CC BY
34
DOI 10.18551/rjoas.2019-01.35
THE SELF-LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT CONNECTION WITH JOB RESOURCES AS MEDIATOR WITHIN ITS IMPACT TOWARD PROACTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Santosa Teguh*, Gau Tentri
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Persada Indonesia, Indonesia
*E-mail: santos.tgh@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The study aims to examine the influence of self leadership on job resources which consist of skill variety, autonomy, and developmental opportunities, and the influence of job resources on work engagement, and the influence of work engagement on proactive behaviour. The research respondents were 57 employees of PT. Sayap Mas Utama Depo Bogor. To test the proposed hypothesis, SEM PLS analysis are used. The results show that self leadership have significant positive effect on job resources which consist of skill variety, autonomy, and developmental opportunities, and job resources have a significant positive effect on work engagement. Work engagement also shows a significant positive effect on proactive behaviour.
KEY WORDS
Self leadership, job resources, work engagement, proactive behaviour.
There is such important relationship between self-leadership and employments towards employee. Self leadership is a self control toward their behaviour; it is not externally controlled by supervisor. Manz and Sims (1980), in Breevart et al. (2014), they argue that even self leadership would be able to replace leadership itself, because an individual who apply self leadership would be able to run some managerial functions, such as working monitoring, corrective action, find correct supply for the employment. Self leadership and employment are connected with the availability of job resources.
Job resources, contains of skill variety, autonomy, and developmental opportunities, it could enhance employment because of the job resources factor intrinsically or extrinsically toward the employee motivation (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources, extrinsically, is able to motivate as it contributes in achieving the job objectivity and, intrinsically, it motivates the employee when they achieve their basic desire. The more employees receive job resources, the more they will be bounded to the job. Meanwhile, the employee will be bounded more to the job as they receive the autonomy and better training (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).
Employment is a basic dimension of intrinsic motivation, it strengthen the working performance and resolute behaviour in achieving the goal within high motivation, and proud of their job. As employment is the highest level of resolute, identity, and controlled objective. Thus, high bound working behaviour will enhance proactive employee within personal initiative context.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
The interviewees of the research are 57 employees of PT. Sayap Mas Utama Depo Bogor, within complete enumeration sample collection technique. The questionnaires are delivered directly to the people in order to get the data. In order to get the self leadership variable (X), it uses 9 indicator items as stated by Houghton et al. (2012). The skill variety variable (y1) uses 3 indicators as stated by Bakker et al. (2004). Autonomy (Y2) uses 3 indicators as developed by Bakker et al. (2004). The developmental opportunities variable (Y3) uses 3 indicators as developed by Bakker et al. (2004). The employment variable (Y4) uses 9 indicators which is stated by Schaufeli and Salanova (2006). Meanwhile, the proactive behaviour variable (Y5) is determined with 3 indicators which is supported by Salanova and Schaufeli (2008).
The scale of measurement used in this method is Likert technique within 5 level of scales. The analysis technique of the study is partial least square (PLS) which is component based predictive model within variance based or component based approach. The analysed data is not required to meet the ideal criteria, it does not assume scale measurement, data distribution, and sample total. The PLS analysis technique does not require big amount of data, normal multivariate data distribution, and determinacy condition (Ghozali, 2008:4).
RESULTS OF STUDY
According to the sex of respondents, male dominates the source of data which are 47 men or 82% of the total data. Based on the age, the 29 respondents or 51% of the total data are 25 - 30 years old. According to the education level, bachelor degree dominates it with 42 people or 74&. Meanwhile, according to the contract of years of service, it takes 2 - 3 years which is dominated by 29 people or 51%.
The result of convergent validity analysis, it shows that all indicators item for each variable are valid as the loading factor is above 0,7. The result of discriminant validity test also shows such consistent result with convergent validity test. The root of AVE constructs a variable which result in another variable. The results are displayed in table 1 below.
Table 1 - The Comparison between AVE Root and Latent Variable Correlation
Variable X Yi Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
Self-leadership (X) 0,7409 0 0 0 0 0
Skill Variety (Y1) 0,5275 0,8826 0 0 0 0
Autonomy (Y2) 0,5050 0,4627 0,8634 0 0 0
Developmental Opportunities (Y3) 0,3856 0,3456 0,5242 0,8808 0 0
Employment (Y4) 0,6475 0,5484 0,6444 0,6302 0,7139 0
Proactive Behaviour (Y5) 0,3953 0,1854 0,2707 0,3251 0,4995 0,8148
The analysis of Crossloading between variables and their constructs shows that the correlation constructs value of self leadership (X) and its indicators is higher than indicator correlation between self leadership (X) and skill variety constructs (Y1), autonomy (Y2), developmental opportunities (Y3), employment (Y4) and proactive behaviour (Y5). This result also applies to other six variables that shows the prediction made by latent constructs, it predicts that the better block compared with other variable blocks.
The reliability test shows that each variable possessed composite reliability value of over 0,70. It means that the constructs of each variables posses good reliability value.
Table 2 - The Analysis Result of Composite Reliability and Cronbach Alpha
Variable Composite Reliability
Self-leadership (X) 0,9161
Skill Variety (Y1) 0,9135
Autonomy (Y2) 0,8966
Kesempatan berkembang (Y3) 0,9119
Keterikatan kerja (Y4) 0,9034
Perilaku proaktif (Y5) 0,8555
Table 3 - The Result of Coefficient Path Signification Structural Model
Connection Regression Coefficient t statistics R square
X ^ Y1 0,5275 5,7072 0,2783
X ^ Y2 0,5050 5,9453 0,2551
X ^ Y3 0,3856 3,2179 0,1487
Y1 ^ Y4 0,2706 2,4398 0,5896
Y2 ^ Y4 0,3279 2,8052
Y3 ^ Y4 0,3648 3,3308
Y4 ^ Y5 0,4995 6,1290 0,2495
The structural test model concludes that self leadership (X) provide significant positive impact toward skill variety constructs (Y1), autonomy (Y2), developmental opportunities (Y3), employment (Y4) and proactive behaviour (Y5). Because, all t statistic value shows bigger number than t critic alue which is 1,96.
According to the result of table 3, it explained that:
• Based on R-Square value, the number of 0,2783 could be interpreted that the skill variety (Y1) variable, determined by self leadership (X), is 27,83%;
• R-Square value of 0,2551 explained that the variability construct of autonomy (Y2), determined by self-leadership (X), is 25,51%;
• R-Square value of 0,1487 explained that the variability construct of developmental opportunities (Y3), determined by self-leadership (X), is 14,87%;
• R-Square value of 0,5896 explained that the variability construct of employment (Y4), determined by self-leadership (X), is 58,96%;
• R-Square value of 0,2495 explained that the variability construct of proactive behaviour (Y5), determined by self-leadership (X), is 24,95%.
Figure 1 - The Partial Least Square Result
According to the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 5,7072 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the self leadership (X) provide positive impact toward skill varieties (Y1). Thus, the first hypothesis stated that self leadership give impact toward skill variety over employees, is accepted. The employees who are able to commence self leadership will able to enhance their working performance and skills, they will perform a better work and be ready to adapt to changes occurred during their service.
Based on the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 5,9453 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the self leadership (X) provide positive impact toward autonomy (Y2). Thus, the second hypothesis stated that self leadership give impact toward skill variety over employees is accepted. The employee who possessed self leadership behaviour will try to increase their capabilities to earn bigger responsibility in order to control their outcome to be better at work and make fewer problems within.
According to the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 3,2179 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the self leadership (X) provide positive impact toward developmental opportunities (Y3). Thus, the third
hypothesis, stated that self leadership give impact toward skill variety over employees, is accepted. Employees within high self leadership dedication would be able to manage their job better, they will earn more chance to develop better as intrinsically, they are more motivated and willing to get positive support to be a better employee.
Based on the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 2,4398 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the skill varieties (Y^ provide positive impact toward employment (Y4). Thus, the fourth hypothesis, stated that skill varieties give impact toward employment over employees, is accepted. In accordance with skill varieties, the demand of high working performance and its complexity will be supported by the varieties of employee skill, thus the problem solving process will be faster.
According to the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 2,8052 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the autonomy (Y2) provide positive impact toward employment (Y4). Thus, the fifth hypothesis stated that autonomy give impact toward employment over employees, is accepted. About autonomy, the employees will be easier to overcome the working demand if they had high authority, it will result in faster decision making while facing problems.
Based on the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 3,3308 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the developmental opportunities (Y3) provide positive impact toward employment (Y4). Thus, the sixth hypothesis, stated that skill varieties give impact toward employment over employees, is accepted. The existence of higher working challenge creates opportunities for employees to be developed, because they get experience to solve problems while commencing their job.
According to the result, it could be stated that the path coefficient posses positive value within t statistic value of 6,1290 > t table value which is 1,96. It shows that the behaviour of knowledge sharing (Z1) provide significant positive impact toward knowledge sharing (Y1). Thus, the seventh hypothesis, stated that employment give impact toward proactive behaviour over employees, is accepted. The employees who are bound to their work will have positive emotion, it will increase their desire to explore more of their possible efforts in order to develop their capabilities, they will be more open minded in decision making, thus it will make the employees to be more productive.
CONCLUSION
Self leadership provides significant positive impact toward skill varieties, if the employees have higher self management, they will be able to enhance their work and increase their ability and be well prepared.
Self leadership provides significant positive impact toward autonomy, if the employees could increase a better self leadership, it will increase their authority in bigger responsibility and fewer problems.
Self leadership provides significant positive impact toward developmental opportunities, the better self leadership behaviour, the better chance to be developed for the employees as they have more motivation intrinsically.
Skill varieties provides significant positive impact toward employment over employees, if the challenge of work demand bunch of skills, the employees will increase their working experience, it will sharpen the employee skills in weary way.
Autonomy provides significant positive impact toward employment over employees, if the employees possessed high authority of their job, it will be easier for them to overcome working demand as they will be faster in decision making.
Developmental opportunities provide significant positive impact toward employment over employees, as a result of higher challenge; it will provide the employees chances to be developed as it increases their experience.
Employment provides significant positive impact toward proactive behaviour over employees, as the bounded employees will acquire positive emotion; it will make them more curios of their job and provide higher desire to be more developed and productive.
REFERENCES
1. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., and Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance.Human Resource Management,43: 83-104.
2. Bakker, A.B., and Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 309-328.
3. Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-200.
4. Bateman, T. and Crant, J.M. (1999). Proactive Behaviour: Meaning, Impact, Recommendations. Business Horizons, Vol. 42(3): 63-74.
5. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., and Demerouti, E. (2014). Daily Self-Management and Employee Work Engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 84: 31-38.
6. Daft, R.L. (2007). Understanding The Theory and Design of Organizations. Mason: Thomson Higher Education.
7. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 499-512.
8. Fay, D., and Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14: 97-124.
9. Ghozali, I. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling Metode Alternatif dengan Partial Least Square. Edisi 2. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
10. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989).Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513-524.
11. Hockey, G. R. J. (2000). Work environments and performance. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Work and organizational psychology a European perspective (pp. 206-230). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
12. Houghton, J., Dawley, D., and DiLiello, T.C. (2012). The Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire (ASlQ): A More Concise Measure of Self-Leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7(2): 216-232.
13. Jones, J.P. (2010). Happiness At Work: Maximizing Your Psychological Capital for Success. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
14. Manz, C. (1992). Self-Leadership: The Heart of Empowerment. Journal for Quality and Participation. July/August: 80-85.
15. Neck, C.P., and Houghton, J.D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21: 270-295.
16. Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behaviour at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91(3): 636-652.
17. Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). A Cross-National Study of Work Engagement as a Mediator between Job Resources and Proactive Behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 19(1): 116-131.
18. Schaufeli, W.B., and Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25: 293-315.
19. Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Volume 66(4): 701-716.
20. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., and Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30: 893-917.
21. Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M., and Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 416 - 427.
22. Seppala, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U.,Tolvanen, A., Schaufeli, W. (2009). The Construct Validity of The Utrecth Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and Longitudinal Evidence. Journal Happiness Study, 10:459-481.
23. Uhl-Bien, M., and Graen, G.B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals' self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 340-350.
24. Wayne, S.J., Shore, M., and Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 82-111.
25. Woods, S. and De Menezes, L. (1998). High Commitment Management in the UK: Evidence from The Workplace Industrial Relations Survey and Employers Manpower and Skill Practices Survey. Human Relations, 51:485-515.
26. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 74: 235-244.
