Ateneo de Manila University

Archīum
Arch um Ateneo

Psychology Department Faculty Publications Psychology Department

10-14-2016

Transformation in Philippine local government

Mendiola Teng-Calleja
Ateneo de Manila University, mcalleja@ateneo.edu

Ma. Regina Hechanova

Ateneo de Manila University, rhechanova@ateneo.edu

Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay

Nico Canoy
Ateneo de Manila University

Edna P. Franco
Ateneo de Manila University

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://archium.ateneo.edu/psychology-faculty-pubs

Part of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation
Teng-Calleja, M., Hechanova, M. R. M., Alampay, R. B. A., Canoy, N. A., Franco, E. P., & Alampay, E. A.
(2017). Transformation in Philippine local government. Local Government Studies, 43(1), 64-88.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology Department at Archīum Ateneo. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of
Archīum Ateneo. For more information, please contact oadrcw.ls@ateneo.edu.
Authors
Mendiola Teng-Calleja, Ma. Regina Hechanova, Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay, Nico Canoy, Edna P. Franco,
and Erwin A. Alampay

This article is available at Archīum Ateneo: https://archium.ateneo.edu/psychology-faculty-pubs/84

 Local Government Studies

ISSN: 0300-3930 (Print) 1743-9388 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/flgs20

Transformation in Philippine local government

Mendiola Teng-Calleja, Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Ramon Benedicto A.

Alampay, Nico A. Canoy, Edna P. Franco & Erwin A. Alampay

To cite this article: Mendiola Teng-Calleja, Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Ramon Benedicto A.
Alampay, Nico A. Canoy, Edna P. Franco & Erwin A. Alampay (2017) Transformation in Philippine
local government, Local Government Studies, 43:1, 64-88, DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2016.1235561

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1235561

Published online: 14 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 845

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=flgs20
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 43, NO. 1, 64–88
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1235561

Transformation in Philippine local government

Mendiola Teng-Callejaa, Ma. Regina M. Hechanovac,
Ramon Benedicto A. Alampayb, Nico A. Canoyc, Edna P. Francoa
and Erwin A. Alampayd
a
Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development, Psychology Department,
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines; bLocal Governance Support Program
for Local Economic Development, Pasig City, Philippines; cPsychology Department, Ateneo
de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines; dCenter for Local and Regional Governance,
National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines,
Quezon City, Philippines

ABSTRACT
This research examined the challenges, enablers and outcomes of organisation
transformation in Philippine local governments. We combined a multi-case
study research design and backward mapping approach in collecting and
analysing narratives from 55 leaders in 9 Filipino local government units
(LGUs) that have successfully undergone transformation. Results show that
the transformations of the LGUs appear to have been catalysed by three
interrelated elements: vision, LGU leadership and citizen engagement. The
transformation in the local governments concentrated on multiple foci of
reform including structure and systems improvement, culture change,
human-resource development as well as policy and programme development.
This holistic approach enabled the transformation of bureaucratic and unpro-
fessional government service to transparent, professional and efficient public
service that engendered pride, transparency and social equity. Implications of
the proposed model for transforming LGUs and in developing LGU leaders for
good governance are discussed.

KEYWORDS Local government; organisation transformation; Philippines; leadership; citizen

engagement

The past decades have seen transformation in local governance all over the
world. The emerging perspective among the local government units (LGUs)
reflects the Neo-Weberian State that shifts the internal orientation of gov-
ernment towards meeting citizen’s needs. Rather than focusing on merely
implementing bureaucratic controls and processes, governments today are
more oriented on facilitating consultations to ensure representation of
citizens’ views, professionalisation of public service and achieving results
(De Vries and Nemec 2013).

CONTACT Mendiola Teng-Calleja mcalleja@ateneo.edu Psychology Department, Ateneo de

Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 65

The transformation of governments has followed two courses: globa-

lisation and devolution (Kettl 2000). Local governments are working with
other nations to promote trade and local economic development. At the
same time, power has been devolved to local governments in order to
improve efficiency, governance and equity as well as to decrease pov-
erty (Ishii, Hossain, and Rees 2007). The devolution of power has also
encouraged citizen engagement and involvement (Otto-Zimmerman
2012).
The transformation of local government is particularly salient to devel-
oping countries faced with serious issues of poverty, low literacy, high infant
mortality and poor social attainments (Rotberg 2012). Unfortunately, coun-
tries with limited economic resources also often grapple with economic and
political fractures that require reform in organisational and cultural struc-
tures (Cooper 2009) as well as moral and political reform (Brillantes and
Fernandez 2010). Because there is little known about the process of local
government transformation particularly in Southeast Asia, we seek to con-
tribute knowledge on local government transformation in this region. Using
a multi-case study of Filipino LGUs that have undergone transformation, we
examine the challenges and drivers for transformation.

Local government devolution

The devolution of power from central governments has had tremendous
impact on local governments, changing their role from service providers to
that of a contractor–client nature. The greater accountability to stakeholders
has also meant a shift towards greater productivity and quality of service
(Thomson 1992). However, the devolution of local governments has been
fraught with challenges. After centuries of decision-making and power
lodged in a hierarchical bureaucracy, devolution requires that local govern-
ments acquire the capacity to manage effectively and for national govern-
ments to reinvent themselves to remain relevant (Kettl 2000).
Studies on reform in local governance in developing countries revealed a
number of additional challenges to devolution including inactive and unin-
formed constituencies; confusion in the roles of state, regional and local
government institutions; unwillingness of the central government to loosen
its grip even with the inability to deliver key services; lack of financial,
material and human resources at the local government level; weak leader-
ship in all levels; greater opportunities for corruption due to strengthening
of informal or familial local power bases; increased regional disparities
especially in trade and investments and policy, structural and social capital
gaps that impede development (Wunsch and Olowu 1996; Silva 2005; Rees
and Hossain 2010; Schoburg 2012).
66 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Devolution and transformation in local government

