Mixed-methods assessment reveals relationships between public trust and governance, suggesting reforms for institutional sustainability.
In the face of increasing governance complexity, shifting economic contexts, and rising public expectations, institutional performance and sustainability have emerged as critical indicators of organizational success and societal trust. This study investigates the dual dimensions of institutional failure and sustainability by analyzing both the internal and external factors that contribute to poor performance and the strategies that foster long-term viability. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 80 employees across various institutional levels through structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed that poor strategic planning, erosion of public trust, financial mismanagement, low staff morale, and weak governance structures are the strongest predictors of institutional failure, collectively accounting for 72% of the variance (R² = 0.72). Conversely, qualitative and quantitative findings identified leadership practices, regular staff feedback, growth opportunities, competitive compensation, and improved work conditions as key strategies enhancing institutional sustainability, with an explanatory power of 74% (R² = 0.74). The results emphasize the importance of an integrated, employee-centered approach that combines strategic leadership, transparent governance, and human resource development. The study concludes with practical recommendations for institutional reform, including strategic planning, merit-based recruitment, staff development, and enhanced accountability mechanisms to foster resilient and high-performing institutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mbabazize et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: