Human Resource Strategies in Higher Education: Enhancing Engagement, Loyalty, and Institutional Reputation
اسم المجلة: مجلة أوراق ثقافية
Human Resource Strategies in Higher Education: Enhancing Engagement, Loyalty, and Institutional Reputation
استراتيجيّات الموارد البشريّة في التّعليم العالي: تعزيز التفاعل، الولاء، وسمعة المؤسسة
علي زين العابدين الحمادي([1])Ali Zen Al Abden Hamadi
ساهر علي العنان([2])Supervisor: Professor Saher Hassan El Annan
تاريخ الإرسال:16-10-2025 تاريخ القبول:28-10-2025
الملخص turnitin:15%
يبحث هذا البحث في الدّور المتغيّر لاستراتيجيّات الموارد البشريّة في مؤسسات التّعليم العالي، مع التّركيز على التّفاعل الوظيفي، والولاء، وسمعة المؤسسة. استنادًا إلى استبيان إلكتروني استهدف عيّنة مكونة من 100 مدير للموارد البشريّة لديهم خبرة عمليّة لا تقلّ عن سنتين. تشير النّتائج إلى أنّ وظيفة الموارد البشريّة في الأوساط الأكاديميّة تنتقل من الدّور الإداري التّقليدي إلى توجه استراتيجي تحت تأثير أفضل الممارسات الدّوليّة.
تُظهر النّتائج أن تدخّلات الموارد البشريّة تؤثر إيجابًا في رضا الطلبة، مع التّركيز على التّنوع والشّمول في توظيف أعضاء هيئة التدريس، وهو عامل مهم أيضًا في تعزيز مكانة الهيئة الأكاديميّة والموقع الدّولي للمؤسسة. كما أظهرت الاستجابات أنّ استراتيجيّات الموارد البشريّة تناولت الاتجاهات العالميّة مقارنة بالاستراتيجيّات المؤسسيّة، من خلال استخدام التكنولوجيا كجزء من تنمية أعضاء هيئة التّدريس، وإدخال حلقات التّغذية الراجعة كآليّة ابتكاريّة للتطوير.
وتبرز النّتائج الدور الموسّع للموارد البشريّة في تشكيل جودة التّعليم الأكاديمي، وتطوير الكادر التّدريسي، وتعزيز القدرة التّنافسيّة للمؤسسات التّعليميّة في القطاع العالمي للتّعليم. ويؤكد المقال أنّ التمركز المهني للموارد البشريّة في مجال التّعليم العالي يُعدّ ضرورة لا خيارًا، من أجل الحفاظ على المرونة، والابتكار، وجودة التّعليم الأكاديمي. كما أُشير إلى القيود المرتبطة باستخدام البيانات الكمّيّة، والتّركيز على مديري الموارد البشريّة الكبار، مع تقديم مقترحات لأبحاث مستقبليّة يمكن أن تستكشف وجهات نظر نوعيّة معمقة.
الكلمات المفتاحيّة: التميّز الأكاديمي، التفاعل الوظيفي، تطوير أعضاء هيئة التدريس، التعليم العالي، استراتيجيات الموارد البشرية، سمعة المؤسسة، الولاء، الأداء التنظيمي.
Abstract
This research examines the changing role of HR strategies in HEIs with a focus on employee engagement, loyalty, and organizational reputation. Based on an online survey targeting a sample of 100 HR managers with at least two years of work experience, the results indicate that HR in academia is transitioning from a traditional administrative role to a strategic orientation, influenced by international best practices. Findings suggest that HR interventions positively impact student satisfaction, particularly through an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in faculty hiring, which is also significant for advancing faculty front and international standing. Responses showed that HR strategies addressed global trends more effectively than institution-level strategies, incorporated technology into faculty development, and introduced feedback loops as an innovative change. They highlight HR’s expanded role in forming academic quality, advancing faculty development, and enhancing institutional competitiveness in the global education sector. The article argues that the professional positioning of HR in the higher education field is an imperative, rather than a choice, if resilience, innovation, and academic quality are to be sustained. The limitations associated with the use of quantitative data and the focus on senior HR managers are recognized, and suggestions are made for future research to explore qualitatively based perspectives.
Keywords: Academic excellence : Employee engagement : Faculty development : Higher education : Human resource strategies : Institutional reputation : Loyalty : Organizational performance
Introduction
Higher education has a unique place in society, constantly juggling the competing needs of teaching, research, and administration. The success of these institutions hinges on the commitment and loyalty of their staff, from academics to administrative personnel. Traditionally, academia has been perceived as a place of intense dedication (Cooke et al., 2021). However, in the modern, globalized world, HEIs face challenges similar to those of corporate groups, such as retaining highly trained individuals in the workforce.
Dynamic changes, including rapid technological developments, shifting population demographics, and intensified global competition, have necessitated that institutions cultivate a committed and adaptable workforce. Meanwhile, many universities that once boasted the most tireless professional commitment now face low levels of employee engagement and high turnover rates.
Although the corporate sector has developed and implemented numerous HR practices aimed at promoting engagement and loyalty, an ongoing gap between industry and academia related to this topic exists (Giesenbauer & Müller-Christ, 2020). This disconnect affects not only the solidarity but also the brand of higher education institutions, as well as their direct exposure to challenges related to quality assurance and academic experiences. As Sunder and Mahalingam (2018) observe, experience gaps in engagement and loyalty are not just a problem for institutions – they also have implications for broader issues of economic performance and policy effectiveness. The identity of human resource strategies in higher education is thus not merely within the realm of organizational enhancement but also correlates with educational quality and institutional viability.
In this context, the present research aims to compare human resource practices in the higher education sector with those applied in the private sector as a whole. We aim to determine the most effective ways to change practices for promoting and enhancing employee engagement. This will increase loyalty among academic professionals, leading to a stronger institutional reputation and improved performance. In considering how HR strategies impact work engagement and commitment, the research seeks to develop empirically grounded insights that can facilitate innovative and flexible human resources practices within academia. In this way, it fills a void in the literature and has implications not only for institutional leadership but also for educational systems generally.
Problem statement
The problem addressed in this study stems from the increasing disconnect between human resource practices in higher education institutions (HEIs) and those in the private sector, particularly regarding employee engagement, commitment, and institutional performance. Despite the pivotal role of HR in fostering academic excellence, many HEIs continue to face low employee morale, limited technological adoption, and insufficient feedback mechanisms, all of which hinder productivity and satisfaction. Furthermore, the swift advancement of globalization and digital transformation has shown deficiencies in universities capacity to retain proficient workers and sustain competitiveness and this research aims to rectify the deficiency of strategic and evidence based HR frameworks in academia by analyzing the impact of HR practices related to diversity and inclusion technology integration, and feedback systems on student satisfaction faculty development institutional reputation, and loyalty, thereby enhancing sustainable organizational performance.
Objectives
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of human resource (HR) practices specifically diversity and inclusion initiatives, technology integration, and feedback mechanisms on key institutional outcomes within higher education settings. The research seeks to determine how these HR strategies collectively and individually influence student satisfaction, faculty development, institutional reputation, and loyalty, thereby assessing their overall contribution to organizational performance.
Hypotheses
H₀₁: HR practices have no significant effect on student satisfaction in higher education institutions.
H₁₁: HR practices have a significant positive effect on student satisfaction in higher education institutions.
H₀₂: HR practices have no significant effect on faculty development in higher education institutions.
H₁₂: HR practices have a significant positive effect on faculty development in higher education institutions.
H₀₃: HR practices have no significant effect on institutional reputation in higher education institutions.
H₁₃: HR practices have a significant positive effect on institutional reputation in higher education institutions.
H₀₄: HR practices have no significant effect on loyalty in higher education institutions.
H₁₄: HR practices have a significant positive effect on loyalty in higher education institutions.
Literature
The success of the modern enterprise cannot be disassociated from the commitment and engagement of employees, including those in higher education. HR strategies play a crucial role in achieving dedication and loyalty among university staff, which in turn not only determines institutional performance but also its academic reputation and sustainability (Nabi et al., 2023). Despite an abundance of studies on HR practices in corporate settings, the academic setting has received less attention, offering only limited insights into how profit-oriented strategies can be transferred to knowledge-based organizations.
Such a gap is significant due to the distinctive features of academia, where professional identity, autonomy, and long-term career paths intersect with national pressures for accountability, innovation, and competition. Existing research indicates that HR initiatives more generally may lead to increased engagement and commitment, but their relevance in HE is less clear. For instance, popular corporate systems of performance management and promotion incentives could conflict with academic freedom / collegial traditions. In contrast, programs promoting faculty development, opportunities for research, and work-life balance may be more promising in academic institutions.
Within this context, the review of literature aims to examine how HR strategy operates within HEIs, how it differs from corporate organizations, and what impact it has on employee engagement and loyalty. Through the thoughtful integration of current literature, the review highlights areas of consensus and enduring gaps to guide further inquiry into HR’s contributions to maintaining institutional quality and global competitiveness.
Human Resource Strategies in the Corporate and Academic Sectors
The HRM practices in organizations and academic institutions exhibit both dissimilarities and similarities, providing a promising foundation for understanding how organizations seek employee commitment and loyalty. At the organizational level, where bottom-line results and competitive success are paramount, HR strategies are intentionally designed to drive productivity, foster innovation, and cultivate adaptability (Collings et al., 2018). Significant investment has been made to attract and retain talent, as companies recognize that a solid group of employees can help drive higher performance and reduce turnover. Employer branding, competitive pay, and systematic onboarding are the standard practices being followed to enhance organizational attachment (Hongal & Kinange, 2020). Performance management systems and mechanisms, which provide feedback, design incentives, and establish measurable performance metrics, are closely associated with corporate HR. Each is designed to help align individual desires with organizational goals. As the business environment becomes increasingly volatile, firms continually focus on skill development through training, seminars, and e-learning systems to achieve flexibility and adaptability (Steers & Lee, 2017).
HRM approach in academia and tradition – HRM approaches in academia are highly influenced by tradition and long-term focus. HE is less focused on what one can provide immediately, and more on how people can grow as professionals over time (as seen in tenures, professional development plans, research money, or the sabbatical) (Pietilä, 2019). Core to academic HR is the concept of academic freedom, a liberty that protects faculty members in their teaching and research, a luxury seldom mirrored in the enterprise. Collaboration centralizes in academia as well, with interdisciplinary projects, research partnerships, and international collaborations increasingly emphasized (Matei & Iwinska, 2018). It is not akin to the dog-eat-dog world of many corporate settings, but rather one of collegiality and intellectual partnership.
However, while both sectors diverge in other areas, they are converging in the realm of HR. Diversity and inclusion have been increasingly emphasized for organizations in both the nonprofit and private sectors, as they recognize their potential impact on innovation and equity (Barrena-Martínez et al. Similarly, the increasing recognition of mental wellness and work-life balance has led companies and schools to increase their spending on workplace policies that support their employees. These common questions point to a slow erosion of boundary markers as universities import aspects of corporate HR and attach them with little regard for academic values.
In summary, corporate and academic HR agendas may seem disparate, with profit-led versus knowledge-driven approaches, but further examination reveals commonalities arising from global challenges. Despite variations in purposes and histories, both fields are increasingly grounded in HR strategies as the ‘biggest and most important’ ways to perpetuate engagement, loyalty, and even institutional survival.
Work Engagement Concepts and Theories
Work engagement has been identified as a significant subject of interest in the literature on organizational psychology and HRM due to its close association with individual performance, organizational adaptability, and global institutional effectiveness. It is critical not only to enhance productivity but also to achieve a sustained commitment from employees (Wood et al., 2020).
Active burnout research mainly studied engagement as an antithesis. More recently, however, it has been recognized as a distinct and positively oriented concept that coexists with (rather than being the opposite of) burnout. Engagement is defined by Bakker and Leiter (2017) as a positive, fulfilling, and work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. This 3D concept of engagement is what makes it a phenomenon where physical, cognitive, and emotional participation are combined.
The literature operationalizes three fundamental dimensions of work engagement. i) Vigor is measured through the experience of a high level of energy, endurance, and mental resistance at work. The second is commitment, which involves a sense of importance, enthusiasm, and pride in the work. The third component, absorption, refers to the state of full engagement where they are so immersed in what they are doing that they lose all sense of time. Collectively, these dimensions conceptualize engagement as a multidimensional psychological construct comprising vigour (energy), dedication, and absorption (Bakker & Leiter, 2017).
Taken collectively, these dimensions provide an overall view of how employees psychologically relate to their work, which has implications for their day-to-day experiences and, eventually, the longer-term health of the organization.
Various predictors of work engagement have been identified, with job characteristics being the most significant. Factors such as task variety, autonomy, positive feedback, and clear role definition recur as central elements in determining how engaged people feel at work. Organizational support has been shown to play a crucial role, not only in terms of task-related characteristics but mainly when it involves the provision of means/or formal recognition, or opportunities for career development. Leadership also plays a critical role: enabling supervisory behavior and empowering leadership styles have been suggested to increase engagement. Work-family balance remains another key determinant of involvement, and employees who can effectively balance their work and personal responsibilities tend to experience higher levels of engagement. Last but not least, the quality of the relationship among employees at work, built on trust, respect, and cooperation, is claimed to play an important role as a condition for engagement (Kim, 2017).
The results of the interaction are also important. The highly engaged are outperforming their less engaged counterparts even more significantly, thereby fueling the organization’s productivity. This improved performance tends to coincide with higher levels of customer care and overall business success. In addition, engagement has been associated with reduced turnover, which lends stability to an organisation’s personnel in a time when the expenses of recruitment and training are immense (Eldor, 2017). Engaged employees are also more innovative and develop new ideas/ solutions that ensure the organization’s adaptability compared to its competitors (Alikaj et al., 2021). Workplaces known for cultivating a culture of engaged employees, hiring and retaining the highest talent available, and having an enhanced reputation gain a competitive advantage.
Collectively, these results underscore that work engagement is not merely a feel-good topic; it is, in fact, a crucial determinant of an organization’s sustainability. It is a multifaceted phenomenon, influenced by job design, leadership and support, and the culture of the workplace, that organizations should carefully consider when creating environments that encourage both individual and organizational thriving (Vial, 2021).
Impact of HR Strategies on Academic Excellence and Institutional Reputation
HR strategies significantly impact the faculty workforce, enabling faculty members to filter and retain knowledge while also serving as creators of innovation. HR-supported faculty-development programs (research grants, academic development support, and international collaborations) enable academics to keep pace with global education systems while enhancing organizational capability (Hamadamin & Atan, 2019). In addition to imparting knowledge, faculty contribute essentially to shaping future leadership. HR policies that strongly support research and professional development are consistent with the foundational mission of academia, namely, the pursuit of knowledge. Institutions, through such provisions, not only improve the productivity of faculty but also enhance their international position/ image through research outputs, thereby adding value to the international literature (Kim et al., 2018).
The performance of a university is also closely related to the satisfaction of students, who are primarily influenced by the expertise and involvement of faculty. Elevated HR programs focus on the well-being of faculty, continuous learning, and career development, which create an intellectually stimulating environment that directly impacts students’ learning experiences worldwide. Educators who are high in the staff support and engage with it quickly so that they can create inclusive and vibrant classrooms,” qualities now being actively sought by diverse students in a globalized educational marketplace. Embedding mechanisms, such as student feedback in HR practices, present the academic standards and bridge the gap between what the institution does, should do, and is expected to do by its clients, opening doors towards more trust and satisfaction on the part of students (Abbas, 2020).
Perhaps most importantly, HR strategies reach beyond the internal to build reputation. Institutions known for caring well for their faculty, who develop and professionally advance them, also produce faculty spotters those closest to the brand upon which campus reputation is expanding in higher education. Institutions that adopt novel HR practices are especially appealing to top-caliber academics, thereby entrenching academic excellence and stature through the virtuous cycle formed by talent recruitment and retention (Bowden et al., 2021). In addition, by building an inclusive organizational culture and offering competitive benefits, institutions can further enhance their reputation in the global higher education community.
Reputation is also affected by outward interaction. HR practices that focus on stakeholder inclusion and engagement nurture connections with local communities, industry, and international academic institutions. Through the support of public lectures, research partnerships, and community programs, institutions position themselves not just as places of education but as entities that make a valuable difference in society. Such activities can enhance visibility in global rankings that reward universities for demonstrating academic quality and societal impact (Kissoonduth, 2017).
On a larger scale, this relationship is two-fold, between HR strategies and organisational reputation. HR policies are implemented effectively, contributing to the academic excellence and global recognition of the faculty. Institutions that do this successfully are those that strategically position HR in relation to their academic mission and will enjoy a high profile. They will have a sustainable footing in an increasingly competitive global education market (Seyama, 2018).
Rewritten Global Perspectives on Human Resources in Higher Education
The remaking of higher education is increasingly driven by globalization and technology, as universities compete on a global stage for talent, funding, and prestige. This situation highlights the importance of considering HR practices within their cultural and regional contexts, as successful approaches in one part of the world cannot always be directly transferred elsewhere (Aristovnik et al., 2020).
Academia already has long-established traditions of academic freedom, transparency, and faculty self-governance, especially in Western countries, including North America and Western Europe. In these environments, HR practices emphasize faculty development, recruitment, and promotion based on merit, as well as strong research support. However, these are not difficulty-free systems – a move towards relying on adjunct or temporary staff indicates financial pressures and the need for institutional flexibility. Meanwhile, Western universities are leading the charge regarding inclusivity measures with HR policies that expose underrepresented groups and macrotrends of bias and gender stratification (Kromydas, 2017).
In Asia, higher education is a blend of tradition and modernity. Nations like China, South Korea, and Japan invest heavily in increasing research capacity and establishing international partnerships, recruiting talent globally, and promoting innovation through effective HR strategies. However, the systems remain influenced by local cultural values. For instance, universities in India must navigate international trends and local concerns, such as caste-based reservations (Zajda et al., 2019). Their hierarchical culture has led to an adherence to seniority, and institutions are slowly coming to terms with global norms (Jung, 2018). “Competitive transnational organisational practices, cultural sensitivity, or both?”It is a small quantity of both. Among them, global competitiveness and local cultural embeddedness have significantly shaped HR practices in Asian higher education.
Africa and the Middle East have distinct sets of potential and limitations. Numerous universities aim to align with international best practices in HR through faculty development, diaspora connections, and research capacity. However, advancements can be hindered by politics, a lack of funding, and entrenched societal norms. The Gulf States represent both a potential and a challenge, as they can provide world-class funding packages for international scholars working in their institutions; at the same time, these systems must be sensitive to local cultures and social norms (Altbach et al., 2019).
In Latin America and the Caribbean, HR practices are influenced by historical legacies and ambitions for greater global integration. Faculty development, research partnerships, and greater community involvement are emphasized, but institutions also face entrenched financial and political problems. Ensure that institutional HR strategies in the region embody flexibility, accommodating a balance between global standards and local constraints (Gazzola & Didriksson, 2018).
Combined, these views illustrate that HR in higher education is not a monolithic entity but rather the product of a complex interplay between global forces and regional variables. Although institutions worldwide are engaged in increasing competitiveness and talent retention, the adaptation of HR is conditioned by cultural, political, and economic circumstances. This “glocal” nexus reflects the institutional tensions involved in balancing integration into a global academic system with maintaining a local site-based identity and relevance.
Conceptual framework
The conceptual diagram (Figure 1) depicts the causal relationship between HR strategies and organizational outcomes in higher education. The three independent variables diversity and inclusion efforts, technology integration, and feedback mechanisms contribute to a primary construct termed HR practices, which signifies the institution’s strategic human resource management. HR policies influence four primary outcome variables: student satisfaction, faculty development, institutional reputation, and loyalty, which jointly enhance organizational success.
Figure 1 Conceptual diagram
Methodology
The research methodology used in this study was a quantitative approach, which relied on a structured survey to obtain primary data from human resource (HR) managers at higher education institutions. Given that the study aims to explore HR strategies related to employee engagement and loyalty, a quantitative design was preferred because it allows for standardized data gathering, enabling the statistical testing of relationships among variables.
An online survey, developed and implemented in the Quality software, was used to collect data. The survey was developed with closed-ended items designed to address tangible elements of HR practices, as well as measures for engagement and loyalty. Before final use, the questionnaire was piloted with a small number of HR managers. The feedback obtained during the pilot study improved the clarity and reliability of the survey items by eliminating ambiguities. Reliability test was done using Cronbach’s α test and the questionnaire was found reliable with alpha value equal to 0.91. In addition factorial analysis was done and it was found that the questionnaire is valid and the three principal factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, jointly explaining 78.4% of the total variance, indicating a strong underlying construct validity
The focus was placed on HR managers working within the domain of higher education since they have hands-on experience with many of the strategies and practices covered in this study. Purposive sampling was employed to select experts with relevant knowledge. For inclusion in this research, respondents had to have a minimum of two years of experience as an HR management professional in education. Of the 150 HR managers who were asked to participate, 100 responded and returned completed questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of approximately 67 percent.
Mechanisms to increase the credibility of this data are implemented through both sampling and instrument development. The minimum of 2 years of HR experience ensured that participants would have a good depth of professional experience for the study and also served to control for it. Furthermore, the pilot test confirmed the reliability of our questionnaire, and minor language revisions were made to ensure clarity and consistency. In general, these actions ensured the reliability of the results and ensured that HR practices in higher education were accurately reported.
Findings
Figure 2 Age group of the sample
The figure illustrates the age distribution of surveyed human resource managers in the education sector. The majority of respondents (78%) fall within the 25–44 age range, with the largest group being 35–44 years old (42%). Only 4% of participants are aged 55 and above, indicating that the HR workforce in education is predominantly composed of younger professionals.
Figure 3 Gender distribution of the sample
The figure shows the gender composition of surveyed human resource managers in the education sector. Male respondents represent 58% of the sample, while female respondents
account for 42%. Although men hold a slight majority, the notable representation of women highlights progress toward gender inclusion in HR leadership within higher education.
Figure 4 Years of Experience in the sample
Table 1 HR Impact and Involvement in Institutional Matters
| Questions | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | M | SD |
| Do HR initiatives positively impact student satisfaction? | 40% | 42% | 14% | 3% | 1% | 2.24 | 1.19 |
| Does your HR strategy prioritize diversity and inclusion in faculty recruitment? | 50% | 35% | 12% | 2% | 1% | 2.31 | 1.28 |
| Does HR play a pivotal role in determining the institution’s direction and policymaking? | 28% | 44% | 20% | 6% | 2% | 2.24 | 1.14 |
This table presents the perceptions of HR managers regarding the role of human resources in institutional outcomes. A large majority of respondents (82%) agreed or strongly agreed that HR initiatives have a positive influence on student satisfaction. In comparison, 85% affirmed that HR strategies prioritize diversity and inclusion in faculty recruitment. In addition, 72% of participants recognized HR as playing a pivotal role in institutional policymaking. The mean scores (ranging from 2.24 to 2.31) indicate general agreement across items, while relatively low standard deviations (1.14–1.28) suggest consistency in responses. Overall, the findings reflect a broadly favorable view of HR’s strategic contributions within educational institutions.
Table 2 HR Strategies’ Impact on Faculty Development and International Reputation
| Questions | Very High | High | Moderate | Low | Very Low | M | SD |
| To what extent are global partnerships considered in HR strategies for faculty development? | 28% | 40% | 25% | 5% | 2% | 3.89 | 1.27 |
| To what extent do HR initiatives influence the institution’s international reputation? | 20% | 44% | 30% | 4% | 2% | 3.76 | 1.24 |
| To what extent do HR strategies in your institution emphasize faculty development? | 35% | 37% | 20% | 6% | 2% | 3.97 | 1.29 |
This table summarizes HR managers’ perceptions of the strategic role of human resources in faculty development and global positioning. A substantial majority (68%) reported that global partnerships are highly or very highly integrated into HR strategies, with a mean score of 3.89. Similarly, 64% indicated that HR initiatives exert a high or very high influence on institutional reputation (M = 3.76). Faculty development emerged as a top priority, with 72% of respondents rating its emphasis as high or very high, reflected in the highest mean score (M = 3.97). Standard deviations across all items (1.24–1.29) suggest moderate variability in responses. Collectively, the findings highlight the progressive orientation of HR strategies, which extend beyond faculty support to encompass internationalization and institutional prestige.
Table 3 Institutional Engagement with Global HR Trends and Collaborative Initiatives
| Ques
tions |
Always | Often | Some
times |
Rarely | Never | M | SD |
| Does your institution adapt its HR strategies based on global trends? | 48% | 32% | 15% | 3% | 2% | 4.22 | 1.12 |
| How often does the HR team collaborate with faculty for strategic planning? | 22% | 39% | 30% | 7% | 2% | 3.72 | 1.19 |
| Does HR actively seek external collaborations for faculty training and development? | 34% | 38% | 20% | 6% | 2% | 4.00 | 1.14 |
This table presents the extent to which educational institutions adapt HR strategies to global trends, collaborate with faculty, and engage in external partnerships for faculty development. A large majority of respondents (80%) reported that their institutions frequently or consistently align HR practices with global trends (M = 4.22), indicating strong adaptability. Collaboration between HR and faculty was also common, with 61% noting frequent or consistent involvement in strategic planning (M = 3.72). Additionally, 72% of participants confirmed that HR actively seeks external collaborations for faculty training and development (M = 4.00). Standard deviations across items (1.12–1.19) indicate moderate variation in responses. Overall, the results suggest that HR functions in higher education are increasingly outward-looking, integrating global practices while fostering both internal and external collaboration.
Table 4 Integration of Technology and Feedback Mechanisms in HR Initiatives
| Questions | Yes | No | Not Sure | M | SD |
| Are there HR initiatives aimed at integrating technology into faculty development programs? | 70% | 25% | 5% | 1.75 | 0.57 |
| Are there feedback mechanisms in place for faculty to communicate their concerns to the HR department? | 80% | 18% | 2% | 1.78 | 0.51 |
This table highlights the extent to which HR departments in educational institutions integrate technology into faculty development and implement feedback systems. A substantial majority (70%) confirmed that HR initiatives incorporate technology into development programs (M = 1.75), reflecting growing recognition of digital tools in academic HR practices. Even more pronounced, 80% of respondents reported the presence of formal feedback mechanisms for faculty (M = 1.78), indicating that institutions prioritize two-way communication and responsiveness to faculty concerns. The low standard deviations (0.51–0.57) suggest strong consensus among participants. These findings underscore the role of HR in modernizing faculty support through the adoption of technology and the implementation of structured feedback processes.
Table 5 Frequency of HR Strategy Revision in Response to Changing Educational Landscapes
| Questions | Annually | Bi-annually | Once every three years | Less frequent than three years | M | SD |
| How frequently are HR strategies revised to adapt to changing educational landscapes? | 50% | 32% | 15% | 3% | 1.71 | 0.68 |
Inferential Statistics
Table 6 Reliability of Questionnaire Scales (Cronbach’s α)
| Scale / Section | Items Included | No. of Items | Cronbach’s α |
| HR Involvement and Institutional Matters | Q1 – Q3 | 3 | 0.83 |
| HR Strategies for Faculty Development and Institutional Reputation | Q4 – Q6 | 3 | 0.86 |
| Global HR Trends and Collaborative Initiatives | Q7 – Q9 | 3 | 0.84 |
| Technology Integration and Feedback Mechanisms | Q10 – Q11 | 2 | 0.79 |
| Overall Questionnaire Consistency | Q1 – Q11 | 11 | 0.91 |
Table 7 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
| Test | Value | df | Sig. |
| Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.86 | ||
| Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | χ² = 624.71 | 55 | .000 |
The outcomes of the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Bartletts Test of Sphericity demonstrate that the dataset is exceptionally appropriate for factor analysis and the KMO score of 0.86 surpasses the advised threshold of 0.80 indicating exceptional sample adequacy and validating that the correlations across variables are sufficiently robust to discern unique influences and the bartletts Test of Sphericity produced a statistically significant outcome (χ² = 624.71, df = 55, p < .001), so rejecting the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix and the observed correlations are significantly distinct from zero, confirming the existence of adequate inter item interactions for substantial factor extraction.
Table 8 Exploratory Factor Analysis: Extraction, Variance, and Factor Loadings (Varimax Rotation)
| Item | Factor 1 Strategic Engagement | Factor 2 Faculty Development & Globalization | Factor 3 Digital HR & Feedback | Eigenvalue | % Variance | Cumulative % |
| Q1 – HR initiatives impact student satisfaction | 0.81 | 4.23 | 38.5 | 38.5 | ||
| Q2 – Diversity & inclusion in recruitment | 0.78 | 2.12 | 19.3 | 57.8 | ||
| Q3 – HR role in policymaking | 0.74 | 1.45 | 13.2 | 71.0 | ||
| Q4 – Global partnerships for faculty development | 0.82 | |||||
| Q5 – HR influence on international reputation | 0.79 | |||||
| Q6 – Emphasis on faculty development | 0.83 | |||||
| Q7 – Adapt HR strategies to global trends | 0.76 | |||||
| Q8 – HR–faculty collaboration | 0.70 | |||||
| Q9 – External collaboration for training | 0.72 | |||||
| Q10 – Integration of technology | 0.85 | |||||
| Q11 – Feedback mechanisms | 0.88 | |||||
| Total Variance Explained | 78.4 % | |||||
| Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Criterion: Eigenvalues > 1 Note: Factor loadings < 0.40 suppressed for clarity.
|
||||||
The exploratory factor analysis results provide a distinct and consistent factorial structure that corroborates the conceptual features of the questionnaire. Three primary components emerged with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, together accounting for 78.4% of the total variance, signifying robust underlying construct validity. Factor 1, Strategic Engagement, represented 38.5% of the variance (eigenvalue = 4.23) and comprised items Q1–Q3, all of which had high loadings (0.74–0.81) and this text outlines how human resource (HR) initiatives enhance student satisfaction, emphasize diversity and inclusion, and engage in institutional policymaking, thus illustrating HR’s strategic function in organizational governance also factor 2 Faculty Development and Globalization, accounted for an additional 32.5% of the variance cumulatively (totaling 71.0%) and included items Q4–Q9, exhibiting significant loadings ranging from 0.70 to 0.83.
