# Introduction 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. # 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). # III. # 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. # Summary Regarding the findings and discussions above, it can be concluded that: # 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. # 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. # 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. 1PercentValid PercentCumulative Percent 2FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0Bad13.03.06.1ValidFair412.112.118.2Good1751.551.569.7Very Good1030.330.3100.0Total33100.0100.0The result displayed in table 2 shows 51.5% students' response on Commitment2 (Com2) item is in goodcategory level and 3.0% is in the bad and poor category.Table 3: Com 3FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good5 1715.2 51.515.2 51.518.2 69.7Very Good1030.330.3100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 3 displays 51.5% students' response on Commitment 3 (Com3) item is in good category level and3.0% is in a bad category. 4FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good4 2012.1 60.612.1 60.615.2 75.8Very Good824.224.2100.0Total33100.0100.0 5FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair515.215.215.2ValidGood2163.663.678.8Very Good721.221.2100.0Total33100.0100.0On table 5, it is shown 63.6% students' response on Commitment5 (Com5) item is in good category leveland 15.2% of them is in a fair category. 6FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad39.19.19.1ValidFair Good11 1633.3 48.533.3 48.542.4 90.9Very Good39.19.1100.0Total33100.0100.0Result 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. 7FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor26.16.16.1Bad13.03.09.1ValidFair721.221.230.3Good1751.551.581.8Very Good618.218.2100.0Total33100.0100.0 8FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good6 1818.2 54.518.2 54.521.2 75.8Very Good824.224.2100.0Total33100.0100.0 9FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair824.224.224.2ValidGood1648.548.572.7Very Good927.327.3100.0Total33100.0100.0At 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. 10FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good12 1336.4 39.436.4 39.439.4 78.8Very Good721.221.2100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 11: Com11FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair721.221.221.2ValidGood1339.439.460.6Very Good1339.439.4100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 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. 12FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0Bad13.03.06.1ValidFair927.327.333.3Good1854.554.587.9Very Good412.112.1100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 12 displays 54.5% students' response on Commitment12 (Com12) item is in good category level and3.0% is in bad and poor category level.Table 13: Com13FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad26.16.16.1Fair1442.442.448.5ValidGood1442.442.490.9Very Good39.19.1100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 14: JS1FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair824.224.224.2ValidGood1339.439.463.6Very Good1236.436.4100.0Total33100.0100.0Result of the test as shown in table 14 indicates 39.4% students' response on Satisfaction1 (JS1) item is ingood category level and 24.4% is in fair category level.Table 15: JS2FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good9 1327.3 39.427.3 39.430.3 69.7Very Good1030.330.3100.0Total33100.0100.0On table 15 is displayed 39.4% students' response on Satisfaction2 (JS2) item is in good category level and3.0% is in bad category level.Table 16: JS3FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0Bad13.03.06.1ValidFair721.221.227.3Good1236.436.463.6Very Good1236.436.4100.0Total33100.0100.0AStudents' Commitment, Satisfaction and Performance at Economics College Stie Galileo Batam Indonesia Table 17: JS4 Table 22: JS9 Table 27: JS14Frequency Frequency FrequencyPercent Percent PercentValid Percent Valid Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent Cumulative Percent Cumulative PercentBad Fair Bad3 8 29.1 24.2 6.19.1 24.2 6.19.1 24.2 6.1Valid Valid ValidFair Good Good Very Good Fair Good7 14 19 6 14 1021.2 42.4 57.6 18.2 42.4 30.321.2 42.4 57.6 18.2 42.4 30.330.3 72.7 81.8 100.0 48.5 78.8Very Good Total Very Good9 33 727.3 100.0 21.227.3 100.0 21.2100.0 100.0Total Total33 33100.0 100.0100.0 100.0Year 2019Table 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: JS15Year 2019Volume XIX Issue V Version I ( ) A Global Journal of Management and Business ResearchFrequency 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 33 100.0 100.0Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XIX Issue V Version I ( ) APoor13.03.03.0BadFrequency1Percent3.0Valid Percent 3.0Cumulative Percent 6.1Valid ValidFair Fair Good Good7 1911 921.2 33.3 57.6 27.321.2 33.3 57.6 27.321.2 39.4 78.8 66.7Very Good Very Good71121.2 33.321.2 33.3100.0 100.0Total Total3333100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 30FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair824.224.224.2ValidGood1030.330.354.5Very Good1545.545.5100.0Total33100.0100.0The 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. 31FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair1236.436.436.4ValidGood1648.548.584.8Very Good515.215.2100.0Total33100.0100.0 32FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good10 1630.3 48.530.3 48.533.3 81.8Very Good618.218.2100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 33: Perf 4FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0Bad13.03.06.1ValidFair927.327.333.3Good1957.657.690.9Very Good39.19.1100.0Total33100.0100.0 34FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad39.19.19.1ValidFair Good10 830.3 24.230.3 24.239.4 63.6Very Good1236.436.4100.0Total33100.0100.0As seen in table 34, 36.4% students' response on Performance5 (Perf5) item is in very good category leveland 9.1% is in a bad category. 35FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0Bad39.19.112.1ValidFair824.224.236.4Good1545.545.581.8Very Good618.218.2100.0Total33100.0100.0 © 2019 Global Journals 1 36FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentBad13.03.03.0ValidFair Good10 1530.3 45.530.3 45.533.3 78.8Very721.221.2100.0Total33100.0100.0In table 36, it is shown 45.5% students' response on Performance7 (Perf7) item is in good category leveland 3.0% is in a bad category. 37FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0ValidFair Good10 1730.3 51.530.3 51.533.3 84.8Very Good515.215.2100.0Total33100.0100.0Table 37 reveals 51.5% students' response on Performance8 (Perf8) item is in good category leveland 3.0% is in poor category level. 38FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentFair927.327.327.3ValidGood1957.657.684.8Very Good515.215.2100.0Total33100.0100.0As shown in table 38, 57.6% students' response on Performance9 (Perf9) item is in good category level and% is in a very good category. 3915.2FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0Bad13.03.06.1ValidFair1236.436.442.4Good1648.548.590.9Very Good39.19.1100.0Total33100.0100.0The following test result is stated in table 39 which 48.5% students' response on Performance10 (Perf10)item is in goodcategory level and 3.0% is in the bad and poor category.Table 40: Perf 11FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentPoor13.03.03.0ValidFair Good8 1624.2 48.524.2 48.527.3 75.8Very Good824.224.2100.0Total33100.0100.0 42ItemNMinimumMaximumMeanNotesCom133153.73HighCom233154.03HighCom333254.09HighCom433254.06HighCom533354.06HighCom633253.58HighCom733153.73HighCom833254.00HighCom933354.03HighCom1033253.79HighCom1133354.18HighCom1233153.70HighCom1333253.55HighTotal of average3.89High 43ItemNMinimumMaximumMeanNotesJS133354.12HighJS233253.97HighJS333154.00HighJS433253.88HighJS533253.76HighJS633253.91HighJS733153.67HighJS833354.00HighJS933353.94HighJS1033353.94HighJS1133253.88HighJS1233153.64HighJS1333153.85HighJS1433253.67HighJS1533253.42HighJS1633153.58HighTotal of average3.83High 44ItemNMinimumMaximumMeanNotesPerf133354.21Very GoodPerf233353.79GoodPerf333253.82GoodPerf433153.67GoodPerf533253.88GoodPerf633153.67GoodPerf733253.85GoodPerf833153.76GoodPerf933353.88GoodPerf1033153.58GoodPerf1133153.91GoodPerf1233153.64GoodTotal of average3.81Good © 2019 Global Journals 1 © 2019 Global Journals * Profiles of commitment in standard and fixed-term employment arrangements: Implications for work outcomes JTCooper LJStanley HJKlein ATenhiälä European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25 1 2016 * 10.1080/1359432X.2014.990443 * The Factor Analysis of Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Performance among Lecturers in Batam Hazriyanto BIbrahim 10.30880/jtet.2019.11.01.19 Journal of Technical Education and Training 11 1 2019