Sustainability Success Factors of North Eastern Rajabhat University Group
1*DuangnapaSuwannatada, 2Chatrudee Jongsureyapart,3Pornpimol Chaisanit
Mae Fah LuangUniversity, Thailand
1*Corresponding author E-mail:[email protected]
2[email protected], 3[email protected] ABSTRACT:
Research study Sustainability Success Factors of North Eastern Rajabhat University Group determine objectives of this research are 1) to study the success factors of the Northeastern Rajabhat University Group 2) to test the success factors of the North Eastern Rajabhat University Group. The 380 respondents representing 11 Northeastern Rajabhat Universities found that the success factors for the sustainability of Northeastern Rajabhat University Group consisted of organizational leadership, organizational practices,and organizational efficiency.
Keyword:Organizational Sustainability, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Sustainability Success Factors
1. INTRODUCTION
A period of rapid change in economic, social, political, and technology in all areas of the world. Higher education institutions need to be knowledgeable to change and always ready to change, to survive, and to maintain the role as an organization that benefits society according to its functions. NoppakhunChutan and DhumrongChaipanya (2019) studied academic leadership strategies of RajabhatKamphaengPhet University in 2018-2022 the results of the study showed that academic leadership consists of many factors including developing systems and mechanisms for effective collaboration of operational groups and networks within and outside the university. The results of this study are consistent with the mission of all 38 Thai Rajabhat Universities and institutional administration in order to achievethe goal of being a sustainable organization in the strategic plan of 20 years. Syed InaamUllah Shah and NazahahAbd Rahim (2019) studied the gaps in organizational development towards sustainability found that many factors lead the organization to sustainability including leadership that leads the organization to sustainability, but there is no leadership style in practice that is consistent with sustainability. While being a sustainable organization of Rajabhat University isthe goal of the operation, and no research has yet been done on the factors that will lead the 38 institutions towards becoming a sustainable organization. The researcher is therefore interested in applying the above issues to study the factors related to the sustainability of Rajabhat University.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
They are interested in studying organizations operating under the most similar environment, which is The Northeastern Rajabhat University, the focus of researcher has led to research questions that are consistent with the situation in which Rajabhat University is facing the changing conditions caused by many factors so that the organization can move and achieve.
This led to the research question, what are the factors affecting the sustainability of the Northeastern Rajabhat University?
2.1 OrganizationalLeadership (OL)
Leadership is defined in 3 levels; individual leadership, team leadership, and organizational leadership, in which all 3 levels have a relationship. Stephen J. Zaccaro and Richard J.
Klimoski (2001)presentthe nature of OL state that the characteristics of OL must be presented as follows 1) Social and interpersonal exchange 2) Strategic Management 3) Organizational Systems 4) Leader Effectiveness. In addition to the concept of OLthat has been presented as a factor that leads the organization sustainability, Syed InaamUllah Shah and NazahahAbd Rahim (2019) adopted OLconcept in a research study in the context of being a higher education institution with the concept of being the organization leadership of Otago University New Zealand in research studies, in summaries of the characteristics of an organizational leader, are as follows 1) General qualifications 2) organization direction 3) people and organizational culture 4) decision making 5) achievement
In addition, it was found that leadership was related to organizational efficiency, that found in a study by SommaiTiensomchai (2013), PatcharaponMasuwat,et., al. (2016), PitchaphaThongdeeying (2018) To develop a measurement tool for organization that can lead organization to its goals according to the strategic plan systematically (Jaichanok Par-at, 2014). leading to research hypotheses 1
Hypothesis 1: Organizational leadership measure model is structural.
2.2 Organization Practice (OP)
WiphawanOnprasert (2013) presented an academic article on organizational strategy discussed the importance of a strategic plan which is a plan to bring the organization to a new image step into desired vision in the future, strategic planning is the overall planning of the organization. It shows that organizations need a strategy in order to achieve success. Strategic planning is, therefore, a cornerstone in the administration and management of educational organizations. Brigid Carroll,et., al. (2008) suggesting that theories or strategies as it has been presented in many research papers, it is important to implement theories or strategies, according to with Richard Whittington(2006)present in studies that toemphasizes andthe link between theory and practice and presents a practical approach to theory.
In a study byArey (2005), there are 4 levels of sustainable leadership practices; foundation [ractices, high-level practice, key performance drivers, and level of performance outcomes.
Avery's leadership concept clearly reflects the effectiveness of leaders in the organization in practice, according toWipawanOnprasert (2013) presented in the field of theoretical application of theory or strategy to be able to use in organizational development,researchers have adopted such perspectives as variables in research. SuksanKantabutr (2012), presented 23 behaviors of leaders were applied in the research study, 23 behaviors were categorized into 3 variables: fundamentalpractices, high-level practice, key performance drivers, and performance outcomes are the goal of the organization in performance. OP concept is to bring the concept into action to achieve the defined goals. It reflects the organization's practice that can lead the organization to its goals. (Whittington, 2004; Roger L. Martin, 2013).OP research variable is a variable that is applied from the concept of leadership in practice, leading to research hypotheses 2.
hypothesis2: the model of organization practice was structurally correct.
