Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rero20

Exploring the antecedents of institutional

effectiveness: a case study of higher education
universities in India

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

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1959367

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 17 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rero20
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1959367

Exploring the antecedents of institutional effectiveness:

a case study of higher education universities in India
Vidya Bai Gokarnaa , Suhan Mendonb , Iqbal Thonse Hawaldarc , Cristi
Spulbard , Ramona Biraue , Smitha Nayakb and Maanya Manohara
a
Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India;
b
Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India;
c
Department of Accounting & Finance, College of Business Administration, Kingdom University, Riffa,
Bahrain; dFaculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania;
e
Faculty of Education Science, Law and Public, Administration, C-tin Brancusi University of Targu Jiu,
Targu Jiu, Romania

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The significance of Institutional Effectiveness is pivotal to the Received 21 March 2021
functioning of an academic institution. The mushrooming of pri- Accepted 19 July 2021
vate institutions in the Indian higher education space necessitates
KEYWORDS
exploring its antecedents to ensure quality higher education is
Academic leadership;
imparted by the institution. The purpose of this research institutional effectiveness;
endeavor is to explore the impact of Academic Leadership on campus culture; decision
Institutional Effectiveness with a mediating role of Campus making; academic
Culture and Faculty Involvement in Decision Making. The study institution
employed a cross-sectional research design and implemented a
purposive sampling technique to collet primary data from 80 per- SUBJECT
manent faculties and 249 students of private engineering colleges CLASSIFICATION CODES
located in the Karnataka state of India. Data was collected I21; I23; M21; H52; N30
through a structured questionnaire and analyzed using Partial
Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling. Hypothesis shows aca-
demic leadership and campus culture has high influence on insti-
tutional effectiveness. Faculty in decision making and campus
culture partially mediates between academic leadership and insti-
tutional effectiveness. The results of FIMIX-PLS and PLS-MGA ana-
lysis shows the similarity in the results of total effect and path
relationships. This paper provides theoretical foundations and
empirical findings on conceptualizing the antecedents of institu-
tional effectiveness. The outcomes of this research serve as signifi-
cant input to policy makers and higher education institutions to
facilitate enhancement of institutional effectiveness.

1. Introduction
Research across the world has shown growing concern onthe significance of academic
leadership on institutional effectiveness (Banker & Bhal, 2020). The importance of

CONTACT Ramona Birau [email protected]

ß 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
2 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.

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

the sustainable progress of an emerging country, such as India. Moreover, Hawaldar

et al. (2019) revealed the significant implications of economic sustainability for the
development of India based on economic production and long-term economic
growth, but without any negative influence on environmental, social, or cul-
tural aspects.

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).

2.1. Review of literature

2.1.1. Academic leadership
Academic leadership is just not having better supervisory expertise considering rou-
tine work and time, such as: decision making, time management, self-management,
commitment, and influence. However, it would also had increased attentiveness,

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.

2.1.2. Faculty involvement in decision making

Research has shown that if faculty staff is considered in decision making and given
autonomy, the level of job satisfaction would also be enhanced and they would put
more effort in achieving their objectives (Siddique et al., 2011). Therefore, the role of
academic leadership is to counteract and wipe out dis-satisfiers, regardless of whether
internal or external, which will negatively impact the faculty member’s self-govern-
ance. Inspired faculty staffs can gain global affirmation, an extraordinary picture far
and wide, and with this goodwill or brand, educational institutions can draw the
smartest students from everywhere throughout the globe and can generate a lot of
financial support for research and make a solid impacting culture in their field.

2.1.3. Campus culture

Campus culture comprises of three perspectives, in particular, (i). Material, (ii)
Institutional, and (iii). Spiritual culture (Shen & Tian, 2012). Campus material culture
regularly escalates against the environment and facility. Institutional culture refers to
administer direction framework, administration, and task control and confinement
component. Spiritual culture alludes to how campus individuals participate in social
exercises and what results are accomplished, consequently mirroring the belief system,
values, aesthetic consciousness, and so forth. It incorporates written mental and
behaviour culture. The outer image of campus culture is material culture.
Institutional culture ensures the methodical advancement of campus culture. The
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 5

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.

2.1.4. Institutional effectiveness

Institutional effectiveness has been described as effectiveness and efficiency. But the
interest in effectiveness and efficiency is not often welcomed in the educational
field. Some academicians demand that the educational goals are too mysterious,
value-based, and intangible for achieving this major objective and therefore it is dif-
ficult to measure the effectiveness (Bagonza et al., 2019). The challenges faced by
educational institutions are presumably more numerous in the case of current edu-
cational environment. The credit-based schedule system of education is more
focused on making money, public funding cuts, answerability, students treated as
customers, quality assurance, and production support management (Laing & Laing,
2011; Puspitaningtyas & Kurniawan, 2013). Departmental heads who know from
their self-experience, usually feel that academic leadership is demanding and com-
plex, with considerable pressure for higher revenue (Brown & Moshavi, 2002).
Research assured that for educational update and success, the post of academic
leaders was important to succeed (Cheng, 1994). Many studies have been done on
the school level. A study entitled on the effective institutional improvement
announced that academic leadership could or fairly affect students’ learning, inter-
mediate results, and institutional improvement (Creemers & Hoeben, 1998;
Scheerens et al., 2001).
In the backdrop of an exhaustive review of literature, the following hypotheses
have been proposed:
H1: Academic leadershipis positively associated with faculty involvement in
decision making.
H2: Academic leadershipis positively associated with campus culture.
H3: Academic leadership is positively associated with institutional effectiveness.
H4: Campus culture is positively associated with institutional effectiveness.
H5: Faculty involvement in decision makingis positively associated with institutional
effectiveness.
H6: Campus culture mediates between academic leadership and institutional
effectiveness.
H7: Faculty involvement in decision making mediates between academic leadership and
institutional effectiveness.
6 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.

3. Empirical setting and procedure of testing

This research work is highly focused on institutional effectiveness in an educational
field setting to empirically validate the hypothesis formulated. This is primarily due
to three reasons: First, academic leadership has a major impact on institutional effect-
iveness because people differ in their academic leadership style which has its rele-
vance and high impact on institutional effectiveness. Second, campus culture involves
the values and beliefs of students, faculties, and other members significantly influence
the institutional effectiveness. Third, faculty involvement in decision making enables
the faculty team to provide a higher degree of autonomy, job satisfaction, and motiv-
ation in order to achieve their objectives, which has an impact on institutional effect-
iveness. Yet, there is very limited research work on these parameters.

3.1. Sample and data description

Primary data is collected through the structured questionnaire which has been circu-
lated among 80 faculties and 249 students of private engineering colleges located
inthe Karnataka state of India. The instrument consists of a non-comparative-detailed
rating scale utilizing a 5 point Rensis Likert scale, with 5 – Strongly agree and 1 –
Strongly disagree, depending on the type of question (Malhotra & Birks, 2000). The
cross-sectional research design is applied in the study. Students who are in their third
and fourth year of engineering and thefaculty memberswho are full time and perman-
ent in their rolls are surveyed. The second-generation software namely, SmartPLS-3.0
is used for data analysis. The total sample size is 329. Among the samples, 188 were
males and 141 females. About age, 44 percent of the sample is less than 20 years old,
33 percent fall in the bracket of 20 to 30 years age, 16 percent under the age group of
above 30 and below 40, only 3 percent of sample range between 40 to 50 and 2 per-
cent are above 50 years of age.

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).

3.3. Testing methods and procedure

PLS-SEM is considered as an appropriate tool for this research work (Hair et al.,
2016; Hair et al., 2017), by using the software SmartPLS 3.0 (Henseler et al., 2015).
Among the different weighting schemes that the SmartPLS provides for algorithm set-
tings, we have chosen the structural model for a weighing method for conducting the
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 7

Table 1. Measurement model evaluation.

Outer Composite Cronbach’s Outer
Constructs Indicators loading reliability AVE alpha weight VIF
Academic leadership AL1 0.792 0.913 0.679 0.889 0.222 1.982
AL2 0.772 0.203 2.006
AL3 0.828 0.268 2.453
AL4 0.870 0.261 3.019
AL5 0.853 0.257 2.473
Faculty involvement FI1 0.892 0.883 0.715 0.821 0.456 1.929
in decision making FI2 0.837 0.378 1.715
FI3 0.806 0.344 1.619
Campus culture CC1 0.939 0.926 0.806 0.897 0.375 3.697
CC2 0.840 0.317 2.087
CC3 0.911 0.418 2.808
Institutional IP1 0.719 0.931 0.694 0.919 0.185 2.404
effectiveness IP2 0.875 0.218 3.006
IP3 0.745 0.157 1.944
IP4 0.849 0.202 2.941
IP5 0.852 0.209 2.738
IP6 0.878 0.225 3.273
Note: p<.01, p<.05 and p<.10.
Source: Author’s own contribution.

data analysis. Raw data transformation is chosen to facilitate the incorporation of

standardized data for indicators (Hair et al., 2017). To facilitate algorithm conver-
gence, the researchers has chosen the stop criterion of 1.10
5, which is also the
threshold value for the purpose. The maximum number of iterations chosen is 300.
There are varying rules of thumb that explain whether R2 values are high or not
(Hair et al., 2017). There is no distributional assumption. Therefore, the researchers
has conducted a non-parametric test. Accordingly, the non-parametric bootstrapping
procedure is required. Therefore, this research work has adopted the following boot-
strapping routine:

 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.

Composite reliability also is known as internal consistency reliability is considered

to be more adequate than Cronbach alpha as the measure of composite reliability
doesn’t tend to increase the value of reliability along with the addition of every new
item. The threshold value of internal consistency reliability should be equal to or
greater than 0.8 (Daskalakis & Mantas, 2008) which has been established in the pre-
sent work.
For a reflective model, the threshold value of path loadings should be above 0.7
(Henseler et al., 2012). The threshold value of outer loadings of all indicators is above
0.7 (Table 1). This indicates that the indicators of all constructs have acceptable levels
of outer loading. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is a strongly recommended
test (Naylor et al., 2012) to measure convergent validity. Convergent validity is
8 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.

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

Table 2. Hypothesis testing and f2 and q2 effects.

Bias corrected
Path 95% confidence
Relationships coefficient t – value interval f2 q2
Academic leadership-Faculty 0.743 26.475 (0.682, 0.791) Not Defined Not Defined
involvement in decision making
Academic leadership-Campus culture 0.744 30.842 (0.692, 0.786) Not Defined Not Defined
Academic leadership-Institutional effectiveness 0.358 10.360 (0.286, 0.422) 0.341 0.438
Campus culture-Institutional effectiveness 0.626 16.743 (0.553, 0.701) 0.913 0.189
Faculty involvement in decision 0.006 0.129 (
0.080, 0.090) 0.000 0.000
making-Institutional effectiveness
Note: p<.01, p<.05 and, p<.10.
Source: Author’s own contribution.

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.

Figure 2. Structural model of Institutional Effectiveness. Source: Author’s own contribution.

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.

4.2. Evaluation of mediator analysis

There are three mediator effects in this research work which have a definite proced-
ure to analyze the effect of mediating variables namely campus culture and faculty
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 11

Table 3. Effect of mediation construct.

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect VAF Mediation
Figure 3 0.361 0.468 0.829 56.4% Partial
Figure 4 0.590 0.240 0.830 28.9% Partial
Figure 5 0.358 0.470 0.828 57.5% Partial
Note: p<.01, p<.05 and p<.10 (two-sided test).
Source: Author’s own contribution.

involvement in decision making between academic leadership and institutional efec-

tiveness (Klarner et al., 2013). In the case of the first mediator effect, campus culture
mediates between academic leadership and institutional effectiveness. Academic lead-
ership’s indirect effect via campus culture on institutional effectiveness (0.468) is sig-
nificant and also its direct effect on institutional effectiveness (0.361) is also
significant. With the VAF values, 56.4% campus culture partially mediates between
academic leadership and institutional effectiveness relationship.
In the second mediator effect, faculty involvement in decision making mediates
between academic leadership and institutional effectiveness. Academic leadership’s
indirect effect via faculty involvement in decision making on institutional effective-
ness (0.240) is significant (Table 3). The direct effect on institutional effectiveness
(0.590) is also significant. With the VIF value, 28.9% of the faculty involvement in
decision making partially mediates between academic leadership and institutional
effectivenessrelationship. In both mediator effects, the VAF value is above 20% and
below 80% (Hair et al., 2017).
Finally, in the third combined mediator effect jointly considers both constructs
(i.e., faculty involvement in decision making and campus culture) in the model
(Figure 3) suggests that academic leadership’s direct effect on institutional effective-
ness (0.358) remains significant. Furthermore, the indirect effect via faculty involve-
ment in decision making and campus culture (0.470) is significant witha VAF of
57.5%. Joint consideration of faculty involvement in decision making and campus cul-
ture partially mediates the relationship between academic leadership and institutional
effectiveness.

4.3. Importance – performance matrix analysis

The important performance matrix analysis (IPMA) gives us an idea regarding the
relative importance and performance of exogenous constructs in their relationship
with the endogenous construct. The total effects of exogenous constructs represent
their importance, while their index values represent their performance. Importance
reveals the complete overall effect on the final endogenous variable in the path dia-
gram. The performance reveals the capacity of the latent variable scores. More pre-
cisely, the IPMA contrasts the total effects, representing the predecessor constructs’
importance in shaping a certain target construct, with their average latent variable
scores indicating their performance (Fornell et al., 1996; Martilla & James, 1977;
Slack, 1994).
On the X-axis, ‘Importance’ is measured which reveals the total effect. If the total
effect of any construct is higher than other constructs then that construct is more sig-
nificant. On the Y-axis, ‘Performance’ is measured and if a construct has a higher
12 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.

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.

Figure 6. Importance performance matrix analysis. Source: Author’s own contribution.

14 V. BAI GOKARNA ET AL.

Table 4. Importance performance matrix analysis of Institutional Effectiveness.

Institutional effectiveness
Importance Performance
Latent constructs (Total effects) (Index values)
Academic leadership 0.828 32.484
Campus culture 0.626 27.552
Faculty involvement in decision making 0.006 26.624
Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 5. FIMIX-PLS solutions for segmentation.

Relative segment size Number of pre-specified segments
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Quality criteria S¼2 S¼3 S¼4 S¼5
S¼2 57% 43% AIC 1,498.647 1,391.001 1,299.836 1,249.815
S¼3 62% 28% 10% AIC3 1,515.647 1,417.001 1,334.836 1,293.815
S¼4 57% 31% 8% 4% AIC4 1,532.647 1,443.001 1,369.836 1,337.815
S¼5 59% 23% 9% 5% 4% BIC 1,563.180 1,489.698 1,432.698 1,416.842
CAIC 1,580.180 1,515.698 1,467.698 1,460.842
HQ 1,524.391 1,430.374 1,352.839 1,316.447
MDL5 1,957.312 2,092.488 2,244.147 2,436.948
LnL
732.323
669.500
614.918
580.908
EN 0.594 0.758 0.811 0.846
NFI 0.637 0.744 0.779 0.798
NEC 133.620 79.610 62.063 50.749
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.

4.4. FIMIX-PLS and multi-group analysis

To overcome invalid interpretation there need the absence of heterogeneity (Becker
et al., 2013; Jedidi et al., 1997). At the same time because of Hypothesis 5, we verify
the unobserved heterogeneity. There are various methods of uncovering unobserved
heterogeneity with the help of PLS-SEM. FIMIX-PLS (Hahn et al., 2002; Hair et al.,
2016; Matthews et al., 2016) is the most appropriate approach (Hair et al., 2017;
Sarstedt et al., 2011) (Tables 5 and 6).
There are methods of uncovering unobserved heterogeneity with PLS-SEM.
FIMIX-PLS (Hahn et al., 2002; Hair et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2016; Sarstedt et al.,
2011). There is a need to avoid local optimum solutions (Sarstedt et al., 2011). While
BIC, AIC, AIC3, and CAIC have a fair over-segmentation tendency (Sarstedt et al.,
2011) there is a need for a two-segment solution. The normed entropy (eN) criterion,
which evidentially shows the finestresult with 2 segments (0.594).
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 15

Table 6. Uncovering unobserved heterogeneity through FIMIX-PLS.

t-value t-value
Relations 1st segment 2nd segment jD12j Students[MGA] Faculty[MGA]
Relative segment size 0.57 0.43
Path coefficient AL-CC 0.447 0.923 0.476 28.594 17.656
AL-FI 0.453 0.945 0.492 27.660 8.026
AL-IP 0.448
0.026 0.422 10.278 4.164
CC-IP 0.496 0.890 0.394 16.660 12.229
FI-IP
0.019 0.138 0.119 0.447 0.086
2
R CC 0.200 0.853
FI 0.205 0.894
IP 0.626 0.988
Total effects AL-CC 0.447 0.923 0.476 28.594 17.656
AL-FI 0.453 0.945 0.492 27.660 8.026
AL-IP 0.661 0.927 0.431 53.475 21.297
CC-IP 0.496 0.890 0.394 16.660 12.229
FI-IP
0.019 0.138 0.119 0.447 0.086
Note: p<.01, p<.05, p<.10.
Source: Author’s own contribution.

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.

Table 7. Multi-group analysis.

Path Students Faculty jDj
N 0.566 0.434
Path relation AL-CC 0.786 0.703 0.83
AL-FI 0.786 0.625 0.161
AL-IP 0.395 0.211 0.184
CC-IP 0.624 0.757 0.133
FI-IP
0.023
0.006 0.029
2
R CC 0.618 0.495 0.123
FI 0.618 0.391 0.227
IP 0.895 0.835 0.060
AVE/CR AL 0.934/0.739 0.840/0.522
CC 0.946/0.854 0.845/0.660
FI 0.899/0.747 0.818/0.604
IP 0.935/0.706 0.932/0.698
Total effects AL-CC 0.786 0.703 0.083
AL-FI 0.786 0.625 0.161
AL-IP 0.867 0.740 0.127
CC-IP 0.624 0.757 0.133
FI-IP
0.023
0.006 0.017
Note: p<.01, p<.05 and p<.10.
Source: Author’s own contribution.

Academic leadership determines institutional effectiveness is stronger in the student’s

segment (0.395) compared to the faculty segment (0.211) at 5 percent significant level.
Conversely, Academic leadership on campus culture, faculty involvement in decision
making on institutional effectiveness, and campus culture on institutional effective-
ness play no significant role in both segments.
The R2 values for faculty involvement in decision makingare considerably higher
(0.618) compared to the faculty segment (0.391) at 5 percent level of significance.
However, on construct institutional effectiveness R2 values is relatively higher in the
student segment (0.895) when compared with the faculty segment (0.835) at one per-
cent significance. But for campus culture, the R2 values are not significant in
both segments.
The total effects justify the path relationship results. In the student’s segment, aca-
demic leadership helps highly to institutional effectiveness, constituting the greatest
(0.867) influence when compared with the faculty segment (0.740) at 10 percent sig-
nificance. Similarly, in the student’s segment, academic leadership making contrib-
utes, higher to faculty involvement in the decision (0.786) compared to the faculty
segment (0.625) at 5 percent significance. In contrast, the relationship between aca-
demic leadership on institutional effectiveness, campus culture on institutional effect-
iveness, and faculty involvement in decision making on institutional effectiveness
plays no significant role in both segments.

5. Conclusions and discussion

This research paper has significant managerial implications. It contributes to our
understanding of the empirical validity of the assumptions of the impact of academic
leadership, faculty involvement in decision making, and campus culture on institu-
tional effectiveness. The impact of academic leadership on institutional effectiveness
is neither high like campus culture nor low like faculty involvement in decision
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 17

making. So there is a need to pay more attention towards the construct academic
leadership and its parameters like the following:

a. Academic leaders should depute and sponsor, faculty for National/International

Seminars/Conferences/faculty development programs;
b. the proper vision and goals of an academic leader can improve the institutional
effectiveness and it also shows that the professional developments of faculties
should be prioritized when the academic leader needs to facilitate the institu-
tional effectiveness;
c. Academic leaders must analyze and use data to establish specific goals and strat-
egies aimed at improving institution achievement and growth.

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.

detailed comparative study, whether the impact of academic leadership, faculty

involvement in decision making and campus culture on institutional effectiveness
relationships between premium institutes and University system differ in strength.

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
Istra
zivanja. 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