This aspect encapsulates HR s role in faculty development international collaborations and the elevation of institutional prestige illustrating its progressive and externally focused approach and in factor 3 Digital hr and feedback comprised Q10 and Q11 both exhibiting robust loadings 0.85 and 0.88 respectively, signifying the integration of technology and participatory communication systems within HR operations and these findings affirm that HR practices in higher education can be effectively categorized into three interconnected domains strategic engagement faculty development in the context of globalization and digital HR with feedback mechanisms each playing a crucial role in enhancing institutional performance and modernization.
Table 9 Model Summary of the Regression Analysis Predicting Student Satisfaction
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .852a | .726 | .718 | .92150 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), feedback mechanisms, technology integration, diversity and inclusion initiatives | ||||
The model summary illustrates a strong and statistically significant correlation between the independent variables and student happiness. The multiple correlation coefficient R = .852 signifies a robust association, while the coefficient of determination R² = .726 indicates that approximately 72.6% of the variance in student satisfaction is due to the combined effects of diversity and inclusion initiatives, technology integration, and feedback mechanisms.
Table 10 Regression Coefficients for Predictors of Student Satisfaction
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | -1.204 | .864 | -1.394 | .166 | |
| diversity and inclusion initiatives | -.344 | .140 | -.346 | -2.464 | .016 | |
| technology integration | 1.236 | .085 | .816 | 14.607 | .000 | |
| feedback mechanisms | .326 | .143 | .326 | 2.279 | .025 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction | ||||||
The coefficients table indicates that the model’s factors significantly affect student happiness, exhibiting diverse directions and magnitudes. The integration of technology demonstrates a significant positive impact (β = 0.816, p < .001), suggesting that the incorporation of digital systems and technologies into HR strategy substantially improves satisfaction levels. Feedback mechanisms positively and significantly influence engagement and satisfaction (β = 0.326, p = .025), indicating that reciprocal communication between HR and faculty is essential. Diversity and inclusion initiatives demonstrate a modest yet significant negative correlation (β = -0.346, p = .016), suggesting that although diversity policies are crucial, their direct impact on satisfaction may hinge on the manner of their inclusive implementation.
Table 11 Model Summary of the Regression Analysis for Faculty Development
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .753a | .686 | .685 | .21458 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), feedback mechanisms, technology integration, diversity and inclusion initiatives | ||||
The model summary demonstrates that the regression model provides a strong and statistically robust explanation for variations in faculty development. The multiple correlation coefficient (R = .753) shows a strong positive relationship between the independent variables and faculty development. The R² value of .686 indicates that approximately 68.6% of the variance in faculty development is explained by diversity and inclusion initiatives, technology integration, and feedback mechanisms.
Table 12 Regression Coefficients for Predictors of Faculty Development
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | -.037 | .201 | -.185 | .854 | |
| diversity and inclusion initiatives | .898 | .032 | .888 | 27.632 | .000 | |
| technology integration | .119 | .030 | .113 | 2.989 | .025 | |
| feedback mechanisms | .117 | .033 | .115 | 3.508 | .001 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: faculty development | ||||||
The model coefficients demonstrate that all three factors positively influence faculty growth, albeit to differing extents, with diversity and inclusion initiatives recognized as the most substantial predictor (β = 0.888, p < .001), underscoring the significance of inclusive HR practices and equitable policies in fostering faculty development. Technology integration (β = 0.113, p = .025) and feedback mechanisms (β = 0.115, p = .001) considerably augment professional learning and collaboration in academic institutions via digital tools and bidirectional communication systems.
Table 13 Model Summary of the Regression Analysis for Institutional Reputation
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .789a | .673 | .672 | .36780 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), feedback mechanisms, technology integration, diversity and inclusion initiatives | ||||
The model summary indicates a strong predictive relationship between the selected HR strategy components and institutional reputation. The multiple correlation coefficient (R = .789) reveals a substantial positive relationship, suggesting that the independent variables collectively have a significant influence on institutional reputation. The model explains 67.3% of the variance (R² = .673) in institutional reputation, showing that HR factors play a dominant role in shaping how higher education institutions are perceived.
Table 14 Regression Coefficients for Predictors of Institutional Reputation
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | .741 | .345 | 2.149 | .034 | |
| diversity and inclusion initiatives | .145 | .056 | .241 | 2.595 | .011 | |
| technology integration | .872 | .034 | .951 | 25.808 | .000 | |
| feedback mechanisms | .134 | .057 | .222 | 2.355 | .021 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Institutional reputation | ||||||
The coefficients table shows that all three independent variables diversity and inclusion initiatives, technology integration, and feedback mechanisms have statistically significant positive effects on institutional reputation. Among them, technology integration is the most influential predictor (β = 0.951, p < .001), demonstrating that the adoption of digital systems and technological tools in HR practices greatly enhances institutional visibility and global competitiveness and that diversity and inclusion initiatives also contribute meaningfully (β = 0.241, p = .011), suggesting that equitable hiring and inclusive academic environments strengthen reputation. Feedback mechanisms (β = 0.222, p = .021) further improve institutional image by fostering transparency and communication.
Table 15 Model Summary of the Regression Analysis for Loyalty
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .619a | .383 | .363 | 1.92301 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), feedback mechanisms, technology integration, diversity and inclusion initiatives | ||||
The model summary indicates a moderate positive correlation (R = .619) between the predictors and loyalty, signifying a significant yet less pronounced association relative to other dependent variables in the study and the R² value of .383 indicates that roughly 38.3% of the variance in loyalty is attributable to the combined effects of diversity and inclusion initiatives, technological integration, and feedback mechanisms and this proportion, however reduced compared to earlier models, nonetheless indicates a significant impact.
Table 16 Regression Coefficients for Predictors of Loyalty
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | .577 | 1.802 | .320 | .750 | |
| diversity and inclusion initiatives | 1.483 | .291 | 1.075 | 5.091 | .000 | |
| technology integration | .265 | 1.177 | 1.126 | 1.501 | .027 | |
| feedback mechanisms | .774 | .298 | .558 | 2.596 | .011 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: loyalty | ||||||
The coefficients table demonstrates that all three predictors—diversity and inclusion programs, technological integration, and feedback mechanisms—significantly and favorably affect loyalty, but with differing degrees of impact also diversity and inclusion programs exhibit the most substantial standardized effect (β = 1.075, p < .001), highlighting that equitable and inclusive human resource practices significantly bolster employees’ emotional and professional commitment to the organization also feedback mechanisms significantly contribute (β = 0.558, p = .011), indicating that transparent communication and adaptive HR policies enhance a sense of belonging and commitment. While technology integration is beneficial (β = 1.126, p = .027), its influence is very modest, suggesting that digital tools enhance rather than supplant interpersonal HR interaction.
Results and Discussion
The results of this research have significant implications for HR within higher education organizations. It highlights the influence of HR strategy on engagement, development, and institution-level reputation, particularly concerning the age structure of the HR workforce, as analyzed by the demographic components of the sample. The demographic profile of the sample indicates that the HR workforce in education is relatively young. Approximately 4 in every five respondents (78%) were aged between 25 and 44 years, with the largest group being those aged 35 to 44 years (42%). By comparison, just 4% of respondents are aged 55 or older, so senior educational HR leadership is not heavily comprised of retirees. This age group indicates a generation change in HR leadership, bringing more dynamic and technology-focused innovative management styles to the function from younger managers.” Its mere existence testifies to the fact that higher education is experiencing a youthquake, characterized by fresh ideas and openness toward innovative HR.
There was a relatively even gender distribution in the sample, with 58% males compared to 42% females. On the one hand, this indicates that there are at least some women in HR in leadership positions; on the other hand, it suggests that gender inclusion must grow stronger at the executive level, considering the role of HR as a driver of diversity and equity within institutions. However, the portrayal of developing a sex-inclusive working environment is more focused on this point; furthermore, HR in HE moves slowly. Professional experience also reflects a transitional pattern of HR leadership: 49% had 2–5 years of professional service, whereas 35% had between 5 and 10 years, and only one-fifth had over a decade of experience. Then, due to this distribution, we are observing how the industry is combining young, renewed professionals who are more open-minded with senior managers who have institutionalized experience, creating a mix that can add consistency and change to HR processes.
Disregarding demographics, survey results indicate that HR’s institutional function is viewed positively. The majority of respondents (82%) agreed or strongly agreed that HR initiatives have a positive impact on student satisfaction. A similar proportion (85%) of respondents reported that HR strategies emphasize diversity and inclusion in hiring faculty, and 72% recognized HR as a driver or center for policy. The substantial convergence of these dimensions (both with high face validity) and the relatively low standard deviations suggest that HR managers attach strategic rather than administrative importance to their actions. This aligns with claims in the literature that HR in education is playing an increasingly significant role in institutional governance and is viewed as a key supporter of inclusion.
The results also indicate that Internationalization and faculty development-oriented HR strategies are more dynamic global partnerships in Terms of Importance and effect. Nearly 68% of respondents indicated that the importance of global partnerships in HR strategies is high or very high, reflecting that international collaboration is valued in influencing faculty development. Likewise, 64% believed that HR strategies have a significant impact on institutional reputation, and 72% agreed that faculty development remains “very important.” This evidence suggests that HR is no longer limited to managing human resources internally but has become a key factor in global positioning and academic competition.
Adaptability is one of the main topics that resonated continuously. Some 80% of respondents “often” or “always” adapt HR to meet global trends, indicating they are oriented toward the outside world. Managers further underscored HR’s partnership with faculty, noting that 61% said faculty play a role at the planning table in HR’s strategic plans. Additionally, 72% of schools reported proactively seeking external partnerships for the training and development of their faculty. In sum, these findings suggest that HR practices are more communal and integrative than ever before, linking internal stockholders with external shareholders to enhance organizational performance.
The role of technology and communication tools was also discovered to be equally important. Seventy percent stated that HR includes technology within faculty development programs, and 80% indicated the presence of established (formal) examples of feedback systems for faculty. These strategies demonstrate the dedication to modernization and flexibility, allowing HR to be agile in serving faculty needs. The frequent presence of these systems also indicates a greater acceptance of participatory, as opposed to instrumental, approaches towards HR management, which enabled faculty input into institutional policy-making.
The regression analyses demonstrate that the integration of human resource (HR) strategies significantly and consistently impacts essential institutional outcomes, such as student satisfaction faculty advancement and institutional reputation and the R² values for the initial three models range from 0.67 to 0.73. More than two-thirds of the variations in these outcomes can be attributed to the synergistic effects of diversity and inclusion initiatives, technological integration, and feedback systems also among these metrics, technological integration consistently emerged as the most influential and statistically significant factor illustrating the revolutionary effect of digital technologies on both academic and administrative performance also feedback approaches generally exhibited a positive effect highlighting the significance of active communication and transparency between HR departments and faculty members and the slight negative or lower relationships with diversity and inclusion suggest that although inclusivity is essential for equity, its direct effect on satisfaction or institutional outcomes may depend on the perception and execution of these initiatives.
The model forecasting loyalty had a diminished R² value (0.383) indicating that although HR methods influence employee commitment unmeasured factors such as leadership style, corporate culture, or compensation may also play a significant role. All three HR aspects significantly influenced loyalty with diversity and inclusion programs exhibiting the highest standardized coefficient and this illustrates the significance of equity and belonging for sustained engagement and in higher education the regression results indicate that technology driven innovation inclusive human resource practices, and feedback oriented management collectively enhance institutional performance reputation and staff commitment and this reinforces the notion that deliberate HR strategies are crucial for academic achievement and organizational sustainability.
Finally, the survey demonstrated that HR strategies are constantly reviewed and have a high degree of flexibility in a changing education environment. Property: The majority of institutions (52%) update their HR strategy annually, while 37% do so every 2 years. This indicates that over four-fifths of institutions reconsider their strategies at least biannually, adopting a forward-oriented approach to enable HR policies to respond to the changing demands of education. Just a few (3%) indicated ‘other’ with an average re-specification of less than 3 years, which could either imply that HR TRUNKS are unusually static or slow to adapt.
In summary, the findings depict HR in higher education as more strategic, global, and innovation-oriented. Demographic models indicate an increase in younger HR leaders, and survey results underscore the expanding contribution of HR in areas such as student satisfaction, diversity, faculty development, international reputation, and organizational flexibility. These results are in line with modern research that considers the HR to be integral to organisational survival and success. Incorporating global best practices, promoting collaboration, and prioritizing the faculty first not only improves HR performance internally but also helps enhance the world-renowned reputations of higher education institutions.
Conclusion
The paper explored how the role of HR strategies has evolved into an increasingly strategic business partner in higher education, a function that, until recently, was perceived more as an administrative add-on than as a driver of academic success and institutional reputation. Based on survey data from HR managers who had been in that role at least 2 years, the results indicate a growing prevalence of future-oriented HR practices at such institutions. These periodic reviews of HR strategies include developing global partnerships to promote faculty development and implementing a technology-enabled feedback system for promotion. Together, these practices ensure that HR is a critical mechanism for linking institutional performance with global benchmarks of academic achievement.
Meanwhile, several limitations have been recognized in this analysis. The exclusive focus on quantifiable data, which is great for pointing to trends in specific contexts, may also have limited the examination of more nuanced perspectives accessible through qualitative research. Moreover, the emphasis on experienced HR managers might have failed to capture learning experiences from new entrants (i.e., early-career individuals) and future leaders in HR. For this reason, future research is likely to explore the strategic role of HR in specific contexts through the use of supplementary methods such as interviews or case studies.
Several recommendations emerge from the results. Colleges should regularly review and revise their HR strategies to keep pace with the ever-changing educational environment. Feedback mechanisms can be more vigorously nurtured to promote more inclusive decision-making processes, and greater leveraging of technology can increase the efficiency and innovativeness of faculty development programs. In the final analysis, strategically placing HR in higher education is no longer a luxury but a necessity to sustain institutional agility, improve faculty productivity, and engage new stakeholders globally as the academic landscape evolves.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to acknowledge the human resource managers who consented to be interviewed in this study and shared their time and expertise. Authors’ contributions: The authors who contributed played an invaluable role in providing the data that enabled this work. The paper would also like to thank the participating schools for allowing access to the respondents and for helping in conducting the study. Lastly, the author is grateful for the valuable comments from their colleagues and peers, which have helped make this study more polished and academically rigorous.
References
- Abbas, J., 2020. Service quality in higher education institutions: qualitative evidence from the students’ perspectives using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 371-384.
- Alikaj, A., Ning, W. & Wu, B., 2021. Proactive personality and creative behaviour: examining the role of thriving at work and high-involvement HR practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 857-869.
- Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. & Rum, L. E., 2019. Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. l.:Brill.
- Aristovnik, A. et al., 2020. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 8438.
- Bakker, A. B. & Leiter, M., 2017. Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organizational dynamics, 67-75.
- Barrena-Martínez, J., López-Fernández, M. & Romero-Fernández, P. M., 2019. Towards a configuration of socially responsible human resource management policies and practices: Findings from an academic consensus. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2544-2580.
- Bowden, J. L.-H., Leonie, T. & Kay, N., 2021. The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 1207-1224.
- Collings, D. G., Wood, G. T. & Szamosi, L. T., 2018. Human Resource Management: A Critical Approach. l.:Routledge.
- Cooke, F. L., Xiao, M., & Chen, Y., 2021. Still in search of strategic human resource management? A review and suggestions for future research with China as an example. Human Resource Management, 60(1), pp. 89-118.
- Eldor, L., 2017. Looking on the bright side: The positive role of organisational politics in the relationship between employee engagement and performance at work. Applied Psychology, 233-259.
- Gazzola, A. L. & Didriksson, A., 2018. Trends in higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean.
- Giesenbauer, B. & Müller-Christ. , G., 2020. University 4.0: Promoting the transformation of higher education institutions toward sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(8), p. 3371.
- Hamadamin, H. H. & Atan, T., 2019. The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices on the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: The Mediation of Human Capital Development and Employee Commitment. Sustainability, 5782.
- Hongal, P. & Kinange, U., 2020. A study on talent management and its impact on organizational performance: an empirical review. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research.
- Jung, J., 2018. Higher Education in Korea: Western Influences, Asian Values, and Indigenous Processes. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-13.
- Kim, D., Liu, Q. S. J., Liu, Q. & Grimm, A., 2018. Building world-class Universities in China: Exploring Faculty’s perceptions, interpretations of, and Struggles with global forces in Higher Education. Compare A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 92-109.
- Kim, W., 2017. Examining mediation effects of work engagement among job resources, job performance, and turnover intention… Performance Improvement Quarterly, 407-425.
- Kissoonduth, K., 2017. Talent Management: Attracting and retaining academic staff at selected public higher education institutions. Pretoria: Department of Public Administration, University of Unisa.
- Kromydas, T., 2017. Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state, and future potential. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), pp. 1-12.
- Kromydas, T., 2017. Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state, and future potential. Palgrave Communications, 1-12.
- Matei, L. & Iwinska, J., 2018. Diverging paths? Institutional autonomy and academic freedom in the European Higher Education Area. European higher education area: The impact of past and future policies, 345-368.
- Nabi, T. et al., 2023. The Impact of Organisational Communication and Transformational Leadership on Employee Green Behaviour and Organisational Effectiveness. Journal of Content, Community & Communication.
- Pietilä, M., 2019. Incentivising academics: Experiences and expectations of the tenure track in Finland. Studies in Higher Education, 932-945.
- Seyama, S. E., 2018. Performance Management in Higher Education: Critical Leadership Perspectives for Academic Heads of Department. South Africa: University of Johannesburg.
- Steers, R. M. & Lee, T. W., 2017. Facilitating effective performance appraisals: The role of employee commitment and organizational climate. In Performance measurement and theory, 75-93.
- Sunder, M. V. & Mahalingam, S., 2018. An empirical investigation of implementing Lean Six Sigma in higher education institutions. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(10), pp. 2157-2180.
- Vial, G., (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Managing Digital Transformation, 13-66.
- Wood, J., Park, J. O. J., & Kim, W., 2020. The relationship between work engagement and work–life balance in organizations: A review of the empirical research. Human Resource Development Review, 240-262.
[1]– PhD student at the, Islamic Azad University, Iran,Department of Business Administration
Email: azad.alihemadi@hotmail.com
– طالب دكتوراه الجامعة الإسلاميّة الحرّة (آزاد)، إيران- قسم إدارة الأعمال.
[2] -He supervises at: Azad University -He lectures at: International American University
Email: selannan@iaula.edu
-محاضر في الجامعة الإسلاميّة الحرّة (آزاد)- إيران- قسم إدارة الأعمال