2.3 Organization Efficiency (OE)
In the organization performance that is planned and targeted, it must be surveyed against the planned goals, that is the measure of efficiency comparing the performance with the defined goals. M.G. Leontev, et.al., (2018) researches to validate the effectiveness of each Ukrainian higher education institution to be used to set standards for further development. The area of
study focuses on 14 Ukrainian medical universities, an analysis of the effectiveness of the Ukrainian education system with EU members. A comparison with developed countries shows that Bulgaria Turkey and Ukraine are the most prosperous countries. They use resources as efficiently as possible with the number of students enrolled, as a result, indicate that next-generation Ukraine has become the most powerful country and there is also Bulgaria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom respectively.
Kantabutra, S. And J.C. Tang, (2010) research study on the topic the efficiency analysis of public university in Thailand, a study of the effectiveness of public universities in Thailand in terms of efficiency using a non-parameterized method. There are two performance models:
teaching efficiency and efficiency model. The results showed that autonomous universities outperformed public universities in terms of research efficiency. In addition, provincial universities and faculties in the health sciences were effective in teaching. There is also a suggestion for university administrators to improve the efficiency of public universities in Thailand.
Samia AM Abdalmenem, et., Al. (2018) studied the performance efficiency of University Education between reality and expectations, the objective was to identify the effectiveness of university education from the perspective of professors and assistants in international universities and Palestine. Descriptive analysis methods were used and questionnaires were used as tools for data collection. The study population consisted of 375 teachers and assistants, used a randomized, stratified sample, and used the Social Sciences Statistical Program (SPSS). The study found that the weight value of the study efficiency was high at 82.33 and the study of performance from the perspective of professors and assistants in international universities, it is the average (4.20) for Palestinian universities. The effectiveness of the study from a professor's point of view (3.30), the researcher concluded the most important suggestion is the importance of senior management in developing standards that improve work efficiency.
Performance measurement of higher education institutions with a focus on the outcome is based on the EdPEx criterion Education Criteria for Performance Excellence:EdPEx) also known as the quality criteria for action excellence. This is a term coined by The Office of the National Education Commission (OHEC), all of the criteria are developed from the management quality development framework following the guidelines of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award: MBNQA, which was introduced Thailand Quality Award (TQA) model, so the performance benchmark of EdPex concept has the same background as other types of organizational performance measurement.
The concepts presented are consistent with the concept of using EdPExcan effectively lead the institution towards its operational goals with a focus on practical. This depends on the operational goals of each institution, even with different goals, they can be applied because it is a highly flexible performance evaluation system. The study of SommaiThiensomchai (2013), PatcharapornMasuwat, al., et. (2016), PitchaphaThongdeeying (2018) found that organizational efficiency has a relationship with the organization's sustainability,leading to research hypotheses 3.
hypothesis3: the organizational efficiency measurement model was structurally correct.
2.4 OrganizationalSustainability (OS)
Organizational sustainability has therefore become a necessity and essential from many corporate annual reports, state that it is imperative for an organization to have sustainability or to adopt a sustainable business practice and sustainability as a necessity not a bargain by tertiary education organizations in Higher Education Institute (HEI) is an organization whose
operations are as complex as business or private organizations or they may be more complex.
To creating a Sustainable University Network, the main goal of sustainable development aims to create an equilibrium of fundamental elements in 3 important dimensions; economic dimension, social dimensions, and environmental dimensions, with the expectation of equality efficiency of resource management (efficiency) and better quality of life. Sustainable development in the current era not only creating an equilibrium of 3 dimensional in a way that was just an abstraction but depending on the role goals and forms of the organization. In addition, it is also a large organization with diverse operationsthat affect many stakeholders, where the university's operations have the potential to impact the environment and society, but becoming a university's sustainability organization must be due to a balance between economic, social, and environmental goals and organizational sustainability are the need for universities to take into account (Rodrigo Lozano et al. (2017) Kerry Shephard (2008) Rodrigo Lozano (2010) Barth, M., &Timm, JM (2011) Thomas S. Grindsted (2011) Masaru Yarime and Yuko Tanaka (2012) Waas, T., Hugé, et al., (2012) Jasmin Godemann et al., (2014) Rodrigo Lozano et al. (2017)).
Lozano (2008) referred to TBL as a unique component of organizations sustainability;
economic environmental and social issues are addressable through organizations, customers, suppliers, competitors, communities, and other stakeholders, accordingto Parrish (2010) state that organizations sustainable are formal legal entities that operate through earned income and can survive sustainably while contributing to the development of social and economic systems,while Kollmus and Agyeman (2002) present that to balance between economic growth needs with environmental protection and social equality needs to be profitable with a responsibility of promoting social and environmental justice.Kotler and Caslione (2009) show how this is not enough to be anorganization sustainable because to be sustainable, organizations need short-term, medium-term, and long-term planning, reputation, ethics, and corporate culture. In other words, organizations should develop short, medium, and long-term plans. The organization should have a positive image in the eyes of all stakeholders because stakeholders' confidence will be able to turn their vision into reality. Therefore, organization sustainability is an ethical and economic organization. There are appropriate plans in order to achieve the stated objectives through appropriate resource allocation.
