Research Paper 1630726406
Research Paper 1630726406
Research Paper 1630726406
Vidya Bai Gokarna, Suhan Mendon, Iqbal Thonse Hawaldar, Cristi Spulbar,
Ramona Birau, Smitha Nayak & Maanya Manohar
To cite this article: Vidya Bai Gokarna, Suhan Mendon, Iqbal Thonse Hawaldar, Cristi Spulbar,
Ramona Birau, Smitha Nayak & Maanya Manohar (2021): Exploring the antecedents of institutional
effectiveness: a case study of higher education universities in India, Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istraživanja, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.1959367
1. Introduction
Research across the world has shown growing concern onthe significance of academic
leadership on institutional effectiveness (Banker & Bhal, 2020). The importance of
academic leadership manifolds due to the drastic increase in the private institutions
in India but limited research in this field necessitates the need for further research
(Sihotang, 2020). This empirical study attempts to bridge the research gap and
authenticates the relevance of academic leadership in private institutions. The import-
ance of Academic Leadership is not only having the best managerial skills in the
terms of routine work but also in time administration, self-administration, decision
making, impact, and responsibility, along with human skills, a higher degree of mind-
fulness, greater knowledge towards the necessities of their adherents. Thus, academic
leadership plays a vital role in assuring institutional development (Sun et al., 2014). A
study entitled ‘Efficient Institutional Development’ conducted in Europe with eight
European Community engaging nations acknowledged that academic leadership could
fairly affect students’ learning, their results, intermediate outcomes, and school
improvement (Creemers & Hoeben, 1998).
It is also documented in the literature that a motivated faculty team play an instru-
mental role in achieving institutional effectiveness. Highly motivated faculty members
contribute to improved institutional effectiveness when they participate in decision
making and are given autonomy. This would further lead to improved job satisfaction
and also encourages them to put more exertion into achieving their objectives.
(Siddique et al., 2011). A review of the literature has presented significant evidence
on this school of thought. In a research endeavour undertaken in Singapore, it is
attempted to achieve or build skills and traits mandatory for successful leadership;
especially, motivational skills, personality traits, and social skills (Ng et al., 2015). The
research endeavour have displayed numerous roles of academic leaders, two of which
are (i). Leaders of the institution’s vision and changes, (ii). Leaders of leadership
preparation (David & Andrews, 2014). The mediating role of campus culture and fac-
ulty involvement in decision making has been investigated, while it has been demon-
strated that can play an important role in enhancing student learning and
institutional effectiveness (John-Steiner, 1997).
Research highlights that academic leadership has an impact on persuading institu-
tion improvement and student learning (Hopkins & Reynolds, 2001; West et al.,
2013). Several department leaders from individual experience have narrated that aca-
demic leadership is complicated and highly demanding, with considerable stress, not-
able burnout, and much more turnover (Brown & Moshavi, 2002). The research
confirmed that for curriculum reforms and success, the role of an academic leader is
vital (Khan et al., 2015). Davis et al. (2015) have furnished evidence on mediating
variable campus culture (CC). There has been a prior study to check the mediation
of campus culture between the view of the schoolleadership and school effectiveness.
In the presentstudy, the campus culture is considered as a mediating variable which
mediates between academic leadership and institutional effectiveness. In this research
endeavour, the construct faculty involvement (FI) in decision making is considered as
a mediating variable, in addition to campus culturewhich mediates between the aca-
demic leadership and institutional effectiveness. Moreover, Bileviciute et al. (2019)
suggested that there is a strong nexus between the significance of higher education
and the increasing demand for highly qualified and socially responsible people in the
labor market. Nayak et al. (2021) highlighted that economic growth is essential for
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 3
2. Conceptual framework
Institutional effectivenessis influenced by exogenous latent variables, academic leader-
ship (West et al., 2013), faculty involvement in decision making (Siddique et al.,
2011) and campus culture (Shen & Tian, 2012) which is presumed to best explain the
outcome or exogenous construct institutional effectiveness (Lindsay, 1982). Nazarko
and Saparauskas (2014) argued that public higher education field is under a growing
pressure in order to increase the efficiency and quality of its activities (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for Institutional Effectiveness. Source: Author’s own contribution.
4 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.
personal skills and abilities, better personal qualifications and examination towards
the requirements of their followers (Sun et al., 2014). Academic leadership has a
major impact on assuring school development (Hopkins & Reynolds, 2001; West
et al., 2013). A case study conducted in Australia on successful school leadership
(Gurr & Drysdale, 2012) highlighted the relevance and contribution of the academic
leadership to the quality of education in the institution. From an Australian perspec-
tive, the academic leader holds an important and significant role in achieving the suc-
cess of an institution. The quality and nature of the academic leader identified in the
study highlighted a consistent and common set of behaviour and personality traits.
The relevance of the academic leader’s values and his core beliefs represents a rele-
vant research subject. This research subject is uniformly secured in our study, as is
the main contribution to the areas of teaching, capacity building, and learning.
An empirical study brought out the fact that the academic leaders attempt to
achieve or build skills and traits mandatory for successful leadership; especially, per-
sonality traits, social skills, and motivational skills (David & Andrew, 2014). Research
has also displayed numerous roles of academic leaders, in that two of which are lead-
ers of institutional vision and leaders of leadership preparation. In ordinary circum-
stances, at the commencement of an institutional change or reform, the academic
leaders consider the institutional setting and partners with key shareholders to define
the destinations of the change with the end goal to guarantee it is lined up with the
institution’s vision. The academic leaders then specifically express the established
vision (e.g., by giving motivational speeches) and assisting the significant shareholders
in the institution to achieve the goals.
Centre and soul of campus culture are vested in Spiritual culture. Organizational cul-
ture is ‘an attribute or quality internal to a group that has a fairly stable set of taken-
for-granted assumptions, shared beliefs, meanings, and values that form a kind of
backdrop for action’. The campus culture highly impacts the beliefs, sentiments, feel-
ings, and values of students, faculty, and other members. However, the impact of this
is not the same for all the individuals who are experiencing the same campus culture
but this will give a range of possible outcomes. The study hasgranted information on
mediating variable campus culture which plays a role to improve student learning as
well as institutional effectiveness (Nguyen et al., 2015). Moreover, Ullal et al. (2021)
suggested that Indian customers are more emotional.
3.2. Measures
The exogenous construct academic leadership was measured reflectively using six
indicators drawn on those suggested by Hopkins and Reynolds (2001); and West
et al. (2013). This research has also adopted items from Siddique et al. (2011) for the
reflective constructfaculty involvement in decision making with three indicators. The
campus culture construct with three indicators is drawn on those recommended by
Shen and Tian (2012), and the endogenous construct institutional effectiveness with
six indicators are conceptualized and operationalized by drawing on scale pro-
pounded by Lindsay (1982).
The total number of valid samples is 329. 5000 bootstrap samples are invoked to
run the PLS-SEM algorithm by following the rule of thumb.
Empirical t-values and theoretical/critical t-values are compared with each other
for the two-tailed test. The critical t-value which is used for comparison is 1.96.
To obtain the empirical t-values, ‘no significant change’ option has been adopted
Bootstrapping confidence intervals are also properly reported.
measured with the AVE threshold value should be more than 0.50 (Wasko & Faraj,
2005; Wixom & Watson, 2001). In an acceptable model, the threshold value of AVE
should be greater than 0.5 (Chin, 1998; H€ ock & Ringle, 2006). AVE values of all con-
structs are above the threshold value of 0.5 (Table 1). Therefore, there exists convergent
validity in all exogenous and endogenous latent constructs of all measurement models.
