International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.
28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
Comparative study on Quality of Standards in
Engineering colleges with respect to Staff and
Students
(Quality of Standards in Engineering colleges)
Ms.C.Neelaveni,
Anna university research scholar, Chennai.
ushaneelaveni@gmail.com
Abstract— the aim of the study is to determine the acceptance
of quality administrative practices of Engineering students (ES)
and Teaching staff (TS) in relationship with commitment,
satisfaction and Institution’s Performance. 219 ES and 272 TS
have been considered as samples for the study. At the end of the
study it was seen that ES have low satisfaction with
administrative practices compared to TS and the Institutions
performance increased by TS are higher than the ES. There is a
significant difference in the satisfaction level between ES and TS.
Both ES and TS are committed to their work.
Keywords— Administrative practices, Satisfaction,
Commitment, College students, teaching staff
I. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Johnsrud (1996) identified three major sources of
concern to midlevel administrative ES members in higher
education: the midlevel nature of their role, the lack of
recognition for their contributions and competence, and their
limited opportunity for career growth and advancement
opportunities. Aldridge and Rowley (1998)[1] explain that
good quality education provides better learning opportunities
and it has been suggested that the levels of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction strongly affect the student‟s success or failure
of learning. Scott (1978)[2], administrative work life and
behavior include involvement with institutional missions and
goals; Henkin and Persson (1992)[3].
Participation in governance activities Henkin and
Persson (1992)[3], institutional and career commitment and
satisfaction; [Austin 1985[4]; Volkwein, Malik and Napierski-
Prancl (1998)[5], role clarity, decision-making and conflict;
[Amey 1990[6]; Moore and Twombly 1990[7]; Solomon and
Tierney (1977)[8], perceptions of discrimination; [Johnsrud
and Rosser 1999b[9]; Moore 1983[10]; Rosser and Javinar
(2003)[11], opportunities for promotion and career
development; [Moore and Sagaria 1982[12]; Sagaria and
Johnsrud (1992)[13], teamwork and relationships with internal
and external constituencies. [Austin 1984[14]; Johnsrud and
Edwards 2001[15]; Kauffman 1990[16]; Volkwein and
Parmley (2000)[17]
Midlevel leaders (ES) are most often identified by the
administrative units in which they coordinate or direct, and
they play a key role within the four traditional service areas of
21959
S.Manimaran, P.S.Venkateswaran,
Professor& Head, Department of Management studies,
PSNA College of Engineering & Technology, Dindigul.
higher education: academic support, business/administrative
services, external affairs, and student affairs (Johnsrud and
Rosser 2000)[18].typically Academic Support includes media
and library services, learning skills center and cooperative
education; Business/Administrative Services includes fiscal
management, accounting and human resources, operations and
maintenance, information technology and planning and
budgeting; External Affairs (or institutional advancement)
includes public relations, alumni affairs, communication, and
fund raising; Student Services includes admissions,
registration, financial aid, counseling, advising, and other
aspects of student life (e.g., Austin and Gamson
1983[19];Johnsrud, Sagaria and Heck 1992[20]; Moore and
Twombly 1990)[21]. Tinto‟s (1987)[22] interaction theory
was designed to assess student satisfaction across six
transformative dimensions of growth and development.
Educational experience: The extent to which student
expectations are met relative to course content, rigor, quality,
and challenge;
Development of skills & knowledge: The extent to
which students are able to learn, to think critically, develop
problem-solving skills, synthesize material and analyze
information;
Faculty contact: The extent to which students are satisfied
with academic advising, accessibility of faculty, and the extent
of the interaction with faculty acting as an advisors/mentors;
Personal and social growth: The extent to which
personal and/or social growth is experienced and developed by
the student (personal growth defined as private, individually-
directed development, while social growth is defined as
involvement in planned group activities and interactions,
usually sponsored by the institution);
Sense of community: The extent to which students
feel a sense of belonging and being welcomed by the
institution, both broadly and within their individual
departments. In addition to personal relationships, students
may form a relationship with the institution‟s organizational
identity and culture (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995)[23].
Overall commitment to and satisfaction with college:
The extent to which students feel they have selected the right
institution for their aspirations, the sense that they would
select the institution again, given the chance, and the
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
confirmation that they would recommend the institution to a job, he will probably be satisfied with job and committed to
classmate or friend. the organization (Knoop & Robert, 1995).
Satisfaction and organizational commitment both are
II. SATISFACTION linked with identification and recognition of employee with
Several studies have examined the intrinsic and his work and job experience; in this aspect of job both are
extrinsic dimensions of job satisfaction in higher education similar to some extent (Chughtai, 2008). According to
(Olsen, 1993[24]; Hackman and Lawler, 1971[25]; Kalleberg, O‟Reilly (1989, p 17), Organizational commitment is
1977[26]; Hagedorn, 1994[27]. According to Emmert and individual's psychological bond to the organisation, including
Taher, (1992)[28], public professionals derive their job a sense of satisfaction, loyalty and belief in the values of the
satisfaction primarily from the social aspects of their jobs, and organisation. Organizational commitment is characterised by
only secondarily from the work itself. Public administration employee's acceptance of organisational goals and their
literature also suggests that job satisfaction varies in willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organisation (Miller
significant ways between the public and private sectors & Lee, 2001).
(DeSantis and Durst, 1996[29]; Steel and Warner, 1990)[30].
Hagedorn‟ s (1994)[31] causal model of satisfaction in IV. RESEARCH METHODS
academic shows satisfaction with salary, total work hours, and The primary objective of the study is to find out the
perceived support of colleagues as directly influencing
acceptance of quality of administrative practices of
perceived level of stress which, in turn, directly effects
satisfaction. For instance, several researchers have identified Engineering students (ES) and Teaching staff (TS) in
the opportunity for independent thought and action, feelings of
relationship with commitment, satisfaction and Institution‟s
accomplishment, opportunities of growth and development,
and self-esteem as indicators of intrinsic rewards (Olsen, Performance. The research design for the study is descriptive.
1993[24]; Austin and Gamson, 1983[32]; Hackman and
The study depends mainly on the primary data collected
Lawler, 1971) [33]. On the extrinsic dimension, Kalleberg
(1977)[26] demonstrates that job satisfaction is positively through a well-framed structured questionnaire to obtain the
affected by job reward factors such as pay.
opinions of the respondents. Questionnaires were given to the
Elliott and Healy (2001) [34] identified eleven
dimensions of a student‟s educational experience. They student and staff respondents of 10 engineering colleges (30
ultimately determined that the quality of classroom
students and 30 staff per college) of different stream in
interactions, the rigor of the curriculum, positive feelings
about their classroom and social interactions, connections to Madurai District. Tamilnadu, India. Hence 600 samples were
faculty, and a sense of fitting in with the campus culture
considered and
contributed to a feeling of belonging. Peters (1988)[35] found
that campus life outside the classroom was just as essential to 548 filled questionnaires were received. After
student satisfaction as the educational experience. Peterson,
excluding 57 inappropriate questionnaires, a total of 491(staff-
Wagner, and Lamb (2001)[36] additionally found that a
positive, substantive relationship with faculty or ES caused a 272 and students-219) questionnaire were used for the
sense of “well being” for a student, deepening institutional
analysis; this yielded an effective response rate of 75%. The
connections and commitment. Elliott (2003)[37] highlighted
the role of faculty accessibility in increasing student collected data were processed with the help of appropriate
satisfaction and positive feelings about the college.
statistical tools. The study was conducted between the periods
III. COMMITMENT of January 2014 to April 2014. Abbreviation used: TS-
Organizational commitment is very important for
Teaching staff; ES- Engineering students
organizations because of the desire to retain talented
employees. Employees with high organizational commitment
spend more personal resources during the job for the
organization and also retain with organization and will not
remain in search of other employment (Bret, Corn & Slocum,
1995). Mowday et al. (1982) in their study confirmed that in
many situations primarily employees be acquainted with and
involved in specific job , this activity make them satisfied due
to fulfillment of psychological wants and needs and their
commitment toward organization develops. Satisfaction and
commitment both have significant impact on organizational
and individual performance. If individual is involved in his

21960
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

V. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 1: Demographic Profile of the respondents
Parameter TS(N=272) ES(N=219)
No. of Percent No. of Percent
respondents respondents
Gender Male 97 35.7 134 61.2
Female 175 64.3 85 38.8
Education Graduate 16 5.89 196 89.5
Post Graduate 178 65.4 23 10.5
PhD 78 28.7 - -
Married 234 86.0 6 2.7
Marital status
Unmarried 38 14.0 213 97.3
Source: primary data from questionnaire
Note: Abbreviation: TS- Teaching staff; ES- Engineering students
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. In In ES, 61.2 percent of the respondents are male and 38.8
TS, 35.7 percent of the respondents are male and 64.3 percent percent are female. 10.5 percent are Post Graduates. 89.5
are female. 28.7 percent are PhD holders and 65.4 percent are percent are Graduate. 2.7 percent are married and 97.3 are
Post Graduate. 14 percent are unmarried and 86 are married. unmarried.
TABLE 2: Mean, Standard Deviation And Reliability Analysis
S.No Parameters TS(N=272) ES (N=219)
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES Mean Standard Mean Standard
COMPONENTS Deviation Deviation
1 Organization & Governance (7 items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.822 Cronbach's Alpha:0.871
I know clearly the Vision of my college 3.14 1.074 3.10 1.082
I know the Mission of the college 2.94 0.861 3.02 0.890
My college is having precise objectives 3.18 0.805 3.59 0.830
Goals of my college are clear and long term 3.28 0.887 3.76 0.885
Leader is performing well 3.53 0.782 3.89 0.870
Well defined organisational structure 3.60 0.896 3.41 0.825
We have well structured guidance council 3.44 0.845 3.56 0.834
2 Allocation of resources and utilisation (4 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.727 Cronbach's Alpha:0.814
Financial resources 3.17 1.081 3.80 1.028
Physical resources 3.11 0.828 3.53 1.052
Human resources 3.69 0.877 3.71 0.892
Technical resources 3.26 1.029 3.12 0.877
3 Evaluation system (5 items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.824 Cronbach's Alpha:0.867
Student assessment and grading are well defined 3.36 0.984 3.33 0.837
Curriculum are approved to meet the guidelines 3.38 0.937 3.52 0.956
Necessary actions are taken for weak students 3.53 0.909 3.61 0.753
Faculties are evaluated using through feedback 3.64 0.910 3.83 0.911
Performance appraisal 3.61 0.860 3.65 0.841
4 Teaching learning process (4 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.807 Cronbach's Alpha:0.781
Industrial Guest Lectures 4.44 1.025 3.33 0.963
Interaction with experts 4.13 0.897 3.37 0.974
Innovation in teaching methods 3.59 0.956 3.59 0.865
Value added content- beyond the syllabus 4.27 0.940 3.42 0.734
5 Relationships (7 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.851 Cronbach's Alpha:0.911
Management to ES 3.81 0.833 3.87 0.853
Management to TS 3.65 0.802 3.67 0.856
HOD to ES 3.53 0.823 3.60 0.873

21961
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
HOD to TS 3.22 1.097 3.22 1.094
ES to TS 3.38 0.926 3.40 0.915
TS to ES 3.63 0.86 3.64 0.964
TS to TS 3.65 0.891 3.65 0.894
6 Facilities (9 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.756 Cronbach's Alpha:0.824
Computer facility 3.37 1.034 4.6 0.938
Library facility 3.78 0.827 4.03 0.679
OHP/LCD/ TV in class room 3.93 0.841 4.05 0.752
Smart class room 3.69 0.926 3.67 0.919
Drinking water, 3.56 0.823 3.33 0.718
Transport 3.59 0.870 4.35 0.751
seating arrangement 3.55 0.848 3.46 0.778
Wi-Fi/ Internet 3.57 0.849 3.56 0.818
Latest software and Hardware 3.74 0.822 3.77 0.836
7 Supplementary processes (7 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.923 Cronbach's Alpha:0.870
Alumni 3.49 0.734 3.65 0.785
National level symposium/ Conference/
International level Conference/ Seminar well 3.92 1.154 4.28 0.979
organised
Workshop/ Management Development Programme
3.64 0.865 3.76 0.907
well organised
Proctor system to assess students 3.82 0.836 3.97 0.809
Entrepreneurship activities 3.60 0.883 3.67 0.862
Cultural development activities 3.63 0.858 3.75 0.905
Participation in extracurricular activities 3.89 0.947 3.78 0.945
8 SATISFACTION(5 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.873 Cronbach's Alpha: 0.839
Instructional outcomes 3.73 0.782 3.56 0.818
Student Support Services 3.94 0.824 3.65 0.894
Library and Learning Support Services 3.68 0.839 3.64 0.964
Availability of Resources 3.57 1.081 3.50 0.785
Decision making 3.35 0.828 4.28 0.979
9 COMMITMENT( 6 Items) Cronbach's Alpha:0.847 Cronbach's Alpha:0.894
Happy to spend the rest of my career here. 3.46 0.822 3.61 0.830
I talk positively about my College 3.52 0.850 3.92 0.875
This college has a great deal of personal meaning
3.79 0.848 3.78 0.830
for me
Very hard for me to leave my college 4.17 0.833 3.90 0.826
I am loyal to my students/faculties 4.06 0.889 3.72 0.870
I am loyal to my employer 3.90 0.876 4.08 0.892

Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation and Cronbach's Alpha for the students and Teaching staff of engineering colleges in
Madurai District, Tamilnadu, India
.

21962
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

TABLE 3-Reliability and Validity Of IT Variables

S.No Parameters Engineering Students(ES) Teaching staff (TS)
Range of Range of
Range of Range of
standardised standardised
‘t’ CR AVE ‘t’ CR AVE
factor factor
statistics statistics
loading loading
1 Organization 0.8932- 3.102*- 0.821 61.10 0.7639- 3.332*- 0.850 53.56
& Governance 0.8015 2.930* 0.7470 2.968*
2 Allocation of 0.7611- 3.860*- 0.7538- 3.558*- 0.827 56.37
resources and 0.7390 3.126* 0.780 59.23 0.6410 2.989*
utilisation
3 Evaluation 0.7780- 3.721*- 0.8490- 3.832*- 0.803 63.45
system 0.7272 3.280* 0.840 56.15 0.7545 3.160*
4 Teaching 0.7306- 3.168*- 0.7521- 3.559*- 0.757 58.14
learning 0.7014 2.802* 0.824 54.70 0.7020 3.052*
process
5 Relationships 0.8480- 3.589*- 0.8790- 3.550*- 0.864 66.78
0.7725 2.640* 0.780 60.27 0.8214 2.957*
6 Facilities 0.7960- 3.820*- 0.737 52.56 0.7718- 3.458*- 0.879 59.13
0.7212 3.472* 0.7260 2.818*
7 Supplementary 0.8489- 3.340*- 0.804 56.20 0.7489- 3.904*- 0.721 55.67
processes 0.8258 3.244* 0.6935 3.342*
8 Satisfaction 0.8504- 3.632*- 0.826 59.67 0.7645- 3.701*- 0.739 64.44
0.8020 3.218* 0.7230 3.580*

9 Commitment 0.8948- 3.554*- 0.757 62.15 0.8560- 3.790*- 0.893 62.79

0.7470 2.989* 0.7849 3.447*
*Significant at five per cent level.
the variables in each factor are significant at five per cent
The standardized factor loadings of the variables in each factor
level, which indicates the convergent validity of the factor.
are greater than 0.60 which reveals the content validity of the
The analysis infers that the reliability and validity of variables
factor. The„t‟ statistics of the standardized factor loadings of
in each factor have been proved.
TABLE 4-Mean Difference and Discriminant Power of Administrative Practices Among ES and TS
Wilks
Administrative Mean scores Total
Mean ‘t’ Lambda Discriminant
S.No. practices among Discriminant
difference statistics Co-efficient
components Score
ES TS
1. Organization & 3.946 3.739 0.207 4.129* 0.3422 0.1788 11.56
Governance
2. Allocation of 3.880 3.292 0.588 1.464 0.1886 ----- -----
resources and
utilisation
3. Evaluation system 3.487 3.453 0.034 3.443* 0.1241 0.1990 9.06
4. Teaching learning 3.449 3.440 0.009 0.640 0.1084 ----- -----
process
5. Relationships 3.120 3.604 -0.484 1.043 0.1369 ----- -----
6. Facilities 3.939 3.665 0.274 3.855* 0.1396 0.1599 13.95
7. Supplementary 3.260 3.166 0.094 0.133 0.1969 ----- -----
processes
8. Satisfaction 3.778 3.426 0.352 2.599* 0.3212 0.1085 31.26
9. Commitment 3.934 3.212 0.722 3.011* 0.1433 0.0968 34.17
Constant 0.5630 100.00
*Significant at five per cent level.

21963
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

TABLE 5-Correlation between Administrative Practices And Satisfaction Of ES and TS

Gender Parameters Mean Std. Deviation Pearson Sig.
Correlation (2-tailed)
ES (Male) Administrative practices
(N=134) components 3.776 0.1922 0.776 0.001**
Satisfaction 3.276 0.5882
ES (Female) Administrative practices
(N=85) components 3.424 0.7344 0.289 0.039*
Satisfaction 3.750 0.9051
TS(Male) Administrative practices
(N =97) components 3.649 0.2134 0.202 0.348
Satisfaction 3.654 0.5332
TS (Female) Administrative practices
3.543 0.5515
(N =175) components 0.330 0.217
Satisfaction 3.617 0.5942
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From the above table 5, correlation is undertaken between It was hypothesized that an insignificant relationship exists
administrative practices and Satisfaction. From the result, between administrative practices and Satisfaction. The result
there exists a strong positive and significant relationship reveals that, there exists a weak positive and insignificant
between Satisfactions of ES (male) and administrative relationship between Satisfactions of TS (male & female) and
practices(r=0.776; P<.05) and a weak significant relationship administrative practices(r=0.202; P >0.05 & r=0.330; P>0.05).
between Satisfactions of ES (female) and administrative To know about the opinion of various components of
practices(r=0.289; P<.05). satisfaction, correlation was used to measure the various
components of satisfaction with administrative practices.
Table 6- Correlation between Administrative practices and satisfaction of ES
Parameters ES-Male(N=134) ES-Female(N=85)
Administrative Satisfaction Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
practices Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)

Administrative Creativity in teaching 0.827 0.042* 0.770 0.017*

practices
Full recognition for my 0.140 0.013* 0.261 0.045*
work
I receive proper respect 0.425 0.044* 0.374 0.030*

Working environments are 0.849 0.001** 0.630 0.001**

comfortable
The study materials are 0.662 0.063* 0.511 0.029*
easily available to do best.
My superior explains what 0.416 0.041* 0.330 0.026*
is expected of me.
I receive appreciation 0.391 0.727 0.263 0.344

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

From the above table 6, Administrative practices of the ES
(male and female) have a very strong positive and significant
relationship With Creativity in teaching (r=0.827; P<0.05&
r=0.770; P<0.05). Administrative practices of the male and
female ES has a weak, but positive and significant relationship
with Full recognition for my work (r=0.140; P<0.05&
r=0.261; P<0.05), I receive proper respect (r=0.425; P<0.05&
r=0.374; P<0.05), the study materials are easily available to do
best(r=0.416; P<0.05& r=0.330; P<0.05). Administrative
practices of the male and female ES has a strong, positive and
significant relationship with working environments are
comfortable (r=0.849; P<0.001& r=0.630; P<0.001) and weak
relationship with „My immediate superior explains what is
expected of me‟(r=0.210; P>0.05& r=0.327; P>0.05).
Administrative practices of the male and female ES has a

21964
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
weak, Positive and insignificant relationship with receiving appreciation (r=0.715; P<0.05& r=0.820; P<0.05).
Table 7-Correlation between Administrative practices and components of satisfaction
Parameters TS-Male(N =97) TS-Female(N=175)
Administrative Satisfaction Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
practices Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)

Administrative Creativity in teaching 0.546 0.001** 0.731 0.001**

practices
Full recognition for my work 0.281 0.432 0.169 0.347

I receive proper respect 0.682 0.019* 0.570 0.042*

Working environments are 0.639 0.046* 0.615 0.035*

comfortable
The study materials are easily 0.663 0.033* 0.483 0.001**
available to do best.
My superior explains what is 0.384 0.038* 0.584 0.020*
expected of me.
I receive appreciation 0.412 0.201 0.403 0.137

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

From the above table 7, it is evident that Administrative
practices of the male and female (TS) have a positive and
significant relationship with creativity in teaching (r=0.546;
P<0.001& r=0.731; P<0.001). Administrative practices of the
male and female staff have a positive and insignificant
relationship with „Full recognition for my work(r=0.281;
P>0.05& r=0.169; P>0.05) and „I receive appreciation
(r=0.412; P>0.05& r=0.403; P>0.05). Administrative practices
of the male and female staff have a positive and significant
relationship with „I receive proper respect‟, „Working
environments are comfortable‟, and „My superior explains
what is expected of me‟ (P<0.05). Administrative practices of
the male staff have a strong positive and significant
relationship with the study materials are easily available to the
students to do best (r=0.663; P<0.05). For female staff,
Administrative practices have a weak but positive and
significant relationship with the study materials are easily
available to the students to do best. (r=0.483; P<0.05).

Table 8-Correlation between Administrative practices and commitment of ES and TS

Pearson Sig.(2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Correlation
ES(Male) Administrative practices 3.578 0.1922
0.512 0.040*
(N=134) Commitment 4.017 0.9292
ES(Female) Administrative practices 3.424 0.7344
(N=85) 0.627 0.031*
Commitment 3.973 1.2461
TS(Male) Administrative practices 3.840 0.2134 0.565 0.044*
(N =97) Commitment 3.716 0.9436
TS(Female) Administrative practices 3.543 0.5515 0.757 0.001**
(N =175) Commitment 3.934 0.9352
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
From the above table 8, correlation is undertaken practices(r=0.512; P<.05; r=0.627; P<.05). This reveals that
between administrative practices and commitment. It was ES (both gender) are committed to their work. The result
hypothesized that a significant relationship exists between reveals that, there exists a strong positive and significant
administrative practices and commitment. From the result, relationship between commitment of TS (male and female)
there exists a positive and significant relationship between and administrative practices(r=0.565; P <0.05 & r=0.757;
commitment of ES (male and female) and administrative P<0.001).
Hypothesis Test (ES:H01 to H07) & (TS: H08 to H014) H01: Administrative practices are not influencing for
The aim is to examine the interactive effect of the independent Institution’s Performance.
variables (administrative practices, commitment and H02: ES Commitment is not influencing Institution’s
satisfaction) with the dependent variable Institution‟s Performance.
Performance. H03: ES Satisfaction is not influencing to Institution’s
Performance

21965
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
H04: Administrative practices and commitment are not H010: TS Satisfaction is not influencing to Institution’s
influencing to Institution’s Performance. Performance
H05: Administrative practices and satisfaction are not H011: Administrative practices and commitment are not
influencing to Institution’s Performance. influencing to Institution’s Performance.
H06: Commitment and satisfaction are not influencing to H012: Administrative practices and satisfaction are not
Institution’s Performance. influencing to Institution’s Performance.
H07: Administrative practices are not influencing for H013: Commitment and satisfaction are not influencing to
commitment, satisfaction and Institution’s Performance. Institution’s Performance.
H08: Administrative practices are not influencing for H014: Administrative practices are not influencing for
Institution’s Performance. commitment, satisfaction and Institution’s Performance.
H09: TS Commitment is not influencing Institution’s Table 9- Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Performance.
Category F df1 df2 Sig.
ES(a) 2.976 68 150 0.000
TS(a1) 5.853 36 171 0.000
Dependent Variable: Institutions performance
Organizational practices * Organisation practices +
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the Organizational practices * staff Satisfaction + Organisation
dependent variable is equal across groups. commitment * staff Satisfaction + Organizational practices *
a.Design: Intercept + ES Satisfaction + Organisation Organisation commitment * staff Satisfaction
commitment + Organizational practices + ES Satisfaction * The Levene‟s test shows that homogeneity of variance
Organisational commitment + ES Satisfaction * assumption has not been violated, since p<0.05, i.e. main
Organizational practices + Organisation commitment * effects of Organizational practices + Organisation
Organizational practices + ES Satisfaction * Organisation commitment + ES/TS Satisfaction are significant. Therefore,
commitment * Organizational practices any one of these three variables influences the institutions
a1. Design: Intercept + Organizational practices + performance.
Organisation commitment + staff Satisfaction + Table 10- Tests between –subjects effects for ES variables
Result
Type III Sum H0 :
Source of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. (P<0.05)
Corrected Model 200.860a 68 2.954 5.092 0.000
Intercept 2547.529 1 2547.529 4391.961 0.000
Administrative
2.800 6 0.467 0.805 0.569 H01;Rejected
practices (A)
Commitment (B) 1.425 4 0.356 0.614 0.654 H02;Rejected
Satisfaction (C) 93.241 5 18.648 32.150 0.000 H03;Accepted
A*B 5.997 11 0.545 .940 0.506 H04;Rejected
A*C 7.483 12 0.624 1.075 0.389 H05;Rejected
B*C 9.226 16 0.577 .994 0.469 H06;Rejected
A*B*C 7.888 12 0.657 1.133 0.342 H07;Rejected
Error 76.648 150 0.511
Total 15347.00 219
Corrected Total 338.009 218

Dependent Variable: Institution’s Performance a. R Squared =0 .772 (Adjusted R Squared =0.731)

The above table 10, shows that administrative practices and
Commitment shows insignificant effect on Institution‟s
performance with p>0.05. i.e. F (6, 203) = 0.467; F (4,203) =
0.356. Similarly administrative practices combined with
Commitment, administrative practices combined with
Satisfaction, Commitment combined with Satisfaction show
insignificant effect on Institution‟s performance with p<0.05.
i.e. F (11, 203) = 0.545; F (12, 203) = 0.624; F (16, 203) =
0.657. But Satisfaction shows a significant effect on
Institution‟s performance with p<0.05.i.e. F (5, 203) =
18.648.P<0.05. As such post-hoc analysis was used. The
output shows that the combination of administrative practices,
Commitment and satisfaction leads to Institutions
performance. The post hoc analysis shows that availability of
resources and decision making differ significantly with other
two variables. I.e satisfaction and these factors have a
significant difference in Institutions performance.

21966
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
Table 11- Tests between –subjects effects for TS variables
Source Type III Sum Df F Sig.
of Squares Mean Square Result H0 : (P<0.05)
Corrected Model 287.363a 46 6.247 9.544 0.000
Intercept 2832.725 1 2832.725 11146.167 0.000
Administrative
5.904 6 0.984 1.763 0.121 H08;Rejected
practices (A)
Commitment (B) 10.101 4 2.525 2.599 0.067 H09;Rejected
Satisfaction (C) 109.962 4 27.491 1.832 0.208 H010;Rejected
A*B 10.924 6 1.821 1.673 0.134 H011;Rejected
A*C 8.070 10 0.807 1.446 0.161 H012;Rejected
B*C 8.915 10 0.891 1.645 0.126 H013;Rejected
A*B*C 1.617 4 0.404 .473 0.756 H014;Rejected
Error 125.520 225 0.558
Total 19324.00 272
Corrected Total 412.882 271
Dependent Variable: Institution’s Performance a. R Squared = 0.687 (Adjusted R Squared =0 .649)
The above table 11, shows that administrative practices, are significantly higher opinion about administrative practice
Commitment and Satisfaction individually shows insignificant than their female friends. TS are having more positive opinion
effect on Institution‟s performance with p>0.05. i.e. F (6, 225) about teaching learning process than the ES. In TS, Male staff
= 0.984; F (4,225) = 2.525; F (4, 225). Similarly these are not having higher opinion about administrative practices
variables are combined together and having insignificant than their female colleagues. Administrative practices of the
effect on Institution‟s performance with p>0.05. This reveals male students have a strong positive and significant
that administrative practices are influenced by variables relationship with the study materials available for them.
individually and collectively to enhance institutions Administrative practices of the male and female ES has a
performance. strong, positive and significant relationship with working
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS environments. Staff and ES (both gender) understand the
The aim of the study is to determine the influences of administrative practices and due to it they are
Administrative practices of TS and ES in relation to committed to their work. Both Staffs and students are having
Satisfaction, Commitment and Institutions performance. From no difference in the level of accepting administrative practices
the results, we found that ES has a mild level of positive and commitment. But for the satisfaction and administrative
opinion with the administrative practices than the TS. ES are practices, TS are highly satisfied than the ES.
having more positive opinion about the evaluation system,
Facilities and Supplementary processes than the TS. Male ES

References
[1] Aldridge, S., & Rowley, J. (1998). Measuring Customer Satisfaction
in Higher Education. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), 197-204.
[2] Scott, R.A. (1978). Lords, Squires and Yeoman: Collegiate Middle
Managers and Their Organizations. ASHE-ERIC/Higher Education
Research Report No. 7.Washington, D.C.: American Association for
Higher Education.
[3] Henkin, A.B. and Persson, D. (1992). „Faculty as gatekeepers: Non-
academic ES participation in university governance‟, Journal of
Educational Administration, 30(2), 52–64.
[4] Austin, A.E. (1985). Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction of
University Mid-Level Administrators. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper,
March.
[5] Volkwein, J. F., Malik, S. M., and Napierski-Prancl, M. (1998).
Administrative satisfaction and the regulatory climate at public
universities. Research in Higher Education 39(1): 43–63.
[6] Amey, M. (1990). „Bridging the Gap between expectations and
reality‟, in Moore, K.M. and Twombly S.B. (eds.), Administrative
Careers and the Marketplace, New Directions for Higher Education
Series 72, vol. 18(4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[7] Moore, K.M. and Twombly, S.B. (1990). Administrative Careers and
the Marketplace: Toward the Year 2000, New Directions for Higher
Education Series No. 72, vol. 18(4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[8] Solomon, L.C. and Tierney, M.L. (1977). „Determinants of job
satisfaction among college administrators‟, Journal of Higher
Education 48(4), 412–431.
[9] Johnsrud and Rosser (2000),Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J. (eds.)
(2000). Understanding the Work and Career Paths of Midlevel
Administrators. New Directions for Higher Education Series No. 111,
vol. 28(3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
[10] Moore, K.M. (1983). Leaders in Transition – A National Study of
Higher Education Administrators. University Park, PA: Center for the
Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University.
[11] Rosser, V.J. and Javinar, J.M. (2003). Student Affairs Leaders
Intentions to Leave: Examining the Quality of Their Work life.
Refereed paper presented at the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA), St. Louis, Missouri, March.
[12] Moore, K.M. and Sagaria, M.A. (1982). „Differential job change and
stability among academic administrators‟, Journal of Higher
Education, 53(5), 501–513.

21967
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.28 (2015)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
[13] Sagaria, M. A. D., & Johnsrud, L. K. (1992). Administrative [34] Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J. (1999). „College and university
promotion: The structuring of opportunity within a university. Review midlevel administrators: Explaining and improving their morale‟, The
of Higher Education, 15, 191–211. Review of Higher Education 22(2), 121–141.
[14] Austin, A.E. (1984). „Work experience of university and college [35] Miller, D. & Lee, J. 2001. „The people make the process:
administrators‟, Administrative Update (newsletter of American commitment to employees, decision-making and performance‟,
Association University Administrators) 6(1), 1–4. Journal of Management, 27: 163–189.
[15] Johnsrud, L.K. and Edwards, R.L.R. (2001). „Mediating the intent to [36] Peters, T. J. (1988). Individual attention: The key to keeping students
leave: The affective responses of midlevel administrators to their in school. ACU-1 Bulletin, 4-8.
work lives‟, ASHE Annual Meeting Paper, Richmond, VA., [37] Peterson, M., Wagner, J. A., & Lamb, C. W. (2001). The role of
November. advising in nonreturning students‟ perceptions of their university.
[16] Kauffman, J.F. (1990). „Administration then and now‟, in Moore, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3).
K.M. and Twombly, S.B. (eds.), Administrative Careers and the [38] Elliott, K. M. (2003). Key determinants of student satisfaction.
Marketplace, New Directions for Higher Education Series 72, vol. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3), 271-279.
18(4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[17] Volkwien, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative
satisfaction in public and private universities. Research in Higher
Education, 41, 95–116.
[18] Austin, A. E. and Gamson, Z. F. (1983). Academic workplace: New
demands, heightened tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report
No. 10. Washington DC: George Washington University.
[19] Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of
student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[20] Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1998). Organizational behavior in
higher education and student outcomes. Handbook on Research in
Higher Education, 268–338.
[21] Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding
the bond of identification. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46-57.
[22] Olsen, D. (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third
year academic appointment. Journal of Higher Education, 64(4):
453–471
[23] Hackman, J. R. and Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55: 259–286.
[24] Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of
job satisfaction. American Sociological Review 42: 124–143.
[25] Hagedorn, & Hagedorn, L. S. (1994). Retirement proximity‟s role in
the prediction of satisfaction in academe. Research in Higher
Education, 35(6): 711–728.
[26] Emmert, M. and Taher, W. (1992). Public sector professionals: The
effects of public sector jobs on motivation, job satisfaction and work
involvement. American Review of Public Administration 22(1): 37–
48.
[27] DeSantis, V. and Durst, S. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among
public and private sector employees. American Review of Public
Administration 26(3): 327–343.
[28] Steel, Brent S.; Warner, Rebecca L. (1990): „Job satisfaction among
early labor force participants: Unexpected outcomes in public and
private sector comparisons“, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 10 (3), pp.4–22
[29] Bonvillian, G. & Dennis, T.L. (1995). Total quality management in
higher education: opportunities and obstacles, in Sims, S.J. & Sims,
R.R. (Eds), Total Quality Management in Higher Education: Is it
working? Why or Why Not?, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 37-
50.Chughtai, 2008
[30] Elliott, K. M. & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student
satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-11.
[31] G. Eason, B. Noble, and I.N. Sneddon, “On certain integrals of
Johnsrud, L.K., Sagaria, M.A. and Heck, R.H. (1992). University
staffing decisions to hire or promote. International Journal of
Educational Management 6(2), 20–31.
[32] Heck, R. H., Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Administrative
effectiveness in higher education: Improving assessment procedures.
Research in Higher Education, 41, 663–684.
[33] Johnsrud, L.K. (1996). Maintaining Morale: A Guide to Assessing the
Morale of Midlevel Administrators and Faculty. Washington, D.C.:
College and University Personnel Association.

21968