Tawazun Social Innovation and Sustainable Organizational Performance

. Purpose: This study aims to develop the strategy of tawazun social innovation and examine a new model that fills the research gap and limitations of previous studies between new learning organization that relies on the conception of tawazun social innovation. This study presents several new indicators, including organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, learning leadership, innovation performance, and tawazun social innovation to realize sustainable organizational performance based on empirical models. Methodology: This study uses a mixed-methodology, with 206 quantitative respondents and 7 qualitative respondents in Central Java, Indonesia. Data collection was carried out from July to October 2021. Findings: The important results of this study show that: (1) the realization of sustainable organizational performance is built through the tawazun social innovation supported by new learning organizations, consisting of three principles and practices: organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership (2) the improvement of tawazun social innovation is built by organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership (3) the improvement of innovation performance is built on learning leadership (4) the improvement of tawazun social innovation is built on innovation performance and (5) sustainable organizational performance is built by innovation performance. Practical Implications: The tawazun social innovation drives sustainable organizational performance. Management is encouraged to develop sustainable organizational strategic plans, instilling a tawazun social innovation. This is reflected through the implementation of the values of social responsibility balance, policy innovation balance, network balance, and balance of soul.


INTRODUCTION
The world faces significant challenges of globalization, pandemics, and such dynamics that rapidly change the social order of global society. Health is one of the sectors most affected by this challenge. Health development aims to improve the quality of health care services by health facilities, hospitals, and other health service institutions.
Public health centres face the challenges of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity), which describes a world situation that is changing dynamically, very quickly and tends to be unpredictable, particularly so today with the uncertainty of the coronavirus pandemic and other global crises. This exerts further pressure on the limited health resources of health centres (Health Center Survey, CISDI, 2020). Despite this, it is still assumed that taking care of health issues is the responsibility of the health sector alone, of course, this is a problem and challenge in network partnerships and community empowerment.
The health centre performs public services and carries out health promotion and preventive functions, social functions for public health services and public services. Strategies for improving services in the health sector have been implemented, including certain programs, social innovations, products, and services, but these have not yet provided optimal results. Given that the relationship between social innovation and health is inclusive, new social innovations in the health sector will develop in the future. This challenge is also a great opportunity to respond through innovative actions and increase cross-sector collaboration ("The Social Innovation Trends," 2020).
The study results of Unceta et al. (2020) in Europe show that social innovation has not been fully implemented and stable both empirically and theoretically, where the mainstream of government is focused on public policy, with the lowest governance index of 12% on sustainable governance, 16% on social network governance, and 15% on organizational governance. The innovation Agenda is transdisciplinary as science must have a horizontal and holistic approach aligned with sustainable development goals. The new trend of social innovation requires new experiments, responding to the challenges of digitalization and awareness of religious value (EU2020 Strategy). Antonacopoulou and Taylor (2019) introduce a new learning organization as a practical approach to dealing with and responding to volatile, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. The new learning Organization introduces a different way of learning, how to know and act within three principles and practices: organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership. The new learning organization introduces a learning mechanism that aligns cognition, emotion, and intuitive insight by fostering critique. Such criticism is placed as an integral part of the practical way judgments are made in dealing with tension and in doing so, harmonizing sensitivity, the subtlety of feeling (Peronard & Brix, 2018), and a sense of competence that guide the reflectivity that encourages professional behavior and responsible action in an organization (Antonacopoulou & Taylor, 2019). Boelman and Heales (2015) state that social innovation in the future looks increasingly important. For instance, in the Nordic countries, social innovation serves as an alternative way out of social problems by introducing new ways to adjust behavior. In the UK and Ireland, social innovation has a bright future. Meanwhile, in Turkey, social innovation will continue to grow due to technological changes and easier adaptation of the younger working generation. In East Asia and mainland China, for example, the future success of social innovation will depend on two things: first, sustainable innovation with civic engagement or empowerment; second, the regulation of the government's social system being loosened more to encourage innovation.
In relation to organizational innovation, Corte (2018) recommend that intelligent innovation for organizations is the ability to create new opportunities through sustainable relationships with key actor, driving higher innovation performance and sustainable competitive advantage.
Most of the Islamic teachings revolve around social issues, in particular social protection and welfare. However, this issue is under-represented in the related literature. Tajmazinani (2020) develops a conceptual framework of Muslim society's social policy through a set of values and principles that support and guide practice: intrinsic altruism, religious brotherhood, personal responsibility, takāful or public responsibility, state responsibility, social rights, and social balance (tawazun). The concept or mindset of tawazun presents a solution in the context of a pluralistic social life, where various social realities are considered as problems, not accepted as a necessity. The inability to think symmetrically balanced with the unwillingness to accept the reality of diversity as sunatullah. This requires a deep understanding and development of theoretical studies and empirical data testing.
According to Imam Ash-Shatibi, there are five maqās . id al-Sharī'ah that act as five general principles or kulīyah al-khamsah, namely the protection of (a) religion, (b) the soul, (c) the intellect, (d) māl or property/wealth, and (e) offspring. Therefore, the performance of a sustainable organization based on maqās . id al-Sharī'ah is especially related to the benefit of religion, reason, the benefit of the soul, a healthy generation, and reason.
Sustainable organizational performance is defined as organizational achievement through systemic, comprehensive, and continuous efforts to effectively achieve the organizational goals that have been set, which can be measured through: organizational strategy, resources, social responsibility growth, and learning (Al Hammadi & Hussain, 2019;Holbeche, 2018;Zhou et al., 2017), efficient use of budgets, quality of services provided, customer satisfaction, service innovation, social responsibility, and outcome accountability (Pollanen et al., 2017).
Based on the limitations study of Antonacopoulou (2019) and Tajmazinani (2020), the study recommendation of Boelman and Heales (2015), and the controversial study of Unceta (2017), this study aims to develop a novel model based on empirical data to identify the factors that would enable the realization of sustainable organizational performance. This study discusses new indicators, including organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, learning leadership, innovation performance, and tawazun (balance) of social innovation to improve sustainable organizational performance.

Social Innovation
The concept of social innovation was first introduced by Gabriel Tarde (1897), stating that social change is carried out by individuals using new tools or through new behaviors (Tosti, 1897). Tarde saw complex social processes giving rise to new phenomena, social contradictions, and problems. This makes tarde reframe through the idea of links between the mediation of individual models, family models, and institutions (Toews, 2003). Tarde's theory specifically involves three main things: imitation, opposition, and adaptation. Imitation is closely related to the sub-dimensions of repetition, contradiction, and adaptation. Tarde defines society as humans who tend to replicate what they observe and experience, which makes imitation is a major cause of social similarities (King, 2016). Tarde's attempt to explain social phenomena by referring to micro-processes between individuals, as is Baldwin's view of imitation in individual psychology (Ellwood, 1901), is in line with the recommendations of social psychologists that people, unconsciously as infants, imitate the activities of others (Scheff, 1988), the network theory explains the same thing (Latour, 2005). Lohmann (2003) states that for tarde, discovery and imitation are two key elements in the concept of innovation that is based on sociological aspects. Discovery, through imitation, becomes an innovation, so that discovery and imitation are key elements in the cumulative evolution of culture, becoming social facts specific to society. Reuter (2015) argues that a new research approach to the construction of a culture of creativity is based on the Danish anthropologist Kasper Tang Vangkilde's fieldwork for his dissertation at the German design house Hugo Boss in Switzerland. Reuter (2015) found that creativity is not an individual trait but a social process that occurs between individuals. Consistent with Sociological Imagination, the view of how creativity has meaning for members of the community must be accompanied by investigating of local ethics and cultural values. This requires the involvement of a worldwide network of creative researchers. Nicholls et al. (2015) argues that social innovation refers to how interpersonal activities or social interactions should be organized to fulfil common goals in the generation and implementation of new ideas. King (2016) states that Tarde defines society as humans who tend to imitate, and replication is the cause of all social similarities. Howaldt et al. (2016) argued that Gabriel Tarde's Sociological Theory (1985) presents a concept of social innovation that is based on sociological theory and practice, in which discovery and imitation are two elements in the concept of innovation, having dimensions of social needs and challenges, adaptation and transformation to changes in technology, resources, community empowernment, and systemic social policy.
The dimensions of social innovation, according to Andre and Abreu (2006) include the nature, stimuli, resources and dynamics, agency relationships, creative means, and innovations. Nature focuses on what barriers it seeks to overcome and what will be the focus of the proposed change. Stimuli addressing risk, such as social equity and global epidemics, which lead to social innovation actions at various scales, are also social challenges in improving people's quality of life. Meanwhile, Nicholls et al. (2015) stated that the dimensions of social innovation include individuals, organizations, networks, and systems. Then, Souza (2019) argue that the dimensions of social innovation consist of transformation, novelty, actor, process, and innovation. Dimensions of transformation in the context of macro and micro, which are the driving force for the emergence of social innovation in the aspects of economy, adaptation, and social reconstruction. Meanwhile, innovation is a response to crises and new solutions, which require actors to implement new institutional arrangements and social norms. Howaldt et al. (2016) complement the dimensions of social innovation by introducing concepts and understanding, addressing social needs and challenges, resources, capabilities and constraints, governance, actors, process dynamics, and networks.
Based on the views and definitions of several previous researchers, it can be concluded that social innovation has dimensions of social needs and challenges related to behavioral adjustment, adaptation, and transformation with changes in technology, resources, sustainable innovation through community empowerment, comprehensive social policies, regulation systemic approach, holistic approach, and systemic approach.
The literature reports that the result of sustainable organizational performance is influenced by resources. One of the resources is innovation capability, which means capturing new ideas for organizational performance. Innovation plays a key role in improving organizational performance in terms of generating new, rare, valuable, and inimitable resources within the company that are difficult to imitate, leading to the enrichment of the company's strategic resources and sustainable competitive advantage as an important aspect for organizational performance (Samad, 2012). The performance is evaluated by organization through quantitative and qualitative performance indicators, such as the number of clients, costs, and profits. It is very important for organizations to determine appropriate indicators, in line with the formulation of organizational goals and performed activities (Popova & Sharpanskykh, 2010). Performance and achievements of public sector organizations, according to Azmi and Suradi (2019) are highly dependent on the level of innovation, and the measurement of organizational performance refers to the measurement of organizational achievement. According to Huhtala et al. (2014) evidence is more effective when there is an improvement in economic performance, so to achieve high performance, public sector organizations must be more innovative.

Sustainable Organizational Performance
The measurement of sustainable organizational performance is based on the hierarchical process analysis model, according to seven (7) criteria: quality, human resources, leadership, resources, social responsibility, and organizational strategy (Al Hammadi & Hussain, 2019). Other researchers measure organizational performance through profitability, sales growth, overall performance, and customer satisfaction (Noruzy et al., 2013), profit and sales growth, market value, efficiency and cost savings, brand enhancement, and innovation (Choi & Yu, 2014;Singh et al., 2016), efficient use of budget, quality of service provided, customer satisfaction, efficiency, service innovation, employee satisfaction, employee capability, social responsibility, environmental performance, and accountability to external parties (Pollanen et al., 2017). Based on the definitions and measurements from several previous researchers, it can be concluded that organizational performance has measurement dimensions, including organizational strategy development, social responsibility, capacity building of resources, customer satisfaction, service quality improvement, and accountability.
To achieve a common vision, to realize sustainable organizational performance, various dynamics occur inside and outside the social innovation system, including actor, network dynamics, environmental, digitalization, culture, politics, and institutional dynamics, which affect social innovation.
Based on the above description, it can be stipulated that the organization must be able to anticipate challenges and be prepared to make adjustments and changes in strategy to obtain and maintain sustainable performance. Social innovation offers alternative solutions to structural and systemic social changes and problems, for example, the use of social technology or digital social innovation to support social change. Consequently, comprehensive and systemic efforts have an impact on sustainable organizational performance.

Tawazun
At-Tawazun comes from the word Al-Waznu, tawazanayatawazanutawazun. Tawazun comes from the word tawazana, balanced. Tawazun means to give something of its right, without any addition or subtraction. Thus, tawazun, according to language, means balance, meaning that tawazun is a person's attitude to choose a balanced or fair point in dealing with a problem. Human beings always seek balance in their lives to obtain perfection, where perfection brings happiness. At-tawazun or balanced in all respects, including the use of the 'aql proposition (the proposition that comes from rational reason) and the naqli argument (sourced from the Qur'ān and h . adīth). In the Qur'ān, sūrah Al-Hadid, Allah says, "We have indeed sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Book and the Balance, so that people may uphold equity. And We sent down iron in which there is a strong power, and benefits for the people; and (We did it) so that Allah knows the one who helps Him and His messengers without seeing (Him). Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty" (Sūrah Al-Hadid 57:25) 1 .
Balance or tawazun in the Islamic view is found in the Qur'ān, sūrah Al-Mulk 67:3, Allah says "who has created seven skies, one over the other. You will see nothing out of proportion in the creation of the Rahman (the All-Merciful Allah). So, cast your eye again. Do you see any rifts?". Allah Almighty created the sky and everything in it with tawazun, as in the Qur'ān, sūrah Ar-Rahman 55:7-9, Allah says "He raised the sky high, and has placed the scale, so that you should not be wrongful in weighing. Observe the correct weight with fairness, and do not make weighing deficient." In another verse, tawazun is also present in Qur'ān, sūrah Al-Furqan 25:67, Allah says "and those who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor miserly, and it (i.e. their spending) is moderate in between (the two extremes)". Humans as created by Allah, have the potential for intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and physical potential.
It is reported from the Prophet (PBUH) that he said, "A strong believer is better and is more lovable to Allah than a weak believer, and there is good in everyone, (but) cherish that which gives you benefit (in the Hereafter) and seek help from Allah and do not lose heart, and if anything (in the form of trouble) comes to you, don't say: If I had not done that, it would not have happened so and so, but say: Allah did that what He had ordained to do and your" if" opens the (gate) for the satan" 2 . The words of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) have a broad meaning and deep benefits, including happiness in this world and the hereafter. A servant needs worldly as a diniyyah (religious) need. The fulfillment of physical and spiritual potential needs requires tawazun (balance), in order to realize the expected behavior harmony.
Tawazun Social Innovation in the Islamic view in a horizontal context is an organizational balance rooted in the idea of a balance of social responsibility, a dynamic balance of mind and heart, a balance of physical and spiritual resources, based on a balance of network rights and obligations, in the formation of regulations containing the values of tawazun (balance), which can lead to improvements in organizational performance through measuring the values of benefits, empowerment and cooperation in social responsibility (Arshad et al., 2012), as well as the impact of benefits for the environment and the people (Hassan & Hippler, 2014), wherein the transcendental context, tawazun worship-oriented social innovation contained in the indicators of tawazun social innovation.

New Learning Organization
The concept of new learning organization introduces a different way of learning, how to know and act within practices and principles: organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership. A new learning organization harmonizes cognition, emotion, and intuitive insight by cultivating criticism that is formed in overcoming tension and in doing so, aligning sensitivity, the subtlety of feeling (Peronard & Brix, 2018). And it gives a sense of feeling that guides the reflexivity that drives professional behavior and responsible action for organizations (Antonacopoulou & Taylor, 2019). Stirling (2006) argues that reflexivity requires internal reflection, related to individual assumptions and individual identities that connect the influence of power on individuals or groups of people. Smith and Stirling (2007) argue that the concept of reflexivity emphasizes the learning process, taking into account knowledge, the openness of output, and perspectives from all sides. Pallett and Chilvers (2013) argue that the idea of institutional reflexivity is still a paradox, but it is a hope and belief that will bring organizational change in the future. Learning and character of identified learning mechanisms indicate a need for further research on ethnography 3 in organizations (related to cultures such as customs, beliefs, and behaviors) related to public participation to understand the learning process, individuals, and organizations. Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer (2014) state that institutional reflexivity in the context of organizational learning connects an institution's actions and knowledge for the common good. The capacity to act responsibly and reflexively means being aware of one's actions and their resulting impact, where practical judgment is oriented towards acting not only based on knowledge but on emergent learning, which helps one navigates unforeseen crises.
Based on the above description, it can be formulated that institutional reflexivity is paradoxical and realistic for the future, where the capacity to act reflectively in crises, situations that are not known for certain, encourages consciously to act based on knowledge, learning, and experience that connects individuals, groups and organizations. However, one of the issues being considered is how institutional reflexivity grows at the individual and group levels to become a reference for future environmental needs, both internal and external to the organization, strengthening tawazun's values. The values of tawazun (balance) include: tawazun social responsibility, tawazun policy, tawazun resource and tawazun networking Zain et al. (2005) argue that the key to increasing organizational agility lies in the attitude of managers and executives towards information technology by using positive and useful information technology. Furthermore, through commitment, they will be able to produce timely information to provide support in making better decisions in an unpredictable environment. Qin and Nembhard (2010) argue that organizational agility is the company's ability to be adaptive to competition and the environment, quickly adapt to changes and markets, and create valuable products and services referring to customer satisfaction. Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer (2014) argue that voicing how to going hand in hand with the crisis in learning is an integral path to overcome VUCA conditions without assuming that what is already known is sufficient to determine the course of action. Strategic agility is built by expanding its dimensions to include strategic sensitivity, strategic response, and collective capability.  argue that organizational agility is how to mobilize learning, emphasizing criticism as an inseparable aspect of learning leadership, realized by individuals, groups, and organizations with responsible practices and actions, and the responsibility to encourage continuous learning. Darvishmotevali et al. (2020) argue that organizational agility is a strategy to help accept and overcome environmental uncertainty and increase creativity in organizational performance.
Based on the description above, it can be formulated that organizational agility emphasizes criticism as a central aspect, inseparable from learning leadership that is realized by individuals, groups, and organizations through practices and actions that encourage continuous learning, along with making peace with crises in an integral way to fulfil VUCA conditions. Hirst et al. (2004) state that for new leaders, learning is an important part of how to manage and influence social relationships inside and outside the organization. The new leader stressed the importance of networking, learning wisdom, and diplomacy. This strengthens the argument that leadership behavior and group processes (team reflexivity) significantly affect performance. Selart et al. (2012) argue that learning leadership has sensory knowledge that is reflexively adaptive to social conditions that demand curiosity, confidence, commitment, and courage to respond to VUCA conditions. Freedman (2016) argues that a leader has a role in agility and aligns efforts to strategic priorities in adaptive leadership, not top-down management. Antonacopoulou and Bento (2018) state that learning leadership is leadership that is driven because it requires belief, commitment, courage. This is to realize sustainability, which is filled with sensuous learning to become reflexive dynamic, collective, relational, and socially defined, and where practice gets special consideration (Alvesson, 2017;Daly & Overton, 2017). Learning leadership is for anyone who chooses to pursue learning, not just professionals in learning and development.
Based on the description above, it can be formulated that learning leadership is a reflection of social conditions that trigger curiosity, belief, commitment, and courage to realize life, filled with sensuous learning to be dynamic, collective, relational, and reflexive. Furthermore, how learning leadership increases the value of tawazun. Frederiksen and Knudsen (2017) state that innovation performance can be assessed using the following criteria: novelty, usefulness, and market or environmental potential. The innovation performance approach using the novelty, usability, and usefulness of the social innovation literature and environmental potential and networks from the innovation literature. This criterion allows for combining the dimensions of agility capability and social innovation to obtain potential performance innovation. The identification of stakeholders among organizational networks that most contribute to better innovation performance is information relevant to the organization (Cesário & Fernandes, 2018).  suggest that institutional reflectivity is depicted at the Academy level of The Royal Norwegian Air Force, as an interdisciplinary community (educators) of practitioners, through modernization of the environment of uncertainty and insecurity, such as they lay-off their staff. Intensive weekly meetings are held led by the senior leadership team to ensure that all staff have a voice and can openly express their views, especially disagreements. This forum is used to raise attention to barriers and vulnerabilities that can hinder learning and exploring in ways that are different from the old habits. The formulation of priority strategies in addressing education reform not only invites the active involvement of all staff but also invites more care, alertness, and awareness of the tensions between departments. Borie et al. (2020) stated that the transformation of institutional reflexivity must occur from within the organization to inform reflexive transformation from the outside, openness to future challenges, and broader policy alternatives. They present the idea of a "Reflexivity Team" in the task force to help resolve conflicts and controversies. The mechanisms employed by these institutions are not contradictory but complementary, through the importance of learning based on a deeper transformation experience.

Innovation Performance
Based on the description above, it can be formulated that institutional reflexivity is a characteristic of the modernization process. In this process, the organization as a social system is transforming, self-reflecting, observing, developing, and growing awareness of self-criticism, which is reflected in their action. This is the ability to create opportunities and formulate new strategies that correlate with innovation performance and competitive advantage, which in turn, institutional reflexivity can improve innovation performance. Ashrafi et al. (2005) argue that organizational agility is the ability of organizations to sense environmental changes and respond effectively and efficiently to the dynamics that occur, where through high competence, an organization is able to operate efficiently, produce high-quality and high-performance products, be punctual, competent management to meet organizational objectives, and create innovation (Zhang, 2011). Kanani (2016) argues that organizational agility is the ability, willingness, speed, and agility, to foster creativity and innovation to respond to unpredictable environmental changes. Key indicators of organizational agility include accountability, flexibility, competence, management, and organizational structure. Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer (2014) provide a theoretical basis for the relationship between learning in crisis and organizational development with high agility, where high organizational agility enhances the ability to respond proactively to unexpected environmental changes. The commitment to transform sustainability and strategic agility simply changes at all organisational levels (Appelbaum et al., 2017).
Meanwhile, instilling awareness is the essence of effective learning and strengthening character traits to be tough, agile, flexible, and ready to respond to conditions of flexibility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. This allows organizational agility to not only encourage continuous learning but also teach lessons that are not easily vulnerable in the context of conditions of flexibility, uncertainty, confusing complexity, and ambiguity to respond, and commit to continue updating operational and professional practices .
Based on the above description, it can be formulated that organizational agility is the organization's ability to perceive change and respond effectively and efficiently to produce quality and high-performance products, manage competence, and encourage continuous learning in the situation and unpredictable environments. This is the ability to create new formulas that are related to innovation performance, which in turn affect organizational agility and improve innovation performance.
Joiner (2019) states that a leader needs to develop a continuous pattern of proactive and reflective action, in the context of the three leadership traits, namely leading organizational change, leading teams, and communication. To be successful, leaders need to practice context setting, stakeholders, leadership agility, independence, creativity and innovation.  state that leaders are people who are qualified, relational, and have practice orientation towards single-loop learning, double-loop learning, and triple-loop learning. Thus, learning leadership drives the new learning organization to motivate and energizes awareness, attention, appreciation, anticipation, alignment, activation, and agility (Pfeffermann, 2020). Leadership must recognize opportunities and understand their role in creating an agile work culture by continuing to uphold the values of learning, innovation, communication, and empowering organizational actors. They must learn to understand resource policies and practices relevant to human resources, e.g. talent management, performance management, and compensation systems (Chatwani, 2018). Akkaya and Tabak (2020) argue that transformational leaders have several attributes, one of which is organizational agility which motivates followers by encouraging the learning of new methods and systems. Transformational leaders have strategies and the ability to innovate while facing challenges and unpredictable environmental change.
Based on the above description, it can be formulated that learning leaders encourage new learning organizations to motivate and energize awareness, attention, appreciation, anticipation, alignment, activation, and agile leadership, and recognize opportunities and understand their role by continuing to uphold the values of learning, communication, and empowering organizational and innovation. A leader with organisational agility attributes has a strategy and innovation ability that correlates with innovation performance.
Innovation performance refers to the organization's innovation efforts towards products, processes, and improvement of organizational structure. According to Quandt and Castilho (2017), innovation performance is related to the dimensions that provide the conditions and enable innovation: strategy, organizational structure, leadership, networks, culture, processes, people, relationships, infrastructure technology, measurement, and learning. However, it must be considered that innovation is put in context and subject to the influence of complex factors and dynamics. Among them, there is a high focus on the importance of relationships with agents external .
Governments increasingly involve private sector organizations, civil society, and ordinary citizens to address complex policy challenges through several forms of network governance settings. Governance networks generally facilitate flexibility, speed, and innovation in government, which are necessary to govern a smart city 4 significantly characterized by programs covering the policy and government levels (Krucken & Meroni, 2006;Ojo & Mellouli, 2018).
For organizations looking to survive and thrive, speed and innovation at the government level is a must; in various sectors, there are calls for organizational agility. Agility is the organization's capacity to sense, respond to, adapt rapidly, and thrive in a changing environment (Holbeche, 2018). As well as in the development of technological advances, the era of digitalization is a wide-open area for innovations. Digital technology facilitates the development of service innovations in all lines, services, organizations, and manufacturing (Vilkas et al., 2019).
In the Islamic view, social innovation requires a balance of social responsibilities, policy balance, the balance of resource network, the balance of mind and heart, and the balance of wordly-ukhrawi 5 related to the interest of society.
Thus, based on previous research, the analysis developed in this study is described in Figure 1. and the hypotheses developed are as follows: H1. Institutional reflexivity is positively related to tawazun social innovation. H2. Organizational agility is positively related to tawazun social innovation. H3. Learning leadership is positively related to tawazun social innovation. H4. Institutional reflexivity is positively related to innovation performance. H5. Organizational agility is positively related to innovation performance. H6. Learning leadership is positively related to innovation performance. H7. Innovation performance is positively related to tawazun social innovation. H8. Tawazun social innovation is positively related to sustainable organizational performance. H9. Innovation performance is positively related to sustainable organizational performance.

Respondents of Qualitative Approach
The qualitative approach involved directly approaching respondents through interviews. Determination of informants was done through the snowball sampling technique, namely the sampling technique with the help of key-informants, and from these key-informants will develop according to the instructions. The samples from this qualitative approach consist of 7 respondents; however, this can change according to the level of saturation of the data that have been obtained. A qualitative approach is the respondent's response to the dissertation novelty variable, namely tawazun social innovation.

Respondents of Quantitative Approach
The population in this study is based on the demographics of Urban and Rural Health Centers in Central Java, Indonesia, with a total population of 878 Health Centers. The purposive sampling technique was used for sampling, meaning that it was based on the characteristics of the population, which is the locus at Puskesmas in Central Java Province. The sample collected in this study amounted to 202 of 250 samples distributed, and 4 samples were dropped because they were incomplete.

Measurement and Research Design
Empirical studies in this study include the dimensions of institutional reflexivity, organizational agility, learning leadership, tawazun social innovation, innovation performance, and sustainable organizational performance. The indicator of institutional reflexivity has been taken from , consisting of 1) competent; 2) Action intensity; 3) professionals with integrity.

FIGURE 2. Data Analysis Techniques
Organizational agility overcomes VUCA conditions, as a force that transforms curiosity, openness, and agility. The indicator of organizational agility is taken from , and Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer (2014), including 1) agility to respond, 2) learning transformation, 3) responsible action. Then learning leadership is oriented toward awareness, vulnerability, and learning to rise from experience, where the indicator is taken from Antonacopoulou (2019) and Antonacopoulou (2018), consisting of critical thinking, dynamic reflection, and adaptive learning. The indicator of tawazun social innovation refers has been taken from Wibowo (2021); tawazun Management in Islamic Life, which includes the balance of social responsibility, the balance of policy innovation, the balance of resources, and the balance of network governance. Performance innovation is an organizational innovation effort toward improving services, processes, and organizational structure with indicators referring to Khalili et al. (2013), Souza (2019), which consists of management innovation, improvement of new services, and competitive structure. Sustainable organizational performance is the overall level of organizational performance that refers to Al Hammadi and Hussain (2019), Holbeche (2018), Pollanen et al. (2017) and Zhou et al. (2017), covering social responsibility, sustainable organizational strategy, resource capability, and accountability for results.
Analysis of data through a qualitative approach collected from in-depth interviews was done using thematic analysis techniques, namely: efforts to identify, analyze, and report patterns from the collected data (Braun, 2006). For interviews that have been completed, data collection is carried out and transcribed in manuscripts, printed and reconfirmed with original recordings, and if necessary corrected accordingly. Themes refer to certain patterns of meaning found in the data set obtained from interviews after going through verification to find repetitions of certain meaning patterns.
Data analysis of the quantitative approach has been done using the Structural Equation Modeling technique from the AMOS 24.0 software package, which allows for testing of relatively complex sets of relationships. The final stage is to translate and modify a model that does not meet testing requirements. Hair (2009) provides guidelines for considering whether or not to modify a model by looking at the number of residuals generated by the model. Normally, the safe limit for the residual amount is 5%. Modifications need to be considered if the residual is greater than 5% of all covariance residuals generated by the model (Hair Jr et a., 1995). If the residual value generated by the model is >2.58, then another modification can be considered by adding a new path to the estimated model. Residual value >2.58 is interpreted as statistically significant at the 5% level. Table 1 describes the characteristics of respondents by gender, age, education, and years of work. The majority of respondents are in the age group of 30-49 years (48%), where the majority are women with a percentage of 55.4%, 90,6% have a work experience of greater than 10 years, with the majority having a bachelor's degree with a percentage of 66.5%, and the majority working (60.4%) in rural health centres.  Table 2 presents the results of the reliability and validity test of the research variables show that the indicators for each variable have a regression weight value (loading factor) of 0.5 with a p-value < 0.001, so it is stated that each indicator represents that each variable is valid.

Validity and Reliability Test
Based on the construct reliability test, the value of each variable is 0.70 so that each variable is declared reliable or has good internal consistency. The loading factor values or regression weights of each dimension have been given in Table 3 and Table 4, which are significant with a CR value >2.00. Therefore, all indicators are acceptable.

Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing according to empirical data in Table 5. shows that seven hypotheses are accepted, and two hypotheses are not significant.  Various model tests such as Chi-Square, Probability, CMIN/DF, and TLI present results that are within the expected range of values, even though GFI and GFI are marginally accepted, as shown in Table 6. Based on these model tests, we can conclude that this model fits the data used in the research.

Discussion
The first hypothesis in this study is if institutional reflexivity is high, then tawazun social innovation is higher. The institutional reflexivity variable is built by indicators of competent character, the intensity of action, and professional integrity. While the tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by the indicators of tawazun (balance) of social responsibility, tawazun (balance) of policy innovation, tawazun (balance) of network management, and tawazun (balance) of mind.
The estimated parameter between institutional reflexivity and tawazun social innovation gave significant results with a value of Cr= 2.062 at a significance level of 0.05. So, the first hypothesis is accepted, meaning that the higher the institutional reflexivity, the more meaningful the tawazun (balance) of social innovation. These results indicate that to increase tawazun (balance) social innovation would increase through a greater emphasis on institutional reflexivity.
The second hypothesis is that if organizational agility is high, then tawazun social innovation would be higher. The organizational agility variable is built by indicators of responsiveness, learning transformation, and responsible action. While the tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by indicators of tawazun (balance) of social responsibility, tawazun (balance) of policy innovation, tawazun (balance) of network management, and tawazun (balance) of mind.
Parameter estimation between organizational agility and tawazun (balance) of social innovation presents significant results with Cr value= 2.112 at a significance level of 0.05. Hence, the second hypothesis is accepted, meaning that the higher the organizational agility, the more meaningful the tawazun (balance) of social innovation. These results indicate that to increase tawazun (balance) social innovation, one should focus on organizational agility.
The third hypothesis is that if learning leadership is higher, then tawazun social innovation is higher. The variable of learning leadership is built by indicators of critical thinking, dynamic reflective, and adaptive learning. While the tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by indicators of tawazun (balance) of social responsibility, tawazun (balance) of policy innovation, tawazun (balance) of network management, and tawazun (balance) of mind.
The estimated parameter between learning leadership and social innovation tawazun enters significantly with a value of Cr = 2.381 at a significance level of 0.05. So, the third hypothesis is accepted, meaning that if learning leadership is higher, the tawazun (balance) of social innovation will be more meaningful. These results indicate that to increase tawazun (balance) social innovation, one should stress on learning leadership.
The fourth hypothesis is that if institutional reflexivity is higher, then innovation performance is higher. The organizational agility variable is shaped by indicators of responsiveness, learning transformation, and responsible action.
The estimated parameter between organizational agility and innovation performance present insignificant results with a value of Cr= 1.250 at a significance level of 0.05. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is not accepted, indicating that greater organizational agility would on average, not lead to better innovation performance.
The fifth hypothesis is that if organizational agility is higher, then innovation performance is higher. The variable of institutional reflexivity is built by indicators of competent character, the intensity of action, and professional integrity. Meanwhile, innovation performance is built by indicators of innovation or management innovation, improvement of new services, and adaptive competitive structure. The estimated parameter between institutional reflexivity and innovation performance showed insignificant results with a Cr value of 1,600 or CR <+ 2.00 at a significance level of 0.05. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is not accepted, meaning that institutional reflection does not play a meaningful role in innovation performance and that innovation performance cannot be built through institutional reflexivity. The sixth hypothesis is that if learning leadership is higher, then innovation performance is higher. The learning leadership variable is built by critical thinking, dynamic reflective, and adaptive learning indicators. Meanwhile, innovation performance is built by indicators of innovation or management innovation, improvement of new services, and adaptive competitive structure. The estimated parameter between learning leadership and innovation performance presents significant results with Cr value= 2.401 or CR>+ 2.00 at a significance level of 0.05. So, the sixth hypothesis is accepted, which means that if the learning leadership is higher, the innovation performance will be higher.
The seventh hypothesis is that if innovation performance is higher, then tawazun social innovation is higher. The innovation performance variable is built by indicators of novelty or management innovation, improvement of new services, and adaptive competitive structures. While the tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by indicators of tawazun (balance) of social responsibility, tawazun (balance) of policy innovation, tawazun (balance) of network management, and tawazun (balance) of mind.
The estimated parameter between innovation performance and tawazun (balance) of social innovation presents significant results with Cr value= 2,328 or CR>+ 2.00 at a significance level of 0.05. So, the seventh hypothesis is accepted, which means that the higher the innovation performance, the higher the tawazun (balance) of social innovation. These results indicate that tawazun (balance) social innovation could be increased through innovation performance.
The eighth hypothesis is that if tawazun social innovation is higher, then sustainable organizational performance is higher. Variable of tawazun social innovation is built by the tawazun indicators (balance) of social responsibility, tawazun (balance) of policy innovation, tawazun (balance) of network governance, and tawazun (balance) of reason. Meanwhile, sustainable organizational performance is built by indicators of social responsibility, sustainable organizational strategy, resource capability, and customer loyalty.
The estimated parameter between tawazun (balance) of social innovation and sustainable organizational performance presents significant results with CR value = 1.999 or CR>+ 1.96 at a significance level of 0.10. So, the eighth hypothesis is accepted, which means that if the tawazun (balance) of social innovation is higher, then the performance of sustainable organizations is higher. This shows that enhanced sustainable organizational performance is built through tawazun (balance) of social innovation.
The ninth hypothesis is that if innovation performance is higher, then sustainable organizational performance is higher. The innovation performance variable is built by indicators of innovation or management innovation, improvement of new services, and adaptive competitive structure. Meanwhile, sustainable organizational performance is built by social responsibility, sustainable organizational strategy, resource capability, and customer loyalty.
The estimated parameter between innovation performance and sustainable organizational performance presents significant results with Cr value= 2.470 at a significance level of 0.05. Then, the ninth hypothesis is accepted, which means that the higher the innovation performance, the higher the sustainable organizational performance. This shows that improved sustainable organizational performance is built through innovation performance. The direct, indirect, and total effects of sustainable organizational performance models are shown in Figure 3 and Table 7 are explain that the innovation performance variable is directly influenced by institutional reflexivity (0.17), organizational agility (0.14), and learning leadership (0.26). This illustrates that the variable of learning leadership has a dominant effect on innovation performance, and there is no indirect effect on innovation performance. Then the tawazun variable (balance) of social innovation is directly influenced by institutional reflexivity (0.18), organizational agility (0.21), and learning leadership (0.24). This shows that learning leadership has a dominant influence on the tawazun (balance) of social innovation. While the indirect effect that the tawazun variable (balance) of social innovation has been through institutional reflexivity (0.04), organizational agility (0.03), and learning leadership (0.06).
Furthermore, the variable of sustainable organizational performance is directly influenced by tawazun (balance) of social innovation (0.20) and innovation performance (0.27). As for the indirect effect that affects the sustainable organizational performance, the variables through innovation performance variables (0.05), institutional reflexivity (0.09), organizational agility (0.08), and learning leadership (0.13). The total effect of institutional reflexivity on sustainable organizational performance is 0.09, organizational agility on sustainable organizational performance is 0.08, learning leadership on sustainable organizational performance is 0.13, and tawazun (balance) of social innovation on sustainable organizational performance is 0.20, and innovation performance on sustainable organizational performance is 0.31.
Based on the total effect described above, it shows that the variable of tawazun (balance) of social innovation on sustainable organizational performance is 20%, innovation performance on sustainable organizational performance is 31%, learning leadership on sustainable organizational performance is 13%, organizational agility on sustainable organizational performance by 8%, institutional reflexivity on organizational performance by 9%.

Conclusion
This study is intended to examine the variables that affect sustainable organizational performance and its implications. Support for hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 strengthen the tawazun variable (balance) of social innovation influenced by new learning organizations with dimensions of organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership. Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 show that innovation performance is influenced by new learning organizations with dimensions of organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership. Hypothesis 7 indicates that tawazun (balance) of social innovation is influenced by innovation performance. Finally, Hypotheses 8 and 9 show that sustainable organizational performance is influenced by innovation performance and tawazun (balance) of social innovation.
By the hypotheses in this study, the research that has been proposed can be justified through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) testing, proposed and supported empirically: organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, learning leadership, innovation performance, and tawazun (balance) of social innovation. Then, based on various significant supports from hypothesis testing, it has answered the research problem, which resulted in 5 models of developing tawazun social innovation based on new learning organizations towards sustainable organizational performance and innovation performance of Central Java, Provincial Health Services.
First, a manifestation of sustainable organizational performance is influenced by innovation performance. Second, the manifestation of sustainable organizational performance is influenced by the high tawazun (balance) of innovation. Furthermore, the tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built on broad and deep innovation performance. Third, the manifestation of sustainable organizational performance is influenced by broad and deep tawazun (balance) of social innovation. Then tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by organizational agility. Fourth, the manifestation of sustainable organizational performance is influenced by the tawazun (balance) of social innovation. Then tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by institutional reflexivity. Fifth, the manifestation of sustainable organizational performance is influenced by broad and deep tawazun (balance) of social innovation. Then tawazun (balance) of social innovation is built by learning Leadership.

Theoretical Implications
Theoretical implications of the new learning organizations-based tawazun social innovation development model on sustainable organizational performance and innovation performance of the Central Java Provincial Health Office are reflected in several research findings as follows: First, this research has theoretical implications for the tawazun Social Innovation, which is an organizational balance rooted in the idea of a policy balance, a responsibility balance, resource balance, network balance, and mind and heart balance. Tawazun Social Innovation can trigger continuous improvement of innovation performance and organizational performance. Second, this research has contributed to the concept of the New Learning Organization Theory, whereas organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership have a role in improving tawazun social innovation. Third, contribution to Sociological Theory, namely the values of tawazun social innovation in realizing sustainable organizational performance. Fourth, the implication for the new learning organization. Organization agility mechanisms, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership are needed in forming organizations that have a value of tawazun social innovation. Fifth, implications for social innovation. Institutions of health care facilities as a public service must have the capacity to innovate socially by developing the value of tawazun social innovation as the basis for realizing performance and sustainable organization. Six, implication on innovation performance. Institutions of health care facilities must improve service innovation capacity, foster innovation behavior, and new services, and strengthen competitiveness in realizing sustainable organizational performance.
Based on the above description, it can be concluded that to realize the performance of sustainable healthcare institutions, can be built through values of tawazun social innovation supported by a new learning organization that implements organizational agility, institutional reflexivity, and learning leadership.

Managerial Implication
According to the findings of this study, the development model of tawazun social innovation based on a new learning organization towards sustainable organizational performance and innovation performance of Central Java, Provincial Health Office, has the following managerial implications: First, new learning organizations can become tools, media, and processes to increase resource capacity against unpredictable conditions and VUCA conditions (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity). Consequently, the organization must be agile, and reflective, which encourages learning leadership. Therefore, being a learning organization, individuals and groups within the organization must have the ability to develop continuous learning and increase the capacity of resources that have an impact on sustainable organizational performance. Second, tawazun social innovation encourages sustainable organizational performance; this is reflected through the implementation of the values of social responsibility balance, policy innovation balance, network balance, and balance of mind. Consequently, the organization develops a strategic policy reconstruction of tawazun social innovation, and the implementation of tawazun social innovation encourages the realization of sustainable organizational performance. Third, sustainable organizations are influenced by innovation performance through novelty, innovation behavior, and the capability to foster service innovation. Therefore, management is encouraged to strengthen learning capabilities, improve service quality, create management service innovations, transform technology and create competitive power. Fourth, the manifestation of sustainable organizational performance is realized through tawazun social innovation and innovation performance. Consequently, management is encouraged to develop sustainable organizational strategic plans, instilling tawazun social innovation through the values of social responsibility balance, policy innovation balance, resources balance, network balance, and balance of mind and heart.

Research Limitations
First, the results of the full model Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) test show that this model is fits or suitable for the data used in the study. However, two conformity tests are marginally accepted, namely the Goodness of Fit Index= 0.880 and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index= 0.840.
Second, two hypotheses are not accepted, namely the parameter of institutional reflexivity on innovation performance which shows insignificant results with a Cr value= of 1,600 or CR <+ 2.00, and the parameter of organizational agility and innovation performance show insignificant results with a Cr value=1,250 or CR< +2.00. Third, the results of calculations using the AMOS software show that the influence of the new learning organization variable, namely learning leadership is 13% on sustainable organizational performance, organizational agility on sustainable organizational performance is 8%, and institutional reflexivity on sustainable organizational performance. sustainable organizational performance Squared Multiple Correlation of 9%, has a low qualification below 20%.
Fourth, the sample and research objects can be expanded across organizations and regions, to obtain more comprehensive points of view and meaningful scope.

Future Research Agenda
Based on the first limitations, the antecedent study of sustainable organizational performance Squared Multiple Correlation has a low qualification, is a study niche that can provide values and opportunities for further research. Nine hypotheses are proposed in this study; two hypotheses are not supported by empirical data, namely the effect of organizational agility and institutional reflexivity on innovation performance. Therefore, there is a future research opportunity; intervening variables are needed to mediate the consequence variables. Furthermore, it can broaden the scope, perspectives, and approaches by embedding variables such as innovation culture, digital transformation, and innovation strategy, in realizing sustainable organizational performance.