Abstract

The study was conducted to examine the organizational environment of public universities. The essence of the study was quantitative, in that a survey questionnaire based on five-point Likert scales was utilized for the collection of data. The population of the current study was made up of all of Punjab's public universities. Six universities were randomly selected for the sample. The data were collected from the proportionate randomly selected four hundred university teachers. To analyze the public universities' environment, the Mean score was calculated for the selected sample. On the basis of demographic variables, T-tests and ANOVA were applied to understand the environment of public universities based on demographic variables. The results of the study showed a good organizational environment of the public universities in the Punjab province.

Key Words

Organizational Environment, University Teachers, Public Universities

Background of the Study

The organizational environment is the key to an organization. The organizational environment is made up of factors or institutions both inside and outside the organization. Perhaps they control the activities of organizations. Service providers, regulatory agencies, stakeholders, community pressure organizations, and others are among these forces (Robbins, Judge & Sanghi, 2009). Environmental differences exist between organizations and institutions as well. An organization or institution can have both a static and dynamic environment. Lack of competition, little development of technology, and the lethargic situation of social pressure groups are the causes of inactivity in the organization. A dynamic environment in an organization is about creating product changes, changing rules and regulations, ease of use of materials, and the presence of competitors. Institutions such as universities have a dynamic environment due to the difference in infrastructure present in their many disciplined faculties. This uncertainty in the environment affects the organizational structure. Environmental risk is reduced through adjusting organizational culture. (Arndt & Biglow, 2000).

An organization is a well-organized social body that achieves its objectives. Organizations occur in several different forms, ranging from small businesses to enormous corporations with thousands of employees. The environment has a critical influence on attaining an organization's goals. In a company with a stable organizational environment, valuable job experience is obtained (Kira & Eijnatten, 2008).

The social environment cannot be separated from the organization. The organization has a strong connection to the larger social landscape. Organization and the social environment are mutually exclusive (Eldridge & Crombie, 2013). The external environment has an impact on the organization. The organization's structure is also adaptable (Heifetz, Grascho & Linsky, 2009). According to Barnard (1964), a balanced atmosphere is essential for an organization's survival. Customers, for example, are a component of a company's organization, which advertises and sells its products to customers. Likewise, educational institutions make and sell their products as skilled employees to safeguard the environment. The organization has several environmental aspects, including sociocultural, economic, political, competitive, and technical. In this setting, companies or organizations do this effectively. The purpose of an economic organization is to make a profit. The economic environment is governed by the economic organization's authority. They keep track of the organization's social demands and develop strategies to make it profitable. To address societal employment demands, educational institutions also create qualified and competent personnel. 

Figure 1

Factors of Organizational Environment (Farooqi, 2011)



Factors Of Organizational Environment

The literature indicates the following organizational environmental factors, which are shown in this figure and are briefly described below.




Internal Environment 

The internal environment is the working

environment of a particular area of an educational organization. The organization is seen as having a resource-transforming environment. It collects data and converts it into useful goods. Our educational institutions, such as academic and organizational staff, staff links (party unions), leadership, and stakeholders, are all heavily influenced by the environment. Here, the emphasis of the research is on the internal environment. There are various aspects of the internal environment, and one of them involves organizational culture. An organization's philosophy is considered its culture, and every organization seems to have an ideology. As a result, culture plays an essential role in the organization's internal environment (Scott, 2003).




Professional Development 

Professional development specifies that people develop according to the dynamic environment of an organization. Educating professionals is very important in existing organizations. In modern organizations, the quality of work improves through professional development. It helps in improving the quality of work, which is a big problem in today's organizations. The career and professional development of employees must help in improving their competency and technical skills (Ream, 2008).




Team Work 

Teamwork is an exercise that focuses on shared goals achieved by people working together. This is seen as a sign of success in modern organizations. In today's workplaces, cultural and worldview differences have a significant impact on teamwork. The right management system, on the other hand, manages these discrepancies. It can sustain collaboration, which boosts the organization's efficiency (Ream, 2008).




Guidance and Support 

Organizations today are hierarchical. The devolution of authority at the grassroots level is symbolized through hierarchical structures. This organization provides staff with the knowledge to deal with organizational issues with their immediate superiors. Thus, managers must show potential interest in leading and supporting subordinates in an organization’s dynamic environment (Mullins, 2007).




Facilitation

Each organization has its unique objectives that

must be met. Organizational managers take steps to engage employees effectively in achieving these goals. The role of a facilitator is to aid and assist others in completing tasks. The facilitator makes every effort to coordinate and collaborate with the workers in the workplace. Subordinates can use the facilitator to establish a positive work environment and display civilized behaviour in the workplace. As a result, a facilitator is someone who assists employees in establishing a positive work atmosphere (Bens, 2005).




Participation and Coordination 

Coordination is regarded as the organization's most important function. Modern educational organizations have various departments. Teaching faculty, finance, administration, sentry, and field employees are among these departments. Coordination is necessary for an organization's seamless operation. The administrator's duty in a healthy work environment is to maintain a culture of engagement and collaboration among the employees. The manager's job is to build interpersonal ties, ensure correct information flow, design policies, make choices, and put policies into action. In this approach, the manager guarantees that the objectives are met with the assistance of others (Hislop, 2013).




Dimensions of the Organization’s Concept

Many authors have described various aspects of organizations; in this regard, Scott (2003) takes a broad view and argues that organization at the level is a structure of general and categorical attributes. As a prudential framework, an organization consists of formal structures to achieve goals. As a common structure, an organization is seen as an element that struggles to survive in its environment. Finally, an organization, like a well-established structure, is a material that exists to develop a link with its environment. The author discussed how the theory of organization works by using these three approaches to correct new assumptions and has arisen in understanding the work of the organization and its results. These principles are as follows:

? The open and rational model has arisen from the mixing of an open framework with a sane method. These theories apply to managers who are concerned with how to cope with new substances and demands; organizations are modifying their structure and behaviour. Contingency theory (Donaldson, 2006), comparative structure (Morgan, 2007), and transaction cost analysis (D'Hondt & Giraud, 2008) were the main models in this class.

? Models that are open and naturalistic as a consequence of combining open structures with natural approaches attempt to determine how an organization's activity can be viewed in terms of forces associated with the environment. In this regard, remotely created standards and behaviours determine the structure and activities of organizations. Critical contingencies (Thomas, 2010), population ecology (Baum & Shipilov, 2006), resource dependency (Delke, 2015), and institutional theory are the main models associated with this categorization (Peters, 2011).

When looking at typologies relating to the concept of organizations that people can aspire 

to, there is no reason to focus on organizations in isolation from their environment. Without a doubt, organizations are continually interacting with their surroundings, and this truth is likely to explain both their behaviour and their effectiveness.

As a result, it is maintained that no organization exists in isolation (Essays, 2013). The contingency theory, developed by Donaldson (2006), explains how the environment impacts an organization. The key assumption of this theory was that organizational components had multidimensional interactions with one another and with the environment. Baum and Shipilov (2006) have a different approach in this regard, in which organizations continue to adapt, seek adaptation, and, therefore, move towards survival. In the given statements, a reasonable expectation is that open and regular views can explain the behaviour and performance of organizations because this is the only method to reflect the interaction between the organization and its environment.




The Analysis of an Organization's Meaning

Scott (2000) defined organization analysis as the division of interactions in an organization into three levels: structural, environmental, and socio-psychological. The following is their contact information:

? The formal alliance, which is regarded as a structure and is also part of each unit associated with the entire organization, is studied at the structural level.

? Environmental research in which organizations are involved is governed at the environmental level. At this level, the inquiry might concentrate on lying about organizations that target certain types of organizations and their environments or on lying about a specific class of organizations in connection to their surroundings.

