Organizational culture and employee commitment are widely recognized as central to workforce performance and retention, yet comparative evidence across government and private organizations remains limited. This study addresses this gap by examining how cultural dimensions and commitment types vary between these two sectors. The purpose of the research is to provide a comparative understanding of organizational culture and commitment, highlighting similarities and differences that may inform sector-specific strategies for human resource management and policymaking. A descriptive-comparative design was employed, utilizing Wallach’s Organizational Culture Index (OCI) and Allen and Meyer’s Three-Component Model (TCM) Employee Commitment Survey. Data were gathered from 228 respondents across four organizations in Pulilan, Bulacan, selected through stratified random sampling based on a total population of 557 employees. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha, with all values above 0.70. Data processing involved cleaning incomplete responses, re-encoding negative items, and applying statistical analyses using SPSS v26 and Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard deviation) were used to summarize employee profiles and responses, while Welch’s t-test was employed to determine significant differences between government and private organizations, accounting for unequal sample sizes and variances. The results revealed no significant difference in organizational culture types, innovative, bureaucratic, and supportive, across sectors. Similarly, affective commitment showed no significant variance. However, government and private employees differed significantly in normative and continuance commitment, indicating varying levels of obligation to remain and awareness of exit costs. These findings suggest that while culture may be consistent across sectors, commitment dynamics differ, providing insights for leaders and policymakers in designing tailored employee engagement and retention strategies.
John Laurence B. Manlapig (Tue,) studied this question.