participative management and its relationships with ... · participative management and its...
TRANSCRIPT
i
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIPS
WITH EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOUR:
A STUDY IN THE UNIVERSITY SECTOR IN MALANG
INDONESIA
Burhanuddin
B.A (Ed) (UNLAM)
Drs (EdAdmSup) (IKIP MALANG)
M.Ed (MEdMgmt) (FLINDERS)
This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education
Faculty of the Professions
The University of Adelaide
September 2013
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract........................................................................................................................... xi
Declaration ..................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xiii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xv
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... xvii
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
1.1.1 An overview of participative management ............................................................ 4
1.1.2 Participative management from research perspective ........................................... 5
1.1.3 The context of higher education management in Indonesia.................................. 8
1.2 Statement of Research Problem ........................................................................................ 16
1.2.1 The emerging need for participative management system ................................. 16
1.2.2 Lack of studies on the effects of participative management on employee
performance behaviour ......................................................................................... 17
1.2.3 Lack of studies on participative management in the university context ............ 17
1.2.4 Lack of previous studies on leadership related to contingency factors .............. 18
1.2.5 Personal perspective .............................................................................................. 19
1.3 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 20
1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 21
1.5 Aims and Objectives of the Research.............................................................................. 22
1.6 Contribution to the Discipline........................................................................................... 23
1.6.1 More comprehensive understanding about participative management .............. 24
1.6.2 Research development in educational management ............................................ 24
1.6.3 Information on management effectiveness based on employee and leader
perceptions ............................................................................................................. 24
1.6.4 Examination of the interaction effects among the research variables ................ 25
1.6.5 Information for practitioners of university organisation..................................... 25
1.7 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................ 25
1.8 Limitations of the Research ............................................................................................... 27
iv
1.9 The Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 28
1.10 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 30
Chapter Two: Review of Previous Studies on Participative Management .................. 31
and Employee Performance Behaviour ........................................................................ 31
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 31
2.2 Overview of Management versus Leadership Concepts .................................................. 31
2.3 The Conceptual Underpinning of Participative Management ......................................... 33
2.3.1 Participative management defined ........................................................................ 33
2.3.2 The paradigm of participative management and its compatibility with
other leadership constructs ................................................................................... 35
2.3.3 The Likert profile of organisation ......................................................................... 38
2.3.4 Characteristics of a participative organisational climate ..................................... 41
2.3.5 Employee performance behaviour and organisational effectiveness ................. 44
2.3.6 Implementation of participative management in improving organisational
effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 46
2.4 Previous Studies on the Relationships between Participative Management and
Employee Performance Behaviour ................................................................................... 49
2.4.1 Defining the terminology of employee performance behaviour ......................... 49
2.4.2 Linking participative management behaviour with employee performance
behaviour in organisation ..................................................................................... 52
2.4.3 The direct impact of participative management on employee performance
behaviour ............................................................................................................... 56
2.4.4 The indirect impact of participative management through employee work
attitude.................................................................................................................... 57
2.4.5 Moderating effects of contingency factors ........................................................... 62
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 69
Chapter Three: Participative Management Framework and Research Model .......... 71
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 71
3.2 The Use of Participative Management Style in University Organisations ..................... 72
3.3 Participative Management and its Relationships with Employee Performance
Behaviour ........................................................................................................................... 76
v
3.4 Mediating Factor of Employee Work Attitudes on the Effectiveness of Participative
Management ....................................................................................................................... 79
3.4.1 The job characteristics model ............................................................................... 80
3.4.2 Job characteristics and their association with employee performance
behaviour ............................................................................................................... 80
3.4.3 Indicators of employee work attitude and employee performance behaviour ... 82
3.5 Situational Factors of Participative Management ............................................................. 90
3.5.1 Fiedler‟s contingency model ................................................................................. 91
3.5.2 House‟s path goal theory of leadership ................................................................ 93
3.5.3 Participative management and its contingency factors ....................................... 94
3.6 The Hypothesised Research Model of the Participative Management in the
Context of University ...................................................................................................... 100
3.6.1 The main purpose of the research model ........................................................... 101
3.6.2 The theoretical model for the study .................................................................... 102
3.6.3 Directions of relationships and influencing factors among research
variables ............................................................................................................... 104
3.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 106
Chapter Four: Research Design and Instrumentation ........................................... 108
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 108
4.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................... 108
4.2.1 Reasons of using mixed research method .......................................................... 109
4.2.2 Explanatory mixed methods designs .................................................................. 109
4.2.3 The strength and weakness of qualitative and quantitative approaches ........... 111
4.2.4 Steps of a mixed methods study ......................................................................... 113
4.2.5 Participants ........................................................................................................... 115
4.3 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 119
4.3.1 The development of the items in the questionnaire ........................................... 119
4.3.2 The format of the questionnaire ......................................................................... 125
4.3.3 Translation of the items in the questionnaires ................................................... 127
4.3.4 Pilot study ............................................................................................................. 128
vi
4.4 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 130
4.4.1 Approval of the ethics committee and permissions from research sites .......... 130
4.4.2 Administration of the questionnaire for the main data collection .................... 130
4.4.3 The interview and document review .................................................................. 131
4.5. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 134
Chapter Five: Methods of Data Analysis ................................................................. 135
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 135
5.2 General Methodological Considerations ......................................................................... 135
5.2.1 Missing values ..................................................................................................... 135
5.2.2 Notion of causality ............................................................................................... 138
5.2.3 Significance testing in social science research .................................................. 139
5.2.4 Level of analysis .................................................................................................. 139
5.3 Quantitative Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 141
5.3.1 The use of PASW statistics/SPSS software ....................................................... 141
5.3.2 The Use of AMOS for confirmatory factor analysis and single level path
analysis ................................................................................................................. 143
5.3.3 Confirmatory factor analysis for testing the construct validity of the
instruments ........................................................................................................... 145
5.3.4 Path analysis ......................................................................................................... 151
5.3.5 The use of Conquest for Rasch Model in item analysis .................................... 153
5.3.6 Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) ............................................................... 157
5.4 Qualitative Data Analysis................................................................................................. 163
5.4.1 Analysing qualitative data of the interview ....................................................... 164
5.4.2 Analysing documents .......................................................................................... 168
5.4.3 Validation of the qualitative data ........................................................................ 169
5.5. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 170
Chapter Six: Preliminary Analysis and Scale Validation .......................................... 172
6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 172
6.2 Data Description ............................................................................................................... 172
6.2.1 Demographic and descriptive information on respondents ............................... 172
6.2.2 Missing values ..................................................................................................... 180
vii
6.2.3 Test for normality ................................................................................................ 181
6.3 Reliability .......................................................................................................................... 181
6.3.1 Internal consistency obtained from the pilot study ............................................ 182
6.3.2 Internal consistency obtained from the main study ........................................... 183
6.4 Validity .............................................................................................................................. 184
6.4.1 Face validity ......................................................................................................... 185
6.4.2 Construct validity ................................................................................................. 186
6.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.......................................................................................... 186
6.5.1 Model fit indices .................................................................................................. 187
6.5.2 Five alternative models ....................................................................................... 188
6.5.3 Fit comparison of the five alternative models .................................................... 189
6.5.4 Final structure of the measurement model ......................................................... 192
6.6 Scale Validation for Employee Questionnaire Using the Rasch Model ....................... 203
6.6.1 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Participative
Management (PM) scale ..................................................................................... 207
6.6.2 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Organisational
Culture (ORG) scale............................................................................................ 211
6.6.3 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Employee
Work Attitude (EWA) scale ............................................................................... 213
6.6.4 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Employee
Performance Behaviour (EPB) scale. ................................................................ 216
6.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 219
Chapter Seven: Single Level Path Analysis: Employee Level ................................... 221
7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 221
7.2 Test for Multicollinearity of Independent Variables at Employee Level...................... 221
7.3 Variables Used in the Employee Level Path Analysis ................................................... 223
7.4 Results of Employee Level Path Analysis ...................................................................... 225
7.4.1 Measurement model results at the employee level ............................................ 225
7.4.2 Structural model results at the employee level .................................................. 230
7.5 Fit indexes Obtained at the Employee Level Path Model .............................................. 243
7.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 244
viii
Chapter Eight: Single Level Path Analysis: Leader Level ......................................... 246
8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 246
8.2 Test for Multicollinearity of the Independent Variables ................................................ 246
8.3. Variables Used in the Leader Level Path Analysis ....................................................... 248
8.4 Results of the Leader Level Path Analysis ..................................................................... 251
8.4.1 Measurement model results at the leader level .................................................. 252
8.4.2 Structural model results at the leader level ........................................................ 259
8.5 Fit indexes Obtained at the Leader Level Path Model ................................................... 270
8.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 271
Chapter Nine: Two-Level Model of the Employee Performance Behaviour in
University Sector in Malang Indonesia ....................................................................... 274
9.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 274
9.2 Variables Used in the Two-Level Model ........................................................................ 275
9.3 Two-Level Employee Performance Behaviour Model .................................................. 278
9.3.1 Null model ......................................................................................................... 278
9.3.2 Final level-1 model ........................................................................................... 281
9.3.3 Full model ......................................................................................................... 282
9.4 The Effects of Level-1 Predictors on the Outcome Variable ......................................... 283
9.5 The Effects of Level-2 Predictors on Employee Performance Behaviour .................... 286
9.6 The Interaction Effects ..................................................................................................... 287
9.6.1 Interaction effect of average level of participative management with
age of employee................................................................................................... 292
9.6.2 Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour
with age of employee .......................................................................................... 293
9.6.3 Interaction effect of average age of employee with participative
management ......................................................................................................... 294
9.6.4 Interaction effect of average employee performance behaviour with
employee work attitude ....................................................................................... 295
9.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 297
ix
Chapter Ten: Results of the Interviews: Perceptions of Employees and Leaders .... 299
10.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 299
10.2 Responses from Employee Participants ........................................................................ 300
10.2.1 Employee conceptions of the possibility of the use of participative
management style ............................................................................................. 300
10.2.2 Preferred management styles ............................................................................ 304
10.2.3 Management styles in use ................................................................................. 307
10.2.4 Attitude towards the job .................................................................................... 312
10.2.5 Organisational commitment .............................................................................. 315
10.3 Responses from Leader Participants ............................................................................. 316
10.3.1 Leader conceptions of the use of participative management style ................. 316
10.3.2 Contribution of the current organisational structure to participative
management ...................................................................................................... 320
10.3.3 Influence of participative management on employee work attitudes ............. 325
10.3.4 Influence of participative management on employee performance
behaviour ........................................................................................................... 329
10.3.5 Factors determining the effectiveness of participative management ............. 333
10.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 338
Chapter Eleven: Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................. 340
11.1 Achieving the Research Aims ........................................................................................ 340
11.2 The Effects of Participative Management on Employee Work Attitude .................... 341
11.3 The effects of Employee Work Attitude on Employee Performance Behaviour ....... 342
11.4 The effects of Participative Management on Employee Performance Behaviour...... 344
11.5 The effects of Organisational Factors on Employee Perceptions of Participative
Management .................................................................................................................. 347
11.6 The effects of Organisational Factors on Employee Perceptions of Employee
Performance Behaviour ................................................................................................ 350
11.7 Effects of Individual Factors on Perceptions of Participative Management and
Employee Performance Behaviour .............................................................................. 354
x
11.8 Differences in Leaders and Average Employees‟ Perceptions about the Use of
Participative Management Style, Employee Work Attitude, Employee
Performance Behaviour, and their Relationships ........................................................ 356
11.9 Differences in Perceptions of Participative Management in Government and
Private Universities ....................................................................................................... 358
11.10 Limitations and Further Research ............................................................................... 360
11.11 Theoretical and Practical Implications ........................................................................ 361
11.12 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 363
Appendices ................................................................................................................... 365
Appendix A: The Employees‟ PMEP Questionnaire ........................................................... 366
Appendix B: The Leaders‟ PMEP Questionnaire ................................................................. 376
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Employees and Leaders ............................................. 386
Appendix D: Interview Transcription Samples..................................................................... 387
Appendix E: Ethics Approval from the University of Adelaide .......................................... 399
Appendix F: Permission Documents from Sample Universities in Indonesia .................... 402
Appendix G: Descriptive Results of Item Responses from Employee Participants ........... 408
Appendix H: Descriptive Results of Item Responses from Leader Participants ................ 414
Appendix I: Standardised Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) ...................... 420
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 441
xi
Abstract
This research study investigated employee and leader perceptions about the use of
participative management style and its relationships with employee work attitude and
performance behaviour in terms of commitment, quality of customer service, and
withdrawal behaviour. A mixed methods design was used by incorporating quantitative
and qualitative approaches. Questionnaire and interview were used to explore individuals‟
perceptions. Documents were gathered to access information about the universities
involved in the study. This study involved 808 employees and 52 Heads of Divisions from
six universities in Malang, Indonesia. Twenty four employees and 12 leaders were
interviewed. Attitudinal variables were measured employing scales: Participative
Management, Organisational Culture, Employee Work Attitude, and Employee
Performance Behaviour. The scales were validated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
and Rasch Model. Path Analysis was used to examine relationships among the variables.
Hierarchical Linear Modelling was also used to examine the relationships among nested
variables and cross-level interaction effects on the outcome variable. The qualitative data
were analysed by themes related to key variables in the quantitative results. Results from
the employee and leader-level path analyses indicated that participative management was
positively associated with employee performance behaviour. This trend was produced
either as a direct effect on performance or indirectly through employee work attitude.
Further analysis using a two-level model indicated that, at the micro level, this style
provided a direct effect on performance. At the macro level, the direct effect was provided
by the organisational culture. Supported by the qualitative results, this study reveals overall
that participative management was found to improve the employee performance, with its
effectiveness varied according to situational factors. The theoretical implication of this
study is that participative management enhances performance through promoting
individual capacity and relationships. Future research needs to focus on wider contingency
factors to pursue broader insights about participative management and generate more
comprehensive conclusions.
Key words: Participative management, employee work attitude, employee performance
behaviour, management, leadership, leader, employee, organisational unit.
xii
Declaration
I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another
person, except where due reference has been made in the text. In addition, I certify that no
part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission for any other degree or
diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of the
University of Adelaide and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the
joint-award of this degree.
I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being
made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act
1968.
I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web,
via the University‟s digital research repository, the Library catalogue and also through web
search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to restrict access for
a period of time.
Signed: ____________________________
Date : ____________________________
xiii
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
Figure 2.1. The generic approaches to measuring organisational effectiveness ................... 45
Figure 2.2. Organisational development of system 1 or 2 compared to system 4 ................ 48
Figure 3.1. The use of participative management style in improving employee
performance in university ..................................................................................... 74
Figure 3.2. General organisational structure at university and faculty level......................... 75
Figure 3.3. Conceptual framework of relationships between management systems and
employee performance behaviour ........................................................................ 77
Figure 3.4. The model of how participative management works in improving
performance and productivity............................................................................... 78
Figure 3.5. Relationships between participative management, employee work
attitude and performance behaviour ..................................................................... 81
Figure 3.6. Situational factors moderating the relationships between participative
management, employee work attitude, and employee performance
behaviour ............................................................................................................... 94
Figure 3.7. Research model of the relationships among participative management,
employee work attitude, employee performance behaviour and influence
of the situational factors in a university context ............................................... 105
Figure 4.1. Explanatory mixed methods design.................................................................109
Figure 4.2. Steps of a mixed methods study ......................................................................113
Figure 4.3. Map of Indonesia.............................................................................................116
Figure 4.4. Map of the city of Malang Indonesia showing the location of the
universities involved in the study ...................................................................117
Figure 4.5. Sources and development of questionnaire items for the research
variables...........................................................................................................122
Figure 5.1. Direct and indirect effect ................................................................................152
Figure 5.2. The process of the qualitative data analysis ....................................................... 165
Figure 6.1. Distribution of employee respondents by gender .............................................. 174
xiv
Figure 6.2. Distribution of employee respondents by age group ......................................... 174
Figure 6.3. Distribution of employee respondents by education level ................................ 175
Figure 6.4. Employment levels of employee respondents.................................................... 177
Figure 6.5. Length of service of employee respondents ....................................................... 177
Figure 6.6. Age of leader respondents ................................................................................... 179
Figure 6.7. Length of service of leader respondents ............................................................. 180
Figure 6.8. Hierarchical factor model of the participative management (PM) scale .......... 193
Figure 6.9. The hierarchical factor model of organisational culture (ORG) scale ............. 196
Figure 6.10. The hierarchical factor model of employee work attitude (EWA) scale........ 198
Figure 6.11. The hierarchical factor model of the employee performance behaviour
(EPB) scale .......................................................................................................... 201
Figure 6.12. Characteristic curves showing the ordered responses in the five
categories ............................................................................................................. 206
Figure 7.1. The path model .................................................................................................... 230
Figure 7.2. Employee level path model ................................................................................. 233
Figure 8.1. Leader level path model ...................................................................................... 254
Figure 9.1. Two-level employee performance behaviour Model ........................................ 275
Figure 9.2. The hypothesised variables of the two-level employee performance
behaviour model .................................................................................................. 277
Figure 9.3. Two level of employee performance behaviour ................................................ 285
Figure 9.4. Interaction effect of average level of participative management with age
of employee ......................................................................................................... 293
Figure 9.5. Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour
with age of employee .......................................................................................... 294
Figure 9.6. Interaction effect of average age of employee with participative
management ......................................................................................................... 295
Figure 9.7. Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour
with employee work attitude .............................................................................. 296
xv
List of Tables
Table Title Page
Table 2.1. Characteristics of management systems ................................................................ 40
Table 4.1. Population of employees and heads of division in the six selected
universities ......................................................................................................118
Table 4.2. Sample of participants for the interview...........................................................119
Table 4.3. The development of the items of PMEP Questionnaire ..................................... 121
Table 4.4. Variables and expressions used in measurement scale.....................................126
Table 4.5. Items of the questionnaire before and after pilot study ...................................... 129
Table 4.6. The distribution of the questionnaire for the employees .................................... 130
Table 4.7. The distribution of the questionnaire for leaders .............................................131
Table 6.1. Distribution of employee respondents in the university setting ......................... 173
Table 6.2. Crosstabulation of education level by gender of employees .............................. 176
Table 6.3. Crosstabulation of employment level by gender of employees ......................... 178
Table 6.4. Distribution of leader respondents in the university ........................................... 179
Table 6.5. Education level and gender of leader sample ...................................................... 179
Table 6.6. Employment level of leaders ................................................................................ 180
Table 6.7. The scales and Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients obtained from the pilot
study ..................................................................................................................... 182
Table 6.8. The scales and Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients obtained from the main
study ..................................................................................................................... 183
Table 6.9. Model fit comparison ............................................................................................ 189
Table 6.10. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of participative
management ......................................................................................................... 195
Table 6.11. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of organisational culture
(ORG) scale ......................................................................................................... 197
Table 6.12. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of the employee work
attitude (EWA) scale ........................................................................................... 199
Table 6.13. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of the employee
performance behaviour (EPB) scale .................................................................. 202
xvi
Table 6.14. The range of fit mean square and the item fit interpretation ............................ 204
Table 6.15. The range of standardised values and the item fit interpretation ..................... 204
Table 6.16. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the participative management
(PM) scale ............................................................................................................ 208
Table 6.17. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the organisational culture (ORG)
scale ...................................................................................................................... 211
Table 6.18. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the employee work attitude (EWA)
scale ...................................................................................................................... 214
Table 6.19. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the employee performance
behaviour ............................................................................................................. 217
Table 7.1. Collinearity statistics of the independent variables at the employee level ........ 222
Table 7.2. Variables used in the employee level path analysis ............................................ 224
Table 7.3. Results of measurement model at the employee level ........................................ 229
Table 7.4. Results of structural model at the employee level .............................................. 234
Table 8.1. Collinearity statistics of the independent variables at the leader level .............. 247
Table 8.2. Variables used in the leader level path analysis .................................................. 249
Table 8.3. Results of measurement model at the leader level .............................................. 255
Table 8.4. Results of the structural model in the leader level path analysis ....................... 260
Table 9.1. List of variables ..................................................................................................... 276
Table 9.2. Fully unconditional model- employee performance behaviour ........................ 280
Table 9.3. Final model – employee performance behaviour ................................................ 284
Table 9.4. Estimation of variance components – employee performance behaviour ......... 297
xvii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, my greatest thanks are to God, for providing me with strong spirit, and
for making possible the completion of this study.
I would like to express my gratitude for the generous help and continuous guidance of my
principal supervisor, Professor Tania Aspland and co-supervisors Dr I Gusti Ngurah
Darmawan and Dr Francisco Ben in completing this study. I would also like to thank the
Indonesian government through the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE), for
providing my scholarship under the overseas postgraduate scholarship program; the Rector
of the State University of Malang who assigned me, and supported me in pursuing a
doctoral degree overseas; the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, the Dean of
Faculty of Professions, the Head of School of Education, and Postgraduate Coordinator,
who continuously provided support and inspiration throughout my candidature.
My thanks are also addressed to the Rectors of the following universities in Malang who
granted permission to administer the questionnaires and interviews on their sites: State
University of Malang, Brawijaya University, Maulana Malik State Islamic University of
Malang, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Islamic University of Malang, and
Widyagama University; and to all the participants in the research study.
My appreciation is also extended to Dr Margaret Seacombe, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, who
helped me with the thesis editing; to Dr Michelle Picard, Director of Researcher Education
and Development, who guided me in improving academic writing; to Dr Christine Velde,
my first principal supervisor, who guided me in developing the initial proposal; and to the
team of academic and non-academic staff in the School of Education for their helpful
services and support during my study.
Particular thanks are addressed to my parent, Djamaluddin and Noor Laela, for their
encouragement and prayers, and to my wife, Hasunah, and my son, Oemar Syarif Burhan,
for their love and inspiration and for accompanying me to study overseas; to the rest of my
xviii
family in Indonesia especially my son, Mohammad Yasser Burhan, my daughters, Sophia
Burhan and Sarah Rosalina Burhan, and my brothers and sisters, who gave moral support
for my study. I am also grateful to my colleagues and friends in the School of Education at
the University of Adelaide and in the State University of Malang Indonesia, as well as the
other people who in one way or another gave moral support throughout my research
journey.
Finally, I present this work to everybody who is concerned with education.
1
Chapter One
Introduction
Organisational or institutional success in achieving goals not only depends on material
aspects such as money, technology, equipment, buildings or other assets, but also on the
successful management and leadership of the people within an organisation. The reason for
the focus on human capital is that an organisation needs people to operate its key activities.
The essence of the human factor in the organisation cannot be replaced by other
organisational components even in a very sophisticated machine. This is particularly true
when it involves empowering all staff members to perform better for the benefit of the
organisation (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2006; Mondy, Gordon,
Sharplin, & Premeaux, 1990).
Many studies in management and leadership have demonstrated that executives of a public
organisation need to provide an effective management system which is able to encourage
their employees, empower them to achieve organisational objectives, and contribute to the
success of the mission of the organisation as a whole (Key, 2000; Kozlowski & Ilgen,
2006; Yukl, 2002). The effectiveness of a particular management system, which is applied
with a view to improving employee performance, depends on many individual and
organisational factors.
Within effective management systems, individual managers and leaders still have a
substantial contribution to the success of an organisation, according to Bass (1990).
However, their contribution is contingent upon their capacity to manage people within the
changing global market. Carew, Parisi-Carew, and Blanchard (2007), Bass (1990) and Key
(2000) also highlight that the ability to respond to a changing environment depends on the
ability to employ management styles appropriately. While the situation may demand that
organisations employ strict controls and increase work efficiency to survive, this may also
cause the devaluation of employees as human capital. Therefore, managers and leaders
need to be able to employ a management style that encourages employees to have positive
attitudes towards their jobs and towards their leaders, and eventually encourages them to
2
pursue higher performance for the success of the organisation within a changing
environment.
This kind of positive leadership style necessitates a management system that likewise
fosters positive attitudes and joint responsibility. There are various management systems
that can be employed by leaders in managing people at work. These include, for example,
participative or democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire styles of leadership (Yukl, 2002).
From the various management and leadership styles that have been studied, the literature
suggests that participative management style / or participative management system is the
most successful in engaging people, especially employees under corporate structures, and
in encouraging subordinates to pursue higher performance at work (Likert, 1967; Pelled &
Hill, 1997; Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002).
As is the case for all organisations, university governance relies on the managerial capacity
of its leaders to coordinate and utilise human resources for the benefit of the organisation
as a whole (World Bank, 2000). To achieve these goals, the university demands
management systems or management styles (Bajunid, 2011; Tjeldvoll, 2011) that are
appropriate for improving employee performance behaviour (Bryman, 2007) within the
individual and organisational context. Since the participative management system has been
shown to achieve these goals in other organisations, it is assumed that this system could be
potentially of benefit in the university context (S. Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012).
However, this has not been sufficiently tested, since most research in the university context
has focused only on the organisational level or top executive performance such as Dean,
Vice Chancellor, and Rector (Bajunid, 2011; Bolden, Petrov, Gosling, & Bryman, 2009;
Breakwell & Tytherleigh, 2008; Saint, Hartnett, & Strassner, 2003) and academic
leadership as performed by head teachers in vocational education institutions (Adams &
Gamage, 2008).
Additionally, research on participative management systems in organisations to date has
focused on the data acquired from line-officers (Steinheider, Bayerl, & Wuestewald, 2006)
or from organisational reports, but this sort of system has not been explored in the
university context. It is clear that participative management systems apply to universities,
and studies have focused on top level of leadership and ignored ordinary employees. There
3
is little research investigating the impact of the participative management system on
ordinary employees‟ performance levels (Angermeier, Dunford, Boss, Smith, & Boss,
2009) and work attitudes particularly in the context of university organisation. In addition,
existing management research has shown a lack of consistent findings (Yukl, 2002) and
has not been well integrated with leadership theories (Vilkinas & West, 2011). In order to
minimise this gap, therefore, it was the intention of the current study to examine the
impacts of the participative management system on employee performance behaviour
focusing on administrative staff or non-academic staff in university organisations. It is
important to note that this research is limited to the organisational context of Indonesian
universities in the city of Malang.
The Indonesian university context has been selected because there currently appears to be
no studies focusing on this style of management in Indonesian universities. The current
study contributes to filling this gap and adding to the management and leadership
literature. The remainder of this chapter includes the following sections: (1) background of
the study, (2) statement of the problems, (3) purpose of the study, (4) research questions,
(5) aims and objectives of the research, (6) contribution to the discipline, (7) definition of
terms, (8) limitations of the research, (9) the structure of this thesis, and (10) summary.
1.1 Background of the Study
Scholars have identified two basic styles in the provision of management and leadership
for public organisations. These are the autocratic and participative management styles
(Angermeier, et al., 2009; Blanchard et al., 2007). Autocratic management is intended to
reduce the costs of labour by exercising strict control and increasing work efficiencies,
while participative management is intended to increase organisational effectiveness by
rewarding performance, fostering commitment, and delegating decision making processes
to subordinates (Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002).
There has been considerable and continuing interest in reforms that enable organisations to
empower people at work. Jones and George (2006) advocate “empowerment” as a modern
management approach or system that concerns human factors in the organisation, through
4
providing people with more active roles in management activities within the organisational
structure. The autocratic style is therefore criticised for devaluing the human factor in order
to attain organisational objectives. The participative management style has more recently
gained prominence in the competitive situation (Cabrera, Ortega, & Cabrera, 2003)
because of its contribution to the success of organisations in terms of strengthening
organisational and human values (Mohrman & Lawler, 1988). Thus organisation
executives need to be able to employ this style in order to improve the effectiveness of
their management practices. In particular, it is important for improving the performance of
organisational members (Burhanuddin & Aspland, 2012, August; Tuuli & Rowlinson,
2009).
Participative management as the key strategy for empowerment is consistent with the
context of contemporary management thought and the global demands placed on
organisations (Key, 2000). The main argument for this position is that it relates directly to
a strategy to empower organisational members so that they can cope effectively within a
“turbulent environment” (Sashkin, 1984, p. 21).
Despite the positive emphasis on this style in the literature, the ways in which it can
improve employee performance need to be explored within the Indonesian context, since
there is a lack of evidence of its efficacy in this context and its implementation in public
organisations. The following sections explore the following issues in more detail: (1) an
overview of participative management, (2) participative management from research
perspective, and (3) the context of higher education management in Indonesia.
1.1.1 An overview of participative management
Participative management as a style of management or leadership has become influential
over the recent years (Bass, 1990; T.-C. Huang, 1997; Yukl, 2002). This is described as the
third managerial revolution. The second revolution involved the separation of management
from ownership and the inventing of management professionalization, while the first
revolution involved the invention of hierarchy (Sashkin, 1984). Participative management
is generally defined as an approach that empowers organisational members or subordinates
5
by means of distributing information, knowledge, rewards, and authority to the lower
levels of an organisation (Key, 2000; Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984).
This style lies at the core of participative management theory. Key (2000) highlighted it as
a managerial approach focusing on the employees as individuals, and on the importance of
fostering their contributions to the attainment of organisational success. The subordinates
are well trained and prepared, enabling them to participate actively for the attainment of
organisational goals.
The core of the management style indicates that there is a move of power from the top to
the lower level hierarchy. This is assumed to enable an organisation to provide a climate
where subordinates are involved in decision making and implementation (Lawler, 1986)
The operation of the organisation is no longer determined by a single leader or the owner
of an organisation. In other words, there is a shift from the activities that were originally
specified by the owner of the organisation, characterizing the first management revolution
to a management system that provides employees with power, as described in the third
revolution in management practice (Sashkin, 1984).
Scholars who developed this style argue that participative management could enable
organisations to survive within unpredictable environments through human resource
empowerment. At the same time, it could satisfy organisational members by fulfilling their
basic human needs and expectations (Sashkin, 1984). Thus, participative management style
is seen as vital for the organisation in order to strengthen its existence and to make it
survive within a changing situation.
1.1.2 Participative management from research perspective
The participative management style has been employed widely in Western countries as a
way of securing employees‟ commitment to organisations (Lashley, 2000; Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1997). Consequently, the essence of the participative management style for
organisational effectiveness has been examined through a wide range of empirical studies
in the United States and other Western countries, as reported by Miah and Bird (2007) and
Yukl (2002). These studies highlight that the participative management style is typically
6
and positively related to long-term teamwork performance in achieving organisational
outcomes. The alternative autocratic styles are only effective under certain conditions.
Managers who employ the participative style are assumed to be able to provide their
employees with a favourable organisational climate that consequently increases
organisational effectiveness (Likert, 1967).
Indeed, the influence of the participative style on increased organisational effectiveness is
supported by much evidence (Hrebiniak, 1974). Numerous findings both from empirical
studies and meta-analyses have reported that the participative management style improves
employee performance and job satisfaction in the workplace (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009).
For example, Sashkin (1984) mentioned that fifty years of action research had
demonstrated that participative management, when properly implemented, would
effectively improve performance, productivity, and job satisfaction. Based on various
studies, scholars have recorded evidence of the impacts of participative management on
employee performance behaviour (Angermeier, et al., 2009; Likert, 1967; Yukl, 2002),
especially in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour. On the other hand, numerous studies have found that
participative management has an association with the likelihood of improved employee
work attitude (G. R. Jones & George, 2006; Sashkin, 1984; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009), and
there was evidence that self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of security, and job
satisfaction could become mediators of the effects of the participative management system
on employee performance behaviour (X. Huang, Shi, Zhang, & Cheung, 2006). In other
words, the effect of participative management on employee performance behaviour is
mediated by the fulfilment of positive work attitudes. The changes in the extent of self-
autonomy, the feelings of job security, and job satisfaction then lead to the improved
performance behaviour of the employees in the workplace.
Since the impacts of participative management (PM) are assumed to relate to the two
components mentioned above (performance and work attitude), many studies focusing on
participative management have provided two different sets of findings. Firstly, some
studies support a conclusion that participative management has a direct effect on employee
performance behaviour (Angermeier, et al., 2009; Likert, 1967). This direct effect of
7
participative management on performance is indicated by the improved employee
performance behaviour (EPB) in terms of organisational commitment, the quality of
customer service, and lower employee withdrawal behaviour. The evidence from other
studies supports a conclusion that this management style has only an indirect effect on
employee performance (Steinheider, et al., 2006). Sashkin (1984) and Likert (1967) seem
to support both sides of this issue. They argue that participative management has strong
and positive effects on the level of employee performance behaviour. However, their
explanation on the association between the two variables implies that the effect of this style
on performance is less straightforward. In other words, its effect on performance is
mediated through the fulfilment of the components of employee work attitude (EWA) in
terms of self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security and job satisfaction.
Thus, it can be summarised that the possibility of associations of this style with the other
two variables can be illustrated as a combination of a direct effect (PM EPB) and an
indirect effect (PM EWA EPB).
Furthermore, it is argued in this study that the associations among these variables are also
determined by the situational factors that may modify the strengths of the effects of PM on
its dependent variable or outcome variable, as well as EWA and EPB. Studies in
management and leadership indicate the situational factors have been found to determine
the effectiveness of leadership (Fiedler, 1981). In particular they moderate the effect of
participative management on both employee work attitude and employee performance
behaviour (Sashkin, 1984). In much of the literature, situational factors refer to individual
factors, as well as organisational and environmental factors (Yukl, 2002). The individual
factors include the characteristics of employees and leaders within the organisational
structure, as well as gender, age, education, employment level, and length of service. The
organisational factors relate to the age or history of the organisation, the status of the
establishment, size of organisation, and organisational culture. The organisational
effectiveness depends on how its leaders apply the management and leadership styles
within the given situations.
8
1.1.3 The context of higher education management in Indonesia
Competitiveness in outcomes challenges organisations all over the world to pursue the
highest level of nation building programs, especially in the development of technology,
economics, and education (Damme, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2004). Indonesia, as a
developing country, confronts this situation by being actively involved in developing its
capacity by improving the quality of human resources across the nation (UNESCO, 2006;
World Bank, 2000). To deal with such a demand, the Indonesian government has invested
resources into nation building programs to increase its profile in international
competitiveness (Marginson, 2006; Marginson & Sawir, 2006). One of the nation-building
efforts in Indonesia is the implementation of quality improvement programs in the higher
education system (DGHE, 2003). This is needed desperately to create quality human
resources and a work force that demonstrates competencies required for the international
market (Brodjonegoro, 2002).
However, the implementation of the development programs through the higher education
sector has often been constrained by the internal factor of the management of higher
education itself (Azra, 2008; DGHE, 2003; Tadjudin, 2000; World Bank, 2000). This
situation is assumed to be an organisational issue due to the inappropriate way university
organisations manage people at work to achieve their maximum contribution and
accomplish organisational objectives. Indonesian government views this issue as
problematic, and has been trying to deal with it appropriately. The need to improve the
quality or the performance of higher education management at the university level, thus, is
highlighted as a strategic issue for organisational survival (Damme, 2001; Tadjudin, 2000;
UNESCO, 2006) in a competitive environment (Duderstadt, 2000). In this study, it is
argued that this deficiency can be overcome by providing effective participative
management and leadership to the human resource sector within the university structure to
ensure that employees can contribute to the mission of the university in responding to the
demands of the global market.
9
The government paradigm underpinning the development of higher education
management in Indonesia
With respect to the challenging factors discussed in the previous section, in 1994 the
Indonesian government through the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE)
introduced a new paradigm of higher education management where autonomy and
accountability became strategic issues (DGHE, 2003). The basic policy on autonomy
coupled with accountability was provided to institutions. The authority from the central
government was devolved to the lower level or to higher education institutions. In
particular, universities have been encouraged to develop a management process that
promotes innovation, efficiency, and excellence. At the same time, they are accountable for
designing a management system which ensures the effective use of resources, the
accomplishment of organisational activities and gaining results that are appraisable by their
stakeholders, including the community. The development of higher education
management, thus, is required in order for the universities to be “organisationally healthy”
or well managed, which potentially contributes to the nation‟s competitiveness (DGHE,
2003; World Bank, 2000).
Based on this paradigm underpinning the development of higher education management,
the Indonesian government has provided higher education institutions with policies and
guidelines of development programs, specifically internal management systems for
attaining higher levels of organisation performance. The consequence of the
implementation of the new paradigm in managing higher education has been the rapid
increase of development programs in the public university sector over the last ten years.
For example, there are some advances in terms of access and equity due to an increase in
student enrolments (Welch, 2007), and various human resource development programs
have been implemented especially which involve predominantly participants from
academic staff. The vision for the improvement in higher education management is to
ensure that Indonesia has a competitive leverage that is demonstrated by reputable higher
education institutions in the future (DGHE, 2003; World Bank, 2000).
10
To pursue its vision of higher education management, the Indonesian government has
focused on the development of organisational performance. Policy makers and university
executives are encouraged to develop and implement strategic management systems to
maximise the organisational effectiveness of the institution in the global environment and
make effective use of resources (Marginson, 2006; Marginson & Sawir, 2006; McCaffery,
2010; Schwartzman, 2001) especially human capital (Idrus, 1999; Kim, 2002). As a
consequence, various professional development programs for building institutional
capacity have been implemented. These include, for example, instructional development
programs for academic staff through postgraduate studies and training in domestic
institutions and overseas, and the procurement of new buildings and facilities. Most
financial resources from national and international grants are invested in these areas
(DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006).
Although various programs have been implemented, it is acknowledged that many of the
expected results of management reforms have not been achieved (Azra, 2008; UNESCO,
2006). The development policies proposed by the Indonesian government are conceptually
important initiatives. However, the programs implementing the policies are probably not
well prepared, and possibly not completely relevant to the demands of the incumbent
universities (World Bank, 2000). Furthermore, there are some weaknesses especially in the
implementation of the development programs. For example, although the issue of
university management has become a part of government policy in higher education
reformation programs in the context of organisational health policy (DGHE, 2003), there
has been no specific strategy for improving the management and leadership competencies
of the administrative leaders or „non academic‟ executives in the university structure
(UNESCO, 2006; World Bank, 2000). Development programs are currently still prioritised
mostly for „instructional or academic staff, and the procurement of new buildings and
facilities. Most human resource development programs are still focused on academic areas
through postgraduate studies and training programs in domestic and overseas institutions.
From the researcher‟s experience, backed up by some reports from UNESCO (2006) and
World Bank (2000), development programs for non-academic staff have not been high in
the priority list and, as a result, higher education institutions‟ capacity in undertaking
11
organisational improvement has not been increased, nor is it likely to be improved in the
foreseeable future.
The use of participative management style in improving employee performance in the
context of university organisations in Indonesia
Many management theories such as participative management have been developed and
practised in the United States. Consequently, many scholars have criticized the assumption
that this style can be applied, or is transferable to other countries, especially non-Western
countries (Pelled & Hill, 1997), like Indonesia. The work of Hofstede (1980) demonstrates
that in terms of culture, countries have differences in four dimensions: power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism and collectivism. These are believed to affect the
implementation of any particular technique or theory of management that is adopted from
another country.
Based on the cultural map presented by Hofstede (1980), Indonesia is positioned as one of
the countries that is characterised as having a culture with a large power distance. In this
kind of culture, ordinary organisational members have less power compared with those
who have more powerful positions in the organisation. In this context, people are more
likely to accept that power is distributed unequally. Thus, a management theory or a
management technique or style that is developed in a context where there is less of a power
distance is likely to prove not applicable to the Indonesian context. Participative
management as an approach that promotes the strategy of employee empowerment through
power sharing, delegation and leading, with the full confidence and trust of their
employees probably would not adapt well in a culture which is used to large power
distance. This is because management practices in cultural environments that keep a
greater power distance between superiors and subordinates tend to avoid sharing power
with others, especially employees. It is questionable therefore whether the participative
management style can be effectively implemented for improving employee performance in
such cultural contexts (Pelled & Hill, 1997).
12
However, contextually, it can be argued that not all managerial efforts are influenced by
cultural factors. Some management styles that have been applied in non-Western countries
have a common pattern or strategy to those applied in the USA or other Western countries.
If differences in the effectiveness of the management styles are found, then they are
possibly due to other contextual factors (Easterby-Smith, Malina, & Yuan, 1995).
Indonesia as a developing country is challenged to adjust to the demands of the
international market (DGHE, 2003; Key, 2000) in responding to technological advances
and global competitiveness. This has become the main contextual factor that is considered
in promoting management effectiveness in many organisations. To enable the higher
education system to survive in the international environment, Indonesian government
through DGHE has initiated the paradigm of management development prioritising the
issues of autonomy and accountability as the basic policies in management practices.
This paradigm has some basic elements in common with styles applied in many Western
countries. For example, in the implementation of management functions in the human
resource area, Indonesian organisations employ management functions that are generally
the same as those used in the system of human resource management across many nations,
including the USA. This is very similar to the management practices applied by
organisations in other Asian countries, where managers suggest that a culturally universal
theory of management may be applied to any institution in the world (Swierczek, 1991).
The differences between Western and Asian organisations, however, may be found in the
way the managerial activities are applied in the particular context. Compared with US
companies, for example, the payment or reward systems implemented in Asian countries
are rather different. This is assumed to be due to financial constraints, that are contextual,
rather than cultural factors. Additionally, in terms of the implementation of the
organisational structure, most Indonesian institutions employ similar styles in accordance
with the dynamics of the changing systems of the universities in international context,
especially as it is influenced from the Western systems. Even if there are some differences
in perceiving the implementation of the organisational structures and communication
13
system, this could be “a matter of different stages of history/evolution rather than anything
deeply rooted in a particular society” (Easterby-Smith, et al., 1995, p. 52), such as cultural
aspects per se.
A study involving 12 Asian countries, including Indonesia, showed that most managers in
these countries preferred a participative leadership style. Although the small number of
respondents made it difficult to generalize, the finding from “this group of very diverse
Asian managers does suggest that a culturally universal theory of leadership may be
possible” (Swierczek, 1991, p. 10). This is in line with the assumption that some
management theories can be transferred from one country to other countries across cultures
(Bass, 1997; Pelled & Hill, 1997). Thus, it can be assumed that participative management
as a management style or system can be applied in Indonesia, in the context of university
organisations in order to improve the performance of all employees, particularly non-
academic staff.
The extent to which this style can effectively improve employee performance, however,
needs to be studied, taking into account contingency aspects (Sashkin, 1984), such as
organisational factors and individual characteristics. These aspects need to be explored in
order to provide reasonable conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular management
system in improving organisational performance, in this case employees in the context of
Indonesian university organisations.
Factors influencing management reformation
A number of underlying factors were identified by UNESCO (2006) and DGHE (2003) as
inhibitors of the internal capacity of universities in Indonesia to implement management
re-formation. These factors are perceived to influence the effectiveness of higher education
reform (Schwartzman, 2001). This study argued that the organisational performance the
university is dependent to organisational and individual factors. Organisational factors
include size, history or age of the university, status (private/government), and
organisational culture. These factors influence the work of employees, and determine the
effectiveness of leadership or management styles employed in an organisation (DGHE,
14
2003; Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984). Depending on what factors characterise the
performance of university organisations, employees may perform differently from what is
expected by their leaders. The reason is that the employees‟ perceptions about management
behaviour can vary, depending on the circumstances that exist in the workplace (Yukl,
2002).
The status of a university (government/private) in Indonesia is acknowledged as an
important factor that influences its management. The Indonesian government has allowed
the establishment of both government and private universities (Ministry of National
Education Indonesia, 2000). Under this system, private universities have been established
throughout the country and are found in almost every city in Indonesia. The number of
private universities currently exceeds the figure of government universities (DGHE, 2010).
The rapid expansion of the private sector has led to a management problem for government
and community (DGHE, 2003). Since the government has limited financial and human
resources, education programs in government universities have been given priority
(DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006).
Compared with private universities, government universities have many advantages.
Government sectors receive more financial assistance from government in implementing
instructional and staff development programs (UNESCO, 2006). Most staff are employed
on a permanent or official basis (DGHE, 2008, 2009). On the other hand, the private sector
is challenged because of insufficient qualified staff (DGHE, 2003, 2009). Although the
government supplied the private sectors with a number of permanent staff both
administrative and academic, many private universities still have less permanent staff and
rely on part time staff (DGHE, 2003). Limited resources constrain their capacity to provide
better support, particularly salaries for staff. Such a situation is triggered by the lack of
resources in the foundations and communities which own or support the private
universities in implementing the development programs for organisational and professional
improvement (World Bank, 2000).
15
The different status of the university can also influence the way leaders manage their
employees. Although all educational institutions are controlled under government laws and
regulations, the operation of each organisation is based on its own regulations, as proposed
and decided by the Rector and the Senate members (Government of the Republic of
Indonesia, 1999; Ministry of National Education Indonesia, 2000). However, in some
private universities, the foundations and community organisations which established the
educational institutions have more power and influence to determine the way the university
is organised and managed. Thus, the different status of the university and its staff are
assumed to be potential factors that can affect the leadership and management behaviour,
employee work attitude, and motivation, and the way the employees perceive
organisational and individual performance.
As recognised in the literature, Indonesia has a culture that is different from Western
countries (Hofstede, 1980; Key, 2000; Swierczek, 1991). Indonesia is in the early stages of
industrialisation and historically has had an autocratic form of government (Key, 2000, p.
30) and a large power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Consequently, some institutions,
including Indonesian universities, are hierarchically structured and oriented towards
respecting superiors. Such a culture which has been embedded in public organisations for a
long time is assumed to affect managerial performance (Bartol, Martin, Tein, & Matthews,
2002; Idrus, 1999). Authorities have tried to implement styles of management reform,
which come mostly from Western systems. Various management types have been explored
and implemented, but, these have not provided any significant improvement in
organisations, especially in terms of university governance (DGHE, 2003). This is
probably due to leaders who have not been able to comprehend the situation and
effectively employ the management styles within the particular context concerned.
Individual factors include those personal characteristics of leaders and subordinates which
could influence the effectiveness of a management style implemented in the workplace
(Bartol, et al., 2002). The individual factors incorporate leader and subordinate
characteristics, as well as age, gender, education, rank of employment, and length of
service (Ferreira & Hill, 2008; G. R. Jones & George, 2006). Yukl (2002) argues that
individual factors determine both the possibility of increased employee performance and
16
the manner in which leaders can act to improve work performance. As situational
variables, these factors influence subordinate preference for a particular pattern of
leadership or management system applied in the workplace and thus affect employee
performance (Yukl, 2002). Thus, leaders or managers need to consider these factors, and
design an appropriate management system which accounts for these factors, in order to
obtain the optimum contribution from their subordinates.
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
This section presents a description of the research problems that provided the initial frame
of reference for the research questions in this study. The research problems were generated
initially from current issues in higher education management in the context of universities
in Indonesia, and the gaps found in previous studies, which focused on participative
management in public organisations. These are highlighted in the following sections.
1.2.1 The emerging need for participative management system
In response to the contemporary challenges to public organisations, universities as a part of
public organisation require a reliable management strategy to assist them to survive and
respond to the demands of the local community and global market. Executives of the
university, especially the non-academic leaders that become the focus of this study in the
Indonesian context need to explore and implement management strategies that enable them
to motivate staff, improve employee commitment (Bush & Middlewood, 2005), as well as
enhance their work performance in order to ensure institutional sustainability in a
competitive environment. Organisational scholars have identified two management
paradigms named as the autocratic style and the participative style of management that
could be employed in improving organisational effectiveness (Angermeier, et al., 2009, p.
128). The autocratic management style is useful in generating organisational performance
by increasing efficiencies in the use of budget, workforces, facility, and applying strict
control upon the role of subordinates. Alternatively, the participative management style is
adopted by most managers in the competing environment (Cabrera, et al., 2003) to enable
organisations to increase employee performance through motivating, fostering
17
commitment, and involving all members to engage in the organisational activities for
example goal setting, decision making, organisational changes, and problem solving
(Holland, 1995; Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984). Thus, this style is assumed to be an
important approach for establishing sustainable university leadership (S. Jones, et al.,
2012) through the empowerment of non-academic staff. The main objective is to maximise
the use of human resource power as well their talent, skills, ideas and motivation in order
to generate the highest contribution from the whole staff for the success of the university.
1.2.2 Lack of studies on the effects of participative management on employee
performance behaviour
As explained previously, many studies in the United States and other countries have
presented evidence that the participative management style has had more influence on
employee performance than what has been achieved by the authoritarian style of
management (Miah & Bird, 2007; Reigle, 2001). However, there are only a limited number
of studies that associate participative management style with specific aspects of employee
performance (Angermeier, et al., 2009).
1.2.3 Lack of studies on participative management in the university context
There have been a limited number of research studies focusing on management systems of
the university organisation (Bryman, 2007), specifically concerned with management and
leadership of heads of division or school managers within the university structure. There is
no evidence of any single research report found in any English website that reports the
results of studies about the implementation of participative management in administrative
units in university sector in Indonesia. As a result, the effectiveness of leadership and
management in the university has not been properly assessed. In examining behaviour and
leadership styles of the university executives, for example, Bolden et al. (2009) highlight
that researchers and practitioners tend to support their explanations using normative
information and in a descriptive manner. They had insufficient evidence related to
effectiveness measures about managing people at work to prove which styles or strategies
were most effective in improving employee performance in the university context, in
Indonesia in particular (Bolden, et al., 2009; Bryman, 2007; S. Jones, et al., 2012).
18
In relation to the Indonesian higher education system, UNESCO (2006) reported that many
expected results of management reforms have not been achieved. However, the report was
not clearly supported by any managerial performance indicators required by a university
organisation and did not propose reliable standards for quality improvement programs in
higher education institutions (Sunarto, 2008).
1.2.4 Lack of previous studies on leadership related to contingency factors
Few previous studies have included organisational and individual contingency factors in
their research design, not enough, according to Yukl (2002), to test any hypothesis on
situational moderators of participative management. The effects of participative
management have most often been examined using organisational indicators such as the
implementation of managerial functions as causal and intervening variables, and
components of organisational performance as outcome variables. However, the effects of
situational factors on the relationships among those variables have often not been included
in the examination (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Mohrman & Lawler, 1988; Rank,
Carsten, Unger, & Spector, 2007; Tella, Ayeni, & Popoola, 2007). Furthermore, most of
the empirical data of the studies were based on the leader‟s perceptions without
incorporating situational factors of employees (Vilkinas & West, 2011; Yukl, 2002). In the
case of university system in Indonesia, for example, DGHE acknowledged there were
some underlying factors influencing the internal capacity to implement management
reformation, such as those related to individual employees, the particular organisation, and
its environment (DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006). However, scientific investigations of
such factors have not been given a high priority. Likert (1967) argued that these omissions
might cause inaccurate research results, and in turn lead to different and inconsistent
patterns of relationships among the research variables.
From the above discussion it can be concluded that there are several gaps in research
findings on participative management style (Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984). This is
even more apparent in relation to higher education in Indonesia. Thus, to fill these gaps in
our knowledge and understanding of non-academic management in Indonesian
19
universities, it was considered necessary to carry out a study addressing the research
questions presented in the next section.
1.2.5 Personal perspective
In addition to the discussion in the previous section, from a personal point of view, this
researcher argues that inadequate management of non-academic staff can be identified as
one of the main issues that are problematic in higher education governance. The
researcher‟s history of experience as a leader in some administrative positions for about 16
years in a university organisation in Indonesia can be used to highlight this issue.
Based on the researcher‟s experience within the managerial works in the context of the
university organisation, management and leadership acumen can be perceived as the most
decisive factors in bringing success to a university organisation. Many managers or
administrative leaders in university organisations have not improved their management
strategy in empowering their subordinates at work. Substantial management deficiencies
have been found in some organisational lines. Leaders, specifically non-academic leaders,
who were the focus of the current study, have provided a less than favourable working
atmosphere for their staff members. Although many organisational units, or divisions,
within the university structure have sufficient financial support, grants, employees, and
other resources, some are still not able to provide the university organisation with sort of
management that can contribute to the effectiveness of university governance. It is perhaps
because some non-academic leaders of the units conceivably have not effectively
maximised the use of organisational resources, especially the staff as human capital, within
the university organisation. These personnel have not provided an environment which
inspires people to engage effectively in the organisation‟s activities.
Further, although many efforts have been made to create effective staff development
programs, these have concentrated more on development in academic areas. Development
programs continue to be directed to lecturers or academic staff, rather than to non-
academic staff. As a result, many employees (non-academic staff) dislike working hard and
demonstrate low commitment to their jobs. Even, if there is a willingness to work, these
20
employees do not have readiness and abilities to work very effectively. The inadequate
management of non-academic staff in the researcher‟s personal experience, needs to be
recognised as a factor that causes university organisations in Indonesia to be globally
uncompetitive.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
To explore the effectiveness of the participative management system, this study focused on
investigating employees and leaders‟ perceptions about the use of participative
management style by leaders and its impact on employee performance behaviour, taking
into account contingency aspects, including organisational and individual factors. The
focus of this study was the management system as applied within organisational activities
that were operated by administrative leaders, such as heads of bureaus, divisions, units and
sections in the universities under study here. This focus was used as the base for the
investigation because, as far as this researcher observed, until now there had been no
specific strategy for improving management and leadership competencies of the
administrative leaders or „non academic‟ executives in the university structure.
Some consequences of certain management systems that are applied in university
organisations are perceived to produce particular behaviours in employees as
organisational members. These include job satisfaction, organisational commitment,
quality of customer service, level of absenteeism, and turnover rate. Positive performances
in these areas are potential attributes for increasing the effectiveness of university
management in fulfilling its mission. Bush and Middlewood (2005) point out that support
staff have to be led and managed professionally in order to reach high performance levels
which contribute to goal achievement in higher education. They should be shaped and
directed for the benefit of the university organisation as a whole, and this could be
achieved when the internal system facilitates such a participative management style.
Although there is a controversy about the different views on management and leadership
(Yukl, 2002), for the practical purpose of this study, the term “participative management”
21
is used rather than “participative leadership”. The word “management” is better suited to
characterise administrative or organisational activities that are regularly conducted by
administrative heads or school managers in the organisational context of a university. The
administrative leaders are named as „managers‟, because they have direct relations with
employees or support staff and consequently influence work motivation (Bush &
Middlewood, 2005). The managers coordinate and carry out administrative leadership of
the employees in accomplishing technical and routine activities that have been structured
into the university organisation.
To investigate how the management system effectively improves the non-academic staff
(employees) in the university organisation, this study is designed to explore the perceptions
of the employees and leaders about the management systems that have been enacted by
administrative leaders or school heads in the context of their university. To what extent and
how managerial behaviour (as perceived both by leaders and employees) can be assumed
to produce certain impacts on employee attitudes and work performance, needs to be
investigated through a multidimensional approach. It is important therefore for this study
to examine the complex relationships among the research variables.
1.4 Research Questions
The research problem identified in the discussion above led to the formulation of the main
research question: “What are the perceptions of employees and leaders about the use of
participative management and its relationships with employee performance behaviour
specifically in relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour?” The research sub-questions were identified as follows:
1.4.1 Does the perceived participative management influence employee work attitudes,
specifically in relation to self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, the feelings of job
security, and job satisfaction; and do these qualities have direct and indirect effects
on organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and employee
withdrawal behaviour?
22
1.4.2 How does participative management influence employee performance behaviour
specifically in relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service,
employee withdrawal behaviour including absenteeism, and turnover?
1.4.3 Do the organisational factors of age of university, status, size, and organisational
culture influence employee perceptions about the use of participative management
and its effects on employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality of customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour?
1.4.4 Do the individual factors of gender, age, education, employment level, and length of
service influence employee perceptions about the use of participative management
and its effects on employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality of customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour?
1.4.5 Do leaders and employees have different perceptions about the use of participative
management style and its effects on employee performance behaviour in the
university?
1.4.6 Do the employee and leader perceptions about the use of participative management
and its effects on employee performance behaviour differ among government and
private universities?
1.5 Aims and Objectives of the Research
The main purpose of this research was to study employee and leader perceptions about the
use of participative management style and its relationships with employee performance
behaviour in the Indonesian university setting. Its specific objectives were:
1.5.1 To examine whether participative management influences employee work attitudes
especially in relation to the context of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of
job security and job satisfaction; and whether these qualities mediate the effects of
participative management on organisational commitment, quality of customer
service, and employee withdrawal behaviour.
1.5.2 To investigate the influence of participative management on employee performance
behaviour in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour including absenteeism, and turnover intention.
23
1.5.3 To examine how the organisational factors influence employee perceptions about the
use of participative management style and its effects on employee performance
behaviour in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour.
1.5.4 To investigate whether the individual factors of gender, age, education, employment
level, and length of service influence employee perceptions about the use of
participative management and its effects on employee performance behaviour.
1.5.5 To examine whether employees and leaders have different perceptions about the use
of participative management style and its effects on employee performance
behaviour.
1.5.6 To explore whether the perceptions about the effects of participative management on
employee performance behaviour differ among government and private universities.
To meet the aims of this study, an explanatory mixed methods design was used to
investigate the perceptions of employees and leaders. Both primary quantitative and
qualitative data sources were collected through survey questionnaires, interviews, and
documents. To analyse the data from the two main sources, quantitative and qualitative
analyses were used to describe, comprehend the nature of the data, explain, and interpret
the findings referring to the research questions. The research design and methods of data
analysis are more fully explained in Chapter Four and Chapter Five respectively.
1.6 Contribution to the Discipline
Since there have been very few research studies about management styles (Bryman, 2007)
in the context of university organisations in Indonesia particularly, the findings of this
study were expected to make a significant contribution to the understanding and the
development of a body of knowledge in the area of education management and leadership.
It would provide useful information on the determinant factors of participative
management systems that could be considered to enhance scholarship in this area (Likert,
1967). In the practical setting, this study could help to explore the influence that the
participative management style has in improving employee performance in university
24
organisations in the Indonesian context. Specifically, the findings of this study are
expected to make a contribution to knowledge in the ways which are outlined forthwith.
1.6.1 More comprehensive understanding about participative management
This study could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding about participative
management from a multidimensional perspective, particularly the concept itself, its
characteristics and its relation to employee performance behaviour (Likert, 1967). The
study could provide significant findings on the effectiveness of this management style in
enhancing the employee performance behaviour in the workplace (Yukl, 2002), and hence
its appropriateness for university governance in the Indonesian context.
1.6.2 Research development in educational management
Many earlier studies about the impact of participative management system did not take
account of the situational factors that might moderate the relationship between this
management system and the outcome variable, as well as other dependent variables. The
current study included an investigation of situational factors as exogenous variables in the
research model. Thus, this study would add to the literature of leadership and management,
provided it could successfully find evidence of the relationships among the research
variables. It would then demonstrate how situational factors could become important
organisational antecedents (Lok & Crawford, 2004) that should be considered in studying
educational management and leadership in the future.
1.6.3 Information on management effectiveness based on employee and leader
perceptions
Many findings of studies on management systems have been based only on upper level
staff (leader) perceptions (Vilkinas & West, 2011; Yukl, 2002). Thus, the current study
would add to the literature by presenting findings that were based on perceptions from both
employee and leader levels in the university context. This would offer a new and
significant database for future researchers to examine the effectiveness of management
style in educational institutions.
25
1.6.4 Examination of the interaction effects among the research variables
Since many previous studies have not taken account of the interaction effects of the
situational variables on the influence of participative management, as the independent
variable on employees‟ performance behaviour as an outcome variable (Likert, 1967;
Miller & Monge, 1986; Odhiambo & Hii, 2012; Yukl, 2002). The current study intended to
add to the literature by employing a hierarchical linear modelling technique to examine the
cross-level interaction effects of these variables on the outcome variable.
1.6.5 Information for practitioners of university organisation
The Indonesian government, and in particular policy makers and practitioners in the higher
education system, could adopt the findings of this study as useful scientific information to
improve the outcomes of the sector. This would be important because there is little
research that has been carried out in the context of management system that can be applied
by administrative executives, especially heads of administrative divisions, within
university structures in Indonesia. Thus, the finding could be used as significant
information in designing programs of management reform, particularly in dealing with
support staff in the higher education sector of developing countries, such as Indonesia.
1.7 Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, some key words and technical terms that are used in this
study are defined concisely as follow.
Perception
The process through which people select, organise, and interpret sensory input– what they
see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. It is inherently subjective and influenced by personality,
values, attitudes, and moods as well as experience and knowledge. Based on their
perceptions, people make decisions and take actions (G. R. Jones & George, 2006).
Perspective
The way people regard facts, situations, experiences, and judge their relative importance
(Krebs, 2003)
26
Management
Working with and through others to efficiently and effectively achieve organisational goals
(G. R. Jones & George, 2006; Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992).
Participative management
A process whereby employees have an active role in the direction of an organisation and
the management of changes in the organisation (G. R. Jones & George, 2006; Kreitner &
Kinicki, 1992; Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984).
Leadership
The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and
how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective
efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl, 2002).
Organisation
Institution that enables society to pursue goals that could not be achieved by individuals
acting alone (Mondy, et al., 1990).
Effectiveness
The degree to which a process produces intended outputs (Mondy, et al., 1990).
Job satisfaction
The attitude that workers have about their jobs. It results from their perceptions of the jobs
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Likert, 1967).
Employees
This term refers to individual personnel employed in an organisation, usually as
subordinates with positions, such as support staff for the bureaus, divisions, and units
(Bush & Middlewood, 2005).
Employee performance behaviour
Employee performance behaviour refers to (1) the accomplishments of jobs according to
performance criteria that are described in job description concerning the efficiency and
quality of work product, which is tangible; (2) performance culture that is demonstrated by
employees while they are engaged in organisational activities, for example in providing
27
customer service, commitment at work, and withdrawal behaviour. The extent of the
accomplishment of these jobs determines the effectiveness of the organisational activities
(Likert, 1967; Mondy, et al., 1990; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009).
Employee work attitude
The feelings of individual employees about their jobs and the organisation they work for.
These affect how employees approach their jobs (Mondy, et al., 1990).
1.8 Limitations of the Research
The numbers of respondents from the private universities are smaller than respondents
from government universities because most private universities in Indonesia, especially in
the city of Malang, have fewer permanent employees. Some private universities have a
larger number of employees, but most are employed as temporary and under short-term
contracts. This may limit the coverage of the findings of this study.
The sample of this study was limited to the universities in the city of Malang, Indonesia,
and does not include any other universities. Since the sample source was centred in a city,
it has been assumed that this city had homogenous environmental and cultural influences.
Consequently, this study excluded these environmental factors as the target variables
because it was ineffective to use these as the base for comparing the different perceptions
of respondents.
Within the specified universities, the subjects involved in this study were limited to the
employees of the administrative front line services and administrative heads within the
bureaus, divisions, and sections that spread across the organisational structure of the
specified universities. It excluded academic leaders or top executives of the university.
Furthermore, with regard to the purpose of study, not all variables of management were
investigated. The management style that was investigated focused on the managerial work
that was carried out by the administrative heads who worked with the support staff in the
divisions, bureaus, units or sections that spread across the university structure.
28
As a result of the limitations described above, the results of this study are not specifically
intended to be generalised into a broader perspective for management reform. However, it
may reasonably contribute to the development of theoretical and empirical studies in the
more focused aspects of management practices within the area of non-academic
management in a university organisation.
1.9 The Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is organised into eleven chapters. Chapter One provides a general overview by
discussing background of study, research problem, purpose of the study, research
questions, aims / objectives of the research, and contribution to the discipline. The
definition of terms is included to provide a clearer understanding on the used technical
terms. This is followed by presenting limitations of the research to inform the coverage of
the study.
Chapter Two provides a review of previous research on participative management. The
conceptual underpinnings of participative management are discussed in depth, as is the
definition and characteristics of participative management, employee performance
behaviour, and implementation of participative management. Previous studies about the
relationships between participative management and employee performance behaviour are
highlighted to show how this study relates to the work of other scholars and research in the
field. The last section discusses the contingency factors, which may moderate the effects of
participative management on the outcome variable.
Chapter Three presents the participative management framework and shows how its
essential elements are built into a research model for this study. This is followed by
describing the research variables and the relationships among the variables, which serve as
the guideline to carry out this study.
Chapter Four describes the research design and instrumentation. The research design
outlines the basis of how this study was carried out and how the participants were involved
in the study. This is followed by a discussion of instrumentation, focusing on how the
29
items in the questionnaires were developed. The last section considers technical issues that
relate to data collection in the pilot and the main study, as well as the qualitative
techniques of interviewing and document review.
Chapter Five discusses methods of data analysis, and the methodological issues related to
selecting appropriate data analysis techniques. The quantitative techniques discussed are
PASW Statistics/SPSS for testing normality, multicollinearity, and reliability. Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM) is introduced as a procedure of employing Confirmatory factor
Analysis (CFA) to deal with the development and validation of the measurement model
and to examine the relationships among the multiple variables employing Path analysis
technique. Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) program is described to run this
procedure. This is followed by a discussion of the Rasch Model for item analysis.
Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) is explained to deal with the nested data of the
study. Finally, this chapter describes qualitative techniques used for analysing the data
obtained from the interview and documents.
Chapter Six presents the results of the preliminary analysis and scale validation. The
demographic information concerning the survey participants, missing values, and test for
normality are presented. This is followed by the results of reliability and validity tests for
the items and the measurement structure of the study. The results of CFA analyses are
discussed to confirm the measurement model. Finally, the results of the items analysed by
employing the Rasch model are presented, showing how the items represent the underlying
constructs of the measurement model.
Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight present the findings of the single level path analyses at
the employee and the leader level respectively. The two chapters are structured under
several main headings, such as the discussions of the results of the test for
multicollinearity; variables used in the path analysis, results of the path analyses, and fit
indexes obtained. The strengths of the relationships of the research variables are examined.
The results are interpreted and discussed in reference to the indices and the sequence of the
associations among the variables in the path diagram. These results form the basis for
answering the study‟s research questions.
30
Chapter Nine presents the findings of the two-level model using HLM technique. The
direct effects of the predictors at employee and leader level on the outcome variable and
the cross-level interaction effects are examined. The results generated from the null, final,
and full model are reported. The effects of level-1 and level -2 predictors on the outcome
variable are then discussed. The last component of the analysis is to interpret the
interaction effects of predictor variables on the outcome variable in the model.
Chapter Ten presents the results generated from the interviews with the employee and the
leader participants. These are discussed in relation to the five open-ended questions given
to each group of participants (Appendix C). The results of the interviews are used as
complementary information for the discussions of the findings and its comparison with the
theories underpinning this study.
Chapter Eleven discusses the findings that are generated from quantitative and qualitative
analyses in relation to the research questions and in comparison with previous theories and
studies. A discussion of the limitations and implications of the research leads to the final
conclusion.
1.10 Summary
This chapter has served as an introduction to the topic: “participative management and its
relationships with employee performance behaviour: a study in the university sector in
Malang Indonesia”. An overview of participative management was presented, and the
context of the research described. The gaps in the field were identified. This was followed
by defining the research problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions and
research objectives, in order to address the gaps found in the topic. The potential
contributions of the research to a more comprehensive understanding about management
system or style, to research development in educational management, and for practitioners
of the university organisations in Indonesia were explained. Sections related to definitions
of terms and limitations of the study were also included to define the contexts to which the
study could be legitimately applied. The chapter concluded with a snapshot of the structure
of the thesis and its line of argument.
31
Chapter Two
Review of Previous Studies on Participative Management
and Employee Performance Behaviour
2.1 Introduction
The discussion in the previous chapter emphasised the importance of participative
management for organisational success. Scholars have argued that the use of this style
enables organisations to survive within the changing situations. One of the explanations is
that participative management has been recognised as an effective strategy to improve
employees‟ performance behaviour through an empowerment process (T.-C. Huang, 1997;
X. Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010; Yukl, 2002). It provides an organisational climate
where employees effectively engage in the attainment of organisational objectives
(Sashkin, 1984). This chapter highlights earlier studies and research that explain how the
participative management style influences employee performance behaviour. The
discussion of this issue is required to justify the importance of this study, and articulate
how it addresses the gap of the research in this area. It provides a conceptual framework
focusing on the managerial behaviour of organisational leaders, which can be applied to
the subjects of this study, administrative heads within the university structure in the city of
Malang East Java Indonesia. The review of previous studies is conducted under three
major headings, namely: (1) overview of management versus leadership concepts, (2)
conceptual underpinning of participative management, and (3) previous studies on the
relationships between participative management and employee performance behaviour.
2.2 Overview of Management versus Leadership Concepts
In order to be aligned with the research focus of this study, the different concepts of
management and leadership need to be discussed theoretically. The explanation of the
differences between management and leadership are often controversial (Yukl, 2002) and
sometimes overlap (Mondy, et al., 1990). Authors and researchers have difficulties
understanding the two concepts and sometimes fail to differentiate between them. Where
32
researchers have not articulated the essential difference between leadership and
management, they have been used interchangeable terms (Champoux, 2003). In this study,
therefore it is sometimes necessary to use the terms as if they were interchangeable, when
discussing the work of others.
The concept of leadership differs in practice from management (Goetsch & Davis, 2002).
It can be argued that persons in management positions in any institution or department do
not automatically implement leadership. School principals, registrars, heads of division,
heads of department, directors and vice-chancellors in a university for instance, hold
positions that, in organisational terms, would be regarded as managers. Whether the
persons in these positions engage in leadership or not, they have to demonstrate an ability
to influence followers at work and their readiness to do so. In addition, an individual may
be accepted as a leader by followers although he or she is not necessarily a manager. It is
also possible that in certain situations some leaders may not have followers or
subordinates. Furthermore, there may be a few managers in the organisation who have the
intention to implement their role as effective leaders (Goetsch & Davis, 2002; Yukl, 2002).
Conceptions of management and leadership can also be differentiated clearly in practical
contexts. Managers who take charge of managing roles or positions desire to keep control
of the organisation to ensure the followers (subordinates) work within the system, its
procedures, and schedules. Those who are leaders initiate organisational changes (Yukl,
2002). Organisational leaders possess a vision of how their organisation can be improved
and are able to encourage fellow workers to accept that vision, and be ready to take the
risks of their actions (Stoner, Blanchard, & Zigarmi, 2007; Yukl, 2002).
Managers undertake routine organisational activities. They coordinate, direct, guide, and
facilitate people or staff to attain existing organisational goals. On the other hand, leaders
place great emphasis on initiating changes, such as new goals, structure, procedures,
changes, ventures, initiatives, and strategies to enhance the organisation. The activities of
leaders then clearly differ from routine managerial activities (Yukl, 2002).
Based on the research objectives, this study consistently employs the term “management”
rather than leadership. The reasons are that this study involves the investigation of
33
employees‟ perceptions of the use of participative management system, or style, through
managerial activities that are regularly implemented by administrative heads of bureau,
divisions and units in the university organisation. In the context of the formal organisation,
these administrative heads are conceptually called “managers” whose duties are closely
related to regulation, routine activities, procedure, order, efficiency and predictability
(Bush & Middlewood, 2005). Therefore, the term “management” is central in this research.
However, for the purpose of the discussions of the theories used in this study, the term
management and leadership are used interchangeably. Some authors in leadership and
management studies use these terms together to explain the concepts and practice of both
elements in organisations. In order to follow the path of these authors‟ point of view, the
use of both terms simultaneously cannot be avoided.
2.3 The Conceptual Underpinning of Participative Management
This section is concerned with terminologies and concepts or principles of participative
management system as they have been used in earlier studies. This discussion provides a
basis for understanding the critical role of a participative management system in improving
organisational effectiveness through human resources empowerment. After presenting the
“Likert profile of organisation” (Likert, 1967), characteristics of participative
organisational climate, employee performance behaviour and organisational effectiveness,
and the implementation of participative management in improving organisational
effectiveness are considered. Discussion of these components is necessary in order to
provide a basis for generating a research model for this study.
2.3.1 Participative management defined
Although the term “participative management” is becoming more popular nowadays,
scholars tend to provide different explanations for its core concepts. Mohrman and Lawler
(1988) pointed out that the term participative management is a very broad concept in terms
of the scope of meanings. It relates to the management of changes that influence human,
technical, and economic aspects underpinning organisations (Mohrman & Lawler, 1988).
34
Theorists have used various terms to explain participative management construct,
including participation, employee involvement, consultation, joint decision making, power
sharing, decentralisation, democratic management, partnership, gain-sharing and
empowerment (Bartol, et al., 2002; Champoux, 2003; Gibson, et al., 2006; Randolph &
Blanchard, 2007; Yukl, 2002). Heller (Heller, 2003) pointed out that some authors prefer
the term “influence-sharing” to differentiate “participation” with the inauthentic
determination.
However, it is deemed important to define the specific term of the participative
management construct, to avoid misconceptions which may lead to confusion. It is
necessary to know what sort of participation is actually taking place. For example, group
leaders may claim that they have implemented “participation” in events such as seminars,
discussions, or consultative committees. Yet there is a little if any evidence of group
members having had the opportunity to share ideas and experience mutual communication.
Another example is a meeting organiser who pretends to attend and listen to what the
members say, but does not use their input for the decisions to be made. This creates the
sort of inauthentic participation that has been observed and criticised by many authors
(Heller, 2003) and can lead to scepticism and frustration. Further, subordinates usually
demonstrate their distrust. Inauthentic participation is described as a role played by leaders
whose purpose is to appear to give subordinates the chance for participation when, in fact,
they do not. Heller (2003) argues that managers aspire to employ participation because it
has become a popular mythology. If they do so in a fraudulent manner, this endangers their
managerial position.
Yukl (2002) suggests that participative management can be regarded as a distinct type of
managerial behaviour or leadership style, although it may be used in conjunction with
specific tasks and relations behaviours. According to Yukl (2002), participative
management, or what he termed participative leadership, involves efforts of managers to
encourage and facilitate participation in making decisions. This definition seems to limit
participative management to a strategy for staff involvement in the decision making
process. Such a definition is similar to the view of McCrimmon (2007), but he emphasised
35
the involvement of teams in making key decisions. On the other hand, Sashkin (1984)
used a broad definition in explaining participative management as the process whereby
employees play a direct role in setting goals, making decisions, organisational changes,
and solving problems. Such a definition is relevant with the broad concept of participative
management construct that refers to the empowerment of people in the management of
change within organisations, as proposed by Mohrman and Lawler (1988). Viewing the
term in a broad concept, this study argued that participative management is a strategy
whereby managers or leaders systematically seek the resources of people at work to create
collaborative learning experiences, and produce productive team outcomes. Management
of this type is intended to empower people at work and increase organisation effectiveness
through the sharing of power among the manager or leader and the subordinates.
2.3.2 The paradigm of participative management and its compatibility with other
leadership constructs
As indicated in the discussion of the definition above, the principles of participative
management share some congruence with contemporary leadership approaches such as
parallel (Andrews & Crowther, 2002), distributed leadership (Duignan & Bezzina, 2006;
Hargreaves & Fink, 2008), authentic (Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002), servant
(Avolio & Gardner, 2005), and transformational leadership (Bass, 1997; Sarros & Santora,
2001). The common attribute in all these would seem to be leadership behaviour that
facilitates a supportive organisational climate, enabling followers to perform their best for
the organisation. Leaders share their vision and leadership function with all members,
acknowledge individual expressions, promote staff expertise, and secure sustainable
innovation and improvement (Drucker, 2006; Hargreaves & Fink, 2008; Harris & Spillane,
2008).This is in line with the one employed in participative management practices. The
participative style concerns with a shared power between leaders and the followers, and
values the differing individuals‟ characteristics and their capacities (Harris, 2004; Sashkin,
1984; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003). Duignan and Macpherson (1993) claim such a
management paradigm is highly expected in managing universities as educational
institutions. Sergiovanni (1987) pointed out that recent organisational theory has described
educational institutions (for example universities and schools) as being more loosely
36
structured entities than other enterprises. Weick (1982) assumes that educational
organisations are characterised by four properties: a self-correcting system among people,
consensus on goal and the mains to attain those goals, coordination by information
dissemination, and predictability of problems and the responses to these problems. In order
to adapt management practice with those characteristics and to be responsive to a dynamic
environment, organisations need to be structured in the way of loosely-coupled systems
(Duignan & Macpherson, 1993).
Much of the literature on leadership identifies four basic leadership styles, participative,
democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire, the first two of which have been identified with
participative management (Mondy, et al., 1990). McCrimmon (2007) named three original
styles of leadership, participative, autocratic, and lasses-faire, the first of which is linked to
participative management style. The participative and democratic leadership styles, which
are opposed to autocratic styles, depend on the same theoretical assumptions applied in
other leadership studies under different constructs such as collaborative (Crowther, 2010),
shared leadership (Duignan & Bezzina, 2006), and parallel leadership (Andrews &
Crowther, 2002). Subordinates are assumed to have talent, capabilities, and internal
motivation which potentially support them to work independently. In this context, when
subordinates have all those factors or capacities, managers then do not have to apply strict
controls. Further, there is no need to employ autocratic approaches for example by forcing
subordinates to accomplish organisational tasks effectively.
Such disposition is also in line with Theory Y assumptions about human behaviour at
work. Participative management, as a theory, historically holds what have been called
theory Y assumptions about human nature and the way managers motivate people in any
organisations. Theory Y is one part of the two sided Theory X and Theory Y introduced by
McGregor (cited in Carson, 2005; Northouse, 2009). Under Theory X, people are assumed
to be generally lazy, to dislike work, to need strict control, and to have no ambitions to take
any responsibility. On the other hand, Theory Y has assumptions that people have
individual capacities as well as talent, internal motivation, self responsibility, and
independence. Managers, then, do not have to apply strict controls or force their
37
subordinates to accomplish organisational tasks effectively. In order to gain ultimate
contributions from the entire staff, leaders acknowledge individual differences, abilities,
skills, and invite people to understand and set the organisational objectives, and work
cooperatively to its achievements. These elements are integrated as a strategic way to
accomplish the organisational missions. The way leaders incorporate these elements in
influencing the employees, thus, originally matches with the characteristics of Y theory.
The principles of participative management are also related with other leadership
approaches such as servant leadership (Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002) and
authentic leadership. As it is named, the servant leadership refers to a process whereby
leaders assume their position as servant in their relationships with subordinates (Russell &
Stone, 2002). The key attributes that are similarly employed in the participative
management style is leaders‟ commitment to the growth of people, and this servant
leadership offers interpersonal work relations and organisational life. It stimulates both
personal and organisational metamorphoses (Russell & Stone, 2002).
Furthermore, authentic leadership as an approach in influencing people is also based on the
principles that are compatible with the participative management concept. It is defined as a
managerial behaviour that is based on leaders‟ self awareness of how they think and
behave, and what consequences perceived by others. Leaders are aware of their own and
others‟ values / moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the work context;
and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character (Avolio
& Gardner, 2005). The central premise of this type of leadership is that by increasing self
awareness, self regulation, and through positive modelling, leaders are able to foster the
authenticity in followers. This contributes to people‟s well-being, as well as sustainable
organisational performance (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
The differing leadership constructs and paradigms discussed above indicate the complexity
of the leadership construct and its compatibility with participative management theory.
This study acknowledged that the differing terms and emphasis in understanding
participative management led to the difficulty for researchers especially this study in
38
understanding the theory of the participative management style. However, for clarity of
conceptual and statistical analysis, this study needs to discuss further the concept of the
participative management. This was supported by an in depth discussion of the nature and
characteristics of the participative management style as originally proposed by Likert
(1967) in the next sections.
Likert (1967) used the term “System 4” for the participative management system, which he
introduced as one of the styles for managing people in organisations. The detail of his
participative management system is provided in the discussion of the “Likert Profile of
Organisation” in the next section. It should be noted that, for the purpose of theoretical and
empirical analysis, this study consistently uses the term “participative management” rather
than “participative leadership” because it is more congruent with this research that was
based on employee perceptions on managerial behaviour demonstrated by their
administrative leaders in the divisions or organisational units in six universities in Malang,
Indonesia.
2.3.3 The Likert profile of organisation
Based on a wide range of studies under the project “Michigan Leadership Studies” in the
1950s, Likert (1967) argued that an organisation that was led under the participative
management system produced the most positive outcomes. He described this style in his
famous work “Profile of Organisational Characteristics” that was developed as a
typological measurement scale on an authoritarian to participative continuum. The scale
had four components: System 1 exploitative authoritative; System 2 benevolent
authoritative; System 3 consultative; and System 4 participative model. This profile of
organisations was developed from employee perceptions, based on seven operating
characteristics or dimensions, which included leadership, motivation, communication,
interaction, decision-making, goal setting, and the control process. These qualities were
aggregated to determine the degree to which an organisation was participative in its
climate. The differences between the four management systems are described in Table 2.1.
39
System 1 management is described as exploitative, coercive, and “authoritarian” in style.
Information flows only from the top, is viewed with great suspicion by employees and
sometimes is inaccurate. System 2 management is labelled “benevolent authoritarian”,
since some communication is conducted but is limited to when the manager wants it, and
mostly downward. It may or may not be viewed with suspicion by subordinates. System 3
is “consultative” in nature, indicating that there is quite a bit of communication up and
down, initiated from the top, but sometimes coming from subordinates. Communications
are often accepted but sometimes viewed with suspicion, and may or may not be openly
questioned. System 4 is “participative” management, which is characterised by open
communication flowing upward and downward. The decision making process involves
sharing ideas among the subordinates and managers (Likert, 1967).
In the past, research findings have been based on employees characterising participative
climate, and demonstrating that these have significant relations with organisational
outcomes (Miah & Bird, 2007; Reigle, 2001). However, very little research has linked
participative management perceptions to employee-level outcomes. This study examined
how the employees‟ perceptions of participative management affected the work behaviour
and attitude, and performance of the employees in the organisational context of universities
in Malang.
40
Table 2.1. Characteristics of management systems
Source: Adapted from Likert (1967, pp. 3-10).
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
41
2.3.4 Characteristics of a participative organisational climate
The participative management system is related to an organisational climate, which
provides for human resources empowerment. This means that employees develop positive
views and attitudes towards the organisation because they find the jobs are meaningful and
recognised by their leaders. They may, for example, experience a feeling of greater
security about their work because the organisation provides them with steady and
consistent jobs, and there is no threat of being fired.
Participative management developed by Likert (1967) was based on the recognition of
organisational climate as an important part of contingency factors. This model of
leadership was introduced as an approach to deal with people in the dynamics of
organisations. This relates to the extent of employees‟ trust in their managers to effectively
manage people at work. Sashkin (1984) indicated that where subordinates were less
confident in leaders who used an autocratic style, it would be hard to introduce the
participative management model and achieve any effective outcomes in improving
employee performance. Likert (1967) suggested that in order to effectively operate
participative management in organisations, managers first needed to establish an
organisational climate that was viable for developing positive attitudes towards the
organisation and its jobs. They must create an organisational culture which facilitated the
development of individual capacity to ensure the effectiveness of such leadership (Key,
2000; Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2007).
Likert (1967) argued that this participative management climate was created through a
collaborative working and learning environment, gaining support from the team that would
eventually produce greater outcomes than could be achieved under other management
systems. This climate can be implemented through managers displaying trust and
demonstrating their intentions to share power with subordinates. The participative style,
thus, becomes a strategic approach to making people feel respected for their advice through
involving them in important decision making and strategic organisational activities
(McCrimmon, 2007). This, in turn, effectively helps people to feel engaged in achieving
their organisation‟s aims.
42
As mentioned previously, this participative style is sometimes referred to as system 4.
Likert (1967) explained three basic principles that underlie the implementation of the
participative management style in improving organisational performance. The first was the
use of the supportive relationship principle by a manager in leading their organisation‟s
members. The second involved the use of group decision making and group supervision
methods by a manager in controlling the staff at work. The third related to setting high
performance behaviour goals to be pursued by a manager. Each of these is discussed
below.
Supportive relationship
Effective management and leadership require a supportive climate in order to build a good
relationship between leaders and employees. Likert (1967) suggested that the supportive
relationship is a general principle in initiating and maintaining effective human interactions
in the workplace. The more supportive the working atmosphere, the higher the morale of
subordinates is. This kind of working climate can fulfil human needs, both economic and
non-economic. Economic needs may include salary, fringe benefits, and financial rewards
for individual achievement. Non-economic needs consist of self-autonomy,
acknowledgement, care, praise or reward, and the opportunity to engage in social
relationships. Leaders must consider all these needs in managing people at work. Further,
individual characteristics (for example, gender, age, education and experience) should also
be taken into account. Employees who experience management that recognises their
individual needs and characteristics come to regard the organisational environment as
supportive. It is, then able to motivate the employees to perform their work cooperatively,
and attain organisational outcomes.
To what extent organisations and behaviour of managers in the workplace provide a
supportive climate for relationships can be examined. For instance, staff can be asked
questions such as those given below, in order to ascertain the nature and quality of the
management system: (1) How much confidence and trust does the manager have in
subordinates? (2) To what extent is the manager interested in understanding problems of
43
employees? (3) To what extent is the manager interested in helping subordinates to achieve
and keep a good income? (Likert, 1967).
Group decision making and group supervision methods
Organisational leaders or managers introduce group decision making and a supervision
approach as the second principle of the participative management system. In a traditional
organisational structure, the process of decision making and supervision is based on the
person to person model of interaction, namely superior to subordinate. In contrast, in
system 4 (participative management model), organisational decisions are obtained through
a collaborative process involving the whole staff as organisational members, despite
hierarchical levels and units (Likert, 1967).
High performance behaviour
The third principle that affects organisational effectiveness is the expectation of high
performance demonstrated by employees and managers. Likert (1967) reported many
studies and research findings showed that employees generally expected highly stable
employment, security, promotion, and compensation. They also expected to be proud of
their enterprise for its achievement and performance. Thus, on behalf of effective
organisation, managers and the employees should have high performance expectations.
Organisational members must work together to setup the organisational objectives, and
procedures of how to attain them successfully. This mechanism can be facilitated through
the participative management model by (1) group decision making, and (2) multiple group
structure specifically in human interactions. The process of decision making uses input
from a wide range of members in the organisation, as well as stakeholders, customers,
suppliers, and other groups of participants. Since individuals bring their own needs to
decision making, this model of goal setting is central for the participative management
model which is designed to lead organisational members to contribute to high performance
goals for the whole organisation (Likert, 1967).
Based on the concept and the principles of the participative management model, this study
examined the degree of participative management behaviour of administrative heads within
44
the university structures in Malang. It was measured, using an instrument developed from
the Likert profile of participative management. The measurement was based on employee
and leader perceptions of management behaviour as the independent variable. Its sub
variables included leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making,
goal setting, and control which were aggregated to determine the degree to which an
organisation was participative in its climate (see Table 2.1). Employee performance was
examined by adopting dependent variables, such as employee experiences of self-
autonomy, meaningful tasks, job satisfaction, security at work, organisational commitment,
quality of customer service, level of absenteeism, and turnover rate. These variables
represented the parameters derived from the characteristics of organisational behaviour.
These are described further in the participative management framework and research
model in Chapter Three, and research design and instrumentation in Chapter Four.
2.3.5 Employee performance behaviour and organisational effectiveness
Employee performance behaviour refers to the behaviour that is demonstrated by
employees while they engage in organisational activities or jobs that relate to the efforts of
attaining organisational objectives in terms of quality, efficiency and other criteria of
effectiveness (Likert, 1967; Mondy, et al., 1990). Most organisations use this terminology
as a rating system to determine the abilities, work behaviour, and output of an employee in
accomplishing organisational activities. Thus, it can be perceived as a part of criteria of
organisational effectiveness. For this purpose, four generic approaches have been identified
in order to measure the effectiveness of an organisation, as illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Kreitner and Kinicki (1992) have proposed (1) goal accomplishments, (2) resource
acquisition, (3) internal process, and (4) personnel satisfaction as the four components.
45
Figure 2.1. The generic approaches to measuring organisational effectiveness
Source: Adapted from Kreitner and Kinicki (1992, p. 648).
Internal processes, for instance, predominantly have something to do with the employee
performance in the context of interactions with managers, acceptance of superiors by
subordinates, and effective communication. To what extent the members accomplish their
duties on schedule, perform a quality customer service, and work effectively are parts of
employee performance in the area of goal accomplishment. The ability of employees to use
organisational resources efficiently and gain a sense of satisfaction from their job can be
measured as resource acquisition and personnel satisfaction respectively.
Kreitner and Kinicki (1992) state that the term “organisational effectiveness” has an
abstract connotation because it originates from human perceptions of organisation
performance. Since it is an abstract concept, it is impossible to measure. However,
organisational leaders or managers who want to assess the degrees of organisation
effectiveness can initiate measurement by defining performance standards that can be used
to ask questions, the answers to which indicate effectiveness. Managers may be curious as
to the extent of activities conducted to achieve the organisational goals, as a key to
measuring organisational effectiveness, based on certain criteria as determined by the
group. Such an approach also can be applied flexibly in any type or level of organisation as
denoted in overlapping circles in Figure 2.1.
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
46
In contrast, Huang (1997) advocated a different set of variables to examine the
effectiveness: firstly, organisational factors including history, size, sectors, and capital of
organisation; education and age of employees; and trade unions. Secondly, organisation
performance can be measured by rates of turnover, mobility, and absenteeism; product and
profit value per employee; and revenue growth. In line with this conception, employee
performance, which is positioned as the dependent variable in this study, can be measured
through such variables as employee commitment, quality customer service and withdrawal
behaviour (turnover and absenteeism). Approached in this way, employee performance can
be seen as one of a number of factors that can be used to measure the effectiveness of an
organisation.
2.3.6 Implementation of participative management in improving organisational
effectiveness
Participative management has been introduced as an approach which enables the
incorporation of both global and individual demands within organisations. As experienced
by many enterprises, participative management has been adopted and developed well in
scope and practices to neutralise the global influences upon organisations (Katz, Kochan,
& Colvin, 2007). It provides organisations with strategies for designing favourable
working conditions that have the capacity to increase employee performance in the
workplace. Thus, it has been highlighted in many studies that this kind of management
system is highly desired in most organisations today, whether they are a profit or a non-
profit business (T.-C. Huang, 1997; Kim, 2002; Mohrman & Lawler, 1988; Somech, 2005;
Somech & Wenderow, 2006).
The executives of global organisations also acknowledge that the performance of their
enterprises depends mostly on the existence of power sharing that can be distributed to
each employee at work (Angermeier, et al., 2009). The reasons are that in the future,
organisations need a management and leadership style, or system, which is able to provide
a favourable climate for the empowerment of all talents and abilities of its members in
order for their organisations to achieve success. To deal with this situation, the managers or
organisational leaders require a particular management system that is not governed from
above, but from within, as collaborative teams. The participative management style, then,
47
emerges as a strategic approach to make use of human resources effectively for
organisational success within the changing situation.
As global organisations, universities automatically relate to the rapid changes and
continuing advances that are caused by global markets (Bajunid, 2011; Mok & Cheung,
2011). In responding to the challenges, participative management can be employed as a
strategy to manage people at work within the changing situation. Angermeier et al. (2009)
and Likert (1967) claimed participation and involvement of employees at every level of
organisation becomes critical for developing and sustaining strategies designed to acquire
benefits in competitive situations. The reasons are that future demands for new and
advanced products of universities, or higher education institutions need the professional
expertise and personal competences of the whole staff in the organisation. Managers of a
university can no longer work alone in the very competitive condition of global markets.
They should be able to share their own powers with subordinates, facilitate managerial
activities, and continuously improve their skills.
University organisation calls for a management system, which was named by Likert (1967)
and Holland (1995) as “participative management”. In order to establish effective goal
setting in increasingly challenging times, most higher education institutions need to
implement participative management if they are to become marketable and successful
organisations (Haslam, Wegge, & Postmes, 2009). Furthermore, since the university is
assumed to be a global industry partner (Fielden, cited in Bolden, et al., 2009), it faces
increased competition from other external organisations, in terms of the expansion of
work-based learning and accreditation of higher skills development for the staff. The
university then has to adjust the strategy by employing management systems or styles that
have a focus on individual values and workplace needs of staff.
The participative management model is implemented through the management functions or
activities including the process of leadership, motivation, communication and interaction,
decision-making, goal setting, and control. Likert (1967) included these as organisational
variables in describing the profile of organisational characteristics. This model is based on
the argument that organisational effectiveness can be achieved by involving all members in
48
planning organisational objectives and working collaboratively to attain them. To illustrate
the relationship between participative management and organisational effectiveness, Likert
(1967) presented a flowchart as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2. Organisational development of system 1 or 2 compared to system 4
Source: Likert (1967, p. 76).
The flowchart in Figure 2.2 indicates the causal relationship between management systems
as causal variables, with other variables, such as employee behaviour as intervening
variables and indicators of organisational performance as end-result variables. Likert
(1967) argued that the causal variables have two main characteristics: (1) they can be
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
49
modified by organisational members, and are not fixed or controlled by external factors;
(2) they are independent variables, so, when they are changed, they influence other
variables to change, while they themselves not directly influenced by other variables. The
intervening variables, for example, may include individual and organisational factors, such
as those developed for the research model in this study. As shown in the flowchart, the
change in the behaviour of employees from lower to higher performance is produced
largely by the management style used by managers, either system 1 or 2, or system 4
(participative management).
It means that the intervening variables of the participative management model do have a
direct effect on employee performance, which in turn increases, or decreases, the
organisational performance or effectiveness as the end result variables.
2.4 Previous Studies on the Relationships between Participative
Management and Employee Performance Behaviour
The study of participative management style has attracted many researchers. There has
been a wide range of studies that have investigated the impact of participative management
in organisational contexts, and its capability to increase performance and productivity of
the employees (Bass, 1990). The extensive studies in this area are due to the fact that
“management” has been seen as strategic issue in activating and mobilising human
resources in many organisations. Kim (2002), for example, stated that participative
management was perceived by many scholars and researchers as a strategy to improve the
performance of public organisations. How previous studies have related this management
style to employee performance behaviour, is discussed in the next sections.
2.4.1 Defining the terminology of employee performance behaviour
To investigate the relationship between management behaviour, as well as the effects of
the participative management style on employee performance behaviour, it is necessary to
have appropriate understanding of the term “employee performance behaviour”, as it used
in this study.
50
Scholars provide different perspectives on the use of the terminology employee
performance to explain the work behaviour of employees in organisations. If it is not
clearly defined, the development of measurement scales and examination of the behaviour
of employees is likely to be biased or distorted (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). Most research
on participative management has defined employee performance in terms of work volume
and the quantity of production that is accomplished by employees (Wagner, 1994). Such a
definition assumes that employee performance at work is mostly related to tangible
behaviour, which can be tested or measured directly. The advantage of using such a
definition is that researchers can simply develop performance criteria and measure the
variables quantitatively.
However, some researchers who have investigated organisational contexts, argue that the
success of an organisation needs to take account of both task performance behaviour and
contextual performance behaviour (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). As mentioned above, task
performance relates to individual job descriptions and has tangible attributes, which make
it easy to measure directly. For example it may include employee performance in
producing goods or services in units and selling a number of products (Wagner, 1994). The
extent to which they complete these jobs is easy to examine using quantitative measures.
In contrast, contextual performance is intangible, and not easy to measure empirically. The
contextual performance includes, for example, employee commitment, employee
performance in building good relationships or communication with customers, the ability
of employees to provide quality services to the customers, and various forms of employee
withdrawal behaviour (Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984; Zhang, Cao, & Tjosvold, 2011). In
particular, Sashkin (1984) included absenteeism and turnover intentions as facets of
performance related behaviour in the workplace. The quality of employee performance is
perceived as important in relation to work behaviour because it contributes to the
attainment of organisational objectives. Since an organisation is influenced by many
dynamic and unpredictable factors (including psychological, organisational, and
environmental factors) (Sashkin, 1984), managers are not be able to describe all these
contextual behaviours specifically and transform them to job descriptions of duties that
have to be performed by employees for the success of the organisation (Tuuli &
51
Rowlinson, 2009). Such difficulties encourage researchers in management studies to
exclude variables of contextual behaviour because they cannot be measured (Wagner,
1994). Consequently, research has not been able to provide accurate estimations of
employee performance, and may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding management
effectiveness. This situation is challenging for many authors and researchers in
management and leadership, and remains problematic. Researchers, then, still have to find
solutions for measuring the contextual behaviour of employees appropriately or develop
qualitative research approaches which can provide understanding of these factors.
Task performance can be measured directly using laboratory experiments and standardised
tests. However, researchers who study the management effectiveness from the perceptions
of contextual performance in the organisation need specific approaches to analyse
variables of performance. Besides using the measures of perceptions through self-reporting
and observer ratings (Wagner, 1994), participative management research has been
conducted by employing a dyadic approach (Yukl, 2002) that involves measures of
performance based on perceptions from different groups of participants. For example, to
examine the effectiveness of participative management in improving employee
performance, researchers have chosen to rely on the information gathered from leader‟s
ratings about the employee performance. On the other hand, the effectiveness of
management behaviour can be assessed from employee ratings or “opinions” (Creswell,
2005, p. 362) about the managerial behaviours of leaders or managers (Yukl, 2002).
The information that is generated from this sort of approach has been able to justify and
legitimate the quantitative findings. Further, in a great deal of the research on participative
management, the effectiveness of management systems has been gauged by employing a
qualitative approach as well, by interviewing different groups of people within an
organisational context. The results of the interviews are assumed to strengthen the
quantitative findings and lead to more reliable conclusions about management
effectiveness (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Thus, to analyse the managerial behaviour and
employee performance, it is not necessary that the research be conducted in the laboratory
or in experimental settings as is common in scientific research. The study of management
effectiveness technically can be carried out through a process of analysing contextual
52
behaviour and employing the instruments developed to obtain responses based on the
attitudes and opinions from participants.
Based on the description of the term performance, the construct employee performance
behaviour used in this study refers not to task performance behaviour but to contextual
performance behaviour that is demonstrated by employees. This includes factors such as
organisational commitment, quality customer services provided by employees, and
employee withdrawal behaviour (turnover and absenteeism). These attributes were
measured using an attitudinal scale that was developed by the researcher, based on the
theories and findings of previous studies. The use of the scale is intended to obtain
individual attitudes or opinions (Creswell, 2005) about the participative management
effectiveness from both employees and heads of administrative divisions or managers
within the university structure in Indonesia.
2.4.2 Linking participative management behaviour with employee performance
behaviour in organisation
The way theorists relate participative management to performance is discussed shortly by
presenting some arguments underpinning this relationship. This is necessary to help this
study to explain what constitutes the participative management and identify variables that
could moderate its associations with employee performance (Miller & Monge, 1986). By
understanding this context, both researchers and practitioners have a direction on how to
gain the effectiveness of this management style, taking into account various contingency
factors which may strengthen or weaken its effects on the performance behaviour (Sashkin,
1984). A comprehensive overview on the mechanism of this relationship, thus, facilitates
this study to carry out the investigation properly and obtain unbiased conclusions regarding
to the effects of this participative management style.
The participative management system or style is intended to empower people at work, and
increase organisational effectiveness through the sharing of power between the manager or
leader and subordinates (Wagner, 1994). To what extent an organisation is managed
successfully in a participative climate, can be measured through the implementation of
53
managerial functions or organisational activities including the process of leadership,
motivation, communication and interaction, decision making, goal setting, and controlling
(Likert, 1967). Since these activities are mostly contingent on organisation members, or
what is called human capital, participative management becomes a strategic approach to
make subordinates (employees) feel valued, and able to contribute to producing good
decisions (Haslam, et al., 2009; McCrimmon, 2007), in order to effectively attain
organisational objectives. The reasoning behind such an argument could be explained that
managers in participative climate organisations showed trust and willingness to share their
power with subordinates, thus creating a collaborative working environment (Cotton,
Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Miller &
Monge, 1986). In this way, they gained strong support from their employees who
eventually produced high job performance or productivity that could not be achieved
through non-participative management (X. Huang, et al., 2010; Pelled & Hill, 1997; Yukl,
2002).
Participative management is consistent with the Needs Theory developed by Maslow (cited
in Northhouse, 2009) and the Job Characteristic Model developed by Hackman and
Oldham (1980). This management style was assumed to increase motivation because it
assisted subordinates to achieve basic needs: (1) autonomy, (2) meaningfulness of work,
and (3) interpersonal relation (Sashkin, 1984). It was argued that employees who had these
needs fulfilled showed better commitment and acceptance, had feelings of job security,
accepted challenging work, and were satisfied with their jobs. In turn, these positive
experiences effectively led to increased innovation and productivity.
Concepts developed in the theory of participative management supported such an argument
and highlighted the notion of employee empowerment in an organisation. Spreitzer et. al.
(1997) argued participative management could enhance employee performance and
satisfaction on the job. They suggested that employee satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and
a positive attitude towards work should be increased in order to help employees gain a
higher standard of performance at work.
54
The discussion under section 2.3 suggested that participative management was
significantly related to employee performance behaviour, work attitudes, and
organisational productivity. However, what has not been clear is whether the participative
management style has direct or indirect effects on performance. It has been argued that the
lack of information on this relationship has led to inconsistent and biased research results
in many studies (Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002). To generate firm and accurate conclusions
about how this style relates to employee performance behaviour, a research model (see
Figure 3.7) needs to assume that participative management has either direct and indirect
effects on employee performance behaviour.
Two theoretical models which explain the relationship between participative management
and employee performance behaviour as direct are the Cognitive and the Exchange-Based
Models. In the cognitive model (Miller & Monge, 1986), the use of participative
management style leads directly to increased employee performance behaviour because
employees in the participative organisational climate have individually the capacity to
work independently to accomplish the tasks or organisational activities. Such a condition is
gained by managerial behaviour, which enables employees to access information about the
jobs concerned and how to carry them out effectively. In addition, all staff members are
also involved adequately in the process of management. This strategy allows the
employees to have the knowledge they need for their work in a way that enables them to
contribute independently to the achievement of organisational goals.
The exchange-based model (X. Huang, et al., 2010) emphasises that the direct effect is
obtained by a high level of trust in leaders. Employees demonstrate high level of
performance behaviour because participative leaders treat them with fairness, honesty,
respect, and full sincerity. This explanation is supported by many previous studies which
have found the effects of this style on performance behaviour, such as commitment
(Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2004; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday, 1999),
good citizenship behaviour (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; G. R. Jones &
George, 2006), and lower levels of turnover and absenteeism (Angermeier, et al., 2009; T.-
C. Huang, 1997; Miah & Bird, 2007). Wagner (1994), in his meta-analytic re-analysis of
55
earlier research concluded that participative management had direct and significant effects
on performance, although the average size of this effect was small. Another study by Xu
Huang et al. (2010) confirmed the direct effect of this leadership style on employees‟ task
performance, in particular. Thus, the direct effects of participative management were
obtained though building individual capacity and a supportive relationship which
encouraged subordinates‟ trust in leaders.
Participative management is assumed to influence employee performance through the
attainment of positive work attitudes by employees. Sashkin (1984) argued that
participative management had positive effects on performance, productivity, and employee
satisfaction because it facilitated employees to fulfil their basic human work needs, such as
self-autonomy at work, meaningfulness, and decreased isolation. This argument is in line
with the Affective Model that links this style indirectly to employee performance through
affective mechanisms, and it is supported by the followers of human relations school of
management (Miller & Monge, 1986). Likert (1967) and Sashkin (1984) are among the
theorists who espouse this kind of relationship. The human relations theorists propose that
the participative management behaviour demonstrated by leaders allows subordinates to
fulfil high-order needs including self-autonomy at work, respect, self-expressions, and
equality. Miller and Monge (1986) stated that these needs lead to both the increased
satisfaction and productivity. However, they claimed that its effects on satisfaction are less
straightforward than on productivity. The effect on productivity was found stronger than its
effect on satisfaction. This model of relationship is also in line with another theoretical
model, Motivational Model that posits the perceived level of participation experienced by
employees relates to performance through internal motivation. In a similar way to the
explanation underpinning the Affective Model, increased performance is preceded by
positive work attitudes which are induced by the feeling of individual empowerment (X.
Huang, et al., 2010) To sum up, these two models view the effects of participative
management is described as indirect, mediated by the positive work attitudes experienced
by the employees in the workplace.
56
2.4.3 The direct impact of participative management on employee performance
behaviour
Participative management in this study is predicted to directly influence employee
performance behaviour which comprises contextual behaviours demonstrated by
employees in organisational context.
Participative management as a human resource empowerment process effectively
contributes to improving the employee performance behaviour in terms of three elements.
These are (1) organisational commitment, (2) quality of customer service, and (3)
employee withdrawal behaviour (turnover and absenteeism). Through empowerment,
managers are able to increase employees‟ involvement, motivation, and commitment, and
ensuring that these employees work towards organisational objectives (X. Huang, et al.,
2010; G. R. Jones & George, 2006, pp. 501-502). The psychological state of employees as
the consequence of the empowerment was found to have a great impact on performance
behaviour, especially organisational commitment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). This effect is
assumed to be more significant within the context of relationships between direct leaders
and their subordinates (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Other studies found that employees who
worked under participative management behaviour were likely to demonstrate higher
commitment to the job (Laschinger, et al., 2004; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday, 1999;
Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Employees who were lead under participative behaviour
were likely to work with people or clients in a way that demonstrated citizenship behaviour
(Eisenberger, et al., 1990; G. R. Jones & George, 2006; VanYperen, Berg, & Willering,
1999) and produced good quality services to the customers (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp,
2005; Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006). Further, the participative management system
was found to be positive in decreasing the level of turnover and absenteeism in
organisations (T.-C. Huang, 1997; Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984; Steinheider, et al.,
2006), as well as lower employee withdrawal behaviour (Angermeier, et al., 2009). Thus,
these evidence indicate that participative management have direct effects on the employee
performance behaviour (Cotton, et al., 1988; Somech & Wenderow, 2006).
The findings discussed above came from research, which were based either on Cognitive
models (Miller & Monge, 1986) or on Exchange-Based models (X. Huang, et al., 2010).
57
In such studies, the participative management style is predicted to have direct effects on
employee performance behaviour. The reasons are when the employees are involved from
the beginning in planning organisational activities (i.e. in goal setting, decision making,
and in designing the procedures or the ways how the jobs are carried out), they are likely to
have a readiness and to be confidence to carry out those jobs. This in turn leads them to
perform a higher level of performance. The general behaviour elements are affected by a
leadership process by empowering the employees as organisational members through
psychological aspects (X. Huang, et al., 2010). The employees are internally motivated, for
example, through personal rewards, understanding the meaning of their jobs, using
personal skills and self-control in undertaking their jobs. These in turn influence the
employees to work effectively and enthusiastically for attaining their organisations‟
objectives.
2.4.4 The indirect impact of participative management through employee work
attitude
This study also assumes that participative management has an indirect effect on
employees‟ work performance via employee work attitudes. Work attitude relates to
feelings about jobs and organisations. It affects how organisational members approach
their jobs (G. R. Jones & George, 2006, p. 87) and this cannot be seen (it is intangible).
Employees‟ attitude towards the job is attributed to the feelings experienced by employees.
This includes (1) self-autonomy, (2) meaningful tasks, (3) feelings of job security, and (4)
job satisfaction. Since managers who use the participative management lead people by
promoting an open communication, encouraging self direction, and maximizing the use of
human talent (Mohrman & Lawler, 1988), it is assumed that this style provides
organisations with favourable conditions where employees as organisational members
positively experience those four job attributes mentioned above. Basically, this style is
consistent with the Need Theory (Maslow, 1987), that the participative behaviour is
concerned with the efforts to fulfil human needs. Specifically, this explanation is also in
line with arguments of the scholars who have advanced the theoretical models of
participative effects: the Affective Model (Miller & Monge, 1986) and the Motivational
58
model (X. Huang, et al., 2010) which argue that participative management has
relationships with employee work attitudes.
The use of the participative style allows subordinates to experience self expression,
respect, independence, and equality (Miller & Monge, 1986). The employees are
psychologically empowered in terms of the recognition of personal competence and self
determination (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009).They gain intrinsic motivation, feeling of self-
worth (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989), self efficacy and control. The process of leadership
eliminates the sense of powerlessness for the employees (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, &
Drasgow, 2000). Work strain and stress level are minimised, this induces them to
experience less of depression in the workplace (Mackie, Holahan, & Gottlieb, 2001).
The change of the employee work attitudes to those more positive feelings is regarded as
mediating the relationship between the participative management and change of employee
performance behaviour. In other words, the effects of the participative management on
these behaviours are preceded by the change in employee work attitudes, specifically in
relation to self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job satisfaction.
Evidence in previous studies indicated that the employees who worked under participative
management style are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, experienced a healthy
climate at work, had autonomy and a sense of meaningfulness in their tasks, and felt secure
on the job (Sashkin, 1984). Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, and Brenner (2008) suggested that
the employees‟ perceptions of their work characteristics mediated the relationship between
leadership effectiveness and improving the well being of the employees at work. Overall,
such a condition results in a higher level of discipline at work and increased staff morale,
which eventually reduces personnel disputes, ensures organisation success, and leads to
improved customer satisfaction (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000).
The extent to which the effects of participative management influence employee work
attitudes (satisfaction, self-autonomy, meaningfulness, feelings of job security, etc.) was
considered by Yukl (2002) in a work based on more than 40 years of research on
participative management. Yukl (2002) claimed that the results supported the benefits of
59
participative management, although he acknowledged that sometimes the findings were
inconsistent.
A study by Jackson (1983) found that when a participative style was employed in the
process of decision making, it led to an increase in feelings of self-autonomy in
subordinates. It can also be argued that this style has positive impacts on employees‟ work
attitudes (Miah & Bird, 2007) because it creates an organisational climate where
employees may experience a feeling of meaningfulness in the tasks assigned by the
organisation (Haslam, et al., 2009; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006), a feeling of
security about their jobs (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007) and high job satisfaction (Cotton, et
al., 1988; Laschinger, et al., 2004; Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000;
Williams, 1998). Employees demonstrate positive attitudes towards the job because the
participative management model basically gives psychological support to the employees.
This is in line with the basic arguments from Sashkin (1984, p. 11) that participative
management has a positive impact on performance, productivity and employee satisfaction
because it fulfils three basic human needs: increased autonomy, meaningfulness, and
decreased isolation. As a strategy for human empowerment (Burhanuddin & Aspland,
2012, August; X. Huang, et al., 2010) through power sharing, this style has a significant
impact on employee motivation and performance (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). The basic
argument behind this position is that the participative management style is able to provide
a supportive organisational climate which is created through supportive relationships
between leaders and their followers (Laschinger, et al., 2004; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000). It
results in a higher level of performance behaviour in terms of commitment, quality of
customer services provided by staff members, and lower withdrawal behaviour at work.
The subordinates fulfil their basic needs, in a way that encourages them to work with full
dedication and achieve maximum results (Organ, et al., 2006) in accordance with
organisational objectives.
Reviewing the results highlighted in the previous studies, however, not all researchers
draw the same conclusions. Wagner (1994), for example, concluded that the average effect
of participation on performance and job satisfaction was not significant. Although some
60
studies showed significant effects, these could be due to individual perceptions from self-
report data of the same respondents. Multisource data correlations showed the contrary.
Heckscher (1995) pointed out that participative management was rarely successful in
breaking down bureaucracy, noting that teams of workers tended to isolate themselves
from their larger environment, leading to a situation where inclusion becomes exclusion.
Other studies also showed inconsistent and unsatisfactory findings. For example, Coyle-
Shapiro (1999) did not find any significant relationship between participative management
and organisational commitment.
On the other hand, Tepper et al. (2004) argued that supervisory treatment could affect the
success of the participative model. The supervisory approach probably mediated the impact
of this style on performance. Steinheider et al. (2006) also reported that representative
participation did not affect productivity, but did improve job satisfaction for staff who
served in representative capacities. Further, Nurick (1982) found that the impact of this
style could be determined by contextual factors of employees such as age, employment
level, differing position, and length of service. These researchers had different conclusions
about the effect of PM on work performance. Thus, there have been different findings
about whether the participative style effectively improves employee performance.
The different results about the impact of this management or leadership style were
probably influenced by the context or setting in which it was applied. For example, Cotton
et al. (1988) showed that in a short-term setting, the participative style did not have a
strong impact on job satisfaction or productivity, although informal participation and
employee ownership were influenced positively (Steinheider, et al., 2006). Similarly,
several studies which reported inconsistent findings about the use of participative
management style, were being measured in different contexts and cultures (Cotton, et al.,
1988; T.-C. Huang, 1997; Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002). Further, the different
outcomes for this management style could be affected by the different roles of participants
in the study, for example when the research used perceptions from participants who had
different job levels or positions. Thus some researchers (X. Huang, et al., 2010; Tuuli &
Rowlinson, 2009) have suggested that the different responses about the impact of
61
participative management on employee performance might occur as a result of participants
basing their behaviour or personal preferences on previous job experiences.
Furthermore, Sashkin (1984) suggested that some research did not successfully confirm the
benefits of participative management because of a failure in interpreting the research
findings, not in the management process itself. A lack of clarity in explaining what
constituted participative management led to negative findings or mixed reviews which
could have been due to the researchers‟ particular bias. Sashkin (1984) also considered that
negative findings were often caused by issues of proper implementation and problems in
integrating research results from many different studies. A study which requires merging
data from various sources, needs to use methods which ensure high levels of accuracy, in
order to obtain comprehensive and unbiased results.
While the concept of participative management has been studied exhaustively over the
years (Steinheider, et al., 2006) in the United States (Angermeier, et al., 2009), its impact
on the governance of a university as a public organisation, is relatively unexplored,
especially for non-academic staff in Indonesian universities. In addition, not many earlier
studies have focussed on the impact of this management style on employee level outcomes
(Angermeier, et al., 2009). Most previous research has been centred on line-officers or
executives, with little research involving lower level employees.
Other research has not clearly distinguished participative management as a causal variable
and employee performance and attitude as outcome variables, with other factors as
intervening mediators. As a result, in certain findings for example, it has been reported that
participative management has positive impacts on commitment (employee performance)
and organisational productivity (organisational performance). A meta-analytic review
made by Miller and Monge (1986) found employees in participative climate organisations
were experiencing both higher job satisfaction and productivity at work, although this
effect was stronger on satisfaction than on productivity. Previous studies had not clearly
showed how organisational members demonstrated both of these outcomes. For this study,
research model was designed to investigate how the participative management system, or
62
style, affected employee performance. Whether it had direct, or, indirect effects via
employee work attitudes, on performance needed to be tested, by examining the multiple
relationships among the research variables. Conclusions could then be drawn accurately
through interpreting the trend of the relationships.
2.4.5 Moderating effects of contingency factors
The overall results in some studies discussed above indicate that participative management
has significant contributions to the improvement of organisational effectiveness in terms of
the increased employee performance behaviour and employee work attitudes. However, it
has been argued that the effectiveness of this style in enhancing organisational
effectiveness depends on certain conditions (Fiedler, 1981). Scholars who support the
Contingency Theory in leadership studies (Fiedler, 1981; Miller & Monge, 1986)
emphasise the role of contingency factors, which may strengthen or weaken the effects of
this participative style. Contingency factors relate to the context in which an organisation
operates (G. R. Jones & George, 2006). They may reflect the characteristics of
organisations as influenced by environmental factors. Contingency factors are sometimes
called situational or external factors (Fiedler, 1981) which impact on organisations. Most
scholars and practitioners believe that these influence the success of a model management
applied in institutions (Yukl, 2002).
The role of the situational factors in management practices has been examined. For
example, some research has indicated that not many managers who successfully lead a
particular organisation have been able to achieve the same success when they are assigned
to other institutions, even when in similar areas (G. R. Jones & George, 2006). In another
scenario, when managers were appointed to organise projects that differed from their
previous experiences, they were often not able to gain organisational effectiveness, at least
in the short term. To pursue effective management within such a situation, Sashkin (1984)
suggested that managers had no choice but to slowly prepare an organisational climate that
was acceptable to subordinates, in order for them to engage eagerly and effectively in
organisational activities. To prepare such a climate, leaders or managers needed to identify
63
the factors that potentially influenced the organisational performance. These factors, he
claimed, were related to individual, organisational, and environmental elements.
Individual factors (characteristics) can also be seen to moderate the effects of management
and leadership on work motivation and productivity. Such factors include gender, age,
education, employment level, and length of service of the employee. Depending on what
factors characterise them as individuals, employees are assumed to perceive and respond to
management practices differently (Ferreira & Hill, 2008).
Situational leadership theories have generally proposed individual characteristics as the
determinant factors in the effectiveness of management and leadership. Path-goal theory,
for instance, clearly identified certain subordinate characteristics, as well as personality
traits, skills, abilities, and needs, which influenced employees‟ perceptions about their
experience of participative management (Bartol, et al., 2002). Following situational
leadership theory, many studies have linked individual factors with the management
effectiveness and employee performance behaviour (Champoux, 2003; Gibson, et al.,
2006). Kim (2002), Rodwell, Kienzle, and Shadur (1998), and Tuuli and Rowlinson
(2009), for example, found that individual characteristics, especially age of employees, had
some influence on their perceptions of participative management and their patterns of
behaviour. Older employees tended to have positive attitudes towards their job, hence
perceive a higher level of participation in the workplace. This probably reflected the way
leaders treated the older or senior employees. Leaders tended to behave differently
depending on the chronology of the age of employees (Shore, Cleveland, & Goldberg,
2003). Age stereotyping seemed to influence the way leaders managed their subordinates
(Rosen & Jerdec, 1976). They were more confident about giving senior staff power and
important jobs. This resulted in older staff members experiencing a more participative
climate.
Other studies found that the individual factor of age had associations with performance.
Cotton and Tuttle (1986), for instance, found that older employees tended to perceive a
higher level of manager performance than young employees did. Specifically, it negatively
64
related to the levels of absenteeism and turnover. One possible explanation for this is that
older employees were more likely to have steady and better positions, a situation which
strengthened their commitment to helping their organisation to be successful. Although
McEvoy (1989), in his review of previous studies, concluded that in general age and
employee performance were unrelated. However, in some cases, especially for very young
employees, he found that the age factor had a consistent and positive relationship. Gellert
and Schalk (2012) also found the effect of age on perceived work attitude. They explained
that that older employees experienced better exchange-relationships with their superiors
because they had enough skills to communicate with these people. This possibly
contributed to high levels of these employees‟ performance behaviour at work.
Furthermore, the differing positions, at managerial or non-managerial employment levels,
potentially influence individuals‟ perceptions about their job, and their motivation. This
factor, in turn, influences the effectiveness of participative management. Depending on
what factors characterise the situation (Dorfman & House, 2004; House & Mitchell, 1974),
organisational members at different job levels, such as leader and employee, may each
demonstrate performance differently from what the other expects (Yukl, 2002). Jones and
George (2006) and Vilkinas and West (2011) also highlighted this as a factor that could
possibly influence individual perceptions about organisational activities and moderate the
effect of participative management. To ensure the effectiveness of this participative
management, leaders must employ strategies which take account of the differing status and
work levels of employees.
Organisational factors are another important influence on the effectiveness of leadership as
through participative management style (Greenberg & Baron, 2000; T.-C. Huang & Hsiao,
2007; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000). Both individual perceptions about work environment and
preference for management styles employed in the workplace are affected by
organisational factors. This in turn influences individual motivation and performance
behaviour. Contextual factors of organisations include its history, type or status
(private/government) and size (Vaccaro, Jansen, Bosch, & Volberda, 2012); the nature of
the jobs assigned to employees (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and the organisation‟s culture
65
(Bryman, 2007; Ferreira & Hill, 2008; Lok & Crawford, 2004; Wallach, 1983). A few
studies have found that structural factors such as size, structure, technology (Reimann
(1975), age or history of organisation (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009) and status as private or
government (Zhang, et al., 2011) were not strongly related with the perceived
organisational effectiveness. Other studies found that the factors such as the age of
organisations (T.-C. Huang, 1997; Schlevogt, 2001), organisational status (Hooijberg &
Choi, 2001; Pereira & Osburn, 2007; Zeffane, 1994), and organisational size (Morris &
Bloom, 2002; Pelled & Hill, 1997; Porter & Steers, 1973) did have relationships with
participative management effectiveness, and especially employee performance behaviour.
Particularly in the university sector, the differing situational characteristics, such as the
status of institutions, can become important factors that influence employee‟s perceptions
about managerial behaviour and their willingness to contribute to organisational
performance (Welch, 2007). The implementation of participative management is thus more
likely to be successful when leaders take account of these factors in managing employees.
Situational leadership theories suggest that the contextual factors need to be considered
because they influence how effectively leadership engages with people in differing
situations. For example, according to path-goal theory, these factors determine the
effectiveness of leaders in influencing people, as well as the way leaders need to behave to
improve work motivation (Yukl, 2002). Consequently, a particular leadership style could
be effective in a situation, where the number of staff or the organisation is small, but
ineffective when applied to a large organisation (Vaccaro, et al., 2012). In other words,
contingency factors help to explain why the outcomes of participative management vary
from one organisation to another (Cotton, et al., 1988; Somech & Wenderow, 2006;
Zeffane, 1994). Thus, leaders should be familiar with these factors and take them into
account to ensure the effectiveness of management and leadership practice (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980; Vaccaro, et al., 2012).
Job characteristics are another part of the organisational factors, which determine the
effectiveness of management. Managers may differ in providing job specifications for
organisational members. Thus, for jobs in an assembly-line system requiring separate work
packages accomplished in each unit of the main organisation, it would not be effective if
66
all line employees were involved in decision making (Sashkin, 1984). The participative
approach would probably be more effective if it involved representatives with broad
knowledge of the project, or coordinators of each unit within the organisation. This is
because strategic decisions for an organisation require only key people who broadly
comprehend the overall organisational policy and aims. However, when participative
management is applied in an “interacting work team” (Sashkin, 1984, p. 9), such as,
instructional and accounting units within the university structure, the participation of all
organisational members is considered suitable or desirable.
Furthermore, Sashkin (1984) cited cultural or organisational climate as one of the
organisational factors that could determine the success or failure of management techniques,
such as the participative approach. Many studies relate the effectiveness of management to
the particular organisational culture in which it operates (Bass, 1997). The specific norms,
values, and expectations of the workplace culture underpin both leadership behaviour and
followers‟ performance (Hofstede, 1980; Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, & Coulter, 2006).
Previous studies have shown these elements to be antecedents to preferred leader behaviours
(Dorfman & House, 2004), as well as influencing the way the leadership process was carried
out (Wallach, 1983), and its effects, as perceived by subordinates (Ferreira & Hill, 2008).
Hofstede (1980) defined culture in terms of the collective mental programming of people in
particular environment. It may emerge in a tribal group, a geographical region, a national
minority, or a nation. People within these groups share values which become crystallised in
institutions such as the family, educational structures, religious organisations, government,
and associations. These reflect common beliefs that derive from the common culture. It is
acknowledged in many cross-cultural studies that differing national cultures potentially
influence how leaders behave towards and are perceived by their followers (Lok &
Crawford, 2004).
Although organisations are influenced by the values embedded the wider society in which
they are set, the focus of culture in this study are the specific forms of culture which
characterise organisations as structured entities. Robbins et al. (2006) defines organisational
67
culture as system of shared meaning and beliefs held by organisational members that affect
to a large degree, how they act. In this way, organisational culture can influence the way
people think, make decisions, feel and act, and perceive management behaviours (Lok &
Crawford, 2004). Wallach (1983) claimed that there were three types of organisational
cultures: bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive which can be classified in different
regions, societies, and ethnic or religious groups. Each of these organisational cultures has a
different set of norms, values and expectations in the context of the workplace. However,
according to Wallach (1983), the three types of organisational cultures are not mutually
exclusive. Organisations do not fit a particular categorical mould to perfection. Rather, to
varying degrees, the flavour of an organisation is be a combination of all three categories
(Wallach, 1983). The effectiveness of participative management system is contingent on this
organisational cultural context (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Yukl, 2002). Leaders or managers,
thus, must comprehend this phenomenon and know how to make use of it to ensure their
leadership engages employees effectively (Yukl, 2002).
Since the investigation does not include the broad elements of cultures mentioned above, this
investigation did not focus on the influence of Indonesian national culture or the regional
culture of the city of Malang, because these were elements common to all six university sites
investigated.
The third part of contingency factors relates to wider environmental factors. These include,
for example, the global challenge as a consequence of technological advances, the changes
in regulations that are initiated by governments and competition among organisations
across nations. Sashkin (1984) described the way organisations were being challenged by
intense competition. To deal with this issue, the group participation model was assumed to
be the most suitable, as opposed to autocratic or laissez-faire models. In order to be able to
counter the global organisational issues, organisations require a power and strategy that
could be obtained by making the best use of all the various organisational resources.
Participative management is considered to be able to help an organisation survive, as
global challenges continue to flare up (Key, 2000). This is because it can maximise the use
68
of organisational resources, including the various potential, efforts, talents and abilities of
employees.
The discussion of the contingency factors above indicates that these are multi dimensional
influences which determine the outcomes of participative management in organisations
(Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). The effectiveness of the approach, which manages
people at work, is highly dependent on the situational factors that characterise the
organisation concerned.
However, Sashkin (1984) pointed out that there were not many studies that incorporated
the contingency factors to their investigation of the effects of participative management.
The ignoring of these factors has led to negative results about the outcomes of the
participative management style. Based on 50 years of research, Sashkin (1984) argued that
the lack of attention to contingency factors was one of the causes for the failure of
participative management practice. He highlighted this as the main reason for contradictory
results on the impact of the participative management on employee performance. The
inconsistent results could also have been influenced by different forms of management
interventions, a range of organisational factors (T.-C. Huang, 1997; Kim, 2002; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Zeffane, 1994), as well as the research methods used (Miller & Monge,
1986). In contrast, Likert (1967) and Yukl (2002) claimed that the main reason for these
unsatisfactory results was weak methodological approaches.
Sashkin (1984) also suggested that researchers needed to consider contingency factors in
order to obtain accurate and unbiased conclusions about their research findings, especially
in assessing the effectiveness of the participative management model. He proposed that
three parameters needed to be considered in examining the effects of the participative
management and its implementation. These were psychological, organisational, and
environmental factors.
Thus, in order to examine the extent to which the contingency factors influenced the
effectiveness of the participative management model, the current study incorporated an
69
investigation of contingency factors in examining the effects of the participative
management style on employee performance. However, the focus of this investigation was
limited to organisational and individual factors.
2.5 Summary
Participative management, which is linked to democratic styles of leadership is defined as
the process of management applied by a manager or leader to create a situation where
subordinates can contribute actively at work to their organisation. Initially, this
management system was introduced by Likert (1967) and named as “System 4”
management, but it has also been described as power sharing, employee involvement,
influence-sharing, empowerment and partnership. The paradigm of participative
management is in line with other leadership approaches such as parallel, distributed,
transformational, servant, and authentic leadership. Leaders who apply this management
system involve their subordinates in setting goals, making decisions, implementing
organisational changes and solving problems encountered at the organisational level.
Employee performance becomes a part of the criteria for measuring organisational
effectiveness. It can be observed in the extent to which employees contribute to the internal
process, resource acquisition, personnel satisfaction and goal accomplishment of the
institution. Some previous studies demonstrated that the participative management system
has significant direct impact on employee work behaviour and performance at work.
Several other studies have shown only small degree of influence but a much larger indirect
influence mediated by employee work attitudes. In addition, there are a number of
contingency factors that may influence the success or failure of participative management
system being applied in a given organisation. These include environmental, organisational,
and individual factors. Where these situational factors have been taken into account,
research findings on organisational behaviour have shown that participative management is
able to contribute to the success of an organisation's effectiveness.
70
To investigate participative management and employee performance behaviour in
Indonesian universities in Malang, this study developed a research model that accounted
for the variables or factors of the participative management system, leader and employee
performance behaviour, employee work attitudes, as well as individual and organisational
contingency factors discussed. The development of this participative management
framework and research model is presented in Chapter Three.
71
Chapter Three
Participative Management Framework and Research Model
3.1 Introduction
This chapter proposes a theoretical framework focusing on participative management and
its relationships with employee performance behaviour in the university context. Some
theories of leadership are discussed as sources to build the research model. These include
the Likert participative management system, the Job Characteristics Model, Fiedler‟s
Contingency Model, and House‟s Path Goal Theory. There are a number of leadership
theories. However, this study is not aimed at explaining the theories in depth, or to test the
truths of certain theories. Instead, the focus is on discussing some theoretical elements that
relate to the research variables. These become starting points in building the research
model. These theories are highlighted in this study because they provide comprehensive,
broad and well known concepts and practices in the context of managerial behaviour
(Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002).
The management framework relates specifically to the participative management system
which could be implemented by heads of administrative divisions through managerial
dimensions (leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal
setting, controlling) within the hierarchical structure of university governance in Indonesia.
The employee work attitudes and situational factors are described to inform how they
influence the effectiveness of the management style used in the organisation. The critical
analysis of these elements is necessary in order to develop the research model.
Job characteristics theory is intended as a reference guide to develop research variables
related to the aspects of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job
satisfaction. These are considered potentially as factors for the effectiveness of this
management style. Additionally, situational theory is used as a reference to explore and
develop individual and organisational factors as situational variables. This study does not
72
exclude the possibility that the effectiveness of participative management depend on these
factors, which prevail in the organisation.
3.2 The Use of Participative Management Style in University
Organisations
Managers or leaders may use the participative management system to manage people in
most areas of organisational activities. Sashkin (1984) suggested that there are four broad
activities where employees can participate. Firstly, managers may motivate employees to
contribute their inputs to the goal setting and invite them to use the established goals as the
direction for their efforts to attain high organisational performance. Secondly, managers
may ask employees to participate in their decision-making. The employees are encouraged
to contribute their ideas to the exploration of alternative courses of action in order to
perform organisational activities. Thirdly, employees may be involved in solving
problems, a process that includes the definition of job related issues and the exploration of
alternative solutions to deal with the issues. Fourthly, the employees may be invited to
participate in the activities that centre on specific change issues. According to Sashkin
(1984), employees may be involved in any or all of these four areas at one time.
How are employees involved in the participative process? Sashkin (1984) suggested that
there are three primary methods that could be applied to the four above areas. Firstly,
employees may participate as individuals. Managers encourage the employees to make
their own decisions or to set their own goals. Secondly, the employees may participate as a
part of manager-employee pair, or as a co-manager. Thirdly, employees may participate as
group members, with a manager and other co-workers.
In some cases, the four areas and the three methods may be difficult to apply. However, for
many managers they may seem more pragmatic in the sense that they are commonly
applicable in the managerial process of most organisations.
Following Likert‟s profile of organisation described in the literature review, non-academic
leaders at a university can implement the participative management style in their
workplace. For the purpose of this study, the group of leaders were heads of bureaus, heads
73
of administrative divisions or units in a university organisation. They had managerial roles,
and could employ this type of management to operate the organisational activities
collaboratively, involving employees through the following processes:
Leading with full confidence and trust in subordinates, with manager eliciting ideas and
opinions from the group members and adopting them effectively.
Motivating staff through group participation in setting goals, methods, and appraising
work performance.
Communicating with subordinates mutually, up and down.
Interacting with subordinates both individually and in groups extensively, developing
open relations, being cooperative and trusting each other.
Inviting all organisation members to participate in decision-making processes, and use
accurate information as input in the process.
Involving all the subordinates intensely in goal settings.
Controlling and reviewing work progress by involving all units and group members.
(Likert, 1967)
The implementation of the participative management through those dimensions aimed to
create an organisational climate that are assumed to have positive consequences upon the
employee work attitudes and performance behaviour at work as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
The formation of this figure is based on the principles and characteristics of participative
management (Likert, 1967) that have been discussed in Chapter Two. This is also
supported by the activities and the methods how this management style to be implemented
in organisations as suggested by Sashkin (1984) discussed in this section The influence of
participative management on work attitudes could be examined through employees‟ work
attitudes towards their jobs. These related to feelings of self-autonomy, the carrying out of
meaningful tasks, the feelings of job security, and job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham,
1980). The effect on employee performance could be investigated through behaviour
demonstrated at work, such as organisational commitment, quality of customer service
provided, the levels of employee absenteeism and turnover intentions or withdrawal
behaviour within a given period of time (Champoux, 2003; Gibson, et al., 2006; G. R.
74
Jones & George, 2006; Yukl, 2002). All these variables of employee attitude and
performance behaviour are discussed in detail in other sections of this conceptual
framework.
Figure 3.1. The use of participative management style in improving employee performance
in university
Administrative leaders in this figure refer to those in positions of Head of Bureau, Head of
Division, and Head of Subdivision within the hierarchical administrative structure of
universities in Indonesia (Government of the Republic of Indonesia, 1999; UNESCO,
2006). Employees are the subordinates who have positions as support staff including for
example technicians, laboratory staff, librarians, clerks, caretakers, and cleaners. Their jobs
typically relate to clerical, reception tasks, and operational duties in certain areas as well as
finance, personnel management, facility management, academic administration, and
general administration (Bush & Middlewood, 2005).
For the purpose of this study, an example of the organisational structure of the university in
Indonesia is presented in Figure 3.2. Positions of administrative leaders, especially the
Heads of Division, and employees (shown in the pattern backgrounds in Figure 3.2) can be
found in the general structure of the university as follows. There is more than one head of
division within the central office of the university or under the bureau hierarchy. Faculty
and other units usually have only one division that functions as an Administrative Division,
and these are led by the Head of Administrative Division. Within these divisions, all
support staff (employees) are directly assigned to and controlled by Heads of Divisions and
Subdivisions.
75
Figure 3.2. General organisational structure at university and faculty level
Source: UM (2010); UB (2008); UNESCO (2006).
76
In the current study, only the non-academic leaders who have positions as Heads of
Divisions are included in the investigation. The selection of manager respondents was
limited to this position because they mostly have direct contact with employees, and the
number of personnel within a division as an organisational unit were sufficient for the
investigation.
The employees in the structure of the Indonesian university are classified into four levels
(or ranks) of personnel administration: Level I (a, b, c, d), Level II (a, b, c, d), Level III (a,
b, c, d), and Level IV (a, b, c, d, e) (Government of the Republic of Indonesia, 1974, 2000).
This employment level system is also applied to the non-academic leaders who have
positions as Heads of Bureau and Heads of Division.
3.3 Participative Management and its Relationships with Employee
Performance Behaviour
Based on other studies and his own research, Likert (1967) concluded that there was
enough consistency in the findings to indicate that participative management, particularly
in its relations with outcome variables, had wide applicability in organisational contexts.
The other variables include situational factors, such as environmental, individual, and
organisational factors that can influence the effectiveness of a management system or style.
However, the relationships among those variables are not easy to predict because they also
depend on the types or characteristics of human enterprises that may apply to such a
model. To deal with this dynamic situation, Likert (1967) proposed a conceptual
framework that has been used as a guide to analyse the problems faced in the operation of
management. The directions of the variables visualised in the diagram (Figure 3.3) pointed
to key places where organisational leaders could make changes or improvements on
managerial behaviour.
As shown in Figure 3.3, management system 4 (participative style) yields intervening
variables (portrayed by arrow 1), such as the favourable attitudes demonstrated by
employees towards superiors in terms of high confidence and trust, high reciprocal
77
influence, excellent communication, high loyalty, which in turn, leads to low absence and
turnover (arrow 6).
Figure 3.3. Conceptual framework of relationships between management systems and
employee performance behaviour
Source: Likert (1967, p. 137)
In contrast, system 1 (autocratic style) as shown by arrow 4 results in poor performance of
employees, such as low motivation in cooperative working, high absence and turnover, low
peer performance goals, and little confidence and trust. Such a style eventually produces
low organisational productivity.
Likert‟s conceptual framework of the relationships between participative management and
employee performance (Likert, 1967) is supported by the theory of participative
management as described by Sashkin (1984). These form the conceptual framing of this
study. How the participative management style relates to the increased organisational
effectiveness, especially employee performance is shown in Figure 3.4.
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
78
Figure 3.4. The model of how participative management works in improving
performance and productivity
Source: Sashkin (1984, p. 12).
As with the theoretical framework proposed by Likert (1967), this style (Figure 3.4) shows
how the implementation of participative management system in managing people at work
can lead to increased staff performance and organisational productivity. The
implementation of such a system can be observed through management functions that are
carried out by a manager in empowering subordinates to accomplish significant tasks,
ranging from the works of planning up to the controlling process (Laschinger, et al., 2004;
Ugboro, 2006). It may involve full participation of employees in goal setting, decision-
making, problem solving, and organisational changes. The first consequence of this
managerial style directly leads the employees to experience self-autonomy at work and
accomplish meaningful tasks. The experience of autonomy of work contributes to the
increased organisational commitment, feeling of security at work, and encourages
“innovation for the new and different” (Drucker, 2006). The experience of task
significance provides employees with a challenge to be innovative, and satisfied with the
79
job. These positive work attitudes, then lead to the attainment of high levels of employees‟
performance and productivity as the end or outcome variable. Huang (1997) depicted the
behavioural outcome (performance) in terms of the rates of attendance and turnover, and
the mobility levels. The productivity or achievement related to revenue growth rate,
product value, and profit value earned by an organisation.
3.4 Mediating Factor of Employee Work Attitudes on the Effectiveness of
Participative Management
Based on the findings discussed in the previous chapter, this study assumes that the effects
of participative management are achieved through the fulfilment of employee work
attitudes (EWA) in the workplace. Somech and Wenderow (2006), for example, argued
that the importance of participative management lies in empowering subordinates by
motivating them to achieve higher involvement in accomplishing their duties, which in
turn increases organisation productivity. A number of studies reported by Ugboro (2006)
found that managerial behaviour can cause employees to experience high levels of stress,
fear, anxiety, job insecurity, anger, and negative feelings. This type of organisational
climate elicits negative emotional reactions that lead employees to leave jobs, causing high
turnover, which compromises members of the whole organisation (Sashkin, 1984). The
discussion of the link between participative management and employee performance
behaviour revealed that the influence of the participative style on this performance is
mediated by the change of employee work attitudes. This management style is advocated
as a strategic way to influence the employees to accomplish task objectives through the
establishment of conditions that foster positive work attitudes, such as self efficacy and
mutual interactions and trust among the staff (Ugboro, 2006). Thus, it is argued in this
study that the participative style influences employee performance behaviour through the
creation of positive employee work attitudes (EWA) towards their job through
experiencing self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job
satisfaction. To provide a conceptual explanation of these EWA variables, this study
highlights the Job Characteristics Model proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1980).
80
3.4.1 The job characteristics model
Job characteristics theory was initially developed by Turner, Paul and Lawrence cited in
Hackman and Oldham (1980). It examined the job attributes and employee performance
behaviour at work. The basic concept underpinning this theory is that providing jobs with
conditions/attributes, such as allowing employees to experience self-autonomy, meaningful
tasks, feelings of job security, and high job satisfaction, leads to the attainment of higher
work performance behaviour. In line with Yukl (2002), the components of the Job
Characteristics Model include job designs, work climate, and the quality of human
relationships as part of the organisational factors which have an impact on the
effectiveness of the participative management system in improving performance and
productivity. In following this theory, organisations should design jobs appropriately and
distribute them to the right organisational members. The jobs need to be organised under
clearly defined conditions, where employees can find psychological benefits (Bond,
Flaxman, & Bunce, 2008) such as improved self-image, as well as the opportunity to
experience satisfactory on-the-job achievements. Under these conditions, managers can
effectively improve employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, the quality of customer service, and lower withdrawal behaviour. In the end,
the employees are able to provide a maximum contribution to the organisation‟s success.
3.4.2 Job characteristics and their association with employee performance behaviour
Hackman and Oldham (1980) suggested there were five core characteristics of any job that
could have relationships with employee performance behaviour in the organisational
context. These were: (1) skill variety, (2) task identity, (3) task significance, (4) autonomy,
and (5) job feedback. Skill variety refers to various specific skills required to perform
certain jobs within the organisation. Task identity describes the degree to which an
employee experiences the completion of a “whole and identifiable piece of work”
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 78) i.e. doing a job from the beginning to the end, and
seeing the outcome. Task significance means the degree to which an employee experiences
the completion of meaningful tasks that have a substantial impact on other people, in or
outside the organisation. Autonomy implies that working at a job provides employees with
81
substantial independence, self- direction in scheduling work and deciding on standards to
carry out the specified tasks. The final component is job feedback that relates to the extent
to which staff members understand their progress and effectiveness of the tasks they have
completed. Both scholars argued that all these components had specific relationships or
impacts on job performance that could be demonstrated by organisational members in the
work place. Furthermore, they assumed that the impact of these job characteristics on this
performance was mediated by situational factors, such as education or knowledge and
skills, individual growth needs, the feeling of substantial satisfaction with the work
environment, as well as salary, supervision practice, and job security. However, the
strengths of the effects of these situational factors needed to be assessed. In the current
study, this was carried out by incorporating situational factors in the investigation of the
relationships between participative management, employee work attitudes and employee
performance.
In summary, the critique of these various theoretical frameworks has contributed to the
establishment of the proposed conceptual model of this study. Participative management
style, as an independent variable, is predicted to influence work attitudes and the
performance behaviour of the employees as dependent variables. There are two kinds of
relationships among these variables: (1) the participative management style has direct
impact on employee performance behaviour, and (2) the impact of participative
management is mediated by employee experience or what is called work attitudes in this
study. How these variables relate to each other and the direction of the relationships are
illustrated in Figure 3.5 as follows.
Figure 3.5. Relationships between participative management, employee work attitude and
performance behaviour
82
As depicted in the figure, it is proposed that the participative management style has
probably direct and indirect impacts on employee performance. The indicators of employee
experience or work attitudes and employee performance are explained in the next sections.
3.4.3 Indicators of employee work attitude and employee performance behaviour
With regard to the components of performance behaviour and job characteristics discussed
above, the indicators that relate to the employee performance behaviour and employee
work attitudes are described in detail thoroughly in the following sections. This is
important in order to provide a guideline for the investigation of the relationships between
participative management as the independent variable, and other variables assumed to be
the dependent variables.
Indicators of employee work attitudes
Indicators of work attitudes have to be identified to enable this study to examine the effects
of the participative management on this work attitudes variable. These were developed
based on the conceptual framework of the relationships between participative management
and other variables (performance behaviour and work attitude) that has been discussed
previously. The development of the indicators is also relevant to the conceptual model of
the relationships between job characteristics and performance proposed by Hackman and
Oldham (1980) as discussed earlier. The effects of the participative management on
employees‟ performance behaviour are assumed to be mediated by other factors, operating
as intervening variables which can influence an organisational atmosphere. Four factors or
elements of work attitudes are included: self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job
security, and job satisfaction.
Leaders need to create a working atmosphere where employees may experience positive
work attitudes based on these four factors. Unless the employees have positive experience
on those four elements, the participative management system is unlikely to improve their
performance behaviour. In other words, these factors are assumed to become important
factors for the success of the implementation of the participative management style in
organisations. Therefore, these variables can appropriately be treated as mediators of the
83
participative style in increasing employee performance. As shown in the hypothesised
research model (Figure 3.7), these indicators served as the part of the variables under
study.
Self-autonomy
Self-autonomy relates to the extent of the independence experienced by employees in
performing their jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Many studies have reached the
conclusion that when employees were encouraged to take responsibilities (i.e. allow
employees to determine operational procedures, methods, schedules, make decisions, and
carry out their jobs with substantial independence), they perform better and achieve high
performance goals (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Spector, 1986). Consistent with the
general theoretical framework provided by social identity and self-categorization theories,
a key reason for this is that when goals are participatively set and not imposed, their
attainment is more likely to provide opportunities for collective self-actualization and self-
improvement. As a result, goals are more likely to be accepted and internalized (Haslam, et
al., 2009; Rank, et al., 2007). This supports the idea of participative management designing
organisational autonomy to increase employee performance.
The participative management style encourages the involvement of employees and in turn
contributes to better performance of those working in the group. To design a favourable
organisational environment, managers need to consider the individual characteristics,
including values, and ethics brought by employees, as well as organisational contingency
factors, such as leadership culture, work design, and the extent of management‟s trust in
the employees (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992). The reasons are that management effectiveness
is determined by these factors. A management model can utilise the potential of
subordinates, if these individual factors are well considered. This is in line with social
identity and self-categorization principles, which has suggested that organisational leaders
using participative approaches of management need to provide opportunities for collective
self-actualization and self-enhancement, as the means of increasing organisational
performance (Haslam, et al., 2009).
84
Meaningful tasks
The participative management model used in this study also assumes that managers
provide conditions where subordinates can experience positive feelings, as central to their
jobs. Ugboro (2006) defines meaningfulness as employee recognising the value of task
goals when accomplishing certain jobs. Since participative management is characterised as
empowering people to do important jobs, employees who work under this type of
management experience the feeling of meaningfulness in relation to the tasks assigned by
the organisation (Haslam, et al., 2009). It then, increases the employee performance to
accomplish the organisational objectives (Nielsen, Yarker, Brenner, Randall, & Borg,
2008).
Feelings of job security
Feelings of job security refers to a sense of stability and safety within a work environment
that is experienced by employees. It is acknowledged by many authors and researchers as
an antecedent variable to job satisfaction and productivity (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992; Yukl,
2002). To what extent the participative management is mediated by this variable needs to
be investigated further, because some evidence shows other factors or variables that
contribute to job satisfaction and organisational commitment (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao,
2007). Hence this needs to be tested alongside other determinant research variables
proposed in this study.
Job satisfaction
Currently, job satisfaction is perceived as an area of organisational challenge around the
globe. It has been studied both as an outcome and as antecedent variable to certain
individual work attitudes. Bush and Middlewood (2005) defined job satisfaction as an
internal state or attitude that is experienced by an employee on the current job. This
definition suggests that job satisfaction closely relates to motivation, because the fulfilment
of this human need for the employee contributes to satisfaction at work. In terms of the
outcome variable, Nguni et al. (2006) defined job satisfaction as a positive emotion
experienced by subordinates when outcomes were valued in the workplace. Most empirical
85
studies in organisational contexts, including educational settings, have shown that
leadership behaviour was consistently interrelated with job satisfaction experienced by
both managers and employees. Employees reported higher satisfaction in organisations
where leaders shared information, used open communication and interaction, and
empowered the whole staff to perform key roles (Nguni, et al., 2006; Yukl, 2002).
Other studies on organisational behaviour have demonstrated significant correlations
between participative management and mental health and job satisfaction (Kim, 2002;
Spector, 1986). Managerial behaviour which demonstrated a high consideration of human
factors (Nguni, et al., 2006) helped to ensure that employees fulfilled their individual needs
(Maslow, 1987). Consequently, this style had greater impact on job satisfaction than
productivity at work (Pereira & Osburn, 2007). An analytical review by Miller and Monge
(1986) supports such relationship. Thus, this is consonant with the theoretical framework
developed in this study that the experience of the employees who work in a participative
climate is highly related to the experience of job satisfaction.
It has been argued that job satisfaction is an antecedent of employee commitment. In their
literature review of a study, Ugboro and Obeng (2000) reported a significant relationship
between job satisfaction and job performance. However, such a relation was assumed to be
mediated by other organisational factors which made people accomplish certain tasks
effectively. Higher employee performance can be achieved when employees have full
commitment to the task. Nguni et al. (2006) argued that employees who experienced
positive emotional feelings about their job were motivated to work harder and showed high
loyalty to their enterprise. It suggested that most researchers perceived job satisfaction as a
determinant factor, or variable, to organisational commitment, although there was no final
conclusion in the research on the causal relationships between these variables.
The evidence that job satisfaction influences employee performance contributes to the
argument that the impact of management on employee performance is influenced by
certain conditions related to the way managers conduct managerial functions (Mackie, et
al., 2001; Somech & Wenderow, 2006). These conditions could include the degree of job
86
satisfaction experienced by employees. Other job factors (self-autonomy, meaningfulness
of tasks, job security, decision domains, and leader-member relations) also influenced the
effectiveness of the management. In other words, the success of the participative
management in influencing employee performance possibly be mediated by these.
Other evidence regarding the impact of a participative management system on job
satisfaction has not been consistent, and would suggest a nonlinear relationship, contingent
on other individual and situational variables (Kim, 2002). Ugboro and Obeng (2000), for
instance reported some controversial results concerning participative management and
employee performance. These results indicated some researchers failed to prove a
significant relationship between employee empowerment and performance. Although the
two variables were related to each other, it was not very strong (Yukl, 2002). Likert (1967)
acknowledged there were some different findings on the relationships between the use of
management styles and employee performance. These could be caused by individual
factors, such as individual values, expectations, and skills that affect employee perceptions
concerning manager behaviour and the way to respond to it.
Organisational factors have also been assumed to influence the causal relationship between
the system of management and organisation performance. These could include technical
factors, inaccurate reports of managerial performance, timing of performance appraisal,
and changing leadership style. Some organisational factors may also determine the
relationships. These include department size, the scope of work done, and the level of
technology used in the organisation. Further, the manager‟s capacity to communicate with
subordinates could become a particular organisational factor that influenced the
effectiveness of the management system implemented in the workplace. It is clear that
managers in any organisation must improve job design and apply appropriate styles of
management to promote employee satisfaction (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007).
Indicators of employee performance behaviour
In assessing how the participative management system contributes to the improvement of
employee performance behaviour, this study examined the following behaviour facets as
87
indicators: organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and withdrawal
behaviour. As with the development of the work attitude indicators, the choice of
indicators for the employee performance behaviour was based on the conceptual
framework of the relationships between the participative management and other variables
and its associations with job characteristics in organisations. These factors, were treated as
variables and included in the hypothesised research model of the study (Figure 3.7).
Organisational commitment
Organisational commitment represents the desire of an employee to stay attached to a
specified job (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976). The relations
between participative management and organisational commitment were found in a study
by Lok and Crawford (2004). These authors demonstrated a strong influence of this
management model upon employee loyalty at work, and there were no significant
differences among respondents. Employee perceptions on job characteristics were found as
the strongest factor shaping higher commitment shown by subordinates in performing
organisational duties (Dubin, Champoux, & Porter, 1975). This sort of commitment can be
created when managers employ a participative management system that initially provides
favourable job designs for instance in terms of workload, organisational structure, a
rewards system, compensation, and controlling feedback. This model, it is argued, is
accepted voluntarily by the whole members of an organisation (Rank, et al., 2007; Tella, et
al., 2007; Ugboro, 2006). Some supportive evidence was also reported by Bass (1990)
who claimed that many behavioural science theorists had observed that human resources
empowerment, initiated by leader in the public and private sector, had positive impact on
employee commitment and leaders‟ acceptance.
However, Huang and Hsiao (2007) acknowledged that the commitment of employees was
significantly influenced by working conditions and climate. Another intervening
behaviour, job satisfaction could also affect the degree of employee commitment. Thus, it
can be argued that the possibility of a causal relationship between job satisfaction and
commitment needs to be examined. Organisational and group managers should consider
88
these factors, and design and implement participative management to facilitate human
resources empowerment, in order to gain high job satisfaction and employee commitment.
Quality of customer service
The quality of customer service provided by employees is very important for a public
organisation particularly in a higher education system. The hierarchical structure of a
university in Indonesia positions employees as having a key role in providing high quality
services to clients including students, the local community, and other stakeholders. This is
particularly the case in a competitive environment (DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006). The
extent of outcomes accomplished by university employees then, influences the level of
public satisfaction in an institutional performance. The reasons are explained by Ugboro
and Obeng (2000), namely that customer satisfaction is predominantly determined by
interactions between clients and employees on the front line (Kelcher, 2000). Further
reasons, are that for the public and clients, organisational products such as customer
service, orientation, the quality and functionality of products, and customer trainings are a
reflection of the organisations‟ overall performance. Employees who valued participative
management and employee empowerment showed loyalty, concern for others, and job
satisfaction. This employee performance in producing quality services for customers is
mediated by another intervening factor, that of job satisfaction as experienced by
employees (Nguni, et al., 2006). Rank et al. (2007) also argued that job satisfaction
induced by job related factors encouraged employees to provide quality customer service
to their clients. In another study by Angermeier et al. (2009) participative leadership
indicated a strong relationship with customer service performance enacted by the
employees.
Employee withdrawal behaviour
Negative work performance can be demonstrated by employees in terms of withdrawal
behaviour as well as absenteeism and high turnover (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990; Rosse &
Hulin, 1985). Absenteeism is a behavioural outcome showed by subordinates in terms of
failure to go to work (T.-C. Huang, 1997). The term „turnover‟ in this study implies the
intentions of the employee to leave an organisation (Porter, et al., 1976). It also refers to
89
the intention of employees to resign from the job, temporarily or permanently. The issues
of turnover among the employees may become a main constraint for a management in
obtaining a higher performance from organisational members.
Universities, as a part of the public management service area, need to address employee
withdrawal behaviour, as an essential strategy to increase the employees‟ performance,
especially in term of their higher participation on the job, which eventually improves the
performance of a university organisation in the global environment. The issues of the
withdrawal behaviour needs to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, otherwise it may
negatively influence organisational performance. High levels of resignation and
absenteeism amongst the employees not only decrease the quality of organisational efforts,
but also leads to inefficiency in time and financial resources (Angermeier, et al., 2009).
Several researchers have argued that improving employees‟ perceptions of participation at
work and fair treatment creates positive organisational climates and emotional reactions
towards work and, ultimately, reduces rates of turnover, and absenteeism. Given the
significant cost of employee absenteeism and turnover in terms of organisational
performance and individual productivity, absenteeism and retention rates are significant
targets for current human resource management in both the private and public sectors
(Carsten & Spector, 1987; Eby, Freeman, Rush, & Lance, 1999). Many studies conducted
previously have demonstrated that empowerment of staff, particularly through participative
management style, affects employee performance in public organisations positively (Kim,
2002).
With respect to this issue, participative management was highlighted as a management
style that has positive impact in lowering the level of absenteeism and turnover of the
employees. It is broadly accepted as an alternative managerial approach to increase
employees‟ well being and performance in the context of retention. (Kompier, Geurts,
Grundemann, Vink, & Smulders, 1998) This research suggests that employee perceptions
of the extent to which their work climate is participative rather than authoritarian has
important implications for attitude and behaviour especially in relation to attendance at
90
work. Agermeier et al. (2009) provided some evidence those employees who experienced a
participative climate in a working environment showed lower absenteeism.
To what extent a leadership style is accepted by the employees can be reflected by the level
of absenteeism. Likert (1967) argued that the more supportive the climate established by a
manager in human interactions at work, the more satisfaction is experienced by its
employees. The employees were satisfied, because both economic and noneconomic needs
of the employees will be considered by the participative style. Subordinates then, in turn
demonstrate higher commitment and attendance to work to achieve organisational
objectives. Rosse and Hulin (1985) and Wagner (1994) highlighted the way the positive
feelings experienced by an employee to lower absenteeism or more regular attendance at
work. The positive working atmosphere created by the participative management style,
then, is predicted to be able to encounter the issue of withdrawal behaviour.
Since the participative management system, or style, provides favourable conditions for
organisational environments, it can be argued that having positive relationships in the
workplace ensure employee intention to commit to the work place (Laschinger, et al.,
2004). Although there are many factors perceived as influencing subordinates attitudes,
organisational leaders need to focus on these job characteristics in order to sustain
effectiveness of human resources as organisational capital.
However, to what extent the participative style influences employee performance by
fostering the employee work attitudes are also determined by situational factors including
individual and organisational factors (G. R. Jones & George, 2006).
3.5 Situational Factors of Participative Management
The effectiveness of the participative management in improving employee performance
behaviour is influenced by many factors. The findings that have been discussed previously
support this conclusion. These factors may include organisational, individual, and
environmental ones (G. R. Jones & George, 2006; Sashkin, 1984; Vaccaro, et al., 2012;
Yukl, 2002). The effectiveness of a particular management style is contingent on these
91
factors. Since there are a wide range of situations including organisational types, various
kinds of subordinates and jobs, an organisation requires a leadership style that is able to
accommodate the diversity of the individual and organisational contexts. Thus, it can be
argued that success obtained by a manager in a particular organisation, may not happen
when he/she is assigned to another job. That job deals with new matters that may be very
strange and challenging, and requires different approaches and skills to lead. Leadership is
effective when it suits the current organisational characteristics (Robbins, et al., 2006). The
manager first should be familiar with the given situation in order to employ a management
style appropriately. When the manager is able to interact with people within those
conditions, then it can be assumed that the management is likely to be more effective.
Researchers and practitioners need to understand the contexts in which their leadership and
management styles are applied. These are incorporated in the following contingency or
situational factors. For the development of the research model, two of the contingency
theories are presented: Fiedler‟s contingency model and House‟s path-goal theory of
leadership (Fiedler, 1981; Vroom & Jago, 1988; Yukl, 2002). Both theories are selected
because they basically deal with situational factors of leadership and closely relate these to
participative management style. When the premises of both theories are combined with the
previous studies and literature review, it is possible to establish the proposed research
model that includes contingency variables of individual, organisational and environmental
factors and their influence on the relationship of participative management with employee
performance behaviour as the dependent variable.
3.5.1 Fiedler’s contingency model
The basic proposition of Fiedler‟s contingency model is that management effectiveness
depends on the extent to how the managers control the situation and choose an appropriate
management style for attaining effective organisational performance (Fielder, 1964;
Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992). The degree of situational control ranges from high to low.
Management behaviour that is demonstrated by the leaders who have high control
produces predictable organisational performance. These leaders can effectively manage
employees at work because they are able to influence work outcomes. In contrast, the
92
leaders having low situational control may not have significant impact on employee
performance, because these leaders have very little influence on the work environment.
The effectiveness of a management style, or system, is influenced by the favourability of
the situation controlled by the leaders or managers in an organisation.
With regard to this proposition, Fiedler (1964) identified three dimensions of situational
control: leader-follower relations, task structure, and position power. Leader-follower
relations reflect the condition where the leaders have the support, loyalty, and trust of the
work group. Fiedler (1964) suggested this was as the most important dimension that should
be considered by organisational executives. Employees who find such a favourable relation
are encouraged to perform high quality services to attain the leader‟s goals and
organisational objectives. Task structure refers to the amount of structure that describes
and guides the tasks accomplished through organisational work. When managers work
within highly structured tasks (for instance, with clear objectives, procedures, volumes,
schedules, and instructions), they have more access to controlling the group, and
effectively influencing employee performance. The third most important dimension is
position power, which implies that the leader has the formal power to exercise reward
motivation or punishment. In this manner, the managers in certain management systems
get compliance from employees. Otherwise, the managers cannot lead and control the
employees effectively.
To support the theory, Fielder (1964) developed the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale
to determine what kind of situation was faced by leaders, and identify which management
or leadership style was appropriate for the specified situation. Although this scale was
acknowledged to have somewhat insufficient validity, Fiedler‟s contingency model has had
strong support from succeeding research (Grant, 2008; Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992). This
suggests that management effectiveness can be obtained by choosing an appropriate
management style that matches existing situations. Organisations cannot effectively apply
participative management when the style does not match the existing situation in the
workplace. Instead, the leaders need to modify the degree of situational control for insuring
that the participative management style can be applied effectively.
93
3.5.2 House’s path goal theory of leadership
Path-goal theory, first introduced by House (1971), broadly defined two management
orientations, including consideration behaviour and initiating structure (Yukl, 2002).
Consideration behaviour has the same principles of the participative management system,
or style, that is characterised by concentrating more on individual needs, providing a
favourable organisational climate, and involving employees in significant matters of the
organisation. Initiating structure is similar to directive style, where managers usually give
specific guidance to subordinates and ask them to carry out the given tasks by following
the rules, procedures, and schedules that are set down by the managers.
The later version of path-goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1974) included „participative
management‟ as one of the four leadership behaviours: (1) supportive leadership, (2)
directive leadership, (3) participative leadership, and (4) achievement-oriented leadership.
The descriptions of the first three behavioural styles have already been covered in the two
original styles described previously. The fourth behaviour style (achievement-oriented
leadership) focuses on higher goal performance, performance improvement, and relies on
the belief that subordinates can successfully achieve organisational goals.
However, path goal theory argues that the impact of managerial behaviour on employee
performance and their quality of work depends on situational factors, such as including
individual and task characteristics. Key individual characteristics such as focus of control,
work experience, ability, and social need were identified by House (1971). Task
characteristics or organisational factors included task type, communication system or
organisational structure, and the nature of group work and interaction. These situational
variables potentially influenced employee perceptions about the management style applied
by managers in any enterprise. House and Micthell (1974) were apparently suggesting that
the effectiveness of the participative management style was situational. For instance, they
predicted that this type of management was appropriate when the works were designed as
challenging, and are effective for organisational members who have independent personal
characteristics.
94
This Path-Goal Theory argued that these factors have causal relationships in the context of
managerial behaviour especially the participative behaviour implemented to improve
employee performance in organisation. However, this sort of management style needs to be
tested in the different contexts of leadership practice, particularly in the university context
as proposed in this study. It is very important to investigate the extent to which situational
factors may determine the effectiveness of participative management styles.
3.5.3 Participative management and its contingency factors
The discussions on the above two theories have led to a finite conclusion in this study,
namely that the effects of participative management on employee performance behaviour
(EPB) and employee work attitude (EWA) are influenced by contingency factors. In other
words, these factors determine the effectiveness of the participative management style in
improving work attitudes and the performance of the employees in the workplace. Thus, it
constitutes a conceptual model of the association of the situational variables that were
tested in this study. The association of these variables is illustrated in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. Situational factors moderating the relationships between participative
management, employee work attitude, and employee performance behaviour
It is worth noting, for the purpose of this study and its limitations, that not all situational
factors have been adopted from these theories. The research model proposed in this study
95
include only two situational factors, namely individual and organisational factors that are
also acknowledged as moderator factors of management effectiveness (Fielder, 1964; G. R.
Jones & George, 2006; Yukl, 2002), but did not any incorporate the third type of
situational factor – the environmental.
Based on the discussions of the contingency factors, this study develops a research model
that relates to both individual and organisational factors. The individual factors include
personal characteristics of gender, age, education, employment level, and experience or
length of service. The organisational factors include history or age, status, size, and culture
of organisation. These are, then, used as indicators to investigate the relationships of the
participative management system with the other proposed variables in the model.
Indicators of contingency factors
The discussions of the conceptual framework of the contingency factors revealed that the
effectiveness of participative management system depends on individual, and
organisational factors that characterise the context where management systems are being
practised (Fiedler, 1981; Robbins, et al., 2006; Yukl, 2002). As depicted in Figure 3.6 and
specifically in Figure 3.7 (the research model), these factors are treated as exogenous
variables that are assumed to influence the effects of participative management on its
outcome variables. The individual and organisational factors are described as follows:
Individual factors
Individual factors consist of demographic aspects (age, gender, marital status, education,
length of service, level or rank on position, salary), as well as personal motives, values, and
attitudes. These are assumed to influence how subordinates view the behaviour of
managers (Darmawan, 2003; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990; Kim, 2002). The individual factors
which potentially affect management performance because people as organisational
members bring their motives, values, and individual characteristics that determine their
behaviour at work (G. R. Jones & George, 2006). Thus, it can be observed that some
employees, for example, like to work individually and do not respond positively to
96
participative style, or they just wait for their boss to make the decisions. It is more serious
when such a style is employed among a group of subordinates who do not have the sort of
broad knowledge, education, skills, and experiences that are required to accomplish the
given tasks. The subordinates cannot produce additional values for any innovative
management systems that have been built by the organisational leaders. Acceptance or
attitudes towards a particular management style may also be determined by gender. Female
employees, for instance, are assumed to prefer a more participative style than male
employees do. In the context of leadership practices, Jones and George (2006) reported
some studies that supported the arguments that female leaders tend to be more participative
in leading people at work. However, in terms of effectiveness, females and males basically
have the same opportunity to achieve this success (G. R. Jones & George, 2006).
Surprisingly, a meta analysis that was conducted by Roth et al. (2012) indicated that the
performance behaviour of female employees was higher than males. However, in terms of
job promotions, females obtained lower rate than males did (Wallace & Marchant, 2011).
This was probably due to a biased image against female employees, which ensured that
jobs particularly managerial positions were limited only to the males (Wallace &
Marchant, 2011; White, Carvalho, & Riordan, 2011). Thus, females had limited access to
be promoted to those positions. The extent of leadership performance remains a challenge
for both genders. They have to consider the existing situational factors that determine
organisational effectiveness.
Many individual factors have been investigated to measure their impact on organisational
performance. However, this study limits the scope of the inquiry to the factors of age,
gender, education, employment level or rank, and length of service. The influences of these
factors were measured to find out whether they had any particular impact on the
effectiveness of the participative management style, specifically through the perceptions of
employees and leaders on the effectiveness of the participative management.
97
Organisational factors
Organisational factors include size, history of the organisation, type or work sector,
structure, communication and relations model, and job design (Hackman & Oldham, 1980;
T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Likert, 1967). Size refers to how big an organisation is in
terms of the number of employees (Bartol, et al., 2002; Reimann, 1975; Serenko, Bay,
Bontis, & Hardie, 2007). Type, status or work sector relates to whether they are private or
public sector organisations, established for academic, service, manufacturing, or industrial
purposes (Cabrera, et al., 2003; Vaccaro, et al., 2012). History relates to the age of an
organisation (T.-C. Huang, 1997). Structure describes how it is organised in terms of
functions or divisions. The communications model can be described as formal or informal,
having dependent or independent relations, or being vertical or horizontal in structure
(Gibson, et al., 2006). Job design relates closely to how the organisation designs work that
can provide employees with internal motivation and facilitate them to perform effectively
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
The culture of an organisation results from a number of organisational factors.
Organisational culture is defined as the sharing of beliefs, expectations, values, norms, and
routines that influences the way people work and relate to each other in attaining
organisational goals (Champoux, 2003; Gibson, et al., 2006; G. R. Jones & George, 2006;
Lok & Crawford, 2004). It initially consists of the values and norms brought in from the
community environment (G. R. Jones & George, 2006). In addition the culture
consolidates members‟ assumptions and goals (Russell, 2001). These are maintained and
adapted among organisational members, as they develop particular working culture within
the organisation. These values and norms determine how things work within the
organisational structure, and influence work performance of employees. The managers
then need to be able to maintain or change particular work cultures so that they contribute
to the success of an organisation (Wallach, 1983).
There are several types of organisational cultures that have been identified by different
researchers. These have been described in general terms as corporate culture (Chiang &
Birtch, 2007) or, the one specifically as to bureaucratic, innovative, supportive type of
culture (Lok & Crawford, 2004; Wallach, 1983), or forms of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy
98
and market oriented cultures (Ferreira & Hill, 2008; Quinn, 1989). Such cultures
significantly affect the outcomes of a particular management style that is applied by
managers or leaders. However, Wallach (1983, p. 32) argues that “there is no good or bad
cultures, per se”. The effectiveness of particular culture depends on the extent of existing
cultural appropriateness or suitability to the needs of organisations and employees. In
certain cases for example, a participative approach in managing organisational members
may be not effective within a highly interdependent structure or highly bureaucratic
climate, where managers and employees may reluctantly sit together to accomplish
organisational goals. Furthermore, where managers are not supportive, the management
style is not accepted voluntarily by followers. On the other hand, when the managers build
a supportive organisational culture characterised by flexibility, equal opportunity to learn
(Yukl, 2002), open access to information, resources, and support (Avolio & Gardner,
2005), the effectiveness of participative management is enhanced. This in turn enables
such leaders and their subordinates to accomplish their work successfully.
The expectations, values, and attitudes of an organisation‟s culture affect all individuals,
groups within it, as well as all the implementation processes of the organisation. Some
organisational members for instance are automatically being encouraged to become good
citizens because of being affected by an existing organisational environment. Thus, if
executives expect this culture, and consider it advantageous for organisational
performance, subordinates then need to be facilitated to adopt such behaviour. On the other
hand, if the organisation designs a quality customer service as a permanent procedure, then
the behaviour of subordinates who demonstrate this quality of service needs to gain
recognition and rewards.
Many researchers have found that organisational culture affects the creation of a working
atmosphere where employees can experience stability and feeling of security over their
jobs. It is also able to create a sense of organisational identity. Where organisations have
successfully retained their quality employees, it is because they feel safe, and find stability
as employees in the organisation (Gibson, et al., 2006).
However, Gibson (2006) acknowledged that until recently researchers had difficulties in
measuring how far cultural factors influenced the effectiveness of an organisation, and
99
comparing the forms of culture that particularly determine the effectiveness of an
organisation. This present study sought to fill this gap by examining this area but limited
the investigation to certain types of organisational culture, such as bureaucratic, innovative,
and supportive culture. These were selected because they were considered more suitable
for the organisational environments of Indonesian universities. For the purpose of the
study, these types of culture need to be described briefly by adopting the classification of
organisational cultures proposed by Wallach (1983) as follows.
Bureaucratic culture is an organisational culture that puts more priority on a hierarchical
structure. There is a clear line of power and responsibilities, and jobs usually are handled
in order and in systematic ways. Such organisations prefer power and control, to be stable,
solid and on-going. This type is most suitable for large organisations that promote
efficiency, customer satisfaction, and regular operations. However, it is also acknowledged
that the organisation that tends to be dominant in this bureaucratic culture is less able to
attract and retain people who have special talents, creative and with high morale. In other
words, such an organisation tends to be static.
Innovative culture is characterised by the presence of an attractive atmosphere and is
dynamic. It is able to stimulate positive behaviour, entrepreneurialism and high ambitions
of organisational members. They are encouraged to work with great creativity, accustomed
to facing challenges and taking risks at work. Nevertheless, creating such an atmosphere is
not a simple thing. Employees‟ characteristics, especially psychological aspects, mostly
determine the success of leaders in creating a favourable working atmosphere. Thus,
employees who are under stress or dealing with difficult jobs in an innovative culture, for
example, would be affected in their psychological state, which would decrease their work
performance. Leaders, then, need to understand such a situation, make arrangements and
changes, if they are necessary, to ensure that the situation will create a favourable climate
for employees at work.
Supportive culture in workplaces has been called a '"fuzzy" phenomenon (Wallach, 1983,
p. 33). Such organisations are usually characterised as a harmonious working environment,
open and with people who are more familiar with each other. There is a close relationship,
100
mutual trust, and a sense of safety experienced by all members. Employees are also
encouraging of each other, and work in collaboration.
3.6 The Hypothesised Research Model of the Participative Management
in the Context of University
The hypothesised research model of the current study was generated by referring to the
different theories, thoughts, and conceptions discussed in the literature review and the
participative management framework. The critical analysis of the previous studies and
theories indicates that participative management (PM) has relationships with employee
performance behaviour (EPB). However, such relationships could be mediated by the level
of employee work attitude (EWA). In other words, the level of PM influences the level of
EWA, and in turn, both the level of PM being implemented, as well as the level of EWA,
influences the employee performance behaviour.
Furthermore, the previous studies found that situational factors possibly influence the
effectiveness of the implementation of participative management style in organisations.
However, there have been few studies that have been concerned with the situational
factors. As a result, some research did not report consistent results about the effects of this
management style, and many managers perceived its effectiveness differently. The diverse
situations where the studies were conducted could lead to inconsistent findings about the
effects of the participative management. Depending on which situations a research is
carried out, respondents, for example, would provide different perceptions on the same
questions asked in a survey and in an interview. Thus, there would be the gaps between
what were found in the theories and in the field experienced by some leaders. To minimise
the gaps, the current study investigates the relationships between the participative
management and employee performance behaviour by incorporating job characteristics and
situational factors (including organisational and individual factors), which may weaken or
strengthen the effect of participative management on its dependent variables. To meet this
aim, this study proposed a hypothesised research model as discussed in the following
sections. The theoretical model is illustrated in Figure 3.7.
101
3.6.1 The main purpose of the research model
The main purpose of the research model is to provide in this study a guideline to examine
and describe the mutual relationships among the research variables. As discussed above,
the relationship of participative management as a causal variable with employee
performance behaviour is complex in nature. To enable this study to examine this type of
relationship, it needs a research model to illustrate the relationships among the research
variables including Participative Management (PM), Employee Work Attitude (EWA),
Employee Performance Behaviour (EPB), individual and organisational factors, as
contingency variables.
The proposed research model has been developed to fill some of the gaps identified in
previous studies of leadership and management. For example, Yukl (2002) showed that
some results of a measurement were somewhat misinterpreted, and speculative. This
indicates that certain research techniques may not be stable over time or may be more
complicated than predicted before. Some studies found simple or direct relationships
among the research variables or did not include causal relationships among the variables.
Only a few of them included comprehensive dimensions within participative management
studies, for example by examining both individual and organisational factors as variables
(Cabrera, et al., 2003; T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Kim, 2002). Some findings of studies
on leadership behaviour were analysed by employing simple statistical techniques and
correlating independent variables with dependent variables individually or in single
directions. Although these might produce significant correlations, the findings were not
able to explain the causal relationships that could be statistically predicted and there were
no similar conclusions on the mutual relationships of the research variables employed in
management studies (Yukl, 2002). Thus, the hypothesised research model used in this
study contributes to minimising the gaps in previous studies by exploring the behaviour
and the context of the relationships among the research variables.
Since this research model is constructed in reference to the critical analyses of related
theories such as the theory of participative management system (Likert, 1967), contingency
in leadership (Fiedler, 1964; House, 1971) and similar previous studies, the findings
generated from this model can be expected to make a significant contribution to the
102
development of the existing theory of leadership and management. It enables practitioners
and policy makers in university organisations to find and apply the management systems or
styles appropriately within the organisational context.
3.6.2 The theoretical model for the study
By employing a comprehensive theoretical model, this study sought to investigate how the
participative management style (PM) influences employee performance behaviour (EPB)
in the relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and level of
employee withdrawal behaviour including absenteeism and turnover intentions. The
research model (see Figure 3.7) illustrates a complex relationship between PM and EPB.
PM is associated with the level of employee work attitude (EWA) in terms of self-
autonomy, meaningful tasks, job satisfaction, and feeling of security at work. Both
variables (PM and EWA) may directly influence the perceived employee performance
behaviour (EPB), and possibly the effect of PM on EPB is mediated by EWA.
The perceived management behaviour of participative management (PM) that is
demonstrated by managers was measured using a participative management scale (Likert,
1967). This was made up of seven dimensions in terms of the process of leadership,
motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal setting, and controlling.
The employee work attitude (EWA) towards the jobs (as the outcome variable) is
conceived as having four dimensions in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, job
satisfaction, and the feelings of job security. These are assumed to produce certain impacts
on the employee performance behaviour (EPB) that covers the outcome variable, as
measured through organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and employee
withdrawal behaviour.
Furthermore, this model illustrates that there were two groups of situational or contingency
factors including both organisational and individual factors of leaders and employees,
which could influence the effects of participative management on employee performance
behaviour. As depicted in Figure 3.7, the first group was organisational factors, including
university age, university status, university size, and organisational culture. The second
103
group was the individual factors of leaders and employees including gender, age,
education, employment level, and length of service. In this study, these factors were
considered as exogenous variables that had effects on causal, intervening and end-result
variables (Creswell, 2005). These were predicted to make certain contributions to the
different perceptions shown by employees and leaders upon the perceived leadership and
managerial behaviour in the work place.
Since leaders and employees had different perceptions about the relationships between the
participative management and the employee performance behaviour, this research model
examined the context of the relationships of the research variables under different levels of
analysis, as depicted in Figure 3.7 at leader and employee levels.
However, for the purpose of the present study and the constraints of time and other
resources, not all the factors were investigated. As shown in Figure 3.7, the complete list of
variables includes the participative management style, self-autonomy, meaningful task, job
satisfaction, feelings of job security, organisational commitment, quality of customer
service, employee withdrawal behaviour, organisational and individual factors of leaders
and employees. The relationships among the specified variables were tested, based on
theoretical analysis of the previous studies and empirical studies in the six universities in
Malang Indonesia.
It is worth noting here, as shown in Figure 3.7, that this study initially involved three levels
of investigation. However, since the number of units at the organisational level was too
small (only six universities), the investigation at the organisational level was considered
unreliable. Therefore, the factors that related to the organisational level were incorporated
only at the employee and leader levels.
104
3.6.3 Directions of relationships and influencing factors among research variables
This study predicts that there are three types of effects operating among the participative
management system (PM), as the exogenous variable, and employee performance
behaviour (EPB) and employee work attitude (EWA), as the endogenous variables. These
are: (1) participative management has direct effects both on employee performance
behaviour and employee work attitude, (2) participative management has indirect impact
on employee performance behaviour, which is mediated through EWA, and (3) direct
effect from EWA to EPB. In turn, these constructs are influenced either directly or
indirectly by the situational variables at employee, leader, or organisational levels. The
arrow signs in Figure 3.7 show the directions of such relationships.
105
Figure 3.7. Research model of the relationships among participative management, employee work attitude, employee performance behaviour
and influence of the situational factors in a university context
106
3.7 Summary
In this Chapter, the participative management framework and research model for this study
were presented. The leadership theories of the Likert‟s Participative Management system,
the Job Characteristics Model, and Contingency Theory were discussed thoroughly. These
theories were used as references to generate the research model that was used.
Participative management could be implemented within the university hierarchical
structure through the functions or dimensions of the participative management system
including leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal
setting, and control. Administrative leaders, as well as heads of administrative divisions or
school managers within the existing organisational structure of the specified universities
under study, have responsibilities to implement these functions in managing their
employees as the responsible organisational members.
The quality of employee performance behaviour depends on how the leaders or managers
implement the participative style (as causal variables) through the implementation of those
management functions. This brings a consequence for the change of employee work
attitudes (the intervening variables) in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, the
feelings of security upon the jobs, and job satisfaction. This in turn increases performance
behaviour (the end-result variables) in terms of organisational commitment, the
performance of employees to provide quality customer services, and lower withdrawal
behaviour (indicated by lower turnover rates and absenteeism).
The discussions of these variables were followed by a brief description of the way they
could influence the effectiveness of the management. These included job characteristics
and situational factors.
The review of job characteristics was derived from the Job Characteristic Model that
generated several determinant factors including task significance, autonomy,
meaningfulness of work, and job satisfaction. All of these components were assumed to
relate to employees‟ perceptions of the participative management, management
effectiveness, and thus potentially affect their performance at work. Specifically job
satisfaction could have certain relationships with the management behaviour of leaders,
107
and it could be perceived as receiving direct and indirect impacts from particular
managerial behaviour exercised by organisational leaders. Additionally, a factor that
relates to job security was also included as a job facet. As discussed in the literature
review, organisational climate, which allows employees to experience the feelings of job
security, can effectively motivate the employees to demonstrate a higher level of
performance at work. In other words, these job characteristics determine the variation of
the influences of management styles on employee performance.
The framework of situational factors was generated by considering the concepts from
Fiedler's Contingency style and House‟s Path Goal Theory of Leadership. Both theories
were combined to develop the situational variables, addressing the organisational and
individual factors, which were treated as exogenous variables for the purposes of this
study.
Finally, based on a critical review of the factors in the literature, the hypothesised research
model was generated. The model reflects the fact that the effectiveness of the participative
management is determined by multiple factors. It is used as a reference point to investigate
the relationships among the variables, and to find out how the participative management
style effectively improves the employee performance behaviour within the given
Indonesian university situations. This research model, thus, is used as a basis to develop
the research design and instrumentation of the study that is discussed in Chapter Four.
108
Chapter Four
Research Design and Instrumentation
4.1 Introduction
This study seeks to examine the perceptions of respondents about the use of the
participative management model in six university settings in Malang, Indonesia. The
research model developed for this study was presented at the end of Chapter Three.
Previous studies in this field have found that a range of factors influenced the
implementation of participative management in an organisation. The organisational and
individual factors are among those that have been highlighted in the literature (Sashkin,
1984; Yukl, 2002) and used in this study. It is further argued in the proposed research
model (see Chapter Three) that the use the participative management style is associated
with the level of work attitude the employee has. In turn, both the level of participative
management implemented as well as the level of employee‟s work attitude, are associated
with the perceived performance behaviour of employees in terms of organisational
commitment, quality customer service and withdrawal behaviour.
This chapter presents the design of the study. Consideration is given to the rationale
involved in mixed method design, the questionnaires that were chosen for use in the study,
the way in which a sample was obtained, the process of data collection, and the use of a
pilot study in the investigation.
4.2 Research Design
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used in this study. For this purpose, a
mixed methods design was used (Creswell, 2005; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003) in
investigating the relationships hypothesised in the proposed research model. This design is
defined as a procedure of collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data of
a study to answer a research problem (Creswell, 2005). In some literature, such a definition
is expanded into a research design that combines two or more rigorous studies, data
109
sources, investigators, methodological approaches, and theoretical perspectives to obtain a
more comprehensive picture of the research findings (Morse, 2003; Neuman, 2000).
4.2.1 Reasons of using mixed research method
The main reason that this study made use of a mixed research method was the strength of
this design approach. As suggested by Thurmond (2001) the use of both quantitative and
qualitative data in a study increases the validity of derived information, and makes the
research findings more meaningful. These two approaches complement each other. What
cannot be obtained through a quantitative procedure can be accessed by a qualitative
technique, (Creswell, 2005; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). Further, a mixed method
approach potentially provides researchers with the means of legitimising their research
findings (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). Thus, a mixed design was chosen for this study
since it was able to provide a multidimensional perspective of the research phenomenon
and extensive data that eventually were used to answer the research questions.
4.2.2 Explanatory mixed methods designs
The method employed in this study involved an explanatory mixed methods design
(Creswell, 2005). This is illustrated in Figure 4.1 which shows that this study first collected
quantitative data, which was later followed by the collection of qualitative data.
Figure 4.1. Explanatory mixed methods designs
Source: Creswell (2005, p. 514).
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
110
The rationale for using this model is that the quantitative data provided a general picture of
the issues being investigated. In order to refine, elaborate and explain these findings in
more detail at the personal level, an in-depth qualitative exploration was needed in the
second phase. This procedure thus provides an advantage for this study by giving
explanatory support to the quantitative analysis (Creswell, 2005; Teddlie & Tashakkori,
2003).
Although based on the above model, this study emphasised more the quantitative data from
the first phase of data analysis, with appropriate qualitative data from the second phase
presented to illuminate the quantitative findings. The techniques of data collection selected
for this research included survey questionnaire, interview, and organisational document.
The questionnaire items were developed to gather and quantitatively measure a large
number of respondents‟ perceptions concerning their work environment and attitudes
towards the job and/or organisation. There were two questionnaires: one for employees,
and the other for leaders. Both were based on the same theoretical framework and the
previous research, as discussed in the earlier chapters. After conducting a pilot study, the
questionnaires were refined. The final questionnaires consisted of 110 items, each using
the “close-ended response” form. The description of the items and their corresponding
subscales are presented in section 4.3 (Instrumentation). Following Bell (1989) and
Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003), interview technique and document review were
employed to gather the qualitative data. Two sets of interview protocols consisting of 5
(five) open-ended questions for each group of respondents (employees and leaders) were
prepared, as described in detail in section 4.4.3 (the interview and document review). The
questions are listed in the interview protocol (Appendix C).
The relationships among the research variables were explored through a combination of
statistical and qualitative techniques. The associations between participative management
as the predictor variable and employee performance behaviour as the outcome variable
were investigated though this type of mixed methods approach.
111
4.2.3 The strength and weakness of qualitative and quantitative approaches
Quantitative and qualitative approaches have strengths and weaknesses in accordance with
their unique characteristics. The strength of both approaches can be explained clearly. A
quantitative approach focuses more on quantitatively verifying theory, while qualitative
approaches are more concerned with the generation of new theories. Punch (cited in
Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003) argues:
Quantitative research has typically been more directed at theory verification, while
qualitative research has typically been more concerned with theory generation. While that
correlation is historically valid, it is by no means perfect, and there is no necessary connection between purpose and approach. That is, quantitative research can be used for
theory generation (as well as verification), and qualitative research can be used for theory
verification (as well as generation).
Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) agree with this view. However, they consider that most
quantitative research as a confirmation procedure which involves theory verification, while
they see qualitative research as exploratory leading to theory generation.
Thus, when using a mixed method design, researchers can simultaneously adopt both
confirmatory and exploratory approaches to provide verification and, at the same time,
generate new theories (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). To demonstrate the relationships
between a predictor and another variable, researchers employ quantitative approaches by
measuring the responses to confirm the extent of the relationships. When the relations
between the predictor and another variable have been already confirmed, the researchers
need to explain how those variables relate to each other.
Since the mixed method uses both quantitative and qualitative data, it can help researchers
to gain a high reliability of responses and make objective conclusions about the causality
of the researched variables. To draw better conclusions from a study, Creswell (2005),
Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) suggest that researchers need both data since each could
provide important information for research variables under the study. Quantitative data
can be used for predicting the relationships among the variables. The qualitative data
collected through the qualitative approach were needed to obtain a more realistic
understanding of the phenomenon in the experience of the subjects investigated (Marshall
& Rossman, 2011). Quantitative data covering a great number of subjects‟ responses can
112
be obtained in a short time using standardised measures. On the other hand, a qualitative
approach provides a more flexible procedure to collect, analyse, and interpret the
information obtained from the target respondents. The researcher collects the data through
interacting with the respondents in terms of their own communication style and
experiences. This is embedded in more naturalistic research setting (Gray, 2009; Matveev,
2002; Neuman, 2000; Zigarmi & Hoekstra, 2007). Using quantitative and qualitative
together, researchers are able to get a holistic view of the phenomenon.
There are also weaknesses in each approach. To extensively explore qualitative data
sources, a researcher needs a long time, so that this approach is often applied on a very
limited scale. To interpret the meaning of an event reported by a person during an
interview session, for example, can require a high level of skill. Likewise, employing
quantitative techniques through questionnaire in a data collection process has also some
weaknesses. Among others, the researchers are not able to explore the information in
depth, and its effectiveness is highly dependent on the reliability of measuring instruments
and precision and consistency of the respondents in answering the questions (Bell, 1989;
Matveev, 2002; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).
Considering the strengths and the weaknesses of both data resources, this study used a
mixed triangulation design to obtain a more comprehensive perspective on the research
questions proposed. Nevertheless, in the implementation of this approach, the practical
time limitations meant that the process of data collection was focused more on the
quantitative surveys. The qualitative techniques employed in this study aimed to
complement the data that was collected through quantitative techniques. It functioned as a
strategy to justify and to explain the quantitative findings by comparing the quantitative
results with the qualitative data (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). At the same time
descriptive statistics were used in this study to support the qualitative findings (Creswell,
2005).
113
4.2.4 Steps of a mixed methods study
To collect reliable data for a mixed methods study needs a systematic process. Creswell
(2005) specifically describes the steps of this design as shown in Figure 4.2. This study
used these steps a general guide to the data collection, as described in the paragraphs
below.
Figure 4. 2. Steps of a mixed methods study
Adapted from Creswell (2005, p. 523).
First step involved determining the feasibility of using a mixed methods design.
Availability of the sources of data, time, and research sites become the main considerations
for whether the use of mixed methods was feasible. There were sufficient sources of
information that could be obtained from respondents at the research sites. The respondents
were willing to participate in the data collection by responding to questions in the
questionnaires and interviews. Some official documents were also available, providing
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
114
reliable information needed to describe the organisational characteristics. In terms of time,
this study had sufficient time to analyse the data from the sources. Leaders of the specified
universities formally allowed the researchers to access the data over a long range of time
(more than two months). Informally, it also did not necessary limit the time, in case the
researcher needed to access respondents, even after the data collection had been completed.
Second step was to identify the rationale of using a mixed research approach designed to
gather two types of data that complemented each other. It helped this study to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the variables studied.
Third step involved the researcher in developing a strategy of data collection through
survey questionnaires and interviews with selected participants immediately after. This
was complemented by reviewing some related documents to obtain official information
describing the organisational factors at the various university sites. Such a step produced a
useful preliminary data set, and considered as a direction of the main data collection.
Fourth step meant that the researcher developed the items of the instruments for both
approaches. For the quantitative approach, the researcher prepared two questionnaires (for
employee and leader respondents). The items of the questionnaires were constructed in the
form of “close-ended questions or responses”. For the qualitative approach, interview
protocols were prepared containing five “open-ended questions”. This qualitative
approach was also supported by reviewing related documents that were available in the
research sites. These included university catalogues, university directories, catalogues of
the faculties, and annual reports of the universities under study.
Fifth step was the data collection process through administering survey questionnaires and
interviews, and reviewing official documents at the research sites. This step took about 12
weeks.
Sixth step involved analysing the quantitative and qualitative data separately. This step was
carried out by using techniques which are discussed in detail in Chapter Five.
115
Seventh step was when the researcher wrote up the results of analysis of the data in the
form of a “one-phase study”. The presentation merged both types of data in the one
description and discussion. This was done in order to answer the research problem and
questions that had been formulated previously for this study.
4.2.5 Participants
This study involved non-academic or administrative staff of public and private universities
in the city of Malang, East Java, Indonesia. Malang was considered the appropriate place
to conduct this study for a number of reasons. It is the second largest city in East Java
Province and the fourth largest city in Indonesia (see Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4). Although
it is not the main city in East Java province, it houses 23 higher education institutions
including universities, colleges, academies, and polytechnics. From this number there were
three public and ten private universities that employed around 3685 administrative staff
members, of which 1986 and 1699 employees were from public universities and private
universities respectively (DGHE, 2010; Pemerintah Kota Malang, 2010).
These 3685 employees within the 13 universities located in Malang are the target
population of this study. From these 13 universities, three government and three private
universities were selected to participate in this study. The total number of administrative
staff employed by the selected universities was 2824 made up of 2329 permanent staff and
495 temporary staff, under contract employment, as shown in Table 4.1. For the purpose of
study, a sample of 1412 employees and 90 heads of divisions were selected through a multi
stage sampling design (Creswell, 2005; Gray, 2009; Ross, 2005; Sproull, 1995). This
involved following steps. All the universities in the City of Malang, Indonesia were
stratified into government and private categories. All three government universities were
approached to be involved in the study. From the group of ten private universities, three
were selected purposively based on their size and history. All heads of administrative
divisions within the central office (bureau) and schools or faculties of the participating
universities were selected, to take part in the research. About half of the employees under
each head of division were invited to participate in this study.
116
Figure 4.3. Map of Indonesia
Source: www.freeworldmaps.net
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
117
Figure 4.4. Map of the city of Malang Indonesia showing the location of the universities involved in the study
Source: www.google.com.au/search?q=malang
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
118
There were a number of reasons for selecting the target participants of this study. This
study included all government universities, because there were only three in Malang. The
selection of the private universities was based on the size and the accreditation status of
those universities. Other reasons related to the willingness of the institution to participate
in this study, and whether the number of administrative staff within all the stratums were
sufficient for the sampling process required. The details of the selected universities are
presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4. 1. Population of employees and heads of divisions in the six selected universities
University Status of Employee Heads of
(Code) university Permanent Temporary divisions
A Government 964 - 24
B Government 757 - 14
C Government 114 151 13
D Private 274 169 13
E Private 116 131 19
F Private 104 44 7
Total 2329 495 90
Participants for the interview were chosen purposively (Creswell, 2005, p. 203). The
involvement of the interviewees was based on their willingness to participate, availability
of the subjects (Bell, 1989), representation of the research sites, participants‟
characteristics, and their level of understanding about the context of and the issues
addressed in this study (Bell, 1989; Creswell, 2005). In total, 36 interviewees‟ sample
drawn proportionally, six from each of the six universities, participated in the qualitative
part of the study. Of these, 24 participants were from employees and 12 were leaders or
Heads of Administrative Divisions in the specified universities. The distribution of the
interviewees is shown in Table 4.2.
119
Table 4. 2. Sample of participants for the interview
Employees
(Support staff)
Heads of Divisions
(Leaders)
University (code) Male Female Male Female
A 2 2 1 1
B 3 1 1 1
C 3 1 1 1
D 2 2 1 1
E 2 2 2 -
F 2 2 2 -
Total 14 10 8 4
4.3 Instrumentation
This study used a questionnaire developed on the literature review and the conceptual
framework discussed in chapters two and three. To gather information on various
constructs included in this study, a set of items/questions – was developed. This set of
questions, was named the Participative Management and Employee Performance (PMEP)
questionnaire. Since this study involved two groups of participants, employee and leader
samples, the questionnaire was then constructed in two different versions: one for
employee participants, and one for the leader sample. The items in the questionnaire were
categorised into two parts. In the first part, items related to demographic information of the
respondents were included, as well as items related to organisational factors. The second
part contained items that related to the individual attitudes and opinions of the respondents.
4.3.1 The development of the items in the questionnaire
The researcher initially developed 123 items for the second part of the questionnaire. These
included both (1) items adapted from readily available instruments and (2) newly
developed items based on theories underlying this study. Later, the number of items was
reduced to 110 items after the pilot study. The developed items, organised into a number of
scales, are summarised in Table 4.3. A description for each scale is included in the
following sections. To explain how the items relate to the research variables, a map of the
items‟ development and sources are shown in Figure 4.5.
120
Organisational demographic factors
The organisational factors included size, age or history, and sector or status of the
university organisation. The items were developed based on previous works of Huang and
Hsio (2007), Cabrera et al. (2003), Mondy et al. (1990), and Hackman and Oldham (1980).
In the context of each university as an organisation, size was measured based on the
number of non-academic or support staff. Age was determined by the number of years a
particular university had been established. Sector referred to the status or type of the
university organisation, either private or government (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; G. R.
Jones & George, 2006).
121
Table 4. 3. The development of the items of PMEP Questionnaire
Scales Items Sources
Demographic information:
organisational
individual
Size, age or history, and status of university.
Age, gender, education,
level of employment,
and length of service. The item requesting
information about the
leadership position is
added for leader respondent.
Huang & Hsiao (2007); Cabrera et al. (2003);
Mondy et al. (1990); and
Hackman & Oldham (1980). Huang & Hsiao (2007); Kim,
(2002); Hanisch & Hulin
(1990).
Participative management
leadership motivation
interaction communication
decision making goal setting
controlling
1-7 8-15
16-21
22-26 27-32
33-37
38-42
Likert (1967).
Organisational culture bureaucratic
supportive
innovative
43-47
48-51
52-57
Wallach (1983)
Work attitude
self autonomy
meaningful tasks
feelings of job security
job satisfaction
58-62
63-67
68-72
73-82
Hackman & Oldham (1980).
Developed from literature review/theories.
Modified Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, &
Lofquist, 1967).
Employee performance
behaviour
organisational commitment
Quality customer service Turnover intention
Absenteeism
83-92
93-100 101-105
106-110
Modified Organisational
Commitment Questionnaire (Porter, et
al., 1976; Yousef, 2003).
Kelcher (Kelcher, 2000). Rosse & Hulin (1985);
Hanisch & Hulin (1990).
Rosse & Hulin (1985); Hanisch & Hulin (1990).
122
Figure 4. 5. Sources and development of questionnaire items for the research variables
123
Organisational demographic factors
The organisational factors included size, age or history, and sector or status of the
university organisation. The items were developed based on previous works of Huang and
Hsio (2007), Cabrera et al. (2003), Mondy et al. (1990), and Hackman and Oldham (1980).
In the context of each university as an organisation, size was measured based on the
number of non-academic or support staff. Age was determined by the number of years a
particular university had been established. Sector referred to the status or type of the
university organisation, either private or government (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; G. R.
Jones & George, 2006).
Individual demographic factors
Information about individual demographic backgrounds was sought using questions about:
age, gender, education, level of employment, and length of service. The items were
developed referring to the concepts of individual indicators from previous studies
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990; T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Kim,
2002). These individual factors were assumed to influence the effectiveness of a
management style implemented in organisations (Yukl, 2002).
Participative management
The current study formulated the scales for the participative management style
incorporating both the theory of participative management and organisational
characteristics. The items were used to measure the extent of the participative management
behaviour, and constructed along seven dimensions: leadership, motivation,
communication, interaction, decision making, goal setting, and control process. The
development of these items was based on the profile of organisational characteristics and
the concept of management systems proposed by Likert (1967), as well as the ideas from
the theory of participative management highlighted by Sashkin (1984). Furthermore, the
items were constructed to suit the university setting and hierarchical structure of university
organisations in Indonesia.
124
Organisational culture
The researcher constructed items to measure the three types of organisational culture:
bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive. To measure the extent of these cultures, the scale
was developed by modifying some items of OCI (Organisational Culture Index) applied in
a previous study by Wallach (1983).
Employee work attitude
The measures for employee work attitude were incorporated in four subscales: self-
autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security, and job satisfaction. The items of the
subscales of self-autonomy and meaningful tasks were developed from the theory of job
characteristics model introduced by Hackman and Oldham (1980). Items of feelings of job
security were developed based on the theory of some previous studies underpinning this
study (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992; Likert, 1967; Yukl, 2002). They measured how
employees‟ work attitude in terms of the feeling of stability and security in the job. Job
satisfaction was developed to measure the extent of satisfaction experienced by employees
in carrying out their job. The items were adapted from the MSQ (Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire), the work of Weiss et al. (1967).
Employee performance behaviour
To investigate employees‟ performance behaviour, this study developed the measures that
included the constructs of organisational commitment, quality customer services, employee
withdrawal behaviour including turnover intention, and absenteeism. The measures of
organisational commitment were developed from the modified items proposed by Porter et
al. (1976) and Yousef (2003). The items were intended to measure the degree of the
employee's psychological attachment to the organisation, or the extent to which the
employees regarded their organisation as a great place to work. How people felt about their
job, their sense of oneness with the organisation could be discovered through these
measures. The items of quality customer service were generated by reviewing some
literature underlying this study (Kelcher, 2000; Nguni, et al., 2006; Rank, et al., 2007).
Items were constructed to examine how the employees performed their duties in producing
quality services in order to satisfy their customers. The measures for the level of employee
125
withdrawal (absenteeism and turnover) were developed based on the literature review on
employee withdrawal behaviour (Porter, et al., 1976; Rosse & Hulin, 1985). These items
aimed to measure employees‟ withdrawal behaviour from current jobs, including turnover
and absenteeism. The subscales of turnover and absenteeism were incorporated as a single
construct (employee withdrawal), because both subscales could be seen as reflecting the
same withdrawal behaviour (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990).
It should be noted, that there are some established instruments under different constructs of
the related management studies to measure the leadership behaviours in organisations. One
of these, for example, is from the most recent work of Sashkin (2011). However, the
development of the items of participative management in this study was based on the
profile of organisation and the concept of management systems introduced by Likert
(1967) discussed in Chapter Two. Not only does it use the construct of participative
management, but it also has been widely recognised by researchers for its intensive and
complete explanation on the participative management style (Miller & Monge, 1986;
Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002). In future research, the use of the most recent instruments for
investigating leadership behaviour would be feasible.
4.3.2 The format of the questionnaire
For the purpose of study, two versions of the questionnaire were used: a questionnaire for
employees who worked as support staff, and a questionnaire for leaders, those staff who
had positions as heads of divisions (leaders) within their university structure. The two
versions of the questionnaire were developed from the same sources, as described
previously. Both instruments were measuring the same constructs but worded slightly
differently to reflect the different positions held, as an employee or as a head of division,
and hence their differing perceptions of the working context.
All items of the questionnaire were written in the format of questions followed by closed-
ended responses from which respondents chose the one closest to their own view. This
format enables the respondents to answer questions easily. The researcher can readily
compare and analyse the responses because of the standardised and consistent response
126
options (Creswell, 2005). However, some weaknesses have also been associated with the
use of this technique. The main difficulty is not having more detailed or in-depth responses
about aspects of the problem sought. To deal with the disadvantages of using the
questionnaire, this study employed interviews and other supporting data sources, which
included university catalogues, university directories, faculty or school catalogues, and
annual reports of the specified universities that became the sites for this research.
The responses in the items were designed in the format of five-point Likert scale with
different expressions depending on the characteristics of each section of the instrument.
The expressions and categories used for the employee instrument are displayed in Table
4.4. Except for the items in the job satisfaction scale, all the expressions used in the leader
instrument were the same as the expressions used in the employee questionnaire. For the
leader questionnaire, the jobs satisfaction items used expressions “strongly disagree,
disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree”.
Table 4. 4. Variables and expressions used in measurement scale
Items
Variables
(scales/subscales)
Expressions used in the category
1-42
Participative management Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, strongly agree.
43-57 Organisational culture Not true, seldom true, occasionally
true, somewhat true, and very
true.
58-73
Work attitude in terms of self-
autonomy, meaningful tasks,
feelings of job security.
Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, strongly agree.
74-83 Job satisfaction Very dissatisfied, dissatisfied,
neutral, satisfied, very satisfied.
84-92 Organisational commitment Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, strongly agree
93-110 Quality of customer service,
withdrawal behaviour.
Never, rarely, sometimes, often,
always.
The trustworthiness of a variation of the median response from “neutral” to “occasionally
true”, to “sometimes” were ascertained in the validation process, by examining scales at
the structural level using CFA, and at the item level using the rating scale model. These
127
scale validation results have been presented in Chapter Six. This procedure ensured that
response categories were ordered as originally intended. “Neutral” is the option between
the agree and the disagree responses to the issues being presented in the respective item of
the questionnaire (Bell, 1989; Creswell, 2005). “Occasionally true” is used as the median
response in items related to features of organisational culture that really reflect a cultural
context that is practised incidentally, or not at regular time intervals. “Sometimes” is the
median response for quality of customer service and withdrawal behaviour, which are
irregularly demonstrated by employees in the workplace (Northouse, 2009).
Each questionnaire was constructed in four main sections: (1) demographic information
section (2) the perceptions concerning the behaviour of management and organisational
culture, (3) the employee work attitude of self-autonomy, meaningfulness of tasks,
feelings of security and job satisfaction, (4) employee performance behaviour in term of
organisational commitment, quality customer service, employee withdrawal behaviour
(turnover intention and level of absenteeism). The items of the questionnaires before and
after pilot study are listed in Table 4.5, and the two versions of the questionnaires (for
employee and leader respondents) that were used in the main data collection are attached
as Appendix A and Appendix B.
4.3.3 Translation of the items in the questionnaires
After the format of the questionnaires was established, the statements in the questionnaires
were translated into the Indonesian language. This was necessary since the survey
questionnaires were administered to participants whose first language was Indonesian. The
translation was carried out with extreme care concerning the issues of connotation and
meanings that may affect the quality of the translation, especially in relation to the context
of items (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). With regard to these issues, the translation was
carried out through several procedures: First, the developed items of both questionnaires
(for employee and leader) were prepared in English version, addressing feedback provided
by board of research supervisors and examiners at the PhD proposal presentation. Second,
the items were translated into Indonesian version. Third, the items were translated back
into an English version to find out whether the translation was the same as the original
128
version of the instrument. Fourth, the result of the translations was reviewed by
supervisors, assisted by an academic staff member of the English Department. This aimed
to find out whether the translation had the same meaning as the originally developed
instrument.
4.3.4 Pilot study
Since all the items of the questionnaires were modified from previous studies and theories,
and being used in Indonesia for the first time, this study needed to carry out a pilot study to
ensure the questions in the questionnaires were able to be answered properly by the
participants (Creswell, 2005) in the research context. There were two stages of the pilot
study.
Pilot study stage 1
First, the questionnaires were administered to a number of Indonesian postgraduate
students (approximately 20 students) who were studying at the University of Adelaide and
the University of South Australia. They were invited to assess the appropriateness,
comprehensiveness, acceptability, and clarity of the questionnaire statements (Darmawan,
2003). This was necessary, since the items had been translated from English into
Indonesian. Based on the feedback obtained at this stage, the redundant and ambiguous
items were either modified or eliminated. Second, the wording of questionnaire items was
finalised, based on the feedback provided by the students, in order to make the items
simpler and more understandable.
Pilot study stage 2
The revised questionnaires then were pilot tested (pilot study stage 2) by 75 of the potential
participants, consisting of 60 employees who had positions as support staff, and 15 heads
of division who worked at three different universities or higher education institutions in
Indonesia. These respondents were excluded in the main data collection. The responses
were analysed to examine the internal consistency of the instrument, by using Cronbach‟s
alpha as an index, and results of the developed items are listed in Table 4.5.
129
Table 4. 5. Items of the questionnaire before and after pilot study
These results were used as a guideline in amending the final instruments for the main data
collection.
The modified items of the instrument were further assessed by research supervisors, giving
comments and feedback on the content of the items and their appropriateness in
representing the research constructs. Finally, this study succeeded in formulating two
complete sets of instruments, one for employees and the other for leaders, as attached in
Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.
Variables Items
(Scales/subscales) Before pilot After pilot Explanation
Demographic information Individual
Organisational
Name of participant,
university,
gender, age, education, level
of employment,
position, division,
length of service. Age, status, and size.
Items are
retained
Gathered in the
document review.
Participative management 1-46 10, 16, 24, 36 deleted
Redundant and showed low performance in
reliability.
Organisational culture 47-61 Items are retained Self-autonomy 62-67 67 deleted
Redundant and showed
low performance in
reliability.
Meaningful tasks 68-74 72, 73 deleted Redundant and showed low performance in
reliability.
Feelings of job security
75-82 77, 81 deleted Redundant and showed low performance in
reliability.
Job satisfaction 83-92 Items are retained
Organisational commitment 93-101 Items are retained Quality of customer
service
Employee withdrawal behaviour
102-112
113-123
104, 107, 111
deleted
113 deleted
Redundant and showed
low performance in
reliability.
130
4.4 Data Collection
To obtain the appropriate quantitative primary data, a survey questionnaire was conducted.
The data collection was conducted through the following steps:
4.4.1 Approval of the ethics committee and permissions from research sites
Before carrying out the data collection, the researcher had to obtain approval from the
Research Ethics Committee of the University of Adelaide (Appendix E). Following this
approval, an approval letter from the Rector of the university (representing the Directorate
General of Higher Education Indonesia) where the researcher works was obtained. These
two approval letters were used to contact Rectors of the participating universities and to
gain access to their employees. After obtaining the permission to collect the necessary data
from the Rectors of the respective universities (see Appendix F), the questionnaires were
delivered to the selected participants. The participants were provided with a letter of
information about the research and required to sign a letter of consent.
4.4.2 Administration of the questionnaire for the main data collection
The main data collection through survey questionnaires took about twelve weeks and was
carried out personally by the researcher. From 2824 of the employee population,
questionnaires were distributed to a sample of 1412 employees. For the leaders, the
questionnaires were distributed to the whole population which consisted of 90 respondents.
These were administered in six universities as shown in Table 4.6 and Table 4.7.
Table 4. 6. The distribution of the questionnaire for the employees
University *Employee population Distributed questionnaires
A 964 482
B 757 378
C 265 133
D 443 221
E 247 124
F 148 74
Total 2824 1412
Note.*The population included both permanent and temporary staff.
131
Table 4. 7. The distribution of the questionnaire for leaders
University Leader population *Distributed questionnaires
A 24 24
B 14 14
C 13 13
D 13 13
E 19 19
F 7 7
Total 90 90
Note. *The questionnaires were distributed to the whole population.
4.4.3 The interview and document review
As indicated previously, qualitative data were collected through interviews and document
analysis. The issues raised in the survey questionnaire that related to managerial behaviour,
organisational culture, and employee performance behaviour were complemented in the
interviews. The interviews for employees were undertaken to obtain information from
open-ended questions about the nature of the management style that was applied in the
university. They also asked what type of management style was preferred by the
subordinates, their attitudes towards the job, and commitment. The interviews for the
leaders were designed to obtain information related to the extent of the participative
management to be used in improving employee performance behaviour, organisational
structure, the effects of participative management on employee work attitude and
performance, and the factors that might influence the effectiveness of the participative
management implemented in certain divisions. The interviews involved 12 heads of
divisions and 24 employees (support staff) from the target universities. The interviews for
both groups of sample took about six weeks. Each session for a participant took around 30
minutes. Some documents from each university were also reviewed to obtain specific
information that related to organisational structure, size, status, and age or history of the
university.
132
The interview was selected as a research method, despite its subjective nature and
possibility of information bias highlighted by Bell (1989). These problems potentially
occur because of human error in interpreting or grasping the meaning of the terms used in
conversations. However, if the interview is well prepared, it can support and strengthen the
questionnaire data. The following sections detail how the researcher attempted to avoid
possible interviewees‟ subjective bias through establishing appropriate interview
processes.
Type of interview
There are various models that can be used in interviews. For example, Creswell (2005)
mentions one-on-one interviews, group interviews, focus group interviews, and telephone
interviews. One-on-one interviews were used in this study since this mode allowed the
respondents to more freely deliver their opinions or attitudes towards their jobs and their
organisation than in the focus group mode. The interviewer is able to establish more
rapport than in a telephone interview. Bell (1989) calls this mode of interview as “survey
interviews”. In this type of interview the interviewer has a conversation face to face with
the interviewee. In this study, five open-ended questions were used in the interview
protocol for each group of participants (employees and leaders). The researcher conducted
interviews with the individuals selected, noted and recorded the conversation in accordance
with the list of questions that had been prepared (see Appendix C), as recommended in the
literature (Bell, 1989; Creswell, 2005).
Steps of the interview
The researcher first contacted the leaders of units in which the interviewee worked.
This was done to convey the purpose and goals of the interview, and obtain permission to
interview the relevant subordinates in connection with the research. Then relevant
individuals were contacted and appointments were set with who were available, had the
capability and willingness to be interviewed for this study.
133
The time and place of interview was determined jointly with unit leaders. The aim was to
disrupt the office routine as little as possible and to ensure that the interview was carried
out in a comfortable atmosphere. The researcher also asked the interviewees for permission
to use a recording device during the interview. The researcher explained that the interview
would be conducted using a questionnaire-based guided or interview protocol prepared in
the form of a list of open-ended questions. This full disclosure of the mode of research was
provided in order to put the interviewees at their ease and reduce anxiety.
Before asking the five main questions, the researcher asked the interviewees to provide
general information about their identity (this was optional), age, occupation and position,
rank, and areas of work that they were assigned in the office. This was followed by the
interview using questions from the interview protocol. The researcher recorded the
interview using an electronic recording tool.
At the end of each interview, the researcher examined the notes and reviewed the
recordings to discover if there was any unclear information that needed to be confirmed
with each interviewee before the interview session ended. Finally, each session of the
interview ended with the researcher thanking the interviewee, and explaining that if there
was any information which needed clarification, the researcher would contact them for a
follow up discussion.
Reviewing the documents
The data collection involved reviewing some documents, especially administrative records
(Gray, 2009), of the specified universities, in order to obtain reliable information to
complement the data that were collected through the survey questionnaire and interviews.
To obtain the required documents, the researcher directly contacted the executives of the
universities, and sought permission to collect and review the required data. The reviewing
process was conducted during and after the data collection. The documents included
university catalogues, university directories, catalogues of the faculties, and annual reports
of the specified universities. These documents provided the researcher with appropriate
sources of information including historical, performance reports and statistical data (Prior,
134
2008). The documents contained significant information describing the organisational
structure, size or number of staff, type of university (public or private), and age of the
higher education institutions that became the targets of this study. Thus, this step offered
the researcher a way of complementing the data obtained from the other sources of
information, particularly in relation to the organisational context of the research data.
4.5. Summary
This chapter discussed the research design, instrumentation, and techniques of data
collection. To obtain more comprehensive perspectives from the research findings, this
study required mixed method to explore both quantitative and qualitative data sources. The
systematic process of the method and the context of participants and research site were
discussed to provide a basis for carrying out the mixed method appropriately. To gather the
quantitative data, this study developed the instrument in two versions (for employee and
leader respondents). The instruments were developed addressing organisational factors,
individual characteristics, participative management, organisational culture, employee
work attitude, and employee performance behaviour. The final instruments consisted of
110 items for each version, was used in the main data collection. The survey questionnaire
was complemented by interviews for selected employees and leaders and by a document
review. The interviews were designed to explore the participants‟ perceptions about the
participative management and its associations with employee performance behaviour. The
document analysis was designed to gather demographic information about the individuals
and organisations and understand about the context of the research. The methods of
analysing the data gathered by the research design and instrumentation are discussed in the
next chapter.
135
Chapter Five
Methods of Data Analysis
5.1 Introduction
In order to investigate various factors that may affect the implementation of the
participative management model in university settings, it is necessary to consider the
technical issues involved in the measurement of attitudes and perceptions of employees
about management styles. The research model advanced in Chapter Three required that
several different methods of analysis should be employed, which also meant that several
software packages had to be used in this study. This chapter begins by discussing some
general methodological considerations associated with the examination of the research
model. Then, several analytical techniques and associated software used in the analysis of
data are described.
5.2 General Methodological Considerations
There are several methodological issues underpinning statistical techniques in analysing
the data for a research. These should be considered in order to use the most appropriate
techniques for the purpose of this study. The methodological issues include: (1) missing
values, (2) the notion of causality, (3) significance testing in social science, and (4) levels
of analysis. Each of these issues is discussed briefly below.
5.2.1 Missing values
Cases of missing data quite often occur in the process of respondents filling out research
questionnaires (Stevens, 2009, p. 4). It can potentially become a challenge for researchers
to analyse a dataset with missing values. To obtain reliable results the cases of missing data
should be systematically solved before carrying out further analysis (Shieh, 2011).
Otherwise, some particular modelling procedures simply discard the responses of the
participants who have not completed every question (Arbuckle, 2009; Darmawan, 2003;
Norusis, 2007). Howell (2011) identified three types of missing data: missing completely
136
at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR). The
data are identified as missing completely at random (MCAR), when there is a probability
that an observation is missing, but it is not related to other data values in the analysis
(Norusis, 2007, p. 4). For example, because of unavoidable situations (such as an accident,
bad weather, and health condition), some participants may miss the data collection session
or cannot provide complete responses. Thus, it leads to missing data that are identified as
MCAR. Data are considered as missing at random (MAR) when the pattern of missing data
depends on the observed data only (Norusis, 2007, p. 4), or in a situation where the missing
data are probably not related to the value of the data fter controlling for other variables
(Howell, 2011, p. 2). Some participants, for example, are less inclined to answer items
related with demographic information (economic status, level of salary) because they feel
ashamed at having lower position. When there are more missing data among participants of
lower position, the mean values of economic status and level of salary are probably high
without missing data. However, if the position of a participant is believed not related to
economic status, this can be treated as MAR, though not MCAR (Howell, 2011, p. 2).
Beyond those conditions, data are probably identified as missing neither as MCAR nor
MAR (Howell, 2011; Norusis, 2007). Norusis (2007, p. 4) mentioned that this is not
uncommon situation, and if it happens, then none of the methods is appropriate. However,
Howell (2011) defines this as missing not at random (MNAR), and he suggests if it
happens, it needs extra work to handle the case of MNAR missing data. To obtain a set of
reliable data from this, Howell (2011, p. 2) advised to develop a model that particularly
accounts for the missing data. However, due to the limited scope in this study, this
approach is not followed further in this study.
Darmawan (2002) claimed that with standard statistical techniques there are basically three
procedures that can be employed to deal with missing values found in a multivariate
dataset. This includes (1) listwise deletion, (2) pair wise deletion, and (3) imputation. Each
of these techniques has advantages and disadvantages. Listwise deletion is the simplest
approach by the way of exclusion of the cases that has missing data. Sometimes it is also
called complete case analysis. When a study contains missing data making up less than 5%
137
of the total cases, applying the method of listwise deletion can be seen as a reasonable and
simple way to deal with these missing data (Darmawan, 2003; Norusis, 2007). Besides
simple, this method can provide unbiased parameter estimates especially when data are
missing completely at random (Howell, 2011). Nevertheless, this technique has some
disadvantages. In multivariate settings where missing values occur in more than one
variable, the loss in sample size can be considerable.
The pairwise method looks at pairs of variables and only uses cases that have complete
values on both variables. To do this, frequencies, means, and standard deviations from
each pair of variables are computed separately. Correlations and covariances for the pairs
of variables do not depend on missing values in any other variables because other missing
values in the case are ignored (Norusis, 2007). Darmawan (2003) argued that the
advantage of this method is that it is simple and it increases the sample size. However, the
sample base changes from analysis to analysis according to the pattern of missing data.
The problem of missing data can also be solved by employing imputation methods. These
methods are carried out using mean or regression substitutions to complete each missing
value (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Substituting the mean or regression values
into any missing data also has some disadvantages. Darmawan (2003) argued that mean
substitution may change covariance structure and produce estimates of covariance and
variance biased towards zero. On the other hand, regression substitution, may inflate
observed correlation. However, there are some advantages when researchers apply these
procedures. Besides simple to implement, the imputation methods can retain the original
number of the observed cases.
This study employed mean substitution as the imputation method for missing data. There
were several conditions underlying the use of this method. The missing values for each of
the researched variables was less than 5% as indicated in the result of the descriptive
analysis of the item from both employee and leader instruments as shown in Appendix G
and Appendix H respectively. Imputing the mean values to the missing data, then, does not
significantly impact the structure of the studied variables. For this study, the imputation
138
stage was necessary to meet operational standards for the AMOS program to carry out the
structural equation modelling (SEM) which needs a complete data set. To improve the
model generated by SEM techniques using modification indices, AMOS requires a
complete data set (without missing data). Otherwise, the modification indices procedure
for the model improvement cannot be executed (Arbuckle, 2009).
5.2.2 Notion of causality
Multivariate studies commonly involve ideas of probabilistic causation (Tuijnman &
Keeves, 1994). This becomes a critical issue when the findings about the interrelationships
among variables lead to controversial findings. The results that are generated by the data
analysis may lead to the conclusions beyond theoretical perspectives. Most studies,
particularly in social sciences, such as the educational management area are guided by
particular theories. The researcher holds certain theories to develop the research models,
and subsequently influence the analysis techniques applied.
With respect to this notion of causality, Kenny (1979) and Vogt (1993) suggest that, before
applying SEM procedures for data analysis, the principle criteria for cause and effect
relations among the research variables have to be met in a logical manner. Events must be
coordinated with certain circumstances before they can have effects. Such circumstances
must be present before other causal relations can exist. According to Vogt (1993), to
attribute cause, for X to cause Y, three conditions are necessary (but not sufficient): (1) X
must precede Y; (2) X and Y must covary; (3) no rival explanations should account for the
covariance between X and Y.
In this study, participative management as a variable is assumed theoretically to be
affecting the level of employee performance at work. This is generally consistent with
propositions of theories in management and leadership, that management and leadership
types in organisations are assumed to cause particular employee performance behaviour.
Autocratic leaders, for example, are hypothesised as producing poor employee
performance. Employees demonstrate unfavourable behaviour, such as being lazy at work,
139
and not providing satisfactory customer services. Any pattern of relationships that is not
consistent with the theories or in unreasonable causations subject to modifications.
5.2.3 Significance testing in social science research
Tuijnman and Keeves (1994) have emphasised the widespread but inappropriate reliance
of researchers and computer programs on significance tests, which assume a simple
random sample, when most studies in social research do not follow such a design. Brick et
al. (1997) also argued that when data are collected as part of a complex sample survey,
there is often no easy way to produce approximately unbiased and design-consistent
estimates of variance analytically.
Some procedures attempt to take into consideration such sample characteristics. The
replication method for estimating variances was used to calculate the significance of
differences (Darmawan, 2003). This study employed the multi level technique of HLM to
take account of the nested structure of the samples.
5.2.4 Level of analysis
In this study, single level analyses were carried out at both employee and leader level. To
perform this procedure, the data obtained from both samples (employee and leader) were
combined in order to incorporate the data into a single format. Darmawan (2003) claimed
that this step might produce bias and incorrect error estimates. This requires a particular
technique to minimise the impact of the combination of the data. Two common methods
used in integrating data from two or more levels into a single level are: (1) to aggregate the
data from lower level into the higher level, and (2) to disaggregate the higher level data to
the lower level (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). This study used the two methods for single
level analyses at leader and employee level respectively. The aggregation of the data to the
higher level in this study was performed by bringing the individual data (employee) to the
organisational unit led by a leader. The disaggregation of the data to a lower level was
carried out by assigning leader and organisational characteristics to each member of
sample of employees. However, it is acknowledged that both procedures may lead to bias
140
estimations. Both procedures probably produced incorrect estimates of the effects among
the variables (Darmawan, 2003).
Aggregation effects
One variable may show negative impacts in one level of analysis, but reveal positive
impacts on another level (Sellin, 1990). Snijders and Bosker (1999) also reported that some
potential errors in the aggregation for example include changes in the context of the data
from individual into organisational characteristics. These include the following four
possibilities. Shift of meaning occurs when a variable that is aggregated to the macro-level
refers to the macro units, not directly to the micro units. Ecological fallacy is a correlation
between macro level variables cannot be used to make assertions about micro level
relations. Neglect of the original structure refers to inappropriate tests of significance
being applied in the examination of the effects of sampling error. Loss of cross-level
interactions means that the interaction effects between a specified micro-level and as yet
unspecified macro level variable cannot be examined.
Disaggregation effects
The disaggregation procedure may become a problem in analysing the data. Darmawan
(2003) argued that the distorting effects of disaggregated data (group level) on the
individual level becomes a disaggregation bias. It may happen when a value from a group
level variable is assigned to members of the same group at the individual level. To deal
with this issue, the independence of observations should be assumed as independent. Since
this is not a simple case, this study does not explain this issue in detail. However, to
minimise the bias results in employing the two procedures, this study employed the
multilevel analysis techniques.
141
5.3 Quantitative Data Analysis
5.3.1 The use of PASW statistics/SPSS software
This study used PASW Statistics/SPSS 18 software for descriptive analysis, the test for
normality and multicollinearity, and internal reliability of the scales. PASW stands for
Predictive Analytics SoftWare, the latest version of SPSS (the Statistical Packages for
Social Sciences) acquired by IBM (Norusis, 2010). This statistics package contains the
newest advances in the statistical software, and it is regarded as a comprehensive system
that can be used for analysing data in social sciences research work. Through the use of
this software, the results of the analysis in this study were generated in the formats of
tabulations, charts, and diagrams. The different analyses carried out using the PASW
statistics package are discussed below.
Descriptive analysis
Prior to examining the associations among the variables and testing the hypothesised
proposed research model, descriptive analysis was carried out. This step was intended to
describe the nature of the data in general (Gray, 2009). To obtain the information from the
descriptive analysis, statistical calculations such as mean, variance, and standard deviation
were used. Mean values show the average score of the observed cases, while variance and
standard deviation provide useful information to examine how the responses vary from the
mean (Gray, 2009).
Test for normality
It was also desirable to evaluate whether each variable was normally distributed. Skewness
and kurtosis are used as criteria to identify whether the data are normal or non-normal. The
distribution of sample scores was identified as normal, when the values of skewness and
kurtosis were close to zero (Darmawan, 2003; Kline, 2005). Additionally, by using
graphics, such as a histogram generated from SPSS output, the normality of the data can be
examined. The results of the normality test are described in Chapter Six.
142
Test for multicollinearity
Prior to conducting single level path analysis, the extent of multicollinearity among the
independent variables was tested. Multicollinearity refers to the “extent to which a variable
can be explained by other variables in the analysis” (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 2). Variance
inflation factor (VIF), as one of the techniques to test the multicollinearity, was used to
detect which variable could have an issue with multicollinearity, and potentially decrease
the researcher‟s ability to predict the strengths of the relationships among the variables.
Reliability of scales
PASW Statistics/SPSS software was used to test the reliability of the scales used in this
study. Reliability refers the extent to which the instrument as a measurement tool obtains
responses consistent (Gray, 2009). The aims of the reliability test are to examine the
stability and consistency of the scores from an instrument in measuring a concept
(Darmawan, 2003; Sekaran, 1992). An instrument can be identified as a reliable tool of
measurement when it is able to show stability in its measured results over time (Gray,
2009) and the extent of random error in measuring observations (Pallant, 2001).
There are two types of indicators which were used to measure the reliability of the
instrument. First, test-retest (also referred to as temporal stability) and internal consistency.
The test-retest reliability of a measure is assessed by administering it to the same people,
on two different occasions, and calculating the correlation between the two set of scores
obtained. High test-retest correlation indicates more reliable measurement. The second
type is internal consistency, showing the degree to which the items that are used in the
measurement process are all measuring the same underlying attribute. In this study, the
internal consistency of the measures was assessed by the Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient that
was generated from SPSS analysis output (Darmawan, 2003).
143
5.3.2 The Use of AMOS for confirmatory factor analysis and single level path analysis
Analysis of moment structure (abbreviated as AMOS) is the software package that
implements Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) approach to data analysis (Arbuckle,
2009, p. 1). It examines the relationships among the variables simultaneously. This is
carried out by merging two concepts of statistics, namely the concept of factor analysis that
is based on the measurement model and the concept of regression related to the structural
model. To examine the relationships, SEM program employs equations to express the
structure of interrelationships among constructs of the study. These constructs refer to
latent variables representing a factor in factor analysis. Because of its unique feature of
dealing with multi or many variables, it can be regarded as a combination of both
multivariate techniques: factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair, et al.,
2010).
Basic assumptions in using AMOS
There are two assumptions underlying the use of AMOS in implementing SEM
procedures. First, observations must be independent, under which condition for example
the cases of a study are selected independently from a population. Second, the observed
variables must meet certain distributional requirements (Arbuckle, 2009, p. 35). As a part
of multivariate technique, SEM procedures uphold these assumptions. Normal distribution
is a standard assumption required for the applications of multivariate analysis (Kline, 2005;
Stevens, 2009). Although the normality requirement is difficult to meet in research that
involves multiple variables, Stevens (2009) argued that normality on each of the variables
separately is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for multivariate normality to hold.
Two other conditions for particular variables still need multivariate normal distribution,
including (1) any linear combination of the variables, and (2) all subsets of the set of the
variables. The second condition implies that all pairs of variables must normally be
bivariate. Using a scatter plot diagram, the multivariate normality of each pair of the
variables can be examined. For example, the higher the correlation, the thinner the ellipse
(Stevens, 2009, p. 222). Another condition applied under which maximum likelihood
estimation can be carried out. If some exogenous variables are fixed, the remaining
(random) variables have to be normally distributed for any pattern of values and for
144
variance-covariance matrix. Furthermore, the expected values of the random variables
should be linear on the values of the fixed variables (Arbuckle, 2009, pp. 35-36).
Components of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
SEM procedure is characterised in two basic components. The first component is a
measurement model that describes the relationship between the variables with the
indicators, specifies the indicators for each construct, and enables researchers to assess
construct validity. The measurement model describes the attributes that are measured, and
components associated with other attributes that are not measured (error). In other words,
the values appear in the model show the attributes of measurement and error. In the SEM
image, the scores of an item are built from two components, namely attributes and
measurement error. The second component is the structural model which specifies what
constructs are related and the nature of each relationship (Hair, et al., 2010). It specifies the
relationships between one variable and another. These relationships can be either
correlation or leverage. Correlations between variables are indicated by lines with double
headed arrows at both ends, while the leverage effect is marked with single ended arrow.
The benefits of using AMOS
AMOS offers a sophisticated way for researchers to carry out multivariate analysis. There
are some benefits when using this program. It is an easy-to-use program for visualization
of the research modelling. The numeric methods implemented in Amos are among the
most effective and reliable available. Users can quickly specify, view, and modify research
models by using drawing AMOS menus. Users can also examine the model fit based on fit
indices supplied in the program, make modifications if necessary, and display final models
graphically (Arbuckle, 2009).
According to Arbuckle (2009, p. 2) the analysis of SEM employing Amos can be
undertaken using one of the following estimate methods: (1) maximum likelihood, (2)
unweighted least squares, (3) generalized least squares, (4) Browne‟s asymptotically
distribution-free criterion, (5) scale-free least squares, and (6) Bayesian estimation.
145
5.3.3 Confirmatory factor analysis for testing the construct validity of the instruments
In order to obtain reliable research findings, this study requires valid instruments that were
used to collect data from the research sites. The instrument that was used for employee
respondents was subjected to a construct validity analysis. This was carried out by
employing a statistical technique known as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). CFA is
defined as a way of testing how far the research variables represent their particular
constructs (Hair, et al., 2010). In line with Cramer (2003), Hair et al. (2010), and Albright
and Park (2009), CFA was used in this study to determine whether the hypothesised model
or the proposed factor structure model fitted the data. The implementation of this technique
is started by developing the items of the measurement model based on the theory used in
this study (Albright & Park, 2009; Hair, et al., 2010). The model thus, is tested by
examining the factor loadings between the first factor and observed variables (Albright &
Park, 2009).
In order to find the model that best represented the data in the research context, a number
of models were tested and compared with one another. The choice of the model which best
fitted the data was based on the indices generated by CFA analyses (Cramer, 2003).The
final product of this procedure was in the format of a statistical information about the
model fit of the variables. The researcher then used this information to identify which of
the proposed models provided an adequate fit to the data.
Underlying issues of using confirmatory factor analysis
The underlying issues of using the CFA in this study include: (1) the constructs of the
measurement used in this study were developed based on previous theories, that were
broadly acknowledged in management and leadership studies; (2) some items of the
measures were adopted from a number of previous instruments used by previous research;
(3) this study involved the investigation of multiple variables; and (4) the developed
instruments needed to be tested within a particular situation, Indonesian context.
146
To identify the probability that the hypothesised measurement model was supported by the
data, the measured variables were tested to examine whether the individual items
adequately represented the constructs that they were intended to represent.
Advantages of using CFA
The key advantage of performing the confirmatory analysis was to provide an analytical
procedure to test the probability that the hypothesised factor structures of this study were
supported by the data (Albright & Park, 2009; Cramer, 2003; Hair, et al., 2010). The use of
CFA then became an essential stage for the validation procedure in this study within the
research context. The results of this validation were subsequently used to assess the quality
of the individual items of instrument that had been initially developed out of the related
concepts of management and leadership.
CFA stages for the validation of measures used in the current study
Defining individual constructs
Although the two questionnaires were developed from the same measurement theory, and
intended to measure the same attitudes or constructs, they were adjusted in terms of
language style and instructions for each section of the instrument to suit the two levels of
respondents (employees and leaders). There was a big difference between the number of
leaders and employees involved in this study, 52 and 880 respectively. Since it is
problematic to perform CFA for a small sample (Hair, et al., 2010), CFA was undertaken
only for the employees‟ data. This also influenced the subsequent steps of analysis.
Developing the overall measurement model
In order to obtain a reliable measure, several issues related with the SEM procedure in
producing a measurement model needed to be considered. These included
unidimensionality, congeneric measurement model, and items per construct (Hair, et al.,
2010). Unidimensionality refers to a set of observed variables that can be explained by
only a single construct. It was hypothesised that each variable related only to one particular
construct. Thus, when the model was identified as unidimensional, all cross-loadings were
147
hypothesised to be zero, because each item relates to only a single construct (represented
by one arrow from a latent construct to the item (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 674). Congeneric
measurement model refers to „measurement model consisting of several unidimensional
constructs with all cross-loadings and between-and within-construct error covariances
appropriately fixed at zero (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 669). In other words, the congeneric
model assumes that each individual item measures the same latent variable (Graham, 2006,
p. 935). Hair et al. (2010, p. 675) argued that the instrument that meets this category is
assumed to have construct validity and to be consistent with good measurement practice.
In order to identify the model successfully, the number of items in a construct also should
be considered. To obtain a solution in a measurement modelling, SEM procedure requires
at least three or four items per construct. As suggested by Hair et al. (2010), CFA needs
enough information from the sample covariance matrix in order to identify the model. The
results of a measurement modelling may fall into three categories including unidentified,
just-identified, and overidentified (Albright & Park, 2009; Hair, et al., 2010). A particular
measurement model is described as unidentified when it has more parameters to be
estimated than unique variances and covariances in the matrix. This is probably due to
insufficient observed variances to estimate the parameters. When it has less parameters
than the observed variances and covariances, the model is identified as overidentified. The
third condition, when the model has the same number of variances/covariances and
parameters, is classified as just-identified. Thus, to obtain a perfect fit and an identified
model or solution, each construct should have a sufficient number of items for each
construct.
Model specification
Confirmatory factor analysis begins the measurement modelling by specifying the
correspondence between indicator and construct (Hair, et al., 2010). A study specifies the
observed variables or indicators related with each construct. In diagrams, constructs are
represented by circles or ovals, and the observed variables are shown as rectangles. The
relationship between an item and factor is indicated by an arrow from the circles to the
rectangles (See Chapter Seven for such a diagram from this study).
148
To enable the CFA to test the model, the scale of all constructs (endogenous and
exogenous) as latent variables should have one indicator to be given a starting value of 1.
There are two general procedures to assign this value: (1) assign a value 1 for one of the
factor loadings on each construct; (2) fix the value of the variance of the construct with 1,
so that the estimated covariance matrix among constructs equals one (Hair, et al., 2010, p.
681). The AMOS software automatically assign properly the “1” values on latent
constructs. To test the model, CFA performs the computation by assigning the values of
each observed variable. This step was done by transforming the input data from the initial
descriptive analysis. This is followed by computing beta values (regression coefficients) to
examine the influences of factors on the measured indicators. Since the variables are only
partly explained by the factors, each variable needs a residual showing the unexplained
part.
The residual is calculated employing the formula R refers to beta
values showing the correlation or loading between latent and manifest variables. AMOS
displays the residual ("Confirmatory factor analaysis (CFA)," 2011). The
square of the standardised factor loading (correlation) represents the proportion of
variances in an item explained by the latent factor and is referred to as the variance
extracted of the item (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 686). In some cases, the model requires curved
two-headed arrows, indicating a relationship among the factors, without showing the
direction of the effect.
Each parameter can be estimated for a unique variance and covariance in the matrix. Thus,
the covariance matrix shows the degrees of freedom (df) used to estimate parameters, such
as the number of respondents in regression. The degrees of freedom refers to the number of
values in a statistical calculation that allows the values to vary freely. It is obtained by
computing the number of observed variance and covariance minus the number of estimated
parameters. Generally, in multivariate techniques, for example in regression, df is the
sample size minus the number of estimated coefficients. In SEM, the number of degrees of
freedom is based on the size of covariance matrix which comes from the number of
indicators in the model. Thus, it is calculated using the formula:
149
(Hair, et al., 2010, p. 647). Where is the total number of observed variables and is the
number of estimated (free) parameters, which is the mathematical information found in the
covariance matrix. The total number of observed variance/covariances is calculated using a
general formula
where n or p represents the number of
observed variables (Cramer, 2003, p. 32; Hair, et al., 2010, p. 647). For example, if the
number of items is 6 and there are 14 unknown or free parameters, then there will be 21
observed variances and covariances. The value of degrees of freedom can be generated as a
number 7 (21 observed – 14 unknown/ unique parameters). At his stage, the relationships
or loadings among the researched variables, particularly between the constructs and the
measured variables, can be identified by referring to significant criteria (see “assessing the
model fit” in the following section) for identifying significant factor loadings.
The measurement models to be tested using CFA in the current study
Measurement modelling for a research study is complex work because it deals with multi
factors that need to be examined. Examining the constructs in social sciences, often
involves multivariate and multi-level factors. Thus, the measurement modelling often
becomes complex (Keeves & Masters, 1999). For example, as explained in Chapter Four,
the current study developed constructs based on previous studies and theories in the field
of management and leadership. It proposed a number of variables that were previously
stand-alone single constructs. First, the participative management model incorporated
seven constructs: leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making,
goal setting, and control process. Second, the organisational culture was developed around
three constructs: bureaucratic, supportive, and innovative. Third, employee work attitude
incorporated three constructs: self-autonomy, meaningful task, job security, and job
satisfaction. Fourth, the employee performance was developed in the three constructs of
organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and withdrawal behaviour (which
incorporated turnover and absenteeism).
Conceptually, all the constructs could be potentially structured in five different models: (1)
single factor model, (2) correlated factors model, (3) uncorrelated factor model, (4)
hierarchical factor model, and (5) nested factor model (Curtis, 2010; Darmawan, 2003;
150
Hair, et al., 2010). The first model (single factor model) was used to examine how far the
factors of the variables were undifferentiated in the observation and loaded on to a single
factor. The second model (correlated factors model) was used to test whether the proposed
constructs were correlated factors in the model. The third model, namely uncorrelated or
orthogonal, is similar to the second model except that the factors were assumed to be
uncorrelated. The fourth model (hierarchical factor model) was used to test the model in
which the proposed component constructs were first order factors (the constructs were
positioned in the first layer of the model) and they loaded onto a single second order factor
in the model. The fifth model (nested factor model) was used to test whether the observed
variables loaded onto a number of constructs or loaded separately onto a single factor
(Curtis, 2010; Darmawan, 2003; Hair, et al., 2010).
The fit indices of the five models were compared to find the model with the best structure
for this study.
Assessing the model fit
To select which model had the best structure for this study, the preliminary step was to
examine factor loadings of each observed variable onto its latent factor in the models.
According to (Hair, et al., 2010) the value of a factor loading represents the correlation
between the variable and the factor, and the squared loading is the amount of the variable‟s
total variance accounted for by the factor. The larger the absolute size of loading values,
the more important the loadings in interpreting the factor matrix (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 116).
To assess the loadings, this study used practical significance criteria as follow:
Factor loadings in the range 0.30 to 0.40 were considered to meet the minimal
level for interpretation of structure.
Loadings 0.50 or > 0.50 were considered practically significant.
Loadings exceeding 0.70 were considered indicative of well-defined structure
(Hair, et al., 2010, p. 117)
The next step was to identify the final model of choice by comparing the five models
across a number of fit indices. These were: (chi-square divided by the number of
151
degrees of freedom); GFI (goodness-of-fit-index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), CFI
(comparative fit index), and RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation). A model
that has a RMSEA value that is close to zero indicates a good fit; if the value is 0.08 or
less, it suggests a reasonable error in approximation. A value of > 0.1 would mean that the
model could not be accepted as good. A ratio of chi-square ( ) that is less than 5 (< 5)
in a model involving a large sample would indicate the model is good fit (Darmawan,
2003) or demonstrates an acceptable fit between the hypothesised model and the sample
data (Arbuckle, 2009). The other criteria (GFI, TLI, CFI) indicate a good fit for the model
when the minimum values obtained for these indexes are greater than or equal to 0.90
(Arbuckle, 2009).
Finally, the examination of the model fit was also supported by considering theoretical
backgrounds and concepts underpinning the development of the research constructs.
Additionally, the assessment of the competing models was also confirmed by the results of
empirical measures that retained most of the items in each construct (Hair, et al., 2010). In
this way, the final selection of the structure of Participative Management and Employee
Performance (PMEP) measurement model for the current study was made.
5.3.4 Path analysis
This study involved a number of factors functioning as predictors and criterion or
independent and dependent variables. All the research variables are assumed to have
multiple and complex relationships to one other. To investigate the relationships between
the observed variables and the latent variables as well as among the latent variables
(Tuijnman & Keeves, 1994), path analysis was employed using the SEM procedures
(Cramer, 2003; Darmawan, 2003; Kaplan, 2009; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This
technique is an extension of the regression model and it is used to test the fit of the
correlation matrix against two or more causal models which are compared by a researcher
(Garson, 2011, p. 1). It involves setting up a model showing the associations among two or
more variables (Cramer, 2003, p. 91), so that the strength of the relationships or
associations can be calculated using a correlation or covariance matrix as input (Hair, et
al., 2010, p. 662). In SEM procedures, the path model is often depicted as a circle and
152
arrow figure. The variables are ordered from left to the right, connected by arrows showing
the direction of the influences among the variables.
Specifying the model and draw path diagram
In SEM procedure, an indicator variable is referred as a manifest or observed variable and
it is represented by a rectangle or square, while a factor or it sometimes called as a latent
variable, is represented by a circle or an ellipse. The arrow moves from latent to manifest
or observed variable to reflect that the indicator is a reflection of the underlying variable.
Proportion of error or unique variance is found at the end of this arrow leading to the
manifest variable. This value is computed by subtracting the reliability coefficient from the
value of one (Cramer, 2003, p. 104). Although this technique is not as simple as one which
takes no account of measurement error, the path coefficient produced in this path analysis
becomes greater (Cramer, 2003). It makes it easier for the researcher to compare and
determine the fit of a model, based on several fit indices used.
Through the path diagram, a researcher can also examine the direct and indirect effects
among the variables. Direct effects, which show a relationship between two constructs or
variables, are linked by a single arrow. This means one construct is assumed to be directly
influenced by another construct. Indirect effects refer to the relationships that are mediated
by at least one intervening construct (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 751). In a path diagram, these
are depicted by multiple arrows, representing a sequence of two or more effects. The
following diagram the line C illustrates a direct effect , while the indirect effect of
K on E, which is mediated by M, is shown by the two lines A and B to form the sequence
(Hair, et al., 2010, p. 751).
Figure 5.1. Direct and indirect effect
153
The indirect effects are estimated as the product of direct effects, either standardised or
unstandardised, that comprise them (Kline, 2005, p. 128). Statistically, it is computed by
multiplying the path coefficient between two or more dependent variables by the path
coefficient between one of the dependent variables and the independent variable in a model
(Cramer, 2003, p. 96).
In specifying the model, path analysis requires the assumption of regression. The causal
variables need to be included in order to determine the extent of direct and indirect causal
paths to the dependent variable (Tuijnman & Keeves, 1994). The regression weights
predicted by the model are compared with the observed correlation matrix variables,
followed by calculating a goodness-of-fit statistic (Tuijnman & Keeves, 1994). The best
model fit is judged based on the goodness-of-fit statistics.
Trimming and building a path model
Trimming and building a path model is aimed to gain a parsimonious model that still
reasonably fits the data (Kline, 2005, p. 145). This stage begins with analysing a just-
identified model and simplifies it by eliminating pathways. Model building is started a bare
bone-bones, over-identified model to which paths are added. At this stage, the overall fit to
the data typically becomes worse (e.g., increases). Later, model fit generally improves
as pathways are added (e.g., decreases) (Kline, 2005, p. 146). To produce a model that
met the parsimonious requirement, this study specified the model that was analysed
through model trimming and building. The model trimming was carried out by removing
any path coefficient that had t-values < 2 or insignificant correlations. It continued by
modifying the directions of the paths to specify the acceptable associations among the
variables, applying a level of significance between 0.1 to 0.05 (Arbuckle, 2009, p. 30).
5.3.5 The use of Conquest for Rasch Model in item analysis
The Rasch model was employed to examine how far the responses to the items and their
latent regressions fitted the model of this study. This statistical procedure was introduced
by a Danish mathematician, George Rasch (1980). In its current development, it has
become a new solution to respond to challenges faced by researchers. Luo et al. (2009) for
154
example, claimed that the Rasch model has been applied as complementary analysis in
addressing the weakness of a classical test theory in instrument. It was initially developed
to deal with the analysis of dichotomous item responses. However, in its recent
development, this model has also been widely used for analysing items of polytomous
response categories used for measuring attitudinal traits that reflect respondent perceptions
(Andrich, 2005; Ben, 2010; Grondin & Blais, 2010).
Purpose of the use of the Rasch Model in the current study
The main purpose of employing this technique is to identify whether the items
appropriately measure the underlying construct of the research variables. The individual
items are examined to assess their functioning, latent correlations, item dimensionality, and
whether they produce plausible values.
Application of Conquest 2.0 software for the item analysis
To conduct the Rasch procedures, this study used Conquest 2.0 software. The software was
introduced by Wu et al.(2007). This software is quite well known and widely used
especially in educational, medical and other community research. The reason that this
software is often used in the field of education research, is because a single program of this
software can produce a wide variety of item response models, including multidimensional,
as well as integration between item response and regression analysis (Wu, et al., 2007).
The features produced by the software are also quite comprehensive and flexible to
generate. The outputs provide response model parameter estimates and graphics plotting
for items. Values, as well as maximum likelihood, item difficulty, t values, and in fit and
outfit values can be generated. These are subsequently used to determine how the items fit
the model of the research instrument, in addition to indicating each item can be accepted as
reliable and valid.
The property of the Rasch Model
The property of the Rasch model has the key feature that the probability of success for an
item can be completely determined by two values: an item difficulty and a person ability
155
(Wu & Adams, 2007, p. 74). Thus, the mathematical formula for executing this model
can be expressed using the following equation:
In the natural logarithm (Grondin & Blais, 2010), the expression becomes a logit model:
Ln [ /(1- )] = - . The equation is expressed as follow:
Where represents the probability of person n, endorsing item i, shows the position
of the opinion or attitude being measured as reflected by the item. While shows the
person‟s location, on a linear scale (attitudinal Likert scale). The purpose of using the
Rasch model in dichotomous items is to scale person ability and item difficulty in a test or
a survey questionnaire on the same continuum. If respondents find a question is easy to
answer, then the respondents who have a higher ability are most likely able to answer the
question correctly.
This equation was initially designed for the dichotomous categories. However, Andrich
(2005) pointed out that it can also become the basis for two or more ordered responses,
depending on the number of thresholds (the location of item or ). Thus, the Rasch
model analysis for the items in the current study was performed employing this equation.
The Rasch logistic model: partial credit and rating scale
There are two models as the extensions to Rasch‟s simple logistic model that can be used
to analyse polytomous items: a rating scale and a partial credit model (Wu, et al., 2007, p.
29). The rating scale is employed for items that have the same number of threshold across
items, while partial credit model is suitable for use with items that have different number
of thresholds for different items.
In this study, the rating scale for the polytomous item responses was used. The reasons
were that the number of thresholds for the items was the same, and the difference between
any threshold locations and the mean of the threshold locations was equal across items.
156
The format of the instrument required respondents to endorse their choices, which implied
their attitudes towards managerial behaviour of their leader.
Examining item thresholds
To ensure that responses from each item are interpretable, the thresholds, which are
reflected in the distribution of item logits, should be in order. The Rasch Model assumes
the thresholds should be in order pattern indicating that there is no swapping among the
categories. The thresholds of the respondents would show a shift in assigning the values
monotonically, in other words there is no swapping among the categories they selected. To
assess the pattern of responses for these categories, this study examined whether item
deltas obtained by each item were in order.
Luo et al. (2009) pointed out that the responses given by respondents followed a pattern
showing a monotonic shifting values assigned by respondents in the same direction. Any
categories violating this pattern are considered as disordered.
The sequence of derivations is calculated using the following formula of Rasch for rating
scale model (Andrich, 2005):
Where x ( ) is an integer random variable characterizing m+1 successive category,
and represent the location of individual and item on latent continuum, k = 1, 2, 3, …
m are m thresholds that divide the continuum into to m + 1 ordered categories. The
monotonicity of the item responses were also examined to find out whether the categories
performed appropriately as interpretable measure (Luo, et al., 2009).
The calculation of residual based fit statistics
The extent of item responses and their latent regressions fit to the model of measurement is
determined using the formula of the Rasch analysis technique. Two types of mean square
157
fit statistics (infit and outfit) were used to test the model fit for all items, using the
following formula (Wu & Adams, 2007).
Outfit statistic (unweighted mean-square):
Infit statistic (weighted mean-square):
Where N is the total number respondents is the observed score for person n on an item.
The infit statistic is a weighted value that gives more weight to responses close to the
estimated mode of an item. The outfit statistic is unweighted estimate influenced mostly by
unexpected responses. Both infit and outfit statistics have an expected value of 1 (Luo, et
al., 2009). The items can be regarded as a fit for the model when the observed values of the
items are in the range of fit 05 to 1.5, employed for all items (Linacre, 2002b, 2009).
Based on these considerations, the Rasch model for Likert-type rating scales was used in
this study to provide a reliable model for interpreting the real attitudes of the sample.
5.3.6 Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM)
As stated earlier in this chapter, this study involved a number of variables at two different
levels. The data was collected from two groups of participants: employees and leaders.
There were also some organisational factors that needed to be explored. Thus, the data
collected in this study actually belonged to three different levels: organisational, leader,
and employee level. As result, variables are assumed to have complex and layered inter-
relationships. To enable this study to analyse the relations among the nested variables,
hierarchical linear modelling was employed (Darmawan & Keeves, 2009). This technique
is required to measure causal relationships, multi dimensional and multi level relationships
among the research variables, and to describe the directions of the relations of each
158
variable (Kaplan, 2009). The descriptive and multivariate analysis of the quantitative data
was continued on the basis of multilevel analysis of the data from the nested research
participants. For this purpose, the data analysis was assisted by the software of hierarchical
linear modelling (HLM) program of Version 6.08 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon,
& Toit, 2004).
The main assumptions using HLM
Hierarchical linear modelling procedure requires an underlying assumption, as with other
multivariate techniques, that the researched variables should be independent, and normally
distributed. The observations are independent, when observations of any one individual are
not systematically related to the other observations of another individual. This assumption
is violated when the observed parameters, for example, are generated from cases in the
same sample group. To avoid biased estimates of relationships, HLM requires a properly
specified model where the outcome is a linear function of regression coefficients. It
assumes independent errors with equal variance for the random part. To test the hypothesis
in a study, it also requires that the errors are normally distributed (Bryk & Raudenbush,
1992). Since the macro and micro level effects have to be assumed as random rather than
„fixed‟ effects, Darmawan and Keeves (2009, p. 51) argued that the data from the micro
and macro level needs to be generated from a random sampling in order to provide
findings with some degree of generality.
However, to investigate the effects of variables from both levels potentially produces bias
estimates. This may be due to substantially losses in matching the data from different
levels of the variables in the population (Darmawan & Keeves, 2009, p. 51). To handle this
problem, significant testing procedures are employed to assess the magnitudes of the
estimated effects. The estimated coefficient is not regarded as a sufficient magnitude for
further consideration when it has a value less than twice its standard error (Darmawan &
Keeves, 2009, p. 51).
159
The advantages of using HLM
Hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) is a particular regression technique that was designed
to deal with the hierarchical structure of educational data (Raudenbush & Bryk, 1986). It
aimed to overcome the problems found in single-level analysis using SEM procedure
(Darmawan, 2003), especially when the multilevel procedure requires both aggregation
and disaggregation of data before conducting further analyses. Compared with other SEM
procedures, multi level analysis employing HLM technique is assumed to be more accurate
in estimating the interaction effects generated by the nested data (Darmawan, 2001). HLM
can explain the effects by (1) improving the estimation of individual effects; (2) modelling
cross-level effects; and (3) partitioning variance-covariance components among different
level of variables (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).
Generally, studies using multivariate techniques examine the associations among the
variables as a set of single dependent variables, with one or more independent variables.
For example, in this study, the influence of the two independent variables, the participative
management and employee self-autonomy, on employee performance were examined only
separately in the earlier stage of data analysis, without accounting for the data that could
have been nested in the organisational, leader and employee levels. As a consequence, it
was not possible to draw appropriate conclusions regarding the nature of the observations.
Comparisons made among the variables not sensible in term of the advanced
interpretations. Researchers were not able to identify particular factors that might influence
the effects of an independent variable on the outcome variable. Rather than examining the
effects of the independent variables separately, it is better to analyse these kinds of
relations in a multilevel model. Hierarchical linear modelling enables researchers to
examine the mutual effects, taking into account the background characteristics that may be
attributed on each variable. Thus, by using HLM, the relations among the variables could
be hierarchically examined and fixed values of the estimates could be generated
(Darmawan & Keeves, 2009).
Some technical problems may be experienced in applying this technique. The researcher
cannot assign latent variables. If it is necessary or desirable to add a new construct, this
160
technique can combine observed variables into constructs outside HLM, using principal
component analysis. HLM also does not specify whether effects between variables are
direct or indirect. To examine such relationships requires a more complex procedure. It
begins with estimating all predictors on the outcome variable. Next step is to specify one
predicting variable as the outcome variable in each subsequent run. The order of those as
the outcome variables are based on their position in the model (Darmawan, 2003). The
results are compared to determine which new construct is the variable that influences later
variables in the model.
Data preparation for the HLM program
In this study, a complete data set was prepared before carrying out HLM analysis. The
cases at the level-1 model that had missing values were replaced with the grand means
from the level 1 data before aggregating the data to the level-2 (Yuan & Keeves, 2001).
This was necessary to enable this study to analyse the variables in the level-2 model.
However, it is worth noting that other issues concerning the effects of the aggregation
procedure need to be addressed in order to obtain reliable estimates. Darmawan and
Keeves (2009, p. 53) suggest that there are two main issues with the use of aggregated data
in the HLM procedure. These are referred to as „compositional‟ and “contextual” effects.
A “compositional” effect occurs when the influence that an average micro level
independent variable associated with the members of a group has on the criterion variable
is distinct from the effect that individual members have on the criterion variable. This
effect is related to the use of an aggregated micro level variable that varies between the
macro level units in accounting for the variability of intercept . A “contextual” effect
refers to the influence caused by the variation of the mean group regression slope of the
aggregated micro level independent variable. As a result, the micro level variable
(employed as criterion) is influenced by the individual member‟s relative standing within
the group. It does not relate to the effect of the same micro level variable that is not
aggregated to a higher level (Darmawan & Keeves, 2009, p. 53).
161
The operation of the HLM program
Prior to employing the HLM program, there were two main stages of operation that needed
to be performed. In the first stage, the criterion variable at the micro level was regressed on
to the micro level, independent variables. In the second stage, regression coefficients from
the micro level, including the intercept terms, were regressed on to the macro level
independent variables (Darmawan & Keeves, 2009, p. 52). With regard to the data
regression to the macro level, Darmawan and Keeves (2009) pointed out that this
procedure could encounter some issues at the macro and micro level analysis. Separating
the variability in the regression coefficients into their parameter and random error
components becomes problematic at the macro level. At the micro level, the program
partitions the variability in these coefficients into two components: the variance due to
error and the variance due to the parameter. Thus, to obtain an accurate estimation of the
macro level effects, using the parameter components of variance, the parameter variance
needs to be estimated as accurately as possible. Bayes estimation procedure is used to
obtain the values of micro level regression coefficients with reduced error variance. The
regression coefficients are generated by comparing the initial micro level coefficients with
their mean values. Outlier values that are unreliable are successively weighted down, and
the group coefficient is also weighted until convergence is obtained. This procedure is said
to „shrink‟ the micro level regression coefficients and reduce the variance of the estimates
prior to the macro level analysis. Since the micro level regression coefficients have been
estimated as accurately as possible, the estimates of the effects of these macro level
independent variables on these coefficients can be expected to be stronger. Although this
procedure is complex, with use being made of the reliabilities of the relationships that are
dependent on the differences in the sizes of the groups formed at the macro level, it can
produce accurate effect estimates (Darmawan & Keeves, 2009, p. 52).
Model building and specification
Model building in the HLM program involves three steps: (1) preparing a statistical
matrices file; (2) running the analysis using the data displayed on the matrices, and (3)
assessing the model in reference to a residual file (Raudenbush, et al., 2004). Bryk and
Raudenbush (1992) suggested that the fully unconditional model is the simplest model
162
among all multilevel models and contains no predictor variables from any level. The fully
unconditional model is used to obtain the estimates of the amount of variance explained at
each level in the model. For the purpose of this study, the unconditional model for the two
levels is expressed in the following equation:
[Equation 1]
where
= the factor score from component analysis for the employee performance as the
outcome variable;
= the intercept;
= a random between-employee effect which is assumed to be randomly distributed with
a mean of zero and a variance of .
The model at the meso level or level 2 is given by equation:
[Equation 2]
where
= the intercept;
= the mean factor score for employee performance at level 2;
= a random between organisational unit effect which is assumed to be randomly
distributed with a mean of zero and a variance of
The next step is to specify the model. In this study, HLM analysis was used for two levels
of observations. Although, there were there levels of data obtained, this study included
only two levels of observations in the HLM procedure. The reason was that the data, at the
organisational level had an insufficient number of observations. To apply a 2 level analysis
for such data set would not provide appropriate estimates. The specification then was
conducted in two stages: (1) specify the level-1 model that defined a set of level-l
coefficients to be computed for each level-2 unit, (2) specify a level-2 structured model to
predict each of the level-1 coefficients, and (3) specify the level-1 coefficients to be
considered as random (Darmawan, 2003).
163
Model trimming
Trimming the model involves the observation of reliability estimates for the interaction
effects. The random coefficients having low reliability or < 0.05 demonstrate that there
was too much error in estimating the relationship among the predictor and the outcome
variables. Since the assumption of the hierarchical modelling is referred to in analysing the
data, the low reliability can be used as indicator to modify the model by deleting the
variables concerned. Furthermore, the model trimming can also be performed using the
table of final estimation of variance components that is generated in the analysis process.
Any variable that has low or minimum amount of variance explained by the predictors
needs to be removed in order to develop the model (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). To
perform the model trimming could also use the estimation of the gamma ( coefficients to
estimate the model. Any variable that obtains a t-ratio less or below 2.00 with a p-value >
0.05 should be removed for subsequent analysis. Further, the development of the model
can also be carried out by comparing the goodness-of-fit between models. This involves a
deviance reduction of a maximum likelihood estimation (Darmawan, 2003). The final
model then could be identified after comparing the estimates of the variance components in
each level of the model.
5.4 Qualitative Data Analysis
As explained in Chapter Four, the qualitative data of this study were gathered through two
main techniques: interviews and document review. For the interviews, this study involved
24 employee participants and 12 leader participants (heads of administrative divisions).
These participants were selected from the six universities involved in this study. The
spread of the participants in the universities has been explained in Chapter Four. The
interview aimed to explore individual perspectives of both employees and leaders and get
their opinions about the management issues raised in the interview protocol of this study.
However, it is worth noting as stated earlier in Chapter Four, the purpose of collecting
qualitative data is to complement the information obtained through the survey
questionnaire. Consequently, not all variables were explored through the interview.
164
Interviews were limited to exploring the aspects listed in the interview guide (Appendix
C). The interview with the sample employees focused on their attitudes towards the job
and their views about the managerial behaviour in the workplace. The interview with the
leaders discussed their views about the effectiveness of the participative management
model in improving the performance of subordinates in the workplace.
To seek rich and diverse responses to the issues, the views from both sets of the
participants were explored. For example, the data about employee commitment collected
through questionnaires was followed up by interviewing the leaders in the organisation.
The extent of participative management behaviour of leaders was discussed with the
employees. Thus, a more comprehensive picture of the phenomena was revealed through
the data in the current study.
To verify organisational factors that were the focus of this study, the data from related
documents were collected, in particular documents that provided information about the
number of staff, age and status of university, and organisational structure. These were
gathered by reviewing official documents including the university catalogue, directory,
annual report, and some database of university staff from the six universities involved in
the study. To make sure the data are meaningful, the data are analysed through the
following steps.
5.4.1 Analysing qualitative data of the interview
The analysis of qualitative data used a process of induction, where the researcher starts
from the specifics given in the data to developing a general format through coding
common themes (Creswell, 2005). As a general guide, this study undertook the analysis as
displayed in Figure 5.2.
165
Figure 5.2. The process of the qualitative data analysis
Source: Adapted from Creswell (2005).
The qualitative analysis process involved several steps that were conducted rigorously in
order to obtain reliable data from this interview technique. Since the participants might
deliver various and complex responses (i.e. opinion and attitudes about leader management
behaviour, employee work attitude, and employee performance behaviour), and the
information obtained from the documents is probably more difficult to be understood.
Thus, it might affect bias in its interpretation. To avoid this bias affect, the analysis of the
qualitative data from the interview and the documents must be carried out properly.
Following the general guidelines suggested by Creswell (2005) and also by Marshall &
Rossman (2011), the responses were recorded during interviews and the documents for
each university were organised and kept in a folder for each university. The researcher,
then, examined the data in order to get a general sense of the interview responses and
information that was provided in the documents. This was followed by the process of
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
166
transcription, coding, and theme generating. To ensure effectiveness and accuracy, the
process of transcription and coding was supported by using NVivo 9 software program
(QSR International Pty Ltd, 2010). This software is regarded as a tool to help the
researcher to store, analyse, and sort qualitative data (Creswell, 2005). It facilitates the
researcher to organise, analyse and visualise information. Particularly since a study needs
to integrate both quantitative and qualitative data, the use of the software can be viewed as
a legitimate approach to handling the data (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). The data that
is kept in the system can be flexibly reviewed, and prepared for subsequent analysis. Users
can efficiently utilise the data for reviewing, interpreting, combining various perspectives,
and drawing appropriate conclusions. Furthermore, this program also facilitates researchers
in comprehending the data based on broad perspectives. The use of this NVivo 9 program
thus enabled this study to effectively implement those qualitative analysis steps, and led to
obtaining concise and accurate information, which represented a broad perspective of the
qualitative data in this study. The details of the steps taken are explained in the following
sections.
Data preparation
After completing the interviews, the researcher replayed the audio tape recordings. This
was undertaken to examine the possibility that the information presented was unclear. If
there were unclear expressions which could not be understood, the researcher directly
resolved this with the participant. The audio tape recorded results were exported into a
computer software program and the data organised in different folders which were
categorised based on the name of university and position of participants (employee and
leader). The researcher reviewed the data in order to get a general sense of the views
expressed and the extent of the comments. On the basis of this review the researcher chose
these interviews that were considered useful for further analysis. The choice was
determined on the basis of whether their comments were relevant to the research questions
and provided accurate information referring to management practices or condition applied
in particular research site.
167
Transcription
Following a procedure proposed by Gray (2009), the researcher transcribed from the
audiotape all the interview comments into written text in Indonesian, the language used in
the interviews. Those parts of the transcripts which were later used in the thesis were
translated into English by the researcher and checked by an Indonesian speaking supervisor
and colleagues (see transcript samples in Appendix D). The translation was carried out
with great care considering the complexity of the translation from one language to another
language involves matters of connotation and meaning (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
Coding
The next step was the process of coding the transcripts for analysis, using codes generated
from the research context, the experience of the researcher and the research literature
(Marshall & Rossman, 2011). In particular, for this study, coding was based on the
guidelines of the interview protocol and the topics explored under each variable in the
research model. Various paragraphs, sentences and phrases within the transcripts were
coded according to these topics. The coding process at this stage described the meanings
and context of the data, in order to make sense of interview (Creswell, 2005). Codes that
were very similar were merged. The ones that had wide coverage as representative of the
data were retained; others were eliminated to reduce the number of the codes. Thus,
finally, the transcriptions had only a small number of codes but they formed a concise
overview of the themes in the interview texts.
Theme generating
The researcher formulated common themes based on the codes. The themes reflected
questions as stated in the interview guide. The themes initially aggregated the codes that
had similarities in terms of the responses. The purpose of the theme generation was to
understand the major ideas that were most often expressed in research data (Creswell,
2005). To ensure the themes represent the main perspectives on issues asked in the
interviews, the rigorous steps of theme generation in qualitative analysis, using NVivo
program (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2010), were carried out. The end result of this phase,
168
the researcher thus has gained a number of common themes that could be written up as part
of findings or evidence of the study, in order to support the quantitative data collected in
the survey.
The qualitative data analysis was presented in the order of the interview questions. The
results were discussed and compared with the quantitative findings. The purpose of this
step was to justify or to explain the quantitative data collected in the survey. This step was
essential for supporting the analysis of quantitative findings (Neuman, 2000). In particular,
it could unfold the real opinions of the respondents about management and leadership and
employee performance. This process enabled this study to become more comprehensive in
answering the research questions, in relation to leaders‟ managerial behaviour, employee
work attitude, and employee performance behaviour, and the way these were perceived in
the respondents‟ personal experiences of the work context.
5.4.2 Analysing documents
Information about the organisational factors including the number of the staff, university
status, organisational structure, and age of university were obtained by reviewing
documents from the six universities. These included university catalogues, directories,
annual reports, and some data bases. These were regarded as important resources because
they were able to provide appropriate information, particularly with text and statistical data
(Prior, 2008). The information in the documents clearly described some of the issues
investigated in this study. It became the source of evidence or facts concerning the
phenomena under study (Prior, 2008). As a result, the researcher was able to better
understand the meaning of the data in accordance with the context of the situation where
this study was conducted.
Information gathered from the documents was in the form of written statements or
statistics, either in published material, or stored in electronic devices. To analyse the
documents, the researcher began by selecting the documents to be examined. The selection
was based on content that was assumed to be relevant to the research objectives or research
variables. The next step was to organise all the information, reflecting aspects investigated
in this study by reading carefully and comprehending any information which referred to
169
the research questions or relevant to the study. The data from each document was cross-
checked with the data from different sources, particularly in term of time reference when
the document was published. The information gathered from all the university documents
was integrated with the other data sources derived from interview and surveys. These were
used as input in the process of interpreting the qualitative data and relating them to the
quantitative findings, particularly in relation to the contexts of the respondents.
5.4.3 Validation of the qualitative data
Process validation is performed solely to ensure that the data obtained from a research is
accountable. In the case of interviews, the validation process can be carried out in various
ways at several stages in the research process, such as during and after interview sessions,
and after the formulation of codes and themes. The current study conducted the validation
process at these opportunities.
During the interview
The validation during the interview was carried out by the researcher and the participant
agreeing to pause for a moment during the interview. This enabled the researcher to review
the responses thus far. If some expressions or phrases were found to be unclear, the
researcher could immediately follow up, by repeating the questions, and requesting
additional information from the participants.
After the interview
After the recording was completed, the researcher directly played back the recordings from
each participant. This was to recheck by listening to the audio tape to find if there were any
unobvious phrases needing explanation. If so, the researcher directly asked participants to
provide additional information. Additionally, in the case of statistical information, the
researcher and the participants examined documents and data base available in the research
site. At this stage, the researcher also cross-checked the data presented in the interview by
comparing it with other source of information (Creswell, 2005).
170
After the themes have been established
The data displayed in the themes were validated by confirming the accuracy of the
information with other sources. In particular, where the study found controversial
responses, these were compared with information gathered from employee and leader
participants. Additionally, various other sources of information, for example, related
documents, were used to verify the responses.
5.5. Summary
In this chapter, methods of data analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, were described.
The discussion is started by highlighting general methodological considerations: the
missing values, notion of causality, significance testing, and level of analysis. These
components needed to be addressed thoroughly, since they were used as the basis for
selecting appropriate analysis techniques.
The use of PASW Statistics/SPSS in the quantitative technique was described including for
descriptive analysis, test for normality and multicollinearity, and reliability. This was an
important step for over viewing the nature of data, and assessing the stability and
consistency of the scales. In order to obtain reliable research findings, this study required
valid instruments. Therefore, in this chapter the validation process employing CFA
technique was described. Path analysis was described to provide the details how the
examination of the relations among the research variables is carried out. The next
discussion was the procedure of the analysis for the individual item responses using Rasch
model. Item thresholds and fit statistics were examined to ensure that the items
appropriately measured their underlying constructs.
Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) was presented as a further technique to analyse the
nested data. The reasons and steps to carry out HLM analysis were discussed in order to
make clear the essence of the HLM findings, and their use in interpreting the results of the
HLM analysis.
171
Finally, this chapter discussed the techniques of qualitative data analysis. They aimed to
explore interview data from a small number of participants and gain relevant information
from documents related to the research sites. The results are used to complement the
interpretation of the quantitative findings.
Thus, the discussion of this chapter becomes a basis for the implementation of the methods
of the data analysis that are presented in the next chapter on preliminary analysis of data
and scale validation.
172
Chapter Six
Preliminary Analysis and Scale Validation
6.1 Introduction
The present study sought to examine the perceptions of sample respondents about the use
of the participative management style in university settings in Malang, Indonesia. The
previous chapter has described general methodological considerations, and techniques of
quantitative and qualitative data analyses employed in this study. This chapter highlights
the preliminary analysis undertaken and the validation of the different scales used in the
study. It begins with the discussion of the data and how these were prepared for analysis
by dealing with missing values, and testing for normality. This is followed by the
discussions of reliability and validity of the scales. The scales were validated using
different statistical techniques, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and item
response theory (IRT) of Rasch modelling. These were carried out to ensure the reliability
of the instruments used and the validity of the inferences drawn from the analysis results.
6.2 Data Description
Prior to analysing the results of this study, a general picture of the whole data is provided
by using the descriptive statistical procedures, as explained in Chapter Five. It first
involves the presentation of demographic and descriptive information of both the employee
and leader participants involved in this study. This stage is followed by examining the
missing values and testing the normality of the data.
6.2.1 Demographic and descriptive information on respondents
This study involved 808 employees (non-academic staff) and 52 heads of administrative
divisions who responded to the questionnaires. Interview sessions were also conducted
with 12 Heads of Divisions and 24 employees from non-academic staff. All of the
participants were from the six universities in the City of Malang, Indonesia. Demographic
information about respondents is presented in the following sections.
173
Survey participants: employee
Table 6.1 shows more than 70 % of respondents who participated in the survey were from
government universities and about 30% from private universities. The distribution was quite
proportional referring to the number of permanent staff employed in these universities.
As shown in Table 6.1, the total number of employee population was 2824 (consists of
2329 permanent and 495 temporary staff). The number of permanent staff in private
universities was smaller compared to the government universities. This was due to private
institutions which employed non permanent staff as explained in Chapter Four. In the case
of University C, although it was a government university, the number of permanent
employees (non-academic staff) is only 114. The number permanent staff in this university
was quite small because the influence of the current university policy to recruit more
temporary staff. However, as explained previously, for the purpose of study, the size of
university was determined based on the number of permanent staff.
Table 6.1. Distribution of employee respondents in the university setting
University
Type (Status)
Age of
university
in years
Number of employees
Permanent Temporary
Distributed
survey
questionnaires
Completed
questionnaires
Response
rate (%)
A Government 54 964 - 482 263 54.56
B Government 57 757 - 378 230 60.85
C Government 50 114 151 133 83 6240
D Private 47 274 169 221 89 40.27
E Private 30 116 131 124 97 78.23
F Private 39 104 44 74 46 62.16
Total 2329 495 1412 808 57.22
From 1412 questionnaires administered to the employee sample, 808 questionnaires were
completed by the respondents, or obtained around 57.22 % rate of responses. Figure 6.1
shows from the total number of respondents who completed the questionnaires, there are
516 male employees (63%) and 292 female employees (36.1%). This figure shows the
number of male employees was higher than the female employees is. This is consistent
with the trend of women participation in employment sector in public organisations in
Indonesia (De Ruyter & Warnecke, 2008; JICA, 2011; Rinaldo, 2008).
174
The age of employees is presented in Figure 6.2. From the total sample, the largest range
of employee ages is 40–49 (34.8%). This is followed by the ages in the range of 30–39
(26%), 20–29 (20%), 50–59 (19.1%), and > 60 only 0.1%.
Figure 6.2. Distribution of employee respondents by age group
Figure 6.1. Distribution of employee respondents by gender
175
In terms of education level, Figure 6.3 shows that most employee respondents in this study
completed a tertiary education level. There are 46.4% of the employees, who held
Figure 6.3. Distribution of employee respondents by education level
Undergraduate or S1 Degree. The second largest group of employees completed Senior
High School education (35.8%), the third largest group are employees who had
Bachelor/Diploma degree (11.3%), and respectively followed by the group of respondents
who had Master or S2 degree (3.6%), and Doctor/PhD/S3 degree is only 0.4%.
Furthermore, the proportion of male and female respondents varies within education and
gender. Both female and male employees have similar proportion within education level
that is about 50 % held bachelor/Diploma degree. The highest level of education at the
doctoral level (Doctor/PhD/S3) is obtained only by two male and one female employees, or
respectively 0.4% and 0.3% within the total number of each group of respondent. On
average, more female employees completed higher level degrees compared to the male
employees. As shown in Table 6.2 the female employees completed Bachelor/Diploma
(15.8%), Undergraduate/S1 (52.4%), and Master/Magister/S2 (4.1%). While, for the male
employees are 8.7%, 3.3%, and 43.2% respectively. At the Primary to High School level, it
is also dominated by the group of female employees. Surprisingly, there are four male
respondents only graduated from Primary School, while none of the female respondents
are within this education level.
176
Table 6.2. Crosstabulation of education level by gender of employees
Gender Total
Education level Male Female
Primary School N
% within education level % within gender
4
100% 0.8%
4
100% 0.5%
Junior Secondary
School
N
% within education level % within gender
15
88.2% 2.9%
2
11.8% 0.68%
17
100% 2.1%
Senior High School N
% within education level
% within gender
210
72.7%
40.7%
79
27.3%
27.1%
289
100%
35.8% Bachelor/Diploma N
% within education level
% within gender
45
49.5%
8.7%
46
50.5%
15.8%
91
100%
11.3% Undergraduate/S1 N
% within education level
% within gender
223
59.5%
43.2%
152
40.5%
52.4%
375
100%
46.4%
Master/Magister /S2 N % within education level
% within gender
17 58.6%
3.3%
12 41.4%
4.1%
29 100%
3.6%
Doctor/PhD/S3 N % within education level
% within gender
2 66.7%
0.4%
1 33.3%
0.3%
3 100%
0.4%
Total N % within education level
% within gender
516 63.9%
100%
292 36.1%
100%
808 100%
100%
Missing data 0.0%
With regard to the system of personnel administration in Indonesian public organisations
as explained previously, the employment levels are formally awarded to employees who
work in the public organisations. Depends on work performance, level of education, and
length of service obtained by employees, there are four employment levels, (Level I–IV),
that is the lowest order is Level I and the highest order is Level IV. Figure 6.4 shows the
largest group of employees who participated in this study have been appointed at Level III
(51.9%) of the employment hierarchy. The second largest group is at Level II (42.9%) and
the least at Level I (2.8%) and Level IV (2.4%) respectively.
177
Figure 6.4. Employment levels of employee respondents
Employee respondents also vary in their length of service. The highest figure is represented
by the employees who had experience or length of service > 10 years (44.9%) or almost
half of total respondents (see Figure 6.5). This is followed in order by groups of employees
who had length of service 5–10 years (18.8%), 3–5 years (11.4%). Almost in the same
figure are the group of employees who had length of service between 1–3 years (8.8%) and
0–1 year (3.6%).
Figure 6.5. Length of service of employee respondents
178
Within gender, the group of female employees has higher employment level or hierarchy
than male employees. As shown in Table 6.3, Level III and IV are occupied by 55.1% and
2.7% female employees and the male employees are 50% and 2.1% respectively. The
lowest level (Level I) mostly occupied by male (4.1%) and female only 0.7%.
Table 6.3. Crosstabulation of employment level by gender of employees
Gender Total
Employment level Male Female
Level I N
% within employment level
% within gender
21
91.3%
4.1%
2
8.7%
0.7%
23
100%
2.8%
Level II N
% within employment level
% within gender
226
65.1%
43.8%
121
34.9%
41.4%
347
100%
42.9%
Level III N
% within employment level
% within gender
258
61.6%
50%
161
38.4%
55.1%
419
100%
51.9%
Level IV N
% within employment level
% within gender
11
1.9%
2.1%
8
42.1%
2.7%
19
44%
2.4%
Total N
% within employment level
% within gender
516
63.8%
100%
292
36.2%
100%
808
100%
100%
Missing data 0.0%
Survey participants: Leaders (Heads of Divisions)
The demographic information of leader sample is presented only in frequency because the
number of sample is small, less than 100. There are 52 leaders consisting of 35 male and
17 female leaders participated in this study. They were selected from employees who have
positions as heads of administrative divisions, or heads of units whose position is at the
same level of the heads of divisions in the target universities (private and government) as
explained in Chapter 4. The participants come from six universities as shown in Table 6.4.
179
Table 6. 4. Distribution of leader respondents in the university
Gender
University Status Male Female Total
A Government 7 7 14
B Government 11 3 14
C Government 7 2 9
D Private 3 2 5
E Private 4 2 6
F Private 3 1 4
Total 35 17 52
In terms of the age of the respondents, there are 25 respondents in the age range of 40–49
and 50–59 respectively and only there are only two respondents in the range 30–39 years
old as displayed in Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.6. Age of leader respondents
In term of education level, 31 leaders completed education at Undergraduate/S1 degree,
and 20 leaders at Master degree, and only one at Bachelor/Diploma degree as shown in
Table 6.5.
Table 6. 5. Education level and gender of leader sample
Gender Total
Education Male Female
Bachelor/Diploma 0 1 1
Undergraduate/S1 degree 22 9 31
Master/S2 degree 13 7 20
Total 35 17 52
25 25
2
180
In terms of length of service or experience, most leader respondents had longer experience
in the units. Figure 6.7 shows that there are 29 leaders who had length of service in the
range of > 10 years, and 11 leaders in the range of 5–10 years, and 6 leaders in the range
of 23 and 3–5 years respectively.
Figure 6. 7. Length of service of leader respondents
Finally, in term of employment level, 29 leaders obtained employment level/rank at Level
III, 22 at Level IV, and 1 at Level II. The distribution of this figure is displayed in Table
6.6.
Table 6. 6. Employment level of leaders
Gender
Employment level Male Female Total
Level II 1 0 1
Level III 20 9 29
Level IV 14 8 22
Total 35 17 52
6.2.2 Missing values
The issues and techniques employed to deal with missing values have been discussed in
Chapter 5. The results of the descriptive statistics in the items analysis (Appendix G and
Appendix H) shows that that each item in the employee and leader responses has missing
181
data less than 5 percent (< 5%). In this study, the missing data were replaced with the
mean values of the corresponding variables. Consequently, both employee and leader
responses had no missing data, and all the items are retained and used for subsequent
analysis.
6.2.3 Test for normality
The normality of the data distribution was tested before stepping to further analysis. There
has been a general standard to examine a normal distribution of the data. Researchers can
check the skewness and kurtosis of the sample responses to see whether the distribution is
normal or not normal. The distribution of sample sores is identified as normal when the
values of skewness and kurtosis close to zero. A simple way to determine whether the data
is normally distributed could also be observed using a graphic for example histogram. The
shape of the curve in a normal distribution generally looks like a bell, and the spread of the
responses around the mean is symmetrical. It means the number of cases that are below or
above the mean (X) are equal. The normality of the data can be determined using a
guideline that was employed in this study. The accepted values of skewness and kurtosis
range is < 3 and < 8 respectively (Kline, 2005). The results of descriptive analysis shown
in Appendix G and Appendix H show that none of the variables has values beyond the
accepted ranges. Therefore, the data in the current study are considered as normally
distributed, and can be used for further analysis.
6.3 Reliability
Preceding the measurement modelling, the current study examined the internal consistency
of both employee and leader instruments. It aimed to assess the stability and consistency of
the scores from an instrument in measuring the concept. The internal consistency was
assessed by the Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient using SPSS program. The results are reported
as follow.
182
6.3.1 Internal consistency obtained from the pilot study
From the responses gathered in the pilot study for employee and leader sample, as shown
in Table 6.7, Cronbach‟s coefficients are in the range of 0.64 - 0.91 for employee scales
and 0.51 - 0.97 for leader scales. ORGBUR, ORGINOV, and MT scale in the employee
instrument obtained coefficient of 0.64, 0.66, and 0.69 respectively or < 0.7. These values
indicate that the coefficients obtained by these three scales are below the acceptable alpha
coefficient level (0.70) (Hair, et al., 2010), and only the scale MT that had a coefficient
that is close to 0.70. On the other hand, the leader responses had 4 scales (PMDM,
PMGOAL, PMCONT, and ORGBUR) with the coefficients 0.58, 0.60, 0.51, and 0.60
respectively. These are relatively below the acceptable reliability level (0.70). Comparing
the overall results of both instruments, the employee instrument had higher coefficients
than the leader instrument did. But, on average, the scales of both instruments performed
well on this test of reliability (> 0.70).
Table 6. 7. The scales and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained from the pilot study
Cronbach‟s alpha
Scale
Description
Employee
questionnaire
Leader
questionnaire
PMLEAD
PMOTIV
PMCOM
PMINT
PMDM
PMGOAL
PMCONT
ORGBUR
ORGINOV
ORGSUP
SA
MT
JOBSEC
JOBSAT
OC
QCS
EWB
Leadership
Motivation
Communication
Interaction
Decision making
Goal setting
Controlling
Bureaucratic organisation
Innovative organisation
Supportive organisation
Self-autonomy
Meaningful tasks
Feelings of job security
Job satisfaction
Organisational commitment
Quality customer service
Employee withdrawal behaviour
0.76
0.89
0.82
0.77
0.89
0.88
0.89
0.66
0.64
0.79
0.85
0.69
0.88
0.85
0.91
0.83
0.81
0.80
0.83
0.89
0.73
0.58
0.60
0.51
0.60
0.78
0.92
0.85
0.90
0.85
0.88
0.92
0.79
0.89
Thus, both survey questionnaires can be reasonably accepted as reliable measures for this
study. However, for the purpose of study, the items that had lower coefficients or
183
performing poor reliability and overlap subject to the deletion. There were 13 items to be
deleted (see section 4.3.4). Furthermore, by considering the feedbacks from the pilot
results, some items also need to be modified concerning the research objectives and the
context of the study. The final results of both questionnaires are presented in Appendix A
and Appendix B.
6.3.2 Internal consistency obtained from the main study
From the main data collection, the reliability of the scales is in a range of 0.62 to 0.93 for
the employee instrument responses and 0.33 to 0.93 for the leader responses. The results of
the reliability and the scales descriptions are presented in Table 6.8. As shown in the table,
only one scale (ORBURG) of the employee responses has a reliability that is below the
recommended level of 0.70 (Hair, et al., 2010). The other scales are in the range of the
accepted reliability coefficient (> 0.70). ORBURG in the employee instrument obtained a
Table 6. 8. The scales and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained from the main study
Cronbach‟s alpha
Scale
Description
Employee
questionnaire
Leader
questionnaire
PMLEAD
PMOTIV
PMCOM
PMINT
PMDM
PMGOAL
PMCONT
ORGBUR
ORGINOV
ORGSUP
SA
MT
JOBSEC
JOBSAT
OC
QCS
EWB
Leadership
Motivation
Communication
Interaction
Decision making
Goal setting
Controlling
Bureaucratic organisation
Innovative organisation
Supportive organisation
Self-autonomy
Meaningful tasks
Feelings of job security
Job satisfaction
Organisational commitment
Quality customer service
Employee withdrawal
behaviour
0.80
0.84
0.83
0.81
0.77
0.81
0.86
0.62
0.75
0.78
0.80
0.75
0.82
0.89
0.90
0.82
0.88
0.56
0.73
0.68
0.77
0.57
0.72
0.75
0.33
0.63
0.64
0.74
0.82
0.86
0.92
0.93
0.89
0.86
184
coefficient of 0.62. This value is slightly lower than the acceptable level of 0.7. However,
for the purpose of study, this scale was retained in order to measure the factors pertaining
to organisational culture. On the other hand, the leader responses had 6 scales (PMLEAD,
PMCOM, PMDM, ORGBUR, ORGINOV, and ORGSUP) that are below the acceptable
reliability level (< 0.70). The other scales (12 scales) from the leader instrument are in the
range from 0.72 to 0.93. So, overall, the alpha coefficients from the employee instrument
are higher than alpha coefficients from the leader instrument. This result showed that the
employee scores are more reliable than those of the leaders. This is possibly due to the fact
that the sample size of the leaders is very small (n = 52) compared to the sample size of the
employees. Nevertheless, although some scales from the leader instrument obtained the
values that are slightly below the acceptable range of reliability, all the scales were
retained in order to compute factor scores from leader responses in this study, and to
maintain comparable measures for both leaders and employees.
6.4 Validity
To gain an appropriate measurement tool, this study carried out a validation process to
examine whether the scales selected in developing the instrument has shown valid
responses (Creswell, 2005) or really measure what are expected by research objectives
(Gray, 2009).
Creswell (2005) explained that there are three forms of validity that can be applied by
researchers. These include: content or face validity, criterion-related validity, and construct
validity. Content validity is the extent to which the items and their responses (scores)
represent all possible questions that a researcher could ask about the content or skills from
a respondent. To assess this, researchers may examine the design of the instrument
including objective, content areas, and difficulty level of the items. It is useful particularly
for easily indentified variables (Creswell, 2005). Criterion-related validity refers the extent
to which the scores from an instrument can be used as a good predictor for certain
outcomes or criterion that are expected to predict (Creswell, 2005). Researchers can
examine this by comparing the scores from a new instrument as predictor with the
responses obtained in established measures as the criterion. An instrument is assumed to
185
meet the criterion-related validity when the responses on the new (predictor) and the
established measures (criterion) are highly correlated (Gray, 2009). De Vaus (2002)
suggests that the uncorrelated responses obtained in this procedure would show the
established measures are invalid. Thus, the assessment of this validity needs to be applied
with high caution.
Another form of validity is construct validity. It testifies to how the results obtained from
an instrument fit the conceptual framework or theories underlying a study (Darmawan,
2003). This can be determined for example by examining the responses statistically in
order to find whether they provide significant and meaningful information about the
sample (Creswell, 2005). Assessing the construct validity is not a simple task. To perform
this technique properly, it needs both statistics and practical procedures.
Based on the descriptions of the validation techniques above, two validation techniques
were employed in the current study. These include face and construct validity.
6.4.1 Face validity
To ensure that the instruments for employee and leader sample are acceptable in the
research setting of this study, the items in the instrument were validated using face validity.
The use of the face validity was considered sufficient to assess the correspondence
between the items and the constructs (Gray, 2009) especially for the instrument
administered to the leaders in a relatively small sample size. To perform this kind of
validation, first, the items were consulted with the research objectives to ensure that the
questions seek information what was actually expected to find. Feedbacks from supervisors
and the panel of the proposal examiners were also incorporated in constructing the items.
Second, tested the items though pilot study. This aimed to get feedbacks from the target
leaders as participants in Indonesian university organisations ensuring the items represent
the research context (Hair, et al., 2010). Based on the feedbacks obtained in the pilot study,
some modifications were then carried out for the problematic items. The final structure of
the items is shown in the final versions of the instruments attached in Appendix A and
Appendix B.
186
6.4.2 Construct validity
As discussed in Chapter 5, the survey questionnaire was subjected to the construct validity
analysis. This was carried out by examining a number of measurement models including
(1) one factor model, (2) uncorrelated factor model, (3) correlated factor model, (4)
hierarchical factor model, and (5) nested model. However, this procedure is applied only
for the employees‟ instrument. The main reasons are: first, all the constructs in both
employee and leader instruments were developed from the same conceptual framework or
theories, and intended to measure the same attitudes. Second, to perform SEM procedures
for measurement modelling employing CFA, it needs adequate number of sample (Hair, et
al., 2010). Since the sample size of employees were larger than leaders‟ sample, thus only
the employees‟ instrument was considered to be analysed further using the CFA procedure.
The results of the analysis are discussed in the next section.
6.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
This section is concerned with the PMEP (Participative Management and Employee
Performance) instrument that has been subjected to be analysed in terms of construct
validity. The analysis of the instrument was based on the responses provided by employee
sample in the universities in Malang, Indonesia. CFA was carried out in order to
demonstrate whether the hypothesised factor structure of the measurement model is
supported by the data. The use of the structural equation modelling in developing the
measurement model for this study is relevant with previous management research (Wang,
Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005; Zhang, et al., 2011). The results of this procedure
determined the extent to which the indicators or observed variables load on each distinct
factors of the employee level analysis. It has been explained in Chapter Four and Chapter
Five that the original instruments of this study consisted of many items, and these were
then simplified as follows. First, this study grouped items under each of the scales or
constructs (factors) developed for the measurement model. Items of the participative
management scale were parcelled under each of the seven dimensions to form seven
subscales including leadership, motivation, interaction, communication, decision-making,
goal setting, and controlling. Items of the organisational culture scale were grouped under
187
each of the three forms of organisational culture including bureaucratic, supportive, and
innovative. Items of the employee work attitude were grouped under each of the four
dimensions to form four subscales including self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of
job security, and job satisfaction. Finally, items of the employee performance behaviour
were incorporated into three scales including organisational commitment, quality customer
service, employee withdrawal behaviour (turnover and absenteeism). The discussions of
the results of CFA analysis are presented in the following headings including model fit
indexes, the alternative models, fit comparison of the alternative models, and the final
model of the current study.
6.5.1 Model fit indices
The measurement model was examined by assessing the loading of each observed variable
onto its latent factor. The minimum standard for the value of factor loading is 0.30 to
indicate a good fit for the hypothesised model (Hair, et al., 2010). This step was followed
by assessing the goodness of fit of the model using a number of fit indexes, which include:
(chi-square divided by the number of degrees of freedom), GFI (goodness-of-fit-
index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), CFI (comparative fit index), and RMSEA (root mean
square error of approximation). A measurement model performs good fit when the values
for RMSEA close to zero. If the values obtained are about 0.08 or less, it would indicate a
reasonable fit (Kline, 2005). On the other hand, the model that has a value greater than 0.1
for the RMSEA would not be accepted as a good model. The value of ratio of chi-square
( ) less than 5 (< 5) obtained in the model involving a large sample indicates the
model in good fit (Darmawan, 2003) or indicate an acceptable fit between the hypothesised
model and the sample data (Arbuckle, 2009). The other criterion (GFI, TLI, CFI) indicate a
good fit for the model when the values of these indexes are or equal or close to 0.90
(Arbuckle, 2009).
188
6.5.2 Five alternative models
As explained in Chapter Five, to test the model, the 17 scales were structured in five
alternative models: (1) single factor model, (2) uncorrelated factor model, (3) correlated
factor model, (4) hierarchical factor model, and (5) nested factor model. The test was
carried out through CFA procedure using AMOS software (version 18). Other variables
such as gender, education level, employment level, length of service, university status
(private/government) and age of the university were not tested with CFA because these
factors have simple structures and fixed attributes that were obtained using the official
documents provided by sample universities. The standardised results for CFA analysis in
the five models are presented in Appendix I.
189
6.5.3 Fit comparison of the five alternative models
To compare the alternative models, the data of goodness of fit of the models for each scale
are summarised in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9. Model fit comparison
No Model DF /DF TLI CFI RMSEA
Participative Management (PM)
1 One -factor model of participative
management (PM)
4684.08 819 5.72 0.75 0.77 0.076
2 Seven-correlated factors model of participative management (PM)
3268.05 798 4.10 0.83 0.85 0.062
3 Seven-orthogonal factors model of
participative management (PM)
7608.24 819 9.29 0.55 0.60 0.101
4 Hierarchical factor model
of participative management (PM)
3471.65 812 4.28 0.82 0.84 0.064
5 Nested factor model of participative
management (PM)
3304.81 778 4.25 0.81 0.84 0.063
Organisational Culture (ORG)
6 One-factor model of organisational
culture (ORG)
730.69 90 8.12 0.79 0.84 0.094
7 Three-correlated factors model of
organisational culture (ORG)
486.35 87 5.59 0.86 0.90 0.075
8 Three-orthogonal factors model of
organisational culture (ORG)
1456.35 90 16.18 0.54 0.66 0.137
9 Hierarchical factor model
of organisational culture (ORG)
313.58 83 3.78 0.92 0.94 0.059
10 Nested factor model of organisational
culture (ORG)
145.41 75 1.94 0.92 0.95 0.055
Employee Work Attitude (EWA)
11 One-factor model of employee work
attitude (EWA)
3194.92 299 10.69 0.58 0.65 0.113
12 Four- correlated factors model of
employee work attitude (EWA)
1487.43 293 5.08 0.84 0.86 0.071
13 Four-orthogonal factors model
of employee work attitude (EWA)
2488.57 299 8.32 0.71 0.75 0.095
14 Hierarchical factor model
of employee work attitude (EWA)
1518.17 295 5.15 0.83 0.86 0.072
15 Nested factor model of employee work
attitude (EWA)
1194.37
273 4.38 0.86 0.89 0.065
Employee Performance Behaviour (EPB)
16 One-factor model of employee
performance behaviour (EPB)
6877.42 324 21.23 0.31 0.41 0.158
17 Three- correlated factors model of
employee performance behaviour
(EPB)
1996.53 321 6.22 0.82 0.85 0.080
18 Three-orthogonal factors model of
employee performance behaviour (EPB)
2176.15 324 6.72 0.81 0.83 0.084
19 Hierarchical factor model of employee
performance behaviour (EPB)
1355.84 315 4.30 0.89 0.91 0.064
20 Nested factor model of employee
performance behaviour (EPB)
1605.57 297 5.41 0.85 0.88 0.074
190
Participative management (PM) scale
Results in Table 6.9 show the seven-correlated factors model, the hierarchical factor
model, and nested factor model obtained a better fit compared to the other two models.
These models had the values of /DF less than 5 (< 5). These achievements indicate that
the models provided a good fit to the data. This was also confirmed by the values obtained
for the RMSEA of the three models are 0.062 and 0.064 respectively, and TLI and CFI in
the range 0.082 – 0.085. These indicate the measurement structure of the models
sufficiently fits the data. On the other hand, the one-factor model of participative
management scale had a reasonable error of approximation obtaining 0.076 for the
RMSEA and the values of TLI and CFI are 0.75 and 0.77 respectively. However, it had the
value of /DF (5.75) that it is slightly higher than the acceptable value of the ratio of a
chi-square to the number of degrees of freedom. Finally, the results of the seven-
orthogonal factors model shows that this model had poor fit compared to the other models
above. All the values obtained are beyond the acceptable fit indexes used in this study. For
example the RMSEA is 0.101, indicating the measurement structure is not a good model
for the PM scale. This is also shown by other values obtained for TL and CFI are in the
minimum values (< 0.90) of the indexes that are applied in the measurement modelling.
Organisational culture (ORG) scale
Results confirm that the nested model factor of ORG provided a better fit to the data
compared to the other model. The /DF of this model is (1.94, p < 0.01), or lower than
the one that was obtained by the other models. This model also had better values on other
indexes including the RMSEA (0.055), TLI (0.92), and CFI (0.95). Followed by the second
model (hierarchical factor model) showing a good fit for this study. Although it obtained
the value of /DF (3.78) that is higher compared with the value obtained for the nested
model, it still provided a better fit. The values obtained for the other indexes are almost
similar, for example the RMSEA (0.059), TLI (0.92), and CFI (0.94). The third position is
the three-correlated factors. Except for the value of chi-square ratio (5.59) that is higher
than the acceptable value, this model provided a good fit accounting for the fit indexes that
were obtained in RMSEA (0.075), TLI (0.86), and CFI 0.90). Followed by the one-factor
191
model that had higher values for chi-square ratio (8.2) and RMSEA (0.094) indicating the
model does not fit the data. For the other indexes, it also obtained insufficient values
because it had TLI (0.79) and CFI (0.84). The worst fit was obtained by the three-
orthogonal factors model, which had values of goodness of fit are beyond the acceptable
range of the fit index. For example, the value of /DF is very high (16.18) and the
RMSEA is 0.137, indicating the model does not fit to the data.
Employee work attitude (EWA) scale
Compared to the other factor model, the nested model of EWA provided a better fit to the
data. The /DF of this model is (4.38, p < 0.01), or lower than the same value obtained by
the other models. This model also had better values on the RMSEA (0.065), TLI (0.86),
and CFI (0.89). The second position was obtained by the four-correlated factors model.
The value of chi-square ratio is 5.08, or it is just on the limit of the acceptable value of the
index. This still indicated a good fit to the data. It was also confirmed by getting good
values on other indexes such as the RMSEA (0.071), TLI (0.84), and CFI (0.86). The
hierarchical model also provided a good fit obtaining similar values as the ones obtained
by the four-correlated factors model. The RMSEA of the hierarchical model of EWA is
0.072, TLI = 0.83, and CFI = 086. Thus, all the values obtained by the three models
indicated a good fit to the data of this study. The one-factor model of EWA provided the
worst fit compared with the other models for the EWA scale. It had higher chi-square ratio
(10.69) that is quite far from the acceptable value of the chi-square ratio used in this study.
The values for RMSEA is also very high (0.113), and it obtained lower values for TLI
(0.58) and CFI (0.65).
Employee performance behaviour (EPB) scale
The results shown in Table 6.9 suggested that the hierarchical factor model of EPB
provided a good fit to the data. In comparison with the other models for the EPB scale that
were tested in this study, the values obtained by this model are apparently showing a better
fit. The /DF value of this model is 4.30, or less than 5 (< 5) indicating a good fit as the
measurement model for the EPB scale. TLI and CFI are also higher (0.89 and 0.91
respectively). The RMSEA is close to zero (0.064) indicating the measurement model
192
provides the best approximation of the data. The second position was achieved by the
nested model. The value of /DF is 5.41 or equal to 5 (the acceptable /DF value).
Both TLI and CFI had values that are close to 0.90 (0.85 and 0.88 approximately). The
RMSEA is 0.074 proving that the model provides a good fit to the data. While both the
three-correlated factors and three-orthogonal factors model almost had similar values. The
chi-square ratios are 6.22 and 6.72 respectively, and the models obtained TLI values
between 0.81–0.82 and CFI = 0.83–0.85. The last model is one-factor model of EPB
showing the worst values of the fit obtained by the model. All the goodness fit values are
beyond the acceptable values of the index applied in this study. For example,
/DF is very high (21.23), TLI and CFI are very small or only 0.31 to 0.41.
The RMSEA of this model is also very high (0.158) proving the model is not a good
structured model, and it does not fit the data.
6.5.4 Final structure of the measurement model
Comparing the results of the model fit above, in most cases, the hierarchical and the nested
models provide similar results and fit the data better compared to the other three
alternatives except for EPB where the hierarchical model fits the data better. Based on
these results, the hierarchical model is used for the subsequent analysis in this study. This
option is also supported by considering the principles of parsimony in the measurement
modelling that accounts for a complex model. The use of the hierarchical model is
reasonable for it enables this study to incorporate a large number of variables into a small
number that can be manageable for further analyses. This is relevant with the theories
underlie the development of the measurement scales of this study. Thus, the hierarchical
model is selected for measuring the scales of PM, ORG, EWA, and EPB. The final
structure of the measurement model and factor loadings for each scale is presented in the
following sections without repeating the discussions of the goodness of fit, which has been
reported previously, and the fit comparison between the models has been summarised in
Table 6.9.
193
Final structure of the participative management (PM) scale
The hierarchical factor model is selected for the participative management (PM) scale. It
consists of 7 dimensions or subscales and 42 items of questions. As mentioned previously,
these items have been examined using employees‟ dataset in the target universities in
Malang, Indonesia. The structure of the measurement model for this scale is shown in
Figure 6.8.
Figure 6.8. Hierarchical factor model of the participative management (PM) scale
194
Employing the hierarchical model as explained in Chapter Five, all the seven latent
variables are regarded as first order factors (first layer) and loaded onto a single second
order factor (second layer) in the model. The results of the analysis using the CFA
procedure simultaneously estimate loadings of the first layer factors and the items in the
model as listed in Table 6.10.
It revealed that all the first layer factors loaded significantly on the common factor (PM).
From the seven factors, five of them which include (1) decision, (2) goal setting, (3)
motivation, (4) communication, and (5) interaction load very strongly with the factor
loadings are between 0.90–0.96. Followed by the other two factors, leadership and
controlling which significantly loaded onto the common factor with the values between
0.82–0.83 respectively. This indicates the common factor was statistically specified as the
cause of the seven first order factors in the model.
From the 42 items that are positioned on the first layer indicators, there are two items
(PMCONT40 and PMCONT41) load higher with the values 0.82 and 0.84 respectively. As
shown in Table 6.10 there are 15 items had loading between 0.70–0.79 and 12 items had
loading between 0.64–0.69. The next group are 10 items that had loading between 0.46–
0.60. Finally there are 2 items that had the lowest loadings with the corresponding values
as follow: PMLEAD1 (0.32) and PMOTIV8 (0.37). However both items are still
considered to meet the minimum level of 0.30 (Hair, et al., 2010). Overall, the standardised
item loadings support a conclusion that the items are good reflectors of the seven first
order factor.
195
Table 6.10. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of participative management
(PM) scale
Second order factor
(second layer)
First order factors
(first layer)
Loadings
Indicators
Loadings
Leadership 0.82 PMLEAD1 0.32
PMLEAD2 0.51 PMLEAD3 0.72
PMLEAD4 0.79
PMLEAD5 0.66 PMLEAD6 0.75
PMLEAD7 0.49
Motivation 0.92 PMOTIV8 0.37
PMOTIV9 0.50 PMOTIV10 0.74
PMOTIV11 0.66
PMOTIV12 0.66
PMOTIV13 0.68 PMOTIV14 0.64
PMOTIV15 0.73
Communication 0.94 PMCOM16 0.65 PMCOM17 0.65
PMCOM18 0.70
Participative PMCOM19 0.68
Management (PM) PMCOM20 0.74 PMCOM21 0.60
Interaction 0.96 PMINT22 0.69
PMINT23 0.69 PMINT24 0.72
PMINT25 0.71
PMINT26 0.59
Decision making 0.90 PMDM27 0.46 PMDM28 0.70
PMDM29 0.71
PMDM30 0.70 PMDM31 0.50
PMDM32 0.47
Goal setting 0.91 PMGOAL33 0.49
PMGOAL34 0.65 PMGOAL35 0.78
PMGOAL36 0.74
PMGOAL37 0.71
Controlling 0.83 PMCONT38 0.60 PMCONT39 0.79
PMCONT40 0.82
PMCONT41 0.84 PMCONT42 0.69
196
Final structure of organisational culture (ORG) scale
The hierarchical factor model of the organisational culture (ORG) scale consists of three
first order factors. The three factors are incorporated into a common factor that is named as
ORG representing organisational culture in second layer of the model. The structure of the
hierarchical factor model for ORG is shown in Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.9. The hierarchical factor model of organisational culture (ORG) scale
197
Employing the same procedure of the equation model as applied for the PM scale
previously, the results of the first CFA run for the hierarchical factor model of the ORG
scale revealed item ORGBU47 had a very low and negative loading (-.13) onto its
respective latent factor. This indicated insufficient contribution to its distinct factor. In
addition, it affected the model fit obtained in this scale. Therefore, it was imperative to
remove this item from the model. CFA test was rerun after the removal of this item. The
results are presented in Table 6.11. It revealed that all the first layer factors loaded
significantly on the common factor (ORG). Innovative and supportive as the first order
factors obtained the highest loading with the corresponding values are 0.93 and 0.95,
followed by bureaucratic as a common factor had a loading of 0.81. Items or indicators in
the second layer loaded significantly on each distinct factor. As shown in Table 6.11, Six
items obtained loadings between 0.70–0.83, followed by four items that had loadings
between 0.58 – 0.67 and four items had loading between 0.39–0.49.
Table 6.11. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of organisational culture
(ORG) scale
Second order factor
(second layer)
First order factors
(first layer)
Loadings
Indicators
Loadings
Bureaucratic 0.81 ORGBUR43 0.39
ORGBUR44 0.70
ORGBUR45 0.77
ORGBUR46 0.73
Organisational Culture Innovative 0.93 ORGINOV48 0.66
(ORG) ORGINOV49 0.61
ORGINOV50 0.83
ORGINOV51 0.49
Supportive 0.95 ORGSUP52 0.67
ORGSUP53 0.58
ORGSUP54 0.42
ORGSUP55 0.42
ORGSUP56 0.75
ORGSUP57 0.71
The loading of item ORBURG43 is relatively low (0.39), but this is still within the
acceptable range of the index applied in this study. Overall, all the standardised item
loadings convinced that the items successfully contributed to each distinct factor in the
model. The goodness of fit obtained slightly increase in the value of TLI from 0.92 to 0.94
198
and CFI from 0.94 to 0.96. The values of RMSEA and slightly drop, which are
respectively from 0.06 to 0.05 and 3.78 to 3.37. These indicate the model becomes better
when it was run without item ORBURG47.
Final structure of employee work attitude (EWA) scale
The hierarchical factor model of EWA consists of four subscales and 26 items or
questions. Employing the same procedure that has been applied to the other hierarchical
factor model above, the scale was structured as shown in Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.10. The hierarchical factor model of employee work attitude (EWA) scale
199
The subscales (self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security, and job
satisfaction) are incorporated into a common factor that is named „employee work attitude‟
(EWA). Without repeating the same explanation about the hierarchical model, the
following section only reports a summary of the finding of this model. Table 6.12 shows
that all factors in the first layer of the model and items as indicators loaded significantly on
each distinct factor. Two of the factors within the first layer obtained the highest loadings.
These are feelings of job security (0.89) and meaningful task (0.90). Job satisfaction and
self-autonomy as the factors in the first layer had loading 0.63 and 0.70 respectively.
Table 6.12. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of the employee work attitude
(EWA) scale
Second order factor
(second layer)
Firs order factors
(first layer)
Loadings
Indicators
Loadings
Self-autonomy 0.70 SA58 0.60
SA59 0.74
SA60 0.68
SA61 0.65
SA62 0.63
Meaningful tasks 0.90 MT63 0.60
MT64 0.69
MT65 0.64
Employee Work Attitude MT66 0.57
(EWA) MT67 0.60
Feelings of job security 0.89 JOBSEC68 0.64
JOBSEC69 0.68
JOBSEC70 0.59
JOBSEC71 0.72
JOBSEC72 0.54
JOBSEC73 0.78
Job satisfaction 0.63 JOBSAT74 0.60
JOBSAT75 0.50
JOBSAT76 0.66
JOBSAT77 0.69
JOBSAT78 0.80
JOBSAT79 0.79
JOBSAT80 0.78
JOBSAT81 0.77
JOBSAT82 0.47
JOBSAT83 0.62
200
Seven items (JOBSEC71, SA59, JOBSAT81, JOBSEC73, JOBSAT80, JOBSAT79,
JOBSAT78) obtained the loading values between 0.72–0.80. The second place is obtained
by 14 items with the loading values between 0.60–0.69.
Finally there are five items (JOBSAT82, JOBSAT75, JOBSEC72, MT66, and JOBSEC70)
had loading 0.47–0.59. Overall, the loadings significantly proved that the items (indicators)
effectively contributed to the factors that were tested in the model.
Final structure of employee performance behaviour (EPB) scale
The scale of employee performance behaviour (EPB) that was tested using the hierarchical
factor model consists of three factors that are positioned in the first layer. Using the same
procedure of the equation model applied to the hierarchical models above, the
measurement model of this scale was structured as shown in Figure 6.11. As depicted in
the figure, three common factors (OC, QCS, and EWB) are incorporated into a single
common factor that is named as EPB representing employee performance behaviour.
201
Figure 6.11. The hierarchical factor model of the employee performance behaviour (EPB)
scale
202
Table 6.13 shows that QCS (quality customer service) and OC (organisational
commitment) in the first layer obtained significant loadings on EPB (employee
performance behaviour) with the values are 0.57 and 0.82 respectively. EWB (employee
withdrawal behaviour) had the lowest loading 0.27 or less than 0.30 (< 0.30). Although this
value close to the minimum value for the model for the large sample, this indicated that the
implementation of this factor as a common construct needed a high caution for it
potentially affected the accuracy of the structure interpretation.
Table 6.13. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of the employee performance
behaviour (EPB) scale
Results in Table 6.13 show that all items (indicators) in the first layer of the model
obtained significant loadings on each distinct factor. There are two items (TURN105R and
TURN104R) had the highest loadings with the corresponding values of 0.93 and 0.94.
Second order factor
(second layer)
First order factors
(first layer)
Loadings
Indicators
Loadings
Organisational Commitment 0.82 OC84 0.59
(OC) OC85 0.65
OC86 0.59
OC87 0.67 OC88 0.68
OC89 0.75
OC90 0.83 OC91 0.79
Employee Performance Quality customer service 0.57 QCS93 0.52
Behaviour (EPB) (QCS) QCS94 0.43
QCS95 0.56 QCS96 0.69
QCS97 0.74
QCS98 0.59 QCS99 0.57
QCS100 0.60
OC92 0.81
Employee Withdrawal 0.26 TURN101R 0.59 Behaviour (EWB) TURN102R 0.75
TURN103R 0.94
TURN104R 0.94 TURN105R 0.93
ABST106R 0.32
ABST107R 0.51 ABST108R 0.45
ABST109R 0.51
ABST110R 0.32
203
Three items (QCS97, OC89, and TURN102R) are in the range of loadings between 0.74–
0.75. These are followed by five items in the range between 0.60–0.69. Eleven items had
loadings between 0.42–0.59. Finally two items obtained the minimum level of loading
including ABST106R and ABST106R that had obtained similar values = 0.32. Overall, all
the items significantly contributed to each distinct factor in the model.
Based on the goodness of fit statistics and the loadings obtained by the hierarchical
models, it can be concluded that the hierarchical factor model performs better fit than the
other models. The loadings also indicate the items successfully contributed to each distinct
factor. However for further analysis, all the items used in the instrument need to be
analysed employing the Rasch model. This procedure was carried out in order to examine
the validity of the individual items. It enables this study to check how well the responses or
observations obtained by any item fit with the model of measurement used in this study.
6.6 Scale Validation for Employee Questionnaire Using the Rasch Model
Similar to the validation through CFA that has been explained previously, the Rasch model
was employed only for items‟ analysis of the employee instrument. There are 110 items
which spread in 17 subscales and they are grouped in 4 scales (PM, ORG, EWA, and
EPB). The analysis was carried out using Conquest software 2.0 to examine each item‟s fit
statistics and threshold values. It aimed to identify the items that accurately measure the
underlying constructs. The results were used to confirm the final model that had been
identified using the procedure of structural equation modelling.
The residual based fit statistics were used to identify whether the items appropriately fit the
model or measure the constructs. As discussed in Chapter 5, there are two types of mean
square fit statistics (infit and outfit) that can be used to examine the items‟ fit. The infit
statistic is a weighted estimate that is more sensitive to the pattern of responses for the
items, while outfit refers to outlier-sensitive fit that is influenced by unexpected (Luo, et
al., 2009). Since both fit statistics have an expected value of 1 and obtained almost similar
fit values, this study only reported the infit statistics.
204
Beside the fit statistics, the rating scale analysis of the Rasch procedure generates t values
or known as a standardised fit statistics (Zstd) in some computer output. This value also
explains how the data fit the model perfectly. The standardised values may be positive or
negative. The values = 0.0 imply the data fit the model, < 0.0 mean too predictable, and >
0.0 less of predictability(Linacre, 2002b, 2009). Following Wu and Adams (Wu & Adams,
2007, p. 82), the t value as a normal deviation that is outside the range of -2.0 to 2.0 or (-
1.96 to 1.96) is regarded as an indication of misfit at the 95% confidence level. The
interpretation of fit statistics and fit t statistic are based on the range of both values as
displayed in Table 6.14 and Table 6.15 respectively.
Table 6.14. The range of fit mean square and the item fit interpretation
Source: Linacre (2002b, p. 878).
Reasons for choosing a wide range for fit mean-square (0.5 – 1.5) that the survey
questionnaire used in this study is not a high-states test that needs strict scrutiny.
Table 6.15. The range of standardised values and the item fit interpretation
Source: Linacre (2002b, p. 878).
The items in the questionnaire were intended to measure perceptions and attitudes of the
respondents about the participative management behaviour of the leaders and its impacts
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
A NOTE:
This figure/table/image has been removed to comply with copyright regulations. It is included in the print copy of the thesis held by the University of Adelaide Library.
205
on the employee performance. There are no right or wrong answer items. Any responses
given by respondents upon the items were treated as input information to examine the
association among the research variables.
The discrimination index was also used to assess item performance for the model in this
study. This index shows the correlation between a person score on each item and his or her
total score on the survey questionnaire. The extent of the correlation reflects how well the
level of autonomy of the items. An item that has a discrimination value of 0 indicates a
positive relationship between item score and the total score. In the Rasch theory, the higher
the correlation value obtained by an item, the higher the ability of the item in
discriminating people in term of their autonomy level. Any items that obtain > 0.4 would
be regarded as a higher discrimination index. The lower limit of the acceptable index is >
0.20 (Wu & Adams, 2007, p. 64). This is applied for assessing the discrimination ability of
the scales used in this study.
Threshold values were also calculated in order to examine whether the categories used in
the scales effectively provide interpretable measures. The Rasch Model assumes the
thresholds should be in order pattern. Consequently, the responses that show a disorder
pattern violate the pattern and indicate the insufficient functioning categories. On another
hand, when the items obtained responses that followed an ordered pattern, it implies that
the categories successfully produce the interpretable measures. For example as depicted in
Figure 6.12, one of the items that showed ordered response categories, thus showing good
measurement properties.
206
Figure 6. 12. Characteristic curves showing the ordered responses in the five categories
PMEP items have five ordinal categories that were set in order employing five Likert-type
questionnaires (such as strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree). Thus,
there are four thresholds as the boundaries among the pairs at which the respondents can
determine their choices. To assess the pattern of responses for these categories, this study
examined item deltas obtained by each item.
The results of the item analysis were reported in order for the following scales:
• Participative management (PM) consists of 42 items that spread in seven subscales
including leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal
setting, and controlling
• Organisational culture (ORG) consists of 13 items that spread in three subscales
including bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive.
• Employee work attitude (EWA) consists of 26 items that spread in four subscales
including self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security, and job satisfaction
207
• Employee performance behaviour (EPB) consists of 27 items that spread in three
subscales including organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour.
To examine the item fit for each scale, the results of scale analysis are presented in the
tables. The tabulated results display infit statistics including item estimate, error, mean-
square, chi-square, and t values. The run procedure of the Conquest also automatically
displays the values in the matrix including separation reliability index, chi-square test of
parameter equality, degrees of freedom and significant level (Wu, et al., 2007). Separation
refers to the number of statistically different performance strata that the test can identify in
the sample (Wright, 1996). The higher the separation index values, the smaller the
measurement error in the model (Ben, 2010).
6.6.1 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the
Participative Management (PM) scale
There are 7 subscales in PM scale that were included in the Rasch analysis. These include
(1) leadership, (2) motivation, (3) communication, (4) interaction, (5) decision making, (6)
goal setting, and (7) controlling. These subscales were analysed separately, but the results
are presented in one table. From 42 items in the scale (see Table 6.16), there is only one
item (PMOTIV8) in the motivation subscale that had a higher infit statistic (1.53), or it is
likely beyond the acceptable range of the infit values. It indicated the item is unproductive,
but it is still reasonable because it does not degrade the measurement model. This was also
confirmed by the same behaviour in the results of the CFA analysis showing a small
loading (.375) for this item indicating a small contribution to the motivation subscale in the
instrument. The other items (41 items) obtained the acceptable infit mean-square values
(0.5– 1.5) demonstrating that they adequately measure the underlying constructs or their
latent variables. Consistent with the criteria listed previously, then, these items can be
regarded as productive for the measurement model.
208
Table 6. 16. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the participative management (PM)
scale
Weighted Fit
Variables Estimates Error MNSQR CI t Item delta (s)
Leadership
PMLEAD1 1.278 0.033 1.29 (0.91, 1.09) 5.6 -0.67 0.61 1.27 3.91
PMLEAD2 0.313 0.035 1.15 (0.89, 1.11) 2.6 -1.64 -0.36 0.31 2.94
PMLEAD3 -0.292 0.037 0.74 (0.89, 1.11) -5.1 -2.24 -0.96 -0.30 2.34
PMLEAD4 -0.566 0.038 0.91 (0.89, 1.11) -1.7 -2.52 -1.24 -0.57 2.06
PMLEAD5 -0.49 0.037 0.92 (0.89, 1.11) -1.4 -2.44 -1.16 -0.49 2.14
PMLEAD6 -0.429 0.037 0.88 (0.89, 1.11) -2.3 -2.38 -1.10 -0.43 2.20
PMLEAD7 0.186* 0.089 1.25 (0.89, 1.11) 4.2 -1.77 -0.49 0.18 2.81
Motivation
PMOTIV8 0.978 0.039 1.53 (0.90, 1.10) 8.8 -1.06 -0.01 1.02 3.97
PMOTIV9 0.352 0.041 1.16 (0.89, 1.11) 2.8 -1.69 -0.64 0.39 3.34
PMOTV10 -0.451 0.043 0.89 (0.89, 1.11) -2.0 -2.49 -1.44 -0.41 2.54 PMOTIV11 -0.743 0.044 1.01 (0.89, 1.11) 0.1 -2.78 -1.73 -0.71 2.25
PMOTIV12 -0.009 0.042 0.91 (0.89, 1.11) -1.5 -2.05 -1.00 0.03 2.98
PMOTIV13 0.086 0.041 0.90 (0.89, 1.11) -1.9 -1.95 -0.90 0.12 3.07
PMOTIV14 0.344 0.041 0.82 (0.89, 1.11) -3.4 -1.69 -0.64 0.38 3.33
PMOTIV15 -0.557* 0.109 0.81 0.89, 1.11) -3.6 -2.60 -1.54 -0.52 2.43
Communication
PMCOM16 -0.209 0.044 1.06 ( 0.89, 1.11) 1.1 -3.41 -1.44 0.27 3.74
PMCOM17 -0.225 0.044 0.95 ( 0.89, 1.11) -1.0 -3.43 -1.45 0.25 3.73
PMCOM18 -0.543 0.045 1.15 ( 0.89, 1.11) 2.7 -3.74 -1.77 -0.07 3.41
PMCOM19 0.014 0.044 1.13 ( 0.89, 1.11) 2.3 -3.19 -1.21 0.49 3.97
PMCOM20 0.303 0.043 0.82 ( 0.90, 1.10) -3.5 -2.90 -0.93 0.78 4.26 PMCOM21 0.661* 0.098 1.08 ( 0.90, 1.10) 1.5 -2.54 -0.57 1.14 4.61
Interaction
PMINT22 -0.545 0.044 1.12 (0.90, 1.10) 2.2 -3.01 -2.08 -0.15 3.05
PMINT23 0.522 0.042 0.97 (0.89, 1.11) -0.5 -1.94 -1.01 0.91 4.12
PMINT24 -0.022 0.043 0.84 (0.89, 1.11) -3.2 -2.48 -1.55 0.37 3.58
PMINT25 -0.348 0.044 0.97 (0.89, 1.11) -0.5 -2.81 -1.88 0.05 3.25
PMINT26 0.393* 0.087 1.18 (0.89, 1.11) 3.2 -2.07 -1.14 0.79 3.99
Decision
PMDM27 0.581 0.035 1.31 (0.90, 1.10) 5.7 -1.77 -0.36 0.86 3.59
PMDM28 -0.613 0.038 0.89 (0.90, 1.10) -2.2 -2.96 -1.55 -0.34 2.40
PMDM29 -0.191 0.037 0.93 (0.90, 1.10) -1.3 -2.54 -1.13 0.08 2.82
PMDM30 -0.437 0.037 1.00 (0.90, 1.10) 0.0 -2.79 -1.38 -0.16 2.58 PMDM31 0.385 0.036 1.06 (0.90, 1.10) 1.2 -1.96 -0.55 0.66 3.40
PMDM32 0.275* 0.082 1.02 (0.90, 1.10) 0.4 -2.07 -0.66 0.55 3.29
Goal setting
PMGOAL33 0.890 0.043 1.18 (0.90, 1.10) 3.2 -1.92 -0.56 1.24 4.80
PMGOAL34 0.247 0.045 0.93 (0.89, 1.11) -1.4 -2.56 -1.20 0.60 4.15
PMGOAL35 -0.308 0.046 0.84 (0.89, 1.11) -3.0 -3.11 -1.76 0.04 3.60
PMGOAL36 -0.089 0.046 1.00 (0.89, 1.11) 0.0 -2.89 -1.54 0.26 3.82
PMGOAL37 -0.740* 0.090 1.23 (0.89, 1.11) 4.0 -3.55 -2.19 -0.39 3.17
Controlling
PMCONT38 0.685 0.047 1.35 (0.90, 1.10) 6.0 -2.82 -0.81 1.19 5.18
PMCONT39 -0.198 0.049 0.82 (0.90, 1.10) -3.5 -3.70 -1.69 0.31 4.30 PMCONT40 0.258 -0.049 0.90 (0.90, 1.10) -1.9 -3.76 -1.75 0.25 4.24
PMCONT41 -0.297 0.049 0.80 (0.90, 1.10) -3.8 -3.80 -1.79 0.21 4.20
PMCONT42 0.069* 0.097 1.11 (0.90, 1.10) 1.8 -3.44 -1.43 0.57 4.56
Note. *Constrained, significance level = 0.000
209
The values obtained in discrimination index also show higher values for most of the items.
All items (42 items) in the PM scale had the discrimination index > 0.4 indicating
significant relationships between each items and the total score in the subscales within the
instrument. This can be examined through the values of the discrimination index obtained
in each subscale. The items in both subscale (leadership and motivation) had the
discrimination index in the same range of 0.58–0.76. Communication had items with the
discrimination index of 0.68–0.78. Items in interaction subscale had the discrimination
values of 0.67–0.80. This is followed by decision subscale with the items‟ discrimination
index of 0.62–0.73. Items in goal subscale had the values of discrimination index of 0.67–
0.78, and the items in controlling subscale are in the range of 0.76–0.86. Finally, items in
self-autonomy subscale obtained values in the index of 0.71–0.77. From the 42 items in the
PM scale, four items obtained the highest discrimination indices. These items are
PMCONT41, PMCONT40, PMCONT39, and PMINT24 with the values respectively =
0.86, 0.84, 0.83, and 0.80.
The lowest index was achieved by three items including PMOTIV8 (0.56), PMLEAD1 and
PMLEAD7 both obtained the discrimination index value = 0.58. Overall, the results of the
discrimination analysis indicate that all items in the PM scale showed higher performance
in discriminating persons according to the level of their autonomy.
Furthermore, all items in each subscale did not have swapping deltas indicating the items‟
responses are interpretable. The items also performed ordered thresholds which explain
they had monotonic responses and in expected directions. Thus, these results revealed
adequate performance of the five Liket-type of PM scale.
Observing the performance of the items employing other criteria (fit t statistic), some items
obtained higher t values (> 3) that may indicate misfit with the model. These include:
PMOTIV8, PMCONT38, PMDM27, PMLEAD1, PMLEAD7, PMGOAL37, PMINT26,
and PMGOAL33 that respectively had t values 3.2–8.8. However, it is assumed with the
large sample involved in this study, the substantive misfit is very small and not significant.
In the next group, there are five items that had t values in the range between 2.2 to 2.7
210
indicating the data are noticeably unpredictable. This is followed by 10 items obtained the
t values in the range of < -2 showing the data are too predictable. This is probably due to
the other dimensions that constrain the response pattern.
The other group of items showed better performance in term of the t values. This includes
19 items that had the fit t statistic -1.9–1.8. Applying the same criteria listed in Table 6.15,
these items can be regarded as having reasonable predictability in the measurement model.
Within this range, item (PMDM30) in the decision making subscale obtained t value = 0.0
showing the expected value of a perfect fit for the model.
Regarding to the t values that have been reported above, it needs to be justified in this
section. Although almost half of the items in the PM scale did not obtain the perfect t
values, but it does not mean that those items are as inadequate indicators for each
corresponding latent variable. Caution should be exercised when employing the t values as
criteria for item assessment. In particular, when the items are administered to a large
sample because it affects the t values and potentially produces higher t values (Wu &
Adams, 2007). Rather using the fit t statistic as a criterion for a decision to remove any
item, it is more acceptable for detecting problematic items. The results of the fit t statistic
may explain the “truth” that among the items perform different behaviour in the measures
and do not tap into the same constructs or latent variables. However, the differences
between items are probably very small. Further, the results that perform ideal t values
cannot be used as a single indicator for claiming the best test for the scales (Wu & Adams,
2007).
Since this study involved a large sample size, the t values that were obtained by each item
are regarded as a part of information for examining the behaviour of the items, and not
used as a single criterion to assess the items. The overall assessment of the items is based
on its underlying theories in this study and other criteria indicated above. Thus, by
examining the infit mean-square, items deltas, and separation reliability obtained in each
subscale, this study reasonably retains all the items for the PM scale.
211
Finally, all subscales had higher separation reliability index explaining a big proportion of
their variance is considered true. The results for each scale show the separation reliability
index is in the range of 0.989–0.997, with significance level < 0.01.
6.6.2 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Organisational
Culture (ORG) scale
There are initially 15 items of the ORG scale that were included in the first Rasch analysis.
These items were grouped into three different subscales including bureaucratic (five
items), innovative (four items), and supportive (six items). Following the same procedure
applied to the PM scale, the items of the ORG scale were analysed separately for each
subscale.
Table 6.17. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the organisational culture (ORG) scale
Weighted Fit
Variables Estimates Error MNSQR CI t Item delta (s)
Bureaucratic
ORGBUR43 0.40 0.04 1.32 (0.89, 1.11) 5.3 -1.67 -1.33 0.57 4.03
ORGBUR44 -0.38 0.04 0.82 (0.89, 1.11) -3.4 -2.45 -2.12 -0.21 3.24
ORGBUR45 -0.10 0.04 0.82 (0.88, 1.11) -3.3 -2.16 -1.83 0.08 3.53
ORGBUR46 0.08 0.07 0.94 (0.89, 1.11) -1.0 -1.99 -1.65 0.25 3.71
Innovative
ORGINOV48 -1.20 0.04 0.93 (0.90, 1.10) -1.4 -2.25 -1.68 0.20 2.95
ORGINOV49 0.63 0.04 1.17 (0.90, 1.10) 3.1 -1.43 -0.86 1.02 3.77
ORGINOV50 -0.43 0.05 0.97 (0.90, 1.10) -0.5 -2.49 -1.91 -0.03 2.72
Supportive
ORGSUP52 -0.410 0.041 1.04 (0.90, 1.10) 0.7 -2.36 -1.92 -0.07 2.71
ORGSUP53 -0.146 0.040 0.82 (0.89, 1.11) -3.5 -2.09 -1.66 0.19 2.98
ORGSUP54 0.472 0.039 1.10 (0.90, 1.10) 1.8 -1.47 -1.04 0.81 3.59
ORGSUP55 0.939 0.038 1.10 (0.90, 1.10) 1.8 -1.01 -0.57 1.27 4.06
ORGSUP56 -0.310 0.040 1.04 (0.90, 1.10) 0.7 -2.26 -1.82 0.03 2.81
ORGSUP57 -0.544* 0.088 1.15 (0.90, 1.10) 2.8 -2.49 -2.05 -0.21 2.58
Note. *Constrained; Significance level = 0.000
The results of the first run of the Rasch analysis for “bureaucratic” subscale revealed item
ORGBUR47 had a higher infit statistics (1.52). This value is close to the upper limit of the
infit statistics (1.5), and it may be regarded as unproductive item but not degrading the
measurement model. However, it obtained a very low discrimination index, with the value
of 0.41. In addition, it affected the item ORGBUR46 performing a poor item functioning
212
which is indicated by a disordered item delta (-0.92/-1.56/-0.36/2.04). Therefore, removal
of this item was necessary. This is also consistent with the solution made in CFA analysis.
Similar problems were also revealed in “innovative” subscale, in which item ORGINOV51
had a higher infit statistics (4.0) and a disordered delta (-1.11/-1.20/0.46/2.79). To improve
the model fit and item functioning, this item was removed. Rasch analysis was rerun
without the two items. Thus, the results of the second run consists 13 items as presented in
Table 6.17. All items obtained the infit mean-square in the acceptable range of infit values
(0.5–1.5). This indicates the items are productive for the measurement model, and
adequately measure their latent variables.
In term of discriminating ability, all the items had high index values showing significant
relationships between each item and the total scores in the subscales. The range of values
obtained in each subscales is: bureaucratic (0.69–0.79), innovative (0.78–0.84), and
supportive (0.63–0.74). ORGINOV49 obtained the highest index (0.84). While, the lowest
index was obtained by ORGSUP55 with a value = 0.63. Since there is no single item had a
value < 0.40, the overall results indicate the ORG scale showed higher performance in
discriminating persons according to the level of their autonomy.
Examining item thresholds in the instrument, the results (see Table 6.17) indicated that the
rating scale categories used in this study worked as intended (Linacre, 2002a). This is
indicated by each item obtaining ordered item deltas. Thus, it implied that the categories
used in the items are interpretable for the measures.
Observing t values obtained by each item, seven items showed good fit with the data which
are indicated by t values are in the acceptable range of values (-1.9–1.9). These items
include: ORGBUR46 (-1.0), ORGINOV48 (-1.4), ORGINOV50 (-0.5), ORGSUP52 (0.7),
ORGSUP56 (0.7), ORGSUP 54 (1.8), ORGSUP55 (1.8), and ORGSUP56 (0.7). Three
items obtained t values = < -2, or approximately in the range (- 2.45) to (-2.09) indicating
these items are probably too predictable for the model. This is followed by ORGBUR43
and ORGINOV49 obtaining higher t values (> 3), or respectively are 5.3 and 3.1 indicating
213
unexpected fit with the model. Finally, one item (ORGSUP57) had t value 2.8 meaning the
data could be unpredictable.
As explained previously, the relatively high t values are probably due to the large sample
size involved in this study. The higher the number of sample employed in the Rasch model
analysis, the higher t values obtained by data. However, the substantive misfit shown by
higher t values is very small and its effects on the measurement model are not significant.
Consequently, the use of t value as the criteria for the item analysis in this scale is not
preferred. The main reason is that the implementation of t value as a single criterion for
item assessment may affect the existence of many items in the scale. Furthermore, the
values obtained in the other criteria especially infit mean-square, discriminating ability,
and item deltas are reasonable. Thus, the use of t value to assess the ORG scales is not
prioritised in this study.
Finally, these subscales showed higher separation reliability index explaining a big
proportion of their variance is considered true. This is confirmed by the results of analysis
for each scale that obtained the separation reliability index is in the range of 0.982–0.995
with significance level < 0.01.
6.6.3 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Employee Work
Attitude (EWA) scale
The EWA scale consists of 26 items. These items are grouped into four distinct constructs
or latent variables including. These constructs are treated as subscales in the model
including self-autonomy (5 items), meaningful task (5 items), feelings of job security (6
items), and job satisfaction (10 items). Following the same procedure as applied to the
other scales previously, the items of the EWA scale was analysed separately in each
subscale. The results were presented in Table 6.18.
As shown in Table 6.18, all the 26 items in the scale obtained the acceptable infit mean-
square values (0.5–1.5). The breakdown of the results can be observed in each subscale.
All items in self-autonomy subscale obtained infit mean-square in the range 0.86 - 1.1.
214
Table 6.18. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the employee work attitude (EWA) scale
Weighted Fit
Variables Estimates Error MNSQR CI t Item delta (s)
Self-autonomy
SA58 0.247 0.044 1.1 (0.89, 1.11) 1.7 -2.66 -1.29 0.53 4.41
SA59 -0.559 0.046 0.86 (0.89, 1.11) -2.7 -3.47 -2.10 -0.28 3.61
SA60 0.047 0.045 0.96 (0.89, 1.11) -0.8 -2.86 -1.49 0.33 4.21
SA61 0.564 0.044 1.06 (0.90, 1.10) 1 -2.35 -0.97 0.85 4.73
SA62 -0.299* 0.089 1.05 (0.89, 1.11) 0.9 -3.21 -1.84 -0.02 3.87
Meaningful tasks
MT63 -0.624 0.047 1.18 (0.90, 1.10) 3.2 -3.30 -2.69 -0.09 3.58
MT64 -0.416 0.047 0.79 (0.90, 1.10) -4.3 -3.09 -2.48 0.12 3.79
MT65 0.454 0.046 0.87 (0.89, 1.11) -2.4 -2.22 -1.61 0.99 4.66 MT66 0.748 0.045 1.05 (0.89, 1.11) 0.9 -1.93 -1.32 1.28 4.96
MT67 -0.161* 0.093 1.13 (0.89, 1.11) 2.3 -2.84 -2.22 0.37 4.05
Feelings of job
security
JOBSEC68 -0.456 0.041 0.95 (0.90, 1.10) -0.9 -2.85 -2.05 0.17 2.91
JOBSEC69 -0.036 0.041 0.93 (0.90, 1.10) -1.5 -2.43 -1.63 0.59 3.33
JOBSEC70 0.178 0.04 1.19 (0.90, 1.10) 3.4 -2.22 -1.42 0.81 3.54
JOBSEC71 0.286 0.04 0.93 (0.90, 1.10) -1.4 -2.11 -1.31 0.92 3.65
JOBSEC72 0.237 0.04 1.12 (0.90, 1.10) 2.3 -2.16 -1.36 0.87 3.6
JOBSEC73 -0.209* 0.09 0.87 (0.90, 1.10) -2.7 -2.6 -1.81 0.42 3.15
Job satisfaction
JOBSAT74 -0.303 0.043 1.06 (0.90, 110) 1.1 -3.38 -1.76 0.31 3.61 JOBSAT75 0.183 0.043 1.46 (0.90, 110) 8 -2.89 -1.27 0.8 4.1
JOBSAT76 0.326 0.042 1 (0.90, 110) 0 -2.75 -1.13 0.94 4.24
JOBSAT77 0.234 0.042 0.97 (0.90, 110) -0.6 -2.84 -1.22 0.85 4.15
JOBSAT78 0.548 0.042 0.85 (0.90, 110) -3 -2.53 -0.9 1.16 4.46
JOBSAT79 0.391 0.042 0.79 (0.90, 110) -4.5 -2.69 -1.06 1.01 4.31
JOBSAT80 0.341 0.042 0.81 (0.90, 110) -4.1 -2.74 -1.11 0.96 4.26
JOBSAT81 0.387 0.042 0.78 (0.90, 110) -4.7 -2.69 -1.07 1 4.3
JOBSAT82 -0.916 0.044 1.44 (0.90, 110) 7.4 -3.99 -2.37 -0.3 3
JOBSAT83 -1.192* 0.128 0.94 (0.90, 110) -1.2 -4.27 -2.64 -0.58 2.72
Note. *Constrained; Significance level = 0.000
This is followed by items in the meaningful task subscale are in the range of 0.79–1.18,
and items in the feelings of job security subscale are in the range of 0.87–1.19. Job
satisfaction subscale is adequately supported by its items with infit values are in the range
of 0.78–1.46. Applying the same infit criteria listed previously, these results indicate all
items in the EWA scale adequately measure the underlying constructs or their distinct
latent variables. Thus, the items can be regarded as productive indicators for the
measurement model in this study.
Examining the ability of the EWA items in discriminating persons in term of their
autonomy level, each item and the total score in each subscale highly correlated to each
other. It appeared that all the items obtained the values within the index of 0.56–0.87.
215
Approximately, the performance of each item can be reported for each scale with the
corresponding index values as follow.
Items in self-autonomy subscale had the discrimination index in the range of 0.71–0.77 (>
0.40). The next group of item are in meaningful task subscale that obtained the
discrimination index = 0.67–0.87. Followed by items in feelings of job security subscale
obtaining the index = 0.66–0.75. The last group of items is in job satisfaction subscale. All
items in this subscale had discrimination index = 0.56–0.79. From these items, JOBSEC73
and MT65 obtained the highest index with the values are respectively 0.87 and 0.80.
While, the lowest index was achieved by JOBSAT82 with the value = 0.56. Overall results
indicated that the items in the EWA scale showed higher performance in discriminating
persons according to the level of their autonomy.
Observing item deltas in Table 6.18, each subscale performed well in this criterion. All
items had proper ordered thresholds. This can be examined that no single item had
swapping deltas. This indicates that the items‟ responses are interpretable. Thus, it reveals
that the five Liket-type of EWA is assumed as an adequate scale in this study.
As explained previously, the t value was not specifically applied as a single criterion for
assessing items‟ performance. The results of item analysis for the t statistic in this study
were used as the information to help this study to detect any problematic items in the
measurement model. Table 6.18 displays 12 items in the EWA scale obtained standardised
values or fit t statistic in the range 0.0–1.7 indicating the data had reasonable predictability
for the model. Both items (MT67 and JOBSEC72) had t value 2.3 showing the data are
noticeably unpredictable. Followed by four items (MT63, JOBSEC70, JOBSAT82,
JOBSAT75) that had t values 3.2 –8 respectively. This indicated that these items probably
misfitted to the model. However, with a large sample participated in this study, the
substantive misfit is assumed very small. The effect of the items‟ misfit on the model is
also not significant. Finally, there are eight items in the scale obtained < - t values, or
approximately in the range (– 4.7) – (-2.4) showing the items are probably too predictable
for the model. As experienced by the other scales, there are some dimensions could
constrain the response patterns in the instrument.
216
Employing the same basis for item assessment and its fit interpretation that have been
discussed in this section, however, all items of EWA scale performed well in the other
criteria including infit mean-square, discriminating ability, and item deltas. The overall
results support this study to decide the EWA as a perfect scale for the model. As a result,
these items are retained in the measurement structure.
Additionally, all subscales had higher separation reliability index explaining a big
proportion of their variance is considered true. The results of the analysis for the three
scales (bureaucratic, innovative, supportive) showed separation reliability index with the
values 0.991, 0.995, 0.980, and 0.991 respectively with significance level less than 0.01.
6.6.4 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Employee
Performance Behaviour (EPB) scale.
The EPB scale consists of 27 items that spread into three distinct subscales including
organisational commitment (9 items), quality customer service (eight items), and employee
withdrawal (10 items). To examine the fit of the items, the procedure that has been applied
in the previous scales was also applied to EPB scale. Further, the Rasch model analysis for
each subscale was performed separately and its fit interpretation is discussed in sequent in
the following passages.
As shown in Table 6.19, the 27 items obtained the acceptable infit mean-square values (0.5
– 1.5). From this figure, only one item (QCS94) had higher infit value = 1.53. However, it
is still reasonable because the value is still in the upper limit of the acceptable range of the
infit mean-square. The breakdown of the results can be observed in each subscale. All
items in organisational commitment subscale obtained infit mean-square in the range 0.79 -
1.34. Items in quality customer subscale had infit mean-square in the range 0.7–1.53.
Finally, items in employee withdrawal subscale had the infit value = 0.78–1.30.
Employing the same infit criteria that have been listed previously, these results indicate all
items in the EPB scale adequately measure the underlying constructs or their distinct latent
variables. Thus, the items can be regarded as productive indicators for the measurement
model in this study.
217
Table 6.19. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the employee performance behaviour
(EPB ) scale
Weighted Fit
Variables Estimates Error MNSQR CI t Item delta (s)
Organisational
commitment
OC84 -1.215 0.05 1.24 (0.90, 1.10) 4.2 -4.08 -3.33 -0.51 3.06
OC85 0.594 0.047 1.13 (0.90, 1.10) 2.3 -2.28 -1.52 1.3 4.87
OC86 0.105 0.048 1.32 (0.90, 1.10) 5.5 -2.76 -2.01 0.81 4.39
OC87 0.276 0.048 1.14 (0.90, 1.10) 2.6 -2.59 -1.84 0.98 4.56
OC88 0.599 0.047 1.01 (0.90, 1.10) 0.3 -2.27 -1.51 1.3 4.88
OC89 0.167 0.048 0.91 (0.90, 1.10) -1.7 -2.7 -1.95 0.87 4.45
OC90 -0.21 0.049 0.79 (0.90, 1.10) -4.1 -3.08 -2.32 0.49 4.07
OC91 -0.308 0.049 0.97 (0.90, 1.10) -0.6 -3.18 -2.42 0.39 3.97
OC92 -0.008* 0.136 1.01 (0.90, 1.10) 0.1 -2.88 -2.12 0.69 4.27
Quality of customer service
QCS93 -0.562 0.04 0.98 (0.90, 1.10) -0.4 -1.65 -2.17 -0.23 1.8
QCS94 0.692 0.036 1.53 (0.90, 1.10) 8.7 -0.4 -0.92 1.02 3.06
QCS95 0.806 0.036 0.97 (0.90, 1.10) -0.6 -0.28 -0.8 1.14 3.17
QCS96 0.34 0.037 0.84 (0.89, 1.11) -3.1 -0.75 -1.27 0.67 2.71
QCS97 -0.146 0.038 0.7 (0.90, 1.10) -6.4 -1.23 -1.75 0.19 2.22
QCS98 0.133 0.038 1.05 (0.89, 1.11) 0.9 -0.96 -1.48 0.47 2.5
QCS99 -0.774 0.04 1.06 (0.90, 1.10) 1.1 -1.86 -2.38 -0.44 1.59
QCS100 -0.489* 0.1 0.97 (0.90, 1.10) -0.6 -1.58 -2.1 -0.16 1.88
Employee
withdrawal behaviour
TURN101 -0.325 0.033 1.30 (0.90, 1.10) 5.5 -1.92 -1.32 0.71 1.23
TURN102 0.334 0.035 1.10 (0.89, 1.11) 1.8 -1.26 -0.66 1.37 1.89
TURN103 1.089 0.037 0.99 (0.86, 1.14) -0.2 -0.5 0.09 2.12 2.65
TURN104 1.053 0.037 1.04 (0.86, 1.14) 0.6 -0.54 0.05 2.09 2.61
TURN105 0.91 0.037 1.03 (0.87, 1.13) 0.5 -0.68 -0.09 1.94 2.47
ABST106 -1.127 0.031 1.02 (0.91, 1.09) 0.5 -2.72 -2.12 -0.09 0.43
ABST107 -0.429 0.032 0.94 (0.90, 1.10) -1.3 -2.02 -1.43 0.61 1.13
ABST108 -0.513 0.032 0.78 (0.91, 1.09) -5 -2.11 -1.51 0.52 1.04
ABST109 0.119 0.034 1.23 (0.89, 1.11) 3.9 -1.47 -0.88 1.15 1.68
ABST110 -1.111* 0.103 1.17 (0.91, 1.09) 3.4 -2.7 -2.11 -0.08 0.45
Note. *Constrained; Significance level = 0.000
Examining the ability of the items in discriminating persons in term of their autonomy
level, the EPB scale performed higher correlation between each item and the total score in
each subscale. All the items in this scale obtained the discrimination index value in the
range = 0.45–0.81. The performance of each item can be reported for each scale with the
corresponding index values as follow.
Items in organisational commitment subscale approximately had the discrimination index
in the range of 0.66 - 0.81 (> 0.40). The next items in quality customer service subscale
218
obtained the discrimination index = 0.59–0.72. Followed by items in employee withdrawal
subscale obtaining the index = 0.45–0.84. From these items, there are five items obtaining
the highest including OC92, OC90, TURN104, TURN105, and TURN103 with the
corresponding values are 0.80, 0.81, 0.83, 0.83, and 0.84. While, the lowest index was
obtained by three items (ABST110, ABST106, QCS93) with respective values are 0.51,
0.55, and 0.59. The overall results, thus, indicate the items in the EPB scale showed higher
performance in discriminating persons according to the level of their autonomy.
Item deltas of each subscale performed well in this criterion. All items had proper ordered
thresholds. This can be examined in each item showing no swapping deltas indicating the
items‟ responses are interpretable. Thus, this explained the five Liket-type of EPB is
assumed as an adequate scale in this study.
The same procedure as applied previously, the results of item analysis for the t statistic in
this scale are also used only as the information to help this study detecting any problematic
items in the EPB scale. There are 15 items obtained standardised values or fit t statistic in
the range (-1.7 - 1.8). This indicates the data that were provided by the items have
reasonable predictability for the model. Two items (OC85 and OC87) obtained the t values
= 2.3 and 2.6 showing the data are noticeably unpredictable. Followed by four items
(ABST109, ABST110, OC84, OC86, TURN101, QCS94,) obtained the higher t values (>
3) with the corresponding t values approximately = 3.4, 3.9, 4.2, 5.5, 55, and 8.7)
explaining these items are probably misfit the model. As discussed previously, with a large
sample, the substantive misfit is assumed very small. The effect of the items‟ misfit on the
model is also not significant. Finally, four items (QCS97, ABST108, OC90, and QCS96)
obtained < - 2 of t values, or approximately in the range of (- 6.4) – (-3.1) showing the
items are probably too predictable for the model. As experienced by the other scales, there
are some dimensions could constrain the response patterns in the instrument.
Overall, by applying the same basis for item assessment and its fit interpretation that have
been discussed in this section, it can be concluded that all items in EPB scale effectively
contribute to the factors yielding better fit to the model. This was demonstrated by the
219
estimated values obtained by the items in terms of the infit mean-square, discrimination
index, item. The overall results from these criteria support this study to decide the EPB as a
perfect scale for the model. As a result, all the items in this scale are confidently retained
for the subsequent analysis.
Furthermore, all the EPB subscales had higher separation reliability index explaining a big
proportion of their variance is considered true. The reliability indices obtained by the
scales (organisational commitment, quality customer service, and employee withdrawal)
are respectively 0.993, 0.996, and 0.998 in the significance level of < 0.01.
6.7 Summary
The results of the preliminary analysis and scale validation have been discussed in this
chapter. Prior to analysing the results, demographic information on employee and leader
respondents was described. There are 808 employees from non-academic staff
participating in the current study. Around 70 % were selected from government
universities and 30% from private universities. Additionally, this study involved 52 Head
of Administrative Divisions (leaders), consists of 37 from government universities, and 15
from private universities.
The preliminary analysis results indicated that both employee and leader data sets had
missing values less than 5%, and the data were normally distributed. Reliability tests were
also carried out for employee and leader instruments used in the pilot study and in the main
data collection. Some items that showed poor performance in the reliability test were
deleted. The final version instruments, each consists of 110 items. The overall results of
the reliability obtained test both in the pilot and the main study showed that the two
instruments can be regarded as reliable measures for this study.
It was discussed in this chapter that only the employee instrument was validated using
CFA procedure. The reasons are that the constructs of the leader instrument were
developed from the same theoretical backgrounds used in the employee instrument.
Furthermore, the size of leader sample was very small (less than 100) which is unreliable
220
to employ CFA analysis. Since the employee sample was large (more than 350), thus, only
the employee instrument which was considered to be analysed further using CFA. Similar
procedure was also applied to the Rasch item analysis.
There are 17 subscales that were validated using the two techniques. These subscales are
parcelled into four scales: (1) participative management (leadership, motivation,
interaction, communication, decision making, goal setting, goal setting, and controlling);
(2) employee work attitude (self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and
job satisfaction); (3) employee performance behaviour ( organisational commitment,
quality customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour).
The results of the fit comparison of the alternative models show the hypothesised
hierarchical factor structure for all the scales (PM, ORG, EWA, and EPB) is supported by
the data. This was also confirmed by the results of the Rasch analysis indicating the items
accurately measured the underlying constructs of the measurement model. It convinces that
the hierarchical factor model is regarded as the final model for this study. Thus, the results
of these preliminary analysis and scale validation provided a basis for further step
employing single level path analyses discussed in the next chapter.
221
Chapter Seven
Single Level Path Analysis: Employee Level
7.1 Introduction
The research model presented in Chapter Three outlined the key variables and the possible
relations between them. The strength of the relationships of the variables that influenced
employee performance behaviour is examined in this chapter based on the preliminary
analysis and scale validation in Chapter Six. A single level path analysis was carried out
using AMOS 18. This was intended to view the causal relationships of two or more
variables, specify the model, and if it is necessary to modify the model referring to the
modification indices shown in AMOS output. The detail of the rationale and the procedure
of this path analysis have been explained in Chapter Five. The reminder of this chapter
reports the results of the single level path analysis at the employee level. The results are
organised into the following order: test for multicollinearity, variables used in the path
model, results of the measurement model and structural model, fit indexes obtained at the
employee level path model, and it is concluded by a summary.
7.2 Test for Multicollinearity of Independent Variables at Employee
Level
Since the path analysis involves the interpretation of regression variate among the
independent variables, the extent of multicollinearity of the relationships among the
independent variables need to be tested. Multicollinearity refers to the “extent to which a
variable can be explained by another variables in the analysis” (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 2).
The multicollinearity exists when two or more independent variables are highly correlated
resulting to inflated variances of regression estimates (Ben, 2010). When multicollinearity
is present between variables, the resulting t-values become unreliable, hence resulting to
problematic interpretation of the path analysis results. Thus, a test for multicollinearity test
is necessary.
222
Robinson and Schumacker (2009) suggested that there are several ways for detecting
multicollinearity. One of these is the variance inflation factor (VIF). VIF refers to the
degree of the multicollinearity among the independent variables and that may decrease the
ability to predict the strengths of the relationships among the variables. VIF is an
indication of the effects of severity of multicollinearity. It is computed with the formula
where R
the obtained by regressing the predictor on the
remaining predictors (Robinson & Schumacker, 2009; Simon, 2004). According to Hair et
al. (2010, p. 204) and Ben (2010), a VIF threshold of > 10 indicates problems with
multicollinearity. The easiest way to compute the VIF is carried out in SPSS.
In this study, the multicollinearity of the independent variables at the employee level path
analysis was tested. The result of the variance inflation factor is presented in Table 7.1,
which showed that none of the variables has VIF values > 10. This indicated that no
independent variables had an issue with multicollinearity in their associations with the
dependent variables assessed in this study. Thus, all the independent variables can be
retained and used for further analyses.
Table 7.1. Collinearity statistics of the independent variables at the employee level
Variables* Collinearity statistics
Dependent variable Independent variable Tolerance VIF
PM UNISTAT 1.00 1.00
ORG 1.00 1.00
EPB EWA 0.62 1.61
AGE 0.99 1.01
ORG 0.62 1.61
EWA PM 0.69 1.45
UNIAGE 0.99 1.01
ORG 0.69 1.45
LEVEL SEX 0.98 1.03
AGE 0.97 1.03
UNISTAT 1.00 1.00
ORG UNIAGE 0.42 2.39
UNISIZE 0.42 2.39
Note. PM (Participative management); EPB (Employee performance behaviour); EWA (Employee
work attitude); SEX (Sex of employee); AGE (Age of employee); LEVEL (Level obtained by employee); UNIAGE (Age of university); UNIAGE (Age of university); UNISTAT (Status of
university); UNISIZE (University size); ORG (Organisational culture).
223
7.3 Variables Used in the Employee Level Path Analysis
The model at the employee level incorporated the variables, which were developed from
employee and organisational factors. These factors were assumed to influence the extent of
the use of the participative management system (PM) and its relations with employee work
attitude (EWA) and employee performance behaviour (EPB) in organisational units or
divisions. Consistent with the proposed model as explained in Chapter Three, there are 12
latent variables derived from these factors. They are sex of employee (SEX), age of
employee (AGE), education completed by employee (EDUC), employment level obtained
by employee (LEVEL), length of service of employee (SERV), age of university
(UNIAGE), status of university (UNISTAT), university size (UNISIZE), organisational
culture (ORG), participative management (PM), employee work attitude (EWA), and
employee performance behaviour (EPB). The descriptions of these variables are presented
in Table 7.2.
Referring to the variables described in Table 7.2, it needs to be noted here that the
composition of the variables at the employee level factors changed in the final results of
the path analysis. One variable (SERV) was excluded in this model. This was due to the
regression coefficients obtained by the variables were not significant or its t-values = < 2.
The other variables remained the same. The final structure of the path diagram at the
employee level is shown in Figure 7.2, which consisted of 11 latent variables.
In the path diagram, individual factors (sex, age, education, level or rank of employee,
employee experience in term of length of service) were treated as exogenous variables.
Each operates as a latent variable that is reflected by a single indicator. The same
procedure was applied to the organisational factors (age of university, status of university,
university size), because these factors have simple structures and fixed attributes. As
explained in Chapter Six, information requested from these variables was obtained using
the official documents provided by sample universities.
224
Table 7.2. Variables used in the employee level path analysis
Latent variables
(LVs)
Description
Manifest
variables
(MVs)
Descriptions
Employee factors
SEX Sex or gender of employee GENDER Gender of employee (1= Male;
0 = Female)
AGE Age of employee AGEY Age of employee in years
EDUC Education completed by
employee
EDULVL Education level obtained by
employee
LEVEL Level/rank obtained by
employee
EMPLOY Employment level of
employee (indicated by: Level I, II, III & IV)
SERV Employee experience in
term of length of
service in a unit
LGTHSERV Length of service of employee
in years
Key constructs
PM
Participative management
LEAD
MOTIV
COM
INT
DM
GOAL
CONT
Leadership
Motivation
Communication
Interaction
Decision making
Goal setting
Controlling EWA Employee work attitude SA
MT
SEC
JOBST
Self-autonomy
Meaningful tasks
Feelings of job security
Job satisfaction
EPB Employee performance
behaviour
OC
QCS
WB
Organisational commitment
Quality customer service
Employee withdrawal
behaviour
Organisational factors
UNIAGE Age of university ESTAB
University age in term of the
establishment indicated in years
UNISTAT Status of university
TYPE Type of university (1 =
Government; 0 = Private)
UNISIZE University size SIZESTF University size indicated by a
total number of permanent
staff
ORG Organisational culture BUR
INNOV
SUP
Bureaucratic
Innovative
Supportive
The organisational culture (ORG) was also treated as an exogenous observed variable but
it was formed by three manifest variables (BUR, INNOV, and SUP). Consistent with the
CFA stages that has been explained in Chapter Five, the manifest variables of the ORG
were developed based on the perceptions from employees‟ sample, and those variables
have been validated as explained in Chapter Six. The other variables are consistently used
225
as latent variables (LVs). Each contains three or more manifest variables (MVs) that are
displayed in italics in Table 7.2. Thus, as depicted in the following path diagram, the
employee level model has 11 LVs and 24 MVs. All the variables have relationships to each
other, and they were assumed to influence the extent of the use of the PM and its impacts
on employee work attitude (EWA) and employee performance behaviour (EPB). To
compute and estimate the strength of these relationships, the path analysis technique needs
the input values from those variables. Thus, in this study, each of those variables was
assigned with the values of the principal component scores generated from the output of
descriptive analysis using SPSS program.
7.4 Results of Employee Level Path Analysis
The single level path analysis was used to examine the causal relationships among the
research variables discussed above. This was carried out to address the main research
question: “What are the perceptions of employees and leaders about the use of participative
management and its relationships with employee performance behaviour specifically in
relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and employee
withdrawal behaviour?”
The results of the employee level path analysis included both measurement and structural
model. Measurement model examines the strength of their relationships between MVs and
their corresponding LVs (Darmawan, 2003). While the structural model examines the
strength relationship between one LV and other LVs in the model (Darmawan, 2003).
7.4.1 Measurement model results at the employee level
In the measurement model, the relationships between MVs and LVs were assessed using
AMOS 18, and these were interpreted employing several indices. The indices include
unstandardised estimates (UnstdEst.) which indicate the strength of relationships between
MVs and LVs, standard errors (S.E.) which indicate the variability of estimates, critical
ratio (C.R.) or an observation on a random variable that has an approximate standard
226
normal distribution that is obtained by dividing the covariance estimate by its standard
error (Est./S.E.) (Arbuckle, 2009). Following Arbuckle (2009), any critical ratio that
exceeds 1.96 in the magnitude is considered significant at the 0.05 level. The next index is
standard estimates (StdEst). These are the estimates obtained from an analysis on
continuous latent variables (Darmawan, 2003) that have been standardised so their
variances are 1. The standardised regression weights would provide clearer information
about the strength of a relationship or loadings between MVs and LVs (Stat/Math-Center-
Indiana-University, 2011), thus, it makes a comparison of the extent of the relationships
among the variables are more easily carried out. Using the guidelines for identifying
significant factor loadings that has been discussed in Chapter Five, the value of the
loadings that are equal to or more than 0.30 will be considered significant at the 0.05 level
(Hair, et al., 2010). The last index is two tailed p value that can be used to test the null
hypothesis that the parameter value is 0 in the population (Arbuckle, 2009).
Based on the significant path coefficients shown on the path diagram, the results of the
measurement model are reported as shown in Figure 7.2 and Table 7.3.
It is necessary to note that all the variables that were formulated from individual and
organisational factors obtained the maximum loadings (1.00) because they related to the
fixed characteristics of the sample (leader and employee participants), and had been
formed in simple structures. Additionally, the measures of the factors were guided by the
official information provided in the research context. As a result, the loadings of the
individual (age, sex/gender, education, and length of service) and organisational
characteristics (age of university, status of university, university size) had the maximum
loadings, = 1.00, and SE = 0.00 with p values of > 0.01. However, all the results of these
variables are also discussed below.
Sex of employee (SEX)
Sex of employee is a part of exogenous observed variables, and it was treated as a
dichotomous variable. SEX as a latent variable of the structural model was reflected by
gender, coded as 1 for male and 0 for female.
227
Age of employee (AGE)
Age of employee was also treated as an exogenous observed variable in the model. It was
reflected by years as indicators (1= 20 – 29 yo; 2 = 30 – 39 yo; 3 = 40 – 49 yo; 4 = 50 – 59
yo; 5 = 60 and above).
Education completed by employee (EDUC)
Education completed by employee (EDUC) was also treated as a latent variable that was
reflected by a single manifest variable namely the level of education obtained by the
employee (EDULVL). This level of education was coded 1-7 that respectively represented
education from primary school as the lowest level up to Doctor/PhD/S3 degree as the
highest level.
Level or rank obtained by employee (LEVEL)
Level or rank refers to the level obtained by an employee according to the employment or
personnel management system within the public organisation structure in Indonesia. There
are four levels in the personnel management system consisting level I – Level IV which
indicate respectively the lowest level to the highest one in the personnel management
system. This variable was treated as a latent variable in the structural model. It had a single
manifest variable: EMPLOY (employment level of employee) that was indicated by Level
I, Level II, Level III, and Level IV.
Participative Management (PM)
Participative management (PM) as a construct in the measurement model was reflected by
seven manifest variables (MVs). These variables and its loadings are leadership (LEAD,
0.71), motivation (MOTIV, 0.81), communication (COM, 0.84) interaction (INT, 0.86),
decision making (DM, 0.81), goal setting (GOAL, 0.85), and controlling (CONT, 0.80). All
MVs obtained high loadings with the scores are > 0.30 indicating that the manifest
variables are strong reflectors of the PM construct.
228
Employee Work Attitude (EWA)
Employee work attitude (EWA) that was hypothesised as a construct in the measurement
model was reflected by four manifest variables. These included self-autonomy (SA),
meaningful task (MT), feelings of job security (SEC), and job satisfaction (JOBST). Each
of these manifest variables significantly obtained loading scores that are respectively 0.66,
0.77, 0.77, and 0.64. Since the loading values are > 0.30, it indicated that the manifest
variables were strong reflectors of the EWA construct.
Employee Performance Behaviour (EPB)
Employee performance behaviour (EPB) as a construct in the measurement model was
reflected by three manifest variables. These included organisational commitment (OC),
quality customer service (QCS), and employee withdrawal behaviour (EWB) with the
corresponding loadings are 0.88, 0.46 and 0.30. Since all the variables obtained the
acceptable loadings for the model in the current study, it indicates that the MVs
substantially contribute to this construct.
Age of university (UNIAGE)
The age of university (UNIAGE) as an exogenous variable was also treated as a latent
variable. This variable is reflected by a single manifest variable namely ESTAB (the age of
university in term of the establishment as an institution). The age of the university is
indicated by years of the establishment. This variable reflects how old the university is at
the time data was collected.
Status of university (UNISTAT)
In the model, the status of the university was assigned as a latent variable. This variable is
indicated by a single manifest variable namely TYPE (type of university coded 1 as
government, and 0 for private).
University size (UNISIZE)
The size of university as an exogenous latent variable was formed out of a single manifest
variable, namely the number of staff (SIZESTF) in the model. In the current study the
229
number of permanent non-academic staff was entered in order to determine the size of the
university. The higher the number of the permanent staff the larger the size of the
university.
Table 7.3. Results of measurement model at the employee level
Note. Three asterisks (***) next to P values indicate that the p-value is < 0.001
Organisational culture (ORG)
In the measurement model organisational culture as a construct was reflected by three
manifest variables including bureaucratic (BUR), innovative (INNOV), and supportive
(SUP). As shown in Table 7.3 these manifest variables (MVs) had higher loadings with the
Latent
variables
Manifest
variables
UnstdEst.
S.E.
C.R.
StdEst.
P
SEX GENDER 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
AGE AGEY 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
EDUC EDULVL 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
LEVEL EMPLOY 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
PM LEAD 0.89 0.04 22.03 0.71 ***
MOTIV 1.01 0.04 25.98 0.81 ***
COM 1.05 0.04 27.06 0.84 ***
INT 1.08 0.04 28.17 0.86 ***
DM 1.01 0.04 26.08 0.81 ***
GOAL 1.06 0.04 27.82 0.85 ***
CONT 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 ***
EWA SA 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 ***
MT 1.16 0.06 18.45 0.77 ***
SEC 1.16 0.06 18.36 0.77 ***
JOBST 0.97 0.06 15.88 0.64 ***
EPB OC 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 ***
QCS 0.53 0.05 10.57 0.46 ***
EWB 0.34 0.05 7.31 0.30 ***
UNIAGE ESTAB 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
UNISTAT TYPE 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
UNISIZE SIZESTF 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
ORG BUR 0.85 0.04 21.43 0.72 ***
INNOV 0.91 0.04 23.38 0.78 ***
SUP 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 ***
230
values respectively are 0.72, 0.78, and 0.85. It indicates the MVs contribute to the model as
strong reflectors for the organisational culture construct.
7.4.2 Structural model results at the employee level
In the structural model, the individual level factors or variables that are assumed to
influence the use of the PM and its impacts on employee performance behaviour were
analysed using AMOS 18. To estimate the strength of the relationships among the
variables, the path diagram was created referring to the path model that has been explained
in Chapter Five and its equation as follow:
Figure 7.1. The path model
Figure 7.1 displays a path model with exogenous constructs ( and ) that have a causal
relationship with endogenous construct ( ). Path A represent a direct effect of on ,
path B is the effect of predicting and path C shows the effect of predicting . The
value of is estimated using a regression equation:
.
Based on this model, the direct and indirect effect in the path model can be identified as
follow.
231
Direct paths Indirect path
A = AB = through
B =
C =
The strength of the relationships among the LVs in the model was examined using the
indices that were generated by AMOS as described below.
There are seven indices used in presenting the results of the path analysis in this study. The
first index is the estimates that represent the unstandardised path coefficients (UnstdEst.),
or using symbol “ showing the difference in a dependent variable per unit change in the
predictor variable using their original scale. The second index is the standard error (S.E.)
which indicates the variability of the estimates. Next to the standard error is the third
index, the critical ratio (C.R.), that is obtained by dividing the estimate by its standard
error, Est./S.E. (Arbuckle, 2009). Using the same criteria that has been applied in the
measurement model, any critical ratio that exceeds 1.96 is considered significant. Thus,
only the variables that obtained the critical ratio greater than 2.00 are displayed in the table
and the path diagram. The fourth index is two tailed p value that is a statistical significance
test that is used for testing the significance of the relationships among the variables.
Followed by the fifth index, standardised coefficients (StdEst.) or indicated by “ that is
the standardised estimates. These coefficients are used in this study to identify which
variables that may have greater effect on the dependent variables in the model. The sixth
index is standardised indirect effect (StdInd. Effect) indicated by “ie” that shows the
estimates of the relationship between a predictor and a criterion variable through one or
more mediating variables. The strength the indirect relationship is calculated by
multiplying the path coefficients obtained by the variables involved in the sequence of the
relationships. The last index is Total effect (te) that was calculated by adding up direct and
indirect effect coefficients, +ie (Tuijnman & Keeves, 1994).
In interpreting the results, the effect sizes of the path coefficients recommended by Cohen
(1988) were used in this study. The effect sizes are: small (0.02), medium (0.15), and large
(0.35). The standardised coefficients of = > 0.02, at p < 0.001 is considered relevant for
232
the interpretation (Cohen, 1988). However, following Aldous et al. (2009, p. 73), only the
path coefficients that are equal to or greater than 0.05 to be as sufficient magnitude to be
discussed in this study. The path coefficients are respectively reported in brackets preceded
by the corresponding variables. The results are discussed according to the sequence of the
influences. Followed by the assessment of the model‟s goodness of fit employing the
model fit indexes as applied in the measurement validation in Chapter 5. The fit indices
include (chi-square divided by the number of degrees of freedom), GFI (goodness-
of-fit-index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), CFI (comparative fit index), and RMSEA (root
mean square error of approximation). Results of the structural models are presented in
Table 7.4, and the relationships among the variables are displayed in Figure 7.2.
233
Figure 7.2. Employee level path model
234
Table 7.4. Results of structural model at the employee level
Note. Three asterisks (***) next to P values indicate that the p-value is < 0.001
Participative management (PM)
As shown in Table 7.4, there are two organisational factors that were found to have direct
effects on participative management (PM). These include organisational culture (ORG, =
0.64) and status of university (UNISTAT, = 0.09).
The positive coefficient of ORG indicated that the extent of organisational culture (in
terms of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive forms) significantly created the
likelihood of employee perceptions on PM. The stronger the forms of organisational
culture are regarded by the employees, the more positive employees‟ attitudes towards PM.
It may indicate that the level of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive become key
Variables
Direct effect
StdInd.
effect
Total
effect
Criterion Predictor UnstEst. (B) S.E. C.R. P StdEst. ( ) ( ie ) +ie)
PM ORG 0.60 0.04 15.91 *** 0.64 - 0.64
UNISTAT 0.16 0.05 2.92 0.003 0.09 - 0.09
UNISIZE - - - - - -0.07 -0.07
AGE - - - - - 0.05 0.05
EWA PM 0.22 0.04 6.26 *** 0.27 - 0.27
UNIAGE 0.01 0.00 4.25 *** 0.12 - 0.12
ORG 0.46 0.04 11.42 *** 0.59 0.17 0.76
UNISTAT - - - - - 0.02 0.02
UNISIZE - - - - - -0.08 -0.08
AGE - - - - - 0.06 0.06
EPB EWA 1.26 0.11 12.04 *** 0.95 - 0.95
AGE 0.06 0.03 2.02 0.043 0.06 0.04 0.10
ORG -0.27 0.07 -3.88 *** -0.26 0.72 0.46
PM - - - - - 0.25 0.25
UNIAGE - - - - - 0.11 0.11
UNISTAT - - - - - 0.02 0.02
UNISIZE - - - - - -0.05 -0.05
ORG AGE 0.07 0.03 2.13 0.033 0.08 - 0.08
UNISIZE 0.00 0.00 -2.77 0.006 -0.11 - -0.11
EDUC SEX -0.31 0.08 -4.02 *** -0.14 - -0.14
LEVEL EDUC 0.26 0.02 16.47 *** 0.46 - 0.46
SEX -0.09 0.04 -2.59 0.010 -0.07 -0.07 -0.14
AGE 0.22 0.02 13.16 *** 0.37 - 0.37
UNISTAT 0.21 0.04 5.58 *** 0.16 - 0.16
235
drivers for the employees to provide a high appraisal for the participative management
behaviour (PM) demonstrated by their leaders in the workplace.
The second factor, status of the university, was also found to have a direct effect on PM.
Although the path coefficient ( = 0.09) is small or less than 0.15, it suggested that the
status or type of university (government and private) influenced the implementation of the
participative management in the university organisation. The positive sign indicates
employees in the government universities tend to perceive a higher level of PM (in term of
the practice of leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal
setting, and controlling) being implemented than those who are in private universities.
Other factors were found to have relationships with PM, but only yielded indirect effects to
this construct. These are university size ( = -0.07) and age of employee (AGE,
= 0.05). UNISIZE had a negative effect on PM through ORG as a mediating factor. This
association yields a resulting path coefficient of = -0.07. The negative sign indicates the
smaller the size of university (in term of the total number of administrative staff), the
higher employees‟ perception on PM. The path coefficient obtained is small indicating the
effect of UNISIZE on PM is weak. However, it suggests that the employees who work in
university where the number of staff is small tend to perceive a higher level of participative
management being implemented.
AGE as an individual factor of the employee also indicates a small indirect effect on PM.
Similarly, the association of AGE with PM also operates through ORG factor. As shown in
Figure 7.2, this association yields a path coefficient of = 0.05. The positive sign suggests
that the older employees seem to have more positive perceptions on the use of PM than the
younger employees. In other words, the implementation of PM obtained a higher appraisal
(rating) from older employees than the one from the young employees.
Employee work attitude (EWA)
Participative Management (PM, = 0.27) was found to have a significant direct affect on
Employee Work Attitude (EWA). The positive path coefficient indicates that the extent of
236
the participative management behaviour implemented by leaders (in terms of the
dimensions: leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal
setting, and controlling) significantly creates the likelihood of employee work attitudes in
the workplace. The higher the level of the participative management system regarded by
employees, the more positive work attitudes they experienced in the organisation. One
possible explanation for this is that PM is probably regarded by employees as a strategic
approach to improve the work atmosphere that is able to facilitate the growth of positive
work attitudes in the workplace. This in turn leads to the higher level of work attitude
(EWA) perceived by the employees in term of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of
job security, and job satisfaction.
Age of University (UNIAGE, = 0.12) as an exogenous factor was also found to have a
significant direct effect on EWA. The positive sign indicates that employees in older
universities tend to have positive work attitudes in the workplace. The older the age of
university, the higher the level of work attitude they may experience in terms of the
experiences of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job
satisfaction. It could be due to the older universities (indicated as well established
institutions) are probably able to provide an environment where the employees could
experience more stable work conditions than in the new established universities. This leads
to fostering employees‟ positive work attitudes.
The next factor is organisational culture (ORG) that was found to strongly influence
employee work attitude (EWA). As depicted the path diagram in Figure 7.2, ORG have
both a direct effect ( = 0.59) and an indirect effect = 0.17) on EWA. Its indirect effect
goes through a PM construct. Combining both coefficients yield a large effect size of a
total effect ( = 0.76). The resulting path coefficient shows a strong positive association
between the ORG and EWA construct. This could be interpreted that the extent of
organisational culture (in terms of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive forms)
significantly creates the likelihood of employee work attitudes in the workplace, the
stronger the organisational culture in the forms of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive
regarded by the employees, the more positive the work attitude they experienced. Almost
237
similar to its influence on the participate management construct above, thus, the level of
organisational culture performance, which is strongly reflected by the supportive form,
also becomes a key driver for the employees to provide a high appraisal for the employee
work attitudes in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and
job satisfaction they experienced in the units (divisions) where they work.
Status of the university (UNISTAT) as an exogenous factor was also found to have an
indirect effect on EWA. The association between the two variables is mediated by PM as a
construct with a resulting coefficient of ie = 0.02. Although this association yields only a
small size of the path coefficient or less than 0.15, it suggests that the type of university (in
term of government and private) slightly influences leader perceptions on employee work
attitude. The positive sign indicates leaders in the government universities tend to perceive
a higher level of employee work attitudes (EWA) than those who are in private
universities.
The indirect effect on EWA is followed by another organisational factor, university size
(UNISIZE, ie = -0.08). Almost the same with its negative influence on PM discussed
above. The association between UNISIZE and EWA was also mediated by the other factor,
ORG. Such an association produces a small and negative coefficient of -0.08 indicating the
smaller the size of university (in term of the total number of administrative staff), the
higher the level of work attitude they may experience in terms of self-autonomy,
meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job satisfaction. It could be explained that
employees within small universities may easily experience a favourable environment. This
leads to fostering employees‟ positive work attitudes.
The last factor is AGE (Age of Employee) that was also found to have an indirect effect on
EWA through the same factor (ORG) with a resulting path coefficient is ie = 0.06.
Although it only yields a small effect size, the positive sign indicates that the older the age
of the employees the more positive work attitudes experienced by the employees. In other
words, the work attitudes in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job
security, and job satisfaction obtained a higher appraisal (rating) from older employees
than the one from the young employees.
238
Employee performance behaviour (EPB)
Three factors were found to have direct effects on employee performance behaviour
(EPB). These factors include employee work attitude (EWA, = 0.95), age of employee
(AGE, = 0.06), and organisational culture (ORG, = -0.26).
The path coefficients displayed in Table 7.4 and Figure 7.2 show EWA as a construct
obtained the highest positive path coefficient = 0.95) in the employee level path model.
The positive sign indicates that EWA had a strong impact on employee performance
behaviour (EPB). In other words, the more positive the employees experienced the work
attitudes (EWA) the higher the level of performance behaviour (EPB) perceived by
employees. Thus, it can be interpreted that the extent of the work attitudes (in terms of
self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security and job satisfaction) experienced
by employees becomes a strong driver for the employees to provide a high appraisal for
their own performance in terms of organisational commitment (OC), quality customer
service (QCS), and employee withdrawal behaviour (EWB).
Additionally, it needs to be noted here that the employee withdrawal behaviour (EWB) as
an observed variable was coded (1-5) in the measurement model. This scale respectively
indicates highest intention for withdrawal – lowest intention for withdrawal. The higher
scores obtained in EWB, thus, means that the employees demonstrated the lower intention
for withdrawal or quitting from the jobs.
The next factor that has a positive association with EPB is AGE. As shown in Figure 7.2,
AGE was found to have both a direct and an indirect effect on EPB with the corresponding
values are = 0.06 and ie = 0.04. Its indirect effect goes through the ORG factor. By
combining both coefficients, it yields a total effect (te = 0.10). The resulting path
coefficient shows that AGE significantly influenced the perceptions of employees upon
perceived performance behaviour in terms of organisational commitment, quality customer
service, and withdrawal behaviour. The positive sign indicates that the older employees
tend to have more positive perceptions on the employee performance behaviour than those
239
who are from the younger employees. In other words, the older the age of the employees
the higher the level of performance behaviour they perceived.
Similarly, ORG also had both a direct and indirect effect on EPB. The resulting path
coefficients are respectively = -0.26 and ie = 0.72. As depicted in Figure 7.2, its indirect
effect goes through EWA. Although the resulting indirect path coefficient was negative, by
combining this value with the direct path coefficient, it yields a large and positive total
coefficient (te = 0.46). This indicates that the extent of organisational culture, which is
strongly reflected by the supportive form, strongly influenced employee perceptions on the
perceived performance behaviour. The stronger the organisational culture in the supportive
form regarded by the employees, the more positive the performance behaviour they
perceived. It could be interpreted that the level of the perceived supportive organisational
culture becomes a key driver for the employees to provide a high appraisal for the
performance behaviour they demonstrated in terms of organisational commitment (OC),
quality customer service (QCS), and lower employee withdrawal behaviour (EWB).
Other factors were found to provide only indirect effects on EPB. These factors yield
positive path coefficients including participative management (PM, ie = 0.25); age of
university (UNIAGE, ie = 0.11); status of university (UNISTAT, ie = 0.02; and university
size (UNISIZE, ie = -0.05).
PM did not have a significant direct effect on EPB, but it was mediated by the EWA factor.
As a latent variable, PM in the path diagram operates its effect on EPB through EWA as a
strong mediator. This association recorded a moderate effect on EPB (ie = 0.25). This
indicates that the extent of the participative management behaviour implemented by
leaders (in terms of the dimensions: leadership, motivation, communication, interaction,
decision making, goal setting, and controlling) significantly creates the likelihood of
employee work attitudes (EWA). This condition, then, may have transmitted employees‟
motivation to perform a higher performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment (OC), quality customer service (QCS), and lower level of withdrawal
behaviour (EWB). Thus, it could be interpreted that the higher the level of the participative
240
management system regarded by employees, the higher the level performance behaviour
they perceived.
Age of university (UNIAGE, ie = 0.11) was also found to have an indirect effect on EPB.
Although the resulting path coefficient is small, however, the positive coefficient indicates
that employees in the older universities tend to have more positive perceptions on EPB
than those who are from the new universities. The older the age of university, the higher
the level of performance behaviour they perceived. One possible explanation for this is that
the older universities (as indicated by the age of its establishment) may ensure the
employees to provide them as a stable institution where they can rely on. This leads to
fostering employees‟ positive perceptions on EPB.
Almost similar to the influences of the organisational factors on EWA discussed
previously, status of university (UNISTAT) as an exogenous factor was also found to have
an indirect effect on EPB. The association between UNISTAT and EPB was mediated by
two other constructs: PM and EWA with a resulting coefficient of ie = 0.02. Although this
association yields only a small size of the path coefficient or less than 0.15, it suggests that
the type of university (in term of government and private) slightly influenced the
employees‟ perceptions on the perceived performance behaviour. The positive sign
indicates employees in the government universities tend to perceive a higher level of EPB
(in terms of organisational commitment, quality customer service, and lower level of
withdrawal behaviour) than those who are from the private universities.
The last factor that indirectly influenced the perceptions of employees on the performance
behaviour (EPB) is university size (UNISIZE). The indirect effect of UNISIZE on EPB
was mediated by two constructs (ORG and EWA) through different paths. First, its effect
goes through the ORG construct. The second path is through the ORG and the EWA
constructs. By combining the results from both indirect paths, UNISIZE obtained an
indirect path coefficient of ie = -0.05. The negative coefficient indicates the smaller the
size of the university (in term of the total number of permanent administrative staff), the
higher the level of performance behaviour perceived by employees. In other words,
241
employees who work in the universities where the number of permanent staff is small tend
to perceive a higher level of performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality customer service, and lower level of withdrawal behaviour.
Organisational culture (ORG)
Results presented in Table 7.4 show that there are two factors that were found to have
direct effects on ORG. These are age of employee (AGE) and university size (UNISIZE).
Age of employee (AGE, = 0.08) significantly had a direct effect on ORG. The size of the
effect shows that AGE only had a small effect on ORG. However, the path coefficient
could be an indication of the likelihood of older or senior employees to have more positive
attitude towards the perceived organisational culture in the forms of bureaucratic (BUR),
innovative (INNOV), and supportive (SUP) than those who are from young employees. In
other words, the older the age of employees, the higher they regarded the existing
organisational culture in their workplace.
The second factor is university size (UNISIZE) that was recorded to have a direct effect on
the ORG construct. Its association with ORG yielded a negative coefficient of = -0.11.
The negative sign indicated that the smaller the size of universities, the stronger the
organisational culture was regarded by the employees. In other words, employees in the
small universities tended to regard stronger forms of organisational cultures (in terms of
bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive) in their workplace than the employees in the
larger universities. It was probably due to the condition of the small universities, where
leaders could employ the development of organisational cultures, and they substantially
affected the entire employees, rather than the one practised in the large universities.
Education completed by employee (EDUC)
Sex of employee (SEX) as an exogenous factor was found as a single factor that had a
significant association with EDUC. This association yields a path coefficient (SEX, = -
0.14). Since SEX as a latent variable is reflected by gender in the structural model and
242
coded as 1 for male and 0 for female, the negative sign indicates that female employees
tend to have a higher education level than male employees have. This could be due to the
trend for the woman forces especially in administrative divisions in Indonesia have better
education backgrounds than male employees.
Level/rank obtained by employee (LEVEL)
Level or rank obtained by employee (LEVEL) as an exogenous factor was found to be
influenced directly by other exogenous factors as independent variables. These include
education completed by employee (EDUC), sex of employee (SEX), age of employee
(AGE), and status of university (UNISTAT). The effect sizes of these variables are
discussed below.
Education completed by employee (EDUC) had a direct effect on LEVEL with a resulting
path coefficient = 0.46. This indicates that education had strong and positive influences
on the employment levels obtained by employees. The higher the level of education
completed by employees, the higher the employment level they obtained in the personnel
management system that is applied in Indonesian universities. This could be explained that
the current employment systems probably apply the promotion systems that require
academic competencies which are indicated by education levels completed by employees.
Employees who fulfil this condition would get more access for the promotions in term of
level of employment within an organisation. This, then, leads to positive association
between EDUC and LEVEL.
Sex of employee (SEX) was found to have an association with LEVEL. As shown in the
path diagram in Figure 7.2, SEX had a direct and indirect effect on LEVEL with the
resulting path coefficients are respectively: = -0.07 and ie = -0.07. By adding up both
coefficients, SEX records a total path coefficient, te = -0.14. SEX as a latent variable is
reflected by and coded as 1 for male and 0 for female. The negative sign, thus, indicates
that female was found to have higher employment level than the male employees have.
Consistent with the effect of SEX on education discussed previously, this could be due to
the trend for woman workforces in administrative divisions in Indonesia have better
education backgrounds than male employees. By acquiring better and high education
243
levels, female employees thus, get more access to gain higher promotions in term of
employment levels they may have.
Age of employee (AGE) was also found to have a direct effect on LEVEL. The association
of these variables produced a large path coefficient (AGE, = 0.37). This shows a strong
effect of AGE on LEVEL. The positive sign indicates that older employees tend to have
higher employment level than those who are from young employees. The older the age of
employees the higher the level they achieved in the workplace. The reason is that the
promotion systems for administrative staff in Indonesian organisations are generally based
on the seniority. Consequently, higher level positions are mostly occupied by older
employees.
The last factor that had a direct effect on LEVEL is status of university (UNISTAT, =
0.16). The size effect resulted shows that UNISTAT moderately influenced the
employment levels obtained by employees. The positive sign indicates that employees in
the government universities tend to have higher employment level than those who are from
the private universities. It could be due to a better performance of personnel management
system in government universities than the one in the universities owned by privates. Such
a condition may lead to effective promotion programs for the entire staff, and in turn,
provide more opportunities for the employees to gain high employment level in the units or
divisions where they work.
7.5 Fit indexes Obtained at the Employee Level Path Model
To see how the model fit the data, the goodness of fit of the path model employed in this
study is assessed referring to the model fit indexes described previously.
Results show that the employee level path model obtained the /DF = 3.471 (df = 238)
which has a corresponding p-value of p < 0.01. Since /DF is lower than the upper limit
of the (> 5) (Kline, 2005), it is sufficient to reject the null of a good fit indicating
the structure of the path model in the current study fit the data well. The other indices also
provide satisfactory values showing better fit for this model. These include goodness-of-
244
fit-index (GFI, 0.92), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, 0.93), and comparative fit index (CFI,
0.94). All the values are close to unity which indicates the better the model fit the data
(Darmawan, 2003). Finally, the model is also confirmed by examining the fit obtained in
the index of root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA, 0.05). Since this value is
close to zero, it indicates a good model fit for the path structure used in this study.
It has been explained previously earlier in this Chapter, a small modification was made to
improve the model. This was undertaken by adding some arrows among some factors and
error terms within a construct referring to the modification indices suggested by AMOS
program. As shown in Figure 7.2, three latent variables and two error terms are correlated
to each other. These include UNISIZE – UNISTAT = 0.74, UNISIZE – UNIAGE = 0.76,
and UNISTAT – UNIAGE = 0.85 showing the three latent variables strongly correlate to
each other. Followed by the error terms LEAD – MOTIV = 0.35, COM – INT = 0.16
positively have associations. The associations among the latent variables and error terms
are statistically significant at p < 0.01.
7.6 Summary
In this chapter, the relationships among the research variables at the employee level were
examined using a single level path analysis. Preceding the analysis, the multicollinearity
test carried out showed that there were no multicollinearity issues with the independent
variables, ensuring that their analysis could provide interpretable results.
In the measurement model of the employee level path, all the exogenous variables of
individual and organisational factors were regarded as the fixed latent variables, which
resulted in maximum loadings for the corresponding manifest variables. The manifest
variables of the other latent variables (participative management, employee work attitude,
employee performance behaviour, and organisational culture) obtained high loadings,
indicating that they were adequately represented by the manifest variables.
The structural model showed how participative management related to both employee
work attitude and employee performance behaviour. The results indicated that participative
245
management positively influenced employee performance behaviour. However, such an
association was mediated by the employee work attitude, which provided a high
coefficient, indicating a strong direct effect on the performance behaviour. All the
organisational factors of university age, status, size, and organisational culture were found
to significantly influence such a relationship. From the four individual factors investigated,
only age of employees had a significant effect.
The findings provided important insights into how the employees perceived the
relationships between participative management and employee performance behaviour. To
find out how the relationships among the variables was viewed from the leader perspective,
it was necessary to carry out a leader-level path analysis, which is presented in the next
chapter.
246
Chapter Eight
Single Level Path Analysis: Leader Level
8.1 Introduction
The path analysis at leader level was carried out as a further step of the analysis of the
current study concerning the research variables at the employee level that have been tested
in Chapter Seven. These variables include organisational and individual factors that are
assumed to influence the implementation of the participative management (PM) system in
an organisational unit. It also has been argued previously that the use of the PM is
hypothesised to have certain impacts on the level of employee work attitude (EWA), and in
turn, both may affect the perceived performance behaviour of employees (EPB) in terms of
organisational commitment, quality customer service and withdrawal behaviour. The
relationships between these factors and the PM model or a system as a latent variable have
been shown in the research model in Chapter Three.
To see the strength and causal relationships among the examined variables, a single level
path analysis at the leader level that was carried out using AMOS 18. Based on AMOS
output, the model was specified, and some modifications of the model were made to
improve the fit of the model referring to the modification indices generated by AMOS. The
results of the path analysis at the leader level are reported according to the following main
headings: test for multicollinearity, variables used in the path analysis at the leader level,
and results of the path analysis for measurement and structural model.
8.2 Test for Multicollinearity of the Independent Variables
Following the procedure that has been carried out at the employee level in Chapter Seven,
the extent of multicollinearity among the independent variables at the leader level was
tested. The technique of variance inflation factor (VIF) was applied to detect the
247
multicollinearity among variables. The results of the multicollinearity test for the
independent variables involved in the leader level path model are summarised in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1. Collinearity statistics of the independent variables at the leader level
Variables * Collinearity statistics
Dependent variable Independent variable Tolerance VIF
LPM LAGE 0.91 1.10
UNISTAT 0.91 1.10
LEWA LPM 0.95 1.05
UNIAGE 0.95 1.05
PMa UNISTAT 1.00 1.00
ORG 1.00 1.00
EWAa ORG 1.00 1.00
UNIAGE 1.00 1.00
LEVELa AGEa 0.99 1.01
EDUCa 0.99 1.01
UNISTAT 1.00 1.00
ORG UNISIZE 0.98 1.02
LSERV 0.98 1.02
Note.*LPM (Participative management perceived by leader); LEWA (Employee work attitude
perceived by leader); PMa (Average level of participative management; EWAa (Average level of employee work attitude); LEVELa (Average level/rank obtained by employees); ORG
(Organisational culture); LAGE (Age of leader); UNISTAT (Status of university); UNIAGE(Age
of university); AGEa (Average age of employees); EDUCa (Average education completed by
employees); UNISIZE (University size); LSERV (Leader experience in term of length of service in a unit).
Based on the criteria that was suggested by Hair et al. (2010, p. 204), and that has been
referred to detecting the multicollinearity of the independent variables at employee level
(Chapter Seven), a VIF threshold of > 10 indicates problems with multicollinearity. Results
in Table 8.1 show that none of the variables had VIF values > 10. These indicate that the
independent variables involved in the leader level path analysis do not have an issue with
multicollinearity. The behaviour of the associations among the variables offers convincing
evidences as the indispensable factors or variables in the path analysis. Thus, this study
confidently retained the variables for further purpose of the path analysis in the model.
248
8.3. Variables Used in the Leader Level Path Analysis
Three different groups of variables were included in the leader level path analysis. The first
group of variables relates to employees‟ characteristics and perceptions. The variables
were aggregated from the employee level to the leader level to represent the composition
of employees under each leader. These variables of employee factor are signed by “a”
(shown in a lower case at the end) representing the aggregated data from the employee
level to the leader level in the path model. The second group of variables relates to leader‟s
characteristics and perceptions. These variables are signed by “L” (shown in an uppercase
at the first letters) representing the source of the data are from the individual leaders with
their own characteristics and perceptions. The third group reflects the organisational
characteristics. These variables are disaggregated from the organisational level to leader
level representing the context of each organisational unit. The organisational variables
consistently use the same names for both levels in the path diagram or model.
Consistent with the proposed model as explained in Chapter Three, by combining all the
variables from different levels, the leader level path model had 20 latent variables. As
shown in Table 8.2, the variables are grouped in three categories: employee, leader, and
organisational factors. Variables in the employee factor include: proportion of sex or
gender of employees (SEXa), average age of employees (AGEa), average education
completed by employee (EDUCa), average level or rank obtained by employees
(LEVELa), average employees‟ experience in term of length of service in a unit (SERVa),
average level of participative management (PMa), average level of employee work attitude
(EWAa), and average level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa). Variables of the
leader factor include: sex of leader (LSEX), education completed by leader (LEDUC),
level/rank obtained by leader (LLEVEL), leader experience in term of length of service in
a unit (LSERV), participative management perceived by leader (LPM), employee work
attitude perceived by leader (LEWA), and employee performance behaviour perceived by
leader (LEPB). This is followed by organisational factors which include age of university
(UNIAGE), status of university (UNISTAT), university size (UNISIZE), organisational
culture (ORG). The descriptions of the initial variables proposed in the leader level path
model are presented in Table 8.2.
249
Table 8.2. Variables used in the leader level path analysis
Latent variables
Description
Manifest
variables
Descriptions
Employee factors
SEXa Proportion of sex or gender of
employees
GENDERa Proportion of male and female
AGEa Average age of employees AGEYa Average age of employees in years
EDUCa Average education completed
by employees
EDULVLa Average education level obtained by
employees
LEVELa Average level/rank obtained
by employees
EMPLOYa Average employment level of employee
(indicated by: Level I, II, III & IV)
SERVa Average employees‟ experience in terms of length of
service in a unit
LGTHSERVa Average length of service of employees in years
PMa Average level of participative
management
LEADa
MOTIVa
COMa
INTa
DMa
GOALa
CONTa
Average score of leadership
Average score of motivation
Average score of communication
Average score of interaction
Average score of decision making
Average score of goal setting
Average score of controlling
EWAa Average level of employee
work attitudes
SAa
MTa
SECa JOBSTa
Average score of self-autonomy
Average score of meaningful task
Average score of feelings of job security Average score of job satisfaction
EPBa Average level of employee
performance behaviour
OCa
QCSa
EWBa
Average score of organisational
commitment
Average score of quality customer service
Average score of employee withdrawal
behaviour
Leader factors
LSEX Sex of leader LGENDER Gender of leader (1= Male; 0 = Female)
LAGE Age of leader LAGEY Age of leader in years
LEDUC Education completed by leader LEDUCLVL Education level of leader
LLEVEL Level/rank obtained by leader in employment system
LDRLEVEL Employment level of leader (indicated by: Level I, II, III & IV)
LSERV Leader experience in term of
length of service in a unit
LDRSERV Length of service of leader in years
LPM Participative management
perceived by leader
LLEAD
LMOTIV
LCOM
LINT
LDM
LGOAL
LCONT
Leadership perceived by leader
Motivation perceived by leader
Communication perceived by leader
Interaction perceived by leader
Decision making perceived by leader
Goal setting perceived by leader
Controlling perceived by leader
LEWA Employee work attitude
perceived by leader
LSA
LMT LSEC
LJOBST
Self-autonomy perceived by leader
Meaningful tasks perceived by leader Feelings of job security perceived by leader
Job satisfaction perceived by leader
LEPB
Employee performance
behaviour perceived
by leader
LOC
LQCS
LEWB
Organisational commitment perceived
by leader
Quality customer service perceived by
leader
Employee withdrawal behaviour
perceived by leader
250
Table 8.2 (Continued)
Latent variables
Description
Manifest
variables
Descriptions
Organisational
factors
UNIAGE Age of university ESTAB Age of university in years
UNISTAT Status of university TYPE University status (1 = Government;
0 = Private)
UNISIZE University size SIZESTF University size indicated by a total
number of permanent staff
ORG Organisational culture BUR
INNOV SUP
Bureaucratic
Innovative Supportive
The total number of variables listed in Table 8.2 slightly differs with the number of
variables depicted in the path diagram as shown in Figure 8.1. It is due to the composition
of the variables at the leader level factors changed in the final results of the path analysis.
Sex of leader (LSEX), education completed by leader (LEDUC), level obtained by leader
(LLEVEL), proportion of sex or gender of employees (SEXa), average employees‟
experience in term of length of service in a unit (SERVa) were excluded from the model.
This was due to the regression coefficients obtained by the variables were not significant or
its t-values = < 2. The other variables remain the same. Thus, the final structure of the path
diagram at the leader level is shown in Figure 8.1 consisting of 15 latent variables.
Similar to employee level path model described in Chapter Seven, the individual factors of
sex, age, education, employment level, length of service were also treated as exogenous
variables at the leader level path model. Each operates as a latent variable that is reflected
by a single indicator. The same procedure is also applied to the organisational factors (age
of university, status of university, university size). This procedure was applied because
these variables have simple structures and fixed attributes. As explained in Chapter Six,
information requested from these variables was obtained using the official documents
provided by sample universities.
The organisational culture (ORG) was also treated as an exogenous observed variable but
it was formed by three manifest variables (BUR, INNOV, and SUP). The same as employed
at employee level path model, the ORG manifest variables were developed based on the
251
perceptions from employees‟ sample, and those variables have been validated as reported
in Chapter Six.
The other variables were consistently used as latent variables (LVs). Each contains three or
more manifest variables (MVs) that are displayed in italics in Table 8.2. Thus, as displayed
in Figure 8.1, the leader level model has 15 LVs and 39 MVs. All the variables have
relations to each other, and they are assumed to influence the extent of the use of the PM,
its impacts on employee work attitude (EWA) and employee performance behaviour (EPB)
as perceived both by leaders and employees.
Similar to the employee level path analysis, all the values assigned to each variable were
based on principal component scores that were generated from the output of descriptive
analysis using SPSS program.
8.4 Results of the Leader Level Path Analysis
Similar to the employee level path that has been discussed in Chapter Seven, the leader
level path analysis was used to examine the causal relationships among the variables that
were developed from the leader factors. This was carried out to address the same research
question that guided the path analysis at employee level: “What are the perceptions of
employees and leaders about the use of participative management model and employees‟
performance specifically on organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour?” However, at the leader level, the analysis is further
advanced to examine the results from both employee and leader perceptions. This is
necessary to analyse, interpret as well as comparing the findings that were generated from
both perceptions.
To ease such a procedure, the data obtained from both resources (employee and leader
perceptions) were merged into a single data set. However, there was a problem while using
the combined data for the interpretation especially for the comparison of employee and
leader perceptions involved in the path model. It was due to the sample size of cases
differed especially the cases from leaders were smaller than those that were from
252
employees. To solve this issue, the data from the lower level (employee) were aggregated
to the higher level (leader). While the data of for leader level was consistently generated
from the responses of the individual leaders (original data). Thus, as far as possible this
enabled this study to examine the trend of employee perceptions about the use of the
participative management and its impacts on employee performance behaviour within each
division (unit) or under a leader.
Following the steps undertaken in the employee level path analysis, this study did not
include the third level (organisational level) because the insufficient number of the
organisational units (6) as the third level. However, the data from the organisational level
was incorporated by disaggregating the data of the organisational factors to the leader level
(organisational unit). Furthermore, to ensure the reliable results of the path analysis can be
obtained, the weaknesses in using the data source from disaggregation and aggregation
procedure are considered in this study.
The following sections present the results including both measurement and structural
model at leader level. Measurement model examines the strength of the relationships
between MVs and their corresponding LVs, (Darmawan, 2003). While the structural model
examines the strength of the relationships between one LV and other LVs in the model
(Darmawan, 2003).
8.4.1 Measurement model results at the leader level
Measurement model results at the leader level were interpreted referring to the similar
indices that have been used in interpreting the results of the employee level in Chapter
Seven. Since the indices have been described in detail in Chapter Seven, the same
description is not repeated in this section. The following sections report the results
according to the sequence of the variables listed in Table 8.2. The discussions are limited
on the variables that have significant coefficients as shown on Figure 8.1 and Table 8.3.
Similar to the employee level path model, at the leader level path model, the loadings of
the individual factors (age, sex/gender, education, and length of service) and organisational
253
characteristics (age of university, status of university, university size) had the maximum
loadings, = 1.00, and SE = 0.00 with p values of < 0.01. This was due to the measures,
which were based on the fixed organisational and individual characteristics obtained in the
research context. To ensure the findings are interpretable, the results of these factors are
reported as follow.
Average age of employees (AGEa)
Average age of employee (AGEa) was treated as an exogenous observed variable at the
leader level path model. It has a single manifest variable, namely AGEYa (Average age of
employees in years). Since the values in the measurement model at leader level were
generated from the aggregated data from lower level to the higher level (leader), the value
obtained by AGEa in the model shows the average age of employees within a division that
is led by a leader.
Average education completed by employees (EDUCa)
Average education completed by employees (EDUCa) was also treated as a latent variable
that was reflected by a single manifest variable namely EDULVLa (Average education
level obtained by employee). The same as assigned to the age variable, the value obtained
by this latent variable in the measurement model shows the average education completed
by employees.
254
Figure 8.1. Leader level path model
255
Table 8.3. Results of measurement model at the leader level
Note. Three asterisks (***) next to P values indicate that the p-value is < 0.001
Average Level/rank obtained by employees (LEVELa)
Average level or rank obtained by employees (LEVELa) was treated as an exogenous
observed variable at the leader level path model. It has a single manifest variable, namely
EMPLOYa (Average employment level of employees). Since the values in the
measurement model at leader level were generated from the aggregated data from lower
Latent variables Manifest variables UnstdEst S.E. C.R. StdEst. ( P
AGEa AGEYa 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
EDUCa EDULVLa 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
LEVELa EMPLOYa 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
PMa LEADa 0.92 0.12 7.65 0.86 ***
MOTIVa 1.31 0.16 8.41 0.91 ***
COMa 1.01 0.14 7.50 0.85 ***
INTa 1.11 0.15 7.60 0.86 ***
DMa 1.20 0.16 7.67 0.86 ***
GOALa 1.15 0.14 7.98 0.88 ***
CONTa 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 ***
EWAa SAa 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 *** MTa 0.87 0.28 3.13 0.57 0.002
SECa 1.74 0.44 3.98 0.87 ***
JOBSTa 1.94 0.50 3.90 0.83 ***
EPBa OCa 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 ***
QCSa 0.31 0.12 2.56 0.35 0.010
EWBa 0.40 0.16 2.54 0.35 0.011
LAGE LAGEY 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
LSERV LDRSERV 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
LPM LLEAD 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 ***
LMOTIV 1.33 0.30 4.45 0.80 ***
LCOM 1.39 0.30 4.60 0.84 ***
LINT 1.40 0.30 4.59 0.84 *** LDM 1.12 0.28 4.03 0.69 ***
LGOAL 1.04 0.28 3.97 0.68 ***
LCONT 0.99 0.27 3.67 0.61 ***
LEWA LSA 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 ***
LMT 1.33 0.29 4.63 0.82 ***
LSEC 1.35 0.30 4.58 0.81 ***
LJOBST 1.12 0.28 4.04 0.68 ***
LEPB LOC 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 ***
LQCS 0.87 0.19 4.71 0.68 ***
LEWB 0.53 0.20 2.69 0.40 0.007
UNIAGE ESTAB 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 *** UNISTAT TYPE 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
UNISIZE SIZESTF 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ***
ORG BUR 0.72 0.14 5.19 0.64 ***
INNOV 0.68 0.12 5.58 0.67 ***
SUP 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 ***
256
level to the higher level (leader), the value obtained in this variable shows the average level
of employees in a division or a unit.
Average level of participative management (PMa)
Average level of participative management (PMa) as a construct or latent variable in the
leader level path analysis is reflected by seven manifest variables (MVs). Similar to the
variables that have been discussed above, the value of the PMa represents the average level
of participative management in an organisational unit. The manifest variables and their
loadings are leadership (LEADa, 0.86), motivation (MOTIVa, 0.91), communication
(COMa, 0.85) interaction (INTa, 0.86), decision making (DMa, 0.86), goal setting
(GOALa, 0.88), and controlling (CONTa, 0.82). All MVs obtained high loadings with the
scores are > 0.30. Thus, it indicates that the manifest variables are strong reflectors of the
PMa construct.
Average level of employee work attitude (EWAa)
Average level of employee work attitude (EWAa) as a construct or latent variable is
reflected by four manifest variables (MVs). The value obtained in the leader path analysis
represents the average scores of its corresponding manifest variables, thus, EWAa variable
shows average level of employee work attitude in an organisational unit. The manifest
variables and its loadings are self-autonomy (SAa), meaningful task (MTa), feelings of job
security (SECa), and job satisfaction (JOBSTa). These manifest variables significantly
obtained loading scores that are respectively 0.54, 0.57, 0.87, and 0.83. All the variables
obtained the loading of > 0.30 indicating the manifest variables are strong reflectors of
EWAa construct in the path model.
Average level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa)
Average level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa) as a construct or latent variable
in is reflected by three manifest variables. These include organisational commitment (OCa,
0.97), quality customer service (QCSa, 0.35), and employee withdrawal behaviour (EWBa,
0.35). Since, the values obtained are from aggregated data, EPBa variable represents
257
average level of employee performance behaviour in an organisational unit. All the
variables obtained the acceptable loadings for the model in the current study. This indicates
that the MVs substantially contribute to this construct. Additionally, it is necessary to note
that the values of the measures obtained by the corresponding manifest variables represent
the average score of the observations in the leader level path analysis.
Age of leader (LAGE)
Age of leader was treated as an exogenous observed variable at the leader level path
model. It has a single manifest variable, namely LAGEY (age of leaders in years). It is
reflected by years as indicators (1= 20 – 29 yo; 2 = 30 – 39 yo; 3 = 40 – 49 yo; 4 = 50 – 59
yo; 5 = 60 and above). To ensure the accuracy of information on the age factor, the values
of this variable were generated from the original data (individual leader factors)
Leader experience in term of length of service in a unit (LSERV)
Length of service of leader (LSERV) as an exogenous variable was treated as a latent
variable. This variable is reflected by a single manifest variable, namely LDRSERV
(length of service of leader in years). This variable reflects how long the leader has worked
or has a position in an organisational unit or a division at the time data was collected.
Participative management perceived by leader (LPM)
Similar to PMa variable that have been discussed above, Participative management
perceived by leader (LPM) as a construct in the leader level path analysis is reflected by
seven manifest variables (MVs). The values of this variable were generated from the
original data (individual leader factor). The manifest variables and its loadings are
leadership (LLEAD, 0.60), motivation (LMOTIV, 0.80), communication (LCOM, 0.84)
interaction (LINT, 0.84), decision making (LDM, 0.69), goal setting (LGOAL, 0.68), and
controlling (LCONT, 0.61). All MVs obtained high loadings with the scores are > 0.30.
Thus, it indicates that the manifest variables are strong reflectors of the LPM construct).
258
Employee work attitude perceived by leader (LEWA)
Employee work attitude perceived by leader (LEWA) as a construct in the leader level path
analysis is reflected by four manifest variables (MVs). The values of this variable were
generated from the original data (individual leader factor). The manifest variables and its
loadings are self-autonomy (LSA), meaningful task (LMT), feelings of job security (LSEC),
and job satisfaction (LJOBST). These manifest variables significantly obtained loading
scores that are respectively 0.62, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.68. All the variables obtained the
loading of > 0.30 indicating the manifest variables are strong reflectors of LEWA a
construct in the path model.
Employee performance behaviour perceived by leader (LEPB)
Employee performance behaviour perceived by leader (LEPB) as a construct in the
measurement model is reflected by three manifest variables. The same as the variable at
the employee level that have been discussed in Chapter Seven, the values of this variable
was also generated from the original data (individual leader factor). The manifest variables
and its loadings are organisational commitment (LOC, 0.78,), quality customer service
(LQCS, 0.68), and employee withdrawal behaviour (LEWB, 0.40). Since all the variables
obtained the acceptable loadings in the leader level path model, it indicates that the MVs
substantially contribute to this construct.
Age of university (UNIAGE)
The age of university (UNIAGE) as an exogenous variable was also treated as a latent
variable. This variable is reflected by a single manifest variable namely ESTAB (the age of
university in term of the establishment as an institution). The age of the university is
indicated by years of the establishment. This variable reflects how old the university is at
the time data was collected.
259
Status of university (UNISTAT)
In the model, the status of the university was assigned as a latent variable. This variable is
indicated by a single manifest variable, namely TYPE (type of university is coded 1 as
government and 0 for private).
University size (UNISIZE)
The size of university as an exogenous variable (latent variable) was also formed out of a
single manifest variable, namely the number of staff (SIZESTF) in the model. In the current
study the number of permanent non-academic staff was entered in order to determine the
size of the university. The higher the number of the permanent staff the larger the size of
the university.
Organisational culture (ORG)
Similar to the ORG variable that has been examined in the employee level path analysis,
the measurement model at the leader level also employed ORG as a construct. It is
reflected by three manifest variables including bureaucratic (BUR), innovative (INNOV),
and supportive (SUP). As shown in Table 8.3 these manifest variables (MVs) had higher
loadings with the values respectively are 0.64, 0.67, and 0.91. It indicates the MVs
(especially the supportive form) contribute to the model as strong reflectors for the
organisational culture construct.
8.4.2 Structural model results at the leader level
As mentioned previously, the leader level path analysis was undertaken by combining two
data sources (employee and leader responses). This procedure was carried out using a
merge technique, which was assisted by SPSS program, in order to get a complete single
data set. To ease the analysis process of this combined data set, a leader level path model
was created by merging the variables of both levels (see Figure 8.1). This step has been
considered as an appropriate way to interpret as well as comparing the findings between
the two levels.
260
Similar to the structural model of the employee level in Chapter Seven, the individual
leader-level variables that were assumed to influence the use of participative management
style and its impacts on employee performance behaviour were also analysed using AMOS
18. The strength of the relationships among the LVs was examined referring to the
specified indices. The results are summarised in Table 8.4, and discussed according to the
sequence of the associations that appears in the path diagram (see Figure 8.1).
Participative management perceived by leader (LPM)
Results that are displayed Table 8.4 show that two factors were found to have direct effects
on participative management perceived by leaders (LPM). These factors are age of leader
(LAGE, = -0.35) and status of the university (UNISTAT, = 0.32).
Table 8.4. Results of the structural model in the leader level path analysis
Variables
Direct effect
StdInd.
effect
Total
effect
Criterion Predictor UnstEst.(B) S.E. C.R. P StdEst.( ) ( ie ) +ie)
LPM LAGE -0.37 0.16 -2.39 0.017 -0.35 - -0.35
UNISTAT 0.42 0.19 2.20 0.028 0.32 - 0.32
LEWA LPM 0.67 0.21 3.20 0.001 0.67 - 0.67
UNIAGE 0.02 0.01 2.30 0.022 0.28 - 0.28 UNISTAT - - - - - 0.21 0.21
LAGE - - - - - -0.24 -0.24
LEPB LEWA 1.21 0.28 4.28 *** 0.95 - 0.95
LPM - - - - - 0.63 0.63
UNIAGE - - - - - 0.26 0.26
UNISTAT - - - - - 0.20 0.20
LAGE - - - - - -0.22 -0.22
PMa ORG 0.60 0.11 5.41 *** 0.75 - 0.75
UNISTAT 0.16 0.06 2.68 0.007 0.30 - 0.30
UNISIZE - - - - - -0.22 -0.22
LSERV - - - - - -0.26 -0.26
EWAa ORG 0.30 0.10 2.83 0.005 0.50 - 0.50 UNIAGE 0.01 0.00 3.03 0.002 0.52 - 0.52
LSERV - - - - - -0.17 -0.17
UNISIZE - - - - - -0.15 -0.15
EPBa EWAa 1.64 0.43 3.79 *** 0.81 - 0.81
UNIAGE - - - - - 0.42 0.42
ORG - - - - - 0.40 0.40
UNISIZE - - - - - -0.12 -0.12
LSERV - - - - - -0.14 -0.14
ORG LSERV -0.10 0.04 -2.52 0.012 -0.34 - -0.34
UNISIZE 0.00 0.00 -2.19 0.028 -0.30 - -0.30
LEVELa AGEa 0.19 0.04 4.49 *** 0.40 - 0.40 EDUCa 0.36 0.06 5.84 *** 0.53 - 0.53
Note. Three asterisks (***) next to P values indicate that the p-value is < 0.001
261
The negative coefficient of LAGE indicates that this factor had a negative association with
LPM. It means that the older leaders seem to have lower perceptions of the use the
participative management system in the units they lead. In other words, the older their
ages, the lower the level of perceived use of the participative management (that are
implemented through the practice of leadership, motivation, communication, interaction,
decision making, goal setting, and controlling) in the unit.
The second factor is the status of the university (UNISTAT). The resulting coefficient
shows that UNISTAT has a strong positive association with LPM. The positive sign
indicates that leaders in the government universities tend to perceive a higher level of the
use of LPM (in term of the practice of leadership, motivation, communication, interaction,
decision making, goal setting, and controlling) than those who are in private universities.
Employee work attitude perceived by leader (LEWA)
Results that are displayed Table 8.4 shows that there are four factors that were found to
have significant relationships with the employee work attitude perceived by leaders
(LEWA). These factors include participative management perceived by leader (LPM, =
0.67), age of university (UNIAGE, = 0.28), status of university (UNISTAT, ie = 0.21),
and age of leader (LAGE. ie = -0.24).
As shown in Figure 8.1, LPM was found significantly to have a strong and direct effect on
LEWA. The positive coefficient indicates that the extent of the use of the participative
management perceived by leader (in the practices of leadership, motivation,
communication, interaction, decision making, goal setting, and controlling) significantly
creates the likelihood of employee work attitudes in the workplace. The higher the level of
the participative management system regarded by leaders, the more positive they perceived
employees‟ work attitude (LEWA). One possible explanation for this is that the
participative management system is regarded by leaders as a strategic approach to improve
the work atmosphere that is able to facilitate the growth of positive work attitudes for the
employees in the workplace. This in turn leads to the higher level of work attitude (EWA)
they perceived in the workplace.
262
Age of university (UNIAGE) as a latent variable was also found to have a direct effect on
LEWA. The positive resulting coefficient indicates that leaders in the older universities
tend to have positive perceptions on the employee work attitudes. The older the age of
universities, the higher the level of employee work attitude they perceived. In other words,
the leaders in older universities tend to provide higher appraisals on the employee work
attitude than those who are in the new established universities.
Status of university (UNISTAT) provided an indirect effect through LPM as a construct
with a resulting coefficient of ie = 0.21. The positive coefficient suggests that the type of
university (in term of government and private) moderately influenced leader perceptions
on employee work attitude in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job
security, and jobs satisfaction. The positive sign indicates that leaders in the government
universities tend to provide higher appraisal for the work attitudes demonstrated by their
employees than those who are from privative universities.
Age of leader (LAGE) had an indirect effect on LEWA. The association of the two
variables was also mediated by LPM resulting a negative indirect path coefficient, ie = -
0.24. This indicates the older the age of leaders, the lower level appraisal they provide for
their employee work attitude (LEWA). In other words, the older leaders tend to have more
negative perceptions on LEWA than the young leaders.
Employee performance behaviour perceived by leader (LEPB)
Employee work attitude perceived by leader (LEWA) was found as a single factor that had
a direct effect on LEPB resulting in a strong positive coefficient, = 0.95. As shown in
Table 8.4, the association of both variables yields the highest positive path coefficient for
LEWA = 0.95) in the leader level path model. The positive sign indicates that LEWA
had a strong impact on employee performance behaviour perceived by leader (LEPB). The
more positive the leaders‟ attitude towards employee work attitude, the higher level of
employee performance behaviour they perceived in the workplace. It could be interpreted
that the extent of the employee work attitudes perceived by leader (in terms of self-
autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security and job satisfaction that were
experienced by employees) became a strong driver for the leaders to provide a high
263
appraisal for their employee performance in terms of organisational commitment (LOC),
quality customer service (LQCS), and employee withdrawal behaviour (LEWB).
It is necessary to note here that the employee withdrawal behaviour (LEWB) as an
observed variable was coded (1-5) in the measurement model. This scale respectively
indicates a highest intention for withdrawal – a lowest intention for withdrawal. The higher
scores obtained in the finding of LEWB means that the employees demonstrated the lower
intention for withdrawal or quitting from the jobs.
Four other variables were found to have only indirect effects on LEPB. The variables and
its corresponding coefficients are participative management perceived by leader (LPM,
= 0.63), age of the university (UNIAGE, ie = 0.26), status of the university (UNISTAT, ie
= 0.20), and age of leader (LAGE, ie = -0.22),
As depicted in the path diagram in Figure 8.1, participative management perceived by
leader (LPM) did not have a significant direct effect on LEPB. The association of LEPB
with LEPB operated through LEWA as a strong mediator. However, this yields a strong
and positive indirect effect on LEPB (ie = 0.63). This indicates that the extent of leaders‟
perception on the implementation of the participative management significantly created the
likelihood of their perceptions on employee work attitudes. This in turn influencing their
appraisal on employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational commitment
(LOC), quality customer service (LQCS), and lower level of withdrawal behaviour
(LEWB). Thus, it could be interpreted, the higher the level of the participative management
system regarded by leaders, the higher the level of employee performance behaviour they
perceived.
The next factor, age of university (UNIAGE, ie = 0.26.) was found to have an indirect
effect on LEPB. The resulting positive path coefficient shows that UNIAGE moderately
influence employee performance behaviour perceived by leader (LEPB). The path diagram
in Figure 8.1 displays the association of the two variables was mediated by LEWA. The
positive coefficient indicates that leaders in older universities tend to have more positive
perceptions on LEPB than those who are from new universities. The older the age of
university, the higher the level of employee performance behaviour they perceived. One
264
possible explanation for this is that the older universities (as indicated by the age of its
establishment) may provide stable condition for leaders. This in turn, fosters their positive
attitudes towards the perceived employee performance behaviour (LEPB).
Status of university (UNISTAT) was found to have an indirect effect on LEPB. The
association of the two variables was mediated by LPM construct with a positive
coefficient, ie = 0.20. The size of the indirect effect suggests that the type of university (in
term of government and private) moderately influenced the leaders‟ perceptions on the
perceived employee performance behaviour (LEPB). The positive sign indicates that
leaders in the government universities tend to provide higher appraisals for employee
performance behaviour (in terms of organisational commitment, quality customer service,
and lower level of withdrawal behaviour) than those who are from the private universities.
The last factor that had a positive association with LEPB is LAGE. As shown in Figure
8.1, LAGE was found to have an indirect effect on EPB with the resulting coefficient, ie =
-0.22. This coefficient shows that LAGE had a moderately negative influence on LEPB. Its
indirect effect goes through the construct of organisational culture (ORG). The negative
sign indicates that older leaders tend to have more negative perceptions on the employee
performance behaviour than the young leaders. In other words, the older the age of the
leaders, the lower they appraised the level of employee performance behaviour.
Average level of participative management (PMa)
Organisational culture (ORG) and status of university (UNISTAT) exogenous latent
variables were found to have direct effects on PMa with the resulting path coefficients
respectively are = 0.75 and = 0.30.
The positive coefficient of ORG = 0.75) indicates the extent of organisational culture (in
terms of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive forms) strongly influenced the average
level of participative management (PMa) perceived by employees. The stronger the
organisational culture is regarded by the employees, the higher the average level of the
implementation of participative management reported by employees in the workplace. In
other words, it may indicate that the strong forms of bureaucratic, innovative, and
265
supportive organisations become key drivers for employees to provide a higher average
appraisal for the participative management behaviour demonstrated by their leaders in the
unit or division.
Followed by UNISTAT that had a direct effect on PMa and yields a path coefficient of =
0.30. This value shows that UNISTAT moderately influenced the average level of
participative management (PMa) perceived by employees in a unit or a division where they
work. The positive sign indicates that the employees in government universities tend to
provide a higher average appraisal for the implementation of the participative management
in the unit than those who are from private universities.
Other factors were found to have relationships with PMa, but only yielded indirect effects.
These are university size ( = -0.22) and length of service of leader (LSERV,
= -0.26). UNISIZE had a negative association with PMa through ORG as a mediating
factor. The negative sign indicates the smaller the size of university (in term of the total
number of administrative staff), the higher the average level of participative management
perceived by employees. The negative path coefficient obtained is small indicating the
effect of UNISIZE on PMa is weak. However, it suggests that the extent of the group of
employees who work in a small university (where the number of staff is small) had a low
effect on the level of participative management. Thus, although this university size
provided a small effect in this leader level path model, it can be concluded that the
employees in the small universities on average tend to provide higher appraisals for the
level of participative management behaviour being demonstrated by a leader in the unit
than those who are from big universities.
The last factor that had an indirect effect is length of service of leader (LSERV). This
exogenous latent variable provided a small negative coefficient of ie = -0.26 indicating a
lower and negative influence on the average level of PMa in the unit. The negative sign
means the longer the length of service of leader, the lower the average level of PMa
perceived by employees within the group in a unit. In other words, employees in a unit that
was lead by older leaders tend to perceive a lower performance for the implementation of
the participative management than in the unit that was lead by young leaders.
266
Average level of employee work attitude (EWAa)
Organisational culture (ORG) and age of university (UNIAGE) were found to have
positive direct effects on the average level of employee work attitude (EWAa). As depicted
the path diagram in Figure 8.1, the association between ORG and EWAa yields a direct
path coefficient of = 0.50, and showing a strong positive influence of the ORG factor on
EWAa. This could be interpreted that the extent of the forms of the organisational culture
(bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive) being implemented in the unit or the division
strongly influenced the average level of employee work attitudes (EWAa) in the unit. The
stronger the organisational culture is regarded by the employees, the higher the average
level of work attitude perceived by employees in the unit. In other words, it may indicate
that the strong forms of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive organisations become key
drivers for employees to provide a higher average appraisal for their work attitude in terms
of self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security, and job satisfaction.
Age of University (UNIAGE) as an exogenous factor was also found to have a direct effect
on EWAa. The association of the two factors results a high path coefficient of = 0.52.
This indicates the older the age of university, the higher the average level of employee
work attitude in terms of the experiences of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of
job security, and job satisfaction. The positive sign indicates that employees in older
universities on average tend to have high work attitude than those who are in young
universities. It could be due to the older universities (indicated as well established
institutions) are probably able to provide an environment where the employees could
experience more stable work conditions than in the new established universities. This leads
to fostering employees within a group to provide high average level of work attitudes.
The last factor that had an indirect effect is length of service of leader (LSERV). The
association of both factors goes through the ORG factor. Similar to its influence on PMa,
LSERV as an exogenous latent variable provided a small negative coefficient of ie = -0.17
indicating a negative influence on the average level of employee work attitude (EWAa) in
term of terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job
satisfaction. The negative sign indicates the longer the length of service of leader, the
lower the average level of work attitude perceived by employees. In other words,
267
employees in a unit that was lead by a leader who has a long tenure on average tend to
provide a higher level of EWAa than those who are in the unit led by a short tenure leader.
The next factor that had an indirect effect on EWAa is the age of university (UNISIZE).
The association of both factors also goes through the ORG factor resulting in a negative
coefficient of ie = -0.15 for UNISIZE factor. The negative sign indicates the size of
university have a negative indirect relationship with the average of employee work attitude
(EWAa). The larger the size of the university, the lower the average level of employee
work attitude. In other words, employees in larger universities on average tend to have a
higher level of EWAa than those who are in the small universities.
Average level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa)
The results of path analysis in Figure 8.1 and Table 8.4 show that average level of
employee work attitude (EWAa) as a construct had a strong direct effect on average level
of employee performance behaviour (EPBa). The association of the two variables results in
a high positive path coefficient of = 0.81 for EWAa. The positive sign indicates the
employees in a unit where on average having high work attitude tend to have a higher level
of performance. Thus, it can be interpreted that the extent of the average work attitudes of
the group (in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security and job
satisfaction) becomes a strong driver for the group of employees to provide a high
appraisal for their own performance in terms of organisational commitment (OC), quality
customer service (QCS), and employee withdrawal behaviour (EWB).
The next factor that had an indirect direct effect on EPBa is age of the university
(UNIAGE) through the EWAa factor with a resulting value of ie = 0.42 for UNIAGE. The
result shows a strong influence of EWAa on EPBa indicating the older the age of
university, the higher the average level of performance behaviour perceived by employees
in a unit. In other words, employees in the older universities tend to have more positive
perceptions on EPBa than those who are from the new universities. One possible
explanation for this is that the older universities (as indicated by the age of its
establishment) are able to provide the employees with a stable institution where they can
268
rely on. This in turn leads to fostering a positive attitude for the group of employees on
average to provide a higher level of performance behaviour in the unit.
Organisational culture (ORG) as a construct was also found to have an indirect effect on
EPBa. The association between both factors goes through the EWAa construct resulting in
a positive coefficient of ie = 0.40. The positive coefficient indicates the extent of
organisational culture (in terms of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive forms) strongly
influenced the average level of employee performance behaviour perceived in a unit. This
indicates that the strong form of the organisational culture, which is strongly reflected by
the supportive form experienced by a group of employees in the unit, becomes a key driver
for the employees to provide a higher average appraisal for their own performance
behaviour in terms of organisational commitment (OCa), quality customer service (QCSa),
and employee withdrawal behaviour (EWBa).
The next factor that had an indirect effect on average level of employee performance
behaviour (EPBa) is university size (UNISIZE). The association of UNISIZE on EPBa was
mediated by two constructs, namely organisational culture (ORG) and average level of
employee work attitudes (EWAa). By combining the results from both indirect paths,
UNISIZE obtained an indirect path coefficient of ie = -0.12. The size effect obtained is
quite small indicating this factor on average slightly influenced the average level of
employee performance behaviour. The negative coefficient indicates the smaller the size of
university (in term of the total number of permanent administrative staff), the higher the
average level of performance behaviour perceived by employees. In other words,
employees who work in small universities on average tends to perceive a higher average
level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa) in the unit.
The last factor that had an indirect effect is length of service of leader (LSERV). The
association of LSERV and EPBa goes through the EWAa factor resulting in a small
negative coefficient of ie = -0.14. This result shows a negative influence of EWAa on
average level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa). The negative sign indicates the
longer the length of service of leader, the lower the average level of employee performance
behaviour perceived by employees in a unit. In other words, employees who are in a unit
where on average having a high level of work attitudes tend to provide a higher level of
269
performance behaviour in terms of organisational commitment (OC), quality customer
service (QCS), and employee withdrawal behaviour (EWB) in the unit.
Organisational culture (ORG)
Length of service of leader (LSERV) was found to have a direct effect on organisational
culture (ORG). The association of the two factors resulted in a negative coefficient of = -
0.34. This indicates a negative association between the length of service of leader and
organisational culture. This could be interpreted as the longer the length of service of
leaders, the weaker were the forms of organisational culture, as perceived by the leaders in
a unit or a division. In other words, leaders who had long tenure tended to have lower
perceptions of supportive organisational culture being practised in their unit than those
who had shorter tenure.
The next factor that had a direct effect on the ORG factor is university size (UNISIZE).
The association of these factors yielded a negative path coefficient of = -0.30. The
negative sign indicates that UNISIZE negatively influenced the perceived organisational
culture practised in a unit. The larger the size of the university, the more negative the ORG
forms are perceived by the entire staff in the unit. In other words, employees who work in
small universities on average are tend to perceive a stronger forms of the supportive
organisational culture they experienced than those who are from small universities.
Average level/rank obtained by employees (LEVELa)
Average age of employees (AGEa) was also found to have a direct effect on LEVELa. The
association of these variables produced a large path coefficient (AGEa, = 0.40) showing
a strong effect of AGEa on LEVELa. The positive sign indicates that older employees in a
unit in average tend to have higher employment level than those from young employees.
The higher the average age of employees within a unit, the higher the average employment
level they achieved in the unit. It could be due to the promotion systems for administrative
staff applied in some Indonesian organisations are based on staff seniority and education
level. Consequently, in average the high level positions are occupied by older employees.
270
Average education completed by employees (EDUCa) had a direct effect on LEVELa with
a resulting path coefficient = 0.53. This indicates that education had strong and positive
influences on the average employment level obtained by employees in an organisational
unit or a division. The higher the average level of education completed by employees in the
unit, the higher the average employment level they obtained in the personnel management
system that is applied in Indonesian universities. One possible explanation for this is that
the current employment systems probably apply the promotion systems that require
academic competencies which are indicated by education levels completed by employees.
Employees who fulfil this condition would get more access for the promotions in term of
level of employment within an organisational unit. This, then, leads to positive association
between EDUCa and LEVELa.
8.5 Fit indexes Obtained at the Leader Level Path Model
To assess how the model adequately represents the data, the goodness of fit (GOF) of the
leader level path model was examined in this study. Following the same fit indices that
have been applied in Chapter Seven; the results of the examination of the model fit for the
leader level path are reported below.
Results show that the leader level path model obtained a value of /DF = 1.700 (df =
694). Since /DF is lower than the upper limit of the /DF (> 5) (Kline, 2005), it
indicates that the model fits the data well. Further evidences using other indices did not
offer satisfactory fit values. The goodness-of-fit-index (GFI, 0.55), Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI, 0.66), and comparative fit index (CFI, 0.68) show that the values are quite far from
unity that is chosen to indicate a good fit for the model. Another fit index using the mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA, 0.117) also does not offer a better fit value. The
value obtained is higher than the cut-off value which is expected close to zero to indicate a
good fit. The insufficient fit values are due to the small sample size of cases used at the
leader level which was affected by the aggregation data. In particular, the complexity of
the path analysis involving the many parameters made the model was difficult to achieve
271
better goodness of fit (GOF). However, by sticking on the fit index obtained in the value of
/DF, this model can be claimed as a perfect model for this study.
Additionally, it has been explained earlier in this Chapter, a small modification was made
to improve the model. This was carried out by adding some paths connecting the common
factors referring to the modification indices suggested by AMOS program. As shown in
Figure 8.1, UNISTAT, UNISIZE, and UNIAGE are correlated to each other. The result
shows that these factors strongly correlate to each other with the values are UNISTAT –
UNIAGE = 0.85, UNISIZE – UNIAGE = 0.73, UNISIZE – UNISTAT = 0.63 are
statistically significant at p < 0.01.
8.6 Summary
In this chapter, the relationships of the research variables were examined using a leader
level path analysis. The analysis was carried out with the combined data set of employee
and leader samples. The data were aggregated from the lower level (employee) to the
higher level (leader). The results of the multicollinearity test ensured that the analyses of
the independent variables could provide interpretable results.
In the measurement model, the exogenous variables of individual and organisational
factors were treated as fixed latent variables, as in the employee level analysis. This
procedure resulted in maximum loadings of the corresponding manifest variables. The
other latent variables: average of participative management, average of employee work
attitude, average of employee performance behaviour, participative management perceived
by leader, employee work attitude perceived by leader, employee performance behaviour
perceived by leader, and organisational culture were adequately represented by their
corresponding manifest variables. This was proved by the manifest variables having high
loadings.
In the structural model, there were two categories of results, to be generated from leader
and employees‟ perspectives. Results from leaders‟ responses indicated that participative
management positively influenced employee performance behaviour. Such an association
272
was mediated by leaders‟ perceptions of employee work attitude, where this variable
provided a high coefficient indicating a strong direct effect on employee performance
behaviour. Of the four organisational factors (age, status, size, and organisational culture of
the universities) to be examined, only two factors influenced this association. First, the
university status which provided positive effects on the leaders‟ perceptions of three
constructs (participative management, employee work attitude, and performance
behaviour), which revealed that leaders in the government universities provided higher
perceptions of the implementation of participative management, levels of employee work
attitude and performance behaviour than those in the private institutions. The second factor
was university age, which yielded a positive coefficient on both work attitude and
employee performance, implying that leaders in the older universities tended to provide
higher appraisals for the perceived level of the three constructs. In terms of individual
factors, age of leader was found as a single factor that had significant relationships with the
perceived level of those three constructs. The negative coefficient indicated that the young
leaders tended to report higher levels of participative management, work attitude and
employee performance in their workplace than the older leaders.
The results generated from the aggregated data of the employees‟ responses indicated that
the average level of participative management, which was perceived by employees, did not
show any significant relationships with both employee work attitude and employee
performance. This performance variable only received a direct effect from the employee
work attitude, which yielded a high positive coefficient. This meant that on average
employees provided higher appraisals for the effect of this work attitude.
Three organisational factors (age, status, and size of university) were found to influence
employees‟ perceptions. University age positively influenced work attitude and
performance in organisational units. This implied that older universities tended to have
higher perceptions of the average levels of work attitude and performance. This analysis
also showed a strong and positive effect of organisational culture on those three constructs.
University size provided a negative coefficient, meaning that on average employees in the
small universities tended to perceive higher appraisals for these variables than in the larger
273
universities. On the other hand, this leader level path analysis did not find any significant
effects of the individual employees‟ factors investigated.
Finally, the examination of the behaviour of the relationships among the variables at the
leader level revealed that there were no direct associations between how the leaders
perceived the use of participative management style, employee work attitude, and
employee performance behaviour with the way the employees on average perceived those
constructs respectively. To gain more insight into this finding, the relationships among the
variables were examined further, using the HLM analysis reported in the next chapter.
274
Chapter Nine
Two-Level Model of the Employee Performance Behaviour in
University Sector in Malang Indonesia
9.1 Introduction
In Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight, the single level path analyses have been carried out to
examine the relationships of the variables addressing the employee and the leader factors.
However, it has been explained previously that analysing the nested data with a single
level procedure involving aggregation and disaggregation may be problematic. According
to Darmawan (2003), the effects of this procedure may result in an aggregation bias in term
of the loss of substantial information due to the variance reduction from lower level
variables. It is followed by a disaggregation bias due to the same values for higher level
variables assigned to members at the same group at the lower level (individual) variables.
Thus, this disregards the assumption of the observations‟ independence.
To overcome this issue, in this chapter two-level model of employee performance
behaviour is employed to overcome the limitations of the SEM procedure for the single
level analysis. Using the HLM technique, direct effects of the various predictors at both
employee and leader level (organisational unit) on the employee performance behaviour as
the outcome variable and the cross level interaction effects can be examined. Thus, the
purpose of the use of HLM technique is to enable this study simultaneously to find out
what factors that may affect the employee performance behaviour as the outcome variable,
and how those factors interact at the two levels (Darmawan & Keeves, 2002), namely
employee and leader level. The conceptual model for the two-level HLM of employee
performance behaviour (EPB) is illustrated in Figure 9.1.
275
Figure 9.1. Two-level employee performance behaviour Model
This chapter reports the results of the HLM analysis, and discusses the findings organised
into the following sections: variables used in the two-level model, Two-Level Employee
Performance Behaviour Model, the effects of level-1 predictors on the outcome variable,
the effects of level-2 predictors on the outcome variable, and the interaction effects. This
chapter concludes with a summary.
9.2 Variables Used in the Two-Level Model
To carry out the HLM analysis, two sets of variables at the employee and leader levels
needed to be specified in advance. Since HLM property does not facilitate the formation of
latent variables, principal component scores were calculated for all constructs that had
multiple manifest variables (which include PM, EWA, EPB at the employee level, and
ORG at the leader level) using SPSS version 18. As a result, these variables were in
standardised forms allowing direct comparisons among the variable coefficients in the
276
model (Darmawan, 2003). Variables of the employee level (level-1 or micro-level) and the
leader level (level-2 or macro-level) are listed in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1. List of variables
Employee level
Description Leader level
Description
LSEX Sex of leader, indicated by gender :
male/female
LAGE Age of leader
LEDUC Education completed by leader
LLEVEL Level/rank obtained by leader in
employment system indicated by
Level I, II, III & IV
LSERV Length of service of leader in a unit
indicated in years
LPM Participative management perceived
by leader LEWA Employee work attitude perceived by
leader
LEPB Employee performance behaviour
perceived by leader
SEX Sex of employees indicated by
gender: male and female
SEXa Proportion of sex of employees,
indicated by gender (male and
female) in an organisational unit
AGE Age of employees in years AGEa Average age of employees in years
EDUC Education completed by
employees
EDUCa Average education completed by
employees
LEVEL Level/rank obtained by
employees in employment system indicated by Level I,
II, III&IV
LEVELa Average level/rank obtained by
employees in employment system indicated by: Level I, II, III & IV)
SERV Length of service of employee in
a unit indicated in years
SERVa Average length of service of
employees in a unit indicated in
years
PM Participative management
perceived by employees
PMa Average level of participative
management perceived by
employees
EWA Employee work attitude
perceived by employee
EWAa Average level of employee work
attitude perceived by employees
EPB Employee performance behaviour perceived by
employees
EPBa Average level of employee performance behaviour perceived
by employees
UNIAGE Age of university in years
UNISTAT Status of university:
government/private
UNISIZE University size indicated by the total
number of permanent staff
ORG Organisational culture indicated by
bureaucratic, innovative, and
supportive
277
The variables listed in Table 9.1 use similar names to the variables that have been used in
the single level path analysis in Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight. In addition to leaders‟
characteristics and their perceptions, compositional variables were also added at level-2.
These compositional variables refer to the average scores of micro-level/level-1
explanatory or independent variables and are labelled with a suffix “a” at the end of the
name of these variables (e.g. SEX becomes SEXa). Likewise, the organisational variables
or factors (university age, university status, university size, and organisational culture) are
also included in the leader level factor. This is consistent with the way the organisational
characteristics have been treated in previous analyses.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the term “unit” in the description of the results refers to
a departmental unit within the universities. It is sometimes used interchangeably with
different names including division, section, and department. It has a number of employees
with specific tasks or particular jobs, and it is led by an immediate leader.
Figure 9.2. The hypothesised variables of the two-level employee performance behaviour
model
EPB
ORG
LEWA
PM
AGE
LEVEL
SEX EWA
Employee level EDUC SERV
EWAa PMa SERVa LEVELa
Leader level
UNIAGE
ORG
LEPB UNISTAT
LSEX UNISIZE LPM LSERV
LAGE
LEDUC EPBa
AGEa
EDUCa
LLEVEL
SEXa
278
Overall, the model had eight variables at the employee level (micro level) and 20 variables
at the leader level (macro level). As shown in Figure 9.2, all these variables were
hypothesised to influence the employee performance behaviour.
9.3 Two-Level Employee Performance Behaviour Model
As explained earlier in this chapter, two-level HLM analysis was employed to examine the
associations between level-1 and level-2 predictor variables and the outcome variable in
the model. With regard to the terminologies used for the model, it should be noted that the
terms: level-1, employee level, and micro-level are used interchangeably for the lower
level. Likewise, the following terms are used to represent the same meanings for the upper
level variables which include level-2, leader level, organisational unit level, and macro-
level.
Following Darmawan and Keeves (2002), the selection of the variables for the two-level
HLM analysis was based on the results of the path analysis that have been carried out using
AMOS program (see Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight). To examine the nature of the
associations between these variables, a series of exploratory analysis is employed using the
HLM 6.08 software (Raudenbush, et al., 2004). The use of this software was aimed to
enable this study to examine the complex associations among the multilevel variables and
to estimate their effects on the outcome variable (Raudenbush, et al., 2004). The model
building is performed employing three main steps: (1) running the null model, (2) final
level-1 model, and (3) full model.
9.3.1 Null model
Null model or the fully unconditional model is specified out as an initial step for running
the two-level HLM. Similar to one-way ANOVA with random effects (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002), this model is created by performing the analysis without entering any
variables from both levels into the equation. The purpose of running the null model was to
obtain the estimates of the amount of variance available to be explained in the model using
279
HLM 6.08 (Raudenbush, et al., 2004). Thus, it enables partition of the variance in the
outcome variable in different levels (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
In addition, the null model was performed to estimate the grand mean of the employee
performance behaviour (EPB) across all organisational units. The fully unconditional
model is constituted with only the outcome variable and no independent variable. This
model is specified using the following equation:
Level-1 model: =
+ [1]
Where
is the employee performance behaviour for employee i in the organisational unit j,
is the intercept for organisational unit j (the mean score of the employee performance
behaviour for the jth organisational unit),
a random error.
, the level of employee performance behaviour for employee i in the
organisational unit j is considered equivalent to the organisational unit mean plus a random
error. In other words, the null model assumes no differences in the employee performance
behaviour perception between employees within organisation at level-1. It is assumed that
each level-1 error, is normally distributed with a mean zero and a constant level-1
variance, (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
Level-2 model:
=
+ [2]
Where:
: is the intercept for organisational unit,
: is employee performance behaviour score across organisational unit (the grand mean
outcome in the population),
: is the unique random effect associated with organisational unit j.
In the level-2 equation, the average score of the employee performance behaviour of
organisational unit j is considered to be equivalent to the grand mean score across all
organisational units plus a random error. In other words, the fully unconditional model
280
assumes no differences in the employee performance behaviour score between
organisational units at level-2. The random effect associated with organisation j, is
normally distributed with the mean of zero and variance .
Substituting level-2 equation into level-1 equation yields the combined equation model
=
+ + [3]
According to Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), the variance of the outcome is
VAR ( = + [4]
Estimating the null model is an important preliminary step in a hierarchical analysis. It
produces a point estimate and confidence interval for the grand mean,
. Additionally,
the variability of the outcome variable can be specified. The parameter represents the
within group (level-1) variability, and captures the between-group (level-2) variability
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The results for the null model are presented in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2. Fully unconditional model- employee performance behaviour
Final estimation of fixed effects (with robust standard errors)
Fixed effect Coefficient Standard
Error
T-ratio DF Approx.
P-value
For INTRCPT, B0
INTRCPT2, G00
0.01
0.05
0.19
51
0.849
Final estimation of variance components
Random effect Reliability Standard
Deviation
Variance
Component
DF Chi-
square
P-value
INTRCPT1, U0 0.49 0.25 0.06 51 104.71 0.000
Level-1, R 0.97 0.94
Statistics for current covariance component model
Deviance = 2279.83
Number of estimated parameters = 2
Based on the HLM analysis results of the fully unconditional model in Table 9.4, the
proportions of variance analysed at each of the two levels can be estimated using equations
at the micro level and the macro level (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002):
281
At the micro level (level 1), the proportion of variance in EPB that exists between
employees in organisational units and within the individual employees is given by:
At the macro level (level 2), the proportion of variance in EPB that exists between
employees and organisational units is given by:
This estimation shows that the micro level model accounts for 94% of the variance, while
the macro level accounts for only 6% in the outcome measure of the employee
performance behaviour. The variance exists within employee level is much higher than the
variance exists within the organisational or leader level. However, the chi-square value for
level 2 variance, (51) = 104.71, p < 0.001, indicates highly significant variation within
the macro level, which supports the use of HLM (Woltman, Feldstain, MacKay, & Rocchi,
2012).
9.3.2 Final level-1 model
Specifying a model in the HLM procedure is not a simple job. To deal with this issue, the
results produced by SEM analysis using the AMOS program can be used as guidelines in
choosing the potential predictors at both level-1 and level-2 in current study. Technically,
the operation of the HLM uses the SEM results as the input for formulating the predictors
in the model. The consequence of this stage is acknowledged, that it may affect the
misspecification of a hierarchical model. However, Darmawan and Keeves (2002) argued
that there are not many studies that could be used as theoretical frameworks for the
specification of the hierarchical model.
To specify the level-1 model, AMOS analysis results (see Chapter Seven and Chapter
Eight) pertaining to variables that were found to influence the level of employee
performance behaviour at the individual level are entered one by one starting from the
282
strongest coefficient without the leader level predictors. According to Raudenbush and
Bryk (2002) this stage is required to assess how much the variance is explained by the
individual (employee) level predictors.
The next step was to examine the results, followed by removing the insignificant
coefficients from the model which show no significance. At the same time, the variables
that have high coefficients and significant influence on the outcome variable are entered
into the equation. The input data is changed accordingly and reanalysed. This procedure is
repeated until the final level-1 model containing significant effects is obtained.
As shown in Table 9.3 and Figure 9.3, there are only three variables at the employee level
that have significant effect on employee performance behaviour (EPB) as the outcome
variable. These include participative management (PM), age of employee (AGE), and
employee work attitude (EWA).
9.3.3 Full model
After specifying the level-1 model, the next step was to run the full model. The full model
is specified using the input of the exploratory analysis to check the potential level-2
variables that can be included into the model. From this step, the predictors that may have
significant effects at the leader level (Level-2) can be examined. It was followed by
entering the variables from both employee and leader level into the analysis. The leader
level variables were entered one by one referring to the acceptable t-values shown in the
exploratory analysis results. This procedure is completed until a final model with only
significant effects at both level are obtained. As shown in Table 9.3, there is only one
predictor at the leader level, namely organisational culture (ORG) that has a direct effect
on the outcome variable.
The final model is specified by the following equations:
Level-1 model
=
+
(AGE) +
(PM) +
(EWA) + [5]
283
Level-2 model
=
+
(ORG) + [6]
=
+
(PMa) +
(EPBa) + [7]
=
+
(AGEa) + [8]
=
+
(EPBa) + [9]
By substituting level-2 equations into the level-1 equation, the final model equation
therefore is
=
+
(ORG) +
(AGE) +
(PM) +
(EWA) +
(PMa) (AGE)
+
(EPBa) (AGE) +
(AGEa) (PM) +
(EPBa)(EWA)
+ (AGE) + (PM) + (EWA) + [10]
This equation shows that the employee performance behaviour (EPB) is defined as a
function of the overall intercept (
four main effects, four cross-level interaction
effects, and a random error ( (AGE) + (PM) + (EWA) + . The four main
effects included the direct effects from participative management (PM), age of employee
(AGE), employee work attitude (EWA), and organisational culture (ORG). Using the
equation, the effects of the predictor variables on the outcome variable and the variance
components can be calculated accurately.
Likewise, the equation also shows four interaction effects included: average level of
participative management (PMa) with age of employee (AGE); average level of employee
performance behaviour (EPBa) with age of employee (AGE); and average age of employee
(AGEa) with participative management (PM); average level of employee performance
behaviour (EPBa) with employee work attitude (EWA).
9.4 The Effects of Level-1 Predictors on the Outcome Variable
There are three predictor variables at the level-1 that had direct and positive effects on
employee performance behaviour (EPB) as the outcome variable in model. Table 9.3
shows that the predictor variables include participative management perceived by
284
employees (PM, = 0.11), age of employee (AGE, = 0.09), and employee work attitude
(EWA, = 0.47).
Table 9.3. Final model – employee performance behaviour
Final estimation of fixed effects (with robust standard errors)
Fixed effect Coefficient Standard
Error
T-ratio DF P-value
For INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00
-0.00
0.04
-0.08
50
0.934
ORG, G01 0.09 0.048 1.82 50 0.075
For AGE slope, B1
INTRCPT2, G10
0.09
0.03
3.06
49
0.004
PMa, G11 0.31 0.08 3.83 49 0.001
EPBa, G12 -0.15 0.08 -1.81 49 0.076
For PM slope, B2
INTRCPT2, G20 0.11 0.04 2.77 50 0.008
AGEa, G21 -0.14 0.06 -2.42 50 0.019 For EWA slope, B3
INTRCPT2, G30
0.47
0.04
11.09
50
0.000
EPBa, G31 0.18 0.08 2.19 50 0.033
Final estimation of variance components
Random Effect Reliability Standard
Deviation
Variance
component
DF Chi-square P-value
INTRCPT1, U0 0.30 0.19 0.03 50 81.28 0.004
AGE slope, U1 0.12 0.09 0.01 49 45.69 >.500
PM slope, U2 0.18 0.14 0.02 50 67.85 0.047
EWA slope, U3 0.20 0.15 0.02 50 66.35 0.060
level-1, R 0.78 0.60
Statistics for current covariance components model
Deviance = 1980.44
Number of estimated parameters = 11
The associations that are depicted in Figure 9.3 indicate participative management (PM)
had a positive effect on EPB. This could be interpreted as the higher the level of the
participative management regarded by employees, the more positive or the higher they
perceive performance behaviour. This finding is consistent with the results of the analysis
at the employee and the leader level path analysis (see Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight)
that PM was found to have strong positive effects on the employee performance behaviour
(EPB) in term of organisational commitment, quality customer service, and lower
withdrawal behaviour.
285
Figure 9.3. Two level of employee performance behaviour
The next predictor is age of employee (AGE) that also provided a positive direct effect on
the outcome variable. The positive coefficient indicates that this predictor positively
influences the level of employee performance behaviour. The older the employees, the
more positive or the higher they perceive the level of employee performance behaviour.
This result is consistent with the finding at the employee level path analysis, where the age
of employee as a construct was found to have both direct and indirect on the employee
performance behaviour.
The last predictor is employee work attitude (EWA). The result shows that this predictor
positively influences the outcome variable. The higher the level of employee work attitude
(in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job satisfaction),
the higher the level of employee performance behaviour is perceived by employees. In
other words, the employees who perceived high level of work attitude tend to demonstrate
high level of performance behaviour in the workplace. This finding is consistent with the
results from both the employee and the leader level path analysis that have been discussed
in Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight where EWA construct was found to have strong direct
effect on the employee performance behaviour.
ORG
AGEa
PMa
EPBa
EPB
AGE
PM
EWA
0.09
0.47
0.11
0.09
0.18
0.31
-0.14 Leader level -0.15
Employee level
286
9.5 The Effects of Level-2 Predictors on Employee Performance
Behaviour
As depicted in Figure 9.3, organisational culture (ORG) was found as one of the level-2
predictors that has a direct association with employee performance behaviour (EPB) as the
outcome variable. Recalling the variables that have been described previously, the
organisational culture refers to the forms of the organisation that may be practised in an
organisational unit or a division that is led by a leader. This includes bureaucratic,
innovative, and supportive. The types of the culture are assumed to characterise the
organisational atmosphere, and in turn influencing the level of employee performance
behaviour and the work attitudes in the work place.
The association of ORG predictor with EPB resulted in a positive coefficient, = 0.09.
This indicates that the extent of the organisational culture within the organisational unit
tends to have a positive influence on the magnitude of the level of employee performance
behaviour. The higher the form of organisational culture being practised in the
organisational unit (in term of bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive), the higher the
level of the employee performance behaviour perceived by employees in the unit. This
effect is consistent with the findings found in the employee and leader levels path analyses
(see Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight) where ORG was found to have strong positive
effects on the employee performance behaviour in term of organisational commitment,
quality customer service, and lower withdrawal behaviour.
The other level-2 predictors influenced the outcome variable through the interactions with
the corresponding level-1 predictors in the model. These predictors and their coefficients
respectively are average level of participative management (PMa, = 0.31) interacts with
age of employee (AGE); average age of the employee (AGEa, = -014) interacts with
participative management (PM); and average level of employee performance behaviour
(EPBa, = -015/0.18) interact respectively with both age of employee (AGE) and
employee work attitude (EWA). The interactions of these variables are further discussed in
the following section.
287
9.6 The Interaction Effects
According to Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), besides estimating the main effects, the HLM
procedure simultaneously provides additional information of interaction effects as a result
of the concept of „slope as outcome‟ analysis.
The interaction effects between the predictor variables towards the outcome variable (EPB)
are shown in Figure 9.3. There are three level-2 variables that had interactions with the
variables at level-1. These include the average level of participative management (PMa)
influences the slope of age of employee (AGE), the average age of employee (AGEa)
influences the slope of participative management (PM), and the average employee
performance behaviour influences both the slopes of age of employee (AGE) and
employee work attitude (EWA).
Part of the final equations (2-10) involving PMa and AGE is presented here as an
illustration with the remaining term set to zero since neither PM or EWA are involved and
there is no loss in generality.
+ [11]
Where (see Table 9.3)
=
represents the average employee performance behaviour across organisational
units.
= 0.00 (since it is not significantly different from zero, p > 0.05, as a consequence of
using standardised criterion variable).
= 0.09 and
= 0.31
Similar procedure can be used to illustrate the other three interaction effects which resulted
in the following equations.
0.09 (AGE) + 0.31 [12]
0.09 (AGE) – 0.15 [13]
0.11 (PM) – 0.14 [14]
0.47 (EWA) + 0.18 [15]
288
The coordinates for these equations can be calculated by the equations‟ substitution for
organisational units in order to provide a graphical presentation of this expression as
follow.
The coordinate for equation [12]:
1. One standard deviation above the average on AGE and PMa (i)
2. One standard deviation above the average on AGE and one standard deviation below
the average on PMa (ii)
3. One standard deviation below the average on AGE and one standard deviation above
the average on PMa (iii)
4. One standard deviation below the average on AGE and one standard deviation below
the average on PMa (iv)
5. Average on AGE and one standard deviation above the average on PMa (v)
6. Average on AGE and one standard deviation below the average on PMa (vi)
Consequently, the coordinates are:
i. Older employee and high level of participative management (AGE = 1.02; PMa =
0.34)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (1.02) + 0.31 (0.34) (1.02) = 0.19931
ii. Young employee and high of participative management (AGE = -1.02; PMa = 0.34)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (-1.02) + 0.31 (1) (-1.02) = -0.19931
iii. Older employee and low level of participative management (AGE = 1.02; PMa = -
0.34)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (1.02) + 0.31 (-0.34) (1.02) = -0.01571
iv. Young employee and low level of participative management (AGE = -1.02; PMa = -
0.34)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (-1.02) + 0.31 (-0.34) (-1.02) = 0.01571
v. Older employee and average level of participative management (AGE = 1.02; PMa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (1.02) + 0.31 (0) (1.02) = 0.0918
vi. Young employee and average level of participative management (AGE = -1.02; PMa =
0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (-1.02) – 0.31 (0) (-1.02) = -0.0918
289
The coordinate for equation [13]:
1. One standard deviation above the average on AGE and EPBa (i)
2. One standard deviation above the average on AGE and one standard deviation below
the average on EPBa (ii)
3. One standard deviation below the average on AGE and one standard deviation above
the average on EPBa (iii)
4. One standard deviation below the average on AGE and one standard deviation below
the average on EPBa (iv)
5. Average on AGE and one standard deviation above the average on EPBa (v)
6. Average on AGE and one standard deviation below the average on EPBa (vi)
The coordinates are:
i. Older employee and high average level of employee performance behaviour
(AGE = 1.02; EPBa = 0.38)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (1.02) – 0.15 (0.38) (1.02) = 0.003366
ii. Young employee and high average level of employee performance behaviour
(AGE = -1.02; EPBa = 1)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (-1.02) – 0.15 (0.38) (11.02) = -0.003366
iii. Older employee and low average level of employee performance behaviour (AGE =
1.02; EPBa = -0.38)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (1.02) – 0.15 (-0.38) (1.02) = 0.14994
iv. Young employee and low average level of employee performance behaviour (AGE =
-1.02; EPBa = -1)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (-1.02) – 0.15 (-1) (-1.02) = -0.14994
v. Older employee and average level of employee performance behaviour (AGE = 1.02;
EPBa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (1.02) – 0.15 (0) (1.02) = 0.0918
vi. Young employee and average level of employee performance behaviour (AGE = -
1.02; EPBa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.09 (-1.02) – 0.15 (0) (-1.02) = -0.0918
290
The coordinate for equation [14]:
1. One standard deviation above the average on PM and AGEa (i)
2. One standard deviation above the average on PM and one standard deviation below the
average on AGEa (ii)
3. One standard deviation below the average on PM and one standard deviation above the
average on AGEa (iii)
4. One standard deviation below the average on PM and one standard deviation below the
average on AGEa (iv)
5. Average on PM and one standard deviation above the average on AGEa (v)
6. Average on PM and one standard deviation below the average on AGEa (vi)
The coordinates are:
i. High level of participative management and high average age of employees (PM = 1;
AGEa = 0.62)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.11 (1) – 0.14 (0.62) (1) = 0.03232
ii. Low level of participative management and high average age of employees (PM = -1;
AGEa = 0.62)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.11 (-1) – 0.14 (0.62) (-1) = -0.03232
iii. High level of participative management and low average age of employees (PM = 1;
AGEa = -0.62)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.11 (1) – 0.14 (-0.62) (1) = 0.1968
iv. Low level of participative management and low average age of employees (PM = -1;
AGEa = -0.62)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.11 (-1) – 0.14 (-0.62) (-1) = -0.1968
v. High level of participative management and average age of employees (PM = 1;
AGEa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.11 (1) – 0.14 (0) (1) = 0.11
vi. Low level of participative management and average age of employees (PM = -1;
AGEa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.11 (-1) – 0.14 (0) (-1) = -0.11
291
The coordinate for equation [15]:
1. One standard deviation above the average on EWA and EPBa (i)
2. One standard deviation above the average on EWA and one standard deviation below
the average on EPBa (ii)
3. One standard deviation below the average on EWA and one standard deviation above
the average on EPBa (iii)
4. One standard deviation below the average on EWA and one standard deviation below
the average on EPBa (iv)
5. Average on EWA and one standard deviation above the average on EPBa (v)
6. Average on EWA and one standard deviation below the average on EPBa (vi)
The coordinates are:
i. High level employee work attitude and high average level of employee performance
behaviour (EWA = 1; EPBa = 0.38)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.47 (1) + 0.18 (0.38) (1) = 0.5384
ii. Low level of employee work attitude and high average level of employee performance
behaviour (EWA = -1; EPBa = 0.38)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.47 (-1) + 0.18 (0.38) (-1) = -05384
iii. High level employee work attitude and low average level of employee performance
behaviour (EWA = 1; EPBa = -0.38)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.47 (1) +0.18 (-0.38) (1) = 0.4016
iv. Low level employee work attitude and low average level of employee performance
behaviour (EWA = -1; EPBa = -0.38)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.47 (-1) + 0.18 (-0.38) (-1) = -04016
v. High level employee work attitude and average level of employee performance
behaviour (EWA = 1; EPBa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.47 (1) + 0.18 (0) (1) = 047
vi. Low level employee work attitude and average level of employee performance
behaviour (EWA = -1; EPBa = 0)
Y (Employee Performance Behaviour) = 0.47 (-1) + 0.18 (0) (-1) = -0.47
292
Using these coordinates, the results of each interaction effect are discussed below. The
graphics are generated for the illustration of the effects. It is worth noting here that the
graphics show that all the regression lines have their intercept ( value) at 0.00 when the
values of the interacting variables are equal to zero, and hence the average intercepts
across all organisational units.
9.6.1 Interaction effect of average level of participative management with age of
employee
The results that are presented in Table 9.3 indicate that the average level of participative
management (PMa) interacted with age of employee (AGE) with an interaction effect
coefficient, = 0.31. This suggests in general the average level of participative
management (PMa) has a positive effect on the slope of age of employee (AGE) that leads
to the outcome variable, employee performance behaviour (EPB). Observing the graphic in
Figure 9.4, there are some patterns of the interaction effect that can be examined. In
organisational unit where on average its employees perceived high level of participative
management, age of employee had a stronger effect on performance behaviour (it is found.
in the organisational unit where PMa is perceived on average level as shown in Figure 9.4).
In other words, the older the age of the employees, the higher they perceive the level of
participative management being implemented in the unit. Contrarily for an organisational
unit where on average employees perceived lower level of participative management, the
effect of age of employee on PMa was slightly negative. This indicates the older the age of
the employees, the lower they perceive the level of participative management in the
organisational unit.
293
Figure 9.4. Interaction effect of average level of participative management with age of
employee
9.6.2 Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour with age
of employee
The results in Figure 9.3 show that in general, age of employee tended to have a positive
effect on the perceived level of employee performance behaviour (EPB). However, this
effect was moderated by the average level of perceived performance behaviour (EPBa)
within the organisational unit. The existing level of performance determines how the age
factor influences the perceptions on performance. As shown in Figure 9.5, the strength of
the effect varies according to the categories of performance provided by employees. The
pattern in the graph shows for the organisational unit where on average its employees
perceive lower performance, the effect of age on the perceived employee performance
behaviour is stronger. On the other hand, for the organisational unit where on average the
employees perceived higher performance behaviour, the effect of age became weaker (and
vice versa). In other words, the older the age of employees, the less positive they perceived
the employee performance behaviour in the unit.
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Young Average Old
Em
plo
yee p
erfo
rm
an
ce b
eh
avio
ur
Age of employee
Low PMa
Average
PMa
High PMa
294
Figure 9.5. Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour with
age of employee
9.6.3 Interaction effect of average age of employee with participative management
The results presented in Table 9.3 indicate that on overall the employees who perceived
high level of participative management (PM) tended to have higher level of employee
performance behaviour (EBP). However the effect of participative management on
employee performance behaviour in an organisational unit was also influenced by the
average level of age of employee in the unit. Hence, the slope of participative management
on employee performance behaviour varies from one unit to another unit, and it depends
on the average level of employee ages in the unit. The interaction of AGEa with the slope
of PM to EPB slope provides a coefficient of = -0.14. The negative coefficient indicates
that the age of employee had a negative interaction with the slope of PM that leads to level
of employee performance behaviour (EPB) as the outcome variable.
The interaction between average age of employees (AGEa) and participative management
(PM) is shown in Figure 9.6 is produced. The pattern in the graph shows the employees in
an organisational unit where on average the age employees are young, PM tended to have
stronger effect on employee performance behaviour (EPB). The same effect was found in
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Young Average Old
Em
plo
yee p
erfo
rm
an
ce b
eh
avio
ur
Age of employee
Low EPBa
Average EPBa
High EPBa
295
the unit where the age of employees were on average level, the effect of PM is quite
stronger. While, in the organisational unit where on average the age of employees was
older, the effect of age was weaker. In other words, the older the average age of the
employees in the unit, the lower they regarded the effect of PM on employee performance
behaviour (EPB) in the unit.
Figure 9.6. Interaction effect of average age of employee with participative management
9.6.4 Interaction effect of average employee performance behaviour with employee
work attitude
The last predictor that had an effect on the outcome variable is employee work attitude
(EWA). The estimates that are presented in Table 9.3 indicate that on overall the
employees who perceive high level of work attitude tend to demonstrate higher level of
employee performance behaviour (EPB). However, the effect of EWA on the performance
behaviour as the outcome variable is also influenced by the average level of employee
performance behaviour (EPBa) in the organisational unit. Hence, the slope of EWA on the
performance behaviour varies from one unit to another unit, and it depends on EPBa in the
unit. The interaction of EPBa with the slope of EWA to EPB slope provided a coefficient
of = 0.18. The positive coefficient indicates that the age of employee had a positive
interaction with the slope of EWA that leads to level of employee performance behaviour
(EPB) as the outcome variable.
-0.25-0.2
-0.15-0.1
-0.050
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.25
Low Average High
Emp
loye
e p
erfo
rman
ce b
eh
avio
ur
Participative managementYoung
Average
Old
296
The interaction between average level of employee performance behaviour (EPBa) and
employee work attitude (EWA) is shown in Figure 9.7. The pattern in the graph shows the
employees in an organisational unit where on average the employees perceive the
performance behaviour within any categories (high, average, and low), in general, the
effect of EWA on employee performance behaviour (EPB) is positive. However, the
pattern (indicated by the lines in the graph) shows that the strong interaction effect (as the
first position) is found in the organisational unit where on average has the higher level
EPBa. This is followed by the next strong effects that were respectively provided by the
units that have average EPBa (second position), and low EPBa (the third position). Overall,
the pattern of the interaction indicates that the perceived average level of performance
behaviour positively determines the magnitude or the effect size of employee work attitude
(EWA) on employee performance behaviour (EPB) as the outcome variable.
Figure 9.7. Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour with
employee work attitude
Besides estimating the effects, the HLM analysis provided additional information on the
variance components in the model. The variance components needed to be examined in
order to assess the proportion of the variance explained in both levels. This information
could be obtained referring to the values of the partitioning of the variance provided by the
fully unconditional model at both levels (Darmawan & Keeves, 2002). The estimates of the
variance at each level were calculated using the equations given by Raudenbush and Bryk
(2002). The total variance explained by the model was calculated by adding the total
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Low Average High
Em
plo
yee p
erfo
rm
an
ce
beh
avio
ur
Employee work attitude
Low EPBa
Average EPBa
High EPBa
297
variance of each level obtained by multiplying variance explained by the final model and
that predicted by the null model (Yuan & Keeves, 2001).
As shown in Table 9.4, there is 94% of the variance in the level of employee performance
behaviour between employees, while 6% can be attributed to differences between leaders
or organisational units. Information in panel 3 of the table provides estimates of the overall
explanatory power for this model at employee level (36%) and leader level (50%).
Overall, there are 37 % per cent of total available variance has been explained by the final
model at both levels. Furthermore, the deviance value of the final model is reduced by
299.39 (see Table 9.3) comparing with the deviance of the unconditional model (Table 9.2)
with 9 additional degrees of freedom. Since the ratio of the decrease of deviance by the
increase of degrees of freedom was greater than 1, the final model was considered better
than the unconditional model (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Darmawan & Keeves, 2002).
Table 9.4. Estimation of variance components – employee performance behaviour
Estimation of variance components
Model Between employees
(n = 808)
Between leaders
(n = 52)
Fully unconditional model 0.94 0.06
Final model 0.60 0.03
Variance at each level
Between employees 0.94 / (0.06 + 0.94) = 0.94 (94%)
Between leaders 0.06 / (0.06 + 0.94) = 0.06 (6%)
Proportion of variance explained by final model at each level
Between employees (0.94–0.60) / 0.94 = 0.36 (36%)
Between leaders (0.06–0.03) / 0.06 = 0.5 (50%)
Proportion of total available variance explained by the final model
(0.36 x 0.94) + (0.5 x 0.06) = 0.37 = 37%
9.7 Summary
This Chapter presented the Two-Level Model of the Employee Performance Behaviour in
University Sector in Malang, Indonesia. This model was employed to enable this study to
analyse its nested variables. HLM technique, as one of the multi-level analysis models, was
employed to examine lower and higher level factors that affected the employee
performance behaviour. To carry out the HLM analysis, principal score component scores
298
were calculated using SPSS software. This was followed by running the null model, final
level-1 model, and full model to specify the two-level model.
The results of the analysis at the employee level (level-1) showed that three predictors,
participative management (PM), age of employee (AGE), and employee work attitude
(EWA), were found to have positive direct effects on employee performance behaviour
(EPB) as the outcome variable. The magnitude of these predictors positively influenced
employee performance behaviour.
At the leader level (level-2), only one predictor, namely organisational culture (ORG) had
a direct effect on employee performance behaviour. It provided a positive coefficient
indicating the stronger the forms of organisational culture in terms of bureaucratic,
innovative, and supportive, the higher the level of employee performance behaviour.
Besides estimating the main effects, four interaction effects between the two level
predictors were examined. These were: (1) positive interaction between average level of
participative management (PMa) and the slope of age of employee (AGE); (2) the negative
interaction between average of employee (AGEa) and the slope of participative
management (PM); (3) negative interaction between the average of employee performance
behaviour (EPBa) and AGE; and (4) positive interaction between EPBa and EWA.
Overall, the results demonstrated consistency with the findings in the employee and the
leader level path analyses. The last part of this chapter examined variance components of
the model which indicated that the full model explained around 37% of total available
variance. Hence the HLM results can be used for understanding the effects of the two level
predictors on the outcome variable. To gain a better understanding of these findings, the
interviews were analysed in terms of the most common themes discussed. This qualitative
stage of the research is presented in the next chapter.
299
Chapter Ten
Results of the Interviews:
Perceptions of Employees and Leaders
10.1 Introduction
The interviews were used to explore the extent of participants‟ perceptions about the use of
participative management (PM) and its relationships with employee performance
behaviour in the university sector in the City of Malang, Indonesia. The interview process
was guided by five open-ended questions for each group of participants as shown in the
interview protocol attached in Appendix C. The researcher put these questions to 24
employees and 12 leaders (Heads of Administrative Divisions) who were selected from the
six universities under study. The employee participants were invited to provide detailed
responses of their perceptions on (1) the possible use of PM to improve employee
performance behaviour, (2) preferred management styles in organisational units or
divisions, (3) management styles being used in the division, (4) attitudes towards the job,
and (5) organisational commitment. On the other hand, the leader participants were asked
about their perceptions of (1) the use of PM to improve employee performance behaviour;
(2) contribution of the current organisational structure to PM; (3) the influence of PM on
employee work attitude; (4) the influence of PM on employee performance behaviour; and
(5) factors determining the effectiveness of PM. The results of the interview analysis for
each group of participants are described below. The discussion of the interview responses
is grouped thematically under each of the questions asked. To retain confidentiality, the
name of universities and individual participants has been withheld with letters used to
identify universities and pseudonyms used for participants.
300
10.2 Responses from Employee Participants
10.2.1 Employee conceptions of the possibility of the use of participative management
style
Question 1:
Describe to what extent the participative management style can be applied to improve
employee’s performance in this division?
The following responses are highlighted to represent the results of the conversations with
participants addressing the first question. In summary, two different perceptions about the
use of the participative management emerged. Twenty of the 16 participants supported the
use of participative management style in building a supportive working atmosphere, while
eight participants proposed that this style should be used only when necessary or in
response to particular situations.
The use of participative management style to build a supportive working atmosphere
Included among participants‟ responses supporting the use of participative management in
building a supportive working atmosphere is that of Salam (aged 30–39), staff member
from University C, who said that he believed that participative management was applied
well in his division. He explained: “According to my personal experience, PM style can be
applied.” He posited a couple reasons for this. He said “for me, I think through PM
approach, leaders build a supportive working atmosphere by employing a close and good
relationship with employees.” He continued, “in particular when dealing with internal
problems encountered in the organisation, the leaders intimately initiate mutual
communication face to face, so both parties can cooperatively generate alternative
solutions to the problems.”
This was confirmed by Salim from University B said, “I think PM model is applied here ...
it means that we have a cooperative climate. The leaders should understand this.” He added
the reasons for employing PM in this context were based on the fact that “leaders need to
understand the workload of employees, accept ideas from employees and discuss
alternative solutions for problems encountered in the office.”
301
Furthermore, Raida, a staff member at University F said, ”it is possible to apply PM in this
University, and it is very effective. The reasons she argued for this model is because it
successfully provides a working atmosphere which is conducive to people working
together based on their individual competence”. She added that through PM, leaders could
maximise individual contributions to solving organisational problems, and this could lead
to the attainment of a higher organisational performance.
Sylvia (aged 40–49), a female employee at University A pursued another point. She said:
As subordinates, we need PM. Initially the employees have their own ideas that relate with
the jobs, but this model is able to generate ideas from the bottom level, especially employees on behalf of the organisational mission.… An organisation that is led under an autocratic
model, will find the situation is not conducive for working.
Similarly, Eliza (aged 20–29), a female employee in university D commented that through
this leadership style “all the employees here have equal duties and opportunities to perform
their tasks based on schedules and programs that have been determined by the university.”
In other words, leaders who employed this management system create an organisational
environment where the employees could experience equity in terms of the opportunity to
perform meaningful tasks and improve personal competencies. Furthermore, they are
willingly involved in most organisational activities.
Therefore, it was clear, from the perceptions of staff, that PM invited leaders and staff to
work together equitably.
The necessity of the use of participative management style is situational
Responses from other participants indicated that they regarded the use of participative
management style as dependent on the situation. Resto from University B, for example,
mentioned: “According to my mind, participative management can be applied here because
all the staff would be involved.”
However, he continued with a note of caution: “Of course it requires a clear job
description. Employees must understand that although PM is applied in principle, if the
employees do not know their own job description, this model will not work effectively.”
302
The centrality of clear expectations is made explicit in this statement as a pre-requisite for
the successful implementation of PM.
Further, when the researcher clarified whether the employees must be prepared with
certain competencies, he argued:
Yes, they must be ready. It depends on the condition of the staff. If an employee has
understood his or her tasks and knows how to perform the tasks according to operational
procedures, PM then will be an appropriate model to manage this person. Thus, when the employee is assigned to a job that has standardised operational procedures, leaders, then just
need to encourage the employee to work based on the procedures. However, when he or she
refuses to do this, the leaders, then, may employ the autocratic approach to ensure the
employee accomplishes the given tasks adequately.
The evidence has shown that leaders who make the situation clear in relation to employee
and job characteristics, are able to apply the participative management effectively. They
understand when this style is necessary or appropriate to be used. The employees are able
to perform and complete the given tasks successfully, as long as they are familiar with the
job characteristics and the procedures about how to carry out those jobs. Leaders, under
these conditions then, are not required to employ an autocratic model of managing
employees, using strict control or be highly directive. Participative management style
assumes that the employees are able to handle the jobs using their own talent and
creativity, completing the given tasks as requested by the organisation.
Harianto (aged 40 49), a staff member of University A, elaborated this idea further:
The organisation indeed needs PM, and it is possible to apply. The reasons are that this model enables organisational members to be aligned in one mission. Both leaders and
employees within the PM climate appreciate their distinct roles, and at the same time, all the
efforts of both parties are aligned as one mission: to attain organisational objectives successfully.
However, this participant also pointed out that the effectiveness of this management style
depends on many factors. He claimed that PM might not be able to be employed in an
environment in which organisational members had different perceptions or motives. While
employees might have expectations to attain the organisational objectives, they did not
always have the same steps for achieving these expectations, due to their lack of clarity of
their role.
303
The implication to be noted here is that to ensure that PM is applied successfully, the
context of the organisation must be prepared for its introduction. Unless the necessary
preparation takes place, PM may not be successful in improving employee performance.
In an organisational culture that was prepared for the introduction of PM, Lia (aged (30–
39), a female employee at the University C, said: “I think PM can be applied in this
University very successfully, because we are here supporting one another. We always try
to support each other although we have our own jobs with different job descriptions.”
Despite the diversity of roles, it was evident that, within the right culture, PM was
effective. This was also evident when Umi (aged 40–49), a staff member at University E
stated: “PM is able to be applied here because employees have a cooperative working
atmosphere. There is no difference between superiors and the subordinates. The difference
may be on the particular jobs assigned to the staff (but not status).”
The range of differing perceptions regarding PM among employees was illustrated by the
more cautious comments of a number of the interviewees. For example, Dani, a staff
member of University C said:
Based on my analysis, the participative model is possible to apply in this office, but within a limited scope. At one level, the aspirations from the bottom level are overtly valued by
leaders, but at another level of organisational policy, the top leaders or superiors are still
responsible for decision-making.
Other participants (Suryo/University B, Raida/University F, and Umi/University E) also
suggested similar responses. Raida (aged 50 - 59) agreed that the participative style was
highly desirable. She explained the reasons for this: “I feel comfortable with this model of
leadership ... because I assumed that by using this model, organisational problems can be
solved.” She added: “However, it needs to adjust to suit different situations.” When asked
whether the leaders might also use an autocratic style, she responded: ”Yes, they may use
it, because it depends on the situation. For example, when the organisation encounters
critical problems, there is a need for quick responses and solutions from leaders, it is
appropriate. The leaders react quickly to solve those problems without waiting for any
suggestions from the members. Leaders, thus, may use the autocratic style, to complement
PM.”
304
She argued that a multifaceted style of management is desirable: “We actually know that
the employees have different characteristics. It implies which styles we can employ to deal
with these differences. That is why the use of multi style (mixed approach) is feasible.”
It was argued by some participants, that when leaders face critical situations, they might be
expected to adopt an autocratic style of management or leadership. However, when
everything goes normally, participants argued that the participative style was more highly
recommended. It can be concluded that a few participants expected a mix of both
autocratic and participative as a feasible leadership style.
10.2.2 Preferred management styles
Question 2:
Explain what kinds of management styles you prefer to be used in this division?
The participants‟ responses to the second interview question indicated that they generally
preferred participative management to any other management styles. From the 24
interviewed participants, only three preferred another model of leadership, which they
identified as a mixed or situational style.
Participative style
Included in the participants who preferred the participative management style was Harianto
(40-49), a male employee from a government institution (University A). He said:
We like a participative management system ... because it can accommodate many targets or
goals that will be achieved collaboratively. This organisation is operated as a system which
has several components. The organisation is not established as an institution which must be controlled by a single power, but multiple sources of power.
Harianto added: “Because all the elements in the organisation are related to each other and
work as a system, leaders should acknowledge the essence of their subordinates. However,
both of these elements also have to respect to each other.”
In short, the responses in this conversation indicated that the use of the participative
management enabled the organisation to unify or synchronise various activities of leaders
and employees to pursue the same organisational goals.
305
Raida (aged 50-59), a female employee from University F, explained why she preferred
this type of leadership:
Participative management ... provides a high contribution to this university to build
employees‟ creativity because leaders do not force them to work ... leaders explore the talent
and abilities from the employees especially when dealing with job related issues. These employees are expected to find their own solutions and are assumed to be able to solve the
problems within the rules and procedures that have been established by the university and
being agreed by organisational members.
Lia (aged 30 -39), a female employee from University C, stated that people who worked in
a university context needed the PM type of management style. She stated:
According to my mind, the participative style mostly matches with this university‟s
organisational mission, especially in this division. I have worked in this division for about
three years ... by using the participative system, there is a very good cooperative relationship between leaders and the subordinates. All of the staff contributes to each other, and there are
collegial relationships among the employees.
Rozak (aged 20 -29) at University C suggested that he liked this management style because
when a leader used this model, workers could have opportunities to help build the
organisation. He reiterated that this style could build an effective team for the organisation,
a team that was highly motivated.
In this case, PM was preferred because it allowed the communication process to flow from
the employee level to the leader level within the bureaucratic system. This was necessary
to foster effective relationships where the two levels complemented each other and those
in leadership process that actually engaged with people who fill differing positions at the
employee level.
Suryo (40–49), a male employee at University B, stated that he preferred the participative
style. He emphasised: “the use of participative management style can create a sense of
belonging among the staff members of this university.” When asked how this style
improved such an organisational atmosphere, he replied succinctly: “More effective.”
Additionally, he argued that the participative management style was preferred because it
created an atmosphere where employees could use their initiative. Parto (aged 50–59), a
staff member at University F, argued in a similar manner: “I like my leader using the
306
participative style because it gives me more chances to implement innovations specifically
for the improvement of administrative work.”
Zainuri (40–49), a male employee at University D, explained: “the leadership style where
leaders and employees value each other, is participative management.” When asked why
he likes this, he elaborated his reasons: “People like me, who need to learn more and have
broad views about the jobs in this division, like this style because it can motivate me to
realise these intentions ... I like this system because it provides employees with more
opportunities to improve their competencies.”
Eliza (aged 20–29), a female employee from University D, stated: “... if I may choose, I
like the participative management style.” She explained that if the employees already
understood what they had to do and had sufficient knowledge about their tasks, then
leaders should trust those employees to take responsibility for this work. She elaborated
her argument:
Normally, we already know what we have to do in carrying out the jobs. We just perform
what have been requested by the organisation. When we have understood how the jobs are
carried out, or what methods are to be used in dealing with those jobs, we need not be forced to perform it.
Mixed style or situational
Triani (40-49), a female employee from a private institution (University F) was one of
three respondents who preferred a mixed style or situational based leadership. When asked
directly what style she preferred, she responded: “I am just neutral on this!” In
conversation about the leadership process in her office, she explained why she did not have
a special preference in leadership style.
The employees in this office are happy with the way their leader leads people. All the staff
members in this office are comfortable with the current situation. Our leader does not
employ strict control. The most important thing for our leader is that our tasks have been completed adequately. Depending on the situation, sometimes the leader needs to apply a
directive (autocratic) to the employees when he/she finds the jobs are not progressing.
However, at other times, the leader is not concerned too much on this when this unit made a good progress. Thus, I think the use of a mixed style or situational model is OK.
307
A similar response was also provided by Dani (aged 30-39), a male employee from
University C. He considered that there was not a single ideal model of management or
leadership. He noted that all the styles had some advantages and disadvantages. He
posited: “Leadership is built from an integrated style. On one hand, leaders must be
autocratic and on the other hand, they must listen to the employees as subordinates and
accommodate and implement their aspirations.”
Similar remarks were made by Nadia (aged 40-49) from university A: “I like a compilation
from all styles. Because there are some areas that become parts of the leaders‟ authority
that have to be obeyed by subordinates. Thus, leaders may at times need to apply an
autocratic style.”
Based on the above interview responses, it can be concluded that in some cases, the leaders
in the universities investigated used a mixed style or a situational leadership model,
depending on the situation. When the team or the employees demonstrated good progress,
leaders were more likely to use the PM style. However, when the employees did not
accomplish their set duties, or they had difficulties in undertaking their tasks, the leaders
employed more directive or autocratic styles. This was seen as necessary to ensure that the
employees were fully engaged in their work and that the organisation effectively
maintained a good team performance.
10.2.3 Management styles in use
Question 3:
What type of management system or style is actually used in this division?
Of the 24 participants, 20 reported that participative management was used in their
division, three stated that their division used a mixed or situational style. Only one claimed
that his/her leader employed an autocratic style. This pattern of responses is consistent with
the participants‟ comments in answer to the two previous questions.
308
Participative style
Included among the participants who reported the use of the participative style in their
divisions was Barry (aged 50–59), a male employee at University F. His initial response to
this question was, “I argue that the management style employed in this division has a
strong collegial element.” When asked how this style improved the employee performance,
he responded negatively: “I think it is not effective”. He elaborated his view: “It is evident
that the participative style is employed in this office, but it is not quite effective.” When
asked why, he explained as follows:
The reasons are that its implementation is not supported by clear standards, namely the
standardised operational procedures. As a result, some employees do not fully understand about what they have to accomplish. They also do not understand to what extent their work
is expected by the organisation. Furthermore, leaders manage people without having the
operational criterion, for example, while they supervise and assess the employees‟ performance. As a result, the employees become ewuh pakewuh (uncomfortable situation).
The rules that relate to the reward and punishment system in this university especially in this
office have not been implemented optimally.
Barry‟s response described a situation where participative management was not effective
because there were no clear organisational performance standards or operational
procedures for employees to follow in performing their jobs. Leaders in this university
used a leadership approach that concentrated too much on human relationships, but
activities were not geared optimally to the achievement of organisational objectives. Some
employees did not show good discipline at work, and did not have high commitment to
their jobs. The PM style, thus, does not improve the employees‟ performance, if it is not
implemented effectively.
With regard to this situation, Barry posited: “To improve management in this division, the
established standards, rules, and reward system need to be clarified. Leaders apply these
elements consistently in the management process.” He recommended that to lead the
employees concerned, the leaders should not provide too much freedom or allow laissez-
faire behaviour. He emphasised: “There has to be a collegiality in the managerial process,
but these leaders must be professional in managing their employees as subordinates in this
organisation.”
309
In summary, this particular interview revealed that the implementation of the PM style was
only effective when leaders managed their employees by addressing the organisational
programs, objectives, and the established standards. The leaders needed to assess their
employees‟ performance by reference to these organisational elements. They should be
able to see how the employees contributed to the achievement of organisational objectives
that had been decided in the organisation. The employees, on the other hand, needed to
understand how to carry out their tasks, and what the consequences of their job
performances were. They were most likely to reflect on what they had done by referring to
the job descriptions and the objectives, standards, or targets that should be available. Thus,
these employees are geared to perform their best, and contribute to the achievement of the
organisational objectives as expected by the organisation.
Setyo (aged 50–59), a male employee from University D said that his division was
managed using the participative or democratic style. When asked how this style improves
the employee performance, he explained:
Under this participative management, we experience a conducive situation. We can perform
our tasks with a sense of freedom, without experiencing a high-pressured feeling. Although
the organisation may have work standards, when we are within the participative atmosphere or climate, we can work freely. However, if there are some critical issues that relate to our
jobs, we consult with our leader in order to find any solutions. We know that the
organisational standards become guidelines for our jobs. We have to work referring to those
standards.
Anik (aged 40–49), a female employee from University D, claimed that her division was
led using the participative management style. She described her leader in the following
way:
The leader in this division has never forced us to work. We perform our tasks confidently
and not under the pressure. The relationships between the leader and the staff in the division
are very supportive. If we are not able or have difficulties to complete the tasks, our leader is
very tolerant on this matter. He usually guides us to solve the problems, and patiently provides some instructions to perform those activities properly.
She claimed this management style was very effective in improving employee
performance. It was evident that she voluntarily worked for the success of the organisation,
especially at the division level in the future. Such an achievement was also reported by
Sobri (aged 30-39) from University E. He said: “the use of participative management style
310
in this division is very effective …” He emphasised that this style had facilitated the
establishment of the effective teamwork in his office, where all members engaged
effectively in their tasks.
Additionally, Anik claimed that the working atmosphere in the division reflected the
collegial character of the organisational climate of the university. She stated: “I feel that
the organisational environment supports me as an employee to work in this division ...
because this university employs strong informal relationships among people.”
Judo (aged 40 - 49), a male employee from University A, stated that his division employed
the participative management system. This style successfully maintained the organisational
atmosphere as more dynamic. He explained:
I enjoy working under this management model because it makes me happy to perform the
jobs. Compared with the previous leader, our leader today is so supportive of his employees.
The jobs are designed and distributed addressing the employees‟ skills and motivations.
Thus, the employees can work optimally, although sometimes we have to work until late at night. We also had good rewards from what we have done. This makes us feel less
distressed.
Zainuri (aged (40–49), a male employee from University D, reported that the participative
style had been used in his division since he was assigned there nine years ago. His leader
talked with the employees in his division about their concerns. He said:
The leader behaved in a manner showing a high regard for the employees. His managerial behaviour indicates he needs us as the organisational members. If the there are some issues
related to the jobs, he invites us to discuss them. He is also very familiar with our activities
and employees‟ individual concerns. He supervises us informally, and in a friendly manner,
discusses and finds the solutions collaboratively with all employees.
This participant reported that the most important thing in his office was that “his leadership
model allowed the employees to improve their individual capacities. We had access to
participate in the staff trainings that relate to the administrative and managerial skills to
support the operation of the programs of this division.” In short, the participative model of
leadership in this case contributed to the personal improvement of the employees. From the
description given, the staff morale, the skills, and individual engagement of the
organisational activities increased positively, as a result of PM.
311
Mixed style or situational
Included among the three participants who reported the use of the mixed style of leadership
in their workplaces was Laela (aged 40 49), a female employee from University B. She
stated:
I find that the leadership of this division is frequently situational. When our leader assumes the employees are mature enough and they are able to handle their jobs properly, then the
leader usually employs a model that matches with those factors. However, the managerial
behaviour demonstrated by our leader tends to be more participative. We, as the organisational members of the university organisation, have to follow the given structure,
procedures, and decisions that have been setup at the university level. Thus, in some cases,
all the decisions that relate to the job issues of this division are made by the top leader of this
university.
Raida (aged 50–59), a female employee from University F argued that the implementation
of the management style in her division was situational. In certain conditions, the
organisational management could be effective under the participative leadership, but in
other conditions, it would not be effective. Thus, the situation demanded a variety of styles.
She explained:
It seems that our division uses a multi management approach. Depending on what situations
the manager might know well, he or she uses a more cooperative model. When he or she must do the jobs directly, he chooses another style. It is more situational. I think this is
relevant with the nature of the current university structure.
According to Raida, the university organisation was hierarchically structured, and it
included different management positions. These positions were filled by different levels of
personnel or employees, depending on their education, skills, and interests. Consequently,
as revealed in the interview, these personnel were assigned different jobs. This
organisation operated on the belief that employees needed different management and
leadership strategies, especially when dealing with the diversity of employees and their
positions. For example, in some cases, the initiatives for the implementation of the
organisational activities at the division level waited for commands from the top leader. In
particular, when those activities impacted on the whole organisation, the implementation of
the programs had to consider the policy setup at the university level. On the other hand,
when the activities impacted on a limited area, for example at a department level, the
employees could use their initiative to carry out those activities.
312
Similarly, Suryo (aged 40–49) from University B, confirmed the same strategies were
practised in his workplace. In other words, since there was a fixed university hierarchical
structure that defined the operation of organisational elements, some roles had to be
exercised by the top leader in a directive way while some were delegated to the lower
levels of the university structure. These participants argued that as long as the leader had
the capacity to perform leadership roles, knew the employees well, and provided them with
the right jobs, the use of this mixed style was very successful in university management.
Autocratic style
In contrast to the experiences of the employees mentioned above, Aris (aged 30–39), a
male employee from University E, claimed that his leader at the faculty level, managed the
staff using an autocratic style. He elaborated:
My leader is not concerned with the employees, especially with me personally. We are not
encouraged to obtain a higher employment level or rank. I have not been promoted to get a
higher employment level/rank for a long time, more than five years. Thus, it makes me unsatisfied, and there is no progress in term of my career.
The most prominent leader behaviour that he did not admire was when his leader was not
responsive to any initiatives proposed by staff members. His leader also did not sufficiently
promote staff morale to perform at a higher level for the organisation. According to this
participant, such an atmosphere ultimately impeded the effectiveness of employees in
achieving organisational objectives. The employees were not empowered, or regarded
highly for their abilities and skills. There were few innovations, and even these were not
accomplished successfully. In this case, the autocratic style resulted in an ineffective
management system both for the employee and the division.
10.2.4 Attitude towards the job
Question 4:
How do you feel about your current job in this division?
Several themes could be identified in the analysis of the responses to the question about
how the respondents felt about their current job. In general, the employees interviewed in
313
this study expressed positive feelings towards their jobs and attributed these feelings to the
presence of PM in the workplace. From the 24 participants, 18 participants explained their
positive attitude towards work in terms of the experience of self-autonomy, their sense of
completing meaningful tasks, their feelings of security, and job satisfaction. The
remaining six participants had an indifferent attitude towards their job (neutral or with
other reasons). Responses in the interviews to this question suggested that the greater the
degree of PM experienced, the more positive were the employees‟ work attitudes.
Self-autonomy on the jobs
Included among the participants who expressed a very positive work attitude in relation to
self-autonomy was Resto (age 50-59), a male employee at University B. He claimed that
the way his leader organised people in his office enabled him to experience a high degree
of self-autonomy in performing his tasks. He elaborated this idea further:
Personally, I am satisfied with my job because this division allows me to achieve a
continuous improvement though working with the different jobs. They are quite challenging
… I work here without sticking simply with static and routine activities, but we develop our own strategies to carry out the jobs successfully.
Similarly, Salam (aged 30–39), a male employee at University C posited: “My experience
in this current office is a proud and a challenging experience …” According to him, his
organisational unit was managed in a manner where the employees were allowed to
conduct their work autonomously. The types of jobs and their objectives were clearly
defined. Conversations with these two participants showed that people in their workplaces
were assigned to jobs based on their capacity and skills. Within the participative climate,
the organisational members were still allowed to do something different, as long as it
helped their organisations to achieve their goals, and increased work effectiveness and
efficiency.
Nadia (aged 40–49), a female employee at University A, agreed that she liked to work in a
situation, which challenged her to use her initiative, and to improve her individual
capacities in accomplishing the outcomes. She said: “… I always want something more, it
means that I want to do better on my current job … I want it to be more challenging.” The
314
reported experiences of the three participants were consistent with PM theory that the
working atmosphere created by the participative style was able to fulfil these individual
expectations, which in turn fostered a higher level of self-autonomy among employees
when working in the organisational unit.
Meaningful tasks
Other participants reported that the participative management style employed in
organisational units significantly influenced positive work attitude for the employees.
Sylvia, a female employee at University A said: “… I really find this job is meaningful.”
This attitude was also expressed by other employees, including Lia (University C), Eliza
(University D), and Nadia (University A). The discussions with these employees revealed
that their positive attitude was created by leaders organising employees‟ jobs meaningfully
and thoroughly. Employees were involved in planning, designing, and developing job
descriptions. Leaders equally assigned individuals and groups with specific tasks. All the
jobs were closely related to programs directed to the achievement of organisational
objectives. The leaders regularly informed the employees that the accomplishment of those
jobs were important for the success of the university organisation, particularly in the units
where many employees are deployed. This was because those jobs related to the demands
of quality administrative services requested by many people within the university structure.
Such a strategy, in a high priority division, promoted positive feelings for the employees.
Job satisfaction
Anik (aged 40-49), a female employee at University D, stated that she was very satisfied
with her current position. The main reason she explained: “My leader leads this
organisational unit in a very supportive way to create the well-being of everybody in this
office.” A similar statement was made by Judo (aged 40-49), a male employee at
University A, who said: “I enjoy this job, and I work here with pleasure.” He found his
leader‟s participative behaviour fostered this positive attitude. It created a good working
atmosphere, and drove his motivation to work for the best for the university, especially in
the division where he worked as a government employee. Arie (aged 50–59), at University
315
E, expressed the same opinion: ”Working within the participative management of this unit
makes me feel satisfied with my job. It has helped me evolve with this job for a long time,
and I love this institution.” Lia (aged 30–39), a female employee from the same university,
also said: “I am very satisfied with my current position.” Conversations during her
interview indicated that her positive work attitude was related to the organisational climate,
which had been created through the PM approach. Her leader initiated good relationships
with employees. The employees had access to personal development. This unit or division
consistently implemented organisational policies and group decisions. Furthermore, this
leader managed people inclusively, addressing the differing values, beliefs, and cultures
which characterised the organisation. In short, the leadership qualities of the PM style
resulted in higher job satisfaction as reported by the employees in the workplace.
The feelings of job security
The participants claimed that the organisational process under participative management
effectively promoted their feelings of security in their jobs. Judo (University A), Rozak
(University C), and Sylvia (University A) pointed out that they felt secure in their jobs.
They explained that their leaders assigned them reliable work, and hired all members
permanently. These leaders provided the organisations with a stable personnel
management system. Employees were led in a manner, where individuals were not
subjected to threats to be terminated or to be fired during their service term. They were
also supervised with the aim of improving their performance, rather than finding work
related-issues with which to punish them. Problems were identified and discussed and
solutions to issues explored. This managerial behaviour resulted in the members trusting
their leaders, and, as a result, expressed a high level of security in their jobs.
10.2.5 Organisational commitment
Question 5:
Explain what the level of your commitment to work in this university is.
In general, the participants demonstrated high commitment to their organisations. They
were proud to be employees, and inspired to do their best for the university where they
316
were employed. Included in among the responses of participants who showed high
commitment was Laela (aged 40–49), a female employee from University B, who
emphasised her commitment to help the university gain higher organisational performance:
“Personally I will be consistent to show my strong commitment to do my best for this
institution.” Similar attitudes were demonstrated by other employees, such as Zainuri
(University D), Raida (University F), and Arie (University E). In general, they argued that
their high commitment was driven by the participative management process in their
workplaces. This improved staff commitment by unleashing individual expectations,
talents, initiatives, ideas, and skills. These people felt empowered to produce their highest
contribution to the success of the organisation.
This commitment was generated by the whole orientation of PM through motivating and
fostering individual attachment to jobs, as well as involving people in goal setting,
decision-making, organisational changing, and problem solving. Furthermore, it was
obtained through designing jobs by considering individual input that enabled the
organisations to allocate work tasks to different positions based upon personal capacities.
This in turn invited personal satisfaction, and broad acceptance to any organisational
activities. Thus, it can be concluded that the participative management style improved the
employees‟ performance through developing individual capacity (cognitive process), and
the internal motivation which lead to the increased performance, especially commitment at
work.
10.3 Responses from Leader Participants
10.3.1 Leader conceptions of the use of participative management style
Question 1:
To what extent can the participative management style be used to improve employee
performance behaviour?
The responses to this interview question indicated that most participants claimed that the
participative management (PM) system was employed as an effective strategy to improve
employee performance behaviour in their divisions.
317
Ratna (aged 30–39), a female leader, Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of
Economics in University D, argued that compared with the other styles, the participative
management system was viewed as an effective strategy to improve employee performance
behaviour. When asked why, she explained:
This management style is able to maximise the role of everybody who works in this division ... For example our office has duties to perform a number of academic services for this
school and its departments. These require a number of people with different skills and
abilities to perform the services. Leaders are impossible to handle all those jobs. They must involve all elements of this school to ensure each service operates properly and contributes
to the achievement of the organisational objectives of this school.
Ratna perceived that employing participative management enabled her to incorporate
employees with different skills and competencies. In particular, she emphasised that this
style effectively generated individual initiatives and fostered the creativities of the whole
staff. The employees, then, performed their best for service delivery to students, lecturers,
and other clients of the university.
Similarly, Maya (aged 40–49), as the Head of Academic Division from University B,
viewed participative management as an effective way to improve the employees‟
performance in terms of the contribution to the accomplishments of academic services
provided by her division. She elaborated her idea:
I always use the participative management by accommodating ideas from my team members
including Head of Sub Division or Section within this division. This strategy is conducted especially when we have to interpret related administrative policies into the specific
programs to be implemented at the division level. Sometime I include the employees in each
section to provide inputs for the development and the implementation of the programs. This
initiative is applied especially to the employees who show potential.
Purba (aged 40 - 49), Head of Administrative Division from University B, explained why
participative management was assumed to be an effective strategy to manage employees at
the faculty level, especially within his division. “Participative management is an
appropriate strategy to improve employee performance behaviour especially to enhance
staff contribution to the success of the organisation.” The effectiveness of implementation
of the university policies that related to the administrative services (i.e. finance
administration, academic and student services, personnel management, facility
administration) depended on how these policies were perceived by employees at all
318
hierarchical levels. To ensure that employees comprehended the policies and valued their
importance, these employees, then needed to be involved in talking about the policies, and
interpreting them for the specific programs that might be carried out at the division level.
“We must involve employees at all levels to obtain a higher organisation performance ...
The reasons are that they know well about the feasibility, benefits, and probably technical
issues of the programs to be implemented and their solutions ... we are as leaders request
these inputs as feedback.”
He also explained several ways in which this management style was practised in the
division. These included the involvement of all employees in the managerial process:
planning the administrative services at the division level; organising the employees into
different roles and tasks addressing the services that had to be accomplished; implementing
the plans, and evaluating their own progress in performing those tasks. He added:
This strategy is able to increase the staff morale at work. It makes the employees feel
responsible to the success of the organisational activities. The employees feel that they are
valued as the employees. They are proud of their position because people value the essence of their works, and respect that they are able to perform the tasks properly. Finally, this
management style effectively fostered strong morale for the employees to keep the
operations of the organisational activities to the completion.
In the leader‟s view, this participative organisational climate proved able to foster high
staff morale or motivation for the employees. This was also perceived by Tarno (aged 50–
59), Head of Academic Division from University F, who argued that, “Participative
management promoted work motivation for employees, because within this climate, their
ideas are highly appreciated.”
Mosa (aged 50–59) as the Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Engineering
in University E, built a participative organisational climate by promoting supportive
relationships with the employees at his division. For example, he said: “I keep good
relationships with my employees. Through a good communication process, I do not treat
them as subordinates, but as partners at work. When problems emerge at work, I meet the
employees directly, and talk about the problems face to face.”
Aisah (aged 40–49), Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Economics
University C, stated:
319
This division employed participative management in order to maximise the involvement or
contribution from all staff members to operate the administrative services. I apply this strategy by providing significant information about the organisational activities in order to
build their understanding about their roles and jobs. They are provided with responsibilities.
The employees‟ initiatives are regarded thoroughly.
Aisah pointed out some implications of this strategy: “The employees feel that they are not
treated as marginal from the organisation. They are happy with their position, and thus, it
effectively fostered their highest contribution to the success of this division.” She
elaborated this view: “This management system generates the power of the employees
from inside their heart. They work not under the pressure as found in an autocratic model.
Employees who work within an autocratic climate organisation could not develop their
own initiatives.”
This view was also evident when Eka (aged 50 -59), the Head of Administrative Division
at the Faculty of Language and Arts in University A, said:
An autocratic model for a university organisation does not work because this is not a company that is owned by a single person ... Leading this organisation using the autocratic
style might lead the employees to be afraid with their leaders. The leaders are not able to
generate individual capacities. These employees cannot use their own initiatives ... To
improve their career, leaders, have to provide enough space to use their own initiatives in undertaking the organisational activities. They are encouraged to evaluate their own
progress, understand the work problems, explore solutions, and try them thoroughly to solve
the problems.
Similarly, Zaini (aged 50 59), Head of Personnel Management University E, explained that
the use of the participative management was necessary to improve employees‟
performance by accommodating inputs from lower hierarchical levels. He stated:
“participative climate requests leaders to accommodate ideas from lower level employees.
Leaders are not allowed to use their authority irrationally: For example, to force employees
to fulfil what leaders want to achieve, if those are not accepted by the employees.”
However, Zaini also recognised that, “in some cases, employees need to accommodate the
thoughts or initiatives provided by leaders when concerned with organisational
development and positively impact employee performance.”
Since he was in a private university established by a religious foundation, Zaini
emphasised: “the operation of this university has to address Sunni-based principles
employed by the foundation, especially in building the organisational climate of this
320
university.” Leaders had responsibilities to ensure that the principles were not abused in
the operation of university governance. He added, “...most importantly, leaders of this
university must become good role models for managerial behaviours at any levels, within
the hierarchical structure of the university.” According to Zaini, the management of this
university promoted deliberation in any decision-making processes, whereby the ideas of
most members were expected and valued thoroughly. The university governance also
emphasised the implementation of gotong royong (teamwork) principles. Thus, it was
evident that the implementation of the participative management complemented rather than
contradicted the religious principles of this university organisation.
In short, the interviews above discussed the participants‟ views that participative
management was a strategic way to empower employees in order to maximise their
contribution to the accomplishment of administrative services provided in the divisions.
All these leaders at the division level provided evidence that participative management was
employed in their divisions. This was achieved through incorporating the ideas, valuing the
competencies and skills of the employees, involving the employees in designing
organisational activities, mobilising team efforts in implementing the plans, providing
collaborative supervision, and conducting team evaluations collaboratively. Such a process
was able to create a participative organisational climate, which in turn led employees
voluntarily to strive to perform their best for the success of the organisation.
10.3.2 Contribution of the current organisational structure to participative
management
Question 2:
Does the existing organisational structure contribute to the effectiveness of participative
management in the division?
Of the 12 leaders interviewed, all but one stated that the organisational structure of the
divisions contributed strongly to the effectiveness of the participative management. Only
one of these leaders did not support this claim.
321
Organisational structure contributing to the effectiveness of management
Among the 12 participants who agreed that the organisational structure contributed to the
effectiveness management was Purba (aged 40–49), a male leader from the Head of
Administrative Division at the Faculty of Education University B, who said that his
division employed a line and staff organisational structure. According to him, this was
developed based on the structure at the university level. When asked how this structure
matched the process of the participative or democratic management, he explained, “We
call this line and staff, because the organisation that uses this structure usually has a line
and staff positions.” The Head of Division, as the leader or the line manager, has authority
and responsibility for achieving the main goals of the division. For their part, staff
provided assistance to the line manager in terms of administrative assistance for specific
areas. For example, in his office staff are specialised in general administration, finance,
student and academic services. These staff positions have a functional authority, and as a
result, “The operation of this organisational structure allows the line manager to involve
staff in decision making, for example in designing the educational programs and policies.”
Although the university had a hierarchical structure, with the top and the middle leaders
positioned as the executives that had line authority in decision-making, Purba stated:
In practice, the policies and the programs of this university are produced from the broad participation of all stakeholders in this university. For example, in preparing yearly
programs, implementation, and evaluation, this university involved the departments in
decision making.
This indicates that the organisational structure being used in the university and division
supported the use of participative management style for the purposes of staff
empowerment.
Haris (aged 50–59), Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Engineering
University D, said: “the structure of university organisation especially in this division is
characterised by a parallel flow of commands.” This indicated that the management system
was not based on the instructions coming down from the top, but it was distributed to the
staff members horizontally. This suggested a flat structure, within the more hierarchical
university governance structure. “This type of organisation fosters very harmonious
322
human communication between leader and staff, and among the staff members. Thus, the
participative management model applied in this university could be maintained
successfully.” The leader considered that this was a successful style of management:
I am still new to leading this division and unfamiliar with particular activities and people in
this faculty. However, the dean and deputy deans effectively communicate with me and with
my employees. These leaders regularly communicate with me to coordinate the various
administrative activities operated under my division (i.e. academic and student service, general administration, and personnel administration). If I have difficulties to carry out those
jobs, they guide me on how to accomplish these activities. All the employees help me to run
those activities. They work together to accomplish their tasks, and support each other on behalf of the success of this university.
Additionally, he explained that within the current organisational structure and
management, the employees enthusiastically undertook their own jobs in an amanah
manner (meaning with full responsibility and honesty). He claimed: “My employees will
do their best for any jobs assigned to them.” This sense of commitment was directly related
to the participative organisational climate, especially the decision making process,
advocated by the leaders.
This approach was confirmed by Ratna (aged 30–39), a female leader, Head of
Administrative Division in the Faculty of Economics from the same university. She also
claimed that her division was structured using a line and staff model. “The current
structure is congruent with the aim of the participative management. Within this structure,
the jobs are distributed proportionally according to the abilities and the skills of the
individuals. The employees have their responsibilities individually. Thus, they can
accomplish the jobs effectively.”
The conversation with Harry (aged 50–59), the Head of General Administration at the
bureau level in University C, indicated that his University principally used a line and staff
model. When asked whether the current structure was aligned with the participative or
democratic management, he argued:
I am sure that the employees are able to contribute to the operations of general administrative
works under my division as long as the top leaders of this university really implement the
establish organisational structure and delegate authority to the middle and the lower level managers, especially to the Heads of Divisions.
323
Harry‟s general administrative division provided major administrative services to the
university, such as procurement planning and implementation, maintenance of building and
equipment, correspondence, administration, and security services for the whole university
environment. The effectiveness of this management according to Harry, depended on how
the top leaders of the university distributed the jobs and authority to him, to lead and
supervise the employees working at the division level.
Similar comments came from Aisah (aged 40–49), the Head of Administrative Division at
the Faculty of Economics, from the same university.
We employ the line and staff organisational structure. … within this structure, the
administrative support activities including academic and student services, personnel
administration, facilities administration, building maintenance, and finance are distributed to the division level. We are here also provided with some authority to carry out these tasks.
The employees are assigned with the various tasks. They have their own responsibilities to
perform those activities, individually and as a group. These are carried out under the control of the Head of Administrative Division
Technically, the administrative services are often operated as sub divisions or sections,
which have a small group of personnel with specialised skills. Johan (aged 50–59), the
Head of Administrative Division from University A, for example, claimed:
The demands to the services provided by this university especially at the faculty level are
very high and tend to be complex. Within the current organisational structure, we are able to
deploy our staff members into different sections and provide them with different tasks for example general administration, correspondence, maintenance of the building and
equipment. The aim is to respond to such demands.
This devolution of decision-making facilitated job completion.
Comparable responses were given by Eka (aged 50–59), a female leader from University
A. She reported that the current organisational structure helped the implementation of
participative management. It developed the flow of communication, which enabled staff
members to deliver their inputs to their leaders. This structure also supported the
interaction process, where the leaders included the employees‟ initiatives and used them as
inputs to improve the quality of university governance. According to Eka, the university
management requested such a structure, which allowed high individual engagement at
work. She argued the reasons for this were that the employees were likely to have better
understanding about technical issues that related to the demands of the stakeholders.
324
Leaders, thus, just needed to provide an effective empowerment approach. As explained by
Eka, “such a mechanism is relevant with our strategy to empower our staff members to
demonstrate their highest performance for this university.”
Budi (aged 50–59), as the Head of General Administration from University F, also
confirmed that principally the structure of his university fitted the line model. He
explained: “The leaders at the top level, including Rector, Vice-Rectors and Deans, have
line authorities over the university governance. However, to carry out the university
administrative services for the students and stakeholders, these leaders usually delegate
authority to bureaus and divisions.” For example, strategic issues that related to university
policies and broad programs were made by the top leaders at the university level. However,
the interpretation and implementation of the university policies in specific programs were
delegated to the faculty level. These programs were operated by related divisions and sub
divisions. Tarno (aged 50–59), Head of Academic Division from the same university,
supported this description of the organisation. However, in his view, this mechanism did
not prevent staff empowerment at the lower hierarchical level, since Tarno claimed that,
“the current structure is very supportive of the implementation of the participative
management.” To ensure the employees contributed significantly to the accomplishment of
the university, the operations of these activities were organised horizontally which allowed
the involvement of the whole staff in each division. This ensured high quality output
through the enactment of the participative management system, especially in decision-
making.
Organisational structure supporting effective interaction
The interviews revealed that in a few cases, ineffective human communication constrained
some school managers or Heads of Division from encouraging their subordinates to fully
engage in the activities delegated to them. Mosa (aged 40–49), Head of Administrative
Division at the Faculty of Engineering University E emphasised this issue. He posited that
the university bureaucratic systems had to provide an organisational system which
facilitated mutual interaction among the members. Mosa advocated that this system could
be practised by employing horizontal flows of communication. He reported that he
325
conducted this approach by interacting not only with the line superiors, but also with all the
employees in his division. He stated: “If I have some ideas about the development of the
administrative services, I consult with the Deputy Dean. The results of this consultation
then are shared with the employees in my division.” This strategy allowed him to increase
the involvement of the whole staff in planning the programs of administrative services,
implementing the programs, controlling the progress of the program, and evaluating the
effectiveness of the services.
To sum up, human interaction was more dynamic, when the communication process
among people was conversational. Through such a communication, leaders effectively
introduced institutional policies, and shared with the employees through interactive
dialogue how the policies could be implemented. This strategy minimised the distance
between higher bureaucratic levels and lower hierarchical units where most employees
were based. The managerial process then was successfully characterised by the trust and
the intimacy among the individuals. This in turn became a strong driver for employees to
demonstrate their highest performance at work.
10.3.3 Influence of participative management on employee work attitudes
Question 3:
How does participative management influence employee work attitudes in terms of self-
autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of security, and job satisfaction?
Based on the conversations from the interviews with the leader participants, four themes
that relate to the employees‟ attitude towards their jobs emerged. These themes related to
participative management facilitating self-autonomy, meaningfulness, feelings of security,
and job satisfaction for staff.
326
Self-autonomy
Purba, Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Education from University B,
explained how participative management promoted the feeling of self-autonomy among the
employees.
Since the employees are involved in undertaking organisational activities such as planning, implementing, and evaluating the programs, this became a motivator to the employees to be
autonomous or independent in performing their duties. They use their own initiatives, ideas,
and explore alternative solutions to the problems they might experience at work.
Employees are able to carry out the tasks independently without waiting for commands
from the leaders when the jobs are properly delegated to the employees whether in
individual settings or teams.
Harry (50–59), Head of General Administration from University C, said: “Since we as
leaders have already delegated authority, and responsibilities to the employees to perform
the academic services at university level, they worked autonomously. We just provide
supportive supervision to improve their performance at work.”
Budi (50–59), Head of General Administration Division from University F explained:
“Participative management has significant impact on fostering the feeling of self-autonomy
for an employee because within the participative organisational climate, the employees are
allowed to organise and control the progress of the specified tasks.” Specifically, in his
division, this strategy was employed by distributing the tasks into different sections,
delegating authorities and sharing responsibilities among the Heads of sub-sections to
facilitate and to improve the work performance of each employee within each section.
Haris (50–59), Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Engineering from
University D explained:
The way that leaders in this faculty communicate with people encourages me and the whole
staff in this division to perform the tasks with full responsibility. The leader provides guidance, involves us in the organisational activities, and supervises the employees‟
performance through a supportive relationship.
What he experienced at the faculty level was participative management, which directly
characterised the organisational climate at his division. He claimed that his employees
327
really had autonomy in performing their jobs and they worked collaboratively to contribute
to the achievements of the faculty.
Meaningful tasks
Within the participative management system, Maya (aged 40–49), Head of Academic
Division and Cooperation from University B, claimed that her employees found their tasks
were meaningful because they had ownership of the tasks delegated to them. She said: “I
assure my employees that their position as employees at this division is important.” Thus,
they felt that they were valued. This was similar to what was experienced by Tarno (50–
59), Head of Academic Division from University F, who claimed: “The employees feel
that they are highly appreciated because their ideas and suggestions were valued by their
leader.” Additionally, Purba (University B) argued: “Employees in this division find their
tasks so meaningful because I provided them with important challenging tasks. Their roles
and the achievements are adequately appreciated.” Such a strategy was also practised by
Aisah, from University C in appreciating the roles and the achievements of employees to
allow them to experience the meaningfulness of tasks. This in turn encouraged improved
performance. In summary, the participative management behaviour of these leaders
demonstrated that convincing the employees that jobs were important, and appreciating
individual achievements led employees to experience their work tasks as meaningful.
Feelings of job security
Interview conversations with leader participants generally indicated that the employees
who were led under a participative management system experienced a positive attitude
towards their jobs in terms of feelings of security.
Harry (50–59), Head of General Administration from University C, for example, said:
I have my own model to approach my employees. I used a persuasive approach to manage all level of employees in my division ... Every morning, before I get into my office, I walk
around this university site to meet my employees at their workstations or in the field. ... I
salute them, shake hands, and talk with them informally for about 1 to 2 minute ... this is an
important strategy to show them that I care about them ... In return, they become interested in what I expect as a leader. This encouraged them to perform their tasks without feeling of
fear of their leader...
328
Similar comments were made by Aisah, Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of
Economics from the same university, who said: “since the participative management
system builds individual motivation internally, this type of management successfully
creates a situation where the employees are not under the pressure to perform their jobs.”
They performed well because they were secure in their jobs.
The benefit of this sort of supportive relationship in developing a secure working
atmosphere was confirmed by Johan (50–59) from University A and Haris, (50–59) from
University D. Haris explained that supportive relationships built in his division inspired the
employees to work with the feelings of job security. When the leader paid attention to the
employees and their jobs, this created a positive experience for the employees. They
reported that they were not afraid of their leaders, and did not feel that they were in danger
of having their jobs terminated by their leaders.
Job satisfaction
Interview responses with leader participants also indicated that the use of the participative
management in their divisions had a significant effect on the level of job satisfaction
experienced by employees. Tarno (aged 50–59), Head of Academic Division in University
F, explained: “It seems that they were motivated because their ideas are incorporated into
decision making and these ideas are used in the managerial process, and their performance
was appreciated.” He reported that staff attendance during office hours was high, and
academic services were carried out enthusiastically. These observations illustrate the way
that the use of PM can generate a sense of ownership in employees‟ work which enhances
job satisfaction.
Budi (50–59), Head of General Administration Division from University F, argued: “To
motivate employees we regularly include them in staff trainings ... Especially for the
support staff, they must be trained on how to carry out routine activities or tasks
adequately.”
A supportive relationship between leader and employee, and appreciation of the
achievements of the employees, have been regarded as strategic through participative
329
management in order to increase the level of job satisfaction among the employees. This
could include the use of incentives schemes, such as non-economic rewards, to build high
job satisfaction. These techniques were practised by some heads of division including Eka
(University A), Purba (University B), Aisah (University C), and Ratna (University D).
Economic rewards were provided in the forms of the improved economic welfare, fringe
benefits, and bonus for better performance. The non-economic rewards were provided in
terms of certificates as the acknowledgement and thanks for individual and group
achievement, which were directly expressed by the leaders. It is worth noting, that the use
of these strategies is acceptable within the broad concept of the participative management
system. They may characterise organisational efforts designed to foster high job
satisfaction.
10.3.4 Influence of participative management on employee performance behaviour
Question 4:
How does participative management influence employee performance behaviour in
terms of organisational commitment, quality customer service, and withdrawal
behaviour?
The responses generated from the interviews with the twelve leader participants indicated
that the participative management system used in their divisions generally had significant
effects on employee performance behaviour. The responses are categorised in three main
themes as follows.
Organisational commitment
The discussion with Ratna (aged 30–39), Head of Administrative Division from University
D, revealed that the managerial behaviour demonstrated by her leader at the faculty level
encouraged her and all members at her division to work for the best for the organisation.
This leader motivated all staff through an internalization process, to ensure the staff
perform their tasks voluntarily and honestly. She said, “In practice, the use of this approach
as one of the participative management characteristics influences the commitment of our
employees.” She elaborated her idea:
330
On average, they show high organisational commitment ... Although this is a private
university, the employees have demonstrated strong motivation to work here. Such behaviour is probably supported by the way leaders motivate the employees to ensure the
jobs that are assigned to them are amanah (responsible and honest). This is relevant to the
religious principles underpinning the establishment of this university.
The conversation with Eka (aged 50 -59), Head of Administrative Division in University A
indicated that her employees‟ commitment was strongly influenced by the way she valued
the role of the employees, and encouraged employees to pursue better careers through
education and training programs. Central to the successful models of PM in this study is
leaders‟ concern for staff careers‟ development.
The strongest motivator of employees in performing their task probably related to a
favourable organisational culture created under the participative management system. It
was argued by Purba (aged 40–49), Head of Administrative Division Faculty of Education
in University B, that the way leaders concerned themselves with employees‟ career (as
well as their professional development, and the value of their work and achievements),
made the employees found the organisation inspiring them to do the best for their jobs.
The effect of the leadership on the improved organisational commitment was also
experienced in University E. When asked how the participative management system
effected organisational commitment of the employees, Zaini (aged 50–59), Head of
Personnel Management in this university, claimed that this style contributed positively to
staff performance. He used a persuasive approach to ensure the commitment of his staff to
the university and the educational mission of the country. It was an evident that this
strategy significantly improved staff commitment. He explained:
I assure my employees that the success of this division in providing personnel administrative
services to the university requires their highest contributions. This needs their dedication at
work as the first priority. Our university has set up the goals and performance criteria to determine how organisational activities succeed in achieving these goals. It is evident, the
employees showed their consistency to perform their best to help this university to pursue
these goals, and they are proud to work at this division.
Comparable responses were provided by Maya (aged 40–49), Head of Academic Division
and Cooperation from University B. She convincingly explained that under the
participative management, her employees demonstrated high commitment to their jobs:
331
I have currently employed participative management in this division by incorporating the
ideas and initiative from the employees ... It seems in general that employees always strive to perform and complete their tasks referring to its target. It is evident that they demonstrate
their highest contributions to provide academic services to university clients as properly as
possible. For example, we have just employed a new system, online student enrolment. The
employees showed their strong motivation to put in a great deal of efforts to enable this system to work properly in order to make the enrolment process successful.
To sum up, employee commitment to the organisation was maintained by the
administrative leaders through motivational approaches. They managed people in a manner
where the employees had more access to enhance their skills, competencies, and thus
ensured their career prospects considerably improved.
Quality customer service
Since participative management facilitates the empowerment of employees to accomplish
the tasks, Purba (University B) observed that his employees generally strove hard to
provide effective administrative services to students, lecturers and other clients
professionally. Harry (aged 50–59), Head of General Administration from University C
said:
Employees in this division preferred the participative organisational climate that has been
created in this division ... It is evident that most employees are happy to perform their jobs ... I observed regularly ... they showed their readiness to provide general administrative services
to sivitas akademika (clients) of this university including students, lecturers, and non-
academic staff who need to use the facilities owned by this university.
He emphasised the way that he interacted informally and personally with the employees to
maximise their contribution to provide the best services to all clients of the university.
Similarly, Aisah, the Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Economics from
the same University, said: “the more confident our attitude towards the employees, the
higher the motivation of the employees to provide quality customer services in this
university.”
Another reason why the employees strove to perform well was explained by Tarno, Head
of Academic Division from University F. “I always encourage my employees to maintain
quality academic services.” In the end, according to him, it enabled the university to
provide better rewards in terms of income and quality of work life of the employees.
332
Furthermore, Johan (aged 50–59), Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of
Economics from University A emphasised that the university as an organisation needed to
provide high quality services to its clients, in order to be able to compete with other
enterprises.
Employee withdrawal behaviour
In terms of employee withdrawal behaviour, the interviews with the leader participants
indicated that the participative management style employed in the divisions significantly
lowered levels of employee withdrawal. This suggests that the participative style created a
favourable organisational climate where the employees were willing to stay with the
current jobs.
The interview conversations with Harry (aged 50–59) as the Head of General
Administration at the bureau level in University C, and with Johan, Head of Administrative
Division in University A, indicated that the supportive relationship that had been built in
their divisions through participative management system, including the participative
decision making process, fostered positive employee work attitudes towards work. The
employees generally performed their tasks enthusiastically, and they showed limited
intention to find other jobs or to move to other institutions.
This was also the experience of Haris, the Head of Administrative Division in University D
who claimed:
Organisational environments, where there are good relationships between the leader and
employees and among the staff, contributed to the effectiveness of management of this division in providing administrative services for this university ... the employees seemed
very happy to undertake their tasks with full responsibility.
Since the employees accepted their incumbent tasks and carried out those tasks diligently,
it appeared that the employees were unlikely to move or to look for other jobs.
The participation of the employees in term of their attendance during office hours was
consistently reported in the interviews as high. For example, Harry (aged 50–59), as the
Head of General Administration at the bureau level in University C, said: “The attendance
of employees at this division on average is about 90%.” Purba, Head of Administrative
333
Division at the Faculty of Education from University B, confirmed, “The employees at this
division showed high participation. It was indicated by their presence during office hours
from 7 am to 3 pm. Even if there are additional tasks that must be carried out beyond office
hours, they are happy to perform those tasks.”
The responses provided by Tarno, Head of Academic Division from University F
supported this evidence. He said: “In terms of their attendance, I am confident in saying
optimal, optimal ... If I may use Java terminology (SAFARI-PPTIK UGM, 2008) to
describe this context: nyambut gawe bareng-bareng, rejeki bareng-bareng.” This implies
that he had successfully built a strong organisational climate, which valued the essence of
teamwork. He ensured his employees that any benefits produced from this teamwork
would positively impact all members of the division.
Haris (aged 50–59), Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Engineering from
University D, claimed that his employees regularly worked between 7 to 8 hours. Another
example was given by Aisah, Head of Administrative Division at the Faculty of Economics
from University C, “The higher my trust in employees, the lower their withdrawal
behaviour in this division... They work voluntarily from 7 am and sometimes until 5 pm.
This is because of the internal motivation that has been built into this participative style of
decision making.” It can be concluded that the working atmosphere built through the
participative style ensured that employees strove to work with discipline or dedication to
provide their highest contribution to the success of the university.
10.3.5 Factors determining the effectiveness of participative management
Question 5:
What are the factors that may influence the effectiveness of participative management in
this division?
The analysis of interview data with leaders revealed three sets of factors which influenced
the effectiveness of participative management: organisational, financial, and individual.
334
Organisational
With regard to organisational factors, leaders reported three issues that influenced the
effectiveness of participative management as follow.
First, the way leaders communicated and interacted with people affected their success in
building human relationships and trust in themselves as leaders. When asked what factors
might influence the effectiveness of PM, Ratna (aged 30–39), a female leader from
University D, said: “Institutional factors ... especially how leaders build good
communication with employees.” She viewed this factor as one that could strongly
motivate people in performing organisational activities especially in her division. Harry
(aged 50 - 59), Head of General Administration in University C agreed:
I emphasise the use of a persuasive approach when communicating with people in the
managerial process. Probably this is a significant organisational factor that determined the
success of this administrative leadership. If the leader is ready to go down to interact directly with people at bottom level for example ... I am sure the management of this division is
successful.
His division has responsibility to provide general administrative services for the
university‟s clients. These include building and facility management, security,
transportation, and landscape management. According to Harry, it was evident that the
effectiveness in communication and interaction ensured that his employees worked to do
their best to produce quality services.
This was confirmed by Haris, Head of Administrative Division in University D, who
suggested that when leaders have successfully established mutual and good human
relationships, they are able to grow trust and confidence among the employees. He said:
As a new leader in this division, first I felt unconfident to perform my role as the head of
division in this office. However, when I found the leader of this faculty friendly interacted with me and with other staff members, I am happy to work here and enjoy my new position
as the Head of Division in this office.
Similarly, Maya, Head of Academic Division in University B, pointed out: “.... such a
strategy creates a conducive environment where employees are able to work in an
enjoyable situation with no serious conflicts that may decrease work motivation ...” As
335
expected by leaders, this approach increased the staff morale, which in turn lead to high
performance in providing administrative services to the students as the clients.
Second, leaders‟ interview comments indicated that the implementation of participative
management needed appropriate job design and clear operational guidelines where the
delegation process of role and work to employees was supported by clear job designs and
operational procedures. Purba, Head of Administrative Division from University B, for
example, said:
To enable this division to manage these people, this division introduced a guideline, which clearly describes, for example, policies, organisational structure, employee roles, tasks,
employee‟s rights and responsibilities. We, then, collaboratively designed the programs,
breaking down these programs into specific tasks, and developing work schedules in order to implement these activities addressing the university policies.
This conversation revealed that employees who were provided with clear job description
and operational procedure were able to participate effectively in organisational activities.
The reasons were that they had sufficient knowledge of organisational objectives and knew
how to perform their tasks. The individual capacity of employees grew considerably. This
in turn drove their maximum contribution to the organisations in accomplishing its
mission.
Third, organisational size was found to influence team performance. Johan, Head of
Division in University A, reported that currently his university had developed to become
the largest institution in the region. The increased number of students and staff, meant an
increased workload. Administration at university level was more bureaucratic because it
had established more hierarchies, as well as departments and levels, to deal with more
demanding jobs and time constraints. As a result, the involvement of staff especially in
decision making, tended to be difficult, due to the complexities of the activities and issues
being handled by organisational units. Leaders had less opportunity to manage employees
individually, and tended to use less participative management. For their part, staff
members lacked the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the demanding jobs.
336
Such a situation challenged him to provide a better strategy to maintain team contribution.
He enhanced the role of sub divisions (units) under his division to perform specific tasks
and independently controlled their progress. To ensure this system worked properly, those
units were provided with detailed information about what tasks needed to be implemented
and how. Standards of performance appraisal for group and individual progress were also
included to support the system. He promoted cooperative efforts, supervised team and
individual performance, and provided individual and group feedback. Within this system,
his leadership effectively influenced the employees‟ participation in activities. To sum up,
despite the university‟s increase in size, his implementation of participative management in
his office still offered competitive advantage to deal with the changing demands to provide
better services to university stakeholders.
Financial rewards
There was some evidence in the interviews that limited financial resources for supporting
staff welfare could be negatively influencing staff motivation. To ensure this situation did
not act as a deterrent to staff morale, participative management was seen as an
empowerment technique, through involving people, for example, in decision-making
processes. It enabled leaders to maintain team contribution to the organisation in
conditions of financial constraint. This was evident in the comments of Aisah (University
C) who said,
The most dominant factor is financial rewards in terms of salary or bonus that may be earned
by employees from their jobs. ... While, in fact, their income is at a minimum level. I frankly
say that one of the reasons they may work here is to support their welfare ... However, I tell them that it is not the only factor they pursue as employees, especially for those employed
temporarily.
However, she argued that the participative organisational climate built in to the
organisational units was able to counter the effects of this condition. Within the mutual
communication and human empowerment of the participative management process, these
leaders successfully built good human relationships, and effectively encouraged employees
to perform their tasks voluntarily. This was because the participative leaders acknowledged
their efforts with respect and dignity. They assured the employees that those jobs were the
part of their personal commitment as good citizens. At the same time, they showed their
337
appreciation of individual and group achievements. The use of participative management
style thus strengthened and maintained staff motivation, even in such disadvantageous
conditions.
Individual
The interviews with the Heads of Divisions, identified individual employee and leader
factors that influenced the effectiveness of participative management.
Focusing on the employee element, Aisah (University C) reported that the less-experienced
and skilled employees in her office affected the delegation process in the PM. She argued it
was necessary to consider this experience and skill in organising staff. It helped leaders in
placing employees in workplaces, and in delegating the jobs to employees.
With regard to skills, Johan and Eka from University A reported that organisations which
lacked skilled employees tended to have difficulties in competitive situations, especially in
providing services to customers. Johan (University A) argued, “To maintain the
effectiveness of management in undertaking administrative services, employees must have
high capacities especially sufficient administrative skills. Thus, we need to assign them to
participate in programs, „on the job trainings‟, aimed to enhance their capacities as the
employees.”
Conversations with Zaini and Mosa from University E and Aisah from University C
focusing on the leader element indicated that the role model provided by a leader was the
most important factor that determined management effectiveness in university system,
especially at division level. One possible explanation for this was that the process of
human empowerment depended on how leaders influenced subordinates to fully engage in
organisational activities. Employees voluntarily supported their leaders, when their leaders
demonstrated honourable behaviour, and were trusted by people. To motivate employees to
maximise their efforts and to be disciplined at work, the leaders had to demonstrate that
they also worked hard, and were high disciplined persons. Aisah stated:
338
The leader at this faculty likes to work hard. He regularly works in this office until late or
beyond office hours. Thus, the employees in this faculty are unlikely to go home earlier because they are shamed by their leader. The employees become familiar with this climate,
in turn it has positively influenced employees‟ motivation.
With regard to this evidence, Mosa pointed out: “the spirit showed by a leader is an
important capital for an effective management ... because people would see their leader as
the role model. If their leader performed better, the employees would follow this
behaviour.” This was confirmed by Zaini (University E), who posited: “The leadership
process is mostly related to the role factor of leaders. To obtain effective management,
leaders must be able to show their high dedication to their subordinates. This will be
emulated by the subordinates.” From such conversations, this study concluded that the
ability of leaders to demonstrate their positive behaviour supported them in creating a
working atmosphere where employees had trust in their leaders. This in turn fostered high
levels of employee performance.
Finally, Tarno (University F) claimed:
The effectiveness of participative management depends on the way leaders use appropriately
the leadership styles. Leaders must be familiar with individual and organisational context
where they carry out this leadership function. They choose the appropriate styles to lead people referring to this context.
This implies that the effectiveness of management depended on how leaders valued the
characteristics of employees with whom they worked. Different people could request
different strategies to ensure the managerial process was effective. Management were
successful when leaders recognised in what situations a particular style was most effective
and understood how this style could be implemented by addressing the differing
characteristics of individual employees.
10.4 Summary
The views expressed by the 25 employees interviewed for the most part matched with the
comments of the 12 leaders interviewed. In the majority, these participants explained that
their workplace was characterised by the principles of participative management, and that
339
the expected outcomes of this management style, at individual employee and
organisational levels, were achieved.
For the most part, the interview data provided important insights and understanding of
what the results of the quantitative analysis meant in practice in the context of the six
Indonesian universities concerned. It should be recognised, that the analysis in this chapter
aimed to use the qualitative data to illustrate the trends from quantitative findings. There
was no scope whether this thesis to provide a comprehensive analysis of the views of the
small number of respondents interviewed in relation to their specific university contexts.
Overall, however, only a few interviewees reported difficulties or negative experiences
where leaders or employees were not behaving according to expectations. The full
significance of the qualitative findings is made more apparent in the discussion of the
conclusions to this study in the next chapter.
340
Chapter Eleven
Discussion and Conclusion
11.1 Achieving the Research Aims
This study sought to examine employee and leaders‟ perceptions about the use of
participative management style and its relationships with employee performance
behaviour. The study addressed the main research question: what are the perceptions of
employees and leaders about the use of participative management style and its
relationships with employee performance behaviour especially in relation to organisational
commitment, quality of customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour?
Based on previous studies and research, it was argued that PM has an impact on both
performance behaviour and work attitude (Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002). Many
studies have linked this management style with the various elements of attitude to work
(i.e. sense of self-reliance or self-autonomy in the job, meaningfulness of task, the feeling
of security in the job, job satisfaction) and individual performance behaviour (i.e.
organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and the level of withdrawal
behaviour) (Yukl, 2002). However, not many studies have integrated these elements into a
single model, with little agreement about the relationships between the variables (Yukl,
2002) and not many studies have accounted for the situational factors (Sashkin, 1984).
Most of the previous assessment of the effectiveness of the participative management has
had a leader or organisational focus (Angermeier, et al., 2009), rather than, looking at both
employee and leader perspectives. Furthermore, many findings have not provided clear
explanations about the directions of the associations between this PM style and the key
variables. This study sought to address these gaps in previous research.
A mixed methods design was used to carry out the study. Both quantitative and qualitative
data were collected, the first through survey questionnaires and the second by interviews.
For the quantitative measures, the current study developed and validated a number of
scales related to Participative Management and Employee Performance (PMEP). The
scales were the multidimensional participative management (PM), organisational culture
341
(ORG), employee work attitude (EWA), and employee performance behaviour (EPB).
These scales were initially validated by reference to the employees‟ responses, and used
for both the employee and leader samples. CFA procedures and Rasch model were used to
validate the scales. The qualitative data were gathered using interview protocols developed
for both employees and leaders. The results generated from this research model were used
to uncover the relationships among the research variables involved in the study.
The findings of this study are discussed forthwith in relation to the research questions and
the objectives of the study advanced in Chapter One. The aim was to reveal the
relationships among the research variables including PM, EWA, EPB, organisational, and
individual factors. The quantitative results pertaining to these relationships are discussed
and compared with the evidence from previous research found in the literature review.
Results from the qualitative analysis are discussed to enrich the findings and enable the
drawing of conclusions. The chapter also identifies the limitations and implications of the
study, as well as directions for future research. The concluding discussion relates the key
findings to the research model (see Figure 3.7).
11.2 The Effects of Participative Management on Employee Work
Attitude
In relation to the first research sub-question (see section 1.4), this study demonstrated that
the implementation of participative management (PM) in an administrative unit influenced
the employee work attitude (EWA), specifically in relation to self-autonomy, having
meaningful tasks, feelings of security and job satisfaction. The results also showed that
these positive employee work attitudes had direct effects on employee performance
behaviour (EPB), in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer services, and
lower rates of employee withdrawal behaviour. The discussion below outlines the main
findings which justify the first part of this conclusion (the influence of PM on EWA),
while the second part (the influence of EWA on EPB) is considered in the next section.
342
The quantitative findings of this study confirm the relationships between participative
management and employee work attitude. A single level path analysis at employee level
found a strong and direct effect of PM on employee work attitude in terms of the
endogenous variables self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of security, and job
satisfaction. These results are in keeping with those reported by Sashkin (1984) in relation
to the variables used; Miller and Monge (1986) on employee satisfaction; Hackman and
Oldham (1980) for Job Characteristic Model; by Haslam et al. (2009); Jackson (1983) and
Sashkin (1984) in relation to being part of an organisational team; and by T.-C. Huang and
Hsiao (2007) and Tuuli and Rowlinson (2009) for PM influence on employees‟ sense of
security and job satisfaction respectively.
The qualitative results also supported this finding by describing how the relationship
became manifest in practice. The majority of leaders and employees interviewed described
positively their experiences of leaders who had developed a supportive working
atmosphere through respecting employees‟ needs, values and varying skills. They also
provided an opportunity for employees to talk about teamwork and organisational issues
and to gain improved work skills. Such leaders also focused on effective human relations
and employed a two-way communication model (up, as well as down). As a result, the
employee developed high work motivation and a readiness to contribute to the success of
the organisation.
11.3 The effects of Employee Work Attitude on Employee Performance
Behaviour
In relation to the second part of the first sub-research question, the single level path
analysis at the employee level found that employee work attitude (EWA) had a direct
effect on employee performance behaviour (EPB), as indicated by arrows between the two
concepts in the research model (see Figure 3.7). Previous studies had emphasised the
effectiveness of management in providing a supportive working atmosphere and predicted
a higher level of performance behaviour demonstrated by employees working in such
conditions. Ugboro and Obeng (2000) had found that the quality of human relationships
343
between leaders and their followers had a strong impact on work performance. The
longitudinal analysis of a staff empowerment made by Laschinger et al. (2004) found that
organisations which fostered positive perceptions on management improved employees‟
work performance. The participative organisational climate experienced in the workplace
mediated the relationship between the effectiveness of leadership and employees‟
performance at work (Nielsen, Yarker, et al., 2008; Sashkin, 1984). Following the affective
model of the participative effects on the performance, it can be explained that employees
performed their best when they believed that their organisational leaders met their needs
(Miller & Monge, 1986) especially in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings
of job security, and job satisfaction. These qualities of EWA then directly influenced the
employees to pursue a higher level of performance at work.
The results obtained in the HLM analysis using both employee and leader data identified a
direct effect of EWA on EPB at the micro (employee) level. Interestingly, the strength of
this effect varied across the organisational units because it was moderated by the average
level of performance (EPBa) at the macro (leader) level. Thus, the effect of EWA was
stronger in those administrative units, where on average, employees perceived their own
performance to be at a high level. This finding was consistent with the initial results from
the single level path analysis showing that EWA directly and positively influenced EPB.
Few previous studies had access to these two levels of data.
Evidence from the interview participants indicated that the use of PM style to enhance
EWA improved employees‟ performance in their divisions because it successfully
motivated the employees to work. It effectively promoted an organisational atmosphere
that respected individual values, needs, and different skills. Employees had the opportunity
to improve their skills, and to talk about their jobs and organisational issues. Leaders also
collaboratively worked with employees to explore solutions to the issues. Such working
conditions fostered high staff morale, job satisfaction, commitment to the job, improved
individual skills, and established broad engagement in organisational activities.
344
11.4 The effects of Participative Management on Employee Performance
Behaviour
The study results in relation to the second sub-research question (see section 1.4) showed
that participative management (PM) did influence employee performance behaviour
(EPB), specifically in relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service
and employee withdrawal behaviour, including absenteeism and turnover. The details of
these findings are discussed below.
The path analysis at both levels found that PM had a significant association with EPB in
terms of the higher level of organisational commitment, the quality of customer service,
and lower withdrawal behaviour. However, the results showed that this association was
mediated by employee work attitude (EWA). In other words, the findings recorded that PM
had only an indirect effect on EPB, being preceded by the change of EWA in the
workplace. Nevertheless, this finding indicated that the perceived level of PM positively
influenced the increased level of EPB. This is consistent with the studies by Spreitzer et al.
(1997) and Huang and Hsiao (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007) as well as (Likert, 1967; Yukl,
2002) who suggested that the use of PM in organisations was related to improved work
behaviour of employees but did not clearly indicate whether the association was direct or
indirect. Other studies had found that the effects of PM on EPB were mediated by EWA
(Sashkin, 1984; Steinheider, et al., 2006). The employees who had favourable attitudes
demonstrated a higher level performance at work. Thus, PM increased the performance
behaviour by promoting the organisational atmosphere where employees could obtain
satisfactory conditions or rewards through those EWA factors (Hackman & Oldham, 1980;
G. R. Jones & George, 2006).
HLM analysis, however, found PM at the individual level had a direct and positive effect
on EPB. The different effect was due to the fact that single level path model reduced the
amount of variance, while the HLM procedure improved the estimation of individual
effects (Darmawan, 2003), which could lead to inflated variance. The multilevel analysis
technique led to the conclusion that there was considerable variance across organisational
units in the respective variables (PM, EWA, EPB, individual and organisational factors).
345
These factors were assumed to interact with the effects of the predictors on the outcome
variable at the micro level. This implies that the interventions at the macro (leader) level to
empower the employees using PM could have an impact on employees‟ performance in
terms of commitment, quality of customer service, and lower withdrawal behaviour at the
micro (employee) level. Surprisingly, this study identified that the perceived participative
behaviour at the macro level positively influenced the perceived level of EPB at the micro
or individual level. This effect was produced through the interaction between the average
level of participative management (PMa) at the macro level and the age of employee at the
micro level. In organisational units, where on average employees perceived high level of
PM, the effect of age of employee on EPB was stronger (see Figure 9.3).
Interestingly, by incorporating contextual factors for the data HLM analysis, this study also
found that the average age of employees at the macro level of organisational units or
divisions influenced the effects of PM on EPB at the micro level. The negative coefficient
of the interaction effect between the average age and PM indicated that the effect of PM
was stronger in the units where on average the age of employees was younger. The
implication is that the PM style was more acceptable to young employees. Compared with
other styles (i.e. autocratic and directive styles), this style effectively accommodated young
employees‟ expectations, values, ideas, and individual strengths. This ensured young
employees pursued a higher level of performance.
The results of the HLM analysis indicated that the PM style positively and directly
influenced EPB, but that this direct effect was comparatively small. This was consistent
with the meta-analytic study of Wagner (1994) who concluded that PM had direct and
significant effects on employee performance, but of small dimensions. Other studies found
the participative style significantly influences employee‟s performance generally (Cotton,
et al., 1988; Somech & Wenderow, 2006; Yukl, 2002), or in relation to organisational
commitment (Laschinger, et al., 2004; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday, 1999), or good
citizenship behaviour (Eisenberger, et al., 1990; G. R. Jones & George, 2006), or lower
levels of turnover and absenteeism (Angermeier, et al., 2009; T.-C. Huang, 1997; Miah &
Bird, 2007).
346
The direct effect of PM is in line with the cognitive model (Miller & Monge, 1986). When
employees are provided with the relevant information about the nature of their work and
how it was to be implemented, and then included in important organisational activities and
decision making, they are more likely to work independently and responsibly in ways that
contribute to the organisations‟ success. In contrast, some studies reporting the positive
effects of PM on EPB have made reference to intervening factors (Likert, 1967; Sashkin,
1984), the inducement of trust (Hargreaves & Fink, 2008; Harris & Spillane, 2008; X.
Huang, et al., 2010) or to the psychological state of employee and the relationship between
leaders and employees (Andrews & Crowther, 2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). The results of
this study clearly indicate that the strongest effect of PM on EPB came indirectly through
what this research model called EWA.
The qualitative analysis supported the quantitative finding in relation to the second
research sub-question. The interview discussions revealed that most employees and leaders
considered that the use of PM resulted in a high level of employee performance in terms of
commitment to the organisation, services to the customer, and lower levels of withdrawal
behaviour in organisational units. Leader participants pointed to the importance of
motivating their employees through opportunities for professional development which
helped to ensure better career prospects. Most leaders considered that they consistently
used a participative style, but a few acknowledged that they needed to adopt other
approaches with some subordinates. The majority of employees interviewed reported that
where leaders used PM to build individual employees‟ capacities by developing their
talents, initiatives, ideas and skills, their level of work performance increased. A few
employees claimed that their leaders tended to use an autocratic style, or combination of
autocratic and participative approaches, which did not result in productive work patterns.
In summary, the qualitative findings supported the quantitative findings about the effect of
PM on employee performance by showing how they were actually experienced in the work
context. Individual building capacity and supportive organisational atmosphere were found
to serve as the core elements to the success of the PM in improving employees‟
347
performance behaviour in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer
service, and decreased employee withdrawal behaviour in the workplace.
11.5 The effects of Organisational Factors on Employee Perceptions of
Participative Management
The third of the research sub-question (see section 1.4) dealt with situational factors of the
organisational level. The discussion that follows deals with the first part of the question
related to PM. The influence of organisational factors on employee performance behaviour
(EPB), which was raised in the second part of the question, is dealt with in the next section.
Of the four organisational factors considered, university status, university size, and
organisational culture had significant effects on the employees‟ perceptions of participative
management (PM). Only university age had no significant effects. The three significant
factors are discussed below.
University status
This study confirmed the relationship between university status (whether government or
private) and perceptions about the use of PM. Employees in government and private
universities reported differently about the level of PM practised in their workplace. The
employees from government universities tended to perceive a high level of participative
management implemented in their workplaces. On the other hand, the employees from
private universities more often reported lower levels of PM in their workplace. Through
PM, this university status factor also had an indirect association with the perceived work
attitude, indicating employees in the government universities had a more positive attitude
towards their jobs than those who were in the private universities. Although in some
studies, organisation status (private/public) was found not related with the management
behaviour (Zhang, et al., 2011), other studies identified the effect of management strategies
varied between private and public organisations (Pereira & Osburn, 2007). This is also in
line with Contingency Theory which assumes that certain situational factors influence the
effectiveness of management by weakening or strengthening individual perceptions about
348
the effects of the participative management styles applied in the workplace (Fiedler, 1981;
Sashkin, 1984). As a consequence of the influence of this organisational status, studies
conducted by Zeffane (1994) and Ferreira and Hill (2008) found that management styles
were perceived differently by employees in both government and private sectors.
The qualitative results also supported this finding, where employees in the government
universities reported more effective use of participative management than in the private
ones.
University size (in terms of the number of permanent employees)
This study found that university size influenced employee perceptions on the level of PM
implemented in the workplace. Previous studies had found, that organisational size had
relationships with the perceived management effectiveness (Champoux, 2003; Pelled &
Hill, 1997; Vaccaro, et al., 2012) and the level of employee involvement (Cabrera, et al.,
2003). The small negative effect recorded in this study indicated that employees in smaller
universities reported a high level of PM implemented in their organisation. This finding
was consistent with the trend revealed in other studies (Robbins, et al., 2006; Yukl, 2002).
It can be explained by the fact that larger organisations have to engage with a greater
number of issues and activities, managers probably have limited time and skills to support
all their tasks (Vaccaro, et al., 2012). To cope with this challenging situation, leaders in
large organisations use a more bureaucratic approach and tend to employ less participative
management (Robbins, et al., 2006; Yukl, 2002), while small organisations, like some of
the private universities in this study are less bureaucratic. This finding should not be
misinterpreted. It does not mean that PM is only effective in small organisations, rather it
implies that PM can be effectively employed in large organisations, provided that its
implementation is properly designed (Sashkin, 1984). Leaders must ensure that
management fulfils individual needs, and uses group ideas and initiatives to solve
organisational problems and does not become bureaucratically hierarchical.
349
Organisational culture
The quantitative findings showed that organisational culture within the administrative units
directly influenced perceptions of PM. Where employees regarded organisational culture
as strong, particularly in relation to its supportive form, they perceived a high level of PM
being implemented in the workplace. Similarly, path analysis and HLM results
demonstrated the strong influence that organisational culture had on employee
performance behaviour.
These results can be understood if organisational culture is characterised as the way
individuals behave within the work situation, particularly the way they relate to others both
inside and outside the organisation (Wallach, 1983). In other words, organisational culture
can be seen to effect the quality of the working atmosphere experienced by members of the
organisation (Gibson, et al., 2006). In contrast, the study conducted by Reimann (1975)
demonstrates that structural factors of organisations (which could be expected to produce
their cultures) were not strongly related to perceived management effectiveness. However,
the finding from the present study in relation to PM is in line with contingency theory that
perceived leader behaviour is likely to be dependent on the organisational conditions
created by the leaders (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Fiedler, 1964, 1981; T.-C. Huang, 1997;
Yukl, 2002).
The qualitative analysis of the interviews provided useful insights into the influence of
organisational culture on PM. Although the term itself was not used, many of the
discussion did focus on human relations in their organisation. A number of employees
claimed that where leaders were concerned with human values in the communication
process, they were successful in building supportive human relationships. The way leaders
communicate with their subordinates can often be seen as a direct reflection of the
organisational culture. In such contexts, the organisational culture would be a positive
influence on the implementation of PM. The comments of a few respondents from one of
the private universities where PM was perceived as not being effectively implemented
illustrated the converse effect. There had been no apparent attempt to build up an
organisational culture that could support the PM strategy, supposedly adapted by leaders.
350
Organisational objectives, specific job descriptions, performance indicators and operational
procedures were not available to support employees and help them understand and
contribute to the organisational objectives of the university.
11.6 The effects of Organisational Factors on Employee Perceptions of
Employee Performance Behaviour
In response to the second part of the third research sub-question, the results indicated that
all four organisational factors considered in this study had significant effects on employee
performance behaviour (EPB), as discussed below.
University age
The results of employee level path analysis identified a small but positive indirect effect of
university age on employee perceptions of EPB that employees in older universities tended
to have a higher perception of EPB than those from the young universities do. The most
likely explanation for this is that older universities in Indonesia, as well as elsewhere, are
more likely to have well-established management systems. They have adequate experience
in managing their organisational members. Such a situation is common in Indonesia, and
probably even in other countries. They have the capacity to implement personnel
management programs, and to financial support and individual rewards. Employees, who
are satisfied with these conditions, tend to have positive attitudes towards their jobs and
perform well. Although Tuuli and Rowlinson (2009) found no relationship between the age
of an organisation and the task or the contextual performance of employees, in other
studies of public and private organisations, the age factor has been found to have a
relationship with organisational effectiveness (Schlevogt, 2001), especially employee
performance at work, and specifically, lower rates of employee withdrawal behaviour (T.-
C. Huang, 1997). This indicates the longer the organisation has been established, the lower
the level of turnover and absenteeism. Thus, from this study, it can be concluded that the
history or the age of university is a situational factor that needs to be taken into account by
leaders implementing PM.
351
University status
This study found only a weak and indirect relationship between university status (in terms
of government and private) and perceptions about EPB, with employees in government
universities tending to perceive a higher level of EPB than those from private universities.
This finding was consistent with studies in other organisational sectors (Hooijberg & Choi,
2001; Zeffane, 1994), where employees in the government organisations were found to
have a more positive attitude towards their jobs, which could result in a higher level of
performance at work. The present study showed that, in the Indonesian context,
government universities are more advantaged with better support management and staff
performance than private institutions, chiefly because of the human resources, technology,
and financial support available in the government universities (DGHE, 2003; UNESCO,
2006). As a result, employees get more benefits, in terms of salary, individual economic
incentives, and work-related facilities. Within the Indonesian context, the private
universities often have very limited resources to improve and maintain the effectiveness of
the university management. These factors explain the more negative perceptions of
employees in private institutions and the more positive responses of those in government
universities (Welch, 2007).
This finding was illustrated in the qualitative data. A few participants from two of the
private universities were not satisfied with the small income and economic rewards staff
received. They reported that this was due to the lack of financial resources and limited
facilities available for management in their institution.
University size
This study found that the size of a university had a small negative relationship with
employees‟ perceptions about EPB. This suggested that employees in small universities
tended to perceive a higher level of EPB in terms of organisational commitment, quality of
customer service, and lower withdrawal behaviour. The implication is that leaders in small
university organisations were able to more effectively employ participative management
strategies and assist their staff members to fully engage with their work. This in turn
352
yielded high levels of performance in the workplace. Some previous studies have found
that the size of organisations had a negative relationship with the effectiveness of
psychological empowerment, but a positive relationship with both contextual and task
behaviour for example in providing quality customer services and accomplishing the tasks
according to the job descriptions (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009), and with organisational
commitment (Morris & Bloom, 2002). Although the coefficients obtained were quite
small, some studies have found that large organisations were positively associated with
high level of turnover (Pelled & Hill, 1997) and absenteeism (Porter & Steers, 1973).
However, caution is warranted in interpreting the effect of organisational size on
performance. The qualitative evidence from this study suggested that the size of
organisations, whether small or large did not automatically guarantee the effectiveness of
management. Success in managing staff mainly depended on how leaders organised
employees in relation to the diverse issues and activities, in order to ensure that all staff
members engaged in the specified work. Interview comments from those employed at
University A (the largest of the institutions included in the study) supported such a
phenomenon. They considered that having a large number of staff created more dynamic
organisational climate, which fostered team motivation, and indirectly increased staff
commitment to the organisations.
Organisational culture
This study found that organisational culture had a positive relationship with EPB in terms
of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and the level of employee
withdrawal behaviour. The results of the single level path analysis at employee level
showed that the organisational culture factor provided both a direct and an indirect effect.
Combining the two coefficients obtained in this association yielded a strong positive effect
on the outcome variable. This result was also confirmed in the HLM procedure where at
the macro (leader) level organisational culture directly affected EPB as the outcome
variable.
353
It is worth noting that this effect was identified only at the macro level and not detected at
the micro (employee level). This was due to the effects of the aggregation process. Some
information was possibly lost because a considerable amount of the variance of lower level
variables was reduced (Darmawan, 2003). Nevertheless, the use of this HLM procedure
allowed this study to examine the effect of this cultural factor at the organisational level
(Darmawan & Keeves, 2009; Morris & Bloom, 2002). The overall results from the two
procedures consistently explained that employees‟ perceptions of organisational culture in
their administrative units positively influenced their perceptions of EPB. The more
employees regarded the organisational culture as supportive, the higher their perceptions of
EPB.
This finding was consistent with previous studies of Lok and Crawford (2004) and
Easterby-Smith, et al. (1995). One possible explanation for this is that people interact with
environment, and bring their values into organisations (Wallach, 1983). Leaders who
understand and relate to the existing culture can build a supportive environment (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005; Yukl, 2002) where individuals can develop their skills, creativity, and
demonstrate innovative behaviour (Drucker, 2006). This enhances individual capacity,
which helps to achieve high performance in terms of commitment (Ferreira & Hill, 2008;
Lok & Crawford, 2004), quality customer service, and lower level of turnover and
absenteeism.(Key, 2000; Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2007)
The explanation above can be extended by referring to the theory of cultural relativity in
organisation and management (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede & Bond, 1988) in which the
wider societal culture influences how people value the management style as well as their
performance at work (Morris & Bloom, 2002),. The implication of this finding suggests
that leaders need to understand the dynamic nature of organisational culture (Bartol, et al.,
2002) and manage the context appropriately (Willcoxson & Millett, 2000).
354
11.7 Effects of Individual Factors on Perceptions of Participative
Management and Employee Performance Behaviour
In response to the fourth research sub-question (see section 1.4), the findings indicated that
age of employee was the only individual factor that influenced perceptions about both
participative management (PM) and the level of employee performance behaviour (EPB)
in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and employee
withdrawal behaviour. For this research question, the discussion of the first and the second
parts of the question follow one another.
Effects of age of employee on the perceptions of participative management
From the five individual factors examined in this study, namely gender, age, education,
employment level, and length of service, it was only age of employee that had an
association with the perceived level of PM. The findings showed that this age factor
provided an indirect and positive effect. Previous studies found that older employees
tended to perceive a higher level of PM being implemented by their leaders (Rodwell, et
al., 1998; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). This trend could be influenced by the age stereotype
underpinning the way managers led their subordinates (Rosen & Jerdec, 1976; Shore, et
al., 2003). Leaders were usually more confident in the abilities of older employees,
especially, for example, when assigning the staff to make decisions and to carry out the
strategic tasks. This age stereotypes, thus, could create an environmental climate where the
older employees had more access to participating in organisational activities than the
young employees (G. R. Jones & George, 2006). As a result, older employees provided a
higher appraisal of PM in their organisations, while younger employees with less
involvement were less positive towards PM.
Effects of age of employee on the perceptions of employee performance behaviour
The age of employee was also the only individual factor that had an association with the
perceived level of EPB. This factor had both a direct and an indirect effect at the employee
level path model, yielding a low but a positive effect, indicating that older employees
tended to perceive a higher level of EPB than younger employees. This finding is
355
somewhat different from a conclusion made by McEvoy (1989) based on his review of
previous studies. However, it is consistent with those conducted by Cotton and Tuttle
(1986). One possible explanation for this is that the older employees are more likely to
have steady and better positions than the young employees have. The length of tenure may
forge and strengthen the commitment and attachment on the jobs, encouraging the older
employees to perform their best for organisations.
The HLM procedure confirmed this effect at the micro (employee level). This implies the
older the age of employees, the higher their perception of performance behaviour in the
organisational context. However, the strength of this effect varied across the organisational
units at the leader level. For the organisational units where on average the perceived level
of employee performance was low, the effect of age was stronger; where the average level
of this performance was high, age had less effect. Overall, these findings are still consistent
with the results from the single level path analysis in demonstrating that the age of
employees influenced the perceived level of performance behaviour at work.
Additionally, the employee level path analysis identified that the age of employee had an
indirect and positive effect on the perceived work attitude. This indicates older employees
tended to reveal a higher perceived work attitude than young employees. This finding was
consistent with previous studies that found the effects of leadership on employee work
attitudes (i.e. example in terms of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job
security, and job satisfaction,) were perceived differently by employees depending on the
chronology of ages of both leaders and their subordinates (Gellert & Schalk, 2012). The
most probable explanation for this is that the older employees are more familiar with the
existing organisational culture, and have substantially more supportive relationships with
colleagues and leaders. Furthermore, they possibly had more access to economic and other
rewards from the organisational units where they were assigned. Consequently, they are
more satisfied with the working atmosphere. Gellert and Schalk (2012) also observed that
older employees also experienced better exchange relationships with their superiors
because they had enough skills to communicate with these people. This might mediate the
relationship between age and job satisfaction (Gellert & Schalk, 2012).
356
The qualitative analysis of interview data also indicated that the age of employees slightly
influenced the level of work attitude and performance. In most cases, senior or tenured
employees expressed higher commitment to their work than the young employees. It could
be argued that tenured employees had a more realistic view of their jobs and roles than the
young employees. Interview participants who had long term experience and service or
senior status referred to their stable positions, jobs, and rewards. As a result, their work
motivation was increased, and they had strong commitment to stay with the current jobs.
11.8 Differences in Leaders and Average Employees’ Perceptions about
the Use of Participative Management Style, Employee Work Attitude,
Employee Performance Behaviour, and their Relationships
In relation to the fifth research sub-question (see section 1.4), the findings indicated that
leaders and employees had different perceptions of the use of participative management
style and its effects on employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality of customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour.
The leader level path model, using a combined data set from both leader and employee
samples indicated that the way leaders perceived the use of participative management style
had an indirect effect on how they perceived the performance of their subordinates (in
terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and employee
withdrawal behaviour). This effect was mediated by the way leaders perceived employee
work attitude in terms of self-autonomy, the meaningfulness of task, the feeling of security
in the jobs, and job satisfaction. In other words, leaders perceived that the use of
participative management style could increase employee performance through the
improvement of work attitudes.
On the other hand, when employee perceptions on these three constructs were aggregated
to the leader level, it was found that the average level of participative management
implemented within a given unit, was not related to either the average level of performance
behaviour or employee work attitude. This was possibly due to lack of preparation,
357
inappropriate design, or insufficient attention to contingency factors which influenced the
effectiveness of management (Sashkin, 1984). Individual needs, initiatives, and skills were
not incorporated into the management process. Leaders failed to tap the real influence of
this management strategy on the average employees‟ work attitude and performance at the
leader level, namely organisational units.
These findings were consistent with the HLM results, showing the average level of
participative management, as perceived by the group of employees at the leader level, did
not have a direct effect on employee performance behaviour. However, this average level
of participative management in the HLM procedure moderated the effect of age on
employee performance behaviour. This means that the age effect was stronger in
administrative units where on average the employees perceived higher level of
participative style.
In conclusion, therefore, in leader level path analysis, it was found that there were no direct
associations between how the leaders perceived PM, EWA, and EPB, with the way the
employees on average perceived those three factors respectively. Caution is suggested in
interpreting this finding. Many researchers have pointed out that such different results are
most likely due to the aggregation process required in the leader level path analysis
(Darmawan, 2003). Some information from the lower level (employee) variables was lost
because of this aggregation step. Nevertheless, this procedure enabled a comparison of the
relationships among the variables in the employee and leader level path models.
These results were in line with previous studies that supported the possibility of different
perceptions from leader and employees (G. R. Jones & George, 2006; Vilkinas & West,
2011). Depending on what factors characterised the situation (Dorfman & House, 2004;
House & Mitchell, 1974), organisational members, such as leaders and employees at
different job level demonstrated their performance differently from what they expected of
each other (Yukl, 2002). This in turns, lead to different responses about the impact of the
management on performance behaviour (X. Huang, et al., 2010; Tuuli & Rowlinson,
2009).
358
Qualitative findings from the leader perspectives indicated that the participants generally
reported that PM had significant effects on performance behaviour including organisational
commitment, quality customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour as discussed in
previous sections. There were a few cases in the private universities where there was a
different in perceptions of PM, EWA, and EPB between the leaders and employees.
Although leaders generally spoke of their commitment to the PM style, some of their
employees described their experiences of what would be called autocratic style. Some
recognised that there were contextual factors (both individual and organisational factors)
which moderated the effectiveness of the management style being implemented. In
particular, the limited financial resources, facilities, and human capital capacity as negative
constraints in the situation of private universities.
The qualitative insights point to the usefulness of Contingency theory in understanding the
differences in perceptions between leaders and employees identified in the leader level
path analysis.
11.9 Differences in Perceptions of Participative Management in
Government and Private Universities
In relation to the sixth sub-research question (see section 1.4), this study found that
employee and leader perceptions about the use of participative management style and its
effects on employee performance slightly differed between government and private
universities.
The results from the employee level path model indicated that employees in the
government universities perceived a higher level of participative management (PM) being
implemented in their organisational units than those from the private universities. In other
words, the participative style characterised the government or public universities more than
the private ones. Similarly, the level of employee performance behaviour (EPB) was also
perceived to be higher in the government universities.
359
This trend was consistent with results at the leader level path model. On average,
employees in the organisational units of the government universities perceived the
participative management style to be higher than did employees in the administrative units
of private universities. However, based on the average values of employees‟ perception at
this leader level path analysis, the university status factor did not result in a significant
effect on the perceptions of performance behaviour. This was probably because of the
effect of the aggregation procedure involved in the analysis. On the other hand, results
from the leaders‟ sample in this leader level path model showed that leaders from the
government universities reported more use of participative management than leaders
employed in the private universities. This was in line with employees‟ perceptions shown
in the employee level-path analysis. Earlier studies that investigated the use of participative
management style in government organisations also supported this finding (Hooijberg &
Choi, 2001; Zeffane, 1994). Furthermore, it was consistent with situational theory (Fiedler,
1981; Sashkin, 1984), that contextual factors in organisations can influence how
management behaviour is practised and how individuals respond to the management
practice in their workplaces. Thus the effect of management strategies could be expected to
vary between private and public organisations (Pereira & Osburn, 2007).
The qualitative analysis confirmed this trend. Both the leaders and employees interviewed
from government universities described the implementation of PM, as they experienced it,
in more positive terms than those interviewed from private universities. There was a
comparable difference in comments on employee performance behaviour. A few
participants in the private universities reported that their leaders employed some aspects of
the autocratic leadership style. As a result, staff morale and organisational commitment
were quite low. The main reasons for this difference in perceived management style
between the government and private sectors could be seen to lie in the areas of managerial
capacity and resources available in some of private universities. In private universities
leaders were sometimes appointed on the basis of non-managerial expertise and
experiences. Recruitment for such positions could be influenced by the owner or the
founder of the institution, perhaps because of the appointees‟ roles in the society. This
situation was compounded by the limited resources, such as financial support, building
360
facilities, technology, and qualified staff in the private universities. These two factors had a
negative impact on work attitude and performance in the private universities. According to
the participants‟ views, compared with the private universities, the government universities
had considerable advantages.
The interview comments proved helpful in understanding the difference in perceptions in
the actual workplaces of government and private universities.
11.10 Limitations and Further Research
Though the present study significantly contributes to the development of knowledge in the
management and leadership areas, it has several limitations. First, the investigation focused
only on organisational units within the universities in one city in Indonesia. Consequently,
this procedure could be regarded as a constraint on the generalisability of its findings.
However, as the whole higher education system in Indonesia follows the same institutional
regulations, issued by the Indonesian government (Ministry of National Education
Indonesia, 2000), the way that universities are organised and operated is mostly uniform
throughout the country. Further research involving sample of universities across the whole
country is needed in order to confirm whether or not the participative style is associated
with employee performance behaviour in all parts of Indonesia. This strategy would also
provide researchers with a broader understanding of the participative management concept
for the theoretical development of management interventions in promoting staff and
organisational performance.
Second, the target of the study was limited to non-academic staff or administrative
employees (non-managerial and managerial employees) who were employed in
organisational units within the hierarchical system of the university organisations. The
conclusions regarding the effect of participative management in this study related only to
this group of participants. This study was not intended to generalise the effects of this
management style to the academic structures of universities or the broader community.
Further research needs to develop a model which includes a range of universities in the
South East Asian region and beyond. This would enable researchers to explore and
361
examine the effectiveness of participative management in improving the performance of
university governance, especially in dealing with the diverse people in organisational units
or academic structures.
Third, it is important to recognise that the effects of the participative management style on
employee performance behaviour which could be moderated by other situational factors
that were not included in this investigation. These include the socio-economic background
of employees, technology resources available, political and legal influences, and global
economic and media forces. To generate a more comprehensive set of finding, further
research should develop a model which includes these variables in examining the effects of
the participative management style on the employee performance behaviour.
11.11 Theoretical and Practical Implications
These findings lead to a number of theoretical and practical implications. Participative
management needs to be underpinned by the development of a multidimensional
perspective, and not perceived as a single dimension and not perceived as a single concept.
In this study, participative management was conceptualised as having seven dimensions
(leadership, motivation, interaction, communication, decision-making, goal setting, and
controlling). Leaders demonstrated their managerial capacity to improve employees‟
performance through these dimensions. The extent to which an organisation is perceived as
participative can be characterised by how far managerial behaviour is being enacted in
each of these dimensions.
The research model developed for this study also took into account the way in which the
effectiveness of the participative management style was influenced by situational factors,
arising at both the organisational and individual levels. The evidence of this research
showed that these situational factors could strengthen or weaken the effect of participative
management on employee performance. This finding represents an important contribution
to leadership theory. Leadership in participative management style is to be seen as a
situational process in which success depends on how leaders respond to the organisational
362
and individual factors which arise. Recognition of these situational factors makes the
relationship between participative management, employee work attitude and employee
performance even more complex. To comprehend the full scope of the participative
management style and how it relates to performance behaviour and work attitude, theorists
need to develop a conceptual framework which incorporates a range of dimensions and
situational factors. Research on this topic also needs to examine the relationships at
organisational, leader, and employee levels, rather than investigate it as an isolated
phenomenon, seen only from the single perspective of the leader.
The findings of this study, particularly those related to situational factors, also have some
practical implications. To achieve a high level of staff performance, leaders need to
implement a management system, which is supported by an effective organisation system,
staff development programs, and controls. The employees have to be well informed about
the organisational policies, programs, objectives, work schedule, jobs, roles, authority, and
responsibilities. This ensures the team members know what they have to do, how they
carry out their tasks, and what is the implication of their jobs. Within this setting,
organisational outcomes are most successful when leaders can influence or create a
working atmosphere where individuals develop positive work attitudes and achieve high
levels of performance. This fosters high staff morale, and, thus contributes to the
achievement of organisational excellence.
It was evident that the young employees perceived less participative climates, and reported
less positive work attitude and lower levels of performance, than older employees did. To
improve their performance, leaders, need to be familiar with their individual
characteristics, values, and expectations. Based on this knowledge, leaders can create a
working atmosphere that promotes greater involvement of young employees in
organisational activities.
In relation to the situational factor of university status, the results showed that the effects of
participative management were weaker in private universities. The style was not properly
implemented, and process not supported by operational guidelines and performance
standards. To ensure the effectiveness of participative management, people need to be
363
provided with substantial jobs, roles, authority, and clear working instructions so that all
the activities of the administrative staff lead to the achievement of organisational goals.
This is more difficult to achieve in private institutions with less resources and management
capacity.
11.12 Conclusion
This research study has contributed to the growing theory of management, especially in the
participative management field, in several ways. First, it provided parsimonious
measurement models which incorporated all the elements identified in the literature into
the fewest possible common factors (Hair, et al., 2010). Participative management included
the elements of leadership, motivation, interaction, communication, decision-making, goal
setting, and controlling. Organisational culture was structured to include these different
forms of organisational cultures: bureaucratic, supportive, and innovative. Employee work
attitude incorporated the following elements: self-autonomy, meaningfulness of task,
feeling of security in the job, and job satisfaction. Employee performance behaviour
included the elements: organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour. Such structures enabled the present study to examine
simultaneously the relationships between participative management as the exogenous
variable and its endogenous variables of employee work attitude and employee
performance behaviour. Second, it provided a clear explanation on how participative
management influenced employee performance behaviour, accounting for the situational
factors at organisational and individual level. Third, all these findings, were based on data
collected from both employee and leader respondents. The findings also provided a clear
indication of the direction of the associations among the variables involved in the study.
Moreover, the qualitative data from the interviews proved particularly useful. They
provided an understanding of how the various relationships in the research model were
actually experienced by the participants working in their administrative units in the six
Indonesian universities involved in this study.
364
Based on this model, this study recorded strong evidence for consistent and substantial
effects of participative management in achieving high levels of employee performance
behaviour in the workplace. This effect was achieved by both direct and indirect means.
The direct effects were obtained by building the individual capacity of the employees
through providing information about their work, unleashing their values, expectations,
ideas, initiatives, and skills and using them as input to the operation of the organisational
activities. The indirect effects were obtained through various ways of motivating
employees and enhancing their commitment to high levels of performance at work. In this
study these indirect effects were conceptualised as an endogenous variable, called
employee work attitude. Results of the single level path analyses from each employee and
leader responses showed that the indirect effects of participative management via
employee work attitude were much stronger than its single direct effect on the performance
shown in the HLM analysis. In addition, situational factors in the administrative units of
the various universities were found to significantly influence how effectively the
participative management style was implemented. However, this effect was noted mainly
in relation to organisational factors and only marginally for individual aspects. Overall, the
findings point to the usefulness of the research model in providing a more
multidimensional understanding of the way participative management can positively
influence employee performance behaviour.
365
Appendices
366
Appendix A
The Employees’ PMEP Questionnaire
367
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT
AND ITS RELATIONSHIPS WITH EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOUR:
A STUDY IN THE UNIVERSITY SECTOR IN MALANG INDONESIA
STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
(For employees)
A research by:
Mr. Burhanuddin
School of Education
The University of Adelaide
Supervised by:
Prof. Tania Aspland
Dr. I. Gusti Darmawan
Dr. Francisco Ben
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
368
Section One: General information
1. Name of University : ………………………………............……….………………
2. Your name (optional) : (Mr /Mrs /Ms/Title) …………..……………………..…..…..
3. Gender : Male Female
4. Age : 20 – 29
50 – 59
30 – 39
60-over
40 – 49
5. Employment level :
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
6. Highest education level :
Primary School
Junior Secondary School
Senior High School
Bachelor/Diploma
Undergraduate/S1
Magister/Master/S2
Doctor/PhD/S3
7. Name of division : Academic
Personnel administration
Facility administration
General administration
Student service
Finance
Other (if applicable)
8. Length of service :
0 – ½ yr
½ - 1 yr
1 - 2 yrs
2 - 3 yrs
3 - 5 yrs
5-10 yrs
> 10 yrs
Purpose of the questionnaire:
1. To identify how you perceive the participative management style that may be employed
in your office.
2. To explore your perceptions of the use of the participative management and its relation
to your performance behaviour in the workplace where you are assigned.
General directions:
1. Please read each question or statement carefully and answer as objectively as possible.
2. Give your responses on each item by ticking a number or a box [] that indicates the
degree to which you feel the question or the statement really describes the real condition
and corresponds with your perception.
3. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer on each item of the questionnaire.
4. If you make a mistake in your response, circle the error choice and tick another correct
answer.
Your participation in this research is greatly appreciated.
Thank you
369
Section Two: Perceptions on participative management behaviour and organisational
culture
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following behaviour of your immediate superior
[Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. Influences subordinates voluntarily 1 2 3 4 5
2. Influences subordinates honestly 1 2 3 4 5
3. Shows confidence and trust in subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
4. Shows supportive attitude towards
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
5. Discusses with subordinates about related
office works
1 2 3 4 5
6. Tries to create subordinates‟ confidence in
superior
1 2 3 4 5
7. Gets group ideas to find solutions for
organisational problems
1 2 3 4 5
8. Motivates subordinates through economic
rewards (e.g. salary, bonus, and other
financial benefits)
1 2 3 4 5
9. Motivates subordinates through group
participation
1 2 3 4 5
10. Shows favourable attitudes in motivating
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
11. Encourages subordinates to experience real
responsibility of job accomplishment
1 2 3 4 5
12. Shows cooperative attitude with
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
13. Shows high satisfaction on subordinates
achievements
1 2 3 4 5
14. Shows high satisfaction on the existence of
organisational members
1 2 3 4 5
15. Recognises subordinates for good work 1 2 3 4 5
370
Section Two (continued)
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
16. Communicates with each subordinate and
group
1 2 3 4 5
17. Provides information down, up, and with
peers
1 2 3 4 5
18. Initiates a downward communication with
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
19. The way my superior communicates is
accepted by subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
20. Upward information flows accurately 1 2 3 4 5
21. Provides information about work related
topics
1 2 3 4 5
22. Friendly interacting with subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
23. Interacts extensively with subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
24. Interacts with full confidence and trust 1 2 3 4 5
25. Initiates cooperative teamwork 1 2 3 4 5
26. Initiates subordinates‟ influences on the
operation of organisational activities
1 2 3 4 5
27. Involves all subordinates in the decision
making process
1 2 3 4 5
28. Provides accurate input information for
decision making process
1 2 3 4 5
29. Knows well organisational problems of all
levels
1 2 3 4 5
30. Knows well the job problems faced by
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
31. Encourages subordinates to implement the
decisions
1 2 3 4 5
32. Organises decision making based on group
needs
1 2 3 4 5
33. Establishes goals through group
participation
1 2 3 4 5
34. Involves all members in proposing
organisational goals
1 2 3 4 5
371
Section Two (continued)
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
35. Makes employees understand their role in
accomplishing organisational goals
1 2 3 4 5
36. Goals and programs are accepted by all
members
1 2 3 4 5
37. Encourages group members to strive for
high performance goals
1 2 3 4 5
38. Encourages all subordinates to participate
in the controlling process
1 2 3 4 5
39. Controlling process is based on accurate
information
1 2 3 4 5
40. Provides clear standards of control for the
jobs
1 2 3 4 5
41. Uses control data for self guidance of
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
42. Uses control data for coordination in solving
organisational problems
1 2 3 4 5
Please indicate on the scale below, the number that mostly corresponds with how you see the culture of your
organisation [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Not
true
Seldom
true
Occasionally
true
Somewhat
true
Very
true
43. Hierarchical 1 2 3 4 5
44. Procedural 1 2 3 4 5
45. Highly structured 1 2 3 4 5
46. Always in order 1 2 3 4 5
47. Power oriented 1 2 3 4 5
48. Encouraging creativity of the staff 1 2 3 4 5
49. Encouraging entrepreneurial skills 1 2 3 4 5
50. Stimulating for subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
51. Challenging for attaining a high performance 1 2 3 4 5
52. Providing collaborative condition 1 2 3 4 5
372
Section Two (continued)
Please indicate on the scale below, the number that mostly corresponds with how you see the culture of your
organisation [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Not
true
Seldom
true
Occasionally
true
Somewhat
true
Very
true
53. Relationship orientation 1 2 3 4 5
54. Informal relation or sociable 1 2 3 4 5
55. Considering personal freedom 1 2 3 4 5
56. High job security 1 2 3 4 5
57. Nurturing trust to each other 1 2 3 4 5
Section Three: Employee experience on self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job
security, and job satisfaction
Please indicate on the scale below, the number that mostly corresponds with how you feel or experience about
your current job in this division [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
58. I get much autonomy to decide on how I do
my work
1 2 3 4 5
59. The job gives me a chance to use my initiative 1 2 3 4 5
60. The job gives me freedom in how I do the work 1 2 3 4 5
61. This job gives me opportunities to try something
different
1 2 3 4 5
62. This job gives me opportunities to work
by myself
1 2 3 4 5
63. The work I do on this job is very meaningful
to me
1 2 3 4 5
64. Most of the things I have to do on this job seem
useful
1 2 3 4 5
65. People give me a high recognition for doing
this job
1 2 3 4 5
66. This job provides opportunities to work for other
employees
1 2 3 4 5
67. This job determines organisational success 1 2 3 4 5
68. Relationships among people encourage of feeling
of security
1 2 3 4 5
373
Section Three (continued)
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
69. This job gives me a secure future 1 2 3 4 5
70. I feel that this job is able to employ me
permanently
71. The way my superior manages people makes
me feel secure
1 2 3 4 5
72. I never feel that I will be terminated during
my service time
1 2 3 4 5
73. Working conditions in my office make me
feel secure
1 2 3 4 5
Please indicate how satisfied you are with things in your present job [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
74. The working environment 1 2 3 4 5
75. The salary I got from this job 1 2 3 4 5
76. The reward I get for accomplishing a good
work
1 2 3 4 5
77. The opportunity for self development from this
job
1 2 3 4 5
78. The way my superior manages people in
this job
1 2 3 4 5
79. The competence of my superior in making
decisions
1 2 3 4 5
80. The way my superior supports me 1 2 3 4 5
81. The implementation of organisational
policies
1 2 3 4 5
82. Being able to do things that are well suited
with my religious beliefs
1 2 3 4 5
83. The opportunity to develop close
relationships with my colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
374
Section Four: Employee performance in the context of organisational commitment,
quality of customer service, turn over intention, and absenteeism
Please indicate the degree to which the following statements really describe the commitment to your
current job [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
84. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort
to help this university successful
1 2 3 4 5
85. I inform my friends that this university is a
great place to work
1 2 3 4 5
86. I would accept almost all job assignments
of this university in order to keep this
university operating well
1 2 3 4 5
87. I am proud to tell others that I am an
employee of this university
1 2 3 4 5
88. I find the value of this university is the
same as my own values
1 2 3 4 5
89. This university really inspires me to work
for the best
1 2 3 4 5
90. I am extremely glad that I choose this
university to work
1 2 3 4 5
91. I really pay attention to the future of this
university
1 2 3 4 5
92. For me this university is the best place to
work
1 2 3 4 5
375
Section Four (continued)
When dealing with customers, please indicate the statement that applies to you
[Tick appropriate number]
Statements Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
93. Smile 1 2 3 4 5
94. Make some eye contact and look at the customers 1 2 3 4 5
95. Mention the name of customers in conversation 1 2 3 4 5
96. Listen to customers and nod to them 1 2 3 4 5
97. Show empathy with customer problems or
complains
1 2 3 4 5
98. Explain reasons first before disagreeing with
customers
1 2 3 4 5
99. Admit when making mistakes in conversation 1 2 3 4 5
100. End conversation with positive note 1 2 3 4 5
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statements that may describe your intention
to leave organisation (turnover) [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
101. I will probably look for a new job 1 2 3 4 5
102. I often have intentions to quit from this job 1 2 3 4 5
103. I will quit from this job in the next three months 1 2 3 4 5
104. I will quit from this job in the next six months 1 2 3 4 5
105. I will quit from this job in the next year 1 2 3 4 5
Indicate the frequency of the behaviour listed in the following statements that may correspond with your
performance. Give your impressions objectively [Tick appropriate number]
Statements Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
106. How often are you late for work? 1 2 3 4 5
107. How often do you expect to be absent
from your job?
1 2 3 4 5
108. How often are you absent from your job? 1 2 3 4 5
109. Obtain permission to do something else to
leave the job
1 2 3 4 5
110. Make excuse to go somewhere to get out
of work
1 2 3 4 5
End of the questionnaire
376
Appendix B
The Leaders’ PMEP Questionnaire
377
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT
AND ITS RELATIONSHIPS WITH EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOUR:
A STUDY IN THE UNIVERSITY SECTOR IN MALANG INDONESIA
STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
(For leaders)
A research by:
Mr. Burhanuddin
School of Education
The University of
Adelaide
Supervised by:
Prof. Tania Aspland
Dr. I. Gusti Darmawan
Dr. Francisco Ben
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
378
Section One: General information:
1. Name of University : ………………………………............……….………………
2. Your name (optional) : (Mr /Mrs /Ms/Title) …………..……………………..…..…..
3. Gender : Male Female
4. Age : 20 – 29
50 – 59
30 – 39
60-over
40 – 49
5. Employment level :
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
6. Highest education level :
7. Position :
Primary School
Junior Secondary School
Senior High School
Bachelor/Diploma
Head of Division
Undergraduate/S1
Magister/Master/S2
Doctor/PhD/S3
Other …………….
( if applicable)
8. Name of division : Academic
Personnel administration
Facility administration
General administration
Student service
Finance
Other ………………
(if applicable)
9. Length of service :
0 – ½ yr
½ - 1 yr
1 - 2 yrs
2 - 3 yrs
3 - 5 yrs
5-10 yrs
> 10 yrs
Purpose of the questionnaire:
1. To identify how you perceive the participative management style that may be employed
in your office.
2. To explore your perceptions of the use of the participative management and its relation
to employee performance behaviour in the workplace where you lead.
General directions:
1. Please read each question or statement carefully and answer as objectively as possible.
2. Give your responses on each item by ticking a number or a box [] that indicates the
degree to which you feel the question or the statement really describes the real condition
and corresponds with your perception.
3. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer on each item of the questionnaire.
4. If you make a mistake in your response, circle the error choice and tick another correct
answer.
Your participation in this research is greatly appreciated.
Thank you
379
Section Two: Perceptions on participative management behaviour and organisational
culture
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with management behaviours listed below, that may
describe a management style you employ in improving employee performance in the workplace you lead
[Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
1. Influence subordinates voluntarily 1 2 3 4 5
2. Influence subordinates honestly 1 2 3 4 5
3. Show confidence and trust in subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
4. Show supportive attitude towards subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
5. Discuss with subordinates about related office
works
1 2 3 4 5
6. Create subordinates‟ confidence in superior 1 2 3 4 5
7. Generate group ideas to find solutions for
organisational problems
1 2 3 4 5
8. Motivate subordinates through economic
rewards (e.g. salary, bonus, and other financial
benefits)
1 2 3 4 5
9. Motivate subordinates through group
participation
1 2 3 4 5
10. Show favourable attitudes in motivating
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
11. Encourage subordinates to experience real
responsibility of job accomplishment
1 2 3 4 5
12. Show cooperative attitude with subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
13. Show high satisfaction on subordinates‟
achievements
1 2 3 4 5
14. Show high satisfaction on the existence of
organisational members
1 2 3 4 5
15. Recognise subordinates for good work 1 2 3 4 5
16. Communicate with each subordinate and group 1 2 3 4 5
17. Provide information down, up, and with peers 1 2 3 4 5
18. Initiate downward communication with
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
380
Section Two (continued)
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
19. Provide information about work related topic 1 2 3 4 5
20. The way I communicate is accepted by all
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
21. Make upward information flow accurately 1 2 3 4 5
22. Friendly interact with subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
23. Interact extensively with subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
24. Interact with full confidence and trust 1 2 3 4 5
25. Initiate cooperative teamwork 1 2 3 4 5
26. Initiate subordinates‟ influences on the
operation of organisational activities
1 2 3 4 5
27. Involve subordinates in the decision making
process
1 2 3 4 5
28. Provide accurate input information of decision
making process
1 2 3 4 5
29. Know well organisational problems of all levels 1 2 3 4 5
30. Know well about the job problems faced by
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
31. Encourage subordinates to implement the
decisions
1 2 3 4 5
32. Organize decision making based on group
needs
1 2 3 4 5
33. Establish goals through group participation 1 2 3 4 5
34. Involve all members in proposing
organisational goals
1 2 3 4 5
35. Facilitate employees to understand their role in
accomplishing organisational objectives
1 2 3 4 5
36. Propose goals that can be accepted by all
members
1 2 3 4 5
37. Encourage group members to strive for high
performance goals
1 2 3 4 5
381
Section Two (continued)
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
38. Encourage all subordinates to participate in
controlling process
1 2 3 4 5
39. Controlling process is based on accurate
information
1 2 3 4 5
40. Provide clear standards of control for the jobs 1 2 3 4 5
41. Use control data for self guidance of
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
42. Use control data for coordination in solving
organisational problems
1 2 3 4 5
Please indicate the scale below that mostly corresponds with how you see the culture of your organisation
[Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Not
true
Seldom
true
Occasionally
true
Somewhat
true
Very
true
43. Hierarchical 1 2 3 4 5
44. Procedural 1 2 3 4 5
45. Highly structured 1 2 3 4 5
46. Always in order 1 2 3 4 5
47. Power oriented 1 2 3 4 5
48. Encouraging creativity of the staff 1 2 3 4 5
49. Encouraging entrepreneurial skills 1 2 3 4 5
50. Office conditions are stimulating for
subordinates
1 2 3 4 5
51. Challenging for attaining a high performance 1 2 3 4 5
52. Providing collaborative conditions 1 2 3 4 5
53. Relationship orientation 1 2 3 4 5
54. Informal relations or sociable 1 2 3 4 5
55. Considering personal freedom 1 2 3 4 5
56. High job security 1 2 3 4 5
57. Nurturing trust to each other 1 2 3 4 5
382
Section Three: Employee experience on self-autonomy, meaningful tasks,
feelings of job security, and job satisfaction
Please indicate the scale below that mostly corresponds with how expect your employees experience the jobs
in your office or within a division that you lead [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
58. Employees get much autonomy to decide on how
they do their work
1 2 3 4 5
59. The job gives employees a chance to use
initiative
1 2 3 4 5
60. The job gives employees freedom in how they do
the work
1 2 3 4 5
61. This job gives employees opportunities to try
something different
1 2 3 4 5
62. This job gives employees opportunities to work
independently
1 2 3 4 5
63. Employees experience meaningful job in this
division
1 2 3 4 5
64. Employees find most of the things they do seem
useful
1 2 3 4 5
65. Employees feel that people give a high
recognition for doing the jobs in this division
1 2 3 4 5
66. Employees find that their jobs provide
opportunities to work for their colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
67. Employees see their jobs determine
organisational success
1 2 3 4 5
68. Relationships among people encourage a feeling
of security
1 2 3 4 5
69. Employees feel that their job gives them a secure
future
1 2 3 4 5
70. Employees feel that the organisation is able to
provide permanent employment
1 2 3 4 5
71. Employees perceive that my management style
makes them feel secure
1 2 3 4 5
72. Employees never feel that they will be terminated
during their service time
1 2 3 4 5
73. Working condition in my office make them feel
secure
1 2 3 4 5
383
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements that describes
facilities and actions that need to be fulfilled to create job satisfaction for your employees
[Tick appropriate number]
Section Three (continued)
Section Four: Employee performance in the context of organisational commitment,
customer service, turn over intention, and absenteeism
Please indicate the degree to which the following statements really describe the commitment of your
employees to their current job [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
74. The working environment
1
2
3
4
5
75. The salary received by employees 1 2 3 4 5
76. The reward given to employees for
accomplishing a good work
1 2 3 4 5
77. Employees‟ opportunity for self development 1 2 3 4 5
78. The way to manage employees in the
workplace
1 2 3 4 5
79. The competence as a manager in making
decisions
1 2 3 4 5
80. The way to support employees 1 2 3 4 5
81. The implementation of organisational policies 1 2 3 4 5
82. Leader needs to regard employees‟ religious
beliefs.
1 2 3 4 5
83. The opportunity of employees to develop
close relationships with their colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
84. Employees are willing to put in a great deal of
effort to help this university successful
1
2
3
4
5
85. Employees inform their friends that this
university as a great place to work
1 2 3 4 5
86. Employees accept almost all job assignments
in order to keep this university operating well
1 2 3 4 5
87. Being proud to tell others that they are
employees of this university
1 2 3 4 5
384
Section Four (continued)
When dealing with customers, please indicate the statement that applies to your employees [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
88. Employees find the value of this university is
the same as their own value
1
2
3
4
5
89. This university really inspires employees to
work for the best
1 2 3 4 5
90. Employees are extremely glad to choose this
university as their workplace
1 2 3 4 5
91. Subordinates put a great attention to the future
of the university
1 2 3 4 5
92. Subordinates view this university as the best
place to work
1 2 3 4 5
Statements Never Rarely Neutral Often Always
93. Smile 1 2 3 4 5
94. Make some eye contact and look at the
customers
1 2 3 4 5
95. Mention the name of customers in
conversation
1 2 3 4 5
96. Listen to customers and nod to them 1 2 3 4 5
97. Show empathy with customer problems or
complaints
1 2 3 4 5
98. Explain reasons first before disagreeing
with customers
1 2 3 4 5
99. Admit when making mistake in
conversation
1 2 3 4 5
100. End conversation with a positive note 1 2 3 4 5
385
Section Four (continued)
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statements that may describe your employee
intention to leave organisation (turnover) [Tick appropriate number]
Indicate the frequency of the absenteeism behaviour listed in the following statements that may correspond
with your employee performance. Give your impressions objectively [Tick appropriate number]
Statements
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
101. Employees will probably look for a new job 1 2 3 4 5
102. Employees often have intentions to quit
from this job
1 2 3 4 5
103. Employees will quit from their job in the
next three months
1 2 3 4 5
104. Employees will quit from their job in the
next six months
1 2 3 4 5
105. Employees will quit from their job in the
next year
1 2 3 4 5
Statements Never Rarely Neutral Often Always
106. Employees are late for work 1 2 3 4 5
107. Employees expect to be absent from their
job
1 2 3 4 5
108. Employees are absent from their job 1 2 3 4 5
109. Obtain permission to do something else to
leave the job
1 2 3 4 5
110. Make excuses to go somewhere to get out of
work
1 2 3 4 5
End of the questionnaire
386
Appendix C
Interview Protocol for Employees and Leaders
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL University ..............................................................................
Division ..............................................................................
Name of participants (anonymous) ..............................................................................
Gender Male / Female
Age ........ years old
Position ..............................................................................
Date of interview ...............................................................................
List of questions for employees
1. Describe to what extent the participative management style can be applied to improve
employee‟s performance in this division?
2. Explain what kinds of management styles you prefer to be used in this division?
3. What type of management style is actually used in this division?
4. How do you feel about your current job in this division?
5. Explain what the level of your commitment to work in this university is.
List of questions for leaders
1. To what extent can the participative management style be used to improve employee
performance behaviour?
2. Does the existing organisational structure contribute to the effectiveness of the
participative management in the division?
3. How does participative management influence employee work attitudes in terms of
self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of security, and job satisfaction?
4. How does participative management influence employee performance behaviour in
term of organisational commitment, quality customer service, and withdrawal
behaviour?
5. What are the factors that may influence the effectiveness of participative management
in this division?
387
Appendix D
Interview Transcription Samples
388
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
University (Initial Code) University A
Division Administrative Division, Faculty of Natural
Science and Mathematics
Participant Pseudonym and
Identification Number
Sylvia / S2
Gender Male
Age 40-49
Position Employee
Date of Interview 9 January 2011
R: Good afternoon, Mrs ____________. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to
conduct this interview in order to explore your perceptions about the participative management
system that may be used in your office. This is necessary to obtain an in depth information about
this management style which relates to may research topic. There are five open-ended questions, to
be used as the direction for this interview. The first question: Describe to what extent the
participative management style can be applied to improve employees‟ performance in this division.
S2: According to me, participative management can be applied in this university,
especially this division. This would be acceptable to a majority of employees who have
been employed in this office
R: Could you elaborate your idea, why it is acceptable to most members in this division?
S2: Well, the reason is, I argue that the implementation of the participative management
style is able to develop a collaborative climate, where leaders and subordinates can share
their ideas, skills, strength, and use them as resources to manage this organisation
successfully.
R: That is good! You mean that leaders may also share their power with their subordinates
or employees?
S2: Yes! … Leaders have the power, but they have to share with their staff members.
389
R: Thus, from this conversation focusing on this issue, it indicates that this management style
can be implemented. Does this view come from subordinates, or it might come from leaders?
S2: We, as subordinates, really expect the use of this style in this university.
R: With regard to this employee position about participative management, let's go to the second
question: Explain what kinds of management styles you prefer to be used in this division.
S2: Personally, as an employee … I prefer a more democratic style of leadership as well as
this participative management style…
R: So, you against the use of an autocratic leaders, for example, who lead by forcing their
subordinates to achieve what leaders expect …
S2: Oh, no! … As subordinates, we need PM. Initially the employees have their own ideas
that relate with the jobs, but this model is able to generate ideas from the bottom level,
especially employees on behalf of the organisational mission.… An organisation that is led
under an autocratic model, will find the situation is not conducive for working.
R: Yes, the autocratic model might work for certain situations, but normally, this sort of
leadership is not able to motivate the employees to maximise staff efforts to achieve
organisational goals … Now, let‟s go to the third question: What type of management style
is actually used in this division?
S2: Eehhh …., yes, because the employees in this office have recently experienced two
different situations, the one that has been led by an autocratic leader, and the other time,
were have been led by a participative leader. Compared with the autocratic leader, the
participative leadership leader really provided this organisation with a supportive and
conducive working atmosphere … and we enjoy working within this organisational
climate.
R: This indicates that the leadership style in this office definitely use the participative or
democratic style ….
S2: Yes, … now .. within this organisation, which is led using this style, all employees positively
accept this strategy, because it ensures the conducive working climate, and the employees become
390
motivated to work … employees, thus, are ready to perform their tasks with high dedication and
responsibility …
R: It seems that this management style successfully develops a supportive climate for employees.
Could you explain how does this style work?
S2: This organisational climate was created by this style through organising employees
including their jobs. They are involved in planning, designing, and developing job
descriptions. The tasks were equally distributed to subordinates, but, this was followed by
specific job descriptions. All the jobs closely relate to the programs directed to the
achievement of organisational goals. Leaders also inform their members that the
accomplishment of those jobs is important for the success of the organisation. Why?
Because those jobs relate to the demands of quality administrative services requested by
university stakeholders …. Such a strategy, then promotes a positive feeling for the
employees.
R: That is excellent! Well, it, then … comes to the next question: How do you feel about your
current job in this division?
S2: If I may say … I really find this job is really meaningful! … All the employees here, especially
I am personally very satisfied with my job in this division …
R: It means that you really satisfied with your position as an employee in this university … or
probably, this satisfaction is because of a condition, where you failed to find another job?
S2: Oh, no! … I am satisfied with my job because this university has provided a supportive
organisational climate for the employees to work.
R: That is good! Besides that, could you explain another positive feeling you found from your
current job?
S2: I also had a feeling of security in this job. The reasons are this university has applied a
stable personnel management system, where people have been employed and assigned with
consistent work. Employees were lead in a manner, where they have not been affected by
391
threats to be terminated during their service term. They were also supervised with a target
to improve their performance, not simply to find the work related-issues and punish them.
This managerial behaviour results in the employees‟ trust in their leaders, and led the
employees to experience the feeling of security in the jobs.
R: Now ... the last question: Explain what the level of your commitment is to work in this
university.
S2: I am proud to be an employee of this university …
R: It means that you are ready to work permanently in this university organisation?
S2: Yes! …. I am ready to be work permanently in this institution …
R: You may think that working till the end of your contract or till the time for the term of your
retirement as an employee?
S2: Yes! …. I will stay with my current job here, to the end of my term of service, or till the time of
my retirement from this position.
R: This commitment, probably dedication, to this university, because of the way leaders
have led staff members in this university, especially this division …
S2: Yes, exactly …!
R: Well, Thank you very much for your time.
392
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
University (Initial Code) University C
Division General administration
Participant Pseudonym and
Identification Number
Harry / L5
Gender Male
Age 40-49
Position Head of Division
Date of Interview 28 December 2010
R: Good afternoon, Mr. ____________. Thank you very much for your consent to participate in
this interview. The interview is necessary to explore your perception about the use of participative
management style in your division. There are five questions that need to be discussed and to be
shared with you. Let‟s start with the first question: To what extent can the participative
management style be used to improve employee performance behaviour?
L5: This university, especially this division, uses the participative management style to
manage people, employees to improve their performance. I am sure that participative
management can be used to improve employee performance behaviour. Within this
management system … employees are able to contribute to the operations of general
administrative works under my division, as long as the top leaders of this university really
implement the established organisational structure and delegate authority to the middle and
the lower level managers, especially to the Heads of Divisions.
R: Does the existing organisational structure contribute to the effectiveness of the participative
management in the division?
L5: This university principally uses a line and staff organisation model. This has
influenced the management style being implemented in this university, as well as the
divisions in the university hierarchical system. The name of this division is the Division of
General Administration. It is positioned as one of the divisions under the Bureau of
Administration at the university level. This bureau has four divisions, including divisions
393
of planning, finance, personnel administration, and general administration and facility. The
Division of General Administration is supported by two sub divisions, namely sub division
of office administration and general administration / facilities.
R: Could you elaborate what are the duties and the responsibility of your division?
L5: This division is responsible to provide administrative services to clients at the
university level. These include the services for administration and management of
buildings and facilities, security, transportation, and landscaping. To perform these
activities, this division employs employees as the service operators. To ensure the highest
contribution of employees in providing quality services, I am as the Head of Division
continuously motivating the employees in order to build a mutual communication and
interaction among the staff members in this division …
R: Is the current structure aligned with the principles of participative or democratic
management, so that the participative style works properly to maximise staff contribution
to university?
L5: Well, I am sure that the employees are able to contribute to the operations of general
administrative works under my division, as long as the top leaders of this university really
implement the established organisational structure and delegate authority to the middle and
the lower level managers, especially to the Heads of Divisions.
R: This indicates that the organisational structure applied in this university has facilitated
the implementation of the participative management style.
L5: Yes, it contributes to the effectiveness of participative management being implemented
in this division.
R: That is interesting! The next question: How does participative management influence employee
work attitudes in term of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of job security, and job
satisfaction?
394
L5: Well, it has fostered the positive work attitudes of employees. I argue that the positive
work attitudes can be created through using this style when it is implemented properly,
where all the employees as the staff members have been provided with roles, duties, and
responsibilities, to enable them to perform their jobs autonomously. However, leaders as I
am, as the leader in this division have a supervision role and act as a motivator. We, as the
leaders, need to supervise and motivate these employees to carry out their tasks properly,
to ensure that they demonstrate their high dedication for the benefit of the university
organisation as a whole. The employees, thus, would experience positive feelings in terms
of self-autonomy in the job, to find the jobs as meaningful, experience the feeling security
in the jobs, and satisfied with what they have done upon their jobs. This situation, then, led
to their high involvement in the accomplishing the given tasks in order to help the
organisation accomplish organisational programs and activities.
R: Why do they positively respond to using this style?
L5: Employees in this division prefer the participative organisational climate that has been
created in this division ... It is evident that most employees are happy to perform their jobs.
I observed this context regularly ... they show their readiness to provide general
administrative services to sivitas akademika (clients) of this university including students,
lecturers, and non-academic staff who need the utility of the facilities owned by this
university.
R: That is excellent! With regard to the implementation of this style, the next question is: How does
participative management improve employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality customer service, and withdrawal behaviour?
L5: Well, to ensure this leadership model effectively improves performance, besides
delegating some of my managerial works to my sub division leaders, I work
collaboratively with lower level staff. This was possible through using persuasive
approaches to these members in order to motivate them to perform their duties effectively.
R: How does such an involvement process work?
395
L5: Since leaders have already delegated authority, and responsibilities to the employees to
perform the academic services at university level, they work autonomously. We just
provide supportive supervision to improve their performance at work …
R: It seems this style promoted an effective teamwork …
L5: Yes! … within such teamwork, the complexity of the job in this division can be
reduced, and almost all the administrative services scheduled by this division can be
accomplished successfully. … The way that I interacted informally and personally with the
employees supported the building capacity of the employees in order to maximise their
contribution to providing the best services to all clients of the university.
R: If I may ask you further in this conversation, how could such an organisational climate
be created through using this style?
L5: I implement this management style based on my experience working with people here.
I used a persuasive approach to manage all level of employees in my division ... Every
morning, before I get into my office, I walk around this university site to meet my
employees at their work stations or in the field. ... I salute them, shake hands, and talk with
them informally for about 1 to 2 minute ... this is an important strategy to show them that I
care about them ... In return, they become interested in what I expect as a leader. This has
encouraged them to perform their tasks without feeling of fear of their leader...
R: Back to the issue of the staff performance, could you explain how this style impact employee‟s
performance, for example in terms of organisational commitment, quality customer service, and
withdrawal behaviour?
L5: In terms of their commitment, I assume the effect of participative management on performance
is positive. Most of the employees in this division have demonstrated their highest commitment at
work … if I may say is, very high …
R: How does this leadership style affect staff performance in providing quality administrative
services to their clients in this university?
L:5 The way this leadership model works with people makes the level of staff performance
could be improved … I interacted informally and personally with the employees supported
396
the building capacity of the employees to maximise their contribution to provide best
services to all clients of the university. Employees in this division prefer the participative
organisational climate that has been created in this division ... It is evident that most
employees are happy to perform their jobs ... I observe regularly ... they show their
readiness to provide general administrative services to sivitas akademika (clients) of this
university including students, lecturers, and non-academic staff who need the utility of the
facilities owned by this university.
R: Could you also explain its effect on employees‟ performance in term of the level of
withdrawal behaviour in this division.?
L: The attendance of employees at this division on average is about 90%. Even if they have
to leave the jobs, they usually inform the office before.
R: So, this convinces you that this leadership style appropriately improves such a
performance.
L5: Yes, especially, I did apply this model of leadership, which was also supported by the
persuasive approach to my staff members ... Thus, they support the teamwork established
in this division.
R: The last question: What are the factors that may influence the effectiveness of
participative management in this division?
L5: There are two factors that may influence the effectiveness of this participative
management. These include organisational and individual factors. The organisational
factor, which is mostly related to this issue is how the jobs are designed and to be
structured in the division. To ensure the participative style effectively engages people in
their jobs, organisational units need to provide the employees with clear guidelines and
operational procedures for the job including its descriptions.
R: How does the individual factor influence this management effectiveness?
L5: The individual factor mainly relates to the capacity of leaders in an organisation. I
suggest that the compassionate relationships within the division are required to support the
397
leaders to supervise the progress of their subordinates to make sure that the university
policies and its programs are implemented successfully …
R: Besides the capacity of leaders to create such relationships, what factors may influence
the effectiveness of this management style?
L5: Some policies made at university or especially at the bureau level could not be
implemented. This is due to lack of supervision from leaders in this level. According to
me, leaders must comprehend the context where the policies are applied. Thus, they need
to monitor how the policies (including the programs that relate to administrative areas) are
implemented in the field. Are there any issues found by employees? How do the
employees carry out their tasks, and how do they deal with the problems? To ensure that
the supervision is effective, … I suggest that leaders have to be familiar with those
elements and build good relationships in the supervision process by communicating with
staff members to incorporate their ideas and initiatives. …
R: Thus, leaders must recognise the context, and have this sort of communication capacity.
L5: Yes, … especially in dealing with students who may need the services, leaders and the
employees have to communicate in a wise manner. If I may describe my experience for
example … if I greet students, usually I do not use their given names, but I call them leh,
because in this city, this word indicates an informal and a strong friendship connotation ...”
This word comes from Javanese slang language, which means brother and sister. It is used
in communications among people who have a close relationship … I argue that it is
ineffective when leaders use an autocratic model in communicating with these students.
Leaders must use persuasive approaches. Otherwise, these leaders will deserve protests and
complaints from the students.
R: It seems the way a leader communicates and interacts with people influences the
success good relationship with community members in this campus. How does it affect the
effectiveness of participative management for leading employees in this division?
L5: The way that leaders communicate with people especially, with employees is crucial
especially in building strong relationships with workforces and customers. Leaders must be
398
shrewd to listen and respond to people‟s ideas, suggestions, and probably their feelings
(i.e. fears and frustrations). This is necessary to show the employees that their leaders are
concerned with employees as well as their needs, work related issues, and their personal
problems. The effectiveness of this communication enables them to build the trust and
confidence among the employees. This in turn influences the employees as organisational
members to pursue high contribution to the success of the organisation.
R: Thus, to conclude, the individual factor mostly relates to the capacity of leaders in
conducting a communication process, and building supportive relationships among staff
members. Thank you very much for your time.
399
Appendix E
Ethics Approval from the University of Adelaide
400
Ethics Approval from the University of Adelaide
401
402
Appendix F
Permission Documents from Sample Universities in Indonesia
403
Letter from Rector of State University of Malang to other sample universities in Malang,Indonesia
404
Letter from Vice Rector for Academic Affairs to Bureaus of the State University of Malang, Indonesia
405
Permission letter from Rector of Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia
406
Letter of permission from Head of Personnel of Maulana Malik State Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia
407
Letter of disposition and permission from Rector of Brawijaya University in Malang,
408
Appendix G
Descriptive Results of Item Responses from Employee Participants
Scale: Participative Management (PM)
Subscale: Leadership
Subscale: Motivation
Items
PMLEAD1
PMLEAD2
PMLEAD3
PMLEAD4
PMLEAD5
PMLEAD6
PMLEAD 7
N Valid 787 799 804 805 805 801 800 Missing 21 9 4 3 3 7 8 Mean 3.21 3.78 4.06 4.17 4.14 4.12 3.84
Median 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.059 .950 .764 .794 .736 .779 .885 Variance 1.121 .903 .583 .631 .541 .606 .783 Skewness -.261 -.672 -.940 -1.162 -.791 -.908 -.736 Std. Error of Skewness .087 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis -.591 .142 1.637 2.137 1.151 1.322 .522 Std. Error of Kurtosis .174 .173 .172 .172 .172 .173 .173 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 2527 3017 3263 3356 3333 3298 3072
Items
PMOTIV 8
PMOTIV 9
PMOTIV 10
PMOTIV 11
PMOTIV12
PMOTIV13
PMOTIV 14
PMOTIV 15
N Valid 805 804 804 806 806 803 803 805 Missing 3 4 4 2 2 5 5 3 Mean 3.58 3.87 4.17 4.27 4.01 3.97 3.87 4.21 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.011 .833 .760 .715 .776 .790 .763 .698 Variance 1.023 .694 .577 .511 .602 .624 .583 .487 Skewness -.379 -.935 -.911 -1.096 -.739 -.745 -.736 -.900 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis -.451 1.275 1.323 2.428 .897 1.132 1.325 1.860 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 2879 3108 3353 3439 3233 3191 3107 3386
409
Subscale: Communication
Subscale: Interaction
Subscale: Decision making
Items
PMCOM16 PMCOM17 PMCOM18 PMCOM19 PMCOM20 PMCOM21
N Valid 805 806 807 804 805 802 Missing 3 2 1 4 3 6
Mean 4.07 4.07 4.16 4.00 3.91 3.79
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .762 .704 .766 .775 .733 .768 Variance .581 .495 .587 .600 .537 .590 Skewness -.825 -.768 -.903 -.391 -.620 -.505 Std. Error of Skewness
.086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis 1.211 1.566 1.330 -.325 .900 .298 Std. Error of Kurtosis
.172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172
Range 4 4 4 3 4 4 Sum 3275 3283 3361 3218 3148 3041
Items
PMINT22 PMINT23 PMINT24 PMINT25 PMINT26
N Valid 805 802 808 808 803 Missing 3 6 0 0 5 Mean 4.18 3.84 4.02 4.12 3.88 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .761 .845 .747 .747 .798 Variance .580 .714 .558 .559 .636
Skewness -.913 -.559 -.516 -.881 -.514 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis 1.369 .346 .337 1.658 .227 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 3367 3079 3249 3331 3119
Items
PMDM27 PMDM28 PMDM29 PMDM30 PMDM31 PMDM32
N Valid 804 806 803 806 805 801 Missing 4 2 5 2 3 7 Mean 3.46 4.00 3.83 3.93 3.56 3.62
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .991 .739 .824 .799 .870 .821 Variance .981 .547 .680 .638 .756 .674 Skewness -.305 -.785 -.507 -.717 -.522 -.615 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis -.428 1.467 .405 .847 -.007 .313 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .173 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 2784 3228 3076 3171 2869 2897
410
Subscale: Goal Setting
Items
PMGOAL 33 PMGOAL34 PMGOAL35 PMGOAL36 PMGOAL37
N Valid 801 804 806 806 806 Missing 7 4 2 2 2
Mean 3.59 3.82 4.00 3.93 4.12 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .808 .759 .721 .800 .774
Variance .652 .575 .519 .640 .599 Skewness -.452 -.625 -.951 -.900 -.858 Std. Error of Skewness
.086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis .120 .927 2.356 1.592 1.199 Std. Error of Kurtosis
.173 .172 .172 .172 .172
Range 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 2876 3069 3220 3164 3322
Subscale: Controlling
Scale: Organisational Culture (ORG)
Subscale: Bureaucratic
Items
ORGBUR43 ORGBUR44 ORGBUR45 ORGBUR46 ORGBUR47
N Valid 800 807 806 805 798 Missing 8 1 2 3 10 Mean 3.61 3.89 3.80 3.73 2.78
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 Std. Deviation .927 .732 .750 .802 1.221 Variance .860 .536 .562 .642 1.491 Skewness -.974 -.746 -.304 -.478 -.092 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .087 Kurtosis 1.073 1.273 -.017 .415 -1.031 Std. Error of Kurtosis .173 .172 .172 .172 .173 Range 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 2885 3143 3060 3003 2220
Items
PMCONT38 PMCONT39 PMCONT40 PMCONT41 PMCONT42
N Valid 804 805 803 803 712 Missing 4 3 5 5 96 Mean 3.70 3.96 3.98 3.98 3.88 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .858 .752 .784 .785 .812
Variance .736 .565 .615 .617 .660 Skewness -.435 -.811 -.842 -.745 -.746 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .092 Kurtosis -.041 1.679 1.500 .935 .764 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .183 Range 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 2974 3186 3192 3199 2765
411
Subscale: Innovative
Items
ORGINOV48 ORGINOV49 ORGINOV50 ORGINOV51
N Valid 805 805 803 806 Missing 3 3 5 2 Mean 3.71 3.34 3.81 3.46 Median 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .864 1.074 .883 1.049 Variance .747 1.153 .779 1.101 Skewness -.678 -.416 -.639 -.671 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis .769 -.341 .376 .160 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 Sum 2990 2690 3061 2788
Subscale: Supportive
Items
ORGSUP52 ORGSUP53 ORGSUP54 ORGSUP55 ORGSUP56 ORGSUP57
N Valid 806 800 804 804 803 804 Missing 2 8 4 4 5 4 Mean 3.93 3.83 3.56 3.34 3.89 3.98 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .824 .743 .843 .875 .835 .829 Variance .679 .553 .710 .766 .697 .687 Skewness -.855 -.758 -.681 -.451 -.700 -.717 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis 1.201 1.401 .851 .512 .669 .465 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .173 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 3167 3063 2863 2682 3126 3202
Scale: Employee Work Attitude (EWA)
Subscale: Self-autonomy
Items
SA58 SA59 SA60 SA61 SA62
N Valid 805 807 803 804 807 Missing 3 1 5 4 1 Mean 3.71 3.96 3.78 3.60 3.88
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .791 .672 .783 .828 .731 Variance .626 .451 .612 .685 .535 Skewness -.629 -.740 -.761 -.404 -.751 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis .702 1.827 .977 .326 1.380 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 2987 3195 3033 2897 3134
412
Subscale: Meaningful tasks
Items
MT63 MT64 MT65 MT66 MT67
N Valid 807 808 807 804 807 Missing 1 0 1 4 1 Mean 4.06 4.00 3.75 3.66 3.93 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .698 .615 .687 .741 .700
Variance .488 .378 .473 .549 .489 Skewness -.388 -.419 -.505 -.576 -.344 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis .167 1.238 1.078 .823 .257 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 3276 3235 3027 2942 3174
Subscale: Feelings of job security
Items
JOBSEC68 JOBSEC69 JOBSEC70 JOBSEC71 JOBSEC72 JOBSEC73
N Valid 805 805 805 806 808 806 Missing 3 3 3 2 0 2 Mean 3.95 3.79 3.71 3.67 3.69 3.86
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .725 .818 .914 .818 .871 .805 Variance .526 .670 .836 .670 .759 .648 Skewness -.429 -.420 -.333 -.461 -.428 -.511 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis .170 .184 -.320 .569 .137 .472 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 3 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 3177 3053 2986 2955 2978 3110
Subscale: Job satisfaction
Items
JOBSAT 74
JOBSAT75
JOBSAT76
JOBSAT 77
JOBSAT78
JOBSAT79
JOBSAT80
JOBSAT81
JOBSAT82
JOBSAT 83
N Valid 806 807 807 806 806 806 804 803 804 802 Missing 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 5 4 6 Mean 3.70 3.52 3.47 3.50 3.38 3.44 3.46 3.44 3.91 3.99 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Std. Deviation
.783 .903 .853 .853 .878 .829 .830 .808 .798 .708
Variance .612 .816 .728 .727 .770 .687 .690 .654 .636 .501 Skewness -.856 -.592 -.476 -.429 -.258 -.349 -.481 -.348 -.700 -.542 Std. Error of Skewness
.086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis 1.462 .181 .146 .066 -.130 .173 .173 .041 .967 .789 Std. Error of
Kurtosis
.172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 2983 2842 2797 2823 2725 2775 2782 2765 3140 3203
413
Scale: Employee Performance Behaviour
Subscale: Organisational commitment
Subscale: Quality of customer service
Items
QCS93 QCS94 QCS95 QCS96 QCS97 QCS98 QCS99 QCS100 N Valid 808 805 802 806 808 807 807 806
Missing 0 3 6 2 0 1 1 2 Mean 4.21 3.63 3.57 3.81 4.04 3.91 4.29 4.18 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .740 1.118 .926 .849 .741 .872 .757 .786 Variance .547 1.249 .858 .720 .549 .760 .572 .617 Skewness -.730 -.763 -.312 -.495 -.632 -.549 -.821 -.798 Std. Error of Skewness
.086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis .522 .073 .049 .398 .890 .119 .186 .625 Std. Error of Kurtosis
.172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 3404 2919 2860 3071 3264 3157 3465 3372
Subscale: Employee withdrawal behaviour (absenteeism and turnover)
Items OC84 OC85 OC86 OC87 OC88 OC89 OC90 OC91 OC92
N Valid 806 805 806 805 804 808 807 806 808
Missing 2 3 2 3 4 0 1 2 0 Mean 4.34 3.87 4.01 3.96 3.87 3.99 4.09 4.12 4.04 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .664 .820 .781 .812 .794 .715 .717 .750 .804 Variance .440 .672 .610 .659 .631 .512 .514 .563 .646 Skewness -.965 -.444 -.600 -.605 -.490 -.541 -.544 -.696 -.576 Std. Error of Skewness
.086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086
Kurtosis 2.224 .039 .492 .477 .435 .941 .643 .916 .338 Std. Error of Kurtosis
.172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 3497 3119 3233 3191 3115 3227 3303 3321 3265
Items
TURN
101R
TURN
102R
TURN
103R
TURN
104R
TURN
105R
ABST
106R
ABST
107R
ABST
108R
ABST
109R
ABST
110R
N Valid 805 807 807 808 806 806 806 807 806 808 Missing 3 1 1 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 Mean 4.12 4.42 4.67 4.66 4.62 3.65 4.07 4.02 4.34 3.65 Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.094 .963 .802 .827 .855 .919 .937 .734 .942 .921 Variance 1.197 .927 .644 .684 .731 .845 .877 .539 .887 .848
Skewness -.906 -1.552 -2.637 -2.576 -2.331 -.276 -.770 -.929 -1.496 -.846 Std. Error of Skewness .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 .086 Kurtosis -.230 1.499 6.647 6.035 4.681 -.221 .128 2.029 1.903 1.069 Std. Error of Kurtosis .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 .172 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum 3316 3570 3767 3764 3723 2940 3278 3241 3496 2953
414
Appendix H
Descriptive Results of Item Responses from Leader Participants
Scale: Participative Management (PM)
Subscale: Leadership
Subscale: Motivation
Items
PMLEAD1 PMLEAD2 PMLEAD3 PMLEAD4 PMLEAD5 PMLEAD6 PMLEAD7 N Valid 51 51 52 52 52 52 52
Missing 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 3.71 4.29 4.37 4.60 4.37 4.58 4.23 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.238 .855 .627 .534 .561 .537 .645 Variance 1.532 .732 .393 .285 .315 .288 .416 Skewness -.726 -1.616 -.457 -.803 -.131 -.714 -.709 Std. Error of Skewness
.333 .333 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330
Kurtosis -.545 3.667 -.607 -.534 -.765 -.689 1.612 Std. Error of Kurtosis
.656 .656 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650
Range 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 Sum 189 219 227 239 227 238 220
Items
PMOTIV 8
PMOTIV9
PMOTIV 10
PMOTIV11
PMOTIV12
PMOTIV13
PMOTIV14
PMOTIV15
N Valid 52 52 52 51 51 52 52 52 Missing 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Mean 3.08 4.19 4.38 4.49 4.45 3.90 3.85 4.56
Median 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 Std. Deviation 1.007 .687 .530 .579 .610 .891 .777 .502 Variance 1.014 .472 .281 .335 .373 .794 .603 .252 Skewness -.279 -.645 .073 -.605 -1.179 -1.015 -.766 -.239 Std. Error of Skewness
.330 .330 .330 .333 .333 .330 .330 .330
Kurtosis -.728 .821 -1.127 -.584 3.212 1.469 .740 -2.022 Std. Error of Kurtosis
.650 .650 .650 .656 .656 .650 .650 .650
Range 4 3 2 2 3 4 3 1 Sum 160 218 228 229 227 203 200 237
415
Subscale: Communication
Subscale: Interaction
Subscale: Decision-making
Items
PMDM27 PMDM28 PMDM29 PMDM30 PMDM31 PMDM32
N Valid 51 51 52 52 52 51 Missing 1 1 0 0 0 1 Mean 3.35 4.14 4.17 4.31 3.94 3.73
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.036 .775 .706 .579 .669 .802 Variance 1.073 .601 .499 .335 .448 .643 Skewness -.207 -.782 -.607 -.766 -.752 -1.149 Std. Error of Skewness .333 .333 .330 .330 .330 .333 Kurtosis -.863 .635 .505 3.266 1.659 2.150 Std. Error of Kurtosis .656 .656 .650 .650 .650 .656 Range 4 3 3 3 3 4 Sum 171 211 217 224 205 190
Items
PMCOM16 PMCOM17 PMCOM18 PMCOM19 PMCOM20 PMCOM21
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 52 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 4.46 4.17 4.38 4.10 4.15 3.96
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .503 .834 .661 .603 .802 .766 Variance .253 .695 .437 .363 .643 .587 Skewness .159 -.974 -.613 -.595 -1.002 -.478 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis -2.055 .731 -.597 2.239 1.137 .154 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 Range 1 3 2 3 3 3 Sum 232 217 228 213 216 206
Items
PMINT22 PMINT23 PMINT24 PMINT25 PMINT26
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 4.42 4.21 4.04 4.42 3.96 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Std. Deviation .499 .637 .839 .572 .885 Variance .249 .405 .704 .327 .783 Skewness .321 -.206 -1.109 -.340 -.630 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis -1.975 -.560 2.356 -.777 -.149 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650
Range 1 2 4 2 3 Sum 230 219 210 230 206
416
Subscale: Goal setting
Items
PMGOAL 33 PMGOAL34 PMGOAL35 PMGOAL36 PMGOAL37
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 3.83 3.90 4.12 4.00 4.42 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .678 .774 .548 .686 .605 Variance .460 .598 .300 .471 .367 Skewness -.167 -.623 .077 -.758 -.520 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis .048 .502 .361 1.596 -.584
Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 Range 3 3 2 3 2 Sum 199 203 214 208 230
Subscale: Controlling
Items
PMCONT38 PMCONT39 PMCON40 PMCONT41 PMCONT42
N Valid 52 52 51 52 49 Missing 0 0 1 0 3 Mean 4.06 4.19 4.24 4.38 4.24 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .777 .658 .551 .599 .630 Variance .604 .433 .304 .359 .397
Skewness -.883 -.652 .078 -.387 -.236 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .333 .330 .340 Kurtosis 1.106 1.292 -.199 -.636 -.557 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .656 .650 .668 Range 3 3 2 2 2 Sum 211 218 216 228 208
Scale: Organisational Culture (ORG)
Subscale: Bureaucratic
Items
ORGBUR43 ORGBUR44 ORGBUR45 ORGBUR46 ORGBUR47
N Valid 52 52 52 52 50 Missing 0 0 0 0 2 Mean 3.58 4.06 3.69 3.79 2.30 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00
Std. Deviation .871 .608 .701 .893 1.074 Variance .759 .369 .492 .798 1.153 Skewness -1.449 -.570 .157 -1.108 .288 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .337 Kurtosis 2.690 2.006 -.396 2.198 -.730 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .662 Range 4 3 3 4 4 Sum 186 211 192 197 115
417
Subscale: Innovative
Items
ORGINOV48 ORGINOV49 ORGINOV50 ORGINOV51
N Valid 52 52 52 52
Missing 0 0 0 0 Mean 3.85 3.33 4.21 3.60 Median 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .697 1.024 .605 .869 Variance .486 1.048 .366 .755 Skewness -.505 -.822 -.124 -.587 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis .677 .605 -.385 .580
Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 Range 3 4 2 4 Sum 200 173 219 187
Subscale: Supportive
Items
ORGSUP52 ORGSUP53 ORGSUP54 ORGSUP55 ORGSUP56 ORGSUP57
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 45 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 7 Mean 3.75 3.77 3.38 3.31 4.13 4.00 Median 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .860 .854 .973 .781 .886 .798 Variance .740 .730 .947 .609 .785 .636
Skewness -.829 -.510 -.458 -.094 -1.327 -1.124 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .354 Kurtosis 1.194 -.140 .548 .890 2.429 3.217 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .695 Range 4 3 4 4 4 4 Sum 195 196 176 172 215 180
Scale: Employee Work Attitude (EWA)
Subscale: Self-autonomy
Items
SA58 SA59 SA60 SA61 SA62
N Valid 51 52 52 52 52 Missing 1 0 0 0 0 Mean 3.82 4.17 3.58 3.67 3.87 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Std. Deviation .865 .678 .936 .760 .768 Variance .748 .460 .876 .577 .589 Skewness -.994 -.618 -.530 -.479 -.574 Std. Error of Skewness .333 .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis 1.570 .915 .039 .127 .426 Std. Error of Kurtosis .656 .650 .650 .650 .650 Range 4 3 4 3 3 Sum 195 217 186 191 201
418
Subscale: Meaningful tasks
Items
MT63 MT64 MT65 MT66 MT67
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 4.06 4.27 3.90 3.88 4.06 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .777 .660 .693 .548 .698 Variance .604 .436 .481 .300 .487 Skewness -.622 -.777 -.604 -.821 -.799 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis .298 1.444 .998 2.620 1.615
Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 Range 3 3 3 3 3 Sum 211 222 203 202 211
Subscale: Feelings of job security
Items
JOBSEC 68
JOBSEC 69
JOBSEC 70
JOBSEC 71
JOBSEC 72
JOBSEC 73
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 51 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 4.13 3.98 3.71 3.81 3.73 4.18 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .627 .874 .936 .658 .910 .684 Variance .393 .764 .876 .433 .828 .468 Skewness -.598 -.511 -.276 -.637 -.565 -1.018
Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .333 Kurtosis 1.762 -.405 -.726 1.075 -.326 2.534 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .656 Range 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sum 215 207 193 198 194 213
Subscale: Job satisfaction
Items
JOB- SAT 74
JOB- SAT 75
JOB- SAT 76
JOB- SAT 77
JOB- SAT 78
JOB- SAT 79
JOB- SAT 80
JOB- SAT 81
JOB- SAT 82
JOB- SAT
83
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 52 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mean 4.21 4.02 3.92 4.10 3.92 3.85 3.98 3.88 4.12 4.19 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .750 .852 .926 .869 .860 .802 .828 .732 .739 .715 Variance .562 .725 .857 .755 .739 .643 .686 .535 .546 .511 Skewness -.662 -.830 -.923 -1.310 -1.004 -.423 -.825 -.753 -.501 -.637 Std. Error of Skewness
.330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .333 .330
Kurtosis .079 .459 1.004 2.579 1.783 -.047 .620 1.057 .012 .436
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .656 .650
Range 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 Sum 219 209 204 213 204 200 207 202 210 218
419
Scale: Employee Performance Behaviour (EPB)
Subscale: Organisational commitment
Items
OC84 OC85 OC86 OC87 OC88 OC89 OC90 OC91 OC92
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.23 4.02 4.12 4.29 3.98 4.17 4.27 4.31 4.25
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .645 .804 .704 .800 .828 .678 .689 .673 .738 Variance .416 .647 .496 .641 .686 .460 .475 .452 .544 Skewness -.709 -.741 -.516 -1.055 -1.040 -.225 -.410 -.457 -.743 Std. Error of Skewness
.330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330
Kurtosis 1.612 .527 .402 .842 2.286 -.771 -.812 -.727 .318 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650
Range 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 Sum 220 209 214 223 207 217 222 224 221
Subscale: Quality of customer service
Items
QCS93 QCS94 QCS95 QCS96 QCS97 QCS98 QCS99 QCS100
N Valid 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.08 3.48 3.58 3.94 4.15 3.98 4.17 4.17 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation .904 1.111 .871 .873 1.017 .939 .923 .760 Variance .817 1.235 .759 .761 1.035 .882 .852 .577 Skewness -.983 -.529 -.153 -.622 -1.599 -1.142 -1.137 -.863 Std. Error of Skewness .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 Kurtosis 1.287 -.330 -.564 -.082 2.528 1.390 1.420 .952 Std. Error of Kurtosis .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650
Range 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 Sum 212 181 186 205 216 207 217 217
Subscale: Employee withdrawal behaviour
Items
TURN101R
TURN102R
TURN103R
TURN104R
TURN105R
ABST106R
ABST107R
ABST108R
ABST109R
ABST110R
N Valid 51 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 Missing 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mean 4.16 4.51 4.69 4.78 4.76 3.35 4.04 3.84 4.22 3.53 Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.027 .784 .616 .507 .551 .820 .848 .703 .856 .857 Variance 1.055 .615 .380 .257 .304 .673 .718 .495 .733 .734 Skewness -.788 -1.458 -1.830 -2.315 -2.318 .382 -.692 -.488 -.638 -.691 Std. Error of Skewness .333 .333 .333 .337 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 Kurtosis -.759 1.195 2.209 4.774 4.467 -.213 .081 .604 -.783 .554 Std. Error of Kurtosis .656 .656 .656 .662 .656 .656 .656 .656 .656 .656
Range 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 Sum 212 230 239 239 243 171 206 196 215 180
420
Appendix I
Standardised Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Scale: Participative Management (PM)
Figure C.1. One-factor model of PM
421
Figure C.2. Seven-orthogonal factors model of PM
422
Figure C.3. Seven-correlated factor model of PM
423
Figure C.4. Hierarchical factor model of PM
424
Figure C.5. Nested factor model of PM
425
Scale: Organisational Culture (ORG)
Figure C.6. One-factor model of ORG
426
Figure C.7. Three-correlated factor model of ORG
427
Figure C.8. Three-orthogonal factor model of ORG
428
Figure C.9. Hierarchical factor model of ORG (with item ORBURG47 included in the first
run)
429
Figure C.10. Hierarchical factor model of ORG (without item ORBURG47 in the second
run)
430
Figure C.11. Nested factor model of ORG
431
Scale: Employee Work Attitude (EWA)
Figure C.12. One-factor model of EWA
432
Figure C.13. Four-correlated factor model of EWA
433
Figure C.14. Four-orthogonal factors model of EWA
434
Figure C.15. Hierarchical factor model of EWA
435
Figure C.16. Nested factor model of EWA
436
Scale: Employee Performance Behaviour (EPB)
Figure C.17. One-factor model of EPB
437
Figure C.18. Three-correlated factor model of EPB
438
Figure C.19. Three-orthogonal factor model of EPB
439
Figure C.20. Hierarchical factor model of EPB
440
Figure C.21. Nested factor model of EPB
441
Bibliography
442
Adams, D., & Gamage, D. T. (2008). A study of leadership effectiveness in a large
VET institution in Australia. International Journal of Educational
Management, 22(3), 214-228.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your
sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership
empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955.
Albright, J. J., & Park, H. M. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Amos,
LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CALIS. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/ ~
statmath/stat/all/cfa/index.html
Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of the
"black box" of school reform. The International Journal of Educational
Management 16(4), 152-159.
Andrich, D. (Ed.) (2005) Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vols. 4).
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Angermeier, I., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Smith, R. H., & Boss, R. W. (2009). The
impact of participative management perceptions on customer service, medical
errors, burnout, and turnover intentions. Journal of Healthcare Management,
54(2), 127-141.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user's guide. Crawfordville, FL 32327, U.S.A.: Amos
Development Corporation.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering
leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for
measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to
the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 315-338.
Azra, A. (2008). Indonesian higher education: From public good to privatization.
Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1(2), 139-147.
Bajunid, I. A. (2011). Leadership in the reform of Malaysian Universities: Analysing
the strategic role of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 253-265.
443
Bartol, K., Martin, D., Tein, M., & Matthews, G. (2002). Management: A Pacific rim
focus (3rd ed.). Roseville NSW 2069, Australia: The McGraw Hill-Company
Australia Pty Limited.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of Leadership (3rd ed.). New York:
The Free Press: A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist,
52(2), 130-139.
Bell, J. (1989). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in
education and social science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Ben, F. (2010). Students' uptake of physics: A study of South Australian and Filipino
physics students. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, South Australia.
Blanchard, K., Blanchard, M., Carew, D., Parisi-Carew, E., Finch, F., Hawkins, L., et
al. (2007). Situational leadership II: The integrating concept. In T. Moore (Ed.),
Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high
performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., Gosling, J., & Bryman, A. (2009). Leadership in higher
education: Facts, fictions and futures - introduction to the special issue.
Leadership, 5(3), 291-298. Retrieved from http://lea.sagepub.com.
Bond, F. W., Flaxman, P. E., & Bunce, D. (2008). The influence of psychological
flexibility on work redesign: Mediated moderation of a work reorganization
intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 645-654.
Breakwell, G. M., & Tytherleigh, M. Y. (2008). UK universities leaders at the turn of
the 21st century: changing patterns in their socio-demographic characteristics.
High Educ, 56, 109-127.
Brodjonegoro, S. S. (2002). Higher education reform in Indonesia. Paper presented at
the International Seminar from Peril to Promise: How higher education can
deliver. Retrieved from www.tfhe.net/resources/satryo_soemantri_brodjonego
ro2.htm
444
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications
and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review.
Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710.
Burhanuddin, & Aspland, T. (2012, August). The principal as team leader with a
vision for improving school effectiveness in a changing environment. Paper
presented at the Second International Conference on Leadership in Pedagogies
and Learning, Brisbane, Australia.
Bush, T., & Middlewood, D. (2005). Leading and managing people in education.
London: Sage Publications.
Cabrera, E. F., Ortega, J., & Cabrera, Á. (2003). An exploration of the factors that
influence employee participation in Europe. Journal of World Business, 38(1),
43-54.
Carew, D., Parisi-Carew, E., & Blanchard, K. (2007). Situational team leadership. In
T. Moore (Ed.), Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and
creating high performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson.
Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y.
Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.
Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee
turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(3), 374-381.
Champoux, J. E. (2003). Organizational behavior: Essential tenets (2nd ed.).
Australia: Thompson South-Western.
Chiang, F. F. T., & Birtch, T. A. (2007). Examining the perceived causes of successful
employee performance: an East–West comparison. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 18(2), 232-248.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). (2011). Retrieved from cw.psypress.com/multi
variate-analysis/.../med_factor_CFA.pdf
445
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review
with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 55-70.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R.
(1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an
organizational change intervention: A three-wave study of Total Quality
Management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4), 439-456.
Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced quantitative data analysis. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Crowther, F. (2010). Parallel Leadership: The key to successful school capacity-
building. Leading & Management, 16(1), 16-39.
Curtis, D. D. (2010). Comparing classical and contemporary analysis and Rasch
measurement. In S. Alagumalai, D. D. Curtis & N. Hungi (Eds.), Applied Rasch
measurement: A book of exemplars. Dordrechts, The Nederlands: Springer.
Damme, D. V. (2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education.
Higher Education Policy, 41, 415-441.
Darmawan, I. G. N. (2001). Adoption and implementation of information technology
in Bali's local government: A comparison between single level path analyses
using PLSPATH 3.01 and AMOS 4 and Multilevel Path Analyses using
MPLUS 2.01. International Education Journal, 2(4), 100-125.
Darmawan, I. G. N. (2002). NORM software review: Handling missing values with
multiple imputation methods. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 2(1), 51-57.
Darmawan, I. G. N. (2003). Implementation of information technology in local
government in Bali, Indonesia. Adelaide, Australia: Flinders University
Institute of International Education.
446
Darmawan, I. G. N., & Keeves, J. P. (2002). Two-level model of information
technology adoption in local government of Bali. International Education
Journal, 3(1), 47-60.
Darmawan, I. G. N., & Keeves, J. P. (2009). Using multilevel analysis. In C. R.
Aldous, I. G. N. Darmawan & J. P. Keeves (Eds.), Change over time in
learning numeracy and literacy in rural and remote schools (Vol. 2, pp. 48-60).
Adelaide, South Australia: Shannon Research Press.
De Ruyter, A., & Warnecke, T. (2008). Gender, non-standard work and development
regimes: A comparison of the USA and Indonesia. Journal of Industrial
Relations, 50(5), 718-735.
De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). London: Allen & Unwin.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590.
DGHE. (2003). Higher Education Long Term Strategy 2003-2010. Jakarta: Directorate
General of Higher Education (DGHE), Ministry of National Education
Republic of Indonesia.
DGHE. (2008). Overview of Higher Education (HE) 2007-2008. Retrieved 7 March
2010, from Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE), Department of
National Education Republic of Indonesia: http://www.depdiknas.go.id/con
tent.php?content=file_sispen
DGHE. (2009). Perspektif Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia [Higher Education
Perspective in Indonesia]. Jakarta: Directorate General of Higher Education,
Department of National Education.
DGHE. (2010). Daftar perguruan tinggi negeri dan perguruan tinggi swasta [List of
government and private higher education institutions in Indonesia]. Retrieved
11 June 2010, from Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE),
Department of National Education Republic of Indonesia:
http://www.kopertis4.or.id/Pages/daftar_ptn_pts.htm
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),
611-628.
447
Dorfman, P. W., & House, R. J. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational
leadership: Literature review, theoretical rationale, and GLOBE project goals.
In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.),
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies .
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Drucker, P. F. (2006). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles .
Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dubin, R., Champoux, J. E., & Porter, L. W. (1975). Central life Interests and
organizational commitment of blue-collar and clerical workers. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 20(3), 411-421.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. USA: The University of
Michigan Press.
Duignan, P. A., & Bezzina, M. (2006). Distributed leadership: The theory and the
practice. Paper presented at the CCEAM Annual Conference.
Duignan, P. A., & Macpherson, R. J. S. (1993). Educative leadership: A practical
theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 8-33.
Easterby-Smith, M., Malina, D., & Yuan, L. (1995). How culture-sensitive is HRM? A
comparative analysis of practices in Chinese and UK companies. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1), 31-59.
Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., & Lance, C. E. (1999). Motivational bases of
affective organizational commitment: A partial test of an integrative theoretical
model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 463-483.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.
Ferreira, A. I., & Hill, M. M. (2008). Organisational cultures in public and private
Portuguese Universities: A case study High Educ 55, 637-650.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149-
190). New York: Academic Press.
448
Fiedler, F. E. (1981). Leadership effectiveness. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(5),
619-632.
Fielder, F. E. (Ed.). (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness (Vol. 1).
New York: Academic Press.
Garson, D. (2011). Path analysis. Path analysis: Statnotes, from North Carolina State
University, Public Administration, 1-11. Retrieved from http://faculty. chass.
ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/links.htm
Gellert, F. J., & Schalk, R. (2012). The influence of age on perceptions of relationship
quality and performance in care service work teams. Employee Relations,
34(1), 44-60.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H. J., & Konopaske, R. (2006).
Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2002). Quality management: An introduction of total
quality management for production, processing, and services (4th ed.).
Indianapolis: Prentice Hall.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia (1974). Undang-Undang R I Nomor 8 Tahun
1974 tentang Pokok-Pokok Kepegawaian [Laws of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 8, 1974 on Personnel Principles], 8 C.F.R. (1974).
Government of the Republic of Indonesia (1999). PPRI Nomor 60 Tahun 1999 tentang
Pendidikan Tinggi [Indonesian Government Regulations on Higher Education],
60 C.F.R. (1999).
Government of the Republic of Indonesia (2000). PPRI Nomor 99 Tahun 2000 tentang
Kenaikan Pangkat Pegawai Negeri Sipil [Indonesian Government Regulation
on the Promotion of Civil Servants], 99 C.F.R. (2000).
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score
reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(6), 930-944. Retrieved from http://epm.sagepub.com/ content
/66/6/930.refs.html.
449
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects,
relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(1), 108-124.
Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing research in the real world (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2000). Behavior in organizations. Upper Saddle River,
N.J: Prentice Hall.
Grondin, J., & Blais, J.-G. (2010). A Rasch analysis on collapsing categories in item's
responses scales of survey questionnaire: May be it's not one size fits all. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal:
An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60-78.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2008). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery?
Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 229-240.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or
misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-
24.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.
Haslam, S. A., Wegge, J., & Postmes, T. (2009). Are we on a learning curve or a
treadmill? The benefits of participative group goal setting become apparent as
tasks become increasingly challenging over time. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 430-446.
Heckscher, C. (1995). The failure of participatory management. Across the Board,
32(10), 16-21.
450
Heller, F. (2003). Participation and power: A critical assessment. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 52(1), 144-163.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.
Holland, N. A. (1995). Participative management. Journal for Quality & Participation,
18(5), 58-62.
Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2001). The impact of organizational characteristics on
leadership effectiveness models: An Examination of leadership in a private and
a public sector organization. Administration & Society, 33(4), 403-431.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
Howell, D. C. (2011). Treatment of missing data. 1-14. Retrieved from
http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/Morre_Stuff/Missing_Data/Missing.
html
Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes
and perceptions of influence. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 649-
662.
Huang, T.-C. (1997). The effect of participative management on organizational
performance: The case of Taiwan. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 8(2), 677-689.
Huang, T.-C., & Hsiao, W.-J. (2007). The causal relationship between job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Social Behavior & Personality, 35(9), 1265-
1276.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance
work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects
on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31, 122-143.
451
Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z., & Cheung, Y. L. (2006). The impact of participative
leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational
commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The moderating role of
organizational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(3), 345-367.
Idrus, N. (1999). Towards quality higher education in Indonesia. Quality Assurance in
Education, 7(3), 134-140.
Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job -
related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 3-19.
JICA. (2011). Country gender profile: Indonesia.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (2006). Contemporary management (4th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distribu ted leadership: A
collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67-78.
Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Katz, H., Kochan, T., & Colvin, A. (2007). An introduction to collective bargaining
and industrial relations (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill-Irwin.
Keeves, J. P., & Masters, G. N. (1999). Issues in educational measurement. In G. N.
Masters & J. P. Keeves (Eds.), Advances in measurement in educational
research and assessment (pp. 268-281). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Kelcher, M. (2000). Better communication skills for work. London: BBC Books.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Key, S. (2000). The effect of culture on management style: A comparison of U.S. and
Indonesian managers. Journal of Transnational Management Development,
5(3), 23-46.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A
synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship.
The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and Job satisfaction: Lessons for
management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
452
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd
ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kompier, M. A. J., Geurts, S. A. E., Grundemann, R. W. M., Vink, P., & Smulders, P.
G. W. (1998). Cases in stress prevention: The success of a participative and
stepwise approach. Stress Medicine, 14, 155-168.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work
groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
Krebs, W. A. (Ed.) (2003) Collins Australian Compact Dictionary (5th ed.). Great
Britain: HarperCollins Publishers.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1992). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL:
Irwin.
Kwantes, C. T., & Boglarsky, C. A. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture,
leadership effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries.
Journal of International Management, 13, 204-230.
Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X.-P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making
and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of
allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal,
45(5), 905-914.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal
analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 527-545.
Lashley, C. (2000). Empowerment through involvement: A case study of TGI Fridays
restaurants. Personnel Review, 29(6), 791-815.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for
improving organzational performance. San Francisco, California.: Jossey-Bass.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and values . New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Linacre, J. M. (2002a). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85-106.
Linacre, J. M. (2002b). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean?
Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
453
Linacre, J. M. (2009). A user's guide to WINSTEPS MINISTEP: Rasch-model
computer programs. Chicago, IL.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership
style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national
comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321-338.
Luo, X., Cappelleri, J. C., Cella, D., Li, J. Z., Charbonneau, C., Kim, S. T., et al.
(2009). Using the Rasch model to validate and enhance the interpretation of the
functional assessment of cancer therapy-kidney symptom index--disease-related
symptoms scale. Value in Health, 12(4), 580-586.
Mackie, K. S., Holahan, C. K., & Gottlieb, N. H. (2001). Employee involvement
management practices, work stress, and depression in employees of a human
services residential care facility. Human Relations, 54(8), 1065-1092.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher
education. Higher Education, 52, 1-39.
Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2006). University leaders‟ strategies in the global
environment: A comparative study of Universitas Indonesia and the Australian
National University. Higher Education, 52, 343-373.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: an
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers, Inc.
Matveev, A. V. (2002). The advantages of employing quantitative and qualitative
methods in intercultural research: Practical implications from the study of the
perceptions of intercultural communication competence by American and
Russian managers Theory of Communication and Applied Communication, (1),
59-67. Retrieved from http://www.russcomm.ru/eng/rca_biblio/ m/matveev01_
eng.s...
454
McCaffery, P. (2010). The higher education manager's hand book: Effective
leadership and management in universities and colleges (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
McCrimmon, M. (2007). What is leadership style? Retrieved from http://suite101.
com/article/what-is-leadership-style-a18991
McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship
between employee age and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74(1), 11-17.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks,
C.A: Sage.
Miah, M. K., & Bird, A. (2007). The impact of culture on HRM styles and firm
performance: evidence from Japanese parents, Japanese subsidiaries/joint
ventures and South Asian local companies. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(5), 908-923.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A
meta-analytic review. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 727-753.
Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Indonesia (2000). Keputusan
menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 234/U/2000 tentang
Pedoman Pendirian Perguruan Tinggi [Education Ministerial Decree on the
Guidelines of the Establishment of Higher Education Institutions in Indonesia]
(2000).
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. I. (1988). Participative managerial behavior and
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1(1),
45-59.
Mok, K. H., & Cheung, A. B. L. (2011). Global aspirations and strategising for world-
class status: New form of politics in higher education governance in Hong
Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 231-251.
Mondy, R. W., Gordon, J. R., Sharplin, A., & Premeaux, S. R. (1990). Management
and organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Morris, A., & Bloom, J. R. (2002). Contextual factors affecting job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in community mental health centers undergoing
455
system changes in the financing of care. Mental Health Services Research,
4(2), 71-83.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mowday, R. T. (1999). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 387-401.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative
approach (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional
leadership effects on teachers‟ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S.-O. (2008). The effects of
transformational leadership on followers' perceived work characteristics and
psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16-32.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Brenner, S.-O., Randall, R., & Borg, V. (2008). The
importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees
working with older people. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(5), 465-475.
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Norusis, M. J. (2007). SPSS Missing values 17.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Norusis, M. J. (2010). PASW Statistics 18 Guide to Data Analysis. Chicago: Prentice
Hall Ptr.
Nurick, A. J. (1982). Participation in organizational change: a longitudinal field study.
Human Relations, 35(5), 413-430.
456
Odhiambo, G., & Hii, A. (2012). Key stakeholders' perceptions of effective school
leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(232-
247).
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences . Thousand
Oaks, California.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
SPSS. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Pelled, L. H., & Hill, K. D. (1997). Participative management in Northern Mexico: A
study of maquiladoras. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 8(2), 197-212.
Pemerintah Kota Malang. (2010). Sekilas Malang [Malang at glance]. Fasilitas
daerah: pendidikan [District facility: education] , from http://www.malang
kota.go.id/index2.php?id=16060725.
Pereira, G. M., & Osburn, H. G. (2007). Effects of participation in decision making on
performance and employee attitudes: A quality circles meta-analysis. J Bus
Psychol, 22, 145-153.
Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational commitment and
managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 15(1), 87-98.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in
employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151-176.
Prior, L. (2008). Documents and action. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman & J. Brannen
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2010). NVIVO 9: Getting started. Available from www.
qsrinternational.com
457
Quinn, R. E. (1989). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and
competing demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions
every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 37-49.
Randolph, A., & Blanchard, K. (2007). Empowerment is the key. In T. Moore (Ed.),
Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high
performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Proactive customer
service performance: Relationships with Individual, task, and leadership
variables. Human Performance, 20(4), 363-390.
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.
Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school
effects. Sociology of Education, 59, 1-17.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications
and data analysis methods (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications. Inc.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & Toit, M. d. (2004).
HLM6: SSI scientific software international hierarchical linear & nonlinear
modelling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Reigle, R. F. (2001). Measuring organic and mechanistic cultures. Engineering
Management Journal, 13(4), 3-8.
Reimann, B. C. (1975). Organizational effectiveness and managements public values:
A canonical Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 224-241.
Rinaldo, R. (2008). Envisioning the nation: Women activists, religion and the public
sphere in Indonesia. Social Forces, 86(4), 1781-1804.
Robbins, S., Bergman, R., Stagg, I., & Coulter, M. (2006). Management (4th ed.).
Frenchs Forest NSW, Australia: Pearson.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000).
Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico,
458
Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power
distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 643-658.
Robinson, C., & Schumacker, R. E. (2009). Interaction effects: centering, variance
inflation factor, and interpretation issues. Multiple Linear Regression
Viewpoints, 35(1), 1-11.
Rodwell, J. J., Kienzle, R., & Shadur, M. A. (1998). The relationships among work
related perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee performance: The
integral role of communication Human Resource Management, 3(4), 277-293.
Rosen, B., & Jerdec, T. H. (1976). The Influence of age stereotypes on managerial
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 128-132.
Ross, K. N. (2005). Sample design for educational survey research (pp. 1-82). Paris:
UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Rosse, J. G., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee
health, withdrawal, and change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 324-341.
Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A Meta-analysis of gender group
differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of
Management, 38(2), 719-739.
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76-82.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
SAFARI-PPTIK UGM. (Ed.) (2008) Jawa-kamus online. Yogyakarta, Indonesia:
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Saint, W., Hartnett, T. A., & Strassner, E. (2003). Higher Education in Nigeria: A
status report. Higher Education Policy, 16, 259-281.
Sarros, J.C.,&Santora, J.C.(2001).The transformational-transactional leadership model
in practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 383-393.
Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management is an ethical imperative. Organizational
Dynamics, 12(4), 5-22.
459
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (2003). Leadership that matters: The critical factors
for making a difference in people's lives and organizations' success . San
Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Schlevogt, K.-A. (2001). Institution and organizational factors affecting effectiveness:
Geoeconomic comparison between Sanghai and Beijing. Asia Pacific Journal
of Management, 18, 519-551.
Schwartzman, S. (2001). Higher education reform: Indonesia and Latin America.
Paper presented at the International Higher Education Reform. Retrieved from
http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/jakarta.htm
Sekaran, U. (1992). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (2nd
ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sellin, N. (1990). On aggregation bias. International Journal of Educational Research,
14(3), 257-268.
Serenko, A., Bay, T., Bontis, N., & Hardie, T. (2007). Organizational size and
knowledge flow: A proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
8(4), 610-627.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). The principalship: a reflective practice perspective . Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Shieh, Y.-Y. (2011). Imputation methods on general linear mixed models of
longitudinal studies. 27-35. Retrieved from http://www.documbase.com/ IMPU
TATION-METHODS-ON-GENERAL-LINEAR-MIXED-MODELS.pdf
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Work attitudes and
decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88 (3), 529-537.
Simon, L. J. (2004). Lesson #12 Multicollinearity. 1-7. Retrieved from http://online.
stat.psu.edu/online/development/stat501/12multicollinearity/05multico_vif
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to
basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary
approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.
460
Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive
leadership on teachers' performance: The intervening effects of job structuring,
decision domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42(5), 746-772.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta analysis of studies
concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11),
1005-1016.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the
relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness,
satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704.
Sproull, N. L. (1995). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and
students in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Metuchen, N.J: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc.
Stat/Math-Center-Indiana-University. (2011). CFA with missing data using AMOS. 1-
7. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath/stat/cfa/cfa8.html
Steinheider, B., Bayerl, P., & Wuestewald, T. (2006). The effects of participative
management on employee commitment, productivity, and community
satisfaction in a Police Agency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association. Retrieved from http://www.all aca
demic.com/meta/p93097.index.html
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5 ed.).
New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Stoner, J., Blanchard, K., & Zigarmi, D. (2007). The power of vision. In T. Moore
(Ed.), Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high
performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Sunarto, K. (2008). External quality assurance of higher education in Indonesia 1996-
2008: The role of the national accreditation agency for higher education. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the ASEAN Quality Assurance Agencies
Roundtable Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
461
Swierczek, F. W. (1991). Leadership and culture: Comparing Asian managers.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 12(7), 3-10.
Tadjudin, M. K. (2000). Higher education in Indonesia and the role of transnational
education. Higher Education in Europe, 25(3), 395-400.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of
mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research .
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O., & Popoola, S. O. (2007). Work motivation, job satisfaction,
and organisational commitment of library personnel in academic and research
libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library philosophy and practice 9(2), 1-16.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the
relationships between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and
fellow employees' attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 455-465.
Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,
33(3), 253-258.
Tjeldvoll, A. (2011). Change leadership in universities: the Confusion dimension.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 219-230.
Tuijnman, A. C., & Keeves, J. P. (Eds.). (1994) International Encyclopedia of
Education (2 ed.). Great Britain: Pergamon.
Tuuli, M. M., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Performance consequences of psychological
empowerment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management .
Retrieved from http://www.ascelibrary.org
UB (Brawijaya University) (2008). Pola tata kelola Universitas Brawijaya [The
governance pattern / statute of Brawijaya University] . Malang, Indonesia:
Brawijaya University.
Ugboro, I. O. (2006). Organizational commitment, job redesign, employee
empowerment and intent to quit among survivors of restructuring and
downsizing. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 232-257.
462
Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). The management leadership, employee
empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM
organizations: an empirical study. Journal of Quality Management, 5, 247-272.
UM (State University of Malang) (2010). Catalogue of the State University of Malang.
Malang, Indonesia: BAAKPSI
UNESCO. (2006). Higher education in South-East Asia. Bangkok, Thailand: Asia and
Pacific Regional Bureau for Education (APEID).
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Bosch, F. A. J. V. D., & Volberda, H. W. (2012).
Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational
size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28-51.
VanYperen, N. W., Berg, A. E. V. D., & Willering, M. C. (1999). Towards a better
understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and
organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 , 377-392.
Vilkinas, T., & West, D. (2011). Leadership behaviour displayed by heads of school -
its extent and importance. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 33(4), 347-361.
Vogt, W. P. (1993). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide
for the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: managing participation in
organizations. (Vol. ). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: a
reconsideration of research evidence. The Academy of Management Review,
19(2), 312-330.
Wallace, M., & Marchant, T. (2011). Female administrative managers in Australian
universities: not male and not academic. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 33(6), 567-581.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and
Development Journal, 37(2), 28-36.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-
member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational
463
leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
The Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
Weick, K. E. (1982). Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 63(10), 673-676.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Industrial Relations Center.
Welch, A. R. (2007). Blurred Vision?: Public and private higher education in
Indonesia. High Educ, 54(5), 665-687.
White, K., Carvalho, T., & Riordan, S. (2011). Gender, power and managerialism in
universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(2), 179-
188.
Willcoxson, L., & Millett, B. (2000). The management of organisational culture.
Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behavior, 3(2), 91-99.
Williams, T. (1998). Job satisfaction in teams. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 9(5), 782-799.
Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J. C., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to
hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,
8(1), 52-69.
World Bank. (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and Promise.
Washington, D.C.
Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions,
9(4), 472. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt94n.htm
Wu, M. L., & Adams, R. J. (2007). Applying the Rasch model to psycho-social
measurement: A practical approach. Melbourne: Educational Measurement
Solutions.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldane, S. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest
Version 2.0. Victoria, Australia: Acer Press.
Yousef, D. A. (2003). Validating the dimensionality of Porter et al.'s measurement of
organizational commitment in a non-Western culture setting. The International
Journal of Human Resource management, 14(6), 1067-1079.
464
Yuan, R., & Keeves, J. P. (2001). The multilevel analysis of students' achievement in
learning the Chninese language. International Education Journal, 2(3), 168-
188.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J:
Prentice-Hall International Inc.
Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management
style: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations,
47(8), 977-1010.
Zhang, X.-a., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transformational leadership and
team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management
Studies, 48(7), 1586-1611.
Zigarmi, P., & Hoekstra, J. (2007). Leading change. In T. Moore (Ed.), Leading at a
higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing
organizations (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.