PLS is a better way to measure the discriminant validity (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
To measure the discriminant validity the square of the correlations among the varia-
bles has been in contrast with the AVE (Chin, 1998). Fornell and Larcker (1981) cri-
terion is the best way to measure the discriminant validity which is a comparison
between the square root of AVE and other latent variables. The above criterion, by
the Fornell-Lecker criterion, is considered by researchers to be conservative in assess-
ing discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). The amount to which a given construct
of the model is different from other constructs (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2017; Fornell
& Larcker, 1981; Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
The collinearity levels among constructs of the study are tested. The collinearity lev-
els are tested by the Variance Inflated Factors (VIF) guidelines. All predictor variables
showed VIF levels below 5.00 (Table 1). This means the collinearity is not a problem
in the structural model of the study. This study adopted the blindfolding procedure to
calculate the predictive relevance of the model. Blindfolding represents an operation to
use samples repeatedly by the omission of every 7th data point of the data set of
endogenous constructs. This procedure is adopted for only those endogenous con-
structs that have measurement specification of the reflective type. The blindfolding pro-
cess calculates the parameter estimates to assess predictive relevance i.e., Q2.
The following algorithm settings are ensured while running the blindfolding pro-
cedure in the current research endeavour:
The number of observations applied in the model evaluation i.e., 329 divided by
the omission distance D.
Accordingly, the number 7 is used to denote the omission distance. Thus, the dir-
ection of prior work (Hair et al., 2017), on blindfolding procedure, that the omis-
sion distance should remain between 5 and 10, is ensured.
This study has used the cross-validated redundancy method to calculate the Q2 value
which is a gauge of the predictive relevance of the model with a value larger than zero
(Hair et al., 2017). Hair et al. (2017) suggested computing the Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value
(Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974) for understanding the model’s predictive relevance. It gives
us an idea regarding how good the path model is in predicting the values that we have
originally observed. After running the blindfolding procedure, this study arrived at the
values of Q2 (Table 2). All values of Q2 are above zero, which indicates that the model
of this research endeavour has predictive relevance. As the prior research suggests
(Hair et al., 2017), Q2 values show the efficiency with which the path model demon-
strates the predictability of values that we originally observe in the model.
FIMIX-PLS is mandatory when the data are not alike. It is necessary for segmenta-
tion into groups as part of the study (Hahn et al., 2002; Ringle et al., 2010; Sarstedt
et al., 2011). When unobserved heterogeneity is suspected then applying FIMIX is
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 9
necessary. If the researcher fails to employ FIMIX when it must lead to sufficient
inaccuracy while analyzing the results. FIMIX-PLS segments investigation is established
on heterogeneity in the inner path model. Application of FIMIX-PLS to assess cumula-
tive models, like ones based on the confirmed standard plan, to assure that calculated
results are not influenced by unobserved heterogeneity in the inner path estimates.
A parametric multi-group analysis is popularly known as multi-group analysis, is
applied to independent samples t-tests to correlate paths between groups (Keil et al.,
2000). Group 1 represents the student status and Group 2 represents the faculty status.
4. Empirical results
4.1. Evaluation of measurement and structural model
The evaluation of the reflective model includes avalidation of outer loading, compos-
ite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, AVE, outer weight, and variance inflated for are vali-
dated in this model (Table 1). The Fornell-Lecker criterion, (Chin, 1998; Hair et al.,
2017; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Wasko & Faraj, 2005) is the best method to measure
the discriminant validity. The discriminant validity values in these reflective con-
structs, i.e., academic leadership is 0.824, campus culture is 0.898, Faculty involve-
ment in decision making is 0.846 and institutional effectiveness is 0.833 shows
discriminant validity has been established (Figure 2).
The path value and empirical t-value of the first four hypotheses are above the
threshold value of 0.20 and 1.96 respectively, substantiate the hypothesis. But in the
case of the fifth hypothesis i.e., association between faculty involvement in decision
making and institutional effectiveness the path value and empirical t value are below
the threshold value, reject hypothesis 5. There are varying rules of thumb that explain
whether R2 values are high or not (Hair et al., 2017). Prior research (Hair et al.,
2017) states that the cut-off values of 0.25 are weak, 0.50 are moderate and, 0.75 are
treated to be high respectively in other studies. All three exogenous constructs explain
86.2% of institutional effectiveness (R2 ¼ 0.862).
As the prior research suggests Q2 values show the efficiency with which the path
model demonstrates the predictability of values that we originally observe (Hair et al.,
2017). The Q2 of endogenous construct institutional effectiveness is 0.562 which is
above zero, which indicates that the model of this research endeavour has predict-
ive relevance.
10 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.
The f2 effect size of the independent variables was calculated after the calculations
relating to R2 value, p-values, t-values, and bootstrap confidence intervals. We also
calculate the q2 effect size, which explains the ‘relative impact of predictive relevance’
(Hair et al., 2014). The rule of thumb that the prior research advocates, to decide
upon the importance of the effect size f2 andq2, state that the effect size values of
0.35 havea large effect, 0.15 has a medium effect and 0.02 has small effect sizes
respectively (Cohen, 1988). From the above calculation, the f2 effect size of the impact
of academic leadership oninstitutional effectiveness and campus culture on institu-
tional effectiveness has a large effect except for faculty involvement in decision mak-
ing on institutional effectiveness which does not affect. The q2 effect size of the
academic leadership on institutional effectiveness has a high effect whereas, campus
culture on institutional effectivenesshas a medium effect. But faculty involvement in
decision making on institutional effectiveness does not affect. Model fitness is meas-
ured with the SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) criteria fit (Henseler
et al., 2014). The greatest fit arises when SRMR values are zero. A good fitness
threshold value is less than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1998). In this research work, the
SRMR value is 0.074 indicates good fitness of the model.
Figure 3. Effect of mediating construct campus culture. Source: Author’s own contribution.
Figure 4. Mediating effect of faculty in decision making. Source: Author’s own contribution.
mean value then that construct has a higher performance which reflects solid meas-
urement paths (Hair et al., 2014; Hock et al., 2010; Rigdon et al., 2011; Schloderer
et al., 2014; V€olckner et al., 2010). The IPMA of the exogenous constructs of this
study is given in Figure 6 (Table 4).
IPMA analysis (Figure 6) shows that Academic leadershiph as a high performance
of 32.484 in comparison with the other exogenous latent variables. On the other
hand, with the total effect of Academic leadership is 0.828 which is specifically high.
Thus, a one-unit increase in Academic leadership performance from 32.484 to 33.484
would increase the performance of Institutional Effectivenessby 0.828 points from
26.025 to 26.853. The total effect and performance of exogenous latent construct
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 13
Figure 5. Mediating effect of the full model. Source: Author’s own contribution.
campus culture are 0.626 and 27.552 respectively. Thus, a one-unit increase in cam-
pus culture performance from 27.552 to 28.552 would increase the performance of
Institutional Effectiveness from 26.025 to 26.652. Similarly, the total effect and per-
formance of exogenous latent construct Faculty involvement in decision making are
0.006 and 26.624 respectively. This would increase the performance of Institutional
Effectiveness from 26.025 to 26.031. The latent endogenous Institutional Effectiveness
variable mostly generates a GoF outcome that is only moderate. The EN of 0.594 for
segment 2 strongly supports the choice of two groups for a priori data segmentation.
So AIC, AIC3, BIC and CAIC are significant in segment 2.
The large and small segment shows significantly different PLS-SEM results. About
the association between academic leadership and campus culture is much stronger
(0.923) in segment 2 in comparison with segment 1 (0.447). The relationship between
academic leadership and faculty involvement in decision making much stronger
(0.945) in segment 2 when compared with segment 1 (0.453). The relationship
between campus culture and institutional effectiveness (0.890) is higher than Segment
1 (0.496). However, construct the relationship between academic leadership and insti-
tutional effectiveness segment 1 is stronger (0.448) compared to segment 2 (-0.026).
In contrast, the relationship between faculty involvement in decision making and
institutional effectiveness is not at all significant in both Segments.
The total effects show that academic leadership has less significant in Segment 1
comparatively with Segment 2 (0.923) in relationship with campus culture. Academic
leadership has a higher impact on faculty involvement in decision making (0.945) in
segment 2 than segment 1 (0.453). However, the total effect also reveals that in the
relationship between academic leadership and institutional effectiveness (0.927) as well
as between campus culture and institutional effectiveness (0.890) has a higher impact
in segment 2 when compared to segment 1. In contrast, the relationship between fac-
ulty involvement in decision making and institutional effectiveness is not significant in
both Segments. Segment 2 has higher R2 values for campus culture (0.853), faculty
involvement in decision making (0.894), and institutional effectiveness (0.988).
For the demographics data, the cross-table analysis can be used to identify applic-
able descriptors (Ringle et al., 2010). It has been found that only the student and fac-
ulty aspect of demographic features shows a good fit. The two groups under
demographic features are students and faculty groups. Table 7 shows the results of
group-specific PLS-SEM. It also shows their differences. PLS multi-group analysis
helps to understand the importance of difference through a double bootstrap routine
(Sarstedt et al., 2011).
The analysis shows that the two segments are specific. Academic leadership deter-
mines faculty involvement in decision making in the student segment (0.786) ismuch
higher than the faculty segment (0.625) at a 5 percent significant level. Similarly,
16 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.
making. So there is a need to pay more attention towards the construct academic
leadership and its parameters like the following:
In this research paper, it is evident that the mediating variable campus culture
showed a partial mediation between academic leadership and institutional effective-
ness indicate that the construct campus culture has a significant role in facilitating
institutional effectiveness. The campus culture differs from institute to institute, cam-
pus culture is that which effectively and deliberately connects with differing individu-
als, thoughts, and viewpoints to make energetic learning and workplace. This is
achieved by supporting and propelling endeavours to build up a pervasive culture of
inclusion in all facets of life at the institution. So to facilitate the institutional effect-
iveness the academic leaders should get to know about the campus culture and how
the campus culture will improve their institution’s performance because the campus
culture is not a standardized variable to be ideal for all the institutions. So it is very
important that the academic leaders to improve the campus culture to boost up the
institution’s performance by the following:
a. The institute should provide the students with good recreational facilities like
playground, gymnasium, amphitheatre, allied sports facilities, etc.;
b. The institute should provide good cultural and sports activities;
c. The institute should provide library that has sufficient textbooks, references, mag-
azines, and journals as per AICTE norms.
Since total effects substantiate the path relationship the results of the total effect of
PLS-MGA are similar to that of the path relationship. Therefore, this research
endeavour has significant managerial implications that educational institutes need to
pay more attention to the student’s segment without ignoring the faculty segment
since there exist no much differences in values. This empirical research paper has
minor limitations. In the present research, IPMA infers linear relationships one could
target on nonlinear relationships in the future work (Anderson & Mittal, 2000;
Eskildsen & Kristensen, 2006; Mittal et al., 1998). There might be alternative moder-
ating or mediating construct such as leadership preparation (Brundrett & Crawford,
2012; Hallinger & Heck, 1998) that might influence the institutional effectiveness for-
mation process. Moreover, while this research analyzed the impact of academic lead-
ership, faculty involvement in decision making and campus culture on institutional
effectiveness in respect of educational institutes, it widens an avenue to explore, in a
18 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Vidya Bai Gokarna http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8785-0152
Suhan Mendon http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-6663
Iqbal Thonse Hawaldar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7181-2493
Cristi Spulbar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-9496
Ramona Birau http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1638-4291
Smitha Nayak http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7171-2580
References
Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of
Service Research, 3(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032001
Bagonza, G., Itaaga, N., & Mugagga, A. M. (2019). Institutional facilities and the quality of
university education in Uganda. American Journal of Educational Research, 7(9), 644–648.
Banker, D. V., & Bhal, K. T. (2020). Creating world class universities: Roles and responsibilities
for academic leaders in India. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3),
570–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218822776
Becker, J. M., Rai, A., Ringle, C. M., & V€ olckner, F. (2013). Discovering unobserved heterogen-
eity in structural equation models to avert validity threats. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 665–694.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.01
Bileviciute, E., Draksas, R., Nevera, A., & Vainiute, M. (2019). Competitiveness in higher edu-
cation: The case of university management. Journal of Competitiveness, 11(4), 5–21. https://
doi.org/10.7441/joc.2019.04.01
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to transform-
ational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 8(3), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200800307
Brundrett, M., & Crawford, M. (2012). Introduction: Educational leadership development in a
global environment. In. Developing school leaders (pp. 11–16). Taylor & Francis group,
Routledge.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance: Evidence
from multi-levels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3),
299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345940050306
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 12, pp. 13).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Hoeben, W. T. J. (1998). Capacity for change and adaptation of schools: The
case of effective school improvement. In Gerry. J. Reezigt (eds) Effective school improvement: State
of the art (pp. 5–28). GION, Gronings Instituutvoor Onderzoek van Onderwijs, Opvoedingen
Ontwikkeling, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Daskalakis, S., & Mantas, J. (2008). Evaluating the impact of a service-oriented framework for
healthcare interoperability. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 136, 285–290.
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 19
David, Andrews, D. (2014). Leading and managing. Educational Leadership in Asia Pacific:
Contextual and Cultural Lenses, 20(2), 196–210.
Davis, A. P., Dent, E. B., & Wharff, D. M. (2015). A conceptual model of systems thinking
leadership in community colleges. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(4), 333–353.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Kristensen, K. (2006). Enhancing importance-performance analysis.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(1), 40–60. https://
doi.org/10.1108/17410400610635499
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American
customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4),
7–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000403
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1),
101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101
Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2012). Tensions and dilemmas in leading Australia’s schools. School
Leadership & Management, 32(5), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723619
Hahn, C., Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2002). Capturing customer heterogen-
eity using a finite mixture PLS approach. Schmalenbach Business Review, 54(3), 243–269.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396655
Hair, J. F., Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Common beliefs and reality
about partial least squares: Comments on R€ onkk€o and Evermann.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European
Business Review, 26, 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating
unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method. European Business Review, 28(1),
63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0094
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial
least squares structural equation modeling. Sage publications.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effective-
ness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0924345980090203
Hawaldar, I. T., Ullal, M. S., Birau, F. R., Spulbar, C. M. (2019). Trapping fake discounts as
drivers of real revenues and their impact on consumer’s behavior in India: A case study.
Sustainability, 11, 4637. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4637.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W.,
Ketchen, Jr., D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs
and reality about PLS: Comments on R€ onkk€o and Evermann (2013). Organizational research
methods, 17(2), 182–209.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Using partial least squares path modeling in
advertising research: Basic concepts and recent issues. In Shintara Okazaki (ed.), Handbook
of research on international advertising. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hock, C., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Management of multi-purpose stadiums:
Importance and performance measurement of service interfaces. International Journal of
Services Technology and Management, 14(2/3), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2010.
034327
H€ock, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2006). Strategic networks in the software industry: An empirical
analysis of the value continuum. IFSAM VIIIth World Congress, 28, 2010.
20 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.
Hopkins, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). The past, present and future of school improvement:
Towards the third age. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01411920120071461
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://
doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Jedidi, K., Jagpal, H. S., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1997). Finite-mixture structural equation models
for response-based segmentation and unobserved heterogeneity. Marketing Science, 16(1),
39–59. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.16.1.39
John-Steiner, V. (1997). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Oxford University
Press.
Keil, M., Tan, B. C., Wei, K. K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A
cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS
Quarterly, 24(2), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250940
Khan, M. S., Khan, I., Qureshi, Q. A., Ismail, H. M., Rauf, H., Latif, A., & Tahir, M. (2015).
The styles of leadership: A critical review. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(3),
87–92.
Klarner, P., Sarstedt, M., Hoeck, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2013). Disentangling the effects of team
competences, team adaptability, and client communication on the performance of manage-
ment consulting teams. Long Range Planning, 46(3), 258–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.
2013.03.001
Laing, C., Laing, G. (2011). The student as customer model and its impact on the academic
leadership role in higher education. Meeting the Challenges: Proceedings of the ATN
Assessment Conference 2011 (pp. 117–123). Curtin University.
Lindsay, A. W. (1982). Institutional performance in higher education: The efficiency dimension.
Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002175
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2000). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. Prentice-
Hall, Harlow: European ed. Financial Times.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing,
41(1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112
Matthews, L. M., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating
unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS. European Business Review, 28(2), 208–224.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0095
Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., Jr, & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and
positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions.
Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200104
Ng, D., Nguyen, D. T., Wong, B. K. S. & Choy, W. K. W. (2015) A review of Singapore princi-
pals’ leadership qualities, styles, and roles. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4),
512–533. https://doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0085
Nguyen, G., Gambashidze, N., Ilyas, S. A., & Pascu, D. (2015). Validation of the safety atti-
tudes questionnaire (short form 2006) in Italian in hospitals in the northeast of Italy. BMC
Health Services Research, 15(1), 1–8.
Nayak, S., Kumar, V. S. G., Mendon, S., Birau, R., Spulbar, C., Srikanth, M., & Doaga, I. D.
(2021). The effects of government expenditure on sustainable economic growth in India:
Assessment of the circular economy. Industria Textila, 72(01), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.
35530/IT.072.01.1791
Naylor, M. E., Gordon, B. S., & James, J. D. (2012). A societal perspective of sport: Scale devel-
opment in two settings. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 22(2), 101–116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12297119.2012.655140
Nazarko, J., & Saparauskas, J. (2014). Application of DEA method in efficiency evaluation of
public higher education institutions. Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
20(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.837116
Puspitaningtyas, Z., & Kurniawan, A. W. (2013). Leadership in higher education: Academic
leader or manager? BuletinStudiEkonomi, 18(1), 44270.
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 21
Rigdon, E. E., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2011). Assessing heterogeneity in
customer satisfaction studies: Across industry similarities and within industry differences.
Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing, 22, 169–194.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. A. (2010). Response-based segmentation using finite
mixture partial least squares. In Robert Stahlbock, Sven F. Crone, & Stefan Lessmann (eds.),
Data mining (pp. 19–49). Springer.
Sarstedt, M., Becker, J. M., Ringle, C. M., & Schwaiger, M. (2011). Uncovering and treating
unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Which model selection criterion provides an
appropriate number of segments? Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(1), 34–62. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03396886
Scheerens, J., Bosker, R. J., & Creemers, B. P. (2001). Time for self-criticism: On the viability
of school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1),
131–157. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.12.1.131.3464
Schloderer, M. P., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2014). The relevance of reputation in the
nonprofit sector: The moderating effect of socio-demographic characteristics. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.
1002/nvsm.1491
Shen, X., & Tian, X. (2012). Academic culture and campus culture of universities. Higher
Education Studies, 2(2), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v2n2p61
Siddique, A., Aslam, H. D., Khan, M., & Fatima, U. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on
faculty’s motivation and organizational effectiveness in higher education system.
International Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 184–191.
Sihotang, J. (2020). Analysis of service satisfaction level using rough set algorithm. Infokum,
8(2), 55–56.
Slack, N. (1994). The importance-performance matrix as a determinant of improvement prior-
ity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(5), 59–75. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01443579410056803
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111–133.
Sun, H., Wang, X., & Sharma, S. (2014). A study on effective principal leadership factors in
China. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJEM-11-2013-0173
Ullal, M. S., Spulbar, C., Hawaldar, I. T., Popescu, V., & Birau, R. (2021). The impact of online
reviews on e-commerce sales in India: A case study. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istrazivanja. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1865179
V€olckner, F., Sattler, H., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Ringle, C. M. (2010). The role of parent brand
quality for service brand extension success. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 379–396.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510370054
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and know-
ledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 35–57. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25148667
West, M., Jackson, D., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2013). Learning through leadership, leader-
ship through learning: Leadership for sustained school improvement. In Leadership for
change and school reform (pp. 46–65). Routledge.
Wixom, B. H., & Watson, H. J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250957