Business-oriented university governance and perceived institutional performance in Vietnamese private higher education: A PLS-SEM study
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(3).2026.28
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #3, pp. 439–450
- 9 Views
-
3 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Private higher education in Vietnam is under pressure to combine academic quality, market responsiveness, financial sustainability, and social accountability. This study examines how business-oriented university governance is associated with perceived institutional performance in Vietnamese private higher education. A quantitative survey was conducted in 2025 with 400 valid responses from administrators, lecturers, and professional staff working at ten private universities. Because the empirical data were collected from individual respondents clustered within institutions, the unit of analysis is defined as respondent-level perceptions of governance and institutional performance rather than objective university-level performance. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to test a model linking governance quality, perceived institutional autonomy, stakeholder participation, perceived innovation capability, entrepreneurial culture, and the external environment. The results indicate that governance quality is positively associated with perceived institutional performance, while perceived institutional autonomy is positively related to perceived innovation capability and entrepreneurial culture. Stakeholder participation is associated with governance quality and innovation capability. Entrepreneurial culture transmits the association between innovation capability and perceived institutional performance, and a supportive external environment strengthens the autonomy-innovation relationship. The study contributes a cautious, perception-based governance framework for understanding private higher education reform in Vietnam. It also shows that private universities should not be managed as commercial firms, but as hybrid academic enterprises in which autonomy, accountability, innovation, and stakeholder engagement are aligned.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge all respondents who participated in the survey and the private higher education institutions that supported the data collection process.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)I23, M10, O31, L31
-
References27
-
Tables11
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Revised conceptual model
- Figure 2. Interaction effect of external environment on the autonomy–innovation relationship
-
- Table 1. Distribution of questionnaires and valid responses by university
- Table 2. Respondent profile
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations
- Table 4. Reliability and convergent validity of the measurement model
- Table 5. HTMT ratios for discriminant validity
- Table 6. Structural model, confidence intervals, collinearity, and effect sizes
- Table 7. Explained variance and predictive relevance
- Table 8. Mediation analysis for H4
- Table 9. Moderation analysis for H5
- Table 10. Model fit indices
- Table A1. Measurement items, sources, and standardized outer loadings
-
- Altbach, P. G. (2008). The complex roles of universities in the period of globalization. In Global University Network for Innovation (Ed.), Higher education in the world 3: Higher education: New challenges and emerging roles for human and social development (pp. 5-14). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567-588.
- Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. IAU Press.
- de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137-152). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Deem, R. (1998). New managerialism and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47-70.
- DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
- Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.
- Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43-74.
- Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3171-3195.
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
- Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19.
- Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303-324.
- Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413-434.
- Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
- National Assembly of Vietnam. (2018). Law No. 34/2018/QH14 on amendments to the Law on Higher Education.
- OECD. (2019). Benchmarking higher education system performance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD/IDB. (2022). Innovative and entrepreneurial universities in Latin America. OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley.
- Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
- Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
- Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. World Bank.
- Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.
- Shattock, M. (2010). Managing successful universities (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
- Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
- Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
- World Bank. (2020). Improving the performance of higher education in Vietnam: Strategic priorities and policy options. World Bank.


