Pa ge 1 Pa ge 22 8 American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation (AJMRI) The Mediating Effect of Employee Accountability on the Relationship between Working Condition and Organizational Health Hazel L. Llenado1*, Lyndon A. Quines1 Volume 1 Issue 4, Year 2022 ISSN: 2158-8155 (Online), 2832-4854 (Print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v1i4.722 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Article Information ABSTRACT Received: October 06, 2022 Accepted: October 10, 2022 Published: October 14, 2022 The study examines the mediation effect of employee accountability on the relationship between working conditions and organizational health. The data were collected using a sur- vey questionnaire on a sample of 311 elementary school teachers from public schools in North and South District of Kiblawan, Davao del Sur. The study employed a correlational and causal approach using Path Analysis to determine the relationships between working conditions, organizational health, and employee accountability. Findings revealed that work- ing conditions and organizational health are positively and significantly related. Moreover, there is also a significant and positive relationship between working conditions and em- ployee accountability. Results also indicated that employee accountability and organizational health are significantly and positively related. Using the Path Analysis, the mediation model suggested that employee accountability partially mediates the positive relationship between working conditions and organizational health. Specifically, the total effect of working condi- tions on organizational health is mediated by or passes through employee accountability. The remaining is attributed to the direct impact of working conditions or indirect effect through the mediation of other variables that are not considered in the study. Keywords Educational Management, Employee Accountability, Working Condition, Organizational Health, Philippines. INTRODUCTION A shifting and dynamic environment governs how public schools function, marked by technology advancements, growing social heterogeneity, and competitiveness, all of which contribute to the uneasiness felt by school leaders. Such changes invariably affect the interior dynamics of schools, thereby jeopardizing their organizational health. School leaders have a critical role in mitigating external effects and improving the organizational health of their schools. In addition, Building effective relationships among staff members, students, and local communities depends on the organization’s health. Creating productive workplace settings where employees feel at ease, safe, and motivated is crucial. (Hameiri, L., & Nir, A. 2016; MacNeil et al., 2009; Al-omari et al., 2020). Significantly, like any social system, an organization needs to adapt to its environment to survive and grow. Organizational health plays a significant role in the behavioral effects of any system. Employees who take pride in their work and who may freely go to work are in a healthy workplace-from the perspectives of physical, psychological, security, belongingness, and meritocracy, valuing the beneficiaries’ knowledge, expertise, and personalities, development of their potential, and completion of tasks by metasystems. Schools must therefore maintain organizational health to enable a constructive working environment for instructors. A well-adjusted teacher is crucial for both the school and the children. The decision-makers and authorities must give the teachers a healthy workplace and supportive atmosphere. Adjustment and organizational health are closely related and dependent phenomena. In environments with robust organizational health, instructors can change their approaches and carry out their duties successfully (Jahed, 2007; Lenka, et al., 2017). Research, moreover, one of the characteristics most typically seen in successful institutions is a high level of employee collegiality. They repeatedly emphasized how important strong collegial ties are to the success of school reform. However, several studies suggest that not every component of teachers’ working conditions is the same, regardless of where they are hired. And of course, the type or location of the school, teachers’ compensation may be lower than that of other professions with comparable qualifications, and other aspects of their working conditions, such as school safety, may differ greatly from one school to the next. Additionally, it is important that the group feels valued and cherished in their working environment for the organization to advance and for its people to be productive. According to a survey, an open school environment where administrators set an example of being available for questions, problem-solving, and guidance is the best way to ensure a successful organizational climate and health. Teachers will respond with trust and loyalty in this environment. (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Hashim, Tahir, & Musah, 2020). The researcher is interested in examining whether employee accountability will moderate the relationship between public school teachers’ working conditions and organizational health in the aforementioned scenarios. There is existing literature on how organizational health is associated with working conditions. However, the majority of the research was performed in a different industry and not in educational settings. The result of this study will help improve the current working condition of public school teachers and consequently enhance 1 University of Mindanao, Philippines * Corresponding author’s e-mail: hazel.llenado@deped.gov.ph https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v1i4.722 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri mailto:hazel.llenado%40deped.gov.ph?subject= Pa ge 22 9 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 the overall health situation of an organization; hence, this study will produce new knowledge that has a direct application to the subject of education. The primary goal of this study was to ascertain how employee accountability mediated the association between working conditions and organizational health for public elementary school teachers. The ensuing goals were created with more specificity: 1.To describe the level of working condition of public elementary school teachers in terms of: 1.1 Principal leadership, 1.2 Sense of community and collegiality, 1.3 Teacher control in the classroom, 1.4 Student behavior. 2. To measure the organizational health of teachers in public elementary schools in terms of: 2.1. Institutional integrity, 2.2. Collegial leadership, 2.3. Resource influence, 2.4. Teacher affiliation, and 2.5. Academic emphasis. 3. To measure the level of employee accountability of public elementary school teachers 4.To assess the importance of the connection between: 4.1 working condition and employee accountability 4.2 employee accountability and organizational health; and 4.3 working condition and organizational health. 5. To ascertain the importance of mediation of employee accountability on the relationship between working condition and organizational health of public elementary school teachers. LITERATURE REVIEW This part provides substantial support for the research goals necessary for developing information in this report. Many approaches, viewpoints, hypotheses, facts from studies and publications, and insightful statements from many writers are pertinent to the study’s associated issues. The independent variable is working conditions with the indicators of principal leadership, sense of community and collegiality, teacher control in the classroom and student behavior (Ni, 2012). The dependent variable is the organizational health of public school teachers with the indicators such as institutional integrity, collegial leadership, resource influence, teacher affiliation, and academic emphasis (Bradshaw et.al, 2009). The mediating variable is employee accountability (Leither, Morrison, & Kindem, 2004) Working Conditions Working conditions in schools are essential for student learning possibilities as well as teacher motivation, efficacy, and job satisfaction. Some of the most crucial factors that guarantee the caliber of teachers’ work include enough resources, a a manageable workload, collaboration for professional progress, collegial cooperation, managerial assistance, and opportunities for judgment, to mention a few. The study determined the social component to be the most important of the seven categories of teacher working conditions. As a result, the positive impacts of peer support, strong principal leadership, and a climate of trust and respect in the classroom outweighed the negative effects of material resources by almost two to one. (Bascia and Rottmann, 2011; Toropova et al., 2020). On the other hand, regardless of the proposed improvements, adequate working conditions are still required; ultimately, the effectiveness will depend partly on how the management improves it. Educators’ actions are closely related to their inner feelings and thoughts. The Thoughts and feelings of educators are closely entwined with the workplace environment. The few factors that work condition include can either positively or negatively affect how well even the most extreme employees perform. It is crucial to consider the physical environment in which workers work, as excessive heat and insufficient ventilation might have an impact on their productivity. (Leithwood, 2006; Ali, Ali, Adan, 2013; Maghanoy, 2021). In addition, teacher job satisfaction was directly connected to their views of their workload. However, it had nothing to do with the nature of the teachers or the working environment. These results are consistent with those of Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016), who found that a high workload was not related to teacher self- efficacy views but was highly correlated with emotional exhaustion and motivation to quit teaching (Toropova et al., 2020). As previously mentioned, various elements that influence a teacher’s general and daily job obligations are “working circumstances.” These factors may differ from the availability of physical resources and the condition of structural and equipment to factors like student conduct, coworker camaraderie, and administrative backing, to name a few. The Netherlands, Poland, Estonia, France, and other nations have reported a correlation between poor working conditions and teacher resignations. Teacher burnout is a major factor determining teacher retention. It has been demonstrated that unfavorable working conditions, such as a rising workload, work instability, and low position or reputation in the teaching profession, contribute to this problem, claiming that unfavorable working conditions might raise stress levels, which can result in physical illness. Such a condition can result in teacher attrition and negatively impact a teacher’s ability to accomplish their duties. (European Union, 2013; Hakanen et al., 2006; Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018). Moreover, when instructors are surrounded by coworkers who share their core values and beliefs, they seem to be more likely to form productive teacher communities and work together to achieve their goals. It strengthens teachers’ ties to the institution and encourages them to continue working there. Additionally, good working conditions in educational institutions are crucial for higher-quality education. In other nations, elements like the working circumstances of an organization, the role of faculty retention as a mediator, and the impact of https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 0 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 employability on educational quality under the influence of working conditions are key catalysts for development and growth. A nation’s professional development is based on a high-quality education, which is essential for national expansion and increased worldwide competitiveness (Budiharso & Tarman, 2020; Ni, 2017). Furthermore, working conditions are essential for teacher retention because they have an effect on educators’ choices to remain in or leave the teaching career. New teachers must operate in an environment that supports those goals to teach, survive, and flourish. (Ingersoll, 2012; Jimenez, 2017; Dissertations & Moore, 2019). The latent construct comprises four factors: principal leadership, sense of community and collegiality, teacher control in classroom, and student behaviour. The first indicator is principal leadership. For the past 20 years, educational research has backed the idea that good central leadership is the foundation of a successful school. The efficacy of the school is impacted by the indirect but positive impact of the principal’s leadership on student outcomes. Principal leadership strategies also indirectly impact learning environments like classrooms and schools. Empirical facts make it abundantly clear that effective school leadership is required for the implementation of programs and policies intended to guarantee that schools achieve their desired objectives. (Hallinger 2018; Heck and Hallinger 2014; Kouzes & Posner 2013; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins 2019; Martin, 2021). Moreover, numerous leadership philosophies have been discussed as the best ones in support of school expansion. Many proponents have produced empirical data to support the best practices of the instructional, transformational, participatory, and distributed leadership philosophies essential to guiding schools to success. However, particular principal leadership strategies were more eager to increase classroom effectiveness. The research assumes that the level of desired educational outcomes, which high-performing school indicators may gauge, can be influenced by the principal’s successful leadership techniques. (Bush, 2018; Gumus, Bellibas, Esen & Gumus, 2018; Martin, 2021). Unquestionably, the principal’s leadership has an effect on the features of the school, which ultimately has a favorable impact on the effectiveness of the school. Different leadership theories were considered essential components for effective school leadership. Principals’ leadership behaviors may be influenced by their exhibited leadership styles. A principal may display more than one style of leadership, which would affect the different leadership techniques they employ. (Gumus et al. 2018; Leithwood et al. 2019; Martin, 2021). Significantly, by exercising instructional leadership, the school administrator is responsible for creating and maintaining a focus on learning throughout the school community. After that, the principal must carry out their responsibilities to lead, instruct, supervise, and create a positive work atmosphere. These are essential elements for the expansion and development of the organization. However, several variables might have attributed to the issues in how principals handled instructional leadership (Özdemir, Şahin, and Öztürk 2020; Martin, 2021; Neumerski et al. 2018). Furthermore, in an educational setting, principal leadership is quite important. The school administrator manages the entire institution’s operations. The principal is the person in charge of making school- related decisions. A school’s principal is in command of everything. The school’s management and other operations are always the principals’ responsibility. The principal is immediately responsible for directing the instructors’ efforts toward the organization’s objectives. His attitude toward instructors fosters a healthy working connection. A positive environment emerges when the principal employs the appropriate leadership styles for the personnel. For effective education, the teacher and principal are the most critical factors of quality (Mehrotra, 2005; muhammad et al., 2020). Besides, the principal’s management has the ability to impact teacher performance improvement or level of performance. This demonstrates that a teacher’s effectiveness will not emerge on its own, but will necessitate the principal’s active engagement as a leader, and a leadership role approach to improve teacher effectiveness in carrying out their obligations (Muhammad & Yaumi, 2015). Principals can perform their professional leadership obligations and provide a positive example for teachers, which will serve as a high- performance encouragement for teachers to improve their classroom performance (Hartinah et al., 2020). The second indicator is sense of community and collegiality. Collegiate environments were defined as having a sense of community, formal and reciprocal contacts, a large number of teaching and scholarly colleagues, social and intellectual support of the highest caliber, and easy access to new faculty offices. Collegiality can also be communicated through actions, products, and other actions that exhibit the values and principles of a collegial environment. Additionally, these actions show the fundamentals of collegiality, which are actions performed in front of and alongside peers. (Ortquist- Ahrens & Torosyan, 2009). The third indicator is teacher control in classroom. A classroom manager is essential to the success and efficiency of schooling. A teacher often controls and supervises classroom activities while creating a physical setting and a psycho-social environment. Because the instructor does not know how to use excellent classroom management, the classroom management frequently causes the teacher to feel discouraged, gloomy, and like giving up when s/ he is teaching the kids. A classroom manager is essential to the success and efficiency of schooling. The teacher in a classroom is in a more powerful position than the students. At school, the teacher is crucial, especially for students learning English as a second language (Megawati et al., 2020). Moreover, the teacher’s approach is a factor that will affect https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 1 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 how well she manages the class. As a result, the teacher must be adept at imparting students’ knowledge and practical classroom management skills. Since the teacher organizes, arranges, executes, and evaluates instruction, they are the most crucial component. By helping them develop into capable teachers who can attain the desired learning outcomes, the teacher seeks to guide the pupils in achieving their educational objectives. A classroom is considered a space for socialization, shared learning, and academic instruction. As a result, the instructor might work to encourage respect among the students. Encourage the pupils to support one another without using force and to share their information, attitudes, experiences, and happiness. (Benlahcene et al., 2020; Javaid et al., 2020; Megawati et al., 2020; Weber, 2014). Lastly, classrooms are dynamic civilizations in which teachers and students coexist and interact. Teachers are the managers of their classrooms, and their leadership abilities profoundly impact the performance of connections among students and teachers, as well as interactions between and among students. These contacts, both educational as well as non-instructional, have a substantial impact on students’ intellectual and social growth in a certain teacher’s classroom (Ratcliff et al., 2010). The last indicator is student behaviour. One of the many things that have changed in the educational environment is a child’s behavior. How students respond in class could affect on how well they perform on a test. Numerous research has been conducted to determine the benefits and drawbacks of teachers’ various classroom management techniques. Emotional behavior therapy is well-liked because it promotes learning and improves connections between students and teachers. It seems that teachers who don’t have a lot of confidence in their ability to teach well typically have false beliefs and too or unhealthily negative emotions. (Kirkpatrick & Waring Tiedeman, 2019; Warren & Hale, 2016). Significantly, teachers frequently act out these thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Teachers who display inappropriate negative emotions in the classroom find it challenging to establish trusting relationships with their students, impart instruction, and control the classroom, frequently reinforces their sense of efficacy. Teachers’ and students’ performance improves as they become more conscious of their learning environment. Students can create connections and see the impact of their learning when teachers provide the right learning environment. A student may be acting out or inappropriately for various reasons. Their family life and the multiple events they observe or encounter outside of school may be significant factors in their behavior. There are lots of young people, especially students, who struggle with anxiety and sadness for a variety of reasons. (Kirkpatrick & Waring Tiedeman, 2019; Warren & Hale, 2016). On the other hand, reacting to a troublesome learner conduct is said to be one of the most challenging aspects of teaching, especially for rookie teachers. Disruptive and off-task behavior is a problem for all students, but especially for those who have or are at risk of developing emotional and behavioral issues.