Given the many challenges in the journey towards devolution, an impor-
tant question is how do you transform local governments? De Vries (2000)
pointed out that decentralisation through devolution involves customisa-
tion of services to the needs of the people in the locality, promotion of
efficiency through reduced red tape as well as greater participation and
innovation.
An article on reform in Philippine government suggests that reform
begins with a vision. This vision needs to be accompanied with changes in
institution structures, procedures and processes, mindsets and behaviours of
citizens, and leadership (Brillantes and Fernandez 2010). More specifically, a
study in Italy reported three requirements for the effective implementation
of devolution: a radical alteration of programmatic activities in all tiers of
government, workforce realignment and structural arrangements (Ongaro
2006). The move towards reforming and professionalising systems for finan-
cial and human-resource management was likewise a key element in the
transformation of local government in the United Kingdom (Arnaboldi and
Lapsley 2003), Indonesia and Pakistan (Guess 2005). The utilisation of infor-
mation technology validated studies that showed its role in enabling public
services and responding to user needs (King and Cotterill 2007).
Beyond changes in direction, systems and structures, it is also important to
note how transformation is enabled in government. Literature on local govern-
ment transformation highlights the role of citizen engagement and policy
reform. The use of participation and citizen engagement is a central tenet in
the local government reform in Finland (Kull 2009) and Nigeria (Wunsch and
Olowu 1996). Studies in Finland (Kull 2009) and the Caribbean commonwealths
(Schoburg 2012) also reported on the importance of policy reform, as a means
to engage the support of various social and political groups in the communities.
The importance of leaders in organisation transformation has been a
common refrain in both local governance (Asquith 1997) and business
(Herold et al. 2008; Latham 2013) literature. Among the leadership theories,
the theory most strongly associated with managing change across organisa-
tions is transformational leadership (Bommer, Rich, and Rubin 2005; Herold
et al. 2008). Kouzes and Posner (1995) described transformational leadership
behaviours as challenging the process, inspiring a common vision, model-
ling the way, enabling action and encouraging the heart. Beyond these
elements, studies point to the importance of the high degree of trust on
the leader by the different stakeholders (Oreg 2006). Research also suggests
the need for leaders with strategic perspectives that remain grounded and
sensitive to the local context (Asquith 1997). A recent study on leadership
behaviours that are critical in leading transformation also points to the
importance of treating others with respect regardless of position,
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 67

collaborating, being persistent, demonstrating accountability, using systems

thinking, engaging in personal learning and being personally involved by
spending considerable time with key stakeholders (Latham 2013).

Devolution in Philippine government

Since this study focuses on the transformation of Philippine LGUs, it is
important to provide the context to devolution and transformation efforts
in that country. Prior to devolution, the Philippines was a unitary state,
where the supervision of local governments was done by national govern-
ment. Local governments were viewed as subordinate entities, having no
inherent powers and looks up to higher government levels for the delega-
tion of authority (Tapales 2015). This centralisation of government reflected
then-President Marcos’ dictatorial leadership following the declaration of
Martial Law in 1972 and the subsequent People Power Revolution and
return of democracy in 1986. After decades of autocratic rule, a key feature
of its current constitution ratified in 1987 was the provision on local
autonomy1 (Ishii, Hossain, and Rees 2007) which emphasised democratic
governance and decentralisation (Cabo 2007).
The devolution of government in the Philippines has been described as
one of the most far reaching in the developing world (Guess 2005). The
Local Government Code of 1991 widened the roles and functions of
Philippine local governments and expanded their jurisdiction over hospitals,
social welfare, environmental protection, public infrastructure and zoning.
The devolution law vested local governments with significant powers and
resources (Tapales 2015). From being mere implementers of bureaucratic
controls and processes (De Vries and Nemec 2013), LGUs have been empow-
ered both administratively and financially to enable a shift towards more
service-oriented modes of governance. For instance, local governments’
main source of revenue had been the internal revenue tax that the national
government shares with them.2 With the new law, local governments are
authorised to generate revenue from local sources, including taxes (Tapales
2015). At the same time, the law also required LGUs to be more accountable
in responding to the needs of their constituents and to enable people’s
participation in governance (Cabo 2007).
As decentralisation minimises the reach of national government into the
communities, LGUs are challenged to take on new functions and responsi-
bilities to fill in the spaces that the field units of central government
agencies previously occupied. With increased responsibilities, local govern-
ments are under pressure to develop innovative ways in delivering basic
goods and services (Calugay 2013) and to be more efficient and dynamic in
their organisation and operations (Cabo 2007). Figure 1 illustrates the chan-
ging roles of local governments during decentralisation.
68 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Figure 1. Context of transformation in local government.

Similar to other countries, however, devolution of local government in

the Philippines was met with resistance from central and provincial autho-
rities who argued that local officials did not have the capacity and citizen
organisations were too weak to ensure local accountability. Opponents also
argued that it would lead to nepotism and patronage politics and weak
institutional systems (Guess 2005). In fact, there have been mixed results
with local governments showing both capacities and incapacities in running
their territories (Tapales 2015). Nonetheless, a case study on two successful
LGUs in the Philippines suggests that participatory governance can result in
greater public trust and improved outcomes for the LGU and its citizens
(Ishii, Hossain, and Rees 2007). The caveat, however, is that there are multi-
ple modalities on how to implement participatory governance and thus
reform should build models that incorporate the influences of local
environments.
More than two decades since the devolution of selected national govern-
ment functions to local governments, this study seeks to contribute to
extant knowledge by examining the experiences of local government trans-
formation in the Philippines and elicit the challenges and drivers for trans-
formation and its contingent outcomes in LGUs within a developing
country. For this particular study, we adopt Lee and colleagues’ (2013)
definition of transformation as both intended and multidimensional change
that radically modifies previous conditions through complex, large-scale and
systemic improvements. Specifically, we ask the following questions: (1)
What were the challenges of transformation in Philippine LGUs? (2) What
were the factors that enabled transformation in LGUs? and (3) What were
the outcomes of the transformation?
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 69

Method
This study used the multi-case study approach (Yin 1994) and backward
mapping strategy (Shields 2010). The multi-case study approach presents
three phases of the research, (1) developing the research design, (2) collect-
ing and analysing individual cases and (3) conducting cross-case analysis
and deriving conclusions. Backward mapping involved selecting successful
organisations and identifying the conditions and factors that promoted
positive outcomes (Shields 2010).

Case selection
The cases were purposively selected based on the methodological assump-
tions of both multi-case study (Yin 1994) and backward-mapping approach
(Shields 2010). To ensure proper selection of cases, the researchers con-
vened a selection board consisting of representatives from various agencies
working closely with local governments in the Philippines. These included
the national agency for training local government officials and civil servants,
an international agency providing assistance to LGUs, a foundation that
recognises excellence in governance and academic institutions. Three cri-
teria were used to select the LGUs: evidence of transformation, change
initiatives and innovative projects in the 8 years from 2006 to 2014 (captur-
ing at least three election cycles for local government officials who can have
no more than three consecutive 3-year terms of office); the absence of any
adverse or derogatory audit findings and the distinct demonstration of
success through awards or recognitions received from government/private
entities. The description of some of the awards used to measure the success
of transformation is shown in Table 1 while the data from each LGU that are
relevant to the selection criteria are shown in Table 2.

Data collection
The research team contacted the selected LGUs with the help of the selec-
tion board. The primary sources of data were in-depth interviews with the
local chief executive (LCE), i.e., the mayor for cities/municipalities, or the
governor in the case of provinces (all of whom are directly elected by their
constituents), plus at least five department heads in each of the LGUs. There
were a total of 55 local government leaders interviewed for the project.
The department heads were purposively identified as those who worked
closely with the current and/or former LCEs in the different award-winning
projects of their LGU. Some of these department heads rose from the ranks.
Others were appointed by the current or former LCE. Thus, they may not
70 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Table 1. Evidences of successful transformation: example of awards given to successful

local governments in the Philippines.
Award Description
1. Galing Pook Award It is a ground-breaking programme that distinguishes
innovation and excellence in local governance. Galing Pook
started in 1993 under the joint initiative of the Local
Government Academy–DILG, Ford Foundation and individual
advocates of good governance from the civil society,
academe and government1
2. SGH The SGH is a project by the DILG that recognises LGUs with
good performance in internal housekeeping. It seeks to
advance the values of transparency, accountability,
participation and performance. Assessment focuses on the
following areas: local legislation, development planning,
resource generation, resource allocation and utilisation,
customer service and human-resource management and
development2
3. Gawad Pamana ng Lahi An award given to provinces, cities and municipalities that
have shown ‘exemplary performance in Administrative,
Social, Economic and Environmental Governance’.
Performance information is gathered from the database of
Local Governance Performance Management System,
International Organization or National Government Agency-
bestowed Award(s), SGH, among others3
4. Most Business-friendly Local The award is given by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce
Government Unit Award and Industry, one of the biggest and most prestigious
business leader’s organisation in the country. The
recognition is given annually to commend local
governments for ‘creating policy environments that are
conducive to business’4
SGH: Seal of Good Housekeeping; DILG: Department of the Interior and Local Government.
1
Funding support for Galing Pook (2014); 2Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012); 3Gawad Pamana ng Lahi
(2012); 4Most Business-friendly Local Government Unit Award 2016.

necessarily share the values and opinions of the incumbent LCE on various
concerns/issues.

Interview guide
Interview questions focused on the transformation story – the drivers for
change, changes implemented, challenges in implementing change and
impact of the changes on stakeholders. All interviews were audio-recorded,
transcribed and, when appropriate, translated. The quotations in the results
section were all translated to English, and the original text can be made
available upon request.

Data analysis
The study utilised the six-step thematic analysis procedures proposed by
Braun and Clarke (2006). Data analysis began by transcribing the data and
reading and rereading the transcriptions while noting down ideas to ensure
Table 2. Basis for LGU case selection.
LGU Example of awards/recognition
Bohol Seal of Good Housekeeping (2011–2012)
Gawad Pamana ng Lahi (2011–2012)
Galing Pook Award (2012–2013)
Naga City Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012)
Galing Pook Award (2007)
Dumingag Galing Pook Award (2010)
Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012)
Gawad Pamana ng Lahi Award (2013)
Upi Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012)
Galing Pook Award (2010 & 2011)
Albay Three-time Galing Pook Awardee
(2009, 2011, and 2015)
Evidence of transformation, change initiatives or innovative projects
Strategic and participatory planning process; systems thinking
Cluster approach to programme implementation
Systems’ installation and improvement (monitoring and evaluation; HR records management)
Consultative approach/collaboration with civil society, funding agencies
Learning from best practices of other LGU’s
Culture change, restructuring and competency development in the local government
Inclusive, partnership-based governance with civil society and private sector
Citizen’s charter, public governance scorecard, rewards/penalties system for performance
Business-friendly policies, i-governance
Strategic planning based on diagnosis and systems approach to change
Changing mindsets and culture of citizenry (discipline, accountability, global mindset)
Streamlined processes and improved organisation structure to support the vision
Goal alignment and monitoring programme implementation
LGU employees’ and citizens’ capacity building (Institute of Sustainable and Organic Agriculture)
Changing culture of citizenry
Streamlined processes and procedures
Transparent budgeting and communication of initiatives
Citizen engagement and consultation
Institutionalised civil society participation
Benchmarking with other LGUs, competency development of employees
Proactive Disaster Mitigation processes, volunteer involvement, budget appropriations specific to
disaster management
Partnership with private organisations, NGOs and International NGOs
Collective leadership and citizen engagement (anti-drug campaigns, Green Christmas, Academic
Olympics; forming citizen organisations)
Provision of awards (Outstanding Teachers, Outstanding Principals, Student Excellence)
Communication and consultation (public hearings, Facebook)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES
Citizens’ capacity building (pageant academy, Climate Change Academy, Community College)
Restructuring and creation of new offices (DRRM, Arts, culture, tourism, Investment board)
(Continued )
71

Table2. (Continued).
LGU Example of awards/recognition
San Jose Galing Pook Award for Farmer’s Entrepreneurship
Program-Awarded (2012)
Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012)
Iloilo City Finalist for the most business-friendly award in 2013
Marikina Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012 & 2011)
Galling Pook Award (2009, 2008, & 2007)
Mandaluyong Seal of Good Housekeeping (2015)
Galling Pook Award (2012)
Most Business Friendly City (2008)
All nine LGUs did not have any adverse or derogatory audit findings.
LGU: Local government unit; HR: human resource.
72
Evidence of transformation, change initiatives or innovative projects
Transparency on LGU activities
One-stop shop for business licensing
Improvement of HR systems within the LGU
Partnership with private organisations for economic development (Farmer entrepreneurship
programme)
M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.
Streamlined processes and procedures
Sectoral involvement in programme implementation
Preserving heritage buildings
Participatory management, regular executive–legislative meetings
Improvement in HR systems: performance incentives, selection criteria, training and development,
employee relations
Collaboration with national agencies, private companies, funding agencies, NGOs
Long-term planning and systems approach to change
Improved/More efficient infrastructures and environmental programmes
Reorganisation and improved staff benefits
Accessible leadership, consultation and efficient information dissemination
One-stop-shop business registration (streamlined process)
Communication and consultation with stakeholders
Citizen’s capacity building: Project teach & cares, manpower Training, vocational schooling
Creation of Office for persons with disabilities
Garden of Life (affordable cemetery, funeral homes, columbary)
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 73

the researchers’ familiarity with the data. This was followed by creating
initial codes, then identifying themes and patterns that reflected each of
the LGUs’ transformation stories. The researchers were assigned in pairs to
transcribe the individual case interviews and perform initial coding. It is
important to highlight that the researchers did not necessarily identify
themes in terms of frequency of responses, but to represent important
ideas/experiences/meanings in relation to the research questions.
Significant quotes from the interviews were lifted to illustrate these themes.
The fourth step involved the simultaneous review of the themes to establish
inter-coder reliability. Multiple researcher coders exchanged interview data
from each case for coding and discussed their themes until these were
judged to be coherent, consistent and distinctive. The themes from the
individual cases were then re-examined in a group session in light of
existing frameworks and literature on local government transformation.
The focus then shifted to collectively agreeing on the labels and definitions
of each theme (fifth step) that survived cross-case analysis. A tentative
model of local government transformation was then developed and used
as guide in writing the results to complete the final step.

Results
The context of transformation
Results show that Philippine local governments grapple with the problems
related to poverty, peace and order, social vices, as well as environmental
change and natural disasters in their communities. Similarly, many LGUs are
still burdened by bureaucracy or red tape, limited financial and human
resources, and corruption. Finally, apathy from the LGUs external (commu-
nity) as well as internal (LGU employees) stakeholders continues to chal-
lenge LGUs even with decentralisation.
As an archipelago located within the Pacific Ring of Fire, Philippine LGUs
are constantly at risk due to disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions. In 2013, the province of Bohol survived a 7.2 magnitude
earthquake. Another province, Albay, receives multiple super typhoons
annually while having to keep a watchful eye on an active volcano (Mt.
Mayon) which erupted most recently in 2014. Even when they are not hit
directly, LGUs also report indirect impacts. For example, when supertyphoon
Haiyan hit in 2012, nearby provinces needed to absorb refugees and aid
LGUs within their region.
The LGUs in the study also reported common social problems such as
poverty and lack of peace and order compounded by social vices and citizen
apathy. One LCE described his municipality, ‘Seven years ago, our biggest
problem was 93% poverty incidence. Although some of the poor had
74 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

resources like land -they did not till the land. People had no direction in life.
Gambling was prevalent, social vices were rampant’.
In some LGUs, armed groups threatened the safety and security of
leaders. One of the leaders in Dumingag shared the threat brought about
by banning gambling in their municipality ‘He (mayor) really opposed
gambling as early as his first year of administration. He stopped it and
made many enemies, including those in the underworld’.
At the same time, the LGUs also had to deal with constraints or barriers
from within their own organisations. Common constraints cited by the LGU
leaders were the lack of financial and human resources as well as the
resistance to change of both LGU employees and citizens. To emphasise
the difficulty of not having enough budget for projects, a leader in Iloilo City
said that ‘The (non)availability of funds’ is a major challenge. This redounds
to not having enough resources to hire people that they need for the LGUs
to function effectively.
Another internal constraint cited by many respondents was the LGU
employees’ resistance to efforts promoting professionalism, discipline and
service orientation. As recounted by one of the leaders in Dumingag, ‘The
mood was not very positive, the reaction of the employees was very hostile.
There was antagonism because people were used to easy money’.
The LGUs also encountered similar resistance from their constituents. One
of the leaders in the municipality of San Jose noted the people’s reaction to
the transfer of the public market to another location, ‘People were very
adamant about the issue. They were asking why did they have to move to
another location when the current one was very convenient?’ There was also
lack of motivation among citizens to take part in governance. One leader
from Upi remembered that ‘. . .a lot of people will say, “Why should we be
part of that? The local government can do that”’.
Finally, the LGUs commonly mentioned the difficulty in sustaining reform
given the leaders’ limited terms of office. The Philippine Constitution, which
was adopted in 1986, limits local government leaders to only 3 years per
term of office, with a maximum of two consecutive re-elections after the first
term. After a LCE’s term of office, the new leader almost always has a free
hand to discontinue any of their predecessors’ programmes. Department
heads may be removed or assigned elsewhere unless they abide by the rules
of the new administration. As one of the leaders in Bohol recalled, ‘there was
no continuity; the political administration will change (the programs) espe-
cially if they do not belong to the same (political party)’.

Responding to the external and internal challenges

Given the aforementioned context and challenges, how did LGUs transform
themselves? The transformations of the LGUs appear to have been catalysed
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 75

by three interrelated elements: vision, LGU leadership and citizen engage-

ment. The LGUs developed a vision that was typically articulated first by the
governor or mayor. In turn, these leaders engaged and rallied the citizens
around this vision of change.
The process of visioning in the LGUs typically began with a critique of the
current state of their people/LGUs and acknowledgement of the deficiencies
of the local government in providing services to its citizenry. Dumingag
acknowledged poverty in 93% of its population, low literacy rates, poor
health services, slow economic activity and low income. Thus, their vision
was ‘Liberate our people from poverty, sickness, and hunger’ which redir-
ected the focus of governance to addressing concerns of the marginalised
majority of people in the municipality.
Although some visions started as vague articulations of what the LCE
wanted to accomplish (e.g., ‘Premier city by 2015’; ‘The Happy Place’), these
evolved into multiple projects that led to the transformation of the LGUs.
There was also a constant reminder of accountability to the people and
social responsibility, ‘The most critical in this context was the mindset of
people in the city hall (that) we are in office primarily to serve the people
especially those who are in need. We are in office not for our own interests
but primarily for the Nagueño (citizens of Naga City)’.

Leadership
The critical role of leadership in initiating and sustaining transformation was
a common thread across the cases. The LCEs, i.e., the mayors and governors,
articulated a vision for the LGU and inspired others to share the vision. A
leader from Iloilo City described their mayor as ‘having a vision and mission,
and a direction for the city government to become a premier city by 2015’.
An interviewee from Bohol likewise described their leader as having ‘a vision
. . . he was not only able to communicate his vision, but also made the others
feel that the vision is theirs as well’.
Competence was another common characteristic ascribed to the LCEs. An
interviewee from Dumingag emphasised that the leader ‘. . .does not just
know the program but also knows the framework and how it will be
cascaded to people that he interacts with regardless of level of education
and economic status. As a leader, he knows how to drive the program of
government suited to the people’. A leader from Bohol also mentioned that
a competent LCE must be ‘quick in looking at the situation and then ready
to lay down the alternative means to settle or to solve whatever problems’.
The results suggest that effective leaders must demonstrate management
skills especially in terms of planning, systematising work and monitoring
output. An interviewee from San Jose described how their LCE was able to
‘combine skills of being systematic with having targets and being output-
76 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

oriented’. A leader from Iloilo City likewise shared that their LCE was ‘. . .
output-oriented, demanded results, (and) looks at implementation’.
Similarly, Bohol’s governor was described as someone who ‘. . .remembers
what he says and is consistent and able to follow-up and monitor’. Leaders
were frequently described as role models. A leader from Dumingag said that
Our mayor has very high credibility. When he said “no smoking”, because he
has high integrity, he does not smoke. When he said no gambling, people will
believe him because he does not gamble. When he said “let us engage in
organic farming”, people will really believe him because he has an organic
farm.

Another leader from Iloilo said that ethical behaviour was important, ‘he
must not have “under the table” transactions’.
Another common characteristic of LGU leaders was that they were visible
and accessible to the citizens. A leader from San Jose described their
mayor’s weekly radio programme, ‘“Time for the People”, where she dis-
cusses answers to the questions asked. People directly hear it from her and
therefore understand her plans’. The mayor of Iloilo City, on the other hand,
immediately ‘responds to Facebook and social media because he considers
these as good feedback mechanisms’ while the mayor of Upi was easily
accessible through mobile text.
The leaders were also risk-takers who demonstrated political will and
courage in upholding the common good. One informant recalled their
mayor’s boldness when other local officials insisted on supporting gambling
in Dumingag,
. . .from the first year of mayor’s administration, he really opposed gambling.
There were political figures in higher positions, persons of authority who went
here and told him, “That’s not possible, Mayor.” You know what the mayor
did? He wrote a resignation letter. “If you continue to do illegal gambling in
our town, I will resign from my office”. The whole province was shocked
because he had just won (the election). So it was stopped.

A respondent from Mandaluyong also shared how they faced the chal-
lenge of relocating the buried bodies from the old city cemetery to the new
cemetery,
‘When you exhume and relocate ten bodies, you will surely be cursed by the
people. If you do this to 5000 bodies, for sure, when elections come, you will
not only lose but also be sued. That was the choice I had. Either change this or
leave it at that for our political convenience . . . we made a choice.

Citizen engagement
The LGU leaders ensured the success and sustainability of their change
initiatives by ensuring citizen engagement. One department head in Naga
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 77

City argued that ‘more people will listen to you’ when the policies and
programmes came from their own expressed needs. Another LGU leader in
Naga sees stakeholder engagement as the key to sustainability, saying that
‘It is extremely difficult to tear down a program that the people have already
embraced’.
The LGUs instituted mechanisms to counter apathy and promote participa-
tion by citizens. These included consultative planning, community consultations
through public hearings and feedback mechanisms, volunteer involvement in
LGU projects, as well as forming sectoral organisations and alliances.
Another leader shared how they encouraged volunteerism,
Our roads here were mostly rough roads. So when there was a road project,
we called on the neighboring barangays who would eventually benefit from it
to work on the project. . .. They were the ones who constructed the roads while
we provided them food. The money intended to pay for labor was reallocated
to buy materials. So instead of constructing a one-kilometer road, we were
able to build longer ones because we did not have to pay for labor. It’s the
people who did it.

Engaging the citizenry also meant promoting inclusivity across groups and
equal representation in governance. A leader in Upi described their tri-people
council, ‘Upi has an empowered tri-people so everything we do, (are) very
inclusive. The Moro (Muslims), IP (indigenous people), and Christian groups’. In
Dumingag, one LGU official declared, ‘We really pushed to establish organiza-
tions that represent the different interests of the people living in Dumingag. We
organised the tricycle drivers, jeepney drivers, farmers, irrigators, teachers’.
A number of LGUs used a combination of media to communicate with
the people. Naga City used their website and the Naga City Gazette to
publish executive orders and administrative orders. Iloilo City used
Facebook and other social media to gather and respond to feedback while
Upi and San Jose utilised the local radio station and/or local cable TV
together with text messaging to enhance accessibility of leaders.

Foci of LGU transformation

In line with the leaders’ and the citizens’ vision of change, the LGUs in the
study focused their efforts on transformation or reform in the following key
areas: LGU structures, systems improvement, culture-building, human-
resource development, as well as policy and programme development.

Structural changes
Ensuring that transformation initiatives will be institutionalised entailed
reorganisation and the creation of new units and positions. Albay created
an education department and a Climate Change Academy to support the
78 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

LGU’s efforts to promote disaster risk reduction and management.

Dumingag likewise established the Dumingag Institute of Sustainable
Organic Agriculture so people will ‘know how to use, integrate, and imple-
ment sustainable organic agriculture. . .’ and institutionalise their adherence
to organic farming. They also created new positions within the local govern-
ment and hired community organisers to ensure that government pro-
grammes reach far-flung communities.

Process improvements
To ensure equal and efficient access to government services, all nine LGUs
engaged in efforts to improve processes and procedures mostly through
information and communication technologies. Leaders from Iloilo City
expressed that ‘One very distinct improvement on reforms would be . . .
processing of the renewal of business permits. We have shortened it. Before
it used to be 12 steps, now we only have three steps’. These efforts were
also in line with their goal to eliminate red tape which discourages invest-
ments in the LGUs and privileges those who have the capacity to pay fixers.
To address corruption and red tape as well as promote transparency in
service, the LGUs instituted systems for results-based performance manage-
ment. As explained by one of the leaders in Naga,

There must be clarity in terms of the specific service, the person responsible for
service delivery, and the reasonable expectation for the time it takes to deliver
it. We established that in every office, we post lists of the frontline services, the
staff responsible, the response time, and the expected time to deliver.

San Jose set similar performance standards across departments ‘This

effort to establish standards of performance for all the LGU departments is
so that we would know how to measure ourselves, and how our constitu-
ents would assess our performance’.
There were also deliberate and regular efforts to monitor and assess
projects. Albay, for example, measures itself against a goal of zero casualties
from natural disasters. One of the leaders in Bohol shared that ‘We have a
process every semester; we do strategic planning. . .. So whatever projects
were not finished within the period, we really assess if we can still push to
deliver in the succeeding semester’. Iloilo City on the other hand institutio-
nalised weekly executive–legislative meetings

. . .every Tuesday before anything else, the legislative and the executive will
meet to thresh out everything . . . the meeting is for several reasons. One is to
thresh out the kinks before a legislation is passed . . . getting everyone
informed on what each is doing in the previous week . . . spell out what you
will do for this week and the following.
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 79

Culture building
Leaders in almost all of the LGUs mentioned culture-building as critical in
managing and sustaining change. As such, the leaders engaged in efforts to
promote a culture of service, professionalism, discipline, continuous
improvement and pride among LGU employees.
However, they admitted that culture was the most difficult to change.
According to one interviewee from Dumingag, ‘because it’s a new thing, people
resist it’. In Naga, one leader explained, ‘It is very difficult to change culture. . ..
They would always ask, “we could do it before, why can’t we do it anymore?”’.
LGUs enabled the process of culture-building in various ways. Iloilo City
built a new city hall which helped enhance employee professionalism and
morale as the transfer also came with a new set of norms. As one of the
leaders in Iloilo shared ‘When we transferred here, we had a set of rules. We
had what we called house rules that all employees must observe – wearing
of uniform, wearing of IDs; nobody is allowed to eat in his workplace’.
For others, culture was shaped by changing systems and processes. San Jose
began by fixing the recruitment as well as performance management and
rewards systems for employees. One leader shared that ‘Automating processes
helped facilitate the timely receipt of salaries. Among them were the use of
biometric systems for timekeeping, software for payroll processing and (in
2014), the use of automated teller machines or ATM for the release of salaries’.
Added another San Jose leader, ‘ensuring that staff salary and benefits are paid
on time sets a kind of performance standard in the LGU. My thinking is that if
we give them the right benefits, we can expect the right service’.
Involving employees in the planning process considerably enhanced the
service orientation of employees and encouraged them to think continu-
ously of new ways to tackle problems. In Bohol, ‘all employees participate . . .
they are part of the overall discussion and addressing the problem’.
Changing the culture was not only necessary among LGU employees but
also to change the mindset and behaviours of their citizens. According to
one of the leaders in Dumingag,
The greatest challenge is the mindset. How can you challenge the mindset?
Through education . . . to educate and compel. Culture is one of the most
important things in getting what we want to achieve and in going to our chosen
path. Culture resets the perspectives of people. It can also be a venue of our
struggle towards genuine development. There is a cultural program alongside
political and economic programs to heighten morale and ignite the fire (in them).

Human-resource development
The LGUs also initiated development programmes to enhance the capabil-
ities of LGU employees. One manager reported that in Marikina, ‘We sent
our employees to learn through formal schooling and attend trainings
abroad’. Through field trips, Upi benchmarked itself against other LGUs on
80 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

customer service as well as transparent and accountable governance. A

leader in Upi explained, ‘The administration sends you on field trips to
other places so knowledge is not based only on what you see in the four
corners of the LGU’.

Infrastructure development
Infrastructure development programmes were among the main priorities of
the LGUs, especially the far-flung municipalities. Being an agricultural muni-
cipality, leaders in Upi prioritised farm-to-market roads. ‘In the past, it would
take us almost 3 to 4 hours to go from Cotabato City to Upi on rough roads.
Now, it takes only 30 minutes’. In Marikina, investments in bike lanes and a
river park were meant to improve the well-being of people across social
status and groups.
In Iloilo, the culture building was facilitated by more modern facilities.
Recounts one leader,

Our city hall was old and dark. There (were) no clean bathrooms, there were
vendors selling food, and people were reading newspapers and not working.
We built a new building that was “green” and professional looking. This greatly
boosted the morale of the employees, and at the same time we were able to
institute reforms specially to provide quality service to our people. . .

Local economic development programmes

The cultural and structural reforms were supported by numerous programmes
to spur employment, livelihood and other economic activities. Dumingag has
an Institute of Sustainable Organic Agriculture. Iloilo City on the other hand has
a Technical Institute of Iloilo City to develop ‘the technical skills of the people-
masonry, carpentry, electrical-for free’. San Jose collaborated with a non-profit
foundation to improve the productivity of local farmers and enable them to
comply with quality and volume requirements of commercial buyers.

Legislative reform
The structural reforms as well as new projects/programmes were supported by
ordinances and executive orders to make sure that these would be continued
by future leaders. In Dumingag, one of the leaders said, ‘A major challenge was
sustainability. All of our initiatives from deputizing school to organic farming
systems required the creation of policies and ordinances. . .. Almost everything
is supported with legislation’. In establishing the Public Safety and Emergency
Management Office, Albay assured financial sustainability for its programmes
through regular local appropriations and ordinances that also insulate the
office from changes in political leadership.
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 81

Outcomes of LGU transformation

Although the LGUs’ context and priorities varied, the changes reported by
the various LGU informants suggested common outcomes related to local
governance (transparency and democracy), quality of life (social equity) and
citizenship (sense of pride).

Transparency and democracy

Effective reform in local government systems and policies changed the
attitudes and behaviours of the people in these LGUs. One of the intervie-
wees from San Jose shared that ‘The people became vigilant because they
now respond through venues for feedback. The lines of communication
were open; the people made sure to maximize that’.

Social equity
The various programmes for infrastructure, capacity development and social
services led to improvements in the local economy and way of life. As men-
tioned earlier, a leader in Upi shared that from almost 3–4 hours travel on rough
road from Cotabato City to Upi, travel time was reduced to 30 min. Through San
Jose’s agribusiness training partnership with a non-profit foundation,

the farmers learned to value continuing education, striving for excellence, being
accountable and responsible, and later, the spirit of sharing their experience to
fellow farmers. They moved beyond the usual dole-out mentality and resistance
to new farming technologies and developed a culture of discipline and integrity.

A respondent from the Dumingag LGU now describes it as ‘a gambling-

free society, a 100% smoke-free municipality with increasing number of
organic farming practitioners (from less than 20 farmers in 2007 to more
or less 532 at present and still counting) and remarkably reducing poverty
incidence from 93% to 42.8%’.

Sense of pride
The efforts of the leaders to change the culture within the LGUs resulted in
positive outcomes for the employees and the people in the community. One
leader in Iloilo City recalled that employees
. . .were ashamed for people to know that they worked in the city hall because
of the negative issues. . .. Back then, the city hall employees were unprofes-
sional. because they were not pro-people, they were not service-oriented, so
that caused shame. But now, they are so proud, not just because of the new
building but because of the transformation that has transpired.

Increased sense of pride among the citizens was also a common refrain
across the LGUs. This statement from one respondent was echoed in other
82 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Figure 2. Proposed model for transforming local government units.

LGUs, ‘In the past, nobody wanted to be identified with Upi. Now, they
proudly say that “I am from Upi”’.
In summary, guided by clear vision and driven by the leaders as well as the
engaged citizens, the LGUs’ transformation concentrated on multiple foci of
reform including structure and systems improvement, culture change and HRD,
infrastructure development, local economic development programmes and
legislative reform. This holistic approach enabled the transformation of bureau-
cratic and unprofessional government service to transparent, professional and
efficient public service that promotes transparency, democracy and social equity.
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed model for transforming local government units.

Discussion
The LGUs in the study reported a number of challenges including poverty, peace
and order problems, corruption, social vices, the lack of resources, bureaucratic
red tape and apathy of both citizens and civil servants. These issues are similar to
the issues that plague political leaders in developing countries (Cooper 2009;
Rees and Hossain 2010; Rotberg 2012). It has also been noted that many of the
external factors and internal conditions that defined Philippine local governance
have not changed with decentralisation (Preschle and Sosmeña 2006). However,
rather than remaining as barriers to development, these external and internal
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 83

challenges became the foci of change for each LGU. In addition, the stories of
transformation also highlighted some key elements to success.
The success factors for transformation were somewhat similar to that
reported in other countries. This is not surprising given that globalisation
has enabled benchmarking and increased access to information. However,
what made these LGUs exemplary was the breadth and systems perspective
to transformation. Given the myriad of economic, political and social pro-
blems and the many challenges to change, a key factor to success was the
LGU’s integrated response and efforts at holistic transformation
As suggested by Brillantes and Fernandez (2010), government reform
begins with a vision for change. In the case of the LGUs, a common element
was their vision as a starting point. However, beyond the ‘what’ of change,
the case studies also showcased transformation as a dynamic process.
Although the presence of a vision was a driving force for change, some
LGU goals and vision statements were not always clear at the onset. Goals
and plans evolved – and visions sharpened – to the extent that the leaders
were open to engaging their stakeholders in the transformation process.
The short electoral cycles for Philippine local officials increase the risk that
transformation processes can be discontinued at the end of their terms.
Exemplary LGUs mitigated these risks by achieving quick victories towards
their vision that were demonstrable within the 3-year terms of their LCEs. To
institutionalise the transformation process along the reform track, local
ordinances and other legislation ensured the sustainability of programmes.
The case studies likewise highlighted the critical role of leaders in initiat-
ing reform. As with the characteristic of change leaders cited by Asquith
(1997) and transformational leaders described by Kouzes and Posner (1995),
the LCEs not only articulated a vision and inspired others to share that vision
but also competently translated their goals to action. These were done in a
manner that was grounded and considerate of the local context.
Similar to the findings of Latham (2013) on effective behaviours critical in
leading transformation, the LCEs served as role models, showed accountability
by being output oriented and by demanding results from LGU employees. The
leaders collaborated with various stakeholders (partnered with business and
civil society) demonstrating the ability to create and sustain partnerships critical
in development work (World Bank Institute 2013). The LCEs also used a systems
approach in managing change as seen in how structural and process improve-
ments were coupled with culture building, human-resource development and
policy development. Leaders were likewise personally involved as seen in how
they engaged the citizens and made themselves visible and accessible to
citizens through various consultative and feedback-seeking mechanisms.
The emphasis on consultation and accessibility of the leaders may be
culturally nuanced since the Philippines had been described as having a
paternalistic culture (Jocano 2009) and high in power distance (Hofstede
84 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

2005). However, a local study on organisation transformation pointed out

that Filipino leaders who use too much consultation may appear weak or
indecisive, and not inspire confidence from employees (Hechanova and
Franco 2012). Given this, leaders need to balance participation and deci-
sion-making so that people have confidence in their leader, yet still feel that
their ideas and concerns are heard (Hechanova and Franco 2012).

Limitation and implications

This study sought to elicit insights on local government transformation in the
Philippines using multiple case studies of exemplars. However, future
researchers may wish to compare exemplars with the experience of less
successful LGUs in order to highlight the success factors. Especially, since
the study only looked at cases of positive change, the association between
characteristics of transformational leadership and transformation in LGUs
must likewise be validated. It will be interesting to explore through further
studies whether there are instances wherein non-transformational leaders
were able to bring about meaningful change in LGUs or where transforma-
tional leaders were not successful in transforming their local government. The
overall model that summarises the experiences of exemplary LGUs will also
need to be validated with a larger sample possibly through quantitative data.
The cross-sectional nature of the study was another limitation. The journey of
these LGUs has been long and although the interviews sought to capture their
evolution, the informants were limited by memory and recall biases. Longitudinal
studies may perhaps highlight the transformation process more clearly.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the study suggests a number of implica-
tions for local governance. The case studies showcase the importance of leaders
in initiating change. This implies the need to develop competencies of local
government leaders to effectively initiate and manage transformation such as
having a systems perspective and the ability to think strategically. The ability to
communicate and engage is also critical competencies in times of transformation.
Studies focusing more specifically on how these competencies are built would be
useful for those engaged in leadership development in local government.
Though each journey was unique, what was common among the LGUs was
the presence of a vision and strategic plan, a multifaceted approach to trans-
formation and a conscious monitoring and evaluation effort. The cases also
highlighted the important role of changing structures, systems and legislation
to support programmes and initiatives. They also illustrate how local govern-
ments can harness technology to improve efficiencies as well as to engage
citizens. However, local leaders must be careful that the use of technology-
based mechanisms for communication and engagement do not benefit only
those who can afford the technology. Thus, technology must be complemen-
ted by other widely accessible means of engendering participation.
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 85

The exemplars also reveal the importance of sound human-resource

management systems that enable the recruitment, selection, development
and retention of competent public servants. In turn, these systems and
servants build a culture of integrity and professionalism within the LGU.
Highly competent and professional managers mitigate the risk from the
relatively quick turnover of elected officials and thus represent essential
elements for sustaining reform within the executive branch.
The interviews highlighted aspects of national law that may need to be
reviewed, particularly on the structure of LGUs and term limits of officials. In
addition, local ordinances are critical elements in institutionalising and sustaining
transformation in local governments.
The multifaceted reform required in transformation necessitates not only
building capacities and cultures but having enabling resources to drive and
sustain initiatives. In order to identify and develop an LGU’s core natural
resources, create the infrastructure necessary to facilitate livelihood, or facilitate
the creation of new businesses, an entrepreneurial mindset and competence
from LGU leaders is a critical element in transforming local government.
Finally, a key element that was evident across the cases was the change in
mindset of the local government leaders regarding the participation of its
citizens in all stages of transformation – from planning to programme imple-
mentation even to the crafting of ordinances. Citizen empowerment appears to
be a key factor not only in sustaining transformation but also ensuring that local
governments continue to evolve and respond to their people.

Notes
1. Local autonomy refers to the ‘degree of self-determination exercised by a local
government unit vis-à-vis the central government’ (Tapales 2015, 382).
2. The Local Government Code raised their share from 20% to 40%. Internal
Revenue allotments are also divided depending on an LGU’s classification,
population and land area.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the Research Unit of the Ateneo Center for Organization
Research and Development, the panel members that helped selected the cases, the
PhD in Leadership Studies class of Fr Bienvenido Nebres, SJ and most especially the
nine local governments that opened their doors to us and allowed us to document
their transformation journey.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
86 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Funding
This work was supported by the Commission on Higher Education, Republic of the
Philippines.

Notes on contributors
Mendiola Teng-Calleja is an Associate Professor at the Psychology Department of the
Ateneo de Manila University. She is also the Director for Organization Development
of the Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development. Her research
areas include human resource management, labor relations and employee engage-
ment, organization development and humanitarian work psychology.
Ma. Regina M. Hechanova is a professor of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila
University. Her research areas include organization development, leadership, human
resource management, organization culture, innovation, technology, corruption and
disaster management.

Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay was the Program Manager of the Local Governance
Support Program for Local Economic Development, an eight year (2008-2016) pro-
gram of the Philippine and Canada Governments to support local government units
in becoming more business-friendly and competitive. His current research interests
are in tourism, regional economic development, and local governance.
Nico A. Canoy is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila
University. His research areas include discursive and material analysis of sexuality,
health systems and inequalities, and class-based social constructions.
Edna P. Franco is an Associate Professor at the Psychology Department of the Ateneo
de Manila University. She is also the Executive Director of the Ateneo Center for
Organization Research and Development. Her research areas include organization
development, leadership, workplace motivation and human resource management.

Erwin A. Alampay is an Associate Professor at the National College of Public

Administration and Governance at the University of the Philippines. He also serves as
the Director for the Center for Local and Regional Governance. His research areas include
e-Governance, ICTs for Development, voluntary sector management and citizenship.

References
Arnaboldi, M., and I. Lapsley. 2003. “Activity Based Costing, Modernity and the
Transformation of Local Government.” Public Management Review 5 (3): 345–375.
doi:10.1080/1471903032000146946.
Asquith, A. 1997. “Achieving Effective Organisational Change in English Local
Government.” Local Government Studies 23 (4): 86–99. doi:10.1080/
03003939708433887.
Bommer, W. H., G. A. Rich, and R. S. Rubin. 2005. “Changing Attitudes about Change:
Longitudinal Effects of Transformational Leader Behavior on Employee Cynicism
about Organizational Change.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 733–753.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379.
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 87

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brillantes, A., and M. Fernandez. 2010. “Toward a Reform Framework for Good
Governance: Focus on Anti-Corruption.” Philippine Journal of Public
Administration 15 (1–2): 87–127.
Cabo, W. 2007. “Exploring Accountability Initiatives in Philippine Local Governance.”
Philippine Journal of Public Administration 51 (2–7/1–4): 33–50.
Calugay, Z. C. 2013. “Inter-Local Cooperation as Alternative Service Delivery
Mechanism.” In Local Government in the Philippines: A Book of Readings (IV): New
Directions in Local Governance, edited by R. D. Ocenar and P. D. Tapales. Quezon
City: CLRG-NCPAG.
Cooper, C. W. 2009. “Performing Cultural Work in Demographically Changing
Schools: Implications for Expanding Transformative Leadership Frameworks.”
Educational Administration Quarterly 45: 694–724. doi:10.1177/0013161X09341639.
De Vries, M. 2000. “The Rise and Fall of Decentralization: A Comparative Analysis of
Arguments and Practices in European Countries.” European Journal of Political
Research 38: 193–224. doi:10.1111/ejpr.2000.38.issue-2.
De Vries, M., and J. Nemec. 2013. “Public Sector Reform: An Overview of Recent
Literature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths.” International Journal of
Public Sector Management 26 (1): 4–16. doi:10.1108/09513551311293408.
Funding Support for Galing Pook. 2014. Accessed 11 February 2016. https://www.
landbank.com/galing-pook-foundation-inc
Gawad Pamana ng Lahi GPL. 2012. Accessed 11 February 2016. http://ncr.dilg.gov.ph/
home/index.php/2012-05-26-06-07-22/capacity-development/gawad-pamana-ng-lahi
Guess, G. M. 2005. “Comparative Decentralization Lessons from Pakistan, Indonesia
and the Philippines.” Public Administration Review 65 (2): 217–230. doi:10.1111/
puar.2005.65.issue-2.
Hechanova, M. R., and E. P. Franco, eds. 2012. Rebirth and Reinvention: Transforming
Philippine Organizations. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Herold, D. M., D. B. Fedor, S. Caldwell, and Y. Liu. 2008. “The Effects of
Transformational and Change Leadership on Employees’ Commitment to a
Change: A Multilevel Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 346–357.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346.
Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and Organizations. Intercultural Cooperation and Its
Importance for Survival. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Ishii, R., F. Hossain, and C. Rees. 2007. “Participation in Decentralized Local
Governance: Two Contrasting Cases from the Philippines.” Public Organization
Review 7: 359–373. doi:10.1007/s11115-007-0043-2.
Jocano, F. L. 2009. Management by Culture: Fine Tuning Management to Philippine
Culture. Quezon City,, Philippines: Punlad Research House.
Kettl, D. F. 2000. “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution and
the Role of Government.” Public Administration Review 60: 488–497. doi:10.1111/
puar.2000.60.issue-6.
King, S., and S. Cotterill. 2007. “Transformational Government? the Role of
Information Technology in Delivering Citizen-Centric Local Public Services.” Local
Government Studies 33: 333–354. doi:10.1080/03003930701289430.
Kouzes, J., and B. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Kull, M. 2009. “Local and Regional Governance in Finland: A Study on
Institutionalization, Transformation and Europeanization.” Halduskultuur 10: 22–39.
88 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Latham, J. R. 2013. “A Framework for Leading the Transformation to Performance

Excellence Part II: CEO Perspectives on Leadership Behaviors, Individual Leader
Characteristics, and Organizational Culture.” QMJ 20 (3): 19–40.
Lee, S.-Y. D., B. Weiner, M. Harrison, and M. Belden. 2013. “Organizational Transformation:
A Systematic Review of Empirical Research in Health Care and Other Industries.”
Medical Care Research and Review 70: 115–142. doi:10.1177/1077558712458539.
Ongaro, E. 2006. “The Dynamics of Devolution Processes in Legalistic Countries:
Organizational Change in the Italian Public Sector.” Public Administration 84 (3):
737–770. doi:10.1111/padm.2006.84.issue-3.
Oreg, S. 2006. “Personality, Context, and Resistance to Organizational Change.”
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15 (1): 73–101.
doi:10.1080/13594320500451247.
Otto-Zimmerman, K. 2012. “From Rio to Rio+20: The Changing Role of Local
Governments in the Context of Current Global Governance.” Local Environment
17 (5): 511–516. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.686564.
Preschle, K., and G. C. Sosmeña. 2006. The Local Government Bureaucracy and Local
Fiscal Administration. Manila, PI:Local Government Development Foundation.
Rees, C. J., and F. Hossain. 2010. “Perspectives on Decentralization and Local
Governance in Developing and Transitional Countries.” International Journal of
Public Administration 33: 581–587. doi:10.1080/01900692.2010.514459.
Rotberg, R. 2012. Transformative Political Leadership. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schoburg, E. D. 2012. “Local Government and Local Development: Bridging the Gap
through Critical Discourse: Evidence from the Commonwealth Carribean.”
Commonwealth Journal of Local Government 10: 5–31.
SGH (Seal of Good Housekeeping). 2012. Accessed 11 February 2016 http://ncr.dilg.
gov.ph/home/index.php/2012-05-26-06-07-22/capacity-development/seal-of-
good-housekeeping
Shields, C. M. 2010. “Transformative Leadership: Working for Equity in Diverse
Contexts.” Educational Administration Quarterly 46 (4): 558–589. doi:10.1177/
0013161X10375609.
Silva, J. A. 2005. “Devolution and Regional Disparities in the Philippines: Is There a
Connection?.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (3): 399–417.
doi:10.1068/c051.
Tapales, P. 2015. “The Nature and State of Local Government.” In Introduction to
Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader, edited by D. Reyes, P. Tapales, M.
O. Domingo, and M. F. Villamejor-Mendoza. 3rd ed. Quezon City: UP-NCPAG.
Thomson, P. 1992. “Public Sector Management in a Period of Radical Change: 1979-1992.”
Public Money & Management 12: 33–41. doi:10.1080/09540969209387720.
World Bank Institute. 2013. “Leadership: The World Bank Institute’s Leadership for
Development Program.” Accessed 17 February 2016. http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/
content/leadershipworld-bankinstitute%E2%80%99sleadership-development-
program
Wunsch, J. S., and D. Olowu. 1996. “Regime Transformation from Below:
Decentralization, Local Governance and Democratic Reform in Nigeria.” Studies
in Comparative International Development 31 (4): 66–82. doi:10.1007/BF02738632.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.