This thesis entitled “The analysis of dominant leadership behavior of production team leaders as observed by production operators: A case study of PT. I declare that this thesis entitled “The analysis of dominant leadership behavior of production team leaders as observed by production operators: a case study of PT.
Company Profile
It is said that organizational and workplace performance involves the role of leaders in a team, due to the premise that leadership behaviors can drive employee satisfaction, which can lead to customer satisfaction and ultimately organizational performance (Sanfilippo, Bendapudi, Rucci and Schlesinger, 2008). ). Therefore, the researcher was keen to examine the leadership behaviors common among PT leaders.
Problem Identified
Statement of the Problem
Research Objectives
Significance of Study
Theoretical Framework
Scope and Limitation of the Study
Leadership behavior has also been studied based on the culture of leadership itself (Sappinen and Kauppinen, 2004). The last dimension of the leadership behavior questionnaire is participatory leadership, as set out in the following Table 4.3.
Michigan Leadership Studies
Referring to the characteristic of this behavioral leader type, some argued that relationship-oriented behavior is superior to task-oriented leadership behavior (Cummings, MacGregor, Davey, Lee, Wong, Lo, Muise, and Stafford, 2009; Wong and Cummings, 2007). ). It is therefore worth noting Cumming's findings on how relationship-oriented behaviors outperform task-oriented behaviors in terms of these two items—productivity and effectiveness as well as teamwork.
Later Theory adopted from Michigan Leadership Studies
In addition, other theories have also been developed regarding leadership behavior as the combination of both task-oriented and relationship-oriented. This is followed by another phase in which the need for both task-oriented and relationship-oriented support decreases.
Review of Related Literature on Leadership Behavior
In fact, the general finding of a positive and significant relationship between leadership behavior and job performance is consistent with the study conducted by Azadehdel (2010). In fact, several studies have revealed that both managerial behavior and job satisfaction influence job performance.
Research Method
In addition, another reason why quantitative research was used is that this type of method was used by all the previous researchers reviewed previously (Chao, et.al., 2003; Hayward, 2005; Specifically, this Research is was descriptive research, when the method is observed from the point of view of the research objective, due to the view that such an approach should be used when dealing with the subject's behavior and discovering a phenomenon that has not yet been revealed (http: //www.ihmctan.edu/PDF/notes /Research_Methodology.pdf, 2005).
In this case, this is to find out the perceived management behavior of production team leaders from the point of view of their members. In this, data collected through the questionnaire was processed using SPSS 16.0, which was further explained in the research instrument sub-chapter.
Research Instrument
First, the introduction section was the section where the researcher informed the respondents about the purpose of the survey and the purpose of the research study. As briefly mentioned in the section of questionnaire design in the data collection method, Likert scale was used in the questionnaire to determine the leadership behavior of the production team leaders. After the tabulation process of the response of respondents, the researcher analyzed each of the variables in the questionnaire statements based on the leadership behavior dimension.
In doing so, the researcher analyzed the dominance of three leadership behaviors based on the amount of their average value of the variables. Second, the researcher also produced a scale range to determine to which level the mean value of the leadership behavior dimension variable belonged; very high, high, medium, low or very low. The table result of the three leadership behaviors was then summarized to clearly compare the overall mean value of the three leadership behaviors.
Population and Sample
Furthermore, the confidence level was 95% as it was the approximate level at which the sample values are within two standard deviations of the true population value, while the degree of variability was 0.5 as this degree described the maximum level of variability. which was the percentage of those with and without the attribute of interest (Israel, 1992 cited in http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu, 2009). Having determined these three criteria of sample size calculation, the researcher then adopted the formula provided by Yamane (1967 cited in http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006, 2009) to calculate sample sizes. In this, the researcher used the highest possible number of population as described below:.
Limitations
37% of respondents agree with the statement, followed by those who disagree or disagree at 29%. In addition, there is a similar percentage of respondents who strongly disagree as those who strongly agree, namely 9%. 36%, the majority of respondents in this variable, choose to agree with the above statement.
