The impact of university students’ commitment on in- and extra-role performance

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractResearch has shown that employee commitment is an important factor in performance.Research into student commitment in the university context is less common and only few studies explore the different components and foci of commitment. This study examines the meaning of students' commitment in the university context. Based on a survey of 530 students, our results confirmed that, similar to the work context, different components and foci of commitment exist. Commitment to the university is primarily positively related to extra-role performance. Commitment to the study subject is positively related to both in-role and extra-role performance. Affective commitment to the university shows the strongest relationship with extra role-performance. However there is a potential conflict between the two types of performance. The relationship between affective commitment to the university and extra-role performance decreases for students with a high intention to study efficiently as an indicator of in-role performance. We conclude that universities should strive to improve their students' commitment, especially affective commitment to encourage a balance of both in-role and extra-role performance.

Justice, Deontology and Moral Meaningfulness as Factors to Improve Student Performance and Academic Achievement

“…Regarding the student performance aspect, it refers to the behaviours and the efficiency with which a student achieves the objectives established in a curriculum map (Osibanjo et al, 2015). In this research, student performance is divided into student citizenship behaviours and student in-role performance (Felfe et al, 2014;Meriac, 2012). Student citizenship behaviours refer to the set of attitudes, behaviours, and interpersonal skills that a student voluntarily practices to generate better conditions and study environment in the classroom (Abbas et al, 2019;Organ, 1997).…”

“…Student citizenship behaviours refer to the set of attitudes, behaviours, and interpersonal skills that a student voluntarily practices to generate better conditions and study environment in the classroom (Abbas et al, 2019;Organ, 1997). On the other hand, student in-role performance refers to the efficiency with which a student fulfils a subject's curricular map (Abbas et al, 2019;Felfe et al, 2014). Citizenship behaviours are considered to contribute to achieving academic goals and increasing effectiveness in group learning (Leung, 2008), and at the same time having a positive impact on in-role performance (Soto-Pérez et al, 2020).…”

“…Since student citizenship behaviours also have a positive impact on the community (Morphew & Hartley, 2006), educational institutions have emphasised such behaviours to enhance it, as they can improve the public image of the institution (Meriac, 2012), as well as training professionals who are responsible to society (Shao et al, 2019). In terms of student in-role performance, it has been related to studying quickly, efficiently, academic success and completion rates (Felfe et al, 2014).…”

Self-other agreement on transformational leadership and subordinates’ assessment of supervisor’s performance

“…Similarly, three-item SEP scales have been used and validated by several research works (e.g. Felfe et al, 2014). Sample item from SEP scale is: "My boss frequently performs tasks not required in his/her work role."…”

The challenges of the faculty members’ commitment: The role of university brand

“…However, the notion of knowledge‐workers’ commitment in Higher Education and universities has surprisingly received only limited research attention (Dries, ; Huber, ). This is while the majority of research on notions of commitment in Higher Education has put students—but not academics—at the locus of attention (Einolander, Vanharanta, Chang, & Kantola, ; Felfe, Schyns, & Tymon, ; Hagenauer, Gläser‐Zikuda, & Moschner, ).…”