THE EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND MOTIVATION (Case Study: Koperasi Perkebunan Sawit Perintis, Pasaman Barat).
'T[. Efielt of lhc ktdenhiP
colntlDdf 0d
Crs
Study! KPS (ItuP.r$i
SOb o.
Orguizlitontl
Modv.frod
lc*ebull$ SNit)
P.rintie
PeEin
AI}MA EINDRA
J
Ptupoed 6 a
5ln2
Ptlitl Eadetu tt obbk B@l,.bt D.se
MANAGEMENT
DEARIME{T
BCONO TCglACULra
ANDAI,AS UI{YEBAITY
/ Tri€$r t:hn : iubatr/ 20 agutu 193? b) Nd! oBrs Tm :
h*anii da tma su4ai c) Farala I Ekmi d) JM : Mesj.nci .)
No BP : 06152022 D rmgs.r r_utus : t3 rdki 20r I g) Plsrkd Ld6 : suear
Mem@kd i) IPK : 2,93 i) rffi sodi : 4 bhm, 5 bulm j) Aldd oEng ru :
n Mmesop.h xM l, sinpbg Fmpd, Fzlee Bd.
a) Tmp3t
TEE EITECTS OF Lf,ADERSEIP STYLE ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMEM
(Ce
AJ{D MOTTVATTON
Sludy:
KoFdi Pcrlcbn.rr S.*it Pei.liq FaaD' B!nl)
Skritli Sl Oleh : Adm HerAtu
PenbinhjnE: b. Fahni Fahny, SE MBt
ABSTRACI
Th€ purpos ol dis Esch is 10 invdri8rb lhe ctTols of tqishiD sryte on
orgmiarional ammitn.nl md notivrtion in Kop€6i PeAebunm Kelap. Sawir pqintis
Pem$c aaBt Palh God d6ry explained aboul lader b.havior by dira.live fyte,
supponivc, pdnicipnlive, d achisem€nrsi€nl€d styh. ry 6ing one of ir!. sttes, a ladq
nuslcfiore b innucd@ pseption, build tuna comitncn! ad @ eilc norivarion ro ihe
subordinates. The lolal 35 a_pondetu *ere sneycd in &h res4h md aI of r\r
nspondenrs Etun lne questionnrires. The d$ oallzd by simplelios reFesion ed
fiEluency disEibutior. fte aulb or rhir Es@n indi€B leadqs[p sryt€ b^ lositive
d siedficmr efa€cl on orsuiatio.al ,,.mitnoi dd notivarion by rcsrssior lino
obtahed for otgeiztionrl @mitnent Yr = 2.115 + 0.185x dY1=2_475+O477x
Ket*.rds: I2,a.re hip stle or ory@izdiondl connnneto ad Mat
sr,iFi
inr
@Lan
dip€tu
dln
di depan sidsS p.nguji
dd dinFbln tuu
ati
pad!
.
hgsal l3 jm@l
,\
Alur6
lel.h mendaiar ks F lulrd /
Univerik
d' mddi
Nma
Petuas
Flkulb / UnivesnK
Imdr Tb
CSAPIER
I
TNTRODUCTION
1.1
Br.*grolnal otTh. R6e.rcn
L€adaship phts m
intortet ble i.lh. sucs ofd rerniation (Bss,
l99()). ClEeson (2002) d.tued thal lhe l€add is
rhal
ability to ctmre
sill itrflldcs othq peMn
!.ls
tha! haE ch@ctdistics
! suclsft! ledelhip
Tle exhtjne l@d6hip ud neagmenl Es@i
leadeFhip style
@ ldd
of nedgd
10
o
@nq
ts 65t thc
suseE
hidd me1lsls of orgaiational
connitn.nt i. their diEct EPorls, &ss (1985)' Emev dd Bldchord
(1977) md
Stogdill 0963) has denolslmlet lositive relalionsnips betw€m nmerous
ladeship sttl6
cd afret
lo
sd
deri6.
sfleol
in
is
$e abilty to sive etfecl lo
Tead (1935)
aclivity of influmcing p6pl.
a
tssk of
oforhdlowrd
tlmins,
a sp€cific
Leade^hip h
will hot
all
ofth€c
10
be tossible
d
b
o$4. p
tnev do whal
in CooFr (2003) sldled that lead@hiP is llle
c@pdate lowad sone goal $irich $€v cone to
find ddjElle. And Ludy (1957)
pnncjpally
Frfomhcq
orgeiation l omniEn@t levels.
lladdtiD
the lad€r
enploy€e dtn!ud6, notilaLion md
i.
C@pr (2003) defined that L€ade6hip is
@oidharing, notiv.ting
objeclive
l.
Undstandins eEployees ac@rding
10
@ntrclling ine etrorts
shon leodeEbip is influmce
iEFrlant conpone in
op@te without
sd
d dgeiztion'
6y hlne etivjtv
but a
onldv
ts a soutce of labor'
Hsibum (1993) h $e assts {*ealth) fot
eacn
of rhe najor orgliizations that becane active plmer
each
oreanidion\ adivnies.
sd
th€ behavior
of
The b€d way
notilaled lo
phlt
*o*
lo bdke enplove6
tosord $e conpen l}e
to b€ clmnically absent
fim wo*
e ls
litelv
style'
is
also
al., l9?4). Oigdiztiotur onDibndl ha arso ben shoM
et al., 1974). lndividual
peuorality
ofthe leadd
lanms ollardins or
ls
$c orgsiation lo exploE o$E opPonmids (allen md M'vet,
Mo*dry
to sstch
l93l; Rahm ud Slrffir'
tld @ mmiti'd se
norivariotr orFniarioml cnizmship,
needed
fie 'slrsclh"
10 develop
{Ansle and ?flrv,
?onn €t sl,, 1974) Enplovc4
a shotg .ohnitn€lt ed
leld6hi!
is erp&1ed by tbe dPloyees without tducing
th.nselvs. comnifed ebplovB
1984i
have
litelv
1996
b lave
& Poner €t
10 Posilivelv atrecl
dd job perrommc. (M've! cl al,
orguiaiion connirnmt
dd t\e su!trio/subo.dinale
2002;
is nloted lo 6otn one s
relationship (Gopindn &
Bskd'
2000r
Matnid & Zaj&, l99O in Dav€npon, 2OlO). Tne coneepl of orgdiati@al
connilnmt
has
d
inport
ni rcle in tne philos?hv of Huhd R6oNe
MMeemflr G$,n4. ERM policiB
i
d
dsigled to inPrcre org iztional
eer€lio., enplot€e coEsirheti, flexibilitv
Otgdialional
denonslnt€d
onmit
itllume on
enr is
d
dd qulitv of worL
inpofisnl job onbme b€cse ol its
posnive woii-Flaied atlitudes
ed
behavioB, lof
exdple, nisl perfomdce, orsuiBtioml citireBhip behtvior md low tumovn
As ef,Floyees tele Espo6ibilitv for wlrat thev do. tlEv b€6ne cosnined lo
$en
acrJ and ddelop positive aftilldes 10
judry
behavioral
connilnot
(Crege6on & Black 1992)
M.rivarion constitutes a central elenmt wnen so'ng thrcugh thc proe$
ofhunm
leamins.
Ifihe orsdizlio.
does nol possess
enplotees, the bo{ledse wilhin lhc ore$iadon is
$e abiliiv to molivate irs
tol
practicallv used lo a
CEA?TER 1'I
coNcLUsIoN, llMnArlON, aND RXCOMUENDATTON
'tris .hapb MII qplain
od inplic.tioD for tunr
Ihtu 3tudy
dd notivalid.
of
Aratysis of d.ta
cd
cd
b€
15.0 which tnis study
be
sq
positire dierion of
lces
at LpS psinlis
o. orguiatiomt
@nmitrn6r.
Gisdjcer
st o
colntlDdf 0d
Crs
Study! KPS (ItuP.r$i
SOb o.
Orguizlitontl
Modv.frod
lc*ebull$ SNit)
P.rintie
PeEin
AI}MA EINDRA
J
Ptupoed 6 a
5ln2
Ptlitl Eadetu tt obbk B@l,.bt D.se
MANAGEMENT
DEARIME{T
BCONO TCglACULra
ANDAI,AS UI{YEBAITY
/ Tri€$r t:hn : iubatr/ 20 agutu 193? b) Nd! oBrs Tm :
h*anii da tma su4ai c) Farala I Ekmi d) JM : Mesj.nci .)
No BP : 06152022 D rmgs.r r_utus : t3 rdki 20r I g) Plsrkd Ld6 : suear
Mem@kd i) IPK : 2,93 i) rffi sodi : 4 bhm, 5 bulm j) Aldd oEng ru :
n Mmesop.h xM l, sinpbg Fmpd, Fzlee Bd.
a) Tmp3t
TEE EITECTS OF Lf,ADERSEIP STYLE ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMEM
(Ce
AJ{D MOTTVATTON
Sludy:
KoFdi Pcrlcbn.rr S.*it Pei.liq FaaD' B!nl)
Skritli Sl Oleh : Adm HerAtu
PenbinhjnE: b. Fahni Fahny, SE MBt
ABSTRACI
Th€ purpos ol dis Esch is 10 invdri8rb lhe ctTols of tqishiD sryte on
orgmiarional ammitn.nl md notivrtion in Kop€6i PeAebunm Kelap. Sawir pqintis
Pem$c aaBt Palh God d6ry explained aboul lader b.havior by dira.live fyte,
supponivc, pdnicipnlive, d achisem€nrsi€nl€d styh. ry 6ing one of ir!. sttes, a ladq
nuslcfiore b innucd@ pseption, build tuna comitncn! ad @ eilc norivarion ro ihe
subordinates. The lolal 35 a_pondetu *ere sneycd in &h res4h md aI of r\r
nspondenrs Etun lne questionnrires. The d$ oallzd by simplelios reFesion ed
fiEluency disEibutior. fte aulb or rhir Es@n indi€B leadqs[p sryt€ b^ lositive
d siedficmr efa€cl on orsuiatio.al ,,.mitnoi dd notivarion by rcsrssior lino
obtahed for otgeiztionrl @mitnent Yr = 2.115 + 0.185x dY1=2_475+O477x
Ket*.rds: I2,a.re hip stle or ory@izdiondl connnneto ad Mat
sr,iFi
inr
@Lan
dip€tu
dln
di depan sidsS p.nguji
dd dinFbln tuu
ati
pad!
.
hgsal l3 jm@l
,\
Alur6
lel.h mendaiar ks F lulrd /
Univerik
d' mddi
Nma
Petuas
Flkulb / UnivesnK
Imdr Tb
CSAPIER
I
TNTRODUCTION
1.1
Br.*grolnal otTh. R6e.rcn
L€adaship phts m
intortet ble i.lh. sucs ofd rerniation (Bss,
l99()). ClEeson (2002) d.tued thal lhe l€add is
rhal
ability to ctmre
sill itrflldcs othq peMn
!.ls
tha! haE ch@ctdistics
! suclsft! ledelhip
Tle exhtjne l@d6hip ud neagmenl Es@i
leadeFhip style
@ ldd
of nedgd
10
o
@nq
ts 65t thc
suseE
hidd me1lsls of orgaiational
connitn.nt i. their diEct EPorls, &ss (1985)' Emev dd Bldchord
(1977) md
Stogdill 0963) has denolslmlet lositive relalionsnips betw€m nmerous
ladeship sttl6
cd afret
lo
sd
deri6.
sfleol
in
is
$e abilty to sive etfecl lo
Tead (1935)
aclivity of influmcing p6pl.
a
tssk of
oforhdlowrd
tlmins,
a sp€cific
Leade^hip h
will hot
all
ofth€c
10
be tossible
d
b
o$4. p
tnev do whal
in CooFr (2003) sldled that lead@hiP is llle
c@pdate lowad sone goal $irich $€v cone to
find ddjElle. And Ludy (1957)
pnncjpally
Frfomhcq
orgeiation l omniEn@t levels.
lladdtiD
the lad€r
enploy€e dtn!ud6, notilaLion md
i.
C@pr (2003) defined that L€ade6hip is
@oidharing, notiv.ting
objeclive
l.
Undstandins eEployees ac@rding
10
@ntrclling ine etrorts
shon leodeEbip is influmce
iEFrlant conpone in
op@te without
sd
d dgeiztion'
6y hlne etivjtv
but a
onldv
ts a soutce of labor'
Hsibum (1993) h $e assts {*ealth) fot
eacn
of rhe najor orgliizations that becane active plmer
each
oreanidion\ adivnies.
sd
th€ behavior
of
The b€d way
notilaled lo
phlt
*o*
lo bdke enplove6
tosord $e conpen l}e
to b€ clmnically absent
fim wo*
e ls
litelv
style'
is
also
al., l9?4). Oigdiztiotur onDibndl ha arso ben shoM
et al., 1974). lndividual
peuorality
ofthe leadd
lanms ollardins or
ls
$c orgsiation lo exploE o$E opPonmids (allen md M'vet,
Mo*dry
to sstch
l93l; Rahm ud Slrffir'
tld @ mmiti'd se
norivariotr orFniarioml cnizmship,
needed
fie 'slrsclh"
10 develop
{Ansle and ?flrv,
?onn €t sl,, 1974) Enplovc4
a shotg .ohnitn€lt ed
leld6hi!
is erp&1ed by tbe dPloyees without tducing
th.nselvs. comnifed ebplovB
1984i
have
litelv
1996
b lave
& Poner €t
10 Posilivelv atrecl
dd job perrommc. (M've! cl al,
orguiaiion connirnmt
dd t\e su!trio/subo.dinale
2002;
is nloted lo 6otn one s
relationship (Gopindn &
Bskd'
2000r
Matnid & Zaj&, l99O in Dav€npon, 2OlO). Tne coneepl of orgdiati@al
connilnmt
has
d
inport
ni rcle in tne philos?hv of Huhd R6oNe
MMeemflr G$,n4. ERM policiB
i
d
dsigled to inPrcre org iztional
eer€lio., enplot€e coEsirheti, flexibilitv
Otgdialional
denonslnt€d
onmit
itllume on
enr is
d
dd qulitv of worL
inpofisnl job onbme b€cse ol its
posnive woii-Flaied atlitudes
ed
behavioB, lof
exdple, nisl perfomdce, orsuiBtioml citireBhip behtvior md low tumovn
As ef,Floyees tele Espo6ibilitv for wlrat thev do. tlEv b€6ne cosnined lo
$en
acrJ and ddelop positive aftilldes 10
judry
behavioral
connilnot
(Crege6on & Black 1992)
M.rivarion constitutes a central elenmt wnen so'ng thrcugh thc proe$
ofhunm
leamins.
Ifihe orsdizlio.
does nol possess
enplotees, the bo{ledse wilhin lhc ore$iadon is
$e abiliiv to molivate irs
tol
practicallv used lo a
CEA?TER 1'I
coNcLUsIoN, llMnArlON, aND RXCOMUENDATTON
'tris .hapb MII qplain
od inplic.tioD for tunr
Ihtu 3tudy
dd notivalid.
of
Aratysis of d.ta
cd
cd
b€
15.0 which tnis study
be
sq
positire dierion of
lces
at LpS psinlis
o. orguiatiomt
@nmitrn6r.
Gisdjcer
st o