Sezen-Gültekin, G. & Argon, T. (2020). The relationship among organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability at a higher education institution in Turkey: A structural equation modelling. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(4). 1470- 1491. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/955 Received: 12.06.2020 Received in revised form: 17.07.2020 Accepted: 01.08.2020 THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL MYOPIA, ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY AT A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION IN TURKEY: A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING* Research article Gözde Sezen-Gültekin1 Sakarya University gsezen@sakarya.edu.tr Corresponding author Türkan Argon2 Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University argon_t@ibu.edu.tr 1Gözde Sezen-Gültekin is an assistant professor doctor at Sakarya University Faculty of Education Educational Sciences Department. She received her Ph.D. on Educational Administration and Supervision at Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University. Her research interests are organizational psychology, lifelong learning, classroom management. 2Türkan Argon is a professor doctor at Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Educational Sciences Department. She received her Ph.D. on Educational Administration and Supervision at Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University. Her research interests are educational administration, human resources management. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. mailto:gsezen@sakarya.edu.tr mailto:argon_t@ibu.edu.tr https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2179-4466 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0744-8647 Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1470 THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL MYOPIA, ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY AT A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION IN TURKEY: A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING Gözde Sezen-Gültekin1 gsezen@sakarya.edu.tr Türkan Argon2 argon_t@ibu.edu.tr Abstract This study aimed to introduce a structural equation model of testing the mediation role of organizational resilience in the relationship between organizational myopia and organizational sustainability. Thus, it was designed with structural regression model. In the study, it was aimed to collect data from a higher education organization which had already received “Turkey Continuity in Excellence Award”. For this purpose, the participants of the study comprised purposefully selected 322 academics at Sakarya University, which was the only university in Turkey having the relevant award holistically. For the data collection, “Organizational Sustainability Scale” developed by Sezen-Gültekin (2019), “Organizational Resilience Scale” and “Organizational Myopia Scale” adapted to educational organizations by Sezen-Gültekin (2019) were utilized. As result, it was found that the established model had acceptable and excellent compliance values. In addition, it was determined that the organizational myopia independent variable directly affected the organizational resilience dependent variable, while it was both directly and indirectly organizational sustainability dependent variable. It was also seen that the organizational resilience independent variable directly affected the organizational sustainability dependent variable. In addition, it was observed that the organizational myopia and the organizational resilience variables had indirect effects on the sub-dimensions of executive, economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability. Keywords: Continuity in Excellence Award, higher education institutions, organizational myopia, organizational resilience, organizational sustainability, quality management 1. Introduction Organizations in a rapidly developing and changing world order must follow the strategies and policies that are appropriate for their purposes, and enable them behave accordingly in order to survive. It is a widely known fact that organizations survive in line with their goals and even go beyond these goals necessitates not only to follow these determined strategies and policies, but also to base them on realistic basis. For this, organizations need to run both their past, their current situation and their future at the same time in their planned strategies and policies, in order to continue their existence and further their present positions in a way that will contribute positively to their goals. Because the future is an extension of the past and the present. mailto:gsezen@sakarya.edu.tr mailto:argon_t@ibu.edu.tr International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1471 Organizations are always in an effort to exist for their purposes. For this reason, they make efforts sometimes to protect their existence, and sometimes to put their presence in front of other organizations. When it is evaluated in terms of public and private sectors, it can be said that this situation occurs more in the private sector. Because, on one hand, the nature of the private sector leads organizations to competition and therefore to the war of existence in this competition. On the other hand, the competition situation in the private sector may show itself at a lower level in public sector since the resources in this sector are provided by governments and works are carried out on behalf of the governments. This situation makes the concerns and actions of the organizations in the public sector related to sustain their existence more limited. Because the claim that “if there is a government, public institutions and organizations will also exist”, which is a general idea, seems to make the issue of sustaining existence no longer an issue in public organizations. It can be said that these are pertinent claims. Ultimately, their sustainability is more limited since the financial resources in the private sector are based on individuals; however, the issue of sustainability can proceed in direct proportion to the government's survival or management policy since the funder in the public sector is largely government itself. Nevertheless, considering that competition and entrepreneurship are reflected in every field with the effect of globalization, it can be said that sustaining existence in the public sector has become an issue today. It can be said that higher education institutions worldwide have a more autonomous structure compared to other public institutions and organizations. For example, in the organizational chart of Turkish Ministry of National Education (http://www.meb.gov.tr/meb/teskilat.php), Turkey Council of Higher Education is an institution that organizes all higher education and directs the activities of higher education institutions, has autonomy and public legal personality within the framework of duties and powers assigned to it by law although it is seen as directly located in an established relationship with the minister of national education (T.C. Resmi Gazete, 1981). This situation creates a more autonomous structure in higher education compared to other education and training levels in Turkey in terms of education, research and development, scientific work, service to society, management of human resources and administrative aspects. The main objectives of Turkish higher education institutions are to conduct scientific studies and research at a high level, to produce information and technology, to disseminate scientific data, to support development and development in the national field, to cooperate with domestic and international institutions, to become an outstanding member of the scientific world, and to contribute universal and contemporary development (T.C. Resmi Gazete, 1981). For this reason, both national as well as from university in Turkey are expected to contribute to the development of the country at the international level. In this context, it can be stated that on one hand universities can have a sustainable structure with government support as a public institution, on the other hand, they are in a riskier formation in terms of sustainability with their public legal personality considering their work in the national and especially international arena. Ultimately, it can be predicted that universities have a competitive structure because of their autonomous structure and functional nature, and also it can be argued that this competitiveness brings along an effort of existence. This claim is supported by the national and international university rankings put forward by different institutions such as The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, which was founded in 2004 and is an institution which publishes the list of the world's best universities, and University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP), which was established in 2009 within the Informatics Institute of the Middle East Technical University and adopts making Turkish and world university rankings as social services (http://tr.urapcenter.org). Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1472 Similarly, with the increasing competition, the concept of quality, which has been adopted by the private sector for many years, has also shown itself in public institutions and organizations. As a matter of fact, quality organizations have been established at both national and international levels due to the fact that the issue of quality keeps the pulse of the organizational process, whether it is a private or public institution. Thanks to these organizations, it has been started to examine where institutions are in terms of quality and where their quality carries them in world competition. For example, the European Organization for Quality, founded in 1956, is an organization that has approximately 70,000 members from 40 countries and examines the quality actions of approximately 500,000 organizations (http://www.eoq.org/home.html). Similarly, established in 1990 in Turkey, Turkey Quality Association (KalDer) is an organization which provides its members with trainings and services on quality and excellence, analyzes their quality actions and gives awards in certain areas related to quality (http://www.kalder.org). Instead of having initially only industry-oriented actions, KalDer has begun to display a wide range of activities, including not only the private sector but also public institutions and organizations as the years progressed and the perspective on quality changed. One of the most important of these activities both in the private and public sectors in recent years is the continuity in excellence award. The aim of this award is to re-recognize the institutions and organizations, which have received Turkey Excellence Award previously since they have continually improved their performance and have had outstanding success by transforming the strategy into action, for their excellent performance and continuous improvement over the past time, and thereby to demonstrate the permanence of their success and achievements and the continuity of their journey to excellence. When examined the previous award of excellence, it is seen that both private companies and different organizations such as public schools and universities have received awards in maintaining excellence. When considered higher education institutions in this field, it is seen that Sakarya University is the only one that received awards on university basis, while Anadolu University Faculty of Engineering and Uludağ University Gemlik Asım Kocabıyık Vocational School have received awards on unit basis. So, it is observed that the diameter of the award was rather limited in higher education institutions. For this reason, it can be seen that higher education organizations are increasingly based on their efforts to sustain their existence within the scope of national and international policies. In the end, even if the opening and closing of universities in Turkish higher education are shaped according to the governmental policies, it can be said that many intra- organizational operations such as organizational performance, crisis management, success and problem solutions have prepared the existential future of universities. In this regard, examining the factors which position the institutions in Turkish higher education to have a sustainable structure in which the institutions can preserve their existence and pull ahead this existence of other organizations in the national and international arena, is important in terms of directing Turkish education policies. For this reason, in this study, the concept of organizational sustainability is examined by considering universities within the scope of Turkish higher education. In revealing this concept, the concepts of organizational myopia and organizational resilience are addressed, and the relationships among these three concepts are discussed. In order to understand these relationships, it will be useful to present the definitions made in the literature regarding the concepts used in the research. The concept of myopia means living in a world where individuals intentionally and unintentionally liquidate, destroy and eliminate the possibility of creating multi-layered diagnostic capabilities for their own interests (Chikudate, 2002a; 2002b). It also means the problem of failing to perceive the errors in the methods and practices used, and possible future opportunities and risks in an organization (Altınay, Mercan, Aksanyar & Sert, 2012). http://www.kalder.org/ International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1473 In this context, organizational myopia is the organization's ability to act with a limited capacity to evaluate the facts as it is and to see possible developments (Catino, 2013). In a narrow sense, resilience refers to a broad concept that includes psychological, behavioral and cognitive regulation within the framework of emotional, personal, relational and organizational functioning (Day & Gu, 2014), while, in a broad sense, resilience is to ensure that states, communities and global organizations work to empower and protect people (Malik, 2014). In this context, it is considered that organizational resilience is considered as the ability of an organization to resist negative and stressful situations, its ability to maintain its existing positions and its ability to benefit from them by benefiting from negative conditions (Kantur & İşeri-Say, 2015). Sustainability is related to the economic, social and environmental impacts of an organization in the long run (Jeong, 2015), while organizational sustainability is not just an attitude that maintains itself by preserving profitability; it is also an action that successfully balances people, prosperity and planet (3Ps) by seeking a dynamic balance (Wals & Schwarzin, 2012). In this context, it can be defined that sustainability of organizations is not only to maintain their existence for the purpose of their interests, but also to move in a balanced way by carrying the logic of sustainability to their outside world and to all levels of the organization, and to establish a future by trying to keep their assets alive in line with their goals. As a matter of fact, based on these definitions, it can be said that the concepts of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability are related to the past, present and future of an organization. However, this situation may vary when approached from a limited perspective. According to Hammond, real sustainability is about how the business is grown in the future, while resilience refers to how to protect what is owned and how to avoid problems. For this reason, sustainability is a more general and comprehensive strategy that should include the concept of resilience (Lattimore, 2016). On the other hand, organizational myopia means to save present day in a narrow sense (Baş, 2013). With reference to these reasons, it can be said that organizational myopia and organizational resilience predominantly focuses on present day of an organization, while organizational sustainability is a direct future-oriented concept. However, it can be claimed that one aspect of organizational myopia is essentially based on the past as it expresses the fact that an organization has limited its perspective due to its past actions, that resilience reflects predominantly the actions of present day as it expresses to survive in the events experienced and to regain its former state, that organizational sustainability is the foundation of the future as it expresses the existence of an organization by increasing its continuity in the future. It should be pointed out at this point that the concepts cannot be strictly separated in terms of time periods. Ultimately, from the perspective of opportunity, the concepts of myopia and resilience are always an investment for the future. Likewise, sustainability takes its foundations from the past and today. However, the point that is intended to be emphasized with this distinction is that these three terms discussed within the scope of this study are designed to support each other in the form of “past, present and future” of an organization. In this regard, the model followed within the scope of this study is as follows. Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1474 Figure 1. Past, present and future of an organization in the context of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability According to Figure 1, the concepts of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability are in a cyclical, continuous relationship with the past, present and future of an organization. According to Hammond, sustainability refers to optimism, and resilience refers to realism, and both are needed (Lattimore, 2016). In this regard, if the concept of organizational myopia is considered as a negative situation, in fact, this study deals with the effect of realism (organizational resilience) in getting an optimistic picture (organizational sustainability) from a negative situation (organizational myopia) in organizational life. In this context, the aim of this study is and to create a model which reveals the effect of organizational myopia on organizational sustainability through organizational resilience according to the opinions of the academician by considering the relationship between these three concepts. Therefore, the hypotheses of the study can be stated as follows: Hypothesis 1. H0: Organizational myopia does not directly explain organizational resilience. H1: Organizational myopia directly explains organizational resilience. Hypothesis 2. H0: Organizational myopia does not directly explain organizational sustainability. H1: Organizational myopia directly explains organizational sustainability. Hypothesis 3. H0: Organizational resilience does not directly explain organizational sustainability. H1: Organizational resilience directly explains organizational sustainability. Hypothesis 4. H0: Organizational myopia does not indirectly explain organizational sustainability through organizational resilience. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1475 H1: Organizational myopia indirectly explains organizational sustainability through organizational resilience. 2. Method 2.1. Research Model This research model of the study was the relational screening model, one of the quantitative research methods. The relational screening model aims to determine the presence or degree of co-change between two or more variables (Karasar, 2012). In this context, the relationship between organizational resilience and organizational sustainability was determined according to the opinions of academics at Sakarya University, which is a higher education institution. 2.2. Population and Sample In this study, it was aimed to collect the data from a higher education organization which received the “Turkey Continuity in Excellence Award”. For this purpose, because of the fact that Sakarya University was the only university in Tukey obtaining the relevant award holistically, 322 academics at Sakarya University constituted the participants of this study. According to the Turkish Council of Higher Education 2018 data, at the university there were 262 Professors, 206 Associate Professors, 540 Assistant Professors, 435 Instructors and 560 Research Assistants. Approximately 35% (f = 708) of these academics were female and 65% (f = 1295) were male (Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi, 2018). In the determination of the study sample, maximum diversity method was adopted by following purposeful sampling of non-random sampling types. The main purpose of using maximum diversity was to obtain opinion from each participant profile with a different academic title. In this respect, 322 volunteer academics were included in the study. Out of these 322 academics, 139 were female and 183 were male. 2.2. Population and Sample Organizational Sustainability Scale (OSS): Developed by Sezen-Gültekin (2019), the scale is a 5-point Likert type "totally disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, totally agree", and the scores obtained from the scale vary between 1-5. On the assumption that these ranges are equal, it was accepted that if the organizational sustainability level is very low in the range of 1.00-1.79; low in the range of 1.80-2.59; moderate in the range of 2.60-3.39; high in the range of 3.40-4.19; and very high in the range of 4.20-5.00. In this context, getting high scores from the scale indicates that the level of organizational sustainability is high. The scale consists of 39 items in five sub-dimensions as environmental sustainability, cultural sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability and executive sustainability. In the study, the scale was found to be a valid and reliable scale as the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency and composite reliability coefficients. The internal consistency coefficient for the reliability of the scale was calculated with Cronbach Alpha, and it was determined that the Cronbach Alpha value for the overall scale, which was composed of 39 items and had a five-factor structure, was found to be .98. When the reliability of the sub-dimensions of the scale was evaluated, both Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient and composite reliability coefficients were calculated. In this context, it was determined that the reliability values of the sub-dimensions of the scale were as follows: Cronbach alpha .93 and composite .99 for social sustainability; Cronbach alpha .89 and composite .98 for cultural sustainability; Cronbach alpha .87 and composite .98 for environmental sustainability; Cronbach alpha .87 and composite .98 for economic sustainability; The Cronbach alpha .98 and the composite .99 for the executive sustainability. Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1476 Organizational Resilience Scale (ORS): The scale was developed by Kantur and İşeri-Say (2015) in business organizations and adapted to the educational organization Sezen-Gültekin (2019). Although the scale was originally developed as 9 items in three sub-dimensions as robustness, integrity and agility; it was confirmed with a 9-item structure in a single dimension as the results of the validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) and reliability analyzes. The internal consistency coefficient for the reliability of the scale was calculated with Cronbach Alpha, and it was determined that the internal consistency coefficient determined by Cronbach alpha for the single factor structure consisting of 9 items was found to be .95 for the overall scale. Organizational Myopia Scale (OMS): The scale was developed by Aytemiz Seymen, Kılıç and Kinter (2016) and adapted to the educational organization by Sezen-Gültekin (2019). Originally developed with a total of 24 items in four sub-dimensions, the scale was validated with a total of 18 items in three dimensions as individual, organizational and professional myopia as a result of the validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) and reliability procedures performed in this study. In this context, it was determined that the reliability values of the sub-dimensions of the scale were as follows: Cronbach alpha .70 and composite .98 for individual myopia sub-dimension; Cronbach alpha .82 and composite .94 for professional myopia sub-dimension; Cronbach alpha .81 and composite .97 for organizational myopia sub-dimension. 3. Findings Frequency distribution and extreme values were examined in order to see whether the data obtained from a total of 359 participants had normal distribution. In addition, all points were converted to Z score type and one-way analysis of outliers was performed by analyzing the distance of the data from the mean. In this context, 37 data which were found to impair normality were excluded from the analysis, and then the remaining 322 data were re- analyzed, and it was seen that there were no extreme values in these 322 data. Table 1. Descriptive findings related to the data N Min. Value Max. Value Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Overall Organizational Sustainability 322 1,10 4,97 3,20 ,80609 -,298 -,264 Environmental Sustainability 322 1,00 5,00 3,00 ,91167 -,082 -,408 Cultural Sustainability 322 1,20 5,00 3,21 ,85379 -,182 ,-440 Social Sustainability 322 1,00 5,00 3,15 ,92612 -,215 -,466 Economic Sustainability 322 1,00 5,00 2,89 ,89788 -,055 -,375 Executive Sustainability 322 1,00 5,00 3,36 ,88528 -,606 ,054 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1477 Organizational Resilience 322 1,00 5,00 3,31 ,89354 -,490 -,006 Overall Organizational Myopia 322 2,28 4,94 3,79 ,48579 -,152 -,201 Individual Myopia 322 2,40 5,00 4,27 ,48420 -,453 ,526 Professional Myopia 322 1,86 5,00 3,90 ,60838 -,553 ,450 Organizational Myopia 322 1,00 4,83 3,26 ,76778 -,552 ,190 According to Table 1, it was seen that all the scales and the sub-dimensions had normal distributions. Besides, it was determined that the levels of the overall organizational sustainability and all its sub-dimensions had moderately averages (respectively M=3.20; 3.00; 3.21; 3.15; 2.89; 3.36), and the level of the organizational resilience had also moderately average (M=3,31), while overall organizational myopia and professional myopia is at a very low level (M=3.79; 3.90), individual blindness is at a very low level (M=4.27), and organizational myopia is at a moderate level (M=3.26). For analyzing the assumptions and findings regarding structural equality assumptions, Mahalanobis distance values were calculated for versatile extreme value analysis and it was observed that this value did not create contradictory observation at the level of .05. On the other hand, multiple connection control was performed to detect multiple linear connections, and variance increase factors (VIF) and tolerance values (TV) were examined. The findings were presented in Table 2. Table 2. Examination of the Relationship among Variables O v e ra ll O rg a n iz a ti o n a l S u st a in a b il it y E n v ir o n m e n ta l S u st a in a b il it y C u lt u ra l S u st a in a b il it y S o c ia l S u st a in a b il it y E c o n o m ic S u st a in a b il it y E x e c u ti v e S u st a in a b il it y O rg a n iz a ti o n a l R e si li e n c e r r r r r r r Organizational Resilience ,792** ,487** ,615** ,767** ,590** ,832** 1 Overall Organizational Myopia - ,664** - ,445** - ,528** - ,627** - ,498** - ,689** - ,682** Individual Myopia - ,304** - ,243** - ,245** - ,263** - ,244** - ,308** - ,302** Professional Myopia - ,376** - ,241** - ,335** - ,351** - ,266** - ,390** - ,383** Organizational Myopia - ,753** - ,494** - ,563** - ,727** - ,572** - ,785** - ,782** *p .05 ** p< .01 ***p<.001 Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1478 Büyüköztürk (2011) states that the level of the relationship between 0.00-0.30 is low, between 0.30-0.70 is medium; between 0.70-1.00 is high. When the data in Table 2 were examined, it was seen that all the relationships were meaningful at .01 level, and there was no multiple connection between the variables in the model since all the relationships were less than 0.90. Therefore, it was determined that structural equation model can be made. In addition, in the analysis of the data, the tolerance (>0,2) and VIF (<10) values were also examined in order to determine the multiple linear connection problem between the variables, and it was consequently observed that there was no multiple connection problem between the variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). Finally, the sample size was tested to see if a sample group of 322 people was sufficient for structural equation analysis. Thus, the sample volume used in the study was found to be sufficient (Harrington, 2009, cited in Bayram, 2010). For this reason, it was determined that the assumptions regarding structural equality were provided. In this context, by establishing a structural equation model, the predictive relationships between organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability were analyzed. Table 3. Excellent and acceptable fit values for structural regression analysis Fit Criteria Perfect Fit Values Acceptable Fit Values Fit Values Obtained (χ2/sd) ≤ 3 ≤ 4-5 2,78 AGFI ≥ 0.90 ≥ 0,85 0,85 GFI ≥ 0.90 ≥ 0,85 0,89 CFI ≥ 0.97 ≥ 0,90 0,96 IFI ≥ 0.95 ≥ 0,90 0,96 RMSEA ≤ 0.05 0,06-0,08 0,07 SRMR ≤ 0.05 0,06-0,08 0,04 When the fit values in the Table 3 were examined, it is seen that the model has acceptable and perfect (χ2/sd (306.687/110)= 2.79; RMSEA = 0,07; SRMR = 0,04; CFI = 0.96; IFI=0.96; GFI = 0.89; AGFI = 0.85) fit values (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Bollen, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2006; Hu ve Bentler, 1999; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Kline, 2011; Marsh, Hau, Artelt, Baumert & Peschar, 2006; Steiger, 2007; Schermelleh-Engel & Moosbrugger, 2003; Tanaka & Huba, 1985). In this context, the structural regression model developed and tested was shown in Figure 2. The information on the direct and indirect effects of the variable tested in the model was also given in Table 4. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1479 Figure 2. Structural regression model developed and tested Table 4. Direct and indirect effects on organizational sustainability variable Independent variable Dependent variable Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect Standard error Critical rate (t) Organizational Myopia Organizational Resilience 0,90 0,90 0,000 0,15 5,982*** Organizational Myopia Organizational Sustainability 0,88 0,55 0,33 0,87 2,698** Organizational Resilience Organizational Sustainability 0,36 0,36 0,000 0,76 2,006* According to Table 4, it was found in the model that on one hand, organizational myopia directly affects organizational resilience (β = 0.90, p <0.001), while organizational myopia affects organizational sustainability both directly (β = 0.88, p <0.01) and indirectly (β = 0.33, p <.001); on the other hand, organizational resilience also directly affects organizational sustainability (β = 0.36, p <0.05). In addition, it was observed that organizational myopia and organizational resilience have indirect effects on the sub-dimensions. These effects are as follows, respectively: executive sustainability sub-dimension (β = 0.85; 0.35), economic sustainability sub-dimension (β = 0.70; 0.29), social sustainability sub-dimension (β = 0.82; 0.34), cultural sustainability sub-dimension (β = 0.69; 0.28) and environmental sustainability sub-dimension (β = 0.59; 0.24). According to the model, organizational myopia alone explains 81% (R2=0.81) of organizational resilience, and 44% (R2=0.44) of organizational sustainability, while organizational resilience alone explains 63% (R2=0.63) of organizational sustainability. On the other hand, 81% (R2 = 0.81) of organizational sustainability is explained by organizational myopia and organizational resilience. Accordingly, it can be said that organizational myopia and organizational resilience significantly explain the organizational sustainability and have very high impact sizes on Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1480 organizational sustainability, while organizational myopia has also a significant and high effect size on organizational resilience. The findings are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. The findings obtained by structural regression analysis In order to test whether the results obtained in the study is really meaningful and they have practical significance, effect size was calculated. In calculating the effect size, 0.02 ≤ f2 <0.15 value shows the small effect, 0.15 ≤ f2 <0.35 value shows the medium effect and 0.35 ≤ f2 value shows the wide effect (Cohen, 1988). The effect sizes calculated for each variable in the equation are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Effect sizes calculated for each structural equation Independent variable Dependent variable R2 f2 Organizational Myopia Organizational Resilience 0,81 4,26 Organizational Myopia Organizational Sustainability 0,44 0,78 Organizational Resilience Organizational Sustainability 0,63 1,70 Organizational Myopia + Organizational Resilience Organizational Sustainability 0,81 4,26 According to Table 5, it was found that organizational myopia has a wide impact on organizational resilience (R2 = 0.81; f2 = 4.26) and organizational sustainability (R2 = 0.44; f2 = 0.78); while, similarly, organizational resilience has a wide impact on organizational sustainability (R2 = 0.63; f2 = 1.70). In addition, it was seen that organizational myopia and organizational resilience together have a wide impact on organizational sustainability (R2 = 0.81; f2 = 4.26). In this case, it can be said that organizational sustainability is widely affected by organizational myopia and organizational resilience both separately and together. Finally, in the context of the power analysis, done in order to show that the rejection of H0 hypotheses and the acceptance of H1 hypotheses reveal the actual differences between the International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1481 variables, G * Power 3.1.9.4. package program was used, and the power was found to be quite high 1.00 value with f2 = 4.26, .05 alpha value and 322 sample group. 4. Discussion and Conclusion In this study, it was found out that organizational myopia had a significant and high impact size on organizational resilience, while organizational myopia and organizational resilience together explained organizational sustainability significantly and created a very high impact size for organizational sustainability. When the literature was examined, as far as reached, there was no study that directly examines the relationship between organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability, and examines this relationship in higher education. However, some studies support the results of this study by analyzing the relationship between myopia, resilience and sustainability conceptually. For example, according to Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007), resilience is based on past learning and promotes future learning. Wokutch, Singal, Gerde, and Naar (2016) define resilience as the ability of an organization to maintain itself and return to its former state after shocks caused by mistakes in decision making. In other words, resilience can be considered as restoring and maintaining the organization by overcoming the situations arising due to administrative errors. In this context, it can be said that myopia which deals with organizational errors, resilience which deals with organizational problems, and sustainability which expresses the continuity of the organization are related to each other. Based on these views, this idea can be proved by the results obtained in the structural equation model confirmed in this study. Ultimately, in this study, the main starting point when establishing a structural equation model is the belief that organizational myopia is the past of the organization, organizational resilience is the present of organization, and organizational sustainability is the future of organization. As a result of the model established and tested in this direction, this starting point was confirmed and it supports the opinions of the researchers by revealing that organizational myopia and organizational resilience together explain organizational sustainability significantly and create a very high impact size for organizational sustainability. Similarly, Catino (2013) states that organizational myopia manifests itself in the very moment when an organization fails to identify potential opportunities which can increase the reliability and resilience of the organizational system in a way to ensure long-term survival and adaptation to environmental changes. In this case, it can be said that an organization experiencing myopia can miss opportunities to increase its sustainability and resilience. Accordingly, it can be thought that organizational myopia, organizational sustainability and organizational resilience are interrelated, and even organizational myopia is a predictor of organizational sustainability and organizational resilience. This idea based on Catino's (2013) opinion was supported by the findings obtained as a result of this study. Because, as a result of the structural equation model tested in this study, it was concluded that organizational myopia is associated with organizational sustainability and organizational resilience, and moreover, organizational myopia greatly affects organizational sustainability through organizational resilience, thus organizational myopia and organizational resilience is an important predictor of organizational sustainability. According to Robb (2000), long-term sustainability requires the organization to be in close contact with its environment, to feel the need to change, and to overcome the pain of self- restructuring, sometimes deep. This ability requires acting towards the integrity of opposites such as mind and emotion, continuing and dropping, closing in and being open-ended. This Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1482 ability is the center of organizational resilience. In other words, in order to achieve sustainability, it can be said that an organization should act using opposite situations together, and this movement underlies organizational resilience. In this regard, it can be claimed that it will be meaningful to act to start work from organizational myopia that creates an opposite situation for the organization by acting in he organizational resilience center in achieving organizational sustainability. For this reason, in this study, it was tested whether the existence of a problematic structure caused by organizational myopia which is introvert, short-term, unable to see the future, opportunities and risks provides organizational sustainability, which will enable the organization to continue its existence and move it further through organizational resilience, which allows to stand strong in the face of challenges and successfully overcome them. As a result of this test, the structure supporting Robb's view (2000) appeared in the same way and organizational myopia and organizational resilience explained an important part of organizational sustainability. As a matter of fact, the reports published worldwide have emphasized the importance of these three terms for people, states and educational organizations. For example, according to OECD data, the distinction between “rich and well-educated countries and poor and poorly educated countries” is not valid today. Because, despite the bad socio-economic conditions in the world, many students can achieve very good results and these students are called as “resilient” because they overcome the difficulties to achieve success (Yılmaz Fındık, 2016). So, it can be stated that raising resilient students in accordance with the new world order requires the existence of resilient educational organizations at the same rate. Because the idea of “organizations with good conditions do well; organizations with bad conditions do bad things” is not valid in today's conditions when this process is evaluated in terms of educational organizations institutionally as in individual students. Because educational organizations must be “resilient” in order to achieve a sustainable structure by realizing their blind spots, developing their long-term care skills and overcoming difficulties in order to achieve success in line with their goals. In this way, resilient and sustainable education organizations, which can turn their blindness into an opportunity to focus on the future, will increase their probability of achieving positive results in line with their goals with a structure that complies with the features specified in UNESCO 2030 targets, even if they have good or bad conditions. This will pave the way for both macro and micro targets to be achieved for educational organizations. As a matter of fact, that the quality-oriented management processes, which continue especially in higher education institutions and become more and more important with the establishment of the Higher Education Quality Board, act in accordance with these specified standards will provide opportunities for addressing organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability together, and thereby providing a holistic future design within universities. Similarly, the report published by UNESCO (2015) mentions 17 factors about poverty, hunger, health, well-being, education, equality, sanitation, energy, work and economic growth, industry, innovation, sustainable communities, responsible consumption and production, climate, life below water and on land, peace, justice, partnerships that will transform the world to ensure sustainability, while the report, in which the PISA 2012 results were published (OECD, 2014), addresses the issue of strengthening resilience through direct education. To the extent that it is stated in the UNESCO 2030 vision (UNESCO, 2015), educational organizations need to be reshaped for people to have a sustainable future. With this shaping, an education system that reaches organizational resilience and makes its existence sustainable by turning organizational myopia to an advantage based on strategic management will be ensured. Because myopia is perceived as a negative concept by its nature, it can be turned into a tool that can benefit organizations when it is well managed. In International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1483 this way, the Turkish education system, which can discover its blind spots, will have the opportunity to go beyond its targeted policies by reaching a future-based, sustainable and resilient organizational structure that is suitable for the age and even ahead of the age. When it is evaluated in terms of the Turkish education system, it is seen that evaluation studies for the education system have been made by Gedikoğlu (2005), Akbaba Altun (2009), Yılmaz and Altınkurt (2011), Kartal (2013), Kesik and Bayram (2015), Sarıbaş and Babadağ (2015), Hareket, Erdoğan and Dündar (2016), but these studies remain only as problem determination and solution suggestion. Similarly, it can be said that the studies done on the evaluation of Turkish higher education by Aktan and Gencel (2007), Süngü and Bayrakcı (2010), Özer, Gür and Küçükcan (2011), Güneş (2012), Tezsürücü and Bursalıoğlu (2013) are mostly limited to the quality issue. In this context, it was see that, in the context of the Turkish education system, there is no quantitative study that integrates yesterday, today and tomorrow in a strategic context through the concepts of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability of higher education, and the studies (Kılıç, 1999; Baskan, 2001; Higher Education Council, 2007; Kavak, 2011; Gül & Gül, 2015; Aykaç & Kar, 2018) carried out in accordance with this context were limited to the qualitative level within the scope of higher education policies. However, it is important to compare the higher education institutions that are the bridges between science and society in today's world, where competition is increasing and needs are shaped, and compared with quantitative findings. In this context, it can be said that this study fulfills this importance with a holistic evaluation model by considering the past, present and future of higher education institutions within the scope of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability. 5. Suggestions Organizations should consider the high-level relationships between organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability, and their impact on each other, and realize their organizational designs accordingly. To do this, organizations must first identify the underlying factors of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability; then it should follow certain steps to manage these concepts. When the literature is analyzed, it is stated that the concept of myopia is not always a negative concept, it can drag the organization to a negative one depending on the conditions. In this context, organizations may become aware of the points that will create myopia and prevent the factors that turn them into disadvantages. In other words, organizations should manage organizational myopia instead of detecting and leaving it. Because organizational myopia is dangerous for the organization when it is considered to get used to the routine due to the actions performed by the organization and to display a short-term perspective by not seeing the risks and opportunities. For this reason, organizations should not allow their functioning routines to blind their perspectives. To do this, organizations should strive to be a learning organization, and organizational managers can assist subordinates to eliminate individual myopia through encouraging them about following innovations, being curious about developments, self-knowledge, taking into account criticism, trying different solutions during the problem. They can also assist subordinates and colleagues to eliminate professional myopia through helping for making the nature of work more open to personal development and innovation, and for providing to get rid of the routine and make it dynamic, to ensure catching sectoral changes, to dynamize the sector and facilitate acceptance of differences. Additionally, organizational managers can also eliminate organizational myopia through increasing the interaction between the units in workplace, evaluating the feedbacks Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1484 of organization, enabling the application of new methods in doing business, creating a flexible and innovative organizational culture that is open to change. When these suggestions are evaluated in terms of higher education within the scope of educational organizations; in order to prevent individual myopia, universities can be encouraged to encourage their academicians to become scientists who are individually innovative, curious, open to criticism, know themselves, and apply different solution strategies. For this, performance evaluation systems can be developed. On the other hand, thought that higher education is a cross-sectoral bridge, university administrations should increase the interaction between the units to create sectoral dynamics and follow the changes, and create a dynamic, collaborative, flexible culture that is open to change. In addition, by emphasizing on change management, it can be got help from different individuals or institutions in eliminating myopia through a fresh eye approach. For example, the help of an academic working in another unit can be used to eliminate the myopia in one unit. In this way, the things that the employees in that unit cannot see and become blind because they are constantly inside of the work can be observed more easily by the other person who has just entered the environment. This situation is similar to the approach used in the evaluation of different units, different universities and different institutions each other in quality processes. Therefore, as in the institutions that monitor quality management, the self-evaluation processes of the institution can be employed with a fresh eye approach within the scope of internal and external evaluation. In this way, organizations and universities are aware of the points that will create organizational myopia, and they will overcome their myopia by turning these points to positive, and thus their foundations will be laid to be more resilient. When the literature is examined, it is seen that the concept of organizational resilience predominantly evaluates the physical or psychological resilience of an organization. However, the overall resilience of an organization is also important in the 21st century working environment, which is rapidly changing, becoming globalized and competitive. Eventually, an organization that has overcome its myopia cannot balance its existence without having a resilient structure. For this reason, organizations that want to become resilient should act quickly in any situation they encounter, seek different solutions to problems, turn hitches into opportunities, take a tough stance in the face of difficulties, continue without giving up and most importantly act as a whole. When these suggestions are evaluated in terms of higher education within the scope of educational organizations, universities should act as a whole in addressing the problematic situations experienced in their own system or in which they live, and should take advantage of the hitches in the interests of the organization, and act quickly by producing different solutions. For this, a board can be established at universities. By holding the pulse of the university and the systems related to the university, this board can determine the possible situations not only in times of crisis but also at other times, so that the university can act as a resilient organization in case of a possible problem. Thus, they can cope with the factors that will endanger their existence. In this way, organizations and universities that have overcome their organizational myopia and have a resilient structure will be continuing their existence in the future. When the literature is examined, it is seen that the concept of organizational sustainability focuses on different parts of the organization (campus, curriculum, etc.) through different concepts. However, it is important that an organization has a sustainable structure not only in its parts, but in its entirety. Because, according to Gestalt, the whole is more than the sum of all the parts. In this context, that the whole organization is sustainable is more important than the parts are sustainable on their own. Ultimately, surviving its myopia and eliminating its International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1485 past mistakes, an organization will continue its existence in the future by saving its present day thanks to its resilient structure, and this will create an imperative for the organization to act as a whole and manage its organizational sustainability accordingly. In this regard, organization managers should ensure that sustainability awareness is developed in all areas, and also demonstrate sustainable activities in environmental, economic, cultural, social life and management practices. When these suggestions are evaluated in terms of higher education within the scope of educational organizations, universities should first raise awareness of their stakeholders to ensure organizational sustainability. For this, awareness activities and awareness practices can be organized. In addition, universities can make simultaneous applications in every field to put sustainability on an organizational basis. For example, on one hand, activities can be carried out both on and off campus by engaging their external stakeholders (such as TEMA, WWF, ministries, etc.) in ensuring environmental and economic sustainability; on the other hand, they can increase the activities for commemoration of special days which will be transferred from year to year with the use of symbols that reflect the culture for the survival of the organizational culture to ensure cultural and social sustainability. Besides, for newcomers to the university, social responsibility projects can be done within the scope of orientations, meeting activities and cooperation. On the other hand, universities can create an organizational structure for collaborative, open to change, resilient, benefiting from experience, developing human capital, setting sustainable goals, and clearly defining job descriptions to ensure executive sustainability. In addition, universities can appoint managers who are sustainable leaders, who can evaluate yesterday, today and tomorrow, are visionary and willing to shape the future. In this way, organizations and universities, which correctly saved their present day based on their past days, will be able to retain their existence in the future and reach a structure that can carry it further. Universities, especially exhibiting quality management, are more planned to invest in the future. However, the main point that should be emphasized at this point is that the quality studies should not only remain at the quantitative level, but should be carried out strategically in a realistic manner on the basis of self-knowledge of organization's past, present and future. For this reason, it is recommended for higher education organizations of which quality structure were approved and recognized to follow the model developed on the basis of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability revealed by this study in order to maintain the perfectionist structures. It is also recommended for the universities which have not yet started their quality studies or are at the beginning of the quality process to start their process management considering the relevant model of this study. In this context, the universities applying this model should determine the levels of organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability and the factors that cause them. They should continuously evaluate these results by including them in their strategic plans. By adding these three topics to the target categories in the process planning, evaluation categories especially based on these three topics should be opened in the red area graphs. In this context, these three issues should be turned into general categories in the process evaluation of the organization. In other words, the result of the target and actual rate difference in evaluating an activity should be evaluated based on organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability. For example, let's say that the number of internationally contributing projects in one unit of the university is targeted as three, but this number has never been achieved for five years. In this case, the situation of doing international projects will be a situation that should be considered as the red area of that unit. When this situation is evaluated numerically within the scope of quality processes, the result will consist of only scores. Because the only thing to see Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1486 based on score is whether the targeted number is reached or not. However, this attitude is inadequate in terms of quality. Because quality should be not only quantitative but also qualitative. In this regard, the quality will be increased only if the reason for such a red area graph appeared next to the score evaluations. For this, process management should be handled gradually based on organizational myopia, organizational resilience and organizational sustainability. In this direction, the basis of why an international project could not be drawn from that unit for five years should be considered at the level of organizational myopia. In this way, it can be determined whether the state of myopia exists, if so, it will be possible whether it exists individually, professionally or organizationally. In this way, the issues such as whether academicians do not want to do projects, whether their professional burdens prevent this, or whether their managers do not support them about making projects can be clarified. As a result, ideas about how to develop the red area will show up. These situations created by organizational myopia and ideas to show the way out of these situations should be reported and turned into action goals 1 and action plan 1. While making this action target and plan, it should be estimated how much each step will serve organizational resilience and organizational sustainability. In the second stage, the action objective made, and the action plan should be addressed based on an organizational resilience. For this, first, it should be determined how the situation of not being able to make an international project causes and may cause these crises and how these crises can be overcome. The issues raised in this way should be reported as action objective 2 and action plan 2, and to what extent they will contribute to organizational sustainability. In the third phase, based on the issues raised through action target 1-2 and action plan 1-2, what can be done in terms of organizational sustainability should be reported. The items included in this report should be determined as final targets in process management, in this way, action target 3 and action 3 plan should be put forward. These steps should be followed for each of the action goals and plans prepared in this way. When these steps are followed, it is possible to determine why the relevant unit has not been able to produce an international project for five years or why such a responsibility is still expected from that unit even though it has not produce projects, how the organization has managed the crisis in the face of the issues arising from this situation, what the organization has done in shaping the future and what it can do. thus, an integrated process management will be followed. Finally, prepared action goals and plans 1-2-3 should be evaluated and updated annually, so the rate and power of change in the path of sustainability should be calculated by creating a chart of where it came from and how close it was to the targets. In this way, a quality and perfectly sustainable structure can be achieved on the basis of strategic management. In this way, the competitiveness of higher education institutions in both national and international arenas and the chance of long-term existence will increase. Thus, they will be prepared to become a new trend in the world both in Turkey focused on quality. Because the Higher Education Quality Board, which has just been established, is an indicator of how much this trend is considered in Turkish higher education institutions. Therefore, with this institution, it can be taken into consideration that the quality processes, which have been carried out so far, may become compulsory for higher education institutions. In this context, it can be claimed that it is possible to provide preliminary benefits for these institutions, if higher education institutions set the results of this study to work as soon as possible. 6. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1487 7. Ethics Committee Approval The authors confirm that the study does not need ethics committee approval according to the research integrity rules in their country. *Acknowledgements This study was produced from Gözde Sezen-Gültekin’s doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Türkan Argon. Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1488 References Akbaba Altun, S. (2009). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin akademik başarısızlıklarına ilişkin veli, öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşlerinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 567-586. Aktan, C.C. & Gencel, U. (2007). Yükseköğretimde akreditasyon. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 137-146. Altınay, A., Mercan, N., Aksanyar, Y., & Sert, S. (2012). Işletme körlüğü, silo sendromu ve çözüm önerisi olarak örgütsel zekâ. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 13-19. Aykaç, M. & Kar, B. B. (2018). Yükseköğretimde devlet ve vakıf üniversiteleri: sorunlar ve politika önerileri. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 55(642), 69-92. Aytemiz Seymen, O., Kılıç, T. & Kinter, O. (2016). Örgütsel körlüğün (örgüt miyopisi) ayrıntılı kavramsal analizi ve ölçümü: geliştirilen bir ölçek yardımıyla değerlendirme. Sözlü sunum. 15. Ulusal İşletmecilik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 26-28 Mayıs 2016, İstanbul. Barasa, E., Mbau, R. & Gilson, L. (2018). What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 7(6), 491-503. Baskan, G.A. (2001). Türkiye’de yükseköğretimin gelişimi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 21-32. Baş, A. (2013). İşletmeleri Dönüştürme Aracı Olarak Pazarlama Miyopisinin Stratejik Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye Tekstil Işletmelerinde Araştırma. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Isparta. Baumgartner, H. & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161. Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: AMOS uygulamaları. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi. Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (United Nations Development Programme-UNDP) 2014. Bollen, K.A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256-259. Bouaziz, F. & Smaoui Hachicha, Z. (2018). Strategic human resource management practices and organizational resilience. Journal of Management Development, 37(7), 537-551. Bowen, D.J. (2018). Leading the way to organizational resilience. Healthcare Executive, Jan/Feb(2018), 8-9. Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models (Eds. Kenneth A. Bollen & J. Scott Long), pg.136-162. Sage Publications. Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. Official Records of the General Assembly, forty- second Session, supplement No. 25 (A/42/25). International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1489 http://www.channelingreality.com/Documents/Brundtland_Searchable.pdf Erişim tarihi: 09.10.2017. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (14. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınevi. Byrne, B.M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, application, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Catino, M. (2013). Organizational myopia: Problems of rationality and foresight in organizations. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com.tr/booksid=fCjs6A_SKjwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=catino &hl=tr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=catino&f=false. Chikudate, N. (2002a). Collective myopia and defective higher educations behind the scenes of ethically bankrupted economic systems: A reflexive note from a Japanese university and taking a step toward transcultural dialogues. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 205-225. Chikudate, N. (2002b). Collective myopia and disciplinary power behind the scenes of unethical practices: A diagnostic theory on Japanese organization. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 289-307. Coblentz, J.B. (2002). Organizational sustainability: The three aspects that matter. Oral presentation. ERNWACA’s first Strategy Session, Dakar. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Day, C. & Gu, Q. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. London and New York: Routledge. Gedikoğlu, T. (2005). Avrupa birliği sürecinde Türk eğitim sistemi: Sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 66-80. Gül, S.S. ve Gül, H. (2015). Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimin gelişimi, güncel durumu ve eleştirisi. Toplum ve Demokrasi Dergisi, 8(17-18), 51-66. Güneş, F. (2012). Bologna süreci ile yükseköğretimde öngörülen beceri ve yetkinlikler. Journal of Higher Education & Science/Yüksekögretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(1), 1-9. Hareket, E., Erdoğan & Dündar, H. (2016). Türk eğitim sistemine ilişkin bir durum çalışması. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Research in Education and Teaching), 5(1), 287-299. Harris, J. (2011). The Interconnected User Interface. Information Management, 21(6), 28. Helvacı, M.A. (2010). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin etik liderlik davranışı gösterme düzeyleri. ZfWT Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 2(1), 391-410. Higher Education Council (Yükseköğretim Kurulu) (2007). Türkiye’nin yükseköğretim stratejisi. Yayınevi: Meteksan A.Ş., Ankara. http://www.eoq.org/home.html retrieved on 11.04.2019. http://www.kalder.org/tarihce retrieved on 11.04.2019. http://www.meb.gov.tr/meb/teskilat.php retrieved on 15.01.2019. http://tr.urapcenter.org/2018/hakkimizda.php retrieved on 15.01.2019. Sezen-Gültekin & Argon 1490 Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. Jeong, J. (2015). Enhancing organizational survivability in a crisis: Perceived organizational crisis responsibility, stance, and strategy. Sustainability, 7(9), 11532-11545. Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific International Software, Inc. Kantur, D. & İşeri-Say, A. (2015). Measuring organizational resilience: A scale development. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4(3), 456-472. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (24. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Kartal, S. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerine göre eğitim sistemimizde değiştirilmesi gereken noktalar. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2013(14), 248-262. Kavak, Y. (2011). View and outlook of higher education in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 1(2), 55-58. Kesik, F. & Bayram, A. (2015). Eğitim sisteminin eleştirel pedagoji perspektifinden bir değerlendirmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(3), 900-921. Kılıç, R. (1999). Türkiye'de yükseköğretimin kapsamı ve tarihsel gelişimi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (3), 289-310. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. Lattimore, P. (2016). Resilience vs sustainability. https://exchange.cim.co.uk/blog/resilience- vs-sustainability/ adresinden 11.10.2017. tarihinde alınmıştır. Laverty, K.J. (1993). Time Preferences, Time Horizons, And Strategic Choice: Towards An Understanding Of Organizational Myopia. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. University of California, Los Angeles, ABD. Malik, K. (2014). Human Development Report 2014, Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. United Nations Development Programme: New York, NY, USA. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J. & Peschar, J.L. 2006. OECD’s brief self- report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross- cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360. Mertler, C.A. & Vanatta, R.A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd Ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrzcak Publishing. Nartgün, S. S., Sezen-Gültekin, G., & Limon, İ. (2017). Examination of 2015 Human Development Index in Terms of Education: Comparison of the Continents and Turkey. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(3), 37-47. OECD (2014). Strengthening resilience through education and skills: PISA results. Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, Paris, 6-7 May, 2014. Özer, M., Gür, B.S. & Küçükcan, T. (2011). Kalite Güvencesi: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için stratejik tercihler. Journal of Higher Education & Science/Yüksekögretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(2), 59-65. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1470-1491. 1491 Robb, D. (2000). Building Resilient Organizations Resilient Organizations actively build and integrate Performance and Adaptive Skills. Od Practitioner, 32(3), 27-32. Sarıbaş, S. ve Babadağ, G. (2015). Temel eğitimin temel sorunları. E-AJELI (Anatolian Journal of Educational Leadership and Instruction), 3(1), 18-34. Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. Sezen-Gültekin, G. (2019). Yükseköğretimde örgütsel körlük ve örgütsel sürdürülebilirlik arasındaki ilişkide örgütsel dayanıklılığın aracı rolü. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Bolu: Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Steiger, J.H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-98. Süngü, H. & Bayrakcı, M. (2010). Bolonya süreci sonrasi yükseköğretimde akreditasyon çalişmalari. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(4), 895-912. Tanaka, J.S. & Huba, G.J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 197- 201. T.C. Resmi Gazete (1981). 2547 Sayılı Yükseköğretim Kanunu. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2547.pdf retrieved on 11.04.2019. Tezsürücü, D. & Bursalıoğlu, S. A. (2013). Yükseköğretimde değişim: Kalite arayışları. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 97-108. UNESCO (2015). UNESCO 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals. http://en.unesco.org/education2030-sdg4 adresinden 02.07.2017 tarihinde alınmıştır. Vogus, T.J. & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007.) Organizational resilience: towards a theory and research agenda. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, ISIC, 7–10 October, Montreal, 3418. Wals, A.E. & Schwarzin, L. (2012). Fostering organizational sustainability through dialogic interaction. The Learning Organization, 19(1), 11-27. White, A.L. (1999). Sustainability and the accountable corporation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 41(8), 30-43. Wokutch, R.E., Singal, M., Gerde, V.W. ve Naar, A. (2016). Exploring the Antecedents of Organization Resilience: A Conceptual Approach. In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, July(27), 269-281. Yılmaz, K. & Altınkurt, Y. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının Türk eğitim sisteminin sorunlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 942-973. Yılmaz Fındık, L. (2016). What makes a difference for resilient students in Turkey? Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 91-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.5. Yilmaz-Börekçi, D., İşeri-Say, A. & Rofcanin, Y. (2015). Measuring supplier resilience in supply networks. Journal of Change Management, 15(1), 64-82. Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi (2018). Üniversite bazında öğretim elemanı sayıları raporu. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/