he organizational management in higher education now places the key attention, which
in fact it becomes increasingly competitive that requires universities to be able
to maximize their resources to survive and compete with other tertiary institutions
both in terms of funding and quality. Various problems faced by the institutions for
instance services, facilities, lecturers, students, infrastructure and many other
aspects need to be addressed wisely by universities in order to achieve their stated
goals. The commitment, satisfaction, and achievement of students are also some essential
points to be given appropriate treatment in the process of implementing eligible education
at college.
Job satisfaction refers to the general attitude of an individual toward his/her works,
job involvement deals with the stage to what extent a person sided psychologically
to his/her work and considered their performance as a measure of self-image. Besides,
organizational commitment is the stage to what extent a person sits with a particular
organization and is interested in perpetuating the position in the organization (Robbins
& P. Stephen, 2001).
Students who acquire satisfaction in learning process show solemnity through achievements.
Satisfaction is a crucial factor that can contribute to improving students' achievement
as well as commitment. Students with satisfaction tend to have greater achievement
compared to the ones who are less satisfied (Robbins & P., 2006).
According to Robbins & Judge (2008) commitment is a condition of a person perpetuates
his/her position in the organization instead of leaving it. Meanwhile, Kotler & Philip (2003) defines satisfaction as a feeling of joy or disappointment experienced by an individual
by making a comparison between opinions about achievement with expectations.
Two-factor theory and Value theory Wibowo (2011) suggests that satisfaction and dissatisfaction
are part of motivators and hygiene factors. Whereas, achievement comes from the notion
of performance and performance is also interpreted as work results or work performance,
essentially work performance has a broader meaning, not only as of the result of work
but also includes how the work process takes place (Wibowo, 2011).
Based on some results of the previous studies related to commitment, satisfaction,
and performance/ achievement in the college environmental setting, it showed that
the mean value of work satisfaction (3.60) was in the high category (Lu & Gursoy,
2016). On the other hand, the result showed that the mean value of commitment (4.13)
was in the high category (Cooper, Stanley, Klein, & Tenhiälä, 2016). The other results showed that the mean value of commitment (3.65) was in the high
category, satisfaction with the mean value (3.33) was in the moderate/fair category,
while the performance with mean value (3.75) was in a good category (Yiing & Ahmad, 2009).
Formulation of the problems of this research is: 1. How is the commitment of students
at STIE Galileo Batam? 2. How is the satisfaction of students at STIE Galileo Batam?
3. How is the performance/ achievement of students at STIE Galileo Batam?
The purposes of this research are:
1. To identify the commitment of students at STIE Galileo. 2. To know the satisfaction
of students at STIE Galileo. 3. To observe the performance/ achievements of students
at STIE Galileo.
2. Research Methods
This research took place at Economics College STIE Galileo Batam. The study was conducted
on December 2018 to March 2019 where the respondents were the students of STIE Galileo
with a sample of 33 respondents. The type of research is a quantitative descriptive
study using questionnaires as the data instruments which were distributed to students
at STIE Galileo environment. The data collected through questionnaires were processed
using SPSS statistics. The data analysis was done in frequency and descriptive analysis
by considering the mean value of each variable item.
The variable in this study, consisting of: i. Commitment ii. Satisfaction iii. Performance
The instrument items used in this study were 41 items, namely; 13 commitment items,
16 satisfaction items, and 12 performance items. The items were adapted and adjusted
from the research questionnaire (Hazriyanto & Ibrahim, 2019).
3. III.
4. Results and Discussions
The results of this study involved 33 students at STIE Galileo as the respondents.
The results of the analysis frequency of commitment, satisfaction, and performance
can be seen in the frequency table below. The commitment frequency analysis results
consist of 13 commitment items as shown in the following table: The result shows
on table 4 that 60.6% of students' response on Commitment4 (Com4) item is in good
category level and 3.0% is in a bad category. The last satisfaction item test
is seen in table 29 that 45.5% of students' response on Satisfaction16 (JS16) item
is in good category level and 3.0% is in a bad category. Additionally, the result
of the 12 items of performance frequency test is explained in the following tables.
Table 33 shows 57.6% students' response on Performance4 (Perf4) item is in good category level
and 3.0% is in the bad and poor category. The result of the descriptive analysis
test for commitment variable in table 42 can be identified that the average score
of the commitment items is in the range of 3.55 to 4.18 with a total average of 3.89
which signifies a high level of category. This means that the average commitment items
are in the high commitment category level. The results of this study are in line with
prior research (Cooper et al., 2016). The results of the Satisfaction descriptive analysis in table 43 is described that
the average score of satisfaction items is in the range of 3.42 to 4.12 with an overall
average score of 3.83 that is in the high category level. This means that the average
item of satisfaction is in the category of high satisfaction level. The results of
this study are in line with previous research (Lu & Gursoy, 2016). The results of
the Performance descriptive analysis test displayed in table 44 explains that the
average score of performance items is in the range of 3.58 to 4.21 with a total overall
average of 3.81 that is in the good and very good category. This means that the average
performance items are in the category of good performance level. The results of this
study are in line with the preceding research (Yiing & Ahmad, 2009).