This behavior is participatory leadership behavior with a value of 3.41, which is close to the limit of the high criteria within the range of the scale. X production area is also another reason of the tendency of production team leaders to adopt most of the task-oriented leadership behaviors. In the frequency distribution shown in Table 4.3, most respondents admit that they neither agree nor disagree with the statements that reflect the variables in participatory leadership behavior.
ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTEPRETATION OF RESULTS
Reliability and Validity Test Result
In order to check whether the questionnaire is reliable and valid to answer the research question and achieve the objective of this study, the researcher first examined the reliability and validity of the questionnaire by pre-testing 20 respondents, which was mentioned as one. data collection process. After a pre-test survey with 20 respondents, the researcher concluded that the questionnaire was reliable and valid.
Frequency Distribution Analysis
- Respondents’ Demographic Data
- Respondents’ Questionnaire Statement Answers
Finally, those who either disagree or strongly disagree are only 6% and 4% of the total respondents, respectively. Moreover, while 23% of respondents strongly agree with this statement, 21% of them neither agree nor disagree. In this, as previously mentioned in point 6 above, most of the respondents choose to disagree or disagree with the statement.
Furthermore, the next ranking of the proportion is decided by the percentage strongly agreeing with 18%. However, the last two responses come from those who disagree and strongly disagree that their leader is likely to gather members to discuss new work-related things, with 10% and 6%. Finally, the remaining 26% of the proportion is divided into 17%, 8% and 1% of those who strongly agree, disagree and strongly disagree respectively.
The majority of respondents in this variable choose to agree with the rate at 42%, followed by those who disagree or disagree at 30%. However, it is worth noting that the second highest majority of respondents have always been those who disagree or disagree with all of the above statements.
Weighted Mean Value Analysis
- General Tabulation of Weighted Mean Value
- Weighted Mean Value based on the Range of Scale Analysis
Meanwhile, in the last position in the first ten variables with the highest mean value, the average of the respondents perceives that their leader monitors the production output through group meetings, which is included in the participative leadership behavior. This is the only variable that describes participative leadership behavior in the top ten. Since there are a total of 21 variables in this dimension of leadership behavior, while the top ten variables have been discussed earlier, it can be seen that the average value of the other 11 variables belongs to either relationship-oriented or participative leadership behavior.
Unlike those in task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership behavior, there are two variables in participative leadership behavior that are categorized in the middle level based on the scale range, which are variables 11 and 14 with mean values of 3.04 and 3.20. . respectively. Here comes the summation of the total mean value of the three leadership behaviors, task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and participative leadership. What has not been strongly established before is that the relationship-oriented leadership behavior is now proven to be the second dominant leadership behavior of production team leaders as perceived by the manufacturing operators surveyed, with a value of 3.55.
Summary of Data Interpretation and Analysis
Although the level of prevalence is not as high as the task-oriented leadership behavior, the relationship-oriented leadership behavior of production team leaders is also quite prevalent in the view of respondents as production operators. X since the manufacturing industry is an emphasis on the quality and quantity of production, the behavior of task-oriented leadership is a normal thing to be undertaken by the immediate managers of the production operators. Having all research on the dominant leadership behavior of production team leaders based on the perceptions of production operators in PT.
In addition, relationship-oriented leadership is the second most prevalent perceived behavior behind task-oriented leadership. X production team leaders to maintain task-oriented leadership behaviors and enhance relationship-oriented and participative leadership behaviors. One of the scopes and limitations of this research is that the leadership behavior under study is only that of manufacturing team leaders in the manufacturing space.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 68-72
Recommendations
- Suggestions for Company
- Suggestions for Further Research
This will allow the subsequent researcher to determine the extent of the relationship and recommend strategies to improve work performance through the leadership behaviors of production team leaders. Retrieved October 2011 from Itim International: http://geert-hofstede.com/indonesia.html Geert Hofstede: National Culture - United States. 2011, from Itim International: http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html How to design and report a Likert scale.
Retrieved October 2011, from http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina//topic-dane-likert.pdf Boeree, C. Retrieved October 2011, from International Journal of Manpower: http://www. harzing.com/download/hrmtransfer.pdf Nurmawils, N. Retrieved September 2011, from Article Base - Free Online Article Directory:. http://www.articlesbase.com/team-building-articles/the-importance-of- teamwork-381813.html.
