VALUE BY KAHLE & ROKEACH The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) is a classification system of values.

Developed by social psycologist Milton Rokeach. The system consist of two sets of values, 18 individual value items in each. One set is called terminal values and the other instrumental values. RVS is based on a 1968 volume (Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values) which presented the philosophical basis for the association of fundamental values with beliefs and attitudes. His value system was instrumentalised into the Rokeach Value Survey in his 1973 book The Nature of Human Values. The task for participants in the survey is to arrange the 18 terminal values, followed by the 18 instrumental values, into an order "of importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life" (Rokeach, 1973, p. 27). The Rokeach Value Survey has been extensively used in empirical work by psychologists, sociologists and marketers.[3] There have been a number of attempts to reduce the 18 instrumental values and 18 terminal values into a set of underlying factors (see for example Feather and Peay, 1975; Johnston, 1995) but without consistent success.[3]

Terminal Values refer to desirable end-states of existence. These are the goals that a person would like to achieve during his or her lifetime. These values vary among different groups of people in different cultures. True Friendship Equality Family Security

Mature Love

Freedom

National Security

An Exciting Life

Pleasure

A Sense of Accomplishment A World of Beauty

Self-Respect

Social Recognition

Happiness

Wisdom

A World at Peace

Inner Harmony

Salvation

A Comfortable Life

Instrumental Values refer to preferable modes of behavior. These are preferable modes of behavior, or means of achieving the terminal values. Cheerfulness Ambition Love Cleanliness Self-Control Capability Courage Politeness Honesty Imagination Independence Intellect Broad-Mindedness Logic Obedience Helpfulness Responsibility Forgiveness

To study consumption related values, Kahle (1983) modified the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) into a smaller subset of values that were person oriented and generalizable across many activities. The List of Values (LOV). The LOV approach is a parsimonious way to measure values as compared to the RVS or Values and Lifestyles (VALS) approaches. In addition the LOV contains many items that people say influence their daily lives (Kahle 1986; Beatty et al. 1985). Self-Respect Security Warm Relation with Others Sense of Belonging Sense of fulfillment Sense of Accomplisment Being Well Respected Full and Enjoyment in Life

The List Ov Value (LOV) dikembangkan oleh ahli pemasaran Lynn R. Kahle yang menganggap RSV Rokeach terlalu umum dan terlalu luas. Kahle percaya RSV memiliki validitas yang lebih baik daropada VALS, namun untuk penggunaannya perlu disempurnakan. Dalam LOV, kahle berhasil mengisolasi beberapa nilai yang berhubungan langsung dengan kegiatan pemasatan. Selain itu dalam LOV, nilainilai individu dibatasi pada nilai-nilai terminal. Kahle melalukan penyederhanaan 18 nilai RSV menjadi 8 nilai. Rokeach (1973, p.5) defined a personal value as an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to its opposite. A value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferred modes of conduct or end-states along an importance continuum. Two kinds of values-instrumental and terminal-were defined as a person's beliefs concerning desirable modes of conduct and desirable end-states of existence respectively (Rokeach 1973, p.7). The conceptualization of personal values in terms of social adaptation theory (Kahle, et al. 1980; Kahle 1983, 1984; Kahle & Timmer 1983; Piner & Kahle 1984)

posited that personal values are the most abstract type of social cognitions that function to facilitate adaptation to one's environment. The concept of regarding personal values as mediators in the social adaptation process implies that value differences between cultures can be traced back to different ethnic background and the social, economic, political, and technological environments

Locus Of Control A theoretical construct designed to assess a person's perceived control over his or her own behavior. The classification internal locus indicates that the person feels in control of events; external locus indicates that others are perceived to have that control. The most successful people tend to be internal, while those with an external locus of control tend to be more negative about the world and their place in it. People with an internal locus of control believe that they are primarily responsible for the outcomes in their lives. These people tend to be self-reliant and believe that nothing can hold them back except themselves. Studies have shown that those with an internal locus of control tend to be more successful people because they believe they can be and work toward that goal. Men tend to be more internally focused, while studies have also shown that the older a person gets the more internally focused they become. Those with an external locus of control believe that forces outside of themselves affect their ability to succeed. They tend to stake their future on things such as fate, luck, god or society. Because they believe they have very little personal stake in their future, those with an external locus of control tend to put less effort forward on most projects. Studies show that they are generally less successful in college and career than those with an internal locus of control. Type A Type B Personality Originally published in the 1950s, the Type A and Type B personality theory (also known as the "Jacob Goldsmith theory") is a theory which describes two common, contrasting personality typesthe high-strung Type A and the easy-going Type B as patterns of behavior that could either raise or lower, respectively. A simple division of preference or personality type is into Type A and Type B, which is based broadly on anxiety and stress levels. Type A The theory describes a Type A individual as ambitious, aggressive, business-like, controlling, highly competitive, impatient, preoccupied with his or her status, timeconscious, and tightly-wound. People with Type A personalities are often highachieving "workaholics" who multi-task, push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence. The Type A personality generally lives at a higher stress level. This is driven by They enjoy achievement of goals, with greater enjoyment in achieving of more difficult goals. They are thus constantly working hard to achieve these. They find it difficult to stop, even when they have achieved goals. They feel the pressure of time, constantly working flat out. They are highly competitive and will, if necessary create competition. They hate failure and will work hard to avoid it. They are generally pretty fit and often well-educated (a result of their anxiety).

Type B

The theory describes Type B individuals as perfect contrast to those with Type A personalities. People with Type B personalities are generally patient, relaxed, easygoing, and at times lacking an overriding sense of urgency. Because of these characteristics, Type B individuals are often described as apathetic and disengaged by individuals with Type A or other personality types The Type B personality generally lives at a lower stress level and are typically: They work steadily, enjoying achievements but not becoming stressed when they are not achieved. When faced with competition, they do not mind losing and either enjoy the game or back down. They may be creative and enjoy exploring ideas and concepts. They are often reflective, thinking about the outer and inner worlds. Theory Of Needs Mc Clelland In his acquired-needs theory, David McClelland proposed that an individual's specific needs are acquired over time and are shaped by one's life experiences. Most of these needs can be classed as either achievement, affiliation, or power. A person's motivation and effectiveness in certain job functions are influenced by these three needs. McClelland's theory sometimes is referred to as the three need theory or as the learned needs theory. Achievement People with a high need for achievement (nAch) seek to excel and thus tend to avoid both low-risk and high-risk situations. Achievers avoid low-risk situations because the easily attained success is not a genuine achievement. In high-risk projects, achievers see the outcome as one of chance rather than one's own effort. High nAch individuals prefer work that has a moderate probability of success, ideally a 50% chance. Achievers need regular feedback in order to monitor the progress of their acheivements. They prefer either to work alone or with other high achievers. Affiliation Those with a high need for affiliation (nAff) need harmonious relationships with other people and need to feel accepted by other people. They tend to conform to the norms of their work group. High nAff individuals prefer work that provides significant personal interaction. They perform well in customer service and client interaction situations. Power A person's need for power (nPow) can be one of two types - personal and institutional. Those who need personal power want to direct others, and this need often is perceived as undesirable. Persons who need institutional power (also known as social power) want to organize the efforts of others to further the goals of the organization. Managers with a high need for institutional power tend to be more effective than those with a high need for personal power. People with different needs are motivated differently.

High need for achievement - High achievers should be given challenging projects with reachable goals. They should be provided frequent feedback. While money is not an important motivator, it is an effective form of feedback.

High need for affiliation - Employees with a high affiliation need perform best in a cooperative environment. High need for power - Management should provide power seekers the opportunity to manage others.

Note that McClelland's theory allows for the shaping of a person's needs; training programs can be used to modify one's need profile. Belbin Theory In the 1970s, Dr Meredith Belbin and his research team at Henley Management College set about observing teams, with a view to finding out where and how these differences come about. They wanted to control the dynamics of teams to discover if and how problems could be pre-empted and avoided. As the research progressed, the research revealed that the difference between success and failure for a team was not dependent on factors such as intellect, but more on behaviour. The research team began to identify separate clusters of behaviour, each of which formed distinct team contributions or Team Roles. A Team Role came to be defined as: A tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way.

1. Plant

The first Team Role to be identified was the Plant. The role was so-called because one such individual was planted in each team. They tended to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways.

2. The Monitor Evaluator

The Monitor Evaluator was needed to provide a logical eye, make impartial judgements where required and to weigh up the teams options in a dispassionate way.

3. Co-ordinators
Co-ordinators were needed to focus on the teams objectives, draw out team members and delegate work appropriately.

4. Resources Investigator
When the team was at risk of becoming isolated and inwardly-focused, Resource Investigators provided inside knowledge on the opposition and made sure that the teams idea would carry to the world outside the team.

5. Implementers
Implementers were needed to plan a practical, workable strategy and carry it out as efficiently as possible.

6. Completer Finisher
Completer Finishers were most effectively used at the end of a task, to polish and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control.

7. Teamworkers
Teamworkers helped the team to gel, using their versatility to identify the work required and complete it on behalf of the team.

8. Shaper
Challenging individuals, known as Shapers, provided the necessary drive to ensure that the team kept moving and did not lose focus or momentum.

9. Specialist
It was only after the initial research had been completed that the ninth Team Role, Specialist emerged. The simulated management exercises had been deliberately set up to require no previous knowledge. In the real world, however, the value of an individual with in-depth knowledge of a key area came to be recognised as yet another essential team contribution or Team Role. Just like the other Team Roles, the Specialist also had a weakness: a tendency to focus narrowly on their own subject of choice, and to prioritise this over the teams progress.

Effective Conflict Resolution In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises. Thomas and Kilmann's styles are: Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations. Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off. Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming. Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person's own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this "favor" you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes.

Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.

In many cases, effective conflict resolution can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes. The good news is that by resolving conflict successfully, you can solve many of the problems that it has brought to the surface, as well as getting benefits that you might not at first expect: Increased understanding: The discussion needed to resolve conflict expands people's awareness of the situation, giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people. Increased group cohesion: When conflict is resolved effectively, team members can develop stronger mutual respect, and a renewed faith in their ability to work together. Improved self-knowledge: Conflict pushes individuals to examine their goals in close detail , helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus, and enhancing their effectiveness.

However, if conflict is not handled effectively, the results can be damaging. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike. Teamwork breaks down. Talent is wasted as people disengage from their work. And it's easy to end up in a vicious downward spiral of negativity and recrimination. Situational Leadership The fundamental underpinning of the situational leadership theory is there is no single "best" style of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant and that the most successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the maturity ("the capacity to set high but attainable goals, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an individual or a group for the task) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead/influence. That effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model rests on two fundamental concepts leadership style and the individual or group's maturity level. The situational leadership model views leaders as varying their emphasis on task and relationship behaviors to best deal with different levels of follower maturity. 2 The two-by-two matrix shown in the small figure indicates that four leadership styles are possible. Leadership Style Delegating Styleallowing the group to take responsibility for task decisions; this is a low-task, low-relationship style. Participating Styleemphasizing shared ideas and participative decisions on task directions; this is a low-task, high-relationship style.

Selling Styleexplaining task directions in a supportive and persuasive way; this is a high-task, high-relationship style. Telling Stylegiving specific task directions and closely supervising work; this is a high-task, low-relationship style. Maturity Level The right leadership style will depend on the person or group being led - the follower. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory identified four levels of Maturity M1 through M4: M1 - They generally lack the specific skills required for the job in hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsibility for this job or task. M2 - They are still unable to take on responsibility for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task. M3 - They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence to take on responsibility. M4 - They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They are able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task. Developing People and Motivation A good leader develops the competence and commitment of their people so theyre self-motivated rather than dependent on others for direction and guidance. (Hersey 91).According to Hersey's "the situational book,he leaders high, realistic expectation causes high performance of followers; the leaders low expectations lead low performance of followers. According to Ken Blanchard, "Four combinations of competence and commitment make up what we call 'development level.'" D1 - Low competence and high commitment D2 - Low competence and low commitment D3 - High competence and low/variable commitment D4 - High competence and high commitment

Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems. In its ideal form, it creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders. Enacted in its authentic form, transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimize their performance The concept of transformational leadership was initially introduced by leadership expert and presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns.1 According to Burns, transformational leadership can be seen when leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of moral and motivation." Through the strength of their vision and personality, transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to change expectations, perceptions and motivations to work towards common goals.

Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded upon Burns original ideas to develop what is today referred to as Bass Transformational Leadership Theory. 2 According to Bass, transformational leadership can be defined based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass suggested, garner trust, respect and admiration from their followers.

The full range of leadership introduces four elements of transformational leadership: 1. Individualized Consideration the degree to which the leader attends to each follower's needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower and listens to the follower's concerns and needs. The leader gives empathy and support, keeps communication open and places challenges before the followers. This also encompasses the need for respect and celebrates the individual contribution that each follower can make to the team. The followers have a will and aspirations for self development and have intrinsic motivation for their tasks. 2. Intellectual Stimulation the degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, takes risks and solicits followers' ideas. Leaders with this style stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers. They nurture and develop people who think independently. For such a leader, learning is a value and unexpected situations are seen as opportunities to learn. The followers ask questions, think deeply about things and figure out better ways to execute their tasks. 3. Inspirational Motivation the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders with inspirational motivation challenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about future goals, and provide meaning for the task at hand. Followers need to have a strong sense of purpose if they are to be motivated to act. Purpose and meaning provide the energy that drives a group forward. The visionary aspects of leadership are supported by communication skills that make the vision understandable, precise, powerful and engaging. The followers are willing to invest more effort in their tasks, they are encouraged and optimistic about the future and believe in their abilities. 4. Idealized Influence Provides a role model for high ethical behavior, instills pride, gains respect and trust.

Intellectual Stimulation Transformational leaders not only challenge the status quo; they also encourage creativity among followers. The leader encourages followers to explore new ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn. Individualized Consideration Transformational leadership also involves offering support and encouragement to individual followers. In order to foster supportive relationships, transformational leaders keep lines of communication open so that followers feel free to share ideas and so that leaders can offer direct recognition of each followers unique contributions. Inspirational Motivation Transformational leaders have a clear vision that they are able to articulate to followers. These leaders are also able to help followers experience the same passion and motivation to fulfill these goals. Idealized Influence The transformational leaders serves as a role model for followers. Because followers trust and respect the leader, they emulate the leader and internalize his or her ideals.
As a development tool, transformational leadership has spread already in all sectors of western societies, including governmental organizations. As an example, the

Finnish Defence Forces is using widely Deep Lead Model as basic solution of its leadership training and development. The Deep Lead Model is based on the theory of transformational leadership.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP Sumber 1 Authentic Leadership defined: Authenticity is knowing, and acting on, what is true and real inside yourself, your team and your organization AND knowing and acting on what is true and real in the world. It is not enough to walk ones talk if one is headed off, or leading ones organization, community or nation, off a cliff! ~Bob Terry Authenticity defined: Authenticity, like any category of thought, carries with it historical baggage. The terms original meaning and multiple contemporary interpretations both limit and provide the foundation for my definition. The word authentic derives originally from Greek sources meaning one who accomplishes. To be authentic is to act, to embody and to participate in life. Websters New International Unabridged Dictionary defines authenticity as fidelity, actuality and fact, compatibility with a certain source or origin, accordance with usage or tradition, a complete sincerity without feigning or hypocrisy. However, this dictionary definition does not reveal all the words philosophical complexity. Sumber 2 I searched the highest quality peer-reviewed management journals for the most recent article on authentic leadership. I wanted to know 1) how is it defined, 2) how is it measured, and 3) where does it fit in the nomological network. I found a 2008 article published in the Journal of Management entitled Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure, by Fred Walumbwa and 4 other co-authors. Here is how they define authentic leadership: A pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development. (p. 94). Read more: http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2010-11/authentic-leadership/#ixzz1eyPHCunH My favorite part of the study was this statement by the authors: In sum, the proposed view of authentic leadership suggests that authentic leaders show to others that they genuinely desire to understand their own leadership to serve others more effectively. They act in accordance with deep personal values and convictions to build credibility and win the respect and trust of followers. By encouraging diverse viewpoints and building networks of collaborative relationships with followers, they lead in a manner that followers perceive and describe as authentic. (96).

Sumber 3

What then is authentic leadership? Most definitions of authentic leadership start with the underlying root construct of authenticity. The construct of authenticity; captured by the injunctions of ancient Greek philosophers to know thyself; refers to accepting, being oneself, and remaining true to ones self. Kernis (2003) described, Behaving authentically means acting in accord with ones values, preferences, and needs as opposed to acting merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments through acting falsely. . . . Authenticity is not reflected in a compulsion to be ones true self, but rather in the free expression of core feelings, motives and inclinations. (p. 14) Instead, authenticity is the unobstructed operation of ones true self or core self in ones daily enterprise (p. 1). Knowing oneself and being one self, then, are essential qualities of authentic leadership (May et al., 2003). Avolio et al. (2004) defined authentic leaders as those individuals who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral perspective, knowledge, and strength; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and high on moral character. Although authentic leadership shows some overlap with other contemporary perspectives such as transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual leadership; the construct is gaining legitimacy in its own right as researchers are beginning to differentiate authentic leadership from related constructs by grounding it in theory and seeking support in empirical research. Transformational leaders, for example, like authentic leaders, have been described as being optimistic, hopeful, developmentally oriented and of high moral character (Bass, 1998). Likewise, transformational leadership traces out a complex moral spectrum along which most leaders combine authentic and inauthentic behaviors which led to the distinction between (a) authentic transformational leaders who as moral agents, expand the domain of effective freedom, the horizon of conscience (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 211) and whose actions aim toward noble ends, legitimate means, and fair consequences (Bass & Steidlmeier, p. 211) and (b) pseudo or inauthentic transformational leaders who fall prey to selfaggrandizement. Bass and Steidlmeier warned of the dark side of charismatic/pseudotransformational leaders who purport to be authentic but instead use their positions to feed their narcissism, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, flawed vision, need for power. . . (p. 182). However, as Avolio and Gardner (2005) pointed out, authentic leaders, unlike transformational leaders, may or may not be actively or proactively focused on developing followers into leaders, even though they have a positive impact on them via role modeling. Similarly, Bass and Steidlmeier noted that like authentic leadership, both servant and spiritual leadership include either explicit or implicit recognition of leader self-awareness and the focus on integrity, trust, courage, and hope. However, in servant and spiritual leadership, these constructs have remained largely atheoretical and have not been supported by empirical research. Authentic leadership, then, can incorporate transformational, charismatic, servant, spiritual, or other forms of positive leadership. However, authentic leaders are not necessarily transformational or charismatic; instead, they influence follower awareness from a values/moral perspective and energize followers by creating meaning and positively constructing reality for themselves and followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Although further work is needed to validate the construct of authentic leadership, Avolio et al. (2004) argued that the main distinguishing element that differentiates authentic leadership from related forms of leadership is that it is at the very core of what constitutes profoundly positive leadership in whatever form it exists. Avolio et al. (2004) argued that in authentic leadership; the focus on transparency, positivity, and high ethical standards is critical. Moreover, authentic leaders are expected to evoke followers self-concept, recognizing that they share similar values with the leader. Nevertheless, since the authentic

leadership construct is new, establishing discriminant validity that reduces some of the construct redundancy that currently exists is an important issue for future research.