition, feedback from the job

correlated significantly with promotion satisfaction and also correlated well with

organizational commitment. On the negative side, feedback from the job was related

to role conflict and anxiety. Therefore, feedback from the job itself is important for

positive job outcomes (Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007).

 12

The fourth indicator is social support defined as the feeling that those working

for an organization are cared for by their colleagues and co-workers (Chou, 2015).

Social support is considered one of the important potential influences on

organizational knowledge (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). On the other hand, social

support comes from more than one individual; the organizational climate will also

influence social support in an organization (El-Sakka, 2016). Consequently, social

support is the amount of advice and assistance the job holder receives from peers

and supervisors (Morgeson & Humphrey 2006). Also, social support was most

highly related to job satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover intentions, supervisor

satisfaction, co-worker satisfaction, promotion satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and internal work motivation (Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson,

2007).

When libraries encounter large changes or the need to implement new

services, management must support the important factors for success (Palmer, Akin

& Dunford, 2005). Social support is a sense of belonging, and also the basis for a

social structure’s ability to attract and retain members, and to motivate the

employees to share their knowledge (Butler, 2001). Previous studies have indicated

that the caring, approval, and respect connoted by social support should fulfill socio-

emotional needs, leading workers to incorporate organizational membership and

role status into their group identity (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Social support is a context-specific phenomenon that is defined as resources

provided by others, it is also known as social integration, social ties, and social

networks (Berkman, Glass, Brissette & Seeman, 2000). Additionally, social support
 13

is understood as having two traits – a structural domain that involves the size of the

supportive network and the other is the functional aspect, which represents a quality

of support ranging from tangible support to emotional support (Charney, 2004;

Southwick, Vythilingam & Charney, 2005).

Correspondingly, social support is a bidirectional and context-based

mechanism that affects health (Agadjanian, 2002) and has been considered as a

robust intervention to improve physical health, lower morbidity and mortality, and

promote quality of life and mental health outcomes (Berkman, 2014; Dennis et al.,

2009; Pfeiffer, Heisler, Piette, Rogers & Valenstein, 2011). Yet, social support has

also been reported as a consistent and strong protective factor for vulnerable

distressed women (Berkman, 2014; Ozbay et.al, 2007).

The fifth indicator is organizational identification defined as the psychological

linkage between the individual and the organization (Edwards & Peccei, 2015). To

make it even specific, it refers to a kind of psychological connected status for the

organizational goals, values, sense of belongingness, and attachment relationship

(Edwards & Peccei, 2007). Organizations have an important place in the life of an

individual. People identify with their employing organization both at the cognitive

and affective level and enhance their self-esteem through this identification (Boros,

Curseu & Miclea, 2015).

Moreover, organizational identification is measured as one of vital conditions

for the efficacy of the institution. It denotes to the identification of employees as a

part of the organization to identify with that organization (Kaifi, 2013). It is indicated

that the concept of organizational identification has a positive correlation with

 14

employee performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and a negative

correlation with the intention to leave current employment and employee turnover

rate (Terzioglu, Temel, & Uslu Sahan, 2016). The studies have also indicated

that organizational identification plays a positive role in enhancing employees'

performance (Ang, Bartram, McNeil, Leggat & Stanton, 2013; Bobbio & Manganelli,

2015; Tummers, Groeneveld, & Lankhaar, 2013). Therefore, the importance of a

sense of organizational identification for the employees is proved and it is necessary

to create the sense of identity of the members in the organization for its own goals

(Valackiene, 2015).

On the other hand, it was measured that workplace spirituality is a workplace

where people experience joy and meaning in their work, a workplace in which

people see themselves as part of a trusting community where they experience

personal growth as a part of their work community, where they feel valued and

supported would be a workplace in which spirituality thrives (Ashmos & Duchon,

2000). Hence, workplace spirituality-oriented sense of organizational identification

concentrates on raising spirituality, especially on the connection between personal

goals and organizational goals, the mission, and values of the organization, and

organizational care for the employees (Milliman, Czaplewski & Ferguson, 2003).

Consequently, the degree to which individuals feel part of – or identify with – the

values and goals of the organization within which they work are important for both

individuals and their organizations (Boros, 2008). Also, for the organization, it has

been proposed that organizational identification is essential for effective functioning

(Fuller, Marler, Hester, Frey & Relyea, 2006).

 15

The last indicator in work context and social support climate is knowledge

sharing defined as the action of individuals in making knowledge available to others

within the organization (Ipe, 2003). Correspondingly, it is the sharing of

organizationally relevant information, ideas, suggestions, and expertise with one

another (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Likewise, it is the behavior of disseminating

one's acquired knowledge with other members within one's organization (Ryu, Ho

& Han, 2003). On the other hand, it is an activities of transferring or disseminating

knowledge from one person, group or organization to another (Lee, 2001).

However, the capacity of organizations and employees to share knowledge

within them, mostly organizational knowledge, is recognized as one of the

contributing influences to organizational competitiveness of the employees. Thus,

sharing of knowledge helps individuals and organizations build up knowledge

(Pangil & Mohd Nasurddin, 2013). This is because it allows them to discuss and

deliberate on certain topics which can encourage the generation of new knowledge

(Fernie, Green, Weller & Newcombe, 2003).

Additionally, there were reasons why employees are reluctant to share

knowledge to its subordinates, the fear of decrease personal value, the cost

involved, the uncertainty of how the receiver will use the shared knowledge,

accepting and respecting a strongly hierarchical and formal power, and actual

negative consequences of sharing knowledge with subordinates (Michailova &

Husted, 2003). Likewise, when it comes to sharing knowledge, some of us can be

quite a reserve in expressing our ideas and opinions, much less voluntarily offering

our knowledge to other people (Hutchings & Michailova, 2004).

 16

Moreover, knowledge sharing can also benefit organizations in less tangible

ways and it was found out that the success of any knowledge management initiative

is highly dependent on the workers' willingness to share their individual information

and knowledge (Hislop, 2003). Thus, it involves activities that focused on capturing

knowledge and disseminating it accurately, consistently, concisely and in a timely

manner to all who need it and it requires the employees to share their experiences

and personal interpretation of information in order to be successful (Bollinger &

Smith, 2001).

Furthermore, knowledge sharing also assists in organizational learning, and

in its absence, the gap between individual and organizational knowledge widens

(Ford & Chan, 2003). In addition, if an employee’s engage in knowledge sharing,

the organization can avoid redundancy in knowledge production, and at the same

time ensure the diffusion of best practice throughout the organization (Venkatraman

& Venkatraman, 2018). It was also claimed that the systematic sharing of knowledge

among organizational members enables the organization to solve the problem by

making relevant personal knowledge available to the problem-solving process

regardless of where the knowledge is originally obtained and stored in the

organization (Husted & Michailova, 2002).

More importantly, the beauty of knowledge sharing is that knowledge grows

when it is used and shared with another, and it depreciates in value when it is kept

to oneself (Omar Sharifuddin Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). Finally, as a result of

knowledge sharing, the intellectual capital locked up in their hearts and minds can

be retained within the organization (Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001). Numerous
 17

studies have found that top management support is essential in an organizational

knowledge sharing climate (MacNeil, 2004). Organizational factors (top

management support) significantly influence knowledge-sharing processes (Lin,

2007). Therefore, it is important to know some of the factors that encourage

knowledge sharing behavior among employees (Hong, Doll, Nahm & Li, 2004).

Organizational Resilience

Organizational resilience is defined as the capacity of an organization to

foresee, plan for, react and adjust to incremental change and sudden interruptions

keeping in mind the end goal to survive and thrive (De Vasconcelos & Gouveia,

2017; Duchek, 2019; Kerr, 2017; Sonnet, 2016; Suryaningtyas, Sudiro, Eka & Dodi,

2019). Also, other researchers defined organizational resilience as the capacity to

respond to threats and opportunities in the environment in order to prevent downfall

and discontinuance (McManus, 2008; Scott, 2007; Tarrant, 2010).

In an organization’s overall competence and growth, enhancing the ability to

learn and to learn from mistakes, enhancing the ability to quickly process feedback

and rearranging processes to transfer knowledge and resources to deal unexpected

situations are all important factors for building resilient organizations (Vasconcelos,

2018). In fact, organizational resilience results from enhanced competencies

enhanced mindfulness and new ways for deployment of resources as well as

processes that enhance capabilities to recombine and deploy resources in new

ways (Zehir & Narcikara, 2016).

 18

The first indicator of organizational resilience is organizational adaptation

defined as the ability of an organization to modify its behaviors and actions in order

to cope with change in its environment (Farjoun, 2010). On the one hand, many

organizations recognize the need to adapt only when it is too late. The ability to

change is normally resisted throughout the organization unless it is motivated by the

significant loss of business or even survival. Organizations can become more

adaptive through a continuous process improvement approach (Cross, 2013).

However, organizational adaptation is the renewal at the organizational level and

this concept closely corresponds to the idea that an organization develops its

characteristics and behavior patterns as a response to changes in its stakeholder

environment (Tikka, 2010). Further, successful organizational adaptation may result

in a more effective organizational structure and process, replacement of outmoded

and a better fit with emerging environmental conditions (Marks, 2003).

Nevertheless, the issue dealing with adaptation and introduction of new

employees into the organization, it is necessary to briefly clarify its areas, content,

and objectives (Ciekanowski, 2012). On the other hand, adaptation of employees is

carefully thought out program of adaptation and educational activities that are

specific for every sort of job position, every workplace, and every organization

(Tomcikova & Zzivcak, 2012). These are created for new employees in order to

facilitate and speed up the process of getting familiar with their new tasks, working

conditions, working, social and cultural environment as well as with knowledge and

skills so that their working performance could reach the required level as soon as

possible (Nekoranec & Nagyova, 2014).

 19

Moreover, organizational adaptation is the variation of a worker to a new

setting and work practices in order to prepare him/her for effective work for the

organization (Listwan, 2004). It involves the use of employee efficiency and

performance at an early stage of entering the organization (Kawka & Listwan, 2006).

Subsequently, the practice of adaptation to work is essential period in the life of an

employee, and its main purpose is to support the newly employed person adopt and

accept habits and ways of the organization (Gajda, 2015). On the other hand, in

order for the development of adaptation to go smoothly and remain unhindered by

the task set by the employee, management should take care of correct formulation

of the rules referring to the tasks at the workplace (Zarczynska-Dobiesz, 2008).

The second indicator is organizational competitiveness defined as the ability

to persuade customers to choose their offerings over alternatives (Ugoani, 2016). It

is the level in which employee is efficient and effective at service delivery (Lin,

Wang, Wang & Jaw, 2017). However, competitiveness defined as a

multidimensional and relative concept that changes time and context (Barney,

2001). Also, competitive ability of an organization refers to the characteristics that

allow a firm to compete effectively and increase the urge to compete (Halawi,

Aronson & McCarthy, 2005). It is through effective channeling of successful growth

and sustainability in a business where human capital drives organizations towards

the higher capacity to learn (Phusavat, Anussornnitisarn, Patthananurak, Kekale &

Helo, 2010).

Relatively, the resource-based view of competitiveness has been re-

emphasized by Drucker (2008) who realized that competitive organizations must

 20

have the ability to shift from tangible to value-based measures, meaning that

organizational performance capabilities would be based more on the organizational

internal resources. Pursuing this further, the major factor of organizational

competitiveness is the ability of the organization to recognize the full potential of its

intellectual assets in taking strategic and tactical decisions (Yeh, Lai & Ho, 2006).

Taking assessments concerning cost-effectiveness, increasing productivity,

improving quality and winning employee loyalty is important for organizational

competitiveness (Iftikhar, Jan & Najmi, 2015).

However, organization competitiveness is thought to occur due to the

accumulation of values arising from organizations internal developments (Halawi,

Aronson & McCarthy, 2005). The exploitation and sustainability of these values

bring invaluable practices like knowledge creation and sharing which gives rise to

learning and innovation activities that are based on internal resources (Lin, 2007).

As noted elsewhere, it was extensively argued that the aggregate transcendental

action and behaviors at work that constitutes social asset for work organizations are

vital for organizational positioning within their markets, therefore, competitiveness

which we are considering in terms of enhanced market share and the extent of

innovativeness that is targeted at value creation across all work processes and

service delivery (Banga, 2008).

Pursuing this further, Narayan (2007) supported on the organizational

outcomes of competitiveness but also observed that it succeeds through a positive

climate which promotes the involvement and commitment of all organizational

managers. Subsequently, when the employees are retained for long it helps in cost-
 21

cutting and increased productivity (Suasini & Babu, 2013). While the

aforementioned remains imperative, it was of the strong view that competitiveness

primarily ensures renewed approaches to getting things done and ultimately bring

about new products that offers the incentive for efficiency and innovation

(Kambhampati, 2006).

The last indicator of organizational resilience is the organizational value, it is

the level in which employee make itself respected and trusted by the organization

(Schraeder, 2009). However, it was expounded that value are often divided into

terminal and instrumental value, wherein the first one refers to having a moral

significance or value by itself for its own sake, while an instrumental value is

achieved through something else (Zalta, 2014). In the case of an organization,

mission and vision could be translated to be inclusive of terminal value, while

instrumental values refer to ways how the terminal values are achieved (Hultman,

2005).

Besides, organizational values are shared values by those associated, often

working, in a particular organization (Finegan, 2000). They are common to and

shared by individuals and should support the desired behavior and guide to

understanding what is right or wrong as part of the organizational culture (Gorenak

& Kosir, 2012). Organizational values can become beliefs that are unique to the

organization, but not necessarily to individuals and these beliefs are shared often

by employees (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). Correspondingly, values

unconsciously direct our attitudes and furthermore our behavior; we behave in a

certain way, but cannot necessarily reason why (Schein, 2009). With regards to
 22

organizational values, there is not a dire need to understand the personal values of

the employees' bit moreover, how they are reflected in the daily work and even more

so, how organizational values are perceived by the personnel (Vogds, 2001).

On the other hand, organizational values are often explained in the form of

value statement and are expected to act in accordance with the management, even

if they do not support the employee personally and can also be, from the view of an

organization, a formal statement of the purpose or beliefs that will guide the

employee (Huhta & Landstrom, 2016). Moreover, organizational values are meant

to inspire (Serrat, 2010); they should be integrated into behavior (Hoffman & Woehr,

2006) to name a few. The values must be defined in such a way that they have an

impact on the way how people perform their tasks (Kelly, Kocourek, McGaw &

Samuelson, 2005).

Correlation between Measures

Previous researches have defined workplace social support and

organizational resilience in a diverse ways and there are some research have

directly studied the association between workplace social support climate and

resilience of employee in the organization, also the experiences of school

comprising teachers’ and friends’ support which enhances the resiliency of an

individual (Smith, 1999; Werner, 1995).

Accordingly, Li, Ji and Chen (2014) revealed that perceived social support

was a well-known protective factor that promoted wellbeing and examined the role

of different types of perceived social support associate with resilience. Other than
 23

that, the perceived social support from supervisors, co-workers, family, friends and

significant other are posited to predict resilience positively. Thus, employees who

have better perceived social support are assumed to have significantly higher

resilience (Chen-Chi & Cheng-Chieh, 2013).

Moreover, the development of resilience would be promoted with social

support (Ozbay, Fitterling, Charney & Southwick, 2008). Consequently, the

workplace social support climate is necessary for providing a conducive

environment for organizational to survive (Taylor, 2008). Thus, to facilitate

organizational resilience, there is a need for workplace social support and this may

include the provision of necessary facilities, supervisory support, and group support

(Skinner, 2005). On the other hand, creative organizations develop new concepts

that can be used to build adaptive capacity for organizational adaptation (Weeks,

2008).

Relatively, it was stated that seeking social support and resources from

supervisors and peers, taking organizational change as an opportunity for

development, maintaining performance through high workload periods and

supported by the organization, reflects resource utilization and the ability to

continually adapt at work (Kuntz, Connell & Naswall, 2017). Further, supportive

relationship with top management and subordinates had a big impact on increased

levels of organizational resilience (Duchek, Raetze & Scheuch, 2019). Similarly, it

was discovered that employees with higher resilience exhibited a sense of

belongingness and association of individuals, groups, and institutions more

frequently than their counterparts who were non-resilient (Dent & Cameron, 2003).
 24

Correspondingly, it was identified that workplace social support as the

resources of interest had relation to employees’ resilience (Linnenluecke, 2017). In

addition, resilient organizations are able to secure and develop resources for their

employees and are encouraged to exhibit resilient behaviors such as, engaging in

collaborative work, seeking support, and connecting with individuals across areas

of expertise and further develop the supportive network which they leverage to

address challenges (Burnard & Ran, 2011).

Nevertheless, previous study indicates that workplace social support are

positively correlated to resilience (Beck, Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2011; De

Cieri , Bardoel, Pettit & McMillan, 2014; Fredrickson & Tugade, 2004; Turner, 2014).

However, study shown that significant correlations between resilience and

workplace social support were found only between the levels of employee resilience

and perceived higher support from one’s superior. Administrator’s and superior’s

support has indeed been found in prior researches to have a significant part in

building and increasing resilience among employees (Schweitzer, Ng & Lyons,

2015; Sturgeon & Halter, 2013). Substantial differences in this research were

established among sets of average and with higher resilient persons. Studies have

confirmed that workplace social support will leads to a better employee resilience

(Allen & Day, 2004; Baker, Pitariu & Chiaburu, 2006).

Evidently, a study on the relationship between educational stress and

resilience of a social work student by Wilks and Spivey (2010) showed that support

that come from friends definitely influences resilience by alleviating students’

educational stress. Likewise, social support received from others enables the
 25

undergraduates to successfully adjust to college life, and such adaptation can be

considered a result of resilience (Zaleski, Levey-Thors & Schiaffino, 1998).

Consequently, Jang (2012) dealt with capacity of social support to help

individuals build and develop resilience despite the difficulties and crisis they have

faced. As aspect of caring, social support plays an important role for children in

stressful situations and grown-person who experienced problems in the family.

Besides, a study revealed that marital support is associated with higher level of

resilience (Rutter, 1987); in addition, support from spouse, family and non-family

members affects resilience of an individual (Afifi & MacMillan, 2011). Several

research studies have determined that the key aspect influencing the resilience of

an individual is association in caring and supportive relations within and outside of

the family. Such interactions will lead to the development of one’s resilience by

providing trust, encouragement and love (Newman, 2003).

In essence, the aforementioned studies help the researcher by providing a

much more comprehensive analysis for it defines and reviews relevant work related

to each concept as well as connections that have been made between the concepts

of work context and social support climate and organizational resilience by providing

a strong and in-depth investigation. In addition, the primary aim of this study is to

investigate what domain of work context and social support climate that best

influences the organizational resilience of librarians. This study, therefore, strives to

bridge this gap in the management literature by examining the relationship between

work context and social support climate and organizational resilience.

 26

Theoretical Framework

This study is based on the proposition of Chen-Chi and Cheng-Chieh (2013)

that workplace social support from the top management, supervisors, co-workers,

friends and significant others has an affirmative influence on the resiliency of

employees which indicates that perceived higher social support is likely to have

higher employee resilience. Relatively, the findings substantiate the proposition of

Montes, Moreno, and Fernandez (2004) that workplace social support can lead to

higher resilience of an individual such as adaptation, competitiveness, and value.

As a matter of fact, this study established that when employees recognized

beneficial support from the workplace, their commitment to work will develop and

this will enhance their resiliency to the organization. It emphasizes that employees

was looking for a favorable factors from the organization such as fairness, support

and rewards that allows them to put an extra miles on their job.

Correspondingly, a study conducted by Hamel and Valikangas (2003) shown

that workplace social support appears to be important for a workable organizational

resilience such as adaptation and competitiveness. This workplace social support

comprises the provision of necessary facilities, the top management support, and

co-workers support, all of which influence organizational resilience. Similarly,

supportive workplace climate plays a fundamental role in maintaining the

employees’ resilience. It is advantageous to develop individual as well as

professional relationship, which can be a foundation of guidance and social support

in the course of difficulties or basically to provide greater social support to an

individual (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007).

 27

Moreover, Panuwatwanich, Stewart, and Mohamed (2009) found out that

workplace social support, like supervisory support and workgroup support are

essential for innovation because it motivates individuals to put extra effort to their

job which can enhance their organizational resilience at work. Thus, organization

with strong workplace social support encourages employees to have a positive

mindset so that they can be creative in bringing up new ideas and increase individual

resiliency during times of difficulties (Tarrant, 2010).

 28

Conceptual Framework

As shown in figure 1, is the conceptual framework of the study. The

independent variable is work context and social support climate as conceptualized

by Chen-Chi and Cheng-Chieh (2013) with the following indicators: work autonomy

which refers to the degree to which employees are given substantial freedom,

independence, and discretion in carrying out a task; task variety which refers to

which employees are required to execute a number of new situations that a worker

experiences in performing a job; feedback from job which refers to the well-defined

opportunity to know how effectively an employee is performing directly from the job

itself; social support which refers to the feeling that those working for an organization

are cared for by their colleagues and co-workers; organizational identification which

refers to the degree of a librarian’s loyalty toward the library; and lastly knowledge

sharing which refers to an individual’s participation on the knowledge sharing

activities of his/her library.

Likewise, the dependent variable is organizational resilience contextualized

by Mafabi, Munene and Ahiauzu (2013) with the following indicators: organizational

adaptation which refers to which employee responds to the demands in the

environment for survival; organizational competitiveness refers to which employee

is efficient and effective at service delivery; and organizational value refers to which

employee makes itself reputable in his/her job to the organization.

 29

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Work Context and Social Organizational Resilience

Support Climate
 Organizational
 Work autonomy adaptation

 Task variety  Organizational

competitiveness
 Feedback from job
 Organizational value
 Social support

 Organizational
identification

 Knowledge sharing

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

 30

Significance of the Study

The potential value of this study shall contribute to the study of adversities

and resilience by confirming that resilience can act as a defense in regards to

hardships in life; highly resilient individuals perceived the stressfulness of difficulties

as expressively lower than individuals showing lower levels of resilience. Resilient

individuals have been found to have an increased ability to adapt and keep balance

in challenging and unpredictable work environments (Jones, Hendricks & Cope,

2016).

The result of this study highlight the importance of resilience for keeping good

levels of both work context and social support climate and organizational resilience

and the impact of these two work-related factors for intentions to continue working

until retirement age. Since top management and human resource departments are

seen to be capable of developing resilience, human resource advocates and

administrators should identify the significance of resilience for dealing with

hardships and challenging work environments and aim to implement resilience-

enhancing practices across the whole organization (Linnenluecke, 2017). Thus,

human resource and managers functions have a key role in the wellbeing of

employees and their retention to the organization.

Lastly, the result of the study can be used as basis in promoting

organizational resilience among librarians. Organizations should aim to train and

support supervisor’s and make sure they understand the importance of their work

for the resilience of employees. Thus, organizational resilience must be considered

as one of the administration top priority.

 31

Definitions of Terms

To have a common structure of references, the subsequent terms were

operationally defined.

Work Context and Social Support Climate. In this study, it pertains to

independent variable and it points out to its indicators which are: work autonomy,

task variety, feedback from job, social support, organizational identification, and

knowledge sharing.

Organizational Resilience among Librarians. In this exploration, it refers to the

dependent variable and it points out to its indicators which are: organizational

adaptation, organizational competitiveness, and organizational value.

 32

Chapter 2

METHOD

This chapter highlighted the methods used in the study. It includes the

research design, research locale, population and sample, research instrument, data

collection, statistical tools, and ethical considerations.

Research Design

This study employed quantitative non-experimental using the descriptive-

correlational technique. In this research design, the researcher was able to

determine if there is a significant relationship between work context and social

support climate as determinant on organizational resilience among librarians.

Quantitative research because it attempts to objectively collect and utilize numerical

data from a population to determine the level of work context and social support

climate and organizational resilience among librarians. As stated by Stichler (2016)

it emphasis objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical

analysis of data collected through survey and questionnaires or by manipulating pre-

existing statistical data using computational techniques.

While descriptive research strategy is intended to provide a quantitative

description of the relationship between work context and social support climate as

determinant on organizational resilience among librarians. Based on the idea of

Brannen (2017), it describes the participants in describing the nature,

characteristics, and components of the population or a phenomenon. In the

correlational technique was a non-experimental design, where the researcher

 33

examined the relationship between two or more variables in a natural setting without

manipulation or control. Generally, the researchers examined the strength of

relationships between two variables by determining how the change in one variable

is correlated with change in the other variables. Creswell (2014) highlighted that this

design helps to identify any patterns of relationship that exist between the two

variables and to measure the strength of the relationship.

Research Locale

The study was conducted in Davao City. As shown in Figure 2 in the

geographic location of the study, Davao City is divided into three congressional

districts, which are subdivided into administrative districts with a total of 182

barangays of Davao City; District 1, major barangays such as Poblacion, Talomo

and Agdao; District 2, such as Buhangin, Bunawan, Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan

andMarilog. While in the District 3, Toril and Tugbok are located. These were the

places where some of the licensed librarians were working. The current professional

librarians in Davao City are registered in the Philippine Librarians Association,

Incorporated (PLAI) in Davao Region. As of 2017 about 164 members were chosen

as respondents of this study.

There are quite a number of Department of Education (DepEd) and Higher

Education Institutions (HEIs) in the city both in private, public, state college and

universities. The 141 total numbers of respondents came from the 43 different

libraries in Davao City. There were 96 that came from academic libraries, 35 from

school libraries, 7 from public libraries, and 3 from special libraries. Out of 164 library
 34

Figure 2. Map of the Philippines and Davao City

 35

personnel, there were only 141 of them who answered and returned the

questionnaires due to reasons such as the library personnel was on a study leave

program, and unavailable during the conduct of the study.

Population and Sample

This study was conducted among the librarians in Davao City. They were

selected as respondents because they can understand the content of the survey

questionnaire and they had the capacity to interpret it to the best of their ability based

on their work experiences. In selecting the respondents, universal sampling method

by O’Dwyer and Bernauer (2014) was utilized by the researcher in the conduct of

this study because only a few measurements per unit were made of their frequency

distribution to justify the assumption of known mathematical forms. Subsequently,

MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) conducted a study about

the empirical statistical power for common sample sizes. For regression, the

minimum number of samples required is 100. In order to get a meaningful result,

most statisticians agreed that the most recommended minimum sample size is 100

and that 100 is adequate.

The current professional librarians in Davao City that are registered in the

Philippine Librarians Association, Incorporated (PLAI) in Davao City as of 2017 is

about 164 members. Out of 164 librarians in Davao City, there were only 141

librarians who answered and returned the questionnaires due to their unavailability

during the conduct of the study and on a study leave. However, the researcher made

it clear to the respondents that drop-out/withdrawal from participating is up to them,

 36

thus, participation is clearly voluntary. The study was conducted during the second

semester; School Year 2018-2019.

Research Instrument

The research instrument used in data gathering was adopted by various

authors. The questionnaires were composed of two parts. The first part was the

work context and social support climate adapted and modified from the study of

Chen-Chi and Cheng-Chieh (2013) which specified the work autonomy, task variety,

feedback from job, social support, organizational identification, and knowledge

sharing with a modification accurate to the respondents of the research using the 5

points Likert scale.

Below was the basis of interpretation purpose, the gathered data were

computed to determine the average mean. The following range of means was used

for the variable of work context and social support climate:

Range of Means Descriptive level Interpretations

This means that the work context and

4.20 - 5.00 Very High social support climate among
librarians is manifested at all times.
This means that the work context and
3.40 - 4.19 High social support climate among
librarians is manifested in the majority
of the cases.
This means that the work context and
2.60 - 3.39 Moderate social support climate among
librarians is manifested in many but
not majority in the cases.
 37

This means that the work context and

1.80 - 2.59 Low social support climate among
librarians is manifested in a few
instances.
This means that the work context and
1.00 - 1.79 Very Low social support climate among
librarians is not manifested at all.

Conversely, part two includes organizational resilience patterned from the

study of Mafabi, Munene, and Ahiauzu (2013) which indicated organizational

adaptation, organizational competitiveness, and organizational value.

Below was the basis of interpretation for the level of organizational resilience,

the following range of means were used:

Range of Means Descriptive level Interpretations

This means that the organizational

4.20 - 5.00 Very High resilience among librarians is
manifested at all times.
This means that the organizational
3.40 - 4.19 High resilience among librarians is
manifested in the majority of the
cases.
This means that the organizational
2.60 - 3.39 Moderate resilience among librarians is
manifested in many but not majority in
the cases.
This means that the organizational
1.80 - 2.59 Low resilience among librarians is
manifested in a few instances.
This means that the organizational
1.00 - 1.79 Very Low resilience among librarians is not
manifested at all.
 38

The questionnaire was validated by the experts for construct validity and had

an overall rating of 3.80 which is described as Very Good. The Cronbach alpha also

for work context and social support climate and organizational resilience resulted to

.932, and .915 respectively, interpreted as having excellent internal consistency

making the questionnaire strongly reliable.

Data Collection

The necessary data were gathered personally by the researcher through the

following steps. Primarily, the researcher made a formal written communication

addressed to the validators for the perusal and review of the questionnaires as

instruments used in the research study. The said tools were subjected for

comments, suggestions, and recommendations; then pilot test was conducted after

the validation and pilot testing. Then, another set of letter addressed to the Director

of Libraries, asking permission to conduct the study with the endorsement letter from

the Dean of the Graduate School. Afterward, upon approval from the Director of the

libraries, the researcher assured that specific rules and conditions stipulated in the

letter were followed.

Subsequently, during the survey proper, the researcher had encountered

difficulties wherein some of the librarians were not answering the questionnaires

due to having seminars and on their vacation or leave. Then, the actual survey was

administered to a total of 141 respondents which did not correspond to the total

population of the librarians that registered in the Philippine Librarians Association,

Incorporated in Davao Region. Lastly, the data gathered were tallied, tabulated,
 39

analyzed and interpreted confidentially accordingly, with the guidance of the

statistician based on the purpose of the study.

Statistical Tools

The subsequent statistical tools were used in the computation of the data and

in testing the hypotheses of the study at 0.05 level of significance.

Mean. This was employed to determine the level of work context and social

support climate and organizational resilience among librarians.

Pearson r. This was utilized to determine the significant relationship

between the work context and social support climate and organizational resilience

among librarians.

Regression Analysis. This was utilized to identify which domain of work

context and social support climate significantly influence the organizational

resilience among librarians.

Ethical Considerations

Moral concerns were observed during the conduct of this study. At the onset,

the researcher was asked permission of the concerned officials regarding the

conduct of the study and the involvement of the target respondents. The researcher

observed and followed full ethical standards in the conduct of the following protocol

assessments and standardized criteria, particularly in managing the population and

data such as, but not limited to:

 40

Voluntary participations. The librarians of the selected school were given

the free-will to participate without any form of consequence or penalty or loss of

benefits. Therefore, after the purpose and the benefits of the study will be described

and presented to the participating school. Then, the rights of the respondents to

contribute to the body of knowledge will be carefully considered and adhered upon.

Privacy and confidentiality. The researcher kept private and with utmost

confidentiality the respondents’ personal information that may be required in the

study.

Informed consent process. The research questionnaires were free of

technical terms that make it easier for the respondents to understand. It gives the

respondents a clear view of the benefits they may get after the conduct of this study.

The research questionnaire was administered with the consent of the head librarian.

Recruitment. The distribution of the respondents showed how the

respondents were disseminated. Furthermore, the data collection procedures

indicated, as well as how the questionnaire was administered, and the manner of

respondents involved in the study.

Benefits. Librarians and other library personnel will uplift their performance

as an effective employee and may love even more with the kind of profession they

have chosen. Moreover, this may help the school administrators in terms of

intensifying their awareness about the role of work context and social support

climate on organizational resilience of employees that will address the prevailing

problem on employees' low level of resilience in the organization that will later result

in employees' withdrawal from the organization.

 41

Plagiarism. The study has no trace or evidence of misrepresentation of

someone else's work as his own. The study has undergone plagiarism detectors like

Grammarly or Turnitin software.

Fabrication. The study has no trace or evidence of intentional

misinterpretation of what has been done. No making up of data and results, or

purposefully putting forward conclusions that are not accurate.

Falsification. The study has no trace of purposefully misrepresenting the

work to fit a model or theoretical expectation and have no evidence of over claiming

or exaggeration.

Conflict of Interest (COI). The study has no trace of conflict of interest like,

for example, the disclosure of COI which is a set of conditions in which professional

judgment concerning primary interest such as participants' welfare or the validity of

the research tends to be influenced by a secondary interest such as financial or

academic gains or recognition.

Deceit. The study has no trace of misleading the respondents to any potential

harm.

Authorship. The researcher of the study is a graduate of Bachelor of Library

and Information Science. The researcher of the study undergone a series of

revisions because of the recommendations made by his adviser. The study also

followed the standards of the University of Mindanao Ethics Review Committee for

the guidelines of ethical consideration. After their approval, the study has undergone

pilot testing and the data collected was interpreted for the consistency of the

research questionnaire.
 42

Chapter 3

RESULTS

This section exposes the work context and social support climate and

organizational resilience among librarians which were presented, discussed and

interpreted based on the research objectives of the study. Correspondingly, the

orders of discussions on the mentioned topics were as follows: level of work context

and social support climate among librarians; the level of organizational resilience of

librarians; the correlation between work context and social support climate and

organizational resilience among librarians; and regression analysis of the influence

of work context and social support climate on organizational resilience among

librarians.

It was noted that the standard deviation in the first two descriptive tables, the

Table 1 and Table 2 ranged from 0.47 to 0.54. These are less than 1.0 which is the

usual standard deviation for a 5-point Likert scale based on Wittink and Bayer

(1994). It indicates that the ratings achieved from this study are near to the mean,

signifying consistent replies among the respondents.

Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians

Presented in Table 1 are the responses of the level of work context and social

support climate of librarians which registered an overall mean score of 4.33 or Very

High level indicating that the majority of the items regarding work context and social

support climate were strongly manifested among librarians. The generated overall

mean score was the result obtained from the mean score of 4.26 or very high for
 43

Table 1

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians

Indicator SD Mean Descriptive Level

Social Support 0.54 4.47 Very High
Organizational Identification 0.57 4.40 Very High
Task Variety 0.59 4.38 Very High
Feedback from Job 0.68 4.32 Very High
Work Autonomy 0.74 4.26 Very High
Knowledge Sharing 0.64 4.17 High
Overall 0.47 4.33 Very High

work context and social support in work autonomy, 4.38 or very high for work context

and social support in task variety, 4.32 or very high for work context and social

support in feedback from job, 4.47 or very high for work context and social support

in social support, 4.40 or very high for work context and social support in

organizational identification whereas 4.17 or high for work context and social

support in knowledge sharing. From the findings, social support has the highest

mean score of 4.47 or very high. This is followed by organizational identification,

task variety, feedback from job, and work autonomy with 4.40, 4.38, 4.32, and 4.26

mean ratings respectively. The indicator, knowledge sharing obtained a mean score

of 4.17 or high.

Organizational Resilience among Librarians

Illustrated in Table 2 are the responses of the respondents on their level of

organizational resilience that registered an overall mean score of 4.24 or Very High
 44

Table 2

Level of Organizational Resilience among Librarians

Indicator SD Mean Descriptive Level

Organizational Adaptation 0.56 4.41 Very High

Organizational Competitiveness 0.66 4.21 Very High

Organizational Value 0.59 4.09 High

Overall 0.54 4.24 Very High

level indicating that all indicators about the organizational resilience were more

intensely manifested in the majority of the cases. The generated overall mean score

was the result obtained from the mean scores of 4.41 or Very High for organizational

adaptation, 4.21 or Very High for organizational competitiveness, and 4.09 or High

for organizational value. Based on the result, organizational adaptation has the

highest mean score of 4.41 or very high followed by organizational competitiveness

and organizational value with 4.21 and 4.09 mean ratings respectively.

Significance on the Relationship between

Work Context and Social Support Climate
and Organizational Resilience among Librarians

Shown in Table 3 are the correlation between work context and social support

climate and organizational resilience indicators of librarians. As described in the

table, it presented an overall r-value of .606 with a probability value of .000 which is
 45

Table 3

Significance on the Relationship between Work Context and Social Support Climate
and Organizational Resilience among Librarians

Work Context Organizational Resilience

and Social
Support
Climate Adaptation Competitiveness Value Overall

Work .199* .446** .361** .382**

Autonomy (.018) (.000) (.000) (.000)
.356**
.393** .379** .422**
Task variety (.000)
(.000) (.000) (.000)

Feedback from .453** .456** .433** .501**

Job (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
.411** .427** .343** .442**
Social Support
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Organizational .425** .515** .377** .495**
Identification (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Knowledge .435** .435** .489** .507**
Sharing (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
.505** .588** .524** .606**
Overall
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)

less than 0.05 alpha levels. This suggests that the null hypothesis is incorrect and

that there is significant relationship between work context and social support climate

and organizational resilience. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant

relationship between work context and social support climate of librarians and their

organizational resilience was rejected.

Furthermore, it was observed that work autonomy, task variety, feedback

from job, social support, organizational identification and knowledge sharing

showed a significant relationship to the adaptation, competitiveness and value.

 46

However, the computed r-value and p-values for the correlations between indicators

of work context and social support climate and organizational resilience are

presented as follows: for work autonomy and organizational resilience registered an

r-value of .382 with a p-value of .000; task variety an r-value of .422 with a p-value

of .000; feedback from job an r-value of .501 with a p-value of .000; social support

an r-value of .442 with a p-value of .000; organizational identification an r-value of

.495 with a p-value of .000; knowledge sharing an r-value of .507 with a p-value of

.000 which are lower than p<0.05 significance level.

The results implied that work autonomy, task variety, feedback from job,

social support, organizational identification, and knowledge sharing showed

significant relationship with indicators adaptation, competitiveness and value.

These relationship signaled the researcher to further test the influence of the above-

mentioned organizational domain on work context and social support climate.

Regression was employed for the test.

Significance on the Influence of Work Context

and Social Support Climate on
Organizational Resilience of Librarians

Reflected in Table 4 are the regression analyses on the influence of work

context and social support climate on organizational resilience among librarians.

The regression model with six predictors namely: work autonomy, task variety,

feedback from job, social support, organizational identification, and knowledge

sharing yielded an F = 15.435 and R² = .409 with a probability value of .000 which

is lower than 0.05 significant level set of this study.

 47

Table 4

Significance on the Influence of the Domain of Work Context and Social Support
Climate on the Organizational Resilience among Librarians

Organizational Resilience
Work Context and Social
Support Climate B β t Sig.
(Indicators)
Work
Autonomy -.028 -.039 -.436 .663

Task Variety .032 .036 .396 .693

Feedback from
Job .228 .288 3.302 .001

Social Support .064 .064 .633 .528

Organizational
Identification .190 .202 1.871 .064

Knowledge
Sharing .224 .268 3.132 .002

R .639
R2 .409
F 15.435
ρ .000

Thus, it can be stated that work context and social support climate significantly

influence the organizational resilience among librarians. The work context and

social support climate indicators work autonomy, task variety, social support, and

organizational identification obtained a p-value of .663, .693, .528, and .064

respectively, which are not significant at alpha 0.05 level. This implied that work

autonomy, task variety, social support, and organizational identification do not

 48

significantly predict on organizational resilience among librarians. Ultimately, among

the indicators of work context and social support climate, only feedback from job

and knowledge sharing can influence the organizational resilience.

 49

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

Presented in this chapter is the discussion on the data gathered and collated

on the work context and social support climate and organizational resilience among

librarians. The discussion starts on the indicators of work context and social support

climate which is followed by organizational resilience among librarians. Additionally,

the results of the correlation between measures and regression analysis of the

influence of work context and social support climate and organizational resilience

are thoroughly discussed.

Work Context and Social Support Climate of Librarians

The very high level of work context and social support climate among

librarians is due to the very high rating given by the respondents on work autonomy

and task variety including feedback from job, social support, and organizational

identification. This work design are essential because it allows the librarians to

decide about their work and management provides feedback about their

performance and they have given the chance and opportunity to develop their

interpersonal relationship. The result acknowledged the statement of Skinner,

Roche, O’Connor, Pollard, and Todd (2005) that workplace social support from

management has been recognized as the significant characteristic that contributes

to the employees’ wellbeing and value. Likewise, the result is being asserted by

Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, and Hammer (2011) that showing a sense of

belongingness and affection to employees is the responsibility of the management.

 50

Organizational Resilience of Librarians

The overall result of a very high level of organizational resilience among

librarians is due to the very high rating given by the respondents on organizational

adaptation and organizational competitiveness. The librarians believed that they are

in line with the library standards, have flexible and successful in accessing services

amidst of lack resources which indicates that despite of adversities and crisis they

strive hard to adapt and cope with the difficulties. This beliefs, therefore, likely

motivate the organizational resilience level since it acknowledged the views of

Mafabe, Munene, and Ahiauzu (2015) who pronounced that there is really a need

for a successful implementation of organizational adaptation and competitiveness

to have an encouraging workplace for organizational resilience. On the other hand,

this acknowledged the statement of Mark (2003) who pronounced that successful

organizational resilience may result in a more effective organizational structure and

process, replacement of outdated and a better fit with developing environmental

settings.

Significance on the Relationship between

Work Context and Social Support Climate
and Organizational Resilience of Librarians

The overall test of the relationship between variables revealed that there is a

significant relationship between work context and social support climate and

organizational resilience among librarians. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. The

data implied that work context and social support climate are correlated with

organizational resilience. This means that the higher work context and social
 51

support climate the more likely would increase the organizational resilience of

librarians. The revealed result is congruent with the study of Li, Ji and Chen (2014)

stating that work context and social support from supervisors, co-workers, and

significant others are suggested to predict a positive association with resilience.

Employees who have expressively high support from the top management are

expected to have a very high level of resilience. The organizational support of

management will add value to the librarians to increase their work productivity.

On the other hand, the domain work autonomy, task variety, feedback from

job, social support, organizational identification and knowledge sharing of work

context and social support climate are correlated with the domain organizational

adaptation, organizational competitiveness and organizational value of

organizational resilience. The domain work autonomy is congruent on the study of

Choudhury (2012) stated that autonomy creates admiration and confidence among

organizational resilience and it is a good motivator for employees to perform their

job. Because work autonomy allows employees' to do their job to the best of their

knowledge and ability have given that they are allowed the freedom to decide on

what and how to do the works in many ways and be responsible to their decisions.

Moreover, the domain task variety is also correlated with the domains of

organizational resilience. The results acknowledged the views of various authors

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001;

Maric, Hernaus, Vujcic & Cerne, 2019) who pronounced that the high level of task

variety is related with positive motivational outcomes, such as organizational

resilience and reflected to be interesting because employees can benefit from using
 52

a different task variety by enhancing their own productivity, and a sense of their

competitiveness.

Consequently, it acknowledged the viewpoint of Shantz, Alfes, Truss, and

Soane (2013) who showed that task variety is intensely associated to work

engagement and work resilience because when employees have to complete a

variety of different task throughout their work, they may feel motivated and

energized. Also, Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) indicated that task

variety is absolutely correlated to employee involvement, job motivation which

implies that it could also be positively related to organizational resilience. This

means that the more the librarians engage in a variety of task the more it increases

organizational resilience.

On the other hand, the domain feedback from job is correlated with the

domains of organizational resilience. This confirmed the views of Cooke, Cooper,

Bartram and Wang (2016) who concluded that a high level of job feedback has a

positive impact on the resilience of the employee. This is congruent to the statement

of Kuntz, Connell, and Naswall (2017) who revealed that the higher levels of job

feedback the more the employees display higher levels of resilience. The results

point out that the organization had established a strong feedback mechanism, with

employees receiving frequent feedback on their current projects and on how they

could address and improve their own performance.

Likewise, the domain social support is correlated with the domain of

organizational resilience and it confirmed the views of Ozbay, Fitterling, Charney,

and Southwick (2008) who established that the growth of resilience are promoted
 53

with social support because it is significant for an organization to provide an

encouraging workplace to survive with the changes. These supportive association

with top management and the employee had a big impact to increase the resilient

organization level since it is congruent to the views of various authors (Dent &

Cameron, 2003; Kuntz, Connell & Naswall, 2017; Tarrant, 2010; Weeks, 2008) who

pronounced that organizational resilience would be increased by facilitating the

provision of essential services, supervisory support, peers support, and groups,

among others. Also, based on the findings of Weeks (2008) showed that the more

conducive the workplace social support climate, the higher the level of

organizational resilience. Similarly, the more the organizational support such as the

provision of rewards or time for creativity, the better organizations cope with

challenges or improve service delivery.

Similarly, the domain organizational identification is also correlated to the

domains of organizational resilience. The result of the study is in line with the results

of a study done by Edwards and Peccei (2007) who pronounced that when

organizational identification is measured as an emotional and intellectual connection

between the individual and the organization it is likely to expect that this connection

may affect his/her emotional state toward work and result in high levels of

organizational resilience while working. Also, it acknowledged the views of Boros,

Curseu, and Miclea (2015) who reported that organization has a vital place in the

life of their work and through this identification, employees' will identify both

intellectual and emotional association and enhance their self-esteem with their

employing organization. This implied that when employees truly feel part of the
 54

organization for which they work is really an essential factor and it is found to have

benefits for the organization and for employees’ resilience.

More importantly, knowledge sharing significantly correlated with

organizational resilience. This confirmed the statement of Ongaro (2004) and

Nelson (2003) who reported that knowledge sharing resources are accumulated

through organizational routines that enhance organizational value, adaptation, and

competitiveness. It appears that knowledge management practices like knowledge

sharing require a good perception of organizational support and work group support

to promote the exchange and transfer of knowledge (Warier, 2009).

Significance on the Influence of

Work Context and Social Support Climate and
Organizational Resilience of Librarians

The result of the study showed a significant influence of work context and

social support climate of librarians on organizational resilience as mentioned in the

influence section of the study. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. The revealed

data implied that among the six identified indicators of work context and social

support climate, only feedback from job has the highest degree of influence on

organizational resilience compared to work autonomy, task variety, social support,

organizational identification, and knowledge sharing. The result validated the idea

of Kuntz, Connell and Naswall (2017) who showed that the establishment of

common and productive feedback from the superior is predicted to have a high level

of positive impact on employee resilience, as it helps supervisor-supervisee

 55

relationship through regular discussions of performance, and encourages both

support- and feedback-seeking behaviors.

In fact, the availability of improvement-focused feedback from superiors

signals that the organization values and promotes learning and continual

development which is expected to drive resilient behaviors (Halbesleben, Neveu,

Paustian-Underdahl & Westman, 2014; Meneghel, Borgogni, Miraglia, Salanova &

Martinez, 2016). As a result, feedback availability from supervisors and the job

represents a critical resource that prompts resilient employee behaviors. These

include continually seeking and effectively responding to feedback, utilizing error as

a platform for learning, and re-evaluating performance to increase accuracy and

efficiencies at work (Jundt, Shoss & Huang, 2015; Kuntz, Naswall & Malinen, 2016;

Schaufeli, 2015). Also, Nguyen, Kuntz, Naswall, and Malinen (2016) proposed that

praise for achievement and timely provision of performance feedback through

recognition interact with high scores in optimism and are associated to higher levels

of employee resilience.

On the other hand, this will also acknowledged the views of various authors

(Brooks, 2006; Henderson & Milstein, 2003) who proposed a number of ways to

structure schools to augment resilience in their personnel and found out that positive

job feedback from supervisors and subordinates, as well as reward and recognition

of substantial accomplishments will result to workers positive resilience, among

others. An employee is more likely to have a high degree of resilience when there

is an encouraging feedback and feeling of value from the management.

 56

Conclusion

With considerations to the findings of the study, conclusions were drawn in

this section. The level of work context and social support climate among librarians

was very high; indicators rated as very high includes work autonomy, task variety,

feedback from job, social support, organizational identification and knowledge

sharing were rated as high by the respondents. The overall level of organizational

resilience among librarians was very high, while indicators were rated as very high

for the organizational adaptation, organizational competitiveness and organizational

value was rated high by the respondents.

The study further found a significant relationship between work context and

social support climate and organizational resilience among librarians and all

domains of work context and social support climate namely: work autonomy, task

variety, feedback from job, social support, organizational identification and

knowledge sharing and all organizational resilience indicators. Moreover, feedback

from job which is one of the domains of work context and social support climate was

found to have a significant influence of organizational resilience among librarians.

This means that feedback from job among librarians is associated with adaptation,

competitiveness, and value to organizational resilience.

The result of the study also highlighted the important role of work context and

social support climate in the organizational resilience of librarians. It is an important

insight that work context and social support climate is not only the key foundation of

successful management but also an important factor of overall organizational

development. This findings confirmed the proposition of Chen-Chi and Cheng-Chieh

 57

(2013) which indicates that the employees who recognized a supportive climate will

definitely identify themselves as part of the organization. Other than that, they

pronounced that perceived social support from supervisors, co-workers, family,

friends and significant other are posited to predict resilience positively. Likewise,

organization with strong workplace social support encourages employees to have a

positive mindset so that they can be creative in bringing up new ideas and increase

individual resiliency during times of difficulties (Tarrant, 2010). Thus, employees

who have better perceived social support are supposed to have significantly higher

resilience.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following

recommendations are offered:

The study found out that the overall level of work context and social support

climate among librarians was very high. Nonetheless, in order to maintain or

continuously enhance the level of work context and social support climate among

the librarians, the researcher recommended that top management through the

Human Resource Advocates may implement training or program to conduct an in-

house workshop that would enhance the work context and social support climate in

the organization. Likewise, it was suggested that the department heads may keep

a greater level of interpersonal relationship and create a good working environment

where there is more open communication, better information among personnel in

 58

order to promote the workers’ feeling that they belong and part of the organizational

goals.

It was also found out that the overall level of organizational resilience among

librarians was very high. Nevertheless, in order to improve more the level of

organizational resilience among the librarians, the researcher suggests to come up

with a mechanism to demonstrate an assurance to employees’ benefits, salary

scheme, and incentives reward in order to boost their emotional bond to the

organization. It was also suggested that school administrator might develop a merit

system and promotional plan that will meet their job expectations and maintain

social recognition in developing employee’s organizational resilience in such a way

that allows them to put extra miles on their job.

Other than that, it was also identified that there is significant relationship

between organizational resilience and work context and social support climate

among the librarians. The researcher suggested that supervisors may build a culture

of social interaction and strong relationship with their co-workers that foster

feedback from job and knowledge sharing that is more often expressed by library

personnel in building good working environment. Additionally, department heads

need to be involved in continuous training and workshop to update them with their

workplace social support skills which are essential in influencing the organizational

resilience of their subordinates.

Lastly, it was revealed in the study that the domain of work context and social

support climate which best influences the organizational resilience among librarians

is the feedback from job. Therefore it is also suggested by the researcher that in
 59

order for the feedback from job maintain its effectiveness, there may be a systematic

job evaluation to be conducted to the librarians. Other researchers may use this

study as reference in conducting similar studies in a wide scale concerning work

context and social support climate and organizational resilience of librarians. It is

also suggested that future researcher may explore other variables that will provide

strong and influential factors to capitalize organizational resilience in the academic

community.
 60

REFERENCES

Afifi, T. O., & MacMillan, H. L. (2011). What is resilience?. The Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 56(5), 266-272.

Agadjanian, V. (2002). Informal social networks and epidemic prevention in a third

world context: cholera and HIV/AIDS compared. Social Networks Health,
8(5), 201- 221.

Allen, T. D., & Day, R. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-
efficacy with protege career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1),
72–91.

Amir, M.T., & Standen, P. (2012). Employee resilience in organizations:

development of a new scale. Journal of Management & Organization, 47(5),
1-17.

Ang, S. H., Bartram, T., McNeil, N., Leggat, S. G., & Stanton, P. (2013). The effects
of high-performance work systems on hospital employees' work attitudes and
intention to leave: a multi-level and occupational group analysis. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3086-3114.

Ashmos, D., & Duchon, D. P. (2000). Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and

measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145.

Asumeng, M. (2013). The effect of employee feedback-seeking on job performance:

an empirical study. International Journal of Management, 30(1), 373-388.
Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1315212911?accountid=31259.

Bacha, E. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership, task

performance, and job characteristics. Journal of Management Development,
33(4), 410-420.

Baker, V. L., Pitariu, A. H., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2006). Beyond being proactive: what
(else) matters for career self-management behaviors?. Career Development
International, 11(7), 619–632.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of
the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Banga, M. (2008). Social capital composition and strategic networks among new
venture entrepreneurs in Northern Nigerian. Development Journal, 11(5),
214-223.
 61

Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year

retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6),
643-650.

Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9(1), 64-76.

Beck, T. E., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a

capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource
management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.

Berkman, L. (2014). The role of social support in reducing psychological

distress. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 5(10), 19-33.

Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social
integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science &
Medicine, 51(1), 843-57.

Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family

synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures—generational
differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 23(5), 507–523.

Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2015). Antecedents of hospital nurses’ intention to

leave the organization: a cross sectional survey. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 52(7), 1180-1192.

Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing organizational knowledge as a

strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 8-18.

Boros, S., Curseu, P. L., & Miclea, M. (2015). Integrative tests of a multidimensional
model of organizational identification. Social Psychology, 42(2), 111-123.

Boros, S. (2008). Organizational identification: theoretical and empirical analyses of

competing conceptualizations: an interdisciplinary journal. Cognitie, Creier,
Comportament / Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 12(1), 1-27. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/201583323?accountid=31259.

Brannen, J. (2017). Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. London:

Routledge.

Brooks, J. E. (2006). Strengthening resilience in children and youths: maximizing

opportunities through the schools. Children & Schools, 28(2), 69-76.
 62

Burnard, K., & Ran, B. (2011). Organizational resilience: development of a

conceptual framework for organizational responses. International Journal of
Production Research 49(18), 5581–5599.

Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: a

resource-based model of online social structures. Information systems
research, 12(4), 346-362.

Cardador, M. T., Northcraft, G. B., & Whicker, J. (2017). A theory of work

gamification: something old, something new, something borrowed,
something cool?. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 353-365.

Ciekanowski, Z. (2012). The socio-professional adaptation process of new

employee. Scientific Papers of Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and
Humanities, 94(8), 45-52.

Charney, D. S. (2004). Psychobiological mechanism of resilience and vulnerability:

implications for successful adaptation to extreme stress. Journal of
Psychiatry, 161(2), 195–216.

Chen-Chi, C., & Cheng-Chieh, W. (2013). Multilevel analysis of work context and
social support climate in libraries. Aslib Proceedings, 65(6), 644-658.

Chou, P. (2015). The effects of workplace social support on employee’s subjective

well-being. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(6), 8-19.

Choudhury, G. (2012). The dynamics of organizational climate: an

exploration. Management Insight, 7(2), 111-116.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.

Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of

knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 24(5), 294-301.

Cooke, F. L., Cooper, B., Bartram, T., Wang, J., & Mei, H. (2016). Mapping the
relationships between high-performance work systems, employee resilience
and engagement: a study of the banking industry in China. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(9), 1239-1260.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed

methods approaches. Second edition. University of Nebraska, Lincoln: Sage
Publication.
 63

Cross, S. E. (2013). A model to guide organizational adaptation. In 2013

International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE)
& IEEE International Technology Management Conference, 46(2)1-11.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),
499-512.

Dennis, C. L., Hodnett, E., Reisman, H. M., Kenton, L., Weston, J., Zupancic, J., &
Kiss, A. (2009). Effects of peer support on prevention of postnatal depression
among high risk women: multisite randomized controlled trial. British Medical
Journal, 338(6), 1-9

Dent, R. J., & Cameron, R. S. (2003). Developing resilience in children who are in
public care: the educational psychology perspective. Educational
Psychology in Practice, 19(1), 3-19.

DeVaro, J. (2006). Teams, autonomy, and the financial performance of

firms. Industrial relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 45(2), 217-269.

De Cieri, H., Bardoel, E. A., Pettit, T. M., & McMillan, L. (2014). Employee resilience:
an emerging challenge for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
52(3), 279–297.

De Vasconcelos, I. F., & Gouveia, F. (2017). Strategy, organizational change and

organizational resilience. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 15, 4-I,II,III,IV.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395170357.

Dotong, C. I., & Laguador, J. M. (2015). Philippine quality assurance mechanisms

in higher education towards internationalization. Studies in Social Sciences
and Humanities, 3(3), 156-167.

Dobre, O. I. (2013). Employee motivation and organizational performance. Review

of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 5(1), 53-60.

Drucker, P.F. (2008). Managing in the next society. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Duchek, S. (2019). Organizational resilience: a capability-based

conceptualization. Business Research, 1-32.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7.

Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. (2019). The role of diversity in organizational
resilience: a theoretical framework. Business Research, 1-37.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0084-8
 64

Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2015). Perceived organizational support,

organizational identification, and employee outcomes. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 9(1), 17-26.

Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identification: development and

testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 25-57.

Eisenberger, R., Singlhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L.
(2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived support and
employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

El-Sakka, N. (2016). Social support and type a behavior pattern (TABP) as

moderators between person-environment fit (PE fit) and turnover
intention. The Business & Management Review, 7(2), 153-165.

Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Academy of

Management Review, 35(2), 202-225.

Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J., & Newcombe, R. (2003). Knowledge sharing:
context, confusion and controversy. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(3), 177- 187.

Finegan, J. E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on

organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73(2), 149-169.

Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multicultural setting: a

case study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 11-27.

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction
and conflict: a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(1), 57–80.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Tugade, M. M. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive

emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–333.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., Frey, L., & Relyea, C. (2006). Construed
external image and organizational identification: a test of the moderating
influence of need for self-esteem. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 701-
716.

Gajda, J. (2015). Social and professional adaptation of employees as a main factor

in shaping working conditions. Journal of US-China Public
Administration, 12(10), 789-795.
 65

Ghosh, P., Rai, A., Chauhan, R., Gupta, N., & Singh, A. (2015). Exploring the
moderating role of context satisfaction between job characteristics and
turnover intention of employees of Indian public-sector banks. Journal of
Management Development, 34(8), 1019-1030.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge Management: an

organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 185-214.

Gorenak, M., & Kosir, S. (2012). The Importance of organizational values for
organization. Management, Knowledge and Learning International
Conference, 12(2), 563-569.

Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee

engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.

Halawi, L. A., Aronson, J. E., & McCarthy, R. V. (2005). Resource-based view of

knowledge management for competitive advantage. The Electronic Journal
of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 75-86.

Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).

Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of
resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.

Hamel, G., & Valikangas, L. (2003). Why resilience matters. Harvard Business
Review, 81(9), 56-57.

Harris, J. I., Winskowski, A. M., & Engdahl, B. E. (2007). Types of workplace social
support in the prediction of job satisfaction. The Career Development
Quarterly, 56(2), 150-156.

Harris, J. I., Strom, T. Q., Ferrier-Auerbach, A. G., Kaler, M. E., Hansen, L. P., &
Erbes, C. R. (2017). Workplace social support in job satisfaction among
veterans with posttraumatic stress symptoms: a preliminary correlational
study. PloS one, 12(8), 181-344.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: making it happen for
students and educators (Updated edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Hickling, E. J., Gibbons, S., Barnett, S. D., & Watts, D. (2011). The psychological
impact of deployment on OEF/OIF healthcare providers. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 24(6), 726-734.
 66

Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge

management via commitment: a review and research agenda. Employee
Relations, 25(2), 182-202.

Ho, M., Teo, S. T., Bentley, T., Verreyne, M. L., & Galvin, P. (2014). Organizational
resilience and the challenge for human resource management:
conceptualizations and frameworks for theory and practice. Global Science
and Technology Forum, 1(10), 8-12.

Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship

between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389-399.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. New
York: McGraw Hill.

Hong, P., Doll, W. J., Nahm, A. Y., & Li, X. (2004). Knowledge sharing in integrated
product development. European Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2),
102-112.

Huang, P. M. (2008). It’s about time II: examining flexible work arrangements from
the attorney’s and the firm’s perspectives. Georgia: Georgia Association for
Women Lawyers.

Huhta, I., & Landstrom, A. (2016). The influence of value statements on affective
commitment: a case of civil servants. Human Resource Development
Review, 14(4), 1-26.

Hultman, K. (2005). Evaluating organizational values. Organizational Development

Journal, 23(3), 39-48.

Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge sharing
hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60-73.

Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian

and Chinese subsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group
membership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 84-94.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating

motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic
summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.

Iftikhar, H., Jan, Z., & Najmi, S. M. (2015). Gaining organizational competitiveness
through employee retention: a cost cutting strategy. International Journal of
Management Sciences, 6(9), 412-429.
 67

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework.

Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.

Johari, J., & Yahya, K. K. (2016). Job characteristics, work involvement, and job
performance of public servants. European Journal of Training and
Development, 40(7), 554-575. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1826442988?accountid=31259.

Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy
for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: a literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 1-9.

Jang, J. (2012). The effect of social support type on resilience. Tuscaloosa,

Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Jones, B., Hendricks, J., & Cope, V. (2016). Why nurses chose to remain in the
workforce: 84 portraits of resilience. Collegian (Royal College of Nursing,
Australia), 23(1), 87–95.

Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., & Huang, J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance
in organizations: a review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 53-71.

Kaifi, B. (2012). Organizational behavior: managing and leading organizations.

Florida: Llumina Press.

Kambhampati, L. A. (2006). Managing innovative and change in turbulent times.

Boston: McGraw Hill.

Kawka, T., & Listwan, T. (2006). Selection of employees. Warsaw: C.H. Beck.

Kelly, C., Kocourek, P., McGaw, N., & Samuelson, J. (2005). Deriving value from
corporate values. The Aspen Institute, 4(8), 1-16.

Kerr, H. (2017). Organizational resilience. London: Routledge.

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social
support and work-family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of
general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support.
Personal Psychology, 64(2), 289-313.

Krasman, J. (2013). Putting feedback-seeking into context: job characteristics and

feedback-seeking behavior. Personnel Review, 42(1), 50-66.

Kuntz, J. R., Naswall, K., & Malinen, S. (2016). Resilient employees in resilient
organizations: flourishing beyond adversity. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 9(2), 456-462.
 68

Kuntz, J., Connell, P., & Naswall, K. (2017). Workplace resources and employee
resilience: the role of regulatory profiles. Career Development
International, 22(4), 419-435.

Lather, A. S., Puskas, J., Singh, A. K., & Gupta, N. (2010). Organizational culture:
a study of selected organizations in the manufacturing sector in the
NCR. Agricultural Economics, 56(8), 349-358.

Lee, M. N. (2011). Applying risk and resilience framework in examining youth's

sustainability in coping with life's challenges. International Journal of Trade,
Economics & Finance, 2(5), 407-411.

Lee, J. E., Sudom, K. A., & McCreary, D. R. (2011). Higher-order model of resilience
in the Canadian forces. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 43(3), 222-
234.

Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and

partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management,
38(5), 323-335.

Lee, M. C. C., Idris, M. A., & Tuckey, M. (2019). Supervisory coaching and
performance feedback as mediators of the relationships between leadership
styles, work engagement, and turnover intention. Human Resource
Development International, 22(3), 257-282.

Li, H., Ji, Y., & Chen, T. (2014). The roles of different sources of social support on
emotional well-being among Chinese elderly. PloS One, 9(3), 1-8.

Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical

study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.

Lin, C., Wang, C. Y., Wang, C., & Jaw, B. (2017). The role of human capital
management in organizational competitiveness. Social Behavior and
Personality, 45(1), 81-92.

Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: a

review of influential publications and a research agenda. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 4-30.

Listwan, T. (2004). Human resources management. Warsaw: C.H. Beck.

London, M. (2003). Job feedback: giving, seeking, and using feedback for
performance improvement. Routledge: Psychology Press.
 69

Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: more
than monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews,
11(4), 381-405.

Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S. F. (2001). Cultural values and happiness: an east-
west dialogue. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 477-493.

Lysaght, R., Fabrigar, L., Larmour-trode, S., Stewart, J., & Friesen, M. (2012).
Measuring workplace social support for workers with disability. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(3), 376-86.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9357-1.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V.
(2002). A comparison of methods to test the significance of the Mediated
effect. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83-104.

MacNeil, C. M. (2004). Exploring the supervisor role as a facilitator of knowledge

sharing in teams. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(1), 93-102.

Mafabi, S., Munene, J. C., & Ahiauzu, A. (2013). Organizational resilience: testing
the interaction effect of knowledge management and creative climate.
Journal of Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 70-82.

Maric, M., Hernaus, T., Vujcic, M. T., & Cerne, M. (2019). Job characteristics and
organizational citizenship behavior: a multisource study on the role of work
engagement. Drustvena Istrazivanja, 28(1), 25-45.

Marks, M. L. (2003). Charging back up the hill: workplace recovery after mergers,
acquisitions and downsizings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mattanah, J. F., Ayers, J. F., Brand, B. L., Brooks, L. J., Quimby, J. L., & McNary,
S. W. (2010). A social support intervention to ease the college transition:
Exploring main effects and moderators. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(1), 93-108.

McManus, S. T. (2008). Organizational resilience in New Zealand. New Zealand:

University of Canterbury Press.

Meneghel, I., Borgogni, L., Miraglia, M., Salanova, M., & Martinez, I. M. (2016). From
social context and resilience to performance through job satisfaction: a
multilevel study over time. Human relations, 69(11), 2047-2067.

Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms.

California Management Review, 45(3), 59-77.
 70

Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and
employee work attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 426-447.

Montes, F. J. L., Moreno, A. R., & Fernandez, L. M. M. (2004). Assessing the

organizational climate and contractual relationship for perceptions of support
for innovation. International Journal of Manpower, 25(2), 167-180.

Morf, M., Feierabend, A., & Staffelbach, B. (2017). Task variety and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(8),
581-592.

Morgeson, F. P & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ):

developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job
design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-
1339.

Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance

of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role
breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399-
406.

Nahum-Shani, I., Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2011). Social support and
employee well-being: the conditioning effect of perceived patterns of
supportive exchange. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(1), 123-139.
Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/858372736?accountid=31259.

Narayan, P. K. (2007). Testing convergence of Fijis tourism markets. Pacific

Economic Review, 12(5), 651-663.

Nekoranec, J., & Nagyova, L. (2014). Adaptation of employees in the organization

and its importance in terms of human resource management. Management
and Economics, 1(73), 114-120.

Newman, R. (2003). In the wake of disaster: building the resilience initiative of APA’s
public education campaign. Westport, Connecticut: Paegers.

Nguyen, Q., Kuntz, J. R. C., Naswall, K., & Malinen, S. (2016). Employee resilience
and leadership styles: the moderating role of proactive personality and
optimism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology (Online), 45(2), 13-21.
Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1857281132?accountid=31259.

O’Dwyer, L. M., & Bernauer, R. F. (2014). Quantitative research. Los Angeles,

California: Sage Publication.
 71

Omar Sharifuddin Syed-Ikhsan, S., & Rowland, F. (2004). Knowledge management

in a public organization: a study on the relationship between organizational
elements and the performance of knowledge transfer. Journal of knowledge
management, 8(2), 95-111.

Ozbay, F., Fitterling, H., Charney, D., Southwick, S. (2008). Social support and
resilience to stress across the life span: a neurobiologic framework. Current
Psychiatry Report, 10(4), 304-310.

Palmer, I., Akin, G., & Dunford, R. (2005). Managing organizational change: a
multiple perspectives approach. Maidenhead : McGraw-Hill.

Pangil, F., & Mohd Nasurddin, A. (2013) Knowledge and the importance of
knowledge sharing in organizations. Conference on Business Management
Research 2013, 3(7), 349-361.

Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R. A., & Mohamed, S. (2009). Validation of an

empirical model for innovation diffusion in Australian design firms.
Construction Innovation, 9(4), 449-467.

Patillo, E. J., Moran, B. B., & Morgan, J. C. (2009). The job itself: the effects of
functional units on work autonomy among public and academic librarians.
Library Trends, 58(2), 276-290.

Pfeiffer, P. N., Heisler, M., Piette, J. D., Rogers, M. A. M., & Valenstein, M. (2011).
Efficacy of peer support interventions for depression: a meta-analysis.
General Hospital Psychiatry, 33(1), 29-36.

Phusavat, K., Anussornnitisarn, P., Patthananurak, P., Kekale, T., & Helo, P. (2010).
Sustaining organizational development through knowledge management in
the public sector. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 2(1), 16-31.

Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2010). Risk and resilience factors among Italian
municipal police officers exposed to critical incidents. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 25(1), 27-33.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review

of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-741.

Rosenbaum, M. S. (2009). Exploring commercial friendships from employees'

perspectives. The Journal of Services Marketing, 23(1), 57-66.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040910933101.

Rosenthal, J. E. (2006). Job autonomy in the United States 1969–2002. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
 72

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Applied

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331.

Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in
hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources

model. Career Development International, 20(5), 446-463.

Schein, E. S. (2009). The corporate culture survival. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.

Schraeder, M. (2009). Incongruence in the value of employees: organizational

actions speak louder than words. Development and Learning in
Organizations, 23(2), 4-5.

Schweitzer, L., Ng, E. S. W., & Lyons, S. T. (2015). Resilience in the modern career.
Career Development International, 20(4), 363–383.

Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research

programme. New York: Oxford.

Selden, S., & Sowa, J. E. (2011). Performance management and appraisal in human
service organizations: management and staff perspectives. Public Personnel
Management, 40(3), 251-264.

Serrat, O. (2010). Building a learning organization. Washington, DC: Asian

Development Bank.

Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee
engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance,
citizenship and deviant behaviours. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24(13), 2608-2627.

Shirey, M. R. (2004). Social support in the workplace: nurse leader implications.

Nursing Economics, 22(6), 313-9, 291. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/236934560?accountid=31259.

Sia, S. K., & Appu, A. V. (2015). Work autonomy and workplace creativity:
moderating role of task complexity. Global Business Review, 16(5), 772-784.
 73

Simmons, A., & Yoder, L. (2013). Military resilience: a concept analysis. Nursing
forum, 48(1), 17-25.

Skinner, N. (2005). Workplace support. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for

Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA).

Skinner, N., Roche, A., O’Connor, J., Pollard, Y., & Todd, C. (2005). Workforce
development TIPS (Theory into practice strategies): a resource kit for the
alcohol and other drugs field. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for
Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA).

Smith, J. L., Wagaman, J., & Handley, I. M. (2009). Keeping it dull or making it fun:
task variation as a function of promotion versus prevention focus. Motivation
and Emotion, 33(2), 150-160.

Sonnentag, S. (2017). A task-level perspective on work engagement: a new

approach that helps to differentiate the concepts of engagement and
burnout. Burnout Research, 5(1), 12-20.

Sonnet, M. T. (2016). Employee behaviors, beliefs, and collective resilience: an

exploratory study in organizational resilience capacity (Order No. 10063554).
Available from ProQuest Central. (1777582116). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1777582116?accountid=31259.

Southwick, S. M., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D. S. (2005). The psychobiology of

depression and resilience to stress: implications for prevention and
treatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 255–291.

Srivastava, A., Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & McKee-Ryan, F. M. (2007).

Mechanisms linking nationality and subjective well-being in managers in
China and the United States. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(4), 494-516.

Stichler, J. F. (2016). Research, research-informed design, evidence-based design.

HERD: Health Environment Research & Design Journal, 10(1), 7-12.
Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1821482527?accountid=31259.

Sturgeon, P., & Hatler, C. (2013). Resilience building: a necessary leadership

competence. Nurse Leader, 11(4), 32–39.

Suasini, N., & Babu, T. N. (2013). Talent retention: a road map for organizational
success in competitive business environment. International Journal of
Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 166 -173.
 74

Subrahmanian, M. (2012). Achieving high involvement and satisfaction through

octapace culture in IT companies. ZENITH International Journal of Business
Economics & Management Research, 2(5), 13-138.

Sundin, L., Bildt, C., Lisspers, J., Hochwalder, J., & Setterkubd, S. (2006).
Organizational factors, individual characteristics and social support: what
determines the levels of social support. Work & Stress, 27(1), 45-55.

Suryaningtyas, D., Sudiro, A., Eka, T. A., & Dodi, I. W. (2019). Organizational
resilience and organizational performance: examining the mediating roles of
resilient leadership and organizational culture. Academy of Strategic
Management Journal, 18(2), 1-7. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2238485074?accountid=31259.

Tarrant, M. (2010). The organization: risk, resilience, and governance. The

Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 25(1), 13–17.

Taylor, S. E. (2008). Fostering a supportive environment at work. The Psychologist-

Manager Journal, 11(2), 265-283.

Teijeiro, M., Rungo, P., & Freire, M. J. (2013). Graduate competencies and
employability: the impact of matching firms’ needs and personal attainments.
Economics of Education Review, 34, 286-295.

Terzioglu, F., Temel, S., & Uslu Sahan, F. (2016). Factors affecting performance
and productivity of nurses: professional attitude, organizational justice,
organizational culture and mobbing. Journal of Nursing Management, 24(6),
735-744.

Tikka, T. (2010). The process of organizational adaptation through innovations, and

organizational adaptability. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

Tomcikova, M., & Zivcak, P. (2012). The proceedings of adaptation process in the
company. Applied Computer Science, 8(1), 78-83.

Tummers, L. G., Groeneveld, S. M., & Lankhaar, M. (2013). Why do nurses intend
to leave their organization? A large‐scale analysis in long‐term care. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 69(12), 2826-2838.

Turner, S. B. (2014). The resilient nurse: an emerging concept. Nurse Leader, 12(6),
71–90.

Ugoani, J. N. N. (2016). Emotional intelligence and organizational competitiveness:

management model approach. Independent Journal of Management &
Production, 7(3), 786-806.
 75

Uruthirapathy, A. A. (2011). Job design for IT-Shared services organizations.

Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press.

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: what is
the role of employees’ stress and commitment?. Employee Relations, 27(2),
160-174.

Valackiene, A. (2015). Theoretical model of employee social identification in

organization managing crisis situations. Engineering Economics, 64(4), 95-
102.

Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L. U., Harms, P. D. & Lester, P. B. (2015).
Can resilience be developed at work? a meta-analytic review of resilience-
building programme effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 278-307.

Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., Guenter, H., & van Emmerik, H. (2015). Skill
utilization and well-being: a cross-level story of day-to-day fluctuations and
personal intrinsic values. Work & Stress, 29(3), 306-323.

Van Ruysseveldt, J., Verboon, P., & Smulders, P. (2011). Job resources and
emotional exhaustion: the mediating role of learning opportunities. Work &
Stress, 25(3), 205-223.

Vasconcelos, A. F. (2018). Positive organizational scholarship concept: an overview

and future studies. REAd. Revista Eletronica de Administraçao (Porto
Alegre), 24(1), 85-128.

Venkatraman, S., & Venkatraman, R. (2018). Communities of practice approach for

knowledge management systems. Systems, 6(4), 36-49.

Vogds, J. C. (2001). Perceptions of organizational values and culture at various

levels of an organization. Research Paper, University of Wisconsin-Stout, 1-
107. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.391.150&rep=rep
1&type=pdf.

Worldwide, W. W. (2004). Phased retirement: aligning employer programs with

worker preferences. Washington, DC: Watson Wyatt Worldwide.

Weeks, R. (2008). Nurturing a culture and climate of resilience to navigate the white
waters of the South African dual economy. Journal of Contemporary
Management, 5(1), 123-136.

White, M. (2013). Building a resilient organizational culture. Kenan, North Carolina:

UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School.
 76

Wilks, S. E., & Spivey, C. A. (2010). Resilience in undergraduate social work

students: social support and adjustment to academic stress. Social Work
Education, 29(3), 276-288.

Wittink, D. R., & Bayer, L. R. (1994). The measurement imperative. Marketing

Research, 6(4), 14-23. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/202681314?accountid=31259.

Yeh, Y. J., Lai, S. Q., & Ho, C. T. (2006). Knowledge management enablers: a case
study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 793-810.

Zarczynska-Dobiesz, A. (2008). The role of coaching and mentoring in the process

of adaptation of a new employee. Scientific Papers of the University of
Economics in Wroclaw, 24(5), 34-42.

Zalta, E. N. (2014). Organizational value. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

(pp. 170). Mexico City: Stanford University Press.

Zaleski, E. H., Levey-Thors, C., & Schiaffino, K. M. (1998). Coping mechanisms,

stress, social support: an assessment of the support gap hypothesis in early
marriage. Applied Development Science, 2(3), 127-137.

Zaniboni, S., Truxillo, D. M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2013). Differential effects of task
variety and skill variety on burnout and turnover intentions for older and
younger workers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
22(3), 306-317.

Zehir, C., & Narcıkara, E. (2016). Effects of resilience on productivity under

authentic leadership. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235(24),
250-258.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee
creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation,
and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1),
107-128.
 77

APPENDICES
 78

APPENDIX A

Statistical Tables
 79

Table 1.1

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians in terms of
Work Autonomy

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Having job that allows me to plan how I do

0.74 4.47 Very High
my work.
Having job that allows me to decide on the
0.83 4.18 High
order in which things are done on the job.
Having job that allows me to make my own
0.97 4.12 High
decisions about how to schedule my work

Overall 0.74 4.26 Very High

 80

Table 1.2

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians in terms of
Task Variety

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Having job that involves a great deal of task

0.70 4.47 Very High
variety
Having job that requires the performance of
0.68 4.37 Very High
a wide range of tasks.
Having job that involves doing a number of
0.67 4.34 Very High
different things
Having job that involves performing a variety
0.65 4.34 Very High
of tasks.

Overall 0.59 4.38 Very High

 81

Table 1.3

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians in terms of
Feedback from Job

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Having worked activities that provide direct

and clear information about the
0.67 4.35 Very High
effectiveness (e.g. quality and quantity) of
my job performance.
Having jobbed itself that provides feedback
0.78 4.34 Very High
on my performance.
Having jobbed itself that provides me with
0.79 4.28 Very High
information about my performance.

Overall 0.68 4.32 Very High

 82

Table 1.4

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians in terms of
Social Support

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Having the opportunity to meet with others

0.60 4.56 Very High
in my work.
Having the chance to get to know other
0.65 4.53 Very High
people in my job.
Having the opportunity to develop close
0.66 4.52 Very High
friendships in my job.
Believing that my supervisor is concerned
about the welfare of the people who work for 0.84 4.25 Very High
him/her.

Overall 0.54 4.47 Very High

 83

Table 1.5

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians in terms of
Organizational Identification

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Feeling proud to work. 0.68 4.54 Very High

Being glad to be a part of the support

0.71 4.53 Very High
services.
Experiencing a strong sense of
0.71 4.45 Very High
belongingness.

Feeling strong ties with my subordinates. 0.72 4.34 Very High

Being sufficiently acknowledged. 0.79 4.13 High

Overall 0.57 4.40 Very High

 84

Table 1.6

Level of Work Context and Social Support Climate among Librarians in terms of
Knowledge Sharing

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Believing that I usually and actively share

my knowledge with others when working in 0.73 4.37 Very High
my library colleagues.
Believing that I frequently participate in
knowledge sharing activities with my 0.73 4.35 Very High
colleagues/librarians.
Believing that I usually spend a lot of time
conducting knowledge-sharing activities in 0.74 4.09 High
my library.
Being usually involved in the subsequent
interactions when discussing a complicated 0.85 4.02 High
issue.
Being usually involved me in discussions of
0.83 4.01 High
various topics rather than specific topics.

Overall 0.64 4.17 High

 85

Table 2.1

Level of Organizational Resilience among Librarians in terms of Organizational

Adaptation

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Believing that our library service delivery is

0.65 4.58 Very High
in line with our clients’ needs.

Having put our library assets to good use. 0.70 4.52 Very High

Having maintained our library personnel’s

0.73 4.50 Very High
reputation.
Having made library service delivery
0.72 4.43 Very High
flexible.
Believing that our library services conform to
0.77 4.40 Very High
the regulatory standards.
Believing that our organization overcomes a
0.69 4.40 Very High
number of challenges.
Having coped with the political interests in
0.99 4.06 High
our organization.

Overall 0.56 4.41 Very High

 86

Table 2.2

Level of Organizational Resilience among Librarians in terms of Organizational

Competitiveness

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Believing that our clients can easily access

0.69 4.43 Very High
our library services.
Believing that our organization is result-
0.73 4.35 Very High
oriented.
Believing that we can succeed in library
service delivery amidst resource 0.80 4.26 Very High
constraints.
Believing that we can achieve our set
0.75 4.23 Very High
targets.
Believing that we can sustain our library
0.91 4.13 High
operations with limited funding.
Believing that we serve our clients in a short
1.15 3.84 High
period of time

Overall 0.66 4.21 Very High

 87

Table 2.3

Level of Organizational Resilience among Librarians in terms of Organizational

Value

Item SD Mean Descriptive Level

Believing that our stakeholders are satisfied

0.72 4.30 Very High
with our library operations.
Believing that the people we serve are
0.70 4.30 Very High
satisfied with our library service delivery.
Believing that our cost control is
0.74 4.21 Very High
satisfactory.
Believing that most people wish to work with
0.85 4.08 High
our organization.
Believing that the library staff is satisfied
0.96 4.02 High
with the organization.
Believing that funding organizations are
0.91 3.94 High
willing to fund our operations.
Believing that there are minimum
0.95 3.76 High
complaints over the use of our services.

Overall 0.59 4.09 High

 88
79

APPENDIX B

Research Instrument
 89

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondents:

This survey is designed to determine the “Work Context and Social Support Climate as
Determinant of Organizational Resilience among Librarians” Rest assured that your response
to each question will be held with strictest professional confidence. Your cooperation will be a great
help. Thank you and God bless!

RODRIGO B. SUMUOB JR., RL

Researcher

Part I. RESPONDENT’S PROFILE:

Date Evaluation: __________ Name: (Optional) _____________________

Gender: Male (_) Female (_)

Name of School: (Optional) _______________________________________________

Type of Library: (_) Academic (_) Public (_) School (_) Special

Part II. WORK CONTEXT AND SOCIAL SUPPORT CLIMATE

Instruction: Kindly answer objectively, sincerely and honestly all the items categorized according
to the indicators of work context and social support climate through ticking the corresponding box
with (✓). Rest assured that all your responses shall be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be
used solely for the study. Please use the rating scale below:

5 = Always 4 = Often 3 = Sometimes 2 = Seldom 1 = Never

A. Work Autonomy.
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
In my organization…
1. the job allows me to make my own decisions
about how to schedule my work.
2. the job allows me to decide on the order in
which things are done on the job.
3. the job allows me to plan how I do my work.
B. Task Variety. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
In my organization…
1. the job involves a great deal of task variety.
2. the job involves doing a number of different
things.
3. the job requires the performance of a wide
range of tasks.
4. the job involves performing a variety of tasks.
C. Feedback from Job. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
In my organization…
 90

1. the work activities provide direct and clear

information about the effectiveness (e.g.
quality and quantity) of my job performance.
2. the job itself provides feedback on my
performance.
3. the job itself provides me with information
about my performance.
D. Social Support. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
In my organization…
1. I have the opportunity to develop close
friendships in my job.
2. I have the chance to get to know other people
in my job.
3. I have the opportunity to meet with others in
my work.
4. my supervisor is concerned about the welfare
of the people who work for him/her.
E. Organizational Identification. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
In my organization…
1. I feel strong ties with my subordinates.
2. I experience a strong sense of belongingness.
3. I feel proud to work.
4. I am sufficiently acknowledged.
5. I am glad to be a part of the support services.
F. Knowledge Sharing. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
In my organization…
1. I frequently participate in knowledge sharing
activities with my colleagues/librarians.
2. I usually spend a lot of time conducting
knowledge-sharing activities in my library.
3. I usually and actively share my knowledge
with others when working in my library
colleagues.
4. I am usually involved in the subsequent
interactions when discussing a complicated
issue.
5. I usually involve myself in discussions of
various topics rather than specific topics.

Part III. ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE OF LIBRARIANS

Instruction: The following items are statements of some factors on organizational resilience of
librarians. Kindly answer objectively with sincerity and honesty through checking every item based
on your personal observation and perception using the rating scale as indicated below:

5 = Always 4 = Often 3 = Sometimes 2 = Seldom 1 = Never

A. Organizational Adaptation.
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
As a Librarian, I believe that…
1. our library services conform to the regulatory
standards.
 91

2. we have put our library assets to good use.

3. we have made library service delivery flexible.
4. we have maintained our library personnel’s
reputation.
5. our library service delivery is in line with our
clients’ needs.
6. our organization overcomes a number of
challenges.
7. we have coped with the political interests in
our organization.
B. Organizational Competitiveness. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
As a Librarian, I believe that…
1. we can sustain our library operations with
limited funding.
2. we serve our clients in a short period of time.
3. our clients can easily access our library
services.
4. we can succeed in library service delivery
amidst resource constraints.
5. we can achieve our set targets.
6. our organization is result-oriented.
C. Organizational Value. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
As a Librarian, I believe that…
1. our cost control is satisfactory.
2. our stakeholders are satisfied with our library
operations.
3. the people we serve are satisfied with our
library service delivery.
4. the library staff are satisfied with the
organization.
5. there are minimum complaints over the use of
our services.
6. most people wish to work with our
organization.
7. funding organizations are willing to fund our
operations.

***This ends the survey. Thank you very much!***

 92
80

APPENDIX C

Letters to Validators
93
94
95
96
97
 98
81

APPENDIX D

Summary of Ratings for Expert Validators

 99

Summary of Ratings for Expert Validators

Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr.

Items Estela Gloria Eugenio Maychelle Ana
R. P. S. M. Helena Total Description
Dequito Gempes Guhao, Nugas Lovitos
Jr.
1. Clarity of
Directions and 4 3 3 5 5 4 Very
Items Good
2. Presentation
and Very
4 3 3 5 5 4
Organization of Good
Items
3. Suitability of Very
4 3 3 4 5 3.8
Items Good
4.Adequatenes
s of Items per Very
Category or 4 3 3 4 4 3.6 Good
Indicator

5. Attainment of Very
Purpose 5 3 3 4 5 4 Good
6. Objectivity Very
5 3 3 4 5 4
Good
7. Scale and
Evaluation 4 3 3 4 4 3.6 Very
Rating Scale Good
Very
TOTAL 4 3 3 4.29 4.71 3.80
Good

Rating Scale:
4.1 -5.00 - Excellent
3.1 -4.00 – Very Good
2.1 -3.00 - Good
1.1 -2.00 – Fair
0 - 1.00 – Low
 100
82

APPENDIX E

Validation of Rating Sheets

101
102
103
104
105
 106
83

APPENDIX F

Letter Permission to Conduct Study

107
108
109
110
111
 112
84

APPENDIX G

Certificate of Appearance
113
114
115
116
117
 118
85

APPENDIX H

Certificate of Public Forum

119
 120
86

CURRICULUM VITAE
 121

RODRIGO B. SUMUOB JR.

Km. 9, #46 Sto. Rosario, Old Airport Drive, Sasa,
Davao City, Philippines
Email Address: sumuobrodrigojr@gmail.com

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Nickname : RODZ
Date of Birth : May 22, 1994
Place of Birth : Maliaya Malaybalay City, Bukidnon
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Graduate Studies Master of Library and Information Science (Candidate)
University of Mindanao Professional Schools
Matina, Davao City
Thesis Title “Work Context and Social Support
Climate as Determinant on Organizational
Resilience of Librarians”

Undergraduate Bachelor of Library and Information Science

University of Mindanao, Davao City
March 2015

High School Francisco Bangoy National High School

Km. 9, Sasa, Davao City
March 2011

Elementary Maligaya Elementary School

Maligaya Malaybalay City, Bukidnon
March 2006

Eligibility Professional Librarian

WORK EXPERIENCE

College Librarian St. John Paul II College of Davao

Ecoland Drive, Matina, Davao City
September 2016 - Present

Assistant Librarian St. John Paul II College of Davao

Ecoland Drive, Matina, Davao City
 122

May 2015 – September 2016

Student Trainee University of Mindanao, Learning & Information Center

Assistant Matina, Davao City
June 2011 – May 2015

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Philippine Librarians Association Incorporated (PLAI)

Member (2015 – Present)

SEMINARS/TRAINING ATTENDED

2019 PLAI-DRLC Seminar-Workshop & General Assembly

“Redefining the Role of Library & Information Science
Professionals in the 4th Industrial Revolution”
Sangguniang Panglunsod, Davao City, June 26-28,
2019

2018 PLAI-STRLC BENCHMARKING TOUR

“Exploring Malaysia and Experience Thailand’s ABC
(Adventures, Benchmark and Collaborate)” Bangkok,
Thailand & Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 23-27, 2018

“DACUN 12th Phil-BIST (Philippine-Book, Information

Science and Technology) Conference and Fair” UIC
Auditorium, Sto. Niño Building, Bajada Campus, Bajada,
Davao City, August 7-9, 2018

San Pedro College Continuing Professional Education

“Designing Newsletter and Producing Audio-Visual
Materials”, Computer Laboratory, San Pedro College,
Davao City, March 20-22, 2018

2017 PLAI-DRLC Librarians Summit and General Assembly

“Librarians Summit, Self-transformation Seminar & Book
Fair” AVR 2, University of Mindnao, Matina, Davao City,
August 30-September 01, 2017

PLAI National Congress 2016 and General Assembly

“Library as a Place: Continual Learning in the New
Information Landscape” SMX Convention Center, SM
Lanang, Davao City, November 20-25, 2016
 123

Curriculum Vitae of External Validator

 124

MAYCHELLE M. NUGAS
Clarin Street, Obrero, Davao City
Email Address: maychelle.nugas76@gmail.com

Summary
An effective leader, skilled in enlisting the support of all team members in aligning
with the project and organizational goals with more than two years of experience as
planning officer and 18+ years as library manager supporting administrative
functions. Multifaceted, efficient, and reliable worker who is culturally sensitive.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Post Graduate : University of Southeastern Philippines (USeP)

Doctor of Philosophy Major in Development Administration
Obrero, Davao City
April 2012

Graduate : Cor Jesu College

Master of Arts in Education, Major in Library Science
Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City
March 2004

Tertiary : Cor Jesu College

Bachelor of Secondary Education, Major in Library Science
Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City
March 1997

Secondary : Holy Cross Academy of Digos

Digos City

Elementary : Ramon Magsaysay Central Elementary School

Digos City
Eligibility : Professional Librarian
Professional Teacher
Civil Service Sub-Professional

WORK EXPERIENCE
Position / Designation Agency Date

Internal Quality Audit Team University of Southeastern January 15, 2018 -

(IQA) member Philippines (USeP) present

Director of Libraries University of Southeastern March 1, 2017 -

Philippines (USeP) present
 125

ISO Process Owners University of Southeastern

September 30, 2016
Philippines (USeP)

Member, Technical Working

University of Southeastern June 10, 2016 -
Group (TWG) for Catch Up
Philippines (USeP) present
Plan 2017-2021

Member/ Evaluator, Internal University of Southeastern

June 7, 2016 -
Quality Assessment Team Philippines (USeP)
present
(IQUaT)

Member, Bids and Awards University of Southeastern March 1, 2016 -

Committee (BAC) Philippines (USeP) present

Committee to create University of Southeastern

December 2015 -
Baseline for Strategic Philippines (USeP)
2016
Planning

COMMITTEES & Other Designations

 Committee Chair, 3rd USeP Librarian’s Congress 2016: USeP @ 38 One
Vision, One Goal, Towards Excellence. ULRC, Davao City. December 22,
2016.
 University Library Advisory Board – Secretariat (2012 to present)
 Planning Summit Team – Chairman (2014)
 Scholarship Program for Teachers Handling Children with Visual
Impairment – Project Staff (2014)
 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) – Member (2017 to present)
 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) – Alternate Member (2013 to 2016)
 Performance-Based Bonus – Focal Person (2013 to 2015)
 Performance Management Group – Member (2014 to 2015)
 Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) Performance
Management Team – Member (2015)

MANUAL / MODULES DRAFTED

 Nugas, Maychelle. Library Manual. Louie Printing Press. June 2009.
ISBN No. 978-971-94743-1-9
 Nugas, Maychelle. SPAMAST Library Guide. Louie Printing Press. June
2009.
ISBN No. 978-971-94743-0-2

SERVICE AWARD
 Plaque of Recognition is awarded to Maychelle M. Nugas, for her
exemplary dedication, commitment and service for the realization of the
 126

Fisheries Program Accreditation – Level II per qualification and standards of

AACCUP, Inc. February 2010.
 Plaque of Recognition is awarded to Maychelle M. Nugas, for her exemplary
dedication, commitment and service for the realization of the Teacher
Education Accreditation – Level 1 per qualification and standards of
AACCUP, Inc. February 2009.

EXPERT SERVICES RENDERED

 Panel Member of the Comprehensive Exam at the College of Governance
and Business (2015 to present)
 Evaluator, Internal Quality Assessment Team (USeP) July- August 2016
 Panel Reactor, Enhancing Governance Through Research-Based Policies,
MinDA, Bajada, Davao City. March 22, 2016.
 Evaluator, IQuAT at the College of Governance and Business, AVR, USeP,
Davao City. July 21, 2016.
 Evaluator, IQuAT at the College of Arts and Sciences. USeP, Davao City.
July 21, 2016.
Expert Services Rendered as Accreditor
Accreditor of State Colleges and Universities
Date

Dec. 10-12, 2007

 Agusan del Sur State College of Agriculture and
December 3 – 5, 2009
Technology (ASSCAT)
December 6-9, 2011
Aug. 15-17, 2007
 Central Mindanao University
Sept. 12-14, 2007
Jan. 16-18, 2008
 Cotabato City State Polytechnic College (CCSPC)
Nov. 16-19, 2009
July 25-27, 2007
 Cotabato Foundation College of Science and
October 2-5, 2012
Technology (CFCST)

PROFESSIONAL LECTURER
 Knowledge Management (PhD) 2nd Semester 2017-2018
 Philosophy of Development Administration (PhD) 1st semester 2017-2018
 Organizational Management and Strategy (MSLIS) 2nd Semester 2016-
2017
 Library Management and Strategy, 2nd semester, 2015-2016
 Statistics, Probabilities and Queuing Theory (MSLIS), 1st semester, 2016-
2017
 Indexing and Abstracting (MSLIS), 2nd semester 2016-2017
 127

RESEARCH ENGAGEMENTS
 Title: Knowledge Management Preference Scale of Stakeholders in
Mindanao. Dissertation Paper. University of Southeastern Philippines.
Obrero, Davao City

 Presented the Paper “Knowledge Management Preference Scale of

Stakeholders in Mindanao” to the Mindanao Development Authority
(MinDA) last June 13, 2014 in Davao City.

 Presented and participated in the Inaugural Young Scholars Conference on

Asian Studies in a Globalized World. Bangkok, Thailand March 5-6, 2013.

 Presented the Paper at the 9th International Conference of Network of Asia

Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance
(NAPSIPAG) held last December 12-14, 2012 at Colombo, Sri Lanka

 One of the members of REC Research, Management and Consultancy

Group conducting a terminal evaluation on Early Recovery and Rehabilitation
for Central Mindanao (ERRCM) funded by the European Commission in
coordination with UNDP.

 Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA). Feasibility Study on Mindanao

Tourism and Cultural Village Center - Team Member (2015).

ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATED
 Mindanao Association of State Tertiary Schools Library Network
(MASTSLiNet)
 Davao Colleges and Universities Network, Library Committee (DACUN)
 Philippine Librarians Association Inc. (PLAI)
 Network of Asia Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and
Governance (NAPSIPAG) 2012-2013.
 Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines,
Inc. (AACCUP) 2006-2013
 International Federation Librarian’s Association (IFLA) 2008
 Agricultural Librarians Association (ALAP) 2008
 Philippine Agricultural Libraries and Information Services Network
(PhilAgriNet) 2008

SPEAKERSHIP
 Libraries Take Action: Providing Access and Opportunities for All. USeP
Librarian’s Congress 2017 Performance Evaluation and Action Planning.
USeP, Davao City. December 20, 2017.
 128

 Effective Planning Techniques for Library Managers: Aligning Plans,

Resources, Services and Operations. 9th DACUN Phil-BIST. August 12, 2015
at Brokenshire College, Davao City
 Library Leadership in a Disruptive World. 10th Phil-BIST Conference & Fair
with the theme: Building Momentum in Leadership & Management for
Professionals & Specialists in Millennial Libraries and Information Centers,
August 12, 2016 at UM, Davao City
 Marketing and Promotion of Library Services. A seminar-workshop on
"Embracing the Changing Needs of the 21st Century Customers through
Providing Innovative Service, San Pedro College-LRC, Davao City

SEMINARS & TRAININGS ATTENDED

A. Planning, Management and Leadership

1. 2017-2021 Catch Up Planning Workshop Based on USeP Strategic Plan
2007-2021. Social Hall, USeP, Obrero, Davao City. June 13-14, 2017.

2. Planning-Workshop on Networking for Change: Engaging the Libraries.

University of Mindanao Philippines and DACUN Library Committee. Davao
City. February 13, 2017.

3. Laying the Foundations for Change: the Internationalization of State Libraries

in the Academe in Mindanao. 4thAnnual General Assembly of MASTSLiNet
May 24-26, 2017 at Crystal Ball, Grand Astoria Hotel, Zamboanga City.

4. Networking for Change: Engaging the Libraries. February 13, 2017 at U.P.
Mindanao, Mintal, Davao City.
5. Colors, Hues, and Blooms: Management and Leadership Skills for ASEAN
Librarians. University Learning Resource Center, USeP, Obrero, Davao City.
May 31, 2016.