(EBD; Gage et al., 2018; Kauffman & Landrum, 2018; Westling, 2010). Lastly, students’ actions and attitudes in the context of the new normal affect how they learn. The adjustment shows how they behave and think as they know in the new normal process as opposed to traditional learning. The students’ conduct and attitudes are indicative of the future and potential directions, various results, and implications of the new regular courses and the learning process for advanced technology in enhancing engagement and communication in the learning process. It helps students support their new typical classes and learning perspectives, where it’s critical to understand how to improve them. (Purwanto et al., 2019; Mallillin et al., 2021) Overall, for the department leaders, This research serves as a wake-up signal for employers to explore a more systematic approach to work circumstances and encourage employee motivation levels. Considering variables other than the physical aspects of the working environment would increase employee happiness, which will improve business performance. Organizational Health The school, which is recognized as a critical social institution and among the essential aspects in identifying learner’s academic achievement, will only be able to fulfil its obligations if they have thriving organizations, communication, employee competence, workforce, management skills, employee self-esteem, workplace, employee cooperation and understanding of the organization’s mission, demographic and education- related traits in the workplace. Finally, professional improvement development will all have an impact on employee behaviour. Thus, a healthy school also has characteristics like protection from excessive parental and environmental pressure, evolving administration, becoming goal and connection focused, supporting teachers and providing them with guidance to improve their performance, managers who can all involvement directors and act independently, students who are highly motivated to participate in academic activities, and teachers who get along well with one another and have mutual respect for one another. (Adler, et al., 2003; Dan & Ye 2020; Maundu, 2020). Moreover, good leadership elevates a school to the forefront of the human capital industry, which is a critical component of the educational process not simply in theory but in the practical application and design of tools to assess organizational health in educational institutions. Generally, the concept of organizational health has progressed in schools, in particular, to bring about the necessary changes in organizational performance (Connors, Douglas, Jensen-Doss,A., Landes, Lewis, McLeod, & Lyon, 2020). Additionally, we can get a complete picture of an https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 2 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 organization’s health thanks to the novel idea of organizational health. Employees in thriving firms are dedicated, accountable, and productive, and perform well. Organizational health motivates and interests people more to boost productivity. Organizations must have all of their components properly operating if they are to grow continuously, adapt to change, and be successful. The concept of organizational health stands out when the organization is seen from this angle (DOĞANAY & DAĞLI, 2020; Pordeli & Vazifeh, 2017). On the other hand, The idea of organizational health considers how well an organization works with all of its internal parts and environment and how well it can carry out its mission. The physical state of the external structure, the instruments necessary to achieve its goals, the level of senior management communication, and the capacity for problem-solving, development, growth, and innovation are all addressed by organizational health. For an organization to be deemed healthy, it must continue operating for an extended length of time within its own confines. A long-lasting organization that continuously improves and increases its capacity for survival and success is considered healthy (DOĞANAY & DAĞLI, 2020). The first indicator is institutional integrity. It pertains to the truthfulness of an establishment or the rest of the public administrative structure, where honesty is defined as the institution’s healthy operation and suitability for its purpose, as well as its coherence and legitimacy. Individual and institutional integrity and the connections between these issues must be thoroughly understood to understand institutional integrity. Organizations should indeed uphold their own moral fortitude amidst any possible problems with employees’ personal values or any flaws in character that could motivate them to flout institutional rules. Therefore, there may be a disagreement between these different sorts of reliability and conflict between promoting personal integrity and developing incorruptible institutions and processes (Braithwaite, 2020; Seibel, W. 2020). Moreover, to ensure the employees act ethnically and with integrity in the private sector. The methods used to ensure integrity range from emphasizing conformity to legal requirements to adopting “soft” strategies that centre on upholding moral standards. A person’s value system provides a framework within which they can act in predictable and consistent ways. A value system can develop and evolve, but it must maintain its integrity if those who support the values account for and resolve the inconsistencies. One essential aspect of a consistent framework is its avoidance of any unjustified exceptions for a specific person or group— the concept of double standards effectively destroys a person or group’s integrity label (Vevere, & Svirina, 2020; Wong & Ng, 2020). The second indicator is collegial leadership. It equally distributes authority and power among a group of co- workers. A collegial approach is characterized by a setting where you and your staff collaborate to find solutions to issues. As the company’s leader, you should take steps to make employees feel at ease discussing opposing viewpoints. Therefore, there may be a disagreement between these different sorts of reliability and conflict between promoting personal integrity and developing incorruptible institutions and processes. Workers work together to jointly identify, evaluate, and resolve issues without conflict (Holmes, 2020). On the other hand, the improvement of teacher professionalism, professional development, quality of schools, quality of work life, and school culture, disposition, and accomplishment are the most significant benefits of collegiality among teaching staff (Hashim, Tahir, & Musah, 2020). Furthermore, collegiality is a significant part of teacher professional development and a means of increasing teacher expertise. Many believe that the traits and actions associated with teacher individualism, seclusion, and privatism threaten or imped their professional progress. Schools have been seen as the finest settings for the staff to advance their knowledge and career, and institutions have begun to organize differently to give teachers more possibilities to learn together. Collegiate settings establish a collaborative environment that encourages teacher innovation and enthusiasm while providing ongoing professional development assistance. Many educators have endorsed teacher development and improvement strategies based on continual collegial involvement and support. It has been proposed that teacher cooperation could alter how children are educated. Thus educators must encourage ollaboration and emphasize their shared interests. Many good instructors go unnoticed because of privatism’s rules, but teachers that work in collaborative settings are more open to innovative concepts, teaching strategies, and resources (Tran, Truong, Dinh, Do,Tran, & Phan, 2020). Besides, teachers who work in a supportive environment are more committed to their company and line of work. Teachers who worked together reportedly felt more devoted to their objectives and students. Collegiality is also observed to influence teachers’ motivation, career commitment, and willingness to change classroom practice (Fader, 2020). Significantly, collegiality encourages organized support for inexperienced educators.it prevents beginning teachers from having to learn by trial and error in their first few years of teaching. Camaraderie unites new and experienced educators in the classroom, boosting the competency and self-assurance of the latter. When compared to other schools, institutions with a strong collaborative culture and collegial climate had lower attrition rates. (Meisner, 2020). Establishing teamwork societies based on the values of confidence, responsiveness, and togetherness is necessary to promote change in schools (Wong & Ng, 2020). The third indicator is resource influence. Resources are the material and immaterial assets that a company utilizes to select and carry out its strategies. The internal https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 3 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 resources of various businesses in the same industry are frequently diverse. One of the main obstacles to successfully implementing a strategy is poor leadership in utilizing resources, which leads to failing organizations. A well-crafted plan, a robust and effective talent pool, and human resources are all essential components of a successful system. (Cater, T. and Pucko, D. 2010; Rose, R.C., Abdullah, H. and Ismad, A.I. 2010; Mwai et al., 2018) The fourth indicator is teacher affiliation. Another significant aspect that influences whether teachers’ performance increases or decreases is their motivation to an affiliate. The instructor’s performance will be better if the teacher feels motivated to continue and is content with the work that is being done; conversely, a teacher’s performance will suffer if their desire to affiliate is low. When situations are favorable, teachers will consistently engage in actions that have positive outcomes. In contrast, those who engage in activities that have dire consequences are more likely to stop doing what is good (Hartinah et al., 2020). Therefore, creating a positive environment will impact on sustainable behavior due to the teaching. The governance of the principal and the work environment, both of which have a significant direct or indirect impact, positively influence on the performance of qualified instructors. However, the organization’s commitment to the effectiveness of competent teachers is not significantly impacted by a desire to affiliate. Additionally, the affiliation motivation of teachers has a similar impact on their performance. Thus, it can be said that effective teacher performance appears to be influenced by competent principal leadership, favorable work conditions, and high teacher affiliation motivation (Hartinah et al., 2020). The last indicator is academic emphasis. It refers to the degree to which teachers value helping all students achieve their educational goals. The Educational focus is a school’s effort to promote academic achievement and excellence. Students are driven to succeed academically, high expectations are set for them, and the environment is orderly. Academic emphasis has been accurately assessed using a subtest of the Organizational Health Inventory. (Hoy & Miskel, 2005; Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear,Guàrdia & Koole, 2020; Tiznado, Clark, & McDowd, 2020). To sum it up, the process of increasing organizational health uses data to support leaders in enhancing their learning environments and, eventually, student achievement. Maintaining a highly qualified team is essential to giving all students a successful educational experience. Therefore, the first step in developing an organization where teachers desire to stay is to understand why they decide “to teach elsewhere.”