Deans’ Transformational Leadership and Internationalization of Higher Education in Chinese Universities: Mediating Effect of Adhocracy Culture

Abstract

The internationalization of higher education (IoHE) is a crucial component of China’s double first-class initiatives, driving universities to adopt effective leadership and cultural strategies. This research investigates the relationship between deans’ transformational leadership (TFL) and IoHE in 22 Chinese universities, focusing on the mediating role of adhocracy culture. Using proportionate stratified random sampling, data from 410 academic staff were analyzed via structural equation modeling and bootstrapping. Results reveal moderate levels of IoHE and adhocracy culture, alongside a high TFL prevalence. TFL significantly influences IoHE directly (β = .517, p < .001) and indirectly through adhocracy culture (β = .169, p < .001), with both factors explaining 56% of IoHE variance. Subdimensions, such as developing shared visions, building goal consensus, and modeling values exhibit strong direct effects, whereas adhocracy culture’s moderate effect (f² = 0.151) highlights its complementary role. Notably, subdimension building collaborative structures unexpectedly correlates negatively with IoHE, potentially reflecting tensions between hierarchical norms and adaptive internationalization strategies. Limitations include sample exclusion of vocational colleges and exclusive focus on adhocracy culture within the competing values framework. Future research should explore hybrid cultural models and contextual factors to advance holistic IoHE strategies in Chinese hierarchical institutional contexts.

Plain language summary

The influence of transformational leadership and adhocracy culture on internationalization of higher education in Chinese Universities

The research emphasizes the importance of fostering transformational leadership among university deans to support the development of internationalization of higher education. It underscores the role of adhocracy culture as a critical link in this relationship, ultimately contributing to the overall development of universities towards internationalization.

Keywords

TFL adhocracy culture IoHE mediating effect Chinese universities

Introduction

Higher education has undergone significant transformations in recent decades, driven by increased competition, funding constraints, and the emergence of a knowledge-driven society (Zhu & Zayim-Kurtay, 2018). In response to these challenges, higher education institutions (HEIs) have been compelled to reassess their governance structures, leadership practices, and internationalization strategies. The internationalization of higher education (IoHE) has become an undistributed trend shaping the process of higher education (Cai, 2021; Jian, 2019; Liu et al., 2020), fostering global collaboration, enhancing research capabilities, and improving institutional prestige in a competitive global market (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Consequently, global universities have escalated their internationalization efforts, integrating them into teaching, research, and institutional governance (Bowles & Murphy, 2020; Soler, 2019).

This trend is also evident in Chinese universities, as China aims to enhance its university competitiveness through internationalization under the double first-class initiatives (Hammond, 2016). Chinese university’s centralized governance model, characterized by the party committee leadership system, exerts a profound influence on the study of IoHE. On one hand, this model offers substantial policy support for universities to engage in international cooperation. On the other hand, China’s cultural norms, such as collectivism and hierarchy, which are deeply rooted in the management of universities, present opportunities and challenges for IoHE. The traditional hierarchical system may conflict with the flexibility and innovation required by internationalization, as decision-making processes in such structures often involve multiple administrative layers that slow down the adoption of new internationalization strategies.

Amid these transformative changes, academic leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping an institution’s internationalization strategies. Deans, as key academic leaders, are instrumental in navigating IoHE complexities, guiding their institutions toward enhanced global engagement and competitiveness (Lo et al., 2020). In this context, transformational leadership (TFL), rooted in Bass and Avolio’s (1994) theory of leadership that emphasizes vision, motivation, and intellectual stimulation, has gained considerable attention. This style is recognized as effective in fostering innovation, motivating followers, and addressing individual needs to inspire institutional change, which are critical for driving the organizational transformations required by IoHE. By inspiring a shared vision of international engagement, transformational leaders create institutional environments conductive to internationalization efforts. This approach renders TFL a vital component in the leadership strategies of universities, enhancing their international standards.

However, leadership alone cannot sufficiently ensure successful internationalization. Organizational culture plays a critical role in determining how leadership practices translate into institutional outcomes. Drawing on Cameron and Quinn’s (2006) competing values framework (CVF), adhocracy culture is characterized by flexibility, creativity, and a strong emphasis on innovation and change. This cultural type is particularly well-suited to IoHE, as it aligns with the need for institutions to adapt to global trends and foster experimental approaches to internationalization. An adhocracy culture fosters an environment where risk-taking and experimentation are encouraged, enabling universities to adopt and implement internationalization strategies that require adaptability to global trends and changes. It creates a dynamic setting where new ideas can thrive, crucial for institutions seeking to compete internationally. However, this characteristic of adhocracy culture, inherently conflicts with China’s traditional hierarchical academic structures. This conflict may have implications for the study findings. In a hierarchical structure, decision-making follows a top-down approach, whereas adhocracy culture encourages bottom-up innovation. Therefore, in the context of this study, an excessively rigid hierarchical structure may impede the development of adhocracy culture in universities, thereby weakening its positive impact on IoHE. However, if the two can be effectively integrated, the positive influence of adhocracy culture on IoHE may be enhanced.

Although leadership and culture have been discussed and scrutinized by different organizations in studies conducted on IoHE, studies on the intertwinement of leadership and culture variables in IoHE have been unreached. Specifically, our literature review shows that the connection among TFL, adhocracy culture, and IoHE is still in its infancy, requiring full exploration. In particular, specific empirical studies investigating the roles that adhocracy culture plays as a mediating role in the TFL–IoHE relationship are scant.

The selection of adhocracy culture as a mediator in this study is grounded in its alignment with TFL and IoHE. Transformational leaders thrive in environments that promote innovation and change, which are the hallmarks of adhocracy culture. Consequently, this type of organizational culture facilitates the internationalization process by enabling institutions to be more agile and open to new global opportunities. Therefore, adhocracy culture is expected to mediate the relationship between TFL and IoHE by creating organizational conditions necessary for transformational leaders to effectively drive internationalization. Without such a culture, the innovative and forward-thinking aspects of TFL might not fully translate into tangible international outcomes.

This study aims to address these gaps by investigating how deans’ TFL and adhocracy culture jointly influence IoHE in selected 22 Chinese universities. These universities were carefully selected to represent different scales, rankings, and regions, including elite, regional, and specialized institutions. This selection aims to ensure a diverse representation. However, the research findings may have limitations when generalized to other types of universities, such as vocational colleges or those with short-term internationalization efforts. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

What are the levels of TFL, adhocracy culture, and IoHE at 22 Chinese universities?

What are the relationships among TFL, adhocracy culture, and IoHE at 22 Chinese universities?

Is the mediating effect of adhocracy culture on TFL and IoHE significant at 22 Chinese universities?

Answering these research questions is highly important. For Chinese universities striving to enhance their international competitiveness under the double first-class initiatives, understanding the relationship among TFL, adhocracy culture, and IoHE can provide valuable insights for formulating effective internationalization strategies.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Construction

Internationalization of Higher Education and Transformational Leadership

Since its introduction in the 1980s, internationalization has been extensively debated within and across geography and the social sciences (Adriansen & Madsen, 2021; de Wit & Hunter, 2015; Spangler & Adriansen, 2021; Teichler, 2004; Waters et al., 2024). Knight (2003) defined IoHE as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the purpose, functions, or delivery of postsecondary education at the national, sector, and institutional levels. As a multifaceted initiative, internationalization aims to enhance all higher education missions and can be implemented in various contexts, including student and scholar exchange, program transfer, founds, international exchanges, external partnerships, curriculum development, and institutional commitment (de Wit & Deca, 2020; Hudzik, 2015; Knight, 2012; Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007). IoHE is often considered essential for institutions adapting to globalization (Kotorov et al., 2021).

Despite the extensive studies on IoHE, the literature predominantly reflects theoretical and conceptual framework, with limited empirical studies (De Bot et al., 2007). This lack of measurement complicates the understanding of internationalization, as it involves multiple interrelated patterns. For example, Beckford (2003) surveyed 238 participants to determine how international education is integrated into curriculum, study abroad programs, and other international initiatives. The findings indicated that community college leaders struggled to establish robust international initiatives, indicating a gap in practical application. In a more comprehensive study, Bendriss (2007) demonstrated strong positive relationships among six dimensions of internationalization: articulated commitment (AC), academic offerings (AO), external funding (EF), institutional investment in faculty (IIF), organizational infrastructure (OI), and international students and student programs (ISSP), reinforcing the notion that internationalization is a multifaceted organizational adaptation (Bendriss, 2007; Green, 2005). Overall, IoHE has evolved from ad hoc, negligible, and bitty to a more extensive and integrated component of higher education policy (de Wit & Rumbley, 2017).

Understanding the complexities of IoHE is essential, particularly as it intersects with TFL, which can cultivate supportive organizational cultures conducive to successful internationalization initiatives.

TFL, as defined by Bass and Bass Bernard (1985), involves influencing followers’ attitudes and values to drive organizational change, align individual and institutional goals, and inspire high performance—attributes critical for advancing IoHE strategies. Leithwood (1994) identified eight dimensions through which TFL can motivate followers to engage in decision-making processes: developing shared visions (DSV) refers to leaders advancing practices to search new opportunities to express and motivate the future versions of subordinates; building school goal consensus (BSGC) refers to the goals established by leaders to address school needs; holding high-performance expectations (HHPE) refers to leaders maintaining high expectations for excellence, quality, and staff performance; offering individualized supports (OIS) refers to respecting individual faculty members, addressing their concerns and acknowledging their feels and needs; providing intellectual stimulations (PIS) entails the degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, takes risks, and solicits followers’ ideas; modeling desirable practices and values (MDPV) involves demonstrating highly ethical behavior model, instilling pride, respecting, and believing in teachers, and exhibiting a willingness to change based on new understanding and evolving environment; building collaborative structures (BCS) refers to highlighting faculty collaboration as part of the institution vision and care, and showing respect to students and staff to reinforce the culture; strengthening school cultures (SSC) refers to common standards, beliefs, values, and assumptions that are constituted by faculty members (Bush, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Sun & Leithwood, 2012). Leithwood is recognized as the pioneer in introducing TFL into the field of education, although his work primarily focused on primary education (Hallinger & Heck, 2011; Hoy & Miskel, 2012). Based on these definitions, the concept of TFL in the context of Chinese universities not only embodies the general characteristics of inspiring followers and promoting innovation, but also needs to adapt to the unique educational environment in China. Chinese universities are influenced by the national education policy system and cultural traditions. Therefore, TFL in this context should also considers integrating national and local characteristics into internationalization strategies.

In the context of higher education, TFL is widely recognized as one of the most effective leadership styles (Altynbassov et al., 2024; Hyde-Clarke, 2023; Thanh et al., 2022; Zacher & Johnson, 2015). Research shows that TFL positively influences faculty and student engagement, organizational commitment, academic performance, job satisfaction, innovation, and organizational culture (Balwant et al., 2019; Fenech et al., 2024; Habeeb & Eyupoglu, 2024; Huang et al., 2021; Nelly et al., 2024; Saif et al., 2024; Southgate et al., 2023; Yu & Jang, 2024). Its emphasis on vision-building and collaboration creates a conducive environment for motivating diverse stakeholders to work toward common institutional goals (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). For example, Khan et al. (2023) found that TFL has a significant higher association with employee performance in HEIs of Pakistan. They recommended that HEIs should prioritize TFL style among their leaders. Mwesigwa et al. (2020) found that TFL presents a strong correlation with job satisfaction at five public universities in Uganda. Saif et al. (2024) examined the correlations among TFL, innovative work behavior, and performance, discovering a direct relationship between TFL and innovation and performance among leaders and employees in HEIs. Overall, the extensive research supports the importance of TFL in higher education, a powerful catalyst for inspiring and motivating faculty.

Leadership is widely recognized as essential to internationalization (Heyl & Tullbane, 2012; Kahn, 2016; Nolan & Hunter, 2012; Ratliff, 2013), as leaders translate internationalization goals into effective strategies and foster institutional cultures aligned with internationalization objectives (Cotae, 2013; Egekvist et al., 2017; Jones & Oleksiyenko, 2011). However, empirical studies about the intersection of leadership and internationalization are limited (Kraus et al., 2018). The lack of effective leadership can hinder these efforts, as unskilled or inconsistent leadership often results in poor internationalization outcomes (Dewey & Duff, 2009). The need for adaptable, forward-looking leadership styles has grown as institutions face evolving demands within international education (Green & Ferguson, 2011; Ogundimu, 2020).

TFL has been identified as particularly effective in the context of IoHE. It enables institutions to adapt to constantly evolving external and internal environments while inspiring and empowering faculty to pursue innovative internationalization goals (Nurtjahjani et al., 2020). For example, Kraus et al. (2018) conducted a qualitative study on examining the influence of leadership styles on internationalization. The result suggested that TFL can lead to high level of internationalization. Colpitts (2023) investigated the role of leadership in facilitating IoHE in Japan, and the findings indicated that Japanese and non-Japanese faculty and leaders identify TFL as the most effective in facilitating IoHE. Yaro (2023) found that TFL approach is widely used by senior international officers for an effective and successful internationalization in the United States. These findings confirmed TFL’s role as a key driver in achieving IoHE. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H₁: The eight dimensions of TFL are positively associated with IoHE at 22 Chinese universities.

Internationalization of Higher Education and Adhocracy Culture

Organizational culture encompasses the collective beliefs, thinking styles, and values of its members. It has been widely discussed among scholars within the context of HEIs (Adeinat & Abdulfatah, 2019; Afrifa et al., 2022; Chidambaranathan & Regha, 2016; Haffar et al., 2023). Research indicates that adhocracy culture is the strongest predictor of service quality and notably prevalent in higher education (Chidambaranathan & Regha, 2016; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). This culture is regarded as the most successful and desirable in universities because it fosters attributes such as innovation, flexibility, and strategic changes (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Dan & Ngoc, 2024; Öztürk & Tetik, 2021). Adhocracy culture has been proven to significantly influence university performance, strategic management, university innovation, and knowledge management (Adeinat & Abdulfatah, 2019; Gorzelany et al., 2021; Kokt & Makumbe, 2020).

Internationalization approaches vary by institution, and these differences stem from higher education culture (de Wit, 2002; Hudzik, 2015). Researchers have investigated that culture might foster or inhibit internationalization (Agnew & VanBalkom, 2009; Delgado-Márquez et al., 2012; Xuan, 2015). Reedstrom (2005) proposed that commitment to mission, vision, and culture has been the key to Dickinson’s successful 45-year internationalization. Schein (2004) suggested that a lake of understanding of organizational culture by leaders hinders their ability to effectively guide institutions in addressing challenges. Tanhueco-Nepomuceno (2019) found that a lack of a supportive culture at institutional level impeded the internationalization process.

When applying Cameron and Quinn’s (2006) findings to university internationalization, Bartell (2003) suggested that adhocracy culture is likely to facilitate a successful internationalization process due to its external adaptation, system openness, and community interaction. For example, universities with adhocracy cultures undergoing internationalization view external challenges as opportunities rather than threats (Volkova & Plakhotnik, 2023). Mchaizi et al. (2023) found that adhocracy culture had a positive and significant influence on performance of public universities in western Kenya. Gorzelany et al. (2021) suggested that adhocracy culture contributed the most to university innovativeness in German and Ukrainian. Moreover, Bartell (2003) found that strong, outward-oriented organizational culture adapted best to internationalization changes. By contrast, adhocracy culture values external positioning and flexibility (Berrio, 2003); it is an outward-focused culture. Hence, the following hypothesis is provided:

H₂: A significant positive relationship exists between adhocracy culture and IoHE at 22 Chinese universities.

Transformational Leadership and Adhocracy Culture in Higher Education

Leadership and culture are interconnected (Dastmalchian et al., 2000; Schein, 2004). Many scholars have studied TFL and organizational culture. Theoretical and empirical studies showed a strong link between TFL and organizational culture (Al-Shibami et al., 2019; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2011; Jati et al., 2015; Pratama et al., 2020; Veiseh et al., 2014). Transformational leaders motivate followers to collaborate, be creative, and perform well, substantially influencing adhocracy culture (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Leaders in adhocracy culture are expected to be visionary, innovative, and risk oriented to succeed. Transformational leaders can foster adhocracy culture through specific behavior. In the Chinese context, TFL’s influence on adhocracy culture is further shaped by institutional hierarchies. Deans often leverage party committee support to pilot adhocracy-oriented initiatives within bureaucratic structures, rather than challenging them directly. This allows TFL to foster innovation while maintaining hierarchical stability, a dynamic not fully captured by Western leadership theories. Deans with TFL traits often decentralize decision-making by empowering faculty to lead international partnership initiatives and implement international cooperation courses independently. They can also foster a supportive environment that encourages risk-taking. These practices align with adhocracy’s emphasis on flexibility and innovation, as demonstrated in studies where TFL was found to enhance organizational agility in adapting to global challenges (Al Issa, 2019; Yildiz & Gul, 2016). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

H₃: The eight dimensions of TFL are associated with adhocracy culture at 22 Chinese universities.

Adhocracy Culture as a Mediator

Multiple studies have demonstrated that organizational culture mediates TFL and various outcomes, such as organizational learning, citizenship, psychological empowerment, change management, and resource planning (Al-Ali et al., 2017; Esmi et al., 2017; Hosseini et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2017; Shao et al., 2012). For example, Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Viera-Armas (2017) found that adhocracy culture can fully mediate the leadership and cybercivism relations. Adhocracy culture has also been found to exhibit a positive mediating effect on the relationships between corporate social responsibility and reputation, as well as performance and innovation (Ali et al., 2023; Noone et al., 2024). Despite this finding, no empirical articles to date have examined the mediation effect of adhocracy culture specifically on the TFL–IoHE relationship. Therefore, this article seeks to address this gap. Based on prior research on TFL and adhocracy culture and their interaction effects, we hold the view that TFL and adhocracy culture are well-aligned in fostering an environment conductive to internationalization. By creating a culture that promotes innovation, risk-taking, and adaptability, TFL can encourage faculty to actively engage in and support IoHE initiatives. Adhocracy culture can thus enhance the impact of TFL on IoHE by motivating faculty to embrace and implement innovative practices in internationalization. Therefore, building on the theoretical alignment between TFL’s emphasis on innovation and adhocracy culture’s role in fostering adaptive environments, we propose the following hypothesis.

H₄: Adhocracy culture significantly mediates the relationship between TFL and IoHE at 22 Chinese universities.

Figure 1 presents a structural model, with IoHE as the dependent variable, TFL as the independent variable, and adhocracy culture as the mediating variable. TFL and adhocracy culture directly and indirectly affect IoHE, respectively.

Figure 1.

Structural model of the research. A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6 represent six items of adhocracy culture. The blue dashed arrow represents the mediating effect.

Materials and Research Methods

This research is descriptive and correlational.

Population and Sample

The population consists of 39,702 academic staff from 22 Chinese universities. The 22 universities were carefully selected to represent different scales, rankings, and regions, including elite, regional, and specialized institutions. Elite universities, such as Nanchang University, were included to represent institutions from double first-class universities and disciplines. Regional universities, including Jiangxi University of Science and Technology and Gannan Normal University, were selected to reflect the internationalization of regional universities. These universities face unique challenges and opportunities in internationalization development, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the national-level IoHE landscape. Specialized institutions, such as Gannan Medical Universities and Jiangxi Agricultural University, were also included in the sample to cover the diversity of higher education in China. Moreover, the selected universities comprise School of International Education or Division of International Exchange and Cooperation, which ensured that internationalization efforts have been conducted at universities. However, given that vocational colleges have different educational goals and resource constraints and universities with short-term internationalization efforts may not be well structured in IoHE development, these two types of universities were excluded. Through proportionate stratified random sampling, a minimum of 380 academic staff were selected using Cochran (1977) formula. Given the difficulty in obtaining responses from faculty and staff, a 30% dropout rate was added (Israel, 1992), achieving a final sample size of 494. After a three-month collection period, 410 (83% response rate) valid samples were collected.

Demographics include gender, educational background, highest academic attainment, and teaching experience. Among them, 225 (54.9%) are female and 185 (45.1%) are male; 258 (62.9%) have master degrees, 123 (30%) have PhD degrees, and 29 (7.1%) have bachelor degrees; 173 (42.2%) are lecturers, 122 (29.8%) are associate professors, 74 (18%) are assistants, and 41 (10%) are professors; 101 (24.6%) have worked in their institutions for less than 5 years and 309 (75.4%) have worked for more than 6 years. Detailed demographic information is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Information on Participants (n = 410).

Characteristics		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	185	45.1
Gender	Female	225	54.9
Educational background	Bachelor	29	7.1
	Master	258	62.9
	Doctoral	123	30.0
Academic attainment	Assistant	74	18.0
	Lecturer	173	42.2
	Associate professor	122	29.8
	Professor	41	10.0
Teaching experience	Less than 5 years	101	24.6
	6–10 years	72	17.6
	11–15 years	64	15.6
	16–20 years	85	20.7
	Over 21 years	88	21.5

Note. Assistant refers to entry-level academic staff, whereas lecturer denotes mid-career professionals with teaching and research responsibilities.

Data Collection

The data were collected through online platform SoJump (wjx.cn). The link was sent to the participants via e-mail between September and December 2023. The email addresses were obtained from the official internet addresses of HEIs.

Instruments

IoHE

To measure IoHE, Green’s (2005) institutional internationalization survey (IIS) was used in this study. The survey includes 30 items in total regarding the six dimensions of IoHE: AC, AO, EF, IIF, OI, and ISSP, employing a five-point Likert scale. After removing AO dimension with its factor loading of less than 0.5 (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2010), the reliability of the scale is achieved with α = .948 for 27 items. The reliabilities for subdimensions are: α = .860 for AC; α = .826 for EF; α = .852 for IIF; α = .833 for OI; and α = .919 for ISSP. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation produced six factors with eigenvalues above 1, explaining 64.80% of the variance. An example of IoHE items is: “My institution’s mission statement specifically refers to international education.”

Deans’ TFL

TFL is measured by Leithwood and Jantzi’s (1999) TFL questionnaire (TLQ). The TFL scale, originally developed for K-12 settings, was adapted for higher education by replacing school-specific items with university contexts. For example, the item “my principal regularly encourages us to evaluate our progress toward achieving school goals” under building school goal consensus (BSGC) dimension, was revised to “my dean regularly encourages us to evaluate our progress toward achieving university internationalization goals.” A pre-test with 50 faculty university confirmed construct validity (Cronbach’s α = .938), demonstrating its suitability for measuring leadership in higher education contexts. A total of 42 items are categorized into eight dimensions of TFL: DSV, BSGC, HHPE, MDPV, OIS, PIS, SSC, and BCS, employing a five-point Likert scale. The reliability of the scale is achieved with α = .948, and the reliabilities for subdimensions are: α = .812 for DSV; α = .839 for BSGC; α = .837 for HHPE; α = .894 for MDPV; α = .876 for OIS; α = .870 for PIS; α = .881 for SSC; α = .864 for BCS. Eight factors with eigenvalues above 1 explained 64.84% of the variance in EFA with Varimax rotation. An example of TFL items is: “My dean shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals (SSC).”

Adhocracy culture is measured by Cameron and Quinn’s (2006) organizational culture assessment instrument. Six items are used to measure adhocracy culture, applying a five-point Likert scale. The reliability of the scale is achieved with α = .868 for six items. One factor with eigenvalues above 1 explained 60.32% of the variance in EFA with Varimax rotation. An example of adhocracy culture items is: “The management style in my institution is characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.”

The data collection tools are valid (IIS index values: χ²/df = 1.395, GFI = 0.927, NFI = 0.931, CFI = 0.979, IFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.031; TLQ index values: χ²/df = 1.341, GFI = 0.887, NFI = 0.877, CFI = 0.966, IFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.029; adhocracy culture index values: χ²/df = 1.261, GFI = 0.991, NFI = 0.988, CFI = 0.997, IFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.025).

Analysis of Data

The normality distribution of the data was checked through skewness and kurtosis values in Appendix 1. The results suggested that the data are normally distributed.

Two statistical techniques were employed to address common method bias. First, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was tested, with values ranging from 1.33 and 2.15, which were below the cut-off point of 5, as suggested by Hair et al. (2013), indicating no severe multicollinearity. Second, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted (Harman, 1967; Podsakoff et al., 2003), revealing that the first unrotated factor explained 33.17% of the total variance, which was below the 50% cutoff. Therefore, results suggested that these data had no common bias.

Data were analyzed via IBM SPSS statistics (Version 25.0) and AMOS (version 24.0). Descriptive statistical analysis was used to compute levels of IoHE, TFL, and adhocracy culture used to answer research question 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to measure model fit, whereas structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the research hypotheses. Specifically, path analysis, which measured direct correlations, was used to verify hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, and to solve research question 2. Bootstrapping analysis, which measured adhocracy culture’s mediating effect, was applied to verify hypothesis 4, and to answer research question 3.

Model of the Research

The structural model of the research is combined with the conceptual model created according to latent variables (Figure 1).

Results

The findings from the results of the data analysis are presented as follows.

Descriptive Analysis

Table 2 presents the data descriptive statistics. Mean, standard deviation (SD), and three levels of low, moderate, and high were employed to address research question 1. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) stated that for a five-point Likert scale, the mean score between 1 and 2.33 is considered low, 2.34 to 3.66 is moderate, and 3.67 to 5 is high.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (n = 410).

	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Level
IoHE	3.21	.55	Moderate
TFL	3.78	.42	High
Adhocracy culture	3.58	.63	Moderate

Notes. Low (1 ≤ M ≤ 2.33), Moderate (2.34 ≤ M ≤ 3.66), High (3.67 ≤M ≤ 5).

According to Table 2, the mean of the IoHE in this study suggested a moderate level (M = 3.21, SD = .55), and the mean of adhocracy culture was also at a moderate level (M = 3.58, SD = .63). The mean score of TFL was at a high level (M = 3.78, SD = .42).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

The CFA results of the structural model suggested a good model fit (χ²/df: 1.204; GFI: 0.832; NFI: 0.823; CFI: 0.965; TLI: 0.963; IFI: 0.965; RMSEA: 0.022). Table 3 displays the SEM results.

Table 3.

SEM Analysis Results for Direct Effect.

TFL dimension	Path	IoHE dimension/ Adhocracy	B	β	SE	C.R.	p
DSV	→	AC	0.083	.079	0.054	1.537	.124
		OI	0.188	.175	0.057	3.288	.001
		EF	0.185	.149	0.065	2.847	.004
		IIF	0.248	.153	0.081	3.061	.002
		ISSP	0.121	.076	0.076	1.599	.110
		Adhocracy	0.176	.152	0.067	2.620	.009
BSGC	→	AC	0.273	.290	0.052	5.217	***
		OI	0.287	.296	0.054	5.334	***
		EF	0.382	.343	0.062	6.148	***
		IIF	0.582	.398	0.080	7.248	***
		ISSP	0.505	.351	0.075	6.707	***
		Adhocracy	0.144	.138	0.060	4.032	***
HHPE	→	AC	−0.003	−.003	0.050	−0.056	.955
		OI	0.143	.150	0.052	2.743	.006
		EF	0.097	.088	0.059	1.629	.103
		IIF	0.089	.061	0.074	1.203	.229
		ISSP	0.141	.099	0.071	1.986	.047
		Adhocracy	0.252	.245	0.062	4.032	***
MDPV	→	AC	0.208	.250	0.044	4.719	***
		OI	0.155	.181	0.044	3.524	***
		EF	0.274	.278	0.052	5.307	***
		IIF	0.254	.196	0.063	4.031	***
		ISSP	0.263	.207	0.060	4.354	***
		Adhocracy	0.003	.003	0.052	0.055	.957
OIS	→	AC	0.033	.034	0.049	0.671	.502
		OI	0.087	.088	0.051	1.715	.086
		EF	0.029	.025	0.058	0.498	.619
		IIF	0.003	.002	0.073	0.035	.973
		ISSP	0.106	.071	0.070	1.512	.131
		Adhocracy	−0.074	−.069	0.061	−1.209	.227
PIS	→	AC	0.059	.072	0.040	1.457	.145
		OI	−0.067	−.079	0.041	−1.609	.108
		EF	0.050	.051	0.048	1.039	.299
		IIF	0.056	.044	0.059	0.947	.344
		ISSP	0.074	.059	0.057	1.308	.191
		Adhocracy	0.037	.041	0.050	0.746	.456
SSC	→	AC	−0.035	−.037	0.047	−0.741	.459
		OI	−0.043	−.044	0.048	−0.895	.371
		EF	−0.143	−.128	0.056	−2.537	.011
		IIF	−0.085	−.058	0.070	−1.229	.219
		ISSP	−0.135	−.094	0.067	−2.020	.043
		Adhocracy	0.149	.143	0.059	2.536	.011
BCS	→	AC	−0.147	−.139	0.053	−2.773	.006
		OI	−0.254	−.233	0.057	−4.496	***
		EF	−0.194	−.155	0.063	−3.091	0.002
		IIF	−0.217	−.131	0.078	−2.780	0.005
		ISSP	−0.385	−.238	0.077	−4.984	***
		Adhocracy	0.077	.066	0.065	1.187	0.235
Adhocracy culture	→	AC	0.363	.402	0.058	6.268	***
		OI	0.345	.370	0.058	5.929	***
		EF	0.370	.344	0.065	5.716	***
		IIF	0.545	.386	0.083	6.587	***
		ISSP	0.507	.366	0.079	6.430	***
TFL	→	IoHE	0.585	.517	0.080	7.292	***
TFL	→	Adhocracy culture	0.740	.487	0.103	7.220	***
Adhocracy culture	→	IoHE	0.258	.346	0.043	5.992	***

Note. SE = standard error; C.R. = critical ratio. B = unstandardized regression weight; β = standardized regression weight; R = .748; R² = .56.

***

p < .001

Hypotheses Testing

Path coefficients in Table 3 showed the correlations among TFL dimensions, IoHE dimensions, and adhocracy culture. The results suggested that OIS and PIS were not significantly correlated with all dimensions of IoHE. DSV was significantly correlated with OI, EF, and IIF. HHPE was significantly correlated with OI and ISSP. BSGC and MDPV were significantly correlated with all dimensions of IoHE. However, SSC played significant negative correlation with EF and ISSP. BCS played significant negative correlation with all dimensions of IoHE. All dimensions of TFL were significantly correlated with adhocracy culture, except for MDPV, OIS, PIS, and BCS. Adhocracy culture was significantly correlated with all dimensions of IoHE. Overall, a significant positive correlation existed between TFL and IoHE (β = .517, p < .001) and adhocracy culture (β = .487, p < .001). Adhocracy culture was significantly and positively related to IoHE (β = .346, p < .001). Therefore, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were confirmed.

Mediating Effect of Adhocracy Culture on TFL and IoHE

Table 4 displays the total, direct, and indirect effects. The standardized indirect effect indicates that adhocracy culture (β = .169, p < .001) significantly and positively mediates TFL and IoHE. Therefore, hypothesis 4 was supported. Given that the standardized total effect (β = .686, p < .001) and the standardized direct effect (β = .517, p < .001) of TFL on IoHE were statistically significant, adhocracy culture partially mediated the relationship between TFL and IoHE. Figure 2 shows the mediation results.

Table 4.

SEM Results with Standardized Coefficients.

Path	β	p	95% BC CI
Path	β	p	LB	UB
Total effect
TFL→IoHE	.686	***	0.604	0.756
Direct effect
TFL→IoHE	.517	***	0.418	0.618
Std. Indirect effect (SIE)
TFL→Adhocracy→IoHE	.169	***	0.117	0.240

Notes. β = standardized regression weight; CI = confidence interval; BC = bias corrected; LB = lower bounds; UB = upper bounds; Based on 2,000 bootstrapped samples. SIE = 95% CI does not include zero.

***

p < .001.

Figure 2.

Standardized parameter estimates of the mediation model.

Contributions of TFL and Adhocracy Culture on IoHE

The effect size (f²) was calculated to assess the contributions of TFL and adhocracy culture to IoHE (Table 5). Cohen (1988) defines effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15, and 0.02 as large, medium, and small, respectively.

Table 5.

Contributions of TFL and Adhocracy Culture on IoHE.

Relationship	Effect size (f²)	Magnitude
TFL → IoHE	0.351	Large
Adhocracy culture → IoHE	0.151	Medium

Notes. Large: f² > 0.35; Medium: 0.15 < f² < 0.35; Small: 0.00 < f² < 0.15.

Overall, TFL and adhocracy culture explain 56% of IoHE variation (R² = .56). Specifically, an increase of 1 SD in TFL increases IoHE by 0.517 SD, whereas an increase of 1 SD in adhocracy culture increases IoHE by 0.346. TFL (f² = 0.351) exhibited large effect size on IoHE, whereas adhocracy culture (f² = 0.151) exhibited medium effect size on IoHE.

Discussion and Conclusion

The study examines the relationship between TFL and the IoHE with adhocracy culture as a mediating factor, focusing on 22 Chinese universities. It also assesses the current state of IoHE in these universities. Descriptive analysis revealed moderate levels of IoHE and adhocracy culture, alongside a high level of TFL. Despite 80% of universities engaging in internationalization activities (Department, 2022), IoHE remains at a moderate level, suggesting that internationalization efforts do not yet yield proportional results. Kim et al. (2018) argued that Chinese universities, in their pursuit of world-class universities, overemphasize international experiences at the expense of other faculty roles. Similarly, Xu and Jiang (2018) demonstrated that Chinese institutions increasingly adopt strategies and incentives for international publications, reflecting a complex IoHE system that requires cross-sector collaboration. Effective IoHE calls for unified efforts from students, faculty, institutional leaders, and governmental policymakers, integrating global, national, and local strategies.

Hypothesis 1 found that TFL sub-dimensions, such as DSV, BSGC, MDPV, and BCS present a significant direct effect on IoHE (β = .517, p < .001). However, the non-significant correlations of OIS, and PIS with IoHE may stem from the macro-level nature of internationalization efforts in Chinese universities. As Kraus et al. (2018) noted, institutional-level internationalization strategies often rely more on leadership-driven vision and resource allocation (e.g., DSV, BSGC) than on individual faculty development. For example, large-scale international partnerships require coordinated institutional frameworks, where individual faculty needs are secondary to strategic alignment. This finding highlights that TFL’s impact on IoHE is context-dependent, with different subdimensions varying in relevance across organizational scales.

BCS played a negative impact on IoHE. This finding contrasts with Western studies where collaboration typically enhances internationalization (Kraus et al., 2018), but aligns with Zhang et al. (2018)’s argument that hierarchical norms in Chinese universities may prioritize internal coordination over adaptive strategies. Traditional hierarchical collaboration in Chinese universities, which often requires multi-layered administrative approval, may hinder agile internationalization efforts. Overly focusing on BCS may result in more emphasis on bureaucratic collaboration among faculty members, thereby extending their resistance to change and leading to impeding IoHE development (Song, 2022). These findings highlight the importance of carefully considering the role of TFL subdimensions in the IoHE context. For Chinese universities, when promoting internationalization, they should focus on cultivating positive traits of TFL dimensions. Therefore, deans can create an inclusive and diverse environment that encourages faculty creativity and innovation (Brown et al., 2019). To advance IoHE, deans should articulate a clear vision for internationalization, cultivate consensus around internationalization goals among faculty, and model active involvement in international activities, thereby uniting the institution toward a common goal.

Hypothesis 2 revealed a significant positive relationship between adhocracy culture and IoHE (β = .346, p < .001), supporting Bartell (2003) and Nussbaumer’s (2013) idea that adhocracy culture’s emphasis on external adaptation and flexibility enables universities to treat global challenges as opportunities. For example, in Nanchang University, a double first-class university in the sample, the adoption of adhocracy culture has facilitated the rapid launch of joint international degree programs and faculty-led global research initiatives. The university has established exchange and cooperation relationships with over 230 international universities and scientific research institutions in over 40 countries within 5 years. The university has also carried out various international programs including public-funded study abroad programs, winter and summer camps, and other long-term and short-term overseas exchange and study programs. These results imply that in an environment dominated by adhocracy culture, the emphasis on flexibility, innovation, and risk-taking encourages faculty members to seek external challenges. They may be more willing to participate in international academic exchange and cooperation and enhance their international skills, consequently strengthening their institution’s international influence. This approach not only benefits individual faculty members, but also improves the overall international standing of the university.

Hypothesis 3 demonstrated a significant positive correlation between TFL and adhocracy culture (β = .487, p < .001), consistent with previous research (Kim, 2014; Xie et al., 2020; Yildiz & Gul, 2016), suggesting that TFL shapes organizational culture by fostering a dynamic and external-oriented climate conducive to change (Hoon Song et al., 2012). For example, at Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, a regional university in the sample, deans of School of International Education have implemented decentralized decision-making in international student recruitment, allowing academic departments to design specialized programs for global audiences. As a result, the university has signed joint training programs, exchange programs among faculty members and students, as well as credit recognition programs with multiple international universities like University of Prince Edward Island, Prince of Songkla University and Moscow State University. The results also suggested that Leithwood’s TFL is a powerful driver in shaping an adhocracy culture within universities, and is suitable for higher education context. By adopting TFL, deans can encourage their faculty members to explore new teaching and research models, international collaboration programs, and opportunities, promoting the development of adhocracy culture that supports IoHE.

The mediating result showed that adhocracy culture partially mediated TFL and IoHE (β = .169, p < .001), indicating that TFL influences IoHE through two distinct paths. First, deans with TFL directly impact on IoHE through developing shared visions, and playing as role models. Contrary to Western contexts, where adhocracy culture is more naturally aligned with organizational structures, Chinese universities must navigate hierarchical norms while fostering bottom-up innovation (Anderson, 2023). For instance, deans at Chinese universities should balance the national strategic planning with decentralized decision-making in international program design, reflecting a unique adaption of TFL to China’s institutional context. Second, transformational leaders can shape an adhocracy culture environment to promote internationalization goals. Under such an environment, leaders may empower faculty members by delegating decision-making power. This delegation aligns with adhocracy culture’s emphasis on flexibility, innovation, and adaptability. They may feel more motivated to explore international collaboration opportunities, design international-oriented teaching programs, and integrate global perspectives into the curriculum.

TFL and adhocracy culture accounted for 56% of IoHE variance, indicating their strong explanations toward IoHE; other factors account for the remaining 44%. TFL had large effect size on IoHE, whereas that of adhocracy culture was medium. The results further proved TFL and adhocracy culture’s influence in supporting internationalization initiatives in universities.

In summary, TFL influences IoHE directly and through adhocracy culture, suggesting that universities can advance their internationalization efforts by promoting TFL and fostering an adhocracy culture. Policymakers should consider integrating leadership training programs that emphasize vision-setting and cultural innovation, whereas institutional leaders should balance hierarchical stability with adaptive norms. To promote double first-class initiatives, universities may set flexible funding mechanisms for international projects. This study contributes to the broader debate on leadership theories in different cultural and governance contexts. It reveals how TFL can navigate China’s hierarchical structures in promoting IoHE. In the context of hierarchical organizations, TFL can play an active role by encouraging adhocracy culture. It enriches our understanding of how leadership styles can adapt and be effective in diverse settings. Specifically, TFL can break through the limitations of the hierarchical structure to a certain extent by inspiring innovation and flexibility, which aligns with the exploration of leadership innovation in hierarchical organizations in previous studies. Our findings can also guide leadership development programs in universities, suggesting that training should focus not only on leadership skills but also on the ability to foster an organizational culture conducive to internationalization. Given the complexity of IoHE, various stakeholders should be involved in this process and be directed by transformational leaders to effectively navigate and advance internationalization (Bendriss, 2007; De Bot et al., 2007; Green, 2005).

Research Implications

This study highlights its theoretical implications in the context of leadership, culture, and internationalization. First, this study attempted to experimentally investigate the relationships among TFL, adhocracy culture, and IoHE. TFL and adhocracy culture exerted significant impacts on internationalization. Second, it attempted to apply TFL theory and organizational culture theory to Chinese universities. TFL and IoHE were also examined in this research, although the focus was on the higher-order construct rather than the behavioral dimensions of IoHE. This approach enables us to theorize and evaluate the overall concept that encompasses several aspects of a certain theory, rather than its individual components (Alsaad et al., 2015). Finally, the partial mediating effect of adhocracy culture confirmed the complexity of internationalization conducted at universities, implying that future research could examine its components and how they influence TFL and IoHE.

The findings about the internationalization level and relationships among TFL, IoHE, and adhocracy culture provide universities with references for internationalization efforts and suggest adopting TFL and adhocracy culture to implement internationalization. Deans should prioritize TFL dimensions that directly drive internationalization, ensuring internationalization strategies align with national objectives. To address the challenges of hierarchical collaboration, institutions should implement project-based autonomy for international initiatives, allowing faculty to lead cross-disciplinary projects without multi-layered approvals while maintaining strategic oversight. This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding and thorough direction for future internationalization endeavors of universities.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the contributions and implications of this study, several limitations must be recognized and addressed. First, the research sample is confined to 22 Chinese universities, excluding vocational colleges and institutions with short-term internationalization initiatives. This exclusion limits the generalizability of the findings, as these omitted institutions have distinct educational objectives and resource allocations that may influence the dynamics among leadership, culture, and internationalization. Second, the study focuses exclusively on adhocracy culture within the CVF, ignoring the potential roles of clan, hierarchy, and market cultures. The impact of these unexamined cultural types on the TFL–IoHE relationship, as well as how integrating all four cultural types into a single model might alter the observed mechanisms, remains unclear. Moreover, the research does not account for other contextual factors, such as policy support, disciplinary diversity, and institutional resources, which may moderate the relationship between TFL and IoHE. Furthermore, the analysis used only five of the six IoHE dimensions, potentially providing an incomplete picture of the multifaceted internationalization process.

Future research should address these limitations by exploring hybrid cultural models within the CVF to understand how adhocracy culture coexists and interacts with hierarchical, clan, or market cultures in driving IoHE, particularly in state-driven university contexts. Longitudinal studies could track how TFL influences IoHE through multiple cultural pathways over time, whereas mixed-methods combining quantitative analysis with qualitative interviews could shed light on how academic leaders navigate cultural tensions during internationalization initiatives. Expanding the sample to include vocational colleges and universities at various stages of internationalization would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, incorporating overlooked factors, such as policy environments, institutional resources, and disciplinary characteristics into the analytical framework would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay of variables affecting higher education internationalization.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Assessment of normality.

Variable	Dimension	Min	Max	Skewness	C.R.	Kurtosis	C.R.
Internationalization of Higher Education	AC	1.333	4.667	−0.030	−0.249	−0.140	−0.580
	AO	1.000	5.000	−0.222	−1.837	−0.276	−1.142
	OI	1.400	4.600	−0.259	−2.144	−0.273	−1.127
	EF	1.000	4.750	−0.429	−3.545	0.370	1.531
	IIF	1.000	5.000	−0.366	−3.028	−0.230	−0.950
	ISSP	1.125	4.625	−0.367	−3.037	−0.639	−2.640
Transformational Leadership	BCS	1.500	4.833	−0.695	−5.741	1.310	5.416
	SSC	1.571	5.000	−0.495	−4.093	0.985	4.071
	PIS	1.286	5.000	−0.646	−5.339	0.800	3.307
	OIS	1.250	5.000	−0.659	−5.446	1.206	4.985
	MDPV	1.400	5.000	−0.533	−4.403	1.191	4.923
	HHPE	1.250	5.000	−0.176	−1.456	0.499	2.061
	BSGC	1.600	5.000	−0.374	−3.095	0.624	2.577
	DSV	1.500	5.000	−0.494	−4.086	1.460	6.033
Adhocracy culture		1.500	5.000	−0.406	−3.353	−0.033	−0.136

Note. C.R. = critical ratio.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the individuals who participated in the survey and the language editing services provided by Knowledge/Growth Support (KGS), which helped improve the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript.

ORCID iD

Zhu Zehao

Ethical Considerations

This study received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee for Research involving Human Subjects of University Putra Malaysia (JKEUPM) with ethics approval number: JKEUPM-2023-272.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was waived for this anonymous survey due to the minimal risk involved, as approved by the Ethics Committee for Research involving Human Subjects of University Putra Malaysia (JKEUPM) (No. JKEUPM-2023-272).

Author Contributions

Zhu Zehao: data collection, software analysis, original draft writing, funding raising, review & editing. Suhaida Abdul Kadir: supervision, conceptualization, and review & editing. Arnida Abdullah: supervision, and review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the 2024 Guangdong Provincial Social Sciences “Foreign Language Project”: Research on the Industry and Education Collaboration in TVET for Interdisciplinary Talents Training: International Experiences and China’s Path (广东省哲学社会科学规划2024年度“外语专项”《职业教育产教融合跨专业人才培养研究：国际经验与中国路径》(No.: GD24WZXC02-14); 2023 Guangdong Provincial Education Science Planning Project (Higher Education Special)(2023年度广东省教育科学规划课题（高等教育专项）“一带一路”背景下粤港澳大湾区职业教育国际化人才培养研究——以制造业为主)(No.: 2023GXJK117); 2024 Guangdong University of Technology and Education Graduate Education Innovation Program Project: Localization and Internationalization of Graduate Education: Construction and Implementation of Talent Cultivation Models in the New Era at Polytechnic Normal Universities (广东技术师范大学研究生教育创新计划项目)(No.: 2024XJJGXM005). Research on the cultivation of international talents in TVET in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area under the background of the Belt and Road Initiative: A case study of manufacturing (“一带一路”背景下粤港澳大湾区职业教育国际化人才培养研究——以制造业为例) (No.: 2024SDKYB006).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Adeinat

I. M.

Abdulfatah

F. H.

(2019). Organizational culture and knowledge management processes: Case study in a public university. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2018-0041

Adriansen

H. K.

Madsen

L. M.

(2021). Internationalisation through South-North mobility: Experiences and outcomes of research capacity-building programmes for African scholars in Denmark. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South, 5(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.36615/SOTLS.V5I1.166

Afrifa

Jr. Fianko

S. K.

Amoah

Dzogbewu

T. C.

(2022). The Effect of Organizational Culture on Employee Work Engagement in a Higher Education Institution. Organizational Cultures: An International Journal, 22(2), 89. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-8013/CGP/v22i02/89-104

Agnew

VanBalkom

W. D.

(2009). Internationalization of the university: Factors impacting cultural readiness for organizational change. Intercultural Education, 20(5), 451–462.

Al-Ali

A. A.

Singh

S. K.

Al-Nahyan

Sohal

A. S.

(2017). Change management through leadership: the mediating role of organizational culture. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(4), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2017-1117

Al-Shibami

A. H.

Alateibi

Nusari

Ameen

Khalifa

G. S.

Bhaumik

(2019). Impact of organizational culture on transformational leadership and organizational performance. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1116.0982S1019

Al Issa

H.-E

. (2019). Organisational culture in public universities: Empirical evidence. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 12(1), 41–70. https://doi.org/10.22452/ajba.vol12no1.2

Ali

Yin

Manzoor

(2023). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm reputation and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediation of organic organizational cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1100448. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1100448

Alsaad

Mohamad

Ismail

N. A.

(2015). Perceived desirability and firm’s intention to adopt business to business e-commerce: A test of second-order construct. Advanced Science Letters, 21(6), 2028–2032.

10.

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542

11.

Altynbassov

Bayanbayeva

Tolegen

Zhamankarin

(2024). A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of trends in higher education leadership in the Global South, 2013-2023: Contemporary perspectives and developments. International Journal of Educational Research, 127, 102421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102421

12.

Anderson

D. J.

(2023). Qualitative Action Research: Integrating Transformational Leadership within a Traditional Chinese International Department [American College of Education].

13.

Balwant

P. T.

Birdi

Stephan

Topakas

(2019). Transformational instructor-leadership and academic performance: A moderated mediation model of student engagement and structural distance. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(7), 884–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1420149

14.

Bartell

(2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021225514599

15.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public administration quarterly, 112–121.

16.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage publications.

17.

Bass

B. M.

Bass Bernard

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.

18.

Beckford

G. M.

(2003). Integration of international education in the programs and curriculum of community colleges. [Morgan State University]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

19.

Bendriss

(2007). Internationalization efforts at state universities in Florida [University of Central Florida]. http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/CFE0001829

20.

Berrio

A. A.

(2003). An organizational culture assessment using the competing values framework: A profile of Ohio State University Extension. Journal of extension, 41(2). https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4967&context=joe

21.

Brown

R. S.

Nandedkar

(2019). Transformational leadership theory and exploring the perceptions of diversity management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 19(7), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i7.2527

22.

Bush

(2011). Succession planning in England: New leaders and new forms of leadership. School Leadership & Management, 31(3), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.545383

23.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534

24.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Jossey-Bass.

25.

Chidambaranathan

Regha

V. S.

(2016). Diagnosing the organizational culture of higher education libraries in the United Arab Emirates using the competing values framework. Library and Information Science Research E-Journal, 26(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.32655/LIBRES.2016.2.1

26.

Cochran

W. G.

(1977). Sampling Techniques, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: Eribaum.

28.

Colpitts

B. D.

(2023). Exploring the role of leadership in facilitating higher education internationalization in Japan: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2023.2267008

29.

Cotae

F. F.

(2013). Internationalization and leadership. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(3), 343–347.

30.

Dan

N. T. T.

Ngoc

P. T. K.

(2024). A preliminary study on university culture at higher education institutions of economics in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on emerging challenges: smart business and digital economy 2023 (ICECH 2023). Springer.

31.

Dastmalchian

Lee

(2000). The interplay between organizational and national cultures: a comparison of organizational practices in Canada and South Korea using the Competing Values Framework. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 388–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851900339927

32.

De Bot

Lowie

Verspoor

. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732

33.

de Wit

. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Greenwood Publishing Group.

34.

de Wit

Deca

. (2020). Internationalization of higher education, challenges and opportunities for the next decade. European Higher Education Area: Challenges for a New Decade, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5_1

35.

de Wit

Hunter

. (2015). Trends, issues and challenges in internationalisation of higher education: Where have we come from and where are we going? Routledge Handbook of International Education and Development, 302, 340–358.

36.

de Wit

Rumbley

. (2017). Professional development in international education. The example of the Boston College MA in international higher education. Internationalization of Higher Education(3), 2–14.

37.

Delgado-Márquez

B. L.

Hurtado-Torres

N. E.

Bondar

(2012). Internationalization of Higher Education in University Institution Rankings: The Influence of National Culture. Journal of international Education and leadership, 2(1), n1.

38.

Department

J. E.

(2022). Rankings of Internationalization Levels in Undergraduate Education Institutions in Jiangxi Province (2021). Jiangxi Education. http://jyt.jiangxi.gov.cn/art/2022/12/27/art_25681_4310140.html

39.

Dewey

Duff

(2009). Reason before passion: faculty views on internationalization in higher education. Higher Education, 58(4), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9207-z

40.

Egekvist

U. E.

Lyngdorf

N. E.

X.-Y.

(2017). Internationalization in schools—Perspectives of school leaders. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.009

41.

Esmi

Piran

Hayat

A. A.

(2017). The mediating effect of organizational culture on the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Health Management and Information Science, 4(4), 114–119.

42.

Fenech

Abdulla

Zairi

Kinsella

Misra

(2024). Culture of excellence in academia in the UAE: A model of transformational leadership and leadership development. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 19(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751231188388

43.

Gorzelany

Gorzelany–Dziadkowiec

Luty

Firlej

Gaisch

Dudziak

Scott

(2021). Finding links between organisation’s culture and innovation. The impact of organisational culture on university innovativeness. PLoS One, 16(10), e0257962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257962

44.

Green

Ferguson

(2011). Internationalisation of US higher education in a time of declining resources. Australian Education International.

45.

Green

M. F.

(2005). Measuring internationalization at research universities. American Council on Education. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Measuring-Research.pdf

46.

Habeeb

Y. O.

Eyupoglu

S. Z.

(2024). Strategic Planning, Transformational Leadership and Organization Performance: Driving Forces for Sustainability in Higher Education in Nigeria. Sustainability, 16(11), 4348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114348

47.

Haffar

Al-Karaghouli

Djebarni

Al-Hyari

Gbadamosi

Oster

Abaker

Abuhamed

Ahmad

Ali

Alkhateeb

Almomani

Alzubi

Asfour

Awwad

Basha

Basuony

M. A. K.

Bdeir

Bekhet

Ahmed

(2023). Organizational culture and affective commitment to e-learning’ changes during COVID-19 pandemic: The underlying effects of readiness for change. Journal of Business Research, 155, 113396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113396

48.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Babin

B. J.

Black

W. C.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson.

49.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.

50.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School effectiveness and school improvement, 22(2), 149–173.

51.

Hammond

C. D.

(2016). Internationalization, nationalism, and global competitiveness: A comparison of approaches to higher education in China and Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9459-0

52.

Harman

(1967). A single factor test of common method variance. Journal of Psychology, 35(1967), 359–378.

53.

Hartnell

C. A.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2011). Transformational leadership and organizational culture: Toward integrating a multilevel framework. In Ashkanasy

N. M.

Wilderom

C. P. M.

Peterson

M. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 225–248). SAGE Publication.

54.

Heyl

J. D.

Tullbane

(2012). Leadership in international higher education. In Deardorff

D. K.

de Wit

Heyl

J. D.

Adams

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 113–130). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447863-8

55.

Hoon Song

Kolb

J. A.

Hee Lee

Kyoung Kim

. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees’ work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 65–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21120

56.

Hosseini

S. H.

Hajipour

Kaffashpoor

Darikandeh

(2020). The mediating effect of organizational culture in the relationship of leadership style with organizational learning. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(3), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1680473

57.

Hoy

W. K.

Miskel

C. G.

(2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9th ed.). Humanities & Social Sciences.

58.

Huang

Y.-T.

Liu

Huang

(2021). How transformational and contingent reward leaderships influence university faculty’s organizational commitment: The mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Studies in Higher education, 46(11), 2473–2490. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1723534

59.

Hudzik

J. K.

(2015). Comprehensive internationalization: Institutional pathways to success. Routledge.

60.

Hyde-Clarke

(2023). Academic leadership and leadership styles in strategic plans: a study of five top-ranked public universities in South Africa. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2220533. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2220533

61.

Israel

G. D.

(1992). Determining sample size (Fact Sheet PEOD-6). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.

62.

Jati

M. K. K.

Hassan

Harman

M. H.

Jabar

S. A.

Majid

M. A. A.

(2015). Transformational leadership and organizational culture: A case of MAHB. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01217-4

63.

Jones

G. A.

Oleksiyenko

(2011). The internationalization of Canadian university research: A global higher education matrix analysis of multi-level governance. Higher Education, 61(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9324-8

64.

Kahn

(2016). The university looks abroad: Approaches to world affairs at six American universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 37(6), 354–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1966.11774610

65.

Kezar

A. J.

Holcombe

E. M.

(2017). Shared leadership in higher education: important lessons from research and practice. American Council on Education.

66.

Khan

I. U.

Idris

Amin

R. U.

(2023). Leadership style and performance in higher education: the role of organizational justice. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(6), 1111–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1854868

67.

Kim

Song

Liu

Grimm

(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, 48(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1292846

68.

Kim

(2014). Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: A case of South Korea’s public sector. Public Organization Review, 14(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0225-z

69.

Knight

(2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, (33), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391

70.

Knight

(2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 20-33.

71.

Kokt

Makumbe

(2020). Towards the innovative university: What is the role of organisational culture and knowledge sharing? SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1325

72.

Kotorov

Krasylnykova

Zhdanov

Mazzara

Aslam

Akhmetgaraeva

Balasubramaniam

Blech

J. O.

Ciancarini

Clarke

Drossopoulou

Garlan

Heinrich

Iovino

Jayaraman

P. P.

Kokaly

Kokash

Kramer

Kusel

Brown

J. A.

(2021). Institutional commitment and leadership as prerequisites for successful comprehensive internationalization. In Frontiers in software engineering (pp. 1–11). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93135-3_1

73.

Kraus

Niemand

Besler

Stieg

Martinez-Ciment

(2018). The influence of leadership styles on the internationalisation of’born-global’firms and traditionally global-expanding firms. European Journal of International Management, 12(5–6), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2018.094457

74.

Leithwood

(1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X94030004006

75.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School effectiveness and school improvement, 10(4), 451–479.

76.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829

77.

Allard

Anghelescu

H. G. B.

Xin

Chiu

D. K. W.

Stark

A. J.

(2020). Transformational leadership practice in the world’s leading academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(4), 972–999. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619897991

78.

Mchaizi

Okwemba

Otsyula

(2023). Influence of Adhocracy culture on Performance of Public Universities in Western Kenya. The Strategic Joournal of Business & Change Management, 10(4), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.61426/sjbcm.v10i4.2753

79.

Mwesigwa

Tusiime

Ssekiziyivu

(2020). Leadership styles, job satisfaction and organizational commitment among academic staff in public universities. Journal of Management Development, 39(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2018-0055

80.

Nelly

Prabowo

Bandur

Elidjen

(2024). The mediating role of competency in the effect of transformational leadership on lecturer performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2023-0275

81.

Nolan

Hunter

(2012). Institutional strategies and international programs: Learning from experiences of change. In Deardorff

D. K.

de Wit

Heyl

J. D.

Adams

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 131–146). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218397

82.

Noone

B. M.

Lin

M. S.

Sharma

(2024). Firm performance during a crisis: Effects of adhocracy culture, incremental product innovation, and firm size. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 48(1), 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480221086846

83.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theoryMcGraw-Hill book Company.

84.

Nurtjahjani

Noermijati

Hadiwidjojo

Irawanto

D. W.

(2020). Transformational leadership in higher education: A study in Indonesian universities. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific international conference of management and business science (AICMBS 2019). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200410.019

85.

Nussbaumer

(2013). Organizational culture and internationalization: A brief literature review. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED549848.pdf

86.

Ogbonna

Harris

L. C.

(2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075114

87.

Ogundimu

(2020). Senior international officers: Essential roles and responsibilities. Journal of International Students, 10(3), 790–793. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i3.2496

88.

Öztürk

A. O.

Tetik

E. G.

(2021). Preliminary identification of organizational culture styles in the process of strategic planning: Employee perception in the Turkish public higher education. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics Administrative Sciences Faculty, 8(1), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.799294

89.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

90.

Pradhan

R. K.

Panda

Jena

L. K.

(2017). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: The mediating effect of organizational culture in Indian retail industry. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-0026

91.

Pratama

H. R.

Sunaryo

Yusnita

(2020). Studying the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational culture with organizational commitment at Minhaj Shahabah Islamic Boarding School Bogor. Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 4(2), 146–151.

92.

Ratliff

(2013). Perceptions and experiences of university administrators on internationalization planning and implementation at a midwestern university: A mixed methods study [Bowling Green State University].

93.

Reedstrom

(2005). Dickinson college meets the world: The integration of internationalization into institutional culture. University of Pennsylvania.

94.

Saif

Goh

G. G. G.

Rubin

Shaheen

Murtaza

(2024). Influence of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior and task performance of individuals: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. Heliyon, 10(11), e32280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32280

95.

Schein

E. H.

(2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

96.

Schuerholz-Lehr

Caws

Van Gyn

Preece

(2007). Internationalizing the higher education curriculum: An emerging model for transforming faculty perspectives. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 67–94.

97.

Shao

Feng

Liu

(2012). The mediating effect of organizational culture and knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and Enterprise Resource Planning systems success: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2400–2413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.011

98.

Song

(2022). Research on strategic choice and mode innovation of curriculum internationalization in local universities [Master, [Liaoning University]. https://link-cnki-net-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/10.27209/d.cnki.glniu.2022.000203

99.

Southgate

Aderibigbe

J. K.

Balogun

T. V.

Mahembe

(2023). Leadership styles as predictors of employee engagement at a selected tertiary institution. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v21i0.2238

100.

Spangler

Adriansen

H. K.

(2021). Space, place and internationalisation of higher education: Exploring everyday social practices in the ‘international’classroom. Population, Space and Place, 27(8), e2458. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2458

101.

Sun

Leithwood

(2012). Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2012.681001

102.

Tanhueco-Nepomuceno

(2019). Internationalization among selected HEIs in the ASEAN region: Basis for a proposed framework for an internationalized campus. International Journal of Educational Development, 65, 152-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.07.003

103.

Teichler

(2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41

104.

Thanh

N. H.

Quang

N. V.

Anh

N. N.

(2022). The relationship between leadership style and staff work engagement: An empirical analysis of the public sector in Vietnam. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01354-7

105.

Trivellas

Dargenidou

(2009). Organisational culture, job satisfaction and higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. The TQM journal, 21(4), 382-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910965083

106.

Veiseh

Mohammadi

Pirzadian

Sharafi

(2014). The relation between transformational leadership and organizational culture (Case study: Medical school of Ilam). Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(3), 113-124.

107.

Volkova

N. V.

Plakhotnik

M. S.

(2023). Commitment of key internal stakeholders during internationalization: challenges of an emerging market culture. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 33(2), 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1933672

108.

Waters

J. L.

Adriansen

H. K.

Madsen

L. M.

Saarinen

(2024). (Un) wanted bodies and the internationalisation of higher education. Progress in Human Geography, 48(6), 879-897. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325241257538

109.

Xenikou

Simosi

(2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journal of managerial psychology, 21(6), 566-579. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610684409

110.

Xie

Liang

Zhao

(2020). How transformational leadership and clan culture influence nursing staff’s willingness to stay. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(7), 1515-1524. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13092

111.

Jiang

(2018). Gaoxiaojiaoshi shijiaoxia de renwenshehuikexue guojifabiao ji jilizhidu [Humanities and social sciences academics’ perspectives of incentive mechanism for international publications]. Journal of Higher Education, 39(1), 43-55.

112.

Xuan

(2015). The influence of organizational culture on internationalization of Mahidol University. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 72-81. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2015.s21.7281

113.

Yaro

(2023). Internationalization of Higher Education: Leadership Roles and Challenges Senior International Officers Face in Their Efforts to Internationalize Regional Comprehensive Universities in the United States [Western Kentucky University]. Masters Theses & Specialist Projects.

114.

Yildiz

Gul

(2016). The effect of leadership style on the organizational culture: evidence from Turkey. European Journal of Business Management, 8(9), 51–58.

115.

Jang

(2024). A framework for transformational leadership to enhance teacher’s work performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1331597. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1331597

116.

Zacher

Johnson

(2015). Leadership and creativity in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1210–1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881340

117.

Zhang

Ren

Zhao

Zhou

(2018). The double-edged sword effect of transformational leadership on multilevel creativity. Foreign Economics & Management, 40(05), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.05.003

118.

Zhu

Zayim-Kurtay

(2018). University governance and academic leadership: Perceptions of European and Chinese university staff and perceived need for capacity building. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1458636

119.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Viera-Armas

(2017). Corporate culture as a mediator in the relationship between ethical leadership and personal internet use. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817696877