A การวิเคราะห์องค์ประกอบเชิงยืนยันภาวะผู้นำแบบคล่องตัวของ ผู้บริหารสถานศึกษา สังกัดสำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน

Pitchayapa Yuenyaw

doi:10.56825/jehds.2026.1026851

Authors

Pitchayapa Yuenyaw Faculty of Education, Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56825/jehds.2026.1026851

Keywords:

agile leadership, school administrators, confirmatory factor analysis, Office of the Basic Education Commission

Abstract

This research aimed to: 1) identify the components and indicators of agile leadership of school administrators under the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC); and 2) validate the measurement model of agile leadership of school administrators against empirical data. A mixed-methods design was employed. Phase 1 involved a documentary study and in-depth interviews with 7 purposively selected experts to develop the hypothesized model, with qualitative data analyzed through content and thematic analysis. Phase 2 was a quantitative study; the sample consisted of 400 schools under OBEC, derived by multi-stage random sampling. Informants were one school administrator and two teachers per school, totaling 1,200 respondents, of whom 1,046 (87.17%) returned complete questionnaires. The instrument was a five-point rating-scale questionnaire with item-objective congruence indices of 0.80–1.00 and an overall reliability coefficient of 0.95. Data were analyzed using first-order and second-order confirmatory factor analysis.

The findings revealed that: 1) agile leadership of school administrators comprised 5 components and 20 indicators, namely (1) flexibility and adaptability, (2) clear vision and result orientation, (3) rapid data-informed decision making, (4) team empowerment and collaboration, and (5) continuous learning and innovation; and 2) the measurement model of agile leadership fitted the empirical data (χ² = 174.01, df = 165, p = 0.300, χ²/df = 1.05, GFI = 0.987, AGFI = 0.986, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.007, SRMR = 0.016). Standardized second-order factor loadings ranged from 0.85 to 0.90, with team empowerment and collaboration and flexibility and adaptability showing equally the highest loadings (β = 0.90). Standardized indicator loadings ranged from 0.73 to 0.84, all statistically significant at the .01 level. Construct reliability ranged from 0.86 to 0.89 and average variance extracted from 0.60 to 0.66, indicating construct validity of the model, which can serve as a framework for developing and assessing agile leadership of school administrators.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akkaya, B., & Sever, E. (2022). Agile leadership and organization performance in the perspective of VUCA. In Post-pandemic talent management models in knowledge organizations (pp. 213–228). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3894-7.ch010

Angsuchoti, S., Wijitwanna, S., & Pinyopanuwat, R. (2009). Analytical statistics for social and behavioral sciences research: LISREL techniques (3rd ed.). Mission Media. [translated]

Attar, M., & Abdul-Kareem, A. (2020). The role of agile leadership in organizational agility. In B. Akkaya (Ed.), Agile business leadership methods for Industry 4.0 (pp. 171–191). Emerald Publishing.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

Çalışkan Yılmaz, F., & Özgenel, M. (2023). Agile leadership as an antecedent of school effectiveness: A relational investigation on teachers. Journal of Education and Future, (23), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.1071657

Cascio, J. (2020). Facing the age of chaos. Medium. https://medium.com/@cascio/facing-the-age-of-chaos-b00687b1f51d

Changpoo, P. (2025, June 16). The future of Thai education in an ageing society. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/3050691/the-future-of-thai-education-in-an-ageing-society

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

Denning, S. (2018). The age of agile: How smart companies are transforming the way work gets done. AMACOM.

Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006

Fernandes, V., Wong, W., & Noonan, M. (2023). Developing adaptability and agility in leadership amidst the COVID-19 crisis: Experiences of early-career school principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2022-0076

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Galdames-Calderón, M. (2023). Distributed leadership: School principals' practices to promote teachers' professional development for school improvement. Education Sciences, 13(7), 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070715

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479

Hayward, S. (2021). The agile leader: How to create an agile business in the digital age (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.

Horney, N., Pasmore, B., & O’Shea, T. (2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA world. People & Strategy, 33(4), 32–38.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. Jossey-Bass.

Kaiyawan, Y. (2013). Multivariate statistical analysis for research. Chulalongkorn University Press. [translated]

Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Ministry of Education. (2020). Strategic plan of the Ministry of Education 2020–2022. Ministry of Education. [translated]

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I and II) – Country notes: Thailand. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/thailand_6138f4af-en.html

Office of the Education Council Secretariat. (2017). National education plan B.E. 2560–2579 (2017–2036). Ministry of Education. [translated]

Özgenel, M., Yazıcı, Ş., & Asmaz, A. (2022). The mediator role of organizational justice in the relationship between school principals' agile leadership characteristics and teachers' job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 895540. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895540

Parker, D. W., Holesgrove, M., & Pathak, R. (2015). Improving productivity with self-organised teams and agile leadership. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0178

Porkodi, S. (2024). The effectiveness of agile leadership in practice: A comprehensive meta-analysis of empirical studies on organizational outcomes. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 20(2), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.7341/20242026

Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50.

Sararatana, W. (2022). Leadership: Contemporary theories and perspectives for organizational development (4th ed.). Klang Nanavittaya. [translated]

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge.

Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times (2nd ed.). Corwin.

Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007

Taktak, M., & Özgenel, M. (2023). Agile school scale: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Educational Administration and Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijedal.2023.2.2.21

UNESCO. (2020). Education: From disruption to recovery. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

Yalçın, E., & Özgenel, M. (2021). The effect of agile leadership on teachers' professional development and performance. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 5(Fall 2021 Issue). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1342171.pdf