. Employee Accountability Modern public administration systems are founded on the tenet that it is essential to hold public employees accountable to ensure that public organizations operate as planned and reflect democratic principles. By implementing accountability-inducing activities, a business can foster and sustain employee responsibility or perception of being held answerable. Employee conduct at work may directly depend on how much they absorb the expectations resulting from these macro aspects. Employee accountability has a significant impacts both work perspective and fulfillment (Hall et al., 2017; Han & Perry, 2020b; Han & Robertson, 2021; Velotti & Justice, 2016). Moreover, accountability is a crucial element of every high-functioning workplace. According to a research by the US Office of Personnel Management, accountability in the workplace leads to better competency, increased dedication to the task, boosted morale, and higher levels of workplace satisfaction. Accountability also encourages creativity since employees are more committed to the company’s long-term success. Employee accountability has been a prominent field of academic study, particularly in enterprise and practical psychology (Dubnick & Frederickson, 2011; Hall, Frink, and Buckley 2017). On the other hand, to understand the government service and how it affects the field, public administration researchers have increasingly emphasized merging psychology and the discipline.Employees who believe they are accountable anticipate their contributions, mistakes, and actions will be recognized and associated. Employees who believe that an accountability system is in place expect that others will be able to see their work- related activities (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2017; Han & Perry, 2020). Additionally, specific empirical research has used measures with only one dimension that accurately captures numerous abstract dimensions of individual accountability, which has hampered our knowledge of employee accountability. Most multidimensional scales used in psychology and general administration comprise various indicators that only fully represent one facet of personal responsibility. The need for measurement exists for each structural model related to employee accountability several different observable indicators to be fully understood. A concept’s improper height can provide inaccurate findings, inappropriate conclusions, and inconsistent empirical outcomes across investigations. (Hall, Frink, and Buckley 2017; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff, 2011). Additionally, Public companies have also adopted accountability-inducing tactics such as incentives and penalties, disclosing, assessment, and evaluation systems, as well as specific job definitions and standards, since it has been proven that accountability is an effective tool for managing the workforce when participating in such transparent and accountable activities, employees feel responsible for their actions because they are motivated to do so by either external or internal factors, such as their beliefs and personalities (Romzek 2014; Han & Perry, 2020). Further, Employee accountability is influenced by various factors, including corporate ethics or standards, leadership style, and human resource procedures. Responsibilities is https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 4 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 crucial for businesses that provide services to the public sector. The definition says guilt that accountability is “becoming made responsible for one’s conduct, and it is a core feature of how organizations operate.” Stakeholders and the general public are adamant that public sector service organizations provide quality service and performance (Biswas, 2012; Mtsweni et al., 2020). On the other hand, according to popular thinking in modern governance, holding people accountable for their behaviors is an effective way to regulate behavioral outcomes. By internalizing regulations and expectations from external sources, public companies require that its employees regard themselves as accountable for their activities. However, there is little research on the micro foundational principles of public employees’ personal responsibility experiences in the field of public administration (Han & Perry, 2020; Velotti and Justice 2016). Significantly, employee responsibility is the expectation of being asked to defend a decision or to remain silent before an influential audience or shareholders before a judgment call. This idea expresses the employees’ responsibility to respond to their management or any other stakeholder when necessary and their particular interpretation of this responsibility. The employee’s accountability for their actions at the individual level and at this point, in contrast to what is observed at the organizational and group level, shows how much they have internalized the expectations towards themselves. Employee performance, behavior, and attitudes inside the organization as well as the overall effectiveness of the managerial practice, are impacted by employee accountability on a micro level. Accountability aids in the efficiently using resources in public administration and is quantifiably effective in terms of the outcomes it will yield (Han & Perry, 2019; Han & Perry, 2020; Hall, Frink & Buckley, 2017; Martirosyan, 2020; Velotti & Justice, 2016). Finally, employees who take responsibility for their actions anticipate that their contributions, mistakes, or activities will be recognized and associated with them. The expectation is based on a straightforward inquiry: “Who did it? ”. Employees who voluntarily act to create results are more likely to believe that their actions are directly related to them. Individuals who join an organization take on shared responsibility for the group’s objective. Because the task given to them is their own and because it is typical to follow organizational standards, employees can experience a sense of accountability in the workplace. When an employee takes on a leadership position, even when not taking any direct action, they may feel responsible (Han & Perry, 2020). Overall, employees who are held accountable make important contributions to the management process, performance, job satisfaction, and decreased workplace stress. In this setting, it is thought to be crucial that managers give employee accountability for the efficiency of public administration, sound governance, and efficient use of public resources the attention it deserves. METHODOLOGIES This study used a descriptive correlational technique of research, a non-experimental quantitative research design, to collect data, ideas, facts, and information relevant to the subject study. Descriptive non-experimental correlational design controlled the extent of a relationship between two or more variables (Goertzen, 2017). In this study, the correlation method is the best design to meet the study’s objectives and determine whether the hypothesis is accepted; if the significance value is more significant than .05, then, it means that Ho is born and Ha is accepted. Hypothesis testing determines if the correlations can be strong or weak (Creswell, 2012). The research is descriptive because it evaluated working conditions, organizational health, and employee accountability among Kiblawan North and South District public elementary schools. It is correlational because it looked at the relationship between variables like working conditions, organizational health, and employee accountability and used a survey questionnaire to gather the primary data. Investigating the link between working conditions and organizational health; the link between employee accountability and working condition; the link between employee accountability and organizational health; and the mediating effect of employee accountability on the relationship between working condition and organizational health among public elementary schools in the Municipality of Kiblawan. Medgraph was employed in determining the mediation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Level of Working Condition of Public Elementary School Teachers The level of working condition among the public elementary school teachers is depicted in Table 1. Overall level is high with mean score of 4.16 and an acceptable standard deviation of 0.463. Three of the four identified indicators namely Teacher Control in Classroom (mean = 4.43, standard deviation = 0.422), Principal Leadership (mean = 4.34, standard deviation = 0.528), and Sense of the Community and Collegiality (mean = 4.27, standard deviation = 0.478) scored very high. Meanwhile, Student Behavior scored as high with mean score of 3.61 and SD of 1.019. We can infer that the working conditions for teachers are excellent or extremely acceptable. Level of Organizational Health of Public Elementary School Teachers Presented in Table 2 is the level of Organizational Health of the public elementary school teachers. The Overall mean result is 3.78 with an acceptable standard deviation of 0.376. The mean score falls under high level range. Moreover, the listed indicators such as Collegial Leadership, Teacher Affiliation, Resource Influence, Institutional Integrity, and Academic Emphasis have means of 4.19, 4.07, 4.03, 3.40 and 3.23 respectively https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 5 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 Table 1: Level of Working Condition Indicators SD Mean Descriptive Level Principal Leadership 0.53 4.34 Very High Sense of Community and Collegiality 0.48 4.27 Very High Teacher Control in Classroom 0.42 4.43 Very High Student Behavior 1.02 3.61 High Overall 0.46 4.16 High which are considered of high level. All the above means have standard deviation of below 1.0 which is acceptable. The results suggest that overall, the organizational climate of the public school teachers is highly positive or very healthy. Table 2: Level of Organizational Health Indicators SD Mean Descriptive Level Institutional Integrity 0.70 3.40 High Collegial Leadership 0.50 4.19 High Resource Influence 0.48 4.03 High Teacher Affiliation 0.46 4.07 High Academic Emphasis 0.97 3.23 High Overall 0.38 3.78 High Level of Employee Accountability of Public Elementary School Teachers Table 3 summarizes the level of Employee Accountability of the public elementary school teachers. Most of the attitudes determining employee accountability depicted high levels (ranging from 3.51 to 3.93), such as belief on their performance evaluation process, taking ownership on the outcome of their work and adherence to the school’s policies and procedures. Overall mean score is 3.72 with an acceptable standard deviation of 0.433, score of which is also considered high. The scores affirm that there is high sense of accountability among the public elementary school teachers. Table 3: Level of Employee Accountability Items SD Mean Descriptive Level What I do is being noticed by others in my organization. 0.66 3.81 High Believing that if I make a mistake, I will be caught. 0.77 3.62 High Being constantly watched to see if I follow my organization’s policies and procedures. 0.69 3.86 High Believing that anyone outside my organization can tell whether I’m doing well in my job. 0.80 3.67 High Believing that my errors can be easily spotted outside my organization. 0.87 3.37 Moderate People outside my organization are being interested in my job performance. 0.72 3.70 High The outcomes of my work are being rigorously evaluated. 0.62 3.95 High My work efforts are being rigorously evaluated. 0.65 3.93 High Expecting to receive frequent feedback from my supervisor. 0.73 3.63 High Not being able to easily get away with making a false statement to justify my performance. 0.99 3.51 High Always being required to follow strict organizational policies or procedures. 0.68 3.73 High Not being allowed to make excuses to avoid blame in my organization. 0.83 3.51 High Believing that if I perform well, I will be rewarded. 0.69 3.69 High Believing that good effort on my part will ultimately be rewarded. 0.70 3.83 High Believing that if I do my job well, my organization will benefit from it. 0.63 3.93 High Overall 0.43 3.72 High Correlation Between Working Condition and Organizational Health of Public Elementary School Teachers In Table 4, it can be seen that overall, the relationship between Working Condition and Organizational Health generated r-value of 0.695 signifying positive relationship and with p-value of <0.05, the relationship is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance. It can also be observed that most associations between indicators of both variables generated positive results, which is consistent with the overall values. Principal Relationship has positive correlation with https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 6 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 Institutional Integrity (r-value=0.217), Collegial Leadership (r-value=0.780), Resource Influence (r-value =0.665), Teacher Affiliation (r-value=0.272), and Academic Emphasis (r-value = 0.195) . With all p-values equivalent to 0.000, the relationships are significant. Overall r-value is 0.627 with p-value of <0.05 showing positive relationship that is also significant. Sense of Community and Collegiality have positive correlation with Institutional Integrity (r-value= 0.215), Collegial Leadership (0.557), Resource Influence (r-value= 0.441), Teacher Affiliation (r-value=0.381), and Academic Emphasis (r-value=0.220) and the relationships all proved to be significant at 0.05 and even at 0.01 levels of significance. Teacher Control in Classroom also has positive relationship with Institutional Integrity (r-value= 0.227), Collegial Leadership (r-value=0.479), Resource Influence (r-value=0.272), Teacher Affiliation (r- value = 0.199), and Academic Emphasis (r-value=0.319). All relationships proved to be significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of confidence. Student Behavior have positive relationships with Institutional Integrity (r-value=0.470, p-value=0.000), Collegial Leadersip (r-value=0.169, p-value=0.000), Resource Influence (r-value= 0.207, p-value =0.000), and Academic Emphasis (r-value=0.401, p-value = 0.000), and all correlations are evidently significant at 0.05 and even at 0.01 level of significance. It, however, has no correlation with Teacher Affiliation as data analysis produced r-value of -0.004, and with p-value of 0.946, it is statistically not significant. Overall, the findings offer convincing evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, which holds that there is no substantial association between public school teachers’ working conditions and organizational health. Table 4: Significance of the Relationship between the Working Condition and Organizational Health Organizational Health Working Condition Institutional Integrity Collegial Leadership Resource Influence Teacher Affiliation Academic Emphasis Overall Principal Leadership .217* (0.000) .780* (0.000) .665* (0.000) .272* (0.000) .195* (0.001) .627* (0.000) Sense of Community and Collegiality .215* (0.000) .557* (0.000) .441* (0.000) .381* (0.000) .220* (0.000) .549* (0.000) Teacher Control in Classroom .227* (0.000) .479* (0.000) .272* (0.000) .199* (0.000) .319* (0.000) .495* (0.000) Student Behavior .470* (0.000) .169* (0.000) .207* (0.000) -.004 (0.946) .392* (0.000) .476* (0.000) Overall .427* (0.000) .567* (0.000) .479* (0.000) .220* (0.000) .401* (0.000) .695* (0.000) *Significant at 0.05 significance level. Correlation Between Working Condition and Employee Accountability of Public Elementary School Teachers The relationship between Working Condition and Employee Accountability was tested for significance. Table 5 shows Overall r-value is equivalent to 0.465 which signifies positive association between Working Condition and Organizational Health. The relationship also proved significant with p-value of <0.05 that is it is significant at 0.05 level of significance and even at 0.01. Furthermore, Principal Leadership also has positive relationship with r-value of 0.309 which is significant at 0.05 and even at 0.01 level of significance having p-value of 0.000. Likewise, Sense of Community and Collegiality, and Employee have positive correlation as can be seen in r-value equal to 0.333, and the relationship is significant at both 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance following the p-value generated at 0.000. The same is true for Teacher Control in Classroom with r-value of 0.360 and p-value of <0.05. Student behavior is also positively related with Employee Accountability as can be noted in resulting r-value of 0.381 (p=0.000) and with p-value at 0.000, the association is significant. The statistical figures provide enough data to refute the null hypothesis, which claims there is no meaningful connection between Working Condition and Employee Accountability of public school teachers, because the Table 5: Significance of the Relationship between the Working Condition and Employee Accountability Working Condition Employee Accountability Overall Principal Leadership .309*(0.000) Sense of Community and Collegiality .333*(0.000) Teacher Control in Classroom .360*(0.000) Student Behavior 0.381*(0.000) Overall .465*(0.000) *Significant at 0.05 significance level. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 7 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 resulting Overall p-value equivalent to 0.000 means that there is less than 5% and even less than 1% probability that the null hypothesis is correct. Correlation Between Employee Accountability and Organizational Health of Public Elementary School Teachers Table 6 provides the relationship between Employee Accountability and Organizational Health of Public Elementary School Teachers. The overall r-value is 0.635, and the p-value is less than 0.05, showing that there is a significant positive correlation between the variables when examined at the 0.05 level of significance. It is also even significant at 0.01 level of significance. When Employee Accountability’s relationship with Institutional Integrity was tested, it revealed that the two have a positive correlation based on r-value of 0.498, and with p-value of <0.05, the relationship proved to be significant at 0.05 and also at 0.01 level of significance. Further, statistics show that Employee Accountability also has positive correlation with Collegial Leadership which produced r-value of 0.252 and p-value of <0.05 signifying the correlation as significant in both 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance. The case is the same for Resource Influence (r-value =0.369, p-value=0.000), Teacher Affiliation (r-value= 0.326, p- value = 0.000), and Academic Emphasis (r-value =-0.398, p-value=0.000). All relationships, similarly, show statistical significance at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance. The null hypothesis, which claims that there is no significant association between Employee Accountability and Organizational Health and public school teachers, is rejected in light of the findings, given the p-values at 0.05 and the strong evidence against it. Table 6: Significance of the Relationship between the Employee Accountability and Organizational Health Organizational Health Employee Accountability Institutional Integrity Collegial Leadership Resource Influence Teacher Affiliation Academic Emphasis Overall Overall .498* (0.000) .252* (0.000) .369* (0.000) .326* (0.000) .398* (0.000) .635* (0.000) *Significant at 0.05 significance level.* Mediating Effect of Employee Accountability on the Relationship Between Working Condition and Organizational Health of Public Elementary School Teachers Presented in Table 7 are the p-values of each causal relationships. It can be noted that all paths, Path A, Path B and Path C, discussed above wherein positive relationships were established among the three are all significant at 0.05 level of significance. Further, the standard deviations of each path proved to be within acceptable range. The result shows that it is partially mediated. The results also affirmed that Employee Accountability is a mediating factor present on the relationship between Working Condition and Organizational Health. Table 7: Mediating Effect : Path Analysis (Partial Mediation) ESTIMATES PATH Unstandardized Standardized SE C.R. P WC-->EA .436 .465 .047 9.258 *** EA-->OH .345 .397 .035 9.873 *** WC-->OH .415 .511 .033 12.695 *** Empirically, the mediating effect of the Employee Accountability is statistically significant at 0.05 level of significance. This highlighted by decrease in the correlation coefficient between Working Condition and Organizational Health from 0.695 (Table 6) to 0.415, and even with the reduced figure, it is still statistically significant. It can therefore be deduced that the mediation is partial. Specifically, a fraction of the total effect of Working Condition on Organizational Health is mediated by Employee Accountability that is the influence of Working Condition is transmitted through an intervening factor which is Employee Accountability. This influence is considered as indirect effect. The remaining impact on Organizational Health can either be direct effect or indirect by variables that are excluded in the scope of this study. Based on the model, 0.415 is the extent of direct effect of Working Condition on Organizational Health with respect to the intervening factor which is Employee Accountability. The indirect effect, which can be derived from multiplying the coefficients of Path A and Path B (0.44 x 0.34), 0.15, is the magnitude of the effect between Work Condition and Organizational Health that was transmitted to Employee Accountability. Diving the indirect effect 0.15 by the total effect 0.695 generates a result of 0.216 or 21.6%. It can therefore be interpreted that 21.6% of the total effect of Working Condition on Organizational Health is mediated by Employee Accountability, and the remaining 78.4% of the total effect could be a combination of direct effect or intervened by extraneous factors. X =WORKING CONDITION (WC) Y = ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH (OH) M = EMPLOYEE ACCOUNTABILITY (EA) Figure 3 illustrates the path diagram of the relationships https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 8 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 of working condition, organizational behavior and employee accountability based on the results after the conduct of Path Analysis. There are three paths that are identified in the model. Path A is the causal relationship of Working Condition to Employee Accountability. Path B describes the direct relationship between Employee Accountability and Organization Health. Path C defines the direct connection between Working Condition and Organizational Health. The model also shows that Working Condition has an indirect effect on Organizational Health through Employee Accountability. In other words, Employee Accountability is a mediating variable for the effect of Working Condition on Organizational Health. The path coefficients indicate the direct effect of one variable on the other. In this case, the influence of the level of Working Condition on the level of Employee Accountability (Path A), the effect of the level of Employee Accountability on Organizational health (Path B), and finally, the impact of the level of Working Condition on Organizational Health (Path C). It can be noted that a coefficient of 0.44 was generated between Working Condition on Employee Accountability denoting that the former has positive effect on Employee Accountability. This suggests that desirable working condition motivates employees to feel accountable of their responsibilities as such in return. It can also be construed that the size of effect of Working Condition on Employee Accountability is 44%. A coefficient of 0.34 was calculated between Employee Accountability and Organizational Health, which likewise means that Employee Accountability is positively related to Organizational Health. This implies that as employees in an organization become more accountable, the organizational health becomes more desirable. It also suggests that the extent of impact of Employee Accountability on Organizational Health is 34%. The resulting coefficient between Working Condition and Organizational Health is 0.41, which similarly indicates positive connection between the two constructs such that Figure 3 Regression Weights on the Mediating Effect of Employee Accountability on the Relationship between Working Condition and Organizational Health the presence of better working conditions increases the level of organizational health. This can also be interpreted that Working Condition has 41% magnitude of influence on Organizational Health. CONCLUSIONS The research aimed to ascertain how employee accountability mediated the link between working conditions and organizational health. The findings indicate that elementary school teachers in public schools are in good working conditions. In the same manner, their employee accountability is also high. The result parallel the Job Demand-Control Model (JDCM) theory which states that satisfaction arises when the workplace energizes inherently inspirational traits in the employees, causing them to perform better at work. Finally, the organizational health of the school teachers is also high. This is in line with the Parsonian theory, which states that a successful school is one where there is coordination at all levels. Working conditions and employee accountability are positively related, and the relationship is significant. There is also a significant positive correlation between employee accountability and organizational health. The relationship between working condition and organizational health is substantial and positive. The findings provided evidence to affirm the mediating effect of employee accountability such that 21.6% of the total impact of working conditions on organizational health is transmitted through employee accountability. 78.4% of the real influence of working condition on organizational health is possible through the effect or is mediated by another component that was not considered in the study. The study supports the claim of Vesey and Ford (2019) that social forces, interpersonal relationships, rules, organizational policies, and other environmental elements make up the workplace environment, all of which influences the employees’ perception of accountability. Increased sentiments of responsibility are encouraged by a positive work environment, and as feelings of accountability rise, so does the effort that individuals put into their jobs. As a result, both the amount and quality of work output rise. Conversely, unfavourable working conditions prevent employees from demonstrating their strengths and reaching their maximum potential. (Raziq and Maulabakhsh, 2015). A high level of employee productivity translates to better employee engagement, building an even better positive culture that leads to a healthy and sustainable organization. REFERENCES Abdullah, A. G., Mydin A.A., Ismali, S. N., Aziz, A., & Wong, K. (2019). Organizational Health, Mindfulness, and Organizational Commitment in Malaysian Chinese Primary School from Female Teachers’ Perspective. Science International-Lahore, 318(2), 209- 212. Adler, B., et.al. (2003). SDDOT Organizational Health Assessment. University of South Bakota https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 23 9 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 Agbozo, G. K., Owusu, I. S., Hoedoafia, M. A., & Atakorah, Y. B. (2017). The effect of work conditions on job satisfaction: Evidence from the banking sector in Ghana. Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j. jhrm.20170501.12 Akhtar, A., Naheed, K., Akhtar, S., & Farooq, U. (2018). Impact of job stress on employees’ job satisfaction: An empirical study of private banks of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 38(1), 137–151. https://www.bzu.edu.pk/PJSS/Vol38No12018/ PJSS-2018-I-09.pdf Ali, A.Y.S., Ali, A.A. and Adan, A.A. (2013). Working conditions and employees’ productivity in manufacturing companies in sub-saharan african context: case of Somalia. Educational Research International, 2(2), 67-78. Ansari, M., Ostadi, H., Javeri, F. (2010). Survey the relationship between organizational health and positive attitudes of staff working in the offices of the Isfahan province’s tax affairs. Journal of Tax 2010, 6, 41-65. Athirah Saidi, N. S., Michael, F. L., Sumilan, H., Omar Lim, S. L., Jonathan, V., Hamidi, H., & Abg Ahmad, A. I. (2019). The Relationship Between Working Environment and Employee Performance. Journal of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development, 5(2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.33736/jcshd.1916.2019 Awan, A. G., & Tahir, M. T. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks and Insurance Companies in Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 329- 345. Ayoku, F. A. (2006). The visually impaired in the regular classroom. Teaching pupils with special education needs. Ibadan: Oluben Printers. Aziz, I., Kumar, R., Rathore, A., & Lal, M. (2015). Working environment and job satisfaction among health professional working at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 27(1), 201–204. http://jamc. ayubmed.edu.pk/index. php/jamc/article/view/1141/351 Bambra C, Gibson M, Sowden A, et al. (2009). Working for health? Evidence from systematic reviews on the effects on health and health inequalities of organisational changes to the psychosocial work environment. Preventive Medicine, 48(5), 454–461. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bascia, N., & Rottmann, C. (2011). What’s so important about teachers’ working conditions? The fatal flaw in North American educational reform. Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), 787–802. Bashir, A., Amir, A., Jawaad, M., & Hasan, T. (2020). Work conditions and job performance: An indirect conditional effect of motivation. Cogent Business and Management, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975 .2020.1801961 Beu, D. S., and M. R. Buckley. (2004). Using Accountability to Create a More Ethical Climate. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 67–83. Biswas, S. (2012). Impact of Psychological Climate & Transformational Leadership on Employee Performance. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(1), 105-119. Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate through school- wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention science, 10(2), 100. Braithwaite, V. (2020). Beyond the bubble that is Robodebt: How governments that lose integrity threaten democracy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 242-259. Brown, S. P. & Leigh, T.W.