ElitaAmrina, AnnikeLutfiaVilsi (2015) studies the cement industry that facing sustainable production challenges in cement products and processes. It is an industry that uses highly natural raw materials and is also a source of many pollutants. Therefore, the assessment of sustainable production in this industry is essential. This paper offers Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to assess sustainable production believed to be suitable for the cement industry, a study results proposed KPIs to help the cement industry achieve higher performance in sustainable production and to increase competitivenessadvantage. In
conclusion, sustainability has become the goal of the long-term operation of many organizations, both public and private that wants the organization to be more than profitable and survive in the short term. Therefore, causing the question of this study as;If you want to develop the organization to become anorganization sustainable,what do organizations need to do? as it turns out, being anorganization sustainable can be measured by the economy, society, and environment. (Tate et al. (2010) ThérésaLebacq et al., (2003) Karun Kumar (2013)
What action does the organization need to take in order to lead them? The researcher found information from the literature review that higher education institutions can become anorganization sustainable;it is necessary to have good work efficiency before it can continue to be sustainable. Therefore, bringing efficiency to the organization is a variable in this research. In a presentation by John Elkington (1994) the organizational sustainable triple
bottom Line (TBL) is presented, that is, the determinants of organizational sustainabilityare comprised of 3 factors: social, economic, and environmental. Thus, leading to research framework, leading to research hypotheses 4.
hypothesis4: the model of organization sustainability was structurally correct.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The population was The Northeastern Rajabhat University group of 11 universities, samples used in the research was collected from university personnel both academic staff with regular teaching schedule and support staff.
Quantitative research data collected by using questionnaires. This starts with defining the objectives of the questionnaire following the content and objectives of the research and the issues to be studied. Define the content or main point to be asked to cover the objective to be assessed. Therefore, Likert (1932) 7- scale questionnaire measure was used to check the content validity of the questionnaire by 5 experts. The result of the IOC analysis was 0.80 which was considered consistent with the questions. Reliability was obtained from 30 sets of tests performed at The Northeastern Rajabhat University. All variables had Cronbach's Alpha values higher than 0.7 for all, with values between 0.951 - 0.989.
4. DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Basic data
A total of 380 questionnaires were collected in this research, 17 of which observed variables, so at least 340 questionnaires should be collected (Hair et al., 2010).
The results of the data analysis of 380 respondents were analyzed by analyzing the number and percentage in terms of gender, age, education, job position, age, salary, and position level. The number of respondents was 242 female (63.7%) followed by 138 males (36.3%).
The oldest respondents were between 36-40 years of age, with 100 persons (26.3%). There are 2 groups age between 26-30 years old and 41-45 years old, 65 persons (17.1%) and aged between 31-35 years old, 54 persons (14.2%), aged between 51-55 years, 37 persons (9.7%).
The number of respondents was between 46-50 years old, 31 persons (8.2%),The youngest respondents were 2 groups, aged 20-25 years old and 56-60 years old, 14 persons (3.7%).
Most of the education levels were 214 with a master's degree (56.3%), followed by a doctorate degree of 98 persons (25.8%) and a bachelor's degree of 65 persons (17.1%). The lowest number of bachelor's degrees was 3 persons (0.8%). The number of people working in academia (with lecture hours): 269 persons (70.8%) while the respondents working in the supporting were 111 persons(29.2%) and 114 persons working-aged between 6-10 years (30%),16-20 years of employment, 53 persons (13.9%) with 1-5 years and 21-25 years of employment, the same number 26 persons (6.8%), the number of workers aged 26-30, 20 persons(5.3%) and those aged less than 1 year were the least number of people, 9 persons (2.4%). Most respondents at the operational level of 259 persons (68.2%) and the number of people in the management level of 121 persons (31.8%).
4.2 Autocorrelation test
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square St. Error of the Estimate
Durbin- Watson
1 .949a .901 .879 .06712 1.926
a. Predictors: (Constant), OL, OP, OE, OS
Table1Autocorrelation test
Investigation of the predictor correlation problem (Autocorrelation) an independent examination of the ei and ej or cov (ei, ej) = 0, expected values using the Durbin Watson test statistics showed an approaching value of 2 (1.926) indicating that ei and ej were Independent 4.4.3 Homoscedasticity test
Figure1:Homoscedasticity test
Scatter plot between regression standard residual and regression standard predicted value from the scatter plot of the regression standard residual and the regression standard predicted value, it is a test of agreement that ifei has a mean of 0, it is distributed above and below the 0 line, there is no problem in Homoscedasticity.
4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA 4.3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: OL
The results of analyzing factors of OL consisted of 3 latent variables and 15 observe variables,as figure 2.
Figure 2:The relationship model of OL
The analysis of CMIN / df = 5.613, P = 0.000, GFI = 0.847, AGFI = 0.788, CFI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.110 showed that OL measurement model is inconsistent with the empirical data.
The model was then adjusted by combining variables with a correlation greater than 0.90 and eliminating the highly correlated observables that appeared in the tests and encountered problems multicollinearity. This leads to OL model in figure 3.
Figure 3:First order of the confirmation factor analysis of OL
The results of the first order of confirmation factors analysis (CFA) showed that the OL variable was structurally correct, determined from the statistical values used to verify the validity, namely CMIN / df = 2.322, P = 0.054, GFI = 0.990, AGFI = 0.962., CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.059, RMR = 0.016, with the CMIN / df test results not significantly different from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI approach 1, the RMSEA index approached 0.When considering all 5 observables of the latent variable, OL found that the component weight coefficient of all variables was statistically significant at the scale of 0.01, the variable with the highest priority was (OL3.1), the institution gave decision-making power according to the position (0.92), followed by (OL3.2) personnel (0.91), (OL3.5) the institute has decentralized power for each department to manage its own unit (0.88), where (OL1.3) the institute has expertise in the personnel management system, (OL1.5) the institute has personnel who have their own operational expertise. There was a low element weight value (0.91) for all observable coefficients measured with R2, indicating the covariance of the observable variable and latent variable at a high-level R2(0.82 - 0.92)
So, it can be concluded that all 5 indicators or observe variables are important elements in measuring OL, all of them had positive weight values and had a very positive correlation.
Show that each OL measurement component influences the latent variable. Therefore, the second-order of confirmation elements was analyzed. The test results in figure 4were used.
Figure 4:Second order of the confirmation factor analysis of OL
The results of the second-order confirmation factor analysis revealed that the OL variable was structurally correct based on the statistics used to verify the validity of the variable, namely CMIN / df = 2.322, P = 0.054, GFI = 0.990, AGFI = 0.962., CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.059, RMR = 0.016, with the CMIN / df test results not statistically significant difference
from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI approach 1, the RMSEA index approached 0, when considering all observables of the latent variable, OL found that the component weight coefficient of all variables was statistically significant at 0.01. The variable with the highest priority was (OL1) organization leadership in internal personnel dimension (0.95) followed by (OL3) organization leadership ininstitutional dimension, (0.93). The value measured from R2 shows the covariance of the observable variable and latent variable at a high-levelR2 (0.87 - 0.90).
So, it can be concluded that all 5 indicators or observe variables are important elements in measuring OL. All of them had positive weight values and had a very positive correlation, show that each OL measurement component influences the latent variable.
4.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: OP
Figure 5:The relationship model of OP
The analysis of CMIN / df = 6.593, P = 0.000, GFI = 0.781, AGFI = 0.719, CFI = 0.928, RMSEA = 0.121 showed that OP measurement model was inconsistent with the empirical data. The model was adjusted by combining variables with a correlation higher than 0.90 and eliminating the highly correlated observed variables that appeared in the tests and encountered problems multicollinearity. This leads to OP model in figure 6.
Figure 6:First order of the confirmation factor analysis of OP
The results of the first order of the confirmation factors analysis revealed that OPlatent variables were structurally correct based on the statistics used to verify the validity of the variables, namely CMIN / df = 2.639, P = 0.007, GFI = 0.981, AGFI = 0.951, CFI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.066, RMR = 0.025, with the CMIN / df test results not significantly, different from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI approaching 1, the RMSEA index approached 0 when considering all 6 observables of the latent variable. Statistically significant at the scale of 0.01, the variable with the highest priority was (OP4.1), the institution had personnel who performed honestly and professionally and (OP4.2) the institution was responsible for a defined role (0.97) followed by (OP4.3) institutions have methods to improve their operations, and (OP5.2) the Institute promotes team development and future leadership development (0.96), (OP5.1) the institute focuses on the key factors in the direction and achievement of the agency (0.94) and (OP4) the institute opened a constructive suggestion (0.87), respectively, for the coefficient of precision of all observe variables, measured from R2, showing the covariance of the observe and latent variables in the High level (R2is between 0.75-0.94)
In concluded that all 6 indicators or observe variables are important components of the measure of OP, with all of them having a positive weight and having a large positive correlation. The results showed that each OP measurement component influenced the latent variable, therefore the second confirmation factor was analyzed. The results of the test in figure 7.
Figure 7:Second order of the confirmation factor analysis of OP
The results of the second-order of confirmation factors analysis revealed that OP latent variables were structurally correct based on the statistics used to verify the validity of the variables, namely CMIN / df = 2.639, P = 0.007, GFI = 0.981, AGFI = 0.951, CFI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.066, RMR = 0.025, with the CMIN / df, test results not significantly different from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI near 1, the RMSEA index approached 0 when considering all 6 observe variables. The variable was statistically significant at 0.01, with the variable with the highest priority being (OP5) high-level practice (0.90), followed by (OP4)fundamental practice (0.84). The precision performance of all observes variables measured from R2, demonstrated the covariance of observing variables with high latent variables (OP5)high-level practice,and (OP4) fundamental practice.It also has a high degree of covariance (R2 greater than 0.80).
In conclusion that the 6 observe variables and the 2 latent variables were important components of the measure of OP, all of them positively weighted and having a large positive correlation. Show that each OP measurement component influences the latent variable.
