Skip to main content

Academic managerial competency in Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia: validity and factorial invariance of an Australian Scale in the Malaysian context

Abstract

This study’s focus is on validating the second-order three-factor Australian academic managerial competency scale in the Malaysian academic context as well as checking its factorial invariance based on academic leaders’ gender. Furthermore, we performed a descriptive comparison between three samples of academic leaders from Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia based on the validated model. For this purpose, we analyzed the data of 367 academic leaders from 25 Malaysian public and private universities. Upon completion of data screening, we applied the robust Satorra–Bentler method, through which a corrected Chi-square statistic and robust standard errors were generated, to estimate the model’s parameters and compute fit indices using EQS 6.4. We practically addressed the importance of the data's multivariate normality as an essential requirement of the analysis. We achieved this by comparing the selected estimates’ standard errors and z statistics based on the robust maximum likelihood (ML) and conventional ML methods. Our results confirmed the factorial validity of the second-order three-factor Australian academic managerial competency scale in the Malaysian academic context. The validated scale exhibited a high level of factorial invariance based on gender. Moreover, the descriptive comparison showed that the items of the validated model were more important from the sampled Malaysian academic leaders’ perspective than from their Australian and New Zealander counterparts. We thereby contribute to research on management competencies in higher education, provide policy implications, and recommend avenues for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data availability

Our dataset to estimate the final model was published on Harvard Dataverse and is accessible via https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5IPOS3.

Notes

  1. The scale has been developed with the support of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. However, this scale does not necessarily represent the views of the above-mentioned government office.

  2. Δ S–B χ2 is not χ2-distributed. To compute this statistic, we followed the guidelines by Bentler (2006, pp. 157–158).

  3. For further information, see https://asem-education.org/initiatives/31-eu-share-project-higher-education-in-asean-region/ and https://rihed.seameo.org/.

References

  • Ang MCH (2020) Work-life balance for sustainable development in Malaysian higher education institutions: fad or fact? Kajian Malays 38(1):33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aziz S, Mullins ME, Balzer WK, Grauer E, Burnfield JL, Lodato MA, Cohen-Powless MA (2005) Understanding the training needs of department chairs. Stud High Educ 30(5):571–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (2006) EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software Inc. Los Angeles.

  • Bentler PM, Wu E (2018) Supplement to EQS 6.4 for Windows user’s guide. Multivariate Software Inc., Los Angeles.

  • Bernerth JB, Aguinis H (2016) A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Pers Psychol 69(1):229–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black SA (2015) Qualities of effective leadership in higher education. Open J Leadersh 4(2):54–66. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2015.42006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blunch NJ (2016) Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and EQS. Sage, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant FB, Satorra A (2012) Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Struct Equ Model 19(3):372–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler J (2020) Learning to lead: a discussion of development programs for academic leadership capability in Australian Universities. J High Educ Policy Manag 42(4):424–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1701855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne BM (2006) Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2 ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

  • Byrne BM (2016) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (3 ed). Routledge, Milton Park.

  • Creswell JW (2013) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4 ed). Sage, New York.

  • Dauphin B (2005) Letter on competency for psychologists. Michigan Soc Psychoanalyt Psychol 15(2):100–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis A, Jansen van Rensburg M, Venter P (2016) The impact of managerialism on the strategy work of university middle managers. Stud High Educ 41(8):1480–1494. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.981518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer H, Goedegebuure L (2009) The changing nature of the academic deanship. Leadership 5(3):347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715009337765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duignan P (2004) Forming capable leaders: from competencies to capabilities. N Z J Educ Leadersh 19(2):5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichhorn BR (2014) Common method variance techniques MWSUG 2014. Illinois, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans L (2017) University professors as academic leaders: professorial leadership development needs and provision. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh 45(1):123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215578449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan MG, Scott G (2009) Turnaround leadership for higher education. Jossey-Bass, Hoboken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Sufean H, Kamaluddin MA (2016a) Academic leadership capability framework: a comparison of its compatibility and applicability in Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. Asia Pac Educ Rev 17:217–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9425-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Sufean H, Kamaluddin MDMA, Ghavifekr S, Banu KH (2016b, 07–09 March) Assessing management competencies for quality leadership performance: a study in Malaysian higher education context. 10th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference INTED2016, Valencia, Spain.

  • Ghasemy M, Sufean H, Kamaluddin MA, Ahmad Zabidi, AR, Mohd Jamil, M (2017) Pivotal qualities for effective university leadership on the basis of a modified Australian model: the application of FIMIX-PLS and IPMA in the Malaysian academic context. Asia Pac Educ Rev 18(4):501–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9504-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Sufean H, Ahmad Zabidi AR, Mohd Jamil M, Ghavifekr S (2018a) Determining the key capacities of effective leaders in Malaysian public and private focused universities. SAGE Open 8(4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018807620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Sufean H, Kamaluddin MA, Mariani MN, Ghavifekr S, Husaina Banu, K (2018b) Issues in Malaysian higher education: a quantitative representation of the top five priorities, values, challenges, and solutions from the viewpoints of academic leaders. SAGE Open 8(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018755839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Derahvasht A, Castillo-Apraiz J (2021a) The antecedents and consequences of wandering scholars’ affect: the case of the multi-cultural Malaysia in the internationalization era. J Appl Res High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-02-2021-0078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Farhah M, Jamali J, Roldán JL (2021b) Satisfaction and performance of the international faculty: to what extent emotional reactions and conflict matter? SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211030598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemy M, Morshidi S, Rosa-Díaz IM, Martín-Ruiz D (2021c) Causes and consequences of academics’ emotions in private higher education institutions: implications for policy and practice through the lens of Affective Events Theory. Educ Res Policy Pract 20(3):367–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09288-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green T (2016) A methodological review of structural equation modelling in higher education research. Stud High Educ 41(12):2125–2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1021670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Black WC (2018) Multivariate data analysis (8 ed). Cengage, Boston.

  • Harman HH (1960) Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu L-T, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingvarson L, Anderson M, Gronn P, Jackson A (2006) Standards for school leadership: a critical review of the literature. Teaching Australia.

  • Knight J, Morshidi S (2011) The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs: focus on Malaysia. High Educ 62(5):593–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9467-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee M (2015) Higher education in Malaysia: national strategies and innovative practices. In: Shin JC, Postiglione GA, Huang F (eds) Mass higher education development in East Asia (vol 2, pp 105–118). Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane B (2011) Professors as intellectual leaders: formation, identity and role. Stud High Educ 36(1):57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903443734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mardia KV (1970) Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57(3):519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mardia KV (1974) Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyā 36(2):115–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall SG (2012) Educational middle change leadership in New Zealand: the meat in the sandwich. Int J Educ Manag 26(6):502–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211251361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morshidi S (2010) Strategic planning directions of Malaysia’s higher education: university autonomy in the midst of political uncertainties. High Educ 59(4):461–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9259-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morshidi S, Norzaini A, Aishah AB (2016) Harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia Regionalism: politics first, and then education. In: Global regionalisms and higher education. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 103–123

  • Norzaini A, Muhammad J, Morshidi S (2011) Malaysia: perspectives of university governance and management within the academic profession. In: Locke W, Cummings KW, Fisher D (eds) Changing governance and management in higher education: the perspectives of the academy. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 83–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol 63(1):539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden P (1998) Learning to lead in higher education. Routledge, Milton Park

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra A, Bentler PM (1988) Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Business and Economic Statistics Section, Washington, DC.

  • Satorra A, Bentler PM (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Eye AV, Clogg CC (eds) Latent variable analysis: application for development research. Sage, New York, pp 399–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Satorra A, Bentler PM (1999) A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66(4):507–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra A, Bentler PM (2010) Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika 75(2):243–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt N, Kuljanin G (2008) Measurement invariance: review of practice and implications. Hum Resour Manag Rev 18(4):210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott G, McKellar L (2012) Leading professionals in Australian and New Zealand tertiary education. University of Western Sydney and Association for Tertiary Education Management.