? The level of social psychology concerns the behaviour of people in organizations. This applies to the interpersonal relationships of people, including those who participate in organizations.

Research Questions of the Study

Below are enlisted research questions.

1. What is the level of public university teachers' organizational environment?

2. Are there any differences in public university teachers' organizational environment based on demographics (gender, age, qualification, and designation)?




Research Design

The investigation of the study was quantitative.

It aimed to find out the organizational environment of teachers at public universities in the Punjab province. To collect data, a survey instrument was distributed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.




Population

In the Pakistani perspective, public universities are preferred in terms of efficiency, adequacy, reliability, and consistent quality, while private universities lack trained staff, organized libraries, research, and residential offices (Habibullah, Ajmal, and Rahman, 2011). Similarly, there was a positive correlation between the remuneration of public university professors and their performance, motivation, and professional duties, which was significantly higher than that of private university professors (Nawaz & Muazzam, 2015). Furthermore, public universities have a larger student body than private universities. Public universities have improved organization and conditions (Farooqi, 2011). Literature has made an unsurpassed quality in public universities. Thus, there are thirty-two (www.punjabhec.gov.pk) public universities recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in the province of Punjab. This study's participants were all university teachers.




Sample of the Study

The researchers selected six universities from thirty-two public universities in Punjab by lottery. The researchers then proportionally selected four hundred teachers from six public universities that were selected randomly. Therefore, Gay, Mills, and Arasian (2011) stated that a sample of four hundred respondents was sufficient if the population were more than five thousand. The total number of respondents at each university was used to calculate depending on the ratio of 

respondents. The number of university teachers was calculated using information from the universities' official website

The following diagram shows a pinned picture of the whole process of sampling.

Figure 2

Flowchart for Sampling



The Research Instrument

The researchers used an adopted organizational environment tool (Farooqi & Akhtar, 2014) for this study. It was a valid and reliable tool, with a reliability score of 0.91. This tool has already been used at the university level with other variables. Below is the factor-wise distribution of the questionnaire.




 

Table 1. Items Distribution of Organizational Environment Scale Factor

Sr. No	Factors’ Names	Item no as per Serial
1	Internal environment	32, 15, 14, 8, 6, 1
2	Professional developments	33, 26, 18, 2
3	Teamwork	22, 19, 16, 13, 9, 7
4	Guidance & support	27, 25, 24, 17, 5, 3
5	Facilitations	36, 35, 34, 31, 23, 21
6	Participation & coordination	28, 20, 12, 11, 10, 4
7	Reward & benefits	38, 37, 30, 29

 




Data Collection

To collect data, the researchers individually compiled questionnaires for distribution among respondents. The respondents were provided with information about the study. The respondents were guaranteed that they would not suffer any loss in response. The respondents' assistance was acknowledged, and their privacy was protected.

 

Data Analysis

The collected data was evaluated based on the

 research questions. For analyzing the organizational environment of public universities, the mean score was used; for gender analysis, the t-test; for other demographic variables, a one-way analysis of variance was used.

 

Research Question 1: What is the level of public university teachers' organizational environment?




 

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics to explore the Levels of Organizational Environment of Universities

Sr. No	Statement	Mean	Std. Deviation
1	Internal environment	3.55	.5736
2	Professional developments	3.48	.7671
3	Teamwork	3.75	.5989
4	Guidance & support	3.76	.8832
5	Participation & coordination	3.72	.7492
6	Facilitations	3.54	.8497
7	Reward & benefits	3.43	.8737
8	Organizational Environment	3.62	.6185

N=400

 




Table 1 showed that the highest mean score (M= 3.76) was for the guidance & support facet of the organizational environment, followed by teamwork (M= 3.75). Likewise, the other factors had a little lower mean score, i.e. participation & coordination (M= 3.72), the internal environment (M= 3.55), facilitations (M= 3.54), professional development (M= 3.48), and reward & benefits (M= 3.43). The mean scores for all the factors showed the scale mark Agree (M= 3.43 to 3.76). The entire organizational environment acquired a Mean score (M= 3.62), which was above the scale level Undecided towards Agree. The data indicated that the organizational environment at public universities was favourable to its personnel.

 

Research Question 2: Are there any differences in public university teachers' organizational environment based on demographics (gender, age, qualification and designation)?




 

Table 2. Gender Differences in the Organizational Environment of Public Universities

Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	Sig. (2-tailed)
Male	236	3.67	.6074	2.003	.046
Female	164	3.56	.6286

 




To compare the organizational environment values for males and females, an independent-sample t-test was used. The mean result for males (M= 3.67) and females (M= 3.56) showed that both genders had a similar propensity toward the scale mark. Table 2

revealed that at the university level, there was a significant difference in the organizational environment of male and female teachers (t= 2.003 & p-value=.046 0.05). The following discrepancy between the mean values of both genders is depicted graphically.

Figure 3

The Graphic Presentation of Mean Values of Both the Genders



Table 3. The difference in the organizational environment of universities Based on other Demographics

Demographics	Types	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Df	F	Sig.
Age Groups	25-35	204	3.56	.6356	3	4.062	.007
	36-45	140	3.72	.5333	396
	46-55	41	3.47	.7129
	Above 55	15	3.94	.6657	399
	Total	400	3.62	.6185
Teaching Experience	1-5	168	3.58	.6553	4	.744	.562
	6-10	131	3.65	.5700
	11-15	63	3.58	.5543	395
	16-20	28	3.75	.7121
	Above 20	10	3.74	.7296	399
	Total	400	3.62	.6185
Designation	Lecturer	201	3.63	.5384	3	1.597	.190
	Assistant Professor	158	3.57	.7058
	Associate Professor	28	3.82	.4748	396
	Professor	13	3.49	.8796
	Total	400	3.62	.6185	399
Qualification	M. A	25	3.38	.5330	2	2.484	.085
	M. Phil	206	3.67	.5351	397
	Ph. D	169	3.60	.7113
	Total	400	3.62	.6185	399

 




One-way analyses of variance among demographic variables were used in relation to table 2.1. Its purpose was to investigate the differences in the organizational environment of public universities depending on university teachers' ages, teaching experience, designation, and qualification. Based on their ages, there was a significant difference (F= 4.062 & p-value =.007 0.05). On the other hand, based on their years of university teaching experience, an insignificant difference (F=.744 & p-value =.562 > 0.05) was investigated among university teachers. Again, depending on their professional designation, university teachers showed no significant difference (F= 1.597 & p-value =.190 > 0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in university teachers' qualifications (F= 2.484 & p-value =.085 > 0.05). M= 3.38 to M= 3.94 was the difference between the Mean values. Based on demographics, the mean values of university teachers revealed a better organizational environment in Punjab's public universities.

Findings

The findings of the study may be stated as under.

? University teachers had shown that there was a good organizational environment in the public universities of Punjab. To some extent, the guidance and support of the organizational environment were better than other factors.

? Significant differences were found in the organizational environment of public universities according to the attitudes of male and female teachers, and male teachers showed a slightly better organizational environment than female teachers.

? For all other demographic variables, significant age differences were found between university teachers. An insignificant difference emerged among university teachers in terms of other demographic data. In general, university teachers showed that the public universities of Punjab province have a good organizational environment.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to examine the organizational environment of Punjab's public universities. According to the findings of the study, public university teachers have a good organizational environment. The current study is connected to Baird and Meshoulam's (1988) study, which indicated that the smooth functioning of management was dependent on a better organizational environment. Similarly, the findings of the study corroborated Aldrich's (2008) findings, which said that the organizational environment had a substantial impact on the success or failure of organizations.

