The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm

Study of
Transactional and Indonesian
transformational leadership: a managers

study of Indonesian managers

Somchanok Passakonjaras 645
Chulalongkorn Business School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, and
Received 17 July 2019
Yanki Hartijasti Revised 30 September 2019
14 October 2019
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia Accepted 23 October 2019

Abstract
Purpose – Indonesia was chosen to be a site of study on leadership style due to its high economic growth
potential. The primary objectives of this study are twofold. This paper aims to, first, explore the leadership
styles of Indonesian managers and investigate whether the full range leadership theory by Bass (1985), i.e.
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership, is applicable in the Indonesian context and
second, investigate whether there are differences in leadership styles among Indonesian managers, as
Indonesian people are composed of over 300 ethnicities.
Design/methodology/approach – Respondents were asked to rate their direct bosses on leadership and
their perceived performance on an multifactor leadership questionnaire. In all, 425 Indonesian managers
participated in the study. Multiple regression and t-test were used to address the above research questions.
Findings – Results indicated that the full range leadership theory is applicable in the Indonesian context, in
which Indonesian people generally rate their superiors who use transformational leadership higher than those
who use transactional and laissez-faire leadership. Ethnic differences in leadership style were found between
that of Padang and Javanese and of Padang and Chinese. Padang managers, whose cultural values are quite
unique, seem to practice more transformational leadership and contingent reward, which is a positive
reinforcement in transactional leadership.
Research limitations/implications – Common method bias may occur due to the single source of data,
i.e. subordinates. The confidentiality of the survey helps reduce the bias as subordinates could evaluate their
bosses in a true manner. In addition, categorizing ethnicities among Indonesians is not an easy task. A finer
distinction of ethnicities is certainly needed in future research.
Practical implications – The results are useful for human resource department in selecting the potential
leaders, as transformational leaders are generally more preferable. In addition, the findings shed some light on
the effective leadership styles of Indonesian managers perceived by their subordinates.
Originality/value – One major theoretical contribution of this study is a proof of the applicability of the
full range leadership theory by Bass (1985) in Indonesian work setting. It confirms the extension of the
theory’s universality. A unique theoretical contribution of this study is its being the first study that addresses
the ethnic differences in leadership style in Indonesia.
Keywords Indonesia, Leadership, Laissez-faire, Transactional, Transformational, Ethnicity
Paper type Research paper

Leadership is among one of the most studied topics in management research. It is inevitably
accepted that good leadership brings success to an organization. Indonesia was chosen to be
a site of study on leadership in this research due to its high economic growth potential and Management Research Review
being one of the fastest growing economies among emerging markets although difficulties Vol. 43 No. 6, 2020
pp. 645-667
in data collection were many, e.g. the language barrier, logistics problems, and respondents’ © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
hesitance to give answers (Wright, 1994). Nevertheless, most leadership studies were carried DOI 10.1108/MRR-07-2019-0318
MRR out in developed economies especially in the West. Habir and Larasati (1999) found that
43,6 although Indonesian managers have embraced more Western values, they still tend to adopt
different management styles from the commonly believed Indonesian management, so
called traditional, patrimonial, and hierarchically oriented. However, Young (1994) found
that as Indonesian managers are becoming more Westernized (or those who get MBA
education), they are more like American.
646 Indonesia has a population around 263 million, making it the fourth largest nation in the
world. Indonesian population consists of over 300 different ethnic groups with the Javanese
being the largest and more than 250 languages are spoken in Indonesia (Hartanto, 2010).
Thus, to understand Indonesia especially in business and management field, it is important
to identify the difference among these ethnic groups or subcultures. However, ethnicity has
received limited attention in leadership research despite likely existence of ethnic differences
in leadership (Snaebjornsson and Edvardsson, 2013).
The major purposes of this study are thus twofold. First, it is to explore the leadership
styles of Indonesian managers and to investigate whether leadership model developed in the
West is applicable in the Indonesian context or not. Since most management and leadership
theories were invented from the Western part of the world, mainly from the USA, it is in
doubt that the practices and validity of these theories are applicable in other parts of the
world. Hofstede (1993) argued that due to the different cultural characteristics and the
unique situation in each country or region, no management or leadership theories can be
applied to every part of the world. Second, with the assumption that each Indonesian
ethnicity has its unique cultural value, it is to investigate whether there are differences in
leadership styles among Indonesian managers as Indonesia has a large diversity across
ethnic groups or subcultures.

Literature review
Transformational leadership
Leadership theories have evolved for decades, being composed of three classic models, i.e. the
trait theory, the behavior approach, and the contingency approach. However, as change has
occurred rapidly, organizational scenarios have turned to be complex. Transformational
leadership, which was conceptually derived from Burns in 1978 and elaborated by
Bass (1985), is coming into forefront for most organizations especially those that are dynamic
and active to change. On the contrary, transactional leadership which is a conventional
concept for leaders is not enough for organizations who look for change. The focus of this
study will be on a full range leadership theory by Bass (1985) which covers all aspects of
leadership from transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire leadership styles.
It has been argued that leadership paradigm has shifted from power to empowerment
(Dambe and Moorad, 2008). Transactional leadership is seen as power-based leadership,
where power is strongly associated with the leader and is top-down. On the other hand, the
concept of transformational leadership is seen as empowerment-based leadership, where
power emanates from the followers, albeit not quite bottom-up but it is shared.
Initially Burns developed original ideas and defined transformational leadership as a
process that “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and
motivation” (Weinberger, 2003, p. 59). According to Burns, transformational and
transactional leadership were in one continuum. Unlike Burns, Bass (1985) theory includes
two different types of leadership processes, but not mutually exclusive process, the first as
transactional leadership and the second as transformational leadership. Bass argued that
leaders can use both types of leadership at different times according to the context of the
situation. Thus, both are two independent dimensions, that is, one can show one, both, or Study of
none at all (Coad and Berry, 1998). Indonesian
Definitions of transformational and transactional leadership are given in understanding
why and how both leadership styles are two independent dimensions. According to
managers
Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leadership is an expansion of transactional
leadership. Transactional leaders emphasize the transaction or exchange that takes place
among leaders, colleagues, and followers, while transformational leaders do more with
colleagues and followers than set up simple exchanges or agreements. Transformational 647
leaders behave in ways to achieve superior results by employing one or more of the “Four
I’s”. The first I is idealized influence, in which leaders behave in ways that result in their
being role models for their followers, can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrate
high standards of ethical and moral conduct, and avoid using power for personal gain.
Idealized influence can be categorized into idealized influence (attributed) and idealized
influence (behavior). Idealized influence (attributed) refers to the socialized charisma of the
leader and whether or not he or she is perceived as being confident and committed to high-
order ideals. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to charismatic actions by the leader that
are based on values, beliefs, or ideals.
Second is inspirational motivation; leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire
those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work, get
followers involved in envisioning attractive future states, and create clearly communicated
expectations that followers want to meet and also demonstrate commitment to goals and the
shared vision. Third is intellectual stimulation, in which leaders stimulate their followers’
efforts to be innovative and creative, encourage followers to try new approaches without
being criticized if differ from leaders’ ideas. The fourth is individualized consideration, in
which leaders pay special attention to each individual’s needs for achievement and growth
by acting as coach or mentor, a two-way exchange in communication is encouraged, and
“management by walking around” workplaces is practiced.
Transactional leaders, on the other hand, serve to recognize and clarify the role and task
requirements for the subordinates’ reaching the desired outcomes (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
They also recognize what the subordinates need and want and clarify how these needs and
wants will be satisfied if the necessary effort is expended by the subordinates. A
transactional leader rewards or disciplines the followers depending on the adequacy of the
follower’s performance by giving contingent reinforcement, either positive contingent
reward (CR) or the more negative active or passive forms of management-by-exception
(MBE-A or MBE-P for active management by exception and passive management by
exception, respectively). With CR, the leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to be
done and promises rewards or actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily
carrying the assignment. In MBE-A, the leader arranges to actively monitor deviances from
standards, mistakes, and errors in the follower’s assignments and to take corrective action
as necessary. MBE-P is, on the other hand, waiting passively for deviances, mistakes, and
errors to occur and then taking corrective action. Other than transformational and
transactional leadership, there is another leadership style which is called laissez-faire
leadership (LF). The LF style is the avoidance or absence of leadership and is, by definition,
the most inactive – as well as the most ineffective according to almost all research on the
leadership style.
Regarding the argument that leaders can use transformational and transactional
leadership at different times according to the context of the situation, Bass (1985) stated that
transactional leaders pursue a cost-benefit, economic exchange to meet subordinates’
current material and psychic needs in return for “contracted” services rendered by the
MRR subordinates. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, attempt and succeed in elevating
43,6 those influenced from a lower to a higher level of needs according to Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs. Moreover, while transactional and transformational leadership involve sensing
followers’ felt needs, it is the transformational leader who raises consciousness about higher
considerations through articulation and role modeling. Cook and Hunsaker (2001) added
that while transactional leadership promotes stability, transformational leadership creates
648 significant changes to subordinates and the organization.
From the above descriptions, it can be concluded that transformational leadership and
transactional leadership are two types of leadership which can be used by leaders in
different levels depending on the situation. For example, transactional leadership is more
prominent in situations of daily work routines, while transformational leadership occurs in
situations leaders motivate subordinates to achieve the performance targets exceeding the
set ones. Leaders, who only apply transformational leadership without transactional
leadership, will only give inspiration and vision, intellectually stimulating subordinates to
be innovative, but less focused on work systems and organizational structures that can help
spread knowledge and information efficiently within the company (Bryant, 2003). Therefore,
both transactional and transformational leadership is needed in a company or an
organization to be successful.
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), optimal leadership profile is a leader who often
shows the four transformational leadership (four I’s: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration), not too often in
contingent reward, followed by lesser active management by exception, passive
management by exception, and laissez faire. But in 1997, Bass argued that leaders should
implement transformational and transactional leadership and avoid laissez-faire leadership,
or “wait-and-see”, because laissez-faire is not at all an effective leadership (Bass, 1997).
However, effective leadership was found different from one country to another due to
difference in cultural values (Shanin and Wright, 2004). Studies on leadership in the USA
may not be associated with effective leadership in other cultures, because it is possible that
there may be additional leadership style related to effective leadership in other cultures that
does not appear in the US studies. Atwater and Bass (1994) also argued that effective leaders
are cognizant of the need to adjust the style they use as they confront different
circumstances, individuals, and problems. Effective leaders need to be able to recognize that
a style they infrequently use, such as management-by-exception, may be called for, and that
they must modify their full range of leadership styles to meet demands that vary by
situation, task, or team.

Culture and leadership

Most leadership theories are based on the assumptions that leadership and its effectiveness
are universal although situational contingencies are acknowledged. These theories tend to
focus on the similarities rather than the differences. Ayman and Korabik (2010) had argued
that culture and gender matter in an understanding of leadership. Dynamics related to either
culture or gender such as stereotypes, interaction between ingroup and outgroup, and power
differentials can have a significant impact on leadership. However, an empirical study with
a large sample of 64,000 subordinates evaluating the leadership behaviors of their direct
supervisors from 42 countries by van Emmerik, Euwema, and Wendt (2008) found an
interesting result that culture had a stronger impact on leadership behaviors than gender.
There are studies that show the inapplicability of U.S. leadership theory in other cultures.
A study by Pillai et al. (1999) found that transactional leadership is preferred in Eastern
(non-Western) culture. Also, Hofstede (1984) found that employees with low job status prefer
transactional leadership to transformational leadership. Russian employees expect Study of
autocratic leadership style since Russian managerial culture has high power distance and Indonesian
strong collective mentality (Elenkov, 2008). Leaders from Korea are expected to be
paternalistic towards their employees (Robbins and Coulter, 2002).
managers

Indonesian culture, ethnicity and leadership

In Indonesia, many researchers argued that the suitable leadership for Indonesian 649
employees was paternalistic. For example, Hofstede (1982) stated that due to considerably
large power distance in Indonesian, employees preferred benevolent autocrat leaders who
can be a good father or a good mother. In line with Hofstede’s studies, Danandjaja’s (1986)
empirical study found leadership style of Indonesian managers was autocratic because in
granting authority to subordinates, managers limit only to the execution of the decision-
making, but not involving in the decision-making process. Munandar (2001) added that
Indonesian managers are likely to choose authoritarian and paternalistic style because
Indonesian leaders tend not to trust their subordinates. They thus prefer making decisions
unilaterally.
In contrast, Moeljono (2004) argued that Indonesian leadership should not only be like
father, but also as a mentor, protector, and role model (some characteristics of
transformational leadership). In line with Moeljono (2004), Hartijasti (2007) found in her
study that with high emotional intelligence, Indonesian leaders will be able to apply
transformational and transactional leadership effectively to enhance learning culture which
could benefit an organization as a whole.
Different conclusion on which leadership style is effective for Indonesian employees can
also be affected by the time frame of the study. Different generations and education or
international background may have different results on which Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions they belong. For example, in Hofstede’s study done in the late 1970s, Indonesia
was grouped as having large power distance and collectivist together with Thailand
(Hofstede, 1997). But based on the study of Chaiyabutr (2000), Indonesian and Thai cultures
have the same characteristic of small power distance and high individualism. Being small
power distance, democratic style of leadership is preferred, and subordinates also appreciate
being consulted and participating in the decision-making processes of their superiors.
Majority of the respondents of Chaiyabutr’s study were female Thai or Indonesian heritage,
graduate students from university in the USA, ranging from 20 to 29 years of age, born,
raised and have twelve years of formal school education in their home country, and possess
at least one year of adult formal organizational work experience in their country.
According to Chaiyabutr (2000), although Indonesian and Thailand have the same
characteristics in small power distance and individualism, they are different in uncertainty
avoidance and long-term orientation dimensions. Indonesian culture was found low in
uncertainty avoidance, Thai culture was high, and Indonesian possess a long-term
orientation, while Thai fell into the short-term orientation. The findings are a simple proof
that it is unwise to generalize cultures according to the region they belong, for example,
Western culture, Asian culture, and even to a finer region like Southeast Asian. A further
example is that Indonesian is also different from Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
Indonesian has feminine culture, while Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines have
masculine culture. These differences show that although Indonesia belongs to Southeast
Asian countries, there is uniqueness of cultural dimensions in each country. Therefore, it is a
mistake to perceive the degree of cultural similarity among Asian countries, especially when
one is willing to relate it to leadership style.
MRR It is also a mistake to generalize Indonesian people who are composed of more than 300
43,6 ethnic groups (Hartanto, 2010). For examples, Papua people have individualism and high
uncertainty avoidance culture, with lack of discipline and low educational level
(Koentjaraningrat, 2004a). Batak people have strong togetherness and act according to
rights and responsibilities (Chandra, 2004). Minahasan people have positive attitudes, such
as developing their potential to grow to be able to have meaningful role in society, being
650 responsible to succeed, and viewing failure as self-correction to realize mistakes (Kalangie,
2004). Flores and Timor people have strong feudal mentality that hinders their development
(or high uncertainty avoidance) (Koentjaraningrat, 2004b; Suparlan, 2004) due to their low
educational level.
In the past, many leaders in Aceh society did not deliver their promises, thus making
Aceh people not fully trust their leaders (Sjamsuddin, 2004). Minangkabau (or often called
Padang) people are open and willing to accept different ideas, dynamic, easy to adapt with
changing environment (Sairin, 2002), and respect for togetherness (Chandra, 2004). Bugis-
Makassar people have old-fashioned mental attitudes and are hesitant to new ideas (or high
uncertainty avoidance) (Mattulada, 2004).
Bali people have low uncertainty avoidance because they are willing to change even
since colonialism era (Bagus, 2004). Sundanese people are optimistic and open-minded, but
quite sensitive (Harsojo, 2004). Javanese people respect superiors and accept orders
(Chandra, 2004; Hariyono, 1993; Mia and Winata, 2007) and avoid interpersonal conflict
(Chandra, 2004). Chinese people are less hierarchical and not procedural (Mia and Winata,
2007).
Based on the descriptions of some ethnic groups in Indonesia, it is apparent that they are
unique from one another. Unfortunately, there are not many studies of leadership in the
Indonesian context, especially on how Indonesian leadership is different from other cultures
or whether there is difference in leadership style across ethnic groups. With this limitation,
our research is trying to fill this gap.
In this study, ethnicity is perceived as culture. A common assumption which specifies the
meaning of ethnicity focusing on the cultural characteristics of a particular ethnic group is
that norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors that are typical of that group stem from a
common culture of origin which transmit from generation to generation (Phinney, 1996).
Leadership is assumed to vary as a function of culture (Ayman and Korabik, 2010; van
Emmerik et al., 2008) which can be similarly translated that leadership varies as a function
of ethnic value as well.

Hypotheses development
Two main hypotheses according to the major purposes of this study are tested in this study.
The first hypothesis is to test whether the transformational leadership is applicable in
Indonesian context or not. The underlying assumption is such that transformational
leadership is a preferred leadership style which would result in better perception of leaders’
outcomes or performance by subordinates. Perceived outcomes or performance were
measured in three dimensions, i.e. effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction, which will be
mentioned later in the research methodology section.

H1. Perceived transformational leadership of Indonesian managers by subordinates is

positively related with perception of subordinates about leaders’ outcomes in three
dimensions: a) effectiveness, b) extra effort and c) satisfaction.
Leaders who have favorable characteristics to subordinates are supposed to be rated higher
than those whose leadership styles are not favorable. Many studies were carried out to
identify the appropriate leadership style or most favorable leader traits. For example, Study of
Campbell, Bommer, and Yeo (1993) found that both North American and Singaporean Indonesian
students strongly prefer a participative to a consultative style. This implicitly means that if
their leaders use a participative leadership style, they would be rated higher as subordinates
managers
are satisfied working with them.
Regarding the full range leadership theory, it is universal that transformational leaders
are preferred to transactional leaders (Bass, 1985; Bass, 1997; Bass and Avolio, 2004).
Furthermore, transformational leadership tends to be most effective, followed by contingent 651
reward, active management by exception, passive management by exception, and laissez-
faire leadership.
Studies on the relationship between transformational leadership and its outcomes are
many. General findings are such that transformational leadership is positively related with
outcomes. Chen (2004) studied the relationship between leadership styles and nursing faculty
job satisfaction in Taiwan. The results are that contingent reward and passive management
by exception (transactional dimensions), and individualized consideration (transformational
dimension) were significant predictors of nursing faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan. Spinelli
(2006), who studied applicability of transactional/transformational leadership model in
hospital context, found that the relationship between transformational leadership and
outcomes was stronger and more positive than those of transactional leadership and laissez-
faire leadership with outcomes. Emery and Barker (2007) studied the effect of leadership
styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel
and found supportive results that the transformational factors are more highly correlated
with job satisfaction and organizational commitment than the transactional factors.
Similarly, Reuvers et al. (2008) found a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and innovative work behavior.
Since most people believe that Indonesian management is traditional, patrimonial, and
hierarchically oriented (Habir and Larasati, 1999), transactional leadership should be more
common in Indonesian work settings. That means Indonesian people may not give high
value to transformational leaders then. It is thus noteworthy to examine the true relationship
between leadership styles (transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire) and their
outcomes in Indonesian context. The purpose is to prove whether the full range leadership
theory is applicable in the Indonesian context or not. In short, it is to determine the real
Indonesian’s preferred leadership styles of their superiors.
The second hypothesis is to test whether there are differences among Indonesian
managers with different ethnicities. The underlying assumption is such that each ethnicity
has its unique cultural value which could result in different leadership behaviors (Ayman
and Korabik, 2010).

H2. Leadership styles of Indonesian managers are different across ethnicity.

Aforementioned, Indonesia is a highly diverse country with approximately 300 ethnic
groups which also include Chinese. Management in a country with many ethnicities like
Indonesia has to be studied carefully since there are subcultures within a country.
Selvarajah and Meyer (2008) studied the leadership style of the three main ethnic groups
(Chinese, Indians, and Malays) in Malaysia and found that each ethnicity has distinctive
leadership behavior. This study could thus be applied to the Indonesian context as well.
With more than 300 ethnicities in Indonesia (Hartanto, 2010), it is thus very difficult to
explain the difference among all ethnicities. According to World Factbook (2019), ethnic
groups in Indonesia are composed of Javanese 40.1 per cent, Sundanese 15.5 per cent, Malay
3.7 per cent, Batak 3.6 per cent, Madurese 3 per cent, Betawi 2.9 per cent, Minangkabau
MRR 2.7 per cent, Buginese 2.7 per cent, Bantenese 2 per cent, Banjarese 1.7 per cent, Balinese 1.7
43,6 per cent, Acehnese 1.4 per cent, Dayak 1.4 per cent, Sasak 1.3 per cent, Chinese 1.2 per cent,
other 15 per cent (www.cia.gov). Therefore, only some major ethnicities are discussed.
The difference between the major ethnicities in Indonesia, Javanese, and Chinese (or
Tionghoa in Bahasa Indonesia) who control most successful businesses in Indonesia, is first
discussed. Mia and Winata (2007, p. 88) compared the cultural values of Javanese and
652 Chinese such that while Javanese accept fate, not to overwork, accept the environment as
divine (fate), and respect superiors, accept orders, rules and procedures, Chinese make effort
(or try to do things), hard work for maintaining “face”, have control over environment, and
are less hierarchical and not procedural. Hariyono (1993), however, demonstrated some
similarities between Javanese and Tionghoa as they both believe that life is miserable but
they must endeavor (berikhtiar), human must live in harmony with the nature, have time
orientation as past and present, they want to live helping each other, and they long for peace
and harmony with mutual respect and morality which leads them to live in a “middle path”
(jalan tengah) not in the extremes. Hariyono (1993) further discussed that Javanese and
Tionghoa are distinguished in their respect for values and work ethic. While Javanese
respect people based on the degree and the position in a social hierarchy, Tionghoa respect
people based more on age and family relationships. Regarding work ethic, Tionghoa put
high emphasis on families while Javanese are less clear on this.
It is believed that cultural inheritance of the Chinese and Confucian values are
maintained in Overseas Chinese, though the impact may erode over time. Tsui et al. (2004)
had summarized some six leadership characteristics which are based on Confucian values as
being creative and risk-taking, relating and communicating, articulating vision, showing
benevolence, monitoring operations, and being authoritative. Other than Confucianism,
Taoism also has an influence on Chinese in leading a simple life and the natural way of
behavior. Lao Tze, the founder of Taoism, believed that a good leader should be a facilitator
by facilitating the group process and not his own process (Heider, 1994).
Chandra (2004) studied the differences of critical thinking among Javanese, Batak Toba
and Minangkabau people which can be explained by differences of beliefs and values of
these ethnicities. Javanese are those originally from Central Java, while Batak Toba, or
generally called Batak, and Minangkabau, or usually called Padang, are those originally
from North Sumatra and West Sumatra, respectively. Values regarded as important among
Javanese are rukun principle (living in harmony), tenggang rasa (being tolerant), avoiding
interpersonal conflict, believing that group is more important than oneself (communal),
respect principle (maintaining the hierarchical order, showing respect to those in high
positions, and protecting those in lower positions), feudal (in favor of high class people),
being content, believing that life is a series of events full of miseries-just bear them, andap
asor (being in service toward people of higher status), keeping low profile (never regard
oneself as high, not good to be different), fatalistic (nothing can be done to change one’s life),
and past and present time orientation (Chandra, 2004). According to Chandra (2004), Batak’s
major cultural values are communal (but different from Javanese in that Batak believe that
togetherness among groups is related by blood and/or marriages), belief that to live is to
struggle to survive, respect others (consider what is one’s own position among others; the
position is relative depending on what familial relationships one has in a certain
celebration), act according to rights and responsibilities, go abroad for a better living, prove
that an individual can become someone, having four goals in life which are to have many
children and descendants, get rich, be respected, and be advanced, and belief that education
is important to advance and to get a better life. Padang’s or Minangkabau’s important
cultural values in life are the unity of cultural norms and the Islamic teaching, being
communal but different from Javanese and Batak in that Padang’s togetherness is among Study of
people who are related matrilineally, equality principle, learning from anything-even from Indonesian
nature, and going abroad is for reasons such as to get a better living, to avoid being together
managers
with people of different opinion (Chandra, 2004).
Hofstede (1987) also argued that there are differences in cultural values across ethnicities
in Indonesia. He gave an example that while Javanese are characterized as having weak
uncertainty avoidance and femininity, Aceh are high on uncertainty avoidance, and Batak
653
are characterized as masculinity culture.
Studies that support the notion of cultural values on managerial and leadership styles are
many. Evans et al. (1989) argued that management retains its unique cultural identity even
though society has developed over time. Although this argument is for general context of a
cross-cultural (or national) comparison of management styles, it can also be applied to a
cross-subcultural (or ethnic) comparison in a national context as well. Petzall and Willis
(1996) studied the importance of cultural values in managerial style. They used Australian
part-time students with various ethnic backgrounds as a sample. The result supports the
notion of differences between the leadership styles of managers from different ethnic
background. Though the study by Petzall and Willis (1996) is performed with non-
permanent residents in Australia, the notion supporting the importance of cultural value can
be extended to the study of subcultural differences in a particular national context.
Kelly’s (2008) study is an example that confirms the existence of subcultures in
Indonesia. Kelly (2008) investigated whether employee attitudes and perceptions of human
resource practices differ across three subcultures (Javanese/Sundanese, Balinese, and
Minahasan). And the finding supports the notion of subculture differences in a common
national context.
Although there are differences of leadership across cultures or subcultures, culture is not
the only predictor of leadership style. One classic question regarding leadership is “Are
leaders born or made?” The answer is simply both. Based on previous studies, Bass (1997)
concluded that as much as 40 per cent of the variance is contributed by heritability.
One commonly posited contingent variable in explaining the difference of leadership
styles is gender. A meta-analysis of 45 studies by Eagly et al. (2003) found that female
leaders were more transformational than male leaders. Women were also engaged in more of
the contingent reward behavior, a positive characteristic of transactional leadership. Men,
on the other hand, were more of negative dimensions of transactional leadership, i.e.
management by exception (both passive and active) and laissez-faire leadership. However,
not all studies support this notion. A study by Petzall and Willis (1996), mentioned earlier,
though supported the notion of ethnic difference but did not quite support the notion of
gender difference in leadership styles. The results did not consistently show clear pattern of
differences in supervisory styles of male and female leaders. In the Indonesian context,
Mangunsong (2009) studied the leadership styles of women entrepreneurs from four ethnic
groups in Indonesia and found that almost all business women in her sample have a
transformational leadership style.
Another common variable that is used to explain the difference in leadership styles is
age. Zemke et al. (2000) had examined differences in values across generations and identified
how those value differences impact their managerial and leadership styles. They defined
people into four generations, i.e. Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and Nexters.
Unsurprisingly, people from different generations hold different values which impact their
managerial and leadership styles differently.
In testing for ethnic differences, gender and age will thus be controlled in the analysis.
MRR Research methodology
43,6 The multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), developed by Avolio and Bass to measure
a full range of leadership styles, was adopted in this study (with permission from Mind
Garden). An Indonesian version of MLQ was verified by two native Indonesian speakers.
Back translation procedure was performed. The back translated version was then compared
with an original English version. A final Indonesian MLQ version was pre-tested with a
654 class of MM (Master of Management) students at University of Indonesia.
In this study, participants were asked to give input on their direct bosses’ basic
information. Since ethnicity is perceived as culture in this study, the participants just
checked the ethnicity box that corresponds to the perception of their bosses’ culture. And
they had to rate their direct bosses’ leadership style and their perceived performance on an
MLQ. The scale is ranged from 0 to 4, “not at all”, “once in a while”, “sometimes”, “fairly
often”, and “frequently, if not always”, respectively. The perceived performance which was
rated by subordinates is composed of three dimensions: effectiveness, extra effort, and
satisfaction. Effectiveness was measured by the degree to which a leader is effective in
meeting others’ job-related needs, in representing a group to higher authority, meeting
organizational requirements and the degree that he/she leads a group that is effective. Extra
effort was measured by the degree to which a leader gets others to do more than they are
expected to do, heightens others’ desire to succeed, and increases others’ willingness to try
harder. Regarding satisfaction, leaders were rated based on the degree to which they use
methods of leadership that are satisfying and work with others in a satisfactory way (Bass
and Avolio, 2004). Asking respondents to rate their direct bosses has an advantage in
avoiding a bias problem in self-rating.
Convenience sampling, a type of nonprobability or nonrandom sampling, was used in
this study as the total population is unknown (Etikan et al., 2016). Population is persons who
work in any type of organizations. The target population in this study was alumni of one
Master program in the biggest university in Indonesia. The web-based survey was sent via
email to approximately 4,000 alumni who have valid email addresses. Participants were
guaranteed the confidentiality as the responses did not identify the name of their direct
supervisors. The total number of respondents is 578 with useable number of 425.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Some demographic characteristics of respondents and respondents’ bosses, those who were
rated by respondents, are shown in Table I. Majority of bosses being rated are male (83.3 per
cent of total sample) and are aged between 35 and 54 years old (38.8 per cent of total sample).
Regarding the ethnicity, the majority is Javanese with 41.9 per cent of total bosses rated, which
is concordant with the Javanese representation in Indonesia of 41.6 per cent (Suharno, 2007).
Respondents are mainly from the private sector and are in the middle level (65 per cent and 48
per cent of the total respondents respectively.

Scale purification
According to Bass (1997), five transformational components (idealized influence-attributed,
idealized influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration) are intercorrelated. But because they are conceptually distinct,
each component should be assessed separately. Same is also applied to three transactional
components which are contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive
management by exception. Only laissez-faire leadership has a single component, thus
 Respondents Respondent’s boss
Study of
Demographic n (%) n (%) Indonesian
managers
Gender
Female 142 33.7 71 16.7
Male 279 66.3 354 83.3
Total 421 425
Age (years)
655
<25 31 7.4 8 1.9
25-34 222 52.7 60 14.1
35-44 118 25.7 165 38.8
45-54 45 10.7 144 33.9
55-64 14 3.3 42 9.9
>64 1 0.2 6 1.4
Total 421 425
Ethnicity
Javanese 172 44.1 160 41.9
Sundanese 37 9.5 36 9.4
Batak 29 7.4 19 5.0
Padang 29 7.4 24 6.3
Malay 16 4.1 13 3.4 Table I.
Chinese 87 22.3 97 25.4 Demographic
Others 20 5.2 33 8.6 characteristics of
Total 390 382 samples

already being analyzed separately. Outcome measures were also assessed separately
because each has distinct meaning, though correlated.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for each leadership component (total 9 components)
and performance measures (except satisfaction dimension which has only two items) was
performed. For “Idealized Influence: Attributed” and “Passive management by exception,
one item of each was dropped as it has low loading of 0.059 and 0.302 respectively. After
scale purification, each subscale has Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.70 except “Idealized
Influence: Attributed” and “Passive management by exception” with alpha of 0.61 and 0.62.

Research findings
The remaining items for each subscale were used in testing the hypotheses addressed
earlier.

H1. Perceived transformational leadership of Indonesian managers by subordinates is

positively related with perception of subordinates about leaders’ outcomes in three
forms a) effectiveness, b) extra effort and c) satisfaction.
Multiple regression models were run separately for each dependent variable, i.e.
perception of subordinates about leaders’ outcomes which are effectiveness, extra
effort, and satisfaction (Table II). General findings are such that transformational
leadership is positively related with leaders’ performance. One dimension found not
significantly associated with all leaders’ performance is idealized influence-behavior.
While inspirational motivation is not significantly related with satisfaction,
intellectual stimulation also was not found to be significantly associated with
MRR Effectiveness Extra effort Satisfaction
43,6 Dependent variables Stdzd coef. t-values Stdzd coef. t-values Stdzd coef. t-values

Transformational
Idealized influence: Attributed 0.187 5.018** 0.132 2.971** 0.135 3.272**
Idealized influence: Behavior 0.018 0.402 0.093 1.734 0.094 1.897
Inspirational motivation 0.126 3.257** 0.149 3.218** 0.069 1.616
656 Intellectual stimulation 0.022 0.542 0.149 3.072** 0.089 1.976*
Individualized consideration 0.304 7.164** 0.284 5.614** 0.307 6.564**
Transactional
Contingent reward 0.120 2.733** 0.154 2.951** 0.138 2.842**
Mgt by exception active 0.098 3.173** 0.002 0.049 0.026 0.773
Mgt by exception passive 0.063 2.033* 0.052 1.411 0.013 0.371
Laissez faire 0.167 4.708** 0.056 1.33 0.157 3.998**
R-square 0.771 0.673 0.720
Table II. Adjusted R-square 0.766 0.666 0.714
Summary of
regression model Notes: Significance p-value of *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

effectiveness. Although not all dimensions of transformational leadership yield

significant results, the signs are all positive as expected.
Regarding transactional leadership style, contingent reward is significantly and
positively related with all three outcome dimensions. Active management by
exception was also found significant but only with effectiveness dimension. On the
contrary passive management by exception was found to be negatively related with
effectiveness. And as predicted, laissez-faire leadership was found negatively related
with effectiveness and satisfaction. Its relationship with extra effort was found
positive but was not significant.
Another interesting result is that individualized consideration is the dimension that has
the highest standardized regression coefficients among all three outcomes.

H2. Leadership styles of Indonesian managers are different across ethnicity.

In testing this research question, only six major ethnicities in the sample were included, i.e.
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Padang, Malay and Chinese. According to some studies
mentioned earlier, gender and age of leaders may have an impact on the difference of
leadership styles. Distribution of gender and age of these six ethnicities are illustrated in
Table III. Chi-square independent tests were performed (shown in Table IV). Results are that

Gender Age (years)

Ethnicity Female Male <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 Total

Javanese N 27 133 5 24 72 43 15 1 160

Sundanese N 7 29 0 5 20 9 2 0 36
Batak N 1 18 1 2 7 4 4 1 19
Table III. Padang N 3 21 0 4 4 12 3 1 24
Descriptive statistics Malay N 3 10 1 3 3 5 1 0 13
of six major Chinese N 21 76 0 15 38 34 8 2 97
ethnicities Total N 62 287 7 53 144 107 33 5 349
ethnicity of the leaders being rated is not significantly related with their gender and age, as Study of
p-values of chi-square tests are 0.564 and 0.251 respectively. It is thus assured that Indonesian
ethnicities are independent from gender and age. Table V is the descriptive statistics of three
leadership styles of six major ethnicities.
managers
Level in the organization and organization type of the respondents were controlled
to ensure the difference of transformational leadership from ethnicities of the bosses.
The one-way ANOVA tests were found not significant (95 per cent confidence level)
for both the level and type of work with perceived transformational leadership of their 657
direct bosses.
The next step was to do comparison of leadership across six ethnicities.
Independent sample t-tests were performed for 15 pairs of comparison. In order not to
inflate Type I error, alpha was reduced to 0.05/15 or 0.003 for each pair of comparison
according to the multiple comparison method suggested in Neter et al. (1990) to keep
the confidence level of the family of pairwise comparisons at 1-alpha. As a result, total
Type 1 error is 0.05 or the confidence level is at 0.95. Results shown in Table VI are
only those that yield significant results at p-value of 0.003. Padang is the ethnicity
that makes the difference. Padang managers are different from Javanese managers in
terms of inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward; in
which Padang demonstrate more of these characteristics than Javanese. And
compared with Chinese, Padang managers also have higher level of inspirational

Gender Age
Statistics Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 3.897a 5 0.564 29.314a 25 0.251

Likelihood ratio 4.5 5 0.480 30.754 25 0.197
Linear-by-linear association 0.785 1 0.376 2.17 1 0.141
N of valid cases 349 349

Notes: a3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.31; a20 cells Table IV.
(55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.19 Chi-Square Tests

Javanese Sundanese Batak Padang Malay Chinese

Leadership style Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Transformational 2.20 0.77 2.40 0.63 2.46 0.66 2.76 0.55 2.27 0.79 2.23 0.83
Idealized Influence: Attributed 1.98 0.82 2.12 0.60 2.19 0.86 2.42 0.68 1.95 0.96 2.02 1.00
Idealized Influence: Behavior 2.38 0.94 2.61 0.79 2.84 0.73 2.95 0.67 2.63 0.88 2.46 0.89
Inspirational motivation 2.32 0.99 2.56 0.85 2.74 0.85 3.06 0.62 2.58 0.95 2.42 0.90
Intellectual stimulation 2.22 0.86 2.43 0.79 2.36 0.84 2.78 0.62 2.27 0.85 2.24 0.93
Individualized consideration 2.10 0.88 2.26 0.83 2.18 0.71 2.61 0.73 1.94 0.90 2.00 0.99
Transactional 1.81 0.45 1.88 0.37 1.91 0.47 2.11 0.51 2.07 0.44 1.83 0.53
Contingent reward 2.03 0.89 2.20 0.82 2.24 0.73 2.54 0.65 2.10 0.95 2.00
Table V. 0.91
Mgt by exception active 2.29 0.72 2.44 0.86 2.57 0.80 2.73 0.64 2.69 0.92 2.40
Descriptive statistics0.79
Mgt by exception passive 1.12 0.86 0.99 0.73 0.93 0.67 1.06 0.91 1.44 0.91 1.09
of leadership styles 0.82
Laissez faire 1.22 0.93 1.14 0.87 1.03 0.62 0.84 0.56 1.10 1.07 1.15 0.90 among six major
N 158 35 19 24 13 95 ethnicities
MRR Leadership style Padang-Javanese p-value Padang-Chinese p-value
43,6
Transformational
Idealized iInfluence: Attributed
Idealized influence: Behavior
Inspirational motivation 4.98 0.000 4.13 0.000
Intellectual stimulation 3.04 0.003 3.40 0.001
658 Individualized consideration 3.42 0.001
Transactional
Contingent reward 3.44 0.001 3.35 0.002
Table VI. Mgt by exception active
Summary of Mgt by exception passive
ethnicity t-test (t-
values) Note: Figures shown in table are those that are significant by two-tailed t-test at p-value < 0.003

Transformational Effectiveness Extra effort Satisfaction

Idealized influence: Attributed Support Support Support

Idealized influence: Behavior Not support Not support Not support
Inspirational motivation Support Support Not support
Intellectual stimulation Not support Support Support*
Individualized consideration Support Support Support
Table VII.
Summary of H1 Notes: (1) Only Transformational Leadership dimensions were shown. (2) Support means significance
testing results p-value of p < 0.01 and Support* means significance p-value of p < 0.05

motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent

reward.

Discussion
The universality of the full range leadership theory by Bass (1985) was tested in H1.
Summary of the results is shown in Table VII. The theory was found to be generally
applicable in the Indonesian context. Most transformational leadership dimensions
are positively related with leaders’ performance rated by their subordinates.
Indonesians also rated high for superiors who use contingent reward. Active
management by exception was considered to be highly effective as well. As expected,
passive management by exception and laissez faire leadership were not viewed
positive in the eyes of subordinates. Interestingly, among transformational leadership
dimensions, individualized consideration has the highest standardized regression
coefficients with all three outcomes.
The above findings imply that there may be a myth of Indonesian work values.
Subordinates in fact related their superiors’ perceived performance with
transformational leadership style higher than with transactional and laissez-faire
style. That means transformational leadership is what they look for in their superiors.
It is a myth in a sense that since Indonesian superiors view subordinates as
incompetent, transactional leadership is thus adopted. It could be possible that if
superiors change the mindset towards their followers, i.e. being capable and ready to
change, transformational leadership would be more suitable and be more adopted Study of
then. Indonesian
Based on respondents’ comments, majority of Indonesian managers are perceived
to have idealized influence-attributed and individualized consideration, but low in
managers
idealized influence-behavior, although some respondents perceived their superiors
low in idealized influence-attributed. Being too authoritarian is also cited to be the
most unwanted characteristic of their leaders. However, the issue of authoritarian 659
versus democratic is not related to transformational or transactional leadership.
Specific comments for dimensions of transformational leadership stated that their bosses
have idealized influence-attributed (for example, competent, firm in decision making, open
minded) and individualized consideration (specifically care for subordinates), but low in
idealized influence-behavior (lack of consistency or unfair, lack of responsibility, avoid or
slow in making a decision, not a good role model). Some negative comments are more about
idealized influence-attributed, such as not firm in decision making, not competent,
emotional, not open minded, have high self-ego or are selfish, and not confident.
Individualized consideration was also commented such that their bosses have less attention/
care to subordinates, lack support to subordinates, and usually keep distance with
subordinates.
Respondents also gave suggestions to their bosses based on their previous comments.
Majority of respondents do in fact wish their bosses be more transformational and adopt a
positive transactional style (contingent reward). The idealized influence-attributed is the
characteristic that was most frequently advised by subordinates. Some examples are that
leaders should be more firm in making decision, competent, open-minded, and control their
emotion. This expectation has relation with employees want their leader to be a good father
or a good mother who can take good care of their children (in this case subordinates). The
second expectation is individualized consideration, such as leaders should be more sensitive
and understanding to the needs/welfare and development of subordinates, more emphatic,
should create a more comfortable work atmosphere, build more personal relationship,
socialize and interact more with employees, and instill a sense of nurturing to subordinates.
This must be because Indonesian culture is a high power distance. Leaders thus generally
keep distance with subordinates, which result in feeling lack of being concerned or taken
care of by leaders.
H2 testing results illustrate that there are differences in leadership style between Padang
and Javanese and between Padang and Chinese. Summary of the findings is shown in
Table VIII. The general conclusion is that Padang leaders use more transformational style
and contingent reward than Javanese and Chinese.

Padang (in comparison with)

Dimension Javanese Chinese

Transformational
Inspirational motivation Higher Higher
Intellectual stimulation Higher Higher
Individualized consideration No
difference Higher Table VIII.
Transactional Summary of H2
Contingent reward Higher Higher testing results
MRR The differences between Javanese and Padang cultures are many, which can be used
43,6 to explain the difference found in their leadership styles. Mann (1994) argued that
Javanese are in general more indirect than Sumatrans (or Padang). Padang also has
less stratification or hierarchy than Javanese. Mulder (1989) mentioned that in
Javanese, especially in Central Javanese culture, there is an institutionalized
separation between superiors and subordinates which creates the danger of mutual
660 isolation. Superiors are becoming arrogant and subordinates are passively resisting.
Thus, transactional leadership is more common among Javanese managers.
In Javanese culture, there’s one value called nerima which means accepting what is
happening without complaining (Kodiran, 2004). In other words, it means knowing
one’s place, trust in one’s fate and gratefulness to “God” because all have been
destined (Mulder, 1989). According to Trompenaars (1993, 1994) terminology, it
means that Javanese are outer-directed. Mann (1994) similarly argued that Javanese
culture involves a strong belief in fate. Therefore, Javanese people tend to lack
curiosity about the world around them and see little point in asking questions (p. 120).
In addition, Javanese tend to be more obedient to their bosses or superiors than do
Padang. This is due to the value of hierarchy which is very strong among Javanese.
Javanese also tend to do things more slowly than Padang. They believe in alon-alon
asal kelakon or slowly but sure that task will be done.
According to all differences between Javanese and Padang cultures, it is thus not
surprising that Padang will be able to practice more transformational leadership than
Javanese. The use of transformational leadership is to create change or innovative
ways of problem solving. And since change can more easily happen in a culture with
direct communication, low hierarchy, and less outer directed aspects,
transformational leadership style is more widely used among Padang rather than
Javanese managers.
The difference between Padang and Chinese in leadership style cannot be easily
explained. In fact, from perceptions of many Indonesian people, Padang people are more
similar to Chinese people rather than to Javanese. For example, Padang are highly
entrepreneurial, similar to Chinese, as Restoran Padang and Chinese restaurants are
everywhere in the country.
Vasanty (2004) studied culture of Tionghoa people in Indonesia, mentioning that
Chinese or Tionghoa in Indonesia consist of immigrants from two provinces in China,
i.e. Fukien and Kwangtung. Four main dialects spoken among them are Hokkien, Teo-
Chiu, Hakka, and Cantonese. Despite different provinces and dialects, two groups of
Tionghoa are distinguished in Indonesia: Peranakan, and Totok. Peranakan people
include Chinese born in Indonesia and those that are the result of mixed marriages
between Chinese and indigenous Indonesian people. Peranakan people normally live
in East and Central Java. Many elements of Peranakan life have been like Javanese.
They even have forgotten their native language and some of them even look similar to
indigenous Indonesian. On the other hand, Totok include those who were born in
China and migrated to Indonesia when there was an upheaval in Indonesia and
revolution in China, and those who were born in Indonesia but their acculturation is
less than Peranakan people. Most Totok live in West Java and in other places such as
West Kalimantan. It is possible that Chinese managers being rated in the study are
Peranakan more than Totok. They are thus acculturated to Javanese culture and
being different to Padang.
Another plausible explanation is that Chinese respondents in the sample have
worked in organizations which are dominated by Javanese cultures which might have
influenced their ways of thinking. Many aspects of Javanese cultures are shared by Study of
Indonesian’s non Javanese. It might also be argued that since most of the respondents Indonesian
are from Jakarta which is the biggest and most cosmopolitan city in Indonesia, ethnic
cultures are thus converging. Differences across ethnic cultures are thus not much
managers
found. Nevertheless, Padang still stands out as distinct from Javanese and Chinese.
That means ethnic culture is still a valid factor in explaining leadership or
management style though with some confounding results.
All in all, it is evident that Padang or Minangkabau managers are using more 661
transformational leadership than other ethnicities, with statistically significant
differences with only Javanese and Chinese. This can be explained well by Padang’s
cultural orientations (Junus, 2004; Sairin, 2002). Padang people are relatively open
and view the changes as ordinary and natural events. They can easily accept a variety
of ideas and things from outside their culture as long as they do not interfere with
their culture. Padang society is very dynamic and thus easy to adapt to environmental
changes that occur. If they consider that those ideas or things are good, they will take
them and adapt to their culture.

Theoretical contribution and practical implication

One major theoretical contribution of this study is a proof of the applicability of the full
range leadership theory by Bass (1985) in Indonesian work setting. It confirms the extension
of the theory’s universality. The number of respondents in this study is quite high, 425,
which guarantee the validity and reliability of the results.
Another major and unique theoretical contribution of this study is its being first
research to explore the difference in leadership styles across ethnicities in Indonesia.
And it is confirmed that ethnic differences do exist. Therefore, generalizing
Indonesian leadership and management style is not suggested. An explanation needs
to be tailored to each ethnicity. It is a good setting for researchers who want to study
leadership or management style in countries that have large diversity, e.g. China and
India. The lesson learned here is that they cannot quickly generalize the results. But
for countries with low diversity, e.g. Japan and Korea, this is not going to be big issues
since people are very homogeneous.
One practical benefit of this study is that organizations can apply the results in
leader selection. The general findings of this study regarding the perception of
subordinates toward different kinds of leaders are such that supervisors perceived to
be a transformational leader are evaluated with higher performance. Although this
study did not investigate the impact of transformational leadership on employees,
there are many studies confirming these positive effects. For instance, Emery and
Barker (2007) found that the transformational leadership is more highly correlated
with job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees in service sector
than the transactional leadership. Azim et al. (2019) found that transformational
leadership in information and communication technology (ICT) firms had shaped an
organizational climate which drives employees’ creative process engagement by
improving their creative self-efficacy. Mittal and Bienstock (2019) also found a
positive relationship between transformational leadership and life satisfaction of
employees. This is an important piece of information for human resource department
in selecting the persons who will be potential leaders. Potential leaders may be
evaluated by their peers with an MLQ questionnaire. Simply stated, leaders with
transformational leadership are generally preferable to those with other leadership
styles.
MRR Lastly, as international assignments are increasingly typical in many organizations,
43,6 cross-cultural leadership interaction is thus an important ingredient in the managerial career
success (Suutari et al., 2002). This study has shed some light on the leadership styles of
Indonesian managers and subordinates’ perception of leaders’ performance. In addition,
expatriates can use this knowledge to adapt their leadership and management styles to suit
with the local preference.
662
Limitations and future research
Although this study has achieved in gathering a large number of respondents, there are
some limitations to be noted for an improvement in future studies. First, common method
bias may be an issue in this study. To measure leadership accurately, it needs to be
evaluated with 360 degrees, i.e. by his/her boss, subordinates, peers and self-evaluation. To
complete the whole process would need high collaboration with the organizations to be
sampled, which may in turn limit the number of organizations and respondents. However,
this does not reduce the core of this study as subordinates are the ones that can rate their
bosses in an effective manner. The confidentiality of survey helps reduce this bias. Self-
rating of the leadership style by the bosses themselves may actually create lots of bias. And
although the response rate is quite low, but the respondents represent the Indonesian
population in terms of ethnicity mentioned earlier and are from various background and
industry.
Second, categorizing ethnicities among Indonesians is not an easy task. For
example, Javanese themselves are too broad. They are actually different depending on
which parts of Java Island they are from. Cultural aspects of Javanese explained
above are more of Central Javanese (Yogyakarta and nearby). Surabaya people (from
Eastern Java), being categorized as Javanese in this study, are perceived to be more
open than Central Javanese. A finer distinction of ethnicities is thus needed in future
research.
Despite these limitations, a lot of future research on leadership topic is yet to be
explored. Similarity attraction paradigm was proved in many studies. A study by Tsui
and O’Reilly (1989) concluded that increased dissimilarity in demographic characteristics
between leaders and subordinates was related to decreased leader’s perception of
subordinate effectiveness. Reuvers et al. (2008) found that a manager with
transformational leadership is more proficient in stimulating innovative work behavior
in employees of the same gender. Since Indonesia is a land of diversity, it would be an
interesting topic in studying whether similarity attraction paradigm is applicable in the
Indonesian context or not.
Studying leadership across cultures is also a classic topic of interest. Although
comparative studies on leadership and management in general are so many (Ardichvili and
Kuchinke, 2002; Christie et al., 2003; Suutari, 1996 and Swierczek, 1991), they still need to get
revised over time as changes have occurred in organizational settings. As in Indonesia, it is
found in this study that transformational leadership style does exist despite not being as
high as in the Western countries. It is one proof that Indonesian traditional management
style is losing its way over time.
New leadership constructs that may emerge in the Asian context and the Indonesian
context in particular are another area that needs to be explored. Asian region in general
(though differences exist across countries) has distinct characteristics from the West, e.
g. high power distance, collectivism, paternalism and more emphasis on social
networks. Some new leadership constructs that have been studied are spiritual
leadership among ethnic Chinese managers and the rise of charismatic Christianity in
Indonesia and Malaysia (Koning and Dahles, 2009) and father leadership studied in Study of
Singapore (Low, 2006). Indonesian
managers
References
Ardichvili, A. and Kuchinke, K.P. (2002), “Leadership styles and cultural values among
managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet
Union, Germany, and the US”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 1, 663
pp. 99-117.
Atwater, D.C. and Bass, B.M. “Transformational leadership in team”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J.
(Eds), Improving organizational effectiveness: Through transformational leadership, Sage
Publications. CA.
Ayman, R. and Korabik, K. (2010), “Leadership: why gender and culture matter”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 157-170.
Azim, M.T., Fan, L., Uddin, M.A., Jilani, M.M.A.K. and Begum, S. (2019), “Linking transformational
leadership with employees’ engagement in the creative process”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 837-858.
Bagus, I.G.N. (2004), “Kebudayaan Bali”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di Indonesia
(cetakan kedua puluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectations, The Free Press. New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 130-139.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Introduction”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds), Improving
organizational effectiveness: Through transformational leadership, Sage Publications. CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2004), MLQ Manual, Mind Garden, Menlo Park.
Bryant, S.E. (2003), “The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and
exploiting organizational knowledge”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9
No. 4, p. 32.
Campbell, D.J., Bommer, W. and Yeo, E. (1993), “Perceptions of appropriate leadership style:
participation versus consultation across two cultures”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Chaiyabutr, T.T. (2000), “Work-related values of indonesian and thai graduate students”, “Dissertation
in doctor of public administration in university of La verne”, CA.
Chandra, J.S. (2004), “Notions of critical thinking in javanese, batak toba and minangkabau culture”, in
Setiadi, B.N., Supratiknya, A., Lonner, W.J. and Poortinga Y.H. (Eds), Ongoing themes in
psychology and culture (Online Ed.), International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology
Melbourne, FL. available at: http://ebooks.iaccp.org/ongoing_themes/chapters/chandra/chandra.
php?file=chandra&output=screen (accessed 21 April 2018)
Chen, H.C. (2004), “The relationship between leadership styles and faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan”,
“Published dissertation”, The University of Utah.
Christie, P.M.J., Kwon, I.W., Stoeberl, P.A. and Baumhart, R. (2003), “A cross-cultural comparison of
ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United States”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 263-287.
Coad, A.F. and Berry, A.J. (1998), “Transformational leadership and learning orientation”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 164.
Cook, C.W. and Hunsaker, P.L. (2001), Management and organizational behavior, McGraw-Hill. New
York, NY.
MRR Dambe, M. and Moorad, F. (2008), “From power to empowerment: a paradigm shift in leadership”,
South African Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 575-587.
43,6
Danandjaja, A.A. (1986), Sistem nilai manajer Indonesia: Tinjauan kritis berdasar penelitian, Pustaka
Binaman Pressindo, Jakarta, PT.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M.L. (2003), “Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: a Meta-analysis comparing women and men”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-591.
664
Elenkov, D. “Effects of ownership type and socio-cultural context on leadership in the banking sector: an
international study”, Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, available at: www.allbusiness.
com/management/management-theory-management-practice/11764564-1.html. (accessed 21 April
2018)
Emery, C.R. and Barker, K.J. (2007), “The effect of transactional and transformational leadership
styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact
personnel”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 77-90.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S. (2016), “Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive
sampling”, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Evans, W.A., Hau, K.C. and Sculli, D. (1989), “A cross-cultural comparison of managerial styles”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 5-13.
Habir, A.D. and Larasati, A.B. (1999), “Human resource management as competitive advantage in the
new millennium: an Indonesian perspective”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 548-557.
Hariyono, P. (1993), Kultur Cina dan Jawa: Pemahaman menuju asimilasi kultural, Pustaka Sinar
Harapan. Jakarta.
Harsojo (2004), “Kebudayaan unda”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di Indonesia (cetakan
kedua puluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Hartanto, W. (2010), “The 2010 Indonesia population census”, available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/
censuskb/attachments/2009IDN_ISI-GUIDfba441dd463e4ca5907f1a1ae508f3ff.pdf (accessed 30
April 2018).
Hartijasti, Y. (2007), “The role of leadership and emotional intelligence in learning culture”,
“Dissertation in doctor of industrial and organizational psychology”, University of Indonesia.
Heider, J. (1994), The Tao of Leadership, SSMB Publishing Division, Humanics Publishing Group, Lake
Worth, FL.
Hofstede, G. (1982), Cultural pitfalls for Dutch expatriates in Indonesia, Twijnstra Gudde International
b.v Deventer.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage
Publications. Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1987), “The applicability of McGregor’s theories in southeast asia”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 9-18.
Hofstede, G. (1993), “Cultural constraints in management theories”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.
Junus, U.P. (2004), “Kebudayaan minangkabau”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di
Indonesia, 20th edition, Djambatan. Jakarta.
Kalangie, N.S. (2004), “Kebudayaan minahasa”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di
Indonesia (cetakan kedua puluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Kelly, M.C. (2008), “Comparison of human resource management practices and perceptions of Agri- Study of
business employees across three Indonesian subcultures”, “Published dissertation”, Texas A&M
University. Indonesian
Kodiran (2004), “Kebudayaan jawa”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di Indonesia, 20th managers
edition, Djambatan, Jakarta.
Koentjaraningrat (2004a), “Kebudayaan penduduk pantai utara irian jaya”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia
dan kebudayaan di Indonesia (cetakan kedua puluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Koentjaraningrat (2004b), “Kebudayaan flores”, In Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di
665
Indonesia (cetakan kedua puluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Koning, J. and Dahles, H. (2009), “Spiritual power: ethnic chinese managers and the rise of
charismatic christianity in southeast asia”, The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-37.
Low, P.K.C. (2006), “Father leadership: the Singapore case study”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 89-104.
Mangunsong, F. (2009), “Faktor intrapersonal, interpersonal, dan cultural pendukung efektivitas
kepemimpinan perempuan pengusaha dari empat kelompok etnis di Indonesia”, Makara, Sosial
Humaniora, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Mann, R. (1994), The ulture of usiness in Indonesia, Gateway Books. Ontario.
Mattulada (2004), “Kebudayaan Bugis-Makassar”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia an ebudayaan di
Indonesia (etakan edua uluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Mia, L. and Winata, I. (2007), “Job satisfaction of the chinese and javanese managers in Indonesia: the
role of ethnic culture”, International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 86-92.
Mittal, R. and Bienstock, J.E. (2019), “Transformational leadership and polychronicity as antecedents of
work-home boundaries”, Management Research Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 460-468.
Moeljono, D. (2004), Beyond leadership, Penerbit PT. Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta.
Mulder, N. (1989), Individual and society in Java: A cultural analysis, Gadjah Mada University Press.
Yogyakarta.
Munandar, A.S. (2001), Psikologi industri dan organisasi, UI-Press. Jakarta.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and Kutner, M.H. (1990), Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd edition: Irwin,
Burr Ridge, IL.
Petzall, S. and Willis, Q. (1996), “Leadership styles: how important are cultural values? An analysis of
managers in the Asia-Pacific region”, Management Research News, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 42-59.
Phinney, J.S. (1996), “When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 9, pp. 918-927.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T.A. and William, E.A. (1999), “Leadership and organizational justice: similarities
and differences across cultures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 763-769.
Reuvers, M., van Engen, M.L., Vinkenburg, C.J. and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008), “Transformational
leadership and innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 227-244.
Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M. (2002), Management, 7th edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Sairin, S. (2002), Perubahan sosial masyarakat Indonesia: Perspektif Antropologi, Pustaka Pelajar.
Yogyakarta.
Selvarajah, C. and Meyer, D. (2008), “One nation, three cultures: exploring dimensions that relate to
leadership in Malaysia”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 693-712.
MRR Shanin, A.I. and Wright, P.L. (2004), “Leadership in the context of culture: an qyptian perspective, The”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 499-511.
43,6
Sjamsuddin, T. (2004), “Kebudayaan Aceh”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia an ebudayaan di Indonesia
(etakan edua uluh), Djambatan. Jakarta.
Snaebjornsson, I.M. and Edvardsson, I.R. (2013), “Gender, nationality and leadership style: a literature
review”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-103.
666 Spinelli, R.J. (2006), “The applicability of Bass’s model of transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership in the hospital administrative environment”, Hospital Topics, Vol. 84 No. 2,
pp. 11-19.
(2007), “Forthcoming the 2010 Indonesia opulation and ousing ensus”, The 23rd Population Census
Conference. Utilization of the 2000 and 2005 Rounds of Asia-Pacific Censuses, Christchurch.
16-18 April.
Suparlan, P. (2004), “Kebudayaan imor”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan kebudayaan di Indonesia
(cetakan kedua puluh), Djambatan, Jakarta.
Suutari, V. (1996), “Variation in the average leadership behavior managers across countries: finnish
expatriates’ experiences from Germany, Sweden, France and Great Britain”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 677-707.
Suutari, V., Raharjo, K. and Rikkila, T. (2002), “The challenge of cross-cultural leadership interaction:
finnish expatriates in Indonesia”, Career Development International, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 415-429.
Swierczek, F.W. (1991), “Leadership and culture: comparing Asian managers”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 3-10.
Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business, The
Economist Books. London.
Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business, Irwin.
Burr Ridge, IL.
Tsui, A.S. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1989), “Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational
demography in superior-subordinate dyads”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32,
pp. 402-423.
Tsui, A.S., Wang, H., Xin, K.R., Zhang, L. and Fu, P.P. (2004), “Let a thousand flowers bloom: variation
of leadership styles among Chinese CEOs”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
van Emmerik, I.H., Euwema, M.C. and Wendt, H. (2008), “Leadership behaviors around the world: the
relative importance of gender versus cultural background”, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 297-315.
Vasanty, P. (2004), “Kebudayaan orang ionghoa di Indonesia”, Koentjaraningrat. Manusia dan
kebudayaan di Indonesia, 20th edition: Djambatan, Jakarta.
Weinberger, L.A. (2003), “An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence,
leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness”, Available at: http://richardswanson.
com/hrdrcrepots/Weinberger/AnExamination.pdf (accessed 15 March 2018).
World Factbook (2019), available at: www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/
geos/id.html (accessed 25 September 2019).
Wright, L. (1994), “Myth and reality in the land of the shadow puppet”, International Studies of
Management and Organization, Vol. 24 No. 1-2, pp. 35-60.
Young, K. “American and ndonesian management: creating cultural synergy”, Working Paper, Japan
Policy Research Institute (JPRI) at the University of San Francisco Center for the Pacific Rim.
Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at work: Managing the class of Veterans,
Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace, AMA Publications. New York, NY.
Further reading Study of
Bennis, W. (1984), “The four competencies of leadership”, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 38, Indonesian
pp. 15-19.
managers
Cullen, J.B. and Parboteeah, K.P. (2008), Multinational management: A strategic approach, 4th ed.,:
Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (1996), Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
667
Corresponding author
"cor1">Somchanok Passakonjaras can be contacted at: somchanok@cbs.chula.ac.th

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com