  • Scott G, Coates H, Anderson M (2008) Learning leaders in times of change: academic leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. University of Western Sydney and Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Scott G, Tilbury D, Sharp L, Deane E (2012) Turnaround leadership for sustainability in higher education. Office of Learning and Teaching, Australian Government.

  • Soaib A, Sufean H (2012) University governance: trends and models. University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur.

  • Sohail MS, Daud S (2009) Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: perspectives from Malaysia. Vine 39(2):125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720910988841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan WM, Rosin MS (2008) A new agenda for higher education: shaping a life of the mind for practice. Jossey-Bass, Hoboken.

  • Thomas M, Francis P, Shahid SAM, Jani SHM (2015) The need for emotional intelligence skills among knowledge workers at the tertiary level. Int J Soc Sci Humanit 5(4):347–351. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker A (1992) Chairing the academic department: leadership among peers (2 ed). American Council on Education/Macmillan, New York.

  • Wan CD, Morshidi S, Dzulkifli R (2015) The idea of a university: rethinking the Malaysian context. Humanities, 4:266–282. https://doi.org/10.3390/h4030266

  • Wan CD (2018) Institutional differentiation in the era of massification: the case of Malaysia. In: Wu AM, Hawkins JN (eds) Massification of higher education in Asia: consequences, policy responses and changing governance. Springer, New York, pp 87–101

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ (1995) Structural equation models with non-normal variables: problems and remedies. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications. Sage, pp 56–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Westland JC (2010) Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron Commer Res Appl 9(6):476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiddett S, Hollyforde S (2003) A practical guide to competencies: how to enhance individual and organisational performance (2 ed). Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

  • White K, Bagilhole B, Riordan S (2012) The gendered shaping of university leadership in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. High Educ Q 66(3):293–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00523.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson R, Yussof I (2005) Public and private provision of higher education in Malaysia: a comparative analysis. High Educ 50(3):361–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6354-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolverton M, Gmelch WH (2002) College deans: leading from within. American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

  • Yavaprabhas S (2014) The harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia. In: Yonezawa A, Kitamura Y, Meerman A, Kuroda K (eds) Emerging international dimensions in East Asian Higher Education. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yen SH, Ong WL, Ooi KP (2015) Income and employment multiplier effects of the Malaysian higher education sector. J Appl Econom Res 9(1):61–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973801014557391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan KH, Bentler PM (2001) Effect of outliers on estimators and tests in covariance structure analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol 54(1):161–175. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711001159366

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Professor Geoff Scott, from the University of Western Sydney, and Natalie Laifer, from the office of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), for the permission to employ the academic managerial competency scale in this study.

Funding

This study is not a funded research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majid Ghasemy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest of any kind related to this article.

Ethical approval

The performed procedures were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, or comparable ethical standards. No consent was required, since the participation was voluntary, information was anonymized, and the paper does not include images that may identify the person.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix A1: Item correlations based on the final model (N = 367)

Item Correlations
LT1 1.000          
LT2 0.683 1.000         
LT5 0.559 0.651 1.000        
LT6 0.753 0.697 0.548 1.000       
SELF_O2 0.429 0.436 0.403 0.410 1.000      
SELF_O3 0.461 0.430 0.354 0.395 0.411 1.000     
SELF_O4 0.515 0.395 0.369 0.399 0.437 0.622 1.000    
U_OP1 0.490 0.447 0.387 0.509 0.418 0.339 0.475 1.000   
U_OP3 0.486 0.493 0.401 0.525 0.519 0.382 0.486 0.596 1.000  
U_OP4 0.554 0.547 0.508 0.568 0.438 0.493 0.532 0.567 0.560 1.000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghasemy, M., Jamil, H., Abdul Razak, N. et al. Academic managerial competency in Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia: validity and factorial invariance of an Australian Scale in the Malaysian context. SN Soc Sci 1, 271 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00283-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00283-7

Keywords

  • Academic managerial competency scale
  • Malaysian higher education
  • Academic leadership capability framework
  • Satorra–Bentler robust methodology
  • Australia
  • New Zealand