Organizational agility and performance of Chartered Public and Private Universities in Kenya

Abstract

University education in Kenya experienced rapid changes in 80s and 90s which magnified in the 2020s to create challenges in meeting the expectations. Some of the changes were double intakes of 1984-1985, 1987-1988, 1990-1991 and later 2010-2011 academic years. University intake of 1987-1988 alone, increased student population by 75.2% but later reduced in 2016-2017 intake. A myriad of other complex agility related factors caused challenges but also created opportunities for higher education. For example, USIU-Africa and Strathmore universities, registered positive performance in the year 2009-2015 while many others experienced challenges compared to the previous years which implied that either rapid negative agility factors were affecting universities differently or there were certain contingent competitive advantage strategies that were contributing to the difference in performance. The enumerated factors motivated the commencement of the study whose objective was to determine the relationship between organizational agility and performance of chartered universities in Kenya and a corresponding null hypothesis was formulated to the effect that; there was no relationship between organizational agility and performance of chartered universities in Kenya. The study was anchored on general systems theory and adopted positivism philosophical research view with descriptive, cross sectional and survey as research designs. The unit of analysis was 48 chartered universities whereas the unit of observation was 271 Deans of Faculties/ Schools. Each sector was analysed separately because of significant variance in responses. The finding indicated a significant positive relationship between organizational agility and performance of public universities but the same was negative and insignificant with respect to private universities contrary to the notion that poor performance of universities in Kenya was caused by rapid changes associated with agility. Private universities also had superior capabilities and reacted better to drivers of agility. However, market drivers of agility affected both equally. The findings offered various contributions to theory, policy and practice. The proposition of the theory was found to underlie the relationship because of continuous interaction between the internal and external environments of the universities which in turn influence performance. Policy makers can utilize the findings as a guide to formulate and implement policies that focus on drivers, enablers and response to agility. Findings will create awareness of how universities can take advantage of opportunities created by agility rather than attributing failures on agility. Future studies may focus more on effect of individual dimensions of organizational agility and measures of performance on public and private universities separately. A modified replication of the study across industries is recommended on a continuous basis because drivers of agility are diverse and keep changing with time, geographical location, social and economic circumstances.