Leadership in Indonesia – towards a new taxonomy of
leadership behaviours
Ade, F., Addison, R., and Dakin, S.R.
Commerce Division, Lincoln University, New Zealand
Email: addisonr@lincoln.ac.nz
2
Leadership in Indonesia – towards a new taxonomy of leadership
behaviours
Abstract
There is a growing empirical literature indicating that effective leadership is critical to levels of
employee behaviours, commitment, attitudes and performance. However there remain several gaps in
the literature. This study examines one of these gaps – the applicability and generalisability of
leadership constructs developed in the West to leadership in other, quite different, cultures.
It was found that Indonesian respondents classified leadership behaviours differently than Bass and
Avolio’s (1995) transformation/transactional taxonomy. Three factors emerged – ideal, minimal and
unacceptable. These three factors were then analysed with four outcome variables (job satisfaction,
commitment, trust and intention to leave) and were found to all have significant correlations. The
implications of this new taxonomy are explored.
Key words:
Leadership behaviour, transformational leadership, transactional leadership.
3
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR STRUCTURES
The instrument used to examine leadership behaviours in this study is the Multifactor Leadership
Instrument (MLQ), which was developed in the United States of America. Originally, items on MLQ
were derived from qualitative research, which consisted of observation and categorisation of the
behaviour of transformational and transactional leaders (Bass, 1985). The transformational and
transactional constructs were formulated from the perspective of the United States culture. Peterson
and Hunt (1997) revealed their concerns about American bias in current leadership theory. Similarly,
House (1995) noted that almost all constructs of leadership and empirical evidence are North
American in character. Later he detailed the characteristics of US leadership constructs as being:
“individualistic rather than collectivistic; emphasizing assumptions of rationality rather than ascetics,
religion, or superstition; stated in terms of individual rather than group incentives; stressing follower
responsibility rather than rights; assuming hedonistic rather than altruistic motivation and assuming
centrality of work and democratic value orientation”(p. 443).
The central question in this study was to investigate whether leadership constructs (the ways people
think about leadership) used by Indonesians are the same as elsewhere. An exploratory factor analysis
was conducted to see whether the six-factor leadership structure defined by Bass and Avolio (1995)
could be found in an Indonesian data set. The results showed that two or three-factor structures are the
best reflection of these data. The components of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
behaviours defined by Bass and Avolio (1995) could not be distinguished separately. In terms of a
two-factor solution, Den Hartog et al., (1997) noted that the real distinction found in leadership
research is between active-passive or effective-ineffective models of leadership. This study supports
Den Hertog’s simpler two-factor model of leadership. However, an interesting three-factor solution
was found in this data set. Although these three factors could be viewed as relatively consistent with
Bass and Avolio’s model of leadership, the evidence also showed some divergent components and
items in the instrument. Detailed discussion of these differences in the Indonesian version of the MLQ
is provided later.
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY .
In cross-cultural studies of leadership, cultural profiles have an important effect in explaining the
relationship between leaders and followers. In the new paradigm o f leadership theory, the
effectiveness of the leadership process is determined by the followers’ perception (Miendl, 1995, Foti
and Luch, 1992; Gertsner and Day, 1994; Popper and Sleman, 2001). Cultural background influences
followers’ views about the ways leaders should behave, and what they expect from their leaders.
Therefore, we can expect that the nature of effective leadership behaviours would vary across cultures.
Some studies have identified several universal and culturally contingent leadership attributes across
cultures (e.g. Smith et al, 1988; Gertsner and Day, 1994; Dorfman et al., 1997; Den Hartog et al. 1999;
Pillai et al., 1999a). However, the scope of these studies is limited to a few cultures, and cannot be
generalised across all cultures. In the Indonesian culture, there is little information about which
leadership attributes suit and are applicable in this context. This study, therefore, aims to investigate
the universal and culturally contingent leadership attributes in the Indonesian con text.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The sample is drawn from the employees of an Indonesian SOE and its subsidiaries, located in three
different places in one province. The companies are medium to large sized and range from 250 to
2500 employees and are widely diversified in activities, including manufacturing, health-care, mining,
construction and transport.
The sample size of this study was determined by the requirement that we were to conduct a factor
analysis. Although there is no consensus on what sample size should be, a minimum of five cases per
variable is a common convention in the literature (Bryman and Creamer, 1997; Coakes and Steed,
2003). However, to be sufficiently reliable, an appropriate size of 10 cases per variables is
recommended (Field, 2000). Because the MLQ has 36 items, we sought 360 cases to be done reliably.
Based on the assumption of participation rates of 35 percent, we then decided to distribute 993
questionnaires in the eight participant organisations.
A stratified random sample method was employed to divide the sample, proportionally based on
departments and levels in each organisation structure. According to Sekaran (2003), stratified random
5
sampling allows the researcher to trace the differences in the parameters of the group within a
population. Thus, a grouping based on department and level of the participants is expected to allow
the researcher to identify if there are any differences in data gathered among sub -groups. The
employees’ names were randomly selected from three bottom levels in the organisation structure (see
Table 1).
TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Demographics
Percentages
Functional Production
Area
HRD
Accounting
R&D
Marketing
Others
Total
56.9%
11.6%
7.8%
4.1%
3.8%
15.8%
100.0%
Gender
Male
Female
Total
88.3%
11.7%
100.0%
Age
< 25 years
25 - 30 years
31 - 35 years
36 - 40 years
41 - 45 years
46 - 50 years
> 50 years
Total
5.5%
24.6%
29.8%
10.3%
8.6%
9.6%
11.6%
Demographics
Percentages
Position
Operator
Supervisor
Section Head
Total
69.6%
22.8%
7.6%
100.0%
Education
Level
Primary School
Junior High School
Senior High School
Diploma
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Total
4.5%
11.4%
59.5%
10.9%
12.7%
1.0%
100.0%
Organisational < 5 years
Tenure
5 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
16 - 20 years
21 - 25 years
> 25 years
100.0%
Total
17.9%
42.1%
11.7%
5.8%
11.9%
10.6%
100.0%
DATA COLLECTION
Questionnaires were administered using the internal mailing system in each organisation. A
personalised covering letter from the researcher and a supporting letter from each organization’s
management accompanied each set of questionnaires. The letters explained the objectives and benefits
of the study, the importance of the respondent’s participation, and guaranteed the confidentiality of
respondents’ information. The letter from management also explained that the researcher was
officially approved and encouraged participation.
6
Respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaires to the human resources or training and
education division of each company, using the provided envelope, within a two-week time frame.
Some organisations also provided assistance by contacting the respondents by telephone before the
dead line. This effort was very helpful to increase the number of respondents returning the complete
questionnaires.
As the original instruments used in this research were developed in western countries, it was necessary
to translate the questionnaires from English to the Indonesian language. The most common procedure
to translate from a different language is the translation-back translation procedure. This procedure is
used to maintain the questionnaire’s vocabulary, idiomatic, and conceptual equivalence. (Vijver and
Leung, 1997; Cavana, Delahaye, and Sekaran, 2001).
PILOT STUDY
A pilot study was carried out with a total response of 21 people to test the research instrument’s
reliability and whether the questions were appropriate in the Indonesian context. Some changes were
made to the original instrument as a result of the pilot study. In particular, two additional leadership
behaviour categories were developed as the result of this feedback. These categories are:
Benevolent parental figure. Several pilot study respondents indicated that effective leaders have the
qualities of a benevolent parent. Consequently, three additional items asked respondents to rate their
supervisor as a benevolent parental figure. These included:
-
Makes me feel I am part of his/her family
-
Shows concern and provides help for personal problem
-
Is seen as a benevolent parental figure that I look up to.
Directive leadership. Further, respondents also indicated that effective leaders were directive in their
approach. Therefore, the directive leadership approach was measured with two items:
-
Provides clear-cut directions about how to do the job
-
Gives each employee detailed instructions to follow
7
Some comments from the pilot study also revealed the importance of trust and honesty for effective
leadership. The level of leadership trust seemed an essential quality of good leaders in Indonesia.
Thus, we decided to adapt three items from Podsakoff et al. (1990) to assess trust in leaders. These
items were:
-
I feel quite confident that my leader will always try to treat me fairly
-
My manager would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving workers
-
I have complete faith in the integrity of my manager/supervisor
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Table 2 shows the results of analysis of the data using Bass’s approach with item loading of leadership
behaviours on the three-factor solution. Seven items were discarded because they did not meet the
criteria specified for exploratory factor analysis. Four items loaded less than 0.3 and three items
loaded on more than one factor with differences of less than 0.2. The adapted leadership instrument
thus has a total of 29 items. This comprises 17 items for transformational-constructive, 5 items for
transactional-corrective, and 7 items for avoidance leadership. The three-factor solution explains 48.65
percent of the total cumulative variance.
A three-factor solution indicated that leadership behaviours in this data set were roughly equivalent to
the three behaviours identified by Bass and Avolio (transformational, transactional, and passive
avoidance leadership behaviours). However, the differences lie in the sub-scales that together
comprise these three leadership behaviours. In particular, one of the transactional scales (contingent
reward) is associated with transformational leadership and the combinations of items obtained on these
scales are quite unique in the Indonesian data set. Hence, we can tentatively assume that Indonesian
employees have leadership constructs that differ from those used by US employees.
An important point to be noted in this Indonesian data is that items dealing with contingent reward
load together with transformational leadership. For Bass and Avolio, these four items loaded (item
number 1, 11, 16, and 35) with active management-by-exception on transactional leadership. A
number of previous studies in several cultures (e.g. Bycio et al., 1995; Den Hartog et al., 1997;
Wofford, Godwin, & Whittington, 1998; Godwin, Wofford, & Boyd, 2000; Turner et al., 2002;
8
Godwin et al., 2001) have also found that contingent reward loaded with transformational, or is more
closely associated with transformational than transactional behaviours.
TABLE 2 Item Loading of Leadership Behaviour Scales
No.
Item
1
36
35
16
14
31
9
10
11
34
15
26
13
1
30
2
27
32
22
24
4
25
18
12
20
28
7
5
33
17
"expresses confidence"
"rewards your achievement"
"clarifies rewards"
"models ethical standards"
"focuses your strengths"
"talks optimistically"
"proud of him/her"
"recognizes your achievement"
"emphasizes the collective mission"
"teaches and coaches"
"arouse awareness about important issues"
"talks enthusiastically"
"assists based on effort"
"suggests different angles"
"re-examines assumptions"
"puts out fires"
"suggests new ways"
"concentrate on failures"
"tracks your mistakes"
"focuses on your mistakes"
"goes beyond self interest"
"display power and confidence"
"reacts to failures"
"reacts to problems, if chronic"
"avoids deciding"
"absent when needed"
"avoids involvement"
"delays responding"
"if not broke, don’t fix"
Eigenvalue
Variance explained (%)
Cumulative variance
explained (%)
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 6 iterations
Factor
2
3
0.803
0.769
0.735
0.702
0.644
0.642
0.596
0.584
0.579
0.579
0.556
0.532
0.518
0.456
0.442
0.411
0.362
-0.658
-0.628
-0.491
-0.430
-0.327
0.655
0.653
0.649
0.602
0.588
0.515
0.336
10.20
2.57
1.34
35.17
8.87
4.61
35.17
44.04
48.65
9
Another component of interest in the Indonesian data set is individualized consideration. The four
items in the MLQ construct for individual consideration loaded onto two separate factors. The
presence of two distinct sub-components has been identified by Yukl (1999) as supporting and
developing behaviours. Developing includes coaching, teaching, and mentoring to enhance
subordinate skills and self-efficacy. Supporting includes being friendly, helpful, considerate, and
appreciative of individual subordinates. The result of exploratory factor analysis revealed that only
“developing behaviour” loads to transformational behaviour. The “supporting behaviour” items did
not load onto any factor and were discarded.
Bass (1997) noted that followers in collective cultures use specific criteria in judging the effectiveness
of their leader’s individual consideration behaviour. They may need personalized consideration, rather
than simply work-based consideration. Thus, leaders are expected to spend their time listening to and
helping their followers with personal problems as well as workplace problems. A leader in this culture
is a role model who pays attention to the followers’ personal life. This behaviour, however, may not
work effectively in an individualist culture, where personalised consideration will be perceived as
invading the privacy of the subordinates.
The New Taxonomy
The pilot study identified some additional ways in which Indonesian think about leadership. These
include the idea of the benevolent parental figure and the importance of directive leadership.
Consequently, a further exploratory factor analysis was undertaken on all leadership behaviour items
(that included scales of benevolent parental figure and directive leadership). In this analysis, the two
and three-factor solutions continued to produce the most easily interpretable results. In terms of the
three-factor solution, the two additional scales loaded together with the transformational-constructive
(total 19 items), while the remaining two factors are exactly the same as transactional-corrective and
avoidance leadership. Table 3 presents the results of exploratory factor analysis on the three-factor
solution. The three factors appear to be as follows:
10
TABLE 3 Item Loading in New Taxonomy of Leadership Behaviour Scales
No
Item
1
39
35
36
37
41
31
40
16
15
38
1
10
14
34
9
11
2
27
"provides help for personal problems"
"rewards your achievement"
"expresses confidence"
"part of his/her family"
"figure that people look up to"
"focuses your strengths"
"gives detailed instruction"
"clarifies rewards"
"teaches and coaches"
"provides clear-cut directions"
"assists based on effort"
"proud of him/her"
"models ethical standards"
"emphasizes the collective mission"
"talks optimistically"
"recognizes your achievement"
"re-examines assumptions"
"puts out fires"
0.732
0.731
0.665
0.658
0.644
0.628
0.626
0.624
0.617
0.617
0.607
0.554
0.529
0.512
0.494
0.474
0.463
0.438
32
"suggests new ways"
0.388
22
24
4
25
18
28
20
12
5
7
33
17
"concentrate on failures"
"tracks your mistakes"
"focuses on your mistakes"
"display power and confidence"
"goes beyond self interest"
"avoids deciding"
"reacts to problems, if chronic"
"reacts to failures"
"avoids involvement"
"absent when needed"
"delays responding"
"if not broke, don’t fix"
Factor
2
3
-0.598
-0.594
-0.512
-0.497
-0.376
0.665
0.663
0.657
0.607
0.590
0.537
0.318
Eigenvalue
11.34
2.54
1.46
Variance explained (%)
36.24
8.19
4.68
Cumulative variance explained (%)
36.24
44.42
49.11
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Factor 1:
This appears to describe the most desired features of leadership, that we have named
“Paternal Management”
11
Factor 2:
These items appear to describe the minimum behaviours a leader should carry out. If
they do nothing else, they should do these things. Hence, we have named these
“Satisficing Management”
Factor 3:
These items describe a form of ineffective or non-leadership behaviour, - we named
these “Unsupportive Management”
CONCLUSION
This study indicates that there are unique – or at least different to the patterns shown in the West –
elements in the way in which Indonesians perceive effective manager behaviours. Some elements
identified as being meaningful in the West are in Indonesia perceived as ambiguous or meaningless
while other elements are significant to the Indonesian perception of effective management behaviours
that have not emerged in research carried out in the West. Another difference highlighted by this data
is that the Indonesian concept of effective management behaviour appears to much simpler than that
developed for a Western setting in that it has only half the number of constructs.
The major difference between these results and those obtained in Western contexts is in the makeup of
the Transformational Management construct. The Indonesian equivalent is so different as to have
required us to rename the construct as “Paternal Management”. This construct includes items that in
the West load onto other constructs (EG “gives detailed instruction”; “rewards your achievement” ,)
and includes new items derived from exploratory research such as “provides help for personal
problems”. It is items such as this last one that lend the Indonesian construct with its distinctive
flavour and underlines the difference between what Indonesians expect from their managers and what
their peers may do in the West.
These results have several implications. First for theory we need to explore further the nature of
Indonesian perception of effective management behaviours and compare these with those of other
collectivist cultures to see how robust are the new constructs proposed here and to explore the natu re
of contingent reward. Secondly there are implications for training and selection of managers in
Indonesia. At the moment students are educated and managers selected and trained using models
12
based on Western concepts of what makes for an effective manager. Further confirmation of the
results here would indicate a revision of the management syllabus in Indonesia.
13
REFERENCES
Bass, BM (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, BM and Avolio, BJ (1993) ‘Transformational leadership and organizational culture’:
Public Administration Quarterly, 17 (1), pp 112.
Bass, BM (1997) ‘Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?’: American Psychologist, Vol 52 No 2 pp 130-139.
Bryman, A and Cramer, D (1997) Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows.
London, United Kingdom: Rouledge Inc.
Bycio, P, Hackett, RD and Allen, JS (1995) ‘Further assessments of Bass’s (1995)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership.’ Journal of Applied
Psychology Vol 80 pp 468-478.
Coakes, SJ, and Steed, LG (2003) SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish: Version 11.0 for
Windows (1st Eds.). Queensland, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
Cavana, RY, Delahaye, BL and Sekaran, U (2001) Applied Business Research: Qualitative
and Quantitative Methods. Quensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Den Hartog, DN, House, RJ, Hanges, PJ, and Ruiz-Quintanilla, SA (1999) ‘Culture specific
and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?’ Leadership Quarterly. Vol 10
No 2 p 219.
Den Hartog, DN, Van Muijen, JJ, and Koopman, P (1997) ‘Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ.’ Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol 70 pp 19-34.
Dorfman, PW, Howell, JP, Hibino, S, Lee, JK, Tate, U, and Bautista, A (1997) ‘Leadership in
western and asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes
across cultures.’ Leadership Quarterly, Vol 8 No 3, pp 233-274.
Field, A (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. London, United Kingdom:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Foti, RJ and Luch, CH (1992) ‘The influence of individual differences on the perception and
categorization of leaders.’ Leadership Quarterly, Vol 3 No 1 pp 55-66.
Gerstner, CR, and Day, DV (1994) ‘Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes.’
Leadership Quarterly Vol 5 No 2 pp 121-134.
Goodwin, VL, Wofford, JC, and Boyd, NG (2000) ‘A laboratory experiment testing the
antecedents of leader cognitions.’ Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 21 pp 769-788.
Goodwin, VL, Wofford, JC, and Whittington, JL (2001) ‘A theoretical and empirical
extension to the transformational leadership construct.’ Journal of Organizational Behavior
Vol 22 pp 759-774.
14
House, RJ (1995) Leadership in the 21st century: A speculative enquiry. In Howard, A (ed)
The changing nature of work. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.
Meindl, JR (1995) ‘The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: a social
construction approach.’ Leadership Quarterly, Vol 6 No 4 pp 329-341.
Peterson, MF and Hunt, JG (1997) ‘International perspective on international leadership.’
Leadership Quarterly, Vol 8 No 3 pp 203-231.
Pillai, R, Scandura, TA, and Williams, EA (1999) ‘Leadership and organizational justice:
Similarities and differences across cultures.’ Journal of International Business Studies, Vol 30
No 4 pp 763-779.
Podzakoff, PM, Mackenzie, SB, Moorman, RH, and Fetter, R (1990) ‘Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors.’ Leadership Quarterly Vol 1 No 2 pp 107-142.
Popper, M, and Sleman, K (2001) ‘Intercultural differences and leadership perceptions of
Jewish and Druze school principals.’ Journal of Educational Administration Vol 39 No 3 pp
221-232.
Sekaran, U (2003) Research methods for business: A skill building approach. (4th ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, PB, Misumi, J, Tayeb, M, Peterson, M, and Bond, M (1989) ‘On the generality of
leadership style measures across cultures.’ Journal of Occupational Psychology Vol 62 pp 97109.
Turner, N, Barling, J, Epitropaki, O, Butcher, V, and Milner, C (2002) ‘Transformational
leadership and moral reasoning.’ Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 87 No 2 pp 304-311.
Vijver, FJR Van de and Leung, K (1997) Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research. California: Sage Publications.
Wofford, JC, Goodwin, VL, and Whittington, JL (1998) ‘A field study of a cognitive
approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership.’ Leadership
Quarterly Vol 9 pp 55-84.
Yukl, GA (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly Vol10 No 2 pp 285-305.