1. Introduction
The higher education sector in South Korea is facing a significant challenge, particularly in colleges located outside of the Seoul metropolitan area (“non-Seoul colleges” hereafter). This is due to a number of changes in the environment of the higher educational market, including an overabundance of institutions and a sharp decline in the student population, resulting in many colleges having fewer enrolled students than their allotted quota since 2020 [1]. This has led to the closure of 16 local colleges, and more closures are expected in the near future. These shifts in the educational environment have increased competition for admission to many non-Seoul colleges and heightened the concentration of top faculty and students in the metropolitan area.
Given this, the competitiveness of colleges is gaining increased significance for their viability in the higher education marketplace. College competitiveness refers to the ability of a college to differentiate itself by attracting and nurturing top-talented students and outstanding faculty with sufficient finances and excellent educational conditions and systems compared to other colleges [2]. This ensures the sustainability of the institution in a competitive higher education market. In fact, non-Seoul colleges are facing challenges in attracting top-notch faculty and nurturing talented students, resulting in a disadvantage in the competition. Moreover, faculty members are pushing for substantial change, as effective human resource management plays a crucial role in establishing a college’s competitiveness over competing colleges and securing its sustainability [3].
From the perspective of human resource management within an organization, promoting entrepreneurial orientation among its members is regarded as one of the crucial factors in improving competitiveness and ensuring sustainable growth. Entrepreneurial orientation is defined as a tendency of firms facing an uncertain market environment or crisis to actively cope with it through innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking [4]. Given the uncertain and potentially dire circumstances facing non-Seoul colleges, it is crucial that faculty members embrace an entrepreneurial spirit because they are the backbone of the institution. The entrepreneurial orientation of college faculty encompasses innovativeness, defined as the ability to adapt and perform efficiently, generate creative concepts, and continuously seek to comprehend student requirements. It also includes proactiveness, described as a proactive approach in presenting novel educational offerings ahead of rival institutions, and risk-taking, characterized by a willingness to make bold decisions to pursue growth rather than stability in an uncertain environment by exploiting potential opportunities.
Entrepreneurial orientation is expected to have a positive effect on a college’s organizational performance. Organizational performance can be divided into cost efficiency, measured with an input–output ratio, and effectiveness, measured with psychological, economic, and managerial indicators [5]. It is noteworthy that prior research on organizational performance indicates that the entrepreneurial mindset of organizational members has an impact on the performance of the organization, such as contributing to its growth and improving its profitability [6]. However, measuring inputs and outputs in colleges is challenging; therefore, the evaluation of a college’s organizational performance mainly focuses on the organizational effectiveness of a college, which assesses the extent to which a college’s goals have been accomplished. Given the current imperative facing non-Seoul colleges of navigating the crisis and ensuring their competitiveness, it is deemed appropriate to assess faculty loyalty as a key dimension of organizational effectiveness. This will help to secure a college’s competitiveness and attain the primary objectives of its faculty [2]. Consequently, the concept of entrepreneurial orientation is believed to have a positive influence on the performance of colleges from an organizational standpoint. However, there exists a dearth of research on how entrepreneurial orientation affects organizational performance among college faculty members. Thus, the aim of the present study is to investigate the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance among faculty members at non-Seoul colleges in South Korea. More specifically, the present study aims to address this gap by examining the following areas: (1) the connection between the innovativeness in entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance, (2) the relationship between the proactive aspect of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance, and (3) how the tendency to take risks affects organizational performance among college faculty members.
Lastly, this study highlights the importance of investigating the relationship between a college faculty’s entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance, particularly in the current environment of the competitive higher education market that is experiencing a declining school-age population. This study proposes research hypotheses based on theoretical background and verifies them. The results from the data collected from faculty members in non-Seoul areas are presented along with the implications for enhancing organizational performance based on these findings.
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Entrepreneurial Orientation
The concept of entrepreneurial orientation was initially explored in the context of businesses that exhibit proactive and risk-taking behavior when pursuing new opportunities. It refers to a firm’s tendency to be innovative, proactive, and take risks in response to market opportunities or challenges [4]. In today’s competitive business environment, companies are constantly seeking ways to meet the ever-changing demands of consumers. As a result, innovative and proactive entrepreneurs have become interested in the concept of entrepreneurial orientation, which involves creating new markets through technological innovation [7]. Entrepreneurial orientation is found to positively impact both technology-driven and market-driven innovations [8].
Entrepreneurial orientation is generally comprised of three key elements: innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking [9]. Innovativeness refers to a disposition towards embracing flexibility and efficiency, valuing original ideas, and continuously striving to fulfill the needs of consumers. Proactiveness involves taking the initiative to stay ahead of the competition by introducing new services and technologies and actively responding to the actions of competitors. Innovativeness pertains to a company’s internal environment, while proactiveness is a response to changes in the external environment. Risk-taking involves making decisions despite market uncertainties and pursuing growth over stability by investing resources in new markets and bold, high-return business ventures.
In South Korea, colleges are facing an unprecedented crisis due to a sharp decline in the school-age population [10]. According to a report by Seoul National University and the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, South Korea may lose up to half of its colleges within the next 25 years due to a severe demographic decline. The report, which provides a long-term outlook on the current state of higher education institutions, predicts that only 190 out of 385 current colleges will remain in the next 25 years. The report states that the competition for survival in non-metropolitan areas will be intense. In areas outside the capital city of Seoul, the situation is even more dire with only 44% of existing colleges expected to survive compared to over 80% in Seoul. Consequently, the non-Seoul colleges find it challenging to manage their schools under the current system and have, therefore, called for changes from their conservative and traditional faculty to adopt a more proactive and reformist approach.
Given the current challenging state of the higher education market in South Korea, this study argues that the faculty members’ entrepreneurial orientation in non-Seoul colleges is critical to their survival and sustained growth. The dimension of a college faculty’s entrepreneurial orientation includes innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Innovativeness refers to the faculty members’ flexible and efficient job performance, creative ideas, and ongoing efforts to understand the needs of students. Proactiveness involves the faculty members taking the initiative to stay ahead of competing colleges by introducing new educational services and gaining an advantage over other schools. Finally, risk-taking involves promoting projects that could bring high returns to the college, making bold decisions to explore potential opportunities in uncertain situations, and pursuing growth over stability for the college. By fostering entrepreneurial orientation among non-Seoul college faculty members, organizational performance can be improved.
2.2. Organizational Performance
College organizations can be understood as systems that consist of faculty and staff members who collaborate in order to attain the goals of the organization [11]. The primary decision-making authority within college organizations is held by the faculty who possess a blend of bureaucratic control and a professional orientation that emphasizes independence [2]. However, it is noted that the performance of college organizations is challenging to measure, and students, who act as the customers of these organizations, find it difficult to participate in their administrative functions [12].
The definition of organizational performance varies based on the unique characteristics of each organization, but it is typically considered to be a measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of the output generated in relation to the input of organizational resources. Organizational efficiency refers to the input–output ratio and represents how much goal-oriented activities are performed, while organizational effectiveness is a more comprehensive concept that encompasses psychological, economic, and managerial indicators [4]. Given the complex and multi-faceted nature of college organizations, it is imperative to develop a comprehensive concept of organizational effectiveness that specifies the goals of the organization and evaluates it through the necessary indicators.
The competitiveness of a college can be defined as its differentiated ability to educate and nurture talented individuals who can make positive contributions to society through the provision of quality educational opportunities, which are supported by sufficient financial resources and outstanding faculty [13,14,15]. This objective is achieved by delivering professional knowledge and fostering personal character development in students, thus enabling them to become desirable and professional members of society. College competitiveness is based on offering excellent education, producing talented individuals, and providing a high-quality, well-funded education with excellent faculty.
The role of faculty members in colleges has become increasingly important in enhancing institutional competitiveness amidst declining student enrollment and funding [6,16]. The objective of faculty members is to provide students with specialized knowledge, promote individual development, and help students become responsible and professional members of society. Assessing the level of commitment demonstrated by faculty members at each institution is a crucial aspect in enhancing institutional competitiveness because it provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of the organization [2]. Thus, this study defines the organizational performance of faculty members as their level of commitment to the college. This is operationalized through two aspects: organizational commitment and college competitiveness. Organizational commitment reflects the faculty members’ attitudes towards the college, such as their identification with and contribution to the institution, while college competitiveness refers to their belief in the superiority of their college over other competing institutions in terms of producing competent talents [2].
Consequently, this study presents a comprehensive understanding of organizational performance, which is a complex construct comprising two components: organizational commitment and college competitiveness. Organizational commitment is a psychological state that reflects a faculty member’s affective attachment to, identification with, and engagement in a college and the extent to which this involvement is sustained over time. It encompasses a sense of loyalty, dedication, and engagement in the college and is associated with various positive outcomes, including job satisfaction and performance. In contrast, college competitiveness refers to the degree to which a university can provide an environment that fosters the development of talented individuals. This encompasses various factors, such as the availability of resources that include finances and staff, and the quality of education and support systems provided by the university. Competitiveness is evaluated by comparing a college’s resources and performance with those of other competing colleges. The ultimate goal of college competitiveness is to produce graduates with the requisite skills and knowledge to succeed in the job market and contribute to society’s advancement.
2.3. Relationships between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Performance
Previous research on entrepreneurial orientation highlights the role of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking in overcoming business challenges and achieving successful outcomes, such as new product development or opening new markets in an uncertain environment [4,9]. It is demonstrated that a high level of entrepreneurial orientation has a direct and positive impact on a firm’s performance through the exploration of business opportunities, development of innovative technologies and products, and identification of attractive markets [7]. Moreover, entrepreneurial orientation is considered a key factor in determining organizational success, such as profitability, growth, and improvement [6]. Based on prior research, it is anticipated that entrepreneurial orientation with its ability to leverage organizational capabilities and embrace risk in uncertain circumstances will have a positive impact on the performance of non-Seoul colleges facing a crisis. However, there is a paucity of studies exploring the specific ways in which the subcomponents of entrepreneurial orientation, such as innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking tendency, influence organizational performance among college faculty. Building upon previous research, this study advances the following hypotheses and presents a research model (see Figure 1).
The innovativeness of college faculty members will have a positive impact on college competitiveness of non-Seoul colleges.
The proactiveness of college faculty members will have a positive impact on college competitiveness of non-Seoul colleges.
The risk-taking of college faculty members will have a positive impact on college competitiveness of non-Seoul colleges.
The innovativeness of college faculty members will have a positive impact on organizational commitment of non-Seoul colleges.
The proactiveness of college faculty members will have a positive impact on organizational commitment of non-Seoul colleges.
The risk-taking of college faculty members will have a positive impact on organizational commitment of non-Seoul colleges.
3. Methods
3.1. Data Collection Procedure and Data Analysis
This study employed an online survey methodology to collect data from faculty members at 25 colleges situated in the non-Seoul region of Korea between July and October 2022. The sample comprised 500 faculty members of whom 466 ultimately participated. To select the sample colleges, a total of 61 universities located in the non-Seoul area were initially identified and listed in alphabetical order. From this pool, 25 institutions were randomly selected, and the email addresses of the faculty members were subsequently obtained from each university’s website. Finally, a questionnaire containing an explanation of the study’s objectives, confidentiality, and voluntary participation was disseminated to the participants via email, and the responses were subsequently collected.
The representativeness of the sample was assessed by comparing it with the total number of universities and faculty members in the non-Seoul area of Korea based on data obtained from the Korea Educational Development Institute [17,18]. According to this source, there are currently 61 universities in the region, including both 2-year and 4-year institutions, with a total of 10,437 faculty members. In this study, data were collected from 466 faculty members at 25 of these universities. The sample was deemed representative of the faculty members in the colleges located in the non-Seoul area based on this analysis.
For the statistical analyses, we carried out descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) using SPSS version 23.0 and AMOS 23.0 software. CFA was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the measurement model by testing its fit, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability using the maximum likelihood estimation (ML) procedure. Multiple indices, such as chi-square, CFI (>0.90), NFI (>0.90), TLI (>0.90), RMSEA (<0.08), and SRMR (<0.08) [19], were employed to assess the model’s fit. Convergent validity was assessed through average variance extracted (AVE) values, while discriminant validity was tested by comparing AVE with the squared correlation. SEM was employed to test the research hypotheses using AMOS 23.0 software.
3.2. Participants
The sample size of this study was 466 participants with 416 (89.3%) identifying as male and 50 participants (10.7%) identifying as female. The age range was diverse with 47 participants (10.1%) in their 20s, 290 participants (62.2%) in their 30s, 85 participants (18.2%) in their 40s, and 44 participants (9.4%) being 50 years or older. Regarding faculty position, 139 participants (29.8%) were lecturers, 276 participants (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37 participants (7.9%) were associate professors, and 14 participants (3.0%) were full professors. The participants’ length of employment also varied with 78 participants (16.7%) having 5 years or less of employment, 249 participants (53.4%) having 6–10 years of employment, 64 participants (13.7%) having 11–15 years of employment, 67 participants (14.4%) having 16–20 years of employment, and 8 participants (1.7%) having over 20 years of employment (See Table 1).
3.3. Instruments
The survey utilized in the current study consisted of 24 items, which incorporated four demographic characteristics, gender, age, faculty position, and length of employment, adapted from previously validated studies. In particular, we adapted nine items to measure entrepreneurial orientation, comprising innovativeness (3 items, α = 0.81), proactiveness (3 items, α = 0.80), and risk-taking (3 items, α = 0.88), which were adapted from the works of Li et al. [20] and Lee [21]. To measure the proactiveness in entrepreneurial orientation, the study used survey items such as “I tend to take actions that outpace those of competing college members”. The innovativeness in entrepreneurial orientation was evaluated using survey items such as “I prefer to initiate projects rather than wait for someone else to do so”. To assess the risk-taking in entrepreneurial orientation, survey items were used such as “I am willing to take bold actions in risky situations”. Organizational performance was measured with ten items adapted from Suh and Lee [2], which consisted of organizational commitment (5 items, α = 0.86) and college competitiveness (5 items, α = 0.85). An example of a survey item used to assess faculty commitment to organizational performance is “I am willing to undertake tasks beyond my assigned duties to contribute to the development of my university”. Regarding college competitiveness of organizational performance, examples of survey items include “I believe that our university’s faculty has excellent teaching competitiveness” and “I believe our university has competitiveness for attracting excellent students”. Except for the demographic characteristics, the faculty members’ entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance were measured on a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The content validity was secured through a pilot test with a sample of ten faculty members to ensure that the language used accurately reflected the intended meaning of each variable. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability tests were performed on the collected data to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistical analyses showed the skewness (ranging from −1.85 to −1.10) and kurtosis (ranging from 1.06 to 1.96) values within the acceptable ranges [22]. This study found that the correlation between the variables was significant, ranging from 0.38 to 0.59 (p < 0.01). The mean scores for the variables ranged from 3.70 to 4.20 with standard deviations ranging from 0.52 to 0.86. Moreover, the tolerance (0.69) and variance inflation factor (1.44) values were examined to check multicollinearity and revealed that multicollinearity was not a concern [22]. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations (see Table 2).
4.2. Measurement Model Test
The measurement model evaluation results are reported in Table 3. The measurement model evaluates the reliability and validity of the indicators for the constructs used in the research model by examining their convergent and discriminant validity. The results indicate that the GIF for the measurement model was deemed acceptable with a GFI of 0.92, CFI of 0.95, TLI of 0.94, SRMR of 0.04, and RMSEA of 0.05. The calculation of composite reliability (CR) values (ranging from 0.84 to 0.91) and average variance extracted (AVE) values (ranging from 0.80 to 0.88) demonstrated good convergent validity [19]. Additionally, all AVE values were higher than the squared correlation of all pairs, ensuring discriminant validity [22] (see Table 3).
4.3. Structural Model Test
The results of structural equation modeling (SEM), which are shown in Table 3, revealed an adequate model fit to the data (χ2 = 377.59, df = 143, p = 0.001, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.05). The results of SEM showed that innovativeness had significant impacts on college competitiveness (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) and organizational commitment (β = 0.14, p < 0.05). Proactiveness also had significant effects on college competitiveness (β = 0.17, p < 0.001) but did not have significant effects on organizational commitment (β = 0.11, p > 0.05). Additionally, risk-taking had significant influences on college competitiveness (β = 0.34, p < 0.001) and organizational commitment (β = 0.45, p < 0.001). Thus, all the hypotheses in the current study were accepted except for hypothesis 5 (see Table 4).
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contribution
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance among faculty members at non-Seoul colleges in South Korea. By analyzing the data collected through surveys, this study aimed to provide insights and recommendations for non-Seoul colleges to implement effective human resource management strategies.
The results of this study indicate that the innovativeness in entrepreneurial orientation has a significant positive impact on college competitiveness as supported by previous studies [20,23,24]. Li et al. [20] found that entrepreneurial orientation has a positive impact on organizational competitiveness among Chinese workers because it leads to a more proactive, innovative, and risk-taking approach towards pursuing growth and new opportunities. In line with these findings, Ogunsola and Adewoye [23] discovered that individual-level entrepreneurial orientation can impact organizational competitiveness, and firms with high levels of entrepreneurial orientation at the organizational level tend to be more competitive.
In addition, Maritz et al. [25] found that the innovativeness in entrepreneurial orientation has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment and concluded that organizations that foster and support innovation and creativity among employees tend to have a more committed and dedicated workforce. Moreover, organizations with innovative workers are more likely to take risks and pursue growth opportunities, which can give them a competitive edge. On the other hand, organizations that do not prioritize proactiveness and innovation are at risk of falling behind as the market evolves and may struggle to maintain their competitiveness. In conclusion, these findings highlight the importance to colleges of promoting entrepreneurial orientation among their members to enhance entrepreneurship and competitiveness in the highly competitive higher education market.
The results also expand the understanding of organizational performance by confirming the positive impact of proactiveness in entrepreneurial orientation on college competitiveness. The findings of the current study are supported by Li et al. [24] who reported that proactiveness has a positive impact on organizational competitiveness and highlighted that firms with entrepreneurial orientation are more likely to improve their competitiveness in the marketplace. The findings of this study are also supported by Liao and Chang [26] who demonstrated that proactiveness in entrepreneurial orientation has a positive impact on organizational competitiveness. They further concluded that organizations that cultivate and promote entrepreneurial orientation among their employees are more likely to have a proactive and committed workforce, which enables them to effectively deal with a rapidly evolving market environment. In particular, entrepreneurial orientation, characterized by its innovative thinking and proactiveness, is a valuable asset for organizations. Fostering entrepreneurial orientation among employees creates a culture that values and encourages innovation, resulting in a more proactive and engaged workforce. Thus, the findings of these studies provide colleges with the rationale for promoting entrepreneurial orientation among their faculty members. By doing so, colleges can facilitate opportunities for professional development, innovation, and enhanced competitiveness and commitment. To achieve this, colleges can create an environment that encourages innovation and creativity among their faculty members by providing the necessary resources, support, and recognition for innovative ideas.
The findings of this study call into question previous research that established a positive relationship between proactiveness and organizational commitment. Previous studies [23,27] demonstrated a significant positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational commitment, suggesting that organizations characterized by a proactive approach tend to foster a more engaged and committed workforce. However, these findings may not extend to the specific context of college faculty members, and the impact of proactiveness on their organizational commitment remains uncertain. Moreover, in some organizations, the existing cultural norms may hinder the adoption of new ideas, thereby reducing the proactiveness and commitment of the faculty members [28]. It is possible that the college faculty members involved in this study felt that their organization had a culture that was not conducive to change, hindering their ability to introduce new ideas. That is, the college faculty members may have perceived their organizational culture as unresponsive to change, affecting their ability to propose new ideas and potentially lowering their proactiveness and commitment to the organization.
Lastly, the current study exhibits that risk-taking in entrepreneurial orientation has a significant positive effect on both college competitiveness and organizational commitment. Li et al. [24] found that risk-taking was a significant predictor of organizational competitiveness and commitment and highlighted that risk-taking behavior played a crucial role in fostering a proactive and innovative work environment that led to a more competitive and committed workforce. Liao and Chang’s study [26] also supports these findings by showing that risk-taking as a component of entrepreneurial orientation positively impacts organizational commitment. The authors conclude that organizations that encourage and foster a risk-taking attitude among their employees are more likely to have a proactive and dedicated workforce, leading to a more effective response to rapidly changing market environments. It is plausible that employees who are encouraged to take risks are likely to feel more empowered and trusted, which can increase their motivation and job satisfaction. This, in turn, can improve the overall performance and competitiveness of the organization. Additionally, allowing employees to take risks and make decisions can also help them to develop new skills and build their confidence, leading to more committed and dedicated workers. By fostering a sentiment that values and encourages risk-taking, organizations can create a more engaged and motivated workforce that is willing to go above and beyond to help the company succeed.
5.2. Practical Implications
The findings of the current study suggest practical implications for college managers in a competitive higher education market. College organizations that encourage and foster entrepreneurial orientation among their faculty are more likely to have a proactive, committed, and dedicated workforce because such an orientation promotes an environment that values and encourages innovation, creativity, and proactive behavior. College managers can provide their faculty members with training and development opportunities in areas such as innovation, creativity, and risk-taking, which can help employees build their skills and confidence in these areas.
College managers can also create a culture that values and rewards creativity and innovation through processes such as idea-generation sessions, open forums, and hackathons. Besides, encouraging employees to take risks and embrace challenges is key to promoting an entrepreneurial orientation. College managers can encourage a growth mindset by highlighting the benefits of taking risks and recognizing the achievements of faculty members who take risks. College managers can also provide resources and support for innovation, such as funding for research and development, access to technology, and the provision of a matching fund for an outside research fund that allows faculty members to pursue their innovative ideas.
6. Conclusions and Limitations
6.1. Conclusions
This study highlights the importance of promoting entrepreneurial orientation among college faculty members to enhance organizational performance in a competitive higher education market. The empirical evidence presented in this study demonstrates that innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking in entrepreneurial orientation have a positive association with college competitiveness and organizational commitment. The results suggest that colleges located outside of the Seoul metropolitan area in South Korea can benefit from supporting and encouraging faculty members’ entrepreneurial orientation and innovative efforts.
This study offers valuable insights into the role of faculty members’ entrepreneurial orientation in enhancing organizational performance in the higher education sector. This study’s findings offer implications for college administrators and policymakers seeking to improve the sustainability and success of their institutions in a competitive environment. Overall, this study contributes to the limited research on the effect of entrepreneurial orientation in college organizations in a competitive higher education setting and provides a foundation for future research in this area.
6.2. Limitations
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, the research was conducted in colleges located outside of the metropolitan area in South Korea, which may limit the generalizability of the study’s findings to other types of colleges or universities in different regions or countries. Future research should consider a wider range of regions and countries to enhance the external validity of the study’s findings. Second, the study did not explore the possible mediating factors, such as organizational culture, that could explain the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Therefore, future research should consider investigating the key mediating factors that link entrepreneurial orientation with improved organizational performance. Finally, it should be noted that the present study did not consider the size of the colleges. Previous research indicated that the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on organizational effectiveness may be dependent on contextual factors, such as location and organizational size [28,29]. Therefore, future studies should incorporate college size as a contextual variable when analyzing the relationship between faculty members’ entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance.
Conceptualization, S.-h.L.; methodology, S.-h.L., H.-c.K., J.-s.K. and W.-y.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-h.L.; writing—review and editing, S.-h.L., H.-c.K., J.-s.K. and W.-y.B.; supervision, W.-y.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to participants’ privacy.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Demographics of the Participants.
| Variables | Categories | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 416 (89.3) |
| Female | 50 (10.7) | |
| Age | Below 30 | 47 (10.1) |
| 30–39 | 290 (62.2) | |
| 40–49 | 85 (18.2) | |
| 50+ | 44 (9.4) | |
| Faculty position | Lecturer | 139 (29.8) |
| Assistant professor | 276 (59.2) | |
| Associate professor | 37 (7.9) | |
| Professor | 14 (3.0) | |
| Length of employment | 5 years or less | 78 (16.7) |
| 6–10 years | 249 (53.4) | |
| 11–15 years | 64 (13.7) | |
| 16–20 years | 67 (14.4) | |
| More than 20 years | 8 (1.7) |
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Variables.
| Factors | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Innovativeness | 3.97 | 0.66 | −1.85 | 1.43 | 1 | ||||
| 2. Proactiveness | 3.76 | 0.77 | −1.10 | 1.06 | 0.45 ** | 1 | |||
| 3. Risk-taking | 3.70 | 0.86 | −1.49 | 1.83 | 0.47 ** | 0.50 ** | 1 | ||
| 4. College competitiveness | 4.20 | 0.52 | −1.39 | 1.96 | 0.57 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.59 ** | 1 | |
| 5. Organizational commitment | 3.96 | 0.79 | −1.43 | 1.45 | 0.38 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.49 ** | 1 |
Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, ** p < 0.01.
Results of the Measurement Model Test.
| Variables. | Items | λ | CR | AVE | α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entrepreneurial Orientation | Innovativeness | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 0.81 |
| 0.77 | |||||
| 0.78 | |||||
| Proactiveness | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.65 | 0.80 | |
| 0.79 | |||||
| 0.86 | |||||
| Risk-taking | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.72 | 0.88 | |
| 0.87 | |||||
| 0.81 | |||||
| Organizational Performance | College competitiveness | 0.63 | 0.91 | 0.68 | 0.85 |
| 0.74 | |||||
| 0.70 | |||||
| 0.78 | |||||
| 0.86 | |||||
| Organizational commitment | 0.64 | 0.88 | 0.60 | 0.86 | |
| 0.82 | |||||
| 0.80 | |||||
| 0.87 | |||||
| 0.60 |
Note. χ2 = 368.25 (df = 142, p = 0.001), GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05. CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, α = Cronbach’s alpha.
Results of Hypothesis Testing.
| Path | β | S.E | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Innovativeness | → | College competitiveness | 0.40 | 0.04 | 0.001 |
| H2 | Proactiveness | → | College competitiveness | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.001 |
| H3 | Risk-taking | → | College competitiveness | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.001 |
| H4 | Innovativeness | → | Organizational commitment | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.017 |
| H5 | Proactiveness | → | Organizational commitment | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.056 |
| H6 | Risk-taking | → | Organizational commitment | 0.45 | 0.04 | 0.001 |
References
1. Ministry of Education. Education Information White Paper; Ministry of Education: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2020.
2. Suh, I.D.; Lee, S.H. A study on the effects of strategic human resource management of universities on organizational performances: Focused on the mediating effect of learning orientation. Korea Acad. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2009; 16, pp. 69-90.
3. Kim, S.R.; Oh, S.Y. A review of research on performance management of higher education institutions: Focus on research trends and case studies. Korea Assoc. Bus. Educ.; 2020; 35, pp. 307-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23839/kabe.2020.35.2.307]
4. Yang, L.; Aumeboonsuke, V. The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance: The multiple mediating roles of competitive strategy and knowledge creation process. Mob. Inf. Syst.; 2022; 2022, 2339845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2339845]
5. Cummings, T.G.; Worley, C.G. Organization Development and Change; 10th ed. Cengage Learning: Stamford, CT, USA, 2015.
6. Antonic, B.; Prodan, I. Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and firm performance: Testing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation; 2008; 28, pp. 257-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.005]
7. Zhou, J.; Shalley, C.E. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2003; 22, pp. 165-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22004-1]
8. White, M.A.; Bruton, G.D. The Management of Technology and Innovation: A Strategic Approach; Cengage Learning: Mason, OH, USA, 2010.
9. Rauch, A.; Wiklund, J.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Frese, M. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2009; 33, pp. 761-787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x]
10. Chung, A. South Korea Could Lose Half Its Universities within 25 Years. University World News. 2021; Available online: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20211208083749429 (accessed on 2 February 2023).
11. Kim, M.H.; Park, J.Y. Education Administration and School Management; Hyungseul: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2001.
12. Lee, J.E. Crisis and opportunities in higher education stimulated by edutech. Korea Bus. Rev.; 2020; 24, pp. 151-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17287/kbr.2020.24.0.151]
13. Lee, J.H. A study on the competitiveness of higher education in Korea. Korea J. Phenomenol. Hermeneut. Educ. Pract.; 2014; 11, pp. 109-134.
14. Lee, S.J. Higher education policy and strengthening university competitiveness centered on local private universities. Korea Assoc. Comput. Account.; 2013; 11, pp. 83-109.
15. Joo, K.I. A study on factors influencing on acceptance of university restructuring policy by Ministry of Education: Focusing on organization-public relationship theory. J. Korea Policy Stud.; 2019; 19, pp. 47-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46330/jkps.2019.09.19.3.47]
16. Yoo, K.H. IAD analysis of the government’s university restructuring policy: Focusing on basic university capacity assessment. J. Soc. Converg. Stud.; 2020; 4, pp. 193-200.
17. Korea Ecucational Development Institute. Number of Universites. 2022; Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1YL21181 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
18. Korea Educational Development Institute. Number of Unversity Factualy. 2022; Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1YL8901&conn_path=I2 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
19. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; 5th ed. Prentice-Hall International: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998.
20. Li, X.; Cheng, Y.; Lu, Y. The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on organizational competitiveness: Evidence from China. J. Bus. Res.; 2015; 68, pp. 405-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2339845]
21. Lee, J. A study on the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation on financial performance: Focusing on the mediating effect of organizational commitment. Korea Bus. Edu. Rev.; 2020; 35, pp. 255-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23839/kabe.2020.35.3.255]
22. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
23. Ogunsola, A.O.; Adewoye, O.J. Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational competitiveness: A study of small and medium enterprises in Nigeria. Int. J. Econ. Manag.; 2018; 6, pp. 1-18.
24. Li, X.; Li, Y.; Song, L. Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning and organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2018; 29, pp. 1053-1071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00359.x]
25. Maritz, A.; Eager, B.; De Klerk, S. Entrepreneurship and self-employment for mature-aged people. Aus. J. Career Dev.; 2021; 30, pp. 3-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1038416220978971]
26. Liao, J.H.; Chang, Y.H. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on organizational commitment. J. Bus. Res.; 2017; 75, pp. 99-108.
27. Pham, T.D.; Ngo, A.T.; Duong, N.T.; Pham, V.K. The influence of organizational culture on employees’ satisfaction and commitment in SMEs: A case study in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus.; 2021; 8, pp. 1031-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2021.VOL8.NO5.1031]
28. Widyanti, S.; Mahfudz, M. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation, use of information technology, and innovation capability on SMEs’ competitive advantage and performance: Evidence form Indonesia. Int. J. Bus.; 2020; 3, pp. 115-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14710/dijb.3.2.2020.115-122]
29. Kim, M.; Kim, H.; Kim, Y. The effect of entrepreneurship on learning orientation and organizational performance. Korean Rev. Corp. Manag.; 2022; 13, pp. 225-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20434/KRICM.2022.08.13.3.225]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Woo-yeul Baek 4
1 Field Practice Education Center, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea
2 Department of Architectural Safety Engineering, College of Creative Engineering, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea
3 College of General Education for Truth, Sincerity, and Love, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea
4 Department of Sport Science, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea