Influence of Structural Adaptation on the Performance of Church-Owned Universities in Nairobi County, Kenya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70619/vol6iss3pp1-12-884Keywords:
Structural adaptation, institutional performance, church-owned universities, strategy implementation, dynamic capabilities, KenyaAbstract
Church-owned universities operate under growing pressure to sustain enrolment, financial viability, research productivity, service quality, and stakeholder confidence while preserving their faith-based identities. This study examined the influence of structural adaptation on the performance of church-owned universities in Nairobi County, Kenya. Dynamic Capabilities Theory guided the study. A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was adopted, targeting 75 senior administrators from 15 church-owned universities through a census. Forty-four usable questionnaires were returned, representing a 58.66% response rate. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics, Spearman's rank correlation, and binary logistic regression. Respondents reported high levels of structural adaptation, particularly in role clarity (M = 4.39, SD = 0.784), interdepartmental collaboration (M = 4.30, SD = 0.823), and alignment of structures with strategy implementation (M = 4.27, SD = 0.788). Structural adaptation had a positive but nonsignificant bivariate association with the continuous performance index (rho = .275, p = .071). In the prespecified logistic model using a median-dichotomised performance outcome, structural adaptation significantly increased the likelihood of classification as a higher-performing university (B = 1.375, SE = 0.679, Wald = 4.099, p = .043, OR = 3.957). Model fit was acceptable (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square = 4.693, p = .790), with Cox and Snell R2 = .128 and Nagelkerke R2 = .185. The study concludes that adaptive structures, clear responsibilities, delegated authority, effective coordination, and periodic structural review strengthen institutional responsiveness and performance. University councils and management teams should align reporting relationships and decision processes with strategic priorities while managing the uncertainty that may accompany restructuring.
References
Clauss, T., Abebe, M., Tangpong, C., & Hock, M. (2021). Strategic agility, business model innovation, and firm performance: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(3), 767–784. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2910381
Commission for University Education. (2024). Strategic plan 2024–2028. https://www.cue.or.ke/
Commission for University Education. (2025). University statistics 2024/2025. https://www.cue.or.ke/
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Daft, R. L. (2021). Organization theory and design (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C1105::AID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO;2-E
Global Education Monitoring Report Team. (2024). Leadership in education: Lead for learning—2024/5 Global education monitoring report. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/reports/gem-report/en/2024
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127008100133
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2013). Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and change (2nd ed.). FT Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2023). Research methods for business students (9th ed.). Pearson.
Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097–0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
Universities Fund. (2024). Annual report and financial statements for the financial year 2022/2023. https://www.universitiesfund.go.ke/
Wodon, Q. (2022). Global report on integral human development 2022: Measuring the contributions of Catholic and other faith-based organizations to education, healthcare, and social protection. Global Catholic Education. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/114809/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Joseph O. Obwanda, Peter Kihara, Wilson Muema

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.