According to the results of the available research, one of Cameron's (2010) studies showed that the development of an organization depends on the effectiveness of its environment. Likewise, Jones (2010) discussed that an organization's environment affects all functions of an organization. Evans and Davis (2005) validated the current study by noting that the internal environment of the organization has a significant impact on employee behaviour and performance. The internal environment includes the organization's strengths and flaws. Likewise, Katz and Kahn (1966) discussed that the organization would be on the road to disaster if there was imperfect collaboration and workers simply fulfilled the proposed responsibilities. His research showed that the organizational environment is an integral part of the organization.

Recommendations

Following are the recommendations keeping in mind the study results.

? Organizational productivity and job performance may both benefit from an efficient organizational environment. As a result, leaders must focus their efforts on improving the organizational environment.

? It is recommended that employees and administrators be selected as per the established standards of the organization so that the administrators can create a better organizational environment.

? This research may be repeated at a lower level at educational institutions to compare and contrast the results, which will aid in the creation of a pleasant and productive organizational environment.

? Although the study was conducted in the realm of education, it may be applied to other fields to get positive outcomes.

? Due to time and resource restrictions, this study was undertaken in Punjab province. Its use is also possible in other Pakistani provinces.

? This was a quantitative study; other scholars may conduct it on a wider scale using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

? This research was done in public sector universities; for comparison, such research can be done in private sector universities.

? Other factors, such as work satisfaction, employee commitment, employee attitudes, quality control, and leadership style, can be evaluated in connection to the organizational environment and vice versa.

References

• Aldrich, H. (2008). Organizations and environments. California: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667107
• Arndt, M., & Bigelow, B. (2000). Presenting Structural Innovation in an Institutional Environment: Hospitals’ Use of Impression Management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 494-522
• Baird, L., & Meshoulam, I. (1988). Managing Two Fits of Strategic Human Resource Management. The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 116-128 https://doi.org/10.2307/258359
• Barnard, C. (1964). Functions and pathology of status systems in formal organizations. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Baum, J. A., & Shipilov, A. V. (2006).Ecological Approaches to Organizations. The Sage handbook of organization studies. London: Sage.
• Bens. (2005). Advanced facilitation strategies: Tools and techniques to master difficult situations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Cameron, K. (2010). Organizational effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• D’Hondt, C., & Giraud, J. R. (2008). Transaction cost analysis AZ: A step towards best execution in the post-MiFID landscape. EDHEC Risk and Asset Management Research Centre Publication. 1-98.
• Delke, V. F. (2015). The Resource Dependence Theory: Assessment and Evaluation as a Contributing Theory for Supply Management (Bachelor's thesis, University of Twente). 1-16.
• Donaldson, L. (2006). The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. Organization Design, 21(7), 19–40.
• Eldridge, J. E. T., & Crombie, A. D. (2013). Sociology of organizations. Routledge.
• Essays, UK. (November 2013). No Organization Can Exist In A Vacuum Marketing Essay https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/no-organization-can-exist-in-a-vacuum-marketing-essay.php?
• Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High- Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure. Journal of Management, 31(5), 758–775.
• Farooqi, M. T. K. (2011). A comparative study of the conflict management styles and organizational environment at the university level. (Unpublished Ph. D thesis), University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
• Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. New York, NY: Pearson.
• Habibullah, M., Ajmal, M. & Rahman, F. (2011). Analysis of Quality Indicators of Higher Education in Pakistan. Ankara, Bilkent University
• Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press
• Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
• Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations Wiley. New York.
• Kira, M., & Eijnatten, F. M. (2008). Human and social sustainability in work organizations.
• Morgan, G. (2007). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage
• Mullins, L. J. (2007). Management and organisational behaviour. New Delhi: Pearson.
• Nawaz, B., & Muazzam, A. (2015). Performance related pay of university employees: A comparison of public and private sector universities of Pakistan. Pakistan Business Review, 17(1), 183-200.
• Peters, B. G. (2011). Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
• Ream, X. A. E. (2008). Teamwork: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(2), 232-241.
• Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Sanghi, S. (2009). Organizational behaviour. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall
• Scott, W. R. (2000). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Thomas, J. C. (2010). Handbook of clinical psychology competencies. Springer.