4.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis:OE
Figure 8:The relationship model of OE
The analysis of CMIN / df = 7.706, P = 0.000, GFI = 0.617, AGFI = 0.552, CFI = 0.858, RMSEA = 0.133 showed that OEmeasurement model was inconsistent with the empirical data. The model was adjusted by combining variables with a correlation higher than 0.90 and eliminating the highly correlated observed variables that appeared in the tests and encountered problems multicollinearity. This leads to OE model in figure 9.
Figure 9:First order of the confirmation factor analysis of OE
The results of the first order of confirmation factors analysis showed that the OEvariable was structurally correct based on the statistics used to verify the validity, CMIN / df = 1.603, P = 0.055, GFI = 0.982, AGFI = 0.962., CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.040, RMR = 0.020 with the CMIN / df test results not statistically significant difference from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI approaching 1, the RMSEA index approached 0.When considering all 8 observe variable, the component weight coefficient of all variables was statistically significant at 0.01, the variable with the highest priority was (OE14.4) the institution summarized the results of regulatory responsibility, was reported and published (0.98), followed by (OE11.3) a systematic and concrete management of knowledge can be applied and (OE14.3) the institution has summarized the human resource development outcomes compared with the personnel development plan and evaluating the results obtained from investment(0.97), (OE9.1) Institutional processes establish a clear strategy and (OE11.4) the institution uses knowledge and resources to provide learning that is deeply in the trajectory (0.96), (OE9.5) the institution has a system for measuring action plans (0.93), (OE8.5) transparency and verifiable (0.90), (OE14.5) institutions produce corporate social responsibility and community support reports and present their reports to the public (0.88) respectively, co-variance of the observed variables measured with R2, indicating the high covariance of the observe variables and the latent variables (R2between 0.78 -0.95).
In concluding all 8 observe variables are important components of OE measurement, with all of them having a positive weight value and having a very positive correlation. Show that each OE measurement component influences the latent variable. Therefore, the second-order of confirmation factors analysis was analyzed. The test results in figure 10
Figure 10:Second order of the confirmation factor analysis of OE
The results of the second-order of confirmation factors analysis revealed that the OEwas structurally correct, determined from the statistical values used to verify the validity of the variable, namely CMIN / df = 1.603, P = 0.055, GFI = 0.982, AGFI = 0.962., CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.040, RMR = 0.020 with the CMIN / df test results not statistically significant difference from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI approaching 1, the RMSEA index approaches 0, when all observed variables are taken into account. OE variable found that the component weight coefficient of all variables was statistically significant at 0.01, with the highest weighted variable (OE11) knowledge analysis and management (0.94), followed by (OE8) organization efficiency in leading, and (OE9) organizational efficiencyin strategic (0.92), (OE14) organizational efficiency in operational results (0.74). The precision coefficient of all observes variables measured from R2 shows that the covariance of the observed variables and the latent variables is at a high level (R2between 0.74 -0.94).
It can be concluded that all 8 observable variables are important components of OE measurement, with all of them having a positive weight value and having a very positive correlation. Show that each OE measurement component influences the latent variable.
4.3.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: OS
Figure 11:The relationship model of OS
The analysis of CMIN / df = 10.684, P = 0.000, GFI = 0.753, AGFI = 0.659, CFI = 0.914, RMSEA = 0.160 showed that OS measurement model is inconsistent with the empirical data.
The model was adjusted by combining variables with a correlation higher than 0.90 and eliminating the highly correlated observed variables that appeared in the tests and encountered problems multicollinearity. This leads to OSmodel in figure 12.
Figure 12:First order of the confirmation factor analysis of OS
The results of the first order of the confirmation factors analysis revealed that OS latent variable was structurally correct, based on the statistics used to verify the validity, namely CMIN / df = 1.955, P = 0.048, GFI = 0.986, AGFI. = 0.964, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0. RMR
= 0.027 with the CMIN / df test results not significantly different from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of the GFI index and CFI approaching 1, the RMSEA index approached 0.When considering all 6 observe variable, OSfound that the component weight coefficient of all variables was statistically significant at 0.01, the variable with the highest priority was (OS15.3) the institute established internal connections by punctual payroll, benefits to those involved (0.98), followed by (OS15.4) t he institution creates risk management plans and risk assessments plan (0.97), ( OS16.5) the institution has a good relationship with taking advantage (0.95), ( OS15.2) the institution has paid various fees to the government in accordance with regulations (0.91), ( OS16.3) the institution places great emphasis on its personnel by creating a career advancement plan and internal recruitment (0.90), ( OS16.4) for all observe variables measured with R2, the covariance of the observed variables and the latent variables was at a high level (R2 between 0.72. -0.95)
In conclusion that 6observe variables are critical components in measuring OS, all of them had positive weight values and had a very positive correlation. Show that each OS measurement component influences the latent variable. Therefore,the second order was analyzed. The test results in figure 13 were used.
Figure 13:Second order of the confirmation factor analysis ofOS
The results of the second-order of the confirmation factor analysis revealed that the OS was structurally correct based on the statistics used to verify the validity, namely CMIN / df = 1.955, P = 0.048, GFI = 0.986, AGFI. = 0.964, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.050, RMR = 0.027,
with the CMIN / df test results not significantly different from 0. Therefore, accepted the hypothesis that the measuring model is structurally correct consistent with the analysis of GFI and CFI approaching 1, RMSEA index approaches 0 when all observed variables are taken into account. OS latent variable of the organization found that the component weight coefficient of all variables was statistically significant at 0.01, with the variable with the highest priority weight (OS15) the organization sustainability in economic (0.95), followed by It is (OS16)organization sustainability insocial (0.94), for all observable coefficients measured from R2, indicating the covariance of the observable variable with the latent variable at a large (R2 = 0.89)
5. Finding
Summarizing data from a total of 380 respondents, it was found that the number of respondents was 242 females, 63.7%, aged 36-40 years the most, 100 representing, 26.3%.
Most of the respondents were academic personnel. (With lecture hours): 269 people, 70.8%, the most active age is between 11-15 years, 132 people, 34.7%
Summary of the success factors of sustainable organizations, Northeastern Rajabhat University found that organizational sustainability consists of OL, OP, OE. It was found that the indicators of the factors found were as follows.
Organization Leadership (OL) consists of 2 indicators; (OL1) Leadership Organization in internal personnel dimension (OL3) Leadership Organization in institutional dimension.OL was predicted by 2 factors: (OL1) organizations leadership in the internal personnel dimension have the ability to forecast 95% and (OL3) organizations leadership in the organization management dimension have the ability to forecast 93%. OL1 has 2 indicators which have the same predictable was 91% (OL1.3) the institute of expertise in the personnel management system and (OL1.5) the institution has personnel with their own operational expertise.OL3has 3 indicators with predictable as follows (OL3.1) institutional decision- making has the highest forecasting ability of OL at 96%, followed by (OL3.2) institutions for flexibility in personnel performance has 95% forecasting ability and the last (OL3.5) institution is decentralized to each department, has a predictive ability at 94%.
This leads to the adoption of hypothesis 1, the organizational leadership measure model is structural.
Organization Practices (OP) was predicted by 2 factors: (OP5) high-level practice able to forecast 90% and (OP4) fundamental operations able to forecast 84%. Where OP5consists of 2 indicators; (OP5.2) the institute promotes team development and leaders develop able to predict high-level practice at 96%, (OP5.1) the institution focuses on Important in setting the direction and achievement of the organization's goals able to forecast at 94%.
OP4 consists 4 indicators; (OP4.1) the institution employs honest and professional personnel and (OP4.2) the institution is responsible for its assigned roles able to predict 97%, followed by (OP4.3) the institution has continued to improve its operations able to predict 96% and the last (OP4.4) the institution is open to constructive recommendations able to forecast 87%.
Therefore, it led to the adoption of hypothesis 2, the model of organization practice was structurally correct.
Organization Efficiency (OE) was predicted by 3 factors ranked according to the analysis results: (OE11) organizational efficiency in measurement, analysis, and knowledge management able to forecast 94% of organizational efficiency, followed by (OE89) organizational efficiency in institutional and strategic leadership able to forecast 92% and the last (OE14) the organizational efficiency of operating results 74%. Where (OE11) OE in measurement, analysis, and knowledge management are complementary with indicators
(OE11.3) the institution has systematic and concrete knowledge management that can be utilized 97% predictability and (OE11.4) l earn deeply in the way of operation has 96%
forecasting ability.(OE89) OE in institutional and strategic leadership consists of indicators (OE9.1) Institutions have a clear strategy has 96% forecasting capacity, (OE9.5) institutions have a system for measuring action plans that are consistent with the same guidelines across the institution has 93% forecasting ability and (OE8.5) the institution operational transparency is operational and verifiable 90% forecasting ability.(OE14) organizational efficiency, performance results consists of indicators (OE14.4) The institution has summarized the results of governance responsibilities, is reported and published with 98%
forecasting capacity (OE14.3) summarize human resource development plan and evaluating results obtained from investment in human resource development with 97% forecasting capacity and (OE14.5) the Institute produces the CSR and community advocacy report and presents public report has 88% predictive as well as (OE8.5) Institutions are operational transparency and verifiable has 88% predictive ability.
Therefore, it led to the adoption of hypothesis 3, the organizational efficiency variable measurement model was structurally correct.
Organization Sustainable (OS) was predicted by 2 factors ranked according to the analysis results as follows (OS15) organization sustainability in economic able to forecast the sustainability of the organization 95% and (OS16) organization sustainability in social able to forecast organization sustainability94%.Where (OS15) organization sustainability in economic consists of the following indicators (OS15.3) Theinstitute build internal trust by paying salaries, benefits to relevant persons on time, has 98% forecasting ability, (OS15.4)the institute prepares a risk management plan and risk assessment for use in the improvement plan, predictive ability 97% and (OS15.2) the institution has paid various fees to the government in accordance with the regulations has a predictive ability of 91%.(OS16) Organization Sustainability in societyconsists of the following indicators (OS16.5) institutions have good relationships with stakeholders without taking advantage of them. Has a predictive ability of 95%, (OS16.3) the institute pays attention to its people by creating a career succession plan and internal recruiting has 90% forecasting ability, and (OS16.4) the institute has a clear guideline for community development in the strategic plan, the predictive ability of 85%.
This leads to the adoption of hypothesis 4, the model of organization sustainability was structurally correct.
6. Discussion
The results of the success factors of OL towards the sustainability of the Northeastern Rajabhat University. The respondents viewed that the success factors of OL consisted of internal organizations leadership and institutional leadership organizations which have indicators sorted by the ability to predict descending variables as follows:
1) The institution gives the authority to make decisions according to the job position.
2) Institutions to be flexible in personnel performance.
3) Institutions have decentralized power for each department to be able to manage their own units.
4) The institute has expertise in the personnel management system.
5) Personnel with their own operational expertise.
Success Factors of OP towards university sustainability Northeastern Rajabhat Group. The respondentspointed that the success factor in the approach OP that affects the sustainability of
the university include: advanced and fundamental practice with indicators categorized by the ability to predict variables descending as follows
1) The Institute focuses on the key factors in shaping the direction and achievement of the organization's goals.
2) The institution is open to constructive suggestions.
3) The institute has personnel who act with honesty and professionalism, and the institute hasto take responsibility for the roles that are defined.
4) The institution promotes team development and leadership development, and the institution has ways to improve the continuous operation
5) Institutions focus on key factors to setting direction and achieving goals.
6) The institution is open to constructive suggestions.
Organizational Efficiency Success Factors (OE) towards university sustainability
Northeastern Rajabhat Group.The respondents opined that OE success factors affecting OS consisted of; organization efficiency in measurement, analysis, and knowledge management competence to predict OE,Organizational efficiency in the leadingand strategic aspects able to forecast OE, Organizational efficiency in terms of operational results which has indicators sorted by the ability to predict descending variables as follows:
1) The institution has summarized the results of governance obligations, made a report, and published
2) The institution has summarized the results of human resource development compared with the human resource development plan and evaluated the results obtained from the investment in human resource development. The institution has systematic knowledge management and concrete can be used for further benefits
3) The institution has a clear strategic process, use their knowledge and resources to provide learning that is deeply in practice.
4) The institution has a system for measuring action plans that are consistent with the same guidelines throughout the institution.
5) The institution has operational transparency and accountability.
6) Institutions have a report on corporate social responsibility and community support and เ present a public report. The institution has operational transparency and accountability Organizational Sustainability Factors (OS) of Northeastern Rajabhat Universities, respondents were of the opinion that the sustainability success factors of the organization were as follows; corporate sustainability in the economic and social dimension, which has sorted by forecasting abilityto descend variables as follows:
1) The institution build internal trust by paying salaries and benefits for those involvedin punctual
2) The institution creates a risk management plan and risk assessment for use in theimprovement plan
3) The institution has good relationships with stakeholders without any exploitation.
4) The institution has paid fees to the government in accordance with the regulations
5) The institution gives priority to its people by creating a career development plan and internal recruiting.
6) The institute has a clear guideline for community development defined in the strategic plan.
7. SUGGESTIONS
From the results of the research, the researcher gave suggestions for its use and further research suggestions as follows:
1) Suggestions based on research results, the respondents suggested that personnel were a factor that important to the operation of the university. The university should focus on the efficiency of the human resource management system. Therefore, able to develop the organization towards sustainability.
2) Recommendations for use according to the research results, it was found that the variables used in the research were the success factors of the sustainable organization. It is further developed for use in the university's operational procedures and will result in the university being able to develop itself to become a sustainable organization according to the strategic plan.
3) Suggestions for the next research
3.1) This research is to test the success factors of organizations that are sustainable within the context ofThe Northeastern Rajabhat University, samples were of only 11 institutions and only 380 respondents. For the accuracy of statistical analysis, larger samples were used, there will be more respondents to see the statistics analyzed from different sample groups. Including the success factor model to be analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling which will be useful for practical application to be able to set the priorities for applying success factors in practice appropriately.
3.2) This study was quantitative research, only a questionnaire was used andanalyzed with a statistical program only. The researchers recommend adding a mixed research method (Mix Method Research) by collecting both qualitative and quantitative data.
3.3) Bringresearch tools to be used for other groups of higher education institutes.These research tools can be used to collect data in different areas and the results can be used for comparative studies to make it clearer,to prove the success factor in another corporate environment.
3.4) Organizational development towards sustainability can also be studied in other areas. For example, a study in other the dimension of bringing other factors when there is a change in operational environment functional weighting was changed in especially the Rajabhat University group, which is an organization responsible for community development in various fields. Roles and duties in providing academic service to the community have increased. There are many ideas, theories, and principles of community development that can be studied. Including researching with research goals that lead to more action in practices. These can be studied and developed into study factors and correlated with the overall organizational goal of organization sustainability.
REFERENCE
1. Avery, G. C. (2005). Understanding Leadership. London: Sage Publications.
2. Barth, M., &Timm, J. M. (2011). Integrating Social Responsibility into Business SchoolUndergraduate Education: A Student Perspective. American Journal of Business Education, 6(3), 385-396.
3. Carroll, B., Levy, L., & Richmond, D. (2008). Leadership as Practice: Challenging theCompetency Paradigm. Leadership Journal, 4(4), 363- 379.doi:10.1177/1742715008095186
4. Caslione, J. A., & Kotler, P. (2009). How marketers can respond to recession and turbulence. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 8(2), 187-191.
5. Elita, A., &Annike, L. V. (2015). Key Performance Indicators for Sustainable ManufacturingEvaluation in Cement Industry. Procedia CIRP, 26, 19-23.
6. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies forSustainable Development. California Management Review, 36, 90-100.
7. Gibson Parrish, R. (2010). Measuring Population Health Outcomes. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(4), A71.
8. Grindsted, T. S. (2011). Sustainable universities from declarations on sustainability in higher education to national law. Environmental Economics, 2(2), 29-36.
9. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Huge, J., Waas, T., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N., & Block, T. (2012). A discourse- Analyticalperspective on sustainability assessment: interpreting sustainable development inpractice. Sustain Sci, 8, 187–198. doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0184-2.
11. Jaichanok Pak-at. (2014). Knowledge Management In terms of educational quality assurance of institutions. National Institute of Development Administration. Bangkok:
National Institute of Development Administration.
12. Jasmin, G., Bebbington, J., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2014). Higher Education and SustainableDevelopment Exploring Possibilities for Organisational Change. Accounting Auditing &Accountability Journal, 27(2), 218 - 233. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1553.
13. Kantabutra, S. (2012). Putting Rhineland principles into practice in Thailand:
sustainable leadership at bathroom design company. Global Business and OrganizationalExcellence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
14. Kantabutra, S., & Tang, J. C. S. (2010). Efficiency Analysis of Public Universities in Thailand.Tertiary Education and Management, 16(1), 15-33.
doi:10.1080/13583881003629798.
15. Kerry, S. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87-98.
16. Kollmuss, A., &Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research,8(3), 239-260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
17. Kumar, K. (2013). Sustainability performance measurement: An investigation into corporate Bestpractices. Doctor’s dissertation. National Institute of Development Administration,Bangkok.
18. Leontev, M. G., Bondarenko, N. G., Shebzuhova, T. A., Butko, S. S., &Egorova, L. I.
(2018).Improving the Efficiency of University Management: Teacher’s Performance Monitoringas a Tool to Promote the Quality of Education. European Research Studies Journal,21(2), 527-540. doi: 10.35808/ersj/1020.
19. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140),55.
20. Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning Sustainability Three-Dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838-1846.
21. Masaru, Y., & Yuko, T. (2012). The Issues and Methodologies in Sustainability AssessmentTools for Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Recent Trends and FutureChallenges. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(1), 63-77.
22. NoppakhunChutan and DhumrongChaipanya. (2019). Strategy for Academic Leadership of KamphaengPhetRajabhat University 2018-2022. Humanities Journal and Social Sciences (NSTDA), 25(2), 35-48.
23. PatcharapornMasuwat, ChorphetBao- Ngoen, and SuraphonNoisang. (2016). The Causal RelationshipFactors Model on the effectiveness of dream schools Office of the Basic Education Commission. Research and Development Journal Valayalongkorn under the Royal Patronage of His Majesty the King, 11(1), 221-230.
24. PitchapaThongdiying. (2018). A Study of Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Direct Selling Network Business in Thailand. Doctor of Philosophy Management major. Siam
University, Bangkok. Retrieved 3 April
2019.http://research.msu.ac.th/msu_journal/upload/articles/article1926_85599.pdf 25. Richard, W. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. Organization
Studies,27(5), 613-634. doi:10.1177/0170840606064101.
26. Rodrigo, L. (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empiricalexample from Cardiff University. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 637- 644.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.005
27. Rodrigo, L., Michelle, Y. M., Kaisu, S., Kim, C., & Francisco, J. L. (2017).
ConnectingCompetences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in HigherEducation: A Literature Review and Framework Proposal. Sustainability, 9(10), 1889.doi: 10.3390/su9101889
28. Roger, L. M. (2013). Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works. New York: Harvard Business Press.
29. Samia, A. M. A., Rasha, O. O., Amal, A. Al. H., Samy, S. A.-N., &Mazen, J. Al. S.
(2018). Performance Efficiency of University Education from Students Perspective.
Business &Information Systems Engineering, 2(11), 10-24
30. SommaiTiensomjai. (2013). Model of effective management of the district office Primary education. Doctorate of Philosophy Department of Educational Administration. Silpakorn University, Bangkok.
31. Syed, I. U. S., &Nazahah, A. R. (2019). Addressing the recent developments and potential gapsin the literature of corporate sustainability. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences andHumanities, 5(1), 27-40.
32. Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., &Kirchoff, J. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports: a thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 46(1),19-44.
33. Thérésa, L., Baret, P., &Stilmant, D. (2003). Sustainability indicators for livestock farming 2013,Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 33(2),311-327. doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x.
34. Whittington, R. (2004). Strategy after Modernism: Recovering Practice. European ManagementReview, 1(1), 62–68.
35. WiphawanOnprasert (2013). Strategic plans and organizational success. Songkhla:
University
36. Zaccaro, S. J., &Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass business &
management series.The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperativesconfronting today's leaders (pp. 3-41). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