(1996). A new look at Psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of applied Psychology, 81(4), 358-368. Busch, C., Koch, T., Clasen, J., Winkler, E., & Vowinkel, J. (2017). Evaluation of an organizational health intervention for low-skilled workers and immigrants. Human Relations, 70(8), 994–1016. https://doi. org/10.1177/0018726716682308 Bushiri, C. P. (2014). The Impact of Working Environment on Employees’ Performance: The Case of Institute of Finance and Management in Dar Es Salaam Region (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). The Open University of Tanzania, Tanzania. Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business ethics: A European review, 16(1), 19-33. Connors, E. H., Douglas, S., Jensen-Doss, A., Landes, S. J., Lewis, C. C., McLeod, B.D., & Lyon, A.R. (2020). What gets measured gets done: How mental health agencies can leverage measurement-based care for better patient care, clinician supports, and organizational goals. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 1-16. Cranston, N. C. (2002). School-based management, leaders and leadership: Change and challenges for principals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 30(1). Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2012). edition 4. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA. Pearson Education, Inc. Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of education, 77(1), 60-81. Cullinane, B., Nemec, P., Clement, M.C., Mariet, R.C.E., & Jonsson, L.l.M.(2014).U.S. Patent No.8,818,608. Washington, DC: U.S.Patent and Trademark Office. Dan, Y., & Ye, Y. (2020). The relationship between https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 24 0 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 teachers’ perception towards school climate and their decision-making styles at a primary school in Anning District, Lanzhou City, China. Scholar: Human Sciences, 12(1), 194-194. Dubnick, M. J. (2011). Move over Daniel: we need some “accountability space”. Administration & Society, 43(6), 704-716. Dubnick, M., & Frederickson, H. G. (2011). Public accountability: Performance measurement, the extended state, and the search for trust. National Academy of Public Administration & The Kettering Foundation. Dubnick, Melvin J., and Kaifeng Yang. (2011). The pursuit of accountability: Promise, problems, and prospects. In The state of public administration: Issue, challenges, opportunities, eds. Donald C. Menzel and Harvey L. White, 171–86. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Education International & European Trade Union Committee for Education. (2001). Study on stress: The causes of stress for teachers, its effects, and suggested approaches to reduce it. Brussels: Author. Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Teacher mobility: Looking more closely at “the movers” within a state system. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 94–127. Emetarom, U. G. (2004). Provision and management of facilities in primary schools in Nigeria: Implication for policy formulation. Management of primary and secondary education in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: NAEAP Publication European Union. (2013). Study on policy measures to improve the attractiveness of the teaching profession in Europe, 2. Fader, S. (2020). Teacher Morale and Job Satisfaction in the Special Education Environment. Fard, F. E., & Ranjbarian, R. (2015). On the correlation between organizational health and job performance in west Azerbaijan standard administration. Specialty Journal of Psychology and Management, 1(4), 83-86. Faturochman, M. A. (1997). The job characteristics theory: A review. Buletin Psikologi UGM. Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995). Accountability in human resource systems. In G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen, & D.T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management, Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 175- 196. Fridrich, A., Bauer, G. F., & Jenny, G. J. (2020). Development of a Generic Workshop Appraisal Scale (WASC) for Organizational Health Interventions And Evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2115. Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2008). A meso- level theory of accountability in organizations. In J. J. Martocchito (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 27, 177-245. Furrer, C.,& Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of education psychology, 95(1), 148. Gage, N. A., Scott, T., Hirn, R., & Macsuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 43(2), 302–315. https://doi. org/10.1177/0198742917714809 Geiger, T., & Pivovarova, M. (2018). theory and practice The effects of working conditions on teacher retention. Teachers and Teaching, 0602. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13540602.2018.1457524 Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56. Goertzen, M. J. (2017). Introduction to quantitative research and data. Library Technology Reports, 53(4), 12- 18. Guan, X., & Frenkel, S. (2019). How perceptions of training impact employee performance: Evidence from two Chinese manufacturing firms. Personnel Review, 48(1), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR- 05-2017-0141 Güçlü, N., Recepoğlu, E. & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2014). İlköğretim okullarının örgütsel sağlığı ile öğretmenlerin iş motivasyonları arasındaki ilişki. Hacettepe ÜniversitesiEğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 140- 156. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76) 90016-7 Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204-224. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education, 33(3), 329-352. Hameiri, L., & Nir, A. (2016). Perceived uncertainty and organizational health in public schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 771–790. Han, Y. & Perry, J. L. (2020). Employee accountability: development of a multidimensional scale, International Public Management Journal , 23(2), 224-251. Han, Y., & Perry, J. L. (2020). Employee accountability: development of a multidimensional scale.International Public Management Journal, 23(2), 224–251. https://doi. org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1690606 Han, Y. & Hong, S. (2019). The Impact of Accountability on Organizational Performance in the U.S. Federal Government: The Moderating Role of Autonomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39. 3- 23. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The future of children, 69-86. Hartinah, S., Suharso, P., Umam, R., Syazali, M., Lestari, B. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 24 1 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 D., Roslina, R., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). Teacher’s performance management: The role of principal’s leadership, work environment and motivation in Tegal City, Indonesia. Management Science Letters, 10(1), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.7.038 Hashim, A., Tahir, L. M., & Musah, M. B. (2020). Collegial Supervisory Practice in Malaysian Public Schools: Evidence from Secondary School Teachers.International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(05). Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. School psychology international, 24(1), 115-127. Hayat, A. A., Kohoulat, N., Kojuri, J., & Faraji, H. (2015). A Study on the Relationship Between Schools’ Health and Teachers’ Organizational Commitment. International Journal of School Health, 2(4), 1–7. Holmes, S. R., Smith, T. E., & Garbacz, S. A. (2020). Theories And Frameworks That Underlie Family– School Partnerships. Theories of School Psychology: Critical Perspectives, 186. Hochwarter, W.A., Breaux, D.M, Munyon T.P., & Ferris, G.R.(2009). Politics as a moderator of the Accountability-job satisfaction relationship:Evidence across three studies. Journal of Management, 35(2), 307- 326. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Jahed Khaniki , 2007. Chemical Contaminants in Milk and Public Health Concerns: A Review. International Journal of Dairy Science, 2, 104-115. Jennings, P.A., & Greenberg, M.T.(2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcome. Review of educational research, 79(1),491-525. Jimenez, P., Winkler, B., & Dunkl, A. (2017). Creating a healthy working environment with leadership: The concept of health-promoting leadership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(17), 2430– 2448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585 192.2015.1137609 Johnson, K., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (1997). Making work and lifestyle initiatives work: Beyond best practices. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39. Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2015). The impact of employees’ positive psychological capital on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1135–1156. https://doi. org/10. 1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0019 Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain:Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308. Karasek, R. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. New York: Basic Books. Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2018). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kettl, D. F., and S. Kelman. 2007. Reflections on 21st Century Government Management. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Kiazad, K., Kraimer, M. L., & Seibert, S. E. (2019). More than grateful: How employee embeddedness explains the link between psychological contract fulfillment and employee extra-role behavior. Human Relations, 72(8), 1315-1340. https://doi. org/10.1177/0018726718806352 Klemm A.M., Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationship matter: Linking teacher support to student ebgagement and achievement. Journal of school health, 74(7), 262, 273. Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public administration review, 65(1), 94 108. Krishnan, A. (2018). Cases on Quality Initiatives for Organizational Longevity. PSG Institute of Management Coimbatore, India. Laird MD, Perryman AA, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR, Zinko R, (2009). The moderating effects of personal reputation on accountability-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 70- 83. Lanivich, S. E., Brees, J. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). PE Fit as moderator of the Accountability– employee reactions relationships: Convergent results across two samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 425-436. Leither, B., Morrison, G., & Kindem, K. (2004). U.S. Patent Application No. 10/330,163. Leithwood, K. (2006).Teacher Working Conditions That Matter: Evidence for Change. Canada: Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Lerman, S. E., Eskin, E., Flower, D. J., George, E. C., Gerson, B., Hartenbaum, N., & Moore-Ede, M. (2012). Fatigue risk management in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54(2), 231-258. Lu, L., Lu, A. C., Gursoy, D., & Neale, N. R. (2016). Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison between supervisors and line-level employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4), 737–761. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2014- 0360 Maya, Cynthia. (2002). Factors affecting the achievement motivation of high school student in Maine University of Southern Maine. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organizations Bottom line?. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 559-592. Mahasen, S. (2019). The Relationship between Organisational https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 24 2 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 Health and Teachers. Absenteeism in Schools, A Case Study in a Private School in Amman , Jordan by MAHASEN SALE. Marshall, T., Mottier, E. M., & Lewis, R. A. (2015). Motivational factors and the hospitality industry: A case study examining the effects of changes in the working environment. Journal of Business Case Studies, 11(3), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.19030/jbcs. v11i3.9289 Marzieh. Heydari, Fatemeh.Nikbakht. Mobarakeh, and Zahra, T. (2015). Relationship Between Organizational Health and Quality of Work Life of Faculty Members in University. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5, 1227–1232. Maundu, M. (2020). Leadership Styles and Employee Engagement: A study of Public Secondary Schools in Murang’a Country, Kenya (Doctoral dissertion, JKUAT COHRED) Mehrotra, A. (2005). Leadership styles of principals. India: Mittal Publications. Morrissey, M. S.(2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Movahedi, B., & Azarpira, M. (2016). Investigating the relationship between employees ’empowerment and organizational commitment with organizational health mediation in Tehran Municipality , Revenue Recognition and Collection department. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management, 1(3), 221–236. Muhammad, L., Reba, A., & din, J. U. (2020). Principal’s Leadership Styles and Teacher’s Job Satisfaction: A Correlational Study at Secondary Level in District Peshawar. Putaj Humanities & Social Sciences, 27(2), 55–67. Muhammad, H., & Yaumi, M. (2015). Pengembangan Kinerja Guru Melaluipenelitian Tindakan Kelas Pada Sma Negeri Di Kota Palopo. Lentera Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, 18(2), 152-170 Murray, C., & Greenberg, M.T.(2001). Relationship with teachers and bonds with school: Social emotional adjustment correlatates for children with and without dissabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 25-41. Mustafa, G., & Ali, N. (2019). Rewards, autonomous motivation and turnover intention: Results from a non- western cultural context. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1676090. https:// doi.org/10.1080 /23311975.2019.1676090 Meisner, J. (2020). Understanding Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Instructional Coaching During Student Teaching. Mtsweni, E. S., Hörne, T., Poll, J. A. van der, Rosli, M., Tempero, E., Luxton-reilly, A., Sukhoo, A., Barnard, A., M. Eloff, M., A. Van Der Poll, J., Motah, M., Boyatzis, R. E., Kusumasari, T. F., Trilaksono, B. R., Nur Aisha, A., Fitria, -, Moustroufas, E., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., … Khan, A. I. (2020). Title. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(1), 1–9. Müller, K., Alliata, R., & Benninghoff, F. (2009). Attracting and retaining teachers: A question of motivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 574-599. Nelson, J. R., Benner, G., Lane, K., & Smith, B. (2004). Academic achievement of K- 12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73. Nguimfack, T. & Kelly, N. (2018). Accountability and Employee Performance Case Study: Bambuiy Engineering Services & Techniques (B.E.S.T) SARL (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Centria University of Applied Sciences, Finland. Nielsen K, Randall R, Holten A-L, et al. (2010a) Conducting organizational-level occupational health interventions: What works? Work & Stress, 24(3), 234–259. Nielsen K, Taris TW and Cox T (2010b) The future of organizational interventions: Addressing the challenges of today’s organizations. Work & Stress 24(3), 219–233. Ni, Y. (2012). Teacher working conditions in charter schools and traditional public schools: A comparative study. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1-26. Ortquist-Ahrens, L., & Torosyan, R. (2009). The role of the facilitator in faculty learning communities: Paving the way for growth, productivity, and collegiality. Learning Communities Journal, 1(1). Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of educational research, 70(3), 323-367. Pires, M.L. (2018). Working conditions and organizational support influence on satisfaction and performance. European Journal of Applied Business Management, [Special Issue of ICABM2018], 162-186. Quinn, D. M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and student engagement. Journal of educational administration. Rahimi H (2011). Organizational Injuries Analysis and Its Multiple Relationships with Organizational Health and Quality of Work Life in Public Universities of Isfahan, Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Education and Psychology University. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online University teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Post digital Science and Education, 1-23. Ratcliff, N. J., Jones, C. R., Costner, R. H., Savage-Davis, E., Sheehan, H., & Hunt, G. H. (2010). Teacher Classroom Management Behaviors and StudentTime- on-Task: Implications for Teacher Education. Action in TeacherEducation, 32(4), 38–51. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01626620.2010.549714 Raya R. P., & Panneerselvam, S. (2013). The healthy organization construct: A review and research agenda. Indian J Occup Environ Med, 17(3), 89-93. Raziq A, Maulabakhsh R. (2015). Impact of work environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance 23, 717- 725. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 24 3 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 228-243, 2022 Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational psychologist, 44(3), 159-175. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698-714. Royle, M. T. (2016). Job satisfaction: A link in the chain between personality attributes and career satisfaction? Journal of International Management Studies, 16, 95-120. Sahoo, C.K.; Behera, N.; Tripathy, S.K., (2010). Employee empowerment and individual commitment: an analysis from integrative review of research. Employ. Relat. Rec., 10(1), 40-56. Seibel, W. (2020). Autonomy, Integrity, and Values in Public Administration: Dilemma and a Case.Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(2), 155 166. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior; a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. Macmillan. Simmonds, A. (1994). Teachers’ perceived leadership behaviour of principals ‘and teachers’ performance in a sample of all age schools in rural and urban Jamaica. Unpublished thesis. University of the West Indies Shamsmehrabani A (2011). Quality of Work Life, Journal of Electronic Communications of Infrastructure, Tehran. Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749-752. www.allresearchjournal.com Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creative Education, 7(13), 1785. Stromberg, C., Aboagye, E., Hagberg, J., Bergstrom, G., & Karlsson, M. L. (2017). Estimating the effect and economic impact of absenteeism, presenteeism, and work conditions– related problems on reductions in productivity from a managerial perspective. Value in Health, 20(8), 1058–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jval.2017.05.008 Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques. Corwin Press Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the influence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 223–233. Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729. Tep, O. (2015). Exploring the importance of employee incentives and their effectiveness in improving quality performance in a Cambodian public organization. Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/ dependence analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 109(2), 156-167. Tiznado, D., Clark, J. M., & McDowd, J. (2020). Cognitive predictors of a performance based measure of instrumental activities of daily living following stroke. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 1-9. Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., Johansson, S., & Myrberg, E. (2020). Teacher job satisfaction : the importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.20 19.1705247 Tran, N. H., Truong, T. D., Dinh, H. V. T., Do, L. H. T., Tran, T. A. T., & Phan, M. H. T.(2020). Significance of Teacher Professional Development in Response to the Current General Education Reforms in Vietnam: Perceptions of School Principals and Teachers. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(3), 449-464. Usop, A. M., Askandar, D. K., Langguyuan-Kadtong, M., & Usop, D. A. S. O. (2013). Work performance and job satisfaction among teachers. International journal o humanities and social science, 3(5), 245-252. Vevere, V., & Svirina, A. (2020). Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Vesey, J., & Ford, A. (2019). Workplace Accountability: Exploring the Role of Strong and Weak Accountability Environments on Employee Effort and Performance. The Journal of International Management Studies,14(2). Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. C. (2005). The children and youth we serve: A national picture of the characteristics of students with emotional disturbances receiving special education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 79–96. Westling, D. L. (2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 48–63. Wong, C. P., & Ng, D. (2020). The roles of school leaders in developing future-ready learners: the case of Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management Zehir, C., Akyuz, B., Eren, M. S., & Turhan, G. (2013). The Indirect Effects of Servant Leadership Behavior on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Job Performance. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 2(3), 01-13. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri