i-7!

Volume I No. 2,2010

Opinion Leadership
Paradigrn: An Alternative to
Problem Solution
Ari Hargono
(Universitas Indonesia)

Abstract
'Opinion leadershipparadigm'is a newparadigm in leadership that is
etpected to take the place of 'chairperson leaderchip'paradignt tltat is widely
pmcticed at the present time. This new leadershipparadigm isfacilitative,
participative, and democrqtic, This paradigm also believes in argament assessrilent
or analysis, decision making, hnd dissenting opinion. It is centered on alternative
opinion br argument assessment and etamines the quality of integrity and logic. It
::i is only genuine and logical opinions that can befuxherprocessed into decisions .

that will solve the problems. The person responsiblefor the whole process is called
!l facilitator', not'leader'.

rt: Keywords: opinion leadership, chairperson leadership, testing of honest and logic
opinion, facilitator.

Opinion Leaderchip,
1. Paradigm, Value in
d
l!
and Value-based Theory
Existing theories on leadetship, although
varied and mayseem paradoxical, in general
retain one key point, that is point of view on
the reality of leadership, what is considered
important or essential, howto understand
it, and how to put it into prqctice. The mu-
tual ly shared point of view is,typically called
paradigm.The writer's qualitative research
groups renowned leadership theories in one
paradigm, i.e.'chairperson leadership' or
'person leadership'. Leadership that does
not holdthe above qualities most likelyfalls
into another paradigm. The writer refers to
'opinion leadership paradigm', leadership
that is based on prqdent, genuine,logical,
and accurate opiniens
Paradigm is commonly known as a con-

1fui Harsono, 2010, "Chairperson leadership and its flaws", Iunal Makara, Social-Humanism sen'es.
Volume 14, Juli, Nomor 1.
Indonesia Social Science Reuiew
ceptual or construct model. Nonetheless, if
it is examined in details, paradigm can also
be applied in a wider context as:
" a referen ce sysfem th at g en e ral ly
influences the whole scientific
activitiesof a scientrb t. Paradigm
is fhe rule of the game, which
determines how a scientist will
'play'with his or her knowledge.
Parad ig m i ncludes bas i c i ntu itive
attitude acknowledged by a group
of people when dealing with a
pfienomenon. Paradigm will
determine which issues or
-problems that are important and
relevant to be further examined,
including which methods that
are appropriate to be applied in
examining the problems".2
Paradigm can also be seen as a set of
grand-theory or super-theory that becomes
the source of olher theories that contains
assumptions of metaphysics, ontology, epis-
temology, and axiologyon reality. Paradigm
is a framework of reference, general perspec-
tive, or global perspective that disseminates
the complexity of the realworld.s Paradigm
atfects what we would not like to see or
argue, what we woutd not choose or select,
and what we would not like to know. Para-
digm holds power: a powerto shape what
we see, how we see things, what we con-
sider as problems, what we consider benefi -
cialto solve, and what methods should be
applied in examining and performingtasks.4
Goncerning phenomenon or realism of
leadership,'opinion leadership paradigm,
has a different stance from 'person/chairper-
son leadership'. This discrepancy seemsto
be the ethical and logical consequences on
2Ignas Kleden,
1987, scientific manner and citics on cultures(Jakarta: Lp3ES), p.49.
3
Mansour Fakih, 2002, Runtuhnya Teoi
p.18 cited on Paton and Kuhn.
a
Mansour Fakih, op.cit., p.19.
5
Ari Harsono, op.cit.
94
drawbacks (lack of knowledge) of 'chairper-
son leadership'. Moreove6'opinion leader-
ship'paradigm is meant as a "correction"
that is expected to shape better and more
accurate leadership practices. Hence,
corrections on'chairperson leadership'
flaws mostly become the strengths as well
as the characteristics of 'opinion leader-
ship'.
The key weakness of 'chairperson
leadership paradigm' is that the chairper-
son orthe leader might not always be the
most intelligent, the wisest, the most
genuine; or the most impartial person.
Howeve6 theories and practices have shown
that a leader himself or herself is the per-
son that always acts as the ultimate deci-
sion maken Logically concluded, decisions
made by a Ieader might not always be fair.
Therefore, if we would like to have a fairer
or mole impartial world,'chairperson lead-
ership paradigm' is definitely out of the
question.
ln short, the flaws of 'chairperson leader-
ship paradigm' are: person-centered, leader
serves as ultimate decision maker, leader
is seen as exceptional, leader holds preroga-
tive rights and privileges in many aspects,
less egalitarian, Iess genuine interactions,
no mid-term achievement reoort, monopoly
in formulation of vision and mission, collabo-
ration as a sign of submission, defects in
democracy, more groupthink, leader is re-
luctant to impose sanctions on influentiil
offenders, false or artificial participation from
members, oligarchic democracy, rivalry and
competition fortop positions (such as in the
general election or local election) have
become an industry and therefore, they are
costly and prone to bribery.s
Pembangunan dan Gtobalisasi (Yogyakarta: Insist press),
 Volume 1No.2,2010

Those flaws are mainly concerning val-
ues: what are seen and considered noble,
virtuous, just, appropriate, etc. on the sub-
ject of leadership. Thus, corrections will also
be derived from values. Values that emu-
late key viewpoints of a paradigm exist in
its metaphysical and axiological elements.
'Opinion leadership paradigm' holds several
values, and these values are present and
elaborated in'opinion leadership theory', and
hence, it becomes 'value-based theory'.6
The overall values and accounts are ex-
pected to become'ample knowledge' (ra-
tional, ethi'bd, logical) contained in the
'opinion leadership paradigm'.
'Value-based theory' is an alternative to
overcome the flaws of 'data-based theory'.
ln qualitative research, there is a type of
theory formulation that derives from data
that has been long known as data-based
theory or grounded theory.7 Data indicated
here are data rooted-in reality or empirical
experience. This then leads to crucial issues.
lf the examined reality is wrong-bad be-
cause it has been wrongly-badly constructed
(remember infamous quotation from Peter
Berger: "realtty is socially constructedl,
the outcome theory will also be wrong-bad,
in:--mostly likely- larger scale.
With reference to the etYmologY of
theory the writer proposes another model;
that is theoryformulation or reconstruction
anchored in values: value'based theory.
Communalvalues can be grouped into re-
ligious, moral/ethical, and legal values.
Theory derives from Greek language
theorea,which means 'to see' or'to watch'.
Ancient Greek performed theoreato reach
life autonomy and wisdom. Theorea is con-
ducted by theoros - citizens of apolis (city
state) - in a religious ceremony that
presents sacral rituals.s (Hardiman:l 9-20;
Habermas,1990: 1 55). lt is clear that theorea
is closely related to morality. lt is different to
the definition of theory in its development;
now it has been reduced and retracted from
morality - particularly by positivism - so
that it is currently understood in technical-
scientific or methodologicalsense as logi-
cal-formal statement on the relations of
propositions, concepts, and definitions that
describes, explains, and predicts certain
phenomendn, Theory'that rejects and does
not contain moral values epitomizes
positivistic paradigm.
The main value in 'opinion leadership'
paradigm is thattruth (in terms of decision)
does not depend on the person, but relies
on opinion or argument. Truth can come
from anyone who is able to think, contem-
plate, and find ("Truth comes from God",
Qur' an, Al-Baqarahzl 41. lt ref lects ethical-
philosophicalview on the parity of human
as social being, as homo homini socius.
Our philosophy, Pancasila, believes that
'opinion leadership'is an elaboration of the
fourth principle "Democracy suided by the
wisdom in the unanimi{ arising out of de-
liberations amongst representatives". Un-
derlines (by researcher) on the phrase 'guided
by the wisdom' is meant as interpretation
and assertion that the leader is not a "per-
son" (chief or chair). but wisdom or good
iudgment. Good judgment can come from
anybody; it does not always come from the
leader (chair), as long as the person has the

6
Examples of value and management relationship are available in Hafidudin and Tanjung ,2003, Shar'iah
Manajement in Practice (Jakarta: Gema Insani Press).
7
Kristi Poerwandari, 2003, Pendekatan Kualitatif untuk Penelitian Petilaku Manusia(Jakarta: LPSP3
FakultasPsikologiUl),p.38; AnselmStraussdanJulietCorbin,2003,Dasar-dasarPenelitianKualitattf
(Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar), pp. 13- 15.
8 F. Budi Hardiman, t990, Kritik ideologi: Pertautan pengetahuan dan kepentingan (Yogyakarta:
Kanisius), pp.19-20; Jiirgen Habermas, 1990,ILmu dan teknologi sebagai ideologi(Jakarta: LP3ES),
p.155.
Indonesia Social Science Reuiew

intelligence, skills and can take actions.e 1. Thought, view

The preceding paragraph can beweighed
against the,applications of Pancasila prin-
ciples: "Exchange of ideas in discussions is
conducted in sensible manner and with
gobO intent. Decisions made must be able
to be morally acknowledged to the Almighty,
hold up integrity and humanity as well as
honesty and justice, and put forward unity
and harmony for mutual interests".10
Religion (lslam) believes that 'opinion
leadership' is in line with hadith (narrations
concerning the words and deeds of the
orophet Muhammad bv Bukhari-Muslim
from Abdullah bin Umar: "Each and every
one is leaden and you are accountable for
your leadership". In terms of leadership
(decision making), this statement indicates
that every person holds the right and has
the opportunity to lead (particularly through
decision makingf; since the person under-
stands that he or she will be accountable
for his or her decision, the person must
make a right decision.
2. Definition and Gharacteristic of Opinion
Leadership
Kamus Besar Bahasa inctonesia, third
edition, 2002, states that there are two defi-
nitions for'leader'. First, it is the person who
leads. Second, it is guidance, such as guide-
lines (codes). L{/ebster Dictionary also
points out the second definition; it even
puts it on top, leader=something that leads.
Hence, it is lucid that leader does not only
mean 'person' like commonly known by
most people.
ln Kamus Besar Bahasa lndonesra (Big
Dictionary of lndonesian Language, 2002),
the word'opinion' means:
2. Deliberation or assessment (on some-
thing)
3. Person who first discovers
4. Conclusion (after consideration, inves-
tigation, etc,).
Therefore, the definition of 'opinion' in
'opinion leadership' covers: thought, vieq
deliberation, and conclusion on something
after considering and investigating the
facts. Based on this etymology, the idea
on opinion leadership gains its foundation
and key definition, and also its ontologica!
and epistemological basis. lt is not some-
thing that is made up of nothing. This
thought isthen constructed and developed
as a paradigm.
Corresponding to the main value ol, t .y
characteristic of 'opinion leadership' para-
digm; the definition of 'leadership' is "fa-
cility for implementation of examination/
verification and determination of the most
reasonable and truthful opinion/argument
for mutuaI decision making"; or, "facility for
mutual decision making through examina-
tion/verification of the most reasonable
and truthful opinion/argument".
The above definition contains several
elements of concepts that reciprocally form
the characteristics of 'opinion leadership'.
The concept must be further explained: fa-
cilitated by facilitato[ examination/verifica-
tion, decision making, mutual participation,
dissenting opinion, and democracy.
a. F acilitated by' F acilitator
The process of decision making via
opinion examination/verification is facili-

e
Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia,2}}Z.
r0LaboratoriumPancasilalKlP,lgS4.PendidikanPancuiladiPergwuanTinggi.edisikeempat.Malang.
p.65.

v,{ tated by afacilitator (not chair, chief, coor-
dinatori CEO, managq etc.). Using thister-
minology, the person held the responsibility
will feel that he or she has the obligation
to make things easier (not more ditficult)
for other people, opinions, and organiza-
tions; to mutually find and determine the
corect opinionsthat can be escalated into
decisions. The roles of facilitator are rela-
tively the same as G (group, democratic)
leadership style introduced by Vroom and
Yetton: to facilitate discussions, encourage
active participation in problem identifica-
tions, evaiiiate alternative solutions, and
reach consensus in problem solving.
The prophet Muhammad 14 centuries
ago stated: "The leader of a group or na-
tion is the servant of the group or nation"
(Abu Na'im), and "Dear God, if the leader
of my people makes things difficult for
them,please make all difficultfor him. And
if the leader makes-things easier for his
followers, iilease make all easier for him."
(Muslim from Aisyah).I1
The term 'facilitator' is also in propor-
tion to the concept of facilitative leader-
ship,12 and even makes it more apparent
and concrete. Facilitatorcan be categorized
basedon'the work scope and level in the
organization, from Facilitator 1, Facilitator
2, etc. to the lowest level. The total level of
facilitator depends on the hierarchy within
the organization.
tl RidwanYahya,2004,MemilihPemimpin dalamPerspektif klam(Jakarta: Pustaka Nawaitu), p.31.
12
James H. Svara & Associates,1994, Facilintive Leasdership in Local Govemment (California:
Jossey-Bass Inc.)
:
13
Jalaludin Rakhmat, 1985, Psikologi Komunikasi(Bandung: Remaja Karya), p.88 citing on Hunt,
1982, p.139
ra
J. Sudarminta,2}}Z, Epistemologi Dasar. Pengantar FilsafatPengetaltuan (Yogyakarta: Kanisius),
pp.l25-126.
15
J.P. Hayon, 2005, Logika (Jakarta: ISTN); R.G. Soekadij o,1994, LogikaDaszr(Jakarta: Gramedia),
chapter 2.
1
Volume 1No.2,2010
b. Exami n atio nNe rif icati o n o n O pi n i on
To date, there have been many decision
making processes that are illogical and ir-
rational, including within the domain of
scientists, professionals, and government
otficials. "t am always surprised to see the
experts we are assessing rarely think infor-
mallogics. Most of them think inferentially,
which is based on communalrecognition".l3
Thus, decision must be made through
examination/verification on the truth of
each alternative of opinions or arguments,
whether it is' rational truth' or tfactual truth'.1 4
Verification on rational truth is conducted
using logical principles to later determine
whether there are any logical fallacies.ls
Opinions containing logical fallacies will not
be included in the next process, such as
considered as alternative decision in voting
(Moreoveri to be determined as a final de-
cision like what Bush Jr. decided on lraq).
Logicalexamination on certain cases may
involve sworn experts on logics. Decision
making contributors must also possess
adequate knowledge concerning logical
fallacies. Factual truth of every opinion/
argument is proven or verified by sets of
research rules to find whetherthere is em-
pirical evidence.
Truth on opinion or argument must also
be examined and be based on key norms
within the community (religious, moral, and
legal norms), which typically are rooted in
uprightness; to identify whether there arc lies
:
Indonesia Social Science Reuiew
intelligence, skills and can take actions.e
The preceding paragraph can be weighed
against theapplications of Pancasila prin-
ciples: "Exchange of ideas in discussions is
conducted in sensible manner and with
9o6O intent. Decisions made must be able
to be morally acknowledged to the Almighty,
hold up integrity and humanity as well as
honesty and justice, and put forward unity
and harmony for mutual interests".lo
Religion (lslam) believes that'opinion
leadership'is in linewith hadith (narrations
concerning the words and deeds of the
prophet Muhammad) bv Bukhari-Muslim
l- J
from'Abdullah bin Umar: "Each and every
one is leaden and you are accountable for
your leadership". ln terms of leadership
(decision making), this statement indicates
that every person holds the right and has
the opportunity to tead (particularly through
decision making); since the person under-
stands that he or she will be accountable
for his or her decision, the person must
make a right decision.
2. Definition and Characteristicof Opinion
Leadership
Kamus'Besar Bahasa lndonesia, third
edition, 2002,states thatthere are two defi-
nitions for'leader'. FirsL it is the person who
leads. Second, it is guidance, such as guide-
lines (codes). Webster Dictionary also
points out the second definition; it even
puts it on top, leader=someth@ thatleads.
Hence, it is lucid that leader does not only
mean 'person' like commonly known by
most people.
ln Kamus Besar Bahasa lndonesra (Big
Dictionary of lndonesian Language, 2002),
the word'opinion' means:
e Kamus Besar Bahasa
Indonesia,z}}z.
r0LaboratoriumPancasilalKlP, 1984. PendidikanPancuiladiPergtrruanTinggi.edisikeempat.
p.65.
1. Thought, view
2. Deliberation or assessment (on some-
thing)
3. Person who first discovers
4. Conclusion (after consideration, inves-
tigation, etc.).
Therefore, the definition of 'opinion' in
'opinion leadership' covers: thought, view,
deliberation, and conclusion on something
after considering and investigating the
facts. Based on [his etymology, the idea
on opinion leadership gains its foundation
and key definition, and also its ontological
and epistemological basis. lt is not some-
thing that is made up of nothing. This
thought is then constructed and developed
as a paradigm.
Corresponding tothe main value o, t .y
characteristic of 'opinion leadership' para-
digm; the definition of 'leadership' is "fa-
cility for implementation of examination/
verification and determination of the most
reasonable and truthful opinion/argument
for mutualdecision making"; or, "facilityfor
mutual decision making through examina-
tion/verification of the most reasonable
and truthful opinion/argument".
The above definition contains several
elements of concepts that reciprocally form
the characteristics of 'opinion leadership'.
The concept must be further explained: fa-
cilitated by facilitator, examination/verifica-
tion, decision making, mutual participation,
dissenting opinion, and democracy.
a. F acilitated by'Facilitator
The process of decision making via
opinion examination/verification is facili-
Malang.

tated by a facilitator (not chair; chief, coor-
dinatoq CEO, manage[ etc.). Using this ter-
minology, the person held the responsibility
will feel that he or she has the obligation
to make things easier (not more difficult)
for other people, opinions, and organiza-
tions; to mutually find and determine the
correct opinionsthat can be escalated into
decisions. The roles of facilitator are rela-
tively the same as G (group, democratic)
leadership style introduced by Vroom and
Yetton: to facilitate discussions, encourage
active participation in problem identifica-
tions, evalUate alternative solutions, and
reach consensus in problem solving.
The prophet Muhammad 14 centuries
ago stated: "The leader of a group or na-
tion is the servant of the group or nation"
(Abu Na'im), and "Dear God, if the leader
of my people makes things difficult for
them, p/ease make all ditficultfor him. And
if the leadbr makes_things easier for his
followers, please make all easier for him."
(Muslim from Aisyah).11
The term 'facilitator' is also in propor-
tion to the concept of facilitative leader-
ship,12 and even makes it more apparent
and concrete. Facilitatorcan be categorized
based on the work scope and level in the
organ ization, f rom Faci itator 1, Faci itator
I I
2, etc. to the lowest level. The total level of
facilitator depends on the hierarchy within
the organization.
ltRidwanYahya,2004,MemilihPemimpin dalamPerspektif klam(Jakarta: Pustaka Nawaitu), p.31.
12
James H. Svara & Associates, 1994, Facilitative Leasdership in Local Govemmenr (California:
Jossey-Bass Inc.)
13
Jalaludin Rakhmat, 1985, Psikol ogi Komunikasi (Bandung: Remaja Karya), p.88 citing on Hunt,
1982, p.139.
ra
J. Sudarminta,2002, Epistemologi Dasar. Pengantar FilsafatPengetaltuan (Yogyakarta: Kanisius),
pp.t25-126
rs
J.P. Hayon, 2005, Logika (Jakarta: ISTN);R.G. Soekadijo, 1994, LogikaDasar(lakarta:Gramedia),
chapter 2.
Volume 1No.2,2010
b. ExaminationNerification on Opinion
To date, there have been many decision
making processes that are illogical and ir-
rational, including within the domain of
scientists, professionals, and govern ment
officials. "l am always surprised to see the
experts we are assessing rarely think infor-
mallogics. Most of them think inferentially,
which is based on communalrecognition".l3
Thus, decision must be made through
examination/Verification on the truth of
each alternative of opinions or arguments,
whether it is'rational truth' or'factual truth'.la
Verification on rational truth is conducted
using Iogical principles to later determine
whether there are any logical fallacies.ls
Opinions containing logical fallacies will not
be included in the next process, such as
considered as alternative decision in voting
(Moreover; to be determined as a final de-
cision like what Bush Jr. decided on lraq).
Logicalexamination on certain cases may
involve sworn experts on logics. Decision
making contributors must also possess
adequate knowledge concerning logical
fallacies. Factual truth of every opinion/
argument is proven or verified by sets of
research rules to find whether there is em-
pirical evidence.
Truth on opinion or argument must also
be examined and be based on key norms
within the community (religious, moral, and'
legal norms), which typically are rooted in
u prightness; to identify whether there are lies
Indonesia Social Science Reuiew
(fallacies of conscience) underneath. Truth
or honesty should be assessed using sets of
tools: vow or oath (mubahalah),lie detecto[
and psychoanalysis. Truth detection or exami-
nation is highly essential because if there
are self-deceptions within the members of
an organization, it will be extremely diffi-
cult forthe organization to get to its top per-
formance.l6 The most logical and mindful
argument oropinion then will be accepted
as decision by consensus.
Discussions in the examination/verifi-
cation nlust be conducted in a situation in
which'ideal communication' can take place,
no over-powerordomination, and no pres-
sure or threat, whether it is subtle or no-
ticeable, at the present or in the future.17
Bribery in the form of money, goods, facility,
position, or other forms of gratification - at
the present or later in the future - is a type
of subtle threat that will blow the opportu-
nity for a correct?nd rightful decision; and
it is not at the level of 'consensus theory of
truth'.18
Examination or verification on opinion
is ascientific mannq which should be con-
ducted voluntarily, with no opposition, by
hlghly-educated decision makers. Refusal or
negative response on such examination or
verification is indeed a defiance of lectures
on theory and methodology.
c. Decision Making
The above definition stipulates the as-
pects of decision making. lt is because all
activities conducted by an organization
starting from its establishment, formulation
of the organization's vision and mission, to
its operations, development, and evalua-
t6
The fubinger Institute, 2000, Leadership and Self-Deceptions: Getting out
BenerKoehler Publisher, Inc.)
t7
F. Budi Hardinnn, 1990, kitik ldeologi, Pertautan Pengetahuan dan Kepentingan (Yogyakarta:
Kanisius), p.200.
r8
F. Budi Hardiman, op cit.,p.202.
tion - are examples of decision making.
Those decisions must be made in consen-
sus, not by a person, while it may come from
one's idea (does not have to be the chair-
person or the executive). The prior condi-
tions naturally are based on assumption
that there is clear division (and separation)
of authority concerning by whom and in
which areas that decision must be made.
Decisions can be made by all members of
the organization, delegated members to-
getherwith the chairperson, orthe chairper-
son himself/herself.
Decision making process must consider
the level of importance of the decision to
be made.
1. 'Most significant' issues are decided or
resolved by all members (including the
chairperson or executive). Example:
election for prospective head or staff of
a division, formulation of organization's
vision and mission.
2. 'significant' issues are decided by de-
legated members together with the
chairperson (member's representatives
may askfor inputsfrom the whole mem-
bers beforehand). Example: implemen-
tation strategy for programs that are ap-
pointed by higher institution.
3. 'Lesssignificant'issues may be decided
by afacilitatorwithout asking for inputs
from member's representatives or mem-
bers in general. Such decision making
process is allowed when the impact is
- extremely small; if wrong decision is
made, it will not harm the organization
(the effect is negligible). Example: drinks
prepared for meetings: tea and mineral
of Tle Box (San Fransisco:
 Volume 1 N0.2,2010

wate[ or tea and cotfee.
Each authority must be clearly elabo-
rated in terms of constraint; it will be more
beneficial if it is formulated into a list orfile.
Unquestionably, there will be grey areas that
should be discussed further.
Otherthan the above division, there are
other key aspects in decision making: moral
or integrity of the 'individual' and integrity
of the'system'. "To build integritywithin the
process of decision making, the first provi-
sion is that participated individuals must
uphold thd{r integrity. Simultaneously, the
process mustalso uphold and induceintegrity
of all paiticipants."le
d. Mutu al ParticiPation
Decision making principally requires
and encourages collective participation
from its participantq or constituents. The
more decisions are decided communally
and the more participation is gathered from
its members, the more participative and
democratic the decision making, facilitator,
and organization will be.
There are numerous techniques de-
veloped to extend more quality participa-
tion,20 although they may stretch the
process. The most important technique is
to open opportunity for participation for any-
one capable and interested in giving inputs'
Opening and announcing opportunity for
pirticipation are crucial as there are indi-
viduals that might be qitical, but are dis-
liked (due to their criticism), so that they are
not appointed to be representatives, while
thereare passiveand less participative mem-
bers, butthey are popular, and hence, they
become the representatives of the members
or groups.
lnputsfordecision making can be given
in both written and oral. Written inputs may
be submitted in the form of mails or emails.
Software currently available has made it
possible to conduct meetings or seminars
via computer network (conference call), and
maintain the opinion's confidentiality (who
said what)untildecision is made.a Such con-
tidentiality is i m portant to maintain f airness
and restrain support based on popularity
(discourage support on more popularor in-
fluenced people, and vice versa).
Oralinputs are employed restrictedly in
registering problems and facts as well as
alternative sol utions. Eval uations on alterna-
tivedecisions and decision making should
be conducted in written and (temporarily)
confidential. These two approaches are
exercised to prevent domination of certain
participants, the facilitator him/herself , or
other members. Therefore, time and oppor-
tunity for each participant must be divided
fairly or equally and agreed prior to the
commencement of the discussions.
Domination in participation at times is
inevitable since there are mem'oei-s or par-
ticipants who are eager to be recognized
and to look in control, although their inputs
are mundane and dull; or in contrast, mem-
bers or participants who can indeed give
valuable inputs, complex, and comprehen-
sive. Facilitator (as a substitute forthe term
'chairperson' or 'executive'), to function
etfectively, must not be "overly passive or
dominating".22

le Keshavan Nair, 1997, A Higher Standard of Leadership: Ajaran dari Kehidupan Gandhi (Terj.)
(Jakarta: Gramedia), p.87.
20
Hetifah Sj. Sumarto , 2004, Inovasi, Partisipasi, dan Good Govemance (Jakarta: Yayasan Obor
Indonesia).
21
http:i/ www.lanconference.com
22
GaryYukl,1984, Kepemimpinan dalam Organisasi (Terj.) (Jakarta: Prenhallindo), p.348.
 Indoruesia Social Science Reuiew
Other unavoidable issues are boiling
and emotional debates or arguments thai
might be anchored in untruthful or decep-
tive manner. lf such arguments are caused
by divergent point of view, extreme de-
bates can still be hindered; the facilitator
can remind the opposing parties (the code
of conduct of the meeting) and ask them
to lower their voice
e. Dissenting Opinion
pecision making also employs the
concept of dissenting opinion: non-con-
formlng opinions or arguments are fully
noted and reported in the decision making
minutes or report. The concept originated
from the legal world will atso be vatuable
and advantegeous if implemented as com-
plementary of decision making processes
in other sectors, both in buliness and
government institutions. Such implemen-
tation will even bear democratic value: dis-
senting opinions are not merely,lip-service,
just like what commonly happen, but also
thoroughly stated in the report.
This decision making report must be
made open for public, except ctassified
and sensitive matters (particularly when in-
volving nationalissues). public can access
real evidence on the quality of the House
representatives, commissaries, or execu-
tives as decision makers. Documentations
on dissenting opinions will serve as com-
parison in the evaluation of the decision,s
implementation orevaluation of the quality
of the decision makers. Reports are made
based on audio-visual recordings and
notes from alldecision making processes.
f. "Democraclf
The significance of the hbove five con-
cepts (a to e) is recapped in the concept
23
F' Budi-Hardiman, 1993, Menuju Masyarakat Komunikarf (Yogyakarta:
Habermas).
of democracy. However, the concept of de-
mocracy must be revised or reconstructed
to correct or amend the procedures of sim-
ple,'majority (507o + 1) that typically only
result in legitimacy - commonly minus ,,ra-
tionalization" or good r€ason -forthe ma-
jor votes. Politics (power), nonetheless, is
not only concerning legitimacy, but atso ra-
tionalization.2sAs a result, cunent concepts
of democracy do not constantly resutt in
substantially rightful - rational (logicat-ethi-
cal)- decision, including decision making
for election of executives, leaders, House
representatives, commissaries, managers,
etc. Therefore, democracy must also be
recognized as decision making in process
since the outcome of democracy is deci-
sion: on who, what, hoq where, and when.
Democratic practices - resulted in de-
cision making - in the national level (House
of Representatives, the President), regional
(ASEAN), and internationat levet (UN, WTO,
lMF, World Bank, lLO, WHO, sports organi-
zations, etc.)must be complemented with
the above examination orassessment pro-
cedures.
3. Key Characteristics of Opinion
Leadership
From the significant values of ,opinion
leadership' pamdigm, some key charactgris-
ticsof this paradigm can be identified and
described.
1. The ultimate decision maker basically is
not the person (who) holds the author-
ity as the chair, head, coordinator, GEO,
manager - or typically called leader _
but assessment;ortest on the logic and
truthfulness of opinions (what), which
is conducted by a facilitator and experts
in logics (particirlarly if the decision is
concerning the people,s basic need).
Kanisius), p. 122 citing on

2. Facilitator (substitute of leader/chairper-
son concept) is not exceptiona! or su-
/ perior; both as homo soclus and homo
sapiens; his/her prerogatives and privi-
leges are restricted (only in certain areas),
and also decided beforehand. There is
no ditference in terms of position as
'leader/chairperson' and'manager'.
Hence, there will be no significant rela-
tion to financia!, social, and political
compensation.
3. Relations between facilitatorand mem-
bers or participants are more egalitarian,
more genuine, more communicative,
and less strategic. The atmosphere in
'opinion leadership' is more communi-
cative and open compared to the at-
mosphere in'chairperson leadership'.
Decision making is made through pro-
cedures and processes modeled in the
Theory of Communicative Gompetence
or Discourse Etlfics from Habermas.2a
So, it is closeto the'idealspeech situa-
tion' envisaged by Habermas.
4. The atmosphere of opinion leadership
paradigm encourages experts to be the
best, the most skillful, and the finest (ex-
cellent and masterpiece) since they are
challenged by the implementation and
benefits from extensive skills and
knowledge.
5. No more monopoly on vision and
mission formulation by (prospective)
leader or chairperson since the person
only acts as facilitator. ln addition, vision
and mission are actually opinion or pur-
pose that must be rationalized. Thus,
2aFranzvon Magnis-Suseno, 2000, 12 tokoh etika abadke-20 (Yogyakarta: Kanisius), p.229,pp.19-
23.
2s
Afsaneh Nahavandi, 2000, The afi and science of leadership,Znd ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Inc.) p.0;Wirawan, 2002,TeoiKepemimpinan: pengantaruntukpraktikdanpenelitian, Jilid 1 (Jakarta:
Uhamka Press).
26
Jalaluddin Rakhmat, op.cit.,p. I 14.
Volume 1No. 2,2010
in this case, the effort to find the cor-
rect opinion should not differentiate
'leader' and 'manager', like what mostly
occurs in many literatures.2s
6.'Opinion leadership' can minimize authori-
tarian practices and styles in leadership,
even if the person him/herself is authori-
tarian; a personality syndrome marked
by, among others, intense ambition on
powel avoiding responsibility, and ten-
dency to project self-weaknesses onto
others.26
7. ln the practice of.'opinion Ieadership',
facilitatorfocuses on the techniques of
facilitating, which can be learned by any-
one. Nevertheless, appointed or elected
facilitator should be a person who up-
holds integrity ('honesty', skills, intelli-
gence) on the whole. Facilitator is not just
a figure appointed according to the ma-
jority (50%o + 1).
8. 'Opinion leadership'can reduce ground-
less, manipulative, irrational, heartless,
illogical, unscientific decision making
that contains psychological violence.
9. 'Opinion leadership' makes it possible
for a facilitator to effortlessly gain respect
and recognition, and beseen aswiseand
charismatic figure by the participants,
stakeholders, and the community with-'
out the necessity to subjectively claim
that he/she is respected, recognized,
and charismatic. Those will naturally take
place if the facilitator makes rational,
reliable, and honest decisions.
 Indonesia Social Scienci:e Reuiew
10. In 'opinion leadership,, the genetic
flaws of democracy as well as oligar-
chic democracy or elite democracy will
be diminished.
l l.Teamwork and supports from partici-
pants as a whole can be hindered from
submissiveness and groupthink. The
teamworkwilleven be marked with ra-
tional, critical, constructive, and loyal
opposition attitude. Member partici-
pations will no longer be artificial.
i
12. Fa'eilitator will no tonger be reluctant
and hesitantto impose sanctions on in_
fluenced violatorc, or even the facilitator,s
close friends, since he/she is not afraid
to lose his/her popularity.
13. Facilitator can be compelled to submit
reports in the middle ofhis/her work pe-
riod, unlike the commonly practiced
democratiD leadership that is only fa-
miliar with end-of-term report.
1 4. Competition for top position/fac i I itator,
like in the general election, will not
occu[ and hence, it will not be turned
into industry orcommodity, itwilt be less
expensive, and less prone to bribery or
money politics.
15. Within lndonesia context, opinion
leadership paradigm is in line with
Pancasila, particularly the fourth prin-
ciple: "Democracy guided by the wisdom
(not leader or chair) in the unanimity
arising out of deliberations amongst
representatives,,.
16. Everyone will have the opportunity to
become leader; in the sense that his/her
logical-ethical opinion can be accepted
and made as decision thatwill become
applicable f6r a large number of peo-
27
Mirrian S. Ariel 1986, Organisasi dan Manajemen(Jakarta: penerbit Karunika),
28
Azhat Kasim' 1995, Teori Pembuatan Keputusan(Jakarta:
ple, although he/she is not the chair-
person or executive.
17. ln terms of implementation, ,opinion
leadership paradigm'will not be con-
flicted with leadership regeneration
issues like what commonly happens in
u nder-developed society. Regeneration
issues frequently cause welfare issues
in a nation.
One flaw that will soon be recognized
in 'opinion leadership' is that the process
of decision makingtendsto be relativetyslow.
Howeve6 it is compensated by its swift and
easy implementation. Japanese manage-
ment is familiar with the term',hard to de-
cide, easy to implementl ln tems of accept-
ability, itwillface roadblocks, both in theo-
retical and practicat context. lt is not be-
cause it is "new", but because it involves
genuineness and honesty - sincerity to
acknowledge it; particularly to admit and
acknowledge the flaws in cunentty com-
mon leadership practices.
Therc is one logical thougtrt that connects
the three elements - management, Ieader-
ship, and decision making - and willcon-
clude this sub-heading. Leadership is the
gist of management,? white decision making
is the key fu nction of a manager or adminisfa-
tor.28 ln other words: management is centered
on leadership, and leadership is rested on
decision making. Then, what wiil decision
making be centered on? Available literatures
do notaskthis pertinentquestion, and con-
sequently do not have answers to the ques-
tion.
Preceding elaborations are actually
efforts to find the answer. Decision mqking
is centered on opinions or arguments that
are logical-ethical, rational, and sincere or
honest (this opinion is determined via exami-
nation orverification involving member par-
p.6.2.
Lembaga penerbit FELII), p.l.
 Volume 1No.2,2010

'Opinion Leadership' in Management

1. Management
2. LeadershiP
3. Decision Making
4. Reasonable and mindful opinion/
argument

,t

ticipation facilitated by another member velop the organization's individuals, the or-
who is trusted dueto his/her integrity). With' ganization itself, and stakeholders.
out rational and mindful opinion, decision Third, greater public (read: lndonesia as
making, leadership, and management will a nation) disadvantage: hindrance in '
always be potentially harmful, disadvanta- reaching the grand objective of our nation
gsous, and will never be the ultimate solu- as mandated in the constitution because
tion. critical-creative-constructive young genera-
tions are held back by so called'leaders'
4. Chairpe.rson Leadership vs. Opinion or'executives' (whose only intention is to gain
Leadership benefit for their own interests and use the
organization as camouflage). These young
Descriptions and elaborations on generations' advancement is not facilitated;
'opinion leadership' characteristics are in contrast, their potentials are suppressed.
E:
mainly on its strengths compared to'chair- They also do not experience self-develop-
: person/person leadership'. Nonetheless, ment; they, in fact, live through self-belittle-
n theise poSitirie Chaiaeteristics are di scussed ment.
.$
only in conceptualcontext. ln concrete or
Fourth, nations, countries, and the citi-
&
il
! practice, these strengths or even weak-
i* zens disadvantage because they are de-
Zj nesses are still not proven. Howevq it does
!
ceived bythe leadership of a few developed
;:
not mean that the above positive qualities
countries. These losses cover depletion of
s cannot be relied on as alternatives. ln con-
=
natural resources, damaged environment,
E
trast, the weaknesses or flaws of 'chairper-
s and exploitation on child and woman
= son/person leadership' are apparent as
+ labors.
seen in given examples. The flaws will be
i,+
:-a
more evident if they are related to the dam- Fifth, all parties disadvantage: getting
t:

,a
age they potentially made. and experiencing .misleading perception
+
? concerning positive response and appre-
G
First, individual disadvantage: impedi-
=
5: ciation toward the leader or chairperson.
ment in self-potential and self-actualiza-
a.i Leader and chairperson or executive believe
:: tion development, career development,
and are seen as the most valuable assets,
E:
and potential income.
rti while it is not always the case. Why? Most
Second, organization/institution disad- likely, those disadvantages or losses will
+
?ai
?, vantage: no development in organization's never take place if decision making processes
potential, credibility, and capacity, while it rely on'opinion leadership paradigm'. On the
i; should serve as a catalystto grow and de- contrary, greater benefits will rise and
.q!
E.;
i:j

;!
In donesia Social S cience Reuiew
eventually speed up the attainment of the
nation's constitutional objectives (including
universal civilization).
As a "new" concePt or thought, it is
common if this new idea is promptly "re-
jected" by the prospective recipients'
Furthermore, leadership involves paradigm
shift that requires skills, honesty, and sin-
cerity in the thinking process. Thus, factual
examples are vital to clearly demonstrate the
benefits of this newly introduced paradigm'
lf the leaders, such as the President of ln-
donesiai consciously start to act as the
"nation's facilitato/', there will be evidence that
opinion leadership, as stipulated in the fourth
principle of Pancasila, can help this nation to
speed up the process of reaching its con-
stitutional goals.
5. Key Solution and Suggestion
Key solutions fo tfrese fundamental issues
on leadership will be conveyed as conclu-
sions for this chaPter.
Key solutions ontitle orthrone (e.g' title
corruption):
1. Every prospective leader and people's
representative must be scrutinized to
verify whether the person upholds his/
her integritY.
2. Every Power must be monitored and
contlCIlled using logic and honesty ass€ss-
ment.
References
Arif, Mirrian s.,'1986 . Organisasi dan Manaiemen. (Jakarta: Penerbit Karunika)
Fakih, Mansour, 2002. Runtuhnya Teori Pembangunan dan Globalisasr'
sist Press)
Habermas, Juergen, 1990. tlmu dan Teknotogi sebagai ldeologi'
Hardiman, F. Budi, 1990. Kritik ldeotogi: Pertautan pengetahuin
(Yogyakarta : Kanisius).
The above solutions do not stand alone'
They are closely related to basic solutions
o, tnon.y and love (man and woman rela-
tionships); the three of them demonstrate
the level of individual spirituality. Concurrent
implementation of the above three elements
wiil also reveal the level of institutional
spiritualitY.
Suggestion
The following suggestions serve as
further actions in response to what have
not been achieved in this research'
1. To be properly implemented, 'opinion
leadership' paradigm must be comple-
mented with details on the job de-
scriptions of the facilitator as well as
required trainings. Furthermore, mecha-
nisms for opinion/ argument assessmenL
appropriate logic facilities and trainings,
ai weit as apt, participation techniques
and strategies must be prepared' These
will be foltowed by strings of trials to
find out the weaknesses on technical,
procedure, job description details, as
wellasthe easiness/difficulties in its im-
plementation.
2.'Opinion leadership' paradigm requires
further evaluation, research, and de-
velopment. Evaluation and research are
required, among others, to understind
the extent of acceptance and rejection
toward the concePt.
(Yogyakarta: ln-
(Jakarta: LP3ES)'
dan Repentingan'
 Volume 7,0[o. 2,2010

1 993. Menuju M asyarakat Ko munikattf. (Yogyakarta: Kanisius).

ll
Harsono, Ari,2007. "Krisis Kepemimpinan dan Pancasila". Media lndonesia. 4 Juni.
i
0. "Paradigma Kepemimpinan Ketua dan Kelemahannya". Jurnal Makara,
201
Seri Sosral-Humaniora. Volume 14, Juli, Nomor 1.

Hayon, Y.P., 2005. Logika: Prinsip-prinsip Bernalar Tepat, Lurus, dan Teratur, (Jakarta:
lsrN).
Kasim, Azhar,l995. Teori Pembuatan Keputusan, (Jakarta: Lembaga Penerbit FEUI).
Kleden, lgnas, 1987. Sikap llmiah dan Kritik Kebudayaan, (Jakarta: LPSES).
Laboratorium Pancasila lKlP Malang, 1984. Pendidikan Pancasila di Perguruan Tinggi,
Edisi keempat, Malang.
Magnis-Suseno, Franz,2000. 12Tokoh EtikaAbad Ke-2A, flogyakarta: Kanisius).
Nahavarfdi, Afsaneh, 2000. The Art and Science of Leadership. 2nd ed. (New Jersey:
Prentice Hall lnc.)

Nain Keshavan, 1997. A Higher Standard of Leadership: Ajaran dari kehidupan Gandhi
[ferj.). (Jakarta: Gramedia).
Poerwandari, Kristi, 2001. Pendekatan Kualitatif untuk Penelitian Perilaku Manusia. Ja'
karta: LPSP3 Fakultas Psikologi Ul .
Rakhmat, Jalaluddin, 1 986. Psikotogi Komunikasi, (Bandung: Remaia Karya).
Strauss, Anselm dan Juliet Gorbin, 2003. Dasar-dasar Penelitian Kualitatif . (Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelaiar).
Soekadijo, R.G., 1994. Logika Dasar: Tradisional, Simbolik, dan lnduktif. (Jakarta:
Gramedia).

Sudarmint a, J.,2002. Epistemologi Dasar: Pengantar fitsafat pengetahuan. (Yogyakarta:

Kanisius)

Sumarto, Hetifah Si.,2004. lnovasi, Partisipasi, dan Good Governance. (Jakarta: Yayasan
Obor lndonesia) '
Svara, James H. and Associates, 1994. Facilitative Leadership in Local Government,
(California: Jossey-Bass lnc.)

The Arbinger lnstitute, 2000. Leadership and Self Deceptions; Gettrng out of the box,
(San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers lnc.)

Wirawan, 2002. Teori Kepemimpinan: pengantar untuk praktik dan penelitian. Jilid 1.
(Jakarta: Uhamka Press)

Yahya, Ridwan, 2004. Memitih Pemimpin dalam Perspektif lstam. (Jakarta: Pustaka
Nawaitu)
Yukl, Gary 1994. Kepemimpinan dalam Arganisasi. 3e. Jakarta: Victory Jaya Abadi.