Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 50 no. 10 (2025)

Service Beyond the Desk: Exploring DepEd Administrative Staff’s Conceptions of Efficiency in Public Education Support Systems

Jennie Hernandez | Orbel Canoy

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study explored qualitatively distinct ways in which non-teaching personnel in the Department of Education (DepEd) conceptualize efficiency in their administrative roles within public education support systems. Using a phenomenographic research design, the study involved eighteen DepEd administrative staff who responded to a written interview guide in July 2025. Data analysis revealed five distinct conceptions of efficiency: (1) fast output delivery, (2) task accuracy and compliance, (3) responsible resource management, (4) coordinated team functioning, and (5) ethical and purposeful public service. These conceptions were organized into an outcome space, highlighting the variation in how efficiency is understood—from performance-based interpretations to deeper, values-driven and relational meanings. The findings suggest that while institutional measures often prioritize speed and compliance, administrative staff also associate efficiency with stewardship, collaboration, and service to the public good. Grounded in Public Service Motivation Theory, the study affirms the centrality of intrinsic values and moral commitment in shaping public service work. The results offer critical insights for DepEd leaders and policymakers in designing evaluation systems, training programs, and reforms that recognize the human dimensions of efficiency and promote more inclusive, responsive governance in education.



References:

  1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
  2. Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (Eds.). (2005). Doing developmental phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
  3. Brillantes, A. B., & Fernandez, M. T. F. (2008). Is there a Philippine public administration? Or better still, for whom is Philippine public administration? Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 52(2-4), 245–302.
  4. Castillo, A. M. (2021). Beyond compliance: The discretionary roles of school administrative staff in Philippine basic education. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(2), 22–32.
  5. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2016). The Ashgate research companion to new public management. New York: Routledge.
  6. De Guzman, M., & Reforma, M. L. (2019). Performance measurement and accountability in Philippine education bureaucracy. Asian Journal of Governance, 14(1), 45–66.
  7. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  8. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  9. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  10. Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/976618
  12. Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 62–82). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
  13. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic