˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆx 6. there is no significant impact of employee participation on private...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
���� ����� ��� �� ����� ����������� �������� ������� ���� ������ ������� ���� ���
"���!� "# �$�%� ������� ��� ��&�'� ����� "
Relationship of Strategic Human Resource Management
Practices and Performance of Employees and their Impact on
Organization Performance "Applied Study on Private Universities in Jordan"
���(�)
"*�&� ��+� ���,
-���)
"��� ���. � �/��
� ���'�� 01��/��� ����� 23� ������������ ���� ��� 4 $.
"#5$%� 4���!� ����)
4���!� ����) 6�� 4���!� ���/
�� �����'� !� 7�
�� �/20126
![Page 2: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
�
![Page 3: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
�
![Page 4: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
�
���&� �/�
���� ��� � ��� � ��� � �� ����� �� ����� �� ��� ������� �� � ����
������� ����� � ����!� ��" ���� #������� $�%� &����' ��� ���� ���' (���� .
*� �� ... +���� , �- � ,. *����� /�0 �1 �� � ���2���� ������� � ���-�3� �� �
��$-�� ��. (��4���(5�6� ����� 7�8�4�$ �� +� ���1 ��� *����� ��� 9�3�� +��3� ����
*��1 & �"� *���� *����� .����� /�8� �84 �%.� #*����� &��:. +2 ���-� �;' �8� ��-.
��- $� � <���� ��� ��. ��2��� � �-3��� �� � � &�5 *31���� *�4 ��$-��� �=���
��%��$-�� �� ��� +�� ���% *����� >�$�� ����� +2 ������ �� +� ���1 ���.
�� �� ��- ��� 9��� 9��� ��� =�=�� ?���� � ��$-�� ��. ���$� (-� �-3 ��-
(��� �0 =�4�� &���� ��� .
���� & ��%� ��$��' ��. @�5� �-3��� ��$ � +$� *����� 7�A��� ���$ +2 ��8�
*���$�, &��� +2 <���� 7��2 �0��8A.� ��$-�� �-���� B% � *�C�8�� �8$���� �-' <��
+���� �� �� ���1 �����$0 � <�����.
��� !��' ?�3� *���4 +2 ������� *2�- �-3� � <���� 7�6� , �$%� +2� /���1
2 ������ ��-3� (�=4 8��.
+5��� ��6� ���=
![Page 5: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
/
�اءــــا�ه
...أه ي �� ي ا��ا�� إ��
���� .......وا� ّي ��ً� وا�
� وأو�دي .......زو�
� .......إ! � وأ!ا
ا��+* ه(ا )� إ�'�زوإ�� آ% �$ #�"
![Page 6: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
�
��� �.�� ��;��
< * �� �.+$�
D��6$ � *31���� *�4� � �1 �
�-3����$� � & �0� �0
7���$��� *�C�1 � (� �4� *�C�1 > (�-3' *�C�1 � ?��� *�C�1 E
*����� *F���� B%��� ( *�=��4�� *F���� B%��� �
4 !� 4$+� :������ 6��� ��'�� 1 )1–1 :(*����� 2 )1–2 :(�8$�C� � *� ��� *�-3� 4 )1–3 :(*� ��� 7��5�2 5 )1–4 :( *� ��� ����� 8 )1–5 :(*� ��� 9 �0 9 )1–6 :(*� ��� *��0 10 )1–7 :(*� ��� ���� 11 )1–8 :(*� ��� 7 ���� 12 )1–9 :(*� ���� *�C �4� 7�6���$� 12
"���� 4$+�: ��'���&��� ������� >���� 15
)2–1 :(*����� 16 )2–2 :(*��3�� �� ��� *��2��$� �=���� ����- 17 )2–3 :(*�A��� 7��4�$ �$�.� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��� (��-$� 22 )2–4 :(*��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. 7������ 26
![Page 7: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
=
< * �� �.+$�
)2–5 :(������� & � 40 )2–6 :(7��A��� & � 42 )2–7 :(*����� 7�� ��� 47 )2–8 :(=��� ��*����� 7�� ��� �� *����� *� ��� 59
@��� 4$+�: ������ ���A�� ) �&��'��������� ( 61
)3–1 :(*����� 62 )3–2 :(*� ��� T8�� 62 )3–3 :(�8$���� *� ��� U�$4� 62 )3–4 :(*� ��� *��� � �2' *�2 �F���� 7 ��F$�� 65 )3–5 :(��� ������ *� ��� 7 �� 7������� ��� (� 68 )3–6 :(*��%$��� *�C���� *4����� 70 )3–7 :(�8$��;� *� ��� � � ?�� 72
E��� 4$+� :���*�+� ���%� 4��.�� F;��� 74
)4–1 :(*����� 75 )4–2 :( *� ��� 7 ��F$� �� *� ��� *��� 7���4� +6��� (���$� 75 )4–3 :(� 7��5�2 ���$% *� �� 82
I��%� 4$+� :���$ �� F;���� 101
)5–1 :(*����� 102 )5–2 :(TC�$�� 102 )5–3 :(7�4�$�$�, 107 )5–4 :(7����$� 109
U4 ��� 111 @,� :*����� U4 ��� 112 @����; :*���4' U4 ��� 114
![Page 8: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
>
4 ���� ��;��
4$+� 6��/4 ��� < * �� �.+$� 56 أ�ز ا��را��ت )1–2(
)3–1( ������ M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, � 64
)3–2( I��� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, � 65
)3–3( ���� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, � 65
)3–4( "���� 4�O�� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, � 66
)3–5( ����� ���� ���#� E�, �"+�� � ,/��� �� �� "���) ��N�� M�. � 67
)3–6( ��%� �� �� "���) ��N�� M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, � 67
)3–7( 4���� "�%��� 7���1� ��� �����1� ���! 72
)4–1( '� ���-��.�1� >������ �(�N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1������ M�'&��1�
76
)4–2( '� ���-��.�1� >������ �(�N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1�� '�� M�����
77
)4–3( '� ���-��.�1� >������ �(�N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1,#� .� P� ��� 6���
78
)4–4( '� ���-��.�1� >������ � ������ ���� ���#) ������1 �(�N�� ��
������� �/����
79
)4–5( '� ���-��.�1� >������ �(�N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#� ������1������ ����
80
)4–6( '� ���-��.�1� >������ �(�N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1������� ����
81
)4–7( ������� �������� �� ��'���1� ���������� 83
)4–8( ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.�� ���� ������� ����������� ��� ) ت(� ���S� �����������
58
)4–9( ";�$.�� ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����)T ( M�'&��1� ���S�
��� ������ �����������
85
)4–10( ���� ��!� 4���� ��������� >�� ";�$.�� ���� )T ( ���S� 6�����*� ��� ������� �������
86
)4–11( ";�$.�� ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����)T ( M���(�� ���S� ��� �� '�� �����������
87
![Page 9: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
!
4$+� 6��/4 ��� < * �� �.+$� )4–12( ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.�� ���� )T ( ���S� �/���(�
������� ������� �������
88
)4–13( ������ ��&���� ����N��� �� )����������� ��������( 89
)4–14( ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.�� ���� )T ( ���S������������ �������� ������ ���� ���
90
)4–15( ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ";�$.�� ���� )T ( ���S� M�'&��1������� ������ ���� ���
91
)4–16(
����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$(.�� ���� )T ( ���S(� 6�(�� ��*� ��������� ���� ���
92
)4–17( ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����";�$.�� ���� ) T ( ���S� M���(��
�� '�� ������ ���� ���
93
)4–18( ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.�� ���� )T ( �/���� ���S�
������� ������ ���� ���
93
)4–19( ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.�� ���� )T( ���S� (# �$�%� ������� "# ������� ���! �(�� ���!� " ��(�����
���!� "# �$�%� .
95
)4–20( ";�$.�� ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����)T(
���S� ���������1� �������� ��� ���� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� �� ������� ���� 4�%'�� ��N��/ .
96
)4–21( ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.��)T(
������ M�'&��1� ���S� ���� ��� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� 4�% �� '�� ��N��/ ������� ���� .
96
)4–22( ";�$(.�� ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����)T ( 6(�� ���S(���*� ��� ���� ��� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� ������� ���� 4�% ��
� "#'�� ��N��/ ���!� "# �$�%� ������
98
)4–23( ";�$.�� ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����)T ( M����� ���S��� '�� ���� ������!� "# �$�%� ������� ������� ���� 4�% ��
'�� ��N��/ ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "#
99
)4–24( ���� ��!� 4���� ���� ";�$.�� ���� ����� >��)T ( �/���� ���S���+� �� ���� ������!� "# �$�%� ������� ������� ���� 4�% ��
'�� ��N��/
100
![Page 10: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
�
4�/�!� ��;��
4$+� 6��/4/�� < * �� �.+$� )2–1( ������ ���� ����� ��� �� ����) �� ����� 25
)2–2( �1� ����� �� '%M�'&� 30
)2–3( 6��&� ���!� ����O� 43
)2–4( ����.� ���!� ����O� 44
)4–1( ��� ����� ��� �� ������� ����������� �������� ���� "# ����������!� "# �$�%� �������
84
)4–2( ��� ����� ��� �� ������� ����������� �������� ��(����� ����
�$�%����!� "#
90
)4–3( ��� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# ������� ���� �($�%� ����������!� "#
94
)4–4( ���� ��� ����� ��� �� ������� ����������� �������� ��(����� ���!� "# �$�%� "(# �($�%� ������� "# ������� ���� 4�% ��
'�� ��N��/ ���!�
96
![Page 11: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
E
7.��� ��;��
7.��� 6�� < * �� �.+$�
1 ��;�����/.�� ����S 127
2 "# �$�%� ������� ��;�������A� �����!� �/���� 128
3 ������ ����)�����1�( 129
![Page 12: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
(
ا����ر#�ت ا#10ا /'/, ".-, "�8 أداء ا���;��ت وأداء ا�8��9/$ وأ07ه��1دارة ا��ارد ا��405,
– درا#, A/�B/, "�8 ا�'���9ت ا�@�?, )� ا<ردن –M�'� ����)
"*�&� 6��� ��+� ���,
� �/�� -���U
"��� ���.
5%�������� �N��
*� ��� 72�0��. � 9��$� *�4�$ �$�, 7������� �; ���� *��3��� �� ��� �� ���& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� .
?���$� 7��3 *���$� ���$� <���� �1 *� ��� 9 �0 )38 ( 7������� U��4� ���2 �� *��-�� *� ��� *��� �� *���' )88 (���6� . 7������ (���$� U�4 W�4 E�� &�5 +2�
$% � *�=�� �%$��� 7��5�6� ���� *����$4, ����� *�C���)spss( �� ��� �%$� $� �����' �C��� �8��� *� ��� 9�0 ?���$� *� �������� 9 ����, � *������ 7�!��$��
� ���$% � ����� (���$)t(. ����& �4. ��� ��� ��. *� ��� 7���$ #�8$��5�2� *� ��� 7������ (���$� *����
�0=�� � TC�$�� : 1. �3�� �� ��� �� �, *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� & � ���� *�
*�,� W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� )0.05 ≤ 0.( 2. ���!$� � ����$� � ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ������� *-��3��
& � ��� W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0.( 3. 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ��� 7�����4� +�2 ��������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0.( 4. & � ���� *��3�� �� ��� �� �, *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4��
��%� 7����4� ���' +2 *W�$�� ��� *�,�) 0.05 ≤ 0.(
5. ���!$� � ����$� � 7�5���$� A�� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� *�,� W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
![Page 13: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
6. �4�� , �3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *-�& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0.(
7. ��4� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �' *�C���. *�,� �� �; & � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *�,� W�$�� ���) 0.05 ≤ 0.(
8. � & � ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �, *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% �� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4�
*�,� W�$�� ��� !��� ��F$�-)0.05 ≤ 0.( 9. 4�� �� �; � ����$� � ��!�$�� *�C���. *�,� ������� *-��3�� ���!$� � ����$� �
& � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� !���� ���F$�- ������� & � (% �� ���� *�,� W�$��)0.05 ≤ 0.(
10. , 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� & � ��� *��%� 7����4� ���' +2 !��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% �� W�$��� ����
*�,�)0.05 ≤ 0.(
"�� �� ������ �$ � �� :
1. *��3�� �� ��� ���� U� ����$� � ��!�$�, *����� +2 ���� �� E �3. ����5. 2. � 7�5���$� A� (���$ ��� (��� *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� 7��1�$ U� &$� ��
���' +2. 3. ���%$ +�2 *-��3��� *��2 ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� &�!�. ����5
7 � ��� .
![Page 14: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
�
Abstract
Relationship of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices and
performance of Employees and their Impact on Organization
Performance
"Applied Study on Private/universities in Jordan"
Prepared by:
Ziad M. S. AL Qadi
Supervisor:
Dr. Hamed AL-Shaibe
This study aimed to investigate the impact of strategic Human Resource
Management Practices on private universities performance in Jordan.
In order to achieve the study objectives, the researcher designed a questionnaire
consisting of (38) paragraphs to gather the primary data from study sample which
consisted from (88) individuals. The statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) Was
used to analyze and examine the hypotheses. The researcher used many statistical
methods to achieve study objectives, such as mean, standard deviation, T test, SME,
Direct effect.
The Main results of the study are:
1. There is a significant impact of SHRMT Practices on employee performance at
level (0.05).
2. There is a significant impact of recruitment and selection, Training and
development, and employee participation on employee performance at level
(0.05).
3. The is no significant impact of compensations on employee performance at level
(0.05).
4. There is a significant impact of SHRM practices on private universities
performance in Jordan at level (0.05).
5. There is a significant impact of recruitment and selection, companions, and
training and development on private universities performance at level (0.05).
![Page 15: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
X
6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university
performance at level (0.05).
7. There is a significant impact of employee performance private universities
performance in Jordan at level (0.05).
8. There is a significant impact of HRM practices on private universities
performance in Jordan Through employee as an intermediate variable at level
(0.05)
9. There is a significant impact of recruitment and selection, Training and
development, and employee participation in Jordan Through employee
performance as an intermediate variable at level (0.05).
10. There is no significant impact of compensative on private universities
performance in Jordan through employee performance as an intermediate
variable at level (0.05).
The main recommendations of the study are:
1. All managers of Departments and sections should participate with the manager
of HRM in recruitment and appointment (selection) in the Private Universities in
Jordan.
2. Compensation system should be adjusted according to the expectation of the
employees in private Universities in Jordan.
3. It is essential that employee of the participate in decision Making.
![Page 16: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
1
4 !� 4$+�
6��� ��'��������
)1–1 :(���&��
)1–2 :(�A��;�� ������ ��/��
)1–3 :(������ ���*�#
)1–4 :(������� V3 ��
)1–5 :(������ -����
)1–6 :(������ �����
)1–7 :(������ � �.
)1–8 :(������ ����.�
)1–9 :(������ ��;����� ��+�����
![Page 17: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
2
)1–1:(� ���&�:
���F$� �. *������ 7# *����$1, �4����-$� �* ���� >�$4$ +$� (����$ *�6�- +2 �;Y$
<��� +�2��$ +��� ?�� +2 ����- *4�� ��. 7���%� 7��� X��' +0 ���4� .
*�C��� *������� �Z ����� +�0 ��� ��;-� (1 *������ *�2���� 7��- #+5��� +2
��' �������2 #(���' E ��" +� ��� ��$� � ��$�, ��� . ��� �0�83$ +$� 7����$� ��
U���4 ���� @�!:��5 U��4�� �!�%�� � B�6� ==�� +����� ���$1,�2 #@ �4 *6�$%� +82
���� (4 �� X�� 7�����$� & �4. 7���Y�� �2 �8� *�� ��$�, ���[$ (4 �� (� ���2 *
@�5� )Kotter, 2012.(
*����� � 7 ��F$���� *������ *��1 *�4��% (� �� *4�$� +0 �0���� #*��4����-$�
� #*����$1, �*����3$� #� #*������ *����$4, � ����4� � ��$�� *����2 (����� #? ���'
+4����-$� ��-$�, ���$� � +2 7���%� � U��� ��� ��!� ��� �� +0 +�$� (� ��� 7� =
�� *��2��$� *C��� +$� �8� ��4$�$ � �4� 7��A��� . <��� �0 �. ��-� �1 *�4�� ����
*��0' �� *F��� ���$� 7���Y� �4 �$ +$� 7 ��F$� � #7����$�� @ �A� 7 ���� 71�� �0 +2
+���� . U��$� +2 ����- 7 ��!$ +���� �!�� +2 +���� ���$� �83 ��� #7����4� &�3�. +2
��� ����= � !� *�� ��0��:� ���� ��� ���$� � >�$6�� ���$��- ���$�� ����4 !��� ��8A� #
) #���%"� +������ 2003 :7.(
�� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� � +2 &���� (4 �� +���� ���$1 (A ����4� *�6�' +2 #
��. ��$�$ �8�\2(F$� *��$�� �� ��� (- � *����- ?���$*��2��$ �=��. �1� ��� � ���5 �
![Page 18: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
3
�Y�% +��C�� ����� �[� �2�� ��� �=��� *���2��$� ��0 7���A���� *��3��� �� ����
)Pfeffer, 1994: 6(.
� . �=�� ?�% �*��2��$ (% �� *��3�� �� ��� ��!$� ?�1��� ���$0, ' (5�2
+$� 7������� ���$ #(��' /�0 � *��3�� �� ��� �. +2 7��A��� $�]� � ��F$@ �8�@� ?���$� �����
��' &����� *����� +2 *�2���� �� �� +2 � ��- *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��� ���$ � �-�� ������
+2 +��A�$� & �' .)Arthur, 1994: 670-687; Becker & Gerhart, 1996: 39, 779-800;
Boselie & Dietz, 2003; Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Boselie & Paauwe, 2000.(
�. �� �. � *��3�� ���� � *����2� �&�6- ��$�. ��. ��$� ����� � #���4� � �2 ���4$��
[!%� *��� D�6%$ +��$���� (-�3�� � ?��$$ +$� *��3�� �� ����� (;� �5�� �� +6�A��� #
��F$� �� � ��� � (��.
D�$6�� ��� *��3��� �� ��� �� �. �;Y$ � ������ ���� � 7 ���8�� � 9 7 �����
)Schuler & Jackson, 1995( 9�1 ��� � # E����� ��6A���� )Guest, 1997: 263-276(#
� +��$������ �;Y$ �1 & � *��A��� )Den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe, 2004: 556-569(.
D�$6�� � �� �. *��3�� �� ��� U�*�4�$ �$�. *�A��� *�& ����� ��$ ��������7� �� �.
*��3�� �� ��� #*6�$%�� � ����$� (;� *�6�A�� B�6� ���$� � *��A��� (% � )Baron &
Kreps, 1999: 670-687( +0� (� ��� ��*�8�� ���6$ +2 ��� *1�� *��3��� �� ���
+��A�$� & �' �. �1� =6� *���� E�� (- � ��� +���� �� ���� *�����-' <���� ���*���
�� 93-� ��� *1�� ��4� *��3�� �� ��� 7������ *�A�����8C � �.
��- ���� ^�� #+����� ����$� (��$�� *���� +2 *-��3��� B�%� _�!��� ��- ���
+���� ���$� X�4� +2 ���;�$ ����= (% �� E��� ���' +2 *���$. +2 �$-��3� (�8�$� #
![Page 19: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
4
��� ���$� B�2 �� ��=� & ��� ��� ���� ����2 �� � �������' *��!�� =��$�� +� ���
*�=� 7������ � 7 & �4� ��2�$� +���� <��� � +���� ���$� _�!1 ���!$� *�C�� *C���
U2����$�����8$ ���' +2 +���� <��� � +���� ���$� �� =�� ) <��� � +���� ���$� �� =�
' ���3$ #+���� (�2003( 2 #\ *��%� 7����4� ��-$ � 7��$% *� ��� /�0 �]���0� *���
7�������� �; *2���� *���$�� <��� 9 �0 *��%� *�� �� *�4�$ �$��� �� �� �� ����
��� *��3�� & � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� .
)1–2:( �A��;�� ������ ��/��
� �� ��� 8�$� ���- (-3� *��3 ������ E���� #*��� *6�� �� �� A� ����$ +2
*��3��� �� ���� *�4�$ �$�� ����� ��-�� #7��A��� �4 �$ +$� *�� �� 7-3�� 1�6$$
*�A�'�� ������� �[3� W��� ���� 7 � ��� U��� (;�$� <�� #*���A�$� 7���$��� *2�- ���
�� *�A� 7�$ �� �� /�0 �4�$ ��-� +$� � #*�A���� ����� �� ���$ /�4$, �� *�A���� ���
+�2 �0��84� 8�$ +$� *��3�� �0�� �� (% �� =��$� ?���$� *�4�$ �$�� �82 �0 `����
*�A��� 7�!�3�� (��� �A�$) . #��0�� ���2006 :13.(
�$�� �8$����� <���$ ��. *4��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� �'� *!�$��� *�4�$
*����� & � 7���$�� ?���$ +2 *��0 �� �8� ��� ��$�� (-3� *��3�� �� ����� . U�� *����������
#@������ @����� 7����4� �� ���2���� E�� �\2 *���! ��� 9��$� 7����4� �� ��!$� 7�������
8� �;Y$ � �-�� ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� � /�0 �8C � ��� 7������� .
+��$� +��C�� ( Y�� (% �� `��$ � �-�� *� ��� *�-3� �\2 @����� �-� ��� @ ���$� :
![Page 20: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
5
W��� 4���*�# ����� ��� �� ����� ����������� �������� ) X�� '�� M�����
������� �/���� X������ M�'&��1� XP� ��� 6�� ( ������ ���� ��� �$�%� � �(�Y
"���Z���!� "#
*���$� *���6� *�C�' ��� ?;����:
1. *��3�� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� �; E��0 (0) #�����$� � ��!�$��,
������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� #D���$� A�� ( 7����4� +2 ������� & � ���
a���' +2 *��%�
2 . �; E��0 (0� 7�������*�4�$ �$�� �� �� *��3�� �� ��� ) �A�� #�����$� � ��!�$�,
������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� #D���$� (a���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � ���
3. & � ��� *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �' �; E��0 (0���' +2 *��%� 7����4� a
4. 7�������� �; E��0 (0 *��3�� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� ) #�����$� � ��!�$��,
������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� #D���$� A�� ( & � ��� +2 *��%� 7����4�
���' a!��� ��F$�- *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% ��
)1–3:( ������ ���*�#
*� ��� 7��5�2 &��� $@ ���$� � ��� 9 �0 ?���$� *6�$%�� �0������ *� ��� *�-3
� ��4��� *� ��� �0���$% $�� +$� :
� ��*�+�����;� � !�:
HO1: *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���
& � W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
![Page 21: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
6
*���6� 7��5�6� �8�� ?;�� *�$Z :
HO1–1 *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , � ��� ����$� � ��!�$�& � 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
HO2–1�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , 7�5���$� A�� * ���& � 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
HO3–1���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���& � 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
HO4–1������� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���& � 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
��*�+� ����;��������:
HO2: �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���� *��3��
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
?;���8�� � 7��5�6*���6� *�$Z :
HO1-2: ��� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,& � +�2 *��%� 7����4�
���' W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
HO2-2: ��� 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,& � +�2 *���%� 7����4�
���' W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
HO3–2���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���& � +2 *��%� 7����4�
W�$�� ��� ���' � *�,)0.05 ≤ 0(.
![Page 22: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
7
HO4-2: ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,
���& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
��*�+� ����;�������:
HO3: ,� �� �; �4�� , ���� ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �' *�C���. *�
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *�,� W�$�� ��� )0.05 ≤ 0.(
����� ����;�� ��*�+�: HO4: *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ����
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% ��
!��� ��F$�- ���' *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
*���6� 7��5�6� �8�� ?;�� *�$Z :
HO1-4: ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ������4� +�2 *��%� 7�
���' !��� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
HO2-4: 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7����4�
���' !��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% �� ����
*�,� W�$��)0.05 ≤ 0.(
HO3–4: ���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7����4�
���' !��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% �� ����
*�,� W�$��)0.05 ≤ 0.(
HO4-4: , ��6A��� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7�����4�
���' !��� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
![Page 23: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
8
)1–4:(� ������ V3 ��
��$��:<���� � ��. ��
5$� 7 ��F$� *;; *� ��� ����� �� �. �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7������� (�' (;��
���� *��� ��5$�� (�$��� ��F$�� *��3�� �� ��� )#����$� � ��!�$�, �#D���$� A�
�#���!$� � ����$� ��6A��� *-��3�� ( ���' +2 *����� ��: 7����4� & � ��5$� +��;� �
�$�2 <��;� �� � #U��$� ��F$�� (;���@�!��� @ ��F$� ��b�� ������� & �[� (;.
& � ��� *��3�� �� ���� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� 7 ���� �����' D�$6� <��
������� )H01 ( ��� *��3�� �� ���� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� �; ��4� �����' D�$6� ��-
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � )H02 (' D �$2 ��. *2�5. & � ��� ������� �; �����
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� )H03 ( �3��� ��: �; ��4� �����' D �$2 E�� ��. *2�5.
& � (% �� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � ��� *��3�� �� ���� *�4�$ �$�� 7��������
!��� ��F$�- ������� )H04.(
ا�������� � ا����� ا����!ا�
ا&�%�$ ا#"��ر��ت ��#$' دارة ا��+ارد ا�()1. $//9�BAب وا�#� ا
2. 9D;�E4 ا�
3. 04B ا� رF4 وا�
4. $/GH��5رآ, ا��
ا�%�"/�تأداء ا�$2�3 01 * ا5ردن
* 0/Jا�����
أداء ا�/�"7�8
HO2
HO3
HO4
HO1
![Page 24: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
9
)1–5:( ������ -����
�� D�F� 0 *� ��� /� �0 ���$% ��� *1�� 7������� *�4�$ �$�� �� �� �� ���
*��3�� & � � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� . 2 ����� \ 9 ��0' ?����$� ���$ *� ��� /�0 �
*���$� :
1. 7������� �; W�� ���� *�4�$ �$�� �� �� *��3�� �� ��� ) #�����$� � ��!�$��,
#D���$� A�� ������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� ( ���& � ������� +2 7����4�
���' +2 *��%� .
2. ���$% 7������� *�4�$ �$�� �� �� *��3�� �� ��� ) �A�� #�����$� � ��!�$��,
������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� #D���$� ( +�2 *���%� 7�����4� & � ���
���' .
3. *� �� �; ��� *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� .
4. �3���� ��: �;' ���$% � 7�������*�4�$ �$�� �� �� *��3�� �� ��� ) ��!�$�,
������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� � #D���$� A�� #����$� � ( ��� 7�����4� & �
+2 *��%� ���' (% �� �& ������� ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ���F$�-
!���.
5. *��3��� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7������� (��6$� >�4�� *��6-� 7���$��� ����
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2.
![Page 25: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
10
)1–6:( ������ �����
7������ 7����$ +$� 7�� ��� A��*�4�$ �$�. *��3�� �� ��� 7��$� � ���. ���3��
& � *�A��� �-�� # 7�� ��� D�� 7��$ �� ��� ��� C��� � �� ��A�� � W�$� *1�� ���
7������*�4�$ �$�. *��3�� �� ��� & �' � 7��4�%� (�% ��� � *!���� $� �� ����
� #*��3�� ������� & � ����$� �4� ��� 7�8A ��2 7��� ��� D�� ���3��� *�1� ����
7������ *�4�$ �$�. �� �. *��3�� �� ��� & � � 7��A��� )Edwards and Wright, 2001.(
*�� �� (;� W�% 7�� �� 7�8A ���2)Budhwar & Katou, 2010: 28, 25–39(
7������ �[� *�4�$ �$�. �� �. *��3�� �� ��� , ��. ��3��� ��Y$ ����!$ & � 7���A���
�8�-�� & �[� �;[$$ ������� TC�$� � �)7�4�%� ( ������� �;Y$� 9�!�� *��8� +2 ���� & �
7��A��� . +��$���� ��$1 ��2 #=�-�$� ���� ��� !��� 7������ ��� �� �. *��3�� �� ���
�+��A�$� & �' .
2 �����\(% �� �8A$ *� ��� /�0 *��0 �*���$� !���� :
1. = ��. ��� *1�� � � 7������ *�4�$ �$� �� �� *��3��� �� ���� +�2 �������� & � �
+2 *��%� 7����4� ���' .
2 . ���� *��3�� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7������� ��� *1�� ��� *� ��� 7=-� ��-
������� & � (% �� *�A��� & � #���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ���� +65�� ���
��� �=��� �&�5. *� '!��� ��F$�- ������� & �.
![Page 26: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
11
3 . �� ���� �� �� *�4�$ �$��� 7������� ��� �� *��%� 7����4�� *� ��� TC�$� *��0
����= �4� +$� �� �4� �� *�5 � ���� +!�� ��� �8��� & �' W�$�� U2� +2 *��3��
� �8� ��$0, �8���*����' .
)1–7:( ����� � �.�
+��$� ���� ��� *� ��� ?�!� ��-$�:
1. ����/�� � �.�: ��� ��$�$ *� ��� /�8� *���-�� ����� �. *2�- +2 *��%� 7����4�
*��3�8� *����' *-���� �0���� )20*���4 *��% .(
2. �. �����,� � �: ���$6� +�0 *�� ��� /�0 =�4�� 71�F$� +$� *���=� ���� ���
1/10/2011*��F�� 10/5/2012 .
3. ����� � �.� : $$ *� ��� /�8� *��3�� ����� �.�; 7���$���� ��� �������� +2 (
+��$� ���� ��� �8��=�$ $� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 �!��� � ����� *�� ��
) ���� #���4� ���5 ���� #*��3�� �� ��� ���� #*�� �� ��Y3�� X�C�� �C�� (����
#*���� 7�1�� ���� #7���%� � = ��� ���� #(�4�$� � #���!$� � ����$� ���� ����
<��� D �: ��� �%" �� �. +6�A� �=-�� #+���� ����� (.
4. ������ � �.�: , $ 7 ��F$� X��1 ��� ���$� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7������� �� ���
��� *��3�� � 7����4� & � ���' +2 *��%�� (- ��� )Singh, 2004 & Sang, 2005
& Katou, 2008 & Shahzad et al, 2008 & Ge, Ging Akhtar, 2008 & Khera,
2010 & Khan, 2010 ( +0�) #D����$� �A�� #���!$� � ����$� � #����$� � ��!�$�,
������� *-��3��(# �$�� 7������� 7 ��F$� X���� ?��$� ��� $ *��3��� �� ��� �� �� *�4�
���������� & � ���' +2 $���$�, ��� ) Sheikh, Qamar, Iqbal, 2009 & Shahzad
![Page 27: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
12
et al., 2008 & Khera, 2010( 7������� =�� 7��-� ) �����$� � #�����$� � ��!�$�,
D���$� A�� #���!$� �������� *-��3�� #(.
)1–8:( ������ ����.�
1. ��>��2� (��-� �� 7������� X-�$ +$� & �Z *�4�$ �$��� �� �� �� ����
7����4� & � ��� *��3�� ��;����� D�� (�1 �� .
2. U� (� �$� *����D�� ���� �� <���� *�8� (8�� (-3� .
3. <���� *�8� (�8�$� >���� *� ��� ��1 *��%� 7����4� D�� *�2 �� ��.
)1–9:( ������ ��;����� ��+�����
����� ���� -������� ��Y ��"
Non-Financial Organization Performance
���� *�� �� 7 ��3Y�� ��� ���� ��;���� �%$� & � *��A��� . 2 @���2�
��)2009Richard, et al, ( *�A��� 7�4�%�� *���$� ����� ��� X��� 7��A��� & � �\2
��$ & � ��� *� ��� /�0 ���� +2 *�A��� � � +���� ��: & �'���5$�� : & � � #���4� W�$��
?��� +2 T$��� # � ��!�$� ��� *�A��� ���1� #*����� *��%� ��!$� #*����� *��%� *����
#������� �5�� #��������� A�6$�, � #������� �*�A���� *�4�$ �$�� 9 �0' ?���$.
������)��� ��� �� ����) �����
Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM)
*�4�$ �$�. *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ���!$� ?��$$ �� *���4�7������� # T� ��� �
� 7������ �$(�8� ?���$ 9 �0' *�4�$ �$�� *�A���� .
![Page 28: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
13
�������� ����������� ���� �� ���� �����SHRM Practices
�(��� 7������ ��� 9��$� & �' *���� #7������� (52 � 7 � ��� +0
?��!$� *���$�� � #(���' +2 7���$��� U��4 ��� ��6A��� �� �. 8$ +$� 7 & �4� �
��� A�6�� ��� *84��� 7��4�$ �$�, � �=�� *��2��$� . ���E�� ��� *�;�' :����$�
���!$� �#A� D���$� #���$ #& �' 9�A�$� ���$%, �� #�A� !�!%$� .
*���$� 7������� ��� ���$�, $ ��2 #*� ��� /�0 D �:'�:
������ M�'&��1�)Recruitment and Selection(
8��43$� ���0Y�� � �2' �� �-�� ��� ��- ��4� ��!�$�, *���� �0�4 ?��$�
� 7���! ���$ ����&�6- �;-' � �2' ����$� ���$%, *�A���� *��2 *��$� *�A��� +2 (� .
) #���42010 :121.(
�� '�� M�����)Training and Development(
�� (-3� ���!$� � ����$� �$ +$� *�A��� ��84� ��. ��3� *�2���� ����$ +2 8
��6A��� E���� 7 ��8�� � *6�A���� *���$�� )Noe, et al., 2006(. �5� �0� ��A� &���
�A��� +2 *��3�� �� ��� W�� +2���* 8����-.� *����� 8$��8� ���!$� �����4 7 ���8�
W��� ����� *�A��� 9 �0 ?���$ 9�8� *���$��) .����+ #2006 :437–438(
P� ��� 6��)Compensation systems(
� *2�-� 9A��� D���$� ?��$$ +0� ��� � ��4' _ � ��8��� (���� +�$� ��C
��A� 9A��� ���0 ������� ������� ��5�$$ 7�5���$� /�0� #*���� *6�A� ���F$3
7���� � =2 ���� � 7���$��� � ���4' (-�3 �%[$ �1 +$� � ��3���� *����� 7���2���
![Page 29: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
14
��� =�� (-3 �%[$ +$� � ��3���� ��: *����� 7���2��� � #>���' � 7�����[$ (�;� *������
�4' *��2�� 7 =�4.�) .Dessler, 2007: 375.(
� �/����������) Employee Participation(
��8� +$� #7 � ��� ��%$ *���� +2 *-��3�� ��� ������� U43$ ������� *-��3� �.
��-$�� ���� �� �� �� +2 *�� �� *-��3�� � (��� *C�� ��� �3��� ��;[$ �&�6-� +6�A�� (
>�!� ������ U� (��$ ^$2� #(��� � +�2 *4�$�� � #��-$��� *1% ��-2 ���Y� *-�$3���
�$�, �*�;� � ����$�� *) Nyhan, 2000.(
������� ����)Employee Performance(
��]� $��� +������ ���4��� B$%� �0� #*�4�$�� ����� �� @ ���� ������� & �
+0� *�% �$� ���� ���� @���$ (����� *�4�$�� ����$ : (����� ���Y� ��� (��� ���86$ W����
W��� ����$% � /���� #�� �3���� 9�3�� ��� �� �� �� ���. (�$ +$� 7�����$�� ����$
���4� 7���$��� ������� U� ��2 �$ W��� (���� ����� ��� =�4�� � . ��. ��3�� ����� �
� (���� +�2 *�:�� <�� �� (����� *��6�� *���� � #�C�= � �$6�A� U� (���� E���
���� +2 (���� �0�2�� � �-�� +$� ����$� ?�!) . #����1992.(
![Page 30: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
15
"���� 4$+�
�&��� ������� >���� ��'��
)2–1 :(���&��
)2–2 :(��#���� �,��� ��$�/ ����� ��� ���
)2–3 :(������ ����������) ����� ��� �� ����) �� 4��/��
)2–4 :(����� ��� �� ����) ���������) �������
)2–5 :(������� ����
)2–6 :(������� ����
)2–7 :(�&��� �������
)2–8 :(�&��� ������� �� ���.� ������ ,��� ��
![Page 31: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
16
)2–1 :(���&��
*C��� �.��� *���� ���F$� +2 ��%" *����$1,� �� ��� +2 @���4 ���F$� �0 �8A�� #*
#7���%� � 7�4$��� ?�� *�2��� �� =$� #�C��=� � &��� ���!� ��F$ #*����� (;� �0 �A�
?���! ��� �8C � ����$� � ��$��� ��$�$ 7��A��� �\2 #*C��� /�0 (A +2 >�4�� *�2�����
#9���-$� D6% +2 *���� � *�4�$�� � ���4� ����$� 7������ � 7���%� � 7�4$��� ��-$� �
?��� .
(-3� ��� ��3�� ����� �.– *��3�� �� ��� –]��� *�A���� �� ���� �0 ���
��3�� ����� �� �. *���� 7��� � #��� 7��A�����;- W��%' �� ���� �' #*���0
�2��$� >�4�� *��Y�� (�1 �� ���� 7��- ��� ��1 (1 7��� *� .� *���� �. �=���� X��' �
]��$ �1 *��2��$� �� ���� �� �. ���5�1 +2 �A��� 9�$%� +�4�� ��!. U5�� ���!$� *�8�
*�4�$ �$�� � *��3�� )Jeffrey, 1994: P.6.( ���4����-$� (�;� >�4��� *�����$� �������2
�� #? ��' *�����27 �� #4�� *��3�� *�A��� �� �� �-�� #*��2��$ ��1 �2�$ ( =$ , �1
�� �. *�6�A� �\2 #*�A���� *��3�� �� ��� *���� *��0 � = ��� #�8$� �$�, *���� �;-' +0
*�A���� +��A�$� �8� +2 =��� ��� �8� *��3�� �� ��� d ��- � 9�8$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �.
(��� ���5 ��. 7 ��8�� ��� *�A��� �8��� A�6�� � +�$� *��=$��� *������ W���� � #
�84�$�$ .� ���!$� =�=�$� #(��$��� +2 *��3�� *�4�$�� *���$� ���$� 7 �!% ��%$ +��� �0
�0���� ��3�� ����� +2 *���-� 7 ���� �$ ��2�$ (% �� E��� #(��� B�2 7���-�.� #
��!$� � ��$� B�2 ��$��� � .���-�� #����$%, � 9��A�$� 7 & ��4. *���� ��� ��!��
(��� 7�4��$��� *!�$�� *�����$ *!3� � *�� �� *���$� �)Armstrong, 2008: 11.(
![Page 32: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
17
*��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�.)SHRM ( ���4 @,��$ (;�$���� �� �. (��4� +2 @�
�$ �$�. +��$� #*��3�� �� ��� �. *�4 ������ *��3�� �� ��� �� �� ��� �� �. �A� ���Y� ���
�A��� & � +2 *��3�� *��% *6��� #* & ��� ��� =�-�$� � ]���$ +$� *��3�� �� ��� ��� *
*��2��$� �=��� ��-� *����. �. *��3��� �� ��� 7����� >�4� �[� E��$ 7��A��� 7���
7������� �$ �1+�� +2 & �' +���� & �' � *�4�$�� � ���4� (;� 7,�4�� 9�$%�.
)2–2 :(���#���� �,��� ��$�/ ����� ��� ��
Human Resources As a Source of Competitive Advantage
�$7�$��� (-��� (�1 �� *��2��$� �=��� �86� *:��� �[� ���$ #*��2��$� �=��� [3�$
� *�A��� ����1 ?�%$ �8C��� *2�5� *)Porter, 1985.(
��� ?��6$� *��0 ��� ��3 �$��� #*��%� � T$��� ���$ �� 9�[$� ��8��. �A�� +$�
�8��� �� ����2 *����- =�-�$� � # ��� e�$3� � ���� � � *����2 �;- ��� ��� T$��� ?��
�6-& U�� ?�!� ��� ���2��$� ���� ���2���� �� � .; . ��� �� ��-�� 9����� /��!. U5
<; *��� 7��4�$ �$�. : �8� �%$�� 7���A���� �-�� +$� � #=�-�$� #=���$� #*6�-$� �� �.
*��2��$� �=��� ���$-,. � � ��-� 7 ������ � ��. ��3� U� � ?�!� ��� (����� �$���
�8C � ��� �;Y$ *�A���� *�C��� . Z �\2 W�% �A� *84� ��� �-Y$ #�� ��� ��� *�C��� & �
��� ��4� X�� � ���= *���;� �� ��� �� *�=� ?��!$ +2 @���� �-�� *�A���� *��2��$� �
*�A��� 9��$ 7�$ ��-$ +$� )Wernerfelt, 1984, P. 171–180.(
�. %$ /�0 �A�� *84�� @���! *��2��$� �=��� $ *�4�$ �$�� �� �� ����� �� 9�� ��
. �. #*C��� ��� =-$�� �8�) *��2��$� �=��� ( �� ���� ���� 7�� ��� �8�2 =�-�$� ����
�8C � � �8$��4�$ �$�.� *�A���� *��% �� . � ��. ��3$ *��3�� �� ��� ��� *�C��� �A�� *84�
![Page 33: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
18
6-� ���!$ (% �� *� �$�� *��2��$ �=�� +2 A�$ � �-�� *��3�� �� ��� A� +�$� 7 &�
*�A��� B%$)Lado, 1994.(
��8��� �� ����2 7 ���� 7��A��� �� ������ & �' +2 ��$��� ?�6$� �0 W=�� �1�
*��2��$� �=��� ���$-, *��3�� �� ��� �� �� . ���2 U���$ ��� ��� ��. ��\2 #X-�� ����
� ����4� 7 &�6-� *C��$ *��3�� �� ��� *�A� / ;$ � +�2 8�$ �1 �8�\2 #���4��� 7 &�6-� !�
*��2��$� �=��� ����%� +��A�$� 9�5� .
��3�� ���� �� ���%' 7 ���� +2� $ 7��A��� 7 � �. 7 �� #$ ��3�� ����� (��
*����4$� U���3���� X���[- +����� � 7 ���� � 7,Z � ? ��' � 7�4$��� ��� . U���42
*�A��� +2 7 ��4��� *���% ^��$ *��3�� ������ �� . ���4� ���!$$ *���� �� �� +82
*���� ����$� ��3�� ����� *2�5�� # ��0 ����$1, � *��� �� *�A��� � ��$�, >�$6��
���� �*����� W��� *�4�$�) .Fitz-enz, 2000, P. 1 .(+-� (����� *��A���� ����$�
#*��2��$� �=��� ��� A�6�� � *�4�$ �$��� 9 �0' ?���$� *4��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. �\2
*���$� ) :Armstron, 2003(
1. ���. 9�8$ +$� ��$� 7����� U�43$� (�%�. (% �� ��3�� ����� +2 ���;$�,
��� *�=� 7 ��8�� � 7 ���� ����=& 7�4��$� *��A��� *.
2. � *�=� *2���� *�A��� ����$ ���5 &�5�.� �82 �0 ?���$ 7 ��!% ��%$ � �8C��
/���!$� ��-6� (��� X � ��� (�����.
3. *�-���� /�0 U�43$ ���5� *�A��� >�4�� *���!�� 7��-���� ����$#*��1 7 � �8�.� .
4. 3�� ��� ��3�� ����� U�43$��� ��� (��� +2 B%\� *-��*�A���� �� .
5. ����� =$� ��� (����8�� ��3�� 7���8$��1� *�A��� .
![Page 34: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
19
*��3��� �� ���� �� �. ���� *�1�� 82 ����5� �� ��\2 9 �0' /�0 ?���$�
(���' *�4�$ �$�.�.
)2–2–1 :( ����� ��� �� ����� "��������� � ��The Strategic Role of HRM
�� ��4�$� ��� ��!�$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. 9��A�$ (�6-� ��� ��
�8$����� *�A��� 9 �0 ?���$ ��. ��Y$ *���!� *��3�� �� ��� .
���� �� 7������$� ��$2 (% *��3�� �� ���� *�4�$ �$�� �� �� �86� ��!$ �1�
+���-$� � +1��$�, T8�� _��$. ��� =�-�$��� +5��� )Schuler, 1992.(
� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. ]�. ���� ?�2 �$� E�� +2 ��� ��� ���51 ��� =-�$ *��3�� �� ��
� #*�A���� *�4�$ �$�� 9 �0' � #*��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ �� �� ���� �� �. (���-$
� #*�A���� *�4�$ �$�� �� �� +2 *��3�� �0 #������ �� �� +�2 *��3��� �� ��� E �3.
3�� �� ��� 7������ ���!$� #7�5����$� � #��6A��� ���$%, +4�$ �$�. T8� ��%$ � #*��
+��$���� #*��3�� �� ��� �� �. (�1 �� *�A��� & � ��. �8$2�5. $� +$� *���� � #& �' ���$�
�82 �0 ?���$ �� *�A��� ��-�$)Wright and McMahan, 1999 .( !��� 9���$� �0 �.
������ ����b� ��� &�5� ���8 ��$��� *1� � �� �.� *��3��� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. ��� =
*��3��� �� ��� 7������ !��$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�\2 #*�����$� *��3�� �� ���
�� *�4�$ �$�� �� �� *���� +2*�A�� *��3�� �� ��� 7������ T�� +��� �0� #@���2 � @��� �
�� (- ����%Z ��8.
#*�A��� +2 �861�� ����$ +2 *-��� ��� ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 9C�A� 784 �
2 E��0 ��-$ ����� #���4� 7�1�' +6 ���$ 7��A��� �\2 #*�2�- *���� �� �� ���� ?��6��
![Page 35: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
20
����$� ���!$� � $� A�� #7f2�-�� � #D��� ��4 �$ ������ ��-�� #��6A���� E �3.� #
��� U4 �$$ �� ����� *��3�� �� ���� *�A�' /�0 (;� �\2 #*���� 7����� 7��A.
�\2 W�% *���� ��� *��3��� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�.)SHRM ( X��-�� &��4
. �� +2 *��3�� �� ��� ��� 9�3$- 7��;. ���� #(���' *�4�$ �$�*�A���� �8$��1 . U�4��
(�4� ��8A g���$ *�4�$ �$�. . �� ��. *��3�� �� ��� �� �1984 ��� (�- 93$- �����
)Ticky, Fombrun, Devanna( �� ��� � (���' *�4�$ �$�. ��� *��� U� � ?�!� ����
*��3�� )Wright & Dunford, & Snell, 2007, P. 76.(
��1 *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7�83 �1�@ ���- @ �F$� �� � (% �� �� ����� *��8 +�5�
*� ��� +���� ���� . � (���$� �0 (�' #W��-� 7,��$� �� ���; +2 7�;�$ 7 ��F$� /�0
+��;� � #*��3�� �� ��� �� �. (�4� ��. ��6A��� ��Y3 �� �. (�4� +2 �8��- �� : (���$�
+2 �8��- �� *��3��� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. ��. *��3�� �� ��� �� �. (�4� . ��$� (�' (�
��� ���� � ��. (-3�� �8$� �. �-��� 7��A��� +2 *�8�� (��' ��5 ��3�� �����
���� ��$��� ���\2 #*������ *2���� ����1 X6� ��� +�� ��� � +��;� (��$� �� #+48��
� �� ��� 7����� ?���$ ��. *2�5��� ��[� 9 �$�, �5��� ��85�� U� 7������� � *��3� #
�8�\2 �$ � ��. ��$�$ $ *�A��� 7�4��$� U� !� . +�2 7��4��$�, /��0 X�-�� ��. @ �A��
#*�A��� 7��4�$ �$�.!�2 9���� ^��� ���� � *��3�� �� ��� �� �. +2 (��$� �0 &�4
*��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�\�.) Schuler, 2007, P. xiii(
*��3�� �� �� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. ��$�$� �[� 9 �$�, ��� ���-� � �-�� 7��A���
��� �8� �3�� �0�� �� 7�-�$ �� �. *����2 �;- *� Y �$� �� +$� 7������� � 7������� U�
![Page 36: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
21
��� ���� *��3�� ������ �� ������ � U$�$$ +$� �� &�6-� � #7��-��� W�$���� � *�=� 7
*�A���� =�6�$� �� =� .
#W�% ������ *�4�$ �$�. �\2 �� ����� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. (���-$� � !� �$� ?�%
�0��6�$� *��3�� �� ��� *�4�$ �$�.� (���' _�!�� *���� *�4�$ �$�� 9 �0' ���« . ���
/�0 (;� +2� *�A��� (% � *��3�� ������ � 7������ �� �. $$ # ���� <�� =�=�$� *���!�
$ �$�. 9 �0 � *��3�� �� ��� 9C�A� 9�$%� �� �� (��-$� T8� ?�%� #*�A��� *�4� (;
=�6�$� � #��!�$�, � #����$� W�%' �8�� (- (�-� <��� #)Gratton, 1999, P.7.(
*��A���� ��C �6� ��� ���� ?����$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�� �-��
)Brewster, 2000, 56:(
1. =�4�. +2 *�0���� �A���� 9 �0'*�8C���� .
2. �A���� (���' 7��4�$ �$�. ��6�$� ��*.
3. �A���� *��2��$� �=��� ?�%*�8��� A�6�� � .
4. *�A��� +2 ��-$�, � *��4$�, ��� ����� ����$.
5. *�A���� *��$�� � *�-��� *�4�$ �$�� 7 ���%� ��� ����=.
6. ��;[$� � +4�$ �$�� !�!%$� +2 *-��3�� *�A���� +4�$ �$�� /�4$, ���.
7. 6$������6�$� ������� � *��3�� �� ��� �� �. �1 ��� ����$� (�.
*84� ��� �� =$� (-3� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. (�4� +2 ��;���� ��$� �1�
� & � ���� *��3�� �� ��� 7������ ��� >�3� *�A��� �� �� ��� *�C��� �A�� *��A��
)Collins & Clark, 2003, P. 740.( T$�$�� E�� ��� � �� �� ��� ���$��� *�4�$ �$��
*�A���� *�4�$ �$�� 7 ���� +0 7��A��� +$� *���%� #��8�2 �� ��� 7 ��1 ��� ��$�$
![Page 37: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
22
W��$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�� *��A�� <���' �\2 U1 �� +2 #�=���� �0�� �� �
7��A��� & � ����= ��. ��Y$ �1 *��3�� �� ��� 7������ *�A� +-� ���� ��-$@ �=�����
#*� �$��� *��2��$� � �� A�� /�0 �' �0����$ ����� �8��� �� ����2 ��-$ �� @����: 7�������
)Lado & Wilson, 1994, P. 702 .(
��- � � *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ ���-$ ������ *�A��� & � �� ==�$
�5�� �85�� U� ���$� � @���% � �� � *���2��$� �=���� ?���$ ��. ��Y$ *���!� ��6A��� .
)Delery & Doty, 1996, P. 803.(
)2–3 :(������ ����������) ����� ��� �� ����) �� 4��/��
Integration of HRM With Corporate Strategies
� *����� +�2 *��3�� �� ��� �� �. (�F3. ��. ��3� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��� (��-$
*�4�$ �$�� 7�4��$�, U� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��� ?���$� � *���A�$� 7��4�$ �$�� ��6�$�
*�A����)Schuler & Jackson, 1999.(
(���)Buyens & De Vos, 1999 ( � ���� �� �. ���-$ +�-� @�-���3 *��3��� �
��. @���4 *�4�$ �$�� 7 � ��� ��%$ +2 *��3�� �� ��� ����� E �3. +F��� ��\2 #@��4�$ �$�.
�� ���- �� 0��: U� ��4����� #*��3��� �� ���� 9 ��0 *�& ��� ��- *��2 ��2�$� #
(��� *�4�$ �$�. ��6�$� 7��A��� 9 �0 U� 7������� � 7��4�$ �$�� � . (�3$ *-��3�� /�0
����� 7 � �� +2 *��3�� �� ��� ����� *��5��*�A���# *���6� *���$. ��[3 �� �0�
� ��� U�� *���� *� �� �� (��� *�4�$ �$�. *���$�� �8$����$0 (�;�$� *��3�� �� ��� �� ��.
+2 *��3�� �� ��� ���� (�;�$ �. �� �� ����� � �2��� *�A��� ���1 *�8� 7�������� ?2��$�
*����6$� 7,��$, �)Cheddie, 2001.(
![Page 38: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
23
D�F�� 7��4�$ �$��. U� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��� *�& ��� � +4�$ �$�� (��-$� ?���$
����6� ���-$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. ?�;�$ �\2 #7��A��� )Budwar, 2000 & Teo,
2002 ( $� �8�'^�� @ ��� 7 � ��� ��%$ *���� +2 *��3�� �� ��� ������ *��1 � �;- � ��-
(���$� ��� ����� ����= ��. *2�5��� #7��A��� +2 (;� *�4��%� (� ��� U� B��$ ?���
(��� )Conningham & Deborah, 1995 .(
�. 5� ��� *�A��� ����$ *�;��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. ��Y� U* � �� �
& �' *�1 ��� 9 �0' � *��3�� �� ��� . *��' D�� ��3$� *� �� �� *����4$� )Khatri,
1999 ( ����� <��� *�A��� & � ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������� (��-� ��;[$� � ��.
��-$@��4�$ �$�. *�4��� 7������� /�0�5�� �85�� U� *��$�� .
)2–3–1 :( ���3�+��� ������� ����� ��� �� ������� P� +�
Delegation of HR Practices to Line Managers
����� *-��3�� ^5 � ��� &�!�� �� *����� +�2 *��3��� �� ��� � � ���� U
��6�$ *���Y�� D��6$ +F��� ��\2 #+4�$ �$�� �� ��� 7������ �� �.� ��$��� ��������� *��3���
$� � U� C �� �3��� (��$ ��� 8�' �����6�������) Budhwar, 2000.(
?���$�� ��6�$� *������ 7 ��8�� E$�, *4��� �����6�$� ������� �\2 #���!$� *�8�
�2� �&�6-� *��3�� �� ��� 7������� ���� +�4�� ������ @��2� *�� ����� ���. ���� � �� �� �
*��3�� )Hall and Torrington, 1998 .( *��3�� �� ��� ���� � +��� �0 U�$�$� ����
*�� � ���%� �� ���� ��2��$ ��� #�����6�$� ������� U� @��4�$ �$�. @�-��3 ��-� � �4� #
� +��� � ����$� (% �� 7 ��8�� *���$���!$� � #��� A�6�� � 5�� (���$, 7 ��1 � ��
�� @��2� 7������� /�0 ��6�$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *���)Teo, 2002.(
![Page 39: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
24
)2–3–2 :(������ ���� ��� ����� ��� �� ����) ���������) ���
The Impact of Strategic (HRM) on Organizational Performance
$ ��� D �$2, � � ��0 *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ���� �� ����� +���C�� ������
& � � #*�A���� �� � �2' ��� ���- �� ��. ��$�� *�A� . *����4� ���!$ $ �� �. ��\2 �����
�$� *��3�� �� ��� 7����� ��6 #(��2 ��� ��� �0�� ��;[$ *��3�� �� ���� ��-� � �-�� ��\2
���- *�A��� & � ���.
� W�� ��� <���� �� ����� 7���� �1� �� *��4� ���5��� ����� ( Y�� ��$� +�
*��3�� �� ��� 7������� (0a*�A��� & � ��� +��4�. ��;[$
U5� �1�)Michael Armstrong., 2006( @�4����*1��� �� ��� ��� & � � *��3���
*�A��� ��- # �0 � 1� (-3� +2 ^5�)2–1 .( +2 *����� 7�84� 9�$%� ��4� �� :����2
�C�� +4�$ �$�� 9�8� �\2 #*�A��� ���0���� ���; �A�$ � +���� & �' �0 �8� X
)Paul & Anantharaman, 2003, P. 1248.(
. �.� (��6� +��F3$� & �' ��� ���- �� ��. ��$�� *�A���� +���� & �' # . �. � & �'
������ � #��3�� ����� ��� ��$�� *�A���� +��F3$� 6$�� #*��%$���� ��4����-$� � #7� �� (
U� *��6-� ��2 ��� *�$%� ��-$ � *�A��� ��� �\2 #��4����-$� � ��3�� ����� ��� (��6�
7 ���� � *2���� � *���!�� 7 ��8�� # � ���� �0 ��6� B��$% �� (� ��� *�8�� +�$�
*����= ���$2 ��5: +2 ���4� *���� 7���%� 7�4$�� ��2�$ <�� �� 7������ *����2 ���$
���1 #� �.� ==��$ � ��8� �-�� ����$� � ��!�$�, (;� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������
��� & �' ������� �&�6-.
![Page 40: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
25
6�� 4/��)2–1( ������ ���� ����� ��� �� ����) �� �����
Source: Michael Armstrong (2006), P. 75.
�� ^5 �� ������@ ��$Y �� ��� �; *��A��� & � ��� �3��� (-3� *��3�� . ��0
�� ��� U2�$ � ��!$� *��3�� �� ��� ��;[$� (���' ?!�� ��-� ����� B�% (-3� ^���
*���2 *�4�$ �$�. ��6�$ +2 �8$�0��� (% �� *�A��� & � *��3�� . *��3��� �� ���� & ��%
) �����6�$� ������� � ( 6�$ �[� 9 �$�� *4��� 7��4�%�� ��� �A� �0 *���2 *�4�$ �$�. ��
*!���� . �� ��� 7 � �1 ��� *����� 7�1�� *��0[� 9 �$�, +��� +4�$ �$�. ����- ��-6$�
*��A��� *�4�$ �$��. >��4�� 9�!�� *��8� +2 U2�$ +$� *!���� 7�4�%�� /�0� *��3��
)Huselid & Becker 2005, P. 281.(
)2–4 :(��������� ��� �� ����) ���������) ���
��� ��8� ��� �5��� ��$1� +2 @��8� @,��$ (-3$ *��3�� �� ���� *;���� �0�6�� �.
� #@������ *��%� � *���� 7���Y�� � 7��A��� +2 ����Y��� ��$0�� 8� ��. ��;���� ��3�
3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ �� *6�$%� *���� 7����4� �� ��� �� �\� �3���� ��;[$� 7 � *��
*��3�� �8�[�" 7�������� (5�2 " � #" & �' *�����) "Huselid, 1995(# 76��� ���-
*�4�$ �$�.*�A���
�� �. *�4�$ �$�.*��3�� �� ���
�� �. 7������*��3�� �� ���
�� �. �; *��3�� �� ���
�� �. 7�4�%�� ��� *��3�� �:
=$� � �&�6-������� *�����
���4 7�4$��� 7���%� �
*�4�$��
& � *�A���
![Page 41: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
26
���" *������ ) "Aldrich and Langton, 1997; de Kok and Uhlaner, 2001;
Heneman and Berkley, 1999 (�� @�5� 76���" ������� / ����!$�� ) "Golhar and
Deshpande, 1997; Hornsby and Kuratko, 1990; Goss et al., 1994; Wagner,
1998( � #"*��8�� ) "Gnan and Songini, 2003; Matlay, 1999 .(
^�!��" & �' *���� " 7��4�$ �$� 9��� �%$� �� �� *2��8� W�$��� U�2� ��.
*������ 7�-�3� +2 & �' ) Chaganti, Chaganti, and Malone, 1991( . �0 ��$� �1�
^�!��� E��- ��5 <��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. # �� 7���A�*���$�� � � 7������� (52[
7���A�� +$� ��. ��3$ , =$�� ���+ @������ # � ��$�$ 7������� D�� !��� �� ��� �� �
& �� #*��3�� @ ��6�� ��- U� E �$3,�� 85�� ��� +2 8 7��A��� & � ����$ . ��- ��3
)Guest, 1997: 263(��. 4��*��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ ��6$ 7���A� <; � :
1. ����������� �������: +0� 7������� *�4��%� 7 ��;[$� �� (�$�� ��� ��� *1��
*��3�� �� ��� �� �. .� ��;[$ �0 *��A�� /�8� +���' 9�8� ���� *�4��%� (� ���
*��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������.
2. � �������+$��: � (���$ +$� 7���A�� +0� � *��3��� �� ���� 7������� 9
�;- *����3�# �*6�$%� 7�1� ��� (���� +2 ��-6� ��-$.
3. �������� ������: 7������ �� *���4�� ���4��� *�2�-� *2���� X-�$� 9�$ /�0
� *��A�# �3$� ��. @�5� � �� ���$ ��� �\2 9 �0' ?���$� *��3�� �� ��� 7������
���� & � ��-$� *4�$�� @� ���������; +��$���� @ ���4�. @�7��A��� & � ��� .
![Page 42: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
27
�T$�$�� �j-k� ��� � �� � *�4�$ �$�� 7���A�� 6� (�� ^�5�$� �� ��;-� ��$ , *�
�. 7������ ���1 +���� & �' ��. (����� *��3�� �� ��� �� . � ��. ��$��A�� 7��3 ��2
*��3�� �� ��� �� �. l&=4 ��$����$�� *�A�' U� *����� �A�� �� .
#*��3�� �� ��� �� �� *������ 7������� � *������� *��A�� D�$6$ ����� 8��$
+2 ������� W�� =$�, � =�6�$� . � ��- �� �. � ��0 *�������� *��A��� +���' �86��
& �' � 7������� ��� *1�� >�3$� *�-���� 7���A�� ��� (��-$� ��$ *��3�� �� ��� .
� ��� :�� �� & � ���� �0��;[$ *�6�- +2 9�$%$ /� ���-��� 7���A�� /�0 �
*�C�8�� *4�$�� �\2 #7��A��� B�%$��. *��3��� �� ���� �� �. 7������ ��� *1� ��4�
��3��� ��:� ��3��� *���!� 7��A��� & � �) .Balgobind, 2007: 14(
��%� 9C�A�� ����$ (��� (�% ��� �8��� &�5� &���.� *��3�� �� ��� �� �\� *
7���A���� � ��$�, *��0 �A�$ +2 �0���� 7������� *��0 = ��. �% ��� (���-$ (
� �� �. 7������� *��3�� �� � ��� (������ ?��$$ +$� E�$ ���1 ���-$� *���!�� �� ���
#*6�A�� (���$ ��� (�$3$ 9C�A�� /�0� #���$�� (�� � $ #*��3�� �� ��� !�!% ��� E��0�
��;���� �� ��;-� W�� *��0 ��� 7=�� 7������# E��$ ��� D�� ��� <��� �0 =-��
7������� )��!�$�, ����$� � # A��#7�5���$� #���!$� � ����$� � �������� *-��3�(.
� ��0 W��) #� �4� �� =�� 2010 ( �86���$ �-�� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ �
+0 #*���C� 7������ <; X�� ���:
1. ��$�$�%1� ��������: ��� �� �. �8�� =$ +$� 7������� +0� *�A��� +2 *��3�� ��
7������� /�0 ��� 9�$%�� #B�%� _�!�� � *���� _�!�� U��$ *�A��� /�0 7��- & ��
![Page 43: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
28
#*��%$���� ��4����-$� _��� *�A��� 4�� #����� �� �� *6��6� @���$ W�%' *�A�� ��
���� /�0 0 (;�$$� #�8�2 ������� ���8�� �&�6-� #(��� ?�� BC��%�+$Z�� 7���:
m 9C�A�� ���$� ��$�$� 9���$� (���$.
m *��3�� �� ��� !�!%$.
m (�3�� 9�A�$� :
• 9C�A�� (F3� ���3��� ��!�$� .
• ���$% �����:�3� 9C�A�� &�5 +2 ���3��� .
• ������ ��-�� +2 ������ B%3� U5�� ��6A��� 7��;$� ����$.
• 8C � � ������� E��� ���$.
• ���$*6�A�� 7���!$� U� ����$$ +$� 7f2�-�� � �4' �.
• ���!$� � ����$� T� �� *���$�� ��6�$� ���$� ����$.
• >���� U�2�� *���8�� *��� � *��� ?���$ D�F� (��� *C�� ���$� *�1 ��
�������� *������ .
2. ������� ��������: 3�� �� ��� �� �. �84�$�$ +$� 7������� +0� ��8���� =�4�\� *��
*����$%, �86C�A��.
3. �������1� ���������: +�2 *���� 7 � �� *2�-�� ������� �� ���3�� ���$� (;�$�� �
����!$� 7������$� > ��$1 ��. *2�5��� #*��6� � *������� *����� �� & �� *�A���
��� ��4 �� ��������� *���$�� *�A�' � 7�����$� #��0��:� (�� 9��A� 7���%� =2
��� @�1��$� � @,��$ �;- *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��-$ � �0 =�$��� +�2 W�%' 7 � �
![Page 44: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
29
�;- � *�A��� �� �-�$$ �$� *���$�� �8��Y3� @��86$� @�����$ ?�� � �8�-�3� ��� @��!
���!�� (-3��� ���3$�, �0��� & � .
)2–4–1 :( M�'&��1� ������ Recruitment and Selection
����$� � #���$� � #���$%, �� 9�[$$ *�A��� +2 ������� 9�A�$ *���� �. . �4� �1�
)Harel and Tzafrir, 1996 ( *�� �� ?��$� � ����$� ?�!� _��$ ��� ����- *���4�. *1�
*84 �� ��!�$�, 7 & �4. �%$� W��� #��!�$�, # ��� � W��% *84 �� 7��A��� > .
+�2 ������� B%3�� ��� (����� ���$ +$� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *!3� � 7�����2 �.
������ ��-�� ) 7 ��8�+��A�$� (-�8� � ������� (�$� # *��4�$�� ����= +2 8)Huselid,
1995 .( ����$� *���� ��6�$ � 7�� ��� 7�8A ��2 #E�� ��. *2�5��� (��6�) +�2 *�C��$�,
9�A�$� ( *��A��� & � U� @����4�. @�!��$� !�$��)Delaney and Huselid, 1996( ���- #
�4�)Koch and McGrath, 1996 ( ��!�$��, +�2 ���!$�� � ���3$�� 7 & �4� �
(��� *�4�$�\� *���4�. ����� !�$�$ ����$� �.
![Page 45: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
30
M�'&��1� ����� �� '%
*���� ��$+��$� (-3��� �8��5�$ �-�� ����� 7 �!%� ��!�$�,:
6�� 4/��)2–2( M�'&��1� ����� �� '%
��$��: #���4 2010 :124.
(-3� ����)2–2 (+�� ��- ��!�$�, *���� (� ��:
� !� � '%�: ̂ 5�$ +$� � *��3�� �� ���� *�4�$ �$�� *!%� *:��� *�4 ��� *����� ��$
*���!�� *����� � ���!�� ���� . ����$� ��-� ��. *2�5���) _��2 � ��C � � +2 (
�� ���� +��6� ��4� *����� &��� 71� ��� ����� ��� � ���!�� ����$� 71� E��-�
*��3�� .
������ � '%�: , � +6�A�� (���$� & �4. E���-� *�6�A�� 9�� �� �$�4�%� ��� _!
�6� ��*���!�� 9C�A���� ?��$� ���2 E��� *6�A�� (:�3 7.
����� � '%�: ��� (���� ����� ����$� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. (�1 �� U5�� *� �� 7�4��$�
�� *�A��� $ � ��. +$� � *��3�� �� ��� ����� � *��% � ����� ��-*�4��% .
� !� � '%� � '%������� � � '%����� � � '%�����
�+�� � 4��.� m *6�A�� 9��. m (:�3 7�6� ��
*6�A�� .
� !� � '%�
����������� �'%������ ��� ��
m ���!�� ���� . m *����� .
m ����$� 71�.
m ����$� ��-�.
"�%��� M�'&��1� ���$� m (��� � *�1�$� .
6���� ��� E�
4��� ���'
"�%��� M�'&��1� ���$� m +�% �� ��� .
"���%� M�'&��1� ���$� m 74�� � 9��� .
m 7��$�� .
m W�% ������.
������� �;� �� m ����$ ��! ���$
7�4��$�, ��*��3�� �� ��� .
![Page 46: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
31
����� � '%� : �� �����$�� 7���! $� � ������ ������ (�% ��� � ����� & �� (��
+���$-�� . 9�A�$� 7���! ��5$$� ��� ���� ����� (-3 ��� ��-$ +$�Y ��$�� /
7��$�� (% �� � /�� !%� . 7 ��$��� � *��%3� ��$�� ���� ��!� U� ?2���
���� *����� *1�!�� � �6�� = �4 �� ����- *���!�� *����� 7 ��83�� ���
*���� ��8�$� ��. *2�5. #��$2��� �� 9���$� (C���� ���%� 7 ��83� *�� ���
*����� 7������� . �%$�� ��-�� ���\2 7��$�� (% �� ��!� ��$� *��� +2�
Scanners ��8�$�� +���$-�� U�1�$� �%$� �-�� �� ��- /� 7 ��$��� ?�2��
� 7������� *���*���� .) #���42010 :125(
M�'&��1� ���$�
���7 �����C� ������� ��!�$�, ����� ; *��% �� �������� ��� � 8�� ���
*�4��%� �$���4� ��8�� (- �� ?;��� +$� � ���C� �$��:
�.���%��� M�'&��1� ���$� :
+�� �� (% �� *��% �� ��!�$�, ����� +$[$:
1 . ������Promotion
��� �� �. W�$�� 7 � W�% *6�A� ��. ����� *6�A� �� 9A��� (�� +0 *�1�$�
7����� <���;- (�3 � ��� *���Y��� � *��0 . ��� B��%� �0 +2 ��-[$� +F����
�� ������ ��4� ����5*�1�$�� *���� X� �2 �$� *���5.
![Page 47: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
32
2 . 4&��Transfer
�� (�� *���� �0 (��� 6�A� �� 9A� X�6� +2 & �� �� �� W�$��� X6�� W�% *
� +2 #W�% *�� �. ���� +2 � *�� �� ����� *�A���� �%" _�2 +2 � _�6� X6.
3 ."�%��� �����
7���� 7���� +2 ����� 9C�A� ��. *�A��� *4�� �3� @����� ��6�� �� ��-� �1
*��% � (C��� (% �� � *��% �� � ��. ���� /�0 (F3� �� ��. �8$4�� �� ����$ �8�2 �C ���
9C�A�� .
�8�0 �� =� *��% �� ��!�$�, ����� ��. &�4���:
1 .�8C��� *�A��� 7�4$��� 9A��� *2���.
2 . 74��� *�6�A��� ��$�� & � �� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. W�� ��-Y� 7������ ��4�
� � ���� !���� /��5����� 9�5.
3 .?��6� (��� ?���$� (8�� ��� *�A��� +2 ���%" ��6A��� 9A��� *2���.
4 .8��� *�1�$� (�4� ^$2 (% �� ��6A��� 7������ U2�.
5 . ����4� 9�A��� 9����$� ���$%, � 7 ���$%, & �4.� ��� �84� 9���-$ �2��
�8$�4$��� *�A�����.
��0 71�� X6� +2 �-�� ��� _ �� ��4� (��$� �8�0 �� ������ /�0 ��� �%f� E
&��!�. ��� ��. *2�5��� ���' W�$��� 7 � ����4� *6�A�� (F3� ���3��� ��6A���
*�A��� +2 (���� ��4 ��4��%� ����4 &��� *2�5� *��6� . �����$� ��Y� �1 �%" ������
��-2' ���4 ��. (% �� �� -$�, *1��.� _ ��� � ��.) ��A�� #� ��� ?�63� #���� #���
#���4 A�6��� #���- �0�A� #� ����1998 :246–247.(
![Page 48: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
33
M .�����%� M�'&��1� ���$�
+�� ���2 *�4��%� ��!�$�, ����� (;�$$:
1 . 74�� � 9��� (% �� ��� *���4' � *����� � *����� .
2 . �� 7��$�� (% �� ��� ?���! �� � *�A���� +���$-�� U1��� ?��! �� &
�: �3� 7���� *��%$� U1 ��.
3 . 9�A�$� 7,�-� +2 ���: �� � *�A��� ��� *!���� ��� ��� +2 �8$���� B%�$$ +$�
�8$���% ��$ *��% � @���4� �8$���% ��$ *���-� ��. 7,�-�� /�0 ��-$� #(�� ��4�.
$� ���� (��������� ?6.
4 . *������ 7������ : �8C�5�' 9�A�$ *���� *� $$ , *������ 7������ D�� !�$3$ <��
�8�% �� ,. . �8C�5�� 9��A�$ +�2 ����$ 7������ �� @ ���� @ ��� E��0 � �$�
�6�A�$ ��� ����� ��$6� ��$ � �� &=4 U2�� ���$���.
5 . �;-2 #*��%$�� �0���� � 7����4� 7���� ��4$� ����-� 7�-�3�� ��2� +$[$ �� @ �
8��!�$� 9�8� E��� 84C�$� +2 ��=��$�� � 84�%$ U1�$�� U�.
6 . ��6A��� 9����� &���1 �. �� ���!�� ���� �2�$ �� *��� +2 8� (��$, $� �1
(���� ���3��� .
7 . 9�A�$� D���� : +2 7 �$� *��Z ��;-� ���%' E �$�3, � *��1\� 7��A��� �� �
9�A�$� D���� +2 � �. *���2 U1 �� D� ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. ��;�� +!�
9�A�$� 7���! �C���� ����$� � 0��:� �!�� . @������ 7�����4� D�� ��$ �1�
(�8��$� E���� *2���� 7��A�� ��� ���. ���$� +���4� �8��� +2 9�A�$ D����
�.�84��%� (��� B�2 ��4.
![Page 49: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
34
8 . ������ �� <��� 7���Y� �����6�$ : ������ �� <��� 7���Y� �%$� �. �����6�$
�!�$�, *2���� *���! +0 ����� �� �� � . ��6A��� ����� *��Y�� /�0 +2 �����
������� &,Y0 ��!�$��� ������ . +��$���� ������ ��. ��$�$ +$� *�A��� �\2 Y� ���0
. &�4�� �8�-�� �� �� +2 �:�$ +$� 7�6�� +0 �� �8� ^5�$ � � 7���Y�� /�0 ��
�����!�� & ���� +2 �0�2�$�) .DeNisi, & Griffen, 2001: 180.(
4����-$� ���� ���%' *��Z +2 7�8A *��0 E��0� ��� 7��$�n� ��-� #*;���� ��
8� �� ����= ���� E��� ��!�$�� ��!�$� +2 7��$�� *-�3 ��� ��$�$ +$� 7��A��� *�
7��$�� *-�3� 7��A��� �%$� ��� *�$�$�� �� =�� 0 ��� #*��3� 7 &�6- �� �8�=�� ��#
�8$�0���� +2 9���-$� D�6%$ . ���-� ��� ����� 7��$�, ��� ��!�$�, � ��. *2�5���
@����2 . +���! �� ��;-� U43� ��- 7���$�� ���� 9C��A�� ��� <��� *��8� 9C�A�� .
) #�����2009 :184–185(
)2–4–2 :( ��*� ��� 6��Compensation System
7�5���$� �0�6� �� ��$ ����$� ���� � (;�$$ +$� 9�A��� � *��A��� ��� *�1�6$�
�-��� 7�� =$�,�� 9A��� ��� � ��� 8�� & �[� ?��$� ���2 ������ ��7�� ����. *��-���
*��A��� ���$ (��������� #*�A��� 7�-�$�� ��� *A2���� � (��� ��� ��� ���$� � �� U2�
���� +2 ����� W�% �� =�� *���� 7�5���$ . +����4. ���. 7�5����$� ^�!�� ��3��
7 � ��. 9A��� �� =�� *���� 7f2�-� (-3 ��� ��-$ �1 +$� . 7�5����$� ����$ �-���
����8� :
1. & �' ��� ��6A��� =�6�$� 7f2�-� �A�.
2. ��4� E���� U�43$� *2��;� � ��� X�F� *�A��� (�1 �� �%$�$ � � .
![Page 50: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
35
3. �82 �0 ?���$ �� 7��A��� �-�$ � � .
�� ���� ��!�$� � ��4 +2 ��;Y�� ������ 0 �� *��3�� �� ��� 7�5���$ ��$
� A�6�� ��. *2�5��� #*��3�� *�A��� ���% ��. �8���$ U��� �8�� . � 7�5���$� � ����!2
*�A��� +2 (��� +2 � ��$�,�� (��� �� 8�� @ ��;- �\2 ��6A��� ��� A�6�� +2 �0��� �Y$
*�A��� ���% (��� @�" @��C � ������# ��� ��$ W�% *�A�� � +2 (���� *��6� �A$���
�;- 7�5���$.) Gupta, S.C. 2009: 239(
�-Y� ��-)Kauanui, 2004( � ��A��� ����$ ��� D���$� A�7 �8���� ��������
����= +2 @����C� @ ��� ���$#0=�6�$ � U2� 8��� *�4�$�� � & �' . �A�� �\�2 +��$����
��A��� 7 U�1�$� *��A�� @��2� #+��;�� D���$� �A� ���!$� &�3�. & =. @ �4 *��1 ��-$
)Vroom, 1964( ������� ������� �\2 #+���4� � ���6� & �' U� �4' !�� $� ����� #
��A��� & � +2 �� ���$ ��. ��Y$� 7,�4�� /�0 8C � ����=� ��- �84 (���7 , ����$%
*��" *������ D���$� . (�;�$ +0� *��3�� �� ��� ������ *����' *�5��� ��-$ ����
>�� (����� +6�A�� ����$1, ��- ��-$ � �4� 7�5���$� � >��� �A�$ U� *��$�
*�A��� # � >����' ��A�$ 9��0 ?���$ �� 8��-�$� �������� =2 ��� ��2�$ (�6:. ��
)Gatibaldi P. 2006.(
��1 *;; ��. ���$ D���$� !!% � (��� �-��) :Gatibaldi P. 2006(
1. ��;�&� �'%� ��.� ��%��� ��� : ��� ���� (-� *$��;� 7���2��� ���$ *!%� /�0
��$�� �� (�$�� (-3� 71�� :T$��� #_���� � .
2. �S#�/�� �'%: �� ��-$$� 7 &�6-���$�� U� ����$$ ���F$� �[2�-� ��. *2�5��� *$��; .
![Page 51: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
36
3. ,����1� �'%: #(����� +2�5. (%� (- &�!�. $� *���� /�0 +2 ���!� ^��� �� �$�
_��3�� �� ���$ ���.
7���A��� & � ��� 7�5���$� ��;[$ +2 7;�� +$� 7�� ��� �� ����� 7�4� �1�
.� #*�A���� *��2��$� �=��� ?���$� @�$�� @ ���� ��-$ � �-�� ���!$�� 7�5���$� A� �
$ <�� �� *�A��� & � ��� +��4�� �;' ��. *2�5��� ���� �����=� +�5�� � ���� (���
7������ ) .Batt, 2002, Tessema and Soeters, 2006.(
)2–4–3 :( �� '�� M�����Training and Development
���-.� ���=$ ��. 9�8$ +$� ���$��� � *�A��� *����� E�$ �� ��� ����$� 9���
7 ��1� 9���� ��6� 4� ���F$ � #����4 7 ��8�� W�� *����� X�' � #��-2' � �A�� 7�8
+2 *��%� (��� *C�� +2 <��$ +$� 7 ��F$� U� 4��� ��� � �2' *��4����-$� ��� �4�
*���A�$� � . ?���$ ��. 9�8� ����$� �\2 E���� � (�� =�4�� ��6� W�� *��%$�� *2����
�� *6�A� & � � *���� (��� ��� . �0 ��$�$ ,� � ��2' 7 ���1 ���!$ ��� ����$� 9
+�2 8���� *�-����� �� �4� ���!$ (�3$� �$�$ ���.� #& �' +2 8$ ��8� *���$� �������
*�!���� *�C��� +�2 ��8�� �������$�� 7�C2 U�� #*�A��� +2 (��� *���4 U� 8$�1� .
) #+���6� � #*�������2003 :201(
��-]��� @ ���;$� ����$� �����$�� �A�� E��� *2�5��� #*�A���� *��3�� (��' +2
?���� +2 *�2���� � #*�4����-$� 7 ��-$�, �0���$ +$� 7 ���F$� U� ���6� *���� �� ���
*�2 �:����� 7,��$� � *���A�$� *�-�8� �)Hoque, K. 1999.(
. �. � *���C� *!3� *;; (-3� ���!$� � ����$� :�$� ����!$� � #��$� � #��� .
������� +2 ��4�� ���;$�,�� ������ ���. #�8��� �������� ����$� ��$ +$� 7��A��� �.
![Page 52: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
37
�������� *�6�A�� 7 ���� �� ��=� ���;$�, �0 �\2 #*���4�� �4C�$� ���� ���)Wright,
P. and Nishii. L, 2004.( ��$� � #��F$� U��� +���� ?�� +2 � �=$ #�� =$�� +4����-$�
*�2���� ��C � +2 &���� � 9�-$�� *�0Y�� *���� �;- *����� 7��A��� ��! . �\�2 #+���$����
*��3�� �� ��� ���!$� ����$ �A� #@��4�$ �$�. @�2�0 ^��� @ ��4 *�0Y�� *����� ��� ��!�
7 ��8�� � *2���� ���5� *���C� *��" �0 *�A��� +2 *��A��� 9 ��0 ?���$� *����5�
*��2��$� �=��� ?�%�)Peteraf, 1993.(
����$� �� ����� ��� ������$1, =��� �� ����:
1. 5�%� M�����: �����= �8�[3 �� +$� 7 ��8�� � #����� 7 ��8� (����� �2�� �0�
+���� (��� ���� U� !�2 (���� *�4�$�..
2. 6��� M�����: �� �0� � �� _� �� ����$ ��=�� #*��� ��3�� (���� (�� X � +2 8
*8��3�� 7��A���� ^��� ��� (���� *�4�$�. ��) .Garibaldi, 2006 .( _���� �0�
��' #*�A��� �!�%� �� ��=� ���� ����$� �� ������� ���� ��2 #����$� ���� E�$
W�% *�A�� +2 (52 *6�A� ��4�� *�A��� .
�� W�) #�� =�� 2006 (+0� #����$� 7���A� �� ����� E��0 � :
1. ��/ ��� �������: ���� !� ��$ 7�1� ��4� �� ?�!�� 7���A�� /�0 X�� �. �.
���;�� ^���� ����� ?��$� ��$� � � 7 ��;�� /�8� *�-���� *��4$�, � 7 ��;��
!�5� *�-���� *��4$�, +2 -�$� ��� @ ���1�8.
2. ���&�� �������) ��/����� �#����:( +��� *���� ��$� � 7���A�� /�0 X�� �. �.
���6� ��� (���� (��6$� �� *4$��� *�2���� ����� �A�$ ����.� (�-3$� ��$ *��% �
*�����$� *C��� �.
![Page 53: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
38
3. ���/� �������� �������: ����. *���� ��$� � 7���A�� /�0 X�� � ��$�$ , *��- *�
�$���%3� �����- ���� ���.� !�2 *����� &��� ��� ,� ����n� �0�A� E���� ���
��0 < ���. +2 (��6$$� *!� �$�� *��- ����� ��!$� ����� � *����$4, � *���6�
7��� =�� � 7��0�4$, � ���� � *������ � *�-���� 7������ U��4 ���F$� � ��!$�
*����$4, *���6� . *��- *���� *������ 7���A�� � �� �A� *84� �� ����$� � ��$��2
>�4�� � 9�-$�� ��0Y$� ����� �C�5� � ����� �4� ���$.
4. ��/� 6���� ������: ���;- 7���� ��=��$� ���3 �� � �2' 7���A�� /�0 X�� �. �.
� � *����4$� � *�����$� T� ��� +���� ��� �4� �0��%[ ��� ������ +2 ��. � ���
T� ��� /�0 (;�.
5. ������� ������ "# �A+�� � ������ W������ �����: ��$�� *��A�� /�0 X�� �. �.
@�- ��. �8$!� �� *���4� � �2 ?��� +$� *���6$�� *�4���-��� !��3� � 7�1�� ���
*��A��� *-�$3�� ��� ��� ��� #@�-�$3� +���$ +�$� *��%3� 9! ��� � ��2
*���4� .
)2–4–4 :( ������� �/����Employee Participation
�� �� ���� �. ���Y��� 8�� �. ��8$��1 U� � ��� U�� +2 U� � ?�!� ���� �
*�-��3�$� �� �� ����)Ford and Randogph, 1992 .( ��� )Strauss, 2006 ( ����2
� �8�[� *-��3�� *���� 9���A� � 8���� ��� ��!��� D�� *������ ��6A���� ^��$ +$�
�8�2 ������ +$� .
�8� +$� � #7 � ��� ��%$ *���� +2 *-��3�� ��� ������� U43$ ������� *-��3� �.
(��� *C�� ��� �3��� ��;[$ .E��-� (��� �&�6-� +6�A�� (��-$� �� ����$ . U� (��$, ^$2
![Page 54: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
39
��� (����$�� ��$�, � *-�$3�� *�Y�� +2 *4�$�� � #��-$��� *1% ��-2 �� ����$ �0 ���
*�;� �)Nyhan, 2000 .( +$� 7�� ��� 7��3 �1� ���� �0��;[$ ��. ������� *-��3� 7����$
=�6�$� #*����6� � #�������� ��$��� =$�, ������ � *��A���� &,�� �0�6� E��-� #)Vanyperen,
et al. , 1999; Tesliu lk, et al., 1999 (*�A���� =��$�� & �' ��� +��$����.
����� ��. ������� *-��3� 9���$ �-��) :Marchington et al., 2001(
1. ������ �/�����:?��6� &��� � � �2' 7-3� (� +2 *-��3�� ��!$$� .
2. ������ ��Y �/�����:% �� E��� (��� ��4� (.
*�2�;- ���� *2����� � #��;[$� �� *6�$%� 7�4�� +��$ *-��3�� _ �� 9$% �.
*-��3�� )Wilpert, 1998 .(
(% �� E�� & �� @��8� @ ��� ������� *-��3�� �\2 #7��A���� *��2��$� ����� ����=�
43$� ��$�� +2 7 ���= ?���$� ������� U)Zwick, 2004 .( #<����' ���. 7��3 �� �0�
���. (��$ �� @����%�)Blider, 1990 ( @����4� ��;-' +0 >���' ���$ T� �� � ��.
�� �� +2 ������� *-��3�� ��$�$ �����.
��3��� � +���4 � ���2 (-3� 7��- & �� (����� *��$� *-��3�� ��-$ � �-���
) �4�� @�84�( ��3��� ��: � #) �� (;�� ?��!( &�5�� *������$� *����4� *-��3�� !��$ #
���. 9�8$� ��3��� �;- ��-$2 *;���� *-��3�� �� #7��A��� +2 *!���� (��� ���$ ���
*���6� 7f2�-�� � #���!$�� (� �$� 7 & �4. (% �� *�A��� 9 �0' (���� =$� ���5
�$� 7 & �4. (% �� *�A��� 9 �0' 7 ������� � *����6� 7f�2�-�� � #����!$�� (�
��;� _�2��� & �'�� *!�$��� & �' ���$ (;� #*����!$� .
![Page 55: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
40
&,� ���- *�F� E��� ������� ��$0 71, +$� � ��3���� *-��3�� (�-3 7���$
*�A���� ������� )Walton, 1985 .( �� �. +2 ������� *-��3� *����� 7��� ����� �� ����
7����-�n� (��6� �%$�, ��� U43$ 7�����6- 7�8A +$� 7�� ��� (�1 �� @����$0 *��3��
*�A��� & � ����=� *��3�� )Gallie, et al., 2001.(
�� (-� *����� 7�� ��� � �: ����(Strauss, Verma, 1995, & Walton, 1985; &
Strauss, 2006, & Singh, 2004; & Wan, et al., 2002; & Gallie, et al., 2001). �\�2
*� ��� /�0 +2 *�8�� 7������� ��[- ������� *-��3� *�����.
)2–5 :( ������� ����Employee Performance
#*�A��� +2 (��� (- �� U1�$�� *����� � *��-� <�� �� (��� & � �0 ������� & �
� X��' +0 ������� /�0& �' ���$ . ��� (��� & � *��A�� @��2�)Campbell, 1990( �\�2 #
& �' �0E��� ��3�� ����� 7�2��$ � *�A��� & � ��� �;Y� ��� . E���� �0 � ��.
���4�. ��-�@� ���� � E���� �0 ��-�� #@�l&=4 B����� 7��4 �� ?�!� ���% � (��� ��
�8���.
�' ���$ �-�� _ ��� *�;; ��. & )Porter and Lawler, 1968( #4 !�: X���1
#��=� �� *���� ��$2 (% 7������ *��-� ��$�� 7,��� "���� �� � �2' ���$ (�3� (�1
�A�� ��� B%3� ��: �%" B%3 & �' _�5�� +2 . �� @��� < �� #+$ ��� ���$� �0
��$ ���$ � �4� E��� *4�$�-� 3$ +2 ���6� +$ �� ���$� 7�� 3� ���� ���� ��� ������� U�4 !
*��%� (���� 9 �0 � ��. +2.
![Page 56: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
41
���� +��� ��;[$ �� /���� E�� �\2 7�-�3� � ? ��' +2 *��$��� *�2���� (A +2
*�A��� ��� U6$�$� 9���-$� �\2 ����� #������� *� �� *�� . *������ *��3�� W��� � ��-
�4� ���� #*�A�� (-� ����5 �Z ^�� +�2��$ >�- ��� (�- ) Edogar and Geare,
2005( �. # ����� #*��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ �� ���� *� � ��������� !�$��� (���
�� �4$�$� ��2 E�� ���� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ & � ���� (����� ��� �����
e(�� �� (-� (��� ��� (���� . +�2 �������� ������ ���� ������� � @�5� ��4� �1�
$� ��2�$ (% �� �8��43$� *��8�� 8$��� ���!$F1 (�$��� & �' (�� *�4 �� *�� �� � = �
������� & � .,�1 ��- TC�$� ��. ��Y� � �-�� ��3�� (��� X � *���$ +2 ���;$�, � @�5�
4�. � ��� *���2� *��� �� (- ��� �\2 ����� #*�A��� & �� �. 7������� ��� *1�� 82 *�A
������� �5�� *��3�� �� ��� )Wan, 2007.(
� ��$4 ���� *�A��� ���1 �� ==�$ � *����6� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. �[3 �� �.
$ �-�� ��� � #*����� ���4� ��� ������� ��� &���� � �C � ����=� /=�6� . ��Y� +��$��� �0�
9���-$ D�6%� � #7�4$��� ���4 _�6$� � #+6�A�� � ���� *��� D�6%$� #��� *���� ���
*�A��� +4�$ �$�. ��6�$ +2 ��� *���� #��$�� )Schuler and MacMillan, 1984 .( �.
F��� 7 � 7��A��� +2 *56%�� ��-$ +6�A�� � ���� *��� +�2 *�6$��� �8����� *������ *
�� �. 7������ �� *�� � *���4� ��4� (A +2 �$� *����� *F�� �8����� X�� +$� *�A���
*��3�� �� ��� ) .Batt, et al. 2002.(
��$���)Guest, 2001 ( <���$ *��3�� W��� � ��- #(���� 7�� _��� �4� ��
��C�A�9 +2 ��A��� 7 � ?��!$$ +$� 8$�4��$� +��$ +$� 7 =6��� �2�$� #8$���%3 U .
*������� ����- *��0 7 � 7��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ >�$6� �\2 #���� �0 +2�
![Page 57: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
42
7��A��� � �������� . *�� � *���4� 7��1� #*����� 7��A��� �� ����� 7��$ E�� (A +2�
?� 7�4��$� U� ����$$� (��� !��� �� (��� 7�1� (;� �� �4 ���� ?��$$ *���� #(���
(��� ��-��)Houston, 2005.(
�� ���� �� �. 7������� ��� @�!��� �6��� /����$ $ ��2 ������� & � *��0' @ �A�
*�A��� & � � *��3�� .
)2–6 :( ������� ����Organizational Performance
� & � X��1 U5% � @���$ 7��A��� ��2 #X���� =�-�$ ��� +���� ��A��� 7 *� ��� +2 #
����� ���� �������� ���� *1� (�3�� +��� ��: �% ���� �%[� & �' X��1 �� � ��.
7��A���� +4�$ �$�� ��b�� � +��F3$� .
+�2 7�3�2� *����� 7 �3Y�� & � X��1 ��� !�2 =�-�$� $ *���! *���= ��$6�2
84� *4���� 7��A���� +���� & �' +2 �;Y$ +$� W�%' �A�� 7� .� . �. ��2��$� *�C��� � *
�� ��� @���� � �=$ 7��A���� X����� X���[- *����� 7 �3Y�� +2 !�2 ��-6$� �-�� 2 #
& �' )Eccles, 1998.(
![Page 58: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
43
(-3� �8A�)2–3( ��� 9��$ *���4� ) *����� & �' 7 �3Y� ( ��� =-�$ +$� � �
& �' X���� X��[- (���$� .
6�� 4/��)2–3(
����O�6��&� ���!�
��$��: Bogan and English, 1997, P. 60.
��.��
4 $!�
� ���
>�&�� 7#���
-��/��
�������� ��&+��
������
��� � ��
![Page 59: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
44
�� 1� (-3� )2–4 (2 � T8��� �8A� <���� & �' 7 �3Y��. ��. @���4 ���4� �8A$
*����� �� �4� U� ��4.
4/��)2–4( � ���!� ����O�����.
��$��: Bogan and English, 1997, P. 60.
(�-3' �� ^5$�)2–3 (�)2–4 ( 7���A��� & � X��1 7 �3Y�� <���� T8�� �[�
*���� ��:� *���� 7 �3Y� �%$��.
*�Y�� ��� ��F$�� *�A��� (% � �� ?�!� & �' 7 �3Y� X��1 +2 (��$� �0+$�
*6�-$� +2 �-6$ � ���51 �� �;- ��$�$� ; ���$1, +2 7 ��F$� � ������� � *��%� 7����$� (
*�A���� *����$��� *�4�$ �$�� 9 �0' � &��� � ? ��' �)Drucker, 1998.(
@�����$ ���� (-3� �0=�-�$�� *�����$� 7��A��� & � X��1 �A� �\2 #E��� *2�5���
��� �\2 #*����� 7 �3Y�� � � , ��8�' #�����6�$� �������� *������ 7 � ��� ��%$, ?�!$�
��� ��-$ ��� W�$��� X-�$/ 9 �0' ?���$ ��. (���� ��� ����1 ��: � ����1 *�A���
*�4�$ �$�� )Correa and Caon, 2002.(
��.��
7 ��4��� *����� �� 7��6�� (��'
>���'
7������
9���-$�
�����
�� ?2�$� ��� �C��=� �5�
�C��=��� A�6$�,
��������� A�6$�,
������� �5�
T$��� ���4
�� ��
![Page 60: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
45
*���$� (� ���� & �' X���� 7��A��� ��$�$ :)Miranda and Silva, 2002(
1. *�A���� *���F3$� *!3�' ��� ��!��� .
2. �������� =2 ��� *�A� *��F$.
3. !�!%$� ��� ��!��� .
���� ���!�$ +�$� *�1 ��� *���� �� @ &=4 ��-� � �� , & �' X��1 �\2 �-0�
+2 �6�$ +$� 7 & �4� � ��$��� ���$� � !�!%$� � (�F3$� 7���$��� E�$-$� � *�4�$ �$��
�-�� +$� �0��:� ���0���� � ������$�� � &��� � 7������ (;� *6�$%�� �A�� 7�84� ��!.
*����� �A�� *84� +2 !�2 �-6$ ,� #+���� *�A��� & � U� (% �$$ � .
���$� $ ��2 �����U��$ ��F$�- +���� ��: *�A��� & � *� ��� /�0 +2 .
)2–6–1 :(�� 6����� <�'����!� "# "�
��� *���3� *���$� < ��. +2 @ =���� @ ���- @ ��� ���' +2 +���� ���$� _�!1 ��Y�
@����$ *�5��� �3�� 7 ���� (% *-���� +2 +���� ���$� ?��� #7,�4�� � ���� 9�$%�
� _��� -�$ ��. ��$� � ���$� !��� � 7�� ��� _��$ <�� �� @�A���� +�2 U���$� � #-�
+���� ���$� 7���Y�.
�� ���� +2 �������� � � &�3�\� ���'�� +���� ���$� ��1958 ��� &�3�. ���$$ ; #
� ^�� � ������� ��!$� #������� �0��� �8��� ?�! +�2 U�$4� 7���- ^��$� �0���� E�$ 7
7�������� ��� .� � X��[$� �� ��2 +���4� ���$� �� *����' *���4� 1962 ��� +�2� #
1989 *��0' ���� +0� *��% *���4 (� 7�� . *������ 7�����4� ��� o���2 ��� ��
3��� 7����4 ���3�*��% *���4 .
![Page 61: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
46
+2 +���� ���$� �A�$� ����$� *�A� � ��� �1 � ��. $ ��2 ���5��� ������ (%
���� ���$� ����1 �8�� ���' 1� +)28 ( *���1985 1� *���-�� 7����4� ����1� #)29 (
*���1987 1� *��%� 7����4� ����1� #)19 ( *���1989 71Y�� +���� ���$� ����1� #
1�)41 ( *���2001) #+���� ���$� �� =�2003( ���$� $ ��2 E�� ��. *2�5. #
+���� ���$� ���!$� ����� 7��4�$ �$�. *��!�� *�4�$ �$�� �0�%" ��- *����' 7����4� �
+���� ���$��2007–2012.
(�3$� *����' +���� ���$� 7���Y� _��$$� : ������� U5�%$� *���-�� 7����4�
*��%� 7����4� ����1� +���� <��� � +���� ���$� . *-�$3��� � *���4' 7����4� : (�;�
*����' *���4� *����!���� ���2=��0 *���4� #*�����'Huddersfield University U��
7������� ��4����-$� E������ *���4� #*����!$� &����� *���4NYIT ����� *����4 U��
��4����-$� � .) #*��02009 :157–158(
��!$� �0 <��� #��8�2 ���� �� *��!� � �� +2 ��!$ *���� 7����4� � �� +2
7�4��� � T� ��� 9�$%�� *��%� � *����� *����' 7����4� +2 ����$��� *��!� � �� ���$
+� ���)243 ( *���!� ���! 9� *������ *���� W�% (��� ���' �� . *���!� ���� ��
+� �� o���2 *��%� 7����4��� ����$��� )110 (*���!� ���! 9� .
@��1 ��=� �� ?�$��� �0 �� 2.5 % *���� +0� #7����4��� ���' ��-� +���4. ��
���$�� *-���� *�;��� . 7�8�3 ���2 #*�2���� ��� C��� ���$1, +2 U���� ���� *�- ����
� +2 *���� ����= *��%� 7����4� ���$6� (% ?��$�, 7,��2000–2006 +�2 )12 (
*���� @ ��� *��% *���418 %@�����.
![Page 62: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
47
)2–7:( �&��� �������
)2–7–1 :(����� �������:
• *� ��) #A�-� (���� 2009 ( � ����) "# ����� ��� �� ����) ������� E�� 6� &�
�����&� ����� ���;� ( *� ��� /�0 7����$ *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ U1 � (���$
��� �� ��� *����� <�� �� #*������ *���4 *��C� +2 *�4�$ �$��� ��8$ ��' *��3
+�2 *��3��� �� ��� �� �. *!3� ��6�$ $� 9�-� *������ *���4 *��C� +2 *���F3$� �
�� �. & � ��� ������� � �����6�$� ������� �5� ?���$ (4 �� *������ *���4 *��C�
*��3�� �� ��� *� ��� U�$4� (;�$� #*���4� *��C� +2 ������� �� �. U�=�$ $ )90 (
��� *����4� *� ��� 7��%$� � *�C �3� *��� ��� D�F� �8� �0� ��. $ ����$�
*����4��� B�%� (-�8� ��% ��. *� ��� 7���$� 7������ (���$� *�C���� (C����
*��� �� ��C ��� U��$ (�$�� ��� �81���.� *��3�� �� ��� ��� *��% *��$�� ���� ��
� �*������ .� ��. *� ��� /�0 7��% ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 9C�A� ��6�$ W�$�� �
�� *�;�$� 9C�A� X�% 7&�4 �. #��4�� � ���� ) �����$� � #*��3�� �� ��� !�!%$
*��� � *��� � #9C�A�� ���$� #& �' ���$� #���!$� � ( @������ �0��6�$ W�$�� ��-
@����4�.�.
• *� ��)� #��� +4�2010 ( � ����) "(# �(���� ����(� ��� �� ����) �������
"��O�� ,���� 7�&.�– �� �%� �1�$�� ���� /� ��, �/�� "# ��&�'� ����� .(
7��3 *���$� ���$� <���� �1 *� ��� 9 �0 ?���$��)40 ( 7�������� U�4� ���2
�� *��-�� *� ��� *��� �� *���' )253 ( (����$� U�4 W�4 E�� &�5 +2� ���6�
![Page 63: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
48
7������ *�����$4, ������ *�C����� *�=�� �%$��� 7��5�6� ���$% �SPSS .
�� ��� �� �. 7������ ��� *1�� *� ��� /�0 7����$*��3��) #�����$� � ��!�$�,��
��� � *��� � #7�5���$� � #& �' ���$� #���!$� � ����$� � *���8�� *( � ?����$
*���4�. *1� 7��-� +��Y�� =���$� .
)2[7[2 :(����!� �������:
• *� ��)Fey, 2000 ( � ����)The effect of human resource management
practices on MNC subsidiary performance in Russia .( *�� ��� 7����$
��� *1�� 7������ �� �. ��3�� �� ��� * *���$�� �A� #7�5���$� #������� ���!$�
*�4 �� *��F$� . & � � )10( 7�-�3� �� *���4' ����� +2 *����� . *� ��� 7��%$� �
!��$�, � �!%� � ���, ���� . 7������ ��� *��1 *1� ��4� ��. *� ��� 7��%�
�� �. *��3�� �� ��� & � �*�A��� .
• *�� ��)Singh, 2004 ( � �����) Impact of HR practices on perceived
firm performance in India( ��� *��3�� �� ��� 7������ �; *� ��� 7����$
��A��� & � 7 ��8� +2 7������ �� ��� ��� *���4� *1� <���� �4��� �. �� ����
���$%, (;� *��3�� # & �' ���$� # �A�� #����$� � 7�5���$� #E �3.� ��6A����
7��A��� & � ��� . ���- 7�5���$� �A�� ����$� � ���$ 7������� /�0 ��� ���
*�A��� & � ��� �;' ��- �8�.
• *� ��)Sang, 2005 (� ����) Relationship between HRM practices and
the perception of organizational performance, roles of
management style, social capital, and culture: comparison
![Page 64: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
49
between manufacturing firms in Cambodia and Taiwan( . 7�����$
*�A��� & � ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ ��� *1�� *� ��� . ��� 7��! +$� �
�� (- +2 ������� �� ��� ��% #������-� � ���$7 ��. d*������ W���� !�!%$ �
��� ���- 9A��� �� � #����$� � #+���4� (��� � #=2 ��� � #D���$� � #9�A�$�
�����' 7���-$� #+��A�$� & �q� *����� ��:� *����� ����' ��� ���-� +��4�. ��;[$
7�4$��� ���$� #T$��� ���4� T$��� *6�-$ �� & �' .
• *�� ��)Katou, 2008 (� � ����) Measuring the impact of HRM on
organizational performance( *��3�� �� �� �� �. �; X��1 ��. *� ��� 72�0
*����� <����� �%$�� ������� +2 +����� _�!�� +2 7��A��� � ��� & � ���
��� 7�=� *���$�, )178 ( *������ *�48�� <���� �%$� � *����� �[3�� *���-�8�
)Structural Equation modeling( ���� *��1 *���4� *1� ��4� *� ��� 7�8A
7������ 9�$%��� �. *�A��� & � ��� *��3�� �� ��� �����$� (�;�)R=0.73( #
& �' ����$)R= 0.76( D����$� #)R=0.75( ��6A���� *-��3�� #)R= 0.84( #
���$%, )R=0.73.(
• *�� ��)Shahzad, et al., 2008( � ����� ) Impact of HR practices on
perceived performance of university teachers in pakistan( 72��0
=��=�$� 7�5����$� +�2 *�;�$�� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ ����$ ��. *� ���
X���$� *C�0 &�5� �� ������� & � ��� & �' ���$� T���$� 7�����4� +2 �������
#*���$�-��� ��� *� ��� 7��%$� �)12 ( 7!: *���4)94 ( X���$ *C�0 �5�. �4�
![Page 65: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
50
*�5 � *���4� *1�<;� 7������ �� �� �. � & � ���� *��3�� �� ��� ������� .
& �' ���$� #T���$� =�=�$ #7�5���$� +0 7������� /�0�.
• *� ��� ���� )Akhtar, Ding, Ge, 2008 (� ����)Strategic HRM practices
and their impact on company performance in chineses
enterprises.( �. $ � 7������� �; *� ��� 7���*�4�$ �$�� �� �� *��3�� �� ���
���� +2 7��A��� & � ���. *���$� 7������� *� ��� 7����$� ) ��3�� #����$� *-
>����' *-��3�� #+6�A�� 9��� � #+6�A�� ��' #& �' ���$ #������� ( 7��$�3
��� *� ��� *���)465( #*�A�� �. =� ��$���$� 7��%$� ��� 7� ������ ��������
��� �� ��� ��� *��3�� . ��; X����� +6��� &���� � !��$�, *� ��� 7��%$�
7 ��F$�� . ��� 7��%� �� *���$�� 7������� � ��. *�) #������� *-��3� #����$�
���$& �' (���-��� 7��A���� +���� ��:� +���� & �' ��� �; �8� ��-. �[� ���$ ��-
����= ��� �; �8� ��- +6�A�� ���' ��$�� / ��� #�86���$� *��%� ��7�8� *-��3��
����= +2 >���' ���� & �' +.
• *� ��)Dimba, Obonwo, 2009 ( � �����)The effect of strategic human
resource management practices on performance of manufacturing
multinational companies in kenya: A Moderating role of employee
cultural orientations .(������ ��� !��� ��� *� ��� /�0 7=-� 7�� �. �� ���
#*��3�� � #*�2��;� 7�84�$� � #������� =�6�$& � � +2 7��A��� 50 *������ *-�3
*���4 ����- +2 . ���� *�1�� ���$�$ W��� � ��. *2��� ��. *� ��� 72�0 E��-�
#�������� *�2��;� 7�84�$� ��� ������� =�6�$� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ 7����
![Page 66: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
51
� & � ��� *!��� 7 ��F$�- ������� =�6�$� *�2��;� 7�84�$� ��;[$ *� �� 7���A���
*��$��� 7 ���F$�- *���$� 7������� <���� �%$� �), #����$� � ��!�$�� �����$�
A� #��!$� � & �' ���$ #7�5���$� (. �%$���� ���� (���$ � ���, ) Regression
Analysis.( � 7��% &��;$��� 7������� U��4 � ��. *� ��) � ��!�$�' �����$� (
A 87��A��� & � U� *���4� *1� 7�.
• *��� ��)Dharmasriri, 2009 ( � ������)Strategic orientation of HR
managers in commercial banks in south Asia .( *� ��� 7���� *���4�
�� +��$� ( Y�� : �� 4�$� W�� 7�8*�4�$ �$�� ��� ��� ����4 +2 *��3�� �� ���
a���" �. ��� � *��%3� (� ��� 7����$ �$ +$� *�A����� *���$�� (� 8 7��84�$� +2
*�4�$ �$�� ������ �� �. ��8��� !� �$� �; W��� *��3�� �� ��� . ��� *� ��� 7��!
F�� �� (- +2 & �' *���� *���4$� E���� �-������ ��$�-��� � ��8� � r�� . 7��%�
7 ��8�� � *2���� +2 7�8A *��%3� (� ��� � ��. *� ��� E ��� � ����!$�-�7
�86� >�5� �� (- +2 7=�� ��2 *�A����� *���$�� (� ��� �� #(��� �� �. �� ����
��� ��� *��3�� ���� 7�84�$� & �' .
• *� ��)Sheikh, Qamar, Iqbal, 2009 ( � ����)Impact of human resource
management (HRM) practices on employees retention A Case
study of education and banking sector in Bahawalpur ( /��0 7=�-�
7������ ��� *� ��� �� �. *��3�� �� ��� ) ���� *����$�� �� �� #(���� *�C�� #
7�5���$� ( ��� ��������� A�6$�, . *���$ *� ��� 7��%$� &���� *2���� +6���
#7������� �; *���� +2 E���� � 7����4� �� ��� ��� *� ��� 7��! )������8� ( +2
![Page 67: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
52
#��$�-��� �. ��-� *��� ��� D�F� �8� *���$� 7�=�)101( �� ����� �� +�2
���-��� 7��A��� 9�$%� . � ��� 7�8A � ��� 7������� /�8� *���4� *1� ��4� *
A�6$�, ���������.
• *�� ��)Gong, Y and Chang, K, Xin, 2009 ( � �����)HRM and Firm
Performance. the differential role Managerial Affective and
Continence Commitment (4���� ��;���� �%$� @� ��C��; @�) & �' � A��6$�, (
' ���� *��!�� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ ��;���� ��$% �1� *��3�� �� ��� & �
+2 �!��� �� �� )463 ( �� *��-� *��� ��;���� ��$% �1� #���� +2 *���� *�A��
)2146 ( � #7��A��� E�$ +2 �� �.� *���4�. *1� ��;���� �4� � ���, ���� ?��!$
�' ����� ��� 7��A��� & � U� & . *���4�. *1� ��;���� �4� ��2 A�6$�, ����� ��
7��A��� & � U� X�� �-�� �!��� �� �� =$� U�.
• *�� ��)Ayanda, O.J and Sani, A.D. 2010 ( � �����)Strategic Human
Resource, Management and Organizational Effectiveness in the
Public Sector, Some Evidence From Niger State ( ���. *�� ��� 72�0
*C��$ �� �. *�4�$ �$��. 7������� ��; 7����$ +$� 7�� ��� *�1 +2 *�;�$�� ��46�
*� ��� 7����$ *���-�� 7��A��� ��� *��3�� �� ��� )255 ( *���%� +6A��� ��
��� ���=�� *����� )30 ( #�4��� +2 *���-� �� =� !��$�, *���� *� ��� 7��%$�
TC�$�� 7�8A #TC�$��� (����� ����$�� � ���, (���$�� 7������� ���� *�1��
7��8A � #*���-�� 7��A��� & � U� !��$� 7��- *��3�� �� ��� *�� �. *�4�$ �$�.
![Page 68: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
53
*� ��� � *���$�� 7������� �[� @�5� ��� �;- 7��- ������� ����$ ��� @ ��;[$ 7����
*���-�� 7��A��� & � .
• *�� ��)Khera, 2010( � ����� )Human resource practices and their
impact on employee productivity: A Perceptual analysis of
private, public and foreign Bank Employees in India .( /��0 7=-�
7������ ��� *� ��� �� �. �� E����� +�2 ������� & � ��� �0��;[$� *��3�� �� �
��8� +2 *���4$� *� ��� 7����$� #17 �8�� *����� ��!�$��, #=��6�$� #�����$� �
����$� � ���!$� #D���$� #!�!%$� #������� *-��3� . �� *��� 7����$�184 ���
��6A�� ���� �. E��� *;; �� ) #B�% E��� #+��4 E�� ���� _��!�� ��� E���(
�%$������� +!%� � ���, ���$�� . !���$�, (����� )Duncan's mean Test(
7������ ��� *��1 *1� ��4� ���$��� �. <��� ��� ������� & � � *��3�� �� ���
����$� � ��!�$�, ���!$� � ����$� � 7�5���$� � .
• *� ��)Khan, 2010( � ���� )Effects of human resource management
practices on organizational performance – an Empirical study of
oil and gas industry in Pakistan .( 7������� ��; ���$� *� ��� /�0 7��1
*���� *�� ��� 7��%$� #��$�-��� +2 *����$�� 7������ & � ��� *��3�� �� ���
�� *��-�150 �� �. *����� �[3�� ���3�� . �%$���� *�� ��� 7�8A � �����
, �7��A��� /�0 & � ��� 7�������� *��1 *1� ��4� +!%� � ��.
• *��� ��)Katou and Budhwar, 2010(� ������ ) Causal relationship
between HRM policies and organizational performance: Evidence
![Page 69: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
54
from the Greek manufacturing sector( ��4� ������� +�2 7��4 +$� �
��� *���4� *1� <���� �� #*�1�$� � 9�A�$� � ����$� � *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7����
W�% *84 �� *�A��� & � � *84 �� *��� � *��� � #=2 ��� � #��6A��� E �3.�.
• *�� ��)Caliskhan, Esra, N. 2010 ( � �����)The impact of SHRM on
Organizational Performance ( �; *� ��� 7����$� 7�������� *�4�$ �$��
� A��� & � ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� ��* . E��� ����' D ��$� (% �� *����$�� 7
*� ��� 7��3 � #_�5�������. *��A��� & � � *��3��� �� ��� �� �. ��� *1�� �
-�$� *����4�. *���F3�$ TC�$� ��. (�Y$� +$� T� ��� ���$� *��3�� �� ��� ����� �
(-- *�A��� & � +��$���� *�A��� ��� . A��� �� �. *���! � ��. *� ��� 7��%�� *
*�A��� & � ���$ +$� +0 *��3�� �0������.
• *�� ��)Rathnawerera, R.R.N.T., 2010 ( � �����)Do HRM Practices
Impact Employee Satisfaction Commitment or Retention?)
Empirical Studies of Sri Lankan Public Sector Banks)( *� ��� 7����$
��5�� (;� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7�4�%� ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ �;
_�!�� +2 ��6A����� A�6$�, � # =$�, #+6�A�� #�-�,���� +2 E����� ��� �%$��
*����- *���$�, � � <���� �� ��-$$ 7������ U�4�)209 (��� 9��$%� +2 ������ (
(����$� 7 �� <����� �%$�� � �-������ +2 *���� E���� �� ���; +2 ��1'
)Descriptive Statistics, Person Correlations, Mottiple, Regression(
*� ��� 7����� (���$�. �� ���� �� �. ���� *������ *1� ��4� ��. *� ��� 7��%
��6A����� A�6$�, # =$�, #+6�A�� �5�� � *;;� 7 ��F$�� � *��3�� .(
![Page 70: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
55
• *� ��)Sani, Abdulkader, D. 2012 ( � ����)SHRM and Organizational
Performance in of Organizational Climate ( 7������ �; *� ��� 7����$
�4�$ �$�.* *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *��3�� �� ��� �� �. +�2 ���[�$� 7�-�3 & � ���
����4�� . *��3��� �� ���� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. 7������ *����2 7��- �. �� *� �� E��-�
, 7��A��� (�� ��-� s���� *!��3� 7��A��� & � ��� . $4� ��-$ �� *� ��� U�
)18 ( *���� ���[$ *-�3����4�� (���$� 7 �� <���� �%$� � #) !���$�, � � ���, (
� ���. *� ��� 7��% *��% *���$� ���$� <���� �1 *��F� /�8�� #7������ (���$�
!��!%$ ��A�� #�����$� U�� *�A��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. *�4�$ �$�. 7������
C�A�� �� �. *�4�$ �$��. 7�������� +���C�� >�$6�� 0 (���� ^5 �� 9���$� � #9
+2 *����� ���[$� 7�-�3 +2 *��3�� �� ��� ����4�� 7������� /�0 ! �$3 W�� �� #
s����E��� *!��$� *1� <���� �4� ��2 (��� ��-�.
� *1� ��4� 7�8A �1 �-�� *6�" 7�� ��� �� :����� 7������� ��� *���4�� �.
7�� ��� D�� � ,. #7��A��� & � � *��3�� �� ��� ) *���1 7��- � � (� *��5 � ���;" �4$
7��������� �. � � *��3�� �� ��� 7��A��� & .E�� *�;� ��� *� ��)Batt, 2002.(
![Page 71: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
56
6�� 4 ���)2–1( �&��� ������� ,��
F;���� ,�� .�� M ���6�%���� 4�� ������ E�� ����
����� 6�. ����N��� / ��������
���%���� \��� 7'�� <�'&�
������/� �� ���� @.��/� �.�� @.� 6��
��4� U���4� *���1 *����� *1� 7������� .
- Correlation *���$� )253(
#����$� � ��!�$�,�� ���$� #���!$� � ����$� �
*��� � #7�5���$� � #& �'*��8�� *��� �
*-�37,��$ /7��-� 2010 ��� +4��
?����$ +2 �0�; � *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ +��Y�� =��$� – ���= *-�3 +2 *����!$ *� ��
*���%� 7,��$� *�$��-�
7������ ! �$3, *!��$� *1� ���-� s���� *��3�� �� ��� �� �.
(��� .
- Correlation. - Regission. *���$� )18(
��A� ����!$� � ����$� !�!%$� #9C�A�� !�!%$
(���� ^5 ��
7�-�3���[$� /����4�� 0122 Sani,
Abdulkadir, D.
SHRM and Organizational Performance in of Organizational Climate
+�2 +6�A�� �5��� *����� *1�, � =$� ��6A����� A�6$�.
- Descriptive Statistics. - Person Correlation). - Multiple Regression.
*���$� )209( # =�$�, #+6�A�� �5��
��6A����� A�6$�, E���� /�-�,��� 2010 Rathnawercra, R.R.N.T
Do HRM Practices Impact Employee Satisfaction Commitment or Retention? Empirical Studies of Sri Lankan Public Sector Banks
����$%, ���� *���1 *1� ��4� U�� ���!$� � ����$� � 7�5���$� �
7��A��� & �
- DunCan's mean Test. - Leaniar Regression. - Correlation. *���$� )184 (
(���)3 (E���
17 #����$� #���$%, �8�� *����� �3��� #=2 ����� #��������� *-�
#����!$� #D����$� #!�!%$� ����$� .
*���4$� E���� /��8� 2010 Khera
Human resource practices and their impact on employee productivity: A Perceptual analysis of private, public and foreign Bank Employees in India
5�����$� � �����!$� � ������$� 7� ������� �� ��3�� +6�A�� !�!%$� �
������� & � ��� ^5 � �; �8�.
- Correlation. - Regression. *���$�, )255 (
+2 9A��)30 (*���-� ��C �� �� =�
������!$� � �������$� !�!%$� �A� #7�5���$�
������� *-��3� +6�A�� *��-�� 7��A��� 2010 Ayanda. O.
and Sani A.D
Strategic Human Resource, Management and Organizational Effectiveness in the Public Sector some evidence from Niger State
U�� 7������� *2�-� *���4�. *1�7��A��� & � .
- Correlation. m
7��1�$� #9�A�$� #����$� #�������� *-��3� #=2 ��� �
*���
7��A��� *����� /������ 2010 Katou and
Bundwar
Causal relationship between HRM policies and organizational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector
���� 7��������� *��1 *1� ��4�*�A��� & � .
- Leaning. - Regression.
*���$�, )120 ( �� �.)20 (3���[
*����$�� 7������ /��$�-�� 2010 Khan
Effects of human resource management practices on organizational performance – an Empirical study of oil and gas industry in Pakistan
![Page 72: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
57
4 ��� E��)2–1(
��,F;���� 6�%���� 4��.�� M ��� ��� ������ E�� �
� 6�. ���� ����N��� / ��������
���%����
'�� <�'&� 7��\� ������/� ��
���� @.��/� �.�� @.� 6��
�0������� *�A��� �� �. !�$�$ & � ����$ +�$� +�0 *��3��
*�A��� .
- Correlation.
m & � � *��3��� �� ��� �� �.
*�A��� 7��A��� 2010 Caliskhan, Esra, N.
The impact of SHRM on Organizational Perforcmance
m & �' ������ ��� *���4�. *1�7��A��� & � U� ������� .
m ��������� A�6$�� *���4�. *1��� �� =$�, U�.
- Correlation. *���$� )2148 ( ���)463 (
*�A��
+C���; �����) A��6$�, #& �' #���������������
������� .(
� �� � �!��� 7��A���
*6�$%�/���� 2009
Gong, Y and Chang, K and
Xin, K
HRM and Firm Performance. the differential role Managerial Affective and Continence Commitment
�������� *���4�. *1� ��4�7 ��������� A�6$�, ���
Statistical Description.
*���$� )101( #(��� *C�� #�� �� ��
7�5���$� . 7����4�
E���� �/��$�-�� 2009 Sheikh,
Qamar, and Iqbal
Impact of human resource management (HRM) practices on employees pretention A Case study of education and banking sector in Bahawalpur
&��;$����� 7��������� U����4 ��!�$�, �����$� � 7��8A
*�A��� & � U� *���4�. *1�.
Regression analysis
*���$� )50( �A� ���!$� ����$�
& �' ���$ #D���$� 7�-�3� *������ /����-
2009 Dimba, Obonwo
The effect of strategic human resource management practices on performance of manufacturing multinational companies in kenya: A Moderating role of employee cultural orientations
m (�� ���� *����4�. *1� ��4� *�2���� +�2 �0�; � *��%3� 7����!$�- E ��� � 7 ��8�� �
(����.
- Correlation - Regression analysis
m
& �' 7�84�$ E���� _�!1/ ���4���" 2009 Dharmasriri
Strategic orientation of HR managers in commercial banks in south Asia
m *1� 7�8A 7������� U��4 *���4�.
- Correlation - Regression analysis
*���$� )90(
#*��3��� �� ��� !�!%$ #�����!$� � ������$� � �����$� #& �' �����$� *������ � #9C����A��
�� �*�.
*���4*������ /? ��� 2009 (���� *� ��
A�-�
*��C� +2 *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ U1 � ��$*������ *���4
![Page 73: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
58
4 ��� E��)2–1(
,��F;���� 6�%���� 4��.�� M ��� ���� ������ E�� ����� 6�.
����N���/ �����������%����
\��� 7'�� <�'&�������/� �� ���� @.��/� �.�� @.� 6��
m #�������� *-��3� #����$� +���� ��:� +���� & �' ���$�
7��A����. m 9���� � +6�A��� ��'
�����= ���� �; �8� +C�1�� �8���$� ��$�� .
m +��4�. �; �8� >���' *-��3�+���� & �' ����$ ���.
Corrolation. Discriptive Statistics.
��$���$� )465 (*�A��
�����!$� � ������$� ����$ �������� *-��3� +6�A���� ����' & �' #+6�A���� 9�����
>���' *-��3�. 7��A��� /���� 2008 Ge, Ding, Akhtar
Strategic HRM practices and their impact on company performance in chineses enterprises
��4� ��� *��1� *���4�. *1�*�A��� & � � 7�������
Structural. Equation Modeling *���$� )178 (
�[3�� *-��3� D���$� & �' ���$ ��6A���
+����� _�!�� /������ 2008 Katou
Measuring the impact of HRM on organizational performance
����$ T����$� =�=�$ D���$� & � ���� *���4�. ��;" �8� & �'
*�A��� .
- Correlation. *���$� )94 ( *C�0 �5�
X���$. )12 (*���4.
m 7�5���$� .
m T���$� =�=�$.
m & �' ���$. ����$� *C�0 &�5�
7����4� +2 /���$-��� 2008 Shahzad, et. al.,
Impact of HR practices on perceived performance of university teachers in pakistan
���� 7������� (-� +��4�. �; +������ ����:� +������ & �'
7��A����. m m
m *����� W��� !�!%$. m #9���A�$� D�����$� #
(������ #=2 ������ #������$� #+����4��
9C�A�� �� .
��A��� 7 / � ���$������-� 2005 Sang
Relationship between HRM practices and the perception of organizational performance, roles of management style, social capital, and culture: comparison between manufacturing firms in Cambodia and Taiwan
���- 7�5���$� �A�� ����$� *�A��� & � ��� �;� ��- �8�. m m
m ���$%, . m ���$& �' .
m ����$� .
m 7�5���$� �A�.
m ������� *-��3�.
��A��� 7 / ��8�
2004 Singh
impact of HR practices on perceived firm performance in India
����� *�����4�. *��1� ����4���A��� & � � 7������� 7.
- Correlation. - Rgression. *���$����� )10 (
7�-�3 m ��!$� � ����$� . m ���$(��� . m *�4 �� *��F$� �A�.
*�����4' 7�-�3��� ����� +2 *���� 2000 Fey
The effect of human resource management practices on MNC subsidiary performance in Russia
![Page 74: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
59
)2–8:( ���.� ������ ,��� �� ��&��� ������� �
-� *����� 7�� ��� �� *� ��� /�0 =��$�+$Z +2 ��:
• ������ �;� @�. ��: 7�$ ��� �� 7 *2��5��� *�����Z (���� D�� +2 *�����
*����� (��� D��� . +�2 *��%� 7����4� *C�� +2 *����� *� ��� ?��!$ $ ��� +2
���' .
• ������ -�� @�. ��: 9�8$ 7��- <�� #*����� 7�� ��� *�;��� 7�0�4$, 7���$
��� ��. *����� 7���A��� � 7����Y�� +�2 *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ U1 � �
*�4�$ �$��� 7�������� �; ��� 9��$� ��. *����� *� ��� U�!$$ ����� #*��%� �
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � ��� *��3�� �� �� �� ��.
• ������ FA�� @�. ��: �-�� +2]��� �� *����� *� ��� �%[$ �8��-� *�����$ *�6�� *
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ���� �� �A� *84�.
• 6�%���� I��&�� ����N��� @�. ��: 7������� +�2 ����$��� 7 ��F$�� 7���$
7 ���F$� �����$ +�2 7���$� *������ *� ��� � ,. 7��A��� & � � *��3�� �� ���
��� ��� *��3�� �� ��� 7���U�� +�2 7��� 7������ )Huselid, 1995; Singh,
2004; Khera, 2010; Ge, Ding, Akhtar, 2008; Shahzad, et; 2008; Katou,
2008; Khan, 2010 ( +0�) #�������� *-��3�� #D����$� �A� #����$� � ��!�$�,
���!$� � ����$� .
7������� �� 7;��$ 7�� ��� A�� � �� :�� ��� �� *�4�$ �$ �� �� �� ���
*��3�� /��4$, �� *������ *�1�� +2 !��� �0 � ,. #*�A��� � � ��� �3���� �0����
+5�� ��: �� �� )Edwards and Wright, 2001 .(. �. *���C�� 7 ���$�, � 7��������
![Page 75: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
60
���$��� *�4�$ �$�� �� �. �0 +��A�$� & �' � *��3�� �� ��� � 7 ��!$� *��A�� >�3�$ +$�
��C�: ���� 7������� /�0 (;� (�� *�6�-)Becker and Gerhart, 1996 .( *������ +�2
+2 �A��� &����� >�$1 #(�4�� �0 +2 *��A�� 7 ��!$� /�0 (;�� ���$��(�%�. 7 ���F$�
7������� ��� *!���*�4�$ �$�� �� �� & �' � *��3�� �� ��� +��A�$�)Ferris et al,
1998 .( *���$�� 7������� � �0 ��� ?2 �$� +��$����*�4�$ �$�� �� �. , *��3�� �� ���
+��A�$� & �' ��. ��3��� ��Y$ . �� �� D�� ��;[$ *4�$� (� *��A��� (���� X � (�;� #
2 ��Y$ 7��-���� � �� ��� /�0 � � #9A��� 7��-��� � #��3�� �0� & �' ��. *��8�� +
���. ��3 ��)Katou and Budhwar, 2006 ( & � (�% ��� & �' X��1 (% �� E���
*�A��� +2 ������� .
![Page 76: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
61
@��� 4$+�
������ ���A��)�������� �&��'�(
)3–1 :(���&��
)3–2 :(������ FA��
)3–3 :(�A���� ������ E����
)3–4 :( ����N��������� ���� ���#! ��#��N����
)3–5 :( ��� ���� ��� 4 $.� ���$� ������ �� ��
)3–6 :(���%���� ��;�$.�� ������
)3–7 :(�A��� ������ ���� 7�$
![Page 77: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
62
@��� 4$+�
������ ���A��)�������� �&��'�(
)3–1:(���&��
������� �; ��� 9��$� ��. *� ��� 72�0 *��3��� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7
*��%� 7����4� +2 7��A��� & � ���.
�0 ��5$� � #�%$��� *� ��� T8�� (�6� ������ � #��8$���� *�� ��� U�$4�
*�C����� 7��4����� � #7�������� ���� (���� ������ #*� ��� 7 �� � #*� ���
�2� #*��%$��� B� *� ��� � � ?�� �8$��;.
)3–2:( ������ FA��
$� $ �. #+����$� +6��� T8��� �% +6��� T8��� 9�8� ��. 7���$��� �����$
#*� ��� _�5�� ��0�A� ��. E�� ���4 ���. 9�8� ��� � +!��$�, T8��� �%$� $ ��2
U��$ ��F$� ��� *��$��� 7 ��F$�� �� *���4� � #��F$� ��;[$ ����$.
)3–3:( �A���� ������ E����
� *� ��� U�$4� ��-$�� *��%� *����' 7����4� �0��� o��� +$� �)20 ( *����4
*��%) 1� ?���2( U� (���$� $ �1� #)14 (<��� �0 7���F� !�2 *���4)1(.
*� ��� *��� �� *���$� ������ ��5 ���� �� �� 7��-$2 ) : ��Y3��� X�C�� �C��
�� *��3�� �� ��� ���� #*�� # ���4� ���5 ���� # (�4��$� � (���� ���� # = ���� �����
)1 ( % 7����4 7� &��;$� $ ����� �� ��� +2��-� ���� �2�$ ��� � <���� U� ����$� ��� E��� *��<��� D �: *��%�.
![Page 78: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
63
7���%� � # *���� 7�1�� ���� # ���!$� � ����$� ���� # +���� ����� # �� �. +6�A� =-���
<��� D �: ��� �%"( ��� ��-$$ +$� � *� ��� *��� ��� *� ��� *���$� U�=�$ $�
)103 (� ����$� 7�$ <�� #���6)92 ( ��4$� *���� *���$� 7F�� *)89 (% +��-� 4�� ��
����$� $� ��$�, <��� # (���$�� *���� ��F� 7�� *������ ���$���� *����� 4� ^��
(���$��)88 ( *����)85 (%� �0 ��- (��4� +2 ^5�)3–1.(
![Page 79: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
64
4 ��)3–1( �� M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, �����
6��� ������ 6�� ������1� ���
��, ��
������1� ���
�������
������1� ���
4��.�� �.�$�
1 *��%� !��' ?�3� *���4 8 8 8
2 *��%� *��� ����' *���4 8 8 8
3 *��%� *��0' ���� *���4 8 6 6
4 *��%� *����!$� ���� *���4 6 4 3
5 �2 *���4*��%� ��6�� 7 7 7
6 *��%� & ��� *���4 7 6 6
7 *��%� �$�� *���4 7 6 5
8 *��%� *��$�=� *���4 7 6 6
9 *��%� &�1�=� *���4 9 9 7
10 *��%� ���. *���4 8 6 6
11 7�����!$� *���4� ���' *��-+����� � +1��6� ���$�
5 3 3
12 *��!�� ���4� *���4*��%� 8 8 8
13 *��%� r�4 *���4 7 7 7
14 *���4*��%� �� �4 8 8 8
< ���� 103 92 88
![Page 80: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
65
)3–4(:������ ���� ���#! ��#��N���� ����N���
$ *���$� (� �4� *� ��� *���� *�2 �F���� 7 ��F$�� ��� �. ̂ 5$� ) #����� #X��4�
4. #+6�A�� =-��� #+���� (0Y�� ���%� 7 ��� +��� .(
6�� 4 ��)3–2(
I��� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� ���#� E�, � I��� ���/�� �� ;�� ����
�-� 67 76.1 �;� 21 23.8
_��4�� 88 99.9
(��4 �� A��)3–2 ( *����� 7���- � ��2' *��� ��� 7��4 +$� *� ��� �
)76.1%( ����-�# � )23.8%( <��n� . T$�$�� +�2 *��%� 7����4� �[� ?���� (��4� ��
-� ����$ +2 7��$� ���' � �� �� �� *) *� ��� U�$4� ( 7��- +$� � ��-�� ��� *��� ���
����� ��� <��� ��� �� ��� )53.(%
4 ��)3–3( E�, ����#����� ��N�� M�. ������ ����
���� /����� �� ;�� ����
�� (1 25*�� 3 3.4 26m35*�� 19 5.12 36m45*�� 29 32.9 46m55*�� 17 19.3
�� �;- 55*�� 20 22.7 _��4�� 88 99.8
![Page 81: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
66
(��4� �� A�� )3m3 ( >� ��$$ 7���- *���� � �2 ��� 7��4 +$� *� ��� �.
���� 0 *���� )3.4%( �� (1 25 *�� �)21.5%( �� 26m35 *���� *�� )32.9%( ��
36m45 *���� *��)19.3%( �� 46m55 *���� *�� )22.7%( �� �;-' 55 *�� . A�b�
*�� �� �� �-� *��� � ) *� ��� U�$4� ( *!��$�� ����' 7 �)36–45 ( ��-' *���� +0
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2.
�� 4)3–4(
E�, ����#�"���� 4�O�� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� "���� 4�O�� ���/�� �� ;�� ����
���� �� (1 2 2.2 ���� 5 5.6
X������-� 36 40.9 ��$�4�� 23 26.1 / ��$-� 22 25.0 _��4�� 88 99.8
(��4� �� A��)3–4 ( � +$� *� ��� 7��4 +����� (�0Y��� *���� � �2 ���
*���� 7��-)2.2%( *���� ���� �� (1q� )5.6%( *���� ������ )40.9%( X�������-���
*����)26.1%( � ��$�4���� )25.0%( / ��$-��� . 7�����4� ����$� ��. *4�$�� /�0 ��3$
*�� �� �� �-� ��� ���' +2 *��%� ) *�� �� U�$4� ( ���' *����4� 7 ��83� *��� ��
7 ��83� *��� ��: � ��� *�5 � *�,� ��0� ����� ������ ��-�� �� .
![Page 82: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
67
4 ��)3–5 ( E�, ����#� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� "���)"+�� � ,/��� �� ��
"+�� � ,/��� ���/�� �� ;�� ����
�� ��Y3�� X�C�� �C��*�� 5 5.6 *��3�� �� ��� ���� 14 15.9 ���4� ���5 ���� 10 11.2
(�4�$� � (���� ���� 11 12.4 7���%� � = ��� ���� 10 11.2 *���� 7�1�� ���� 11 12.4
�������!$� � ����$� ���� 3 3.4 +���� ����� 13 14.7
=-���%" +6�A� 11 12.5 _��4�� 88 99.3
(��4� �� A��)3–5 ( � +$� *� ��� 7��4 7��-2 +6�A�� 0=-��� � �2 ���
*���)15.9%( 7��- +0� *��3�� �� ��� ����� ��� � *���� )3.4%( �$� ������ ����
*��� (1 7��- +0� ���!$� �. +2 ���!$� � ����$� 7 ��� ��� D�6%� (��4� �� A��
�%� 7����4� *�W�%' 7 � �� ��� U� @����! ����$� , ���.
4 ��)3–6 (
E�, ����#� ��N�� M�. ������ ���� "���)��%� �� �� ��%� �� �� "���) ���/�� �� ;�� ����
�� (1 5*�� 15 17.0 ��6m10*�� 17 19.3 ��11m16*�� 17 19.3 ��17m20*�� 16 18.1
�� �;- 20*�� 23 26.1 _��4�� 88 8.99
![Page 83: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
68
(��4� �� A��)3m6 ( ��� 7��4 +$� *� ��� � � �2 ���� ����%� 7 ��� ���� *
*���� 7��-2 )17%( �� (15 *���� 7 ��� )19.3%( �� 6m10 7 ��� � *����) 19.3%(
�� 11m16 *�� 18.1% � # ��17m20 *���� *�� )26.1%( �� �;-' 20 *�� . �� ���$�
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� � *4�$�� /�0 � �!�$�$ *�� �� �� �-) *�� ��� U�$4� (���
*����� 7 ��%� � 7 &�6-� 8��� ���$�, � .
)3–5 :( ��� ���� ��� 4 $.� ���$� ������ �� ��
, $ #*� ��� 9�0 ?���$ *�F��$����� 7 ��' �*���$� ���� (������ 7�������
7������� �:
1. �� ���� ���$��:
7������� ��� (����� <���� �4$ *����;� ���. <���� ��A�� ��!� *4���� +2
*1�� 7 � *���4' � *����� U4 ��� � �$-� +2 (;�$$ ����� ���# 7,����� � 7������� �
*����� 7�� ��� � <���' � #�����$� � +����� *�� ��� _��5�� 7����$ +$� # <���� �
� U1 �� +2 *���!�� �*� ��� _�5��� *1� �8� +$� *6�$%�� 7��$�.
2. �� !� ���$��:
7������� U��4 ��. &�4�� $ ��2 +���� *� ��� _�5��� *�����$� �� �4� *4�����
<���� *���C� / ��- ����$�, (% �� *���' # 7��� 8� ����% 7���3 ��1� #D�F� �
����$�, �8$�C� � *� ��� 9 �0 X-�$ 7 ����� �� ��� # ��;����� (�1 �� �8�� *��4n� #
X���� �%$� $��� (Osgood, 1957) ����� +# <��� �%[$ ������ *���0 *���4. (�- .
+C���� T������ �%$� $�� (���$� D �:��SPSS.
![Page 84: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
69
� �1�7��1 ����$�, �� +0 & =4 *;;:
)01 � ( 4 !� 6�&�: (�% �� *� ��� *���� *�2 �F���� BC��%��� ?��$$ 7 ��F$� ��$���
)5 ( *��5$�� � 7 ��2 : +����4.� #+6�A��� =-��� #+���� (0Y�� � #���� #X�4�
���%� 7 ��� .
)0����� ( "���� 6�&�: �� +!F$ +$� 7 ��6� (�3$� ��� *��-�� � *�4�$ �$�� 7�����)23 (
+�� ��- *�=�� 7��- +0� ���2:
1. ����$� � ��!�$�, �8�� )6 (7 ��2.
2. �8�� ���!$� � ����$� )6 (7 ��2.
3. =2 ��� � D���$� A� �8�� )6 (7 ��2.
4. �8�� ������� *-��3�)5 (7 ��2.
)0���� (5�%� 6�&�: �� ��-�� � +���4� & � )15 (2+�� ��- *�=�� 7��- +0� ��� :
1. ��� *���4� & � )8 (7 ��2.
2. ��� ������� & � )7 (7 ��2.
�� X����� ��-$�)38 ( �� *��4$�, W�� >� �$ ���2)1–7 ( ���� X����� ��-�
+$Z ���� :
0���/ 7+�� 7+�� �"�� P� 7+�� ���.� �"�� P� 7+�� 1 7+�� 1 0���') 7+�� 1
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
![Page 85: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
70
)3–6(:���%���� ��;�$.�� ������
����� *�C���� *�=�� ��. <���� [4� �8$��5�2 ���$% � *� ��� *�C� �� *��4n�
*����$4, Statistical Package for Social Statistic-SPSS �%$�� ���. *2�5���
+C���� T������ Statistical�� �1 ��% ��� *���$� *�C���� �����' �%$��� <��:
• s�����- (���Caronbach Alpha�%$��� X����� 7��; *4�� �� �-[$�� #.
• *�2���� *� ��� *�C� �� *��4� (4 �� *������� 9 ���, � *������ 7�!��$��
*��0' .
• ���$% )T (��� ��� *1�� *���! �� ?��$�� E��� ��� � *����*�A��� & � � 7����.
• +C���� +C���� ������ �%$��� ����� (���$)SME ( 7���� � �%$� (% ��
*�&� 7����� *������� � ���,+2 *�;�$�� � ������ :
m ��- U���.
m ��- U��� *���/*���� 7�4��.
m CRI.
m GFI.
m RES EM.
![Page 86: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
71
����� (���$ �%$� 7 ���� : �� ��� ��. ����$� (�-3 ����$� +C����' (
��� #7 ��F$�� +2 ����� (���$ 8 7 ��F$� �� ��F$� (-� ������� �;' (���� *��1 ����$
!���� *� ��� ��F$� ��� *��$��� *� ��� # �� �3���� ������� �;' (���� ���� $ ��-
*�C� 7 �3Y� ���$% ��. *2�5.� U��$� ��F$�� ����� � (-- *� ���# 7����� � �%$���
*�6��� *�&�� ) .Bentler & Hu, 1992.( ��� ������ (����$ �. <����� �A� *84�
����� +2 *�8�� �� �4� D�� ��8A. *��$��� 7 ��F$�� ��� *� ��� ��� +65$ +$� � ����
*6�$%�.
m ���! *����� *��0' ����$ $ +$Z X������ :
W���� *��� –����� *��� !� ] �������=
3
7m1 ����!� ] ���=
3 =2
���� �� (1 *56%��� *��0' ��-$ E3.0.
�� *!��$�� *��0' �3.0 – 5.0.
�� *�6$��� *��0' � 5.1 �;-[2.
![Page 87: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
72
)3–8 :(�A��� ������ ���� 7�$
>����� 7�$�:
� ?��$� 7���F� �� ?�� ��0�A� X������ ��� *���4� ��� �85�� $ # &�5��
� *C�0 *����� � *����� 8$��% �� ���2� ���� #&���� � �� �� ��� ��. ���$��� X���$ .
�-��� ��� o�� �1���) 7(?������ ^5�� ��- )1( # *��-� *��4$�, *��� 7F���)100 .(% �.
W�� 7�A��� D�� ���-��� #�$ ��2 +2 (���$ & �4. ��� #@*2�5. @�2��� �!3 #@ @����4� #
@�$��;$X����� ^��� #*:��� ����.� @���F� �-�$� /=��$4 (�1 .
�� X����� ��-$�)38 ( ��� *��4$��, W�� >� �$ , Y�)1m7 ( ���% E�����
?���� +2 ^5�� ��- *�C�8�� �$��� +2 ����$�, )2.(
������� ������:
7��; �� ?��$�� � *� ��� s�����- *����� 7��%$� �6� �8A$ +$� � 7��;� �����
�4C�$� (��4��� )3–7.(
4 ���)3[7( 4����� ��� �����1� ���! "�%��� 7���1)�+� ^��� / I��&�(
��� ���� 4���� ���� )a( �+� ���&+� ���
����$� � ��!�$�, 0.89 6
���!$� � ����$� 0.90 6
5���$� A�7�=2 ��� � 0.93 6
������� *-��3� 0.89 5 7������� *�4$ �$�� ) (--( 0.95 23 *���4� & � 0.88 8
& � ������� 0.93 7 7 ��2 _��4� *���$�, 0.96 38
![Page 88: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
73
�� ��� ��- #�6� s�����- (���� �1 U��4 �[� ^5$�0.60+0� � *��1 (���� ���' ��
*����� *� ��� D �:' *����� �6� �1 U��4 � ��. ��3� �0� #�6� ��2� )(sekaran, 2003 .
�. ^5$� (��4� ��)3–7(��� �. (���� 7��;���� , *���$� �0)0.95 (?��$�� �
������� !�$��� � 7�5���$� A��3�� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�, 7�� ��F$�- ������� & � � #*��
��- 7��;�� *��1 ��� � A�� �� +2� #!���)0.88 (7����4� & �'.
+$� TC�$�� 7��; ��. 7����� ���$ �� (-3�� �6� 7�8���!$ *4�$� *���$�, ��.
![Page 89: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
74
E��� 4$+�
���%� 4��.�� F;������*�+�
)4–1 :(���&��
)4–2 :( 4��.�;���F ������
)4–3 :(������ ���*�# ���%�
![Page 90: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
75
)4–1(:���&��
+�$� *�� ��� *���� � ��2 *��4$� TC�$�� +C���� (���$� (�6� �0 D��$��
7�!���$�� (�% �� 8$���4� *���' *�C���� 7 �3Y�� D�� (% �� �8�2 7��$�
�� 7 ��F$� (-� *������� 7�2 ���, � *������ ���$% (�6� (���$� ��- *����� *��0'� *� �
�8�� (-� *��%� *�C���� 7,,�� � *� ��� 7��5�2.
)4–2(: 4��.�� F;���������
(� �4� ���$�*���$� !��$�� 9 ���, � ������� ��� *� ��� *��� � �2. 7���4$�,
7������� 7 ��F$�*�4�$ �$�� #& �' �+���4� .
![Page 91: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
76
4 ��)4–1( '� ���-��.�1� >������ ������ M�'&��1� ��N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1
� ��&+� '� ���
"��.�
-��.�1�
>������
����"t"
� �.��
����� M����
��&+�
] ���
����!� 1 � �2' *���4� �!�$�$� 7 ���8� ���-�$�� ���
+2 *�2�- 7 ��%� *��1�� � �A�$� � !�!%$� (�4� ������ (F3�*�� �� *�8�� .
5.65 1.17 21.142 3 *�6$��
2 � E��3����� �� ���� ���� U� 7 ���� ��1' +2 *��3�� ��!�$�, *���4� +2 ����$� � .
5.32 1.44 15.073 6 *�6$��
3 $8 ��4� $� �����$�� �� 7������� 7����� U�4� *$�� �8� �%$� D�F� ���$%, � *������� *2�5. ����
����$� � *�5�6�� +2.
5.66 1.24 20.116 2 *�6$��
4 ���: 7 ����$%, � 7������ *���4� �%$�$����$� �� �=��$�� .
5.59 1.34 18.077 4 *�6$��
5 ����$% +�2 �� ��4� ����� ��� *���4� ��$�$������� .
5.53 1.28 18.614 5 *�6$��
6 *���4� +2 �������� ����$� � ��!�$�, ������ ���� �� ?��6� ��5 (���� ����� � *�:�� ��-$ �
5.70 1.25 20.266 1 *�6$��
M�'&��1� >������ -��.�1� "��.� '� ���������
5.61 1.00 *�6$��
(��4� ��)4–1( � [� ^5$ *������ 7�!��$�� � ����� 7�� �$ )5.32m5.70(# �.
. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� �) 6" ( ��-$ � *���4� +2 �������� ����$� � ��!�$�, ������ ��
�� �� ?��6� ��5 (���� ����� � *�:�� " +����� !���$��)5.70 ( ������� 9 ���� �
)1.25 .( � � +���� !��$� (1 ���6�� )2( �� E��3�������� ��1' �� ���� ���� U� 7
+2 *��3�� ��!�$�, *���4� +2 ����$� � +����� !��$�� #)5.32 ( ������� 9 ���� �
)1.44( o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #5.61 ������� 9 ����� )1.00 ( U���4 !���$� � �
U6$��� W�$��� ��5 7��- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� .
![Page 92: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
77
4 ��)4–2( '� ���-��.�1� ���� >���� '�� M����� ��N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1
� ��&+� '� ���
"��.�
-��.�1�
>������
����"t"
� �.��
M�����
��&+� �����
] ���
����!� 7 �1 (- +2 ������� U5%� / T������� ��C �
(- +2 *��� ���3� �� (�� , �� � +����$��.
4.00 1.57 5.981 5 !��$�
8 �� *���4� +2 *�����$� 7�4��$�, ����$ $�*�����$� 7�4��$�� ����� *!%� (%.
4.40 1.62 8.116 4 !��$�
9 ���!$� ����$� *�A$�� T� �� *���4� ��$�$8� *�=� 7 ��8�� ���$-, ��4� ������� .
4.41 1.55 8.523 3 !��$�
10 �$�, � 7�����$� (��1 ��� ����$��� 7�4� ���. ��$��$� ����6�� *��1 � ��$�$ *���4�
*���4� (�� *�4�$ �$�..
4.84 1.49 11.571 1 !��$�
11 �$� ����$ *���� D��6%� +2 ���!$� � ��*���4� +2 +6�A�� � ���� .
4.61 1.52 9.962 2 !��$�
12 ����� *���4� ?�!$)ISO-10015 ( ?��$�� ���$ � ������������ ���!$�.
3.83 1.58 4.911 6 !��$�
>��(���� -��(.�1� "��(.� '� ����� '�� M�����
4.35 1.28 !��$�
(��4� ��)4–2 ( � ^5$�[ ����� 7�� �$ *������ 7�!��$�� �)4.84m3.83(# �.
. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� � )10(" (��1 �� ���$��� 7�4��$�, � 7�����$� ���$�$ *����4�
*���4� (�� *�4�$ �$�. ��. ��$�$� ���6�� *��1 � " +���� !��$��)4.84 ( ������ 9 ��� �
)1.49 .( � � +���� !��$� (1 ���6�� ��- )12( "$ ������ *����4� ?�!)ISOm10015 (
��� ?��$�� $ �������� ���!$� � ���� +���� !��$�� #)3.83 ( ������ 9 ��� �)1.58( # ��
o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� 4.35 ������ 9 ����� )1.28 ( !���$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� � �
!��$�� W�$��� ��5 7��- ��� .
![Page 93: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
78
4 ��)4–3( '� ���-��.�1� >������ ������1�� ��N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#),#� .� P� ��� 6
T ��&+� '� ���
"��.�
-��.�1�
������>
����"t"
� �.��
����� M����
��&+�
] ���
����!� 13 U�� ����$$ *���4� �8���$ +$� 7�5���$�
������� 7��1�$.
4.36 1.55 8.226 6 !��$�
14 T� ��� ��$�� (-3�� ��$0�� *���4� U��$$ ��� �8$�;� �8���$ +$� =2 ��� � �$ ��� +����� ?���� +�2 *���%� 7����4�
��������.
4.82 1.59 10.699 1 !��$�
15 ���. ���$�� *���4� +2 7�5���$� ^��$������� �&�6-.
4.41 1.67 7.905 5 !��$�
16 =2 ��� �� &=4- *���4� +2 �[2�-�� �%$�$��=��$�� ������� �8��$�� +$� .
4.48 1.71 8.111 4 !��$�
17 +$� 7������� ��� *���4� ��$�$ ��0�2�� ���$ �A�& �' 7f�2�-�� �����$ D�F�
��=��$�� ������� �8��$�� +$� =2 ��� �.
4.49 1.67 8.339 2 !��$�
18 *����4� +�2 D����$� *!% *�4 �� $�*�2���� *C���� @ ���$� .
4.49 1.55 9.032 3 !��$�
>��(���� -��(.�1� "��.� '� ��� .� P� ��� 6���,#�
4.51 1.41 !��$�
(��4� ��)4–3 ( [� ^5$� ����� 7�� �$ *������ 7�!��$�� �)4.82m4.36(# �.
. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� �) 14(" $ ��$ ��� T� ��� ��$��� (-3��� ��$0�� *���4� U��$
��������� +����� ?��� +2 *��%� 7����4� �� �8$�;� �8���$ +$� =2 ��� �." $�� !���
+����)4.82 ( ������ 9 ��� �)1.59 .( � � +���� !��$� (1 ���6�� )13 (" 7�5���$�
������� 7��1�$ U� ����$$ *���4� �8���$ +$� " +���� !��$��)4.36 ( ������� 9 ��� �
)1.55( o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #4.51 ������� 9 ����� )1.41 ( U���4 !���$� � �
!��$�� � 7 ��6� !��$�� W�$��� ��5 7��- ��� .
![Page 94: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
79
4 ��)4–4( '� ���-��.�1� >������ ������� �/���� ��N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#) ������1
T ��&+� '� ���
"��.�
-��.�1�
>������
����"t"
� �.��
����� M����
��&+�
] ���
����!� 19 ��� +2 *���4� +2 ������� E��3� ��%$ *�
7 � ��� .
4.58 1.54 9.596 5 !��$�
20 > ��$1, *���2 �������� *���4� ^��$*����� �8���� +$� 7�����$� .
4.97 1.52 21.136 1 !��$�
21 ���� �������� U43�$ *2��; *���4� W��7 � ��� +2 *-��3�� .
4.74 1.57 10.375 4 !��$�
22 �$ ���� 7 � ���� ��%$ *��� 8 +�2 ���� ����$�*���4� /�4$ 0�5.
4.90 1.57 11.349 2 !��$�
23 8� ��A�$ +�2 ������� *���� 8�$ 7��� � ��� @��2� 86C�A�� �����= +�2 @������ ���
*���4� �8���$ +$� 7���%� .
4.84 1.48 11.693 3 !��$�
>��(���� -��(.�1� "��.� '� ���
������� �/����
4.79 1.32
!��$�
(��4� ��)4–4 ( [� ^5$� ����� 7�� �$ *������ 7�!��$�� �)4.58m4.97(# �.
. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� �) 20(" �8���� +$� 7�����$� > �$1, *��2 ������� *���4� ^��
*����� " +���� !��$��)4.97 ( ������ 9 ��� �)1.52 .( � � +���� !��$� (1 ���6�� ��-
)19("� 7 � ��� ��%$ *���� +2 *���4� +2 ������� E��3 " +���� !��$��)4.58 ( 9 ��� �
������)1.54( o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #)4.79( ������� 9 ����� )1.32 ( !���$� � �
!��$�� W�$��� ��5 7��- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4.
![Page 95: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
80
4 ��)4–5( '� ���-��.�1� >������ ������1������� ���� ��N�� ��� ������ ���� ���#
T ��&+� '� ���
"��.�
-��.�1�
>������
����"t"
� �.��
����� M����
��&+�
] ���
����!� 24 ��%� ���4 ��� ����$ �!� +�2 *������ 7�
*����� *;��;� 7 ���� (% *���4� .
5.93 1.10 24.965 3 U6$��
25 ��� �����A�6$�, �$ ��6A����� � �� ���1 !��� *���4�
5.50 1.58 14.815 6 U6$��
26 � *��!� �5�� � ���$0 !�� 8��� �� �. *����*���4� .
6.15 0.89 33.138 1 U6$��
27 *��; *�1� *6�$%�� 7 � ���� U��4� �� �. !��$ �$� � *����$�.
5.89 1.10 24.663 4 U6$��
28 7 ���� (% *���4�� *�1��� *��� ��� ���$ �!7 ��� <;� .
5.76 1.34 19.345 5 U6$��
29 ���� �Z U�$4�� +2 (52 *��-� *���4� ($�$7 ��� <; ��� ���� 7��-.
6.03 1.22 23.383 2 U6$��
30 +2 +���� ?��� +2 *-�3� 8� ��� ���$ �!*����� <;� 7 ���� .
5.31 1.57 13.503 7 U6$��
31 *�-�� 9 �0' U��4� U5$)SMART( 9 �0 +0����8�6A��� *��1 �� �8����$ �-�� X����� *���1 ���.
5.17 1.42 14.379 8 U6$��
������ ���! >������ -��.�1� "��.� '� ��� 5.69 0.95 U6$��
(��4� ��)4–5 ( [� ^5$� 7�!��$�� � ����� 7�� �$ *������ )5.17m6.15(# �
�. �. ���6�� ��- !��$� ���) 26(" � *��!� �5�� � ��$0 !�� 8��� *����4� �� �. *��� "
+���� !��$��)6.15 ( ������ 9 ��� �)0.89 .( � �+���� !��$� (1 ���6�� )31" ($ U5
���4� * *�-�� 9 �0' )SMART ( � 9 �0 +0�� *���1 ��� *���1 �� ��8����$ �-�� X�����
�8�6A��� " +���� !��$��)5.17 ( ������ 9 ��� �)1.42( o��� ���2 ���� !��$�� �� #
)5.69( ������ 9 �����)0.95 ( ���5 7���- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� � �
U6$��� W�$��� .
![Page 96: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
81
4 ��)4–6( '� ���-��.�1� >������ ���#) ������1������� ���� ��N�� ��� ������ ����
T ��&+� '� ���
"��.�
-��.�1�
>������
����"t"
� �.��
M����
��&+� �����
] ���
����!� 32 ���� ����$ �������� & � ���$ �A� �8A
*����� <;� 7 ���� (% ������� *�4�$�..
5.24 1.25 16.797 5 U6$��
33 �$�$ �� �� & �Z � ���-2' ����$� ������ *���4� +2 ����4� .
5.55 1.27 18.836 2 U6$��
34 U�2� ��� ^5 � (-3� X-�� ������� �5�8C � W�$��.
5.45 1.33 17.317 3 U6$��
35 & � TC��$� ��� �5���� *���4� �� �. ��3$������� .
5.10 1.30 15.219 6 U6$��
36 ��-�$ $ 7 � ���� ��%$, *���4� +2 ������� *������ *������� ��4 (-3�.
4.95 1.56 11.751 7 !��$�
37 *������ <;� 7 ���� (% *���4� 7�83������� 7,��$ 7 ��8� +2 @�A���� @ ��!$.
5.59 1.27 19.110 1 U6$��
38 *�4�$ �$�� 9 �0' U� ������� �&�6- �3��$$$� �*���4�� *���F3.
5.28 1.41 15.243 4 U6$��
���! >��(���� -��.�1� "��.� '� ���
�������
4.65 0.99
!��$�
(��4� ��)4–6 ( [� ^5$� ������ 7�� �$ *������ 7�!��$�� �)4.95m5.59(#
. <�� ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� �) 37(" ��� <;� 7 ���� (% *���4� 7�83 @ ���!$ *��
������� 7,��$ 7 ��8� +2 @�A���� " +���� !��$��)5.59 ( ������� 9 ��� �)1.27 .(
� � +���� !��$� (1) 36 (" ���4 (-3�� 7 � ���� ��%$, *���4� +2 ������� ��-�$ $
*������ *������� " +���� !��$��)4.95 ( ������ 9 ��� �)1.56( ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #
�� o4.65 ������ 9 ����� )0.99 ( ���5 7��- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� � �
!��$�� W�$��� .
![Page 97: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
82
)4–3 :( ���%����*�#������
#*���C�� *� ��� 7��5�2 ���$% ��� ���4� �0 +2 <���� (�� �. *��8� 7=-�$
(% �� *� ��� 7��5�2 D2� � (��1 ���$% ��� ���6� /�0 �%$� ����� (���$�Path
AnalysisT����� �%$��� Amos 16 *����$4, ����� *�C���� *�=�� T������ �����
SPSS.
� !� ����;�� ��*�+�:
������ (����$� *���$��, �$ *�5�6� /�0 ���$%,Path Analysis �%$����
T�����Amos 16 ���� *�=�� T������ ����� *����$4, ����� *�CSPSS (��4� ���� #
)4–7( ������� (�����$ TC���$� أداء أ��� ����� ��������ارد ا���ا���'ر&�'ت ا!&��%�ا$"#"� !دارة ا
� . ا�#'/.'ت ا�-',� +* ا(ردن ��$%�� <���� �1 #+���6$ (-3� *� ��� 7��5�2 ���$% (�1�
�� (���$� TC�$� 7�8A <�� (-- *� ��� ����� #*� ��� ����� *�C�� +C�� . �. *��1 �
7F�� �[- U���)147.81 ( *�,� W�$���)0.00( *����� � ��2. ���. U���$ �[- *��� ��- #
)Chi2/Df ( 7F��24.67 ./�0� &� W�$�� ��4� ��. ���$ *���� ����� ��: *� . ����$��
� W�$�� ��& 7����$ 7 ��3Y� 7����$�� 9��$� $ *�)Covariance Modified
indices( *��$���� 7 ���F$�� ���� 7�1�� �� *���4� > �$1 $ <�� #) 7��������
*�4�$ �$�� ( (��4� +2 �8A$ +$� �)4–7.(
![Page 98: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
83
4 ���)4–7( ��'���1� ����������������� �������� ��
Estimate
1�ا+0� 0.64 /�'رآ� ا�.'/�"2 <--> ا
.%�""2ا8&%67'ب وا 6%��� وا�%:ر�9 <--> � 0.62 ا
6%��� وا�%:ر�9� 0.56 /�'رآ� ا�.'/�"2 <--> ا
2"".%� 0.60 /�'رآ� ا�.'/�"2 <--> ا8&%67'ب وا
2"".%�1�ا+0 <--> ا8&%67'ب وا� 0.58 ا
6%��� وا�%:ر�9�1�ا+0 <--> ا� 0.55 ا
(��4� +2 �8��. ��3�� 7�1�� *2�5. ���)4–7( � �%$� $ # � *��C�� 7 �3Y�
#W�% ��� �. *��1 o��Chi2 *������ )0.01( W�$��� ��� *�,� +0� #)α ≤ 0.05( � �
�- *��� *���� � �2. ��. U���$ �)Chi2/Df ( 7F��0.00 . *���1 7F���Goodness of Fit
Index) GFI ( &� �3Y� �0� �$��1 �� ���4� *�)1.00 ( �� �0� ��� �� *���1 ���. ���
� ^��)&�� *��$� *� .( o�� ?���� X6��� ��� �3Y�& ������� *��Comparative Fit
Index) CFI) (1.00 ( ��8��. ��3 ��- #^��� �� �� *��1 ��. ����� �0�)Bentler, 1990 (
��. *��1 ��-$ � ����5)CFI ( �� ��- )0.90 ( �� �� �� *���1� ���. ��3�$� ^����
�C������ *� .��� o����$� ��4� + +�����$� [��!%� 7�!��$�� Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation) RMSEA) (0.00 ( +0� *���� �� (10.05 ���3 +$� � #
�8��.)Browne & Cudeck, 1993.(� � � ��-$ � ����5 �- � �)0.05≥ 0( . *2�5���
7 �3Y� ��2 E�� ��.)NFI, IFI, TLI ( 7F��)1.00( ��� *����1 �8���4 +0� #�8�� (-�
� *���)1 (&� �3Y� ��� (�$ +$� �*����� *� .
![Page 99: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
84
7 �3Y� �� ���$ ��� U��4 � A�� ������ *�C� 7 �3Y� *�4 �� �� *��C�
&� ��. ��3� ��� #*����������� *� .
�1 � �%$� $ #*� ��� 7��5�2 ���$%,Standardized Direct Effects ���� �
+2 �4C�$� �8A$ �(-3) 4–1.(
4/��)4–1( � ��� ����� ��� �� ������� ����������� ����������� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# �������
� ��*�+�����;� � !�:
*��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���
& � W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0( .
*��4n� (���� � �%$� $ *�5�6� /�0 �� �;' *��1� �3���� ������� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$�+2 (��4� )4–8.(
att
dev
inc
share
Prac emp
rr
60.
62.
64.
56.
58.
55.
.71
.84
.39
.25
.02
.50
![Page 100: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
85
4 ��)4–8( 4���� ������!������ >������
���� ";�$.��) t (���S� �������� ������������A��� /� ��� ���� �������
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
7�������� *�4�$ �$�� �� ���� *�� �� �� *��3
<--- ������� & �
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.84 10.24 0.00
(��4� ��)4–8 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized Direct
Effect 7F�� 0.84 � *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� 10.24 W�$�� ��� *� � +0� 0.052 [ #(1
��3� �0���.�3� ��� (���� D�6� (��1 ���.4� � �; � �� 7�������� *�C���. *�,�
��� *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� & � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
����+� ��*�+�� !� :
��� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,� & 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 +��$� )4–9.(
4 ���)4–9(
4���� ������!�� >������ ���� ����";�$.��) � (���S� ��� ������ M�'&��1� ���� �������
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
�����$� � ��!�$�, & � ��� ������� <-
-- & � �������
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.39 2.50 0.01
![Page 101: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
86
�4� �� (�)4–9 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.39 *��1 � � +C���� 7��- �8� 2.50 W�$�� ��� +0� 0.05
��3� �0� #(1�2��. ��3� ��� (���� D�6� (��1 ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4��
��� ����$� �& � � +2 ������� W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4 *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
������ ����+� ��*�+� :
7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���& � 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
���` 23� �� V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–10.(
4 ��)4–10(
4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��) t (���S� ��*� ��� 6��� ������� �������
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
A� 7�5���$� ����& � ������� <--- & �
������� 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.02 0.36 0.84
(��4� ��)4–10 (� ^5$�[ (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� )0.02( � *��1 � 7��- �8� +C���� )0.36 (+0� ��� *� � 7���
W�$��0.05 ��3� �0� #(1�2 ��. ��� ��6�� D�6� (��1 ��3�, *�,� �� �; �4��
7�5���$� A�� *�C���. ���& � W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 �������
*�,�)0.05 ≤ 0(.
![Page 102: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
87
����� ����+� ��*�+� :
�4�� , ���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; ���& � 7�����4� +�2 ��������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 +��$� )4m11(.
4 ���)4–11(
4���� ������!� ���� ����� >������ ";�$.��) t (���S� ��� �� '�� M����� ���� �������
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
����$�� ���!$� � <--- & � �������
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.25 1.99 0.05
(��4� ��)4–12 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.25 � *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� 1.99 W�$�� ��� *� � +0�
)0.05( ��3� �0� #(1�2 ��.��4� ��3� ��� (���� D�6� (��1 �� �; *�C���. *�,�
� ����$�����!$� ���& � W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *�,�
)0.05 ≤ 0(.
*�+������ ��:
������� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���& � 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!������ >������ *��1� +C����
)t (+$� � �8A$ �4C�$� (��4� +2 )4m12 (
![Page 103: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
88
4 ��)4–12( 4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��) � (���S� ������� �/���� ������� �������
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
������� *-��3� ���& � ������� <--- & �
�������
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.50 4.19 0.00
(��4� ��)4–12 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� )0.50(� *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� )4.19(W�$�� ��� *� � +0� )0.05(
[2 ��3� �0� #(1��. ��� (���� D�6� (��1 ��3���.�� �; ��4� *�C���. *�,� *-��3��
������� ���& � W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
�*�+� � ����;��������:
����� (���$� *���$�, $ *�5�6� /�0 ���$%,Path Analysis T������ �%$���
Amos 16 *����$4, ����� *�C���� *�=�� T������ ����� SPSS (���4� ���� #)4–13 (
������ (���$ TC�$� أ أ��� ���� ��������ارد ا���داء ا�#'/.�'ت ا���'ر&�'ت ا!&�%�ا$"#"� !دارة ا
� ������ . ا�-',� +�* ا(ردن ��$%�� <���� �1 #+���6$ (-3� *� ��� 7��5�2 ���$% (�1�
(-- *� ��� �. #*� ��� ����� *�C�� +C���� (���$� TC�$� 7�8A �- U��� *��1 � �. �
7F��)147.81 ( *�,� W�$���)0.05( *����� � ��2. ��. U���$ �[- *��� ��- #)Chi2/Df (
7F��24.67 . *�C� W�$�� ��4� ��. ���$ *���� /�0� ����� ��: . W�$��� �� ����$��
&� 7���$ 7 �3Y� 7���$�� 9��$� $ *�)Covariance Modified indices ( # �. $
*��$��� 7 ��F$�� ��� 7�1�� �� *���4� > �$1 )*�4�$ �$�� 7������� ( +2 �8A$ +$� �
4� (��)4–13.(
![Page 104: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
89
4 ���)4–13( ����������� �������� �� ������
Estimate
=2 ��� <--> ������� *-��3� 0.64
����$� � ��!�$�, <--> ����$� � ���!$� 0.62
����$� � ���!$� <--> ������� *-��3� 0.56
����$� � ��!�$�, <--> ������� *-��3� 0.60
�!�$�, ����$� � � <--> =2 ��� 0.58
����$� � ���!$� <--> =2 ��� 0.55
(��4� +2 �8��. ��3�� 7�1�� *2�5. ���)4–13(&�� 7 �3Y� � �%$� $ # *��
#W�% ����. *��1 o�� Chi2 *������ )0.01( W�$��� ��� *�,� +0� #)α ≤ 0.05( � �
*���� � �2. ��. U���$ �[- *���)Chi2/Df ( 7F��0.00 . *���1 7F���Goodness of Fit
Index) GFI ( &� �3Y� �0� �$��1 �� ���4� *�)1.00 ( �� �0� ��� �� *���1 ���. ���
^���)&�� *��$� *� .( o�� ?���� X6��� ��� �3Y�& ������� *��Comparative Fit
Index ) CFI) (1.00 ( ��- #^���� ��� �� *���1 ���. ������ ��0� ��8��. ���3 �
)Bentler,1990 ( ��. *��1 ��-$ � ����5)CFI ( �� ��- )0.90 ( ��� �� ��� *���1�
� ��. ��3$� ^���� &������ *� . o���+����$� [�!%� 7�!��$�� +����$� ��4� Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation) RMSEA) (0.00 ( *����� ��� (1 +0�
0.05�3 +$� � #� �8��. )Browne & Cudeck, 1993 .(� �� ���-$ � �����5 �- � �
)0.05≥( . 7 �3Y� ��2 E�� ��. *2�5���)NFI, IFI, TLI ( 7F��)1.00 ( +�0� #�8�� (-�
� �� *���1 �8���4 *���)1 (&� �3Y� ��� (�$ +$� �*����� *� .
![Page 105: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
90
�� �� &� 7 �3Y� *�4 �$ ��� U��4 � A�� ������ *� 7 �3Y� �� �� *�&�
&� ��. ��3� ��� #*����������� *� .
�1 � �%$� $ #*� ��� 7��5�2 ���$%,Standardized Direct Effects� ����
+2 �4C�$� �8A$ +��$� (-3� )4m2.(
4/��)4–2( ��� ����� ��� �� ������� ����������� ��������!� "# �$�%� ������� �������
���� *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
*��4n� � �%$� $ *�5�6� /�0 �� (�����;' �3���� ������� *��1� +C����
)t( �8A$ +$� � �4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–14.(
4 ��)4–14( 4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��) t (���S� ������������������� ������ ���� ���
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
$ �$�� 7������� *�4�<--- & � *���4�
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.63 9.18 0.01
att
dev
inc
share
Prac uni
rr
60.
62.
64.
56.
58.
55.
.40
.63
.35
.34
.31
.20
![Page 106: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
91
(��4� ��)4–14 ( (���� *��1 ��� ^5$��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.63 � *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� 9.18 W�$�� ��� *� � +0� 0.05
2[ ��3� �0� #(1��. �3� ��� � (���� D�6� (��1 ���. �� ��; ���4� *�C����. *��,�
��� *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7��������& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� ����
W�$�� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
����+� ��*�+�� !�:
��� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,& � 7����4� +�2 *���%�
���' W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–15.(
4 ��)4–15(
4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��) t (���S� ������ M�'&��1� ������ ���� ���
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
��� ����$� � ��!�$�, & � *���%� 7����4� <--- & � *���4�
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.35 2.33 0.05
(��4� ��)4–15 (� ^5$�[ (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� )0.35(� *��1 �+C���� )7 ( 7��- �8�)2.33 ( ���� *� � +0�
W�$��)0.05( 2 [ ��3� �0� #(1��. � D�6� (��1 (��� ��3� ��� � ��. � �; ��4� � *�,�
7����4� & � ��� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. ' +�2 *��%� *��,� W�$��� ���� ���
)0.05 ≤ 0.(
![Page 107: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
92
������ ����+� ��*�+� :
��� 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ,& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4�
W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
*��4n� � �%$� $ *�5�6� /�0 �� (����;' � �3���� ������� *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–16.(
4 ��)4–16( 4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��) T (���S� ��*� ��� 6��������� ���� ���
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
����1�� ]
��� 7�5���$� �A�& � *��%� 7����4� <--- & � *���4�
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.31 2.28 0.05
(��4� ��)4–16 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� )0.31( � *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� )2.28( ��� *� � 7��� +0�
$�� W�)0.05(2 [ ��3� �0� #(1��. ��3� ��� � (���� D�6� (��1 ��4� ��. �� �;
��� 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,�& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,�
)0.05 ≤ 0(.
����� ����+� ��*�+� :
%�8 ��A: أ�� ذو د8�� إ<='>"� ��%:ر�9 وا���ا�#'/.�'ت ا�-',�� +�* ا(ردن أداء��� 6
�ى%C/ :D� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
*��4n� � �%$� $ *�5�6� /�0 �� E/'./��)ا ��F'�������C+ ���1* ا��."�'ري ا� ) t (
�8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–17 (
![Page 108: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
93
4 ��)4–17( 4���� ������!������ >������ � ���";�$.��) t (���S� �� '�� M����������� ���� ���
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct
Effect
����� ���S�� "t"
Sig* �1�� ] ���
���!$� � ����$� <--
- & � *���4� 0.0 1 1 0.00 0.34 2.32 0.05
(��4� ��)4–17 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' ��3���� �������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.34 � *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� 2.32 W�$��� ��� *� � +0� 0.05
��3� �0� #(1�2��. ��3� ��� � (���� D�6� (��1 ��4� ��.�� �; ����$�� *�C���. *�,�
��� ���!$� �& � W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *�,� ) 0.05 ≤ 0(.
����� ����+� ��*�+�
�� �; �4�� ,*�,� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *-��3�� *�C���.
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� �� 4����!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)T ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$�+2 (��4� )4–18.(
4 ��)4–18( 4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��) t (���S� ������� �/���� ������ ���� ���
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
������� *-��3� <--- & � *���4�
0.00 1 1 0.00 0.20 1.85 0.08
(��4� ��)4–18 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' ��3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.20� *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� 1.85��� *� � 7��� +0� W�$���
![Page 109: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
94
0.05 � �0� #(1�2 ��3��. D�6� (��1 ��6�� ��3� ��� � ��. ��4� �� � ��; � *��,�
��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *-��3�� *�C���.& � +�2 *��%� 7����4�
���' W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
��*�+� ����;�������:
�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���� ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �' *
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *�,� W�$�� ��� )0.05 ≤ 0.(
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
")"t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� +2 (-3� )4m3.(
4/��)4–3( ��� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# ������� �������!� "# �$�%� �������
att
dev
inc
share
uni
rrr
60.
62.
64.
56.
58.
55.
.52
.72
.33
.21
.02
.42
rr
.71
emp
![Page 110: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
95
4 ��)4–19(
4���� ������!������ >������ ���� ";�$.��)t( ���S� ��� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# ������� ���!���!� "# �$�%� ������� .
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
& � ��������� <--- *���4� & �
4.95 0.982 0.997 0.05 0.721 9.71 0.00
(��4� ��)4–19 ( [�� ^5�$� (����� *���1 � ��;' ��3���� ��������
Standardized Direct Effect 7F�� 0.721 � � *��1 +C���� � 7���- �89.71 +�0�
W�$�� ��� *� � 7���0.05 ��3� �0� #(1�2 ��. ��3� ��� � (���� D�6� (��1 ��. ���
��4� �� �; ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �' *�C���. *�,� 7�����4�
���' +2 *��%� *�,� W�$�� ��� )0.05 ≤ 0.(
��*�+������ ����;�� : HO4: *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ����
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% ��
!��� ��F$�- ���' *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4m4 (
��� ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# ������� �������!� "# �$�%� �������
![Page 111: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
96
4/��)4–4( � ���� ��� ����� ��� �� ������� ����������� ������������!� "# �$�%� ����� ���� 4�% ��
'�� ��N��/ ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# �������
4 ��)4–20( ";�$.�� ���� ����� >������ ��!� 4���� ����)T( �������� ���S�
����������� ��� ���� ���!� "# �$�%� ���������N��/ ������� ���� 4�% �� '�� .
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ��� & � �������
<--- *���4� & � 4.95 0.982 0.997 0.05 0.71 9.98 0.00
(��4� ��)4–21 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' ��3���� �������� Standardized
Direct Effect�� 7F � *��1 �+C���� 7��- �8� )0.71( W�$��� ���� *�� � 7��� +0�
)0.05 ([2 ��3� �0� #(1��. ��3� ��� � (���� D�6� (��1 ��.��4� �� �; *�C���. *�,�
& � ��� *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� ���
+2 ������� & � (% !��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
att
dev
inc
share
uni
rrr
60.
62.
64.
56.
58.
55.
.52
.72
.33
.21
.02
.42
rr
.71
emp
![Page 112: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
97
����+� ��*�+�� !� :
����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7����4�
���' !��� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–12.(
4 ��)4–12( 4���� ������!� ���� ����� >������ ";�$.��)t(
���S������� M�'&��1� ���� ���$�%� ����������!� "# �'�� ��N��/ ������� ���� 4�% �� .
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ��� ����$� � ��!�$�, & � ���
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� ��F$�- ������� & � (% ��
!���.
4.95 0.982 0.997 0.05 0.33 2.30 0.00
(��4� ��)4–22 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' �3���� ������� Standardized Direct
Effect 7F�� 0.33 � *��1 �+C���� ) t ( 7��- �8�2.30 W�$�� ��� *� � +0� 0.05 #(1�2
��3� �0���. ��3� ��� � (���� D�6� (��1 ��. ��4� �; � � ��!�$��, *�C���. *�,�
� �����$ & � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� !���� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� ����
*�,� W�$��)0.05 ≤ 0.(
������ ����+� ��*�+� :
7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ������' +2 *��%� 7����4�
+2 ������� & � (% �� !��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *��,� W�$��� ����
)0.05 ≤ 0.(
![Page 113: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
98
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4–22(.
4 ��)4–22(
4���� ������!����� ����� >������ ";�$.��) T (���S���*� ��� 6�� ���� ��� �$�%� ����������!� "#'�� ��N��/ ���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# ������� ���� 4�% ��
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
7�5���$� A�� & � ���� 7������4� +��2 *����%�
���' & � (��% ���� 7������4� +��2 ��������� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%�
!���
4.95 0.982 0.997 0.05 0.02 0.36 0.84
(��4� �� )4m22 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' ��3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.02 � *��1 �+C���� ) t ( 7��- �8�0.84 +0� ���� *�� � 7����
W�$��0.05 ��3� �0� #(1�2 ��. A��� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , #(���� D�6� (��1
7�5���$� & � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� 7�����4� +�2 �������� & � (% ��
!��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
����� ����+� ��*�+� :
���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7�����4�
���' !��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% �� W�$��� ����
*�,�)0.05 ≤ 0.(
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� �� 4����!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)t ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )23-4(.
![Page 114: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
99
4 ��)4–23( 4���� ������!� ���� ����� >������ ";�$.��) t (���S��� '�� M����� ���� ��� �$�%� �������
���!� "#���!� "# �$�%� ������� "# ������� ���� 4�% �� '�� ��N��/
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
����!$� � ����$�� ���� & � +2 *��%� 7����4�
���' & � (��% ���� 7�����4� +�2 ������� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%�
!���
4.95 0.982 0.997 0.05 0.21 1.98 0.05
(��4� ��)4–23 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' ��3���� �������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.21 � *��1 �+C���� ) 7 ( 7��- �8�1.98 W�$��� ��� *� � +0�
0.05 [2 ��3� �0� #(1��. ���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� #(���� D�6� (��1
& � ������4� ���' +2 *��%� 7� +�2 *���%� 7�����4� +2 ������� & � (% ��
!��� ��F$�- ���' *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
����� ����+� ��*�+� :
��6A��� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7����4�
���' �� & � (% �� !��� ��F$�- ����� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
���` V��%��� 6� ��*�+� 23� �� 4������!� ����� >������ *��1� +C����
)T ( �8A$ +$� ��4C�$� (��4� +2 )4m 24 (
![Page 115: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
100
4 ��)4–24( 4���� ������!� ���� ����� >������ ";�$.��) T (����S��+� �� �/���� ���� ��� �������
���!� "# �$�%�'�� ��N��/ ������� ���� 4�% ��
���� Chi2
� �.�� GFI CFI RMSEA Direct Effect
����� ���S�� "t" Sig*
�1�� ] ���
��6A��� *-��3� & � ��� +�2 *���%� 7����4�
���' & � (��% ���� $�- ������� !��� ��F
4.95 0.982 0.997 0.05 0.42 5.15 0.01
(��4� �� )4m24 ([� ^5$� (���� *��1 ��;' ��3���� ������� Standardized
Direct Effect 7F�� 0.42 � *��1 �+C���� ) t ( 7��- �8�5.15 W�$��� ���� *� � +0�
0.05[2 ��3� �0� #(1��.� �; �4�� #(���� D�6� (��1 ��6A��� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �
& � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� !��� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� *�,� W�$�� ���
)0.05 ≤ 0.(
![Page 116: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
101
I��%� 4$+�
���$ �� ��������1�
)5–1 :(���&��
)5–2 :(F;����
)5–3 :(��������1�
)5–4 :(���$ ��
![Page 117: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
102
)5–1(:���&��
(�6� �0 X�-� #+��� ?��$� (���$ �� ��$ �� ��� ���$��� TC�$�� 0 D ��$�
��$�� ���� 7����$� � 7�4�$�$�, +$[$ TC�$�� &�5 +2� TC�$�� ���2 �� B$%$ ��� �0�� /
@�� �� <���� .
)5–2 :(F;����
)5–2[1 ( ���*�+� ���%� F;���
1. *�,� �� �; �4�� ��� *��3�� �� ��� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. & �
*�,� W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
2. ��� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4��& � 7�����4� +�2 ��������
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *��%� � *�,)0.05 ≤ 0(. *�� �� U�� ?�6$$ *4�$�� /�0�
)Khera, 2010(������� & � ��� ����$� � ��!�$�, 7�% +$� � .
3. 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , ���& � +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 �������
W�$�� ��� ���' *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(. *4�$�� /�0�, *�� �� U� ?6$$ )Shahzad, et
al., 2008( *� ��� )Khera, 2010( *� ��� )Sheikh, Qamar, Iqbal, 2009( +$�
$�5� �������� & � ��� 7�5���$� A�� ��;[$ ��4� .��� 9�$% ��- .
4. �4�� ���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; ���& � ������ *��%� 7����4� +2 �
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(. *�� �� U� ?6$$ *4�$�� /�0�)Khera,
2010 (��;[$ ��4� 7�5� +$� ������� & � ��� ���!$� � ����$�� .
![Page 118: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
103
5. ������� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� ���& � %� 7����4� +2 ������� *���
W�$�� ��� ���' +2 *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.
6. ��� *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���. *�,� �� �; ��4�& �
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(. U�� 7��6$ *�4�$�� /�0�
�� ��� A�� ��0=�� � *������ 7� *�� ��)Akhtar, Ding, Ge, 2008( *�� ���
)Ayanda, O.J. & Sani, A.D. 2010 ( *� ���)Katou & Budwar, 2010.(
7. 4�� � +�2 *���%� 7����4� & � ��� ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; ���'
*�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.( /�0� *�� �� U� ?6$$ *4�$�� ) #���� +4��� 2010 (
*� ���)Sang, 2005 ( *� ���)Katou, 2008 (*��1 *1� ��4� ��. ��3$ +$� �.
8. ��4� ��� 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; & � ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4�
W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(.�6$ *4�$�� /�0� U� 7*� ��) #��� +4��2010(.
9. 4�� ��� ���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; � & � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4�
*�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0(. *����$� 7��� ��� ��� (�- U� 7�6$ *4�$�� /�0�
)Akhtar, Ding, Ge, 2008 (�)Ayanda, O.J. & Sani, A.D. 2010(� )Sani,
Abdulkader, D. 2012.(
10. , 4�� � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� *-��3�� *�C���. *�,� �� �;
& � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� W�$�� ��� *�,� )0.05 ≤ 0(. *�� ��� /�0 ��
�� (- U� ?6$$)Akhtar, Ding, Ge, 2008( �)Katou & Budwar, 2010( .. �. �
�; 7�4� *����� 7�� ��� @ *�A��� & � ��� ������� *-��3�� .
![Page 119: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
104
11. ��4� �� �; ���� ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & �' *�C���. *�,�
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� *�,� W�$�� ��� )0.05 ≤ 0.(
12. �; �4�� *�,� �� & � ��� *��3�� �� ���� *�� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7�������� *�C���.
���' +2 *��%� 7����4� ���' +�2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% ��
*�,� W�$�� ��� !��� ��F$�-)0.05 ≤ 0.(
13. ����$� � ��!�$�, *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� � ��� &���' +2 *��%� 7����4�
!��� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
14. 7�5���$� A�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� , & � ������' +2 *��%� 7����4�
!��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% ��� W�$��� ���
*�,�)0.05 ≤ 0.(
15. ���!$� � ����$�� *�C���. *�,� �� �; �4�� & � ��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4�
!��� ��F$�- ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � (% �� W�$��� ����
*�,�)0.05 ≤ 0.(
16. ,� �� �; �4�� ��6A��� *-��3�� *�C���. *� & � ������' +2 *��%� 7����4�
!��� ��F$�- ������� & � (% �� *�,� W�$�� ���)0.05 ≤ 0.(
*��3��� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7������� �; U� ?�6$ *����� 7�� ��� A�� 7�8A �1�
���& � *�A��� ��8���)Sani, Abdulkadir, D, 2010 & Ayanda. O., 2010 & Kher,
2010 & Ge, Ding, Akhtar, 2008 & Katou, 2008 & Sang, 2005 & Singh,
2004 .(� *����� *�� �� ���� 7���$%�2 �������� & � � 7������� ��� �� *1�� ��
)Ayanda and Sani A.D, 2010 & Sheikh, Qamar, and Iqbal, 2009( B%� ����
![Page 120: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
105
��8��. ?��!$$ �2 ������� & � (% �� *�A��� & � ��� *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7�������
*����� *� ��� =��� �� �0� <���� �� �� ��� �0�A (-3� 7�� ��� .
)5–2–2 :( ����N��� -$ �&����� F;����
1. � ��- ����$� � ��!�$�, (�4�� !��$� ��� � ���6�" �����$� � ��!�$�, ������ ��
��� �� ?���6� ��5 (���� ����� � *�:�� ��-$ � *���4� +2 ��������" � � # (�1
+���� !��$�" �� E��3���� +2 *��3�� �� ��� ���� U� 7 ���� ��1' ��!�$�,
*���4� +2 ����$� � . o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� )5.61 ( ��� 9 ����� ���)1.00 ( � �
U6$��� W�$��� ��5 7��- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� .
2. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� � " ��$�, � 7�����$� �$ *���4� (�1 �� ���$��� 7�4� *��1 �
*���4� (�� *�4�$ �$�. ��. ��$�$� ���6�� ." � � +���� !��$� (1 "$ *����4� ?��!
�����)ISOm10015 (� ��� ?��$�$ �������� ���!$� � ���� o��� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #
)4.35 ( ������ 9 �����)1.28 ( 7���- ���� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� � �
!��$�� W�$��� ��5.
3. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� � " " ��$ ��� T� ��� ��$�� (-3�� ��$0�� *���4� U��$
�;� �8���$ +$� =2 ��� � ��������� +���� ?��� +2 *��%� 7����4� �� �8$." � �
+���� !��$� (1 " ������� 7��1�$ U� ����$$ *���4� �8���$ +$� 7�5���$� ." ���
o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� )4.51 ( ������ 9 �����)1.41 ( 7 ���6� U���4 !��$� � �
!��$�� W�$��� ��5 7��- ��� !��$�� �.
4. ��� � ���6�� ��- !��$�" +�$� 7������$� > ��$1, *��2 ������� *���4� ^��
*����� �8���� " � � +���� !��$� (1 "� ���%$ *���� +2 *���4� +2 ������� E��3
![Page 121: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
106
7 � ��� " o�� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #)4.79 ( ������ 9 �����)1.32 ( !���$� � �
�5 7��- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4!��$�� W�$��� �.
5. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� � "� ��$0 !�� 8���� *��!� �5��*���4� �� �. *��� " � �
+���� !��$� (1" *�-�� 9 �0' U��4� U5)SMART( � 9 �0 +0� � *���1 ���
�8�6A��� *��1 �� �8����$ �-�� X����� o��� ��2 ��� !��$�� �� #)5.69 ( 9 ������
��� ���)0.95 ( W�$���� ���5 7���- ��� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� � �
U6$��� .
6. ���6�� ��- !��$� ��� " @��A���� @ ��!$ *����� <;� 7 ���� (% *���4� 7�83
������� 7,��$ 7 ��8� +2" � � # +���� !��$� (1" *����4� +2 ������� ��-�$ $
4 (-3� 7 � ��� ��%$, *������ *������� ��" o��� ���2 ���� !��$�� �� #)4.65 (
������ 9 �����)0.99 ( ���5 7���- ���� !��$�� � 7 ��6� U��4 !��$� � �
!��$�� W�$��� .
![Page 122: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
107
)5–3 :(��������1�
1. #*��$�� 7�5���$� A�� !�$�� ��: ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� & � �.
��� (�� �0�*���2 ��: ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 7�5���$� A� *����� �.
2. �8�2 ������� *-��3�� !�$�� ��: ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � �. . (�� �0�
��: ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 7 � ��� ��%$ +2 ������� *-��3� � ���
(��2.
3. ��: ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � �. ��� �8��� *��$�� 7�5���$� A�� !�$��
������� & � (% . (-3���� �%[$ , ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� � ��� (�� �0�
+2 *��%� 7����4� & � +��$���� ������� & � ����$� � �[- 7�5���$� A� +2�-�
���' .
4. ��� ?�;� !��$� E��0) ����$� � #����$� � ��!�$�, �������� *-��3�� #���!$� � (
������� & � ���� *��3�� �� ��� �� �� *�4�$ �$�� 7������- . � ���� (�� �0�
�� (-3� 7������� /�8� $8$ ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� .
5. ��� ?�;� !��$� E��0) ����!$� � �����$� � #7�5����$� � #�����$� � ��!�$�, (
�4�$ �$�. 7������- ��� (�� @�5� �0� #7����4� & � ���� *��3�� �� ��� �� �� *
7������� /�8� $8$� ���$ ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� � .
6. �8�2 ������� & � � ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � ��� ?�;� !��$� E��0 . (�� �0�
������� & � ���$ ���- ���$� 7����4� & � � ���.
![Page 123: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
108
7. �� !�$��� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � �[� T$�$ ��� 7���������� & � (�%
������� . 7������� �%[$ ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� � ��� (�� �0�) ��!�$��,
������� *-��3�� #���!$� � ����$� � #����$� � ( & � �����$� � �[�- +2��-� (-3���
���4� & � +��$���� ������� ���' +2 *��%� 7�.
8. �� *-��3� W�$����� ��!�$��, +�2 *��3��� �� ��� ���� U� 7 ���� ��1'
U��4� +2 ����$� ����' +2 *��%� *56%�� .
9. �4�� , ?��!$ +2 *��%� 7����4� *����' ������ )ISO-10015 ( ����$��� ?��$��
@�56%�� ��- �������� ���!$� �.
10. 5���$� � ���4� �8���$ +$� 7� ���' +�2 *��%� 7� 7���1�$ U�� �����$$ ,
������� .
11. 7����4� +2 ������� E��3� ,+2 ���' +2 *��%� 7 � ��� ��%$ *���� .
12. ���4� U5$ , ���' +2 *��%� 7� *�-�� 9 �0' )SMART( *����1 ����� (-3�
�8����$ �-�� X������ *��1 ��������� .
13. � ���4� +2 ������� ��-�$ W�$� ���' +2 *��%� 7� ���4 (-3�� 7 � ��� ��%$,
@�56%�� ��- *������ *�������.
![Page 124: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
109
)5–4 :(���$ ��
"�� �� ������ �$ � �� :
1. W��� *����4�� X-�$ ��� *������ *C���� @ ���$� *���4� +2 7�5���$� *!% *�4 ��
*��%� 7����4� +2 ������� ���' +2.
2. !�� ��� (��� �8�2 ������� *-��3�� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � .
3. ��� �8���� *��$�� 7�5���$� A�� ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� & � �8�. ����5
������� & � (% . �������� & � ����$� � �[- +2�-� (-3��� 7�5���$� A� ��%$,
��4� & � +��$�������' +2 *��%� 7��.
4. *��3�� �� ��� ���� U� ����$� � ��!�$�, *����� +2 ���� �� E �3. ����5.
5. *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� 7��1�$ U� &$� ��� 7�5���$� A� (���$ ��� (���
���' +2.
6. +�2 *-��3��� *��2 ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� &�!�. ����5 ���%$
7 � ��� .
7. *�-�� 9 �0' U5� ��� +��� )SMART ( ��-$ ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2
�8�6A��� �8����$ �-��� X����� *���1� *��1 �� �����.
8. ������ ����- *��0 ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� ��$0 =�=�$)ISO-10015 ( ?��$��
���!$� � ����$���.
9. $� � ��$� ��� A�6�� > �$1, *��2 ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� U�43
*����� �8���� +$� 7�����$� �.
![Page 125: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
110
10. ������ _�5%. ��� (��� �1 (- +2 �/ ���3� �� (�� , �� � +����$ T������ ��C �
�� (- +2 *���.
11. (-3� 7 � ��� ��%$, ���' +2 *��%� 7����4� +2 ������� ��-�$ ��� +��� ��4
*������ *�������.
![Page 126: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
111
E����� ��;��
01 � :����� E�����
0����� :����!� E�����
![Page 127: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
112
E�������,������ �����
01 � :����� E�����
1. +������ # #�4�� ��� �5%� � �0 ��.# 7����4� ��3� # X���. ) 2003( : 6��&�� 4��
� 6��� �����1� "���%� "��3� ��.�1� ��*�� ����� ������ ���� # : 7����4� ���$
*���� *���' #*����� #B 7.
2. *��3��� �� ���� #+���6� ������� #����� #?���� #*������ : #��8��A�$ #��8$��0
#����� 7�� ��� *�����- #*����� *����� *���0��4� #X�� �! #�8��8� #�8$���Y��2003.
3. A�6�� #���4 #���)2010 ( ����� ��� �� ����) ����� #U�=�$� � �3��� (C � � � # :
���' .
4. #��� ����� ��� #��� +4��)2010( +�2 ��0�; � *��3�� �� ��� �� �. 7������ #
+��Y�� =��$� ?���$– #*����%� 7,���$� *��$��-� ��= *-�3 +2 *����!$ *� ��
�' ?�3� *���4 #��$�4�� *���� ���� #!�–���' .
5. #����4 A��6��� #���- �0�A� #� ���� �A�� #� �� ?�63� #���� #���)1998( #
U�=�$� � �3��� ����� � � #���� #�� �� 7����� .
6. #���4 #�����)2009( #����� ��� �� ����) #(��$�� ���� ���� ���� ���� *�4�$ #
� � � #D���� #���4 ����� ��� *�4 ���g���.
7. #+�A� #����3)2000( # ����(� ��� �� ����) : ���(#!� ����) �3���� &�6��� � � #
���� #���' *��!� #U�=�$� � :���' .
![Page 128: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
113
8. #+�� #��0�� ���)2006( # ����� ��� �� ����) *���8�4 #��0��� #X�3 ��� *�$-� #
*����� ���.
9. #���� X��� #� �4� � ��� 4� #�� =�� )2010( # ����(� ��� �� ����) � '� � � #
���� #���=��� :���' .
10. #4� #�� =�� )2006( #>����� M����� ����� #U�=�$� � �3��� *����� ���=��� � � # :
���' .
11. #+6�� ��� #+����)2006( # ��($���� ����(� ��� �� ����) �3���� (�C � � � #
���� #U�=�$� � :���' .
12. ��� #���� ��� +�$2 #���-��� #������ )1992( *����$� +2 +���� <��� 7����� #
+��$-� *�$-� #���� #*���;� *��!� #*������ ���� � .
13. #+���� <��� � +���� ���$� �� =�) 2003 (���������) "(���� @.� "��� 6�����
6� �a2004[2006 � ����� ������� �A��� �'% ���(�O� "(# "(���� @.
�A��� �'% "��� 6�����.
14. +���� <��� � +���� ���$� �� =�)www.mhoe.gov.jo.(
![Page 129: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
114
0����� :����!� E�����
1. Akhtar, Syed; Daniel, R.Z. D I N G, and Gloria L. GE, 2008, Strategic
HER Practices and their Impact On Company performance in
Chinese Enterprises, Human Resource Management, Spring 2008,
Vol. 47, No. 1, Pp. 15–32.
2. Aldrich, H. and N. Langton, 1997, ‘Human Resource Management
Practices and Organizational Life Cycles’, in P. D. Reynolds, W. D.
Bygrave, N. M. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. B. Gartner, C. M.Mason, and
P. P. McDougall, (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Resear ch,
Wellesley, MA: Babson College Center for Entrepreneurship, 349-357.
3. Armstrong, Michael, (2008), Strategic Human Resource
Management: A Guide to Action, 4th Edition, Kogan Page, London,
P. 11.
4. Armstrong, Michael, Baron, Angela, (2003), Strategic HRM: The
Key To Improved Business Performance, CIPD, London, P.xviii.
5. Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of Human Resource Systems on
Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 670-687.
6. Ayanda, O.J and Sani, A.D (201), Strategic Human Resource
Management and Organizational Effectiveness in the Public
Sector: Some Evidence From Niger Issue, 9, PP. 142–156.
7. Balgobind, Prabeen, (2007), The relationship between human
resources management practices and organization performance in the
manufacture sector of the beer industry in south Africa, University of
Pretoria, P. 14.
8. Baron, J. N., & Kreps, D. M. (1999). Strategic human resources.
Framework for general managers. New York: Wiley and sons.
![Page 130: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
115
9. Batt, Resemary, and Lisa Moyniha, (2002). The Viability of
Alternative Call Center Production Models, Human Resources
Management Journal. 10.
10. Batt, Resemary, J.S. Alexander, Colvin and Jeffrey Keefe, (2002).
Employee Voice, Human Resource Practices, and Quit Rates:
Evidence from the Telecommunications Industry, Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 55(4), 573–594.
11. Becker, B.M, & B. Gerhart, (1996). The impact of human resources
management on organizational performance: Progress and
prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779-80
12. Becker, B.M., & B. Gerhart, (1996). The impact of human resources
management on organizational performance: Progress and
prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–801.
13. Bentler, (1990). P.M. Bentler. Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, Pages 238–246.
14. Blinder, Alan S. & Choi, H.Don, (1990), A Shred of Evidence of
Theories of Wage Stickiness, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, 105(4), 1003–1015.
15. Boselie, P., & Dietz, G. (2003). Commonalities and contradictions
in research on Human Resource Management and Performance.
Paper presented at the Dutch HRM Network Conference 2003,
Twenty.
16. Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2000). Human Resource Management en
het preteen van de organization. [Human Resource Management and
Organization Performance] Organization en Management, 4, 111-128.
17. Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and
contradictions in research on Human Resource Management and
Performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67-81.
![Page 131: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
116
18. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-Firm
Performance Linkages: The Role of the "Strength" of the HRM
System. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.
19. Brewster, Chris et al., (2000), Contemporary Issues in Human
Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage, Oxford
University Press, Cape Town, P. 56.
20. Brown & Cudeck (1993). Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In: Bollen K.A., Long JS, editors. Testing structural
equation models. New Bury Park, CA: Sage; PP. 136–162.
21. Budhwar, P. (2000), Strategic Integration and Devolvement of
Human Resource Management in the UK Manufacturing Sector.
British Journal of Management 11(4): 285–302.
22. Budhwar, P. (2000), Strategic Integration and Devolvement of
Human Resource Management in the UK Manufacturing Sector.
British Journal of Management 11(4): 285–302.
23. Buyens, D., De Vos, A. (2001), Perception of the Value of the HR
Function. Human Resource Management Journal 11(3): 70–89.
24. Caliskhan, Esra, N. (2010), The Impact of Strategic Human
Resource Management on Organizational Performance, Journal of
Naval Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, PP. 100–116.
25. Campbell, J. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem
in industrial and the impact of HR practices on the performance
of business units organizational psychology, in Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.). M. Dunnette and
L. Hough (Eds.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
26. Chaganti, R., R. Chaganti, and Stewart M., 1991, High Performance
Management Strategies for Entrepreneurial Companies: Research
Findings from over 500 Firms, New York: Quorum Books 27. Cheddie, M. (2001), How to Become a Strategic Partner. HR Focus
78(8): 1–14.
![Page 132: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
117
28. Cheddie, M. (2001), How to Become a Strategic Partner. HR Focus
78(8): 1–14.
29. Collins, Christopher & Clark, Kevin D., (2003), "Strategic Human
Resource Practices, Top Management, Team Social Networks, and
Frim Performance: The Role of Human Resource Practices in
Creating Organizational Competitive Advantage", Academy of
management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 6, 740–751.
30. CORREA, Henrique L.; CAON, Mauro. Gest?o de Servciços, S?o
Paulo: Atlas, 2002.
31. Cunningham, J. B., and Deborah, Y. A., (1995), Skills for Managing
Human Resources in a Complex Environment" the Perceptions of
Human Resource Managers in Singapore. International Journal of
Human Resource Management 6(1): 79–101.
32. De Kok, J.M.P., & Uhlaner, L.M. (2001). Organization context and
human resource management in the small firm. Small Business
Economics, Vol.17,No.4,pp.273-291.
33. Delaney, J.T. & Huselid, M.A. (1996), "The Impact of Human
Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational
Performance in for-profit and non profit organizations", Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 39, PP. 949–969.
34. Delery, John E., Doty, D.Harold. (1996), "Modes of Theorizing in
Strategic Human Resource Management: Test of Universalistic,
Contingency and Configurationally Performance Predictions",
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, P. 803, PP. 802 –
835.
35. Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance
Management: A model and research agenda. Applied Psychology:
an International Review, 53(4), 556-569.
36. DeNisi, Angelo S., and Ricky W. Griffen, Human Resources
Management, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, P. 180.
![Page 133: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
118
37. Dharmasiri, Ajantha S, 2009, Strategic Orientation Of HR
Managers In Commercial Banks In South Asia, International
Review of Business Research Papers Vol. 5 No. 6 November, Pp.121
38. Dimba, Beatrice; K’Obonyo, Peter, 2009, The Effect of Strategic
Human Resource Management Practices on Performance of
Manufacturing Multinational Companies in Kenya: A Moderating
Role of Employee Cultural Orientations Proceedings of the 10th
Annual Conference, IAABD.
39. DRUCKER, Peter F. (1998) The Information Executives Truly
Need. In: Measuring Corporate Performance. Boston: Harvard
Business Review, P. 1–24.
40. ECCLES, Robert G. The Performance Measurement Manifesto. In:
Measuring Corporate Performance. Boston: Harvard Business
Review, 1998. p. 25–54.
41. Edgar, F., & A. Greare, (2005). HRM practice and employee
attitudes: Different measures – different results. Personnel review,
34(5), 534–549.
42. Ferris, G.R., Hochwater, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrel-Cook, G. and
Frink, D.D. (1999), Human Resources Management: Some New
Directions., Journal of Management, Vol.25, No.3, pp.385-414.
43. Fey, F.C., & I. Bjorkman, (2000). The Effect of Human Resource
Management Practices on MNC, Subsidiary Performance in
Russia. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 6.
44. Fitz-enz, J. (2000), Theo ROI of human capital, measuring the
economic value of employee performance, Amacom, New York.
45. Ford, R. C., & W.A. Randogph, (1992), Cross – Functional
structures: a review and integration of matrix organization and
project management, Journal of Management, 18(2), 267–94.
![Page 134: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
119
46. Gallie, D., F. Alan, & G. Francis, (2001). Employer policies and
organizational commitment in Britain 1992–1997, Journal of
Management Studies, 38(8), 1082–1101.
47. Gallie, D., F. Alan, & G. Francis, (2001). Employer policies and
organizational commitment in Britain 1992–1997, Journal of
Management Studies, 38(8), 1082–1101.
48. Garibaldi P. (2006), Personnel Economics in Imperfect Labour
Markets, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
49. Gnan, L., L. Songini, 2003, ‘The Professionalization of Family
Firms: The Role of Agency Cost Control Mechanisms’ FBN
Proceedings2003 pp.141-172.
50. Golhar, D.Y. and S.P. Deshpande, 1997, ‘HRM Practices of Large and
Small Canadian Manufacturing Firms’, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol.35, No.3, pp.93-97.
51. Gong, Yaping and Chang. K and Xin, Katherine, (2009), Managerial
Affective and Continuance commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, PP. 263–275.
52. Goss, D., D. Adam-Smith and A. Gilbert, 1994, ‘Small Firms and
HRM: Exceptions that Prove the Rule?’, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development,Vol.1,No.2,pp.2-8.
53. Gratton, Lynda et al., (1999), Strategic Human Resource
Management, Oxford University Press, New York, P. 7.
54. Guest, D. E. (1997). Human Resource Management and
Performance: A Review and Research Agenda. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263- 276.
55. Guest, D.E. (2001) Human Resource Management: When research
confronts theory. International Journal of Human Resource
Management 12, 1092–1106.
![Page 135: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
120
56. Gupta, S.C. Advanced Human Resources Management Strategic
Perspective, New Delhi, Anc. Books Pvt. Ltd. 2009, P. 239.
57. Hall, L., and Torrington, D. (1998). Letting Go or Holding On: The
Devolution of Operational Personnel Activities. Human Resource
Management Journal 8: 41–55.
58. Harel, G.H. & Tzafrir, S.S. (1999), "The Effect of Human Resource
Management Practices on the Perceptions of Organizational and
Market Performance of the Firm", Human Resource Management,
Vol. 38, PP. 185–200.
59. Heneman , H. & Berkley, R. (1999). Applicant attraction practices
and outcomes among small businesses. Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol.37,No.1,pp. 53-74.
60. Hoque, K. (1999), "Human Resource Management and
Performance in the UK Hotel Industry", British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 37, PP. 419–443.
61. Hornsby, J. S. and D. K. Kuratko, 1990, ‘Human Resource
Management in Small Business: Critical Issues for the 1990s’
Journal of Small Business Management Vol.28, No.3, pp.9-18.
62. Huselid, M. (1995), “The impact of human resource management
practices on turnover, productivity, and corpo e financial
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp.
635-7 rat 63. Huselid, M. A. (1995), The Impact of Human Resource
Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate
Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–
670.
64. Huselid, Mark A., Becker, Brian E., (2005), "Improving Human
Resources" Analytical Literacy: Lessons from Moneyball", Losey,
Mike (Editor); Meisinger, Sue (Editor); Ulrich, Dave (Editor). Future
![Page 136: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
121
of Human Resource Management: 64 Thought Leaders Explore the
Critical HR Issues of Today and Tomorrow, John Willey & Sons,
USA, P. 281.
65. Katou A.A. (2008), Measuring the impact of HRM on
organizational performance, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management. 1(2), 119-142.
66. Katou, A.A. & P. S. Budhwar, (2010), Causal relationship between
HRM policies and organizational performance: Evidence from the
Greek manufacturing sector. European Management Journal, 28,
25–39.
67. Kauanui (2004), "Impact of Training on Firm Performance: A
Look at Manufacturing SMEs in Viet Nam".
68. Khan, Muhammad Asif, (2010), Effects of Human Resource
Management Practices on Organizational Performance – An
Empirical Study of Oil and Gas Industry in Pakistan, European
Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences
69. Khatir, N. (1999). Emerging Issues in Strategic HRM in Singapore.
International Journal of Manpower 20(8): 51–20.
70. Khatri, N. (1999). Emerging Issues in Strategic HRM in Singapore.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 6(1): 79–101.
71. Koch M.J. & McGrath, R.G. (1996), "Improving Labor
Productivity: Human Resource Management Policies Do Matter",
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, PP. 335–354.
72. Kotter, J. P. (1998), Cultures and coalition, in Gibson, R. (ed),
rethinking the future; rethinking business, principles, competition,
control and complexity, leadership, markets and the world,
Nicholas Brealey, London.
73. Lado, Augustine A., Wilson, Mary C., (1994), "Human Resource
Systems And Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Competency-
![Page 137: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
122
Based Perspective", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19. No.
4, P. 699–727.
74. Marchington, M. (2001), Employee involvement at work', in Storey,
J. (ed.) Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. 2nd edition.
London: Thomson Learning.
75. Matlay, H. 1999, ‘Employee Relations in Small Firms: A
MicroBusiness Perspective’, Employee Relations,Vol. 21,No.3,pp.
285 m295.
76. Michael Armstrong (2006), Strategic Human Resource
Management: A Guide to Action. Kogan Page, London, P. 75.
77. MIRANDA, Luis C.; GOMES DA SILVA, José D. Mediç?o do
Desempenho. In: SCHMIDT, Paulo (Org.) Controladoria: Agregando
valor para a Empresa. Porto Alegre: Bookman, p2002. P. 131–153.
78. Muhammad Azhar Sheikh, Wusat-ul-Qamar, Fariha Iqbal, (2009),
Impact of Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices on
Employees Retention (A Case Study of Education And Banding
Sector in Bahawalpur), unpublished paper.
79. Noe, R.A, Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. M (2006).
Human Resources Management: Gaining A Competitive
Advantage. 5th
ed. New York: McGraw – Hill/Irwin.
80. Nyhan, R.C. (2000), Changing the paradigm: trust and its role in
public sector organizations American review of Public
Administration, 30(1), 87–109.
81. Nyhan, R.C. (2000), Changing the paradigm: trust and its role in
public sector organizations American review of Public
Administration, 30(1), 87–109.
82. Paul, A.K., Anantharaman, R.N., (2003), "Impact of People
Management Practices On Human Resources Management, 14:7,
P. 1248, PP. 1246–1266.
![Page 138: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
123
83. Peteraf, M.A. (1993), "The Cornerstones of Competitive
Advantage: A Resources-Based View", Strategic Management
Journal, vol. 14, No. 3, PP. 179–192.
84. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People:
Unleashing The Power or Workforce, Harvard Business School,
USA, P. 6.
85. Porter, L. & E.E. III. Lawler, (1968). Managerial Attitudes and
performance. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
86. Porter, Michael E., (1985), Competitive Advantage, Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, USA, P. 38.
87. Rathnawetera RR.NT, (2010), Do HRM Practices Impact Employee
Satisfaction, Commitment or Retention? Empirical Studies of
Srilankan University of Agder.
88. Richard et al. (2009): Measuring Organizational Performance:
owards Methodological Best Practice. Journal of Management p.29.
89. Sang, C. 2005. “Relationship between HRM practices and the
perception of organizational performance, roles of management
style, social capital, and culture: comparison between
manufacturing firms in Cambodia and Taiwan”, National Cheng
Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
90. Sani, Abdulkadir, D. (2012), SHRM and Organizational
Performance in the Nigerian Insurance Industry. The Impact of
Organizational Climate, Business Intelligence Journal, Vol. 5. No. 1,
PP. 8–20.
91. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1995). Understanding human
resource management in the context of organizations and their
environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 46,237-264.
92. Schuler, R., Jackson, S. (1999), Linking Competitive Strategies with
Human Resources Management Practices. In Strategic Human
![Page 139: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
124
Resource Management, Eds R. Schuler and S. Jackson, 159–76.
Oxford: Blackwel Publishers Ltd.
93. Schuler, R.S. (1992), Linking the People with the Strategic Needs of
the Business. Organizational Dynamics Summer: 18–32.
94. Schuler, R.S. I.C. MacMillan, (1984). Gaining competitive
advantage through human resource management practices,
Human Resource Management: 241–255.
95. Schuler, Randall S., Jackson, Susan E., (2007), Strategic Human
Resource Management, Blackwell Publishing, USA, p.xiii.
96. Sekaran, Uma,(2003), Research methods for Business”, John Wiley
&sons U.S.A.
97. Shahzad, K., S. Bashir, & I.M. Ramay (2008), Impact of HR
Practices on Perceived Performance of University Teachers in
Pakistan, International Review of Business Research Papers, 4, 2 pp.
302-315.
98. Shikha N. Khera, 2010, Human Resource Practices and their
Impact on Employee Productivity: A Perceptual Analysis of
Private, Public and Foreign Bank Employees in India, DSM Business
Review v Vol. 2, No. 1
99. Singh, K. (2004). "Impact of HR practices on perceived firm
performance in India". Asia pacific Journal of Human Resources
42(3) 301–317.
100. Singh, K. (2004). "Impact of HR practices on perceived firm
performance in India". Asia pacific Journal of Human Resources
42(3) 301–317.
101. Strauss, g. (2006), An overview, in Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G.
and Wilpert, B. (Eds), Organizational Participation: Myth and
Reality, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 8–39.
102. Teo, S. (2002), Effectiveness of a Corporate HR Department in an
Australian Public Sector Entity during Commercialization and
![Page 140: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/140.jpg)
125
Corporatization. International Journal of Human Resource
Management 13(1): 89–105.
103. Tesluk, P.E., R.J. Vance, & J.E., Mathieu, (1999), Examining
employee involvement in the context of participative work
environments, Group Organization Management, 24, 271–299.
104. Tessema, M. & Soeters, J. (2006), "Challenges and Prospects of
HRM in developing countries: testing the HRM-performance link
in Eritrean civil service", International Journal of Human Resource
Managements, Vol. PP. 86–105.
105. Van Ypere, N.W., A.E. Van den Berg, & M.C. Willering, (1999).
Towards a better understanding of the link between participation
in decision – making and organizational citizenship behaviour: a
multilevel analysis, Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 72, 377–392.
106. Verma, R.M., (1995). Transformations and confluence for rewrite
systems, Theoretical Computer Science.
107. Verma, R.M., (1995). Transformations and confluence for rewrite
systems, Theoretical Computer Science.
108. Wagner, T. H., 1998, ‘Determinants of Human Resource
Management Practices in Small Firms: Some Evidence from
Atlantic Canada’, Journal of Small Business Management,Vol.36,
pp.13-23
109. Walton, R.E. (1985). Toward a strategy of eliciting employee
commitment based on policies of mutuality. In R. E. Walton & P.R.
Lawrence (Eds.), Human resource management: Trends and
challenges, boston: Harvard Business School Press.
110. Wan, H. L. (2007), Human Capital development policies: enhancing
employees' satisfaction, journal of European Industrial Training 31(4):
pp. 297–32.
![Page 141: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/141.jpg)
126
111. Wernerfelt, Birger, (1984), "A Resource-based View of the Firm",
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, P. 192–180.
112. Wilpert, B. (1998). A view from psychology, in Heller, F., Pusic, E.,
Strauss, G. and Wilpert, B. (Eds.), Organizational Participation:
Muth and Reality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 40 – 64.
113. Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2004), "Strategic HRM and organizational
behaviour: integrating Multiple level analysis", Paper presented at the
What Next For HRM? Conference, Rotterdam.
114. Wright, P. M., and McMahan, G.C. (1999), Theoretical Perspectives
for SHRM. In Strategic Human Resource Management, (Eds.) R.
Schuler and S. Jackson, 49–72. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
115. Wright, Patrick M., Dunford, Benjamin B., Snell, Scott A., (2007),
"Human Resources and Resources-Based View of The Firm", in:
Randall S. Schuler, Susan E. Jackson, Strategic Human Resource
Management, 2nd Edition, Blackwell, USA, P. 76.
116. Zwick, T. (2004), Employee Participation and Productivity. Labour
Economics, 11(1), 715–740.
![Page 142: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/142.jpg)
127
7.���)1( � �/.�� ����S ��;��
6��� 6�1� "���� M&�� 5$%�� ������
1 .� .+��F�� (��- (��� �� �. !��' ?�3� 2 .� .+����� (��� ��� ���� &���. !��' ?�3� 3 � .+����� <�� ?���$ !��' ?�3� 4 � .��% �=�� ?���$ !��' ?�3� 5 .� .�� =�� 4� (��� �� �. �$�� 6 .� .+C�!� ���� (��� �� �. *��0' &�1�=� 7 � .�:" ���� >��� (��� �� �. �$��
![Page 143: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/143.jpg)
128
7.���)2(
��;�� �$�%� ������������A� �����!� �/���� "#
6��� ������ 6��
1 ?�3� *���4*��%� !��'
2 *��%� *��� ����' *���4
3 *��%� *��0' ���� *���4
4 *��%� *����!$� ���� *���4
5 *��%� ��6���2 *���4
6 *��%� & ��� *���4
7 *��%� �$�� *���4
8 *��%� *��$�=� *���4
9 *��%� &�1�=� *���4
10 *��%� ���. *���4
11 �-���4� ���' *��+����� � +1��6� ���$� 7����!$� *
12 *��%� *��!�� ���4� *���4
13 *��%� r�4 *���4
14 *���4*��%� �� �4
15 *��%� *����� ���� *���4
16 *��%� *�-���' *���4
17 *�C������ ���6�� ���' ���� �8��
18 �Z � *����$� ���� *��- �– ' ���
19 �������� *����' *�����-'
20 *�2���� � *����� ���� *���4 ��$��: "��� 6����� 2012) www.mhoe.gov.jo.(
![Page 144: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/144.jpg)
129
7.���)3(
"���� @.� P��Y! ������
M������ ,�,�/������� "�,�,�
��' ��.�
<��� D �:' *���$�, /�0 -��� ��� U5� � ���� ��$�4��� *����� *���$��) �(�� ������ ���� ��� ����� ��� �� ����� ����������� ��������� " �(�� �(�&�'� �����
���!� "# �$�%� �������"( . � -���) . "��� ���. / �� �. ��1 +�2 E��3��� ��$�' (���' . & � ���� 7���-�� � *��0 �� *� ��� /�8� ���� *���%� 7�����4� *�����'
*����$��� �8$�84�$� . U���4 �[�� @����� *���$�, 7 ��2 (��- ��� *��4��� (56$� ��4 �(���$ 9�� �8� ������=$ 9�� +$� 7������ '� *��$ *���� !�2 +���� <��� D �:.
-����$ ��� -� ���-�3
����$� � �$�, ?C�2 (���� ��56$�
@.��
"*�&� ��+� ���,
�((�.�� : -((��%� "((# �����((�� E((��� �((����� 23((� P��((Y! �����((�� �$((&�6���!�/���. / ������ �;� �I����� �;�� ��*�� �������.
![Page 145: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/145.jpg)
130
4 !� �,�� :����� ��;�!� �;�� 6�/�� ����:
• ������ ���� ��#��N���� 5;�$%�
I��� �-�
�;�
���� �� (1 25
26 m 35
36 m 45
46 m 55
�� �;- 55
"���� 4�O�� ���� �� (1
����
X������-�
��$�4��
/ ��$-�
X�C�� �C��*�� �� ��Y3��
�� ��� ����*��3��
���5 �������4�
(���� ����(�4�$� �
��� ���� = 7���%� �
�"+�� � ,/�� 7�1�� ����
*���� � ��� ����
����$� ���!$� � +���� �����
�%" +6�A� �=-�� .............................
��%� �� �� "���) �� (1 5
6 m 10
11 m 16
17 m 20
�� �;- 20
![Page 146: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/146.jpg)
131
"���� �,�� : ��� �������� ] ��� ���.� ���� �� 4/ E� W��+�� ]�� b�* � W��� �A� �� ������������ 4/ ��,) �.* �� ���� I���&�� �&# W3 ���c� ������:
���((((((((((�� 0���/ 7+�� 7+�� P� 7+��
�"�� ���.�
7+�� 1�"�� P�
17+��
7+�� 10���')
����������� ��������: �. �� M�'&��1�����:
1 7 ��8� ��-�$�� ����� � �2' *���4� �!�$�$ ��A�$� � !��!%$� (��4� +2 *�2�- 7 ��%�
*�8�� *�� �� ������ (F3� *��1�� �.
2 �� ��� ���� U� 7 ���� ��1' & ��� E��3�*���4� +2 ����$� � ��!�$�, +2 *��3�� .
3 � U�4� *���4� $8$ ��� 7�������� 7����� ����$%, � *�������� @*2��5. ����$�� �����$��
����$� � *�5�6�� +2 �8� �%$� D�F�.
4 ���: 7 ����$%, � 7����� *���4� �%$�$����$� ��� �=��$�� .
5 ����$% +�2 �� �4� ����� ��� *���4� ��$�$������� .
6 , ������ �� +�2 ��������� ����$� � ��!�$� ���5 (���� ����� � *�:�� ��-$ � *���4�
�� �� ?��6� .
M. �� '�� M�����: 7 �1 (- +2 ������� U5%� / T������� ���C �
(�- +2 *��� ���3� �� (�� , �� � +����$��.
8 ��� *���4� +2 *�����$� 7�4��$�, ����$ $�%*�����$� 7�4��$�� ����� *!%� (.
9 ����!$� ����$� *�A$�� T� �� *���4� ��$�$8� *�=� 7 ��8�� ���$-, ��4� ������� .
10 *����4� (�1 �� ���$��� 7�4��$�, � 7�����$� (��� *�4�$ �$�. ��. ��$�$� ���6�� *��1 � ��$�$
*���4� .
11 *���� D��6%� +�2 ���!$� � ����$� ����*���4� +2 +6�A�� � ���� .
12 ����� *���4� ?�!$)ISOm10015 ( ?���$�� �������� ���!$� � ����$��� .
![Page 147: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/147.jpg)
132
���((((((((((�� 0���/ 7+�� 7+�� P� 7+��
�"�� ���.�
P� 7+�� 1
�"��
1
7+��
7+�� 1
0���')
V. ,#� .� P� ��� 6��: 13 7���1�$ U� ����$$ *���4� �8���$ +$� 7�5���$�
������� .
14 ��$ ��� T� �� ��$�� (-3�� ��$0�� *���4� U��$$ *���%� 7����4� �� �8$�;� �8���$ +$� =2 ��� �
�������� +���� ?��� +2.
15 *����4� +2 7�5���$� ^��$ �&��6- ���. ���$�� ������� .
16 *��f- =2 ��� �� &=4- *���4� +2 �[2�-�� �%$�$ +���� & �' �[2�-��.
17 ���$ �A� �0�2�� +$� 7������� ��� *���4� ��$�$& �' �8��$��� +$� =2 ��� � 7f2�-�� ����$ D�F�
��=��$�� ������� .
18 $� *�C���� @ ���$� *���4� +2 D���$� *!% *�4 �� *�2����
�. ������� �/����: 19 ���%$ *����� +2 *���4� +2 ������� E��3�
7 � ��� .
20 7�����$� > �$1, *��2 ������� *���4� ^��$*����� �8���� +$� .
21 ���� U43$ *2��; *���4� W�� *-��3�� ��� ���7 � ��� +2.
22 ����$ +2 �������� 7 � ��� ��%$ *��� 0��$*���4� /�4$ 0�5�.
23 86C��A� �8� �A�$ +2 ������� *���� 0��$ +�$� 7����%� ����= +2 ������ ����� ��� ��2�
*���4� �8���$.
![Page 148: ˛˚ ˇ ˆ ˜ ˙˝ ˆX 6. There is no significant impact of employee participation on private university performance at level (0.05). 7. There is a significant impact of employee performance](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041708/5e469e2fcbc18405ad634fb8/html5/thumbnails/148.jpg)
133
@��� �,�� :� ���.� ���� 4/ E� W��+�� ]�� b�* � W��� �A� �� ������� ���� ������ ���� ] ������ 4/ ��,) �.* �� ���� I���&�� �&# W3 ���c� ������ ��:
���((((((((((�� 0���/ 7+�� 7+�� P� 7+��
�"�� ���.�
7+�� 1�"�� P�
17+��
7+�� 10���')
������ ����: 24 *���4� +2 *����� 7���%� ���4 ��� ����$ �!
*����� *;;� 7 ���� (%.
25 ���1 !��� �� ��$�$ ��6A����� A�6$�, ��� ����� *���4� .
26 �� �. *������ ���$0 !��� 8���� *��!� �5�*���4� .
27 *6�$%�� 7 � ���� *���4� �� �. !��$ *��; *�1� �$� � *����$�.
28 (�% *����4�� *�1���� *��� ��� ���$ �!*����� <;� 7 ���� .
29 ���� �Z U��$4�� +2 (52 *��-� *���4� ($�$7 ��� <; ��� ���� 7��-.
30 +�2 +���� ?��� +2 *-�3� 8� ��� ���$ �!�� <;� 7 ���� *���.
31 *�-�� 9 �0' *���4� U5$)SMART 9 ��0 +�0� *��1 �� �8����$ �-�� X����� *���1 ����� (�8�6A���.
������� ����: 32 *�4�$�. ��� ���$ ������� & � ���$ �A� �8A
*����� <;� 7 ���� (% ������� .
33 ����� �� �� �$�$ +2 ����4� & �Z � ��-2' ���$� *���4� .
34 W�$�� U2� ��� ^5 � (-3� X-�� ������� �5�8C � .
35 ������� & � TC�$� �� �5���� *���4� �� �. ��3$. 36 (-3� 7 � ��� ��%$, *���4� +2 ������� ��-�$ $
*������ *������� ��4.
37 @ ��!$ *����� <;� 7 ���� (% *���4� 7�83������� 7,��$ 7 ��8� +2 @�A����.
38 *�4�$ �$�� 9 �0' U� ������� �&�6- �3��$$*���4�� *���F3$� �.
>� W�� ��/ �3)��#�*)���/3 6�/�� ���� : ..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
6���.1� 7;�# 4 & � �*+� ���&� 6/������ 6/ ��/��