Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2016 | vol. 12, iss. 2 | 42--52
Tytuł artykułu

Do Generic Strategies Impact Performance in Higher Educational Institutions? : A SEM-Based Investigation

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
This study set out to initiate an investigation into the linkage between generic strategy and performance in higher educational institutions and the moderating effect of institution-type. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), it examined the responses of a stratified sample of academics and administrative staff (n= 333) randomly selected from eight universities in northern Cyprus. Findings suggest that while there is a weak effect of differentiation strategy on performance, a strong effect was recorded for focus strategy on performance. However, no significant relationship was found between cost leadership strategy and performance in higher educational institutions. Findings further indicated that respondents from public-private universities perceived the strongest generic strategy-performance effect for their institution, followed by those from the public sector. Respondents from private institutions perceived the weakest strategy-performance effect for their institutions.(original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • Girne American University, Cyprus (Northern)
  • Girne American University, Cyprus (Northern)
  • Abowitz K., 2008. On the public and civic purposes of education, Educational Theory, Vol.58(3), pp.357-376.
  • Balzer W., 2010. Lean higher education: Increasing the value and performance of university processes, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Brighouse H., McPherson M. (Eds.). 2015. The aims of higher education: Problems of morality and justice, University of Chicago Press.
  • Christensen C., Eyring H., 2011. The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out, John Wiley and Sons.
  • Dess G.G., Davis P.S., 1984. Porter's (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organisational performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.27(3), pp.467-88.
  • Dorweiler V.P., Yakhou M., 2005. Scorecard for academic administration performance on the campus, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.20(2), pp.138-44.
  • Hanover Research, 2014. Trends in higher education marketing, recruitment and technology, Hanover Research. Washington D.C.: Hanover Research.
  • Kaplan R.S. and Norton D.P., 1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Kim T., 2009. Strategic overview: Managing sustainable ICT in further and higher education. Accessed 04.01. 2017.
  • King A.M., 2010. A strategic assessment of the higher education industry: Applying the Porter's five forces for industry analysis, Strategic_Assessment_of_The_Higher_Education_Industry_Applying_the_Porter's_Five_Forces_for_Industry_Analysis. Accessed 04.01. 2017.
  • Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2012. How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning?, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol.15(4), pp.247-254.
  • Leebron D.W., 2014. A look at the competitiveness of higher education, Accessed 04.01. 2017.
  • Leland D., Moore J., 2007. Strategic: focusing, securing competitive advantage, Accessed 04.01. 2017.
  • Lynch R., Baines P., 2004. Strategy development in UK higher education: Towards resource-based competitive advantages, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol.26 (2), pp.171-187.
  • Mazzoral T.W., Soutar G.N., 1999. Sustainable competitive advantage for educational institutions: A suggested model, International Journal of Education Management, Vol.13(6), pp.287-300.
  • Mazzoral T. W., Soutar G.N., 2008. Strategy matters: Strategic positioning and performance in the education services sector, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol.13(1), pp.141-151.
  • Nellis J., 1999. Time to rethink privatization in transition economies?, IFC Discussion paper No.38, Washington, D.C., World Bank Group.
  • Nellis J., 2000. Privatization in transition economies: What next?, Working paper, Washington D.C., World Bank.
  • Pithers R., Soden R., 2000. Critical thinking in education: A review, Educational Research, Vol.42(3), pp.237-249.
  • Porter M., 1980. Competitive strategy, Old Tappan, N.J.: Macmillan.
  • Saunders M., Thornhill A., Lewis P., 2009. Research methods for business students, 5th ed. Pearson Education.
  • Shirley W., Mary W., Patrick W., 2000. Public vs. private ownership: The current state of the debate, Working paper, The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
  • Shleifer A., 1998. State versus private ownership, J. Econ. Persp., Vol.12, pp.133-150.
  • Venkatesh U., Dutta K., 2007. Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: an Indian perspective, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.21(1), pp.54-67.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.