IV.
5. Summary
Regarding the findings and discussions above, it can be concluded that:
6. a) Commitment
The result of the commitment descriptive analysis test is in the high category. This
result means that the level of STIE Galileo students' commitment is at a high level
of commitment. This matter needs to be maintained continuously considering the commitment
level of the students is in good point. Besides, it is also necessary to pay close
attention to other factors apart from commitment such as motivation and others.
7. b) Satisfaction
The result of the satisfaction descriptive analysis is similarly in the high category.
This point clarifies that the average level of STIE Galileo students' satisfaction
is in the high category. Thus, this thing needs to be minded and preserved since the
level of satisfaction is at a high level of satisfaction. In addition, it is also
necessary to consider the other factors out of satisfaction such as the environmental
setting and others.
8. c) Performance
The result of the performance descriptive analysis test is in both good and very good
category. This finding implies that the average STIE Galileo students' performance
is at a good level of performance. Therefore, it is considered compulsory to keep
and maintain this good performance level. On the other hand, it is important to also
look for other factors such as leadership and others.
For future researches, it is recommended to conduct research by taking into account
the demographic factors, larger sample sizes, and other statistical analysis tools
such as SEM Amos, SEM SmartPLS, and other analytical tools adjusted based on the needs.
Figure 1. Table 1 :1
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Figure 2. Table 2 :2
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Poor
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
6.1
Valid
Fair
4
12.1
12.1
18.2
Good
17
51.5
51.5
69.7
Very Good
10
30.3
30.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
The result displayed in table 2 shows 51.5% students' response on Commitment2 (Com2)
item is in good
category level and 3.0% is in the bad and poor category.
Table 3: Com 3
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Valid
Fair Good
5 17
15.2 51.5
15.2 51.5
18.2 69.7
Very Good
10
30.3
30.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 3 displays 51.5% students' response on Commitment 3 (Com3) item is in good category
level and
3.0% is in a bad category.
Figure 3. Table 4 :4
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Valid
Fair Good
4 20
12.1 60.6
12.1 60.6
15.2 75.8
Very Good
8
24.2
24.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Figure 4. Table 5 :5
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Fair
5
15.2
15.2
15.2
Valid
Good
21
63.6
63.6
78.8
Very Good
7
21.2
21.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
On table 5, it is shown 63.6% students' response on Commitment5 (Com5) item is in
good category level
and 15.2% of them is in a fair category.
Figure 5. Table 6 :6
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
3
9.1
9.1
9.1
Valid
Fair Good
11 16
33.3 48.5
33.3 48.5
42.4 90.9
Very Good
3
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Note: Result revealed in table 6 identifies 48.5% students' response on Commitment6 (Com6)
item is in good category level and 9.1% is in bad and poor category level.
Figure 6. A
Figure 7. Table 7 :7
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Poor
2
6.1
6.1
6.1
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
9.1
Valid
Fair
7
21.2
21.2
30.3
Good
17
51.5
51.5
81.8
Very Good
6
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Figure 8. Table 8 :8
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Valid
Fair Good
6 18
18.2 54.5
18.2 54.5
21.2 75.8
Very Good
8
24.2
24.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Figure 9. Table 9 :9
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Fair
8
24.2
24.2
24.2
Valid
Good
16
48.5
48.5
72.7
Very Good
9
27.3
27.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Note: At table 9 above, it is presented that 48.5% of students' response on Commitment9
(Com9) item is in good category level and 24.4% is in the fair category level.
Figure 10. Table 10 :10
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Valid
Fair Good
12 13
36.4 39.4
36.4 39.4
39.4 78.8
Very Good
7
21.2
21.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 11: Com11
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Fair
7
21.2
21.2
21.2
Valid
Good
13
39.4
39.4
60.6
Very Good
13
39.4
39.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Note: Table 11 shows 39.4% students' response on Commitment11 (Com11) item is in very good
and good category level, while 21.2% is in fair category level.
Figure 11. A
Figure 12. Table 12 :12
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Poor
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
6.1
Valid
Fair
9
27.3
27.3
33.3
Good
18
54.5
54.5
87.9
Very Good
4
12.1
12.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 12 displays 54.5% students' response on Commitment12 (Com12) item is in good
category level and
3.0% is in bad and poor category level.
Table 13: Com13
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
2
6.1
6.1
6.1
Fair
14
42.4
42.4
48.5
Valid
Good
14
42.4
42.4
90.9
Very Good
3
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 14: JS1
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Fair
8
24.2
24.2
24.2
Valid
Good
13
39.4
39.4
63.6
Very Good
12
36.4
36.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Result of the test as shown in table 14 indicates 39.4% students' response on Satisfaction1
(JS1) item is in
good category level and 24.4% is in fair category level.
Table 15: JS2
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Valid
Fair Good
9 13
27.3 39.4
27.3 39.4
30.3 69.7
Very Good
10
30.3
30.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
On table 15 is displayed 39.4% students' response on Satisfaction2 (JS2) item is in
good category level and
3.0% is in bad category level.
Table 16: JS3
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Poor
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
6.1
Valid
Fair
7
21.2
21.2
27.3
Good
12
36.4
36.4
63.6
Very Good
12
36.4
36.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Note: AStudents' Commitment, Satisfaction and Performance at Economics College Stie Galileo
Batam Indonesia
Table 18: JS5 Table 22 indicates 57.6% students' response on Satisfaction9 (JS9) item
is in good category level and 18.2 % is in a very good category level. Table 23: JS10
Table 27 states 42.4% of students' response on Satisfaction14 (JS14) item is in the
fair category level and 6.1% is in a bad category. Table 28: JS15
Year 2019
Volume XIX Issue V Version I ( ) A Global Journal of Management and Business Research
Frequency 1 9 20 3 33 Frequency 1 8 17 7 33 Table 19 reveals 51.5% students' response
on Satisfaction6 (JS6) item is in good category level and 3.0% is Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent Valid Bad 3.0 3.0 3.0 Fair 27.3 27.3 30.3 Good 60.6 60.6 90.9 Very
Good 9.1 9.1 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Table 19: JS6 Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent Valid Bad 3.0 3.0 3.0 Fair 24.2 24.2 27.3 Good 51.5 51.5 78.8 Very Good 21.2
21.2 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 in bad category. Table 20: JS7 Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Poor 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Bad 1 3.0 3.0 6.1 Fair 11 33.3
33.3 39.4 Good 15 45.5 45.5 84.8 Very Good 5 15.2 15.2 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0
On the other hand, table 20 shows 45.5% students' response on Satisfaction7 (JS7)
item is in good category level and 3.0% is in bad and poor category level. Table 21:JS8
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Fair 9 27.3 27.3 Frequency
Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 27.3 Good 17 51.5 51.5 78.8 Very Good 7 21.2
21.2 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 Table JS11 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent Valid Bad 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Fair 8 24.2 24.2 Valid Bad 3 9.1 9.1 9.1 Fair 17 51.5
51.5 60.6 Good 9 27.3 27.3 87.9 Very Good 4 12.1 12.1 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 Table
29: JS16 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 27.3 Good 18 54.5 54.5
81.8 Very Good 6 18.2 18.2 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 Table 24 shows 54.5% students'
response on Satisfaction11 (JS11) item is in good category level and 3.0% is in bad
category. Table 25: JS12 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid
Poor 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Fair 12 36.4 36.4 39.4 Good 17 51.5 51.5 90.9 Very Good 3 9.1 9.1
100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 As seen in table 25, 51.5% students' response on Satisfaction12
(JS12) item is in good category level and 3.0% is in poor category. Table 26: JS13
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Sangat Tidak Baik 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
Fair 14 42.4 42.4 45.5 Valid Good 15 45.5 45.5 90.9 Very Good 3 9.1 9.1 100.0 Total
33 100.0 100.0
Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XIX Issue V Version I (
) A
Poor
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Bad
Frequency
1
Percent
3.0
Valid Percent 3.0
Cumulative Percent 6.1
Valid Valid
Fair Fair Good Good
7 19
11 9
21.2 33.3 57.6 27.3
21.2 33.3 57.6 27.3
21.2 39.4 78.8 66.7
Very Good Very Good
7
11
21.2 33.3
21.2 33.3
100.0 100.0
Total Total
33
33
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
Figure 14. Table 30 :30
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Fair
8
24.2
24.2
24.2
Valid
Good
10
30.3
30.3
54.5
Very Good
15
45.5
45.5
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
The first performance item test is displayed in table 30 that 45.5% students' response
on Performance1
(Perf1) item is in very good category level and 24.2% is in a fair category.
Figure 15. Table 31 :31
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Fair
12
36.4
36.4
36.4
Valid
Good
16
48.5
48.5
84.8
Very Good
5
15.2
15.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Figure 16. A
Figure 17. Table 32 :32
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Valid
Fair Good
10 16
30.3 48.5
30.3 48.5
33.3 81.8
Very Good
6
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Table 33: Perf 4
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Poor
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Bad
1
3.0
3.0
6.1
Valid
Fair
9
27.3
27.3
33.3
Good
19
57.6
57.6
90.9
Very Good
3
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
Figure 18. Table 34 :34
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bad
3
9.1
9.1
9.1
Valid
Fair Good
10 8
30.3 24.2
30.3 24.2
39.4 63.6
Very Good
12
36.4
36.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
As seen in table 34, 36.4% students' response on Performance5 (Perf5) item is in very
good category level
Profiles of commitment in standard and fixed-term employment arrangements: Implications
for work outcomes.
J T Cooper
, L J Stanley
, H J Klein
, A Tenhiälä
. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology2016. 25 (1) p. .