CC BY
3
THE INFLUENCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN REGION OF
THAILAND
PANITEE KARNSOMDEE, [2] PIYAMAS PHONGKAEW
[1] Kasetsart University, [2] Kasetsart University [1] panitee.k@ku.th, [2] piyamas.ka@ku.th
Abstract— Organizational performance is an expected public outcome, particularly in the challenging context of Thailand's public transformation into the twenty-first century. Entrepreneurial leadership is critical in developing public entrepreneurship and, ultimately organizational performance. This research study aims to investigate the influence of entrepreneurial leadership on public entrepreneurship and organizational performance as well as the influence of public entrepreneurship on organizational performance of local administrative organizations in the northeastern region of Thailand. A cross-sectional questionnaire study is used in this study. Data were collected from 400 people through five-point Likert scale questionnaires with validity and reliability analyses. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data in preparation for ordinary least square regression analysis. According to the findings of the study, entrepreneurial leadership has a significant direct influence on public entrepreneurship with a standardized coefficient of 0.852. Public entrepreneurship has a significant direct influence on organizational performance with a standardized coefficient of 0.775. Entrepreneurial leadership has a significant direct influence on organizational performance with a standardized coefficient of 0.735 at a 0.05 significance level. In order to accomplish the desired public results for local administrative organizations, local administrative organizations should encourage leadership styles of entrepreneurial orientation to turn Thailand's public sector into a competitive public entrepreneurial sector.
Index Terms— entrepreneurial leadership, local administrative organizations, organizational performance, public entrepreneurship
I. INTRODUCTION
Organizational performance has become an essential index for comparing final outcomes to desired outcomes, particularly in public sector measurement. Organizational performance has been defined as the method or execution of carrying out a task in order to achieve the end result of operations [1], [2]. Organizational performance is the ability to work toward the organization's goals by focusing on the results of operations, which are long-term goals that will help the organization achieve its goals or success. Leadership will enable the organization to drive with direction, seek opportunities, and achieve organizational goals by establishing a strategic vision, solve organizational problems, and elevate the organization's competency to meet future challenges. Leadership is important to organizations, especially in the context of a rapidly changing and challenging environment, where leadership can bring perspective and new work processes with creativity and innovation, which will contribute to the organization's long-term competitiveness. An organizational leader's most important mission is to improve organizational performance. According
to the dynamic change of an external environment as well as the limitations of conventional public management, organizational performance will ultimately be driven by entrepreneurial leadership, a new style of leadership that aims to increase public entrepreneurship in an organization in order to achieve public desired outcomes [3]. Scholars have paid a lot of attention to entrepreneurial leadership in the context of the twenty-first century because it is a leadership style that is characterized by being adaptable to changes and challenges in today's context. Entrepreneurial leadership is a leadership style that focuses on establishing a clear vision, creating opportunities for the organization, focusing on human resource development within the organization, and developing an appropriate human resource management system. This is a 21st-century leadership style [4]. Entrepreneurial leadership can determine the direction of operations within the organization to achieve the organization's goals by seeking opportunities with limited resources [5]. Because organizational performance is an important goal, a paradigm shift in working within the public sector to be modern and proactive has attracted attention and has been applied to government organizations by bringing the entrepreneurship of the public sector to integrate work processes. The Thai government recently launched a public entrepreneurship concept in order to transform traditional public organizations into innovative and competitive public outcomes and performances. Because government organizations are at the heart of driving the country's economy and caring for the social system and people. As a result, government organizations at all levels must change their organizational leadership and internal administration to become more state-owned entrepreneurs in order to improve government organizations' performance in responding to people's needs, satisfying them, and creating public value for the people. There is a paradigm shift in working in the bureaucratic system, with an emphasis on planning a new working system that is more accepting of working risks that may occur. There are new innovations in the work system. There is proactive work to meet people's goals and have independence at work, as well as a commitment to competing to develop government organizations to keep up with the change to the bureaucratic system 4.0 and maximize people's benefits. The performance of the organization has been studied in the context of the local government system. Organizational performance is critical for measuring and evaluating the success of public sector operations as an indicator of the organization's growth and indicating the direction of results, as well as determining how to improve operational quality. The achievement of the goals or objectives set by the government organization by operating public services according to the standard indicators for the success of work processes and results is referred to as the performance of the local government organization. Local government organizations have administrative autonomy, particularly in cases where administrative power is decentralized from the central government. Local administrative organizations will be able to plan creative work with positive paradigm shifts, be open to new things, work proactively and independently in organizational development, and create new innovations that can raise the standard of work, support development, and quality criteria in government organizations [6]. As a result, the local government agency would quickly consider the concept of public entrepreneurship because entrepreneurship in the public sector is important to the development of government organizations because it is an important organizational strategy that leads to the creation of management effectiveness to improve operational competitiveness. However, while entrepreneurial leadership and public entrepreneurship have been found to have an impact on organizational performance in some research studies, their impact in the context of local administrative organizations remains unknown [7], [8]. The significance of the preceding explanation is the motivation for this research study. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate (1) the influence of entrepreneurial leadership on public entrepreneurship; (2) the influence of public entrepreneurship on organizational performance; and (3) the influence of entrepreneurial leadership on organizational performance of local administrative organizations in Thailand's Northeastern region. The research findings appear to be expected to imply as strategic guidelines on local organizations to continuously encourage entrepreneurial leadership style and public entrepreneurship to improve organizational performance in the long run. In other words, local administrative organizations should promote entrepreneurial leadership styles in order to
transform Thailand's public sector into a competitive public entrepreneurship.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Entrepreneurial Leadership
Entrepreneurial leadership is a style of leadership that focuses on increasing the organization's competitiveness. This type of leader seeks new innovations for the organization and keeps up with changing conditions. Entrepreneurial leadership is defined as the ability of a leader to create a successful entrepreneurial organization by motivating people within the organization to realize their own and the organization's competitiveness. Entrepreneurial leadership is critical in fostering and elevating people's competence to become more competitive and to develop adaptability to the challenges of new working environments [9]. In addition, entrepreneurial leadership is a leadership model aimed at increasing organizational competitiveness in the face of limited resources and a rapidly changing environment. Entrepreneurial leadership is important for leaders, followers, and organizations, especially in a rapidly changing and challenging environment where entrepreneurial leadership can bring perspective and new work processes with creativity and innovation, which will contribute to the organization's long-term competitiveness. [1]. Entrepreneurial leadership describes the qualities of a leader's leadership role by combining leadership and entrepreneurship [4]. Entrepreneurial leadership can empower and build an organization's capacity, propelling it to performance excellence [10]. The competencies and styles of entrepreneurial leadership give this type of leadership an advantage over other types of leadership by allowing it to compete and keep up with change in any situation. It can be seen that entrepreneurial leadership is a leadership style that has been used in both public and private organizations because it is essential to the success of the organization and helps to improve the ability of leaders, followers, and organizations to build competitiveness and respond quickly to changing environments. According to [11], entrepreneurial leadership is an important factor in stimulating and developing creative and innovative working behaviors of personnel within an organization in a competitive environment. Because entrepreneurial leadership is a leadership style that focuses on increasing an organization's competitiveness, public organizations appear to be employing this style to government sector agencies in order to improve organizational performance. This type of leader seeks new innovations for the organization and keeps up with the changes that occur in the twenty-first century context. Furthermore, [10] discovered that entrepreneurial leadership can empower and build the organization while elevating to excellent performance. As a result, the study of entrepreneurial leadership concepts and theories has gained widespread attention and is now being applied in the context of government organizations, particularly in local administrative organizations that are close to the people in providing public services. The components and indicators of entrepreneurial leadership are classified into eight dimensions: framing challenges, absorbing uncertainty, underwriting, building commitment, defining gravity, opportunity identification and exploitation, orientation toward learning, and creative collective self-efficacy [12].
B. Public Entrepreneurship
The concept of public entrepreneurship is crucial in improving organizational performance, particularly in the face of dynamic change in the twenty-first century. Several research studies define public entrepreneurship as organizational public service activity based on entrepreneurial management [13], as well as innovative strategy, proactive public services, and new procedures in public management [1], [14]. Entrepreneurship in the public sector enables public organizations to overcome operational constraints to a new paradigm of transforming traditional work systems into modern and open ways of working that prioritize work. It is critical to be proactive and to develop innovations for the benefit of the people. To become more public entrepreneurs, the bureaucratic system must be modified in terms of thinking and work processes. Both in terms of creating new innovations or leveraging existing innovations, as well as the ability to innovate and create new things or work processes in novel ways without becoming trapped by traditional work processes
[15], [6]. Public sector entrepreneurship is the activity of public sector organizations that combines the role of public service in the public sector with the entrepreneurial perspective of the private sector in order to improve the performance of public sector organizations [13]. Organizational transformation to public entrepreneurship has occurred in order to support proactive activities and practices. To improve organizational performance, public organizations establish a new paradigm of operational practices, such as creating a proactive working system and implementing digital technology through public services [16]. Being an entrepreneur in the public sector is an important way for the government to change public services that create opportunities and meet the needs of people and society. Many scholars conduct research to study entrepreneurial leadership in order to apply it within organizations with the hope of increasing the organization's potential to be outstanding in the long run. The concept of public sector entrepreneurship is a perspective used in government organizations that reflects a shift in management's mindset to be more proactive, creative, innovative, and risk-taking. This enables the organization's management to accurately forecast operational opportunities and results. According to government policy in Thailand, a local government organization is one of the public agencies that transforms an internal process toward entrepreneurship orientation, as public sector entrepreneurship is an important concept for improving the long-term performance of government organizations. The concept of public sector entrepreneurship enables organizations to see opportunities and use limited resources to innovate or improve new services for the purpose of providing excellent service while accepting greater risks for long-term results and creating growth for the organization. The government entrepreneur will be able to make quick decisions and establish a leadership role for the organization [17]. To achieve rapid results, government organizations must be able to seize opportunities and initiate proactive work, as well as synergize the power of all parties involved and work effectively across departments or sectors [15]. Entrepreneurship in the public sector also enables public organizations to overcome operational constraints to a new paradigm of transforming traditional work systems into modern and open ways of working that prioritize work, being proactive, and creating innovations for the benefit of the people. Thus, public entrepreneurship plays an important role in creating public value for the people. This study employs five components and indicators of public entrepreneurship: risk-taking, innovativeness, pro-activity, autonomy, and competitive aggressiveness [1], [18].
C. Organizational Performance
The end result of evaluating organizational management's effectiveness is the organization's performance, which refers to an organization's ability to successfully acquire valuable resources and effectively utilize them in accordance with the resource-based approach. Organizational performance is defined as the use of organizational resources to achieve organizational goals [1]. It aims to do the right thing based on its ability to operate successfully and achieve its predetermined objectives in terms of productivity and management operations outcomes [19]. Organizational performance is critical to the success of all organizations, both public and private, because it enables the organization to examine clearly defined public sector management objectives in order to achieve the objectives and enable the organization to evaluate performance compared to the plan defined by evaluating achievement against the objectives that have been set to measure and evaluate the success of the organization's operations. The organization's performance indicates the success of participatory government administration, which is a collaboration between the public sector and other related sectors in a partnership that will lead to mutual acceptance in the outcome of development and bring benefits to all sectors involved, including the public sector, private sector, civil society, and public sector. When applied to local government organizations, organizational performance entails setting standards to improve the quality of work effectiveness with the goal of determining success of public organization administration in providing public services to achieve the specified goals on the basis of the organization's ability to operate so that the organization achieves the specified goals or achievements. The achievement of a public sector organization's goals or objectives by performing public service operations in accordance with
standards, indicators, achievements of the organization's work processes, and results is referred to as organizational performance. The performance of the organization has always been important to government administration because it can be used as a measure of the organization's success in determining whether the organization can survive in the long term or not, resulting in the creation of public value for the people [1]. According to the changing environment, the digital revolution and the trend of technological change will cause a paradigm shift in how organizations work, how they handle public issues, and how they challenge changes [20]. The organization's performance is to achieve the organization's goals and create long-term effectiveness, which results in motivation to work of government officials within the organization, satisfaction, and cooperation in working to achieve the organization's desired results. When applied to local government organizations, organizational performance entails establishing standards to improve the quality of work effectiveness, with the goal of determining the success of public organization administration in order for the organization to achieve its goals or success, and it is an extremely important mission of entrepreneurial leaders in government organizations to operate in accordance with the objectives to achieve the goals or success in that operation. It can be seen that organizational performance can create public value for people and stakeholders in all sectors by setting both quantitative goals that clearly define the type, type, and number of the organization's output and qualitative goals that demonstrate the value of the output obtained from that operation. Therefore, the local government organization strives to create satisfaction with the results of the people, stakeholders, and focuses on creating public value for the people from the public services that the local government organization performs. Components and indicators of local administrative organization performance are divided into two categories: performance satisfaction and public values orientation [1], [21].
III. HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
A. Influence of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Public Entrepreneurship
The twenty-first century leadership entails a leadership perspective that aims to respond to the world's unique challenges and opportunities. It also reflects an expanded leadership paradigm and integrates theories and practices from various disciplines and traditions to foster practical knowledge and transformative change in global service. Many previous studies have introduced the concept of entrepreneurs as organizational leaders [22], [23]. Numerous studies have attempted to understand the factors that affect organizational performance, and leadership has emerged as one of the most significant factors contributing to organizational performance. As a result, entrepreneurs who are committed to the right leadership style may be the key to organizational performance [22], [24]. The relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship in public organizations is worth investigating because leaders' behaviors can play an important role in encouraging entrepreneurial activity in public organizations. Their actions can have an impact on public organizations not only in terms of organizational survival, success, performance, and the creation of public value, but leaders can also influence how effectively and efficiently organizations provide services to their constituents [8]. Currently, organizations require continuity between entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurship, which is a value-added feature that can produce entrepreneurs who are self-disciplined, creative in decision making, self-confident, and positive thinkers. According to [25], the common problems caused by organizational digitalization are worker alienation, weak social bonding, and poor accountability. It is therefore critical that leaders support and assist followers in dealing with the challenges of increased autonomy and job demands by adopting coaching behaviors to promote their development, provide resources, and assist them in handling tasks. According to the findings of this study, leadership behavior has a positive impact on the entrepreneurship of state-owned enterprises that use and do not use accountability-based management. The study in Asian country found that leadership behavior has a positive impact on the entrepreneurship of state-owned enterprises in Vietnam, recommending some policies to promote leadership behavior in state enterprises [7]. In addition, according to [8],
a practical implication of the study of entrepreneurship in public organizations based on the role of leadership behavior demonstrated that relations-oriented leadership behavior is critical to entrepreneurship in public organizations, implying the importance of developing relationships with subordinates. The empirical findings of [9] in the research topic of impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovative work behavior: examining mediation and moderation mechanisms suggest that entrepreneurial leadership has a significant positive effect on employees' innovative work behavior. Furthermore, empirical findings from the effect of entrepreneurial leadership, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological innovation capability on SMEs' performance in Vietnam show that entrepreneurial leadership, through the full mediators of team creativity, dynamic capabilities, and competitive advantages, can improve the performance of IT SMEs [26]. In conclusion, current theoretical and empirical research indicates that a wide range of leadership styles influence successful business ventures and entrepreneurial success [27], [28]. Therefore, the hypothesis below is proposed:
H1: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and public entrepreneurship of local administrative organization.
B. Influence of Public Entrepreneurship on Organizational Performance
Public sector entrepreneurship is the activity of a public sector organization that combines the role of public service in the public sector with the entrepreneurial perspective of the private sector in order to improve the performance of public sector organizations [13]. The entrepreneurship concepts used in government organizations to reflect a shift in management's perspective to be more proactive, creative, innovative, and risk-taking. This allows for more accurate forecasting of operational opportunities and organizational management results [29], [30]. Some studies have found a link between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. According to [36], entrepreneurial orientation has a positive correlation with the knowledge management process, which has a positive effect on a company's organizational performance. Many researchers argue that innovativeness, risk-taking, and pro-activeness can both improve and hinder firm performance because they all involve costs and uncertainties [3], [37], [38]. Reference [30] discovered that the dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship-innovation, proactivity, and risk taking-have a positive impact on the performance of the public health sub-sector, and that this relationship is moderated by internal organizational factors. In addition, entrepreneurial opportunity discovery completely mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial opportunity and new venture performance. This study advances entrepreneurship research by providing insights into how entrepreneurial actions can improve the relationship between entrepreneurial opportunity and new venture performance [39]. Entrepreneurial success is practically related to economic or financial parameters [40]. Additionally, according to [41] in the study on the entrepreneurial leadership affecting innovation work behavior discovered that entrepreneurial leadership characteristics have an effect on employees' innovation work behavior in the context of knowledge-based firms and can lead innovative process. According to [42] research study, the public sector's focus on entrepreneurship reflects its mission-critical role in creating effective organizational performance and achieving effective goals that create success and lead to a sustainable competitive advantage for government organizations in the future. Therefore, the hypothesis below is proposed:
H2: There is a positive relationship between public entrepreneurship and organizational performance of local administrative organization.
C. Influence of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Organizational Performance
Existing leadership literature identifies various leadership styles and their positive effects on project success and organizational management [43], [44], [45]. Entrepreneurial leadership provides a comparative advantage to innovative and newly discovered opportunities [27], [46]. Entrepreneurial leadership is the ability to influence, organize, or lead a group of people to achieve a common goal by utilizing entrepreneurial behavior, seizing opportunities, optimizing risk, assuming responsibility, and managing change in a dynamic environment for organizational growth
and development [47], [48]. Furthermore, entrepreneurial leadership focuses on concepts and ideas related to individual behavior problems, such as decision makers, problem solvers, risk takers, strategic initiatives, and visionaries [47], [49]. Entrepreneurial leadership is a situational factor that has both positive and negative effects on organizational performance and on preparing people to face complex and demanding environments [50]. According to the findings of [47] study on the influence of entrepreneur leadership and organizational culture on the performance of the state civil apparatus, entrepreneurial leadership factors and organizational culture had a positive and significant effect on employee performance. In addition, [51] stated that entrepreneurial leaders can effectively recognize and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities, foster followers' creativity, and improve the innovative capability of business ventures, resulting in superior performance. Entrepreneurial leadership as a potential creator refers to a vision and mission that inspires and guides followers to make efforts and achieve set goals [27], [52]). There are important links between entrepreneurial leadership and competitive advantage and business model innovation [46]. In addition, [10] discovered that entrepreneurial leadership can empower and build the organization while elevating to excellent performance in a quantitative study examining the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on the outcomes of high-performance work systems. Regardless of organization type, entrepreneurial leadership attributes would have a significant positive impact on organizational effectiveness. The findings are important for designing interventions on entrepreneurial leadership characteristics to improve organizational effectiveness [4]. According to a previous study by [8], leadership behavior is positively associated with public sector entrepreneurship, with the effect being greater for relationship-oriented leadership, followed by change-oriented leadership. This study's practical implication is that relationship-oriented leadership behavior is critical to entrepreneurship in public organizations, implying the importance of developing relationships with subordinates. According to the empirical results of the study on the impact of entrepreneurship on performance in public sector organizations with application to the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company, entrepreneurial activities have a significant impact on organizational performance [29]. Furthermore, entrepreneurial leadership has a significant impact on overall organizational performance in both financial and non-financial dimensions [54]. Previous research has shown that entrepreneurial leadership promotes high performance [55], [56], [57]. It has been discovered that entrepreneurial leadership is successful leadership. Therefore, the hypothesis below is proposed:
H3: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and organizational performance of local administrative organization.
IV. METHODS
A. Sample and Data Collection
This study was exempt from ethical review because it is a survey research with no sensitive questions and has no impact on respondents because the results are not specific. Furthermore, because individual people cannot be identified, the encode-recording of information ensures confidentiality. The research used voluntary participation in the form of a consent statement in the questionnaire, with privacy and confidentiality protected. Finally, the data was collected solely for educational purposes by research assistants, and the research findings do not identify the organizations.
This is a quantitative research study. This study's population is 22,388,912 people in Thailand's Northeast [58]. Data were collected from 400 people in the Northeast of Thailand, using questionnaire surveys with stratified random sampling and a simple random sampling method. The sample size was determined using Taro Yamane's formula [59] and a 95% confidence level. The respondents were asked to rate the questions on a five-point scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). This was a cross-sectional study because the data were collected at a single point in time from the specified key respondents with a 100% response rate. To ensure the accuracy of the research instrument, content validity was used in the validity analysis. Content validation is crucial in determining the
extent to which the instrument measures the intended construct [60]. Overall, the questionnaire's scale content validity index was 1.00, indicating complete agreement among content qualified experts. Furthermore, the Cronbach's alpha was used in this research study to test for reliability. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of variables was calculated to be 0.927. The Cronbach's alpha value is greater than 0.700, indicating that the survey is extremely reliable [61].
B. Measures
The [12] scale was used to assess entrepreneurial leadership. It has 40 questions. The respondents were asked to rate the questions on a 5-point scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). The scale developed by [62], [63], and [18] assessed public entrepreneurship. It has 25 questions. The respondents were asked to rate the questions on a 5-point scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). Reference [62], [64], and [21] developed a scale to evaluate organizational performance. It has 10 questions. The respondents were asked to rate the questions on a 5-point scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree).
C. Statistical Analyses
The statistical package for social science was used to analyze the research results. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The demographic information of respondents was described using frequency and percentage, and the levels of respondents' opinions on entrepreneurial leadership, public entrepreneurship, and organizational performance were described using mean and standard deviation. Furthermore, the following inferential statistics were used to analyze the data: Pearson's product-moment correlation was used to test the relationship between variables; ordinary least square regression analysis was used to test hypotheses. Bias in research was considered and can be minimized by implementing a structured survey design and ensuring questions are well constructed, as this helps to ensure participants' responses are more accurate and autonomous.
V. RESULTS
A. Demographic Information of Respondents
During the months of November and December of 2022, 400 questionnaire surveys were distributed to participants. All were completed and correctly filled out, yielding a 100% response rate. According to the findings of the study, 53.80% of the 400 people who took the surveys in Thailand's northeastern region were men. The most common age group was 31-40 years, accounting for 40.50% of respondents. In terms of education, the majority of respondents (69.00%) held a Bachelor's degree. Furthermore, the most common occupation was that of private company employee (up to 29.30%). The respondents' most common monthly income was more than 20,000 THB (37.30%). Finally, up to 27.80% of respondents were based in the middle northeastern region as shown in Table 1. Demographic Information of Respondents.
Table 1. Demographic Information of Respondents
Demographic Descriptive
Factors Statistics
Gender Male: 215 (53.80%)
Female: 185 (46.20%)
Age Not more than 20 years: 25 (6.20%)
21-30 years: 105 (26.30%)
31-40 years: 162 (40.50%)
41-50 years: 83 (20.80%)
51-60 years: 22 (5.50%)
More than 60 years: 3 (0.70%)
Education Below Bachelor's degree: 73 (18.20%)
Bachelor's degree: 276 (69.00%) Above Bachelor's degree: 51 (12.80%) Student: 39 (9.70%) General employee: 45 (11.30%) Private company employee: 117 (29.30%)
State-owned enterprise staff: 60 (15.00%)
Government official: 81 (20.30%) Business Owner: 58 (14.40%) Not more than 12,000 THB: 59 (14.70%)
12,001-16,000 THB: 92 (23.00%) 16,001-20,000 THB: 100 (25.00%) More than 20,000 THB: 149 (37.30%) Upper northeastern region 1: 60 (15.00%)
Upper northeastern region 2: 78 (19.50%)
Middle northeastern region: 111 (27.80%)
Lower northeastern region 1: 86 (21.50%)
Lower northeastern region 2: 65 (16.20%)
B. Hypotheses Testing
The collected data from five-point Likert scale questionnaire surveys specifying the rating scale indications (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) were calculated as average scores and standard deviations for descriptive statistics. People's opinions on entrepreneurial leadership, public entrepreneurship, and organizational performance had high average Likert scale scores of 3.75, 3.74, and 3.77, respectively. Furthermore, the standard deviations of these measures on Likert scales were 0.35, 0.34, and 0.36, respectively.
The correlation coefficient between the independent variable and the dependent variable was investigated for inferential statistics. Pearson's product-moment correlation was used to determine the relationship between such variables. The goal of correlation analysis was to determine the magnitude of the correlation between the variables and to test for multi-collinearity. Table 2 shows the correlation analysis between the variables.
Table 2. Correlation Analysis of Variables
Variables EL PE OP
Mean 3.75 3.74 3.77
S.D. 0.35 0.34 0.36
EL 1 0.852** 0.735**
PE 1 0.775**
OP 1
Notes: **p < 0.01; EL=entrepreneurial leadership, PE=public entrepreneurship, OP=organizational performance
Occupation
Monthly Income
Location
Table 2 describes the relationship between variables with correlation coefficients (r) greater than 0.800. According to the relationship assumptions, [65] stated that the relationship between the variables must be less than 0.800 [66]. It can be seen that the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and public entrepreneurship was significantly correlated at the highest value of 0.852, which was greater than 0.800, indicating a multi-collinearity problem in this relationship. However, the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance (T) values were examined; according to the standard, the VIF value could not exceed 10 (VIF=3.649) and the T value could not be less than 0.200 (T=0.274), implying that each variable has an appropriate relationship with each other and can be used for a linear model structure analysis. As a result, the research study can test the hypotheses using ordinary least square regression analysis at 0.05 significant levels.
Figure 1 presents the findings from the testing of the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 predicts a positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and public entrepreneurship of local administrative organizations in Thailand's northeastern region. The model estimation reveals a positive relationship between these two variables (6=0.852; p=<0.01). The beta coefficient has a statistically significant p-value. As a result, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicts a positive relationship between public entrepreneurship and organizational performance of local administrative organizations in Thailand's northeastern region. The model estimation reveals a positive relationship between these two variables (6=0.775; p=<0.01). The beta coefficient has a statistically significant p-value. As a result, Hypothesis 2 is supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicts a positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and organizational performance of local administrative organizations in Thailand's northeastern region. The model estimation reveals a positive relationship between these two variables (6=0.735; p=<0.01). The beta coefficient has a statistically significant p-value. As a result, Hypothesis 3 is supported.
The research findings have significant effects with 95% confidence intervals.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on public entrepreneurship and organizational performance, as well as the impact of public entrepreneurship on organizational performance of local administrative organizations in Thailand's northeastern region. The study's findings were used to develop recommendations for improving organizational
Figure 1. Results from Hypotheses Testing
R2 = 0.539
Notes: **p < 0.01
Standardized coefficients are reported. Solid lines represent the significant results.
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
performance. According to the findings, entrepreneurial leadership has a significant impact on public entrepreneurship. Public entrepreneurship has a significant impact on organizational performance. Furthermore, entrepreneurial leadership has a significant impact on organizational performance. As a result, the research findings' recommendations can be used as valuable development guidelines for local administrative organizations. To begin, entrepreneurial leadership appears to be a critical success factor in fostering public entrepreneurship within an organization. To implement an entrepreneurial leadership style in an organization, the leader should openly frame challenges, absorb uncertainty, do underwriting, build organizational member commitment, define gravity, identify and exploit opportunity, lead the organization toward learning, and create collective self-efficacy. In order to steer the organization toward public entrepreneurship, the public local organization should prioritize developing a specific leadership style based on entrepreneurial orientation. Next, public entrepreneurship plays an important role in improving organizational performance, the role of public entrepreneurship in supporting the potential of government officials to deliver excellent public services and achieve better organizational performance and outcomes should be critical for the local government organization. Traditional public performance management structures are being replaced by more risk-taking, innovative, adaptive, autonomous, and aggressively competitive public entrepreneurship strategies in order to achieve desired and more effective public outcomes. As a result, public entrepreneurship plays an important role in the development of organizational performance while also responding to the dynamic change of the twenty-first century. The study's findings are consistent with [8] findings that entrepreneurial leadership behavior is positively associated with public sector entrepreneurship, as well as [55] findings that entrepreneurial leadership promotes high performance. Lastly, entrepreneurial leadership plays a significant role in improving organizational performance. Local administrative organizations should implement an entrepreneurial leadership style in an organization to increase people satisfaction with performance and public value orientation. The study's findings are consistent with [53], who stated that there are important links between entrepreneurial leadership and competitive advantage and business model innovation, as well as the findings of [10], who discovered that entrepreneurial leadership can empower and build the organization while elevating to excellent performance. Entrepreneurial leadership style is intensely establishing public entrepreneurship orientation and appears to be critical factors in transforming local public organizations from traditional establishments to practicable institutions. The managerial implications and suggestions stated above apply to all levels of local government organizations in the public sector. The contribution of this research study is to provide some implications for theoretical and managerial perspectives. This study makes a theoretical contribution because the model developed in the conceptual framework and the relationship between variables can be applied and implemented throughout the country's local administrative organizations. This study also has some managerial implications. Given the critical role of entrepreneurial leadership in promoting public entrepreneurship and, as a result, organizational performance, a management training program that is designed to develop entrepreneurial leadership characteristics among leaders of work units in local organizations appears to be essential to help them effectively implement change management to minimize employee resistance and maximize organizational performance. Despite the contributions made by the current research, various restrictions and limitations still need to be taken into account. First, only local administrative organizations in Thailand's northeastern region are included in the data collection's scope. The results' ability to be extended to a larger population may be constrained by the small sample size. Second, the conclusions drawn from the gathering of cross-sectional data cannot be explained in terms of causation; rather, they can only be explained in terms of connections or associations between the variables. Third, using self-report questionnaires to obtain data may introduce some subjective bias. Finally, this research study eagerly anticipates future research on other antecedent factors influencing public entrepreneurship and organizational performance at various levels of government organizations.
REFERENCES
[1] Karnsomdee, P. (2022). Contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 25(1), 1-11.
[2] Kearney, C., Hisrich, R., & Roche, F. (2008). A conceptual model of public sector corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11365-007-0048-x
[3] Rodrigo-Alarcón, Job, Pedro M. García-Villaverde, María J. Ruiz-Ortega, & Gloria Parra-Requena. (2018). From social capital to entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 36, 195-209.
[4] Mishra, P., & Mishra, R. K. (2017). Entrepreneurial leadership and organizational effectiveness: A comparative study of executives and non-executives. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 71-78. doi: 10.1016/j. procs.2017.11.343
[5] Esmer, Y., & Dayi, F. (2017). Entrepreneurial leadership: A theoretical framework. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Universitesi. Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 4(2), 112-124.
[6] Sirisampan, T. (2017). National Administration Reform Strategies. Nonthaburi: King Prajadhipok's Institute.
[7] Thuy, N., Christopher, G., & Hu, B. D. (2022). Livelihood vulnerability to climate change: A case of farm households in northeast Vietnam. Enviro Dev. Sustain, 24, 12059-12078. doi: 10.1007/s 10668-022-02201-0
[8] Demircioglu, M. A., & Chowdhury, F. (2021). Entrepreneurship in public organizations: The role of leadership behavior. Small Business Economics, 57(3), 1107-1123.
[9] Li, C., Makhdoom, H.U.R., & Asim, S. (2020). Impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovative work behavior: Examining mediation and moderation mechanisms, Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 105-118.
[10]Mateus Ximenes, M., Supartha, W. G., Dewi, G. M., & Sintaasih, D. K. (2019). Entrepreneurial leadership moderating high performance work system and employee creativity on employee performance, Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1697512, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2019.1697512
[11]Cai, W., Lysova, E. I., Khapova, S. N., & Bossink, B. A. (2019). Does entrepreneurial leadership foster creativity among employees and teams? The mediating role of creative efficacy beliefs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 203- 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9536-y
[12]Bagheri, A., & Harrison, C. (2020). Entrepreneurial leadership measurement: A multi-dimensional construct, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(4), 659-679.
[13]Syam, H., Lamangida, T., & Madubun, J. (2018). Public entrepreneurship perspective in management of the Limboto Lake in Gorontalo Regency, Indonesia. Acad Entreprenuership J., 24(4), 1528-2686.
[14]Klein'r, P. F., Mahoney, T. J., McGahan, M. A., & Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7, 1-15.
[15]Karnsomdee P. (2021). The effects of government policy on organizational performance of provincial administration organization: mediating role of public entrepreneurship [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review] F1000Research 2021, 10:794 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.55080.1
[16]Svensson, P. (2019). Formalized policy entrepreneurship as a governance tool for policy integration. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(14), 1212-1221.
[17]Jones, O., & Crompton, H. (2009). Enterprise logic and small frms: A model of authentic entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Strategy and Management, 2(4), 329-351.
[18]Glód, G. (2015). Measurement of public entrepreneurship in the polish health sector. Managing intellectual capital and innovation for sustainable and inclusive society: Managing intellectual
capital and innovation. Proceedings of the MakeLearn and TIIM Joint International Conference 2. ToKnowPress.
[19]Serirat, S. (2017). Consumer Behavior. Bangkok: Theera Film and Scitex.
[20]0sborne, D., & Gaebler, T., Eds. (1992). Reinventing government. How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Penguin Books USA Inc., New York.
[21]Moonju, K. (2016). Investigating effects of entrepreneurial orientation and management on performance: Public sector vs Private sector. Thesis, Master of Public Policy, KDI School of Public Policy and Management.
[22]Rahim, H. L., Abidin, Z. Z., Mohtar, S., & Ramli, A. (2015). The effect of entrepreneurial leadership towards organizational performance. International Academic Research Journal of Business and Technology, 1(2), 193-200.
[23]Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321-334.
[24]Cascio, W., & Boudreau, J. (2010). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource initiatives. Ft Press.
[25]Schwarzmu"ller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). How does the digital transformation affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design and leadership. Mrev Management Revue, 29 (2), 114-38.
[26]Nguyen Trong, L., Nguyen Duy Hau, D., & Nguyen Thi Anh, T. (2022). The influence of green product development performance to enhance enterprise effectiveness and innovation. Economies, 10, 113. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/economies10050113
[27]Park, H., Tangirala, S., Hussain, I., & Ekkirala, S. (2022). How and when managers reward employees' voice: The role of proactivity attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2269-2284. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001008
[28]Bertoldi, B. (2021). Entrepreneurial essence in family businesses. International Series in Advanced Management Studies, Springer, number 978-3-030-63742-2, December.
[29]Fahim, M. A. (2018). The impact of entrepreneurship on performance in public sector organizations with application to the Egyptian electricity holding company. Arab J Admin. 38(2), 227-256.
[30]Banda, P., & Kazonga, E. (2018). The effect of public sector corporate entrepreneurship on organizational performance in the health sector: A case of selected public hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 20(4), 8-18.
[31]Nwachukwu, C. E., & Chladkova, H. (2017). Human resource management practices and employee satisfaction in microfinance banks in Nigeria. Trends Economics and Management, 11, 23-35. https://doi.org/10.13164/trends. 2017.28.23
[32]Arief, M., Thoyib, A., Sudiro, A., & Rohman, F. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm performance through strategic flexibility: A study on the SMEs cluster in Maland. Journal of Management Research, 5(3), 44-62.
[33]Barua, E. N., Gichira, R., & Iravo, M. (2016). Influence of organizational resources and environment social entrepreneurship factors on performance of enterprise based Parastatals in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(4), 13-26.
[34]Fahim, M. A. (2018). The impact of entrepreneurship on performance in public sector organizations with application to the Egyptian electricity holding company. Arab J Admin. 2018, 38(2), 227-256.
[35]Zhang, D. D., & Swanson, L. A. (2014). Linking social entrepreneurship and sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 88-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19420676.2014.880503
[36]Adam, S., Fuzi, N. M., Ramdan, M. R., Mat Isa, R., Ismail, A. F. M. F., Hashim, M. Y., Ong, S. Y. Y., & Ramlee, S. I. F. (2022). Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance of online business in Malaysia: The mediating role of the knowledge management process. Sustainability, 14, 5081. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14095081
[37]Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.
[38]Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Kuratko, D. F. (2013). Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: The non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 273-291.
[39]Donbesuur, F., Boso, N., & Hultman, M. (2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on new venture performance: Contingency roles of entrepreneurial actions. J. Bus. Res, 118, 150-161.
[40]Zhou, Q., Li, Q., & Gong, S. (2019). How job autonomy promotes employee's sustainable development? A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 11(22), 6445. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su11226445
[41]Bagheri, A., Akbari, M., & Artang, A. (2020). How does entrepreneurial leadership affect innovation work behavior? The mediating role of individual and team creativity self-efficacy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-0281
[42]Linton, G., & Kask, J. (2017). Configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and competitive strategy for high performance. Journal of Business Research, 70(Supplement C), 168-176.
[43]Latif, B., Mahmood, Z., Tze San, O., Mohd Said, R., & Bakhsh, A. (2020). Coercive, normative and mimetic pressures as drivers of environmental management accounting adoption. Sustainability, 12, 4506.
[44]Raziq, M. M., Borini, F. M., Malik, O. F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership styles, goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in Pakistan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 309-323. https://doi. org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2017-0212
[45]Aga, Assefa, D., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 806-818
[46]Zainol, F. A., Daud, W. N. W., Abubakar, L. S., Shaari, H., & Halim, H. A. (2018). A linkage between entrepreneurial leadership and SMEs performance: An integrated review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(4), 104-118. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/ v8-i4/4000
[47]Raharjanto, T. (2022). Government leadership and organizational culture: A study on Regional Apparatus in Jumbi City. Journal of Governance, 7(3), 729-741.
[48]Fatoni, F., Indawati, N., Budiono, E., Kistyanto, A., & Witjaksono, A. D. (2021). Pengaruh entrepreneurial leadership dan work life balance terhadap kinerja melalui inovasi saat work from home. Indonesian Journal of Economics, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation, 1(3), 142- 153.
[49]Anggriani, Y. Y., & Kistyanto, A. (2021). Pengaruh entrepreneurial leadership terhadap kinerja umkm kota surabaya melalui inovasi. EKUITAS (Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Keuangan), 5(3), 407-427.
[50]Husin, N. H., & Gugkang, A. S. (2017). High-performance work systems and employee job performance: Evidence from the banking sector in Malaysia. Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship (GBSE), 1(3), 62-74.
[51]Huang, G.-h., Zhao, H. H., Niu, X.-y., Ashford, S. J., & Lee, C. (2014). Reducing job insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management matter? Correction to Huang et al. (2013). Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035129
[52]Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., Paul, J., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2020). Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113(Iim), 209-229. https: //doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2020.03.032
[53]Phangestu, J., Kountur, R., & Prameswari, D. A. (2020). The moderating effect of entrepreneurial leadership and competitive advantage on the relationship between business model innovation and startup performance. Journal of Business & Retail Management Research, 14(03), 53-61. https:// doi.org/10.24052/jbrmr/v14is03/art-06
[54]Herlina, Lagandesa, Y. R., Azizah, & Asriani. (2021). Training and implementation of Google applications for online learning in The Pandemic Covid-19. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1832(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/ 1832/1/012049.
[55]Selvaraja, K., & Pihie, 1. L. (2017). Conceptualization of entrepreneurial leadership models and its suitability towards educational settings. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 4(11), 153-158.
[56]Wang, C. L., Tee, D. D., & Ahmed, P. K. (2012). Entrepreneurial leadership and context in Chinese firms: A tale of two Chinese private enterprises. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(4), 505-530.
[57]Ling, H. Y., & Jaw, S. B. (2011). Entrepreneurial leadership, human capital management, and global competitiveness An empirical study of Taiwanese MNCs. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 2(2), 117-135.
[58]Registration Administration Office, Department of Provincial Administration, Ministry of Interior. (2021).
[59]Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics an Introduction Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
[60]Rusticus, S. A., & Lovato, C. Y. (2014). Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of equivalence tests: A simulation study. Practical assessment, Research & evaluation, 19, 1-10.
[61]Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[62]Fox, J. M. (2008). Organizational entrepreneurship and the organizational performance linkage in university extension. USASBE 2008 Proceedings, 429-459.
[63]Moghaddam, A., Sarkar Arani, M. R., & Kuno, H. (2015). A collaborative inquiry to promote pedagogical knowledge of mathematics in practice. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 170-186.
[64]Diefenbach, F. E. (2011). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: when middle managers create public value. Wiesbaden. Gabler.
[65]Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition, Pearson, New York.
[66]Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
